*1 MacGUIRE, Appellant John
(Plaintiff below), CO., an
HARRISCOPE BROADCASTING Corporation dba KTWO Radio
Illinois Television, and Rob- Jack Rosenthal below). Price, Appellees (Defendants ert McMURRY, Appellant
Neil below),
(Plaintiff CO., an
HARRISCOPE BROADCASTING Corporation KTWO Radio
Illinois dba Television, and Rob- Jack Rosenthal below). (Defendants Price, Appellees
ert
Nos. 5052.
Supreme Wyoming. Court of
May 14, 1980.
831 processing joint appeals In their John McMurry and Neil state the issue MacGuire presented for review as follows: evidence, light “Whether the taken in the Appellants most favorable to and draw- ing all reasonable inference therefrom could by preponderance establish of the evidence that the statements were libe- lous statements of concerning Appellants and could establish with con- vincing clarity that the statements were published with actual malice.” Horn, question Burke of Burke & Cas- The appellees ap- Daniel M. state the in this per, appellants. for peal as follows: any “Is there evidence in the record that
Wm. H. Brown and Claude W. Martin of
Brown, Drew, Apostólos, Massey
proves
defendants-appellees
& Sulli-
in fact
van,
appellees.
Casper,
truth
entertained serious doubts as to the
which
editorial-
upon
of the facts
KTWO
RAPER,
J.,
Before
C.
and McCLIN-
ized?”
THOMAS,
TOCK,
ROONEY,
ROSE and
JJ.
respective
by
These
statements of the issue
THOMAS, Justice.
parties encompass
appropriate capsu-
applicable
lization of the
rules.
question presented
appeal
in this
rule
of the actual-malice
application
begin
summary
We shall
with a
v.
promulgated in New York Times Co.
pertinent
promulgated by
law. The rule
Sullivan,
254, 279,
710, 726,
84
U.S.
S.Ct.
Supreme Court
the United States
(1964),
11 L.Ed.2d
“Even COMPLAINT AMENDED County Commissioners and the Board conflict apparent investigating an was that K-2 I, McMURRY COUNT granted interest, was ten-year lease a new COMPLAINT though AMENDED his corporation, personal MacGuire’s expired until not have previous lease A) 31,1977.” (See Appendix January II, MacGUIRE doing at COUNT are and others MacGuire “If what Mr. COMPLAINT personal business mixing airport their AMENDED law, ought against public is not that of II, McMURRY A) COUNT Appendix (See to be.” COMPLAINT AMENDED III, editorial, MacGUIRE COUNT charged July KTWO “On COMPLAINT Board, AMENDED John County Airport a member of MacGuire, mixing his business with 12,000 leasing public by foot hangar board at rates far below the from own (See B) Appendix market.” local III, charged corporation “. to that McMURRY . . Rentals COUNT be asked for AMENDED COMPLAINT far below what would community. comparable elsewhere in the being primarily used for a staking rather than as a claim business mineral service, flying aircraft intended building, and the latest lease purpose (See Appendix A) acknowledges this.” IV, investigation, result K-2 now MacGUIRE “As the of further COUNT year prepared that the ten AMENDED COMPLAINT state new lease April granted in to its then Board IV, depriving to be COUNT would seem McMURRY President MacGuire least COMPLAINT taxpayers of a AMENDED $12 of Natrona income, potential year in or a thousand dollars a if total of thousand dollars conditions $120 unchanged. remain area, Casper in the “. . . Elsewhere storage space is more in
going rate even for dead per square of 20 foot. That is the area cents higher percent than MacGuire more than paying on his deal. The sweetheart precisely how much it is will never know ” (See B) away. Appendix giving . . V, goes beyond that problem well of a COUNT MacGUIRE “The here engineering good AMENDED COMPLAINT county himself board member (See Appendix B) public’s expense.” deal at the *6 VI, big bone is the conflict of COUNT MacGUIRE “The of contention hangar Airport AMENDED COMPLAINT involving the lease interest ” (See member MacGuire. . . . Board John C) Appendix VII, previous pointed out COUNT “A K—2 editorial MacGUIRE cost COMPLAINT ‘sweetheart deal’ AMENDED MacGuire’s taxpayers least one V, potential COUNT McMURRY lost income hundred thousand dollars space COMPLAINT upon going rate for such AMENDED based C) (See Appendix Casper.” VIII, Airport has tried save face for its COUNT MacGUIRE Board “The square giveaway by COMPLAINT per to MacGuire AMENDED cents foot price in line with what some other saying charging VI, region are . airports in the McMURRY COUNT public COMPLAINT breach of AMENDED Anything less than that Airport If Board. there trust on the minds, go let them out any question in their open on an try space and find out to lease Casper rental market competitive basis what (See C) Appendix is like.” IX, COUNT MacGUIRE there’s the matter of MacGuire’s “Then 9,760 12,570 square AMENDED COMPLAINT being feet rather then purposes computing rent feet for VII, payment McMURRY However, COUNT that MacGuire’s K-2 learned receiving AMENDED COMPLAINT he has been was a mere token since just space not for three the free benefit of months, years. As actually for a number but underpayment week, of his rent bulk of last Airport by the Board.” been collected had not (See C) Appendix X, mixing one’s COUNT to the matter MacGUIRE “This leads us back and the AMENDED COMPLAINT with that of business As for results. conflict of interest rent, terribly, how one can see miscalculated Airport Manager awfully awkward it must be signs George put arm man who on the masters, serving two it’s paycheck. When gets usually public master which the short C) (See Appendix of the stick.” end XI, property is COUNT determined to see that “K-2 is MacGUIRE general AMENDED COMPLAINT operated in the best interests hope just there public, special few. We VIII, serving enough on the men of conscience COUNT McMURRY Airport Tuesday to outvote those whose AMENDED COMPLAINT Board disregard conduct has evoked shameful of ethical public’s indignation. leases must be granted openly cleanly equal with an (See C) opportunity Appendix for all.” XII, MacGUIRE COUNT “Any remaining doubt as to whether COMPLAINT AMENDED being ripped-off as the result of irregularities the Natrona rental IX, COUNT McMURRY Airport Board should have been settled last COMPLAINT AMENDED D) meeting.” (See Appendix week’s XIII, member John MacGuire “. . . MacGUIRE COUNT AMENDED will receive more than thousand dollars COMPLAINT $100 subsidy private taxpayer for his business. . .” X, (See D) Appendix COUNT McMURRY AMENDED COMPLAINT XIV, you pay the extra 1% tax COUNT MacGUIRE “It means some of directly groceries may going into the AMENDED be COMPLAINT (See Appen- personal pocket.” Board member’s XI, D) dix McMURRY COUNT *7 AMENDED COMPLAINT years XV, “By refusing to collect the of back rent MacGUIRE COUNT county by refusing owed the Mr. MacGuire AMENDED COMPLAINT charge prevailing rates for in the face of XII, questions, the McMURRY conflict of interest Board COUNT money burning public’s in the streets. If AMENDED COMPLAINT price they upon a fair for Mr. Mac- insisted rental, might building necessary not be Guire’ s up taxpayers pony that amount.” to ask the (See D) Appendix XVI, appointed MacGUIRE “. . . Mr. MacGuire’s abuse of an COUNT gain, position personal for his own . . AMENDED COMPLAINT (See Appendix D) XVII, will be COUNT MacGUIRE “Two of the three Commissioners appearing on Election Ballot this AMENDED COMPLAINT the General year. County Chairman John Commissioner Burke, ally, seeking staunchest Mr. MacGuire’s year four terra. Commissioner Vern another Rissler, up present giving his commission- without make his position, er’s has decided to talents Both of to the Senate. these available State can serve as a referendum as to candidacies people of Natrona want whether public intermingle officials to their pocketbooks public cash drawer. with the hard, presented prove “K-2 cold evidence to has happened. exactly this is what has Not a presented single public fact that we have to the Repeatedly, has been refuted. we have offered involved, but to no
freetime to those avail. up up “The situation must be cleaned and it’s (See Appendix D) people.” XVIII, self-dealing practiced “. . . there has been COUNT MacGUIRE (See a member of the Board.” AMENDED COMPLAINT E) Appendix XIX, . . those who have used their COUNT MacGUIRE ” position personal gain. (See Appen- . . AMENDED COMPLAINT E) dix MacGUIRE XX, reporter question “A asked Mr. MacGuire a COUNT regarding public. accountability AMENDED COMPLAINT response of this ‘screw servant was ’em.’ has, merely Well indeed he and the answer hardly keeping confirmed attitude that (See open government.” Appen- and clean D) dix XXI, MacGUIRE meeting “Member MacGuire in a June COUNT participated actually led a in and discus- AMENDED COMPLAINT expenditure sion which could result in the of $179 improvement taxpayer M in for the of his funds airport hangars, though and other even his lease says improvements private are his responsibility. Board were to If the spend hangars proportionate- M on the five $179 ly, the cost of the work of the MacGuire $36,000. circumstances, would be Under those $3,500 per year pays rental fee MacGuire interest, barely cover the and would not Therefore, pay off if investment. taxpayers were to invest further into the board private through improve- member’s business hangar, it would be the same ment of his leased taxpayer’s giving him free rent at (See A) expense.” Appendix *8 XXII, MacGUIRE “An of the lease also reveals that COUNT examination pay Airport required Mr. AMENDED COMPLAINT MacGuire per of 4 cents Board same additional rental XIII, gallon for aviation fuel as do the lessees of the COUNT McMURRY A) hangars.” (See Appendix AMENDED COMPLAINT four XXIII, “Although Mr. and his buddies COUNT MacGUIRE MacGuire gain County Airport AMENDED COMPLAINT Board made it so difficult possession, in their to the records access XIV, under the COUNT McMURRY attorneys had to threaten suit that our Law, enough AMENDED COMPLAINT Open K-2 has Wyoming Records operation now to conclude that information shabby disgraceful A) (See Appendix up.” and must be cleaned XXIV, Commissioners, COUNT MacGUIRE County that the “K-2 believes MacGuire, any capacity AMENDED COMPLAINT reappointing Mr. nothing which is short contributed to a situation (See self-dealing of interests. and conflict A) Appendix issuing endorse- “K-2 a blanket believes actions, County Commis- of MacGuire’s ment standard that is too low sioners have set an ethical accept.” County to people of for the B) (See Appendix XXV, illegal COUNT “Coupled award of MacGUIRE with the news of grant special water AMENDED COMPLAINT
haying contracts and privileges to members of ‘The Club’ ” XV, A) (See Appendix COUNT McMURRY . . . AMENDED COMPLAINT XXVI, Board in MacGUIRE “K-2 also has learned that COUNT county past permitted the use of AMENDED COMPLAINT has buildings employees repair of under labor for the lessees, XVI, charge no and that the McMURRY lease at COUNT airport last AMENDED firm which examined the books COMPLAINT CPA year bookkeeping was at said that the Board’s generally accepted accounting variance A) (See Appendix principles.” XXVII, people “The of Natrona are entitled to COUNT MacGUIRE open county operated in an AMENDED COMPLAINT boards that are packed They not be clean manner. should XVII, COUNT McMURRY associates of the buddies business (See A) Appendix AMENDED COMPLAINT Commissioners.” categories within leged under defamations fall appeal We treat with the New Sullivan, supra, intention, comment, York since this Times Co. fair reasona- of honest parties is the context in which the framed belief, (if upon mistake in fact ble honest of the record issues. Our examination demonstrated there were trial it should be judgment of the in this case confirms the error), per- reliable ostensibly reliance on presented by district court that there is not accounts, hyperbole, rhetorical etc.” son’s evidence, McMurry un- either MacGuire or issues, how- parties As the have framed convincing clarity, that der the standard of ever, are material if there is no other issues they knew the information appellees which would in the record tend evidence published or that published they was false convincing malice with to establish actual entertaining the information while serious clarity. published doubts as to the truth of the the doc Pursuing the case under information, subjective is with aware- Sullivan, of New York Times Co. trines falsity. We have no probable ness of its de encompasses assumption supra, quarrel with the statement of the district published famatory material that, court “there of truths un- series then wish to statements; appellants of the al- it was false. derlying many
839
clear,
knowledge
precise
indubitable
proof
of
of
that
upon an inference
rely
of
free
serious and
falsity
publication
or
with awareness
or unmistakable and
from
that
the stan-
falsity.
proof
We hold
It is
kind of
probable
substantial doubt.
that
clarity requires
convincing
of
fact
persuade
dard
which
a trier of
that
issue of
structure the
material
plaintiffs
highly proba-
to
the truth of the contention is
They may
by conflicting evidence.
fact
Newspapers,
v.
Collins
ble. Manuel
Fort
conflicting inference. We
simply
Inc.,
on
rely
supra,
cause in this case as the record stands such recognize that in Hutchinson We could not be drawn under a inference 2675, Proxmire, 99 S.Ct. U.S. clarity. convincing We no standard of footnote, (1979), in the ninth L.Ed.2d 411 that publishers doubt intended this that the proof of mentioned that Supreme Court “uninhibited, robust and debate be should the de question calls into “actual malice” encompass open” they wide did and that question state of mind and fendant’s “vehement, unpleasantly sharp caustic and summary itself to readily does not lend rules attacks” in their editorials. The use of the motion sum disposition. however, designed we are applying, foreclosed, however, mary is not judgment, commitment support profound “a national summary judg avoid the plaintiff is- principle that debate the district must ment still demonstrate conducted, New York may sues” be so be upon which could court evidence Sullivan, supra, at U.S. Times Co. standard of finding under the premised 270, 84 S.Ct. 721. publisher knew convincing clarity that published the was false or of con the information respect
With to the standard subjective awareness recog with a vincing clarity, may helpful be information falsity. have examined probable We case is a nize this standard us, in the record before evidentiary material stringent greater It than mere one. court, the record we find requires It and like the trial preponderance of the evidence. *10 parties Mr. knowledge by Williams or Britton to to be devoid of evidence of Mr. falsity of the infor- appellees these of the the editorials. Nei- actually published who giving even to that mate- published mation this infor- is there evidence that ther interpretation urged by appel- rial the to them. While mation was communicated appellants lants. Indeed we do not find the is not to testimony publishers of the be arguing knowledge actual of falsi- seriously respect to their controlling as with regarded relying upon ty. Similarly even favorable mind, neither can knowledge or state of inference we have been unable to discern in it ignored when is not testimony be this material which could evidentiary record Where, here, plaintiffs as refuted. requisite convinc- finding lead to a producing direct or have succeeded ing clarity that the were aware of appellees which would con- circumstantial evidence probable falsity information publishers, testimony flict with the of the published. which was obligation to meet their they have failed showing fact. That an issue material only The instance this record suggests dispositive. probable awareness of falsi failure in this case ty on forth publishers is set plaintiffs The having failed to meet their Manager the affidavit of the of Natrona burden at the summary judgment stage of Airport during the County International demonstrating evidence malice, of actual published. time In the editorials were his encompasses the record genuine no issue of he affidavit states as follows: fact, material and the judgment of the dis- personally present “9. I was when Mr. trict court must be affirmed. purportedly responded to a re- MacGuire porter’s question responsibilities about his ROONEY, Justice, ’em’, specially concurring. by saying to the ‘Screw and I know that Mr. MacGuire was responding I cannot agree with the reasoning of the suggestion to Wilkings’ Mr. that Mr. majority opinion matter, in this but I do McAuley Partridge and Mr. to ask wished concur in the result. questions. him some Mr. MaeGuire’s Although I come out at place the same response comment was in to Mr. Wilk- opinion, does I ings’ suggestion majority feel that directed Mr. reasoning McAuley Partridge, majority to of the opinion Mr. sets a public, accountability public, or his precedent open to the which can the door for its responsibilities or to the Board. I application in other situations in which the discussed these facts with Don Britton logical result be unfortunate law. Pete immediately Williams after the part company majority opinion I with the appeared Casper article in the Star Trib- in its determination that Rule une, W.R.C.P. alleging that had Mr. MacGuire re- says applied not mean sponded to a does what when to reporter’s question about his If be responsibilities public, to the and at least defamation cases. there can exception, why Mr. Britton it to tape recording listened limit defamation cases? portion meeting agreed opinion of the language majority of the care- there was question no but that Mr. skirts full its fully confrontation with hold- MacGuire had directed his comment to Regardless of ing. language, the careful McAuley Mr. and Mr. in re- Partridge opinion thrust have the sponse Wilkings’ Mr. suggestion. Pete weigh summary court the evidence at the Williams was then News Director at if judgment stage to determine the stan- KTWO Don Britton was a KTWO “convincing clarity” dard of has been met. reporter assigned to cover the contrary right party of a This Board.” determination of factual issues be George’s Mr. presented does which is affidavit not reflect the made evidence communication of the evidentiary safeguards information either and re- all
«41
opinion accepts
position
judicial
majority
trial.
incident to
Such
strictions1
summary
there exists here an issue of fact as to
of the evidence at
weighing
*11
by
major-
the
It then
stage
presence
authorized
the
of “actual malice.”
judgment
as
weigh
to
on that
patently contrary
provi-
is
the
to
the evidence
issue
ity opinion
purports
is
56(c),
relating
sufficiently
W.R.C.P.
to
to determine if it
established
sions of Rule
I
part:
“convincing clarity.”
agree
in
cannot
judgments
provide
which
with
summary
*
* *
of
majority opinion
with this
treatment
the
sought
“(c)
judgment
shall
The
56(c),
language of Rule
W.R.C.P. and
plain
pleadings,
if the
be rendered forthwith
resulting
the
established
reversal of
interrogatories,
to
depositions, answers
applying
in
such rule.
precedent
file, together
and
on
with the
admissions
affidavits,
any,
if
show that
there is no
then,
Turning,
to
which I believe to
that
any
issue
to
material
genuine
as
fact
matter,
disposition of this
I
be the correct
moving party
that
is entitled to a
the
summary judgment
that
would hold
the
*
*”
*
judgment as matter
law.
a
of
a
of
proper
inasmuch as
careful review
“genuine
of
If there is a
issue as to
mate-
the record does
reflect the existence
fact,”
controlling
be
it.
the
any genuine
rial
a trial should
had to resolve
issue as to
ma-
be
do
plaintiff ought
required
prove
fact.2 Defendants
not contest
terial
summary judgment stage.
public figures.
at the
status as
plaintiffs’
his case
is
or not there existed the
only
query
He need
establish that there
an issue
whether
the
of
of a material fact.
element of “actual malice”3 on
controlling
This
fact
in
defendants.
is a
By weighing the facts to determine if the
plaintiffs’ action must
this case inasmuch as
of “actual malice” is sustained with
element
exist
a
if
malice” does not
as
fail
“actual
“convincing clarity,”
majority opinion,
plain-
It
an essential element
fact.
effect,
rejects
in
at least holds to be
—or
tiffs’ claim for relief.
consequence
following oft-repeated
no
—the
regularly-applied position
this court:
it per-
the record as
considering
Before
factor,
reviewing
is made
appeal
grant-
“In
from the
tains
this
reference
judgment
following extensive
from Widen-
ing
summary
quotation
of a
and in deter-
Company, 75
Gas
Electric
mining
genuine
the existence of a
issue
er v. Pacific
&
304,
415,
Cal.Rptr.
313-315
facts,
inquire Cal.App.3d
must
142
material
the court
(1977),
orients “actual malice”
viewpoint
from the
most favorable to the
motion,
action:
Timmons v.
context of
defamation
party opposing the
(1977).
Reed,
P.2d 112
Facts
Wyo., 569
trial
“Appellant contends that
court
supported
by
party
by
asserted
respondents’
for
granting
erred in
motion
evidentiary
verdict,
or
material
notwithstanding
affidavits
judgment
true,
as
Trautwein v.
had
appellant
must be taken
failed
ground
on
(1970),
P.2d 776
and be
Leavey, Wyo.,
produce
472
evidence
sufficient
inference, which
were made with
given every
defamatory
favorable
statements
malice,’
New York
fairly
required by
drawn from
may
reasonably
be
‘actual
254,
Sullivan, supra, 376 U.S.
them, Bluejacket
Carney, Wyo.,
v.
Times
v.Co.
710,
Tice,
686.
In New
Reynolds
Wyo.,
11 L.Ed.2d
(1976).”
P.2d 494
84 S.Ct.
Times,
Supreme
States
1318,
(1979).
York
United
595 P.2d
1319-1320
analyzing
difficulty
cases of this
distinguished
allegations,
3.Part
1. As
from affidavit
discovery purpose depositions,
from use of the term “actual
etc.
nature arises
defined,
knowledge
malice.” As
published
it is
it
that was
false or
statement was
difference between a
2. There is a fundamental
disregard
published
or
of whether
with reckless
determination,
make,
no
that there is
as I here
Company
Times
false. New York
fact,
not was
genuine
and deter-
issue as to a material
710,
Sullivan,
254,
11 L.Ed.2d
S.Ct.
court,
376 U.S.
mination,
by majority of the
as made
definition,
(1964).
the mental
Under this
686
element
but
that such issue exists
evidence
properly
rather than
“scienter”
“convincing
is not
clari-
one side
sufficient
“malice.”
ty.”
’
cation,
(St.
that,
Thomp
.
.
.
Amant v.
Court held
in order for a
son,
730,
supra, 390
88 S.Ct.
official to be able to recover for defama-
U.S.
clear,
1323, 1325,
262.)
tion,
20 L.Ed.2d
It is
required
the First Amendment
however,
stringent
that it involves a
prove,
convincing
official to
subjective standard.
It is not measured
malice,’
clarity,
defendant’s ‘actual
reasonably prudent person
whether a
publication.
the time
‘Actual
mal-
have
or would
in
published,
can
shown
proving
ice’
be
either that
Rather,
vestigated
publishing.
before
falsity
the defendant knew of the
per
there must be sufficient evidence to
statement or that the defendant uttered
mit an inference that the defendant must
disregard
the statement
reckless
*12
**
*
have,
fact, subjectively
entertained se
the truth.
(9th
280,
777, 780,
to weight.
de novo review of
ings wherein
376 U.S.
App.3d 182,
“ * * *
munications,
App.3d
closely examine the record to determine
New York Times
(1968)
L.Ed.2d
den. 419
whether it could constitutionally support
judgment
a den. 414 U.S.
324, 341,
U.S.
L.Ed.2d
L.Ed.2d
search Corp. v. Patrick
701,
dard, is,
111;
157.)
vincing clarity.
S.Ct.
“Actual malice
Sullivan,
Teachers,
the jury.
water v. Ginzburg
no
required
[*]
46 L.Ed.2d
24 L.Ed.2d
Cir.
710
Fopay
374, 394,
Whether there was ‘actual
390 U.S.
603, 608,
262; Time,
686),
U.S.
456.)
cert. den. 396 U.S.
cert. den. 423
[728-729],
254, 285,
supra, 376 U.S.
1974)
Loc.
[*]
Reckless
(See
course,
by the New York Times stan
334 N.E.2d
v.
Inc.
872,
922,
but this does not involve a
(See
favor of the
This court
must be
259;
1581,
Noveroske,
492 F.2d
St.
843 indicia Completely lacking 1024, 1026.) of malice.” 1975) 507 F.2d ‘[Evidence “knowledge” may reflecting and of intent or “reck- of motive evidence negligence, purpose of establish disregard” be adduced for of defendants. less by appropriate ing, by course, cumulation mere assertion that defend- Of inferences, reck the fact of a defendant’s “knowledge” or “reckless dis- ants had knowledge falsity. or of his lessness Categorical regard” asser- will not suffice. Butts, (See, g., Publishing e. Curtis Co. facts, supporting without tions of ultimate supra, Ginzburg, supra.’ Goldwater evidence, is to defeat a sum- not sufficient 342; added.) In emphasis 414 F.2d Maxted v. Pacific Car mary judgment. & Publishing Co., Supreme Court Curtis Co., (1974); 527 P.2d Foundry Wyo., intent, muckraking the ab found Fehling, Wyo., P.2d 592 Cantonwine v. element, and an sence of ‘hot news’ Anderson, (1978); Wyo., 554 P.2d Keller v. investigation, signifi all inadequate were (1976). determining malice. factors in actual cant having definitions of terms distinct profession “The mere of defendant legal meanings and the determination his state good he believed in faith that which such terms are the standards under automatically ments were true does given case are applied to the facts in (St. him in his favor. entitle to a verdict *13 The deter- questions of law for the court. Thompson, supra, Amant v. 390 U.S. at not or such stan- minations to whether 732-733, p. 1326].) 1323 pp. 88 S.Ct. [at whether or not the facts dards are met and cases, criminal, turning in all civil or ‘As such definitions given of a case fall within mind, of upon the state an individual’s jury fact the or other questions of for rare; usually may be direct evidence v. Com- fact finder. Miller Reiman-Wuerth required trier of facts is draw infer 20, (1979). P.2d 23 pany, Wyo., 598 of of mind at issue from ences the state utterances, acts, writings, or surrounding case, falsity” of “knowledge In this (Herbert (S.D.N. v. indicia.’ Lando are terms with distinct disregard” “reckless 387, 395.) Y.1977) 73 As the court F.R.D. context in legal meanings in relation Ginzburg, supra, stated in Goldwater Phrases they are used. 23 Words and which is, 324, p. F.2d at ‘Recklessness 414 343: 799, 446, seq. 36 Words and Phrases et all, negligence high raised to a only after “reckless disre- seq. et The definition of hold would power. er To otherwise re is a libel action set gard” in context of quire that the ultimate plaintiff prove of portion in the Widener v. quoted forth being able to fact of recklessness without Company, supra. A Electric Pacific Gas & proof underlying of facts adduce in “knowledge falsity” of of definition jury a could infer reckless from which is forth in of a libel action set context It limit successful suits to ness. D.C.W.D.Wis., Proxmire, 431 Hutchinson v. proof cases in which there direct those 1311, (1977): 1328 F.Supp. of the ultimate party’s a admission “ falsity’ presumably ‘Knowledge fact, not certainly a situation intended subjective just says: what it means St. Amant v. Supreme Court. See that his by the defendant awareness 732-733, at 88 Thompson, supra, 390 U.S. * *” * ” (Em- statements were false. (Emphasis sup 1323 S.Ct. [at 1326].’ supplied.) phasis plied.) the evidence of Keeping in mind Although in this case is viewed the record falsity” of “reckless dis- “knowledge of standpoint most favorable to from the subjective as relates to regard” it must be given although position his plaintiff, and defendants, e., as it objective not i. inference, although all favorable every a might that which “reasonable” relate to applied, the required caution is rec- know or disre- “average” person would genu- or ord existence of a does reflect the we are not in mind that gard; keeping underlying ine material facts issue falsity of the actual truth or “actual controlling factor of concerned relative 844 building, or with and the lease ac- respect
the statements this of the latest knowledges to- this. animosity prejudice or of defendants way if plaintiffs, any, ward or with the Air- Even after became known to defamation, accomplished, if any, is and the Natrona Com- port Board 514, Dunn, Kapiloff Md.App. A.2d investigating that K-2 missioners was (1975), a search of the record does not interest, conflict of a new ten- apparent potential reveal for evidence rela- granted year lease was MacGuire’s or “knowledge falsity” tive to “reckless though previous lease corporation, There is no reference to the disregard.” January expired would not have until existence evidence on this issue. There Despite 1977. fact improper is no indication of an motive for income, the new desperate Board is to be publishing alleged the material false. charges lease does increase the rental The recitation statements here al- previous Mysteriously, over the term. defamatory interpreted to be leged may be computing purposes, rent Mr. MacGuire’s animosity, but to show such is not materi- 12,570 9,760 square hangar shrunk from al The recitation of issue. such statements feet from one lease to the next. not in itself falsity does establish the Further, we found that the them, “knowledge” let alone the of such pro- advertise space failed to to other or a “reckless falsity, disregard” refer- renters, spective and that such ence thereto. bargain available basement rate of 3 summary, In the record not show does per per cents foot month. The rent- potential reflecting for evidence that de- only al for the massive 1# fendants had “knowledge falsity” or month. per Many apartment dwel- $292.80 disregard” “reckless of the truth of the Casper pay lers in more than that. alleged statements to be These ma- false. meeting Member MacGuire a June *14 items, therefore, genuinely terial were not participated actually the in led a Board placed summary in issue judgment and a expend- discussion which could result in the proper was as a matter of law. M in taxpayer iture of for the $179 funds improvement hang- of his and airport other
APPENDIX A ars, though says even his lease that such improvements private are his responsibility. TRANSCRIPT OF EDITORIAL —K-2 Airport If the Board spend were to M$179 13, July hangars proportionately, on the the five (MacGuire work of hangar cost of the the inquiries began As the result of in $36,000. circum- would be Under those February dealings into certain business of stances, $3,500 per fee) the year rental Board, County the Natrona K-2 Airport has pays barely would the. in- MacGuire cover that large learned the twelve thousand terest, pay off the invest- foot square hangar county # 1 at air- the Therefore, taxpayers ment. if the were to port being private corporation is leased to a into pri- invest further the board member’s Service, called Natrona Inc. Records of the through improvement vate business the of Wyoming Secretary of reveal that the State hangar, his it leased would be the same as is Company by very controlled the same giving free rent ex- taxpayer’s him at the person who is a Airport of the member pense. up Board until served as yesterday President —John MacGuire. Rentals An examination of the reveals lease also to that charged corporation far below are that Mr. MacGuire required pay is not what would be asked comparable space Airport the Board the same rent- additional elsewhere in the community. hangar The per gallon al of 4 cents for aviation fuel as used being primarily for a mineral claim hangars. do of the other four the lessees staking public business rather as a pay than 4 cents gallonage Other lessees on all flying service, aircraft purpose by the intended or used sold to others themselves.
should be told government is not a as vehicle for the hangar leases of a signed support at select few MacGuire signed the Board but Airport expense the many. President of Natrona Ser- his lease President own people The County are enti- person- of MacGuire’s vice, Inc. In case county tled to boards operated that are Jan Board Vice-President al then lease open and clean manner. They should Airport signed representing Wilking packed not be with buddies and business Board. County associates Commissioners. also has learned K-2 K-2 moral, believes by any legal or use of past permitted has Board in standard, ethical person no holding public repair for the county employees labor office appointment election or has the charge at no buildings under lease right to mix personal pocketbook his with lessees, firm which exam- and that the CPA public. that of the year last said that airport ined the books was variance bookkeeping at Board’s princi- B accounting APPENDIX generally accepted ples. OF EDITORIAL —K-2 TRANSCRIPT Mr. and his buddies Although MacGuire so Board made it County Airport on the 28, 1976 July public records gain access to difficult to July charged in an editori- On KTWO had attorneys that our possession, their al, County that member Wyoming Open suit under the threaten MacGuire, Board, mixing per- was John Law, enough K-2 has information Records with that sonal business operation now to conclude that 12,000 from his leasing foot square disgraceful shabby local at far board rates below own If what Mr. up. be cleaned and must exposed the fact editorial market. doing the air- and others MacGuire use of the enjoying was Mr. MacGuire mixing business port their feet of nearly three thousand law, it against the that of the is not charge. absolutely no for his business at in- Attorney Burke’s to be. ought advertising granted without The lease air- justified. certainly vestigation building to other availability of the Commis- port belong does other seri- A number of potential renters. appoin- belong does their sioners nor out, and K-2 pointed were deficiencies ous *15 belongs It Airport Board. on the tees all of its conten- document prepared is who re- County, of taxpayers the Natrona tions. gift as a former Air Force base ceived the Airport Board member of the Every in 1952. from Uncle Sam County the Commissioners each County two of the three Com- At least along with copy the editorial mailed aspects aware of have been missioners free availability of the notice of written yet several months dealings for MacGuire’s took editorial. K-2 respond to the time to year to a 5 reappointed him new they still after but encourage reply, steps K-2 believes term, starting July 1. weeks, no such there has been full two Commissioners, by reappointing County the authority. positions in from those request MacGuire, in have contrib- any capacity Mr. Airport and the the Commissioners Perhaps short of nothing a situation which uted to issuing busy been too members have Board self-dealing and conflict interest. the to tell confidence in each other votes of illegal news the Coupled being con- business is county how grant of haying and the award of contracts ducted. of “The special privileges to members water investigation, of further Club”, As the result message be loud should Airport new prepared to state that now clear, serve on the Air- K-2 that those who granted in Airport Board appointed them lease the port year who ten those big The bone of contention is the conflict April to its then President MacGuire would involving of interest lease of seem to be depriving taxpayers of Na- MacGuire, Airport Board member John trona of at lease County thousand dol- $12 having lease been awarded while MacGuire income, potential lars a in or a year total of Board, served as President of the without thousand dollars if conditions remain giving opportunity $120 others the bid unchanged. space. previous pointed A K—2 editorial out that MacGuire’s “sweetheart deal” would The lease is written at the rate of cents taxpayers cost the of Natrona month, per square per foot and MacGuire least one hundred thousand dollars in lost the building operation uses for offices and potential upon going income based rate of his mineral claim staking business. Else- for such space Casper. area, Casper where in the going rate Airport The Board has tried to save face storage space even for is more in dead per square for its 3 cents foot giveaway to per square area of 20 cents foot. That is by saying price MacGuire inis line with percent higher more then than airports region what some other in the paying MacGuire is on his sweetheart deal. charging. K-2 particularly is not con- never precise- Board will know cerned being charged about what ly away how much it is until giving it voids Grand Junction or in Timbuctu. areWe the defective lease and offers the space on a interested that taxpayers of Natrona competitive basis. County receive fair rental income based problem goes beyond here well upon going Casper, rates in Wyoming in of a county engineering board member him- the year Anything 1976. less than that is a self good public’s expense. deal at the breach of trust on the The ethics morality of such transactions any question Board. If there is quickly become say, known to others who minds, their go try let them out and to lease it, “If somebody why can do can’t I?” It space open competitive and find out on an spreads throughout like a cancer govern- Casper basis what the rental market is like. go ment if allowed to unchecked and un- Then there’s the matter of MacGuire’s challenged. The press public respon- has a space 12,570 being square feet rather than sibility doesn’t, to see that since one 9,760 square feet for rent computing pur- politician generally will police another. poses. When K-2 revealed that the K-2 believes by issuing a blanket being charged Board President was not actions, endorsement of MacGuire’s 3,000 month, nearly feet each County Commissioners have set an ethical repay MacGuire wrote a check to the coun- standard that is too low for the people of ty However, for three months arrears. K-2 to accept. has payment learned that MacGuire’s was a mere token since he has receiving been APPENDIX C just benefit of the free for three EDITORIAL —K-2 OF TRANSCRIPT months, actually years. but a number of week, As of last the bulk of his rent under- *16 16, August payment had not been collected the Air- The Natrona County Airport will port Board. have Tuesday an opportunity to restore some of the public’s Many lost faith in the quality County residents have of government. its county complimented investigative Board is K-2 for the re- meeting primarily upon airport to act porting Airport leases which unearthed the lease which were illegally issued behind irregularities. Actually, closed it was a lot sim- doors. attorney With its own and a full- pler appeared. than it All we had to do paid staff, time manager and K—2 paragraph is sur- was read 4 of the old lease and prised at how far strayed the Board has paragraph 4 of the new lease and there it from the path propriety. of Airport was! It makes us wonder how taxpay- dollars in thousand
more than $100 business, his subsidy private er for boss, his Mr. MacGuire Manager George and make it known gall to members had it, signed it didn’t catch too. MacGuire and County Commission- may ask the they If K-2 George presented must have it. had a share of the airport in for it, ers to cut it would cost the tax- reported tax Won’t it be payers package. another ten dollars over next sales thousand 1% standing to while ponder the term the lease. swell to have check-out coun- supermarket in line of mix- to the matter leads us back This you extra tax ter. It means some of the 1% that of the business one’s ing may going directly into pay groceries on be re- interest conflict of and the public personal pock- rent, Board member’s one the miscalculated As for sults. it et. awkward awfully terribly, how see can George put to Manager for be must ques- MacGuire a A asked Mr. reporter paycheck. his signs who man on the the arm accountability pub- to the regarding tion usually the masters, it’s two serving When servant was response public this lic. The end of short gets the master has, he and the Well indeed “screw ’em”. stick. an attitude merely confirmed answer There is on file the office of the Natro- clean open hardly keeping inis 84, County page 141, na Clerk on Book County Sadly, the Commis- government. Transfer Deed dated 1952. May This to have chosen their cronies sioners and document from conveys the United States “stonewall it” wagons” “circle people of America to the of Natrona Coun- in the confidence of a loss face ty, Wyoming, 29 tracts totalling of land county government. quality of 2,000 acres, some nearly buildings back years By refusing collect supporting equipment which had been an by Mr. MacGuire county rent owed the Air Force base. The pricetag from Uncle for rates charge prevailing refusing to to the people County Sam of Natrona for of interest fact conflict space in the facility multi-million dollar was exactly burning the is Airport Board questions, the zero. Not a dime. in- they If streets. public’s money proper- that the K-2 determined see Mr. MacGuire’s price a fair upon sisted in the interests of the ty operated best necessary to rental, not be might building public, just special few. general up that amount. pony taxpayers ask the hope enough are men con- We there appointed by are Airport Board members on the Board Tues- serving science and therefore Commissioners shameful disre- day outvote those whose But of office. be voted out cannot gard pub- of ethical conduct has evoked them and condone appointed people who indignation. Airport leases must be lic’s booted out certainly can be their actions with an granted openly cleanly equal day. election opportunity for all. Mr. stubbornly defending MacGuire’s By APPENDIX D for his own position appointed abuse anof County Commissioners personal gain, TRANSCRIPT OF EDITORIAL —K-2 like public, you “If don’t saying 27, 1976 August ” it, something do about it! whether the Any remaining doubt as to Commissioners the three being ripped-off as the result of Two of public was Election on the General appearing the Natrona will be irregularities by rental County Commissioner year. been set- Ballot this Board should have County Airport Burke, Mr. MacGuire’s John It ironic Chairman meeting. last week’s tled *17 year four seeking another ally, is ratify- board staunchest that at the same time the Rissler, without Vern term. Commissioner ing year a 10 lease under posi- commissioner’s present giving up will receive Board member John MacGuire committee to Forming powerless look into talents availa- tion, make his to has decided locking the matter at this date is like Both of these ble to the Senate. State very large barn horse has es- door after to as a referendum as can serve candidacies caped. County people of Natrona whether Mr. Burke’s statement raises another intermingle their to officials public want question. County Commission- Should the cash public with the pocketbooks ers when criminal acts are speak only out drawer. highest elected officials committed? As the hard, to cold evidence presented they K-2 has county, speak shouldn’t out hap- has exactly what exposed? this is when unethical If prove practices we have single fact Not a Mr. Burke is as concerned about “the entire pened. refuted. says, has been fabric of as he he government” local presented to offered freetime high we have should set a moral and ethical stan- Repeatedly, involved, County by speaking to no avail. dard for Government but those against making out who are those a bad it’s up and be cleaned must The situation many public spirited name for the citizens people. up to the give freely unselfishly who their and time, serving city county and boards in E APPENDIX the best the community. interests of TRANSCRIPT OF EDITORIAL —K-2 County John Commission Chairman 15, September Burke’s statement reads follows: K-2 feels obligated respond to County 8, September Commission John Chairman Burke’s state- To: The Citizens of Natrona ment on news media criticism. We have From: John P. Burke purposely delayed response this a few days so that it would not come on the eve of the many Casper For weeks the Star-Tribune Primary Election. daily almost KTWO have criticized cer- There practice was a among the ancient Boards, tain County and Commissioner Ris- tribes that messenger when a was the bear- now, myself. Up sler and I have elected er news, of bad he was summarily executed. ignore these criticisms because a certain Surely, Commissioner sug- Burke was not expected amount of it should be by any gesting that we revert to that practice however, Recently, elected official. these when he charged the news media with self-appointed guardians two of the con- “half-truths, mud-slining and innuendoes.” science of Natrona seen fit to His simply statement is not true. publicly my family indict name and my ancestry. Irish
It hardly an innuendo when K-2 states flatly, in simple sentence, declarative Whether or not I am elected a County there has been self-dealing practiced by a Commissioner not of this impor- moment member of the Airport Board. It is hardly tant —win or lose—I will still be John Pat- mud-slinging and half-truth when we have rick Burke I will still be an American provided names, dates, dollar amounts and ancestry. Important of Irish to me how- provisions of lease documents. It’s all a ever, every as I am sure it is to citizen of matter of record. county, this my personal reputation, cred-
So, itability Mr. integrity. Burke’s wrath should more appro- priately upon be vented those who have During my forty years almost of adult used their public position for personal gain life, Casper, I have endeavored serve rather than against the messenger who has County Wyoming many Natrona civ- the responsibility to bring him the bad ways. ic I in the have done so belief that news. Casper, County, each of these:
The Commissioners were told of the situ- Wyoming good have been to an Irish immi- ation at the airport fully seven ago. grant family months that settled here in
«49 ing to serve on them. These boards are not who my of whom was father started first stamps” County “rubber for the Commis- becoming of an American citizen his dream sioners, never hope they and let’s are. the and sheep plains herder on moun- as the accomplishments Let’s look at that of He came with Wyoming. tains central county of people have accrued to the this many did so nothing nothing, and asked as over the years mostly due dedicated — time, except immigrants of that the other responsible serving gratu- service of citizens a free to work hard as man. opportunity itously today— on these boards. We have perservance hard he did and with and Work succeeding, fortune he succeeded. In good supported the finest of A—One however, in children the he instilled has Mountains. This Rocky hospitals in active the affairs of obligation to be in of finest some Casper to attract enabled Wyoming— Casper, Natrona and our available in talent specialized medical partial gain, but as some personal not for here. practice nation to gratitude. of of a debt repayment municipal airports the finest B—One of Never, in I have years all the served any- our community to be for a found size— county, simple I been to this have so as Rosenthal, Gen- where in the nation. Jack agreed everyone always believe that with regarded as one of Manager eral KTWO my fully decisions. I have believed the old living in extensive air travelers more me a who saying “show man has no that overall our county. our He knows enemies, you who I’ll show a man has and something proud are to be airport facilities hand, I nothing.” done On have than most of of—for he—far more often obligations believed I had certain to to opportunity has citizenry our had in people County, of Natrona whatever compare first hand. them position I and in whatever decision was held obligation perform me. was to before and best attended largest C—One be, my duty as I in best believed is our Rocky Mountains County Fairs in county, of of interests the citizens this with- This and Rodeo. County Fair own Natrona regard own my personal out for interest accident, result of rather the but advantage my without or family. me errors, anguish, sweat and of trial and years This I have done. county have many our who of in part on unselfishly the Fair Board. served on Commissioners, Vera As Rissler have appointing and I for been criticized boards, of go I on about each our could “cronies” to certain administrative boards same, namely, that but the conclusionis the the county. of Cronies means “intimate county to be of this proud we have much Fortunately county many friends”. for this result of dedication that is the direct accepted appointments of our friends have of boards. hard our work We proud to various boards. our for Natrona Coun- Now—what is stake we been able to appointments, for unfounded and ty? is that should At stake responsible prevail on some of most en- continue the personal unreasoned attack county in this successful men and women government of local will suffer. tire fabric serve, gratifi- but pay, county deprived, will be The citizens of county to make this helping cation repeated the course of time because in place in which to live work. better Casper Star- by KTWO and innuendos every decision agree don’t Sure—we their lose faith in people will Tribune during has made our each these boards per- because lack government integ- do respect terms of office but we —not formance, of baseless criticism. but because their members. rity these boards County Commissioners responsibility Our person realize that Every thinking must for and good management tois assure each discharge were we to board time every We county. this believe the affairs of disagreed with their de- the commissioners management has good record shows no boards be- cisions we soon have investí- believe that supplied. fact We be will- been responsible cause no citizen would *19 acts the Grand rate references to gation, request, our by initiated at Jury report. Attorney elected has County not resulted in equipment public supplies and 2. That any basis for civil or filing charges criminal for private used improperly have been against any of members our board or coun- purposes. ty employees. practice of good 3. That the business appears It that our attackers are resort- major transactions has public bidding on ing stated, continually rule that un- observed. not generally been founded allegations become “facts.” This employees county on county 4. That accomplished only if readers and listen- perform mainte- time have been used gullible enough ers are to be unable no nance water line at private on a distinguish fact fiction. from owner, a former charge to the I Casper submit that if the Star-Tribune Board member. graft, corrup- KTWO have evidence one board member was 5. That at least tion or activity part criminal on the any length” “arms maintaining sufficient official, elected any any member of county transactions with the in his board, employee, or county they owe an board. obligation to the citizens of the county to occupied by 6. That a documented, submit the concrete evidence under a “verbal Airport Board member to the County Commissioners and the law sublease”, practice. poor business agencies. enforcement This is proper Board member had 7. That this way to handle responsibility their —rather county to the ex- underpaying been than the guilt nebulous method of published 2,810 space. feet of tent of leased and editorialized both Casper Star- Tribune in press Jury findings and KTWO These must sound innuendos de- Grand signed are, to make conclusions in many people they and for the since very familiar to public, process without due of law. K-2 has been point by point, saying what July. findings These editorially since state, reservation, In conclusion I without also somewhat in contradiction with the County that the Natrona affairs of are in report. of the general laudatory conclusions status, an excellent free of corruption, and people the real disservice to the of the news media The blanket criticism performance Natrona is not seems to be unwarranted the basis that Commissioners, of the appoint- their report press what the has been confirms county employees, ed boards and but rather telling the media for charging. To chastise truths, slinging the half mud and innuen- place take in a free the truth should not dos Casper of KTWO Star-Tribune. If the society the First Amendment. under John P. /s/ Burke cry to raise the of “half Jury Grand wishes
John P. Burke specify truth let them exact- and innuendo” into that ly they category. what feel falls F APPENDIX press never come when the day should too, This, criticism. should be immune from EDITORIAL —K-2 OF TRANSCRIPT society. healthy in a free 9, 1976 December report Jury investiga- Grand despair of the about the cost There need be no tion County Airport of the con- airport investigation. The monies interesting tains much matter for those airport from lease that will be recovered who text with read the entire care. For underpayments Board mem- by one example, says: underwrite a ma- ber other recoveries jor underpayment This
1.That and leases had been of the cost. contracts session, officials in executive was not uncovered upon illegally acted responsibility, but rather charged scrutiny closed to the with that in a KTWO Editorial. press. sepa- are at least four it was first revealed There exception to one respectfully We take report that is major area in the rates are “the rental jury’s finding that taking into consideration
competitive and facili- of structures types
location and
ties”. *20 through study would
K-2 believes that a going rate for warehouse
reveal that the per 20 to cents in the area is the 3 month rather than per foot Board paid one being
cents
member. a result of very apparent
It should be Jury investigation that
the Grand stronger need Wyoming
boards guidelines the conduct of the
clearer they presently. than
public’s business that the pleased
We many to correct
already has taken action we have out. pointed
the deficiencies that charges will from the benefit by more and busi- investigation open of this board and others. operation
nesslike TAYLOR, Appellant
Walter E.
(Defendant below), Wyoming, Appellee
The STATE of below).
(Plaintiff
No. 5214. Wyoming.
Supreme Court of
May 1980.