Thursday, January 19, 2006

From the FBStar: Appeal filed with Texas Supreme Court to Keep Sienna Bloggers Anonymous

Jan. 18th

This is the latest news from the FB Star on the SLAPP suit (Strategic lawsuit against public participation -- used often by developers in land use disputes). The recent abc13 (KTRK) coverage has generated a great deal of internet chatter about anonymous blogging and we will include a piece below the FB Star which came in from Chicago a few days ago. This thing keeps growing..and growing. According to some rumors a group of homeowners within Sienna will soon challenge the May edict (new covenant) on information dissemination during the campaign season with backing from a constitutional lawyers group. We will get the news out on this as it breaks.

Heres the Star article by Barbara Fulenwider (click link above for direct link):

Appeal filed with Texas Supreme Court
to keep Sienna bloggers anonymous
By Barbara Fulenwider

The lawyer for Matthew Feinberg, a Sienna resident who was the web site administrator for several blogs on which Sienna residents criticized Sienna/Johnson Development (SJD), has filed an appeal with the Texas Supreme Court asking that the deposition Feinberg was ordered to give should not be made public.

“The purpose for filing the appeal with the Texas Supreme Court is we want to keep the names Feinberg gave during deposition off the record and out of the public eye,” said Laura Hermer, cooperating attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas.

“It is our contention that Matthew Feinberg ought not have been ordered to disclose the identities of individuals who were speaking anonymously unless they had met a certain criteria for production of their identity,” Hermer said.

“This appeal could set precedent in Texas. It’s a case of first impression, which means that the issue has not yet come up in Texas. There are no precedents on the matter in the state. There are in other states but not in Texas,” she said.

“In one sense, it’s moot for Matthew because he was deposed. In another sense, a suit has been filed against Chris Calvin by Sienna Johnson and we can prevent that deposition, with the names that Matthew provided, from being used in that suit. That would be a good thing and would make the issue other than moot,” Hermer said.

The appeal, she said, “has to do with the fact of whether Sienna Johnson met the proper criteria and what that criteria might be for those names to be disclosed. In other states, it depends on the criteria. You can’t libel your neighbor or a business. If you are saying false things with malice, your anonymity won’t be protected.”

She said the question regarding the writing Sienna complained about (on the blogs) was did it rise to an appropriate level for disclosure of the names. To prove libel you have to prove malice. With a public official or corporation, the test for determining if someone is a public plaintiff is different. If Sienna meets the standard of being a public company, then they have to meet a higher standard to prove malice,” Hermer said.

She said she would definitely call the Sienna/Johnson suit against Calvin a SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) suit because “when you have a large company and you have an individual who is relatively powerless in comparison, certainly financially, and the individual is saying things the company doesn’t like, then the company is likely going to want to make that stop.

“One way this happens is filing a suit against them. The questions are did he (Calvin) do something that was actionable or not and do they have a genuine complaint against him or not,” she said.

Sienna/Johnson Development and Doug Goff, Sienna senior vice president, filed a lawsuit against Calvin on Dec. 13 in the 240th Judicial District Court claiming the defendant used “false, defamatory and disparaging speech” under “scores of fake names, aliases and impersonated identities to create a sham appearance of support and factual basis for untruths.”

Prior to this suit being filed, on Aug. 3, 2005, the plaintiff filed a Petition to Take Deposition Before Suit and served it on Feinberg and Calvin. The appeal to the Texas Supreme Court has to do with a district court judge’s decisions regarding Feinberg’s appeal requesting a protective order restricting the use or disclosure of the information he was compelled to disclose when he was deposed. It also has to do with setting precedent since “no Texas court has yet issued a written opinion concerning the right of Texans to speak anonymously on the Internet."

______________________________

From http://www.thebloggingjournalist.com/2006/01/blogging_under_.html

The Blogging Journalist

Saturday, January 14, 2006

Blogging Under 24 Names

Is it unethical to blog on a single subject under 24 names to make it appear that others are blogging about a cause you hold dear?

Ted Oberg of KTRK ABC13 Eye Witness News of Houston, Texas reported January 13, 2006 that, bloggerChris Calvin of Sienna Plantation, Texas is doing that, and it has gotten him and the Committee for Responsible Development, of which he co-chairs, sued by Sienna/Johnson Development, LP and Douglas Goff, senior vice president. See the Houston Chronicle article "Developer files lawsuit over Web site statements."

Stephen Palkot reported January 2, 2006 in the Fort Bend (Texas) Herald Coaster that,

Through the websites Missouri City Chatter and the now-defunct Sienna Talk and Missouri City Talk, Calvin has criticized developer Doug Goff of the Sienna/Johnson Development Corp., and has accused city council members of unethically bowing to his requests.
I couldn't find the websites or a cached version.
Sienna Plantation is "a major planned community" located about six miles from Marshall, Texas and about 20-miles from Houston.

Calvin, who owns a Sienna Plantation home, doesn't like the fact that Sienna/Johnson intend to put up hundreds of apartments "about a mile from his home," according to KTRK.

"You're going to overcrowd our schools," Calvin, executive editor of The Journal of Applied Educational Technology and "a professor a professor for several online universities," told Oberg. The developer of Sienna Plantation has a different perspective.

Oberg quotes Sienna/Johnson Attorney John Keville as saying: "Chris Calvin can say any opinion he wants as long as he puts his name on it. Chris Calvin can't be a mob of 30 people."

Oberg added: "It's the power of the Internet as an equalizer the developer says that forced them to sue. They admit much of what Calvin wrote was true or his opinion. But they say he deceived Internet readers when he created the sense that so many people shared his opinion."

"If it's one person saying it, let it be one person saying it," said Keville.

To read Oberg's report on the dispute, please see "Homeowner who assumed names to protest now faces lawsuit. Also

While blogging under many names on one subject may be misleading and unethical, I'd be surprised if Sierra Plantation prevails in this case.

Posted by Munir Umrani on Saturday, January 14, 2006 at 05:03 AM in Bloggers | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/4041163

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Blogging Under 24 Names:

Comments

To get updates from the committee of homeowners that the Johnson Development Co. of Houston, Sienna Plantation developer, are suing please visit http://missouricitychatter.blogspot.com . Also see SLAPP suits for this common tactic used by developers on individuals or groups that speak out on land use issues (see Pring & Cannen SLAPP: Getting Sued for Speaking Out).

This case was actually filed after a fairly successful petition drive in the community against the unwanted land use (1100+ homeowner signatures) and ethics complaints were reported regarding the mayor who pushed the initiative for the developer over the objections of many at several city council sessions in Missouri City, TX (see the cities website for video minutes on this from Feb 7th, 21st, June 6th, July 18th '05 sessions).

or google the term SLAPP suit. Apparently this tactic is used often by some development companys.

13 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

4:02 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It would seem to me that the press likes the sensational side of the story while missing the real issues being disputed.

4:04 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ck these out (under the heading of weird stories). Remember posts on SiennaTalk.com about this topic:

http://www.bushbusiness.com/law%20suit.htm

http://www.fortbendstar.com/Archives/2002_4q/121102/n_Woman%20files%20lawsuit%20against%20President.htm

http://www.rense.com/general32/charged.htm

http://www.rense.com/general63/strange.htm

http://www.democracymeansyou.com/columns/thoreau/7-24-03-bushs-clinton.htm

http://www.vestigialconscience.com/BushRapeSuit/CherrylAldave.htm

http://www.opednews.com/thoreau_more_info_on_the_bush_sexual_ass.htm

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4144.htm

http://www.williambowles.info/guests/2005/bush_rape.html

http://www.unknownnews.net/cache18.html

http://www.illuminati-news.com/more-on-schoedinger.htm

http://www.vestigialconscience.com/BushRapeSuit/margie_thread.htm

http://www.americanpolitics.com/20030724Thoreau.html


--Truth is stranger than fiction???

5:11 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's interesting none of them made into the main stream media.

6:40 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

8:59 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ck this one out from FBNow.com on the airport expansion project:

Is County Setting Precedent For Future Development?
A developer who lives in Harris County owns property here in Fort Bend County (Arcola) and wants the County to build a road (South Post Oak) through his property. I’m trying to understand if the County is looking to set a precedent for future development here, as they are clearly breaking away from normal protocol.

Normally, a developer is responsible for paying for 100% of the cost of constructing a road through his property, yet the County is looking to pay for 80% of the construction costs here. Why?

In addition, TxDOT has indicated that it doesn’t have the money to build all the roads needed in Fort Bend County. South Post Oak is not high on the priority list – in fact, it’s not even on the list. County Judge Hebert claims that this road is needed to provide critical relief for the overly-congested roadways for people living in Sienna when in fact, if you look at the traffic counts provided by the HGAC, McKeever currently has 200 cars/day with a projected count of 600 cars/day. Hardly critical, Judge.

Again, I’m trying to understand the logic to build South Post Oak/improve McKeever.

1) It would entail condemning at least 10 acres of a private subdivision which would not benefit whatsoever from this road being built. In fact, it would be an intrusion into their privacy, damage their property values, and erode the reason for moving out to the country in the first place. There would be additional inverse condemnation of Mrs. Neuhaus’ property, as the project detaches Duke Road access…this issue is not even being discussed.

2) It benefits the developer by the County paying 80% of the cost when other developers pay for 100%. Why is this developer different?

3) Why set such a HIGH priority for this road when there are clearly other roads in Fort Bend County that have much HIGHER SAFETY ISSUES in addition to ACTUAL TRAFFIC CONGESTION? Millions of dollars are being prioritized for this road over other roads, such as Harlem Road (the most dangerous road in Fort Bend County), Oilfield Road, and others.

4) Are future developers going to use this project as a precedence to ask for more County funding of their private road projects?

5) Why is this developer being treated differently than all other developers in this County? Could it be that this project is ESSENTIAL to that developer’s plan to expand his airport?

Judge Hebert, would you be so kind as to answer these questions? Your constituents want to know the real answers. The County SHOULD NOT be funding this road.

Thomas J. Hilton
Arcola

1 Chris Calvin, Ph.D. - Jan 19, 09:13 am
IMO Bob Hebert needs to hear from us the voters on this in ‘06. He has become involved in a number of issues that many would question, including myself. From the ECO-MUD Scandal internal investigation to the airport expansion project (using condemnation of private property), his opposition to HB914 (ethics legislation) and the list goes on. Hebert has been consistent in his support of the Houston special interests operating in our county. All one has to do is look at the list of campaign contributors on the back of his big colorful near full page ads he ran in the FB Star before anyone had even announced to run against him (I have a copy along with his campaign contributors list which anyone can get free via http://www.brazosriver.com/locals.htm )

Luckily we do have another local homeowner and former republican running against him this year in Prescott Small.

Prescott supports HB914 and further campaign finance disclosure rules and has sworn off special interest funding in an effort to take back local control here.

We have choices to make this year. Let’s make the right ones!

PS—Thanks Tom for covering this and keeping an eye on it. I know at least two Sienna based businesses on McKeever Rd. that will be forced out of operation because of this special favor you mention above!

2:33 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thought some of you would get a kick out of who is pulling Heberts strings (see article in the Herald-Coaster):

Hebert leads in campaign bucks

By Stephen Palkot

Campaign finance reports poured into the Fort Bend County Elections Administration Office on Tuesday, and County Judge Bob Hebert reported the most contributions of any county government candidate.

Tuesday was the final day to submit campaign finance reports for local candidates for a reporting period that began on July 1 and ended on Dec. 31.

Hebert, who is unopposed in the Republican primary and who faces a little-known Democratic candidate in the general election, has garnered $99,011 in six months. As of Dec. 31, he retained $137,794.09 in his campaign treasury, with a large portion of that money deriving from sizable contributions of local developers and firms that conduct business with the Fort Bend County government.

Carter and Burgess, an engineering firm, has been contracted by the county to conduct engineering work related to mobility bonds passed in 2000.

Other notable donors include Paul Cheng, the Dallas-based developer who in 2005 broke state records by contributing the high bid of $47 million for a 2,045-acre tract of land in northeast Fort Bend County that had been up for auction by the General Land Office. He, too, contributed $5,000.

Also on the list are Les Newton ($2,500), president of Sugar Land's Planned Community Developers, and accountant John Null ($5,000), a partner in the firm Null-Lairson LP.

According to his campaign finance reports, Hebert has spent large portions of that money at charitable events, such as the $5,800 he spent at an auction at 2005's Fort Bend County Fair and the $5,000 given to the American Red Cross for Hurricane Katrina relief.

In contrast, Prescott Small, Hebert's Democratic party challenger in the 2006 election, has raised and spent no funds as of Dec. 31.

County Court-at-Law No. 1

Two newly-opened judges' seats have also drawn large dollars for candidates.

Four Republicans and one Democrat are vying for the office of County Court-at-Law No. 1, which has been vacated by long-time judge Larry Wagenbach.

Stafford attorney Nina Schaefer, who announced her candidacy the earliest, drew a clear lead for the current reporting period, having raised $13,485 from July 1 to Dec. 31. Prosecutor Robert Yack reported contributions totaling $6,010, and Larry E. Thomas reported no contributions and only a $1,500 expenditure to cover the filing fee. Bud Childers, who announced his candidacy on Jan. 2, reports $2,500 in political contributions.

Schaefer's contributor list, like that of other judge candidates, includes a number of local attorneys who will likely be practicing cases before the election's victor. Richmond attorney Dick Tate made the largest contribution at $1,000, while attorneys Gary Franks ($500), Mike Orsak ($480) and David Showalter ($600) also contributed.

Expenditures include several charitable donations, and a contribution to herself. Schaefer reports an expenditure of $2,500 to "Nina Schaefer" for office space rental.

Yack's contributors include defense attorneys Ralph Gonzalez ($100) and Don Hecker ($250), and fellow prosecutors Fred Felcman ($75), Mike Elliott ($75) and David Newell ($250), among other donors.

His largest expenditure is $3,258 for campaign signs.

Democrat Rudy Velasquez drew a $1,000 contribution from Richmond attorney and Democratic Party activist Don Bankston, and that money was used to pay the $1,000 filing fee, according to his report.

Justice of the Peace, Precinct 3

Seeking the office of Justice of the Peace, Precinct 3 are Republican attorneys Ken Cannata and Nancy Lusk and Democrat Farham Shamsi.

Cannata clearly comes out on top for the current filing period, having received $14,010 and spent $16,176. He also has $5,750 outstanding from a loan to himself.

Making the largest donation to Cannata's campaign is Paul Kropf of Richmond, who donated $5,000. Other notable donors include Richmond developer and state representative hopeful Mike Baldwin ($500) and Precinct 4 Constable Troy Nehls ($100).

Expenses include fees paid to consultant Burt Levine, $1,547 for campaign brochures and a $1,140 donation to the Republican Party's picnic.

For her part, Lusk's contributors include attorneys Larry Harrison ($100), Ken Bryant ($100) and Joyce Phoenix ($250). Yet, her single largest contributions are from Massachusetts. Janice and Allen White of Centerville, Mass. each donated $1,000.

Katy Democrat Farham Shamsi raised no funds and spent $1,000 for his filing fee.

The remaining county races, including those for the county treasurer's office, the district attorney's office and the district clerk's offices will be featured in Friday's Fort Bend Herald.

6:07 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

11:27 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

10:49 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I heard the SJD response at the TX Sup. Ct. has been filed and they are now apparently claiming that Feinberg is involved with this as a frivilous case and are trying to injunct him too. That's interesting considering they initiated this process and now they're criticizing these people for trying to defend themselves (Feinberg, CRD and Calvin---who's next?).--What games!

--They aren't trying to silence anyone--right! . . ;-)

--I wonder what their friend Allen Owen would say. I think I will go ask him in front of the cameras this time!

10:51 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


the Pokemon Go Hacks is the one of

the best ios,android App tutuapp free store

to get thetons of free app and game. Panda

helper apk
Here the latest version of TutuApp of free.

2:00 AM  
Blogger bataiu said...

Try this amazing app Idle World Mod Apk

3:36 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Download Plants vs Zombies Free Mod
about some major ones.

6:59 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

POLLHOST POLL RESULTS:

POLLHOST POLL RESULTS:

 

Question: Do you trust Allen Owen, mayor of Missouri City, TX, to represent you rather than his Houston corporate backers?

 

Results:

 

3%  participating said yes  (n20)

 

91%  participating said no  (n573)

 

6%  participating responded not sure  (n39)

 

(N) sample =  632

 

Stay tuned as more surveys for coming elections are posted!

Web Statistics
Alienware Computers

This site covers the Missouri City, Texas and local vicinity. Copyright (c) c.calvin 2005-2010 ....you can contact the web-blog coordinator for MCC/CRD at responsible_dvlpmnt@yahoo.com