SALEM — Birther cum Teabagger Congressional candidate Bill Hudak dropped his controversial libel suit against his opponent, Rep. John Tierney (D-6th). Hudak claims he was forced to drop the case when another judge, based in Lawrence, refused to compel Tierney to testify.
However, neither Tierney nor his attorney, opted for a dismissal, hoping they could sanction Hudak, a Boxford attorney, for filing a frivolous lawsuit. It was a bad faith suit," said Howard Cooper, attorney for Congressman Tierney. "The entire thing was a publicity stunt for a failed campaign."
Follow me below the fold for details:
The lawsuitwhich I blogged about Tuesday, focused on a series of television advertisements Tierney has been running. Much like other faux libertarians, Hudak had no problems spreading lies but when truthful statements — in his own words mind you — cries repression and files one of those frivolous lawsuit conservatives are always complaining about.
Various newspapers and blogs confirmed that Hudak, during the 2008 Presidential Election, had posters on his property comparing then candidate Barack Obama to Osama Bin Laden. Talk about your GOPOcrisy?
Making matters even worse is the fact that Hudak is a lawyer and should know: how it is virtually impossible to win a libel lawsuit as a public figure; that truth is an absolute defense in these cases - see NY Times v. Sullivan; and these lawsuits usually backfire, especially because the other side can now depose you too - see Roger Clemens.
Julie Manganis, writing for the Newburyport Daily News, noted that Hudak contends that the ad is libelous because it includes statements that he would shift the tax burden to the middle class and eliminate the mortgage interest tax deduction.
Hudak was miffed that another judge refused to force Tierney to testify. But why should Tierney be forced to testify about campaign ads? The entire exercise reeked of a fishing expedition.
Even in his public statements, after voluntarily dropping the case, Hudak stubbornly maintained that Tierney had been forced to admit the ad was libelous. In fact, a statement after the hearing by the challenger is classic cognitive dissonance.
Hudak lawyer Richard Wise said outside court that he believes the lawsuit forced Tierney to "disclose the frivolous basis" for his assertions in the ads. He told Judge Robert Cornetta, "We feel more confident than ever" in their claim of libel.
But in the next breath, he acknowledged that Cornetta's decision earlier in the day quashing a subpoena to Tierney and denying a request to call witnesses during the hearing were legally sound.
Moreover, both the skills of Hudak and his attorney seem right out of the Orly Taitz school of bad lawyering.
When Hudak's lawyer filed the complaint Monday, he did not specifically ask Judge Howard Whitehead to schedule what is known as an "evidentiary" hearing, which would have allowed Hudak's counsel to call witnesses and introduce evidence.
In order to obtain an injunction, Wise would have had to convince Cornetta that he had a likelihood of success on the merits of the case — that is, that he could ultimately prove that Tierney acted with malice. And in order to do that, he would have had to elicit testimony from the congressman that established that.
Cooper argued the lawsuit was filed in bad faith, saying Hudak and Wise abused and misused the court system and the case was nothing more than political theater.
Cooper and co-counsel Gilles Bissonnette and Heidi Nadel also posited that the lawsuit violates a state law against suing people to prevent them from taking part in the political process.
Beyond that, they argued, everything in the ad is true.
The lawyers for Tierney came to court yesterday with a stack of documents, including audio recordings of interviews, a Fox News candidate questionnaire and newspaper articles about Hudak's endorsement by flat-tax supporter Steve Forbes, indicating Hudak's support for creating a flat tax of anywhere from 13 to 15 percent. In that vein, counsel also included opinions from economists, including one writing in Forbes' own magazine, suggesting that a flat tax would place an unfair share of the tax burden on the middle class.
Tierney's defense team came with reams of material to prove everything in the ads was true.
Tierney's lawyers also backed up a claim Tierney has made about Hudak seeking to privatize Social Security with the Fox News candidate questionnaire, in which Hudak expresses support for "allowing younger workers to invest their Social Security taxes in private individual accounts." They also include a Forbes position paper on the topic.
Wise, Hudak's lawyer, said that the endorsement by Forbes doesn't mean he shares all of his views, however. "Because he got the endorsement of Steve Forbes, is he an inflatable dummy?" Wise asked the judge.
Teabagger, inflatable dummy, potato, patata, let's let voters sort the whole thing out.
Snip.