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.

 

Mannal's charge puts free speech case before SJC

State rep asserts the pamphlets deliberately mischaracterized his actions to the point of criminality

ARTICLE | Court News | May 5, 2015 11:30 AM | By Andy Metzger, State House News Service

 

Barnstable State Rep. Brian Mannal may make political history.

 

Political mailer in Cape rep's race puts free speech, crime issues, before the Supreme Judicial Court

A state representative attempting to hold one of his political detractors criminally responsible for an election-season pamphlet has set the stage for arguments Thursday over the constitutionality of a 1946 state law limiting political speech.

At issue before the Supreme Judicial Court is the constitutionality of a law that punishes deliberate attempts to make false statements to boost or hinder an electoral candidate. The court has also been asked to decide whether a woman accused of making the mailers can be arraigned in Falmouth District Court.

Last fall in the midst of his first re-election campaign, Rep. Brian Mannal (D-Barnstable) made high-profile accusations, accompanied by an application for criminal complaint, against the treasurer of the Jobs First Independent Expenditure PAC.

Mannal's application for criminal charges against Jobs First Treasurer Melissa Lucas, of Melrose, occurred about two weeks before his narrow, 207-vote win over Barnstable Republican Adam Chaprales.

The group had sent out a mailer implying a link between Mannal's law practice and legislation he filed to provide more rights to sex offenders in reclassification proceedings before the Sex Offender Registry Board - even though Mannal said he has never handled a sex offender case.

Flyer accused Mannal of putting criminals and his own interest above our families

"Brian Mannal is putting criminals and his own interest above our families," the flyer said, asking,

"Why does Brian Mannal want to put our families at risk?"

Lucas's lawyer disputes that she had "any involvement in the drafting or distribution of the brochures."

Mannal asserts the pamphlets deliberately mischaracterized his actions to the point of criminality.
Mannal told the News Service,

The statement is quite clearly an attempt by Jobs First to paint me as a corrupt legislator who is unfit for office. The injury is very similar to being assaulted, but in my case it came in the form of tens of thousands of these lies being spread out in the community that I love.

Chaprales, who is in the financial industry, told the News Service public officials need to put their "big boy pants on," and said Mannal's prosecutorial response was one of several "reckless" actions Mannal took during the campaign, including showing up at Chaprales door for a contentious visit.
Chaprales, who declined to comment on the flyer itself said of the ongoing litigation,

I think it's a monumental waste of taxpayer's money and Brian needs to get his priorities straight. People didn't care about that. That was called campaign trash.

ACLU, Cato, media, ask that the law be repealed

Mannal's pursuit of charges has prompted free speech advocates, including news media companies, the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts, and the Cato Institute to call for a repeal of the law in friend-of-the-court briefs.

A coalition of media companies wrote that banning false political speech "puts the government in the inappropriate position of adjudicating political and social truths, empowers partisan interests to abuse criminal law for partisan ends, and unlike counterspeech, fails to even address errors in speech until long after elections end."

The law bans false statements for or against a candidate and carries a punishment of up to six months imprisonment for those who knowingly violate the ban. In 1967, the Legislature amended the law to ban the publication of false statements about ballot questions.

"I've never thought that this would result in Melissa Lucas going to jail," said Mannal, who said he supports the law and didn't know whether the Cape and Islands prosecutors would pursue the charges. Mannal said, "I think that it's important to have some level of fair dealing and have some way of protecting our democracy."

According to Lucas's brief filed by attorney Peter Charles Horstmann, Mannal issued a press release right after applying for charges, where he claimed the alleged crime "could put her behind bars."
The office of Attorney General Maura Healey argued in an April brief that the state's highest court should uphold the statute, because it "regulates only fraudulent and defamatory speech," while also recommending an order for the District Court to dismiss the specific case. Assistant Attorney General Amy Spector wrote that the pamphlet contained opinion rather than facts that could be proved or disproved.

The Cato Institute, a Libertarian think tank, said,

It can be incredibly difficult to assess the truth of a politician's claims, especially in the chaos of an election campaign.

Cato's lawyers mused whether they would run afoul of the law by loudly calling Mannal a "fool" around election-time.

Lucas's attorney Horstmann wrote in the brief that Mannal "successfully chilled" the freedom of speech rights of Lucas and said Jobs First has presented evidence that it declined to air a radio ad and decided to refrain from political activity after Mannal's legal action. Horstmann, who declined to comment to the News Service, also argued that First Amendment rights have grown stronger in the United States since 1946 and political speech is afforded the strongest protection.

Mannal questioned whether Jobs First filed the appropriate campaign finance documentation for production of the radio ad that never ran.

The law bans not only negative false statements, but also positive false statements aimed at boosting a candidate. While he noted his case focuses on negative false statements, Mannal said a supporter falsely claiming he had won a Nobel Prize, for example, "wouldn't be right."

Attacked funded by a Super PAC

Jobs First is a super PAC that received $190,000, a bulk of its $219,500 in contributions last year, from Christopher Egan, a Boston resident, president of the development firm Carruth Capital and former President George W. Bush's representative to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development in Paris.

Organized last June, the group targeted Democrats and backed non-incumbent Republicans in last year's election.

As is the case with all 200 members of the Legislature, Mannal is afforded particular protection for anything he says in the House - similar to the protections given arguments in courtrooms.
Article 21 of the state constitution reads,

The freedom of deliberation, speech and debate, in either house of the legislature, is so essential to the rights of the people, that it cannot be the foundation of any accusation or prosecution, action or complaint, in any other court or place whatsoever.

Mannal said he plans to attend the arguments, which will be held Thursday at the John Adams Courthouse.

Related Content:

Local rep backs bill to legalize and tax marijuana

Local reps have legislature leadership and committee posts

Rep. Brian Mannal got $139,729 in defense cash from state

Mannal's election woes are self-inflicted

Mitrokostas' false accusations against Mannal de-bunked line by line

About the Author »

Andy Metzger, State House News Service

 

 

 

http://www.capecodtoday.com/article/2015/05/05/224345-Mannals-charge-puts-free-speech-case-SJC

 

 

 

TigerandPoo, Your comment indicates poor reading comprehension and a careful re-reading of the article and previous articles might provide enlightenment. As a Defense Attorney, Rep. Mannal has previously indicated the limits of his law practice. It would seem that your issue is the defense of INDIGENT CLIENTS. You are confusing issues and ignoring the law and the intent of the legal challenge.

As a Dad, it would seem that you taught your kids not to lie, but it's acceptable for Jobs First Independent Expenditure PAC to do so? 
Haven't we had enough of Koch Funded Lies? The Kochs have filled Congress with morons! Do we wish to accomplish the same on Beacon Hill?

 

 

TigerandPoo, 
One of my historic complaints has been that voters fail to pay attention during the years to the votes of their elected officials and wait to suck in the phony campaign rhetoric/propaganda/lies. 
During his tenure, a reasonable person would believe that Rep. Mannal voted on many other issues other than the inflammatory propaganda this represents. 
IMHO, registering sex offenders is a propaganda hoax that apparently creates a false sense of security. 
Only sex offenders who have been convicted are registered. 
Most sex offenders are family or relatives. Most victims are reluctant to step forward. 
Don't you know seriously scarred adults who have never disclosed? I do! 
Uncle Harry, Granpa WaWa, a private tutor, the beloved priest, the loving nephew....they remain well-kept secrets or disbelieved confessions. 
As a cautious and caring Dad, you would NEVER let your kids go with strangers, but what about the trusted others? 
Protecting your kids is a complex issue that should not be clouded by hysteria.

 

 

Shart McShartyson,

To reduce or eliminate deliberate political lies, propaganda and distortion, what do you suggest?

Haven't we had enough of the political fabrications funded by anonymous donors?

Regrettably, too many voters are too intellectually lazy to research the facts.

 

 

Ending Wal-Mart Welfare, Prosecuting Right Wing's Right to Lie

Regrettably, the first comment ignored the FACTS, ignored the hidden costs to taxpayers of continuing to subsidize highly profitable companies that make their profits on the backs of low wage workers around the globe. My post below:

Massachusetts taxpayers are funding Wal-Mart Welfare for employees who are kept PART TIME to avoid providing benefits.

Wal-Mart offers CHEAP imported products made in many cases by slave wage workers in sub-standard conditions overseas, with no protection.

There have been enough building collapses and fires that have caused deaths and injuries.....widely reported! 

Many of the products are contaminated, not subject to even minimal inspection or consumer protection standards.

The profits of the Wal-Mart Welfare go out-of-state or out-of-the-country.

You need to inform yourself of other communities and other states that have raised the minimum wage and proven to be successful.

You seem to be supporting the Banana Republic the Tea Baggers are driving us toward.

WARNING: GRAPHIC




http://features.peta.org/ChineseFurFarms/#ixzz2nUTlwQCo








Wolf eyes wage hike for fast-food workers

By C. Ryan Barber
rbarber@capecodonline.com Posted Jan. 27, 2015 @ 2:01 am

In the past legislative session, state Sen. Daniel Wolf spearheaded the push to gradually raise base pay to $11 by 2017, putting Massachusetts on course to have the highest minimum wage in the country.

But the Harwich Democrat is hungry for more.

This month, Wolf, D-Harwich, filed legislation to gradually raise the minimum wage for fast-food and big-box retail employees to $12 next year, $13.50 in 2017 and, finally, $15 in 2018. The bill, which applies only to businesses with more than 200 workers, closely resembles a proposal passed in Seattle last year that will require large companies to pay a minimum hourly wage of $15 beginning in 2017.

Although he expects it to draw “a lot of controversy and pushback,” Wolf said he filed the bill to help close the widening income gap while also curtailing what called the “extraction” of money from Massachusetts communities for out-of-state corporations.

“It’s the worst of both worlds,” he said. “The wealth is being exported, and the wages are not adequate.”

When asked about the bill’s chances of passing, Wolf said, “I think, honestly, it’s going to be tough to move it.” But Wolf said another bill, which proposes giving cities and towns the power to set base pay higher than the statewide minimum wage, might have a better shot.

“I think people generally do acknowledge that the cost of living is very disparate between different parts of the commonwealth,” Wolf said. “My guess is the city of Boston would be one of the first to look at it because of the cost of living.”

***

PREVIOUS POSTS:

Tea Baggers fight for RIGHT TO LIE!

Mannal complaint gets its day in court

Tea Baggers still fighting for RIGHT TO LIE!

Melissa Lucas was scheduled to appear in Falmouth District Court today for arraignment on a peculiar charge: making a false statement to defeat a political candidate, in her case state Rep. Brian Mannal.

But, at the request of Cape and Islands District Attorney Michael O’Keefe’s office, that hearing has been rescheduled for Feb. 24.

In a motion for a continuance, First Assistant District Attorney Brian Glenny wrote that the delay “is in the interest of justice as the Cape and Islands District Attorney’s Office, together with the Attorney General’s office, are reviewing the efficacies of the complaint.”

In other words, the district attorney’s office is considering the appropriateness of charging Lucas, as the chairwoman and treasurer of the conservative Jobs First Independent Expenditure PAC, with violating a nearly 70-year-old law that criminalizes false statements made to defeat a political candidate.

“In any case, you always want to review a charge and make sure it’s appropriate for the facts presented, and that’s what we’re doing,” Glenny said. “We go through that process on any case.”

The charge stems from a criminal complaint application filed by Mannal, D-Centerville, a week before he narrowly won re-election over his Republican challenger, Adam Chaprales. In the application, Mannal accused Jobs First of breaking state law with a mailer that claimed he filed sex offender legislation in hopes of representing more court-appointed clients, or “helping himself,” as the conservative group put it.

Mannal, whose legislation called for notifying sex offenders of their rights to a hearing and court-appointed attorney when applying for reclassification or early termination of sex offender status, said he has never handled a sex offender case and lacks the certification to do so.

An assistant clerk magistrate issued a complaint last month after a federal judge denied Jobs First attorney Peter Horstmann’s motion for an emergency injunction. Horstmann, who has argued that the state law violates the First Amendment, has appealed that judge’s decision not to intervene.

On Monday, Mannal said delay of the arraignment gave him no cause for concern.

“At this point, I’m not inclined to think that there’s a political motivation or a lack of will to prosecute an active Massachusetts criminal statute. It may be something they don’t have much experience with given the rarity of prosecutions under this particular chapter” of state law, he said.

http://www.capecodtimes.com/article/20150127/NEWS/150129486/101015/NEWSLETTER100

Tea Baggers still fighting for RIGHT TO LIE!

All registered voters have received the glossy brochures filled with fabrications, misleading statements, fairy tales and outright lies.

All registered voters have received the push polling calls that misrepresent facts.

Kudos to Rep. Brian Mannal for challenging this Wack-A-Ding group - Jobs First Independent Expenditure PAC!


What is more disturbing is the willingness of uninformed voters to endorse the .....

Previous post:

Tea Baggers fight for RIGHT TO LIE!

Mannal wins request for complaint against PAC




By C. Ryan Barber
rbarber@capecodonline.com Posted Jan. 6, 2015 @ 7:35 pm

FALMOUTH — An assistant clerk magistrate has granted state Rep. Brian Mannal’s request for a criminal complaint against Jobs First Independent Expenditure PAC, setting the stage for a court case against the conservative group accused of breaking state law with negative campaign mailers.

Mannal, D-Centerville, said Jobs First attorney Peter Horstmann told him Tuesday that Assistant Clerk Magistrate Norman Butler had signed off on the criminal complaint and that Melissa Lucas, the group’s chairwoman and treasurer, has been summonsed to appear in Falmouth District Court for a Jan. 27 arraignment on the misdemeanor charge of making a false statement about a political candidate.

Butler issued the criminal complaint on Dec. 24, six days after Mannal, Horstmann and Lucas appeared before him in a closed-door hearing, the Falmouth District Court clerk’s office confirmed Tuesday.

“I do feel vindicated to some extent,” Mannal said.

“There’s never been any doubt in my mind that there’s merit in my complaint,” he added. “I didn’t do this for political purposes. I did this because I was wronged, criminally wronged.”

On Tuesday, Butler declined to discuss the reasoning behind his decision to issue the complaint. Horstmann and Jobs First officials did not return requests for comment.

In the application, filed a week before he narrowly won reelection to a second term, Mannal argued that Jobs First violated a nearly 70-year-old state law, prohibiting “any false statement” meant to defeat a candidate, with campaign mailers claiming that he filed sex offender legislation in hopes of representing more indigent clients. Mannal said he has never handled a sex offender case and lacks certification to do so, making him unable to financially benefit from his bill, which called for notifying sex offenders of their rights to a hearing and court-appointed attorney when applying for reclassification or early termination of sex offender status.

With the mailer’s claim that he filed the bill in hopes of “helping himself,” Mannal said Jobs First crossed a “fairly bright line, in my opinion, between acceptable and permissible speech and libel.”

A day before the clerk magistrate’s hearing in Falmouth, Horstmann sought an injunction in federal court, but Judge Nathaniel Gorton denied his “emergency motion” on the grounds that it was too late to intervene in a state court matter. In the federal court filings, Horstmann argued that Jobs First’s mailers simply asked 2nd Barnstable District voters to “connect the dots” between the sex offender bill and Mannal’s work as a defense attorney who occasionally represents court-appointed clients.

Noting that the state law in question dates back to 1946, Horstmann has criticized it as antiquated and has repeatedly argued that it violates the First Amendment.

With the criminal complaint issued, the prosecution of Lucas falls to the Cape and Islands District Attorney’s Office.

Mannal publicly supported Cotuit defense attorney Richard Barry’s bid to unseat Cape and Islands District Attorney Michael O’Keefe, a Republican, in the recent election cycle. But in an interview Tuesday, Mannal said he sees no need for O’Keefe to recuse his office from the case.

“I very much trust his decisions when it comes to the courtroom,” Mannal said. “I don’t believe he will be swayed by politics. Quite frankly, I don’t think that will even come into play.”

O’Keefe, who won reelection to a fourth four-year term with 56 percent of the vote, did not return a request for comment.

http://www.capecodtimes.com/article/20150106/NEWS/150109620/101015/NEWSLETTER100

Tea Baggers fight for RIGHT TO LIE!

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

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.

State Rep. Brian Mannal, D-Barnstable


By 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