UW-Whitewater professor SUING a student! What’s she claiming?

This is an archived article and the information in the article may be outdated. Please look at the time stamp on the story to see when it was last updated.

WHITEWATER (AP) — A University of Wisconsin-Whitewater professor has filed a lawsuit accusing her former graduate student of posting defamatory comments about her online.

A Janesville Gazette report on Thursday says Anthony Llewellyn took a class last year from communications professor Sally Vogl-Bauer.

The lawsuit says Llewellyn posted videos and comments accusing the teacher of criticizing his academic abilities, grading him unfairly and causing him to fail out of school.

Tim Edwards is Vogl-Bauer's attorney. He says it's fine for students to express opinions, but they cross the line when they make false statements with the intent of damaging a teacher's reputation.

Llewellyn says his goal was to inform the public about how the professor treated him, not to defame her.

The lawsuit seeks punitive damages and attorney and trial fees.

24 comments

  • Sonja Hanson-Stark

    You have pronoun confusion in the third paragraph–the professor is a female. Additionally, please tell me you were absent on the day they taught about exclamation points in headlines.

  • Kellie Kendall

    Grammar: apparently one of the Big Problems Today, along with oil rigs asploding in the Gulf and poverty and such. Not only is grammar correcting just plain rude, it’s soaked in classism, regional chauvinism, and privilege.

    • OG Kushing

      So, too lazy to learn the rudiments of (presumably) your own language; you have the temerity to declare that correction/application of proper usage is equal to poverty, corporate exploitation and “such”. What is the next target…Math rules?
      Privilege, classism, regional chauvinism. Funny stuff. Loved the “asploding”, that was a gem

    • Harry Nevus

      Where’s your grammar?

      She’s fixing dinner.

      Let’s eat Grammar! Oops, I mean let’s eat, Grammar.

  • Harry Nevus

    The professor should learn from the doctor quoted below.

    Insult And Injury: How Doctors Are Losing The War Against Trolls
    BuzzFeed – Jake Rossen

    David McKee, M.D., a Duluth, Minn., neurologist, was unaware of the Streisand phenomenon at the time he decided to sue Dennis Laurion. Laurion’s father, Kenneth, had suffered a stroke in April 2010; McKee was called in to assess Kenneth’s condition.

    According to the Laurions, McKee was oblivious to Kenneth’s modesty. “His son was right there,” McKee counters. “If he was concerned about the gown, he didn’t get out of his chair to tie it.”

    Dennis Laurion consulted with his family to see if his impression of the arrogant doctor was real or imagined. He fired off a dozen or more letters to a variety of medical institutions, including the hospital’s ombudsman, the Minnesota Board of Medical Practice, Medicare, and the American Medical Association.

    McKee sued Laurion for defamation. A local Duluth newspaper picked up on the story, favoring Laurion’s interpretation of events.

    In April 2011, the judge granted Laurion’s motion for summary judgment, ruling his comments were protected free speech. A user on Reddit.com posted the newspaper story. Almost overnight, dozens of “reviews” popped up on RateMDs.com and other sites with outlandish commentary on McKee, who was referred to as “the dickface doctor of Duluth.”

    McKee found no easy way to exit the situation. “You get drawn in,” he says, suggesting his lawyer nudged him into further action. “It’s throwing good money after bad. … I wanted out almost as soon as I got in, and it was always, ‘Well, just one more step.’” McKee appealed, and the summary judgment was overturned. The case, and the measurable impact of being labeled a “real tool,” was now headed for the Minnesota Supreme Court.

    McKee was rated for several years as a top provider in Duluth Superior Magazine, but “From now until the end of time, I’ll be the jerk neurologist who was rude to a World War II veteran,” the physician says. “I’m stuck with it forever.”

    Full article:
    http://www.buzzfeed.com/jakerossen/insult-and-injury-inside-the-webs-one-sided-war-on-doctors

    • Canadian Bacon

      Harry Nevus said, “The professor should learn from the doctor quoted below.”

      A dentist in Oregon could also have learned something from the doctor quoted.

      Dentist loses suit after former patient criticizes him online
      By Lincoln Graves, KATU News, Sep 27, 2012

      A judge decided the critical comments made on review site YELP.com and other sites were free speech.

      “I’m disgusted. I’m actually really disgusted,” said dentist Mo Saleh, who tried to sue his former client, Spencer Bailey, for defamation after finding negative reviews on the Internet. “The reason I’m risking opportunity and risking this negative exposure is because I feel that this is wrong.”

      But a judge threw out the suit before it got very far.

      “When we walked into this courtroom, we didn’t walk on equal footing because of the Anti-SLAPP law,” Saleh said.

      The “SLAPP” in the Anti-SLAPP law stands for Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation.

      Businesses can sometimes file those suits to quiet criticism. But the Anti-SLAPP law can be a friend to those who are taken to court, giving them free speech protection when they make comments in a public forum and concern a public interest, which a site like YELP seeks to serve.

      “It’s not easy to be sued and dragged into court,” said Jeremiah Ross, the attorney who represented Bailey. “Just as we anticipated, they couldn’t prove their case because it wasn’t a defamatory statement.”

      Still, Saleh may appeal, believing the online criticism was meant to harm him and not simply to inform the public.

      “I teach my kids to stand up when you’ve been wronged, and I think that’s absolutely disgusting what happened today,” he said.

      One of the comments Bailey was accused of making was, “If Saleh finds a cavity, get a second opinion and get it filled by someone else.”

      Saleh was seeking $300,000 in damages.

  • Dennis Laurion

    As one of the “trolls” detailed in the BuzzFeed article, I have no issue with the accuracy of the text – at least as it pertains to me – but the tone of the title fails to distinguish sincere complaints about bedside manner from attacks on mental stability, attacks on medical prowess, fake websites, allegations of dangerous injections, and use of multiple identities. The author said “McKee and Laurion agree on substance…”

    While being sued for defamation, I have been called a passive aggressive, an oddball, a liar, a coward, a bully, a malicious person, and a zealot family member. I’ve been said to have run a cottage industry vendetta, posting 108 adverse Internet postings in person or through proxies. That’s not correct. In reality, I posted ratings at three consumer rating sites, deleted them, and never rewrote them again.

    The plaintiff’s first contact with me was a letter that said in part that he had the means and motivation to pursue me. The financial impact of being sued three years to date has been burdensome, a game of financial attrition that I haven’t wanted to play. The suit cost me the equivalent of two year’s net income – the same as 48 of my car payments plus 48 of my house payments. My family members had to dip into retirement funds to help me.

    After receipt of a threat letter, I deleted my rate-your-doctor site postings and sent confirmation emails to opposing counsel. Since May of 2010, postings on the Internet by others include newspaper accounts of the lawsuit; readers’ remarks about the newspaper accounts; and blog opinion pieces written by doctors, lawyers, public relations professionals, patient advocates, and information technology experts. Dozens of websites by doctors, lawyers, patient advocates, medical students, law schools, consumer advocates, and free speech monitors posted opinions that a doctor or plumber shouldn’t sue the family of a customer for a bad rating. These authors never said they saw my deleted ratings – only the news coverage.

    • Tribune Reader

      It’s not just Rossen’s opinion that McKee and Laurion agree on substance.

      American Health Lawyers Association said : In this case, the court found the six allegedly defamatory statements were not actionable because the “substance, the gist, the sting” of plaintiff’s version for each of the statements as provided in deposition and defendant’s version essentially carried the same meaning, satisfied the standard for substantial truth, did not show a tendency to harm the plaintiff’s reputation and lower his estimation in the community, or were incapable of conveying a defamatory meaning (e.g., when a nurse told defendant that plaintiff was “a real tool”) based on “how an ordinary person understands the language used in the light of surrounding circumstances.”

      Duane Morris Media Blog said : The doctor said in his deposition that with regard to finding out if Mr. Laurion was alive or dead, “I made a jocular comment… to the effect of I had looked for [Kenneth Laurion] up there in the intensive care unit and was glad to find that, when he wasn’t there, that he had been moved to a regular hospital bed, because you only go one of two ways when you leave the intensive care unit; you either have improved to the point where you’re someplace like this or you leave because you’ve died.” The court said the differences between the two versions of the statements about death or transfer by both plaintiff and defendant were so minor that there was no falsity in the website postings. In other words, the court indicated that the allegation about the statement was true.

      Business Insurance Blog said: The Minnesota high court said, for instance, that Dr. McKee’s version of his comment about the intensive care unit was substantially similar to Mr. Laurion’s. “In other words, Dr. McKee’s account of what he said would produce the same effect on the mind of the reader,” the court said. “The minor inaccuracies of expression (in the statement) as compared to Dr. McKee’s version of what he said do not give rise to a genuine issue as to falsity.”

  • Wütend Hund

    [Quote from earlier post] McKee sued Laurion for defamation. A local Duluth newspaper picked up on the story, favoring Laurion’s interpretation of events. [End quote]

    Is this the article that favored Laurion?

    Duluth News Tribune, Saturday, June, 12, 2010

    [[ A Duluth physician is suing the son of a former patient for publicly criticizing his bedside manner. Dr. David McKee, a neurologist with Northland Neurology and Myology, filed the lawsuit, which was made public Friday, in St. Louis County District Court. McKee alleges that Dennis Laurion of Duluth defamed him and interfered with his business by making false statements to various third parties, including the American Academy of Neurology, the American Neurological Association, two physicians in Duluth, the St. Louis County Public Health and Human Services Advisory Committee and St. Luke hospital, among others.

    [[ Laurion claims that any statements he made about the doctor were true and that he is immune from any liability to the plaintiff. He referred questions to his Duluth attorney, John Kelly.

    [[ McKee is asking for more than $50,000 in damages. The doctor was paged Friday but did not return a call seeking comment. He is being represented by Minneapolis attorney Marshall Tanick, who in a phone interview alleged that Laurion defamed his client in several ways, including posting negative reviews of McKee on various websites. The basis for the lawsuit is the defamatory statements that were made on websites and to other sources, Tanick said. However, by no means does Dr. McKee want to in any way prevent or affect any kind of communications that may be made to the Board of Medical Practice or any other regulatory agencies. The purpose of the lawsuit is to prevent defamation being made on the websites and through other sources.

    [[ Kenneth Laurion, 85, a Navy combat medic in the Solomon Islands during World War II, suffered a hemorrhagic stroke and spent four days at St. Luke hospital from April 17-21. He recovered from his condition.

    [[ McKee also alleges that the defendant made false statements about him to others including: McKee seemed upset’ that Kenneth Laurion had been transferred from the Intensive Care Unit to a ward room. McKee told the Laurions that he had to spend time finding out if [the patient] had been transferred or died. McKee told the Laurions that 44 percent of hemorrhagic stroke victims die within 30 days. McKee told the patient that he did not need therapy. McKee said that it didn’t matter that the patient gown was hanging from his neck with his backside exposed. McKee blamed the patient for the loss of his time. McKee didn’t treat his patient with dignity.

    [[ Defense attorney Kelly said it was a tense and emotional situation for the Laurion family. They were worried about Dad and the doctor comes along and, from their point of view, of what they saw and what they heard, they felt that the doctor didn’t act appropriately toward the father, Kelly said. So, among other things, they saw fit to report it to the hospital and to the Board of Medical Practice, which they have every right to do under the patient Bill of Rights, and they get sued.

    [[ Kelly said his client did post ratings of McKee on some websites but said he asked to have them removed, and they were. The defense attorney thinks that the lawsuit is without merit. “I think it is an unfortunate incident of someone attempting to punish a person who has spoken out of concern for a family member,” Kelly said.

    [[ According to the Minnesota Board of Medical Practice website, McKee has had no disciplinary action brought against him. ]]

    • Tribune Reader

      It’s the first article about David McKee MD V. Dennis Laurion. I can’t say that it favored the plaintiff or the defendant.

      • Content Scraper

        Doctor David McKee, a neurologist with Northland Neurology and Myology, practicing at St. Luke’s Hospital, told the Duluth News Tribune he was disappointed and frustrated. “We need to change the law so someone with a personal vendetta who is going to use the Internet to make defamatory statements can be held responsible,” he said.

        The Minneapolis Star Tribune said it’s a frustrating end for McKee, 51, who said he’s spent at least $50,000 in legal fees and another $11,000 to clear his name online after the story went viral, resulting in hundreds more negative postings about him — likely from people who never met him. He hasn’t ruled out a second lawsuit stemming from those posts.

        “The financial costs are significant, but money is money and five years from now I won’t notice the money I spent on this,” he said. “It’s been the harm to my reputation through the repeated publicity and the stress.”

        McKee’s lawyer, Marshall Tanick of Hellmuth Johnson, told the Associated Press that he and McKee plan no further appeals and that they were disappointed with the ruling. “We feel it gives individuals undue license to make disparaging and derogatory statements about these people, particularly doctors and other licensed professionals, on the Internet without much recourse,” Tanick said.

        Marshall Tanick of Hellmuth Johnson told the Star Tribune that the ruling could present a slippery slope. “This decision gives individuals a license to make derogatory and disparaging statements about doctors, professionals and really anyone for that matter on the Internet without much recourse,” he said.

      • Court Watch

        Marshall Tanick of Hellmuth Johnson told the Star Tribune that the ruling could present a slippery slope. “This decision gives individuals a license to make derogatory and disparaging statements about doctors, professionals and really anyone for that matter on the Internet without much recourse,” he said.

        Jane Kirtley, a professor of media ethics and law at the University of Minnesota School of Journalism, told the Star Tribune that the ruling stems from “an elementary principle of libel law.” She said that this isn’t a blank check for people to make false factual statements. She said, rather, that it’s “an endorsement that statements of opinion are protected under the First Amendment.”

        In reply to an e-patients.net article “Minnesota Supreme Court sides with patient on social media defamation suit,” Attorney Marilyn Mann said, “I think McKee’s lawyer is incorrect. The case turned on standard principles of defamation law and doesn’t really break new ground.”

  • Content Scraper

    A teacher in Texas is following the example of Sally Vogl-Bauer, who apparently ignored the example of Neurologist David McKee MD.

    “Texas teacher sues two students for defamation”
    Posted By Kristen Butler, UPI, May 13, 2013

    May 13 (UPI) — High school English teacher Elizabeth Ethredge has filed suit against two students claiming she was suspended and may be fired because they told the principal that she had asked her class to stalk a suspected thief on Facebook. Ethredge claims she was giving an “oral storytelling” lesson in November 2012 when she told her class an anecdote about her son having personal property stolen at a high school in another district, reports Courthouse News Service.

    The complaint states that Ethredge “mentioned to her students that they might be able to help recover her son’s property.” She invited any student with a Facebook account to help by messaging the suspected thief to try and purchase the stolen item from him.

    Ethredge claims the two students only brought it up months later, in March of this year, when she sent them to the principal’s office for disruptive behavior and a dress code violation.

    “Defendants wrote statements about the oral storytelling exercise that were clearly retaliatory in nature, designed to take the focus off of their inappropriate behavior and to instead focus the principal’s attention on plaintiff,” the complaint states.

    As further evidence of the students’ alleged “deliberate and malicious intent to injure plaintiff’s reputation,” the complaint shows that one student posted a message to Facebook during school hours that said, “Hey Ethredge, “I threw stones at your house” what you got for me big bada**? Case closed!”

    The second student named in the suit commented on the post, saying “Hahahahah [expletive] ain’t got [expletive]!”

    Days after the cited Facebook posts, the Board of Trustees of the Waller Independent School District proposed termination of Ethredge’s employment. Ethredge seeks punitive damages for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

    • Gradual Student

      “Refresher Course”
      John Nova Lomax, Houstonia Magazine, August 1, 2013

      It was November 13, 2012, and 12th-grade Waller High School English teacher Elizabeth Ethredge was teaching a class on storytelling when things went off course. By all accounts of the day (taken from a report from the school that was later included in a lawsuit), the teacher started complaining that a Cy-Fair ISD student had stolen a computer from her son.

      In one version of events, the eight-year Waller veteran urged her students to contact the miscreant on Facebook and make bogus offers to buy the computer back. (Ethredge herself is a user not of Facebook but Twitter, where she is a self-described “wife, annoying mom, the Football Lady, and a teacher of literature and life.”) In another version, the teacher told her students that she wouldn’t be opposed to their harassing the thief. And a third version, reportedly corroborated by multiple students, accuses Ethredge of wasting precious class time by giving out the alleged thief’s Facebook information and cellphone number and urging her pupils to put the bandit “on blast” until he coughed up the computer.

      All was calm for more than four months. Then, this past March, according to court documents, student Dylan Wells burst into Ethredge’s classroom ahead of the bell in “a loud and boisterous manner.” Ethredge happened to be chatting on her cell at the time, making the intrusion doubly annoying. Wells was sent to the principal. Enter another student, Demi Gray, “already hurling insults and exhibiting an extremely flippant attitude” in solidarity with Wells.

      In principal Brian Merrell’s office, Gray and Wells sprung what Ethredge and her lawyer Susan Soto have branded a hastily concocted trap. The duo spilled the beans about Ethredge putting her kid’s alleged antagonist “on blast” back in November, spending too much class time on her cell, over-sharing personal info, and working on her grad degree during class time. “Multiple students in multiple class periods confirmed,” according to the resulting report, that during class time Ethredge had organized what amounted to a mob of cyber-bullies.

      Ethredge later confessed to telling her students that she “would not be opposed” to them harassing the perp. “But I didn’t tell them they could do it on class time,” the teacher reportedly said. On April 3, Ethredge was suspended with pay, and five days later Ethredge was terminated.

      Gray taunted on Facebook. Wells chimed in.

      Ethredge filed suit in Harris County District Court alleging that her former students had defamed her character, libeled her, inflicted emotional distress upon her, subjected her to public hatred and ridicule, and caused her to seek a physician’s care. And those Facebook taunts! What an outrageous breach of acceptable student-teacher relations! She hopes that the kids will be forced to pay court costs and actual and exemplary damages, with interest.

      General Counsel for HISD’s teacher’s union, attorney Chris Tritico, thinks the likelihood of that ever happening is virtually nil. “I usually advise my clients not to file these cases because collecting money from 17-year-old kids is next to impossible,” he says. “You might get a piece of paper saying that you won, but nothing else. It’s a decent case she has, but still, they’re kids.” (The lawyer for Wells and Gray declined to comment.)

      That’s beside the point, according to Ethredge’s attorney Susan Soto, herself a former teacher and principal. A solo practitioner, Soto was drawn to the case because she doesn’t believe that kids should be able to back-talk their teachers, reduce a teaching career to shambles, and then taunt them on Facebook. And like Ethredge, she sees the case as a teachable moment. “She dedicated a lot of time teaching these kids not just English, but also life lessons,” Soto says. “This suit serves as a model for students, shows them the process on how to stand up and do the right thing.”

      • Gradual Student

        “Texas Defamation: A Big Tale Of A Teacher & Two Rebellious High School Students…”
        Thursday, February 13th, 2014

        English teacher Elizabeth Ethredge, of the Waller Independent School District, filed a Texas defamation lawsuit against two of her students, Demi Alyssa Gray and Dylan Noble Wells. Ethredge insists Gray and Noble twisted tales about classroom events in retaliation for being disciplined. But Gray and Noble insist the teacher acted inappropriately in class.

        The month was November; the year, 2012. According to Ethredge, she was giving her students a State-mandated lesson in oral storytelling. The seasoned teacher opted to regale her class with a tale about her son being robbed at another school in the district.

        According to two of her students, Gray and Noble, five months after the lesson, Ethredge encouraged students to hone their spy skills, head over to Facebook, and avenge her son’s honor by trying to purchase goods from the person Ethredge believed robbed her son.

        The curious part about this case, though, is that the students waited months to “snitch” on their teacher. Why? Well, if you believe Ethredge’s side of the story, they only did it in retaliation for her sending them to the principal’s office over breaking school dress code rules and being disruptive in class.

        Soon after the two students ratted on their teacher, the school district suspended Ethredge with pay. Soon after that, administrators seriously considered termination. As a result, she decided to file an Internet defamation case.

        Filed at the Harris County Court, Ethredge’s suit is asking for punitive damages, citing defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Ethredge’s claim averred that the students’ actions were a “deliberate and malicious intent to injure plaintiff’s reputation.” To temper any speculation about the nature of what happened in her classroom, Ethredge’s suit explains that the “oral storytelling exercise was directly related to and in compliance with the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills, the State Standards for curriculum in public schools in Texas.”

        In order to win this case, Ethredge will most likely have to prove material harm – as you can’t win a defamation lawsuit over hurt feelings. It’s interesting to note that Texas does not have a false light tort – if it did, Ethredge may have been able to file a stronger case. That’s not to say she doesn’t have a chance at winning this one – especially since administrators are talking termination — but being able to add a false light charge would put more “meat” on the proverbial bone.

        Kelly Warner Law is based in Arizona but also licensed in Texas.

  • Hell Toupee

    Timothy Edwards comments about Ms. Sally Vogl-Bauer’s intentions to welcome criticism but sue defamation cause me to think defamation plaintiff lawyers must use templates for talking to the press.

    Professor Sally Vogl-Bauer’s lawyer, Timothy [[ Edwards released a statement: “Students have a right to express their opinion, but when you go so far beyond that, into a concerted effort to attack somebody’s reputation because things didn’t go your way, that’s much different.” ]]

    [[ “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. ]]

    A Duluth News Tribune article of June 2010 quoted Marshall Tanick, now employed by Hellmuth Johnson law firm, who in a phone interview alleged that Laurion defamed his client in several ways, including posting negative reviews of McKee on various websites. “The basis for the lawsuit is the defamatory statements that were made on websites and to other sources,” Tanick said. “However, by no means does Dr. McKee want to in any way prevent or affect any kind of communications that may be made to the Board of Medical Practice or any other regulatory agencies. The purpose of the lawsuit is to prevent defamation being made on the websites and through other sources.”

    Duluth News Tribune, November 10, 2011: “The doctor maintains he was vilified unjustly and inaccurately on the Internet and in postings and correspondence to colleagues and peers and thinks that Mr. Laurion falsified statements and incidents that did not occur,” Minneapolis attorney Marshall Tanick said outside the courtroom after the hearing. “We maintain the case should be submitted to a jury to ensure that Dr. McKee and Mr. Laurion have their day in court so that the jury may determine this important issue.” Tanick told the panel his client is a highly regarded neurologist who has been defamed by Laurion’s comments, which appear pervasively on the Internet and falsely portray McKee as being insensitive and incompetent.

    From Minneapolis Star Tribune March 25, 2012: McKee’s lawyer, Marshall Tanick, said the doctor felt he had no choice but to sue to protect his reputation and his medical practice. “It’s like removing graffiti from a wall,” said Tanick. He said Laurion distorted the facts — not only on the Internet, but in more than a dozen complaint letters to various medical groups. “He put words in the doctor’s mouth,” making McKee “sound uncaring, unsympathetic or just stupid.”
    Taken from videotaped comments to Minnesota Supreme Court: “He may have been upset at how Dr. McKee treated his father. Apparently he was, and he’s entitled to say that. He can say that “I’m upset. Doctor McKee did not treat my father well. He was insensitive.” He can make statements like that: “He didn’t spend enough time in my opinion.” He can make factual (sic) statements, he can make them on the Internet, he can make them in letters, he can write a letter to the editor, he can stand in front of St. Luke’s Hospital with a placard saying those things if they are opinions . . .”

    From BuzzFeed, 2014: But McKee’s lawyer, Marshall Tanick, of Hellmuth & Johnson, says no matter where it was said, defamation is defamation. “The thing that’s often misunderstood is that this was not just about free speech, but about making actual false statements,” Tanick says. “The problem is today’s unfettered opportunity to express opinion, whether or not the substance of what’s said is true or not. We need some boundaries.”

    • Doctor Sues

      Here’s another Tanick quote – made to the Minnesota Supreme Court: {{ He may have been upset at how Dr. McKee treated his father. Apparently he was, and he’s entitled to say that. He can say that “I’m upset. Doctor McKee did not treat my father well. He was insensitive.” He can make statements like that: “He didn’t spend enough time in my opinion.” He can make factual (sic) statements, he can make them on the Internet, he can make them in letters, he can write a letter to the editor, he can stand in front of St.Luke’s Hospital with a placard saying those things if they are opinions . . .”}}

      I was inspired to write this ode.

      Doctor Sues And Gets A Ham

      He can stand at St. Luke’s with a placard of rebukes.
      He can say “I’m upset.” He can say it till he’s wet.
      He can write some letters to those he thinks his betters.

      He can say it here or there. “I don’t like him anywhere.”
      He can say it in a house. “I don’t like him with a mouse,
      I don’t like him here or there, I don’t like him anywhere.”

      He can say it in a car. He can say it in a tree.
      “I don’t like him in a box, I don’t like him with a fox,
      I don’t like him in a house, I don’t like him with a mouse,
      I don’t like him here or there, I don’t like him anywhere.”

      He can say it in on a train. He can say it in the rain
      He can say it in the dark. He can say it in the park.
      “I don’t like him in on a train, I don’t like him in the rain,
      I don’t like him in the park, I don’t like him in the rain,
      I don’t like him with a goat, I don’t like him on a boat.”

      He can say it here or there, he can say it anywhere,
      He can speak till numb, even if some should say,
      There should be some awful Hell Toupee.

  • Hell Toupee

    After losing defamation suits, plaintiffs seem to continue to feel defamed but cheated by legal trickery.

    “I’m disgusted. I’m actually really disgusted,” said dentist Mo Saleh, who tried to sue his former client, Spencer Bailey, for defamation after finding negative reviews on the Internet. “The reason I’m risking opportunity and risking this negative exposure is because I feel that this is wrong.”

    “When we walked into this courtroom, we didn’t walk on equal footing because of the Anti-SLAPP law,” Saleh said.

    Still, Saleh may appeal, believing the online criticism was meant to harm him and not simply to inform the public.

    “I teach my kids to stand up when you’ve been wronged, and I think that’s absolutely disgusting what happened today,” he said.

    Sally Vogl-Bauer has published an essay, “When Disgruntled Students Go to Extremes: The Cyberbullying of Instructors,” summarized at http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/03634523.2014.942331#.U-hGBGO9b9M .

    “I’m very disappointed by this court’s decision because as far as I can see the only avenue that I can see that I had to respond to this overwhelming attack was through the courts, and for the time being it appears that avenue has been closed without me ever getting a chance to present my evidence,” Dr. David McKee said. “Dennis Laurion is a liar and a bully and a coward,” McKee said.

    David McKee, a neurologist with Northland Neurology and Myology, said he was disappointed and frustrated. “We need to change the law so someone with a personal vendetta who is going to use the Internet to make defamatory statements can be held responsible,” he said.

    It’s a frustrating end for McKee, 51, who said he’s spent at least $50,000 in legal fees and another $11,000 to clear his name online after the story went viral, resulting in hundreds more negative postings about him — likely from people who never met him.

    He hasn’t ruled out a second lawsuit stemming from those posts.

  • Voglbauer V. Llewellyn

    Sally Vogel-Bauer had her pre-trial hearing AUG 20, 2014. Anthony Llewellyn now has three lawyers, Andrew Price, Kate E. Maternowski, and Laura Brenner . Jury trial is scheduled for SEP 15 – SEP 17, 2014, in the Walworth County Judicial Center Courtroom of the Honorable Phillip A Koss.

    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 personal data about Sally Vogl-Bauer and Anthony Llewellyn.

  • Voglbauer V. Llewellyn

    UPDATE . . . UPDATE . . . UPDATE

    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.

  • Gradual Student

    VOGL-BAUER V. LLEWELLYN IS CLOSED

    Jury trial is no longer scheduled for SEP 15 – SEP 17, 2014, in the Walworth County Judicial Center Courtroom of the Honorable Phillip A Koss. HAS ANTHONY LLEWELLYN TAKEN 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. The case status is now shown as “Closed.”

    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.

  • doctorsues

    Article about Jesse Ventura defamation lawsuit cites defamation lawsuit of David McKee MD.

    With the recent $1.845 million verdict in Jesse Ventura’s defamation case, it is important for employees to understand the contours of defamation law in the workplace. Employees should know both what to avoid doing and what rights they have if false statements are made about them.

    What should be avoided? The simple answer: avoid making false statements about others. To prevail on a defamation claim in Minnesota, a plaintiff must prove that the alleged defamatory statement (1) was communicated to someone other than the plaintiff, (2) was false, and (3) tended to harm the plaintiff’s reputation and lower [the plaintiff] in the estimation of the community. Bahr v. Boise Cascade Corp. (Minn. 2009). On the other hand, “true statements, however disparaging, are not actionable.” McKee v. Laurion (Minnesota Supreme Court. A11-1154, 2013).
    Often, however, defamation issues in the workplace are more complicated. For example, in Mudrich v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (D. Minn. 2013), Mr. Mudrich sued his employer, Wal-Mart, alleging that it had falsely accused him of theft while it investigated whether he had improperly provided free tire rotations to customers. Interestingly, no Wal-Mart manager ever came out and directly called Mr. Mudrich a “thief.” Regardless, the court held that even implying, falsely, that Mr. Mudrich was a thief would be enough for a defamation claim. While Wal-Mart argued that its statements were true and thus could not be defamatory, the court reiterated the long-held principle that that the veracity of an alleged defamatory statement is determined by a jury, not by the judge before trial. Thus, simply defending against allegations of defamation can be costly.

    Source http://www.schaeferhalleen.com/defamation-work-rights-options-employees/

Comments are closed.