{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\uc1\deff0\stshfdbch0\stshfloch0\stshfhich0\stshfbi0\deflang1033\deflangfe1033{\fonttbl{\f0\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02020603050405020304}Times New Roman;} {\f36\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000400000000000000}WP TypographicSymbols{\*\falt Courier New};}{\f172\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Times New Roman CE;}{\f173\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Times New Roman Cyr;} {\f175\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Times New Roman Greek;}{\f176\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Times New Roman Tur;}{\f177\froman\fcharset177\fprq2 Times New Roman (Hebrew);}{\f178\froman\fcharset178\fprq2 Times New Roman (Arabic);} {\f179\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Times New Roman Baltic;}{\f180\froman\fcharset163\fprq2 Times New Roman (Vietnamese);}}{\colortbl;\red0\green0\blue0;\red0\green0\blue255;\red0\green255\blue255;\red0\green255\blue0;\red255\green0\blue255; \red255\green0\blue0;\red255\green255\blue0;\red255\green255\blue255;\red0\green0\blue128;\red0\green128\blue128;\red0\green128\blue0;\red128\green0\blue128;\red128\green0\blue0;\red128\green128\blue0;\red128\green128\blue128;\red192\green192\blue192; \red255\green255\blue255;}{\stylesheet{\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext0 Normal;}{\*\cs10 \additive \ssemihidden Default Paragraph Font;}{\* \ts11\tsrowd\trftsWidthB3\trpaddl108\trpaddr108\trpaddfl3\trpaddft3\trpaddfb3\trpaddfr3\tscellwidthfts0\tsvertalt\tsbrdrt\tsbrdrl\tsbrdrb\tsbrdrr\tsbrdrdgl\tsbrdrdgr\tsbrdrh\tsbrdrv \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1024\langfe1024\cgrid\langnp1024\langfenp1024 \snext11 \ssemihidden Normal Table;}{\*\cs15 \additive \sbasedon10 \ssemihidden footnote reference;}}{\*\rsidtbl \rsid9508377 \rsid11105442\rsid11355304\rsid13838465}{\*\generator Microsoft Word 10.0.6764;}{\info{\title IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM}{\author lroberto}{\operator blake_r}{\creatim\yr2005\mo8\dy12\hr9\min4}{\revtim\yr2006\mo3\dy10\hr14\min50}{\version3}{\edmins3} {\nofpages13}{\nofwords5154}{\nofchars29383}{\*\company Superior Court of Guam}{\nofcharsws34469}{\vern16391}}\margl1440\margr1440 \widowctrl\ftnbj\aenddoc\notabind\wraptrsp\transmf\noxlattoyen\expshrtn\noultrlspc\dntblnsbdb\nospaceforul\truncatefontheight\subfontbysize\sprsbsp\wpjst\lytprtmet\hyphcaps0\horzdoc\dghspace120\dgvspace120\dghorigin1701\dgvorigin1984\dghshow0\dgvshow3 \jcompress\viewkind4\viewscale100\nolnhtadjtbl\rsidroot13838465 \fet0{\*\ftnsep \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid13838465 \chftnsep \par }}{\*\ftnsepc \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid13838465 \chftnsepc \par }}{\*\aftnsep \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid13838465 \chftnsep \par }}{\*\aftnsepc \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid13838465 \chftnsepc \par }}\sectd \sbknone\linex0\headery1440\footery1440\sectdefaultcl\sectrsid13838465\sftnbj {\header \pard\plain \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tqr\tx9360\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\i\fs20\insrsid13838465 Gutierrez v. Charfauros}{\fs20\insrsid13838465 , Opinion\tab Page }{\field{\*\fldinst {\fs20\insrsid13838465 PAGE }}{\fldrslt {\fs20\lang1024\langfe1024\noproof\insrsid11105442 13}}}{\fs20\insrsid13838465 of 19 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\sl-19\slmult0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\lang1024\langfe1024\noproof\insrsid11105442 {\shp{\*\shpinst\shpleft1440\shptop0\shpright10800\shpbottom19\shpfhdr1\shpbxpage\shpbxignore\shpbypara\shpbyignore\shpwr3\shpwrk0\shpfblwtxt1\shpz0\shplockanchor\shplid2049{\sp{\sn shapeType}{\sv 1}}{\sp{\sn fFlipH}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fFlipV}{\sv 0}} {\sp{\sn fillColor}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fillBackColor}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fFilled}{\sv 1}}{\sp{\sn lineWidth}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fLine}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fShadow}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn posrelh}{\sv 1}}{\sp{\sn fLayoutInCell}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fBehindDocument}{\sv 1}} {\sp{\sn fLayoutInCell}{\sv 0}}}{\shprslt{\*\do\dobxpage\dobypara\dodhgt0\dprect\dpx1440\dpy0\dpxsize9360\dpysize19\dpfillfgcr0\dpfillfgcg0\dpfillfgcb0\dpfillbgcr0\dpfillbgcg0\dpfillbgcb0\dpfillpat1\dplinehollow}}}}{\insrsid13838465 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\insrsid13838465 \par }}{\*\pnseclvl1\pnucrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl2\pnucltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl3\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl4\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta )}} {\*\pnseclvl5\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl6\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl7\pnlcrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl8 \pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl9\pnlcrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}\pard\plain \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid11105442 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\b\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM}{\insrsid11105442 \par \par }{\b\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 GERALDINE T. GUTIERREZ, CARLA H. GUTIERREZ,}{\b\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 \par }{\b\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 HANNAH M.T. GUTIERREZ, and CARL T. GUTIERREZ, II}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 \par Plaintiffs/Appellees/Cross\_Appellants. \par \par }{\b\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 vs.}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 \par }{\b\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 \par }{\b\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 MARK C. CHARFAUROS,}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 \par Defendant/Appellant/Cross\_Appellee.}{\insrsid11105442 \par \par }{\b\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 OPINION}{\insrsid11105442 \par \par }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 Supreme Court Case No. CVA00-001 \par Superior Court Case No. CV0796-97}{\insrsid11105442 \par \par }{\b\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 Filed:}{\b\insrsid11105442 }{\b\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 May 16, 2002}{\insrsid11105442 \par \par }{\b\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 Cite as:}{\b\insrsid11105442 }{\b\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 2002 Guam 7}{\insrsid11105442 \par \par }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 Appeal from the Superior Court of Guam \par Argued and submitted on May 14, 2001 \par Hag\'e5t\'f1a, Guam}{\insrsid11105442 \par }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 \par }\trowd \irow0\irowband0\lastrow \ts11\trqc\trgaph120\trleft-120\trftsWidth1\trpaddl120\trpaddr120\trpaddfl3\trpaddfr3 \clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrnone \clbrdrl\brdrnone \clbrdrb\brdrnone \clbrdrr\brdrnone \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4680\clshdrawnil \cellx4560\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrnone \clbrdrl\brdrnone \clbrdrb\brdrnone \clbrdrr\brdrnone \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4680\clshdrawnil \cellx9240\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\intbl\faauto\rin0\lin0\pararsid11105442 {\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 \par }{\ul\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 For Plaintiffs/Appellees/Cross-Appellants:}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 \par Sandra D. Lynch, Esq. \par Brooks Lynch & Tydingco, LLP \par Suite 101, C&A Professional Bldg. \par }\pard \ql \fi-1440\li1440\ri0\nowidctlpar\intbl\tx-1440\faauto\rin0\lin1440\pararsid11105442 {\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 259 Martyr St.\tab \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\intbl\faauto\rin0\lin0\pararsid11105442 {\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 Hag\'e5t\'f1a, Guam 96910\cell \par }{\ul\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 For Defendant/Appellant/Cross-Appellee:}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 \par Curtis Van de Veld, Esq. \par Moylan & Van de Veld \par Suite 213 Union Bank Bldg. \par 194 Hernan Cortez Avenue \par Hag\'e5t\'f1a, Guam 96910\cell }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\intbl\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0 {\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 \trowd \irow0\irowband0\lastrow \ts11\trqc\trgaph120\trleft-120\trftsWidth1\trpaddl120\trpaddr120\trpaddfl3\trpaddfr3 \clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrnone \clbrdrl\brdrnone \clbrdrb\brdrnone \clbrdrr\brdrnone \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4680\clshdrawnil \cellx4560\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrnone \clbrdrl\brdrnone \clbrdrb\brdrnone \clbrdrr\brdrnone \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4680\clshdrawnil \cellx9240\row }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid11105442 {\insrsid11105442 \par }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 BEFORE:}{\insrsid11105442 }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 PETER C. SIGUENZA, JR., Chief Justice}{\cs15\super\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid13838465 \chftn }{\fs20\insrsid13838465 Chief Justice Benjamin J. F. Cruz recused himself from this matter. As the senior member of the panel, Justice Peter C. Siguenza, Jr., was appointed Acting Chief Justice, and at the time of publication of this opinion is the Chief Justice of Guam.}}}{ \insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 ; JOHN A. MANGLONA, Designated Justice; RICHARD H. BENSON, Justice Pro Tempore. \par \par }{\b\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 SIGUENZA, C.J.}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 : \par }{\b\insrsid11105442 \par }{\b\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 [1]}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 \tab Members of Governor Carl T.C. Gutierrez}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 s immediate family brought suit for defamation of character against Senator Mark C. Charfauros for statements he made to the local news media.}{\insrsid11105442 }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 Senator Charfauros filed a counter-claim for defamation of character against the First Lady of Guam, Geraldine T. Gutierrez for a statement she made at a press conference in response to Senator Charfauros}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 remarks.}{\insrsid11105442 }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 The jury found Senator Charfauros liable for slander and libel against Geraldine T. Gutierrez, Carla H. Gutierrez, Hannah M. Gutierrez, and Carl T. Gutierrez II.}{\insrsid11105442 }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 He appeals the verdict against him.}{ \insrsid11105442 }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 The jury also found Geraldine T. Gutierrez liable for slander against Senator Charfauros.}{\insrsid11105442 }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 She cross-appeals the verdict against her.}{ \insrsid11105442 }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 Upon review of the issues, the Judgment against Senator Charfauros is vacated and the matter is remanded for a new trial.}{\insrsid11105442 }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 The Judgment against Geraldine T. Gutierrez is affirmed. \par \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid11105442 {\b\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 I.}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid11105442 {\b\insrsid11105442 \par }{\b\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 [2]}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 \tab The Defendant/Appellant/Cross-Appellee Mark C. Charfauros (}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt \f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 Charfauros}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 ), a senator of the Guam Legislature at the time of the incident, transmitted a letter to the Attorney General of Guam and participated in an interview with a local television station (}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 KUAM}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 ) wherein he made statements regarding the involvement of Governor Carl T.C. Gutierrez}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 s immediate family in a drug bust at the Golden Motel, Tamuning, Guam.}{\insrsid11105442 }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 Charfauros stated: \par \par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid11105442 {\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 I think that particular police raids a . . . it was alleged that one of the members of the Governor}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 s immediate family was apprehended as one of the groups of individual taken in.}{\insrsid11105442 }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 A certain police officer . . . as a favor to the Governor basically removed this family member and made sure that there was no reference to this incident... leading back to the Governor}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 s office or the Office of the Governor. \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid11105442 {\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 \par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid11105442 {\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 Ye s... But basically several months ago, we received... a tip that an incident had occurred in regards to a sting operation at the Golden Motel and that this sting operation netted a close family member of the Governor}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 s family. \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid11105442 {\insrsid11105442 \par }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 At a subsequent press conference, Plaintiff/Appellee/Cross-Appellant Geraldine T. Gutierrez (}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 Geraldine}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 ) denied Charfauros}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 statements and stated: }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt \f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 it would take a very sick liar to make this up.}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13838465 \par }{\insrsid11105442\charrsid11105442 \par }{\b\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 [3]}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 \tab Charfauros}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 refusal to retract his statements led Geraldine, Carla H. Gutierrez (}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 Carla}{ \insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 ), Hannah M. Gutierrez (}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 Hannah}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 ), and Carl T. Gutierrez, II (}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 Carl II}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 ) to sue Charfauros for slander and libel.}{\insrsid11105442 }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 Charfauros answered the Gutierrezes}{ \insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 lawsuit and counter-claimed against Geraldine for defamation based on her statement against him. \par }{\b\insrsid11105442 \par }{\b\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 [4]}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 \tab Thereafter, Geraldine, Carla, and Hannah Gutierrez moved for summary judgment on the issue of liability.}{\insrsid11105442 }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 In an order issued on March 31, 1999, the trial court denied summary judgment.}{\insrsid11105442 }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 However, in that same order, the trial court made the following findings:}{\insrsid11105442 }{ \insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 (1) that Charfauros}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 statement was false as to Geraldine, Carla, and Hannah; (2) that Geraldine was a public figure; (3) that Charfauros}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 statement was not protected under either a legislative or executive privilege; and (4) that Geraldine, Carla, Hannah, and Carl could all maintain a cause of action against Charfauros for slander.}{\insrsid11105442 }{ \insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 On October 25, 1999, just days prior to trial, Charfauros filed his own summary judgment motion which the court summarily denied as untimely.}{\insrsid11105442 }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 On October 26, 1999, Charfauros filed a notice of appeal and an emergency motion seeking interlocutory review of the March 1999 Order denying the Plaintiff}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 s Motion for Summary Judgment.}{\insrsid11105442 }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 This court denied interlocutory review and dismissed the appeal as untimely.}{\insrsid11105442 }{ \i\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 Gutierrez v. Charfauros}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 , CVA99-045 (Supreme Ct. Guam Oct. 27, 1999). \par }{\b\insrsid11105442 \par }{\b\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 [5]}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 \tab The case proceeded to a trial by jury.}{\insrsid11105442 }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 At the close of the Gutierrezes}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 case-in-chief and again at the close of his own case-in-chief, Charfauros moved for directed verdict.}{\insrsid11105442 }{ \insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 The trial court denied both motions.}{\insrsid11105442 }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 The jury returned a verdict finding Charfauros liable for slander and libel against all the Gutierrezes, but awarded compensatory damages of $25,000 each to Geraldine and Hannah only.}{\insrsid11105442 }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 With respect to Charfauros}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 counter-claim, the jury found Geraldine liable for slander but awarded no damages. \par }{\b\insrsid11105442 \par }{\b\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 [6]}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 \tab After entry of the judgment, Geraldine filed a Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict (}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 JNOV}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 ) pursuant to Guam Rule of Civil Procedure 50(b).}{\insrsid11105442 }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 This}{\insrsid11105442 }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 motion tolled the time for filing a notice of appeal.}{\insrsid11105442 }{ \insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 However, prior to the trial court}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 s disposition of the JNOV motion, Charfauros filed a Notice of Appeal indicating that he was appealing the judgment.}{\insrsid11105442 }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 This appeal was dismissed as untimely in light of the pending JNOV motion.}{ \insrsid11105442 }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 The trial court subsequently denied Geraldine}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 s JNOV motion.}{\insrsid11105442 }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 At this point, Charfauros filed a Further Notice of Appeal Pursuant to Guam Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(b), wherein he indicated that he was appealing not only the final Judgment, but also the March 1999 Order denying the Plaintiffs}{ \insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 Motion for Summary Judgment.}{\insrsid11105442 }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 This court subsequently ruled that Charfauros could not appeal the March 1999 Order.}{\insrsid11105442 }{\i\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 Gutierrez v. Charfauros}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 , CVA00-001 (Supreme Ct. Guam Feb. 28, 2000). \par }{\b\insrsid11105442 \par }{\b\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 [7]}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 \tab However, in their briefs, both parties address the issues raised by Charfauros with regard to the March 1999 summary judgment denial.}{\insrsid11105442 }{ \insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 With the benefit of the entire record and the ability to closely examine the March 1999 denial, it beco mes apparent that, although the trial court denied summary judgment, it nonetheless made specific findings, thereby narrowing the issues for trial.}{\insrsid11105442 }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 It is based upon these findings that Charfauros asserts error.}{\insrsid11105442 }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 In addition to Charfauros}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt \f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 s Appeal, we have before us Geraldine}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 s Cross-Appeal, in which she appeals the jury verdict finding her liable for slander against Charfauros. \par \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid11105442 {\b\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 II}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 . \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid11105442 {\b\insrsid11105442 \par }{\b\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 [8]}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 \tab The court has jurisdiction over this appeal and cross-appeal from a final judgment.}{\insrsid11105442 }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 Title 7 GCA }{ \insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 3107 (1994). \par \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tqc\tx4680\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid11105442 {\b\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 III.}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid11105442 {\b\insrsid11105442 \par }{\b\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 A.\tab Denial of Summary Judgment}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 \par }{\b\insrsid11105442 \par }{\b\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 [9]}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 \tab Charfauros}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 appeal presents a threshold question of whether this court has jurisdiction to review the March 1999 Order denying summary judgment.}{\insrsid11105442 }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 The majority of jurisdictions have determined that a denial of summary judgment is not reviewable after trial.}{\insrsid11105442 }{\i\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 See, e.g., Morgan v. Am. Univ.}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 , 534 A.2d 323, 326 (D.C. 1987); }{\i\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 Lum v. City & County of Honolulu}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 , 963 F.2d 1167, 1170 (9th Cir. 1992); }{\i\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 Chesapeake Paper Prods. Co. v. Stone & Webster Eng}{\i\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\i\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 g Corp.}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 , 51 F.3d 1229, 1236 (4th Cir. 1995).}{\insrsid11105442 }{\i\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 But see Larsen v. Pacesetter Systems, Inc.}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 , 837 P.2d 1273, 1283 (Haw. 1992) (reviewing the denial of a summary judgment motion after trial because the issue was one of law and not fact). \par }{\b\insrsid11105442 \par }{\b\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 [10]}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 \tab However, upon review of the trial court}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 s March 1999 order denying summary judgment, it becomes apparent that the trial court, although denying summary judgment, proceeded to make certain factual and legal findings which narrowed the scope of the issues presented to the jury at trial.}{ \insrsid11105442 }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 Thus, we construe the trial court}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 s }{ \insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 denial}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 of summary judgment to be a grant of partial summary judgment.}{\insrsid11105442 }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 The granting of a partial summary judgment is reviewable after a final judgment is entered.}{\insrsid11105442 }{\i\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 Aaro, Inc. v. Daewood Int}{\i\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\i\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 l (Am.) Corp.}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 , 755 F.2d 1398, 1400 (11th Cir. 1985). This is because summary judgment on less than the entire litigation is not appealable as of right, Title 7 GCA }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 3108(b) (1994), and thus }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 the order was merged into the final judgment and is open to review on appeal from that judgment.}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid11105442 }{ \i\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 Aaro}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 , 755 F.2d at 1400. \par }{\b\insrsid11105442 \par }{\b\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 [11]}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 \tab In dismissing Charfauros}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 appeal of the March 1999 Order, this court chose not to invoke jurisdiction, pursuant to its powers of interlocutory review, because the matter was brought nearly seven months after the trial court}{ \insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 s r uling, underscoring the absurdity of this court reviewing the matter under an emergency motion, and because the matter was scheduled for trial in two days.}{\insrsid11105442 }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 However, we now review Charfauros}{ \insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 challenges to the March 1999 Order inasmuch as those issues are now a part of the final judgment. \par }{\b\insrsid11105442 \par }{\b\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 B.\tab Charfauros}{\b\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\b\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 Appeal}{ \insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 \par }{\b\insrsid11105442 \par }{\b\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 [12]}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 \tab We review of a partial grant of summary judgment }{\i\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 de novo}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 .}{\insrsid11105442 }{ \i\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 Fajardo v. Liberty House}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 , 2000 Guam 4, }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 1 and 5.}{\insrsid11105442 }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 If the movant can demonstrate that there are no genuine issues of material fact, the non-movant cannot merely rely on a llegations contained in the complaint, but must produce at least some significant probative evidence tending to support the complaint.}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}} {\insrsid11105442 }{\i\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 Iizuka Corp. v. Kawasho Int}{\i\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\i\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 l ( GUAM), Inc., }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 1997 Guam 10, }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 8.}{\insrsid11105442 }{ \insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 In addition, the court must view the evidence and draw inferences in the light most favorable to the non-movant. }{\i\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 Id}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 . \par }{\b\insrsid11105442 \par }{\b\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 [13]}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 \tab In granting partial summary judgment, the trial court may determine the triable issues of fact, and make findings as to the facts which appear to be uncontroverted.}{ \insrsid11105442 }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 Guam R. Civ. P. 56(d).}{\cs15\super\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid13838465 \chftn }{\insrsid13838465 }{\fs20\insrsid13838465 This rule provides: \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid13838465 \par }\pard \qj \li1440\ri1440\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin1440\lin1440\itap0 {\b\fs20\insrsid13838465 Case Not Fully Adjudicated On Motion}{\fs20\insrsid13838465 . If on a motion under this rule judgment is not rendered upon the whole case or for all the relief asked and a trial is necessary, the court at the hearing of the motion, by examining the pleadings and the evidence before it and by interrogating counsel, shall i f practicable, ascertain what material facts exist without substantial controversy and what material facts are actually and in good faith controverted. It shall thereupon make an order specifying the facts that appear without substantial controversy, inclu d ing the extent to which the amount of damages or other relief is not in controversy, and directing such further proceedings in the action as are just. Upon the trial of the action, the facts so specified shall be deemed established, and the trial shall be conducted accordingly. \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid13838465 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid13838465 Guam R. Civ. P. 56(d).}}}{\insrsid11105442 }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 At trial, the facts previously determined will be deemed established.}{\insrsid11105442 }{ \insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 This narrowing of the scope of the trial is akin to a court}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 s pre-trial order issued pursuant to Guam Rule of Civil Procedure 16. \par }{\b\insrsid11105442 \par }{\b\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 [14]}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 \tab In the instant case, the trial court granted partial summary judgment by determining that:}{\insrsid11105442 }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 (1) Charfauros}{ \insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 statement was false with respect to Geraldine, Carla, and Ha nnah; (2) Geraldine was a public figure; (3) Charfauros}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 statement was not protected under either a legislative or executive privilege; and (4) Geraldine, Carla, Hannah, and Carl could each maintain a cause of action against Charfauros for slander.}{\insrsid11105442 }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 Charfauros appeals the first, third, and fourth findings.}{\insrsid11105442 }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 Charfauros also appeals from the trial court}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 s jury instruction regarding malice. \par }{\b\insrsid11105442 \par }\pard \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid11105442 {\b\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 1.\tab Falsity of the Statement}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid11105442 {\b\insrsid11105442 \par }{\b\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 [15]}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 \tab In granting partial summary judgment, the trial court found that as to Geraldine, Hannah, and Carla, Charfauros}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 statement was not true.}{\insrsid11105442 }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 This finding was based on two facts: (1) that Charfauros}{ \insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 statement was only directed at a single member of the group; and (2) that Charfauros admitted that Geraldine, Carla, and Hannah were not the members to which the statement was directed.}{\cs15\super\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid13838465 \chftn }{\insrsid13838465 }{\fs20\insrsid13838465 The interrogatory and answer being refer red to are as follows: \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid13838465 \par }\pard \qj \li1440\ri1440\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin1440\lin1440\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid13838465 Interrogatory No. 3: Please identify the member of Governor Carl T.C. Gutierrez}{\fs20\insrsid13838465 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid13838465 s immediate family that was allegedly netted at a sting operation at the Golden Motel. \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid13838465 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid13838465 Response: Carl T. Gutierrez, II; Roy Gutierrez. }}}{\insrsid11105442 }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 Thus, the court held that as to these three plaintiffs, the statement was false. \par }{\b\insrsid11105442 \par }{\b\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 [16]}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 \tab Charfauros argues that the court}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 s finding as to the statement}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 s falsity was wrong because the context within which the statement was made clearly revealed that Charfauros was only reporting what he was told.}{\insrsid11105442 }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 Thus, his statement that he }{ \insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 received a tip}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 which implicated the Governor}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 s family was in fact a true statement inasmuch as he did receive an anonymous tip implicating the Governor}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt \f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 s family.}{\insrsid11105442 }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 Furthermore, Charfauros argues that the statement itself admits that it is not a factual assertion and therefore cannot be legally defamatory.} {\insrsid11105442 }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 \par }{\b\insrsid11105442 \par }{\b\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 [17]}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 \tab Charfauros was found to be liable for libel and slander.}{\insrsid11105442 }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 Libel is a false and unprivileged publication by writing, printing, picture, effigy, or other fixed representation to the eye, which exposes any person to hatred, contempt, ridicule, or obloquy, or which causes him to be shunned or avoided, or which has a tendency to injure him in his occupation.}{ \insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid11105442 }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 Title 19 GCA }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 2103 (1993).}{\insrsid11105442 }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 \par }{\b\insrsid11105442 \par }{\b\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 [18]}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 \tab Slander is }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 a false and unprivileged publication other than libel,}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 which charges a person with a crime, imputes in him a disease, directly injures his profession, imputes impotence or want of chastity, or which by natural consequences causes actual damage.}{\insrsid11105442 }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 Title 19 GCA }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 2104 (1993).}{\insrsid11105442 }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 Thus, whether the statement is false is the initial determination.}{\insrsid11105442 }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 In this respect }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt \f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 [a] publication claimed to be defamatory must be read and construed in the sense in which the readers to whom it is addressed would ordinarily understand it.}{\insrsid11105442 }{ \insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 So the whole item, including display lines, should be read and construed together, and its meaning and signification thus determined.}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid11105442 }{\i\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 Wash. Post Co., v. Chaloner}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 , 250 U.S. 290, 293, 39 S. Ct. 448, 448 (1919) (citation omitted).}{ \insrsid11105442 }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 Furthermore, the defamatory}{\b\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 \_}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 meaning element of a defamation action must be interpreted in light of the context surrounding the alleged defamatory statement.}{\i\insrsid11105442 }{\i\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 Schlieman v. Gannet Minn. Broad}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 ., 637 N.W.2d 297, 304 (Minn. Ct. App. 2001).}{\insrsid11105442 }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 Context is critical to meaning because a false statement that is defamatory on its face may not be defamatory when read in context, and a statement that is not defamatory on its face may, in fact, be defamatory when read in context.}{ \insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid11105442 }{\i\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 Id.}{\i\insrsid11105442 }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 \par }{\b\insrsid11105442 \par }{\b\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 [19]}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 \tab }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 Under the reasoning of the}{\i\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 Chaloner}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 and }{\i\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 Schlieman}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 cases, the finding made by the trial court on the falsity of Charfauros}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 statement was a disputed issue of fact.}{ \insrsid11105442 }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 Viewed in a light most favorable to Charfauros, if interpreted in its entire context, the statement could be construed as true with respect to one specific member of the Governor's family.}{ \insrsid11105442 }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 The record at the time of summary judgment was insufficient to allow the trial court to make its finding.}{\insrsid11105442 }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 Therefore, summary judgment and the trial court}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 s instruction to the jury on this issue was inappropriate, and the judgment must be vacated.}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 \par }{\b\insrsid11105442 \par }\pard \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid11105442 {\b\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 2.\tab Privileged Speech}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid11105442 {\b\insrsid11105442 \par }\pard \qj \fi1440\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid11105442 {\b\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 a.\tab Legislative privilege}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid11105442 {\b\insrsid11105442 \par }{\b\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 [20]}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 \tab The trial court rejected Charfauros argument that his statements were privileged and protected legislative activity.}{\insrsid11105442 }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 The Speech or Debate Clause of the Organic Act provides that }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 [n]o member of the legislature shall be held to answer before any tribunal other than the legislature itself for any speech or debate in the Legislature.}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 48 U.S.C. }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 1423c(b)(1950).}{\insrsid11105442 }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 This court has previously stated that }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 [t]he Speech or Debate Clause bestows immunity upon lawmakers for speech or debate occurring during session.}{\insrsid11105442 }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 If found to apply, it serves as an absolute bar to interference. . . .}{\insrsid11105442 }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 However, as determined by the courts, such actions must first fall into the }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 sphere of legitimate legislative activity}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 before the privilege shields a legislator.}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid11105442 }{ \i\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 Hamlet v. Charfauros}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 , 1999 Guam 18, }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 10, 12 (citations omitted). \par }{\b\insrsid11105442 \par }{\b\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 [21]}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 \tab In the instant case, Charfauros was a senator in the Twenty-Fourth Guam Legislature at the time the statements were made; however, the statements were not made while the Legislature was in session.}{\insrsid11105442 }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 Thus, the inquiry begins with whether the statements were made within the sphere of legitimate legislative activity.}{\insrsid11105442 }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 Publication in this case was made on two different fronts:}{\insrsid11105442 }{ \insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 (1) the letter to the Attorney General; and (2) the interview with KUAM regarding the letter. \par }{\b\insrsid11105442 \par }{\b\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 [22]}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 \tab Charfauros argues that his letter to the Attorney General was prompted by the proposed investigation of the events which took place at the Golden Motel.}{\insrsid11105442 }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 His statements to KUAM were made out of his duty under the Open Government laws to keep the public informed.}{\insrsid11105442 }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 He maintains that he did not conduct a press conference, but instead merely responded to the inquiry of the media.}{\insrsid11105442 }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 Charfauros concludes that his duty to inform the public of the on-going investigation of government corruption constitutes protected legitimate legislative activity. \par \par }{\b\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 [23]}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 \tab However, the Gutierrezes contend that, although generally legislative immunity is available for statements made at legislative committee hearings, statements made outside the legislative sphere are not protected.}{\insrsid11105442 }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 In support of their argument, the Gutierrezes cite a lower court case, }{\i\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 Rodriguez v. Santos}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 , Civil Case No. CV1083-97 (Nov. 20, 1998), wherein a senator made statements regarding the plaintiff}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 s involvement in official misconduct. The }{\i\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 Rodriguez}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 court found that the statements wer e not protected speech as the senator could not demonstrate that the information was a product of legislative committee hearings or that the information fulfilled any other legislative purpose.}{\insrsid11105442 }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 \par }{\b\insrsid11105442 \par }{\b\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 [24]}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 \tab In determining whether speech is within the sphere of legitimate legislative activity, the challenged acts must be }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 an integral part of the deliberative and communicative processes}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 wherein legislators participate in committee or floor proceedings in regards to legislative or other matters before the legislature.}{\insrsid11105442 }{ \i\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 Hamlet}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 , 1999 Guam 18 at }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 13.}{\insrsid11105442 }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 Both informal and formal acquisition of information may be privileged. }{\i\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 Wilkinson v. O}{\i\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\i\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 Neil, }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 DC Civ. App. No. 81-0100A, 1983 WL 30230 }{\insrsid11105442 at *3 (D. Guam App. Div. 1983).}{\insrsid13838465 \par }{\insrsid11105442\charrsid11105442 \par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid11105442 {\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 In legislative immunity analysis the term }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 acquisition}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 connotes a degree of active participation by a legislator in the information-gathering process.}{\insrsid11105442 }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 The finite limit of the qualified protective shield afforded by the Guam Organic Act}{ \insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 s Speech or Debate C lause is the point at which a legislator ceases to be the active catalyst that induces the provision of information and instead becomes the passive recipient of information provided by an outside source at the source}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 s own election. \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid11105442 {\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 \par }{\i\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 Id.}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 1983 WL 30230 at *4.}{\insrsid11105442 }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 In }{\i\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 Wilkinson}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 , a senator had actively initiated contact with a source to obtain information in conjunction with an upcoming legislative committee hearing.}{\insrsid11105442 }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 Wilkinson sought discovery of that information, but t he court deemed it protected and the parties did not dispute that the information was obtained by the senator for legislative purposes.}{\insrsid11105442 }{\i\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 Id.}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 \par }{\b\insrsid11105442 \par }{\b\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 [25]}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 \tab The case at bar is similar to }{\i\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 Rodriguez}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 and distinguishable from}{ \i\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 Wilkinson}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 and }{\i\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 Hamlet}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 .}{\insrsid11105442 }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 Even if the court were to accept Charfauros}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 position that he did not disseminate the information to the public through the media, but that he was approached and properly responded to questioning on the}{\insrsid11105442 }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 priva te publication of the information through his letter to the Attorney General, he cannot avoid}{\insrsid11105442 }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 the fact that the information would have to have been a product of legitimate legislative activity in order to acquire the protection of legislative immunity.}{\insrsid11105442 }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 Unlike }{ \i\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 Hamlet }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 or}{\i\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 Wilkinson}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 , in the instant case,}{\insrsid11105442 }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 the information was not gathered in relation to an upcoming or pending legislative committee hearing, it did not concern any proposed legislation, and it was not in any manner a part of the communicative process of the legislature.}{\insrsid11105442 }{ \insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 Thus, Charfauros}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 statements and his publication thereof were not protected legislative activity. \par }{\b\insrsid11105442 \par }{\b\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 [26]}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 \tab Charfauros further argues immunity as a separation of powers issue, commenting that it would be inappropriate for the courts to decide the propriety or merit of his investigation of government corruption.}{\insrsid11105442 }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 Citing}{\i\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 Doe v. McMillan}{ \insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 , 412 U.S. 306, 93 S. Ct. 2018 (1973), Charfauros asserts that what constitutes legislative activity is not within the court}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 s purview to determine.}{\insrsid11105442 }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 In }{\i\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 Doe}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 , the United States Supreme Court found that the compilation and publication of a report on District of Columbia school children, authorized by resolution of the House of Representatives, was within the sphere of legislative activity and protected by the Speech or Debate Clause.}{\insrsid11105442 }{\i\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 Doe, }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 412 U.S. at 314-15, 93 S. Ct. at 2025-26.}{ \insrsid11105442 }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 However, the Supreme Court stated:}{\insrsid13838465 \par }{\insrsid11105442\charrsid11105442 \par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid11105442 {\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 Our cases make perfectly apparent, however, that everything a Member of Congress may regularly do is not a legislative act within the protection of the Speech or Debate Clause.}{\insrsid11105442 }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 The Clause has not been extended beyond the legislative sphere, and legislative acts are not all\_encompassing. . . .}{\insrsid11105442 }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 Members of Congress may frequently be in touch with and seek to influence the Executive Branch of Government, but this conduct though generally done, is not protected legislative activity. \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid11105442 {\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 \par }{\i\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 Id.}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 412 U.S. at 313, 93 S. Ct. at 2025.}{\insrsid11105442 }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 The Supreme Court determined whether the public republication of a congressionally authorized report was within the sphere of legislative activity.}{\insrsid11105442 }{\i\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 Id.}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 \par }{\b\insrsid11105442 \par }{\b\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 [27]}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 \tab In the case at bar, we do the same.}{\insrsid11105442 }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 Our determination here is limited to whether Charfauros}{ \insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 publication of information he received was within the protected legislative sphere.}{ \insrsid11105442 }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 We do not comment on the propriety of any legislative investigation.}{\insrsid11105442 }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 Charfauros}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 argument here is misplaced and we reject it.}{\insrsid13838465 \par }{\insrsid11105442\charrsid11105442 \par }\pard \qj \fi1440\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid11105442 {\b\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 b.\tab Executive Privilege}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid11105442 {\b\insrsid11105442 \par }{\b\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 [28]}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 \tab Charfauros further seeks protection under a judicial extension of the executive privilege for all government employees in relation to liability for defamation suits.}{ \insrsid11105442 }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 Citing the case of }{\i\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 Barr v. Matteo}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 , 360 U.S. 564, 79 S. Ct. 1335 (1959), Charfauros claims his actions were absolutely privileged.}{\insrsid11105442 }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 However, subsequent case law has recognized only qualified immunity under this privilege.}{ \cs15\super\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid13838465 \chftn }{\insrsid13838465 }{ \i\fs20\insrsid13838465 See Westfall v. Erwin}{\fs20\insrsid13838465 , 484 U.S. 292, 297, 108 S. Ct. 580, 584 (1988) (recognizing }{\i\fs20\insrsid13838465 Barr}{\fs20\insrsid13838465 and stating: }{\fs20\insrsid13838465 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid13838465 absolute immunity from state\_law tort actions should be available only when the conduct of federal officials is within the scope of their official duties }{ \i\fs20\insrsid13838465 and}{\fs20\insrsid13838465 the conduct is discretionary in nature.}{\fs20\insrsid13838465 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid13838465 ). }{\i\fs20\insrsid13838465 Westfall}{\fs20\insrsid13838465 was overruled by statute as noted in }{\i\fs20\insrsid13838465 Robinson v. Egnor}{\fs20\insrsid13838465 , 699 F. Supp. 1207 (E.D. Va. 1988). In }{\i\fs20\insrsid13838465 Westfall}{\fs20\insrsid13838465 , the Supreme Court invited Congress to change the law regarding absolute immunity for federal employees whose activities fell within the scope of their employment, and Congress obliged. }{\i\fs20\insrsid13838465 Robinson}{\fs20\insrsid13838465 , 699 F. Supp. at 1214. In the instant case, other than the Organic Act Speech or Debate Clause, Charfauros does not claim immunity by statute, and we could find none that applies to him. }}}{\insrsid11105442 }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 Moreover, the same problem raised by his arguments, as they related to the Speech or Debate Clause, are present here.}{\insrsid11105442 }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 The statements are privileged only if they are related to the exercise of Charfauros}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 duties as a senator.}{\insrsid11105442 }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 Because we find that Charfauros failed to meet this identical burden with regard to the Speech and Debate Clause, further analysis here is unnecessary. \par }{\b\insrsid11105442 \par }\pard \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid11105442 {\b\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 3.\tab Actionability}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid11105442 {\b\insrsid11105442 \par }{\b\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 [29]}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 \tab The trial court further held, despite recognizing that Charfauros}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 statement was directed at only one member of the Governor}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 s immediate family, that Geraldine, Carla, Hannah, and Carl II could each maintain a separate cause of action for defamation.}{\insrsid11105442 }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 The trial court followed the reasoning in }{\i\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 Golden N. Airways v. Tanana Publ}{\i\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \i\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 g Co}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 ., 218 F.2d 612 (9th Cir. 1955) and found that because the group at issue was so small, the defamatory statement implicated any one of the four plaintiffs.}{\insrsid11105442 }{ \insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 The issue here is whether the trial court was correct in determining that no disputed issues of material fact existed with respect to actionability. \par \par }{\b\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 [30]}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 \tab Whether an action will lie when the defamation directed is against a group of people depends upon the size of the group.}{\insrsid11105442 }{ \i\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 See}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 }{\i\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 Arcand v. Evening Call Publ}{\i\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt \f36\fs24}}}{\i\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 g Co.}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 , 567 F.2d 1163, 1164 (1st Cir. 1977).}{\insrsid11105442 }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 Generally, if the defamation involves a large group of people, an individual will have no cause of action unless he can show that a }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 special application of the defamatory matter to himself.}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid11105442 }{ \i\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 Id. }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 at 1164 (citation omitted).}{\insrsid11105442 }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 If the defamation involves a small group of people and the defamatory statement applies to all members of that group, a civil action will lie.}{\insrsid11105442 }{\i\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 Id.}{\insrsid11105442 }{ \insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 However, jurisdictions differ over whether a defamatory statement directed at only a part of a small group, not to the group as a whole, can give rise to a cause of action.}{\insrsid11105442 }{ \i\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 Id.}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 at 1164-65. \par }{\b\insrsid11105442 \par }{\b\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 [31]}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 \tab In the case followed by the tri al court, an action for libel was brought by Golden North Airways against a newspaper publisher over an editorial regarding non-scheduled air carriers in Alaska.}{\insrsid11105442 }{\i\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 Golden N. Airways}{ \insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 , 218 F.2d at 615.}{\insrsid11105442 }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 Golden North Airways alleged in its complaint that the e ditorial libeled all non-scheduled air carriers operating in Alaska at the time of publication.}{\insrsid11105442 }{\i\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 Id.}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 at 617-18.}{\insrsid11105442 }{ \insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 Because the editorial did not specifically name any corporation, the }{\i\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 Golden North Airways}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 court examined the doctrine of group libel and cited the Restatement, which notes the significance of group size in determining whether a plaintiff}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 s claim is actionable.}{\insrsid11105442 }{\i\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 Id.}{\i\insrsid11105442 }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 In the case at bar, the trial court extracted the following language from the }{ \i\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 Golden North Airways}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 case:}{\insrsid13838465 \par }{\insrsid11105442\charrsid11105442 \par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid11105442 {\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 [A] libel directed at any group may form the foundation of an action by an individual if the group is small enough so that a person reading the article may readily identify the person as one of the group . . . .}{\insrsid11105442 }{ \insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 However, if the group is so large that there is no likelihood that a reader would understand that article to refer to any particular member of the group, it is not libelous. \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid11105442 {\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 \par Appellant}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 s Excerpts of Record vol. 1, tab 7 (Decision and Order p. 22 (citing }{ \i\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 Golden N. Airways}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 , 218 F.2d at 618)). \par \par }{\b\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 [32]}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 \tab We find that }{\i\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 Golden North Airways}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 is distinguishable and inapplicable to the case at bar.}{ \insrsid11105442 }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 As stated in the above quotation, the }{\i\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 Golden North Airways}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 court was referring to a libelous statement directed at a group as a whole.}{\insrsid11105442 }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 In the present case, Charfauros}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 statement was directed at only a single member of the group.}{\insrsid11105442 }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 Moreover, in }{\i\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 Golden North Airways}{ \insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 , the appeal was from a jury verdict and not from a grant of summary judgment.}{\insrsid11105442 }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 Thus, actionability had been decided only after the presentation of evidence and not before, as occurred in our case.}{\insrsid11105442 }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 Last, the plaintiff}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 s claim in }{\i\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 Golden North Airways}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 was held not to be actionable.}{\insrsid11105442 }{ \insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 Although the jury had rendered a verdict awarding damages to Golden North Airways for libel, it also entered a special verdict finding that the statements in the editorial did not refer to all the members of the group.}{ \insrsid11105442 }{\i\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 Id.}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 at 621.}{\insrsid11105442 }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 Despite the fact that the group size was fairly small, consisting of only five to ten members, the appellate court held that the special verdict equated to a finding by the jury of no actionability, thereby nullifying the general verdict.}{ \cs15\super\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid13838465 \chftn }{\fs20\insrsid13838465 The appellate court not only nullified the verdict, but also affirmed the entry of judgment in favor of the publisher due to the fact that the statements were determined to be non-libelous. }{\i\fs20\insrsid13838465 Golden N. Airways, }{ \fs20\insrsid13838465 218 F.2d at 621.}}}{\insrsid11105442 }{\i\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 Id.}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 \par }{\b\insrsid11105442 \par }{\b\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 [33]}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 \tab More on point is the case of }{\i\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 Chapman v. Byrd}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 , 475 S.E.2d 734 (N.C. App. 1996).}{\insrsid11105442 }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 In }{\i\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 Chapman}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 , the plaintiffs sued for defamation based upon the publication of statements which indicated that an employee at a certain building had Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS).}{\insrsid11105442 }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 The }{ \i\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 Chapman}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 court stated that to maintain a defamation claim, the defamatory words must refer to some ascertainable person who must be the plaintiff.}{\insrsid11105442 }{ \i\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 Id.}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 at 737.}{\insrsid11105442 }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 If the words contain no reflection on a particular individual they are not defamatory.}{\insrsid11105442 }{ \i\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 Id}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 .}{\insrsid11105442 }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 The }{\i\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 Chapman}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 court reviewed several cases, noting that most of the cases where actionability was found were factually inapposite because they referred to situations where the entire group was defamed or where some or most of the members had been defamed, unlike the situation in }{\i\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 Chapman}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 and in the case at bar, where the statement referred to only one member of a group.}{\insrsid11105442 }{ \i\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 Id.}{\insrsid11105442 }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 The }{\i\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 Chapman}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 court ultimately determined that no cause of action could lie because the statement referred to only one member of a small group and the facts did not support a finding that the statement was of or concerning any identifiable individual.}{ \insrsid11105442 }{\i\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 Id.}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 at 738. \par }{\b\insrsid11105442 \par }{\b\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 [34]}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 \tab In the instant case, the trial court stated that the }{\i\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 Chapman}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 court found that no me mber of a small group may maintain a cause of action for defamation unless it is demonstrated that the statement was made about him particularly or specifically.}{\insrsid11105442 }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 However, this statement is overreaching.}{\insrsid11105442 }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 The }{\i\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 Chapman}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 court stated the general requirement fo r actionability, but then proceeded to examine case law regarding group libel.}{\insrsid11105442 }{\i\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 Chapman,}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 475 S.E.2d at 738.}{\insrsid11105442 }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 In its analysis, the }{\i\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 Chapman}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 court examined cases where members of a small group were able to both maintain and not maintain their causes of action.}{\insrsid11105442 }{ \insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 However, contrary to the trial court}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 s interpretation, }{ \i\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 Chapman}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 did not establish the rule that no member of a small group could maintain a cause of action for defamation without showing that he or she was the subject of the defamatory statement.}{\cs15\super\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 { \cs15\super\insrsid13838465 \chftn }{\insrsid13838465 }{\fs20\insrsid13838465 The }{\i\fs20\insrsid13838465 Chapman}{\fs20\insrsid13838465 court cited a case where one of a group of two members was defamed. }{\i\fs20\insrsid13838465 Am. Broad.-Paramount Theatres, Inc. v. Simpson}{\fs20\insrsid13838465 , 126 S.E.2d 873 (1962). However, the court ultimately determined }{\i\fs20\insrsid13838465 American Broadcasting}{\fs20\insrsid13838465 was factually distinguishable since the }{ \i\fs20\insrsid13838465 Chapman}{\fs20\insrsid13838465 group consisted of more than two members. The }{\i\fs20\insrsid13838465 American Broadcasting}{\fs20\insrsid13838465 case is illustrative in that it demonstrates an instance in which defamation directed at one member of a group can give rise to a cause of action if the group is small enough. Nevertheless, group size is a factual determination that should be made only after the parties are given the opportunity to present some evidence on that point.}}}{\insrsid11105442 }{ \insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 Instead, the court chose to distinguish its case factually from those cases where actionability was found.}{\insrsid11105442 }{\i\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 Id.}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 at 737-38. \par }{\b\insrsid11105442 \par }{\b\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 [35]}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 \tab }{\i\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 Arcand v. Evening Call Publ}{\i\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\i\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 g Co.}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 , 567 F.2d 1163 (1st Cir. 1977) is another case which illustrates that there is no actionability when a defamatory statement is directed at an unidentified member of a small group.}{\insrsid11105442 }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 In }{\i\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 Arcand}{ \insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 , a group of twenty-one police officers brought suit for defamation against a newspaper for stateme nts made regarding whether one of the officers had to call for help after locking himself in the back of a cruiser with a female companion.}{\insrsid11105442 }{\i\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 Id.}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 at 1163-64.}{ \insrsid11105442 }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 The }{\i\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 Arcand}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 court agreed with the district court}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 s dism issal of the case based upon the fact that the reference was not general enough to be libelous against the group, nor was it specific enough to refer to any particular individual in the group.}{\insrsid11105442 }{\i\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 Id.}{ \insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 at 1164.}{\insrsid11105442 }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 In quoting the lower court, the }{\i\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 Arcand}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 court aff irmed the dismissal based on no cause of action: \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin0\itap0\pararsid11105442 {\insrsid11105442 \par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid11105442 {\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 If you say 11 out of 12 people are corrupt, or if you say 20 out of 21 police officers or maybe even 12 out of 21 are corrupt, or even one out of six is corrupt, I think you would have a different situation . . . .}{\insrsid11105442 }{ \insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 I think it is a combination of the question of numbers and what was said . . . . \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid11105442 {\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 \par }{\i\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 Id.}{\cs15\super\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 { \cs15\super\insrsid13838465 \chftn }{\fs20\insrsid13838465 The }{\i\fs20\insrsid13838465 Arcand}{\fs20\insrsid13838465 court, finding no cause of action, decided that as a matter of law, the question should not go to a jury. In the instant case however, the procedural posture drives this court}{\fs20\insrsid13838465 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid13838465 s decision to remand the matter. The instant appeal is not based on a motion to dismiss filed by a defendant, but on a motion for summary judgment filed by the plaintiffs. The postur e is important because it alters the manner in which this court reviews the issue, particularly due to the absence of a record at the time of the trial court}{\fs20\insrsid13838465 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt \f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid13838465 s ruling. \tab }}}{\insrsid11105442 }{\i\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 Arcand}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 provides guidance in circums tances where the defamatory statement is directed, not at a whole or part of a group, but rather refers to only one unidentified member of a small group.}{\insrsid11105442 }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 Such a situation clearly warrants inquiry into the size of the group and other such facts in order to determine whether plaintiffs can maintain an action for defamation based on their group membership. \par }{\b\insrsid11105442 \par }{\b\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 [36]}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 \tab As a whole, the case law seems to demonstrate that group size is a factual consideration necessary in determining the ultimate question of whether a defamatory statement clearly, ascertainably, and reasonably identifies the plaintiff, thereby establishing the plaintiff}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}} {\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 s ability to maintain a cause of action.}{\cs15\super\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid13838465 \chftn }{\fs20\insrsid13838465 The court notes that during trial, testimony was elicited to indicate that the statements did not reasonably identify Geraldine as the subject of the defamatory statement. However, such testimony was not available at the time of summary judgment. This underscores and supports this court }{\fs20\insrsid13838465 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid13838465 s reversal of the trial court}{\fs20\insrsid13838465 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid13838465 s decision.}}}{\insrsid11105442 }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 In the instant case, the size of the group, which consisted of Gutierrez}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 s }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 immediate family,}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 was a factual issue that was in dispute.}{\insrsid11105442 }{ \insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 Taking all inferences in a light most favorable to Charfauros, a court could and should have assumed for purposes of the summary judgment motion, that such a statement extended beyond Gutierrez}{ \insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 s wife and children, to include his brothers, sisters, and so forth.}{\insrsid11105442 }{ \insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 Moreover, the record at the time of summary judgment was insufficient to allow the trial court to make actual findings with respect to this issue.}{\insrsid11105442 }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 Therefore, we hold that the court}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 s finding as to the actionability of the claims by Geraldine, Carla, and Hannah was inappropriate and must be reversed.}{\b\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 \par }{\b\insrsid11105442 \par }\pard \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid11105442 {\b\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 4.\tab Jury Instruction \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid11105442 {\b\insrsid11105442 \par }{\b\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 [37]}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 \tab The last issue raised in Charfauros}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 appeal is that the jury instruction selected by the judge with respect to malice was improper.}{\insrsid11105442 }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 Because th e verdict against him is vacated on the grounds set forth above, we need not pass on this issue.}{\insrsid11105442 }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 However, we note that in his brief Charfauros provides no substantive argument on this issue.}{ \insrsid11105442 }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 Instead, he refers the court to the substance of his oral argument and the jury instructions submitted to the trial court.}{\insrsid11105442 }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 We find this practice unacceptable.}{\insrsid11105442 }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 Guam Rule of Appellate Procedure 13(s) prohibits a party from incorporating by reference briefs submitted to the Superior Court to argue the merits of an appeal.}{ \insrsid11105442 }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 We see no difference between a reference to a brief and a reference to oral arguments.}{\insrsid11105442 }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 In fact, the reference to oral argument is more problematic as it would require this court to sift through transcripts to identify issues.}{\insrsid11105442 }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 With respect to GRAP 13(s), we have previously stated, }{ \insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 This court looks unfavorably on such manner of briefing and parties before the court should not take lightly that a violation of this nature may result in a dismissal of their appeal.}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid11105442 }{\i\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 Guam Bar Ethics Committee v. Maquera}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 , 2001 Guam 20, }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 1 n. 3.}{\insrsid11105442 }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 Hence, we refuse to consider Charfauros}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 jury instruction issue. \par }{\b\insrsid11105442 \par }{\b\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 C.\tab Geraldine Gutierrez}{\b\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\b\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 s Cross-Appeal}{ \insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 \par }{\b\insrsid11105442 \par }{\b\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 [38]}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 \tab Geraldine appeals the jury}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 s verdict finding her liable for slander against Charfauros}{\insrsid11105442 }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 on the ground that it is not supported by substantial evidence and is therefore inconsistent.}{ \insrsid11105442 }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 However, in order to argue sufficiency of evidence on appeal, the issue must be raised before the appeal is taken.}{\i\insrsid11105442 }{\i\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 See Cabrales v. County of Los Angeles}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 , 864 F.2d 1454, 1459 (9th Cir. 1988) }{\i\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 opinion reinstated by}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 886 F.2d 235 (9th Cir. 1989) (}{ \insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 On appeal, the appellants raise many sufficiency of the evidence arguments.}{\insrsid11105442 }{ \insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 We hold that these arguments are waived by the appellants}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 failure properly to preserve the legal issue of the sufficiency of the evidence.}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 ). \par }{\b\insrsid11105442 \par }{\b\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 [39]}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 \tab In the instant case, Geraldine filed a JNOV motion challenging sufficiency of the evidence.}{\insrsid11105442 }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 Record on Appeal tab 164. }{\insrsid11105442 }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 However, the trial court denied the JNOV motion because she failed to file a motion for directed verdict at the close of the evidence.}{\insrsid11105442 }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 Appellant }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 s Supp. Excerpts of Record, tab 2 (Decision and Order, p. 6).}{\insrsid11105442 }{ \insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin0\itap0\pararsid11105442 {\insrsid11105442 \par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid11105442 {\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 By failing to make a motion for a directed verdict at the close of all of the evidence, }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 a party cannot question the sufficiency of the evidence either before the district court . . . }{\i\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 or on appeal.}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 . . . The only exception to this rule is the plain error doctrine.}{\insrsid11105442 }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 Only where there is such plain error apparent on the face of the record that failure to review would result in a manifest miscarriage of justice should the appellate court analyze the evidence. \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid11105442 {\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 \par }{\i\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 Cabrales, }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 864 F.2d at 1459 (citations omitted) (emphasis in original).}{\insrsid11105442 }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 Thus, our review here is under the plain error doctrine.}{\insrsid11105442 }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 Only where there is such plain error apparent on the face of the record that failure to review would result in a manifest miscarriage of justice should the appellate court analyze the evidence.}{\insrsid11105442 }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 This extraordinarily deferential standard of review addresses whether there is an absolute absence of evidence to support the jury's verdict.}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt \f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid11105442 }{\i\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 Id.; see also People v. Perez}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 , 1999 Guam 2, }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 21 (}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 Such error will be found only where necessary to prevent a miscarriage of justice or to maintain the integrity of the judicial process.}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}} }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 ). \par }{\b\insrsid11105442 \par }{\b\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 [40]}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 \tab The appropriate question is whether there was an absolute absence of evidence to support the jury}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 s verdict.}{\insrsid11105442 }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 The record shows that Geraldine published the statement,}{\insrsid11105442 }{ \insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 You}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 re right Mark Charfauros.}{\insrsid11105442 }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 It doesn}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 t take a rocket scientist to figure this out, but unfortunately it does take a very sick liar to make this up[,]}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 at a news conference.}{\insrsid11105442 }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 With respect to Charfauros, there was evidence presented which indicated that he merely repeated a statement that he had heard from somebody else.}{\insrsid11105442 }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 Thus, it appears that some evidence was presented to show that Charfauros was not a }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 very sick liar} {\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 , and that he merely published information with reckless disregard for the truth, which was what the jury found.}{\insrsid11105442 }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 Moreover, although the trial court determined Charfauros}{ \insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 statements were false as to Geraldine, Hannah, and Carla, the court did not determine that he had lied in making the statements.}{\insrsid11105442 }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 We conclude the record contains evidence to support the jury}{ \insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 s verdict; therefore, there was no plain error and the verdict must be upheld.}{\insrsid11105442 }{ \i\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 See Perez}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 , 1999 Guam 2 at }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 21. \par \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid11105442 {\b\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 IV.}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid11105442 {\b\insrsid11105442 \par }{\b\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 [41]}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 \tab The trial court}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 s finding as to the issue of privilege is }{\b\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 AFFIRMED}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 .}{\insrsid11105442 }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 The grant of partial summary judgment as to the issue of falsity and as to the finding that Geraldine, Carla, and Hannah could each maintain a cause of action for defamation is }{\b\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 REVERSED}{ \insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 .}{\insrsid11105442 }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 Accordingly, the Judgment against Charfauros is hereby }{\b\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 VACATED}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 .}{\insrsid11105442 }{ \insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 This matter is }{\b\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 REMANDED}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 to the trial court for a new trial consistent with this Opinion.}{\insrsid11105442 }{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 Having found that Geraldine has not established plain error as to the counter-claim, the judgment against Geraldine is hereby }{\b\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 AFFIRMED}{\insrsid13838465\charrsid11105442 . \par }}