Johnson Development Senior Vice President Doug Goff Makes Contradictory Statements in Deposition for Fraud, Trade Deception, Harassment & Negligence
MCC Opinion/Editorial
Johnson Development Senior Vice President Doug Goff Makes Contradictory Statements in Deposition for Fraud, Trade Deception, Harassment & Negligence Law Suit (SLAPP-back)
In August 2005 Sienna Plantation developer, Doug Goff, initiated discovery in a case that has been characterized as a SLAPP-suit (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) for Sienna area homeowners efforts to oppose the up to 2700 apartments approved in a controversial 5-2 Missouri City Council vote in February ‘05. The early phases of this case centered on the deposition of two Sienna homeowners over statements made on the now defunct SiennaTalk & MissouriCityTalk.com website which were forced off the air (internet) through apparent actions by JDC attorney John Keville. The website administrator, Matthew Feinberg, appealed the courts original decision to the Texas Supreme Ct. to no avail in the early discovery phases of this case.
In December, as a result of these earlier depositions, Johnson Development (Larry Johnson, President) through their attorney Mr. Keville of Howrey LLP of Houston filed a defamation/libel case against a Sienna Plantation family here in Missouri City and continues to seek out names of others who participated. The coverage of this case seemed to peak in January and February of 2006 when the “War of Words” story ran on Houston’s abc13 reported by Ted Oberg.
On February 13, 2006, a counter-suit (characterized as a SLAPP-back by legal experts) was filed in the 240th Fort Bend County District Court against Johnson Development and Senior V.P. Doug Goff for Fraud, Harassment, Trade Deception and Negligence. As a result of the SLAPP-back case, today’s deposition, which was rescheduled three times, was ordered by the court.
Preliminary findings from this deposition reveals alleged discrepancies from earlier claims made in an Opinion/Editorial piece released through FortBendNow.com earlier this year where-by Johnson Development representatives (JDC) made certain claims they said were based on the first deposition of homeowners. See some of the clarification on these contradictions below:
Assertions-
Assertion 1- JDC Senior Vice President Doug Goff reportedly admitted that he never asked Dr. Calvin or other homeowners to stop posting on the apartments and other development issues prior to initiating the SLAPP-suit.
Assertion 2- Goff further reportedly made certain admissions that homeowners may not have been fully informed , when purchasing, of the pending apartments (numbers and actual location) coming to Sienna Plantation in the PD-8 region.
Assertion 3- Additionally, Goff allegedly admits no direct knowledge for claims of some defamatory statements he reportedly made in their earlier suit (based on hear-say).
Assertion 4- Goff was unable to produce some requested posts or copies to support his claim of defamation as was stated in the earlier media releases.
Assertion 5- The JDC representative reportedly admitted that he had served on the Fort Bend Economic Development Council. This service and much of the work they do is partially tax supported and thus makes those representatives “public figures” and subject to public discourse.
Assertion 6- Goff apparently couldn’t name what if any social or monetary damages were caused by the targets in this SLAPP suit.
Assertion 7- The JDC V.P. allegedly claimed that no more than 5-10 residents were ever involved with the “No More Apts” petition drive in Missouri City (fully aware of the 1100+ area residents who signed off on the petition drives and scores of others who attended city council sessions on this concern, along with an election that produced this as one of its major issues locally).
Assertion 8- Mr. Goff reportedly admitted not knowing all the boards and entities of which he may be a member.
Assertion 9- Several times during the testimony Goff appeared to contradict earlier statements released in a FBN.com piece where claims were made that only one Sienna homeowner was involved in the “No More Apts.” petition drive.
Assertion 10- Goff allegedly reported that all Sienna sales staff are briefed on development issues and changes on a regular basis.
Thus there is no reason information should be with-held from potential customers. Even though maps in the sales office only last summer were updated to reflect the current developer’s agreement.
Assertion 11- When reportedly asked if he had any knowledge of JDC or any affiliate hiring private investigators to look into homeowners backgrounds, Goff was quoted as saying “not to my knowledge”.
Summary
This is but a small accounting of the deposition of Senior V.P. Doug Goff and the hundreds of pages of transcript taken. On June 1st lawyer Keville (JDC legal rep.) will be attempting to seek out and attain an injunction through the 240th district court as this SLAPP & SLAPP-back suit progresses. At the deposition Mr Goff claimed to not be seeking to silence anyone’s right to free speech, but that would seem to contradict the actions by Keville (JDC lawyer).
STAY INFORMED AND KEEP IN TOUCH!
posted by responsible_dvlpmnt at Wednesday, May 31, 2006
11 Comments:
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Background from earlier FBN piece and comments:
1 Chris D. Calvin, Ph.D. - Oct 28, 11:45 pm My Response (opinion) To Doug, Larry & Chad:
As usual they have taken the limited information that suits them from the deposition and released it against orders of the court (see comments on the original articlehttp://www.fortbendnow.com/news/317/fight-over-apartments-could-restrict-free-speech-on-the-web, do they get special privileges in this case that I or the others don’t?).
Understanding that Doug has made individual campaign contributions to the Fort Bend County Chief Judge Bob Hebert just this year (see brazosriver.com for .pdf files), and the added economic interest they have in this county, which complicates the local picture, may precipitate a need to move this case out of this area (where all appeals took place, mind you, before civil claims had even been filed we’ve paid out $20-25K in just 2 months, is this justice and for whom? I don’t know many families that have pockets as deep as Johnson Development Co.). We will look into that option as this proceeds. Obviously the tactics of SJD/JDC haven’t changed but I would suggest looking up SLAPP suits where these approaches are common (and developers use them most often—Texas has defeated SLAPP/tort reform 4 times with the help of the developer PAC in Austin).
The tactic of smearing the messenger when you can’t stop the message is well documented. Since JDC/SJD initiated this course of action I find it hard to blame the constitutional attorneys for fighting so hard to protect so many (again this is my opinion—as if that needs to be stated since this is a response to his editorial).
As for the other 270 registered users of the old SiennaTalk.com site I can asure you that we will continue to fight the access by SJD/JDC to that site. I would also ask readers of this biased editorial above to consider why would anyone be forced to post anonymously in this environment while circulating a petition??? What could we people possibly be fighting for in Sienna Plantation and Missouri City??? And why shouldn’t Sienna Plantation residents have at least minority voting representation on their own residents association board like other area communities? After all we (the 9-10,000 residents) pay for the association to the tune of almost $3 million a year. Those have been and currently are the issues (minus the major smoke-screen going on).
We can’t vote in the city elections (and these people decide our fate everyday through the developers agreement with JDC/SJD) and we don’t have voting voice in our own neighborhood. Not just my agenda Doug, but many have brought this up at the annual meetings and your developer updates sessions here in Sienna. I would like to suggest an authentic more proactive/positive public relations formula would have averted much of this.
My family and I have only lived here 2 years. What will future residents and current residents face with you taking your current/former customers to court?
The research literature on SLAPPs (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation, see Canan & Pring, 1996) supports the notion that when left unchallenged they breed more cases (a good template to keep people from speaking out). Much of this and more will be addressed over the coming months and hopefully all of the truth will emerge (not just their truth)!
And as usual the editorial above ignores the 100s of people that attended the many city council sessions and the 1100+ who signed the petition against SJD/JDCs 2700 apartments over a 3 month period coming to this community along with the taxing impact and other negatively related issues. Naturally it’s all Calvins doing, scapegoating seems to be a tool of the trade I guess.
*Due to the court order over this case (specifically the deposition) I can’t comment or share my slant on their limited statements above but much will come out as this moves forward.
Thanks for listening to my two cents worth and stay in touch and keep informed!
2 Matthew Feinberg - Oct 29, 11:24 am Mr. Goff.. Really!??? If you don’t have any intention on suing me then why won’t you instruct your lawyer Mr. Keville to agree to an agreement to not sue me. We have been waiting more than a week and a half for an answer!
Put it in writing and make if official. In other words, put actions behind your words or they will mean nothing.
I have instructed my attorneys to fight and appeal every legal decision based on my rights and the rights of all the legitimate users of my site(s) of free and anonymous speech. If you choose we can take this issue to the State Supreme Court. I am willing to go that far, are you willing to go that far and waste your money? It is costing me nothing.
If you really believe what you are spouting then you will relieve me of all liability and let me and my family go on with our lives. I would even suggest that you invite me to re-open my missouricitytalk.com site if you actually believe in what you are saying. All I wanted to do was provide a community service and a space for people to discuss community issues. What is so wrong with that?
Matthew Feinberg
3 Resp. Dvlpmnt. - Oct 30, 03:31 pm Hello,
Naturally the developer has some “special” privilege to share information from the court protected depositions? We won’t violate the court protective order but we will respond to some of the misinterpretations of the 400-500 pages of transcript taken.
Some clarification first:
The deposition used in this case by JDC/SJD attorney John Keville and Doug’s subsequent interpretation of it is based on his opinion of the findings and not a courts or juries. He is attempting to base his limited claims on several hundred pages of testimony…which may be inaccurate and certainly based on his OPINION of the transcript..NOT fact. Remember this deposition was rather one-sided, expensive and brought by the SJD/JDC crowd and does not allow other witnesses or cross-examination by the target/defendant (which is still unnamed at this juncture of PRE-TRIAL discovery). Dr. Calvin was named as a witness on this documentation (which seems, IMO, to conflict with statements in Doug’s editorial too).
*This case is a template borrowed from SLAPP cases which have been used by many developers around the country to silence groups (punish them) and individuals engaged in public debate (such as land use issues). See the research on this previously posted on SLAPP cases.—The most common claim by developers in these cases is DEFAMATION/DISPARAGEMENT. The intent is to “CHILL” the community (silence them). It’s a high stakes game but the developers in these cases, that aren’t settled early, usually lose (as high as 80%). Many states and the U.S. courts have anti-SLAPP statutes, however TX does not (defeated 4 times by the developer PAC lobby in Austin). The purpose for the corporation filing the SLAPP is to inflict maximum financial harm on the target (which IMHO appears to have already happened in this case $20-25K in two months).
– The following claim by Doug (as a representative of SJD/JDC) is another example of misinformation on the part of the Goff editorial:
“3. The alleged escalation of legal costs was not caused by SJD, but by the attorneys representing Mr. Calvin and Mr. Feinberg. Mr. Feinberg was represented by the ACLU and they repeatedly filed motions against the depositions going forward in three different courts including the Texas Court of Appeals. Ultimately, all three courts have rejected the legal claims presented by Mr. Calvin, Mr. Feinberg and the ACLU. If Free Speech rights were truly an issue here, then at least one of the courts would likely have agreed with them and the ACLU. But to say in some of the comments following the story that the Free Speech rights of Sienna Plantation residents are in jeopardy is ludicrous and Mr. Calvin knows this.”
The statement above from the OPINION piece offered by Doug states several erroneous claims. First the appeals were filed by Ms. Hermer (Feinberg’s attorney) and the constitutional experts, not Jeff Singer, Dr. Calvin’s attorney.—error1
Error2…IMO the final court appeal ruled that since the depositions had already taken place that the arguments were moot (Ruiz did not allow an extension for the last appeal to be effective). So the case was sent back to the court of origin (Ruiz’s ct.). This is not a victory for Doug’s attorney or a ruling against free speech as implied above. The judge (from the same state district as the other appeals…and ct of origin) simply stated the depositions had passed.
*As anyone knows who follows SLAPP cases keeping the deposition fishing expedition from happening is crucial to keeping these cases from getting dragged into, what experts call, “fact quagmire” (arguing over each statement made and its intent). According to the research when depositions have been allowed the financial damage to the target/targets and the length of these trials extends quite a bit. In most states with anti-SLAPP statutes these cases are thrown out before deposition (which institutes the primary financial harm/punishment in pretrail).
If these facts above are misleading then how many of the other ones in the editorial are too. *More fact quagmire probably. . . . ;)
**If you’d like another opinion on this or other area concerns then please e-mail us at responsible_dvlpmnt@yahoo.com and we encourage you to speak out on issues that impact you!
More:
Opinion/Analysis
Sienna/Johnson: Case Is About Restoring Communication Between Real People, Not Internet Imposters
On December 13, 2005, Sienna Johnson Development filed a lawsuit against Mr. Chris Calvin. Sienna/Johnson is asserting claims for defamation, business disparagement, slander and tortuous interference stemming primarily from Mr. Calvin’s deceptive use of the Internet to damage the Sienna Plantation™ community and Sienna/Johnson Development Company.
Sienna/Johnson does not take this action lightly. Before the suit was filed, Sienna/Johnson sought the deposition of Mr. Calvin to hear his side of the story. At the deposition, it was discovered that he makes up “facts,” posts them on websites using one identity, responds to the “fact” using another fake identity, and then discusses the “fact” among several other fake identities. This gives the impression that many people share his viewpoints. Sienna/Johnson found that often it is only one person having a conversation: Mr. Calvin talking to himself through aliases. People who research the Sienna Plantation™ community on the Internet should not be misled this way. It is a cowardly maneuver to dodge responsibility for making false and disparaging statements.
After the deposition, Mr. Calvin was offered a very simple solution — (1) acknowledge that in his deposition and while under oath, he admitted to the making of false statements using fabricated identities, and (2) don’t make any more posts about Sienna/Johnson or its employees unless he uses his real name. Mr. Calvin refused. Worse, he sought to require Sienna/Johnson to negotiate with him about issues concerning the Sienna Plantation™ community. Sienna/Johnson will not negotiate with anyone who has admitted to as much unlawful fabrication as Mr. Calvin has.
Now, Mr. Calvin needs to be held accountable for the defamation, the disparagement, the untruths and the innuendo that have been his stock-in-trade.
This case is about restoring truthful communication between real people, not Internet imposters. Mr. Calvin has tried to twist this into an issue about his “no apartment” petition. Nothing could be further from the truth. For Mr. Calvin, the whole apartment issue seems to be a “cause” even though he has admitted to knowing that apartments could be built in Sienna Plantation™ before he bought his home in the community.
Sienna/Johnson recognizes that real people — not a series of fabricated Internet people — can have differing views related to apartments and other issues and welcomes open discussion. When any resident has come to Sienna/Johnson and asked questions, Sienna/Johnson has tried to respond quickly and honestly to address the issue as best as possible. But the idea of Mr. Calvin fabricating a mob of support for his own personal agenda is harmful not just to Sienna/Johnson, but to the Sienna Plantation™ community as a whole.
Many people use the Internet to research information before they buy in a community. Based on Mr. Calvin’s ongoing charade, it is possible that some people may have decided against purchasing a home in Sienna Plantation™. Ultimately, if left unchecked, such massive misinformation could affect the property values of all Sienna Plantation™ residents.
Finally, Sienna/Johnson will not respond to Mr. Calvin’s daily barrage of aliased messages spinning the issue as one of free speech and trying to promote fear in other Internet users. Sienna/Johnson has never sought the identities of other website users, and thus far, every court has agreed with us on our course of conduct. We believe the law supports this case and we are prepared to present all evidence necessary to substantiate these claims in court — and not in the media or on websites.
Sienna/Johnson Development
Missouri City
1 Matthew Feinberg - Dec 17, 08:42 pm
What Sienna/Johnson is not telling you is that there are “real” people that do not agree with the plans/actions of SJD or the Missouri City government. Dozens of people attended multiple City Council meetings to voice their displeasure about the apartments. More than 200 “real” people actually used my website and dozens of them spoke out against the apartments, many of them anonymously (which is their right to do so). Many more wrote letters to the editors of the Fort Bend Sun and Fort Bend Star opposing the apartments and the actions of the developers. Many more wrote me emails in support of my fight to keep the right to assemble and anonymous free speech.
What Sienna/Johnson also fails to tell you is that there was another individual that had a dozen or more aliases that also posted on the site, however, they have failed to go after that person even after I told them about it during depositions.
What Sienna/Johnson also fails to tell you is that Sienna has amended their covenant to include rules that specifically limits assembly and free speech in or near Sienna.
What Sienna/Johnson also fails to tell you is that they have actively and are still trying to find the identities of “ALL” anonymous users of my site(s).
What Sienna/Johnson also fails to tell you is that Sienna had the apartment plans on file for many years but did not have a road sign in place where the apartments were going to be. The sign until this summer actually said something about commercial development. Sienna never had the apartments in any of their literature or website. Sienna’s representatives even when asked told people that no apartments were being built.
There are many other things that are not being told.
No wonder so many people are either afraid to speak out or use anonymous identities. They don’t want to get sued!
People also have the right not to be afraid to speak out. Many states are passing laws to stop these type of cases. What Goff and Keville is doing is using a tactic call SLAPP (Strategic lawsuit against public participation). Anti-SLAPP laws have failed to be passed here in Texas. That will change soon.
If this were actually about getting back to communication Sienna would actually communicate. Instead they continually surprise residents with clandestine committees holding secret meetings and secret meetings where decisions where made to increase annual dues. They use loop holes in the civil code to bring residents in to court and sue them when they disagree. If Sienna lost money or deals it is due to their own poor public relations skills and shameful actions against their own residents.
This suit against a resident of their very own community is not only shameful, it is evil, and does nothing restore anything. It only further chills free speech in the area. If Goff is serious about restoring communications he would hire a PR firm and not an attorney!
2 Chris Calvin, Ph.D. - Dec 18, 03:21 pm
I won’t continue to respond to Goff and Mr. Keville, SJD/JDC lawyers, information spin. He had and does continue to play the verbiage game and knows full well this is about a “strike suit” (or better known as a SLAPP suit). We will expose the real deceptions as this moves through the courts and the possible appeals. We can not afford this case and we did not instigate it. It was brought and planned out by Mr. Keville’s clients who have been using the legal system to silence opposition to aspects of the SJD/JDC development plan which has been kept from us their customers for some time.
The websites they are continuing to focus on are an extension of the public debate (thus protected speech). All conversations in the comment threads are opinions responding to a factual event or claim and not news items, but the initial posts were based on the best information available and often not coming from our developer or their hired management team until after the fact. Often they would attempt to correct us after releasing what info we had. One excellent example was the proposed SP firestation #2 delay in April ‘05. A local HOA board member contacted us and informed us that discussions were going on about the possibility of pushing back the building of that station (based on the developer’s agreement). These meetings were going on behind the scenes with the city and the developer (many of you remember this). This info was released through the website and after its release a letter from the city manager came announcing that he was solely responsible for this discussion (this was posted on Siennanet.com). Of course our developer, who knew this was going on did not post this information to us over the Siennanet.com website before we found out about it. We all pay for this access through our dues and should receive this info prior to hearing about it through other outside sources.
This is just one excellent example. Lawyer Keville also claims that I wanted them to negotiate with me on the second grouping of apartments, voting representation on the SPRAI board and/or the other settlement requests. The truth is they sent only one offer and we only responded once and they told us that if we didn’t accept the first draft then they would sue us (as they have done). If you all want I can post all the drafts and information here or through some other media source. I have all the copies.
The goal of the petition drive and establishing alternative communications into Sienna Plantation was deliberate because all current communications is centrally controlled by SJD/JDC, our developers. The information that was and is being released on http://missouricitychatter.blogspot.com is as accurate as possible at the time of release (we usually check via 2-3 sources first). The comments are the opinions and reflections based on those releases. We encouraged anonymous logins to protect those visiting, reading and posting and continue to encourage this.
Stay informed and keep in touch!-Dr. Calvin
3 respon_dvlpmnt - Dec 28, 01:40 pm
Hi Matt,
And what lawyer Keville also fails to mention is that they added all those that are on, or have participated with the Committee for Responsible Development (30-40 Sienna & Sienna Area homeowners) over the months to the law suit (SLAPP suit). . .Of course they aren’t trying to silence or chill the community with these actions—...right?
They keep claiming they were only after Dr. Calvin, but keep adding at first the 272 users of SiennaTalk.com and later the committee (30-40 area homeowners). I’m just surprised they haven’t gone after the 1100+ petition signers too for their friend Mayor Owen of Missouri City.—Maybe they will?
4 SP1 - Dec 31, 06:48 pm
Along with the recent non-membership approved 6% increase in annual fees to nearly $800 (taxation without representation) by the Sienna non-resident developer only HOA board we now have a new list of fees that the membership did not approve here. I sure wish we could vote this crowd out in the coming elections:
I found it interesting that there’s now a list posted on Siennanet for “deed restriction” violations. It would be nice to see it made available to prospective buyers…
Schedule of Sienna Plantation Fines (for public edification)
SCHEDULE OF FINES
As permitted under Article III, Paragraph C, Section 6, Enforcement, of the Bylaws, SRPAI Board of Directors has the right to set rules and regulations, and impose fines if necessary to achieve compliance. Below are the fines that were recommended by volunteers and approved by The Board associated with some common violations. Fines may be levied upon observance of the violation and may continue until problem is corrected. These categories are for reference only and may apply to other situations. Fine amounts may be increased at the discretion of the Hearing Advisory Committee (HAC) or SPRAI Board of Directors. All fines are per item.
Payment of the fine amount does not grant a variance for the violation. All violations must be corrected to come into compliance. If there is a subsequent violation of the same rule the fine amount will double with each subsequent violation.
•Broken driveways or walkways
$50.00 per month
•Certificate of Compliance not requested
$100.00 one time fine
•Decorative embellishments without approval
$50.00 per month
•Excessive pets, barking dogs or other noise from animals
$50.00 per month
•Holiday decorations past deadline
$50.00 per month
•Improper Signage
$25.00 per inspection
•Lawn Maintenance $50.00 per week
•Livestock or poultry kept on property $25.00 per day
•Operating a business out of home in violation of declaration $125.00 per month
•Major house or property repairs needed $100.00 per month
•Mildew on Property
$50.00 per month
•Minor house or property repairs needed $50.00 per month
•Modifications not per approved plans $100.00 per month
•Modifications made without approval $100-500 per month
•Non-approved window treatments $50.00 per month
•Property/street used for storage of unauthorized vehicles or other items boats, trailers,
RVs, basketball goals, etc. $25.00 per day
•Trash Can Public View $10.00 per inspection
•Unapproved exterior lights or light spilling onto adjacent properties
$50.00 per month
SPRAI HAS THE RIGHT TO MAKE CHANGES TO THIS POLICY AT ANY TIME WITHOUT NOTICE
Yet more: Activist Slaps Back In Countersuit Against Sienna Developer
by Bob Dunn, Feb 13, 2006, 11 03 am
Countering the defamation lawsuit filed against him by Sienna/Johnson Development, community activist Chris Calvin now accuses the developer of fraud and negligence in selling him a lot in the Sienna Plantation neighborhood.
Also named in the counterclaim, filed last week by attorney Jeffrey Singer, is Sienna/Johnson Senior Vice President Douglas Goff and three other related business entities: Sienna/Johnson North, LP; Sienna/Johnson North GP, L.L.C.; and Sienna/Johnson Development GP, L.L.C.
In the counterclaim, Calvin also accuses the defendants of deceptive trade practices and of filing a groundless lawsuit against him.
Calvin states in the claim that he and his wife bought a lot in Sienna Plantation in November of 2002, in part based on “certain representations” that included “the extent to which certain portions of the community would be used for recreational purposes. In fact, one or more of the Sienna entities have now abandoned the plan for certain recreational areas and has designated such sites for other purposes, including construction of multi-family dwellings.”
Calvin began objecting to Sienna Plantation plans for building apartments, both publicly (in Missouri City Council meetings) and on web site discussion forums. This objection, he states in his counterclaim “resulted in the filing of the plaintiff’s petition in this case against him.”
Sienna/Johnson and Goff filed suit against Calvin and an associated organization, the Committee for Responsible Development, in December, accusing him of defamation, business disparagement, public nuisance and “tortuous interference with prospective contract.”
The suit also seeks a permanent injunction to prevent Calvin and his organization “from making any statements under any pseudonyms” regarding the developers or their affiliates.
Calvin has characterized Sienna/Johnson’s actions as typical of a SLAPP suit strategy – a legal tactic in which a business entity tries to blunt criticism by burdening opponents with the cost of a legal defense.
Sienna/Johnson attorney John Keville, however, has said the developer tried to settle its dispute with Calvin without filing suit. It’s main complaint was that he had been making comments on web forums under several different aliases. So many, Keville said, that Calvin made it appear a large number of people supported his critical views of Sienna/Johnson, when that wasn’t really the case.
Calvin has said he believes what he posted on web sites “is protected free speech and we do have the right to disagree publicly (anonymously or not) with public figures. They don’t have to like what we are saying. I’m, however, not responsible for any unintended consequences regarding their corporate interests or profits as a result of this public debate and poor public relations management.”
In his counterclaim, Calvin says Johnson/Sienna filed their suit against him”in bad faith and/or for the purpose of harassment.” He therefore seeks unspecified sanctions against the defendants, and attorneys’ fees and costs.
Prior to the lawsuit, Sienna/Johnson filed a petition in district court seeking to depose Calvin and Matthew Feinberg, operator of the web sites on which Calvin posted. The depositions proceeded, despite protestation and legal appeals by Feinberg’s attorneys, which included representatives of the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas.
Late last month, the Texas Supreme Court denied a petition by Feinberg seeking to have his deposition sealed to protect the identities of his web posters.
“The question Mr. Feinberg wishes to raise is whether he can be required to disclose the identity of anonymous web site users in a pre-suit deposition,” Sienna/Johnson noted in its response to Feinberg’s Supreme Court petition. “That question is moot because Mr. Feinberg appeared at his deposition and answered questions (and revealed only that he did not know any such identities).”
The high court apparently agreed.
1 - - Feb 14, 04:46 am
Background on this strike case:
Johnson Development SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) case against own residents begins.—
http://www.fortbendnow.com/news/317/fight-over-apartments-could-restrict-free-speech-on-the-web·
Allen Owens Involvement in this case?—http://www.fortbendnow.com/opinion/351/an-open-letter-to-the-missouri-city-mayor
Johnson Development SLAPP suit against own residents adds homeowners committee and asks for maximum damages allowable by law.
http://www.fortbendnow.com/news/487/sienna-plantation-developers-sue-community-activist-for-defamation
Sienna-Johnson Development Co. supports road diversion which will aid airport expansion/flights over Sienna Plantation.
http://www.fortbendnow.com/opinion/544/raising-a-red-flag-over-arcola
Feinberg appeals case to protect homeowners from exposure by Johnson Development. SLAPP suit continues.
http://www.fortbendnow.com/news/548/missouri-city-case-over-anonymous-web-postings-appealed-to-texas-supreme-court
TX. Supreme Ct. refuses to act on the petition upholding lower courts decision providing inadequate protections for SiennaTalk.com participants (homeowners in Sienna). Court also refuses to hear Johnson Development lawyers arguments on attempts to injunct/sanction resident’s attorneys, homeowners or the claim of frivolous appeal (not a victory for Keville and JDC).
http://www.fortbendnow.com/news/645/texas-supremes-side-with-siennajohnson-deny-bid-to-seal-deposition
-For more on this and the fight against Arcola airport expansion/road diversion courtesy of Bob Hebert, FAA, Jaime Griffith, Johnson Dev. Co (Sienna/Johnson) and Mayor Gipson visit http://missouricitychatter.blogspot.com .
2 Carlos Krystof - Feb 15, 04:12 pm
I moved to Sienna at the end of 2002. I was told straight up that apartments were going in. Beyond that I was told any future plans were subject to change. Case in point, I am very disappointed about the removal of the golf course from Sienna South. Will this bring my property value down? Will apartments? It is very unlikely. As it stands Sienna property is about 20-30% higher than neighboring communities. That is becuase Sienna is second only to the Woodlands in size, and they have a master plan that includes everything from apartments, to schools, 3000 acres of parks, sports fields, playgrounds, retail, commercial, a hospital, a community college, a library, recreation facilities, pools, horse stables, and lush landscaping of 100s of acres of common areas. By the way, property in the Woodlands is 20 – 30% higher than Sienna. Anyone who feels decieved by their builders or Sienna has the option of the selling their property and may even come out a head. As a Sienna resident for many years I do not appreciate the publicity and stink raised over the apartments or making it appear that the whole community was against it. They will be high quality apartments that will serve a basic need of the community. Thank you.
3 Right To Be - Feb 15, 05:42 pm
Go getem Chris!!!
4 expandingairport - Feb 16, 05:48 am
And I suppose they also told you about the expanding airport and increased jet traffic that will come as a result of your developers support of the road diversion and airport expansion?
Of course (sarcasm intended) increased density, increased jet traffic over Sienna and surrounding communities is welcomed?
Most people by homes as part of their portfolio for retirement and expect consistent return. They also purchase because of the school system. Apartments do not add value to school taxing districts—they over-crowd them as has been historically documented. Whether or not all Sienna residents supported the petition drive which garnered over 1100+ signatures is irrelevant. The reason home values currently are high is because Sienna is a new neighborhood. Travel up a few exits and see this same mix in action and assess those property values (2-3% increase in a market that has seen 8% or more). Take a look at Quail Valley just a few miles from you all. Home values are flat and they are trying to sell off parts of their golf course.
Planning..planning..planning! We don’t see any apartments here in Riverstone, another masterplan or Lake Olympia.
Check your facts first before making such claims. I believe a recent article by Mr. Wiley of the Greater Fort Bend Econ. Dev. Council stated it well when he expressed his deep concern over the excessive development of apartments in this county. The 2700 allowed into the Missouri City community (specifically the Sienna apts) almost matches the growth of all the apts. over the past 5 years of the entire county.
As far as changing plans goes maybe they shouldn’t call them masterplanned communities anymore if it is going to be a rotating map.
My-2-cents
5 William but you can call me "Bill" - Feb 16, 06:26 am
When you look at this suit from a privacy issue, it gets kind of scary. Tell me Bob, if someone took your deposition looking for the ID of your people posting, what would they learn?
This is how my republican majority in the courts is starting to scare me. Big business always appears to be right and the individual is always wrong. What does is it matter who posted what on his site. All they are trying to do is scare people from making negative comments about their development. “Better not say something bad or we will take you to court”
I have voted republican for the past 20 years, but the party is starting to scare me. They have Killed the US Constitution and the
Amendments for political purposes. This is the real problem and the Dems, they are not much better. Had we had a judge with more courage and appelate court justices who were not bought and paid for by the developers this article would not even be here. Whether Mr. Calvin is right or wrong on the development I don’t care. This is turned into a much larger issue with the lawsuit they filed. Boy, talking about lawsuit abuse, by the very people who are fighting for tort reform. Their moto should be “you can no longer sue me, but I can take everything you have just because I am big business” That is sure the message this case sends to me. Just another case of the republican controlled courts stepping on the little guy. What else is new. Corruption in another form. My thought for this election is vote them all out and give some new a chance. Also, when they start spouting god and the republican party platform look out. Experience has shown this only means that they cannot think for themselves and will do anything to get elected. Oh and lets not forget the Democrats who can only say me me me me.
6 Tara Jurica - Feb 16, 08:26 am
I completely and totally object to Mr. Keville’s (attorney for Sienna/Johson) statment that Chris Calvin made it appear a large number of people supported his critical views of Sienna/Johson, when it really wasn’t the case. I am not quite sure where John Keville has been, but there are LITERALLY thousands of people who feel the same way Mr. Calvin does, the only difference is that they are, probably in fear of retaliation, not willing to to speak up in the way Mr. Calvin has.
For Mr. Keville to make comments such as that, he apparently hasn’t been to a city council meeting, where these topics were discussed, or maybe he just wasn’t paying attention.
7 Chris Calvin, Ph.D. - Feb 16, 08:37 am
Bill,
I would have to agree with you. There was a time I thought the republicans were the last defenders of the const. I no longer feel or think that way. Perhaps it was a mistake to believe such. The process was co-opted long ago, but what scares the special interests the most is if the general population decides to “wake up” and take back local control. With low local voter turn-outs and few real selections, disinterest increases. How does one lone candidate run against the well financed non-local machine candidates?
I will be voting a mixed ticket this year and not for the machine folks. The goals they espouse and their actions are out of sink. When they start really looking out for voters, homeowners, families, taxpayers then maybe, but not as long as the strings are being pulled by someone else.
Get out and vote this year. Find out who is supporting your candidate (via the campaign contributions), check on their voting record and if it doesn’t match your belief system then vote the alternative—but vote!
8 John Armstrong - Feb 16, 01:47 pm
Carlos… I guess we are at opposite sides on this one. But, since I’ve been dealing with people of the same view point, that we were not told and we do not think apartments will add value to the community (especially the school systems in the area) I am glad you spoke up. I really wished that I had your apparent spokes person as you did… because I wasn’t told a thing about the apartments. Now, as to the ‘stink’ well, that is portional to the size of the ‘road apple’. Trust me this ‘stink’ as you put has been blown out of proportion not by the doings of Mr. Calvin. I have never seen so much blantant attempts at misdirection over what was said and conclusions drawn during the deposition. There were alot of accusations made about Mr. Calvins guilt of this, that and the other thing. But, never a quote of what he did say. In fact it was sold in the papers as ‘it’s time to get back to real people and have real conversations’... blah, blah. Was that a quote of Mr. Calvins? No. Mr. Calvins first action item was inquiring with the developers over the development, lets talk face to face. You want to know what happened with that request, nothing. In fact, meetings that were set up were canceled.
So, I too don’t appreciate the ‘stink’ per se but, make sure you understand that you are down wind of it, as is Mr. Calvin.
Here's a good one JK:
Replacing lab rats with lawyers
The National Institute of Health (NIH) announced last week that they were going to start using lawyers instead of rats in their experiments. Naturally, the American Bar Association was outraged and filed suit. Yet, the NIH presented some very good reasons for the switch.
1. The lab assistants were becoming very attached to their little rats. This emotional involvement was interfering with the research being conducted. No such attachment could form for a lawyer.
2. Lawyers breed faster and are in much greater supply.
3. Lawyers are much cheaper to care for and the humanitarian societies won't jump all over you no matter what you're studying.
4. There are some things even a rat won't do.
Just wanted to keep those monitoring this site notified that Johnson Development lawyer John Keville’s attempt today to depose another homeowner was quashed in the SLAPP suit going on here in Sienna Plantation through the FB county 240th district court. Additionally, his request for a hearing to injunct Dr. Calvin and silence him in this case publically received no action because of improper filings by the JDC counsel.
Way to go folks! . . . ;-)
Some favorites:
“When you put people's backs to the wall they can either crumble or they can start fighting back. We showed the Samurai spirit. We just have to continue to show that.”
-Troy Polamalu
“Take time to deliberate, but when the time for action has arrived, stop thinking and go in.” -NB
“Never give in, never give in, never; never; never; never - in nothing, great or small, large or petty - never give in except to convictions of honor and good sense”
“Continuous effort - not strength or intelligence - is the key to unlocking our potential”
“Solitary trees, if they grow at all, grow strong.”
“I like a man who grins when he fights.”
“Difficulties mastered are opportunities won”
“Danger - if you meet it promptly and without flinching - you will reduce the danger by half. Never run away from anything. Never!”
-Winston Churchill
___________________
JK--I hope it wasn't to rough on you & the lads today. Good luck next round! . . . . = - \
Current filings on this case from CourtConnect (http://courtcn.co.fort-bend.tx.us:80/pls/public/ck_public_qry_doct.cp_dktrpt_frames?backto=P&case_id=05-CV-144185&begin_date=&end_date= and
05-CV-144185 Case Event Schedule
Event Date/Time Room Location Judge
MOTION HEARING 13-SEP-2005
09:45 AM COURTHOUSE 240TH DISTRICT COURT JUDGE, 240TH COURT
MOTION TO QUASH 11-OCT-2005
09:45 AM COURTHOUSE 240TH DISTRICT COURT JUDGE, 240TH COURT
MOTION HEARING
COURTHOUSE 240TH DISTRICT COURT JUDGE, 240TH COURT
HEARING
COURTHOUSE 240TH DISTRICT COURT JUDGE, 240TH COURT
HEARING
COURTHOUSE 240TH DISTRICT COURT JUDGE, 240TH COURT
HEARING
COURTHOUSE 240TH DISTRICT COURT JUDGE, 240TH COURT
Case Parties
Seq # Assoc Expn Date Type ID Name
1 JUDGE 240JDG JUDGE, 240TH COURT
Address: unavailable Aliases: none
2 ATTORNEY 00794085 KEVILLE, JOHN
Address: unavailable Aliases: none
3 PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER @3129 SIENNA/JOHNSON DEVELOPMENT LP
Address: unavailable Aliases: AFG JOHNSON DEVELOPMENT LLC
4 7 DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT @132813 CALVIN, CHRIS
Address: unavailable Aliases: none
5 6 DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT @132814 FEINBERG, MATTHEW
Address: unavailable Aliases: none
6 5 ATTORNEY 24010098 HERMER, LAURA
Address: unavailable Aliases: none
7 4 ATTORNEY V18433900 SINGER, JEFFREY R.
Address: unavailable Aliases: none
8 7 MOVANT @132813 CALVIN, CHRIS
Address: unavailable Aliases: none
9 ASSOCIATE JUDGE V17386820 RUIZ, PEDRO P.
Address: unavailable Aliases: none
10 ATTORNEY 03054500 BROILES, DAVID
Address: unavailable Aliases: none
Alias/Alternative Name
Current Name Alias/Alternative Name
SIENNA/JOHNSON DEVELOPMENT LP AFG JOHNSON DEVELOPMENT LLC
Docket Entries
Filing Date Description Name Monetary
03-AUG-2005
01:22 PM NEW DISTRICT CIVIL CASE FILED KEVILLE, JOHN
Entry: none.
03-AUG-2005
01:22 PM STYLE OF CASE KEVILLE, JOHN
Entry: IN RE SIENNA/JOHNSON DEVELOPMENT, PETITIONER.
03-AUG-2005
01:22 PM ORIGINAL CIVIL PETITION KEVILLE, JOHN
Entry: PETITIONER SIENNA/JOHNSON DEVELOPMENT'S VERIFIED PETITION TO TAKE DEPOSITION BEFORE SUIT
03-AUG-2005
01:22 PM ISSUE PROCESS
Entry: none.
03-AUG-2005
01:22 PM CONSTABLE PCT 1 SERVICE
Entry: none.
03-AUG-2005
01:34 PM PAYMENT RECEIVED
Entry: A Payment of -$248.00 was made on receipt DCHC120079.
03-AUG-2005
02:12 PM FAX FORM PRODUCED
Entry: FAXED CIVIL PROCESS FORM TO OFFICE OF ATTORNEY JOHN KEVILLE ATTN BELINDA B MCMAHAN
05-AUG-2005
01:26 PM HEARING REQUESTED
Entry: M/ TO TAKE DEPOSITION
08-AUG-2005
04:13 PM COURT'S DOCKET SHEET GENERATED
Entry: Docket entry for the DOCKET SHEET produced from CDADOCT on 08-AUG-2005 by COKERKIM.
19-AUG-2005
03:59 PM ISSUE PROCESS/2
Entry: none.
19-AUG-2005
03:59 PM NOTICE FILED SIENNA/JOHNSON DEVELOPMENT LP,
Entry: NOTICE OF HEARING ON PETITIONER'S SIENNA/JOHNSON DEVELOPMENT'S PETITION TO TAKE DEPOSITIONS BEFORE SUIT
19-AUG-2005
03:59 PM NOTICE FILED SIENNA/JOHNSON DEVELOPMENT LP,
Entry: NOTICE OF HEARING ON PETITIONER SIENNA/JOHNSON DEVELOPMENT'S PETITION TO TAKE DEPOSITIONS BEFORE SUIT.
19-AUG-2005
04:10 PM PAYMENT RECEIVED
Entry: A Payment of -$16.00 was made on receipt DCHC122230.
23-AUG-2005
10:27 AM ISSUED PROCESS CALVIN, CHRIS
Entry: Docket entry for the 03-GCIT-039478 produced from CDADOCT on 23-AUG-2005 by SALINROS. ROOM 100
23-AUG-2005
10:30 AM ISSUED PROCESS FEINBERG, MATTHEW
Entry: Docket entry for the 05-GCIT-039479 produced from CDADOCT on 23-AUG-2005 by SALINROS. ROOM 100
23-AUG-2005
10:33 AM LETTER PRODUCED
Entry: Docket entry for the ATTACHMENT letter produced from CDADOCT on 23-AUG-2005 by SALINROS.
29-AUG-2005
02:23 PM PAYMENT RECEIVED
Entry: A Payment of -$8.00 was made on receipt DCHC122966.
01-SEP-2005
12:44 PM PROCESS RETURNED FEINBERG, MATTHEW
Entry: SERVED:08-26-05
01-SEP-2005
12:44 PM AFFIDAVIT FILED
Entry: AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE RONALD HARRIS, AFFIANT
01-SEP-2005
12:45 PM PROCESS RETURNED CALVIN, CHRIS
Entry: SERVED:08-26-05
01-SEP-2005
12:45 PM AFFIDAVIT FILED
Entry: AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE RONALD HARRIS, AFFIANT
02-SEP-2005
10:56 AM RESET REQUESTED-CASE PENDING
Entry: none.
02-SEP-2005
10:59 AM HEARING REQUESTED
Entry: none.
08-SEP-2005
04:27 PM ORIGINAL ANSWER FILED FEINBERG, MATTHEW
Entry: RESPONSE TO SIENNA/JOHNSON DEVELOPMENTS VERIFIED PETITION TO TAKE DEPOSITION BEFORE SUIT MOTION TO QUASH AND MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER WITH CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE AND SERVICE
09-SEP-2005
08:09 AM AMENDED/SUPPLEMENTAL PLEADING FEINBERG, MATTHEW
Entry: CORRECTION
13-SEP-2005
11:34 AM RESPONSE FILED CALVIN, CHRIS
Entry: CHRIS CALVIN'S RESPONSE TO PETITIONER SIENNE/JOHNSON DEVELOPMENT'S VERIFIED PETITION TO TAKE DEPOSITION BEFORE SUIT WITH CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
14-SEP-2005
10:27 AM OTHER DISPOSITIONS SIENNA/JOHNSON DEVELOPMENT LP,
Entry: ORDER ON PETITIONER SIENNA/JOHNSON DEVELOPMENT'S VERIFIED PETITION TO TAKE DEPOSITION BEFORE SUIT 1 PAGE
21-SEP-2005
10:24 AM RESPONSE FILED FEINBERG, MATTHEW
Entry: TO PETITIONERS OBJECTION TO PROPOSED PROTECTIVE ORDER WITH CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
29-SEP-2005
04:25 PM MOTION FILED CALVIN, CHRIS
Entry: MOTION TO QUASH AND FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER WITH CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
07-OCT-2005
12:43 PM AMENDED/SUPPLEMENTAL PLEADING CALVIN, CHRIS
Entry: FIRST AMENDED MOTION TO QUASH AND FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER WITH CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
07-OCT-2005
12:43 PM NOTICE FILED CALVIN, CHRIS
Entry: NOTICE OF ORAL HEARING WITH CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
11-OCT-2005
10:27 AM MOTION GRANTED SIENNA/JOHNSON DEVELOPMENT LP,
Entry: PROPOSED PROTECTIVE ORDER 2 PAGES
11-OCT-2005
10:27 AM MOTION GRANTED CALVIN, CHRIS
Entry: ORDER 1 PAGE ON MOTON TO QUASH AND FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
13-OCT-2005
10:29 AM RESPONSE FILED SIENNA/JOHNSON DEVELOPMENT LP,
Entry: PETITIONER'S REPLY TO RESPONDENT CHRIS CALVIN'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
13-OCT-2005
10:29 AM OBJECTION FILED SIENNA/JOHNSON DEVELOPMENT LP,
Entry: PETITIONER'S OBJECTION TO RESPONDENT MATTHEW FEINBERG'S PROPOSED PROTECTIVE ORDER
13-OCT-2005
02:34 PM JDG ORDER/NO ACCOMPANYING MTN SIENNA/JOHNSON DEVELOPMENT LP,
Entry: PROPOSED ORDER ON RESPONDENT MATTHEW FEINBERG'S MOTION TO QUASH 1 PAGE ORDER DENYING MATTHEW FEINBERG'S MOTION TO QUASH
13-OCT-2005
02:40 PM PAYMENT RECEIVED
Entry: A Payment of -$.50 was made on receipt DCHC126648.
17-OCT-2005
08:01 AM APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL FEINBERG, MATTHEW
Entry: NOTICE OF APPEARANCE
17-OCT-2005
08:03 AM MOTION FILED HERMER, LAURA
Entry: PETITION TO TAKE LATE APPEAL
17-OCT-2005
08:03 AM NOTICE OF APPEAL/DC HERMER, LAURA
Entry: RESPONDENT MATTHEW FEINBERG'S NOTICE OF APPEAL AND REQUEST FOR HEARING, AND EMERGENCY REQUEST FOR STAY OF ORDERS OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, DEPOSITIONS
17-OCT-2005
08:04 AM MOTION FILED FEINBERG, MATTHEW
Entry: RECORD
17-OCT-2005
08:05 AM MOTION FILED HERMER, LAURA
Entry: MOTION FOR EXPEDITED DECISION
17-OCT-2005
09:43 AM HEARING REQUESTED
Entry: none.
17-OCT-2005
09:56 AM OBJECTION FILED SIENNA/JOHNSON DEVELOPMENT LP,
Entry: PETITIONER'S OPPOSITION TO RESPONDENT MATTHEW FEINBERG'S NOTICE OF APPEAL AND REQUEST FOR HEARING, EMERGENCY REQUEST FOR STAY OF ORDERS, AND PETITION TO TAKE LATE APPEAL WITH CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
17-OCT-2005
11:46 AM AMENDED/SUPPLEMENTAL PLEADING RUIZ, PEDRO P.
Entry: ASSOCIATE JUDGE REPORT OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISTRICT COURT WITH CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
19-OCT-2005
10:22 AM PAYMENT RECEIVED
Entry: A Payment of -$1.00 was made on receipt DCHC126986.
19-OCT-2005
03:51 PM AMENDED/SUPPLEMENTAL PLEADING HERMER, LAURA
Entry: RESPONDENT FEINBERG'S APPEAL FORM ASSOCIATE JUDGE SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISTRICT COURT, AND REQUEST FOR TRIAL DE NOVO SUPPLEMENT TO OCTOBER 17, 2005, NOTICE OF APPEAL
20-OCT-2005
08:22 AM RESPONSE FILED SIENNA/JOHNSON DEVELOPMENT LP,
Entry: TO RESPONDENT MATTHEW FEINBERGS SUPPLEMENT TO OBTOBER 17, 2005 NOTICE OF APPEAL WITH CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
20-OCT-2005
09:47 AM PAYMENT RECEIVED
Entry: A Payment of -$3.00 was made on receipt DCHC127049.
20-OCT-2005
12:26 PM JDG ORDER/NO ACCOMPANYING MTN SIENNA/JOHNSON DEVELOPMENT LP,
Entry: ORDER (TO RESPONDENTS NOTICE OF APPEAL AND REQUEST FOR HEARING, AND EMERGENCY REQUEST FOR STAY OF ORDERS) 1 PAGE
21-OCT-2005
12:13 PM PAYMENT RECEIVED
Entry: A Payment of -$25.00 was made on receipt DCHC127274.
24-OCT-2005
11:21 AM HEARING PASSED
Entry: none.
25-OCT-2005
01:53 PM NEW FOLDER CREATED
Entry: FOLDER NUMBER: "3" BEGINS ON: "12-27-05". (YELLOW EXPANDABLE) FOLDER NUMBER: "2" BEGINS ON: "10-17-05".
25-OCT-2005
02:00 PM MOTION RETURNED/NO ACTION
Entry: ORDER CONCERNING DEPOSITIONS 1 PAGE
25-OCT-2005
02:01 PM MOTION RETURNED/NO ACTION
Entry: ORDER ON MOTION FOR EXPEDITED CONSIDERATION 1 PAGE
25-OCT-2005
02:01 PM MOTION RETURNED/NO ACTION
Entry: ORDER 1 PAGE
25-OCT-2005
02:05 PM MOTION RETURNED/NO ACTION
Entry: PROPOSED ORDER 1 PAGE
25-OCT-2005
02:05 PM MOTION RETURNED/NO ACTION
Entry: ORDER ON APPEAL FROM ASSOCIATE JUDGE SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISTRICT COURT 2 PAGES
31-OCT-2005
09:12 AM MOTION FILED FEINBERG, MATTHEW
Entry: RELATOR'S MOTION FOR EMERGENCY RELIEF WITH CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE
02-NOV-2005
11:00 AM RESPONSE FILED SIENNA/JOHNSON DEVELOPMENT LP,
Entry: REAL PARTY IN INTEREST'S RESPONSE TO RELATOR'S MOTION FOR EMERGENCY RELIEF WITH CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
04-NOV-2005
02:44 PM RESPONSE FILED FEINBERG, MATTHEW
Entry: RELATOR'S REPLY TO REAL PARTY IN INTEREST SJD'S RESPONSE TO RELATOR'S MOTION FOR EMERGENCY RELIEF WITH CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
09-NOV-2005
02:46 PM RESPONSE FILED SIENNA/JOHNSON DEVELOPMENT LP,
Entry: REAL PARTY IN INTEREST'S RESPONSE TO RELATOR'S MOTION FOR EMERGENCY RELIEF WITH CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
14-NOV-2005
02:07 PM RESPONSE FILED FEINBERG, MATTHEW
Entry: RELATOR'S REPLY TO REAL PARTY IN INTEREST SJD'S RESPONSE TO RELATOR'S MOTION FOR EMERGENCY RELIEF
15-DEC-2005
10:58 AM CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSITION SIENNA/JOHNSON DEVELOPMENT LP,
Entry: PERSON DEPOSED: "CHRIS CALVIN" PAID BY: "JOHN R. KEVILLE" FEE: $2271.00
15-DEC-2005
10:58 AM CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSITION SIENNA/JOHNSON DEVELOPMENT LP,
Entry: PERSON DEPOSED: "MATTHEW F. FEINBERG" PAID BY: "JOHN R. KEVILLE" FEE: $1199.40
27-DEC-2005
08:11 AM APPLICATION FEINBERG, MATTHEW
Entry: COURTESY COPY OF PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS WITH CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE (ORIGINAL FILED IN TRAVIS COUNTY)
27-DEC-2005
08:11 AM AFFIDAVIT FILED FEINBERG, MATTHEW
Entry: COURTESY COPY OF AFFIANT: DAVID BROILES (ORIGINAL FILED IN TRAVIS COUNTY)
27-DEC-2005
08:11 AM REPORT FILED FEINBERG, MATTHEW
Entry: COURTESY COPY OF RECORD FILED WITH PETITION FOR WIRT OF MANDAMUS (ORIGINAL FILED IN TRAVIS COUNTY)
28-DEC-2005
10:38 AM PAYMENT RECEIVED
Entry: A Payment of -$2.50 was made on receipt DCHC133812.
18-JAN-2006
11:28 AM MOTION FILED
Entry: REAL PARTY IN INTEREST'S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS PURSUANT TO TEXAS RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 52.11 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS NO. 05-1054
18-JAN-2006
11:28 AM RESPONSE FILED
Entry: REAL PARTY IN INTEREST'S RESPONSE TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS NO. 05-1054
25-JAN-2006
01:11 PM RESPONSE FILED BROILES, DAVID
Entry: DAVID BROILES' RESPONSE TO REAL PARTY IN INTEREST'S MOTION FOR SANCTION PURSUANT TO TEXAS RULE OF APPELLANT PROCEDURE 52.11 WITH CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
25-JAN-2006
02:06 PM RESPONSE FILED HERMER, LAURA
Entry: LAURA HERMER'S RESPONSE TO REAL PARTY IN INTERST'S [SIC] MOTION FOR SANCTIONS PURSUANT TO TEXAS RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 52.11 WITH CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
25-JAN-2006
02:06 PM AFFIDAVIT FILED HERMER, LAURA
Entry: AFFIDAVIT LAURA HERMER AFFIANT
30-JAN-2006
11:20 AM COPIES MADE
Entry: ONE COPY OF PETITION MAILED TO GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP DCHC133814 35.00 DONE BY CHRYL
Case # 05-CV-146667 (current filfor SLAPP case)
Case Event Schedule
Event Date/Time Room Location Judge
MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT 18-JAN-2006
09:45 AM COURTHOUSE 240TH DISTRICT COURT JUDGE, 240TH COURT
MOTION HEARING 26-APR-2006
09:45 AM COURTHOUSE 240TH DISTRICT COURT JUDGE, 240TH COURT
MOTION HEARING 01-JUN-2006
09:00 AM COURTHOUSE 240TH DISTRICT COURT JUDGE, 240TH COURT
MOTION TO QUASH 28-JUN-2006
09:00 AM COURTHOUSE 240TH DISTRICT COURT JUDGE, 240TH COURT
HEARING
COURTHOUSE 240TH DISTRICT COURT JUDGE, 240TH COURT
HEARING
COURTHOUSE 240TH DISTRICT COURT JUDGE, 240TH COURT
Case Parties
Seq # Assoc Expn Date Type ID Name
1 JUDGE 240JDG JUDGE, 240TH COURT
Address: unavailable Aliases: none
2 3 ATTORNEY 00794085 KEVILLE, JOHN
Address: unavailable Aliases: none
3 2 PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER @3129 SIENNA/JOHNSON DEVELOPMENT LP
Address: unavailable Aliases: AFG JOHNSON DEVELOPMENT LLC
4 2 PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER V00068006 GOFF, DOUGLAS
Address: unavailable Aliases: none
5 7 DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT @132813 CALVIN, CHRIS
Address: unavailable Aliases: none
6 DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT @146911 THE COMMITTEE FOR RESPONSIBLE DEVELOPMENT
Address: unavailable Aliases: none
7 5 ATTORNEY V18433900 SINGER, JEFFREY R.
Address: unavailable Aliases: none
8 DEFT/RESP AS COUNTER PLTF/PET @132813 CALVIN, CHRIS
Address: unavailable Aliases: none
9 PLTF/PET AS COUNTER DEFT/RESP @3129 SIENNA/JOHNSON DEVELOPMENT LP
Address: unavailable Aliases: AFG JOHNSON DEVELOPMENT LLC
10 PLTF/PET AS COUNTER DEFT/RESP V00068006 GOFF, DOUGLAS
Address: unavailable Aliases: none
11 PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER/THIRD PAR @132813 CALVIN, CHRIS
Address: unavailable Aliases: none
12 DEFT./RESPONDANT/THIRD PARTY V00116265 SIENNA/JOHNSON DEVELOPMENT GP, L.L.C.
Address: unavailable Aliases: AFG JOHNSON DEVELOPMENT LLC
13 DEFT./RESPONDANT/THIRD PARTY @153991 SIENNA/JOHNSON NORTH LP
Address: unavailable Aliases: none
14 DEFT./RESPONDANT/THIRD PARTY @154005 SIENNA/JOHNSON NORTH GP LLC
Address: unavailable Aliases: none
15 2 MOVANT @167442 CALVIN, AMY
Address: unavailable Aliases: none
Alias/Alternative Name
Current Name Alias/Alternative Name
SIENNA/JOHNSON DEVELOPMENT GP, L.L.C. AFG JOHNSON DEVELOPMENT LLC
SIENNA/JOHNSON DEVELOPMENT LP AFG JOHNSON DEVELOPMENT LLC
Docket Entries
Filing Date Description Name Monetary
13-DEC-2005
12:58 PM NEW DISTRICT CIVIL CASE FILED KEVILLE, JOHN
Entry: none.
13-DEC-2005
12:58 PM STYLE OF CASE KEVILLE, JOHN
Entry: SIENNA/JOHNSON DEVELOPMENT, LP, AND DOUGLAS GOFF PLAINTIFFS, V. CHRIS CALVIN (a.k.a., responsible_dvlpmnt, janel, buddyj, starbuck, jimcalhoun, twinstuff2, jimcalhoun1, billcrane, nextdoorneighbor, sundaysiennasurfer, donny12, jacob, leigh, charles, duckbill, funfrankie, bill, don, jason-kidd, fixx, zbloser, danielgoode, harriet, geofflittle, mbelview, jameslong, billyboy, dalemince, dealmaker, probuilder1, spider_man, and others unknown), and THE COMMITTEE FOR RESPONSIBLE DEVELOPMENT, DEFENDANTS.
13-DEC-2005
12:58 PM ORIGINAL CIVIL PETITION KEVILLE, JOHN
Entry: PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION
13-DEC-2005
12:58 PM ISSUE PROCESS
Entry: none.
13-DEC-2005
01:06 PM PAYMENT RECEIVED
Entry: A Payment of -$225.00 was made on receipt DCHC132885.
13-DEC-2005
01:08 PM PAYMENT RECEIVED
Entry: A Payment of -$.50 was made on receipt DCHC132886.
13-DEC-2005
03:48 PM ISSUED PROCESS CALVIN, CHRIS
Entry: Docket entry for the 05-GCIT-042567 produced from CDADOCT on 13-DEC-2005 by RUIZMAR. ROOM 100
13-DEC-2005
03:48 PM LETTER PRODUCED
Entry: Docket entry for the ATTACHMENT letter produced from CDADOCT on 13-DEC-2005 by RUIZMAR.
14-DEC-2005
09:59 AM COURT'S DOCKET SHEET GENERATED
Entry: Docket entry for the DOCKET SHEET produced from CDADOCT on 14-DEC-2005 by RUIZMAR.
15-DEC-2005
08:36 AM PAYMENT RECEIVED
Entry: A Payment of -$9.00 was made on receipt DCHC133021.
15-DEC-2005
11:06 AM PAYMENT RECEIVED
Entry: A Payment of -$9.00 was made on receipt DCHC133063.
22-DEC-2005
02:28 PM PROCESS RETURNED CALVIN, CHRIS
Entry: SERVED:12-14-05
22-DEC-2005
02:28 PM AFFIDAVIT FILED
Entry: AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
28-DEC-2005
10:42 AM PAYMENT RECEIVED
Entry: A Payment of -$35.00 was made on receipt DCHC133814.
09-JAN-2006
03:36 PM CERTIFICATE CALVIN, CHRIS
Entry: CERTIFICATE OF WRITTEN DISCOVERY WITH CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
09-JAN-2006
03:36 PM ORIGINAL ANSWER FILED CALVIN, CHRIS
Entry: DEFENDANT'S ORIGINAL ANSWER WITH CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
09-JAN-2006
03:36 PM CERTIFICATE CALVIN, CHRIS
Entry: CERTIFICATE OF WRITTEN DISCOVERY WITH CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
11-JAN-2006
12:21 PM PAYMENT RECEIVED
Entry: A Payment of -$1.00 was made on receipt DCHC135041.
30-JAN-2006
11:26 AM COPIES MADE
Entry: ONE COPY OF PETITION MAILED TO GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP DCHC133814 35.00 DONE BY CHRYL
08-FEB-2006
04:59 PM X ACTION/COUNTER CLAIM/CIVIL
Entry: none.
08-FEB-2006
04:59 PM THIRD PARTY ACTION SINGER, JEFFREY R.
Entry: COUNTERCLAIM AND THIRD-PARTY PETITION
08-FEB-2006
05:03 PM ISSUE PROCESS/3
Entry: none.
08-FEB-2006
05:05 PM PAYMENT RECEIVED
Entry: A Payment of -$94.00 was made on receipt DCHC137656.
10-FEB-2006
04:02 PM ISSUED PROCESS SIENNA/JOHNSON NORTH GP LLC,
Entry: Docket entry for the 06-GCIT-044087 produced from CDADOCT on 10-FEB-2006 by HARGRTER. ROOM 100
10-FEB-2006
04:06 PM ISSUED PROCESS SIENNA/JOHNSON NORTH LP,
Entry: Docket entry for the 06-GCIT-044086 produced from CDADOCT on 10-FEB-2006 by HARGRTER. ROOM 100
10-FEB-2006
04:09 PM ISSUED PROCESS SIENNA/JOHNSON DEVELOPMENT GP, L.L.C.,
Entry: Docket entry for the 06-GCIT-044085 produced from CDADOCT on 10-FEB-2006 by HARGRTER. ROOM 100
10-FEB-2006
04:10 PM LETTER PRODUCED
Entry: Docket entry for the ATTACHMENT letter produced from CDADOCT on 10-FEB-2006 by HARGRTER.
15-FEB-2006
08:34 AM PROCESS RETURNED SIENNA/JOHNSON NORTH LP,
Entry: SERVED:02-14-06
15-FEB-2006
08:34 AM AFFIDAVIT FILED
Entry: AFFIDAVIT TO SUPPORT SERVICE OF CITATION
15-FEB-2006
08:35 AM PROCESS RETURNED SIENNA/JOHNSON DEVELOPMENT LP,
Entry: SERVED:02-14-06
15-FEB-2006
08:35 AM AFFIDAVIT FILED
Entry: AFFIDAVIT TO SUPPORT SERVICE OF CITATION
23-FEB-2006
11:04 AM CERTIFICATE CALVIN, CHRIS
Entry: CERTIFICATE OF WRITTEN DISCOVERY WITH CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
03-MAR-2006
04:51 PM ORIGINAL ANSWER FILED SIENNA/JOHNSON DEVELOPMENT LP,
Entry: ORIGINAL ANSWER TO COUNTERCLAIM AND THIRD-PARTY PETITION WITH CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
03-MAR-2006
04:51 PM SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS SIENNA/JOHNSON DEVELOPMENT LP,
Entry: THE SIENNA / JOHNSON DEFENDANTS' SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS TO COUNTERCLAIM AND THIRD-PARTY PETITION WITH CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
09-MAR-2006
03:39 PM MOTION RETURNED/NO ACTION SIENNA/JOHNSON DEVELOPMENT LP,
Entry: ORDER SUSTAINING THE SIENNA/JOHNSON DEFENDANT'S SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS TO COUNTERCLAIM AND THIRD-PARTY PETITION 3 PAGES
20-MAR-2006
12:07 PM PROCESS RETURNED SIENNA/JOHNSON DEVELOPMENT LP,
Entry: SERVED:03-02-06
12-APR-2006
02:04 PM HEARING REQUESTED
Entry: TEMPORY INJUNCTION
12-APR-2006
02:07 PM HEARING REQUESTED
Entry: SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS
13-APR-2006
04:23 PM CERTIFICATE CALVIN, CHRIS
Entry: OF WRITTEN DISCOVERY WITH CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
13-APR-2006
04:23 PM CERTIFICATE CALVIN, CHRIS
Entry: OF WRITTEN DISCOVERY WITH CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
13-APR-2006
04:37 PM NOTICE FILED SIENNA/JOHNSON DEVELOPMENT GP, L.L.C.,
Entry: NOTICE OF HEARING ON THE SIENNA/JOHNSON DEFENDANTS' SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS TO COUNTERCLAIM AND THIRD-PARTY PETITION WITH CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
24-APR-2006
03:23 PM AMENDED/SUPPLEMENTAL PLEADING CALVIN, CHRIS
Entry: FIRST AMENDED COUNTERCLAIM AND THIRD-PARTY PETITION WITH CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 6 PAGES
24-APR-2006
04:29 PM RESPONSE FILED CALVIN, CHRIS
Entry: RESPONSE TO SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS WITH CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
26-APR-2006
09:13 AM JDG ORDER/NO ACCOMPANYING MTN
Entry: ORDER ON MOTION FOR SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS 1 PAGE
27-APR-2006
11:21 AM PAYMENT RECEIVED
Entry: A Payment of -$2.00 was made on receipt DCHC145789.
04-MAY-2006
04:32 PM MOTION RETURNED/NO ACTION CALVIN, CHRIS
Entry: ORDER ON MOTION FOR SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS
09-MAY-2006
03:30 PM AMENDED/SUPPLEMENTAL PLEADING CALVIN, CHRIS
Entry: SECOND AMENDED COUNTERCLAIM AND THIRD-PARTY PETITION WITH CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
24-MAY-2006
03:25 PM CERTIFICATE GOFF, DOUGLAS
Entry: CERTIFICATE OF WRITTEN DISCOVERY WITH CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
24-MAY-2006
03:26 PM CERTIFICATE GOFF, DOUGLAS
Entry: CERTIFICATE OF WRITTEN DISCOVERY WITH CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
24-MAY-2006
03:26 PM CERTIFICATE GOFF, DOUGLAS
Entry: CERTIFICATE OF WRITTEN DISCOVERY WITH CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
24-MAY-2006
03:27 PM CERTIFICATE GOFF, DOUGLAS
Entry: CERTIFICATE OF WRITTEN DISCOVERY WITH CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
24-MAY-2006
03:27 PM CERTIFICATE GOFF, DOUGLAS
Entry: CERTIFICATE OF WRITTEN DISCOVERY WITH CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
24-MAY-2006
03:50 PM CERTIFICATE CALVIN, CHRIS
Entry: CERTIFICATE OF WRITTEN DISCOVERY WITH CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
26-MAY-2006
12:50 PM MOTION FILED CALVIN, AMY
Entry: MOTION TO QUASH AND FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER WITH CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE AND SERVICE
30-MAY-2006
12:19 PM CERTIFICATE SIENNA/JOHNSON DEVELOPMENT LP,
Entry: CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE ON PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR TEMPORARY INJUNCTION WITH CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
30-MAY-2006
03:19 PM MOTION FILED CALVIN, AMY
Entry: MOTION TO QUASH AND FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER WITH CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE WITH CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
31-MAY-2006
07:58 AM AMENDED/SUPPLEMENTAL PLEADING GOFF, DOUGLAS
Entry: SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR TEMPORARY INJUNCTION WITH CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
31-MAY-2006
08:00 AM NOTICE FILED GOFF, DOUGLAS
Entry: NOTICE OF HEARING ON PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR TEMPORARY INJUNCTION WITH CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
---and the saga, as well as the harassment, continues!
Surely JK you and the boys can do better than this?
Some of you may be interested in this related conversation going on at http://www.thewebbie.com
specific site address:
http://www.thewebbie.com/mybloggie/index.php?mode=viewid&post_id=45
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Post a Comment
<< Home