Update on Pending Free Expression Foundation Litigation

Sines v. Damigo, Eastern District of California Bankruptcy Court, Adversary Proceeding.

In the Sines v. Kessler case  – i.e., the lawfare case devised by Roberta Kaplan based on the chaotic Charlottesville Unite the Right events in 2017 – Nathan Damigo was among many defendants who, after trial and an appeal to the Fourth Circuit, were ultimately held jointly and severally liable for damages in excess of $3 million.  A host of legal flaws, both at the trial and appellate level, led to this unfortunate and undeserved result.  An impartial observer could easily conclude Mr. Damigo should not have been held liable for any amount.  Regrettably, that litigation is now res judicata, i.e., subject to no further appeals.

Mr. Damigo, however, in 2019 filed in the Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of California a petition for a bankruptcy discharge as to this liability in 2019.  If he is granted that discharge, as he deserves, Mr. Damigo, a military veteran of limited means, would not have this huge damages award hanging over his head indefinitely as he tries to make a fresh start in life.

In January 2020, Roberta Kaplan, the attorney who was the mastermind for the Sines v Kessler lawfare, stated as follows: “We absolutely can and will bankrupt these groups. And then we will chase these people around for the rest of their lives. So if they try to buy a new home, we will put a lien on the home. If they get a new job, we will garnish their wages. The reason to do that is because we want to create a deterrence impact. So we send a message to other people that if you try to do something like this, the same thing will happen to you. And it already has been a deterrence. We’re seeing lone shooters now; we’re not seeing the kind of massively organized conspiracy we saw in Charlottesville. And I think that’s in large part due to our case.” Allen Wexler, “Roberta Kaplan Takes White Supremacy to Court,” Moment Magazine, January 6, 2020,

True to this vengeful vow, the Sines v. Kessler plaintiffs have filed an adversary proceeding in Mr. Damigo’s bankruptcy case seeking to prevent his discharge of the Sines v. Kessler damages award on the ground that his conduct was “willful and malicious” and therefore not subject to bankruptcy discharge. Through Mr. Allen, Mr. Damigo has vigorously opposed this attempt.  So far Mr. Allen has filed three complex and lengthy legal memoranda on this issue. A  hearing is scheduled for late July 2025.

Jacobs, et al.  v. Catlin, et al. U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.

The distribution of flyers, pamphlets, and similar literature has long been protected by the First Amendment. These protections apply even if the distribution is anonymous and even if the contents of the flyers or pamphlets would be regarded as offensive by many. The sheriff’s office and related state authorities in Douglas County, Georgia, however, have flagrantly ignored these protections, arresting Philip Matthew Jacobs and his wife Hilary on bogus “littering” charges for distributing flyers critical of Jewish power and influence and threatening Michael Weaver with a similar arrest.  Adding to this outrageous and unconstitutional conduct, Mr. Jacobs was physically assaulted while in jail and both of the Jacobs were required to post $30,000 bond — $60,000 total for “littering.”

Such imperious governmental lawlessness must not be ignored or tolerated.  It must be defied, and Glen Allen, Randy Sheppard (FEF board member), and Fred Kelly are doing just that.  In March 2025, they filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights) First Amendment claim and other claims on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Jacobs and Mr. Weaver against 13 Douglas County law enforcement and related persons.  In late May 2025, the government defendants responded with a lengthy motion to dismiss. The FEF lawyers responded to that motion with an amended complaint and a motion for preliminary injunctions. The case involves many complicated legal issues and will certainly be expensive and hard-fought, but it is an important case and deserves the support of everyone who cherishes the rule of law and our First Amendment freedoms. Ignoring governmental abuse only invites further governmental abuse.

Metropolitan African Methodist Episcopal Church v. Proud Boys International, David Kuriakose, and Others, District of Columbia Superior Court, Now on Appeal to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals.

Conspiracy allegations are a primary weapon used in lawfare cases to entangle political adversaries in lengthy, complex, and expensive litigation. Unfortunately, all too often such allegations are effective. The lawsuit filed in the District of Columbia Superior Court on behalf of the Metropolitan African Methodist Church by the Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights against numerous members of the Proud Boys, International is an example of abusive, lawfare use of conspiracy allegations.

The basic facts were as follows.  In December 2020, after Donald Trump’s loss in the 2020 elections, a huge rally was held in the District of Columbia to show support for Trump. Many groups attended;  members from the Proud Boys International were among them. Unfortunately violence and rowdy behavior broke out and at some point certain Proud Boys jumped over a fence around the Metropolitan AME Church and destroyed a Black Lives Matter sign. Almost immediately the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights brought suit on behalf of the church against dozens of Proud Boys they identified from the voluminous videos, photographs, and media articles that were available of the Pro-Trump rally. They did not, however, sue David Kuriakose at this time.  Kuriakose was a Proud Boy who happened to be walking in the general vicinity of the church when the other Proud Boys jumped over the fence and destroyed the BLM sign. No evidence linked Mr. Kuriakose to the vandalism except that he was nearby and was a Proud Boy. He adamantly denies knowing about or approving the vandalism.

This did not keep the Lawyers’ Committee from adding him as a defendant over three years later. At this point Kuriakose appealed to FEF for help (no other attorneys would help him) and Glen Allen agreed to represent him. Allen immediately took the offensive, filing an Anti-SLAPP motion (i.e., Anti-Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation; a streamlined procedure for dismissing lawfare suits aimed at foreclosing the exercise of First Amendment rights) based on Kuriakose’s Statute of Limitations defense. Allen’s anti-SLAPP motion was denied by the trial court but Allen has now appealed to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. Briefing begins in Mid-August 2025.

Gancarz, et al. v. Capito, U.S. District Court for Western District of Washington.

In 2021 an  Antifa / anarchist named David Capito, a.k.a. Vyacheslav Arkangelsky, a.k.a.  Richard Smith, using a false identity, infiltrated a Patriot Front group in Washington State. Deceptively gaining the confidence of the Patriot Front members by pretending to share their outlook, Capito was able after several months to illegally gain unauthorized access to confidential information regarding many Patriot Front members. He then sent this fraudulently and illegally obtained information to a leftist organization that published it. It was then used to doxx many Patriot Front members. The consequences of the doxxing in many cases were quite severe,  including loss of employment and  physical and social harassment.

In July 2023, Glen Allen, together with local counsel, filed a complaint against Capito in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington on behalf of four of the Patriot Front members who were harmed by the doxxing plus one of their spouses, alleging claims of fraud, invasion of privacy, and violations of the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.  Effecting service on Capito proved a major challenge, as he changed his name yet again, changed his residence repeatedly and used false addresses, and basically went into hiding. Eventually the Court permitted publication by service, i.e.,  by notices in a local newspaper. In June 2025 a group of lawyers calling themselves the Civil Liberties Defense Center filed a motion to dismiss and a separate motion under Washington’s version of the anti-SLAPP law. Essentially Capito is contending  through his attorneys that he had a First Amendment  right to infiltrate Patriot Front because, he claims, Patriot Front espouses odious views.  Mr. Allen,  together with local counsel, is preparing a response to this preposterous contention plus a response Capito’s  separate motion to dismiss.

Just as proponents of the rule of law and robust freedom of expression should not tolerate  malicious and arrogant violations of their rights by the government,  so too must they defy thugs such as Mr. Capito. We must raise their cost of inflicting their unlawful and malicious activities on others.

IN CONCLUSION, as these cases – and there are others waiting in the wings —  hopefully illustrate, FEF has a full plate of important pending First Amendment cases as it continues to make progress to becoming a force to be reckoned with in the legal arena. In addition, FEF continues to perform many other functions, including mentoring law students and young lawyers, responding to email and telephone inquiries, developing a network of sympathetic lawyers around the country, and fundraising to keep FEF solvent. As always, FEF greatly appreciates the moral encouragement and financial sustenance it receives from its donors and supporters.