-
Website
http://www.gavinsblog.com/ -
Original page
http://www.gavinsblog.com/2004/03/17/my-blog-has-been-threatened-with-legal-action-by-author-john-gray/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
I'm no solicitor but I think you should treat this the exact same as if you were publishing a newspaper. If you think that the original post was mistaken, just publish a correction, that is all they appear to be asking for.
What you should do - for you your own sake - is publish the retraction - DAILY with a little note about how you were forced to do so by a rich, successful author. You will comply with his lawyer's wishes, but also do yourself a big favor. Produce and release a press release indicating that this man has threatened you - the papers here and some in the UK and maybe even the US would probably lap it up. He may make you a star!
I've had serious threats of libel thrown at me over the years (with nuzhound.com) and it's nerve-wracking. This doesn't look like a battle worth fighting to me, but it is an opportunity for some publicity.
Ask them for the details of his undergraduate and postgraduate record, just the general details, and the subject of his doctoral thesis, his supervisor etc, and make this information the body of the correction.
If his PhD is genuine, and therefore your posting was incorrect, then his lawyers should have no problem supplying this information for the correction.
If the lawyers balk at this reasonable demand then they maybe moving into SLAPP terrority which will give a big legal club to strike back with.
Having read through your post, and the lawyer's letter, I think the issue here is not so much the repetition of information on Deborah's weblog, which is fact, but the use of the word "fraud".
What the lawyers say is technically correct. He did get the degree from what was a recognised university. He isn't making up the degree, although one can draw plenty of implications about the rigours of getting such a degree and that way in which the state of CA viewed the institution. Notably, they do not dispute the later closure of the university etc.
But Grey's listing the degree as a degree he has earned isn't fraudulent (though saying he had one when he didn't, would be). Using that word has very specific implications -- an intention to deceive by stating as truth that which is not -- and would almost surely be construed as libellous in the context in which it is used. This would be the likely interpretation of California libel law (which I had to study in high school/university for publications I worked for in Calif), and under Irish law it would be the same.
The wise thing to do IMHO is print a retraction. Newspapers do this all the time. You can within the context of the clarification state that he has a degree etc etc and go ahead and add the other context for the nature of the institution as described by Deborah as that is further factual information. This is just not worth contesting as it would be seen by the courts here or there as pretty cut and dried. It is just unfortunate that this single entry came to their attention.
As a blog publisher, every blogger becomes liable under international libel laws for statements made on a blog, because it is public publication, so to speak, designed to be read by an audience at large. Pursuing a blogger so far seems pretty rare. Unfortunately for personal publishing, bloggers carry the legal responsibilities of large publishers but rarely have the same legal resources. Before notifying press etc about this I would very much advise consulting with a lawyer as to whether publishing a retraction would curtail their ability to go ahead and sue for libel anyway. If you could be pursued, there's no point in stinging them into actually suing as they would almost certainly win and the California and Irish courts are prone to awarding very large damages plus costs.
http://www.lessig.org/blog/
This is an interesting case. Can a United States lawyer force someone outside of the United States to retract a statement and publish an apology? I'm not sure about this. Where is your blog hosted?
While there is some good advice posted here, your best bet is to talk to a lawyer if you don't intened to retract your statement (or maybe even if you do). It's not a situation anyone ever wants to be in, but it can save you a lot of legal trouble down the road.
http://ceicher.homeunix.com/archives/000683.html
But if we expressed it as an opinion, or a question, it probably wouldn't be considered libel. I don't remember if quoting another source would be considered libel.
Are emailed legal notices binding? What if he hadn't opened that email (or blogged that he'd received it)?
As some others have said, I think your only mistake was to refer to Gray, straight out, as a 'fraud'. If you'd simply refered to other reports that his qualifications are being questioned, that's protected by a legal defence known as "fair comment on a matter of public interest" (or whatever the latin translation of that is).
Best go ahead and apologise. Mind you, my own thoughts for Gray and his bullying lawyers would be "Bloggers are from earth, Questionable Authors are from earth. Get over it!"
The facts are that Gray has a valid PhD. While you can argue whether MERU is a decent enough place of learning, the university where Gray obtained his PhD was recognised at the time. Therefore, to present him as a fraud is damaging to his reputation, and therefore libellous.
Note that there is NOTHING to stop you following up with posts that question the validity of his degree, as long as you stick to the facts. Something that's factually accurate cannot be libellous. Calling someone a fraud, however, suggests they have deliberately sought to obtain something by deception. There's no evidence of that in Gray's case.
Ian Betteridge's advice is sound. Before you do anything, however, you should have a "without prejudice" discussion with Gray's lawyers to confirm that your retraction and amendment to the original post will constitute full and final settlement of any claim he might have.
This is despite it being very difficult for a public figure (which is what Gray is) to successfully pursue a libel claim in the US (as opposed to the UK). For public figures in the US, the falsity of a statement is not sufficient to prove libel. It has to be false and done with "malice aforethought". This is the consequence of the landmark Sullivan v NY Times decision.
Additionally, it's questionable how far anyone could press a judgment against you, since you are not domiciled in the US and presumably have no assets there to seize.
But the nuisance value of these kind of lawyer's letters is that it's generally better for you to hold up your hands (see all the comments above about that problematical word "fraud") and be done with it.
Again, confirm that it will be done with it before you act. The worst thing would be to post something apologetic on your site and for the lawyers to remain unsatisfied.
- Did you intend to state that he is a fraud, or merely refer to something that you had read stating he is a fraud? Sometimes the wording of statements are tricky, and the internet is a thick filter, as are many media in print. Sentences that end in a period are often considered declarative, and convey belief in the statement on the part of the author. If you had been recorded making the same statement, might your inflection have indicated surprise or query?
- Second, is it even legal correspondance to send someone a PDF attachment via electronic mail? Consider the problems you had accessing the attachment. It seems to me that any serious threat would have arrived by post with a paper trail.
Remember what happened to David Irving in England when he sued Deborah Lipstadt & destroyed himself in the process. Also in London, McDonald's sued 2 vegetarians, who had no money & defended themselves, & passed out leaflets condemning McDonald's meat. That trial, which became known as the "McLibel case" took 2 years & made McDonald's look like absolute idiots. McDonald's won a couple of thousand pounds damages from these 2, but cost themselves millions in daily bad publicity. And British libel laws are far more strict than the USA. Gray must prove you had "malice" to win.
Tell Gray to go to hell!
I'm sorry for linking to this article which I reasonably relied on for my characterization of Mr. Gray as a fraud.
Also, you should know that under most US states' laws, Mr. Gray is considered a "public figure" and as such, he has a much higher burden of proving slander or defamation then the average person.
"Section 48a extends protection in recognition of the necessity to disseminate news while it is new, even if untrue, but whose falsity there is neither time nor opportunity to ascertain." Condit v. Nat'l Enquirer, 248 F. Supp. 2d 945 (E.D. Cal. 2002).
http://www.casp.net/condit-1.html
http://www.rickross.com/reference/gray/gray1.html
http://www.rickross.com/reference/gray/gray4.html
http://www.cultnews.com/archives/000699.html
Ed Cogburn
I'm not an expert on accreditation -- you'll want to research what follows to be sure it's correct:
For a degree to be meaningful in the U.S., I think that universities have to be "accredited" by a recognized accreditation body. These are not state governments but rather independent bodies such as the American Psychological Association.
I don't know what California does in the way of "approving" universities -- it may be something totally unrelated such as licensing the cafeteria to serve meals or issuing it a simple business license.
Interestingly, the top-ranked hit on a Google search for the terms "degree accreditation Ph.D." turns up a site ("Rebuttal from Uranus") about John Gray and his degree:
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/women_...
Good luck!
If you're just doing casual web searches
http://www.slpab.ca.gov/minutes_20031024_board.pdf
has mention of the legitimacy of Columbia Pacific University in these Department of Consumer Affairs minutes, and while I'd hate to cite the Point Reyes Light http://www.ptreyeslight.com/ for anything serious, terms in
http://www.ptreyeslight.com/stories/dec30_99/ru...
and
http://www.ptreyeslight.com/stories/jan13_00/le...
might give you names and resources to offer up some well researched smackdown.
(And if you want to take this somewhere, maybe I could take a day off and do some legwork down at the courthouse trying to track down the work of Deputy Attorney General Asher Rubin and the rulings of Judge Lynn Duryee back in 1999 and 2000, along with what I believe were the earlier actions that drove CPU out of San Rafael and up to Novato back in 1997 or so.)
I'd suggest verifying the letter is real. Don't depend on the contact information they provide. Try to verify the existence of the law firm by calling information for where the firm is located. Then call their main phone number and ask to speak to the lawyer. I would suggest that the only thing you talk about at this time is if the communication is genuine.
Obtaining the services of a lawyer to do this for you might be advisable.
You might try contacting the EFF <http://www.eff.org/> or similar organizations.
He thinks you're smaller fry than she is and have less money and will cave in immediately. The real test of libel is whether you can afford to fight or know where to find a good libel litigator.
Fortunately for me, I had a good lawyer who was willing to act pro bono on my behalf. Some people have had to settle cases for sums large enough to lose their homes even though they had good cases, because they couldn't afford to fight. But if your accuser knows you have the resources to fight, they will usually back down. My accuser was a serial litigious pest, and my lawyers had beaten him before. Since that meant my resources out-classed his resources, he went away.
Appellant Phantom Touring Company produces a musical-comedy version of "The Phantom of the Opera" that is not the hugely successful, widely acclaimed Broadway show later created by Andrew Lloyd Webber.... [T]he Boston Globe queried, in a disparaging tone, whether appellant's advertising made the distinction between the two "Phantoms" clear to the ticket-buying public.... The article quoted a drama critic ... who ... described the show as " 'a rip-off, a fraud, a scandal, a snake-oil job.' "
The Boston Globe's owner (Affiliated) won. But this doesn't tell you whether you should fight. As for me, I'll just go ahead and repost this story to my livejournal. Let him try to sue everyone!
http://novalis.org/cases/Phantom%20Touring,%20I...
Simply edit the entry with the prefix: "According to....", and you're off the hook.
Publish a retraction, and it's over.
In future, never, ever state for fact that which you cannot verify to be true, or which does not reflect your own views.
Cover your ass.
I'm an Assistant U.S. Attorney so I can't take the case, but email me and I may be able to help you search for potential takers.
When I've received similar letters, I neither acknowledged them nor published my receipt of them. Doing both invites a cross-fire. Be ready for what may unfold -- like a summons when you land stateside. That gets sticky so if you don't intend on landing in a US airport (traveling instead through Canada or Mexico) you will long evade the arm of the law, just like the Skype (aka Kazaa) team is are able to do when they romp into the USA.
1. If a reader picks up a self-help book of the shelf and reads the "about the author" section and sees PHD, is it reasonable to assume that the PHD is a degree the author obtained from an accredited college and as such, that would make the author an authority on the subjectmatter contained in the book?
2. Would the PHD have a positive effect on sales of the book?
3. Would the reader feel jipped if they were to find out that the PHD is NOT from an accredited university?
4. Might that knowledge negatively effect sales of the book?
You do the math Gavin. As a reporter, you have the license to report the facts and on a factual stance, you're absolutely correct. So don't let anybody tell you different. If they want to clarify the authors education publically...fine, let em, but don't give a "snake oil salesman" the benefit of the doubt. People who read those stupid assed books may not be the brightest, but that doesn't mean they should be saps either.
There are a lot of educational institutions with dubious accreditations. The author in question may have legitimately acquired a degree from an institution but that does not mean that the degree is worth anything much. A number of people have received such degrees "innocently", not realizing that the college or university is not properly accredited. It can be very confusing.
In the United States, accreditation is used to assure quality in educational institutions and programs. Accreditation is a voluntary, non-governmental process of peer review. It requires an educational institution or program to meet certain, defined standards or criteria. Accreditation is sometimes confused with certification. In general, institutions and programs are accredited, and individuals are certified.
There are two types of accreditation -- institutional and specialized. Institutional accreditors, such as those referred to as “regional” accreditors, examine the college or university as a whole educational institution. Specialized accreditors evaluate specific educational programs. Professional accreditors, such as those for medicine, law, architecture and engineering, etc. fall into this category. Therefore, in addition to the general accreditation, an institution may need to get specialized accrediatation.
Accreditation serves to notify: Parents and prospective students that a program has met minimum standards; Faculty, deans and administrators of a program’s strengths and weaknesses and of ways to improve the program; Employers that graduates are adequately prepared in their given field, among a number of other purposes.
The most recognized general accrediting institutions are the regional ones. Applicable to the California area is the Accrediting Commission for Senior Colleges and Universities of the Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC).
If a general educational institution is not accredited by WASC, you may want to scrutinize it a little closer. Those of us who are in higher ed know better than to get an degree from any questionable source. It would not be recognized or compensated by our employers.
"Dr." John Gray is a pederast, a panty-sniffer, a card-carrying communist, a Ku Klux Klansman, a wife-beater, a space alien, a cartoon character named "Poopy," a hermaphrodite, and a slob - in my opinion.
ribby knish
I'm no lawyer (yet), so please don't take this as anything like legal advice. I think your uncertainty about what to do is founded, and the question of whether Mr./Dr./Con-man? Gray can do anything to you is certainly not easily decided in his favor.
1. California courts CANNOT touch you directly unless you fall under their long-arm statutes. I don't think anybody could argue with any weight that your blog constitutes regular and substantial contact with the state of California.
2. If they want to sue you, they will *probably* have to do so in your home-country. Then, your liability will be determined by your local laws, NOT California laws.
3. How do you know the email is authentic? It's not YOUR job to chase down the sender's identity. I don't know that the email can truly serve as notice, since you don't have anything post-marked from them. Again, I don't know, but I think they've got a real problem.
4. Defamation/libel law in America is not all that clear-cut on this issue. As a celebrity, Mr./Dr./Con-man? Gray has to prove malice in your post to be able to recover, and disgust probably won't get him there. Your accusation, which the lawyers have characterized as "libel per se" is not necessarily correct. If you had said "he's committing fraud" then that would be more clearly libel per se. You do seem to be indicating that he is not qualified to do his job, but not that he is unable to perform it competently, which is another way to prove "libel per se."
For what it's worth, I think you're probably on good ground and fairly well out of Mr./Dr./Con-man? Gray's reach since you are in another country. If you DO have significant contact with California DIRECTLY by your own actions (I don't think that publishing a blog which is available to the whole world can be characterized in that manner), then you will probably have to take the threat more seriously. If so (or if you just want to have fun in American courts), get a good (California) attorney and tell your adversaries, "Make me, ya bunch of bottom-feeding butt-plugs!"
As a resident of a foreign nation, you can get this into Federal Court which will be more expensive for THEM. I would check into whether you would have much chance of getting yor attorney fees reimbursed if/when you win.
Keep us posted!
B.
(I am not an attorney, and nothing I have written should be taken as legal advice!)
Sec. 425.16. Claim Arising from Person's Exercise of Constitutional Right of Petition or Free Speech -- Special Motion to Strike.
(a) The Legislature finds and declares that there has been a disturbing increase in lawsuits brought primarily to chill the valid exercise of the constitutional rights of freedom of speech and petition for the redress of grievances. The Legislature finds and declares that it is in the public interest to encourage continued participation in matters of public significance, and that this participation should not be chilled through abuse of the judicial process. To this end, this section shall be construed broadly.
(b) (1) A cause of action against a person arising from any act of that person in furtherance of the person's right of petition or free speech under the United States or California Constitution in connection with a public issue shall be subject to a special motion to strike, unless the court determines that the plaintiff has established that there is a probability that the plaintiff will prevail on the claim. (2) In making its determination, the court shall consider the pleadings, and supporting and opposing affidavits stating the facts upon which the liability or defense is based. (3) If the court determines that the plaintiff has established a probability that he or she will prevail on the claim, neither that determination nor the fact of that determination shall be admissible in evidence at any later stage of the case, and no burden of proof or degree of proof otherwise applicable shall be affected by that determination.
(c) In any action subject to subdivision (b), a prevailing defendant on a special motion to strike shall be entitled to recover his or her attorney's fees and costs. If the court finds that a special motion to strike is frivolous or is solely intended to cause unnecessary delay, the court shall award costs and reasonable attorney's fees to a plaintiff prevailing on the motion, pursuant to Section 128.5.
(d) This section shall not apply to any enforcement action brought in the name of the people of the State of California by the Attorney General, district attorney, or city attorney, acting as a public prosecutor.
(e) As used in this section, "act in furtherance of a person's right of petition or free speech under the United States or California Constitution in connection with a public issue" includes: (1) any written or oral statement or writing made before a legislative, executive, or judicial proceeding, or any other official proceeding authorized by law; (2) any written or oral statement or writing made in connection with an issue under consideration or review by a legislative, executive, or judicial body, or any other official proceeding authorized by law; (3) any written or oral statement or writing made in a place open to the public or a public forum in connection with an issue of public interest; (4) or any other conduct in furtherance of the exercise of the constitutional right of petition or the constitutional right of free speech in connection with a public issue or an issue of public interest.
(f) The special motion may be filed within 60 days of the service of the complaint or, in the court's discretion, at any later time upon terms it deems proper. The motion shall be noticed for hearing not more than 30 days after service unless the docket conditions of the court require a later hearing.
(g) All discovery proceedings in the action shall be stayed upon the filing of a notice of motion made pursuant to this section. The stay of discovery shall remain in effect until notice of entry of the order ruling on the motion. The court, on noticed motion and for good cause shown, may order that specified discovery be conducted notwithstanding this subdivision.
(h) For purposes of this section, "complaint" includes "cross-complaint" and "petition," "plaintiff" includes "cross-complainant" and "petitioner," and "defendant" includes "cross-defendant" and "respondent."
(i) On or before January 1, 1998, the Judicial Council shall report to the Legislature on the frequency and outcome of special motions made pursuant to this section, and on any other matters pertinent to the purposes of this section.
(j) An order granting or denying a special motion to strike shall be appealable under Section 904.1.
(k) (1) Any party who files a special motion to strike pursuant to this section, and any party who files an opposition to a special motion to strike, shall, promptly upon so filing, transmit to the Judicial Council, by e-mail or fax, a copy of the endorsed-filed caption page of the motion or opposition, a copy of any related notice of appeal or petition for a writ, and a conformed copy of any order issued pursuant to this section, including any order granting or denying a special motion to strike, discovery, or fees.
(2) The Judicial Council shall maintain a public record of information transmitted pursuant to this subdivision for at least three years, and may store the information on microfilm or other appropriate electronic media.
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY: Added by Stats.1992, c. 726 (SB 1264), sec. 2. Amended by: Stats.1993, c. 1239 (SB 9), sec. 1, adding subd. (i) and substituting "shall" for "may" preceding "award costs" in subd. (c); Stats.1997, c. 271 (SB 1296), sec. 1, adding last sentence in subd. (a), adding subd. (e)(4), numbering subds. (e)(1)-(3), moving second sentence of subd. (g) to be second sentence of subd. (f), adding new subd. (h), and relettering former subd. (h) as subd. (i); and Stats.1999, c. 960 (AB 1675), sec. 1, adding subds. (j) and (k).
Sidebar: is it a "real" university if they don't have a fightsong?
P.S. There's no "there" there!
Besides the issue of whether you can be haled into California courts, I would be certain that no attorney in their right mind would do so because they would have zero chance of success on the merits. Your statement is clearly an assertion of opinion, not of fact, (see the Larry Flynt case). End of story.
I don't buy the tortured claim that saying 'fraud' is key here since you obviously meant 'misleading' and a PhD from a diploma mill is misleading.
If I were you, I would be thinking of a way to turn this harassment to my advantage. After all, Gray has millions. Why not come up with a way to get him to share?
Now I go out for drinks with the mates. Everyone but me gets blasted, oh dear. So one of my mates turns to me and says (weaving a little from side to side, holding out the car keys): Say, can you drive? You do you have a California driver's license, right? And I say: you bet! and I wave my "license" briefly in front of his bleary eyes, which, without benefit of a mental focussing effort which he far too gone to supply, looks genuine. Off we go. . .
Have I been a fraud? I'd say so. What my friends *meant* -- what any reasonable person would mean -- when they said "do you have a driver's license?" is: do you have a driver's license issued by the State of California? Certainly NOT: do you have an object which someone, somewhere has earnestly asserted to be a "California driver's license." And, of course, I would know that. I would quite consciously be trying to deceive them. With a good chance of doing harm, depending on what happens when I take the wheel. That is, I would indeed be committing a fraud.
Now just substitute "Ph.D. degree" for "driver's license" in the analogy.
That is, when someone says "I have a Ph.D.", ask yourself what a reasonable man thinks it means. Surely he thinks it means: "I have a Ph.D. from an accredited institution of higher learning." Certainly NOT: I have a piece of paper that has the words 'Ph.D.' and my name on it issued by any old collection of random fools. Hell, if that were not the case, why would anyone pay all that money to get a "real" college degree? Why not just form a neighborhood association and charge each other $50 for a "diploma"?
And if this were *not* the case, if accreditation were a purely optional oak-leave-cluster part of a degree, just a nice finishing touch, and in particular if the the people of the State of California, as represented by their government, were not firmly convinced that this university in particular was gravely misleading people when it asserted its graduates had a "Ph.D. degree" in the common-sense meaning of that phrase, then the State would not have shut the place down. It seems to me the State's action is tantamount to an assertion that the university's "degrees" were *not* degrees in the usual meaning of the word.
And, of course, this fellow knows that. That's why he's upset.
"The author of [....] John Gray, is a fraud."
What do you expect? Just publish a retraction and save yourself some grief.
Hardly worth fighting over...
"But if we expressed it as an opinion, or a question, it probably wouldn't be considered libel. I don't remember if quoting another source would be considered libel." Posted by: Sherri at March 19, 2004 08:40 AM
Why dont you just add a Question mark at the end of the word fraud. john gray...Fraud?
Hope john gray gets a life? and starts prosecuting real criminals?
What do you expect? Just publish a retraction and save yourself some grief.
Hardly worth fighting over...
I agree
Good luck, and keep blogging.
With this word, discretion is the better part of, well, you know what.
--Jack Payne
www.sixhrs.com
BL
It has very much helped me!