Bully Candidate Threatening Lawsuit over Billboard Wins... then Loses
Sequoyah County has a long history of being ran by a few families with a penchant for violence and thuggery and any dissent was harshly squashed. The local governments and judicial system was horrendously corrupt as one would expect in such an environment. Change began in 2010 with the election of John Bennett, the first state representative ever elected in that district, then a decent man was elected sheriff a few years later.
But the ruling families have fought hard to roll back the transparency and those that dared challenged them. In the 2016 House district race the Democratic candidate Tom Stites, one of the oldest sons of one of the ruling families, spent around $300,000 in the election. Hoping to win a job that paid $35,000....
This time around the same candidate is running for the same office, squared off against a local pastor. The worst that they have been able to say is that the pastor is a bible thumper and a Yankee.... still, after moving there thirty years ago....
Meanwhile, Stites has been embroiled in controversy over embellishments of his military record and veteran status or lack of same actually despite Stites claiming veteran status. To try to get the campaign out of defense mode Stites challenged his Republican opponent to a shooting match, as if that would prove anything, while touting his support by the NRA. Then the NRA endorsed Jim Olsen, the Republican candidate. Below is the press release to that effect:
NRA and Oklahoma Second Amendment Association Endorse Candidate Jim Olsen as the Gun Rights Advocate for Oklahoma State Rep, District 2
Roland, OK— Both of the preeminent gun rights advocacy organizations in the nation published their findings that Republican Jim Olsen is the gun rights advocate on the November 6 ballot for the open Oklahoma State House District 2 seat. In spite of the recent attempt by Democrat nominee Stites to mask his agenda with an offer of a gun shooting show, the NRA released a big question mark on how Stites would actually vote if he was given the opportunity in the state legislature to uphold or deny our constitutional right. The '?' rating is defined by the NRA on the www.nrapvf.org website: "A rating of '?' often indicates indifference, if not outright hostility, to gun owners' and sportsmen's rights."
Oklahoma Second Amendment Association issued a less than impressive 'C' rating to the Democrat nominee Stites. Don Spencer, President of the Oklahoma Second Amendment Association said, "Mr. Stites received a 'C' rating from his OK2A Candidate Survey while Mr. Jim Olsen received an 'A' and our endorsement. Jim Olsen was an easy endorsement to make. The survey is not based on how many guns a candidate has, or how good a marksman, but on whether they will defend liberty."
While Olsen could have shown his own Oklahoma handgun license, guns, and shooting skills in response to the recent comical effort by Mr. Stites, Jim Olsen recognizes that the freedom and liberty to exercise the 2nd Amendment is a serious issue. Olsen instead followed the appropriate action of sharing his beliefs and awaiting leading experts in Constitutional gun rights advocacy to review the qualifications and convictions of the two candidates to determine who would better champion the Constitutional rights of the people to "keep and bear arms."
Jim Olsen is thankful for the thorough review, and the endorsements and top grades awarded to him by both the NRA and OK2A. "I firmly believe the creation of the Second Amendment was clear and I will follow the path the Founders intended: the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. Just as with all constitutional rights, my constituents can be assured that I will champion the Second Amendment in my legislative actions," Olsen said.
The general election for the open Oklahoma State House District 2 seat will be held on November 6, 2018.
Meanwhile, the local county GOP put up a billboard showing Stites with Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, and Obama. Well, they are Democrats and they will support and endorse their only candidate, pretty much what folks would expect. But Stites was enraged and had his lawyer/campaign manager send the following letter to the billboard company:
They actually had point one right, there was no disclaimer showing who paid for the ad. This was the billboard company's fault as they were well aware of the requirement and their fault for not adding that info.
Point 2to was laughable. Stites is a Democrat, the only candidate in the race, the state Democrat Party supports Stites, and the Democrat leaders support the State Democratic Party. If you don't want to be seen as supporting them and them supporting you, run as an Independent or Republican. These are facts, if they are defamatory then they are self induced. Anyway, it is nearly impossible to prove defamation or libel against a public person and politicians are the least protected.
Points3 and 4 are outright lies. The statutes quoted refer to "business" use of another's identity, not political. Nearly all campaigns use the opponents likeness in attack ads and no one needs permission. This lawyer is either an idiot or doesn't mind lying.
Point 5 is equally ridiculous. Copyright laws include fair use of the copyrighted product including the use of a politician's head shots and other campaign pictures.
The billboard company did remove the billboard so they could add the required disclaimer stating who paid for the ad. And Stites celebrated his "victory".
But the bill board is going back up on Monday with the required disclaimer and no doubt that Stites is going to burst another vein.
