Wow, that professor sure is an ass. I cannot believe that he would stoop to contacting your academic supervisor with regard to the statements you made. So what if they were "unprofessional"? (They weren't.) You were making no effort to represent anyone other than yourself. Moreover, a professor should encourage and embrace reasoned debate.
Regardless, do you really think a lawsuit is appropriate? Aren't you doing exactly what the left did in Roe, by turning to the courts to resolve an issue that could appropriately be dealt with elsewhere?
Furthermore, from a legal standpoint, can you demonstrate you've actually been hurt in any way? Without damages, you have no lawsuit.
I don't believe damages are necessary for a libel suit to go forward. (Just as you can still be arrested for burglary even if I were chased out of your house before managing to steal anything).
Besides, what other forum would you recommend? He offered Wally a chance to avoid litigation and he refused it.
Jon,
By an examination of my CV (I have logged proof that it was downloaded by Wally), it is apparent that there are aggravating factors that require me to take these accussations very seriously.
There is prima facia evidence that my reputation has been damaged. I believe I can sue for the differences in expected career incomes and lost opportunities that may be incurred. As neither Wally or his friend have taken any action to mitigate these damages, they will be large. Already Wally admits that the accussations are designed to damage an academic career. That is pretty clear.
I estimate the damages upwards to $500,000 or greater. (One lawsuit of its type was awarded $3 million--and that against a student, not even a professional with a higher standard of culpability).
Yes, you're right, it is possible to "win" a libel suit without demonstrating damages. However, "victories" such as these can be quite Pyrrhic after one spends thousands of dollars in legal fees, only to be awarded with a dollar.
With regard to alternatives, first, I have a feeling that Paul's supervisor has told Prof. Hettle to stick to bullying his own students. That, being so, no one is really harmed here and the derision this supposed guardian of open debate has received from the blogosphere should be quite satisfactory. Paul's clearly the bigger person and has won the battle. Move on!
If that's not enough, continuing to demand an apology would certainly be acceptable. Get a counter that denotes the number of days since Paul's asked for an apology. Provide a link to Hettle's e-mail address and encourage people to send e-mails expressing their opinions of him.
If that still provides no satisfaction, I would suggest that Paul work to have the professor censured. The professor himself has acted in an unprofessional manner. His superiors should be aware of his lack of respect for mature discourse.
There are plenty of other options in addition to those I listed, but that's certainly a start.
Paul, as an academic (admittedly minor-league, but still in the biz) I was shocked and mortified to hear of this. Best of luck in the course of action you're pursuing. My hope is that your dissertation advisors took this person's word for what it was worth - less than nothing.
This one is a stunner - after thirteen years in academe I thought myself unshockable, but this staggers the imagination. Is this sort of thing the norm nowadays?
Jon,
Even if Paul's advisor tells the prof to stick to his own students, the mere fact that the prof went to far as to download Paul's CV means that the prof is not limited in what he wants to do just to Paul's advisor. Under the circumstances I think Paul is right to see to it that this demented prof cannot harm him beyond intefering with his studies at Purdue. If the prof keeps the download CV then in the future he might be in position to do some real damage to Paul if Paul does not nip it in the bud right now. Hell hath no fury like a demented prof scorned or something like that.
Jon,
Engineering professors are extremely overburdened. They tend to seek to minimize unnecessary distractions.
You may notice that my expected graduation date is coming up. Working backwords, that means that after many years of graduate study, all my applications are under review. Come January, I will need to support a family with a real wage. If I do not get the jobs that I have applied for, the results may be catastrophic to our financial well-being.
Suing Wally is the best investment I can make at this point. It is that critical. My hand is forced and he has every reason to know it. Every day that goes by converts to potentially tens of thousands of dollars in lost wages and opportunities.
As to having Wally censured, that is actually not my part of this little crusade. My function is to protect my honorable reputation that I have sacrificed so much for and to ensure that my family is provided for in the years ahead.
This is deadly serious for me. Sorry to be so personal. I would rather frame this as a learning opportunity for all.
As Paul himself has openly admitted, he will gladly incur whatever the costs of the case may be in order to ensure justice is served here -- justice, by the way, is not limited merely to receiving big sums of money from him, merely exposing his behaviors to the public.
All of the things you mentioned (i.e., demanding censure, getting an apology, etc.) can be won all-at-once with a lawsuit.
Frankly, this lawsuit is not designed to win an award (otherwise I would not have given Wally multiple opportunities). By mentioning the consequences and my initial valuation, I want to demonstrate the stakes.
It is difficult to demonstrate resolve to a person who has no concept of integrity (any fool should be able to read my CV and know that this is not a case that will blow over, however, Wally and his friend are incredible fools--absolutely self-involved (I studied their writings), so I must be more plain and forceful than I would ordinarily expect is necessary).
Thanks for weighing in. Your presence also enforces the point.
Paul, I can understand your concern. However, proof that this guy has downloaded your CV is proof of... the fact this guy had your CV on his computer at one time.
I wrote a long post describing the strengths and weaknesses of your case, but I really have no business expounding on the law in Indiana, Iowa, or probably wherever jurisdiction is appropriate.
Let me just point out a couple of things:
1. If you're simply bluffing by "lawyering-up," good for you. I still think it's overkill given the present facts, but that's a relatively cheap and easy way to buy a little insurance. Your tone seems to indicate otherwise. But then, it would have to in order to give the ruse effect. Good luck.
2. I know this is not a primary motivating factor, but the vast majority of your possible damage award would come from the harm that might come to your career. When calculating those damages, you subtract the amount you are receiving from whatever job you end up with from the amount that you might have received. 100s of thousands of dollars is probably NOT a realistic hope.
3. You might get your desired moral victory from filing suit. However, what will filing suit absolutely accomplish? You WILL cost yourself a ton of money and--and this is a point few plaintiffs ever recognize--subject you and your family to intrusive, expansive discovery requests from HIS attorney. You WILL spend more time than you really want to thinking about, working on, and talking about your case. Regardless of your original intent, the time and money that you will invest in this effort WILL make you increasingly desirous of a financial settlement, if only to make the whole thing objectively worthwhile. Finally, the involvement of the legal system makes it much more difficult for either side to disengage and go its separate way.
4. Whatever you do, please ask your attorney to go over the law with you, explain the theory of your case in detail, and have a full and frank discussion about its quality. If you can afford it, get a second opinion. I am aware of far too many attorneys that will tell you that your case is a star, happily take your money for a retainer, do little or nothing for you, and then inform you a year later that you didn't have much of a case.
Finally, I must re-urge my policy objection to simply filing suit. One of the saddest results of liberalism in America is our country's increasing reliance on government and the legal system to solve our problems.
So long as there are peaceful ways to resolve disputes other than through the courts, they should be pursued. I don't think you've explored all your options yet, but that's a point on which we probably disagree.
RS,
Is this sort of thing the norm nowadays?
Not if I can help it. I was also shocked.
Jon,
1. I don't bluff.
(If I did, where would my credibility be? --making public commitments of taking legal action as a bluff? That's crazy.)
2. The damage is to opportunities reasonably lost. I have applications in for jobs that make the $500,000 a lowball estimate).
3. Some goods are not tangible.
4. I have made the initial estimate of the case. It will proceed to the best capabilities of my attorney for a rate that is more than sufficient to achieve a conclusion.
I have endeavored to give Wally et al. every opportunity to mitigate the litigation. The ball is in his court. That said, I did not receive an apology today so now there is an increasing cost to any settlement. I would estimate each day in the thousands. We will see what the attorney says. I could be high or low.
Now really, this is not that complicated. All Wally et al. needed to do was issue an apology and retract the false accusations. He could do that in five minutes (15 if he types slow.)
Paul:
What *has* your advisor and other superiors said to you. I am having trouble of keeping track of that part. As a prof and a grad advisor, I am looking on this with great concern.
Bill,
I'll save that for Court if it becomes an issue. The case for libel relies on the published comments, i.e. the accusation that I sent threatening emails. I would prefer to keep them out of this.
Slandering me to the advisors simply demonstrates malicious intent as far as the primary case goes.
Common law rule of libel (not necessarily the applicable rule in your jurisdiction) is you need to show damages unless damages are presumed, which they are for accusations of (a) criminal conduct; (b) gross sexual impropriety; (c) "loathsome disease" (which is really (b) restated, since it only applies to syphilis etc.); and (d) professional misconduct. I know you think you've got (a) nailed down, but look at that statute again; it applies to ransoming kidnaped persons, threats to kidnap, and extortion. (Maybe there's another statute somewhere, but generally threatening to do something that someone has a legal right to do isn't a "threat" punishable by law.)
In sum, I really don't think you've got a solid case for any action here. (You mention "RTPs" but I sadly dont' know what that refers to.) Defamation contains another vein, commonly called "public disclosure of private facts" (or words to that effect), that might help you, but you may have poisoned that well by putting this on the web yourself.
In any event, if you're quite serious about this, I strongly recommend you consult a lawyer and listen to his or her advice seriously---especially if, as I suspect, the advice is to drop it, that you take that seriously even in the face of your (understandable) outrage over recent events.
Commenting by HaloScan
