Terri Patraw and the Bystander Effect

Posted by Ryan Jerz 05/12/2009. Permalink | Shortlink | Tweet it!

My friend and colleague Bob Conrad just completed a four-part series (start here) on my legal battle last year with former UNR Soccer Coach Terri Patraw.

Bob starts out by introducing you to Kitty Genovese. From there he makes sure to say that what happened in my case wasn’t the same thing, but some of the same principles applied.

Bob’s case is made that when I had all of this stuff ongoing, nobody actually came to my defense. In a lot of ways, he’s exactly right. I don’t think it’s too appropriate for me to get into some of the details, but the quote from me in Part IV is how I really feel about how all of this went down. I lost a lot of respect for a few people I had respected greatly until that time.

The part of it that disappointed me the most is knowing that if I had gotten a little public support through the ordeal, I’d be willing to bet it would have gone away much faster than it did. Patraw couldn’t fight me on a contingency basis that I assume she fought the University with. She needed money to fight me (it was way too much if something she told me early on was true) and would have needed money to go after all the other people, too.

Before I get a whole lot farther into this, there are people that need to be thanked. They are:

  • Kevin Darby – Kevin took up the case pro bono and was instrumental in helping me keep my sanity. He’s incredibly intelligent and put together some pretty awesome ideas. I will owe Kevin for a long time just for making my life easier.
  • The USF Law Clinic and Jonathan Jaffe – USF offers free help to people involved in free speech cases. Jonathan Jaffe did a ton of research to help the case as part of his schooling, and the law clinic is awesome just for giving me the help.
  • Tim Casey – Tim was one of the original authors of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and helped me through issues of copyright. Before you freak out on him for being party to the DMCA, I can tell you he said it is definitely not being used as he and other authors intended it to be used.
  • Ed Lenert – Ed is both a lawyer and journalism professor, and he gave me some good advice early on. Unfortunately, it didn’t make any difference what I did as Patraw was intent on suing people no matter what. What Ed’s advice did, however, was ensure that I had done everything possible to be in the right.
  • Bob Conrad – Bob’s knowledge of the University’s cases was invaluable. He offered advice, we talked about things, and he became a friend through this. He knew what I was dealing with, and he carried much the same attitude as me at the time, so he was always a welcome phone call or email.
  • My family – This all scared my mom and Christy, but they hung in there. My kids, to this day, provide humor regarding the situation.

There are others that I didn’t name on purpose. I’m not sure what the context of their help was, so I don’t want to put them in there. They are journalists, lawyers, and professors. All of their advice was incredibly useful and simply assured me that I had done nothing wrong.

If I was a shameless self-promoter, I would look back on this ordeal and use it to promote my business. It’s a very good case for the business in that it all came out of my ability to own a search term. In this case, the term was “Terri Patraw.”

I originally wrote that she was threatening to sue people who were posting on a Wolf Pack mesage board about her. The discussion was regarding her lawsuit and its effect on the Athletics Department (full disclosure: I have been an independent contractor for the past two football seasons there—I direct the crew for the football stadium’s video board) and people were saying what can only be described as “mean” things about her. A user popped upo with the name “password5” and began threatening people with lawsuits if they didn’t stop talking about her. As is the case with many anonymous message boards, this only fueled more things directly calling this password5 out. And rightfully so. It was ridiculous what she was doing (she later told me on the phone that she was the user password5).

Because of that interaction on the message board, I wrote that I hoped the hearing officer who was to rule on whether she was fired for being a whistle blower knew that she was threatening people who had an opinion about her. It was tongue-in-cheek at best and not even all that funny. Well, Terri didn’t see it that way and sent me an email a couple of weeks later asking that I take it down. In that email she was very courteous and laid out her story that it was going to be difficult to regain her reputation. I thought about this for a while, but knew I had done nothing wrong. In fact, just because you’re having a hard time doesn’t mean that I can’t state my opinion on your jerky actions, so I respectfully said I would not be taking the post down.

That’s when I saw who Terri was. She immediately responded with threats of a lawsuit. It was like she knew exactly what she was going to do, but tried to play nice at first. I didn’t respond to that email or any of the subsequent emails either reaffirming her threat or trying to play nice and inviting me for coffee. It was bizarre. She either just wanted to have her side of the story heard or she was going to bring me to financial ruin. It just depended on the day.

During this time, I was reading her emails and working to find someone to defend me in case of a lawsuit. I really had no idea how the legal system worked. What I learned is that lawyers write letters and talk a little smack in the meantime. The letters were entertaining even if serious, and the legal maneuvering was interesting. Our defense against what she alleged was pretty logical, stating that she was subject to have opinions publicized about her because of her position in the public, her lawsuits against the University, and my rights as a free citizen. She countered with a claim that because I said Roger Clemens seemed to lie to Congress and I put her name under that headline I was calling her a perjurer and that made a case for defamation. It was ridiculous. They even claimed that she was not a public figure, which is also ridiculous. The twisting of actual facts was the most annoying, though. She and her lawyer, an east coast internet reputation “expert” named Domingo Rivera, either didn’t have a clue what I was writing, or they were deliberately twisting the context to fit her claims. It was an act of bullying at best and she deserved everything I had said about her to that point and more.

My final real post regarding the matter said that I was removing the posts—not due to any wrongdoing on my part, but because I was done fighting her. She had threatened more ridiculous things like lawsuits in other states where I’d have to go there to defend myself. It was just more of her twisting to make it tougher for me to keep it up. It makes me disillusioned at the law that she could get away with any of it. I guess she can because I ultimately caved. But because of the fact that I never actually did anything wrong nor signed into any agreement with her, I reserve the right to put everything back up whenever I feel like it. I’m compelled to do that now, but out of pity for her pathetic situation I haven’t done it. I’d really, really like to, though.

When the news broke last week that her lawsuits against the University had been dismissed, I was thrilled. In the ruling, the judge reaffirmed everything I had experienced, and everything I had been saying for more than a year. Not only did her case have no merit (not even enough to get to trial), but the judge seemed pretty clear that she has a pattern of trying to get her way through bullying, filing lawsuits, and manipulating the system to scare others into giving her her way. It’s bad form.

To top it off, the comments on the story of her suits being dismissed are completely out of control. I can’t say for sure, but I’d venture a guess that Terri is posting some of them there. Her history here, with using anonymous names to post defamatory things and to try to cause trouble, is documented. I actually think I may have been called to testify about what I found if this had gone to trial. My evidence is pretty solid, I think, so it couldn’t have been good for her. If you read those comments closely, there are things that are said that make me think there’s no way anyone but Terri is posting them. The writing style is the same as comments and email I have here. The “facts” that are being thrown around are the exact same things that were said to me. And the intense focus on specific things she never could get over is telling. If she reads this, it could probably help her greatly in figuring out how to disguise herself. But I don’t think someone as angry as she seems is capable of the kind of thought that would help her in the long run. She seems intent on ruining everything she once had even more than it is ruined already.

Throughout the events that took place, I was booted off of a web host, Joyent, because they didn’t feel it was worth it to help me in any way. It was the only host this site had seen and it was a company I would have loved to stay with. They were always good, pretty small, and I think could have gained from just a tiny bit of knowledge regarding the DMCA. Perhaps they did know how it worked, but they chose to toss me aside anyway. I found another great host, Site5, as a result, and they pointed me to the relevant course of action to stop the harassment on that end.

I have no idea what Kevin Darby thinks of me, but I could have either been one of the best or worst clients he has ever had. Either he thought I was awesome because I kept posting things that bolstered my defense against Terri Patraw, or he hated me because I kept posting things. He never told me to stop, though, and for that he deserves all the credit in the world. That makes me think he understood that the nature of this case was my rights as a citizen to state my opinion as long as I’m not telling lies. It became about free speech for me and he understood that and was willing to fight for it.

I think Bob did a nice job in demonstrating what happened with this case. I would have loved for anyone else to start talking about what I was experiencing, but it just never happened. I can live with that, but it was a real disappointment because I was very serious about the way blogs and bloggers could make things happen in society. This was a personal hell for a while, and we were scared at my house. Had anyone else taken a chance and said something, the ball could have started rolling toward making sure nobody else ever tried that kind of thing with a blogger around here. It didn’t, and I think the landscape, at least for me, has changed significantly because of that.

Ryan JerzRyan Jerz is an all-around good guy who shoots photos and video, builds websites, and works in athletics at the University of Nevada, Reno. He received a Masters Degree in 2007 from the University of Nevada, Reno's Reynolds School of Journalism.

Comments

Ben wrote:

I just wanted to pop in and thank you for the kind words about Site5. We are glad to hear we helped and please let us know if we can do anything else!

Thanks, Ben
Site5 CEO

May 12, 10:41 PM

lilpappy wrote:

Ryan, I am sorry that you had to go through this and for the lack of support you experienced from bloggers and from folks like myself, who just read the content of blogs and don’t generate our own. I can say that the bystander effect is apt in my case. I have thought of you many times since learning about your predicament. And, failed to comment or let you know that regardless of outcome, I felt that you were getting hosed. I have not liked it when I have gotten hosed and would like to think I am someone who can support others in similar situations. It is sobering to consider I ain’t all that and a bag of chips. I hope the ruling last week brings peace to your home and life.

May 13, 12:55 PM

LB wrote:

I’m responding to this because I respect you, not necessarily because I agree with you and Bob on everything. Before I accuse you of making faulty assumptions, I will say I assume I’m one of the bloggers you’re angry at. You did send me an e-mail about the situation last year, and the only thing I wrote about it was that we didn’t have enough information about Patraw’s case. (I also mentioned the “chilling effect” her actions had on blogging.)

With that said, I think your and Bob’s anger is based on some faulty assumptions:

1. People were sympathetic to Patraw. No, I was waiting for the facts to come out in court. You said, “Bob’s knowledge of the University’s cases was invaluable.” Your readers and other bloggers didn’t have access to that knowledge.

2. All bloggers are free speech activists. No, they’re not. I’m a free speech coward myself. That’s why I blog semi-anonymously.

3. All free speech bloggers are progressives, so they’re more obligated than others to stick up for you. Where did you/Bob get that idea?

4. A public outcry would have helped because a rational attacker would back off. Think about it.

5. People were interested in what was going on. I was, but I suspect a lot of people skipped the Patraw posts after a while.

6. Other bloggers would have responded to her initial threat the way you did. No, I would not have posted her e-mail or accused her of using fake identities or continued to write about her. In fact, I probably would have removed the original comment when she requested it and been grateful she hadn’t sued already.

7. Bloggers should set aside their normal “narratives” to take up your cause. That’s asking an awful lot.

8. The university case has been resolved. Her attorney did say they were going to appeal the judge’s decision.

I agree with you on some things. You learned the hard way that anyone can sue for anything whether they’re dead wrong or not and that the legal system can be used to bully people. I also agree that “little” people, like your former web host and myself, are reluctant to stick their necks out, especially for someone else.

Neither you nor Bob brought up the old story about the Nazis coming for everyone else and no one helped them, and when they came for the last person there was no one left to help him. I think it applies. I admit that the whole time I was reading about Patraw in your blog I was thinking, “I’m sure glad that’s him and not me,” and it never occurred to me to take up your defense. I apologize for that.

May 14, 01:39 PM

Bob wrote:

LB—

To clarify some points:

1. One person, Jake Highton, was mentioned as being sympathetic to Terri Patraw. The points in question had to do with Terri’s actions against Ryan and his blog irrespective of her allegations against the University. Ryan’s readers had access to the salient points, and still do despite what he removed from his site. Whatever insider knowledge I or Ryan may have had, has little to do with the points of my posts.

2. I’m not sure who made the assumption that all bloggers are free speech activists. All bloggers, however, benefit from the reinforcements (in America) to the First Amendment whether they appreciate this or not. I am also a bit of a free-speech coward.

3. Again, I’m not sure who assumed that all bloggers are progressives (see point 5, below). Progressives typically are the ones I would assume would jump on this kind of situation, but that’s not to say that bloggers are inherently progressive.

4. A public outcry would have contributed then to what is now widely known – that this woman is full of shit – and would have helped to popularize Ryan’s case.

5. Some people were interested in what was going on – most, likely, were not. My point is about those who on any other day would raise a flag about such an injustice but who sat by idly in this case.

6. I wouldn’t have posted her email either. I think it was wrong and told Ryan so at the time. He removed it. Nevertheless, the points about her harassment, bullying and abuse of the legal system to get content removed remain.

7. Free speech is also about the protection of speech we don’t like. It IS asking a lot to expect others to rush to our aid even when they may disagree. Those who do deserve high praise. My posts were about those who do not.

8. She likely will appeal. And she will lose. Again.

I’m glad you recognize the chilling effect Patraw’s actions – or those like her – can have. I considered drawing a Nazi/Lenin/Mao/Rawanda parallel but figured one closer to home was sufficient. The case I cited isn’t an appropriate comparison, but the principle behind both situations is similar.

I appreciate that you apologize. I’m just not sure why you posted here since most of these points seem to be about what I wrote, not Ryan. Finally, I’m not sure I would say I was angry about this situation; if anything, I’m now glad that some resolution has occurred and that we are able to openly talk about it.

-Bob

May 14, 08:43 PM

Ryan Jerz wrote:

LB,

I think Bob did well to answer the points that were relevant. I can say that if someone asked me who should be on the list (Bob’s list, not mine) of people who let me down, you’d not be on it. Up to that point, I put a lot of time and effort into making blogging work on a local level. Since that point, I haven’t done that. The lack of support I received was a major player in that. My post explains, at least in the last paragraph, why. I am not angry at anyone in particular, but I am disappointed in general. I got support, to be sure. It just came from other avenues. I had hoped it would come from the cadre of bloggers whose sites I was a big fan of. It didn’t.

May 14, 11:29 PM

Kevin Darby wrote:

Ryan:

Thank you for the kind words. For the record Ryan, I have tremendous respect for you and your chutzpah! I truly enjoyed working on this with you. The next time you ruffle feathers and someone lawyers-up, I’d welcome the opportunity to go into battle with you again.

May 27, 11:00 PM

Commenting is closed for this article.