OK, I stuck my neck out trashed a police officer to the public in a letter.

[Cliff421]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Oregon

I have been having a lot of problems with a police officer who happens to be a relative. We hate each other. He is high ranking in the department, but he's not the Chief.

He filed for a restraining order against me and also filed the identical information against me as a police report.

I (or rather my attorney) kicked his butt.
The plaintiff accused me of threatening him with firearms and attached two emails which he claimed proved it. In Oregon, you need two instances of evidence relating to the charge, both within the past 180 days to make your case for a restraining order. Neither of the emails contained any threats at all, much less about guns.

They contained thorough butt chewings which ticked him off, but no threats. Had he won, I wouldn't have been able to own a firearm for 14 years and I would have been labeled as a "dangerous person."

When the judge saw the complaints and the "evidence," I believe he thought the officer was crazy. He ordered, upon motion from my attorney, that the officer turn over to the court all of his mental health records - all of the full actual files from any mental health provider, ever.

This officer then hastened to ask that the case be dismissed rather than comply. The case was dismissed.

NOW comes the rub and the question. I've had enough of this guy and the expense of restraining order requests (3 so far all of which I've won), so I wrote a letter of complaint and broadcast it to anyone who has any authority over him. In Oregon, the State Police have authority over all other police agencies so I complained to them. The City Council and the City Manager have authority over the police department, The Sheriff's office was involved in serving since I live in the county, the country commissioners have authority over the Sheriffs dept and on it goes. I cc'd every one of them.

I said things like "in my opinion this officer is mentally ill, and I believe that he should be removed from his job."

"As Southern Oregonians, I believe we have a serious problem with XXXXX, a (name of city) Police Officer."

I know two different (name of officer). I know the one who has been a family member for about xx years, and then I know the one who I believe puts on a different persona when he is in the public eye.

I believe that xxxxx is seriously mentally ill but hides it well to the general public.

I don’t believe that xxxxxxx is fit to be a police officer, much less in management. I would suggest that I believe my family knows the real xxxxxx a lot better than the public does. He’s not even welcome at our homes.

----------------

OK, considering that I broadcast this to every law enforcement official who should have an interest, but not to the general public (if that matters) how much trouble can I be in other than having to defend myself again?

I wrote it in anger, but now I'm worried. He is a public figure, truth is an absolute defense, and there is no "malice." I believe everything to be true.

What think?

Thanks!

 

[Proserpina]

When did this happen? Please give a rough timeline.

There is a reason for my question.

 

[Cliff421]

About a week ago.

Edit. The false police report and the restraining order request were made about a month ago. It took just two weeks for my attorney to kick his butt and get it dismissed.

I wrote and mailed the letter about a week ago. People received it mid-week.

 

[Cliff421]

I wrote "He is a public figure, truth is an absolute defense, and there is no "malice." I believe everything to be true."

I forgot to mention, as is shown by my sample sentences, that every accusatory sentence included something like "it is my opinion" or "I believe" or "in my opinion" etc., hoping for a ruling of constitutionally protected speech.

I also said "His refusal to turn over his mental health records upon an order from the court causes me to believe that he has something to hide. I believe that it must be very telling that a judge would actually demand that a police officer turn over his mental health records upon seeing the complaint and the "evidence."

 

[quincy]

Tacking on an "I think" or "I believe" to a defamatory statement does not make the statement any less defamatory.

For defamation, publication needs to be made to a third party. It does not need to be made to the public at large.

From what you have posted, there seems to be enough to support a finding of actual malice.

I strongly suggest that if or when you are sued for defamation, you hire a defamation attorney in your area. You will probably need one to work with you on your defense, which appears shaky.

 

[Cliff421]

Tacking on an "I think" or "I believe" to a defamatory statement does not make the statement any less defamatory.

I have been under the belief the "my opinion or belief" changes it from a statement of fact to a constitutionally protected statement of opinion.

For defamation, publication needs to be made to a third party. It does not need to be made to the public at large.

I believe that's true.

From what you have posted, there seems to be enough to support a finding of actual malice.

My understanding of "malice" in this sense is that I said it knowing full well it wasn't true. I understand that this is a dang hard thing to prove, because it almost, without other evidence, requires the ability to read someone's mind. I believe it all to be true. I believe that public figures have to prove malice to prevail on defamation.

I'm hoping that his refusal to turn over his mental health records gives me at least some reason without malice for believing he has something to hide.

I strongly suggest that if or when you are sued for defamation, you hire a defamation attorney in your area. You will probably need one to work with you on your defense, which appears shaky.

So, the fact that at this moment I believe it all to be true, that police officers have been ruled to be public figures, and that I mostly stated my opinion but that those opinions are based on actual happenings doesn't count for anything?

Also, if it matters, I can outlast him financially until the cows come home. Attorneys are expensive.

 

[quincy]

Your belief that adding "my opinion or my belief" to a statement will change that statement from one of fact to opinion is wrong. A defamatory statement does not become less defamatory by adding this type of qualifier.

If, for example, I say "I think Mr. X is a rapist," the reputational injury can be the same as if I said "Mr. X is a rapist." Both are equally defamatory if Mr. X is not a rapist. The "I think Mr. X is a rapist" implies the existence of undisclosed facts.

"I think" and "I believe" are especially problematic when you know someone personally. Your statements will be given more weight, as it can be understood by others that you have information about the person that is not widely known and the statements you made were based on this undisclosed information.

What you said would be considered defamatory if you do not have proof that this police officer suffers from a mental illness and that this mental illness affects his ability to do his job. In addition, Oregon recognizes "defamation per se." Defamatory per se statements are statements that are defamatory in and of themselves. These statements presume reputational injury.

In a published statement, if someone imputes an inability or unfitness to perform the duties of one's employment, this would be considered by a court to be defamatory per se. No proof of damages is required as damages can be awarded on presumed injury alone. If there are additional damages that can be shown (ie. the loss of a job or a promotion as a direct result of the defamatory statements), special damages may also be awarded (there are no punitive damages awarded for defamation in Oregon).

As for malice, you have indicated that you have had problems in the past with this relative. The letters appear to be spurred by the court action filed against you by this relative. This can demonstrate that the comments in your distributed letters were made as a direct result of this court action and were made with the intent to cause harm (as a way to "get back" at the relative for seeking an order of protection).

That said, if your statements about the police officer are not related to his job or his performance on the job, but are directed instead at problems you have had with him in your personal relationship with him, malice may not have to be shown at all. All that may be required by your relative is a showing that you published the information with negligence.

Public figures have both a public life and a private life. Not all defamatory statements that are made about a public figure will refer to their public lives or will need to meet the actual malice standard in order for a defamation suit to be successful. It will depend on all of the facts of the communication.

Oregon courts have defined a defamatory communication as "one which would subject a person to hatred, contempt or ridicule, or tend to diminish the esteem, respect, goodwill or confidence in which one is held or to excite adverse, derogatory, or unpleasant feelings or opinions against one."

The bottom line is that a BELIEF that someone suffers from a mental illness is not PROOF that someone suffers from a mental illness. Without this proof, you cannot support your statements as truth and you could easily lose a defamation action, should one be filed against you. A review of all facts by an attorney in your area would be necessary to tell better how vulnerable you are to a lawsuit loss.

You are right that attorneys are expensive. That is why the wise person will avoid any situation (when possible) that will require an attorney's service.

 

[Proserpina]

Cliff.

You really should listen to quincy.

I agree with quincy that you have, at best, a shaky defense.

 

[quincy]

I certainly hope that your attorney did not advise you to send the letters, Cliff. If he did, I strongly suggest you look for a different attorney if you are sued for defamation.

 

[Cliff421]

"Defense

The primary defense to a claim of defamation is that the statement is true. A true statement that is derogatory is not a defamatory statement."

Most of my statements are true and a matter of court record.

"The same applies with a statement that involves an opinion. An opinion is not considered a statement alleging an objective fact but is rather a personal observation. If a defendant claims he or she was expressing a personal opinion and not a statement of fact regarding the plaintiff, he or she can avoid liability. Privilege also avoids liability for defamation."

 

[quincy]

Yes, truth is a defense to defamation, and opinion (when pure) is not defamation, and privileged statements can prevent defamatory statements from being actionable. Everything you are quoting about defamation is correct.

BUT you appear to be pulling bits and pieces from what you have read on the internet about defamation, and you are trying to apply these bits and pieces to the facts as you have presented them here. They do not appear to apply.

If you have "the best and certainly most expensive" attorney in town advising you, then I suggest you rely on his advice and not on any advice provided you by the forum members here. We do not have access to all of the facts. Your attorney apparently does.

When or if you are sued for defamation, I hope your attorney has more than what you have quoted above to defeat the action filed against you, however.

Good luck.

 

[Proserpina]

"Defense

The primary defense to a claim of defamation is that the statement is true. A true statement that is derogatory is not a defamatory statement."

Most of my statements are true and a matter of court record.

"The same applies with a statement that involves an opinion. An opinion is not considered a statement alleging an objective fact but is rather a personal observation. If a defendant claims he or she was expressing a personal opinion and not a statement of fact regarding the plaintiff, he or she can avoid liability. Privilege also avoids liability for defamation."

May I give you an example?

Let's say I took out a small add in a local newspaper saying,

"It is my opinion that Mr Hegbert Doomaflotchie is a dangerous psychopath who is a threat to our community".

As quincy explained, sticking "It is my opinion" in front of an obviously inflammatory statement would not necessarily protect me from being successfully sued for defamation.

The other thing that sticks out in your case, is that you seem to think that your attorney worked all the magic.

There is a perhaps better-than-fair possibility that the person in question merely rolled his eyes and figured it wasn't worth the hassle.

It might not be wise to take the recent court events as evidence that you have won the war, so to speak.

 

[Cliff421]

Yes, truth is a defense to defamation, and opinion (when pure) is not defamation, and privileged statements can prevent defamatory statements from being actionable. Everything you are quoting about defamation is correct.

BUT you appear to be pulling bits and pieces from what you have read on the internet about defamation, and you are trying to apply these bits and pieces to the facts as you have presented them here. They do not appear to apply.

If you have "the best and certainly most expensive" attorney in town advising you, then I suggest you rely on his advice and not on any advice provided you by the forum members here. We do not have access to all of the facts. Your attorney apparently does.

When or if you are sued for defamation, I hope your attorney has more than what you have quoted above to defeat the action filed against you, however.

Good luck.

May I give you an example?

Let's say I took out a small add in a local newspaper saying,

"It is my opinion that Mr Hegbert Doomaflotchie is a dangerous psychopath who is a threat to our community".

As quincy explained, sticking "It is my opinion" in front of an obviously inflammatory statement would not necessarily protect me from being successfully sued for defamation.

The other thing that sticks out in your case, is that you seem to think that your attorney worked all the magic.

There is a perhaps better-than-fair possibility that the person in question merely rolled his eyes and figured it wasn't worth the hassle.

It might not be wise to take the recent court events as evidence that you have won the war, so to speak.

OK, good points. Now, my letter was a punch in the nose to a bully - the only way I ever learned to handle a bully. I learned it in the 7th grade, not in kindergarten, LOL.

This guy also filed a parallel police report against me using the same evidence. I'm still fighting to get that expunged from LEDS - more evidence that he's mental.

As for his mental health, he ducked a court order for his mental records on a subpoena duces tecum. In my mind, if not in legal fact, it created an adverse assumption that he has something to hide. Therefore my statements were made in good faith. Additionally, his presenting two emails which contained no threats at all and claiming them as threats with guns (which I think also shocked the judge) further caused me to in good faith believe that he has mental problems.

I made the statements in good faith, with evidence supporting my beliefs, and he's a public figure so he must prove malice (that I knew the statements weren't true).

Am I not, in good faith, entitled to believe that and to say (1st amendment and Oregon court precedent) that I hold that belief?

 

[cbg]

In my mind, "ducking" a court order for his mental records could just as easily suggest that he doesn't feel his medical records are any of anyone else's business, as it could that he has "something to hide". I seriously doubt that you have sufficient evidence, based on what you have posted, for a court to agree that you can make a potentially defamatory statement without penalty.

 

[Proserpina]

In my mind, "ducking" a court order for his mental records could just as easily suggest that he doesn't feel his medical records are any of anyone else's business, as it could that he has "something to hide". I seriously doubt that you have sufficient evidence, based on what you have posted, for a court to agree that you can make a potentially defamatory statement without penalty.

Absolutely!

I think Cliff should speak with a different attorney. There's never anything wrong with a second opinion, and in this case Cliff might have a lot to lose.