Jury Demand in Blake Tartt, III vs. John Doe, Et Al| Trellis.Law

On December 28, 2020 a Complaint,Petition was filed involving a dispute between Tartt, Blake, Iii, and Doe, Jane, Doe, John, Twitter, Inc., for Injury/Damage - Other in the District Court of Galveston County.

Preview
Filed: 12/28/2020 12:15 PM
JOHN D. KINARD - District Clerk
Galveston County, Texas
Envelope No. 49241044
By: Rolande Kain
12/28/2020 3:28 PM
20-CV-1975
CAUSE NO. _____________________

BLAKE TARTT III § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
§
Plaintiff §
§
VS. §
§ GALVESTON COUNTY
JOHN DOE §
and §
JANE DOE §
§ Galveston County - 56th District Court
Defendants § _____ JUDICIAL DISTRICT

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:

NOW COMES Blake Tartt III,Plaintiff herein, complaining of JOHN DOE AND JANE

DOE, Defendants, and for cause of action, respectfully shows the Court as follows:

I. DISCOVERY

1. Discovery in this suit will be conducted under Level 2 as set forth in Tex. R. Civ. P.

190.2.

II. PARTIES

2. Plaintiff Blake Tartt III is currently a resident of Galveston County, Texas.

3. Defendant John Doe is a living person subject to the jurisdiction of this Court, but

whose identity and whereabouts are at this time unknown.

4. Defendant Jane Doe is a living person subject to the jurisdiction of this Court but

whose identity and whereabouts are unknown.

Status Conference Set For 04/01/2021

1
III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

5. This Court has jurisdiction over this cause of action under Tex. Const. Art. V, § 8.

The damages sought by this suit are within the jurisdictional limits of this court.

6. Venue is proper in Galveston County, Texas under Texas Civil Practice and

Remedies Code section 15.017 because Plaintiff, Blake Tartt III resided in Galveston County at the

time of the accrual of the cause of action. Venue is also proper in Galveston County, Texas under

Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code sections 15.017 because Plaintiff, Blake Tartt III resided

in Galveston County at the time of filing suit.

IV. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

7. Although from Texas, the Plaintiff is an Alumnus of Ole Miss University

which is located in Oxford, Mississippi. The Plaintiff has a business and owns some real

estate in Oxford, Mississippi. As a proud Alumnus, the Plaintiff has long supported the

University and its programs. Recently, many individuals have grown tired and unhappy

with Ole Miss University and its long-time supporters and Alumnae. Some of these

individuals will go to the extreme and disregard the law to upturn that with which they

disagree. These individuals will maliciously destroy the reputation of good men to get

accomplished their goals.

V. DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS MADE BY THE DEFENDANTS

8. In April, 2020, a video was posted on the internet. The video appeared to

depict a crowd of people socializing in Oxford, Mississippi. A voice may be heard on the

video stating, “It is literally like being in the Congo jungle.” On April 20, 2020, Defendant

John Doe posted comments about the video, which stated, “Have you heard about a video

2
a big football booster and local developer Blake Tartt took one night out on The Square?

In it he mocks African American students and says that with them present it is literally like

being in the Congo jungle.”

9. The above-described statements and those set forth below were and are

defamatory. The truth is that the Plaintiff did not film the video. Further, importantly, the

truth is that it was not the voice of the Plaintiff on the video. The attribution of the video

and its narration to the Plaintiff was an unambiguous accusation of racism by the

Defendants. Such is defamatory, per se, under Texas law. This and other postings led to

further defamatory posts on the internet in which the Plaintiff was repeatedly referred to as,

“racist.” These original defamatory statements made by John Doe led to further defamatory

statements regarding the video which had been falsely attributed to the Plaintiff. On or

about August 2, 2020, Defendant Jane Doe stated in an on-line post, “Oh, that awful and

offensive video narrated by one of the rich and powerful people who pulls the strings at Ole

Miss and who watches the Rebs play from high above the field in a luxury box and

mercilessly mocks African American women. The misogyny drips from his voice.”

10. Defendants John and Jane Doe engaged in repeated acts of defamation, that is,

uttering false, libelous statements against the Plaintiff by anonymous “postings” and other writings,

expressed and published on the world wide web at various sites and platforms. The essence of each

libelous statement was that the Plaintiff was a racist and/or a misogynist. Such statements are

libelous, per se, and particularly, in the day and age when the statements were made, are likely the

most damaging and irrecoverable labels which can be placed on an American citizen.

3
11. The Defendants used written words to falsely claim that the Plaintiff made the

aforementioned video, that he narrated the video, that the Plaintiff is a racist and that the Plaintiff is

a misogynist. In fact, the exact words used by the Defendants are set forth below, with a copy of the

writings being attached to this petition and hereby incorporated by reference. The relevant parts of

the writings, now complained of by the Plaintiff as defamatory, state the following:

Just WHAT is going on at Ole Miss? Have you heard about a video a big football
booster and local developer Blake Tartt took one night out on The Square? In it he
mocks African American students and says that with them present “it is literally like
being in the Congo jungle.”

When are you going to stop accepting donations from people who think you African
American students are less than human?

“Goddamn, this is literally like being in the Congo jungle,” prominent white Oxford,
Miss., real-estate businessman and University of Mississippi athletics donor Blake
Tartt III said. He was panning his phone’s video camera around the corner of
Courthouse Square and Van Buren Avenue, filming young African American college
students who were socializing after the University of Mississippi Rebels suffered a
devastating loss to the University of Alabama.

12. These statements constitute statutory libel because they tend to injure the Plaintiff’s

reputation and expose the Plaintiff to public hatred, contempt, ridicule, and financial injury, and

impeach his integrity.

VI. DEFAMATION PER SE

13. The defamatory statements constitute defamation per se because they both state and

suggest that the Plaintiff is a racist.

VII. STATEMENTS WERE FALSE

14. The defamatory statements set forth above are false. The truth is that the Plaintiff is

not a racist – nor is he a misogynist.

4
VIII. STATEMENTS WERE MADE MALICIUOUSLY, INTENTIONALLY OR

NEGLIGENTLY

15. The defamatory statements set forth herein were made by one or more Defendant

intentionally and with malice to satisfy his or her goals and with conscious disregard for the rights

and reputation of the Plaintiff. Alternatively, one or more Defendant acted negligently in publishing

the defamatory statements in that he or she made the false and defamatory statements set forth above

by negligently failing to ascertain [or state] the truth. The Defendants either knew or should have

known in the exercise of ordinary care that the statements were false.

IX. STATEMENTS WERE PUBLISHED

16. As described herein and on the dates set forth, the Defendants published the

defamatory statements set forth above when they posted the defamatory statements on the internet

(world-wide web) for virtually all to see. All of the persons who read the defamatory statements

understood that, by them, the Plaintiff was named a racist and, or a misogynist. Most of the

defamatory statements directly link the Plaintiff by name to the label of racism and misogyny. On

other occasions, the defamatory statement is linked to the Plaintiff by some referenced post or

statement. In any event, all of the persons who read the defamatory statements understood that they

referred to the Plaintiff. As the Defendants published their defamatory statements, they knew that

they were false, or did so with substantial grounds for knowing that they might be false and with

reckless disregard to whether they were true or false.

5
X. PLAINTIFF ENJOYED A GOOD REPUTATION PRIOR TO DEFAMATORY

STATEMENTS

17. The Plaintiff has resided in the city of Galveston, Galveston County, Texas, for the

past many years. Prior to the publication of the defamatory statement described above, the Plaintiff

enjoyed a reputation for friendliness and fair-dealing. In both his business and personal affairs, the

Plaintiff dealt fairly with men and women and people of all races and ethnic backgrounds. Plaintiff

has had friends, neighbors and employees of all races and backgrounds and has enjoyed friendly and

cordial relations with all, irrespective of any label. Simply, the above-described statements

published by the Defendants were false.

XI. PLAINTIFF’S GENERAL DAMAGES

18. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ publication of the defamatory

statements, the Plaintiff’s reputation has been severely injured. The defamatory statements have

caused the Plaintiff to suffer extreme mental anguish, public humiliation, and embarrassment. The

Plaintiff has been asked to withdraw from consideration for certain Board memberships, has

distanced himself from his beloved Alma Mater and has avoided traveling to Oxford, Mississippi

where he owns a townhome because some of the Defendants published photos of the Plaintiff’s

home, linking it and him to the racist statements as described above. The Plaintiff seeks damages

for these injuries in an amount within the jurisdiction of this court.

XII. PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL DAMAGES

19. As a direct and proximate result from the Defendants’ publication of defamatory

statements, the Plaintiff has lost income, has lost business opportunity, particularly in the Oxford,

6
Mississippi area, and has lost value in certain real estate, particularly, his townhome in Oxford,

Mississippi. Prior to the publication of the defamatory statements by the Defendants, the Plaintiff

had business opportunity in the Oxford, Mississippi area and owned some real estate there. These

interests have been adversely affected by the defamatory statements made and published by the

Defendants.

XIII. EXEMPLARY DAMAGES

20. The Plaintiff is entitled to exemplary damages from the Defendants because he/she

acted with the malice required to support an award of exemplary damages. The Defendants acted

with a specific intent to cause injury to the Plaintiff or with conscious indifference to the rights,

safety, or welfare of the Plaintiff with actual, subjective awareness that his/her conduct involved an

extreme degree of risk of harm to the Plaintiff. The Defendants, with intent to promote their agenda,

steamrolled over a lifetime of good works by the Plaintiff and painted him with today’s scarlet letter

“R” which is the most despised label – “RACIST” – for all the world to see. The Defendants hoped

to draw out of their viewers hate and scorn, and to direct such like a laser beam directly at the

forehead of the Plaintiff. They did so with the intent to destroy a good man. Only the justice of

exemplary damages can discourage such behavior.

XIV. PRAYER

21. WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiffs pray that the Defendants be

duly cited to appear and answer herein, and that upon trial of this case, Plaintiff be awarded judgment

against the Defendants for actual and exemplary damages as described above, attorney’s fees if

7
allowed, pre and post-judgment interest at the rate allowed by law, costs of court, and such other and

further relief, in law or in equity, to which the Plaintiffs may be justly entitled.

XV. JURY DEMAND

22. Plaintiff hereby respectfully demands a trial by jury on each and every issue raised

by the pleadings in this action.

Respectfully Submitted,

Johnston & McLean, PLLC
One Legacy West
7950 Legacy Drive, Suite 330
Plano, Texas 75024
(972) 436-1661
(972) 436-1615 – Facsimile

/s/ William W. Johnston
By: __________________________________
William W. Johnston
State Bar No. 10846700
Attorney for Plaintiff
billjohnstonlawoffice@gmail.com

/s/ Calvin G. McLean
By: __________________________________
Calvin G. McLean
State Bar No. 24091885
Attorney for Plaintiff
goc.garfieldlaw@gmail.com

Case Info

Judge

Cox, Lonnie Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

December 28, 2020

Case Filing Date

December 28, 2020

County

Parties

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Complaint,Petition: Blake Tartt, III vs. John Doe, Et Al

Preview

Case Info

Parties