Who is Sterling Clifford and why is he lying to you????
Sterling Clifford is Jerry Brown’s campaign spokesman in the race for Governor of California. He is a liberal political hack that used to be a chief spokesperson for Baltimore Mayor Sheila Dixon, who was indicted on 12 counts of perjury, theft and misconduct in office last year. After being convicted, she resigned as Baltimore’s first African-American female Mayor in January of 2010, and Sterling headed west and took his job with Jerry Brown’s campaign in April, 2010.
Sterling Clifford has "done me wrong." I am currently working on the legal team reviewing and approving, for legal, a series of issue advocacy television advertisements which are critical of Jerry Brown’s performance in office. These ads are being produced by the "Small Business Action Committee," a nonprofit organization I incorporated and serve as General Counsel of, that is managed and directed by Joel Fox.
Well, the Brown campaign does not like the ads, which point out the army of lawyers Brown has available to sue people in California, and his bad performance on job growth.
So, enter Sterling Clifford, who has sullied those ads by, among other whoppers, putting out press statements and website content that accuses me of being a "right wing birther." Clifford started his campaign attacking me for being a person who believes President Obama was born outside the United States, in a press release on August 16, Carla Marinucci of the San Francisco Chronicle picked up on the theme, and now thanks to that article, I am a "birther" for all time on the internet.
But the problem is, I am not a birther. I have never had anything to do with any lawsuit against Obama or anyone else on that issue. And if anybody wants to do a Google search of the words, "James Lacy and birther," you will find at least TWENTY reported items where I criticize Orly Taitz, the co-counsel of the main "birther" litigation and a recent candidate for California Secretary of State, and say:
“It’d be a disaster for the Republican party,” says James Lacy, a conservative GOP operative in the state. “Can you imagine if [gubernatorial candidate] Meg Whitman and [candidate for Lt. Gov.] Abel Maldonado — both of whom might have a chance to win in November — had to run with Orly Taitz as secretary of state, who would make her cockamamie issues about Obama’s birth certificate problems at the forefront of her activities?”
I feel like Reagan’s Secretary of Labor, Ray Donovan, after his acquittal on some sort of charges of illegality, who said, "What office do I go to, to get my reputation back!"
I have sent Jerry Brown’s campaign a "cease and desist" demand for calling me a "birther." I note that as of today, the Brown campaign still has references to me as a "birther" on their main website. One thing an Attorney General should do is uphold the law and not abuse the truth. Jerry Brown, I am herein calling on you to remove any references to me as a "birther" on your website. If you don’t remove them, you leave me no option but to sue you and your campaign for libel. Because I am not a "birther," and I very clearly understand that term to be derogatory to me and my professional work.
As to Sterling Clifford, you will be named in any lawsuit, too. Can’t you do even simple research before you hurt someone, professionally?
August 25th, 2010 at 12:00 am
James, send a complaint to their website’s hosting company. I’m sure lies and slander are against their TOS regulations.
August 25th, 2010 at 12:00 am
Thanks! Good idea!
August 26th, 2010 at 12:00 am
Of course Jim is not a birther, but it would be hard to argue that he is not a public figure.
So, any lawsuit by Jim against the Attorney General, or his campaign, would probably be deemed a SLAP suit, subjecting Jim to attorneys’ fees sanctions, in the $50,000 range; more if he appealed.
The bottom line is that Jim should just enjoy the fact that he has annoyed and distracted the Brown campaign mightily.
August 28th, 2010 at 12:00 am
Dana, you don’t know what you are talking. A SLAP “motion” is only granted if the action is meritless. My action has merit because the facts support it. The Brown campaign claims that I have personally made “absurd demands for the President’s birth certificate” and that I am a “birther.” Neither is true, yet they continue to publish such material on their site. There are extensive facts to the contrary of Brown’s libel here, on both counts, including my calling birther views “cockamamie” in about 20 web references on Google.
Are your client’s projects your personal activities? When one of your client’s husbands, say, Diane Harkey’s husband, gets investigated by the SEC for fraud in the mortgage lending crisis, do you have personal ownership of that? Do you become, “Dana Reed, who represents a client whose family is being investigated by the Securities and Exchange Commission for fraud?” Would you loose on a SLAP motion on that one? I think not. I have some clients that don’t like Obama, and I don’t like Obama, but I also have a client that wants a state park tax, and I don’t “own” my client activities, particularly when the facts demonstrate very clearly my personal views to the contrary.
August 29th, 2010 at 12:00 am
Jim: I would love to have a debate with you on the meaning of the First Amendment but, in order to make it a fair fight, I think you should first familiarize yourself with the Supreme Court’s holding in New York Times vs. Sullivan 376 US 254.
And, by the way, I do not now, nor have I ever, represented Assemblywoman Harkey, or her husband. That, of course, is not to say that I wouldn’t be delighted to do so if they ever determined that they could utilize my services.
August 29th, 2010 at 12:00 am
Dana, you are full of BS. Public records list you as the agent for “Dana Point Today.” Everybody knows that outfit, which had to stop using a phony and deceptive “seal” after receiving a cease and desist demand from the City of Dana Point, was secretly organized by Diane Harkey, and if that c4 made it’s financial donors public the relationship would likely be quite evident. Nevertheless, my point was theoretical. Lawyers don’t “own” their client’s activities, especially when they have absolutely nothing to do with the activities. Further, New York Times v. Sullivan does not say a public figure cannot be defamed, it simply says the public figure needs to show requisite malice. Malice occurs when the defamer actually knows the communication is false before it is made. My extensive criticism of “birthers” in the press makes it plain that the Brown campaign did maliciously defame me. The facts blow out any possibility of a preliminary motion to kill such a lawsuit either on public figure or Stategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation motion grounds.
Dana, your comments here do not help the goal of getting the word out on Brown’s poor job performance. Why not give some thought about what you are trying to accomplish in these comments.