Environmental activist Meg Sheehan is seeking to identify anonymous critics she says maligned her on a Facebook page called “Meg Cost Us Millions” and other social media sites.
In a 117-page lawsuit filed in US District Court in Boston, Sheehan, alleges that she has been victimized by town officials and powerful business leaders because she exposed the “shadow industry” of sand mining in Southeastern Massachusetts.
The suit, which seeks $20 million in damages, accuses 10 defendants of violating her constitutional rights by harassing and demeaning her for her “entirely altruistic” work on behalf of grassroots groups and concerned residents opposing the “unlawful” removal of sand, a valuable natural resource.
“Sheehan began to shine a light on an industry that prefers to operate in the shadows,” alleges the suit filed by her lawyer, Joan Lukey. “She stepped in to fill a void willingly, but totally unprepared for the onslaught that would follow.”
The defendants have targeted her, the lawsuit claims, “degrading her dignity, shredding her reputation, blaming her for all that befalls them, and stripping away her peace of mind and enjoyment of life, as effectively as they have stripped the silica sand from the land.”
Sheehan is suing the towns of Plymouth and Carver; Michael Main, chair of the Plymouth Zoning Board of Appeals, and Betty Cavacco, former chair of the Plymouth Select Board and now member of the Community Preservation Committee.
Other defendants include Alan Germain, Carver’s town moderator and owner of a trucking company; Stephen Gray, chair of the Carver Zoning Board of Appeals; A.D. Makepeace, and its president James Kane; and SLT Construction and its president Peter Opachinski.
All the parties, she alleged, either mine sand or protect those who do.
Sheehan said she has been berated and belittled by Plymouth and Carver officials at public meetings.
She was even approached by police in Wareham and Carver while she was monitoring Makepeace’s sand removal operation in the spring of 2021, the suit alleges.
“Not surprisingly, this shocked her, as she had done no more than stop on the public abutment to a public road to observe hauling traffic, just as she had done on numerous occasions before,” the suit alleges.
Vicious and “libelous” online attacks have been especially concerning, the suit says.
The Meg Cost Us Millions Facebook page was created in January 2023, the lawsuit alleges, “to ridicule and demean” her and “to libel and smear her reputation.”
Posters called her names like “old crone” or “the second coming of Cruela De Vil” and photoshopped her “attractive face to make her unattractive and unappealing,” by adding a bulbous clown’s nose, for example, the suit says.
She has tried unsuccessfully to discover the identity of the “mysterious and critically important” person who created the Meg Cost Us Millions Facebook page, which disappeared shortly after she filed her suit in September.
She is also seeking names from X and Google, which so far has refused to provide any information, according to a motion filed on Dec. 10.
Sheehan needs the information so she can learn whether there are more defendants to add to her lawsuit, or new allegations to file against the existing defendants.
All the current defendants, including Plymouth and Carver town officials, have filed motions to dismiss Sheehan’s suit.
They are now asking the judge to rule quickly so they will be spared “extensive and costly discovery” before the judge determines which, if any, parts of the lawsuit can move forward.
The lawsuit, they allege, is way too long — federal rules say legal complaints should be “a short and plain statement” of the case — and the allegations too vague and general.
Also, the municipalities of Plymouth and Carver have certain immunity, as do town officials in a more limited way.
Edward Cooley, the lawyer representing Opachinski, filed a blistering 21-page motion to dismiss Sheehan’s suit, arguing she has “weaved a false story around kernels of facts. Upon examination though, it is clear that the complaint is just that: a story.”
“Plaintiff seeks to silence or punish those that disagree with her, challenge her, or otherwise seek to invoke their own rights, all under the guise that these parties “chilled her free speech,” he wrote in the Dec. 13 motion.
“Plaintiff makes clear through this litigation that her right to free speech, rather than being chilled, is a right she brazenly utilizes as she tilts at windmills.”
Andrea Estes can be reached at andrea@plymouthindependent.org.