Five settle with Hester on libel suit


Only one defendant remains in suit that originally named 20

The following press release was made available to Home in Henderson early yesterday afternoon by attorneys Amanda Martin, Michael Satterwhite, and Boyd Sturges:

Plaintiff Thomas S. Hester, Jr. and Defendant Lindsey Kennedy, who posted on the Home in Henderson site under the name “Heelshouse,” have resolved the legal dispute that formed the basis of the complaint in Hester v. John Doe (“Heelshouse”), Case No. 10 CVS 361, Vance County Superior Court. The parties’ resolution is amicable but confidential with the exception that “Heelshouse” will issue a statement clarifying her original posting on August 14, 2009.

Plaintiff Thomas S. Hester, Jr. and Defendant D.E. Jarrell, who posted on the Home in Henderson site under the name “Underworld” have resolved the legal dispute that formed the basis of the complaint in Hester v. John Doe (“Underworld”), Case No. 10 CVS 361, Vance County Superior Court. The parties’ resolution is amicable but confidential with the exception that “Underworld” will issue a statement clarifying his original posting on August 14, 2009.

Plaintiff Thomas S. Hester, Jr. and Defendant “Interesting” have resolved the legal dispute that formed the basis of the complaint in Hester v. John Doe (“Interesting”), Case No. 10 CVS 361, Vance County Superior Court. The parties’ resolution is amicable but confidential with the exception that “Interesting” will issue a statement clarifying her original posting on August 14, 2009.

The following two releases were received by Home in Henderson from Hester’s attorneys Stainback and Sturges shortly after the above release:

Plaintiff Thomas S. Hester, Jr. and Defendant Robert B. (Bobby) Gupton, who posted on the Home in Henderson site under the name “Point Keeper” have resolved the legal dispute that formed the basis of the complaint in Hester v. John Doe (“Point Keeper”), Case No. 10 CVS 361, Vance County Superior Court. The parties’ resolution is amicable but confidential with the exception that “Point Keeper” will issue a statement clarifying his original posting on August 16, 2009.

Plaintiff Thomas S. Hester, Jr. and Defendant Susan Stevenson, who posted on the Home in Henderson site under the name “Ziggy” have resolved the legal dispute that formed the basis of the complaint in Hester v. John Doe (“Ziggy”), Case No. 10 CVS 361, Vance County Superior Court. The parties’ resolution is amicable but confidential with the exception that “Ziggy” will issue a statement clarifying her original posting on August 16, 2009.

The five settlements leave only the defendant originally named as “Confused” still named in the libel suit.

Former Vance County commissioner member and current commission candidate Thomas S. Hester filed a lawsuit against 20 anonymous bloggers in April of 2010 for comment posts he alleged were libelous under the article Arrest made in elder abuse case that was posted on August 14, 2009.

Home in Henderson was not contacted regarding the allegedly libelous comment posts until its editor, Jason Feingold, was subpoenaed under a motion for expedited discovery granted to Hester by Superior Count Judge Howard Manning to produce any and all identifying information on the 20 comment posters named in the suit. Hester was represented by Michael Satterwhite of the law firm Stainback, Satterwhite, Burnette, & Zollicoffer of Henderson, North Carolina and C. Boyd Sturges III of the law firm Davis, Sturges, & Tomlinson of Louisburg, North Carolina.

Hester alleged in his suit that the comments had each caused him $10,000 worth of financial harm and that he could prove those damages in a jury trial.

Home in Henderson filed a motion to quash the subpoena and was represented in that effort by C. Amanda Martin, then of the law firm Everett, Gaskins, Hancock & Stevens of Raleigh, North Carolina. That motion was heard on June 4, 2010. In a decision rendered by Manning on June 28, 2010, Feingold was required to produce identifying information on six of the 20 comment posters named in Hester’s suit within fifteen days of the ruling and to notify the six of the ruling within five days from its date of issue. Feingold complied with the order through his attorney within the specified time limits.