Chandler v. Rutland Herald Publishing, No. 104-3-15 Wmcv (Teachout, J., June 25, 2015) 

[The text of this Vermont trial court opinion is unofficial. It has been reformatted from the original. The accuracy of the text and the 

accompanying data included in the Vermont trial court opinion database is not guaranteed.] 

STATE OF VERMONT 

SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL DIVISION 

Washington Unit Docket No. 104-3-15 Wmcv 

Charles Chandler 

 Plaintiff 

 v. 

Rutland Herald Publishing, et al. 

 Defendants 

DECISION 

Defendants’ Motion to Strike 

 The Rutland Herald newspaper published—according to it in 2007—an article describing 

allegations that Mr. Charles Chandler had falsely accused the Windham County Sheriff of 

seeking “protection money” from area businesses. The article also described a criminal charge 

against Mr. Chandler for impeding a public officer in violation of 13 V.S.A. § 3001. In this case, 

Mr. Chandler maintains that the article is false in all material respects and was written and 

published solely as a malicious personal attack on him. He claims libel and intentional infliction 

of emotional distress against Rutland Herald Publishing and three of its employees, including the 

author of the article. He claims several million dollars in damages. Defendants (collectively, the 

Herald) have filed a Motion to Strike the complaint as a violation of 12 V.S.A. § 1041, 

Vermont’s anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) statute.1

 They seek a 

statutory award of attorney fees and costs. 

The disputed article 

 The disputed article describes that Mr. Chandler had been charged criminally for making 

false, public allegations that the then-Windham County Sheriff and her deputy had sought money 

for favors from area businesses and Mr. Chandler himself. It described that a police 

investigation had found no evidence of any wrongdoing and further described events related to 

the impeding-an-officer charge, including a witness statement that Mr. Chandler paid an 

employee to make a false statement. 

 

The Anti-SLAPP Motion to Strike 

 Vermont’s anti-SLAPP statute is intended to provide protection against “lawsuits brought 

primarily to chill the valid exercise of the constitutional rights of freedom of speech and freedom 

to petition government for the redress of grievances.” 2005, No. 134 (Adj. Sess.), § 1(1). The 

 

1

 The Herald also has filed a Request for Judicial Notice to establish the date of publication, a Request for Judicial 

Notice of Mr. Chandler’s litigation history, and a Motion to Dismiss on statute of limitations grounds and based on a 

claimed reporting privilege. 
2 

statute authorizes a defendant who was sued due to or in anticipation of the exercise of those 

rights, “in connection with a public issue,” to file a special motion to strike the lawsuit at the 

outset of the case. 12 V.S.A. § 1041(a). If such a motion is filed, the court must grant it unless 

the plaintiff proves that: 

(A) the defendant’s exercise of his or her right to freedom of speech and to 

petition was devoid of any reasonable factual support and any arguable basis in 

law; and 

(B) the defendant’s acts caused actual injury to the plaintiff. 

Id. § 1041(e)(1). If the plaintiff cannot make such a showing, the court grants the motion and the 

defendant is entitled to attorney fees and costs. Id. § 1041(f)(1). If the motion was frivolous, the 

plaintiff is entitled to fees and costs. Id. 

 The statute broadly protects: 

(1) any written or oral statement made before a legislative, executive, or judicial 

proceeding, or any other official proceeding authorized by law; 

(2) any written or oral statement made in connection with an issue under 

consideration or review by a legislative, executive, or judicial body, or any other 

official proceeding authorized by law; 

(3) any written or oral statement concerning an issue of public interest made in a 

public forum or a place open to the public; or 

(4) any other statement or conduct concerning a public issue or an issue of public 

interest which furthers the exercise of the constitutional right of freedom of 

speech or the constitutional right to petition the government for redress of 

grievances. 

12 V.S.A. § 1041(i). The disputed article plainly is a “written . . . statement concerning an issue 

of public interest made in a public forum.” Id. § 1041(i)(3). It is a garden-variety newspaper 

article describing criminal charges arising out of public confrontations between a member of the 

public and public officials. 

 The Herald’s motion to strike put the burden on Mr. Chandler to demonstrate that the 

article “was devoid of any reasonable factual support and any arguable basis in law.” In 

response, Mr. Chandler asserts that the article is frivolous, vexatious, baseless, malicious, and it 

has caused him “millions of dollars of damage.” Plaintiff’s Objection 7 (filed April 7, 2015). He 

comes forward with no evidence that the article lacks reasonable factual support and incorrectly 

argues that the burden of proof is on the Herald. 

 The anti-SLAPP statute does not put the burden on the speaker to demonstrate that the 

disputed speech has reasonable factual support. However, the Herald affirmatively supported its 
3 

motion to strike with a detailed showing of factual support. This includes: (1) an affidavit of 

Daniel Barlow, the author of the article, describing the court documents relied upon in writing 

the article; (2) a probable cause affidavit by Detective Cpl. Michael F. Burns detailing Mr. 

Chandler’s corruption allegations, the ensuing investigation, and a witness statement to the effect 

that Mr. Chandler paid an employee to make a false statement related to the impeding-an-officer 

charge; (3) the docket sheet in the impeding-an-officer case; (4) the amended information in the 

impeding-an-officer case; and (5) an affidavit of Jeromy Languerand, a law enforcement officer, 

detailing support for the impeding-an-officer charge against Mr. Chandler. The article recounts 

allegations and court records. It does not purport to reveal the truth of what really happened 

during the underlying events. The evidence submitted by the Herald shows that the article, as 

written, has ample factual support. It thus was speech protected by 12 V.S.A. § 1041. 

 Mr. Chandler violated the letter and spirit of 12 V.S.A. § 1041 by filing this action. The 

complaint will be stricken. The Herald is entitled to an award of attorney fees and costs. Id. § 

1041(f)(1). 

ORDER 

 For the foregoing reasons, the Herald’s Motion to Strike is granted. All other pending 

motions are denied as moot. 

 Any request for attorneys’ fees and costs shall be filed by July 15, 2015 or any such claim 

will be deemed waived and will be dismissed with prejudice. Any such request shall be 

accompanied by detailed time and billing records. 

 Dated at Montpelier, Vermont this ____ day of June 2015. 

 _____________________________ 

 Mary Miles Teachout 

 Superior Judge