EDITION: Ashe County
FAQs PLACE A CLASSIFIED AD ADVERTISE YOUR BUSINESS
Registered Users, Log In Here
West Jefferson Town Alderman and Manager listed in lawsuit.

tryagainloser

Posted 5:34 pm, 01/03/2019

Wrong again Lurker!!!

Rose talking about Hendrix's employment with the Town of West Jefferson is out of his scope of services. He does not have the authority nor the right to comment on any officers employment status especially when that comment is FALSE and an OUTRIGHT LIE and it specifically references Hendrix's former employment at the Police Dept Chief Rose was in charge of.

You also fail on the qualified immunity part because you forget who he was talking to and the context in which it occurred. Rose having communications with Gary Roark about a potential candidate is qualified immunity. However when he shared that information along with the outright lie with, (supposedly) Terry Buchanan, a candidate who was applying for the position of Sheriff, the conversation is no longer qualified. Terry had not been selected as Sheriff yet and would not be covered under such immunity until he was sworn in.

Now on to the rest of your nonsense. You are correct that Hendrix has to prove that the statement is False, however that is easily accomplished as Hendrix was never charged, fired or even accused of stealing and smoking evidence while employed at WJ. As stated below by aFic, Rose didn't preface the statement as an opinion, he stated it as a fact. As such Rose and WJ have to prove that the statement he made is True, as he was speaking about Hendrix's employment. Rose as Police Chief knew or should have know the statement was false and his failure to verify such information before spreading the lie considering Hendrix who at the time was another Police Officer is inexcusable. If any any part of the statement is True, Hendrix would not have a case as truth is the absolute defense to a libel or slander case.

Lastly, you want to be lawyer, Libel Per Se. Hendrix does not have to prove malicious intent as the statement Rose made is claiming that Hendrix committed an infamous crime. As such, when attacking ones profession, the burden to prove malicious intent is lifted as the statement when considered alone, outside any context is still considered inherently liable.

Law School 101. Class dismissed.

Lurker2

Posted 12:55 pm, 01/03/2019

I'm not defending Rose.

Pointing out the hurdles to winning a defamation suit against a public official is not the same as defending an ****.

Just being a loudmouth **** is not sufficient for conviction of most crimes or torts.

jack rip her

Posted 11:13 am, 01/03/2019

You sure are going to great lengths in order to defend that piece of crap Rose.

Lurker2

Posted 11:04 am, 01/03/2019

Fins, you and others seem to be missing my point. Jimmy has to PROVE malice because Rose has qualified immunity:

Qualified immunity for public officials

A public official sued individually is not subject to liability unless the official’s actions were malicious, corrupt or outside the scope of official duties. Epps v. Duke University, 122 NC App 198 (1996).

The qualified immunity applies only to public officials, not to public employees. Generally public officials occupy offices created by statute, take an oath of office, and exercise discretion in performance of their duties. Pigott v. City of Wilmington, 50 NC App 401 (1981); Gunter v. Anders, 114 NC App 61 (1994).

7

Elected board members are public officials, Town of Old Fort v. Harmon, 219 NC 241 (1941); as are chiefs of police and police officers, State v. Hord, 264 NC 149 (1965); the county director of social services, Hare v. Butler, 99 NC App 693 (1990); the chief building inspector, Pigott v. City of Wilmington, 50 NC App 401 (1981); and superintendents and principals, Gunter v. Anders, 114 NC App 61 (1994).

Teachers are public employees, not public officials, and are not entitled to qualified immunity, Mullis v. Sechrest, 126 NC App 91 (1997), rev’d on other grounds, 347 NC 548 (1998); Daniels v. City of Morganton, 125 NC App 47 (1997). Other examples of public employees include street sweepers, Miller v. Jones, 224 NC 783 (1944); and social workers, Hare v. Butler, 99 NC App 693 (1990).

This from the NCIOG


Jimmy has to PROVE that Rose knew what he said was factually wrong, and that he said it purposely to hurt Jimmy. Rose has a ton of possible defenses and the most important defense is that without audio, you have no voice inflection which most people use to construct meaning. I'm not defending Rose or condemning Jimmy, I'm just pointing out that Rose is an "official" and officials get to say some outrageous things or worse suggest some outrageous things and walk away.

Now, if imbedded in the redacted portions of the documents are any disparaging mention of Jimmy's certifications, any negative comment about him and Salemburg, of anything that can be proven that Rose knew was untrue and you have him. What further complicates this is Rose's status as an elected person because elected office holders also have greater leeway in saying things.


I just don't see that Jimmy can actually win anything other than the satisfaction of making Rose say that Jimmy was never accused of stealing and smoking evidence, never charged, never arraigned, never tried, and never found guilty. That I think he can get.

aFicIoNadoS

Posted 11:03 pm, 01/02/2019

Lurker, you clearly aren’t an attorney. It was clear what crowd meant

Blackknight

Posted 11:02 pm, 01/02/2019

Lurker2,

Your screen name is very fitting to your personal life! We wouldn’t want your skeletons to come out of the closet...

Joseph T.

Posted 8:15 pm, 01/02/2019

You forget there is more to the story than you are reading here. Try read the actually complaint in full and not just a piece or to you see here.

Lurker2

Posted 6:59 pm, 01/02/2019

What is the definition of "in the crowd"? The problem is that the phrase "in the crowd" could mean a number of things and only Rose knows what he meant. That's not a statement of "Jimmy was accused of smoking dope and stealing evidence". What Rose said in the quote listed as the smoking gun is doesn't meet the threshold of defamation in NC. Moreover Jimmy has to prove that Rose knew what he was saying was wrong, and that he said it to purposely hurt Jimmy.

Jimmy is a public person, not a private person in NC. He has to prove the highest standard of malice. Since the comment is imbedded inside other political talk I just don't see any recovery on Jimmy's part. Unless there is something more substantial I hope Jimmy's mouthpiece is taking this on a contingency basis.

Joseph T.

Posted 2:00 pm, 01/02/2019

According to the text message on 10/30/16 Roes said " Hes in the crowd that got gone from W.J. for evidence being used and smoked. So he accused jimmy of breaking the law but provided no proof.

jack rip her

Posted 12:00 pm, 01/02/2019

Yearicks will be pulled into this also, that is if it ever goes to court. Not saying it will be dismissed but settled to avoid embarrassment and save insurance money.

aFicIoNadoS

Posted 11:55 am, 01/02/2019

Rose didn’t say “I think” in those messages. He straight up made derogatory statements about the man’s character and work history.

Lurker2

Posted 10:15 am, 01/02/2019

I went back and read those text messages. I must have missed something. All I got from it was political gossip and personal thoughts. If you say that you think someone is a **** or use to hang around with a certain crowd those are not libelous or slanderous statements if the person has a public persona. Jimmie has not be a completely private person for years.

Like I said, maybe I missed the comments.

jack rip her

Posted 7:08 pm, 12/31/2018

Good try lurker, but those text messages are killer. This go around the redactions will be removed. Give Jeffery the good news.

Lurker2

Posted 6:31 pm, 12/31/2018

In litigation like this, the plaintiff gets deposed. The deposition will be conducted by outside council after they have investigated the plaintiff and pumped everyone who has an ax to grind against Jimmy. None of the people involved have the average person's level of privacy because of the positions they hold so any plaintiff has a much higher bar to clear for liable or slander.

Running for public office opened Jimmy to most anything.

Never confuse what seems fair or right with the law. All of Jimmy's complaints can be turned on their head by asserting that it was his run for PUBLIC office that outed these statements.

pointman

Posted 11:29 am, 12/31/2018

Different Reeves, Dog. John K. Reeves serves as an alderman.

jack rip her

Posted 9:54 am, 12/31/2018

Here is the latest. Isn't Reeves a town alderman and is defending the town?

Yourhurtfeeling

Posted 8:58 am, 12/21/2018

Lmao how could you not see the damages and loss that jimmy subsequently suffered. He spent valuable resources in time and money in a campaign for a elected seat that is a public vote in the county that he lives in. The defamatory statements was in a public record that questioned his honesty and portrayed him as a liar, a thief, and a drug user. His employment as a whole was damaged in he chance of a job and advance whether it being active sheriff or a advancement in another police agency furthering his career that he spent his whole life building. Him being held to a high standard and having statements issued against him cost him time that he spent politicking, potentially losing friendship. How could you place a amount in dollars on that.?.!! AFictostadas’

aFicIoNadoS

Posted 11:06 pm, 12/20/2018

Because that’s how civil cases work. He can only sue for what damage was done. If he wasn’t directly harmed, then he can’t be awarded any damages.

Yourhurtfeeling

Posted 9:46 pm, 12/20/2018

Jolly man how you figure hindrix will have to provide proof of a loss? his name was run through the mud in public records and documents with their little texting escapade and their deceitful plan during the time of his running of sheriff. They was discussing county business making it public knowledge and him blabbing it around the county that he got fired from stealing evidence. Aside the fact that the town of WJ still employes him sickens me and and all the county as well. I also hope Bill Brown files for him a lawsuit. As far as him handling police records and business you know that whole police department is screwed up and will take a new administration several years I could imagine to fix his mess. We all know how well he handles records if you don’t know ask WBTV.

jack rip her

Posted 11:30 am, 12/20/2018

Lets look back at the corrupt, crooked, lying individuals that have been removed from office and job. First off Bufurt, second Elmer Fudd aka Roark, third Yearick, and Rose who did not run again. I would really like to see you Perry, gone also.

Advertise Here for only $1!
If you're seeing this ad, then so will your customers! Click here to create and manage your own ads, for only $1 a day!
KFC/Taco Bell
Now hiring all locations
Enter to win a $10,000 Dream Vacation
Ready to go on the trip of a lifetime? One lucky winner will win a $10,000 dream vacation. Don't miss out; enter by April 14th, 2024!