State Rep. Brian Mannal had the courage to challenge the outrageous lies propagated by Jobs First Independent Expenditure PAC!
According to the article at the bottom:
In other words, Tea Baggers are fighting for the right to lie, fabricate and slander without recourse....just as they have been right along.
Every Wack-A-Ding Tea Bagger follows ANY warm body blindly, without questioning veracity - even when they have access to the internet.
Shoot From the Lip Ron Beaty's campaign confirmed it!
The article below indicates Chatham lawyer John Chapman attempted to conduct his FOLLY on PRIVATE PROPERTY!
DUH?
MOVED TO THE SIDEWALK? An attorney who doesn't know the LAW?
http://middlebororeview.blogspot.com/search?q=beaty
There are limits to the First Amendment.
What a pity it doesn't stop the Well Funded Wackos from lying.
The tragedy is not the single candidate that was targeted.
The tragedy is that too many voters willingly accept the Fairy Tales when they have failed to follow the conduct of their elected officials during their tenure.
When will you seek the TRUTH?
A wise person said 'Democracy is NOT a Spectator Sport!'
Mannal complaint gets its day in court
State Rep. Brian Mannal, D-BarnstableBy C. Ryan Barber
rbarber@capecodonline.com Posted Dec. 16, 2014 @ 2:00 am
Updated at 6:19 AM
This week, state Rep. Brian Mannal and the Jobs First Independent Expenditure PAC will lock legal horns all the way to a federal courthouse in Boston.
Facing accusations that it broke state law with a negative campaign mailer, Jobs First will argue before a federal judge Wednesday that its messaging against Mannal, a Centerville Democrat who narrowly won re-election last month, was protected under the First Amendment and that the Massachusetts law in question should be ruled unconstitutional.
The Wednesday court appearance comes a day before a clerk magistrate’s hearing on Mannal’s application for a criminal complaint, which alleges that Jobs First violated a nearly 70-year-old state law prohibiting “any false statement” meant to defeat a candidate with mailers claiming that the freshman lawmaker filed sex offender legislation to steer indigent clients to his law practice.
In its Dec. 5 filings, Jobs First requested that U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton grant an injunction to prevent Clerk Magistrate Edward Teague from holding that hearing in Falmouth District Court.
“The First Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees to all Americans the right to speak freely and state their opinion on all matters and issues, including controversial topics,” wrote Jobs First’s attorney, Peter Horstmann, in the Dec. 5 complaint. “Furthermore, the speech involved in this case is core political speech for which the First Amendment’s protection is at its zenith.”
Mannal named Melissa Lucas, Jobs First chairwoman and treasurer, in the criminal complaint. If found guilty, Lucas could be fined as much as $1,000 or serve up to six months in jail.
With its filings in federal court — of which Mannal was unaware until late last week — Jobs First found a new venue for the debate over the legality of the campaign mailers that blanketed the 2nd Barnstable District. But the latest filings, submitted Monday, debated whether it was already too late for a federal judge to block the clerk magistrate's hearing.
Citing the 1971 Younger v. Harris decision — in which the Supreme Court ruled that a federal court could enjoin a criminal proceeding in state court under only specific circumstances — Mannal contended that the state proceeding began with his application for a criminal complaint. But Horstmann argued that appellate decisions in Massachusetts have made clear that a "criminal complaint application proceeding is not a criminal proceeding at all," meaning the so-called "Younger abstention doctrine" should not apply.
Mannal's application for a criminal complaint, filed two weeks before he defeated Republican challenger Adam Chaprales by 205 votes, stems from Jobs First's claim in October that he filed a proposal for notifying sex offenders of their rights to a hearing and court-appointed attorney in hopes of "helping himself." As Horstmann wrote in the Dec. 5 complaint, Jobs First was asking voters to "connect the dots" between the bill and Mannal's work as a criminal defense attorney.
But Mannal has said that he has never handled a sex offender case, nor is he certified to do so, making him unable to benefit financially from the bill.
Earlier in the month, the dueling arguments centered on whether the state law in question violates the First Amendment. Horstmann cited the landmark New York Times v. Sullivan case, arguing that the state law is overly broad and has never been subjected to modern constitutional scrutiny.
"As a result," wrote Horstmann, "its constitutionality is dubious, particularly when compared to other similar statutes in Ohio and Minnesota which have recently failed to pass constitutional muster."
In his response Friday, Mannal wrote that the political action committee intentionally lied to make him appear corrupt. He asked that the court "view this language for what it is: an unfounded defamatory accusation of political corruption and intentional lie that was knowingly published by (Jobs First) for the purpose of undermining the integrity of our democratic process.”
As proof, Mannal offered a Boston Herald headline featured on the mailer that read, "Pol aiding sex cons got defense cash." The Herald story reported that Mannal "has not represented indigent clients at sex offender hearings" — a line he seized upon to argue that Jobs First knew he could not benefit from the bill, satisfying the "actual malice" standard set by the landmark New York Times v. Sullivan decision.
In closing his argument, Mannal said allowing a motion for an injunction would effectively "open the floodgates of free speech so wide" that Jobs First and other political action committees would be enticed "to publish all manners of untruths and intentional lies about honest and decent public officials," wreaking havoc on the integrity of the democracy.
http://www.capecodtimes.com/article/20141216/NEWS/141219600/101015/NEWSLETTER100
No comments:
Post a Comment