goes before appellate court
Activist Ozzie Silna wants political opponent Wade Major to pay his attorney fees from a previous suit. Major says Silna is trying “to destroy a human being.” Silna says it is a matter of principal.
By Jonathan Friedman / Assistant Editor
With the 2006 City Council election campaign on the horizon, a battle from the last campaign still continues and heads to court on Wednesday. An appellate court will hear oral arguments regarding Malibu activist Ozzie Silna’s request that political opponent Wade Major pay his attorney fees from Major’s failed attempt in 2004 to prohibit Silna from being significantly financially involved in that year’s City Council campaign.
In an interview this week, Major said he had hoped this case could have been dropped because it had little purpose and it was best for everybody to move on from the 2004 City Council race. Major said since Silna, a multimillionaire, does not need the $62,000 he is requesting, the only reason he could be continuing to pursue the lawsuit would be out of spite.
“It is obvious that Ozzie does not like me,” Major said. “The only reason why he would be continuing to try to get the money is because he is trying to destroy a human being, which he will not accomplish.”
When asked if losing the case could put him in financial jeopardy, Major said he would have to talk with his lawyer before he could answer that question.
Silna said he does not need the money, but he said pursuing with the litigation is a matter of principal. During the 2004 campaign, Major unsuccessfully attempted to get a Los Angeles Superior Court judge to approve a temporary restraining order that would have prevented Silna from spending more than $100 per council candidate. Major alleged Silna had a close connection with two of the candidates and could not support the candidates’ campaigns as independent expenditures, which has no cap on spending.
“Why should I pay the fees? The guy who sued me and lost should pay the fees,” Silna said. “The man who sued me happens to be named Wade Major. It has nothing to do with whether I hate him.”
Silna first brought his attorney fees request in April 2004 to Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Terry Friedman, the same judge who ruled against Major’s demand for a temporary restraining order. Friedman denied Silna’s request because, he said, Major had a right to file the suit during the campaign, and Friedman rejected the idea that it was malicious prosecution.
Later in 2004, the Silna v. Major matter became more controversial when Silna’s attorney, Abraham M. Rudy, accused the city of helping Major. Rudy made this claim on several grounds, including the fact that Major had hired City Attorney Christi Hogin’s former law firm after Silna motioned for the attorney fees.
Both Hogin and Major denied the accusation, with Hogin calling it absurd and saying that her law firm had contacted her to make sure she did not feel there was a conflict of interest.
The saga continued in August when Rudy mistakenly sent to City Hall voicemail transcripts from a staff member at state Sen. Sheila Kuehl’s office in which the staffer gave advice to Rudy on the suit. Major alleged a conspiracy, with Kuehl calling it “a bogus issue.”