Avi Adelman Claims Phillip Kingston's Campaign is the Real Reason for Wife's Lawsuit

avi1.jpg
Avi Adelman
Avi Adelman, Lower Greenville's resident pot-stirrer, now claims that the lawsuit against him, filed by neighborhood organizer Melissa Kingston, is actually an effort to silence him during her husband's run for, and potential stint on, the Dallas City Council.

See also:
Lawsuit Calls Barking Dog Avi Adelman a "Neighborhood Terrorist" in Wal-Mart Fight

Melissa Kingston is a Lower Greenviille resident and lawyer, and she was working with neighborhood groups in advance of the arrival of a Wal-Mart there. She sued the notorious blogger-activist last month, calling him a "neighborhood terrorist" and claiming he'd registered web site domains in her name and used them to communicate with concerned neighbors.

In his initial response last week, Adelman claimed Kingston's husband, Phillip, was considering a bid to represent the area on the Dallas City Council. Last week, Kingston confirmed: He's in. Adelman now claims that run, and shutting down a potential critic of that run, is behind Melissa Kingston's lawsuit, and he's citing a relatively new Texas law to try to get the lawsuit tossed.

Adelmen provided Unfair Park with a copy of the motion, which he said he would file today, along with a press release summing up his argument. Here's the gist:

It became clear to Adelman that Kingston's suit is much less about a domain name, and much more about keeping him quiet while Mr. Kingston runs for office. Adelman opines, "The math just doesn't add up. I've offered to give Melissa what she wants, but she wants to keep this lawsuit going until I agree not to speak out against her husband, who isn't even a party to the suit. I think Melissa fears I'll post stories on my blog about my belief that Philip lacks the qualifications to represent District 14 - just as I wrote about Councilwoman [Angela] Hunt when she ran for Council eight years ago. I am not about to give up my First Amendment rights while Philip runs for, or serves, as my Council representative."

The motion was filed under Texas' 2011 anti-SLAPP law, a tort reform that allows speedy dismissal of lawsuits filed solely to stifle critics and awards attorneys fees to defendants.

"Mrs. Kingston's suit was filed four days after Mr. Adelman purchased the domain name. Not only was there no time to suffer damages -- an essential element of her claims -- it appears to me Mrs. Kingston wants to ... use the courts to keep Mr. Adelman quiet and at arm's length while her husband runs for office," Adelman's attorney, Justin Nichols, said in the release. "Thankfully, the Texas Legislature passed a law which puts a stop to SLAPP suits, and punishes those who file them. That's exactly what we're asking the Court to do in this case."



Sponsor Content

My Voice Nation Help
42 comments
kash2
kash2

adelman is a POS, he has no accountability for his own actions or life, or children for that matter yet he holds the world to an unattainable standard. He screwed me once and it will never happen again. Adelman if you read this you should find another little neighborhood to pull this sh1t in because its no longer going to fly in dallas. he took everything i had at one point and didnt feel an ounce of remorse, instead he felt gratification you know why? because in his sick mind like some of you on here he thought he was making the world a better place. little did he know he was completely wrong, in fact he accomplished far more harm then the good he could have done. Adelman is someone that this world especially this city would be better without. troll me or say whatever you will; I have seen first hand the deceitful and destructive nature of this man as well as his family. they take everything and give nothing in return. Produce good and you will not have to worry about eliminating bad. I hate the man.

ReadsAllKnowsAll
ReadsAllKnowsAll

Has anyone noticed how Big Bob has completely ignored this new motion? He was first to jump on the original lawsuit, and then licked the boots of Philip Kingston with his "I'm running' story (but conveniently forgot to list two other candidates). This story? Meh, not so much.

scottindallas
scottindallas topcommenter

to the headline,   "....and?"

clevertrousers
clevertrousers

much like Price, this individual has had it on the cards for some time now.

Kris
Kris

I would like to petition Avi Adelman to find a new neighborhoood.  Did y'all miss the beginning part of this story where he very clearly harrassed a respected member of the legal community and then claims "she is taking away my  right to free speech".   I'm pretty positive this is not what the our founding fathers were speaking of when they wrote the First Amendment.  I am so surprised that setting up a ghost website in someone else's name is just fine.  But asking someone not to speak, write or blog about you or your family in return for you dismissing your lawsuit against them isn't right. 

 

Guest
Guest

Can someone please offer Avi a lifetime pass to Golden Corral in exchange for him moving to Houston?

GuitarPlayer
GuitarPlayer

Freedom of Speech does not protect harassment or yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theater. 

RonBigges
RonBigges

I thought the same thing once I read Kingston was filing to run for Council.  And the kicker - and I think I read it on this blog - is that Philip Kingston's treasurer is.... Angela Hunt's husband.  So after all the railings against cronyism bu Hunt lookie here.

 

 

Also, Kingston was one of the major opposers of the cool things people wanted to put on Greenville like the lucky strike style bowling alley by the woman that runs Barcadia. 

ScottsMerkin
ScottsMerkin topcommenter

I fail to see where a lawsuit to keep him from using the domain names in a harmful way keeps him from writing blogs on his own website.  what am I missing here

Myrna.Minkoff-Katz
Myrna.Minkoff-Katz topcommenter

I don't completely understand this blood feud, but I can certainly sympathize with the Adelman when he says he is being robbed of his right to free speech.

JohnNeelyBryan
JohnNeelyBryan

There was a point in time when Mr. Adelman seemed to have the best interests of the neighborhood at heart, even if his methods were crass. Don't know what the hell he is trying to do now.

GuitarPlayer
GuitarPlayer

 @Kris "I am so surprised that setting up a ghost website in someone else's name is just fine." ----- Well, it's fine for people who have never had it done to them. And for people who like doing it. Like those folks who love to bitch about the amount of money a person gets in a personal injury case until they are the ones in the same situation. 

DavidWilson
DavidWilson

 @Kris What difference does it make if the person is a lawyer or not, they don't get special rights. There was no website, just an email (per the lawsuit). The founding fathers did not plan for the internet, so they made things really general to protect free speech in all its forms.

lisareneemerito
lisareneemerito

 @Kris I would sign that petition.  I live on Lower Greenville and I'd contribute to ANY fund to get rid of that terrorist. 

scottindallas
scottindallas topcommenter

 @Guest come on, I wouldn't wish that on even Avi.  The few times I ate there, I was so disgusted and disappointed.  I'm kinda a NAZI about cleaning my plate, even at buffets, but at the Golden Corral, I feel bad for what I'll discard.

davidwilson75205
davidwilson75205

 @ScottsMerkin Adelman just posted the whole motion on his website. He included an email from Kingston to his attorney, offering to settle if (among a long list of things) he agreed to her demand that he never write about her or Philip ever.

 

Sounds like someone needs to go back and read their Bill of Rights, Article 1

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." ~ The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

scottindallas
scottindallas topcommenter

 @Myrna.Minkoff-Katz Not sure how long you've followed Avi, he's a troll, a real troll, not the virtual kind that comes on here.

GuitarPlayer
GuitarPlayer

 @DavidWilson "There was no website," --- Do yourself a favor and do some research on this story. You will look a lot less like an ass.

ThePosterFormerlyKnownasPaul
ThePosterFormerlyKnownasPaul topcommenter

 @davidwilson75205  @ScottsMerkin Ummmm ... The 1st only applies to actions by the government to restrict the speech of individuals.  It does not apply to any action between two individual citizens.

 

Yes, one person can sue you to prevent you from making certain speeches; however, that is essentially asking for a restraining order.  In order to obtain that restraint on future speech, you (plaintiff) would have to show some direct harm or loss as a result of that potential speech; not some hypothetical harm such as loss of an election if the speech were to be made.

 

Lawsuits concerning speech are generally slander suits which are based on past speech which caused direct harm or loss and the defendant is restrained from making similar pronouncements in the future.

scottindallas
scottindallas topcommenter

 @GuitarPlayer  @DavidWilson you'd have to read/know the content of those emails.  I don't know what he said in them either.  Though I haven't passed judgment either.

RTGolden1
RTGolden1 topcommenter

 @DavidWilson  @GuitarPlayer Surely you cannot be that obtuse.  an email, even one from 'aviA@melissakingston.com, without in-depth investigation of the domain, is going to be assumed to have Kingston's approval, if not her direct input.  Avi banked on this to be the case, usurping her identity because of his perceived exclusion.

DavidWilson
DavidWilson

 @GuitarPlayer In looking over all the documents and emails posted by the attorney, it's clear this never happened. This statement from the legal docs is correct. Adelman never claimed to be Melissa. But if her husband was so stupid as to think the email was from his wife, god help us if he gets elected.After months of being excluded, Adelman purchased a $13 domain name from GoDaddy.com, melissakingston.com, and sent seven emails over the course of two days – all involving neighborhood issues, and all signed Avi S. Adelman.

GuitarPlayer
GuitarPlayer

 @DavidWilson It's the same thing. Making up a domain and then sending out emails making the people who get them think they are coming from that person. You are just splitting hairs in a pathetic attempt to keep your ground. 

DavidWilson
DavidWilson

 @GuitarPlayer  @DavidWilson I am amazed, truly I am. He registered website domains and used them to communicate with neighbors. So where does it say, He created a website with Melissa's face all over it???

GuitarPlayer
GuitarPlayer

 @DavidWilson "......claiming he'd registered web site domains in her name and used them to communicate with concerned neighbors."------Read, you'll be amazed.

DavidWilson
DavidWilson

 @GuitarPlayer The website that Melissa referenced was a domain name holding page, not a website with her name plastered all over it. Go buy your name on GoDaddy and see how it works.

RTGolden1
RTGolden1 topcommenter

 @scottindallas  @davidwilson75205  @ScottsMerkin It is not extortion.  Avi has the right to refuse her terms of settlement and take the case to court.  What she is holding against him is already public knowledge in the pleadings she filed in opening her case against him.  Avi would not offer to settle (first I might add, not in counter to her offer) if he didn't think he was going to lose the court case.  That jackass has 9 legal lives and I don't think he's spent one yet.  He's used to going to court and winning.  Now he has to choose, stop writing about these two ninnies, or take the case to court.  Assuming of course, the judge rules in favor of Avi's motion.

She is not using illegal means, threat of violence or undue influence to obtain Avi's agreement to her terms, she's merely extending his own offer to settle back to him, if he can meet her terms.

RTGolden1
RTGolden1 topcommenter

 @ceepee  @unclescrappy  @davidwilson75205  @ScottsMerkin I agree with you on domain name ownership, and I'll admit that I'm walking a very very fine line between speculation and fact.  And spending most of my time on the speculation side of it.

Like I said above, it is reasonable to assume that an email coming from XXX@melissakingston.com either has the approval of, or the direct involvement of, Melissa Kingston.  Most people aren't going to bother to find out who registered and who owns the domain.  I'm sure Avi banked on this to be the case when he went through this whole grand illusion.  I'm not a big fan of Avi, can't stand him.  However, I do not think him stupid nor impetuous.  He had some purpose for doing what he did.  I consider it identity theft.  Is it?  I don't know.  I haven't read the emails either.  I also know very little about Melissa Kingston and care very little about Lower Greenville.  So my whole take on this might just be my dislike for Avi Adelman.

ceepee
ceepee

 @RTGolden1  @unclescrappy  @davidwilson75205  @ScottsMerkin When did registering a domain name on Godaddy.com become identity theft? If the letters strung together to make someone's name plus a dot com after it is identity theft, then sure godaddy. If he signed his name Avi after the emails, then it is obvious that Avi is sending it. He bought the domain, he owns it. If you don't like it then go after domain registering site. She may own her name but she does not win the domain name.

RTGolden1
RTGolden1 topcommenter

 @DavidWilson  @unclescrappy  @davidwilson75205  @ScottsMerkin Her demands may be extreme, but she hasn't crossed any legal or constitutional bounds.  Again, it is up to Avi (if the judge lets her case go forward) to agree to her demands or let the case go to court.  She's not, as Avi's lawyer claims, trying to use the court to silence Avi's first amendment rights.  She's wheeling and dealing to try to get Avi to silence his own rights.  It will come down to who is the better horse-trader.

DavidWilson
DavidWilson

 @RTGolden1  @unclescrappy  @davidwilson75205  @ScottsMerkin Ah but the simple, yet stupid, act of demanding absolute silence on his part for the next say ten years means she stepped way over the bounds of simple demands and into that world of 'you have to be kidding' demands. Read the list of demands, it's not just her husband she's covering, but anything and anyone having to do with Lower Greenville.I ask - Who died and made Melissa Queen of Dallas?

RTGolden1
RTGolden1 topcommenter

 @unclescrappy  @davidwilson75205  @ScottsMerkin I think the lot of you are putting the cart before the horse.  She isn't suing him to restrain his future speech.  She's suing him for sending emails to other residents in a manner that makes it seem as if those emails came from here.  This is a form of identity theft.  It is illegal.

He offered to settle, and give her everything she was asking for in the suit.  She countered his offer to settle, saying she will only settle if he agrees to not write anything about her or her husband.  It is up to him whether or not he accepts her settlement terms.  Avi is pissed off because he does not want this to go to court, because he will lose and be held for damages.  She knows this, knows she's got the upper hand in the dispute, and she's trying to milk it for all it's worth.

TexOHara
TexOHara

 @DavidWilson  @ThePosterFormerlyKnownasPaul  @davidwilson75205  @ScottsMerkin  First, I would be dubious of any description of a settlement offer by Avi.  My guess is he is omitting relevant details in an effort to portray himself as a Martyr for the First Amendment.

 

Second, the First Amendment does not apply to individuals.  Ever hear of a non-disparagement clause?

DavidWilson
DavidWilson

 @ThePosterFormerlyKnownasPaul  @davidwilson75205  @ScottsMerkin And your statement is in a nutshell why SLAPP suits are illegal - You cannot restrain anyone from making any kind of statement just because you don't like what they say (except for the FIRE in a theater issue). Telling someone they cannot make statements in the future is prior restraint. Read NYT v Nixon White House.

Now Trending

Dallas Concert Tickets

From the Vault

 

General

Loading...