Quote:
Originally Posted by Bunk
|
The attached response from Nenshi's legal support to Wenzel's is the more valuable document. We've now drawn up our battle lines:
On campaign contributions: Wenzel claims that his company donated $5,000, the allowed max, but the dispute is whether allowing his staff to use Shane Homes' vehicles in support of a candidate's efforts constitutes a "campaign contribution". Nenshi says yes, Wenzel says no. I have no idea on which side is right there, but I have used company vehicles in the past, and our policy was pretty damn simple: "When you are using our vehicles, you are acting as our agent, whether you are on the clock or not." Particularly given Wenzel's own statement in the video re: fighting against Druh Farrell last election. Wenzel pretty much admitted those vehicles were being used at his direction. My layperson's view is that Nenshi's argument is stronger.
I don't know much about protected privilege, so can't comment on the applicability or strength of that. Troutman, Valo?
I also agree completely with the rebuttal re: the Godfather reference. Not only was it obvious hyperbole/opinion, but the lawyer did a pretty good job of putting Wenzel's own comments into the same context. This, IMO, was a huge mistake on Wenzel's part. Already, the news stories have focused on the easy carrot of the pop culture reference, and that only makes Wenzel look like a fool. His lawyers should have deterred him from making this part of the claim. It never had any hope of helping his case.