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.]