
Letter To Jennifer Allen Regarding False And Defamatory Statements - Pasanpr
http://uncrunched.com/2013/04/11/jennifer-allen-false-defamatory/
======
marcamillion
Wow...this is pretty damning stuff.

I wonder how all the 'pilers on' will respond. I assume an apology is in
order.

Edit: I never knew anything much about this Loren figure, aside from the
video....but I definitely will never trust anything he has to say again. As
for Calacanis....was never a fan of his to begin with.

I get that Michael is abrasive, pushy and can sometimes be a dick to people he
works with. I don't know him personally, but it is just pathetic to see how
opportunistic his detractors are. I mean....what grade are these guys in? This
is stuff you would expect from a middle school crowd. Only to know that these
guys are grown-ass men.

 _shakes head_

~~~
ajross
I'm not sure any of this is "damning" really. It's mostly nitpicking at facts
(e.g. the time of their last contact) which aren't material to a rape
accusation. Really I don't understand what Arrington has to gain here. If
these are actual facts relevant to a criminal defense, posting them on the
internet like this is _insane_. So clearly they think there will be no trial,
so they're slinging mud... just to rub it in? I don't see how this improves
his image. It's just a mess all around.

~~~
uid
> I'm not sure any of this is "damning" really.

How about the part where he was in another state on the night she says he
raped her?

Or the part where she left a comment on Gawker stating that he has been
previously charged with rape and went to trial but got off because he knew the
judge

Or the part where she deleted evidence on Facebook?

Or the part where she told Gawker that she hadn't been in contact with him
since the rape but he shows a large number of messages in a pattern of
obsession

Or the part where every other person who is familiar with the two of them
denies even seeing a hint of abuse

Or the part where she has previously made a false accusation, of being
pregnant, in order to get him to respond to her

Actually, did you read the post? This is as damming as you can get when
defending yourself from a false rape accusation.

I can't imagine what else somebody in that situation could do. He is lucky he
was able to track down all this information online, otherwise we could have
seen an innocent man convicted.

This woman is unreliable. She also accused Arrington of hacking into Robert
Scoble's Facebook account and posting as him to defend Arrington. We should
have seen through this at that point, that it had to come to this is an
indictment of our culture and the willingness of a few to take advantage of an
unstable woman to promote their own self interest.

~~~
marcamillion
> _This woman is unreliable. She also accused Arrington of hacking into Robert
> Scoble's Facebook account and posting as him to defend Arrington. We should
> have seen through this at that point, that it had to come to this is an
> indictment of our culture and the willingness of a few to take advantage of
> an unstable woman to promote their own self interest._

Exactly, now Calacanis, Loren & Gawker all look silly having staked their
reputation with, what is clearly now obvious, this crazy, gold digger.

> _I can't imagine what else somebody in that situation could do. He is lucky
> he was able to track down all this information online, otherwise we could
> have seen an innocent man convicted._

I was thinking that the entire time....at first when I heard her story, even
though I didn't know her I thought it kinda strange that Calacanis and company
were just piling on. Given what I know of them, that made everything feel so
fishy. But I gave her the benefit of the doubt - given the gravity of the
accusations.

But now....there is no doubt in my mind that he was clearly the victim of
extortion by a money-grubber.

Glad he aired her dirty laundry to dry - so hopefully no one else gets duped.
She seems to be a serial psycho, so hopefully there will be no more victims.

~~~
23david
All of the posts here with the vitriol turned up to 10 seem like either paid
shills or friends / associates. Recent accounts, or accounts that just
magically started commenting for the first time a week ago. A few comments on
other articles, but strong comments defending Mike and Techcrunch. Sketchy
stuff.

If you want to help Mike out, calling the girl a psycho / gold digger etc
isn't helpful. All it makes me think is "maybe the guy tormented/manipulated
her and drove her a bit nuts."

In her posts, she explained pretty clearly the way she expected Mike and his
friends to respond through harassing posts and shill accounts etc. It's sad to
think that's what is going on here.

WTF why make things even worse by posting the lawyer's letter, including
private pictures etc. Fighting fire with fire? Won't that set yourself up for
a defamation counter-claim?

~~~
marcamillion
Did you even look at my profile? I have no interest in this case, just calling
it as I see it.

I am an HN regular with enough credibility, I think, to make those types of
statements. Not sure where you got your facts from...but maybe you should
actually look at the profile of the person you are responding to, before
attempting to disparage my credibility.

------
DanBC
I think a "No names, no reporting, until a conviction" rule would be really
good.

It'd encourage more women to report rape. It'd help to protect men from false
allegations of rape. (Because here the reputation damage is crippling).

~~~
Korvin
Currently, at least in my state, the laws are very publicly guilty until
proven innocent when it comes to sexual abuse. It is this way to prevent
further harm to others or something like that.

Having been through something like this I can say that that would not do
anything to protect the majority of wrongfully accused persons.

------
duck
The world is going to _really_ suck when things like this get played out in
social media and blog posts each and every time.

~~~
hellopat
It's already happening.

------
ChuckMcM
I'm struck by the similar tone in Jennifer's statements and those of Shirley
Hornstein [1]. I am also struck by the way these folks interact with the rest
of the community.

I went to school in LA (Univ. of So. Calif) which has a lot of connections
with the movie business (and Hollywood in general). There were lots of people
who were desperate to be "part of the action" and were willing to set aside a
number of principles in order to achieve that. I thought it was nice that
technical people weren't like that.

Then in the dot.com boom we were overrun with MBAs who had decided we were too
stupid to pick the money up off the floor. They went around destroying things
with rent-seeking monetization models and other schemes to defraud those who
didn't understand what they were buying (or being charged for).

Now we have people more like the Hollywood groupies and less like the MBA
types. I guess that is a side effect of hiring "rockstars" (har har har) but
really? Is this some weird revenge desire of the socialites in high school
trying to make up for the fact they shunned nerds in favor of football players
or something?

If you had said you could make a Silicon Valley soap opera I would have
laughed at you, but apparently you can make one now (except it would be based
in San Francisco I suppose). Strange times indeed.

[1] [http://shirls.me/post/41790389190/shirley-hornstein-no-
more-...](http://shirls.me/post/41790389190/shirley-hornstein-no-more-lies)

------
gamblor956
As in all defamation cases, it is Ms. Allen's job to prove that the allegedly
defamatory statements (the accusation of rape) were _true_ and the photo is a
significant obstacle for her to overcome. From an evidentiary perspective, the
facebook page of the photo proves nothing other than that the photo was
uploaded from a mobile device on March 6. Nothing else in the information
provided indicates when the photo was taken, but it would be reasonable to
infer that it was uploaded contemporaneously with being taken.

OTOH, by posting the photos from the "For only you" email chain, Arrington's
lawyers may have breached _her_ right to privacy with regards to those photos.
(According to the lawyer's bio, he's an expert at business litigation, IP, and
unfair competition and those are the firm's primary practice areas...but not
defamation or other non-business torts.
<http://www.bgrfirm.com/attorneys/eric-m-george/.>) This is why you hire
lawyers that are experienced in their field. Experience in one area of law
does not necessarily transfer to other areas of law.

It's also quite odd that Arrington lives in Washington, the events at issue
allegedly took place in SF Bay Area, but the lawyer and his firm...are located
in LA. Clients rarely, if ever hire non-local attorneys to handle their legal
matters--especially non-local attorneys who are not experts at handling the
legal issues at hand.

~~~
othermaciej
> As in all defamation cases, it is Ms. Allen's job to prove that the
> allegedly defamatory statements (the accusation of rape) were true and the
> photo is a significant obstacle for her to overcome.

That's not the case under US libel and defamation law. As with any other tort,
the plaintiff has the burden of proof (and thus must prove, among other
elements of the tort, that the statement was false). The UK and some other
jurisdictions have a reversed burden of proof for defamation or libel, but not
the US.

~~~
gamblor956
I left work before I realized I left out the part about truth being Ms.
Allen's burden because it is her _defense_ to defamation. (In US law, once the
plaintiff has made a prima facie showing of their case, the burden shifts back
to the defendant to prove their defense.)

Common elements of defamation in US law: 1) a false statement purporting to be
fact concerning another person or entity; 2) publication or communication of
that statement to a third person; 3) fault on the part of the person making
the statement amounting to intent or at least negligence; and 4) some harm
caused to the person or entity who is the subject of the statement.

Mr. Arrington has made a prima facie showing of the elements of defamation.
(This doesn't mean that he's proven his case, since that is a factual
determination by a judge or jury. It simply means that he appears to have
shown sufficient evidence of each element that the factfinder _could_ find for
him.) I leave it to you to read the massive of wall of text to see how each
element is met.

Truth is a defense to defamation, under American law. Thus, it is now Ms.
Allen's job to _prove_ the truth of the allegedly defamatory statements. In
this regard, the photo is a significant obstacle to overcome in showing the
truth of her statements, if, as suggested, she was several hundred miles away
from the plaintiff at the time of the alleged incident.

~~~
othermaciej
Correct that truth is a defense. But, as I understand it, the defendant does
not at any point have a burden of proof in a civil case, even if the plaintiff
has made a prima facie case. That's just not how burden of proof works for any
tort under US law. The burden is essentially always the plaintiff's by a
preponderance of the evidence. Many defendants try to prove truth of their
claims so that the plaintiff cannot meet their burden of proof to show
falsity. But that doesn't mean they have the burden of proof, in the sense in
which it's typically used.

Here's the wikipedia article:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_defamation_law>

Here's a random scholarly article on the topic:
[http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=22...](http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2220&context=wmlr)

I believe they do not support your position.

That being said, I'm not a lawyer and for all I know maybe you are, so perhaps
I am failing to understand the issue.

~~~
gamblor956
Yes, you're missing a crucial distinction: there are different types of
defamation. Defamation of a public figure (which the linked law journal
article you provided discusses) places a higher burden on the plaintiff than
defamation of a private individual. A public figure must demonstrate the
falsity of statements made against him, _and_ must demonstrate malice. The
justification is that a public figure is more readily able to defend himself
or has others willing to defend him in the court of public opinion.

For defamation of a private individual, the burden of truth remains with the
defendant (once the plaintiff establishes a prima facie case). See, e.g.,
_Ellenberger v. Espinosa_ (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 943, 953. There are slight
variations from state to state, but this is the general rule. (By the way, in
case you are wondering, in the legal field, citing a case or statute trumps a
law review article or Wikipedia every time.)

~~~
othermaciej
I looked up th case you cited, a copy of the opinion of the court may be found
here: <http://law.justia.com/cases/california/caapp4th/30/943.html>

As far as I can tell, it doesn't say what you claim it does. There is no
mention of burden of proof or prima facile case at all. It merely states that
truth is an absolute defense, but that is only the case because it precludes
the plaintiff meeting their burden of proof to show falsity.

Since you mention a distinction between private and public indviduals, I
suspect you are confusing the issue of burden of proof with the "actual
malice" standard, which must be met to establish defamation of a public figure
but not a private figure. This is established by Supreme Court precedents
Arthur v Sullivan and Getz v Robert Welch Inc, both of which are cited in the
law review article I mentioned and both of which maintain falsity as a
required element of the offense. (In case you were wondering, Supreme Court
precedent trumps Circuit Court precedent in the US, so even if the case said
what you claimed it would not be informative about the state of the law of
defamation.)

------
OGinparadise
Looks very detailed. Let this be another reminder to wait before assuming
every accusation is true. Especially in rape cases the damage is done the
minute allegations are spread. Mike has made many enemies, and by all accounts
he is a d*ck but those ex-friends of his that used this case to get even with
him are blacklisted forever in my mind.

