Message To: Maryam Banikarim Gannett: July 2012

Why did the Williamson County DA and the State of Tennessee Maliciously Prosecute the Whistleblower?

Copy of the "just filed" lawsuit it's entirety is below: It should be public record?

The Plaintiff avers that Defendant, Nissan the aid and counsel of the taxpayers’ funded District Attorney General’s Office and the former District Attorney General himself,san, had Mr. Joseph D. Baugh, to advise it, consult with, and prosecute the Plaintiff on the illegal charge of violating Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-315(b)(1).

Sharyn Bovat The NISSAN Whistleblower Was Told Leaf Was To Be An "Image Car"and Not Intended To Be Mass Marketed. Then WHY Did NISSAN Take OVER 1 Billion Dollars Of DOE Taxpayer Money To Build A Battery Plant To MASS Produce Batteries. NISSAN Told Congress That 1300 Jobs Would Be Created.

Sharyn learned NISSAN had a "cash flow" problem and was doing something desperate in the winter of 2009.

It’s Estimated That Only 60-70 Jobs to Be Created: That Means The Average Cost Per Job Is About 20 Million.

THE BATTERY ISSUE

The NISSAN Leaf REALLY cost 63,000 to 67,000 just to manufacture.

The $63,000 Leaf price is achieved by statements from and industry expert who said “the non battery part of the Leaf would be approx. 15-20K” then added “that does not include marketing or R & D” & realistically the car cost 80k.

“replacing a single module in the Leaf's 48-module battery pack would cost £404” Andy Palmer Board Member NISSAN Motors.

Leaf battery has 48 modules and each module cost about $1000 to produce*. That’s $48,000 JUST for the battery modules.

*Nissan says they will replace the modules for about $650; I was told it's due to "recycling"... They can do it for the lower amount due to MORE government subsidies. It’s a vicious circle.

(that’s 48K for JUST parts of

http://green.autoblog.com/2011/08/03/need-to-replace-a-nissan-leaf-battery-

hows-19-392-31-753-u/

Sharyn Bovat KNEW that NISSAN was taking a DOE loan for to build a car that NISSAN asked Congress for OVER 1 Billion dollars for a project with "Outdated" Technology. After being told the NISSAN EV was built to fail Sharyn asked this question: Why take taxpayer money for a car to fail?

A viewer of Sharyn Bovat's blog told her that NISSAN used an IDB bond for collateral for the DOE loan. She was told by NISSAN executives that the company cound NOT pay back the loan based on their operating margins.

The Plaintiff avers that she has sustained significant financial and physical injuries as a result of being charged illegally with a crime that she could not actually commit, by being incarcerated illegally, by having to pay bail money, and having to hire attorneys, as well as the pain, humiliation, stress and anxiety caused by facing up to eleven months and twenty-nine days in jail. The Plaintiff avers that the Defendant’s actions were intentional, malicious and they warrant punitive damages.

Copy of Malicious Prosecution lawsuit filed a

Late Last Week in the State of Tennessee

In the circuit court for Williamson county, Tennessee

At Franklin

Sharyn Bovat, Plaintiff

Vs.

Nissan North America, Inc. Defendant.

COMPLAINT

Comes the Plaintiff, Sharyn Bovat (“Bovat”), by and through counsel, and sues the Defendant, Nissan North America, Inc. (“Nissan”), and for cause would state and show as follows:

The parties

The Plaintiff, Sharyn Bovat, is a citizen and resident of Williamson County, Tennessee and was such for all times material hereto. The Plaintiff is a whistleblower for various assertions regarding Nissan, its hiring practices, and its use of federal money for the development of the Nissan Leaf which is a technological and financial failure.

The Defendant, Nissan North America, Inc. (“Nissan”) is located in Williamson County, TN. Its registered agent is LexisNexis Document Solutions, Inc., 2908 Poston Avenue, Nashville, TN 37203-1312.

venue and jurisdiction

The Plaintiff avers that venue is proper in this Court because all acts complained of occurred and accrued in Williamson County, TN.

The Plaintiff avers that jurisdiction is proper in this Court because it has in personam and subject matter jurisdiction over the parties and this type of dispute.

III

the facts

The Plaintiff avers that the Defendant had her charged with stalking on the 11th of October, 2010 and she was arrested on charges of criminal trespass and stalking in indictment # I-CR105253.

The Plaintiff avers that Defendant, Nissan, did not have probable cause to bring charges against her for stalking particularly since a corporation cannot be the victim of stalking pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-315.

The Plaintiff avers that Defendant, Nissan, misused and abused the court system in an attempt to silence the Plaintiff because of her internet postings which revealed compromising information about Defendant, Nissan, and its use of government money to finance the Nissan Leaf which is an abyssmal failure.

The Plaintiff avers that Defendant, Nissan, brought the false charge against her in order to silence her and it did so with malice.

The Plaintiff avers that this case was tried before a jury on February 1, 2012. The Plaintiff further avers that the stalking charge against her was dismissed upon her motion to dismiss at the close of the state’s proof because a corporation cannot be a victim of a stalking charge brought pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-315(b)(1).

The Plaintiff avers that she was arrested for violating Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-315(b)(1) on several occasions and forfeited her freedom as part of the unlawful scheme and covin instituted by Defendant, Nissan, and Carlos Tavares and Carlos Ghosn, to silence the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff avers that the charge remained pending against her for almost two years while she awaited trial and that this caused her great stress and anxiety.

The Plaintiff avers that she has suffered extreme stress, humiliation, embarrassment and anxiety as a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s actions.

The Plaintiff published a blog at www.GirlintheBlackHonda.com which was critical of Defendant, Nissan’s, use of federal tax dollars for the development and manufacture of the electric vehicle Nissan calls the Leaf, which is an acronym for “Leading Environmentally Friendly, Affordable, Family” car. The Plaintiff has been critical of the waste of the federal tax dollars particularly with the short distance the Leaf can actually go on a single battery charge.

The Plaintiff avers that Defendant, Nissan, was motivated to silence her due to her critical internet postings and that it used the criminal justice system in order to do so.

first Cause of action

malicious prosecution

The Plaintiff relies upon the factual averments in numbered paragraphs 1-14 in support of the following cause of action.

The Plaintiff avers that Defendant, Nissan, has committed the tort of malicious prosecution by having her charged and arrested for stalking when she could not lawfully be charged with violating Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-315(b)(1).

The Plaintiff avers that Defendant, Nissan, did not have the legal authority or probable cause to charge her with violating Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-315(b)(1).

The Plaintiff avers that Defendant, Nissan, and with the aid and assistance of the Williamson County District Attorney, maliciously charged her with stalking in order to silence her.

The Plaintiff avers that on February 1, 2012 the charge against her for violating Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-315(b)(1) was dismissed at trial at the close of the state’s proof by Judge Walter Kurtz who agreed with her position and argument that a corporation cannot be a victim of stalking pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-315(b)(1). This constitutes a termination of the unlawful stalking charge in her favor.

The Plaintiff avers that the stalking charge was brought against her for unlawful purposes in order to silence her and Defendant, Nissan, used its political weight in Williamson County to compel the Williamson County District Attorney’s Office to prosecute the Plaintiff and incarcerate her using a statute, namely Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-315(b)(1), which could not be lawfully used. The Plaintiff was jailed, had to post a bond, make numerous court appearances and hire a defense attorney to defend her.

The Plaintiff avers that the Williamson County District Attorney knew that the Plaintiff could not be legally charged with violating Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-315(b)(1) at all times yet they proceeded with initially charging her using a warrant and then by convening and presenting the charge to the Williamson County Grand Jury in secret.

The Plaintiff avers that Defendant, Nissan, also hired a private prosecutor who attempted to prosecute the charge against her. The Defendant, Nissan, hired the former Williamson County District Attorney, Mr. Joseph D. Baugh, to prosecute the charge against her. Mr. Baugh is a well-respected, capable attorney, with years of experience prosecuting criminal offenses.

The Plaintiff avers that Defendant, Nissan, had the aid and counsel of the taxpayers’ funded District Attorney General’s Office and the former District Attorney General himself, Mr. Joseph D. Baugh, to advise it, consult with, and prosecute the Plaintiff on the illegal charge of violating Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-315(b)(1).

second Cause of action

abuse of process

The Plaintiff relies upon the factual averments in numbered paragraphs 1-24 in support of the following cause of action.

The Plaintiff avers that Defendant, Nissan, used the process of the Court in arresting the Plaintiff and charging her for an improper purpose and with an improper motive.

The Plaintiff avers that Defendant, Nissan, used the warrant and capias process to further its objective of silencing the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff avers that she has sustained damages as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant’s actions as previously pled.

THE PLAINTIFF PRAYS FOR THE FOLLOWING RELIEF:

That the Defendant be served with process and be required to answer within the time allowed by law;

That the Plaintiff be awarded compensatory damages in an amount in excess of $250,000;

That the Plaintiff be awarded punitive damages in an amount to be determined by the jury;

That a jury of six (6) be impaneled to hear this action;

That she be awarded such other, further relief to which she may be entitled.

Respectfully submitted,

__________________

G. Kline Preston, IV

TBPR #17141