U.S. House candidate and Casper businessman Reid Rasner has sued three more people for defamation.
That’s in addition to his July 2025 defamation lawsuit against former state Sen. Anthony Bouchard, a Republican who represented parts of Laramie and Platte counties.
Rasner accused Bouchard of defaming him on social media by claiming Rasner had a “sexual abuse” record while working for Casper College. The college has since said it received no complaints of misconduct against Rasner, and a judge said in November that Rasner’s defamation case had at least enough legal coherence to overcome Bouchard’s motion for dismissal.
On Friday, Rasner sued Bar Nunn resident Dan Sabrosky and Sabrosky’s ex-wife Michelle St. Louis, claiming they waged a social media and “whisper campaign” against him that has harmed his business and repelled some of his clients.
And in February, Rasner sued former state legislator Austin “Kit” Jennings – also on defamation claims.
St. Louis voiced surprise Wednesday morning in a phone interview with Cowboy State Daily, during which she learned Rasner is suing her.
She said she’s not afraid and that Rasner may “bring it on.”
“As somebody who’s running to represent all citizens in the state of Wyoming in the U.S. Congress, how is it that he cannot see the line between free speech and defamation?” asked St. Louis.
Michael Blevins, spokesperson for Rasner, response wrote in a text message, “These people have come after Reid for years and defamed him. He has every right to hold them accountable and pursue all legal means.”
The Newest Complaint
Rasner asserted in his civil complaint against St. Louis and Sabrosky that they “made knowingly false and highly salacious allegations against Mr. Rasner that any reasonable person would have known were untrue” for the “single purpose” of harming Rasner’s career and political life.
The complaint alleges that Sabrosky has deleted certain social media posts, hid certain posts or restricted Rasner’s access to certain posts.
St. Louis asked her friends and followers to send her private messages to discuss her “family’s experience” with Rasner, the complaint says.
Rasner’s complaint asserts that St. Louis has called Rasner a “fool” who has blasphemed God, and that she’s attached his divorce decree and made posts referencing “fake allegations of sexual misconduct against Mr. Rasner.”
The pair “orchestrated and participated in a whisper campaign aimed at promulgating false and salacious allegation,” Rasner claims. He added in his complaint that multiple clients have approached him in recent weeks to end their business relationships with him over “scandalous allegations – such as those made by Defendants” concerning his character.
His lawsuit complaint asks for damages, plus punitive and exemplary damages, and invokes four causes of action: defamation per se (or, defamation so obvious a man doesn’t have to show how it harmed him), tortious interference with a contract or prospective economic advantage, negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress, and civil conspiracy.
The Other State Senator
Former state Sen. Austin “Kit” Jennings served a Natrona County district from 2005 to 2012.
Sometime around 2010, Jennings told Bouchard that Rasner had committed sexual misconduct against a minor, to whom Jennings is related, court documents say.
Rasner alleges in a Feb. 2 lawsuit complaint against Jennings that the latter also defamed him via a pseudonymous social media profile, yet bore “full knowledge that the statements were false.”
The complaint claims Jennings weaponized his “friend,” Bouchard, “by encouraging him to make false statements about Mr. Rasner.”
Jennings filed an affidavit in Rasner’s case against Bouchard, saying he had told Bouchard that Rasner committed sexual misconduct.
It is more difficult for a public figure to sue for defamation, since the public figure must show the people defaming him either knew they were lying or acted on a reckless disregard for the truth.
Bouchard leaned on Jennings’ affidavit as proof that he believed what he was saying.
“Defendant Jennings repeatedly made those statements to Bouchard but never publicly acknowledged making those statements until August 2025,” says Rasner’s complaint against Jennings. “And thereby (he) concealed the existence of those statements from Mr. Rasner.
Though Jennings had told the court that he filed a complaint with Casper College, a subpoena returned no such documentation, Rasner’s complaint says.
Rasner alleges the same four causes of action against Jennings that he put in his suit against Sabrosky and St. Louis.
Jennings filed a pro se motion Tuesday, asking the court to dismiss Rasner’s lawsuit against him.
Rasner’s complaint, wrote Jennings, “attempts to impose liability on defendant based largely on speculation that defendant authorized or directed certain social media posts concerning plaintiff.”
The affidavit Jennings filed is, he asserts, protected by judicial proceeding privilege and shouldn’t be a fulcrum for a new suit against him.
“(Rasner’s) complaint attempts to attribute unidentified online speech to defendant without pleading facts plausibly connecting Defendant to the alleged publications,” Jennings wrote. That’s a repeating defense in his motion: that Rasner’s complaint is bare of real evidence that can support the four causes of action.
“A plaintiff asserting defamation must identify the specific statements alleged to be defamatory so the court may evaluate whether the statements are actionable as a matter of law,” Jennings wrote, adding that the complaint fails that requirement.
Meanwhile, WyoFile
Rasner in one of his pleadings to the court against Bouchard accused Bouchard of attacking Rasner by re-posting a “dubious news article.”
Bouchard had posted a link to a WyoFile story – which was a republication of a South Dakota Searchlight story – questioning whether Rasner is as wealthy as he has indicated.
Bouchard is asking the court to join WyoFile into the case so it can be sued alongside him and answer for that story on its own.
Both Bouchard and Rasner have derided each other for bringing the media outlet into the case.
WyoFile’s attorney Kelly Rudd, of Lander-based Baldwin, Crocker and Rudd, parried in a Feb. 16 motion that WyoFile should not be in the lawsuit.
Rudd emphasized that when District Court Judge Benjamin Kirven called Rasner’s case viable last November, Kirven focused on evidence that Bouchard had accused Rasner of sexual misconduct.
The WyoFile story said nothing about sexual misconduct.
“Bouchard’s third party complaint against WyoFile contains no specific reference to the accusations of serious sexual misconduct that are central to the court’s discussion of Rasner’s claims against Bouchard in the court’s order,” wrote Rudd.
Bouchard has also failed to establish that the law can justify linking WyoFile to this case, Rudd added.
Also, wrote Rudd, “WyoFile believes that the article well exceeds the standard of substantial truth” and if it contained “some yet-to-be-identified falsehood, Bouchard would have to allege facts demonstrating actual malice.”
Actual malice is the name for the additional proofs public figures have to show when suing for defamation.
All three of Rasner’s defamation cases are ongoing.
Clair McFarland can be reached at clair@cowboystatedaily.com.
