Latest online: The latest item I could find is "The Volokh Conspiracy" coverage, here, with the website posting the judge's order and memorandum opinion, here.
Despite the title, the website is not about conspiracy or conspiracy theory, but is a legal issues exposition, generally respected, but with its own author and contributor biases; as with any legal commentary where legal opinions can range from those of Justices Black, Brennen and Douglas, to Justices Thomas, Scalia, and Roberts - the old-time Warren Court guys, vs. GOP appointees who fashioned the Citizens United decision.
Volokh, a west-coast law professor and main author of his website's posts, in kinder words than "duck-and-cover" seems to see the same deficiency in breadth and sufficiency of the judge's item that I posted about; i.e, compare Crabgrass, here, with Volokh analysis:
As I wrote in March, people are constitutionally entitled to speak the truth about others, even with the goal of trying to get them fired. (The tort actually requires either knowledge that such a result is practically certain or a purpose of producing such a result, but I take it that here the allegation is that Hoff wanted Moore to get fired.) The First Amendment constrains the interference with business relations tort, just as it constrains the infliction of emotional distress and other torts. See NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co. (1982); Blatty v. New York Times Co. (Cal. 1986) (speech constitutionally protected against a libel claim is also protected against an interference with business relations claim); Paradise Hills Assocs. (Cal. Ct. App. 1991) (same); Delloma v. Consolidated Coal Co. (7th Cir. 1993) (“permitting recovery for tortious interference based on truthful statements would seem to raise significant First Amendment problems”); Jefferson Cty. Sch. Dist. No. R-1 v. Moody’s Investor’s Services (10th Cir. 1999) (holding that interference with business relations and interference with contract claims can’t be based on expressions of opinion). The same should apply to the closely related interference with contract tort. See, e.g., Jefferson Cty. Sch. Dist.
Perhaps because of this, the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 772(a) provides that, “One who intentionally causes a third person not to perform a contract or not to enter into a prospective contractual relation with another does not interfere improperly with the other’s contractual relation, by giving the third person ... truthful information.” See also, among many other cases, Walnut Street Assocs., Inc. v. Brokerage Concepts, Inc. (Pa. Super. 2009) (so holding); Recio v. Evers (Neb. 2009) (likewise). Minnesota seems to have accepted § 772(a) as well, see Glass Service Co. v. State Farm Ins. Co. (Minn. Ct. App. 1995); Fox Sports Net North, LLC v. Minnesota Twins Partnership (8th Cir. 2003). But even if Minnesota courts take the opposite view as a matter of state law, such a view would be preempted by the First Amendment.
But the trial court’s opinion doesn’t discuss either of these arguments, even though Hoff’s lawyer raised both in his motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. (I’m told that the arguments were indeed raised at trial, and thus haven’t been waived; and the judge’s opinion doesn’t mention them at all, even to say that they had been waived.) I’m told that an appeal is forthcoming, and I hope the decision is reversed on appeal.
[links omitted, read original for those]. The post has many worthwhile comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------
PREJUDICIAL POSSIBILITIES: Apart from that, a very fundamental question has been troubling me.
Here are two things that Moore had to know of, from his having worked at UROC, which appear to have been suppressed from Hoff's and attorney Paul Godfread's awareness during Godfread's rapid need to prepare for trial after entering the case pro bono so that Hoff would be represented and not need to go to trial pro se.
First, here,
Briefly hired
When the University’s Urban Research and Outreach/Engagement Center (UROC) recently hired former Jordan Area Community Council (JACC) Executive Director Jerry Moore for a short-term mortgage foreclosure research project, some community members said they were shocked. JACC had fired Moore in January after he got into a fist fight at a neighborhood meeting. He has been at the center of controversy that has included legal action and heated arguments at meetings.
Dottie Titus, former JACC executive director, wrote in a recent blog: "What I mostly feel is disappointment. There was a great deal of mistrust of the University when the [University-Northside] partnership was first proposed, but I saw an incredible potential if the University was going to bring some of its best minds to help solve the problems North Minneapolis has faced over the past two or three decades."
Hiring Moore was a betrayal of trust, she added. "In my mind, it speaks volumes about the University’s real interest (or lack thereof) in the Northside Partnership. We simply cannot depend on that bright vision once held out to us."
Robert Jones, U of M Senior Vice President, said UROC hired Moore for a "casual, temporary" job. Moore had various short term work assignments, including reviewing and analyzing newspapers for content related to mortgage foreclosure issues.
"His work has been completed, he was given notice June 22 and he is leaving our employment," Jones said.
When asked if the U did a background check on Moore before hiring him, Jones said they had not.
"I understand the community has concerns. We were not aware of any accusations when he was hired. No accusations or concerns were ever mentioned to my staff. Our goal was to hire people from the community and we tried to do that. We typically don’t do background checks on casual temporary workers; you can be hired on Monday and let go on Tuesday. Because of this issue, however, I have asked staff to do background checks from now on."
Moore, contacted last week, referred all questions to Jones and Associate Vice President for System Academic Administration, Irma McClaurin.
[emphasis added] Second, there is this:
Recently, Moore lost a job with the University of Minnesota’s Urban Research and Outreach Center (UROC), which the complaint alleges that Hoff and Allen had a hand in. It states that the pair acted in “intentional interference with contract, and/or aiding and abetting, over their cooperative effort to get Plaintiff Jerry Moore fired from his job.” A June 21 Johnny Northside blog post, entitled, Former JACC Executive Director Jerry Moore Hired by U of M, Neighborhood Leaders Are All, Like, WTF? is referenced for its discussion of allegations that Moore is tied to a mortgage fraud scheme. The post, it criticizes, continues by saying that any UROC attempts to connect with Jordanites will probably fail until Moore is removed from the University position. Hoff’s post was followed-up with an email from Allen, which was published in the wee hours of June 22, the complaint says, adding that it contained false and defamatory statements concerning Moore’s alleged involvement in mortgage fraud. Later that day, however, UROC terminated Moore, according to the complaint. Also mentioned in the complaint are additional posts from Johnny Northside which seemingly illustrate that the blog was instrumental in the U of M’s action, it states.
What does the U of M have to say? Daniel Wolter, the U of M’s news service director, responded via email that Moore was hired in mid-May “by UROC for what is called a “casual temporary” job. It’s typically used for very short-term work, usually specific to a particular task. His job was reviewing and analyzing newspaper content under the supervision of an academic researcher. His work has been completed and he was given notice on June 22. His leaving University employment was not related to performance issues. The University was unaware of the allegations against Mr. Moore at the time of the hiring and is currently not aware of the details of the allegations — nor are we in a position to comment on them.”
If Moore referred questions to Jones, and Jones says, "His work has been completed, he was given notice June 22 and he is leaving our employment," and that Jones' staff was unaware of any complaints about Moore; AND Daniel Wolter, a press relations spokesperson for the U, echos what Jones also says, "His work has been completed and he was given notice on June 22. His leaving University employment was not related to performance issues. The University was unaware of the allegations against Mr. Moore at the time of the hiring and is currently not aware of the details of the allegations — nor are we in a position to comment on them,” then how could John Hoff or Don Allen have "caused" Moore to be terminated?
Either Hoff and/or Allen caused Moore to lose an ongoing job, or Moore's work had been completed and had ended. It is either-or with no third possibility.
Either Hoff caused an ongoing situation to end and the officials were together lying to the press or the officials were truthful and Moore and his attorney hoodwinked the jury - so what you think?
Was it an unfortunate coincidence in timing of events to suggest there might be a causal connection, or were two highly placed University officials doing cya backing and filling and feeding the public BS?
My understanding is no official from the U ever testified at trial about the nature of Moore's employment and how it came to an end. Hence, the jury heard nothing that way. Hence, also, independent of anything John Hoff or Don Allen did, and independent of whether either thought himself influential, official comments to the press suggest that the tortious interference element of causation of harm is missing.
If Moore's attorney knew of this line of reporting, having been told of it by Moore of having uncovered it in independent investigation pretrial, and hence did not call anly UROC people on the causation question, (an elemant the plaintiff must prove to prevail), and with knowledge misled court and jury into believing Hoff had been a causative factor when that online reporting suggests the impression given court and jury was wholly false; then it does not reflect very well upon the lawyer.
If she did not know and Moore had told her a different story, and she then had Moore testifying how he'd still be at UROC but for Hoff, then she did not suborn perjury, but Moore might arguably have perjured himself.
Again, I was not at trial and know of no trial transcript being prepared that I might read. So I am speculating over hypotheticals.
As I have read reporting of the trial, direct evidence from any supervisory person at UROC was absent and it was Moore's burden to present proof on causation.
These causation considerations are factors that appear to not be in the record, one way or the other, and the appeal probably will have to be based on the argument that First Amendment law stands to say that publishing truthful information or telling the truth to a third party is not actionable if the third party (based on truthful information) terminates a contractual relationship with the person about whom the published or reported information was focused.
But that begs the most basic question: Did Hoff actually get Jerry Moore fired from anything, despite Hoff's wish it were so,? (I.e., the proof seems clear Hoff wishes it were true that by his making truthful things public about Moore led to Moore being discharged from UROC in a way Hoff clearly thought and published to be his opinion of what was in the best interest of UROC and its percieved integrity within the community.)