Dr. V's magical putter

Go To This site:
http://dw.courts.wa.gov/index.cfm?fa=home.namelist

Type in Krol Stephen and you get this:

1
Court: Pierce Co District
Case Number: 3Y806578C
Court Information: 10-15-2003
Name: Krol, Stephen Old Name

Go to SAME site above. Now type in Vanderbilt Essay and you get this:

4
Court: Pierce Co District
Case Number: 3Y806578C
Court Information: 10-15-2003
Name: Vanderbilt, Essay Anne New Name

Same Court. Same Case Number. Same Date.

So yes, Krol = Vanderbilt.



Public information. No violation of privacy. Anyone can look it up.

What I don't know is just how Hannan found out Vanderbilt had changed her name from Krol.

 

Also, not sure zoominfo qualifies as a source, but:

http://www.zoominfo.com/s/#!search/profile/company?companyId=352308174&targetid=profile

"Company Description: Yar Golf was founded under the Principle belief that as we aspire to ascertain chronologically gifted status, we also will have to acknowledge our own marginalized physical capabilities. As I pondered my own limitations, an arthritic Hip, and my fellow Baby Boomer Golfers, bad backs, ankles, knees etc. I could not stop my reminiscing, "now that we have the time and the pecuniary resources to enjoy golf every day, our bodies are not up to it". Boy was I angry, but no matter what my Physician prescribed, my pain was prevalent, my frustration grew, my Golf Game worsened, therefore it was not a pleasurable experience. I eventually crossed paths with a PhD, with a decidedly diverse background."

- I'm personally assuming the "I" in the company description is Gerri Jordan and the PhD is Vanderbilt.

Once again, ASSUMING this is the case, YarGolf (and/or Jordan) is lying in its company description. Surely Dennis would have known Vanderbilt was not really a doctor.


EDIT: Interestingly enough, Yar's official website is slightly changed:

http://yargolf.com/index-1-new-About.html
"I eventually crossed paths with a person as intelligent as a PhD, with a decidedly diverse background."

I wonder if it was edited?

 

For what could they sue? Everything in the story is true.

 

Invasion of privacy comes to mind. It is even more available in other countries, where it takes precedent over freedom of the press. This being a story published on the Internet, that might be the right jurisdiction for legal action.

 

Invasion of privacy in regards to?

 

So you're admitting everything in the story is true. Good. We're off to a fine start.

Truth is a total defense for libel, so it can't be a libel suit.

So what else do they have? Invasion of privacy? Guess again. Everything in the story was discovered through either interviews or searches of public records. And that doesn't even take into account that Yar Golf was selling a product to the public, making it perfectly reasonable for someone to look into the company and its principle owners.

There are absolutely no grounds for suit here.

 

If a family's house burned down, does the paper report that the woman had a DUI in 1999, was divorced in 2003 and that the husband filed for bankruptcy in 2007?

All of this information can be found online, but since they were not public figures and not breaking the law, reporting such information can get you into legal hot water - as I have always understood it.

 

Bankruptcy, eh? Sounds like one of them ... insurance fires.

Someone's gotta pay the divorce lawyer and those outstanding DUI fines, right?

I mean, what?

 

Anyone who took Mass Com Law knows that truth is a total defense for libel or slander. So, we're back to Square 1. There's no libel here.

So what else ya' got? Invasion of privacy? Next.

 

The subject of the article certainly lied about her credentials, and job history. OK. Fine.

Now, how that excuses or justifies revealing her transgender status escapes me.

And, whether or not she committed a crime, or not she would have had grounds for a lawsuit, or whether or not her estate might, has no bearing either.

Look, Robin Roberts was in a 10 year relationship with a woman. No one reported that. It was her story to tell, or not tell. If some reporter had learned that Roberts was lying about her education, or job history that would not have given anyone the right to out her sexuality as a result.

Similarly, if Aaron Rodgers is indeed gay (and I have no idea if he is, or isn't) discovering some lie about him, would not put his sexuality into play for public consumption.

Dr. V's gender identity was not a lie. It wasn't part of a series of lies. It was unconnected to any falsehood she may had told about her education.

 

Can't it be both legal, and wrong?

Can't it be both legal, and unethical?

 

Again: Think internationally.