===========================================
638517601.pf.or.doc         3-XXXX-XXXXX-CV  More; 
===========================================
...   Page  1
  representation of fact.
> The burden of proving the falsity of a factual statement cannot be met by
  showing only that the statement is not literally true in every detail.  If
...
  case at that amount.  Although the characterization of the settlement as “
  political payback” is opinion, there is an underlying factual assertion
  that the agreement to settle the lawsuit was somehow connected to the
  plaintiff’s political contribution to Herbst.  If the evidence at a
  hearing were to establish that the underlying factual assertion is not
  true and that Respondents knew it was false or communicated it with

====================================================
638417728.primafacie.ord.doc         3-6384-17728-CV  More; 
====================================================
...   Page  1
  understand that the statement is not a representation of fact.
> The burden of proving the falsity of a factual statement cannot be met by
  showing only that the statement is not literally true in every detail.  If

==========================================
638116304.FDG.doc         22-6381-16304-CV  More; 
==========================================
...   Page  1
  phrasing of the flyer is oriented in terms of argument, with little
  factual content, it is not within the jurisdiction of the statute.
> “I am opposed to the new 5% Utility Bill Tax imposed by the City of Grant.”

==================================================
636117183.DISM.OR.smm.doc         12-6361-17183-CV  More; 
==================================================
...   Page  1
  the statements concerning Mayor Longrie’s lack of experience.  The
  statements reflect Respondent’s opinion and are not factual statements
  that may be proven true or false.  Minn. Stat. § 211B.06 is directed

=========================================
632617627.or.doc         15-6326-17627-CV  More; 
=========================================
...   Page  1
  that the statement is not a representation of fact.
> The burden of proving the falsity of a factual statement cannot be met by
  showing only that the statement is not literally true in every detail.  If

====================================================
632617585 primafacie ord.doc         8-6326-17585-CV  More; 
====================================================
...   Page  1
  Again, the Complainant does not allege that this is a false statement of
  fact, but instead requests factual support for the CCS claim.  Because the
  Complainant does not allege that this is a false statement of fact, this

=================================================
632617493.Prob.Cause.doc         12-6326-17493-CV   More; 
=================================================
...   Page  1
  contribution limit.  Whether the Respondents simply made a reporting error
  and mischaracterized the expenditure as they claim, is a factual
  determination that should be left to a panel of administrative law judges

===========================================================
632616965.partial.dism.OR.doc         Fine v. Bernstein (2)  More; 
===========================================================
...   Page  1
  summary judgment, the Judges must view the facts in the light most
  favorable to the non-moving party.  All doubts and factual inferences must
  be resolved against the moving party.  If reasonable minds could differ as

==========================================
632616886.fdg.rt.doc         6326-16886-CV  More; 
==========================================
...   Page  1
  group on the same side” or “a group organized to work together.”  In my
  view the flyer as a whole is a specific factual statement that Marie
  Hauser, Mary Merrill Anderson, and Tom Nordyke are candidates acting “on

==============================================
632616420.dism.ord.doc         3-6302-16119-CV   More; 
==============================================
...   Page  1
  facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.  All doubts and
  factual inferences must be resolved against the moving party.  If
  reasonable minds could differ as to the import of the evidence, judgment

=========================================
632616253.fng.doc         3-6326-16253-CV  More; 
=========================================
...   Page  1
  and urges the reader to vote for Trepanier’s opponent, Rand Haglund.  One
  side is a colorful display of small bits of factual information, presented
  in separate boxes to resemble newspaper headlines.  The reverse is a three-

==========================================
632217734.ord.doc         12-6322-17734-CV  More; 
==========================================
...   Page  1
  understand that the statement is not a representation of fact.
> The burden of proving the falsity of a factual statement cannot be met by
  showing only that the statement is not literally true in every detail.  If

===========================================
632217617.pf.or.doc         3-XXXX-XXXXX-CV  More; 
===========================================
...   Page  1
  that the statement is not a representation of fact.
> The burden of proving the falsity of a factual statement cannot be met by
  showing only that the statement is not literally true in every detail.  If

========================================
632217617 or.doc         4-6322-17617-CV  More; 
========================================
...   Page  1
> Mr. Corson has submitted conflicting evidence in support of his assertion.
  It is not possible to resolve this factual dispute concerning the
  statement in Item 5 based on the record currently before the
...
  deductions.  The assertion that a failure to act has “adversely affected”
  the County is not a factual statement and is therefore insufficient to
  support allegation that there was a violation of Minn. Stat. § 211B.06,

=================================================
631817949.prob.cause.doc         11-6318-17949-CV  More; 
=================================================
...   Page  1
  new High School.
> Factual Background
> The relevant facts in this case are undisputed.  In February 2005,
...
  awareness” of its probable falsity.  In addition, the burden of proving
  the falsity of a factual statement cannot be met by showing only that the
  statement is not literally true in every detail.  If the statement is true

==============================================
630119304.DISM.OR.doc         12-6301-19304-CV  More; 
==============================================
...   Page  1
  amendment, City Councilmember Jim Saefke spoke in support of it, and the
  City Finance Director presented neutral factual information.  The
  Complaint states that during the forum, the Mayor participated by “asking

==============================================================
630116266.probcause.smm.doc         630116266.probcause.or.smm  More; 
==============================================================
...   Page  1
  not a “demand to shred public documents to cover up involvement.”  While
  there are several factual issues to resolve on this particular allegation
  and the other allegedly false statements identified in the Complaint,

=============================================
630116266.pf.smm.doc         630116266.pf.smm  More; 
=============================================
...   Page  1
  required by Minn. Stat. § 211A.02 to file the same reports referred to
  above.  While there are some factual issues about whether a report is yet
  due, the Complaint states a prima facie violation by ACT of the reporting

=========================================
630116266.fdg.doc         1-6301-16266-CV  More; 
=========================================
...   Page  1
> “Thank you to the thousands of concerned residents who visited this
  website.  The goal of ACT is solely to present factual public information
  that you have a right to know.  Again, ACT is not affiliated with any
...
>  The Complainant also at times argued that the statements were false on
  their merits.  But as no evidence as to the factual basis underlying the
  allegations was offered or admitted, this decision is limited to whether

====================================================
032017816.dismissal.ord.doc         12-0320-17816-CV  More; 
====================================================
...   Page  1
  context, the reader would understand that the statement is not a
  representation of fact.  The burden of proving the falsity of a factual
  statement cannot be met by showing only that the statement is not

==============================================
032017790.fdg.mbg.doc         15-0320-17790-CV  More; 
==============================================
...   Page  1
  past for measures to protect the unborn does not render the statement a
  false factual assertion.  In addition, contrary to the Complainant’s claim,
  the reckless disregard standard under Minnesota Statutes § 211B.06 does

=================================================
032017530.Prob.Cause.doc         15-0320-17530-CV  More; 
=================================================
...   Page  1
  211B.06.  Representative Hortman was the Chief Author of HF 2310.  Whether
  this bill would have “reduced homeowner property taxes” requires factual
  determinations that must be left to a panel of administrative law judges

=================================================
032017509.Prob.Cause.doc         11-0320-17509-CV  More; 
=================================================
...   Page  1
  the expenditures at issue as “Aviation Insurance” and spending on “
  airplane models” requires factual determinations and assessments of
  credibility that must be left to a panel of administrative law judges to

==============================================
032017434.DISM.OR.doc         11-0320-17434-CV  More; 
==============================================
...   Page  1
  contributions for herself and the other candidates listed on the webpage
  lacks a factual basis and is mere speculation.  It appears in any case
  from a review of the website that contributions are made by clicking on

=========================================
032016229.fdg.doc         3-0320-16229-CV  More; 
=========================================
...   Page  1
  light on what senses of “false” the legislature intended the word to
  include when applying the statute to particular factual situations.  But
  there are some things that do tend to shed light on legislative intent.

	 


=========================================
032016229.fdg.doc         3-0320-16229-CV  More; 
=========================================
...   Page  1
  that part of the spectrum one runs into substantive Due Process vagueness
  problems, First Amendment speech problems, or both.  Second, Minn. Stat. §
  211B.06 provides, in part:

==========================================
032016254.fdg.doc         12-0320-16254-CV   More; 
==========================================
...   Page  1
  investigate or verify the accuracy of third party information.  The case
  law indicates that, due to First Amendment concerns, no such duty exists.
  Ms. Nadeau’s conduct in disseminating the false statement may have been

==============================================
032017434.DISM.OR.doc         11-0320-17434-CV  More; 
==============================================
...   Page  1
  Riley v. Jankowski, holding that the disclaimer requirement of Minn. Stat
  . § 211B.04 violates the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution by
  directly regulating the content of pure speech and that there is no way to

==============================================================
630116266.probcause.smm.doc         630116266.probcause.or.smm  More; 
==============================================================
...   Page  1
  . §§ 211B.04 and 211B.06 have been held by the courts to infringe upon
  First Amendment rights of free speech and anonymous political comment.  In
  light of those court decisions and because such information was not

========================================================
630216119.ord.doc         No prima facie violation found    More; 
========================================================
...   Page  1
  disclaimer requirements of Minn. Stat. § 211B.04 (2003) to be a facial
  violation of the First Amendment and has enjoined the state from enforcing
  the statute.  In that case, Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life, Inc. v.
...
  overriding interest supporting the statute, the court found that Minn.
  Stat. § 211B.04 was unconstitutional under the First Amendment.
> The state did not appeal that decision.  The legislature amended section
...
  requiring candidates to be accountable for the materials they distribute
  violates the First Amendment.  Since the constitutional concerns addressed
  in MCCL have no clear application to candidates themselves, and given the

================================================
630216119.Prob.Cause.doc         3-6302-16119-CV    More; 
================================================
...   Page  1
  Court for the District of Minnesota declared the disclaimer requirements
  of Minn. Stat. § 211B.04 (2003) to be a facial violation of the First
  Amendment and enjoined the state from enforcing the statute.  The state
  did not appeal this decision.  The legislature amended the statute during

========================================
631217667.or.doc         8-6312-17667-CV   More; 
========================================
...   Page  1
  that the state may properly regulate and circumscribe without violating
  the First Amendment.  When enacting Minnesota Statutes § 211B.07, the
  Minnesota Legislature was operating within its rightful police powers to
...
  conduct, such as “fighting words” or “true threats” does not implicate the
  First Amendment ..."); compare also, United States v. Bellrichard, 62 F.3d
  1046, 1050 (8th Cir. 1995) (“the First Amendment affords no protection to
  those who utter direct threats of force and violence toward other persons”).
>  Compare generally, Dunham, at 567 (Minnesota's harassment statute was
  found to be constitutional against a First Amendment challenge, where the
  statute required both objectively unreasonable conduct on the part of the

====================================================
631217667.primafacie.ord.doc         8-6312-17667-CV  More; 
====================================================
...   Page  1
> However, earlier this year, the Minnesota Court of Appeals ruled that the
  disclaimer requirement of Minnesota Statutes § 211B.04 violates the First
  Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.  The Court of Appeals held that the
  disclaimer requirement directly regulated the content of pure speech and

========================================
631217667.rt.doc         8-6312-17667-CV  More; 
========================================
...   Page  1
> The Respondent also argued that Minn. Stat. § 211B.07 unconstitutionally
  infringes on his First Amendment right of free speech.  As noted in the
  panel’s prior Order denying Respondent’s motion for summary disposition,
  the state may properly regulate and circumscribe categories of speech,
  such as “fighting words” or “true threats,” without violating the First
  Amendment.  It appears that the Minnesota Legislature was operating within
  its rightful police powers when it enacted Section 211B.07, by punishing
...
  conduct, such as “fighting words” or “true threats” does not implicate the
  First Amendment ..."); compare also, United States v. Bellrichard, 62 F.3d
  1046, 1050 (8th Cir. 1995) (“the First Amendment affords no protection to
  those who utter direct threats of force and violence toward other persons”).

==============================================
632617585.dism.ord.doc         8-6326-17585-CV  More; 
==============================================
...   Page  1
  statements of fact, not criticisms or unfavorable deductions.”  Indeed,
  this statute is set against the backdrop of the First Amendment, which
  assures Americans in the public square   and also, on the World Wide Web
...
  communicated them with reckless disregard as to whether they were false.
  Gloomy, incomplete, or not   the Notches have a First Amendment right to
  disseminate the calculations that they have developed in good faith.  The
...
  to provide adequate ’breathing space’ to the freedoms protected by the
  First Amendment”); compare also, State v. Machholz, 574 N.W.2d 415, 422 (
  Minn. 1998) ("Commenting on matters of public concern is a classic form of
  speech that lies at the heart of the First Amendment, and speech in public
  arenas is at its most protected on public sidewalks, a prototypical

=========================================
632617627.or.doc         15-6326-17627-CV  More; 
=========================================
...   Page  1
  04 is unconstitutional on its face.  The Court held that the Section 211B.
  04’s disclaimer requirement violates the First Amendment of the U.S.
  Constitution by directly regulating the content of pure speech and that

=============================================
632917227.DISM.OR.doc         3-6329-17227-CV  More; 
=============================================
...   Page  1
  Riley v. Jankowski, holding that the disclaimer requirement of Minn. Stat
  .           § 211B.04 violates the First Amendment of the U.S.
  Constitution by directly regulating the content of pure speech and that

=============================================
634917443.DISM.OR.doc         4-6349-17433-CV  More; 
=============================================
...   Page  1
  Stat. § 211B.06.  It would seem that at some point along that part of the
  spectrum one runs into substantive Due Process vagueness problems, First
  Amendment speech problems, or both.
> Second, unlike some statutory schemes, neither Chapter 211B nor Minn. Stat

====================================================
637817388.primafacie.ord.doc         3-6378-17388-CV   More; 
====================================================
...   Page  1
  Riley v. Jankowski, holding that the disclaimer requirement of Minn. Stat
  . § 211B.04 violates the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution by
  directly regulating the content of pure speech and that there is no way to

===========================================
638517588.disor.doc         8-6385-17588-CV  More; 
===========================================
...   Page  1
  of Appeals issued its decision in Riley v. Jankowski, holding that the
  disclaimer requirement of Minn. Stat. § 211B.04 violates the First
  Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.  Because the Minnesota Court of
  Appeals has determined that Minn. Stat. § 211B.04 is unconstitutional on

		                 

	 



=================================================================
630216119.reconsid.ord.doc         No prima facie violation found   More; 
=================================================================
...   Page  1
  candy along the parade route.  The issue presented in this case is whether
  the tossing of “penny candy” to the crowds along the parade routes is
  conduct amounting to bribery and prohibited under Minn. Stat. § 211B.13.
...
  is to prove workable in today’s political climate.  Complainant argues
  that penny candy has monetary value and its monetary value is expressed
  directly by the name given it, i.e. “penny “ candy.  According to
  Complainant, the statute should be interpreted strictly and as an absolute

================================================
630216119.Prob.Cause.doc         3-6302-16119-CV   More; 
================================================
...   Page  1
  bands, beauty pageant contestants, and approximately 75 to 100 floats
  advertising local businesses.  Persons on most of the floats threw penny
  candy to children lined up to watch the parade, which was 0.6 of a mile in
  length.  Mr. Knutson’s family threw candy as well, although he did not.
...
 
>      Mr. Knutson contends that tossing penny candy to children from a
  float in a parade cannot constitute bribery by any definition.  Ms. Kalil

========================================================
630216119.ord.doc         No prima facie violation found   More; 
========================================================
...   Page  1
  truck, which was identified with Mr. Knutson’s name and the office he
  seeks, and members of Mr. Knutson’s family tossed penny candy to children
  along the parade route.

=====================================================
032017816.primafacie.ord.doc         12-0320-17816-CV   More; 
=====================================================
...   Page  1
  is a question of fact.  In prior decisions, Administrative Law Judges have
  held that tossing penny candy at a parade and giving notepads imprinted
  with the candidate’s name and office did not violate Minn. Stat. § 211B.13,