Court Opinion

ID: 9690609
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 19:26:16.084495+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:04:03.056527
License: Public Domain

BRENNAN, J.
¶ 27. (concurring). I concur in the majority's result but disagree with their conclusion that DeBraska failed to state any true facts.1 I conclude that *407in his second letter to Chief Hegerty, DeBraska partially complies with the statement of true facts requirement of Wis. Stat. § 895.05(2). Even assuming, as DeBraska asserts, that substantial compliance with the statute is all that is required, his statement of what is false is not direct and clear. His statement of true facts is only partial. Accordingly, DeBraska's notice does not comply with the notice requirement of § 895.05(2).
¶ 28. Wisconsin Stat. § 895.05(2) requires the libeled person to:
first give those alleged to be responsible or liable for the publication a reasonable opportunity to correct the libelous matter. Such opportunity shall be given by notice in writing specifying the article and the statements therein which are claimed to be false and defamatory and a statement of what are claimed to be the true facts.
(Emphasis added.) For notice to be sufficient under the statute, DeBraska must specify both the alleged false statements and then the true facts, rebutting the false statements. The degree of specificity must be enough to give the person responsible a reasonable opportunity to correct. Id.; see also Hucko v. Jos. Schlitz Brewing Co., 100 Wis. 2d 372, 383-84 & n.9, 302 N.W.2d 68 (Ct. App. 1981).
¶ 29. In his July 2006 Milwaukee Magazine article, "See No Evil. . .," Chandler wrote two paragraphs making specific assertions about DeBraska's actions at the scene of the Jude beating:
In the predawn hours of October 24, 2004, as a police van took Frank Jude Jr. to a hospital, Bradley DeBraska crept around the crime scene in Bay View with a finger to his lips, hushing up the off-duty cops who would later be charged with beating Jude to a pulp.
*408At one point, DeBraska, then head of the police union, yelled at the officers to keep their mouths shut and hustled them indoors, where, according to Police Chief Nan Hegerty, he instructed them to lock out investigators and change their bloody clothes.
¶ 30. DeBraska wrote two letters dated August 1, 2006, demanding a retraction. One letter was addressed to Chandler at Milwaukee Magazine and the other was addressed to Police Chief Hegerty. Each letter was copied to the other recipient. DeBraska hand-delivered both letters (the one written to Chandler and the carbon copy of the one written to Police Chief Hegerty) to Chandler at Milwaukee Magazine's offices.
¶ 31. In the letter to Chandler, DeBraska basically utters a general denial of any criminal activity, but imbeds the denial in a sentence that begins with an accusation of poor investigation by Chandler: "All of the information available to you would have certainly provided enough factual basis [sic] that I in fact did not engage in the criminal misconduct you allege in your article." The result of that sentence structure is that the statement is not a clear denial, and it is not a clear statement of what is false. He basically denies criminal misconduct. He does not specify the precise statements that are false. Nowhere in the letter to Chandler does DeBraska make any statement of his version of the true facts. So, if this were the only letter considered, this notice would be totally insufficient under Wis. Stat. § 895.05(2).
¶ 32. But for reasons not entirely clear in the record,2 the trial court considered the second letter to Chief Hegerty as part of DeBraska's notice, even though it was not attached to the complaint. In the letter to *409Chief Hegerty, DeBraska never directly states what was false in Chandler's article but does offer true facts to Chandler's first paragraph. Nonetheless, he fails to comply with the statute because he does not specify both the false statements and the true facts.
¶ 33. In the letter to Chief Hegerty, DeBraska indirectly states what he claims are false statements from Chandler's second paragraph: 'You indicate through your statements that I yelled at officers to keep their mouths shut, hustled the officers indoors, instructed the officers to lock out investigators and change their bloody clothes." But again, he does not expressly state that those allegations are false. He is simply repeating what Chandler said. Two sentences later he states that if Chandler's comments were factual, he (DeBraska) would have been arrested. This is an implicit denial. However, that is not the same as specifically asserting that the comments were false, which is required by the statute.
¶ 34. DeBraska never offers his version of true facts to rebut Chandler's second paragraph. He never says what he was doing when he was on the scene. Chandler is not specific as to time. Chandler begins this second paragraph, "At one point. . .," but does not narrow the time frame. So, DeBraska's failure to offer the true facts to rebut these claims is excusable perhaps in that it would be difficult for him to know at what point in time Chandler was referring. But even so, the statute requires DeBraska to at least clearly deny the claimed activities, which DeBraska did not do here.
¶ 35. As to Chandler's first paragraph, DeBraska does make one clear statement later in the letter to Hegerty which he contends are true facts: "Incidentally, when Mr. Frank Jude was transported to the hospital I was sleeping, not 'creeping around the scene on Ellen *410Street holding a finger to my lips hushing up the off duty Police Officers.'" This does rebut Chandler's first paragraph and complies with the statute with regard to the statement of true facts. But again DeBraska fails to state directly and clearly what he believes to be false statements. It is implied in his statement of true facts, but implied only.
¶ 36. Thus, DeBraska's notice, although it does state some true facts, falls short of specifying both false and true facts as required by Wis. Stat. § 895.05(2), Accordingly, I respectfully concur.

 See majority opinion at ¶ 2: "We agree, based on our conclusion that the retraction demand did not include 'a statement of what are claimed to he the true facts.'"

 See Majority opinion,! 5 n.4.