Posted on 09/07/2013 11:59:11 AM PDT by oxcart
A judge Friday ordered Sooner Tea Party co-founder Al Gerhart to face trial in a blackmail case.
Gerhart, a carpenter, is charged with two felonies over an email he admits sending to a state senator in an effort to get legislation passed.
Oklahoma County Special Judge Susan K. Johnson rejected defense arguments that the email was protected political speech.
“Your First Amendment rights are on trial, not just mine,” Gerhart told news reporters after the ruling was made at the end of a two-hour preliminary hearing.
Sen. Cliff Branan, R-Oklahoma City, said he felt anxious when he first read the email. “It kind of got the hairs up on the back of my neck,” he said.
Gerhart, 55, of Oklahoma City, is charged with blackmail and violating the Oklahoma Computer Crimes Act. He pleaded not guilty Friday.
Gerhart sent the email March 26, promising to make the senator a laughingstock unless the Senate Energy and Environment Committee passed a bill dealing with a United Nations plan.
Branan is chairman of the committee.
Misspelling one word, Gerhart wrote: “Branan, Get that bill heard or I will make sure you regret not doing it. I will make you the laughing stock of the Senate if I don't hear that this bill will be heard and passed. We will dig into your past, yoru family, your associates and once we start on you there will be no end to it. This is a promise.”
Under state law, blackmail can involve a written communication that threatens to expose information about someone “which would in any way subject such person to the ridicule or contempt of society.”
The senator testified that at the time he got the email he had not made a decision whether the Senate Energy and Environment Committee would take up the bill on the U.N. plan. He acknowledged, though, that he had been inclined not to hear it.
“I felt it was a solution to a problem that didn't exist,” he said.
The House-passed bill ended up not being heard in the committee because the Senate sponsor pulled it from consideration after learning of Gerhart's email.
Assistant District Attorney Robert McClatchie asked Branan: “Did you believe it was trying to make you do something you did not want to do?”
“Yes,” Branan replied.
“I definitely felt threatened,” the senator said.
“It was not your normal email,” he testified. “I felt like my two young children are out of bounds, as well as my wife.”
The senator explained that he worried Gerhart had sent the email to others and somebody who was mentally unstable would do something irrational.
Tommy Johnson, an agent with the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation, testified Branan said Gerhart had a Rolodex of crazy people.
Admitted into evidence during the preliminary hearing was a recording of Gerhart's April 2 news conference at the Capitol.
At the news conference, Gerhart told reporters “the scuttlebutt” at the Capitol was that the senator reacted the way he did to the email because of fears an infidelity with an executive assistant would be uncovered.
The senator, who has been married almost 19 years, said Friday the affair allegation was not true.
His longtime executive assistant, Kathy Townsend, testified, “That is absurd. If Sen. Branan was going to … I don't know that he would choose a gray-haired grandmother to have an affair.”
Gerhart can raise his constitutional defense again before the trial judge. His next court hearing is Sept. 18.
Under state law, blackmail can involve a written communication that threatens to expose information about someone “which would in any way subject such person to the ridicule or contempt of society.”
Sounds to me like a prosecutor has gone a bit overboard, if this is the "blackmail" being alleged.
I don't know the specifics, and sometimes I do believe zealots of both sides can really go a bit overboard attacking politicians, but is this a real case of "blackmail"? Aren't there some REAL criminal acts out there that the prosecutor can be bringing to trial?
Just wondering...
How is supporting the UN on energy policy a tea party position?
How is your question relevant to whether charges should be brought to the guy?
This is protected free speech. In fact, a politician has no protection against accusations or the threats to expose things. When you run for office you’re putting yourself out in the public for approval. That’s my take.
One more thing, typical republican can’t take the heat.
It’s rough language, but how is this blackmail?
Have looked at the TP Sooner takedown of Gerhart. Sounds like he is a bad apple in the Tea Party basket.
Your legal opinions would be welcome
Had to re-read that one line 3x to see if I missed something.
This is probably the flimsiest blackmail case I’ve ever heard of. Yes, the letter/email was a bit over the top, but I would guess that legislators get similar emails fairly often. Digging up dirt on political opponents is SOP, and running for political office carries with it the implicit threat that any dirt in your past will be exposed. And, of course, newspapers LOVE to expose the dirt in politicians’ lives, especially if they are conservatives.
If “making a laughingstock” of someone is a crime in Oklahoma, I guess all political satire is against the law, and all editorial cartoons, and any editorials which heap scorn upon a politician. The law sounds unconstitutionally vague and overbroad.
” Aren’t there some REAL criminal acts out there that the prosecutor can be bringing to trial?”
But the prosecutor tailgates with Branan and has a need to cover his @ss. /sarc
He is in trouble. Oklahoma has a generous law about blackmail, which makes it easy to prosecute.
“Blackmail is verbally or by written or printed communication and with intent to extort or gain any thing of value from another or to compel another to do an act against his or her will:
“Accusing or threatening to accuse any person of a crime or conduct which would tend to degrade and disgrace the person accused;
“Exposing or threatening to expose any fact, report or information concerning any person which would in any way subject such person to the ridicule or contempt of society”.
(The other parts of the statute do not apply.)
Yeah. that one caught my eye as well.
So did they check every name in the Rolodex?
How is he defining “crazy?”
Is “crazy” actually “conservative?”
Perhaps it is just “republican.”
OSBI dropped a LOT of points on this one right there.
.
I’d be worried if I was in that Rolodex... the OSBI has them targeted for a number of reasons, now.
Sounds to me like the statute is unconstitutionally broad in that. If this isn’t political speech I don’t know what would qualify.
Thanks, I thought that Gerhart was in trouble let alone being affiliated with the dreaded “Tea Party”./s
Go ahead with your plan, you have nothing to lose now do you?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.