Mark Up One for Our Side - Moms Win a Battle

The following article comes from the Greenon, Ohio Eagle newspaper.   It is an article covering a judgement in favor of my friend Angie Auckerman.    Angie and her friends were fighting a levy put on by the Greenon School District.  Her child, a student in the district,  was unjustifiably brought into the situation.   Angie and her friends were sued by two attorneys for stating their opinions.   Angie is a mom and housewife.   She really doesn't have the money to fight two big-time attorneys,  but she stood her ground and won.

She would probably lose in Warren County.  We had a mom here that was banned from a school board meeting and the district took the case to the Ohio Supreme Court where the district lost.   The district won in Warren County, but lost in the Twelfth District Court of Appeals.   The LCSD took the case to the Ohio Supreme Court.  Of course they used our money to do so.
Thank God there are attorneys like Chris Finney and Greg Hartman who believe that the schools have gone too far in intimidating parents and taxpayers.
We have to fight for freedom.   We cannot allow the abusers to keep tramping on us.   The fight begins at the schoolhouse door.   God bless Angie and her friends for fighting the good fight.   Patriots come in all sizes and from all places.   

"No Votes" Prevail in Defamation Case

Written by Kathy Voytko

Wednesday, 09 October 2013 00:00

Nearly a year after receiving court paperwork regarding a lawsuit filed against them for comments made on social media pages, Cindy Barton, Angela Auckerman and Rita “Joyce” Gilliam have received a ruling in their favor from the Clark County Common Pleas Court.   In the complaint filed by Attorney Mark Bamberger on behalf of John J. Pritchard, a “United States Air Force civilian attorney” working at Wright Patterson and John T. Edwards a “solo practicing attorney” with his principal place of business in Enon, Bamberger claimed defamation and interference with business relationship for his clients in regards to “posts” made on two Facebook pages that appeared during the campaign for funding new schools for Greenon Local. In June of 2012 Pritchard was serving as the chair of the Citizens for Quality Education in support of the school levy.  Edwards was at the time a volunteer for the Greenon Athletic Boosters and also a supporter of the levy.  Over the months leading up to the filing of the suit on November 5, 2012, one day prior to the election, Auckerman and Barton were “banned” from posting on the social media site administered by Pritchard  for comments he regarded as “unacceptable.”       Auckerman,  Barton and Gilliam (who is from Waverly, Ohio) had posted comments on a “Vote No” page created and administered by Auckerman and Barton.  In the court filing, Bamberger provided a “post” dated October 15, 2012  made by Greenon Local School Board member Mark Remmetter on the “No” page regarding a shirt used in a Halloween display on the Auckerman property.  Other “likes” and comments made regarding this and other posts on the page were also included in the filing. After months of court filings from both sides, Judge Richard J. O’Neill ruled in favor of Auckerman, Barton and Gilliam.  Using the various “posts” provided in the court filing, Judge O’Neill found that Auckerman is “immune for statements made by Barton and Gilliam.”  Statements made by Auckerman were found to “fall within the realm of protected political speech.”  Judge O’Neill also found that Auckerman’s comments fell into one of two categories: “an expression of opinion or a true statement” and concluded that “none of Auckerman’s statements are actionable as defamation.” In the instance of Joyce Gilliam, Judge O’Neill found that her comments were “primarily statements of opinion.” The judge further noted that none of Gilliam’s statements “constitute defamation of either of the plaintiffs,” sustaining her Motion to Dismiss. Barton was also found to be “immune” for statements made by Gilliam or Auckerman.  Her comments were found to be “political speech and constitutionally protected opinion speech” according to the court documents.  The judge “concluded Ms. Barton’s statements are her opinion and are constitutionally protected and that there is no evidence on the record to support showing of actual malice.” Pritchard and Edwards had asked the court for damages in “excess” of $100,000 in the original filing of the lawsuit.  In the months prior to judgment, they “dismissed” their “Tortuous Interference with Business Relations claim” in which they claimed the women had “irreparably damaged their standing in the community, their standing in the legal community and their business.”  The claim of “ Defamation Per Se” was considered in the judge’s ruling.   Judge O’Neill’s findings favored Auckerman, Gilliam and Barton, therefore no damages were awarded.   Attorneys for the women and the Auckerman and Barton families declined to comment, as court records indicate that additional motions have been filed by them related to fees and costs associated with the case.  Both sides are awaiting a decision that is still pending with the courts.