Stefani Koorey’s “Harassment Prevention Order’

On August 4, 2012, while visiting the Fall River Historical Society in Fall River, MA., with an author/lawyer friend, our conversation with the curators was interrupted by an officer of the Fall River Police Department.  As it turned out, the officer was there to serve me with a “Harassment Prevention Order” filed by Stefani Koorey.   The Order has Ms. Koorey checking boxes indicating she swears that she is in “fear of bodily harm or injury” from me.  The Order indicates I must stay 50 yards away from her.

I  wondered how Stefani even knew I was at the Fall River Historical Society in the first place.  I was told she was “just here” and as it turned out,  had observed me present and called the PD herself so they could come and serve the Order.  Stefani Koorey was not then and  never has been, an item on my Agenda of places to go and people to visit while in Fall River.

It should be noted that until early 2010, one had to pay nearly $300 to file such a complaint, but fees no longer apply and subsequently the courts are flooded with Harassment Prevention Orders, many often frivolous and used as a harassing tool itself by the plaintiff.

The Order references “malice” which, in the legal sense and as it applies to the Order:

“Actual Malice

“In a legal sense, “actual malice” has nothing to do with ill will or disliking someone and wishing him harm. Rather, courts have defined “actual malice” in the defamation context as publishing a statement while either

• knowing that it is false; or

• acting with reckless disregard for the statement’s truth or falsity.

It should be noted that the actual malice standard focuses on the defendant’s actual state of mind at the time of publication. Unlike the negligence standard discussed later in this section, the actual malice standard is not measured by what a reasonable person would have published or investigated prior to publication. Instead, the plaintiff must produce clear and convincing evidence that the defendant actually knew the information was false or entertained serious doubts as to the truth of his publication. In making this determination, a court will look for evidence of the defendant’s state of mind at the time of publication and will likely examine the steps he took in researching, editing, and fact checking his work. It is generally not sufficient, however, for a plaintiff to merely show that the defendant didn’t like her, failed to contact her for comment, knew she had denied the information, relied on a single biased source, or failed to correct the statement after publication.”

(For example, here’s a recent lampooning of “public officials” which is floating around Facebook:)

“Actual Malice” – continued:

“Not surprisingly, this is a very difficult standard for a plaintiff to establish. Indeed, in only a handful of cases over the last decades have plaintiffs been successful in establishing the requisite actual malice to prove defamation.”   (my italics)

Deservedly, Stefani Koorey has asserted herself as a noted expert on Lizzie Borden and a Fall River historian.  She promotes herself with blogs and publications to substantiate this rightful claim.  She has run (unsuccessfully) for Mayor of Fall River – ergo, she is a “limited purpose public figure” as defined  HERE.

So, if I say, IN MY OPINION, Stefani Koorey, a noted expert on Lizzie Borden, resembles Stan Laurel, there is no malice in that – I’m just rendering an opinion.

People in the public eye will sometimes try to re-invent themselves. This is particularly true of entertainers and other celebrities and, less often, politicians. But individuals with even a modicum of notoriety will sometimes do the same.

It is my opinion that Stefani Koorey is attempting to change her image from a “Lizzie Borden nutcase” to the more respectable “Fall River historian and author”.  She most definitely knows a great deal about Fall River history and she has written the photo captions for her work in Fall River Revisited in the Images of America series. I say “captions” because it is not a novel or non fictional narrative.

Well, back to the Prevention Order.   I was already back in California when the court date was set, and as I had predicted, Ms. Koorey exercised her option to extend the order for one year.   She is probably aware I visit Fall River often and will, again, be visiting the end of October.

It is my opinion Stefani Koorey continues to be rejected from job applications (no matter how many “How to” books one reads, interviews can be very difficult) and cares (as in “I care”) and worries about her image.  It is my opinion she gets very stressed when I post or otherwise make known the actual facts of her endeavors, i.e., only 252 votes for mayor,  raised less than $200 on the $13,000 targeted  for her online magazine, etc, etc.    Harassment?  I think not.   Apparently, to Stefani Koorey, it is.  Oh well, everyone’s entitled to their “OPINION.”    😉

Sidebar note:  As to Stefani’s “fear of bodily harm or injury from me – I’m almost 68 years old, have COPD, and reside in California.  I think Stefani Koorey could drop kick me before I raised my cane elbow length.  LOL

“I did not ransom my life in order to study Lizzie’s.”

Angela Stryck wrote a wonderful response to this blog post, but since the “Comment” section is so far down and many may have missed it, I’m posting it in its entirety here – it’s that good.  Thank you Angela.   (You can read my reply comment by clicking “Comment” on the original post.)

**********

“Wow, I had the same epiphany during and shortly after the 1992 conference. I wasn’t becoming a grandmother, however. I was in the process of making a major career change, and knew that preparing for it (returning to school) would consume all hours not devoted to my then-current occupation as a tax auditor.

As fascinating as this locked-room (ok, house) mystery is, I realized, in 1992, that I had read everything readily available. I had made pilgrimages to Mrs. Brigham in March of 1990, September of 1990 and then again in Aug. 1992. There was nothing more to be done; it was not likely that anything new would be uncovered. Everyone (except Mrs. Brigham) was gone, and all the secrets with them. It will never be solved.

Don’t get me wrong–I still love to read about the case, especially now that we have the web. I am glad I decided at that time to have a life outside of Lizzie. As for the career change? Didn’t turn out exactly as I expected, but in healing from what did happen I have found a spiritual perspective that I likely would not have sought and found if things had gone “my way”. You would not believe the road I have travelled.

Ahh, this does bring back memories. I have not been to Fall River since the conference. As for the bed and breakfast, I would love to go someday–I have had that floor plan in my head since Robert Sullivan’s book in 1975.

Thanks, Faye, for all you have done for Borden lovers. Isn’t it great to gracefully release the Lizzie addiction in order to make room for things that really matter? Put another way, I am glad I did not ransom my life to in order to study Lizzie’s.

(It is almost certain you don’t remember me from the conference, unless you recall a young woman who brought her yorkie in a sherpa dog bag to all three days of the conference. (I think it was three days, anyway.)”

Reply

Angela Stryck 27 July 2010 at 5am edit