You are on page 1of 3

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

The Plaintiff, Willie Stark, takes action against three Defendants, The Milford Weekly
Gazette, Walter Burns, and Sam Snead. The Plaintiff claims defamation and infringement of
privacy against all three Defendants, and the Plaintiff asks the Court to find the Defendants liable
for the damages caused.
SUMMARY OF THE CASE
Greenville Mayor Willie Stark, Plaintiff, was a well-respected, hardworking public
servant, dedicated to improving the quality of life in Milford. A Milford native, Stark spent his
career investing in the people of Milford. Through his efforts Milford became a center of
innovation and a popular tourist destination. Despite his successes Willie Stark was a man of the
people. He stuck to routine to ensure that he was accessible to the people he served, and he
communicated to the people of Milford through a TV show he used to bring attention to local
businesses.
The Plaintiffs shining political career was cut short after the Milford Weekly Gazette,
under the editorial authority of Walter Burns, published false statements about the Plaintiff in an
article written by Sam Snead. The Gazette, Burns, and Snead are the defendants in this case. In
an effort to gain political power and become mayor Burns published an article claiming that
Stark was a cross dresser, an entirely false claim. The article was written by Sam Snead who
claimed to have received an anonymous tip, broke into the Plaintiffs home, stole private
information, and wrote an article based entirely on speculation.
Snead presented his completed article to his editor, Walter Burns, who published it in its
entirety, seeing the article as an opportunity to become mayor himself.
After the article was published in the Milford Weekly Gazette voters called for Starks
resignation and protested in front of his house until Stark was forced to give in. He is suing the
Gazette, its editor-in-chief Walter Burns, and the articles author Sam Snead for the damages
caused to his career and reputation.
ARGUMENT
The Plaintiff will present evidence against The Milford Weekly Gazette for claims of
infringement of privacy and against Walter Burns and Sam Snead for claims of defamation and
infringement of privacy.
THE MILFORD WEEKLY GAZETTE

WALTER BURNS
As editor-in-chief of the Milford Weekly Gazette Walter Burns had control of what
stories were featured in the Gazette and the content of the stories. In this case, he published, in its
entirety, the story written by Sam Snead.

In order to prove Defamation the Plaintiff must show that the story was 1.) about the
Plaintiff Willie Stark, 2.) that it was published, 3.) that it was false, and 4.) that it caused
damages to the Plaintiff. In this case, the defamation was written, making it libel.
1. Willie Stark was identified by name in the article. The article identified and attacked
Stark in both his professional capacity and personal life, and the reaction of the
people of Milford to the article proves that Stark was clearly the subject of the article.
2. The article written by Sam Snead appeared in Milford Weekly Gazette after being
authorized for publication by Walter Burns.
3. FALSE
4. In certain cases damages are assumed. Common Law names the following:
Accusation of a Crime*
Sexual Impropriety*
Loathsome disease or mental illness
Professional incompetence*
Bankruptcy or financial irresponsibility*
Disgraceful behavior*
Product disparagement
*applicable to this case
The article accuses the mayor Willie Stark of receiving kickbacks on the garbage
collection contract, an illegal act. This false claim is an accusation of a crime, accusation of
professional incompetence (as it attacks him in his occupation and resulted in the loss of his job),
financial irresponsibility, and disgraceful behavior. The article also claims the Plaintiff is a cross
dresser, a false accusation of sexual impropriety and disgraceful behavior.
As a result of these claims the Plaintiff lost his job and his reputation in the town.
The Plaintiff concedes that Willie Stark, as mayor of Milford and a TV host, is a public
figure, and will therefore prove that the statements were made with actual malice In order to
prove actual malice the Plaintiff will show that Walter Burns acted with reckless disregard for the
truth. . In the case of Curtis Publishing vs. Butts (Bobbitt 118) the Supreme Court found that an
article based on an anonymous source filled with factual errors and inconsistencies that the
magazine did not check out constituted defamation with actual malice. A concurring opinion
refers to the publications slipshod and sketchy investigative techniques employed to check the
veracity of the source as enough evidence to find for the Plaintiff. (118)
When Sam Snead presented his article to his editor Walter Burns. Burns knew the story
was based on the tip of an anonymous caller but made no effort to identify or verify the caller or
his/her information. He also knew that Snead found no evidence or secret contract detailing any
illegal activities by Stark during his time as mayor, yet he still published the article. He also
published the false claim that Stark is a cross dresser. Burns acted in his own interest with no
regard for the truth, thus proving actual malice towards the Plaintiff, Willie Stark.

SAM SNEAD

You might also like