Government
destroys tea-party leader for opposing Obama, 'I'm a freedom-loving American, and he's a communist', by Bob
Unruh, 10/5/16, WND
A court fight that
erupted when state regulators targeted for punishment a businessman because
they didn’t like his criticism of President Obama is being submitted to
the U.S. Supreme Court in the hopes that the First Amendment’s free-speech
provision will be affirmed there.
The Nebraska case
focuses on the retaliation imposed by state officials: John Munn who then was
director of the Nebraska Department of Banking and Finance, assistant director
Jack Herstein and adviser Rodney R. Griess. The case was brought on
behalf of Robert Bennie, a successful financial adviser who was a leader of the
Lincoln, Nebraska, tea party and was quoted in a newspaper describing Obama as
a “communist.”
The Pacific
Legal Foundation, whose last nine cases
before the Supreme Court all have been victories for the plaintiffs, are on the
case for Bennie, submitting their petition to the Supreme Court on Wednesday. The state regulators
didn’t like Bennie’s speech and pressured his company until he eventually lost
his job, the petition states.
Griess, for example,
forwarded an email to Herstein stating, “Bob [Bennie] always is seen wearing a
cowboy hat lately, so I say ‘Hang Him High.'” The regulators, as part
of their attack on Bennie, threatened his employer, stating “the department may
invoke whatever administrative action deemed necessary and appropriate under
its authority against both Mr. Bennie and/or LPL Financial to insure
compliance.” The district court judge
who heard the case confirmed the evidence of that antipathy, expressly
disapproving “of the defendants’ conduct.”
The court found it was
apparent, “from emails and the followup inquires of LPL, that the department
had an interest in [Bennie’s] statements of political opinion.” The regulators’
denial “[was] simply not credible,” the judge found. “The court found that
Griess, Herstein, and Munn ‘were looking for reasons’ to go after Bennie after
they read his statements about President Obama,” the petition states. The judge said, “Some of
the questions asked of LPL would not have been asked had it not been for the
plaintiff’s political activity.”
According to the
petition to the Supreme Court, Griess was “irked” by Bennie’s statements and
“promised to delve into Bennie’s ‘recent string of activities’ – namely,
Bennie’s comments about President Obama in the Lincoln Journal Star, Bennie’s
alleged ‘lack of disclosure’ in a promotional CD-ROM, and his ‘gun slingin[g]
ads,’ APP. B-5, none of which violated any financial (or other) regulation.”
Officials
with the state agency declined to respond to WND’s request for comment, but the legitimacy of Bennie’s
activities allegedly didn’t impact the state bureaucrats’ decision to
attack. “State regulators
proceeded to use the department’s substantial regulatory powers to retaliate
against Bennie for his political speech. A day after the Lincoln Journal Star
quoted Bennie’s political views, Griess initiated a conference call with
Bennie’s superiors at LPL [his employer] to discuss Bennie’s ‘recent strong of
activities,'” the complaint explains.
There was a television
ad in which Bennie promoted his business, a CD-ROM doing the same and his
comments to the newspaper. “Although these
activities were lawful, Griess ‘suggested that [Bennie] may be acting as a gun
dealer’ and questioned whether LPL approved Bennie’s activities,” the petition
explains. Two days later, Griess
contacted the company again to apply pressure on the company to sanction
Bennie.
At that time, “LPL’s
regulatory attorney Kenneth Juster read the email and remarked to the company’s
vice president Christian Zappala: ‘Nice – regulation through harassment.'”
The regulators continued,
demanding of the company to know whether or not officials “had any policies or
guidelines regarding Bennie’s communication of his political views to the
public or press.” Regulators later
explained they were asking because they were interested in LPL’s ability as an
employer to restrict the private speech of employees.
When Bennie asked the
governor’s office to investigate what appeared to him to be improper
retaliation, “Griess responded” that Bennie’s views “tend to be quit polarizing
to say the least.” And a public records request “revealed that the department’s
regulators had targeted Bennie because of his political statements.”
But the district court
ruled against him on a technical ground, deciding that such harassment and
intimidation was not sufficient, in legal terminology, “to deter a person of
ordinary firmness from exercising his constitutional rights.” The 8th U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals simply adopted the lower court’s decision.
The case raises the
issue of First Amendment free-speech rights and how they are addressed in
courts. The statement by Bennie
in the newspaper that triggered the attack by regulators was: “I’m a
freedom-loving American, and he’s a communist. I’m honest and he’s dishonest.
He didn’t tell us all of what [he] was going to do. I believe he’s an evil
man.”
The petition to the high
court stated: “The column detailing Bennie’s political role in the local tea
party did not implicate the departments’ regulatory authority. Yet the article
irked Griess, who, on the very next day, promised to delve into Bennie’s …
activities.”
It’s an issue on which
the circuit courts across the U.S. disagree and important enough for the high
court to resolve, the petition contends.
“Our First Amendment
rights can be cancelled out if government can punish people for exercising
those rights,” said PLF attorney Wen Fa. “That is what happened to Bob Bennie –
he was the victim of a vendetta campaign by bureaucrats because they were offended
by his political views. You don’t have to agree with his comments to grasp the
importance of the principles he is fighting for in this case. If we value First
Amendment freedoms, government cannot be permitted to penalize people for using
those freedoms – and the courts at every level must go the extra mile to guard
against such abuses of public-sector power.”
He continued:
“Unfortunately, Bob Bennie’s free speech rights didn’t get the respect and
protection they are due when he was before the appellate court. Instead of
conducting its own rigorous, independent review of the case, the Eighth Circuit
simply rubber-stamped the findings of the trial court. When First Amendment
freedoms are at stake, no court can be allowed to rely on some other court’s work.
We are asking the Supreme Court to take this case and affirm that, when
government retaliation against free speech is alleged, every court must do its
job, fully and vigorously, to protect victims and hold violators to account.”
In a statement released by
his attorneys, Bennie said, “The right to free speech is an essential element
of freedom in the United States.”
http://www.wnd.com/2016/10/state-regulators-attack-tea-party-leader-for-anti-obama-speech/
No comments:
Post a Comment