Sultana's Defamation Suit Against Critical PAC To Be Argued Today

At this time last year, Easton City Council member Taiba Sultana was running against State Rep. Bob Freeman. He's been in office a millennium, so he really should step down. But not to her. She's been a disaster on Easton City Council when she bothers to show up. She likes to accuse everyone who disagrees with her on anything of being racist, sexist, xenophobic or whatever. She has even included Easton City Council member downtown Kenny Brown, who is black and Brown, in these accusations. He himself was a victim of some pretty blatant discrimination by Easton's then racist and brutal constabulary when he was growing up. Before I get into the main topic of this post, which is Sultana's lawfare against a PAC that dared criticize her, let me tell you about how Kenny was victimized. 

Kenny had a brother named Carl. Kenny was good, but Carl fell under the spell of the dark side, committing numerous armed robberies.  He was killed by Easton police, who then knocked on young Ken's door to inform him that "we killed your n----r brother." 

I think it's safe to say Brown cares about discrimination. 

Ken got involved in sports and even began playing with cops. One day, the officer who shot Ken's brother apologized to him for what he had said and how he had said it. 

People can change for the better. So can institutions. That includes police departments. Easton's police department today is a far cry from what it was during the days in which cops would routinely beat people up. It hurts them to hear unfounded accusations of racism like those that Sultana likes to hurl. It hurts the Mayor and Council members who are justifiably proud of the mini mecca that Easton has become. Finally, it hurts those who grew up in the mini-Apple and know what it was like then and what it is like now.

That includes Ray Lahoud. He might be a very successful immigration lawyer, but his roots are in Easton. Like so many Easton residents, he was outraged by the dishonest and spurious claims being spewed by a Pakistani immigrant who settled first in NYC, then Jersey, and only recently in Easton. But unlike most Eastonians, he could so something about it.  

Ray formed what is known as a political action committee (PAC) and then paid for and posted campaign signs around Easton calling Sultana "CRAZY, CHAOTIC, CRIMINAL." Most of them disappeared or were defaced in a few short hours, and state police nabbed Sultana's children (both minors and one adult) in flagrante delicto. In an effort to silence Lahoud, Sultana sued his PAC for libel in a lawsuit filed on her behalf by Allentown lawyer Matt Mobilio. 

Lahoud's PAC, represented by Goudsouzian & Associates, has filed a motion to dismiss (see brief here)  based on a 2024 law called the Protected Public Expression Act. This is a response to a trend in which the "civil litigation system was increasingly being used in an illegitimate way: not to seek redress or relief for harm or to vindicate one’s legal rights, but rather to silence or intimidate citizens by subjecting them to costly and lengthy litigation. These kinds of abusive lawsuits are particularly troublesome when defendants find themselves targeted for exercising their constitutional rights to publish and speak freely, petition the government, and associate with others. Commentators dubbed these kinds of civil actions “Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation,” or SLAPPs." 

Another word for this exists - lawfare. 

Legal argument on this motion to dismiss is scheduled for today. 

Mobilio obviously opposes the attempted dismissal of Sultana's claimed defamation and filed a brief to support keeping his case on life support. It includes an attack on me.

I'm honored. It's not quite the Pulitzer, but I'll take it. 

Here's his accolade:

"Defendant contends that the remaining accusations against Plaintiff are factually correct. However, the documentation that Defendant appends to its motion in support of the truth of these statements, does not in fact support that argument. Indeed, many of the attachments are from “blog posts” and comments published by Bernie O’Hare, a former attorney who was suspended from practicing law nearly forty (40) years ago and who has resigned himself to blogging his opinions about political officials. According to the Moring [sic] Call, Mr. O’Hare was suspended for: “illegal conduct involving moral turpitude . . . dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation . . . conduct."

"Accordingly, to the extent Defendant relies on Mr. O’Hare for “factual”, “reporting”, and that his blog posts and comments somehow constitute a matter of public record, or “truth”, such seriously undermines the entirety of Defendant’s defense and argument."

As I understand this argument, Mobilio asserts that nothing I say should be believed by any sane person. He very well may be right. I know I argue with me all the time. But if that's so, then it also means that nothing I say is capable of defamatory meaning because nothing I say is believable and therefore it is incapable of harming the reputation of another person. His argument is self-defeating. 

I could go on to attack Mobilio himself, as I've done once before. But I think I've made my point. 

By the way, this new act entitles the winning party to seek attorney fees.