The lawsuit against a group of citizens who challenged a Middlesex Township zoning ordinance that allows shale gas operations in most of the township has been resubmitted to Butler County Judge Marilyn Horan, who said in September the suit would be dismissed if a revised version with more detail was not submitted.

Horan dismissed the original, 14-page suit against the group because she said it did not directly link the challengers to alleged shale gas income lost by the plaintiffs, who are gas leaseholders. Horan also said the original suit lacked specifics regarding the allegations.

Horan gave attorney Ronald Amrhein, who represents the plaintiffs, 20 days to file a revised complaint.

Amrhein did so last week, when he submitted a 29-page complaint to Horan.

The original suit accused the challengers of:

• Intentionally misstating facts regarding health issues they say are caused by shale gas activities

• Intentionally delaying fracking through the pursuit of court actions

• Misusing the legal system in pursuit of a cause

• Filing a frivolous challenge to the ordinance

• Unlawfully using the Clean Air Council and Delaware Riverkeeper Network for purposes beyond their scope.

The judge said the original suit gave no specifics regarding how the defendants did the things the suit accuses them of doing. The new filing lists numerous actions Amrhein says were taken by the defendants.

In the new suit Amrhein lists testimony the defendants gave before the zoning hearing board that he said was false or misleading, including that of Jennifer Chomicki.

The suit says Chomicki made false sworn statements about threats to her daughter's health and decline in home values despite a posting on a website in which Chomicki claims, “The majority of the wells are not causing problems for home values or any known issues for our health.”

The revised lawsuit also mentions the zoning board testimony of defendant Joann Groman, who said “without water we can use, our property value would plummet” despite knowing that drillers must test water before and after drilling, and if necessary, provide water for residents whose water sources are tainted by drilling.

The new suit claims the defendants made many false claims regarding the negative effects of shale gas activities with the intention to stall drilling.

Amrhein called the defendants' activities before the zoning board “a sham” because they sought to cause drillers to abandon their leases and harm the plaintiffs.

Amrhein accuses Mars parent group leader Amy Nassif of admitting the purpose of the challenge was not on the merits of the case, and of stating, “If the legal proceedings cost money, that is the price you pay.”

The new suit also questions the involvement of the Delaware Riverkeepers Network because it has “no real presence in the communities at issue,” and is participating only to delay drilling and other shale gas development.

The new suit states that the Delaware Riverkeepers Network is a nonprofit entity whose sole purpose is to protect the Delaware River Watershed, which is two watersheds away from Middlesex Township.

Amrhein goes on to claim in the suit that the Network's website limits the group's activities to “charitable, educational and scientific purposes” as defined by its nonprofit status.

“The Network's participating in the aforementioned appeals are not for charitable, educational or scientific purposes as defined by Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code,” the suit states.

The new suit also claims the defendants recruited and encouraged individuals and disseminated false information to cause a delay in shale gas activities in the area.

“The defendants' public comments, websites, Facebook postings, and other actions incorrectly place plaintiffs in an improper light by stating and implying the plaintiffs have no regard for the health of themselves, their neighbors, children, or the quality of the environment for the purpose of interfering with the (lease) contracts,” Amrhein claims in the suit.

The suit calls the defendants' activities malicious, wanton, willful and outrageous, and done to interfere with the plaintiffs' gas lease contracts or cause gas companies to abandon their efforts to drill.

“Several of the plaintiff's leases expire, have expired or will expire during the course of the delays caused by the defendants,” the suit claims.

The plaintiffs are asking for judgment against the defendants in excess of $35,000 “and believed to be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars,” plus punitive damages, interest, and costs.

A statement released by plaintiff Ryan Dewey of Dewey Homes and Investment Properties refutes the claims of the American Civil Liberties Union attorney who represented the defendants that the suit is a SLAPP suit, which is a suit meant to deprive the challengers of their constitutional right to protest a government action.

“Nowhere in the preliminary objections filed by the defendants will you find them argue the case is a SLAPP suit,” Dewey wrote.

Dewey claims the SLAPP suit cry is another misrepresentation by the defendants.

Dewey also points out that the Delaware Riverkeepers Network led the charge to have zoning powers restored to municipalities regarding shale gas activities, yet participated in the challenge to the Middlesex ordinance.

“It's now become obvious their goal was to be able to push their own agenda onto individual municipalities through the type of intimidation tactics they're using in Middlesex,” Dewey said in the release.

Witold Walczak, the ACLU legal director who is representing the challengers, said the more detailed lawsuit makes it clearer that it is a SLAPP suit.

“They brought litigation against the township's action and that's something they have a right to do,” Walczak said of his clients.

While he agreed that the new filing contains more detail, he said it is still not enough. Walczak cited a handful of claims in the new suit that he said still do not suitably connect his clients to the alleged wrongdoing.

“Our view is that they refuse to be specific because there's not a base for their claims,” Walczak said. “Nothing's changed.”

He said he has not heard from the court regarding any upcoming action.