Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Gamal Abdel-Hafiz v. ABC, Inc., ABC News, Inc., ABC News Holding Company, Inc., Charles Gibson, Brian Ross, Robert Wright, and John Vincent
Citation: Not availableDocket: 02-06-00244-CV
Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; November 14, 2007; Texas; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
Gamal Abdel-Hafiz appeals the trial court's summary judgment in favor of ABC, Inc. and the dismissal of Robert Wright and John Vincent due to lack of jurisdiction. The appellate court affirms the trial court's decisions. Background details reveal that Abdel-Hafiz, an Egyptian-born U.S. citizen and former FBI agent, was involved in an administrative inquiry concerning insurance fraud allegations made by his ex-wife, which led to his temporary termination from the FBI. The defamation claims stem from statements made by Wright, Vincent, and assistant U.S. attorney Mark Flessner regarding Abdel-Hafiz's alleged refusal to monitor a Muslim suspect during a 1999 investigation. These statements were broadcasted and published by ABC on December 19, 2002. Abdel-Hafiz contests specific statements made during the broadcast, including claims about his competence and actions as a Muslim agent, as well as implications of misconduct tied to the FBI's handling of terrorism investigations. He also notes that the related article reiterates many of the broadcast's statements, but he focuses on those specifically mentioned in his legal petitions. Article Statement One claims that FBI Agent Gamal Abdel-Hafiz significantly impaired an investigation. Article Statement Two reports that Wright stated Abdel-Hafiz, a Muslim, declined to secretly record a suspected associate of Al-Kadi, also a Muslim, citing a belief that "a Muslim doesn't record another Muslim." Article Statement Three reiterates this sentiment. The appellant's supplemental petition includes phrases alleging that a Muslim FBI agent may have hindered the investigation prior to September 11, 2001, and that Abdel-Hafiz failed to cooperate in an FBI inquiry into BMI, Inc. These phrases originate from an ABC article, "Dirty Dozen: The FBI May Have Dragged Its Feet on Investigating the Saudi Money Trail," published on November 26, 2002. ABC argued in its summary judgment motion that the claims were barred by a one-year statute of limitations since the lawsuit was filed on December 17, 2003. The appellant contended that ABC's editorial choices, particularly the juxtaposition of allegations against him with imagery related to the September 11 attacks, demonstrated actual malice. The appellant initiated legal action against multiple parties, including ABC, Disney Enterprises, and various individuals, for various forms of defamation and related claims, seeking $3.5 million in compensatory and exemplary damages. The trial court dismissed claims against Disney Enterprises and other parties, citing lack of jurisdiction for co-defendants Wright and Vincent after a hearing. The trial court also sustained numerous objections from ABC regarding the appellant's summary judgment evidence, leading to a summary judgment favoring ABC. In addressing the special appearances of Wright and Vincent, the appellant argued that personal jurisdiction was warranted in Texas due to the nature of the allegedly defamatory statements and the harm incurred by the appellant in Texas. The defamation claims included statements made during an ABC interview, a press conference, and various media interviews involving Wright and Vincent. Appellant's appeal focuses solely on personal jurisdiction related to statements made during an ABC interview. The trial court ruled that it lacked personal jurisdiction over defendants Wright and Vincent after reviewing the pleadings, evidence, and counsel arguments. The legal standard for personal jurisdiction is assessed de novo. The plaintiff must initially demonstrate sufficient allegations to establish that a nonresident defendant falls under the Texas long-arm statute. In this case, appellant argued that Wright and Vincent had sufficient minimum contacts concerning his defamation claims, asserting that the ABC interview targeted Texas viewers, including his coworkers. He claimed that the defendants knowingly made false statements intended to harm his professional reputation in Texas. A nonresident defendant must negate all bases for jurisdiction to contest a Texas court's authority. Texas courts can exercise jurisdiction over nonresident defendants if permitted by the long-arm statute and compliant with due process requirements. The long-arm statute allows jurisdiction if a tort occurs in Texas. The federal due process test examines whether the defendant has established minimum contacts with the state and whether exercising jurisdiction aligns with fair play and substantial justice. Minimum contacts are established when a nonresident defendant purposefully engages in activities within the state, thus benefiting from its laws. Nonresident defendants can be subject to specific or general jurisdiction based on their contacts with the forum state. Specific jurisdiction arises when a defendant's liability is linked to activities within the state, while general jurisdiction requires continuous and systematic contacts. In this case, evidence did not support that Wright and Vincent had the necessary continuous and systematic contacts with Texas for general jurisdiction. Specific jurisdiction requires purposeful contacts from the defendant that relate to the injury, assessed through a three-part inquiry: relevance of the defendant's own contacts (not third-party actions), the necessity for those contacts to be purposeful rather than random, and the pursuit of benefits from availing oneself of the jurisdiction. Specific jurisdiction in cases involving intentional torts, such as defamation, can be established if there is adequate publication in the forum state or if the author aims their actions at the state, knowing the effects will be felt there. The analysis focuses on the connection between the defendant, the forum, and the litigation; for specific jurisdiction, there must be purposeful contact with Texas and a substantial link to the litigation's facts. In this case, Wright and Vincent argued against personal jurisdiction, claiming no tortious conduct occurred in Texas, lack of minimum contacts, and unreasonableness of being brought into a Texas court. The trial court sustained objections to the appellant's affidavit, which the appellant did not appeal. Wright and Vincent also referenced the Texas Supreme Court's disapproval of "directed a tort" jurisdiction and provided evidence of the appellant's sale of his Texas home, arguing that they were unaware he resided in Texas. Appellant submitted answers to interrogatories, parts of their deposition, and the FBI Initial Written Agreement regarding their overseas assignment. During the hearing, the trial court, at appellant's request, admitted the ABC interview alongside parts of depositions from Wright and Vincent, identifying appellant as the 'Muslim agent.' Two FBI memoranda confirmed that both Wright and Vincent were aware of appellant's 1999 assignment to the Dallas FBI office. It is undisputed that neither Wright nor Vincent resided in Texas, and the ABC interview occurred in Illinois in 2002. Appellant's evidence indicated that both were informed of appellant's location in Riyadh before the interview, with Vincent unaware of any potential recall to Dallas. Wright acknowledged that the ABC Primetime broadcast was national. The interview primarily addressed the FBI's challenges related to terrorism, including Wright's mention of the 'Muslim FBI agent' as an example of internal issues. The analysis revealed no purposeful connection between Wright and Vincent to Texas beyond appellant's previous assignment. The findings showed that Wright expected nationwide coverage, while Vincent did not believe appellant was in Dallas during the interview. The statements were made in Illinois and based on personal experiences, with no evidence indicating that Wright and Vincent targeted Texas specifically or disbelieved ABC's report on appellant's location. Consequently, the trial court concluded correctly that it lacked personal jurisdiction over Wright and Vincent due to their absence of purposeful contact with Texas related to the defamation claims arising from the 2002 ABC interview. The excerpt references several cases to establish the legal context of defamation and the associated burden of proof. It emphasizes that a California actress was targeted by Florida defendants in a National Enquirer article, which allegedly harmed her reputation in California, where the publication had its largest circulation. The trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of ABC is contested by the appellant on several grounds, including the existence of genuine issues of material fact regarding the truth of the Broadcast and Article, actual malice, and the applicability of the State Secrets Privilege, among others. The court outlines the standard of review for no-evidence summary judgments, stating that the party without the burden of proof can move for summary judgment if there is no evidence supporting an essential element of the opposing party's claim. The nonmovant must provide more than a scintilla of evidence to raise a genuine issue of material fact; otherwise, the trial court must grant the motion. The excerpt clarifies that less than a scintilla indicates weak evidence that merely suggests a fact, whereas more than a scintilla allows reasonable conclusions to differ. If the nonmovant fails to meet the burden under the no-evidence standard, there is no need to evaluate the traditional summary judgment criteria. Appellant initiated a defamation lawsuit against ABC, requiring him to demonstrate that ABC published a statement that was defamatory towards him, with the requisite state of mind depending on his status as either a public official/figure or a private individual. The parties agree that ABC published specific broadcast and article statements, although ABC contested the publication of certain phrases but acknowledged their release on November 26, 2002. The focus of the review is on the 'actual malice' standard, which necessitates that the appellant provide evidence indicating more than mere speculation that ABC acted with actual malice. Actual malice is defined as publishing a defamatory falsehood with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard for the truth. The standard seeks to protect erroneous speech regarding public issues while deterring deliberate falsehoods. Public figure plaintiffs must prove actual malice by clear and convincing evidence, but this heightened standard does not apply at the summary judgment stage. Understanding 'actual malice' and 'reckless disregard' is complex, with the latter requiring evidence that the defendant harbored serious doubts about the truth of the publication at the time of its release. Reckless disregard entails a high level of awareness of probable falsity, necessitating sufficient evidence to suggest the defendant had serious doubts regarding the truthfulness of the published statements. A publisher's presentation of facts can be misleading without constituting a 'calculated falsehood' unless there is knowledge or strong suspicion of the misleading nature. Actual malice pertains to the defendant's mindset regarding the truth of the reported information, which a plaintiff can substantiate through objective evidence about the context of the publication and the defendant's behavior at that time. Defendants’ carelessness and motives are relevant considerations, particularly when their statements are open to multiple interpretations. In such cases, plaintiffs must prove that the defendant either knew the statements were defamatory or acted with reckless disregard for their implications. Defamatory publications must be assessed in their entirety, taking into account all accompanying elements, including statements, headlines, images, and the source’s reputation. The excerpt reviews a broadcast and an article, highlighting potentially defamatory statements made by the narrator, Brian Ross, and FBI agents, particularly concerning allegations of FBI incompetence related to the September 11 attacks and the handling of a Saudi businessman linked to terrorism. Robert Wright, a former FBI agent, reflects on his 12 years of service since taking the oath as a law school graduate from Indiana, emphasizing his commitment to protect America from threats. His partner, John Vincent, a seasoned agent with 27 years at the Bureau, asserts that the events of 9/11 highlighted the dangers they were addressing. Their investigation began in the mid-1990s, focusing on a Chicago-based terrorist cell linked to Osama Bin Laden amidst rising Middle Eastern terrorism. Wright reveals frustrations with the FBI's Intelligence Division, which restricted his ability to initiate criminal investigations against suspects, despite clear evidence of terrorist activities. Following the 1998 bombings of two U.S. Embassies in Africa, which resulted in over 200 deaths and connections to individuals they were monitoring, headquarters continued to prohibit arrests, even as they sought to shut down ongoing investigations. Federal Prosecutor Mark Flessner expresses his dismay at the bureaucratic barriers that hindered their case against the suspects, notably Yassin Kadi, a Saudi businessman with ties to the terrorist funding. Flessner questions whether political influences or bureaucratic failures were to blame, suggesting that these missteps may have cost lives. A significant complication arose when a fellow FBI agent, who was Muslim, refused to record a suspected associate because of his religious beliefs, further compromising the investigation. Both Wright and Vincent confirm this instance, highlighting the internal challenges they faced within the Bureau. An FBI agent, referred to as Wright, expressed shock after learning that a Muslim agent refused to engage in an undercover operation, citing religious grounds against recording another Muslim. Despite this refusal, the Muslim agent was promoted to a significant anti-terrorism role at the U.S. Embassy in Saudi Arabia, with the FBI claiming ignorance of the situation and defending the agent's contributions. Former prosecutor Flessner disputed the FBI's assertion that the operation involved a mosque, suggesting a cover-up instead. Wright opposed the FBI's decision to abandon a case linked to Yassin Al Kadi, who was later identified as a financier for Osama Bin Laden after the September 11 attacks. Both Wright and his partner Vincent expressed no surprise at Kadi's connection to terrorism, as they had been aware of the threat he posed prior. Kadi, a wealthy individual with ties to the Saudi Royal Family, denied any association with terrorist activities, while recent news indicated ongoing investigations related to him by U.S. customs agents. Kadi's company supplies computer software to the FBI and other federal agencies, potentially granting access to sensitive government information. The federal government is considering criminal charges against Yassin Kadi. In an ABCNEWS interview, FBI agents Robert Wright and John Vincent claim they were instructed to halt investigations into a suspected terrorist cell linked to al Qaeda and the September 11 attacks. Wright asserts that the FBI's International Terrorism Unit failed, contributing to the events of 9/11, and describes being told by a supervisor to "let sleeping dogs lie" regarding a money trail investigation. Despite being part of a terrorism task force, Wright faced prohibitions against opening criminal investigations into known suspects. The investigation began in the mid-1990s, focusing on connections to a Chicago-based terrorist cell tied to Osama bin Laden. The agents allege that the funds for the 1998 embassy bombings in Africa were linked to individuals they had been tracking, including Yassin al-Kadi, a Saudi businessman implicated in financing al Qaeda. FBI headquarters reportedly sought to halt criminal investigations related to the bombings of African embassies, despite ongoing efforts by agents Wright and Vincent to build a case against al-Kadi and others. Chicago federal prosecutor Mark Flessner expressed outrage over the decision, suggesting it may have been influenced by higher powers within the Justice Department or the FBI, potentially costing lives. A significant error cited by Flessner involved FBI agent Gamal Abdel-Hafiz, who refused to record a Muslim suspect, claiming it was against his beliefs. This refusal led to a lack of action from headquarters, which supported Abdel-Hafiz's stance. Instead of facing repercussions, Abdel-Hafiz was promoted to a key anti-terrorism position in Saudi Arabia. Flessner criticized the FBI's defense of Abdel-Hafiz, asserting that the recording was not planned to occur in a mosque. Following the September 11 attacks, both Wright and Vincent feared they could have prevented the involvement of suspects identified post-attack, including al-Kadi, whom the government linked to bin Laden’s financing. Al-Kadi denied any ties to terrorism, while U.S. Customs agents conducted a search of a company connected to him, furthering the investigation into his activities. The company supplies computer software to the FBI and other federal agencies, granting al-Kadi and his employees potential access to sensitive government information. Al-Kadi is listed by the U.S. government as a significant terror financier under investigation by the CIA, with the federal government considering criminal charges against him. Appellant alleges that ABC broadcast and published statements with actual malice, asserting the statements were knowingly false, and that ABC selectively presented and omitted material facts, leading to a misleading portrayal in both the Broadcast and the Article. The court has previously overruled a related issue regarding special appearances, thus not addressing the truth or malice of statements made by Wright and Vincent. The focus is now on whether there is evidence showing ABC knew or had serious doubts about the truth of specific statements from December 9 to December 19, 2002. Appellant claims substantial evidence indicates ABC was aware that it misrepresented the authority behind a recording order attributed to him. Specifically, the statement from Gibson about a Muslim FBI agent refusing orders is highlighted as particularly false, as it is argued that only the Dallas SAC could issue such an order. Gibson, in his affidavit, claims he was unaware of any doubts regarding the truth of the statements when the Broadcast and Article were published. The review will examine the state of mind of ABC's staff at the time of the publication. Gibson did not research or prepare the Broadcast segment related to Wright, Vincent, and the FBI; he merely read Broadcast Statement One aloud. Ross, an experienced journalist, and Vic Walter claimed responsibility for both the Broadcast and the Article. There is no evidence suggesting that Ross or Walter doubted the truth of Broadcast Statement One or believed it to be false, which negates any claims of actual malice against Gibson. Ross and Walter asserted they believed all statements in the Broadcast and Article to be true at the time of publication. Ross outlined their research process, which included interviews with Flessner, Wright, Carmody, Vincent, and former FBI agent Jack Cloonan. Interviews with Flessner, Wright, Carmody, and Vincent were videotaped, and transcripts are available. They attempted to interview Appellant but were informed he would not participate. ABC received an official statement from the FBI and contacted the FBI for background information. Ross reviewed several documents, including Wright's affidavit, EEOC statement, and performance evaluation, all included in the record. He deemed Cloonan, Flessner, Wright, Vincent, and Carmody credible sources. The allegations against Appellant had been publicly aired before the Broadcast, including on a CNN program and in a Wall Street Journal article. Appellant contends that Wright, Vincent, and Flessner did not state he refused an order, citing comments from Defenbaugh and Gossfeld indicating that the decision was not Appellant's. However, the record does not contain ABC's interview with Defenbaugh, and his recollections only suggest he may have spoken with someone from the media, without confirming Appellant's role in the decision-making. Ross is uncertain about the duties of a special agent in charge and acknowledges that Walter interviewed Defenbaugh, although it is unclear what was reported to him. In response to ABC's motion, Appellant mentions Walter's belief that Wright and Vincent lacked the authority to issue orders to him, claiming Walter's testimony was contradictory regarding who could command Appellant. However, the trial court upheld ABC's evidentiary objections to segments of Walter's deposition that Appellant referenced, and Appellant does not contest these rulings. Walter, who has extensive experience with Ross, found the testimonies of Wright, Vincent, Carmody, and Flessner credible and noted that he contacted Defenbaugh just before the Broadcast. Walter indicated that he understood Appellant was required to participate in an investigation but refused, equating this requirement to an order. While Defenbaugh stated that the special agent in charge must approve requests for consensual monitoring, there is no evidence that he communicated this to ABC. Gossfeld characterized the request from the Chicago FBI to have Appellant perform monitoring as a request rather than a command, noting that the decision would ultimately rest with the Dallas office. The FBI's official statement lacks clarity on the decision-making individuals involved. Regarding the alleged refusal to wear a recording device, Appellant recommended against a meeting due to the subject's background and the meeting's location in a mosque, proposing an alternative. The Dallas office management agreed with Appellant's request to not conduct monitoring, despite Appellant's willingness to meet and testify later. The Dallas Special Agent in Charge supported Appellant's stance, indicating that he would have approved consensual monitoring in a different location. The Attorney General Guidelines prohibit consensual monitoring in mosques or places of worship under specific circumstances. The Appellant disputed the FBI's claim that consensual monitoring was intended to occur in a mosque, asserting he had significant input in the decision-making process, despite not receiving a formal order. The FBI statement did not reference any orders. Michael Resnick from the FBI indicated that theoretically, anyone in the Appellant's chain of command could have ordered him to record someone surreptitiously, but specific individuals named lacked that authority. The record does not show that Resnick communicated this to ABC. Appellant contends that certain agents did not claim he refused an order, as the term "order" was not mentioned during interviews. However, Ross's affidavit stated that Appellant's refusal to secretly record Muslim suspects was deemed insubordination and not an option based on religious grounds, which was unprecedented according to experienced agents. The record, supported by testimonies, indicated that Ross and Walter believed Appellant had refused an order at the time of Broadcast Statement One's publication, regardless of their potential misunderstanding. To establish malice, the plaintiff must demonstrate the defendant's state of mind during publication. Merely showing a mistake is insufficient for proving actual malice; evidence must indicate purposeful publication of false facts or recklessness. The court overruled Appellant's claim regarding Broadcast Statement One, stating that a poor choice of words does not alone indicate malice without evidence of the authors' knowledge or serious doubts about the statement's truth. Wright's remaining statements from the broadcast and article were analyzed in light of affidavits and depositions from Ross and Walter. The conclusion drawn is that there is no evidence suggesting that Ross and Walter, acting as representatives for ABC, doubted Wright’s truthfulness regarding the statements attributed to him in the broadcast and article. As a result, the court overrules the appellant's first issue concerning these remaining statements. Regarding Broadcast Statement Two, Flessner informed Ross that a key aspect of the 1999 Kadi investigation was the consensual monitoring issue, which ultimately did not yield results due to an agent's non-cooperation. Wright's EEOC statement indicated that the appellant would only record an individual if he was informed about a wire. In Broadcast Statement Four, Flessner assumed that the agent’s refusal would lead to sanctions, but instead learned that no action was taken against the appellant. Ross interviewed Vincent, who described the appellant's refusal as "unheard of," and Wright expressed disbelief that the appellant remained an FBI agent after his actions. No evidence was found indicating that Ross had doubts about the truth of Broadcast Statements Two and Four, leading to the overruling of the appellant's challenge regarding these statements. Finally, the appellant contested two phrases from ABC’s November Article, which implied that a Muslim FBI agent might have hindered an investigation prior to September 11, 2001. The contested phrases highlighted allegations against Gamal Abdel-Hafiz, a Muslim FBI agent who supposedly did not cooperate with an FBI investigation. The full context of these statements was derived from Wright’s earlier affidavits and EEOC statement. Robert Wright, from the FBI's Chicago counterterrorism squad, submitted an 11-page affidavit on March 21, 2000, claiming the Appellant did not cooperate with an FBI investigation into BMI Inc., a company linked to Yassin Qadi, a Saudi businessman alleged to support terrorism. The Appellant chose not to pursue legal action against the Wall Street Journal for attributing the claims to an unnamed source. Ross, who assisted in writing a November 26, 2002 article, stated he believed in the truth of the claims at the time of publication and found no evidence of actual malice from ABC in reporting these statements. The Appellant contended that ABC's selection and arrangement of information in the Broadcast constituted actual malice, asserting the omission and juxtaposition of facts distorted the narrative. However, the court found such editorial choices did not demonstrate deliberate defamation or actual malice, noting that omissions must grossly distort the story to be actionable. While the Broadcast was described as sensationalistic, there was no evidence that ABC knowingly omitted or arranged materials to create a false impression of the Appellant. The overall theme of the Broadcast highlighted issues within the FBI's terrorism investigations prior to 9/11. The report details an investigation by Wright and Vincent in the mid-1990s into a terrorist cell in Chicago, linking it to Yassin Kadi and the al-Qaeda bombings of American Embassies in Africa in 1998. It discusses the implications of Appellant's alleged failure to record one of Kadi's associates on the investigation's progress and how FBI headquarters, due to indifference or other factors, obstructed their efforts. Following the September 11 attacks, the report addresses Kadi's denial of connections to Osama bin Laden or al-Qaeda. Appellant argues that ABC's presentation of his allegations alongside statements from Mr. Flessner about potential investigative failures misleadingly suggests that Appellant's conduct contributed to the 9/11 attacks. While the broadcast indeed links Appellant to Kadi, who is associated with those attacks, the primary narrative focuses on FBI incompetence rather than Appellant's actions. The segments preceding the 9/11 imagery emphasize the FBI's decision-making process and Wright's warnings about ongoing terrorist preparations. The report concludes by emphasizing that a party cannot resist summary judgment based on circumstantial evidence that is equally compatible with the absence of the fact in question, citing relevant case law. Statements made by Wright and Vincent during an interview, along with materials reviewed by Ross and Walter before publication, were considered in assessing whether ABC's broadcast misrepresented facts. A publisher's presentation might be misleading without constituting a "calculated falsehood" unless there is knowledge or strong suspicion of this misleading nature. The analysis of ABC's broadcast showed no evidence supporting the Appellant's claim of deliberate omission or misleading juxtaposition to create a false impression. Consequently, all issues raised by the Appellant were overruled, leading to the affirmation of the trial court's judgment. The document notes that additional statements raised by the Appellant on appeal were not considered because they were not presented in the trial court. A juxtaposition claim was acknowledged, referencing case law that allows defamation claims based on misleading presentations of true facts. Both this case and another defamation suit shared similar underlying facts, with agreed-upon deposition usage between parties. Additionally, Wright's public disclosure of a redacted EEOC statement referencing a "Muslim FBI agent" was mentioned, noting its relevance to the case. The Appellant's testimony focused solely on the ABC broadcast, with no contradictory evidence against Wright and Vincent's affidavits. Objections from Wright and Vincent regarding the Appellant's affidavit were also noted, indicating a lack of personal knowledge and specific admissible facts under procedural rules. Wright affirmed his continuous residency in Indiana since 1993 and noted that his only connection to Texas was incidental travel in 1998 for work as an FBI agent. He stated that an ABC interview conducted in Illinois was unrelated to Texas, did not reveal Appellant's identity, and was not aimed at a Texas audience. Wright believed Appellant was assigned to Saudi Arabia during the interview and lacked knowledge about the religious composition of FBI agents. He also confirmed he had not traveled to Texas in 2003, although the interview did mention "Dallas." Vincent corroborated Wright's statements and indicated his trip to Dallas in March 2003 was for an unrelated press conference, providing a press release titled "JUDICIAL WATCH REVEALS TERRORIST FRONT GROUP CONTINUES TO OPERATE IN DALLAS/FORT WORTH, TX." Appellant returned to Texas from Saudi Arabia on March 14, 2003, due to an FBI administrative inquiry. Appellant contended that Wright acknowledged his presence at the Dallas FBI office during certain communications; however, the review concluded that these statements lacked support in the record. Wright's last contact with Appellant was in mid-1999, and he expressed uncertainty about Appellant's whereabouts thereafter. Additionally, Wright described an interaction with an agent regarding a company president's desire to meet about an investigation, mentioning resistance from a Muslim agent to wear a wire and complaints made to FBI headquarters that went unanswered. In his legal petitions, Appellant identified as a private individual, but in his appellate brief, he focused on ABC's alleged actual malice without disputing their claim that he is a public figure. Appellant is assumed to be a public official or public figure for the purposes of this review. In defamation cases involving public figures against media defendants, the burden of proof lies with the public figure to establish that the defamatory statements were false. The appellate court does not need to determine if ABC's Broadcast and Article contained false statements, as the resolution centers on whether Appellant demonstrated a genuine issue of material fact regarding actual malice. If the trial court's summary judgment order does not specify the grounds for its decision, the ruling can be upheld if any of the theories presented are valid. Appellant alleged that ABC acted with actual malice by willfully ignoring the truth but failed to raise this argument in his appellate brief, which must include all relied-upon issues. The review will focus on pertinent evidence, including affidavits, depositions, and communications related to the case. Appellant first learned about ABC's interest in his story in December 2002, when he was contacted for an on-camera interview, but he declined due to his status as an undercover agent and concerns about his identity being revealed. Ross asserted that the FBI's statement was inaccurate regarding the reasons behind Appellant's refusal to record a Muslim suspect, though he did not specify his reasoning. Appellant confirmed the statement's inaccuracy. The mission of Vulgar Betrayal was to dismantle the HAMAS terrorist support organization in the U.S. Wright's June 1998 affidavit outlined the connections between Yassin Kadi, Kadi International, and BMI, Inc. with terrorism-related money laundering. A Wall Street Journal article recounted allegations from Wright and Carmody, noting they originated in 2000 after an internal discrimination complaint by Muslim agent Gamal Abdel-Hafiz. The article referenced Wright's affidavit that included Appellant's remark about Muslims not recording each other. Wright, with twelve years at the FBI, described a hostile directive from FBI Headquarters against initiating criminal investigations into intelligence subjects and emphasized a policy of surveillance rather than arresting terrorists. He recounted a conversation with a Muslim agent who resisted wearing a wire and made a statement that shocked Wright. Wright anticipated Appellant's termination but instead faced a complaint from Appellant regarding loyalty questioning. Wright adamantly refused to apologize for Appellant's dereliction of duty and expressed relief over being investigated, as it provided him a basis to speak publicly under the Freedom of Information Act. Finally, Carmody, a retired FBI agent, corroborated that Appellant declined to record a conversation with a suspect, despite being willing to make the call. Carmody expressed astonishment at an FBI agent's refusal to cooperate in a criminal investigation, emphasizing that agents are obligated to enforce the law and that such refusal constitutes insubordination that should be reported. He noted that any use of the Appellant would require coordination with the U.S. Attorney’s office in Dallas and the FBI, and confirmed he reported the Appellant's refusal to superiors, although he could not discipline the Appellant himself. Carmody's statements were affirmed as truthful in his affidavit. Vincent, an experienced FBI agent, highlighted issues within the FBI's management structure but did not specify accountability. He recounted the Appellant’s assertion that cultural reasons prevented him from recording another Muslim, which Vincent found unacceptable, stating that agents must prioritize their duties. Vincent attempted to file a complaint regarding the Appellant's dereliction of duty but received no response from Headquarters. Flessner, a former federal prosecutor, indicated that the FBI's role is to assist in prosecutions and cannot allow agents to decline participation in investigations based on personal beliefs. He was surprised by the Appellant's refusal to wear a wire for religious reasons, asserting that agents do not have the discretion to opt out of investigations. Flessner expected some form of sanction for the Appellant but later learned no action was taken, reiterating that an agent’s refusal to engage in an investigation is unprecedented and unacceptable. Flessner testified that his role was to investigate and prosecute criminal offenses, asserting that he did not provide false information in his interviews. He indicated that the lead prosecutor in Operation Vulgar Betrayal was responsible for directing the investigation, and the relationship between the prosecutor's office and the FBI was non-hierarchical, meaning he could not command FBI agents. However, he stated that FBI agents consistently complied with his requests for investigative actions and he had never encountered an agent refusing a request due to personal beliefs. Wright, during a Judicial Watch press conference, accused FBI management of incompetence and obstruction of justice, referencing his experience with a Dallas special agent who refused to record an individual without assurance of safety and cited personal beliefs against recording another Muslim. Wright expressed concerns about Appellant's refusal to perform duties related to international terrorism investigations, claiming it violated his sworn obligations. Additionally, Wright's performance evaluations indicated his strong capabilities in international terrorism, and a civil asset forfeiture affidavit linked individuals to terrorism-related money laundering. The trial court allowed ABC to submit additional evidence from a previous hearing where Appellant stated he did not sue Carmody or the Wall Street Journal. The court did not consider Appellant's remaining arguments.