Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Free Republic LLC filed a Notice of Claim with the City of Fresno
Press Release Charles L. Doerksen, Attorney at Law | 09/22/03 | Jim Robinson

Posted on 09/22/2003 5:52:05 PM PDT by Jim Robinson

CHARLES L. DOERKSEN
ATTORNEY AT LAW
________________

ROWELL BUILDING
2100 Tulare Street, Suite 410
Fresno, California 93721
Telephone 559 233 3434
Facsimile 559 233 3939
E-mail doerksen@lightspeed.net

 

September 22, 2003

 

PRESS RELEASE

At 9:10 a.m. today, Free Republic LLC filed a Notice of Claim with the City of Fresno, arising from the Human Relations Commission’s news release of September 12, 2003, labeling it a "hate group." A copy of the Notice of Claim, without exhibits, is attached hereto.

The Notice of Claim, which is a legally required first step in filing a lawsuit against a public entity, puts the City of Fresno on notice that Free Republic LLC intends to file a lawsuit for defamation against (1) the City of Fresno, (2) the Human Relations Commission, and (3) Debbie Reyes, Chair of the Human Relations Commission.

Questions regarding this matter may be directed to this office, and additionally, Mr. Doerksen, as well as representatives of Free Republic LLC, can be made available in front of City Hall at 4:00 p.m., today, September 22, 2003, to answer questions if interest in this is expressed.

 

NOTICE OF CLAIM
(Government Code § 900, et seq.)

This claim is being presented pursuant to Government Code Section 900, et seq., Miller v. Hoagland (1966) 247 Cal.App.2d 57, 61-62 (filing claim as prerequisite for defamation action against public entity and its employees), and all pertinent code sections, statutes and laws of the State of California.

A. NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE CLAIMANT:

B. NAME AND ADDRESS OF PERSON TO WHOM CLAIMANT DESIRES

NOTICES TO BE SENT:

C. DATE, PLACE AND OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES GIVING RISE TO THE

CLAIM:

Claimant is an independent, grass-roots, conservative organization. Its purpose is to root out political fraud and corruption, to roll back decades of governmental largesse, and to champion causes which further conservatism in the United States of America.

This claim arises from defamatory oral statements and/or more permanent publications made by and/or disseminated by the City of Fresno, by and through its Human Relations Commission, and certain public employees and/or agents of the City of Fresno acting in the course and scope of their employment and/or agency, the identities of which are currently unknown (hereinafter, collectively the "City of Fresno"). Claimant is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the Human Relations Commission for the City of Fresno is composed of up to 17 members appointed by the City Council and the Mayor, and has a budget for the 2003 fiscal year estimated at $193,100. Each Council member appoints two members while the Mayor appoints three members. The specific identities of such public employees/agents are currently unknown, but are expected to include, at a minimum, Debbie Reyes, Chair, Human Relations Commission for the City of Fresno.

On or about September 12, 2003, the City of Fresno disseminated a News Release entitled, "Human Relations Commission News Release," a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and made a part hereof (hereinafter, the "Release"). The Release refers to claimant as "a hate group." In addition, the Release states: "This group has also planned a ‘Free Republic Hate Rally Picnic’ in District 6," and accuses claimant of making "threats of violence toward any minority groups that interfere with their rally or picnic." The Release constitutes a false and unprivileged fixed representation to the eye which exposes claimant to hatred, contempt, ridicule, or obloquy, causes it to be shunned or avoided, and has a tendency to injure claimant in its occupation, trade or business. In addition, the Release charges claimant with a crime in that it accuses claimant of making "threats of violence" towards minority groups.

Claimant is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the City of Fresno has made other false and unprivileged statements, either orally or by writing, printing, or other more permanent medium, which have exposed claimant to hatred, contempt, ridicule, or obloquy, and which have caused claimant to be shunned or avoided, and have injured it in its occupation, trade or business. (As used in this Notice of Claim, the term "Publication" shall hereinafter refer to the Release as well as to all other defamatory oral statements and/or more permanent publications made by and/or disseminated by the City of Fresno.)

D. CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES:

Defamation. The City of Fresno (previously defined to include the City of Fresno, and certain public employees and agents of the City of Fresno acting in the course and scope of their employment and/or agency, the identities of which are currently unknown), wrongly referred to claimant as "a hate group" and accused claimant of planning a "hate rally" and making "threats of violence toward any minority groups that interfere with their rally or picnic," notwithstanding the City of Fresno’s failure and inability to produce even a scintilla of competent evidentiary or legal support for such defamatory statements. True and correct copies of articles from The Fresno Bee, dated September 14 and 16, 2003, are attached hereto as Exhibit "B" and "C," respectively, and made a part hereof (hereinafter, the "Articles"). The Articles attribute statements to Mayor Autry that (1) there is no evidence that claimant is a hate group, (2) the Human Relations Commission is "using the City of Fresno as a tool to attack people without cause," (3) describing the Publications as "inflammatory, reckless, irresponsible and dangerous," and (4) explaining "the worst thing you can say is they’re a hate group." Furthermore, Debbie Reyes, Chair, Human Relations Commission for the City of Fresno, has admitted that her "proof" for making the Publications was not "solid." (See Fresno Bee article dated September 16, 2003.)

The Publications are false and unprivileged statements, either orally or by writing, printing, or other more permanent medium, which have exposed claimant to hatred, contempt, ridicule, or obloquy, and which have caused claimant to be shunned or avoided, and have injured it in its occupation, trade or business. As a result of the defamatory Publications, claimant is entitled to be compensated by the City of Fresno (and the responsible public employees/agents).

The Publications constitute defamation (i.e. libel and/or slander per se) based upon Civil Code Sections 45 and 46 (as well as other statutory and judicial authority):

    1. Libel. The California Legislature has defined libel as a "false and unprivileged publication by writing, printing, picture, effigy, or other fixed representation to the eye, which exposes any person to hatred, contempt, ridicule, or obloquy, or which causes him to be shunned or avoided, or which has a tendency to injure him in his occupation." (Cal. Civ. Code § 45.)

    2. Slander. The California Legislature has defined slander as "a false and unprivileged publication, orally uttered, and also communications by radio or any mechanical or other means which: (1) Charges any person with crime, or with having been indicted, convicted, or punished for crime; … (3) Tends directly to injure him in respect to his office, profession, trade or business, either by imputing to him general disqualification in those respects which the office or other occupation peculiarly requires, or by imputing something with reference to his office, profession, trade, or business that has a natural tendency to lessen its profits." (Cal. Civ. Code § 46.)

E. AMOUNT OF CLAIM:

Claimant seeks general damages for loss of reputation, shame and mortification. Claimant seeks special damages with respect to damages it has suffered to its business, trade, profession or occupation. Finally, claimant requests exemplary damages for the sake of example and by way of punishing the responsible public employees/agents for making the defamatory Publications with actual malice. Claimant is informed and believes, and thereon alleges that the public employees/agents possessed a state of mind arising from the ill will toward the claimant, and did not have a good faith belief in the truth of the defamatory Publications. Accordingly, the acts of public employees were made with actual malice, and were fraudulent and justify the imposition of punitive damages.

Claimant’s damages are currently unknown, but are anticipated to be well in excess of $1,000,000, but regardless, are in excess of the minimal jurisdictional limits of an unlimited civil case.

F. WITNESSES/PUBLIC EMPLOYEE(S) CAUSING INJURY:

At this time, claimant believes that the following persons, in addition to its members (including but not limited to Jim Robinson), would have knowledge regarding the events of this claim and/or participated in the acts and/or omissions which caused the injury to claimant:

Dated: September ___, 2003



TOPICS: Activism/Chapters; Announcements; News/Current Events; US: California
KEYWORDS: banglist; cityoffresno; claim; debbiereyes; freerepublic; fresno; fresnosuit; hategroup; hrc
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 581-600601-620621-640 ... 701-710 next last
To: Way2Serious
I find it ironic that you would make such an effort to defend your position that it is unconservative to defend your position. Hmm, if defending your position is not a conservative trait, and you are defending your position with such vigor, that must mean you are a bleeding heart liberal of the Charlie Sheen variety.

That's kinda pythonian logic isn't it? That's ok, Charlie. Your secret liberal side is safe. It's just between you, me, the fencepost, and anyone else who might happen to read this message.

601 posted on 09/25/2003 2:18:34 PM PDT by JavaTheHutt ( Gun Control - The difference between Lexington Green and Tiennimen Square.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 593 | View Replies]

To: OnTheDress
thanks for than perfect analogy. I understood it, but I 'serious'ly doubt that way2silly understood it.
602 posted on 09/25/2003 2:48:32 PM PDT by JavaTheHutt ( Gun Control - The difference between Lexington Green and Tiennimen Square.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 598 | View Replies]

To: OnTheDress
Front Page Headline: Mr. Way 2 Serious arrested for child molestation.

Incomplete pass using "Hyperbolic strawman" play. Penalty - 20 yards.

603 posted on 09/25/2003 2:52:53 PM PDT by Way2Serious
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 598 | View Replies]

To: JavaTheHutt
"Hmm, if defending your position is not a conservative trait"

Nice try. Freeping the perpetrator would be "defending your position." Writing a letter to the editor would be "defending your position." Even suing the perpetrator would be "defending your position." Suing the taxpayers of Fresno simply because that's where the deep pockets are is playing the lawsuit lottery, plain and simple.

604 posted on 09/25/2003 3:00:05 PM PDT by Way2Serious
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 601 | View Replies]

To: chadsworth
the local FR chapter pays their city taxes and this tax money is being abused by the HRC

Yeah, we pay for overhead for the HRC - our tax money - and then they turn around and accuse us of being a hate group. In other words, by our tax money, we make it possible for them to carry on this awful vendetta against conservatives. It's downright weird.

605 posted on 09/25/2003 3:24:00 PM PDT by Saundra Duffy (R.I.P. Holly Patterson who was killed by RU486 administered by Planned Parenthood)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 595 | View Replies]

To: Way2Serious
Suing the taxpayers of Fresno simply because that's where the deep pockets are is playing the lawsuit lottery, plain and simple

You're not understanding how serious this is. If nothing is done, HRC's all over the U.S. will be able to have a field day and nobody will hold them accountable. They need to be held accountable. Now, the HRC's across the country are getting away with tactics that are downright un-American. If someone disagrees with an HRC, they get labeled a hate group. Is this America or not?

606 posted on 09/25/2003 3:28:10 PM PDT by Saundra Duffy (R.I.P. Holly Patterson who was killed by RU486 administered by Planned Parenthood)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 604 | View Replies]

To: chadsworth
Hopefully the HRC members will take the filing seriously enough to show up for EMERGENCY MEETING #3.

or maybe its time for the city to rethink the HRC budget for 2004...

607 posted on 09/25/2003 3:34:02 PM PDT by mac_truck (Ora et Labora)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 590 | View Replies]

To: A Navy Vet; Jim Robinson
Just curious...did you ask for a complete and public retraction and apology before reaching this point? And is the lawyer working on contingency? Thanks.

The better desired legal result would be an *admission of liability and culpability* whether via a court finding or as stipulated in any settlement agreement between FR and the city or its insurance carrier. This would also establish that the action of the governmental employee was outside the scope of their employment, and constituted criminal Official Misconduct.

I don't know how California's state laws on that offense are worded or what punishments are specified. But in several other states, Indiana, Tennessee and Texas among them, a public servant who is found to have committed such an offense is barred from holding any position of public trust or profit for life.

-archy-/-

608 posted on 09/25/2003 4:19:57 PM PDT by archy (Keep in mind that the milk of human kindness comes from a beast that is both cannibal and a vampire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 559 | View Replies]

To: archy
Just curious...did you ask for a complete and public retraction and apology before reaching this point?

NEWS FLASH, the latest comment from the HRC when contacting the city manager and the chairwoman Debbie Reyes!

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

>You have just been informed of the City of Fresno, City manager, Debbie Reyes,Chairwoman and other city officials responding to the request for an apology!

609 posted on 09/25/2003 6:29:47 PM PDT by chadsworth (Hillary MUST BE STOPPED BEFORE 2004 ; Davis MUST BE REMOVED)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 608 | View Replies]

To: Saundra Duffy
Yeah, we pay for overhead for the HRC - our tax money - and then they turn around and accuse us of being a hate group. In other words, by our tax money, we make it possible for them to carry on this awful vendetta against conservatives. It's downright weird.

Yep, that is basicly what I wrote in my letter to the major.

610 posted on 09/25/2003 10:19:41 PM PDT by notpoliticallycorewrecked
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 605 | View Replies]

To: Way2Serious
Good point. Screw big business. They can spare $1M. It's chump change to them, right?

So, let me get this straight. You're not *really* worried about the affect of this lawsuit on the taxpayers of Fresno, because you quickly threw away that argument when I challenged it. Now your position has evolved to one of general displeasure with the idea of any defamation lawsuit and its affect on insurance companies? You are more concerned about that than the damage done to Free Republic through the slanderous statements made by an official speaking on behalf of the city of Fresno?

The haughty tone of your responses to other posters leads me to believe you'd be the first one screaming for a lawsuit if someone slandered you in such a manner that could affect your livelihood and reputation.

611 posted on 09/26/2003 8:35:07 AM PDT by mr.sarcastic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 592 | View Replies]

To: mr.sarcastic
The haughty tone of your responses to other posters leads me to believe you'd be the first one screaming for a lawsuit if someone slandered you in such a manner that could affect your livelihood and reputation.

mr.sarcastic - I think way2serious just got thump on the head #2.

612 posted on 09/26/2003 6:04:49 PM PDT by chadsworth (Hillary MUST BE STOPPED BEFORE 2004 ; Davis MUST BE REMOVED)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 611 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
Go get 'em
613 posted on 09/26/2003 11:42:03 PM PDT by TheCookMan (Communism thrives when good people do nothing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
'bout d@mn <-not a hyperlink time somebody called these fools on the carpet for their "hate speech" against groups they politically disagree with. Maybe a few taxpayer $$ paid in punitive damages will encourage proper restraint on the part of elected officials. WTG Jim!
614 posted on 10/04/2003 3:17:46 PM PDT by Calvinist_Dark_Lord (I have come here to kick @$$ and chew bubblegum...and I'm all outta bubblegum! ~Roddy Piper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
So is there any news/update on this ?? Just curious ...

615 posted on 12/21/2003 3:32:32 AM PST by MeekOneGOP (Hillary is a TRAITOR !!: http://Richard.Meek.home.comcast.net/HitlerTraitor6.JPG)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MeeknMing
The city officially denied our claim, then asked for mediation. We have agreed to mediation, and, hopefully, it will result in a satisfactory settlement. Otherwise our alternative is to follow through with the lawsuit.
616 posted on 12/21/2003 2:29:23 PM PST by Jim Robinson (All your ZOT are belong to us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 615 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
Fabulous! Great news!
617 posted on 12/21/2003 2:42:36 PM PST by hershey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
Yeah, baby...
618 posted on 12/21/2003 2:54:32 PM PST by muffaletaman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 616 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
(For those of us not familiar with CA law....)
You can agree to mediation, but then back out if it doesn't seem to be going your way?
619 posted on 12/21/2003 3:28:31 PM PST by SC Swamp Fox (Aim small, miss small.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 616 | View Replies]

To: SC Swamp Fox
This is just an attempt to negotiate a settlement and avoid litigation. There is no judge or jury or anyone else making any rulings. If we can reach a satifactory agreement, fine. Otherwise we are free to take the next step.
620 posted on 12/21/2003 3:39:35 PM PST by Jim Robinson (All your ZOT are belong to us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 619 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 581-600601-620621-640 ... 701-710 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson