Last Friday, December 18th the Seventh Circuit gave a stimulating opinion tackling about the libel injunctions in McCarthy v. Fuller. The judges were divided over whether the district court should be able to adjust the ruling.
According to The Indiana Lawyer, Kevin McCarthy and Albert Langsenkamp prosecuted Patricia Ann Fuller and Paul Hartman after a falling out between McCarthy, Langsenkamp and Fuller in a business transaction.
Fuller, is a religious sister before, (an issue previously addressed by the 7th Circuit) owning assets that has been given to her by another nun concerning Our Lady of America. McCarthy and Langsenkamp helped to spread the word about the Virgin Mary's appearance in Rome City, Indiana, in the 1950s, and in appreciation, Fuller gave them a statute and other artifacts of Our Lady.
After what happened, Hartman, a retired postal inspector, came to Fuller's aid by initiating a campaign to smear McCarthy and Langsenkamp's reputations, including through writing on a blog. The two parties ended up suing each other on many claims, including copyright infringement and defamation.
Washington Post stated that the Plaintiffs claim that the following statements were made by the Defendants and was defamatory:
1. McCarthy, an attorney in good reputation, recommended that Jim Whitta's name be forged on a quit claim deed.
2. The Plaintiffs pay off various members of the Clergy.
3. McCarthy physically threatened Fuller.
4. The plaintiffs took the Latrobe Statue, the Crucifix, the Plaque, and the Medallions.
5. Langsenkamp stole the websites ourladyofamerica.com and ourladyofamerica.org.
6. The Plaintiffs stole $750,000 in proceeds from Fuller's Key Bank Stock.
7. Langsenkamp was involved in a car chase in which he chased Fuller around Fostoria.
8. The Plaintiffs used the name "Ron Norton" in an provocative e-mail conversation that was first issued by Hartman on his website, ourladyofamerica.blospot.com.
9. McCarthy, without the awareness or consent of Fuller, caused a will to be drafted for Fuller in which she left the Devotion to McCarthy.
Electronic Frontier Foundation reported that the Seventh Circuit didn't go as far as they liked. It reportedly declined to address whether the said offense can ever be enjoined and recommended that injunctive relief might be existing in defamation cases as a way to deal with repeat offenders.
However, it did strike down the exact permanent injunction challenged in the case as an unconstitutional prior restraint on speech. The court found it to be "so broad and vague" to the point that it threatened to silence the defendants entirely, and cited that it was a "patent violation of the First Amendment."
Writing for the Seventh Circuit, Judge Posner sent back the case to the district court to checkif it could figure out some way to solve the error in the jury form without retrying the whole case.
Judge Diane Sykes on the other hand, voted to not allow Lawrence to have an opportunity to correct the errors. He reportedly shouldjust issue an amended judgment without the flawed injunction.
