Title: James R. Donohoo v. Action Wisconsin
Citation: 2008 WI 56
Docket Number: 2006AP000396, 2009AP000608
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: June 5, 2008

2008 WI 56 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2006AP396 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
In the matter of attorneys fees in: Grant E. 
Storms, plaintiff, v. Action Wisconsin Inc. and 
Christopher Ott, defendants. 
 
James R. Donohoo, 
          Appellant, 
     v. 
Action Wisconsin, Inc. and Christopher Ott, 
          Respondents-Petitioners. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
REVIEW OF A DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS 
Reported at: 303 Wis. 2d 744, 735 N.W.2d 192 
(Ct. App. 2007-Unpublished) 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
June 5, 2008   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
January 15, 2008   
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
Circuit   
 
COUNTY: 
Milwaukee   
 
JUDGE: 
Patricia D. McMahon   
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
ROGGENSACK, J., dissents (opinion filed). 
PROSSER and ZIEGLER, JJ., join the dissent.   
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
For the respondents-petitioners there were briefs by Lester 
A. Pines, Tamara B. Packard, and Cullen Weston Pines & Bach LLP, 
Madison, and oral argument by Tamara B. Packard and Lester A. 
Pines. 
 
For the appellant there was a brief by James R. Donohoo and 
James Donohoo Law Office, Milwaukee, and oral argument by James 
R. Donohoo. 
 
 
 
 
2008 WI 56
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2006AP396  
(L.C. No. 
2004CV2205) 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the matter of attorneys fees in: Grant E. 
Storms, plaintiff, v. Action Wisconsin Inc. and 
Christopher Ott, defendants. 
 
 
 
James R. Donohoo, 
 
          Appellant, 
 
     v. 
 
Action Wisconsin, Inc. and Christopher Ott, 
 
          Respondents-Petitioners. 
 
 
 
FILED 
 
JUN 5, 2008 
 
David R. Schanker 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
REVIEW of a decision of the Court of Appeals.  Reversed.   
 
¶1 
ANN 
WALSH 
BRADLEY, 
J.   The 
petitioners, 
Action 
Wisconsin, Inc., and Christopher Ott, seek review of an 
unpublished court of appeals decision reversing a circuit court 
judgment that required attorney James R. Donohoo to pay costs 
and attorney fees for filing and maintaining a defamation 
No. 
2006AP396   
 
2 
 
lawsuit that was frivolous.1 The defamation lawsuit was commenced 
in response to a press release issued by Action Wisconsin.  
¶2 
Two statements in the press release formed the basis 
of the defamation lawsuit. One statement indicated that at an 
"International Conference on Homo-Fascism" a "speaker made 
sounds like gunfire as if he were shooting gay people . . . ." 
The other statement referenced the presence of a state senator 
at the conference and noted that the senate leadership would be 
appalled to find a colleague "in the audience for a speech 
apparently advocating the murder of his own constituents." 
¶3 
Action Wisconsin contends that the court of appeals 
should be reversed for two reasons: First, the court of appeals  
incorrectly 
concluded 
that 
the 
circuit 
court 
erred 
in 
determining that the lawsuit was frivolous. Second, the court of 
appeals committed error in sua sponte reviewing the circuit 
court's summary judgment decision on the merits of the case when 
that decision had not been appealed.  
¶4 
We conclude that the circuit court did not err in 
determining that the defamation suit was frivolously commenced 
and continued under Wis. Stat. §§ 802.05 and 814.025 (2003-04).2 
                                                 
1 See Donohoo v. Action Wisconsin, Inc., No. 2006AP396, 
unpublished slip op. and order (Wis. Ct. App. May 30, 
2007)(reversing judgment and order of the circuit court for 
Milwaukee County, Patricia D. McMahon, Judge).  
2 All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2003-
04 version unless otherwise noted. 
No. 
2006AP396   
 
3 
 
It determined that Donohoo had failed to conduct a reasonable 
inquiry before commencing the lawsuit and that there was no 
basis in fact or law that would support Donohoo's claim that 
Action Wisconsin's statements were made with actual malice. In 
this regard, we conclude that the court of appeals committed 
error when it reversed the circuit court's determinations. 
¶5 
However, we conclude that the court of appeals did not 
commit error in addressing the circuit court's summary judgment 
decision. The court of appeals did not sua sponte reverse a 
grant of summary judgment that was never appealed. Rather, it 
addressed the summary judgment decision only to the extent that 
it was necessary to address the substantive issues of the case 
in order to review the circuit court's determinations of 
frivolousness.  
¶6 
Accordingly, because we conclude the circuit court did 
not err in determining that the defamation suit was commenced 
and continued frivolously, we reverse the court of appeals. 
                                                                                                                                                             
Effective July 1, 2005, Wis. Stat. §§ 802.05 and 814.025 
(2003-04) were repealed, and Wis. Stat. § (Rule) 802.05 (2005-
06) was recreated. Supreme Court Order 03-06, 2005 WI 38, 278 
Wis. 2d xiii. The new rule is procedural and there is a 
presumption that it applies retroactively, including to motions 
for frivolousness where the conduct that is the subject of such 
a motion occurs before the effective date of the new rule, but 
where the motion is filed after the effective date of the new 
rule. Trinity Petroleum, Inc. v. Scott Oil Co., 2007 WI 88, ¶52, 
302 Wis. 2d 299, 735 N.W.2d 1. The parties agree that this case 
is controlled by §§ 802.05 and 814.025 (2003-04). Action 
Wisconsin's motion for costs and attorney fees based on 
frivolousness was filed before the effective date of § (Rule) 
802.05 (2005-06).  
No. 
2006AP396   
 
4 
 
I 
¶7 
The basic facts of this case are not complex and not 
in dispute. They are essentially set forth in the audio 
recording and transcript of a speech of the plaintiff, Grant E. 
Storms, and in the press release of Action Wisconsin describing 
the speech.  
¶8 
Storms is the pastor of a church in Louisiana. He 
hosts a talk show on a New Orleans radio station, and he has 
appeared on radio shows hosted by others in Louisiana, on a 
nationally broadcast radio show, and on Internet radio shows. 
Storms considers himself a Christian activist, and he has 
engaged in protest activities "against the homosexual agenda."  
¶9 
In October 2003, Wisconsin Christians United hosted a 
conference in Milwaukee titled "International Conference on 
Homo-Fascism." Storms was invited to speak at the conference. 
During his speech, Storms described his efforts to curb the 
"homosexual movement," and admonished his audience to take an 
active role in such an effort.  
¶10 During the speech Storms drew an analogy between the 
homosexual movement and the Philistine army in the story of 
Jonathan and his armor bearer. Storms described Jonathan, an 
Israelite, leaving his army's encampment without permission from 
Saul, the leader of the Israelites, and confronting the 
Philistines with his armor bearer. 
¶11 Several passages from Storms' speech are of particular 
importance here. He warned his audience of the strength of the 
homosexual movement, in part based on its unity.  
No. 
2006AP396   
 
5 
 
There's an uncanny unity in solidarity amongst the 
homosexuals. . . . They're solidified. They're single 
minded. Don't underestimate them.  
He further warned of the movement's contempt and hatred.  
They are a scornful people. They hate us. They have 
contempt for us. . . . We need to understand that. 
Don't think you're going to tiptoe out there and say 
hey, repent. They will want to kill you.  
¶12 In describing the conflict between his movement and 
the homosexual movement, Storms indicated that one side or the 
other must prevail, and that coexistence was not possible:  
They are a stubborn people and they don't care. They 
want to trample us. . . . Here it is. It's us or them. 
There's no in between. There's no having this peaceful 
co-existence. They have to eliminate us and the Word 
of God if they want to succeed. It's almost like 
communism and capitalism. It's going to be one or the 
other. You can't have both. You can't peacefully co-
exist. 
Storms stated that the alternative to succeeding was being 
crushed, silenced, killed, or imprisoned. 
Either we're going to succeed or they're going to 
succeed. Whether it's going to be a homosexual, anti-
God nation, or it's going to be a nation that stands 
for God and says that that thing is sin. It can't be 
both. Won't be both. Something's going to happen. 
Either they'll crush us and have laws and silence us 
and kill the ones that won't be silenced or imprison 
the ones that won't be silent, or the church or the 
Lord Jesus Christ will rise up and say this is a 
Christian nation. This is the way it will remain. Go 
back in the closet. 
¶13 In drawing the analogy between the story of Jonathan 
and his armor bearer and the subject matter of the conference, 
Storms described the homosexual movement as a Philistine army 
that wants to eliminate those like Storms and his audience. He 
No. 
2006AP396   
 
6 
 
compared contemporary Christians to the Israelites resting under 
a pomegranate tree, rather than battling the Philistine army.  
There is a Philistine Army out there, it's called the 
homosexual movement.  Whether you can see it or not, 
understand it or not, they want to eliminate us. This 
is no time to be under a pomegranate tree. . . . They 
[the Israelites] were a bunch of Tiny Tims tiptoeing 
through the tulips. And that is the church today 
unfortunately. When we're supposed to be out to 
battle, when we're supposed to be battling the enemy, 
we're under some stinking pomegranate tree shaking in 
our boots. That's where the church is. The church is 
hiding. The Christians are hiding. 
Storms told his audience that he no longer listens to such 
Christians: "I just don't listen to Christians anymore. They 
will try to talk you out of going and beating up the Philistine 
Army on your own." 
¶14 Storms lamented the lack of progress for his cause in 
legislatures and in courts. He indicated that for 20 years 
efforts have been made to influence bad legislators and convince 
wicked judges, but that now it was time to begin "taking it to 
the streets." 
You know I'm sick of appealing all this stuff. Why do 
good people have to go to these stinking wicked judges 
and beg them to please do the right thing. No forget 
the 
appeals. 
Forget 
the 
petition. 
We've 
been 
petitioning for 20 years. Signing petitions for 20 
years, making phone calls for 20 years. We've been 
begging bad legislators and bad judges to try to do 
the good thing. Enough is enough.  My friend. Just 
start taking it to the streets. 
¶15 In telling the story of Jonathan and the armor bearer, 
Storms related the part of the story in which Jonathan kills the 
No. 
2006AP396   
 
7 
 
Philistines. Storms then shouted "Let's go through the drive-
thru at McDonald's" and "get the rest." 
Wheeew! Come on. Let's go. God has delivered them all 
into our hands. Hallelujah! Boom, boom, boom, boom, 
boom. There's twenty. Whew. Ca-Ching. Yes. Glory. 
Glory to God. Let's go through the drive-thru at 
McDonald's and come back and get the rest. 
¶16 Action Wisconsin responded to the speech. It describes 
itself as an organization dedicated to advancing and protecting 
the civil rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender 
people. At all times relevant to this case, Christopher Ott was 
the executive director of Action Wisconsin and Timothy O'Brien 
was president of the Action Wisconsin board of directors. As 
executive director, Ott reported directly to O'Brien, and as 
president, O'Brien was an authorized spokesperson for Action 
Wisconsin. 
¶17  Action Wisconsin learned that a state senator had 
attended 
the 
conference 
and 
Storms' 
speech. 
Because 
the 
senator's 
attendance concerned O'Brien, he obtained audio 
recordings of the conference speakers, which were available for 
sale on the Wisconsin Christians United website.3 
                                                 
3 In fall and winter of 2003, Action Wisconsin publicly 
opposed state legislation and an amendment to the state 
constitution explicitly reserving marriage for opposite-gender 
couples and prohibiting the recognition of marriages not 
composed of an opposite-gender couple. See Wis. Const. art. 
XIII, § 13 ("Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall 
be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state. A legal 
status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage 
for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized in 
this state.")  
No. 
2006AP396   
 
8 
 
¶18 O'Brien listened to all of the speeches from the 
conference, and he listened to Storms' speech in its entirety. 
In an affidavit, O'Brien stated that he was shocked by the 
violent imagery and "derogatory and false statements about gay 
and lesbian people and the gay and lesbian community" in Storms' 
speech. He explained that he was disturbed in particular by 
"Storms' claims that gay and lesbian people wanted to kill 
members of Storms' audience, and what I understood to be 
corresponding suggestions that members of his audience kill gay 
and lesbian people."  O'Brien thought it "obvious that [Storms] 
was drawing a parallel between the Philistines who were slain, 
literally, by the Israelites, and gay and lesbian people, who, 
completing the analogy, should be literally killed . . . ." 
¶19 At O'Brien's request, Ott and Joshua Freker, another 
member of Action Wisconsin's staff, listened to portions of the 
speeches from the conference. They agreed with O'Brien's 
interpretation of Storms' speech.  
¶20 Action Wisconsin issued a press release in response to 
the speech. Two statements from the press release are the 
subject of this lawsuit. First, referring to Storms, the press 
release stated that a "speaker made sounds like gunfire as if he 
were shooting gay people, saying, 'God has delivered them into 
our hands . . . Boom boom boom . . . there's twenty! Ca-ching! 
Glory, glory to God.'" Second, in reference to the state senator 
in attendance, the press release stated that "[w]e trust that 
Senator Panzer will be as appalled as we were to find one of her 
colleagues in the audience for a speech apparently advocating 
No. 
2006AP396   
 
9 
 
the murder of his own constituents." It then quoted several 
passages from Storms' and others' conference speeches. 
¶21 Attorney Donohoo, acting on Storms' behalf, sent a 
letter to O'Brien stating that the two statements in the press 
release were false and defamatory.  The letter requested that 
Action Wisconsin retract the statements and remove the press 
release from its website. When Action Wisconsin did not respond, 
Donohoo sent a second letter stating that Storms had authorized 
him to file a complaint for defamation.  
¶22 Receiving no response to the second letter, Donohoo 
filed such a complaint on behalf of Storms against Action 
Wisconsin and Ott. Prior to filing the suit, Donohoo listened to 
and analyzed Storms' speech. He concluded that "no person 
listening to the speech could have reasonably interpreted [the] 
speech to mean that [Storms] was re-enacting the shooting of gay 
people, or that [Storms] was advocating the murder of gay 
people." Sometime after filing suit, Donohoo had two of his law 
clerks and two other people review the speech. These people told 
Donohoo that they did not believe someone listening to the 
speech could conclude that Storms was advocating the murder of 
gay people.  
¶23 Action Wisconsin answered the complaint and filed a 
motion for costs and attorney fees pursuant to Wis. Stat. 
§§ 802.05 and 814.025. At the same time, counsel for Action 
Wisconsin sent a letter to Donohoo outlining why it thought the 
lawsuit was frivolous. The letter set forth the legal standards 
for frivolousness and defamation. It explained that Storms would 
No. 
2006AP396   
 
10 
 
have to show actual malice and advised that there was no 
reasonable basis in law or fact to support such a claim. 
Additionally, the letter indicated that it appeared that Donohoo 
failed to engage in a reasonable inquiry before filing the 
lawsuit.  
¶24 Action Wisconsin took Storms' deposition. Shortly 
after, its counsel again wrote to Donohoo outlining why it 
thought the lawsuit was frivolous. He urged Donohoo to dismiss 
the case and in exchange "we will not seek sanctions for this 
frivolous lawsuit." Beyond the reasons offered in Action 
Wisconsin's first letter, the second letter set forth in detail 
the parts of the speech that supported its interpretation.  
¶25 Donohoo did not answer either of the letters. Counsel 
for Action Wisconsin filed a motion for summary judgment, after 
which Donohoo conducted discovery. Donohoo then filed a motion 
for summary judgment on Storms' behalf. The circuit court 
determined 
that 
Storms 
had 
failed 
to 
show 
that 
Action 
Wisconsin's 
statements 
were 
false, 
stating 
that 
Action 
Wisconsin's interpretation of the speech was "not unreasonable" 
and that Storms' interpretation was "strained and inconsistent 
with the speech as a whole." It further determined that Storms 
had failed to present evidence that Action Wisconsin had acted 
with actual malice.  
¶26 Accordingly, 
the 
circuit 
court 
granted 
Action 
Wisconsin's motion for summary judgment, denied Storms' motion 
for summary judgment, and dismissed the case. That decision was 
never appealed. 
No. 
2006AP396   
 
11 
 
¶27 After the summary judgment decision, Donohoo filed a 
motion for reconsideration of the summary judgment decision on 
behalf 
of 
Storms. 
Action 
Wisconsin 
submitted 
supporting 
materials for its motion for costs and fees, asserting that the 
lawsuit was frivolous. The circuit court denied the motion for 
reconsideration, stating that the motion "essentially reargues 
the motions for summary judgment" and "misstates the decision" 
of the court.  
¶28 The court granted Action Wisconsin's motion for costs 
and attorney fees pursuant to §§ 802.05 and 814.025. It 
determined that prior to the filing of the lawsuit, Donohoo knew 
or should have known that neither the facts nor the law 
supported the claim of actual malice, which would have to be 
shown by clear and convincing evidence. It concluded that 
Donohoo had failed to conduct a reasonable inquiry into the 
claim before filing the lawsuit. 
¶29 In addition, the circuit court stated that Donohoo 
continued the lawsuit even though he knew or should have known 
that the claim was brought "without any reasonable basis in law 
or equity." The court explained that Action Wisconsin had put 
Donohoo on notice that there was no support for the assertion 
that Action Wisconsin acted with actual malice. However, Donohoo 
ignored the warnings, and failed to explain how he proposed to 
show actual malice. The court determined that the failure to 
conduct an adequate investigation and the failure to respond to 
Action Wisconsin's letters detailing the law forced Action 
Wisconsin "to expend considerable resources in defense." The 
No. 
2006AP396   
 
12 
 
circuit court concluded that Donohoo "merely dropped his paper 
'into the hopper' of the legal system and required this Court 
and defendants to undertake the necessary factual and legal 
investigation."  
¶30 Donohoo appealed. The majority of the court of appeals 
determined that Donohoo engaged in a reasonable inquiry into the 
facts and the law and that there were disputed issues of 
material fact regarding whether there was actual malice. Donohoo 
v. Action Wisconsin, Inc., No. 2006AP396, unpublished slip op. 
and order, ¶¶31-32 (Wis. Ct. App. May 30, 2007). It therefore 
concluded that the circuit court erred in determining that 
Donohoo commenced and continued a frivolous action under 
§§ 802.05 and 814.025 and reversed.4 Id., ¶33. Action Wisconsin 
petitioned for review.  
II 
¶31 In 
this 
case 
we 
address 
a 
circuit 
court's 
determinations that an attorney commenced and continued a 
                                                 
4 Donohoo's notice of appeal indicated that he was appealing 
both the order awarding costs and attorney fees to Action 
Wisconsin and the order denying the motion for reconsideration. 
The mandate line of the court of appeals opinion states simply 
"[j]udgment and order reversed." However, the text of the court 
of appeals opinion explains that the case "is not about whether 
the trial court correctly decided the summary judgment issue," 
slip op., ¶9, and explicitly reverses only the order granting 
Action Wisconsin's motion seeking attorney fees, slip op., ¶33. 
Further, Donohoo concedes that there was no appeal of the 
summary judgment determination and that the issue before this 
court is limited to frivolousness. Thus, we do not address the 
order denying the motion for reconsideration except insofar as 
it is relevant to the issue of frivolousness.  
No. 
2006AP396   
 
13 
 
frivolous action under Wis. Stat. §§ 802.05 and 814.025. Under 
section 802.05(1)(a), an attorney's signature on a pleading, 
motion or other paper certifies the attorney's belief, "formed 
after reasonable inquiry, the pleading, motion or other paper is 
well-grounded in fact and is warranted by existing law or a good 
faith argument for the extension, modification or reversal of 
existing law."5  
                                                 
5 Wisconsin Stat. § 802.05 provides in relevant part:  
Every pleading, motion or other paper of a party 
represented 
by 
an 
attorney 
shall 
contain 
the 
name . . . of 
the 
attorney . . . and 
shall 
be 
subscribed with the handwritten signature of at least 
one 
attorney 
of 
record 
in 
the 
individual's 
name. . . .  The signature of an attorney or party 
constitutes a certificate that the attorney or party 
has read the pleading, motion or other paper; that to 
the best of the attorney's or party's knowledge, 
information 
and 
belief, 
formed 
after 
reasonable 
inquiry, the pleading, motion or other paper is well-
grounded in fact and is warranted by existing law or a 
good faith argument for the extension, modification or 
reversal of existing law; and that the pleading, 
motion or other paper is not used for any improper 
purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary 
delay 
or 
needless 
increase 
in 
the 
cost 
of 
litigation. . . .  If the court determines that an 
attorney 
or 
party 
failed 
to 
read 
or 
make 
the 
determinations required under this subsection before 
signing any petition, motion or other paper, the court 
may, upon motion or upon its own initiative, impose an 
appropriate sanction on the person who signed the 
pleading, motion or other paper, or on a represented 
party, or on both. The sanction may include an order 
to pay to the other party the amount of reasonable 
expenses incurred by that party because of the filing 
of the pleading, motion or other paper, including 
reasonable attorney fees. 
No. 
2006AP396   
 
14 
 
¶32 Section 814.025(3)(b) provides that a circuit court 
may determine that an attorney commences or continues a 
frivolous action if the attorney "knew, or should have known, 
that the action . . . was without any reasonable basis in law or 
equity and could not be supported by a good faith argument for 
an extension, modification or reversal of existing law."6  
¶33 This court has articulated two standards of review for 
circuit court determinations of frivolousness, one regarding 
commencing 
frivolous actions and one regarding continuing 
frivolous actions.  
                                                 
6 Wisconsin Stat. § 814.025 provides in relevant part:  
Costs upon frivolous claims and counterclaims. 
(1) If an action or special proceeding commenced or 
continued by a plaintiff or a counterclaim, defense or 
cross complaint commenced, used or continued by a 
defendant is found, at any time during the proceedings 
or upon judgment, to be frivolous by the court, the 
court shall award to the successful party costs 
determined under s. 814.04 and reasonable attorney 
fees. 
 . . . . 
(3) In order to find an action, special proceeding, 
counterclaim, 
defense 
or 
cross 
complaint 
to 
be 
frivolous under sub. (1), the court must find one or 
more of the following: 
 . . . . 
(b) The party or the party's attorney knew, or should 
have known, that the action, special proceeding, 
counterclaim, defense or cross complaint was without 
any reasonable basis in law or equity and could not be 
supported by a good faith argument for an extension, 
modification or reversal of existing law. 
No. 
2006AP396   
 
15 
 
¶34 This court has determined that "[w]hen made pursuant 
to Wis. Stat. § 802.05, our review of a circuit court's decision 
that an action was commenced frivolously is deferential." Jandrt 
v. Jerome Foods, Inc., 227 Wis. 2d 531, 548, 597 N.W.2d 744 
(1999). According to this deferential standard, the nature and 
extent of investigation undertaken prior to filing a suit are 
issues of fact, and a circuit court's determinations on such 
questions will be upheld unless clearly erroneous. Id. The 
determination of how much investigation should have been done is 
a question that is within the circuit court's discretion. Id. A 
discretionary decision by the circuit court will be sustained 
where the court "examined the relevant facts, applied a proper 
standard of law and, using a demonstrated rational process, 
reached a conclusion that a reasonable judge could reach." Id. 
at 549 (citing Loy v. Bunderson, 107 Wis. 2d 400, 414-15, 320 
N.W.2d 175 (1982)). 
¶35 We have explained that reviewing a circuit court's 
determination under § 814.025 that an action was continued 
frivolously involves a mixed question of law and fact. Id. at 
562. We stated that what an individual or attorney knew or 
should have known is a question of fact that will be sustained 
unless clearly erroneous. Id. at 563. Whether the circuit 
court's determinations of fact support a conclusion that a 
lawsuit was continued frivolously, however, is a question of law 
No. 
2006AP396   
 
16 
 
that this court reviews independently of the determinations 
rendered by the circuit court or court of appeals. Id. 7 
III 
¶36 This case is about a circuit court's determinations 
that a lawsuit was frivolously commenced and continued.  In 
essence, it is about actual malice——whether the circuit court 
erroneously exercised its discretion in determining that there 
was no basis in fact or law that would support Donohoo's claim 
that Action Wisconsin's statements were made with actual malice.  
¶37 Because 
the 
underlying 
question 
concerns 
the 
defamation lawsuit filed by Donohoo on behalf of Storms we turn 
initially to an examination of defamation law. In a common law 
defamation cause of action that does not involve a public 
figure, there are only three elements: 
(1) a false statement; (2) communicated by speech, 
conduct or in writing to a person other than the 
person 
defamed; 
and, 
(3) 
the 
communication 
is 
unprivileged and tends to harm one's reputation so as 
to lower him or her in the estimation of the community 
or to deter third persons from associating or dealing 
with him or her. 
                                                 
7 We note that the repeal of §§ 802.05 and 814.025 (2003-04) 
and recreation § (Rule) 802.05 (2005-06) may call into question 
the existence of different standards of review for commencing 
and continuing frivolous claims. This is particularly so insofar 
as § (Rule) 802.05 is patterned after federal rule of civil 
procedure 11. See Trinity Petroleum, Inc. v. Scott Oil, Co., 
2007 WI 88, ¶49, 302 Wis. 2d 299, 735 N.W.2d 1. Federal courts 
review the imposition of sanctions under Rule 11 for erroneous 
exercise of discretion. Mars Steel Corp. v. Cont'l Bank N.A., 
880 F.2d 928, 933 (7th Cir. 1989). 
No. 
2006AP396   
 
17 
 
Torgerson v. Journal/Sentinel. Inc., 210 Wis. 2d 524, 534, 563 
N.W.2d 472 (1997); see Wis JI——Civil 2500.8 
¶38 This defamation lawsuit, however, involves a public 
figure. The United States Supreme Court has determined that the 
First and Fourteenth Amendments to the federal constitution 
require that defamation plaintiffs who are public figures must 
also prove by clear and convincing evidence another element, 
actual malice. Masson v. New Yorker Magazine, Inc., 501 U.S. 
496, 510 (1991) (citing New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 
254, 279-80 (1964)). Actual malice does not involve bad intent 
or 
ill-will, 
and 
therefore 
differs 
from 
the 
vernacular 
understanding of malice. Torgerson, 210 Wis. 2d at 536. Rather, 
actual malice requires that the allegedly defamatory statement 
be made with "knowledge that it was false or with reckless 
disregard of whether it was false or not." Sullivan, 376 U.S. at 
280. 
                                                 
8 The court of appeals in the present case listed four 
elements, following other court of appeals decisions and the 
Restatement (Second) of Torts § 558 (1981): (a) a false and 
defamatory statement concerning another; (b) an unprivileged 
publication to a third party; (c) fault amounting at least to 
negligence on the part of the publisher; and (d) either 
actionability of the statement irrespective of special harm or 
the existence of special harm caused by the publication. Slip 
op., ¶15; slip op., ¶40 (Curley, J., dissenting); see Van 
Straten 
v. 
Milwaukee 
Journal 
Newspaper-Publisher, 
151 
Wis. 2d 905, 912, 447 N.W.2d 105 (Ct. App. 1989).  
As this court noted in Torgerson v. Journal/Sentinel, Inc., 
if the two sets of elements are at all different, such 
distinctions are not important in the present case. 210 
Wis. 2d 524, 535 n. 9, 563 N.W.2d 472 (1997). 
No. 
2006AP396   
 
18 
 
¶39 Reckless disregard for the truth is not measured by 
what the reasonably prudent person would publish or investigate 
prior to publishing. Instead it is a subjective standard. 
Torgerson, 210 Wis. 2d at 542. It requires showing that the 
false statement was made "with a high degree of awareness 
of . . . probable falsity," Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 64, 
74 (1964), or that the defendant "in fact entertained serious 
doubts as to the truth of his publication." St. Amant v. 
Thompson, 390 U.S. 727, 731 (1968).  
¶40 The Supreme Court has recognized that such a demanding 
standard "may permit recovery in fewer situations than would a 
rule that publishers must satisfy the standard of the reasonable 
man or the prudent publisher." Id. However, it has emphasized 
that the importance of open debate regarding public affairs and 
the conduct of public figures is so great that "neither the 
defense of truth nor the standard of ordinary care would protect 
against self-censorship and thus adequately implement First 
Amendment policies." Id. at 732.  
¶41 The parties agree that Storms is a public figure, and 
that to succeed in a defamation suit he would have to show 
No. 
2006AP396   
 
19 
 
actual malice. The dispute here is focused on the element of 
actual malice.9  
A 
¶42 The circuit court determined that prior to commencing 
the lawsuit Donohoo knew or should have known that a cause of 
action for defamation would require showing actual malice by 
clear and convincing evidence and that Donohoo knew or should 
have known that the law did not support such a claim. It further 
determined that in light of the straightforward facts of the 
case and the law of defamation, Donohoo failed to conduct a 
reasonable inquiry into the claim prior to filing. 
¶43 Donohoo argues that the circuit court erred in its 
determination that the law did not support the claim that Action 
Wisconsin acted with actual malice. The cornerstone of his 
argument is based on his review of the speech prior to 
commencing the lawsuit and his conclusion that no one "could 
                                                 
9 The dissent focuses much of its attention on another 
element 
of 
a 
defamation 
claim, 
namely, 
whether 
Action 
Wisconsin's statements have defamatory meaning, such that they 
tend to "diminish the esteem, respect, goodwill or confidence in 
which the plaintiff is held, or to excite adverse, derogatory or 
unpleasant feelings or opinions against him." Dissent, ¶116 
(quoting Starobin v. Northridge Lakes Dev. Co., 94 Wis. 2d 1, 
10, 287 N.W.2d 747). It points out that Donohoo, the court of 
appeals, and three members of this court have determined that 
the statement is defamatory.  
The parties, however, neither dispute nor examine whether 
the statements are capable of defamatory meaning because it is 
irrelevant to the issue at hand. The only element that is at 
issue here is actual malice. The dissent's discussion appears to 
obfuscate the real issue.  
No. 
2006AP396   
 
20 
 
have reasonably interpreted it to have advocated the murder of 
gay people." When the entire speech is examined, he contends, it 
is "inconceivable" that Action Wisconsin believed that Storms 
advocated murdering gay people or that he made sounds as if 
shooting gay people. Donohoo maintains that because it is 
inconceivable Action Wisconsin believed that Storms advocated 
murdering gay people, it must have had serious doubts about the 
truth of the statements in the press release. 
¶44 He asserts that Action Wisconsin's interpretation of 
Storms' speech as advocating the murder of gay people is the 
result of selecting sentences from the speech and cobbling them 
together to support its conclusion. Donohoo adduces altogether 
different passages from the speech in support of another 
interpretation. He maintains that the following aspects of the 
speech demonstrate that Action Wisconsin's interpretation is 
unreasonable and thus serve as a basis for proving actual 
malice: 
• The theme of Storms' speech was that "[y]ou alone, with 
God's help, can make a difference, no matter what the 
odds." 
• The discussion of "taking it to the streets" was meant to 
contrast with efforts such as petitions, phone calls, and 
"begging" legislators and judges. "Taking it to the 
streets" refers to things like Storms' own efforts to 
make a difference by videotaping Southern Decadence, 
sending the video to public officials, sharing the Gospel 
with homosexuals, and staging protests. 
No. 
2006AP396   
 
21 
 
• Tempering Storms' "tak[e] it to the streets" message were 
admonitions to not be "spiritually reckless" and to do 
what was in their hearts if it was not sin. 
• Storms drew a parallel between the Philistines and the 
homosexual movement in terms of their characteristics——
"solidarity, scornfulness, and stubbornness." 
• The term that Storms used throughout the speech was the 
"homosexual movement," and the homosexual movement was 
the analogue to the Philistine army, not individual 
homosexuals. 
• When Storms made his "boom, boom, boom" sounds, they were 
not meant to sound like explosions or gunfire, but were 
made to enliven the passage and "capture the imagination 
of the listeners." Similarly, the reference to the drive-
through at McDonald's merely illustrated Jonathan and his 
armor bearer taking a break while God worked. 
These aspects of the speech, Donohoo argues, demonstrate that 
Action Wisconsin's interpretation is "inconceivable" and that 
the only reasonable interpretation is that Storms did not 
advocate the murder of homosexuals. 
¶45 There is no dispute about what words were spoken at 
Storms' speech. Rather, the dispute concerns whether Action 
Wisconsin's interpretation of the speech is a reasonable 
interpretation of ambiguous statements. If it is, then Donohoo 
as a matter of law cannot meet his burden of showing actual 
malice. In essence, Donohoo argues that if his is the only 
reasonable interpretation of the speech, then there is a basis 
No. 
2006AP396   
 
22 
 
for the actual malice claim. Thus, Donohoo is arguing that a 
factual inference can be made about whether Action Wisconsin 
entertained serious doubts as to the truth of their statements 
on 
the 
ground 
that 
Action 
Wisconsin's 
interpretation 
is 
unreasonable.  
¶46 However, as Donohoo recognized during oral argument 
the determination of whether there is a single reasonable 
interpretation of the speech or whether the speech is ambiguous 
is a question of law. In Torgerson, for example, this court 
determined that the defendant newspaper was entitled to summary 
judgment in a defamation case because letters from the state 
Ethics Board were ambiguous. The court determined that the 
defendant's characterization of the letters was "a rational 
interpretation 
of 
ambiguous statements contained in those 
letters." 210 Wis. 2d at 546. It concluded that the deliberate 
choice of that interpretation over another interpretation could 
not 
constitute 
evidence 
of 
actual 
malice, 
even 
if 
the 
interpretation was provably false. Id. at 545.  
¶47 While we do not doubt that Donohoo's is a reasonable 
interpretation, we cannot agree that it is the only reasonable 
interpretation. His choice of passages from the speech is no 
less selective than Action Wisconsin's. He has simply emphasized 
different passages, namely, those that do not have violent 
imagery.  
¶48 Donohoo 
fails 
to 
address 
many 
of 
the 
passages 
emphasized by Action Wisconsin to illustrate the violent tone of 
the speech. Storms warned his listeners that "[t]hey'll want to 
No. 
2006AP396   
 
23 
 
kill you," "they don't care," "they want to trample us," "[i]t's 
us or them," "[t]hey have to eliminate us," and "[t]here's no 
having this peaceful co-existence." He described how "they" have 
violent, oppressive, and murderous potential: "they'll crush us 
and have laws and silence us and kill the ones that won't be 
silent. . . . " He expressly warned against listening to those 
that "will try to talk you out of going and beating up the 
Philistine army on your own." When Storms' exclamation of "boom, 
boom, boom, boom, boom" is considered in light of such violent 
descriptions, Action Wisconsin's interpretation is reasonable. 
¶49 In addition to being selective, the facets of the 
speech Donohoo emphasizes do not show that Action Wisconsin's 
interpretation is unreasonable. Therefore they fail to provide a 
basis for the claim of actual malice, that is, that Action 
Wisconsin made a statement with "knowledge that it was false or 
with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not." 
Sullivan, 376 U.S. at 279-80. We consider them in turn.  
¶50 Regarding his first assertion, Donohoo is correct that 
the theme of Storms' speech was that "you alone, with God's 
help, can make a difference, no matter what the odds." That, 
however, says nothing about what sorts of things one might do to 
make a difference, despite long odds. 
¶51 The next aspect of the speech Donohoo adduces is that 
Storms' 
examples 
of 
"taking 
it 
to 
the 
streets" 
include 
videotaping, sharing the gospel, and staging a protest. However, 
Storms is explicit that taking it to the streets is not limited 
to such activities. He states: 
No. 
2006AP396   
 
24 
 
Give me a bombshell, give me a bomb oh God. Give me 
something Lord that's going to shake the city, and 
shake the state, and shake this nation. . . .  
Do what's in your heart. He's with you. Some of you 
right now. You have these wild, crazy things you won't 
even tell anybody about. You have this plan and you 
can't get away from it. The Lord put that there. The 
Lord put it there. Go do it.  
The speech is open to many interpretations of what these "bombs" 
and "wild, crazy things" could include. 
¶52 Donohoo's assertion that Storms admonished listeners 
not to be spiritually reckless and not to sin is also 
unpersuasive and also fails to show that Action Wisconsin's 
interpretation is unreasonable. It is unclear what Storms meant 
by the admonition. In one passage he states: "Listen to your 
heart. Whatever is in your heart. Do it. He's with you. It's not 
sin. That's the way I look at it. And the wilder the better in 
my opinion."  
¶53 The next claim Donohoo makes is that Storms drew 
parallels between the Philistine army and the homosexual 
movement on the basis of shared characteristics. However, 
Donohoo has failed to offer any explanation for why basing the 
comparison on such characteristics shows that Storms did not 
advocate treating the homosexual movement like Jonathan treated 
the Philistine army. 
¶54 Donohoo claims also that Storms carefully referred to 
the "homosexual movement" rather than individual homosexuals. 
This, too, fails to show that Action Wisconsin's interpretation 
is unreasonable. Donohoo is incorrect that Storms refers only to 
No. 
2006AP396   
 
25 
 
the "homosexual movement." Our review of the speech indicates 
that Storms does refer to "homosexuals." For example, in 
describing the strength of Storms' opponent, he warns of the 
"uncanny 
unity 
and 
solidarity 
amongst 
the 
homosexuals." 
Similarly, 
in 
encouraging 
his 
audience 
to 
act 
on 
their 
frustrations he states that "if you're frustrated about seeing 
the homosexuals taking over our nation, that's a good thing." 
¶55 Lastly, it is plausible that when Storms made the 
"boom, boom, boom, boom, boom" sounds he did not intend it to 
sound like gun shots, and it is plausible that his remarks about 
the McDonald's drive-through were intended to be about Jonathan 
taking a rest. However, that is not the only reasonable 
interpretation. It is also reasonable to conclude that Storms 
intended his listeners to imagine the story in a modern setting, 
with modern weapons (guns), modern rest facilities (McDonald's), 
and a modern opponent (the homosexual movement).  
¶56 Thus, 
while 
Donohoo 
has 
proffered 
a 
reasonable 
alternative interpretation, he has not demonstrated that Action 
Wisconsin's interpretation is unreasonable. Rather, he has 
simply 
emphasized 
different 
passages. 
Both 
Donohoo's 
interpretation 
and 
Action 
Wisconsin's 
interpretation 
are 
reasonable. That is, the speech is ambiguous.10  
                                                 
10 To assist the reader, a copy of the transcript of Storms' 
speech is attached as an appendix to this opinion. The 
transcript and a compact disk recording of the speech were 
attached by Attorney Donohoo to Storms' brief in opposition to 
Action Wisconsin's motion for summary judgment. 
No. 
2006AP396   
 
26 
 
¶57 Because the speech is ambiguous, the reasonable 
alternative interpretation of Storms' speech that Donohoo 
provides does not permit an inference of actual malice. Action 
Wisconsin's statements were based on one of at least two 
rational interpretations. There is ample case law for the 
proposition that actual malice cannot be inferred from the 
choice of one rational interpretation over another. 11 
¶58 Time, Inc. v. Pape involved an article describing 
incidents of police brutality. 401 U.S. 279, 281-82 (1971). The 
article was based upon a government report, and quoted the 
summary of a civil complaint contained in the report. However, 
it removed the word "alleged" from the summary of the complaint, 
and did not explain that the quote came from an unproven 
complaint. Id. at 282.  
                                                 
11 The dissent asserts that whether Action Wisconsin's 
statements were false "remains a fact question for the jury," 
and that a reasonable jury could determine that the statements 
were false. Dissent, ¶114. A reasonable jury could therefore 
also determine that the statements were true according to the 
dissent's view.  
However, Attorney Donohoo's primary argument is that the 
statements were so obviously false that Action Wisconsin must 
have acted with actual malice. His contention appears to be at 
odds with the dissent's view. The dissent's assertion implicitly 
acknowledges that a reasonable attorney, and hence Attorney 
Donohoo, should have known that he could not prove actual 
malice, and thus that the suit was frivolous. How could he show 
that Action Wisconsin knew the statements were false or acted in 
reckless disregard of the truth if the underlying premise——the 
falsity——is so uncertain that it presents a question of fact for 
the jury? 
No. 
2006AP396   
 
27 
 
¶59 The Supreme Court determined the omission of the word 
"alleged" was in essence adopting "one of a number of possible 
rational interpretations of a document that bristled with 
ambiguities." Id. at 290. The Court concluded that such a choice 
did not demonstrate actual malice, even though it may have 
reflected a misconception. Id. In Masson v. New Yorker Magazine, 
the Supreme Court explained that the "protection for rational 
interpretation serves First Amendment principles by allowing an 
author the interpretive license that is necessary when relying 
upon ambiguous sources." 501 U.S. 496, 519 (1991).  
¶60 This court addressed the issue of choosing between 
rational interpretations in Torgerson. That case involved a 
newspaper article stating that the plaintiff, who served in the 
Office of Commissioner of Insurance and had an interest in a 
title insurance agency, had ignored letters by the state Ethics 
Board as "warnings" to "stay out" of title insurance matters. 
210 Wis. 2d at 545. Prior articles by the same journalist had 
described the same letters as "guidelines and limitations" that 
would "limit" contact with such matters. Id. at 544-45. Citing 
Time, Inc. v. Pape and Masson, this court determined that the 
letters were ambiguous, and that the deliberate choice between 
different interpretations did not show actual malice. 
¶61 The same reasoning applies in the present case. 
Storms' speech is ambiguous, and Action Wisconsin has chosen one 
rational interpretation. As a matter of law, that choice does 
not demonstrate actual malice. Thus, Donohoo's assertion that 
No. 
2006AP396   
 
28 
 
Action Wisconsin's interpretation demonstrates actual malice is 
incorrect. 
¶62 In addition to his argument that Action Wisconsin's 
interpretation is unreasonable, Donohoo cites the following as 
factual evidence of actual malice prior to his filing the 
complaint: 
• Storms did not explicitly state that he advocated 
murdering gay people. 
• Action Wisconsin did not attempt to contact Storms before 
issuing its press release, and it did not respond to the 
requests for retraction.  
• The language in the press release is of a "serious 
nature" and showed ill-will toward Storms. 
• The press release appeared calculated to advance Action 
Wisconsin's political agenda.  
¶63 These facts are not in dispute. However, they fail to 
demonstrate a reasonable factual or legal basis for actual 
malice, and Donohoo makes no argument based in equity. The fact 
that there is no language in the speech explicitly stating that 
members of the audience ought to murder homosexuals says nothing 
about 
whether 
Action 
Wisconsin 
was 
reckless 
in 
its 
interpretation of the speech. 
¶64 Further, 
Donohoo has offered no explanation and 
proffered no case law showing why the facts that Action 
Wisconsin did not attempt to contact Storms before issuing its 
press release and did not respond to retraction requests are 
evidence of actual malice.  
No. 
2006AP396   
 
29 
 
¶65 Donohoo's position is also contrary to this court's 
decision 
in 
Van 
Straten 
v. 
Milwaukee 
Journal 
Newspaper-
Publisher, 151 Wis. 2d 905, 447 N.W.2d 105 (1989). In that case 
we determined that the repeated publication of a statement after 
being informed that the statement was false did not constitute 
actual malice so long as the speaker believed it to be true. Id. 
at 917-18. 
¶66 Donohoo is correct that the statements in the press 
release are of a serious nature. However, even assuming that 
Donohoo is correct that Action Wisconsin's press release evinces 
ill-will toward Storms, he fails to explain how such ill-will 
shows actual malice. Courts have made clear that actual malice 
does not mean bad intent, ill-will, or animus. Masson, 501 U.S. 
at 510-11; Torgerson, 210 Wis. 2d at 536.  
¶67 He 
maintains 
that 
such 
ill-will 
could 
provide 
motivation for Action Wisconsin to "twist" Storms' speech. 
Placing a greater burden on ideological opponents, however, is 
contrary to the principles that underwrite the actual malice 
standard in the first instance. Donohoo's argument is also 
contrary to the Seventh Circuit's determination that "facial 
expression, 
content 
of 
speech 
and 
body 
language" 
that 
demonstrated a strongly negative disposition to the subject of a 
statement did not support a claim of actual malice. Underwager 
v. Salter, 22 F.3d 730, 736 (7th Cir. 1994).  
¶68 Donohoo's assertion that actual malice is evinced by 
the fact that the press release appeared calculated to further 
Action Wisconsin's political agenda is similarly unpersuasive. 
No. 
2006AP396   
 
30 
 
The seminal defamation case, New York Times v. Sullivan, 
involved political speech. 376 U.S. 254. To maintain that where 
a statement furthers one's political views there is evidence of 
actual malice would undermine the very protections that justify 
the actual malice requirement in the first instance.12 
¶69 Having set forth the above facts and law, we turn to 
the circuit court's decision that Donohoo commenced this action 
frivolously. The amount of investigation that Donohoo should 
have done prior to filing is a determination that is within the 
circuit court's discretion. Jandrt, 227 Wis. 2d at 548. We will 
uphold this determination unless it is clearly erroneous. Id. 
¶70 The circuit court examined the relevant facts of the 
case, and it determined that they were not complex. It also 
examined the law on defamation and determined that the legal 
issues involved in the lawsuit were not complex. Further, the 
court reasoned that Donohoo had sufficient time to research the 
relevant law. It explained that while Donohoo's interpretation 
of the speech was reasonable, it was less reasonable than Action 
Wisconsin's. The court determined that the filings Donohoo made 
                                                 
12 The dissent maintains that a reasonable attorney could 
believe that Action Wisconsin's statements were made with actual 
malice "because the statement was part of Action Wisconsin's 
attempt to promote one side of a highly charged political 
issue." Dissent, ¶122. The effect of the dissent's view is to 
make it easier to find actual malice in cases of speech 
regarding contentious political issues. Such issues, however, 
are where First Amendment protections are at their apex. Buckley 
v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 14 (1976).  
No. 
2006AP396   
 
31 
 
on behalf of Storms did not present a plausible view of the law 
or an argument to extend or modify the law.  
¶71 The court examined the relevant facts, applied the 
proper standards of law, and using a demonstrated rational 
process reached a conclusion that a reasonable judge could make. 
In light of the time and lack of complexity of the issues, the 
court determined that Donohoo had failed to conduct a reasonable 
inquiry prior to filing the suit. This determination is not 
clearly 
erroneous. 
Additionally, 
consistent 
with 
legal 
authority, the circuit court concluded that there was no basis 
in fact or law that would support a claim that Action 
Wisconsin's 
statements 
were 
made 
with 
actual 
malice. 
Accordingly, we conclude that the circuit court's determination 
was not an erroneous exercise of its discretion.  
B 
¶72 In 
addition 
to 
its 
determination 
that 
Donohoo 
commenced the lawsuit frivolously, the circuit court determined 
that Donohoo continued the lawsuit even though he knew or should 
have known that the claim was brought "without any reasonable 
basis in law or equity." Wis. Stat. § 814.205(3)(b). The 
determination of what an attorney knew or should have known "is 
a factual question, and the circuit court's findings of fact 
will not be reversed by an appellate court unless the findings 
are clearly erroneous. Jandrt, 227 Wis. 2d at 563. Here, the 
court explained that Action Wisconsin's letters to Donohoo put 
him on notice that there was no support for the element of 
No. 
2006AP396   
 
32 
 
actual malice, but that Donohoo ignored the warnings and failed 
to explain how he proposed to show actual malice.  
¶73 Donohoo maintains that the circuit court erred in its 
determination for several reasons. First, he asserts that Action 
Wisconsin's interpretation is unreasonable. For the reasons 
outlined in the previous section, this argument is unpersuasive.  
¶74 In 
addition, 
Donohoo 
argues 
that 
the 
following 
undisputed facts show that Action Wisconsin acted with actual 
malice: 
• Two members of Action Wisconsin did not listen to the 
entire speech before issuing the press release.  
• Action 
Wisconsin 
did 
not 
consider 
contacting 
law 
enforcement upon hearing Storms' speech.  
Donohoo fails to provide a legal basis for these arguments. 
¶75 There is no dispute that Ott and Freker did not  
listen to Storms' speech in its entirety before the press 
release was issued. The court of appeals relied on Curtis 
Publishing Co. v. Butts, 388 U.S. 130 (1967) to support the view 
that such failure evinces actual malice.  
¶76 Butts involved a libel action against a magazine for 
publishing allegations that a college football coach was 
involved in game-fixing. Id. at 135. The sole source of the 
story was a person known by the publisher to be on probation for 
writing bad checks, none of the magazine personnel reviewed the 
source's notes, another person who was with the source when the 
source heard the story was not consulted, and there was no 
attempt by any in the organization to screen the films of 
No. 
2006AP396   
 
33 
 
allegedly fixed games.  Id. at 157. The court determined that 
such evidence could support a determination of actual malice. 
¶77 The current case bears no resemblance to Butts. Here, 
the president of Action Wisconsin's board of directors, O'Brien, 
listened to the entire speech and was disturbed by what he 
heard. He then consulted with Ott and Freker, and they confirmed  
that speech contained the statements that O'Brien described. 
Together they decided on the response. This is entirely unlike 
the situation in Butts, where no one made any effort to confirm 
the claims of a known unreliable source. 
¶78 Even if there was a failure of Action Wisconsin to 
investigate prior to issuing its press release, "mere proof of 
failure to investigate the accuracy of a statement, without 
more, cannot establish the reckless disregard for the truth 
necessary for proving actual malice." Erdmann v. SF Broad. Of 
Green Bay, Inc., 229 Wis. 2d 156, 170, 599 N.W.2d 1 (Ct. App. 
1999)(citing Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 332 
(1974)). For the reasons provided in the previous section, the 
other arguments Donohoo adduces fail to provide the something 
more required to establish actual malice.  
¶79 Donohoo's argument that Ott and Freker did not think 
about contacting police regarding Storms' speech, illustrating 
that "they did not honestly believe that Storms had advocated 
the murder of gays in his speech," is similarly unpersuasive. 
Research into the relevant law would have dissuaded Donohoo from 
this argument. 
No. 
2006AP396   
 
34 
 
¶80 Brandenberg v. Ohio involved a conviction under a 
statute prohibiting advocacy of violent political reform for a 
speech which included the language "if our President, our 
Congress, our Supreme Court, continues to suppress the white, 
Caucasian race, it's possible that there might have to be some 
revengeance taken." 395 U.S. 444, 446 (1969). The Supreme Court 
determined that the First Amendment protects the advocacy of 
violence that falls short of incitement to imminent lawless 
action. Id. at 447. Action Wisconsin has not claimed that 
Storms' speech incited imminent lawless action.  
¶81 Accordingly, we determine that the circuit court did 
not err in concluding that Donohoo continued the lawsuit 
frivolously. The circuit court explained that Action Wisconsin's 
letters put Donohoo on notice regarding frivolousness. Further, 
the facts adduced by Donohoo as evidence of actual malice are 
not supported by the law, and Donohoo makes no argument based in 
equity. Thus, the circuit court's factual determination that 
Donohoo knew or should have known that the lawsuit had no basis 
in law or equity is not clearly erroneous. Under § 814.025, this 
factual determination supports the circuit court's conclusion 
that Donohoo continued the lawsuit frivolously. 
IV 
¶82 Action Wisconsin also argues that the court of appeals 
erred in reviewing, sua sponte, the circuit court's summary 
judgment decision on the merits of the case when that decision 
had not been appealed. It argues that there were no issues of 
disputed fact with respect to the defamation claim, and that the 
No. 
2006AP396   
 
35 
 
questions on appeal concerned legal conclusions based upon 
undisputed facts.  
¶83 To address this issue requires that we examine three 
questions. The first concerns whether the court of appeals erred 
in addressing the substantive issues of the case.  Those issues 
were decided by the circuit court on summary judgment, but were 
not before the court of appeals insofar as summary judgment was 
not appealed. This court has addressed the question before. 
Jandrt involved questions about sanctions for frivolousness in a 
case where the underlying suit was voluntarily dismissed. 227 
Wis. 2d at 538-39. The court was required to address the merits 
of the underlying claim to address the frivolousness issue. Id. 
at 572-73.  
¶84 A similar issue arose in Lassa v. Rongstad, 2006 WI 
105, 294 Wis. 2d 187, 718 N.W.2d 673. That case involved 
discovery and contempt sanctions levied against the defendant in 
a 
defamation 
case 
where 
the 
defendant 
was 
asserting 
a 
constitutional privilege against disclosures sought by the 
plaintiff. Id., ¶1. The merits of the underlying case were 
settled.  The lead opinion determined that the court had to get 
to the issues of privilege in order to reach the question of 
whether the sanctions were appropriate, on the ground that the 
privilege was a defense against the sanctions.  Id., ¶33.  
¶85 Similarly, whether frivolous sanctions were proper in 
the present case turns on whether the underlying suit was 
frivolous. It was therefore proper for the court of appeals to 
No. 
2006AP396   
 
36 
 
address that issue despite the fact that summary judgment was 
not appealed. 
¶86 The second question is whether the court of appeals 
erred by reversing the circuit court's summary judgment order. 
Action Wisconsin asserts that the court of appeals "ignored the 
finality of the . . . summary judgment decision" and "took 
jurisdiction of the issue." As we explain in footnote 4 above, 
the court of appeals reversed the judgment and order of the 
circuit court. This would appear to include the part of the 
order denying Donohoo's motion for reconsideration. The text of 
the opinion makes clear, however, that the court of appeals 
reversed only the grant of sanctions. Donohoo concedes that the 
denial of the motion for reconsideration was not reversed. 
¶87 The third question concerns whether there remain any 
disputed questions of material fact to be resolved with respect 
to the defamation issue. The parties agreed at oral argument 
that there were no factual disputes on the issue. We agree that 
all of the disputes regarding the defamation claim are legal in 
nature. Thus, we conclude that although the court of appeals was 
incorrect in determining that there were disputed facts, it did 
not err in addressing the facts underlying the circuit court's 
summary judgment decision. Rather, it addressed the summary 
judgment decision only to the extent that it was necessary to 
address the substantive issues of the case in order to review 
the circuit court's determinations of frivolousness. 
No. 
2006AP396   
 
37 
 
V 
¶88 In sum, we conclude that the circuit court did not err 
in 
determining 
that 
the 
defamation 
suit 
was 
frivolously 
commenced and continued under Wis. Stat. §§ 802.05 and 814.025. 
It determined that Donohoo had failed to conduct a reasonable 
inquiry before commencing the lawsuit and that there was no 
basis in fact or law that would support Donohoo's claim that 
Action Wisconsin's statements were made with actual malice. In 
this regard, we conclude that the court of appeals committed 
error when it reversed the circuit court's determinations. 
¶89 However, we conclude that the court of appeals did not 
commit error in addressing the circuit court's summary judgment 
decision. The court of appeals did not sua sponte reverse a 
grant of summary judgment that was never appealed. Rather, it 
addressed the summary judgment decision only to the extent that 
it was necessary to address the substantive issues of the case 
in order to review the circuit court's determination of 
frivolousness.  
¶90 Accordingly, because we conclude that the circuit 
court did not err in determining that the defamation suit was 
commenced and continued frivolously, we reverse the court of 
appeals. 
By the Court.—The decision of the court of appeals is 
reversed. 
 
 
 
No.  2006AP396.pdr 
 
 
1 
¶91 PATIENCE 
DRAKE 
ROGGENSACK, 
J. 
(dissenting).   
Subsequent to Grant Storms' speech at a meeting of Wisconsin 
Christians 
United, 
Action 
Wisconsin, 
Inc. 
published 
the 
following statement on its website: 
We trust that Senator Panzer will be as appalled 
as we were to find one of her colleagues in the 
audience for a speech apparently advocating the murder 
of his own constituents. 
Based in part on Action Wisconsin's statement that he was 
"apparently advocating [] murder" during his speech to Wisconsin 
Christians United, Storms began this defamation lawsuit.  The 
majority opinion concludes that Storms' lawsuit was frivolous 
when filed and frivolous when continued.1  The dispositive 
questions presented by this review are:  whether a reasonable 
attorney in Attorney Donohoo's position could have concluded 
that no reasonable jury could find the following facts:  (1) 
Action Wisconsin's statement is false; (2) the statement defamed 
Grant Storms; and (3) when it made the statement, Action 
Wisconsin did not believe the statement was true, or made it 
with reckless disregard as to its truth.  See Baumeister v. 
Automated Prods., Inc., 2004 WI 148, ¶28, 277 Wis. 2d 21, 690 
N.W.2d 1.  Because the law of defamation is complex and often 
unclear, I conclude that a reasonable attorney in Attorney 
Donohoo's position could have believed that a reasonable jury 
                                                 
1 Majority op., ¶4. 
No.  2006AP396.pdr 
 
 
2 
could answer "yes" to these questions.2  Such a jury then would 
have found that Action Wisconsin published the statement on its 
website with actual malice, thereby defaming Grant Storms.3  
Milsap v. Journal/Sentinel, Inc., 100 F.3d 1265, 1270 (7th Cir. 
1996) (citing New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 279-
80 (1964)).  Accordingly, I would affirm the court of appeals, 
and I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion. 
I.  BACKGROUND 
¶92 This review arises from Grant Storms' lawsuit against 
Action Wisconsin as a result of statements that Action Wisconsin 
published on its website, subsequent to a speech that Storms 
made to Wisconsin Christians United.  Storms' speech spoke of 
his personal opposition to homosexual lifestyles and his belief 
that the Bible teaches that homosexuality is a sin.   
¶93 Action Wisconsin supports gay rights, and was, at the 
time of the statement on its website, heavily lobbying the 
legislature against passage of the constitutional amendment, 
                                                 
2 The majority claims that I "implicitly acknowledge[] that 
a reasonable attorney, and hence Attorney Donohoo, should have 
known that he could not prove actual malice."  Majority op., ¶57 
n.11.  I do no such thing.  First, I recognize, contrary to the 
majority's suggestion, that the inquiry must be focused on what 
a reasonable attorney would have believed, not what Attorney 
Donohoo, specifically, believed.  See infra, ¶¶24, 28, 34.  
Second, I conclude, contrary to the majority's suggestion, that 
a reasonable attorney in Attorney Donohoo's position could have 
believed that a reasonable jury could have concluded that Action 
Wisconsin made false statements with actual malice. 
3 Both parties assume that Grant Storms is a public figure.  
Therefore, even though a complete analysis of this question may 
not end with that conclusion, I do not address the issue in this 
dissent.   
No.  2006AP396.pdr 
 
 
3 
Article XIII, Section 13, that denies marital status to same-sex 
partners.4   
¶94 The statement that formed the basis for this lawsuit 
was made on Action Wisconsin's website as a "press release" 
captioned:  "State Senator Attends 'Homo-Fascism' Conference, 
Action Wisconsin Asks Majority Leader Panzer to Investigate."  
The press release continued, "[t]oday Action Wisconsin sent a 
letter to Senate Majority Leader Mary Panzer, calling on her to 
investigate, identify, and discipline the state senator who 
attended the 'International Conference on Homo-Fascism' in 
Milwaukee on October 10, 2003."  The press release continued, 
"[t]he attendance of a state senator at this conference is 
similar to a senator attending a Ku Klux Klan rally or a neo-
Nazi conference, and should receive tremendous scrutiny . . . .  
We are deeply concerned that a state senator would feel 
comfortable attending a conference that espoused such frenzied, 
hysterical hatred."  Christopher Ott, Executive Director of 
Action Wisconsin, is then quoted in the press release as saying: 
We trust that Senator Panzer will be as appalled 
as we were to find one of her colleagues in the 
audience for a speech apparently advocating the murder 
of his own constituents.  We also hope that every 
legislator will think twice before supporting any more 
hate-inspired legislation.  
Storms subsequently found handbills affixed to telephone poles 
in his hometown of New Orleans, Louisiana, that contained his 
picture and below the picture it said:  "Why does Pastor Grant 
                                                 
4 Article XIII, Section 13 of the Wisconsin Constitution, 
Marriage Between One Man and One Woman, had not yet reached the 
voters when Action Wisconsin published its statement about 
Storms' speech. 
No.  2006AP396.pdr 
 
 
4 
E. Storms of Christian Conservatives for Reform advocate the 
murder of gays?"  The handbill referred readers to Action 
Wisconsin's website. 
¶95 Before Attorney Donohoo filed the defamation action on 
behalf of Storms, he twice requested Action Wisconsin to retract 
the statement.  Action Wisconsin did not respond.  Also prior to 
filing this lawsuit, Attorney Donohoo listened to and analyzed 
Storms' speech and he concluded that no reasonable person would 
conclude that Storms was advocating the murder of homosexuals.   
¶96 After the lawsuit was filed, an attorney for Action 
Wisconsin wrote Attorney Donohoo threatening him with her intent 
to seek an award of attorney's fees under Wis. Stat. § 814.025 
and to report him to the Office of Lawyer Regulation if he did 
not dismiss the lawsuit.  The basis for these threats was the 
attorney's conclusion that the lawsuit was frivolous because 
"the Defendants did not say that Mr. Storms advocated murder, 
but rather that he appeared" to be doing so.  The attorney 
italicized the word "appeared" and asserted that the statement 
that 
Storms 
was 
apparently 
advocating 
murder 
was 
Action 
Wisconsin's reasonable opinion and therefore not actionable.  
Action Wisconsin's attorney further asserted that she believed 
Storms was a public figure and therefore, Storms would have to 
prove actual malice in order to succeed in his lawsuit.  She 
asserted "there is no evidence from which you can even argue 
actual malice."   
¶97 After the lawsuit was commenced, Attorney Donohoo had 
two of his law clerks and two others persons listen to Storms' 
No.  2006AP396.pdr 
 
 
5 
speech.  Each person told Attorney Donohoo that he did not 
believe Storms was advocating the murder of gay people. 
¶98 The circuit court dismissed Storms' lawsuit upon 
Action Wisconsin's motion for summary judgment.  In so doing, 
the circuit court found numerous facts, even though the matter 
was before the court on summary judgment.  It found that Storms 
failed to prove Action Wisconsin's statement was false; that 
Action Wisconsin's interpretation of Storms' speech was not 
unreasonable; and that Storms had failed to present evidence of 
actual malice.  Without articulating the legal standard that is 
to be applied to motions to conclude that an action was 
frivolous to commence or to continue, the circuit court so 
concluded and awarded Action Wisconsin more than $87,000 in 
costs and fees against Attorney Donohoo.   
¶99 Attorney Donohoo appealed and the court of appeals 
reversed.  Donohoo v. Action Wis., Inc., No. 2006AP396, 
unpublished slip op. (Wis. Ct. App. May 30, 2007).  It concluded 
that "This case is not about whether the trial court correctly 
decided the summary judgment issue.  . . .  [T]he case is 
controlled 
by 
the 
frivolous 
action 
standards, 
which 
are 
different than those governing summary judgment."  Id., ¶9.  The 
court of appeals concluded that the circuit court erred in three 
respects:  (1) there were disputed issues of material fact 
relative to the issue of actual malice; (2) damage to reputation 
is presumed when defamation based on libel is proved; and (3) 
Attorney Donohoo engaged in a reasonable inquiry prior to and 
subsequent to filing Storms' lawsuit. 
No.  2006AP396.pdr 
 
 
6 
II.  DISCUSSION 
A. 
Standard of Review 
¶100 We review whether the commencement or continuation of 
a lawsuit is frivolous and therefore a violation of Wis. Stat. 
§ 814.025, as a mixed question of fact and law.  Jandrt v. 
Jerome Foods, Inc., 227 Wis. 2d 531, 562, 597 N.W.2d 744 (1999).  
What an attorney knew or should have known is factual.  Id. at 
562-63 (citing Juneau County v. Courthouse Employees, 221 
Wis. 2d 630, 638-39, 585 N.W.2d 587 (1998)).  A circuit court's 
determinations of historical facts will be overturned only if 
they are clearly erroneous.  Wis. Stat. § 805.17(2).  The 
ultimate conclusion of whether the factual findings meet the 
legal standard of frivolousness is a question of law.  Jandrt, 
227 Wis. 2d at 563.   
¶101 Whether a lawsuit is commenced in violation of Wis. 
Stat. § 802.05 is a discretionary determination of the circuit 
court.  Id. at 548.  Section 802.05 applies only to commencing a 
lawsuit; it does not apply to the continuation of a lawsuit.  
Id. at 547.  We will not reverse a circuit court's discretionary 
determination unless an erroneous exercise of discretion has 
been shown.  Id. at 549.  Applying an incorrect legal standard 
is an erroneous exercise of discretion.  City of Brookfield v. 
Milwaukee Metro. Sewerage Dist., 171 Wis. 2d 400, 423, 491 
N.W.2d 484 (1992).  
¶102 Whether a communication can reasonably be understood 
as defamatory, is a question of law.  Starobin v. Northridge 
Lakes Dev. Co., 94 Wis. 2d 1, 10, 287 N.W.2d 747 (1980) (citing 
Martin v. Outboard Marine Corp., 15 Wis. 2d 452, 461, 113 N.W.2d 
No.  2006AP396.pdr 
 
 
7 
135 (1962)).  We review questions of law independently, but 
benefiting from the prior decisions of the court of appeals and 
the circuit court.  Marder v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of 
Wis. Sys., 2005 WI 159, ¶19, 286 Wis. 2d 252, 706 N.W.2d 110.   
B. 
Frivolous Action Principles 
¶103 An attorney files or maintains a frivolous action when 
the attorney "knew, or should have known" that there was no 
"reasonable basis in law or equity" for it.  Wis. Stat. 
§ 814.025(3)(b).  Only when there is no reasonable basis for the 
claim, in fact, or in law and no basis for a reasonable 
extension of the law to include such a claim, may a court 
conclude that it is frivolous under § 814.025(3)(b).  Jandrt, 
227 Wis. 2d at 573.  A similar lack of basis in fact or in law 
causes a claim to be frivolous under Wis. Stat. § 802.05.  Id. 
at 550.  In determining whether a claim is frivolous, a court 
must balance the integrity of the judicial process, id. at 572; 
Sommer v. Carr, 99 Wis. 2d 789, 799, 299 N.W.2d 856 (1981), with 
the 
desire 
to 
encourage 
"ingenuity, 
foresightedness 
and 
competency of the bar," Radlein v. Industrial Fire & Casualty 
Insurance Co., 117 Wis. 2d 605, 613, 345 N.W.2d 874 (1984).  All 
doubts about the reasonableness of a claim must be resolved 
against the party asserting that the action is frivolous, unless 
the claim was brought solely to harass or injure the other 
party.5  Baumeister, 277 Wis. 2d 21, ¶28.  
                                                 
5 Action Wisconsin maintained that Storms' defamation action 
was frivolous because there was no basis in law or in fact for 
it. 
No.  2006AP396.pdr 
 
 
8 
C. 
Defamation Principles 
¶104 An action for defamation requires proof of the 
following elements:   
(1) a false statement; (2) communicated by speech, 
conduct or in writing to a person other than the 
person 
defamed; 
and, 
(3) 
the 
communication 
is 
unprivileged and tends to harm one's reputation so as 
to lower him or her in the estimation of the community 
or to deter third persons from associating or dealing 
with him or her. 
Torgerson v. Journal/Sentinel, Inc., 210 Wis. 2d 524, 534, 563 
N.W.2d 472 (1997).  When a public figure is the person defamed, 
actual malice must also be proved.  Id. at 535. 
¶105 The 
requirement of proving actual malice arises 
because 
"[t]he 
First 
Amendment 
imposes 
a 
constitutional 
privilege on the publication of statements about public figures, 
even when those statements are false and defamatory."  Id.  This 
privilege, which is grounded in the First Amendment, is not 
absolute, but rather, conditional.  Id.  That the declarant make 
his or her statement without actual malice is the condition that 
is imposed on the privilege.  Id.   
¶106 In order to prove actual malice, a plaintiff must show 
that the defamatory statement was published with knowledge that 
it was untrue or with reckless disregard as to its truth.  
Sullivan, 376 U.S. at 279-80.  The test for whether the 
defendant had actual malice is subjective.  Torgerson, 210 
Wis. 2d at 542.  The plaintiff must show that the defendant 
either knew the statement was false or "entertained serious 
doubts as to the truth" of the statement.  Id.  Actual malice 
can be shown by proof that the defendant had "obvious reasons to 
No.  2006AP396.pdr 
 
 
9 
doubt the veracity" of the statement.  Id. at 543 (citing St. 
Amant v. Thompson, 390 U.S. 727, 732 (1968)).   
¶107 The defamation at issue here is in the form of libel 
because the statement was written.  Martin, 15 Wis. 2d at 456.  
As such, the statement is "actionable without alleging or 
proving special damages."6  Id. at 460-61.  As Martin explained, 
"We adhere to and adopt the common-law rule of libel, as stated 
in sec. 569 of the Restatement, 3 Torts, Defamation, that all 
libels are actionable without alleging or proving special 
damages."  Id.  Damages are presumed from proof of the 
defamation by libel.  Id.  
¶108 However, 
whether 
a 
statement 
is 
capable 
of 
a 
defamatory meaning is a separate question.  Id. at 461.  This 
determination is initially for the court.  Id.  If a court 
concludes that the only possible meaning of the statement is 
defamatory, the court may hold the statement defamatory as a 
matter of law, and no question goes to the jury.  Id. at 461-62.  
However, if the libel is "capable of an innocent meaning as well 
as a defamatory meaning, it is then for the jury to determine 
whether the communication capable of a defamatory meaning was so 
understood by its recipient."  Id. at 462. 
¶109 Statements phrased as opinions are not beyond the 
reach of a defamation claim.  Converters Equip. Corp. v. Condes 
Corp., 80 Wis. 2d 257, 263, 258 N.W.2d 712 (1977).  As we have 
explained, writings that add words such as "apparently" and 
                                                 
6 This is contrary to the rule in regard to defamation in 
the form of slander, where special damages must be pleaded and 
proved.  Martin v. Outboard Marine Corp., 15 Wis. 2d 452, 461, 
113 N.W.2d 135 (1962). 
No.  2006AP396.pdr 
 
 
10 
"appear to be" change nothing.  Id.  "The authorities agree that 
communications are not made nondefamatory as a matter of law 
merely because they are phrased as opinions, suspicions or 
beliefs." 
 Id. at 263-64.  Accordingly, such words as 
"apparently," which Action Wisconsin used here, at most, create 
a jury issue in regard to whether the statement defamed Storms.  
See id. at 264.   
D. 
Storms' Defamation Claim 
¶110 Action Wisconsin's statement on its website that 
Storms was "apparently advocating the murder" of homosexuals is 
the focus of this lawsuit.  The handbills distributed by an 
unknown person in Storms' hometown of New Orleans, Louisiana, 
repeated Action Wisconsin's assertion by asking, "Why does 
Pastor Grant E. Storms of Christian Conservatives for Reform 
advocate the murder of gays?"  Action Wisconsin's website was 
listed at the bottom of the handbill.  A copy of the handbill 
was attached to Storms' complaint. 
1. 
False statement 
¶111 The circuit court based its decision in part on its 
finding that Storms failed to prove Action Wisconsin's statement 
was 
false. 
 
However, 
whether 
a 
statement 
is 
false 
or 
substantially true is a factual determination unsuitable for 
summary judgment, unless no reasonable person could conclude 
otherwise than that the statement was false.  See Martin, 15 
Wis. 2d at 462.   
¶112 Action Wisconsin does not assert that its statement is 
true; rather, it asserts it is insulated from a defamation claim 
because it used the word, "apparently," before its statement 
No.  2006AP396.pdr 
 
 
11 
that Storms was advocating the murder of homosexual people.  It 
implies that the word, "apparently," shows that the statement 
was Action Wisconsin's opinion.   
¶113 However, "apparently" has been defined as, "in an 
apparent manner," and "apparent" has been defined as, "capable 
of easy perception" and "real or true and supported by credible 
evidence."  Webster's Third New International Dictionary, 102-03 
(1961 ed.).  Moreover, as we explained in Converters, using the 
word, "apparently," before a statement that is false does not 
insulate the declarant from a defamation action.  Converters, 80 
Wis. 2d at 263-64.  Furthermore, "One may be libeled by 
implication 
and 
innuendo 
quite 
as 
easily 
as 
by 
direct 
affirmation."  Id. at 264.  Employing "apparently" before a 
statement that is false can do no more than create a jury issue 
in regard to whether the statement defamed the person about whom 
the statement was made.  Id. at 263-64. 
¶114 Here, the publisher of the handbills had seen Action 
Wisconsin's statement, as is shown by the reference to Action 
Wisconsin's website at the bottom of the handbill.  It 
interpreted Action Wisconsin's statement to mean that Storms was 
advocating the commission of crimes:  the killing of homosexual 
people.  Four people who listened to Storms' speech at Attorney 
Donohoo's request all concluded that Storms was not advocating 
murder.  A jury reviewing Storms' entire speech to Wisconsin 
Christians United could find that Storms was not advocating the 
murder 
of 
gay 
people; 
and 
therefore, 
Action 
Wisconsin's 
No.  2006AP396.pdr 
 
 
12 
statement was false.7  Therefore, a reasonable attorney in 
Attorney 
Donohoo's 
position, 
could 
conclude 
that 
Action 
Wisconsin's statement was false.  On the record before us, it 
remains, at most, a fact question for the jury.8 
¶115 Prior 
to 
filing 
this 
lawsuit, 
Attorney 
Donohoo 
listened 
to 
Storms' 
speech 
and 
analyzed 
it 
under 
legal 
principles relating to defamation.  The court of appeals did so 
as well.  Both Attorney Donohoo and the court of appeals and 
three members of the Wisconsin Supreme Court have concluded that 
a reasonable attorney in the position of Attorney Donohoo could 
have concluded that a reasonable jury could find that Action 
Wisconsin's statement was false. 
2. 
Defamatory meaning 
¶116 A statement is defamatory when it tends to "'diminish 
the esteem, respect, goodwill or confidence in which the 
plaintiff 
is 
held, 
or 
to 
excite 
adverse, 
derogatory 
or 
unpleasant feelings or opinions against him.'"  Starobin, 94 
Wis. 2d at 10 (quoting Prosser on Torts 756).  A statement that 
                                                 
7 This writer has listened to the entire recording of 
Storms' speech. 
8 The statements in ¶56 n.11 of the majority opinion 
exemplify the incorrect standard that the majority opinion has 
applied throughout its opinion in determining whether Storms' 
defamation claim is frivolous.  The question is not whether a 
reasonable jury would find for Storms on each element he had to 
prove in his defamation claim, but rather, whether a reasonable 
attorney in the position of Attorney Donohoo could believe it 
was possible for a reasonable jury to find in Storms' behalf.  
Baumeister v. Automated Prods., Inc., 2004 WI 148, ¶28, 277 
Wis. 2d 21, 690 N.W.2d 1.  As we explained in Baumeister, "This 
court does not look at whether one can prevail on his claim, but 
whether the claim is so indefensible that the party or his 
attorney should have known it to be frivolous."  Id. 
No.  2006AP396.pdr 
 
 
13 
implies that the defendant has committed a crime may be 
defamatory.  Bauer v. Murphy, 191 Wis. 2d 517, 524, 530 N.W.2d 1 
(Ct. App. 1995).  Here, Action Wisconsin's statement has been 
interpreted by at least one person, the printer of the handbills 
referenced above, to mean that Storms was advocating the murder 
of homosexuals.   
¶117 Whether 
a 
statement 
could 
be 
interpreted 
in 
a 
defamatory sense is initially a question of law for the circuit 
court to address.  Martin, 15 Wis. 2d at 461-62.  When libel is 
capable of an innocent and a defamatory meaning, a jury question 
is presented.  Id. at 462.  The court of appeals concluded that 
Action 
Wisconsin's 
assertion 
that 
Storms 
was 
apparently 
advocating murder of homosexual people was capable of a 
defamatory meaning.  Donohoo, No. 2006AP396, unpublished slip 
op., ¶17.  I conclude that a reasonable jury could find that 
Action Wisconsin's statement has been received as reporting that 
Storms was advocating the killing of gay people.  Accordingly, a 
jury question is presented in regard to whether the statement 
was defamatory. 
¶118 However, the relevant question for this review is 
whether a reasonable attorney in the position of Attorney 
Donohoo could conclude that a reasonable jury could find that 
Action Wisconsin's statement defamed Storms.  Radlein, 117 
Wis. 2d at 612.  Prior to filing the lawsuit, Attorney Donohoo 
investigated the law relating to libel, as is shown by the 
detailed letters he wrote to Action Wisconsin requesting 
retraction.  Once the lawsuit was underway, he had four 
individuals listen to the full recording of Storms' speech and 
No.  2006AP396.pdr 
 
 
14 
none interpreted the speech as Storms' advocating the murder of 
homosexual people.  Attorney Donohoo also obtained a copy of the 
handbills that were distributed after Action Wisconsin posted 
the statement on its website.  Both Attorney Donohoo and the 
court of appeals and three members of the Wisconsin Supreme 
Court have concluded that a reasonable attorney in the position 
of Attorney Donohoo could have concluded that a reasonable jury 
could find that Action Wisconsin's statement was defamatory. 
3. 
Actual malice 
¶119 When a public figure claims defamation, he or she must 
prove that the declarant made the statement with actual malice, 
that is, that the declarant knew the statement was false or made 
it with reckless disregard as to the truth.  Sullivan, 376 U.S. 
at 279-80.  Because actual malice involves the subjective state 
of mind of the declarant, Torgerson, 210 Wis. 2d at 542, here 
Ott, it may be proved by showing that the declarant had "obvious 
reasons to doubt the veracity" of the statement.  St. Amant, 390 
U.S. at 732.  Proof of actual malice involves the circumstances 
under which the statement under examination was made.  See Van 
Straten v. Milwaukee Journal Newspaper-Publisher, 151 Wis. 2d 
905, 917, 447 N.W.2d 105 (Ct. App. 1989).    
¶120 The context in which Action Wisconsin's statement was 
published is relevant, both in regard to where and when it was 
made.  See St. Amant, 390 U.S. at 733.  First, Ott's statement 
was made in a "press release" by Action Wisconsin that requested 
Senator 
Panzer 
to 
take 
action 
against 
members 
of 
the 
legislature.  It began by asserting, "State Senator Attends 
'Homo-Fascism' Conference, Action Wisconsin Asks Majority Leader 
No.  2006AP396.pdr 
 
 
15 
Panzer to Investigate."  It did not ask her to investigate 
whether 
Storms 
was 
advocating 
murder, 
but 
rather 
to 
"investigate, identify, and discipline the state senator" who 
attended the religious convocation of Wisconsin Christians 
United, which convocation Action Wisconsin characterized as a 
"homo-fascism conference."  After making the statement that 
Storms asserts is libelous, Ott focused on potential legislation 
and said, "We also hope that every legislator will think twice 
before supporting any more hate-inspired legislation."   
¶121 Second, the statement was made during the course of 
the legislative initiative to amend the Wisconsin Constitution 
to limit marriage to heterosexuals and to prevent civil unions 
for homosexual couples.  Action Wisconsin saw such an amendment 
as contrary to the civil rights of homosexuals, whom it 
supports.  The "marriage amendment" was a highly emotional topic 
on both sides of the issue and the political pressure placed on 
members of the legislature was intense.  Therefore, Action 
Wisconsin's call to action to make "every legislator [] think 
twice before supporting" the upcoming constitutional amendment 
can be read as an effort to make voting for the proposed 
amendment more difficult, rather than as a call to action based 
on Action Wisconsin's belief that its statement about Storms was 
true.  Furthermore, there is nothing in the record to show that 
Action Wisconsin turned the recording of Storms' speech over to 
law 
enforcement 
and 
requested 
an 
investigation 
of 
his 
activities, which one might expect it would have done if it 
truly believed Storms was advocating murder.   
No.  2006AP396.pdr 
 
 
16 
¶122 Given the context of where (as a press release placed 
on the internet) and when (during the legislative debate on a 
highly charged issue on which Action Wisconsin had taken a 
position), Action Wisconsin had an obvious reason to make 
legislative members uncomfortable for their association with 
Storms and his beliefs, even while doubting the truth of its 
allegation against Storms.  St. Amant, 390 U.S. at 732 (citing 
Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts, 388 U.S. 130, 169-70 (1967) 
(Warren, C.J., concurring in the result)).  Stated otherwise, a 
reasonable attorney in the position of Attorney Donohoo could 
have believed that a reasonable jury could find that Action 
Wisconsin knew the statement was not true or made it with 
reckless disregard as to its truth, because the statement was 
part of Action Wisconsin's attempt to promote one side of a 
highly charged political issue.  If the jury so found, then 
Attorney Donohoo would have proved that Action Wisconsin 
published the statement on its website with actual malice.   
¶123 I agree with the court of appeals that this action was 
not commenced in violation of either Wis. Stat. § 814.025(3)(b) 
or Wis. Stat. § 802.05; nor was it continued in violation of 
§ 814.025(3)(b).  A determination of frivolousness involves a 
delicate balance.  The question of whether an action was 
commenced or continued in violation of a statute is not 
determined in the same way that a motion for summary judgment or 
a motion to dismiss is determined, see Stoll v. Adriansen, 122 
Wis. 2d 503, 509, 362 N.W.2d 182 (Ct. App. 1984); yet, the 
circuit court did not articulate or apply a different standard 
for these differing legal issues.   
No.  2006AP396.pdr 
 
 
17 
¶124 In order to be frivolous under either Wis. Stat. 
§ 814.025(3)(b) or Wis. Stat. § 802.05, a circuit court must 
conclude that no reasonable attorney in Attorney Donohoo's 
position could have concluded that a reasonable jury could find 
in favor of the plaintiff.  Swartwout v. Bilsie, 100 Wis. 2d 
342, 350, 302 N.W.2d 508 (Ct. App. 1981).  Any doubts about how 
a jury could find must be resolved against the person claiming 
that the action was frivolous.  Id.  While the record is a long 
way from proof of the claim that Attorney Donohoo asserted, I 
cannot 
conclude 
that 
no 
reasonable 
attorney 
in 
Attorney 
Donohoo's position could have concluded that a reasonable jury 
could make the findings necessary to support a verdict in favor 
of Storms' defamation claim.  Accordingly, the defamation claim 
is not frivolous.   
III.  CONCLUSION 
¶125 The dispositive questions presented by this review 
are:  whether a reasonable attorney in Attorney Donohoo's 
position could have concluded that no reasonable jury could find 
the following facts:  (1) Action Wisconsin's statement is false; 
(2) the statement defamed Grant Storms; and (3) when it made the 
statement, Action Wisconsin did not believe the statement was 
true, or made it with reckless disregard as to its truth.  
Because the law of defamation is complex and often unclear, I 
conclude that a reasonable attorney in Attorney Donohoo's 
position could have believed that a reasonable jury could answer 
"yes" to these questions.  Such a jury then would have found 
that Action Wisconsin published the statement on its website 
with actual malice, thereby defaming Grant Storms.   
No.  2006AP396.pdr 
 
 
18 
¶126 Because the majority opinion concludes otherwise, I 
respectfully dissent. 
¶127 I am authorized to state that Justices DAVID T. 
PROSSER and ANNETTE KINGSLAND ZIEGLER join this dissent. 
 
No.  2006AP396.Exhibit 1 
 
 
S T O R M S  
CD TRANSCRIPTION 
One small church in New Orleans, outside of New Orleans, Marrero, and I do a radio program called 
The Reformer Radio Broadcast. We do an hour talk show every day. We've been doing that for a 
couple of years, or eight years, going on eight years. It's been the last couple of years we've really 
been seeing some tremendous breakthroughs that we're so thankful for. And a few years ago I 
started a group called Christian Conservatives for Reform, and it's of course an activist movement 
and an organization we're trying to get pastors and Christians to get off their pews outside the four 
walls of the church and engage our society and we tell them don't overlook things that you see are 
wrong in society. Do something about it. Whatever it may be. And we've done a number of things 
and the Lord has granted us a number of successes and we're thankful for that. Of course the Lord 
has used us in this battling the Southern Decadence situation in New Orleans which we'll go into 
in just a few moments. But I just want to say I'm very, very thankful to be here. I at least know one 
familiar face, Brother Cal Zastrow. Brother Cal good to see you again. He is doing some 
tremendous work with the Constitution Party and I've met him in New Orleans and he's been down 
there trying to get some Christians to wake up to the fact that the Republican Party is not necessarily 
our allies and our friends especially when it comes to the homosexual issue. But our nation is in a 
real critical situation, and if there was ever a time for the church and the Lord Jesus Christ to stand 
up, it's certainly now. Amen. 
Turn your Bibles this morning to 1 Samuel 14. It's so awesome coming in. I'm originally from New 
York and I haven't been up north here and heard the word "pop" in a long time. (Laughing) I still 
use the word "sneaker" but not "pop". But we're asking about if the leaves were changing. By the 
way Ralph I don't have a watch either so. (Laughing) We're asking about whether the leaves were 
changing and everybody was saying oh no not yet, not yet. So it's a real blessing we're coming in 
and looking down on the trees and seeing them change colors and that was pretty awesome. My wife 
has never been up north during the Fall. It's been nineteen years for me. I'll go back to New York 
during the winter to catch the snow, so it's a real blessing and got a good night sleep and woke up, 
left the room early to go over here to get some breakfast and got that morning northern chill. Said 
Yes. Alleluia. Praise the Lord. 
I want to read one verse. We're actually going to come back to this passage and go through the first 
23 verses which is the story of Jonathan and the armor bearer. But let's start out reading the first 
verse this morning. 1 Samuel 14:1 Now it came to pass upon a day that Jonathan, the son of Saul, 
said unto the young man that bear his armor, "Come and let us go over to the Philistines garrison." 
Father we come before you in Jesus' name and Lord we come to you humbly and ask you to bless 
and move, we ask you Lord to annoint with your Holy Spirit. But we realize this morning that we're 
really nothing without you. We can do nothing without you. It's not by our personalities or our 
intelligence or our wisdom, our own widom, or even our own strategies. But it's only by your Spirit 
we recognize today. It's not by might nor by power, but only by your Spirit, so we pray for your 
annointing to stir your church up. Those that are called by your name as they humble themselves 
and turn from their wicked way, pray and seek your face. We pray Lord that you will forgive and 
 No.  2006AP396.Exhibit 1 
 
 
hear our prayers and begin to heal our land. We pray for reformation in this nation, revival. We pray 
for third grade awakening in this nation and we pray Lord let it start right here in Milwaukee, 
Wisconsin on this day. In Jesus' name and everyone said Amen and Amen. 
I want to speak for a few moments this morning now on the thought of you alone can make a 
difference. You alone can make a difference. And it's a beautiful story here in the first 23 verses 
of 1 Samuel 14 about Jonathan and the armor bearer defeating the army of the Philistines. Now for 
the sake of this conference just keep in mind that we're going to liken the Philistines unto the 
homosexual movement today. But this passage has a very special place in my heart because it was 
the passage, this passage in this story, that the Lord used to call me into the ministry. Twenty-three 
years ago I had just got saved out of drugs and  alcohol  and  still had my long hair and all that kind 
of stuff. Been about two weeks saved and the Lord led me to church  and  I'm  sitting in  there and here 
comes this radical evangelist and he preached out of this passage of scripture. He entitled the 
message What One Man Obedient to God Can Do. What one man that's obedient to God,  what God 
can do with one man that's obedient to God.  And man the Holy  Spirit  dragged  me down to that alter. 
I mean filled me with the Holy Spirit. Totally, radically changed me. I got up from there and I knew 
that I was called to preach and now I'm of course entitling this  this morning,  You Alone Can Make 
a Difference, and I hope and pray that it will have the same effect on some of you that it had on me. 
But I left that service with the call of God on my life to preach and the understanding that if I was 
obedient to God that God could use me in a mighty way. Just me. Just me. Just me alone. It wasn't 
going to take an army. Just me alone. So this passage has a very special place in my heart and so 
I'm looking forward and been looking forward to preaching it this morning when of course the Lord 
laid it on my heart to preach I was excited and thankful. 
I want to share a couple of things before we get into this passage of scripture though and share a little 
bit about our battle to stop Southern Decadence in New Orleans. We've been fighting the 
homosexual thing for a long, long time. We've been on the radio years ago just preaching about the 
agenda and most all the things we were warning the church about has come to pass. In just twelve 
years. And so we weren't, the Lord was using us if you will to fight this homosexual agenda for a 
number of years, and I guess there's a point in that, in that don't be weary in well doing. And he sees 
you fighting and laboring and struggling and being frustrated and so forth. Hang in there. You'll 
get your breakthrough. And so the Lord gave us a great breakthrough with this Southern Decadence. 
That's not to say we didn't have successes before. We would go to the City Hall. We'd cry out. We 
would go to the State Legislature and try to fight homosexual legislation. And you know we had our 
victories. The Lord helped us to do some things. But we got our breakthrough with this Southern 
Decadence. Now what happened with this Southern Decadence. Well first of all let me tell you 
what it is. It's a big homosexual festival where 100,000 homosexuals come in from all over the 
nation. They call it the "Gay Mardi Gras" and it's notorious for its lewdness and indecency and 
public sex and what you have is you have 100,000 homosexuals come in, 100,000 middle-aged, 
potbellied, bald-headed men running around in thongs with their full buttocks exposed on the streets 
getting drunk for three days on Labor Day Weekend. It's been going on for 32 years. In 2001, two 
years ago, I was in the French Quarter looking for some of the members of my church who were 
down there street preaching.  Got our communication line messed up, and I  ended lip with a friend 
of mine from Chicago who's down there with me, end up right in the epicenter of this Southern 

No.  2006AP396.Exhibit 1 
 
 
Decadence Festival and saw in the middle of the street, now I won't go into detail because I don't 
want to offend anyone, but just to put it mildly we saw an orgy in the streets, and they were doing it 
with impunity. No police presence whatsoever. Which gave me the impression that the police 
were making back room deals with them. District 8 Police Department in the French Quarter. 
Making back room deals with the homosexuals to let them go ahead and have their orgy in the street 
and their big party, and with impunity.  So I couldn't believe what was going on, and then I began 
to share what I saw for the next year and I would tell pastors what I saw and they would look at me 
and go nah. So I mean I knew what I had to do. I had to go down there and videotape it the 
following year if I was going to really make people, cause they weren't believing me, if I was going 
to make people believe me then I was going to have to show them.  So that's  what we did in 2002. 
We went down there and we videotaped them. About 30 or 40 minutes of an orgy in the street. We 
took it to the media. We took it to the police. We took it to the mayor. We took it to the City 
Council persons. We took it to pastors. The media went crazy with it. And it became immediately 
the talk of the town. We tried to seize the moment and had a little press conference a few days after 
the news broke.  Had about thirty people, eight to ten pastors, something like that.  The media gave 
it great coverage. The city was in an uproar. All over the talk radios and so forth. But it didn't go 
away after that. It didn't go away. The momentum kept on going. We kept on getting the video out 
there. There was something that was driving us, saying it's not over. It's not over. Keep this thing 
going. And so the momentum just kept on building so we had a rally about a month later. And at 
this rally we had about 25 pastors and 150 Christians on a Friday afternoon at City Hall. And so we 
started to see that God, we believe, was going to use this in a tremendous way. Got a call from the 
mayor. "Reverend Storms, I saw the video. I couldn't watch the whole thing. The mayor fine. Now 
what you need to do is you need to what you told me you need to get on my radio program and you 
need to tell it to the city." Now here's what happens with politicians. They want to tell you 
personally they're on your side. But they won't go public with it. So we demanded you got to go 
public with this and publicly denounce it and say you don't want it in the city any longer. He 
wouldn't do it. Then immediately after that I got a call from Captain Dabdaub of the 8' District 
Police Department and he's talking and "we want to work with you Brother Reverend Storms" blah, 
blah, blah. And I discerned what they wanted to do was kind of placate me so I would call off the 
dogs so to speak. So oftentimes they do that with our leaders. Here's what they do with the Pat 
Robersons and the Jerry Fallwells of the world. "Come to the White House." (Laughing) "The 
White House, the Oval Office?"  Remember  Gary  Bower a bunch of our pastors of Louisiana went 
to Washington and Gary Bower had them all over for dinner.  And Gary Bower said this to them 
when he said when he was working with the Reagan Administration, he saw some things that he 
didn't like. And he was praying at some pastors that would go through the Oval Office, would pull 
Ronald aside and say, "Hey, you're a good man overall, but blah, blah, blah". But here's what Gary 
said they would do. There's two things they wanted to do. They wanted to pray for Ronald Reagan 
and they wanted a picture with Ronald Reagan. (Laughing) You know we're not going to change 
our society if all we want to do is succeed so to speak to get to a place where we have a seat at the 
table. I don't want a seat at the table. I could care less if I have a seat at the table.  I want our society 
to change. So we didn't bow down to the mayor or the city or the police. We said look we want this 
thing ended and if you're not going to do something about it, we're going to pray to God to give us 
wisdom and understanding and give us ways to stop it. So we took the video to the state legislature. 
The City of New Orleans, worthless, gone. Given over to reprobate that city's gone. Alright we'll 

No.  2006AP396.Exhibit 1 
 
 
take it to the state. So we took it to the state legislature. It happened to be the Chairman of the 
Criminal Justice Committee. Said "Here's what we'll do Reverend Strong. We'll pass a law making 
it a mandatory ten day jail time for anyone convicted of public sex." He did. It passed 100 to 0 in 
the House. 37 to 0 in the Senate. The governor signed it, but more than that the national media went 
crazy over it. We were doing interviews in the New York Times, News Piece, or News Week did 
a big piece on us. It was Danny Martini was representing. Martini was on the Bill O'Reilly Show. 
The media went crazy. All over the state. So now all of a sudden. Why did you have a law like that. 
Well because of this video. Because of this video Reverend Storms gave me. So now it's all over 
the state. It's all over the nation, and the homosexuals are going crazy. It kicks in two weeks before 
the 2003 Southern Decadence. They're running around. Scurrying around. Handing out condoms 
with the labels on it. "Public Sex Equals Ten Days in Jail." So now the media is picking that up and 
it's going crazy and we're preparing for the 2003 and so here's what we decide to do. We're not 
going away. What we're going to do is we're going to have a rally. We're going to have a march. 
We're going to march right into the epicenter of this Southern  Decadence Festival, and we're going 
to get right in their faces, and we're going to say, "We dare you now to have an orgy in front of us" 
with our video cameras. "We dare you." We figured we bring the police (blah, blah, blah) in the 
media. So the police picked up on that. It was all over. We were doing interviews. You're going 
to march right in — we're marching right smack dab with hundreds  of Christians right in the middle 
of it. So the police (Laughing) Yeah. Come on. We understand you applied for a permit for the 
Armstrong Park and a parade permit. Now you know we can't give that to you. Oh yeah we knew 
that. We don't really want it. We just did that because we spoke to some lawyers with the Alliance 
Defense Fund who said just go ahead and do that and then we'll sue them when they deny us. 
(Laughing) The next day I get a call, "Reverend Storms all your fees on Armstrong Park were 
waived. You can have it. And also we got your parade route. We hope you like it. We're going 
to give you a police escort. All your fees are waived." How many police are going to be there. "Oh 
you're going to be better protected than the president, we guarantee you." (Laughing) "Oh we're 
going to have horse police officers or what do they call them —mounted police. We're going to have 
police cars. Police motorcycles. Motorcycle cops." It's all on the video. I encourage you to get the 
video. In other words they wanted, it was advantageous for them number one not to get sued by a 
bunch of radical Christians. And number two, they didn't want a riot to break out. So we had police 
protection.  And  they  gave us two blocks of Bourbon Street, which they don't do in New Orleans on 
a Friday night. Especially to Christians. So I'll tell you there was no greater thrill than to walk 
around, come down Conti Street which is a side street in the French Quarter. Come around on 
Bourbon Street with a police escort, motorcycle cops going by you on the street, with their sirens and 
you're singing  "Our God is an Awesome God" (laughing) and having people all over on both sides 
of the streets in the hard core section of Bourbon Steet (clapping) where all the, you know what's 
his name the guy with uh Larry Flint. His club's there. And heterosexuals looking at us with drinks 
in their hands, because you can drink on the streets in New Orleans, and they're like "What is going 
on here." And then to march right into the epicenter of the homosexual, not with the police escort, 
they stopped us a couple of blocks, but they knew we were going, they went in there with us and it 
was just awesome what the Lord did. I encourage you to get the video. ABC Prime Time covered 
us. Did a great piece. Eight minute piece. They played Monday night, all over the nation. We're 
getting calls all over the nation of what the Lord, or from people are inspired by  what we were able 
to do. Of course they're saying "Oh these guys are courageous down there."  We're not courageous. 

No.  2006AP396.Exhibit 1 
 
 
We're crazy. (Laughing) But we thank the Lord for the victory that he has given us and I am 
confident Brother Ralph we can win this thing. I am confident that we can turn this thing around. 
Now we started to take radio calls from all the Christians that were down there. We had 400 
Christians. 50% black, 50% white. All these pastors talking about racial unity and racial 
reconciliation, and trying to maneuver it and everything and bring it about. Look here. You want 
God. When you stand up against the enemy and go forward, all these things just fall into place. So 
Christians were excited, fired up, revived.  We're seeing reformation.  The  city is  beginning to take 
us serious now to changing things. There was no public sex. The crowds at Southern Decadence 
were down. The police presence was way up. (Blah, blah, blah) the arrests. Reformation is 
beginning and the church is revived in New Orleans and we're excited about what the Lord is doing. 
Turn in your Bibles now for just a moment. Keep your finger there in 1 Samuel 14. Let's go to 
Genesis 19 for just one moment. Let's go to Genesis 19 for just one moment. Because I'm likening the 
homosexual movement here to the Philistines, and I want to let you know that the homosexual 
movement today is very similar to the first one found in Genesis 19. In Genesis 19:4, I want to point out 
a few things here.  The Bible says in Genesis 19:4  "But  before they lay  down  the men  of the city 
even the men of Sodom can pass the house round both old and young all the people from every 
corner." The first point I want you to understand about this homosexual movement and the 
characteristic of the modern day homosexual movement which is similar to the first homosexual 
movement is number 1 this solidarity. There's an uncanny unity in solidarity amongst the 
homosexuals. It's almost unnatural when they go to a city. What do they do? They go to one 
neighborhood. One part of the city and they live there. And they're solidified. Man I'm telling you 
when you unite people, they're strong.  And the reason  I'm saying this is  because  I don't want you 
to underestimate this movement. I'm not saying fear, we can defeat it. But don't underestimate it. 
They are a group that are solidified. And you can see this in the old and young. Rich and poor. 
Black and white.  They're unified.  There's solidarity among them.  Not only that and it should teach 
us a lesson, we need to come together and unite. Verse 5 "And they called upon Lot or unto Lot and 
they said unto him 'where are the  men  which came  into thee this night bring them out unto us that 
we may know them. ' You know what it means to know them, they wanted sex. They're single 
minded. Not only are they solidified or have solidarity, they're single minded. One thing drives the 
homosexual movement. One thing. You know what that is? Sex. The festivals are about sex. The 
gatherings are about sex. Their entertainment is about sex. They have one thing and that's single 
mindedness. I'm telling you. I believe that's the reason why they have the successes that they've 
been having. They're solidified. They're single minded. Don't underestimate them. 
Another point here I want you to notice in verse 9 and they said "Stand Back". They said again. 
This one fellow came in to Sojourn and he who needs be a judge now we will deal worse with thee 
than with them and they  press so upon the man even Lot and they came in to break the door. They 
are a scornful people. They hate us. They have contempt for us. Stand back. Who are you to say 
you can't tell us what to do. Who are you to say which a sin. We need to understand that. Don't 
think you're going to tiptoe out there and say hey, repent. They will want to kill you. You would not 
believe, well you would believe the things that they've written about us and they've done and the 
threats and everywhere we go. We announce something on the radio that we're going to go 
somewhere and the streets are plastered with posters of my picture saying I'm this, I'm that, I'm the 
5 
No.  2006AP396.Exhibit 1 
 
 
other thing. They have contempt for the things of God and for anyone that would dare to stand up 
and their message is to us "Stand back. Get out of our way.  Who do you think you are to judge us." 
If you're a little timid and fearful, you better get the Holy Ghost on you. This is a scornful people. 
They are. They are. They are a scornful people. And then secondly in this passage I think you can 
see a stubbornness there. Stubbornness. We go up to the state legislature and we kill and crush and 
just and we kill their legislation. They had put billboards up and they'll get rally people and they'll 
have commercials and pass the employment non-discrimination act. All this discrimination is 
homosexualist, terrible, blah, blah, blah, and we go up to the legislature and we kill it. The next year 
they're back up there. They're back up there. And they just keep coming, and coming, and coming, 
and coming. They are a stubborn people and they don't care. They want to trample us. Look at. 
Here is a situation. Brother Ralph said it was a serious situation.  Here it is. It's us or them. There's 
no in between. There's no having this peaceful co-existence. They have to eliminate us and the 
Word of God if they want to succeed. It's almost like communism and capitalism. It's going to be 
one or the other. You can't have both. You can't peacefully co-exist. A nation divided can't stand. 
Either they're right, or we're right. Either we're going to succeed or they're going to succeed. Either 
it's going to be a homosexual, anti-God nation, or it's going to be a nation that stands for God and 
says that that thing is sin. It can't be both. Won't be both. Something's going to happen. Either 
they'll crush us and have laws and silence us and kill the ones that won't be silenced or imprison the 
ones that won't be silent, or the church or the Lord Jesus Christ will rise up and say this is a 
Christian nation. This is the way it will remain. Go back in the closet. 
All right let me preach here this morning. Let's go back to 1 Samuel 14. See Brother Grant. What 
are you trying to say. I'm trying to say this morning this. You alone can make a difference. You 
alone this morning can make a difference. I want you to go home with that, that, that thought. That 
you alone dedicated to God. Committed to God. Say it in your heart and in your spirit. Come and 
let us go over to the Philistine Garrison. Let's us go over to this homosexual movement. Let's us 
stand up against this homosexual movement. Wherever it may be found. Understand they're 
solidified. Understand their solidarity there. Understand their singleness in mind and purpose there 
and that they're strong and we shouldn't underestimate them. And understand they're scornful, and 
understand their stubbornness, but and with our God we can defeat them.  Now this first verse one 
of the characteristics we see and it's not bad. A lot of times we get mad saying things of the devil 
and it's not of the devil. It's of God. What do we see here in the first verse of 1 Samuel 14. 
Jonathan, what's his disposition here. I believe his disposition is frustration. Here you see the 
Philistines over there and we're going to get into the next verse here in just a moment. But he sees 
Saul and the army over here and the pomegranate tree. And he says "hey something's not right with 
this picture over here" and  so he's frustrated and and he says to his armor bearer essentially "Come 
on if anything's going to be done here we're going to have to go do it." And it's a divine frustration. 
So if you're frustrated about seeing the homosexuals taking over our nation.  That's a good thing. 
If the frustration is of God trying to prompt you up to say "Hey let's go do something". You alone 
can make a difference. So you see. Jonathan is frustrated here. And he says to his armor bearer 
"Come out and let's go do something." What added to his frustration.  Verse Number 2. Saul, in 
the outermost part of Gibeon under a pomegranate tree which is at Michon and the people that were 
with him were about 600 men. Well I likened that unto the church. You have Dr. Saul, a pastor of 
First Baptist Church, Assembly of God, Ph.D. DD. Hallelujah with his 600 disciples. Dearly 
6 
No.  2006AP396.Exhibit 1 
 
 
Beloved. We're going to dissect the Word of God here this morning. We're going to get into the 
Greek and the Hebrew and there's nothing against getting into the Greek and  the Hebrew.  Obviously 
he came from Dallas Theological Seminary. (Laughing) We're going to go over here and under the 
pomegranate tree so we're out of the way and we can have peace. And there's a Philistine camp over 
there, knocking our God, hating us, and ready to take over. Ready to take over their, the Philistine 
Army. There's a Philistine Army out there, it's called the homosexual movement. Whether you can 
see it or not, understand it or not, they want to eliminate us. This is no time to be under a 
pomegranate tree. Now this was the apathy army he had control of. And he had been enlisting the 
sissy soldiers. (Laughing) Now don't laugh. They would get up and they have worship and their 
song would be, their main theme song would be Tiptoe Through the Tulips. That's what they were. 
They were a bunch of Tiny Tims tiptoeing through the tulips. And that is the church today 
unfortunately. When we're supposed to be out to battle, when we're supposed to be battling the 
enemy, we're under some stinking pomegranate  tree  shaking in our boots.  That's where the church 
is. The church is hiding. The Christians are hiding. We get letters from pastors. Do we have any 
spare paper around here?  I like the sound effects of it. Good. Give me another one. Yeah give me 
the whole tablet. (Laughing) I had a Baptist pastor write me a three-page letter and so I said you 
know I got my radio program, and  said  you  know what  I'm not even going to read this because this 
is what I think of it. (Rips paper) That's what I think of your stinking letter. Don't write me any 
more letters, because I could care less what you say.  Now Brother  Grant that's being rude I know, 
but guess what, you know why I ripped it up? Because I know in my heart he never wrote a three-
page letter to the abortion doctor and said quit your abortions. He never wrote a three-page letter to 
some of these legislators that are pushing the homosexual agenda. He never wrote a letter to the 
ACLU saying quit defending the homosexuals.  He  never wrote  a three-page letter to the enemy, but 
he wants to write a three-page letter and he wants to straighten  us  out while  we're out there trying 
to stop this homosexual agenda from going forward. He that does a little five minute piece on a 
radio program, this particular pastor, and he reads history. He goes, oh yeah "And this day in 15 
something and Martin Luther nailed his 95 Theses",  and  I wrote him a letter  when we were going 
to do this Southern Decadence march. I said come and make history with us, it's a lot better than 
just reading history. You got two people out there. You got people that love history and love to read 
history. Hallelujah. And then you got people Hallelujah that rise up and say come and let us go and 
they make history.  And you determine, tell me  what you want to be this morning (clapping).  But 
if you're looking for some Christians to go with you to the battle.  Don't.  Don't,  initially, and hold 
on that word "initially". They ain't coming. They ain't coming. And I believe Jonathan was 
probably over there. And I can't, you know I'm just speculating here, it's not in the Word, but I 
imagine Jonathan's over there saying to some of  the  soldiers, maybe even to his dad,  "Come on, let's 
go get them. We can take them. Come on. Come on. I've been in prayer. As a matter of fact I was 
just on the phone with David and he said, 'yeah go get 'em' and then we got to finish our seminar." 
(Laughing) We're getting into several dispensations of you know whatever, some theological stuff. 
Dispensations. You know, here's the problem I have. I don't have problems with people studying 
deep the Word of God. It's that they don't apply it. They're hearers of the Word and not doers. But 
Jonathan was only trying to get them to go fight and  I'm  sure  they're saying, "hey wait a minute, let 
us pray about it." Hallelujah. I don't feel that. So he's frustrated and he's saying, "Come now, 
come on armor bearer, let's go and let's go take 'em."  So he goes.  That's the first thing we have 
to do. We've got to get out of the boats. We've got to decide we're going to get out of the boat. 
7 
No.  2006AP396.Exhibit 1 
 
 
We're going to move. We're going to go. Even though no one goes with us. And we're going to 
go, and we're going to do something great for God. I say I went to Bible School, I have nothing 
against Bible Schools, but the Bible School I went to outside of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, had upon 
its walls in the sanctuary "Attempt great things for God" on this side, big you know poster, and on 
this side, "Expect great things from God". Attempt great things for God, expect great things from 
God. So you got to believe God and go out there and believe that he's going to use you and step out of 
the boat. 
"Well Brother Grant no one will come. I put out a newsletter and no one will come." So what, go 
alone. You alone, my friend this morning, can make a difference. Verse 4, 1 Samuel 14:4 And 
between the passages  by which  Jonathan sought to go over unto the Philistine garrison,  there  was 
a sharp rock on one side, and a sharp rock on the other side." What's your interpretation of that 
Brother Grant? Well, it's very simple. Whenever you go out to do something for God and you step 
out of the boat, there's this narrow passage you're initially going to have to go through, it happens 
to everyone, where you get it on both sides. (Laughing) You look over here and there's a sharp rock, 
and you look over here and there's a sharp rock. You got the homosexuals screaming at you on one 
side, and you got the dead apathetic church screaming at you on the other side. You got your critics 
over here. That's right. You're going to have to, I believe God allows it to test you, to toughen you 
up a little bit before you get out there with the real enemy. But let me tell you what. When you go 
to do something for God, you step out of the boat, you're going to have to go through that narrow 
place where there's a sharp rock on this side, and a sharp rock on that side, where you're going to 
get it from everyone. You're going to have your well-meaning Christian friends saying, "Brother 
I don't think that's God. You're going down to videotape an orgy in the street.  Oh brother, you need 
to pray about that." And then you have your not so well-meaning friends telling you, "Brother I just 
want to tell you you're getting into flesh. You know you're too prideful, you're too arrogant, you're 
in the flesh." And then you have your critics, "You're not loving." So you're going to get it, but 
you're going to have to determine that I'm going to obey God. Look I believe in wise counseling, 
Christian counseling, but I'm telling you what. I narrowed it down to my wife (laughing). I just 
don't listen to my, I just don't listen to Christians anymore. They will try to talk you out of going 
and beating up the Philistine Army on your own. Go tell them. "What you learned from the 
conference there. I learned that I can take this homosexual community on my own. I can do it by 
myself. (Laughing) Now wait a minute now. I told you not to go to that conference." (Laughing). 
But you're going to have to determine that you're going to hear from God and you're going to get 
through that narrow path. How are you going to do it? How are you going to do it? What do you 
listen to? Go to Verse 7 real quickly. And his armor bearer turned to him, his armor bearer said 
unto him, "Jonathan do all that is in thy heart. Turn thee, behold I am with thee according to thy 
heart." Very few Christians are going to tell you, "Do what's in your heart." If that's in your heart 
and it's not sin, probably God putting that there, and it may sound crazy and wild to us, but God can 
use it. So do what's in your heart. You won't hear that advice. Well in seminary, in the Evangelism 
101 class what we've learned Brother Grant is if you do that then you're going to turn them off 
(Laughing) I don't listen to them anymore, those people. I don't listen to them ex-gay groups any 
longer. We went in, we went in a number of years ago to the, to the French Quarter during the gay 
pride weekend and they had a, there a, they had a dike march, the lesbians. That's what they called 
it, the dike march. So we announced it on the radio, we're going in there. I'm going to confront 

No.  2006AP396.Exhibit 1 
 
 
them. And praise the Lord, and so we got some of these "ex-gay groups" all excited. And so one 
of them got a hold of me on the phone and said, "Praise the Lord man, we want to go with you. 
What's going to be your approach?" I said we're just going to go in there and preach the Gospel, 
we're going to have some signs up, and then just go in there and deliver the Word of the Lord. "Oh 
praise the Lord. Can we go with you?" Yeah, yeah, yeah. "What are you going to put on the signs?" 
I said that's a good question you know because I don't want to get in the flesh and put something like 
that would be offensive or something like that on a big sigm So I said what we're telling all our 
people is this – just use scriptures. So we're going to go in there with signs like Jesus Said Repent 
or Parish. And she said, "Oh, you're going to turn them off Brother Grant. You got to go in there 
with love." That is love. That's the message of Jesus. As a matter of fact it was so loving he said 
it twice. (Laughing) He repeated it. 
You got these people that are ashamed of the Gospel so don't listen to them. So who do you listen 
to? Listen to your heart. Whatever is in your heart. Do it. He's with you. It's not sin. That's the 
way I look at it. And the wilder, the better in my opinion. (Laughing) That's right. And he's not 
going to use orthodox, he's not going to use, see, all this, look, all this petition, you know, I was able 
to be on a national program with Dr. Larry Bates during this  Ten Commandments stuff, and I was 
so fortunate and I didn't know what was going to happen. I tuned it in and trying to get the flavor 
of the program before, you know that I went on, and they had Jay Sekulow on there. And so Dr. 
Bates was taking Jay Sekulow to task on why wasn't he standing with Judge Roy Moore. Why was 
he saying he was disagreeing with him about his stuff. And so I'm listening to Jay Sekulow, and 
man I was so affected by him I was able to follow him. I said you know what, we're sick of the 
appeals. Jay Sekulow is like "We needed to appeal that, if he would have appealed that he probably 
would have had more credibility, blah, blah, blah." You know I'm sick of appealing all this stuff. 
Why do good people have to go to these stinking wicked judges and beg them to please do the right 
thing. No forget the appeals. Forget the petition. We've been petitioning for 20 years. Signing 
petitions for 20 years, making phone calls for 20 years. We've been begging bad legislators and bad 
judges to try to do the good thing. Enough is enough. My friend. Just start taking it to the streets. 
It's not we're going to, it's God, we have to pray and ask God, "God gives us ways that are going 
to work. Give us techniques that will give us results." It may be taking a video camera and 
videotaping them, a sex orgy in the streets to expose the enemy. And then taking it to the media, and 
then having a rally or march and going right in there and saying, "You're not going to our streets, 
Sodom and Gomorrah, you filthy sinners." "Brother Grant, why don't you have a meeting with the 
mayor?" I don't want to meet with the mayor. I want the mayor to stand up and say enough of this 
stuff. End Southern Decadence. I don't want to meet with him. I don't want to have lunch with 
these guys. We had a pastor that came out from one of these seminaries to the rally and he's being 
supportive and he told his church, and he's being supportive of all this stuff, and I was so thankful. 
And oh it was amazing. But praise God. We're going to get some of these guys to come on board. 
But I'm preaching and I'm hitting the mayor. I'm hitting the City Council. Then I hit the police 
superintendent, Eddie Compass. Eddie Compass enforced the laws.. This guy walks off. I didn't 
know it at the time. I heard a lady. He walks off And so some of his members told me later why 
he walked off He was saying that he was displeased with everything and the way it went and he 
didn't support it because he would have lunch with the police superintendent and he was trying to 
win him over to the Lord. The friendship evangelism. And so while he's been having lunch with 

No.  2006AP396.Exhibit 1 
 
 
this guy and they've both been putting on weight and pounds, they've been having an orgy in our 
streets. When are they ever going to get around and tell them to do something? Let me tell you 
what. When Moses went to Pharoah he didn't say, "Let's go to lunch. I want you to read a tract I 
wrote." (Laughing) When John the Baptist went to Herod he didn't say, "Look there's a nice diner 
down the street. Come on I'll buy you lunch. I'll be your friend. Jesus loves you." What are they 
learning in these stinking seminaries. And when you read through all the Old Testament, all the 
different ways God defeated the enemy, you know what, you can't find one place where he defeated 
the enemy the same way. It was always something different. He rained fire and brimstone on one, 
then he'd send this on another, and then he would do this on another, and he would have his people 
do this in another way. It's always different. So find out the different ways, find out what way God 
wants you to defeat the enemy. That's going to take fasting and prayer and laying on your face and 
interceding and trevailing in prayer. "Oh God, God, Lord speak to me.  Lay something in my heart. 
I know there's ways that you can defeat this army and stop this but Lord you've got to show me. 
You've got to show me. Give me a bombshell, give me a bomb oh God. Give me something Lord 
that's going to shake the city, and shake the state, and shake this nation. Oh Lord I need to hear from 
you, Lord. Lord prepare us down here. Lay something on the heart. A mandate, a plan, a strategy, 
a tactic." Go videotape the orgy and give it to the media. And don't tell any of your Christian 
friends because they'll all try to discourage you. Right. Do what's in your heart. He's with you. 
Some of you right now. You have these wild, crazy things you won't even tell anybody about. You 
have this plan and you can't get away from it. The Lord put that there. The Lord put it there. Go 
do it. You want to start this, or you want to start that, or you want to go do this, and it's like you're 
a little shy and you're a little reluctant. It's like, what will people think? Don't. Don't care. That's 
the problem. Jay Sekulow was on that program and he goes, what did he say, he was saying, oh man, 
he said something about oh Lord, he said something along the lines of confrontation. Oh man, I'm 
going to think of it in a minute. But we got to stop worrying about what people think. I don't care 
what they think. And I wish I could, I'm going to think of that in a moment what he said, and I just 
took off on it. I just took off on it. About convenient, confrontation, something along those lines, 
and it's like we've been trying to placate this world and do it the world's way and it's not working. 
It's not working. God help us. God give us strategy. We need some people that will get up with 
radical ideas and go forward in the name of Jesus. Now listen what he says in Verse 6. And 
Jonathan said unto the young man that bear his armor, come and let us  go  over  unto  the garrison 
of these uncircumsized. It may be that the Lord will work for us. For there is no restraint to the 
Lord to save by many or few. I just thought of what Jay Sekulow about now I just forgot it again. 
He said again about confrontation. It would have been less confrontational. I think, yeah basically 
what he was saying, less confrontational. We've been trying to do things less confrontational. Of 
the whole (___ ) and that's what we've been trying to do and not offend people. And it's not 
working. You know we wrote our petitions, we've made the phone calls. Now it's time to go to the 
streets in the name of Jesus. And we got to understand this one thing. We don't need the big 
numbers initially. We don't need the big numbers initially. It's for, there is no restraint to the Lord 
to save by many or by few. And that's a problem that we have in Christiandom is that we think the 
big numbers are going to give us the victories, and when we don't have them, what we start to do 
in our minds and start to reason and rationalize and say if I just compromise here, and if I just lay 
off the Catholicism here and if I just lay off here, and if I just lay off here, then these will come over 
and help us and our numbers will be bigger and we will have more strength and power. No, you'll 
 
No.  2006AP396.Exhibit 1 
 
 
be more deluded. Because you alone can make the difference. We were tempted to compromise 
with the Archdiocese. I took the Bishop a videotape a month earlier. I went right into his house. 
They invited me into the house. They invited me for lunch. I wouldn't stay of course, you know 
why. (Laughing) 1 Corinthians 5. A month earlier now we were out there with our group having 
signs that said "Thou shalt not have sex with little children." And he drove by and we waved. But 
apparently he didn't recognize me. When I went in there I gave him the tape. I just said "Here, the 
mayor's Catholic." They came out and took a strong stand. But we didn't have to beg them, we 
didn't invite them to the march. As a matter of fact they know our views. The newspaper wrote all 
about our calling the Catholic church satanic and demonic. Never said it wasn't. They asked us 
about it. Look, you go examine history. You go looj at the crusades. You go look at the 
inquisitions. You go look at the cover of the pedophile preacher. You determine for yourself 
We're not going to compromise it. But they came out anyway and said something. So we don't 
need to compromise our message because we have God. So it's not by many nor by few that the 
Lord is going to bring this victory. It's going to be you going forward with his blessing and his 
annointing. Don't make the mistake to try to get great numbers and then start compromising. Just 
go yourself initially. And then Verses 8-10 and for the sake of time I'm not going to go read all of 
that, but just go to the latter part of Verse 10 where it says and this shall be a sign unto us. In other 
words, they're saying look, here's what we're going to do. We're going to go show ourselves and 
if the Philistine garrison says "Hey come on over" we'll know it's a sign to go and get 'em. 
Confirmation is good. Now I know I just said hey be radical, the wilder the better, whatever God 
has in your heart go to it. But get confirmation along the way. I'm always looking for confirmation 
from God along the way. So don't be spiritually reckless. Don't interpret what I'm saying to be just 
some spiritual, spiritually reckless. See confirmation along the way by what God has been putting 
in your heart. And he will. He wants to confirm that you're on the right track. Matter of fact now 
I just tell all my critics you know why God put us on Prime Time? You know why God sent us that 
message across the nation? You know why God gave us an eight minute national commercial that 
probably would have cost us millions and millions of dollars, that we got for absolutely free? It's 
because what we did was right. We did it God's way. And only God could have ever been in this 
thing the way he did. So all you critics, guess what? God did this. And God did this because our 
tactics and our strategy and the way we went about it was right. He confirmed it, and confirmed it, 
and confirmed it, and confirmed it, so don't be afraid of confirmation. 
Now go to Verse 11, 12, go to Verse 12. Then the minute the garrison answered Jonathan and his 
armor bearer and said come up to us for he will show you a thing and Jonathan said unto his armor 
bearer come up after me for the Lord hath delivered them into the hand of Israel. What did he say? 
Come up after me for the Lord "hath" delivered them into the hand of Israel. He starts out divinely 
frustrated. He manifests a fearlessness, and you have to be fearless in this battle. God's not giving 
us the spirit of fear, but the power of love and a sound mind. We cannot be afraid of the enemy. 
Although we understand their power, we don't underestimate them, we recognize their strengths, we 
don't fear them, but my friend you're not going anywhere unless you have some faith in God. Let 
me tell you what I did before we went into the Southern Decadence rally and march in 2000, just this 
last Southern Decadence. I preached for seven Sundays on faith. Seven Sundays I preached on faith 
until I was so filled with faith, we don't have mountains in Louisiana, but if we did, I would have 
said all the men to the mountains be thrown into the sea. I mean I tell you what we need to have so 
  No.  2006AP396.Exhibit 1 
 
 
much faith in God, we need to understand that with God all things are possible. We had a brother 
that came into the church and he started to say, "Brother Grant you're never going to stop Southern 
Decadence" and before he even got it out of his mouth, I had my spiritual sword out, fooom,  I  took 
his head off, his spiritual head, and it was rolling down the aisle. Don't you tell me we can't stop 
Southern Decadence. Don't tell me we can't usher in revival. Don't tell me we can't turn this thing 
around. Don't tell me God can't restore righteousness in this nation. I don't want to hear it. You 
don't know my God. And don't go quote, don't let me ever hear you quote with God all things are 
possible, because you don't believe it if that's your attitude. My friends with God all things are 
possible. Brother Grant do you think we're going to have revival, a reformation, a third-grade 
awakening in America? I believe we can, and I believe we're going to. When the church stands up 
with faith, divinely frustrated, going forth in fearlessness, and starts to say to these mountains be thou 
removed and thrown into the sea, believe what they say and they will have it. When they start to 
understand that with God before us, who can possibly be against us? Hallelujah. When we start 
being strong in faith and calling those things that are not as though they are,  then God will move on 
our behalf. When we start going forward and saying God has delivered the enemy into our hands. All 
before the Southern Decadence thing,  people were asking  me how do you  think it's going to  go?  
How do you think it's going to go?  Man,  God is going  to give us a victory.  God is going to give us 
a victory. God is going to give us a victory. I don't know what you're reading in your Bible, but my 
Bible say he is able to do that which is exceeding abundantly, but Father we ask you to think 
according to the Power of the Holy Ghost that works in us. Exceeding abundantly above all. If he 
just said "All" it would have been great. If he would have just said "Above All" that would have 
been super duper. If he would have said "Abundantly Above  All" that would have been wheeeeww!! 
But Paul said exceeding abundantly above all that we pray about, think about, dream about. I don't 
know what you read in your Bible, but my Bible says that by faith they subdued kingdoms, wrought 
righteousness, attained promises, stopped the mouths of lions,  quenched the fiery darts of the wicked, 
and turned to fight the armies of the alien, women received their  dead back to life again because they 
had faith in God. He goes forward in faith believing God, saying it, declaring the Lord hath 
delivered the enemy into our hands. Let's go and whip 'em.  Us alone?  Yes. You alone? Yes. 13 
and 14 quickly. And Jonathan climbed up on his hands and upon his feet and his armor bearer after 
him and they fell before Jonathan and his armor bearer, came after him. And that first slaughter 
which Jonathan and his armor bearer made was about twenty men.  Wheeeww!!  Come on.  Let's 
go. God has delivered them all into our hands. Hallelujah! Boom, boom, boom, boom, boom. 
There's twenty. Whew. Ca-Ching. Yes. Glory. Glory to God. Let's go through the drive-thru at 
McDonald's and come back and get the rest. He had a willingness to fight. I'm going to tell you why 
pastors don't get out on the front line. Brother Ralph. Why pastors don't get out there on the front 
lines. Why they're not involved in fighting the abortion and homosexual issues and so forth. They 
don't have a willingness to fight. They don't want to fight. You got to have a willingness to fight. 
You got to have a willingness to fight. You got to want to get in there and scrap for God. I mean 
scrap with the devil for God. Just get in there and man, devil you're not going to do this to New 
Orleans. You're not going to do this to Louisiana. You're not going to do this to America. You 
know what my attitude was before I was saved,  when I would get into a fight.  You may whip me, 
but guess what? You're going to pay a price for it.  You may knock me out, but I guarantee it man 
I'm going to take your eye out. I'm going to pull, bite your ear. In New York we had that. You just 
could do anything you want. Just scratch. People say, "You're a sissy for scratching." So what, I 
12 
No.  2006AP396.Exhibit 1 
 
 
just dug your eye out. (Laughing) Call me a sissy all you want, you're going out with one eye. 
I mean I will do whatever I got to do to whip your behind, and you better kill me. You better kill me 
because I'll tell you what, five more minutes. That's what we got to have in this spiritual sense. 
Devil you can come, you can try to pass the homosexual marriage, and homosexual adoption, but 
I'll tell you what. You're going to be in for a fight. You can try to bring Southern Decadence in and 
have these homosexuals march up and down our streets and have an orgy in the street, but you're in 
for a fight. This was probably like the sermon for 4:00 rather than 8:30 in the morning, but anyway. I 
only had my one cup of coffee Brother Grant, don't scream. What are you saying? I'm saying you 
alone can make a difference. Verse 20. Excuse me. Yeah, Verse 15 and 16. And there was a 
trembling in the host in the field and among all the people the garrison, the spoilers, they also 
trembled and the earth quaked and so it was very great trembling.  They  started to go forward to beat 
the enemy and I'm telling you the enemy's camp was thrown into chaos. Let me tell you what, it 
doesn't take a lot to throw the enemy camp into chaos. (Clapping). I'm telling you what. When we 
got that videotape and we took it to the media and the media's playing it, I mean the homosexual 
community in New Orleans, whew, they didn't know what to answer. First they say it's only a few 
isolated cases. Then you have others saying oh it goes on all the time. Then you say it goes on all 
the time, all year long. You understand it. Then they're handing out, matter of fact they interview 
me and they say, "Reverend Storms what do you think about the homosexual community handing 
out all these condoms with little things on it saying, 'Public Sex Equals Ten Days in Jail' and posters 
and all this because they don't want people going to jail." I said, "Well they're admitting they were 
having a lot of public sex otherwise it wouldn't have been a big thing." They're all in chaos. I'm 
telling you what. You have some, you dare to get out there, out of your boat and get annointed with 
the Holy Ghost and believe God to do something, you're going to throw their camp into chaos. 
There will be a confusion. Jonathan and his armor bearer are going for taking out 20 men, a little 
tiny victory, oh you know you just did a little thing. That's right. But what about all the rest. 
Somebody went on the Internet and typed in Southern Decadence and our name and we're on like 
352 homosexual web pages because of one little thing we did in New Orleans, the whole homosexual 
community is "You got a pastor down there videotaping, in the barrooms and everything." They're in 
chaos. Now here's the good part. Verse 21 And Saul and all the people that were with him 
assembled themselves and guess what, they came to the battle. See initially you got to start out 
alone, but once they start recognizing, we started out with 30 at a press conference, 150 at a rally, 
400 at this last rally ( _____ ), I believe next year we'll have thousands, because why, because we're 
going to, and you shouldn't have to do this but we're going to strengthen the weak and the timid and 
they're going to say, "hey you're winning that victory, huh?" "Well maybe we can come over and 
help now." (Laughing) Hell we done sue all the people, you know all the tough guys, you can go 
take the wimps now. But praise the Lord, they came to the battle. They came to the battle. Verse 
21. Moreover the Hebrews that were with the Philistines, what were the Hebrews doing with the 
Philistines? They started to fight. You know what, they're backsliders we were down there 
preaching Bill Shanks. You know, how many know Bill Shanks? He's down there preaching during 
Southern Decadence and he recognizes ( _______ ) and it was down there and saw a male prostitute 
who had been in church for years and years. Hey you're a Hebrew. What are you doing in the 
Philistines' camp. And he began to weep and cry and boo hoo I hate my life. But Bill was man, let 
me pray with you. You need to get out of here. Come on man. Get back and serve God. He'll 
forgive you. He'll restore you. He's merciful. He's compassionate. The backsliders will come once 
 
2006AP396.Exhibit 1 
 
 
they see you leading the way and charge him. At Verse 22, and likewise the men of Israel, I like this, 
that were hiding themselves in the caves. What are you doing in the caves? I'm reading my Bible. 
(Laughing) I'm quoting, memorizing scripture. Well think about applying the Word. Be a doer of 
the Word. But they look. What's all that noise out there? Who's that radical preacher marching 
with his  broom down  Bourbon Street. I had a broom.  See and I have to ask people about that too. I 
said hey I'm going to take a broom. Moses had a staff. I'm going to take my broom, and I'm going to 
sweep up the French Quarter, the streets. What do you think about that? Oh Brother Grant that's not a 
good idea. You look goofy. After all the media put it on there, it was like the trademark of the whole 
thing. Oh that was a good idea, Brother Grant. Yeah now you said it. (Laughing) Right, now, now 
that was a good idea. Now, right. (Blah, blah, blah) that's why I don't listen to you guys. That's 
what I said. That's why I don't listen to you. I just, you know I pass things off and you tell me stuff 
and it goes in one ear and right out the other. I'm going to do what's in my heart. But all these people 
are coming out of the caves. They're hiding from the churches and their churches. Now they're 
coming out because you made a difference. Because you alone can make a difference. So the Lord 
save Israel. Good day. Good day. (Blah, blah, blab) 23 scriptures. Nice Bible Sunday School lesson, 
huh? But it's real. And the good news is that the same God that Jonathan served, we serve. And what 
God did for him, God can do for us. If we do what he did. God will do for us, what he did for 
him. 
 
 
 
2006AP396.Exhibit 1 
 
 
 
1