The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
$300K Settlement in Libel Lawsuit Over Allegations of "Stalking and Harassing" American Mensa Official
Further evidence that libel lawsuits, though not easy to win, can indeed sometimes yield substantial recovery; for the details on the deal, which I assume is being paid for by Mensa's liability insurance company, see here. Here's a summary of the undisputed facts, to give a sense of the underlying claim (in Levine v. American Mensa Ltd.):
(1) Mr. Levine was a member of American Mensa for thirty years up until 2008, when he was expelled from the organization. Mr. Levine objected to his expulsion from membership as unfair and unjustified.
(2) Since his expulsion in 2008, Mr. Levine has attended many of the yearly Mensa Annual Gatherings which occur in different cities across the United States.
(3) The events of this lawsuit relate primarily, but not exclusively, to the Mensa Annual Gathering that occurred at the JW Marriott Hotel in Indianapolis, Indiana in July 2018.
(4) During the week of July 4, 2018, Mr. Levine contends that authorized representatives of Mensa, including its Chairwoman LaRae Bakerink published statements, both written and oral, accusing Mr. Levine of "verbally abusing" multiple members, and of "stalking" and "harassing" a Mensa leader, staff and members during the 2018 AG.
(5) Mr. Levine alleges that to carry out a pre-meditated attempt to exclude him from the JW Marriott Hotel during the 2018 Annual Gathering, representatives of American Mensa orally and in writing informed hotel management that Mr. Levine was harassing, verbally abusing and stalking Mensa members who were in attendance, including Chairwoman LaRae Bakerink.
(6) Mr. Levine claims that on September 10, 2018, Chairwoman Bakerink repeated the alleged false accusation of "stalking" on MensaConnect, an American Mensa internet forum restricted to American Mensa Committee Members (the Mensa board of directors) and director Trevor Mitchell only.
(7) Levine alleges that on or after July 3, 2018, Mensa, through Chairwoman Bakerink, intentionally repeated and republished the false charge of stalking by Levine to other members of American Mensa, including allegations of a repeated history of stalking by Levine.
(8) Levine claims the statements were false because he did not engage in any harassment or stalking of American Mensa members or any other J.W. Marriot guests. Levine also alleges the statements were defamatory per se because he was accused of a crime: stalking.
(9) Prior to the 2018 Annual Gathering Mr. Levine created a website at www.mensaiscorrupt.org, which has garnered scant attention from the public.
Congratulations to John P. Atkins (Thompson Coburn LLP) and Alan E. Lubel, who represented Mr. Levine; my sense of the matter is that the settlement is indeed on balance a victory (given the difficulty of litigating libel claims), though I might be mistaken.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Outside of personal insult, what was the specific damage suffered by the plaintiff? Why is Eugene congratulating lawyers who intimidate and suppress speech. If he has endured damage, such as the loss of a job, loss of a membership in a meaningful club, not Mensa, being investiaged by a regulatory agency with expenses and emotional distress, why not sue the people who caused the damage, not the speaker?
I’m not sure here. The colloquial meaning of stalking can be broader than the legal definition. One of the means of stalking in common parlance is simply making yourself a pest by repeatedly trying to get into people who don’t want you - repeatedly trying to get a date with someone who repeatedly tells you no, repeatedly trying to get into someones apartment who doesn’t want you there, perhaps repeatedly tryimg to get into Mensa meetings when they’ve made clear you’re not a member and they don’t want you there. It doesn’t have involve conduct that’s legally threatening, being a pest and a nuisance may be sufficient for colloquial purposes.
I don’t know all the facts here. But it seems to me that Mensa might have a case that “stalking,” used colloquially, wasn’t libelous.
After all, stalk can just mean “pursue or approach stealthily,” as in a cat stalking a bird. It retains a colloquial meaning distinct from the legal one.
Perhaps, but the non-libelous colloquial meaning would not be a legitimate reason to have him barred from the hotel, so, I'm not buying that argument.
They can bar him from their meeting for any reason or no reason.
From their meeting, yes. But they went further and tried to get him completely barred from the Hotel where the meeting was taking place.
“Repeatedly trying to get INTO people who do not want you” is, indeed, a tort (and likely a crime!), just not libel.
(Sorry, couldn’t resist. Yes, an edit function would be nice.)
All right, let me see if I can fill in some of the factual blanks here. (Without going into detail, I have personal knowledge of many of the facts.)
Barry Levine had a personal dispute with a couple of other members of his local chapter (Atlanta) that resulted in each filing complaints against the other with the organization. Pursuant to Mensa's by-laws, a hearing was held, that essentially resulted in both sides having their wrists slapped and being told to play nice. IIRC, Levine was suspended for a year from membership in the local chapter, but could continue to attend Mensa events at any other local chapter during that time, the point of which was to separate the warring parties.
Levine responded by showing up at Mensa events with pamphlets and pickets about how corrupt and unethical and vile the organization is. Mensa ultimately expelled him. (The final straw was when he took the floor at an annual business meeting and said, "I just want everyone here to know that (former national chair) is a liar.") This is not unreasonable; a private organization can certainly decide that it doesn't need members disrupting events by picketing and protesting about what a terrible organization it is. And even if one thinks (as I do not) that Levine had some legitimate complaints about how things were handled, as with any other judicial system, there was a hearing and the loser just has to live with the results.
Not Barry. Every year Mensa has an annual gathering that normally attracts 3000-5000 or so members and is held at a resort or large hotel. Levine kept showing up for them. Since he wasn't a registered delegate he was unable to attend any of the functions or be in parts of the hotel that had been set aside for Mensa events. But he would get a room at the host hotel, sit in the lobby, usually with a T-shirt or sign about how Mensa done him wrong, and try to engage anyone who walked by in conversation about how Mensa had mistreated him.
This is the functional equivalent of a disbarred lawyer showing up at a bar convention. Or an ex boyfriend parking outside your house. I was on Mensa's board of directors for part of this, and there was some real worry about whether he might be mentally unbalanced and show up with a gun. Because who does that? Who keeps showing up at the annual convention of an organization that kicked you out for inappropriate behavior at events?
I have not been active in Mensa politics (except at the local level) for most of the past ten years, so I really don't know what transpired at the Indianapolis AG. But since I know the people involved, and since I know they have been receiving excellent legal advice throughout (did I mention Levine also sued -- unsuccessfully -- to try to get his membership back?) it's hard for me to imagine that anyone said anything that was actually defamatory. What most likely happened is that Mensa's lawyers advised the board to settle because there was no up side to going to trial. And Eugene is right; Mensa has good insurance.
And this is an example of one of the failures of the legal system. Someone who has spent the last twenty years being little more than a drain on resources is able to basically extort a settlement from an organization that really did nothing wrong. And, more likely than not, has now been empowered to keep draining resources. I hate to say it, but he's going to be a thorn in Mensa's side until the day he dies.
KryKry. You are saying MENSA and its lawyers suborned insurance fraud. They approved a settlement despite doing nothing wrong.
Compare to this. Some masked guys find the dude and smash his knees with bats. "Say another word, you're dead." Why can't the intelligent people of MENSA figure it out? The lawyer way is really stupid, costly, and just as illegal.
If you're suggesting that breaking people's knees is an acceptable way to resolve disputes, then we just disagree.
I know this type of person, his type of grievance, and his method of dealing with it. In fact most communities, large and small, probably have at least one. Your account lines up with my experience.
Thank you for answering my question of how one actually gets kicked out of MENSA.
I can't think of a bigger group of losers than purported geniuses who gather together.
Mensa meetings can be enjoyable, but boy, there are some few inflated egos running around the group.
It's probably human nature to think that any club that you can't get into is a bunch of losers, whether it's playing pro football, or getting into an Ivy League School, or lacking the political connections for a federal judicial appointment. Aesop called it sour grapes. If it's any consolation, there are other clubs I can't get into.
I wouldn't want to belong to a club that would have me as a member.
Groucho Marx
“Just because I’m dumber than them they think they’re smarter than me!”
-Prof. Hubert Farnsworth
Prof. Volokh, can you elaborate on why you think congratulations are appropriate here? From my reading of the complaint this looks like a pretty transparently meritless lawsuit, and the suggestion that the plaintiff is entitled to six figure damages seems risible. My reaction is that this is Exhibit N in the case for a robust federal anti-SLAPP statute, not a cause to celebrate the ambulance-chasing shakedown artists who enabled the plaintiff.
Prof. Volokh is possibly celebrating the money the lawyers made. Prof. Volokh. can ypu post the ti.e and costofthis case?
The expenses are not deductible. The plaintiff may gave to borrow money to pay the tax bill.
Even if there was a federal SLAPP statute, I doubt this case would be covered. It is not over a matter of public consern.
They are lawyers representing a client, and they got a good result for their client (a better result than I would have expected). Doesn't mean that what they did is good for society -- but I have to respect their success as professionals serving a client.
And this is why I get so irritated whenever I fall into the trap of having a serious conversation with a lawyer.
Being a successful lawyer required removing anything a normal person would recognize as a moral compass.
Wow. They made society worse but good for them in representing their client!
I have a better formulation. Mensa’s lawyers failed, at the expense of the insurance company’s shareholders/members.
Yeah, lawyers have no moral compass, but insurance companies are paragons of virtue. "Good for society" is a pretty malleable and subjective standard.
"Doesn't mean that what they did is good for society -- but I have to respect their success"
Uh... You really don't.
Skimming the docket, they didn't even do any substantive work after filing the complaint (they didn't even respond to the motion for summary judgment or motion in limine, for instance). I'm not sure how much respect I need to accord them for gauging how to extract a nuisance settlement from an insurance company, and I certainly don't think it's anything worthy of celebration. If anything, I would think that disappointment that the insurer didn't heed Kipling's warning about Dane-geld would be in order.
I noticed you just started doing this too and it does seem both unnecessary and in bad taste. And will tend to suggest you support the cause itself unless you put a caveat on it every single time.
Mensa members often have a higher prevalence of Axis II disorders. Their personality traits get in the way of excelling in society which is to say, there is more to success than having a high IQ.
I dunno about that.
Perhaps people with personality flaws would be homeless if they weren’t smart?
Prof. Volokh does not always congratulate the lawyers in a speech-related case, but when he does, it is . . . interesting.
Speaking of interesting . . . meet Doug!
Apparently a mere 168 on the LSAT qualifies you for MENSA. Pshaw! Can't be much of a genius society that would let me in by a mile.
M L — I attended a college where every section leader for every lecture class (perhaps with a few exceptions I didn't know about) was at least a post-doc. One day in a section which had students that included freshmen, one of those put the question to a section leader who encouraged first name address (he was an ordained minister, and an Assistant Professor of History, about to be tenured; he would later become a university president), "Why don't teachers with PhDs get called, "Doctor so and so?"
The relaxed reply, "Why do that? Everybody knows we wouldn't be here without the PhD."
It reminded me, for some reason, of Vince Lombardi's advice against end zone celebrations, "Try to act like you've done it before."