For Pringle and Thierbach, It Was a Day Named Sue

Curt Pringle, the Republican candidate in the 72nd Assembly District, filed a lawsuit Wednesday charging that state Democratic officials were improperly using taxpayers’ money to help his Democratic opponent.

Hours later, the opponent, Christian F. (Rick) Thierbach, responded with a suit charging that Pringle has been illegally impersonating an elected official.

In the messy race to succeed the late Assemblyman Richard E. Longshore (R-Santa Ana), Wednesday was a banner day. Each side said later that the other was improperly using the courts for political purposes. And each camp said its suit was merited and the opponent’s was frivolous.

‘Our Suit Has Merit’

“I specifically told my attorneys that if this case is just to get headlines, I don’t want to do it,” Pringle said. “The bottom line is that our suit has merit.”

Said Frank P. Barbaro, Thierbach’s attorney: “Their suit is nothing more than the use of the courts for improper purposes; it has no legal substance.” Barbaro characterized Thierbach’s suit, however, as “a slam-dunk case.”

Stakes in the 72nd District race are particularly high because of its importance to the leadership of both major political parties at the state level. Democrats want to win to shore up the threatened speakership of Willie Brown (D-San Francisco). Republicans want to win in order to control the state redistricting that will occur after the 1990 census.

Pringle held a press conference Wednesday afternoon to announce his lawsuit, but he did not mention that earlier in the day a judge had refused his request for an immediate court order. Pringle said later that he did not know whether there will be a court decision on his case before Election Day.

The suit stems from a letter sent by a Democrat last month to 56,000 voters in the 72nd District warning of “fraudulent attempts” by Pringle to act as Longshore’s surrogate in providing constituent services. The letter was sent by Assemblyman Tom Bane (D-Tarzana), chairman of the Assembly Rules Committee, who said he was angered by Pringle’s offer to answer constituents’ questions during the time that Longshore’s office would be vacant.

Pringle tried to make a campaign issue of the fact that Longshore’s office staff was reduced from about a dozen people to one person after his death, resulting in a situation Pringle referred to as “taxation without representation.”

Bane said his letter cost about $10,000 in Assembly funds.

Pringle’s suit Wednesday claims that the letter cost $20,000 and that it should be repaid to state coffers. It also says Thierbach should declare the funds used to send the letter as a campaign contribution. And it also charges that because the letter was an unsolicited mass mailing, it violated the recently passed Proposition 73, which prohibits mass mailings at public expense.

Thierbach’s suit is scheduled to be considered by a judge today. It charges that Pringle has improperly implied in his campaign literature and in his comments that he is representing the district’s constituents in the Legislature.

One Pringle campaign brochure in September said voters who have questions for their assemblyman could call his office. Pringle hired a former member of Longshore’s office staff to handle the calls.

Barbaro said another piece of Pringle’s literature said, “Curt Pringle is now providing Assembly services. If you have any special problems that need the help of a legislator--or know someone who does--please call.” The mailer gave the number of Pringle’s campaign office.

Pringle said Wednesday that he does not consider it a misrepresentation because the literature says it was from his campaign.

Thierbach was not available for comment.