darren-chaker-appeal

BLOGGER JAILED FOR CRITICIZING POLICE – CONVICTION REVERSED

Darren Chaker Supported by ACLU, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Cato Institute, First Amendment Coalition, and University of Florida School of Law Win First Amendment Appeal in Federal Appeals Court.

Darren Chaker is on probation for a white collar crime and is challenging the conviction for his attorney’s misconduct. “In my opinion Chaker’s attorney did not exercise a reasonable standard of care in filing a Second Bankruptcy Case without Chaker’s consent and signature. Indeed, in my opinion such conduct is fraudulent.” (See Expert Report, Page 7, http://darrenchaker.com/bankruptcy-fraud-appeal/ )

Shortly after being placed on probation, Darren Chaker went to jail for violating probation. It was alleged Darren Chaker said, “Ms. Leesa Fazal, an investigator with the Nevada Attorney General’s Office, was “forced out” of her previous post with the Las Vegas Police Department.”  See Cato Institute article. Lessa Fazal made multiple reports to federal, state, and local police – none of them arrested Darren Chaker.

A San Diego federal judge found Darren Chaker violated probation although the conduct was not criminal, nor did the Government provide any evidence the statement was in fact false.

On the morning of July 7, 2016, the Ninth Circuit reversed the revocation (conviction) finding the speech of Darren Chaker was within the scope of the First Amendment.  The Cato Institute, ACLU of San Diego, Electronic Frontier Foundation, First Amendment Coalition, and Brechner First Amendment Project at University of Florida filed a joint amicus brief in support of Darren Chaker who was found to have violated probation by posting a blog about Nevada Attorney General Investigator Leesa Fazal, of Las Vegas. A compelling opening brief was filed by Federal Defenders of San Diego Inc. The amicus brief was authored by the Washington D.C. office of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, who is consistently ranked as an international top 20 law firm.

The California case decided by the Ninth Circuit, provides insight how the speech used to put Darren Chaker in jail was in fact constitutionally protected speech. See appeals court opinion. Merely because someone takes offense speech it “is not actionable simply because it is ‘base and malignant’” and “may not be suppressed simply because it is offensive.” Dworkin v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 867 F.2d 1188, 1199 (9th Cir. 1989).

For additional details, see the article Human Rights Watch, Prison Legal News, wrote about this case.