May 31—An Aiken County resident sued by a City of Aiken official has asked for the lawsuit to be dismissed.

Donald Moniak, on behalf of himself and his company, Eureka Research LLC, filed an 18-page amended motion — the original 17-page motion was filed Friday — asking the court to dismiss Aiken Economic Development Director Tim O'Briant's defamation lawsuit.

Moniak did not respond to an email seeking comment on his motion.

"The lawsuit is based on Mr. Moniak's wrongful slander of Timothy O'Briant," O'Briant's attorney, John Harte, said. "The document that Mr. Moniak filed is replete with irrelevant and jumbled nonsense. I'll be filing a motion to dismiss that [because it's] in violation of the pleading standards in South Carolina."

In the motion, Moniak argues the case violates the South Carolina Frivolous Proceedings Sanctions Act (S.C. Code Ann. § 15-36-10 et seq).

Moniak argues the lawsuit violates the act in three ways: it was filed without a reasonable basis in law or a reasonable argument to change existing law; that Harte filed the lawsuit as part of an ongoing effort to harass him; and that O'Briant filed the lawsuit to discredit him.

He says no reasonable lawyer would argue that his claims O'Briant committed identity theft rise to the level the Supreme Court established in Times v. Sullivan.

In Sullivan, the Supreme Court established an additional element public officials must establish in defamation lawsuits. In addition to the publication of a false statement to a third party, public officials (the definition was later expanded to public figures.) must also provide actual malice or a reckless disregard for the truth.

Moniak does not admit or deny having actual malice or a reckless disregard for the truth when he spoke to the Aiken City Council and O'Briant after the April 10 meeting.

However, he does assert: "... Defendants contend that any reasonable attorney would fine [sic] the allegations of slander by Plaintiff [O'Briant] trivial and frivolous in nature when measured against magnitude of Project Pascalis, the ongoing SRNL project and the prominence of the Plaintiff as a public figure ..."

Moniak argues Harte filed the lawsuit as part of a larger pattern of harassing him and other Aiken County residents. He provides one example of the pattern in the motion: a Facebook Messenger interaction between him and Harte over comments Moniak made on the Aiken Standard Facebook page when another client of Harte's was sued last year.

Harte said Moniak's allegations against him were "absolutely untrue."

Moniak also argues O'Briant filed the suit to discredit him and his company and that O'Briant's suit is a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation [SLAPP]. Moniak adds South Carolina does not have a lawsuit discouraging SLAPP lawsuits and asks for the suit to be dismissed according to the South Carolina Frivolous Proceedings Sanctions Act.

"As a journalist, I spent 30 years making sure the public has a strong voice in government and my support for that has never wavered," O'Briant said Monday afternoon.

Harte added Moniak's allegations against O'Briant are also absolutely untrue.

Moniak also asserts a defense in his motion: his allegations of identity theft are true.

He begins his argument by providing two definitions of identity theft, one from the Department of Justice and the other from the Federal Trade Commission.

The Department of Justice definition is wrongful use of another person's personal data in a way that involves fraud or deception. The Federal Trade Commission definition is the use of another person's personal or financial information without permission.

The South Carolina criminal definition of identity fraud is the use of personally identifying information (driver's license, Social Security number, etc.) to gain employment or avoid investigation by law enforcement. Federal law defines (18 U.S.C. § 1028) identity theft as the use of an identification document of another person for financial gain.

Moniak says O'Briant committed identity theft when he filled out a form in the city's Freedom of Information Act request portal without permission. Moniak provides e-mail correspondence with O'Briant that show him requesting information from O'Briant prior to O'Briant filling out the form and the city providing the information.

Moniak also makes several requests at the end of his motion including reasonable costs, a fine against Harte for filing the suit and reporting that fine to disciplinary authorities, a finding that the city violated the South Carolina Freedom of Information Act and injunctive relief preventing additional suits in the future.