To the editor:

Dear President Mushen and members of the Town Council:

There is a great injustice presently being committed against Little Compton residents by the Alex & Ani related parties owning and operating Carolyn’s Sakonnet Vineyard. By extension, this injustice is being committed against the entire Little Compton community.

The council is already well aware of the particulars of the counterclaim brought by the Alex & Ani parties against Christina Carlson and Brian and Natalie Eliason. This claim by Alex & Ani parties alleges that the original claim filed by Carlson and The Eliasons is without merit and is intended only to vex and harass the ownership and operation of Carolyn’s Sakonnet Vineyard. The counter-defendants have filed a motion in Newport Superior Court seeking summary judgment and a dismissal of the claim filed on October 20 by the Alex & Ani parties. This motion will be heard in court on December 4.  

Numerous parties have already petitioned to Town Council to come into court as an intervenor in support of the right of Carlson and the Eliasons to maintain their initial claim against the Alex & Ani parties. It is my understanding that the Town Council decided to defer discussion and decision on the requests to act as an intervenor due to the unavailability of any legal advice to the Town Council prior to the November 16 town council meeting, This results in there being no position of the Town Council on the intervenor petitions available to the court on its December 4 motion hearing, which is unfortunate. However, there is still time for the Town Council to get legal advice and take a decision prior to the subsequent Superior Court motion hearing in January, assuming there is continuing discussion on this matter then.

It is understood and appreciated that the Town of Little Compton is also a defendant in the original claims filed by Christina Carlson and Brian and Natalie Eliason. Those claims are not the requested subject of the intervenor support. What is at stake here is only the right of the counter-defendants Carlson and the Eliasons to make such claims. The Town Council would be expected, as a supporting intervenor, to qualify its support to a party’s right to bring such a claim, and not to support any agreement as to the substance of the claim.   

The motion for summary judgment to dismiss is being made under the aegis of the RI Statute 9.33 to prevent hyper-aggressive and heavily financed commercial interests from intimidating less-advantaged members of the public from being able to make their voices heard through the legal system with, in effect, legal bullying and intimidation by the better funded opponents wishing to silence their opposition. The motion to dismiss now brought by Carlson and the Eliasons under the “anti-SLAPP” statute speaks out against the actions of the Alex & Ani parties, who are presenting a situation which is a poster child for the behavior intended to be prevented by this statute. The entire town, from the council on down, every person who has ever expressed an opinion on a matter of public interest, should be concerned and outraged.

You should note that the Alex & Ani parties brought this illegal claim on October 20 stating that the original claims by Carlson and the Eliasons were solely to “vex and harass” the Alex & Ani parties.  This appears to contradict, and to disrespect, the findings of Judge Van Couyghen presiding in the Newport Superior Court on October 2. Judge Van Couyghen said that plaintiffs Carlson, Brian Eliason and Natalie Eliason both have standing to bring their claims and also that their claims were sufficiently colorable to deserve a hearing. Now, for purposes of intimidation in an attempt use Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation, the Alex & Ani parties are willfully disregarding what Judge Van Couyghen said about the claims of Carlson and the Eliasons deserving to be heard in Court.

Numerous states have passed protective statutes similar to the one we are blessed with in Rhode Island to preserve the right of free speech and a right to have your day in court on non-frivolous matters involving the public interest. I understand that some of our fellow townspeople, possibly even within the town government, may wonder if some of the citizenry is simply trying to interfere with the smooth and efficient operation of the town as to zoning matters and the issuance of entertainment  licenses and the like. That is absolutely not the case.

What is actually happening in Little Compton, through the machinations of the Alex & Ani parties, is the conversion of a rural vineyard with, historically, a revered presence in the community, into a major event and concert venue, with noise and traffic to match, all without legal zoning to do so. The determination of what should be permitted at the vineyard is fundamentally a political matter for the community to decide. The existing land use regulation at the vineyard does not allow for it. That issue is one now being formally determined in the Newport Superior Court. The recent aggressive litigation brought by the Alex & Ani parties is an attempt to coerce the plaintiffs financially and through imposition of high pressure, personally disruptive legal tactics, is simply a way to quash the opposition and drive them off the pursuit of their rights in court.

Therefore, as an individual and citizen of Little Compton, I respectfully petition the Town Council to review this matter both as to its immediate context, but also in the context of the longer term future of the town. In a sense, these are “old issues,” but today, these issues are now on steroids, complete with the rage. The fabric of the community is being rent by commercial interests who are using tactics that are specifically outlawed in Rhode Island by the Anti-SLAPP statutes. Please act as an intervenor in support of Carlson and the Eliasons to show that you believe the right of our community members to express themselves in non-frivolous matters is a cardinal virtue of our community, no matter how aggressive or wealthy and lawyered up the opposition is.     

In closing, I would like to share an excerpt from a dissent written by US Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. in Abrams v. United States, 1919:

“We should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expression of opinions that we loath …”.

This is a serious matter of great importance to the future of our community. Please weigh in as a supporting intervenor to assist us all in having a community we can be proud of and speak up in, now and for generations to come.   

Michael S. Hudner

Little Compton