Charisma Sues RCD, DD, DI
#1
Quote:Re: What's the accreditation status of Charisma University?

Postby surprises » Thu Jun 26, 2014 6:45 pm

I am back again BUT this time with the real surprises Big Grin

Charisma University has sued degreediscussion.com for allowing slanderous and defamation forums against Charisma University. Among the defendants are those that have posted against Charisma University and degreediscussion.com site owner.

This lawsuit is with the Superior Court of California, County of Orange with case number 30-2014-00730009-CU-DF-CJC; the Judge's name is Judge Andrew P. Banks

The degreediscussion.com site owner has been served with the summons and complaint via his e-mail. You may need to contact him to forward the details.

If you are among the defendants and you are using your nickname/fake name to post here, please provide your contact details to Charisma University at info@charismauniversity.org to have the summons and complaint served to you. If you decide not to provide your contact details, you are agreeing that this forum is your best contact information and that you have been served.

At the end, it turns out that Charisma University was not making an empty legal lawsuit threat. This is serious!

Thank you!
http://www.degreediscussion.com/forums/v...&start=345

The OCSC docket shows that an action indeed has been filed by plaintiff PETER CHRIS OKPALA. The defendants are shown as:

DEGREE DISCUSSIONS.COM
DEGREE INFO.COM
MBWA SHENZI
RICHARD DOUGLAS

Having seen so many scurrilous comments aimed at well-intentioned education enterprises over the years by "swarming assholes" (as Oxpecker so artfully put it), we certainly sympathize with Charisma and Dr. Okpala.

However, as much as we like seeing assholes get their just deserts, it looks like Charisma University has taken an ill-chosen route to avenge the predations of the stalker crew. Not only do the offensive comments appear to be solidly within the realm of First Amendment protected free speech, but in California the plaintiff may be subject to the state Anti-SLAPP Law as well. So rather than putting the screws to his tormentors, Okpala might have just set himself up to deliver them a minor payday instead.

But as we seem to be seeing more and more, legitimate higher ed enterprises are starting to fight back against the slimy thugs who conspire to drive them out of business. Best wishes, Dr. Okpala, but when it all comes down we hope it doesn't land on you.
Reply
#2
(06-30-2014, 11:32 AM)Albert Hidel Wrote: But as we seem to be seeing more and more, legitimate higher ed enterprises are starting to fight back against the slimy thugs who conspire to drive them out of business.

A copy of the complaint is attached below. In addition to defamation and slander counts there are also counts for business interference. It will be interesting to see if Okpala can get the latter two past demurrer. We all know that the clones aren't just innocently sharing opinions, but are in fact dedicated to destroying all educational free enterprise outside the reach of the government's iron fist. He might have a shot on that basis, but as a pro per plaintiff he's probably going to get lawyered to death, the way Dr. Dolphin did.


.pdf   OkpalaComplaint.pdf (Size: 144.08 KB / Downloads: 48)
Reply
#3
(07-01-2014, 05:09 AM)Armando Ramos Wrote: He might have a shot on that basis, but as a pro per plaintiff he's probably going to get lawyered to death, the way Dr. Dolphin did.

None of the defendants have a major educational institution paying the legal bills as did Gollin. You notice that after the Dolphin case, The U of Illinois must have told him to shut the fuck up because that is exactly what he did.
Reply
#4
Given what is known about Goose and his now not-so-secret wanker gang, I see the tortious interference claims as viable, although not necessarily as alleged in the complaint. Surprising not to see conspiracy allegations.

Quote:Tortuous Interference on the Web

To prevail in a tortious interference claim (or "tortuous interference", both are acceptable spellings), you need to show that the publication induces a person not to fulfill a business relationship. While the First Amendment protects opinions, we must remember that the standard is very different for tortuous interference than it is for libel.

To prevail in a Tortuous Interference claim you must prove that a person:

- Knows about your business relationship

- Interferes with your relationship

- and that they are unjustified in doing so

For a simple example of "unjustified", a business competitor would be unjustified in conducting a "smear" campaign against a business competitor, which results in advertisers withdrawing from existing contracts for fear of bad publicity.

On the web, it suggests that statements below, while not libelous per se, may be actionable as tortuous interference, especially if the publisher induces the public to interfere with the business relationship:

•"I cannot believe that people actually pays Waldo's Widgets money"

•"I feel sorry for anyone unfortunate enough to use Waldo's Widgets services"

•"Waldo's Widgets products are shoddy and poorly made"

•"I wonder if their clients know what serial offenders Waldo's Widgets are?"

•"Amy Author's article is wrong, it's a fact, not my opinion"

•"The owner of Waldo's Widgets is a fraud"

Civil Conspiracies and Cyberlaw

The US department of Justice defines a conspiracy such that it appears to clearly apply to internet publishing:

A conspiracy is a combination of two or more persons to accomplish some unlawful purpose, or to accomplish a lawful purpose by unlawful means.

DOJ also notes that civil conspiracy may apply to a "variety of conduct" that might harm or inhibit the free actions of a third party:

The words "injure," "oppress", "threaten," or "intimidate," as used in the conspiracy statute, are not to be interpreted in any technical sense, but may cover a variety of conduct intended to harm, frighten, or inhibit the free action of other persons.

Anytime that people conspire to defame or interfere with another person or business entity, Civil Conspiracy laws come into play. Click here for a listing of some Federal laws protecting against Civil conspiracies.

Chambers v. Stern, 347 Ark. 395, 64 S.W.3d 737, (2002); Dodson v. Allstate Ins. Co., 345 Ark. 430, 47 S.W.3d 866, (2001); Mason v. Funderburk, 247 Ark. 521, 446 S.W.2d 543 (1969).

To prove a civil conspiracy, a plaintiff must show that two or more persons have combined to accomplish a purpose that is unlawful or oppressive or to accomplish some purpose, not in itself unlawful, oppressive or immoral, but by unlawful, oppressive or immoral means, to the injury of another.

Chambers v. Stern, supra; Dodson v. Allstate Ins. Co., supra.

A civil conspiracy is not actionable in and of itself, but a recovery may be had for damages caused by acts committed pursuant to the conspiracy. Chambers v. Stern, supra; Dodson v. Allstate Ins. Co., supra. A civil conspiracy is an intentional tort which requires a specific intent to accomplish the contemplated wrong.

Tortuous Interference cases are sometimes tied to Civil conspiracy laws because Federal Statutes have strong prohibitions against any groups who conspire to injure the reputation of an individual or business. This is especially true on the web where a single publication has a worldwide reach.

(07-01-2014, 09:22 AM)Fort Bragger Wrote: None of the defendants have a major educational institution paying the legal bills as did Gollin.

Ha ha, you mean the taxpayers of Illinois, who got stuck paying $50K to change Gollin's diapers.

Okpala might also have noticed how Gus and Bear folded like cheap suitcases when O'Block sued them. Nice precedent. Plaintiffs line up and take a number please. Big Grin
Reply
#5
All the big mouth pricks are gone from DegreeDiscussion and the place is dead. It would be a crime if Gus, after saving his house, loses everything from a lawsuit because of his website, a toy he has long tired of.

In their lawsuit, Charisma could do some valuable research on this website. If nothing else, they might be amused that degreeinfo was started by a gay pornographer and is moderated by a transvestite or, if he's had his balls nipped off, a trans-sexual, I guess.

Criticism of out and out degree mills is fine but they had better be right when criticizing start-up schools that are trying for legitimacy, they better be right - and careful.
Reply
#6
(07-01-2014, 10:51 AM)Martin Eisenstadt Wrote: ...Goose and his now not-so-secret wanker gang...

Not a single post there since the day Okpala announced his lawsuit. Not by any of The Goose House Gang, not even by bathroom remodel spammers. Looks like Okpala has done the world a true service and flushed the stalker commode.
Reply
#7
(07-03-2014, 05:07 AM)Harrison J Bounel Wrote: ...Looks like Okpala has done the world a true service and flushed the stalker commode.

Here's what I got today at DD:

Quote:Information
Sorry, but DegreeDiscussion is temporarily undergoing maintenance. Please try again later.

Does that just mean that Goose is hastily deleting all the offensive posts, or that it's circling the drain on its way to the sewage treatment plant?
Reply
#8
(07-04-2014, 04:53 AM)WilliamW Wrote: Does that just mean that Goose is hastily deleting all the offensive posts, or that it's circling the drain on its way to the sewage treatment plant?

Goose is wiping his hard drive faster than Lois Lerner!
Reply
#9
(07-04-2014, 10:04 AM)Winston Smith Wrote: Goose is wiping his hard drive faster than Lois Lerner!

Looks like Gus is still wiping. Hope he's using double ply.
Reply
#10
Too bad filed as Pro Per.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)