Court to Maine Democratic Party: NO MORE BULLYING THIRD PARTIES OFF THE BALLOT

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

April 19, 2012

CONTACT:
Oliver Hall – (617) 953-0161
Lynne Williams – (207) 266-6327

MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT UNANIMOUSLY RULES FOR NADER IN SUIT AGAINST DEMOCRATS

High Court Decision Reinstates Lawsuit Alleging Democrats Unlawfully Targeted Nader-Camejo 2004 Independent Presidential Campaign

PORTLAND, ME – Maine’s Supreme Judicial Court (the “Law Court”) today unanimously ruled to reinstate a 2009 lawsuit filed by independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader and his 2004 Maine electors against the Democratic Party and several of its allies. The lawsuit, originally filed in Superior Court for Washington County, Maine, was dismissed in November 2010 pursuant to Maine’s anti-SLAPP statute, 14 M.R.S. § 556. The Law Court vacated the dismissal, ruling that the lower court erred by denying Nader and his electors the opportunity to establish their claims for abuse of process, malicious prosecution and civil conspiracy.

“We conclude that the Maine anti-SLAPP statute may not be invoked to achieve dismissal of claims alleging abuses of process without giving the plaintiff the opportunity to establish a prima facie case to support the claims,” the Law Court declared in a majority opinion by Justice Donald G. Alexander. Chief Justice Leigh I. Saufley, Justice Jon D. Levy, Justice Andrew M. Mead and Justice Ellen A. Gorman joined the opinion.

“Accordingly, today we announce a change in the parties’ burdens at the preliminary anti-SLAPP dismissal stage,” Justice Alexander wrote.

Under the new standard, the Law Court ruled that the lawsuit filed by Nader and his electors “should be allowed to proceed,” unless they are unable to show that “any, rather than all,” of the Democrats’ litigation against the Nader-Camejo 2004 presidential campaign was “devoid of any reasonable factual support or arguable basis in law.”

Maine’s anti-SLAPP statute was enacted in 1995, with the intention of protecting activists who are sued by real estate developers for speaking out against proposed projects (such actions are known as Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation). Typical SLAPP suits have no merit and are filed for improper purposes, such as imposing litigation costs – which, as defendant Toby Moffett admitted, was a primary purpose of the litigation that Democrats initiated against Nader’s 2004 independent presidential campaign with the late Peter Miguel Camejo.

In a concurring opinion joined by Justice Joseph M. Jabar, Justice Warren M. Silver wrote that the anti-SLAPP statute had been “used by different parties than those intended,” and that it had “served an entirely different purpose than the one intended.”

“The ‘Goliath’ who abuses other forms of petitioning to harass ‘David’ has now adopted the [anti-SLAPP statute] as another obstacle to throw in David’s path when he legitimately seeks to petition the court for redress,” Justice Silver wrote.

The lawsuit alleges that Democrats orchestrated a concerted, nationwide effort to interfere with the Nader-Camejo campaign, by filing 29 complaints in 19 states, including Maine, and that many of the complaints included groundless and demonstrably false allegations of fraud. According to Moffett, a Washington, D.C.-based lobbyist who helped recruit an estimated 95 lawyers from 53 law firms to join the effort, the purpose of the Democrats’ complaints was to “drain,” “distract” and “neutralize” the Nader-Camejo campaign, by “forcing [them] to spend money and resources defending these things.”

Other defendants named in the lawsuit include the Maine Democratic Party, its former Chair Dorothy Melanson, the Democratic National Committee, its former Chair Terry McAuliffe, the Kerry-Edwards 2004 campaign and a Section 527 political organization called The Ballot Project headed by Moffett.

As a result of the Law Court’s decision, the lawsuit will be remanded to the Superior Court for Washington County for further proceedings.

The Law Court also vacated a lower court order awarding Moffet $1 in attorneys’ fees.

Copies of the Law Court’s opinion are available by emailing oliverbhall@gmail.com.

CA Gubernatorial Candidate arrested at NBC Debates

I've been here before. NBC excluded a candidate that I had worked for during the Democratic Party primaries in Nevada and New Hampshire, etc, even though he had met the requirements for entering the debate. A local court decided that Dennis Kucinich must be let into the debate, but then a federal appeals court decided that it was the "1st amendment rights of a corporate broadcasting entity to exclude or include whomever they wanted in the debates."

I can tell you this with utmost certainty-- the corporate media distorts elections, makes up the rules as they go, and the debates they host are a complete and total sham.

Just yesterday Green Party candidate for Governor, Laura Wells was arrested at a debate she was excluded from. According to my sources, Laura Wells was peacfully and quietly on her way to be seated in attendance of the debate when security arrested and escorted her off the premises for "tresspassing."



She had every right to be there- as she had tickets to attend the debate.
What was the real excuse for kicking her out? Laura Wells was arrested for "tresspassing on private property" a tactic used to kick Ralph Nader off the premises during his exclusion of the 2000 presidential debates-- despite the fact that he ALSO had a ticket. Not that he was there to debate- the Corporate Media didn't even let them WATCH the debate. As though their very presence would somehow taint their two-corporate-party lovefest.



NBC's story doesn't quite match up with what actually happened, excluding as many facts as they can to hide how bad they were and distort what actually happened. NBC reports she was arrested while protesting her exclusion, and makes sure to justify it by saying that "The Green Party is not a factor in this race, according to all polls."

Really? And yet the Green Party is also simultaneously such a threat that you have to arrest their Gubernatorial candidate simply for attending the debate- with a legitimate ticket, and a legitimate reason to be there? Make up your mind! Which is it?



Is the Green Party a factor or not?

Then as if to justify their exclusionary tactics, NBC follows up with this: "Polls show Brown, the current attorney general and former governor and former eBay CEO Meg Whitman in a dead heat."

Again-- Make up your mind! Which is it? Is the Green Party a factor or not? If they aren't a factor, they clearly would not have any bearing on the dead heat that this race is in, now would they? Unless they are a factor, in which case- LET THEM DEBATE.



Here's what actually happened: