Paid Shills and Defending the right of Dark Money to LIE!

This issue highlights the travesty of the Citizens United decision, along with the subsequent McCutchein v FEC that allow unlimited DARK MONEY to govern the election process.

Any misleading statement can be made with little challenge.

Push Polling, Robo Calling and Glossy Mailings bombard voters with LIES and propaganda that few voters take the time to research.

Too many voters willingly follow the Judas Goat of well-funded extremism to slaughter, voting against their best interests.


SJC tackles Mannal's criminal pamphlet charge During his first reelection campaign Rep. Brian Mannal filed for criminal charges against the treasurer of a super PAC

ARTICLE | Politics | May 8, 2015 05:15 AM | By Andy Metzger, State House News Service


HIGH COURT TACKLES REP'S ALLEGATION OF CRIMINAL PAMPHLET


Mannal has not decided whether he would file a civil libel lawsuit High court justices grilled an attorney for the state Thursday, questioning her defense of a 1946 law that criminalizes knowingly making false statements used to boost or tear down a political candidate.

Assistant Attorney General Amy Spector argued that the statute can fit within free speech protections if [sic] is narrowly used while also advocating for a dismissal of the case that brought the matter before the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC).

During his first reelection campaign last year, Rep. Brian Mannal filed for criminal charges against the treasurer of a super PAC that claimed in a flyer the Barnstable Democrat prioritizes criminals over "our families."

After Falmouth Assistant Clerk Magistrate Norman Butler allowed Mannal's charges to be filed, the super PAC's treasurer, Melissa Lucas, appealed to the SJC to block her arraignment.

Spector argued the statute is constitutional when addressing fraud committed during elections, but said the mailer issued in Mannal's race constituted opinion and the charge should be dismissed.

At the hearing Thursday two justices voiced concern to Lucas's attorney about the role on money in elections, while several quizzed Spector about how the statute could hold up.

"These statements are clearly opinions," Spector said of the mailer issued by Jobs First Independent Expenditure PAC.

So clearly that a clerk magistrate issued a criminal complaint.

That clearly? interjected Justice Robert Cordy on the right. Justice Geraldine Hines questioned whether battling false speech with correcting speech is effective now that super PACs can raise unlimited sums of money to bankroll political messaging. "That sounds great if there's a level playing field for everybody who wants to speak and that's clearly not the case," Hines said, questioning how to "level the playing field," and saying, "The marketplace is flooded with all of these half-truths, outright lies. We all know that's what happens."

Arguing the law is unconstitutional, Lucas's attorney Peter Horstmann said Mannal successfully addressed the claims in the mailer without the need of the criminal courts.

"Mr. Mannal was able to hold a very effective press conference in which he denied the allegations that he said were false," said Horstmann, who called the statute a "time capsule" and said it has seldom been used. He said, "He didn't need the full weight of the application for criminal process."

Outside court, Mannal questioned whether his counter against Jobs First would have been as effective without the pursuit of criminal charges.

Would they have reported on my press conference if I hadn't taken that step?" Brian Mannal (on the right) asked the News Service.

In pursuing charges, Mannal used the court's process that allows for individuals to submit an application for criminal complaint, which is then evaluated by a clerk magistrate. He said he had spoken briefly about the matter with Attorney General Maura Healey.

Spector said the attorney general's office only filed a notice with the Supreme Judicial Court after the Cape and Islands prosecutor told the court it would not file a brief, and the attorney general "felt it was her duty to represent the interests of the Commonwealth."

The assistant attorney general told the seven justices that the statute should be "narrowly construed" and it would fit within freedom of speech protections.

"It's a form of fraud that's designed to trick voters," Spector said of intentionally false statements aimed at swaying an election.

Mannal said he has not decided whether he would file a civil libel lawsuit. Horstmann said using the criminal justice system to adjudicate political disputes during a campaign is a riskier prospect than taking a hands-off approach.

"While I understand the need to correct the falsities in the marketplace, I think the system allows for that and I think it does balance itself out. The greater risk is that someone is charged with a crime for stating a falsehood," Horstmann said.

"Or investigated," Cordy added. "During an election cycle."

Most SJC opinions are released within 130 days of oral arguments.

- See more at: http://www.capecodtoday.com/article/2015/05/08/224372-SJC-tackles-Mannals-criminal-pamphlet-charge#sthash.YC17crJX.dpuf


                                    Related Content:
Mannal's charge puts free speech case before SJC - See more at: http://www.capecodtoday.com/article/2015/05/08/224372-SJC-tackles-Mannals-criminal-pamphlet-charge#sthash.YC17crJX.dpuf


Watch the comments:

everyoneelse

So lets recap. Mannal used an obscure law to get himself re-elected vs a republican. The magistrate issued a criminal complaint, let me guess he is a democrat. The DA's office refused to file a brief, republicans. So the Attorney general is representing the case before the SJC, democrats. The SJC sees right through all of this and sides with.... what else? The Constitution. Well at least Mannal got anther two years right? To hell with the rest, perfect

middlebororemembers everyoneelse

How did the law or the complaint get him elected?

The issue didn't prevent you from voting nor remove his opponent's name from the ballot.

It should be of greater concern that 'dark money' invades elections, misrepresents the record and targets a single inflammatory issue.

Nowhere has any poster indicated any other matters Rep Mannal has supported or voted on beyond the issue of sex offenders.

"....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....."


What is revealed by your comment is your willingness to follow the Judas Goat of Wack-A-Ding Tea Baggers defending their Right to Lie.



middlebororemembers

There are PAID SERVICES that are "FLAME THROWERS" - they are paid to support or oppose ANY issue.

Sometimes, you can clearly pick them out because of errors indicating they don't live in the area. Sometimes you can pick them out because they are forced to resort to name-calling.

It should be noted that everyoneelse has an invisible history.
Simply click on his screen name.
What's he hiding? His PAID FOR CONNECTION?
Folks, don't be fooled by the phony rhetoric!
When there's Dark Money involved, you're the one betrayed.