An online critic facing a $100 million lawsuit filed by a Denton attorney claiming the critic got him fired from a law firm after labeling him a “Nazi” has asked a federal judge to require the attorney to pay the court $150,000 in security before pursuing the litigation any further.

Jason Van Dyke is representing himself in the defamation suit he originally filed last March 28 in a Denton County state court seeking huge damages against Thomas Christopher Retzlaff, who the lawyer claims got him fired from a Plano law firm after accusing him in internet postings on a website, “BV Files. of being both a “Nazi” and a “white supremacist.”

Van Dyke also alleges Retzlaff filed a frivolous grievance against him with the State Bar of Texas and cost him a job with the Victoria County District Attorney's Office after he wrote the district attorney and said, “Do not hire this dude—he is a flipping lunatic.”

Van Dyke's lawsuit notes that the State Bar initially dismissed Retzlaff's complaint, but the Board of Disciplinary Appeals reversed the dismissal in March. A State Bar spokeswoman declined to comment on the status of the complaint against Van Dyke.

Retzlaff, who denies making the internet posts, removed the case to U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas in April and has since filed an Anti-SLAPP motion—which allows judges to quickly dismiss cases that infringe on free speech rights, and forces a plaintiff to pay the defendant's court costs.

And in an unusual move, Retzlaff is also asking U.S. District Judge Amos Mazzant of Sherman to require Van Dyke to post $150,000 in security as a condition of continuing the litigation. In his motion, Retzlaff cites Eastern District of Texas' local rule 65.1, which allows judges to require ”vexatious pro se litigants” to secure the payment of costs and sanctions that may be awarded against them at any time during litigation.

In the May 29 motion, Retzlaff's attorney, Jeffrey Dorrell, cites emails Van Dyke allegedly sent him, promising that he would “continue to harass” Retzlaff regardless of sanctions by the court, and that he owns no assets that are collectible.

“Plaintiff is unable to find full-time employment,” the motion states. “By plaintiff's own admission on May 22, 2018, even the threat of disbarment is not a deterrent to his filing more baseless litigation against Retzlaff.”

The motion cites a May 22 email in which Van Dyke wrote: “The motherfucking state bar can have my license for all I care. I'm not going to continue to be harassed by this psychopath.”

“The instant suit is being prosecuted by a pro se plaintiff with no assets and no income from which a judgment against him for Retzlaff's costs, attorney's fees, and sanctions could be satisfied,” the motion states. “Plaintiff has declared that no sanction—and not even potential disbarment—will deter him from exacting his revenge on Retzlaff by abusing the instruments of litigation like a child who has found his father's gun. Retzlaff's attorney's fees in defense of this case at bar could easily exceed $300,000.”

In a May 29 response to the motion, Van Dyke alleges the motion is “frivolous” and an attempt by Retzlaff to deny him justice by requiring him to post security that he can't afford.

“This case is about one thing and one thing only: the simple fact that defendant has absolutely no constitutional right to stalk plaintiff or interfere with his law practice,” Van Dyke wrote.

“Defendant is an extraordinarily sick individual who has taken a great deal of pleasure in tormenting plaintiff and preventing him from practicing law at every available opportunity during the course of the past fourteen months,” Van Dyke wrote. “He has driven plaintiff into poverty and is now asking this court to reward his sociopathy with an order that is certain to deny justice to Plaintiff. Defendant's motion should be denied.”

Dorrell, a partner in Houston's Dorrell, a partner in Houston's Hanzen Laporte, said the security motion was filed to prevent Van Dyke from running up legal costs against Retzlaff.  A nonlawyer, Retzlaff had also represented himself in the case before retaining Dorrell earlier this month.

“The way it works is if the court orders him to post a bond, it's a security for attorney fees, litigation costs and sanctions that might be awarded in favor of Retzlaff and against Van Dyke. Otherwise you'd get a judgment against an empty bag and that's exactly what Van Dyke has taunted in communication with me,” Dorrell said.

“If he is ordered to post security, one of two things happen: He posts the security, and then we have something we can claim against; and if he does not post security, then the court will dismiss the case,'' Dorrell said.

Van Dyke declined to comment about the security motion. In an email he stated: “You have written two stories about me that I consider to be hit pieces. You need not request comment from me for any stories that you [wish] to write for Texas Lawyer because those requests will be summarily denied.”