Court Filing: Uldricks & Carson Firm Using Lawsuit to "Intimidate and Harass" + "Chill" Free Speech

[Bridget Conant]

Carson are trying to find out who rickcitizen is so that they can bully that person even more---

So what is the motive for attempting to "out" this poster? Because he uses ""Rick" in his username? It appears that the allegation is that he is "impersonating" he who shall not be named. For using "Rick" in his screen name?

I mean, there are only about 2.7 million people in the United States named Richard.

So a very brief 2 minute search turned up various names that use "Rick" or "citizen."

http://connect.cleveland.com/user/rick/index.html

http://connect.cleveland.com/user/rickie/index.html

http://connect.cleveland.com/user/therick/index.html

http://connect.cleveland.com/user/rickrick/index.html

http://connect.cleveland.com/user/citizen/index.html

http://connect.cleveland.com/user/lakew ... index.html

http://connect.cleveland.com/user/rick1/index.html

http://connect.cleveland.com/user/ricker/index.html

http://connect.cleveland.com/user/mrrick/index.html

http://connect.cleveland.com/user/misterrick/index.html

http://connect.cleveland.com/user/acitizen/index.html

http://connect.cleveland.com/user/yourc ... index.html

Surely, those posters can't all be attempting to impersonate the plaintiff?

Why aren't those usernames being subpoenaed?


It's pretty clear when you look at the content of the subject user's posts. Do they mention "he who shall not be named?" NO.

But, the the posts are critical of the Lakewood mayor and council. Pointedly critical.

And all within that person's rights as a citizen. The right to criticize government.

So think about what's going on here.

This lawsuit is an attempt to attack, harass, and silence critics of our government.

Is this acceptable? Do we live in a city that attacks and harasses its residents for voicing their opinion?

[Bridget Conant]

Here is a great read from the "First Amendment Badass" Marc Randazza. The article is brilliant - this guy knows his stuff.

http://www.dmlp.org/blog/2012/no-sandra ... h-limbaugh

Commenting on a lawsuit against Rush Limbaugh for calling Sandra Fluke a "slut," he articulates exactly what defamation is, and what it is not. Here are some gems:

The purpose of the First Amendment is to ensure the unfettered exchange of ideas among the American people. See Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476, 484 (1957). The First Amendment does not demand politeness, fairness, nor that debate should be measured and soft. In fact, the First Amendment provides ample breathing room for political discourse to get nasty, unfair, and brutish. See Sullivan, 376 U.S. at 270. Furthermore, the First Amendment does not require that every statement be 100% objectively true, nor does it allow defamation suits to continue every time a statement is false, or implies a nasty falsehood.

Spreading ignorance about defamation law makes the marketplace of ideas just that much more chilly, just that much more dangerous, and just that much more likely to be hit with a bomb by some opportunistic ambulance-chaser teamed up with a thin-skinned professional victim so that he or she can get paid for his or her mere "butthurt." Butthurt is not defamation. Butthurt is butthurt, and you don't get paid for that in the United States of America. Not on my watch.

[Lori Allen _]

It appears that I now have an undercover agent sitting outside my home from time to time, along with my usual police and city employee escorts while driving around town. I telephoned the Mayor's office last week to ask why he was appearing to be stealing yet more properties from Lakewood citizens. I also mentioned that I did not approve of what appeared to be some sort of alleged money laundering scam going on in Lakewood. I told them that, no matter what, I would not allow the Mayor to silence me. I heard a loud swallowing noise, as if to say "oh crap"! Later that day, I had a white Ford Taurus parked out in front of my house with what appeared to be an undercover or detective observing my home. He gave himself away since his car was facing the wrong direction. He was talking on the phone. I telephoned the Lakewood Police to report an unknown car and suspicious behavior out front of my house. He took off like a bat out of hell just as the call was going out on the scanner, about 30 seconds after hanging up the phone. Hmmmmmm.

[Bridget Conant]

Here is a case from the Supreme Court of New Jersey. There, during a political campaign, opponents of the candidate circulated flyers stating that the candidate had hired a person with a criminal conviction to work for him.

The criminal person in question, "G.D.," sued the Democratic group who put out the flyers claiming that he was defamed and his privacy was violated. Interestingly, this case had a twist - this person had had his record expunged so he claimed it was not in the public realm.

He LOST all the way to the Supreme Court.

http://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/ ... 9-opn.html

Some gems from the analysis of the decision:

The panel reasoned that because the information in the flyers was true and that truth could not be extinguished by the expungement order G.D. could not satisfy an essential element of a defamation cause of action. The panel also rejected G.D. s argument that inaccuracies in the flyers stripped defendants of truth as a defense, finding the statements fairly accurate. The panel also found that truth the substantial accuracy of the flyers is a defense to the claims of intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, false light, invasion of privacy, and civil conspiracy.

The expungement statute does not transmute a once-true fact into a falsehood; it cannot banish memories. The right to speak freely on matters of public concern and the right to criticize a candidate for public office implicate core values protected by our federal and state constitutions. Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 14-15 (1996). Truth may be personally embarrassing and offensive to some, but it remains a defense in a defamation action, even when the truth revealed concerns information contained in an expunged record.

The campaign flyers represented political speech attacking the judgment of a candidate running for public office. This is the type of speech that is at the heart of First Amendment guarantees. Lastly, for reasons already expressed, G.D. cannot establish that defendants committed an unlawful act or wrong against him that constitutes a tort entitling him to a recovery. Therefore, G.D. s civil-conspiracy claim must also be dismissed. (Pp. 43-48

What is public record about you is a PUBLIC RECORD, even if later legally expunged. And it is a FIRST AMENDMENT right to discuss a public employee's criminal record.

[Bridget Conant]

BUTTHURT:

mental distress or irritation caused by an overreaction to a perceived personal slight, a bad outcome, etc.

In an Illinois case, Stone v Paddock Publications, the court ruled on an attempt by a BUTTHURT politician to out a poster on a news web site because of an allegedly defamatory post.

The court, in its ruling rejecting the plaintiff's attempt to unmask the poster, noted that allowing disclosure without the plaintiff proving there was a winnable defamation case would be disastrous for free speech:

we cannot condone the inevitable fishing expedition that would ensue..Encouraging those easily offended by online commentary to sue to find the name of their "tormenters" would surely lead to unnecessary litigation and would also have a chilling effect on the many citizens who choose to post anonymously on the countless comment boards for newspapers, magazines, web sites, and other information portals

You cannot trample upon a citizen's FIRST AMENDMENT rights without legitimate proof of defamation.

The preservation of Constitutionally protected rights is far more important than coddling hurt feelings and protecting delicate egos.

Luckily, Courts agree and do not take these issues lightly.

[Bridget Conant]

So according to court documents, the plaintiff takes offense at a poster named rickcitizen, claiming the poster is "impersonating" him.

How exactly do you "own" a screen name?

Is your name somehow so sacred that anyone daring to use a remotely similar name means they are either imitating you or "stealing" your name?

Here are no less than 5 people living in the USA who actually are legally named Rick Citizen:

http://www.peoplefinders.com/peoplesear ... fgod7QQFpA

Do a search on Facebook and find multiple profiles with similar names. For example:

image.jpeg (97.69 KiB) Viewed 4156 times

image.jpeg (70.96 KiB) Viewed 4156 times

image.jpeg (129.24 KiB) Viewed 4156 times

There are numerous online "Rick Citizens," yet for some reason, the plaintiff's attorneys aren't accusing them of impersonation or asking for them to prove who they are.

Who is really harassing who here?

Just another example of the ludicrousness of the lawsuit.

Frankly, if I were an attorney, I'd be embarrassed to admit I wrote that complaint.

[Michael Deneen]

Frankly, if I were an attorney, I'd be embarrassed to admit I wrote that complaint.

Rule #1: Just like "Team Trump", "Team Summers" is totally incapable of feeling any sort of shame. Ever. About Anything.

[Bridget Conant]

Interesting case in Hoboken. A SLAPP suit can SLAPP back!

Defendants won the case and the plaintiffs were forced to pay $280,000 in legal fees!

http://observer.com/2015/07/the-hoboken ... at-roared/

The suit needs to sufficiently support the finding of actual malice or reputational injury,” Judge Arre held. “Therefore, the plaintiffs’ complaint is dismissed.” The Court also found that the blog postings were protected by the First Amendment.

The Court finds the Bajardis claims were frivolous, were pursued in bad faith, and with the purpose of harassment, delay and malicious injury in violation of N.J.S.A. 2A:15:15-59.1,” his ruling stated.

In a strongly worded opinion, The Court chastised the Bajardis for “suing first and thinking later”. The Court’s opinion states that the plaintiffs “continually pursued claims with no basis in fact, while misrepresenting the facts to their counsel and to the Court”.

Here's an article outlining the plaintiff's claims:

http://www.nj.com/hobokennow/index.ssf/ ... famat.html

It's a must read!

[Bridget Conant]

Here is the actual original filing in the Bajardi vs Brice complaint for defamation. It's worth a read as there are so many parallels to the case here.

http://matchbin-assets.s3.amazonaws.com ... AJARDI.pdf

It involved an outspoken group of citizens who criticized a husband and wife who were both journalists and active in local politics. Upset over online criticism, the couple sued for defamation. The complaint is similar to the one at hand - they cite post after post that are highly critical of the couple, accusing them of both misdeeds and of posting under various names online.

Again, the case was DISMISSED by a judge who ruled all of the critical posts were protected by the FIRST AMENDMENT. Read the complaint so you can understand the law.

Most importantly, the judge SLAPP'ed back at the plaintiffs and awarded attorney fees to the DEFENDANTS.

As the judge said in his decision, the plaintiffs "sued first and thought later." Read here:

http://hmag.com/former-plaintiffs-now-o ... ing-later/

Quotes:

In his subsequent ruling handed down on July 8, Hudson County Superior Court Judge Patrick J. Arre states that the, “The Court finds Plaintiffs must reimburse Defendants for the litigation costs of suing first and thinking later.” Arre adds that the, “Plaintiffs were limited public figures who manipulated their attorney to perpetuate … a SLAPP-suit disguised as a defamation case involving weighty issues of constitutionally protected First Amendment political free speech.”

Oh, and guess what? The activists citizens were complaining about a lack of transparency in city government, particularly as it applied to THE SALE OF THE MUNICIPAL HOSPITAL. My, my, sound familiar?

http://hudsonreporter.com/view/full_sto ... eft_column

[Lori Allen _]

Bridget,

I guess Summers and Butler are not familiar with the First Amendment! I believe that we should all be witnesses for the case and we can tell the court about our experiences and how everything relates. We would have so many people testifying, it could take longer than a week, maybe a month!

[Bridget Conant]

Lori,

People need to speak out against this attempt to silence the people.

Tell people about it, show them where to look up the case and filings, READ them.

It's frightening how easy it is to throw out allegations and try to silence critics.

This needs to be a topic of conversation around town.

[Lori Allen _]

Bridget,
I tell as many people as I can everyday. I just walk up to people and ask if they live in Lakewood. If they say yes, I tell them everything! Believe me, people are pissed! If we all do this everyday when we are out and about in Lakewood, the message will spread far.