EASTON, Pa. — A lawsuit by Easton City Councilwoman Taiba Sultana alleging slander and libel against a political action committee was dismissed Monday by Northampton County Court.
The court’s opinion says the PAC’s alleged statements do not amount to defamation.
A court document signed by President Judge Craig A. Dally sustains preliminary objections to Sultana’s suit against PA Citizens PAC, granted demurrer to two counts of Sultana’s plea, and struck six paragraphs from her amended complaint.
The dispute stemmed from Sultana's bid for a state House seat — House District 136 — in 2024.
She said she plans to appeal Monday's ruling.
In April 2024, PA Citizens PAC was created. Sultana alleged that during her primary campaign, members of the PAC “began distributing and displaying yard signs” reading “VOTE NO TAIBA SULTANA. CRAZY. CHAOTIC. CRIMINAL.”
Sultana also said the PAC’s Facebook page instructed citizens to vote against her.
She claimed the PAC said she sought to “create animosity between the citizens and the police,” “beat her kid while on city council,” had an unpaid state tax lien, missed city council meetings, is antisemitic, and is a “complete nutcase.”
According to the court decision, Sultana said the signs and posts were the reason she lost the primary election last year.
'Expressions of opinion'
In December 2024, Sultana filed a complaint alleging defamation claims in both slander and libel, and an invasion of privacy.
After the PAC filed preliminary objections to the complaint, an amended version was submitted with claims for defamation (libel) and invasion of privacy (false light).
PA Citizens PAC submitted preliminary objections to the amended complaint, challenging the claims and specific allegations.
Sultana then filed a brief in support of her opposition to the objections.
A hearing was held on Sept. 2, and the court release was issued Monday.
“To the contrary of Plaintiff’s stance, local news outlets have reported that Plaintiff has, in fact, missed meetings and that she was accused of beating her son.”Northampton County Court document
Rather than defamation, the court’s opinion says “some of the statements at-issue are merely expressions of opinion rather than assertions of fact.”
Statements that show a difference of opinion or are annoying or embarrassing do not necessarily constitute libel, and name-calling is tolerated “on the theory that it will necessarily be understood to amount to nothing more,” the ruling says.
The document goes on to state that the PAC’s alleged statements are not defamatory, as Sultana, a public figure, had not established actual malice.
“While Plaintiff offers a catalogue of these publications both in her pleading and in the exhibits to the Amended Complaint, she has not established with clear and convincing evidence that the identified statements are actually false," the document says.
"Nor that they were published with a reckless disregard for the truth.
“To the contrary of Plaintiff’s stance, local news outlets have reported that Plaintiff has, in fact, missed meetings and that she was accused of beating her son.”
Not defamatory
Assertions from Sultana stating that the “criminal” allegations are false — she completed an ARD course and domestic assault charges involving a teenage son were dismissed — were acknowledged, with the court stating that while an ARD does not amount to an official criminal conviction, “it does not make it any less true that the events that gave rise to the charge in the first place occurred,” nor does it make the PAC’s opinion of Sultana actionable.
As for the allegation of antisemitism, the court held that “while offensive, [it] is part of the debate in the political arena and is not actionable in Pennsylvania given the context presented in this instance.”
The court also said Sultana had not presented clear evidence that the PAC made allegations about the tax lien — with Sultana claiming the original source of that story, Bernie O’Hare’s Lehigh Valley Ramblings blog, was a dubious source of information with actual malice.
The decision also stated Sultana was required to prove actual malice at this stage in the proceedings, and had not, rendering the PAC’s statements not defamatory.
Furthermore, Sultana failed to demonstrate any special harm from the PAC’s statements, again, rendering said statements as not defamatory, according to the ruling.
Sultana: 'Fight far from over'
Sultana on Monday afternoon issued to LehighValleyNews.com a response concerning the decision.
“Raymond Lahoud is coward and desperately trying to hide," Sultana's statement reads, referring to the attorney who chairs the PAC. "I am not a criminal and I was never a criminal.
"The Northampton County court system and Children and Youth Services have both exonerated me. I accepted an ARD which barely lasted for two weeks, the court records and the Northampton County Children and Youth Services report confirm this.
"I was never convicted of a crime. I was never found guilty by a court. The allegations against me were investigated by CYS and found to be baseless, and the case was closed and expunged.”
Sultana also said Lahoud, an immigration attorney “who has built his career and fortune on the backs of immigrants, saw fit to plaster our community with signs calling me a ‘CRIMINAL.’”
"If a wealthy individual can use blatant, provable lies to destroy a political opponent without consequence, then no one who challenges the powerful will ever be safe.”Easton City Councilwoman Taiba Sultana
She described his actions as “the ultimate hypocrisy” and asserting he had weaponized slander against her “to destroy an immigrant woman who dares to stand up for her community.”
“He makes his money from us, and then he slams us down when we step out of line," Sultana said. "He calls me ‘Crazy’ and ‘Chaotic’ for having the audacity to seek office and challenge the powerful.
“Now, in a stunning display of cowardice, he hides in a courtroom and claims his vicious, provable lies are just ‘personal opinion.’
"Since when is falsely accusing someone of a crime they were exonerated from a matter of opinion? This is not political speech; it is defamation. It is a lie, told with malice, designed to sabotage my campaign and intimidate me out of public life.”
The statement goes on to say Lahoud was aware of the Children and Youth Services’ findings and the expungement of her record, yet “he did it anyway.”
Sultana said the PAC's statement was not an opinion, but “a calculated, malicious character assassination designed to protect the status quo by destroying a challenger.”
“This fight is far from over. I will be appealing this decision,” Sultana said.
“It is about the integrity of our political discourse. If a wealthy individual can use blatant, provable lies to destroy a political opponent without consequence, then no one who challenges the powerful will ever be safe.”
'Shame on her'
Regarding the invasion of privacy, the court said since the information present in the PAC’s signs and posts were readily available elsewhere, “there is no liability.”
The court also supported removal of several paragraphs in Sultana’s complaint that referred to Lahoud as a party to the case.
"We appreciate the Court’s thoughtful analysis and the incredible work of counsel” in regard to the decision.Easton criminal defense law firm Goudsouzian and Associates
Being the PAC was the sole defendant, several paragraphs referencing Lahoud were eliminated.
In addition, the court said private messages and statements from individuals on the PAC’s Facebook page that allegedly insinuated her involvement with Hamas, and that she is a terrorist, antisemitic, and should “move back to your country,” in addition to other messages, were immaterial as they were not directly from the PAC.
Said Lahoud in a statement to LehighValleyNews.com: “She protests about rights and freedoms for all but is against those rights for individuals that oppose her political beliefs," Lahoud said. "Shame on her."
