Libel and slander traditionally require making a "false and defamatory" statement about the plaintiff. Establishing an actionable tort when the essence is that the defendant made true but malicious and harmful statements is somewhat more difficult, requiring, I believe, proof of actual malice, i.e., an intent to do harm to the plaintiff. If the defendant was only doing a civic duty or giving a fair warning, there's nothing actionable, but if the prospective defendant intended to cause pain and embarrassment or undermine plaintiff's community standing, a suit for damages may be successful. See a "torts" lawyer who handles defamation cases; your case is a recognized subtype and if you can show malicious intent and damages, I'd say you have a good case.

Libel and slander traditionally require making a "false and defamatory" statement about the plaintiff. Establishing an actionable tort when the essence is that the defendant made true but malicious and harmful statements is somewhat more difficult, requiring, I believe, proof of actual malice, i.e., an intent to do harm to the plaintiff. If the defendant was only doing a civic duty or giving a fair warning, there's nothing actionable, but if the prospective defendant intended to cause pain and embarrassment or undermine plaintiff's community standing, a suit for damages may be successful. See a "torts" lawyer who handles defamation cases; your case is a recognized subtype and if you can show malicious intent and damages, I'd say you have a good case.