Libel and conspiracy claims against four defendants in a lawsuit filed last year by the family of Thomas Brown were dismissed last week by Texas’ Seventh District Court of Appeals. It was the second court decision in response to the lawsuit, following a previous ruling in June 2023 dismissing four other defendants in the case.

The lawsuit was filed in February 2023 on behalf of Thomas Brown’s Estate—represented by his mother Penny Meek, her husband Chris Meek, and her son Tucker Brown—targeting, in particular, media coverage of Brown’s death. The family claimed defamation and conspiracy by a group of eight defendants.

Brown was a senior at Canadian High School when he disappeared on Thanksgiving Day 2016. His remains were found over two years later near the entrance to Lake Marvin, about 14 miles east of town.

Immediately following Brown’s disappearance, his family retained the services of Philip Klein Investigations. The Tom Brown mystery had quickly become the subject of increasing coverage in local and national news media, as well as the fodder for widespread rumor and speculation, fueled by social media and true crime podcasts. 

Troubled and inconclusive investigations by local law enforcement—assisted by the Texas Rangers and the FBI—led to a public outcry, and eventually, to the Texas Attorney General’s Criminal Investigations Division, which concluded, following a detailed inquiry into the case, that the most likely cause of death was suicide.

In 2022, Brown’s death also became the focus of interviews by KXDJ Radio’s Chris Samples, with private investigator Michael Crain, on the station’s popular morning talk show. Crain was first invited to address his theory of how Brown had died—a theory that directly contradicted Klein’s conclusion that the teen had been murdered. 

In his first appearance on KXDJ, Crain said he believed Brown had committed suicide, and that the Meek family had attempted to cover it up by moving his body to make it look like he was murdered. That initial interview led to a series of shows, during which Samples and Crain were openly skeptical of Klein’s conclusions, and discussed what they frequently noted were their opinions of the publicized evidence, the Attorney General’s special investigative report, and other aspects of the case.

They were both named in the Meeks’ lawsuit, along with Canadian Record editor and publisher Laurie Ezzell Brown, who reported extensively on Thomas Brown’s disappearance and death, the investigation, and the conflicting information that evolved from it. She also commented— editorially and in her Field Notes column—about the investigation by Klein, and about the many rumors and innuendo that filled the vacuum which was left in the absence of any verifiable facts.

Others named in the Meek family lawsuit were Anita Webb, a Canadian resident whose family worked with Klein in the initial search for Brown; Amanda Lehman (s/n Moore) of Amarillo, a frequent critic of Klein’s on social media; and Michelle Gomez of Lockhart, an independent skip-tracer and bounty hunter who became interested in the Thomas Brown case and openly challenged Klein’s work.

Following a hearing in Lubbock’s 99th District Court last year, claims against four of the defendants—including The Record and Ezzell Brown, Webb, Lehman and Gomez—were dismissed. 

Four others, however, were not. The District Court did not dismiss the claims against KXDJ, Samples and Crain. Also still in the crosshairs were Lubbock-based Dot Comply, Inc., doing business as USA Investigations, and Amarillo attorney Richard Biggs. Dot Comply held the private investigators’ license Crain obtained in April 2022, and retained him as a contract employee. It did not hire Crain to investigate Brown’s death, though, nor did the company make any statements regarding the case. However, after receiving a letter from Klein demanding information, the firm hired Biggs to respond.

In their lawsuit, the Meeks alleged that those cited collectively engaged in a conspiracy to defame them.

Rather than face a protracted trial proceeding, the four remaining defendants filed an appeal for summary judgement with Amarillo’s Seventh District Court of Appeals.

Their appeal was based on the Texas Citizens Participation Act, which allows the courts to quickly dismiss meritless defamation and other lawsuits designed to chill one’s right to free speech. Those meritless claims—known as Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation, or SLAPP suits—are routinely filed with the intention of running up the defendants’ legal costs in order to intimidate free speech.

Last week, the appellate court reviewed the case and issued its ruling, reversing the trial court’s judgment, dismissing all claims against the appellants, and remanding the matter back to the trial court for determination of attorney’s fees and sanctions.

A Memorandum of Opinion written by Justice Alex Yarbrough concluded that the defendants had met their burden to prove that the claims against them “were based on or in response to their exercise of the right of free speech.”

“It is clear from the context of the statements he made during the interviews, Crain merely recited his opinions regarding the case,” wrote Justice Yarbrough. “He used the terms ‘believe,’ ‘theory,’ and ‘opinion’ throughout the interviews, indicated he did not attempt to state facts about Brown’s cause of death, only his guess about ‘what really happened.’”

“Opinions,” he concluded, “are not actionable.”

A public statement released on Facebook by Klein Investigations and Consulting acknowledges the Court of Appeals decision, and states, “On Monday, the Meeks will file a motion for rehearing and notice that they will move the case to be considered by the Texas Supreme Court.”

EDITOR’S NOTE:

SLAPP is short for “strategic lawsuits against public participation.” Anti-SLAPP laws are intended to prevent people from using the courts—and potential threats of a lawsuit—to intimidate people who are exercising their First Amendment rights. In terms of reporting, news organizations and individual journalists can use anti-SLAPP statutes to protect themselves from the financial threat of a groundless defamation case.
(https://www.rcfp.org/resources/anti-slapp-laws/)

The U.S. legal system doesn’t require that a person who unsuccessfully files a lawsuit pay the legal fees and costs of the person they sued. This means successfully defending yourself in a lawsuit is often a hollow victory. Yes, you won but you also had to pay tens of thousands of dollars to win. An anti-SLAPP law says that if the person suing to stop the speech loses, then they must pay the legal fees and court costs of the person being sued. (https://www.freedomforum.org/anti-slapp-laws/)

To listen to all KXDJ Radio episodes addressing the Tom Brown case, featuring Michael Crain and Chris Samples, go online to https://highplainsobserverperryton.com/