Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.
BICKERTON LEE DANG & SULLIVAN, LLLPJAMES J. BICKERTON             3085745 Fort Street, Suite 801Honolulu, Hawaii 96813Tele...
BENJAMIN J. CAYETANO,                  )))   CIVIL NO. ________________                                       )))   (Other...
KAWAMOTO; BILL WILSON; LANCE INOUYE; CRAIG FUKUDA; DARREN HO; JOHNDOES 1-50; JANE DOES 1-50; DOE ENTITIES 1-50, alleges an...
4.     Defendant HAWAII CARPENTERS’ UNION, also formally known as theUnited Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of Ameri...
advertising. Plaintiff is informed and believes that the Hoakea Defendants preparedmost, if not all, of the advertisements...
15.      MARK KUPAHU (“Kupahu”) is and at all times relevant hereto was a residentof the City & County of Honolulu, State ...
22.      CRAIG FUKUDA (“Fukuda”) is and at all times relevant hereto was a residentof the City & County of Honolulu, State...
efforts to try and determine their identities. Plaintiff prays leave to amend thisComplaint to insert their true names, id...
and defamatory statements that the financing parties know to be false and defamatoryand/or publish them with an actionable...
campaign contributions in quid pro quo exchange for government contracts, including“no-bid contracts,” under what the Defe...
the other Defendants. All Defendants named herein have engaged in a civil conspiracy      to commit the torts complained o...
39.    The push poll statements, when read in the whole with their natural and ordinarymeaning and innuendo, have the mean...
contributions. As such, the statements accuse Plaintiff of criminal conduct in violationof state bribery laws, which make ...
(b) While a public servant, the person solicits, accepts, or agrees to accept,     directly or indirectly, any pecuniary b...
contracts to be granted to such donors in quid pro quo exchange for these and othercampaign donations.50.    Meaning (a) w...
54.      Meanings (a), (b), (c) and (d), separately and together, are (1) defamatory astending to harm Plaintiff’s reputat...
donations deemed illegal; (f) such donors received as many or more government      contracts from other administrations th...
contributions was illegal and that he had nevertheless thereafter decided to keep the half      million dollars for his ow...
61.    In July through October 2012, Defendants caused the publication of series of      radio and television advertisemen...
other state authority had accused Plaintiff of wrongdoing, that Plaintiff had been      attempting to conceal the wrongdoi...
bid government contracts through the use of a “bag man,” a well-known label for a      person who assists a public officia...
public official and therefore will exchange government contracts for cash if elected      Mayor.      70.      The August ...
se and slanderous per se because it imputed criminal conduct, crimes of dishonesty,      and/or unfitness in Plaintiff’s c...
77.     On or about September 26, 2012, and at other times, Defendants caused a      political advertisement to be publish...
illegal campaign contributions, stating: “WOMAN: Half a million in illegalcontributions? MAN: It’s all here in black and w...
asserting that Plaintiff gave government contracts in exchange for illegal campaign      contributions.The October 12, 201...
89.     Multiple respected commentators, authors and public figures or public officialshave stated publicly at various tim...
Carpenters Union/PRP claim, in a huge headline: “Cayetano took      $500,000 in illegal contributions.”      Two big probl...
We would not have closed out the account if he owed money to someone or he owedmoney to us” and “It is bogus to come back ...
explained that candidates often dont know they have received illegal campaign       contributions because the person or co...
Ironically, current misleading attack ads harken back to the days before       reforms signed by Cayetano. Donor lists are...
uncovered many interesting trends: Many of the Architects and Engineers weredonating but felt that they were not getting t...
103.    On October 19, Civil Beat referred to Defendants’ publications as a “smearcampaign.” On information and belief, Pl...
REQUEST FOR RELIEFWHEREFORE, Plaintiff Cayetano prays for relief as follows:A.     For compensatory general and special da...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Cayetano libel complaint

2,822 views

Published on

Former Hawaii Gov. Ben Cayetano's defamation complaint against the Pacific Resource Partnership.

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Cayetano libel complaint

  1. 1. BICKERTON LEE DANG & SULLIVAN, LLLPJAMES J. BICKERTON 3085745 Fort Street, Suite 801Honolulu, Hawaii 96813Telephone: (808) 599-3811Fax: (808) 533-2467E-mail:bickerton@bsds.com;MICHAEL J. GREEN 4451Davies Pacific CenterSuite 2201841 Bishop StreetHonolulu, Hawaii 96813Telephone: (808) 521-3336E-mail: michaeljgreen@hawaii.rr.comAttorneys for PlaintiffBENJAMIN J. CAYETANO IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT STATE OF HAWAII
  2. 2. BENJAMIN J. CAYETANO, ))) CIVIL NO. ________________ ))) (Other Civil Tort: Defamation) Plaintiff, ))) ) COMPLAINT ; DEMAND FOR JURY vs. ) TRIAL; SUMMONS )))HAWAII CARPENTERS UNION )))MARKET RECOVERY FUND dba )PACIFIC RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP; )JOHN D. WHITE, JR.; HAWAII )CARPENTERS’ UNION; PACIFIC )RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PAC; )HOAKEA COMMUNICATIONS LLC; )BARBARA J. TANABE; JIM MCCOY; )SEAN NEWCAMP; THALIA CHOY; )ALAN SHINTANI; STEVEN HIDANO;GERARD SAKAMOTO; MARKKUPAHU; WILLIE MAGLINTI;LEONARD HOSHIJO; LANCEYOSHIMURA; KEN KAWAMOTO; BILLWILSON; LANCE INOUYE; CRAIGFUKUDA; DARREN HO; JOHN DOES1-50; JANE DOES 1-50; DOE ENTITIES1-50, Defendants. COMPLAINT Comes now Plaintiff BENJAMIN J. CAYETANO, by and through his attorneys above-named, and for complaint against Defendants HAWAII CARPENTERS UNION MARKETRECOVERY FUND dba PACIFIC RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP; JOHN D. WHITE, JR.;HAWAII CARPENTERS’ UNION; PACIFIC RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PAC; HOAKEACOMMUNICATIONS LLC; BARBARA J. TANABE; JIM MCCOY; SEAN NEWCAMP;THALIA CHOY; ALAN SHINTANI; STEVEN HIDANO; GERARD SAKAMOTO; MARKKUPAHU; WILLIE MAGLINTI; LEONARD HOSHIJO; LANCE YOSHIMURA; KEN 2
  3. 3. KAWAMOTO; BILL WILSON; LANCE INOUYE; CRAIG FUKUDA; DARREN HO; JOHNDOES 1-50; JANE DOES 1-50; DOE ENTITIES 1-50, alleges and avers as follows: PARTIES, JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. Plaintiff BENJAMIN J. CAYETANO (hereinafter “Cayetano” or “Plaintiff Cayetano”) is and, at all times relevant hereto, was a resident of the City & County of Honolulu, State of Hawaii. Plaintiff is a former Governor of the State of Hawaii, and he is currently a candidate for election as the Mayor of the City and County of Honolulu, in a run-off election campaign that will culminate with the general election of November 6, 2012. 2. Defendant HAWAII CARPENTERS UNION MARKET RECOVERY FUND, dba PACIFIC RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP (“PRP”) is a trust fund operated by the HAWAII CARPENTERS’ UNION in concert with general contractors who are signatory to contracts with said union, and does business under the name “Pacific Resource Partnership” which is name not registered as a trade name or the name of any entity registered with the Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs. PRP is funded with contributions from said general contractors. The acts of PRP described herein were directed and controlled by its Board of Trustees, whose members are also named herein as Defendants, and were executed by Defendant White, its Executive Director. 3. Defendant JOHN D. WHITE, JR. (“Defendant White”) is and, at all times relevant hereto, was a resident of the City & County of Honolulu, State of Hawaii and is and was at all times relevant the Executive Director of PRP. 3
  4. 4. 4. Defendant HAWAII CARPENTERS’ UNION, also formally known as theUnited Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 745, AFL-CIO, is alabor union (“HCU”) is a labor union, with its principal place of business in the City &County of Honolulu, State of Hawaii.5. Defendant PACIFIC RESOURCE PARTNERSHIP PAC (“PRPPAC”) is a non-candidate Political Action Committee organized under the laws of Hawaii and registeredas such with the Campaign Spending Commission of the State of Hawaii. It is fundedby PRP and others acting at the behest and direction of PRP and the Defendant Trusteesidentified below.6. Defendant HOAKEA COMMUNICATIONS LLC (“Hoakea”) is and at all timesrelevant hereto was a Hawaii-registered limited liability company with its principalplace of business in the City & County of Honolulu.7. BARBARA J. TANABE (“Tanabe”) is and, at all times relevant hereto, was aresident of the City & County of Honolulu, State of Hawaii. Tanabe is a principal ofHoakea.8. JIM McCOY (“McCoy”) is and, at all times relevant hereto, was a resident ofthe City & County of Honolulu, State of Hawaii. McCoy is a principal of Hoakea.9. Defendants Hoakea, Tanabe, and McCoy are hereinafter referred to collectivelyas “the Hoakea Defendants.” The Hoakea Defendants are an advertising, marketing andpublic relations agency and its principals, respectively. The Hoakea Defendants wereretained by Defendants PRP, PRPPAC, and White to prepare advertising copy for PRPand PRPPAC attacking Plaintiff and to arrange for the publication of suchadvertisements with television, radio, cable, and newspaper media and by direct-mail 4
  5. 5. advertising. Plaintiff is informed and believes that the Hoakea Defendants preparedmost, if not all, of the advertisements that are cited in this Complaint as containing falseand defamatory statements about Plaintiff, and caused them to be published intelevision, radio, cable, and newspaper media and by direct mail. The HoakeaDefendants knew or had a high degree of awareness of the probable falsity of theadvertisements that they prepared these advertisements.10. SEAN NEWCAMP (“Newcamp”) is and at all times relevant hereto was aresident of the City & County of Honolulu, State of Hawaii and is and was a trustee ofPRP at said times.11. THALIA CHOY (“Choy”) is and at all times relevant hereto was a resident ofthe City & County of Honolulu, State of Hawaii and is and was a trustee of PRP at saidtimes.12. ALAN SHINTANI (“Shintani”) is and at all times relevant hereto was a residentof the City & County of Honolulu, State of Hawaii and is and was a trustee of PRP atsaid times.13. STEVEN HIDANO (“Hidano”) is and at all times relevant hereto was a residentof the City & County of Honolulu, State of Hawaii and is and was a trustee of PRP atsaid times.14. GERARD SAKAMOTO (“Sakamoto”) is and at all times relevant hereto was aresident of the City & County of Honolulu, State of Hawaii and is and was a trustee ofPRP at said times. 5
  6. 6. 15. MARK KUPAHU (“Kupahu”) is and at all times relevant hereto was a residentof the City & County of Honolulu, State of Hawaii and is and was a trustee of PRP atsaid times.16. WILLIE MAGLINTI (“Maglinti”) is and at all times relevant hereto was aresident of the City & County of Honolulu, State of Hawaii and is and was a trustee ofPRP at said times.17. LEONARD HOSHIJO (“Hoshijo”) is and at all times relevant hereto was aresident of the City & County of Honolulu, State of Hawaii and is and was a trustee ofPRP at said times.18. LANCE YOSHIMURA (“Yoshimura”) is and at all times relevant hereto was aresident of the City & County of Honolulu, State of Hawaii and is and was a trustee ofPRP at said times.19. KEN KAWAMOTO (“Kawamoto”) is and at all times relevant hereto was aresident of the City & County of Honolulu, State of Hawaii and is and was a trustee ofPRP at said times.20. BILL WILSON (“Wilson is and at all times relevant hereto was a resident of theCity & County of Honolulu, State of Hawaii and is and was a trustee of PRP at saidtimes.21. LANCE INOUYE (“Inouye”) is and at all times relevant hereto was a residentof the City & County of Honolulu, State of Hawaii and is and was a trustee of PRP atsaid times. 6
  7. 7. 22. CRAIG FUKUDA (“Fukuda”) is and at all times relevant hereto was a residentof the City & County of Honolulu, State of Hawaii and is and was a trustee of PRP atsaid times.23. DARREN HO (“Ho”) is and at all times relevant hereto was a resident of theCity & County of Honolulu, State of Hawaii and is and was a trustee of PRP at saidtimes.24. Defendants Newcamp, Choy, Shintani, Hidano, Sakamoto, Kupahu, Maglinti,Hoshijo, Yoshimura, Kawamoto, Wilson, Inouye, Fukuda, and Ho are hereinafterreferred to collectively as “the Trustee Defendants”. They are sued herein personally fortheir actions, acts, and omissions as trustees of PRP.25. JOHN DOES 1-50; JANE DOES 1-50; DOE ENTITIES 1-50 (hereinaftercollectively referred to as “Doe Defendants”) are persons or entities whose names,identities, and capacities are presently unknown to Plaintiff and who are or may beliable to Plaintiff for actions alleged in this complaint and may be responsible for thedamages to Plaintiff alleged herein. They include those persons who (a) drafted and/orauthored the published statements at issue, (b) provided and/or arranged for the fundingof the publication of said statements, (c) planned and/or directed the publication and thetiming and scope thereof and (d) otherwise caused the defamatory statements at issueherein to be published. Plaintiff has undertaken a diligent and good faith effort toascertain the names and identities of Doe Defendants, including interviews of witnesses,review of court records, public media and other public records, and a review of therecords of businesses and trade entities at the Hawaii State Department of Commerceand Consumer Affairs and the Department of Taxation, and Plaintiff will continue his 7
  8. 8. efforts to try and determine their identities. Plaintiff prays leave to amend thisComplaint to insert their true names, identities, capacities, activities and/orresponsibilities when they are ascertained.26. The Court has jurisdiction over Defendants and the claims set forth belowbecause this cause is a cause not given by statute to other trial courts and the amount incontroversy exceeds the jurisdictional minimum of this Court.27. Venue is proper in this Circuit pursuant to Hawaii Revised Statutes (“H.R.S.”) §603-36(5) because the named Defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction here andregularly reside or conduct business in this Circuit, and because all or a substantial partof the transactions, events, occurrences, or omissions giving rise to the claims assertedherein occurred and continue to occur in this Circuit.28. Defendants are parties who are taking advantage of recent court rulingsdeclaring the expenditure of large sums of corporate money to be “speech” entitled toFirst Amendment protection. But free speech is always subject to the limits of the lawof defamation. Accordingly those persons who claim their expenditures are “speech”must be held accountable when their “speech” enters an area that is not protected by theFirst Amendment – false and defamatory speech made about a public figure withknowledge of its falsity or a high a degree of awareness of its probable falsity. Thus,Plaintiff herein sues not only those who wrote and published the speech, but also thosewho have financed and funded it under the guise of a judicially-created “free speech”exception to traditional campaign spending laws. The courts have permitted this newsystem of “money as speech” to arise and Plaintiff now asks the Court to set the outerlimit of such “speech” and rule that it does not include financing the publication of false 8
  9. 9. and defamatory statements that the financing parties know to be false and defamatoryand/or publish them with an actionable state of mind. Accordingly, those persons andentities that fund such false and defamatory statements must face accountability in thesame way that authors and publishers of such false and defamatory statements havetraditionally been held accountable.29. In February and March 2012, Plaintiff enjoyed an excellent reputation as a long-serving public official of integrity and independence. As a result, as he campaigned forthe office of Mayor of Honolulu, a March 2012 poll by the Civil Beat online publicationshowed Plaintiff with 53% of potential Honolulu voters indicating a preference forPlaintiff over his two main rivals.30. In March 2012, a federal judge ruled that Hawaii’s longstanding $1000 limit onthe dollar amounts of contributions to political action committees (“PACs”) wasunconstitutional under Citizens United and that the law could place no dollar limit onsuch contributions, because they constitute “speech”.31. Following that ruling, Defendants initiated a plan [hereinafter “the plan”] to payfor, author and publish, using a PAC, a barrage of advertisements in print media,broadcast media and internet media to spread false statements about Plaintiff that theyknow to be false or about which they harbor serious doubts. These statements stated orimplied that Plaintiff was and will continue to be a corrupt public official who has in thepast, and therefore likely will in the future, knowingly received and kept illegaldonations, kept those donations in disobedience of orders requiring him to return them,and illegally and/or criminally, personally solicited and accepted bribes in the form of 9
  10. 10. campaign contributions in quid pro quo exchange for government contracts, including“no-bid contracts,” under what the Defendants label “an extensive pay-to-play scheme.”32. The plan has been has been funded by Defendant PRP, which is claimed to bethe sole funder of PRPPAC according to the records of the Campaign SpendingCommission of the State of Hawaii (“Campaign Spending Commission”).33. PRPPAC has in turn expended over $1.2 million publishing the advertisementscomplained of herein since its creation earlier this year.34. PRP and the actions of PRPPAC are directed on a day to day basis by DefendantWhite and its overall strategy is overseen and controlled by the Trustee Defendants whoin turn are closely affiliated with and take their direction with respect to the plan fromthe leadership of Defendant HCU.35. The PRP funds that are given to PRPPAC and are used to fund publication of thefalse and defamatory advertisements are given to PRP by certain Doe Defendants (“theFunding Doe Defendants”) whose identity PRP has thus far concealed. The FundingDoe Defendants have representatives among the Trustee Defendants. These FundingDoe Defendants are aware of and make their contributions to PRP with the knowledgethat the contributions are and will be used to fund the publication of false anddefamatory speech harmful to Plaintiff, and as to which these Funding Doe Defendantshave the requisite wrongful and actionable state of mind.36. Under this system, the Defendants other than Defendants HCU, PRP and theFunding Doe Defendants are the agents of Defendants HCU, PRP and the Funding DoeDefendants, and Defendants HCU, PRP and the Funding Doe Defendants are thereforeliable under the law of respondeat superior and agency law for the tortious conduct of 10
  11. 11. the other Defendants. All Defendants named herein have engaged in a civil conspiracy to commit the torts complained of herein and for that reason each also is liable for the wrongful acts of the others. 37. In or about May 2012, PRP began to air a commercial about Plaintiff receiving campaign contributions in his past gubernatorial campaign in which donors broke the law. Although this commercial was described by a neutral observer in the press as “vicious and misleading,” he also observed that “PRPs May argument was largely ignored.” Accordingly, PRP decided to increase the impact of its advertisements by publishing campaign advertisements accusing Plaintiff of illegal and criminal acts in breaking election laws, knowingly keeping and refusing to repay over $500,000 in illegal donations in violation of law, and acts of public corruption in exchanging cash for government contracts.The Push Poll Statements 38. Also in May 2012, PRP arranged for and conducted a “push poll” in which potential voters are asked questions under the guise of a poll, but the questions contain assertions of fact designed or intended to influence voter opinion rather than merely solicit existing opinions. In the push poll questionnaire that was put to a substantial number of voters on Oahu, PRP’s agents stated: “While governor, Cayetano accepted nearly five hundred thousand dollars in illegal campaign contributions. Many of the donors of these illegal contributions later received millions of dollars in no-bid contracts from the state. When authorities discovered this illegal activity, they required Cayetano to pay the money back, but he used a loophole in the law to avoid giving it back.” (Hereinafter the “push poll statements,” emphasis added). 11
  12. 12. 39. The push poll statements, when read in the whole with their natural and ordinarymeaning and innuendo, have the meaning that Plaintiff, while serving as a publicofficial (a) accepted half a million dollars in political campaign donations knowing thatthey were in excess of then-existing contribution limits or made by donors in falsenames to avoid those limits, (b) was ordered to pay half a million dollars, (c) disobeyedthat order and kept half a million dollars in illegal donations for his own use and (d)personally caused non-bid government contracts to be granted to such donors in quidpro quo exchange for these and other campaign donations.40. Meaning (a) was conveyed by the push poll statements read as a whole but inparticular by the words “Cayetano accepted nearly five hundred thousand dollars inillegal campaign contributions,” with the word “accepted” implying to the ordinarylistener that Plaintiff was aware at the time of the donations that the conduct of thedonors was illegal.41. Meanings (b) and (c) were conveyed by the push poll statements read as awhole but in particular by the words: “When authorities discovered this illegal activity,they required Cayetano to pay the money back, but he used a loophole in the law toavoid giving it back.” (Emphasis added).42. Meaning (d) was carried by the push poll statements read as a whole but inparticular by the immediate juxtaposition of the statement about accepting illegaldonations with the statement that these illegal donors received no-bid contracts,implying a direct quid pro quo link between the two. The statements when readtogether in context mean and imply that, when he was Governor, Plaintiff knowinglyand willfully personally arranged for a direct exchange of state contracts for campaign 12
  13. 13. contributions. As such, the statements accuse Plaintiff of criminal conduct in violationof state bribery laws, which make such conduct a crime.43. Meanings (a), (b), (c) and (d), both separately and together, are (1) defamatoryas tending to harm Plaintiff’s reputation by lowering his estimation in the eyes of thecommunity and (2) defamatory per se because they impute criminal conduct, crimes ofdishonesty, and/or unfitness in Plaintiff’s chosen profession as a public official(hereinafter “defamatory per se”, “libel per se” or “slander per se” as the case may be).44. The push poll statements were and are false, and were published by Defendantswith knowledge of their falsity or with a high degree of awareness of their probablefalsity and without a good faith or honest belief in their truth.45. In furtherance of Defendants’ plan, on or about June 1, 2012, Defendants PRPand White formed and registered PRPPAC with the Campaign Spending Commissionfor the purpose of allowing PRPPAC to accept funds from PRP and to expend suchfunds as a “non-candidate committee” for the purpose of attacking Plaintiff inwidespread media publications falsely asserting that Plaintiff has engaged in illegalconduct including the crime of bribery.46. A statement that a public official has engaged or intends to engage in an“extensive pay-to-play scheme” is an allegation of the crime of bribery because itasserts that the person, while a public official, accepted a pecuniary benefit with theintent that the person’s actions as a public official would thereby be influenced.47. Hawaii law provides in HRS Section 710-1040 that:(1) A person commits the offense of bribery if: . . . . 13
  14. 14. (b) While a public servant, the person solicits, accepts, or agrees to accept, directly or indirectly, any pecuniary benefit with the intent that the persons vote, opinion, judgment, exercise of discretion, or other action as a public servant will thereby be influenced. . . . (3) For purposes of this section, "public servant" includes in addition to persons who occupy the position of public servant as defined in section 710-1000(15), persons who have been elected, appointed, or designated to become a public servant although not yet occupying that position. (4) Bribery is a class B felony. . . .The PRPPAC Website “www.readbensrecord.com” 48. On or about June 19, 2012, PRP acting through PRPPAC set up a website at www.readbensrecord.com (“the Website”). The Website is owned by certain Doe Defendants who have elected to keep their ownership secret by registering the Website through the use of a company called Domains By Proxy, LLC that keeps the owners’ identities secret. The Website states on its home page that it is “paid for” by PRPPAC, which has disclosed PRP as its only donor. PRP has refused media requests to identify its donors, so that the identities of the persons indirectly funding the Website through PRPPAC are kept secret from the public and are consequently unknown to Plaintiff and to the general public. 49. The Website contained and continues to publish statements that, when read in the whole with their natural and ordinary meaning and innuendo, have the meaning that Plaintiff, while serving as a public official (a) accepted half a million dollars in political campaign donations knowing that they were in excess of then-existing contribution limits or made by donors in false names to avoid those limits, (b) was ordered to pay back half a million dollars, (c) disobeyed that order and kept half a million dollars in illegal donations for his own use and (d) personally caused non-bid government 14
  15. 15. contracts to be granted to such donors in quid pro quo exchange for these and othercampaign donations.50. Meaning (a) was conveyed by the Website read as a whole but in particular bythe headline words “Cayetano accepted $543K+ in illegal contributions,” with the word“accepted” implying to the ordinary reader that Plaintiff had awareness of the illegalconduct of the donors.51. Meanings (b) and (c) were conveyed by the Website read as a whole but inparticular by the words: “The Campaign Spending Commission ordered former Gov.Ben Cayetano to pay $540,625 to the states Election Fund to cover the illegalcontributions he accepted. However, he only repaid $8,655.68, leaving an outstandingbalance of $531,969.32.” (Emphasis added).52. Meaning (d) was carried by the Website read as a whole but in particular byDefendants’ use on the Website of the statement that Plaintiff’s actions were part of an“extensive pay-to-play scheme involving firms with state contracts.” This statementcontinues to appear on the Website and the same or similar statements about “pay-to-play” have been repeated in other paid television, cable, radio, and newspaperadvertisements by Defendants.53. The reference to an “extensive pay-to-play scheme involving firms with statecontracts” means and implies that, when he was Governor or running for re-election asGovernor, Plaintiff personally, knowingly and willfully, arranged for a direct exchangeof state contracts for campaign contributions. As such, the reference to a “pay-to-play”scheme accuses Plaintiff of criminal conduct in violation of state bribery laws, whichmake such conduct a crime. 15
  16. 16. 54. Meanings (a), (b), (c) and (d), separately and together, are (1) defamatory astending to harm Plaintiff’s reputation by lowering his estimation in the eyes of thecommunity and (2) libelous per se because they impute criminal conduct, crimes ofdishonesty, and/or unfitness in Plaintiff’s chosen profession as a public official.55. The aforesaid statements at the Website were and are false, and were and arebeing published by Defendants with knowledge of their falsity or a high degree ofawareness of their probable falsity and without a good faith or honest belief in theirtruth.56. Defendants’ awareness and lack of good faith or honest belief are reflected bythe facts that through their own research into the acts of the Campaign SpendingCommission and/or multiple public media accounts and reports analyzing thestatements by Defendants complained of herein, Defendants are and were at all relevanttimes aware and made aware, among other things, that: (a) Plaintiff was unaware of anycontribution being made in excess of applicable limits when it was made and Plaintiffwas unaware of any contribution being made under a false name when it was made; (b)persons who made such contributions made them to numerous candidates, many ofwhom Defendants know or have acknowledged are not involved in “pay-to-playschemes;” (c) Plaintiff did not keep or use any money after being advised of the natureof the donations by the Campaign Spending Commission; (d) Plaintiff complied with allcampaign laws and paid back all of the funds remaining in his campaign treasury uponbeing apprised by the Campaign Spending Commission that the donors had actedillegally; (e) at least one Defendant (Defendant White) has publicly admitted thatPlaintiff complied with the campaign finance law with respect to his handling of the 16
  17. 17. donations deemed illegal; (f) such donors received as many or more government contracts from other administrations than they received from Plaintiff’s administration when he was Governor; (g) persons who have admitted making such contributions as part of plea agreements or sentencing proceedings have never implicated Plaintiff in any “pay-to play” scheme even though such prosecutions ended the political careers of others; and (h) several respected and neutral reporters, commentators and officials, including Robert Watada, Richard Borreca, Dan Boylan, David Shapiro, Ian Lind and Joe Moore have publicly stated that the statements by Defendants are false or “bogus” or misleading yet Defendants have continued to repeat them after being so advised and the Website remains in place with the statements described herein displayed as of the date of filing of this suit.The June Television Advertisement 57. On or about June 20, 2012, Defendants broadcasted the following television advertisement: “ANNOUNCER: Excuse me. Have you seen the facts about Ben Cayetano’s illegal contributions?” ON SCREEN: CAYETANO TOOK $500,000 IN ILLEGAL CONTRIBUTIONS. “ACTOR A: (looks down at document) Half a million in illegal contributions?” “ACTOR B: (looks down at document) It’s all here. In black and white.” “ACTOR C: (looks down at document) That’s incredible. Did he have to give it back? ON SCREEN: NOPE. CAYETANO FOUND A LOOPHOLE. “ANNOUNCER: Nope. He found a loophole. He’s keeping the money.” (Emphasis added). (Hereinafter “the June 20 Statement”). The June 20 Statement was republished by Defendants on other dates. The June 20 Statement had the natural and ordinary meaning that Plaintiff had been advised that half a million dollars of campaign 17
  18. 18. contributions was illegal and that he had nevertheless thereafter decided to keep the half million dollars for his own use. 58. The statement that Plaintiff has kept or is keeping substantial sums of money that he knew were donated illegally is wholly false and defamatory. The statement is defamatory per se in that it asserts Plaintiff engaged in illegal activity because the law required a candidate to return campaign donations once he knew the donations were illegal and Plaintiff allegedly failed and refused to do so. The statement was made with knowledge of its falsity or a high degree of awareness of its probable falsity and a lack of good faith or honest belief in its truth because Defendant White has admitted he knew Plaintiff did not contravene the law in question, and Defendant White and PRP were aware from public records, copies of which were in White’s possession, that Plaintiff (a) had not kept any illegally donated campaign funds, (b) had not spent any such funds after being advised by the Campaign Spending Commission of the illegality of their donation and (c) had returned all such sums remaining in his possession to the Campaign Spending Commission as required by law. 59. The June 20 Statement was and is (1) defamatory as tending to harm Plaintiff’s reputation by lowering his estimation in the eyes of the community and (2) libelous and slanderous per se because it imputed criminal conduct, crimes of dishonesty, and/or unfitness in Plaintiff’s chosen profession as a public official. 60. The June 20 Statement was and is false, and was published by Defendants with knowledge of its falsity or a high degree of awareness of its probable falsity and without a good faith or honest belief in its truth.The July and August Advertisements 18
  19. 19. 61. In July through October 2012, Defendants caused the publication of series of radio and television advertisements that falsely asserted that Plaintiff was the organizer of a bribery scheme while running for and holding public office, knowingly took illegal campaign contributions, failed to pay back money to the Campaign Spending Commission that he was required by law to pay back and kept $500,000 in illegal donations for his own use. These statements were a planned whole and were designed to be heard and understood together and to have an individual and cumulative impact of creating a false impression of corruption, law breaking and greed by Plaintiff in the eyes and mind of the community.The July 12, 2012 Radio Advertisement 62. For example, on or about July 12, 2012 and at other times, Defendants caused a radio advertisement to be aired on various Oahu radio stations and thereby be heard and seen by a large segment of the public. That advertisement falsely asserted that Plaintiff knowingly took illegal campaign contributions, had been charged with doing so by the Campaign Spending Commission and had failed to pay back money to the Campaign Spending Commission that he was required by law to pay back. The advertisement stated about Plaintiff that: “[H]e’s been called out for taking $500,000 in illegal contributions including thousands from fake donors. Ben Cayetano’s blood is boiling because, when state authorities required him to return the illegal contributions, he used a loophole to avoid giving the money back” (hereinafter “the July 12 Statement”). 63. The July 12 Statement, in particular the words that Plaintiff had been “called out” and “required” to return funds and “avoid[ed] giving the money back,” placed Plaintiff in a false light and falsely implied that the Campaign Spending Commission or 19
  20. 20. other state authority had accused Plaintiff of wrongdoing, that Plaintiff had been attempting to conceal the wrongdoing, that Plaintiff did not follow the requirements of the law in handling the funds in question and that Plaintiff had kept $500,000 for his own purposes even after being advised that the funds had been illegally donated and should be returned. 64. The July 12 Statement was and is (1) defamatory as tending to harm Plaintiff’s reputation by lowering his estimation in the eyes of the community and (2) slanderous per se because it imputed criminal conduct, crimes of dishonesty, and/or unfitness in Plaintiff’s chosen profession as a public official. 65. The July 12 Statement was and is false, and was published by Defendants with knowledge of its falsity or a high degree of awareness of its probable falsity and without a good faith or honest belief in its truth.The July 27, 2012 Statement 66. On or about July 27, 2012, with the primary election just two weeks away, Defendant White told a news reporter the following oral statement with the intention and knowledge that it would be widely re-published in the Star-Advertiser newspaper and read by its readers: “Cayetano and his bag man are desperate to keep the pressure on contractors and they will do whatever it takes to win, because they need Cayetano to give them no-bid government contracts” (hereinafter the July 27 Statement”). The July 27 Statement was part of defendants’ overall plan to smear Plaintiff as a corrupt public official and, whether read together with Defendants’ other statements about Plaintiff as intended, or standing alone, falsely implied that Plaintiff had personally engaged in and would engage in a corrupt quid pro quo scheme of trading government contracts for no- 20
  21. 21. bid government contracts through the use of a “bag man,” a well-known label for a person who assists a public official in committing acts of public corruption. 67. The July 27 Statement was and is (1) defamatory as tending to harm Plaintiff’s reputation by lowering his estimation in the eyes of the community and (2) slanderous per se because it imputed criminal conduct, crimes of dishonesty, and/or unfitness in Plaintiff’s chosen profession as a public official. 68. The July 27 Statement was and is false, and was published by Defendants with knowledge of its falsity or a high degree of awareness of its probable falsity and without a good faith or honest belief in its truth.The August 1, 2012 Television Advertisement 69. On or about August 1, 2012, and at other times, Defendants caused a political advertisement to be broadcast on various television stations and thereby be heard and seen by a large segment of the public. That advertisement falsely asserted that Plaintiff gave government contracts in exchange for illegal campaign contributions by using the following language: “ANNOUNCER: Remember that Pay-to-Play Game? Government contracts for campaign cash? Well, no-one played it better than Ben Cayetano.” (Emphasis added). The advertisement went on to state: “And illegal donors got no-bid contracts during Cayetano’s administration. Now we learn that Cayetano is still playing.” (Emphasis added). The statements made in the August 1 television advertisement are referred to hereinafter collectively as “the August 1, 2012 Statement”. The ordinary and usual meaning of the August 1, 2012 statement was that Plaintiff has personally engaged in bribery and quid pro quo contracts for donations in the past as a 21
  22. 22. public official and therefore will exchange government contracts for cash if elected Mayor. 70. The August 1 Statement is (1) defamatory as tending to harm Plaintiff’s reputation by lowering his estimation in the eyes of the community and (2) libelous per se and slanderous per se because it imputed criminal conduct, crimes of dishonesty, and/or unfitness in Plaintiff’s chosen profession as a public official. 71. The August 1 Statement was and is false, and was published by Defendants with knowledge of its falsity or a high degree of awareness of its probable falsity and without a good faith or honest belief in its truth.The August 8, 2012 Television Advertisement 72. On or about August 8, 2012 and at other times, Defendants caused a political advertisement to be published on various television stations and thereby be heard and seen by a large segment of the public. That advertisement falsely asserted that Plaintiff gave government contracts in exchange for illegal campaign contributions by stating: “Remember that Pay-to-Play Game? Government contracts for campaign cash? Well, now Ben Cayetano wants another turn.” (Hereinafter “the August 8, 2012 Statement,” emphasis added). The usual and ordinary meaning of this statement was that Plaintiff has personally engaged in bribery and quid pro quo contracts for donations in the past as a public official and therefore will exchange government contracts for cash if elected Mayor. 73. The August 8 Statement is (1) defamatory as tending to harm Plaintiff’s reputation by lowering his estimation in the eyes of the community and (2) libelous per 22
  23. 23. se and slanderous per se because it imputed criminal conduct, crimes of dishonesty, and/or unfitness in Plaintiff’s chosen profession as a public official. 74. The August 8 Statement was and is false, and was published by Defendants with knowledge of its falsity or a high degree of awareness of its probable falsity and without a good faith or honest belief in its truth. 75. The Honolulu mayoral primary election took place on August 11, 2012. Although Plaintiff finished with the highest vote total, the last minute barrage of false advertisement had an impact on his reputation, and he garnered only 44% of the votes cast, forcing him into a run-off with Kirk Caldwell. 76. Following substantial and harsh criticism by respected neutral observers described in more detail elsewhere herein, in which several independent and impartial observers pointed out the falsity of the statements about Plaintiff, and to avoid a backlash from the public, Defendants temporarily stopped airing these false advertisements for a period of time in August and September 2012. However, polls in this period showed Plaintiff leading Caldwell substantially (an early October Civil Beat polled showed Plaintiff ahead by 51% to 42%). Defendants realized that the advertisements, despite their falsity, had had an impact in July and August and therefore represented their last chance to defeat Plaintiff at the polls if published widely and extensively enough. Thus, in the final six weeks of the 2012 election period, Defendants resumed their media false advertisement assault, airing the advertisements almost daily on television so that they were seen by a large segment of the public.The September 26, 2012 Statement 23
  24. 24. 77. On or about September 26, 2012, and at other times, Defendants caused a political advertisement to be published on various television stations and thereby be heard and seen by a large segment of the public. That advertisement falsely asserted that Plaintiff gave government contracts in exchange for illegal campaign contributions by using the following audio and visual elements: “ANNOUNCER: But Ben Cayetano: Half a million in illegal contributions. Many donors got no-bid contracts. We don’t need Pay-to-Play in Honolulu Hale.” (Hereinafter “the September 26 Statement”, emphasis added). While the emphasized language was being played, the advertisement displayed a text graphic that stated: CAYETANO Pay to Play. The plain and ordinary meaning of the September 26 Statement was that Plaintiff has personally engaged in bribery in the past as a public official and therefore will exchange government contracts for cash if elected Mayor. 78. The September 26 Statement is (1) defamatory as tending to harm Plaintiff’s reputation by lowering his estimation in the eyes of the community and (2) libelous per se and slanderous per se because it imputed criminal conduct, crimes of dishonesty, and/or unfitness in Plaintiff’s chosen profession as a public official. 79. The September 26 Statement was and is false, and was published by Defendants with knowledge of its falsity or a high degree of awareness of its probable falsity and without a good faith or honest belief in its truth.The October 8, 2012 Television Advertisement 80. On or about October 8, 2012, and at other times, Defendants aired a television advertisement and thereby be heard and seen by a large segment of the public. That advertisement falsely asserted that Plaintiff gave government contracts in exchange for 24
  25. 25. illegal campaign contributions, stating: “WOMAN: Half a million in illegalcontributions? MAN: It’s all here in black and white. ANNOUNCER: And donors gotno-bid contracts during his administration. 2nd WOMAN: That’s Pay-to-Play.” (Hereinafter “the October 8 Statement”). The usual and ordinary meaning ofthis statement was that Plaintiff has personally engaged in bribery and quid pro quocontracts for donations in the past as a public official and therefore will exchangegovernment contracts for cash if elected Mayor.81. The October 8 Statement is (1) defamatory as tending to harm Plaintiff’sreputation by lowering his estimation in the eyes of the community and (2) libelous perse and slanderous per se because it imputed criminal conduct, crimes of dishonesty,and/or unfitness in Plaintiff’s chosen profession as a public official.82. The October 8 Statement was and is false, and was published by Defendantswith knowledge of its falsity or a high degree of awareness of its probable falsity andwithout a good faith or honest belief in its truth.83. Among other media outlets, the October 8 Statement aired on October 8, 2012on KHON television. Immediately following the airing of the advertisement onKHON, news anchor Joe Moore stated on air the following independent comment: “Ifthere were truth in advertising, there would be a disclaimer at the end of thatcommercial, saying “Ben Cayetano was cleared of any wrong-doing in the illegalcontributions issue.”84. Despite this comment from Joe Moore, Defendants caused the same or verysimilar advertisement to be aired on Oahu television stations the very next day, October9, 2012 and at other times and have continued to air this and similar statements falsely 25
  26. 26. asserting that Plaintiff gave government contracts in exchange for illegal campaign contributions.The October 12, 2012 Television Advertisement 85. On or about October 12, 2012 and at other times including October 16, 2012, Defendants aired a television advertisement and thereby be heard and seen by a large segment of the public. That advertisement falsely asserted that Plaintiff gave government contracts in exchange for illegal campaign contributions, stating: “Ben Cayetano received 1/2 million dollars in illegal contributions. And illegal donors got millions in no-bid contracts during his administration. Now, Cayetano is back to his old tricks.” 86. The usual and ordinary meaning of the October 12 Statement was that Plaintiff has personally engaged in bribery and quid pro quo contracts for donations in the past as a public official and therefore will exchange government contracts for cash if elected Mayor. 87. The October 12 Statement is (1) defamatory as tending to harm Plaintiff’s reputation by lowering his estimation in the eyes of the community and (2) libelous per se and slanderous per se because it imputed criminal conduct, crimes of dishonesty, and/ or unfitness in Plaintiff’s chosen profession as a public official. 88. The October 12 Statement was and is false, and was published by Defendants with knowledge of its falsity or a high degree of awareness of its probable falsity and without a good faith or honest belief in its truth.Comments By Respected Public Figures 26
  27. 27. 89. Multiple respected commentators, authors and public figures or public officialshave stated publicly at various times since June 2012 that that the advertisementcampaign by Defendants is false and without foundation in fact, thereby repeatedlygiving Defendants notice and awareness of the falsity of their statements that Plaintiffknowingly accepted illegal contributions, refused and disobeyed an order to return suchcontributions, kept them for his own benefit, and gave government contracts in quid proquo exchange for such donations, thereby engaging in bribery as a public official.90. In May 2012, Hawaii Campaign Spending Commission General Counsel GaryKam told Civil Beat that the characterization by PRP of the Commission’s request forrepayment was not accurate and the law relied on by Cayetano was “not a loophole”,noting that candidates were only required to refund whatever remaining unspent fundsthey had on hand when they received notification that a donation had been madeillegally. This statement by Kam was reported by Civil Beat on its Website, and Plaintiffis informed and believes that Defendants White, Tanabe, McCoy and others read thatreport within a few days of its publication.91. On June 20, 2012, respected investigative journalist Ian Lind, who writes thewidely-read blog www.ilind.net, published the following statement that Plaintiff allegeson information and belief Defendants White, Tanabe, McCoy and others read:White is the front guy for the Carpenters Union, PRP, and the majorcontractors they have union agreements with, who have decided they needto turn their guns on former governor Ben Cayetano, apparently becausestraight-forward advocacy of Honolulu’s rail project has failed to swayvoters. So the Carpenters and PRP set up a new attack PAC, and launch agrossly misleading attack on Cayetano based on allegations from the 1998campaign season.The claims are false. 27
  28. 28. Carpenters Union/PRP claim, in a huge headline: “Cayetano took $500,000 in illegal contributions.” Two big problems with this claim. The biggest problem is that the Campaign Spending Commission never alleged that Cayetano’s campaign solicited or knowingly accepted illegal contributions, which it could have done had their extensive investigation turned up evidence of it. They did not. They did find evidence of some political players laundering contributions using the names of employees or relatives, or reimbursing them for contributions made to candidates. In other words, neither the Campaign Spending Commission nor prosecutors found Cayetano’s gubernatorial campaign to have violated campaign laws. But that’s not the takeaway from the new Carpenters Union/PRP PAC. It seeks to intentionally mislead voters. The Carpenters Union and PRP make it sound like Cayetano was personally receiving money and stuffing it in his pockets, this all involved campaign contributions made to Cayetano’s campaign committee. Then the Carpenters’ attack web site says Cayetano was order to pay back over $540,000 “to cover the illegal contributions he accepted.” Again, this is another false and misleading statement. Cayetano was not found to have accepted illegal contributions. Cayetano’s campaign committee, which was not found to have done anything wrong, nonetheless was obligated to return any contributions found to have been made in violation of state law, which they did until the bank account was dry and the campaign committee disbanded. That wasn’t a “loophole,” as the Carpenters would have us believe. It’s the way the law works.(Emphasis added). 92. On or about June 22, 2012, Richard Borreca (“Borreca”), senior political writer for the Honolulu Star-Advertiser, wrote a Star-Advertiser column describing the advertisements as “mysterious unsubstantiated attacks” and reported on an interview with retired Executive Director of the Campaign Spending Commission Robert Watada (“Watada”) whom he asked “if Cayetano did anything wrong.” According to Borreca’s article, Watada said "No." Borreca’s article further quoted Watada as saying: “We closed out the Cayetano account and there were no liabilities related to his campaign. 28
  29. 29. We would not have closed out the account if he owed money to someone or he owedmoney to us” and “It is bogus to come back now and say he didnt pay back money orsomething.” On information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants White, Tanabe,McCoy and other Defendants were aware of these statements by Borreca and Watadafrom that publication date or within a few days afterward.93. In the same article Borreca quoted Della Au Belatti (“Belatti”), who was aCommissioner of the Campaign Spending Commissioner during the time of theCommission’s investigation into the illegal contributions to Plaintiff’s campaign.According to Belatti as quoted by Borreca “Gov. Cayetano was never ever criminallyimpacted.” (Emphasis added).94. On July 4, Dan Boylan, a respected journalist writing for Midweek, commentedon the advertisements and the responsive statements by Watada and Belatti (who hassince been elected to the State House of Representatives), stating: “Watada and stateRep. Bellati (sic) are upright public servants. So is Cayetano.” On information andbelief, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants White, Tanabe, McCoy and other Defendantswere aware of these statements by Borreca and Watada from that publication date orwithin a few days afterward.95. On July 10, 2012, Watada attended a public press conference where he wasquoted as saying that Plaintiff was the most honest politician he knows, that theCampaign Spending Commission would not have closed Plaintiff’s campaign spendingaccount if he had done anything wrong, and that while there was a "pay to play culture"in Hawaii, Plaintiff’s campaign was cleared of any criminal wrongdoing as were thecampaigns of many other prominent politicians who were investigated. Watada also 29
  30. 30. explained that candidates often dont know they have received illegal campaign contributions because the person or company donating the money uses different names to get the money to the candidate. 96.The media reported Watada’s statements widely, including his statement aboutPlaintiff that: “I don’t think you’re going to find a more honest politician in this state.”1Defendants were well aware of Watada’s statements as they used one of them out of context inanother advertisement within a few days after the press conference. 97. On July 23, 2012 the Star-Advertiser published a column in the “Island Voices”section by Watada in which Watada said, among other things, that Cayetano had spearheadedcampaign finance reform and helped to end the practices that had been widespread before him: In 1995, Gov. Ben Cayetano, along with Sens. Rey Graulty and Les Ihara, led the charge to stop campaign finance corruption by signing into law Act 10 (Special Session SLH 1995), a far-reaching, 62-page bill that empowered an independent, nonpartisan commission to end many of the systems rampant problems. Cayetano also made good government and transparency priorities by funding the commission to invest in networked computers and begin development of the nations first electronic filing system so the public and media could easily review reports and file complaints. Today, campaign spending reports are filed on-line and are immediately available for review. Cayetanos additional funding allocations empowered the commission to investigate complaints with the hiring of an attorney and investigators who were authorized to subpoena records, conduct audits and field investigations, and levy administrative fines. Because of Act 10, signed by then-Gov. Cayetano, numerous politicians went to prison and more than 100 contractors were fined for making excessive contributions. Today, state contractors are prohibited from giving donations to any candidate committees.1 See msnbc.com, July 11, 2012: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/48143854/ns/local_news-honolulu_hi/t/former-campaign-spending-officials-lash-out-ad-campaign-targeting-cayetano/#.UAJKLnA1GuU 30
  31. 31. Ironically, current misleading attack ads harken back to the days before reforms signed by Cayetano. Donor lists are again secret, and the public is again at a disadvantage of knowing who the donors are behind some of these groups. Ben Cayetano is one of the most honest persons I know. He was a steadfast proponent for good government. He passed groundbreaking legislation that helped recruit qualified, independent commissioners and staff, gave them the tools to make long-overdue changes, allowed the commission to operate without political interference, and ended politically corrupt practices in place for decades.On information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants White, Tanabe, McCoy and otherDefendants were aware of these statements by Watada from that publication date or within afew days afterward. 98. On July 24, 2012, Borreca published an article in the Star-Advertiser describing PRP’s May advertisement as “a vicious and misleading commercial against Cayetano.” On information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants White, Tanabe, McCoy and other Defendants were aware of this statement by Borreca from that publication date or within a few days afterward. 99. On August 1, 2012, Watada wrote an op-ed column that was published in the Honolulu Weekly, in which he stated: “I have come forward to refute insinuations that Cayetano acted improperly with regard to false name contributions that had been made to his gubernatorial campaign. You can look at the records. His accusers are making things up.” (Emphasis added). On information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants White, Tanabe, McCoy and other Defendants were aware of this statement by Watada from that publication date or within a few days afterward. 100. On August 3, 2012, Bob Watada was quoted in an online newspaper and reported to have said that the Campaign Spending Commission investigators had 31
  32. 32. uncovered many interesting trends: Many of the Architects and Engineers weredonating but felt that they were not getting their share of contracts, and blamed theGovernor or Mayor. In other cases, contractors who did not give one cent to acandidate, received contracts, and a number of firms did not want to even compete forany State or County contracts, because of the perceived need to give. These statementsby Watada gave Defendants further awareness of the falsity of their statements thatPlaintiff personally engaged in an extensive “pay-to-play” scheme. On information andbelief, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants White, Tanabe, McCoy and other Defendantswere aware of these statements by Watada from that publication date or within a fewdays afterward.101. On October 3, 2012, columnist David Shapiro of the Star-Advertiser(“Shapiro”) stated that Defendants’ effort “to falsely malign the honesty of anti-railmayoral candidate Ben Cayetano, has a new ad repeating bogus claims that Cayetanoran a ‘pay to play’ scheme when he was governor.” (Emphasis added). On informationand belief, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants White, Tanabe, McCoy and otherDefendants were aware of these statements by Shapiro from that publication date orwithin a few days afterward.102. On October 17, 2012, Shapiro again published an article stating thatDefendants were falsely accusing anti-rail mayoral candidate Ben Cayetano of runninga "pay to play" scheme when he was governor. On information and belief, Plaintiffalleges that Defendants White, Tanabe, McCoy and other Defendants were aware ofthese statements by Shapiro from that publication date or within a few days afterward. 32
  33. 33. 103. On October 19, Civil Beat referred to Defendants’ publications as a “smearcampaign.” On information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants White, Tanabe,McCoy and other Defendants were aware of these statements by Civil Beat from thatpublication date or within a few days afterward.104. On information and belief, Defendants, who pay for pollsters and publicrelations professionals and who are experienced and sophisticated in politicalcampaigns, have read, seen or heard about all of the aforesaid comments byindependent and neutral professional journalists and past and present public officials,and yet have continued to publish their statements, without making any attempt toclarify or change the ordinary and usual meaning thereof, even after being told byothers that the statements were false and misleading.105. The publications have caused actual harm to Plaintiff and his reputation. Inaddition to damaging his good name, they have caused him embarrassment, distress andsadness at the tarnishing of a reputation for independence and integrity built up over alifetime, and have required him to expend substantial time in responding to thepublications and attempting to restore his good name.106. By virtue of the foregoing facts, Defendants are liable to Plaintiff jointly andseverally for the torts of libel and slander an Plaintiff is entitled to an award ofcompensatory damages against Defendants in amounts to be proved at trial.107. The conduct of defendants described herein demonstrates a willful andconscious disregard for civil obligations and is wanton and oppressive, thus warrantingthe imposition of punitive damages against Defendants in amounts to be proved at trialbut sufficient to punish defendants and deter them from repeating their conduct. 33
  34. 34. REQUEST FOR RELIEFWHEREFORE, Plaintiff Cayetano prays for relief as follows:A. For compensatory general and special damages in amounts to be proved at trial;B. For punitive damages in an amount to be proved at trial;C. For pre- and post-judgment interest and costs; andD. For such other and further relief as this Court deems just and equitable. DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, October 22, 2012. ____________________________ JAMES J. BICKERTON MICHAEL J. GREEN Attorneys for Plaintiff 34

×