CIVIL SUIT NUMBER: 120,116 THE DAVENPORT FIRM, APLC and THOMAS D. DAVENPORT, JR.

VERSUS DANIEL RAY SLAYTER Consolidated with CIVIL SUIT NUMBER: 120,314 DANIEL R. SLAYTER VERSUS THOMAS D. DAVENPORT, JR. A.K.A. THECLEARTRUTH & THE DAVENPORT FIRM, APLC ALEXANDRIA CITY COURT PARISH OF RAPIDES STATE OF LOUISIANA ALEXANDRIA CITY COURT

PARISH OF RAPIDES STATE OF LOUISIANA

______________________________________________________________________________ MOTION TO UNSEAL EXPUNGED RECORD, OR, ALTERNATIVELY, FOR AN IN CAMERA INSPECTION OF EXPUNGED ARREST RECORD & INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT ______________________________________________________________________________ NOW INTO COURT comes Daniel R. Slayter, who moves as follows: MOTION TO UNSEAL EXPUNGED REOCRD, OR, ALTERNATIVELY, FOR AN IN CAMERA INSPECTION OF EXPUNGED ARREST RECORD 1. Slayter respectfully moves the Court for an Order unsealing the court records pertaining to Criminal Docket No. 249,044 in the Ninth Judicial District Court for the State of Louisiana. 2. Slayter shows that the information contained within the records (i.e., evidence of Davenports arrest) is vital to his defense as Slayter has been sued for defamation for alleging that Defendant Davenport was arrested for obstruction of justice and impersonating a U.S. Marshal in 1998, and is the subject of the expungement order in Criminal Docket No. 249,044 in the Ninth Judicial District Court for the State of Louisiana. 3. Although it is common knowledge among members of the legal community in Alexandria, Louisiana, that Davenport is the subject of this expungement order, on August 9, 2012, in this Court, he boldly testified under oath that he has never had an arrest expunged from his record. Additionally, Davenport has objected to and refused to answer discovery requests
1 7

D R A F T

propounded on him by Slayter in this matter seeking an admission that he was arrested in 1998. 4. The truth is an absolute defense to defamation, even if Mr. Davenport believes he is free to lie under oath because his arrest was expunged. Thus, Slayter demonstrates the need to access the information in order to prove his defense of truth in this matter. 5. Alternatively, Slayter moves that the Court maintain the nature of the record as sealed but that it conduct an in camera inspection of the court records pertaining to Criminal Docket No. 249,044 in the Ninth Judicial District Court for the State of Louisiana to determine if Mr. Davenport is indeed the subject of the expungement order. Slayter moves that this alternative motion be granted without hearing as the Court is entitled to examine its own records at any time. 6. WHEREFORE, Slayter prays that the Court issue an Order unsealing the court records pertaining to Criminal Docket No. 249,044 in the Ninth Judicial District Court for the State of Louisiana, or, alternatively, that the Court conduct an in camera inspection of the records to determine if Mr. Davenport is indeed the subject of the expungement order.

D R A F T

INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO UNSEAL EXPUNGED RECORD, OR, ALTERNATIVELY, FOR AN IN CAMERA INSPECTION OF EXPUNGED ARREST RECORD

MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT: I. BACKGROUND These now consolidated legal matters spawn primarily from an online internet debate between Slayter and Davenport on the website <ladads.info> wherein Davenport attempted to misrepresent the law concerning how a childs last name may be changed under Louisiana law. Though not an attorney, Slayter exposed Davenports misdeeds and corrected his incorrect comments about the law. During the course of this online debate, Slayter also revealed that Davenport had been arrested for crimes, but that the arrests were ultimately expunged. Davenport consequently sued Slayter for defamation arguing that he was defamed by

2 7

Slayter for publishing that Davenport had been arrested. 1 Slayter asserted a defense of free speech and filed a special motion to strike. On August 9, 2012, Davenport testified under oath in this Court that he had never had an arrest expunged from his record, which many legal professionals in Alexandria know to be a false statement. Upon information and belief, Davenport assumes he can lie under oath because he thinks the expungement of his arrest records makes it as if the arrest never happened, and apparently that the expungement never happened either. Put simply, Davenport committed perjury to advance his case for damages using mental gymnastics and a convoluted theory that actual events are not reality because of a court order expunging an arrest. Davenport is using defamation as a sword while hiding behind the shield of an expungement order, which is a perversion of the law. Because of Davenports lies and underhanded tactics, the only way for Slayter to assert his defense of absolute truth to defamation is to demonstrate that Davenport was in fact arrested in 1998. This requires the unsealing and/or inspection of the court records pertaining to Criminal Docket No. 249,044 in the Ninth Judicial District Court for the State of Louisiana to demonstrate that Mr. Davenport is indeed the subject of the expungement order. II. LAW AND ARGUMENT The right of access to public records is a fundamental right guaranteed by the 1974 Constitution of Louisiana, Art. XII, Sec. 3, which states in pertinent part that: [n]o person shall be denied the right to ... examine public documents, except in cases established by law. Access to such records can be denied only when a law specifically provides otherwise. Whenever there is any doubt as to whether the public has the right of access to certain records, the doubt must be resolved in favor of the public's right to inspect. Title Research Corp. v. Rausch, 450 So.2d 933 (La.1984) The request for the unsealing of an expunged criminal court record may be most closely related to seeking the disclosure of the district attorneys file on the matter. Generally, Louisiana law forbids the disclosure of records held by the district attorney that pertain to pending criminal litigation or any criminal litigation which can be reasonably anticipated, until such litigation has been finally adjudicated or otherwise settled. See La.R.S. 44:3(A)(1). Whenever a civil litigant

D R A F T

1 In 1998, Mr. Davenport was in fact arrested by the Rapides Parish Sheriffs Office for the felony crimes of
3 7

seeks the production of documents or other items in a district attorneys file, Louisiana law provides: Whenever the same is necessary, judicial determination pertaining to compliance with this section or with constitutional law shall be made after a contradictory hearing as provided by law. La.R.S. 44:3(C). Whether such records are subject to disclosure must be determined at an adversarial hearing on a case by case basis. Revere v. Layrisson, 593 So.2d 397 (La.App. 1st Cir.1991) (citing Cormier v. Public Records Request of Di Giulio, 553 So.2d 806 (La.1989); Harrison v. Norris, 569 So.2d 585 (La.App.2d Cir.), writ denied, 571 So.2d 657 (La.1990); State v. Campbell, 566 So.2d 1038 (La.App.3d Cir.), writ denied, 567 So.2d 111 (La.1990); Bizal v. Connick, 489 So.2d 343 (La.App. 4th Cir.), writ denied, 491 So.2d 10 (La.1986)). In this case, the expunged record dates back to the beginning of the millennium, and there is no indication that any criminal litigation surrounding criminal docket 249,044 is pending or imminent. In fact, by the very nature of it being expunged, Slayter is reasonably confident representing to the Court that there is no pending criminal litigation in criminal docket 249,044 in the Ninth JDC. Under these circumstances, it is permissible to allow the unsealing and/or inspection of the court records, and it is necessary to combat Davenports blatant dishonesty and continued efforts to obstruct justice nearly 15 years after his initial arrest for the same conduct. A. Truth Is an Absolute Defense Even When Arrests are Expunged The same circumstances presented in this Motion have recently been addressed, in part, by the New Jersey Supreme Court. In G.D. v. Kenny, 205 N.J. 275, 15 A.3d 300, 39 Media L. Rep. 1699 (N.J., 2011), the plaintiff sued for defamation arguing that because the record of his conviction had been expunged, it never occurred under the law and, as such, defendants could not rely on truth as a defense to his defamation suit. The New Jersey Supreme Court disagreed with the Plaintiff, noting that: [T]he expungement statute does not transmute a once-true fact into a falsehood. It does not require the excision of records from the historical archives of newspapers or bound volumes of reported decisions or a personal diary. It cannot banish memories. It is not intended to create an Orwellian scheme whereby previously public informationlong maintained in official recordsnow becomes beyond the reach of public discourse on penalty of a defamation action. Although our expungement statute generally permits a person whose record has been expunged to misrepresent his past, it does not alter the metaphysical truth of
obstruction of justice and impersonating a peace officer.
4 7

D R A F T

his past, nor does it impose a regime of silence on those who know the truth. Id. at 315-16. What separates the New Jersey case from this matter is that the plaintiff in the G.D. case at least had the stones to admit that his record had been expunged, instead of hiding behind the expungement and lying about it under oath. In so doing, Davenport has made it necessary for Slayter to prove the truth through the examination of the court record which holds the key to this case. If Slayter is not permitted to identify Davenport as the subject of the arrest and subsequent expungement, this may well go down as the first case in which a defendant defamed an individual by telling the truth about him. Slayter also points out to the Court that this is not a fishing expedition as Davenport is the party suing for defamation for something he knows is true. Slayter would not be required to inquire into the records of the expunged criminal matter if Davenport had admitted to being the subject of the expungement in Court, through discovery, or if he had not brought this frivolous action against Slayter in the first place. The Court has access to Davenports expunged record and can reveal the material and discern that Davenport has perjured himself and falsely accused Slayter of defamation. Surely the State Legislature did not intend for an expunged record to remain unavailable to the Court. B. The Courts Examination of Expunged Records Is Well Within the Law La. R.S. 44:9 provides in relevant part: For investigative purposes only, the Department of Public Safety and Corrections may maintain a confidential, nonpublic record of the arrest and disposition. Upon specific request therefor and on a confidential basis, the information contained in this record may be released to the following entities who shall maintain the confidentiality of such record: any law enforcement agency, criminal justice agency, 2 the Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners, the Louisiana State Board of Nursing, the Louisiana State Board of Dentistry, the Louisiana State Board of Examiners of Psychologists, the Louisiana State Board of Social Work Examiners, the Emergency Medical Services Certification Commission, Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Board, Office of Disciplinary Counsel, the Louisiana Supreme Court Committee on Bar Admissions, or any person or entity requesting a record of all criminal arrests and convictions pursuant to R.S. 15:587.1. See La.R.S. 44:9(F) (Emphasis added). La. R.S. 44:9 also provides: Expungement" means removal of a record from public access but does not mean destruction of the record. An expunged record is confidential,
2 La. R.S. 15:541(11)(a) defines criminal justice agency as a court.

D R A F T

5 7

but remains available for use by law enforcement agencies, criminal justice agencies, the Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners, the Louisiana State Board of Nursing, the Louisiana State Board of Dentistry, the Louisiana State Board of Examiners of Psychologists, the Louisiana State Board of Social Work Examiners, the Emergency Medical Services Certification Commission, the Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Board, Office of Disciplinary Counsel, the Louisiana Supreme Court Committee on Bar Admissions, or any person or entity requesting a record of all criminal arrests and convictions pursuant to R.S. 15:587.1. See La.R.S. 44:9(G) (Emphasis added). An examination of the expungement statute strongly suggests that a private inspection of the Courts own records is consistent with the the intent of the legislature, which is to deny access to the public while simultaneously reserving the right to protect the public from shady characters who would seek to take advantage of an expungement statute designed to reward those wrongfully accused or deserving of a second chance. By suing someone for defamation for something he knows to be true and then lying to the Court under oath about it, Davenport has made a strong case for why the legislature was correct in ordering expunged records preserved and available for certain entities when it drafted the expungement statute. III. CONCLUSION

The Court can review its own documents. Proof that Davenport lied under oath and that Slayter was truthful defeats Davenports claim for defamation. Slayter cannot be held liable for stating the truth, and the truth is hiding in the sealed record. For the foregoing reasons, Slayter respectfully seeks relief from the Court to prove his case, which will in turn significantly reduce the burden of this case on the Courts resources. Respectfully submitted:

D R A F T

__________________________________ Daniel R. Slayter 2820 Jackson Street [work address] Alexandria, Louisiana 71303 Phone: (318) 416-7966 Fax: (318) 442-4105 [work fax] CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I CERTIFY that the foregoing has been sent to all counsel of record. ___________________________ Daniel R. Slayter

CIVIL SUIT NUMBER: 120,116

6 7

THE DAVENPORT FIRM, APLC and THOMAS D. DAVENPORT, JR. VERSUS DANIEL RAY SLAYTER Consolidated with

ALEXANDRIA CITY COURT

PARISH OF RAPIDES STATE OF LOUISIANA

CIVIL SUIT NUMBER: 120,314 DANIEL R. SLAYTER VERSUS ALEXANDRIA CITY COURT PARISH OF RAPIDES

THOMAS D. DAVENPORT, JR. STATE OF LOUISIANA A.K.A. THECLEARTRUTH & THE DAVENPORT FIRM, APLC ______________________________________________________________________________ ORDER ______________________________________________________________________________ PREMISES CONSIDERED: IT IS ORDERED THAT the court shall conduct an in camera inspection of State v. Expunged Record No. 249,044, No. 2003-KA-1940, 881 So. 2d 104 (La. 2004) and authorizes the production of any and all records for its review. SO ORDERED this_____day of_________________________2012, at___________________________, Louisiana.

D R A F T

__________________________________ JUDGE

7 7