We've moved!

Social Icons

twitterfacebooklinkedinrss feed

Saturday, August 28, 2010

Constitution Party SOS Candidate Stacey Threatens to Sue "A Particular Blogger"

Hey, I'm the only blog in the state giving Lori Stacey headlines, and this is the thanks I get? Where's the love?

Here's a sure sign Lori Stacey's Constitution Party campaign for Secretary of State is going nowhere. When she could be campaigning hard, promoting sensible ideas for good government, and establishing her credibility so voters might actually consider entrusting her with managing our elections, Lori Stacey instead is whimpering about "a particular blogger" saying things that make her mad.

Now understand, Lori Stacey can't even blog effectively, let alone run a statewide election. She does not name the source of her frustration. She provides no hyperlinks to the text in question. She provides no information to help blog readers access the original evidence on which she bases her claims and make their own evaluations. Blogs are all about helping people find information and "see for themselves"; Stacey leaves her readers wallowing in her own pile of grimacing goo as she rages about hate crimes and exploring "possible legal action."

Why does the thought of "possible legal action" by Constitution Party lawyers inspire laughter rather than fear? Oh, I don't know... past performance?

In celebration of the blog ethos, I'll simply link Stacey's yowling and the blog post that appears to incur her wrath and let y'all waste your weekend making your own evaluation. But I will say this: Lori Stacey's reliance on cowardly revisionism and Merriam-Webster to build a legal case makes me laugh.

Candidate Stacey, if you really want to take to the hustings and decry the evil nameless blog impugning your political positions, then by all means, Lori, knock yourself out with that. Such brittle thin-skinnedness will only support what 99% of South Dakotans already know: the last thing we want is the Constitution Party running our state government.

Update 2010.08.30 11:28 CDT: Guess who backed down? Lori Stacey's post threatening libel action has disappeared. For the record, here's what Stacey wrote that inspired my above post... someone threw her text down the memory hole (thank you again, Google cache):

As a Constitutionalist, I have been a defender of Freedom of Speech and oppose most "Hate Crimes" legislation as it goes so far that it has become a danger to all of our rights to freedom of speech. However, there unfortunately comes a time that some writings can be so blatantly false, personally offending, defamatory and widely spread without any factual basis that it constitutes malicious, reckless intent and rises to the level of a crime called Libel.

As defined by online version of Merriam-Webster:

"Main Entry: 1li·bel
Pronunciation: \?l?-b?l\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, written declaration, from Anglo-French, from Latin libellus, diminutive of liber book
Date: 14th century

1 a : a written statement in which a plaintiff in certain courts sets forth the cause of action or the relief sought b archaic : a handbill especially attacking or defaming someone
2 a : a written or oral defamatory statement or representation that conveys an unjustly unfavorable impression b (1) : a statement or representation published without just cause and tending to expose another to public contempt (2) :(3) : the publication of blasphemous, treasonable, seditious, or obscene writings or pictures (4) : the act, tort, or crime of publishing such a libel"
defamation of a person by written or representational means

I do not push my deeply-held religious beliefs on anyone and respect an individual's right of free will to believe or not to believe for even God freely gives us this choice. Because I have increasingly become the victim of such patently false, libelous statements derived from such enormously illogical conclusions that no reasonable person could have possibly derived, I am now choosing to be silent no longer and will defend myself to set the record straight.

In a particular blogger's imagination, just because 1 of several sources that I sent him to present evidence of my point in a debate which actually had absolutely NOTHING to do with religion, there was a short YouTube clip in which the first few SECONDS showed a picture of Jesus and supposedly the FILM MAKER denies the existence of Christ. This blogger then went on to print, publish and republish outrageous lies that state that I supposedly believe Jesus is a hoax. This is outrageously false, baseless and libelous considering I have been a Christian my entire life.

1. FALSE: "She promotes an online film denying the existence of Christ"

TRUTH: I have never even seen but a couple short clips of this film and have never watched the entire movie myself. In fact, there are so many other sources of information, some of which I sent in this exchange. It was the only time that I can recall even using a clip from it. To publish that I PROMOTE it is an absolute lie. To conclude that someone agrees with a filmmaker's supposed personal views just because you have seen an 8-10 minute clip of one of their movies is a conclusion that defies all reasonable logic.

2. FALSE: "She believes Jesus Christ is a hoax".

TRUTH: I have been a Christian my entire life going as far back in my childhood as I can possibly recall. In my adult life, I have had at least 2 miraculous events that saved me from nearly losing my life which has strengthened my belief to the point that I can never deny.

3. FALSE: I supposedly refused to ever publish this person's first initial rude, mean-spirited comment.

TRUTH: This system that we had been using AUTOMATICALLY published comments that are made and I left this comment up for a minimum of 24 hrs. It was one of less than a handful that I have ever manually removed before it AUTOMATICALLY disappears from easily viewable sight after 7 days. Now, Examiner is launching an entirely new system in which comments and other sections will be handled differently and we do not know the full extent of all of these changes at this point.

With all that said, I am not holding my breath to see any retractions as these libelous statements have increasingly continued to be smeared throughout the internet over the past year. If sufficient corrections are not made promptly, possible legal action will be explored.

I have not been able to retrieve the two comments I left Ms. Stacey on this post. I can't help speculating she didn't like them very much.


  1. Cory, this post caused me to look at Lori Stacey's Web site for the first time.

    Your blogging may increase her poll numbers by causing more people to realize that she exists.

  2. Exactly my plan, Stan. Deep down, I'm a third-party guy and can't help throwing the underdog a bone like that. Love is thankless... ;-)


Comments are closed, as this portion of the Madville Times is in archive mode. You can join the discussion of current issues at MadvilleTimes.com.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.