Sam Spagnola for County Commissioner, District 3

Some of you doubtless have noted by now that Sam Spagnola has his campaign website up and running.  Sam faces an uphill climb in this primary race because he is trying to unseat an incumbent-- Linda Shaw. 

District 3 encompasses mainly the northwest part of Guilford County.  If I were a resident of District 3, I would be voting for Sam.

At his campaign website, he lists the issues with Shaw's leadership: her support of granting incentive monies for Roy Carroll's downtown condominium project; her support for the massive county bonds passed during 2008, costing county residents hundreds of millions of dollars; and her support of the downtown hotel project.  Sam clearly differentiates himself from this type of leadership.

But Shaw readily acknowledges her support for developers.

I can think of another issue for Sam.  The county commissioners had an opportunity to vote on the aquatic center proposal because they had to approve directing the county hotel/motel tax toward its contruction costs.  Ms. Shaw did not even lift a finger in opposition.

I wholeheartedly support Sam's run in the upcoming primary.  My hope is that folks concerned about the direction of local government will support Sam by working on his behalf, and by donating to his campaign. 

I am sure he could probably use some volunteers.  And those interested in contributing can do so here.

Comments

[Jack Hart]

Me thinks a lot of folks in this next election that have been in office for wwaayy too long are going to be looking for new gigs! That is democraps and 'publicans'! I think Scott Brown was just a good start!

[Dr. Mary Johnson]

Joe, very respectfully, I really hate to pee on the cornflakes, but if I lived in Guilford County, this is not a bandwagon I would jump on.

As I said at Housecalls, no matter what their political leanings, I've got really big problem with ANY politician at ANY level of office (particularly a lawyer) who is on-the-record condoning, excusing, minimizing or dismissing (1) perjury in our beyond-corrupt N.C. Court system . . . OR (2) someone hurling threats and insults into someone's personal Inbox.

Sam is on the record in both instances: With regards to what is a CLEAR case of "non-profit" corruption and prosecutorial "habitual intemperance" (in a state where we have to have innocence commissions to get something right 17 years after the fact), I'm supposed to just accept all of the lies and the bad faith and utter destruction wrecked upon my life and "shut up about it".

Moreover, "The Fec & Mary Show" is not a "show". It's about an angry man deliberately and methodically victimizing a woman. And I'm still not laughing.

It ain't change. We have enough lawyers making excuses for bad behavior in public office. There is a wealth of material in these blogs that I think will not serve Sam well.

Now, having expressed myself about the candidate, I'm bowing out of this discussion.

[Marshall]

I don't think that I have it wrong as I think Sam and Roch brought much to the table with the David Wray topic. I support Sam and hope he wins as I don't believe he will look the other way with a wink and a nod. Though he is still a lawyer... :-)

[Spag]

Thanks a lot for the plug Joe. I think the record would show that I agree with you on the aquatic center. Simply put, taxpayer funds should not be used for these non-essential projects. I think we are on the same wavelength about the role and scope of government and I hope other conservatives will get on board.

I also did not excuse perjury nor did I condone any threats to anyones inbox and my campaign will not be about what happened to Dr. Mary Johnson more than 10 years ago in a civil suit that she settled. Still one has to admire how even running for office can somehow invoke the subject in some quarters.

[Joe Guarino]

You are welcome, Sam, and obviously I hope you will be successful.

[Dr. Mary Johnson]

Candidate for public office (as opposed to radio DJ) Sam sent me an e-mail this morning. It was not not marked "off-the-record". I'm going to publish it later today with the response it so richly deserves.

The e-mail was especially delicious in light of the post I currently have up on SLAPP suits:

http://drjshousecalls.blogspot.com/2010/03/anti-slapp-suit-legislation-is-in-works.html

Role-playing in that post, I fall into the roll of "critic". Sam is something else.

And there you go again, Sam (heavy sigh). Since YOU brought it up, the civil suit was settled fradulently based on a pack of lies. Perjury. A FELONY. No statute of limitations (ergo, it does not matter if it happened yesterday or twenty years ago). That's called bad faith and it negates the settlement (you especially, seem pretty thick on that point). Very simple legal concepts. And these things are the reason I came to the blogosphere . . . to get some help . . . maybe to plant the seed of some much-needed medico-legal reform in this uber-corrupt state.

You do agree we've got some corruption problems, yes?

But instead of saying that my case demonstrates a host of reasons why we need that reform, you've stuck up your legal nose and told me to "shut up about it" (it really does remind me of John Edwards defending Clinton). And/so, as far as I am concerned, you have excused perjury. The logic is quite sound.

OBTW, please do not get me started on the tortured post you put up on the "Fec & Mary" show. As I interpreted that one, the lady deserved it.

Your campaign is not about what happened to Dr. Mary Johnson unless you make it so. But Dr. Mary Johnson can have an opinion about your campaign and your suitability (and temperament) for office.

In this instance, Joe and I do not agree that you are the man for this job.

Perhaps you should make like a politician and back-track on some of your previously-stated positions?

[Doom Day Dude]

No doubt Spag campaign is off to roaring start by fighting with Dr Mary as his prime enemy........

[Spag]

Thanks for the endorsement Marshall. I am pretty confident that I won't let you down.

[Dr. Mary Johnson]

Indeed, Connie. A roaring start.

http://drjshousecalls.blogspot.com/2010/03/dr-mary-slapps-back-these-days.html

[Spag]

The issues page on Votespag.com has been updated with the first entry.

http://www.votespag.com/issues.htm

Thanks again Joe for the hearty endorsement and for this platform.

[Doom Day Dude]

When Spag starts acting like a "real" patriot instead of a Tea Party Camp follower. He just might understand that he is toast, when it's comes to real politics. If I was Spag, I would demand a refund from his law school, since they didn't teach him about the Sullian Case, where he is a public fiqure at the moment and anybody can say just about anything about him. It's called free speech Spag and you will find it in the Constitution of the United States entitle the first amendent...Shame on you for threaten to sue somebody in a political campaign to stop free speech and opinions. stay focus dude. Help is on the way and it is not the kind you will like!

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2010/03/08/lkl.jesse.ventura.cnn

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ew8vgLy5-fU&feature=player_embedded

[Dr. Mary Johnson]

Connie, the point kind of is that I did not "say just about anything" about our dear Spag. I VERY accurately and fairly dissected a previous "analysis" of public statements that our resident lawyer has made about me/my case . . . deliberately DENSE/misleading/cruel statements which actually tap-danced around libel themselves . . . very relevant to my own livelihood and reason for being in the blogosphere.

Part of my "backyard law degree" comes from the experience of being sued by a "non-profit" hospital for telling the government I served the truth about what happened to me during a public service gig (Cone/the rest of the blogging blues apparently care when a whistle-blower takes on a Naval hospital - just not when a local does it right under their stuck-up noses).

It's called a SLAPP suit and it is a DESPICABLE way to squelch free speech. Indeed, there currently is a move to make such lawsuits illegal:

http://drjshousecalls.blogspot.com/2010/03/anti-slapp-suit-legislation-is-in-works.html

I did not put up with it then [most folks know that part of the settlement Spag keeps referencing . . . the one that was settled on a pack-of-lies and in bad faith (just hunky-dorey with our resident tea-bag lawyer) was that the hospital TUCK AND RUN]. I most certainly will NOT tolerate it now.

My understanding is that Spag's legal background is in family and bankruptcy law. I agree that before he delves much more deeply into what they call "public life" he needs to go back and review NYT v. Sullivan.

I'm sensing that the "game plan" now will be silence. Let's just ignore the fact that right-out-of-the-gate, before his fancy website is even warm, our blogging GOP lawyer threatened to sue a doctor - already horribly-battered by a system of medico-legal oversight that does not work (not to mention now fighting off a cyber-stalker as opposed to getting any help from the blue-bloods of Blogsboro) - for speaking her mind.

And (with sincere apologies to Joe) if I lived in Guilford County, that is all I would need to know.

[Doom Day Dude]

Connie, the point kind of is that I did not "say just about anything" about our dear Spag.* Doc Mary

Of course you didn't! I believe my other half can explain it a little legal better than I...

Dr. Mary,

I was in the bowels of the Duke library today. I see you have been busy though. Connie is right - since Spaz is running for an office, he has made himself a public figure. This almost gives you or anyone else a license to lie as he has to prove that you made your comments with "actual malice" under NYT v. Sullivan. Actual malice is "knowledge that [the statement] was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not." Truth is always a defense.

Some quotes from the case quoting a Kansas case:

"where an article is published and circulated among voters for the sole purpose of giving what the defendant believes to be truthful information concerning a candidate for public office and for the purpose of enabling such voters to cast their ballot more intelligently, and the whole thing is done in good faith and without malice, the article is privileged, although the principal matters contained in the article may be untrue in fact and derogatory to the character of the plaintiff; and in such a case the burden is on the plaintiff to show actual malice in the publication of the article."

"It is of the utmost consequence that the people should discuss the character and qualifications of candidates for their suffrages. The importance to the state and to society of such discussions is so vast, and the advantages derived are so great, that they more than counterbalance the inconvenience of private persons whose conduct may be involved, and occasional injury to the reputations of individuals must yield to the public welfare, although at times such injury may be great. The public benefit from publicity is so great, and the chance of injury to private character so small, that such discussion must be privileged."

"In such a case the occasion gives rise to a privilege, qualified to this extent: any one claiming to be defamed by the communication must show actual malice or go remediless. This privilege extends to a great variety of subjects, and includes matters of public concern, public men, and candidates for office."

Spaz should sue his law school (Southern Methodist University) for the money he spent for failing to give him a legal education. He practices family and bankruptcy law. He knows nothing about the 1st Amendment. Probably has not heard of the others either, or what is left of them (habeas corpus ,art. i, section 9, is gone and the 4th amendment has effectively been gutted). Say! Does he know the former attorney general Alberto Gonzales? He is from Texas and never heard of habeas corpus either. Maybe they have different federal laws there.

Spaz graduated in 1998 - has not been in practice all that long. Must have a hard time getting clients since he wants to live off the public dole.

He's a wascally wepublothug (said with Elmer Fudd accent) and would not get my vote.

He is a fool for threatening you with a lawsuit. Good job taking him on! (I read your post)

There is no end to the corruption and imbecility of those whom we elect in office. Maybe Spaz is qualified after all as he seems to be of the latter strain.

Have a good night!

Rachel Lea Hunter
http://www.rachelforjustice.com