Showing posts with label defamation suits for telling the truth. Show all posts
Showing posts with label defamation suits for telling the truth. Show all posts

Sunday, August 24, 2014

UW-Whitewater professor sues former student over online comments

See update below regarding Vogl-Bauer v. Llewellyn case.  Another voice about what goes on in schools seems to have been silenced WITHOUT A TRIAL.  

The public pays the salaries of public employees like college professors, and is legally liable for the actions of public employees acting within the course and scope of their employment.  

Public employees have less right to privacy regarding their work behavior than private employees do.

 UW-Whitewater professor sues former student over online comments
Andrea Anderson
May 22, 2014

A [University of Wisconsin] UW-Whitewater professor is suing her former graduate student, saying the student's comments on websites are defamatory.

“When you make false statements of fact repeatedly about another person with the intent of harming them, that's over the line,” said Tim Edwards, attorney for UW-Whitewater communications professor Sally Vogl-Bauer.

“If you truthfully say, 'In my experience, this isn't a good teacher, I didn't have a good experience, she was late' and that's your opinion, that's fair," Edwards said.

Vogl-Bauer is suing Anthony Llewellyn for defamation.

The lawsuit alleges Llewellyn “engaged in an intentional, malicious and unprivileged campaign to defame Dr. Vogl-Bauer, resulting in substantial economic, reputational and emotional injuries.”

Websites dedicated to students reviewing their instructors have proliferated. The Whitewater case raises the question of when online comments become defamation.

Llewellyn posted videos on YouTube and wrote comments on Blogger.com and TeacherComplaints.com describing what he said Vogl-Bauer did to him while he was in her communication theories class in spring 2013.

A few of Llewellyn's claims are Vogl-Bauer:

-- Said he didn't belong in college

-- Labeled him as a horrible student

-- Docked him points on assignments

-- Caused him to fail out of school

Llewellyn said he spoke with Vogl-Bauer in April about her behavior before he was notified in June that he failed her class.

After trying to communicate with UW-Whitewater Department of Communication faculty and staff and university administration, Llewellyn sent emails to the Eastern Communication Association, Better Business Bureau and the Federal Trade Commission describing Vogl-Bauer's behavior as “degrading, demeaning, verbally attacking,” according to court documents...

Read more here: UW-Whitewater professor sues former student over online comments


UPDATE AUG. 24, 2014
I received the following information:

IS A SETTLEMENT IN THE WORKS FOR VOGL-BAUER V. LLEWELLYN?

Anthony Llewellyn now has three lawyers, Andrew Price, Kate E. Maternowski, and Laura Brenner . Jury trial is still scheduled for SEP 15 - SEP 17, 2014, in the Walworth County Judicial Center Courtroom of the Honorable Phillip A Koss; however, it is hard to find any of Anthony Llewellyn's videos online. IS HE TAKING THE VIDEOS DOWN?

Sally Vogl-Bauer apparently had her pre-trial hearing AUG 20, 2014. It is no longer listed on the pending court docket.

Visit http://wcca.wicourts.gov/index.xsl . Click agree.

On next page enter name = Llewellyn,

County = Walworth,

Case Number = 2013CV001140.

You'll see suit history and public data about Sally Vogl-Bauer and Anthony Llewellyn.
 

Sunday, August 17, 2014

From the defamation archives: Dentist claims he lost $300,000 due to an online review that was up for three weeks

Our health is at risk when doctors and dentists can silence patients who have been harmed. All a doctor has to do to silence criticism is to threaten expensive litigation even when the patient would win in court if he had the resources to go to trial. How many patients have the resources to pay for years of litigation?

A Portland dentist is suing a former patient for what the dentist claims are defamatory reviews in online forums
By Sam Stites
Willamette Week
September 3, 2012

Dr. Mo Saleh, of Dental Dynamics, originally filed suit against Spencer Bailey in Multnomah Circuit Court on June 26 seeking $300,000 after Bailey wrote about Saleh’s dental skills on Yelp, DoctorOogle.com and Google. In his lawsuit, Saleh says Bailey posts caused damage to his reputation, loss of profits and emotional distress.

The reviews cited in the complaint include statements saying Bailey implied ”improper and insufficient dental services by Dr. Saleh.” The complaint further alleges that Bailey wrote, “if Dr. Saleh tells you that you have a cavity — GET A SECOND OPINION.”

According to the complaint. Bailey said he had never had a cavity in 32 years until Saleh found several. Bailey’s lawyers have responded by stating that Bailey went to Saleh for dental work and then went to another dentist after experiencing pain. They claim that the other dentist advised Bailey that some of the fillings were unnecessary and some were poorly put in.

Bailey’s attorneys, Jeremiah Ross and Linda Williams, also claimed that Saleh contacted Bailey after he reviewed the dentist on various web sites, threatening him to remove them. They say Bailey removed the postings out of concern for his and his family’s safety. Even though Bailey removed the postings, Saleh is proceeding with his suit. (Saleh’s lawyer declined to comment.)

As online commentary about all manner of topics has exploded, so too has the number of lawsuits unhappy targets have filed about such commentary. Saleh’s suit falls under what lawyers call a practice of Strategic Law Against Public Participation or SLAPP. SLAPP cases take aim at people making statements or publishing information that could be damaging to the plaintiff. Critics say these suits are sometimes little more than attempt to censor, silence and in intimidate the defendant.



In a similar case, a Washington County pastor sued a former parishioner in June, claiming an online review of his church was defamatory. The defendant’s attorney, Linda Williams—who is also representing Bailey, the dental patient—employed an Oregon anti-SLAPP statute passed in 2001 aimed at frivolous SLAPP lawsuits. The judge ruled in favor of the Washington County defendant and said that the statements were made “in a public forum and concern an issue of public interest,” according to KATU.

Earlier this month Bailey’s attorneys filed a motion to strike Saleh’s lawsuit under the anti-SLAPP statute, declaring that Bailey’s online reviews are free speech in a public forum. "Spencer's review was a protected opinion and the Plaintiff cannot prove their allegations," Ross, Bailey’s co-counsel tells WW via email. "Nor can they prove $300,000 in damages for a post that was up for three weeks."

A judge will hear the anti-SLAPP motion on Sept. 5.

Monday, January 06, 2014

Response to angry lawyer

Rachel Maddow:

"You not wanting to be known for something you have done is not the same as you not having done it."

See all posts Stutz v. Larkins lawsuit.


UPDATE:

Hey Koch Brothers: Your Ton of Lawyer Papers Didn't Make Rachel Maddow Back Down!
by hungrycoyote
Daily Kos
Jan 28, 2014

Rachel Maddow: "It's our country too, even if we don't get invited to your Billionaires’ Party in Palm Springs every January."

You may think that since Rachel Maddow has spent so much time these last few weeks wrapped up in reporting on the continuously breaking scandals out of New Jersey, that she hasn’t had time to think about that billionaire-duo of behind the scenes politics known as the Koch brothers. But you’d be wrong. The last time Rachel went on a full out rant about the Kochs’ escapades was at the beginning of this month. If you happened to catch that glorious segment when Rachel Maddow Spoke Truth to the Powerful Koch Brothers, you might think it doesn’t get any better than that. You’d be wrong. Rachel Maddow ended Monday night's show with a powerful segment pointed squarely at the influential brothers. If you missed it, you can watch it online, or if you prefer to savor every word by reading a transcript, just jump over the orange squiggly.

The segment starts with quotes from news reports that the Koch brothers helped accumulate $400 million that was spent to defeat President Obama and Congressional Democrats in the 2012 and then points out how the endeavor failed miserably. It's just amazing that the Koch brothers wasted their money having they lawyers attempt to muzzle Ms. Maddow. She even quotes the press coverage of the last time she tied the Koch brothers to the conservative networks they have created around the country, and specifically in Florida. Politifact had rated her assertions as "Mostly False" last time. Her response? More documentation that her reporting was factual.

Makes you wonder how the Koch brothers ever became successful billionaires, doesn't it? They blew $400 million on the 2012 election, and they wasted money on attorneys trying to force Rachel Maddow to retract her reporting. Fail! Fail! Fail! Why don't they just take their toys and go home? Seriously? When one thinks of all the good that money could have done, and yet it was used to wage a losing battle. The war isn't over because the Kochs plan to fight even more battles in the coming months as the 2014 election cycle gears up.

Don't think you can spare the time to watch a 15-minute video or read the long transcript? Read the end and then reconsider that thought.

The new Politico reporting on the Kochs' otherwise secret plans is that the Kochs, whose operation already rivals the Republican Party, they are now reshaping their operation in ways that could end up reshaping the Party itself, starting with raising as many millions of dollars as possible this weekend in Palm Springs. The Koch brothers are spending and organizing the spending of more money than almost anyone in history to influence American politics. They also fight vociferously to limit real reporting on how much they spend, how they spend it, and what the impact that spending has on our polity.

They want to influence American politics. And they are influencing American politics. But they do not want to be known for what it is that they do. And at one level this is one small fight about one group pushing one laughably terrible policy from Florida. But this is also about how American politics works now. And whether it stays in the light or whether it is allowed to go underground. Because how they are working their side of politics now is millions and millions and millions of dollars, hundreds of millions of dollars that are intentionally made difficult to trace, funneled to networks that build networks that you can disown when you want to if you want to.

Does that intentionally opaque political activity get reported on now, or doesn't it? They have tried to make it as hard as possible for that reporting to get done. I say we do it anyway. It's our country too, even if we don't get invited to your Billionaires’ Party in Palm Springs every January.

I don't know about you, but I'm looking forward to Rachel Maddow's reporting after she receives another ton of lawyer papers in response to this segment.

Elaborate network obscures Koch influence

Rachel Maddow traces part of the vast network of Koch-funded groups and initiatives to show their influence on conservative politics.

So the weather this weekend obviously was perfect if you live anywhere near Palm Springs, California. Maybe you played some golf on the manicured desert greens, enjoyed a cool drink by the pool. January in Palm Springs means look, 75 degrees and sunny. You feel like a million bucks. Or maybe you feel like several billion bucks.

Rachel Maddow: "January in Palm Springs means look, 75 degrees and sunny."

And a few weeks ago The Washington Post tallied up all the money the Kochs and their network raised for the 2012 election cycle [See Koch-backed political coalition, designed to shield donors, raised $400 million in 2012 by Matea Gold, The Washington Post, 5 Jan 2014]. And by The Post's accounting, it looks like something on the order of about $400 million just for the 2012 election, torn down into a rabbit warren of essentially unGoogleable, hard to trace, opaque non-profits and organizations, most with seemingly unrelated names and spread out all over the country and good luck sorting it out.

attribution: None Specified

Rachel Maddow: "The Washington Post tallied up all the money the Kochs and their network raised for the 2012 election cycle."

Around this time every year the conservative activist billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch get together with other very wealthy people somewhere around Palm Springs in order to talk conservative politics and conservative causes. Charles and David Koch try to hold these regular seminars in as much secrecy as possible because otherwise, the scene outside where they’re meeting ends up looking like this. [Video of protestors.]

Rachel Maddow: "This was outside the Koch's desert summit in 2011, and that was an off year for politics."

This was outside the Koch's desert summit in 2011, and that was an off year for politics. But that year people did find out in advance where they were going to and when they were going to be there, and so there was sort of a welcome party in reverse for the Kochs and their rich allies that year. That was 2011 when the Kochs and their friends were presumably planning their strategy for the next election cycle. The next election cycle, of course, was 2012.

Rachel Maddow: "At $400 million it was among the most mega of all the mega-money in that election."

The Post says found quote a labyrinth of tax-exempt groups and limited-liability companies helping mask the sources of the money, much of which went to voter mobilization and to television ads attacking President Obama and Congressional Democrats. What the Koch brothers helped fund in time for the 2012 election was a huge deal. I mean, at $400 million it was among the most mega of all the mega-money in that election. What they helped build for 2012 was very impressive … on paper. But in real life it flopped. The Kochs and their wealthy allies wanted Mitt Romney to become president, of course. In that effort, they failed. They also tried to put the Republicans back in control of the Senate, and they failed. They tried to get more Republicans into the House as well, and they failed at that too.

Rachel Maddow: "2012 was such a disappointment to the Kochs."

Twenty-twelve was such a disappointment to the Kochs that they delayed their plans for the 2013 summit [See Kochs Postpone Post-Election Meeting by Robert Costa, National Review Online, 11 Dec 2012]. Again, they usually troop off to Palm Springs in January. But after the 2012 election they pushed it back from January until April so they could have more time to try to figure out what to do.

Rachel Maddow: "that cash infusion was found by the state of California to be illegal."

But still, they were not yet done with the pain from that 2012 election cycle. In October, California officials announced that two groups they described as part of the Koch brothers network had broken campaign finance rules in the way they shuffled money around. A huge last minute infusion of cash into two California ballot initiatives (one to gut union rights and one to shield the richest taxpayers for a tax hike), that cash infusion was found by the state of California to be illegal [See Group Linked to Kochs Admits to Campaign Finance Violations by Nicholas Confessore, The New York Times, 24 Oct 2013].

Rachel Maddow: "One of the groups ... got a heap of cash from donors at the Koch's Palm Spring Summit in 201."

One of the groups dumping money into those fights in California reportedly got a heap of cash from donors at the Koch's Palm Spring Summit in 2012 [See Koch World 2014 by Kenneth P. Vogel, Politico.com, 24 Jan 2014].

Rachel Maddow: "...those groups agreed to a record fine, handed down by the State of California."

And in October those groups agreed to a record fine, handed down by the State of California. For their part, the Kochs insisted they had nothing to do with that scandal in California. They said they did not control those particular outfits and did not give money directly or indirectly to any nonprofit in that particular California election. But of course, they did still end up with their name in this headline [See Group Linked to Kochs Admits to Campaign Finance Violations by Nicholas Confessore, The New York Times, 24 Oct 2013].

Rachel Maddow: "The Washington Post attempting to chart the Koch backed election machine for 2012."

And in this one; this is The Washington Post attempting to chart the Koch backed election machine for 2012 [See Inside the $400-million political network backed by the Kochs, The Washington Post, 5 Jan 2014]. You can see one of the groups that got its wires crossed in California is right there in the middle of the web; in the middle of the Koch-backed network.

Rachel Maddow: "But what makes the Kochs' genius, is that they help grow networks."

For the Koch brothers, the news out of California presents a different and worrying kind of challenge. I mean, they can write impressive checks. They can get other rich people to write impressive checks. But what makes the Kochs' genius, is that they help grow networks; networks that then grow other networks. And in so doing they create a web of immense influence that seems decentralized. So when someone at the end of the org. chart does something that gets noticed, either for good or for bad, well then it's your call as to whether or not you say you’re proud to take credit for what they did or whether you tell everyone that you’ve got no connection to them whatsoever. Change the world; sway elections, but keep your hands clean. You don't have to answer questions about it. You don't have to face scrutiny as to your motives or anything else and it cuts down on those annoying protesters outside your swanky resort meetings. If you are writing checks alongside the Kochs you get to be part of this leviathan, far reaching, well funded nest of networks and no one has to know that about you unless you want them to.

Rachel Maddow: "...the maze of linked groups and money did not win them the 2012 election."

The Post called it quote a maze of groups that cloaks its donors. But again, in 2012 the maze of linked groups and money did not win them the 2012 election, and they had that problem in California with the network going sideways and getting busted by that state there. So what happens this year? What do the Kochs try to sell in their desert retreat this year, which happened just this past weekend in Palm Springs?

Rachel Maddow: "...look for the hotel where all the rooms are booked and suddenly the restaurant is inexplicably off limits."

It was kind of fun watching the local press trying to figure out where the meeting was going to be held this year [See Koch brothers expected to hold desert conference by Erica Felci, The Desert Sun, 24 Jan 2014]. Hint, look for the hotel where all the rooms are booked and suddenly the restaurant is inexplicably off limits. Politico.com broke the news on Friday about the Kochs' pitch this year. Quote This year, the Koch’s close allies are rolling out a new, more integrated approach to politics. That includes wading into Republican primaries for the first time to ensure their ideal candidates end up on the ticket, and also centralizing control of their network to limit headache-inducing freelancing by affiliated operatives [See Koch World 2014 by Kenneth P. Vogel, Politico.com, 24 Jan 2014].

So the Kochs are reportedly selling more influence over which candidates are running and more control over the network. All the non-profits with the hard to follow anonymous-sounding names that have been freelancing out there, right? More control. And good on Politico for being able to report that out in advance of the meetings this weekend because we know how secret they like to keep this stuff.

I've got to say, though, when that story broke I always wonder now, every time I see somebody report something new on the Koch brothers and particularly on what the Koch brothers fund, I wonder if they are getting buried under a ton of lawyer papers every time they report this stuff too. Or whether the Kochs just do that to us.

Rachel Maddow: "Being a political actor means being subject to political scrutiny. If you don’t want to be known for it, DON'T DO IT."

[Video clip from The Rachel Maddow Show 3 Jan 2014]:

… we will not stop reporting on the political actions and the consequences of the political actions of rich and powerful men even if they send angry letters every time we do it. I will not read scripts provided to me by anyone else. I do not play requests. I will happily make corrections when I do get things wrong. We do it on this show all the time. But I will not renounce or retract reporting that is true even if the subjects of that reporting don’t like it. Being a political actor means being subject to political scrutiny. If you don’t want to be known for it, DON'T DO IT.

So a few weeks ago we reported on this show about forced drug testing for people on welfare in the State of Florida. It's a Rick Scott policy in that state. It has not been going well in that state. And that's of wider political interest for two reasons. One is that Florida Governor Rick Scott's running for re-election and he's making that policy part of his re-election effort; even as a federal judge has just struck down that policy as unconstitutional. Also, though, the second reason, that story may not just be about Florida anymore. Between the time that the forced drug testing thing got signed into law in Florida and the time that the federal judge first struck it down, a Florida group called the Foundation for Government Accountability started marketing that forced drug testing law around the country, trying to talk other states into doing it as well. They went to public hearings in Georgia to share the good news about Florida's terrible policy [See The Right Presses On For Welfare Drug Tests The Rachel Maddow Show, 2 Jan 2014].

They went to public meetings in Georgia to share the good news about Florida’s terrible policy [See RELEASE: Think Tank Shares Florida’s Welfare Drug Testing Success at Georgia Public Hearing, Foundation for Government Accountability, 15 Feb 2012]. They went to a national meeting of the group ALEC in Arizona to market Florida's terrible policy to state legislators from all over the country [See RELEASE – Think Tank Featured at ALEC Health and Human Services Task Force, Foundation for Government Accountability, 5 Dec 2011]. So we reported that a few weeks ago. The problems with that forced drug testing policy had as a policy in Florida, its problems legally in Florida, and the efforts of this Koch brothers-affiliated group, the Foundation for Government Accountability, to nevertheless try to sell this very bad policy nationwide.

PolitiFact gets it wrong!

The Koch brothers responded by telling us that they had nothing to do with the Florida Foundation for Government Accountability, they rejected any effort to link them with what that group does and with the policies that that group promotes. The Koch brothers say they have nothing to do with the issue of drug testing for welfare benefits, nothing to do with that Florida law, and nothing to do with this Florida group, the Foundation for Government Accountability. Quote an attorney for Koch Industries … says Koch foundations have no connections to the Foundation for Government Accountability [See Rachel Maddow claims Florida group that backs drug-testing welfare recipients is affiliated with Koch brothers, PolitiFact, 9 Jan 2014]. A spokesman for the Koch Company says, quote Koch has not contributed to the Foundation for Government Accountability. We have had no involvement whatsoever with the foundation for Government Accountability or the Florida law [See MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow Hunkers Down on Koch Bros. Claim by Erik Wemple, The Washington Post, 8 Jan 2014].

No involvement with the Foundation for Government Accountability whatsoever. They do not want to be associated with the work of this group or the policies this group supports. They do not want to be tied to them. They do not want you to hear forced drug testing in Florida and think about the conservative networks that have been spawned by the Koch brothers.

attribution: None Specified

The Institute for Humane Studies is a non-profit.

Here's the thing. This is the website for The Institute for Humane Studies. The Institute for Humane Studies is a non-profit. They list Charles G. Koch of Koch Industries as their chairman [See Institute for Humane Studies income tax exemption form (pdf)]. And one thing this Koch-chaired non-profit has done is offer the Charles G. Koch Summer Fellows Program. The Koch summer fellowship is a paid public policy internship. Quote at the state level the fellowship strengthens the institutional capacity of market-oriented think tanks. You and I might not get invited to the Kochs' fund-raising party in the desert. We don't get to watch them building their network. But every so often we get a glimpse of the Kochs' network itself building.

[Audio recording of Heather Lakemacher, Policy Programs Director, Institute for Humane Studies, Students for Liberty/Youtube 2 Feb 2013]

Next .. and this is my personal favorite, because it's the one I direct … is the Koch Summer Fellow Program. And the Koch Summer Fellow Program is run by the Institute for Humane Studies, and here are the basics, and obviously, I can go into a lot more detail in the Q&Q session. It's a paid internship program which pairs you with opportunities throughout the entire country. So we work with State Policy Network, and one of the advantages that we have there is many of the state groups aren't able to pay internships. They only have unpaid internships. And so through the Koch Summer Fellow Program we actually provide a stipend for the summer. So it's an opportunity to work with a group and get paid for it.

That was a nice-sounding lady from the Koch-chaired Institute for Humane Studies talking to students from a Koch-funded organization last year. She's talking about sending Koch fellows to the State Policy Network, which is a group of think tanks which includes the Foundation for Government Accountability. That group in Florida that the Kochs say they have nothing to do with.

attribution: None Specified

Rachel Maddow: "State Policy Network says it is very excited about these liberty-loving interns." State Policy Network says it is very excited about these liberty-loving interns who get a stipend, housing assistance, and travel scholarships as part of their Koch fellowship [See SPN News January/February 2013 Updates]. In full disclosure I should tell you that a lot of corporations also give money to the State Policy Network including our corporate owners at Comcast. But not all of them send interns to these groups as Charles Koch fellows.

[Audio recording of Heather Lakemacher, Policy Programs Director, Institute for Humane Studies, Students for Liberty/Youtube 2 Feb 2013]

You can use, like, the Koch Summer Fellow Program if you go to our website, we've got what we call the host search. And it's a listing of all of the organizations that we work with.

Rachel Maddow: "And oh, hey, look, that group that the Koch brothers say they and their foundations have absolutely no involvement with whatsoever."

That's how the Koch Fellows people tell you to find out where you can work if you get one of these paid Koch fellowships. You go to the Koch fellows host search page. You can search it by policy interest or by region. And oh, hey, look, that group that the Koch brothers says they and their foundations have absolutely no involvement with whatsoever, The Foundation for Government Accountability; that group in Florida that has been pushing that drug test the poor law. Look, there they are. Same guys; same guys the Kochs say neither they nor their foundations have anything to do with. Anyone who reports out new information on the political activities of the Koch brothers, particularly on what they fund and who they're linked to, tends to get acquainted with their teams of lawyers and spokesmen very quickly. They challenged our original report this month about the Foundation for Government Accountability and them being a Koch-affiliated group.

Koch spokesman accuses Maddow team of trying to change the subject.

We stand by our report. Then we asked them about this other very bright link between the Koch brothers and the Florida group they want to say they're not affiliated with whatsoever. We asked them about this other link. And they said essentially, Hey, quit changing the subject. Their spokesman telling us, quote rather than admit you are wrong about that Florida group you are shifting the focus to a new line of flawed reasoning that isn't relevant to your previous coverage. But the Koch network is the whole point of the previous coverage and all the coverage we've ever done of these guys.

Again, the Kochs say they have nothing to do with drug testing for welfare benefits or with the Florida law but the group that is promoting that Florida policy around the country is affiliated with the Koch brothers and benefits from being part of their network of conservative political groups. And that matters. And reporting it despite their threats; matters.

Kochs' otherwise secret plans is that the Kochs, whose operation already rivals the Republican Party, they are now reshaping their operation in ways that could end up reshaping the Party itself.

The new Politico reporting on the Kochs' otherwise secret plans is that the Kochs, whose operation already rivals the Republican Party, they are now reshaping their operation in ways that could end up reshaping the Party itself, starting with raising as many millions of dollars as possible this weekend in Palm Springs. The Koch brothers are spending and organizing the spending of more money than almost anyone in history to influence American politics. They also fight vociferously to limit real reporting on how much they spend, how they spend it, and what the impact that spending has on our polity.

They want to influence American politics. And they are influencing American politics. But they do not want to be known for what it is that they do. And at one level this is one small fight about one group pushing one laughably terrible policy from Florida. But this is also about how American politics works now. And whether it stays in the light or whether it is allowed to go underground. Because how they are working their side of politics now is millions and millions and millions of dollars, hundreds of millions of dollars that are intentionally made difficult to trace, funneled to networks that build networks that you can disown when you want to if you want to.

Does that intentionally opaque political activity get reported on now, or doesn't it? They have tried to make it as hard as possible for that reporting to get done. I say we do it anyway. It's our country too, even if we don't get invited to your Billionaires’ Party in Palm Springs every January.

Sunday, September 29, 2013

Arrests of teenagers are probably surprising parents of the Stephentown 300 who planned to take the victim to court

How many of these parents are lawyers--or have lawyers--who figure that well-off people deserve good reputations no matter what they do?

"As of the census of 2010...the racial makeup of the town was 96.7% White, 0.31% African American, 0.21% Native American, 0.14% Asian, 0.07% Pacific Islander,and 0.77% from two or more races. Hispanic or Latino of any race were 3.11% of the population...About 5.7% of families and 6.6% of the population were below the poverty line, including 9.0% of those under age 18 and 7.0% of those age 65 or over."--Wikipedia

Parents aren't doing their kids a favor when they teach them to ignore the rights of others. And they certainly are not doing the country a favor.


Parents want to sue ex-NFLer for outing brats
[Photos of graffiti, damage]
By Jeane Macintosh
September 20, 2013

Former NFL offensive lineman Brian Holloway initially thought the Twitter photos showing young people partying at his family’s second home in upstate New York were a hoax. Then he saw pictures of teens standing on the dining room table he bought with his Super Bowl bonus.

Parents of the hundreds of teens who broke into and destroyed former NFLer Brian Holloway’s upstate vacation home are threatening to sue him for outing their brats on Twitter — saying he’s spoiling their chances of getting into college.

“You would not believe the calls that have come in, threatening to firebomb me or hurt or sue me — any manner of things,” the stunned Holloway told The Post Thursday as he toiled away cleaning up the damage at his 200-acre spread in Rensselaer County.

The teens defaced Holloway’s home with graffiti.

“Some complained that this will ruin their kids’ college plans. Others have threatened me, saying ‘Take my kid’s name down or I’m gonna press charges against you.’

“You’re going to press charges against me? C’mon, now. If that were one of my children, they would be doing a year’s worth of apologizing,” said Holloway, a father of eight.

Holloway estimates that the teens caused about $20,000 in damages

The former New England Patriots offensive lineman learned of the debauched bash — attended by some 200-300 trespassers — after many of the punks gleefully posted photos and texts on social media from inside the out-of-control crash party that left 10 shattered windows, urine-soaked carpets, gouged oak floors and walls covered in graffiti and holes.

Holloway estimates the damage at more than $20,000 and took to social media to try to track down the vandals so they could be held responsible.

A handful of parents have apologized for their kids’ actions — saying they hadn’t known about the party or that their kids lied to them, he said.

But only one parent and child showed up this week at a planned cleanup of the stately Stephentown home, about 25 miles from Albany and near the Massachusetts border.

Holloway said he has hauled away more than 10 massive trash bags of liquor bottles, and found drug paraphernalia strewn across his property.

“How is this OK? How did we lose our way, that this is acceptable behavior? And how do we find our way back?” said Holloway, who had to delay last week’s planned launch of his new women’s-oriented football site, HerLeague.net, to fly to New York and deal with the mess and an ongoing police probe.

The drama started on Aug. 31, when Holloway — home with his wife and kids at their year-round Lutz, Fla., home — learned from his 19-year-old son that dozens of kids were tweeting about a party at the New York country house.

Holloway watched in disbelief as the scene unfolded on Twitter. The revelers came from at least nine surrounding high schools and a local college.

“They had planned to stay there for three full days, if you can believe that,” Holloway said.

He was trying to reach local cops when someone tweeted that sheriff’s officers were on the scene.

“The sheriff came and got everyone out of the house without injury or violence, which is impressive with the amount of drinking and drugs going down and kids in a very dangerous state of mind,” Holloway said.

Holloway, who found “170 tweets from the party within its first three hours,” re-posted them to a Web site to help identify the house crashers and urge them to change their behavior.


6 Arrests In Vandalism Of Former Patriot Brian Holloway’s Home
George M. Walsh
Associated Press
September 26, 2013

ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) — Six people were arrested Thursday on charges they were among hundreds of young partygoers who trashed a former NFL player’s vacation home, and police said more arrests were expected.

The arrests came after former New England Patriots and Los Angeles Raiders offensive lineman Brian Holloway said he signed papers authorizing the Rensselaer County sheriff to bring charges in the Labor Day weekend party, which was attended by up to 400 teenagers.

Holloway said that among those charged was a young man he had taken into his family for a time as a homeless teen, who’s accused of organizing and promoting the party. He said investigators have told him the number of people charged could end up in the hundreds as they work through the sheer volume of participants.

“Everyone that broke the law, I’m pressing charges against,” Holloway said. “The parents had a chance and students had a chance to come forward, and only four did.”

Holloway, who played offensive tackle for the Patriots and Raiders in the 1980s, gained national attention by reposting party pictures the teens had put on social media websites. He said he posted them on the website helpmesave300.com in an effort to get the teens to come forward, take responsibility for their actions and change their behavior.

[See earlier story below.]

...Police said a ringleader of the party was 19-year-old Seth Hawk, the young man Holloway said he had taken into his family a few years ago. Hawk, of Grafton, faces felony charges of burglary and criminal mischief and misdemeanor charges of endangering the welfare of a child and unlawfully dealing with a child. He’s accused of advertising the party and providing alcohol.

Three of the other arrested people face felony charges including burglary and larceny, and two are charged with misdemeanors, including trespassing. They range in age from 17 to 21.

A phone number wasn’t available for Hawk, and authorities said they didn’t know the names of the arrested people’s lawyers.

Holloway said Hawk was a classmate of his son and had a troubled youth but found stability living as part of his family when he was about 15. He said hearing about Hawk’s involvement “was a shocker.”

“We’re still pulling for him,” he said. “This may be the thing to get him on track.”

An Open Letter to the Parents of the Stephentown 300
Kelly Lynch
Huff Post
09/24/2013

What planet do you live on?

Last week, word got out that your children had broken into a home in Stephentown, NY and threw a party. More than 300 of them partied and drunkenly smashed windows, urinated on the floors, stood on tables, punched holes in the ceiling and stole a statue that was part of a memorial for the owner's stillborn grandson. Oh, it gets better. Before, during and after the party, they tweeted about it and posted pictures of themselves engaged in this behavior.

Way to go.

The house is owned by former NFL player Brian Holloway. It is his second residence, paid for in part by his Super Bowl bonus. He lives in Florida and the Stephentown house is on the market. He watched this unfold online while at his home in Florida. Instead of demanding the arrest of your kids, he instead created a website, www.helpmesave300.com, where he reposted their photos, identified the people involved, and called for ways to reach out to young people and show them that there are better ways to spend their time than drinking, drugs and vandalism.

He is a better person than I would have been in that position. It takes class and compassion to see beyond the urine stained carpets, broken windows, damaged walls and blatant disrespect to reach out to your kids. He even offered to welcome these derelicts back to his house for a picnic, where they would work together to make repairs and clean up the mess they left behind. I don't know that the rest of us would have been able to react the same way.

And one kid showed up. One, out of the 300 teens who were there.

Instead of dragging your kids back to apologize and clean up the mess, you lashed out at Brian Holloway, threatened to firebomb his house, and are now planning to sue him. For what? For identifying your kids online. Well guess what? Your little Johnny did that himself the minute he tweeted that iPhone photo standing on the dining room table, holding a red solo cup filled with beer.

Look, I don't blame you for what your kids did. Heck, I don't even really blame them. Teens will be teens, and they do stupid things sometimes. We've all been there. It's not fair to judge parents on the mistakes their kids make. It is how you handle that behavior afterwards that reflects on you as a parent...

Wednesday, January 30, 2013

McKee v. Laurion resolved: Online comments about doctors are protected speech, not defamation

It's okay to rate doctors in online reviews.

The Minnesota Supreme Court agrees with Mr. Dennis Laurion that patients and their families have a right to comment on the Internet regarding doctors' behavior. Patients also have the right to report their opinions to medical groups. I don't know what country Dr. McKee thought he was living in. I believe Dr. McKee proved that he has a bad attitude by hounding Mr. Laurion through the courts.

See: Dennis Laurion answers questions.
See: Can you tag your doctor a 'tool' online?
See Doctors Silencing Patients on Thank Heaven for Insurance Companies blog.
Read the decision HERE.

Court: Calling a doctor 'a tool' is protected speech
by Bob Collins
MPR News
January 30, 2013

The Minnesota Supreme Court has thrown out the case against a man for rating a doctor online.

Kenneth Laurion had a stroke in 2010 and was examined in the hospital by neurosurgeon Dr. David McKee in Duluth. Laurion's son found McKee to be "rude and insensitive" during the 20-minute examination.

So he posted the following on some "rate-your-doctor" websites:

My father spent 2 days in ICU after a hemorrhagic stroke. He saw a speech therapist and a physical therapist for evaluation. About 10 minutes after my father transferred from ICU to a ward room, Dr. McKee walked into a family visit with my dad. He seemed upset that my father had been moved. Never having met my father or his family, Dr. McKee said, "When you weren't in ICU, I had to spend time finding out if you transferred or died." When we gaped at him, he said, "Well, 44% of hemorrhagic strokes die within 30 days. I guess this is the better option." My father mentioned that he'd been seen by a physical therapist and speech therapist. Dr. McKee said, "Therapists? You don't need therapy." He pulled my father to a sitting position and asked him to get out of bed and walk.[] When my father said his gown was just hanging from his neck without a back, Dr. McKee said, "That doesn't matter." My wife said, "It matters to us; let us go into the hall." Five minutes later, Dr. McKee strode out of the room. He did not talk to my mother or myself. When I mentioned Dr. McKee's name to a friend who is a nurse, she said, "Dr. McKee is a real tool!" McKee sued for defamation. A district court judge court threw the case out, but an appeals court kept the defamation claims intact.

Today, the Minnesota Supreme Court threw those claims out, too, saying there's no indication they were false, and there does not appear to be any harm to the doctor.

Statement 3 was published as follows: "Dr. McKee said, 'Therapists? You don't need therapy.' " We fail to see how this statement, standing alone, is capable of a defamatory meaning that would harm Dr. McKee in the eyes of the community. By itself, Statement 3 is harmless. Doctors routinely evaluate whether therapy is appropriate for a given patient.

Of particular interest in the case is the debate over whether calling a doctor "a tool" is protected speech.

It is, the court said today:

Referring to someone as "a real tool" falls into the category of pure opinion because the term "real tool" cannot be reasonably interpreted as stating a fact and it cannot be proven true or false.... See Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1, 19-20 (1990). We conclude that it is an opinion amounting to "mere vituperation and abuse" or "rhetorical hyperbole" that cannot be the basis for a defamation action. (explaining that people often engage in name-calling "without any real intent to make a defamatory assertion, and it is properly understood by reasonable listeners to amount to nothing more").

Nonetheless, the assertion that a nurse told Laurion that Dr. McKee is a "real tool" is one of fact because whether a nurse actually made the statement to Laurion is an assertion that can be proven true or false. Dr. McKee argues that Laurion's possible fabrication of the existence of the nurse, and thus the statement attributed to the nurse, creates a genuine issue of fact as to the falsity of Statement 6. As described above, Laurion's assertion that the nurse made the statement to him and the implicit assertion that the nurse exists are susceptible to proof. We nevertheless conclude that even though Statement 6 includes a factual assertion that can be proven true or false, Statement 6 is not actionable because the statement is incapable of conveying a defamatory meaning. First, the part of the statement that can be proven true or false--whether a nurse made the statement to Laurion--does not itself place Dr. McKee in a negative light even if it is false. The assertion that a nurse made the statement only has the potential to cast Dr. McKee in a negative light when combined with the second part of the statement--that Dr. McKee is a "real tool." However, attributing the statement to an unidentified nurse does not add defamatory meaning to the statement.

As a final matter, a review of Laurion's online posting as a whole does not change our holding in this case. Given the reasoning underlying our conclusion that the six individual statements at issue are not actionable, it would defy logic to conclude that the posting, when viewed as a whole, is somehow actionable. Therefore, we reject any argument that the totality of Laurion's statements makes his online posting actionable.

Nonetheless, there's clearly a lesson here regarding posting material online: Be careful.

Jeff Hermes, director of the Citizens Media Law Project at Harvard University's Berkman Center for Internet and Society, told the Associated Press at the beginning of the case that "people who want to post critical reviews should think about whether they can back up their statements. And they can strengthen their position by stating the facts on which their opinions are based."

"The reality is that we bet our house every time that we post content online," Goldman told the AP. "It's a lousy answer from a societal standpoint because we need people to share their experiences so vendors will be punished or rewarded as appropriate."

Comments (4) Wow, if I sued when someone called me a name, people might think I was a real tool! Posted by GT | January 30, 2013 11:01 AM...

Monday, January 21, 2013

Like many other bullies, Lance Armstrong sued a woman for defamation even though he knew she was telling the truth

Lance Armstrong may be sued by Emma O’Reilly, the former masseuse and assistant on the US Postal team
Emma O’Reilly, who was called an “alcoholic whore” by Lance Armstrong, is considering taking legal action against him.
By Brendan Gallagher
Telegraph
20 Jan 2013

O’Reilly, a masseuse and assistant on the US Postal team, suffered the verbal abuse from Armstrong and then the nightmare of a 2½-year lawsuit after she made the revelations about the disgraced cyclist in a 2004 book.

But although she is considering taking legal action against Armstrong, she said on Sunday she was also weighing up whether to show him the compassion he never offered her.

Her dilemma seems to demonstrate that of cycling generally. There is the desire to punish the man for his monstrous behaviour but, at the same time, also a hope that an olive branch will encourage him to tell the complete truth, providing the sport with information it badly needs.

“Sometimes in life you should stand up and be counted and women should not be spoken to, and spoken about in the way he did,” O’Reilly said on Sunday when asked about the legal action she might take...

People shouldn’t be able to speak about other people like that and get away with it. The libel laws in England did protect Lance and they didn’t protect the people telling the truth. That is something that has to be addressed...

Friday, December 21, 2012

$60,000 Ruling Against Truthful Blogger Tests Limits of the First Amendment

"...[S]peech does not lose its protection – as the jury in Hoff's case seemed to conclude – merely because it has an effect on those it criticizes. To conclude otherwise would give true speech less protection than false speech since it is more likely to do harm."

$60,000 Ruling Against Truthful Blogger Tests Limits of the First Amendment
CMLP
September 12th, 2011

One of the first things I learned as a journalist, and later again as a media lawyer, was that under the First Amendment the "truth" could not be subject to a viable defamation claim. True statements are simply constitutionally immune and plaintiffs cannot sidestep all of the common law and constitutional protections for true speech through creative pleadings that would merely re-label defamation as another cause of action. The Supreme Court has flatly held as much in a long line of cases going as far back as the 1980s.

Enter then the seemingly bizarro Minnesota case of Moore v. Allen.

In a recent ruling, the Minnesota District Court in that case refused to set aside a jury verdict awarding the plaintiff $60,000 in damages against a blogger who posted truthful information about him that contributed to his losing his job. In other words, although the jury found the statement at issue was truthful and therefore not defamatory, they still ruled in favor of the plaintiff under a claim of "tortuous interference with employment contracts." This ruling seems on its face to be a flagrant violation of a constitutional precept and a prime candidate for reversal on First Amendment grounds. Yet this strange decision out of Hennepin County, Minnesota, merits a closer look.

According to public court filings and news reports, Jerry Moore sued John Hoff and six others in June 2009 for five allegedly biased and defamatory statements on Hoff's blog "The Adventures of Johnny Northside." The blog seeks "to help with a process of turning a rapidly revitalizing neighborhood into something approaching Urban Utopia" and is said to attract about 300 to 500 visitors daily.

Mr. Moore claimed in case filings, reported as well in various news reports, that he had lost his job at the University of Minnesota's Urban Research and Outreach/Engagement Center, where he was hired to study mortgage foreclosures, a day after Mr. Hoff posted statements that claimed Moore had been involved in "a high-profile fraudulent mortgage."

According to the Minnesota Star Tribune, District Judge Denise Reilly dismissed four out of the five statements saying that they were either non-actionable opinion or comments authored by others on the blog, which are not the blogger's liability. With respect to the remaining statement, the jury found that it was true but still an unlawful interference with Moore's employment at the university. They awarded the plaintiff $35,000 for lost wages and $25,000 for emotional distress. The court subsequently rejected a motion by the defendant to set aside the jury verdict or start a new trial, noting that it found "direct and circumstantial evidence adduced at trial ‘supports the findings of the jury and can be reconciled.'"

This is not the first time where a court has permitted liability for truthful speech. See e.g., Johnson v. Johnson, 654 A.2d 1212 (R.I. 1995)(man calling former wife a "whore"; court held statement was true but actionable); Noonan v. Staples, Inc., 556 F.3d 20, 26 (1st Cir. 2008)("Massachusetts law . . . recognizes a narrow exception to [the otherwise absolute] defense [of truth]; the truth or falsity of the statement is material, and the libel action may proceed, if the plaintiff can show that the defendant acted with ‘actual malice [in the constitutional sense of entertaining serious doubts as to truth] in publishing the statement."); Young v. First Bank of Bellevue, 516 N.W.2d 256 (1994)(dicta)(truth not an absolute defense under Nebraska statute, permitting liability for true defamatory statements made in malice). Yet, the fact that this case has some company, if few and far between, does not make it any less constitutionally suspect.

As forcefully argued in its amicus brief to the court, the Minnesota Pro Chapter of Society of Professional Journalists pointed out that the case appears to be a textbook example of a plaintiff making an end run around a prohibited lawsuit by re-labeling the same tort under a different name. Citing to the 1988 Supreme Court case Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46, 57 (1988), the brief argued that "injuries to reputation are defamation-type damages, for which plaintiffs must prove the elements of a defamation claim regardless of how the claim is labeled." Such requirements did not seem to be imposed by the Minnesota court, according to filings.

Moreover, speech does not lose its protection – as the jury in Hoff's case seemed to conclude – merely because it has an effect on those it criticizes. To conclude otherwise would give true speech less protection than false speech since it is more likely to do harm...


Another defamation case in Minnesota: The WWII Vet vs. The Doctor

Dr. David McKee v. Dennis Laurion

After the District Court dismissed defamation charges, the plaintiff appealed seeking separate adjudication of interference with business.

I wonder how the results of Moore v Allen will compare to the results of McKee v Laurion.

Saturday, January 12, 2008

6 months for obstruction of justice by Marion Jones

Marion Jones joined the club of people who sue for defamation even though they know that their target told the truth.

Bloomberg.com

Marion Jones Gets Six-Month Term for Obstruction

By Patricia Hurtado
Jan. 11, 2008

Marion Jones, the record-breaking sprinter who tearfully confessed she used steroids after years of public denial, was sentenced to six months in prison for lying in two federal grand jury investigations.

Jones, 32, of Austin, Texas, pleaded guilty in October to two counts of obstruction of justice in probes of steroid use in sports and a check cashing scheme allegedly involving fellow athlete Tim Montgomery...

``This was a worldwide lie,'' U.S. District Judge Kenneth Karas said at a hearing today in White Plains, New York. He also sentenced her to 800 hours of community service and two years of probation.

...She was the first athlete convicted in the almost five-year-old U.S. government steroid investigation.

...He ordered her to serve 400 hours of community service for each of the two years of probation. Her service should be with children and emphasize the need to tell the truth, the judge said.

Steroid Probe

In court today, Jones cried as she addressed Karas, asking not to be separated from her two sons, ages 7 months and 4 years.

...Karas turned aside her appeal for leniency, saying that, at her plea hearing in October, she failed to fully admit that she used banned substances.

... She said she believed she was taking ``flaxseed oil'' at the time.

``I am troubled by that statement,'' Karas told Jones today. ``That's a very difficult thing to believe that a top- notch athlete, knowing that a razor-thin margin makes the difference, would not be keenly aware and very careful about what he or she put in her body, and the effects.''

Impeding Investigation

Jones was charged with impeding the San Francisco steroid probe of the Bay Area Laboratory Co-Operative, or Balco, based in Burlingame, California, and the separate Manhattan investigation of the bad-check cashing scheme.

In addition to pleading guilty to taking substances before the Sydney Olympics, Jones admitted lying about knowing that Montgomery deposited $200,000 in counterfeit checks in a bank account. She lived with Montgomery, the father of her older son, in 2005...

Steve Riddick, 56, a 1976 Olympic gold medalist who was once Jones's coach, was also charged in the check-kiting case. He was convicted of bank fraud after a trial in May and sentenced late today by Karas to 63 months in prison.

Montgomery pleaded guilty in April to conspiracy and bank fraud. His sentencing hasn't been scheduled.

...Barry Bonds, Major League Baseball's all-time home-run leader, was indicted in November on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice for lying to a grand jury about steroid use. Prosecutors said the outfielder told a panel in 2003 that he never knowingly used banned drugs, according to his indictment.

...Congress is returning to the issue of steroids in baseball following last month's report by former U.S. Senator George Mitchell, which linked more than 80 players including Pettitte and Clemens to performance-enhancing drugs. The same House committee held hearings in 2005 and urged a tougher drug policy for the sport.

...In February 2006, Jones settled a $25 million defamation lawsuit against Victor Conte, the Balco founder. Conte, who claimed he supplied Jones with performance-enhancing drugs including THG, served a four-month jail term after pleading guilty to steroid distribution...