Slander, Libel, The Mayor, and Mailings

We have covered this topic before. However, since some on the internet seem to feel it necessary to bring it up again, we will briefly address this topic again. Slander and Libel are not the same thing, though they are similar. Both involve a Defamation (AKA "defamation of character"). However, Slander is verbal and Libel is in print, broadcast, etc. If you read someone claiming someone else was "slandered" on the internet, realize that this person clearly does not this issue because though you can find information published as print, video, sound or a combination of any of these three mediums, but it is not possible for the Internet to speak to you.

When seeking to sue someone for libel, you have several hurdles to clear. The first is that you must be able to prove the statement was false. If what someone is saying about you is true, regardless of whether you feel wronged by it being published or not, you cannot win a claim of libel, period. Second, you have to prove that it was known to be false and the person or organization published it anyway. Lastly, you have to prove damages (which, if your reputation in the community happens to be horrible in the first place, can be rather difficult to prove).

Another consideration is wording and intent. If someone states something about someone as a matter of fact, when they know it is false, and publishing that information damages the person it is possible to successfully sue for Libel. However, if someone publishes something clearly identifying it as a rumor (for example: "people all over town are saying..."), it will be difficult at best to prove libel as you would have to prove that this rumor did not actually exist and the writer knew it didn't exist.

OK. Now that we've settled that (again), let's take a look at the Mayor's website. There you'll find a long post claiming that the recent article in the Post-Dispatch about her mis-representing herself as a Nurse was false. Apparently Mayor Purzner does not realize that the Post-Dispatch, as well as several other media outlets (including The Overland Examiner) are in possession of a copy of the State Board of Nursing's Investigation into her claims to being a nurse (File # NUI-0502-858/2002-001592) from 2002.

Though I agree this is "old news", it is from the same time frame as the invoice for "jewelry" (actually employee service pins) that Councilman Owensby complained about recently in the Localite (you can read our article about that issue here). It is also far newer than the time frame of the audio tape (that sounds like it might have been edited or even pieced together (though I am no audio expert)) that the Mayor and her supporters like to toss around when making accusations against City Attorney Robert Herman.

We will get into the Nursing issue in a moment. Right now I'd like to address Mayor Purzner continually referring to City Attorney Robert Herman as "unethical". The Mayor even questions why City Attorney Herman changed his mind on having a public hearing on the issue of his ethics and her regular public statements that he is "unethical" Mayor Purzner's website fails to remind you that City Attorney Robert Herman said the reason he does not feel he needs this hearing any longer was because the Missouri Bar's Disciplinary Board had responded to Mayor Purzner's multi-count complaint in a letter back in October 2006 which states in part:

"The Committee has determined there is no probable cause to believe that Robert Herman's Actions involved Professional Misconduct."

I am including links to both pages of this letter for your review. Please note, that they mistakenly refer to Mayor Purzner as the Mayor of Olivette, as well as Mr. Herman as the City Attorney of Olivette. This is a simple mistake, as should be evident since they referred to both the Mayor and Mr. Herman as being of Olivette. The following is a copy of that letter:

.........
page 1............................page 2
(click page to see at full size)

Remembering what we said about what it takes to prove Libel earlier. First, you need to prove the statement is false. Second you need to prove the person publishing it knew it was false. Then you need to show damages. In this case, it appears the Mayor would likely have a difficult time in court trying to fight the first two points. However, considering the Mayor's credibility issues for example:

Around the time he was filing a suit (that he later won) against Mayor Purzner for overstepping her authority when she first tried to remove Police Chief Herron from office without a vote of the City Council (as required by State Statute and Overland Ordinances), St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney Bob McCulloch was quoted by the Post-Dispatch on May 3rd, 2006 as saying in reference to Mayor Purzner:

"Hopefully the public of Overland will recognize that she is a liar."

and

"My view is that she has Zero Credibility."

With statements like that already in the public eye, it would likely be difficult to prove that enough people would actually believe anything that Mayor Purzner said to such a degree that it would cause Defamation to others, even if it was Libelous.

Now as for that Nurse-Impostor issue. The Mayor really should leave that one alone. As I said before, many local media outlets have a copy of the official investigation into this issue by the Missouri Board of Nursing. Some of the more interesting items in that report are:

The Nursing Board reviewed 7 pieces of campaign literature and 2 newspaper advertisements from the 2002 Mayoral race in which Ann Purzner "repeatedly identified herself as a Registered Nurse without being licensed with the Missouri State Board of Nursing" (page 3, paragraph 6 of the Investigation Report).

For the record, later in the Report, Mark Brown of Mark Brown Printing Company was interviewed and took responsibility for these advertisements. "Mr. Brown advised further that, at no time did MS. Purzner portray herself to him as being a Registered Nurse, nor did she instruct him to identify her as a registered nurse. Mr. Brown stated that he believed Ms. Purzner was a Registered Nurse due to her many years of working at the Overland Medical Center." (Page 7 Paragraph 7 of the Investigation Report). "she [Ms. Purzner] did not view the finished items prior to their being mailed and distributed to the citizens of Overland Missouri." (Page 8 Paragraph 1).

When contacted for an Interview by the Missouri Nursing Board, Ms. Purzner "stated that she was in fact a Registered Nurse licensed in the State of Texas (Page 6, Paragraph 1 ). However, further investigation showed that Ann Purzner was not nor had ever been a Registered Nurse in the State of Texas (Page 6, Paragraph 3+4 )

On June 21st, 2002 Ms. Purzner was interviewed by an Investigator of the Missouri Nursing Board. "Ms. Purzner immediately recanted her original claim of being a licensed Registered Nurse in the State of Texas. MS. Purzner stated that she is not, and never has been a Licensed Registered Nurse." (Page 6, Paragraph 5).

Also there is "At this time MS. Purzner confided that she had lied relative to her holding a degree in nursing" (Page 8, paragraph 9 of the Investigation Report).

The report is extensive (and a matter of public record), and it indicates where the Mayor was repeatedly referred to as a nurse in campaign materials and the like. I would this is old news, accept now the Missouri State Legislature has decided to consider changing the penalty for misrepresenting yourself as Nurse from a misdemeanor to a felony, in part because of the publicity that surrounded the Mayors claims to have been a Nurse. However, I find it odd that Mayor Purzner and others would complain about anything being "old news" when you consider how far in the past they frequently reach to try to discredit their opposition. If they want to change to focus of discussion from the past to the future they should start by not repeatedly reaching back into the past themselves.

As a side note: I find it amusing that after all of Mayor Purzner's and Councilman Knode's comments about videos has been "edited" or not online (which I didn't bother responding to because it was so laughable), they now have a 15 minute EDITED video with unsubstantiated claim in text cut into it from a meeting that lasted much longer (if you include the residents comments it was nearly 1 hour and 20 minutes long). Interestingly enough, we put the ENTIRE meeting up, UNEDITED as soon as we learned the meeting did not aired on Charter Cable (as you can see in this article or by clicking here).

Remember, Tuesday is Election Day and Polls will be open from 6AM to 7PM. You have a choice to make. You can vote for candidates that believe in fiscal responsibility, being accountable to the people, do not regularly insult the intelligence of the public and represent change in Overland. Or you can vote to retain Councilman Knode, Councilman Sellers and Mayor Purzner.

On Monday Be suspicious of last minute mailings you might receive at home. They are designed to hit right before the elections so the opposition will not have time to respond to them. If you do not recognize the name of the person or organization they claim to be from you should think twice before believing the information it contains. If you do recognize the name, call that person or organization to verify the content of the mailing (as fraudulent mailings have happened right before elections in the past here in Overland).

For what it is worth rumor has it that Mark Brown was seen arguing with the postal workers on Friday over ensuring that 3600 or so mailings would be delivered by Monday. As we hear it, the postal workers told him they could not guarantee delivery and he would have to mail them from St. Louis city if he wanted to be sure they arrived on Monday.

Check out a short article from St. Louis Magazine here, and what the Suburban Journal had to say a week ago in their Editorial about the Recall here.