Erich_Grunewald 🔸 comments on Linkpost—dawnwatch ‘Peter Singer is not Animal Liberation Now’

[Erich_Grunewald 🔸]

In case it’s of interest to anyone, here are the court documents is Singer’s attorney’s demurral from Dawn’s action against Singer, though the preview text is somewhat garbled and with lines omitted. It recounts some of the events referenced in the post, but I don’t know whether it recounts Dawn’s version of the events, or the court’s best guess at how events transpired. (Edit: Rockwell comments below: “You linked to a document filed by the defendant’s attorneys that is an objection to an earlier filing by the plaintiff’s attorneys. It is the version of events Singer’s attorneys are portraying to the court.” Mea culpa.) It reads in part:

Dawn reveals in her Complaint that she met Singer at an animal rights conference in 2002 and knew him as the ’”Father of the modern animal rights movement;” that she expressed anxiety at meeting him “because of his status, and because he was her hero”; that, nonetheless, she met Singer for lunch along with her “partner of three years” who provided her with “financial and emotional support”; that Singer thereafter called the plaintiff daily for a period of weeks and told her “he had sexual interest in her”; that she and Singer thereafter entered into a consensual sexual relationship [text missing] publications if you agree to have a sexual relationship with me.

Dawn doesn’t allege any such bargain because no such bargain was ever made. It is clear that Dawn willingly involved herself in a sexual affair with Singer because she fell “deeply in love” with him. Nor does she allege any unwelcome sexual advances by Singer.

[...]

Singer’s Demurrer to Dawn’s Complaint must be sustained without leave to amend because: (1) California, as a matter of public policy, has barred litigation of affairs of the heart; (2) Insults, made in private, between quarreling former lovers, do not, as a matter of law, constitute “extreme and outrageous” conduct so as to satisfy the first essential element of a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress; and (3) The intentional termination of a romantic and sexual relationship is not the type of “extreme and outrageous” conduct so as to satisfy the first essential element of a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Since I know some people will read this comment without reading the original post, here’s what Dawn says in the linked post:

I filed under the single clause of Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, because, as he well knows, I was unaware that California Civil Code Section 51.9 allows for sexual harassment outside of traditional employment situations. But that initial suit included the same facts as those in the amended complaint, which rightly included Sexual Harassment.

Singer’s counsel filed a demurrer, which is a motion to dismiss that says that even if the facts alleged in the complaint are true, no law has been broken. That is an important point because Peter Singer has publicly accused me of being untruthful. I hope that anybody who questions him will ask him to name any untruth in this essay or the lawsuit, for I am aware of none.

[...]

The Santa Barbara court has ruled against my sexual harassment claim and decided that Singer’s “vulgar and offensive” language during the private conversation at a 2018 fundraising dinner was not “severe harassing conduct,” and, inaccurately, that the 2020 letter contained nothing that could be construed as sexual harassment, and therefore my claim fell outside the three-year statute of limitations.

That ruling reflected the effect of my having no legal counsel in confronting Singer’s law firm. Importantly, my amended complaint did not refer to brand new case law, Judd vs Weinstein (2020), which is invaluable to my claim because it discusses the “retaliation” elements of a sexual harassment suit. Though my follow-up argument against Singer’s move to dismiss the claim did indeed include that case law, the judge’s decision missed it entirely.

I have formally objected, and will appeal, because it will be clear to a jury, based on the email to which Singer was responding, that, just like his professionally punishing dinner exit, his non-harassing but punishing letter was in fact retaliation for my refusal to continue to overlook the grave harm caused by his sexually outrageous conduct. The exit and the letter are the retaliation elements of my claim. Whether the professional harms he inflicted while we were discussing the hurt caused by his sexual abuse of power, were, in fact, retaliatory, is a triable matter for a jury, not a matter for dismissal of the claim at this stage.

The demurral says:

On December 15, 2018, Singer arranged a multiple-hour layover in Los Angeles in order to attend a fundraising dinner for DawnWatch. “During a private chat at that dinner,” Dawn shared with Singer that she was doing well, to which Singer replied that Dawn had always had strong self-esteem. In response, “Dawn finally told Singer that her period of hospitalization had been for a facelift and resulting skin infection, which Dawn had undergone after her self-confidence was shattered when Singer had replaced her as his main love interest with a 30 year old woman. Feeling unjustly blamed for Dawn’s pain, Singer attempted to put the blame for their relationship on Dawn, reminding her of a time she had flashed herself to him on a train, as she attempted to reignite his affection. He used the word “cunt” as he reminded her of the event. Singer left the dinner, with Dawn asking that they hug goodbye for appearances sake. Singer obliged with the hug, but also told Dawn, “You’re crazy.” None of the other diners had been aware of the altercation, until Dawn, for the sake of authenticity, shared that Singer had departed after an argument, though she did not elaborate.

There was no communication between Dawn and Singer from the evening of December 15, 2018, until May 9, 2020, when Dawn reached out via email to Singer to ″take his temperature,” having no idea how he had been viewing the silence between them. A copy of that email is attached as Exhibit E to the Complaint. Dawn was, at that time, living in an RV in Santa Barbara. Singer’s response to that e-mail, which is part of Exhibit E to the Complaint, stated the following with regard to the December 15, 2018 fundraising dinner: “You ask me to break my journey to Australia to speak at a fundraising event for DW, and when I am there, you harangue and abuse me in front of the few wealthy supporters—or was there only one wealthy supporter? - who actually came to the event. I go back to Australia, and over the next few days, check my inbox for some kind of apology. Nothing, weeks, months, go by … It’s true that I used to think your work was valuable. That’s why I agreed to be a member of your board, and donated some money to you. I still think you have the talent to do valuable work for the movement, but I no longer think you have the consistency or perseverance required to do enough of it, so I cannot, in good conscience, support you or ask anyone to support you. I hereby resign my position as a member of the Board of Dawnwatch. (Want to prove me wrong? OK, for the rest of 2020, produce a regular DW email every week, on the same day of the week, summarizing what is happening about animals in the media, plus a supplementary special alert whenever there is a big breaking story that you want people to respond to … When you’ve done that, you can ask me again for my support.)”

[Rockwell]

It recounts some of the events referenced in the post, but I don’t know whether it recounts Dawn’s version of the events, or the court’s best guess at how events transpired.

You linked to a document filed by the defendant’s attorneys that is an objection to an earlier filing by the plaintiff’s attorneys. It is the version of events Singer’s attorneys are portraying to the court.

For those less familiar, the US civil legal system is very messy and varies by state. I personally don’t consider it a great way to understand a situation. But for those interested, it looks like this is the link to the full case docket (or at least what is public) and this is the initial complaint filed by the plaintiff (i.e. where Dawn’s attorneys tell her version of events). You can tell which side filed something by the signatory in the upper left of the first page.

[Jason]

The actual court docket is at https://​​portal.sbcourts.org/​​CASBCIVILPORTAL/​​ but is painfully slow.

I don’t think it is quite correct to characterize the statement of facts in a demurrer as the “version of events Singer’s attorneys are portraying to the court.” With limited exceptions, the court has to treat the plaintiffs factual allegations as true when ruling on a demurrer, and the defendant can’t bring in his own facts. Doubtless there is spin, but it’s counterspin on plaintiff’s own spin.

[Erich_Grunewald 🔸]

Oh thanks, I misunderstood that and have edited my comment.