Voight versus Walson: First Amendment Issue

To respond to the large number of inquiries of local residents as to the outcome of the litigation involving Monty Voight and Sheila Walson, I believe that the following will answer the questions and concerns they may have.

The initial litigation revolves around the Letter to the Editor of the Village News, sent by Sheila Walson and published on February 16, 2006. That letter can be viewed on the newspaper’s Web site.

In that letter, among other items and allegations, Sheila made two accusations directed at Monty Voight. Specifically:

“Voight lacks ethics for (FGPC) board membership,” and then after a specific reference to the “improprieties by” Congressman Randy “Duke” Cunningham and his “heinous baggage,” as well as an accusation “tantamount to election fraud,” she stated, “Would anyone seat a ‘Duke’ on the board at this point in time?”

The accusations, leveled at Monty, were that he was a “Duke” (Cunningham) and as “a Duke” was thus a corrupt individual who takes bribes, evades income taxes, sells his seat to the highest bidder and so forth.

The action was brought by Monty against Sheila to have her produce the evidence to substantiate her accusations of corruption on his part. In response, and thus avoiding her obvious obligation to substantiate her accusations, Sheila filed papers to dismiss Monty’s lawsuit on the basis that she had the full right to make the claims and accusations of corruption on the part of Monty that she did, on the grounds that she was invoking her right to speak out, on a political matter, under the First Amendment and that, irrespective of the content of that speech, such was protected speech which could not be denied to her.

After court appearances and argument by both sides, the court ruled that Sheila could make the unproven accusations of corruption on the part of Monty in writing for the distribution to the local community, for it was the court’s opinion that she was merely expressing her “opinion” and that “the average reader would not reasonably understand these statements to be anything other than opinion.”

What has thus occurred is that Sheila was allowed, by the decision of the court, to make her accusations of corruption without proof or substantiation of any kind, and Monty is now foreclosed from any opportunity to secure either evidence or an admission from Sheila that she had – or, in reality, did not have – anything to substantiate her corruption claims and would thus allow him to clear his name and reputation.

Monty believes that the decision, as written by the court, is not factually correct, but there is little that he can do about it, as an appeal would be financially ruinous to him. To compound the indignity, the court also required that Monty now has to pay Sheila’s attorney’s fees.

There are voluminous arguments, pro and con in this case, all of which, for those who are interested, can be researched in the case files at the Vista Courthouse.

Monty is deeply appreciative of the outpouring of support from members of the Fallbrook community and their indication that many will now become far more involved in, at the least, the Rainbow activities. He has assured everyone that, despite his travesty, he will continue to represent his views, and those of others, on various subjects by doing his research and homework and presenting such in a professional, dignified and eloquent manner, free from recrimination.

Since it is impossible to disprove a negative, he has been victimized by a very vindictive claim of corruption, but he is comforted again by the fact that the community understands the source and will not accept the accusations made.

I appreciate the opportunity to provide this information to the Fallbrook community.

Laurence Miscall, Jr.

Attorney for Monty Voight