19 Hot Gibson FAQs

0 0 vote
Article Rating
Reading Time: 5 minutes at 250 WPM
Cox Admin bldg
Cox Admin Bldg. Where energy becomes entropy. Photo credit: JD Nobody.
GreenGeeks.com logoPosted Dec 24, 2019 at 11:00. Revised Oct 11, 2020 at 09:16.

Demand that Oberlin College practice free speech by inviting Cornell’s Prof. Jacobson to speak in Oberlin! Visit OberlinChaos Clubhouse to see the latest posts and developments.

Table of Contents: hide
4. Gibson’s FAQ’s (summary)

Whoops.

This post was published accidentally before it was complete. We will correct the points that are currently confusing.

Oberlin College and Gibson’s are locked in an FAQ war

Oberlinchaos believes that the positions of Oberlin College and Gibson’s Bakery must both be presented because of the presentation by the College being biased and one-sided. We are far more impressed with the arguments of the Gibson’s than those of the College but nevertheless will present the arguments of both sides.

Oberlin’s FAQ’s

After the shellacking Oberlin College took in court, the College hired some gifted PR geniuses to mount a PR campaign to whitewash the college’s many screwups in the whole chain of events leading up to the court debacle. A key part of this PR campaign is the slick PR and FAQ postings on oberlin.edu.

Oberlinchaos regards the presentation by the college as a masterpiece of lawyerly glibness and PR whitewashing. Look, and judge for yourself.

Gibson’s FAQ’s (summary)

Gibson’s Bakery Attorneys at Tzangas Plakas Mannos Ltd. (TPM) address misleading statements made by Oberlin College.

The Gibson’s attorneys did a very thorough job preparing FAQs for the Gibsons. The document is about 65 pages long, so Oberlinchaos.com has prepared a summary of the key points, referenced back to the authoritative original. The full text of the Gibson’s FAQs may be viewed here.

OBERLIN, OHIO: TPM (the Gibson’s law firm) has published an FAQ document with Evidence Presented at Trial, allowing facts to speak for themselves.
the major points…

Did Oberlin College and Dean Raimondo act with actual malice?

The jury determined this to be the case. The evidence supporting this point was overwhelming.

What led the jury to conclude that Oberlin College and Dean Raimondo acted with actual malice?

They never bothered to destroy the evidence documenting their ill will.

Did Oberlin College interfere with a 100-year business relationship without justification, and support by its words or actions a boycott against Gibson’s Bakery?

Yes. Based on manufactured and unproven accusations of racism, the college canceled a large standing order that was critical to the Bakery. The college was unable to submit any evidence to the court.

Did the Oberlin College administration fail to act as the adult in the room and instead succumb to the threat of students throwing nursery-school like temper tantrums in the college dining halls?

Yes. This was entered into evidence during the trial.

(NEW) Did Oberlin College enable a culture that excused student shoplifting?**

Yes. Over 18 months 32 college students were caught shoplifting at Gibson’s alone and were turned over to the Oberlin prosecutor. Each case was settled in a plea bargain.

(UPDATED) Did Oberlin College insist that its students were above the law and entitled to special treatment outside the criminal justice system?**

Yes. This point was considered non-negotiable by the College when trying to negotiate a settlement with the Gibsons before the matter went to trial. Acting outside the criminal justice system is vigilante justice.

Did the College recklessly disregard the truth that the Gibsons do not have a history of racial profiling or racial discrimination?

(NEW) Has Oberlin College engaged in bullying tactics or attempting to stifle those who voiced critical opinions of the college’s actions?**

(UPDATED) Did Oberlin College refuse at anytime to issue a statement correcting the false narrative that called the Gibsons racists?**

Yes. This happened during the early efforts to negotiate a settlement between the College and the Gibsons.

(NEW) Was the damage to the Gibsons, a lawsuit, and a trial avoidable?**

(UPDATED) Is this a free speech issue protected by the First Amendment and was Oberlin College held liable for the speech of its students?**

Did Oberlin College and Meredith Raimondo defame or libel the Gibsons?

Yes. The jury’s view of this is discussed in another FAQ question in this post.

What had Oberlin College and Meredith Raimondo done to cause the jury to conclude that the Gibson’s had been libeled?

(NEW) Did the students’ prior claim that Oberlin College itself was racist cause the college to deflect those claims by aiding and abetting the racism allegations against the Gibsons?**

Yes. The jury’s view of this is discussed in another FAQ question in this post.

What are the undisputed facts regarding the three students arrested for shoplifting on November 9, 2016?

(NEW) Was there evidence that any high-ranking college representatives did not respect the process or decision of the criminal justice system that accepted the students’ guilty pleas or the civil justice system that found in favor of Gibsons?**

Did Oberlin College and Dean Raimondo act with actual malice?

The jury found this to be the case.

This case involved two (2)“types” of malice: (1) libel actual malice; and (2) common law malice.

To recover punitive damages on their libel claims, the Gibsons were required to show libel actual malice, which was defined by the Court in the jury instructions as follows:[Punitive Phase Jury Instructions, p. 6]. To recover punitive damages on their other claims the Gibsons had to show common law actual malice. This was defined by the Court in the jury instructions as follows:[Punitive Phase Jury Instructions, p. 5]. Following the presentation of all the evidence in both compensatory and punitive phases of the trial, the 8-member jury unanimously determined that Oberlin College and Dean Raimondo acted with libel actual malice in the publication of defamatory statements about the Gibsons and that Oberlin College acted with common law actual malice when it intentionally inflicted emotional distress on Dave and Grandpa Gibson. “Oberlin College” refers to Defendant Oberlin College & Conservatory. “Dean Raimondo” refers to Oberlin College Vice President and Dean of Students Meredith Raimondo. “Dave” refers to Plaintiff and Gibson’s Bakery owner David R. Gibson. “Grandpa Gibson” refers to Plaintiff and Gibson’s Bakery owner Allyn W. Gibson.

What led the jury to conclude that Oberlin College and Dean Raimondo acted with actual malice?

The jury concluded, based on substantial evidence, that Oberlin College and Dean Raimondo acted with both libel actual malice and common law actual malice.

There was evidence that actions by Oberlin College and Dean Raimondo showed a conscious disregard for the rights and safety of another person that would likely cause substantial harm:

**These sections are new or have been supplemented

Visit The OberlinChaos Clubhouse to see the latest posts and news.

If you disagree…

Send your objections to
whistleblower@oberlinchaos.com, or
post a comment.

Posted Dec 24, 2019 at 11:00. Revised Oct 11, 2020 at 09:16.
Retrieved Nov 26, 2020 at 07:06.
Copyright ©2020 Charles E. Dial. All rights reserved.

JD Nobody

JD Nobody, OC '61, has a 54-year career in developing software. This involved IT application design and maintenance, software engineering, bank operations, and article composing software for The Business Torts Reporter. He was an administrative officer and ICBM launch officer in the U.S. Air Force.
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

2 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Bob

“Yes. This happened during the early efforts to negotiate a settlement between the College and the Gibsons.”

Your answer suggests that the college’s reckless indifference to the truth did not start until early settlement efforts. I respectfully disagree. The college was reckless from day one’, when they failed to correct the libelous statement of fact contained within the student flyer that the Gibsons had a history of racial discrimination.

Didn’t these simpletons learn anything from the Duke Lacrosse case?