Appellate Court Rejects Sybert’s Libel Suit

What began as a political mud fight ended as an eloquent civics lecture on Wednesday by an appellate court jurist quoting Will Rogers, Abe Lincoln and Harry Truman.

“Our constitution protects everyone--even politicians,” wrote Justice Arthur Gilbert in a 17-page opinion that Republican candidate Rich Sybert’s libel lawsuit against Congressman Anthony C. Beilenson (D-Woodland Hills) had no place in our courts.

The opinion is moot in Sybert’s case against Beilenson, given that they settled the case last month and issued a joint statement carefully retracting any statements that either party found incorrect or offensive during the 1994 campaign.

But a three-justice panel at the 2nd District Court of Appeal ruled that the issues are of such public importance they should offer some advice in weighing lawsuits such as Sybert’s that can bring “a disquieting stillness to the sound and fury of legitimate political debate.”

They said the suit should have been dismissed earlier by a lower court, under a new civil procedure to knock out frivolous lawsuits designed merely to harass legal adversaries and empty their pocketbooks.

Sybert, who is running against Democrat Brad Sherman this year for the congressional seat representing Thousand Oaks and western parts of Los Angeles County, took great exception to the ruling by justices he characterized as “frustrated politicians trying to get their two cents in.”

Sybert sued Beilenson last August, alleging that the lawmaker falsely and maliciously besmirched Sybert’s reputation in campaign brochures mailed to voters.

The mailers attacked Sybert for collecting $140,000 in private legal fees while holding a $98,000-a-year job as the governor’s director of planning and research from 1991 to 1993.

In his complaint, Sybert cited one flier that proclaimed “Rich Sybert Ripped off California Taxpayers,” and another that said, “Rich Sybert’s record in office tainted by conflict of interest.”

The justices found that the term “rip-off” was not defamatory, but rather rhetorical hyperbole that is common in political debate.

Sybert established that there was nothing illegal or unethical in keeping his law practice while a state employee, the opinion stated.

“Nonetheless, a citizen could possess the belief that such a custom violates a higher code of ethical precepts. To charge a breach of ethics is not to charge a breach of the law. Beilenson’s accusations were statements of opinion entitled to the [free-speech] protection of the First Amendment.”

The justices concluded that Sybert failed to establish the probability that he would win his lawsuit, or that Beilenson acted in malice. As a result, they said, Ventura County Superior Court Judge Barbara A. Lane should have tossed out the suit in November, as Beilenson requested.

“Hyperbole, distortion, invective and tirades are as much a part of American politics as kissing babies and distributing bumper stickers and pot holders,” Justice Gilbert wrote in the opinion that Justices Steven J. Stone and Kenneth R. Yegan concurred with.

“To endure the animadversion, brickbats and skulduggery of a given political campaign, a politician must be possessed with the skin of a rhinoceros,” he wrote.

Paraphrasing President Truman, the opinion suggested that a candidate should clear out of the kitchen if he can stand the heat.

Beilenson, who has decided to retire from Congress this year, declined comment Wednesday.

Sybert charged that partisan politics played a role in the decision.

“This is a [former Gov.] Jerry Brown-appointed panel,” Sybert said. “They were frustrated that we settled before they had a chance to publish their opinion. Had this case continued, this opinion would have been reversed by the California Supreme Court. It is clearly wrong.”

Justices Gilbert and Stone were appointed by Brown, a Democrat. But Yegan was appointed by former Republican Gov. George Deukmejian.

The opinion notes that the lack of civility in politics is not a recent phenomenon. “Abe Lincoln observed that all of ‘the [political campaigns] in which I have been prominent have been marked with great rancor.’

“It is unfortunate that many political campaigns are uncivilized affairs. Will Rogers commented that ‘a clean campaign is one where each side cleans the other of every possible vestige of respectability.’ ”

The opinion notes the difficulty of crafting laws to enforce civility in political campaigns. Such laws can easily sap vitality from the election process or run afoul of free-speech protections as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.

“Nevertheless, political campaigns are one of the most exhilarating phenomena of our democracy,” Gilbert wrote.

“They bring out the best and worst in us. They allow candidates and their supporters to express the most noble and, lamentably, the most vile sentiments. They can be fractious and unruly, but what they yield is invaluable: an opportunity to criticize and comment upon government and the issue of the day.”