DIAMOND RANCH ACADEMY FILES DEFAMATON LAWSUIT AGAINST THE SCHOFIELDS

Diamond Ranch Academy

Public 'figures' Michael John Schofield, (author of the controversial memoir, January  First, alternating President of the Jani Foundation, Inc.--depending on the month and  former co-host of the now defunct Bipolar Nation Radio at LA Talk Radio) and Susan Schofield (former host of Bipolar Nation Radio, until the show was canned by LA Talk Radio owner Sam Hasson, and heir apparent acting as President of the Jani Foundation) have been hit with a lawsuit filed by Diamond Ranch Academy in Hurricane,  Utah alleging defamation, libel, et al.

According to record, DRA takes issue with Ms. Schofield's well-known media rants, such as: 

•   “DRA runs ‘a death camp’ and is involved in a ‘Holocaust.’”

The Schofields are already under fire and scrutiny from advocates stemming from various allegations of fraud, numerous violations of 501 C(3) charities regarding Federal and State statutes, not the least of which involves the commingling of Jani Foundation funds for private use. Jani Foundation bank records appear to indicate egregious, reckless, blatant violations of public trust to benefit the Schofields.

As advocates for children's rights, we in no way support the Therapeutic Teen Industry as is our right. On the other hand, supporting apparent grifters is not an option for advocates, as integrity is imperative in exposing the truth.

DIAMOND RANCH ACADEMY VS. SUSAN SCHOFIELD AND MICHAEL SCHOFIELD:

Case 1:14-cv-00103-DBP Document 2 Filed 09/02/14 Page 1 of 13

STEVEN R. BANGERTER (SBN 10051)

WILLIAM E. FRAZIER (SBN 11447)

DANIEL P. WILDE (SBN 11800)

BANGERTER SHEPPARD, PC

720 S. River Road, Suite A-200

St. George, UT 84780

Telephone:

Facsimile:

dwilde@

Attorneys for Plaintiff,

DIAMOND RANCH ACADEMY, INC.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH

DIAMOND RANCH ACADEMY, INC.,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

SUSAN SCHOFIELD and MICHAEL

SCHOFIELD,

Defendants.

Case No.: 1:14-cv-00103-DBP

COMPLAINT

Magistrate: Dustin B. Pead

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff DIAMOND RANCH ACADEMY, INC. hereby complains against

Defendants SUSAN SCHOFIELD and MICHAEL SCHOFIELD as follows:

NATURE OF THE ACTION

1. By this action, DIAMOND RANCH ACADEMY, INC. seeks to recover damages for defamatory statements made by SUSAN SCHOFIELD and MICHAEL SCHOFIELD. DIAMOND RANCH ACADEMY, INC. is a therapeutic boarding school and licensed residential youth treatment facility located in Hurricane, Utah. SUSAN

2

SCHOFIELD and MICHAEL SCHOFIELD, speaking publicly about DIAMOND RANCH ACADEMY and its staff, in relation to the facilities, therapies, modalities and services provided by DIAMOND RANCH ACADEMY, made, and continue to make public statements concerning DIAMOND RANCH ACADEMY and its staff which were false, unsupported, offensive, defamatory and injurious to DIAMOND RANCH Academy’s professional reputation.

JURISDICTION

2. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over Diamond Ranch Academy, Inc.’s claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 because the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between citizens of different States.

3. This Court has personal jurisdiction over all defendants because they have transacted business in the State of Utah in connection with the subject matter of this Complaint, caused harm to DRA in the State of Utah, and continuously transmitted defamatory statements in this judicial district.

4. Defendants are thus subject to jurisdiction in this State pursuant to Utah’s long arm statute, Utah Code Ann. § 78B-3-205(1) and (3), and they have sufficient minimum contacts to satisfy the due process clause of the United States Constitution.

VENUE

5. Venue is proper in the District of Utah, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) and (b)(3), because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the Complaint occurred in this District and defendants are subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction with respect to such action.

Case 1:14-cv-00103-DBP Document 2 Filed 09/02/14 Page 2 of 13

3

PARTIES

6. Plaintiff DIAMOND RANCH ACADEMY, INC. (hereinafter “DRA”), is and at all relevant times was, a Utah corporation, with its principal place of business located in Hurricane, Utah.

7. Based upon information and belief, Defendant, SUSAN SCHOFIELD is a citizen and resident of the State of California.

8. Based upon information and belief, Defendant, MICHAEL SCHOFIELD is a citizen and resident of the State of California.

9. Defendants SUSAN SCHOFIELD and MICHAEL SCHOFIELD will be hereinafter collectively referred to as “the Schofields”).

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

10. The Schofields have never attended, nor ever been on the premises of DRA.

11. The Schofields have never spoken to any employee or owner of DRA.

12. Without ever having spoken to DRA’s owners or employees, and without ever having attended or been on the premises of DRA, the Schofields have maliciously and falsely attacked DRA’s name, reputation, business dealings, business model, its employees, and its owners, through numerous defamatory statements of fact made to many thousands of people through their internet radio show (Bipolar Nation Radio), Facebook pages (www.facebook.com/schofieldfamily, www.facebook.com/SusanSchofieldsBipolarNation), blogs and other media and social media outlets, both in writing and orally.

Case 1:14-cv-00103-DBP Document 2 Filed 09/02/14 Page 3 of 13

4

13. The following items are specific examples of the false, unfounded, malicious and defamatory statements originally published and/or re-published by the Schofields to others (together, hereinafter referred to as “Defamatory Statements”):

a. That DRA “kidnaps” and improperly strip searches its students, and then requires them to shower with the door open;

b. That DRA ignores student health issues;

c. That DRA hires “unqualified” employees;

d. That DRA manipulates the parents of its students and misrepresents its services;

e. That DRA is involved in, and operates a “multi-million dollar racketeering game”

f. That DRA “intimidates”, “severely abuses”, “beats”, “starves”, “rapes”, “tortures”, and “accidentally murders” its students;

g. That DRA “murders” its students;

h. That DRA runs a “death camp”, and is involved in a “holocaust”;

i. That operates as a “holding tank” and is a “killing field”; and

j. That DRA’s operations and facilities are akin to a “Japanese internment camp”.

14. Upon information and belief, the Schofields have also made other defamatory statements.

15. Each of the Defamatory Statements identified above in paragraph 13 is false.

Case 1:14-cv-00103-DBP Document 2 Filed 09/02/14 Page 4 of 13

5

16. Based upon information and belief, the Schofields delivered the Defamatory Statements to others with intent to harm DRA’s business and community position, as established through the Defamatory Statements and the context in which those statements were made.

17. Based upon information and belief, the Schofields have published, and continue to publish the Defamatory Statements to others through their radio show, Facebook pages, blogs and other media and social media outlets. The Defamatory Statements were published by the Schofields beginning at least as early as March 2012, and continuing through the date of the filing of this Complaint, and were published with the intent that they be heard by persons in the State of Utah and throughout the country.

18. Upon information and belief, the Defamatory Statements were published with the intent that persons in the State of Utah would hear such statements, and with the intent that DRA’s business in Utah would be harmed. The damaging results thereof have been felt by DRA in the State of Utah.

19. Each of the Defamatory Statements was republished by the Schofields on August 10, 2014 via bipolarnationradio.podbean.com.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

(Libel against all Defendants)

20. DRA repeats, re-alleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 19 as though fully set forth herein.

21. The Schofields made, and continue to make or republish false, Defamatory Statements of fact regarding DRA in writing and through the internet as identified above in paragraph 13.

Case 1:14-cv-00103-DBP Document 2 Filed 09/02/14 Page 5 of 13

6

22. The Schofields’ Defamatory Statements are false.

23. The Schofields knew the Defamatory Statements to be false at the time they made the statements, or, had no reasonable grounds for believing the truth of their statements.

24. The Schofields published the Defamatory Statements through their internet radio show and on their Facebook pages, blogs, and other media and social media outlets.

25. The Defamatory Statements published by the Schofields are not subject to any privilege.

26. The Defamatory Statements published by the Schofields concern DRA and the practice of its trade or profession, and their publication has damaged DRA’s name, reputation, business dealings, and ability to conduct regular business activities, providing just cause for an order and enforcement of a permanent injunction against the Schofields.

27. The Defamatory Statements made by the Schofields exposed DRA to public hatred, contempt and ridicule.

28. As a result of the Schofields’ Defamatory Statements, DRA has been and will be damaged in an amount to be proven at trial.

29. Additionally, the Defamatory Statements published by the Schofields were willful and malicious, and were made with reckless disregard of their truth or falsity and/or with malice. DRA is therefore also entitled to an award of punitive damages.

Case 1:14-cv-00103-DBP Document 2 Filed 09/02/14 Page 6 of 13

7

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

(Libel Per Se against all Defendants)

30. DRA repeats, re-alleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 29 as though fully set forth herein.

31. The Schofields made, and continue to make or republish false, Defamatory Statements of fact regarding DRA in writing and through the internet as identified above in paragraph 13.

32. The Schofields’ Defamatory Statements are false.

33. The Schofields knew the Defamatory Statements to be false at the time they made the statements, or, had no reasonable grounds for believing the truth of their statements.

34. The Schofields published the Defamatory Statements through their internet radio show and on their Facebook pages, blogs, and other media and social media outlets.

35. The Defamatory Statements published by the Schofields are not subject to any privilege.

36. The Defamatory Statements published by the Schofields concern DRA and the practice of its trade or profession, and their publication has damaged DRA’s name, reputation, business dealings, and ability to conduct regular business activities, providing just cause for an order and enforcement of a permanent injunction against the Schofields.

37. The Schofields’ Defamatory Statements were and are libelous per se because they injure DRA’s professional reputation.

Case 1:14-cv-00103-DBP Document 2 Filed 09/02/14 Page 7 of 13

8

38. The Schofields’ Defamatory Statements were and are libelous per se because they allege that DRA has engaged in criminal conduct.

39. Through the Defamatory Statements, the Schofields have accused DRA of engaging in a pattern of behavior designed to intentionally injure other persons for financial profit.

40. The Defamatory Statements made by the Schofields exposed DRA to public hatred, contempt and ridicule.

41. The Schofields’ Defamatory Statements forever falsely taint and permanently damage DRA’s reputation in the business community and the public at large, and also among current and potential clients.

42. As a result of the Schofields’ Defamatory Statements, DRA has been and will be damaged in an amount to be proven at trial.

43. Additionally, the Defamatory Statements published by the Schofields were willful and malicious, and were made with reckless disregard of their truth or falsity and/or with malice. DRA is therefore also entitled to an award of punitive damages.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

(Slander against all Defendants)

44. DRA repeats, re-alleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 43 as though fully set forth herein.

45. The Schofields made, and continue to make or republish false, Defamatory Statements of fact regarding DRA in writing and through the internet as identified above in paragraph 13.

46. The Schofields’ Defamatory Statements are false.

Case 1:14-cv-00103-DBP Document 2 Filed 09/02/14 Page 8 of 13

9

47. The Schofields knew the Defamatory Statements to be false at the time they made the statements, or, had no reasonable grounds for believing the truth of their statements.

48. The Schofields published the Defamatory Statements by orally communicating said Defamatory Statements to others through their internet radio show and through other oral means and methods.

49. The Defamatory Statements published by the Schofields are not subject to any privilege.

50. The Defamatory Statements published by the Schofields concern DRA and the practice of its trade or profession, and their publication has damaged DRA’s name, reputation, business dealings, and ability to conduct regular business activities, providing just cause for an order and enforcement of a permanent injunction against the Schofields.

51. The Defamatory Statements made by the Schofields exposed DRA to public hatred, contempt and ridicule.

52. As a result of the Schofields’ Defamatory Statements, DRA has been and will be damaged in an amount to be proven at trial.

53. Additionally, the Defamatory Statements published by the Schofields were willful and malicious, and were made with reckless disregard of their truth or falsity and/or with malice. DRA is therefore also entitled to an award of punitive damages.

Case 1:14-cv-00103-DBP Document 2 Filed 09/02/14 Page 9 of 13

10

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Slander Per Se against all Defendants)

54. DRA repeats, re-alleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 53 as though fully set forth herein.

55. The Schofields made, and continue to make or republish false Defamatory Statements of fact regarding DRA in writing and through the internet as identified above in paragraph 13.

56. The Schofields’ Defamatory Statements are false.

57. The Schofields knew the Defamatory Statements to be false at the time they made the statements, or, had no reasonable grounds for believing the truth of their statements.

58. The Schofields published the Defamatory Statements by orally communicating said defamatory statements to others through their internet radio show and through other oral means and methods.

59. The Defamatory Statements published by the Schofields are not subject to any privilege.

60. The Defamatory Statements published by the Schofields concern DRA and the practice of its trade or profession, and their publication has damaged DRA’s name, reputation, business dealings, and ability to conduct regular business activities, providing just cause for an order and enforcement of a permanent injunction against the Schofields.

61. The Schofields’ Defamatory Statements were and are slanderous per se because they injure DRA’s professional reputation.

Case 1:14-cv-00103-DBP Document 2 Filed 09/02/14 Page 10 of 13

11

62. The Schofields’ Defamatory Statements were and are slanderous per se because they allege that DRA has engaged in criminal conduct.

63. Through the Defamatory Statements, the Schofields have accused DRA of engaging in a pattern of behavior designed to intentionally injure other persons for financial profit.

64. The Defamatory Statements made by the Schofields exposed DRA to public hatred, contempt and ridicule.

65. The Schofields’ Defamatory Statements forever falsely taint and permanently damage DRA’s reputation in the business community and the public at large, and also among current and potential clients.

66. As a result of the Schofields’ Defamatory Statements, DRA has been and will be damaged in an amount to be proven at trial.

67. Additionally, the Defamatory Statements published by the Schofields were willful and malicious, and were made with reckless disregard of their truth or falsity and/or with malice. DRA is therefore also entitled to an award of punitive damages.

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage

against all Defendants)

68. DRA repeats, re-alleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 67 as though fully set forth herein.

69. DRA is in the business of educating and rehabilitating children with challenging circumstances and/or diagnoses.

70. DRA’s business is greatly affected by “word or mouth” referrals from parents, professionals, alumni, and from internet advertising.

Case 1:14-cv-00103-DBP Document 2 Filed 09/02/14 Page 11 of 13

12

71. The Schofields intentionally and willfully published false and misleading information (the Defamatory Statements) about DRA to the internet through their radio broadcasts and ancillary posts on blogs, social media sites and/or independent websites.

72. Upon information and belief, the Schofields also published the Defamatory Statements in other ways and through other means and methods.

73. The Schofields knew the Defamatory Statements were false or acted with reckless disregard as to the truth or falsity of the Defamatory Statements.

74. The Schofields published the Defamatory Statements with the intent to damage the reputation and prospective economic advantage of DRA.

75. The Defamatory Statements published by the Schofields proximately caused DRA to suffer damage to its name, reputation, business dealings, and ability to conduct regular business activities, as well as economic loss and costs associated with correcting the Defamatory Statements made to others through the internet and by other means and methods.

76. As a direct and proximate result of the Schofields’ conduct, DRA has been damaged in an amount to be proven at trial, but on information and belief, in an amount not less than $1,000,000. DRA is entitled to general and special damages.

77. Additionally, the Defamatory Statements published by the Schofields were willful and malicious, were made with reckless disregard of their truth or falsity and/or with malice, and were made with the intent to damage DRA’s name, reputation, business dealings, and ability to conduct regular business activities. DRA is therefore also entitled to an award of punitive damages.

Case 1:14-cv-00103-DBP Document 2 Filed 09/02/14 Page 12 of 13

13

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment and relief as follows:

1. That judgment be entered in its favor and against Defendants;

2. For general and special damages in excess of $1,000,000.00 on its First, Second, Third, Fourth and Fifth Causes of Action for Libel, Libel Per Se, Slander, Slander Per Se, and Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage in an amount to be proven at trial;

3. For a permanent injunction prohibiting Defendants from making further defamatory statements about Plaintiff;

4. For reasonable attorney’s fees and costs of suit;

5. For punitive damages in an amount sufficient to punish and make an example;

6. For pre-judgment and post-judgment interest as allowed by law; and

7. For such further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Plaintiff hereby requests to have a trial by jury in relation to the Counts and theissues that are properly the subject of such a trial.

DATED: August 28, 2014 Bangerter Sheppard & Frazier, PC

By /s/ Steven R. Bangerter_____

STEVEN R. BANGERTER

Attorneys for Plaintiff,

Diamond Ranch Academy, Inc

*NOTE: THIS CASE HAS BEEN MODIFIED INTO MS WORD.

TO READ "ANSWER TO COMPLAINT":

http://jilliestake.blogspot.com/2014/10/diamond-ranch-academy-vs-schofields.html