Apr 25, 2011

Under Subpoena: Philip R. Klein

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.

13 comments :

Anonymous said...

Gus, I would pay admission to see Klein questioned on the witness stand. Is that hearing open to the public?

Anonymous said...

Klein would charge admission if he could, but you can attend...it's a court hearing, but get there early because I betcha it'll be standing room only.

Anonymous said...

How much are the sky box seats?

Anonymous said...

I wouldn't pay shit to see Philip R. Klein anywhere anyway. What a goofball.

Anonymous said...

I'm be there to shoot the middle finger at Klown when he takes the stand.

Anonymous said...

bet he sneaks in through the back door.

Anonymous said...

Then the court bailiff states, "put your left hand on the bible and raise your right hand, do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you if you don't, your fat ass will be before the TxDPS/Private Security Bureau."

Anonymous said...

with each stroke of the keyboard, klein gets stupider and stupider. i can't believe kbtv puts his face on tv.

Anonymous said...

May 27th: "You bet we will watch this one". "Yes we will".

Anonymous said...

I doubt he will show up. Didn't he claim the last time that he wasn't legally served?

Anonymous said...

Klein is nuttier than a port-a-potty at the Floresville peanut festival.

Anonymous said...

Gus, word spreading around courthouse, keep us updated on time.

Anonymous said...

PRK gets a First Amendment lesson:
http://www.setexasrecord.com/arguments/234986-philip-klein-gets-a-first-amendment-lesson-about-equal-protection