The partisan pundits defending the corrupt CCDO continue to publicly brag about the expense I am incurring defending myself and this website against their lawsuit. And that is interesting, because it only supports the allegations I have made from the beginning – this lawsuit is intended solely to so mire me down in legal expenses that I will have to shut the site down.
The fact that they feel so confident that they can boast about their tactics is a sorry commentary about their lack of respect for the 1st amendment. The framers of our Constitution didn’t include the 1st amendment because they were bored. They fully understood that a free republic could only be guaranteed by the unfettered right of free political speech.
This country has had unfortunate lapses throughout our short history – one need only look back to the last century’s McCarthyism to understand the chilling effect that government restriction has on free speech. Democrats across the country understand the sanctity of free political discourse – it seems that Cumberland County Democrats march to the beat of their own drummer.
And so MWatch faces a queer dilemma – the party that claims to stand up for the underdog, the little guy, is now using its deep pockets to bring an extremely expensive civil lawsuit against the person that has continually embarrassed them and uncovered stories that they had until recently been able to hide from the so-called ‘mainstream” media. MagazzuWatch uncovered the fake PAC and illegal money-raising by the former freeholder director and CCDO chair. Campaign contributions apparently dried up for a year as a result – nobody likes being hit in the wallet.
MWatch revealed the federal investigations into the OEM/911 Call Center, a story that the local press has still ignored. We revealed the allegations that employees were fried and placed on administrative leave simply because they cooperated with outside investigators. According to my sources, one employee was allegedly fired because a director’s wife did not want the daughter of a woman that he had an affair with working for him.
So the CCDO faces a quandary – what to do about a website that has become a thorn in their side? It would be too blatant to pass a local ordinance forbidding free speech – they have to continue with lie that they are in favor of open and free political discourse. The logical solution, of course, is a SLAPP lawsuit. “TheFirstAmendment.org” website defines SLAPP.
The United States… (constitution) grant(s) every person the right to participate in government and civic affairs, speak freely on public issues, and petition government officials for redress of grievances. Yet, individuals and community groups are often sued for exercising these constitutional rights. These suits are known as “SLAPPs,” or “Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation.”
I urge you to check out the website, and the telltale signs of a SLAPP lawsuit, and then you be the judge. Does this current civil litigation, intended to totally bankrupt me and destroy me financially for life fit the criteria?