November 23, 2002
That's Mister Mayor Osama to you, bub

The former mayor of Sugar Land is suing a talk show host for some columns he wrote in which he called the mayor "Osama":

A lawsuit has been filed by former Sugar Land Mayor Dean Hrbacek against radio talk show host Jon Matthews in connection with several newspaper columns he wrote referring to Hrbacek as "Mayor Osama."

Matthews wrote the columns in the weekly Fort Bend/Southwest Star in the weeks prior to the May election. Hrbacek was defeated in the hotly contested race by City Council member David Wallace.

The suit alleges Hrbacek's reputation was damaged by Matthews, who made false, malicious and defamatory statements against the mayor.

Now, Jon Matthews is a vile and vicious whackjob wingnut, one of many such voices that make AM radio in Houston a cesspool. I'd like nothing more than to see him disgraced and put out of a job. Unfortunately, I don't think Hrbacek has a leg to stand on. Matthews' protection under the First Amendment seems pretty clear to me. Hrbacek has every right to feel wronged, but I seriously doubt he'll get any relief from the courts.

Posted by Charles Kuffner on November 23, 2002 to Legal matters | TrackBack

I used to have a car that had only AM radio, so it was generally glued to 950AM (where they were at the time) when I didn't have a portable player of some sort handy.

Jon Matthews is a mean-spirited assmunch. Whether I agreed with what he was saying or not, he was just a jerk. At one point he was taking swipes at Barbara Streisand. Fair game as far as I'm concerned. But then he went on and on about her husband's "deader than dead" acting career. Brolin's career was (and is) far from dead, but even so what does that have to do with anything? How does that advance any argument or discredit Streisand?

Mike Richards is probably every bit as conservative as Matthews and, as such, well to the right of myself, but I enjoyed his show a lot more. Even when we disagreed on something, I'd rarely get as irate as even when I was on the same side of the issue as Matthews.

Posted by: Hiatusblogger on November 23, 2002 6:08 PM

wondering if all those right wing comments mr. Mathews makes made him a target of the cops and that is why he is "under investigation" and off the air right now. Have you heard what the deal is? The chron is strangely silent so I can only assume that a slumber party of one of his kids might have got a little out of hand?

Posted by: dick wilson on October 25, 2003 6:08 PM

There is nothing in the Chronicle because we have the worst major metropolitan paper in the country. It is the largest paper to never get a Pullitizer and never will with the conservative business establishment that runs it.

He is being investigated because it was an allegation from a credibble source. The police would like to bury it because they and their bosses often listen to him.

Posted by: Gary on October 26, 2003 2:01 PM


As the Who used to say, "Who are you?"

You don't know one thing about the so-called investigation. You don't know if it from a credible source or not. You are just blowing air out of your mouth.

You are involved in mere speculation. You don't know a damn thing about it. Shut up until the investigation is finished and we will all find out what it was about.

Do you even live in Sugar Land or Missouri City? If you did then you know that Matthews is very critical of the Sugar Land cops--because they deserve it. For the last two years they have been running around acting like Nazis and he had the courage to say it out loud.

I don't know if his comments had anything to do with the investigation, but unlike you, I'm not going to participate in bare speculation about something that I don't know anything about.

Posted by: Charles on October 27, 2003 7:00 AM

Charles, I repeat my warning from the other comment. If you cannot post here without insulting people, you will not be welcome.

Posted by: Charles Kuffner on October 27, 2003 7:42 AM

Mr. Kuffner, you called Jon a "vile and vicious whackjob wingnut", and you chastise a poster for much less of an insult to another poster. Just another example of an elite forcing their beliefs on others without following it themselves.

Posted by: Jimmy on October 27, 2003 8:28 AM

This is in response to the posts regarding the Matthews matter.

On 10/27/2003, Charles wrote in part "For the last two years they [the Sugar Land police department] have been running around acting like Nazis and he [Jon Matthews] had the courage to say it out loud."

It was interesting to note that it was approximately two years ago that the former mayor of Sugar Land was defeated and replaced by the current mayor, "Wonder Wally".

Matthews, true to form, vilified the then Mayor Hrbacek and, without facts, thought or the exercise of any intelligence, lauded "Wonder Wally" and professed him to be the greatest thing since sliced bread; a new Messiah for Sugar Land. If you have a problem with the S.L police, perhaps you should look no further than Jon Matthews himself. As Charles points out, the "Nazis" Sugar Land police have only appeared in the last two years and Matthews' lies, laziness and stupidity were a major factor.

With regard to the "credibility" of the accuser, which I assume to be the alleged victim; why has not Matthews simply professed his innocense and stated that the alleged victim is either mistaken or a liar? Innocent men shout their innocence from the hill tops! Granted we do not have many "hill tops" in this area but innocent men certainly do not slam doors in the face of people asking for a comment on the allgations.

Matthews had an opportunity to profess his innocense and he chose to slam the door.

Finally, in case you do not know it, Matthews also publishes a column in a local weekly. His first column after the election of "Wonder Wally" was one of glee and he wrote something to the effect that "Mayor Osama should take a hint and leave Sugar Land."

Hummmm.....I wonder if his neighbors are beginning to think the same thing about Matthews?

Posted by: Jim on October 28, 2003 8:59 PM

On 10/26 Gary said: There is nothing in the Chronicle because we have the worst major metropolitan paper in the country. It is the largest paper to never get a Pullitizer and never will with the conservative business establishment that runs it.

Huh? The Chronicle conservative? That's a good joke. They tilt so far to the left I'm surprised their building hasn't collapsed. As bad as the Post was, it was better than the Chronicle. And as off-the-wall as the Press is, they still do a better job than the Chronicle does.

Posted by: Clothahump on November 5, 2003 8:39 AM