Opinion ID: 1601643
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: the trial court's directed verdict.

Text: The trial court ruled on the defendant's motion for a directed verdict in December 1986. It approvingly cited the newly released Supreme Court decision in Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc v Hepps, 475 US 767; 106 S Ct 1558; 89 L Ed 2d 783 (1986). From Hepps, the trial court extrapolated that [w]here allegedly defamatory speech is of public concern, the First Amendment demands and Michigan law requires that the plaintiff, whether public official, public figure, or private individual, prove the statements at issue to be false. The trial court then held that the plaintiffs have failed to prove the publications at issue contained significantly false facts, and a verdict must be directed for the defendant. The trial court further stated that [i]nsinuation, imputation, or inference may be as defamatory as a direct unveiled assertion. The trial court nevertheless concluded that liability cannot be imposed for journalistic inferences arising from the reporting of true facts about matters of public interest and concern. The plaintiff must prove the false impression arises from untrue, or undisclosed facts. The trial court then compiled a fourteen-paragraph list of facts that it found are true; or, at least, [that] the plaintiffs have not proven them to be false. The court concluded: [1] Plaintiffs purchased Pine Knob from individuals who had been indicted by a federal grand jury for concealing their ownership interests in a Las Vegas hotel. [2] Plaintiffs' names appeared on the organized crime lists of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. [3] Plaintiffs were personal friends of, or had done business with, innumerable individuals whose names are commonly associated with organized crime, including Leonard Schultz, Dominic Corrado, Joseph Burnett, Fred Gordon, James Tamer, Charles Goldfarb, Harvey Leach, Charles Monazym and Jack Tocco. [4] In the course of their investigations, agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation spoke with plaintiffs' bankers and referred to plaintiffs' as crooks. [5] A federal grand jury indicted plaintiffs on three counts of filing false statements on a loan application made to Detroit Bank & Trust. [6] Plaintiffs pleaded guilty in federal court to giving false information on an application for a loan, in violation of Federal law. [7] The bulk of the financing required to develop Pine Knob occurred after the publication of the 1972 Detroit News Article that plaintiffs claim caused all their problems. [8] Plaintiffs' names surfaced in the investigations of both the Agnes Brush and Harvey Leach murders. The Detroit News, in its coverage of those two investigations, never identified plaintiffs as suspects, but the Detroit News did identify (at that time and in the 1979 series) a 61 year old laborer as the only suspect in the Agnes Brush murder. [9] Plaintiffs told the Federal Bureau of Investigation in 1973 that they were already then tired of hearing rumors that organized crime was connected with their business. [10] Plaintiffs furnished a legal memorandum and statements by their attorneys confirming for The Detroit News their allegations that the Federal Bureau of Investigation had harassed them by visiting their lenders and bankers from 1973 through 1977. [11] Joseph Locricchio admitted in previous testimony and in this trial that he knew of the Federal Bureau of Investigation['s] special interest in James Tamer and of the agency's investigation into hidden ownership of the Aladdin Hotel and Casino before he went to Las Vegas at James Tamer's request. [12] Despite speculation to the contrary, the only evidence on record shows plaintiffs were turned down in 1976, well before the complained of publications, for loans because of high living, a reputation that they were not prompt with payment of their debts, and rumors of organized crime involvement. No evidence has been introduced, and no banker has testified that they relied on the complained of publications in turning down plaintiffs' loan applications. [13] Plaintiffs admit a separation between themselves and their primary lender, Borg Warner, for acts prior to May, 1978 and resulting legal actions in which plaintiffs attributed millions of dollars in damage to the businesses to Borg Warner. [14] Plaintiffs admit filing a lawsuit against the Hilton Hotel chain, The Reminder Newspaper, and several individuals, blaming them for the defeat of the referendum that would have allowed plaintiffs proposed hotel and for causing plaintiffs $100,000,000 in damages.