Apr 3, 2011

On Philip R. Klein's Credibility

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 piñata” 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.]

No comments :