Judge denies Bangstad’s motion to dismiss defamation lawsuit

Lakeland Times and River News publisher Gregg Walker’s defamation lawsuit against Minocqua Brewing Company owner Kirk Bangstad is headed to trial next week after a judge in September denied Bangstad’s motion for summary judgment dismissal and also rejected Bangstad’s counterclaims that he too had been defamed.

Forest/Florence County circuit court judge Leon Stenz made the rulings in a September 11 hearing. A jury trial in the case starts Monday, October 23.

At the outset, Stenz said two issues were germane to proving defamation.

The first was whether the particular statements that Walker was “a crook and misogynist” were actually defamatory, and the second was whether the parties were public figures, generally or limited public figures. 

In cases whether the person alleging defamation is a public figure, actual malice must be shown.

“It may be that issue [malice] determines some of the outcome,” Stenz said at the hearing. “For example, if I find that Mr. Walker was a limited public figure when the terms ‘crook’ and ‘misogynist’ were used, then I would have to have some evidence or some presentation of actual malice. And the jury could find by clear and convincing evidence that there was actual malice. Short of that, it wouldn’t make any difference whether they are defamatory or not.”

Using those criteria, Stenz denied a motion by Bangstad’s attorneys to dismiss claims that Bangstad’s public and repeated assertions on Facebook that Walker is a “misogynist” and a “crook” are defamatory.

Both terms can be applied in ways that are defamatory and also in ways that are not defamatory, Stenz said. 

While the term “misogynist” was an issue Stenz said had no problem letting a jury decide, especially in the “Me Too” era, Stenz said the term “crook” was a “little more troublesome.”

“Crook can be all kinds of things,” Stenz said, according to the September 11 transcript. “It comes up in all kinds of contexts. I don’t think that it is no longer always related to … the assessment that he is a criminal, having been convicted of crimes. It can mean that. It also means that he is, in my opinion, he simply is not to be trusted.”

Stenz said he thinks the word “crook” could be hard for someone to use to a degree that would constitute defaming another. But, he said, “you could have a reasonable jury find that ‘crook’ actually has some defamatory meaning, then it would be up to them, not me.”

Stenz used the same reasoning with the term “misogynist,” which Bangstad has repeatedly leveled at Walker.

“Now, their brief does suggest that ‘misogynist’ cannot be defamatory,” Stenz said of a brief filed by Bangstad’s attorneys. “I am saying that it could be. It could also be non-defamatory and then it becomes a jury issue. Same thing with ‘crook.’”

Stenz said he would find that the statements are defamatory in that they are capable of both defamatory and non-defamatory manner and those should be decided by the jury.

As for Bangstad’s counterclaims that Walker had defamed him, Stenz ruled that, in the specific controversies at hand, Bangstad was a limited public figure requiring actual malice to be shown, and Bangstad’s side failed to substantiate that claim.

Another matter Stenz said he would let the jury decide was Bangstad’s claims that The Times referred to Let’s Minocqua Visitors Bureau president and CEO Krystal Westfahl as “retarded” in a 2015 editorial. The Times has never published any such thing, about Westfahl or anyone else.

“It is not something that he says about Mr. Walker,” Stenz said. “It is something that he attributes to him. And he contributes to him. Obviously, he said it because he thought it was bad. He wants to criticize Mr. Walker and show what a bad guy he is. I am assuming that the intent to doing that is to say, ‘Listen,’ he says this because he wants people to believe that he is crass and not considerate and so it could have a defamatory meaning. It could also have one. So, I will let the jury decide that issue as well.”

Finally, Stenz denied a Bangstad motion for summary judgment dismissal regarding a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress by Walker. 

The claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress was filed by Walker’s attorneys in response to claims publicly made by Bangstad in which he said Walker killed his brother in 1987, though Walker’s brother actually died tragically in a hunting accident.

Stenz referred to this matter as a “material fact” before denying Bangstad’s attorneys’ request for summary judgment. He said it “appears” there is no need for “demonstration of physical injury.”

“There certainly is — It is certainly contested within the Plaintiff’s brief that he says that he does, in fact, and has, in fact, suffered from that whether it is substantial,” Stenz said to Molly Woodford, the attorney representing Bangstad. “I think what, Ms. Woodford, what your argument is, is that there is really no way that you can win that with the testimony that he has. And, perhaps, you’re right. I think it is a high burden. He will have to convince the jury that burden is met. But it doesn’t go to whether as a matter of law that he can’t proceed. It is a factual dispute. He will have to prove the case. So, the motion with respect to that will be denied.”