Wyoming MassResistance Family Fighting Frivolous Lawsuit

Wyoming family targeted by fired library director’s lawsuit answers with powerful motion to dismiss.

Family sued for exposing obscene books in library and complaining.

Lawsuit revealed as completely frivolous and meant to intimidate community and others.

MassResistance working to file anti-SLAPP legislation.

January 30, 2024

 Hugh, Susan, and Kevin Bennett testify before the County Commission and Library Board about the graphic sexual books in the childrens' and teens' sections of the library. Now the former Library Director is using "lawfare" to attempt to destroy the family.

The family in Campbell County, Wyoming being targeted by the fired library director’s federal lawsuit is not intimidated. The have responded with a strong Motion to Dismiss that debunks everything the lawsuit charges them with.

Outrageous lawsuit against local family

Former Campbell County Library Director Terri Lesley was fired by the Library Board this past July for refusing to follow the Board’s new policy regarding obscene books. In a bizarre and outrageous move, on September 27, Lesley filed a federal lawsuit against local citizens Hugh and Susan Bennett and their adult son Kevin.

 Terri Lesley poses for a reporter while Campbell County Library Director. (Photo by Nick Reynolds/WyoFile)

The Bennetts did what people around the country are doing. They spoke up at public meetings about the sexually graphic books in their public library. Hugh wrote about the problem in a paper he publishes. And they asked the county prosecutor to decide whether the state obscenity laws are being violated.

Even though the Library Board – not the Bennetts – fired her, Lesley chose to harass that family. Her absurd list of alleged offenses includes violating the so-called Ku Klux Klan Act, unlawful and unconstitutional conduct, civil conspiracy, defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and “abuse of process” claims.

The lawsuit is clearly meant not only to punish the Bennetts, but to terrorize other parents into silence. Lesley is being represented by a far-left Colorado-based “attack” lawyer who worked with the LGBT organization Wyoming Equality to get a federal judge to strike down Wyoming’s gay marriage ban. The lawyer has said, “I like to go back there [to Wyoming] and just mess with the state as much as I can.”

The Bennetts are being represented by a solid law firm in Florida that appears to be extremely skilled at dealing with this sort of “lawfare” case.

Fighting back with powerful motion to dismiss

The Motion to Dismiss basically debunks everything in Lesley’s lawsuit. It’s a great read! For example:

• The text of the lawsuit is largely incendiary rhetoric and descriptions of actions of others in the community, with very few factual allegations of the Bennetts’ actions.
• The Ku Klux Klan Act claim is utterly ridiculous. Nothing in that act remotely connects to anything the Bennetts did.
• The “civil conspiracy” charge does not square with the legal definition. And Lesley fails to identify any “right” that is protected from these so-called conspiracies.
• Lesley’s attempt to claim “defamation” is beyond the one-year statute of limitations, so it cannot apply. Even so, it does not square with the legal requirements of defamation liability. And since Lesley is a public figure, that also disqualifies her from making this charge.
• Regarding alleged “intentional emotional distress,” Lesley cannot cite any “extreme and outrageous conduct” by the Bennetts or facts to back up the “severe emotional distress” that she supposedly endured.
• Lesley is not able to describe any actual “unlawful and unconstitutional conduct.” The Bennetts, like all other citizens, have broad First Amendment rights to criticize public officials. Lesley cannot be permitted to make a claim against them for expressing their opinions.
• Lesley’s allegations do not square with the requirements for an “abuse of process” claim. Her charges about the Bennetts contacting the Sheriff concerning the books (that they maliciously filed a false claim) are basically the opposite of what actually happened. The Bennetts simply filed a complaint asking the local authorities to determine if there was a violation of the law. It took the Sheriff and County Attorney considerable time and research to come to a conclusion.
• Lesley’s lawsuit attempts to blame the Bennetts for the Library Board firing her. Lesley was a public figure and government official who placed herself in the forefront of an incredibly divisive issue being debated throughout our country.

As the Motion to Dismiss concludes:

At its heart, Plaintiff’s Complaint takes issue with the public advocacy performed by Defendants (successfully). That is not a basis for civil liability under the Ku Klux Klan Act, common law civil conspiracy, common law defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, or abuse of process. This Court should dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint with prejudice.

Anti-SLAPP laws exist to stop such harassment of citizens

In 33 states (though not in Wyoming), citizens are protected from this disgusting sort of “lawfare” harassment by anti-SLAPP laws.

What is SLAPP? Short for strategic lawsuits against public participation, SLAPP lawsuits have become a common tool for intimidating and silencing criticism through expensive, baseless legal proceedings.

Wikipedia’s description: “In a typical SLAPP, the plaintiff does not normally expect to win the lawsuit. The plaintiff's goals are accomplished if the defendant succumbs to fear, intimidation, mounting legal costs, or simple exhaustion and abandons the criticism. In some cases, repeated frivolous litigation against a defendant may raise the cost of directors and officers liability insurance for that party, interfering with an organization's ability to operate. A SLAPP may also intimidate others from participating in the debate.”

Anti-SLAPP laws are meant to provide a remedy to SLAPP lawsuits. The intent is to prevent people from using courts, and potential threats of a lawsuit, to intimidate people who are exercising their First Amendment rights.

Anti-SLAPP laws typically include provisions for an expedited process to dismiss meritless lawsuits early in the litigation process. They often provide for the recovery of attorney's fees and other costs incurred by the defendant in defending against the SLAPP lawsuit.

Unfortunately, Wyoming does not have an anti-SLAPP law. But MassResistance has already begun working with legislators in Wyoming (and other states) to change that!

We will keep you updated on all of this!

 Wyoming MassResistance parents hold signs in front of the library. The lawsuit aims to stop this by threatening those who complain.

   

Please help us continue to do our uncompromising work!

Our successes depend on people like you.

Donate to MassResistance

Your support will make the difference!

The Tenth Amendment Center: Supremacy Clause: Constitution 101

 

Supremacy Clause: Constitution 101 Most people get it completely backwards When people tell you that "federal law is ALWAYS supreme" - they're not just wrong, they get the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution almost completely backwards. Article VI, Paragraph 2 is one of the most twisted and abused parts of the Constitution. It reads: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. Most people tend to completely ignore three essential words - the qualifier - “in Pursuance thereof.” As Mike Maharrey notes, The clause does not read, “This Constitution…and any old act Congress decides to pass…shall be the supreme law of the land.”  Despite that fact, almost everyone today treats it that way, including Cornell Law School, which tells us that the Supremacy Clause “establishes that the federal constitution, and federal law generally, take precedence over state laws, and even state constitutions.” This runs totally counter to what all the Federalists supporters of the Constitution told us about the clause. Even Alexander Hamilton, here in Federalist 33: “The clause which declares the supremacy of the laws of the Union, like the one we have just before considered, only declares a truth, which flows immediately and necessarily from the institution of a federal government. It will not, I presume, have escaped observation, that it EXPRESSLY confines this supremacy to laws made PURSUANT TO THE CONSTITUTION” [all caps in original] In the North Carolina Ratifying Convention, Willam Davie held the same view. He said that federal laws is supreme “only in cases consistent with the powers specially granted, and not in usurpations.”

JOIN TAC -from just $2/mo Help us take a stand for the Constitution and liberty - whether the government likes it, or not. (they don't) Monthly, annual, 5 year and lifetime options available. Details Here

Continuing that same debate, future Supreme Court Justice James Iredell agreed: “Then when the Congress passes a law consistent with the Constitution, it is to be binding on the people. If Congress under pretence of executing one power, should in fact usurp another, they will violate the Constitution.” North Carolina Gov. Samuel Johnston emphasized these same points - that only those acts made “in pursuance” of the Constitution would be supreme - everything else would fail to rise to the level of “law.” “Every law consistent with the Constitution, will have been made in pursuance of the powers granted by it. Every usurpation or law repugnant to it, cannot have been made in pursuance of its powers. The latter will be nugatory and void.” Usurpation. Nugatory. Void. These are strong statements - a perspective almost totally forgotten today. An act of usurpation was, to the founders, essentially, an act of theft by government, stealing power from the sovereign people of the several states.  And when power is stolen, it’s not valid law - it’s nugatory. Or void. St. George Tucker described the supremacy clause with this perspective in mind: “That a law limited to such objects as may be authorized by the constitution, would, under the true construction of this clause, be the supreme law of the land; but a law not limited to those objects, or not made pursuant to the constitution, would not be the supreme law of the land, but an act of usurpation, and consequently void.” But acts of usurpation - while void according to the constitution - don’t become void in practice and effect by merely saying so. And even Alexander Hamilton recognized that the people would have to step up to get that result.  “But it will not follow from this doctrine that acts of the large society which are NOT PURSUANT to its constitutional powers, but which are invasions of the residuary authorities of the smaller societies, will become the supreme law of the land. These will be merely acts of usurpation, and will deserve to be treated as such.” With this understanding, most people miss the two primary purposes the Supremacy Clause: To ensure the supremacy of the constitution - not anything the feds do To draw a line around the limits of federal power

State of the Nullification Movement Report The history and constitutional basis for nullification. How it has been used - and how it's being used today. Our annual progress report Get it Here

If you consider this in relation to the foundational structure of the Constitution being one of delegated and reserved powers, things are even more clear. Writing in Federalist 45, James Madison explained that “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite” With only about 30 powers delegated to the federal government throughout the constitution - and everything else reserved to the states, the notion that federal law “is always supreme” gets things almost completely backwards. In most spheres of action, it’s actually “state law is always supreme,” and federal supremacy shouldn’t even be a question. That’s how John Taylor of Caroline summed it all up: “The United States have no authority, except that which is given by the constitution. Both the laws and treaties to be supreme must, therefore, be made in conformity with the powers bestowed, limited and reserved by the constitution, and by these we must determine whether a law or a treaty has been constitutionally made, before the question of its supremacy can occur.” If you prefer to read this article in your browser, you can find it here. Also, please do check out today's episode of the Path to Liberty Podcast for a deep dive into this essential history. There, you'll find both video and audio versions of the show - and if you prefer reading - there's a bunch of original source documents so you can read and learn more - in context - on your own time. This is the kind of information we work to get out to more and more people every single day of the year. Nothing - absolutely nothing - helps us roll up our sleeves and get the job done more than the financial faith and support of our members.  Please consider joining us today - for as little as $2/month here: https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/members/ Help us take a stand for the Constitution and liberty - whether the government wants us to, or not. (they don't) If you prefer a one-time donation, you can pitch in online at this link: https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/donate/

Bob Burchett: Beginning of the End of the European Union?

Most everyone who watches the EU knows that it is basically Germany holding up the entire EU economy. When a nation becomes a member they all agree that if one member nation goes down the old financial stupid-decisions drain well the good guys with lots of EUROS will take care of the bills for them. Can you spell socialism in its finest hour?  TOO BAD that the old socialists who agreed to allow the unelected bureaucrats in Brussels (anyone else not particularly care for Brussels Sprouts?) so they gave their entire countries treasury to these jerks that aren’t even in their country the power to suck the money from each one.

 

Brilliant scheme eh? Worked for Greece and others who are way beyond bankrupt and living almost entirely off of Euros shelled out by Germany. What a GIG eh?   Who else remembers that when the EU told Greece that they had to adopt “austerity measures” immediately; repeal the 3 vacation days between every work day and repay their loans, cut the debt and a bunch of other BS the masses had come to enjoy at the expense of the EU? WELL that didn’t go over well I can tell ya!  Riots in the streets reminiscent of our own BLM “mostly peaceful” nights of pitchforks and torches. The government of Greece (If you can call it that) told the EU to pound Euros (into their bank ASAP) and they rejected the austerity gig.

 

It WAS good old Maggie Thatcher who said that socialism works great until you run out of other people’s money. WELL wake up Brussels; you just ran out of German Euros and if they EXIT the entire European Union will collapse throwing the continent into total chaos.

 

Did you see what just happened in Argentina? They just tossed out a big tax-and-spend socialist/ progressive government in favor of a far-right belt tightener SO In a few years you won’t need to cry for Argentina anymore…with this new Donald Trump jerk who promised to fire half the government he is now the golden (orange?) haired troublemaker upsetting the status quo of South America who captured a large share of the votes (seems they don’t know how to hack their voting machines…..YET).  HOO BOY sit DOWN you’re rocking the boat! Stand by to STAND BY:

 

READ EVERY WORD RIGHT TO THE END TO SEE THE DIRE IMPLICATIONS OF THIS ONE AND AS YOU READ THEM THINK ABOUT HOW IDENTICAL THEY SOUND TO THE USA WHERE WE ARE LIVING IN TODAY!!

 

‘Dexit’: Germany’s Soaring AfD Mulls Future Referendum to Exit the European Union

By Paul Serran Jan. 22, 2024 12:00 pm251 Comments

•  

AfD’s Alice Weidel.

All over Europe, the Globalist-Liberal governments are under relentless pressure, faring very poorly at the polls in the run-up to the European Parliament elections.

Plagued by unchecked mass migration, crippling insane environmental policies, economic stagnation and a general decay of the quality of life, voters are flocking to conservative and right wing parties that have been denouncing these issues and rejecting these policies for years.

But perhaps nowhere in the old continent does a right-wing party generate so much hope and so much fear as the case of Alternative for Germany (AfD), the official ‘bogeyman’ for the unelected Brussels bureaucrats and the world’s MSM in general.

Now Alice Weidel, leader of the poll-topping party, has come out and said that Britain was ‘dead right’ to leave the European Union and that Germany should in fact hold its own ‘Dexit’ vote!

Panic in Brussels.

Weidel said she would push for a referendum on EU membership if AfD came to power and could not secure reforms to curb overreach by the European Commission.

Telegraph reported:

“’If a reform isn’t possible, if we fail to rebuild the sovereignty of the EU member states, we should let the people decide, just as Britain did’, she told the Financial Times.

‘And we could have a referendum on ‘Dexit’ – a German exit from the EU. It is a model for Germany, that one can make a sovereign decision like that’.”

While it is unlikely that AfD will be able to be elected to federal power in the short term, Weidel said a future role in government was ‘inevitable’.

“The AfD is leading the polls in all five East German states ahead of regional elections in September. The party’s results in June’s European Parliament elections will also be closely watched amid predictions of success for Eurosceptic parties across the bloc, including in France, Austria and the Netherlands.

It is polling nationally at 22 percent, behind the centre-Right opposition Christian Democratic Union but ahead of all three parties in Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s struggling coalition government.”

The CDU, the centre-Right party of former chancellor Angela Merkel, would be the first to ally with the AfD.

“We can form a clear right-wing majority. And the CDU can’t refuse to accept that in the long term, especially in the eastern states.”

Weidel said the priorities of a AfD government would be to reform tax laws, slim down the state and end Germany’s switch to renewable energy.