patricia e. ronan law, llc · in the superior court of the state of arizona for the county of pinal...
TRANSCRIPT
Page 1 of 22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Patricia E. Ronan Law, LLC 3370 N. Hayden Rd. #123-793
Scottsdale, AZ 85251
Telephone: 917 232 0345 Attorney for Plaintiff
Patricia E. Ronan, No. 029009
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA
FOR THE COUNTY OF PINAL
Case No.:
COMPLAINT for DAMAGES (Libel)
Jury Trial Demanded
Plaintiff Blake King, by and through his attorneys, Patricia E. Ronan Law, LLC, for his
Complaint against Defendants states as follows:
INTRODUCTION
1. This complaint arises out of repeated false, defamatory statements made and
published about Plaintiff Blake King by the Defendants. On April 11 and April 13, 2012,
Defendants deliberately published several false, malicious, defamatory statements intended to
damage the good reputation, integrity, credibility, and professional regard for Plaintiff. Plaintiff
(“Lt. King”) is a lieutenant serving Pinal County with good faith and integrity. Nonetheless,
BLAKE KING;
Plaintiff,
vs.
PHOENIX NEW TIMES LLC,
MONICA ALONZO,
RICK BARRS, ERIC TSETSI,
VILLAGE VOICE MEDIA
HOLDINGS LLC, and DOES 1-10;
Defendants.
Page 2 of 22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Defendants represented in two articles that were known by Defendants to be false at the time
they were published or were published with reckless disregard to the falsity of the statements,
that King attempted to violate Arizona laws by requesting the destruction of public records and
sought to “cover up” the arrest of a suspect. Lt. King, through his attorney, demanded a
correction of the false, damaging statements and provided Defendants with information
regarding their errors – information from the same sources Defendants purported to rely on. In
response, rather than admit that they had failed to present the truth and committed a wrongdoing
by falsely reporting Lt. King’s actions, Defendants issued only a minor correction and left the
most injurious false statements intact. Defendants’ statements that Lt. King undertook improper
acts with bad motives have had the intended effect. A reasonable reader would regard Lt. King
as a public servant who violates the law, interferes with judicial process and criminal law
enforcement, acts out of bias, and seeks to use his position to advantage certain citizens above
others. In truth, Lt. King did not engage in the reported conduct. Lt. King has suffered severe
damage to his personal and professional reputations and long-term harm to his career in law
enforcement.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
2. Jurisdiction is proper in this Court because Plaintiff resides in and has suffered
injury in Arizona as a result of Defendants' tortious act of publishing defamatory statements
about Plaintiff on the Internet concerning Plaintiff’s occupation as a law enforcement officer
in Pinal County. In addition, jurisdiction is proper because the defamatory statements were
published to millions of people in the United States including persons in the State of
Arizona.
3. Venue is proper in this Court because the acts and conduct falsely alleged by
Defendants occurred in Pinal County. Defendants’ Internet publications are available to readers
in Pinal County.
Page 3 of 22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PARTIES
4. Plaintiff Blake King is a resident of Arizona, employed as lieutenant of the Pinal
County Sheriff’s Office. He has worked for Pinal County in this capacity since January 2009.
Previously, Lt. King served for five years as a law enforcement officer with the Chandler Police
Department. There he received accolades for meritorious service and life saving, as well as a
Medal of Honor.
5. Defendant Monica Alonzo is staff writer for The Phoenix New Times. On
information and belief, she is a resident of Arizona. On information and belief, Defendant
Alonzo contacted officials of Pinal County to request documents relating to the topics of the
defamatory April 11 and April 13, 2012 articles. Monica Alonzo is credited as the author of the
defamatory and libelous articles that are the subject of this action.
6. Defendant Phoenix New Times LLC is a Delaware corporation with its primary
offices at 1201 E. Jefferson, Phoenix, Arizona. Phoenix New Times LLC publishes The
Phoenix New Times, also called The New Times herein. The New Times distributes its paper in
Maricopa County every week, and posts the paper, additional blogs, and reader comments on its
Internet site, which is available throughout the world, including Pinal County, Arizona. The
New Times claims hundreds of thousands of loyal readers, and reports to reach over 1,192,999
adults online.
7. Defendant Rick Barrs is editor of The Phoenix New Times. On information and
belief, he is a resident of Arizona. On information and belief, Defendant Barrs supervises staff
writers, including Defendant Alonzo, manages content of articles, has authority to alter articles
prior to publication, and has authority to withhold articles from publication. On information
and belief, Defendant Barrs approved of the content of the defamatory and libelous articles that
are the subject of this action.
8. Defendant Eric Tsetsi is web editor of The Phoenix New Times. On information and
belief, he is a resident of Arizona. On information and belief, Defendant Tsetsi supervises staff
writers, including Defendant Alonzo, manages content of blog articles, has authority to alter
content prior to Internet publication, and has authority to withhold content from being posted on
Page 4 of 22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
the Internet. On information and belief, Defendant Tsetsi approved of the content of the
defamatory and libelous articles that are the subject of this action.
9. Defendant Village Voice Media Holdings LLC is a Delaware corporation. On
information and belief, Village Voice Media Holdings LLC publishes The Phoenix New Times
in Arizona, including by maintaining the website for the paper.
10. The true names of defendants DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, are unknown to Plaintiff,
who therefore sues such defendants by fictitious names. On information and belief, each of the
defendants designated as a DOE is legally responsible for the events and happenings referred
to in this complaint, and unlawfully caused the injuries and damages to Plaintiff alleged in
this complaint.
11. On information and belief, each of the defendants DOES 1-10, inclusive, is a
resident of Arizona or does business in Arizona.
BACKGROUND
12. On or about the weekend of April 9, 2011, an annual musical event known as
Country Thunder took place in Florence, Pinal County, Arizona.
13. Country Thunder draws music fans from outside the community to attend the events.
During Country Thunder, some of these participants reside in campsites adjacent to the concert
area.
14. On April 9, 2011, two law enforcement officers, Andrew Goode and Hugh Grant,
worked a shift at Country Thunder.
15. Grant is not a member of the Pinal County Sheriff’s Office. Grant was working an
off-duty shift, because Country Thunder attracts so many visitors that Pinal County requires
additional assistance from law enforcement officers in the area.
16. Goode is a Detective with the Pinal County Sheriff’s Office.
17. Grant and Goode were both assigned to the Liquor Enforcement Detail, which tasked
them with conducting a patrol within the concert grounds to enforce laws against under-age
drinking.
Page 5 of 22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
18. Both Grant and Goode were wearing plain, civilian clothing, and on information and
belief, part of their attire included jackets that obscured the identification badges that each wore,
one at his belt, the other around his neck.
19. Prior to commencing their patrol, Grant and Goode were required to attend a briefing
given by Pinal County Sheriff’s Office personnel at the Liquor Command Post.
20. At that briefing, specific instructions were given to the Liquor Enforcement Detail
that they were not to enter into any campsite areas. The reason for this instruction was also
made clear: the plain-clothed officers would not be readily identifiable as law enforcement, and
if they were to enter such spaces there was a heightened risk of danger to the officers and
campground residents based on misidentification.
21. Grant later made a statement to Pinal County Sheriff’s Office that he attended the
briefing at the Liquor Command Post prior to his shift, where these instructions were made.
22. On information and belief, Goode also attended this briefing and received these
instructions.
23. On April 9, 2011, around 5 p.m., Goode and Grant were on patrol in an area of the
concert grounds adjacent to a campsite near the entrance of Country Thunder. On information
and belief, the officers observed women within the campsite area standing on scaffolding and
calling to passers-by. According to Grant and Goode, these women were encouraging other
women to lift their shirts and flash their breasts. On information and belief, Grant and Goode
did not perceive that any of the women on the scaffolding was too young to consume alcohol.
24. On information and belief, Grant and Goode took it upon themselves to exceed the
scope of their instructions to enforce laws prohibiting underage alcohol consumption, and
elected to enforce public decency laws.
25. Although Goode and Grant were specifically ordered not to enter any campsite, on
information and belief, both entered the campsite where the women on the scaffolding were
located. On information and belief, they did so after yelling to the women on the scaffolding
that they were police officers and ordering the women to descend the scaffolding.
26. On information and belief, Grant and Goode also pulled their jackets aside to flash
Page 6 of 22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
their respective neck and hip badges to the women.
27. On information and belief, when this initial verbal identification and flashing of
badges occurred, Goode and Grant were not visible or audible to many individuals inside the
campsite.
28. As a result of their order, one of the women fell off the scaffolding as she tried to
descend.
29. On information and belief, Goode and Grant then entered the campsite. On
information and belief, Goode attended to the woman who fell and Grant arrested another
woman. Upon her arrest, Grant told the female suspect that she was charged with disorderly
conduct, however he ultimately cited her for being a public nuisance.
30. On information and belief, a court ultimately dismissed those charges against her.
31. On information and belief, at least one bystander repeatedly questioned Grant’s
identity as law enforcement and requested to see his credentials.
32. On information and belief, Grant was again asked about his credentials by another
bystander and flashed a badge that was not readily recognized by the bystander or another
observer as formal law enforcement identification issued by a specific public safety department.
Both the bystander and the observer were off-duty members of the Tucson Police Department.
33. On information and belief, Grant carried out the arrest of the female suspect. Grant
cuffed the suspect’s hands behind her back.
34. On information and belief, the suspect did not resist arrest but may have been
intoxicated.
35. On information and belief, the suspect had difficulty walking and maintaining her
balance with her arms constrained in this way.
36. On information and belief, Grant was holding the suspect’s hands at some distance
and height from her body, as he walked her to the area where her arrest would be processed.
37. According to the suspect, the manner in which held her cuffed wrists caused her pain
and she cried out.
38. On information and belief, the ground where Grant and the suspect were walking
Page 7 of 22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
was muddy and slippery. On information and belief, the suspect fell into the mud. Grant, who
was holding her arms, fell on top of her.
39. On information and belief, the suspect’s husband then came into the area of the
campground where he was first able to observe the events.
40. On information and belief, the husband had heard his wife cry out in pain and saw a
plain-clothed man on top of his wife in the mud. On information and belief, the husband then
acted in defense of his wife, whom he perceived to be the victim of an assault.
41. The husband grabbed Grant and held him in a choke hold to protect his wife from the
perceived assailant.
42. On information and belief, Grant feared losing consciousness during this and, as he
began to black out, withdrew his revolver from his belt and pointed it at the husband.
43. On information and belief, a bystander who was an off-duty Tucson Police Officer
stepped forward to prevent the violence from escalating. This bystander reported that Grant
pointed his weapon at this bystander, as well.
44. This bystander believed that he heard Grant say that Grant would kill him if he did
not back off.
45. On information and belief, another individual present at the scene, who is now
retired from the Tucson Police Department, yelled to Grant to put his revolver away.
46. On information and belief, upon seeing the gun and hearing the death threat from
Grant, the husband removed himself from Grant and fled on foot. On information and belief,
the husband still had not been informed and did not have knowledge that Grant was a member
of law enforcement.
47. On information and belief, bystanders witnessed Grant pulling his weapon and
pointing it at the husband.
48. On information and belief, Goode observed the husband restraining Grant. On
information and belief, Goode approached to assist Grant. Goode also observed Grant’s
weapon drawn.
49. On information and belief, Goode did not identify himself as law enforcement to the
Page 8 of 22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
husband when he approached Grant and the husband.
50. On information and belief, a third party, who may have been Goode or one of the
other bystanders, intervened with Grant to encourage him to put his revolver away and secure it.
51. Several residents of the campsite and bystanders to the arrest were armed off-duty
police officers. On information and belief, at least one witness to the events believed that the
risk of a shooting between Grant and one of these off-duty officers was high, because Grant was
not readily identifiable by sight as a law enforcement officer and because Grant had drawn his
revolver.
52. On information and belief, Goode pursued the husband as he fled, and apprehended
the husband. In apprehending the husband, Goode injured his leg.
53. On information and belief, a bystander approached and informed the husband that
Goode was a law enforcement officer. On information and belief, upon learning that Goode and
Grant were members of law enforcement, the husband ceased resisting arrest.
54. On information and belief, the husband did not know that Goode or Grant was a
member of law enforcement until after Goode apprehended him and a bystander stated that
Goode and Grant were law enforcement.
55. On information and belief, several bystanders witnessed the events. Some of the
bystanders repeatedly asked Grant and Goode if they were law enforcement officers during the
events.
56. On information and belief, after Grant and Goode entered the campsite, they
identified themselves as law enforcement officers only after repeated queries from bystanders.
57. On information and belief, several of the witnesses and the husband were unable to
recognize Grant or Goode as a member of law enforcement on sight.
58. The husband was arrested on charges that included aggravated assault. The arrest
record was created by Officer Palmer, not Goode or Grant.
59. On information and belief, Officer Palmer of the Pinal County Sheriff’s Office
conducted an investigation of the alleged aggravated assault, including interviewing at least two
individuals on the scene.
Page 9 of 22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
60. On information and belief, Lt. King did not participate in or in any way interfere
with Officer Palmer’s investigation of the charges against the husband.
61. Officer Palmer reported that he interviewed Goode about the arrests.
62. Officer Palmer did not interview the female suspect or her husband at the scene.
63. Two different witnesses to the event, who were members of the Tucson Police
Department, elected not to complete witness statements in support of the arrest charges.
64. Officer Palmer reported that both of those witnesses agreed to be available for a tape
recorded interview with a detective or county attorney.
65. On information and belief, at least one the witnesses to the arrest, who was also a
member of law enforcement from Tucson, spoke to a supervisory officer of the Pinal County
Sheriff’s Office to request that the arrest be investigated.
66. On information and belief, these witnesses were concerned that Goode and Grant had
not followed appropriate protocol in identifying themselves as law enforcement before making
the arrests in the campsite.
67. One witness reported that he had concerns that Goode and Grant stormed into a
campsite without anything visible to identify them as police officers, then refused to show
identification when asked multiple times, and also failed to verbally identify themselves as
police officers.
68. On information and belief, one of the witnesses to the events, a member of the
Tucson Police Department, later filed a complaint against Grant because Grant had pointed his
weapon at him.
69. After the arrests took place, Lt. King began his shift as senior ranking officer for the
Pinal County Sheriff’s Office.
70. When Lt. King arrived at Country Thunder for his shift, he was promptly briefed by
the supervisory officer, Deputy Pass, that Detective Goode was injured on the previous shift.
71. Lt. King spoke with Detective Goode, who was in the Youth Alcohol Command
area, and encouraged Goode to seek medical treatment at a hospital for his injury.
72. Lt. King was later informed that there was a request from members of the public to
Page 10 of 22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
speak with a lieutenant, member of the County Attorney’s Office, or higher ranked official
about the arrest of the husband by Grant and Goode.
73. Lt. King then undertook to address the concerns of the members of the public, and
investigated the circumstances of that arrest.
74. Lt. King, accompanied by and Sgt. Messing of the Pinal County Sheriff’s Office,
went to the campsite and observed the point where Goode and Grant first confronted the women
standing on the scaffolding. Lt. King and Sgt. Messing then followed witnesses at the campsite
through the route Grant and Goode took to exit the concert area and enter into the campsite.
75. Lt. King interviewed a number of witnesses in the campsite to the events.
76. From witnesses, Lt. King learned that the efforts to arrest of the woman suspect and
her husband created a dangerous situation in the campsite, because the plain-clothed Grant
pointed his weapon at a witness who was himself a law enforcement officer in Tucson.
77. After his investigation of the scene, Lt. King had serious concerns that the civil
rights of the suspect husband had been violated by Grant and Goode.
78. Lt. King shared his concerns with Sgt. Messing, who had participated in the
investigation of the events at the campsite and been present with Lt. King throughout the
investigation.
79. Lt. King also provided information to the witness at whom Grant pointed his weapon
in the event the witness elected to file a complaint against Grant.
80. Lt. King then spoke with Chief Steve Henry about the incident after he toured the
campsite and interviewed witnesses.
81. Lt. King also spoke by telephone with the Pinal County Attorney assigned to
prosecute the matter.
82. In concert with Chief Henry and the County Attorney, Lt. King recommended that
the arrest of the husband was not properly carried out by Grant and Goode. Specifically, Lt.
King believed the evidence demonstrated that the husband reasonably believed that he was
acting in defense of his wife during an assault and did not know or have reason to know that
Grant was a law enforcement officer.
Page 11 of 22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
83. Lt. King believed that the husband should not be held in custody any longer than
necessary if the arrest was not proper. Indeed, Lt. King was concerned that because the arrest
was improper, then the husband’s civil rights could be further violated if Pinal County
continued to detain him on those grounds.
84. Lt. King sought the involvement and advice of the County Attorney regarding
appropriate next steps in processing the husband.
85. Pursuant to Arizona law, the husband could not be lawfully detained for more than
24 hours without making an appearance before a judicial officer.
86. On advice of the County Attorney, Lt. King instructed his subordinates to bring the
husband before the judge on duty for his initial appearance.
87. The judge ordered that the husband be released at the court proceeding. Lt. King
was not present for, and did not participate in any way, in the court proceeding.
88. Lt. King was at all times concerned with proper police procedure and the civil rights
of citizens. Lt. King determined that there was a risk to citizens’ safety and civil rights because
Goode and Grant contravened specific, clear instructions that, as plain-clothed officer, they
remain in the concert area and not enter campsites.
89. After the court ordered that the husband be released, Lt. King directed that an
employee of the Pinal County Sheriff’s Office return the husband, a resident of Tucson, to the
concert area where he was staying, some miles from the jail.
90. After the conclusion of Country Thunder, Pinal County Sheriff’s Office Detective
Hughey conducted a follow-up investigation of the arrests of the female for alleged public
nuisance and her husband for charges including aggravated assault. Detective Hughey
interviewed Grant, Goode, a witness of the arrest from the Tucson Police Department, as well as
the arrested husband and his wife.
91. Lt. King also filed a report documenting his recollections of his investigation of the
April 19, 20122 incidents on September 23, 2011.
92. In addition, Grant filed a complaint against the witnesses who refused to complete
their statements with the Tucson Police Department, where they worked. Grant charged, in
Page 12 of 22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
essence, that those witnesses hindered prosecution of the arrested husband.
93. In response to Grant’s complaint, the Internal Affairs Office of the Tucson Police
Department carried out an investigation regarding the officer who was still in their employ.
94. The Internal Affairs Office of the Tucson Police Department determined that Grant’s
complaint was unfounded and the off-duty officer had not violated any of his responsibilities to
assist other law enforcement or that he hindered prosecution of the husband.
95. The Tucson Internal Affairs Office described the incident as “unfortunate” and
preventable if Goode and Grant had used sound planning and tactics prior to entering the
campsite to deal with the women on the scaffolding.
96. In support of its findings, the Tucson Internal Affairs Office interviewed a number of
the Tucson police who attended Country Thunder and were present at the campsite during the
arrests on April 9, 2011.
97. According to the Internal Affairs’ report of interviews of those witnesses, which
were also reviewed by Det. Hughey of the Pinal County Sheriff’s Office, Goode and Grant were
not visibly recognizable police officers.
98. Sometime in 2011, prosecuting attorneys exercised their authority and elected not to
prosecute charges against the husband.
99. On information and belief, the prosecutors were not prevented from reviewing any
records, interviewing any witnesses, or requesting that the Pinal County Sheriff’s Office
undertake further investigations — beyond that of Officer Palmer and Lt. King on April 9,
2011, and the subsequent investigation by Det. Hughey — of the incidents involving Goode,
Grant, and the arrests they made at the campsite on April 9, 2011.
100. On information and belief, prosecutors made no requests for further evidence or
inquiry regarding the charges against the husband.
101. On information and belief, the records of the husband’s arrest, a record of the
dismissal of his charges, the investigation report by Officer Palmer, and the subsequent reports
of investigations carried out by Pinal County and the Tucson Police Department were all
provided to The Phoenix New Times pursuant to a public records request made by Defendant
Page 13 of 22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Monica Alonzo prior to the defamatory publications on April 11 and 13, 2012.
102. On April 11 and 13, 2012, The New Times published false stories about Lt. King and
his role in the arrest and processing of the husband at Country Thunder in 2011.
103. On information and belief, prior to writing and publishing the April 11 and April 13,
2012 articles on Valley Fever Blog, Defendant Monica Alonzo did not speak or correspond with
the female suspect or her husband who were arrested by Goode or Grant on April 9, 2011
104. On information and belief, prior to writing and publishing the April 11 and April 13,
2012 articles on Valley Fever Blog, Defendant Monica Alonzo did not speak or correspond with
any of the witnesses to the arrests who were in the campsite
105. On information and belief, prior to writing and publishing the April 11 and April 13,
2012 articles on Valley Fever Blog, Defendant Monica Alonzo did not speak or correspond with
any of the members of the Pinal County Sheriff’s Office who investigated the events of April 9,
2011.
106. On information and belief, prior to writing and publishing the April 11 and April 13,
2012 articles on Valley Fever Blog, Defendant Monica Alonzo did not speak or correspond with
any of the members of the Tucson Police Department who were present at Country Thunder on
April 9, 2011.
107. On information and belief, prior to writing and publishing the April 11 and April 13,
2012 articles on Valley Fever Blog, Defendant Monica Alonzo did not speak or correspond with
any of the members of the Tucson Police Department who conducted the subsequent
investigation of the incidents at Country Thunder 2011 for the Internal Affairs Office.
108. Defendants did not seek to learn the truth of the incidents on April 9, 2011, and
failed to responsibly or sufficiently investigate the truth of the statements they published about
Lt. King in the April 11 and April 13 articles published on the Valley Fever Blog.
109. Defendants did not seek to accurately publish the reports of the arrests or subsequent
investigations of those events.
110. Defendants did not conduct any independent investigation to learn the truth of the
events that transpired at the campsite at Country Thunder on April 9, 2011.
Page 14 of 22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
111. These omissions by Defendants were deliberate and malicious because Defendants
were indifferent to the truth or falsity of their statements.
112. Thus, Defendants lacked any substantial reason to believe in the truth of the
allegations about Lt. King’s conduct that are contained within the April 11 and April 13 articles
on the Valley Fever Blog.
113. The false, defamatory statements about Lt. King were therefore made and published
with actual malice, with the knowledge that each such statement was false and/or the statements
were made and published with reckless disregard of their truthfulness.
DEFAMATORY AND LIBELOUS STATEMENTS BY DEFENDANTS
114. Nothing in any of the documents provided to Defendant Alonzo in response to her
public records request indicates any wrongful conduct by Lt. King with respect to the arrest,
processing or treatment of the husband.
115. Nevertheless, Defendant Alonzo wrote, on information and belief, Defendants Barrs
and Tsetsi reviewed and approved, and The Phoenix New Times published two articles on its
Valley Fever Blog claiming that Lt. King acted improperly by trying to cover up the husband’s
arrest and seeking to destroy records of that arrest.
116. The Phoenix New Times has falsely misconstrued the events of April 9, 2011, and
falsely stated and implied that Plaintiff took actions to destroy documents and conceal or “cover
up” the April 9, 2011 arrest.
117. These false statements are sufficient to cause a reasonable reader – of which there
may have been over 1 million – to believe that Lt. King acted illegally, unethically, dishonestly,
and in a manner that was a violation of his official duties.
118. On April 11, 2012, The New Times published on its Valley Fever Blog an article by
Monica Alonzo with the following headline containing a false statement: “’Camp Titties and
Beer,’ a Country Thunder Campground Occupied by Tucson Police Officers is Where a DPS
Office [sic] Was Attacked. Paul Babeu’s Office Wanted this Covered Up”.
119. In the body of the article, it is clear that Blake King is the member of “Paul Babeu’s
Page 15 of 22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Office” whom the blog falsely reports “wanted this covered up.”
120. The April 11, 2012 article makes the following additional defamatory false
statements:
“[A] member of Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu’s command staff asked that an
arrest record be scrubbed from a DPS database.”
“[I]t's an odd request for King to make because a record of an arrest is just that
-- a record. And state law prohibits tampering with public records, doing so
being a felony offense.”
121. This blog was prominently featured as a lead story on The Phoenix New Times’
website and remains available on the website to this day.
122. Defendants knew that the statements about King described above in Paragraphs
118 and 120 were false and/or recklessly disregarded the falsity of these statements when
they published them. Defendants published these statements with actual malice and with
the intent to cause harm to Lt. King.
123. On April 13, 2012, The New Times again published the false statements about Lt.
King in a second article on the Valley Fever Blog:
“King apparently wanted to cover up the arrest of Ronald Keys”
“King, who asked a deputy Pinal County attorney to get rid of Keys’ arrest record
from a DPS database”
“…King’s extraordinary efforts to apparently cover up the arrest of a suspect
accused of attacking fellow cops.”
“And what about King's judgment -- serving as a ranking law enforcement official
and asking a county attorney to erase an arrest record?”
124. Again, this article was a lead story on The Phoenix New Times website and remains
available to this day.
125. Defendants knew that the statements about King described above in Paragraph
123 were false and/or recklessly disregarded the falsity of these statements when they
published them. Defendants published these statements with actual malice and with the
Page 16 of 22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
intent to cause harm to Lt. King.
126. The New Times’ Valley Fever Blogs authored by Defendant Monica Alonzo on April
11 and April 13, 2012 are libelous on their face. They clearly expose Plaintiff to hatred,
contempt, ridicule, disgrace, infamy, and shame because they falsely charge Lt. King with
illegal conduct with respect to public records and the treatment of an arrested suspect.
127. The articles explicitly and unambiguously refer to King. Indeed, the April 13 article
also contains a photograph of Lt. King in his law enforcement uniform.
128. The articles refer to King by name throughout, were made about and concerning
King, and were so understood by those who read the articles to convey information about Lt.
King.
129. Lt. King learned of the April 13, 2012 blog on the day it was published.
130. Through his attorney, he later learned of the April 11 blog.
131. Defendants published or caused to be published the statements contained in
Paragraphs 118, 120 and 123 above knowing that they were false at the time they were
published, with reckless disregard to the falsity of the statements, and/or with malicious intent.
132. On May 2, 2012, fewer than 20 days after learning of the false, malicious and
defamatory statements in The New Times, Lt. King’s attorney wrote to counsel for the New
Times and explained that Defendants had been reckless as to the truth of statements made about
King in the April 11 and April 13 blogs and that such statements defamed King.
133. On Lt. King’s behalf, his attorney requested a full correction of all factual errors, and
that the correction be published with equal prominence to the original false and defamatory
publications.
134. The New Times issued a correction to the following false statement contained
in the original version of the April 13 article: “King apparently is ‘friends’ with some of the
Tucson cops who were at ‘Camp Titties and Beer,’ a Country Thunder campground occupied by
off-duty Tucson cops and the site of the attack on the DPS officer.”
135. The correction stated:
CORRECTION: The original version of this item reported that Pinal County Sheriff's
Page 17 of 22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Lieutenant Blake King "apparently is 'friends' with some of the Tucson cops who were at
Camp Titties and Beer.'" King's attorney has informed New Times that King was not
"friends" with any of these individuals. New Times regrets the error and has edited this
item to remove it.
136. The New Times refused to correct any of the other damaging, maligning and
defamatory false statements that Lt. King attempted, “requested” or sought to “scrub”, “cover
up,” or “get rid of” an arrest record.
137. More than twenty-one (21) days have passed since the demand for a
correction.
138. Plaintiff's ability to pursue his profession as a public servant in law
enforcement depends entirely on his reputation for integrity, competence, credibility, honesty,
fairness, and compliance with laws.
BELIEF OF DEFAMATORY FALSE STATEMENTS BY REASONABLE READER
139. The Valley Fever Blog of The Phoenix New Times is publicly available on the
Internet and has been viewed by and communicated to an unknown number of third persons,
including individuals in the State of Arizona and throughout the United States and the world.
140. A reasonable reader would wrongly believe, based on the April 11 and April
13 articles, that Lt. Blake attempted to violate the law by seeking to have the records of an arrest
destroyed, and that Lt. King undertook to conceal or “cover up” the arrest.
141. Among the comments posted to the April 11 article on The New Times
website (the entirety of the article and comments are available at
http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/valleyfever/2012/04/camp_titties_and_beer_a_countr.php#C
omments) is: “Great article with insights, Ms. Alonzo!”
142. In addition, among the comments posted to the April 13 blog on The New
Times website (the entirety of the article and comments are available at
http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/valleyfever/2012/04/pinal_county_sheriffs_lieutena.php#Co
mments) are the following:
Page 18 of 22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
“thanks for having the guts to speak the truth.” (liked by 6 people as of May 23,
2012)
“…support corrupt and disgraceful police officers who abuse their power.” (liked by
11 people as of May 23, 2012)
“What do you mean the New Times printed the "alleged shortcomings" of lieutenant
King? They never once mentioned his [ ] size. … What a wonderful and happy place
Pinal County must be if you are a sleazy and corrupt police officer.” (liked by one
person as of May 23, 2012)
“For the non-crooked, humble cops out there, this is why the public hates pigs. You're
outnumbered by the arrogant.” (liked by 10 people as of May 23, 2012)
“above the law and we the humble peons.” (liked by 4 people as of May 23, 2012)
“Thank you New Times for standing Time, and Time again against the Extensive
Political Corruption in my Home State of Arizona….” (liked by 10 people as of May
23, 2012)
“I hope the FBI training facility in Quantico, Virginia sees these two imbeciles for
who they are: dirty, corrupt cops who will do anything to cover the Bald Bunion's ass,
especially when he exercises poor judgment all his own. …” (liked by 9 people as of
May 23, 2012)
143. These comments demonstrate that the articles were read and believed by a number of
readers.
144. The comments further indicate that these readers believed that the articles presented
accurate statements about Lt. King’s conduct, character, and integrity.
145. As such, the defamatory articles have harmed King's personal and professional
reputations. They have brought him infamy, shame, mortification, humiliation, and public
disgrace.
Page 19 of 22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
COUNT ONE
(Libel and defamation by Defendants in April 11, 2012 Blog)
146. Each of the above allegations (Paragraphs 1-145) is fully incorporated herein by
reference.
147. The Defendants, deliberately, and with actual malice or reckless disregard for the
falsity of the statements, intentionally published the libelous, false, defamatory, and malicious
statements about Lt. King in the April 11, 2012 Valley Fever Blog. These statements are
contained in Paragraphs 118 and 120 above.
148. Those statements in Paragraphs 118 and 120 falsely accuse and depict Lt. King,
among other things, as a law enforcement officer who acted in a heinous and criminal manner,
who intentionally impeded a criminal prosecution, and advocated or solicited the destruction of
public records of an arrest in violation of the law.
149. Those statements in Paragraphs 118 and 120 above, written by Defendant Alonzo
and published by the co-Defendants, are libelous on their face.
150. Those statements in Paragraphs 118 and 120 above, written by Defendant Alonzo
and published by the co-Defendants, are defamatory because the language carries a meaning
that Plaintiff’s conduct was criminal and harmful to others.
151. The statements in Paragraphs 118 and 120 about King were falsely, maliciously, and
intentionally published by the Defendants and were known by Defendants to be false at the time
they were made or were made with reckless disregard to the falsity of the statements.
152. As a result of those defamatory statements, Lt. King is exposed to hatred, contempt,
ridicule, and obloquy.
153. As a result of the defamatory statements, Lt. King suffers damage to his reputation,
professional standing, and professional opportunities as a law enforcement officer.
154. Defendants acted in further malice and with recklessness to the truth by refusing to
correct their misrepresentations about Lt. King when they were informed of the falsity of the
statements in Paragraphs 118 and 120 and the damages such statements caused Lt. King.
Page 20 of 22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
155. The statements in Paragraphs 118 and 120, written by Defendant Alonzo and
published by the co-defendants, were read by members of the public and understood by those
readers to mean that Lt. King had in the past attempted to commit crimes with respect to his
official duties as a member of the Pinal County Sheriff’s Office.
156. Lt. King was damaged and continues to suffer damages as a result of the statements
by Defendants in Paragraphs 118 and 120.
COUNT TWO
(Libel and defamation by Defendants in April 13, 2012 Blog)
157. Each of the above allegations (Paragraphs 1-156) is fully incorporated herein by
reference.
158. The Defendants, deliberately, and with actual malice or reckless disregard for the
falsity of the statements, intentionally published the libelous, false, defamatory, and malicious
statements about Lt. King in the April 13, 2012 Valley Fever Blog. These statements are
contained in Paragraph 123 above.
159. These statements contained in Paragraph 123 above falsely accuse and depict Lt.
King, among other things, as a law enforcement officer who acted in a heinous and criminal
manner, who intentionally impeded a criminal prosecution, and advocated or solicited the
destruction of public records of an arrest in violation of the law.
160. Those statements in Paragraph 123 above, written by Defendant Alonzo and
published by the co-Defendants, are libelous on their face.
161. Those statements in Paragraph 123 above, written by Defendant Alonzo and
published by the co-Defendants, are defamatory because the language carries a meaning that
Plaintiff’s conduct was criminal and harmful to others.
162. The statements in Paragraph 123 regarding King were falsely, maliciously, and
intentionally published by the Defendants and were known by Defendants to be false at the time
they were made or were made with reckless disregard to the falsity of the statements.
Page 21 of 22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
163. As a result of those defamatory statements, Lt. King is exposed to hatred, contempt,
ridicule, and obloquy.
164. As a result of the defamatory statements, Lt. King suffers damage to his reputation,
professional standing, and professional opportunities as a law enforcement officer.
165. Defendants acted in further malice and with recklessness to the truth by refusing to
correct their misrepresentations about Lt. King when they were informed of the falsity of the
statements in Paragraph 111 and the damages such statements caused Lt. King.
166. The statements in Paragraph 123, written by Defendant Alonzo and published by the
co-defendants, were read by members of the public and understood by those readers to mean
that Lt. King had in the past attempted to commit crimes with respect to his official duties as a
member of the Pinal County Sheriff’s Office.
167. Lt. King was damaged and continues to suffer damages as a result of the statements
by Defendants in Paragraphs 118 and 120.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Blake King demands a jury trial and requests of this Court:
A. To grant judgment against Defendants in amounts to be determined at trial, but not
less than $40,000 for Count I and $40,000 for Count II (a minimum total of $80,000) in general
and special damages;
B. To grant judgment against Defendants for exemplary, or punitive, damages in an
amount as will sufficiently punish Defendants for their conduct and prevent a repetition of such
conduct in the future;
C. To grant Plaintiff an award of pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, costs and
disbursements of this action
D. To grant Plaintiff’s reasonable attorneys' fees; and
E. To grant Plaintiff such additional and further relief as this Court finds just and proper.
Page 22 of 22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
JURY DEMAND
Plaintiff King hereby demands trial by jury on all issues so triable herein.
RESPECTFULLY SUMBITTED THIS 25th
DAY OF MAY 2012
PATRICIA E. RONAN
_____________________________________
By: Patricia E. Ronan, No. 029009
Attorney for Plaintiff Blake King