Supplemental Brief — Beatty v. Ellings

Supreme Court brief1970

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

SUPREME COURT, U. S. FILED

- | MAY 13-1970

JOHN F. DAVIS, CLERK

Fi eowyoise wees ee

seemed

In The

Supreme Court of the Anited States

October Term, 1969

No. 1374

MARTIN A. BEATTY,

: Petitioner,

; VS. 5

RANDOLPH K. ELLINGS, CITY OF WINONA, HOUSING AND REDE-

VELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF WINONA, GEORGE M. ROBERTSON,

JR., JAMES BRONK, MARLOWE BROWN, JAMES McCABE, HAROLD

BRIESATH, DANIEL BAMBENEK, HENRY V. PARKS, MURIEL |OL-

LOM, JIM D. MOHAN, HAROLD THIEWES, JAMES V. STOLTMAN,

NEIL SAWYER, BARRY NELSON, DAVID L. JOHNSTON, DONALD

KLAGGE, JERRY BORZYSKOWSKI, ALLYN S. MORGAN, JR., L.| W.

GOLDBERG, N. J. FISCHER, JOSEPH E. KRIER, WM. J. THUROW,

FRANK CUNNINGHAM, WM. O. FINKELNBURG, E. J. SIEVERS,

PHILIP BAUMANN, JAMES T. SCHAIN, NORMAN E. INDALL, WM.

F. WHITE, JAMES FOSTER, JERRY PAPENFUSS, FRANK G. MERTES,

DONALD ‘GRAY, HOWARD KELLER, REPUBLICAN HERALD PUB. .

LISHING COMPANY, JAMES B. GOETZ, RADIO STATION KAGE,

GEM RADIO STATIONS CO., JAMES B. GOETZ, MERLIN J. M Y-

THALER and REX N. EYLER, co-partners, doing business as WINONA

BROADCASTING CO., KWNO BROADCASTING CO., CHAMBER | OF

COMMERCE OF WINONA, DONALD STONE, and ‘ARNOLD STOA,

bse

PETITIONER'S SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF PURSUANT TO

U.S. SUPREME COURT RULE 24, SUBSEC. 5 «. 4

Of Counsel for Respondents: JOHN A. COCHRANE

C. STANLEY McMAHON ‘Suite 830, Minnesota Building

‘Professional Building St. Paul, Minesota 55101

Winona, Minnesota 55987 ; Phone: 612-224-7505 Pye ef

Phone 507-454-1594 _ Attorney for Respondents

R. P. BROSNAHAN MARTIN A. BEATTY, Pro Se

68 East Fourth Street 116 Center Street

Winona, ‘Minnesota 55987 ‘ Winona, Minnesota 55987

Phone 507-454-2925 Phone: 507-454-1818

1970—Northwest Brief Printing Co., 322 S. Fourth St., Minneapolis 55415

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Constitution end Statutes: Page

1, S. Constitutionel Amendment I... 1

4. S. Constitutional Amendment V... 1

",. S. Constitutionel Amendment IX.. 1,10

U., S. Constitutional Amencment X... 10

N, S. Constitutional fmendment AIV. 1,13

‘Administrative Procedure Act of 1946,

' © BS Ceks Sec. LOOZ +e veeeeseeeeee 4

Freedom of Information Act, :

5 7 =~ ¥ Ges Sec. basse bs £068 oon A

‘Cases: |

Acord v. Booth, 33 Utah 279, 93 P.734

ANlphen v. Shadmen, 339 Mess. 69, 116

barnes. v. City of New Haven,

-140 Conn. 8, 98 A.2d S25... eeevee

Seecon Journel Publishing Co. v. Akron,

2 Ohio St.2¢ 191, 209 N.&.2d 399.. hae

Boerd of Public Instruction of Broward

' County.v. Doran, 224 So.2d 695,

(Fla. nD RPS rare aetee arena re as 2

Boyd v. United Stetes, 116 U.S. 616,

635, 6 S.Ct. 524, 29 L.Ed. 746, 752 7

New ‘York Times’ v. "Sulliven (1964),

“$76 U.S. 254, 84 S.Ct. 719,11 L.£d.2d

686, Tai eR aa Mange pier eee ts ae 17

Pierson v. Ray, $86. U.S. 547, 87 S.Ct.

2213; 16 L.8d.2¢ LBB. ccrcepevsccce 6

Providence Journal v. 'cCoy, 94 F. Supp.

°166, 99 F.2¢ 769, cert. den. 342 I'S.

694; 72 S.Ct. 299, 96 L.Ed. 119... \ 12

Turk v. Richerd, 47 So.2d 543

N.E.2d _ Spe ioreiyre ies : 2

(Fls * 1950) ere ° ee i 2.6 .82.2.9 : *- ’° . , ee l

Rey v. Pierson J¢6 1.5, 547, 87 S.Ct.

1213, 16 L. &d 2a ROG, cccevestecerst 6

The Lssociated Press v. National Labor

Heleations Board, (1937) 301 U.S. 103;

57 S.Ct. 650; 61 L.Ed. 958, 968.n- a

——

pelt, A ls ne oe ee Seen

Pege

‘ial ‘Publishing eeaas v. Williams,

'« 222 So.2d 470. (Fle. 1969)....+5- dy

Turk v. Richare, 47 So.2d 543 :

(Fla. MAEO)s «sate seresevareries |

acted

G41 l1mor and Barron: Mass Communica-

tion, 1969, West Pub. Co., Ch. V,

BOG. 2, Pe BBSecccpecscvvercrcce

Siebert, The Rights and Privileges of

the Press, 1934, D. Appleton-Century

Co., i ES wer ree Peer eer ;

* Swindler, Problems of Law in Journal-

ism, 1955, The MacMillan Co., Chapt.

III - Freedom to Gather News.... 4,

Thayer, Legel Control of the Press,

1956, Srd ed., The Foundation

PPOBB, SOC. SO. cccciccocsvcvcsetceos, 5,

Secondary Authorities:

.16 Americen State Trials, 17 et seq. .

Trial of John Peter Zenger, 1753. 6,

Open Meeting Statutes, The Press

Fights for the Right to Know,

75 Wervard L.R. 1199, 1200...c.6.

9 Writings of James Madison 103,

Hunt Ed. 1910. Trerrereee ee cece 7

Ae END GTN

Summery of Arguments .

s.)

"ABLE OF CONTENTS

fe Page

Respondents have feiled to meet

petitioner's sargunents supporting

the position thet whether or not

a Citizen may attend ell meetings

of the local public bodies raises

ae federsl constitutional question.. 1

Respondents! argument. concerning

access to public documents is

contrary to the factsS.....cceccee 9

Respondents! argument that peti-

tioner is a "public figure" within

the fecéral rule is untenable... 13

. The respondents distorted sup- .

plementery fact summaries ere not.

helpful to an understanding of the

facts nor in the isoletion of the.

fecerel ey | errr rr reo ee re 20

Appendix Ge ere eveeee Ser rr ere App. Cel

PETITIONER'S SUPPLE: ENTAL BRIE PURSUANT

TO U. S. SUPREI® COURT RULE 4, SUBSEC. 5, & 4.

ARGUMENT

1. Right of a Citizen to _ettend all meet-

ings. of the local public body.

Hespondents while chiding petitioner

en framing "His Own Definition of What a

Public Meeting Is," have cited no case dis-

cussing U. S. Constitutional Amendments I,

V, IX or XIV as they relate to the asserted

right of the people to attend the meetings

of the local public bodies. |

The five state court decisions resvond-

"fl

ents: cite (R.4) interpret state statutes.

In Acord v. Booth (1208) 33 Uteh 279,

.93 P 754 the Citizen pleintiffwho wes re-

moved by 6 mershel from a “committee of the

whole," recovered nominal deweoee for humi-

ifation and for being Geprivedc of his right

to ettend. The holding in Turk v. Richard,

47 So.2d 543 (Fla. 1950) has been explained

in Times Publishing Company v. Jilliams,

222 So.2d 470 (Fla. 1969) and in Board of

Public Instruction of Broward County v.

Doren, 224 $0.24 693, (Fla. 1969), Siien

ing the subsequent enactment of Florida's

"Jovernment in the Sunshine Law." Both of

the 1969 decisions ruled egainst secret

executive sessions. In the later case the

Florida i cen Court enjoined (p. 700)

"ony meeting ab canieoalne session

+ 4+ at which ere held any discus-

sions on matters pertaining to the

Cuties and responsibilities of the

Boerd # 2%."

Ns distinguished in petitioner's

tepiy Brief before the Minnesote Supreme

Court, Beacon Journal Pub. Co. v. fkron,

3 Ohio St.2d 191, 209 NE2d 399 was con-

cerned crimerily with the origin of the

powers of the different public bodies.

. In Barnes v. City of New Haven,140 conn.8,

98 A2d 523 "the funderental question

for heoteien as stated at p. 527 was

Mehether the perking project. is a“ legiti-—

mate public purpose.” There no one was

“ prevented from attending eny nesting, and

it aphetirs doubtful thet the cause was a

truly adversgry proceeding. Alphen v.

Shelia Mae: Mane 60; 116 NE2¢ 252 was

about money, 8 comission,’ not about

“civil rights.

Whether by premising e Citizen's

right to ettend ell of the meetings of

the.1acal public bodies upon sections of

the federal Bill of Rights constitutes

the novel approach to the problem that

respondents suggest, is immeterial. ‘Pe-

titioner's position is merely an appli- 7

cation of the so-called "Right to Know,". |

espoused by James Madison, and other

euthorities following: .

Thayer, Laxe?: Control of the Press,

1956, Srd ed., The Foundetion Press, |

Sec. 30:

P .

. .

* .

s .

é oe . —

. >.

® .

. .

—eeeeeeeeeeeeeee

™ .

then |

rhe rijht to report {s of course

dependent. upon the abtlity to rather

news, Obviously, the United Stetes

Constitution ¢oss pot ¢iye one the ~

spectf@*l?¢ riyht to collect news, how-

ever, there 1s no prohibition; the

severel stote censtitutions give no

more than the freedom to speak ‘and

write what one pleases; the right’

to pathor end report news, so vital

to the press, {ts yvrented {uferen-

tlally. Leyelly, the rights not Tak: Satine

Erented’ to the Fedéral Governnent

“are reserved to the states or to the

pyople, end so the right to pather

news renains with the people,"

W11limor aud Parron, Mass Communtea-

tion; 1969, Vest Pub. Co., Ch. V; °

Sec. 1, p. 4533 -. ae

"In # précedine section the point

‘wees made that , overnnent like the

- ‘privately ouned media had en. ooliva-

| tion to provide o structure for. dle-

lorue in the continually Ancreasing: -

pector’of netflonel riffe “hich fa un-

dor severnnent control. Such ap goal

relatem to what. 4s rone¢tines called

tlie people's rivht- to KNOW, # 4H,

“"Necently Sec. 3 of the /duinistra-

tive Procedure Agt of oar , 6 U.6.C.A

Sec. LOO? was mmended, and “the poedon

of Informatton fet, 5 U.S.C.A,

Sec: HE V1lu67), wih enacted, ere

the -focus ts Mot on a#@cessn for opt,

* ton but on nods f&% for infor attain,

“The Letter, Thin Ahe former, may

‘yor oily be nredloated on oo settive

eoustitutlonal ttity Of savern ont."

(i prea: ; ts ti ded),

‘WinihLler, ‘Mite e } 73 4 4 le r i 1 , vat if }

WHS, The MeeihVlen Co., Cert. LL

News (. Pp. acd

nubl' sh news and

tle velue without

om to gather the

rreedom to Gather

“he Cpeedom td

comment is of lf

the corolla ry Ire

news, y

otebert, The Hishts end Privileyes of the

Press, 1954, DL: fppleton-Ceontury Co.,

- Ines , ~ | .

(Underm his clesst{fication of mu-

nmicitpelities) "Where there ts neith-

or statutory nor charter proviston

requiring, the counetl to conduet {ts

meotings tn- public,"

the author states et ps OB:

: “The point hag never been od judt-

»cuted tn the Untted vtates, «,"

: "If the: potnt comes ‘up for deact-

ston tn the courts of: the Untted

States, constceration-will probably

be token of the peculfer character

of oe nuntefpal corporation as com-

, peared with other povernmental untts.

The ex oe | ratlon {: Cpmposaed of the

CoPrpopete electors Who have a right

{o bel lrformed of the netivities of

the elected roprosentat tves," ener

“Stebert coyunents upon the unfetpal KO,

veynnente | Minit Gop. O64, af followss

\ “The orpantzeeation end. operation

nunletpol untt ds probably

the complicated problem of. mo-

ders Wernuent., The entire publie

porrdie{ ted iy thie ortytual town

meeting, but’ tno larve cetropolt{tan

files th Orpaent mart be oar.

ried Ny throu Te Ley nied nuthor-

ities, in tl eo ite aH {hie Prose i

oarye od thea: le mecdtun of publle-

it ieee eh oO pay ia of otty

connetls @Mfors ti thot of other

7 os

-leytslative bodies chiefly in the

Coyree to which they admit partdct-

pation by persons not members ofthe

sounctis? he - . |

Seo utso Plerson v. Ray (#79) and Ray

v. Flerson (#94) 386 U.S. 547, 87 SCt.

1/18,. 16. L.d ed 288, res conspiracy to-

Ceprive one of civil rights.

aA)

‘

hart, oe noted by respondents, the

Vinnesote Supreme Court thought little.

concerning the U, 5, Constitutional basts

of Citizens! rights, 1s regrettable. It

is portieulbardly go .in this new era of

awareness of tndividuel constitutional ,

elyhte,

in the case «at ber, with no unloewful

. Oonduct by petitioner, the clean ciyil

Miyiite Lasue should have bean constdered —

by the i'tnnesota Courtea. Here the Jury

ples of Andrew Hantiton is sernane.

"Hut ti cone ] Ta “the quigt tion be-

ore he es uit pry you, Pe jutlemen of

ad Le 4 1s Py 1 “not oft tt " } } ; yp! \ nm? oe COTY

cern, ft tsa not the eerwae of a poor

) Listes » OOF of Now ‘eee j lone,

(hie inre now tt ! Shae [Aa% Av,

-e i {1 Cm pence » Orte t every

It 1s the best cause; it is the -

C&use of Liberty; + + the liberty

both of exnosini: end Oopposins arbit-

vary power % %, by speaking and

writing the truth.” (Trial of John

Peter Cenrer, 1753, 16 American

vtate Trtéls, 17 et seq.)

', Boyd vs United otetes, 116 U.S, 5616,

655, 6 SCt. 524, 29 Led 746, -752:

7 unconstituttonel preetices

vet their first footing = # by

Silent approeches-end sliyprt Cevia-

tions from lege) modes of procedure,

+ @ It is the Cuty of the courts

to be watehful for the rights of the

citizen, end esvsinst the Stealthy

encroachments -Lhereon,"

she Citizens too’ must chellence the in-

vastion of their ctvil rivhts.

"For the saddest epitaph which can

be carved {n memory of a vantshed

liberty is that it was lost because

[ts possessors failee to stretch

forth a sSevin head While there ws

time," Diesenting opinton éf Justice

rit erlend in. The Assoct, ted Press

¥. National ws bor Relations Monard,

(1957) S01 1.8. LO": 6&7 Sct O503

il Led 953% 65,

‘Janes ‘adi son's Ooservattfons would seom

. 4

Lo be rs pewet DTryernt Lo Lie Loe] pnolite

f bodles ns to life state Hnd neat { mel bod-

Bios

——

Times Publishing Co. vs Williems, supra, |

Ps * We: sil is saith ha Saal Era atin wai ipa 2 Binsad te Bires RLS GL Ad

"A populer governnent, without popu-

lar informetion, the meens of ac--

quiring it, is, bat @ Prologue to a.

. Farce or Tragedy 3 or perhaps, both!"

(9 Jritings of Jemes Medison 103,

Hunt Ed. 1910, letter to W. T. Barry,

‘Aug. 4, 1622). a |

to } % x 4

. Open Meeting Statutes, The Presse

ights for the Right to Know, —

75 Harvard LR. 1199, 1200:

"The pegple must be able to go be-

yond an Sake the decisions reach-

ed anc be eporsised of the pros end

cons involved if they are to mseke

sound judgments on questions of .

L1201/policy end to select their rep-

resentetives intelligently.. The pre-

sence of outside observers is an ins-

valueble aid. in meking such informe

ation availeble, for offictal reports,

even if issued, will seldom furnish

e ‘complete summery of the disctission

leading to a psrticuler course of

action. ey |

la. 1969) 222 So.2d 470, 473:

4. This act is a Cecleretion

of public policy, the frustration

ef which constitutes Lrreverable ine

jury to the public interest. = #,"

(p.-629) f .

"The richt of the public to be

present end to be heerd Curing all

nheses of enectnents by borrds and

commissions is a source of strength

om “T]

to our country. During pest years

tendeneies tcward secrecy in public:

feirs havea been the: subject of

extensive criticism. .Terms ‘such as

managed news, secret meetings,

closed records, executive sessions,

and study sessions have become syno-

nymous with 'thanky panky' in the

minds cf public spirited citizens.

One purpose of the Sunshine Law was

to meintein the faith of the public

in government aggncies. Regardless

of their gooc intentions, these spe-.

cified boards end commissions;

through devious ways, chould not be

allowed to ceprive the public of

this inalieneble rircht, to be present

and toe be heard st gl1l:deliberations

wherein Cecisions et “fecting a al ub-

lic ere being mace."

2. Pight.of a Citizen to see. the let-

cers, papers end documents of the

Local. public bodies...”

Res poncents contend ‘this issue’ is. ;

not reised in the pleadings, and not. con-

idered by the state Courts.

Petitioner omitted.to specifically |

quote Complaint per. 24, which alleges:

, : , ,

"24. That in furtherence of such plen

such public bodies have been conduc-

ted in such manner that from tine to

time pleintiff hes .been wrongfully

denied -access to piblic information, |

reports end writings, end his con-

; z , -9-

munications. to such bodies have been

disposed of irregularly."

« Bier, |

ged right to see the letters, pepers and

However, the Petition notes that en alle- a

documents is included within Compleint

per. 10 smong the "lewful rights and pri-

vileges as a citizen, % a"

Seid Par. 24 was’ specifically denied

-4n the Separate Answer of Rendolph K. El-

lings and others, end wes denied by a E

generel deniel in the Separate Answer of

JHRA end other defendants..

. In vhe first-.section of his Brief in

the ‘Minnesota Supreme Court petitioner ‘Spe-

cified the alleged right as follows:

"T, The rights and privileges of a

citizen of iWinnesota include: « *

l. a, |

2. a freedom of iat ine to pudlic

| informetion, * +."

Petitioner then cited J. S. Constitutional

Amendments IX and X as well as Constitu-

-10-

geecsoar

tional and statutory provisions and. case

lev of Minnesota. :

Respondents jhave never refuted peti-

_tioner's evidence that public information

was denied him. Sone illustretions of

“such withheld cocuments are mentioned in ..

the Petition at p. 9.

Also illustrative are the letters

ceted 7/27/65 end 8/4/65 noted in reéspon-

Gents' appendix (A.28). ?

Petitioner's letter to WHRA demon-

strates that by the device, (clearly e-

ventue: and likely conspiratorial) of

directing the Citizen to the private

planning firm, which owes no duty: to

the Citizen, the public body successful-

ly denied to the Citizen the public's

information. Paraphrased, the letter of

2/4/65 reads: 3

"At a meeting of the % «+ (HRA).

on the evening of July 20, 1965 .-

I rede a request for a copy of a

prelininary draft of a downtown ©

generel neighborhood renewal plan

-ll-

. presented that evening by Mr. Chap-

men. Copies thereof were handed to

members of the Authority thet eve-

ning. I madé“ny fYequest es a citi--

- gen end texpayer.

hy, Me , :

"x 3, (HRA member) lr.. Morgan

stated my cemend would be referred —

to the Attorney for the Authority.

"I-received e communication from

Mr. C. Stenley Nciiahon Fsq. dated

July 27, 1965. He statec in vart

as follows: ‘This dreft + + is the

property of Neson, Law, vehrman snd

Knight, Inc. (s private planning

firm) end if, for some reason, you

wish copies of their materiels, the.

request should be sdcressed to them,

attention ifr. Chapyen.!

"T have made my Wemend to the

Authority. I hereby renew thet de-

mend, and I respectfully decline

the suggestion that I seek the pre-

liminery plan elsewhere." (Peren-

thetical phrases added).

(Paulson Ceposition n. 94, 95)(7),

Although most of the determinations

concerning ‘access to records are found

in state court decisions, it wes held in

Providence Journal v. ticCoy, 94 F Supp

Ft. Nt. #7- Petitioner's corresrondence

in 7 menile envelones marked Defend-

ents' Exhibits 8 throussh 14 «es copted

end filed with the ceposition of veti-.

tioner. The indivicual letters were

not separately numbered es Txhibvits.

-12-

ce we < ee (oe

SS a ren,

5 a nee

e .

* . ~~

> ra e .

. .

° ‘

- - ®

7 )

. . ©

. ‘

. /

- fs

» r 3 . .

, .

. 2 .

a ;

. ;

¥ s

. .

° .

e . . . .

. a ¥ .

1e6, 90 F2d 769, cert. den. 342 U.S. 8945

72 SCt. 200, 96 LEd. 119, that a Pawtucket

ordinence cavitit WAS Sra eny official to make

nudlic the records of tax ebatement viola-

. ted the equal protection clause of the

14th Amenéenent.

S. “adlic Figure.

In discussing "public figure® respond-

ents voint out thet plaintiff wss @ prac-

ticing Attorney in e smell city.

But attorneys are pecple too, and

like doctors, teachers end candlestick’

mekers, they velue their reputations.

It is susgested thet one's trade or pro-

fession provides neither-a valid nor fair

“eriterion for branding one a "public fi-

gure." |

Resroncents affirm that the term

"oublic figure" should be viewed in the

_ context of the arec concerned. This con-

sideration immedistely renders. imneterial

“

aie

nae

yee

° ,

ee duce” Sete Se Se engin ast

- ARR 6 mca ll a RRR

‘ . .

petitioner's correspondence with state

and federal officials. It also favors

the critic of n&tional policy over the

critic of the village! council, for the

latter earns the title instantly.

It is suggested that neither the

. private and innocuous activity of clip-

ping news stories, nor attending meetings

of public bodies; properly qualify oun

for the mentle of "public figure."

In citing the motion for change of. .

venue as indicating that petitioner is a

"public figure" respondents ignore the

fact that the reespns supporting the mo-

tion were principally the asserted wrongs

of respondents ineludines (1) the al-

leged conspirecy to "publicly vilify and

discredit plaintiff by word and deed,"

(Complaint par. 10¢ end a), (which in

cluded an editorial campaign) and to

*ihebeby ruin the plaintiff's reputation

' and

as an attorney and as a citizen,’

* A

. e .

. .

. . *

: .

7" ‘

: * .

. .

, ° . . e *

; .

. .

. 2. °. oe a

eee: . 3° 3

é :

. e .

erie .

TP A :

\« .

. bd fa :

* 4

: : “. .

. = ;

. = .

: e . an en

. .

. s . , ‘

. ® A ?

se . 5

A 4 . . . .

; :

: .

. S > C

. ® * :

: e : - :

. : : ;

. .

~ .

. : ‘

- . oa . » % . 5 3

: . . . . °

. . % :

r ~

‘ 7 ;

. . .- 7

. 3

- . : :

; .

. e e .

: .

s .

. s :

. . =

. .

. — by

. . ;

. .

. 2 :

. > i

, < . .

. . . e . —_

3 . . . : !

. ™ .

° = e . . y

. e .

= .

. . % .

; 5 : : - . -

. bs »

. * by ‘

*e ; ad

e .

. _ ,

Hs . *8

. . . ° . ~ i ;

- y 5

x e . . . 7 © :

. . ®« =

. b ;

7 ~

‘ . . : . .

* : .

. . e* . .

. > -

. . . * s

‘ . i. '

. ° * .

: id ’ . z . .

. ? ai

S .

. es e 7

. . » 44, . :

. . p :

. .

; : ; .

. . e

. . 8 '

. bg

; .

¢ . . e . 8 4

“4 6 . . 2

** i :

s . » . ‘

, , e %. 5

. Wes we

- ee RR ar we on OR De foie eel =

(2) the’ subsequent and unprecedented pub-

, lication of selected portions of the pre-

triel oral deposition of petitioner by |

the resnonéent, news peper. over neither of

these cireunstuaces had the. petitioner any

control. Over neither sich vilifications

‘oie over his tricl by newspaper, hed the.

petitioner eny control. |

Roes a motion fot chenge of) venue’

“Gistinguish e, defemation suit pleintiff

as # "oublic figure"? At least this con- ,

cept earalte a choice. The pleintirr can

elect between a dismissal or a biased.

jury.

: Bat respon¢éents! next proposal in-

sures dientasail |

* Seemingly less than convinced them-_

selves that the evidence casts petitioner

as a "public figure," respondents in all

seriousness subdmits:

@1$<'

“that even without any evidence,

the mere fact thet petitioner has

commenced two lawsuits ageinst nume-

rous * # prominent figures 2 * in :

the community, tncluding the meyor,.

"councilmen, end members of the Hous-

ing and Redevelopment Authority,

% 2% would reaiii. @ holding es a

matter of “aw t’.t he was e public

figure « +." (hes. Br.8).

Ergo! The ‘perfect defense for public

officials; - - es well as the end of de-

femation suits against them.

Actually respondents propose that

. oy commencing only one lawsuit. the plein-

tiff becomes a "public figure," for it is

unlikely that they mean that the defema-

tion suit itself insures the pleintiff's

‘Gefeat. Or do they mean it?

Fortunately for this petitioner and

other plaintiffs, respondents cite no le-

gel authority for their absolutist posi- -

tion.

The more respondents strain to ma-

nufecture a defense upon the issue of.

"public figure" the more they lose sight

ear sos ko

—

of the cssence of the Sullivan doctrine,

es steted t 11 Led 24 708:

"ia@ison seid + + the 'censorial

vower is in thé veople over the

fovernnent, and not in the govern-

ment-over the people.!!

Tt is further contended by respond-

ents thet, other - considerations aside,

petitioner became a "public figure” by

his letter of 1114/64. (Resp. A-69),

(Petition 10).

The letter recited the difficulty .

that Petitioner encountered in seeking

out the meeting and hist attending it.

As stcted therein:

ig explained that iir. Donald E.

Stone, the. Chamber lLianeger, had

Cenied me the right to attend a

prior end secret City Council

weeting held at the Cheriber Build-

ing." (Resp. A-70).

To the end that those truly respon-

sible might know thet, as therein stated,

"this was of course a violation

of my-civil righ vs by the Chamber

and its membership," (Resp. A-79),

copies were sent to “all Winona resi-

oo,

ive responsibility.

dent members of the ‘Jinone Chamber of

Commerce." (Cerney, Reporter, deposi-.

tion 20), (See Gpinion, Petition,A-5).

Heving encountered: a skein of evasion by.

the public officials and Chauber offi-

cials ebout the meeting, petitioner .

could anticipate en eeanton of responsi-

bility by the Chamber Members for the:

ects of their officers, or even a lack

of knowledge thereof; and surely no

change in policy, until apprized in

writing of their incividual and collect-

Having pointed out in the letter

that the “abuse has reached a point just

short of violence," (Resp. Br. A-75) ‘pe-

titioner also sent copies to "the other

public and civic bodies (thst) were rep-

resented et the centive meeting." (Resp.

Br A-75 ) °

If a Citizen is to be branced a

"oublic figure" and be thereby made

fair game for libel anc slander by the

public officials end the news media be-

ceuse he confronts, with a sisned letter,

the individuals directly responsible for

the interferences with his civil rights;

then indeed the Citizen hes been put in-

to a box. The Citizen is thereby punish-

ed for the acts of those who defame him.

Responcents' contention that if "pe-

tioner were not a public figure" before

the 11/14/64 letter "he certainly wes |

efter" (Res.7) overlooks the fact that

two alleged defemations had already oc-

curred, thet of respondents Meyor Ellings

on about 6/15/64 (Compleint par. 20) and

Joseph E. Krier on 7/21/64, (Complaint _

pers. 16 and 21). —

Respondents are left then with the

two bere fects. First, thet some of

plaintiff's lewful questions of and state-

ments to the public bodies were reported

by the news mecia. Over this circumstance

"930.

‘

ROR imas® scale Napali stn Ste LN

70h) REASONS MMR" Mi <5 Nin ils olan a= bar

’

Pain

eee S onapes*

petitioner had no control; and it does

not provide a fair criterion where the

Citizen sought <to lawfully oppose the

taking of his building. Secondly, the

"vortex" concept would appear to be

even less definitive under such cire-

cumstences. -

4. Inaccurecies in respondents

Appendices require clarification.

_Asserting that despite the fact

that "petitioner's statement of the case

covers 18 pages," it is inadequate,

(Res.Br.1), respondents have attached to

their Brfef a."Summery of Beatty Corres-

pondence" as Appendix B, and a "Summary

of Beatty Depositions" as Appendix - ae

In some instences the condensation

of the material hes left e record which

is not accurate. For brevity, only two

exemples will be set forth.

Respondents! summary (Res.A-32) of

the letter of 3/3/66 ‘to City Council

-20-

wer! «ae OMEN TS | sds itll

STR Se eae ony

— ‘

- - « :

. . : ’

ee ee le ee ee ee

We -4

reads:

"Asking thet the minutes be amended

to show the problem of leasing the

City's Merine end the question of a

referendum were discussec, although

no action was teken thereon."

This letter, 4 respondents’ exhibit,

is attached to this Supplenentery Brief

aS Appendix Cc.

‘Respondents! summary states:

(87)-He (petitioner) has not gone to

@ psychietrist since-1964. (Resp.A-65).

Since about the time of the signing of

the trenscript of the oral deposition on.

about 4/6/67. respondents have known that

petitioner hes "never gone to a psychia-

trist." (Carney Deposition 87, “line 9).

(Emphesis added).

Yet,-es shown in the Reply Brief be- .

fore the lMinnesote Supreme Court, at

pages 38-40, respondents have repeatedly

foisted upon the Judges of the Minnesota

Courts, end now upon the highest Court,

a Giermetricelly opposite and false im-

_ 9 __

ate

+ TE

om Sowers

‘

' .

. .

al 7

. od .

~ .

”

er en

‘

. }

® .

- .

=z Ms .

’

e .

, .

wy yah DAME sett

pm . *

old. ys

— EAGER HG SEALE NNN NRT ——

Sor Oy

Ct CA Te? Pe

so.) Me gett) Soe ae Pak eT I ce Cat

. .

"WS nel aakas GTA, CIM

pression with the quote: "He has not

gone to a psychiatrist since 1964."

Such distortions amount to a presente.

ation of new non-facts not found in the

evidence. |

te petitioner's view the summeries

ie ae eked 26 eSther on understend-

ing of the facts, nor in the isolation

of the federsl questions.

Respectfully submitted,

Kida. G, CMe

Nartin A. Beatty.

Petitioner, pro se

116 Center St.

Winona, Minnesota

Ph. 507-454-1818

APPENDIX C

(For Appendices A end B see Petition)

March 3, 1966

Presicent and Members

of the ‘Winona City Council

Vinona, Minn.

Sirs:

As a resident and taxpayer I wish to

. point out certain important omissions in

the minutes of the Special Council Meete-

ing held on Jemary 51, 1966.

In the minutes as avproved at a Coune

cil Meeting held on Feb. 7, 1966 there

is ho mention of two matters which were

discussed at greet length. These mate

ters were as follows:

1. The problem of leasing the City's

Jerina in the event that the pre-

“sent lessee, Hr. Jack Zywicki,

does not continue as a lessee

thereof, and

2. The problem of the failure of the

City of Winona to be prepered to

hold a referendum on Feb. 7, 1966

on the question: "Do you want

federal aid for urban renewal?"

The grossly peculier circumstances of

the S-part Council Meeting of Jan. =

1966 were as follows:

At 7:57 P.M. the City Council met in

Special Session in the Court Room in

the City Building. Aldermen Herold

. Briesath, David L. Johnston, also known

as Dave Jeye, Neil Sawyer, Donald Klegge,

Jemes Stoltmsn, Jerry Borzyskowski, and

Barry Space were present. Aldermen

App e C-l.

at Ae

“ree

2 Cap aie Al £5 a ON Pim 0S onan AED patel a ASS Aa

Thiewes and Parks were absent. The an-

nounced purpose of the meeting was to dis-

cuss the Urban Renewal Plan for Winona

with members of the Housing and Redevele-

opment Authority.

Council President Brieseth presided. |

Several members of the public were in ate

tendance as well as 3 representatives of

the news media.

The meeting was turned over to Dr. Wm.

Finkelnburg, Cheirman of NHRA, and to C.

Stanley McMahon, the Attorney for WHRA.

These men discussed the progress of the

urban renewal plans. Both men dwelt on

the probebility of securing so-called

"non-cash credits" computed upon the ba-

sis of construction work that has been

completed et Winone State Golepe.

This “Act I" of the 3-part Council Meet-

ing was in itself amazing, for the WHRA

delegation not only arrived with answers

for the Council Members, but they pro-

vided the questions as well! Dr.

Finkélnburg characterized the urban re-

newal plan as the City's "wishbook" 5

he likened the non-cash credits to ‘a

pot full of green stamps", and also as

our little goodies" which Winona can

secure "by legal hocus pocus™. Nr.

McMahon on his part complained that

"there has been more heat then light"

shed upon the urban renewal question.

Attorney itci!ehon diagnosed the city's

core area es "stricken with coronary

disesse needing treatment".

(p.2.) | :

At ebout 8:40 Ald. Stoltman moved

for adjournnent, Ald. Johnston ended,

motion carried, all voting eye. KMem-

bers of the public left, except myself.

App. C-2.

The 3 press representatives also left.

Then the estonishing preliminaries for

"Act II" of the Council Meeting were put

in motion. The Council members stood . 2

eround; there was putting on of wraps pe |

end other deperture activity, including :

going down the.stairs by some Alderrien, :

presumably to leave the building. After

about 15 or more minutes the Council -

Members returned to the Court Room, saye=

ing they would have a “Committee meet-

ing", altho the returning group consist-

ed of all 7 Council Members who had pare

ticipated in "Act I" of the evening's.

fantastic performance.

"Act II" of the Council Meeting dealt

with the municipel marina end the Coun-

cil's difficulties with Mr. cywicki.

Ald. Neil Sawyer stated, "Mr. Zywicki

owns a lot of property in town. When

his tenants con't pay their rent, they

‘get put out." Some Council Members fav-

ored having e Mr. Dick Kanz for a’new

operator. It is not known when this

public business wes discussed or devel-

opec, or where. There was no indication

that members of the public would have

opportunity to apply for the lease,

should it become sveileble, or that it

would be let on open bids. Thus ended

"Act II". KAGE Reporter ‘layne Valentine

returned for part of this discussion.

The preliminaries to "Act III" were |

elmost the seme as these preceding "Act

II". There wes no motion for adfourn-

ment at the conclusion of "Act II".

For "Act III" two eldermen entered the

Court Room wesring their outer wraps,

and there removed them. They went

through the seme phantasy of calling it

App. C-3.

Date

coor SSA GT aOR NAA nA at ai aC Nb BEB Net ihe ant

; t

sis

‘

a"committee meeting", altho again it was

the same 7 Council Members who returned

for the concluding act.

This third patt of the Coune4l Meeting

dealt with efforts to-have e meeting of

minds, and present e united front at the |

Council Meeting to be held on Mon. Feb. 7,

1966 to deny to the Voters of the City

the referendum on renewal. The Voters

hed been promised the Referendum in

March, 1965. Ald. Briesath held out for

standing behind the Attorney Pigs de ago

opinion which, he stated, holds that tl

referendum could not be held. "Act IIf

enced shortly before 10:00 P.M. ° .-*.

To my mind, this bizzare performance

is further evidence of the determined,

deliberate, Ccelculated effort of the 7

Members then present to deal with the |

public business in secret, instead of in

open meeting as required Dy law...

I hereby request thet this account of

the Council Meeting of Jan. 31, 1966 be °

incorporated into the present incomplete

minutes of same. : |

Martin A. Beatty

-App. C4.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.