How Do You Know She Is a Witch? Or Satan’s Soldier?

Liane, who goes by Liana Shanti, founded her company, LMN, which is used to operate online educational courses that aim to improve students’ businesses, lifestyles, and overall wellness. On Plaintiffs’ website, Liane markets herself as a “world renowned thought leader in quantum energy healing, spiritual psychology, nutrition, emotional transformation, and feminine wealth[.]” She has more than 35,000 social media followers and more than 100,000 customers in 90 countries….

Defamatory statements about Plaintiffs started surfacing online around April 2022 after Haley began to speak out on her own social media accounts about abuse she allegedly experienced. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants have made false and damaging factual statements about Plaintiffs, including accusations of running a cult, human trafficking, extortion, fraud, and other misconduct. The statements that Plaintiffs claim are defamatory can be organized into three categories as described below. Specific statements will be included within the Court’s analysis.

First, describing Paula as a dark reiki practitioner and witch is not susceptible to defamatory meaning. Like Liane, Paula is also a spiritual leader. Although Paula denies being either a “dark reiki practitioner” or practicing black witchcraft, she does not deny generally practicing reiki and—though not explicitly argued by Plaintiffs—there is context to believe Paula used to practice reiki.

Thus, Liane’s characterization of Paula’s reiki practice as “dark” can be interpreted as opinion, at least for purposes of the instant motion. Her rhetoric is more figurative and there is no real way to prove whether Paula’s reiki practice is “dark.” Similarly, Liane likens reiki to witchcraft, so accusing Paula of practicing “black witchcraft” is also an opinion. Summary judgment is DENIED on these statements.

[ii.] Manipulative and Dishonest

Second, being called “manipulative and dishonest” is an opinion statement that supposedly explains why Paula loses friends. That statement is further unable to be proven true or false because it speculates on why other unidentified people may have ended friendships with Paula. Thus, summary judgment is DENIED on this statement.

[iii.] Pedo/Pedo Supporter

Third, the statement that Paula is a pedo/pedo supporter presents a more difficult challenge. In context, the Instagram post lists a group of about 25 names, including Byron and Stefanie, who are allegedly “pedos/pedo supporters/pedo aligners/victim blamers.” Paula, of course, denies being any of these. And Plaintiffs’ arguments regarding these statements are a moving target. On the one hand, Plaintiffs appear to suggest that the statement is substantially true:

The subject social media post is a prayer and religiously framed condemnation of a collective “Silencing Group” describing them as “PEDOS PEDO SUPPORTERS PEDO ALIGNERS VICTIM BLAMERS” which included a convicted pedophile, Anton Hein, persons who support pedophiles .. and family members and allies like Paula Hagarth who align with the accused abusers and attack those who disclose abuse.

But in the next breath, they say that this “prayer concerning Paula Haygarth reflects negative feelings towards her but it should not be construed as a statement that Ms. Shanti believes that Paula Haygarth is a “PEDO” or “PEDO SUPPORTER.”

To the extent that Plaintiffs attempt to argue that the statement is not defamatory, the Court disagrees. A reasonable person is likely to read the statement for what it is—an accusation that the people on the list are pedophiles or support pedophiles. This is not just a matter of hyperbolic rhetoric that is totally unrelated to the contextual conflict. Here, the post is literal and Plaintiffs even state that at least one person on the list is a pedophile.

On the other hand, there is at least some, albeit spare, evidence in the record that Paula may have associated herself with pedophiles through her involvement with the anonymous Liana Shanti Cult Recovery group, particularly because Plaintiffs have accused Byron of abusing his child. While associating with a pedophile wouldn’t necessarily suggest support for him, because the Liana Shanti Cult Recovery group disputes the abuse accusations, participating in the group’s efforts arguably means supporting alleged pedophiles within it. Thus, there is a triable issue as to whether the statement is substantially true and not defamatory. The Court therefore DENIES summary judgment on this statement.

[iv.] Abandoned Child

Next, Plaintiffs have accused Paula of abandoning her child. Plaintiffs do not contest that the statement is defamatory, which the Court considers a concession. Indeed, the Court finds that this statement is verifiable because Paula either did or did not abandon her child and such accusation would subject Paula to ridicule or scorn.

Paula unsurprisingly denies that she abandoned her son. Although the claimant bears the burden of proving falsity and thereby must show “evidence is so powerful that no reasonable jury would be free to disbelieve it,” the Court is satisfied Paula has met this burden, particularly because Plaintiffs offer no evidence of its truth…. Plaintiffs do not dispute making the statement and have not even bothered to justify or explain why it was made, let alone provide facts that create a triable issue here.

Furthermore, without being able to provide facts to establish whether Paula abandoned her child is substantially true, Plaintiffs were at the very least negligent in publishing that statement. In sum, Paula has established defamation per se and Plaintiffs have not countered this with any triable facts. The Court GRANTS summary judgment in favor of [Paula] on this statement. The question of damages will be left for trial.

[v.] Satan’s Soldier

Although Plaintiffs don’t squarely address Defendants’ argument that the comments characterizing Paula as “Satan’s soldier” were made maliciously, it is not totally clear from the Counterclaim MSJ that Defendants argue the statement is verifiable. At the Hearing, counsel for Defendants contended that Satan worshippers are real, and that, as such, the statements are capable of being proved true or false. But the Court finds that the figurative and hyperbolic nature of the post negates the impression that Liane was asserting an objective fact that Paula (or the rest of Defendants) were Satan’s soldiers, particularly when the Court must consider the facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Summary Judgment is DENIED as to this statement….

Because, as outlined above, the Court finds that some of the statements Defendants sought summary judgment on are not susceptible to defamatory meaning as a matter of law, the Court denies Defendants’ Counterclaims Motion in part. However, Plaintiffs did not move for summary judgment, so they have not met their burden to obtain summary judgment in their favor for counterclaims related to those statements. Thus, those statements for which the Court denied Defendants’ Counterclaim MSJ shall still proceed to trial….