
    681 A.2d 671
    DANIEL F. NEWMAN, PLAINTIFF v. BRIAN DELAHUNTY, DEFENDANT.
    Superior Court of New Jersey Law Division Ocean County
    Decided August 15, 1994.
    
      
      Charles Starkey, Toms River, for plaintiff (Starkey, Kelly, Blaney & White).
    
      Brian Delahunty, defendant, pro se.
   PISCAL, J.S.C.

/. BACKGROUND

This case poses the question: is it possible to defame an incumbent candidate for Mayor in a political campaign? The answer is yes. The setting is the Brick, Ocean County mayoral campaign of 1989.

II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This complaint for defamation was filed on September 24, 1990. Essentially, Daniel F. Newman, hereinafter Mr. Newman, sued Brian Delahunty, hereinafter Mr. Delahunty, and others connected with him. Mr. Newman was mayor and ran for reelection as the Democratic candidate. Mr. Delahunty ran as an independent candidate. The voters chose the Republican candidate on November 7,1989.

Mr. Newman alleged that the campaign as waged by Mr. Delahunty and his supporters, was concentrated to defeat him. Mr. Delahunty was charged with publishing and communicating numerous defamatory writings. See Appendix.

The six count complaint alleges that the defamatory statements were “made with actual malice, with knowledge that the allegations were untrue, with a reckless disregard of whether the statements were true or not, and with knowledge that the allegations constituted a charge of unlawful conduct on the part of the plaintiff.” Each count contained a demand for “judgment against the defendants jointly and severally for punitive damages and costs.”

Michael Miller, named as a defendant in the complaint, was never served. The other defendants, “Concerned Citizens For Delahunty” and “Committee To Elect Brian Delahunty”, had been ad hoc committees that no longer exist. No service was made on them or the fictitious defendants. Thus, the case proceeded with one plaintiff and one defendant.

On February 18, 1992, Mr. Delahunty filed an answer to the complaint on his own behalf, essentially denying the allegations. On March 25, 1992, a pleading designated “Countersuit” was filed by Mr. Delahunty consisting of five counts alleging malicious conduct/harassment, the making of false statements, delaying his applications before the Planning Board, circulation of a letter alleged to be authorized by the defendant to put him in a false light, and uttering false rumors about the defendant. No jury was requested in either the complaint or the countersuit.

The trial took five and one-half days; then a one day trial as to punitive damages. The plaintiff called eight witnesses and one rebuttal witness. The defendant called six witnesses in addition to himself during the liability phase of the case.

III. POLITICAL CANDIDATES ARE PUBLIC FIGURES

At the outset the Judge raised the question as to whether the parties were to be considered “public figures” as that phrase is used in Lawrence v. Bauer Pub & Print. Ltd. See Lawrence v. Bauer Pub. & Print. Ltd., 89 N.J. 451, 462-468, 446 A.2d 469 (1982) (the successful invocation of a constitutional privilege is controlled by whether defendants fall into the category of public or private figures); see also Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 94 S.Ct. 2997, 41 L.Ed.2d 789 (1974). New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 84 S.Ct. 710, 11 L.Ed.2d 686 (1964). Mr. Newman was willing to stipulate to that status, nonetheless, the Judge, on the basis of plaintiffs position as then incumbent mayor and Mr. Delahunty’s position as active candidate in the mayoral race, found each to be a “public figure” for the issues set forth in this case.

IV. THE ELEMENTS OF DEFAMATION

The United States Supreme Court has enumerated the basic principles in New York Times Company v. Sullivan. See New York Times Company, supra, 376 U.S. 254, 84 S.Ct. 710, 11 L.Ed.2d 686 (1964). The Court once again recognized the general proposition that “freedom of expression upon public questions is secured by the First Amendment.” New York Times Company, supra, 376 U.S. at 269, 84 S.Ct. at 720, 11 L.Ed.2d 686. Furthermore, “the maintenance of the opportunity for free political discussion to the end that government may be responsive to the will of the people and that changes may be obtained by lawful means, an opportunity essential to the security of the Republic, is a fundamental principle of our constitutional system.” Id. (citing Stromberg v. California, 283 U.S. 359, 369, 51 S.Ct. 532, 536, 75 L.Ed. 1117 [1931]).

This court is cognizant of the valuable rights at stake and is mindful of this country’s “profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust and wide open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials.” See New York Times Company, supra, 376 U.S. at 270, 84 S.Ct. at 721, 11 L.Ed.2d 686 (citing Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1, 4, 69 S.Ct. 894, 93 L.Ed. 1131 [1949]). However, it was Justice Holmes who recognized that freedom of speech does not give one the right to falsely yell “Fire” in a crowded theater. See Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47, 39 S.Ct. 247, 63 L.Ed. 470 (1919).

Freedom of speech is a phrase that raised concerns from both poles, i.e. freedom of expression and the right to one’s good name.

As was written by Professor Eldredge in his treatise The Law of Defamation (1978):

The Courts are in a most critical and delicate area in

considering what persons, who voluntarily inject themselves into public controversies and take positions on matters which are clearly “public issues,” should be subject to the New York Times standard. A broad extension of this standard could be an instrument to destroy the very freedom of speech in whose name the extension is demanded. One of the great needs in contemporary America is to encourage more good people to participate in government, to speak out and stand up and be counted, on important questions____ Unbridled defamation concerning matters of public concern was a tool the Nazis used in pre-World War II Germany to destroy important men and render useless what they said, the men whose messages desperately needed to be heeded____
I fully realize that this argument cuts both ways. But the only justification for New York Times, in its drastic cutting down of the scope of actionable defamation, (and its destruction within its scope of the precious right of public vindication of one’s good name) is that it is necessary in order to encourage people to speak out on important questions. If, in fact, the privilege will in some situations encourage people to speak out and, in others, discourage them, then only the net gain for free speech should be weighed against the value of reputation, in striking the balance on the scale of constitutional law.
[Lawrence, 89 N.J. at 477, 446 A.2d 469, (Schreiber, J. dissenting) (citing L. Eldredge, The Law of Defamation (1978)).]

Thus, the familiar standard that “prohibits a public official from recovering damages for a defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct unless he proves that the statement was made with actual malice, that is with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not,” applies to the case at bar. See New York Times Company, 376 U.S. at 279-280, 84 S.Ct. at 726, 11 L.Ed.2d 686.

In New Jersey, it is clear that in actions for public defamation i.e. defamatory statements against a public official involving a matter of legitimate public concern, the plaintiff must prove each of the following five (5) elements by clear and convincing proof:

1) The statements must be defamatory statements of fact.

2) The statements must concern the plaintiff.

3) The plaintiff must prove the defamatory statements were false.

4) The plaintiff must prove the defamatory statements were communicated to persons other than the plaintiff.

5) Plaintiff must prove that defendants communicated the false statements to others with the actual knowledge that it was false or with a reckless disregard of whether it was true or false.

(See Model Civil Jury Charge § 3.11A and cases cited therein).

V A REVIEW OF THE ALLEGED DEFAMATORY MATERIALS

The alleged defamatory materials will now be scrutinized for these elements. See Appendix A-J. These exhibits may be referred to collectively as “the materials.”

The materials consist of the following: first, three editions of “The Bricktown Investigator” (Appendix A-C); second, five cartoons or caricatures (Appendix E-I); third, two double sided “flyers” or “hand outs” (Appendix D, J). The plaintiff has sustained his burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence each element of defamation with respect to the three editions of “The Brick Investigator”, the flyer designated “Where your tax dollar really goes”, and the cartoon designated, “Flyer — Fast and Easy.” See Appendix A-D, G. The cartoons, with the exception of Appendix G, and the flyer, “Justice for Sale” are protected by the first amendment.

A AS TO THE BRICKTOWN INVESTIGATOR

The Bricktown Investigator has a newspaper like format consisting of several pages containing some red lettering and some pictures, but basically black print on a white ground. The first of the three editions entered into evidence, Appendix A, headlines on page two “Justice for Sale” in red capital letters. On page three it declares in red capitals that “Newman’s Corruption Will Bring Increase in 1990 Taxes” and “Newman’s Land Deal Cheats Every Taxpayer in Bricktown”. See Appendix A.

“Corruption” is defined as, “the act of an official or fiduciary person who unlawfully and wrongfully uses his station or character to procure some benefit for himself or for another person contrary to duty and the rights of others. See bribe, extortion.” Black’s Law Dictionary 345 (6th ed. 1990). “Justice For Sale” and “Newman’s Land Deal Cheats Every Taxpayer in Bricktown” are not defamatory statements of fact. However, “Newman’s Corruption Will Bring Increase in 1990 Taxes” charges Mr. Newman with corruption and is libel per se. See Lawrence, supra, 89 N.J. at 459, 446 A.2d 469 (1982). See also Ward v. Zelikovsky, 136 N.J. 516 (1994) at pg. 526, 643 A.2d 972. (The four recognized categories of slander per se are that the statements impute commission of a crime, contraction of a loathsome disease, occupational incompetence or misconduct and unchastity of a woman). Thus, element one is established.

It is clear that the statements concern Mr. Newman, the incumbent Mayor, so element two is established.

As to element three, falsity of the statements, it is usually as hard to disprove a charge of “corruption” as it is to prove the “malice” element. However, this case presents unusual facts. Mr. Newman denied the charges of “corruption” and “land deals.” In support of his denial, he offered into evidence a letter from the State of New Jersey, Commission of Investigation, dated August 27,1992. There was no objection and it was marked into evidence pursuant to Evid.R. 803(c)(8). The letter indicated the investigation concerning his “activities as Mayor of Brick Township” had been concluded and stated in pertinent part: “There will not be a public hearing or report on this matter. The Commission now considers this inquiry closed.” Mr. Newman made no attempt to prove that the whole investigation may have been caused by Mr. Delahunty nor should the court leap to such a conclusion. There has been enough of that in this case.

If “land deals” was a reference to out of state property holdings by Mr. and Mrs. Newman, Mrs. Newman’s testimony established that the only out of state property they own is a modest Florida condominium purchased in 1988. Evidence was produced that the funds used for the purchase were from a Home Equity Loan. See P29,30,31.

It became clear from the case presented that what Mr. Delahunty meant by “corruption”, “land deals” and “justice for sale” was a product of his own malice, a misconstruction of various to him, inexplicable land transactions and a hyperbolic spin on the use of the car provided by the Town for the Mayor’s use.

What did Mr. Delahunty have to say about “corruption” and “land deals” when the opportunity arose during his case and when pressed during cross examination? The most serious charge presented was that Arthur Cierzo, the head construction official for Brick Township since 1980, solicited a bribe from Mr. Delahunty when he, his partners and brothers-in-law, Peter Ferro and Anthony Ferro, and their partner, Mr. Richard Carroll, stood outside of the Town Hall after a meeting. Mr. Cierzo was said to approach them and say, “I want a lot (from the Jackob’s Farm subdivision?) for my daughter”. This was first brought out by Mr. Delahunty asking Mr. Cierzo himself, (subpoenaed by Mr. Delahunty), who denied any such conversation. Later, Anthony Ferro did give Mr. Delahunty some support that the bribe was solicited in their presence. Curiously Peter Ferro who was supposed to be there said nothing of this.

Mr. Delahunty addressed the issue in this fashion. He admitted that P33 (a check to Arthur Cierzo for his mileage on the subpoena) had a legend on it “bag man”, a term which he wrote on the check. He still calls Mr. Cierzo “bag man” and dares him to do something about it. This is an example of recklessness from his own lips! And for the first time, Mr. Delahunty says that Mr. Cierzo also asked for plumbing business be sent to Pineland Plumbing (Newman’s company). Did this happen? Would one seeking a bribe solicit it in front of four people? Why didn’t the testimony of the two witnesses who did testify as to this mesh? From Mr. Delahunty’s own testimony the Federal Bureau of Investigation was not impressed with this bribery story, and he refused their request to wear a “wire” to tape Mr. Cierzo. The court places no credence in this bribe story and the feeble last second attempt to tie it to Mr. Newman. No credit is given to this tale of alleged bribery. “Land deals” was a charge against Mr. Newman. What did Mr. Delahunty mean by this? Was it the removal of a drainage pipe from the Poppy Court subdivision? First, no testimony established that Mr. Newman had anything to do or say about this. Second, testimony failed to establish that the removal of this pipe had anything to do with the subsequent drainage problems there. On the contrary, Mark Speir, the construction supervisor on the project, testified that the drainage problem was due to an adjacent subdivision.

Was Mr. Delahunty’s source for this information on “land deals” and “corruption” the rumors that Township workers would discuss at Mr. Delahunty’s headquarters? No attempt was made to go into any of this material.

Was “land deals” a reference to other Brick Town developments or was it the out of state properties impliedly gained by Mr. Newman in an allegedly ill gotten fashion? Mrs. Newman adequately explained the Florida transaction and no attempt was made to explain any others by the defendant, nor was there any attempt to refute her testimony.

The zoning code enforcement officer, Sean Kinnevy, was called by Mr. Delahunty. He testified that a building known as Park-wood Plaza remained vacant for a long time (whatever that means) but no Code Violations were issued. No link of this was made to Mr. Newman though it is presumed to have happened during his tenure as Mayor. Nor was anything said to indicate any violations existed.

Mr. Kinnevy spoke of a Meadow Run subdivision. Mr. Newman’s Pineland Plumbing Co. did work on this job. Some homes were begun without issuance of building permits. However, Mr. Kinnevy said this was common i.e. a builder under construction of a large subdivision would move ahead of his paper work. Eventually all the paper work was straightened out. Again, no direct involvement by Mr. Newman as having intervened at Town Hall or the like was established. Mr. Delahunty’s suspicions do not amount to evidence in a court of law!

An example of how Mr. Delahunty thinks is instructive. He marked Exhibits D3 (a deed between Mr. Newman and the Gunthers, Mr. Newman’s brother-in-law and member of the Planning Board), D41 (Deed from Anastasiades to Daniel Newman) and testified in summary that he once worked as a title searcher, and that he did title searches on all of the principals involved in this matter (including Mr. Starkey, plaintiff’s attorney!). From these deeds and other matters, Mr. Delahunty concluded some kind of “corruption”, or dishonest “land deal.” Furthermore, he marks a picture D4 which shows pilings sunk on land he says is the property in question in deeds, D3 and D41. How can someone get a permit to erect pilings on what is to him, obviously wetlands he asks? His answer is that this bespeaks corruption on the part of Mayor Newman.

Mr. Gunther was called as a rebuttal witness. He established that he does own the property described in Deeds D3 and D41. He paid for it with a loan from United Savings Bank (P34). He believed he purchased it directly from Anastasiades, that closing was delayed due to “riparian problems.” He said that Anastasiades did not want to sell to him (this was not explained any further), and he was unaware that Mr. Newman’s name was on a deed in his chain of title. From this Mr. Delahunty concluded “corruption” and “land deal,” but the Court finds this is susceptible of a non corrupt interpretation, i.e. the use of Mr. Newman as a “straw man” by Gunther’s closing attorney to facilitate the transaction.

Element four, communication (referred to in older cases as the “publication” of the libel to others), was clearly and convincingly proven by just about every witness plaintiff called. Each said he or she received “The Brick Investigator” and was given the flyers by Mr. Delahunty himself or a member of Delahunty’s family. There was no testimony as to the exact date of publication or distribution except that it was in the fall of 1989.

Mr. Delahunty, the Ferro brothers and his wife testified that they handed out “The Brick Investigator” and some of the cartoons. The cartoons and flyers were distributed by fax and by hand as several witnesses testified to receiving them and several testified as having handed out or placed them on door knobs of homes. According to the testimony of Mr. Newman and Mr. Peter Ferro, Appendix D (“Where Your Tax Dollar Really Goes”) was faxed to Brick Municipal Offices and other business offices.

Delivery of the defamatory material to people who understand that the statement is defamatory is a part of element four. See Restatement (Second) of Torts § 577 cmt. b-c (1977). The witnesses called by Mr. Newman each had received the Brick Investigator and the other materials and each understood the statements in the defamatory sense. Moreover, Mr. Delahunty, Peter Ferro, and Mrs. Delahunty admitted they made wide delivery of the materials.

Therefore element four is proven.

Element five, knowledge that the statements were false or reckless disregard has also been proven in this case. First, as to Mr. Delahunty’s mind set, Mr. Newman testified that the first time he was aware of Mr. Delahunty stemmed from a Planning Board meeting in 1988. The meeting room was packed with people who had been informed by Mr. Delahunty that a certain tract of land, the so called “Jackob Farm” tract was about to be rezoned for “shopping centers.” Mr. Delahunty, the Ferro brothers and a Richard Carroll were said at various times during the trial to have bought this property or have an option on it or some contingency contract to buy it. Mr. Delahunty’s testimony varied from that of Peter Ferro in this regard.

Mr. Newman testified that he had no knowledge of any plan to rezone this property for shopping centers. He indicated this became a very heated planning board meeting because the crowd was fired up about a “shopping center” plan and the Board didn’t know what was going on. This property was a constant reference point by witnesses called by each side at trial. Mr. Delahunty and his in-laws had an application before the Board of Adjustment as well as the Planning Board regarding this property. There were stories about it in the papers; Could it be a park site for “Green Acres” money? The site was a source of constant speculation in the local press.

Eventually, Mr. Delahunty’s application for this site would be approved by the Planning Board. In fact, it was admitted by Mr. Delahunty that during the late nineteen eighties he made six (6) applications to the Planning Board (one would be withdrawn and resubmitted). All were approved.

Peter Ferro, was called as a witness by Mr. Newman. As to the Jackob’s Farm property he said, “Newman took hold of the Board (Planning) and suddenly it was (zoned) commercial.”

Herbert Stephens, a man with over forty years in the printing business, was assisting Mr. Delahunty in his campaign and helped him in discussions with a printer. When asked if Mr. Delahunty ever told him how he felt about Dan Newman he said “yes.” He then testified, “I could tell there was animosity there”, he (Delahunty) intended to “harass him” and Mr. Delahunty also told Mr. Stephens, “I got it out for Dan Newman.”

During Mr. Delahunty’s case, he called witnesses who were asked questions about the Jackob’s Farm property and the hearing before the Planning Board. No one supported a thesis that Mr. Newman had any hidden, improper motives with regard to the property. But all contributed to the concept that Mr. Delahunty was infuriated that he did not get his way quickly and that Mr. Delahunty blamed this delay on Mr. Newman.

Mrs. Carol Delahunty said she felt that she and her husband were treated unfairly by the Planning Board. She was not sure she had been to any of the meetings on the Jackob’s Farm property! She said she was probably at the Pine Street application meeting. From where did she get this impression? The court infers she got this from her husband.

Mr. Delahunty spent a great deal of his direct testimony on the Jackob’s Farm/Planning Board matter. From his remarks I conclude as a matter of fact that this property was a hotly contested issue, i.e. what zone of the new Master Plan should the property be designated. However, I could discern nothing improper by members of the Board or by Mr. Newman. Yet, it is clear that this battle was the cause of Mr. Delahunty’s animosity towards Mr. Newman; the cause of his concentration on Mr. Newman in the mayoral campaign. (A scrutiny of the “materials” submitted shows no mention of the other candidate and eventual winner Zaboyan!)

Mr. Delahunty denied any animosity towards Mr. Newman. He testified Mr. Newman had it in for him because Mr. Delahunty and his family signed the change of government petition (as did hundreds of others). This petition eventually led to partisan elections in November and Mr. Newman’s loss of office. Mr. Newman testified that his campaign strategy was to ignore Mr. Delahunty during the campaign believing him to be insignificant.

Moreover, while there were constant references to delays by the Planning Board, no witnesses, much less an expert, was called to give a time table as to what was normal for a Planning Board application in Brick at this busy time. However, there was testimony that the Board had very crowded agendas and that this was a “boom” time for building in Brick (as it was in all of Ocean County). Lastly, this application was approved according to Mr. Delahunty just before the election!

A perusal of most New Jersey cases on defamation of public figures reveal that most causes of action fail for inadequate proof as to actual malice, i.e. plaintiffs must prove that defendant communicated the defamatory statement to others with actual knowledge that it was false or with a reckless disregard of whether it was true or false.

The Court finds this element has been proven in this case by clear and convincing evidence for the reasons stated herein.

Not only did Mr. Delahunty bear Mr. Newman ill will because of what he perceived to be Newman’s manipulation of the Planning Board against him as explained above, and not only did he express these sentiments to his campaign workers (see Herbert Stephens above), but he had reckless disregard for whether the materials distributed were true or false, and I find actual knowledge that he knew some of these charges were false.

As to “reckless disregard” we have the testimony of Peter Ferro, an admitted member of the “Committee To Elect Brian Delahunty.” It was clear from his testimony that he and the Delahunty group wanted to put distance between themselves and Mike Miller, (who is said in the publication to be the editor of “The Bricktown Investigator”), and also between themselves and the printing of, content of and payment for the Bricktown Investigator. Peter Ferro’s testimony nonetheless was revealing as to the thought process of the “Committee To Elect Brian Delahunty.” The court finds that Peter Ferro and Paul Wild were, along with Brian Delahunty, the only members of the committee. From the court’s observation of him, CPA Paul Wild appeared to be greatly upset and embarrassed about being involved in this affair. Mr. Wild disclaimed any political discussions with the committee at any time!

At one time Peter Ferro said he “didn’t pay much attention to this (referring to Appendix A-C) and then admitted he knew it contained “rumor, hearsay and some lies.” He opined that “some of the charges had validity;” “someone obviously believed it was true or they wouldn’t have printed it;” “we did not attempt to justify all of the statements in the material;” and “yes, you are allowed to call a politician a crook.” What clearer proof can one hope to have as to the knowledge and attitude of the defendant than these words from his main campaign aide?

Peter Ferro did admit his signature on P22 and P23, (delivery tickets for 3,000 and 2,400 copies of Appendix C, “The Brick Investigator”). The owner of Hatteras Press, Robert Duerr testified that Appendix C, an issue of “The Bricktown Investigator”, P4 in evidence, was produced by his company, and that the bill for the printing of some 20,000 copies was paid for by a set off against debts his company owed to Ameritel, the company of the Ferros.

Mr. Delahunty and his witnesses tried to distance themselves from these materials by trying to disguise payment for the printing in their filings on campaign expenditures. However, plaintiffs attorney, produced clear and convincing evidence through a trail of receipts, bills and invoices tying this directly to Mr. Delahunty and his brothers-in-law, with payment through Ameritel, the Ferro owned company.

Herbert Stephens, the Delahunty campaign worker with forty years in the printing business, said he would never print these materials because they were too “harsh.”

Mr. Delahunty was more circumspect in his testimony. He denied knowing the Mike Miller who worked for Ameritel, who claimed to be the editor of “the Brick Investigator” until confronted with this fact at his deposition; then testified he never discussed the campaign with Mike Miller. (Incidentally, the Delahunty campaign headquarters was the Ameritel offices). He admitted the campaign committee to elect Brian Delahunty consisted of himself, Peter Ferro, Mr. Wild and maybe Anthony Ferro, Jr. He said as to the content of “The Brick Investigator” he looked into some of these things to the best of his ability and “it was not wrong (to distribute these materials) if you believed it was true.” Asked what he did to find out if it was true, he answered “I knew the S.C.I. was investigating,” “I knew Cierzo tried to shake me down,” and “I followed Newman in the town car.” (As to the latter item, he said he spent one day following Mr. Newman on his routine; stopping at plumbing job sites as well sites in Brick requiring his attention as Mayor; facts freely admitted by Mr. Newman). Eventually, he admitted he was responsible for what the “committee” put out. All of this more than meets the standards set forth in Dairy Stores, Inc. v. Sentinel Publishing Co., 104 N.J. 125, 152-158, 516 A.2d 220 (1986) and Lawrence, supra, 89 N.J. 451 at 466-469, 446 A.2d 469.

The second “Bricktown Investigator” offered into evidence also contained defamatory statements of fact. See Appendix B. (This was a 8 page hand-out. Only page 6 is reproduced here).

On page six of this edition a bold capital headline declaims “THE TRUTH-Newman’s Record.” One third of the way down there is a subheadline stating “Voters of Brick Township — The Facts About Newman”; eight items are listed as “fact”. The obvious defamatory statements therein are to be discussed. They are:

Fact 1 — Newman awarded high priced contracts.

Fact 2 — Newman has given high priced vouchers for hundreds of thousands of dollars to his personal friends.

Fact 3 — Newman uses his public office for his own personal gain.

Fact 4 — Millions of dollars in special tax abatements to his friends in special deals.

Fact 8 — Newman has put a $price on everything in Brick Township.

Whether a statement is one of fact is a question of law for the court. Gertz, supra, 418 U.S. at 339-340, 94 S.Ct. at 3006-3007, 41 L.Ed.2d 789; Kotlikoff v. The Community News, 89 N.J. 62, 67, 444 A.2d 1086 (1982).

Each of these five statements of fact, when read along with the allegations of “Corruption” in bold type at the top of the page, are clear expressions of fact that Newman is engaging in illegal conduct while in office. This scenario is similar to Silsdorf v. Levine, 59 N.Y.2d 8, 462 N.Y.S.2d 822, 449 N.E.2d 716 (1983), cert. denied 464 U.S. 831, 104 S.Ct. 109, 78 L.Ed.2d 111 (1983).

In Silsdorf, supra, charges that “it pays to do business with the mayor”; that “plaintiff is profiting in his law practice at the Village’s expense”; and that “his administration is corrupt” were statements of fact capable of being defamatory. Id. at 825, 449 N.E.2d at 719. The opinion holds:

Even privilege has its limitations and even a public figure in the midst of a political campaign is entitled to some degree of protection. It is true that our society places a high value on the uninhibited and open debate necessary for the responsible functioning of political processes, to the extent even of protecting some falsity to avoid creating a chilling effect upon that expression (New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 279, 84 S.Ct 710, 725, 11 L.Ed.2d 686; Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 340-341, 94 S.Ct. 2997, 3007, 41 L.Ed.2d 789 supra). But sufficient protection is afforded defendants by virtue of the requirement that plaintiff prove actual malice (emphasis added).
[Silsdorf, supra, 462 N.Y.S.2d at 827, 449 N.E.2d at 721.]

Thus, Silsdorf bears a similarity to the case at bar and the first element of defamation is found by clear and convincing evidence. Elements two, three, four and five are as set forth above.

The third “Bricktown Investigator” offered into evidence contained defamatory statements of fact. See Appendix C. (This was a 4 page hand-out. Only pages 1 and 3 are reproduced here). This issue contains on the bottom right of page 1 in bold red the headline “NEWMAN’S THUGS ATTACK SENIOR CITIZEN” with a picture beneath it of Anthony Ferro, Sr. taking oxygen. Next to the picture in small letters is “The Whole Truth, Nothing But the Truth on Page 3.” On page 3 under the bold red statement in caps is “Newman’s Thugs.” To charge that Mr. Newman had this man (the father-in-law of Brian Delahunty, a fact not disclosed in the story), beaten is to charge criminal activity and is a defamatory statement of fact. Thus, it is libel per se, see above. Element two is clearly proven since the statement concerns Mr. Newman. As to elements four and five see above. Thus, element three remains to be discussed.

Was this a false statement? Compare the story on page 3, see Appendix C, with Mr. Delahunty’s cross examination testimony. He testified that he was at a meeting in Town Hall sitting in the rear of the room. From outside he heard his father-in-law cry out from the direction of the Planning Board. He rushed out to find his father-in-law and others being restrained. An ambulance took his father-in-law to the hospital. (D4 admitted as the hospital bill indicated a diagnosis for hypertension). An attorney, John Doyle, went back to presenting his application before the Planning Board. The only arrest was that of Mike Miller, the same unserved defendant in this case. No connection of this is made to Mr. Newman. Mr. Newman testified he was not at Town Hall that night! No one refuted this. Was Mr. Ferro struck? If so, by whom? Or was he overexcited? (See D4 diagnosis for hypertension). Mr. Delahunty presented no further testimony as to these matters and made no connection to Mr. Newman.

Now if the facts as Mr. Delahunty testified were put into a story without the headlines “Newman’s Thugs”, if Mr. Ferro’s relationship to Mr. Delahunty was given, if no hearsay was used, if you let the reader conclude that Mr. Newman may be behind this, then this story could have an impact and pass constitutional muster as an “expression of opinion” on matters of public concern. However, no such attempt was made. Just the assertion as fact that Newman’s thugs beat up a senior citizen complaining about “higher taxes” and trying to “end corruption.” This story was clearly designed to injure Newman’s reputation, expose him to hatred, contempt and ridicule and have a tendency to injure him not only in his business but as a candidate for office. This is stated as fact not as opinion. The story, besides using poor grammar, is defamatory, false and actionable!

B. THE FLYERS

The flyer, Appendix J, “Justice for Sale” (also reprinted in page 2 of Appendix A) is borderline. “Kick backs for him” is defamatory but in the context is stated as being “if he could” and thus, is protected as opinion. Kotlikoff, supra, 89 N.J. at 68, 444 A.2d 1086 (adopting the Gertz v. Robert Welch Inc. rationale).

As to the Flyer, Appendix D, I find this is a defamatory statement of fact. The legend “Where Your Tax Dollar Really Goes” with a revised dollar bill beneath it (Dan Newman’s picture, called a Dan Dollar), with the coins beneath it amounting to one hundred cents. The legends ascribed to the coins I find to be defamatory statements of fact are:

A) Quarter — Newman’s Florida Investments;

B) Quarter — Special favors to increase his Pineland Plumbing Business aka Newman Enterprises.

Along with the statement in capital letters at the bottom of the page “End Corruption”, these items charge Mr. Newman with taking money from the Brick tax payers through various corrupt schemes which lead to him having Florida investments and getting plumbing business by arranging special favors. This is similar to what the New York Court of Appeals found actionable in Silsdorf v. Levine, supra.

It is clear that elements one and two are proven. That the statements are false was proven by the testimony of Mr. and Mrs. Newman (see above) and the conclusion of the S.C.I. No attempt was made at trial to justify these comments. Mr. Delahunty tried to distance himself from making or publishing this item but distribution was clearly and convincingly proven from the testimony of plaintiffs and defendant’s witnesses as set forth in detail above. The discussion of element five as set forth above covers this item as well.

C. THE CARTOONS AS DEFAMATION

No New Jersey case seems to have addressed this aspect of defamation. Cartoons and caricatures have a special place in the history of politics and the law. This was recently declared by the United States Supreme Court in Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46, 108 S.Ct. 876, 99 L.Ed.2d 41 (1988). The relevant facts of that case were as follows:

The inside front cover of the November 1983 issue of Hustler Magazine featured a “parody” of an advertisement for Campari Liqueur that contained the name and picture of respondent and was entitled “Jerry Falwell talks about his first time.” This parody was modeled after actual Campari ads that included interviews with various celebrities about their “first times.” Although it was apparent by the end of each interview that this meant the first time they sampled Campari, the ads clearly played on the sexual double entendre of the general subject of “first times.” Copying the form and layout of these Campari ads, Hustler’s editors chose respondent as the featured celebrity and drafted an alleged “interview” with him in which he states that his “first time” was during a drunken incestuous rendezvous with his mother in an outhouse. The Hustler parody portrays respondent and his mother as drunk and immoral, and suggests that respondent is a hypocrite who preaches only when he is drunk. In small print at the bottom of the page, the ad contains the disclaimer, “ad parody — not to be taken seriously.” The magazine’s table of contents also lists the ad as “fiction; Ad and Personality Parody.”
[Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, 485 U.S. at 47, 108 S.Ct at 878, 99 L.Ed.2d 41.]

Hustler recognizes the historical challenges presented by an allegedly defamatory cartoon:

Webster’s defines a caricature as “the deliberately distorted picturing or imitating of a person, literary style, etc. by exaggerating features or mannerisms for satirical effect.” Webster’s New Unabridged Twentieth Century Dictionary of the English Language 275 (2d ed. 1979). The appeal of the political cartoon or caricature is often based on exploitation of unfortunate physical traits or politically embarrassing events-an exploitation often calculated to injure the feelings of the subject of the portrayal. The art of the cartoonist is often not reasoned or evenhanded, but slashing and one-sided. One cartoonist expressed the nature of the art in these words:
“The political cartoon is a weapon of attack, of scorn and ridicule and satire; it is least effective when it tries to pat some politician on the back. It is usually as welcome as a bee sting and is always controversial in some quarters.” Long, The Political Cartoon: Journalism's Strongest Weapon, The Quill 56, 57 (Nov. 1962).
Several famous examples of this type of intentionally injurious speech were drawn by Thomas Nast, probably the greatest American cartoonist to date, who was associated for many years during the post-Civil War era with Harper’s Weekly. In the pages of that publication Nast conducted a graphic vendetta against William M. “Boss” Tweed and his corrupt associates in New York City’s “Tweed Ring.” It has been described by one historian of the subject as “a sustained attack which in its passion and effectiveness stands alone in the history of American graphic art.” M. Keller, The Art and Politics of Thomas Nast 177 (1968). Another writer explains that the success of the Nast cartoon was achieved “because of the emotional impaet of its presentation. It continuously goes beyond the bounds of good taste and conventional manners.” C. Press, The Political Cartoon 251 (1981).
Despite their sometimes caustic nature, from the early cartoon portraying George Washington as an ass down to the present day, graphic depictions and satirical cartoons have played a prominent role in public and political debate---- From the viewpoint of history, it is clear that our political discourse would have been considerably poorer without them.
[Hustler, supra, 485 U.S. at 55, 108 S.Ct at 881, 99 L.Ed.2d 41.]

The Court held that any recovery, whether for defamation or intentional infliction of emotional distress, must include as an element of proof that a false statement was made with knowledge that the statement was false or with reckless disregard as to whether or not it was true. See Hustler, supra, 485 U.S. at 55, 108 S.Ct. at 882, 99 L.Ed.2d 41. Furthermore, as to parody, an added element seems to be necessary for an action to succeed, namely, “whether the speech could reasonably be interpreted as stating actual facts about the public figure involved.” Hustler, supra, 485 U.S. at 51, 108 S.Ct. at 879, 99 L.Ed.2d 41. Generally cartoon and caricatures are so exaggerated in their comment that the reader cannot take it as being a true statement of fact.

A lack of New Jersey cases on cartoons as defamation led us to the following:

In King v. Globe Newspaper Co., 400 Mass. 705, 512 N.E.2d 241 (1987) , cert. denied, 485 U.S. 940, 108 S.Ct. 1121, 99 L.Ed.2d 281 (1988) , the former Governor of Massachusetts sued the Globe newspaper, two of its columnists and a cartoonist. Summary judgment motions were granted by the trial court. The cartoons involved are printed in the Appendix to that case.

The motions as to the cartoons were upheld as being “artistic rhetorical hyperbole” commenting that the governor was responsible for several ill advised appointments. See King, supra, 512 N.E.2d at 245. It was further stated that “cartoons are seldom designed to disclose facts, but rather are ordinarily understood by reasonable views to be rhetorical, exaggerated means of expressing opinions.” Ibid.

Appendix C of that case involved a cartoon as a billboard sign with caricatures of the governor and the president of Ackerley Billboards holding bags of money. The legend says “Ackerley Billboards Can Put Money in Your Pockets Too.”

There was an editorial by the same paper that asserts that the billboard industry which has been dying suddenly revived after a $7,000.00 campaign contribution from Ackerley Communications dropped into the Governor’s campaign treasury. The Court held:

The billboard cartoon must be viewed as a protected expression of opinion. We do not agree with the plaintiff that the cartoon depicts him “accepting cash bribes ... in return for his support of the efforts of Ackerley Communications.” Rather, we agree with the judge that “[t]he alleged facts figuratively conveyed by the cartoon (that the plaintiff and Locke received personal cash contributions and/or payoffs from Ackerley) simply do not flow from a form of expression that clearly draws upon overstatement and extravagant symbolism to make its point. The cartoon implies nothing more than Szep’s editorial judgment that the plaintiffs association with Ackerley raised questions of public concern.
[King, supra, 512 N.E.2d at 246.]

The interpretation of the cartoon was aided by the accompanying editorial, which was found to be an expression of opinion protected by the Gertz v. Robert Welch Inc. rationale.

The case of Celebrezze v. Dayton Newspapers Inc., 41 Ohio App.3d 343, 535 N.E.2d 755 (1988) involved a suit by a State Supreme Court judge who sued the newspaper over a cartoon that ran during the judge’s campaign for reelection. (The cartoon is reprinted as an appendix to the case 535 N.E.2d at page 760).

The cartoon shows an automobile bearing the judge’s name on its license plate carrying a machine gun firing at passengers at a store front with the sign overhead “Ohio Bar Association” and a doubled over man in front of the doorway as if just shot, another shot man in the gutter and a skunk sitting on the curb.

Summary judgment dismissing the claim below was affirmed with these words:

One element of a cause of action for libel is that the defamatory publication be an assertion of a fact. There is no such assertion here. No reasonable person could conclude from viewing Priggee’s cartoon that he was accusing Celebrezze of the criminal act of murder or attempted murder. The scene depicted was exaggeration, hyperbole, much as in Matalka v. Lagemann (1985) 21 Ohio App.3d 134, 21 OBR 143, 486 N.E.2d 1220, where one cartoon portrayed the presiding officer of the city council as an auctioneer selling off the council vote to the highest bidder, and another cartoon portrayed council as a prostitute willing to sell her favors. The decision in Matalka, supra, relied on Greenbelt Coop. Publishing Assn., Inc. v. Bresler (1970), 398 U.S. 6, 90 S.Ct 1537, 26 L.Ed.2d 6, which characterizes these types of expressions as “rhetorical hyperbole” and “a vigorous epithet * * Id. at 14, 90 S.Ct. at 1542. The cartoon in this case was likewise rhetorical, perhaps allegorical, but not capable of being interpreted as being factual or defamatory. Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. (1974), 418 U.S. 323, 94 S.Ct. 2997, 41 L.Ed.2d 789.
[Celebrezze, supra, 535 N.E.2d at 758.]

We review the cartoons in light of these standards and search for whether the cartoons assert facts or opinion.

Appendices E, F, H, I can be taken together. Each of these contains those elements of exaggeration, hyperbole and obvious overstatement. Each requires the observer to read in a great deal of his own facts and opinions to gather the theme of the cartoon. For example, as to Appendix E, without more one cannot conclude the deeds in the belt of the colossal figure represent an allegation of corrupt money used to buy out of state properties. (Charges which are false as proven above). This and the others are no more than exaggerated hyperbolic opinion.

Appendix G is different. Here the message is plain. One figure standing before a store having an “Opening” sign in its window. “Spring 1988” is slashed. “Fall 1988” is slashed. Spring 1989 remains. A figure in front (the owner) says “Hey Joe Hov/d you get your stores up so fast — Site Plan, Town Council Approvals, Building Permits, Inspections and C.O. I applied a year ago and I’m still waiting.”

On the right side of the cartoon is another store with Grand Opening announced and banners flying. A portly figure with drooping mustache and thick glasses stands next to a truck with lettering (PL or PI) visible on its side. (This represents an exaggerated Newman).

A figure opposite the “owner” replies “Its fast and easy in Brick! Just use Pineland Plumbing. The Mayor owns the company.”

In a second comment, this figure, holding a brief case says, “Comming [sic] Dan.” “I’ve got it here.”

It takes very little local knowledge and imagination to conclude what the point here is: use Mayor Dan Newman’s plumbing company and he will use his influence to get your store approvals and a certificate of occupancy.

This is a not so subtle return to the theme that Mr. Newman is corrupt.

Is this a statement of fact or is it opinion? We apply the principles stated in Gertz, supra, and more recently in Ward, supra, (involving an oral statement at a condominium meeting discussing the concept of verifiability as it relates to opinion versus fact). “Unless a statement explicitly or impliedly rests on false facts that damage the reputation of another, the alleged defamatory statement will not be actionable — [0]nly if ... it suggested specific factual assertions that could be proven true or false could the statement qualify as actionable defamation.” Id. at 531, 643 A.2d 972. There is no opinion stated in this cartoon. The message is simply this, pay off Newman by using his plumbing company or with money from the brief case and he will grease the approval process at Town Hall.

In essence, then, I find cartoon, Appendix G, to be another charge of corruption. As the explanation of this charge has been covered completely in discussion of “The Bricktown Investigator”, (Appendix A-C), each of the necessary elements has been found to exist and thus, this cartoon is defamatory fact, concerns the plaintiff (the cartoon uses his name “Dan”, a caricature that is consistent with others depicting Dan Newman, and refers to “Pineland Plumbing”, “the Mayor owns the company”), charges of corruption have been proven false (see P3 and refer to the testimony of Mr. and Mrs. Newman), there has been communication and there has been proven reckless disregard and/or knowledge of falsity. See above.

VI. THE “COUNTERSUIT”

This pleading filed by Mr. Delahunty on March 25, 1992 contained five counts. The only proofs offered as to any defamation of Mr. Delahunty came during Mr. Delahunty’s testimony.

He stated that in a May 1989 Asbury Park Press article, Mr. Newman called him a builder developer who is trying to rip off and rape the Township of Brick. The article, D21, was marked into evidence.

Applying the five elements set forth and discussed above, this statement must fail as defamation for the following reasons: it is a statement of opinion not of fact; there is no proof that it was communicated with actual knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard; and there was no proof that this was actually stated by Mr. Newman.

In a similar vein was the article from the Observer newspaper of September 16, 1989, D44, in which it was alleged that Mr. Newman compared Mr. Delahunty’s action to those of a “Columbian Drug Lord”. This is clearly opinion. No reasonable man would in the context accept this as a statement of fact charging Delahunty with being a Columbian drug lord. Nor is there any proof that this was an actual and accurate statement by Mr. Newman. The comment in the article does not even have quotation marks around it.

Thus, for the law as expressed in Kotlikoff, supra, 89 N.J. at 68-73, 444 A.2d 1086, these are statements of opinion and not defamatory.

VII. DAMAGES

At the outset of trial, it was noted that the principles of Herman v. Sunshine Chemical Specialties, Inc., 133 N.J. 329, 627 A.2d 1081 (1993) would be followed and thus no proofs as to punitive damages would be taken during the trial. The complaint never sought “compensatory damages.”

It would have been difficult to prove any compensatory damages in this factual setting. To conclude that because of these defamatory attacks Mr. Newman lost the election would have been speculative. To attempt to prove loss of profits from the plumbing business in an economy that has been less than robust for the building business in Ocean County would have been futile as the law requires loss of profits to be proven with specificity. J.L. Davis & Associates v. Heidler, 263 N.J.Super. 264, 276-277, 622 A.2d 923 (App.Div.1993).

There was some testimony as to emotional distress both from Mr. and Mrs. Newman.

Mr. Newman testified that during the campaign these materials had an effect on him; that he did not have a desire to go out campaigning and suffer the abuse that was being directed to him. Thus, he avoided some campaign events and some social events.

Mrs. Newman testified that Mr. Newman did not sleep well, she would see him late at night at the kitchen table contemplating one of the materials and shaking his head in dismay and disgust.

Mrs. Newman also testified that she was involved in fifteen election campaigns and this was the most bitter. These materials had an effect on her and the whole family, (their daughter, a school teacher, was confronted with these materials by her students), and she also felt no desire to continue former social and civic activities during and after the election.

Nonetheless, it has long been the law in New Jersey that in slander per se actions (for instance, when the plaintiff is charged with theft), the plaintiff need not prove “special damages” i.e. compensatory damages. Hall v. Heavey, 195 N.J.Super. 590, 594-597,481 A.2d 294 (App.Div.1984).

Therefore, the Court found nominal damages in the sum of $1,000.00 and declared that under the circumstances that punitive damages would be awarded.

PUNITIVE DAMAGES

Following the precepts set forth in Herman, supra, the parties were advised at the outset of trial that evidence as to punitive damages would be submitted if, and after, a verdict was entered as to liability. The trial ended on June 28,1994.

The attorney for the plaintiff asked for additional time to present evidence as to punitive damages and to do discovery, (apparently testimony from defendant and his partners about ownership of the Jackob Farm tract was in conflict with information plaintiff’s counsel had). Thus, I allowed some forty-five days. The defendant later moved for additional time and answers to certain interrogatories. I allowed the answers but kept August 15, 1994 as the firm date for continuing and ending the trial.

Herman, supra, establishes parameters for the award of punitive damages. The following factors are to be considered: (1) there should be a reasonable relationship to the actual injury; (2) defendant’s financial condition, i.e. the ability to pay, which makes sense from both the deterrence aspect and the punishment aspect (twin goals to be achieved in awarding punitive damages); and (3) the plaintiff’s litigation expense. Factor four, punishment from other sources, would seem to relate to possible criminal punishment, not relevant here. Factor five, profits that defendant made by his conduct, is apparently a Corvair like products liability situation e.g. how much money did General Motors earn by not putting the gas tank within the frame of the car?

N.J.S.A. 2A58C codifies criteria for punitive damages in products liability cases. It adds to the above factors a focus on the defendant’s awareness of the harm being caused and the tortfeasors actions after awareness of the harm caused and the duration of the conduct.

Fischer v. Johns—Manville Corp., 103 N.J. 643, 655, 512 A.2d 466 (1986), focuses on whether the wrongdoer’s conduct is “especially egregious.” The case repeats earlier sentiments that the punitive damages serve “to express the community’s disapproval of outrageous conduct.” Id. at 657, 512 A.2d 466. Hustler, supra, condemned false statements of fact. “False statements of fact are particularly valueless; they interfere with the truth-seeking function of the marketplace of ideas, and they cause damage to an individual’s reputation that cannot easily be repaired by counter-speech, however persuasive or effective.” Hustler, 485 U.S. at 48, 108 S.Ct. at 880, 99 L.Ed.2d 41 (citing Gertz 418 U.S. at 340, 344, n. 9, 94 S.Ct. at 3007, 8009, n. 9).

Considering these precepts and applying them to the facts in this case, Mrs. Newman was eloquent in conveying the sense of outrage and helplessness that these attacks had upon the entire Newman family and Mr. Newman in particular. Mr. Newman could not campaign with vigor and avoided certain situations and opportunities. This testimony establishes a real injury with manifestations of suffering just as if Mr. Newman had been injured in an automobile accident and remains with a “psychic overlay.” The harm and damage lasted throughout the campaign and continues.

As William Shakespeare said of reputation some four hundred years ago:

lago. Good name in man and woman, dear my lord,
Is the immediate jewel of their souls:
Who steals my purse steals trash; ’tis something, nothing;
’Twas mine, ’tis his, and has been slave to thousands;
But he that filches from me my good name
Robs me of that which not enriches him
And makes me poor indeed, (emphasis added).
[William Shakespeare, Othello, Act III Scene III, lago to Othello, lines 155-161 (A.L. Rouse, 1st ed., 1978).]

It is difficult to restore a good name once it has been damaged. Thus, it is arguable that Mr. Newman can never fully recover from the harm, so in a sense then his injury and damage is to be considered permanent.

I find the persistent conduct of Mr. Delahunty to be outrageous; that Mr. Delahunty showed no restraint with regard to the material he distributed; that he made little or no attempt to distinguish fact from rumor and seems to have invented material. He had no consideration for the harm that he would inflict with his malicious misstatements of fact. Such conduct, if it goes unpunished, would deter good people from participating in the political process. See Eldredge “The Law of Defamation” (1978), cited above at page 498, 681 A.2d at 674.

At the trial on August 15, 1994, Mr. Newman’s attorney presented Mr. Delahunty’s income tax returns over several years. He also presented evidence relating to partnership interests in real estate holdings having substantial value. The Jackob’s Farm tract is listed for sale at $1.3 million. I find Mr. Delahunty has a 25% interest in that property as well as others (one property has a $198,000.00 contract on it at present). While it is difficult to ascertain the present market value of all but the property that has a contract, it is clear that he has substantial equity in real estate. It is also clear from other testimony that he has capacity to earn money as a builder and in other fields as well. In fact his talent and demonstrated intelligence makes his actions in this case all the more sad. Mr. Delahunty raises a smoke screen as to various outstanding debts, many of which are owed to his mother and are unsupported by legal instruments of debt. The Court does not believe it must make a definite finding as to his exact net worth in order to assess punitive damages. To find he has assets of substance and the capacity to earn a comfortable living is sufficient. Mr. Delahunty has also made several transfers of property from joint names to his wife’s name. These may require future scrutiny.

Therefore, having in mind all of the above and especially considering that this is not an isolated instance of defamation, but a course of conduct with five separate instances of defamation, (Appendicies A, B, C, D and G); I enter an award of $200,000.00 to Mr. Newman to redress the harm suffered, to deter future conduct of this nature and to punish Mr. Delahunty for the persistent outrageous conduct.

To this I add the sum of $1,000.00 and the sum of $13,388.49 which I find to be the reasonable and necessary legal fees expended by Mr. Newman to vindicate his good name; making a total award of $214,388.49 nominal and punitive damages, plus interest as provided by the Rules of Court.

APPENDIX A-PAGE 2 of 7

EDITORIAL

Mr Newnun you hive some nerve funning for Mayor oiler what you did tn this Town. With ail there strip malls anyone would think we'd have hardly any TAXES, butno. we pay S2.ÍI00SJ.UU0 a year on the average. Good job Mr. Newman Nnwyoutay wehavegoodrtntU Show me one. Lanes Mill. Mamoloklng and Van 7de, I know you will say they are county roads, but they arc in our town and if you spent as much time on bettering our way nf life as you do on lining your pockets with TAXPAYER'S DOLLARS, you would not be under Investigation by The State Commission of Investigation.

You are against the Co-Gen plant. Of course ynu are. because millions of dollars will be made on the MASS BURNER tn WARETOWN while <wr attention it being diverted in Lakewood on a politically done deal You Mr. Newman and Buckwald sure make a good charade ai our expense.

Now a question I propose for you O'Danny Boy. why is your plumbing company such a sut wvv1 When you came into nllite. ynur head was barely above water Why do you have your brother-m-law and son in-law on the Planning Board' Don't you fctl any tympathv for the residents on Puppy Court every time it rains and the road's flooded?’ I guess not. vou got your plumbing fee.

You're o corrupt person and the day of reckoning is near (Nov 7ihl How can you took at yimrxll in the minor everyday, it beyond me

Well Mr. Neuman, fur the past six veaic you and your family nnd fnendx have been liv mjt on easy street, thanks to the lAXFAVEKS But November 7(h will be the day WE 1 HE PEOPLE ARK EMANCIPATED from vour CORRUPT DICTATORSHIP

You can now stop your hoaeky poll, trvmg to find out who supports yen» We haw out choice and it is BRIAN DFLAHUNTY tor MAYOR. 1 repeat BRIAN DELAHUNTY for MAYOR!'"

Muvetoyournew Mansion under construction in Florida, and leave us to re-comtruci our town and clean up your six years of mess,

Mkhael Miller

The Land Deal That Went Sour VISTA points:

Forty (40) lots were sold. 10.000 sq. Icci per lot The properly consisted of Forty t-JO) lots. Twenty (20) with rood frontage and high. dry. up land, beautiful building lots

Newman cut ideal with the Builder' Dev eloper so that only the better land w ith rood frontage and huihlahle lots were purchased, at a traction of its value. The remaining Twenty till) lots were swampy wet land that the Bui1JertDvvclo|x.r could not make a huge profit with. Mr Newman solved the Bulldet/Developer's problem with the wet land ihc row n rook hack the Twenty l20iunusable wet lind lots, so that the BuilderfDevc’lopci onlv had the Twenty (20) hits with road frontage, the high dry up land The town was Iclt with wet lanj. but that is only half of the 'lory The Bmliler.'Developer im t paying his (air 'hare of the taxes. The town practically gives uwac the good land and keeps the bad land and doesn't even get the taxes it rightfully deserves Tin' is just one more of the many land deals the INVESTIGATOR is uncovenng

Newman as part of his deal with the RuildcifDcvclopcr retained the unusable, worthless wet land lor the Municipality. Something

went wrong, however. and the Developer Mop ped ihc project in mid stride. He left a few piles nf construction debris and an open road for the illegally dropping of refuse. The Buildcr.'Develeper did not even take the time to put up a fence to keep children out of what wav now a dangerous nuisance lihastxxnlwoi2iIong years stnee the Rudder abandoned tlw site, and Newman has yet to even require him to Mop the dumping and pm upa protective fence. The vile now sits unprotected, being filled with illegal gar tupe Newman has alto laded in even ask the Builder to innove the garbage anil put up a fence in order to keep the site from being an attractive nuisance fot juveniles.

NEUMAN DOESN'T CARE AT \LL WHAT HAPPENS TO THE PEOPLE OR THEIR CHILDREN'. LIKEWISE THE Bl tLUEHDEVELOPER DOESN'T Gl\ E A DARN FOR TUR NFJGHBORHOOD OR THE PEOPLE WHO I.IV K THERE - BECAISE HE HAS ONLY ONE MOTIVE! (SKITIMI RICH OVICKI! Mr Newman led Joe Hill (Jenco Builders! to a meeting to propose Condos and Apartment' tn Reedy Creek. Alter seeing 100 residente on the PreMon St. area, as ««bjeetors they requested to be moved to the back ot the agenda Police c.troe aernsr the hall to quell the disturbance and now you ate a friend nf ihc wildlife. Why tine bigatvut fute* 1 2*4Taking on Congressman ¡v.ill<wic lor the- sake of Fineland Plumhlng w,i\ more than even you would lucklc.

I gucscyou figured it’s an election year jrxl you will jump on whatever hand wagon that cxuiic-' ulong.

I seeyxxi fighling the co generator. hot you tail to tell the people about the HU" burner

1 S500Million M.m itpoKC> ill «os$2txi Million at oik* time I

2 PoHolionth.iltiukc'theCo-Gcn looksamitv

3 HighCnunty taxestYnucan’llK'lpilik Richl'i

4 Kuk bxks and Bond counsel Ires in the imttions

V l(Hi garbage irusk' .i <tiy heading l»i Wat cl own

h Tlie sue houw-s endangered june bailen, live Inigv. pine snake', and white cc'dats We all know the Co-Gen was known by yivu ye.its ago. but now you feel it's ion iate to Mop. so you are giving it the old college try Who gels Uve utioiitcy lees. .Venator John Russo's law linn1 Win. lose or draw it puls thousands in his pockets II is like the Byron Koi731 and Robert FascU-n court Case Ask Charles Starkey what his Ice was and we the taxpayers lost that one on two additional appeals We also paid lítese attorney fees for two appeals, Come on Mayor Newman give us.x break t«i to your new home now being built in Honda and rente, you ean atford it

JUSTICE FOR SALE

A Handful! nf MIIHoiwIrc politicians and buslntssmen reshaped Brick to their (iking. Here*» how the people can win It hack.

In 1983 Dan Newman narrowly squeaked into ■'(ficvaiid through cronieism. favoriiism.inil inirmxlatinn built an old time political machine to match llul ol Biws Tweed and Mayor Hague of Jersey City lie appointed in lawsoud cronies into the Planning Board and Board ol Adjusinicni to create a strangle hold on all building and planning in town We IvLJiite.i town of 'hopping centers, empty stores and For SjIc signs Brian IXIabuntv wuhtbebelpofthe (jlewtxxUurden Resideuls Mopped a 24 acre commercial sue romng during the 1988 master plan and with voui .'uppm and votes will give the town bask to the pcogile.

I am * JO year resident and 11 year lavpaui and I am not going to let corruption spread like cancer through our town We iiium dothe tollo» mg il we plan on keeping «ur humee sate from being taxed by the town and eounlv right mil Irom under us

1. Remove Dan Newman Irom office r*>w

2. Take immediate action at the freeholders who are going to spend up to WU0 million to get a mass burner going in Waretown I his will cosiallofusahiindleincounis las Mulchcrs in Europe turn garbage mio tcrlihrcr 2 imilchcti at n soil of S-UI nullum each, being provHkxl by private industry, we save S.MW million Why not look im<> alirrnanves1

3 Realirc that the co geneutn-n w.is jlu-.ulv dc-tidnlby the lime Dan hi us kuou show u When it is ion late to stop you ¡-si good bi-.Hliincs unking jii issue about it 1 cl*' I.kc u.it DancouUlhave gotten it m Buck. Ik-would give us 101) reasons why it bunios us A Kick hacks lor him H Ralablcs lot us which means more iihuk-v hi tl*c town iicjmiiv tor him C Miiredependablcelcsliu loi hisslH>|<ping centers and ik-vc-lopiiK-nt' llul his companv PiiK-l.iml Plumbing gels I) Mote |ol>s lor los li milts and relances to male ill.- political rn.lv Ion.- grow Sever the Dan 1 union coimes non Sunly .Scnaior Jidm Russo goi wind ot iIk .•> generalist louglvlote IX-vvmtvr l'JXg II u tisik bun approsini.iielv a montli or two t<> siv be was against it. h>*w can wo txlnvo Ins film, which gets thousands ol dollars, can Moj> it now Have you wen any prcssilintH pjgeiuith his (ace on it showing os he was jgjnist it If you see it now you know ii is too tale

4. Help put Brian Del aliunlv m otficc in political itcwvomen because I owe M> POLITICAL FAVORS TO ANYONE. y Keep your eyes open m local, county, state and Icdetal decisions t hex ettect allot us and wr can't depend on the elected officials to represent us. 1 hey rcpiewnt llieir ewen «If interest continued on page

APPENDIX A - PAGE 3 of 7

Newman’s Corruption Will Bring Increase In 1990 Taxes

Despite the millions of additional lax dollars Newman has taken from the citizens of Rnck Town it is slill not enough to satisfy Newman's corrupt spending practices He not only spent the largest budget tnibe history of BnckTuwn. but he has over expended the Budges with nxmey the town does not have

This means more deficit spending, more over expenditures, another huge defied which wifi hate to be made up in 1990 NO MATTER how many Uxdollars Newman gets his greedy hands on he spends it and more The money goes for inflated contracts to political puis, jobs for hts relatives and political cronies, tax abatements, for hrs Buiklcr/Dcvcíoper friends, tax breaks for the wealthy, outrageous legal fees, land deals and other giveaways to friends and "BUDDIES"

Since Newman has taken office there has been a 13 Militen dollar increase in ihe tminaipj) budget He has Increased our capital debt front 3 Million dollars in hood indebtedness to over a 33 Million Dollar Debt He spent every penny of it. plus MILLIONS AND MILLIONS of duller* in deficit spending and overexpenditures that have to be made up next year 1990 AND GUESS WHAT9 Newman will create another even bigger deficit during this vear. because ufthis year's phony budget winch Newman concocted for political reasons hecauxofibc upcoming mayoral election on November 7. 1989.

Newman has publicly claimed that he only had a deficit In 1986 and 1987 THAT IS A FLAT LIE.

Jhc facts are public record and we obtained the Official Budgctson file in Trenton. u>expose the truth NEWMAN'S PHONY F.i.rt flON BUDG1TI AND NEWMAN S GROSS OVPREXPFNOITWRE Mr Newman has done a beautiful job tit cover,ng up his overeapendtlurec and producing bis SPECIAL ELECTION YEAR BUIXit i to fool the people ol Bnck Town Mr Newman said “(I’s a creative accounting maneuver."

The budget machinations, and cover up is just another example of Newman's high priced ad-visors trying to fool the people about how much money Newman is really spending The bottom Une m the example is that Newman spent over 13 Million dollars more than he should have and llut the taxpayers will gel hit with the hill the following year

END THE PHONY BUKJFTS,

' END THE TAX RVCKKAM»,

END NEWMAN’S CORRUPTION

Newman’s Land Deal Cheats Every Taxpayer in Bricktown

Mr. Newman has been systematically making land deals lu favored developers tf anyone looks behind the deals and (he legal baloney covering them they will find a get rich quick scheme A get rich quick deal is one that cheats the taxpaver and enriches the contracture, builders, developers and. roost ot all, the POLITICIANS A scruor entren while watting in his over healing automobile due to a traffic jam created by Mr. Newman's shopping mail land deal, slated the builder-developer and potiiiuarw gel rich and I gel an over-heated automobile' and stuck in trafile because of poor planning and improper development All the politicians and the developers care about iv a get rich quick deal Hiere isn't any con ccrn for proper planning, traffic flows and consideration for the residents of Bricktown

flits is only the surface pnhfcm. what ibe average citizen doesn't see beyond the traffic jam is that the builder-developer is getting a sweetheart deal on top of a sweetheart deal Let me explain, the buitder-dcvcloper is not paying his fair <hare oflases Weibehomeownersarecarryfaghtstax share It is very simple, our taxes are going up -skyrocketing, rttebuiUer-devdnpcismakeadcal with the politicians and they get aux break at our expense. A new shopping mall goexupand more municipal services are being used, a public dram on our public services and a tax deal is nude so ■bey don't pay their fare share of taxes In the followinng weeks wc will show how each and every taxpayer is cheated bv a number ol land deals, including but not trnnteJ (o EAGLE RIDGE, PRINCETON COMMONS. CEDAR MEADOWS. SAILORS QUAYF. PARKWAY ESTATES CAMBRIDGE WALK. VISTA POINT!.. MEADOW RUN. DRUM POINT EAST & WEST

Faeh and every one of these deals causis our taxes to go cp The end results «1 6 years of municipal corruption, land deals, grand larceny in Town Hall is IA) 15051 tax increase to each and every homeowner and rent increases to each and every tenant in Bricktown THE TAXPAYERS AND RENT PAYERS OF BRICK-TOWN ARC PAYING FOR MR NEWMAN GET RICH qUICK SCHFMES

Developer Gets Rich... Homeowners Get Nightmare

Ihe INVESTIGATOR has been beseiged by many, many complaints from residents of Brick Town complaining how the public trust has been violated by Mr Newman Over the next few months wc will expose some of the more flagrant vinlations of public trust by Mayor Newman

Cedar Meadows on Poppy Court

Buildcr'Pevclopcr comes into Mr Ncwnan s office and a deal is made The BuddcnDcv doper gels rich, the Mayor lets him do whatever fie wants soiling ache gelsahuy,e profit Let's lake a close look at Cedar Meadows on Poppy Court •o see a blueprint of Newman s CORRUPT. GF.T RICH QUICK SCHEME

The Builder is required to go before Mayor Newman sson'm law, ROBERT SCHERER and hrotber-m-faw "GoodBuddy"Gunther wbornnirols Newman s hand-picked board YOU KNOW THE KENT. The Kuiider/bcvcioper gets his approvals. ONE. TWO. IHREE. then the BuiWer/Deveiufier goes to Newman's Building Department and puts up a bond in the amount of $24.000 The purpose of going to the Building Department and getting a bond is to protect the Town of Brick and to ensure proper streets storm ami sanitation sewers, street lighting, drainage and construction

NOW, let's look at what happenedand bow the people of brick and the hotneownerx now living in Cedar Meadows on Puppy Court have been cheated LOOK WHAT Mayor Newman got. he became fire plumbing ctmraucr lilt owns jnd operates. P1NELAND PLUMBING wiiti his brothcr-m-Iaw 'Good Buddy" Gunther) They mode a huge profit putting in all the plumbing Second. Mayor Newman in addition to a LUCRA 11VE PLUMBING CONTRACT he also gul a large CAMPAIGN CONI RIBUTION from the Buitdcr/Dcvclnper for his eteetton LOOK WflATlhcBuitdcr/Dcveloper got.first quick approvals from Newman s Mother-in-law ' Good Buddy" Unrulier hi« son in-law Robert Snnm Scherer Rrother-m law' CoodBuddy' Gunther is nlso on Mr Newman's plumbing payroll He directly received money paid to Newman under Pineiand Plumbing

What a conflict of ínteres!

The Bulkier'Developer was allowed to get away with not installing 500 feet of stormwater drainage pipe wasallowcdiogetaway without installing a detention retention basin, was allowed to get away without installing proper street lights Not only did the Bulkier/Dcvekipcr cut back on the ¡obatxídel inferior HOT*, hut Mr Newman reduced hts bond to a pttence to protect the ButWertDcvelnper from any insurance liability (The purpose of a bond is to have recourse against the Duildcr/Dcvctoper's insurance company if the Butlder'Devdnper does inferior work Tbs. bond protects the Townot Brick and new homeowners against improper work )

What did the homeowner get" FLOODED BASTMENTS. CRACKED WALLS FLOOD ED STRI BIS. CRACKED SIDEWALKS. TWO FEET OF WATER IN THFJR BASEMENTS RUINED PROPERTY. WATER DAMAGE LACK OF STREET LIGHTING. HK.H TAXES LOW PROPERTY VALUES and absolutely no recourse to the BuiMer/Dcvefoper. because Newman approved the job and reduced the Builder'Devc'opcr x bond u> a men $4 000 for the lota! job. Stop by Cedar Meadows, behind the WaWa and Drum hunt Road on Poppy Court and uk any of the homeowners about the nightmare What did die town get in the last six months over 30 vixits by the engineering department of Cedar Meadows hundreds ot complaints Thecira of hav mg to put in 500 feet of sewage pipe to Mop the flooding What recourse does the town have for all the utfenor woritrourwhip? Yep. you guess ed u, only a mere $4.000 in bonds

I he politician and Roiklcr.’Devetoper got rich the homeowner got u nightmare This tv just anexherexampie iifhow Bnck Man tv suffering from CORRUPTION IN GOVFRN MENT How many more streets and homes arc-going tobe flooded before we change our government IT'S TIME FOR A CHANGE.

JUSTICE FOR SALE

continued limn page 2

We have to become involved or the middle-r'aw will slow!) shrink unti! » t'juvt upper-class and lower-class

6 Realtzc the «wily reason Dan wants in stay for tour more ye.trx is for money, power and greed He rs a vital link to the county and state and the Democratic party can't afford for him to tv defeated A greedy man ts never satisfied therefore taxes will continue to rise

7 We can't afford to sell town land (Elm Lane) to Dan's brothcr-m-Iaw. "Good Buddy* Gunther who tits on the Planning Board for $14.500 while he wails for Mr Robmsontoninaroad and utilities in. Did be have advance knowledge of this through the Mayor and his position on the Planning Board7 A oubet he did Now he |us thtee lots at about $60.000 per lot - SIJW.O» SJ4.S00 = $165.500 Deduct some engineering feres and you have acool $150.000 profit I am sure the town could use the money more ihjn "Good Buddy Gunther

tf TTtfU’KOfTL TRUM WANT A CHANGE IN BRICK. IWII LGIYF.tT'TOTHRM ALL YOU HAVF.TO DO IS GET INVOLVED CO TO SCHOOL BOARD MEETINGS, COHN- ( n, MEETINGS AND PLANNING BOARD MEETINGS. YOl CAN'T AFFORDNOTTO GIVE UP SOME TIME TO SEE H HAT IS REALLY HAPPENING AROUND YOl'. LACK OF PARTICIPATION IS AY HAT HELPS DAN AND HIS GOOD RUDDIES PUI.I. THE WOOL OVER ALL OUR EYFS.

i HONEST GOVERNMENT 1 LOWER TAXES

APPENDIX B - PAGE 6 of 8

THE TRUTH - Newman’s Record

Tens of thousands of dollars taken from the taxpayers. In one example alone, local papers reported a $60,000.00 deal (as reported in the Asbury Park Press);

State Commission of Investigations Investígalos Corruption Boss Newman refuses to take lie detector test about payoff.

State office investigating Brick Township payoff with Mayor Newman. -Thousand$ and Thousand$ of Dollar$ Taken From The Taxpayer$ - Your taxes are already up $1,300 to $1,400 per home. Stop Newman before they go up another $1,300 to $1,400 next year. .

S.C.I. Investigates - Newman’s Corruption

It is clear that Newman is not interested in running Brick Township or Improving the economic conditions oi Brick Township. He and a small gang of builders and developers sucked hundreds of thousands of dollars from the taxpayers.

Voters of Brick Township - The Facts About -Newman

Fact 1 Newman awarded high priced contracts.

Fact 2 Newman has given high priced vouchers for hundreds of thousandsof dollars'tdTiis'personaHriends.

Fact 3 Newman uses his public office for his own personal gain.

Fact 4 Millions of dollars in special tax abatements to his friends in special deals,

Fáét 5 State Commission of Investigations investigating corruption.

Fact 6 He has family and friends oh the township payroll (they have received over $500,000.00).

Fact 7 Newman is driving his second new gas guzzling, all power Chrysler New Yorker complete with a special car phone to check on his plumbing work through Ocean County using town gas (this is just one of the many examples of how Newman takes from the taxpayer).

Fact 8 Newman has put a $price on everything in Brick Township.

Corruption = High Taxes

It’s Time For A Change

Vote Row C Brian Delahunty

APPENDIX C - PAGE 1

THE SUPREME INSULT

Mr Newman h«*xcMlWx UNTRUE POLITICAL FLYER to cvcty registe red voter In Utkfc KiwmJilp

ONU ME UIK.KVS AND! HER LIBI

Ylm «n't (ell the lie fnwilhe I ruth, HHwtin'l Dm tire Brick Htwnshlp Invctllgslnr this NEWMAN Ft,YF.R, ABOUT REEDY CREEK could be pawed off ** true.

BUT the (*ct* and official dncurntnli lell u> utherwlre FAW5:

AOerhel)igclci.lcdMiyiirin l983.D*nNcwm*n fniiAcdwlcty contacted hla Rullder/Dcvelopcr friend* in begin hit climb from KAOS TO RICHES hret be took control of the Planning Bond nikl ilrcBnenlof Adju*lrocnl. If there wusii't ii ptiMa outcry. Iiy tire tc*ldenl*tif«ntica (Inn lire mtcgrilyot llxirnciglibixhond wishclngdwlnycd. ilk- I1mfik'r/Dcwti>tk.r wwtil wulk mwy with u top. profit. IromlwiMiftgcidcvcfupmciir. rttklflre l<c«ple«i llrkkTuundilpwuutdhcsuekwiiliiiKifC IRAFHC I'Utlltl.KMS, I'OI.I.UTION AND DhSTHUaiONOFTIIMK WETLANDS. On AupuM IK. I9H4. Mr. NcwnunimlfiMcph&NrpcIli Mated. that tlx Planning Board basal ready txlpcd fowli/c the oonluig In the nnlimmce nodtugued that there n.i*.nnpleiinic between tul w«k» tdicdulcd hi\l iviidinp ami the i-Mimll's next scheduled mcvliry ni S«i'k.mlxr Tor lire huid lo uppriwc: A HIGH DENSITY CONDOMINIUM AND MARINAI'UOItrt Al THK.SrihOFKEKDY < llt-.l-K

lliia nm-vlij. ilnoiepmu-i.nlltfi iwkU'iimllkMf. iluusot tlk-<V.vrm(K<wi\vrlvivi:lilcntlv follow* inyipuHi* ' Mm -nc killing dollars and tent* fiir ilk- develops r oml lor llrtek HisvnHup." Seurpelli \-iul t'iwikilmi» finale* Aixlcrum sjist “Hint M,u Ins ( undonitimnnx have K-vctsI good point*, lik Indnig their high valueaxatxx nituNc*, and that. 1‘cvauw tiny .uepivvlmniiutly summer Utmc*. the ■iwik-rt children would mil u*c (Ire Titwnxlilp

Alter tlx ankles appeared on Asigust 19,1964, aeupytd which ctmhcubtiined from the edilnrof

tlx Brick Ttrwnahlp tnvcsllgahw and the Osean County,ObMivtr. Tlx Rea Menu of Reedy Creek, Ibeetammera, and the fisherman descended upon lire town hill, to protest andskipibli (SET RICH QUICK SCHEME, hy Mr. Newman and hla enhnria. Over ISO residents of THE REEDY CREEK AREA STORMED THE TOWN HALL a ikI protested tha passing of the devdopmenl fix the Builder/Dtstloper, when the politician utw all uf the people al ihc meetleg they tabled the REEDY CREEK rROJFXT

Again In August uf 1988, Mr. Newman Itkd hr snenk in a development at REFJTY CRFT.K. The residents. ctantmer*. the local flrbetman and tlx k*av Wilton league descended vpon town hall hi pnttc*i and stop TOWN IIOVSKS AND CONDOMINIUMS ty Mr. Newman andhU business associate lenco Builder*. The resident* of REF.DY CREEK by their sheer number* put (car Into tlx publicist» and amKher REEDY CREEK project waaSIOPPED again. But it doesn't stop here, Mr Newman again (flea to pul la develop menu M the expense of our environment at REEDY CREEK.

(Corntnunlon l\‘xr J)

MU. NEWMAN CflA»AN'n*:ii.SA lIKall TAX INCREASE

On October 3. 1969 6 30 P.M. al the Linns Head South Association on Beaverson Boulevard In tlx presence trf 200 member* of Hie l.ltm Head Association Mr Newman puMIdy allied that his pnlitically controlled school baud Is going to have to raise our school Uses $4.20 per thousand doHars of evaluation This would cause a $250.00 In 3M.00 tax In-m«*fW<he*renrgehome Thgelhee with the Municipality and (he County (ax Increase the average homeowner will be faced with a $40000 (o 50009 tax btmase.

Mr. Oro», who la running on Hie Newman poKUeaHickeLuldonStorerCibteehaniKl 13 on KVJ/89tt9;OOP.M. "Vfeiregdngtohave harddmeawlthlhe (0a%lMre-evaluallan.M People are going to have a hard time paying their tax Inerme.

The Brick Tbwn Newt KV3f$9hadan article on page J HftTfií I’Mlh/mM I'UMlbS KI’ENIUNt;. It ahuwed how we slsbllwdour Municipal Thx with a surplus form early colieclkMofachooHaxes luiatucontinuedfunding from that source Is dependent upon a growing school budget A reduced school budget would create a municipal funding short (hll.

Why wilh a reduced enrollment isour budget going up?

Why do we have so many administrators?

Whydoour adtnfnltfnWont receive such high car allowances?

Why does Mr. Newmnnclaim he ha* no contort over our sehotrt taxes?

Why dkt we go from a level I In a level II and hove 7 sfcflclcncle^7

ThearuwenspoliHcsinuurachuntsystcni Mr Newman chose to put his tcnaclte* into our cliHHrcn'sedtxallon McwasnotsatlsHedwith lioukiuptlngiHir town, he also wants to hinder mtr children's education

Taxes htvve more than doubled since Mr. Newman took office

NICWMAN’S TIHJGS ATTACK ,SliNK)K ClTtZICN

APPENDIX C - PAGE 3 of 4

ITOMI RAGS TO ItlOII

• At llic nilrnfclpal tax rate sky-rocketed In the faxl xjx*years, only Mr. Newman's pereona! wealth raxe with our (ax rate.

According to official record* filed by (he United Stale* government In iheOccan County Court'ffmixc, a federnl tax lien war filed on January ft, 1970 for $1;02l.18.'Uf>on qucMtonlug Mr Ncwituin, tichox mfvUeuthe general ptrhlit ilinl he onlyludtmctnx Icln filed by the United Rime* government in 1979. Upon a tlmmugh investigation by one of otir in* vcxiig-itivc reporter*, we tmve obtained (he offlcial United Stale* lax lieu* filedogainxl I’iitc tamda Plumhing muí Hcnltng, Ine., which it owned hy Mr. Ncwnmn.

January 8,1970 October 11,1972 October 26,1972 March 7, 1977 April 20, 1978 October 20,1980 October 20,1980 September 3,1961 Septembers, 1981 Septembers, 1981 Jenuery28,1983

i 3,021.16 1,076.33 1,035.69 7,778.68 11,261.13 11,626.86 671.61 14,597.11 1,289.29 100.18 15,298.38

'I Ills ix jnxt one or the nuiny tnlxrcprcscnladons, false statement*, h»1ftrulh.xoml Ikn made by Mr Newman to the people oí Brick 'Ihwnship. As n result of this Invcstlgallun we have found lluil Mr. Newman’* fnxttnx lien on Jnnuary 28. 198.1 in the amount erf $15,293.36 ended when he was elected (n puttie office In Brick lltwnship.

MimeutmMy nxour lax raicita*gone up, Mr, Ncwm,m has tícenme a MULTt-MILLtON-AIRIi.liehd.xgi.merminpurchaxInghiscIiUhes in Jolm\ Bargain Store In wearing, only the fittexl fashion*, from Ucnltcuten’x Quarterly. Mr. Newman ci net) 1 n make h i e lunch and bring ii to work in n hrnwn hag every day prior to his becoming Mayor, nnw he eat* In the fines) rcxtuunmlx nnd fs often *ccn picking up lite check for Id* friend* nml polillcal cohort*.

Since 1961, Mr. Ncwinxn ha* become a world traveler. Before he wit* elected to the Mnvor’* office Ire uxett to spend Wi summers at our Brick Tbwnxhlji beach, butílneehe his become Hie Mayor he now fly* to Orlando WorHliinmlalldvcrlitownrtdfnrhli vocation*.

From bouncing checks nml having Federal Tux LicitolmheTilNSOFTHOUSANDS OF DOLLARS, be hat become an INTERNA* 1IONAL TRAVBLBR, FLORIDA CON* DOMIMUM OWNUR and a BEAU DRUMMULL

VA Imvc reportedly requested frnm Mr. Newman, copies of hi* financial record* for the last xix year*. They Mill remain nmyslety... but IhcFAOSARnTlinrVCTS. Brick township hax gone deeper luto financial debt. Our taxes Imvc sky-rocketed, and Mr. Newman ho* become n MULTI-MILLIONAIRE with hi* wealth xky-mcketing like our taxes.

BRIAN’S

HOTLINE

477-9080

melt Up Lawn Signs at

-150 Orlolt Blvtl.

After speaking tn many ní Mr. Oxenfordx supporters nnd friends, «e at the Investigator icltohllgnledlotel) the «a ry of a reh! fríe rnJ of the citizens, DAVBOXBNPORD. Dave lathe kind of man we all strive and hope to become withlnthe community. He Is a man of Dedication. Honesty and Compassion. Wi are urging all voters tn elect Mr. Ownford, November 7. Ruw“C”, toTliwnshlp Council. He presently Is hospital lied and xw ere praying for him and hoping be ho* a speedy recovery. We wnnl a shew of support for a honest man that ha* nothing but (lie common prod in hi* heart fiw his fellow nun. If unable to serve, we at the Investigator will demand Mr. Oxenford be allowed to appoint* person (o fill blsspot. He has walked many mild and talked to many people and he Is deserving of our support.

Btti*1shrx Michael Miller, Eclilar P.S. Our support and prayers go out to hi* family and friend* sisa

HONEST GOVERNMENT LOWER TAXES

NEWMAN’,

On September 13, 19*9 at 8:30 P.M., Mr. Anthony Rrrrn, Sr. ,afi5W. old rentar ekbtn ««giving out literature Insuppnrt of Brian Detahumy. far Mayor, running onaptirtformof L01VERTAXKS AND ENDINO CORRUPTION. A* Mr. Ferro was explaining to pcopfetkathls taxes hire doubled in the toil four years and ho I* livingoo a fixed ¡octane, with the fear of losing Ms home, that represents Ms lit: tang avhg* While In the hdltiay, Mr. Rum was talking about M« ancM security check being esten awqy iy the confiacatoiy taxes», when he wu brutally attacked and knocked uneonacteu*.

Mr. Ferro, sakl‘Tbenesl (hlngl mnemhcrvM treking op la lbs emergency rob*» of Brick Tbwn

W A pn»Uder« tried Input Inover250homes«nd directly dUebatg* their wastewater into the Rsy, polhiilagwrctirn beds vtdpWscntagoor fish and crabs, destroying the whale eavhonmemsl chain. This OBT RICH QUICK SCHEME by Mr. .Newman and the xJevcloper was stopped by the courageous people (hat live In the REEDV CREEK, I he taaae Wrtfcm longue Congressman Pallnne ami concerned cltlren, Brian Delahunty.

T Way October WJV.Mr. Ncwmanlxnmningfiw the MrvnralontcciniHirllMrmblp.llehasprlntrd tIu:MirRKMEIN8ULTFI.YERH<thepe«plcof Brick tlwrvxhlp. bul this U only lire Btxt part of the xiory. rheac mute nulMer/Ocvctopcn arc giving Thncunh of dollar* to Mr. Newnwn nnw, via plumbing contraéis, and targe political contribution».

Anyone ean go visit the people at REfDY CREEK, The tsxsc Wrttnn fungue. The Ocean CmmiyOb*«rver, the A*hury Pork Prca* nnhc official inbuHcxnfihcri.wnlng Board. Bnordof Adjust mem nr official records of the township council, fur documented proof of Mr. Newmans SUPREME INSULT, Bit? LIES ABOUT REEDY CREEK.

Thaddtmulttnlnjury, tela took deeper Inin why Mr. Newman controls (he Ptanofng Board, Board of Adjn»lmcnt end IWreuMp Council. He directly benefit*. Heretshow It works: l)faesea*ltbewtt tsndairakmwnas PRINCETON COMMONS, on rrinccton Avenoe. directly acmes from Wind-wood Beach, Mr, Newman’s getllng the phmihtng contract fromthc same WAPContraclors thothe was going u* develop REEDY CREEK whh far ewer ONE MIM JON IKHJARfi. As long ex Mr. New man I» the Mayor of Brick Hiwnxhlplhexamc developer* will destroy the ECCO system, create bowing project*, shopping cement and congested mad treys. Nothing baschtriged since Mr. Newman took office in 1981. Today the same Bitlklcr/Oevelopcnt that were Mopped hy moire, alert and concerned rwWerrtsWREKDY CREEK are sneaking hi developments end OET RICH QUICK RKA? A tlmughout tur tnwmhlp will» Mr. Ncwittan.

2| Mr. Newfuansakl ”1 never approved emulo* nr town bouses oo the water during my administration.” Salina Quay on Old I Inoper Avenue, tht* imb approved daring Mr. Newman's wJminlU ration, y « ean physically go snd ace SAILORS QUAY, and gtte*s what? WIllMSOTRtCIHWU CAN ACT 4r. NtwmuidM the plumbing again._

THUGS

I IntpM and being advised that Robert Scf ¿rcr. Mr. Newman'a son-in-law, and chairman nf Mr. Ntwmanh ptaMring board, ted the brutal attack, by Newman's TDUQ3 on me.”

After being borptullrcd far three days, Mr. F%m> returned home to recupérate from this vicious uack. The atghl of the attack Mr. Scherer and Good Buddy O — lher were taken to Mice Headquarters, and were released.

Mr. Item la currently underlie dnetort care and being treated for the Injuries th« he nffored n • result rtf this vlefoua attack, hy Mr. Newman's ann-In-tsw.

APPENDIX D

WHERE YOUR TAX DOLLAR REALLY GOES

Newman Is like e pararte wfio feeds off the lax payers dollars to further Ms own personal financial tains and enierprlses. Me has Mned and pillaged Brick for Six yean (showing shopping centers on every comer, seme wtth no C O/s so that Briektown doesn't receive a dime In structure taxes ft wonder who got all Ihme plumbing Jobs/) the Ornan County Observer reported the N J. State Commission of Investigation Is finally a! town hall broking Into corruption In the Newman Administration. H Is time for us all lo band together and clean our town up once and lot all.

— VOTE BRIAN DELAHUNTY FOR MAYOR IN BRICK —

Iwtcwv

No footicAt rAvoes Oecincv

Equal fMrtorMUM crronnmtms PtaSONAl CONTACT Uflllt TIK fumtC EVAlUATt TCY.WS SltUOtMCS

Nowpohsm ano cronyism

DtDtCATf D rustic SIRVAN!

End corruption in brick Ntwortw door iyx rev TaxstashizatioN

I NTECRETY • Delahunty. a hardworking, honest businessman Is prepaired at anytime to open his personal or business books for public Inspection and challenges Boss Newman to do (he same.

NOvPOUTICAL FAVORS - Delahunty Is appalled that a Mayor can own a plumbing business In a townAvhcrc. his ln-lavys are on the planning board and can decide who gets,approvals. Isn't this a conflict pf Interest?

DECENCY «Ofian Delahunty a 30 year township resident Is duly concerned with slopping the runaway spending that causes tax Increases.

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY • Delahunty feels |obs should be awarded lo qualified people with seniority, not to friends who's Incompliance costs you money.

P ERSONALtZED CONTACT • Delahunty will work a full 60 or more hours a week and will allow all citizens to come In with or without an appointment to air (heir grievances and concerns.

E VALUATE TOWN SPENDINGS • Delahunty will ask retired and working businessmen and women, accountants, engineers, lawyers or anyone who volunteers their expertise to help us get Brick back on her feet.

No NEPOTISM AND CRONYISM - Delahunty will abolish alt nepotism during his administration and promises not to appoint any friends or relatives to the boards. The new business administrator will do all hiring and firing and use qualifications as the basis not who you know.

DEDICATED - Delahunty chose to run as an Independan! lo show that party lines should not restrict any voter from making Ihe RIGHT choice, especially since partisan government has not existed In Briektown for over 20 years nowl

END CORRUPTION - Delahunty will encourage local contractors and businessman to bid on municipal projects, ending spécial favors and out of lown carpet baggers.

N EW OPEN DOOR POLICY *■ Delahunty wifi make the town spendings and budget available to the public for Inspection.

T AX STABILIZATION . Delahunty will crark down on tax violators and show how recycling ton make money!

APPENDIX E

APPENDIX F

APPENDIX G

APPENDIX H

APPENDIX I 
      
      The original trial opinion contained all of the publications alleged to be libelous. This opinion for the sake of brevity eliminates several of the publications found not libelous.
     
      
       The Jackob’s Farm subdivision is discussed at length at p. 504 infra.
      
     
      
       This cartoon is Appendix E.
     