`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
`
`