Day 5 and counting....councilors words from court papers

Ah, where to begin! Such a wealth of fun I've not seen before in one place!

The Councilors filed their lawsuits against Sally on August 1. Through attorney Mike Sheehan, Sally's Motion to Strike was filed on August 25. From then until October 10 it appears the councilors were busy at work with their Mr. Huffman, coming up with their responses to Sally and Mike's request to drop the suit. The papers are now all public records, so I'm anxious to share some of the highlights/"lowlights" with you.The material quoted verbatim is set off below.

The evidence presented clearly shows the statements made by the defendant are false. . . . The evidence also clearly shows that the statements are defamatory. . . . A writing will be considered defamatory if, construing the matter as a whole and measuring the effect of the words on the "average lay reader," it tends to (1) bring a person into public hatred, contempt or ridicule; (2) cause him to be shunned or avoided; or (3) injure him in his business or occupation. [McCall v Courier-Journal & Louisville Times Co.]

Pardon me, but this is rich. I researched and wrote the statements and I have the proof to back them up; how can they be defamatory? I am truly humbled that my words are so powerful as to do any or all of the damage they claim! (Mind you, I'm on only the second or third page of about 50 pages of this BS. This filing could give me weeks of ranting and raving material!)

And, I do so love lawyer talk:

The First Amendment does not inoculate all opinions against the ravages of defamation suits. A statement couched as an opinion that presents or implies the existence of facts which are capable of being proven true or false can be actionable....A defamatory communication may consist of a statement in the form of an opinion, but a statement of this nature is actionable only if it implies the allegation of undisclosed defamatory facts as the basis for the opinion.

Uh, ok. But, let's move on. Here, from Doug's personal declaration (even though the paperwork says Phillip Barlow v Sally Gump, it begins with "Declaration of Douglas Morten" so I will assume it is actually Doug's statement):

The claims by Sally Gump about the amount of increase in councilor compensation is [sic] false. The City Council adopted a temporary pay incentive package that was limited to a 6 month trial period. After the six month period expired, the council did not extend it and it is now expired. It was not in effect on August 1, 2008.

This statement is blantantly false. I quote from the Spotlight ["They won't get their allowances: Councilors reject stipends" by Tom Henderson, The South County Spotlight, Aug 19, 2008]

Councilors started receiving the stipend six months ago on a trial basis. With the trial period over, councilors voted Aug. 13 to stop taking the money.

Councilors Phillip Barlow and Keith Locke voted against discontinuing the stipend.

Councilor Doug Morton said the stipend was not created to be permanent and was started solely as a six-month experiment. However, City Administrator Chad Olsen said there was no language in the original resolution that confined the stipend to a six-month trial.

This vote rescinded only the $75 meeting stipend, not the entire "incentive package, the rest of which they are still receiving. And, it's likely that the recall statements, citizen complaints,and the upcoming election were the reasons behind the council's decision to rescind the meeting stipend portion of the package when they did. The timing is all just too convenient. (Note, also, who voted not to rescind it: the only two who have been filing for it.)

And, one of my favorites from both Phil and Doug's statements:

There is evidence showing that she [Sally] is participating as part of an organized effort to take over the government in St. Helens, and this motive is malicious.

Ok, Doug, bring it--I'm curious what proof you have that Sally or anyone else is attempting to "take over the government in St. Helens" except maybe you and Phil and Keith. Word on the streets is that you are out offering your supposedly soon-to-be-available council seat to people. People like Jim Bach, who worships you; Jim Bach, whose business you'd love to see closed down.

Now, that's malicious.