How to Waste the Judiciary's Precious Time On Ones Personal Ego...

 

 

STATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS

KENT, SC. SUPERIOR COURT

STEPHEN ALVES :

:

VS. : C.A. 2001-1030

:

HOMETOWN NEWSPAPERS, INC. :

d/b/a THE KENT COUNTY DAILY :

TIMES, ALAN G. PALAZZO, and :

WILLIAM PALAZZO :

 

DECISION VOGEL, J.   Plaintiff, Stephen Alves (Alves) represents the 19th Senatorial District in the Rhode Island General Assembly and also serves on the Town of West Warwick School Building Committee. Both Defendants, Alan Palazzo (A. Palazzo) and William Palazzo (W. Palazzo) are members of the general public residing in Kent County. A. Palazzo lives in the Town of West Warwick while W. Palazzo lives in the Town of Coventry.

 

On November 16, 2001, Alves filed a defamation suit against Defendants, A. Palazzo, W. Palazzo and the Hometown Newspapers, Inc. d/b/a The Kent County Daily Times (Daily Times).

 

The complaint is set forth in nine counts.

Count one alleges that A. Palazzo libeled Plaintiff in a letter to the editor of the Daily Times, which letter was published on October 1, 2001.

 

Count two alleges that W. Palazzo libeled Plaintiff in a letter to the editor of the Daily Times, which letter was published on  October 8, 2001.

 

Count three alleges that A. Palazzo libeled Plaintiff in a letter to the editor of the Daily Times, which letter was published on October 9, 2001.

 

Count four alleges that W. Palazzo libeled Plaintiff in a letter to the editor of the Providence Journal, which letter was published on November 5, 2001.

 

Counts six through nine allege that the aforementioned letters contained false and fictitious facts which placed Plaintiff in a false light before the public.

 

Count five alleges that A. Palazzo slandered Plaintiff at a Town of West Warwick School Building Committee meeting on September 26, 2001.

 

Defendants, A. Palazzo and W. Palazzo responded to the complaint by filing a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). Defendants contend that Plaintiff's complaint is barred by the Limits on Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation Act, the so-called anti-SLAPP statute, R.I.G.L. 9-33-1,

et seq.

 

The contested motion was first heard on January 28, 2002. At that time, the Court determined that the motion should be considered as a motion for summary judgment, not as a motion to dismiss. See Hometown Properties, Inc. v. Fleming, 680 A.2d 56, 63 (R.I. 1996).

 

The Court continued the motion to give the parties a reasonable opportunity to reply to it as a motion for summary judgment. Super R. Civ. P. 56; Laurence v. Sollitto, 788 A.2d 455 (R.I. 2002).

 

Defendants also based their motion to dismiss on the grounds that Plaintiff's complaint fails to set forth actionable claims against Defendants for either defamation or false light based upon the applicable statutory and common law.

 

While the motion for summary judgment was pending, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint.  The allegations in the amended complaint are unchanged except that Plaintiff identifies the specific statements contained in each letter that allegedly constitute libel and hold him in a false light…

 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the motion of A. Palazzo for summary judgment as to Counts one, three, six and eight is granted.  In accordance with the provisions of R.I.G.L. 9-33-2(d), Defendant is awarded costs and reasonable attorney's fees. Counsel for Defendant shall submit the appropriate affidavit and evidence of costs and fees incurred.

 

The motion of A. Palazzo for summary judgment as to Count five is granted.

 

The motion of W. Palazzo for summary judgment as to Counts two, four, seven and nine is denied without prejudice. Counsel shall present an order consistent with this decision.

 

Please take note that during the travel of this case Sen. Alves filed 19 specious motions and submitted 4 bogus affidavits (including one from Justice Frank Flaherty), and  he consistently refused to go to trial before a jury, an entity that he can't control as he does the Judiciary.

 

See Entire Transcript Of Judge Vogel's Decision:  CA01-1030

 

Next page      Home Page