Threat of the week from exploded time-bomb holder Rose Donatelli Venneri

A most excellent question, I was wondering the answer myself. Since she didn't mention being exonerated or the charges being dropped in her threatening email, I'd also guess that those were unlikely results. I don't believe that most prosecutions actually go to trail. The charges are dropped or there's a plea bargain. I'd therefore guess that there was a plea bargain in this case. Perhaps Rose would like to register and post the results of her case in this thread? Is the logon name Dr Rose available?

 

If not, perhaps PseudoDrRose is available?

 

Yes, it is.

I ran every combination I could think of (Dr, Dr., Doctor, Rose, Denneri, Ph.D., PhD) and all were available.

 

Some things to think about...

(Content removed by moderator)

Note from moderator:

Although the content provided in this post is valuable and appreciated, it isn't relevant to the topic thread, and was removed .

It has, however, been kept as valuable input that may be helpful in the future.

 

Well, I think that Rose has figured out she has no case.

Here's her latest attempt at a barb...


Chip.

My emails to you were polite requests and not threats. They were given as an opportunity for you to do the "right thing."

You are a perfect example to illustrate that "education," no matter where you get it, has nothing to do with "character."

Perhaps, you may wish to obtain an "authentic education" yourself about what is right and what is wrong.

Rose

And my barbed reply:


Ruth,

Let me get this straight.

First off, you didn't threaten us? Most certainly you did. You indicated in your first email that we needed to "remove our site from the Internet" in order that "any legal actions may be avoided." In the second email, you advised that contacting a lawyer would be "well worth the cost" and assured me that this was the case.

Secondly, according to the St. Catherine's Standard, you bought a fraudulent degree from LaSalle University, which was proven in a court of law to be a fraud at the time you purchased your degree from them. (Their founder went to jail.) No one in their right mind could assume that a legitimate Ph.D. could be earned when either a minuscule amount of work or no work at all was done. Therefore, logic dictates that if you already have the legitimate degrees you claim, you know how much work was required for those and could therefore assume that a similar amount of work would be required for a doctorate. When it wasn't, you should have realized that the degree was a fraud. My guess is that you probably did, since you don't seem to be completely stupid.

Again, according to the Standard, you were arrested, apparently for a combination of practicing psychotherapy without a license and using a fake degree to do so.

And you're telling *me* that *I* need an authentic education, that I have inadequate character, or that I don't know right from wrong?

Hmmm. If you do have any training in psychology at all, I'd suggest that you spend a little time boning up on "projection."

Regards,

Chip

 

Your thoughts are well taken Gregg, thanks.

However, as Chip mentioned, this site is threatened with legal action on a regular basis. Not once has a suit ever been filed.

The only time a lawsuit was ever filed against a member here for statements made here was when Steve Levicoff was sued by MIGS. That was a total disaster, with MIGS ended up being fined $250,000 in the end. IMO, the only reason they filed the lawsuit was because they had an attorney (Enrique Serna) on staff already (because no one else with half a brain would take the case), and it was just an empty threat to try to keep Steve silent. It ended up being the final nail in the coffin for the school.

It would be the height of foolishness for anyone to sue this site. As Chip mentioned, truth is an absolute defense to libel/slander, and we'd have expert witnesses lining up to testify.

If I were ever sued personally, I'm more than competent enough to act pro se. Having been in court rooms and around attorneys all the time for the last 16+ years, they don't intimidate me in the slightest, which negates their biggest weapon. And, you can bet the farm that I'd counter-sue once their suit was dismissed/dropped.

 

Hmmm... interesting.

Lemmee ask a question, Chip... just in the hypothetical: What if she had come to you in the first place a bit more with her hat in her hand, saying, in essence:

• "Listen, Mr. White, I have a real problem, here, and I need your help, if you'll give it. I made a terrible mistake three years ago. I now realize the error in my ways. I've served my time and paid my fine and am suffering nearly unimaginable repercussions even now from my stupidity. Now, three years later, I'm trying to move on. What I did was bad, but it wasn't deserving of a life sentence. I have done nothing but walk the straight and narrow since then. I have atoned for my transgressions. In fact, I've even been doing some pro bono consulting with state agencies to help them ferret out and punish others who made the kind of foolish mistakes a breaches of public trust that I made.
  
  "But I feel a bit like Sisyphus pushing the boulder up the hill, only to have it roll back down on top of me because every time someone looks me up on the Internet, they find your thread mentioning me by name -- the only place on the entire Web that does so. I feel DegreeInfo's knee upon my chest and it will not let me up, no matter what I do. But I need to move on. Please. I've learned my lesson. I know I have no right to expect it; and that if you consent to doing so it will truly be an act of mercy on your part, but I humbly request that you either delete the thread or, at the very least, remove my actual name and all identifiable references to me so that it will eventually stop appearing in search engine results and I may get on with my life. Please, Mr. White, please. I beg of you. Please help me."

What might have happened then... you know... again, just in the hypothetical?

 

What's that sound I hear? Why, I think it's Rose's back-up alarm!

 

Re: Some things to think about...

Actually, it was quite relevant. But, in retrospect, I also realize it could have been useful to others against DegreeInfo (though that's clearly not what I intended). Since the party I'm interesting in seeing prevail in this matter, ultimately, is DegreeInfo, I'm not upset that the information was removed; and I hope it really is useful in the future.

So, no harm, no foul.

 

Actually, Gregg, there was a case very similar to what you described a few years ago. Someone with a bogus doctorate who was teaching at a RA university was "outed" here, and subsequently lost their job.

The person was genuinely remorseful, and I honestly believe that they were hoodwinked by the bogus school. Subsequently, all references to the person were removed, and they moved out-of-state to start their life over.

 

Excellent! Thank you! That's exactly the sort of answer from a moderator here that I was hoping for.

Perhaps Ms Venneri -- whom I'm certain is reading this thread -- can still get what she wants without making Chip feel like he's giving-in to a diploma mill credential user. I strongly suggest to Rose, right here and now, that if she can show Chip, et al, that she really has reformed; and if she is willing to swallow her pride and come forth anew with a different approach which reflects her understanding of the gift it would be for Chip to help her, that she should do so.

I don't know Chip, but I know of him and his sensibilities (from reading posts, and the history of this web site, and also from watching his moderation decisions). I could be wrong, but it's difficult to imagine that if he were convinced that Ms Venneri had learned her lesson; had atoned for her transgressions; were on a new path toward a useful life of honesty and helping others; and would never pull a stunt like that again, that he (Chip) would not be merciful and agree to employ vBulletin's handy feature that will convert the text string Rose Donatelli Venneri into a string of asterisks (or whatever other text string he chooses) throughout these forums. Perhaps, instead of asterisks, the text string "[IDENTITY REMOVED AS AN ACT OF MERCY ON THE ADMINISTRATOR'S PART]" would be appropriate and more explanatory.

It seems to me that a way out of this mess for all concerned -- and one that brings forth the better natures of both parties -- is possible, here.

The ball, it would seem, is in Ms Venneri's court. I know you're reading, Rose. It's a way out. Take it... that is, if you can convince Chip you're worthy.

Your move.

(So, like... can I get a post-graduate Certificate in Conflict Resolution for life experience or somethin' for this?)

 

Welllllll....

I need to clarify here. As Bruce mentioned, we made a one-time exception for an individual who, I am now convinced, made an extremely bad decision and didn't know what s/he was doing. A lot of background research was done before that exception was made.

I think that's the only case in which we've ever removed a post that was substantive (other than TOS violations or flames.)

I would have a very hard time removing a factually correct posting, because one of the strengths of DegreeInfo is our integrity. We simply do not remove content from the site, except when it violates our TOS. To do otherwise would damage the integrity of our forum as a historical archive of events.

What I would do in such a circumstance is to perhaps allow the person to post an adequate response/rebuttal and then close the thread so that, eventually, it would fall off of the main pages of the discussion forums, but would show up if someone did a search.

It's unfortunate when people make bad decisions, but I also don't think it's necessarily appropriate to erase all indications of former mistakes.

 

As an aside, I also can't imagine that a three year old thread was actually causing someone that was reformed problems. My suspicion is that having a name popping up in that context was more likely causing an unreformed person problems.

 

As long as everyone is sending threats...

Dear Mr. White,

I am the number seven. It is my understanding that you are responsible for the frequent unauthorized over-use of the letters “c” and “h” as well as the number “7”, both on a public access web-board and in daily use during correspondence in life.

I am respectfully requesting that you remove either of these letters (c and h) and the number seven from your vocabulary and all posts on the (degreeinfo.com) site. Additionally, I would respectfully request that you remove any post made by anyone whose opinion differs from my own as it is quite obvious that I am the greatest authority on the credibility of all things, therefore no other opinion is valid.

If you refuse to comply with my humble request, I will be forced to consider wasting my time making reference to initiating a class action suit on behalf of the entire alphabet and all whole numbers in future correspondence. I may also mumble threats in your general direction and make rude gestures whenever I read one of your posts.

Your immediate compliance is appreciated,
7

P. S. I have not consulted with an attorney on this matter, however I have consulted with my “magic 8-ball” and inquired about the merit and strength of my potential case and litigation in this dispute. When directly questioned as to whether I have a chance of winning, the 8-ball responded that; “it is decidedly so.”

 

Maybe I'm not understanding the situation but...

I don’t know the entire story so maybe my jest above may seem inappropriate. Yet feel this person went about her request in the wrong manner. This is basically a public access board, and most of what is posted here is personal opinion and reference to outside articles, sites and threads. If she truly wanted something removed, she should have initiated correspondence with a polite request and possibly an explanation rather than a threat. In my own experiences in life, whether it is in business or any other context, the first approach should almost always be one of hopeful persuasion. Beyond that it’s a judgment call on the part of the person contacted.

I may be old fashioned or simplistic in my beliefs, but I really do think that you achieve more with less effort by approaching issues in a reasonable manner rather than charging at every offending issue. If this person’s mistake in judgment came back to haunt her due to a post on this board, why didn’t she simply ask for the post to be removed politely, and state her case rather than implying (or directly threatening) stronger action.

(IMO) There are far too many situations in life that could be rectified with a simple discussion, rather than threatening extreme measures, or burdening our court system.

This board may not be the perfect forum, but I'd be willing to venture that it has helped many hundreds more than it has offended.

 

I forgot to mention the large amount of research that went into that particular case.

That incident was very much the exception rather than the rule.

 

Chip:

Your info on the state of libel law is accurate: truth is an absolute defense. If what you've reported is true--and by all accounts it is--you have nothing to worry about. Were she to find an attorney willing to pursue a claim against you, you could likely obtain summary judgment and be awarded sanctions, attorneys fees, etc. before the case even went to trial. And let us assume a priori that she actually did have a meritorious claim; even were it so, she must still prove damages, because that's a necessary element of any defamation claim--and it's not an easy thing to prove.
I'm by no means a noteworthy attorney, I'm just a small-timer who moonlights teaching at a couple colleges, but even I know that Rose is blowing pure smoke and eternally confused. Go easy on her, don't have too much fun at her expense, seems akin to kicking a wounded animal, not sporting.

 

Well, maybe we spoke too soon.... but I'm guessing that it's just blowing smoke.

Here's the latest...





Chip:

It is obvious that you and I are not going to come to a resolution about this. Would you prefer my lawyer to contact you or your lawyer about this matter.

Could you please provide a name and address in order that we may continue with the next step?



To which I responded:



Yawn.




I'm certainly not going to do her work for her... and, of course, she still has yet to state exactly what it is that we've posted that's objectionable. So we'll see... I suppose the next step on our side might be to ask Steve Levicoff offer up some comments to be sent to her

 

Chip:

Yawn...that answer was great. I think you're right, still just bluff--if you have truth on your side, there's nothing to worry about. The only way you could land in hot water is if the article was proven wrong and you refused to retract or delete the references to her on the thread after being informed of its inaccuracy. Don't let her intimidate--not that you're actually intimidated--her case is nonexistent.

 

People here were discussing an article that appeared in the press.

If the contents of that article were incorrect, would the newspaper publish a correction?

If so, that correction should also be noted here.

But would the newspaper go back into its archives and delete references to her name?