Higgs, Sr. v. Bole
Annotate this Case
Justia Opinion Summary
Want to stay in the know about new opinions from the Supreme Court of Alabama?
Sign up for free summaries delivered directly to your inbox. Learn More ›
You already receive new opinion summaries from Supreme Court of Alabama. Did you know we offer summary newsletters for even more practice areas and jurisdictions? Explore them here.
Lawton Higgs, Sr., formerly a pastor and pastor emeritus at the Church of the Reconciler ("COR"), a United Methodist church, brought an action against Tom Bole, a lay member of COR, alleging defamation, invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. During the proceedings, Higgs filed a civil subpoena requesting the production of certain documents from Reverend Ron Schultz, the district supervisor of the South Central District of the North Alabama Conference of the United Methodist Church ("the Conference"). Reverend Schultz filed a verified objection to and a motion to quash the civil subpoena based on First Amendment concerns. Subsequently, Bole filed a motion to dismiss the claims against him, alleging that the trial court did not have subject-matter jurisdiction over the claims based on the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution; the trial court denied Bole's motion. The trial court later entered an order in which it granted in part and denied in part Reverend Schultz's motion to quash. In case no. 1110868, Bole petitioned for a writ of mandamus requesting that this Court dismiss Higgs's claims against him. In case no. 1110892, Reverend Schultz petitioned for a writ of mandamus asking this Court to quash the subpoena in its entirety on the basis that the records subpoenaed by Higgs were privileged, ecclesiastical records of the United Methodist Church. Upon review, the Supreme Court granted the petition in case no. 1110868 and dismissed the petition in case no. 1110892.
Download PDF
rel: 08/31/2012 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA SPECIAL TERM, 2012 1110868 Ex p a r t e Tom Bole PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (In r e : Lawton Higgs, S r . v. Tom B o l e ) 1110892 Ex p a r t e Reverend Ron S c h u l t z PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (In re: Lawton Higgs, Sr. v. Tom Bole) ( J e f f e r s o n C i r c u i t Court, CV-2011-902392) WISE, Justice. Lawton Higgs, at the S r . , f o r m e r l y a p a s t o r and p a s t o r Church of the church, brought a g a i n s t Tom an Reconciler action in ("COR"), a U n i t e d the alleging i n v a s i o n o f p r i v a c y , and intentional infliction distress. proceedings, the subpoena r e q u e s t i n g the p r o d u c t i o n R e v e r e n d Ron Schultz, the Methodist Jefferson Circuit B o l e , a l a y member o f COR, During emeritus Higgs defamation, of filed emotional a a Church verified objection subpoena b a s e d Bole filed alleging ("the district supervisor a that on First motion the Conference"). to to trial and a of the dismiss court Reverend S c h u l t z motion Amendment did to quash concerns. the not claims have the South United filed civil Subsequently, against him, subject-matter j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r t h e c l a i m s b a s e d on t h e F i r s t and Fourteenth Amendments t o t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s C o n s t i t u t i o n ; t h e t r i a l 2 civil o f c e r t a i n documents f r o m C e n t r a l D i s t r i c t of the N o r t h Alabama Conference of the Methodist Court court 1110868, 1110892 denied Bole's motion. in which The t r i a l i t granted Schultz's motion i n part court l a t e r entered and d e n i e d t o quash. In case i n part no. Higgs's claims against him. Reverend 1110868, Bole that this p e t i t i o n e d f o r a w r i t o f mandamus r e q u e s t i n g dismiss an o r d e r Court I n case no. 1110892, R e v e r e n d S c h u l t z p e t i t i o n e d f o r a w r i t o f mandamus a s k i n g this C o u r t t o q u a s h t h e s u b p o e n a i n i t s e n t i r e t y on t h e b a s i s that the records ecclesiastical grant subpoenaed records the p e t i t i o n petition by Higgs of the United i n case no. were Methodist 1110868 Church. We and d i s m i s s the i n c a s e no. 1110892. F a c t u a l Background and P r o c e d u r a l Higgs served as t h e p a s t o r o f COR r e t i r e d i n 2005. A f t e r he r e t i r e d , in of pastor the capacity volunteer privileged, a t COR. History from 1993 u n t i l Higgs continued emeritus and His responsibilities as a he t o serve full-time as p a s t o r emeritus were " [ t ] o be p r e s e n t , t o g i v e s p i r i t u a l l e a d e r s h i p a n d c r e a t e an e n v i r o n m e n t o f hope a n d c a r e f o r the p a r t i c i p a n t s p a r t i c u l a r l y d u r i n g t h e day program." p. 14.) He a l s o t e s t i f i e d (Higgs's d e p o s i t i o n , a t t h a t he was t h e p r e s i d e n t Board o f t h e R e c o n c i l e r Development, Inc. 3 there, of the ("RDI"), a n o n p r o f i t 1110868, 1110892 c o r p o r a t i o n committed t o p r o v i d i n g resources f o r t h e homeless and to raising COR. funds Higgs's t o help support the o p e r a t i n g budget of son, Kevin Higgs ("Kevin"), was a senior m i n i s t e r a t COR. In h i s a f f i d a v i t , B o l e s t a t e d t h a t he h a d s e r v e d i n COR's ministry t o the homeless, had served on COR's financial c o m m i t t e e , h a d s e r v e d on COR's p e r s o n n e l b o a r d , a n d h a d s e r v e d as COR's b a n q u e t pastor and board and a u c t i o n c h a i r . o f COR organize i t s f i n a n c i a l so." him had asked Bole stated that the him " t o undertake r e c o r d s " a n d t h a t he " u n d e r t o o k to t o do He a l s o s t a t e d t h a t i n e a r l y 2011 R e v e r e n d S c h u l t z a s k e d " t o r e p o r t t o h i m on m a t t e r s a f f a i r s a n d g o v e r n a n c e a t COR." a letter concerning the financial On M a r c h 18, 2 0 1 1 , B o l e w r o t e t o Reverend S c h u l t z , s t a t i n g : " I c u r r e n t l y s e r v e on t h e P e r s o n n e l B o a r d a n d F i n a n c e C o m m i t t e e o f COR. I have s e r v e d t h e c h u r c h f o r t h e p a s t f o u r y e a r s . D u r i n g t h e p a s t two y e a r s , I have a t t e m p t e d t o i n t r o d u c e some c h a n g e s r e g a r d i n g f i n a n c i a l a c c o u n t a b i l i t y and t r a n s p a r e n c y . Having b e e n a b u s i n e s s owner o f more t h a n one b u s i n e s s , I f e l t as t h o u g h t h i s was n e c e s s a r y i n o r d e r f o r u s t o gain more f i n a n c i a l support from the business community a n d f r o m g r a n t o p p o r t u n i t i e s . "During this p e r i o d , t h o u g h we h a v e made progress, I have witnessed several accounting irregularities and a resistance to complete a c c o u n t a b i l i t y and t r a n s p a r e n c y . Examples i n c l u d e 4 1110868, 1110892 n o t b e i n g a b l e t o l o c a t e and t r a c k d o n a t i o n s f o r specific projects. On 10/13/08, R e v e r e n d L a w t o n H i g g s w r o t e a l e t t e r o f g r a t i t u d e t o W.T. Ratliff [sic] o f C o l l a t e r a l M o r t g a g e f o r a $50,000 p l e d g e for the c o n s t r u c t i o n o f a shower and l a u n d r y facility. I have a s k e d b o t h L a w t o n and K e v i n [ H i g g s ] i f t h i s money was r e c e i v e d and i f s o , what happened t o i t . Neither one can g i v e me a d e f i n i t i v e answer. B e c a u s e a t t h a t t i m e t h e r e were no m e a n i n g f u l a c c o u n t i n g r e c o r d s , I have n o t b e e n able t o t r a c e the funds. I s u s p e c t t h e y were d e p o s i t e d i n the account of R e c o n c i l e r Development, a company f o r w h i c h no r e c o r d s have e v e r b e e n made available. C o l l a t e r a l Mortgage i s now out of b u s i n e s s and Mr. R a t c l i f f [ s i c ] has h a d a l l o f h i s numbers d i s c o n n e c t e d . " T h e r e has a l s o b e e n c a s h m i s s i n g f r o m t h e o f f e r i n g b e f o r e i t c o u l d be c o u n t e d and d e p o s i t e d . " I n J u l y o f 2008, we r e c e i v e d a $5,000 g r a n t f r o m J e f f e r s o n C o u n t y f o r t h e s e same f a c i l i t i e s . T h i s was a n o n - p a s s - t h r o u g h g r a n t [ ; ] h o w e v e r , t h e money was comingled [sic] with the operating account. We had until 9/30/09 t o r e n d e r an a c c o u n t i n g o f t h e e x p e n d i t u r e s . T h i s has n o t b e e n done. "The c h u r c h r e c e i v e d a $10,000 c h e c k f r o m M a r y B u t t e r w o r t h , a l s o earmarked f o r t h e showers and laundry. T h e s e f u n d s were a l s o c o m i n g l e d w i t h g e n e r a l o p e r a t i n g f u n d s and were n e v e r a c c o u n t e d for. "The c h u r c h r e c e i v e d a $15,000 c h e c k f r o m C r u m l y C h a p e l UMC and a $5,000 c h e c k f r o m independent P r e s b y t e r i a n C h u r c h w h i c h were a l s o c o m i n g l e d and unaccounted f o r . "To my k n o w l e d g e , t h e r e a r e no f u n d s r e s e r v e d f o r t h i s p r o j e c t and i t i s c l e a r t h a t t h e y were u s e d to supplement o p e r a t i n g expenses. Each time I t r y 5 1110868, 1110892 to create a t r a i l f o r the flow of these met w i t h p o o r m e m o r i e s . funds, I am "There a r e o t h e r examples o f t h i s s o r t o f f i n a n c i a l management[;] h o w e v e r , I w o u l d l i k e t o t u r n your a t t e n t i o n t o another d i s t u r b i n g matter. Many members a n d v i s i t o r s , i n c l u d i n g m y s e l f , have complained about t h e p o l i t i c a l r h e t o r i c t h a t occurs d u r i n g t h e S u n d a y sermon. R a t h e r t h a n p r e a c h i n g t h e Gospel, much o f t h e sermon i s e i t h e r p r a i s i n g liberal politicians or deaminizing [sic] c o n s e r v a t i v e o n e s . I n f a c t , when H o l y S c r i p t u r e i s r e a d , names a n d p l a c e s a r e r e p l a c e d w i t h p o l i t i c a l f i g u r e s a n d c i t i e s w i t h w h i c h t h e y do n o t a g r e e . Birmingham C i t y o f f i c i a l s a r e c a l l e d o u t and blamed f o r the p l i g h t of t h e homeless. They a r e a l s o c o n f r o n t e d i n p u b l i c d e m o n s t r a t i o n s and i n t e r v i e w s . Personal r e s p o n s i b i l i t y i s r a r e l y addressed. Many h o m e l e s s p e o p l e s l e e p d u r i n g t h e s e r v i c e a n d some come i n h i g h on a l c o h o l o r d r u g s . " I n a d d i t i o n , many i n s t a n c e s o f s e x u a l a c t s a n d t h e s e l l i n g o f d r u g s on c h u r c h g r o u n d s a n d i n s i d e the b u i l d i n g take p l a c e . The H i g g s [ e s ] r e f u s e t o h o l d t h e s e p e o p l e a c c o u n t a b l e n o r a r e we a l l o w e d t o c a l l the p o l i c e . This behavior not only d e f i l e s God's h o u s e b u t i t i s d i s t u r b i n g t o v o l u n t e e r s a n d v i s i t o r s , e s p e c i a l l y t o t h e number o f young p e o p l e who a r e t h e r e . " L a s t l y , t h e r e a r e a number o f h o m e l e s s v e t e r a n s and s e v e r a l v e t e r a n s who v o l u n t e e r a t t h e c h u r c h , i n c l u d i n g m y s e l f and a v e r y p r o l i f i c financial supporter. K e v i n h a s made i t c l e a r t h a t he s e e s o u r g o v e r n m e n t a n d o u r m i l i t a r y as i m p e r i a l i s t [ ] war mongers. I s e e t h i s as a v e r y d i v i s i v e a t t i t u d e . " I n c l o s i n g , w h i l e I do n o t know what t h e answer i s , I do know t h a t t h e r e w i l l soon be a mass v o l u n t e e r e x o d u s i f c h a n g e s a r e n o t made." 6 1110868, 1110892 Subsequently, 2011, Reverend S c h u l t z sent a l e t t e r to Higgs. That l e t t e r dated March 31, stated, i n pertinent part: " T h i s l e t t e r i s t o i n f o r m you i n w r i t i n g t h a t an i n v e s t i g a t i o n i s b e i n g conducted a t Church of the R e c o n c i l e r r e g a r d i n g r e c e n t a l l e g a t i o n s made i n r e f e r e n c e t o y o u r s e l f as P a s t o r E m e r i t u s and t h e current Senior M i n i s t e r . You a r e a s k e d t o remove y o u r s e l f f r o m a c t i v i t i e s a t R e c o n c i l e r u n t i l you a r e i n f o r m e d t h a t t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n has b e e n c o m p l e t e d . " The Conference issued r e s o l u t i o n " ) d a t e d May pertinent a 23, "Resolution 2011. The of Complaint" resolution ("the stated, part: " I t i s normal procedure t o suspend i n v e s t i g a t i o n s are conducted. I n t h i s i n l i e u of suspension, the Cabinet R e v e r e n d s H i g g s [ e s ] t o s t e p away f r o m and take an extended vacation i n v e s t i g a t i o n was c o n d u c t e d . T h i s was Rev. K e v i n H i g g s ' m e d i c a l i n s u r a n c e p e n s i o n would remain i n t a c t . clergy while case however, d i r e c t e d the the m i n i s t r y while the done so t h a t coverage and "Findings "The B i s h o p and C a b i n e t f i n d t h e f i n a n c i a l r e c o r d s o f [COR] t o be i n s h a m b l e s . The o n l y c l e a r and a c c u r a t e f i n a n c i a l s t a t e m e n t t h a t can be produced f o r t h i s m i n i s t r y i s f o r the year 2010. There i s e v i d e n c e o f c a r r y i n g l a r g e c r e d i t d e b t on h i g h interest credit cards, missing payments and i n c u r r i n g p e n a l t i e s , p a y i n g minimum payments and thus i n c r e a s i n g the debt through high interest c h a r g e s . There i s a l s o evidence t h a t Rev. Higgs S r . ( R e t i r e d ) o v e r s t e p p e d h i s a u t h o r i t y and directed [COR] f u n d s t o be u s e d t o pay d e b t s i n c u r r e d by a 501.3c [ s i c ] e n t i t y e s t a b l i s h e d by R e v . H i g g s S r . t o a d d r e s s h o u s i n g needs o f t h e h o m e l e s s c o m m u n i t y . 7 in 1110868, 1110892 T h e r e i s a l s o e v i d e n c e t h a t on one o c c a s i o n g r a n t money was u s e d b y [COR] f o r needs o t h e r t h a n t h o s e s p e c i f i e d i n the Grant. II "We f i n d no e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g a n e e d formal charges a g a i n s t these m i n i s t e r s . t o pursue "Resolution "The C o m p l a i n t a g a i n s t R e v . K e v i n H i g g s Lawton Higgs S r . i s hereby d i s m i s s e d . " On May 26, 2011, Reverend several different recipients. Schultz sent and R e v . o u t an e - m a i l to The s u b j e c t l i n e o f t h e e - m a i l was " C h u r c h o f t h e R e c o n c i l e r u p d a t e . " I n the e-mail, Schultz stated: "Thank you f o r y o u r p a t i e n c e o v e r t h e l a s t s e v e r a l weeks as t h e D i s c i p l i n a r y p r o c e s s h a s b e e n f o l l o w e d r e g a r d i n g t h e c o m p l a i n t s f i l e d a g a i n s t K e v i n and Lawton H i g g s . " I am p l e a s e d t o s h a r e w i t h you t h a t t h e B i s h o p a n d C a b i n e t a r e s a t i s f i e d t h a t a j u s t r e s o l u t i o n has b e e n r e a c h e d a n d t h a t no e v i d e n c e h a s b e e n f o u n d t h a t would l e a d t o j u d i c i a l charges. " T h e r e f o r e t h e c o m p l a i n t i s d i s m i s s e d and K e v i n r e m a i n s a m i n i s t e r i n good s t a n d i n g w i t h t h e N o r t h Alabama Conference and Lawton remains i n good standing i n h i s r e t i r e d relationship. II "As we move f o r w a r d t h e f o l l o w i n g c h a n g e s a r e b e i n g instituted: 8 1110868, 1110892 K e v i n w i l l be a p p o i n t e d t o B r o w n s v i l l e U n i t e d M e t h o d i s t Church i n the C e n t r a l District. " * "* L a w t o n w i l l no l o n g e r be c o n n e c t e d t o C h u r c h o f t h e R e c o n c i l e r i n any c a p a c i t y . " It appears that Marti S l a y , a member o f COR, forwarded message f r o m R e v e r e n d S c h u l t z t o o t h e r r e c i p i e n t s . 2011, Mary Wade, a member o f COR, recipients. the On May 27, s e n t an e - m a i l t o v a r i o u s I n h e r e - m a i l , Wade s t a t e d : " I f t h e c h a r g e s o r who knows what t h e y a r e , have b e e n d i s m i s s e d , why a r e K e v i n and R a c h a e l [ M a r t i n ] b e i n g r e l o c a t e d , and why i s L a w t o n f o r e v e r b a n n e d f r o m COR??? " I s t h e r e any a p p e a l p r o c e s s ? I f not, I p e r p l e x e d a b o u t t h i s p r o c e s s and outcome. n o t s a y more i n an e m a i l . " L a t e r t h a t same day, James W a l k e r , Conference f r o m COR a l a y member o f t h e numerous o t h e r r e c i p i e n t s . m a i l , Walker e x p r e s s e d h i s sadness He very will Annual and a l e a d e r i n t h e h o u s i n g m i n i s t r y , an e - m a i l t o Wade and L a w t o n a t COR. am I also at the l o s s In his of K e v i n stated: " I know i t i s f r u s t r a t i n g but i n the United M e t h o d i s t Church t h e B i s h o p has a p r e t t y much a b s o l u t e power t o d e c i d e where t o a p p o i n t c l e r g y t o local churches etc. Through the District Superintendent the Bishop consults with [Pastor P a r i s h R e l a t i o n s ] a b o u t t h e needs o f t h e c h u r c h as 9 sent e¬ and 1110868, 1110892 w e l l as w i t h a f f e c t e d Bishop decides. clergy but in the end the " "The i s s u e of charges i s r e a l l y s e p a r a t e . It is more e a s i l y t h o u g h t o f a p e r s o n n e l i s s u e a f f e c t i n g ... K e v i n ' s s t a n d i n g as an ' e l d e r . ' Unlike in a c o n g r e g a t i o n a l s y s t e m where t h e two i s s u e s m i g h t be more d i r e c t l y l i n k e d and d e a l t w i t h a t t h e l o c a l church l e v e l , i n the Methodist church 'charges' i n v o l v e i s s u e s t h a t a f f e c t a p a s t o r ' s s t a n d i n g t o be a U n i t e d M e t h o d i s t p a s t o r anywhere. I n t h i s c o n t e x t charges are not a l o c a l church i s s u e . They a r e a c o n f e r e n c e p e r s o n n e l i s s u e [ ] ( a p a s t o r i s a member o f an A n n u a l C o n f e r e n c e , n o t a l o c a l c h u r c h ) and a r e not a p p r o p r i a t e l y d i s c u s s e d p u b l i c l y out of concern f o r t h e r e p u t a t i o n o f t h e p a s t o r and t h o s e d i r e c t l y i n v o l v e d i n the s p e c i f i c i s s u e . II " I n t h i s c a s e i t a p p e a r s t h a t K e v i n and L a w t o n were c l e a r e d o f any c h a r g e s t h a t w o u l d t h r e a t e n their s t a n d i n g (membership) w i t h the Annual Conference but t h e B i s h o p f o r w h a t e v e r r e a s o n d e c i d e d i t was t i m e f o r new l e a d e r s h i p a t [ C O R ] . F r u s t r a t i n g l y we d o n ' t have a n y t h i n g t o s a y a b o u t t h i s and I c e r t a i n l y t h i n k t h e c o n f e r e n c e s h o u l d have done a b e t t e r j o b e x p l a i n i n g what was g o i n g on and what c o u l d h a p p e n as a r e s u l t . " On May other 31, 2011, recipients. B o l e s e n t an e - m a i l t o W a l k e r and In that e-mail, Bole numerous stated: " I w o u l d l i k e t o comment, and I t h i n k you have s a i d this in your own way, that the [District S u p e r i n t e n d e n t ] s a i d t h a t t h e r e was n o t s u f f i c i e n t evidence to b r i n g ' J u d i c i a l Charges,' which can p o s s i b l y r e s u l t i n d i s m i s s a l f r o m t h e c h u r c h and t h e s u r r e n d e r i n g of t h e i r a u t h o r i t y to m i n i s t e r . What 10 1110868, 1110892 he d i d n o t s a y , and p u r p o s e l y s o , i s t h a t t h e r e was s u f f i c i e n t evidence of behavior that warranted t h e i r r e m o v a l f r o m COR. A d v e r t i s i n g t h e s e t h i n g s , as you have p o i n t e d o u t , w i l l s e r v e o n l y t o damage t h e i r r e p u t a t i o n u n n e c e s s a r i l y s i n c e they w i l l continue to serve elsewhere. " T h e r e have b e e n a c t s o f s a b o t a g e , disruption, theft, destruction of church property and w i t h h o l d i n g o f s u p p o r t funds by c e r t a i n i n d i v i d u a l s who were more c o m m i t t e d t o K e v i n and L a w t o n t h a n t o the m i s s i o n . T h i s s h o u l d o u t r a g e us more t h a n a t r a n s f e r of m i n i s t e r s . As you s a i d , we cannot c o n t r o l who s e r v e s i n God's m i s s i o n b u t we can c o n t r o l who you s e r v e f i r s t . " In response, and numerous Slay sent the f o l l o w i n g e-mail t o Bole, other Walker, recipients: "Tom, "You have made so many b l a t a n t l y and d i s t o r t e d a s s u m p t i o n s i n y o u r h a r d t o know how t o r e s p o n d . false statements email that i t i s "My f i r s t r e s p o n s e was 'how d a r e y o u ? ' How d a r e you impugn t h e i n t e g r i t y o f K e v i n and L a w t o n when t h e D i s t r i c t S u p e r i n t e n d e n t has s t a t e d t h e c o m p l a i n t s have b e e n d i s m i s s e d ? I am c h a i r o f t h e b o a r d and a member o f t h e S t a f f P a r i s h R e l a t i o n s C o m m i t t e e , and t h e o n l y c o m m u n i c a t i o n I have r e c e i v e d c o n c e r n i n g t h e r e s o l u t i o n o f t h i s i s s u e i s t h e one I f o r w a r d e d , w i t h Bud's a p p r o v a l , t o a l a r g e r l i s t o f members and friends, so t h a t , f o r the f i r s t time i n this p r o c e s s , t h e y w o u l d have some u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f what i s happening t o our church. How i s i t t h a t you have i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t t h e s e c o m p l a i n t s b e y o n d what t h e l e a d e r s o f t h e c h u r c h know? I f t h e B i s h o p and [ D i s t r i c t S u p e r i n t e n d e n t ] have d e c l a r e d t h a t t h e c o m p l a i n t s have b e e n d i s m i s s e d and K e v i n r e m a i n s i n good s t a n d i n g , who a r e you to continue this 11 1110868, 1110892 destructive and d i v i s i v e chapter of our church h i s t o r y b y m a k i n g p u b l i c c l a i m s t h a t keep t h e a t t a c k a g a i n s t our founding p a s t o r and ( u n t i l t h i s week) current pastor a l i v e ? " I n y o u r e m a i l , y o u a t t e m p t t o make J i m W a l k e r s a y t h i n g s he d i d n o t s a y . I s u g g e s t y o u l e t h i m s p e a k for himself. "You a l s o make i t s o u n d as i f y o u have k n o w l e d g e o f c h a r g e s n o t s h a r e d i n D i s t r i c t S u p e r i n t e n d e n t Ron Schultz's email. You i m p l y t h a t t h e p u b l i c h a s p u r p o s e f u l l y been kept i n t h e d a r k about a d d i t i o n a l information concerning Kevin and Lawton, that a d d i t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n has been s h a r e d w i t h t h e S t a f f P a r i s h R e l a t i o n s C o m m i t t e e o r someone e l s e o f f i c i a l l y r e l a t e d t o Church of the R e c o n c i l e r . That i m p l i c a t i o n i s c o m p l e t e l y false. As I ' v e already stated, there has been no other communication r e g a r d i n g K e v i n and Lawton from t h e D i s t r i c t Superintendent t o the church, other than t h e one I have f o r w a r d e d . "And t h i s c o m m u n i c a t i o n f r o m Ron S c h u l t z i s c l e a r : T h e r e i s no e v i d e n c e o f any k i n d w h i c h w o u l d l e a d t o any c h a r g e s a g a i n s t K e v i n o r L a w t o n . "Your comments a b o u t ' a c t s o f s a b o t a g e , d i s r u p t i o n , theft, destruction of church property and w i t h h o l d i n g o f support funds' intends t o p o r t r a y the members o f C h u r c h o f t h e R e c o n c i l e r who s u p p o r t K e v i n a n d L a w t o n as o u t l a w s a n d c r i m i n a l s . Those o f us who r e p r e s e n t t h e o v e r w h e l m i n g m a j o r i t y a t t h e church, who s u p p o r t K e v i n and Lawton and t h e i r l e a d e r s h i p , have i n no way b e h a v e d i n t h i s manner. I t i s d e e p l y o f f e n s i v e and f a l s e t h a t you would p o r t r a y us i n t h i s f a s h i o n . Whatever 'acts o f sabotage, d i s r u p t i o n , t h e f t , d e s t r u c t i o n of church property and w i t h h o l d i n g of support funds' has happened i s because o f t h e chaos and d i s r u p t i o n caused by t h e a b r u p t and m y s t e r i o u s removal o f K e v i n and Lawton and t h e r e s u l t i n g r e m o v a l o f t h e i r 12 1110868, 1110892 leadership among the homeless, following the f r i v o l o u s c o m p l a i n t s b r o u g h t a g a i n s t them. Tom, you are p a r t of a very, v e r y s m a l l m i n o r i t y of people who a r e c r i t i c a l o f t h e m i n i s t r y o f K e v i n and L a w t o n H i g g s and what t h e y r e p r e s e n t i n t h e i r l e a d e r s h i p a t Church of the R e c o n c i l e r . Y o u r comments show y o u r b i a s a g a i n s t them. Y o u r e m a i l i s o f f e n s i v e , and y o u r s t a t e m e n t has no b a s i s i n r e a l i t y a t C h u r c h o f t h e Reconciler. " I b e l i e v e you owe a p u b l i c a p o l o g y t o t h o s e o f us who s u p p o r t K e v i n and L a w t o n and p e r c e i v e t h a t an i n j u s t i c e has b e e n done. I a l s o b e l i e v e t h a t you owe K e v i n and L a w t o n a p u b l i c a p o l o g y . I f C h u r c h o f t h e R e c o n c i l e r i s t o h e a l and move f o r w a r d from these destructive, divisive, and unsubstantiated c o m p l a i n t s , we must end t h i s p e r i o d o f a c c u s a t i o n , s u s p i c i o n , and a t t a c k , and d e a l w i t h e a c h o t h e r i n an open, h o n e s t , and l o v i n g manner." I n r e s p o n s e , on May numerous o t h e r 31, 2011, recipients. B o l e s e n t an e - m a i l In that e-mail, Bole to Slay stated: "As I t r i e d t o e x p r e s s t o you t o d a y a t COR, I do know much more, more t h a n I w i s h I knew b u t I c a n n o t r e v e a l i t n o r do I want t o . I have no d e s i r e t o see L a w t o n o r K e v i n h u r t any f u r t h e r . I r e s p e c t t h e i r h e a r t and t h e i r m i s s i o n f o r t h e h o m e l e s s . T h a t b e i n g s a i d , as t h e [ D i s t r i c t Superintendent] e x p l a i n e d t o you, me and t h e o t h e r s d u r i n g our meeting with him, there are two types of i n v e s t i g a t i o n s . Those w h i c h r e s u l t i n a n y t h i n g f r o m a w r i s t s l a p , c o u n s e l i n g t o a t r a n s f e r from t h e i r church. At t h i s l e v e l , they would remain i n good standing. The o t h e r , r e f e r r e d t o as 'judicial,' w h i c h c o u l d r e s u l t i n s t r o n g e r p u n i s h m e n t s u c h as removal from the m i n i s t r y or even the c h u r c h body. The [ D i s t r i c t S u p e r i n t e n d e n t ] s p e c i f i c a l l y u s e d t h e w o r d ' j u d i c i a l ' when r e f e r r i n g t o t h e c h a r g e s . It s h o u l d be o b v i o u s t h a t t h e y removed them f r o m COR 13 and 1110868, 1110892 for a reason but i t would serve o n l y to t a r n i s h f u r t h e r t o e l a b o r a t e on t h e r e a s o n s p u b l i c l y . them " R e g a r d i n g t h e a c t s o f s a b o t a g e , t h e y a r e r e a l and documented. I d i d n o t s a y n o r i m p l y t h a t you o r anyone e l s e you a r e d e f e n d i n g h a d a n y t h i n g t o do with i t . You c h a r a c t e r i z e t h e c o m p l a i n t s a g a i n s t L a w t o n and K e v i n as f r i v o l o u s and m y s t e r i o u s . I f t h e y a r e m y s t e r i o u s how c a n you know i f t h e y a r e frivolous? " I am n o t c r i t i c a l o f t h e i r m i n i s t r y as you c l a i m . As I s a i d , t h e i r h e a r t was i n t h e r i g h t p l a c e [ ; ] h o w e v e r , you have no i d e a what s e r i o u s j e o p a r d y t h e c h u r c h and t h e c o n f e r e n c e was i n due t o some o f t h e d e c i s i o n s t h e y made. I am s p e a k i n g o f b o t h c r i m i n a l and c i v i l . You w o u l d n o t know b e c a u s e t h e r e was v e r y l i t t l e o v e r s i g h t and most p e o p l e were s h e l t e r e d from the t r u t h . Had anyone on t h e [ S t a f f P a r i s h R e l a t i o n s C o m m i t t e e ] been d o i n g t h e i r j o b , t h e s e t h i n g s w o u l d have e i t h e r n o t h a p p e n e d o r b e e n u n c o v e r e d l o n g a g o . I owe no-one an a p o l o g y f o r t e l l i n g t h e t r u t h . Those who a r e m a k i n g j u d g e m e n t s w i t h o u t any f a c t s a r e t h e ones who s h o u l d a p o l o g i z e . E v e r y w o r d I have s a i d i s t h e t r u t h . A l l of the d i s s e n t e r s c a n do i s s p e c u l a t e and p o n t i f i c a t e . "You a r e r i g h t a b o u t one t h i n g . T h e r e must be a coming t o g e t h e r o f everyone r e g a r d l e s s o f which s i d e of t h i s i s s u e t h e y a r e on i n o r d e r f o r t h e c h u r c h t o s u r v i v e . The m i n i s t r y i s b i g g e r t h a n any o f us and i t i s not about u s . " I f I have m i s q u o t e d I w i l l apologize." J i m I welcome h i s comments and 14 1110868, 1110892 On J u l y 1, 2 0 1 1 , H i g g s s u e d B o l e a n d o t h e r named d e f e n d a n t s privacy, The fictitiously a l l e g i n g claims of defamation, invasion of 1 and i n t e n t i o n a l infliction of emotional distress. c o m p l a i n t a l l e g e d t h a t Higgs had been f a l s e l y accused o f misappropriating funds belonging t o COR; that defamatory s t a t e m e n t s h a d b e e n made r e g a r d i n g t h a t a n d o t h e r a c c u s a t i o n s ; that, as a r e s u l t c h a r g e s were f i l e d of the allegedly defamatory a g a i n s t Higgs w i t h statements, the Conference, which r e s u l t e d i n an i n v e s t i g a t i o n ; t h a t , d u r i n g t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n , H i g g s was a s k e d t o t a k e a v a c a t i o n from h i s d u t i e s w i t h COR; t h a t t h e C o n f e r e n c e u l t i m a t e l y f o u n d t h a t he was n o t a t f a u l t ; and t h a t , as a r e s u l t o f t h e a l l e g e d l y d e f a m a t o r y s t a t e m e n t s , he was a s k e d t o r e f r a i n f r o m f u r t h e r a c t i v i t i e s w i t h COR. On December 2, 2 0 1 1 , H i g g s filed a " C i v i l Subpoena f o r P r o d u c t i o n o f Documents u n d e r R u l e 4 5 , " f o r R e v e r e n d Schultz. In e-mails, that subpoena, he documents, and w r i t t e n requested a l lwritings, communications i n Reverend Schultz's p o s s e s s i o n t h a t made a n y r e f e r e n c e t o H i g g s ; t h a t r e l a t e d t o the f i n a n c e s o r a c c o u n t i n g o f f u n d s f o r COR a n d RDI f o r t h e the H i g g s d i d n o t s u b s t i t u t e a n y named d e f e n d a n t s f o r a n y o f f i c t i t i o u s l y named p a r t i e s . 1 15 1110868, 1110892 past five y e a r s ; that c o m p l a i n t s and/or constituted " f o r m a l and/or informal charges a g a i n s t Lawton H i g g s , S r . , whether i n d r a f t or f i n a l f o r m " ; t h a t arose from the i n v e s t i g a t i o n of Higgs; that and/or forth arose from an a c c o u n t i n g of funds Reverend Schultz's investigation into f o r COR R D I ; and t h a t and/or job description, the role, finances and set duties w i t h the U n i t e d M e t h o d i s t Church. On December 29, 2011, Objection to C i v i l M o t i o n t o Quash," Reverend Shultz f i l e d a "Verified Subpoena f o r P r o d u c t i o n o f Documents i n w h i c h he stated: "8. By h i s c o m p l a i n t i n t h i s a c t i o n , [ H i g g s ] has charged Defendant Tom Bole with, inter alia, d e f a m a t i o n and i n t e n t i o n a l i n f l i c t i o n o f e m o t i o n a l distress. T h e s e c h a r g e s a r i s e f r o m i n f o r m a t i o n and d o c u m e n t a t i o n p r o v i d e d b y Mr. B o l e , a t t h e r e q u e s t of R e v e r e n d S c h u l t z , r e l a t i n g t o [ H i g g s ' s ] s e r v i c e as p a s t o r and, t h e r e a f t e r , as a f u l l - t i m e v o l u n t e e r , of t h e C h u r c h o f t h e R e c o n c i l e r . [ H i g g s ] charges specifically: "'As a r e s u l t o f t h e d e f a m a t o r y s t a t e m e n t s made b y D e f e n d a n t s , complaints against [ H i g g s ] were f i l e d a g a i n s t [ H i g g s ] w i t h t h e N o r t h Alabama C o n f e r e n c e o f the U n i t e d Methodist Church and an investigation ensued.' "([Higgs's] Complaint at 57). "9. Without question, the information and d o c u m e n t a t i o n p r o v i d e d by Mr. B o l e (and o t h e r s ) t o Reverend Schultz prompted Reverend Schultz to 16 and 1110868, 1110892 initiate and conduct an i n v e s t i g a t i o n into the s t a t u s o f t h e r e c o r d s and f i n a n c i a l c o n d i t i o n o f t h e Church of t h e R e c o n c i l e r d u r i n g t h e time [Higgs] s e r v e d as p a s t o r o f t h e c h u r c h , a n d , t h e r e a f t e r , when he c o n t i n u e d t o s e r v e t h e c h u r c h as a f u l l - t i m e volunteer. "10. The investigation (including the p a r t i c i p a t i o n b y members o f t h e C h u r c h of the R e c o n c i l e r s u c h as Mr. B o l e ) c o n d u c t e d b y R e v e r e n d S c h u l t z , i n h i s c a p a c i t y as D i s t r i c t S u p e r i n t e n d e n t of t h e S o u t h C e n t r a l D i s t r i c t o f t h e N o r t h A l a b a m a C o n f e r e n c e o f t h e U n i t e d M e t h o d i s t C h u r c h , i s an internal, ecclesiastical matter of the United M e t h o d i s t C h u r c h , w h i c h i s g u a r a n t e e d t o be f r e e from judicial interference by secular courts p u r s u a n t t o t h e E s t a b l i s h m e n t and Free E x e r c i s e C l a u s e s o f t h e F i r s t Amendment." On January 17, 2012, B o l e filed H i g g s ' s c l a i m s a g a i n s t h i m on t h e g r o u n d a motion to dismiss that the t r i a l court l a c k e d j u r i s d i c t i o n over t h e c l a i m s p u r s u a n t t o t h e F i r s t and F o u r t e e n t h Amendment. Specifically, he a s s e r t e d : "In t h i s c a s e , c h u r c h g o v e r n a n c e i s a t t h e h e a r t of t h e m a t t e r , a n d b o t h t h e E s t a b l i s h m e n t C l a u s e a n d the Free E x e r c i s e Clause are implicated. The Methodist Church's investigation, proceedings, decision and a c t i o n , as [Higgs] insists, 'are c e n t r a l t o t h i s c a s e ' (see T r a n s c r i p t o f H e a r i n g on M o t i o n t o Quash), and [Higgs] seeks t o use t h e s e l e g a l proceedings, i n d i r e c t l y i f not d i r e c t l y , to i n q u i r e i n t o and r e f u t e t h e Church's i n v e s t i g a t i o n , p r o c e e d i n g s , d e c i s i o n s a n d a c t i o n , a n d t o impose p u n i s h m e n t on Tom B o l e (and p o s s i b l e o t h e r C h u r c h members) i n d i v i d u a l l y for participating i n the Church's p r o c e e d i n g s . This c i v i l a c t i o n a f f e c t s both an entanglement with church governance and a 17 1110868, 1110892 c h i l l i n g i m p a c t on i n d i v i d u a l f r e e e x e r c i s e p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t h a t church governance." through On M a r c h 15, 2012, a f t e r c o n d u c t i n g a h e a r i n g , t h e t r i a l 2 c o u r t e n t e r e d an o r d e r d e n y i n g B o l e ' s m o t i o n its order, the t r i a l to dismiss. In court stated: " T h i s m a t t e r came b e f o r e t h i s C o u r t on F e b r u a r y 21, 2012 t o h e a r o r a l a r g u m e n t s on D e f e n d a n t Tom Bole's Motion t o Dismiss f o r lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant t o Rule 12(b) (1) o f t h e Alabama R u l e s o f C i v i l P r o c e d u r e . In response t o Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, [Higgs] must e s t a b l i s h t h e f a c t u a l p r e d i c a t e s o f j u r i s d i c t i o n by a preponderance of the evidence. Ex p a r t e S a f e w a v I n s u r a n c e Company o f A l a b a m a , I n c . , 990 So. 2d 344 (Ala. 2008) ( c i t i n g E r b y v . U n i t e d S t a t e s , 424 F. S t n,,,^,^ o ^ 1 on Supp. 2d 180 / T> T> o (D.D.C. o n n/T )N 2006 N ) "In h i s M o t i o n t o D i s m i s s , [Bole] argues t h a t l e g a l i n q u i r y by t h e Court i n t o [Higgs's] c l a i m s w o u l d c o n s t i t u t e an e n t a n g l e m e n t into matters of c h u r c h governance (thus, e c c l e s i a s t i c a l m a t t e r s ) and would v i o l a t e t h e E s t a b l i s h m e n t C l a u s e and Free E x e r c i s e C l a u s e o f t h e F i r s t Amendment o f t h e U n i t e d States Constitution. I t i s undisputed that a c i v i l c o u r t may n o t become i n v o l v e d i n t h e r e s o l u t i o n o f disputes i n v o l v i n g r e l i g i o u s doctrine or p r a c t i c e . P r e s b y t e r i a n C h u r c h v. Mary E l i z a b e t h B l u e H u l l M e m o r i a l P r e s b y t e r i a n C h u r c h , 393 U.S. 440 ( 1 9 6 9 ) . However, [ H i g g s ] a r g u e s t h a t t h e c a s e a t h a n d does n o t i n v o l v e r e l i g i o u s d o c t r i n e , p r a c t i c e , o r any o t h e r m a t t e r s o f an e c c l e s i a s t i c a l n a t u r e . A t r a n s c r i p t o f t h i s h e a r i n g was n o t i n c l u d e d w i t h B o l e ' s petition. 2 18 1110868, 1110892 "II. Findings " I t i s the f i n d i n g of t h i s Court that a l e g a l i n q u i r y by t h i s Court i n t o [Higgs's] c l a i m s of defamation, i n v a s i o n o f p r i v a c y , and i n t e n t i o n a l i n f l i c t i o n o f e m o t i o n a l d i s t r e s s does n o t c o n s t i t u t e an e n t a n g l e m e n t i n t o m a t t e r s o f c h u r c h g o v e r n a n c e ( t h u s , e c c l e s i a s t i c a l m a t t e r s ) a n d does n o t v i o l a t e the E s t a b l i s h m e n t Clause and Free E x e r c i s e Clause o f the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. T h i s case i n v o l v e s a c i v i l c l a i m by one l a y p e r s o n a g a i n s t a n o t h e r l a y p e r s o n , a n d n e i t h e r the Church n o r any clergymen a r e p a r t i e s t o t h i s case. [ H i g g s ' s ] c l a i m s a r e b a s e d on e v i d e n c e , i n c l u d i n g documents a n d v e r b a l s t a t e m e n t s , w h i c h a r e w h o l l y s e p a r a t e and a p a r t from any c h u r c h d o c t r i n e , b e l i e f , o r g o v e r n a n c e . The documents a n d s t a t e m e n t s that form the b a s i s of [Higgs's] claims were generated and made by [Bole] outside any ecclesiastical action taken by the Church. Specifically, t h e documents a n d s t a t e m e n t s were generated a n d made b y [Bole] after a Church i n v e s t i g a t i o n was c o n c l u d e d a n d were made b y [ B o l e ] about [Higgs] s e p a r a t e and a p a r t from any Church investigation." (Emphasis added.) On granting April 5, 2012, t h e t r i a l Reverend Schultz's court "Verified entered an order Objection to Civil Subpoena f o r P r o d u c t i o n o f Documents a n d M o t i o n t o Quash" t o the documents n o t p r o v i d e d extent Schultz i t requested by Bole and denying documents p r o v i d e d filed his petition i t to the extent t o Reverend for a writ 19 t o Reverend i t requested S c h u l t z by B o l e . o f mandamus Bole i n this then Court 1110868, seeking 1110892 a d i s m i s s a l of the a c t i o n . Subsequently, Reverend S c h u l t z f i l e d h i s p e t i t i o n s e e k i n g t o have h i s m o t i o n t o q u a s h granted i n i t s entirety. Standard o f Review "'Mandamus r e v i e w i s a v a i l a b l e where t he pe t i t i o n e r c h a l l enge s t he subject-matter j u r i s d i c t i o n of the t r i a l c o u r t b a s e d on t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s a l l e g e d l a c k of s t a n d i n g t o b r i n g t h e l a w s u i t . "'"'"'Mandamus i s a d r a s t i c a n d extraordinary writ, to be issued only where t h e r e i s (1) a c l e a r legal right i n the p e t i t i o n e r t o the order sought; (2) an imperative duty upon the respondent to perform, accompanied by a r e f u s a l t o do s o ; (3) the lack of another adequate remedy; and (4) properly invoked jurisdiction of the court.' Ex parte I n t e g o n C o r p . , 672 So. 2d 497, 499 ( A l a . 1995) . The q u e s t i o n o f s u b j e c t - m a t t e r j u r i s d i c t i o n is reviewable by a p e t i t i o n for a w r i t of mandamus. Ex parte F l i n t C o n s t r . Co., 7 75 So. 2d 805 ( A l a . 2000)." 20 1110868, 1110892 "'"'Ex p a r t e L i b e r t y N a t ' l L i f e I n s . Co., 888 So. 2d 478, 480 (Ala. 2003) (emphasis added). "When a p a r t y w i t h o u t standing p u r p o r t s t o commence an a c t i o n , the trial court acquires no subject-matter jurisdiction." S t a t e v. P r o p e r t y a t 2018 R a i n b o w Drive, 740 So. 2d 1025, 1028 (Ala. 1999). Under such a c i r c u m s t a n c e , t h e t r i a l c o u r t has "no a l t e r n a t i v e b u t t o d i s m i s s the action." 740 So. 2d a t 1 non I 1029.'" II "'Ex p a r t e R i c h a r d s o n , 957 So. 2d 1119, 1124 ( A l a . 2006) ( q u o t i n g Ex p a r t e C h e m i c a l Waste Mgmt., I n c . , 929 So. 2d 1007, 1010 (Ala. 2005)).' "Ex p a r t e H e a l t h S o u t h (Ala. 2007)." Corp., 974 So. 2d 288, 292 Ex p a r t e B o a r d o f T r s . o f O l d E l a m B a p t i s t C h u r c h , 983 So. 2d 1079, 1085 ( A l a . 2 0 0 7 ) . "[A] mandamus p e t i t i o n may be u s e d t o r e v i e w r u l i n g s on m o t i o n s t o q u a s h s u b p o e n a s f r o m p a r t i e s a n d nonparties. I n Ex p a r t e T h a c k s t o n , 275 A l a . 424, 426, 155 So. 3d 526 ( 1 9 6 3 ) , t h e A l a b a m a Supreme Court stated, '[t]his court has reviewed the i s s u a n c e o f a s u b p o e n a d u c e s t e c u m , b o t h as t o p a r t i e s a n d n o n p a r t i e s , o r w i t n e s s e s , on a p e t i t i o n f o r mandamus.' See a l s o S t a t e v. R e y n o l d s , 819 So. 2d 72 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 9 ) . " Ex p a r t e Summit Med. C t r . o f Montgomery, I n c . , 854 So. 2d 614, 616 ( A l a . Crim. App. 2 0 0 2 ) . 21 1110868, 1110892 Discussion A. B o l e ' s P e t i t i o n Bole argues motion -- c a s e no. 1110868 t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d when i t d e n i e d h i s to dismiss Higgs's claims against jurisdiction. S p e c i f i c a l l y , he c o n t e n d s did subject-matter n o t have pursuant that the t r i a l jurisdiction over Constitution Church's because, investigation, he thereto[] says, proceedings, are a t the very h e a r t of [Higgs's] court the claims necessarily entail motives, reasoning, "[t]he c l a i m s , and t h e defenses inquiry perception, into the Methodist and, t h e r e f o r e , i n t o intent, and d e c i s i o n s l e a d i n g t o the d i s a s s o c i a t i o n of t h e [Higgses] h i s response Methodist d e c i s i o n s , and a c t i o n s Church's i n v e s t i g a t i o n and p r o c e e d i n g s , In of t o t h e F i r s t a n d F o u r t e e n t h Amendments t o t h e U n i t e d States the him f o r l a c k from t o B o l e ' s p e t i t i o n , Higgs argues COR." that the F i r s t Amendment does n o t b a r h i s a c t i o n b e c a u s e t h e a c t i o n i s based on allegedly Conference's defamatory investigation statements made had been c o m p l e t e d resolution had been issued and statements did not involve governance, ecclesiastical either matters, 22 because, after the and a f t e r t h e he says, the church, o r any other the church form of 1110868, religious 1110892 concern "alleged financial We f i r s t privacy, but involved what he characterized as ineptitude." s e t out the elements of defamation, i n v a s i o n of and i n t e n t i o n a l infliction of emotional d i s t r e s s . "'To e s t a b l i s h a p r i m a f a c i e c a s e o f d e f a m a t i o n , a p l a i n t i f f must show: " ' " [ 1 ] t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t was a t l e a s t n e g l i g e n t [2] i n p u b l i s h i n g [3] a false and defamatory statement to another [4] concerning the p l a i n t i f f , [5] which is either actionable without having t o prove s p e c i a l harm (actionable per se) or a c t i o n a b l e upon a l l e g a t i o n s and p r o o f o f s p e c i a l harm ( a c t i o n a b l e per quod)."' "Ex p a r t e C r a w f o r d B r o a d . Co., 904 So. 2d 221, 225 (Ala. 2004) ( q u o t i n g D e l t a H e a l t h G r o u p , I n c . v. S t a f f o r d , 887 So. 2d 887, 895 ( A l a . 2 0 0 4 ) , q u o t i n g i n t u r n N e l s o n v. L a p e y r o u s e G r a i n C o r p . , 534 So. 2d 1085, 1091 ( A l a . 1988) ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d ) ) . " T r u t h i s a 'complete and a b s o l u t e d e f e n s e ' t o defamation. B a t t l e s v. F o r d M o t o r C r e d i t Co., 597 So. 2d 688, 692 ( A l a . 1992) ( c i t i n g J a k o b v. F i r s t A l a b a m a Bank o f Montgomery, 361 So. 2d 1017 ( A l a . 1 9 7 8 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 439 U.S. 968, 99 S. C t . 460, 58 L. Ed. 2d 428 ( 1 9 7 8 ) ; R i p p s v. H e r r i n g t o n , 241 A l a . 209, 1 So. 2d 899 ( 1 9 4 1 ) ) . T r u t h f u l statements c a n n o t , as a m a t t e r o f l a w , h a v e a defamatory meaning. See M c C a i g v. T a l l a d e g a P u b l ' g Co., 544 So. 2d 875, 879 ( A l a . 1989) ('Given t h e t r u t h f u l n e s s of the p u b l i s h e d statements, the t r i a l court c o r r e c t l y d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e s t a t e m e n t s , as a 23 1110868, 1110892 matter o f l a w , were n o t c a p a b l e defamatory meaning ' ) . ... " of having a F e d e r a l C r e d i t , I n c . v . F u l l e r , 72 So. 3d 5, 9-10 ( A l a . 2011) . With regard t o i n v a s i o n of p r i v a c y , t h i s C o u r t has s t a t e d : " I n B u t l e r [ v . Town o f A r g o , 871 So. 2d 1 ( A l a . 2003)], t h i s Court d e f i n e d the elements o f the t o r t of i n v a s i o n of p r i v a c y , s t a t i n g : "'"'This Court d e f i n e s the t o r t o f i n v a s i o n o f p r i v a c y as t h e intentional wrongful intrusion i n t o one's p r i v a t e a c t i v i t i e s i n s u c h a manner as t o o u t r a g e o r c a u s e m e n t a l s u f f e r i n g , shame, o r humiliation to a person of o r d i n a r y s e n s i b i l i t i e s . ' " ... "'... [T]his Court following definition invasion of privacy: has adopted the for "false light" "'"'One who g i v e s p u b l i c i t y t o a matter concerning another that places the other before the public in a false light i s subject to l i a b i l i t y to the other for invasion of h i sprivacy, i f "'"'(a) the f a l s e light i n which the o t h e r was p l a c e d w o u l d be h i g h l y o f f e n s i v e t o a reasonable person, and had "'"'(b) the actor knowledge of or 24 1110868, 1110892 acted in reckless disregard as t o t h e falsity of the publicized m a t t e r and the false light in which t h e other would be p l a c e d . " ' S c h i f a n o v. G r e e n e C o u n t y G r e y h o u n d P a r k , Inc., 624 So. 2d 178, 180 ( A l a . 1993)(emphasis omitted) ( q u o t i n g Restatement (Second) o f T o r t s § 652E (1977)). A f a l s e - l i g h t c l a i m does n o t r e q u i r e t h a t t h e information made public be private; i n s t e a d , t h e i n f o r m a t i o n made p u b l i c must be f a l s e . See R e s t a t e m e n t (Second) o f T o r t s § 652E cmt. A. ( 1 9 7 7 ) . ' "871 Cottrell So. 2 d a t 1 2 . " v. N a t i o n a l 306, 348 ( A l a . 2 0 0 7 ) . Collegiate Athletic Ass'n, The i n t e n t i o n a l i n f l i c t i o n o f e m o t i o n a l d i s t r e s s i s a l s o known as t h e t o r t o f o u t r a g e . Ala. 975 So. 2d See Chaney v . West-AL, L L C , 22 So. 3d 488 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 8 ) . "This Court f i r s t recognized the t o r t of outrage i n 1980, i n A m e r i c a n Road S e r v i c e Co. v. Inmon, 394 So. 2d 361 ( A l a . 1980) . I n Inmon t h i s Court r e c o g n i z e d the t o r t proposed by t h e Restatement (Second) o f T o r t s § 46 ( 1 9 4 8 ) , h o l d i n g : "'[O]ne who b y e x t r e m e and outrageous conduct i n t e n t i o n a l l y o r r e c k l e s s l y causes severe emotional d i s t r e s s t o another i s s u b j e c t t o l i a b i l i t y f o r such e m o t i o n a l d i s t r e s s a n d f o r b o d i l y harm r e s u l t i n g f r o m the distress. The e m o t i o n a l distress t h e r e u n d e r must be so s e v e r e t h a t no r e a s o n a b l e p e r s o n c o u l d be e x p e c t e d t o 25 1110868, 1110892 e n d u r e i t . Any r e c o v e r y must be r e a s o n a b l e and j u s t i f i e d under the circumstances, l i a b i l i t y e n s u i n g o n l y when t h e c o n d u c t i s e x t r e m e . Comment, R e s t a t e m e n t [ (Second) o f T o r t s § 4 6 ] , a t 78 [ ( 1 9 4 8 ) ] . By e x t r e m e we r e f e r t o c o n d u c t so o u t r a g e o u s i n c h a r a c t e r and so e x t r e m e i n d e g r e e as t o go b e y o n d a l l p o s s i b l e bounds o f d e c e n c y , and t o be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized society. Comment ( d ) , R e s t a t e m e n t , s u p r a a t 72.' "394 So. 2d a t 365. the t o r t of o u t r a g e The C o u r t n o t e d i n Inmon that "'does n o t r e c o g n i z e r e c o v e r y f o r "mere i n s u l t s , i n d i g n i t i e s , t h r e a t s , annoyances, p e t t y o p p r e s s i o n s , or other t r i v i a l i t i e s . " Comment, R e s t a t e m e n t , s u p r a , a t 73. The p r i n c i p l e applies only to unprivileged, intentional or r e c k l e s s conduct of an e x t r e m e and o u t r a g e o u s n a t u r e , and o n l y that which causes severe emotional distress.' "394 So. 2d a t 364-65. As t h i s C o u r t has s i n c e held: "'The t o r t o f o u t r a g e i s an e x t r e m e l y l i m i t e d c a u s e o f a c t i o n . I t i s so l i m i t e d t h a t t h i s C o u r t has r e c o g n i z e d i t i n r e g a r d to only three kinds of conduct: (1) wrongful conduct i n the family-burial c o n t e x t , W h i t t v. H u l s e y , 519 So. 2d 901 ( A l a . 1 9 8 7 ) ; (2) b a r b a r i c methods e m p l o y e d t o c o e r c e an i n s u r a n c e s e t t l e m e n t , N a t i o n a l Sec. F i r e & C a s . Co. v. Bowen, 447 So. 2d 133 ( A l a . 1 9 8 3 ) ; and (3) e g r e g i o u s s e x u a l h a r a s s m e n t , B u s b y v. T r u s w a l S y s . C o r p . , 551 So. 2d 322 ( A l a . 1989) . See also M i c h a e l L. R o b e r t s and G r e g o r y S. Cusimano, A l a b a m a T o r t Law, § 23.0 (2d e d . 1 9 9 6 ) . I n order to recover, a plaintiff must 26 1110868, 1110892 demonstrate t h a t the defendant's conduct "(1) was i n t e n t i o n a l o r r e c k l e s s ; (2) was extreme and o u t r a g e o u s ; and (3) caused emotional distress so severe that no r e a s o n a b l e p e r s o n c o u l d be e x p e c t e d t o e n d u r e i t . " Green T r e e A c c e p t a n c e , I n c . v. S t a n d r i d g e , 565 So. 2d 38, 44 ( A l a . 1990) (citing American Road Service Co. v. Inmon[, 394 So. 2d 361 ( A l a . 1 9 8 0 ) ] ) . ' " P o t t s v. H a y e s , 771 So. 2d 462, 465 ( A l a . 2000) . That i s not t o say, however, t h a t t h e t o r t of outrage i s v i a b l e i n o n l y the three circumstances noted i n Potts. Recently, t h i s Court a f f i r m e d a j u d g m e n t on a t o r t - o f - o u t r a g e c l a i m a s s e r t e d a g a i n s t a f a m i l y p h y s i c i a n who, when a s k e d by a t e e n a g e b o y ' s m o t h e r t o c o u n s e l t h e boy c o n c e r n i n g h i s s t r e s s o v e r h i s p a r e n t s ' d i v o r c e , i n s t e a d began exchanging addictive prescription drugs for h o m o s e x u a l s e x f o r a number o f y e a r s , r e s u l t i n g i n the b o y ' s d r u g a d d i c t i o n . See O'Rear v. B.H., 69 So. 3d 106 ( A l a . 2011) . I t i s c l e a r , h o w e v e r , t h a t the t o r t o f o u t r a g e i s v i a b l e o n l y when t h e c o n d u c t i s '"so o u t r a g e o u s i n c h a r a c t e r and so e x t r e m e i n d e g r e e as t o go b e y o n d a l l p o s s i b l e bounds o f d e c e n c y , and t o be r e g a r d e d as a t r o c i o u s and u t t e r l y intolerable in a c i v i l i z e d society."' Horne v. TGM A s s o c s . , L.P., 56 So. 3d 615, 631 ( A l a . 2010) ( q u o t i n g Inmon, 394 So. 2d a t 3 6 5 ) . " L i t t l e v. R o b i n s o n , 72 So. 2d 1168, 1172-73 ( A l a . 2011). With r e g a r d t o a s t a t e c o u r t ' s j u r i s d i c t i o n over a church in the face of a F i r s t Amendment c h a l l e n g e , t h i s Court stated: "As i s t h e c a s e w i t h a l l c h u r c h e s , t h e c o u r t s w i l l n o t assume j u r i s d i c t i o n , i n f a c t has none, t o resolve disputes regarding their spiritual or ecclesiastical affairs. However, there is 27 has 1110868, 1110892 jurisdiction to resolve questions of c i v i l or p r o p e r t y r i g h t s . W i l l i a m s v. J o n e s , 258 A l a . 59, 61 So. 2d 101 ( 1 9 5 2 ) . " A b y s s i n i a M i s s i o n a r y B a p t i s t C h u r c h v. N i x o n , 340 So. 2d 746, 748 1047, ( A l a . 1976) . See a l s o 1050 ( A l a . C i v . App. Walters v. S t e w a r t , 838 So. 2d 2002). " [ T ] h e f o l l o w i n g d i s c u s s i o n f r o m L o t t [v. E a s t e r n S h o r e C h r i s t i a n C e n t e r , 908 So. 2d 922 ( A l a . 2005,] makes i t c l e a r t h a t t h e d e c i s i o n o f a c h u r c h t o d i s c i p l i n e a member o r t o t e r m i n a t e an i n d i v i d u a l ' s membership i s r e v i e w a b l e i n a c i v i l c o u r t p r o c e e d i n g o n l y under v e r y l i m i t e d c i r c u m s t a n c e s "As n o t e d i n L o t t , u n d e r l i m i t e d c i r c u m s t a n c e s ' t h i s C o u r t has r e v i e w e d t h e a c t i o n s o f churches i n e x p e l l i n g members ' 908 So. 2d a t 928. One o f those circumstances i s when a church member c h a l l e n g e s w h e t h e r h e r ' e x p u l s i o n was t h e a c t o f t h e a u t h o r i t y w i t h i n t h e c h u r c h h a v i n g t h e power t o order i t . ' A b y s s i n i a M i s s i o n a r y B a p t i s t Church v. N i x o n , 340 So. 2d 746, 748 ( A l a . 1976) (emphasis added)." O l d E l a m , 983 So. 2d a t 1090-93. None o f t h e p a r t i e s have c i t e d , any A l a b a m a c a s e s i n w h i c h t h i s Court s p e c i f i c a l l y w h e t h e r c o u r t s have j u r i s d i c t i o n invasion of privacy, the u l t i m a t e removal over or i n t e n t i o n a l d i s t r e s s b a s e d on s t a t e m e n t s a n d we have n o t f o u n d , addressed claims of defamation, infliction of emotional t h a t l e d t o an i n v e s t i g a t i o n a n d o f a p a s t o r and/or p a s t o r emeritus 28 from 1110868, 1110892 a church and statements d i s c u s s i o n s about made after the i n v e s t i g a t i o n i n t h e r e s u l t s o f t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n and about a c t i o n s t a k e n by c h u r c h h i e r a r c h y . However, c o u r t s f r o m o t h e r j u r i s d i c t i o n s have a d d r e s s e d s i m i l a r s i t u a t i o n s . I n Y a g g i e v. I n d i a n a - K e n t u c k y Synod E v a n g e l i c a l L u t h e r a n Church i n America, 860 F. Supp. 1194 (W.D. Ky. 1 9 9 4 ) , was t h e m i n i s t e r a t R e s u r r e c t i o n part of the Indiana-Kentucky Lutheran Synod. Church, The Council asked Buss to Bishop to intervene and h i s p a r i s h i o n e r s . members ministry of a committee Lowell The Church in a met B u s s was a l s o r e s p o n s i b l e Church C o u n c i l about these meetings. the ministry committee submit t o t h e Church with t h e members problems I n J u l y 1992, B u s s gave C o u n c i l . Yaggie objected he p r o p o s e d to t o a paragraph However, t h a t p a r a g r a p h was t h e b a s i s f o r one o f Y a g g i e ' s d e f a m a t i o n c l a i m s . 29 of f o r reporting to the a d r a f t of a report i n t h e d r a f t , a n d i t was d e l e t e d . conflict S u b s e q u e n t l y , Buss and R e s u r r e c t i o n L u t h e r a n ' s c o n g r e g a t i o n who were h a v i n g with Yaggie. was Pastor Kempski. and t o h e l p between Yaggie which Indiana-Kentucky Synod was p r e s i d e d o v e r b y B i s h o p R a l p h K e m p s k i ; B u s s was a c l e r i c - a s s i s t a n t Yaggie Yaggie sued 1110868, 1110892 the Indiana-Kentucky d e f a m e d by two Because Synod and claimed of i t s agents or the first he had been employees. attempt Bishop Kempski, at R e s u r r e c t i o n that at reconciliation Lutheran's request, failed, appointed a three-member a d v i s o r y c o m m i t t e e t o i n v e s t i g a t e t h e church's difficulties for resolution. and formulate A f t e r meeting with Yaggie's wife, the to the congregation. advisory a recommendation Bishop Kempski, Yaggie, committee s u b m i t t e d a r e p o r t That r e p o r t the and to stated: " ' S i n c e P a s t o r L l o y d Yaggie announced t o t h e c o n g r e g a t i o n on S e p t e m b e r 13 t h a t he had a s k e d t h a t he 'be p u t up f o r c a l l ' and i m p l i e d h i s subsequent acceptance of a call, the A d v i s o r y C o m m i t t e e recommends t h a t h i s i n t e n t i o n t o r e s i g n be h o n o r e d and that appropriate consultation for professional development and personal h e a l i n g be o f f e r e d a t s y n o d e x p e n s e i n o r d e r t o f a c i l i t a t e t h e t r a n s i t i o n t o a new m i n i s t r y and e n s u r e h i s f u t u r e p a s t o r a l effectiveness.'" 860 F. Supp. a t 1196-97. the report regarding d e f a m a t o r y and Yaggie argued t h a t the honoring his i n t e n t i o n to language i n resign inaccurate. "Pastor Yaggie's third and final claim c o n c e r n [ e d ] a s t a t e m e n t a l l e g e d l y u t t e r e d by B i s h o p Kempski c o n c e r n i n g the meaning of the report. P a s t o r Y a g g i e a s s e r t [ e d ] t h a t when B i s h o p K e m p s k i was a s k e d a b o u t t h e C o m m i t t e e ' s r e c o m m e n d a t i o n ' t h a t 30 was 1110868, 1110892 appropriate consultation for professional d e v e l o p m e n t and p e r s o n a l h e a l i n g be o f f e r e d , ' he r e s p o n d e d by s a y i n g , ' I t means P a s t o r Y a g g i e ' s g o i n g to S a i n t Barnabas f o r p s y c h i a t r i c treatment and e v a l u a t i o n . ' Pastor Yaggie claim[ed] t h i s statement was repeated verbatim on the following three occasions 860 F. Supp. a t The complaint 1197. Indiana-Kentucky on subject-matter the ground Synod that jurisdiction the and moved trial to dismiss court because, complaint f a i l e d t o s t a t e a c l a i m upon w h i c h granted. In a d d r e s s i n g t h i s argument, the i t Yaggie's d i d not have argued, the relief c o u l d be federal district court stated: "The Supreme C o u r t m a n d a t e d o v e r a c e n t u r y ago t h a t t h i s c o u r t was not t o delve i n t o matters concerning the i n n e r e c c l e s i a s t i c a l workings of the church: "'But i t i s a v e r y d i f f i c u l t t h i n g where a s u b j e c t - m a t t e r of d i s p u t e , s t r i c t l y and p u r e l y e c c l e s i a s t i c a l i n i t s c h a r a c t e r , -¬ a matter over which the civil courts e x e r c i s e no j u r i s d i c t i o n , -- a m a t t e r w h i c h concerns t h e o l o g i c a l c o n t r o v e r s y , church d i s c i p l i n e , e c c l e s i a s t i c a l government, or t h e c o n f o r m i t y o f t h e members o f t h e c h u r c h t o t h e s t a n d a r d o f m o r a l s r e q u i r e d o f them, -- becomes t h e s u b j e c t o f i t s a c t i o n . It may be said here, also, that no j u r i s d i c t i o n has b e e n c o n f e r r e d on the t r i b u n a l t o t r y the p a r t i c u l a r case b e f o r e i t , or t h a t , i n i t s judgment, i t exceeds t h e p o w e r s c o n f e r r e d upon i t o r t h a t t h e 31 1110868, 1110892 l a w s o f t h e c h u r c h do n o t a u t h o r i z e t h e p a r t i c u l a r f o r m o f p r o c e e d i n g a d o p t e d ; and i n a sense o f t e n used i n the c o u r t s , a l l of t h o s e may be s a i d t o be q u e s t i o n s o f jurisdiction.' "Watson v. J o n e s , 80 U.S. Ed. 666 ( 1 8 7 2 ) . (13 W a l l . ) 679, 733, 20 L. " S i n c e t h e o p i n i o n i n Watson, t h e Supreme C o u r t has consistently refused to address church controversy. In S e r b i a n E a s t e r n Orthodox Diocese, e t c . v. M i l i v o j e v i c h , 426 U.S. 696, 96 S. C t . 2372, 49 L. Ed. 2d 151 ( 1 9 7 6 ) , t h e C o u r t c i t e d Watson f o r the proposition that federal courts lack jurisdiction to i n v e s t i g a t e whether proceedings p u r s u a n t t o i n t e r n a l r e g u l a t i o n s o f t h e c h u r c h were p r o c e d u r a l l y or s u b s t a n t i v e l y d e f e c t i v e . Id. at 711, 96 S. C t . a t 2381. The S e r b i a n C o u r t d e c l i n e d t o i n t e r f e r e w i t h t h e d e c i s i o n o f t h e H o l y Synod o f the S e r b i a n Orthodox Church (Mother Church) t o suspend and u l t i m a t e l y remove a b i s h o p o f the church. The C o u r t h e l d : "'Consistently with the First and F o u r t e e n t h Amendments " c i v i l c o u r t s do n o t i n q u i r e whether the r e l e v a n t [ h i e r a r c h i c a l ] church g o v e r n i n g body has power under r e l i g i o u s law [to d e c i d e such d i s p u t e s ] Such a determination ... frequently necessitates the interpretation of ambiguous r e l i g i o u s law and usage. To p e r m i t c i v i l c o u r t s t o p r o b e d e e p l y enough i n t o t h e a l l o c a t i o n o f power w i t h i n a [ h i e r a r c h i c a l ] c h u r c h so as t o d e c i d e ... r e l i g i o u s l a w [ g o v e r n i n g c h u r c h p o l i t y ] ... w o u l d v i o l a t e t h e F i r s t Amendment i n much t h e same manner as c i v i l d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f religious doctrine.' " I d . a t 708-09, 96 S. C t . a t 2380 ( q u o t i n g MMd^ & Va. C h u r c h e s v. S h a r p s b u r g C h u r c h , 396 U.S. 367, 369, 90 32 1110868, 1110892 S. C t . 499, 500, 24 J., concurring)). L. Ed. 2d 582 (1970) (Brennan " I t i s f i r m l y e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t i n the absence of f r a u d , c o l l u s i o n , or a r b i t r a r i n e s s , the d e c i s i o n s of the proper church t r i b u n a l s on matters purely e c c l e s i a s t i c a l , a l t h o u g h a f f e c t i n g c i v i l r i g h t s , are a c c e p t e d i n l i t i g a t i o n b e f o r e t h e s e c u l a r c o u r t s as conclusive. G o n z a l e z v. A r c h b i s h o p , 280 U.S. 1, 16, 50 S. C t . 5, 7-8, 74 L. Ed. 131 ( 1 9 2 9 ) . The general r u l e can t h u s be s t a t e d : C o u r t s s h o u l d be l o a t h t o a s s e r t j u r i s d i c t i o n over i n t e r n a l church d i s p u t e s ; i t s exceptions are r a r e . Serbian, 426 U.S. at 709-10, 96 S. C t . a t 2380-81; P r e s b y t e r i a n C h u r c h v. H u l l C h u r c h , 393 U.S. 440, 449, 89 S. C t . 601, 606, 21 L. Ed. 2d 658 (1969). " T h i s c o u r t r e c o g n i z e s t h a t none o f t h e above c i t e d decisions i n v o l v e d a defamation a c t i o n brought by a m i n i s t e r a g a i n s t t h e h i e r a r c h y o f h i s c h u r c h . The i m p o r t a n c e we g l e a n f r o m e a c h o p i n i o n i s t h e C o u r t ' s extreme r e l u c t a n c e t o i n t e r f e r e w i t h the i n t e r n a l workings of the church. We are also cognizant of the f a c t t h a t , i n t h i s case, the a l l e g e d d e f a m a t o r y s t a t e m e n t s do n o t e x p r e s s any r e l i g i o u s p r i n c i p l e s or b e l i e f s . However, t h e f a c t remains t h a t t h i s a c t i o n i s the r e s u l t of a c o n f l i c t c o n f i n e d w i t h i n the R e s u r r e c t i o n Lutheran Church, concerning the employment r e l a t i o n s h i p of its minister, and addressed i n accordance with the c h u r c h c o n s t i t u t i o n . As w i l l be d i s c u s s e d , we f i n d t h e s e c i r c u m s t a n c e s d i c t a t e our l a c k of j u r i s d i c t i o n over the m a t t e r . "A minister's employment relationship is g o v e r n e d by e c c l e s i a s t i c a l r u l e . L e w i s v. S e v e n t h Day A d v e n t i s t s L a k e R e g i o n C o n f . , 978 F.2d 940, 942 (6th C i r . 1992). C i v i l court j u r i s d i c t i o n over a ministerial employment d i s p u t e is impermissible because such i n t e r v e n t i o n would e x c e s s i v e l y i n h i b i t religious liberty. Id. O n l y on r a r e occasions where there exists a compelling governmental 33 1110868, 1110892 interest i nthe regulation of public health, safety, and g e n e r a l w e l f a r e have t h e c o u r t s i n t e r f e r e d i n e c c l e s i a s t i c a l matters. Simpson v . W e l l s Lamont C o r p o r a t i o n , 494 F . 2 d 490, 493 ( 5 t h C i r . 1 9 7 4 ) . "Not o n l y i s t h e i n t e r a c t i o n b e t w e e n a c h u r c h and i t s pastor an integral part of church government, but a l l matters touching this r e l a t i o n s h i p are of e c c l e s i a s t i c a l concern. Id. at 493-94. It makes no difference that the e c c l e s i a s t i c a l d i s p u t e f a i l s t o t o u c h on c h u r c h o r religious doctrine. I d . 'Whose v o i c e s p e a k s f o r t h e c h u r c h i s p e r se a r e l i g i o u s m a t t e r . We c a n n o t i m a g i n e an a r e a o f i n q u i r y l e s s s u i t e d t o a t e m p o r a l c o u r t f o r d e c i s i o n ; e v a l u a t i o n o f t h e g i f t s and g r a c e s o f a m i n i s t e r must be l e f t t o e c c l e s i a s t i c a l institutions.' M i n k e r v. B a l t i m o r e A n n u a l Conf., 894 F.2d 1354, 1357 (D.C. C i r . 1 9 9 0 ) . T h e r e i s no exception to the bar against i n t e r f e r i n g with matters of church a d m i n i s t r a t i o n . I d . " A t l e a s t two c o u r t s have a d d r e s s e d t h e q u e s t i o n of whether t o e x e r c i s e f e d e r a l j u r i s d i c t i o n over a d e f a m a t i o n c l a i m a n d b o t h have d e c l i n e d t o do s o . I n F a r l e y v . W i s c o n s i n E v a n g e l i c a l L u t h e r a n Synod, 821 F. Supp. 1286 (D. M i n n . 1 9 9 3 ) , t h e p a s t o r o f a Lutheran church i n Bakersfield, California[,] brought a defamation a c t i o n a g a i n s t the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod ('WELS') a f t e r WELS a l l e g e d l y p u b l i s h e d both o r a l and w r i t t e n defamatory s t a t e m e n t s a b o u t h i m d u r i n g i t s a t t e m p t t o remove him as p a s t o r . The c o u r t r e j e c t e d plaintiff's arguments ' t h a t r e s o l u t i o n o f h i s d e f a m a t i o n c l a i m w o u l d i m p l i c a t e no c o n c e r n e x p r e s s e d i n t h e F i r s t Amendment b e c a u s e an i n q u i r y into the dispute r e q u i r e s no e x a m i n a t i o n o f c h u r c h p r o c e d u r e s o r ecclesiastical decisions.' I d . a t 1290. I n s t e a d the court determined that resolution of the defamation claim would require the court to impermissibly review matters of r e l i g i o u s concern. Id. A long l i s t of a u t h o r i t i e s denying courts s u b j e c t matter j u r i s d i c t i o n over i n t e r n a l church 34 1110868, 1110892 d i s p u t e s mandated d i s m i s s a l 1288-90. of the a c t i o n . Id. at "More importantly, the S i x t h Circuit also dismissed a defamation claim f o r lack of subject m a t t e r j u r i s d i c t i o n i n H u t c h i s o n v . Thomas, 789 F. 2d 392 ( 6 t h C i r . 1986) . I n H u t c h i s o n , an o r d a i n e d Methodist minister challenged his enforced r e t i r e m e n t under church d i s c i p l i n a r y r u l e s . The named d e f e n d a n t s were t h e B i s h o p o f t h e M e t h o d i s t Church and t h r e e o f h i s s u b o r d i n a t e s , t h e J u d i c i a l C o u n c i l o f t h e Church, t h e E a s t Ohio Conference o f the Church, and t h e Board o f O r d a i n e d M i n i s t r y o f the Conference. Among t h e c a u s e s o f a c t i o n a s s e r t e d were c l a i m s f o r d e f a m a t i o n , i n t e n t i o n a l i n f l i c t i o n of e m o t i o n a l d i s t r e s s , and breach o f c o n t r a c t . "The plaintiff i n Hutchison complained of s e v e r a l h e a r i n g s w h i c h were c o n d u c t e d c o n c e r n i n g h i s a b i l i t y t o r e l a t e p r o p e r l y t o h i s c o n g r e g a t i o n . He alleged that throughout the proceedings the defendants misrepresented h i s church r e l a t i o n s h i p s and defamed h i m b y d e c l a r i n g h i m ' u n a p p o i n t a b l e ' due t o r e c u r r i n g p r o b l e m s w i t h l o c a l c o n g r e g a t i o n s . The Sixth C i r c u i t unequivocally held that the courts c o u l d not c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y i n t e r v e n e i n such a dispute: "'The Supreme C o u r t o f t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s has steadfastly upheld the First Amendment's command that secular a u t h o r i t i e s may n o t i n t e r f e r e w i t h t h e internal ecclesiastical workings and d i s c i p l i n e s of r e l i g i o u s bodies, although t h e r e may be o c c a s i o n s when c i v i l c o u r t s can r e s o l v e d i s p u t e s o v e r t h e d i s p o s i t i o n and u s e o f c h u r c h p r o p e r t y . ' " I d . a t 393. "The H u t c h i s o n c o u r t f o u n d t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s c l a i m s r e l a t e d t o h i s employment a n d s t a t u s as a 35 1110868, 1110892 m i n i s t e r o f t h e c h u r c h . I d . a t 396. The a c t i o n therefore concerned internal church discipline, f a i t h , a n d o r g a n i z a t i o n , a l l o f w h i c h were g o v e r n e d by e c c l e s i a s t i c a l r u l e , c u s t o m , o r l a w . I d . The court quoted w i t h approval the F i f t h C i r c u i t o p i n i o n i n S i m p s o n [ v . W e l l s Lamont C o r p . , 494 F.2d 490 ( 5 t h C i r . 1974)]: "'This case involves the fundamental q u e s t i o n o f who w i l l p r e a c h f r o m t h e p u l p i t o f t h e c h u r c h , a n d who w i l l o c c u p y t h e church parsonage. The b a r e s t a t e m e n t o f t h e q u e s t i o n s h o u l d make o b v i o u s t h e l a c k of j u r i s d i c t i o n o f a c i v i l c o u r t . The a n s w e r t o t h a t q u e s t i o n must come f r o m t h e church.' "Id. a t 394 ( q u o t i n g S i m p s o n , 494 F.2d a t 4 9 2 ) . " P a s t o r Y a g g i e p r i n c i p a l l y r e l i e s on M a r s h a l l v. Munro, A l a s k a , 845 P.2d 424 (1993), f o r the p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t h i s defamation c l a i m s can proceed. I n M a r s h a l l , t h e Supreme C o u r t o f A l a s k a r e v e r s e d a lower court's dismissal of Reverend M a r s h a l l ' s d e f a m a t i o n c l a i m a g a i n s t a member o f t h e c h u r c h hierarchy. The c o u r t n o t e d t h a t ' [ m ] o s t c a s e s a r e c o n s i s t e n t i n c o n c l u d i n g t h a t employment d i s p u t e s w i t h i n churches are core e c c l e s i a s t i c a l concerns outside the j u r i s d i c t i o n of c i v i l courts.' Id.. a t 427. However, i t t h e n f o u n d t h a t t h e d i s p u t e d i d n o t c o n c e r n p l a i n t i f f ' s q u a l i f i c a t i o n s as a p a s t o r and a s s e r t i n g j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r t h e d e f a m a t i o n c l a i m was p r o p e r . "We c h o o s e n o t t o f o l l o w t h e M a r s h a l l r a t i o n a l e . F i r s t , i t a p p e a r s t o be i n t e r n a l l y inconsistent. Second, we cannot allow i t t o outweigh the substantial federal authority holding to the contrary. P a s t o r Y a g g i e c i t e s us no f e d e r a l c a s e s i n s u p p o r t o f h i s p o s i t i o n , a n d we have f a i l e d t o f i n d any on o u r own. T h i s c o u r t d e c l i n e s t o d i s m i s s the lengthy l i s t of federal precedent, i n c l u d i n g 36 1110868, 1110892 this circuit's Hutchison decision, p l a i n t i f f ' s state court citations. i n favor of "The m a t t e r s i n t h i s c a s e c o n c e r n t h e i n t i m a t e r e l a t i o n s h i p between a p a s t o r and h i s c o n g r e g a t i o n . I n an a t t e m p t t o r e s o l v e an i n n e r c h u r c h c o n f l i c t , Lutheran leadership investigated congregational a t t i t u d e s toward Pastor Yaggie. The i n v e s t i g a t i o n was done i n a c c o r d a n c e with the c o n s t i t u t i o n a l p r o v i s i o n s of the church. The a l l e g e d d e f a m a t o r y statements were made i n connection with the m e d i a t i o n p r o c e s s and s t r i c t l y w i t h i n t h e c o n f i n e s of t h e church. " T h e r e c a n be no d o u b t t h a t t h e m a t t e r s i n t h i s case concerned t h e m i n i s t e r ' s c u r r e n t and f u t u r e employment r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h t h e c h u r c h . As s u c h , they are matters o f e c c l e s i a s t i c a l concern, over which this c o u r t h a s no j u r i s d i c t i o n . Wisdom mandates t h a t we r e f r a i n from dictating to a c o n g r e g a t i o n t h a t i f t h e y a r e unhappy w i t h t h e i r r e l i g i o u s l e a d e r t h e y cannot f r e e l y speak t h e i r mind. I n a m e d i a t i o n p r o c e s s between m i n i s t e r and c o n g r e g a t i o n , a l l p a r t i e s s h o u l d be a b l e t o e x p r e s s t h e i r innermost f e e l i n g s without fear of r e p r i s a l from t h e c o u r t s . " I f we were t o a c c e p t j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r s u c h m a t t e r s , i t w o u l d r e q u i r e us t o d e l v e i n t o t h e church c o n s t i t u t i o n and i t s procedures f o r s e t t l i n g i n t e r n a l d i s p u t e s . I f t r u t h were a d e f e n s e t o t h e d e f a m a t i o n c l a i m , we p r e s u m a b l y c o u l d f a c e i n q u i r y into determination of the minister's effectiveness. Not o n l y i s t h i s p r e c i s e l y what t h e F i r s t Amendment prohibits, b u t Supreme C o u r t a n d S i x t h Circuit authority prohibit us from exercising such jurisdiction were we s o i n c l i n e d . A c c o r d i n g l y , defendant's motion t o d i s m i s s f o r l a c k of s u b j e c t m a t t e r j u r i s d i c t i o n w i l l be GRANTED." 860 F. Supp. a t 1197-1200 (capitalization 37 i n original). 1110868, 1110892 In Trice v. B u r r e s s , 137 P.3d 1253 2 0 0 7 ) , T r i c e , a member o f W e s l e y U n i t e d Shawnee Wesley. alleged Civ. App. M e t h o d i s t Church of ( " W e s l e y " ) , h a d b e e n e m p l o y e d as a y o u t h d i r e c t o r a t B u r r e s s was t h e s e n i o r that, on A u g u s t minister d i r e c t o r " ' f o r reasons which that, "'[s]ubsequent as S e n i o r to that Minister time, Trice as t h e a r e n o t c l e a r t o him'"; Burress, o f Wesley, C h u r c h a n d i n t h e community t h a t told acting persons in his i nthe [ T r i c e ] was t e r m i n a t e d h i s j o b b e c a u s e he was q u e s t i o n i n g Burress's a t Wesley. 2 1 , 2002, he was t e r m i n a t e d youth capacity (Okla. from h i s s e x u a l i t y ' " ; and t h a t statements c o n s t i t u t e d slander. 137 P. 3d a t 1255. In t h e i r answer, B u r r e s s and Wesley d e n i e d t h a t t h e s t a t e m e n t s had were b e e n made a n d a l t e r n a t i v e l y a s s e r t e d either occasion. true o r made on conditionally privileged Subsequently, B u r r e s s and Wesley f i l e d a motion f o r a summary j u d g m e n t a n d a t t a c h e d had a that the statements continued materials t o show t h a t Trice h i s membership a t W e s l e y a f t e r h i s t e r m i n a t i o n as y o u t h d i r e c t o r a n d t h a t B u r r e s s h a d p u b l i s h e d t h e s t a t e m e n t a b o u t T r i c e q u e s t i o n i n g h i s s e x u a l i t y o n l y t o one young member of Wesley. 38 1110868, 1110892 "In support of i t s motion, Church[ ] asserted, i n t e r a l i a , t h a t t h e s t a t e m e n t by B u r r e s s concerned t h e i n t e r n a l d i s c i p l i n e o f an e x i s t i n g member, a n d t h a t t h e s t a t e m e n t was p u b l i s h e d b y B u r r e s s t o o n l y one member o f t h e C h u r c h , a l l o t h e r p u b l i c a t i o n s h a v i n g been by [ T r i c e ] . So, s a i d C h u r c h , i t was s h ie lded from l iab i l it y by the free-exercise-of-religion clause of the First Amendment t o t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s C o n s t i t u t i o n . See, Hadnot v. Shaw, 1992 OK 2 1 , 5 26, 826 P.2d 978, 987 [(Okla. 1 9 9 2 ) ] ; Guinn v. C h u r c h of C h r i s t of C o l l i n s v i l l e , 1989 OK 8, 5 21, 775 P.2d 766, 774 [(Okla. 1959)]. A l t e r n a t i v e l y , Church argued, the a l l e g e d s t a t e m e n t b y B u r r e s s t o o t h e r member(s) o f the c o n g r e g a t i o n r e g a r d i n g [Trice's] termination c o n s t i t u t e d p r i v i l e g e d c o m m u n i c a t i o n ( s ) on m a t t e r s o f common i n t e r e s t . See, 50 Am. J u r . 2d, L i b e l a n d S l a n d e r , § 340. See a l s o , R e s t a t e m e n t o f Laws, S e c o n d , T o r t s 2d, § 596 ( 1 9 7 7 ) , comment ( e ) . 3 3 4 "5 7 [Trice] responded, o b j e c t i n g t o Church's m o t i o n f o r summary j u d g m e n t . [Trice] contested the a l l e g a t i o n o f a s i n g l e p u b l i c a t i o n by B u r r e s s , p o i n t i n g t o t h e d e p o s i t i o n t e s t i m o n y o f Ms. Heer w h i c h a r g u a b l y showed t h e p r e s e n c e o f one o r two o t h e r young members o f t h e c o n g r e g a t i o n a t t h e t i m e B u r r e s s made t h e a l l e g e d defamatory statement. [ T r i c e ] a l s o adduced notes from t h e meeting o f Wesley's g o v e r n i n g board a r g u a b l y d e m o n s t r a t i n g h i s termination f o r b r e a c h o f p o l i c y and p r o c e d u r e governing the conduct and f i n a n c i n g of youth o u t i n g s , and f u r t h e r a r g u e d t h a t B u r r e s s ' s t a t e m e n t d i d not consequently concern the i m p o s i t i o n of discipline for violation o f any e c c l e s i a s t i c a l d o c t r i n e o f t h e M e t h o d i s t C h u r c h . So, s a i d [ T r i c e ] , B u r r e s s ' s s t a t e m e n t s t o o d o u t s i d e F i r s t Amendment p r o t e c t i o n s . G u i n n , 1989 OK 8, 5 34, 775 P.2d a t 779, f n . 48. The Oklahoma C o u r t o f C i v i l A p p e a l s r e f e r r e d t o B u r r e s s and W e s l e y c o l l e c t i v e l y as " C h u r c h . " 3 39 1110868, 1110892 II " ' I t seems a p p a r e n t t h a t t h e common i n t e r e s t o f members o f r e l i g i o u s a s s o c i a t i o n s i s s u c h as t o a f f o r d the p r o t e c t i o n of q u a l i f i e d p r i v i l e g e to c o m m u n i c a t i o n s b e t w e e n them i n f u r t h e r a n c e o f t h e i r common p u r p o s e o r i n t e r e s t . Thus, c o m m u n i c a t i o n s between members of a religious organization c o n c e r n i n g t h e c o n d u c t o f o t h e r members o r o f f i c e r s in their capacity as such are qualifiedly privileged. I t has b e e n s a i d t h a t a p r i e s t and h i s c h u r c h have a m u t u a l i n t e r e s t i n p r e s e r v i n g r e s p e c t f o r , and o b e d i e n c e t o , e c c l e s i a s t i c a l e d i c t s o f their governing authority, with a qualified p r i v i l e g e t o r e f u t e and n e g a t e t h e e f f o r t s o f anyone p u b l i c l y c h a l l e n g i n g i t s o r d e r s and t e a c h i n g s , s h o r t of expressly or impliedly charging personal i m m o r a l i t y or c r i m i n a l i t y ' (Footnotes omitted.) 3 " 'The common i n t e r e s t o f members o f r e l i g i o u s , fraternal, charitable or other non-profit associations, whether incorporated or unincorporated, i s recognized as sufficient to support a privilege for communications among themselves concerning the q u a l i f i c a t i o n s of the o f f i c e r s and members and t h e i r p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t h e a c t i v i t i e s of the s o c i e t y . T h i s i s t r u e whether the defamatory m a t t e r r e l a t e s to a l l e g e d misconduct of some o t h e r member t h a t makes him u n d e s i r a b l e f o r continued membership, or the conduct of a p r o s p e c t i v e member. So t o o , t h e r u l e i s a p p l i c a b l e t o c o m m u n i c a t i o n s b e t w e e n members and o f f i c e r s o f the o r g a n i z a t i o n concerning the l e g i t i m a t e conduct o f t h e a c t i v i t i e s f o r w h i c h i t was o r g a n i z e d '" 4 137 P. 3d a t 1256-57 (some f o o t n o t e s o m i t t e d ) . Subsequently, the trial motion summary court granted judgment, and Burress Trice and Wesley's appealed. In addressing i s s u e , t h e Oklahoma C o u r t o f C i v i l A p p e a l s s t a t e d : 40 for a the 1110868, 1110892 "5 12 The f r e e - e x e r c i s e - o f - r e l i g i o n c l a u s e o f the First Amendment to the United States C o n s t i t u t i o n guarantees a church the r i g h t , without f e a r o f j u d i c i a l i n t e r f e r e n c e , t o i m p o s e on i t s members d i s c i p l i n e f o r breach of e c c l e s i a s t i c a l d o c t r i n e so l o n g as t h e member r e m a i n s a member o f the church. Guinn [v. Church of C h r i s t of C o l l i n s v i l l e ] , 1989 OK 8, 5 2 1 , 775 P.2d [774,] 774 [(Okla. 1989)]. Consequently, '[t]he First Amendment w i l l p r o t e c t a n d s h i e l d t h e r e l i g i o u s body f r o m [ t o r t ] l i a b i l i t y f o r t h e a c t i v i t i e s c a r r i e d on p u r s u a n t t o t h e e x e r c i s e o f c h u r c h d i s c i p l i n e , ' and '[w]ithin the context of e c c l e s i a s t i c a l d i s c i p l i n e , c h u r c h e s e n j o y an a b s o l u t e p r i v i l e g e f r o m s c r u t i n y by t h e s e c u l a r a u t h o r i t y . ' Hadnot [ v . Shaw], 1992 OK 21, 5 26, 826 P.2d [978,] 987 [ ( O k l a . 1 9 9 2 ) ] ; G u i n n , 1989 OK 8, 5 2 1 , 775 P.2d a t 774. O n l y where t h e i m p o s i t i o n o f e c c l e s i a s t i c a l d i s c i p l i n e p o s e s an immediate t h r e a t t o 'the p u b l i c s a f e t y , peace o r order' i s the mantle of absolute constitutional p r i v i l e g e shed. G u i n n , 1989 OK 8, 55 14, 18, 775 P.2d a t 770-771, 773. "5 13 T r i c e a r g u e d , h o w e v e r , t h a t t h e F i r s t Amendment offered no p r o t e c t i o n t o defamatory statements unrelated t o church d i s c i p l i n e . In s u p p o r t , [ T r i c e ] p o i n t e d t o b o t h Guinn and Hadnot r e c o g n i z i n g t h a t , '"[u]nder the banner of the F i r s t Amendment p r o v i s i o n s on r e l i g i o n , a c l e r g y m a n may n o t w i t h i m p u n i t y defame a p e r s o n , i n t e n t i o n a l l y i n f l i c t s e r i o u s e m o t i o n a l harm on a p a r i s h i o n e r , o r commit o t h e r t o r t s , " ' a n d t h a t , ' [ a ] t t h e p o i n t when t h e church-member r e l a t i o n s h i p i s s e v e r e d t h r o u g h an a f f i r m a t i v e a c t e i t h e r of a parishioner's withdrawal or o f e x c o m m u n i c a t i o n by t h e e c c l e s i a s t i c a l body, t h e a b s o l u t e p r i v i l e g e f r o m t o r t l i a b i l i t y no longer attaches.' G u i n n , 1989 OK 8, 5 34, 775 P.2d a t 779, f n . 48; H a d n o t , 1992 OK 2 1 , 5 32, 826 P.2d at 989. So, s a i d [ T r i c e ] , because Burress's s t a t e m e n t came s i x months a f t e r t h e t e r m i n a t i o n d e c i s i o n and d i d n o t a c c u r a t e l y convey t h e g o v e r n i n g board's professed reasons f o r h i s t e r m i n a t i o n , the 41 1110868, 1110892 F i r s t Amendment b a r r e c o g n i z e d i n G u i n n did not apply. a n d Hadnot "5 14 We d i s a g r e e . The s t a t e m e n t o f w h i c h [Trice] complained r e l a t e d t o the o s t e n s i b l e reason for h i s t e r m i n a t i o n , conveyed from the p a s t o r t o a member o f t h e c o n g r e g a t i o n c o n c e r n i n g t h e c o n d u c t o f a n o t h e r member. A t l e a s t one c o u r t h a s s p e c i f i c a l l y h e l d t h a t s t a t e m e n t s b y a n d b e t w e e n c h u r c h members ' r e l a t [ i n g ] t o t h e Church's reasons and m o t i v e s f o r t e r m i n a t i n g [ p a r i s h i o n e r s ' ] m e m b e r s h i p ' ' r e q u i r e an impermissible inquiry into Church disciplinary m a t t e r s , ' a n d t h a t t h e F i r s t Amendment p r e c l u d e s a member's d e f a m a t i o n ' c l a i m [ w h i c h ] c l e a r l y i n v o l v e s an i n t e r n a l c o n f l i c t w i t h i n t h e C h u r c h . ' Schoenhals v. M a i n s , 504 N.W.2d 233, 236 ( M i n n . App. 1 9 9 3 ) . We are persuaded that examination of Burress's s t a t e m e n t i n t h e p r e s e n t c a s e l i k e w i s e r e q u i r e s an impermissible inquiry into Church disciplinary m a t t e r s , b a r r e d b y t h e F i r s t Amendment. "5 15 E v e n i f n o t a b s o l u t e l y b a r r e d b y t h e F i r s t Amendment, C h u r c h i s s h i e l d e d f r o m t o r t l i a b i l i t y b y a c o n d i t i o n a l or q u a l i f i e d p r i v i l e g e . In a d d i t i o n to t h e a b s o l u t e immunity a f f o r d e d by t h e F i r s t Amendment, a c h u r c h o r o t h e r r e l i g i o u s o r g a n i z a t i o n o r d i n a r i l y b e a r s no t o r t l i a b i l i t y f o r s t a t e m e n t s b y or b e t w e e n c h u r c h o f f i c e r s o r members c o n c e r n i n g t h e conduct of other o f f i c e r s o r members, because 'communications b e t w e e n members o f a religious o r g a n i z a t i o n c o n c e r n i n g t h e c o n d u c t o f o t h e r members or officers i n their capacity as such are qualifiedly privileged' as m a t t e r s a f f e c t i n g a common i n t e r e s t o r p u r p o s e . 50 Am. J u r . 2d, L i b e l and S l a n d e r , § 340; R e s t a t e m e n t o f T o r t s 2d, § 596, comment ( e ) . T h i s i s e s p e c i a l l y so where ' t h e p u b l i c a t i o n i s made i n r e s p o n s e t o a r e q u e s t r a t h e r than v o l u n t e e r e d by t h e p u b l i s h e r . ' Restatement of T o r t s 2d, § 5 9 5 ( 2 ) ( a ) . So, where t h e a l l e g e d defamatory s t a t e m e n t s a r e exchanged by o r between members o f t h e c o n g r e g a t i o n d u r i n g o r as r e s u l t o f e i t h e r a c h u r c h ' s d e c i s i o n t o employ, r e t a i n o r 42 1110868, 1110892 t e r m i n a t e a clergyman o r l a y employee, o r a c h u r c h ' s review o f the performance of a clergyman or l a y employee, the c o n d i t i o n a l p r i v i l e g e shields the church from l i a b i l i t y f o r d e f a m a t i o n . See, e . g . , S t a t e ex r e l . Gaydos v. B l a e u e r , 81 S.W.3d 186 (Mo. App. 2 002); Singleton v. C h r i s t the Servant E v a n g e l i c a l L u t h e r a n C h u r c h , 541 N.W.2d 606 (Minn. App. 1 9 9 6 ) ; J o i n e r v. Weeks, 383 So. 2d 101 ( L a . App. 1 9 8 0 ) ; R a n k i n v. P h i l l i p p e , 206 P a . S u p e r . 27, 211 A . 2 d 56 ( 1 9 6 5 ) ; S l o c i n s k i v. Radwan, 83 N.H. 501, 144 A. 787 ( 1 9 2 9 ) . 1 0 11 1 2 1 3 II " 'The a l l e g e d l y defamatory s t a t e m e n t s i n t h i s case, a l l of which the record reflects were communicated a t t a s k force meetings o r Church c o u n c i l meetings and d e a l t w i t h S i n g l e t o n ' s a c t i o n s as a p a s t o r , f a l l w i t h i n t h e C h u r c h ' s c o n d i t i o n a l privilege.' 10 " ' T o d e c i d e t h i s c a s e we must b a l a n c e t h e r i g h t o f an i n d i v i d u a l t o p r o t e c t h i s good name a n d reputation against the r i g h t of a r e l i g i o u s o r g a n i z a t i o n t o conduct i t s a f f a i r s f r e e of c i v i l c o u r t s c r u t i n y o r i n t r u s i o n . The b a l a n c e we s t r i k e f a v o r s t h e r e l i g i o u s o r g a n i z a t i o n s i n c e we r e c o g n i z e that a q u a l i f i e d p r i v i l e g e e x i s t s which p r o t e c t s the a c t i o n s o f t h e B o a r d a n d t h e s t a t e m e n t s made b y t h e Board members during t h e December 10, 1976, meeting.' 11 " ' [ I ] n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e a l l o f t h e members o f t h e C h e s t e r c h u r c h h a d a common i n t e r e s t i n t h e c o n t r o v e r s i e s t h a t o c c a s i o n e d the appointment of the e c c l e s i a s t i c a l c o m m i s s i o n a n d i t s r e p o r t . As t h e c o u r t below s a i d : "Thus, t h e c o n d i t i o n a l p r i v i l e g e e x t e n d s t o t h e members o f t h e T h i r d Presbyterian C h u r c h , a l l o f whom h a d a v e r y r e a l i n t e r e s t i n t h e resolution o f problems which had i n v o l v e d the handling of the church's a f f a i r s . P u b l i c a t i o n could o n l y have b e e n e x c e s s i v e i f i t h a d b e e n made t o 1 2 43 1110868, 1110892 p e r s o n s who d i d n o t have a common i n t e r e s t , a n d no s u c h p u b l i c a t i o n was made. [ I ] t i s the duty of the c o u r t , n o t t h e j u r y , t o r u l e on t h e q u e s t i o n o f conditional privilege, and, by d e f i n i t i o n , t h e c o n d i t i o n a l p r i v i l e g e i n t h i s case extended t o those i n the T h i r d P r e s b y t e r i a n Church. Publication to t h e s e members c o u l d n o t have b e e n an abuse o f t h a t p r i v i l e g e . " The c o u r t p r o p e r l y d e t e r m i n e d , as a matter of law, that the communication was conditionally privileged.' " 'The i d e a t h a t t h e conduct o f a m i n i s t e r s h o u l d be m e n t i o n e d unfavorably only a t church meetings, or before t r i b u n a l s having a u t h o r i t y i n t h e p r e m i s e s , s u g g e s t s an u n d e s i r a b l e d e p a r t u r e f r o m the u s u a l course of events I n d i v i d u a l church members a r e n o t a c c u s t o m e d t o b r i n g t h e v a r i o u s i t e m s o f g o s s i p w h i c h may be i n c i r c u l a t i o n a b o u t the m i n i s t e r t o the a t t e n t i o n of the governing boards of the church, nor i s i t d e s i r a b l e t h a t they s h o u l d do so [ I ] n s t a n c e s i n which charges are presented and h e a r d by t h e c o n s t i t u t e d church a u t h o r i t i e s evidence the culmination of considerable p e r i o d s o f p r i v a t e d i s c u s s i o n amongst t h e members o f the congregations i n v o l v e d . Any r u l e d e s i g n e d t o p e n a l i z e t h e f o r m a t i o n o f p u b l i c sentiment i n such cases by a r r e s t i n g the preliminary sifting of r e p o r t s through p r i v a t e d i s c u s s i o n , f r e e from t h e t a i n t o f m a l i c e and f o r a p r o p e r purpose, i s w i t h o u t j u s t i f i c a t i o n a n d w o u l d be f o r e d o o m e d t o p r a c t i c a l f a i l u r e as an a t t e m p t t o d e c r e e t h a t men a n d women s h a l l n o t a c t l i k e human b e i n g s . ' " 13 137 P. 3d a t 1258-59 In (footnotes omitted). S e e f r i e d v. Hummel, 148 P. 3d 184 ( C o l o . App. 2 0 0 5 ) , t h e p l a i n t i f f s , R i c h a r d S e e f r i e d , James S e e f r i e d , a n d C o l o r a d o Digital John Systems, Budish, LLC ("CDS"), s u e d and F o r t Collins 44 Hans Hummel, K i m Hummel, Bible Church ("the c h u r c h " ) . 1110868, 1110892 They a l s o s u e d M a t t Homolka, Bob and David B i s c h o f f , both i n d i v i d u a l l y board of d i r e c t o r s of p a s t o r at the church, was H e r d , D i c k B e r g , Dan a corporation the James was owned by hired Hans and first amended c o m p l a i n t B u d i s h had their Kim as already the A d d i t i o n a l l y , James Budish to work a t [with resigned as i t was associate alleged that Richard " b a s e d on this pastor had The and which r e s u l t e d i n That [church].'" at set forth that dispute 148 P.3d terminated whether James time. been d i s c h a r g e d 'secular non-church i s s u e . ' " complaint as had The pastor Id. three claims However, t h e C o l o r a d o C o u r t o f A p p e a l s stated: for relief. " I t i s p l a i n t i f f s ' second c l a i m t h a t i s at i s s u e here. In t h i s c l a i m , p l a i n t i f f s a l l e g e t h a t R i c h a r d S e e f r i e d had b e e n e m p l o y e d w i t h t h e c h u r c h s u b j e c t t o an ' e x p r e s s i n d e f i n i t e c o n t r a c t ' t h a t c o n t a i n e d ' r e c i p r o c a l d u t i e s o f good f a i t h and f a i r d e a l i n g . ' They f u r t h e r a l l e g e t h a t , i n v i o l a t i o n of the c h u r c h ' s c o n s t i t u t i o n and i t s c o n t r a c t o f employment w i t h R i c h a r d S e e f r i e d , t h e c h u r c h and t h e b o a r d 45 had Hummel Kim CDS].' unclear CDS CDS. A f t e r s e v e r a l church meetings, the church employment, b u t the senior t h e a s s o c i a t e p a s t o r , and i s s u e w i t h the complaint The was a l l e g e d t h a t Hans and employees s u b s e q u e n t l y became 'an Richard's Richard James. Hummel and as members o f "'engaged i n c e r t a i n a c t i v i t i e s , cessation a t 187. church. and Stowell, 1110868, 1110892 arranged a ' p u b l i c m e e t i n g ' w i t h i t s members t o discuss apparent discomfort with h i m as their pastor. P l a i n t i f f s claim that, i n v i o l a t i o n of i n t e r n a l church p r o c e d u r e and i t s c o n t r a c t w i t h Richard S e e f r i e d , a l l defendants p a r t i c i p a t e d i n the meeting, signed petitions, or made false, slanderous, or libelous statements against p l a i n t i f f s , a n d t h a t R i c h a r d S e e f r i e d was u n l a w f u l l y t e r m i n a t e d as a r e s u l t o f t h i s m e e t i n g . Plaintiffs c l a i m t h a t as a c o n s e q u e n c e , a l l d e f e n d a n t s a r e liable f o r 'slander, libel, the intentional interference with business r e l a t i o n s h i p s , and o u t r a g e o u s c o n d u c t ' f o r t h e s t a t e m e n t s made d u r i n g t h i s meeting." 148 to P.3d a t 187. dismiss trial the claims against them on t h e g r o u n d s t h a t t h e c o u r t d i d n o t have s u b j e c t - m a t t e r the p l a i n t i f f s be g r a n t e d . and dismissed The t r i a l court granted the p l a i n t i f f s ' were b a s e d plaintiffs refused on t h e s t a t e m e n t s addressing this the motion i n p a r t published jurisdiction at the jurisdiction. contended t h a t the t r i a l to exercise relief d e f a m a t i o n and r e l a t e d c l a i m s meeting f o r l a c k of subject-matter the j u r i s d i c t i o n and t h a t h a d f a i l e d t o s t a t e a c l a i m upon w h i c h can that Subsequently, the defendants f i l e d a motion over court those On church appeal, e r r e d when i t claims. In i s s u e , the Colorado Court of Appeals s t a t e d : "As r e l e v a n t h e r e , t h e c o u r t d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e s t a t e m e n t s w h i c h gave r i s e t o p l a i n t i f f s ' claims were i s s u e d w i t h i n t h e ' c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y p r o t e c t e d c o n t e x t ' o f t h e F i r s t Amendment o f t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s C o n s t i t u t i o n because they o c c u r r e d d u r i n g a church 46 1110868, 1110892 meeting that concerned the 'investigation, discipline a n d d i s c h a r g e o f R i c h a r d a n d James Seefried.' The c o u r t , c o n s e q u e n t l y , d e c l i n e d t o e x e r c i s e s u b j e c t matter j u r i s d i c t i o n over these claims. P l a i n t i f f s c o n t e n d t h a t t h i s was e r r o r as a m a t t e r o f l a w . We a g r e e w i t h t h e t r i a l c o u r t . " I n c e r t a i n c i r c u m s t a n c e s , t h e F i r s t Amendment p r e c l u d e s a c o u r t from e x e r c i s i n g j u r i s d i c t i o n over claims concerning a religious institution's activities on m a t t e r s o f r e l i g i o u s d o c t r i n e o r authority. See, e . g . , S e r b i a n E. O r t h o d o x D i o c e s e v. M i l i v o j e v i c h , 426 U.S. 696, 96 S. C t . 2372, 49 L. Ed. 2d 151 (1976) (court lacks j u r i s d i c t i o n t o i n v e s t i g a t e whether i n t e r n a l r e g u l a t o r y proceedings o f t h e c h u r c h were p r o c e d u r a l l y o r s u b s t a n t i v e l y d e f e c t i v e ) ; K e d r o f f v. S t . N i c h o l a s C a t h e d r a l , 344 U.S. 94, 116, 73 S. C t . 143, 154, 97 L. E d . 120 (1952) ('religious organizations [have] an independence from s e c u l a r c o n t r o l o r m a n i p u l a t i o n , i n s h o r t , power t o d e c i d e f o r t h e m s e l v e s , f r e e f r o m s t a t e i n t e r f e r e n c e , m a t t e r s o f c h u r c h g o v e r n m e n t as w e l l as t h o s e o f f a i t h a n d d o c t r i n e ' ) . The C o l o r a d o Supreme C o u r t h a s r e c o g n i z e d t h a t c o u r t s have no a u t h o r i t y t o determine claims which d i r e c t l y concern a church's choice of m i n i s t e r . Van O s d o l v. Vogt, 908 P.2d 1122 (Colo. 1996) (court lacked jurisdiction over claims brought by a former minister against a church arising out of the c h u r c h ' s d e c i s i o n n o t t o employ t h e m i n i s t e r ) . " "... [ T ] h e Van O s d o l c o u r t h e l d t h a t once a court i s called on to evaluate a religious o r g a n i z a t i o n ' s d i s c i p l i n e o f i t s c l e r g y , as was r a i s e d by t h e m i n i s t e r ' s c l a i m s , b o t h t h e Free E x e r c i s e C l a u s e and t h e E s t a b l i s h m e n t C l a u s e o f t h e F i r s t Amendment p r o h i b i t f u r t h e r i n q u i r y . "However, Van O s d o l a l s o r e c o g n i z e d t h a t t h e F i r s t Amendment i s n o t an a b s o l u t e b a r t o a l l c l a i m s 47 1110868, 1110892 against a religious institution and t h a t a m i n i s t e r ' s c l a i m a g a i n s t a c h u r c h may be a c t i o n a b l e if i t can 'be a d d r e s s e d without resort to ecclesiastical policy.' Van O s d o l v. V o g t , s u p r a , 908 P.2d a t 1128 n. 8, 1129, 1134 ('We do n o t b y t h i s o p i n i o n h o l d t h a t churches a r e i n s u l a t e d from t h e l a w . We do n o t a d d r e s s v a r i o u s c l a i m s that c o u l d be b r o u g h t b y a m i n i s t e r a g a i n s t h i s o r h e r church.'); see a l s o Minker v. B a l t i m o r e Annual C o n f e r e n c e , s u p r a , 894 F.2d a t 1360-61 ( p l a i n t i f f ' s contract claim against church not a u t o m a t i c a l l y b a r r e d b y t h e F i r s t Amendment where c l a i m could p o t e n t i a l l y be a d d r e s s e d w i t h o u t a n a l y s i s o f c h u r c h d o c t r i n e ) ; Moses v. D i o c e s e o f C o l o . , 863 P.2d 310, 320-21 ( C o l o . 1993) ( c l a i m o f n e g l i g e n t h i r i n g o f a m i n i s t e r i s a c t i o n a b l e b e c a u s e i t does n o t r e q u i r e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n or weighing of r e l i g i o u s b e l i e f ) . " C o l o r a d o a p p e l l a t e c o u r t s have n o t a d d r e s s e d whether defamation, tortious interference, outrageous conduct, or s i m i l a r types of claims, brought by a m i n i s t e r a g a i n s t h i s o r h e r church o r church members, are protected by the First Amendment. However, decisions from other j u r i s d i c t i o n s t h a t have a d d r e s s e d s i m i l a r issues provide significant guidance. B a s e d on t h e s e a u t h o r i t i e s , and i n l i g h t o f t h e p o l i c i e s e x p r e s s e d in Van O s d o l , we conclude that, under t h e circumstances here, the t r i a l court p r o p e r l y refused to e x e r c i s e j u r i s d i c t i o n . " I n H e a r d v. J o h n s o n , 810 A . 2 d 871 (D.C. 2 0 0 2 ) , the D i s t r i c t o f Columbia Court o f Appeals addressed a pastor's defamation c l a i m brought against the trustees of a church. In a thoughtful opinion, the court f i r s t observed: "'Under most c i r c u m s t a n c e s , d e f a m a t i o n i s one o f t h o s e common l a w c l a i m s t h a t i s n o t compelling enough to overcome First Amendment p r o t e c t i o n s u r r o u n d i n g a c h u r c h ' s choice of pastoral leader. When a 48 1110868, 1110892 defamation c l a i m a r i s e s e n t i r e l y out of a church's r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h i t s p a s t o r , the c l a i m i s a l m o s t a l w a y s deemed t o be b e y o n d the reach of civil courts because r e s o l u t i o n o f t h e c l a i m w o u l d r e q u i r e an i m p e r m i s s i b l e i n q u i r y i n t o the church's bases f o r i t s a c t i o n . ' " H e a r d v. J o h n s o n , s u p r a , 810 A.2d at 883. " A f t e r t h o r o u g h l y r e v i e w i n g the r e l e v a n t case l a w , t h e c o u r t d e t e r m i n e d t h a t , i n most d e f a m a t i o n c a s e s , 'the a l l e g e d d e f a m a t o r y s t a t e m e n t s d i d n o t o v e r t l y e x p r e s s any r e l i g i o u s p r i n c i p l e s o r b e l i e f s , but a l l the actions resulted from conflicts " c o n f i n e d w i t h i n " the churches i n v o l v e d . ' H e a r d v. J o h n s o n , s u p r a , 810 A.2d a t 884. Concluding that t h e a l l e g e d d e f a m a t o r y s t a t e m e n t s w o u l d r e q u i r e an examination of the church's reasons f o r d i s m i s s a l of the p l a i n t i f f as p a s t o r , t h e c o u r t d e c l i n e d t o e x e r c i s e j u r i s d i c t i o n over the c l a i m . The c o u r t noted that, ' i t was i m p o s s i b l e to c o n s i d e r the p l a i n t i f f s ' a l l e g a t i o n s of defamation " i n i s o l a t i o n , s e p a r a t e and a p a r t f r o m t h e c h u r c h [ s ] d e c i s i o n t o t e r m i n a t e [ t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s ] employment."' H e a r d v. J o h n s o n , s u p r a , 810 A.2d a t 884 ( q u o t i n g Jae-Woo Cha v. K o r e a n P r e s b y t e r i a n C h u r c h , 262 Va. 604, 553 S.E.2d 511, 516 ( 2 0 0 1 ) ) . " I n d e e d , a l m o s t e v e r y c o u r t t h a t has a d d r e s s e d t h e i s s u e has d e t e r m i n e d t h a t s u c h c l a i m s c o u l d n o t be e x a m i n e d i n i s o l a t i o n . See F a r l e y v. W i s c o n s i n E v a n g e l i c a l L u t h e r a n Synod, 821 F. Supp. 1286, 1290 (D. M i n n . 1993) ( ' R e s o l u t i o n of [the p l a i n t i f f ' s ] c l a i m would require the court to review [the church's] bases for terminating him, an e c c l e s i a s t i c a l c o n c e r n , and t h e v e r a c i t y o f [ t h e c h u r c h ' s ] s t a t e m e n t s . ' ) ; Y a g g i e v. I n d i a n a - K e n t u c k y Synod E v a n g e l i c a l L u t h e r a n C h u r c h , 860 F. Supp. 1194 (W.D. Ky. 1994) (court l a c k s j u r i s d i c t i o n over a m i n i s t e r ' s defamation a c t i o n a g a i n s t h i s synod based on s t a t e m e n t s made d u r i n g r e s o l u t i o n o f a d i s p u t e 49 1110868, 1110892 b e t w e e n t h e m i n i s t e r and h i s c o n g r e g a t i o n because s u c h an a n a l y s i s w o u l d have r e q u i r e d t h e c o u r t t o i n q u i r e i n t o the i n n e r e c c l e s i a s t i c a l workings of t h e c h u r c h ) , a f f ' d , 64 F.3d 664 ... ( 6 t h C i r . 1 9 9 5 ) ; Goodman v. Temple S h i r Ami, I n c . , 712 So. 2d 775, 777 ( F l a . D i s t . C t . App. 1998) ('The allegedly d e f a m a t o r y r e p o r t and t o r t i o u s i n t e r f e r e n c e o c c u r r e d as p a r t o f t h i s r e l i g i o u s d i s p u t e and w o u l d r e q u i r e t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o w e i g h t h e i r e f f e c t on t h e b o a r d members as compared t o t h e e f f e c t s o f t h e other considerations which clearly are religious disagreements. I n q u i r i n g i n t o the adequacy of the religious reasoning behind the d i s m i s s a l of a s p i r i t u a l l e a d e r i s not a p r o p e r t a s k f o r a c i v i l c o u r t . ' ) ; Downs v. Roman C a t h o l i c A r c h b i s h o p , 111 Md. App. 616, 68 3 A.2d 808, 812 (1996) ('When t h e conduct complained of occurs i n the context of, or is germane t o , a d i s p u t e over the plaintiff's f i t n e s s or s u i t a b i l i t y t o e n t e r i n t o or remain a p a r t o f t h e c l e r g y , h o w e v e r , i t i s d i f f i c u l t t o see how the forbidden inquiry could be avoided. Q u e s t i o n s o f t r u t h , f a l s i t y , m a l i c e , and t h e v a r i o u s p r i v i l e g e s t h a t e x i s t o f t e n t a k e on a d i f f e r e n t hue when e x a m i n e d i n t h e l i g h t o f r e l i g i o u s p r e c e p t s and p r o c e d u r e s t h a t g e n e r a l l y permeate controversies o v e r who i s f i t to represent and s p e a k f o r t h e church.'); H i l e s v. E p i s c o p a l D i o c e s e , 437 Mass. 505, 773 N.E.2d 929, 936 (2002) ( ' m a t t e r s a r i s i n g out of the c h u r c h - m i n i s t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p , i n c l u d i n g church d i s c i p l i n e , come w i t h i n t h e category of r e l i g i o u s b e l i e f , and t h u s a r e e n t i t l e d t o a b s o l u t e p r o t e c t i o n ' ) ; Jae-Woo Cha v. K o r e a n Presbyterian C h u r c h , s u p r a , 553 S.E.2d a t 516 (the p l a i n t i f f ' s a l l e g a t i o n s o f d e f a m a t i o n ' c a n n o t be c o n s i d e r e d i n i s o l a t i o n , separate and a p a r t f r o m t h e church's d e c i s i o n t o t e r m i n a t e h i s employment'). " B o t h O g l e v. H o c k e r , ... (E.D. Mich. No. 02-73200, Mar. 11, 2005) [ ( n o t r e p o r t e d i n F. Supp. 2d)] , and M a r s h a l l v. Munro, 845 P.2d 424, 428 (Alaska 1993), i n which the c o u r t s c o n c l u d e d t h a t t h e F i r s t Amendment d i d n o t b a r a d e f a m a t i o n c l a i m 50 1110868, 1110892 i n the m i n i s t e r i a l d i s c h a r g e context because the c l a i m c o u l d be s e p a r a t e d f r o m t h e a c t u a l m i n i s t e r i a l t e r m i n a t i o n , are d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e . U n l i k e here, the s t a t e m e n t s i n O g l e t h a t gave r i s e t o t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s c l a i m s were p u b l i s h e d o u t s i d e o f t h e m i n i s t e r i a l employment and internal discipline process. Similarly, although the allegedly defamatory statements i n M a r s h a l l appeared t o p l a y a r o l e i n the church's d e c i s i o n not t o h i r e t h e p l a i n t i f f , the court's opinion apparently depended on i t s c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n o f t h e o f f e n d i n g s t a t e m e n t s as s e p a r a t e a n d a p a r t f r o m t h e m i n i s t e r i a l employment process. "Here, however, i t i s u n d i s p u t e d that the s t a t e m e n t s a t i s s u e were made i n t h e c o n t e x t o f a meeting convened by t h e church and i t s b o a r d f o r c h u r c h members t o d i s c u s s w h e t h e r R i c h a r d S e e f r i e d s h o u l d be t e r m i n a t e d as p a s t o r . Indeed, a c c o r d i n g t o p l a i n t i f f s , R i c h a r d S e e f r i e d 'was u n l a w f u l l y a n d illegally terminated from h i s contract with d e f e n d a n t C h u r c h as a r e s u l t o f t h i s m e e t i n g . ' " I t does n o t m a t t e r w h e t h e r , as p l a i n t i f f s a l l e g e , t h e o f f e n d i n g s t a t e m e n t s were s e c u l a r i n n a t u r e o r t h a t James S e e f r i e d was n o t an a s s o c i a t e p a s t o r a t t h e t i m e t h e s t a t e m e n t s were made. The statements g i v i n g r i s e t o p l a i n t i f f s ' d e f a m a t i o n and other claims r e l a t e d d i r e c t l y t o a church process t h a t r e s u l t e d i n R i c h a r d S e e f r i e d ' s t e r m i n a t i o n as pastor. Accordingly, e v a l u a t i o n of the statements i n i s o l a t i o n o f t h i s p r o c e s s , w i t h r e s p e c t t o any o f p l a i n t i f f s ' claims here, i s not p o s s i b l e . "Whether a s t a t e m e n t h a s a d e f a m a t o r y m e a n i n g i s p r e d i c a t e d on c o n t e x t . See, e . g . , T o n n e s s e n v. D e n v e r P u b l ' g Co., 5 P.3d 959, 963 ( C o l o . App. 2000). T h u s , t h e c o u r t h e r e w o u l d be r e q u i r e d t o a s s e s s i n i t s e n t i r e t y a church meeting convened by the church t o d i s c u s s d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h , and t h e possible discharge of, i t s pastor. See H e a r d v. J o h n s o n , s u p r a , 810 A . 2 d a t 886 ('a c o u r t may n o t 51 1110868, 1110892 [ c o n s i d e r the e n t i r e manual of g r i e v a n c e s against t h e p a s t o r ] b e c a u s e ... i t i s i m p o s s i b l e t o a n a l y z e the e n t i r e manual w i t h o u t r e f e r e n c e t o the c l e r i c a l employment d i s p u t e ' ) . "Similarly, i f d e f e n d a n t s were t o r a i s e a q u a l i f i e d , or ' c o n d i t i o n a l , ' p r i v i l e g e defense, the court would be forced to determine whether d e f e n d a n t s were a c t i n g i n good f a i t h o r w i t h m a l i c e . See C o o p e r s m i t h v. W i l l i a m s , 171 C o l o . 511, 516, 468 P.2d 739, 741 (1970). R e s o l u t i o n of t h i s issue w o u l d r e q u i r e a s s e s s m e n t , a t a minimum, o f the m o t i v e s of the c h u r c h members who uttered the allegedly defamatory statements. Such a d e t e r m i n a t i o n c o u l d not occur w i t h o u t a s u b j e c t i v e " L i k e w i s e , p l a i n t i f f s ' c l a i m [ ] of outrageous c o n d u c t ... c a n n o t be c o n s i d e r e d s e p a r a t e and a p a r t from the church's t e r m i n a t i o n p r o c e e d i n g s . The outrageous conduct c l a i m would r e q u i r e the c o u r t to d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r d e f e n d a n t s were a c t i n g r e c k l e s s l y or w i t h the i n t e n t t o cause p l a i n t i f f s severe e m o t i o n a l d i s t r e s s . See, e.g., C u l p e p p e r v. P e a r l S t r e e t B l d g . , I n c . , 877 P.2d 877, 882 ( C o l o . 1 9 9 4 ) . ... Such [an] i n q u i r [ y ] here would n e c e s s a r i l y i n s e r t a c i v i l c o u r t i n t o the b a s i s f o r the church's choice of i t s r e l i g i o u s l e a d e r s . " F u r t h e r m o r e , we have s e r i o u s c o n c e r n s t h a t t o a l l o w as a c t i o n a b l e c h u r c h members' comments a b o u t t h e i r c h u r c h l e a d e r s made a t c h u r c h m e e t i n g s w o u l d i n h i b i t t h e f r e e and open d i s c o u r s e e s s e n t i a l t o a r e l i g i o u s i n s t i t u t i o n ' s s e l e c t i o n of i t s m i n i s t e r . Such a result could chill expressions of dissatisfaction f r o m c h u r c h members and thereby i n t r u d e upon t h e autonomy o f r e l i g i o u s i n s t i t u t i o n s t o f r e e l y e v a l u a t e t h e i r c h o i c e and r e t e n t i o n o f r e l i g i o u s l e a d e r s . See Y a g g i e v. I n d i a n a - K e n t u c k y Synod E v a n g e l i c a l L u t h e r a n C h u r c h , s u p r a , 860 F. Supp. a t 1199 ('Wisdom mandates t h a t we r e f r a i n f r o m d i c t a t i n g t o a c o n g r e g a t i o n t h a t i f t h e y a r e unhappy 52 1110868, 1110892 w i t h t h e i r r e l i g i o u s l e a d e r t h e y cannot f r e e l y speak t h e i r mind. In a m e d i a t i o n p r o c e s s between m i n i s t e r and c o n g r e g a t i o n , a l l p a r t i e s s h o u l d be a b l e t o express t h e i r innermost f e e l i n g s w i t h o u t f e a r of reprisal from the c o u r t s . ' ) ; H e a r d v. Johnson, s u p r a , 810 A.2d a t 887 ( ' A c c u s a t i o n s o f m i s c o n d u c t , d i s c u s s i o n s o f [a p a s t o r ' s ] m i s c o n d u c t w i t h i n t h e c h u r c h , and t h e e m o t i o n a l d i s t r e s s and e x a g g e r a t e d l a n g u a g e t h a t accompany s u c h a c t i v i t i e s seem t o us t o be u n a v o i d a b l e p a r t s o f t h e d i f f i c u l t p r o c e s s by which dissatisfied churches end employment relationships with their pastors.'); Hiles v. E p i s c o p a l D i o c e s e , s u p r a , 773 N.E.2d a t 937 ('The F i r s t Amendment's p r o t e c t i o n o f i n t e r n a l r e l i g i o u s d i s c i p l i n a r y proceedings [of a p a s t o r ] would be m e a n i n g l e s s i f a p a r i s h i o n e r ' s a c c u s a t i o n t h a t was u s e d t o i n i t i a t e t h o s e p r o c e e d i n g s c o u l d be t e s t e d in a c i v i l court.')." 148 P.3d a t 188-91 In Anderson (emphasis added). v. W a t c h t o w e r B i b l e & Tract Society Y o r k , I n c . , (No. M2004-01066-COA-R9-CV, J a n . 19, 2007) C t . App. 2007) of Appeals of New (Tenn. ( n o t r e p o r t e d i n S.W.3d), t h e T e n n e s s e e C o u r t stated: "Conduct t h a t i s i n e x t r i c a b l y tied to the d i s c i p l i n a r y process of a r e l i g i o u s o r g a n i z a t i o n i s s u b j e c t t o t h e F i r s t Amendment's p r o t e c t i o n j u s t as the d i s c i p l i n a r y d e c i s i o n i t s e l f . C a l l a h a n v. F i r s t C o n g r e g a t i o n a l C h u r c h o f H a v e r h i l l , [441 Mass. 699, 714-15,] 808 N.E.2d [301,] 313-14 [ ( 2 0 0 4 ) ] . ... "The A n d e r s o n s ' c l a i m s o f i n t e n t i o n a l i n f l i c t i o n o f e m o t i o n a l d i s t r e s s and i n t e r f e r e n c e w i t h b u s i n e s s r e l a t i o n s h i p s a r i s e d i r e c t l y from or are a d i r e c t r e s u l t of the shunning. The b a r t o r e v i e w o f t h e e c c l e s i a s t i c a l d e c i s i o n to terminate a person's membership i n a c h u r c h e x t e n d s t o a d d i t i o n a l c l a i m s 53 1110868, 1110892 t h a t d e r i v e from t h a t d e c i s i o n or are i n e x t r i c a b l y linked t o i t . Burgess [ v . Rock C r e e k Baptist Church], 734 F. Supp. [30,] 34 [D.D.C. 1990)] (holding that p l a i n t i f f ' s claims of outrageous c o n d u c t b a s e d on c h u r c h ' s a c t i o n s i n p r e v e n t i n g t h e p l a i n t i f f f r o m e x e r c i s i n g r i g h t s o f members when she was no l o n g e r a member were i n e x t r i c a b l y l i n k e d t o the claims that h e r m e m b e r s h i p was wrongfully t e r m i n a t e d and thus n o t j u s t i c i a b l e ) . " R e g a r d l e s s o f t h e l a b e l g i v e n the c l a i m by t h e p l a i n t i f f s , t h e q u e s t i o n i s w h e t h e r a c o u r t must delve i n t o e c c l e s i a s t i c a l questions i n order t o resolve i t . Natal [v. C h r i s t i a n Missionary A l l i a n c e ] , 878 F.2d [1575,] 1577 [ ( 1 s t C i r . 1 9 8 9 ) ] . I f t h e harm a l l e g e d i s t h e d i r e c t r e s u l t o f a r e l i g i o u s p r a c t i c e or d e c i s i o n t h a t c o u r t s cannot e x a m i n e , t h e r e i s no remedy a v a i l a b l e i n t h e c o u r t s f o r s u c h harm. ... " (Emphasis added.) In this retired. COR case, Higgs He c o n t i n u e d i n h i s status as was the pastor of COR until t o r e m a i n a c t i v e as a v o l u n t e e r a "pastor emeritus." transferred to Brownsville issued. 2011, Conference's t o Reverend Schultz investigation into until a f t e r t h e r e s o l u t i o n was As H i g g s a l l e g e d i n h i s p e t i t i o n , letter with Additionally, H i g g s ' s s o n , K e v i n H i g g s , was t h e s e n i o r m i n i s t e r o f COR he was he formed Bole's M a r c h 18, the b a s i s the Higgses. f o r the Further, i t a p p e a r s t h a t t h e s t a t e m e n t s made a f t e r t h e r e s o l u t i o n r e l a t e d to the d i s c u s s i o n regarding Kevin's t r a n s f e r to Brownsville 54 1110868, 1110892 U n i t e d M e t h o d i s t Church longer be a s s o c i a t e d w i t h statements other and t o t h e f a c t were church Conference made COR. I t also i n response members regarding t h a t Higgs would appears t o concerns the actions no that the expressed by taken by t h e to this Court, toward the Higgses. Initially, we note that, i n his brief H i g g s c o n t e n d s t h a t h i s a c t i o n d e a l t o n l y w i t h s t a t e m e n t s made a f t e r the Conference had i s s u e d i t s r e s o l u t i o n . order denying the motion to dismiss, the t r i a l Also, i n i t s court stated: " S p e c i f i c a l l y , t h e documents a n d s t a t e m e n t s were g e n e r a t e d a n d made b y [ B o l e ] a f t e r a C h u r c h were made b y [ B o l e ] a b o u t Church investigation." i n v e s t i g a t i o n was c o n c l u d e d a n d [Higgs] s e p a r a t e and a p a r t from any However, when r e a d i n g t h e c o m p l a i n t , t h e e x c e r p t s o f H i g g s ' s d e p o s i t i o n , a n d H i g g s ' s t h i r d amended response t o Bole's i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s , c l a i m s were n o t l i m i t e d i ti s clear that t o statements made a n d e - m a i l s a f t e r the conclusion of the i n v e s t i g a t i o n . Higgs In early 2011, [Higgs] was falsely accused by [Bole] of misappropriating funds, inter a l i a , b e l o n g i n g t o t h e Church o f the Reconciler. Defamatory s t a t e m e n t s were made i n r e g a r d t o 55 sent In h i s complaint, alleged: "6. Higgs's 1110868, 1110892 this and other through both v e r b a l communications. accusations and w r i t t e n "7. As a r e s u l t o f t h e d e f a m a t o r y statements made by [Bole], c o m p l a i n t s a g a i n s t [ H i g g s ] were f i l e d against [Higgs] w i t h t h e N o r t h Alabama C o n f e r e n c e o f t h e U n i t e d M e t h o d i s t C h u r c h a n d an i n v e s t i g a t i o n ensued. "8. W h i l e t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n was b e i n g c o n d u c t e d , [ H i g g s ] was f o r c e d t o take v a c a t i o n from h i s duties w i t h t h e Church and t o cease a l l a c t i v i t i e s w i t h the Church. "9. The C o n f e r e n c e u l t i m a t e l y f o u n d t h a t [ H i g g s ] was n o t a t f a u l t . "10. As a r e s u l t o f t h e d e f a m a t o r y statements made by [Bole], [ H i g g s ] was a s k e d t o r e f r a i n f r o m a c t i v i t i e s w i t h the Church." Higgs f u r t h e r alleged: "As a r e s u l t o f [ B o l e ' s ] s a i d a c t i o n s , [Higgs] suffered embarrassment, great worry, shame, h u m i l i a t i o n , loss o f sleep, anxiety, nervousness, sickness, physical and m e n t a l suffering, pain, a n g u i s h , and f r i g h t , t h e l o s s o f h i s c h u r c h f a m i l y , and t h e l o s s o f h i s p o s i t i o n w i t h t h e C h u r c h . " (Emphasis added.) A d d i t i o n a l l y , B o l e ' s i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s asked Higgs t o i d e n t i f y and d e s c r i b e "each and e v e r y i n s t a n c e '[Higgs] was f a l s e l y funds, i n t e r a l i a , a c c u s e d by [Bole] that of misappropriating b e l o n g i n g t o the Church of t h e R e c o n c i l e r ' 56 1110868, 1110892 and e a c h a n d e v e r y i n s t a n c e t h a t ' D e f a m a t o r y s t a t e m e n t s were made both i n regard to this verbal and w r i t t e n and o t h e r accusations through communications,' Paragraph 6 o f your Complaint." which are alleged i n I n response, Higgs identified two e - m a i l s d a t e d May 3 1 , 2 0 1 1 ; a c o n v e r s a t i o n b e t w e e n and Marti Slay that Bole t o o k p l a c e on May 3 1 , 2 0 1 1 ; a n d B o l e ' s M a r c h 18, 2 0 1 1 , l e t t e r t o R e v e r e n d S c h u l t z . M o r e o v e r , H i g g s ' s t e s t i m o n y d u r i n g t h e d e p o s i t i o n made i t clear that statements resolution. h i s claims made after During were based the Higgs's on more Conference deposition, than had just issued the "[DEFENSE COUNSEL:] A l l r i g h t . Now, y o u s t a t e g e n e r a l l y i n your c o m p l a i n t , i n t h e next paragraph, paragraph 10, as a r e s u l t of t h e defamatory s t a t e m e n t s made by d e f e n d a n t s , p l a i n t i f f was a s k e d t o r e f r a i n from a c t i v i t i e s w i t h t h e c h u r c h . I t a k e i t you a r e r e f e r r i n g t o t h e r e s o l u t i o n o f c o m p l a i n t and t h e e - m a i l a t t a c h e d t o E x h i b i t Two f r o m Ron S c h u l t z t h a t s e t s out t h e r e s o l u t i o n and t h e a c t i o n t o be t a k e n when y o u r e f e r t o b e i n g a s k e d t o r e f r a i n from a c t i v i t i e s w i t h t h e c h u r c h . I'm r e f e r r i n g t o t h i s l e t t e r I g o t on " "[DEFENSE COUNSEL:] Well, t h o u g h t we u n d e r s t o o d , was y o u r 57 the following occurred: "[HIGGS:] March 3 1 s t . the E x h i b i t One, I being asked t o 1110868, 1110892 remove y o u r s e l f . B u t t h a t was t e m p o r a r y , w h i l e t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n was b e i n g c o n d u c t e d . "[HIGGS:] Yes. "[DEFENSE COUNSEL:] A l l right. When i n p a r a g r a p h 10 y o u s a y t h a t as a r e s u l t o f t h e d e f a m a t o r y s t a t e m e n t s made by d e f e n d a n t s , p l a i n t i f f was a s k e d t o r e f r a i n from a c t i v i t i e s with the c h u r c h , a r e you r e f e r r i n g o n l y t o t h a t temporary r e m o v a l , o r a r e you r e f e r r i n g t o t h e temporary r e m o v a l a n d t h e n t h e l a t e r a c t i o n t h a t was t a k e n as s e t out i n E x h i b i t Four, t h e r e s o l u t i o n , and E x h i b i t Two, t h e e m a i l f r o m Rev. S c h u l t z ? "[HIGGS:] The E x h i b i t Two e - m a i l s a y s L a w t o n will no l o n g e r be c o n n e c t e d t o C h u r c h of the R e c o n c i l e r i n any c a p a c i t y . "[DEFENSE COUNSEL:] Okay. So i t i s b o t h o f t h o s e a c t i o n s t a k e n by t h e c h u r c h t h a t y o u a r e r e f e r r i n g t o when y o u s a y you were a s k e d t o r e f r a i n from a c t i v i t i e s w i t h t h e c h u r c h ? "[HIGGS:] As w e l l as t h e s t a t e m e n t h e r e g i v e n t o me i n t h e m e e t i n g . "[DEFENSE COUNSEL:] explanation, i s that right The ... ? oral or verbal " "[DEFENSE COUNSEL:] We a r e t a l k i n g a b o u t two documents and t h e n a v e r b a l e x p l a n a t i o n of the r e s o l u t i o n a n d t h e a c t i o n , b u t i t i s a l l t h e same r e s o l u t i o n a n d a c t i o n we a r e t a l k i n g a b o u t , i s n ' t it? I t i s t h a t p l u s the temporary removal? Those a r e what y o u a r e t a l k i n g a b o u t when y o u s a y y o u were asked t o r e f r a i n from a c t i v i t i e s w i t h t h e church. "[HIGGS:] Yes. 58 1110868, 1110892 "[DEFENSE COUNSEL:] Okay. I'm j u s t t r y i n g t o be c l e a r . You go on i n y o u r n e x t -- y o u r c o u n t one in the complaint, after r e f e r r i n g to the p r i o r t h i n g s s t a t e d i n y o u r c o m p l a i n t , i n p a r a g r a p h 12, t h a t as a r e s u l t o f d e f e n d a n t s ' d e f a m a t o r y action, p l a i n t i f f suffered i n j u r y t o h i s reputation i n the e y e s o f h i s community a n d t h e p u b l i c a n d was subjected to r i d i c u l e . Now, t h e i n j u r y t o y o u r r e p u t a t i o n t h a t you a r e t a l k i n g about, can you t e l l me any p a r t i c u l a r p e r s o n s t h a t y o u know o f who now h o l d you i n l e s s r e g a r d ? "[HIGGS:] Yes. "[DEFENSE COUNSEL:] Who? "[HIGGS:] W h i l e h a v i n g l u n c h a f t e r t h i s e v e n t I was a p p r o a c h e d by a f r i e n d a n d a s s o c i a t e i n o t h e r m i n i s t r i e s i n t h e c i t y a n d s a i d , 'What w i l l y o u be d o i n g now, L a w t o n , t h a t t h e y won't l e t y o u p r e a c h ? ' II "[DEFENSE COUNSEL:] concern? Was h e r q u e s t i o n one o f "[HIGGS:] I c o u l d n ' t read h e r a t t i t u d e about t h e q u e s t i o n e x c e p t t h a t i t j u s t d e m o n s t r a t e d t o me t h a t s h e , as a member o f t h e p u b l i c , as a r e s u l t o f a l l o f t h e s e a c t i o n s , assumed I ' d b e e n d e n i e d t h e p r i v i l e g e of preaching. II "[HIGGS:] I was j u s t r e p o r t i n g t o y o u what she said a n d what I heard that reflected public d e f a m a t i o n o f my c h a r a c t e r as a U n i t e d M e t h o d i s t preacher. "[DEFENSE COUNSEL:] "[HIGGS:] D i d she s a y a n y t h i n g e l s e ? ( W i t n e s s shakes head n e g a t i v e l y . ) 59 1110868, 1110892 "[DEFENSE COUNSEL:] Was t h e r e a n y b o d y e l s e , any o t h e r p e r s o n t h a t you c a n t e l l me t h a t -- W e l l , l e t me go b a c k t o h e r . Do y o u t h i n k she h o l d s y o u i n less regard, that lady? "[HIGGS:] regard? Do I think "[DEFENSE COUNSEL:] "[HIGGS:] she h o l d s me i n less Yes. Yes. "[DEFENSE COUNSEL:] Any o t h e r person? II "[HIGGS:] I'm d e l a y i n g b e c a u s e I'm t r y i n g t o t h i n k o f t h e name, b u t I'm n o t s u r e I c a n . B u t some t h i n g s e x p r e s s e d b y more t h a n one p e r s o n , 'Lawton, we s t i l l l o v e y o u . We d o n ' t c a r e what y o u d i d . ' "[DEFENSE COUNSEL:] Who s a i d that? "[HIGGS:] T h a t ' s what I'm t r y i n g t o remember, t h e name o f a s p e c i f i c p e r s o n . "[DEFENSE COUNSEL:] T h i s was a n o t h e r "[HIGGS:] I'm n o t s u r e . I t has been i n a v a r i e t y o f s e t t i n g s by p e o p l e . lady? expressed II "[DEFENSE COUNSEL:] I s t h e r e a n y t h i n g e l s e t h a t you c a n p o i n t me t o t h a t i n d i c a t e s t h e r e i s an i n j u r y t o your r e p u t a t i o n ? "[HIGGS:] Yes. "[DEFENSE COUNSEL:] What i s i t ? 60 1110868, 1110892 "[HIGGS:] I am a s k e d b y many p e o p l e how a r e t h i n g s g o i n g a t t h e R e c o n c i l e r . I t e l l them I'm no l o n g e r a t t h e R e c o n c i l e r . T h e i r r e s p o n s e i s , 'Why are you n o t a t t h e R e c o n c i l e r ? ' I have t o s a y t h a t a l l e g a t i o n s were p l a c e d a g a i n s t me, a n d I was removed f r o m a c t i v i t i e s t h e r e b y t h e b i s h o p . "[HIGGS:] Many p e o p l e know a b o u t i t . an a r t i c l e i n t h e p a p e r . "[DEFENSE COUNSEL:] T h e r e was What d i d i t s a y ? "[HIGGS:] The h e a d l i n e was 'Work a t R e c o n c i l e r w i l l C o n t i n u e , ' a n d i t t a l k e d a b o u t t h e r e w i l l no l o n g e r be a H i g g s a t t h e R e c o n c i l e r . the "[DEFENSE COUNSEL:] circumstances? What e l s e d i d i t s a y a b o u t "[HIGGS:] I m p l i c a t e d t h a t t h e r e were -- T h e r e was s o much i n f o r m a t i o n on a l l o f t h i s a n d t h e a r t i c l e i n t h e p a p e r t h a t I'm n o t a b l e t o make s u r e I'm a c c u r a t e a b o u t what was s a i d . I t said that K e v i n w o u l d be moved t o B r o w n s v i l l e U n i t e d M e t h o d i s t C h u r c h , t h a t I w o u l d no l o n g e r be i n v o l v e d w i t h C h u r c h o f t h e R e c o n c i l e r b u t t h a t we h a d b e e n c l e a r e d o f any c o m p l a i n t s o r a l l e g a t i o n s , t h a t t h e r e were p r o b l e m s t h a t t h e y t h o u g h t i t n e c e s s a r y t o remove K e v i n a n d I f r o m t h e c h u r c h . "[DEFENSE COUNSEL:] "[HIGGS:] his What n e w s p a p e r was t h a t ? I t was i n The B i r m i n g h a m News. "[DEFENSE COUNSEL:] Where d i d t h e r e p o r t e r g e t information? Do y o u know? 61 1110868, 1110892 "[HIGGS:] superintendent, think. From the primarily the bishop and the superintendent, I "[DEFENSE COUNSEL:] Do you know t h a t b e c a u s e t h e y were q u o t e d i n t h e p a p e r ? "[HIGGS:] Y e s . They were q u o t e d i n t h e p a p e r . " ( H i g g s ' s d e p o s i t i o n , a t pp. 9 0 - 1 0 1 . ) When a s k e d that indicated i f he was aware any l e s s community and t h e p u b l i c , o f a n d knew a b o u t anything r e g a r d f o r him i n t h e eyes of the Higgs s t a t e d : "Well, everybody t h a t read these e-mails t h a t [Bole] p r o d u c e d a n d I g u e s s e v e r y b o d y t h a t f o r w a r d e d them on w o u l d shape a w h o l e l o t l e s s o p i n i o n o f me t h a n t h e y h a d b e f o r e t h e s e e - m a i l s were s e n t . And o f c o u r s e , a l l t h e names a n d e - m a i l a d d r e s s e s a r e on those e-mails. A l s o I -- T h i s r e s o l u t i o n o f c o m p l a i n t has a l o t o f d e r o g a t o r y statements about me. "One o f the reasons Kevin requested this r e s o l u t i o n o f c o m p l a i n t was t h a t a l l o f t h e p e o p l e t h a t he was a p p o i n t e d t o s e r v e a t t h e B r o w n s v i l l e U n i t e d M e t h o d i s t C h u r c h d i d n ' t t h i n k v e r y much o f h i m o r me b e c a u s e o f t h e a r t i c l e i n t h e p a p e r o f s e r i o u s problems f o r him." ( H i g g s ' s d e p o s i t i o n , a t pp. 103-04.) Higgs f u r t h e r testified: "Kevin requested that r e s o l u t i o n of complaint that Ron S c h u l t z w o u l d s t a n d up a n d s a y t h e r e was n o t h i n g a g a i n s t us a t a n n u a l c o n f e r e n c e . This i s the r e s o l u t i o n o f c o m p l a i n t he r e c e i v e d , w h i c h i s q u i t e d i f f e r e n t than t h a t statement. And t h e c h a i r o f t h e pastor-parish committee at Brownsville United Methodist Church a l s o requested a copy of the 62 1110868, 1110892 resolution of complaint. She was s e n t a c o p y o f this. A n d t h i s e - m a i l c l e a r l y w o u l d make h e r t h i n k l e s s o f me t h a n b e f o r e a l l o f t h i s . " (Higgs's d e p o s i t i o n , he a t p p . 104-05.) was r e f e r r i n g t o , attachment." testified the he r e s p o n d e d : (Higgs's that, When a s k e d w h i c h e - m a i l deposition, "This a t p. 105.) a t Reverend Schultz's pastor-parish relations distributed the resolution Brownsville and Brownsville Church before a l l of this that request, committee to that resolution, and o t h e r s "to think incident occurred." Brownsville membership cause also the chair of at the entire would Higgs this the less member at of of him that (Higgs's deposition, a t p. 106.) When a s k e d a b o u t t h e r i d i c u l e he a l l e g e d i n t h e c o m p l a i n t he h a d been subjected t o , Higgs testified that a homeless p e r s o n who h a d b e e n an a c t i v e p a r t i c i p a n t i n COR's d a y p r o g r a m said something t o him "around t h e a t t i t u d e t h a t unless you have done s o m e t h i n g w r o n g , y o u w o u l d n ' t have h a d t o l e a v e t h e church." any other ridicule, (Higgs's d e p o s i t i o n , incidents Higgs i n which a t p. 109.) he When a s k e d a b o u t h a d been subjected stated: "Being removed from the church and relationships or conversations, I would 63 from any g e t phone to 1110868, 1110892 messages s o m e t i m e s , c a l l s , p e o p l e t r y i n g t o t a l k t o me, expressing, you know, dissatisfaction or ridicule, 'Why a r e n ' t you c a l l i n g me back? Why a r e n ' t you d o i n g t h i s ? ' " (Higgs's d e p o s i t i o n , was ridicule, more?' You at 110.) p. following -- a t p. 110.) When a s k e d a b o u t how H i g g s r e s p o n d e d , "'You don't care t h a t k i n d of r i d i c u l e . " Subsequently, during (Higgs's the a b o u t me any deposition, deposition, occurred: "[DEFENSE COUNSEL:] I n y o u r c o m p l a i n t you s a y t h a t as a r e s u l t o f t h e d e f a m a t o r y statements, c o m p l a i n t s were f i l e d and an i n v e s t i g a t i o n e n s u e d , t h a t you i n t h e c o u r s e o f t h a t were f o r c e d t o t a k e v a c a t i o n and c e a s e a l l a c t i v i t i e s w i t h t h e c h u r c h , and as a r e s u l t o f t h e d e f a m a t o r y s t a t e m e n t s , you were a s k e d t o r e f r a i n f r o m a c t i v i t i e s w i t h the church. Then you have d e s c r i b e d f o r me, you know, some t h i n g s r e l a t e d t o what you f e e l r e f l e c t s a l e s s r e g a r d f o r you i n t h e community and r i d i c u l e . "And you s t a t e t h a t as a r e s u l t o f d e f e n d a n t s ' a c t i o n s you s u f f e r e d e m b a r r a s s m e n t and o t h e r m e n t a l a n g u i s h . E v e r y t h i n g you t o l d me seems t o be r e l a t e d to the removal from the c h u r c h , you know, the s u f f e r i n g you have d e s c r i b e d , t h e words t h a t o t h e r p e o p l e have s t a t e d t o you, the a r t i c l e in the paper, the t h i n g s t h a t are s a i d i n e - m a i l s , the c h u r c h p a r t i c i p a n t a t t h e bus stop, the phone messages. E v e r y t h i n g seems t o be a c o n s e q u e n c e o f the a c t i o n the church took t e m p o r a r i l y d u r i n g the i n v e s t i g a t i o n and, u l t i m a t e l y , as you a l l e g e i t , a s k i n g you t o r e f r a i n f r o m a c t i v i t i e s a t t h e c h u r c h . Is t h a t accurate? Is t h a t the source of the damage[] t h a t you have d e s c r i b e d here i n your complaint? 64 that the 1110868, 1110892 II "[DEFENSE COUNSEL:] You can answer t h e q u e s t i o n , Mr. H i g g s . A r e a l l o f t h e t h i n g s t h a t y o u d e s c r i b e d as an i n j u r y t o y o u r r e p u t a t i o n a n d t h e m e n t a l s u f f e r i n g y o u have h a d a n d t h e r i d i c u l e , e v e r y t h i n g I've h e a r d you d e s c r i b e r e l a t e s t o your removal from t h e c h u r c h . Is that accurate? "[HIGGS:] No. "[DEFENSE COUNSEL:] A l lright. Tell me what doesn't r e l a t e t o your removal from t h e church. "[HIGGS:] The e - m a i l s s e n t o u t -¬ "[DEFENSE COUNSEL:] How do t h e y n o t r e l a t e t o your removal? "[HIGGS:] -- a r e way b e y o n d j u s t r e m o v a l f r o m the church. T h e r e a r e t h i n g s way b e y o n d j u s t removal from t h e c h u r c h . " (Higgs's d e p o s i t i o n , a t pp. 112-14.) Subsequently, defense c o u n s e l asked Higgs about t h e i n v a s i o n - o f - p r i v a c y c l a i m s , and Higgs based, testified in part, Specifically, that on the invasion-of-privacy the inquiry into claims RDI's finances. he s t a t e d "[HIGGS:] I do n o t h a v e a copy of the a l l e g a t i o n s t h a t were -- t h a t I r e a d , b u t t o t h e b e s t o f my r e c o l l e c t i o n t h e r e were a l l e g a t i o n s f r o m Mr. B o l e t h a t i s r e f e r e n c e d i n t h i s r e s o l u t i o n o f c o m p l a i n t where i t s a y s , 'There was e v i d e n c e t h a t Rev. H i g g s , S r . , o v e r s t e p p e d h i s a u t h o r i t y a n d d i r e c t e d R e c o n c i l e r f u n d s t o be u s e d t o p a y d e b t s i n c u r r e d b y a 5 0 1 ( c ) ( 3 ) e s t a b l i s h e d b y Rev. H i g g s , S r . , t o a d d r e s s h o u s i n g needs o f t h e community.' So 65 were 1110868, 1110892 the research into and t h e attempt to find information a n d made presumptions about that information b a s e d on t h e r e c o r d s of Reconciler D e v e l o p m e n t , I n c o r p o r a t e d , i s what I'm r e f e r r i n g t o . "[DEFENSE COUNSEL:] investigation? Who i s conducting that "[HIGGS:] In the production of the complaint t h a t i n f o r m a t i o n was r e p o r t e d i n t h e c o m p l a i n t . " (Higgs's deposition, information a t pp. 151-55.) a n d documents r e g a r d i n g When a s k e d a b o u t how RDI i n v a d e d h i s r i g h t t o p r i v a c y , he r e p l i e d : " A l l e g a t i o n s were r a i s e d t h a t were d a m a g i n g t o me b y someone's u n a u t h o r i z e d a c q u i s i t i o n o f m a t e r i a l s a n d records related to Reconciler Development, Incorporated." ( H i g g s ' s d e p o s i t i o n , a t p. 157.) W i t h r e g a r d t o h i s i n v a s i o n of-privacy standing claim, Higgs also i n t h e community. discussed h i s reputation and A s k e d i f t h a t was n o t a p a t e n t l y p u b l i c t h i n g a n d how was i t p r i v a t e , H i g g s responded: "I'm a p r i v a t e i n d i v i d u a l . I n t h e i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t was gained a b o u t me, p r e s u m p t u o u s things were assumed a b o u t i t a n d s p r e a d a b r o a d t h a t damaged my r e p u t a t i o n a n d s t a n d i n g i n t h e community." (Higgs's d e p o s i t i o n , a t p. 159.) choice o f c h u r c h home w i t h claim. When q u e s t i o n e d stated: regard about Higgs a l s o r e f e r r e d t o h i s t o the invasion-of-privacy this claim, "And b e c a u s e o f t h e s e a c t i o n s , 66 Higgs ultimately I had t o e x p e r i e n c e 1110868, 1110892 interference personal with choice, (emphasis and disruption worship." of a very private and a t p. 161) (Higgs's d e p o s i t i o n , added). It i s clear t h a t H i g g s ' s c l a i m s were n o t l i m i t e d solely t o s t a t e m e n t s made a f t e r t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n h a d b e e n c o m p l e t e d and a f t e r t h e C o n f e r e n c e h a d i s s u e d i t s r e s o l u t i o n . Higgs's Bole claims are a l s o based on t h e M a r c h 18, 2011, s e n t t o S c h u l t z and t h e r e s u l t s Conference's investigation, attempting litigate t o use issues arising this of that the Conference's h i s and K e v i n ' s r e m o v a l f r o m COR. was Rather, letter letter -- t h e resolution, I t a l s o appears t h a t litigation to delve from t h e C o n f e r e n c e ' s Higgs into and investigation, t h e C o n f e r e n c e ' s r e s o l u t i o n , and h i s and K e v i n ' s r e m o v a l COR. and from In f a c t , i n h i s d i s c l o s u r e of expert witnesses pursuant t o R u l e 26, A l a . R. C i v . P., H i g g s d e s i g n a t e d Wray P e a r c e as h i s e x p e r t and s t a t e d : "Mr. P e a r c e i s e x p e c t e d t o t e s t i f y w i t h r e g a r d t o the funds that [Bole] has alleged were m i s a p p r o p r i a t e d by [ H i g g s ] . T h e s e a l l e g a t i o n s were the b a s i s f o r [Bole's] defamatory and h a r m f u l statements about [Higgs]. The f u n d s i n c l u d e g i f t s t o t h e C h u r c h o f t h e R e c o n c i l e r and t o R e c o n c i l e r Development, Inc. Mr. P e a r c e i s expected t o d e l i n e a t e t h e f u n d s t h a t were p l e d g e d t o t h e s e e n t i t i e s f r o m t h e f u n d s t h a t were a c t u a l l y g i v e n t o these e n t i t i e s . W i t h r e g a r d t o t h e f u n d s t h a t were 67 1110868, 1110892 a c t u a l l y g i v e n t o t h e s e e n t i t i e s , Mr. P e a r c e i s e x p e c t e d t o t e s t i f y as t o w h i c h a c c o u n t s t h e s e f u n d s were d e p o s i t e d a n d how t h e y were d e s i g n a t e d . " F u r t h e r , H i g g s ' s t e s t i m o n y a l s o make i t c l e a r t h a t much o f t h e harm he c l a i m s f l o w e d f r o m t h e C o n f e r e n c e ' s p u b l i c a t i o n o f t h e resolution appears and from h i s removal from COR. Finally, Higgs t o r e l y on t h e s t a t e m e n t s i n t h e r e s o l u t i o n t h a t t h e Conference d i d n o t f i n d " e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g a need t o pursue formal charges to support h i s a l l e g a t i o n t h a t B o l e ' s s t a t e m e n t s were n o t t r u e . However, i n his affidavit, against these Reverend S c h u l t z ministers" stated: "The resolution of complaint i n the matter c o n c e r n i n g P l a i n t i f f Higgs and t h e r e p o r t o f t h e r e s u l t s I s e n t b y e - m a i l do n o t s e t f o r t h a l l d e t a i l s of the Conference's i n v e s t i g a t i o n , f i n d i n g s and reasoning. These were conducted in a c o n f i d e n t i a l manner as much as was p o s s i b l e . A l l o f the C o n f e r e n c e ' s p r o c e e d i n g s , d e c i s i o n s and a c t i o n s w i t h r e g a r d t o P l a i n t i f f H i g g s were i n k e e p i n g a n d a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h e Book o f D i s c i p l i n e o f t h e U n i t e d Methodist Church (2008), which sets forth the d o c t r i n e , p r i n c i p l e s and t h e o p e r a t i o n a l rules, r e g u l a t i o n s , p o l i c i e s and p r o c e d u r e o f t h e U n i t e d Methodist denomination." T h e r e f o r e , a d e t e r m i n a t i o n i n t o w h e t h e r B o l e ' s s t a t e m e n t s were false would Conference's require an investigations, inquiry into details of "the f i n d i n g s and r e a s o n i n g . " 68 1110868, 1110892 I t i s c l e a r t h a t H i g g s ' s c l a i m s were i n t e r t w i n e d underlying investigation resolution, and w i t h by the Conference, the Conference's remove H i g g s a n d K e v i n f r o m COR. Higgs's c l a i m would require ultimate with the with the decision to Any a t t e m p t t o a d j u d i c a t e an i m p e r m i s s i b l e i n q u i r y i n t o t h e C o n f e r e n c e ' s i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f t h e c o m p l a i n t s a g a i n s t Higgs and K e v i n , i n t o the r e s u l t s o f t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n conducted by t h e Conference, for into the factual the resolution, and i n t o remove H i g g s a n d K e v i n supra; Seefried, allowing the supra; claims conversation with 31, 2011, to findings that formed t h e b a s i s the Conference's f r o m COR. See Y a g g i e , and Anderson, regarding supra. Bole's decision supra; to Trice, Additionally, May 31, 2011, S l a y a n d t h e two e - m a i l s B o l e s e n t on May proceed could have a chilling effect on c o m m u n i c a t i o n among members o f a c o n g r e g a t i o n r e g a r d i n g c h u r c h leadership. 4 See Seefried, 148 P.3d a t 191. For these In h i s response t o Bole's motion t o dismiss f o r l a c k of j u r i s d i c t i o n , Higgs i n c l u d e d the bare a l l e g a t i o n that the r e c i p i e n t l i s t f o r t h e two e - m a i l s B o l e s s e n t on May 3 1 , 2 0 1 1 , i n c l u d e d i n d i v i d u a l s who were n o t members o f COR. However, t h e e x c e r p t s o f H i g g s ' s d e p o s i t i o n t h a t were a t t a c h e d t o t h e p e t i t i o n do n o t i n c l u d e any t e s t i m o n y i n d i c a t i n g t h a t some o f t h e r e c i p i e n t s o f t h o s e e - m a i l s were n o t members o f COR. I n h i s t h i r d amended a n s w e r t o B o l e ' s i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s , Higgs l i s t e d t h e names o f s e v e r a l i n d i v i d u a l s whom he b e l i e v e d 4 69 1110868, 1110892 reasons, the trial court d i d not have subject-matter j u r i s d i c t i o n over Higgs's c l a i m s a g a i n s t Bole by v i r t u e of the First and Fourteenth Constitution. Amendments to the United States A c c o r d i n g l y , B o l e h a s shown t h a t he h a s a c l e a r r i g h t t o have H i g g s ' s c l a i m s a g a i n s t h i m d i s m i s s e d f o r l a c k o f s u b j e c t - m a t t e r j u r i s d i c t i o n a n d t o have t h e s u b p o e n a i s s u e d t o S c h u l t z quashed i n i t s e n t i r e t y . B. R e v e r e n d S c h u l t z ' s Mandamus P e t i t i o n In case no. 111089, "that the records due to challenge I t appears the t r i a l p a r t h i s motion t o quash Higgs's We held Schultz sought subpoenaed by [ H i g g s ] i n t h i s t o be p r o d u c e d . " attempting Reverend c a s e no. 1110892 that order ruling case a r e n o t Reverend court's a Schultz i s denying i n subpoena. i n Part A of the " D i s c u s s i o n " s e c t i o n of t h i s opinion that Bole i s e n t i t l e d t o have H i g g s ' s c l a i m s against received the e-mails i n question. Higgs r e f e r r e d t o those i n d i v i d u a l s as members o r a f f i l i a t e members o f COR, l e a d e r s a t COR, v o l u n t e e r s a t COR, s u p p o r t e r s o f COR, i n t e r n s a t COR, v o l u n t e e r s w i t h COR's d a y p r o g r a m , a n d / o r p e r s o n s who h a d "worked t o p r o v i d e f i n a n c i a l support and f u n d r a i s i n g s e r v i c e s f o r COR." H i g g s d i d n o t s p e c i f i c a l l y s t a t e w h e t h e r some o f t h o s e i n d i v i d u a l s were a c t u a l l y members o r a s s o c i a t e members o f COR. However, i t i s c l e a r t h a t , a t t h e v e r y l e a s t , t h o s e i n d i v i d u a l s were i n v o l v e d w i t h COR a n d / o r t h e U n i t e d M e t h o d i s t Church. 70 1110868, him 1110892 dismissed f o r lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Because t h e t r i a l c o u r t l a c k e d s u b j e c t - m a t t e r j u r i s d i c t i o n i n this case, t h e subpoena t o Reverend Reverend S c h u l t z ' s p e t i t i o n S c h u l t z was v o i d , a n d f o r a w r i t o f mandamus i s moot. Conclusion For and the above-stated direct denying granting reasons, the J e f f e r s o n C i r c u i t Bole's motion the motion jurisdiction. we g r a n t Court to dismiss t o dismiss Bole's t o vacate and t o e n t e r f o r lack of i t s order an order subject-matter We d i s m i s s R e v e r e n d S c h u l t z ' s p e t i t i o n 1110868 -- PETITION GRANTED; petition as moot. WRIT ISSUED. 1110892 -- PETITION DISMISSED. Malone, C . J . , and Woodall, Stuart, M u r d o c k , Shaw, a n d M a i n , J J . , c o n c u r . 71 Bolin, Parker,
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
