By Jayson Jacoby
Baker City Herald
BAKER CITY, Ore. 鈥� A panel of three judges from the Oregon Court of Appeals has rejected the claim by a former Baker City firefighter that his statement criticizing the Baker City Council鈥檚 decision to end ambulance service in 2022 was protected by a state law and that the lawsuit filed against him should be dismissed.
Three councilors 鈥� Kerry McQuisten, Joanna Dixon and Johnny Waggoner Sr . 鈥� filed a civil lawsuit in October 2022 against Casey Husk, who worked as a firefighter for the city from 2020 to 2022.
(None of the three is still a city councilor.)
Each of the three plaintiffs is seeking $2,500 in damages from Husk, a total of $7,500.
The three councilors, represented by attorney Vance Day of Powell Butte, also named Debbie Henshaw of Baker City as a defendant in the same lawsuit.
The basis of the complaint is the councilors鈥� claim that Husk and Henshaw made false statements in 2022 as part of a campaign, which failed, to force a recall election for councilors. Both referred to the effects of the council鈥檚 decision on the fire department.
Husk was the chief petitioner in the recall effort, which was based on the councilors鈥� decision to cease having the city fire department operate ambulances.
Both Henshaw and Husk are represented by Portland attorney Chad A. Naso, who filed motions seeking to dismiss the lawsuit.
Both cited Oregon鈥檚 anti-SLAPP law in their motions.
SLAPP is an acronym for 鈥淪trategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation鈥� 鈥� lawsuits that allegedly are intended to intimidate people from speaking publicly about certain issues.
In February 2023 , Judge Lung S. Hung granted Henshaw鈥檚 motion to dismiss the lawsuit against her.
The judge declined to dismiss the suit against Husk.
The plaintiffs appealed the judge鈥檚 ruling regarding Henshaw.
Husk appealed the judge鈥檚 denial of his motion.
On Oct. 15, 2024, a three-judge panel 鈥� Robyn Aoyagi, James Egan and Jacqueline Kamins 鈥� heard oral arguments in both Husk鈥檚 and Henshaw鈥檚 appeals.
On Nov. 6, 2024, the panel affirmed Judge Hung鈥檚 decision to dismiss the lawsuit against Henshaw. The judges didn鈥檛 issue a written opinion.
Hung, in addition to dismissing the suit against Henshaw, ordered the plaintiffs to pay her $11,141 in attorney fees and other costs.
The appeals court panel issued its ruling on Husk鈥檚 appeal on Wednesday, Jan. 29.
The panel鈥檚 decision is not a ruling on the merits of the lawsuit, which continues and could potentially go to trial.
The judges only concluded that Judge Hung was correct in denying Husk鈥檚 motion, under the anti-SLAPP law, to dismiss the lawsuit.
The plaintiffs applauded the court鈥檚 denial of Husk鈥檚 appeal.
鈥淚t鈥檚 unfortunate that the secondary defendant, Debbie Henshaw, was dismissed from the case, but I鈥檓 pleased with this victory and have no doubt we鈥檒l win should this go to trial,鈥� McQuisten said.
鈥淏oth the Baker County Circuit Court (where Judge Hung presided over the case in 2023), and the Court of Appeals got it right: the law doesn鈥檛 allow someone to knowingly make and publish false statements about an important public matter,鈥� Dixon said. 鈥淐asey Husk did just that, all in an attempt to scare people into voting for his doomed recall petition. The residents of Baker City didn鈥檛 fall for that ruse, and thankfully, neither did the court system.鈥�
鈥淚 hope and pray this gives some closure. I know, many will never find that in any decision made,鈥� Waggoner said.
Husk said on Wednesday that he had not talked with his attorney and would have a comment later.
Day, the plaintiffs鈥� attorney, said they will continue to pursue financial damages against Husk.
鈥淭his case will now head back to the Baker County Circuit Court , to the community where Casey Husk鈥檚 false statements caused a great deal of fear and concern, all in an attempt to gin up support for his recall petition,鈥� Day said. 鈥淲e are confident that the trial will end up with the same result reached by Judge Hung and by the Oregon Court of Appeals : the law does not allow a person to make false statements and get away with it.鈥�
Husk鈥檚 statement
The basis for the lawsuit was a statement that Husk published in the petition he filed seeking to force a recall election for the city councilors.
Husk wrote, in part, that councilors 鈥渉ad directly sanctioned the dissolution of the professional fire department in Baker City, destroying the network of public safety that has been in place for more than 100 years.鈥�
The plaintiffs argued that the statement is false, and that Husk knew it was false when he published it.
In their ruling, the appeals court judges wrote that Husk argued that his statement was not false because by dissolution he meant not the end of the fire department 鈥� which continues to operate, albeit primarily dealing with fires, not ambulance calls 鈥� but that it had fewer functions and fewer employees.
鈥淲e are unpersuaded,鈥� the judges wrote. 鈥淭he definitions of 鈥榙issolution鈥� applicable to an entity or organization all incorporate the idea that the entity or organization ceases to exist as a result of the dissolution. Here, the Baker City Fire Department no longer provides a service that it used to provide 鈥� ambulance service 鈥� but it continues to exist and cannot be said to have 鈥榙issolved鈥� under any commonly recognized meaning of that word.鈥�
The judges noted that the recall petition did not mention that despite the cessation of ambulance service, the Baker City Fire Department would continue to fight fires.
鈥淲ithout that information, the statement that plaintiffs 鈥榙irectly sanctioned the dissolution of the professional fire department in Baker City鈥� is much more attention grabbing 鈥� and can only be understood to mean what it says,鈥� the judges wrote in their decision denying Husk鈥檚 appeal.
The judges also rejected Husk鈥檚 argument that his statement, if it can鈥檛 be viewed as factually accurate, should be taken as opinion.
鈥淎gain, we are unpersuaded,鈥� the judges wrote.
They cited a previous case that is used as a test for determining whether a statement could reasonably be viewed as opinion rather than a statement of objective fact.
One of the factors is whether the person 鈥渦sed figurative or hyperbolic language that negates that impression鈥� that the statement is objective fact.
The judges wrote that nothing about Husk鈥檚 statement in the recall petition negates the impression that he was stating an objective fact rather than an opinion.
The judges also rejected Husk鈥檚 contention that when he made the statement about the dissolution of the fire department, he believed that it was accurate at the time, and thus that he fulfilled the requirements of Oregon election law.
The plaintiffs don鈥檛 have to prove that Husk 鈥渁cted knowingly or recklessly in making a false statement,鈥� the judges wrote.
The judges wrote in their ruling that 鈥淭he record supports a reasonable inference that he knew that the city council did not vote to dissolve the fire department.鈥�
As a firefighter, Husk should have known that the council, in voting to cease ambulance service, was not actually dissolving the fire department, the judges concluded.
McQuisten, who was mayor in 2022 when the council voted to cease ambulance service, said that 鈥渄uring the City Council meeting when Casey Husk threatened to file recall paperwork, he said his motivation was to give me a political 鈥榖lack eye.鈥� When he published those lies on state forms (for the recall campaign), we were left with only one avenue per Oregon statute for clearing our names: filing an action in court. We have never asked for much in the way of a financial award 鈥� mostly for Husk to publicly retract what was clearly a targeted smear campaign.鈥�
McQuisten said she believes that Husk鈥檚 contention about the 鈥渄issolution鈥� of the fire department unnecessarily frightened some city residents.
鈥淭he false claims in Husk鈥檚 (recall) filings had elderly citizens believing no one would respond if they had a medical emergency or a fire,鈥� McQuisten said. 鈥淭hey were scared that their lives were in danger. That Casey Husk instilled this kind of fear in the community and made some citizens believe I had made decisions as mayor that I had not, was wicked in my opinion.鈥�
Henshaw鈥檚 statement
In the lawsuit against Henshaw, the plaintiffs cited a comment that Henshaw wrote on Facebook in response to a question from a resident about why Husk and other proponents, including Henshaw, were trying to force a recall election for the councilors in 2022.
The plaintiffs claimed that Henshaw鈥檚 comment, like Husk鈥檚 statement on the recall petition, contained 鈥渁 false statement of material fact,鈥� and thus violated Oregon election laws.
Henshaw鈥檚 comment reads, in part: 鈥淚n a tiny nutshell, our city council and mayor allowed our city manager to dissolve our city ran gold-standard fire department and ambulance service. We no longer have enough firefighters on shift to enter a burning building, and instead of the excellently dually trained EMT/Firefighters, we now have an ambulance service who鈥檚 (sic) staff rotates out. ...鈥�
Naso argued in his motion to dismiss the suit that Henshaw鈥檚 comment was not false.
Judge Hung agreed. In his February 2023 ruling dismissing the complaint against Henshaw, Hung wrote that 鈥減laintiffs have not provided substantial evidence that defendant Henshaw made a false statement.鈥�
Henshaw鈥檚 and Husk鈥檚 comments were similar in the sense that Henshaw wrote 鈥渄issolve,鈥� and Husk wrote 鈥渄issolution鈥� in regard to the fire department.
In his analysis of Henshaw鈥檚 Facebook comment, the judge noted that although Henshaw鈥檚 use of the word 鈥渄issolve鈥� could be construed as a claim that the city had closed the fire department altogether 鈥� which is not true 鈥� the statement, when read as a whole, can be interpreted as meaning 鈥渢hat the entities continue and are not terminated entirely.鈥�
鈥淪ince the court found defendant Henshaw鈥檚 statements were not false, the court further finds she did not knowingly or with reckless disregard make a false statement,鈥� the judge wrote in his 2023 ruling.
漏 2025 the Baker City Herald (Baker City, Ore.)
Visit .
Distributed by