District 2 Councilman Joel Robert
On Tuesday Judge Cody Martin summarily denied Parish Councilman Joel Robert’s attempt to have a defamation claim against him dismissed. Relying on Louisiana’s Anti-SLAPP law, Robert filed a Motion to Strike the allegations of defamation lodged against him by Gerry Phillips, spouse to one of Parish President Clint Cointment’s top lieutenants, Infrastructure Division Director Ruth Phillips. Judge Martin did not get to the second of a two-pronged judicial test, concluding that Robert’s arguments “are all red herrings” and his (purportedly defamatory speech) did not address a public concern and/or a public issue.
The councilman does not deny (nor could he given the screenshots circulating immediately) taking to his personal Facebook page to accuse Phillips of asking “Robert’s girlfriend for a ‘lap dance’ and then ‘stood up in front of the parties and dropped his bottom including his underwear to ankles and stood there… (quote from Reasons for Judgment). Robert alleges that Phillips ‘asked defendant to find him some cocaine.’” According to the plaintiff the post was viewed by more than 30,000 people.
Robert did offer a justification his action, being miffed at a personal jab at him appearing on the now, apparently, defunct Ascension Parish Political Rumors Facebook page. Robert’s accusations against Gerry Phillips were prefaced by a description of Ruth Phillips as the page’s “current content creator.”
The defendant/councilman argued that Code of Civil Procedure Article 971 (the Anti-Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation law) protects his speech. It reads:
A.(1) A cause of action against a person arising from any act of that person in furtherance of the person’s right of petition or free speech under the United States or Louisiana Constitution in connection with a public issue shall be subject to a special motion to strike, unless the court determines that the plaintiff has established a probability of success on the claim.
(2) In making its determination, the court shall consider the pleadings and supporting and opposing affidavits stating the facts upon which the liability or defense is based.
(3) If the court determines that the plaintiff has established a probability of success on the claim, that determination shall be admissible in evidence at any later stage of the proceeding.
The court explained the legal test applying the article.
“The mover for the special motion to strike must first establish that the cause of action against him arises from an act by him in the exercise of his right of petition or free speech…in connection with a public issue. If the mover makes a prima facie showing that his comments were constitutionally protected and in connection with a public issue, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to demonstrate a probability of success on the claim
The court went on to find that Robert’s statements “do not represent speech connected with a public issue…This Court finds that the arguments of Mr. Robert that Facebook is a public forum, that his comments were in response to a post made on a ‘political rumors’ page, that he is an elected official, and that Mr. Phillip’s wife is a government employee are all red herrings to the ultimate analysis this Court must determine on this special motion to strike. All of these arguments of Mr. Robert would carry more weight…if the particular speech/comments were made about Mr. Robert or Ms. Phillips involving the public aspects of their positions.”
Which seems short of a judicial determination that Phillips “has established a probability of success on the claim” though it was a serious lapse in judgment. A month after his social media escapade Councilman Robert would be arrested for Aggravated Battery in what has been called “a road rage incident.
Gerry Phillips’ pleadings allege that certain of Robert’s social media allegations are defamatory per se as criminal activity. Excerpts from Phillips’ Petition for Damages:
In his post, Robert alleges that he and his girlfriend were socializing at the Phillips’ home “the last time” in Livingston Parish off the Diversion canal.
According to (Robert’s) post, Gerald Phillips asked the girlfriend…for a “lap dance”. This allegation is false, scandalous and defamatory.
According to the post, (Robert) alleges that Gerald Phillips “stood in front of myself, my girlfriend and Ruth Phillips and dropped his bottom including underwear to his ankles and stood there.”
This allegation is false, scandalous and defamatory per se, as it is a false accusation of the crime of obscenity within Louisiana law.
According to the post, (Robert) alleges that Gerald Phillips “asked defendant to find him some cocaine.
Loading ...