# Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Boyd v. Black > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385020_0062%3A1 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Petition for Writ of Certiorari - **Published:** January 1, 1989 - **Citation:** 493 U.S. 853 ## Text - Supreme Court, U.S. ees E Dh JUL 29° 1989 JOSEPH F. SPANIOL, JR. Q a) - 6 5 CLERK _| In the Supreme Court OF THE United States SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT OCTOBER TERM 1989 INEZ C. Boyp Petitioner, VS. ANGELA BLACK, THOMAS VAN AMBURG, KENNETH NELSON, and KABC-TELEVISION AMERICAN BROADCASTING COMPANIES (now CAPITAL CITIES/ABC, INc.) Respondents. PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE CALIFORNIA COURT OF APPEAL INEZ C. BoyD 4649 Paula Way Fair Oaks. California 9562: (916) 967-7504 In Propria Persona Bowne of Los Angeles. Inc., Law Pmnters (213) 742-5600 QUESTION PRESENTED This Court has held that under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, a Plaintiff who is a “‘pub- lie official’”’ and one who is a “public figure” must both prove actual malice by clear and convineing evidence before any damages may be recovered in a defamation action, but that a “private” citizen is not bound by the same restrictions. This Court has not, however, articulated who is and, more importantly, who is not a “publie figure’’ — the term ‘“publie figure’ remains undefined. The void left may. be filled by submission of false information, known to be false, to the courts, with some of the information having been secured illegally. Direct appeals are being made to stored knowledge, for prejudged decisions, instead of for individual, case by case, determinations. The “chilling effect’ first envisioned for the press, through curtailment of free speech, is now being felt by private citizens who are being denied open access to the courts. The question presented is: Whether the First Amendment protection of free speech extends the broad public-interest privilege to the news media, in a case of Slander Per Se, for submission of false information, illegally obtained, to the courts, thus, promoting a “public figure” image — where none existed, before — for a “private ’ citizen, without the courts’ vali- dation of key evidence?* *The corrected name “AMERICAN BROADCASTING COMPA- NIES, INC.” (now CAPITAL CITIES/ABC, INC.) was added by plaintiff's motion amending the original Complaint and noted by the pre-trial court, 2-25-88, pursuant to Court Rule 28.1. \ il TABLE OF CONTENTS QUESTION PRESENTED ............-.--55-5: PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI ..... OPINIONS BELOW .... 2.2... ccc cee cceseseecces JURISDICTION o..:5 006500004 s0wkaseeaneenssa ces CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS INVOLVED .. STATEMENT OF THE CASE .............+..-. KEASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT........ i Il. III. CERTIORARI SHOULD BE GRANTED TO RESOLVE THE CONFLICT BE- TWEEN THE DECISIONS BELOW AND THE DECISIONS OF THIS COURT..... CERTIORARI SHOULD BE GRANTED TO RESOLVE AN IMPORTANT AND RE- CURRING CONSTITUTIONAL QUES- TION LEFT OPEN BY THIS COURT'S DECISIONS . <4 cca UkoGun ee eeee shee CERTIORARI SHOULD BE GRANTED FOR MORE INPUT FROM THIS COURT ON THE STATUS OF THE BASIC CON- STITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF PRIVATE CITIZENS — FREEDEOM OF SPEECH, DUE PROCESS—IN THE CN-GOING CLASH. BETWEEN PRIVACY AND FREE EXPRESSION FOR THE PRESS 13 18 Appendix A. Appendix B. Appendix C. Appendix D-1. Appendix D-2. Appendix E. Appendix F. Appendix G. Appendix H. ill Index to the Appendices Court of Appeal Opinion filed 2/10/89 Appellant Petition for Review Denied by Court of Appeal Remittitur Notice Los Angeles County Drug Abuse Plan- ning Chart Declaration of Roger G. Bell Declaration of Alban I. Niles Anti-Defamation League Minutes South East Regional Coalition on Drugs and Alcohol Abuse Audit Affidavit iv TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CITED Cases Page Brewer v. Hearst Publishing Co., 185 F.2d 846.... 26 Beauharnais v. Illinois, 348 U.S. 250 ............ 3,15 Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568...... 3, 20 Coz Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn, 420 U.S. 491 .... 24 Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts (1967) 388 U.S. 130 17, 21 Flanagan v. Nicholson Publishing Co., 137 La 588 26 Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 64.........-.45. 19, 20 Gertz v. Rebert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. ...... Pere 16 Henry v. Collins, 380 U.S. 356 (1965) .........-. 20 Hutchinson v. Proxmire (1979) 4438 U.S. 111 ..... 29 Konigsberg v. State Bar of California, 366 U.S. 36 3 Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697 .............4-. 3 New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 268 .... Pennekamp v. Florida, 328 U.S. 3381...........-. 3 Reader’s Digest Assn. v. Superior Court (1984) 37 eh bere errr cern eee ete 17 Rosenblatt v. Baer, 383 U.S. 75 (1966)........... 20 Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 .......... 2, 3, 13, 15 Shirley v. Brown, State Supreme Court of Califorma, i MEETS TORUTETTTCTIC CECT Cee 3 Smith v. Daily Mail Publishing Co., 443 U.S. 103 21 Time, Inc. v. Hill, 385 U.S. 374 (1967) ........-. 20 Times Film Corp. v. City of Chicago, 365 U.S. 48 3 Wolston v. Reader’s Digest Assn., Inc. (1979) 4438 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CITED Constitution Page United States Constitution First Amendment..................... i, 2, 5, 18, 15 Fourth Amendment......................... 7 Statutes California Civil Code ie: SEED 640s eee eee 3, 14, 15, 16, 18, 29 ee Lh) Pee eee err eee awa aeie t United States Code, Title 28, See. 1257(a) ...... 4 Miscellaneous Los Angeles County Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs Commission Minutes, date August 5, 1981 PMY @ nvncuna cee cvuse ae ee ee 10 Newspaper Article, June 1, 1968 Whittier Study Group Seeking Socia! Reality — Physician's Wife Spurs Effort to Learn How to Resolve Problems Scientifically ...................... 25 Sacramento Bee, November _ , 1987, How the press eer RUE Cg gg soc chit nne eee Q Senate Bill 714 ............. 13 In the Supreme Court OF THE United States SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT Octoper Term 1989 INEZ C. Boypb Petitioner, VS. ANGELA BLACK, THOMAS VAN AMBURG, KENNETH NELSON, and KABC-TELEVISION AMERICAN BROADCASTING COMPANIES (now CAPITAL CITIES/ABC, INC.) Respondents. PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE CALIFORNIA COURT OF APPEAL Petitioner Inez C. Boyd respectfully requests that a writ of certiorari issue to review the final judgment of the California Court of Appeal, Seeond Appellate District (“Court of Appeal’), entered in this case on February 10, 1989. The question presented merits review because this court has never determined whether, in cases where infer- mation has been aequired unlawfully by the news media or by a source, government may ever punish not only the unlawfut aequisition but the ensuing broadcast or publiea- tion as well. In this instant case, respondents, using false informa- tion, eased a “private” citizen into “publie figure” status, for the sole purpose of structuring a defense to protect a a to against the showing on the air of illegally obtained medi- eal records — slander per se. There was immediate, irreparable damage to the repu- tation of a seven (7) year AFTERCARE research health services program, which was forced to close its doors. The privacy interests of these client medical records were protected both by Federal Regulations and State of Cali- fornia Administrative Code. In the instant ease this Court has an opportunity to address, directly, the issue of deliberate use of false information, by news media to knowingly mislead, not only the courts below but its own television viewing audience. The question of whether the First Amendment constitutional rights of a private citizen to freedom of speech and to due process have been abridged also awaits a determination from this Court. This Court has left the term “publie figure” undefined. The oppertunity exists for this Court-to address the issue of a clear-cut definition for a “publie figure” as distinguished from a “private” citizen, and the use by a Number One Nielsen rated television station — whoily ewned by a national broadeaster, Capital Cities/ABC, INC. — of false information to deliberately mislead the courts below, resulting in a violation of its federal man- date to protect the public interest. This Court has stated: “...the general proposition that freedom of expression upon publie questions is se- eured by the First Amendment has long been settled by our decisions. The constitutional safeguard we have said, ‘was fashioned to assure unfettered interchange of ideas for the bringing about of political and social changes desired by the people.’ Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476, 484. There are also statements of this Court: “... to the effect that the Constitution does not protect libelous publications.”’ New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. at 268, 269. The issue is joined. OPINIONS BELOW The entire Opinion of the Court of Appeal is reprinted in App. A., at la-l4da. The May 3, 1989 order of the Supreme Court of California denying petitioner's Petition For Review is unreported and is reprinted in App. B, at lb. The May 24, 1989 judgment of the Court of Appeal, known as a Remittitur is unreported and is reprinted in App. C, at le. JURISDICTION This case presents a substantial federal question not answered by this Court regarding the formulation of a clear definition of a “public figure” — as yet undefined — in order to protect the rights of a private citizen to recover damages for a ruined reputation, without proving actual malice. In this instant ease, California was one of three states that continued to blur the lines of demarea- tion between “private” citizen and “publie figure’. And, even though the State Supreme Court of California struck down the California Civil Code Section 47(3) finding “ ne support in the language or history of section 47(3) for the broad publie interest privilege claimed by defend- ants... ’*, making it easier for private citizens to sue, ‘Konigsbe rg v. State Bar of California, 366 U.S. 36. 49. and n. 10; Times Film Corp. v. City of Chicago, 365 U.S. 43. 48: Roth r. United States, 354 U.S. 476, 486-487; Beauharnais v. Illinois, 343 U.S. 250. 266; Pennekamp v. Florida, 328 U.S. 331, 348-349; Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. £58, 872: Near pv. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697. 715 “Shirley v. Brown, State Supreme Court of California, Opinion before (April 27, 1989) the date of the State Supreme Court filing of Petitioner’s denial (May 3, 1989) of a hearing on the Petition For Review, Petitioner was af- forded no relief from the Opinion. In addition, two fundamental issues are raised: — one, concerning open access for minority citizens to the California system of justice, due process, and — two, — freedom of speech, econeerning denial of mi- nority rights to publish results compiled through initiat- ing treating practices of a new health discipline,” AFTERCARE, TRACKED AT THE TREATMENT PRO- GRAM LEVEL BY THOSE BEING TREATED; Appellant searches for an answer to the question: Whether having been denied these constitutional rights by a Trustee/Broadeaster’s violation of its public trust, the deprivation gives rise to an action for damages? The use of the vast powers of a Federal Trus- tee/Licensee Broadcaster, in this manner, appears to make this a ease of first impression — constitutionally guaranteed freedoms, to one party, used by that party, to deny those same basie freedoms to another. This Court has jurisdiction to review the decision of the Court of Appeal under 28 U.S.C. seetion 1257(a). The decision of the Court of Appeal is final for the purposes of Section 1257(a) because it finally deeides tiat plaintiff JS a “publie figure’, actually, a “limited purpose public ‘C.T. 80 Lists possible publications for Director Single State Agency. Exhibit — Letter from B’ai B’rita, Anti-Defamation League makes offer to read results of unique, one-of-a-kind drug abuse treatment program on AFTERCARE, in progress, for publication, shortly before ABC/KABC-TV Broadcast announcement closed the program. figure” by use of false information, distorted and slanted by nature of its selection from the petitioner’s private life to support respondents’ claim of a public life. It appears that this decision is not subject to further review in the state courts, and failure to resolve promptly the federal questions presented here will prolong the uncertainty eaused by the Court of Appeal’s decision, thus, seriously eroding the rights of private citizens to due process. CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS INVOLVED The First Amendment to tke Constitution provides that: Congress shall make no law respecting an establish- ment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assem- ble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Petitioner, Inez C. Boyd, (““Boyd’’) is a teacher and a sociologist. This educational training and experience in community organization — bringing people together to work to resolve chronic social ills, where they live — was being utilized as a health professional, in Los Angeles, while living in Whittier, California, (a thirty mile com- mute), engaged in a seven (7) year health discipline research project, in July, 1982, when Boyd received a friendly eall from a reporter Angela Black (‘‘Black’’) from KABC- TV/ABC, INC., requesting an appointment to discuss the program. Both agreed to meet at 1:00 p.m. on July 22, 1982. The research was designed to add the final component to a successful experiment in democracy. Los Angeles County was tightly organized and anyone who received public funds belonged to several organiza- tions. See CHART App. D. Boyd was a teacher at Whittier college. She was hired to work at Kedren Community Mental Health Center, under the direction of Honorable Judge Alban I. Niles, a sitting judge in Los Angeles County now, but President and legal counsel to Kedren when Appellant came to that community. Boyd was hired by Honorable Judge Niles to assist him in adding the two components to Community Mental Health Centers Corporate Owners required by law: 1. Education and Consultation — Boyd’s duties were to educate the public about Kedren’s services, to consult with schools and other health professionals and to attend professional meetings in the community and around the state. 2. A Drug Abuse Component — the Southeast Coalli- tion, a professional organization, see App. G voted to set- up an Aftereare program at Kedren, P.T.P. as its first priority. The program was administered by Honorable Judge Niles. Boyd worked for him. He was her boss. Boyd did not, therefore, found P.T.P. to deal with drug abuse as Respondents say. The statement is false. App. E. Boyd did not “found” I-TAC to deal with drug abuse as Respondents say. The statement is false. 600 church members created I-TAC for their own personal reasons. That is the reference for the “I” in -The American Citizen strictly personal and private. Nothing is more private in America than ene’s religion and I-TAC was created in Whittier, California with the input of all religious faiths. The agenda is C.T. 233-224 and the word “Drugs” does not appear. Appellant submits declarations from the Hon- ———————————————————— orable Judge Alban I. Niles App. E. and Attorney Errol Gordon given on the subject that Inez C. Boyd worked for Kedren when P.T.P. was voted into existence by the Southeast Regional Coalition. There was no controversy as all programs in the region cooperated by sending recovering addicts to P.T.P. However, on July 21, 1982, one day earlier than the agreed upon appointment date to meet with Boyd, the director, P.T.P., the ABC reporter Black, from Number One Nielsen rated KABC-TV burst into P.T.P., unan- noun¢ed in a surprise “raid’’, entered the client medical files and began roiling these on the air. The director was not in the administrative offices, so no one gave Black permission to enter. Black did not have a warrant signed by a public official as required by the constitutional regulations of search and seizure, Amendment IV, the California Civil Code, section 47 (4) and the Federal Regulations for Client Confidentiality. C.T. 8. Respondents have submitted only one piece of evidence to the courts — a two minute, five second ABC “DUB” tape made in Hollywood, on September 29, 1987. A declaration of Roger Bell, an eleven year veteran employee C.T. 186-7, swore to a one hour tape preserva- tion system at KABC-TV/ABC. The pre-trial court was later informed that no such system existed, giving rise to the possibility of perjured testimony. The BELL declaration clearly and convincingly proves how much the tape presented to the courts was edited: — Fifty-seven (57) minutes and Fifty-five (55) seconds ... CUT-Edited OUT. The “DUB” ABC Tape is dated September 29, 1987, exactly five (5) years after Appellant requested the tape. It was submitted to the courts, minus the opening and closing remarks of the anchorperson and is only two (2) minutes and five (5) seconds in length, a minute portion of the ONE HOUR TAPE, a permanent preservation of all ABC neweasts, described by Bell as only being available to KABC-TV staff on an “as needed” basis. Two of the most important mood setting pieces for the viewing publie: — anticipation for the viewing public of the upeoming segment while the commercial playing — lingering atmosphere for the viewing public, after The Broadcast the opening and closing remarks of the anchorperson were simply deleted by ABC from the tape (2:05 seconds) presented to the courts as a true and correct copy of a one hour preservation tape. An even more serious matter has arisen in the loss of the anchorman’s portion of the one hour tape. The sworn declaration of insider Bell, who describes the failsafe system of tape preservation at ABC appears at C.T. 186-7. Two attorneys contradicted Bell in their testimony in court. In effect the court was told that Bell had not accurately described the situation at ABC. The public is left wondering whether any tapes are kept at all as Bell states. (See O’Connor and Teele testimony. ) The Court: What about the whole program? Don’t you tape the whole program? Mr. O’Connor: No, your honor. The tapes are not preserved in that manner. The Court: You should have put them together then. This is very poor — doesn’t help. your situation any to hold back something that could give some comfort to her. I mean this is a suggestion. 9 Ms. Teele: Unfortunately, your honor, they don’t even preserve the anchorperson’s portion of the tape, so that has been lost. The Court: Well, is this the very first item on that tape? Mr. O’Connor: Your honor, this is the tape that was presented to the court as it was maintained. The Court: Why don’t you — you should get the rest of it. As stated in the ease of Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. Walter Jacobson and CBS, Inc., Nos. 86-2474 and 86-2475, this Court’s decisicn on destruction of vital evidence in this instant case, the destruction of evidence is not protected by the broad interest privilege claimed by Capital Cities/ABC, Ine. Respondents claim to have made contact, by telephone, with two power brokers, one, Sarah J. (‘‘Sallie’’) Davis, director State Department of Alcohol and Drug Pro- grams, ADP, who spoke of “concerns” with the financial “management of P.T.P (I-THE AMERICAN CITIZEN, INC., I-TAC) but failed to provide corroborating evidence such as affidavits or declarations from the recipients. The courts were provided only the word of Black who had violated the constitutional regulations of search and seizure to secure the information shown on the Broadeast. Appellant aocuments the existence in Los Angeles County of a “cozy” quid pro quo relationship between those entrusted with the protection of the public interest and the power-brokers.’ News leaks, instead of investiga- t : -~ Publie Document — Sacramento Bee, November — , 1987. How the press blew Iranamok ¢ Coziness with sources. Some journalists were coopted by the very people who were doing the dirty work. ... * Time i0 tions by news media would explain the total arrogance of KABC/ABC, Ine.” The legislature and the governor of the state had handled the exact problem Black solved by saying she called a local power broker and was directed to the state to an appointee of the governor. Effective January 1, 1981 a bill had been signed into law, Senate Bill 19417, which prevented Sallie from taking calls from reporters seeking information on drug programs and which Sallie was mandated by the governor to implement. The senate bill established a single drug abuse administrator in each one of the 58 state counties and all questions were to be directed to them. For Sallie to have accepted Black’s call would have meant open defiance of a mandate from the pressure. Journalists were busy, and their editors were impatient. The media has a short attention span... ‘A reporter ought to da more than wait for an official arm of government to investigate or for somebody else to leak a story, although too many editors feel safer when stories come this way.’ ” ° Public Document Minutes, LOS ANGELES COUNTY NARCOT- ICS AND DANGEROUS DRUGS COMMISSION MINUTES, date August 5, 1981 Page 4. Message: Commissioner Beckler said he has participated as a member of various alcohol and drug program groups and knows it is almost impossible for any bureaucracy not to some- times be insensitive to the needs ef the community; this is inevitable but forgivable. He didn’t think the letter from the providers was helpful — it took him several readings just to figure out what it was talking about. However, he felt it was simply a symptom of the community's fear. He felt sometimes the Commission was possibly not only supportive, but “cozy” with the DAPO; it should use care not to be just supportive, but should also be a watchdog. We must constantly strive to keep open lines of communication between prov- iders and the DAPO, he said. 11 governor as well as violation of the California Administra- tive Code protecting service provider privacy rights.” These statements from respondents are false. Boyd provided documentation by the government audi- tor of I-TAC, in a signed and witnessed affidavit that the “eoncerns” of Sallie upon which respondents base their case are little more than fiction. Sallie’s “concerns” were written in two letters to I-TAC dated May 6 and May 12, 1982. They “concerned” the corporate status of I-TAC and were not involved with the financial management of the corporation. The “concerns” of Sallie were disposed of as being totally without substance. See App. H. Following is a letter from ADP Audit Section request- ing a time to audit the financial management of I-TAC during the time of the Broadcast. The letter is dated July 22, 1982." Boyd has provided documented proof that there * Public Document — Senate bill No. 1841 Introduced by Senators Green and Watson on March 6, 1980, An act to amend Sections 11754, 11961, 11962, 11963, 11981... of the Welfare and Institutions Code, relating to drug abuse... “SEC. 5. Section 11962 of the Health and Safety Code is amended to read: 11962. The board of supervisors shall designate a drug program adminstrator and shall determine the administrative level, responsi- bility, and authority of such a position ... He or she shall administer all drug programs funds allocated to the county under this chapter. All drug program funds allocated by the department to programs or projects within the county shall be expended only with the prior certification by the drug program administrator, the county advisory board on drug programs, and notification to the board of supervisors that the program allocation is consistent with the priorities in the approved county Short-Doyle drug program plan.” ‘Public Document, Letter, Department of Alcohol and Drug Pro- grams, July 22, 1982, CERTIFIED MAIL: P06 7461325 to Ms. Inez 12 was no “month-long” audit of the 1982 ADP contract at the time of the Broadcast to validate an ABC “Investiga- tive Report” as respondents claim. ADP never audited I- TAC’s 1982 contract, the contract is still open and due and payable, validated by a Sacramento Court order. There was no special-interest privilege for Capital Cit- ies/ ABC, Ine., no need for the public to know. The audits were of old contracts. ABC was aware that the viewers were being misled. Appellant documents with a dated “9- 3-87” defendants’, APP E. It was a matter of public record that the “Coalition” in Southeast which appellant coordinated seven years ear- lier in 1973-74 had been replaced by the group below: Sallie was a member and knew Boyd was not, at the time of Broadcast. A pvublie document letter — See App F. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF PROGRAM DIREC- TORS, 15519 CRENSHAW BOULEVARD, GARDENA, CALIFORNIA 90249, (213) 679-9126, July 11, 1981, Ms. Sally Davis, MSW, Director, ADP “.... The Southern California Association of Program Directors wishes to formally state its opposition to subvention of Federal block grant dollars to the counties for the following reasons:..../s/ Chairperson.” See App. F copy of a November 20, 1973 sign-in sheet indieating that everyone in attendance represented a C. Boyd, Direetor I-TAC, Ine. RE: AUDIT OF CONTRACT NUM- BER D-0167-80, A-1. We have recently completed the audit of Contract Number D-0167-80, A-1 for the period January 1, 1981 to December 31, 1981. At the present time the Department plans to audit the remainder six months of the contract, January 1, 1982 through June 30, 1982. /s/_ Pilar Troy Assistant Manager Audit Seetion 13 professional group. These documents were supplied to respondents and the courts. The entire basis of respondents’ case is false. This case concerns a morally flexible state agency director, who, at all times had both a federal mandate and a state mandate under the state FORMULA INDEX OF NEED, Senate Bill 714, of federally required matching funds, to provide public funding for Project Total Push: AFTERCARE, parent company — I-THE AMERICAN CITIZEN, INC., (I- TAC) — as P.T.P. was prioritized Number One, by the community planners for such funding during the entire seven years of its existence, 1975 to 1982. REASONS FOR GRANTING CERTIORARI I CERTIORARI SHOULD BE GRANTED TO RE- SOLVE THE CONFLICT BETWEEN THE DECI- SIONS BELCW AND THE DECISIONS OF THIS COURT. This Court has stated in Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476, 484, “The general proposition of expression upon publie questions is secured by the First Amendment has long been settled by our decisions. The constitutional safeguard, we have said, ‘was fashioned to assure unfet- tered interchange of ideas for the bringing about of political and social changes desired by the people’.” The matter of how the states have implemented these constitutional mandates is the matter at issue in this instant ease. The Court of Appeal, Opinion App. A, decided this instant case on the basis of respondents request for 14 Summary Judgment “...is appropriate because the Broadeast statements are privileged under Section 47(3) of the California Civil Code.” Agreeing with respondents, above, the Court of Appeal opined “..... Finally, it appears that the statements broadeast by Black were privileged under subdivision 3 of section 47 of the Civil Code....” The Court of Appeal defined malice as “...that state of mind arising from hatred or ill will...” However, the Supreme Court of the State of California disagreed with both the pre-trial court and the Court of Appeal, addressing the issue in the not yet reported Brown v. Kelly Broadcasting Co. 8005126, Gpinion ‘*’,. The soie issue in this ease is whether Civil Code section 47, subdivision 3, affords a broad privilege, some- times referred to as a “public-interest privilege” to the news communications industry (news media) to make false statements regarding a private individual.”...... as we will explain, there is no such privilege for the news media under section 47(3). We hold that a publication or” broadeast by a member of the news media to the general publie regarding a private person is not privileged under section 47(3) regardless of whether the communication pertains to a matter of public interest. Thus, a private- person plaintiff is not required by section 47(3) to prove malice to recover compensatory damages.” Until this Supreme Court Opinion, California was one of only three states to still hold such a privilege over private citizens. There was no trial of this case on its merits and therefore, appellant did not benefit from this decision. The earelessness with which KABC-TV/ABC, Ine. prepared the Broadeast gives a clue as to exactly how heavily the news media in California depended on the 15 state statute to bail them out of libel suits — and how well the technique worked. The constitutional rights of citizens, in the meantime, were being trampled. The Opinion of the court of last resort on this matter is quite lengthy. The pertinent parts of the decision are reproduced for the Court, herein; at pp 4. DISCUSSION The broad public-interest privilege claimed under section 47(3) is not constitutionally mandated or appropriate. In recent years, the common and statutory law of defamation has been supplanted in many respects by decisions of the United States Supreme Court construing the federal Constitution. Thus, although the question before us can be answered by statutory construction, it is best understood in light of the high court’s decisions. Defendants do not contend those decisions mandate a privilege under section 47(3) but argue that they provide policy support for a statutory public-interest privilege for the news media under section 47(3). We disagree. The United States Supreme Court has construed the federal Constitution as imposing certain-limitations on plaintiffs seeking to recover for defamation. The high court, how- ever, has expressly rejected, the privilege sought by de- fendants in this case. As recently as 1957. the court reiterated that, “{T]he unconditional phrasing of the First Amendment was not intended to protect every utterance. This phrasing did not prevent this Court from concluding that libelous utterances are not within the area of constitutionally protected speech,” (Roth v. United States (1957) 354 U.S. 476, 483, citing Beauharnais v. Illinois (1952) 343 U.S. 250, 266.) 16 Only seven years later, however, the court found for the first time that libel is pretected by the federal Constitu- tion under certain circumstances....418 U.S. Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. Thus, Gertz holds that the public-interest privilege advocated by defendants under section 47(3) is not re- quired by the federal Constitution. Moreover, Gertz re- futes defendants’ policy argument that _ federal constitutional protections fur freedom of the press weigh in favor of creating a public-interest privilege in defama- tion actions by private-figure plaintiffs. The Gertz court earefully balanced the competing values of society's inter- est in a free press and society's need to prevent and redress attacks on reputation and found that a public- interest privilege is not constitutionally required. Appellant in the Petition For Review to the court of last resort approached the issue of privilege for respon- dents from the same direction as that court's decision, making it the sole issue of the petition: A. Basis of Petition This petition for a review centers around one, single, key area: The principles, well settled in law that identify com- munications of a broadeaster, protected by PRIVILEGE Appellate submits that the privilege of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution was extended to the two minutes, five second, ABC Ine., Eye Witness News “DUB” tape, in error, and accord- ing to the principles, well-settled, in law, that pro- 17 tect boradcasters’ communications, the granting of summary judgment to that tape should be reversed. California Supreme Court Opinion Continue Shortly after New York Times, supra, 376 U.S. 254, the court further restricted the common law of defamation by holding that “publie figures’ — like public officials — must also prove malice under the New York Times stand- ard to recover for defamatory criticism. (Curtis Publish- ing Co. v. Butts (1967) 388 U.S. 130, 162-165 (cone. opn. of Warren, C.J.). Because plaintiff in the present ease is not alleged to be a “public figure,” we need not discuss the court’s explanations of that term in Curtis and subse- quent cases. /t is sufficient to note that, “...a court must focus on the nature and extent of an individual’s participa- tion in the particular controversy giving rise to the defama- tion.’...A private individual is not automatically transformed into a pudlic figure just by becoming involved in or associaied with a matter that attracts public atten- tion.”’ (Wolston v. Reader’s Digest Assn., Ine. (1979) 443 U.S. 157, 167; Reader’s Digest Assn. v. Superior Court (1984) 37 Cal.3d 244, 254, fn. 6.) The State Supreme Court of California coneludes its historie opinion removing the privilege for the news com- munications industry to print public-interest, false news about private citizens providing, at pp 50-55, the means already at hand to prevent long, costly law suits for the press and the news media: 18 CONCLUSION We find no support in the language or history of section 47(3) for the broad public-:nterest privilege claimed by defendants. Sound public policy reasons also weigh heavily against such a privilege. Because we find there is no such privilege in this ease, we agree with the Court of Appeal that summary judg- ment was improper. The judgment of the Court of Appeal is affirmed with directions to remand this action to the trial court for further proceedings in accordance with the views set forth in this opinion. DATED: August 1, 1989 Respectfully submitted, INEZ C. BOYD For Petitioner In Propria Persona il. CERTIORARI SHOULD BE GRANTED TO RE- SOLVE AN IMPORTANT AND RECURRING CON- STITUTIONAL QUESTION LEFT OPEN BY THIS COURT'S DECISIONS This Court has decided “...debate on publie issues should be uninhibited... robust....°’ New York Times Co. v, Sullivan, 376 U.S. at 270 ‘“... the use of ealeulated falsehood, however, would put a different cast cn the constitutional question. Although honest utterance, even if inaccurate may further the fruitful exercise of the right of free speech, it does not follcw that the he, knowingly and deliberately published...should enjoy a_ like community.” 19 Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 64, 72 Appellant respectfully requests a focus from this Court on the issue that the information for the Broadcast was secured illegally, that the information passed to the view- ing publie was false, that no ABC “Investigative Report”’ was ever submitted in evidence to the courts below and that the tape (2:05) was a “DUB”, made at a Hollywood address — a fraud, a hoax, after an eleven year ABC veteran swore that there were ONE HOUR TAPES of every news broadeast stored, only given out on an “as needed” basis. The 8 million viewing audience is left to wonder whether there are any records kept at Capital Cities/ABC, INC., at all. The remarks of the anchorper- son on the Broadeast, July 21, 1982 were destroyed at KABC-TV. This Court has stated, THE FLORIDA STAR v. B.J.F. No. 87-329 Opinion: “The tension between the right which the First Amendment accords a free press, on the one hand and the protections which various statutes and com- mon-law doctrines accord to personal privacy against the publication of truthful information, on the other, is a subjeet we have addressed several times in recent years. Our decisions in cases involving govern- ment uttempts to sanction the accurate dissemination of information as invasive of privacy, have not, however, exhaustively considered this conflict. On the contrary, although our decisions have without exception upheld the press’ right to publish, we have emphasized each time that we were resolving this conflict only as it 20 arose in a discrete factual context.” (Emphasis added) Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, “Caleulated falsehood falls into that class of utterances which “... are no essen- tial part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.” 315 U.S. 568, 572 This Court is respectfully requested to note that be- cause respondents submitted only one single piece of evidence to the courts below and failed to address the two essential elements of proof of a plaintiff's classification as a ‘“‘publie figure”’: 1— identification of a specific public controversy ee 2— voluntariness...‘‘thrust’” oneself ‘“...into the ’9 VORUE... s at the time of the Broadcast, the program constituted a personal attack upon the plaintiff. Boyd was not proven to be a “public figure” by factual evidence but was simply stated to be one and by repeti- tion of this statement became one for all purposes, when, as a point of fact the statement was easily proven false by evidence submitted for the record by Boyd. App. E, Declaration of a sitting judge in L.A. County, who docu- “The somewhat uncharted state of the law in this area thus contrasts markedly with the well-mapped area of defamatory false- hoods, where a long line of decisions has produced relatively detailed legal standards governing the multifarious situations in which indi- viduals aggrieved by the dissemination of damaging untruths seek redress. See, e.g., New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964); Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 64 (1964); Henry v. Collins, 380 U.S. 356 (1965); Rosenblatt v. Baer, 383 U.S. 75 (1966): Time, Ince. v. Hill, 385 U.S. 374 (1967). 21 ments that Boyd did not “found” PTP, Kedren did — Cirea 1975. 388 U.S. 161 The Court has stated: Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts, “It should also be noted that prior to publication the Satur- day Evening Post had been notified both by Butts and his daughter that the material about to be printed was false. Despite these warnings, and the fact that no member of the staff had ever seen Burnett’s crucial notes, no further efforts at investigation were undertaken prior to publica- tion. It might indeed be argued that this conduct would have sufficed, under proper instructions, to satisfy even the actual malice standard of New York Times, the notice to the Saturday Evening Post being considered as fur- nishing the neeessary mental element.” New York Times, supra, 376 US at 287, 11 L ed 2d at 710, 95 ALR2d 1412. The false statements from respondents inelude denying information sworn to in declarations and not being checked by the courts below. Plaintiff's attorney, in 1982, (he was compromised by respondents) ealled ABC and told KABC-TV of a possible error. Plaintiff called and talked with the Assistant News Director — these were all simply denied. Without a trial there was no recourse for plaintiff. C.T. 307-8. 443 U.S. 103 This Court has stated, Smith v. Daily Mail Publishing Co., “...The ‘Daily Mail’ principle does not settle the issue of whether, in cases where information has been acquired unlawfully by a news paper or by a source, government may ever punish not only the unlawful acqui- sition but the ensuing publication as well.” 22 Respondents reported the wrong dates for the national BLOCK GRANTS, placing them in the 1970’s when these were a part of the new administration, July 21, 1982 “|. From the community-based/grass roots funding in the late 1960’s, to the federal block grants of the 1970’s, TO THE LAISSEZ FAIRE approach of the present administration...” CT 154° Respondents from ABC/KABC-TV, the #1 television news station in Southern California, by their own sworn declarations turn the key that upsets and unravels their own intellectually dishonest theorizing on a limited pur- pose public figure as the term is manipulated to fit appellant: ‘« I have never met Boyd and I had never communi- eated with, or even heard of her, before the date of the disputed broadeast ...”’ Thomas Van Amburg, President and General Manager of KABC-TV. C.T. 173 ‘* [have never met Inez C. Boyd and I never commu- nicated with or even heard of her before receiving the July 14, 1987 (1982: telephone eall from Evans.” Angela Black, alleged “investigative” reporter at KABC-TV. C.T. 171 ‘I have never met Inez C. Boyd and I had never communicated with, or even heard of her before KABC- TV began its investigation into allegations that had been *Appellant asserts that the present administration is the Block Grant Law. The Block Grant Law belongs to the ‘80's — July 1, 1982. Public Document — a letter from the State Department of Health, to drug programs, dated June 1, 1982, SUBJECT: BLOCK GRANTS — explains the STATE’S ROLE IN RESOLVING COUNTY PROVIDER ISSUES thus, refuting respondent's claim that the Block Grants were a product of the Cirea 1970's and 1982 was Laissez-faire time. 23 made against her by her ex-employee, Ronald Evans (“Evans”) Kenneth Nelson, News Director, KABC-TV C.T. 178 Respondents cannot have it both ways. Either appellant is a widely known publie figure who “thrust herself into the vortex of a public controversy,” or appellant is an out- of-publie-view and private person, who is unseen, un- heard-of and unknown, by Southern California’s NUM- BER ONE Nielsen rated ABC, INC./KABC-TV news station’s top brass, with an eight (8) million person potential viewing audience. The most damaging claim made by respondents is that appellant has aecess to the news media to refute and discuss the false statements in the Broadcast. A more accurate statement about appellant and the press is that any “news” about appellant that reaches the reading or viewing public is strictly accidental and if caught in time will never leave the editorial room. KABC-TV/ABC was on a mission. They believed the news leak was “hot”. No investigative report ever sur- faced with corroborated facts, only rumor and gossip. See Opinion, pp. 5, 6. Appellant was familiar with efforts to prevent minori- ties from taking eredit for their own creative writings. Such writings might be passed along to a friend of those who read for publication. See letter, App. G documenting this theory. The letter is self-explanatory. Had appellant been a public figure wiio had access to the news media she would have, before March 11, 1980, and the reluctant offer made by B'nai B’rith Anti-Defamation to read her next research for “possible publication”, this matter would long ago have been settled. A legal agreement had been reached between two attorneys. The legal agreement was a a 24 never honored. Appellant was on the verge of publishing PTP’s AFTERCARE research when the break-in by Black oceurred at the program. Appellant, on July 21, 1982 was « »rivate citizen. The right to publish — the freedom to do research — is con- stitutionally guaranteed to every American. It is this aspect of this instant case upon which appellant respect- fully seeks a focus from this Court.” Ill. CERTIORARI SHOULD BE GRANTED FOR MORE INPUT FROM THIS COURT ON THE STATUS OF THE BASIC CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF PRI- VATE CITIZENS — FREEDOM OF SPEECH, DUE PROCESS —IN THE ON-GOING CLASH BE- TWEEN PRIVACY AND FREE EXPRESSION FOR THE PRESS 420 U.S. 491 Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn, this Court has stated, ‘* |. Indeed, in Cox Broadeasting we pointedly refused to answer even the less sweeping question ‘whether truthful publications may ever be subjected to civil or eriminal liability’ for invading ‘an area of privacy’ defined by the state. Respecting the fact that press freedom and privacy rights are both ‘plainly rooted in the tradtions and signifi- ‘Appellant had written her masters thesis on St. Louis school desegregation. Every national magazine wanted to publish. Because of Appellant’s trust and faith in B’nai B'rith she gave the thesis to that organization. The trust was betrayed. Any chance that appellant might have become a public figure disappeared with this one aet. So did any “‘aecess to the press’’ — Cirea 1960. To cover for this lapse in morals and ethies, the victim has had to pay with enforeed anonymity and has become a very private citizen. 25 cant concerns of our society, we, instead focused on the less sweeping issue...” (emphasis added) Plaintiff is not a limited purpose “public figure’ as claimed by respondents. The Court of Appeal stated, at pp 10: ““Moreover, Boyd is a ‘limited purpose public figure’. No reference was made to the two essential elements, of a public contro- versy and voluntariness, at the time of the Broadcast. The Court of Appeal further states at p 11: “On the topic of drug pregrams and funding,” Boyd states that there “were 600 people who attended 11 weeks of seminars, just to ‘hear’ her ‘expound’ about her ideas on drug pro- grams and funding’.” This statement is completely false. Whether it should determine Plaintiff's future is a ques- tion this Court is respectfully requested to consider. Capital Cities/ABC, INC. had become a rumor mill. As the false information passed through the lower courts, having no basis in fact, the players changed. As the newspaper article, herein, clearly points out, the 600 people, of all religious faiths, had gathered in Whittier, as a Study Group to discuss prejudice as reported in the Kerner Report: CIRCA JUNE 1, 1968 — fourteen (14) years before the Broadeast. Appellant did not “found” P.T.P. The Southeast Coalition did, as a cooperative gesture — all programs referred their clients to P.T.P. for Aftercare services. There was no controversy about the need for aftercare, at the time of the Broadeast.'’ "'Publie Document: Newspaper Article, June 1, 1968 Whittier Study Group Seeking Social Reality — Physician’s Wife Spurs Ef- fort to Learn How to Resoive Probiems Scientifically — Society has grown up pretty much by the law of the jungle and it is time today to 26 There is a clash between the freedom of speech protec- tion for the news media and the privacy rights of the eitizen. In this instant case the clash is with appellant’s duties as a provider of health services to the state from a private corporation employee, for twelve (12) years. The public record at the state agency, ADP, the state tax office, the Internal Revenue Services will all show that these services were not volunteered. Without this essen- tial element being proven by respondents appellant is not a limited purpose public figure. The Opinion, App. A, 9A, states: “....she (appellant) cannot truly identify any false statement of fact made during the Broadeast....’’ Appellant identifies several such statements — false — made during the Broadcast: First, Opinion 6a, App. A. Angela Black: “....I-TAC lost its state funds on June 30th... .” This statement is false. ereate a scientific society, according to the wife of a Whittier physician who also happens to be a trained sociologist. Mrs. Joseph F. Boyd Jr. is the guiding spirit behind an intriguing study course on “Riots, Revolution, Revolt and Me,” being given Mondays at 7:30 p.m. in Whittier First Methodist Church, Bailey St. at Friends Ave. She eails it the “3 R’s” study course. “The real purpose is self-examination,” said Mrs. Boyd. Well, many ask, am I a racist, or am I not? What is a racist? _... The courts have also, especially in libel cases, investigated the plaintiff's position to determine whether he has a legitimate call upon the court for protection in light of his prior activities and means of self-defense. See Brewer v. Hearst Publishing Co., 185 F.2d 846; Flanagan v. Nicholson Publishing Co., 137 La 588, 68 So 964.... 27 Correction: I-TAC holds a valid, written contract with the State Department of Aleohol and Drug Programs, Sallie, director, Cirea, September 30, 1982. The contract was never closed out by Sallie. Second, Opinion 6a App A. Angela Black: “.... Employees are working under con- tract without pay pending court hearings...” This statement is false. Correction: Appellant managed five contracts, from the same funding source, renewable annually, on the basis of good to excellent audits whose record is in a permanent public file (410) at the state. No employee of I-TAC ever missed a pay period. There was no court hearing pending, July 21, 1982. There was no ABC investigative report which provided evidence other than that publie record. Third Angela Black: “The aleohol and Drug Programs has asked the Attorney General’s Office to investigage a possible misuse of funds. This statement is false. ABC did not report the results of such a request nor did ABC show responsibility and retract the statement on the air. There was no audit of the I-TAC contract for the current year on July 21, 1982, in progress. No matter of public interest and. therefore, no reason for the Broadeast. The California Supreme Court in comparing the protee- tion for the private citizen at the state level with that enjoyed at the federal level continues in its Opinion: “Article I, section 2, subdivision (a) of the Califor- nia Constitution states, “Every person may freely speak, write and publish his or her sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of this right. ES 28 A law may not restrain or abridge liberty of speech or press. 403 U.S. at 46-47 ... private individual does not have the same degree of access to the media to rebut defamatory comments as does the public person and he has not voluntaril) exposed himself to publie serutiny. While these arguments are forcefully and elo- quently presented, I cannot accept them, tor the reasons I stated in Rosenbloom: “The New York Times standard was applied to libel of a publie official or publie figure to give effect to the [First] Amendment's function to encourage ventilation of publie issues, not be- eause the public official has any less interest in protecting his reputation than an individual in private life. While the argument that public figures need less protection because they can command media attention to counter eriticism may be true for some very prominent people, even then it is the rare case where the denial overtakes the original charge. Denials, retrac- tions, and corrections are not ‘hot’ news, and rarely receive the prominence of the original story. When the publie official or public figure is a minor functionary, or has left the position that put him in the publie eye... , the argument loses all of its foree. In the vast majority of libeis involving publie officials or public figures, the ability to respond through the media will depend on the same complex factor on which the ability of a private individual depends: the unpredict- able event of the media’s continuing interest in 29 the story. Thus the unproved, and highly improb- able, generalization that an as yet [not fully defined] class of ‘publie figures’ involved in matters of public concern will be better able to respond through the media than private individ- uals also involved in such matters seems too insubstantial a reed on which to rest a constitu- tional distinction.” 403 U.S. at 46-47. The court of last resort continued its discussion of the parameters of the limited purpose public figure which were ignored in this instant case, Shirley Brown v. Kelly Broadcasting Co. S 005126 at 50." Two important officials in California have announced intentions ‘o uddress the matters involved in this instant case: “Although we conclude there is no publie-interest privilege under section 47(3), we believe it appropriate to note defendants’ conten- tion that plaintiff's work as a contractor was a matter of public interest because the work involved public funds, i.e., the money for the work was lent to the homeowner by a public agency. Even if there were a public- interest privilege under section 47(3), it would not arise on these facts. In Hutchinson v. Proxmire (1979) 443 U.S. 111, the court held that “concern about general public expenditures” is insufficient by itself to convert a recipient of public funds into o public figure whe mus! show malice to recover for defamation. (Id., at p. 135.) It would be inconsistent with the logie of Hutchinson to find that the receipt of public funds by itself creates a public interest that requires a private person to prove malice under section 47(3). Moreover, the use of government funds is pervasive and affects almost everyone, directly or indirectly, in one way or another. For example, under defendants’ view, a recipient of a Veterans Administration home loan or a bank customer whose deposits are federally insured might have to prove malice. A mere connection with public funds is too broad a basis on which to require a showing of malice.” 30 — Attorney General Van de Kamp, on “CLEAN THE ETHICS SWAMP” (Sacramento Bee, July 1989) “The plain truth is that we have allowed government and polities in California to sink into quicksand... . Yet we naively expect public officials to crawl through that swamp ON A DAILY BASIS AND COME OUT CLEAN AND UNSOILED. ...1 am here today to tell you that if we want clean government, it’s time to drain the swamp.” — Attorney Robert D. Raven, President of the American Bar Association, ABA, on the lack of aecess of the poor to the courts: (Sacramento Bee, January 1989) “The system is not working. At ieast 80 per cent of the legal needs of the poor are not being met... “THE CONSTITUTION IN THE PREAMBLE SAYS ‘TO ESTABLISH JUSTICE’... IT DOESN'T SAY ‘TO PURSUE JUSTICE’ OR ‘TO DO THE BEST YOU CAN,’ ” Robert D. Raven, President ABA This Court in granting Certiorari, in this instant case, has an opportunity to impact, favorably, the sorry status of national morals and ethics, and the conditions affecting aecess of the poor to the courts in one of the largest states in the nation and at the same time invigorate the on- going efforts of two of its most powerful lawvers. Dated: August 1, 1989 Respectfully submitted, INEZ C. Boyp For Petitioner In Propria Persona APPENDIX A NOT TO BE PUBLISHED 2d Civ. No. B033544 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE INEZ C. Boyp, Plaintiff and Appellant, V. ANGELA BLACK, et al., Defendants and Respondents. (Super. Ct. No. SEC 43543) APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. J. Kimball Walker, Judge. Affirmed. Inez C. Bowd, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant. Christensen, While, Miller, Fink & Jacobs, Michael J. O’Connor and James E. Curry, for Defendants and Respondents. Plaintiff/appellant Inez C. Boyd (‘‘Boyd’’), appeals from a summary judgment granted in favor of defend- ants/respondents Angela Black, Thomas Van Amburg, Kenneth Nelson (hereinafter collectively “respondents ’ ) and Capital Cities/ABC, Ine. (*ABC’).' l ’ 4 a5 4 s ‘ Capital Cities/ABC., Ine., was erroneously sued as ABC and KABC Television. A-2 FACTUAL BACKGROUND Boyd is the former director of Project Total Push: Aftercare (“PTP”),” a publicly funded drug and alcohol aftercare treatment facility located in Los Angeles. In July 1983 she filed a complaint for damages against Angela Black (‘Black’), a reporter for KABC-TV,’ Thomas Van Amburg, the former station manager at KABC-TV, Kenneth Nelson, the former Assistant News Director at KABC-TV and Capital Cities/ABC, Ine. for slander arising from a KABC-TV investigative broadeast on duly 21, 1982, as part of its 5 p.m. “Eyewitness News” program. The events leading up to this broadeast inelude the following: On July 14, 1982, Black receiveu a telephone eall from a Ronald Evans. Evans told Black that he was a former employee of PTP and that he believed Boyd was misusing PTP’s publie funds. He also stated that he had not been paid for work performed at PTP during January and February of 1982. Beeause of the publie interest and econeern over possible misuse of public monies and possi- ble mismanagement of a publicly-funded drug and alcohol rehabilitation program, KABC-TV began an investigation into Evans’ allegations. On July 19, 1987, Black tele- phoned the Department of Aleohol and Drug Programs (‘ADP’), which is the state ageney responsible for the funding, supervising and auditing of PTP, and spoke with ADP’s Director, Sarah Davis. Davis told Black that ADP had conducted a month-long audit of PTP in June 1982 “PTP was operated under the auspices of I-TAC (I-T, American Citizen, Ine.), a nonprofit, community-based corporation that was founded and directed by Boyd. 3 ‘ , ‘ a KABC-TV broadeasts over Channel 7 in the greater Los Angeles area. A-3 and that the results had caused “some eoncern.” The auditors had found that PTP was not maintaining proper accounting systems, and there had been “many unre- corded cash expenditures” at PTP during the audit pe- riod. As a result, ADP was going to ask the Attorney General to investigate a possible misuse of public funds at PTP. On July 19, 1987, Black requested a personal interview and Boyd “tentatively agreed” to meet on July 22nd. On July 21st, Black visited the PTP offices with a camera erew. Just prior to the visit, Black interviewed Evans. Black also interviewed Cecil Miller, a PTP counselor, who confirmed that a month-long audit had recently been eonducted at PTP. He also told Black that before the audit, client records had been missing for more than one month. Black also spoke to Boyd and asked for an interview that afternoon. Boyd refused and suggested she speak with her attorney, Errol Gordon. Later, Boyd was again offered, through her attorney, an opportunity to appear on the air and respond to the allegations made against her. She refused. On July 21, 1982, the investigative report was aired. In her complaint for slander, Boyd alleged that Black had stated, on camera, “the State Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs would have charges of fraud filed the next day against the plaintiff citing mismanagement of publie drug abuse monies at the program and PTP deliv- ery of poor health eare to the clients.” Respondents and ABC moved for summary judgment on the grounds that (1) there is no genuine issue as to any material fact in the complaint since the alleged defamatory statements were never made; (2) the contents of the broadeast are affirmatively protected by the First Amendment beeause Boyd was and is a “limited purpose A-4 public figure;’ and (3) the broadeast was privileged under Civil Code Section 47, subdivision 3. Attached to the motion for summary was a video tape 4 | : copy’ of the broadcast and a transcript of the video tape. * Roger Bell. the Assistant News Director at KABC-TV, in his declaration, stated that he examined the tape and “to the best of [his] knowledge,” there was “absolutely no alteration of the tape and the attached copy “represents a complete and accurate represen- tation” of the broadeast. He also stated the “standard procedure | used for preserving the tapes of news stories Aeceording to the transeript, the following statements were made during the Broadcast “ANGELA BLACK: I-TAC is a state-funded drug- rehabilitation center. One former employee says its director, Inez Boyd, is mishan- dling the money. The Alcohol and Drug Program in Sacramento funds I-TAC. This year the budget was almost $58,000. That's supposed to pay a staff of four and serve forty-five clients. Ron Evans says he worked for I-TAC from September of 1951 to February of 1982. He says his January paycheck had a stop payment put on It, and he was never paid for February either; a total loss of about $1,600. And he says clients are not being served as claimed. “RON EVANS: And I began to feel that it was just terribly wrong, that the public was being ripped off, that the people in the area that could resume, even use the service, were being ripped off also. “ANGELA BLACK: I went to I-TAC offices to get their side of the story this afternoon. The director was not in. An employee called her on a telephone. She said she was not available for an interview today. One employee would go on camera. He said a month-long audit of I- TAC was conducted recently, but before that, the records of the clients had disappeared. “ANGELA BLACK: How long have the reeords been missing? “CECIL MILLER: I don't really know. I know that they were gone when I got there. I’ve been here a little over a month. “ANGELA BLACK: I-TAC lost its state funds on June 30th. Employees reportedly are working under contract without pay pend- A-5 Both exhibits show that contrary to Boyd's allegations, Black actually stated: “The Aleohol and Drug Program has asked the Attorney General’s office to investigate a possible misuse of funds.” At argument on the motion for summary judgment Boyd argued that “the triable issue is whether or not what is on that tape was what was seen and shown on that day.” Noting that Boyd’s papers “fall so short” since it was just “a statement of [her] position,” the court granted the motion for summary judgment. ISSUES ON APPEAL Boyd appears in propria persona on appeal. In her brief, she does not directly challenge the bases upon which the summary judgment was granted. Instead she argues: (1) “Attorney(s) with their clients (defendants) each has an independent duty to refrain from intentional tortious conduct;” (2) “The conduct of defendant(s) with their attorneys was sufficiently outrageous to constitute intentional infliction of emotional distress;” (3) “A judg- ment obtained by extrinsic fraud must be set aside;” (4) “Absolute privilege is inapplicable beeause the publica- tion was not made to achieve the objects of the litigation and was not made to promote the interests of justice;” (5) “Trial court erroneously decided the question of whether the absolute privilege applied as a factual issue;” (6) “Doctrine of presumed damages.” ing court hearing. Employees say they really will be sorry to see this program go, but they say they honestly don't think that it will be refunded. The Alcohol and Drug Program has asked the Attorney General’s office to investigate ¢ possible misuse of funds. “Angela Black, Channel 7 Eyewitness News, South- Central Los Angeles.” A-6 DISCUSSION Much of Boyd’s brief is concerned with the develop- ment of conspiracy theories that respondents and/or their attorneys conspired to edit or tamper with the video tape of the broadeast and to prevent her from obtaining an attorney to represent her in this action. Although she maintains that the “Dubbed Tape” covered up the alter- ing of the original broadeast with defamatory remarks by Black about Boyd, nothing whatsoever has been presented to the court that would support this theory. These theories are not relevant to the bases upon which summary judgment was granted. Boyd also discusses intentional infliction of emotional distress which is not a cause of action in her complaint and was not discussed in the court below. She also argues that the judicial privilege of Civil Code seetion 47, subdi- vision 2, is inapplicable. However subdivision 2 was not raised by respondents’ answer or relied upon in the granting of the summary judgment. Clearly, from the record before us, the statements alleged to have been spoken by Black on the air were never made. Before granting the motion for summary judgment the court stated to Boyd, “Your papers fall so short and they are contrary — I mean there is nothing in your papers that are very helpful because it is just a statement of your position. You need to have declarations, portions of the transcript, of things of that nature, por- tions of your deposition. ’ As conelusively confirmed by the transeript of the video tape, not one of the alleged defamatory statements was actually made in the Broadeast. Black never stated that fraud charges, or any other type of charges would be filed against Boyd. It appears that Black never used the word A-7 “fraud,” nor were “charges” ever mentioned. Instead, Black merely stated that ADP was going “to ask the Attorney General’s office to investigate a possible misuse of funds at PTP.” This statement was not defamatory and in fact was true. In her deposition, Boyd admitted that she did not view the broadeast at any time after it was aired on July 21, 1982 and that she saw it only once on that date. She also admitted to waiting months after the broadeast date before preparing her complaint. She did not have a copy of the video tape until discovery was conducted in this action. As confirmed in her deposition, the allegations in her complaint were based upon her personal recollection of the broadcast. There is nothing whatsoever in the record to support her allegation that the broadcast was defamatory to her or that the tape is not as was broad- easted. She cannot truly identify any false statement of fact made during the broadcast. As stated by the trial court, “Well, what in the tape would suggest that the statements that you claim are libelous were made? Nothing in this tape shows anything about that you were being investigated for fraud. “On the contrary, it says that an employee alleged there has been some mishandling of funds. Mishandling of funds could be putting it in the wrong drawer. That doesn’t hardly rise to the kind of thing that gives a cause of action for slander by a news reporting agency.” The summary judgment was properly granted as re- spondents never made the allegedly defamatory state- ments. (See Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc. v. Hepps (1986) 475 U.S. 767, 769.) Moreover, Boyd is a “limited purpose publie figure.” Consequently, any statements made without actual malice A-8 are protected by a qualified constitutional privilege under the First Amendment, as extended to state court lbel actions by the Fourteenth Amendment. (See Curtis Pub- lishing Co. v. Butts (1967) 388 U.S. 130, 155; Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. (1974) 418 U.S. 323, 342-345, 351-352.) In Gertz, the court defined two classes of publie figures. The first is the “all purpose’ public figure who has “achiev[ed] such pervasive fame or notoriety that he becomes a public figure for all purposes and in all con- texts.”’ The second category is that of the “limited pur- pose” or “vortex” publie figure, an individual who “voluntarily injects himself or is drawn into a particular public controversy and thereby becomes a public figure for a limited range of issues.” (418 U.S. at p. 351.) The “limited purpose” public figure, unlike the “all purpose” publie figure, loses certain protection for his reputation only to the extent that the allegedly defamatory communi- cation relates to his role in a public controversy. From the record, Boyd played a significant roi2 in the controversy surrounding drug treatment programs and their sources of funding. By her own admission in her disposition she has founded two organizations, I-TAC and PTP, and she took an active role in bringing the drug problem to the publie’s attention. The County of Los Angeles hired her to found the South East Regional Coalition to serve as (1) the coordinator for the South East Regional Coalition on Aleohol and Drug Abuse and (2) the eoordinator of the South East Region. On the topie of drug programs and funding, Boyd states that there ‘“‘were 600 people who attended 11 weeks of semi- nars just to hear” her “expound” about ideas on drug programs and funding. She appeared on NBC television on a special feature on I-TAC and served on advisory groups to the Board of Supervisors and to the Narcoties A-9 and Dangerous Drugs Commisson. She stated that she “was known from one end of the state to the other.” Clearly, Boyd’s ability to properly manage public funds was relevant to the public controversy and properly made a subject of the news. Further, no evidence was intro- duced showing that Black’s statements were made with malice. (See Reader’s Digest Assn. v. Superior Court (1974) 37 Cal.3d 244, 252.) There is absolutely no evi- dence that respondeets entertained any doubts about the truth of the broadeast. To the contrary, respondents consulted reliable sources and obtained their information from these sources. Black interviewed both Evans and Cecil Miller. Evans was the former PTP Project Coordi- nator, possessed a key to the PTP office and had access to the program files. Miller was working at PTP on July 21st when Black visited the ‘offices. Boyd, in her deposition, admitted leaving Miller in charge of PTP when she was on vacation because of his ability to handle emergencies and his knowledge of drug treatment. Boyd alleges that Miller and Evans are exconvicts, however, that fact, if true, does not establish malice on the part of Black. Both men were considered reliable by Boyd herself sinee she entrusted responsibilities at PTP to them. Another source of information was Sarah Davis, then Director of ADP. There was nothing revealed during the investigation to suggest any inaccuracies in the information obtained. As stated in Fitzgerald v. Penthouse Intern., Ltd. (1982) 691 F.2d 666, 670, “ ‘As long as the sources of the libelous information appeared reliable, and the defendant had no doubt about its accuracy, the courts have held the evi- dence of malice insufficient to support a jury verdict, even if a more thorough investigation might have presented the admitted error.’ ”’ A-10 Finally, it appears that the statements broadcast by Black were privileged under subdivision 3 of section 47 of the Civil Code which states, “A privileged... broadeast is one made....In a communication, without malice, to a person interested therein, (1) by one who is also inter- ested, or (2) by one who stands in such relation to the person interested as to afford a reasonable ground for supposing the motive for the communication innocent. ...”’ To defeat the subdivision 3 privilege “‘actual malice” must be shown. (Civ. Code, § 48.) Actual malice is defined in Civil Code section 48a, subdivision 4(d) as “that state of mind arising from hatred or ill will toward the plaintiff; provided, however, that such a state of mind occasioned by a good faith belief on the part of the defendant in the truth of the libelous publication or broadeast at the time it is published or broadcast shall not constitute actual malice.” At issue in the broadcast was whether the director of a publiely-funded drug treatment program in Southern Cal- ifornia was responsibly managing tax money entrusted to her for the eare of addicts. Clearly, this was a matter of local publie interest and econeern. (See Rollenhagen v. City of Orange (1981) 116 Cal.App.3d 414.)° As discussed, supra, there is nothing presented in record showing that any respendent or ABC harbored any hatred or ill will or had any desire to injure Boyd at any time. The declarations of the individual respondents es- tablish that none of them knew Boyd persenally, and in "Rollenhagen distinguished Rancho La Costa, Inc. v. Superior Court (1980) 106 Cal.App.3d 646, in which the court found section 47, subdivision 3 inapplicabie to a magazine story !inking the owners of a famous resort to organized crime, on the ground that the defamatory matters were only of general or idle curiosity and were published to a national audience. A-11 her deposition, Boyd admits that she never met any of the respondents. Additionally, the broadeast addressed a matter of pub- lie interest and concern. Consequently, the broadcast was the type of communication protection by section 47, sub- division 3, and the court properly granted the motion for summary judgment. DISPOSITION The judgment of dismissal is affirmed. Respondents shall recover their costs on appeal. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED CROSKEY, J. We Concur: KLEIN, PJ. ARABIAN, J. APPENDIX B ORDER DENYING REVIEW OFFICE OF THE CLERK COURT OF APPEAL 2nd District, Division 3, No. B033544 SO00945] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN BANK BoybD, INEZ C. VS, BLACK, ANGELA, ET AL. Appellant's petition for review DENIED ee APPENDIX C COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION: 3 Inez C. Boyd 4649 Paula Way Fair Oaks, CA 95628 RE: Boyd, Inez C. vs. Black, Angela, Ete. 2 Civil BO33544 Los Angeles No. SEC 343543 * * REMITTITUR NOTICE ° ° Notice is hereby given that the Remittitur has been issued this date and that the opinion, decision or order entered in the above entitled cause on 02/10/89 is now final. ** Affirmed In Full. * * Appellant X Respondent to recover costs. Each party to bear own costs. Costs are not awarded in this proceeding. MAY 24, 1989 ROBERT N. WILSON, Clerk Deputy Clerk I? i wid ! 1) " | ly 8=3E) l¥ J ] > y° » / ’ ( ryyys 1 \ J yo ag osye yen rate ’ qruotzoME 4 ruyya go ayerdroratd yy) mou . (4) ) . = | ee ee (SIVDOTAIC!N I : ] t ' memo Neh mei on CQ IPORM ANY are cut) ¢ tA 229 1 ' | EAST) Vt a IMIANIS Acnav cwmid >LINMINOD T¥ 2) ty oe oFrUL) " at . ‘ \ yy —- - aivis | Trey pK | JAVLS 1 oat | WWHOPOIY SIOPAUIS vivs' ; t : ™)-f SFOVAUIS MATVAM ALTE L.00 Ways Was WT { AS) NOPE NOLAUSS WATE ZUNE | > ’ =>. vo4) SHOMAETYOD YsnIY ond 40 HO) ANTG “Wins Qo. VINOD RO RALINOSNOD WHOL OA ‘ eyOPAUTE PIVEN _—_ = ~ —_ — —_ . ' : So PEOWIVAVD A¥E ' Cc a) rivicaye WYITOI = -- y2iVa Awostaay ; , VIED MMLUASLS | 4 KOLLVIIVA2 ‘HOveasse (43%) ie | rae : cheiencersinebl a ' THNSURE HYYYLIA — handed 2. NIN ASVA JenMv onUd | - — ta — ~ - a Quy Nea ad STUNINIS WAU —— a @ 91320 Senev ond "A ‘ 229" fi . id pid toi yor! NIV DEIGNYND NOSLHNDN = ‘ olticadh RINVIG 4IIND _— «i 4 - = - aa ee i 7 Pe ae VBILIA KOISIT ——_ Pf “4 S291ANIS NLIVIN ZO YoLonA FA a re Fd "di | ec a A ann ee ae : Ne Pa ; ee a noms Cf) ‘atl “aiveon Glyenod tarved CUNTNI TY Ses W1VND "SUH st KOCDAOY WUTVAN TWA pV /EAY ITN Ae eyoorew2ans se ove" i 5 j : = > ct 5 eOthy rts APPENDIX D-2 DECLARATION OF ROGER G. BELL I, Roger G. Bell, declare and say as follows: 1. I am the Assistant News Director at KABC-TV, a position which I have held for over four years. I have been employed with KABC-TYV in various capacities for a total of eleven years. As Assistant News Director, I am in- volved in all aspects of News Department management at KABC-TV. I make this declaration based upon my own personal knowledge and, if called as a witness, could and would testify to each of the matters set forth herein. 2. For at least the last eleven years, KABC-TV has had a standard procedure, described below, for preserv- ing the tapes of news stories that are broadeast by the station. This procedure is rigorously adhered to, for among other reasons, so that KABC-TV can maintain a complete, accurate and permanent record of all such stories. 3. Pursuant to this standard procedure, the following steps are always taken by KABC-TV: Initially, a clean eopy of each story broadeast on KABC-TV is kept on a separate tape. Within one day of the date of broadcast, each story is dubbed onto a one-hour tape, with other stories that have been broadcast by the station during the same time period. A label identifying the date of broad- east is placed on the side of each one-hour tape and the tape is then sent, for safekeeping, to a locked storage room. The key to this locked storage room is only held by KABC-TV supervisors and access to this room is only available to KABC-TV employees on an “as needed” basis. 4. The dated one-hour tapes are not altered in any fashion while they are held in storage. I have never known D-2-2 of any alteration of any tape which was stored by KABC- TV in the above-described manner. Indeed, any alteration of the tapes would be directly contrary to the purposes for which the tapes are stored, 7.e., to maintain an accurate record of the news stories broadcast by KABC-TV. 5. On July 21, 1982, at 5:00 p.m., KABC-TV broadcast a two-minute and five-second investigative report con- eerning Inez C. Boyd and Project Total Push (the “Broadeast’”’). As soon as the Broadeast coneluded, the tape of the Broadeast was maintained in the manner described in paragraph 3, above. 6. I have examined KABC-TV’s tape of the Broadeast and, to the best of my knowledge, there has been abso- lutely no alteration of this tape. To the best of my knowledge, this tape represents a complete and accurate representation of the Broadcast. A true and correct video- tape copy of the Broadeast is attached hereto as Exhibit “-_ I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed at Los Angeles, California, this 4th day of December, 1987. ROGER G. BELL ROGER G. BELI. APPENDIX E DECLARATION OF ALBAN I. NILES I, ALBAN I. NILES, declare: I am currently a sitting Municipal Court Judge in the County of Los Angeles, Los Angeles Judicial District. I am personally acquainted with Inez Boyd. Ms. Boyd was employed by Kedren Community Mental Health Center (hereinafter ‘“Kedren’’) during a period which ended in 1976. I was President and General Counsel of Kedren during this period. During the year 1975-1976, Ms. Boyd was the Executive Director of Project Total Push, which was a drug rehabilitation program funded by L.A. County but administered and managed by Kedren. On or about September 1, 1975, Kedren entered into a written lease with the late Herman English, Esq., to rent office space at 8508%, 8510 and 8512 South Broadway, Los Angeles, California, to operate Project Total Push. This lease expired on September 30, 1976. At that time, Kedren lost its funding to continue the operation of Project Total Push. Subsequent to the termination of the lease, Ms. Boyd began efforts to form a non-profit corporation in order to continue the Project that had been begun while connected to Kedren. I declare under the penalty of perjury and under the iaws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct to my knowledge. Executed this 27th day of March, 1986 at Los Angeles, California. ALBAN I. NILES ALBAN I. NILES APPENDIX F - ANTI-DEFAMATION LEAGUE Of B’nai B’rith 515 MADISON AVENUE, NEW YORK, 22, N.Y., PLaza 1-1800 January 21, 1963 Mrs. Inez C. Boyd 705 Moran Avenue Toledo, Ohio Dear Mrs. Boyd: At your request, the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B’rith has reviewed the history of its pamphlet The St. Louis Story: A Study of Desegregation, published in 1956. We find that it may well be that we did not give adequate description of the fact that the principle source upon which it was based was your Master’s Thesis on “St. Louis, Missouri: A Study of the Desegregation Pro- eess in an Urban Metropolis.” We also find that it was part of our original under- standing with you that we would have your thesis rewrit- ten, revised and supplemented, as it appeared necessary to us. For the privilege of using your thesis in this manner, ADL was to give you full credit as its author. This was not done. Instead, the name of the person who rewrote the work appeared on the pamphlet as sole author. The note of acknowledgement to you on page 3 does not reflect properly the fact that our publication was inspired pri- marily by examination of your completed thesis and based essentially on educational researeh originally conducted by you. We, therefore, are happy to make the record clear that this was the fact. F-2 You may, of course, use this letter as you wish to establish the important role you played in making this pamphlet possible. It is our understanding that you are making no claim for further financial recompense for your role in connection with this pamphlet. As you know, our supply of the piece has been exhausted for some time, and we do not intend to reprint it. We would, however, be happy to look at any follow-up manuscript you may have for possible publication by ADL and to give you our response and reactions. Sineerely yours, HENRY SCHWARZSCHILD HENRY SCHWARZSCHILD Director of Publications HS/ap ee: Mr. David M. Grant, Attorney APPENDIX G South East Regional Coalition on Drugs and Alcohol Abuse MINUTES Present Gloria E. Keyes, M.D Alan Wilkins Ernest Parker [ona Alston Carlene Phillips Fay E. Wilson William A. Long Raymond Ulmer, Ph.D Marie Bowden Roderic W. Jones Otto Hall Marie DiDonna Joan Freeman Margaret Sarracino Lloyd Robbs Sechon Paul H. Logan, M.D., M.P.H. M. D. Bunton MLK L.A. Co Rancho Los Amigos Hosp Probation Avalon-Carver Avalon-Carver Community Health Serv Central Area Planning ( Drew/ King Mini 12 Step House L.A. Model Cities Compton Judicial District AIFC AIFC AIFC ACSCLA SEMHS Kedren CSSC unNnell November 20, 1973 639-8550 567-1341 2-7411 2-8113 53-4268 466-6417 98-4189 639-8550 3 3-0498 7 The South East Regional Coalition on Drug and Alcohol Abuse was called to order by Gloria Keyes, Vice-Chair- man at 9:40 a.m. Minutes of previous meeting were read and approved after corrections. 1. Committee Reports a. Planning and G« vals Mrs. Henry, chairman is out of town, and the commit- tee will meet when she returns. APPENDIX H LOS ANGEL irs@. p | of tos sreeese -TaC, Tuc. for ss. ree a T REPORT #b-01 67-00 , o {- —__-_ —— Ae 1/1/61 12/51/21 | racreete es | [eavvtwes gett | wih LiLih,. Ab, AGL, oe we eS Cow tf A BO 3222 LiKE La dha 4 FE pel tS Oa YF Pre I Fim * Lats 4 Zz tetoasid ~f4L VA Aen hes es 9 Leg df. Laas war = —~ 7 - 7LDE oo i < ZZ BeEw,' pep > 2-7) POPS Aa de AL ptdadedtnbg Lza hkl wer L Liou thd Ae LL ad Attensc 24 LL bth hlplide aie zh fr, pr aT tis Ja Ye Loisds Wd at. 2 Lz & 182 (® 4 Ao ft - a el 12 - Lahest 4 bitn 4a \_— XN a Tt of pb Lalled = £62 = Lito LZt ae mkt eh Fah ‘ ° — ZA 5 J) i Lied. Zar”. £22 ie, BLL ae Stl Vi ele wa fehl hell (2 pti ankle AS bic Dat: peg Le Les alin {Ap heat > aM PS Me Lasers LLL Pd a7) sat WIL IeI” MZ Vor f , eu eetal foe 72k vad Zo 1G: 4 Dr Fos a A RE IO yw A ~J a fp i , ° / ett hath, oe Lidsdasiiasdalad, Th Ol ML nd LP Ze Oe OO q he“ ~ BEST AVAILABLE COPY PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL STATE OF CALIFORNIA ’ 1S COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of or employed in the City of Los Angeles, County of Los Angeles; I am over the age of 18 years and not a party to the within action; my business address is 1706 Maple Avenue, Los Angeles, California 90015. On July 28, 1989, I served the within Petition for Writ of Certiorari in re: “Inez C. Boyd vs. Angela Black, Thomas Van Amburg, Kenneth Nelson, and KABC”’ in the United States Supreme Court October Term 1989 No. ..., on all parties interested in said action, by placing three true copies thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope, with postage thereon fully prepaid, in the United States Post Office mail box at Los Angeles, California, ad- dressed as follows: Michael J. O’Connor James E. Curry Christensen, White, Miller, Fink & Jacobs 2121 Avenue of the Stars, 18th Floor Los Angeles, California 90067 All parties required to be served have been served. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on July 28, 1989, at Los Angeles, California. ¥ d . rd ithniiies f 4 CHA A AS - ae \ 1 va - Y) J. GORDON HOOPER --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385020_0062%3A1. Public record. Not legal advice.