Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.

Dismiss

Art Bell vs DAVID JOHN OATES, an individual ROBERT A.M. STEPHENS, an individual; and DOE 1-10

505 views

Skip to first unread message

spa...@?.?.com

unread,

May 28, 1999, 7:00:00 AM5/28/99

The Stephens/Oates Complaint
Here is the complaint filed with the court on Thursday, May 27, 1999 on behalf
of Art Bell. Exhibits attached to the complaint are hyperlinked for you.
Original signatures of course, are present on the documents filed at the court.
See the Art Bell Web Page for further updates.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gerard P. Fox. (SBN 151649)
Davidson M. Pattiz (SBN 189834)
FOX, SIEGLER & SPILLANE LLP
1880 Century Park East, Suite 1114
Los Angeles, California 90067

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Art Bell

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

ART BELL, an individual,

Plaintiff,

vs.

DAVID JOHN OATES, an individual; ROBERT A.M. STEPHENS, an individual; and DOE
1-10 inclusive,

Defendants.
CASE NO. ___________________

COMPLAINT FOR :

(1) SLANDER AND CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT SLANDER;

(2) SLANDER PER SE AND CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT SLANDER PER SE (Cal. Civ. Code
46(1) & (3));

(3) INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS AND CONSPIRACY TO INFLICT
EMOTIONAL DISTRESS;

(4) TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACT AND CONSPIRACY TO TORTIOUSLY INTERFERE
WITH CONTRACT;

(5) TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE AND CONSPIRACY TO
TORTIOUSLY INTERFERE WITH PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE; and

(6) NEGLIGENT INTERFERENCE WITH PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

INTRODUCTION
This lawsuit seeks redress for a course of conduct being carried out over the
Internet by two individuals seeking to malign, harass, cyberstalk, defame,
injure and annoy Plaintiff, Art Bell. Although the Internet was designed to
provide our society with quick access to information and to each other, the
Defendants in this action are using this Information Highway to attempt to
destroy another person's good name, reputation and peace of mind. The conduct
described herein is symptomatic of the need for increased regulation of the
Internet so as to assure some form of accountability.

The Defendants' behavior is immoral, unjust and entirely deserving of rebuke by
not only this Court, but also by those who constitute the target audience of
this vile, cowardly, and wrongful course of conduct. Freedom of speech should
never be confused with a license to defame and impugn others. In fact, those
who purposefully use "speech" to attempt to destroy another human being's name
and reputation through the dissemination of false and defamatory statements
make a mockery of the principles underlying Freedom of Speech, and in truth
pose the greatest threat to the borders of this important Constitutional right.

Defendants, who have failed utterly at competing fairly and lawfully with
Plaintiff to express their points of view and concepts, have resorted to
subversive, improper, grotesque and unlawful behavior in their misguided
attempt to destroy Plaintiff. Defendants' campaign include threats,
stalking-like behavior, and an air of gross irresponsibility suggesting that
these two persons believe themselves to be above the law.

Plaintiff has filed this suit not only to clear his good name, but to take a
public stance against the irresponsible and unlawful use of the Internet for
illegal or improper purposes. The Defendants' acts are childlike and suggestive
of irrational thought. The Plaintiff looks to this Court to assist Plaintiff in
protecting himself and defending his good name.

PARTIES
Plaintiff Art Bell ("Bell") is a citizen and resident of Nevada.

Defendant David John Oates ("Oates") is, upon information and belief, a
resident of the State of Colorado. Also upon information and belief, Oates is
the sole shareholder and chief officer of an active California Corporation,
maintains a California drivers' license, carries out substantial business
activities in the State of California, and purposely directs his radio program
to California via both the Internet and the airwaves.

Defendant Robert A.M. Stephens ("Stephens") is, upon information and belief, a
resident of the State of Montana. Also upon information and belief, and as
further described below, Stephens participated with Oates in a national and
international conspiracy designed to impugn Bell and sully his reputation in,
among other places, the State of California. Stephens has purposefully directed
his tortious conduct towards the citizens of the State of California, with the
hope of injuring Bell's reputation in this State, among others.

Upon information and belief, and at all times relevant to this lawsuit, Oates
and Stephens acted as the authorized agent for the other, with full authority
to act on the other's behalf.

Bell is unaware of the true names or capacities of the defendants sued herein
under the fictitious names DOE 1-10. See C.C.P. 474.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE
Jurisdiction is proper in this Court as the amount in controversy far exceeds
$25,000.

Venue is proper in this Court as neither of the Defendants currently resides in
the State. Additionally, substantial portions of the harm suffered by Bell and
described below took place in the County of Los Angeles, where Bell has many
listeners, and where Bell has a business relationship with Premiere Radio
Networks, Inc. ("Premiere"). C.C.P. 395(a)(1).

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
Plaintiff Bell is a nationally and internationally known radio personality who
hosts a syndicated radio program entitled "Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell."
Bell's show is currently syndicated by 462 radio stations nationwide, including
at least 44 stations in the State of California. Bell's radio program is also
available over the Internet.

Bell's national listenership is in the millions. Bell's following in California
is particularly significant, with almost 18% of his total audience in the
State. Bell may be heard locally on KABC 790.

Bell's radio program is syndicated by Premiere, which has offices in Los
Angeles. Bell's broadcast contract - i.e., the source of his livelihood - was
negotiated with Premiere in Los Angeles.

Oates and Stephens were both guests on Bell's radio program during the past
year. Both Oates and Stephens admit to harboring ill will toward Bell for
failing to accord them what they believe was the respect they were due on his
radio program.

In a blatant attempt to unlawfully attack and injure Bell, Oates and Stephens
agreed to join together in an effort to harm Bell's public reputation and
injure him personally. To that end, Oates invited Stephens to appear on Oates'
April 3, 1999 radio program. During that program, Stephens made numerous
defamatory statements regarding Bell.

Among other things, Stephens stated that:

Approximately twenty years ago, Bell had been "arrested" and "served time" for
"trafficking" in "various aspects of pornography;"
Bell made pornographic "videotapes;" and
The entire story had been confirmed by "a consortium - a syndication of
private" investigators, who had located an original article in the Monterey
Herald confirming the story.

Stephens went on to defame Bell further, claiming that he was involved in
various "dark matters" related to "the militia movement." Stephens also claimed
that, in general, Bell acts with "dark malice." These statements constituted
obvious allusions to additional criminal acts allegedly undertaken by Bell.

In addition, Stephens alleged that at the time Bell was arrested for
pornography, he was "crazy." Stephens amplified his allegation that Bell is
mentally ill, referring to Bell's alleged "pathos."

Oates acknowledged his awareness of the false and defamatory content of
Stephens' statements by admitting that he was "cringing" as Stephens continued
to rattle off these fabrications.

At the time the false and defamatory statements were made by Oates and
Stephens, they knew the statements were false. In fact, the documents
supposedly supplied to Stephens by a "syndicate of private investigators"
specifically state that after consulting with a "Confidential Police Source"
the investigators were "not able to identify ANY arrests made of Mr. Bell,
ANYWHERE in the United States" and "No records of any arrest were found." ( See
Exhibit A.)

Bell subsequently obtained paperwork from the custodian of records of Monterey,
California, confirming that, just as Stephens' supposed consortium of
investigators found, there was no record that Bell was arrested on any charge.
The Custodian of Records for Monterey stated, under penalty of perjury, as
follows:

"I declare that the Monterey County Sheriff's Department maintains arrest
records dating back further than 1970 and that Mr. Art Bell does not appear to
have any arrests between 1970 and 1980 on any charge." ( See Exhibit B.)

The April 3, 1999 defamatory radio program was made available to Bell's
significant listenership audience throughout California, including here in Los
Angeles. Indeed, the lone phone-in caller during the Stephens' segment of
Oates' show identified herself as a listener from Santa Monica, California.
(This information may be heard in the second hour, twenty-second minute of the
April 3, 1999 Oates program.)

Oates' and Stephens' defamatory comments have had an impact on Bell's listener
base throughout the United States and the World. Bell has received e-mail
messages regarding Oates' and Stephens' allegations from, among other places,
California, Alabama, Tennessee, Georgia, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, New York,
Hawaii, Washington, Delaware, Oregon, North Carolina, Wisconsin, Alaska, West
Virginia, Michigan, Canada, and Taiwan. A substantial percentage of the
messages have originated from California.

Oates and Stephens facilitated the continued dissemination of the April 3
statements by placing their supposed "evidence" of Bell's activities on an
Internet website created by Stephens. (See www.stephens-behold.com.) At the
conclusion of his April 3 radio program, David Oates exponentially increased
access to the defamatory content by promising to provide a link to Stephens'
website on his web site, which can be found at www.davidoates.com. The
republication and rebroadcast of the April 3 defamation has not ceased. Indeed,
David Oates has apparently contracted with an organization named
"Broadcast.com" to provide archive facilities for his past radio programs,
including the April 3 broadcast. In other words, users of the Internet in
California, the other United States, and all over the world, can still access
the defamatory April 3 comments of Oates and Stephens.

The davidoates.com website has a "hit counter" that claims to track the number
of "hits" on his website. The number on the counter is currently in excess of
85,000, meaning that tens of thousands of people may have accessed the
defamatory April 3, 1999 broadcast.

Both Oates and Stephens were aware that Bell has a contract with
Premiere/Jacor, a company with offices in California. (See Exhibit C.) In fact,
Stephens just recently confirmed on his own website that he has been focused on
destroying Bell's business, alleging that since the Stephens/Oates attacks on
Bell began "Art Bell's Coast to Coast is off by 60% for listeners in the last
90 days." (See Exhibit D.) Both Oates and Stephens intended to direct their
tortious conduct against Bell in the State of California (and elsewhere) by
means of broadcasts over the Internet and airwaves.

The April 3 broadcast (and rebroadcast) are not the only times Stephens and
Oates have defamed Bell. Witnesses have come forward describing several other
incidents where both Oates and Stephens sought to harm Bell by making false and
defamatory statements. In particular, witnesses have described an incident
during which Oates made the following false and defamatory statements:

That "Mr. Bell is a pedophile;"
That Oates "had proof that Mr. Bell was arrested for molesting boys;"
That "it is a 'running joke' among people Mr. Oates knows in the radio industry
that Mr. Bell molests boys;" and
That Mr. Bell likes to travel to Thailand to have sex with little boys and has
actually served time in jail for these crimes.
(See Exhibit E.) These statements were made in person, in a public location,
where numerous other people may have heard Oates defamatory comments. (Id. at ?
3.)

In connection with the above-referenced defamatory statements, Oates also
confirmed that he was plotting his revenge on Bell, stating repeatedly that he
planned to "make Art pay for embarrassing me on his radio show."

The defamatory comments described above were made with the utmost seriousness,
and without any hint that Oates was making a joke. (Exhibit E at ? 4.) These
statements were made in Vancouver, Canada. One of the witnesses has also
testified that she is "afraid of Mr. Oates and believe[s] Mr. Bell has reason
to be afraid of him as well." (Exhibit E at ? 7.) The same witness went on to
state that she considers Oates to be "a scary and unpredictable individual."
(Id. at ? 5.)

In another incident, a third witness has described separate acts of defamation
by Stephens. In particular, Stephens told this other witness that:
Art Bell was convicted in Nye County Nevada on a child pornography charge;
Bell was part of a ring of five people who were arrested and convicted for
child pornography; and
Bell had also been found guilty on pornography charges in San Diego.
As with the separate defamatory statements made by Oates, Stephens' defamatory
statements were made in all seriousness, without any suggestion that the
comments were a mere joke. Each of these statements is false.

The defamatory allegations from Oates and Stephens have not ceased - far from
it. Among other things, Stephens has constructed a new Internet website
entitled "Shady Pines" to serve as a vehicle for the continued dissemination of
false and defamatory statements regarding Art Bell. (See Exhibit F (a print out
of some of the content on Shady Pines).) Among other things, Stephens' Shady
Pines website contains explicit allegations that Bell engages in
sadomasochistic, homosexual activities, is a rapist, and a pornographer. (Id.)
Stephens website states on the very first page that "Shady Pines is NOT humor."
(Id.)

Stephens' and Oates' attacks have not stopped with Bell, but have expanded to
include Bell's associates and employers. (Id.) Stephens recently posted a false
allegation that Bell's webmaster, Keith Rowland, was arrested for child
molestation in Arizona in 1989. (Exhibit G.) As with all of Stephens' and Oates
fantastic rantings, this too is apparantly false and defamatory. (Id.)

Defendants each conspired with the other to cause the harms suffered by Bell
and alleged herein. Defendants each had knowledge of and agreed to both the
objective and course of conduct engaged in to cause harm to Bell. Defendants'
wrongful acts directed towards Bell were carried out pursuant to their
conspiratorial agreement. Defendants' conspiracy has resulted in significant
harm to Bell.

Oates admitted to third-party witnesses that he was planning to get Bell and
that Stephens was acting in concert with him. The overt acts directed against
Bell by Oates and Stephens commenced with the April 3 broadcast during which
Oates admitted he knew the content of the material Stephens was planning to
disseminate, and Stephens knew his allegations were without any support.
Moreover, Stephens' recent postings on his Internet site confirm that he is
acting in concert with Oates. (See Exhibit F.)

As a result of Defendants' slanderous statements, Bell has suffered mental
anguish, severe damage to his reputation, shame, disgrace, mortification, hurt
feelings, and other damages to be proved at trial.

As a result of Defendants' slanderous statements, Bell has also suffered damage
to his business, trade, profession, and occupation, including a loss of revenue
and the requirement that he expend significant time and personal effort (to the
detriment of his professional life) defending himself against Defendants' past
and ongoing acts of defamation. Bell is now not able to participate in the full
number of broadcasts he did last year. That change has been necessary in order
for Bell to have sufficient time to respond to false and defamatory statements
and deal with the emotional distress those statements have caused him.

On April 8, 1999 Bell requested that Oates and Stephens retract their
defamatory statements made on Oates' show in substantially as conspicuous a
manner as the original statements were made. (See Exhibit H.) The retractions
were not made as requested.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION FOR SLANDER AND

CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT SLANDER

(By Plaintiff Against All Defendants)
Bell incorporates each of the foregoing allegations as though fully set forth
herein.

Oates and Stephens published the slanderous comments about Bell on the April 3,
1999 radio station, and in their subsequent retransmission of the same and
similar statements over the Internet, with actual knowledge that the statements
were false or with reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of such
statements.

Defendants undertook the actions described above with ill will, actual malice,
and hatred towards Bell. They knew that their assertions regarding Bell's
character and alleged criminal history were false. They also knew that the
statements were particularly likely to harm Bell personally and professionally
in that Defendants alleged that Bell had committed and been convicted of
serious crimes, including child molestation, prostitution, and pimping, which
are universally vilified in the community. Defendants also alleged that Bell
was and is mentally ill, variously describing him as "crazy" and an individual
with a "pathos," who acts with "dark malice." Defendants have gone on to allege
that Bell is a rapist, who routinely engages in sadomasochistic homosexual
rituals. Each of these assertions were made in an effort to gain revenge
against Bell, but without any regard for the statements truth or falsity.

The statements described above were published as part of Defendants' conspiracy
against Bell. As evidenced by their coordinated actions and attacks, Defendants
each had knowledge of and agreed to both the objective and course of conduct
engaged in to cause harm to Bell. Defendants' wrongful acts directed towards
Bell were carried out pursuant to their conspiratorial agreement. Defendants'
conspiracy has resulted in significant harm to Bell. The agreement reached
between Oates and Stephens is apparent from their collusion in the initial
publication of the April 3 broadcast, their joint scheme to retransmit the
broadcast over the Internet, and their additional joint acts of defamation
directed against Bell and his colleagues and employer.

As a direct result of Defendants' slanderous statements, Bell has suffered
general damages, including mental anguish, severe damage to his reputation,
shame, disgrace, mortification, hurt feelings, and other damages to be proved
at trial.

As a direct result of Defendants' slanderous statements, Bell has also suffered
special damages, including harm to his business, trade, profession, and
occupation, including a loss of revenue and the requirement that he expend
significant time and personal effort (to the detriment of his professional
life) defending himself against Defendants' past and ongoing acts of
defamation. In particular, Bell is now not able to participate in the full
number of broadcasts he did last year. That change has been necessary in order
for Bell to have sufficient time to respond to false and defamatory statements
and deal with the emotional distress those statements have caused him.

Defendants' acts described above herein were done maliciously or oppressively
as defined in Civil Code Section 3294. The above-described words were published
and actions undertaken by Defendants with actual malice and or oppression in
that Defendants were aware and intended that the words were false and
defamatory, and would cause injury to Bell and his professional reputation and
would diminish Bell's livelihood. Despite this knowledge, Defendants uttered,
broadcast, and rebroadcast their slanderous statements and thus subjected Bell
to cruel and unjust hardship; and Bell should recover, in addition to actual
damages, exemplary damages to make an example of and to punish Defendants in an
amount proportionate to the wealth of Defendants.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION FOR SLANDER PER SE AND

CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT SLANDER PER SE

(By Plaintiff Against All Defendants)
Bell incorporates each of the foregoing allegations as though fully set forth
herein.

Oates and Stephens published the slanderous comments about Bell in the April 3,
1999 radio broadcast, and in their subsequent retransmission of the same and
similar statements over the Internet, with actual knowledge that the statements
were false or with reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of such
statements.

The words spoken by Defendants over Oates' radio program, and transmitted by
both Defendants over the Internet, were slanderous per se in that they:

Falsely charged Bell with having committed crimes;
Falsely charged Bell with having been convicted of crimes;
Falsely charged Bell with having been punished for crimes;
Falsely charged Bell with suffering from a mental illness;
Falsely charged Bell with engaging in sadomasochistic homosexual activities;
and
Tended directly to injure him in his profession, trade or business by impugning
his integrity with the listening public, and trying to discredit him with his
employer.

Defendants undertook the actions described above with ill will, actual malice,
and hatred towards Bell. They knew that their assertions regarding Bell's
character and alleged criminal history were false. They also knew that the
statements were particularly likely to harm Bell personally and professionally
in that Defendants alleged that Bell had committed and been convicted of
serious crimes, including child molestation, prostitution, and pimping, which
are universally vilified in the community. Defendants also attempted to
discredit Bell by claiming that he was and is mentally ill, variously
describing him as "crazy" and an individual with a "pathos," who acts with
"dark malice." Each of these assertions were made in an effort to gain revenge
against Bell, but without any regard for the statements truth or falsity.

The statements were carried out as part of Defendants' conspiracy against Bell.
Defendants each had knowledge of and agreed to both the objective and course of
conduct engaged in to cause harm to Bell. Defendants' wrongful acts directed
towards Bell were carried out pursuant to their conspiratorial agreement.
Defendants' conspiracy has resulted in significant harm to Bell. The agreement
reached between Oates and Stephens to defame Bell is apparent from their
collusion in the initial publication of the April 3 broadcast, their joint
scheme to retransmit the broadcast over the Internet, and their additional
joint acts of defamation directed against Bell and his colleagues and employer.

Defendants' acts described above herein were done maliciously or oppressively
as defined in Civil Code Section 3294 in that the above-described words were
published and actions undertaken by Defendants with actual malice and or
oppression in that Defendants were aware and intended that the words were false
and defamatory, and would cause injury to Bell and his professional reputation
and would diminish Bell's livelihood. Despite this knowledge, Defendants
uttered, broadcast, and rebroadcast their slanderous statements and thus
subjected Bell to cruel and unjust hardship; and Bell should recover, in
addition to actual damages, exemplary damages to make an example of and to
punish Defendants in an amount proportionate to the wealth of Defendants.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION FOR INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF

EMOTIONAL DISTRESS AND CONSPIRACY

TO INFLICT EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

(By Plaintiff Against All Defendants)
Bell incorporates each of the foregoing allegations as though fully set forth
herein.

Defendants undertook the outrageous actions described above with ill will,
actual malice, and hatred towards Bell. They knew (or acted with reckless
disregard with respect to the fact) that their assertions regarding Bell's
character, mental health, and alleged criminal history were false. They also
knew (or acted with reckless disregard with respect to the fact) that their
outrageous statements and actions, and the outrageous manner in which those
statements were made and actions undertaken, were particularly likely to harm
Bell personally and professionally in that Defendants alleged that Bell had
committed and been convicted of serious crimes, including child molestation,
prostitution, and pimping, which are universally vilified in the community.
Each of these assertions were made in an effort to gain revenge against Bell,
but without any regard for the statements' truth or falsity.

Defendants' conduct was specifically directed at Bell in that the allegations
made were designed to be picked up by radio listeners and Internet users in
Bell's target audience group. Indeed, the one caller during the Stephens'
segment of the April 3, 1999 David Oates show was from Santa Monica,
California. The outrageous conduct, which continues to this day through
rebroadcast and new postings on the Internet, are specifically directed at Bell
himself.

Defendants' attacks against Bell have only intensified since the initial
broadcast on April 3, 1999. The outrageous manner in which Stephens and Oates
have and continue to attack Bell is and was designed solely to inflict the most
intense harm possible on Bell. (See Exhibit F.)

As a direct result of Defendants' scurrilous and false allegations, Bell has
suffered severe and enduring emotional distress. Bell has been humiliated by
the public exposure of these false allegations, and has been unable to work at
the same levels he was once able to achieve prior to Oates' and Stephens'
relentless campaign of defamation. To put it mildly, the allegations of child
molestation, mental illness, pimping, and conviction of various crimes have
been emotionally devastating to Bell.

The statements and actions described above were carried out as part of
Defendants' conspiracy against Bell. Defendants each had knowledge of and
agreed to both the objective and course of conduct engaged in to cause harm to
Bell. Defendants' wrongful acts directed towards Bell were carried out pursuant
to their conspiratorial agreement. Defendants' conspiracy has resulted in
significant harm to Bell. The agreement reached between Oates and Stephens to
defame Bell is apparent from their collusion in the initial publication of the
April 3 broadcast, their joint scheme to retransmit the broadcast over the
Internet, and their additional joint acts of defamation directed against Bell
and his colleagues and employer.

Defendants' acts described above herein were done maliciously or oppressively
as defined in Civil Code Section 3294 in that the above-described words were
spoken and actions undertaken with actual malice and or oppression in that
Defendants were aware and intended that the words were false and defamatory,
and would cause injury to Bell and his professional reputation and would
diminish Bell's livelihood. Despite this knowledge, Defendants uttered,
broadcast, and rebroadcast their slanderous statements and thus subjected Bell
to cruel and unjust hardship. Defendants' actions were undertaken in a
particularly outrageous manner, that was obviously designed to have the maximum
impact on Bell, his listening audience, and his employer. As a result, Bell
should recover, in addition to actual damages, exemplary damages to make an
example of and to punish Defendants in an amount proportionate to the wealth of
Defendants.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH

CONTRACT AND CONSPIRACY TO TORTIOUSLY

INTERFERE WITH CONTRACT

(By Plaintiff Against All Defendants)
Bell incorporates each of the foregoing allegations as though fully set forth
herein.

At the time they made their false and defamatory allegations against Bell,
Defendants were aware that Bell had a broadcast contract with Premiere/Jacor.
(See Exhibit C (indicating Oates awareness of Bell's contract with Premiere's
affiliate, Jacor.)

Bell's contract with Premiere/Jacor was and is valid.

Defendants intended to "get" Bell for failing to accord them sufficient respect
when they appeared on his radio program by, among other things, inducing
Premiere/Jacor to question Bell's integrity and void or their contract with
him. Oates in particular informed one witness that "he was 'going to burn
[Bell's] career down to the f__ing ground.'" (Exhibit E at ? 5.) Oates told
another witness that he planned to make Art pay for embarrassing him on his
radio show. Finally, Stephens recent website postings have focused, almost
gleefully, on the impact the Stephens/Oates acts of defamation have had on
Bell's audience under his Premiere/Jacor broadcast contract. (See Exhibit D.)

Also, Defendants were aware that Bell would suffer severe and crushing
emotional pain as a result of Defendants' onslaught of false and defamatory
allegations, and that such emotional pain would very likely interfere with
Bell's obligations under his contract with Premiere/Jacor.

Defendants' wrongful acts are the direct and sole cause of the interference
with Bell's contract with Premiere/Jacor.

Bell has been damaged as a result of Defendants' interference because he is now
not able to participate in the full number of broadcasts he did last year. That
change has been necessary in order for Bell to have sufficient time to respond
to false and defamatory statements and deal with the emotional distress those
statements have caused him. This decrease in air time for Bell has deprived him
of many millions of dollars in income. If not for Defendants' interference,
Bell's contract with Premiere/Jacor would have continued, uninterrupted, with
full air time realized, for another six years.

As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' actions, Bell has suffered both
emotional distress and significant lost profits and increased expenses from the
Defendants' manifest intent to interfere with the natural and full completion
of the Premiere/Jacor contract.

Defendants' acts described above herein were done maliciously or oppressively
as defined in Civil Code Section 3294 in that the above-described words were
spoken and the actions undertaken with actual malice and or oppression in that
Defendants were aware and intended that the words were false and defamatory,
and would cause injury to Bell and his professional reputation and would
diminish Bell's livelihood. Despite this knowledge, Defendants uttered,
broadcast, and rebroadcast their slanderous statements and thus subjected Bell
to cruel and unjust hardship; and Bell should recover, in addition to actual
damages, exemplary damages to make an example of and to punish Defendants in an
amount proportionate to the wealth of Defendants.

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH

PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE AND

CONSPIRACY TO TORTIOUSLY

INTERFERE WITH PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE

(By Plaintiff Against All Defendants)
Bell incorporates each of the foregoing allegations as though fully set forth
herein.

Defendants have carried out their campaign of false and defamatory allegations
with the express goal of gaining revenge against Bell and injuring his career.
Upon information and belief, at the time Defendants carried out their campaign
of slander against Bell, they were aware that his radio program was successful
and that it had been gaining in ratings.

Each additional radio station that carries Bell's show expands his listener
base and increases the profits realized by both Bell and Premiere/Jacor from
the Bell show. Those increased profits will be diminished as a result of
Defendants' actions. At the time they took the actions detailed above,
Defendants were well-aware of Bell's contractual relationship with
Premier/Jacor, and they acted intentionally to disrupt the potential future
benefits of that relationship.

Bell's economic relationship, and the potential future benefits of that
relationship have been impacted in at least two ways by Defendants' actions.
First, Bell is not on the air as often as he was prior to the attacks
undertaken by Oates and Stephens. That change has been necessary in order for
Bell to have sufficient time to respond to false and defamatory statements and
deal with the emotional distress those statements have caused him. Second,
according to Oates' own website postings, Bell's listenership is down as a
result of the defamatory comments and outrageous actions undertaken by Oates
and Stephens. (See Exhibit D.)

As a direct and proximate cause of Defendants' actions, Bell has suffered lost
profits and severe mental distress.

Defendants' acts described above herein were done maliciously or oppressively
as defined in Civil Code Section 3294 in that the above-described words were
spoken by Defendants with actual malice and or oppression in that Defendants
were aware and intended that the words were false and defamatory, and would
cause injury to Bell and his professional reputation and would diminish Bell's
livelihood. Despite this knowledge, Defendants uttered, broadcast, and
rebroadcast their slanderous statements and thus subjected Bell to cruel and
unjust hardship; and Bell should recover, in addition to actual damages,
exemplary damages to make an example of and to punish Defendants in an amount
proportionate to the wealth of Defendants.

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION (IN THE ALTERNATIVE) FOR

NEGLIGENT INTERFERENCE WITH

PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE

(By Plaintiff Against All Defendants)
Bell incorporates each of the foregoing allegations as though fully set forth
herein.

Bell has a current base of listeners and would, as a matter of the ordinary
course of his business, seek to expand that base. Bell's listenership and the
number of stations syndicating his show had been on an upward trend. Bell has a
valid, existing contract with Premiere/Jacor, under which payments to Bell
increase as his listenership and revenues increase. It was clearly foreseeable
by Defendants that their conduct would disrupt that expansion and prevent Bell
from bringing his program to additional listeners. Indeed, the nature and
quality of Defendants' egregious actions make it impossible that they could
have carried out their campaign without having a direct impact on Bell and his
economic relationship with Premiere/Jacor, thus they had a duty to Bell to
avoid engaging in such conduct.

Each additional radio station that carries Bell's show expands his listener
base and increases the profits realized by both Bell and Premiere/Jacor from
the Bell show. Those increased profits will be diminished as a result of
Defendants' actions. At the time they took the actions detailed above,
Defendants were well-aware of Bell's contractual relationship with
Premier/Jacor, and they acted negligently in disrupting the potential future
benefits of that relationship.

Bell's economic relationship, and the potential future benefits of that
relationship have been impacted in at least two ways by Defendants' actions.
First, Bell is not on the air as often as he was prior to the attacks
undertaken by Oates and Stephens. That change has been necessary in order for
Bell to have sufficient time to respond to false and defamatory statements and
deal with the emotional distress those statements have caused him. Second,
according to Oates own website postings, Bell's listenership is down as a
result of the defamatory comments and outrageous actions undertaken by Oates
and Stephens. (See Exhibit D.)

As a direct and proximate cause of Defendants' actions, Bell has suffered lost
profits and severe mental distress.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for the following relief:

ON THE FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
For general and special damages in excess of $10,000,000;

For interest on this sum at the prevailing or legal rate, whichever is greater;

For an injunction prohibiting continued publication of the defamatory comments
once they have been determined to be defamatory; and

For punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial.

ON THE SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
For general and special damages in excess of $10,000,000;

For interest on this sum at the prevailing or legal rate, whichever is greater;

For an injunction prohibiting continued publication of the defamatory comments
once they have been determined to be defamatory; and

For punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial.

ON THE THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
For damages in excess of $10,000,000;

For interest on this sum at the prevailing or legal rate, whichever is greater;

For an injunction prohibiting continued publication of the defamatory comments
(that resulted in severe emotional distress) once they have been determined to
be defamatory; and

For punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial.

ON THE FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
For damages in excess of $10,000,000;

For lost profits and the increased expenses Bell has suffered;

For interest on these sums at the prevailing or legal rate, whichever is
greater;
For an injunction preventing Oates or Stephens from continuing to induce a
breach of Bell's contracts; and

For punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial.

ON THE FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
For damages in excess of $10,000,000;

For lost profits and the increased expenses Bell has suffered;

For interest on these sums at the prevailing or legal rate, whichever is
greater;

For an injunction preventing Oates or Stephens from continuing to interfere
with Bell's prospective economic advantages; and

For punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial.

ON THE SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
For damages in excess of $10,000,000;

For lost profits and the increased expenses Bell has suffered;

For interest on these sums at the prevailing or legal rate, whichever is
greater; and

For an injunction preventing Oates or Stephens from continuing to interfere
with Bell's prospective economic advantages.

ON EACH CAUSE OF ACTION
For Bell's costs of suit; and

For such other and further relief as the Court deems just, equitable, and
proper.

Dated: 5/27/99 Respectfully submitted,

FOX, SIEGLER & SPILLANE LLP

By: ___/s/_____________________

Gerard P. Fox

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Art Bell

0 new messages