YuetLingLaw

Comms300
LawPaper

INTHEUNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT
FORTHEDISTRICTOFCOLUMBIA
THOMASG.HOULAHAN,
Plaintiff,
v.
WORLDWIDEASSOCIATIONOFSPECIALTYPROGRAMSANDSCHOOLS,etal.,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUMOFPOINTSANDTUTHORITIES
INSUPPORTOFTHEMOTIONFOR
PARTIALJUDGMENTONTHEPLEADINGS
ThomasG.HoulahanfiledhisFirstAmendedComplaintagainsttheWorldWide
AssociationofSpecialtyProgramsandSchools.Wepledgethatourdefendantshouldprevail
becausetheplaintiff,Mr.Houlahanisapublicfigureandhasfailedtoallegeactualmalice.
I.StatementofundisputedFacts
TheplaintiffThomasG.HoulahanfiledhisFirstAmendedComplaintforalleged
intentionalinterferencewitheconomicadvantage,defamation,libelandabuseofprocesson
WorldWideAssociationofSpecialtyProgramsandSchools(WWASPS).Mr.Houlahan
wasanauthorandjournalistwhoinvestigatedandpreparedaseriesofarticlesonWWASPS
facilitiesandprograms.Hebegantoinvestigatetheteenbehaviormodificationindustry,
especiallyonWWASPSanditsmemberschoolsinthespringof2003.Hehadspokento
variouspersonsaboutWWASPS,includingKennethKay,CoDefendantJamesWall,andthe
motherofaresidentofaWorldWidefacility.HepreparedthearticleinquestionforUnited
PressInternational(UPI)andasofJuly2005,hewasstillworkingonit.Hebelievedthat
UPIwouldpublishhisarticlesandhewouldreceiveanagreeduponpaymentifhesubmitted
thearticle.UPInevertoldhimthatitwouldntpublishhisarticlesonWWASPSfacilities/
programs.UPIpublishedotherarticlesondifferenttopicsbyMr.Houlahansincetheissues
raisedinthissuitarose.
Mr.HoulahanseditoratUPI,TobinBeck,hadtestifiedthathisdecisiontopublish
Mr.HoulahansseriesofarticlesonWWASPSprogramswasnotinfluencedbyemails
receivedfromthirdpartiesorbystatementsbyoronbehalfofWWASPS.Mr.Houlahan
allegedforseveralfalsestatementsmadeabouthim,whichconstitutedefamation.The
contentoftheFebruary23,2004emailaboutwhichMr.Houlahancomplainsinparagraph

51oftheFirstAmendedComplaintwasderivedfromtheAffidavitofaparentofachild
enrolledinaWWASPSfacility,Mr.ClintMayer.InthatemailtoUPI,Mr.Kaystatedthat
Mr.Houlahansbehaviorwasinappropriateandthathehaddamagedthememberschoolsand
parentsright.Afterthat,Mr.JamesWallhadissuedapressreleaseonbehalfofWWASPS,
whichquotedMr.KenKayswordingsfromtheemail.Intheemail,Mr.Kaystatedthatthe
WWASPShaddocumented,courtfiledinformationregardingMr.Houlahanscontactand
inappropriatelegaladvice,counseling,andpsychologicaltestcoachingtoanexstudent.Mr.
KaystatedHe(Mr.Houlahan)isclearlyouttodamageus,ourmemberschools,andyour
rightasparentstodowhatyouneedtodoforyourfamilies.
Noindividualwhohadreadtheallegedlydefamatorystatementoremailshas
contactedhimtotellhimthattheywouldnothirehimforworkorwerenegativelydisposed
tohimandhesoughtnomedicaltreatment.Hehadnoindependentevidenceoutsidethe
recordofthatcasetosupporttheabuseofprocessclaimarisingoutofthecivilactionfiledin
Utahagainsthim.

II.Argument
A.Mr.Houlahanispublicfigure
Mr.Houlahanisalimitedpurposepublicfigurebecausehetriedtoinfluencepublic
controversytohisownopinion.Hehasalsoinvitedpublicattentiontohisopinion,and
publicizedtheWWASPSissue.
Rule:
Journalistsarepublicfigureswhentheystartleadingpubliccontroversytotheirown
subjectiveopinion.
RuleProof:

FromtheAdlercase,itstatesthatwriters,withtheirfameandnotorietyinliterature
andjournalisticcommunity,arepublicfigureswhentheypervasivelyinvolveinsocialaffairs
andjournalisticactivity.Adlerv.CondeNastPublications,Inc.643F.Supp.1558(S.D.N.Y.
1986)Also,publicfiguresarethosewhohavegreateraccesstothechannelsof
communicationandhencehaveamorerealisticopportunitytocounteractfalsestatements
thanprivateindividualsnormallyenjoy.Gertzv.RobertWelch,Inc.94S.Ct.2997(1974)
Moreover,publicfiguresinvitepublicattentiontotheirviews.Theycouldbeany
topicthatleadstodifferentstrongheldopinionsinthesociety.
FromtheGertzv.WelchcaseandtheWaymentcase,publicfiguresthrust
themselvestoparticularpubliccontroversiesandtrytoinfluencetheresolutionoftheissues.
Theyinvitepublicattentionandcommentsandtrytoinfluencepublicsviewoncertain
subjects.
RuleApplication:
Mr.Houlahanisalimitedpurposepublicfigurebecausehepervasivelyinvolvesin
publicaffairsandjournalisticactivitiesthatdrewpublicattentionandledtodifferentstrong
heldopinionsinthesociety.Heinjectedhimselfintopubliccontroversy.
Mr.Houlahan,asajournalist,hadgreateraccesstocollectinformationthannormal
people.Hehadinvestigatedtheteenbehaviormodificationindustryandhisfocuswason
WWASPSanditsmemberschools.HeinterviewedtoseveralpeopleaboutWWASPS,
includingKennethKay,JamesWall,andthemotherofaresidentattheWWASPSfacility.
Hisgreataccesstocommunicationmakeshimapublicfigure.

Also,Heinvitedpublicattentiontohisview.Heprepareddraftstobepublishedby

UnitedPressInternational.HisarticlesweretogeneratepublicdiscussionsonWWASPSand

itsschool.Throughthesearticles,thematterwouldbepublicizedanddiscussedamongthe
public.
Moreover,Hetriedtoinfluencetheresolutionofthiscertainmatter.Hehascontacted
theparentofoneoftheformerstudentsofWWASPSandgaveherlegaladvice,counseling,
andgavethestudentpsychologicaltestcoaching.Hestatedthatthestudentasaslaveor
beingcaptiveduringhisstayatWWASPS.Atthispoint,hewasnotbeingobjective
anymore.Journalistsarepublicfigureswhentheytrytoinfluencepubliccontroversiesto
theirownviews.Mr.Houlahanhasbecomeapublicfigurethathetriedtoinfluencethe
parentsviewonWWASPStohisownview.
Counteranalysis:
IntheWaymentcase,MissWayment,thejournalist,wassaidnottobeapublic
figure.Therefore,somepeoplemightthendrawaconclusionthatMr.Houlahanisnota
publicfigureeither.
MissWaymentwasajournalistofClearChannel.Shehadreportingactivitiesandshe
appearedatcharitableevents,whichmadeherachievealevelofgeneralfameintheSalt
Lakecommunity.However,accordingtothecourt,shewasnotapublicfigure.Thecourt
suggestedthatshewasonlyperformingherjobasahealthreporteranditwastheshowthat
attractedviewers.Shehadnosocialorpoliticalinfluence.Shedidnotintendtodraw
attentionfrompublic.
However,Mr.HoulahancouldnotbecomparedwithMissWaymentbecauseMr.
Houlahanisafreelancejournalist,whileMissWaymentwasemployedbyClearChannel.
Mr.houlahancouldchoosethetopicshewantedtoworkon,andpublishthem.Hisarticles
wereintendedtodrawpublicattention.Ontheotherhand,MissWaymentwasemployed
underClearchannelthathertaskswereassigned.Shealsodidnotraiseanypublicconcerns

onherreportingactivities.Therefore,MissWaymentscaseisnotapplicableinMr.
Houlahanscase.
B.Aspublicfigure,Mr.Houlahanhasnotshownourclienthadactualmalice
Conclusion:
Mr.Houlahancouldnotprovethatourclientknewthestatementwasfalseor
recklesslydisregardedthetruth.Ourclienthadlookedforthetruthbeforesendingoutemail
andpressrelease.Thereisobjectiveevidenceshowingourclientwastellingthetruth.
Therefore,ourclienthadnotshownactualmalicetoMr.Houlahan.
Rule:
Actualmaliceoccurswhendefendantknewthestatementwasfalseorrecklessly
disregardedthetruth.
Ruleproof:
FromtheGertzversusWelchcase,itshowsthatTheFirstAmendmentrequiresthat
weprotectsomefalsehoodinordertoprotectspeechthatmatters.Gertzv.RobertWelch,
Inc.94S.Ct.3007(1974).
Toproveonehasactualmalice,theremustbeclearandconvincingevidence.There
mustbeclearevidencethatoneisbeingignorancetothefactandoneknewthestatementto
befalse.Ifthereareonlyordinaryevidentiaryrules,theplaintiffmustprevailonthismotion.
Adlerv.CondeNastPublications,inc.643F.Supp.1558(S.D.N.Y1986)TheNewYork
TimesversusSullivanstatesthatonehastheallowancetodefenseoftruth.NewYorkTimes
Companyv.Sullivan.84S.Ct.710(1964)Anindividualhastherighttotheprotectionofhis
owngoodnameGertzv.RobertWelch,Inc.94S.Ct2997(1974)
RuleApplication:

Mr.Houlahandoesnothaveclearandconvincingevidencethatshowourclienthas
actualmalice,thathecouldntshowourclientknewthestatementwasfalseandthatour
clienthasrecklesslyregardthetruth.
AccordingtoGertzversusWelch,ourclienthastherighttoprotecthisgoodname
andthusourclientwasnotrecklesslyregardthetruth.Ourclientwasbeingprofessionaland
careful.Mr.HoulahanhassentanemailtotheparentofoneoftheWWASPSresident,
statingtheresidentisbeingcaptiveasaslaveintheWWASPSfacility.Theparentlatertold
ourclientabouttheemail.Also,duringtheinvestigation,Mr.Houlahanhadalsospokento
Mr.KayandMr.Wall.OurclientknewthathewasgoingtopublisharticlesaboutWWASPS
onUPI,whichcontainhisnegativeimpression.ThismightnegativelyaffectWWASPSs
imageamongthepublic.Therefore,toprotecttheWWASPSsgoodname,ourclientdecided
tosendoutanemailtoparentsofWWASPSandmadeapressreleasetomaintainthe
facilitysgoodname.Inaddition,thisshowsthatourclienthadcarefullylookedatthetruth
beforesendingouttheemailandpressrelease.
Also,ourclientknewthestatementhascarefullylookedforthetruthbeforesending
outtheemailandpressrelease.Theemailourclientsentoutstatedthefactthatourclienthad
documentedthecourtfiledinformationregardingMr.Houlahanscontact,legaladvice,
counseling,andpsychologicaltestcoachingtoaformerstudent.Mr.Houlahanwasadamage
toWWASPSandtothefamiliesofWWASPS.ThereisanobjectivereviewoftheMayer
AffidavitanditsattachmentsdemonstratethatthestatementcharacterizingMr.Houlahans
contactsweretrue.ThedocumentsshowthatMr.Houlahanhadgivenadvicetoaformer
WWASPSstudenttoestablishrootsinNorthCarolina,andhischaracterizationsofthe
studentsstayatWWASPSasslaveryorcaptivity.Thesearethefacts.

OurclientalsousedanadjectiveinappropriatetodescribeMr.Houlahansaction.It
maynotbethemostobjectiveadjective,butfromourclientsview,thatwastrue.Evenifits
nottrue,accordingtoGertzversusWelch,TheFirstAmendmentrequiresthatweprotect
somefalsehoodinordertoprotectspeechthatmatters.Ourclientsspeechisunderthe
protectionofFirstAmendment.
Ourclienthadlookedforthetruthbeforesendingoutemailandpressreleasethat
thereisevidencesupportingthestatementsaretrue.Moreover,theFirstAmendmentprotects
ourclientsspeech.Therefore,Mr.Houlahanhasnotshownthatourclienthadactualmalice.
IV.Conclusion
Asapublicfigure,Mr.Houlahanhasfailedtoshowthatourclienthadactualmalice,
thatourclienthadrecklessregardthetruthandknewthestatementwasfalse.Therefore,we
pledgethatthedefendantshouldprevail.