[UPDATE: Things in the world evolve and we evolve with them. The links in the next paragraph have been updated per a website change to reflect change we can believe in (and wishing them well for the future):
http://www.skjoldparrington.com/
That's the new main site homepage link. Both following links are updated. The prior Crabgrass post is unchanged, so leave the links alone there, if accessing it. END UPDATE]
The original attorneys' post has been amended to include a pdf of the verdict form, as returned by the jury to the judge. Below, in two images, you can have a look.
 |
| page 1 |
 |
| page 2 |
Another follow-up link on that speculation, here.
Depending upon the record, and jury instructions, it likely will be argued that any uncertainty or incompleteness in the form was harmless error because of completeness of instructions the judge gave the jury before they retired to deliberate.
Moore, via Jill Clark, will make that argument.
Being unaware of jury instruction details, and whether they were complete and appropriate under the evidence, I leave that question for the two sides to argue.
---------
My speculation, is the jury erred and Hoff should have been granted a judgment of dismissal at the close of Moore's proof on tortious interference because Moore failed to prove the element of causation.
Hoff wrote initially June 21, Moore's employment was terminated the next day - June 22, Hoff wrote the day after that - June 23 - about some total hearsay that he was told things and believed them true that he had a pivotal role in the termination (and he appeared proud of it - something which might not have sat well with the jury).
But all that is speculative, and far, far short of clear and convincing evidence in the record that Hoff did in fact cause the termination. It was Moore's burdent to show causation, by best evidence, and yet as a tactic Jill Clark and Moore declined to present best evidence, though it was available by subpoena. They affirmatively declined to call any witness at all from the UROC or the university saying anything about whether Hoff's publishing caused Moore's job to be terminated, or played any role whatsoever in the employment ending.
There is no proof Hoff spoke to any university person; or that he had any actual personal knowledge of what might have been discussed by university people, beyond what he wrote he was told. Likewise, Moore only had his opinions, knowing what UROC or other University people might have told or emailed to him; and I am unaware of whether he testified in any sense, "So-and-so said such-and-such." It seems from trial-observer reporting that Clark instead relied, primarily if not only, upon what Hoff had written and published.
Best evidence is you get UROC people there on the stand and under oath, and they say what happened and why. Neither side did that. However, Moore, not Hoff, had the burden to prove causation by clear and convincing evidence. Minn. Stat. Sect. 554.03.
Let's work it out: Sheila Regan within her Daily Planet reporting wrote:
As for the claim of interference with contract, Godfread said in his closing statement that the prosecution was relying on accusations without evidence. Further, he stated that Hoff's justification for writing his blog post was that it was in the public's interest, as public funds went toward the program that Moore worked for.Moore's attorney Jill Clark said in her closing statement that much of the discussion of the First Amendment and freedom of the press as it relates to blogs "is really not relevant." She also said, "There need to be some limits on blogs." Clark pointed to Hoff's lack of objective reporting. "The reporter loses objectivity when he enters the story," she said.To support Moore's second two claims, Clark pointed to Hoff's blog post written on June 23, 2009 , which included the statement:It was reportedly coverage on this blog which "blew open" the issue of Moore's hiring and forced the hand of U of M decision-makers after the issue had been quietly, respectfully brought to their attention over a week ago. I am told pages were printed from my previous blog post about Moore's hiring by UROC, including the extensive comment stream, and these pages got "waved around" a bit in a discussion at U of M.Clark argued that Hoff's wording "forced the hand" is Hoff bragging about getting Jerry Moore fired. "That's not about speech," she said. "That's about conduct."
Copyright:©2011 Sheila Regan
Sheila Regan
Sheila Regan (sheila@tcdailyplanet.net) is a Minneapolis theater artist and freelance writer.
As noted before, Regan's reporting was probably the best ongoing reporting of trial events.
She wrote nothing in a three part series of whether anyone on the witness stand said, "I know Hoff was instrumental, the key cause, of Moore's situation ending with UROC, and I know this because, [______fill in the blank______]." Presuming she'd have been sensitive to that, but only wrote of part of the second [June 23] post, I infer the record is devoid of any such proof.
Next, below is a screenshot of the entire June 23 post as Hoff wrote it.
Let's consider the entire post, and the "gist" or "sting" in what it said. First, Hoff opened by identifying that some things in the post were based upon his belief in hearsay upon hearsay, without his having any direct personal knowledge of how accurately reporting to him of things, were, in fact, sifted through two unidentified intermediaries he believed credible:
A known, creditable [sic] source at U of M gave information to a known, creditable [sic] source in the Hawthorne Neighborhood, who conveyed it to me earlier today:
Jerry Moore, the former Executive Director of JACC, who is currently involved in a lawsuit against JACC, was "let go" from his job at the University of Minnesota UROC program. According to the U of M source....
It was reportedly coverage on this blog which "blew open" the issue of Moore's hiring and forced the hand of U of M decision-makers after the issue had been quietly, respectfully brought to their attention over a week ago. I am told pages were printed from my previous blog post about Moore's hiring by UROC, including the extensive comment stream, and these pages got "waved around" a bit in a discussion at U of M.
That gives the pelude as context to the paragraph Regan published. Then there was subsequent commentary, the gist of which was Hoff believed Moore's case was indicative of a situation viewed as bad for the community, the U, and the UROC program, with the opinion being that the UROC program, beyond Moore's situation, was blowing the chance to be as effective as UROC might be because an operation is only as good as the people in it (where Hoff's doubts went beyond Jerry Moore):
It continues to be my position that if Jerry Moore wants to discuss his point of view in detail, and cite such facts on his behalf as he wishes to cite, I will air his point of view. The comment threads are also open, subject only to relatively brief delays before I hit the APPROVE button.
The issue of other (reported but unconfirmed) controversial hires by U of M UROC continues to be a concern. The question keeps getting asked by neighborhood leaders: WHAT THE HECK IS THE DEAL WITH UROC? Are hiring decisions being made on the basis of tawdry political favors?
I say that merely "letting go" of Moore isn't good enough. The matter of how and why he was hired--and by whom--should be formally investigated by U of M.
Consider:
* Moore doesn't have a college degree.
* Moore is currently suing his former neighborhood association, (JACC) one of the neighborhood groups essential to UROC's North Minneapolis mission.
* Moore admitted being involved in a physical altercation with members of the JACC board in January of this year and was denied employment benefits on the basis of that misconduct. (Unknown if his appeal has been resolved, however) Moore was FIRED for that misconduct.
* The involvement of Jerry Moore's consulting firm with Larry "Maximum" Maxwell is a matter of public record in the Hennepin County court system. Maxwell just went down for more than a dozen felonies involving mortgage fraud. The LAST THING ON EARTH Jerry Moore should be doing is "research" involving mortgages, particularly research supported by a public entity funded by taxpayer dollars.
Based on any ONE of these factors, Moore shouldn't have been hired by U of M. But here you have all four factors. So what explains his hiring? This wasn't just a bone-headed move, to me this looks like somebody trying to throw patronage in the direction of Jerry Moore after his oh-so-justified termination from JACC, so Moore can be saved, inflated, propped up, and still around to fight battles on behalf of whoever-the-hell Moore fights for. (Would that be the right of poor North Minneapolis folks to get just as rich from mortgage fraud as well-to-do suburbanites?)
The more pressing question becomes: who else was hired by UROC who shouldn't have been hired? All hiring decisions made by whoever hired Jerry Moore need to be reviewed and investigated, IMMEDIATELY.
[italic emphasis added] (The ending paragraph of the post (following the quote) stands as wholly gratuitous opinion, perhaps better left off since it weakens the rest.)
The gist or sting of the post is that there were four specific things about Jerry Moore that argued against his being hired in the first place, and that of multiple possible explanations for how Moore was hired in the first place, Hoff said he believed one and was dissatisfied with that possibility. He also said the entire program seemed less effective than it might be if decisions were better and personnel different - the two things being linked, in his opinion. That can be viewed as constructive criticism, based upon opinion, with the hope being to improve the effectiveness of a government program intended to benefit the community in which Moore and Hoff both resided.
Where does any of that clearly and convincingly say Hoff caused Jerry Moore's employment termination.
It says nothing of the kind, beyond Hoff's identified hearsay upon hearsay, and his belief and hope that his writing played a part. Circumstantially, the June 21, 22 and 23 sequence suggests Hoff was a factor, and he references "the issue had been quietly, respectfully brought to their attention over a week ago" but was ignored. The sought after government attention and action had not happened. He published. There is that timing. I am uncertain about witness subpoenas but neither side compelled testimony from University personnel. The burden of proof was Moore's. He had to prove causation by clear and convincing evidence.
That post is not clear uniquivocal evidence.
It is hearsay upon hearsay.
It is not convincing that Hoff caused UROC to do a thing.
There is not a shred of direct evidence that anyone in a decision-making capacity even knew Hoff had written a blog post. There is hearsay upon hearsay that Hoff's writing was known by U. officials, and influential, before notice on June 22 by the U. to Moore that his employment had ended.
I am familiar with a few defamation cases, my favorite being Sid Hartman's case, where the district court judge threw the case out, and where I think it is shown beyond doubt that John Borger of the Fagre firm is an outstanding appellate litigator. Read the case, it is entertaining and educational, Hunter v. Hartman, 545 NW 2d 699 (Minn. App. 1995). Briefly: A Dr. Hunter criticized Lou Holtz as Gopher football coach implying he pressured injured players to play. Sid took offense and noted a dozen operations Dr. Hunter preformed, and that none of the players returned to play at prior performance levels. The doctor saw Sid's commentary that way, on sports talk radio, as suggesting Hunter was insufficiently skilled, so he sued. Pretrial dismissal was affirmed on appeal.
A good review of the law of defamation in Minnesota as of 1998 is in Stokes v. CBS, 25 F. Supp. 2d 992, 997-99 (D. Minn 1998).
There is the unpublished case of the "good Samaritan" tipping off police via 911 of erratic driving, and later suggesting to a news outlet that 911 callers should be protected by a statutory immunity when making good faith reports. A TV segment was aired and the driver sued the broadcaster, not the good Samaritan, with the trial judge throwing the case out; Iverson v. Hubbard Broadcasting, No. A05-2437 (Minn. App. 2006) (affirming dismissal).
Is Hoff in the role of "good Samaritan," giving warning to official attention, of a troublesome situation?
You decide.
There is the unpublished case of the pedophile claiming libel and invasion of privacy; Danforth v. Star Tribune, No. A10-128 (Minn. App. 2010); (again Borger arguing for Strib). The district court determined that appellant's claims were frivolous, denied his application to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismissed his complaint pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 563.02, subd. 3. In determining that appellant's libel claim was frivolous, the district court implicitly took judicial notice of appellant's criminal-case record. See Minn. R. Evid. 201 (allowing district court to take judicial notice of adjudicative facts "not subject to reasonable dispute"). Regarding a claimed invasion of privacy, the appellate court noted, "The statements of which appellant complains did not concern his private life: every fact mentioned in the article is already in the public record of appellant's criminal trial and the subsequent appellate decisions."Affirmed.
Hoff has published challenges of sex offender residence and presence in his neighborhood, and published of at least one instance. He may face comparable issues as Strib faced, in Danforth.
That's only a sampling. Unpublished cases strictly are not "precedent," but are unpublished because they are wholly congruent with current law, i.e., without any innovation deemed precedent setting. Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3.
Links to the cases online are given above. Read them and think things over.
I do not know of any contrary tortious interference cases against good Samaritans and situations where the gist of a statement is permissible, basically true, and not defamatory; but where the secondary tort claim beyond defamation carried the day while a judge or jury found no false statement of fact was at issue. It's an unfortunate trial error, a jury doing a strange thing, and it should be overturned. It's wrong.
______________UPDATE______________
Tuesday, 22Mar2011: Now Johnny Northside tells MPR he wants to enlist moral support from Courtney Love, another tort suit victim.
She could give a benefit concert or some such. I think he should enlist my law school criminal procedure prof., Michael Tigar, who is one of the three or so most impressive profs I've studied under during my academic meandering. This link. It appears from that report that Hoff is getting attention and amicus interest from near and afar.
Good.
That Courtney Love angle is a part of MPR's extended coverage, see, also here and here. The latter post asks about possible chilling effect the Moore v. Hoff verdict may generate. It got a short string of comments, most ignoring the chilling effect question entirely.
One thing I learned from Michael Tigar, by example, do your discovery very diligently, with a passionate diligence, because if you are not on top of every fact you can compel from litigation aversaries, (who have to testify under oath), you are only hurting yourself - and any public interest dimension your case may entail.