19 20 2 2 23 24 25 26 27 soepenarasze 30 VIRGIN IN CIRCUIT COURT FOR AUGUSTA COUNTY ERIK G. SCHNEIDER and EXECUTIVE INVESTIGATION CONSULTANTS, LLC, Plaintiffs, v. Case No. STEPHEN OATLEY, PAGE HEARN, JOHN DOE 1 and JOHN DOE2, Defendants. VERIFIED COMPLAINT Plaintiffs Erik Schneider and Executive Investigation Consultants, LLC (“EIC"), for their Defamation Complaint against Defendants Stephen Oatley, Page Heam, John Doe 1, and John Doe 2, allege as follows INTRODUCTION 1, Defendants Oatley and Heam are anti-Black Lives Matter activists, Defendant Oatley being a podcaster and conservative social media personality. 2. Defendant Oatley has engaged in a course of reckless conduct to lash out at a company that he disagrees with, Nexus Services, Inc. (“Nexus”), and in doing so, Defendant Oatley committed the tort of defamation against Plaintiffs by falsely conflating Executive Investigative Consultants, LLC, a former Fieldprint licensed vendor, with Nexus Services, Inc. (See Exhibit A) 3. Upon information and belief, Defendant Heam conspired with Defendant Oatley to damage the reputation of anyone they saw associated with Black Lives Matter protests Page 1 of 9 ‘Veriti Compan Schneider eal v-Outley etaa1 32 2 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 a 2 43 “4 45 46 7 48 49 tat ag ec 50 VIRGIN IN CIRCUIT COURT FOR AUGUSTA COUNTY in Augusta County. Nexus is a vocal supporter of BLM and thus a target of Defendant Heamn’s attacks. Defendant Heam publicly claimed she had helped bring Defendant Oatley to Augusta County to “cover” the protests, and in fact Defendant Oatley confirmed publicly that Defendant Hearn and her husband had convinced him to engage in his illegal conduct. Defendant Heam has exacerbated Defendant Oatley’s tort of defamation and has also committed the tort of defamation against Plaintiffs by falsely conflating Executive Investigative Consultants, LLC, a former Fieldprint licensed vendor, with Nexus Services, Inc. (See Exhibit B) Defendants’ performance of even a minimal amount of due diligence prior to engaging in this defamatory conduct would have shown that neither Nexus nor its principals have any ownership interest in IC. Defendants’ knew or should have known that the statements they published were false. Defendants’ defamatory statements were injurious / harmful to Plaintiff’ in that these statements caused Plaintiff EIC’s vendor, Fieldprint, to terminate its contract with Plaintiff EIC. JURISDICTION AND VENUE The Court's jurisdiction is based on § 17.1-513, et seq., and § 8.01-328.1, et seq., of the Code of Virginia, ‘Venue is proper pursuant to § 8.01-262(4) of the Code of Virginia. . Venue is further proper in this Court because the defamatory content in this case was specifically intended to damage Plaintiff Erik G. Schneider's reputation, and damage Plaintiff EIC’s relationships within the County of Augusta, Page 2 of 9 ‘Vested Complaint Shida, Osiy eta54 35 56 87 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 n n einai 74 -EEZER 75 76 VIRGINIA: IN CIRCUIT COURT FOR AUGUSTA COUNTY 12, 13, 14. 15. 16. 1. 18. 19, PARTIES Plaintiff Erik Schneider is the sole member and Managing Member of EIC. Mr, ‘Schneider is a resident of Virginia with a principal residence in Stuarts Draft, Virginia, Plaintiff Executive Investigation Consultants, LLC is a company that engages in private investigation and corporate risk mitigation services. Defendant Stephen Oatley is a self-styled political activist, freelance editor, and Journalist who posts blogs through Muckrack, Audible, Hubhopper, and other media as a blogger, viogger, and most importantly as a social media influencer. Defendant Page Heam is a local anti-Black Lives Matter activist in Augusta County who also attacks Igbt children and others whom she disagrees in social media rants. Defendant, John Doe 1, is and unidentified individual who, based on information and belief, coordinated with Defendant Oatley to defame Plaintiffs Defendant John Doe 2 is an unidentified individual who, based on information and belief, assisted the other Defendants’ defamatory publication using wire communications under multiple assumed identities to harass and stalk Plaintiffs and others, STATEMENT OF FACTS Defendant Oatley is a self-described social media influencer. He creates content that encourages hate-filled comments and potential acts of violence from his anti-BLM followers. (On August 6, 2021, Defendant Oatley posted on his official Citizen Stringer Muckrack account the following statement as a title to his blog article: “Company behind anti- Page 3 of 9 Vested Complaint Schneider, et av Oty, ean Er 7 80 a1 82 83 84 a5 86 a7 a8 89 90 91 92 93 94 95, satan win nc 96 sees, 97 BEES og VIRGINIA: IN CIRCUIT COURT FOR AUGUSTA COUNTY 20, 21 22, 23. 24, 25, 26. police protests has contract to run backgrounds for prospective Virginia state license holders, including police.” (the “Statement") See Exhibit A. Upon information and belief, Defendant Heam conspired with Defendant Oatley to distribute the false information Plaintiff Schneider, through his company, Plaintiff EIC, invested a significant amount of time and money to obtain the approval and vetting for a vendor license with Fieldprint, a company that provides background checks and fingerprinting services for numerous agencies, both public and private, throughout Augusta County. Plaintiff EIC's contractual license to conduct Fieldprint services was cancelled as a direct result of Defendant Oatley's defamatory Statement. Plaintiffs’ loss of its relationship with Fieldprint caused them reputational and pecuniary harm, Defendants knew or should have known that Defendant Oatley’s Statement was false and that his reckless disregard for the truth would injure Plaintiffs. Defendant Oatley recklessly disregarded basic joumalistie practices by failing to conduct any fact check before publishing the Statement. For example, a cursory State Corporation search would have revealed the Statement to be factually untrue. Defendant Oatley knew or should have known that the Statement was false before he published it Defendant Oatley’s article attached to the Statement accuses Nexus of running a “scam”, which is itself false, Defendant then conflates Plaintiff EIC as being owned by Nexus; ergo, publishing the allegation that Plaintiff EIC is running a “scam,” which constitutes defamation per se. Page 4 of 9 Vesitied Complsint Schneider ea Onley et99 100 101 102 103 108 105 106 107 108 109 110 mi 12 43 14 115 16 u7 sq ee rgh 18 EEEEE 120 VIRGINIA: IN CIRCUIT COURT FOR AUGUSTA COUNTY 27. Nexus is a company that, while progressive to a point of being at times controversial, offers a ley imate immigration assistance program that helps release detained immigrants from custody. Nexus is also renowned for its social justice engagement, often taking progressive stances on criminal justice and related matters, Both of these legitimate activities are considered controversial or worse by some, including Defendants and his social media followers. 28. Defendant Oatley published numerous statements about Nexus inferring criminality or illegal activity because he doesn’t like Nexus’s political stance. He then published the assertion that Nexus owns or controls or acts in commonality with Plaintiff EIC. 29. Defendant Oatley’s defamatory content was available worldwide. However, upon information and belief, Defendant Oatley specifically intended for his defamatory Content to reach individuals living and working in the County of Augusta, Virginia, in an effort to damage Nexus’s and Plaintiffs" reputation, business relationships, and relationships with individuals living and working in Augusta County, specifically, but not limited to, those individuals who may need fingerprinting services from EIC. 30. The Statement is factually untrue. Plaintiff EIC has no common ownership with Nexus. Plaintiff EIC’s operation of the Fieldprint fingerprinting program had no connection to Nexus or its activities or political stances, 31, Defendants’ defamatory statement is not a general statement of opinion, rather a statement Defendants employ as fact. 32. Defendant Oatley maintained a false narrative that Fieldprint failed to use its own technology to vet the “companies it contracts with. Ifthey had, they might be surprised Page 5 of 9 Vested Compleat Schade, ea. Ole.121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 dia teteer ates 12 40 ct 2 143 VIRGINIA: IN CIRCUIT COURT FOR AUGUSTA COUNTY to lear that many of the executives of Nexus are convicted felons.” Nexus had no relationship nor interest in Plaintiffs’ Fieldprint license. 33. Defendant Oatley knew or should have known that Plaintiff EIC does not contract with Nexus. Again, Defendants recklessly and maliciously associated Plaintiff EIC with Nexus. Such allegation was intended to and, in fact did, harm Plaintiffs and is defamatory per se. 34. In fact, neither Plaintiffs, their representatives, sub-contractors and/or employees have ever been charged with a felony nor convicted of a felony. Plaintff BIC vets its employees prior to authorizing them to use the “Fieldprint” technology. 35. The Statement accuses Plaintiffs and their associates of involvement in criminal activity, which is false, constituting defamation per se 36. Defendants’ public statements about the Fieldprint contract were false, including the accusation that PlaintiffS allowed access to these systems by Nexus, This false statement injured Plaintiffs in their business and/or trade and injured their reputation. 37. The Statement’s false characterization tying Nexus’s purported anti-police sentiment to Plaintiff's license to fingerprint potential police recruits demonstrates Defendants’ malicious intent to create distrust between Plaintiffs and law enforcement personnel, ive., Plaintiffs’ actual and potential customers. This constitutes defamation per se. 38. Defendant states that he reached out to Fieldprint for comment. Upon information and belief, Fieldprint refuted the Statement, yet the Statement and associated article remains active and available as of the date of the preparation of this Complaint. 39. Defendant Hearn republished the accusations as true. Page 6 of 9 ‘Verited Complsint Schneider, a, Onley ets14a 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 187 158 159 160 161 162 SES “6s VIRGINIA: IN CIRCUIT COURT FOR AUGUSTA COUNTY COUNTI DEFAMATION PER SE 40. Plaintifis reallege all the foregoing allegations and incorporates them herein by reference. 41. Defendants’ Statement is factually untrue. 42, Plaintiff does not deal with matters of public concer relating to a matter of political, social, or other concem to the community, nor is it the subject of legitimate news interest. 43. Defendants’ Statement is defamatory because it has a defamatory meaning on its face. 44. Defendants’ Statement is defamatory because it has a defamatory meaning by its implication, 45. The plain and natural meaning of Defendants’ Statement is not a mere expression of opinion as reasonably understood by the average person because it can be, and is, provably false. 46. On its face, the plain and natural meaning of Defendants’ Statement is not rhetorical hyperbole as would be reasonably understood by the average person, 41. As.used by Defendant, the plain and natural meaning of the Statement is not rhetorical hyperbole as would be reasonably understood by the average person. 48. A reasonable person would understand Defendants’ Statement to convey a (false) representation of fact 49. Defendant published the Statement in a manner that created a substantial danger to Plaintiffs’ reputation Page 7 of 9 Vertes Compl Schneider, a. Os eta168 169 170 1m in 173 174 175 176 17 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 VIRGINIA: IN CIRCUIT COURT FOR AUGUSTA COUNTY 50. Defendant published the Statement with actual malice, personal spite, and ill-will, independent of the occasion on which the communication was made, and with the specific intent to harm Plaintiffs and their reputation, 51, Defendant knew the Statement was false atthe time he published it, or he had a high degree of awareness of the Statement’s probable falsity at the time he published it. 52. Defendant published the Statement with a reckless disregard for its truth. 53. Plaintiffs are not public figures. 54. Defendants’ publication of the Statement was unreasonable, 55. Defendant acted negligently in failing to ascertain accurate facts upon which the Statement could be based. Defendant did not take reasonable care in ensuring the truth of the Statement before publishing it. COUNT IT TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACTUAL RELATIONS 56, Plaintiffs reallege all the foregoing allegations and incorporates. them herein by reference. 57. Plaintiffs’ contract with Fieldprint was a legally valid, enforceable contract, 58. Defendants, through their tortious conduct, interfered with the contract between Plaintiffs and Fieldprint 59. Plaintiffs have suffered significant actual losses as a result of the Defendants’ tortious acts, Page 8 of 9 Vested Complain Schneier ea v-Oney190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 gah 216 E17 VIRGINIA: IN CIRCUIT COURT FOR AUGUSTA COUNTY WHEREFORE, Plaintiff seek the following: 1. Actual and punitive damages in an amount to be proved at trial but not less than a. Count I: $1,000,000; b. Count II: $2,000,000; Fora Total of Not Less Than: $3,000,000.00 2. Attomey fees and court costs; and 3. Such other and further relief as this court deems just and proper. Dated this 3° Day of December, 2021 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Respectfully Submitted, lard, VSB# 43566 Amina Matheny-Willard, PLLC 999 Waterside Drive, Suite 2525 Norfolk, Virginia 23510 Cell: 757-652-6462 Firm Tel.: 757-777-3441 Firm Text: 757-239-3961 Firm Fax: 757-282-7808 Email: amina@aminalaw.com Counsel for Plaintiff Page 9 of 9 Vested Compiint Schneider, eal v. Oty,