Here is a link to the Appeals Court Opinion -
http://coa.courts.mi.gov/documents/opinions/final/coa/20080916_c276828_74_276828.opn.pdf
Thanks for yur help, once again. Here is the information I have regarding Actual Malice.
Also I did sent a retraction letter to all defendants, that none answered.
At my Attorneys office we reviewed several cases which it showed actual malice was to determined by the court and a question of law. While their was several others stating it was a question of fact to be determined by a jury. Is this a strong argument?
Evidence of Defendants malice:
•
Words that falsely impute the commission of a crime constitute defamation per se, and are actionable even in the absence of an ability to prove actual or special damages. MCL 600.2911(1)
• Defendants knew their statements were false before they published them. And wanted to publicly accuse the Plaintiff of committing a criminal offense. Defendant’s response to #20 in Plaintiffs First amended Complaint.
20. they wrote a letter to the Editor of the Straitsland Resorter to express their grief as well as
to take issue with the DNR's conclusion that the taking of the deer was legal.
• Defendants letter stated the deer was shot on December 20, 2004, hunting season ended on December 19, 2004.
This allegation was investagated by the Michigan DNR in its criminal investagation of jci63.
(Exhibit 09 - DNR Sgt. Deposition)(Pg 7, lines 1-6)
Q And, to the best of your recollection, when you said that it
wasn't taken legally, what did that mean?
A It could have been several things; that it was taken on
trespass on -- on property where the hunter didn't have
permission,
it could have been taken out of season, or with
an improper weapon
• All the defendants were told that the Michigan DNR determined the deer was a legal kill before they published their letters.
Defendant #1 – Deposition pg 14, lines 5-16, 24-25
Q Okay. Now, then the letter said "the DNR said it was a legal kill." Do you know who -- who from the DNR – where that information came from?
A Taxidermist.
Q From Taxidermist. So on the 23rd, then, right after the XXX came, had the XXX talked to Taxidermist?
A My husband called Taxidermist.
Q Oh, called him that day?
A Yes, sir.
Q And so Mr. Taxidermist then told XXX that it was a legal deer; correct?
A Apparently he told XXX that –
Q So the DNR had told Taxidermist, and Taxidermist told –
A Told XXX.
Defendant #2 – Deposition pg 16, lines 4-14
Q Now, Defendant #1 apparently read you the statement, "The
DNR said it was a legal kill"; is that correct?
A Yes.
Q Did you have any knowledge of the origin of that statement; in other words, who from the DNR said that, or
A I believe Defendant #1 mentioned that they had been to the DNR office, or somewhere, where they said it was a legal kill.
Q Now, when you say "they," are you meaning Defendant #1 –
A Defendant #1 and Defendant #3
Q Pardon?
A Defendant #1 and Defendant #3 -- .
Defendant #3 – Deposition pg 16, line 25 & pg 17, lines 1-4
Q Okay. Well, when the conversation took place about the letter, it was your understanding that at that point the DNR had said to someone that that deer was a legal kill. Is that your understanding?
A That was my understanding.
Defendant #3 – Deposition pg 43, lines 6-11
Q xxx. Now, xxx, to this point, had only known about this maybe an hour or so; correct? How did he know that the DNR said it was a legal kill?
A He called Taxidermist.
Q Did he call TAxidermist while you were there?
A Yes.
Defendant #3– Deposition pg 43, lines 21-25
Q When he got done with the conversation, what did he tell you that Taxidermist said?
A That it was a legal kill.
Q Did you believe that?
A I had my doubts.
Defendant #3 – Deposition pg 10, lines 13-21
Q Upon getting that answer, then what did you do?
A The DNR officer was there. He came in; Mr. xxx. I
didn't know him, I didn't know his name. And I proceeded to
ask him what he was going to do with the testing as a result
of asking for samples, as Mr. Taxidermist indicated, if he was
going to report to the Straitsland Resorter his findings of
testing so the community would know, and settle this issue.
Q And what issue? Settle what issue?
A Well, was it an albino.
Defendant #4 – Deposition pg 12, lines11-13
Q But it has been said that the DNR said it was a legal kill. Do you dispute that?
A I -- I question that.
Defendant #4 – Deposition pg 15, lines 21-24
Q And this was why? It was your deer?
A I didn't say it was my deer. I said the deer that I had
fed, that I had viewed for several years, that I enjoyed viewing, and that I thought was an illegal kill.
Defendant #4 – Deposition pg 16, lines 7-13
Q So anyone who shoots a piebald deer upsets you?
A I do not, sir, believe this to be a piebald deer, and did
not at the time that I wrote this letter. To answer your
question more directly, if someone were to kill an albino deer, I would be upset -- or an illegal white deer. That is, my opinion, breaking the law. I like to consider myself a responsible hunter.
Q And you felt at the time that you wrote this letter that
Mr. jci63 had killed an albino?
A Correct.
Defendant #4 – Deposition pg 27, lines 7-9
A In my opinion, Mr. jci63 killed an albino deer or a white deer -- however you want to classify it -- both of which I interpret to be illegal kills.
•Because some of the Defendants accused the Plaintiff of fraudulently coloring the hair of his piebald buck, the DNR investigation of the legality of Plaintiff’s deer.
jci63 Deposition - pg 51. lines 3-15
Q And what did he say to you?
A He commented that Mrs. Defendant#1 and Mr. -- Mrs. Defendant #3 --
not Mister -- were at his place of business, and he told me
they were there for approximately three to five hours, and
they came with an 18-inch stack of Polaroid pictures of a
deer since birth, and ranting and raved that -- this was in
his words -- and stayed there. And then the DNR officer
stopped by. He didn't say -- he didn't give me a name of
which one. And he commented how Mrs. Defendant #1 and
Mrs. Defendant #3 chewed the DNR officer out, and told him they
weren't doing their job, and the deer was illegal, and so on
and so forth, and that he needed to do his job.
And apparently he went back and somebody cut some
holes in the hide.
DNR Sgt. Deposition pg 17, lines 24-25 / pg 18, lines 1-7
Q Now, is there any reason why you didn't contact
Mr. jci63l to ask if you could --
A Yes.
Q -- take samples?
A Yes.
Q And why not?
A
Because in criminal investigations, if I would have done
that, it's a possibility the deer hide would disappear
before a sample could be taken.
DNR Sgt. informed jci63 that he was doing an investigation regarding 3 things.
•Application of some man-made chemical to make the brown areas on the deer hide.
(Exhibit 09 -DNR Sgt. Deposition) (Pg 6, lines 5-14)
Q Now, you said that -- referred to this investigation of the
jci63 deer. If Officer xxx and Lieutenant xxxr
arrived at a conclusion that that deer was legal on the
21st, why was there an investigation?
A
Well, information came forth that the deer may have not been
taken legally.
Q And where did that information come from?
A From the community. From different -- different sources
there were allegations of the deer may have been stained or
painted to produce a brown color.
•
Shooting the deer out of season
(Exhibit 09 - DNR Sgt. Deposition)(Pg 7, lines 1-6)
Q And, to the best of your recollection, when you said that it
wasn't taken legally, what did that mean?
A It could have been several things; that it was taken on
trespass on -- on property where the hunter didn't have
permission,
it could have been taken out of season, or with
an improper weapon.
• Trespassing
(Exhibit 09 - DNR Sgt. Deposition) (Pg 7, lines 18-24)
Q What was the nature of your investigation of trespass?
Where --
A I was familiar with the deer. I mean, it had been around
several years. And I knew -- I mean, I knew personally that
it usually was in certain areas. So, just to confirm that
it was taken legally for -- regarding trespass, I wanted to
confirm where it was shot at.