Latest Comments
ND News Feed
Calendar of Events
**************Eating Liberally -- The 4th Thursday of each month -- Valentino's, 1443 42nd St Sw, Fargo, ND -- 6:00 p.m.
This is a time to get together and eat and talk , just time for our friends. There is no format, dues, agenda etc., We can meet anytime or place we decide, picnic pot luck, local food, anything we want to, even invite speakers. But for now please show up, eat and talk to like minded friends. No need to RSVP just stop by and eat. email Trana if you like.
************
Anybody got anything that's interesting for me?
Links Worth Reading
ND Newspapers
ND Outdoors Sites
| FishingBuddy |
| NoDakOutdoors |
50 State Blogroll
Alabama
Arizona
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Arizona
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
New York
North Carolina
Ohio
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
New York
North Carolina
Ohio
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Featured Link
Krugman & Rolling Stone
Login Form
Support NorthDecoder
Search This Site
Loading
Feature Stories
| Personal |
| The Low Road |
ND Blogs (leftish)
ND Blogs (apolitical)
Regional Blogs (leftish)
ND Blogs (rightish)
| FreeRepublicans |
| Meartz's Lake |
| Too Much Dog Hair |
| Conserv. Harvest |
| Boyd Drive Follies |
| Matt's Blog |
Amazon Search
| Measure 2 Crackpots Sue To Silence Public Officials |
 |
 |
 |
| Written by Chet | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Wednesday, 15 February 2012 16:20 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
If ever there was a reason to think North Dakota's Measure 2 is a horrible idea, it is the fact that the people behind it want to prohibit people from talking about it. They've brought a lawsuit against a variety of legislators, public officials and organizations, seeking a court order prohibiting them from talking about what a hair-brained idea Measure 2 really is. Here's their complaint. Abolish Property Taxes Lawsuit Gotta be honest with you, I haven't had a chance to read the whole thing and completely digest it (though I've skimmed parts). Here's what I'll say about this for now: It appears almost half as much thought went into this lawsuit as went into Measure 2 itself. I'll come back and supplement this analysis once I've had a little time to chew on this and formulate a full opinion. I'll either post updates here in the main post, or supplement in the comments. I'd obviously like to hear what you folks think about this thing, too.
Set as favorite
Bookmark
Email this
Comments (9)
Dakota
said:
|
|
Yikes, I started laughing uncontrollably when I read the first page where they are claiming they have 28,000 members in Empower the Taxpayer. Where'd did they get that many members you ask? Hmmm..... Oh wait, that's how many citizens signed the petitions. I wonder if the petitions signers knew they became members of the empower the taxpayer club by signing their petition to put a measure on the ballot. |
|
Adam
said:
|
I would point out two things here. I would submit that the reading of the law is potentially correct, given the AG's opinion they cite. However, in this case, I'm pretty sure the First Amendment comes into play here. With the usual caveat that I am not a lawyer, I'm gonna say that this lawsuit will be dismissed. If I were the defendants, I might ask for attorney's fees, frankly. You will read the term, "knowingly, and with reckless disregard for the truth" throughout the lawsuit. That term is important because of New York Times v. Sullivan. It's extremely high. You must prove that they either knew it was false, or they should have known that it was false and didn't bother to look into it. That's damn near impossible, and the evidence here is fairly thin from what I'm reading. My prediction is that this lawsuit gets laughed out of court and that the ND Supreme Court might even strike the law down as unconstitutional altogether on First Amendment grounds. |
|
bill
said:
|
... Isn't Charlene Nelson (one of the sponsors of this petition) a municipal judge in Casselton? Wouldn't this lawsuit apply to her as well or am I mistaken? |
|
Chet
said:
|
Didn't know. Charlene Nelson is a municipal judge, according to a story -- with interview -- at a website called "thenewamerican.com" (click here). I suppose that means she's seeking a permanent injunction against herself, too. ... which proves my point. |
|
Chet
said:
|
And... So they're asking a judge to issue an order explaining what the "truth" is about Measure 2 when there is quite clearly a difference of opinion on what the "truth" is. Which raises another question: Wouldn't a judge issuing an order declaring what the "truth" is about Measure 2 be taking a position on Measure 2? And wouldn't the injunction they issue apply to them expressing such an opinion? This is making my head hurt. |
|
E Fudd
said:
|
... Ok Let me see if i understand this; we have public officials telling other public officials, who are trying to tell the public that they don't like certain public officials playing in their sand box. I'm sorry but this deserves a WTF!!! Measure 2 is a bad thing on so many levels I for the life of me cannot understand why anyone with a rational thinking process could be for the passage of this. scarey thing is, it has legs because certain "public officials" seem to think their idea will cure a problem that really doesn't exist. Kind of like some lines of "Tea party" thinking.... |
|
Chet
said:
|
After sleeping on it, here is my analysis: This is not a lawsuit; it is an attempt to manipulate the media. Seriously. Think about this. As someone noted in a comment, above, the "Plaintiffs" claim to include 28,000 (plus) petition signers. I have to wonder whether those 28,000 people were asked whether they wanted to participate in this lawsuit. I wonder if 280 of them were asked. Maybe 28,000 plus people consented, but I'm guessing they weren't. Imagine waking up one day and learning someone has brought a lawsuit on your behalf, without bothering to ask you. I'd be mad. I might even file an ethics grievance, or sue. I've never seen an initiated measure petition that included a consent to sue provision. Maybe this one has that, but I'd be surprised. As another commenter has pointed out, Charlene Nelson is listed as a Municipal Court judge in Casselton. (Click here for North Dakota Supreme Court website as source.) So she's a public official, too, and she's asking to silence all public officials from misrepresenting the truth about Measure 2. Well, in my humble opinion, she's misrepresenting the truth about Measure 2. Following her logic -- as stated in her lawsuit -- she needs to be silenced, too. Here's another thought: There's an entire section of the Complaint -- Pages 4 through 11, and the BOOK (!) attached as Attachment 6 -- that purport to tell "the truth" about Measure 2. They claim to know the only truth about Measure 2, yet none of the people suing are experts on local government finance. None of them are experts on drafting legislation or constitutional provisions, either. They completely screwed up the drafting of Measure 2 (and I'd bet I could even get them to admit this), and yet THEY think only THEY are smart enough to know the truth about Measure 2? That's laughable. Pages 4 through 11 are nothing more than an attempt to get "the message" under control. That stuff isn't lawsuit material; it's Press Release material. It's partisan advocacy material. Some might even suggest it's Rule 11 sanctions material. Same with all the footnoted garbage on pages 14 and 15. Crazy right-wingers are always setting up these non-profits they claim are non-partisan, but are only set up to "educate" people -- like the Koch-Brothers-crime-family-funded North Dakota Policy Council -- that then goes out and makes up "facts," and they're claiming other people shouldn't be allowed to talk about the anticipated impact of Measure 2? And they especially don't want people WHO KNOW WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT to talk about the impact of Measure 2? No public officials are allowed to talk about the impact. So... only uninformed people who don't understand how these things work should be allowed to talk about the impact of Measure 2? That's just a stunning proposal. We should fear these people. The stuff -- "points" -- on pages 19 through 39 seem to be expressions by the Plaintiffs that they disagree with the methods being used by public officials to educate citizens regarding the impact of Measure 2. They don't want public officials (other than themselves) to be able to inform the public about the impact unless those public officials adopt the measure supporters' talking points. And that's what this whole lawsuit is about; the measure supporters want a judge to issue a directive telling public officials what they are allowed to say about the impact of Measure 2, regardless of whether it's true. They're asking a judge to do exactly what they are protesting so vehemently against. If it weren't so scary, it would be funny. If the plaintiffs in this case -- all 28,000 of them -- are successful in stifling the 1st Amendment rights of the Defendants (and all other public officials), it will be a dangerous precedent. Here's part of what they're asking the courts to do: That the Court order the defendants, using the same as well as more That's at page 44 of the Complaint, item #5. They want the court to adopt "a court approved factually correct description of the truth about Measure 2." That scares the crap out of me. If they get what they're asking for and any public official -- including Charlene Nelson -- deviates from that "court approved factually correct" version of the facts, they could be held in contempt of court. That, my friends, is what North Dakota's "small government" conservatism looks like. |
|
bill
said:
|
... Something that has always confused me with this is the conflict of interest that arises with Charlene Nelson. Now as a municipal/part-time judge I am aware that she is excepted from some parts of the Code of Conduct in ND that bars judges from engaging in political activity. However, she can't engage in this type of behavior while running for political office. I believe she was appointed by the City Commission in 2009 and was then elected in 2010. Empower the Tax Payer began in March 2010. She would be in breach of this code because a candidate for municipal judge can not be involved in this type of political activity while they are campaigning. Though not a crime couldn't she be sanctioned if this is accurate? |
|
Chet
said:
|
Irretrievable Harm One of the things you have to prove to get the type of injunction these people are asking for is that without it the plaintiff would be "significantly and irretrievably harmed." In the Complaint (page 40, item 56) these folks assert one (1) thing to prove they will be "significantly and irretrievably harmed": Someone wrote a letter to the editor of one of North Dakota's newspapers. Seriously. That's everything. (Go read it if you don't believe me.) That's what they've offered up as proof they will be irretrievably harmed if they can't get a court order forcing public officials and other to stop talking about Measure 2. I'm trying to figure out how they might recover from that "significant" harm. Hmmm.. Wait! I think I've got it! They could spend money on advertising rather than hiring lawyers and tying up court time. Or they could write their own letter to the editor. (I know; that probably sounds like crazy talk.) Some people's kids. But seriously... let's think about the worst possible thing that could happen if public officials are allowed to continue educating the public about Measure 2. Hmmm... (and you have to assume, here, that the measure backers cannot recover from a single letter to the editor in the Fargo Forum...) Worst case scenerio... Measure 2 fails? And think how irretrievably harmed the Plaintiff's would be if that happened. They'd have to continue to suffer under the onerous burden of living under the same tax system people have suffered through in North Dakota since 1889. The humanity! |
|
Write comment
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|