Copperhead and their clients have been falsely accused of twisting, distorting and taking statements out of context for years. What this usually means is that we reveal the nub (truth) of an emotions- driven, meaningless word the school or proponents are using in their campaign to be the opposite of their meaningless application of the word. Or we draw different conclusions from data and facts that the near breathless employees of the local government jurisdiction do. Because we dare do this, they scream we are liars, etc.
Before five of our Minnesota clients joined together and successfully petitioned the U.S. District Court to declared unconstitutional an oppressive state law that allowed such accusers to drag my clients into an administrative court and falsely accuse them of lying (twisting, distorting and taking out of context) , this law was used as a club to oppressively silence taxpayer groups in their state.
The consequence was to enjoy an honorably fought victory at the polls and then still be falsely drug into court by the sore losers! It happened to one of Copperhead’s clients in Howard Lake, MN.
These losers filed 17 charges against the committee and their chairman, Victor Niska. It went to a lawful state of Minnesota Office of Administrative Hearings Court. On first review the presiding judge threw out 14 of the claims as having no merit and set aside 3 of them for oral hearing.
One of the three complaints included a charge against Mr. Niska for falsely claiming that the architect on the proposal in his community had previously offered him a bribe when he served as head custodian at the West Tonka, MN ISD. When first learning of it Copperhead told Niska that we didn’t doubt his account but we sure could not use it in the campaign as he had no proof and it is a bit too personal.
Niska didn’t listen to our advice and used it on his own accord.
God was good! The late Mr. Niska and his committee were acquitted of all charges by the Office of Administrative Hearings. The false accusers could provide no evidence because they had none! (We still have the audio file of the proceedings, where his attorney is grilling the architect on the stand. ) See the attached file of the final court ruling here.
If nothing else, read the highlighted portions on page 1 and page 16.