FortBendTalk.com & Thewebbie.com Websites Join the Protest! -- click this title link for more. . .
Two local East Fort Bend County websites join the protest against Johnson Development recent court actions to attempt to access homeowners computers in Sienna Plantation. Read the posting below this one for details and get a neighbor to contact us in support at responsible_dvlpmnt@yahoo.com. The hearing on the JDC motion is being held Tuesday in Judge Pedro Ruiz's FBC 240th district court.
posted by responsible_dvlpmnt at Monday, August 07, 2006
8 Comments:
Comment Deleted
This post has been removed by the blog administrator.
3:57 AM
responsible_dvlpmnt said...
Thought you all should see this post on two local websites run by a Sienna Plantation resident (FortBendTalk.com and a personal site thewebbie.com):
"Sorry. This site is closed until the laws in Texas change to protect the consumer and families from corporate harassment."
-This came out following the latest JDC court filings when attempting to access another families personal computer. . . -stay tuned we will update as long as we can!!!
4:00 AM
Anonymous said...
See related filings:
27-JUL-2006
03:04 PM MOTION FILED SIENNA/JOHNSON DEVELOPMENT GP, L.L.C.,
Entry: PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION WITH CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE
and
03-AUG-2006
12:00 PM MOTION RETURNED/NO ACTION
Entry: ORDER 2 PAGES
4:03 AM
Anonymous said...
See related JDC dev. story in another Mo-City neighborhood (read the comments--they are interesting):
http://www.fortbendnow.com/business/1598/riverstone-expects-flood-of-sales-as-levee-nears-completion
Anonymous said...
Visit: http://www.ahrc.com/new/index.php/src/news
6:20 AM
Anonymous said...
Here's one:
http://www.ahrc.com/new/index.php/src/news/sub/article/action/ShowMedia/id/2824
6:52 AM
responsible_dvlpmnt said...
This came in from the Dispatch (a statewide publication)>>>
ANTI-SLAPP STRATEGIES:
Fighting for Freedom of Speech
In re Matthew Feinberg, Case No. 05-1054 (Texas Supreme
Court, Jan. 27 2006)
Imagine you are a resident of a master-planned, multi-use
community, with many homes already built out of a total of 20,000
planned. Interested in encouraging discussion in the community,
you decide to set up a website for residents and others to talk
about local issues. Residents hear about your website and register
anonymously to use it. The First Amendment protects most
anonymous speech, and community residents who might be afraid
to speak their minds publicly in person do so under the cover of
anonymity.
The real estate developer finds out about the website and keeps
close tabs on it. Some website users make unflattering comments
regarding the developer, its actions in the community, and its
interactions with the local government. The developer sees the
comments. It then files a motion demanding that the website
administrator turn over all documents concerning the identities
and IP addresses of users of the site, to try to find out who among
the anonymous users is responsible for the negative comments and,
in the process, to shut down discussion on the website.
This lawsuit is an example of a so-called SLAPP suit. SLAPP
stands for “Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation.” Most
SLAPP suits share several common features. The plaintiff in a
SLAPP suit is usually a wealthy or powerful public figure, often a
corporation or business entity. The defendant, on the other hand,
is usually an average person who has little power, prestige or money,
but who angers the plaintiff by saying things in public that the
plaintiff would rather keep quiet.
A SLAPP suit is rarely about righting a genuine legal wrong. It
isn’t often “successful,” in the normal sense where a plaintiff winsin court. Rather, a SLAPP suit tends to be about making the defendant – and others – shut up. Sometimes, it’s the mere fact of filing a SLAPP suit that does the trick. Long after the court dismisses the suit, people in the community remember what happened to the defendant, with all the legal fees and fear she incurred, and keep from talking, themselves.
The description of the lawsuit above is not fictional, but is based on In re Matthew Feinberg, a SLAPP suit the ACLU Foundation of Texas recently defended with the help of cooperating attorney and University of Houston Visiting Law Professor Laura Hermer, and state board member David Broiles. The plaintiff, Sienna/Johnson Development, L.P., sought the names of individuals who used the community discussion website of our client, Matthew Feinberg. The deposition we sought to prevent in the case went forward, and on January 27, 2006, the Texas Supreme Court refused our request to vacate the order of the district court and have the deposition sealed. No Texas court of appeals has yet ruled on the circumstances under which a court can lawfully order the revelation of an anonymous website user’s identity, and the Court’s ruling failed to address whether Texans have a constitutional right to post anonymously on the internet, or whether a website administrator can be required to identify people who use the website.
Because litigating individual SLAPP suits is time and resource intensive, a legislative solution may be more desirable.
Lisa Graybill, Legal Director, and Laura Hermer, Cooperating Attorney in In re Matthew Feinberg, contributed to this article.
6:14 PM
Anonymous said...
Words and actions are more powerful than money and influence.
In other words.. "The pen is mightier than the sword."
The likes of SJD will get a wake up call eventually. They might just piss on the wrong people and cut off their nose to spite their face. It is in their nature as much as a scorpion knows to sting their prey.
They call it a "master plan"... But should a master plan change more than my teenage children change their underwear? Should all aspects (and changes) of the plan be made available to potential home buyers?
Their (SDJ) actions make no economic or moral sense. To continue this mockery of the justice system is deplorable. They made their point but continue to force negative publicity towards it's developments. How much of their investor's money have they spent on these legal actions?
Texas needs to finally fully belong to the rest of the USA and pass laws to protect consumers and the innocent.
Public officials should not take campaign contributions from developers and then consistently vote in their favor over zoning issues. It looks and smells bad and is immoral; in most places outside of Texas illegal.
12:28 PM
Anonymous said...
Legislation will be needed, but it seems unlikely given the amount contributed by some industries to TX politicians. Contact you local rep though about saying no to TUPCA and get the word out to your neighbors too!
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This reminds me of the harassment last year over the SiennaTalk.com and later the MissouriCityTalk.com websites. Weren't these all sites from the same neighborhood?
School biz:
Anonymous said...
Ck this comment out on the district bond rating from FBN.com and how excessive growth has negatively impacted the ratings and hurts our ability to cheaply add more schools. This supports the case for legislative action to require developer kick-in to help reduce start-up costs on schools undergoing this demand. It only makes sense when you think how this business group benefits from the reputation of the schools in their land and home sales. See the article clip for more:
"Standard & Poor said in a report that FBISD bonds can’t currently be rated higher than AA- “due to the district’s very high debt levels, coupled with additional debt needs to meet the rapid projected growth.”
But Brooks said both S&P and Fitch Ratings were “very complimentary” toward the district because of “the way the school district has been able to maintain and add to it’s fund balance, even though you’re saddled” with a property tax cap."
Waving at ya JK, DG, JDC and the gang...here's a good one for you:
"A lawyer, who was talking to his son about entering college, said, "Now what got into your head that you wanted to be a doctor instead of a lawyer?"
"Well, dad," answered the son, "did you ever hear anybody get up in a croud and shout frantically, 'Is there a lawyer in the house?' "
. . . =-)
from firstamendmentcenter.org. This lists the 24 states and 1 territory with statutory support for the right to petition and free speech:
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/about.aspx?id=13565
zhengjx20160706
michael kors handbags
vans outlet
air jordan femme
michael kors purses
louis vuitton purses
timberlands
cheap jordans
cheap rolex watches
louis vuitton outlet stores
longchamp outlet
michael kors outlet clearance
nfl jerseys
michael kors outlet online
true religion jeans
louis vuitton purses
nike free uk
rolex watches
coach outlet
ralph lauren
lebron 12
jordan 3s
timberland outlet
celine outlet
tory burch outlet online
coach outlet
louis vuitton outlet stores
fitflop clearance
louis vuitton outlet
gucci outlet
ray ban outlet
timberland boots
cheap air jordans
gucci handbags
michael kors outlet online
toms wedges
adidas boost
asics running shoes
oakley vault
adidas stan smith
ray ban sunglasses outlet
Post a Comment
<< Home