ASU Law School Deans Fail Ethics Test, Part 1

Ignored warnings that student’s defamatory attacks violated school’s Code of Conduct

The Dean of the Law School and the Dean of Students at ASU both failed to address libelous and unethical behavior by a student, which also violated ASU’s Student Code of Conduct, and about which they were warned.

In accordance with the Student Disciplinary Procedures, the deans were made aware of the publicly posted defamatory attacks made by law student Andy Vrbicek, as well as his dare to contact the school, so confident was he of being immune to being held accountable for his behavior.

Far beyond the disagreements and relatively minor contentiousness that I and others had been engaged in with Vrbicek, all of which are indeed protected as free speech, his accusations against Mr. “Billy” Eduard Albert Meier had degenerated into unambiguously defamatory, vulgar and libelous attacks for which he, admittedly and unashamedly, couldn’t provide substantiation*.

As was also pointed out to the deans, Vrbicek himself had also provided the “proof that the writer or publisher acted with actual malice (knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth)”, which constitutes libel.

ASU’s Responsibility

In the rough and tumble everyday world of the internet, where insults, abuse and ad hominem attacks are often the order of the day, the line between “acceptably” rude behavior – which may not have been considered acceptable at all a generation ago – and clearly defamatory, libelous attacks is also all too frequently blurred. The difficulties involved in holding culpable people accountable are many, costly and often clearly out of reach for the aggrieved party.

Therefore, when there exist structures and codes that can, and should, be applied and administered by contracted parties who are charged with overseeing, guiding and correcting inappropriate, unethical or unlawful behavior by students, calling them to action should prove more effective than trying to deal directly with someone who’s long declared their contempt for voluntarily doing so themselves.

So how is it that the Dean of the Law School and the Dean of Students at ASU both failed to immediately assure me that such behavior was indeed completely unacceptable at ASU, and to also swiftly move to correct this highly unethical conduct, which is quite unbecoming for an aspiring attorney?

Such a situation, if left unaddressed, could cast them and ASU in a rather unfavorable light, and expose a failing to fulfill their responsibilities to properly educate, mentor and, when necessary, discipline their students, which could possibly have legal and even financial consequences as well.

I asked them to encourage Vrbicek to retract and apologize for his libelous attacks within a few days of my bringing the matter to their attention, which then would also assure no further contentiousness between us, or communications from me.

They have still failed to do so…more than two weeks later.

I have not withdrawn my request for Vrbicek’s retraction and apology and I hope it won’t be necessary to pursue this matter further.

Specific Libelous Statements

In a year’s time, Vrbicek had gone from stating:

“I have never asserted Meier is a liar….”

“I am not calling Meier a liar…”

 March 2, 2015

…to such things as:

“Although I’ve entertained the idea that I could carry the burden of proof proving Meier is a conman…”

March 20, 2016

“Second ‘liar, thief, conman hoaxer’ — these are NOT “ad hominems” they are inescapable conclusions that I’ve proved in many posts.”

“So when I call you an asshole this is not even an ad hominem; I am simply insulting you in a way I feel perfectly comfortable doing And I cannot even remember the last time I’ve felt comfortable using that term in regards to anyone besides you, given how despicable your behavior. And when I call you or Meier a liar I am just stating the inescapable conclusion of something I have proved numerous times. These are not ad hominems.”

“Granted, Meier seems like a harmless enough guy — just a liar who spun a web of lies to get women/fame/money/praise/what have you.”

March 22, 2016

*“MH and Meier are public figures. Getting insulted comes with the territory. I am not a public figure. And I don’t know what has been “vile and ugly” about simply pointing out that Meier is a hoaxer. It’s pretty clear as day now. It’s not “defamatory” if its true. Even if it’s not true, and I am against all odds somehow wrong about this…this is how you respond to legitimate challenges??? By trying to personally harm me?”

March 25, 2016

Double Standard

My specific concerns over Vrbicek’s remarks were also amplified because this is the same person who, on March 18, 2015, emailed me to plead that his name be removed from comments on my blog (where he was criticizing Meier) because he had “reasons for wanting to maintain my anonymity” which, he revealed, had to do with not wanting his family to know that he was an atheist and also preventing potential employers from knowing about his interest and participation in discussions about the Meier case, less it affect his being hired, i.e. making money.

So Mr. Vrbicek wanted to reserve the right to spew unsubstantiated, deliberately libelous attacks at Mr. Meier – saying he’s “proved” that Meier is a liar, hoaxer, thief, con man, philanderer, cult leader, etc. – but not be identified or held responsible for them.

Whatever the nature of the information, claims, evidence, etc., under discussion, whenever the people society entrusts (and indeed pays) to inculcate ethics, values, knowledge, understanding and respect for the laws of the land, and respect for others, turn a blind eye to such disregard and abuse, they have failed the students, the school and a rather important ethics test.

Correspondence

From: Dean of Students

Subject: Email Received Case Number 01893527

Date: March 22, 2016 at 4:15:53 PM MST

Dear Michael Horn,

Thank you for contacting us. We have received your email and are working on responding to you as soon as possible.

For security reasons, if you are a student and have requested information specific to your records at ASU, responses will be sent to your ASU email account. For instructions on how to access your ASU email, please visit this help article about ASU Email for Students.

If you have any additional information to add to this case, please reply to this email.

Case Number: 01893527

Subject: Information re Andy Vrbicek

Description: To Whom It May Concern,

As I stated today to Megan in my phone conversation with her, skepticism, disagreement and civil discourse is the proper way to proceed with controversial subjects, as I remarked upon my my article pertaining to my recent lecture at NAU. In fact, I have been invited back for a second presentation on March 30.

However, for some time, Mr. Andy Vrbicek, who is presumably a student at ASU, has consistently made unsubstantiated and refuted claims, and especially highly defamatory, profane and unsubstantiated defamatory attacks against my client, Mr. Billy Meier of Switzerland, as well as myself.

While I can certainly produce more records of Mr. Vrbicek’s disparaging remarks, I ask you to first consider these as they pertain to the student code of conduct.

March 20:

“Although I’ve entertained the idea that I could carry the burden of proof proving Meier is a conman”

March 22:

“Second “liar, thief, conman hoaxer” — these are NOT “ad hominems” they are inescapable conclusions that I’ve proved in many posts.”

“You’ve double down on your lies about space photos now you just want to ignore it when your lies are forcefully called out for the third time.”

“You clearly do not know what an ad hominem is Michael. When I just called you an asshole which I would argue is well-deserved that is not even an ad hominem. I’m just calling you a name .”

“So when I call you an asshole this is not even an ad hominem; I am simply insulting you in a way I feel perfectly comfortable doing And I cannot even remember the last time I’ve felt comfortable using that term in regards to anyone besides you, given how despicable your behavior. And when I call you or Meier a liar I am just stating the inescapable conclusion of something I have proved numerous times. These are not ad hominems.”

“Granted, Meier seems like a harmless enough guy — just a liar who spun a web of lies to get women/fame/money/praise/what have you.”

“but he has seemingly normalized within the FIGU cult the practice of speaking absolutely deplorably to people.”

“Where have I demonstrated my incompetence as a legal and ethical mind? Because I properly stated the law? Because I accused a demonstrable liar of lying and a demonstrable plagiarizer of plagiarizing? I don’t have a problem with such “incompetence”.”

“Because you won’t concede the most basic facts and are an evasive serial liar.”

“We now have countless examples of Meier misapproating things, like outer space photos”

Regarding Andy’s, “he has not pointed to even ONE SINGLE instance where I or Mahesh have been dishonest”, I post the following from earlier today…which is only the beginning of pointing out Andy’s relentless, despicable, unsubstantiated defamation of Meier, and me as well.

3 – MH has here recently tripled down on the lie that Meier has disavowed the outer space photos that Mahesh has conclusively revealed to be hoaxed. This is patently untrue and MH knows it. Meier has not disavowed these photos; their authenticity was allegedly strictly ensured by Ptaah. But MH triples down on it because he is a serial liar.

Clearly rebutted by this 26 year old contact:

http://www.futureofmankind.co.uk/Billy_Meier/Contact_Report_236 (1990)

Billy:

Then still the last question: over and over again, I am asked about the space photos of my great journey, namely in reference to whether these were traded around and became falsified.

Ptaah:

You probably don’t mean the paper images but rather the slides.

Yes, those were greatly falsified by the machinations of the fallible ones, and I mean all of them, because out of all those that Quetzal took and examined, there weren’t any that weren’t maliciously manipulated, and they ultimately turned out to be shots that correspond to a future film that was produced by our impulses on the Earth.

Billy:

And how did it happen, then, that the shots resembled the conditions of reality?

Ptaah:

Because our transmitted impulses were given to the Earth people in the form of impulse-images that corresponded to true, existent things of foreign worlds.

Billy:

Planets, suns, humans, apparatuses, dinosaurs, and plants – were all these things included?

Ptaah:

That corresponds what was done.

P.S. I should add that Mr. Vrbicek has suggested, in an email today, that I provide this information to Dean Sylvester, since he apparently believes that the Dean supports and endorses his conduct.  MH

Sincerely,

Michael Horn

Authorized American Media Representative

The Billy Meier Contacts

www.theyfly.com

…………………………………………………………….

From: Dean of Students

Subject: Email Received Case Number 01906989

Date: March 25, 2016 at 9:56:33 AM MST

Dear Michael Horn,

Thank you for contacting us. We have received your email and are working on responding to you as soon as possible.

For security reasons, if you are a student and have requested information specific to your records at ASU, responses will be sent to your ASU email account. For instructions on how to access your ASU email, please visit this help article about ASU Email for Students.

If you have any additional information to add to this case, please reply to this email.

Case Number: 01906989

Subject: Re: Email Received Case Number 01893527

Description: Dear ASU,

In response to my having recently again pointed out to Mr. Vrbicek that there are laws and codes of conduct that even a law student should adhere to, today on Facebook he expressed his lack of concern that I’ve brought this to the attention of ASU and lack of regard for being factually accurate in his continuing defamation of Mr. Meier (emphasis added):

I think that can only mean he was planning on telling on me. Its interesting, speaking of that “pathological craving to defame”…

I dont even care. I mean its pretty absurd of course. But I won’t hold it against him. I am thinking he might even feel embarrassed about it and thus that is why we didn’t hear from him today.

MH and Meier are public figures. Getting insulted comes with the territory. I am not a public figure. And I don’t know what has been “vile and ugly” about simply pointing out that Meier is a hoaxer. It’s pretty clear as day now. It’s not “defamatory” if its true. Even if it’s not true, and I am against all odds somehow wrong about this…this is how you respond to legitimate challenges??? By trying to personally harm me?

Anyway, feel free to just come back Michael, and we don’t even have to talk about that threatening to tell on me thing. I really don’t even care about it.

I will also point out that for well over one year I have asked this attorney-to-be to please specify the actual evidence, the verifiable means, motive and opportunity that convinced him that Mr. Meier “hoaxed” his material. On March 18, Mr. Vrbicek provided his less than compelling “proof” in totality”

Opportunity: science literature

Means: Meier’s extensive home and local library

Motive: fame/money/who cares/same motive as all the other fake contactees

As I assume you also would also agree, it doesn’t matter what the subject of Mr. Meier’s information and evidence is, it only matters if Mr. Vrbicek has substantiated his attacks, which are clearly defamatory and unethical if he hasn’t.

While Mr. Vrbicek apparently believes that Dean Sylvester supports and endorses his conduct, I trust that ASU will soon respond definitively to clarify its position.

Sincerely,

Michael Horn http://www.theyfly.com/about-michael-horn-0>

Authorized American Media Representative

The Billy Meier Contacts

www.theyfly.com

…………………………………………………………….

From: “Douglas Sylvester (Dean)”

Subject: Re: Email Received Case Number 01893527

Date: March 25, 2016 at 10:18:52 AM MST

To: Michael Horn

Cc: Dean of Students [email protected]

We have received your emails. There is no need for further correspondence. 

…………………………………………………………….

From: Michael Horn

Subject: Re: Email Received Case Number 01893527

Date: March 25, 2016 at 10:26:52 AM MST

To: “Douglas Sylvester (Dean)” [email protected]

Shall I take that to mean that you and the university indeed condone and support Mr. Vrbicek’s defamatory statements, as he has implied?

No answer is also an answer.

Thank you.

MH

…………………………………………………………….

From: “Douglas Sylvester (Dean)”

Subject: Re: Email Received Case Number 01893527

Date: March 25, 2016 at 10:53:51 AM MST

To: Michael Horn [email protected]

No. You may take this to mean we are aware. That was your intention. Mission accomplished.

…………………………………………………………….

From: Michael Horn

Subject: Re: Email Received Case Number 01893527

Date: March 25, 2016 at 11:09:34 AM MST

To: “Douglas Sylvester (Dean)” [email protected]

As far as my intention goes, I expressed it thusly:

“I would hope that ASU would encourage Mr. Vrbicek to retract his factually incorrect, unproven, defamatory claims and attempt to prove them, if he wishes, in an appropriate manner, such as the public debate that I’ve offered him but which he’s rejected.”

I provided an abundance of verifiable examples of Mr. Vrbicek’s ongoing defamatory public comments.

So now that you are aware, should I take it to mean that you find that Mr. Vribicek’s comments to be compatible with ASU’s Philosophy, exemplifying “ethical development of the individual”, conducting this behavior from both on and off-campus, especially for an individual being schooled in the law, and that you would see no reason to encourage him to retract them, thereby effectively endorsing him and his behavior as consistent with ASU ethics…as he implied?

MH

…………………………………………………………….

From: “Douglas Sylvester (Dean)”

Subject: RE: Email Received Case Number 01893527

Date: March 25, 2016 at 11:48:22 AM MST

To: Michael Horn [email protected]

Thanks for clarifying. TO be clear, you will receive no more correspondence from me. I will take your emails into consideration. Please do not send me anything more.

…………………………………………………………….

From: Michael Horn

Subject: Re: Email Received Case Number 01893527

Date: March 25, 2016 at 11:58:08 AM MST

To: “Douglas Sylvester (Dean)”

Dean Sylvester,

This then will be the last email I send until I receive your well considered response to the issues I’ve raised, assuming that seven days is a reasonable time.

Since you acknowledge being aware of, and haven’t disputed that, Mr. Vrbicek’s defaming and libeling my client, and me, and since I’ve also brought this also to the attention of the Dean of Students, as representatives of ASU, would you say that his repeated, willful, unethical actions, apparently emboldened by what now appears to be your tacit if not overt approval, are actually exempted from review, let alone possible sanction under the provisions, etc., of the 5-308 Student Code of Conduct?

And might the Dean of Students “initiate an investigation based on receipt of information from any source that a student may have violated the Student Code of Conduct”, as I am such a source?

I look forward to your response by this time next week. Please let me know if you require more time.

Sincerely,

Michael Horn

Authorized American Media Representative

The Billy Meier Contacts

www.theyfly.com

…………………………………………………………….

From: Michael Horn

Subject: Re: Email Received Case Number 01893527

Date: March 29, 2016 at 9:03:27 AM MST

To: “Douglas Sylvester (Dean)” , Dean of Students

Dear Dean Sylvester & the Dean of Students,

My presentation at NAU tomorrow, and subsequent media interviews, compel me to seek resolution of this issue sooner than I had indicated.

While I am disappointed that I didn’t receive immediate assurance that Mr. Vrbicek’s conduct was completely unacceptable and incompatible with the ethics and standards at ASU, this situation can and should be resolved without unnecessary contentiousness if, by the end of Friday, April 1, Mr. Vrbicek posts a public retraction of – and apology for – his defamatory statements against Mr. Meier on Facebook, along with a copy to me via email.

In light of Mr. Vrbicek’s self-admitted disdain and disregard for whether his unsubstantiated, deliberately harmful statements impugning Mr. Meier’s character, honesty and integrity, etc., are truthful, they are in no way protected as free speech, and therefore libelous, and with his assertions that such behavior is indeed supported by Dean Sylvester, the Dean of the Students and ASU, which have acknowledged their awareness of his behavior, I suggest that all possible further unpleasantries can be avoided and considered rectified upon verification of Mr. Vrbicek’s retraction/apology.

Therefore, receipt of Mr. Vrbicek’s retraction/apology should obviate the need for further discussion between Dean Sylvester, the Dean of Students, ASU, etc., and me regarding this matter.

Mr. Vrbicek’s obviously free to express his opinions, questions and challenges on any and all aspects of the information under discussion, as strongly and clearly as he wishes, as long as they contain no further defamatory attacks.

Sincerely,

Michael Horn

Authorized American Media Representative

The Billy Meier Contacts

www.theyfly.com

ASU Law School Deans Fail Ethics Test, Part 1 originally appeared on They Fly Blog on April 6, 2016.

Source: http://theyflyblog.com/2016/04/06/asu-law-school-deans-fail-ethics-test-part-1/