Legal expenses
Donation protected
We are in the midst of a lawsuit with former North Myrtle Beach City Councilman Greg Duckworth who is suing us for Libel/Slander in Horry County, South Carolina for speaking out. If you believe in grass roots activists and their right of free speech, please help us in defending our First Amendment rights of community activistism. Funds raised in excess of our needs will be pledged to other citizens who are being sued by politicians for defamation for speaking out on the issues and holding them accountable. If no one comes forward to claim use of the excess funds, we will then donate them to helping our wounded military personnel regain their independence.
Why we're being sued
During the 2012 campaign between incumbent SC Representative Tracy Edge and challenger City Councilman Greg Duckworth, my wife, Bren Gibson, and I wrote two "˜Letters to the Editor' that were published by the Sun News in June 2012. We stated our support for Representative Edge in his quest to retain his seat in the SC Legislature because of the work he has done for our city and county. We also stated why we did not think Councilman Duckworth deserved to be elected. These were our opinions, our heartfelt beliefs based on what we have observed at North Myrtle Beach City Council and workshops and constituent meetings over the last ten years that we have lived here.
During the last couple of years of Councilman Duckworth's tenure, we heard and strongly believe that he was deeply involved in working with the North Myrtle City parks and recreation staff on the contractual elements and initial design stages of the new North Myrtle Beach Sports and Recreation Park. He recused himself from the council votes on this subject, however, we believe that it was a still conflict of interest for him to be involved in the design and contract preparation for this project while serving as a sitting council member and then getting a large chunk of the project as a subcontractor. This gives the appearance of impropriety and conflict of interest for personal gain.
During the first meeting in October 2011 where the public was invited to see and comment on the initial designs of the Sports Park, Councilman Duckworth was introduced as a critical member of the design and development team. He was awarded a subcontract by the project architect, Mozingo + Wallace, a local Architecture firm that was "˜assigned' the preliminary architecture and engineering phase. Mozingo + Wallace then won the bid to build the Sports complex. This project will be paid using taxpayer dollars through a special assessment raising our taxes by 25% for 8 years.
We believed, at the time of the 2012 campaign, that Mr. Duckworth, who is also part of the North Strand Coastal Wind Team, was running for the SC House seat to further his business interests in the area of wind energy. This is another area which will consume a considerable amount of taxpayer's dollars in the future.
Mr. Duckworth recently gave up his seat on the North Myrtle Beach City Council. He served three terms from 2001 through 2013. During his tenure, we believe he recused himself from many council votes because of his personal and business interests. He is the owner of Environmental Concepts, LLC, which is a landscape architecture and land planning service.
The Problem
The Ethics Laws governing elected officials in the State of South Carolina are among the weakest in the entire United States. And they are seldom, if ever, enforced. We have a situation where the "fox guards the hen house" in that our legislators staff the ethics commission. Additionally, there are only two other states that do not require all elected officials (state and local) to disclose the sources of all of their income. Many other states have ordinances prohibiting an elected official from participating in any contract let by the organization (town, city, municipality, county, state body) on which they serve. This means that Councilman Duckworth could not be a subcontractor on the North Myrtle Beach Sports and Recreation Park. Such an ordinance removes the appearance of impropriety and protects the trust in the process.
We have included certain sections of Ethics Laws from other states, as well as, South Carolina in this section. (Click here to see them.)
Our Position
This lawsuit, in our opinion, is nothing more than a means to silence us. It is a "strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP), a lawsuit that is intended to censor, intimidate, and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense until they abandon their criticism or opposition."
The suit is like "warfare" using the court system. We believe that it is a way for a businessman or government official to intimidate citizens who publically disagree with them and share their beliefs with the citizens of their community.
Bren and I are retired and very active throughout our community as volunteers. We have helped several people run for office; people we believe who have the true sense of public service and not one of self-service. We do not receive any form of compensation for this. We live on fixed income and do not have the means to pay for an expensive lawsuit such as this.
We believe strongly in our chances of victory! We have many court precedents in our favor, the most notable being the New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964). This case established the actual malice standard. Actual malice in United Stateslaw is a condition required to establish libel against public officials or public figures and is defined as "knowledge that the information was false" or that it was published "with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not." Reckless disregard does not encompass mere neglect in following professional standards of fact checking.
The actual malice standard requires that the plaintiff (Greg Duckworth) in a defamation or libel case prove that the publisher (us) of the statement in question knew that the statement was false or acted in reckless disregard of its truth or falsity. Because of the extremely high burden of proof on the plaintiff, and the difficulty of proving the defendant's knowledge and intentions, such cases"”when they involve public figures"”rarely prevail.
Because of the public announcement that Mr. Duckworth was a "key member of the design team" and "would participate in the implementation of the project" provided us with enough factual information for us to believe that he is both, personally and through his business, benefiting from the contract he "˜negotiated' with the City staff and has a sub-contractual interest thereby benefiting from the taxpayer's money. And we have a right to express these opinions publically.
Help Wanted
Therefore, we believe that we will prevail in the lawsuit but we need your help to defend our First Amendment rights of free, protected speech. Frankly, this all costs money and Mr. Duckworth knows it. Your help is necessary. Please help us preserve our freedom of speech. Your contribution will not be disclosed as there are no laws requiring disclosure of a gift for this purpose.
If any funds are left over from our defense of this suit, we pledge to use them to help others who face this kind of "Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation" (SLAPP) and if no one claims the appropriate need of any excess funds, we will donate then to help our wounded military personnel regain their independence. We will also work with various legislators to change South Carolina laws to allow citizens to speak out on public issues and not be intimidated by this kind of retaliation.
Why we're being sued
During the 2012 campaign between incumbent SC Representative Tracy Edge and challenger City Councilman Greg Duckworth, my wife, Bren Gibson, and I wrote two "˜Letters to the Editor' that were published by the Sun News in June 2012. We stated our support for Representative Edge in his quest to retain his seat in the SC Legislature because of the work he has done for our city and county. We also stated why we did not think Councilman Duckworth deserved to be elected. These were our opinions, our heartfelt beliefs based on what we have observed at North Myrtle Beach City Council and workshops and constituent meetings over the last ten years that we have lived here.
During the last couple of years of Councilman Duckworth's tenure, we heard and strongly believe that he was deeply involved in working with the North Myrtle City parks and recreation staff on the contractual elements and initial design stages of the new North Myrtle Beach Sports and Recreation Park. He recused himself from the council votes on this subject, however, we believe that it was a still conflict of interest for him to be involved in the design and contract preparation for this project while serving as a sitting council member and then getting a large chunk of the project as a subcontractor. This gives the appearance of impropriety and conflict of interest for personal gain.
During the first meeting in October 2011 where the public was invited to see and comment on the initial designs of the Sports Park, Councilman Duckworth was introduced as a critical member of the design and development team. He was awarded a subcontract by the project architect, Mozingo + Wallace, a local Architecture firm that was "˜assigned' the preliminary architecture and engineering phase. Mozingo + Wallace then won the bid to build the Sports complex. This project will be paid using taxpayer dollars through a special assessment raising our taxes by 25% for 8 years.
We believed, at the time of the 2012 campaign, that Mr. Duckworth, who is also part of the North Strand Coastal Wind Team, was running for the SC House seat to further his business interests in the area of wind energy. This is another area which will consume a considerable amount of taxpayer's dollars in the future.
Mr. Duckworth recently gave up his seat on the North Myrtle Beach City Council. He served three terms from 2001 through 2013. During his tenure, we believe he recused himself from many council votes because of his personal and business interests. He is the owner of Environmental Concepts, LLC, which is a landscape architecture and land planning service.
The Problem
The Ethics Laws governing elected officials in the State of South Carolina are among the weakest in the entire United States. And they are seldom, if ever, enforced. We have a situation where the "fox guards the hen house" in that our legislators staff the ethics commission. Additionally, there are only two other states that do not require all elected officials (state and local) to disclose the sources of all of their income. Many other states have ordinances prohibiting an elected official from participating in any contract let by the organization (town, city, municipality, county, state body) on which they serve. This means that Councilman Duckworth could not be a subcontractor on the North Myrtle Beach Sports and Recreation Park. Such an ordinance removes the appearance of impropriety and protects the trust in the process.
We have included certain sections of Ethics Laws from other states, as well as, South Carolina in this section. (Click here to see them.)
Our Position
This lawsuit, in our opinion, is nothing more than a means to silence us. It is a "strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP), a lawsuit that is intended to censor, intimidate, and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense until they abandon their criticism or opposition."
The suit is like "warfare" using the court system. We believe that it is a way for a businessman or government official to intimidate citizens who publically disagree with them and share their beliefs with the citizens of their community.
Bren and I are retired and very active throughout our community as volunteers. We have helped several people run for office; people we believe who have the true sense of public service and not one of self-service. We do not receive any form of compensation for this. We live on fixed income and do not have the means to pay for an expensive lawsuit such as this.
We believe strongly in our chances of victory! We have many court precedents in our favor, the most notable being the New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964). This case established the actual malice standard. Actual malice in United Stateslaw is a condition required to establish libel against public officials or public figures and is defined as "knowledge that the information was false" or that it was published "with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not." Reckless disregard does not encompass mere neglect in following professional standards of fact checking.
The actual malice standard requires that the plaintiff (Greg Duckworth) in a defamation or libel case prove that the publisher (us) of the statement in question knew that the statement was false or acted in reckless disregard of its truth or falsity. Because of the extremely high burden of proof on the plaintiff, and the difficulty of proving the defendant's knowledge and intentions, such cases"”when they involve public figures"”rarely prevail.
Because of the public announcement that Mr. Duckworth was a "key member of the design team" and "would participate in the implementation of the project" provided us with enough factual information for us to believe that he is both, personally and through his business, benefiting from the contract he "˜negotiated' with the City staff and has a sub-contractual interest thereby benefiting from the taxpayer's money. And we have a right to express these opinions publically.
Help Wanted
Therefore, we believe that we will prevail in the lawsuit but we need your help to defend our First Amendment rights of free, protected speech. Frankly, this all costs money and Mr. Duckworth knows it. Your help is necessary. Please help us preserve our freedom of speech. Your contribution will not be disclosed as there are no laws requiring disclosure of a gift for this purpose.
If any funds are left over from our defense of this suit, we pledge to use them to help others who face this kind of "Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation" (SLAPP) and if no one claims the appropriate need of any excess funds, we will donate then to help our wounded military personnel regain their independence. We will also work with various legislators to change South Carolina laws to allow citizens to speak out on public issues and not be intimidated by this kind of retaliation.
Organizer
Chuck Collins
Organizer
North Myrtle Beach, SC
