LPM OnlineDecember 8, 1998 |
|
|
|
Contents
|
The following article is the latest in a series of Op-ed articles written by LPM Chair Tim O'Brien and submitted to news outlets across the state for publication. My mayor is suing me. About a year ago I was approached by a fellow Allen Parker who had become sufficiently displeased with our mayor's exploits (an amusing collection of anecdotes too numerous to retell here) that he purposed to recall Hizzonor from office. Though I declined any official role I did offer my humble advice and assistance -- which seemed the least I could do in as much as more than a few folks here regard me as arguably responsible for the current state of affairs because of my stunningly successful campaign to unseat the previous mayor and council. In compliance with legal requirements that grounds for a recall election be stated clearly and unambiguously on petitions, allegations of three separate instances of the mayor's official actions violating either the City Charter or the state Campaign Finance Act were submitted to the county clerk's office for certification as to clarity (by law only the electorate has the authority to pass on the substance of the allegations.) Ultimately, only one of the three reasons was approved. Petitions were printed and circulated, but the number of signatures gathered fell short of the 25% required to actually schedule a recall election. That's when the mayor sued the individual who organized this effort, claiming that because the alleged acts are misdemeanors under the law these, therefore, "impute a criminal offense" -- something which is actionable per se under the law of libel and slander. Further, the mayor asserted that the very act of submitting the language to the appropriate government body for certification constituted "publishing" under that same tort law. Finally, he claimed that his demand for a retraction went unanswered leaving him no other remedy than legal action. In a deposition for the case the recall organizer named four other individuals who had helped him in the effort in one way or another including a city councilman and, of course, me. The four of us were subsequently added to the Complaint. Now, our mayor as you have undoubtedly already deduced is not exactly the sharpest tool in the shed. Students of the English language probably noticed that the entire claim rests on a fundamental misunderstanding of the difference between the words "impute" (to attribute or ascribe) and "imply" (to suggest or insinuate). Further, it is patently absurd to suggest that following the procedures prescribed by administrative law for certifying a recall petition can in and of itself constitute "publishing" under the law of libel and slander. Finally, our four names were merely added to the original complaint that contained the demand for a retraction from the organizer. In point of fact none of the four added defendants ever actually received any such demand. Of course, Article II, Section 8 of our state constitution reserves determination of "the sufficiency of any statement of reasons or grounds" for recall to the electorate -- explicitly excluding judicial review -- in any case. The only claim by the mayor in his entire lawsuit that I am inclined to accept at face value based on the available evidence is that he must, indeed, be suffering from some kind of mental distress. It would be quite intolerable that citizens' involvement in the democratic process should expose them to civil litigation by aggrieved public officials. Having been politically active my entire life and well known for it in my community, the mayor should have realized that there was little chance I could be bullied in this way. And I have every confidence I will prevail in court and win a motion for summary disposition. However, most people are very much intimidated by this kind of tactic -- which is known in legal circles as a "SLAPP suit" (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation). Indeed, the original recall organizer in this very case has settled out of court simply to spare himself the time and expense of mounting a defense. The state of California officially recognized SLAPP suits as frivolous, vexatious and against the public interest, revising their law in 1993 to prohibit them. Similar proposals are currently under consideration in four other state legislatures, though Michigan is not among them. So, okay. Here comes something you just don't see from Libertarians. (Drum roll, please.) Maybe, we need a new law. It's time Michigan also moved to prohibit public officials using civil litigation as a club in an attempt to harass and silence citizens. A Libertarian proposing a new law? The LP may be in the process of revoking my membership even as you read these words. Oh, well. Maybe I'll run for mayor.
The Libertarian Party of Shiawassee County will not hold a regular monthly meeting in December, due to the Holidays. The next LPSC meeting will be held on January 21, 1999 at Nancy's Family Restaurant in Durand (7:00 pm). This will be an important business meeting at which officers for 1999 will be nominated and elected.
On December 5, 1933, after 14 years of Alcohol Prohibition, the state of Utah ratified the 21st Amendment to the US Constitution, thereby repealing the 18th Amendment, ending Prohibition, and making the drinking of alcoholic beverages legal once again. Illegal drinking had risen to record levels and organized crime had become a nationwide problem, with criminal gangs terrorizing major U.S. cities and turning streets into virtual battlezones. Law enforcement and the judiciary and been corrupted, and even the staunchest supporters of prohibition were forced to admit that the "cure" was worse than the "disease." Sound familiar?? |
| To unsubscribe, send email to markheil@flash.net |
Return to LP of Michigan Home Page
Return to News Archive