BELFAST — The first of two trial days for the Belfast eight will take place Friday, Oct. 6, with the second date scheduled for Oct. 11. The trial will be to determine whether or not the eight Waldo County citizens accused of spreading libelous rumors about a private home and two residents are found to be guilty.

This comes after plaintiffs R.M. Woodford and her daughter, April Walker, accused the eight of spreading rumors about them, including a rumor that they used their home as a brothel. The defendants named in the suit, including two sitting Council members, Mike Hurley and Neal Harkness, have all maintained that not only were the posts not made by them, but the supposed copies of the posts submitted to the court were never posted at at all.  

There have been several motions to dismiss the case, with the most recent filed Sept. 28. The defendants originally did want the case dismissed, but were denied. Then the plaintiffs decided they wanted it dismissed, which the defense objected to. Following the objection and a judge’s decision to deny plaintiffs motion to dismiss, the plaintiffs filed another motion to dismiss, and continue the trial rather than begin this Friday. 

Woodford and Walker filed a motion to dismiss their initial complaint in mid-August, seeking dismissal, “without prejudice and without an award of costs or attorney fees.”

On Sept. 6, however, a Waldo County Unified Court judge denied that request made by the plaintiffs.

In his order denying plaintiff’s motion for dismissal, Justice Robert Murray called attention to the two requests made by Woodford and Walker. 

“The plaintiffs filed their Complaint in this matter on May 10, 2021,” he wrote. “The defendants subsequently filed their Answer on or about May 27, 2021. Since the outset of this proceeding, the parties have vigorously contested the claims which have been asserted. Specifically, the defendants filed a formal motion to dismiss, which was fully briefed and adjudicated, and more recently, a Motion in Limine which again, was fully briefed and argued by the parties in preparation for trial.” 

According to the Response, it was approximately seven weeks later, Aug. 24, when the plaintiffs’ filed their motion to dismiss the complaint. The eight defendants filed a written opposition to the dismissal being granted without prejudice the same day. 

“Because the defendants in this case have filed both an Answer, and a Motion for Summary Judgement Judgment, the plaintiffs’ are precluded from obtaining dismissal by the filing of Notice of Dismissal,” the ruling reads in part. 

Attorney Seth T. Russell, Esq., with Zerillo Law Firm, LLC, filed a renewed Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Continue Sept. 28. The motion to continue was reportedly made because the defendants are allowed 21 days to respond to their second, renewed motion to dismiss. Lawyers for the plaintiffs argue that because the defendants have 21 days to respond, there is no way for the court to issue an order on the second motion to dismiss before the start of the trial. 

The defendants in the case filed an expedited response to the motion, filing a response Oct. 3, which allowed a decision to be made on the renewed dismissal without waiting the 21 days period allowed to the defense to respond. 

The motions for dismissal and continuance were denied, and the first day of the trial will begin this Friday. 

Despite the argument of the plaintiffs’ that they are legally allowed to have the case dismissed until the first day of the trial, Justice Murray included a response demonstrating that the language of the rule that authorizes the court to order a dismissal, “upon such terms and conditions as the court deems proper.”

“The court also does not believe that dismissing the case without prejudice would be a condition the court would deem proper given the significant amount of effort the parties have already expended in addressing the claims in this case,” Justice Murray wrote.

Erica Thoms can be reached at news@penbaypilot.com