A SAGA OF DOOR-TO-DOOR POLITICAL FREE SPEECH
This is the true story of a few-energetic-anonymous-senior citizens in Culver City, California, who had the audacity to buck Chamber-of-Commerce-sponsored candidates seeking election to the City Council. They call themselves the "Ad Hoc Committee for Culver City Residents First." In a short time and at minimal cost, they drafted, copied and distributed a political flyer to almost every door step and numerous automobile windshields in a city of approximately 40,000 residents. Though some will deny it, they drove voter turnout to record levels. The Culver City Observer (Observer), a community newspaper, wrongfully described their acts as illegal and encouraged vigilantes to hunt them down. (The Fair Political Practices Commission "determined that there is insufficient evidence to establish that a violation occurred.") Old-guard politicians besmirched them and warned of negative consequences if they continued. One resident publicly described them as "cowardly communist[s] on my doorstep." He requested that the Observer "identify and expose these disgusting people." The Chamber-of-Commerce-sponsored candidates were soundly defeated.
That's part of the story. The Committee's attorney sought governmental protection for Committee members and was, in effect, told to take a hike. The Observer went after the Committee's attorney with allegations of unethical and/or illegal conduct. The attorney sued the newspaper and its publisher based on allegations of defamation. One day before the scheduled trial, the Observer's publisher personally petitioned for Chapter 7 Bankruptcy. After a scathing commentary against the Observer and its publisher, the Trial Court rendered judgment—awarding both compensatory and punitive damages against the Observer.
The story might continue. There were new City-Council elections in November 2020. Stay tuned.
|
SUMMARY |
After taking a victory lap, "the Committee encourage[d] all residents to invoke their Constitutional right of free speech during the next and all future City-Council elections. Furthermore, the Committee encourage[d] new faces—who believe residents come first—to throw their hats into the ring." 190221_CCN_Judgment_Against_Observer.pdf
|
THE PUBLICATIONS |
Unlike most disputes, this one is fully documented.
The senior-citizen members of the Committee distributed a political flyer to the almost every doorstep in the community. 180312_Flyer.pdf
The Observer's publisher made an inquiry of the California Fair Political Practices Committee (FPPC), and was informed that there was no information upon which to base any allegation that the Committee was acting illegally by not registering. 180313_FPPC_Advises_CCO.pdf
Ignoring the FPPC, the Observer accused the Committee and it members of illegal acts and sought vigilantes to track them down and identify the then-anonymous Committee members. 180315_CCO_RaceTurnsUgly.pdf
Vigilantes stalked and photographed Committee members. The Committee's attorney sought police protection for the Committee's members. 180321_Complaint_to_CC_Police.pdf
The FPPC informed the Observer that its publication misquoted the FPPC concerning the Committee. 180313_FPPC_Advises_CCO.pdf
The Observer continued its baseless allegations and accused the Committee's attorney of unethically threatening. 180322_CCO_AllegedThreatenedCriminalProsecution.pdf + 180322_CCO_Online_City_Council_Race_Turns_Ugly.pdf
The Committee's attorney demanded a correction and retraction. 01_Retraction_Request.pdf
The Culver City News—another community newspaper—denounced the false allegations circulating about the Committee. 180405_CCN_CCO_Denounced.pdf
The Observer's false allegations continued against the Committee's attorney. 180405_CCO_FilingStateBarComplaint.pdf + 180405_CCO_Online_Reveal_Flyer_Distributors.pdf + 180412_CCO_Online_FilingStateBarComplaint.pdf + 180426_CCO_Online_AllegedStateBarInvestigation.pdf + 180510_CCO_AllegedStateBarAndFFPCInvestigations.pdf
With record voter turnout, the Chamber-of-Commerce candidates were trounced.
The Committee's attorney filed a legal action against the Observer and its publisher based on allegations of defamation per se—where damages to reputation are presumed due to the nature of the false statements.
|
LAWSUIT DETAILS |
The Committee's attorney requested the Observer and its publisher retract and correct their false allegations. 01_Retraction_Request.pdf
The Complaint for Damages detailed the allegations and requested monetary relief. 02_FirstAC.pdf + 03_Notice_Punitive_Damages.pdf
Plaintiff's Trial Brief detailed the allegations and associated legal theories. 04_TrialBrief.pdf
The Observer's publisher petitioned for Chapter 7 Bankruptcy on the eve of trial. 05_BK_Notice_of_Chapter_7.pdf
The Trial Court ruled in favor of the Committee's attorney for compensatory and punitive damages. 06_Minute_Order_(Trial).pdf
The Judgment reflects the Trial Court's statements concerning the Observer's despicable conduct. 07_Judgment.pdf
|
The
information presented on this website
is provided solely for general interest and educational purposes. It
is not intended to be nor should it be interpreted to be the rendering of legal
or other advice. The
views expressed herewith are not necessarily
politically
correct and are subject to change without notice.
|
This Website is Sponsored by:
Law
Offices of
INVESTMENT LITIGATION/ARBITRATION,
SHADOW COUNSEL AND INVESTIGATIVE SERVICES
###
Last Revised: April 25, 2021