NGO Lawfare: This US Court of Appeals Case Has the Potential to Overturn a Crucial 1978 SCOTUS Precedent Protecting Against Weaponized Lawfare

Gateway Pundit ^ | April 09, 2025 | Staff

[Red Badger]

From left to right: Ashe Epp (@AsheInAmerica), Col. Shawn Smith (@ShawnSmith1776), and Holly Kasun (@Cholly)

*******************************************************************

In July 2024, The Gateway Pundit reported on an epic victory in a Colorado federal court against a conglomerate of non-governmental ‘civil-rights’ organizations that manufactured a case against three grassroots citizens. In CO, MT, WY State Area Conference of the NAACP v Shawn Smith et al, Defendants Ashe Epp, Holly Kasun, and Colonel Shawn Smith defeated the NAACP, Mi Familia Vota, and the League of Women Voters in a crushing directed verdict from Judge Charlotte Sweeney, a Biden appointee and the first female openly-LGBT judge west of the Mississippi.

A directed verdict means that once Plaintiffs rested their case, the judge decided that their case, and the defense’s argument, was insufficient and that they could not prevail on the merits of the case.

1🧵17
Three “get out the vote” NGOs sued us to stop us from canvassing to check the government’s work on turnout.

Gee, I wonder why NGOs would commit & suborn perjury to stop us from canvassing? 👇🏻😬 https://t.co/H4OVuO13Mp— Ashe in America (@AsheinAmerica) April 6, 2025

The lawsuit was targeted at an informal group, USEIP, that decided to canvass voters in different counties to ask them questions about the 2020 Presidential Election, such as what method they used to vote and whether people identified on the public voting rolls actually lived at the address. The results, conservatively showed an 8% discrepancy between what was reported and what those canvassed told USEIP about their voting history.

The case was made-for-Primetime television. It involved redacted documents from the Colorado Secretary of State’s Office that actually covered up exculpatory evidence, only discovered by a freedom of information request from another government entity party to the emails. It involved the “racist undertones” of invoking the KKK Act against the Defendants. And what crime drama would be complete without the “gasp” moment from a witness? The trial had that moment when the Plaintiffs sole non-party witness testified that she didn’t know who defendants were and was coached by counsel to identify the Defendants as those who canvassed her home.

Kasun, Epp, and Col. Smith have decided to file an appeal challenging the lower courts ruling that denied the Defendants compensation for legal fees following the frivolous trial.

According to a press release from the plaintiffs, the Defendants claimed they were "going door-to-door, armed, threatening, intimidating and targeting minority voters." Yet, as mentioned, their only non-party witness "admitted on the stand that plaintiffs' counsel urged her to state defendants intimidated her in a sworn affidavit; despite counsel knowing the claim was false, months prior."

Under a 1978 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Christiansburg Garment Co. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Court ruled that defendants involved in cases based on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 could only recover attorney's fees if the plaintiff's claim was frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless.

These three are fighting to level the playing field in Civil Rights cases while the leftist NGO machine is spinning up cases rapidly.

NGOs currently have no downside to bringing them, and most defendants are pressured to settle their case rather than face the financial burden of fighting the claims. Help change that by supporting this appeal and helping to overturn this abusive precedent. Visit here to help them in this fight. Every penny raised will go towards lawyers in the battle, who are 7-0 against Marc Elias and the 'Machine.'

From a press release regarding the appeal:

Under the Christiansburg Standard, a decades-old legal precedent, prevailing defendants like us are barred from recovering legal fees from plaintiffs—here, three well-funded NGOs—unless the case is deemed “frivolous.” The prevailing defendants argue this standard is an unjust shield, enabling NGOs to wage lawfare without consequence, and it must be overturned.

The outrageousness of the case exposes a systemic abuse: NGOs, often bankrolled by donations and taxpayer dollars through USAID, use lawsuits not just to push agendas but to generate press and fundraise, "attorneys' fees are often a major source of revenue for nonprofit litigators." According to an NYU Review of Law & Social Change article that was admitted into evidence. The piece then explains the advantage of recovering damages via the KKK Act and the added press benefit of being able to smear defendants with "the stigma of conspiracy and it's association with the KKK's legacy of politicized racism."

Public outrage has surged as recent revelations show millions in USAID funds flowing to NGOs, only for them to turn around and sue Americans—risk-free, thanks to Christiansburg. The appeal seeks to level the legal playing field, demanding plaintiff NGOs face the same financial accountability as defendants when they lose.

The urgency is undeniable. With USAID funding slashed, NGOs are scrambling for new revenue streams. Lawfare—suing citizens and organizations for press to solicit donations—is an obvious pivot. If Christiansburg stands, this "lawfare-for-funding" tactic will only escalate, threatening countless defendants with unchecked, risk-free litigation.

Representing Smith, Kasun and Epp from Gregor, Wynne, Arney PLLC is Michael J. Wynne and Cameron Powell. With a remarkable 7-0 winning record against Marc Elias, plaintiffs are confident in their appeal.

You can donate to help in this crucial case to add protections for victims of NGO lawfare under the guise of "civil rights" by donating to givesendgo.com/StopNGOLawfare

[Paladin2]

Free Tina Peters!

[j.havenfarm]

Wow. That’s some turgid prose there. Difficult to get through while trying to extract the point. Admittedly I gave it a heavy scan— twice. Focused on the part about the earlier court case. Saw nothing that cashed the check the headline wrote. GP is crap.

[Red Badger]

Essentially the defendants were denied their legal fees being paid by the NGOs because the judge was biased in the NGOs favor but dismissed the case.

The defendants are suing to have the precedent thrown out because the definition is vague and prone to be abused.

If the precedent gets deleted, then NGOs will have to start paying the legal fees of the people they take to court just to harass them and impoverish them.

That would be big......................

[Robert A Cook PE]

I concur - Terribly written, (almost) impossible to ferret out the threads of logic.

But the money definitely flows (via democrat law firms) from USAID (and others ?) to NGOs, then democrat lawyers , then back and forth to democrat insiders.

[sauropod]

.

[cuz1961]

NGOs, often bankrolled by donations and taxpayer dollars through USAID, use lawsuits not just to push agendas but to generate press and ..........fundraise......., “attorneys’ fees are often a major source of revenue for nonprofit litigators.”

\/

there it is folks .

what i have been asserting for decades, after seeing it played out while working for the USFS and BLM , what i call

“The Tango”

.

[cuz1961]

NGOs, often bankrolled by donations and taxpayer dollars through USAID,......... use lawsuits ........not just to push agendas but to generate press and ..........fundraise......., “attorneys’ fees are often a major source of revenue for nonprofit litigators.”
\/

there it is folks .

what i have been asserting for decades, after seeing it played out while working for the USFS and BLM , what i call

“The Tango”

[cuz1961]

Wow. That's some turgid prose there. Difficult to get through while trying to extract the point. Admittedly I gave it a heavy scan— twice. Focused on the part about the earlier court case. Saw nothing that cashed the check the headline wrote. GP is crap

\/

i understood it just fine.

maybe you need a remedial reading comprehension course ?

are you affiliated in any way with an NGO ?

do you have a rice bowl in jeopardy ? or are you just assigned to the GP narrative control cubicle in the free republic division ?

[liberalh8ter]

The article is heavy with fact. They're trying to get a precedent overturned that is allowing NGO’s to use lawfare against those attempting to uncover truths because the precedent precludes defendants from recovering legal fees when these NGO’s are caught doing their dirty deeds. Marc Elias is the architect of this tactic and the fear is, now that USAID has been gutted, this will be the left's new funding mechanism.

[j.havenfarm]

I do hope the slams were tongue in cheek, because otherwise you’re a hair trigger nut. I do legal writing for a living and, frankly, I’m very good at it. The standard is points are clearly stated so by even a quick review the reader can get the principle points. This legal writing doesn’t come close to that standard

[cuz1961]

I do legal writing for a living

\/

so you dont want to say no to the any NGO affiliation question ?

o.k. then

;-)

[wardaddy]

Plaintiff legal is 7-0 against Marc Elias

That was the money shot to me

[cuz1961]

you ARE entitled to your opinion, as a professional

i AM entitled to my opinions as a layman.

they weren't slams as you attempt to profile them as

they were sincere questions

( that you didn't seem to think were worth answering , which in my opinion , is telling ) ;-)

[j.havenfarm]

Yawn. Be gone, fool.

[cuz1961]

just 1 more question. do you work for or with one of or affiliated with on of these biasbergistas ? ;-)