Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Motion To Dismiss Filed by Roy Moore
Motion To Dismiss Filed by Roy Moore
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
2/5/2018 4:48 PM
03-CV-2018-900017.00
CIRCUIT COURT OF
MONTGOMERY COUNTY, ALABAMA
TIFFANY B. MCCORD, CLERK
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
MONTGOMERY COUNTY, ALABAMA
LEIGH CORFMAN )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) CASE NO: CV-2018-900017.00
)
ROY S. MOORE, and )
JUDGE ROY MOORE )
FOR US SENATE, )
)
Defendants. )
)
COMES NOW the Defendants, Roy Moore and Judge Roy Moore for U.S. Senate
and move to dismiss the Plaintiff’s Complaint for failure to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted pursuant to Rule 12(b)6 and as grounds therefore states as follows:
claim is permissible under Alabama law, it would violate the Defendants’ First
Amendment rights to refute, defend and deny claims made against a political candidate in
because it is based on speech which was made in defense of allegations made against the
FACTS
The Defendant, Roy Moore was the Republican senatorial candidate for the
special election to fill the vacancy for the office of United States Senate. On November
9, 2017, the Washington Post, while the campaign was ongoing, published an article,
based on interviews they had with the Plaintiff, Leigh Corfman and others which accused
Roy Moore of improper conduct with young females. (Complaint ¶ 11, fn.1). In
response, contrary to the Plaintiff’s allegation that the Defendant accused her, Roy Moore
stated, “These allegations are completely false and are a desperate political attack by the
National Democratic Party and the Washington Post on this campaign”. The campaign
further stated that if the allegations were true they would have surfaced during his
previous campaigns, adding this garbage is the very definition of fake news. (Id. see
fn.1). A review of all the articles and videos the Plaintiff has cited, shows that Roy
Moore or any authorized person from his committee ever said that the Plaintiff was a liar
or dishonest person, instead there were general denials the claims were false or untrue,
that these were events claimed to have been 40 years ago, and that Roy Moore didn’t
With respect to the Complaint that the Defendants filed on December 27, 2017,
the Defendant filed an action to enjoin the Secretary of State from certifying the results of
the special election for U.S. Senate on December 12, 2017 because of systematic election
fraud. (Complaint ¶ 67, fn. 17). The Complaint filed on December 27, 2017 alleged that
fraudulent ads were being run by a group called “Highway 31” which was funded by the
Democratic Senate Majority Pac. In the Complaint, Roy Moore also alleged that he had
2
DOCUMENT 56
against him during the campaign were completely false. (Affidavit attached to complaint
Within days after the December 12, 2017 special general election for
United States Senate, I agreed to a polygraph examination by a licensed
member of the Alabama Association of Polygraph Examiners, (“AAPE”),
whom I had never met previously. That examination concerned allegations
of sexual misconduct made against me during the last month of the
campaign by Leigh Corfman, Beverly Nelson, and Tina Johnson for
“alleged” conduct approximately 30-40 years ago.
BRIEF OF DEFENDANTS
I. Introduction:
Over 50 years ago the case of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254
(1964), 84 S.Ct. 710, 713, 717 arose from the Circuit Court of Montgomery County,
3
DOCUMENT 56
libel action brought by a public official against critics of his official conduct. Today in
the same Circuit Court the Defendants challenge whether the rule of law applied by
Alabama courts is deficient for failure to provide safeguards for first amendment rights of
a political candidate to defend himself from statements made to harm his reputation and
defend themselves against statements made which harm their candidacy, without the fear
of being sued for defamation if they rebut or deny the allegations, they as individuals,
especially those without significant monetary means, will be reluctant to become political
candidates.
sexual misconduct with Corfman. Unlike what she has alleged against him, Judge Moore
has laid no accusation of wrongdoing against Corfman. He has merely denied the truth of
her accusations and sought to defend his reputation against her attacks on his character.
For simply defending his good name against Corfman’s accusations, Judge Moore is now
defamation, then accusers of any stripe may with confidence hurl accusations of
4
DOCUMENT 56
wrongdoing against helpless targets who will be cowed into silence at the prospect of
having to defend a lawsuit for merely saying it didn’t happen. That cannot be the law.
Because a person should not be forbidden from defending his name at the hazard
of being sued for calling his defamer a liar, the law provides a qualified privilege of self-
Id., § 594 cmt. k (Am. Law. Inst. 1977) (emphasis added). The Alabama Supreme Court
has cited the Restatement as an authority in defamation cases. See McCaig v. Talladega
Pub. Co., Inc., 544 So. 2d 875, 877 (Ala. 1989) (citing Restatement § 558 as its source
for the elements of defamation); Walker v. Majors, 496 So. 2d 726, 728-30 (1986)
(quoting Restatement § 587 for the proposition that defamatory statements relevant to a
The right of reply to defamatory accusations has deep roots in the common law.
As Prosser and Keeton have stated, a “publication is privileged when it is ‘fairly made by
a person in the discharge of some public or private duty, whether legal or moral, or in the
conduct of his own affairs, in matters where his interest is concerned.’” The Law of Torts
§ 115 (4th ed. 1984) (quoting Toogood v. Spyring, 149 Eng. Rep. 1044 (1834)). A
nineteenth century treatise states: “Every man has a right to defend his character against
false aspersion. It may be said that this is one of the duties that he owes to himself and to
his family. Therefore communications made in fair self-defense are privileged.” William
5
DOCUMENT 56
Blake Odgers, A Digest of the Law of Libel and Slander *228 (1st Am. ed. Bigelow
1881) (quoted in Haycox v. Dunn, 104 S.E.2d 800 (Va. 1958). See also Conroy v. Fall
River Herald News Co., 28 N.E.2d 729, 730 (Mass. 1940) (stating that the privilege of
self-defense includes the right to “brand the accusations as false and calumnious” and to
In Monitor Patriot Co. v. Roy, 401 U.S. 265, 271, 272, 91 S.Ct. 621,624 (1971) in
giving higher deference to speech in a political campaign, the Supreme Court stated:
In Citizens United v. Federal Elections Com’n., 558 U.S. 310, 340, 130 S.Ct. 876,
For these reasons, political speech must prevail against laws that
would suppress it, whether by design or inadvertence. Laws that burden
political speech are “subject to strict scrutiny,” which requires the
Government to prove that the restriction “furthers a compelling interest and
is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.” WRTL, 551 U.S., at 464, 127
S.Ct. 2652 (opinion of ROBERTS, C.J.).
In the present case, the Plaintiff, Leigh Corfman was not a private person but
instead was an individual who injected herself into a political campaign and thus became
6
DOCUMENT 56
at the least a limited public figure. A limited public figure is one who voluntarily injects
himself or is drawn into a particular public controversy and thereby becomes a public
figure for a limited range of issues. Little v. Breland, 93 F.3d. 755, 757 (11th Cir. 1996).
The Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges that she was the subject of a Washington Post article
concerning Roy Moore, a well-known public figure, which was published during a
Surveying this area of the law, the Fourth Circuit identified certain conditions that
qualify the privilege of self-defense against defamatory accusations. The reply must not
disproportionate to the initial attack nor may it be excessive, namely addressed to too
broad an audience. Foretich v. Capital Cities/ABC, Inc., 37 F. 3d 1541, 1559 (4th Cir.
1994) (citing Restatement (Second) of Torts §§ 599, 603-605). The statements alleged to
be defamatory do no more than deny the accusations. They do not attack Corfman’s
character in any other manner. Therefore, they are relevant and proportionate to the initial
attack. Because Corfman’s allegations were published in a national newspaper, the reply
also was appropriately made to media outlets. Therefore, every statement alleged to be
defamatory falls under the self-defense privilege and the complaint fails to state a claim
Corfman’s theory that Judge Moore could not fight back against a verbal mugging
of his reputation because his resistance could harm the mugger is absurd. Just as a
mugger cannot bring an assault charge against his victim for fighting back, so Corfman is
not entitled to sue Judge Moore for merely defending himself against her attacks on his
7
DOCUMENT 56
character. This case must be dismissed in its entirety under the privilege of self-defense
In Section C (¶¶ 67-75) of the Complaint, Corfman alleges that the words “false
filed in this Court on December 27, 2017, were “untrue and defamatory.” Those three
words consist of the word “false,” which is a simple denial and the word “malicious,”
which is a protected opinion. But regardless of whether the three words “false and
malicious” would be actionable standing alone, they are absolutely privileged in the
affidavits, or other papers used in the course of the prosecution or defense of an action.”
O’Barr v. Feist, 296 So. 2d 152, 157 (Ala. 1974) (citation omitted). The only limitation
on the privilege is that “it extends only to such matters as are relevant or material to the
litigation.” Id. The Court has cited for the same proposition a passage in Restatement
(Second) of Torts (1977): “‘A party to a private litigation ... is absolutely privileged to
or during the course and as a part of, a judicial proceeding in which he participates, if the
matter has some relation to the proceeding.’” Walker v. Majors, 496 So. 2d 726, 729
(Ala. 1986) (quoting Restatement, § 587). See also Drees v. Turner, 45 So. 3d 350, 359
8
DOCUMENT 56
(Ala. Civ. App. 2010) (stating that “under Alabama law, a claim or civil damages may
not rest on pertinent statements made in the course of judicial proceedings”); Blevins v.
W.F. Barnes Corp., 768 So. 2d 386, 393 (Ala. Civ. App. 1999) (applying “some relation”
test of Walker).
In her Complaint Corfman quotes the statement in Moore’s election complaint that
misconduct made against him during the campaign are completely false.’” Complaint, ¶
68 (quoting election complaint, ¶ 22). Corfman then states: “This allegation has no
relevance to the relief that Defendants seek for the purported ‘election fraud.’”
By these statements, Corfman seeks to evade the absolute privilege for statements
made in a judicial proceeding by challenging the relevancy of the polygraph test to the
complaint, which states that Judge Moore “submitted to and completed a polygraph test
that disproved the allegations of misconduct made against him,” falls within the second
cause of action for injunctive relief to investigate election fraud. The polygraph test is
relevant as evidence that the attacks on Judge Moore’s character were fraudulent. The
charges of election fraud in the December 27 complaint were not limited to questions
about the counting of ballots. They extended also to advertisements run by the
Democratic Super PAC, Highway 31 “which included running fraudulent, false and
9
DOCUMENT 56
Thus, Judge Moore’s polygraph affidavit has at least “some relation,” Walker, 496
So. 2d at 729, to the charges made in the complaint. Because the absolute privilege for
fit does not have to be perfect. Accordingly, “all doubts are resolved in favor of its
relevancy or pertinence.” Walker, 496 So. 2d at 730. Under that standard, even if the
relation between the statement in the affidavit that the attacks on his character were “false
and malicious” and the election-fraud complaint is doubtful, which Judge Moore does not
concede, the absolute privilege still holds. In fact, the affidavit is directly related to the
general theme of election fraud, including false charges made in Highway 31 ads. The
polygraph test is evidence of the falsity of ads that attacked Judge Moore’s character.
496 So. 2d at 730. Because the statements about the polygraph test in the election-fraud
complaint must be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
OF COUNSEL:
Kenneth Shinbaum (SHI006)
Julian L. McPhillips, Jr. (MCP004)
MCPHILLIPS SHINBAUM, LLP
516 South Perry Street
10
DOCUMENT 56
Montgomery, AL 36104
Telephone: (334) 262-1911
Facsimile: (334) 263-2321
[email protected]
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on February 5, 2018, I electronically filed the foregoing with the
Clerk of the Court using the ALAFILE system, which will send notification of such filing to the
following registered persons, and those persons not registered with the ALAFILE system were
served by email:
Harlan I. Prater IV
[email protected]
Melody H. Eagan
[email protected]
Jeffrey P. Doss
[email protected]
LIGHTFOOT, FRANKLIN & WHITE, LLC
The Clark Building
400 20th Street North
Birmingham, AL 35203
Telephone: (205) 581-0700
Facsimile: (205) 581-0799
Neil K. Roman
[email protected]
Clara J. Shin
[email protected]
Megan L. Rodgers
[email protected]
COVINGTON & BURLING, LLP
620 Eighth Avenue
New York, NY 10018
Telephone: (212) 841-1221
11
DOCUMENT 56
12