Bar neighbor gets court OK to yell about noise

Deirdre Newman

The Village Inn may be a place where everyone knows your name, but

it’s also OK to call employees names like “whores,” “drunks,” and

“Satan” and as they are coming and going -- according to a ruling

issued Wednesday by the 4th District Court of Appeal.

The ruling regarding the bar, which many patrons liken to

“Cheers,” overturns an Orange County Superior Court judge’s

injunction prohibiting Anne Lemen -- a former neighbor who now rents

out her small cottage -- from initiating contact with people she

knows to be bar employees and from making alleged defamatory

statements about the establishment to others.

The ruling is based on legal conceptions of “prior restraint” --

when speech can be restrained before it is made and when it can’t.

Certain speech can’t be restrained before it is made and the

appellate court ruled that Lemen’s remarks fell in that category.

Lemen can still be sued for libel and slander, but those charges can

only be filed after she has made her comments. The ruling also

decreed that the prohibitions against Lemen were too broad.

Lemen said she felt vindicated by the appellate ruling, which was

issued on her birthday.

“God timed it, giving me the best birthday present,” Lemen said.

“I believe there is still justice in the court system in America.”

The Village Inn’s main attorney on the case, J. Scott Russo, could

not be reached for comment.

Lemen has had an issue with the owners of the Village Inn over

allegations of noise and public disturbances for years. She filed

several complaints with the Police Department and regulatory agencies

and got about 400 signatures on petitions against the Village Inn,

according to the appellate ruling.

The speech at issue in the appellate ruling is itself in dispute.

The appellate court ruling said Leman called customers and employees

“whores,” “drunks,” “Satan” and “Satan’s Spawn.” Lemen contends she

never said these things.

“All those witnesses [at the trial] were quoting not just me but

people who signed my petitions,” Lemen said. “I don’t even know what

[Satan’s spawn] means. They wanted their nightclub, and so they had

to make me look like a crazy liar.”

The appellate court ruling also said Leman told Balboa Island

residents that the establishment sold liquor to minors, had child

pornography, sold drugs and filmed sex videos, among other things.

The appellate court ruling said none of those statements were true.

Some bar patrons Thursday afternoon said they agreed with the free

speech part of the ruling but didn’t like the reputation of one of

their favorite watering holes smeared.

“She’s entitled to free speech, but all the accusations she makes

are false,” said Marko Slattery, a Balboa Island resident, as he

nursed a Budweiser. “This is a nice little neighborhood bar. Everyone

gets along great. I don’t know what her problem is.”

To document her complaints against the bar, Leman would videotape

customers and employees coming and going and took flash photographs

of customers through the windows and doors every Thursday and

Saturday night for a year, according to the appellate ruling.

The appellate court upheld the Superior Court judge’s ruling that

Lemen cannot film within 25 feet of the Village Inn property unless

she is on her own property and is documenting an immediate

disturbance or damage to her property.

* DEIRDRE NEWMAN covers government. She may be reached at (949)

574-4221 or by e-mail at [email protected].