Long legal battle between former Rep. Christensen, critic appears to be coming to an end

Bitter legal proceedings between political adversaries appear to be coming to a close with neither side able to declare victory.

Seventh District Judge Dane Watkins Jr. on Tuesday dismissed former state Rep. Chad Christensen’s defamation case against political strategist and activist Gregory Graf while also dismissing Graf’s claims against EmmaLee Robinson, Christensen’s former boss.

Watkins’ 24-page decision outlined why Christensen and Graf’s claims were not legally justifiable, including that as a (former) public official, Christensen faced an elevated standard for proving actual malice.

On Friday, Graf submitted a stipulation for dismissal with prejudice of his remaining counterclaims through his attorney, Jared Allen. Graf, along with Christensen, Greg Pruett and Dustin Hurst, have agreed to drop the lawsuit and pay for their own attorney fees. A dismissal with prejudice means the lawsuit cannot be refiled.

The legal dispute, which dates to February 2021, stemmed from a phone call Graf made to Robinson, on which he reportedly alleged Christensen had committed several crimes.

Robinson was Christensen’s former boss at an insurance agency, and she had recorded her conversation with Graf and later shared it with Christensen.

“Christensen, in turn, shared the recording with Greg Pruett. Pruett worked with Dustin Hurst to write and publish an article regarding the phone call between Graf and Robinson. Christensen filed suit against Graf,” Watkins wrote in his decision.

Graf later filed a countersuit against Hurst, the former vice president of the Idaho Freedom Foundation, Pruett, founder of the Idaho Second Amendment Alliance, and Robinson. Graf alleges that the three conspired with Christensen to gather the information that Graf had about him.

Pruett and Hurst used the information provided by Christensen to write and publish a multipart series of articles on Keep Idaho Free, a website run by Pruett.

Graf’s counterclaims included defamation, fraud, civil conspiracy, intentional interference with contract and tortious interference with economic expectancy.

On Sept. 20, Watkins had dismissed the fraud count against Hurst.

Graf and Robinson began to interact on Facebook when Christensen was running for the Idaho House of Representatives against Bill Leake in District 32. Graf and Robinson communicated on Facebook about the race.

Robinson told Graf she had just hired Christensen and had some “red flags” about him. Graf suggested they have a phone call. Watkins wrote that Robinson wanted to leave her office before Graf’s call and told Graf to call her 10 minutes later.

“Before leaving her office, Robinson informed Christensen about the upcoming call and explained that she wanted to record the call. Christensen helped Robinson download an app on her phone to facilitate recording the call,” Watkins wrote.

Robinson also later provided a copy of the recorded conversation to Katie Hart, associate general counsel at Melaleuca, where Graf worked as a director of search engine optimization. Graf later left that job due to the lawsuit.

“(Christensen) and Third-Party Defendants’ conduct created strain in the employment relationship, which leads to the separation and termination of that relationship,” Graf’s counterclaim states.

Christensen’s initial lawsuit alleged Graf had made nine defamatory statements about him, including that he is a sexual predator, had committed insurance fraud and campaign finance violations.

During the disposition of Graf, it was revealed that he did not know or failed to investigate the claims he made against Christensen. Graf’s summary judgment asked the judge to dismiss Christensen’s defamation claims against him, “because Christensen caused the statements’ publication beyond its initial audience and should be stopped from pursuing his claims.”

Watkins wrote, “Equally problematic is the fact that Christensen attempts to place the burden on Graf of disproving he made the statements with actual malice. Christensen, as plaintiff, bears the burden of establishing that Graf acted with actual malice.

“… Christensen has not demonstrated the existence of a genuine issue of material fact that Graf acted with the requisite malice when making the allegedly defamatory statements.”

In dismissing Graf’s claim against Robinson, Watkins wrote that Robinson did not know Hurst before he published the articles regarding her phone call with Graf, and she did not give permission for Pruett to use the recordings. He also wrote that Graf did not demonstrate a plan or agreement between Robinson and the others before the articles’ publication.

Portions of Graf’s claims against Christensen, Hurst and Pruett remain active pending dismissal.

As of Friday a jury trial in the case was still scheduled for 8:30 a.m. Nov. 13.