Defamation Lawsuit Against Smithville Activist Now Sealed

 

Bunch on Left 

A defamation lawsuit filed last April in Clay County Circuit Court by local developers against Kristine Bunch, a local Smithville activist who seems  pal around with KC Mayor Q-Ball, has since been sealed by the court, according to court records.

There have been other petitions against Bunch that  alleged that Bunch, who operates the Facebook page “Smithville News,” made a series of false and malicious statements accusing a person named Shane Crees and KCPI of public corruption, misuse of public funds, and collusion with Smithville Mayor Damien Boley. The plaintiffs claimed the statements damaged their reputations, provoked public contempt, and interfered with business relationships. However that case was ultimately dismissed.

That lawsuit centered on content published on Smithville News, a Facebook page controlled exclusively by Bunch, where posting privileges are limited to her and public comments are restricted. The petition alleged this structure prevented meaningful rebuttal while allowing the accusations to circulate as purported factual reporting.

There is a separate dispute involving  the owners of 110 Smithville, LLC. They previously sought a restraining order against Bunch following a protest that she organized against the company. The development group has been under investigation for alleged violations of the Missouri Clean Air Act related to a proposed mixed-use project at the intersection of West Main and Mill Streets, a site that has been a focal point of community concern. Court records show the project, spearheaded by 110 Smithville, LLC, has drawn scrutiny over environmental compliance during its execution, contributing to ongoing public debate in Smithville.

Bunch, who has described herself as a citizen journalist and activist, has previously been involved in legal disputes connected to her advocacy efforts. No court has issued a ruling on the merits of the claims involving 110 Smithville LLC.  The sealing of the case does not constitute a finding for or against either party.

When reached for comment, Kristine Bunch stated she did not request that the defamation case be sealed. The request to seal originated from the plaintiffs or was entered by the court at its own initiative. Legal representees were reached however no comment was provided. Because the case is sealed, the court has not made public the specific reasons for the request or the scope of the sealing order.

While the precise rationale in this matter is not publicly available, legal experts often note that plaintiffs may seek to seal proceedings for several common reasons:

• Protection of sensitive business information: Defamation cases often involve internal communications, contracts, financial records, or client relationships that parties may wish to keep confidential.

• Limiting further reputational harm: Plaintiffs may seek sealing to prevent repetition or amplification of the allegedly defamatory statements within court filings, which are otherwise public records.

• Settlement negotiations: Cases are sometimes sealed when parties are engaged in confidential settlement discussions or have reached a resolution subject to non-disclosure terms.

• Avoiding prolonged public controversy: In highly charged local disputes, sealing can reduce media attention and community escalation while litigation is ongoing.

Legal observers emphasize that a request to seal does not imply wrongdoing by either party, nor does it reflect a judicial determination on the truth or falsity of the underlying claims. It is a procedural mechanism that limits public access, not a ruling on the merits.