Court orders ex-wife to stop publicizing allegations of her ex-husband’s past misdeeds

From Tuesday’s Arizona Court of Appeals decision Weinberg vs Buonsantewritten by Justice Lacey Stover Gard and joined by Chief Justices Christopher Sterling and Peter Eckerstrom.

In January 2024, Weinberg filed a petition for a protective order under §13-3602. he claimed that [his ex-wife] Buonsante had committed the following acts:

She is stalking my community. She delivered my personal information to people in my area even though I was told she had no reason to be near my home. She has been seen at my front door looking through my front window. [S]He attacked me on social media. [S]He harassed my friends and family. This has been going on since June 2023.

The High Court held an ex parte hearing in which Weinberg explained that Buonsante had shown a neighbor a publication containing negative information about him. Weinberg said he had not had any contact with Buonsante but had told others that she was trying to “destroy” him. He accused her of trying to prove he was a “predator of women.”

The High Court ruled that Buonsante had “committed the crime of harassment” and granted a protection order. Based on Mr. Weinberg’s claims that Mr. Buonsante defamed Mr. Weinberg in videos on social media platforms, the court included an order in the protective order that Mr. Buonsante “shall not post the following messages: is. [Wineberg] It also ordered Buonsante not to possess any firearms during the period of the order and to surrender any firearms in his possession to law enforcement.

At a subsequent hearing, “Buonsante offered to maintain the order in exchange for lifting the restrictions on his right to possess firearms,” ​​but “Weinberg said Buonsante was posing a credible threat of violence to him and He argued that the firearms restrictions were necessary. Further allegations came to light during the hearing.

Mr. Weinberg then testified that Mr. Buonsante distributed a memo disparaging him within the retirement community and sent similar letters to friends and family. He created text messages between his current girlfriend and Buonsante in which Buonsante said he visited Weinberg’s residence and saw his couch through the open blinds. Based on these messages, Weinberg deduced that Buonsante had trespassed on his front porch. He explained that the house was above street level and Buonsante could not see through the windows from the street.

Weinberg also testified that Buonsante had posted videos on social media exposing his misconduct. He also accused her of circulating magazine articles to friends, family, and employers that discussed his past misconduct allegations. However, Weinberg admitted that she had never seen Buonsante at her home and was unable to contact him because Buonsante had blocked her.

Buonsante also testified, and she provided a copy of the article Weinberg referenced. The article interviewed Buonsante et al. Inmaricopa The magazine accused Weinberg of stealing valor and other acts of deception. Buonsante admitted that she shared the article with others. [The article appears to be this one. -EV]

Buonsante further claimed that after she married Weinberg, she learned about various troubling aspects of Weinberg’s past, and that Weinberg tried to deceive her in various ways during their marriage. She said she contacted his ex-wife and girlfriend to gather more information about him. She claimed she was only trying to warn others about Mr. Weinberg’s alleged misconduct. She denied trespassing on Weinberg’s property. She admitted driving past his home but claimed she could see the window from the street.

The trial court concluded that “Buonsante’s disclosure of negative information about Weinberg to a third party amounted to harassment and domestic violence.”

Based on the testimony, the court believes that [Wineberg] The evidence was overwhelming that an act of domestic violence…occurred. the court believes [Buonsante] contacted friends and family[s] of [Wineberg] slander… [Wineberg] To provide information about [Wineberg]. Even if it were true, I’d be worried [Wineberg] If he finds out those people were being contacted.

the court does not believe that it happened [Buonsante’s] Obligation to notify or impede [Wineberg’s] To let friends and family know about information they find on their own or through public sources. The court considers that providing information or links to other videos or information in a public place is still harassment despite the fact that it is publicly viewable. the court believes [Buonsante] Was it just for harassment or interference? [Wineberg] And it was done solely for that purpose.

Therefore, although the trial court “continued the protective order and modified it to reflect that Buonsante is prohibited from possessing firearms under federal law,” the appellate court reversed.

The appellate court concluded that this speech did not constitute “harassment” under Arizona law, which defines the crime as:

A person commits harassment if he or she intentionally and repeatedly engages in conduct that constitutes harassment of another person, or if he or she knowingly engages in any of the following conduct in a manner that constitutes harassment:

1. Contact or cause any communication to be made by any oral, electronic, mechanical, telegraphic, telephone or written means to any other person.
2. Continue to follow a person in or around a public place after the person has asked you to stop.
3. Monitor someone or cause a person to monitor another person.
4. Make a false report against another person to a law enforcement agency, credit agency, or social service agency.
5. interfere with the provision of public or regulated public services to others;

…”[F]or for the purposes of this section, “harassment” means conduct directed at a particular person that would cause a reasonable person serious alarm, annoyance, humiliation, or mental distress; Refers to actions that cause irritation, humiliation, or emotional distress. make that person suffer. ”

The appellate court then reasoned as follows:

”[T]The issuance of a protection order is a very serious matter because such an order “comes with a series of ‘collateral legal and reputational consequences’ that continue after the order expires.” ” Failure to include the offenses enumerated in the statute shall be considered an error by the court. ”

Here, the appellate court did not find that Buonsante committed any of the acts listed below. [the harassment statute]. Rather, the court appears to have found that Buonsante “deliberately and repeatedly committed the crime.”[ted] The court found that Buonsante “harassed Weinberg.” [Wineberg’s] friends and family[s]” to “defame” him by sharing negative background information. Although that information was already in the public record, the court reasoned that Buonsante should not have made it known to others and found that she did so solely for the purpose of harassment. .

There is no dispute that Buonsante did not contact or attempt to contact Weinberg. Buonsante therefore claims that his actions were not “directed” at him. [the law] need. she relies on Ruffalo vs Cahill (Arizona App, 2002)…. The plaintiff is ruffalo The defendant sought an injunction to stop the harassment in part because he heard the defendant call him a derogatory name during a conversation with another person. It concluded that the defendant’s communications with third parties “do not meet the statutory definition of harassment, which requires that harassing conduct be ‘directed’ at the specific person complaining of harassment.” We concluded that although the defendant was talking about the plaintiff, “his comments were ‘directed at'”. [the third party]do not have [the plaintiff]. ”…

Although it stopped in front of me, ruffalo While we are of the view that conversations with third parties never meet the definition of harassment, the facts here are roughly parallel. ruffalo‘s. Buonsante spoke to third parties about Weinberg, disclosing non-personal but damaging information. as the plaintiff in ruffaloWeinberg learned of these statements and found them heartbreaking. However, they were “directed” to a third party, not Weinberg.

Although we do not minimize the effects of Buonsante’s actions on Weinberg, we conclude that they are unsatisfactory. [the harassment statute]and that the appellate court abused its discretion to rule otherwise.

Therefore, the court did not need to reach Buonsante’s argument that the injunction violated the First Amendment and unreasonably restricted his right to bear arms.

Buonsante is represented by Christopher J. Trenzano (Stillman Smith Gadot).