Tired of Being Harassed & Threatened by SPFPA President Dave Hickey LEOSU's Attorney Files a Motion to Dismiss SPFPA's Frivolous Lawsuit citing The truth is a complete defense to a defamation action. See Andrews v. Prudential Sec., 160 F.3d 304, 308 (6th Cir. 1998); See also Baggs v. Eagle-Picher Indus., Inc., 957 F.2d 268, 273 (6th Cir. 1992) (citing Cochrane v. Wittbold, 359 Mich. 402, 102 N.W.2d 459, 463 (Mich. 1960)). This privilege extends to a great variety of subjects, and includes matters of public concern, public men, and candidates for office.” New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 281-82 (1964).
LEOSU's Attorney Files a Motion to Dismiss The Corrupt SPFPA Unions Frivolous Lawsuit Citing "The TRUTH is a Complete Defense to a Defamation Action". See Motion Here.
THE DEFENDANT LEOSU UNION ELECTION VIDEOS, POSTED ON “YOUTUBE.COM” ARE ALL EXPLICITLY AND ABSOLUTELY TRUE – PROTECTED SPEECH UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT
The Defendant LEOSU videos were all carefully written and researched with factual verification and documentation.
The truth is that Plaintiff SPFPA has had dozens of its officers criminally indicted and convicted. (See News Articles and Reports of SPFPA Officer convictions attached as Exhibit “A”).
The truth is that Defendant LEOSU has beaten Plaintiff SPFPA in over a dozen contested union elections. (See SPFPA Losses and NLRB Records attached as Exhibit “B”)
The truth is that the FBI did raid the home of Plaintiff David Hickey. See Newsmax Article.
The truth is that Plaintiff SPFPA has a long history of corruption and embezzlement under the leadership of Plaintiff David Hickey, who has been at the helm of Plaintiff SPFPA since 2000. See SPFPA Union Corruption News Exhibit Documents here.
The truth is a complete defense to a defamation action. See Andrews v. Prudential Sec., 160 F.3d 304, 308 (6th Cir. 1998); See also Baggs v. Eagle-Picher Indus., Inc., 957 F.2d 268, 273 (6th Cir. 1992) (citing Cochrane v. Wittbold, 359 Mich. 402, 102 N.W.2d 459, 463 (Mich. 1960)). This privilege extends to a great variety of subjects, and includes matters of public concern, public men, and candidates for office.” New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 281-82 (1964).
DEFENDANTS’ FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS TO POST AND USE VIDEOS IN NEW YORK AND WASHINGTON D.C. – ARE PROTECTED SPEECH – WITH ANTI-SLAPP LIABILITY AGAINST PLAINTIFF – WHICH PLAINTIFF IS TRYING TO ILLEGALLY INVADE
The Plaintiffs are waging a campaign to try to “crush” the Defendants labor union, LEOSU. This “harassment campaign” has included Plaintiffs’ posting over fifty (50) “YouTube” videos attacking Defendant LEOSU, and Defendant Maritas, and filing multiple fraudulent lawsuits, to run-up Defendants’ attorney fees.
Plaintiffs’ David Hickey and SPFPA openly admit their illegal and fraudulent harassment strategy against the Defendants in mocking and threatening emails.
See the attached email from Plaintiff SPFPA to Defendant Maritas, boasting of illegitimate legal tactics (See Exhibit “C”). See also the e-mail dated May 10, 2019 by the Plaintiff David Hickey sent to union members – boasting of his strategy of costly and fraudulent litigation as a strategy to consume the union dues of Defendant union’s members. (See Exhibit “D”).
Plaintiffs’ strategy is simple: force Defendants to expend union member dues on litigation; and then accuse Defendant of “wasting” union members’ dues on litigation.
Plaintiffs’ intend to attempt to escape New York’s and Washington D.C.’s “anti-SLAPP” laws. “SLAPP” is an acronym for a “strategic lawsuit against public participation.” Ernst v. Carrigan, 814 F.3d 116, 117 (2d Cir. 2016). “SLAPP suits come in many forms camouflaged as ordinary lawsuits. The conceptual thread that binds them is that they are suits without substantial merit that are brought by private interests to ‘stop citizens from exercising their political rights or to punish them for having done so.’” Gordon v. Marrone, 590 N.Y.S.2d 649, 656 (1992); (citing Pring, SLAPPs: Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation, 7 PACE ENVTL L REV 3 ).
SLAPP suits function by forcing the defendant into a judicial proceeding where the plaintiff can force the expenses of a defense upon the target defendant. See Gordon, 590 N.Y.S.2d 649 (1992). As the emails discussed above show, Plaintiffs’ only purpose in this frivolous action is to waste Defendant’s resources and “bleed the Defendants dry.” (See Exhibit “D”-mass e-mail from Plaintiff David Hickey to LEOSU members explaining Plaintiffs’ frivolous litigation strategy).
Plaintiffs’ should not be rewarded by filing in Michigan’s Courts, where only Plaintiff has contacts, to harass a rival union and its members.