Former Alderman-at-Large Melbourne Moran

NASHUA – The state Supreme Court recently rendered its decision to deny the appeal filed by resident Laurie Ortolano regarding her lawsuit against former Alderman-at-Large Melbourne Moran.

The matter arose late in 2022 when Moran made a reference to “silver spoon millionaires” during a Board of Alderman meeting. Ortolano was in attendance at the meeting and believed that Moran’s comment was directed at her.

During the Aldermen meeting on Oct. 12, 2022, Ortolano claimed that Moran made unethical statements in his capacity as a clinical social worker, adding that he “made a judgment that was horrendous.” She also criticized him for being able to send his children to private school.

In response, Moran said Ortolano exhibited “predatory vibes” for knowing that his children attend private school.

“I have no qualms about people coming in here attacking me,” he said. “But you took my kids into it.”

On Nov. 15, 2022, Ortolano filed a lawsuit against Moran accusing him of defamation and for allegedly characterizing her as a “child predator.”

The Superior Court ultimately dismissed “certain defamation claims” and granted summary judgement on the remaining claims.

In her appeal to the Supreme Court, Ortolano claimed that the lower court overlooked the full scope of the case. However, the justices disagreed.

“Accordingly, the trial court did not err by dismissing the defamation per se claims,” they said in their decision. “The trial court additionally dismissed the plaintiff’s defamation claims based upon the defendant’s statements that the plaintiff ‘has had criminal charges against [her], which I understand that [she] plead[ed] guilty to’ and ‘[t]his person has had people followed by investigators,’ finding that those statements were true.”

Ortolano responded claiming that although she was charged with a misdemeanor, she pled guilty to a violation-level offense. She also said she hired an investigator to follow a municipal employee to follow up on complaints she filed with the city about the employee’s job performance.

Once again, the justices were not impressed with Ortolano’s argument.

“The relevant statements, that the plaintiff had had criminal charges to which she pleaded guilty, and that she had had people followed by investigators, were statements of fact,” they said. “If a challenged statement is one of fact, but also substantially true, it is not actionable for defamation. The trial court dismissed the plaintiff’s defamation claims based on the defendant’s statements that the plaintiff ‘attacked’ his children and engaged in ‘predatory’ behavior.”

Moran said the Supreme Court’s ruling is an example of the “record overruling the rhetoric.”

“Those who know me know I do not bend to influential bullies, pressure campaigns or public smear efforts,” he said. “When my family was dragged into a spectacle, I stood my ground. I trusted the facts, I trusted the process, and I trusted that the law would separate manufactured outrage from actionable wrongdoing.”

Moran said Ortolano faltered in her attempts to turn opinions into facts.

“Her appellate theories, and the legal spin behind them, collapsed under the weight of the actual record,” he said. “No amount of packaging could turn opinion into fact or erase substantial truth. That is the real story here.”