Holly Niotti-Soltesz v. Michael W. Piotrowski, et al.

I. QUESTION: The Supreme Court of Kentucky holds that calling a person a “con artist” is slander, whereas the Ohio Courts hold that calling a person a “con artist” is a protected opinion as a matter of law. To provide uniformity of the law between States and equal protection under the law the question is which State Court’s interpretation, and holding is in accord with the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution? II. QUESTION: In determining under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution whether a statement is verifiable, under one of the parts of the Ollman four part test, is a court required to consider as part of its analysis whether or not the comment implies the existence of undisclosed facts? III. QUESTION: Does calling a person a “con artist” create a reasonable inference that it was justified by undisclosed defamatory facts, which the recipient correctly, or mistakenly but reasonably, understands that it was intended to express?