Frazier Responds After Texas Supreme Court Hears Defamation Appeal Against Paul Chabot

By R.J. Morales | TX3DNews

Former Texas state Rep. Frederick Frazier says he remains confident his defamation lawsuit against Paul Chabot will move forward after the Texas Supreme Court heard arguments November 4 over statements Chabot published during Frazier’s 2024 reelection campaign.

“Today marks a significant milestone in this case,” Frazier said in a written statement following the hearing.

“We believe this case reflects political targeting, and we remain committed to seeking accountability through the judicial process.”

The court has not issued a ruling.

How the Lawsuit Began

Frazier and Chabot faced each other in the 2022 Republican primary for Texas House District 61.

During Frazier’s 2024 reelection campaign, Chabot published statements describing him as “convicted” and “dishonorably discharged” from the Dallas Police Department.

Frazier sued in June 2024, alleging the statements were defamatory.

The dispute stems from criminal proceedings involving a 2022 incident with Chabot’s campaign signs. Frazier received deferred adjudication on attempted impersonation charges, which were later dismissed. He also had a separate Class C misdemeanor conviction.

His Dallas Police Department discharge was initially classified as dishonorable but was subsequently changed to general.

Chabot sought dismissal under the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA), which allows early dismissal of certain lawsuits involving protected speech.

The trial court denied his motion, and the Fifth Court of Appeals upheld that decision. Chabot appealed to the Texas Supreme Court.

Attorneys Clash Over Discharge Status

Tony McDonald, representing Chabot, argued that his client’s statements were substantially true and protected political speech.

“What we have here is a victim of crimes telling voters about those crimes and the consequences as he understood them, as he knew them,” McDonald told the justices.

The justices questioned McDonald about whether describing Frazier as dishonorably discharged remained accurate after the classification changed.

McDonald maintained that the original classification was accurate and that the later administrative change did not necessarily make Chabot’s statements substantially false.

He also disputed whether Frazier had established that Chabot knew the information was inaccurate.

“There’s no evidence in the record,” McDonald argued.

Christopher Kratovil, representing Frazier, challenged that position.

“Discharge status is a profoundly important point of honor,” Kratovil told the court.

He argued that describing someone as dishonorably discharged carries a substantially different meaning from a general discharge, particularly within law enforcement and military communities.

Kratovil also disputed McDonald’s interpretation of the criminal proceedings.

When discussing Frazier’s deferred adjudication, Kratovil emphasized that the charges had been dismissed.

“Those charges were dismissed, dismissed with a capital D,” he told the justices.

McDonald separately argued that Frazier’s original lawsuit did not adequately identify some statements later presented as evidence.

Kratovil maintained that the original petition identified the central allegations concerning Frazier’s discharge and criminal record.

“This is really a stealth summary judgment motion and not a proper TCPA motion,” Kratovil said.

Frazier Responds to the Hearing

Frazier attended the November 4 hearing in Austin and discussed the arguments during a November 6 interview.

He questioned McDonald’s approach, saying the attorney was attempting to address issues more appropriate for summary judgment or trial rather than the early dismissal question before the Supreme Court.

Frazier also challenged the suggestion that Chabot was unaware his Dallas Police Department discharge had been reclassified.

He pointed to news coverage, court records and other documentation that he believes Chabot had access to before publishing the disputed statements.

McDonald disputed that Chabot had been shown to possess the information necessary to know his statements were false.

In his written statement, Frazier thanked the justices for hearing the case and defended his decision to pursue the lawsuit.

“Defamation should not be tolerated, particularly when it becomes a sustained campaign by an individual or group,” Frazier said.

He expressed confidence that the evidence supports allowing his lawsuit to proceed.

In a November 10 statement provided to TX3DNews, Frazier’s attorney, Christopher Kratovil, also addressed the broader significance of the case.

“Criticism of public officials and political candidates is an essential part of democracy, but malicious and verifiably false statements that are designed to destroy a person’s reputation are not,” Kratovil said. “This case is about making that line clear.”

What Happens Next?

The Supreme Court must decide whether Chabot’s request to dismiss the lawsuit should have been granted. A ruling allowing the case to proceed would not determine whether Chabot committed defamation.

“He may yet prevail on summary judgment. He may yet prevail at trial. But he does not get to avoid Mr. Frazier’s day in court,” Kratovil told the justices.

The court has not announced when it will rule.

Chabot was contacted for comment about the hearing and Frazier’s statements.