Local Stupid Neo-Con GOP Candiate Lawyer Threatens to Sue Innocent Doctor Over Opinion!

Dr. Mary,

I was in the bowels of the Duke library today. I see you have been busy though. Connie is right - since Spaz is running for an office, he has made himself a public figure. This almost gives you or anyone else a license to lie as he has to prove that you made your comments with "actual malice" under NYT v. Sullivan. Actual malice is "knowledge that [the statement] was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not." Truth is always a defense.

Some quotes from the case quoting a Kansas case:

"where an article is published and circulated among voters for the sole purpose of giving what the defendant believes to be truthful information concerning a candidate for public office and for the purpose of enabling such voters to cast their ballot more intelligently, and the whole thing is done in good faith and without malice, the article is privileged, although the principal matters contained in the article may be untrue in fact and derogatory to the character of the plaintiff; and in such a case the burden is on the plaintiff to show actual malice in the publication of the article."

"It is of the utmost consequence that the people should discuss the character and qualifications of candidates for their suffrages. The importance to the state and to society of such discussions is so vast, and the advantages derived are so great, that they more than counterbalance the inconvenience of private persons whose conduct may be involved, and occasional injury to the reputations of individuals must yield to the public welfare, although at times such injury may be great. The public benefit from publicity is so great, and the chance of injury to private character so small, that such discussion must be privileged."

"In such a case the occasion gives rise to a privilege, qualified to this extent: any one claiming to be defamed by the communication must show actual malice or go remediless. This privilege extends to a great variety of subjects, and includes matters of public concern, public men, and candidates for office."

Spaz should sue his law school (Southern Methodist University) for the money he spent for failing to give him a legal education. He practices family and bankruptcy law. He knows nothing about the 1st Amendment. Probably has not heard of the others either, or what is left of them (habeas corpus ,art. i, section 9, is gone and the 4th amendment has effectively been gutted). Say! Does he know the former attorney general Alberto Gonzales? He is from Texas and never heard of habeas corpus either. Maybe they have different federal laws there.

Spaz graduated in 1998 - has not been in practice all that long. Must have a hard time getting clients since he wants to live off the public dole.

He's a wascally wepublothug (said with Elmer Fudd accent) and would not get my vote.

He is a fool for threatening you with a lawsuit. Good job taking him on! (I read your post)

There is no end to the corruption and imbecility of those whom we elect in office. Maybe Spaz is qualified after all as he seems to be of the latter strain.

Have a good night!

Rachel Lea Hunter
http://www.rachelforjustice.com