You are on page 1of 15

Filed 13 April 10 P1:25 Gary Fitzsimmons District Clerk Dallas District

CAUSE NO. DC-13-01890-F E.C., P.P., B.P., AND T.P., Plaintiffs, v. M.P., Defendant. § § § § § § § § § IN THE DISTRICT COURT

116th JUDICIAL DISTRICT

DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS

PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD AMENDED PETITION AND APPLICATION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: Plaintiffs, Pamela Pickens (identified as “P.P.” herein), T. Boone Pickens, Jr. (identified as “B.P.” herein), Elizabeth Cordia (identified as “E.C.”), and Thomas Pickens (identified as “T.P.” herein) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), hereby complain of Defendant, Michael Pickens (identified as “M.P.,” “Mike,” or “Mike Pickens” herein) as follows: I. INTRODUCTION 1. This lawsuit involves an unfortunate family dispute. Mike Pickens,

assisted by his attorney, Collin Porterfield, is pursuing a plot to extort $20 million from his father. The hostage in Mike’s extortion scheme is his family’s good reputation, solitude, and peace of mind. After becoming upset with his sister, P.P., during the family’s 2012 Thanksgiving dinner, and in need of money due to a lifetime of failed career choices and substance abuse problems, Mike hatched a scheme to subject his father and siblings to a campaign of harassing internet posts falsely accusing his father

PLAINTIFF’S THIRD AMENDED PETITION AND APPLICATION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - PAGE 1

of inflicting abuse on Mike as a child and casting his siblings as failures and addicts. After Mike’s family had enough and brought this lawsuit to obtain relief, the true purpose of Mike’s campaign of harassment was revealed: Mike had his lawyer demand $20 million to avoid a “public airing of dirty laundry,” including a threatened interview with D Magazine, a prominent Dallas magazine, a promised book, and an interview on the Dr. Phil television show. Despite Mike’s agreement to a temporary injunction in this lawsuit, Mike has continued to make false and harassing internet posts in support of his extortion scheme. In fact, since being refused the exorbitant sum he demanded, Mike’s rhetoric and false allegations have escalated precipitously, to the point where Mike, apparently with the material assistance of his attorney, has taken to the media false allegations that B.P., P.P. and T.P. have engaged in criminal acts and crimes of moral turpitude. Through this lawsuit, Plaintiffs intend to reveal Mike’s illegal conduct and obtain relief from his illegal extortion scheme. II. DISCOVERY CONTROL PLAN 2. Plaintiffs intend to conduct discovery according to Level 3 pursuant to

Rule 190.03 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. III. PARTIES 3. Plaintiffs reside in the following states: (a) P.P. – California; (b) B.P. –

Texas; (c) E. C. – Virginia; and (d) T.P. - Texas. 4. Mike resides in Dallas County. Mike has entered an appearance. This

amended petition will be served in accordance with Rule 21 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.
PLAINTIFF’S THIRD AMENDED PETITION AND APPLICATION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - PAGE 2

IV. VENUE AND JURISDICTION 5. Venue is proper in Dallas County because Mike resides in Dallas County

now and resided in Dallas County at the time this suit was filed. 6. This court has jurisdiction because Plaintiffs are seeking damages in

excess of $500.00. V. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 7. Plaintiffs are successful in business and life. B.P. is a father, grandfather,

role model, leader, innovator, and successful entrepreneur. P.P., E.C. and T.P. are B.P.’s adult children. P.P., E.C. and T.P. have families and careers. The Plaintiffs are

individuals who are involved in their community in local, state, and national activities. 8. Mike’s life story is, unfortunately, very different, despite having been

given the same educational and career opportunities, and tremendous support from his family. Mike has abused alcohol and drugs for many years and has gone through rehab on multiple occasions. In 2007, Mike was convicted of securities fraud in a New York federal court and sentenced to five years’ probation, which included mandatory completion of a rehabilitation program and restitution of $1,200,807.00, all of which was paid for by B.P. in order to help his son avoid prison and rebuild his life. 9. Unappreciative of his family’s support during decades of substance abuse,

and apparently refusing to accept his own personal responsibility for his myriad failures and poor choices, during the fall of 2012, Mike began making blog posts on the internet that disclosed private facts about B.P. and his family and that were increasingly critical of B.P. and his family. In his blog posts, Mike began suggesting that his

PLAINTIFF’S THIRD AMENDED PETITION AND APPLICATION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - PAGE 3

addiction was caused by trauma during his childhood and falsely stating, both directly and impliedly, that his siblings are addicts like him. The posts have dramatically escalated in scope and severity of the false allegations. In addition, Mike made a post on Reddit.com/user/mopickens that accused B.P. of stealing Mike’s inheritance from his grandfather. In addition, on information and belief, Mike sent emails to friends, clients, and business acquaintances of P.P. criticizing P.P. in order to harm P.P.’s employment and her relationships with these people. 10. Not content with placing his false stories on a blog with limited

readership, Mike began using his Twitter account and emails to drive readers to his blog. For example, on one weekend Mike sent 136 tweets containing his blog address to individuals such as Barack Obama, Mitt Romney, television news producer Haddad Media, online publishing company The Real Buzz, journalists Wolf Blitzer, Peggy Noonan and John King, Fox News Sunday, NPR News, CNN Washington Bureau Chief Sam Feist, and CNBC News’s Squawk Box. 11. Mike’s blog posts contain false and defamatory statements regarding each

of the Plaintiffs. By way of example, Mike falsely asserted on his blog that B.P. abandoned him on a burning boat, when Mike was thirteen years old. Mike also

falsely asserted, in a different post and without qualification, both that “the members of my family of origin” – whose members include some or all of the Plaintiffs herein – “are addicts” and that “[w]e have all struggled with tremendously difficult lives, each defined by its own variety of downstream wreckage, inherently the result of all child abuse.”
PLAINTIFF’S THIRD AMENDED PETITION AND APPLICATION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - PAGE 4

12.

Mike also falsely asserted in his blog that “my childhood was marked by

physical, emotional, spiritual and mental abuse” and, later, “[t]here are 5 different categories of child abuse…Physical Abuse, Sexual Abuse, Emotional Abuse, Spiritual Abuse and Intellectual Abuse. I was a victim of each of these forms of Child Abuse, some from my father, some from my mother and some from both…to say or imply that child abuse has no place in my story of addiction, is blatantly, ridiculously, false.” In fact, turning causation on its head (and in direct contravention of Step 10 1 of the Twelve Step program he claims to follow), Mike points to his history of addiction as somehow being “proof” of the child abuse he falsely alleges he suffered. 13. As recently as April 5, 2013, Mike published false statements on his blog

accusing P.P. and T.P. of abusing their mother’s debit and credit accounts, leaving her broke. In addition, on information and belief, Mike recently gave to the Dallas Morning News a copy of his most recent motion in this case, in which he falsely alleges multiple counts of theft against B.P., including alleged thefts of Mike’s inheritance from his grandfather, Mike’s car, Mike’s 401K and a treasury check. This pleading was republished to the general public, along with the first exhibit to the motion, which is a version of a blog post that predates the agreed injunction and is violative of its terms. Each of the foregoing allegations of theft is defamatory and is untrue, and all are part of Mike’s continuing and escalating scheme to extort money from B.P. Mike’s blog posts, published as widely as he is able to manage and for which he regularly seeks even

1

“Continued to take personal inventory, and when we were wrong, promptly admitted it.”

PLAINTIFF’S THIRD AMENDED PETITION AND APPLICATION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - PAGE 5

broader publication, invaded and continue to invade Plaintiffs’ privacy, as well as directly causing harm to each of them. 14. In February 2013, Plaintiffs had enough of Mike’s false and defamatory

statements, his intentional intrusion into Plaintiffs’ privacy, and his disclosure of private facts through his blog and Twitter posts. Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit. 15. Three days before this lawsuit was filed, B.P.’s personal attorney, John

McShane, called Mike to discuss Mike’s internet postings. Mike told McShane: “John, is it your job to find out how much it will take for me to go away.” McShane replied “No.” At the time, McShane did not place much importance on Mike’s statement because he thought it was childish and absurd. 16. After suit was filed, the Court entered a temporary restraining order,

which Mike promptly violated. After a hearing held on February 19, 2013, for the purpose of setting a hearing on Plaintiffs’ motion for contempt against Mike for violating the Court’s temporary restraining order, McShane received a call from Mike’s attorney, Collin Porterfield, who had appeared by telephone in the lawsuit during the hearing. Porterfield told McShane that Mike had claims against B.P. that Mike was going to assert. Porterfield told McShane that B.P. took or stole “large sums of money from Mike.” Porterfield mentioned a claim related to an old allegation by Mike that McShane had taken and forged an IRS refund check belonging to Mike. McShane told Porterfield that this claim had been investigated by the authorities years before and B.P. had been cleared. Porterfield told McShane that Mike put a “present value on his claims of $17 million.” Porterfield then told McShane that Mike’s claims could be
PLAINTIFF’S THIRD AMENDED PETITION AND APPLICATION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - PAGE 6

settled for $20 million. When McShane asked Porterfield how he got to that number, Porterfield told him $17 million was for Mike’s claims and $3 million was because Mike had a pending interview with D Magazine, he was writing a book, and was planning to appear on the Dr. Phil show. In return for the $3 million, Mike would forgo these activities. 17. At the end of Porterfield’s call to McShane, Porterfield told McShane that

“paying $20 million would give [B.P.] the opportunity to avoid having his dirty laundry aired in public.” After consulting with his client, B.P., McShane called Porterfield later that evening and gave him B.P.’s response to Porterfield’s extortionate demand. McShane told Porterfield that B.P. would not pay any money to Mike, but that B.P. would pay for Mike to undergo further inpatient substance abuse and mental health treatment. 18. On March 11, 2013, Plaintiffs’ counsel wrote to Porterfield to more

formally advise that B.P. would not pay Mike’s extortionate demand. Beginning on March 14, 2013, Mike made new false posts to his blog attempting to place B.P. in a bad light, renewing his claim that he had a chemical addition due to childhood trauma and that he had suffered child abuse, and making an implied threat to remove B.P. from society. Mike then accelerated his Twitter postings and emailed his blog link to others in an attempt to direct readers to his blog and, thereby, harass and intrude upon the peace and solitude of Plaintiffs. Mike has since added sexual abuse to his laundry list of false accusations against B.P. 19. Mike’s continued false, defamatory and threatening internet posts are

false, and a series of letters and cards written by Mike and/or his wife between 2008
PLAINTIFF’S THIRD AMENDED PETITION AND APPLICATION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - PAGE 7

and 2010 (prior to the extortion scheme) tell a more accurate story where Mike repeatedly expressed love for his father, including: • • June 13, 2008: “Thank you for being a good father all of my life.” December 22, 2008: “Life is true freedom for me today and you will never know how grateful I am to you for the part you played in me getting to where I am today. I know in my heart that I could have never done it without you and your perseverance. You have taught me many things in my life that I am just now realizing that I have – I discover lessons from the past and I learn more from you as time goes on. . . . “I love to spend time with you and I love to help you as you have helped me. . . . I love you very much Dad.” January 15, 2009: “Thanks for being you!!” May 22, 2009: I love you very much!” October 26, 2009: “I am so very grateful to you for all your support, help, encouragement, perseverance, love & friendship. I love you very much.” January 1, 2010: You are far too generous and we love you dearly for being so good to us.” January 6, 2010: “More than anything though, thank you for your friendship, fathering & never ending integrity. I have learned much from you over the last 14 months – I look forward to seeing you always.” Mike’s blog contains numerous statements regarding his family and his

• • •

20.

upbringing, much of which are very private and much of which are false, including accusations of childhood trauma and abuse. To the contrary, Mike’s family has

supported him throughout his difficult life, including his father’s moral and financial support when Mike was charged with securities fraud. In 2005, Defendant was charged with serious federal crimes in the United States District Court for the Southern District

PLAINTIFF’S THIRD AMENDED PETITION AND APPLICATION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - PAGE 8

of Manhattan. These criminal charges resulted from a stock fraud scheme in which Mike was alleged to have swindled innocent investors. Mike’s father, B.P., rallied to his son’s side to assist him in avoiding what seemed almost certain to be a sentence of at least five years in a federal penitentiary. Mike’s father spent several million dollars to pay for attorneys’ fees, expenses, restitution, and twenty-one months of inpatient substance abuse treatment. Primarily as a result of the herculean efforts on the part of B.P., Mike escaped prison and was instead granted a five year fully probated sentence, provided that Mike forfeit $387,000.00 and make full restitution of $1,200,807.00, which Mike’s father paid for him. Mike has made no effort to repay his father for the sums expended to keep him from serving a prison sentence. 21. Simply put, Mike refuses to accept his personal responsibility for the poor

choices he has made which caused the difficulties in his life despite having abundant opportunities for a successful and fulfilling life. 22. Mike’s false and defamatory statements, his invasion of Plaintiffs’ privacy,

and his extortionate threat have caused Plaintiffs to suffer extreme emotional distress and may have damaged their reputations. 23. All conditions precedent to Plaintiffs’ claims have been performed or

satisfied. All facts alleged above are incorporated in each count below.

PLAINTIFF’S THIRD AMENDED PETITION AND APPLICATION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - PAGE 9

VI. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF COUNT ONE – INVASION OF PRIVACY BY PUBLIC DISCLOSURE OF PRIVATE FACTS 24. Mike publicized information about Plaintiffs’ private lives in his blog

posts and then forwarded links to his blog to numerous persons using the internet in order to harass Plaintiffs. Mike’s publicity would be highly offensive to a reasonable person. The matters publicized by Mike are not of legitimate public concern. 25. Plaintiffs have suffered injury as a result of Mike’s disclosures. Plaintiffs

request judgment for nominal damages or actual damages, including mental anguish for disclosures made by Mike. Mike’s conduct alleged above was done with malice or through gross negligence, justifying an award of exemplary damages. Finally, Plaintiffs request permanent injunctive relief as available at equity to protect them from further invasion of their private lives. COUNT TWO – COMMON LAW DEFAMATION 26. In many of his blog posts, including those referenced hereinabove, Mike

published to third parties, without a legally recognized privilege to do so, factual statements about the Plaintiffs that were false and defamatory. With regard to at least B.P., and on information and belief with regard to the other Plaintiffs, the statements were made with actual malice. That is, in each instance, Mike made such false statements with knowledge of their falsity or with reckless disregard for the truth of the matters stated therein. With regard to all Plaintiffs, the statements were also made with negligence regarding the truth of the statements. Each of the Plaintiffs has been harmed

PLAINTIFF’S THIRD AMENDED PETITION AND APPLICATION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - PAGE 10

and has suffered damages as a direct result of the defamatory statements made by Mike. Moreover, the republication of Mike’s blog statements by the media was not only reasonably foreseen by Mike, but was, upon information and belief, intentionally orchestrated by Mike, and constitute additional publications by Mike of his false and defamatory statements regarding Plaintiffs. 27. Because Mike’s defamatory statements allege, in B.P.’s case, the

commission of a crime or crimes and acts of moral turpitude and, in the case of all of the Plaintiffs, make allegations that are injurious to their office, profession or occupation, the statements are defamatory per se and Plaintiffs are entitled to a presumption that they have suffered general damages as a result of such statements. Plaintiffs have been damaged in an amount within the jurisdictional limits of this court. 28. Because Mike’s repeated publications of false and defamatory statements

were done with malice, fraud and/or gross negligence, Plaintiffs are entitled to recover exemplary or punitive damages. COUNT THREE – STATUTORY LIBEL 29. Many of Mike’s written and published blog posts, including those

referenced hereinabove, are false, defamatory, and tend to injure Plaintiffs’ reputations and thereby expose them to public hatred, contempt or ridicule, and/or to financial injury, and/or serve to impeach their honesty, integrity, virtue and reputation, and are thus actionable pursuant to TEXAS CIVIL PRACTICE & REMEDIES CODE § 73.001. To the extent that Mike’s posts publish Plaintiffs’ natural defects, thereby exposing them to public hatred, ridicule or financial injury, they are also actionable pursuant to § 73.001.
PLAINTIFF’S THIRD AMENDED PETITION AND APPLICATION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - PAGE 11

30.

No legally recognized privileges apply to the false and defamatory

statements published to third parties by Mike. 31. With regard to at least B.P., and on information and belief with regard to

the other Plaintiffs, the statements were made with actual malice. That is, in each instance, Mike made such false statements with knowledge of their falsity or with reckless disregard for the truth of the matters stated therein. With regard to the Plaintiffs other than B.P., the statements were also made with negligence regarding the truth of the statements. Each of the Plaintiffs has been harmed and has suffered damages as a direct result of the defamatory statements made by Mike. 32. Because Mike’s defamatory statements allege, in B.P.’s case, the

commission of a crime or crimes and acts of moral turpitude and, in the case of all of the Plaintiffs, make allegations that are injurious to their office, profession or occupation, the statements are defamatory per se and Plaintiffs are entitled to a presumption that they have suffered general damages as a result of such statements. Plaintiffs have been damaged in an amount within the jurisdictional limits of this court. 33. Because Mike’s repeated publications of false and defamatory statements

were done with malice, fraud and/or gross negligence, Plaintiffs are entitled to recover exemplary or punitive damages. COUNT FOUR - INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS THROUGH EXTORTION SCHEME 34. Mike intentionally or recklessly caused Plaintiffs to suffer severe

emotional distress through his extortion scheme. As if it were not enough that Mike has

PLAINTIFF’S THIRD AMENDED PETITION AND APPLICATION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - PAGE 12

publicly disclosed private facts about Plaintiffs and made false and defamatory statements about Plaintiffs, Mike – assisted by his counsel Collin Porterfield – threatened to make additional disclosures unless B.P. pays Mike’s demand of $20 million, essentially ransoming Plaintiffs’ peace and solitude. Mike’s conduct was

extreme and outrageous. Mike has engaged in a course of conduct intended to harass and punish Plaintiffs in order to get B.P. to pay Mike $20 million. Mike’s conduct proximately caused injury to Plaintiffs. COUNT FIVE – VIOLATION OF TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 143.01 THROUGH HARMFUL ACCESS BY COMPUTER 35. On information and belief, without obtaining consent Mike sent an email,

text message, or similar communication that references a name, domain address, or other identifying information without obtaining that person’s consent, with the intent to cause the recipient to reasonably believe that the other person authorized or transmitted the communication, and with the intent to harm one or more of Plaintiffs. One or more of Plaintiffs have been injured by the above conduct. Mike’s above-described conduct was committed knowingly or intentionally. 36. Each Plaintiff who has been damaged by the above-described conduct

hereby sues for actual damages and reasonable attorney’s fees as provided in TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REMEDIES CODE § 143.002. COUNT SIX –REQUEST FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 37. Mike has agreed to a Temporary Injunction pending trial. Plaintiffs

request such agreed Temporary Injunction remain in effect pending trial.

PLAINTIFF’S THIRD AMENDED PETITION AND APPLICATION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - PAGE 13

38.

Plaintiffs’ right to be left alone from unwanted attention may be protected

by injunctive relief. Plaintiffs request a permanent injunction restraining Mike from making further public disclosure of private facts relating to Plaintiffs and from repeating statements found to be defamatory, as appropriate under equity. VII. PRAYER 39. Plaintiffs pray that Defendant be cited to appear and answer and that,

upon final judgment, Plaintiffs recover from Defendant: a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. nominal damages, actual damages and special damages; general damages, including damages for loss of reputation and mental anguish; exemplary damages; reasonable attorney’s fees; injunctive relief as requested herein, or as found appropriate by the Court; pre-judgment and post-judgment interest on all amounts awarded herein at the maximum rate allowed by law; costs of court; and such other and further relief, at law or in equity, to which Plaintiffs are justly entitled.

PLAINTIFF’S THIRD AMENDED PETITION AND APPLICATION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - PAGE 14

Respectfully submitted, SHACKELFORD, MELTON & MCKINLEY, LLP /s/ Leland C. de la Garza____________________ Leland C. de la Garza State Bar No. 05646600 Nicole T. LeBoeuf State Bar No. 00791091 3333 Lee Parkway, Tenth Floor Dallas, Texas 75219 (214) 780-1400 (Telephone) (214) 889-9749 (Fax) ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE A true and correct copy of the foregoing pleading was served on the following counsel of record via facsimile on the 10th day of April, 2013: Collin Porterfield 10217 Stone Falls Lane Frisco, Texas 75035 Fax 888-381-7760 Counsel for Defendant

/s/ Leland C. de la Garza_________________ Leland C. de la Garza

PLAINTIFF’S THIRD AMENDED PETITION AND APPLICATION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - PAGE 15