ENCINITAS — A group of residents continues to seek legal remedies against Mayor Catherine Blakespear over her alleged censorship of critics on social media, recently filing a new notice of intent to move forward with litigation unless previous settlement terms are satisfied.
San Diego civil trial attorney Carla DiMare filed an amended notice on July 14 with the city of Encinitas on behalf of Robert Nichols, former chairman of the Surfing Madonna Oceans Project, and approximately 28 other “citizens’ rights advocates.”
DiMare, who replaces Carlsbad-based attorney Michael Curran, claims her client’s constitutional rights were violated when Blakespear restricted access to her official mayoral Facebook page and blocked certain users for expressing dissenting opinions.
The notice seeks an official apology from the mayor and $5,000 in attorneys fees in compensation.
In May, Nichols and the other plaintiffs filed a government tort claim against Blakespear and the city of Encinitas after the residents claimed Blakespear had violated the terms of a previous settlement agreement that had been reached between the two parties.
The mayor had agreed to issue a public apology to the residents on her official Facebook page, but Nichols and others criticized that apology for being disingenuous. Curran, the plaintiff’s attorney at the time, informed the city the settlement agreement was void and his clients would be moving forward with a tort claim.
The tort claim is against Blakespear, both as an official and a private citizen, and the city of Encinitas. The city will have 45 days to review the complaint to accept the claim and negotiate with the plaintiffs, deny the claim’s validity, or ignore the criticism altogether.
“Ms. Blakespear’s voiding of the settlement agreement or refusal to comply with the settlement agreement puts her in conflict with the city and damages the city,” the amended notice reads.
“The city could be held vicariously liable for its mayor’s misconduct, including voiding the settlement agreement and/or refusing to comply with the settlement agreement which she signed while acting within the scope of her employment with the city, which damaged my client (and other similarly situated people).”
DiMare stressed that her firm would not hesitate to take the city to court if Blakespear did not agree to the settlement terms.
“Mayor Catherine Blakespear deliberately deprived Encinitas residents of their constitutional right to free speech because she disagreed with them. Then she breached a settlement agreement that she signed,” DiMare said. “She also unjustifiably criticized the good people of Encinitas with her untrue, polarizing rant in May of 2022. She also tried to have her campaign pay for what she has characterized as a personal initiative.
“Blakespear is unfit to hold any political office, in my opinion. She should honor the settlement agreement and stop dragging down the great city of Encinitas with her bad behavior, otherwise, we will file a lawsuit after the amended notice period has passed.”
If the tort claim goes to state court, DiMare said that her firm would seek damages from the city in excess of $100,000.
But in comments made to The Coast News, Kevin Sabellico, Blakespear’s campaign manager in her race for the 38th State Senate District seat, said the mayor has no intention of agreeing to the new settlement terms offered in the amended notice, arguing the campaign had already satisfied the terms of the previous settlement agreement provided by Curran.
“This is just another politically motivated, right-wing attack on Mayor Blakespear. This is nothing more than a frivolous and blatantly partisan lawsuit,” Sabellico said. “Mayor Blakespear is not a senator, but as a candidate for the State Senate, she holds herself to the same high standards outlined in the California State Senate’s social media policy. The senate’s social media policy does not allow individuals to post comments which are harassing, abusive or spam. Repeated violations may result in the account losing access.”
The city of Encinitas declined to comment on the potential litigation.
Timeline
In April, Curran submitted a cease-and-desist letter to Blakespear on behalf of the plaintiffs, requesting that Blakespear allow residents to freely exchange their views on her Facebook posts without being blocked or having their comments deleted.
In response, Blakespear unblocked Nichols and others and eventually agreed to settle under the previously mentioned settlement terms while not admitting any wrongdoing.
While it is not illegal for a private individual to restrict public access to their personal social media accounts, recent federal rulings have determined the First Amendment can be violated if an elected officeholder restricts access to their social media page that is used in an official capacity.
Since Blakespear uses her official mayoral Facebook page to discuss city and regional business, all speech on such a forum is subject to First Amendment protections and free speech protections under California’s constitution, Curran and DiMare have both argued.
In her apology post via Facebook, Blakespear denied using the page in an official government capacity.
“My campaign social media page is not an official city-sponsored or city-funded social media page, and no decisions are being made by the government on my social media pages,” Blakespear wrote. “Politics on social media have become an incubator for hate and vitriol that turns too many civically engaged people away from the civic dialogue. As a woman serving in elected office, I have been the target of threatening and harassing comments on my social media and in my daily life — personal attacks, not simply ones disagreeing with my policy perspectives…
“…Recently, an attorney sent me a cease-and-desist letter on behalf of certain individuals and anonymous complainants who claimed they were not able to participate in my campaign Facebook page…In the cease-and-desist letter, the complainants threatened to sue me if they did not receive a public apology for their inability to participate. To that end, I publicly apologize to anyone who did not have full access to my campaign Facebook page or other social media accounts.”
In comments made to The Coast News, Nichols again criticized the apology as insincere and disparaging toward himself and other residents. Nichol also argued Blakespear’s censorship of critics on social media was a longstanding pattern of abusive behavior that forced the situation into the legal realm.
“Mayor Catherine Blakespear has willingly and knowingly been breaking the law and sworn oath of office for years,” Nichols said. “Over the years, many residents, including myself, have brought this to her attention and asked her to stop. She was given ample warning and refused to stop, continuing to delete public comments and block people from her official ‘Mayor Catherine Blakespear’ page.
“In the settlement agreement (Blakespear) signed, she was asked to apologize to those she blocked and make a settlement payment from her personal account. She did neither. Instead, she delivered an offensive and disparaging rant that labeled the residents she blocked as dangerous, threatening, and abusive. Some of these residents include a local firefighter, schoolteacher, several candidates for local office, a person with disabilities, a former planning commissioner, and concerned parents. These aren’t dangerous and threatening trolls, as she insinuates — these are concerned community members.”
39 comments
Blakespear is a non-pant-suited Hillary.
[How’d that work out?]
Totally support Blakespear!
seems like a nice lady to me … why so many people with their panties in a bunch? get over it, move on.
Maybe Catherine Blakespear could go back to school. I heard there may be an ex-Carlsbad council member who tried to pull the same stunt last year who is looking for a room-mate. That would work out great as they will be two of the oldest college students ever. It’s important to understand that although Schumacher is gone, a district candidate (Sam Ward) has the same backers and deep financial ties to Schumacher’s campaigns. As they say around the 92008 – You cant spell Schumacher without S A M.
As someone who has helped gather the 28 residents who were blocked, and there are many more whom I’ve spoken to, not a single person felt they received an apology.
The list included several school teachers, parents, Planning Commissioner, local firemen, a person with disabilities, a care taker, city employees. All were deeply hurt and offended with Catherine Blakespear’s non-apology rant and fabrications. We strongly feel that Blakespear was taking a victim approach as did the 700 people who commented on social media page regarding her statement.
Blakespear starts off her non-apology statement with – “As a woman serving in elected office, I have been the target of threatening and harassing comments on my social media and in my daily life — personal attacks, not simply ones disagreeing with my policy perspectives. My social media experience is part of my larger life experience as a female public official, including a direct rape threat texted to my personal cell phone number that addressed me by name, a large number of protesters outside my home where I live with my husband and children taunting me to come out, and being shouted at while going about my daily life, among other aggressions.” – Catherine Blakespear.
Does that sound like an apology?
Then she lies about blocking people stating…..
“I always welcome expressions of political and policy differences, including criticisms for my job performance as your mayor, and I would never try to infringe on anyone’s right to freedom of speech. As a former journalist and attorney, I understand and deeply believe that the core of our democracy is every citizen’s right to express their opinion.” – Catherine Blakespear. If she always welcomes expressions of political and policy differences, including criticisms for her job performance as mayor, then why did she block 28 people and delete all criticizing comments?
Then Blakespear says, “I would never infringe on anyone’s right to Freedom of Speech.” Another lie…Isn’t that exactly what she did when she blocked 28 people and deleted their comments. Her non-apology rant is fully of lies and fabrications.
Any representative such as Blakespear who continues to lie and pass the blame to other, all while paying for her mistakes with campaign donor funds, should not be in office.
Diane Bee- “Aside from other issues, she has seemingly coronated herself a state senator and is “abiding by the state senate code of ethics“. She claims that the state Senate does not allow certain types of comments. She is not a state senator. She is a city Councilwoman. Unbelievable how she seems to have assumed that she holds the office already. That’s an especially good reason not to vote for her. Unfit for office.” “She is in no position to claim this applies to her. https://www.senate.ca.gov/…/2021…”
Dr. Lorri Greene: “Last time I checked Blakespear is not in the State Senate, and she may not be, come November. She IS the Mayor of Encinitas and is subject to City rules NOT State Senate rules. In fact, does anyone know if that is even true about State Senators. She is in no position to claim this applies to her.”
“If a public official uses their account to communicate with the public in their role as an elected official, then their page or account is subject to the First Amendment, which protects free speech. That means they cannot engage in most forms of censorship such as blocking someone or deleting someone’s comments simply because of the subject or their opinion.
That’s because courts generally classify official social media pages for elected representatives and government organizations as “public forums”—meaning they have some of the strongest protections for free speech guaranteed by the First Amendment.” https://www.aclu-ia.org/en/know-your-rights/what-do-if-youre-censored-public-official-social-media
ACLU: “If a public official uses their account to communicate with the public in their role as an elected official, then their page or account is subject to the First Amendment, which protects free speech. That means they cannot engage in most forms of censorship such as blocking someone or deleting someone’s comments simply because of the subject or their opinion.
That’s because courts generally classify official social media pages for elected representatives and government organizations as “public forums”—meaning they have some of the strongest protections for free speech guaranteed by the First Amendment.”
https://www.aclu-ia.org/en/know-your-rights/what-do-if-youre-censored-public-official-social-media
Anyone who has watched Blakespear during city council meetings and witnessed the utter contempt with which she regards anyone who disagrees with her won’t be surprised by her behavior on social media or her failure to remedy her actions with a genuine apology. To say she’s dismissive of citizens who oppose her policies is an understatement. During public comments at council meetings, she makes a big show of texting and ignoring whoever is speaking unless it’s a crony. I’m a lifelong Democrat and will be voting for Matt Gunderson for state senator because I do not believe Blakespear, with her open hostility to the opinions of anyone who doesn’t share her complete (and often warped) world view, can represent me effectively in the legislature. (I never thought I’d say that about a fellow Dem.) She’s destroying Encinitas, and I shudder to think what additional damage she’ll ram through if she fails upward to the state senate.
Well stated Sara L.
I find it ridiculous that Kevin’s go to is to assume those who disagree with her are “Right Wing” when there were several, she blocked who once supported her.
Her “non-apology” apology was cringeworthy and I never did hear if she cut the check to even pay the settlement. She failed to properly execute an agreement, sadly, I am not surprised.
I can’t decide if I’m more insulted by Blakespear violating the most sacred of American values, or by her choice of campaign manager, a man child who brags about driving a Maserati while complaining about unaffordable housing and climate change. Both are completely unoriginal in approach.
Her page is clearly marked as a campaign page. When was the page created and what was the intention?
Oh, I see. Thankfully, Facebook offers transparency and shows the history of the page under the “about” section.
Her campaign Facebook page was created in 2014. Isn’t that before she was mayor?
Catherine Blakespear’s Facebook page is titled “Mayor Catherine Blakespear”, “Public Figure”. You can’t get much more official than that. Blakespear’s pages is absolutely an official page and has been conducting city business since 2014. A Facebook page whether it’s personal or campaign, it doesn’t matter. When it starts to conduct “City Business” it becomes an “Official Page”. Her page has acted as an “extension of her public office” for years now. She’s posted numerous agenda items, asked residents to vote and speak on certain city related issue, discussed council meetings. She’s discussed upcoming projects that only council members would know many times over the years from Streetscape, Pacific View, SANDAG, and the termination of certain Commissioner’s such as head Planning Commissioner, Bruce Ehlers. So yes, her page is definitely an official page.
She responded immediately to a Cease and Desist order from an attorney and unblocked nearly 30 community members from her Facebook page. She also signed a settlement agreement stating that she was illegally blocking people. She also tried to pay the settlement amount of $5,000, unfortunately she attempted to pay out of her “Mayor Blakespear Campaign” fund? Very dishonest on her part. Would she have made any of these efforts if she thought she was acting legally and her page was simply a campaign page? NO.
The SO CAL ACLU states her page is absolutely an official page even Marco Gonzalez stated that regrettably she was using her page to conduct city business. Coast News- “Gonzalez did say that he felt as though the mayor had erred by utilizing her public Facebook page to engage in city-related business.”
From the ACLU…”How to determine if an official’s social media account is being used as an extension of their office:
The ACLU specifically states:
1. The official identifies as a government official (e.g., includes their official title like @POTUS ) on the account.
2.The official posts announcements about their policies, responsibilities, or actions to communicate and interact with constituents and voters.
3.The official uses the account to seek or encourage comments about what legislation they should bring or support.
4.The official uses the account to call official meetings or declare orders within their authority.
5.The official encourages public discussion on their account or page.
6.The official allows users to ask for government services on their account.
7.The page lists or otherwise indicates the official’s title.
https://www.nyclu.org/en/know-your-rights/what-do-if-youre-censored-politicians-social-media
So if use of her title and posting about things happening at meetings and in the community are “official use”, then why is her website not seen as official? Why is her newsletter not official? She’s written a newsletter for years that people can subscribe to, but it’s not “official” and I think you know that.
Leah Clare,
I don’t make the laws, and maybe Blakespear is violating others laws if she’s conducting city business on her campaign newsletters and campaign website.
Like I said, even attorney and best friend to Blakespear, Marco Gonzalez, stated in a Coast News article that he regrets that Blakespear was conducting City Business on her “Mayor Catherine Blakespear” page. Blakespear signed a settlement agreement acknowledging she was using her page in an “official” capacity and operating illegally. She even attempted to make a settlement agreement payment. Do you think she would have done that if she knew she wasn’t guilty?
It’s the same old story. As we watch the hearings on the insurrection, it is primarily about the denial of free speech in the form of our votes being endangered by a politician trying to retain power by any means needed. One would be hard pressed to see much moral contrast in the Blakespear matter. Having witnessed last years challenges in Carlsbad, with a politician willing to file a ridiculous action against three elderly skeptics, it should not be shocking that her close allies in Encinitas would seek another way to shut voters up before too much truth to power is spoken. One should not be shocked that the Mayor would not honor a deal she cut to keep this from hitting a courtroom before June’s primary. If citizens cannot even comment about the serious issues facing their communities without having to pursue judicial relief, we are collectively injured no matter what our politics may be. No matter how much the Mayor and her surrogates attempt the DARVO technique of political response (Deny, Atack, Reverse Victim and Offender) against her critics in this process , the case law is very clear in these cases. Mr. Nichols and those whose reputations are being unfairly maligned have many more actionable avenues for relief than being blocked on Facebook.
A large number of Mayor Blakespear’s VICTIMS are not even conservative, let along right-wing. Blakespear is the law-breaker. We should not let her or her campaign manager repeatedly drag innocent people through the mud and accuse of of wrong doing. She is the OFFENDER. Blakespear Violated her Oath of Office.
Leah Clare, read her “apology” before you form your opinion. In it she states she’s writing it only because she has to. Nearly the entire thing that goes on at length is an attack on “haters” and a poor-me spin on how embattled she feels. At no point does she connect the dots between her behavior and the fallout. Her apology was no apology. And as was mentioned, most of those whose rights she violated are Dems.
So the settlement specified that she needed to apologize, but did the settlement language demand that she not say she’s apologizing because she has to? Why not just choose her words for her when creating the settlement then? If you didn’t think ahead to ask for certain things to be part of or excluded from the apology in advance, then that’s just too bad.
Leah, the point is that it’s shows her character. She chose the route of victim stance instead of taking responsibility. Is that the kind of leadership we need in California? Absolutely not. She should be ashamed of her actions, but she’s a complete narcissist who is unfit to hold any public office position. People need to know the truth and know who not to vote for.
“The campaign has already satisfied the terms.” Wow. So the campaign donors pay for the dirty work of the mayor.
Did the settlement agreement specify that they wanted funds to come from her personally and not her campaign funds? I mean, it may suck, but if those involved don’t like it, then they should have discussed that beforehand and made that part of the agreement. Poor planning.
If you read the Settlement Agreement you’d see that the settlement payment was suppose to come from “Catherine Blakespear”. Quite simply meaning Catherine Blakespear was suppose to pay, not her campaign fund titled, “Blakespear for Mayor”. Which is not her personal account. Then she attempts to say that her Facebook page is her own, personal page, not a government page, which in that case if she wanted to claim it was personal, then she illegally used campaign funds to pay for a private matter with her “Blakespear for Mayor” account. Or if she states the page is a campaign for senate page, then she also acted illegally by using “Blakespear for Mayor” funds. Either way you cut it, she’s acted illegally.
But her Facebook page is not a government page. Read the about section. It’s associated with her website, not a city website. It’s associated with her email, not an Encinitas.gov email.
Using your argument, her newsletter is a city newsletter because she also shares updates in her newsletter that she share on her Facebook page. That doesn’t make it official.
As an elected official, she is allowed to use her title on her own website, in her own newsletter, and on her own social media. That does not mean that sharing her thoughts on things happening in the city makes it “official”.
Catherine Blakespear never admits responsibility whether she’s violating first amendment rights, calling the drastic increase in cycling accidents road “improvements,” or suing her own citizens (and losing). Thin skinned to a fault, she never course corrects and instead calls those who dare to complain “haters.” Remember this in November.
Leah Clare, why do you have such a difficult time understanding this, do you think Blakespear gets a automatic little halo over her head for being a Democrat, so the law doesn’t apply to her when she infringes on people’s First Amendment Rights.
I don’t make the laws, but I’m glad they are there to protect people right to Free Speech, and maybe Blakespear is violating others laws if she’s conducting city business on her campaign newsletters and campaign website.
Like I said, even attorney and best friend to Blakespear, Marco Gonzalez, stated in a Coast News article that he regrets that Blakespear was conducting City Business on her “Mayor Catherine Blakespear” page. Blakespear signed a settlement agreement acknowledging she was using her page in an “official” capacity and operating illegally. She even attempted to make a settlement agreement payment. Do you think she would have done that if she knew she wasn’t guilty?
Appears Catherine Blakespear may have finally dug herself into a hole that she can’t climb out of. Does Kevin Sabellico realize that the majority of the community members that complained about this issue are democrats? His claim about this being a “right-wing attack” is foolish and seems like a desperate attempt to save face. It’ll be interesting to see if she steps up to the plate and takes responsibility for her actions. It’s unlikely given her history of poor decision making, but our friends, neighbors and family here in Encinitas are rooting for Mr. Nichols.
She apologized, but they don’t like how she apologized, so they reject her apology and want to start over? Even though she’s no longer blocking them? Sounds like they are just doing to harass a candidate they don’t like.
Or, did the original settlement agreement stipulate HOW she had to apologize? How litigious do we get here? If they did not demand in advance what the apology should consist of, then how do they have grounds to reject it?
Should have done your due diligence beforehand and defined what you wanted the apology to look and sound like because now you are just moving the goal posts.
Did she pay by the deadline (using her campaign donations?)
Do you think we should file defamation suits against her for insinuating that we (her victims) are criminals? Many of us are professionals.
Saying I broke the law because other people were breaking the law (who were not,) is NOT an apology. We learned this in kindergarten. It sounds like someone way too immature to hold an elected office.
That I agree with. I really do. But the tort made its point and was settled and she upheld her end:
did she unblock: yes
did she apologize: yes, you just don’t like how. And I agree the apology was longwinded and included other stuff that was unrelated, but if the wording of the apology was not specified during the settlement process, you gave her the leeway to word it how she wants and you don’t have a very strong case after the fact
did she pay: yes, you just don’t like where the money came from. If you did not specify beforehand, you don’t get to retroactively say “no, wait, hang on, we want it done only this way?”
she met all the required elements at their bare minimum, which is not a great look for her, but you don’t really have grounds for rejecting it and demanding more.
Leah, Blakespear’s rant, does not qualify for the definition of an apology. Nothing in that statement was remotely apologetic, instead it was extremely offensive, arrogant and abusive. A judge will recognize this. A judge or mediator will also see…
1. Blakespear violated her oath of office as an elected representative and her oath as an attorney. Bottom line, she broke the law.
2. Blakespear attempted to pay out of her “Blakespear for Mayor” campaign fund when the settlement agreement asked Blakespear to pay, not payment from a separate entity, a campaign fund.
3. Blakespear never apologized. Her non-apology rant that disparaged residents and those effected doesn’t fit the definition of an apology, and a judge or mediator will see that as well.
Bottom line, Blakespear broke the law and she’s been doing it for years. As an elected official, you don’t get to just walk away with a verbal warning for breaking the law repeatedly, over an over again. When nearly 30 victims share their statements in court, it will be very damaging.
You say her rant “does not qualify” for an apology.
Who decides what does or does not qualify?
You probably felt insulted when reading it, but you might have felt that no matter what she wrote.
Someone else may have read it and felt neutral.
Others may have read it and felt it was a sufficient apology.
Your feelings about the apology are subjective, as are mine, So do we let feelings decide? That’s not a very accurate measure.
“In the cease-and-desist letter, the complainants threatened to sue me if they did not receive a public apology for their inability to participate. To that end, I publicly apologize to anyone who did not have full access to my campaign Facebook page or other social media accounts.”
Sounds like an apology to me.
And the actions of the people she blocked, repeated spamming of the same posts over and over on her page, show us exactly why they were blocked to begin with. It’s a Facebook page. Grow up. If she blocked you there, you still have the ability to address the city council at a meeting, write an email, create your own website or blog, you have endless avenues of expression available to you. But no, you really want to stick it to her and harass her on her own page. Says a lot about you.
Leah Clare, as someone who helped gather the 28 residents who were blocked, and there are many more whom I’ve spoken to, not a single person felt they received an apology. The list included several school teachers, parents, Planning Commissioner, local firemen, a person with disabilities, a care taker, city employees. All were deeply hurt and offended with Catherine Blakespear’s non-apology rant and fabrications. We strongly feel that Blakespear was taking a victim approach as did the 700 people who commented on social media page regarding her statement.
Blakespear starts off her non-apology with, “As a woman serving in elected office, I have been the target of threatening and harassing comments on my social media and in my daily life — personal attacks, not simply ones disagreeing with my policy perspectives.
My social media experience is part of my larger life experience as a female public official, including a direct rape threat texted to my personal cell phone number that addressed me by name, a large number of protesters outside my home where I live with my husband and children taunting me to come out, and being shouted at while going about my daily life, among other aggressions.” – Catherine Blakespear. Does that sound like an apology?
Then she lies about blocking people stating…..”I always welcome expressions of political and policy differences, including criticisms for my job performance as your mayor, and I would never try to infringe on anyone’s right to freedom of speech. As a former journalist and attorney, I understand and deeply believe that the core of our democracy is every citizen’s right to express their opinion.” – Catherine Blakespear. If she always welcomes expressions of political and policy differences, including criticisms for her job performance as mayor, then why did she block 28 people and delete all criticizing comments? Then Blakespear says, “I would never infringe on anyone’s right to Freedom of Speech.” Isn’t that exactly what she did when she blocked 28 people and deleted their comments. Her non-apology rant is fully of lies and fabrications. Therefor we do not believe this is an apology.
How can you prove without a doubt that all 28 were blocked?
Leah Clare, when 28 people come forward with written statements, that’s powerful. A mediator or judge is not going to think that all 28 people are lying. There are a lot of credible people in that crowd of 28.
I know of a couple of people who have video evidence of being blocked, utilizing several computers, including Bob Nichols.
There’s also a lot of screenshots of discussion from people over the years whereby people talk about being blocked or having their comments deleted.
Finally, Blakespear signed a settlement agreement, admitting guilt.
This is about holding an elected representative accountable for breaking the law, for violating people’s First Amendment rights. If Blakespear was willing to do this for many years, think of all the unscrupulous activity she’s done in other matters over the years.
Why you would even defend someone like this is disgusting.
>“This is just another politically motivated, right-wing attack on Mayor Blakespear. This is nothing more than a frivolous and blatantly partisan lawsuit,” Sabellico said. <
Once again Sabellico and his client tar everyone with the same 'right-wing' attack even though they know full well that many if not most of those who now oppose Blakespear are Democrats fed up with her developer PAC ties and complete about face on State control over local housing. Once the Democratic Party told her that they would endorse her for State Senate as long as she did everything the developers want, she turned a complete 180.
Blakespear belongs in jail, not the State Senate.
Comments are closed.