Giving Up My Sources
Ok, you win. You want my sources, LuLaRoe- you can have them. I'll help you find them. Open the enrollment computer. Close your eyes, swirl your finger in the air- and put your finger on the screen. Probably her. And the one below her. And four below that. Next, go into the queue. Repeat steps above. Then, their husbands. Yep- they send me stuff too. Why? Because these women are being told to drain savings. To take loans against their houses. To invest it all in LuLaRoe. Next, look at their sisters. Their mothers. After that, go to their uplines, coaches, trainers. No mentors have reached out to me yet- but I've got a stable of leaders starting to write in. Why? Because they can't lie to people anymore. That's what they are telling me. You know what keeps me going? The emails from active consultants thanking me for telling the stories. I just got one right now, as I'm writing this. You see- these women are scared and I wasn't the one that did it. They are hearing these directions from your uplines that go against their instincts. They are being told to ignore their gut. I'm sorry, but you don't tell a mother to ignore her intuition. That's a meat covered man dancing in a tiger cage. You see, this whole LuLathing happened by accident. There's no ploy or plot. I shared my experience, and people know me. They know I don't scare easily. Threats piss me off- they don't make me go away. Things like your mentors asking their downline to find me, my address... bitch, call me, I'll give you my address. Man in a meat suit entering a tiger cage. So let's talk about threats. I get them. Just because I think you *might* not realize it- but everyone knows who I am, and who you are. If anything happened to me, it'd be lights in Vegas pointing to whom would want to do me harm. So fuck off. Next, let's talk legalities. You see, this... here? What I'm doing right now- this is legal. It's a protected action afforded to citizens of the United States. I am invoking my right to free speech- which I encourage all consultants who feel they have been wronged to do. I encourage you to tell me about it, start your own blog. THERE IS POWER IN YOUR EFFORT. Nowhere do I encourage anyone to make anything up, embellish, etc. If you have a story and you want to share it, YOU CAN and SHOULD. I want to talk to you, the reader, the consultant about intimidation and fear. There are a few terms you need to be aware of: Freedom of Speech: Is just that. You have the right to say whatever you want. You get into trouble if what you are saying is KNOWINGLY misrepresented by you. If you believe you're speaking the truth and you have documents to validate those statements- you should be good. (Again, not an attorney here, and I'm speaking in theory. Your defense depends on the solidity of your evidence and the way you deliver the message.) A friend and mentor tells me to "stay circumspect" when delivering these screen shots. I try to, and if I express my opinion, I make it clear that it's my opinion. Get this. You are entitled to have and express an opinion. It's protected. "Hey, MommyGyver- you're a bitch!" Yep- you can say that. It's legal. I'm not going to cry over it. Understand that with freedom of speech, the oppositional party has the right to file suit. I would hope that the law would do its best to dismiss lawsuits of a frivolous nature, but you know... things get through the sieve, right? The burden of proof is on them to show that you intended to cause them harm. In the case of a whistleblower or a journalist, there are special provisions allowed for. So, if you want to say what you know- TELL EVERYONE WHY. Generally, if your goal is to screw or "stick it to" someone, I'd advise against that. Now, let's talk about lawsuits and legal intimidation. SLAPP- "Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation" (wikipedia) "is a lawsuit that is intended to censor, intimidate, and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense until they abandon their criticism or opposition. Such lawsuits have been made illegal in many jurisdictions on the grounds that they impede freedom of speech. The typical SLAPP plaintiff does not normally expect to win the lawsuit. The plaintiff's goals are accomplished if the defendant succumbs to fear, intimidation, mounting legal costs or simple exhaustion and abandons the criticism. In some cases, repeated frivolous litigation against a defendant may raise the cost of directors and officers liability insurance for that party, interfering with an organization's ability to operate. A SLAPP may also intimidate others from participating in the debate. A SLAPP is often preceded by a legal threat. And here's what's fascinating about California: "California has a unique variant of anti-SLAPP legislation. In 1992 California enacted Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16, a statute intended to frustrate SLAPPs by providing a quick and inexpensive defense.[6] It provides for a special motion that a defendant can file at the outset of a lawsuit to strike a complaint when it arises from conduct that falls within the rights of petition or free speech.
The statute expressly applies to any writing or speech made in connection with an issue under consideration or review by a legislative, executive, or judicial proceeding, or any other official proceeding authorized by law, but there is no requirement that the writing or speech be promulgated directly to the official body.
It also applies to speech in a public forum about an issue of public interest and to any other petition or speech conduct about an issue of public interest. To win on an anti-SLAPP (special motion to strike) motion, the defendant in the alleged SLAPP action must first show that the lawsuit is based on claims related to constitutionally protected activities, typically First Amendment rights such as free speech, and typically seeks to show that the claim lacks any basis of genuine substance, legal underpinnings, evidence, or prospect of success. If this is demonstrated then the burden shifts to the plaintiff, to affirmatively present evidence demonstrating a reasonable probability of succeeding in their case by showing an actual wrong would exist as recognized by law, if the facts claimed were borne out. The filing of an anti-SLAPP motion stays all discovery. This feature acts to greatly reduce the cost of litigation to the anti-SLAPP defendant, and can make beating the motion extremely difficult for the plaintiff, because they effectively must prove their case has at least a basis of visible legal merit and is not merely vexatious, prior to discovery.If the special motion is denied, the order denying the motion is immediately appealable. Defendants prevailing on an anti-SLAPP motion (including any subsequent appeal) are entitled to a mandatory award of reasonable attorney's fees. After an anti-SLAPP motion has been filed, a plaintiff cannot escape this mandatory fee award by amending its complaint. More than 300 published court opinions have interpreted and applied California's anti-SLAPP law.[39]California's Code of Civil Procedure § 425.17 corrects what the Legislature found to be abuse of the anti-SLAPP statute.[40] Signed into law on September 6, 2003, this statute prohibits anti-SLAPP motions in response to certain public interest lawsuits and class actions, and actions that arise from commercial statements or conduct. Section 425.18, signed into law on October 6, 2005, was enacted to facilitate SLAPP victims in recovering their damages through a SLAPPback (malicious prosecution action) against the SLAPP filers and their attorneys after the underlying SLAPP has been dismissed." (wikipedia) So what does that mean? Generally speaking, it means that naughty companies or entities that wish to bully public persons into shutting up against them can be reprimanded. There are laws against suits made against the public for the purpose of intimidating them. Hi. I'm not intimidated, because I'm just sharing the info I'm given. I would suggest anyone with a backbone begin to do the same. Next, let's talk about freedom of the press and shield laws. Freedom of the press is just that, an implied protection for members of the press that is a part of freedom of speech. Couple this with shield laws that protect a reporter's source- more eloquently outlined from wikipedia here: "A shield law is law that gives reporters protection against being forced to disclose confidential information or sources in state court. There is no federal shield law and state shield laws vary in scope. In general, however, a shield law aims to provide the classic protection of, "a reporter cannot be forced to reveal his or her source" law. Thus, a shield law provides a privilege to a reporter pursuant to which the reporter cannot be forced by subpoena or other court order to testify about information contained in a news story and/or the source of that information. Several shield laws additionally provide protection for the reporter even if the source or information is revealed during the dissemination of the news story, that is whether or not the source or information is confidential. Shield laws do not ensure absolute protection. Depending on the jurisdiction, the privilege may be total or qualified, and it may also apply to other persons involved in the news-gathering and dissemination process as well, such as an editor or a publisher." So this says that sources for a journalist are pretty protected. As I told the attorney for LLR yesterday, I'll provide them evidence of whatever they think I obtained nefariously- but, I'm not going to reveal who sent them. Some people panic when they get letters from lawyers. I'm really not interested in panicking over them, and if you speak up and share your stories here, your own blog, or wherever- you should be protected as long as you're telling the truth. For me, this isn't personal. I assume this is the first and last letter from their attorneys I will get, but I'm not the first or last one to get it. LuLaRoe needs to look at not WHO is talking to me, because it's safe to say that I've spoken to everyone. Friends of DeAnne, family, consultants. There is a lot I don't publish- yet. If LuLaRoe wants people like me to go away, they need to start by fixing the issues people like me have to read through on a daily basis. Like this one:
Why would an independent contractor need to file for leave of absence? Further, why would she be met with an answer from home office that LOAs are granted on a case by case basis? Stay tuned.