Professional Documents
Culture Documents
DEBRA RITTGERS,
v.
Case No. 17-4019-SAC-KGG
MELVIN HALE,
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
2. Dr. Hale admits that he is a resident of Arizona, but denies the remaining allegations in
2.
3. Dr. Hale denies the allegations in 3 as it pertains to the Court in Lyon County, Kansas.
5. Dr. Hale admits that Debra Rittgers ( hereinafter referred to as Rittgers) is employed by
Emporia State University, but lacks the information to admit or deny the remaining allegations in
5.
Case 5:17-cv-04019-SAC-KGG Document 22 Filed 04/27/17 Page 2 of 23
6. Dr. Hale admits that Rittgers is employed by Emporia State University and is supervised
by Gwen Alexander, but lacks the information to admit or deny the remaining allegations in 6.
7. Dr. Hale admits that Angelica Hale (hereinafter referred to as Angelica), his spouse,
sent him a text message on April 8, 2015 with the picture of a notebook with the word
8. Dr. Hale admits that Angelica sent an Open Letter to Gwen Alexander and to others in
the university community on July 27, 2015, but denies the remaining allegations in 8.
9. Dr. Hale admits that a website was created called March on Emporia, along with
11. Dr. Hale lacks the information to admit or deny, the allegations contained in 11, and on
12. Dr. Hale lacks the information to admit or deny, the allegations contained in 12, and on
13. Dr. Hale lacks the information to admit or deny, the allegations contained in 13, and on
14. Dr. Hale lacks the information to admit or deny, the allegations contained in 14, and on
2
Case 5:17-cv-04019-SAC-KGG Document 22 Filed 04/27/17 Page 3 of 23
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
First Affirmative Defense
TRUTH
1. Truth is a complete bar to defamation. Rittgers claim that Dr. Hale defamed her is
lacking in merit because what Dr. Hale reported is true: a noted forensic document examiner
stated that Rittgers is the most probable author of the slur found in the students notebook. Dr.
Hale has never stated otherwise. Beyond that, Rittgers has refused to take a formal handwriting
examination or polygraph to controvert that opinion. Dr. Hale may never have direct knowledge
of whether or not Rittgers wrote the racial slur NIGGAZ in the students notebook, but it is
true that Carlson offered her professional opinion that Rittgers is the most probable author. In
5, 2016, stated that Angelicaindicated Debra as the most likely suspect when Angelica
initially reported the incident to Dr. Hale. This is a flagrant falsehood. Angelica specifically
stated in her communication with Dr. Hale on April 8, 2015 that she had no idea who wrote the
slur, and Rittgers knew this when she filed her Counterclaim. In case 15-4947, in his Second
Amended Complaint, Dr. Hales Exhibit A is a faithful copy of the text messages sent and
received between him and Angelica on April 8, 2015, and when he asks the question Any
ideas? Angelica responds No. She said nothing about Rittgers whatsoever. That same exhibit
is attached as Exhibit A, and is incorporated by reference herein. Dr. Hale and Angelica never
3
Case 5:17-cv-04019-SAC-KGG Document 22 Filed 04/27/17 Page 4 of 23
discussed Rittgers as a suspect until June 2015 when Carlson provided her verbal opinion on
3. Rittgers commences her lawsuit with a false statement, and knows for a fact her
allegations that Dr. Hale defamed her are false as well. Rittgers has had ample opportunity to
present controverting facts, if indeed those facts do exist. If and when Rittgers, or anyone else,
does present facts that exonerate her, those facts cannot be backdated and held against Dr. Hale
ex post facto. That would include the dubious exoneration provided to Rittgers by ESU Interim
President Jackie Vietti on September 10, 2015. The so-called words that allegedly defamed
Rittgers were the words in the verbal opinion of Wendy Carlson. A transcript of Carlsons
words is attached as Exhibit B, and is incorporated by reference herein. When confronted with
Carlsons opinion by Dr. Hale, Rittgers boss, SLIM Dean Gwen Alexander, stated that I dont
4. Dr. Hale exercised his First Amendment rights. [T]he First Amendment gives no more
protection to the press in defamation suits than it does to others exercising their freedom of
speech. None of our cases affords such a distinction; to the contrary, the Court has rejected it at
every turn. Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v. Greenmoss Builders, Inc., 472 U.S. 773 (1985).
Freedom of the press is a fundamental personal right which is not confined to newspapers
and periodicals. . . . The press in its historic connotation comprehends every sort of publication
which affords a vehicle of information and opinion. The informative function asserted by
novelists, academic researchers, and dramatists. Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 704 (1972).
4
Case 5:17-cv-04019-SAC-KGG Document 22 Filed 04/27/17 Page 5 of 23
5. Dr. Hale reported the opinion of a certified forensic document examiner in private to
ESU administrators and to the ESU Police Department, a circumstance under which he had
absolute privilege and immunity from charges of defamation, and he was rebuffed. ESU stated
that they would not follow-up with Carlson to make a more concrete determination as to the
author of the slur; neither would they investigate the incident of hate speech from a law-
enforcement perspective. Instead, ESU chose to investigate the hate speech matter as a
personnel matter using Ray Lauber in Human Resources. Dr. Hale views this as a form of
information disclosures to the public. Interim President Vietti met with the Black Student Union
(BSU) and other student organizations to denounce Dr. Hales protests, and demanded that they
not interfere in a personnel matter. A photo of Vietti meeting with the BSU on September 17,
2015, two days after the first March on Emporia, is attached as Exhibit D, and is incorporated by
reference herein. At the very next BSU meeting, the agenda indicates that they discussed the
matter of disassociating from people in the community. A correct copy of the BSU agenda
for September 24, 2015 is attached as Exhibit E, and is incorporated by reference herein.
6. The actions of ESU warranted public awareness on a matter of public concern, which is
of special interest to academic institutions nationwide and specifically in a social justice arena
such as the library field since the hate speech incident was committed at a library school. One
individual who made a comment on a Change.org petition regarding the March on Emporia that
was signed by over 300 people stated the following: The president seems way too bent on
shutting down every POV that isn't, Nothing happened, let's drop this already in all of these
update and announcement things she keeps sending to students. Another person who signed the
petition stated in her commentary: Libraries and librarians are supposed to be inclusive, and are
5
Case 5:17-cv-04019-SAC-KGG Document 22 Filed 04/27/17 Page 6 of 23
supposed to support the needs of the community they serve, a value that strongly influenced my
desire to go into the library field. It is heartbreaking to see this institution fall so drastically short
of these basic tenets of the discipline in which they purport to educate future librarians. It is
reprehensible that such behavior should be allowed to go unpunished. To suggest that the
issues called into question by Dr. Hales protest were not of public concern is to denigrate the
consciousness of those who are oppressed by unrelenting racism and white power each and every
7. In the context of this very public discussion, Carlsons opinion was subsequently relayed
to the press and published as a sub-element of that story. As a party to this matter of public
concern, Rittgers cannot sue Dr. Hale for defamation unless she can prove that Dr. Hales
statements were not only false, but were published with knowledge of their falsity or in reckless
disregard of the truth. Note that Rittgers does not allege malice in her petition, and such a claim
8. In an email message to SLIM Dean Gwen Alexander on August 26, 2015, the same day
that the dean and associate dean Andrew Smith viciously shut Dr. Hale down in the bi-weekly
faculty meeting for wanting to discuss the march and present letters of support from educators,
researchers and practitioners from across the country, Dr. Hale specifically noted that
this incident in the aforementioned faculty meeting was provided to the Court in 15-4947 as
Voice 006.m4a, and referenced in Doc. 71, pg. 53. A transcript of what was said in the faculty
meeting is attached as Exhibit G, and is incorporated by reference herein. One of the letters of
support from educators across the country that Dr. Hale wanted to present to the SLIM faculty is
6
Case 5:17-cv-04019-SAC-KGG Document 22 Filed 04/27/17 Page 7 of 23
attached as Exhibit H, and is incorporated by reference herein. A letter of support from black
faculty and staff at ESU is attached as Exhibit I, and is incorporated by reference herein.
9. Rittgers defamation claim arises in the context of a matter of public concern; the manner
in which Emporia State University set out to investigate a law enforcement matter as a personnel
matter, which was and is totally inapposite and devious. In Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v. Greenmoss
Builders, Inc., the Court held that when statements about a private individual that relate to
important matters of public concern are at issue, the plaintiff must show actual malice by the
defendant to recover punitive or presumed damages. 472 U.S. 749, 75861 (1985). The fact that
the matter was one of public concern can be ascertained from the words of Interim President
Vietti herself. BSU vice president Deidra Elijah sent a message to Vietti on or about September
9, 2015 in which she stated that she was disappointed in the results of the investigation, and
that I think it is truly sad that the University continues to sweep racial issues under the rug. A
true and correct of Elijahs email is attached as Exhibit J, and is incorporated by reference
herein. Viettis response to Elijah includes the following statement: [M]y message wasnt
meant to imply that I believe we should move on and forget this terrible issue. Rather I believe
we should us [sic] it is as the foundation for taking on any and all racial and other diversity
issues that exist at Emporia State. A true and correct of Viettis email is attached as Exhibit K,
and is incorporated by reference herein. The Action Matters program at the University of
Michigan, Oshkosh, is an example of how bias incidents, which includes hate speech, should be
dealt with using best practices. The program suggests reporting the incident using a confidential
report line and reporting the matter to the University Police so that they could take pictures and
obtain a formal report. It says nothing about making a personnel report. ESU did the exact
7
Case 5:17-cv-04019-SAC-KGG Document 22 Filed 04/27/17 Page 8 of 23
opposite of best practices, which has a lot to do with why Rittgers name was exposed. A couple
of web pages from the Action Matters website are attached as Exhibit L, and are incorporated by
reference herein. ESU is listed as a participant in the Action Matters program, but there was no
10. Vietti viewed the issues involved in Hales protests as socially and politically significant,
and of enormous public concern. Her comments can be construed in no other way. She called
those issues foundational for ESU future plans in the areas of race and diversity. A text message
from Elijah to Angelica Hale on September 3, 2015 makes the same point. Elijah wrote: Good
Morning Mrs. Hale, My government teacher had me stand in front of the class to talk to them
about the March. I am wearing my shirt today! It is truly an honor to be supporting you all! A
true and correct of Elijahs text message to Angelica is attached as Exhibit M, and is
incorporated by reference herein. Elijah and members of the BSU sold March On Emporia
t-shirts in the student union. A photo posted by Elijah on her Facebook page showing her selling
t-shirts with two other BSU members is attached as Exhibit N, and is incorporated by reference
herein. The march, and all the activities associated with what Dr. Hale was doing, was of
profound public concern, not only locally, but nationally and globally. It is a continuation of the
battle for civil rights, and for minority voices being heard. In the context of a matter of public
concern the handwriting opinion of Carlson was publicized. Even the campus newspaper, the
ESU Bulletin separately contacted Carlson in October 2015 for a story in which Carlson
11. The Associated Press printed an article in their Big Story section on July 29, 2015
entitled Emporia State couple claims racial harassment at university. Although Dr. Hale
mentioned Carlsons opinion to the AP reporter, Margaret Stafford, Stafford neither named
8
Case 5:17-cv-04019-SAC-KGG Document 22 Filed 04/27/17 Page 9 of 23
Rittgers in the article, nor for that matter, insinuated that a university employee was involved. A
true and correct of the AP story is attached as Exhibit O, and is incorporated by reference
herein. Numerous individuals signed a public Change.org petition which requested that the
American Library Association not give SLIM full accreditation, but rather conditional
accreditation. One of the signers of the petition was Catherine Terrell, whose husband Dr. Nate
Terrell taught at ESU for twenty years. Dr. Hale met with Dr. Terrell while he was still at ESU,
and Dr. Terrell was the head of a group of black faculty and staff which met on a regular basis to
incorporated by reference herein. She stated: I believe that ESU can do more to send a message
of acceptance and inclusion of all races, particularly Black students and Faculty and staff.
12. In a much cited case, Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc, 418 U.S. 323, 337 (U.S. 1974), the
Supreme Court writes that In his opinion for the plurality in Rosenbloom v. Metromedia, Inc.,
403 U.S. 29 (1971), Mr. Justice Brennan took the New York Times privilege one step further. He
concluded that its protection should extend to defamatory falsehoods relating to private persons
if the statements concerned matters of general or public interest. He abjured the suggested
distinction between public officials and public figures on the one hand and private individuals on
the other. He focused instead on society's interest in learning about certain issues: If a matter is
a subject of public or general interest, it cannot suddenly become less so merely because a
private individual is involved, or because in some sense the individual did not `voluntarily'
choose to become involved. Id., at 43. Thus, under the plurality opinion, a private citizen
involuntarily associated with a matter of general interest has no recourse for injury to his
reputation unless he can satisfy the demanding requirements of the New York Times test.
9
Case 5:17-cv-04019-SAC-KGG Document 22 Filed 04/27/17 Page 10 of 23
13. As the reporter and the publisher of a matter of public concern, Dr. Hale is afforded the
protection of constitutional privilege known as the New York Times Test derived from New York
Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964.) It bars media liability for defamation of a public
official absent proof that the defamatory statements were published with knowledge of their
falsity or in reckless disregard of the truth. The court concluded that that standard protects media
discussion of a public issue without regard to whether the person defamed is a public official as
in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, supra, or a public figure, as in Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts,
14. Dr. Hale has training in media communications, scholarly communications, and
conflicts of interest; records conversations via notes and video and audio recordings; and makes
a concerted effort to get all sides of a story. Dr. Hale is a researcher with a doctorate in
Information Studies from UCLA, and above all he values empirical scientific methods to arrive
at facts and objective truth. As a media defendant, Rittgers must prove that the alleged
defamatory falsehood was made with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of
whether it was false or not, a fault standard known as actual malice. New York Times Co. v.
Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 280 (1964). This is constitutional privilege. Rittgers acknowledges that
Dr. Hale was in contact with traditional media sources, was involved in public demonstrations,
and that his views were available on this and related matters on the Internet, visited by a global
audience. Dr. Hale in this regard acted no differently than a traditional reporter. Dr. Hale has
since published a book entitled Django Unchained and the March on Emporia State:
photo of the book is shown in Exhibit Q, and is incorporated by reference herein. From the
10
Case 5:17-cv-04019-SAC-KGG Document 22 Filed 04/27/17 Page 11 of 23
onset, Dr. Hales remarks were not directed at Rittgers, but at the seemingly pervasive
State University and in academic institutions and private enterprises across America. In New
York Times Co. v. Sullivan, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that The general proposition that
freedom of expression upon public questions is secured by the First Amendment has long been
settled by our decisions .... [W]e consider this case against the background of a profound national
commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-
open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks
on government and public officials . . . Like the various other formulae for the repression of
expression that have been challenged in this Court, libel can claim no talismanic immunity from
constitutional limitations. It must be measured by standards that satisfy the First Amendment.
376 U.S. at 269, 293, 297. Rittgers suit is an attack against the First Amendment, and in direct
15. Dr. Hale has always been willing to relay a new opinion on the writing of the slur based
on forensic science, such as a London Letter handwriting examination and a polygraph test. He
believes that this is the most direct route to resolving this dispute. Despite a statement by Vietti
that Rittgers offered to take these tests to clear her name, Vietti exonerated Rittgers and then
released her from having to do so. Without empirical forensic evidence to controvert the existing
opinion of a forensic document examiner, a retraction by Dr. Hale is not warranted; neither was
the exoneration by Vietti. Dr. Hale provided a true and accurate photocopy of the notebook page
with the word NIGGAZ on it in case 15-4947 in his motion for summary judgment, and
attaches the same photocopy of the notebook page here as Exhibit R, which is incorporated by
11
Case 5:17-cv-04019-SAC-KGG Document 22 Filed 04/27/17 Page 12 of 23
reference herein. Despite comments to the contrary made by Vietti and other ESU officials, the
digital photocopy of the offending racial slur is materially sufficient to support forensic
16. Dr. Hale may have additional defenses that cannot be articulated at this early date due to
Plaintiffs failure to particularize its claims and due to Plaintiffs failure to provide more specific
information concerning the nature of its alleged claims for damages and certain costs for which
Plaintiff alleges that Dr. Hale may bear some responsibility. Dr. Hale therefore reserves the right
examination of the documents produced, upon discovery of further information concerning the
claims for alleged damages and costs, and upon development of other pertinent information
WHEREFORE, Defendant Melvin Hale prays for judgment as follows: (A) That
Plaintiff Debra Rittgers takes nothing by way of its Complaint; (B) that the Complaint be
Dismissed With Prejudice; and (C) That Judgment be entered against Plaintiff Debra Rittgers
______________________________
/s/ Melvin Hale, Defendant Pro Se
P.O. Box 34179
Los Angeles, CA 90034
reefresh@yahoo.com
916-690-7927
12
Case 5:17-cv-04019-SAC-KGG Document 22 Filed 04/27/17 Page 13 of 23
COUNTERCLAIM
1. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
1331and 1332 because this matter involves a civil action arising under the Constitution, laws, or
treaties of the United States, and because it is between citizens of different states and the amount
in controversy, exclusive of interest and costs, exceeds Seventy-Five Thousand and 00/100
Dollars ($75,000). Additionally, this Court has pendant, ancillary, and/or supplemental
jurisdiction over the state law claims asserted in this litigation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1367.
3. Venue is appropriate in the United States District Court for Kansas pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
1391(b) and (c) since Plaintiff-Counterdefendant resides in this district and a substantial part of
PARTIES
Kansas, and during the period under examination was the Assistant to the Dean of the School of
under examination was under contract to Emporia State University as an Assistant Professor in
13
Case 5:17-cv-04019-SAC-KGG Document 22 Filed 04/27/17 Page 14 of 23
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
7. Dr. Hale demanded in December 2014 that Dean Alexander move his wife Angelica
Hale, who was employed as Assistant to the Dean for Media Communications and Marketing,
from the same office with Rittgers on the third floor to an office on the fourth floor.
her graduate assistant named Brenda regarding an incident involving Brendas office on the
10. According to Brenda when she arrived at work, which was a part-time job in which she
worked 20 hours a week reporting to Angelica, she found her office door unlocked, things
tampered with in her office, and the racial slur NIGGAZ written by an unknown person on her
notepad.
11. Dr. Hale was in a regularly scheduled faculty meeting with Dean Alexander and staff in
12. Dr. Hale accompanied Dean Alexander to her office after the meeting and relayed the
13. Angelica joined the meeting with Dean Alexander after a time and filled Alexander in on
15. Dr. Hale asked Alexander to take action on investigating the incident.
14
Case 5:17-cv-04019-SAC-KGG Document 22 Filed 04/27/17 Page 15 of 23
16. For the better part of two months there was no apparent action by Alexander, neither did
17. On her own accord, and for reasons known to her, Angelica came to believe that the
18. Unbeknownst to Dr. Hale, Angelica sought out a forensic document examiner to examine
19. The forensic document examiner Angelica chose was Wendy Carlson.
20. Angelica paid Carlson $300 for a verbal opinion, and Carlson provided that verbal
opinion in June, 2015, stating that the writing was most probably that of Rittgers.
21. When it appeared obvious that Alexander was taking no action on the matter, Dr. Hale
and Angelica subsequently reported the matter to ESU Provost David Cordle and others in the
administration.
22. On or about July 1, 2015, Dr. Hale and Angelica provided the same information to the
ESU Police Department and the local district attorney and asked them to investigate the matter as
a hate crime.
23. On or about July 1, 2015, all of the ESU officials and the law enforcement agents refused
to follow-up with Carlson nor Rittgers despite knowing about Carlsons opinion.
24. No one in law enforcement took any action to photograph the office where the incident
25. ESU officials and law enforcement immediately refused to characterize the slur as a hate
crime, or as a manifestation of hate speech, stating it was just a word on a piece of paper.
26. All of the ESU officials and the law enforcement contacted stated that no crime occurred,
and that the writing of a word on a piece of paper is not a crime under any circumstances.
15
Case 5:17-cv-04019-SAC-KGG Document 22 Filed 04/27/17 Page 16 of 23
27. Following what she perceived to be flagrant retaliation for her reporting of an instance of
hate speech for which no law enforcement investigation would commence, Angelica wrote an
Open Letter to Dean Alexander in which she referred to the expert opinion of Carlson.
2015, Rittgers was exonerated by the university of any misconduct, and the university alleviated
29. Dr. Hale and Angelica conducted two protest marches on campus against the dubious
30. The marches against racism and university corruption occurred at the same time as
numerous campus protests against racism that were taking place across America, including
protests nearby at the University of Missouri (Mizzou) where the president of the university
31. Danielle Walker, a leader in the protests at Mizzou attended the second March on
32. When a Special Agent from the Topeka Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) visited Dr.
Hale at ESU on December 2, 2015 at Dr. Hales request, Rittgers was seen by Dr. Hale, the FBI
agent, and Angelica, hurrying from the library building with two other SLIM employees.
33. Rittgers left the building and drove away terminating any chance that she could be
34. Rittgers knows that she cannot prevail in the instant litigation, but filed her lawsuit to
frustrate and silence Dr. Hale for speaking out against racism, a protected activity.
35. Dr. Hale believes that Rittgers action is an expansion of her initial micro-aggressions.
16
Case 5:17-cv-04019-SAC-KGG Document 22 Filed 04/27/17 Page 17 of 23
36. Dr. Hale believes that Rittgers is well aware that his activities are protected by the First
Amendment.
37. Dr. Hale himself became the target of a vicious online defamation campaign.
38. One article called Dr. Hale a dipshit, and stated that Hale and his wife most likely
concocted a hate crime hoax. A copy of a web page from that site called the iOTWReport.com
39. Another online website called DownTrend.com accused Dr. Hale of demanding an
investigation and suing because he didnt like the results. A quote from that article reads:
Heres how I see it: The Hales were campus agitators that constantly complained about racism
that didnt exist. They likely staged a hate crime because they couldnt prove their claims of
racism any other way. When the university investigated and found that the hate crime was
bullshit and that the Hales were probably behind it, Melvin Hale filed a lawsuit to save face. A
40. The online character assassination of Dr. Hale was unrelenting. A Facebook page by
someone calling himself James Alt stated: Even if being a liar and a fraud isnt enough to get
him fired, being an obnoxious jackass might be. A copy of that Facebook page is attached as
41. Dr. Hale and Angelicas names were added to an online directory called Moonbattery
which catalogued so-called hate hoax incidents in America. A copy of the Moonbattery website
pages referring to the Hales are attached as Exhibit V, and are incorporated by reference herein.
42. Dr. Hale believes that this onslaught of malicious hate was directed by ESU officials, and
17
Case 5:17-cv-04019-SAC-KGG Document 22 Filed 04/27/17 Page 18 of 23
43. Dr. Hale believes that Rittgers was exonerated because she was embedded with the white
political and social culture at Emporia State and complicit with their campaign to silence him.
44. Dr. Hale and Angelica have both filed Title VII and Section 1983 lawsuits in this district
45. Dr. Rajesh Singh, who was terminated from the same library school at ESU in 2014, has
also filed a lawsuit against ESU and its top administrators alleging discrimination and retaliation.
46. After being named a defendant in Dr. Hales lawsuit against ESU, Rittgers filed a
defective counterclaim in which she failed to answer Dr. Hale claims against her.
47. At the same time that Rittgers filed her counterclaim, Dr. Hale was faced with three
motions to dismiss his third amended complaint, brought by Kansas Attorney General, Derek
Schmidt.
48. The actions of the Attorney Generals office amounted to a coordinated assault on Dr.
49. The Court dismissed Rittgers counterclaim for failure to provide an answer, and also
dismissed her as a defendant in Hales lawsuit, but left the door open for the current action.
50. On information and belief, Rittgers filed her counterclaim as part of a concerted effort by
ESU et al. to harass and prevent Dr. Hale from exercising his Constitutional rights to freedom of
51. Although Vietti admits to meeting with Rittgers during the internal investigation on more
than one occasion, Vietti steadfastly refused to meet with Dr. Hale to discuss his perspectives
52. The agenda for the meeting of the accreditation team for SLIM from the American
Library Association the week of October 26, 205 shows that Dr. Hale was excluded from voicing
18
Case 5:17-cv-04019-SAC-KGG Document 22 Filed 04/27/17 Page 19 of 23
his concerns at ESU SLIM while all other faculty had a scheduled meeting with them. A copy of
53. Dr. Hale believes that if Rittgers were sincerely interested in clearing her name, she
would not rely on a dubious internal investigation or on bare denials, but would produce
54. Rittgers cannot claim damages because she has done nothing to mitigate those alleged
damages.
55. At the time that Rittgers filed her original counterclaim in April 2016 she had opportunity
to timely re-file an independent complaint to which she could have joined Angelica as a
defendant.
56. The untimely joinder of Angelica to this lawsuit resulted in an order from the Court
57. Rittgers conduct towards Dr. Hale and his wife was strained while they worked there,
58. Rittgers brought her suit as a means to silence Dr. Hale, who she knows does not have the
financials to hire counsel, and thus she hoped to defeat him by financial attrition, not on the facts
of her case.
59. Rittgers has the support of ESU and the Kansas Attorney General in her legal contest
60. Dr. Hale was served by a process server and the sheriff at Indiana University while he
was preparing to present a talk on the KBI theory which he defended in his doctoral studies at
UCLA, a move intended to embarrass him and damage his career opportunities in academia.
19
Case 5:17-cv-04019-SAC-KGG Document 22 Filed 04/27/17 Page 20 of 23
61. Rittgers cannot claim that she has suffered adverse consequences in her employment or
62. In the spring of 2016 Rittgers was promoted to a position in the Teachers College.
63. Rittgers daughter Alexa Thomas, who she mentions as being damaged by defamatory
words, has posted numerous videos online in which she claims to be having a wonderful time at
ESU. A partial transcript and photos from Alexas YouTube video entitled My Story is attached
64. Since the incident, ESU has featured Rittgers daughter Alexa in numerous promotional
65. Prior to coming to ESU both Alexa, and Rittgers live-in boyfriend Paul Mains, were
66. What is interesting about WTF303 is that the home page has a comment posted on May
30, 2013 which simply says: what n the nigger!? A copy of the WTF303 Facebook page and
related pages are attached as Exhibit Y, and are incorporated by reference herein.
67. Rittgers knows that Hale was engaged in Constitutionally protected activities when he
was involved in protests against racism, and that her claim of defamation would chill a normal
person from continuing to engage in those protests, which has now extended to Dr. Hales
68. Rittgers has never filed a defamation suit against Carlson despite the fact that she states
69. The ESU student paper, The Bulletin, printed an article which stated that Hale Must
Retract or Face the Axe, and Hale made his motivations known. The Bulletin article is attached
20
Case 5:17-cv-04019-SAC-KGG Document 22 Filed 04/27/17 Page 21 of 23
70. The writer of the aforementioned Bulletin article, ESU student Editor-in-Chief Sarah
Spoon, contacted Carlson, and received the same opinion that she gave Angelica.
71. The Bulletin article mentioned Carlsons opinion, as well as Rittgers name, but Rittgers
72. Rittgers has failed to pursue her defamation case in a judicious and diligent manner.
73. Rittgers brought her action against Dr. Hale in Lyon County despite the fact that Dr. Hale
74. Rittgers choice of jurisdiction suggests that she had hoped to use local jurists that were
75. Dr. Hale views this entire experience in Emporia as a form of modern-day lynching, in
76. Dr. Hale has recently started research on a book entitled: Emporia State University: Case
77. The preliminary cover of the book is attached as Exhibit AA, and is incorporated by
reference herein.
78. Rittgers actions suggest that her claims are not urgent or legitimate, but rather a staged
upstanding African American in an act of racism and white rage reminiscent of previous forms
79. Rittgers mere statement that she did not write the word NIGGAZ in the graduate
21
Case 5:17-cv-04019-SAC-KGG Document 22 Filed 04/27/17 Page 22 of 23
80. Dr. Hale has repeatedly called for Rittgers to do something to clear her name if she is not
involved in the hate speech incident, but all he has ever received from her is the bare denial
81. Dr. Hale spent five years of his life at a cost exceeding $250,000 to obtain a doctorate
82. Rittgers actions have damaged Dr. Hales ability to find work in academia.
83. Because of his age, currently sixty-two (62) and academic specialization, Dr. Hale faces a
84. Dr. Hale has applied to over 150 jobs since leaving ESU and has gotten as far as the
85. The actions of Rittgers and her accomplices at ESU are directly responsible for the
apparent destruction of Dr. Hales bright future both in and outside of academia.
86. Rittgers claim of defamation by Dr. Hale is in fact defamatory itself, and because its
publication is readily found on the Internet, it has done untold harm to his reputation.
the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1-86 as if fully set forth herein.
Hale for engaging in activities protected by 42 U.S.C. 1983, the First Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution.
22
Case 5:17-cv-04019-SAC-KGG Document 22 Filed 04/27/17 Page 23 of 23
89. Plaintiff-Counterdefendant Debra Rittgers acted under color of state law when she
90. Defendant-Counterclaimant Hale has been damaged by the illegal conduct of Plaintiff-
for punitive damages, compensatory damages, economic damages, for all remedies allowed by
law including an award of fees and costs, and for such other and further relief as the Court may
order.
______________________________
/s/ Melvin Hale, Defendant Pro Se
P.O. Box 34179
Los Angeles, CA 90034
reefresh@yahoo.com
916-690-7927
23