perjury

The End of a Six-Year Vendetta

Over the last week, I have been inundated with questions about what motivated Barbara Coloroso to behave so recklessly and to put her reputation at such risk in our dispute.

For the past six years, I chose to take the high road in my dispute with Ms. Coloroso, despite her very public campaign to discredit me.  The question was why she went to the extremes that she did: committing perjury, cyberbullying, publicly calling me a liar, a thief and a cheat, and sending a mass e-mail to everyone on my mailing list, claiming that I fabricated research and falsified statistics.

I do not believe in coincidences.  In my book From Bully to Bull’s-Eye: Move Your Organization Out of the Line of Fire, I advise people who think they are being targeted to "tie seemingly unrelated events, comments and situations together and they will usually add up to something.” Now that the legal disputes have been resolved to my satisfaction, I am now able to give my perspective on the reasons for Ms. Coloroso’s actions.

Between February 24, 2010 and July 30, 2011, Ms. Coloroso complimented me nine times on my work on our joint manuscript.  The last compliment was received two days before the expiry of our August 1, 2011 deadline to submit the completed manuscript to HarperCollins.

On July 4, 2011, I rejected what I believe to be a sexual overture made towards me by Ms. Coloroso.  She told me that she had seduced a gay Canadian Olympic athlete, after teaching him to kayak. Then she put her hand on my leg and said "I would love to convert you."  I tried to make light of the situation by gently removing her hand and telling her that I was not a convertible.

We met the next day with my assistant to finalize the manuscript. Ms. Coloroso was a bundle of nerves and we made little progress on the work. That day, July 5, 2011, is the last time that Ms. Coloroso and I have ever spoken in person or by phone, except for her calling me “you bastard” at my examination for discovery. 

On July 7, 2011, three days after the July 4 incident, Ms. Coloroso expressed concerns about my work for the first time.  Thus started her six-year campaign to destroy my reputation.

Coincidental?  I think not.”

 

 

How the Workplace Bullying Institute and Bullying Expert Barbara Coloroso Used Media and Search Engine Optimization as Weapons

We have just distributed the release below to the press about my recent court case against author and bullying expert Barbara Coloroso. As pointed out in the release below, the Toronto Star published an article about the dispute which favoured Coloroso and portrayed me in a negative light.  Coloroso was the source of the article but perjured herself by denying it under oath.  The article has been highly ranked in Google search results of my name for years now, and was linked to multiple times by the website of the Workplace Bullying Institute (WBI).  The director of the Institute is Dr. Gary Namie, who is a friend and colleague of Coloroso.  I can now better appreciate how the media and SEO can be used as powerful weapons by bullies. And who would know more about this than so-called bullying experts?

WBI represents itself as the first and only non-profit that deals with eradicating bullying in the workplace. Clearly they shouldn’t be in the business of advising people who have been bullied, but even more worrying is the fact that Namie, the WBI founder, is also the national director of a national grassroots legislative movement to enact an anti-bullying Healthy Workplace Bill. While the bill has been brought before state legislatures numerous times, to date none have passed and they have been unsuccessful in bringing the matter before Congress.   

AFTER ADMITTING TO PERJURY, BULLYING EXPERT BARBARA COLOROSO CONCEDES DEFEAT IN LEGAL BATTLE WITH CO-AUTHOR

A five-year legal battle with a co-author has ended in defeat for Barbara Coloroso.  The bestselling author and bullying expert admitted to perjury on the eve of trial, and agreed to a settlement requiring her to make a cash payment and written apology.

 The litigation arose from a 2010 agreement between Coloroso and Andrew Faas, a Canadian philanthropist and retired senior executive, to collaborate on a book on bullying in the workplace for HarperCollins Publishers Ltd. However, Coloroso refused to complete her share of the book, accusing Faas of plagiarism.  Both HarperCollins and Faas were willing to address Coloroso’s concerns through the editing process, but Coloroso declined.  HarperCollins terminated the agreement, as no finished manuscript was delivered.  Faas and Coloroso sued each other for breach of contract.  The action was commenced in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Court File No. CV-12-454927).

In 2013, Faas sought to publish his own book on bullying in the workplace, The Bully’s Trap, with a new publisher.  Unbeknownst to Faas, the publisher made The Bully’s Trap available for sale on its website before it was finished.  Coloroso purchased the book and claimed that it infringed her copyright.  The Bully’s Trap was immediately pulled from the website.  Only two electronic and paperback copies were sold during the six weeks that the book was offered for sale, one of each to Coloroso. Nevertheless, she claimed $5 million from Faas for copyright infringement.

Coloroso told a Toronto Star newspaper reporter Amy Dempsey about her dispute with Faas, and gave her a copy of The Bully’s Trap.  Dempsey wrote an article about the dispute, which the Toronto Star published on August 24, 2013.  The article favored Coloroso and portrayed Faas as a plagiarist, but did not reveal Coloroso as Dempsey’s source.  During an examination on March 5, 2014, Coloroso committed perjury by stating under oath that she “did not give the story to Amy Dempsey” and that she had no knowledge of how the Toronto Star had come to publish the article.She also denied sharing her copy of The Bully’s Trap with the Toronto Star, and denied any knowledge of who had done so. 

 Normally, the Toronto Star article would have dropped over time in the ranking of Google search results on Faas’ name.  However, the article still ranks at the top of the Google search results for Andrew Faas.  Faas commissioned a report from a search engine optimization forensics expert, who concluded that the article was highly ranked largely because it had been linked to multiple times by the website of an anti-bullying organization called the Workplace Bullying Institute. One of the directors of the Institute is Dr. Gary Namie, a friend and colleague of Coloroso.

The trial of Faas’ action and Coloroso’s counterclaim was scheduled to commence on Monday, June 12, 2017.  Dempsey was to be one of the first witnesses, and Faas’ lawyers intended to ask her who her source was. By letter sent on June 9, 2017, Coloroso admitted through her lawyers that she had given the story to the Toronto Star and had provided a copy of The Bully’s Trap to Dempsey, contrary to what she had previously said under oath.  The case settled without a trial.  Coloroso received nothing for her claims.  She agreed to make a $20,000 payment to Faas and to use best efforts to remove the Workplace Bullying Institute web postings, which have now been taken down.  Coloroso also settled a defamation action commenced against her by Faas in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Court File No. CV-16-551504) by providing Faas with a written apology for a mass e-mail that she had sent to more than 200 of Faas’ friends and colleagues.  While Faas is pleased with the outcome of the case, he says the harm to his reputation from Coloroso’s actions lives on, in the form of damaged relationships, loss of business opportunities, and interference with his many philanthropic endeavors. 

“Namie, Barbara Coloroso and the Workplace Bullying Institute should not be in the business of giving bullying advice other than how to bully,” said Faas.

Illustration credit: Global Digital Citizen Foundation

Beware the Charming Bully: Jeff Sessions and Russia-gate

One of the refrains that was heard when former Senator Jeff Sessions was going through his nomination hearings was that he was such a warm, friendly, even endearing guy. Many didn’t know how to square this impression with the man who so alarmed Coretta Scott King in 1986 when he was nominated as a federal judge that she wrote a 10-page letter detailing why his confirmation would “have a devastating effect on not only the judicial system in Alabama, but also on the progress we have made everywhere toward fulfilling my husband's dream." People were confused about his character because few realized the characteristics of the benevolent dictator personality.

In business, benevolent dictators are often are described as being demanding, but caring about their employees. As I wrote in my new book, From Bully to Bull’s-Eye: Move Your Organization Out of the Line of Fire, this couldn’t be further from the truth. A dictator boss uses whatever tools he has at his disposal to get what he wants—including affability, charm and benevolence. His true character only emerges when he’s thwarted. We are beginning to see this as Sessions’ lies come to light. A comprehensive article in the Kansas City Star details the growing “Russia-gate” scandal and Sessions’ role in it. It is clear that bullies will do anything to stay in power once they get there, including deception, deceit and a suddenly faulty memory when it comes to whether Sessions had communications with the Russians during the election.

There is one saving grace when it comes to dealing with Sessions—his employer is the American people, and they’re clearly not pleased. The outcry has gotten him to recuse himself from overseeing the investigation into ties with Russia, but it remains to be seen if it eventually forces his resignation. As with a dictatorial boss in a corporate setting, this sort of individual needs close watch and revolutionist involvement from employees and employer.  

Just forcing Sessions out however is not sufficient. An independent investigation is required. Given the brazen denials by most Republicans, including Trump, that there was no collusion with the Russians, clearly suggests that they will go to any lengths to prevent this, thus eroding democracy even further. The question not being asked is—If there is nothing to hide here, why on earth would they oppose such an investigation?

Photo credit: Wikipedia Commons