|
patric
|
 |
« on: March 02, 2009, 02:27:10 pm » |
|
Got this in an Email from "Who Owns Tulsa":
Attached is a letter from Councilor Gomez’ attorney threatening to sue me for defamation and my attorney’s response. The threat was prompted by my role in coordinating a recall petition against Councilor Gomez and related criticisms of his actions as a public official.
This release is in part a response to the threats against a citizen who reported a possible ethics violation regarding two city councilors. One of my concerns is that the initial response from the City Council included the implied threat of legal action. It would appear that the biggest mistake the citizen made was giving his name rather than reporting his concerns anonymously.
As citizens, we have First Amendment rights. These rights are so important that with respect to public officials and their acts, Oklahoma law protects these communications unless they falsely impute a crime to the officer criticized. Under federal law, speech concerning public officials is actionable only if it is false, defamatory, and made with actual malice.
The Gomez letter was issued after the recall was denied; after I had announced that another petition effort would not be pursued; and after Councilor Gomez stated publicly that he hoped we could put it behind us.
Although I was the direct recipient of the threat, it wasn’t limited to me. Councilor Gomez threatened to sue “any and all persons acting in concert with me”. This could include the officers of Who Owns Tulsa, anyone who has attended a meeting, or written a check. It could also include every citizen who signed the recall petition.
Lawsuits can financially devastate those involved, and the threat of such lawsuits has a chilling effect on free speech. Lawsuits designed to silence opposition on public issues are known nationally as SLAPP (strategic litigation against public participation) suits, and several states have passed legislation to protect their citizens from such threats. You rarely hear of threatened SLAPP suits because they are so effective, but they happen more often than you might think.
Councilor Gomez is gearing up for an election year. In my opinion, any Councilor who would sue or threaten to sue constituents for criticizing his official actions should not be re-elected. I encourage you to ask your Councilor if you too are at risk of a lawsuit if you criticize his official conduct.
No Tulsan should live in fear that the mere expression of an opinion and participation in public forums or processes is grounds for legal action. We will never agree on every issue, but free speech and the First Amendment belong to us all.
It is time to stand up together, make our voices heard and our votes count! To learn more, please join us Tuesday, March 3rd at Lambrusco'z Deli 1344 E. 41st, just east of Peoria at 7:00pm. Julie H. Hall
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"Tulsa will lay off police and firemen before we will cut back on unnecessarily wasteful streetlights." -- March 18, 2009 TulsaNow Forum
|
|
|
|
carltonplace
|
|
« Reply #1 on: March 02, 2009, 03:06:53 pm » |
|
Right, like I'm gonna show up so I can get sued. [  ] |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
sgrizzle
|
|
« Reply #2 on: March 02, 2009, 03:07:07 pm » |
|
Any chance we can see the letter? All we have here right now is someone making their third public criticism of Gomez, someone who may have a personal stake in the upcoming District 4 election.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
sgrizzle
|
|
« Reply #3 on: March 03, 2009, 06:55:04 am » |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
waterboy
Guest
|
|
« Reply #4 on: March 03, 2009, 08:15:44 am » |
|
Citizens also have responsibilities. Harassing, defamatory, baseless charges that are politically motivated, keep officials from doing their work. That does not serve the public good. Nor do whisper campaigns executed through e-mails and forums. You are building your political organization and your possible candidacy using first amendment rights. And, either side has the right to sue to protect themselves, not just the constituent.
Gomez is my councilor though I didn't vote for him. However, if we support this continued attack of every elected official over every act that may be controversial, Tulsa will sink further into mediocrity as no representative will risk making difficult choices. The candidates put forward will represent the smallest, most vociferous interest groups at the expense of the general public.
The only good thing to come of all this is that I now know one neighborhood I can definitely cross off my list of future home purchases.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
TURobY
|
|
« Reply #5 on: March 03, 2009, 08:29:02 am » |
|
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
The only good thing to come of all this is that I now know one neighborhood I can definitely cross off my list of future home purchases.
No kidding. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
---Robert
|
|
|
|
PonderInc
|
|
« Reply #6 on: March 03, 2009, 11:07:20 am » |
|
Being a City Councillor has got to be one of the most thankless jobs around. (Not as thankless as serving on the TMAPC, but still...)
No wonder we can't get enough bright, talented people to run for city council or to serve on public boards. Hours of tedious meetings interspersed with random crises and problems of great importance and complexity overshadowed by political ramifications...where every decision makes someone angry. Why would you trade in a comfortable life in the private sector to be harangued on a daily basis in the public?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Wrinkle
Guest
|
|
« Reply #7 on: March 03, 2009, 11:10:04 am » |
|
Gomez is toast anyway. He just keeps reinforcing it.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
sgrizzle
|
|
« Reply #8 on: March 03, 2009, 11:17:49 am » |
|
Gomez is proof that Downtown needs to be removed from District 4 and put in it's own district. He focuses on downtown and the rest of his district suffers. Previous councilors focused on the rest of the district and came downtown for meetings.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
DowntownNow
Guest
|
|
« Reply #9 on: March 03, 2009, 01:40:07 pm » |
|
I received these in an email the other day. I know of Joel Wohlgemuth, he is also the Mayor's personal attorney and represents the City on various matters. As a matter of course, I would find it hard to believe that in representing the City and its citizens in the execution of his business, that he would not have a conflict arise out of this suit against one. Of course, I'm no lawyer. But I can say, knowing Joel, he if thought he had a leg to stand on, this would have been filed already. This tactic to attempt to frighten someone with litigation has been used in the past. I'll be interested to see what comes of it.
Im am curious why this is just now coming out if the original letter was dated October 10, 2008. I saw Ms. Hall's attorney replied January 6, 2009. Maybe it had to be kept hush hush unil a certain time but I would like to see or hear Councilor Gomez come out and say whether he still intends to sue or has dropped the matter.
I will agree that the minute citizens are denied their right to express discontent with the way their elected officials are representing them, then we have all truly lost. I will also agree that so long as discontent and its expressions are kept to what it allowable under law, then charge head on. Its when accusations that are specifically malicious, lible and without a basis in fact (such as we just witnessed with the latest ethics complaint against Gomez and Martinson) then trouble is to be had. Everyone should be able to back up any complaint or allegation in fact...if not, its mere supposition and often times conjured to effect a very negative view of the target and open to scrutiny under the law.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
RecycleMichael
|
|
« Reply #10 on: March 03, 2009, 01:43:41 pm » |
|
I think that is an unfair criticism. There has been a lot to do downtown since he has been a councilor. Tulsa is investing millions in three square miles of our community and there is a lot to do. We don't have the luxury of having a councilor just for downtown (I agree it would be nice).
He is the councilor for the whole district, I agree. Other councilors representing this area have probably done more with neighborhoods than he has done.
But he represents downtown on the council and between the BOkCenter, the street rehab, the new ballpark, etc., there has been plenty to do.
I don't live in his district, but I work downtown and think he should get some recognition for helping it grow this last year.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Power is nothing till you use it.
|
|
|
|
Limabean
Guest
|
|
« Reply #11 on: March 03, 2009, 02:09:21 pm » |
|
Unfortunately, District 4 is not just downtown.
If Gomez can't represent ALL of his constiuents then maybe he shouldn't have signed up for the job.
Besides, what representation does downtown need? How many voters LIVE downtown? Who is Gomez representing?
Did the Ballpark or the BOK Center vote for Gomez in the last election?
Downtown development issues are addressed and monitored by a myriad of city agencies as well as the mayor.
To say that Gomez was too busy taking care of business "downtown" only asks the question, "Who is Gomez really representing?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Julie Hall
Guest
|
|
« Reply #12 on: March 03, 2009, 02:51:16 pm » |
|
Copies of the letters will be available at tonight's Who Owns Tulsa meeting or you can e-mail me and I will send them to you. Julie
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Julie Hall
Guest
|
|
« Reply #13 on: March 03, 2009, 02:53:24 pm » |
|
My personal e-mail address is iwrite@cox.net if you would like more information. Julie |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
guido911
|
|
« Reply #14 on: March 03, 2009, 03:06:19 pm » |
|
quote:
Originally posted by Julie Hall
Copies of the letters will be available at tonight's Who Owns Tulsa meeting or you can e-mail me and I will send them to you. Julie
Welcome aboard. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Someone get Hoss a pacifier.
|
|
|
|
