1 Comment

  1. Anonymous

    As I am not a lawyer it may be difficult to give a fair assessment to Judge Griffiths ruling in the Henderson case but, since we all have to live with mountains of judicial opinions and further, since we all must have some opinion as to the quality and fairness of many judge’s opinions in order to vote for them, I will attempt to give, in layman’s terms, what I believe is the substance of Judge Griffiths three page opinion that has taken his court three years to produce.

    But first, a couple of observations.

    The first observation is that the Henderson case against Lancaster Newspapers, et al, was (is) not all that simple, in that it has taken so long for the judge to arrive at a decision. Either that or Judge Griffith himself is simple. Or, it may be that the courts are so swamped that the standard today is that justice is almost always denied, as in the proverb, because it is so often delayed. Delay could also have been purposeful. Some judges, especially in controversial, politically sensitive, cases, like Henderson, believe a long delay has an important “advantage”, in that much of the background and substance will have been forgotten when the decision is finally published. “Who was Molly Henderson anyway”.

    The second observation is somewhat contradictory in that the case does seem, to Judge Griffith, at least, to be quite simple. He says there was no legally defined, situational, and legally necessary, “malicious” defamation of Molly Henderson, that so exceeded what a newspaper can legally say with regard to a public official involved in a public controversy. So, there was no legal defamation. This he says is true, in spite of “Evidence of ill will or defendant’s (Lancaster Newspapers) desire to harm plaintiff’s reputation”. Having found no defamation he further concludes that neither can there be a “conspiracy” to defame Molly Henderson since there was no defamation to begin with. Simple.

    My opinion is simple as well.

    Molly Henderson was actually defamed, smeared, and vilified, by a simple conspiracy of significantly vested and aligned interests, (Penn Square Partners, Lancaster Convention Center Authority, The Lancaster Redevelopment authority, The Lancaster County DA’s office, the Law firm of Stevens and Lee PC, and others) simply to stop her, as a County Commissioner (in the majority on the Convention center issue) from having any further influence on the size, scope, financing, taxes, and public guarantees, which the developers of the Lancaster Hotel and Convention Center hoped to have supported by state and local governments. They succeeded in so damaging her reputation that she was driven from public office and denied her, well earned, public esteem. The sunshine law was simply part of the darkness. (see commentary by Christiaan A. Hart Nibbrig NewsLanc June 14, 2011).

    I believe Judge Griffith knows that too. He may just think what was done, although unfair, was not against the law. Lawyers and judges are well acquainted with that reality. So are we all.

    The tragedy in all this is not simply the personal loss to Molly Henderson, but to all of us. This entire history, court case, and now the decision itself, sends a frightening message to every good person who has or would ever run for public office. It tells them that their loyalty to the public, who elected them, loyalty to their fiduciary duty, and even loyalty to their own conscience, is permitted, but only to a point and that point is when it conflicts with financial, political, and media powers who can, and will, when necessary to achieve their own goals, destroy your reputation and even your livelihood.

    And we wonder why more good men and women will never run for public office. They know who the government belongs to and who they will be serving.

    This is the legacy of the Molly Henderson case, and unless it is resolved, unless it gets fixed, in court or out of court, Lancaster County has a huge black hole where its integrity should be. This is not a peripheral community issue but goes to the core of our leadership and institutions. The “heat of battle” may be a mitigating circumstance but it still needs to be fixed and Molly Henderson needs to be restored to her position as a public servant of integrity.

Comments are closed.