Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
07-16-00320-CV
Leif A. Olson
State Bar No. 24032801
leif@olsonappeals.com
The Olson Firm, PLLC
PMB 188
4830 Wilson Road, Suite 300
Humble, Texas 77396
(281) 849-8382
Counsel for
Appellant Vision 20/20
J. Paul Manning
State Bar No. 24002521
jpmanning@lubbocklawfirm.com
Anna McKim
State Bar No. 24033381
amckim@lubbocklawfirm.com
Field, Manning, Stone,
Hawthorne & Aycock, P.C.
2112 Indiana Avenue
Lubbock, Texas 79410
(806) 792-0810
Table of Contents
Identity of Parties and Counsel ........................................................... 1
Table of Contents ............................................................................... 2
Index of Authorities ............................................................................ 4
Statement of the Case ......................................................................... 7
Glossary .............................................................................................. 7
Statement on Oral Argument .............................................................. 8
Issue Presented ................................................................................... 9
Facts ................................................................................................. 10
A. Castleman gives OConnor instructions on ordering
products. ................................................................................. 10
B. OConnor doesnt follow the instructionsand cant admit
it. ........................................................................................... 14
C. Castleman reviews OConnors work. .................................... 16
D. OConnor sues........................................................................20
Summary of Argument...................................................................... 22
Standards .......................................................................................... 23
1. Proceedings under the Act. ................................................ 23
2. Defamation requires a falsehood. ....................................... 25
3. Truth is a defense. ............................................................. 25
Argument: OConnor didnt meet his burden to furnish prima facie
evidence of defamation because Castlemans statements are protected speech.
The trial court erred in denying the motion to dismiss. ............................ 26
A. This case is based on Castlemans exercise of his freedom to
speak. ...................................................................................... 26
B. OConnors attempt to establish a prima facie case failed. ...... 27
Index of Authorities
Cases
Arant v. Jaffe
436 S.W.2d 169 (Tex. Civ. App. Dallas 1968, no writ) ............... 33
Backes v. Misko
486 S.W.3d 7 (Tex. App. Dallas 2015, pet. denied) ................... 36
Beaver County, Okla., Bd. of Commrs. v. Amarillo Hospital Dist.
835 S.W.2d 115 (Tex. App. Amarillo 1992, no writ)................... 39
Bentley v. Bunton
94 S.W.3d 561 (Tex. 2002) .................................................... 25, 30
Billington v. Houston Fire & Cas. Ins. Co.
226 S.W.2d 494 (Tex. Civ. App. Fort Worth 1950, no writ) ...... 33
Farah v. Esquire Magazine
736 F.3d 528 (D.C. Cir. 2013) ...................................................... 32
Franklin v. Dynamic Details, Inc.
10 Cal. Rptr. 3d 429 (Cal. App. 2004) .......................................... 33
Greenbelt Cooperative Publishing Assn. v. Bresler
398 U.S. 6 (1970) ......................................................................... 33
Gustafson v. City of Austin
110 S.W.3d 652 (Tex. App. Austin 2003, pet. denied) ...............26
Hancock v. Variyam
400 S.W.3d 59 (Tex. 2013) .......................................................... 25
Hicks v. Group & Pension Administrators, Inc.
473 S.W.3d 518 (Tex. App. Corpus Christi 2015, no pet.) ... 36, 37
Hogan v. Winder
762 F.3d 1096 (10th Cir. 2014) ..................................................... 33
Kachina Pipeline Co. v. Lillis
471 S.W.3d 445 (Tex. 2015) ........................................................ 28
Trial court
Trial court
proceedings
Trial court
disposition
Castleman
Glossary
Appellants Timothy Castleman
and Castleman Consulting, LLC
CR
Clerks record
OConnor
1SCR
2SCR
Issue Presented
A customer posted online about his experience with a
service provider. The post described their interactions
and the providers breach of their contract, opined on
the providers performance, and suggested that others
avoid the provider. The provider asserts that the post
was defamatory because he read the parties contract
differently.
Did the trial court err in denying the customers motion
to dismiss under the Texas Citizens Participation Act?
Facts
A. Castleman gives OConnor instructions on ordering products.
Castleman hired OConnor and his company to work as a virtual assistant. CR _. Among OConnors duties were placing orders with suppliers for delivery of products that customers had ordered from Castlemans website. Id. Castleman sold some products in different lot
sizes than the sizes in which products were supplied. Id.. That is, Castleman might have sold widgets in lots of 10, but the widgets came from
the supplier in lots of 5. Id.
Castleman furnished OConnor with instructions for how orders
were to be placed. Appx. 1. The instructions included an example that
demonstrated how multiple-unit products were to be ordered. The first
three steps in the instructions were to log in to Aliexpress, the orderfulfillment website; sort the orders to find the unfulfilled ones; and click
on an unfulfilled order to open it. Appx. 1 at CR _. The next step was
to look at the order, paying special attention to the amount of each
item. Appx. 1 at CR _. It was accompanied by this illustration, in
which the example customer ordered two of each item:
10
Appx. 1 at CR _.
The very next instruction and illustration described what to do when
Castleman and the supplier had different lot sizes:
Now go to the Products In Store Spreadsheet and find
the first product on the spreadsheet. Pay special attention to the rows Variation and Volume. The volume of the Kawaii Sticker Tabs means that if someone
ordered 1 of the item in the store, then we would order
2 in Aliexpress. If someone orders 2 in the store then we
order 4 on Aliexpress. The Variation tells you which
item on the Aliexpress listing to order.
11
Appx. 1 at CR _. As the written instructions specifically noted, the Kawaii Sticker Tabs had a volume of 2, so OConnor would need to order
two sets of tabs from the supplier for every single set of tabs that a customer ordered from Castleman. Id. No other item in the instructional
spreadsheet had a separate volume value. Id. Only the Kawaii Sticker
Tabs, with their value of 2, had a volume value at all. Id. That is, no
product was to be ordered in anything other than a one-to-one quantityexcept for the one product that had a different volume number
listed.
The example continued with how to place the items in the online
shopping cart. Once the last item had been added, Castlemans instructions told OConnor to compare what is in your cart[] with the order
and double check that you have all the things and they are all entered
correctly. Appx. 1 at CR _. Castleman used the earlier example order,
12
in which the customer had ordered two of each item, to show how a
properly placed order with the supplier would look:
Castleman also gave OConnor an actual spreadsheet of the products he sold. CR _. As in the example spreadsheet, one of the values for
each product was volume. Id. The numbers for the actual products
varied depending on the product; most were 1 (or blank), but some were
2 or 3. Id. One of the products was Pretty Pastel Washi Tape. (Washi
tape is made of paper; usually colored or decorated; and usually used in
paper crafts, particularly scrapbooking.) The tape had a value of 1for
every 10-roll package of tape that a customer ordered from Castleman,
OConnor was supposed to order a single 10-roll package of the tape
from the supplier:
Id.
B. OConnor doesnt follow the instructionsand cant admit it.
In November 2015, Castleman reviewed his web stores finances for
the previous month and noticed discrepancies between his expected
and actual profits. CR _. Further inquiry revealed that OConnor was,
14
15
17
Kevins company over ordered and shipped an additional $7,897.68 worth of products to my customers
which I now have to pay out of my own pocket
No one from his company (that we hired to manage
this for us) reviewed any of the orders to ensure they
were being done correctly despite his assurances they
do quality control and project management on all jobs.
There was an 85% error rate by his staff in ordering
products for us
When presented with facts (credit card statements,
Shopify print outs, and AliExpress orders) Kevin still
refused to accept any responsibility and to this day has
refused to pay me back for his company and employees
mistakes.
Appx. 2 at CR _. The next several paragraphs recounted Castlemans
personal interactions with OConnor; his earlier promotion of OConnors business; and his telling several business associates, who later
signed up with OConnor themselves, about OConnors services.
Appx. 2 at CR _.
This led Castleman to the reasons for his review:
Im writing this post to warn others and share my personal experience with Kevin OConnor and his company.
If you choose to use him after seeing that he doesnt
stand behind his employees work, has zero quality control or checks to ensure work is being done correctly,
18
and no matter how much proof you have of their mistakes, he will never admit when his team has made a
mistake or compensate you in any fashion for those mistakes go ahead.
If you want to host a webinar, podcast, or invite him to
speak on stage after reading this, thats your choice and
speaks more to your core values than mine.
I just refuse to have people who have helped him in the
past have their name associated with him or his company without knowing the facts about what he did to our
[e-commerce] business and his unwillingness to stand
behind his word and his employees mistakes.
Appx. 2 at CR _.
The review Castleman posted on Facebook garnered 99 likes and
more than two dozen comments. CR _. The same day that he posted
his review, he also posted a link to the review on his podcasts Facebook
page. CR _. That post garnered at least 21 more likes and several more
comments. Id.
A little more than a week later, Castleman posted to his podcasts
Facebook page a link to a domain-name seller showing that OConnor
had purchased several new domain names. Appx. 3. (One can infer
from the comments to that post that OConnor was buying several different top-level domainsthe codes like .net, .org, .info, and the like
so that no one could put up a critical website using his own companys
19
trade name, TheOfflineAssistant.com.) That evening, someone commented on that link, This is the same guy that practically stole from
you right? The fulfillment guy? Appx. 3 at CR _. Castleman responded, Yep same guy. Id.
D. OConnor sues.
OConnor doubled down on his blame shifting after Castleman sent
a demand letter for reimbursement of the over-ordered amounts. CR _.
In his counter-demand letter, he claimed that Castleman had specifically and unambiguously directed him to double all orders. CR _.
When Castleman refused to take down his reviews, OConnor sued for
defamation. CR _.
OConnor put forth a panoply of statements he claimed were defamatory. CR _. The trial courts findings of fact narrowed these to just six:
That there was an 85% error rate in the orders OConnor
fulfilled;
That [n]o one from [OConnors] company reviewed any of
the orders to ensure they were being done correctly;
That OConnor employed zero quality control or checks to
ensure work is being done correctly;
That OConnor was unwilling[] to stand behind his word;
Replying Yep same guy when asked whether OConnor
practically stole from him; and
20
case that the six statements were false and susceptible of defamatory
meaning; that Castleman hadnt proven that the statements were true;
and that the commercial-speech exception to the Act applied. Appx. 5
at 2SCL 47.
Castleman now appeals. Appx. 6.
Summary of Argument
The trial court erred in denying the motion to dismiss. OConnors
lawsuit is based on Castlemans exercise of his freedom to speak, so
Castleman is entitled to dismissal unless OConnor could produce evidence to support each element of his claim for defamation. He couldnt.
His sole argument was that Castlemans statements are defamatory because he did what he was instructed to do. But the evidence is conclusive that he didntthe instructions are unambiguous and, in fact, directly contradict what OConnor claims they said. Because he has no
evidence that he complied with the instructions, he has no evidence that
Castlemans statements that he didnt comply with the instructions are
false. Further, most of Castlemans statements are protected opinion
that cant constitute defamation; and all of the statements that can be
construed as facts are, as a matter of law, true or substantially true.
OConnors legal and procedural arguments fail, too. The commercial-speech exemption doesnt apply her to allow his lawsuit because
22
at the same time, protect the rights of a person to file meritorious lawsuits for demonstrable injury. Id. at 27.002. Under the Act, Castleman is entitled to dismissal if he, as the movant, establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that OConnor sued him because he exercised one of his protected rights. Id. at 27.005(b). OConnor, as the
claimant avoids dismissal only if he brings forth clear and specific evidence of a prima facie case on each essential element of his claim. Id. at
27.005(c). Whether he has done so is a question of law. Rehak Creative
Servs., Inc. v. Witt, 4040 S.W.3d 716, 726727 (Tex. App. Houston
[14th Dist.] 2013, pet. denied). Even then, Castleman is still entitled to
dismissal if he establishes by a preponderance of the evidence each
essential element of a defense. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code
27.005(d).
The Act makes two awards mandatory if a defendant prevails on a
motion to dismiss. First, the defendant must be awarded court costs,
legal fees, and other expenses incurred in defending against the suit.
Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code 27.009(a)(1). Second, the court
must impose a sanction upon the plaintiff sufficient to deter it from
bringing similar suits in the future. Id. at 27.009(a)(2).
24
25
16 (Tex. 1990). This test applies to private-figure plaintiffs like OConnor. Gustafson v. City of Austin, 110 S.W.3d 652, 656 (Tex. App. Austin 2003, pet. denied) (applying test to private figure).
Argument:
OConnor didnt meet his burden to furnish prima facie
evidence of defamation because Castlemans statements are
protected speech. The trial court erred in denying the motion to
dismiss.
A. This case is based on Castlemans exercise of his freedom to
speak.
There is no question that OConnor sued Castleman because Castleman exercised his right to speak. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem.
Code 27.001(1), (3). The pleadings and evidence are conclusive.
OConnor cannot be suing for defamation unless Castleman said something; the only question is whether Castlemans speech was on a matter of public concern. The Act defines public concern to include
an issue related to a good, product, or service in the marketplace.
Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code 27.001(7)(E). Castlemans
statements were about the services that he received from OConnor,
which OConnor was continuing to offer in the marketplace. Castleman
noted in his review that he was posting the review specifically because
OConnor continued to offer those services in the marketplaceand
others had hired OConnor because of him. Appx. 2 at CR _. Indeed,
26
27
Appx. 1 at CR _. One step in the instructions is to compare the customers order with the order to the supplier to make sure that the correct quantities are entered. That step shows OConnor ordering two
units of everythingexcept for the Sticker Tabs, of which he is ordering four. Appx. 1 at CR _.
OConnor offered no evidence that he was told to disregard the instructions or to vary from the example. He in fact claims that the instructions were explicit that he double order everythingthe same instructions that include an example order showing some items being
double ordered and some items ordered normally. CR _. His only other
proffer is two instant-message exchanges. CR _. But those are no evidence, either. One message concerns the way that orders for a particular
product are to be filled; the other concerns an attempt to cancel a customers order. CR _, _. Neither mentions double ordering, much less
that OConnor is supposed to double everything.
The instructions were unambiguous and can be construed as a matter of law. See Kachina Pipeline Co. v. Lillis, 471 S.W.3d 445, 449450
(Tex. 2015). Even if they were ambiguous, there is no plausible argument that they say what OConnor claimsthe instructions themselves go to great length to contradict it. They cannot support OConnors claim that Castlemans statements about OConnors performance were false.
28
29
acknowledgement of someone elses interpretation of his obligations?there is no objective, verifiable test for when OConnor has
stood behind it. See Appx. 2 at CR _. Does he stand behind his word
when he does whatever the client requests? Does he do so when he performs what he believes his obligations to be under an agreement? Does
he do so by performing even when agreements (or understandings) are
oral rather than written? And in the same vein, how would he fix problems? See Appx. 2 at CR _. What constitutes a problem for him versus
a problem for his client? Is he supposed to fix the latter even if its not
covered by a contract? Is he supposed to fix a problem to the extent
that a reasonable person would think a breach of contract cured, or does
he fix a problem by ensuring that his client, even if unreasonable, is
happy?
The only thing that is sure from the statement is that Castleman is
unhappy with OConnors work. And Im unhappy with your work
is a pure expression of opinion.
b. Contextual opinions.
Castlemans statements must be analyzed through the eyes of a typical reader of his blog or Facebook feed or listener to his podcast. New
Times, 146 S.W.3d at 160161; Old Dominion Branch No. 496, Natl.
Assn. of Letter Carriers v. Austin, 418 U.S. 264, 284286 (1974). Cf.
Bentley, 94 S.W.3d at 584585. In context, that analysis shows that some
30
of the statements that OConnor derides as false facts are, in fact, opinions.
In the context of his review, as read by a regular visitor to his blog or
Facebook page, Castlemans statements that OConnor performed no
quality control and reviewed none of the orders are expressions of frustration. The statements come in the middle of a 33-paragraph review
that spent the last several paragraphs describing the errors committed
in ordering; the work needed to uncover and quantify those errors; the
communications to attempt to cure those errors; and the refusal to reimburse for the cost the errors imposed. Appx. 2 at CR _.They demonstrate his dissatisfaction with a contractor who erred in 80% of the tasks
that were assigned to him. No reasonable reader of Castlemans entire
reviewa person who sought out Castlemans blog, YouTube channel,
podcast, or Facebook pagewould conclude that these statements
were anything other than rhetorical hyperbole, a lusty and imaginative
expression of the contempt felt by Castleman toward someone who
hadnt performed as he had promised. Letter Carriers, 418 U.S. at 286.
In the same vein, Castlemans statement, Yup same guy, when
asked whether OConnor was the same person who had practically
stole[n] from him is simply hyperbole. Appx. 3 at CR _. The statement
was posted as a response to a Facebook comment, but that simply looks
at the statement in isolation. It is that whole context, which includes
31
the immediate context of the disputed statements,the type of publication, the genre of writing, and the publications history, that determines how the statement would be understood by the readers to whom
it was addressed and thus whether it could be defamatory. Farah v.
Esquire Magazine, 736 F.3d 528, 535 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (internal citations
and quotations omitted).
Looking at the full context here, Castlemans Yup same guy must
be read through the eyes of a person who had gone to the Facebook page
for Castlemans podcast; read the link (about OConnors buying up of
domain names) that accompanied the post; and understood from the
link, the earlier comments, and Castlemans reviewwithout which
neither the link nor the comments can be understoodthat the comment referred to OConnor. And no reasonable reader armed with that
knowledge would believe that Castleman was either accusing OConnor
of thievery or agreeing with such an accusation. It would be clear to that
reader that the comment was referring to the several thousands of dollars that OConnor had cost Castleman and hadnt reimbursed to him.
And this would have been the case even if Castleman had simply
come out and stated, OConnor practically stole from me. There is
no innuendo or suggestion of actual criminality; in context, its clear
that Castleman would be referring to the money that OConnor cost
him. Directed verdicts on similar statements have been upheld: The
words liar and crook were abusive and opprobrious, but they did not
32
33
sample of OConnors orders showed an 85% error rate, and a full review showed an error rate of approximately 80%. CR _. Castleman said
that there was no quality control or review; OConnor got only 20% of
the orders right and described no reviews or procedures. CR _. Castleman said that OConnor didnt stand behind his word; OConnor
wouldnt reimburse the extra costs that he imposed. CR _.
There is no evidence to contradict any of this. There are no pleadings that can be read to contest it. OConnors only argument is that he
read the instructions right. CR _. He didnt. Argument B.1.a. There
is no evidencemuch less legally sufficient evidenceof falsity. All of
the evidence supports the finding that Castlemans statements are true.
And all of that evidence is clear, positive, direct, and free from anything
that would tend to cast suspicion on its truth. Ragsdale v. Progressive Voters League, 801 S.W.2d 880, 882 (Tex. 1990). The truth of the statements is thus established as a matter of law. Id.
And even if OConnor had shown a smidgen of quality control or
order review, so what? Quality control measures that result in an 80%
error rate might as well be no measures at all; whatever review was being employed didnt catch that OConnors interpretation of the instructions directly contradicted the example given in the instructions.
The sting of the truthOConnor employed quality-control
measures that resulted in a 20% success rate; OConnors review of the
orders didnt catch that he was directly contradicting the instructions
34
or its competitors in an attempt to win business for the speaker. Newspaper Holdings, Inc. v. Crazy Hotel Assisted Living, Ltd., 416 S.W.3d 71,
8889 (Tex. App. Houston [1st Dist.] 2013, pet. denied). This is both
the logical reading of the statute and the necessary one. Were OConnor right, the commercial-speech exception would swallow the Acts
application to speech about services offered in the marketplace. Tex.
Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code 27.001(7)(E); Newspaper Holdings, 416
S.W.3d at 89. A private school whose principal wrote a negative review
of a lazy janitorial contractor would be excluded from the Acts protection simply because both entities sell services.
It is no surprise that every appellate court in Texas that has considered OConnors argument has rejected it. 1 Indeed, the First Court of
Appeals has refused to apply the commercial-speech exception in an
36
37
The motion to dismiss stated in its introduction and its prayer that
the trial court should dismiss not the claims against Tim Castleman individually, but the suit in its entirety. CR _, _. The first paragraph in
the Facts section states that the term Castleman includes both
Tim Castleman and Castleman Consulting, just as it noted that
OConnor included Kevin OConnor and his company. CR _.
OConnor himself construed the motion as being made by both defendants: He describes the motion as containing claims by Defendants
about their statements, of which Defendants list only some, and
he accuses Defendants of ignoring both some statements and his accusation that Defendants goal was to injure him. CR _. And in
closing, OConnor asked the trial court to deny Defendants Motion
to Dismiss[.] CR _.
If OConnor was confused about the provenance of the motion he
should have excepted to it. Tex. R. Civ. P. 91. He wasnt confused
over it, so he didnt. All of the evidence, including the motion itself and
OConnors reaction to it, indicates that the motion was brought on behalf of Tim Castleman and Castleman Consultingand that OConnor
knew it. The conclusion that only Tim Castleman brought the motion
is supported by no evidence; all of the evidence supports the conclusion
that both defendants brought the motion.
38
PMB 188
4830 Wilson Road, Suite 300
Humble, Texas 77396
Counsel for appellants
Certificate of Compliance
I certify that this Castlemans Opening Brief was prepared with Microsoft Word 2013, and that, according to that programs word-count
function, the sections covered by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure
9.4(i)(1) contain 6,286 words.
/s/ Leif A. Olson
Certificate of Service
I certify that on October 11, 2016, in accordance with Texas Rule of
Appellate Procedure 9.5(b), I served a copy of this Castlemans Opening
Brief and its Appendix by e-filing upon:
J. Paul Manning
jpmanning@lubbocklawfirm.com
Anna McKim
amckim@lubbocklawfirm.com
Field, Manning, Stone,
Hawthorne & Aycock, P.C.
2112 Indiana Avenue
Lubbock, Texas 79410
(806) 792-0810
Counsel for appellees
/s/ Leif A. Olson
40
No. 07-16-00320-CV
Leif A. Olson
State Bar No. 24032801
leif@olsonappeals.com
The Olson Firm, PLLC
PMB 188
4830 Wilson Road, Suite 300
Humble, Texas 77396
(281) 849-8382
Counsel for Appellants
Appendix Contents
Tab
Contents
Ordering instructions
Castlemans review
Facebook post
Notice of appeal
Tab 1:
Ordering instructions
1.
1 rPSO/edit?usp=sharinq
2.
Log in to AliExpress -
https:/ /docs. gooq le. com/document/d/ 1 yXnCK8P7TFxCrUsnWz46 RtUzEc3N Ix9yPqdc Ib uOtM/edit?usp=sha rinq
3.
1t Horne
3 orders have bE
These pro
Unique Kav
Pretty 12pc :
6PCS Cute
IA
Exhibit B - Page 1
6 Orders
0
r<
c..
Or<ler
Cl.lie.
Cu&omer
11 .'U
Yulerday 3. 1pm
Salunf)- 1 2.lSpm
l:ICi
"
Sauxd3y
12 1 Jpn
ffldlw 2 35pm
PafTTlenl 11a1ut1
$6 99
t1l99
BOOO
Kil'l:l'.leSitC!bfm
ll!ltl<I
$699
All Orders
Op-en
Filte-r orciers....
Unfulfilled
..
Unpaid
Order
Date ...,.
Customer
n-1G1<!
Yesterday 3:41pm
Kim Scarboro
rr1013
Saturday 12:35pm
Barb Allred
Saturday, 12:131:m1
Karen P St ephens
Exhibit B - Page 2
0 ders I #1012
Order details
Q
Online Store
Unfulfille.d
.o.:o:t:.:
. .
$15.00
$30.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
r_:ri
$0.00
$0.00
Subtotal
$30.00
Shipping
Free Sta1iard Sh:pping
$0.00
Tax
$0.00
Total
$30.00
8.0 It
Exhibit B - Page 3
Products In Store
File
@I
fi
View
Edit
,,.._
In s ert
Format
o_ O 123..
Data
Tools
Price In Store
$15.00
QP::
-:
d Na me l n S t or:"'
e":').._ l link To Store
ro
_,
= - :20 Color ;=
Stamp:Ink-::
Pads
http://v,wNprett
httplprel
l)'t.YW
lx
20pcs Pretty
htrp-llN'.W/orett:.
$15
http://v.w11.oretll
$2000
11
1:
http://oretN-scrr
http-{/pretty-scra
Purchase
lJ
l.
I-+
e
c
a
N me
E,)
Purchase link
http/ ly
:wali
w exoressCQfTLf
item/20
C<
http//wy.waljexoress.comlitemf6F
bliplfww!alje xoress
00
com/iteml6PCS-(
$0.00
$9 99
$0.00
$9.99
ag'
$12.00
10
$0_00
Help
10
AnaJ
_
_
Add-ons
httrl/v..ww al1expresgorolitem/20
Brown Pirate
l>l!Pl'l'M"'aliE>XJ>f.ll.o
. mtttrn.!2Q
http/,;w.waliernress cororitem/1-ocs-(
2 http-/
N
MW ahexpresscomfite
m/1-ocs.(
13
14
When you find the item on the spreadsheet, click the "Purchase Link"
to be taken to that listing on Aliexpress. Make sure that you are
log ged in to AliExpress BEFORE you add anythin g to your cart.
{Upper right of the picture) Then choose the quantity of items and
click add to cart.
A.Ii.Express
4-- 6a:1<; 10 search resUits :
"'C;:cgories
1
1n
....
-
h o
Fi
Caf1
\'Ash
Q list
o H. r.ma>
0 My AhEXpre!S
1-'ome,. All cateones >Home & Qanjen,. Ms.crais & S6w.no SCraobO-tno & Star.'IP!nQ Stam;>S
'
: ,
20pcs/lot 20 Colors DIY Scrapbooking Vintage Crafts Ink pad Colorful lnkpad Stamps Sealing
Decoration Stamp No.0282
98.8/o or buyers enJO)EiCI th s produet!'(143 votes}
us
$7.84 1101
',
216 orders
SOid By
1"
e..
[-1
33S4 l(j>(jl'((I>
98,9% Postthe feedbact:
Detailed M!llEH ratings ..
V1stt s1ore
Cont:ict Seller
o
Contact Ne
Exhibit B - Page 4
A new item has been added to your Shopping Cart. You now have 1 items in your Shopping Cart.
View Shopping Cart
Continue Shopping
(3')
80 Orders
4sheets/lot diy
scrapbooking clear ...
39 Orders
HOT!
< 1 Obag/lot,.About
VS $11.0b !lot
(2B)
(10i
14 Orders
28pcs Vintage
wood
DIY
us $.50 -
5.80 I Pack
i3 Orders
Go back to the spreadsheet and find the other items and place them
all in your cart.
Once you have added the last item in the order to your cart, click View
Shoppin g Cart
x
Continue Shopping
Buyers
\'\q10
South Korea
stationery wholesale
Silicone Finger
us $1.4 9 /piece
, (90)
; 15 Orders
-
P ...
us $0.78 I piece
vintage creative
us $1.751 piece
'
(26)
55 Orders
236 Orders
us $1.50 I piece
(2S)
(254)
45 Orders
Exhibit B - Page 5
Now compare what is in your cart, with the order in Shopify and
double check that you have all the things and they are all entered
correctly.
Cell
:i
Fue
$15.00
$0.00
0.00
$0.00
'(
Otfh!'M!
(Or'ltaaflO\
2.0C Pages Kawau Ur qu Scrapboc>K "8 Ten fmgus sucker Bookrr.ark Tab F
lagstlEl'\O SOOk Mar<er St1Ccy No:es
US$0.66'
.',
<f'r.\
r-< ..
...
Lo mgwarm nome
Remove
1>; ca:r.;
S<J.a)
(',;.,
20PCS LcvtlJ Fiims Photo St1ck.e"'5 M1n1 tJlt1color lnstant crapboo 1g Sur
'r.."f Oa i Notes PJiper Sra onery
mu.ti<olor
US$1.34
..,;+.,
l..!:C i1s
7 dil)
S.t
cot.ict n':>w'
. fllFfl
.. , .
US $1.23 I
Ch1:1 n ...
r
.
Rtmovf
rr.. shipping
..
Pr
Con:act r: Yvt
2.l)JXS11ot 20 Coiors Oh' Scrpb001ng \ 1t1ge Crafts Ink p;i(I coio('l'1,.' lnl.,?J
d Stan- St.nng OHCYauoo Stamp No 02.62
us $7.8
l ..:. .
RtmoVf'
fr shtpplns
15...._ days
7d)"
Exhibit B - Page 6
Once you are sure that the order is correct check the shippin g on
each item and make sure it is the cheapest and then fastest option. In
this example there are 2 Free shippin g options but the China Post has
a faster delivery time.
:-1
66.
1:. e:e
. ng !Jet< s
us $0.00
::
Remove
Packet
L.
j j :'-
Post
EMS
$0.00
us $40.17
US
cacei
OK
CJ da.
-10 c...
'us $0.00
LS $2.64
After you set all of the shippin g options go to the bottom and click
they BUY A L L button
s:_ btNal(._.
;h
"c
!(Ems:
US $23.46
All Tc tal:
$0..00
US $23.46
You will be taken to an order review page and here you need to put in
the customer's address by clickin g the edit button under the address
displayed.
Exhibit B - Page 7
Payment
---------------;
1. Select your shipping information:
Une Lee
Mu1Tells
United States
Phone umber:
--
:
----------------
Mobile
Exhibit B - Page 8
OCJf'IS ! #1012
Octc:..1 J. 20151:; 13
Order details
Unfulfiled
Pc
sPrr f
11 ..
$1500
13000
$0.00
IDOO
tOOO
1000
c:a""rn MO '>SfrJ().7,i{-{J
lioittO $1.'l!P:
r.,J 453 4222
SOlO 2
$3:1.00
1000
TntAI
&000
n nn
Risk revel
Exhibit B - Page 9
Payment
Contact l\iame:
Country/Region:
Street Address
Clty;
Srate/Provlnce/Region:
Zip/Postal Code:
Karen P Stephens
United States
3947 Highway H
Salem
Missouri
65560
lei:
Cc J ,,..
Mobile:
573-L53-4222
Cancel
Click Save and ship to this address and Aliexpress wi ll take you back
to the review page, go to the bottom and click Place Order
Exhibit B - Page 10
C.\..: ci.
- US Hl.00
- us $0_00
Buyer Protection
g Full Refund if you
yoJr order
g Refund or Keep
desclil)ed
don't
rece ve
:erns not as
There is already a card on file, choose pay with your card and click
Pay Now
Ororto1
us $23.46
Al1py Accou
contactlimcastle111.in(&g111ail.com
?.JJ r
.
T '
I ,.
,,
696965;40473'
c
L
' .
I<:'
O:
. 1187
Payment Total US
$23.46
us $2.64
. be
.
Alipay
us $15.68
6989665405731'
l
'C">r
f.""C$ ..:ut
C:'
,,P,
us $2.68
6939C5540;;73 l
,._ Fa>r F
1 to A'1E:.-'press
us $2.46
US S23A6
us $23.46
Exhibit B - Page 11
In order to ensure your account security, you will need to provide some information before continuing.
Please enter your card expiration date.
J:
) ,
After you hit submit you are taken to this page and you are done with
this order in Aliexpress.
A Ii l:?xPress
.
AliEJ<press will process verification on your payments authorizanon witiin 24 hours. Once the payme n t pass verification.
we will receive your payment and your supplier v.oll start to pre pare your order. Ifthe verification failed, you will be
notified via email.
::
1'-
...
.
G
otoOrderList
Cont lnuaS!)oopi na
6 Orders I #1012
oc10ber10, 20152:13
Paid i--.
vi
l!I!"
$30.00
Cl
s;omer
$30.00
Re
Exhibit B - Page 12
C' el
Shipping
Mark as fulfilled
Choose quantity to fulfill
3947 Highway H
Items
We9ht
-!'/IJ...t
t.....
1)4 ;;n:
...
address
Karen P Stephens
5.; .ker"".".Jt F t ,
OuanLit)'
1 0 lb
of 2
1 0 lb
of 2
United
States
573-453-4222
( V .,,r.ap
TtW" <
(S0.00) at che.k:..1
LO lb
of 2
lb
oi 2
1 0
Salem MO 65560-7860
summary
01
Mark as fulfilled
Exhibit B - Page 13
Tab 2:
Castlemans review
Warning: Stay Away From The Offline Assistant Company & Kevin OConnor |
DECEMBER 4, 2015
On November 18th, 2015 during a routine review of our books, our accountant noticed a
$7,897.68 error caused by Kevin OConnors Offline Assistant Company.
We hired Kevin and his company to fulfill our physical product store orders and it turns out that
they had been double ordering and shipping our most popular item to customers at our
expense for no understandable reason.
Once the error was discovered, I immediately had the last 100 orders they had placed for us
reviewed, and there was an 85% error rate in those orders so we started to dig deeper.
I immediately let Kevin know about this issue personally and told him I would get him a full
report by the following Monday (this was Friday).
We pulled our financial records from the store, the supplier, and matched them to our credit
card statements for them to get a full accounting of just how bad it was.
Exhibit E - Page 1
http://www.timothycastleman.com/warning-stay-away-from-the-offline-assistant-company-kevin-oconnor/[5/6/2016 8:22:59 PM]
Warning: Stay Away From The Offline Assistant Company & Kevin OConnor |
When all was said in done, Kevins employees had over ordered and shipped products to the
tune of a $14,968.45 almost DOUBLE what the orders should have cost and costing us
$7,897.68 in profit.
Armed with this information I sent everything to Kevin and asked him to review everything and
if the numbers were correct explain why none of the orders were checked by his project
manager (as promised when we signed up) or anyone else on is staff for accuracy, how his
employees could see us losing money on ever order and not say anything, and why they
hadnt followed the spreadsheet directions we gave them.
When he finally responded 3 days later, he blamed us for not catching the error and cited a
training example order we included in the training materials (of a totally different product than
the one they misordered above) as a reason why they had doubled ordered everything.
His team managed to order the correct quantities of other items we sold in different amounts
(1, 2, 4 etc) with no problem.
When confronted with this, he went radio silent and refused to respond to any more of my
emails.
It was only after I demanded repayment for the $7,897.68 error that he finally responded, and
only to tell me that he considered the matter closed on his part and that he and his employees
had done nothing wrong and that he wouldnt be paying for his employees mistake.
Kevins company over ordered and shipped an additional $7,897.68 worth of products to my
customers which I now have to pay out of my own pocket
No one from his company (that we hired to manage this for us) reviewed any of the orders to
Exhibit E - Page 2
http://www.timothycastleman.com/warning-stay-away-from-the-offline-assistant-company-kevin-oconnor/[5/6/2016 8:22:59 PM]
Warning: Stay Away From The Offline Assistant Company & Kevin OConnor |
ensure they were being done correctly despite his assurances they do quality control and
project management on all jobs.
There was an 85% error rate by his staff in ordering products for us
When presented with facts (credit card statements, Shopify print outs, and AliExpress
orders) Kevin still refused to accept any responsibility and to this day has refused to pay me
back for his company and employees mistakes.
I first met Kevin when I and several others (Brad Gosse, Ron Douglas, E. Brian Rose, Ben
Littlefield, Ben Adkins, Colin Theriot, Mark Helton, Brian Anderson, Ryan McKinney) were his
mentor at the Marketers Mansion.
We all spent time with him trying to help him grow his business.
I personally promoted Kevin not only to my list via a webinar, but also through my podcast
(free of charge), and told several business associates about him (who ended up signing up
with him right Los).
Just last month I dropped everything when he came into town and showed him around
Lubbock and offered to help him even more with his company.
And this is how he repaid me and everyone else who helped him for doing so.
No apology, no acceptance of the facts, and most of all not a single offer to help us or
compensate us these errors.
I gotta assume that whole personal responsibility thing Garret White preaches didnt sink in
with Kevin.
Exhibit E - Page 3
http://www.timothycastleman.com/warning-stay-away-from-the-offline-assistant-company-kevin-oconnor/[5/6/2016 8:22:59 PM]
Warning: Stay Away From The Offline Assistant Company & Kevin OConnor |
Now dont worry about me. Well be seeing Kevin in court and well get every cent (plus some)
back from him.
Im writing this post to warn others and share my personal experience with Kevin OConnor
and his company.
If you choose to use him after seeing that he doesnt stand behind his employees work, has
zero quality control or checks to ensure work is being done correctly, and no matter how
much proof you have of their mistakes, he will never admit when his team has made a
mistake or compensate you in any fashion for those mistakes go ahead.
If you want to host a webinar, podcast, or invite him to speak on stage after reading this, thats
your choice and speaks more to your core values than mine.
I just refuse to have people who have helped him in the past have their name associated with
him or his company without knowing the facts about what he did to our eCom business and
his unwillingness to stand behind his word and his employees mistakes.
Im just thankful that we have the cash reserves to not only absorb this temporary loss and but
also pursue every legal recourse against him.
In closing Ill share with you one last thought. Sometimes in life things like this happen. People
disappoint you, friendships end, and true colors are revealed. While you cant control when or
why that stuff happens, you can control your response to those situations.
I tried to resolve this in private, I gave Kevin every opportunity to make this right. It was only
after he refused to do so, and I saw how huge of a disaster this could be for people who dont
have the same resources I do, that I knew I had to go public with this issue.
Exhibit E - Page 4
http://www.timothycastleman.com/warning-stay-away-from-the-offline-assistant-company-kevin-oconnor/[5/6/2016 8:22:59 PM]
Warning: Stay Away From The Offline Assistant Company & Kevin OConnor |
Comments
comments
PREVIOUS POST
NEXT POST
2016
PROUDLY POWERED BY WORDPRESS
THEME: MEOLA BY ELMASTUDIO
TOP
Exhibit E - Page 5
http://www.timothycastleman.com/warning-stay-away-from-the-offline-assistant-company-kevin-oconnor/[5/6/2016 8:22:59 PM]
Tab 3:
Facebook post
Discussion
Members
Events
Photos
Files
Hi Tim casueman
l1iim
Oecember13,2015
AODMEMBERS
[+
llddrV:I;
MBIBERS
Look at the URL. then scroll down to \\tlo registered It and wnen.
seem
htlps:l/www.namecheap.com/domainsiWhoislresuns.aspx. ..
to
an
Invite by Email
return an email.
CREATE NEW GROUPS
#Justgetungstarted
.productions
Crete Group
Namechea.p com
Check domain names avaablefor r@l111Wation Willl
Namedleap's domain name searthl Getflee..
.COM
!.--i
see All
Comment
"' llllo
Shnt
() Buft11r
II
!a
SUGGESTB>GROUPS
See All
"
O.veGamrnage NawlhatisfUnnyfP
..
and mont. Glad he II reato open hts walletcause wehave plans ror a
=:::.-1
Ip .!J
-_J 111-0
R9ply 2
1 Deci!mber 1l
. ,,..,
111
--.
I.'!' m . . ...
.-.:- .. .:
-. ..
. -,
--:-
ActivllCllmpeigll
tiveCampaign
+Join
I, 1&8 members
2015 at 8.24pm
R1Ja Rlm1kldlenfn This Is.the same guy tflat 11raclically stole tom ycu
llgllt? llle lllllllment guy?
like Reply
.C, 1
Pr<lfect sremacy
ii
16tlends 1,833n;
1+J
Q@
Wrtte a repty
II
_
Wlitec
n_
me L
om
DGlComS.crets
83 ID.185membl!fS
SPotlSOREO
+Jon
crealll Ad
Tab 4:
Order denying motion
!i
!i
OF
!i
!i
The Court, having considered the Defendants' Motion for Relief from Technical Failure
and for Extension of Time, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, as well as Plaintifts' Opposition to
Motion to Dismiss and Request for Attorney's Fees, t ogether with supporting evidence and the
arguments made by counsel together with legal authority submitted by counsel, the Cou rt is of
the opinion that the Motion for Relief from Technical Failure and for Extension of Time is
granted and that the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss be denied.
opinion that the Motion to Dismiss was not frivolous or solely intended to delay and therefore
denies Plaintifts' attorney's fees.
IT lS THEREFORE, ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the Defendants'
Motion for Relief from Technical Failure and for Extension of Time be and the same is hereby
GRANTED.
Page 1
10th
day of
August
2016.
JUDGE PRESIDING
Page 2
Tab 5:
Findings of fact and conclusions of law
cf
v.
TIMOTHY C~a..STLEM~a~ .AND
CASTLEMAN CONSULTING, LLC,
Defendants.
OF
2.
Defendant, Castleman Consulting, LLC, was served with process of
Plaintiffs' original petition on March 9, 2016. Defendant Castleman Consulting,
LLC did not f:tle a motion to dismiss under the Texas Citizens Participation Act nor
did Defendant Castleman Consulting, LLC, file a Motion for Relief from Technical
Failure, or, in the Alternative, for Extension of Time.
3.
Plaintiffs' First . A~ended
.
Petition asserts causes of action for slander
and libel associated with Defendants' Facebook, Twitter, blog, Warrior Forum,
Google Reviews, and podcasts alleging Plaintiffs' failed promises, placement of
liPage Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
orders with an 80% to 85% error rate, Plaintiffs' inability or unwillingness to follow
instructions, Plaintiffs' stealing from Defendants, and Plaintiffs' terrible services.
4.
The matter was originally set within 60 days of the motion but was
delayed by a request for discovery.
5.
The matter was set for hearing on July 1, 2016, within 90 days after
the service of the motion.
6.
The court considered the pleadings and supporting and opposing
affidavits stating the facts on which the liability and defenses are based. Tex. Civ.
Prac. & Rem. Code 27.006.
7.
Defendant did not show by a preponderance of the evidence that the
legal action was based on, related to, or was in response to Defendant's exercise of
the right of free speech, the right to petition, or of the right of association.
8.
Plaintiffs provided clear and specific evidence of a prima facie case for
each element of their claims, including the facts of when, where, and what was said,
the defamatory nature of the statements, and how they damaged Plaintiffs.
9.
10.
IS
being done
f. Plaintiff was "someone that doesn't stand behind their work, their
team does not quality checks or assurances, and if there's ever a
problem, they're not going to fix it for you, especially when it comes to
financial"
11.
The statements at issue arose out of the sale of goods, and the intended
audience is actual or potential buyers or customers.
21Page Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
12.
Defendants' statements were made with either the knowledge of their
falsity or, at the very least, with reckless disregard as to their truth or falsity.
Defendants admitted their intent to harm Plaintiffs and acknowledged
13.
the damage their statements were causing Plaintiffs.
The Court does not find the Motion to Dismiss to be frivolous or solely
14.
intended to delay.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1.
Defendant Castleman's motion to dismiss was untimely, but the
Motion for Relief from Technical Failure and for Extension of Time is properly
granted within the discretion of the court.
2.
The motion to dismiss under the Texas Citizens Participation Act is
deemed timely filed. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code 27.003.
3.
Defendant Castleman Consulting, LLC did not file a motion to dismiss
under the Texas Citizens Participation Act. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code 27.003.
4.
27.004.
The hearing was timely pursuant to Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code
5.
Defendants' acts fall within an exception to the Citizens Participation
Act. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code 27.101(b).
6.
In the alternative, Defendant failed to show by a preponderance of the
evidence that the legal action is based on, relates to, or is in response to the party's
exercise of the right of free speech, the right to petition, or the right of association.
7.
Plaintiffs established by clear and specific evidence a prima facie case
for each essential element of the claims in question.
8.
Defendant failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence each
essential element of a valid defense to Plaintiffs' claims.
9.
In determining whether a legal action should be dismissed under this
chapter and at the request of Defendant Castleman, pursuant to Section 27.003,
this Court finds that Plaintiffs' legal actions were not brought to deter or prevent
the Defendants from exercising constitutionai rights and were not brought for an
11.
12.
13.
14.
:m
SIGNED this ---+~
____
/~
JUDGE PRESIDING
41 Page
Tab 6:
Notice of appeal
Case 2016-519,740
Internet Money Limited and
Kevin OConnor,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Timothy Castleman and
Castleman Consulting LLC,
Defendants.
cf
Tab 7:
Texas Citizens Participation Act
(b) If the court finds that a motion to dismiss filed under this chapter is
frivolous or solely intended to delay, the court may award court
costs and reasonable attorneys fees to the responding party.
Sec. 27.010. Exemptions.
(a) This chapter does not apply to an enforcement action that is
brought in the name of this state or a political subdivision of this
state by the attorney general, a district attorney, a criminal district
attorney, or a county attorney.
(b) This chapter does not apply to a legal action brought against a
person primarily engaged in the business of selling or leasing goods
or services, if the statement or conduct arises out of the sale or
lease of goods, services, or an insurance product, insurance
services, or a commercial transaction in which the intended
audience is an actual or potential buyer or customer.
(c) This chapter does not apply to a legal action seeking recovery for
bodily injury, wrongful death, or survival or to statements made
regarding that legal action.
(d) This chapter does not apply to a legal action brought under the
Insurance Code or arising out of an insurance contract.
Sec. 27.011. Construction.
(a) This chapter does not abrogate or lessen any other defense,
remedy, immunity, or privilege available under other constitutional,
statutory, case, or common law or rule provisions.
(b) This chapter shall be construed liberally to effectuate its purpose
and intent fully.