IN RE: GILLARD V. OLD DOMINION UNIVERSITY AND SUSAN LASS (A Restatement on Tortious Interference and Misrepresentation) 27 May, 2014 Assistant Attorney General Earl Nance (Old Dominion University and Commonwealth for Virginia): This letter is to reasonably reply to the position of Old Dominion University (“University”) dated on 20 May, 2014 as it relates to the Code of Student Conduct (“Code”) and Susan Lass (“student”) on the matter against the Commonwealth of Virginia respectively. This investigation must not be dismissed because the Commonwealth of Virginia has jurisdiction over factual allegations that arise from a tortious inference claim by Ms. Gillard on behalf of her public figure name L. Jacqueline Gillard and her nonprofit organization THE GILLARD INSTITUTE, INC. While Old Dominion University vehemently argues that the “University and the Commonwealth are not proper parties” because the matters are between “your organization and the student,” Ms. Gillard relies on a range of legal and equitable theories under a joint tort liability action. No one disputes that a tort by definition is “any civil wrong or injury to a person or to property attributable to the violation of a duty owed to the injured party.” (See Pugsley v. Privette, 200 Va. 892, 263 S.E. 2d 69 (1980)) (“assault and battery”); (See Zayre of Va., Inc. v. Gowdy, 207 Va. 47, 147 S/E/ 2d 710 (166)) (“false imprisonment”); (See Barnes v. Moore, 199 Va. 227, 98 S.E. 2d 683 (1957)) (“trespass to property”); (See generally, Section 2:1 et seq.) For example, “if a man drives through a work zone while searching for a CD rather than watching the road, veers out of his land, and injures a VDOT road crew employee, the employee will most likely receive workers’ compensation. In addition, the injured employee would still be able to file a tort claim against the driver for damages.” (See Walsh v. Ramsdell, 51 Va. Cir. 393 (2000)). Surely, as the University declares that “it is not a matter in which the University can or will intervene” on the contentions of Ms. Gillard’s claim, Ms. Gillard argues that the University and the student are co-defendants, which hold joint efficiency and equitable liability under a physical personal injury tort, such an intentional infliction of emotional and mental distress (COUNT ONE); non-physical persona injury, such as annoyance, loss of enjoyment, and inconvenience (COUNT TWO); business-related, such as interference with contracts with public figure name L. Jacqueline Gillard and business relationships with public worldwide charity services at THE GILLARD INSTITUTE, INC. (COUNT THREE); and financial claims, such as loss of income, and/or loss of potential contracts (COUNT FOUR). There is sufficient evidence on public state and federal records to create a question of a right and a duty as a clear and direct violation onto L. Jacqueline Gillard and THE GILLARD INSTITUTE, INC. by the University and the student, which is determined by the common law in the Commonwealth of Virginia. While the University maintains no violation of the Code by the student, Ms. Gillard asserts that an actual and reasonable notice of a tortious interference find definitive proof of negligence by the University and student on public state, federal, and international records. STATEMENT OF FACTS 1. On or about May 2013, Ms. Gillard invited Ms. Lass to join her L. Jacqueline Gillard LinkedIn page. 2. On or about June 2013, Ms. Lass requested a Letter of Recommendation (LOR) from L. Jacqueline Gillard for her Susan Lass LinkedIn page. 3. On or about September 2013, Ms. Gillard later added Ms. Lass like a few others, as a courtesy, to her advisory group, summit, and meeting LinkedIn pages. 4. Ms. Lass participated initially, then failed to continue participation; and Ms. Gillard, subsequently, made administrative changes on or about December 2013 to her entire LinkedIn network, which includes L. Jacqueline Gillard and THE GILLARD INSTITUTE, INC. pages due to harassment, criminal stalking, and cyber-bullying by past LinkedIn members. Ms. Gillard removed members Susan Lass, Veronica Denise Woolfolk, and Maria Cinda Lopez Alvarado. After harassment, stalking, and cyber-bullying by Maria Cinda Lopez Alvarado on Google, LinkedIn, and Facebook, and misrepresentation by Brenda Martin on Facebook, Ms. Gillard does not write Letters of Recommendation (LOR’s), or offer referrals for employment options or support employment from any individual online without a criminal background check or employment history background check. In fact, upon such belligerence and conduct by these individuals, Ms. Gillard includes third-party interventions as verifiable witnesses on record as to uphold the integrity and probity with total transparency of her public figure name L. Jacqueline Gillard and her lauded international and national public charity organization THE GILLARD INSTITUTE, INC. 5. On or about December 2013, Ms. Gillard removed Ms. Lass from her L. Jacqueline Gillard LinkedIn committees, groups, and meetings, and requested that she removed all public posts from the Susan Lass LinkedIn pages, as follows: (a) The International Corporal Punishment Ban Policy Summit 2013-2015 meeting, (b) 2020 VISION: Children’s Health and Wellness Human Rights Campaign!, and (c) The International Corporal Punishment Ban Policy Summit 2013-2015 Executive National Advisory Committee (ENAC). 6. On or about January 14, 2014, Ms. Gillard served Ms. Lass her final written notice by In-box on LinkedIn and finally removed her from the L. Jacqueline Gillard LinkedIn page. 7. All committees, events, programs, summits, and meetings are administered, controlled, operated, developed, created, owned, and managed by Ms. Gillard under L. Jacqueline Gillard and THE GILLARD INSTITUTE, INC. 8. All participants are at-will and non-paid volunteers, who are neither employees, nor paid contractors. All volunteers are held to the overall life-long integrity and probity with total transparency under the penalty of perjury, Code of Ethics, and Rules of Professional Conduct as Ms. Gillard, L. Jacqueline Gillard and THE GILLARD INSTITUTE, INC., and all other entities within its affiliation and purview. 9. Ms. Lass, as a doctoral candidate at Old Dominion University, is neither a volunteer or advisory member, nor an employee or participant on any committee and project affiliation owned or operated by L. Jacqueline Gillard and THE GILLARD INSTITUTE, INC. to-date. 10. Due to tortious interference to-date by Old Dominion University and Susan Lass, Ms. Gillard prepares a civil lawsuit in the Commonwealth of Virginia in Norfolk against Old Dominion University and Susan Howard Lass on or about July 31, 2014. RATIONALE FOR STANDARD OF DUTY Under the rationale for a standard of duty for the Commonwealth of Virginia, relating to any tort law claim, the Code states, as follows: “The following are necessary elements of proof that an injury [or death] resulted from the failure of a [health care] provider to follow the accepted standard of care: (a) the [health care] provider failed to exercise that degree of care, skill, and learning required or expected of a reasonable, prudent [health care] provider . . . in the same or similar circumstances.” (See W. VA. CODE, Section 55-7B-3(1994); (See VA. CODE ANN., Section 8.01-581.20 (Michie 1992)) (“standard of care by which the acts or omissions are to be judged shall be that degree of skill and diligence practiced by a reasonably prudent practitioner in the field of practice or specialty in this Commonwealth.”). While the above-referenced rationale is applicable for health care providers such as physicians and/or nurses, a veteran lawyer and a post-graduate doctoral candidate are held to exercise a higher standard of care than an average layperson. For example, when dealing with issues concerning the maintenance, design, and construction of highways, a highway engineer has the duty to exercise the knowledge and skill of a reasonable and competent engineer, rather than the skill and knowledge of a mere average person. (See Spainhour v. B. Aubry Huffman & Associates, 237 Va. 349, 377 S.E. 2d 615, 619 (1989)) (“Persons engaged in activities that require expertise or other technical knowledge are held to a higher degree of care.”); (See Mitchell v. Hadl, 816 SW. 2d 183, 185 (Ky. 1991)) (“requiring ‘degree of care and skill which is expected of a reasonable and competent practitioner’”); (See Bryan v. Burt, 486 S.E. 2d 536, 539 (Va. 1997)); (emphasis added). That is, a standard of duty or care requires, as follows: 1. There must be a duty of care or a “special relationship” between the plaintiff and defendant; 2. Representation (“Susan Lass’ Projects Page on LinkedIn”) in question must be untrue, inaccurate, or misleading; 3. Defendant (“Old Dominion University and Susan Lass”) must have acted negligently in making said misrepresentation; 4. Plaintiff (Ms. Gillard) must have relied on a reasonable manner, on said negligence and misrepresentation; and 5. Reliance must be so detrimental to plaintiff (Ms. Gillard, L. Jacqueline Gillard, and THE GILLARD INSTITUTE, INC., The International Corporal Punishment Ban Policy Summit 2013-2015 meeting, 2020 VISION: Children’s Health and Wellness Human Rights Campaign!, and The International Corporal Punishment Ban Policy Summit 2013 – 2015 Executive national Advisory Committee (ENAC)”) in the sense damages result. (See Spainhour v. B. Aubry Huffman & Associates, 237 Va. 349, 377 S.E. 2d 615, 619 (1989)); (See Laughon & Johnson, Inc. v. Burch, 222 Va. 200, 278 S.E. 2d 856 (1981)) (“A subcontractor performed blasting pursuant to contract with state while carrying out roadwork on state property. The vibration and concussion from the blasting caused cracks to develop in the homes of person living next to the state property. The subcontractor committed no negligence. The subcontractor is liable, if plaintiff’s can show that blasting caused cracks.”) (emphasis added). I. BACKGROUND A. LISA J. GILLARD IN RELATIONS TO L. JACQUELINE GILLARD AND THE GILLARD INSTITUTE, INC. Founded in 1997, THE GILLARD INSTITUTE, INC. is an international and national public charity organization that focuses on arts, education, mental health reform, and human rights activism. Ms. Lisa J. Gillard is the Founder, Chairman, CEO, and Executive Director at THE GILLARD INSTITUTE, INC., Building Bridges Connecting Lives Commentary, The International Corporal Punishment Ban Policy Summit 2020, International Corporal Punishment Ban Policy Summit 2020 Newsletter, and 2020 VISION: Children’s Health and Wellness Campaign, Programs and Summits. Other programs include Women Writing Down Legacies Series and SPEAK! (Students Preparing Education As Key!) Ms. Lisa J. Gillard also does business as (d/b/a) L. Jacqueline Gillard and also does business as (d/b/a) THE GILLARD INSTITUTE, INC. Ms. Gillard is the principle authorizing agent. All volunteer members are by invitation only to all sites, such as Facebook, LinkedIn, Manta, and Twitter. These at-will volunteers are subject to changes with or without notice, depending on the nature of circumstances, except for good faith and reasonable notices to all advisory team members. Upholding integrity and probity with total transparency in accordance its mission, communications are subject to public disclosures, except for meetings due to strict security due to harassment, stalking, and cyber-bullying by past kin, online users, and public bystanders. B. OLD DOMINION UNIVERSITY AND SUSAN LASS The College of William and Mary, which is the second oldest university in the United States, is the founder of Old Dominion University in 1930. A four-year institution prides itself on educating teachers and engineers. While the expansion of research and teaching covets a multicultural community, Old Dominion University is determined to approach problem-solving from eminent scholarship and strategic partnerships with government, business, industry, organizations, and the arts. Susan Howard Lass is a doctoral candidate in the College of Education, Educational Leadership Program. Under the Code of Student Conduct, Section VI of the Code may be applied to conduct that takes place whenever “a person has a continuing relationship” with the University “as a student.” Under Section VI. K of the General Provisions, Part K “Online” Conduct reads, as follows: “Students are cautioned that they be subject to the student conduct system for behavior occurring only, such as harassment delivered by email, or acts of bullying or discrimination posted in video form or on gossips sites accessed through University computing resources. Students must also be aware that “information posted” on blogs, webpages, social networking sites as Twitter and Facebook, or other online postings are “in public sphere,” and “not” private. (emphasis added). These postings can be subject to student allegations of Code violations, if information supporting the existence of a Code violation is posted online. The University does not regularly monitor online activities, but “may take action if and when such information is discovered.” (emphasis added). II. REASONABLE INFERENCE TO STATE A CLAIM First, under the Tort Claims Act (“Act”) enacted in 1982, there is undeniably a reasonable inference to find the University and the student liable on the basis of intentional infliction of emotional and mental distress (COUNT ONE); annoyance, loss of enjoyment, and inconvenience (COUNT TWO); interference with contracts with public figure name L. Jacqueline Gillard and business relationships with public worldwide charity services at THE GILLARD INSTITUTE, INC. (COUNT THREE); and loss of income, and/or loss of potential contracts (COUNT FOUR). The Act reads, as follows: [T]he Commonwealth shall be liable for claims for money on account of damage to or loss of property or personal injury or death caused by negligent or wrongful act or omission of any employee while acting within the scope of his employment under the circumstances where the Commonwealth, if a private person, would be liable to [the plaintiff] for such damages, loss, injury or death. (See VA. CODE ANN., Section 8.01-581.20 (Michie 1992)). In accordance to state and federal provisions, there is a relevant basis to find Old Dominion and Susan Howard Lass liable for immediate injunctive relief, intentional infliction of emotional and mental distress, actual damages, and restitution interests ranging from $250,000 to $10 million dollars for violations under the Tort Claims Act (“Act”). While the University maintains that “we understand your contention regarding Ms. Lass, the alleged misbehavior you have cited is beyond the University’s power to act,” Ms. Gillard argues that such pretexts by the University demonstrate a reasonable and plausible question on the fundamental applicability on Tort Law in the Commonwealth of Virginia as a uniform and impartial law to balance against governmental interest and the self-interest of the student versus equality and fairness of individual and business protection and property rights. Further, Ms. Gillard argues that Lass was not the only change by right and by duty to her volunteer Executive International and National Advisory Committee (EINAC), summit meetings, and 2020 VISION: Children’s Health and Wellness Human Rights Campaign groups over the course of a nine month period, and witnesses to these administrative (online) changes include: (1) Mrs. Magaline Harvey, Executive International and National Advisory Committee (EINAC) member at THE GILLARD INSTITUTE, INC., (2) Dr. Conrad Ulpindo, Executive International and National Advisory Committee (EINAC) member at THE GILLARD INSTITUTE, INC., (3) Dr. Karen L. Sanzo, Education Leadership Coordinator, Department of Education at Old Dominion University, and (4) Dr. Jane Bray, Dean Darden College of Education at Old Dominion University. Second, the University and the student obviously ignore the general premise under the Commonwealth of Virginia Tort Law and under the basis and rationale for the Code of Student Conduct at Old Dominion University, as follows: “Old Dominion University (“University”) is committed to fostering an environment that is: safe and secure; inclusive; and conducive to academic inquiry, student engagement, and student success. A community exists on the basis of shared values and principles. At Old Dominion University, student members of the community are expected to uphold and abide by standards of conduct that form the basis of the Code of Student Conduct (“the Code”). These standards are embodied within a set of core values that include integrity, fairness, respect, community, and responsibility. When student members of the community fail to exemplify these values, student conduct proceedings are used to assert, and uphold the Code. All students are expected to assume responsibility for their conduct, and to assume reasonable responsibility for the behavior of others. The student conduct process exists to protect the interests of the community, and to educate and respond to those whose behavior is not in accordance with our standards.” (See Part III of the Authority of No. 1530 of the Code of Student Conduct as revised on June 14, 2012, as Old Dominion University is governed by its Board of Visitors and supported by the Commonwealth of Virginia (2012)); (emphasis added). Perhaps, these promulgated rules and regulations under the Commonwealth of Virginia defy the standard duty of care under the Tort Law Act (“the Act”) due the overall operations and legal stance of the University and the “‘unreasonable interference with the interests of others’” by the student. (See Paul M. Schwartz, Privacy Firsts at Berkeley Law, SFGate, February 26, 2012; Smith, 198 Cal. Rptr. At 132 (“The law of torts is anything but static, and the limits of its development are never set. When it becomes clear that the plaintiff’s interests are “entitled to legal protection” against “the conduct of the defendant,” the mere fact that the claim is novel will not of itself operate as a bar a remedy . . . . The common threat woven into all torts is the idea of ‘unreasonable interference with the interests of others.’”) (citing WILLIAM L. PROSSER, LAW OF TORTS, Section 1, at 3--4, 6 (4th ed. 1971)); (emphasis added). In this instance case, in order to establish a tort claim, the plaintiff must establish the four elements, as follows: (1) duty, (2) breach of duty, (3) proximate cause, and (4) injury. (See Moskowitz v. Renaissance at Windsong Creek, Inc., 52 Va. Cir. 459 (2000)); (See Tennant v. Marion Health Care Found., Inc., 459 S.E. 2d 374, 393 (W.Va. 1995)) (“finding that erroneous instruction was not prejudicial as long as the instructions on the whole were accurate and fair.”); (See Howe v. Thompson, 412 S.E. 2d 212, 215 (W. Va. 1991)) (“allowing instruction that contained elements of both reasonability and custom.”). Here, Ms. Gillard argues that Part III of the Authority of No. 1530 of the Code of Student Conduct as revised on June 14, 2012, Old Dominion University is governed by its Board of Visitors and in fact supported by the Commonwealth of Virginia. (See Part III of the Authority of No. 1530 of the Code of Student Conduct as revised on June 14, 2012, as Old Dominion University is governed by its Board of Visitors and supported by the Commonwealth of Virginia (2012)); (emphasis added). Third, under the four elements of a tort claim, Ms. Gillard concludes, as follows: (1) duty: there was a special relationship between plaintiff (“Gillard” and “her public figure name L. Jacqueline Gillard and her public charity organization THE GILLARD INSTITUTE, INC.”) and defendant (“Lass”), in which Lass was a non-paid volunteer member to selected projects owned, controlled, created, managed, implemented, and operated under the authority and discretion of plaintiff (“Gillard”); (2) breach of duty: there was a breach of duty through Lass’ actions or failure to act because she did not meet the standard of care, integrity, probity, and responsibility required under the circumstances upon reasonable notice of administrative changes by Ms. Gillard on record to-date; (3) proximate cause: due to Old Dominion University and Lass’ negligence with untrue, inaccurate, and misleading project membership and/or affiliations with L. Jacqueline Gillard and THE GILLARD INSTITUTE, INC., Ms. Gillard has suffered great injury, such as intentional infliction of emotional and mental distress (COUNT ONE); annoyance, loss of enjoyment, and inconvenience (COUNT TWO); interference with contracts with public figure name L. Jacqueline Gillard and business relationships with public worldwide charity services at THE GILLARD INSTITUTE, INC. (COUNT THREE); and loss of income, and/or loss of potential contracts (COUNT FOUR); and injury: due to the negligence by Old Dominion University (“University”) and Susan Howard Lass (“the student”), Ms. Gillard’s damages are a direct result of negligence by Old Dominion University and Susan Howard Lass’s misconduct on record to-date. (See Laughon & Johnson, Inc. v. Burch, 222 Va. 200, 278 S.E. 2d 856 (1981)). While the University asserts that “Ms. Lass, according to the University’s review has not violated the University’s Code of Student Conduct, nor is it within the University’s power or prerogative to compel the student to make the edits on her LinkedIn page that you demand,” Ms. Gillard contends that the University, as the General Counsel and Assistant Attorney General for the Commonwealth of Virginia, and the student, a doctoral degree candidate in Education Leadership, are jointly liable for a tortious interference as an intentional act of great harm, irreparable damage, and injury onto Ms. Gillard, her public figure name L. Jacqueline Gillard and her public charity organization THE GILLARD INSTITUTE, INC. under the Tort Claims Act (“Act”) enacted in 1982 in the Commonwealth of Virginia. CONCLUSION Based on Old Dominion University and Susan Howard Lass’ position today, “the University and the Commonwealth are not parties to your dispute with Ms. Lass. The University does not believe that the Code of Conduct has been violated by the student regarding issues you have described in your emails. The information on the student’s LinkedIn pages is a matter strictly between your organization and the student.” Ms. Gillard, on the other hand, argues that General Counsel Earl Nance, who is also the Assistant Attorney General for the Commonwealth of Virginia and Lass, a doctoral candidate in Education Leadership, are grossly afoul with a wanton and reckless acts under a jointly liable tortious interference claim. (See Walsh v. Ramsdell, 51 Va. Cir. 393 (2000)). Here, the University and the student (1) violates the Torts Act statute and trusts of Ms. Gillard; (2) Ms. Gillard belongs to a class of persons for whose benefit the statute and/or rule was enacted by of State Registration Number 59907107 and FEIN Number 31-1591061; (3) harm occurs as a tort statute, which is designed to protect; and (4) tortious interference is the proximate cause of injury. (See Laughon & Johnson, Inc. v. Burch, 222 Va. 200, 278 S.E. 2d 856 (1981)); (See VA. CODE ANN., Section 8.01-581.20 (Michie 1992)). Specifically, as Ms. Gillard gave a good faith notice and reasonable notice to Lass on January 14, 2014 and Old Dominion University on April 25, 2014, the University and the student are jointly liable because (1) Ms. Gillard has ascertainable right in need for protection of her public figure name L. Jacqueline Gillard and her public charity organization THE GILLARD INSTITUTE, INC. and its projects and affiliations; (2) Ms. Gillard is continuously suffering irreparable harm by the University and the student; and (3) Ms. Gillard raises a fair question on her merits of equity and an immediate injunction because the four elements of a valid tort and/or tortious inference claim have been satisfied in the Commonwealth of Virginia. (See Lilly v. Brink, 52 Va. Cir. 182 (2000)). Concerns or questions, kindly contact me by email and/or in writing. We, therefore, look forward to meeting with you to settle this matter on or before July 31, 2014 in Norfolk, Virginia. Peace leadership like responsible leadership is only by human example. Warmest Regards, Executive Director L. Jacqueline Gillard (pronounced “Jillar”) Founder, Chairman, and CEO THE GILLARD INSTITUTE, INC. Civil and Human Rights Activist Disabled American and Zen Buddhist PO Box 805993 Chicago, Illinois 60680-4121 USA Cc: Honorable U.N. Commissioner Navanethem Pillay, U.N. Office for Human Rights Cc: Governor Pat Quinn, Governor for Illinois Cc: Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan, Attorney General for Illinois Cc: Governor Terry McAuliffe, Governor for Virginia Cc: District Attorney Gregory Underwood, District Attorney for Norfolk, Virginia Cc: Director Amanda Howie, Director for Communications City of Norfolk, Virginia Cc: President John R. Broderick, President at Old Dominion University Cc: Dr. Jane Bray, Dean Darden College of Education, Old Dominion University. FILE COPY [Note: All communications are made in good faith and not for the purposes of harm, harassment, delay, or evasion under the penalty of perjury, Code of Ethics, and Rules of Professional Conduct by law. As we operate under the highest levels of integrity and probity with total transparency, all communications are subject to public disclosures for all state and federal records. The document is an electronic.]
Posted on: Tue, 04 Nov 2014 01:15:56 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015