Skip to main content

View Diary: Judge issues gag order in chalk case (438 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  They folded under continual pressure (58+ / 0-)

    to prosecute from Bank of America. These chalk incidents took place in 2011 - 2012. In 2013, BOA was still contacting the City Attorney's office looking for them to move on this.

    Months later, on January 7, 2013 Freeman pressed Miles and Goldsmith's attorneys to take action against Olson.

    "Any updates on this," Freeman wrote in an email to Miles and Deputy City Attorney Nicole Kukas obtained through a public records request.

    Two minutes later, Kukas responded. "Thank you for checking in on this case. It is still under review. I will give you an update by the end of the week."

    No update came. Ten days later, Freeman was back on the case.

    "Any updates on a filing?"

    "I appreciate your patience," wrote Officer Miles just three hours after Freeman's message. "I will forward this to the City Attorney."

    Then on April 15, Deputy City Attorney Paige Hazard contacted Freeman with the good news. "I wanted to let you know that we will be filing 13 counts of vandalism as a result of the incidents you reported."

    Freeman is this guy.
    "The man identified himself as Darell Freeman, corporate security for the bank. He refused to give me his business card when I asked for it. He told [Olson] that he could, “with one phone call,” get [Olson's] credit union account canceled at California Coast. He threatened to make the call if [he] kept up the demonstration," wrote Batterson in his October 2011 article.
    This heavy handedness over washable children's chalk is simply abusive. BOA is using our justice system as a cudgel against anyone who sees them for what they are and dares to speak out about it.

    I find that simply sickening in light of the fact that their own well documented frauds and abuses, their large scale fraud upon our courts and wanton disregard for proper legal procedure has been deemed to be unprosecutable, not because they didn't do anything wrong but because to go after them might hurt the economy. They're too big and thus have become untouchable. Make a move against them and they'll squash you like a bug. This is one company that does not deserve to exist.

    As per Eric Holder. Starting at 1:52

    I am concerned that the size of some of these institutions becomes so large that it does become difficult for us to uhm, to prosecute them when we are hit with ah, uhm, indications that if you do prosecute, if you do bring a criminal charge uhm, it will have a negative impact on the national economy. Perhaps even the world economy. And I think that is a function of the fact that some of these institutions have become too large. Again, I'm not talking about HSBC. This is more of a general comment. I think it has an inhibiting influence, impact on our ability to bring resolutions that I think would be more appropriate and I think that is something that we, you, you all need to consider. The concern that you raise is actually one that I share.
    What do you do about an entity that is legally untouchable but will use the law to push for the strongest penalties for the smallest slight?

    "Compassion is the radicalism of our time." ~ Tenzin Gyatso, 14th Dalai Lama -7.88, -6.21

    by Siri on Sat Jun 29, 2013 at 08:54:25 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  I wonder, would this qualify as a Slapp Suit? (17+ / 0-)

      A strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP) is a lawsuit that is intended to censor, intimidate, and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense until they abandon their criticism or opposition.[1]

      The typical SLAPP plaintiff does not normally expect to win the lawsuit. The plaintiff's goals are accomplished if the defendant succumbs to fear, intimidation, mounting legal costs or simple exhaustion and abandons the criticism. A SLAPP may also intimidate others from participating in the debate. A SLAPP is often preceded by a legal threat. The difficulty is that plaintiffs do not present themselves to the Court admitting that their intent is to censor, intimidate or silence their critics. Hence, the difficulty in drafting SLAPP legislation, and in applying it, is to craft an approach which affords an early termination to invalid abusive suits, without denying a legitimate day in court to valid good faith claims.

      SLAPPs take various forms. The most common used to be a civil suit for defamation, which in the English common law tradition was a tort. The common law of libel dates to the early 17th century and (unusual in English law) is reverse onus, meaning, once someone alleges a statement is libelous, the burden was on the defendant to prove that it is not. The Defamation Act 2013 removed most of the uses of defamation as a SLAPP in the United Kingdom by requiring the proof of special damage. Various abusive uses of this law including political libel (criticism of the political actions or views of others) have ceased to exist in most places, but persist in some jurisdictions (notably British Columbia and Ontario) where political views can be held as defamatory. A common feature of SLAPP suits is forum shopping, wherein plaintiffs find courts that are more favourable towards the claims to be brought than the court in which the defendant (or sometimes plaintiffs) live.

      If someone has contact with the defendent, perhaps this needs to be passed along, because even lawyers can forget.

      This has all the look of a SLAPP suit to me.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (174)
  • Community (70)
  • Baltimore (50)
  • Civil Rights (42)
  • Bernie Sanders (39)
  • Culture (34)
  • Elections (26)
  • Law (26)
  • Economy (25)
  • Education (23)
  • Freddie Gray (23)
  • Hillary Clinton (22)
  • Labor (22)
  • Texas (21)
  • Rescued (21)
  • 2016 (21)
  • Racism (20)
  • Media (20)
  • Environment (20)
  • Barack Obama (19)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site