October 29, 2014 at 5:04 p.m.
Libel suit should be dismissed, O.C. supervisor argues
Libel suit should be dismissed, O.C. supervisor argues
In a court filing earlier this month, Oneida County Supervisor Bob Mott formally asked a judge to dismiss the case, which claims Mott defamed a constituent in an email.
That constituent, James Kroeger, filed the suit in March alleging he "suffered loss of his reputation, shame, mortification and injury to his feelings."
Mott sent the email as part of a long-running dispute between Kroeger and his neighbors over his woodcutting business. According to public records, neighbors have complained since at least 2010 of chainsaw noise and vehicle traffic on Kroeger's property, near Pelican Lake.
Kroeger has said his business has not violated any rules and that noise levels have not been excessive.
In 2011, the county's planning and zoning department issued a conditional use permit to Kroeger limiting the hours he could continuously operate woodcutting equipment.
Nearly a year later, in July 2012, Mott sent the email to county officials and a concerned citizen. The message claimed that Kroeger was not following the conditions of the permit, and that he had been cutting wood on weekends and holidays for private use. The email also claimed that Kroeger was "violating the spirit of the CUP in that he is cutting and disturbing the neighborhood."
"Mr. Kr[o]eger could have been a good neighbor and cut his personal wood at the times in the CUP and avoided further aggravating his neighbors," Mott wrote in the email. "He chose to aggravate."
That portion of the email is important, because it could carry a defamatory meaning, according to Oneida County Circuit Judge Michael Bloom, who ruled in May not to dismiss the case.
The lawsuit claims portions of the email are false, and Kroeger, who is seeking unspecified damages and court costs, argues his actions were actually legal. (Though a county appeals panel upheld Kroeger's conditional use permit, the panel noted that the permit was not actually required for a part-time woodcutting business.)
In the most recent court filing, which Mott's lawyer prepared, Mott argues the allegedly defamatory statements are substantially true. Mott noted that the underlying claims made in the statements were raised in a public hearing and communicated by constituents to county zoning officials. Mott claims he also listened to a voice mail recording that indicated wood cutting was occurring during early morning hours outside of the conditional use permit specifications.
"In this case, the defendant's statements about the CUP and the relationship between the plaintiff and his neighbors were substantially true," the filing reads. "The statements reflect how the plaintiff acted and reacted to the concerns of his neighbors regarding the cutting of wood."
The statements at issue are also privileged, Mott says, which, if true, would mean he is immune from liability in the case. Mott raised two arguments as to why the statements are privileged: They were made in a quasi-judicial setting -- the e-mail was sent to members of the county's Planning and Development Committee -- and they were made in the public interest to allow the county to potentially take action.
In addition, Mott claims that Kroeger was a limited purpose public figure, and can recover damages only if Mott acted with actual malice. In other words, Kroeger would have to show that Mott knew the statements were false or acted with reckless disregard for the veracity of the statements. Mott argues that Kroger is a limited purpose public figure because the case is rooted in the earlier dispute with his neighbors, which has prompted public meetings and other litigation.
"The controversy has included public hearings before various committees, complaints to Oneida County zoning officials, complaints to law enforcement officials, has devolved into neighbor-on-neighbor civil actions seeking restraining orders, and multiple actions for defamation," Mott's court filing reads. "The plaintiff has injected himself into the public eye. As a result, he is a limited purpose public figure."
Just last week, in a separate suit, Bloom dismissed nearly all of the defendants in a lawsuit Kroeger and his wife filed against several neighbors for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
In Mott's case, a hearing is scheduled for late November, though there is always a possibility of a settlement.
Jonathan Anderson may be reached at [email protected]
Comments:
You must login to comment.