Ex-committeeman loses defamation suit

Monmouth County jury finds that Paul and Susan Laone did not make any legally defamatory statements about former Millstone Committeeman Bill Kastning.

By: Lauren Burgoon
   MILLSTONE — Former Committeeman Bill Kastning has lost his defamation suit against two residents after a jury decided that Paul and Susan Laone did not make any legally defamatory statements about him, including that Mr. Kastning attempted to extort the Laones and made harassing phone calls to them.
   Mr. Kastning had alleged that the Laones made several false and defaming remarks about him at a September 2000 Township Committee meeting, but on Dec. 21 a Monmouth County jury disagreed on all counts.
   "I am at a loss to explain the jury’s reasoning or justification and I will never know what went through the jurors’ minds," Mr. Kastning said in a statement released after the verdict.
   For their part, the Laones are happy to have prevailed in the case.
   "We’re really glad the justice system came through for us… We were never very worried. We had faith in the jury," Ms. Laone said Tuesday.
   Hopefully the case’s outcome will persuade others to speak up when they feel an injustice is committed, Ms. Laone added.
   The disagreement between Mr. Kastning and the Laones stems from an open space deal back in August 2000. At that time a landowner offered about 27 acres bordering the Laones’ Conover Road home to the Millstone Open Space Trust (MOST). Mr. Kastning, then a committeeman and officer of MOST, went to the Laones’ home to see if they were interested in buying the property so that the funds could be used as seed money for MOST.
   What happened after that has long been a difference of opinion between the Laones and Mr. Kastning. The Laones claimed that Mr. Kastning tried to "strong arm" them into buying the land and that he more than doubled the asking price. Mr. Kastning denied trying to force the Laones into a deal and said that the price was the appraised value.
   In September 2000 the Laones spoke at a Township Committee meeting. According to the lawsuit, Ms. Laone accused Mr. Kastning of attempting to extort her, acting improperly as a town official and harassing her. Mr. Kastning said her remarks included calling him a "cancer eating at the moral basis of this town."
   Mr. Laone spoke at the same meeting and accused Mr. Kastning of extortion and threatening the Laones’ way of life, the lawsuit said.
   Nearly two years after the Laones’ comments and one year after he left the committee, Mr. Kastning produced a September 2000 e-mail between Ms. Laone and then-Committeeman Evan Maltz. The e-mails came after Ms. Laone already complained about Mr. Kastning to municipal officials but before the public comments were made.
   In response to "What’s up?" written by Ms. Laone, Mr. Maltz wrote, "I spoke to (former Mayor) Cory (Wingerter) who feels the Township should only take action if the issue is brought to the public. Are you planning to attend the next committee meeting? Do you want to bring this up so the committee can take action?…"
   The Laones made the public comments about Mr. Kastning two days after the e-mail exchange. The county prosecutor and the Township Committee subsequently launched separate investigations into the Laones’ claims. The prosecutor’s office cleared Mr. Kastning of wrongdoing, but the town’s report suggested Mr. Kastning had committed an ethical violation by using his dual positions on the committee and the MOST in an attempt to improperly garner property for MOST.
   Although he was cleared by the county and the state chose not to further pursue the matter, Mr. Kastning filed the defamation lawsuit in an attempt to get monetary damages from the Laones for harming his reputation, he said.
   "I needed to go the extra mile to clear my name," he said. "Had I not done so, although in retrospect it may have been less harmful emotionally, I would have always regretted the decision."
   Defamation suits filed by public officials, as Mr. Kastning was when the comments were made, carry an especially high burden of proof. Mr. Kastning had to prove that actual malice occurred, meaning in this case that the Laones made knowingly false statements about him with a "reckless disregard" about whether they were true or not. The actual malice standard comes from the landmark 1964 Supreme Court decision New York Times Co. v. Sullivan.
   In the Millstone case the jury did not even attempt to answer whether the statements fell under actual malice because the panel and judge agreed that none of the Laones’ remarks was false.
   Mr. Kastning said he hasn’t decided whether to file an appeal yet and will consider the financial and emotional toll of continuing the court fight before making a decision.