Yuet Ling LawComms 300

Law Paper

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

THOMAS G. HOULAHAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

WORLD WIDE ASSOCIATION OF SPECIALTY PROGRAMS AND SCHOOLS, et al., Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND TUTHORITIESIN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION FOR PARTIAL JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

Thomas G. Houlahan filed his First Amended Complaint against the World Wide Association of Specialty Programs and Schools. We pledge that our defendant should prevail because the plaintiff, Mr. Houlahan is a public figure and has failed to allege actual malice.I. Statement of undisputed FactsThe plaintiff Thomas G. Houlahan filed his First Amended Complaint for alleged intentional interference with economic advantage, defamation, libel and abuse of process on World Wide Association of Specialty Programs and Schools (WWASPS). Mr. Houlahan was an author and journalist who investigated and prepared a series of articles on WWASPS facilities and programs. He began to investigate the teen behavior modification industry, especially on WWASPS and its member schools in the spring of 2003. He had spoken to various persons about WWASPS, including Kenneth Kay, Co-Defendant James Wall, and the mother of a resident of a World Wide facility. He prepared the article in question for United Press International (UPI) and as of July 2005, he was still working on it. He believed that UPI would publish his articles and he would receive an agreed-upon payment if he submitted the article. UPI never told him that it wouldnt publish his articles on WWASPS facilities/ programs. UPI published other articles on different topics by Mr. Houlahan since the issues raised in this suit arose. Mr. Houlahans editor at UPI, Tobin Beck, had testified that his decision to publish Mr. Houlahans series of articles on WWASPS programs was not influenced by e-mails received from third parties or by statements by or on behalf of WWASPS. Mr. Houlahan alleged for several false statements made about him, which constitute defamation. The content of the February 23, 2004 e-mail about which Mr. Houlahan complains in paragraph 51 of the First Amended Complaint was derived from the Affidavit of a parent of a child enrolled in a WWASPS facility, Mr. Clint Mayer. In that email to UPI, Mr. Kay stated that Mr. Houlahans behavior was inappropriate and that he had damaged the member schools and parents right. After that, Mr. James Wall had issued a press release on behalf of WWASPS, which quoted Mr. Ken Kays wordings from the email. In the email, Mr. Kay stated that the WWASPS had documented, court filed information regarding Mr. Houlahans contact and inappropriate legal advice, counseling, and psychological test coaching to an ex-student. Mr. Kay stated He (Mr. Houlahan) is clearly out to damage us, our member schools, and your right as parents to do what you need to do for your families. No individual who had read the allegedly defamatory statement or e-mails has contacted him to tell him that they would not hire him for work or were negatively disposed to him and he sought no medical treatment. He had no independent evidence outside the record of that case to support the abuse of process claim arising out of the civil action filed in Utah against him. II. ArgumentA. Mr. Houlahan is public figureMr. Houlahan is a limited purpose public figure because he tried to influence public controversy to his own opinion. He has also invited public attention to his opinion, and publicized the WWASPS issue.Rule: Journalists are public figures when they start leading public controversy to their own subjective opinion. Rule Proof: From the Adler case, it states that writers, with their fame and notoriety in literature and journalistic community, are public figures when they pervasively involve in social affairs and journalistic activity. Adler v. Conde Nast Publications, Inc. 643 F.Supp. 1558 (S.D.N.Y. 1986) Also, public figures are those who have greater access to the channels of communication and hence have a more realistic opportunity to counteract false statements than private individuals normally enjoy. Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. 94 S. Ct. 2997 (1974)Moreover, public figures invite public attention to their views. They could be any topic that leads to different strong held opinions in the society. From the Gertz v. Welch case and the Wayment case, public figures thrust themselves to particular public controversies and try to influence the resolution of the issues. They invite public attention and comments and try to influence publics view on certain subjects.Rule Application:Mr. Houlahan is a limited purpose public figure because he pervasively involves in public affairs and journalistic activities that drew public attention and led to different strong held opinions in the society. He injected himself into public controversy. Mr. Houlahan, as a journalist, had greater access to collect information than normal people. He had investigated the teen behavior modification industry and his focus was on WWASPS and its member schools. He interviewed to several people about WWASPS, including Kenneth Kay, James Wall, and the mother of a resident at the WWASPS facility. His great access to communication makes him a public figure. Also, He invited public attention to his view. He prepared drafts to be published by United Press International. His articles were to generate public discussions on WWASPS and its school. Through these articles, the matter would be publicized and discussed among the public.Moreover, He tried to influence the resolution of this certain matter. He has contacted the parent of one of the former students of WWASPS and gave her legal advice, counseling, and gave the student psychological test coaching. He stated that the student as a slave or being captive during his stay at WWASPS. At this point, he was not being objective anymore. Journalists are public figures when they try to influence public controversies to their own views. Mr. Houlahan has become a public figure that he tried to influence the parents view on WWASPS to his own view.Counter analysis:In the Wayment case, Miss Wayment, the journalist, was said not to be a public figure. Therefore, some people might then draw a conclusion that Mr. Houlahan is not a public figure either. Miss Wayment was a journalist of Clear Channel. She had reporting activities and she appeared at charitable events, which made her achieve a level of general fame in the Salt Lake community. However, according to the court, she was not a public figure. The court suggested that she was only performing her job as a health reporter and it was the show that attracted viewers. She had no social or political influence. She did not intend to draw attention from public. However, Mr. Houlahan could not be compared with Miss Wayment because Mr. Houlahan is a freelance journalist, while Miss Wayment was employed by Clear Channel. Mr. houlahan could choose the topics he wanted to work on, and publish them. His articles were intended to draw public attention. On the other hand, Miss Wayment was employed under Clear channel that her tasks were assigned. She also did not raise any public concerns on her reporting activities. Therefore, Miss Wayments case is not applicable in Mr. Houlahans case.B. As public figure, Mr. Houlahan has not shown our client had actual maliceConclusion: Mr. Houlahan could not prove that our client knew the statement was false or recklessly disregarded the truth. Our client had looked for the truth before sending out email and press release. There is objective evidence showing our client was telling the truth. Therefore, our client had not shown actual malice to Mr. Houlahan. Rule: Actual malice occurs when defendant knew the statement was false or recklessly disregarded the truth. Rule proof: From the Gertz versus Welch case, it shows that The First Amendment requires that we protect some falsehood in order to protect speech that matters. Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. 94 S.Ct. 3007 (1974). To prove one has actual malice, there must be clear and convincing evidence. There must be clear evidence that one is being ignorance to the fact and one knew the statement to be false. If there are only ordinary evidentiary rules, the plaintiff must prevail on this motion. Adler v. Conde Nast Publications, inc. 643 F. Supp. 1558 (S.D.N.Y 1986) The New York Times versus Sullivan states that one has the allowance to defense of truth. New York Times Company v. Sullivan. 84 S. Ct. 710 (1964) An individual has the right to the protection of his own good name Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. 94 S. Ct 2997 (1974)Rule Application:Mr. Houlahan does not have clear and convincing evidence that show our client has actual malice, that he couldnt show our client knew the statement was false and that our client has recklessly regard the truth. According to Gertz versus Welch, our client has the right to protect his good name and thus our client was not recklessly regard the truth. Our client was being professional and careful. Mr. Houlahan has sent an email to the parent of one of the WWASPS resident, stating the resident is being captive as a slave in the WWASPS facility. The parent later told our client about the email. Also, during the investigation, Mr. Houlahan had also spoken to Mr. Kay and Mr. Wall. Our client knew that he was going to publish articles about WWASPS on UPI, which contain his negative impression. This might negatively affect WWASPSs image among the public. Therefore, to protect the WWASPSs good name, our client decided to send out an email to parents of WWASPS and made a press release to maintain the facilitys good name. In addition, this shows that our client had carefully looked at the truth before sending out the email and press release. Also, our client knew the statement has carefully looked for the truth before sending out the email and press release. The email our client sent out stated the fact that our client had documented the court filed information regarding Mr. Houlahans contact, legal advice, counseling, and psychological test coaching to a former student. Mr. Houlahan was a damage to WWASPS and to the families of WWASPS. There is an objective review of the Mayer Affidavit and its attachments demonstrate that the statement characterizing Mr. Houlahans contacts were true. The documents show that Mr. Houlahan had given advice to a former WWASPS student to establish roots in North Carolina, and his characterizations of the students stay at WWASPS as slavery or captivity. These are the facts. Our client also used an adjective inappropriate to describe Mr. Houlahans action. It may not be the most objective adjective, but from our clients view, that was true. Even if its not true, according to Gertz versus Welch, The First Amendment requires that we protect some falsehood in order to protect speech that matters. Our clients speech is under the protection of First Amendment. Our client had looked for the truth before sending out email and press release that there is evidence supporting the statements are true. Moreover, the First Amendment protects our clients speech. Therefore, Mr. Houlahan has not shown that our client had actual malice. IV. ConclusionAs a public figure, Mr. Houlahan has failed to show that our client had actual malice, that our client had reckless regard the truth and knew the statement was false. Therefore, we pledge that the defendant should prevail.