The defendants in this defamation suit have standing to inquire into alleged GOP legal counsel harassment under Anti-Slapp. One question is whether 42 USC 1983 arises. Is this an effort by the government to deprive someone of their constitutionally protected rights? Knowing who is paying for the defamation suit is material in establishing whether there is a 42 USC 1983 issue.

Once 42 USC 1983 is attached to a counter-suit, this would broadly give the bloggers legal standing to broadly inquire into other alleged criminal conduct connected with the GOP: Alleged war crimes, FISA violations, POW abuse, witness tampering, and NSA domestic surveillance.

It might be possible to show US government officials connected with the DOJ, GOP, and White House have engaged in a course of alleged reckless abuse of defamation suits to intimidate Americans from exercising their Constitutionally protected rights. It is reasonable to assume the same legal counsel connected with the US Attorney firings are connected with the GOP officials who have failed to timely challenge these statements about voter caging.

Let's get the House Judiciary Committee on board, and inquire into alleged criminal use of political parties and judicial resources to intimidate civilian news reporters.

- What role does the Presidentially-connected GOP have in using White House resources, funds, and campaign contributions to stifle free speech on issues of public interest?

- When did the White House counsel discuss these legal issues with the President, OVP, and GOP to retaliate against voters who (a) comment on these issues; (b) have suffered financial losses; and/or (c) have lost their homes and might vote against the GOP.

- When does the American public -- who have been recklessly abused through FISA violations, NSL abuses, home raids, and demands for a bailout -- plan to work with defendants of this defamation suit, and use 42 USC 1983 to broadly assault in court the alleged reckless GOP legal counsel abuse of the courts to stifle free speech of alleged illegal activity, voter intimidation?

Americans have been abused by this GOP under this President. Time for the public to unite, call this domestic intimidation what it is, and broadly use the power of 42 USC 1983 to do what this Congress refuses to do: Gather evidence of this President's alleged domestic illegal activity to retaliate against American citizens for engaging in lawful, truthful discussion of voter intimidation.

- Attorney Disbarment Issues

How many law firms has the White House worked with to identify those who have different views on NSA surveillance, Iraq WMD, and voter caging?

- Official Connection, 42 USC 1983

When did the White House indirectly work with outside counsel, as they did with the DOD emails, to attack Americans who have different views on voter caging?

- Illegal Domestic NSA Surveillance

How many illegally acquired records are the White House and GOP using to target Americans for discussing alleged domestic illegal voting-related activity, war crimes, FISA violations, POW abuse, Iraq WMD, and other high crimes?

- War Crimes Prosecutor Interests

When does the White House, GOP, and US government plan to cooperate with war crimes prosecutors to review how this voting intimidating is intended to stifle enforcement of the laws of war, block FISA enforcement, or dissuade public discussion of high crimes and impeachable offenses?

- Alleged Fraud Upon Court

How many voters have been targeted with threats of lawsuits, or false claims that information was "only" obtained through "illegal" methods as a ruse to stifle free speech, and thwart public discussion of public issues?

This outlines some of the 501c3 issues which the bloggers may wish to explore when reviewing Davis' finances.

Davis is wrong about the limits on 501(c)(3) organizations, and his comment about "asking them for their 1033 1090 and also their certification letter from the IRS" is gibberish.

Tax exempt (not "non-profit," there's a difference) organizations described in section 501(c)(3) are limited by the requirement that "no substantial part" of their activities is "carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to influence legislation" (subject to certain exceptions in 501(h)) and they cannot "participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office." Educating the public about efforts to disenfranchise voters should not violate either of those restrictions.

The reference to "1099 1090" might be references to the Form 1023 that organizations must file to get tax-exempt status, and the Form 990 that is the annual information return that most tax exempt organizations are required to file. Or it might be just gibberish.

And, not to get too picky, but charities receive *determination* letters from the IRS, not "certifications."

before getting his jd from the rinky dink cooley law school three years ago, davis was occasionally identified as a spokesperson for the michigan GOP - like when he was collecting signatures to get ralph nader on the ballot in 2004.