That's All She Wrote: Donna's Defamation Case
The Director of Communications for Dinah’s Voice, Donna Provencher, is currently being sued for defamation. Here’s how she describes the suit (in a crowdjustice fundraiser she entitled "Victim advocate sued for 'defamation' for speaking up for rape victims"):
CASC and its allies have begun a campaign interpreting this suit as demonstrating the problem with the system: an advocate for victims is--some say--being frivolously sued to silence her and prevent her from demanding justice for victims. In any case, they concur that this suit is a direct result of her “speaking out for victims.”
Adele Smith (President of CASC, posting to a Youcaring fundraiser): “In the course of speaking out in defense of rape victims and advocating for change at Christendom College among other Catholic institutions, Donna has been served with a civil claim for money . . . “
Mary Pezzulo at Steel Magnificat,
Simcha Fisher (on her Facebook wall):
Mark Shea on his Facebook page, attributing it to Simcha Fisher, “Victim advocate Donna Provencher is being sued. The case has no merit; it’s just intended to intimidate and harass her and others who speak up for victims of sexual violence.”
At this point it worth pausing to notice a couple things:
First, notice how confident these writers are in their accusations against the plaintiff. Who is being smeared and vilified?
Second, notice that these posts are--as one comes to expect from CASC and its allies--heavy on conclusions, moral outrage, and self-righteous virtue-signaling, while being conspicuously light on the verifiable facts necessary to sustain them.
What, for example, did Donna say that the plaintiff argues was defamatory?
Or as one commenter on Simcha’s wall post wondered: if Simcha’s description of the case is accurate, “How is this not a SLAPP lawsuit? It seems like it should [be] stricken.” Wouldn’t any reasonable judge immediately dismiss the case, if it really is baseless?
Third, one cannot help but wonder whether these people who are so vocally insisting on Donna's innocence in the matter actually know any of the relevant facts of the case (Do they know what she actually said? Have they actually read the complaint?), or whether they are just blindly taking Donna at her word that the case is without merit.
Without having seen the complaint (we have seen the basic facts of the case: Donna provides enough details in her plea for money to see what is going on), let’s look at some public facts:
Here is a portion of what got said on the the alumni group thread that Donna mentions. This portion of the discussion began with Donna using the terms “rape apologist” and “rape enabler” to describe alumni who were defending the college and insisting that the college needed to follow due processes in handling accusations of rape [a partial transcription of this exchange is available at the bottom of this post]:
There are a couple points to make.
The first is actually orthogonal to the purpose of the post, but we can’t help mention it: Donna Provencher--one of the founders of CASC and a current leader in Dinah’s Voice--evidently considers anyone who insists on due process in handling rape accusations a “rape apologist.” It seems to us that this is rather telling.
Second, she named names.
After she named names, she doubled-down when it was pointed out to her that indiscriminately repeating rumors of such serious allegations (to say nothing of her implying that they were all true) was unjust. True, the post was--as she mentions in her fundraiser--taken down, but not (as she claims) within five minutes, and when it was taken down it was only over her protests.
Finally, of course, Donna is right in this: truth is an absolute defense against libel. But apparently, someone she named is disputing the truth of her claims.
When the court renders its decision, we’ll learn a lot, not just about Donna’s integrity as an advocate, but also about the integrity of the CASC leadership and many of CASC’s supports, who have unquestioningly taken Donna’s side in this matter, going so far as to say, in some cases, that the whole suit is without merit and was invented to silence her advocacy.
They have gone to the hilt for her and said some pretty nasty things about the plaintiff.
Who is smearing whom? Who is actually concerned with exposing the truth and seeing justice served?
Hopefully the courts will help us answer these questions sooner rather than later.
Read the rest story in Part II: NCR Carries Donna's Water.
----
Partial transcription of photos above:
[Anon Alum. #1]: Donna Provencher [tagged], the college is bound to follow due process before disciplining a student. If they don’t, they’re violating natural justice, and also rendering themselves liable to money damages. Here [i.e., in Adele Smith’s case], it seems they found a way to expel this guy even though they couldn’t sustain the actual rape charge. Sounds like they were pretty active in addressing the situation.
. . .
Donna Provencher: [Anon. Alum. #1 tagged] People who . . . suggest that [name redacted], [name redacted] (who was expelled for rape and is still in this group), whichever [last name redacted] kid raped several women (before my time and I didn’t know him), [name redacted], [name redacted], [name redacted], and others were unjustly accused and the women were “not credible,” . . . are in fact, enabling such behavior to continue and for there to be more of the same.
[Anon. Alum. #2]: Donna Provencher [tagged] Jesus, Donna Provencher - you do understand that libel is still a thing, right? Be careful about naming names (especially names for which you have zero legal proof for ...).
. . .
[Anon. Alum. #3]: Donna Provencher [tagged], you crossed a line here (and earlier) by naming names as you casually but confidently repeated accusations, of which your knowledge is at best second hand.
And to be clear: I am in no way making a judgement about the merits of the individual allegations.
[three group admins tagged] I think this discussion of a sensitive and important issue has descended to an unhelpful point, and merits admin intervention.
Donna Provencher: [Anon. Alum #3 tagged] That those allegations occurred about those individuals is indisputable. Truth is an absolute defense against libel.
Frankly, the whole #metoo movement happened because naming names is the only way change happens.
Donna Provencher: I would advise Christendom College to think long and hard about closing this discussion, as it will seem to be continuing its own coverup of allegations and suppressing students from speaking freely about their own experiences.
When the Fisher story broke [ed: about Adele, we covered this piece here], in a closed Christendom alumni group with alumni from all over the country, many of the alumni were behaving in a rape-apologist fashion, mocking and deriding the rape victims, saying they hoped someone would sue Simcha Fisher, and defending the school's inaction. . . . In the course of speaking up on behalf of victims in the Facebook group, one alumnus [sic] has decided to sue me for "defamation" . . . In the course of speaking out in defense of rape victims and advocating for change at Christendom College among other Catholic institutions, I have been served with this civil claim for money . . . I have been publicly vilified, smeared, attacked repeatedly with all sorts of accusations and abuse from all corners. After all of this, I have now been hit with this lawsuit over a Facebook comment defending victims that was up for approximately five minutes. . . . Please, please help, and please enable me to keep speaking up for campus rape victims and other voiceless people.
CASC and its allies have begun a campaign interpreting this suit as demonstrating the problem with the system: an advocate for victims is--some say--being frivolously sued to silence her and prevent her from demanding justice for victims. In any case, they concur that this suit is a direct result of her “speaking out for victims.”
Adele Smith (President of CASC, posting to a Youcaring fundraiser): “In the course of speaking out in defense of rape victims and advocating for change at Christendom College among other Catholic institutions, Donna has been served with a civil claim for money . . . “
Mary Pezzulo at Steel Magnificat,
Donna has been served with a civil lawsuit that seems tailor-made to ruin her. She’s being sued for “defamation” by a Christendom College alumnus whom [sic] I assume calls himself pro-life but apparently has no problem using the courts to attack a pregnant woman just to shut her up and make her suffer. . . . if she loses this suit, it’s going to scare other victims and advocates into silence.
Simcha Fisher (on her Facebook wall):
Donna Provencher is being sued by a Christendom alum. He says she owes him $25,000 for alleged "defamation" in a Virginia court (she lives 1600 miles away) for sticking up for campus rape victims.Adele Smith comments on Simcha’s post, “Maybe I should sue him for his *actual* defamation. Except I'm not an asshole, so...”
There is no merit to his claim. She did not defame him, and she certainly didn't cost him any money. For reference: The guy suing Donna for defamation is the same guy who said Adele Chapline Smith made up her rape to cover up bad grades.
The purpose of the lawsuit is to harass and intimidate her, and to discourage further advocacy for rape victims. It is a frivolous lawsuit, but Donna can't defend herself without paying a lawyer.
. . .
I have full confidence in Donna's word.
Mark Shea on his Facebook page, attributing it to Simcha Fisher, “Victim advocate Donna Provencher is being sued. The case has no merit; it’s just intended to intimidate and harass her and others who speak up for victims of sexual violence.”
At this point it worth pausing to notice a couple things:
First, notice how confident these writers are in their accusations against the plaintiff. Who is being smeared and vilified?
Second, notice that these posts are--as one comes to expect from CASC and its allies--heavy on conclusions, moral outrage, and self-righteous virtue-signaling, while being conspicuously light on the verifiable facts necessary to sustain them.
What, for example, did Donna say that the plaintiff argues was defamatory?
Or as one commenter on Simcha’s wall post wondered: if Simcha’s description of the case is accurate, “How is this not a SLAPP lawsuit? It seems like it should [be] stricken.” Wouldn’t any reasonable judge immediately dismiss the case, if it really is baseless?
Third, one cannot help but wonder whether these people who are so vocally insisting on Donna's innocence in the matter actually know any of the relevant facts of the case (Do they know what she actually said? Have they actually read the complaint?), or whether they are just blindly taking Donna at her word that the case is without merit.
Without having seen the complaint (we have seen the basic facts of the case: Donna provides enough details in her plea for money to see what is going on), let’s look at some public facts:
Here is a portion of what got said on the the alumni group thread that Donna mentions. This portion of the discussion began with Donna using the terms “rape apologist” and “rape enabler” to describe alumni who were defending the college and insisting that the college needed to follow due processes in handling accusations of rape [a partial transcription of this exchange is available at the bottom of this post]:
There are a couple points to make.
The first is actually orthogonal to the purpose of the post, but we can’t help mention it: Donna Provencher--one of the founders of CASC and a current leader in Dinah’s Voice--evidently considers anyone who insists on due process in handling rape accusations a “rape apologist.” It seems to us that this is rather telling.
Second, she named names.
People who . . . suggest that [name redacted], [name redacted] (who was expelled for rape and is still in this group), whichever [last name redacted] kid raped several women (before my time and I didn’t know him), [name redacted], [name redacted], [name redacted], and others were unjustly accused and the women were “not credible,” . . . are in fact, enabling such behavior to continue and for there to be more of the same.
After she named names, she doubled-down when it was pointed out to her that indiscriminately repeating rumors of such serious allegations (to say nothing of her implying that they were all true) was unjust. True, the post was--as she mentions in her fundraiser--taken down, but not (as she claims) within five minutes, and when it was taken down it was only over her protests.
Finally, of course, Donna is right in this: truth is an absolute defense against libel. But apparently, someone she named is disputing the truth of her claims.
When the court renders its decision, we’ll learn a lot, not just about Donna’s integrity as an advocate, but also about the integrity of the CASC leadership and many of CASC’s supports, who have unquestioningly taken Donna’s side in this matter, going so far as to say, in some cases, that the whole suit is without merit and was invented to silence her advocacy.
They have gone to the hilt for her and said some pretty nasty things about the plaintiff.
Who is smearing whom? Who is actually concerned with exposing the truth and seeing justice served?
Hopefully the courts will help us answer these questions sooner rather than later.
Read the rest story in Part II: NCR Carries Donna's Water.
----
Partial transcription of photos above:
[Anon Alum. #1]: Donna Provencher [tagged], the college is bound to follow due process before disciplining a student. If they don’t, they’re violating natural justice, and also rendering themselves liable to money damages. Here [i.e., in Adele Smith’s case], it seems they found a way to expel this guy even though they couldn’t sustain the actual rape charge. Sounds like they were pretty active in addressing the situation.
. . .
Donna Provencher: [Anon. Alum. #1 tagged] People who . . . suggest that [name redacted], [name redacted] (who was expelled for rape and is still in this group), whichever [last name redacted] kid raped several women (before my time and I didn’t know him), [name redacted], [name redacted], [name redacted], and others were unjustly accused and the women were “not credible,” . . . are in fact, enabling such behavior to continue and for there to be more of the same.
[Anon. Alum. #2]: Donna Provencher [tagged] Jesus, Donna Provencher - you do understand that libel is still a thing, right? Be careful about naming names (especially names for which you have zero legal proof for ...).
. . .
[Anon. Alum. #3]: Donna Provencher [tagged], you crossed a line here (and earlier) by naming names as you casually but confidently repeated accusations, of which your knowledge is at best second hand.
And to be clear: I am in no way making a judgement about the merits of the individual allegations.
[three group admins tagged] I think this discussion of a sensitive and important issue has descended to an unhelpful point, and merits admin intervention.
Donna Provencher: [Anon. Alum #3 tagged] That those allegations occurred about those individuals is indisputable. Truth is an absolute defense against libel.
Frankly, the whole #metoo movement happened because naming names is the only way change happens.
Donna Provencher: I would advise Christendom College to think long and hard about closing this discussion, as it will seem to be continuing its own coverup of allegations and suppressing students from speaking freely about their own experiences.
Wow what a great blog, i really enjoyed reading this, good luck in your work
ReplyDeleteFair Debt Collections Practices Act Lawyer