Is The Alaska Dispatch Engaged in Vexatious Actions Against Joe Miller?

Earlier I had written a blog post with the title Is the Alaska Dispatch Chasing Joe Miller Into the Men's Bathroom.

In the post I had stated:

To summarize the actions of the Alaska Dispatch - Their attorney threatened Joe Miller with a bar complaint when he published an article on his website that is property of this website and permission was given Joe to publish the article. The Alaska Dispatch is arguing that Joe should not be able to pay for attorney fees from monies  associated with his senate campaign. And they threaten Joe with copyright infringement for the fair use of photos published on-line. It seems the Alaska Dispatch has been in a continuous legal fight with Joe Miller post election - and the latest events in the legal battle seem to favor Joe.

In a FEC advisory opinion issued by federal lawyers to the FEC, it states in summary that Joe Miller is allowed to pay for legal fees post election - with campaign monies.

What is interesting is: in the opinion, the federal lawyers pointed to ( Fn. 4)  the majority of legal fees awarded to the Alaska Dispatch were for attorney fees post election litigation - where Joe was the prevailing party.

So how is it that a prevailing party has to pay an award of attorney fees to a third party?

Could it be because the decision to award the attorney fees was ordered by a compromised Judge?  

Is the Alaska Dispatch Chasing Joe Miller Into the Men's Bathroom

I will never forget when I saw Alaska Dispatch reporter Tony Hopfinger chasing Joe Miller down the hallway after a town hall held by U.S. Senate candidate Joe Miller.

That was the day Tony cried "I have a First Amendment right" after being handcuffed by an informant for the FBI because Tony shoved a person into lockers that lined the hallway.

I didn't know the First Amendment covered Tony pushing someone into lockers.

The other issue I didn't know at the time was; according to the FBI informant, Tony evidently followed Joe Miller into the men's bathroom - I'm sure exercising his First Amendment right to get a story from Joe Miller while Joe used the men's bathroom.

Now it seems Tony has pulled an Andrew Halcro - the Larry Bird of journalism. 

Evidently, Tony stated on the August 12, 2013 Dave Stieren show “Our feelings were those depositions, being videotaped and everything, we felt it might be used when he would run for office in the future, sort of snippets from them in his commercials and things….”

It seems John McKay the attorney for the Alaska Dispatch, his filing with the FEC does not fit with what was stated publicly by Hopfinger.

There is an irony in that the Alaska Dispatch is supposed to represent the First Amendment while hiring an attorney who threatened Joe Miller for publishing an article that I posted to my website.

When the Alaska Dispatch hires an attorney attacking my headline and threatening Joe Miller with a bar complaint for publishing my article, it has the feel of being a political bully.

Point blank - I don't care much for bullies - especially when they attack my First Amendment rights via proxy and I have to question if Tony is chasing Joe Miller into the men's bathroom to get a story - again.

Update: Evidently the Alaska Dispatch has sent a letter to Joe Miller threatening to sue Joe for copyright infringement. A picture/s taken of Russ Millette by the the Alaska Dispatch was/were used in an article/s posted on Joe's website.

I suppose the photo/s in question are these taken by the staff photographer at the ADLLC:

To summarize the actions of the Alaska Dispatch - Their attorney threatened Joe Miller with a bar complaint when he published an article on his website that is property of this website and permission was given Joe to publish the article. The Alaska Dispatch is arguing that Joe should not be able to pay for attorney fees from monies  associated with his senate campaign. And they threaten Joe with copyright infringement for the fair use of photos published on-line.

So much for freedom of speech - that Tony was crying about.

State of Corruption: Compromised Judge Shafts Joe Miller in FNSB Case

In yet another dubious move by the Alaska Court System, Judge Stephanie Joannides awarded the news blog Alaska Dispatch an inordinate sum totaling almost 100K in legal fees from the Miller v. FNSB court case. Joe Miller was ordered to pay 85K, this despite the fact that the majority of the fees were billed either before Miller intervened in the case or after they were a relevant party to the case.
 
The Alaska Dispatch remained party to the case long after the Anchorage Daily News and Fairbanks Daily News-Miner reasonably withdrew, and had agreed not to petition the court for legal fees. 
To any remotely objective observer, the Dispatch had no legitimate reason to remain party to the case outside of the source material they may have been able to gain through first-hand observation of the Borough depositions, a raw profit motive, or perhaps prurient interest.

In fact, Dispatch attorneys even admitted that they had no reason to be in the case, given that Mr. Miller had filed no action against them. Yet they still sought fees long after the case was decided in their favor, and from actions they had unilaterally undertaken, dating all the way back to Sept. 2010, weeks before Miller intervened in the case.

How is Miller responsible for expenses accrued by the Dispatch's lawsuit against the Borough before he chose to intervene? Or for the debts accumulated long after they ceased to be a relevant party to the case?

Following is the breakdown of the fee schedule stated in Mr. Miller's appeal:

“According to Alaska Dispatch’s counsel, he billed 123.1 hours of attorney’s fees from September 9, 2010 through October 19, 2010, when Mr. Miller intervened in this lawsuit; 34.6 hours from October 20, 2010 through October 26, 2010, when Alaska Dispatch obtained its relief; and 291 hours after October 27, 2010, while the cross-claims and third-party claim between Mr. Miller and FNSB/Whitaker were being litigated.”

Equally troubling is how Judge Joannides was assigned to the case in the first place, and subsequent revelations that she had a financial relationship with a Dispatch employee.

Under normal circumstances a judge would be assigned through a random selection process. However, in the FNSB case, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court intervened and hand-picked Judge Joannides. This is a very rare move, perhaps unprecedented outside of this particular case.

Moreover, Judge Joannides had rented her basement apartment to an Alaska Dispatch employee, but claimed that the fact was irrelevant to the case. This begs the question of whether it was a random coincidence. Does the Judge have further relationships with other folks at the Dispatch?