STATE OF NEW MEXICO SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF BERNALILLO DIEGO ESPINOZA, Plaintiff-Counter Claim Defendant v.

DAVID CLEMENTS, a candidate for the United States Senate from New Mexico, CLEMENTS FOR NEW MEXICO, INC., and BOB C. DOE, and JANE C. DOE, unknown political consultants for the Clements for New Mexico campaign, Defendants-Counter Claim Plaintiffs ANSWER TO CIVIL COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND COUNTERCLAIM FOR MALICIOUS ABUSE OF PROCESS Defendants David Clements and Clements for New Mexico, Inc., and for no other persons, firms and/or entities, in Answer to Plaintiffs Civil Complaint for Damages, states as follows: No. D-202-CV-2014-01829 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

INTRODUCTION 1. 2. Defendants deny the averments contained in paragraph 1 of the Complaint. Defendants admit that a felony offense is a crime punishable by jail. Defendants deny the remaining averments contained in paragraph 2 of the Complaint.

PARTIES AND JURISDICTION 3. 4. 5. 6. Defendants admit the averments contained in paragraph 3 of the Complaint. Defendants admit the averments contained in paragraph 4 of the Complaint. Defendants admit the averments contained in paragraph 5 of the Complaint. Defendants deny the averments contained in paragraph 6 of the Complaint.

7.

Defendants admit the averments contained in paragraph 7 of the Complaint.

STATEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS 8. 9. 10. Defendants admit the averments contained in paragraph 8 of the Complaint. Defendants admit the averments contained in paragraph 9 of the Complaint. Defendants deny issuing a press release to the public via email, titled All the Documents We Have. Defendants admit sending an email titled All the Documents We Have to a list of duly elected delegates and Republican Party officers. Defendants deny all other averments contained in paragraph 10 of the Complaint. 11. 12. Defendants admit the averments contained in paragraph 11 of the Complaint. Defendants admit that the Bernalillo Cover-Up website states Diego Espinoza, the [Allen] Weh campaign manager, abused the Clements email system and used it to resend the open letter to multiple delegates. 13. 14. Defendants admit the averments contained in paragraph 13 of the Complaint. Defendants deny Plaintiffs first statement found in paragraph 14 of the Complaint as it misstates the documented cited. Defendants admit that the document cited states, The [diego@allenweh.com] subscriber was forwarding the email that he received on February 17th 2014 at 03:31 PM with the unique identifier code [sG4dVY6] hundreds of times to contacts inside and outside the original population of recipients. Recipients who report receiving the email numerous times have a very high likelihood of receiving it from [diego@allenweh.com/ sG4dVY6], as the [Clements] email distribution system did not blast the email a second time to the lists.

15. 16. 17. 18. 19.

Defendants admit the averments contained in paragraph 15 of the Complaint. Defendants admit the averments contained in paragraph 16 of the Complaint. Defendants admit the averments contained in paragraph 17 of the Complaint. Defendants admit the averments contained in paragraph 18 of the Complaint. Defendants admit that the Internet service provider message does not use the word hack. Defendants deny that the Internet service provider documents state that Diego Espinoza merely forwarded certain emails. Defendants affirmatively state that the same Internet service provider message provides an explanation as to how Diego Espinozas email was received by delegates without any visual cues indicating that the message was being repeatedly forwarded by Plaintiff. The Internet service provider message states, [diego@allenweh.com/ sG4dVY6] could have used the share with a friend or simply masked his own email address when forwarding the html-version of email 20601347 embedded with his unique identifier code.

20. 21. 22.

Defendants admit the averments contained in paragraph 20 of the Complaint. Defendants admit the averments contained in paragraph 21 of the Complaint. Defendants admit hacking is a very commonly used word. Defendants admit unauthorized computer use may be a crime under both state and federal law. Defendants deny all other averments contained in paragraph 22 of the Complaint.

23.

Defendants deny they have continued to send press releases and links to the Bernalillo Cover-Up website to media and television news stations throughout the state of New Mexico. Defendants admit sending an email titled All the Documents We Have to a list of duly elected delegates and Republican Party officers and posting a link to the Campaigns Facebook page. Defendants admit that on March 5, 2014, an NBC affiliate in Albuquerque, KOB (Channel 4), ran a televised news story surrounding the events

alleged in this case, including Plaintiff attorneys press announcement that his client would file a lawsuit for defamation by the end of the week. Defendants deny all other averments contained in paragraph 23 of the Complaint. 24. 25. Defendants admit the averments contained in paragraph 24 of the Complaint. Defendants admit creating a website, The Bernalillo Cover-Up and sending an email titled All the Documents We Have to a list of duly elected delegates and Republican Party officers, and posting a link to the Campaigns Facebook page. Defendant David Clements admits conducting interviews with reporters and answering truthfully about the state primary convention results and email abuse caused by Plaintiff. Defendants deny all other averments contained in paragraph 25 of the Complaint. 26. 27. 28. Defendants deny the averments contained in paragraph 26 of the Complaint. Defendants deny the averments contained in paragraph 27 of the Complaint. Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 28 of the Complaint. 29. Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 29 of the Complaint. 30. Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 30 of the Complaint. 31. Defendants admit that communications remain publicly available through media, email, Internet and television, and affirmatively state that those communications are truthful. Defendants deny all other averments contained in paragraph 31 of the Complaint.

32.

Defendants deny making any defamatory accusations that Plaintiff engaged in cyber-criminal activity for the purpose of political gain, and affirmatively state that all statements were truthful. Defendants admit that Plaintiffs conduct has subjected himself to criminal and civil liability.

33.

Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 33 of the Complaint.

34.

Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 34 of the Complaint.

35.

Paragraph 35 of the Complaint requests relief from the Court, and does not require a response from Defendants. Insofar as a response is required, Defendants deny the averments in paragraph 35 of the Complaint.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 1 The Complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against these Defendants in that the statements alleged to be defamatory are true statements of fact. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 2 The Complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against these Defendants in that the statements alleged to be defamatory are expressions of opinion. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 3 The Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and should therefore be dismissed.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 4 The Complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against these Defendants as it fails to allege that these Defendants broadcast the allegedly defamatory statements with knowledge of their falsity or with reckless disregard for their truth. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 5 Plaintiffs claim is barred by the substantial truth doctrine. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 6 Plaintiff has failed to mitigate his damages. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 7 Plaintiff is a limited public figure, and as such is unable to meet his heightened burden of proof to sustain the claim of defamation. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 8 Plaintiff has failed to allege facts constituting actual malice. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 9 The Defendants statements are not properly subject to a defamation suit because they contain no provably false assertions of fact. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 10 The Defendants statements concerning Plaintiff abusing the Clements Campaign Email system concern matters which affect the interests of the general public and election integrity. These statements were made in good faith with the proper motives of informing duly elected Republican delegates who were harassed with duplicative emails, and to inform Republican officers. Therefore the Defendants statements are protected by both qualified and conditional privilege.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 11 The Defendants statements are protected by the fair comment privilege. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 12 Plaintiffs claim is barred under the equitable doctrine of unclean hands. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 13 Plaintiffs claim is barred under the doctrine of illegality. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 14 Plaintiffs claim of defamation is a strategic litigation against public participation (SLAPP) suit and seeks to impose or threaten large costs and attorney fees on a political opponent in having to defend against an unwarranted and specious lawsuit, and therefore should be dismissed.

COUNTERCLAIM FOR MALICIOUS ABUSE OF PROCESS Defendants-Counter Plaintiffs David Clements and Clements for New Mexico, Inc., having Answered the Complaint, and having set forth their Affirmative Defenses, file a Counterclaim and sue Plaintiff-Counter Defendant Diego Espinoza, and allege: PARTIES AND JURISDICTION 1. Defendant-Counter Plaintiff David Clements (Clements) is a resident of Dona Ana County. 2. Defendant-Counter Plaintiff Clements for New Mexico, Inc., is a political organization located in Dona Ana County. 3. Plaintiff-Counter Defendant Diego Espinoza (Espinoza) is a resident of Bernalillo County.

4.

The events giving rise to this lawsuit occurred within all 33 counties of the State of New Mexico, including Dona Ana and Bernalillo counties. Accordingly, venue and jurisdiction are appropriate. STATEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS

5. 6.

Espinoza is the campaign manager for Allen Wehs U.S. Senate race. Espinoza is well known in Republican state politics. Espinoza previously worked as Allen Wehs campaign manager in a high profile gubernatorial race against Governor Susana Martinez in 2010.

7.

As campaign manager, Espinoza routinely produces and distributes press releases, utilizing different forms of media, and interacts with the voting public across the state of New Mexico.

8.

As campaign manager for two of the States highest profile political races over the past 5 years, Espinoza has been conferred with a public figure status, or alternatively, a limited public figure status.

9. 10.

Allen Weh (Weh) is the Republican primary opponent of Clements. Both Weh and Clements seek the Republican nomination for the U.S. Senate race in New Mexico.

11.

Weh is the owner and Chief Executive Officer of CSI Aviation. Espinoza is also an employee of CSI Aviation.

12.

Espinoza alleges that he will be limited in his advancement at CSI Aviation due to the controversy surrounding the instant case.

13.

Upon information and belief, Espinoza has not been suspended or placed on administrative leave from his position as the Weh campaign manager, or as a CSI employee arising from the controversy surrounding the instant case.

14.

During the U.S. Senate race, Clements and Weh were tasked with persuading approximately 804 Republican delegates for their vote in order to gain access to the primary ballot.

15.

The 804 delegates were elected and certified from each of the 33 counties throughout New Mexico. These delegates were then able to vote for the candidate of their choice at the state primary convention, held March 1, 2014.

16.

Candidates must receive at least 20% of the vote to qualify for access to the ballot for the primary election. Candidates that receive 51% of the vote gain top of the ballot placement.

17.

The candidate who receives top ballot placement has an inherent advantage in the primary election.

18.

The process of contacting and persuading elected delegates for their vote to ensure ballot access can be both expensive and time consuming.

19.

Bernalillo County is the most populous county in New Mexico, with approximately one third (257) of the total convention delegates.

20.

The Bernalillo County pre-convention was held on February 5, 2014 and was surrounded by controversy, in large part, because of the actions of Espinoza.

21.

At the Bernalillo pre-convention, 227 of the 257 delegate positions were elected through ward caucus elections, leaving approximately 30 at-large delegate slots available to vote at the state convention.

22.

Under the Republican Party Bernalillo County Special rules, proxy votes are strictly prohibited, and under convention precedent, at-large delegates are typically elected

from those remaining in person at the county convention. See Ex. 1, Bernalillo Special Rules. 23. The convention process ensures that at-large delegate nominees are in fact registered Republicans prior to votes being cast; have paid the required convention registration fees; and participated in the pre-convention to fill out nomination forms. Participation in the Bernalillo pre-convention ensures that elected delegates represent a cross section of Bernalillo Republicans at the state convention. See id. 24. Upon information and belief, Espinoza was observed by Bernalillo pre-convention attendees handing a list containing approximately thirty names to the convention chair. 25. The list provided by Espinoza included persons not present at the convention, and/or, included persons that did not register and pay the required fees. Espinozas actions violated the County rules and convention precedent. See id. 26. The names on Espinozas list were reduced to individual ballots and observed being secured by Wehs campaign staff. 27. After securing the ballots, many convention attendees requested a ballot count. The convention chair requested that no staff or volunteers from either campaign count the ballots. 28. Weh campaign members wearing blue staff polo-shirts disregarded the convention chairs instructions and were observed counting ballots. See Ex. 2, Dr. Tipton Email titled What I saw and Ex. 3, Photograph of Weh Staffer. 29. County officials reported that 90 ballots were submitted. Bernalillo county rules chairman, Dr. Tipton, reported the number of ballots doubled or tripled the number of individuals present. See Ex. 2.

30.

Dr. Tipton described there being no ballot security at the Bernalillo pre-convention. Id.

31.

Upon information and belief, convention participants that remained to be elected as at-large delegates were supplanted by Espinozas illegitimate slate of approximately 30 delegates. Because of the controversy surrounding the at-large election, the

Bernalillo convention did not conclude until the next day, February 6, 2014 at approximately 12:30 a.m. in the morning. 32. A written protest disputing the at-large election and lack of ballot security was filed by Bernalillo convention attendee, Mike Nagel. Id. 33. On February 10, 2014, Bernalillo County Chairman Frank Ruvolo announced that the at-large delegates had been improperly elected and could not be certified. See Ex. 4., email titled Bernalillo County Convention, pg.1 34. The next day, Ruvolo reversed his decision citing many conversations with County and State rules officials, but provided no explanation to the Clements campaign concerning the particular rule that prompted the reversal. See Ex. 5., email titled, Bernalillo County, pgs. 1-2. 35. At no time after the Bernalillo convention did Espinoza dispute the aforementioned events. Rather, Espinoza simply asserted that the Clements campaign failed to file a timely protest. See Ex. 6A, Espinoza Email dated February 17th, 2014, pg.3. 36. The approximately 30 at-large delegates hand-picked by Espinoza and the Weh campaign would have a significant effect on the ultimate outcome of the March 1, 2014, state primary convention. 37. This number of delegates on the Espinoza slate is equivalent to the entire delegation of 7 of New Mexicos smaller counties.

38.

The Clements campaign exhausted all viable internal party procedures to obtain an equitable remedy for the flagrant rule violations that occurred at the Bernalillo preconvention.

39.

After exposing the violations, Espinoza misinformed delegates and party officers throughout the State that there was no merit to the controversy surrounding Bernalillo, and that if there was a real controversy, a formal protest would have been filed by the Clements campaign. Id.

40.

A formal protest, as well as an amended protest, was in fact timely filed. See Ex. 7, Bernalillo Protest.

41.

Due to Espinoza and the Weh campaigns deliberate misinformation to delegates and party officers, Clements quickly responded to Espinozas allegations providing supporting documentation. See Ex. 6B.

42.

Espinoza continued to misinform delegates and Clements released an open letter to Allen Weh on February 17th, 2014, informing him of what had occurred in Bernalillo County, and sought the opportunity to work together to find an equitable solution.

43.

The letter was released through an email to a list of the elected delegates and officers titled Fraudulent Convention Delegates a must read (hereinafter Fraudulent Delegates email). Ex. 8.

44.

On the morning of February 21, 2014, the Clements campaign staff began receiving emails, texts, and phone calls with complaints from delegates about receiving the same Fraudulent Delegates email multiple times.

45.

Delegate Janice Arnold Jones reported receiving the same Fraudulent Delegates email three times. The Clements campaign inquired whether the email was forwarded to her from another sender.

46.

Ms. Jones reported that the email contained no visual cues of it being forwarded and that she received the email from David Clements <Win@ClementsForNM.com>" on each occasion.

47.

Immediately after receiving Ms. Jones complaint, the Clements campaign asked that she forward the emails she received.

48.

The Clements campaign forwarded Ms. Jones emails to Streamsend, its internet service provider, with instructions to investigate the cause of the Fraudulent Delegates email going out multiple times.

49.

Streamsend reported that the February 17th Fraudulent Delegates email blast was sent one-time at 1:30 p.m. MST/3:30 EST, and that any subsequent emails had to come from another source. See Ex. 9., Analysis of Views of Blast 20601347. Pgs. 1-2.

50.

Ms. Jones produced a Fraudulent Delegates email on February 17th at 1:30 p.m., and another February 21st email at 6:37 a.m. See Ex.s 10, pgs. 1-3 and 11, pgs. 1-3 respectively.

51.

Each email appeared to come from David Clements<win@ClementsForNM.com>, but there were notable differences between the two emails. Id.

52.

The February 21st email contains different formatting and ordering of the From, To, Sent, Date, and Subject fields than the February 17th email. Id.

53.

The February 17th email contains "Date, whereas the February 21st email contains the word Sent in its place. Id.

54.

The February 21st email represents itself as an Original Message, even though Ms. Jones had received the same email February 17th.

55.

Ms. Jones informed the Clements campaign that her husband and delegate, John Jones, had also received the Fraudulent Delegates email on February 21st, within a few hours of her receiving a third copy of the email. See Ex. 12, pgs. 1-4.

56.

John Jones provided feedback that many delegates who previously indicated their support of the Clements campaign were now turned off due to a series of emails that appeared to be sent by the Clements campaign. See id.

57.

That same morning, a weekly Republican breakfast at the Golden Corral took place. Ms. Jones was in attendance and reported that many present discussed the issue of receiving the same email multiple times.

58.

Upon information and belief, delegates Robert Michelson, Linda Barber, Carolyn Freeman, and many others were in attendance at the Republican breakfast, and reported receiving the same Fraudulent Delegates email on more than one occasion.

59.

During the breakfast, the Clements campaign exchanged emails with Ms. Jones to troubleshoot the problems that the delegates were complaining about. Ms. Jones asked if the Clements email system was being hijacked. See Ex. 12.

60.

Ms. Jones further reported that many delegates she spoke with would no longer vote for David Clements as a result of receiving the same email numerous times. See Ex. 10.

61.

In Las Cruces, Clements campaign phone banker, James Shult, was tasked with calling through the entire 804 person delegation twice to determine which candidate they would support at the state convention.

62.

While calling, Shult reported receiving numerous complaints from delegates who had received duplicative emails February 17th through February 26th. Shult described that

David Clements favorability among delegates dropped from 75 percent to 50 percent while making his second series of calls. 63. During the time period described by James Shult and numerous elected delegates, Streamsend tracked the views of the Fraudulent Delegates email. 64. To track views, StreamSend loads a 1x1 clear pixel into each email it sends. Part of the image path in the HTML code contains a tracking hash which is used to identify each individual subscriber. See Ex. 9, Ex. 13, Espinoza Subscriber Report, Ex. 14, Espinoza View Report. 65. Each time the Fraudulent Delegates email was viewed with images enabled, Streamsend can see that the image is loaded and can identify the subscriber. See Ex. 9. 66. An email address identified as diego@allenweh.com with the unique identifier code sG4dVY6 had an open rate of the Fraudulent Delegates email in excess of 500 times as of February 21, 2014. The next highest open rate was in the single digits. See Ex.s 14 and Ex. 15, Espinoza report ending February 26th, 2014. 67. Every email Streamsend delivers is uniquely tagged to the recipient, including Espinoza. When the email is opened by Espinoza or someone he forwarded the email to, Streamsend receives notice that this unique recipient, Espinoza, has opened the email. 68. The Fraudulent Delegates email sent by Espinoza was viewed 167 times on February 17th, 168 times on February 18th, and 181 times on February 19th, a total of 516 views. By February 26th, Espinoza had sent the email 660 times. 69. Upon information and belief, the Fraudulent Delegates email sent by Espinoza was sent at a much higher rate than the 500 views reported by February 21st, 2014.

70.

The Clements Campaign requested from Streamsend the average open rate of its email to date. Streamsend informed the Clements campaign that the average open rate of the emails sent out was 15%.

71.

Based on the open rate percentage, the Fraudulent Delegates email is estimated to have been sent by Espinoza 2,000 to 4,000 times by February 21st.

72.

The Clements Campaign asked Streamsend for an explanation on why the emails received by the delegates did not appear to be forwards.

73.

Streamsend explained that no advanced technical knowledge is necessary to mask the identity of the Sender.

74.

All that was necessary was for Espinoza to download the Fraudulent Delegates email received February 17th to his Outlook account, and change the From: diego@allenweh.com email address to From: David Streamsend

Clements<Win@ClementsForNM.com>" in the account settings.

reported that the Share with a Friend function within the Fraudulent Delegates email could also be used to alter the senders address. 75. The 660 emails forwarded by Espinoza and received between February 17th and February 26th would have appeared to come from the Clements email system. 76. With just days before the state convention, the Clements campaign created the website BernalilloCoverUp.com, detailing the controversy surrounding the Bernalillo preconvention and the abuse of its email system, in efforts to refute claims that the Clements campaign was harassing delegates with repeat emails. 77. Hacking is broadly defined as turning a system against itself, through the process of using existing code, comments, and technology for more than what their original authors intended.

78.

The Clements campaign intended to send the Fraudulent Delegates email to its intended recipients one time on February 17th, 2014, not hundreds, or thousands of times.

79.

On February 28th, 2014, the night before the state convention, David Clements met with hundreds of delegates in his campaigns hospitality suite.

80.

Dozens of delegates complained about the Clements campaign refusing to let the Bernalillo matter rest, referring to repeat emails sent by the campaign.

81.

David Clements spent hours explaining to delegates throughout the evening that the campaign sent one email describing what happened at the Bernalillo pre-convention on February 17th, 2014, and that other emails were sent by another source.

82.

Despite the Bernalillo controversy, abuse of the Clements email system, and being significantly outspent by the Weh campaign, on March 1st, 2014, the Clements campaign shocked the State convention attendees and political observers by obtaining nearly 47% of the delegate vote.

83.

The margin of Wehs victory was decided by less than 50 votes despite Espinozas handpicked slate of 30 delegates from the Bernalillo pre-convention, and a loss of delegate votes due to Espinozas hijacking of the Clements email system.

84.

Days later, while in Washington D.C., David Clements learned of Diego Espinozas intention to file a lawsuit for defamation.

85.

Upon return to New Mexico, Clements contacted attorney for Plaintiff to determine the basis for the lawsuit. Attorney for Plaintiff discussed meeting with both Espinoza and Weh before filing the instant lawsuit.

86.

Counter Plaintiffs affirmatively state that Espinozas lawsuit, backed by multimillionaire Weh, is a strategic lawsuit that provides political cover for Espinoza and the Weh campaigns misconduct during the primary race.

87.

In this judicial proceeding, Espinoza has misused or actively participated in misusing the legal process.

88.

Espinozas primary motive in misusing the legal process was to accomplish an illegitimate end, namely, to overwhelm and harass a grassroots political opponent with a costly and timely lawsuit during a crucial time period leading up to the primary election.

89.

The conduct of Counter-Defendant Espinoza has caused damages to CounterPlaintiffs David Clements and Clements for New Mexico, Inc.

90.

Because of Espinozas actions, on March 10, 2014, Clements contacted the Criminal Investigation Division of the Dona Ana Sheriffs Office. A criminal investigation has been initiated over the abuse of the Clements campaigns email system.

91.

Accordingly, Defendants-Counter-Plaintiffs requests all allowable compensatory damages, including expenses for Espinozas malicious abuse of process, damages suffered by David Clements and to his candidacy, incidental expenses and punitive damages as well as reasonable attorneys fees, costs, pre and post-judgment interest. REQUEST FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Defendants-Counter Plaintiffs respectfully seek the following relief: (A) (B) (C) Dismiss Plaintiff-Counter Defendants lawsuit for Defamation with Prejudice; Declare Plaintiff-Counter Defendants actions unlawful; Order Plaintiff-Counter Defendant to pay such compensatory and punitive damages as the jury may award;

(D)

Order the Plaintiff-Counter Defendant to pay Defendants-Counter Plaintiffs expenses, costs, and attorneys fees.

(E) (F) (G)

Award pre and post-judgment interest; Defendant Counter Plaintiffs request a trial by jury; and Grant such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.

Respectfully submitted, By: /s/David Clements David Clements, Pro Se 2251 La Paloma Dr. Las Cruces, New Mexico 88011 575-202-8001 dkclements@live.com

CERTIFICATE OF DELIVERY I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing pleading was e-mailed to the following persons on this 7th day of April, 2014: Colin Hunter 1905 Wyoming Boulevard NE Albuquerque, NM 87112 colin@theblf.com /s/ Electronically filed 04-07-14 DAVID K. CLEMENTS