throbber
22-CV-0364
`CAUSE NO. ___________
`
`Filed: 3/4/2022 2:23 PM
`JOHN D. KINARD - District Clerk
`Galveston County, Texas
`Envelope No. 62315713
`By: Sandra Orizaga
`3/4/2022 2:36 PM
`
`CARL JOINER,
` Plaintiff
`
`v.
`
`
`DANIEL CONRAD,
` Defendant
`





`Galveston County - 10th District Court



`
`IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
`
`
`GALVESTON COUNTY, TEXAS
`
`
`
`_______ JUDICIAL DISTRICT
`
`
`ORIGINAL PETITION
`
`COMES NOW Plaintiff, CARL JOINER (hereinafter “Mr. Joiner” or “Plaintiff”) and files
`
`
`
`
`
`
`this Original Petition against DANIEL CONRAD (hereinafter “Mr. Conrad” or “Defendant”) and
`
`for cause of action would show the Court as follows:
`
`
`
`I.
`DISCOVERY CONTROL PLAN
`
`Discovery in this case is governed by Level 2 of Rule 190 of the Texas Rules of
`1.
`Civil Procedure.
`
`II.
`PARTIES
`
`CARL JOINER is an individual residing in Galveston County, Texas.
`
`Defendant DANIEL CONRAD is an individual whose last known residential
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`address is 1100 Lakeview Bend, Kemah, Texas 77565. Defendant may be served with citation at
`
`his residence or wherever else he may be found.
`
`III.
`JURISDICTION
`
`4.
`
`This Court has jurisdiction over the lawsuit because the amount in controversy is
`
`within this Court’s jurisdictional requirements.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Status Conference Date 06/02/22
`
`

`

`IV.
`VENUE
`
`5.
`
` Venue is proper in Galveston County. Under Texas Civil Practice & Remedies
`
`Code § 15.002, all or a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred
`
`in Galveston County.
`
`V.
`BACKGROUND FACTS
`
`6.
`
`Mr. Joiner is the Mayor of the City of Kemah (hereinafter “Kemah” or the “City”).
`
`He is also a businessman and runs an established and reputable architectural design and planning
`
`company.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`Defendant is a Kemah resident.
`
`Numerous individuals have been defaming Mr. Joiner on various internet forums
`
`that are accessible to Kemah residents as well as to other Kemah officials and on billboards and
`
`signs displayed in the City. Defendant is one of these individuals.
`
`a. Defendant made Facebook posts falsely imputing Mr. Joiner has abused his mayoral
`office and engaged in criminal activity
`
`
`As early as August of 2021, Defendant began writing Facebook posts on the Kemah
`
`9.
`
`Community Forum imputing Mr. Joiner engaged in criminal activity, such as abuse of mayoral
`
`power and violations of the Texas Open Meetings Act. Defendant stated and/or implied that Mr.
`
`Joiner is using his office to deny individual rights, acting outside of his authority as mayor by
`
`circumventing approvals required by City Council Members, and holding private City meetings in
`
`violation of the Texas Open Meetings Act.
`
`10.
`
`Defendant posted comments like, “The Official Oppression crime in the state of
`
`Texas” prohibits a public servant from using his “office to deny someone their rights;” Defendant
`
`stated that he awaits the Mayor’s testimony on the matter and scrutiny of the Mayor’s actions.
`
`Defendant also stated that “to suggest the Mayor has full privilege to create ad hoc
`
`

`

`committees…without due process of Council approval” and without abiding by “TOMA
`
`regulations is preposterous” and that “refusal to release information under the TOMA regulations
`
`as well as Public information requests are [sic] a crime.” Defendant announced he is “taking a
`
`stand against criminal acts… of our public servants.” Defendant’s posts relate to one another and
`
`reference “the Mayor” either directly or impliedly.
`
`11.
`
`12.
`
`Defendant’s allegations are blatantly false.
`
`On December 14, 2021, Defendant posted that he reported Mr. Joiner’s alleged
`
`criminal activity to the Galveston County District Attorney’s Office. He attached an email from
`
`the Kemah Chief of Police to his Facebook post. The subject of the email stated, “External
`
`Criminal Investigation Request – Submitted to the Galveston County District Attorney’s Office –
`
`Investigation of Criminal Complaint by Mr. Daniel Conrad against Mr. Carl Joiner, the Mayor of
`
`the City of Kemah.”
`
`13.
`
`On December 31, 2021, Defendant posted on Facebook that the District Attorney’s
`
`Office decided not to pursue allegations against Mr. Joiner, but the language of the post suggests
`
`the D.A. failed to pursue credible evidence against Mr. Joiner and continues to falsely claim that
`
`Mr. Joiner has committed criminal activity. Defendant posted, “yes [sic] I believe laws have been
`
`violated; and yes, I believe they continue to be violated and escalate.” There is no factual basis for
`
`any of these allegations.
`
`14.
`
`The Kemah Community Forum Facebook page is private, but it has 247 members
`
`and is “dedicated to the voters, residents, and businesses of the City of Kemah”—Mr. Joiner’s
`
`constituents.
`
`b. Defendant made Facebook posts imputing Mr. Joiner has committed trespass
`
`15.
`
`Defendant has also made multiple posts on Facebook imputing Mr. Joiner and his
`
`wife have committed trespass. The posts appear on the Kemah Community Forum and on the
`
`Facebook page called “Anyone but Carl Joiner aka Kemah Correction,” which is a public page.
`
`

`

`16.
`
`Specifically, Defendant posted about filing trespass charges against the Joiners. The
`
`posts state, “you do know, [the Joiners] had trespassing charges filed against them last week by
`
`two separate Kemah home owners, right?” and “it looks like multiple people have filed trespassing
`
`charges on [the Joiners]. What is wrong with these two?” The trespass posts include a photo-
`
`shopped image of the Joiners’ faces derisively superimposed on the 1992 “Trespass” movie poster.
`
`17. While it is true that Defendant and another home owner filed trespassing charges
`
`against the Joiners, the posts completely misrepresent the facts: the Joiners never entered onto
`
`private property but were driving down a public street on which Defendant (and a couple other
`
`individuals) placed a “no trespassing” sign. Defendant snapped a picture of Mrs. Joiner’s vehicle
`
`and reported the Joiners to the police for trespassing. After having fabricated an instance of
`
`trespassing, Defendant posted the demeaning trespass statements about the Joiners. The charges
`
`against the Joiners were dropped.
`
`18.
`
`Furthermore, Defendant has shared these, and other defamatory posts, with the
`
`League City Regional Chamber of Commerce, Clear Lake Chamber of Commerce, Clear Creek
`
`Education Foundation, Bay Area Houston Economic Partnership, and Bay Area Houston
`
`Transportation Partnership—organizations in which Mr. Joiner is actively involved.
`
`c. Defendant made Facebook posts implying Mr. Joiner has been tampering with evidence
`
`19.
`
`Yet another one of Defendant’s posts on the Kemah Community Forum implies
`
`that Mr. Joiner has been entering the City’s evidence room without authorization and tampering
`
`with the evidence. The post includes screenshots from a City security camera video obtained by
`
`Defendant through a Public Information Request. While the post states, “based on the video [sic]
`
`it does not appear that he made entry,” it also warns “any official from entering the evidence room
`
`without the Chiefs [sic] escort, and city attorney” and states, “that [sic] is good news for our
`
`pending cases,” presumably referring to Defendant’s prior posts concerning Mr. Joiner’s alleged
`
`criminal activity.
`
`

`

`20.
`
`Allegations that Mr. Joiner has been tampering with evidence are, again, blatantly
`
`false. Mr. Joiner did not enter the evidence room, let alone tamper with evidence. He was near the
`
`evidence room only to inspect the ongoing remodeling and construction there. Defendant’s posts
`
`misrepresent the facts, use inherently improbable assertions and dubious information, and are
`
`incredulous and demeaning.
`
`d. Defendant sent an email to City Council Members claiming Mr. Joiner misappropriated
`the City seal for personal use
`
`Defendant disseminated an email to Kemah City Council Members, claiming Mr.
`
`21.
`
`Joiner misappropriated the City seal for personal use. In the email, Defendant made numerous
`
`references to the Texas Penal Code and case law and advised the City Council to report Mr. Joiner
`
`to the “proper authorities.”
`
`22. Mr. Joiner uses the City seal is in his mayoral capacity only. Defendant, again,
`
`misconstrues this fact and charges Mr. Joiner with criminal activity.
`
`e. Defendant has acted with malice in defaming Mr. Joiner
`
`23.
`
`There is no factual basis for any of Defendant’s allegations. Defendant is
`
`fabricating these allegations himself. He has made numerous false accusations of Mr. Joiner’s
`
`criminal activity and has misrepresented facts and used improbable assertions and dubious
`
`information in order to propagate the allegations. Defendant’s posts are demeaning and
`
`incredulous, and he has “tagged” various professional organizations in which Mr. Joiner is actively
`
`involved in his posts in order to draw the members’ attention to his false allegations. Defendant
`
`has also filed numerous open records requests for information pertaining to Mr. Joiner, including
`
`frivolous requests for excessively broad amounts of information such as all of Mr. Joiner’s
`
`communications in the month of February. He also requested the City Secretary to copy him on
`
`all of Mr. Joiner’s emails. These actions are intended to harass and embarrass Mr. Joiner and to
`
`tarnish his reputation as the Mayor of Kemah. Coupled with the defamatory statements being
`
`

`

`consistently made by Defendant about Mr. Joiner, they evidence malice on Defendant’s part. As
`
`such, Defendant has acted with malice in defaming Mr. Joiner.
`
`24.
`
`The various statements made by Defendant impute Mr. Joiner with the commission
`
`of crimes and injuriously affect Mr. Joiner’s business, calling, and his reputation as the Mayor of
`
`Kemah.
`
`25.
`
`In compliance with the Defamation Mitigation Act, Counsel for Mr. Joiner sent
`
`Defendant a retraction letter on January 14, 2022. The letter served as (1) notice to immediately
`
`cease and desist from posting, writing, publishing, or making any false and defamatory statements
`
`about Mr. Joiner and (2) a demand for the removal of all defamatory posts made to date.
`
`26.
`
`Defendant claims he has removed some of the defamatory posts from the internet
`
`forums and social media sites; however, defamatory content posted by Defendant is still present
`
`online and Defendant continues to make new defamatory statements about Mr. Joiner.
`
`Furthermore, the email claiming Mr. Joiner misappropriated the City seal for personal use was
`
`sent by Defendant on January 27, 2022, after Defendant’s receipt of the letter.
`
`VI.
`CAUSES OF ACTION
`
`A. DEFAMATION
`
`27.
`
`Plaintiff incorporates by reference the factual allegations contained in the preceding
`
`paragraphs.
`
`28.
`
`Defendant has published numerous statements of fact referring to Mr. Joiner to third
`
`parties.
`
`29.
`
`The statements are defamatory per se—they impute Mr. Joiner committed a crime
`
`and are injurious to Mr. Joiner’s office, business, and profession.
`
`30.
`
`The statements are false, and Defendant acted with actual malice in making the
`
`statements.
`
`

`

`31.
`
`The statements are injurious to Mr. Joiner’s reputation, office, and business.
`
`Furthermore, injury is presumed in this case because Defendant’s statements constitute defamation
`
`per se.
`
`VII.
`DAMAGES
`
`32. Mr. Joiner has been and continues to be injured by Defendant’s defamatory
`
`statements. Therefore, Mr. Joiner is seeking injunctive relief to enjoin and restrain Defendant from
`
`publishing false and defamatory statement about Mr. Joiner, actual damages, general damages,
`
`reputational damages, exemplary damages, attorney’s fees under equity, and court costs.
`
`VIII.
`CONDITIONS PRECEDENT
`
`33.
`
`All conditions precedent to Plaintiffs’ recovery have occurred or been performed.
`
`IX
`JURY DEMAND
`
`Plaintiff demands this cause be tried to a jury as is the Plaintiff’s right under the
`
`34.
`
`United States and Texas Constitutions, and Plaintiffs tender the appropriate fee herewith.
`
`X
`RULE 193.7 NOTICE
`
`35.
`
`Plaintiff hereby gives notice that he will rely upon documents produced in
`
`responses to any discovery pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 193.7.
`
`PRAYER
`
`WHEREFORE PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff prays the Court order the Relief
`
`requested against Defendant, and for all such other and further relief, legal or equitable, special or
`
`general for which Plaintiffs may be justly entitled, including, but not limited to, injunctive relief,
`
`actual damages, general damages, reputational damages, exemplary damages, attorney’s fees
`
`under equity, and court costs.
`
`
`
`

`

`Respectfully submitted,
`
`WALDRON & SCHNEIDER
`
`By:
`
`
`
`/s/ Janina Wojtkowski
`RICHARD SIMMONS
`State Bar No. 24003600
`rsimmons@ws-law.com
`JANINA WOJTKOWSKI
`janina@ws-law.com
`State Bar No. 24121209
`University Park
`15150 Middlebrook Drive
`Houston, Texas 77058
`Tel: 281-488-4438
`Fax: 281-488-4597
`
`
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket