Wrong answer. KingCast responds:
B. False Light Invasion of Privacy and Tortious Misappropriation of Likeness.
Defendant failed to address the Pasquale and Zoeller cases and misrepresented to this Honorable Court that False Light does not exist in New Hampshire. But it does. See Howard v. Antilla, 294 F.3d 244 (1st Cir 2002).
"The jury returned a sizeable verdict in favor of the chairman for false light invasion of privacy, but a take-nothing verdict on the defamation claim….. Generally understood, a false light privacy action differs from a defamation action in that the injury in privacy actions is mental distress from having been exposed to public view, while the injury in defamation actions is damage to reputation."
Undaunted, KingCast continues:
"It is clear that a reasonable person in Mr. Jesseman’s situation would be highly offended by someone publicly alleging that he supports someone whom he feels bullied his friend and who contributed to his friend’s death and who was a police officer subject to a successful Restraining Order brought by his wife, as noted in Judge Vaughn’s Decision in KingCast v. NH AG Kelly Ayotte, Grafton 07-E-268 (2008), costs taxed to Defendants Ayotte and Town of Franconia. Attachment 1."
"All that matters is whether there is a reasonable quantum of evidence before this Honorable Court for it to determine that a violation may have occurred. It is up to the next court, after Plaintiff identifies the Tortfeasor, to hear the weight and sufficiency of the evidence as Plaintiff Jesseman has clearly articulated enough facts to cover his prima facie burden."
Here's the full Reply Memorandum at Scribd.com.
Related post: Compliance is owed in KingCast v. Ayotte/Town of Franconia per Judge Vaughn.