Attorney Limandri Demands Retraction and Apology from Sinclair Community College Prof Kate Geiselman – Author of Libelous Salon.com Article against LaBarbera

Video of talk confirms LaBarbera did not say what Geiselman and Salon.com allege

THE LIES OF THE LEFT: Above is the headline for the Salon.com hit-piece by Sinclair Community College writing professor Kate Geiselman, who fabricated a quotation and attributed it to AFTAH President Peter LaBarbera. Dozens of students, apparently led by liberal SCC professors, walked out on LaBarbera as he began his April 9 talk at the college–but he never reacted by saying, “You’re leaving? Are you effing [read: a substitute for the F-word] kidding?” A videotape of the walkout, and testimony by firsthand witnesses, confirm that Geiselman’s account is bogus.  Click on graphic to enlarge.

Below is the demand letter sent yesterday by pro-family attorney Chuck Limandri to Kate Geiselman, the Sinclair Community College (Dayton, OH) writing prof who fabricated an outright lie about my SCC talk in an article in the liberal online magazine Salon.com. I was invited to speak on April 9 by the school’s Traditional Values Club–which (I later learned) is despised by a cabal of leftist profs at SCC. Note that Limandri’s letter was also sent to Salon editor Cindy Jeffers. We cannot allow the Left to libel and slander us at will with zero consequences. More coming on this. Thanks.–Peter LaBarbera, AFTAH

Kate Geiselman’s libelous SALON article: http://www.salon.com/2014/04/16/%E2%80%9Cyou%E2%80%99re_leaving_are_you_effing_kidding%E2%80%9D_an_anti_gay_bigot_gets_humiliated/

YouTube video of staged walkout of LaBarbera’s talk at Sinclair CC: http://youtu.be/hxxMiyhxXzo

_____________________________________

Letter by Charles Limandri to Kate Geiselman and Salon.com editor Cindy Jeffers:

———- Forwarded message ———-

From: [Charles Limandri] [e-mail addresses redacted]
Date: Fri, May 9, 2014 at 8:40 PM
Subject: LaBarbera v. Geiselman
To: [Kathryn Geiselman]
Cc: [Cindy Jeffers, Salon.com]

Dear Ms. Geiselman:

Please be advised that the undersigned has been retained by Peter LaBarbera with respect to a potential claim for defamation against you. As you know, you falsely accused Mr. LaBarbera of using profanity at a talk that he gave at Sinclair Community College on April 9, 2014. The article in which you made that false and defamatory statement is here: http://www.salon.com/2014/04/16/%E2%80%9Cyou%E2%80%99re_leaving_are_you_effing_kidding%E2%80%9D_an_anti_gay_bigot_gets_humiliated/. A Youtube video of the staged walk-out that you organized of Mr. LaBarbera’s presentation is here: http://youtu.be/hxxMiyhxXzo. The audio on the two minute video makes it perfectly clear that Mr. LaBarbera did not utter the unprofessional and defamatory words that you attribute to him. This has been confirmed by multiple witnesses who were in immediate proximity to Mr. LaBarbera during his entire presentation. You further falsely accused Mr. LaBarbera of being “a person who makes his living telling lies” in the internet posting attached above. You did so even though you did not even have the decency to listen to his remarks before publicly excoriating him.

In Ohio, libel is defined as a false and malicious publication made with the intent to injure a person’s reputation or expose him to public hatred, contempt, ridicule, shame or disgrace, or to affect him adversely in his trade or profession. Becker v. Toulmin (1956), 165 Ohio St. 549; Cleveland Leader Printing Co. v. Nethersole (1911), 84 Ohio St. 118. Pursuant to Ohio law, a publication which of itself reflects upon the character of a person by bringing him into public ridicule, or which affects him injuriously in his trade or profession is libelous per se. Westropp v. E. W. Scripps Co. (1947), 148 Ohio St. 365; The Cleveland Leader Printing Co. v. Nethersole (1911), 84 Ohio St. 118. Therefore, the publication of a false statement ascribing to another conduct, characteristics or a condition incompatible with the proper conduct of his lawful business, trade or profession is libelous per se and damages are presumed. Landrum v. Dombey (1971), 30 Ohio App. 2d 200, 202. “A statement that someone is a liar is clearly one which would tend to injure a person’s reputation, and courts have considered such statements to be defamatory on their face”. Dillon v. Waller, 1995 Ohio App. LEXIS 5860, 12, 1995 WL 765224 (Ohio Ct. App., Franklin County Dec. 26, 1995); See also, Dale v. Ohio Civil Serv. Employees Ass’n, 57 Ohio St. 3d 112, 117, 567 N.E.2d 253, 258, 1991 Ohio LEXIS 178, 16, 136 L.R.R.M. 2898 (Ohio 1991).

By your false and defamatory statements you have maliciously sought to injure Mr. LaBarbera in his reputation and to expose him to public hatred, contempt, ridicule, shame or disgrace. You have also sought to injure him in his trade or profession. We hereby demand that you issue a public retraction of, and a public apology for, your false and defamatory statements made against Mr. LaBarbera. If you and Salon.com do not do so within ten (10) days from the date of this e-mail, then we will take all necessary steps to protect Mr. LaBarbera’s rights including bringing a lawsuit against you and Salon.com for compensatory and punitive damages. Please place any homeowner’s insurance carrier and professional liability carrier that you may have on notice of this claim. Such liability insurance may be available to satisfy this claim if you are a member of a teacher’s union. We look forward to your response or the response of your legal representative within the next ten days.

Sincerely,

Charles S. LiMandri

Board Certified Civil Trial Advocate
National Board of Trial Advocacy

******************************
Charles S. LiMandri, Esq.
President and Chief Counsel
Freedom of Conscience Defense Fund
P.O. Box 9520
Rancho Santa Fe, CA 92067

www.consciencedefense.org