Wisc. Supreme Court Calls Lawsuit Against Gay Rights Group Frivolous
Posted: June 5, 2008 - 5:00 pm ET


(Madison, Wisconsin) The Wisconsin Supreme Court has ordered a conservative pastor to pay $87,000 in legal fees to a gay rights group he accused of defaming him.
Grant Storms of the Reformer Ministries in Marrero, La., claimed in the lawsuit that Action Wisconsin defamed him by saying remarks he made at a 2003 anti-gay conference in Milwaukee advocated the murder of gays.


Storms was one of several speakers at the "International Conference on Homo-Fascism," a gathering of people who railed against gays.

Action Wisconsin obtained an audio recording of the conference and publicized remarks that the group said incited violence and hatred.

In his speech, Storms said gay rights' opponents should "start taking it to the streets." He mimicked gun fire: "Boom, boom, boom, boom. There's twenty! Ca-ching," according to a transcript.


After Action Wisconsin widely distributed the tape Storms sued the group claiming it had defamed him by suggesting he was advocating murdering gays.


In 2006 Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Patricia McMahon said the group's interpretation of the remarks was reasonable and the lawsuit lacked merit from the day it was filed. McMahon awarded Action Wisconsin $87,000 in legal fees.


Following the verdict called the judge "liberal" and "insane," and filed an immediate appeal.


The appeals court reversed the ruling and Action Wisconsin took the case to the state Supreme Court.


In a 4-3 ruling the high court overturned the appellate ruling, allowing the original decision to stand.


In the majority decision the court said that Storms should have known the lawsuit was frivolous.



I don't know... he might not have known. He didn't know that saying "take it to the streets" and imitating gunfire would be considered advocating murder! He's obviously not the brightest bulb in the lunatic religious fringe lamp!

Here's the dumbest argument of all:

Storms argued his statements were taken out of context. He said the speech was about killing the "homosexual movement" but not gay people. How would you kill "twenty" of the "homosexual movement"?

Defamation cases are incredibly difficult to win anyway. If the sentence above summarizes Storms' arguments, I cannot understand how the dissents found that a "reasonable jury could have found that the suit had merit."

i can't believe I completely missed that LOL

sounds lilke some bdsm workshop

I tried to pull up the Wisc. Supreme Court opinion on their website, but all I could find was the Court of Appeals opinion. The pastor lost the lawsuit on summary judgment (which means that the trial court found that there was no question of fact upon which a jury could find defamation). He didn't appeal the summary judgment finding.

You can lose on a motion for summary judgment and not have a frivolous lawsuit. It happens all the time. But, in this defamation suit, the Pastor had to prove malice since Donohoo was a public figure. This is an incredibly tough burden. All Action Wisconsin really had to do was prove that their interpretation of the Donohoo statement was reasonable.

Donohoo had no chance to win.

This really begs the question: What is more damaging to "traditional values" - homosexual marriage, or idiot pastors?

... been meaning to ask - how are your wife and daughter dealing with your long absence?

I think my wife is OK with it, it's my daughter I worry about. She misses her daddy and I miss her very much. I may be making good money, but there are other prices to pay.