Jun 11, 2011

Philip R. Klein: SLAPP Suit Stooge

24 comments
Philip R. Klein is a bald-faced liar. We’re going to prove this in a court of law.

We also suspect that he may have fabricated an email message upon which his entire Third Amended Petition is based. Neither is this the first time that Klein has been associated with documents of a dubious nature.

Klein produced a similar document purportedly faxed to him by a close friend of Patrick McDermott, Cacma D. This fax had many of Klein’s signature grammatical train wrecks, as telling as fingerprints on a smoking gun. Read more here and here. Readers may also remember this spurious “affidavit,” purportedly filed by Klein with the “US Government.” More on this below.

Jeffrey L. Dorrell, representing Operation Kleinwatch and The Sam the Eagle Political Review, filed a motion on Friday, June 10, 2011, to disqualify Klein’s attorney. Similar to a Laurel and Hardy comedy, John S. Morgan has now inserted himself into the direct chain of evidence surrounding PRK’s SLAPP suit. More below.

In the two years since Philip first filed his nuisance action, PRK has not produced any substantive evidence to support his wild claims of sex with animals and copyright infringement. Instead, Philip has actively avoided our attorney’s attempts to examine his statements under oath. To even the most obtuse, Klein’s legal actions are clearly intended as harassment.

After the Texas Supreme Court noted that Klein’s original arguments were “sketchy”, the justices directed Judge Donald Floyd of the 172nd District Court to grant our original motion to quash.

Klein then filed his third amended version of his nuisance suit, where he named a number of innocent parties who have nothing whatsoever to do with our blogs. In this pleading, PRK detailed a manufactured conspiracy:
Petitioners also seek to depose Shon Hodgeston (sic) of the Brent Coon and Associates (B.C. Law firm), who sent the undersigned counsel an e-mail stating that we was working on behalf of “B.C.,” the man behind the B.C. Bloggers; and he was reporting to B.C. for direction in the matter. This e-mail has been traced directly to the B.C. law firm. On this same basis, Petitions (sic) seek to depose Brent Coon of the B.C. Law firm.

Petitioners seek to depose…Mr. Hodgeston (sic), Mr. Harrison, and Mr. Coon to determine the identities of all persons and/or entities contributing to the B.C. Blogs and the B.C. Bloggers.
In a posting entitled “Exposed” from April 5, 2011, Philip elaborated:
Over the past years we have been tracking on IP address that has been posting fake - slanderous and sick emails saying they are use (sic). One person in the media has been a target. And others have been targeted. That IP address has been confirmed as being registered to and coming from the 200 block of Orleans Street, Beaumont, Texas.

Once we were able to "trap" the IP - other sites helped us track postings and we created a sight (sic) of interest in order to trap IP addresses.


The address listed for the postings came back to the Brent Coon Law Firm. All of the posts, and registrations came back through severs (sic) that we tracked back to the Brent Coon Law firm - and an associated business of the Brent Coon Law Firm, located at 215 Orleans, Beaumont, Texas.
In this section, Philip referenced an incident where he was exposed as the author of lewd anonymous comments about Kelli Phillips, a local TV news anchor. I’ve previously documented those circumstances here. Klein produced the bizarre affidavit mentioned above. This affidavit was never filed with any governmental agency, despite Philip's claims.

The “Exposed” article continues:
During the time of the 202 suit that was filed - the two web sites hired Mr. Jeffery (sic) Dorrell of Houston Texas to write their briefs and to represent them in the discovery process. He has filed an answer for the two sites and has clearly said that he represents them.

This morning - a copy of an email was forwarded to the Review. The email was forwarded to our counsel of record in an apparent mistake. The email is from Operation Kleinwatch Pvt email account. In that email received today - it clearly states : "Thanks - will tell BC. Let me know what Morgan's response is."


As well, the email shows that there is direct communication between the worry regarding upsetting Neil Harrison, of Clear Channel Communications, who they are worried about turning on them and filing suit against them. As well - connecting Brent Coon directly.


We conclude this after tracking the IP address of the email - which again is tracked to the same IP address we have been tracking.


A true and correct copy of the email is listed here :


Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2011 19:42:56 -0700
From: operationkleinwatchpvt@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: PRK v. Google
To: jdorrell@escamillaponeck.com; john_morgan9@msn.com

Thanks - will tell BC. Let me know what Morgan's response is.

Do you know if Harrison has an attorney yet and if so, can he sue us for anything?

Again, the email was sent to our counsel by mistake. OKW clicked "Reply To All" by mistake. Because the email as had our counsel's name on it - and it was from a party to the suit - it is not protected.


We now know operationkleinwatch is run and operated by Brent Coon - or the Brent Coon Law Firm - or an agent of such.
Draw your own conclusions from this message, but Klein repeated these fictitious claims on his Lawsuit Update page, where he named yet another innocent party:
An email is sent to Klein's counsel by accident. In that accident - it is sent by one of the possible parties. The IP address of the email is tracked back to Brent Coon and Associates building - holding Coon Dog Productions. In the email a reference is made regarding telling "BC" of what is going on and updating him on the 202 lawsuit. A complete search is done on the IP and is found to be owned by Brent Coon and Associates. Post further "review" the name Shon Hodgkinson is seen.

On May 6, 2011 - two names are now added to the 202 being Shon Hodgkinson and Brent Coon. Depositions are to be scheduled.
Philip’s logic breaks down in several places. The biggest issue with Klein’s invented investigation concerns this email purportedly sent by Shon Hodgkinson. As shown in our attorney’s motion to disqualify Morgan, Shon has categorically denied these spurious allegations.

Apparently, PRK forgot that our attorney received the same email. Here is the portion of the message header that shows the originating IP address of this message where it entered the Yahoo mail server:
  • Received: from [94.23.152.124] by web121002.mail.ne1.yahoo.com via HTTP
According to RIPE, one of five internet registries, the IP address 94.23.152.124 is registered to OVH.net, a company in Paris, France. To follow this message further would require another court order, served internationally, for access to the company’s internal server records.

Klein ran willy-nilly into a brick wall
while obtaining a valid order to access Google’s records in the US and he has not notices to access these server records in France. So much for Philip’s “investigation.”

And yes, Philip, we have some real expert witnesses.

The implication is obvious: Philip R. Klein lied on a court document.

Furthermore, Klein’s attorney, John S. Morgan, inserted himself into the chain of evidence by forwarding this message to Philip Klein without following proper procedure according to the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct. As noted by our attorney in his motion to disqualify, Section 3.08 expressly prohibits John Morgan from representing Philip Klein now.

Was this just stupidity on John Morgan’s part, or is he complicit in a scheme to defraud the court to further Klein’s frivolous action when his petition ran out of gas? If our investigation shows that Klein and Morgan are indeed responsible, Philip may be subject to prosecution under Section 37.09 of the Texas Penal Code:
Sec. 37.09. TAMPERING WITH OR FABRICATING PHYSICAL EVIDENCE. (a) A person commits an offense if, knowing that an investigation or official proceeding is pending or in progress, he:

(2) makes, presents, or uses any record, document, or thing with knowledge of its falsity and with intent to affect the course or outcome of the investigation or official proceeding.
Will Jefferson County District Attorney Tom Maness prosecute? Probably not and I don’t think he should.

Philip has already wasted a great deal of "your tax dollars from we the taxpayer" in court costs for his $175.00 filing fee. Perhaps the county should set a new fee for Philip based on head count and number of "amended" petitions filed. And this is only one of three such lawsuits that Philip is pursuing right now!

Instead, we have another goal. If Governor Rick Perry signs the Citizen Participation act, passed unanimously by the Texas Senate, we intend to brand Klein’s name on the first SLAPP suit thrown out of court in the state of Texas under this proposed law.

From the Southeast Texas Record:
The House version of HB 2973 was filed by Rep. Todd Hunter, R-Corpus Christi. Sen. Rodney Ellis, D-Houston, and Sen. Kevin Eltife, R-Tyler, filed the Senate version, SB 1565.

In addition to bipartisan support in the Legislature, the measure is backed by Texas Daily Newspaper Association, Texas Press Association, Freedom of Information Foundation of Texas, Texas Association of Broadcasters, Texas Watch, Consumer's Union, the Institute for Public Justice, Public Citizen and the American Civil Liberties Union.

On her blog SlappedInTexas.com, Alicia Wagner Calzada, cites the Beaumont case of In Re John Does 1 and 2, a SLAPP suit aimed at revealing the identities of anonymous bloggers "Operation Kleinwatch" and "Sam the Eagle Weblog" who blog about another blogger, Philip Klein.


Klein's company (but not Klein himself) obtained a discovery order which subpoenaed from Google the identities of the anonymous bloggers. The John Does moved to squash the subpoena and the court denied the motion, ordering the identities to be revealed.

Recently the Texas Supreme Court granted mandamus relief to the anonymous bloggers, ruling the the trial court had abused its discretion.

"If the Texas Citizen Participation Act had been in place, this case could probably have been handled through a motion to dismiss and might not have had to seek the extraordinary relief of a writ of mandamus ruling from the Texas Supreme Court," Calzada wrote.

A Real Lawsuit Update:

The narrative above is specific to the opinions of the original parties, Operation Kleinwatch, The Sam the Eagle Political Review, and our attorney, Jeffrey Dorrell. I do not represent nor presume to speak on behalf of any other parties named in Philip’s subsequent filings.

Here’s an update on the other named parties.

Google

According to Philip R. Klein’s Lawsuit update page:
Deposition Notices Are Issued -April 19, 2011
Google Executives and their Law Firm are noticed for deposition under the rules. Meaning - in order to comply with the 202 ruling by Supreme Court - a deposition in person is ordered for Google Executives.
No deposition notices were issued – Philip just made it up. Google is no longer an active party in Philip’s frivolous suit.

Before Judge Floyd will sign a deposition notice to Google, Klein’s attorney, John S. Morgan, Esq., must first produce a notice for the Judge to sign.

Philip’s attention has shifted, even though Google is the only way that Philip can connect anyone to Operation Kleinwatch and The Sam the Eagle Political Review. Philip can depose the entire population of Jefferson County (and may indeed try), but it's only hearsay until he has the account information and server records from Google.

Klein's actions are solely intended to harass his critics and those with whom he has a personal agenda.

Brent Coon and Shon Hodgkinson

Philip claimed on his Lawsuit Update page:
The 3rd Amended Suit Is Filed - Two Names Added / Harrison Contempt Order
The Review files its third amended 202 Suit. Two names are added. Mr. Brent Coon and Shon Hodgeston [sic].

Coon and Hodgeston [sic] have yet to respond to their service - that service is due June 13, 2011 by 5 p.m.
Like Google, Coon and Hodgkinson do not have to respond until an actual notice is signed by Judge Floyd. However, I’ll comment on the paper storm currently headed in Philip’s direction as it happens.

Michael Neil Harrison

From the Lawsuit Update:
Hearing Held June 8, 2011
The Review holds a hearing with the court. The court wanting to be sure that Mr. Harrison has every opportunity to respond (because he no showed again) - decides to have a final hearing on the matter. Motion for "Default Judgment" is then filed against Harrison with sanction (s) request. If Harrison does not appear or hire council to appear - he will be found in a Default Judgment and Klein requests all legal fees to be paid in judgment. The final hearing notice is distributed.

Operation Kleinwatch and STE lawyer shows to the hearing - but states that he IS NOT any parties lawyer - he is just there to "watch."
There was no hearing - Philip just made it up.

The only truth in this account is this: Harrison did not attend, but Klein, Morgan, and Dorrell did. Morgan was taken alone into the Judge’s chambers, where he was told to reset the hearing when Harrison could attend. The hearing never took place and our attorney never had an opportunity to speak.

Neither is the default judgment for attorney's fees as Philip claims. Rule 202 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure provides no such remedy. Instead, this judgment would require Harrison's deposition.

Unfortunately for Philip, Harrison’s motion to quash Klein’s defective service is scheduled for July. In a conversation with the court clerk, our attorney discovered that Klein’s attorney tried to change the date on Harrison’s motion at least twice. The court clerk told John S. Morgan that this was improper procedure and highly unethical.

Should Judge Floyd order Harrison's deposition before determining whether he was properly served, Floyd would be subject to another mandamus. We've recommended a good attorney to Harrison.

May 25, 2011

Strike Three

4 comments
Fran an endorsement ad for the Fat and Ugly Men's ShopFor the second time, Philip R. Klein avoided questioning under oath in a court of law.

Our attorney, Jeffrey L. Dorrell, originally scheduled a new evidentiary hearing on his Second Amended Petition for this Friday, May 27, 2010. Philip rendered the hearing moot by filing his Third Amended Petition.

Read a copy of Klein’s filing on his website through this anonymous link.

Because of Klein’s filing, this statement on the Southeast Texas Political Review is a blatant lie:
Discovery begins. We await the 202 Hearing and possible contempt hearing for June 3, 2011. The May 27, 2011 is passed by the bloggers attorney.
Our attorney did not cancel the evidentiary hearing; instead Philip avoided testimony under oath by filing a new petition. With five or six more amended petitions, Philip could easily easily avoid questioning until 2020 or so.

Likewise, there is no contempt hearing scheduled for June 3, 2011. A hearing on Harrison’s motion to quash Philip’s defective service was originally scheduled, but Harrison reset the date until July.

Philip just made it up. Until Klein Enterprises et. al. files a new motion seeking a deposition in this matter, there is no “202 Hearing” scheduled.

As it stands now, it’s Philip’s move.

May 3, 2011

Case Law (Pt 3): Philip R. Klein

21 comments
Our attorney, Jeffrey L. Dorrell, was honored as Appellate Attorney of the Week by the Texas Lawyer magazine for his work on our case, In re John Does 1 and 2:

The Texas Lawyer

Appellate Lawyer of the Week: The 411 on 202

Two anonymous bloggers will stay anonymous — for the time being — because of Jeffrey Dorrell's appellate work before the Texas Supreme Court.

Dorrell, a partner in Houston's Escamilla, Poneck & Cruz, says he geared up for a First Amendment showdown at the high court over whether two corporations that own The Southeast Texas Political Review could discover the identities of his two clients in a pre-suit deposition. But, as it turns out, Dorrell didn't have to go that far: He just had to convince the high court to force a trial court to stick to a procedural law, which he did.

The background to the high court's April 15 per curiam decision in In Re: John Does 1 and 2 is as follows:
  • PRK Enterprises and Klein Investments Inc. (collectively PRK) own The Southeast Texas Political Review. Two bloggers with the names Operation Kleinwatch and Sam the Eagle Weblog have criticized the owners, according to the opinion.

  • The bloggers subscribe to Blogger.com, a subsidiary of Google. PRK petitioned the trial court under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 202 to order discovery of the bloggers' identities in anticipation of a suit against the bloggers alleging defamation and invasion of privacy. Google then notified the bloggers that it had received the subpoenas, according to the opinion.

  • The bloggers moved to quash the subpoenas, arguing that the allegations in PRK's petition were insufficient to show a cause of action and that their identities are constitutionally protected from disclosure. The trial court denied the bloggers' motions and granted PRK's Rule 202 petition.

  • The bloggers petitioned for writ of mandamus, but an intermediate court of appeals denied mandamus relief, according to the Supreme Court's opinion.
The bloggers sought mandamus at the Supreme Court. On behalf of his clients, Dorrell argued that the trial court failed to comply with Rule 202's requirements. In addition to his First Amendment argument, Dorrell argued that, before allowing a pre-suit deposition, a trial court must find that "allowing the petitioner to take the requested deposition may prevent a failure or delay of justice in an anticipated suit; or the likely benefit of allowing the petitioner to take the requested deposition to investigate a potential claim outweighs the burden or expense of the procedure."

"The trial court clearly abused its discretion in failing to follow Rule 202," the high court wrote in Does 1 and 2. "The trial court is directed to vacate its order and to grant relators' motion to quash." [See the court's opinion.]

"I think the plaintiffs have many more arrows in their quiver to try to find out who the bloggers are. But they are going to have to find out who the bloggers are by following the procedures of Rule 202," Dorrell says. "But if at any point in that process the trial court orders the disclosure of the bloggers, there will again be a mandamus. We will not agree to disclose the names of the bloggers, because we think they are constitutionally protected."

Dorrell's argument got the better of his clients, says John Morgan, of counsel at Beaumont's Harris, Duesler & Hatfield who represents PRK and Klein. "He kicked my butt," says Morgan, who plans to replead his Rule 202 petition.

"He's a very intelligent and engaging attorney," Morgan says of Dorrell. "Both of us were disappointed that we didn't get a tome on the First Amendment issue."
Actually, we were delighted over the decision – we had a party but John and Philip weren’t invited.

Apparently John hasn’t realized that Jeffrey was picking low-hanging fruit (pun intended). The real fun in Philip’s SLAPP suit begins on May 27, when Philip must appear under oath to answer questions about his bizarre claims and online behavior in an evidentiary hearing before Judge Floyd.

This depends, of course, on the nature of Philip and John’s new petition. I’ve lost count, is this Philip’s fifth or sixth amended petition?

In the meamtime, Philip is still making up sources in an article where he alleges infidelity by former Judge Ron Walker in a purported divorce petition by Sandy Walker:
The past week - the Review broke a story that political powerhouse and ex-county judge Ron Walker and his wife Sandy were seeking a divorce. The rumor? Activity outside the marriage by Judge Walker.

The news hit like a shockwave after the weeks prior - district Judge and son of Ron Walker - Layne Walker had come under fire for accusations of abusing a county sheriffs deputy who was transporting prisoners. And for locking attorney's out of the back area of the judges chambers and requiring an escort back to his office. And if that were not worse - accusations of erratic behavior from both the DA's office and defense bar. All of which has caused political strife for the once politically powerful family.
No comment necessary, but I wonder why Philip didn’t splash former Judge Carl Griffith’s divorce across the pages of the Southeast Texas Political Review. Did I mention Philip's multiple divorce petitions? 

Here’s another low point in the English language from Philip’s latest so-called editorial, where he discusses his own opinion of Princess Diana:
Diana was brought up in wealth and privilege. She never wanted for anything. She had the looks and the money to boot. Charles married the lady who was 12 years her junior. She didn't like what she married and acted like a kid - that she was. They divorced. Post divorce she acted like a loon and tried to outshine the people and their money that took care of her. Then - she shipped the boys off to boarding school - just like she did. Then she scooted off around the world doing her thing - all in the good name of what? And she dated the staff, she dated rich men and the guy that eventually got her killed.

In fact, and not being mean - on the night of her death she was trying to find a hotel or home to go to with her lover.
No comment necessary on this juvenile rant, but Philip is a moron with little respect for anyone other than himself.

Apr 27, 2011

Case Law (Pt 2): Philip R. Klein

8 comments
Here are a few more articles concerning In re John Does 1 and 2. Since Philip still continues to refer to the decision as Klein v. Google, perhaps he’s still angry that the Texas Supreme Court used his 202 petition as an example of a frivolous lawsuit.

Philip believes he deserves special treatment – from his latest editorial:
The rules are different for us. You have to know this.
In truth, the rules are the same for Philip R. Klein as Operation Kleinwatch and the Sam The Eagle Political Review.

After Philip commented on the “fair and balanced” nature of the Southeast Texas Record’s coverage of this decision, the Record followed with this editorial on Sunday:

The Southeast Texas Record editorial 

Philip Klein gets a First Amendment lesson about equal protection
4/24/2011 10:00 PM

You've got to wonder about Google. You'd think the American company that created the world's most popular internet search engine would be a staunch advocate for freedom, a resolute opponent of tyranny.

But you might be wrong. With disturbing frequency, Google is lining up on the wrong side of the struggle for individual rights.

The Communist government in China wanted Google to censor its search results to prevent Chinese citizens from gaining access to information it deemed too provocative. Were the Google moguls outraged? Did they adamantly refuse? No, they meekly acquiesced.

Local political commentator Philip Klein, who's developed a reputation for making outlandish posts on his Southeast Texas Political Review blogs, found himself the butt of uncomplimentary, anonymous comments on other blogs. Klein wanted Google to supply the names of the bloggers posting anonymously at Operation Kleinwatch and Sam the Eagle so he could sue them for defamation.

Were the Google goliaths aghast at this brazen assault on the time-honored American practice of anonymous publication? No, they readily agreed to cooperate with Klein.

This is the same Philip Klein who invoked his First Amendment right to free speech to defend himself against a defamation suit filed by a public official who took offense at one of his posts.

"Comments regarding elected officials, as well as public officials and events surrounding them, is firmly protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution," Klein declared at the time. "Clearly, sources that report misconduct and events are further protected."

Apparently the First Amendment right that protects Klein when he criticizes other individuals does not protect individuals who criticize him.

Because Google was agreeable, Jefferson County District Judge Donald Floyd granted Klein's motion to compel discovery of the names of the anonymous bloggers. Just recently, however, the Supreme Court of Texas overruled Floyd, affirming the federal law that prohibits disclosure of subscriber identity without consent.

Let that be a lesson to the likes of Google and Klein who think principle is a journey.

Southeast Texas Record news story

Texas SC Stops Google’s release of blogger IDs to Klein
4/19/2011 11:52 AM By Steve Korris


AUSTIN - Google Inc. can't give Beaumont blogger Philip Klein the names of critics who call themselves Operation Kleinwatch and Sam the Eagle, the Supreme Court of Texas ruled on April 15.

All nine Justices agreed that Jefferson County District Judge Donald Floyd abused his discretion when he granted a motion to compel discovery of the names. Klein writes a political blog called Southeast Texas Political Review.

His opponents write the anonymous blogs Operation Kleinwatch and Sam the Eagle. Klein has been involved in litigation with Google to discover the identities of the anti-Klein bloggers so he could sue them for defamation.

Floyd granted Klein's motion to compel discovery because Google agreed to provide names to Klein's businesses, PRK Enterprises and Klein Investments, but the agreement didn't impress the Justices.

"It is true that except where specifically prohibited, the procedures and limitations set forth in the rules pertaining to discovery may be modified in any suit by agreement of the parties," they wrote in an unsigned opinion.

"But PRK and Google were not the only parties to the proceeding," they wrote.

They wrote that Rule 202 requires service of a petition on all with adverse interests.

"PRK and Google could not modify the procedures prescribed by Rule 202 by an agreement that did not include relators," they wrote.

They wrote that the rule requires a court to order a deposition only if it might prevent a failure or delay of justice or if the likely benefit outweighs the burden.

"The trial court did not make either of these findings," they wrote. "Nor can the required findings be implied in support of the trial court's order compelling discovery."

They wrote that PRK made no effort to present a basis for an exception to federal law that prohibits disclosure of subscriber identity without consent.

"Not only are the allegations in its petition and motion to compel sketchy, they mostly concern possible causes of action by Klein, who is not a party to the proceeding," they wrote.

"The rule does not permit the findings to be implied from support in the record," they wrote.

"The intrusion into otherwise private matters authorized by Rule 202 outside a lawsuit is not to be taken lightly," they wrote.

PRK petitioned for discovery against Google and two John Does, in anticipation of suing for copyright violations, defamation, and invasion of privacy.

Google agreed to respond to a subpoena seeking identities of all persons responsible for Sam the Eagle and Operation Kleinwatch, including literary and financial contributors.

Google agreed to provide email and account addresses as well as entry logs and posting logs for a year.

Floyd signed the order in January 2010, and Ninth District appeals judges denied a writ of mandamus last April.

Jeffrey Dorrell represented those behind Sam the Eagle and Operation Kleinwatch.

John Morgan represented Klein's businesses.

The SLAPP’’ED IN TEXAS Blog

Update in a SLAPP caseAPRIL 19, 2011 by Alicia Wagner Calzada

One of the cases we have been following is the Beaumont case of In Re John Does 1 and 2, a SLAPP suit aimed at revealing the identities of anonymous bloggers “Operation Kleinwatch” and “Sam the Eagle Weblog” who blog about another blogger, Philip Klein. Klein’s company (but not Klein himself) obtained a discovery order which subpoenaed from Google the identities of the anonymous bloggers. The John Does moved to squash the subpoena and the court denied the motion, ordering the identities to be revealed.

On Friday, the Texas Supreme Court granted mandamus relief to the anonymous bloggers, ruling the the trial court had abused its discretion.

Friday’s opinion is interesting in that it calls the allegations in the lawsuit “sketchy,” and notes that the plaintiff in the lawsuit was a company, not Philip Klein, yet the allegations in the lawsuit “mostly concern possible causes of action by Klein, who is not a party to the proceeding.” This is a classic description of a lawsuit with no merit, that is being used as a tool to harass speech.

If the Texas Citizen Participation Act had been in place, this case could probably have been handled through a motion to dismiss and might not have had to seek the extraordinary relief of a writ of mandamus ruling from the Texas Supreme Court.

Other links

See these articles (requires subscription):

Apr 25, 2011

Under Subpoena: Philip R. Klein

13 comments
Philip R. Klein remains under subpoena in Klein et. al. v. Google et al.

Our attorney, Jeffrey L. Dorrell, has set another evidentiary hearing for May 27, 2011, where Klein will answer questions under oath on his purported evidence and other items of interest concerning his online behavior.

As noted by the Texas Supreme Court, Klein has failed to produce any such evidence to back up his claims:
For one thing, PRK made no effort to present the trial court with a basis for the findings. Not only are the allegations in its petition and motion to compel sketchy, they mostly concern possible causes of action by Klein, who is not a party to the proceeding. To justify noncompliance with the requirements of Rule 202, PRK relies entirely on its agreement with Google. More importantly, however, Rule 202 expressly requires that discovery may be ordered “only if” the required findings are made. The rule does not permit the findings to be implied from support in the record. The intrusion into otherwise private matters authorized by Rule 202 outside a lawsuit is not to be taken lightly. One noted commentator, Professor Lonny Hoffman, has observed that there is “cause for concern about insufficient judicial attention to petitions to take presuit discovery” and that “judges should maintain an active oversight role to ensure that [such discovery is] not misused”. Access to Information, Access to Justice: The Rule of Presuit Investigatory Discovery, 40 U. Mich. J.L. Reform 217, 273–74 (2007). We agree.
On the court’s decision concerning In Re John Does 1 and 2, the justices were more concerned about the abuse of Rule 202 through frivolous lawsuits, especially concerning discovery that would compromise a defendant’s rights under the U.S. Constitution:
Relators [AKA John Does 1 and 2; i.e. Gus Pillsbury and Sam the Eagle] moved to quash the subpoena, arguing that the petition’s allegations were insufficient to show that PRK had a cause of action against relators, and that their identities are constitutionally protected from disclosure. PRK responded, arguing that the information sought was not constitutionally protected, and moved to compel discovery….

Relators argue that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to comply with Rule 202.
In its order, the court upheld these implications concerning our First Amendment rights to anonymously ridicule a public fool:
The trial court clearly abused its discretion in failing to follow Rule 202. Rule 202.5 provides that use of a deposition may be restricted or prohibited “to prevent abuse of this rule”, but that remedy for noncompliance affords relators no relief from their complaint that their identities not be disclosed….

The trial court is directed to vacate its order dated January 29, 2010, and to grant relators’ motions to quash.
Had the high court not been concerned over the constitutional timbre of this case, the justices would have simply vacated Judge Floyd’s order. However, the trial court was directed to grant our original motions to quash, which argued our First Amendment rights. See for yourself here on Philip R. Klein’s website (WARNING: this is not an anonymous link).

Philip refused to acknowledge this important issue in his latest editorial on the Southeast Texas Political Review. He castigated the Beaumont Enterprise for reporting this story and quoting our attorney: 
They sit over at the Beaumont Enterprise and wonder to themselves why nobody reads them.
From the Beaumont Enterprise business page on Facebook:
  • Beaumont Enterprise: 11,150 people like this
From the SET Political Review page on Facebook
  • SET Political Review: 367 friends
Philip wrote:
Now first, I am not crying here.
Klein is right, he’s not crying - it’s more like whining:
I am sure as Sara was walking out the door tonight - there were pats on the back. Way to go Sara! You got him - right? Uh no Sara. Hell - in fact - Sara should have called herself Mrs. Gus Pillsbury.

Sara - when the lights go out over there - remember what you wrote. You are a part of the problem. We hear Sara KFDM is hiring? Wait...never mind. 


And Sara and Tim - I will be waiting by my phone for the call of apology this week. 
After years of inventing stories about the Enterprise shutting down, Philip expects an apology!

Klein’s complaint: The Beaumont Enterprise biased their story against him and as evidence, Klein took this item out of context:
“…because facts about Klein's bankruptcies, many lawsuits and other information on his blog are already public knowledge.”
Despite Philip's creative editing,  the story was actually quoting our attorney – here’s the full passage:
But Houston constitutional law attorney Jeffrey L. Dorrell argued that Klein is "libel proof" because facts about Klein's bankruptcies, many lawsuits and other information on his blog are already public knowledge.
This sort of deceit and misdirection is highly representative of Philip R. Klein.

As an example, Philip made this claim:
What are they even talking about? Many lawsuits? Philip Klein has filed NO LAWSUITS. Look in the 202 suit. Philip Klein's companies have filed suits for business matters - but Philip Klein has not other than the 202.
With over 40 lawsuits under his belt, I suppose that it’s hard to keep track which of Klein’s entities were directly involved. Under his own identity, Philip filed lawsuits in several, including Philip R. Klein v. American Dairy Queen (D-0161163) and Philip R. Klein v. Mary Weiss (A-0169454)

Philip also repeated this tired claim:
Huh? For Sara's information - Philip Klein has NEVER EVER FILED FOR BANKRUPTCY. But now it is in the Beaumont Enterprise and Tim Kelley and gang are going to do nothing to make it right. They are taking their shot. A false story.
I’ve discussed Klein’s bankruptcies in this article, but as noted, Philip R. Klein acted as President of PRK Enterprises when he signed the bankruptcy filing:



We're looking forward to hearing Philip's answers under oath in a court of law.

Apr 18, 2011

Case Law: Philip R. Klein

20 comments

The Beaumont Enterprise

Google doesn't have to disclose Southeast Texas bloggers identities, Texas Supreme Court says By Sarah Moore

An order to compel Internet giant Google to disclose the identity of two anonymous bloggers accused of defaming a Southeast Texas private detective and blogger has been struck down by the Texas Supreme Court.

Phillip R. Klein sued Google to learn the identity behind two blogs, OperationKleinwatch and SamTheEagleUSA, that directed satire and criticism at him. Klein sought their identities to pursue claims of copyright infringement, defamation, conspiracy and invasion of privacy against them.

Klein complained in his petition that he was defamed by posts including a parody of a Dog Fancy magazine article "Fat Men Who Love Their Dogs Too Much." But Houston constitutional law attorney Jeffrey L. Dorrell argued that Klein is "libel proof" because facts about Klein's bankruptcies, many lawsuits and other information on his blog are already public knowledge.

Judge Donald Floyd of the 172nd District Court ordered Google to provide the bloggers names Jan. 29, 2010.

Dorrell filed a writ of mandamus asking for the order to be vacated on behalf of the bloggers after the Ninth Court of Appeals refused the original mandamus.

The higher court had stayed Floyd's order in June 2010 to consider the merits of the bloggers' argument that the constitution protects their right to criticize public personalities anonymously.

The Supreme Court of Texas Blog:

Anonymous blogging decision from SCOTX; [Apr. 15, 2011]by Don Cruse

Because there are so many other kinds of personal information out there in the world besides anonymous speech, the Court’s holding on this seemingly narrow procedural ground may be even more important than if it had instead based its result on First Amendment grounds.
  • In re John Does 1 and 2, No. 10-0366 (per curiam) (DDB). In a per curiam opinion, the Court granted mandamus relief to a blogger who wanted to maintain his (or her) anonymity. The plaintiff in this defamation case sought discovery against Google, which agreed to produce the materials. The blogger filed a motion to quash. The trial court did not follow the usual procedures (in Texas Rule 202) because the plaintiff and Google had already reached an agreement.

    The Texas Supreme Court holds today that the requirements of Rule 202 still applied because the blogger had an obvious interest in the outcome. “But PRK and Google were not the only parties to the proceeding. Rule 202.3(a) requires that ‘all persons petitioner expects to have interests adverse to petitioner’s in the anticipated suit’ be served with the petition and given notice of hearing. PRK asserted that relators would be defendants in the anticipated lawsuit, and by their motions to quash, relators made an appearance in the proceeding. PRK and Google could not modify the procedures prescribed by Rule 202 by an agreement that did not include relators.”

Internet Cases

Texas supreme court says identities of anonymous bloggers should not be disclosed
By Evan Brown

In re Does, — S.W.3d —, 2011 WL 1447544 (Texas, April 15, 2011)

The issue of anonymity is a hot topic in internet law. The question of whether an internet user known only by an IP address or username or website name should be identified arises fairly often in the early stages of internet defamation and certain copyright infringement cases. For example, the issue is a big one in the numerous copyright cases that have been brought recently against BitTorrent users who get subpoenas after being accused of trading copyrighted works online.

The supreme court of Texas has issued an opinion that protects the anonymity of a couple of bloggers who were accused of defamation, copyright infringement and invasion of privacy by another blogger. The court ordered that a subpoena served on Google (who hosted the Blogger accounts in question) be quashed.
Texas rules of procedure (Rule 202) allow a petitioner to take depositions before a lawsuit is filed in order to investigate a potential claim. The petitioner in this case filed such an action, and Google agreed to turn over the information about the anonymous Blogger users.

But the anonymous bloggers objected, and moved to quash the deposition subpoena, arguing that the findings required for the discovery to be taken had not been made.

The trial court was required to find that:
  1. allowing the petitioner to take the requested depositions may prevent a failure or delay of justice in an anticipated suit; or
  2. the likely benefit of allowing the petitioner to take the requested deposition to investigate a potential claim outweighs the burden or expense of the procedure.
Neither of these findings were made. Petitioner had tried to argue that the findings were not necessary because he had gotten the agreement of Google to turn over the information.

But the court saw how that missed the point. It held that without the required findings, the discovery could not be taken in the face of objections brought by other interested parties (the parties whose identities were at risk of being revealed).

While many courts have evaluated this kind of question using a first amendment analysis (i.e., is the John Doe’s interest in speaking anonymously outweighed by the plaintiff’s right to seek redress), the court in this case looked to more general concerns of avoiding litigation abuse. Citing to a law review article by Professor Hoffman, the court observed that there is “cause for concern about insufficient judicial attention to petitions to take presuit discovery” and that “judges should maintain an active oversight role to ensure that [such discovery is] not misused”.

Apr 15, 2011

For Immediate Release

34 comments
AUSTIN -- The Texas Supreme Court unanimously granted an unusual writ of mandamus late Friday afternoon and ordered Beaumont trial judge Donald Floyd of the 172nd District Court to vacate his order that Google, Inc., disclose the identities of two anonymous bloggers.

The blogs, OperationKleinwatch.blogspot.com and SamTheEagleUSA.blogspot.com, publish satirical parody and other biting criticism directed at Beaumont private investigator and local media personality Philip R. Klein. Acting as Klein Investments Inc. and PRK Enterprises Inc., Klein filed suit to learn the bloggers' identities.

Klein alleged that John Does 1 and 2 were guilty of copyright infringement, defamation, conspiracy, and invasion of privacy. Floyd ordered Google to identify the bloggers in a decision on January 29, 2010.

After the Ninth Court of Appeals refused the original mandamus, Houston constitutional law attorney Jeffrey L. Dorrell filed with the Texas Supreme Court on behalf of the bloggers. The higher court stayed Judge Floyd's order in June 2010 to consider the merits of the bloggers’ argument that their right to criticize public personalities anonymously was constitutionally protected.

Today’s ruling disposes of Floyd’s order in favor of the blogs and orders the judge to grant the original motion to quash by the bloggers.

Among other things, Klein claimed the bloggers defamed him by publishing a parody of Dog Fancy magazine where he was depicted under the caption, “Fat Men Who Love Their Dogs Too Much.” The parody satirized an MSNBC network story on Klein entitled "The Pet Lover." Klein argued the blogs implied that he had “sex with animals.”

Representing the blogs, Dorrell argued that Klein is libel-proof because “facts exposed in the course of the plaintiff's two bankruptcies, at least 40 lawsuits, and constant vindictive, publicity-grabbing attacks on southeast Texas municipalities, school districts, elected officials, local television stations, local reporters, and others” had made Klein the object of public ridicule before the blogs began publishing.

“We are obviously pleased that the Supreme Court recognizes the First Amendment right to criticize public figures anonymously,” said Dorrell. “This is an American tradition that goes all the way back to Benjamin Franklin writing commentary as an elderly widow under the nom de plume of Silence Dogood. Satirical parody can be harsh, but if Saturday Night Live got sued every time it made fun of Sarah Palin or Barack Obama, television would be a pretty barren source of amusement.”

Klein has recently claimed on his own blog that prominent Beaumont attorney Brent Coon is the anonymous author of the blogs, a claim both Coon and the blogs have denied. Klein has threatened more litigation.

For more information, contact:

Jeffrey L. Dorrell
Escamilla, Poneck & Cruz, L.L.P.
201 Stratford
Houston, Texas 77006
Telephone: 713-807-1188
jdorrell@epc-law.com

BREAKING NEWS: WE WON! WE WON! WE WON!

13 comments
════════════════════════════
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS
════════════════════════════
NO. 10-0366
══════════════════════════════
IN RE JOHN DOES 1 AND 2, RELATORS
════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
════════════════════════════════════════════════════

PER CURIAM

In this mandamus proceeding we hold that a court may not order pre-suit discovery by agreement of the witness over the objections of other interested parties without making the findings required by Rule 202.4(a) of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.

Philip R. Klein owns PRK Enterprises, Inc. and Klein Investments, Inc. The two corporations collectively “PRK”) operate or have operated a blog called The Southeast Texas Political Review. Two anonymous bloggers called Operation Kleinwatch and Sam the Eagle Weblog (collectively “relators”) have criticized Klein extensively. Relators subscribe to Blogger.com, a subsidiary of Google, Inc.  collectively “Google”), which hosts them on the Internet. PRK petitioned the district court under Rule 202 to order discovery from Google of relators’ identities in anticipation of a lawsuit by Klein and PRK against relators for copyright law violations, defamation, and invasion of privacy. The alleged bases for such causes of action are contained in the following five sentences of the petition:
[Relators] have been engaged in a pattern of libel and defamation per se, invasion of privacy, and use of copyrighted images (both facial and voice image), without permission. The purpose of these websites are to disparage, harass and cause injury to [PRK], as well as to [Klein] personally. These websites host significant, false information, and invade the privacy of [PRK] throughout the website. For example, without limitation, the website Operation Klein Watch, contains false information on legal proceedings that do not involve either [Klein] individually or [PRK], falsely represent that judgments have been taken against [PRK] and/or [Klein] individually, falsely identify a bankruptcy proceeding, also identify lawsuits that do not involve [PRK] and/or [Klein] individually. Additionally, this website identifies all members of [Klein’s] family, for no apparent purpose other than to invade their privacy.
Klein did not join in the petition. The petition named Google and relators as defendants.

After being served, Google agreed with PRK that it would respond to a subpoena duces tecum (1). Accordingly, PRK did not ask for a hearing on the petition. Federal law generally prohibits a “cable operator” like Google from disclosing a subscriber’s personally identifiable information without its consent. 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(1). But there is an exception if disclosure is ordered by a court with notice to the subscriber. Id. § 551(c)(2)(B). Google gave relators notice of its receipt of the subpoena. (2)

Relators moved to quash the subpoena, arguing that the petition’s allegations were insufficient to show that PRK had a cause of action against relators, and that their identities are constitutionally protected from disclosure. PRK responded, arguing that the information sought was not constitutionally protected, and moved to compel discovery. PRK argued that to obtain the requested discovery, it should not be required to do more than assert a cause of action. PRK’s motion was no more specific than their petition with respect to the bases for claims against relators. After a brief hearing, at which relators did not appear, the trial court denied relators’ motions and granted PRK’s. The court of appeals denied mandamus relief.

Relators argue that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to comply with Rule 202.
Rule 202.4(a), “Required Findings,” states:
The court must order a deposition to be taken if, but only if, it finds that:

(1) allowing the petitioner to take the requested deposition may prevent a failure ordelay of justice in an anticipated suit; or

(2) the likely benefit of allowing the petitioner to take the requested deposition to investigate a potential claim outweighs the burden or expense of the procedure.
TEX. R. CIV. P. 202.4(a). The trial court did not make either of these findings.

PRK argues that compliance with Rule 202 was excused because of its agreement with Google. It is true that “[e]xcept where specifically prohibited, the procedures and limitations set forth in the rules pertaining to discovery may be modified in any suit by agreement of the parties . . . .” TEX. R. CIV. P. 191.1. But PRK and Google were not the only parties to the proceeding. Rule 202.3(a) requires that “all persons petitioner expects to have interests adverse to petitioner’s in the anticipated suit” be served with the petition and given notice of hearing. TEX. R. CIV. P. 202.3(a). PRK asserted that relators would be defendants in the anticipated lawsuit, and by their motions to quash, relators made an appearance in the proceeding. PRK and Google could not modify the procedures prescribed by Rule 202 by an agreement that did not include relators.

Nor can the required findings be implied in support of the trial court’s order compelling discovery. For one thing, PRK made no effort to present the trial court with a basis for the findings. Not only are the allegations in its petition and motion to compel sketchy, they mostly concern possible causes of action by Klein, who is not a party to the proceeding. To justify noncompliance with the requirements of Rule 202, PRK relies entirely on its agreement with Google. More importantly, however, Rule 202 expressly requires that discovery may be ordered “only if” the required findings are made. The rule does not permit the findings to be implied from support in the record. The intrusion into otherwise private matters authorized by Rule 202 outside a lawsuit is not to be taken lightly. One noted commentator, Professor Lonny Hoffman, has observed that there is “cause for concern about insufficient judicial attention to petitions to take presuit discovery” and that “judges should maintain an active oversight role to ensure that [such discovery is] not misused”. Access to Information, Access to Justice: The Rule of Presuit Investigatory Discovery, 40 U. MICH. J.L. REFORM 217, 273–74 (2007). We agree.

The trial court clearly abused its discretion in failing to follow Rule 202. Rule 202.5 provides that use of a deposition may be restricted or prohibited “to prevent abuse of this rule”, but that remedy for noncompliance affords relators no relief from their complaint that their identities not be disclosed. Thus, relators are entitled to mandamus relief. In re Jorden, 249 S.W.3d 419, 420 (Tex. 2008) (orig. proceeding) (party to Rule 202 proceeding has no adequate remedy on appeal if court abused its discretion in ordering discovery that would comprise procedural or substantive rights).

The trial court is directed to vacate its order dated January 29, 2010, and to grant relators’ motions to quash. We are confident that the trial court will promptly comply, and the writ will issue  only if it fails to do so.

Opinion delivered: April 15, 2011 (5:41 PM)
════════════════════════════════════════════════════
1 The subpoena duces tecum commanded production of documents described as follows:
“1. Any and all identifiers, user account IP addresses, user access Email Addresses, user entry logs, user posting logs, registered user information, account access IP addresses and/or any identifying descriptors for the following blogspots for the previous year:

a) http://samtheeagleusa.blogspot.com/

b) http://operationkleinwatch.blogspot.com/

c) http://www.notthisonetoojacques.blogspot.com/

“2. To identify all parties, persons, or entities responsible for the website http://operationkleinwatch.blogspot.com and http://samtheeagleusa.blogspot.com.“

3. Identify all persons, parties or entities who provide contributions of money or literary substance to these websites.

“4. Identify all persons, parties or entities who posted comments on these websites and/or have provided financial support to these websites.

“5. Identify all persons, parties or entities who are in any way affiliated with, or connected with in any capacity, these websites.”
2 We do not address whether Google complied with the federal statute.

NOTE FROM GUS (AKA John Doe 1): The emphasis is mine.

I'll have a great deal more to say about this, but I must admit that Philip R. Klein was absolutely correct: this did make case law. Unfortunately, the case wasn't Klein v. Google, but rather In Re John Does 1 and 2,and Philip just became the butt of a legal joke.

I have a constitutional, protected, and honored right to anonymously criticize fools who thrust themselves onto the public stage, and Klein can't compel disclosure of my identity with manufactured charges of copyright infringement, defamation, invasion of privacy and copulation with a ratty Pomeranian.

SPECIAL NOTE TO PHILIP R. KLEIN:

Apr 5, 2011

Formal Notice

16 comments
Brent Coon is not associated with this blog.  Don't believe everything you read on the internet, especially from fat windbags with a history of making things up.

Apr 3, 2011

On Philip R. Klein's Credibility

0 comments
According to Philip's nonsensical version Klein et al. v. Google  et al. on his Lawsuit page:
Klein announces the expansion of the suit to Google, Inc.

Meaning, the 202 is moved from an inquiry to a full lawsuit. Google, Inc. and their lawyers set a meeting in March to negotiate a settlement. The Texas Supreme Court holds to its stay of the information until oral hearings are held.
Meaning, Klein is attempting to avoid paying the proper fees to file a legitimate lawsuit by "expanding" a Rule 202 petition to a lawsuit.

Neither was a meeting was held with Google to "negotiate a settlement," and the Texas Supreme Court has never called for "oral hearings." See for yourself here. Philip has never referenced this Supreme Court page on In Re John Does 1 and 2 on his blog.

Judge Floyd kicked Klein's associated Motion to Compel out of court after hearing Google's arguments. 

Our attorney, Jeffrey L. Dorrell, filed several documents in the past weeks regarding this "second amended petition."  See the full documents here:
An item of particular interest in our Original Answer, Jury Demand, and Request for Disclosure is our Affirmative Defense that Klein is libel-proof:
Operation Kleinwatch (OK) pleads that plaintiffs are libel-proof because they have no reputation to lose. See, e.g., Swate v. Schiffers, 975 S.W.2d 70, 74-75 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1998, pet. denied). Facts exposed in the course of plaintiffs’ two bankruptcies, at least 40 lawsuits, and constant vindictive, publicity-grabbing attacks on southeast Texas municipalities, school districts, elected officials, local television stations, local reporters, and others—using, in some cases, distortions of the truth, and in others, outright fabrications—have  become well-known and are widely ridiculed. Plaintiffs’ antics (which have included at least two unsuccessful defamation suits) have been extensively reported in print and electronic media for over a decade, and are a permanent part of the recorded jurisprudence of this state.* If OK made any false statement about any of plaintiffs—which OK denies—such statement could not have damaged the reputation of plaintiffs who have been the objects of widespread public derision and contempt for many years.**
----------------------------
*See, e.g., Klein & Assocs. Political Relations v. Port Arthur Indep. Sch. Dist., 92 S.W.3d 889 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2002, pet. denied) (holding that Klein’s admission that he was a public figure was fatal to his suit for defamation against the school district and its board members); Gillam v. Klein Investments, Inc.; Cause No. A-179,090; in the 58th District Court of Jefferson County (After Judge Tom Gillam, III, sued Klein in April 2007 for defaming him with false allegations of sexual misconduct, Klein was forced to issue a retraction.)

** In a particularly hysterical rant archived from Klein’s KOLE/AM radio talk show, Klein screams that because he “start[s] the debate” on many public issues, Klein is “bastardized in the media, …bastardized in the paper, …bastardized on the air, and …bastardized on the internet.” This appears to be accurate, as beaumontenterprise.com referred to Klein on June 10, 2008, as a “local gumshoe and occasional Bayou piƱata” in reporting Klein’s retraction of his defamation of Judge Tom Gillam. Beaumontenterprise.com also noted Klein’s particularly distasteful habit of propagating false and defamatory claims while attributing them to information acquired from “tainted anonymous source[s].” [Emphasis in original.]

Mar 21, 2011

Philip R. Klein: A Waste of Taxpayer Money

19 comments
Philip R.Klein wrote on the Southeast Texas Political Review:
It seems that the State Board of Education wants to know who paid for the world renown singing choir from Ozen High School's trip to Austin this past week. It seems that it was not a school function or competition - get this - it was a political rally sponsored by....yes....the unions?
While the Ozen Choir did indeed perform during the Save Our Schools rally in Austin, the date was March 12, 2011, not "last week" as Philip claims. 

Likewise, this was not a "union rally," as Klein claims, since the sponsoring organization was a coalition called "Save Texas Schools." See for yourself, instead of making up quotes like Philip R. Klein:
"What the union wanted is students of color from a minority school district. Some lady named Haynes I think was here name called and offered the choir and we jumped at the chance to have a fine group of young people help us make our case to the legislature," said a source with the teachers union in Austin.
He just made it up, 

Read about the actual event here and form your own opinion, but this was not a rally "against the government" as Philip claims. Had this been a Tea Party Rally, I'm certain Klein would not have mentioned.

Here's an interesting thought - if Philip is truly concerned about taxpayer money, perhaps he should stop filing silly lawsuits that clog up the courts with motions of "Summery Judgement."  According to Attorney Mark Faggard's sworn deposition: 
"Plaintiff (Klein) was made aware of Defendant's (Faggard) displeasure with services rendered on two (2) occasion when Philip R. Klein advised Defendant that he pulled a gun on someone while attempting to serve a subpoena."
This certainly puts Klein's latest lawsuit against the City of Beaumont into proper perspective, where Klein stated the Beaumont Police Department have accused process servers of criminal trespass and stalking.

Considering that Philip's litigious history spans at least 40 lawsuits and other legal actions, how much time and money has Philip cost the taxpayers of Jefferson County and the State of Texas?

Please support  the bipartisan bill, HB 2973, HB 2974, and SB 1565, which would help limit this abuse of our taxes.

Lindsey's Response:
Originally posted on March 9, 2011.

After Philip R. Klein libeled (note that's libel, not liable) Lindsey Brackin in his latest editorial on The Southeast Texas Political Review, Lindsey responded. Readers can decide for themselves who "got taken to the woodshed," but I suspect Philip will be eating while standing up for at least a week.

I would like to address some issues with the editorial; it is, as usual, filled with inaccuracies. My name is spelled Lindsey, not Lindsay, and it's Brackin, not Bracken. As much as Philip harps on people getting his own name correct, you'd think he could afford the same respect to those he decides to blast. Also, I am not a poor, starving secretary at an insurance agency in Jasper - I don't even work in Jasper and I'm certainly not a secretary. I would think his crack team of investigators could find that out for themselves.

Now, regarding my "first shot" at PRK- I think anyone with an 8th grader's reading comprehension could clearly tell that advocating the supply of free alcohol to Klein was intended as a joke. Thus, I understand why Philip became confused (he may have been drinking, I'm not sure). His claims of "not being a heavy drinker" are not supported by various photos of him drunk and drinking on both Operation Kleinwatch and The Sam The Eagle Political Review (STEPR).

As far as Klein being a cyber bully, I should think he himself has proved this. He even seems proud of it. Hiring someone to friend me on my Facebook to "read up" on me? No, that's not creepy and weird AT ALL. Using valuable "research teams" in Austin to find out vague personal information on me? That just seems like a misappropriation of funds. I'm sure there are many Private Investigator-related-things that he could use that money for, unless of course, he has already ruined his own credibility by picking internet fights with everyone that disagrees with his ill-written stories. He may not be able to understand my posts due to a personal vocabulary shortage, but at least everything I have ever written complies with basic grammar rules.

Then, there's the issue of Philip attacking a police officer's wife, whose image he plastered on his blog and claimed she had been "making fun of" the Review. Ms. H, as I will call her, had never said one derogatory thing about the Review - her only crime was to friend Operation Kleinwatch's Facebook page and to be married to a police officer whom Klein seems to have a personal issue with. Maybe attorneys didn't contact him regarding that particular instance; I assumed they had since the picture was removed within 24 hours, but maybe he just came to his senses. What I do know is that he has a propensity for trying to make life hell for those that he thinks don't like him.

How do I know he didn't keep archives of his posts? He stated so in his own reader mail:
From Kountze Texas : I was just informed of the article.  I must say it was very interesting... I looked all over trying to find parts 1 & 2.  Did I miss a link somewhere?? I'd REALLY like to read them also! Thanks so much!

Answer :   
They are floating around. We don't keep anything. Check the "Way Back Machine" - they sometimes post us.
I have since noticed that he has begun keeping archives of his posts. Good for him! Unfortunately, he still continues to slander Brent Coon, Nancy Beaulieu, Ron Hobbs, Judge Parker, and anyone else that he thinks will help improve his blog's viewership. And the spelling is "libel", not "liable", but that's besides the point.

And, to threaten me and my employer because I posted my opinion of him, when he keeps afloat by posting his opinions of EVERYONE, is the definition of hypocrisy. In order to bring forth any such lawsuit, he himself would have to have clean hands regarding defamation, and any one of his weekly posts shows that he wastes no time in dragging people's reputations through the mud (or at least trying to). What I do on my time with my First Amendment right to free speech is my business; why would one assume my employer would be concerned with how I spend my free time? I actually just posted back-to-back record months in my field of work, so my participation in free public forums obviously hasn't slowed down my work ethic. Thanks for asking.

All the silly name dropping is just that: silly. I know Ms. Delgado and the Makins very well (Mr. Makin, I'm still waiting on my Just Say No to Searches bumper sticker!). This little ploy to make himself look like the caring, educating father figure trying to set some confused girl on the right path is such a load of crap it makes Michael Jackson's father look like a saint. And then to expect that I would thank him for attacking me for FIVE-MONTH-OLD POSTS? The man lives in a fantasy world where he is allowed to trash everyone on the face of the planet, but he expects no retaliation or rebuttal. As I told him personally in a Facebook correspondence, all this post has done is make it obvious that he can dish it out, but he does not have thick enough skin to take his own medicine.

This is not the dictatorship of Klein; this is a free country where people who put themselves in the public spotlight, whether they deserve to be there or not, should expect opposition and criticism and, yes, even satire and gallows humor. Does Joan Rivers run around suing and threatening everyone that makes fun of her?

There are issues I can agree with him on: The Southeast Texas Regional Planning Commission and the corruption of BISD. But even there I find problems, especially in his anger at how the ATF and Federal government is handling the Kountze Baptist Church fire. If there is evidence that this event is connected to the SETRPC, believe me, the Feds have it, and there is PROBABLY a reason the information is confidential. Unlike some people, they like to gather all their facts before creating a game plan. If the documents he posted were enough to indict people for the church fire, or to even tie them solidly TO the church fire, it would have been done LONG ago.

With the BISD issue, yes, there is something seriously wrong with how Butch Thomas and his board are running the district, but Klein's blatant racism disgusts me. I agree that prejudice plays a role in some of BISD's decisions, but stooping down to that level by commenting "nothing but the best for the childrens!" and such is just as vile as tearing down South Park Middle School- it tears the community apart. He isn't any better than Dr. Thomas, he's just a racist of a different color.

I don't know if his recent loss in court to Operation Kleinwatch and Sam the Eagle is to blame for his current psyche, or if he's going through a rough personal time. Honestly, I don't care. I read his Review for the entertainment factor, not the news factor, and I hope he keeps posting stories so that I can keep commenting on them. It's like a fist fight: you know it's wrong and you need to stop it, but you can't look away.

He is right about one thing, though: I'm not afraid of bullies.
Philip, check your fly: your pants are on fire.

Mar 20, 2011

Happy Birthday, Philip R. Klein

4 comments
Philip R. Klein will celebrate his 52nd birthday on Thursday, March 24, 2011.  

This information comes from his iMDB biography, which doesn't mention PRK Enterprises, Golden Triangle Dairy Queens, Philip's multiple defamation suits as both defendant and plaintiff, and the Southeast Texas Political Review.

Ironically, March is National Ethics Awareness Month, National March Into Literacy Month, National Mental Retardation Awareness Month, National Brain Damage Month,  and National Trisomy Awareness Month.

Other notable occurrences on Philip R. Klein's birthday:
  • In 1801, Alexander Romanov I was crowned emperor of Russia. In his later years, he became increasingly suspicious of everyone around him and eventually died under mysterious circumstances.

  • In 1930, Pluto was named a planet prematurely.

  • In 1937, a bus blew a tire, rammed into bridge, and killed 18 people in Salem, Illinois. The victims were members of a professional roller-skating unit, including a four-year old girl who may have been odiferous at the time of her tragic death.

  • In 1959, Prime Minister Gen. Abd al-Karim Qasim withdrew Iraq from the Baghdad Pact. This led directly to the first assassination plot by Saddam Hussein.

  • In 1962, Benny Paret was KOed in a welterweight title fight and died 10 days later.

  • In 1972, Great Britain imposed direct rule over Northern Ireland because of open hostility from the IRA, after British paratroopers killed 14 people during Bloody Sunday. This led to decades of violence.

  • In 1976, Argentine President Isabel Peron was deposed by the country's military

  • 1982, the USS Jacksonville collided with a Turkish freighter near Virginia less than a year after the submarine was launched.

  • In 1980, the archbishop of San Salvador, Oscar Romero, was murdered during mass.
Sam Jaffe, Richard Widmark, Peter Lorre, and Jules Verne all died on this day. Notable people who share Philip's birthday include Roscoe "Fatty" Arbuckle and Clyde Barrow. Clyde later robbed the Beaumont National Guard Armory on College Street.  

A new reader sent me some interesting documents concerning Klein v. Wide-Eyed Communications, which is indeed still in litigation.  The case is being heard by Judge Thad Heartfield in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. I'll have more on that in a few days.

Mar 17, 2011

Klein Gone Wild

8 comments
From the Southeast Texas Record (emphasis is mine):
Klein Investigations sues city of Beaumont, claims police harassing process servers

Klein Investigations & Consulting is suing the city of Beaumont, claiming police officers are harassing the company's process servers.

Klein Investigations, which is owned by political commentator and local blogger Philip Klein, filed the suit March 14 in Jefferson Court District Court.

In addition to investigative work, the company deals in civil process serving, dishing out lawsuits and subpoenas to area residents.

"On more than one occasion, officers of the Beaumont Police Department have accused process servers of criminal trespass and stalking ... that is, the defendants are trying to impose penal sanctions upon a lawful business within the state of Texas," the suit states.

"The criminal trespass warning demonstrates that there is an actual case or controversy that can be subjected to declaratory judgment."

A criminal trespass warning issued by BPD is attached to the suit. The name of the recipient has been redacted.

On top of declaratory judgment, Klein Investigations is seeking an award of court costs.
Beaumont attorney John Morgan represents the company.

Judge Gary Sanderson, 60th District Court, has been assigned to the case.

Case No. B189-589

Perhaps Philip will confirm or deny the rumors that his son is the star of this video, posted on the SET Political Review channel  via YouTube (UTUBE in Philip speak):

I've lost track of Philip's lawsuits. Counting this one, there are at least four (I think):

I'm also not sure if Klein is currently seeking any new judgements against disgruntled customers who won't pay for a private investigator that doesn't know the difference between trespassing and serving due process legally.

Mar 14, 2011

Bankruptcy and Philip R. Klein

9 comments
In recent weeks, Philip has reinvented his financial history again. From a self-written question on his Reader Mail Page:
Philip Klein has filed for bankruptcy. FALSE

This is an old one but good one meant to be put out on the net so that when perspective vendors or client's do a search this comes up. It is part of the lawsuit. I have never filed for bankruptcy.
In response, The Sam The Eagle Political Review published this document from July 1999 which revealed Philip's half-truth:

Philip R. Klein suffered a meltdown. He filed more motions in his silly lawsuit despite a stay issued by the Texas Supreme Court. In his new filings, he named more suspects and posted this editorial:
This morning a decision was made in our offices after review of a document that has been posted on a web site called "Sam The Eagle" web site. The document (1) reprints the Southeast Texas Political Review and 2) prints a PACER document purporting that "Philip Klein" has filed for bankruptcy. It further states that if you want to learn more about "Philip Klein's bankruptcies and his attempts to avoid creditors...." you can go to PACER and read more.

Here is the document that is posted with tags for the internet.
Klein's grainy and bloated image is omitted for bandwidth - see Sam's original page here
PRK continued:
  My first order of business to my legal counsel was to search PACER this morning for any bankruptcies that I have filed. As I already knew - I have never filed for bankruptcy. Never. And I have never avoided a creditor. I then ran a credit check on myself - and there are no bankruptcies on file and my credit is perfect. Further, the document filed was a document from a company called "PRK Enterprises, Inc." which is the parent company at the time of franchises for restaurants in Southeast Texas. There was an adversarial bankruptcy filing due to franchise fees and rights which PRK Enterprise won.

In lue
[sic] of such, a monetary settlement was made and all creditors were paid. At the time, and before the buyout, I was one of five stockholders to the company. Since that point and time, I have bought the entire company and it is now the parent company of this web site.
Philip sold the Southeast Texas Political Review to PRK Enterprises, Inc., for the sum of one dollar shortly after he was sued for defamation by Tom Gillam. You can read those filings here. Notice that Brent Coon is one of two attorneys suing Klein, which puts his preoccupation with Brent in proper perspective.

According to his bankruptcy filing (99-10415) in March 1999, there were 900 shares of common stock in PRK Enterprises, Inc., PRK owned 400, his minor children collectively owned 200, and PRK's ex-wife number one owned 200 shares. The remaining 100 shares were held by PRK Enterprises, Inc.

You can do the math, but I don't believe that Philip's young children had much to do with running PRK Enterprises, Inc. Regardless of my opinion, the actual filing does not support Philip's claim:
For those of you in North Orange County - a business adversarial Bankruptcy case is when a company is told they owe a debt, they are put on a deadline to pay the debt, they disagree with the debt, and file suit on the debt in Federal Court. The reason it goes into the bankruptcy court is 1) because it is a business fight, 2) there is a deadline that "if" the debt is not paid that the company could be forced to close its operations. In order to stay alive - the company forces in adversarial fashion to bring the parties to the table after they refuse to negotiate in good faith.
See the original filing for more clarification:

>

Perhaps PRK confused another bankruptcy filed in December 1996.

Philip stated in his editorial:
Factually, Philip Klein, has never filed for bankruptcy and this posting is considered an act of deformation.
Factually, Philip R. Klein acted as President of PRK Enterprises when he signed the bankruptcy filing:

The document outlines the total amount of outstanding debt, both secured and unsecured:

Readers can comment on the nature of those debts (intelligently, please) after reading the petition, but I enjoyed this company asset:

I'm not sure why PRK Enterprises, which owned six Dairy Queens at the time, would need a corporate yacht according to the original filing.

Acting upon his previous claims that I am Brent Coon and Sam the Eagle is Michael Neil Harrison, Philip claimed:
This morning - I have authorized my legal counsel to move the original 202 filing in court to a lawsuit. This morning - our legal counsel is preparing a lawsuit to be filed against GOOGLE, Inc., Michael Neil Harrison as well as a local lawyer and his law firm. The law needs to be researched regarding the proper party - but as soon as I have that information I will pass it along to you.

I am not immune to criticism. I accept that. But this is a case of pure anger and hate. Sam The Eagle Web Site continues to call itself parody - they have now lost that argument. They are clearly attempting something far greater than parody. And they will now be held to the standards of the law they expect us to be held to.
Wrong again.

Mar 10, 2011

Hey, Philip. C'mon in!

2 comments
From the KFDM Forum:

Re: A Thread for Dannis (Re: Mr. Klein's postings)
posted at 3/10/2011 8:35 PM CST

guspillsbury
Posts: 7
First: 10/26/2010
Last: 3/10/2011
To Mousecatmama: I respect your opinions, especially since you and I agree on many things like ethical behavior. 

My problem is with Philip R. Klein, who consistently distorts the truth or blatantly lies, many times to further his own personal agendas. This is intentionally misleading to the more weak-minded like Dannis and highly unethical for one who considers himself a "citizen journalist." 

His latest editorial concerning Lindsey Brackin is simply perverse. This has nothing to do with politics in Southeast Texas; instead, it's a knee-jerk reaction to criticism by a Neanderthal.

In another age, Klein would have bared his yellowed and missing teeth, beat his blubbery chest, grunted loudly, and perhaps thrown his own feces at Lindsey.

Philip, please join the discussion, I know you're reading this.

To Dannis:   Dannis, you seem to know more about Sam and I than even Philip R. Klein pretends. If you're certain that your preposterous allegations are true, expose our identities. 

Philip has offered a $1,000 dollar reward for our identities in the past, so by all means, collect the money! And you can definitively prove that PRK really does pay his debts on time! We're rooting for you!

But, please don't parrot Klein's silly speculation, since Sam and I have already addressed this many times on our respective blogs. And don't try to weasel out by claiming we might sue you - we won't. We're not litigious, you have no idea who we are, and criticizing public fools anonymously is a basic right and tradition in our republic. 

Sincerely,

Gus