Date: 08-19-2014

Case Style: Shawn King v. This Land Press, LLC, et al.

Case Number: CJ-2013-1389

Judge: Carlos Chappelle

Court: District Court, Tulsa County, Oklahoma

Plaintiff's Attorney: Jean Coulter

Defendant's Attorney: Jason Taylor, Melinda Kirk and Chris M. Warzecha for The Land Press, LLC, Joshua Kline, Vince Lovoi and Michael Mason

Greg Bledsoe for Eric Cullen

Ed Lindsey for Keena Roberts

Shelton Benedict for the Tulsa Police Department

Description: Shawn King v. This Land Press, LLC, Keena b. Roberts, Joshua Kline, Michael Mason, Vince Lovoi, Eric Cullen and Cullen & Associates, LLC

Plaintiff, Shawn King, for his claims against Defendants, This Land Press, LLC; Keena B. Roberts; Joshua Kline, Michael Mason, Vince LoVoi, Eric Cullen and Cullen & Associates, LLC, for conversion, invasion of privacy, libel, slander, defamation, invasion of privacy false light, invasion of privacy, intentional interference with contract, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. In support of these claims, Plaintiff alleges and states as follows:
PARTIES, JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1. Plaintiff, Shawn King, is an individual who resides in Tulsa County, Oklahoma.
2. Defendant This Land Press, LLC (“This Land”) is a domestic Oklahoma limited liability
company. This Land is headquartered in Tulsa County, Oklahoma. It produces a print and online newspaper, along with other publications.
3. Defendant Keena B. Roberts (“Roberts”) is an individual who resides in Osage County, Oklahoma.
4. Defendant Joshua Kline (“Kline”), an individual, isa contributing editor of This Land. Upon information and belief, he resides in Tulsa County, Oklahoma.
5. Defendant Michael Mason (“Mason”), an individual, is the editor of This Land. Upon information and belief, he resides in Tulsa County, Oklahoma.
6, Defendant Vince LoVoi (“LoVoi”), an individual, is the publisher of This Land. Upon information and belief, he resides in Tulsa County, Oklahoma.
7. Defendant Eric Cullen (“Cullen”), an individual, is a private investigator. Upon information and belief; he resides in Rogers County, Oklahoma.
8. Defendant Cullen & Associates, LLC, an Oklahoma limited liability company, currently unlicensed by the State of Oklahoma, is the legal entity which Cullen now or recently used for purposes of operating his private investigation business. Upon information and belief, it is headquartered in Tulsa County, Oklahoma.
9. All acts alleged herein occurred predominantly in Tulsa County, Oklahoma.
10. Jurisdiction and venue are proper in this Court.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
11. Plaintiffjoined the Tulsa Police Department (“TPD”) as a field officer in July 1997. Plaintiff is currently on administrative paid leave from the TPD.
12. In 2001, Plaintiff met Christy Kellerhals (“Kellerhals”), also a TPD officer. They became friends and remained so for several years. In approximately 2007, Plaintiff and Kellerhals became romantically involved, They continued to maintain a romantic relationship for approximately two and a half years. After their relationship ended, Plaintiff and Kellerhals continued to maintain an excellent personal and professional relationship.
13. During the course of the relationship between Plaintiff and Kellerhals, they shared private photographs of a sexual nature between themselves, and recorded videos of themselves engaged in sexual activities. They intended these pictures and videos at all times to be viewed exclusively by them and they did not share these private materials with others and did not intend to share them with others.
14. In 2009, at the conclusion of his romantic relationship with Kellerhals, Plaintiff entered into a romantic relationship with Defendant Keena Roberts. In approximately September 2011, he moved into Roberts’ residence with her and her children.
15, Plaintiff and Roberts did not however cohabitate as a romantically involved couple. Roberts’ home was approximately 7,000 square feet and each had a separate master suite, master bathroom, and living quarters on opposite sides of the home.
16. In November of 2011, Roberts began to search her home for evidence of an ongoing relationship between Plaintiff and Kellerhals. As part of this search, and as later leaned by Plaintiff, Roberts broke into a locked closet in Plaintiff’s personal bathroom. She did not have Plaintiff’s permission to enter this locked closet. She did not have Plaintiffs authorization to remove any items from this locked closet. There she found Plaintiffs personal password-protected laptop computer and a couple of unused cell phones, which were owned and account-held in Plaintiffs name only. Unbeknownst at the time to Plaintiff, Roberts took these items into her possession.
17. Plaintiff did not give permission to Roberts to open the locked closet door or to retrieve his
personal password protected laptop computer or his cell phones. Roberts did not have the passwords to access these items.
18. On information and belief, Roberts utilized and/or employed at least one computer forensics expert sometime in December 2011 or January 2012 to determine Plaintiff’s personal laptop’s password and to gain access to review the contents of Plaintiff’s personal password protected laptop computer. The computer forensics expert, upon information and beliet also determined the passwords for the cell phones found in the locked closet. Additionally, he doiJoaded all photographs and videos from Plaintiff’s personal password protected laptop computer. It is also believed Roberts contacted another computer forensics expert in March
2012.
19. The relationship between Roberts and Plaintiff ended in January, 2012.
20. Prior to the demise of the relationship between Roberts and Plaintiff, Plaintiff and Roberts’ father, Jim Roberts1, entered into a number of real estate transactions together. Jim Roberts was a general contractor and real estate developer in the Skiatook area of Osage County, Oklahoma.
21. Specifically, Plaintiff was induced to transfer his home in Mannford, Oklahoma to Jim Roberts for an amount significantly below fair market value in order to allow Jim Roberts to take advantage of an Internal Revenue Code Sec. 1031 “like-kind” exchange. Jim Roberts promised to make Plaintiff whole on this transaction as they would be building and selling three houses together in Skiatook. Plaintiff was the sole party on the financing for these
houses because, upon information and belief, Jim Roberts could not secure the necessary financing.
22. As the relationship between Plaintiff and Roberts unraveled, Roberts, on behalf of her father, Jim Roberts, began demanding monies and deeds to properties from Plaintiff which she claimed were due as a result of the various real estate transactions in which Plaintiff and Jim Roberts had been involved in. Plaintiff attempted to negotiate a settlement with Roberts and her father in regard to these transactions. These negotiations failed.
23. As a result of these failed negotiations, Roberts ramped up her harassment and threats toward Plaintiff.
24. Specifically between January 16, 2012 and February 16, 2012, Roberts sent Plaintiff tens of text messages threatening to ‘expose’ him if he did not correct these real estate transactions with her father. “Correct” to Roberts meant Plaintiff should deed all properties back to her father, but keep all of the debt on the properties.
25. As Roberts’ demands became more and more intense and desperate, she began to make threats towards Plaintiff expressing her plans to contact his employer, TPD.
26. On or about February 2, 2012, Roberts, upon information and belief, called TPD Major Tracie Lewis (“Lewis”), Commander of the Gilcrease Division and Plaintiff’s direct supervisor at TPD. Roberts told Lewis Plaintiff had a problem with an addiction to sex and pornography and that he had engaged in sexual activity while on-duty with Kellerhals. Roberts asked Lewis whom she should contact at TPD regarding her complaint against Plaintiff and Lewis instructed her to contact Captain Luther Brashears (“Brashears”) with TPD Internal Affairs.
27. On February 8, 2012, Roberts and her father, Jim Roberts, went to TPD Internal Affairs to file a complaint with Brashears against Plaintiff Roberts told Brashears she had discovered a video and some photographs of Plaintiff engaged in sexual activity in his uniform, on-duty, and in his office. She also told him she recognized Kellerhals in these photographs with Plaintiff and that she had found a video of Plaintiff and Kellerhals engaged in sexual activity.
28. On February 10,2012, Roberts took Plaintiff’s personal password protected laptop computer and old cell phones into TPD Internal Affairs to give to Brashears, Brashears took possession of these items. He apparently later determined TPD Internal Affairs could not keep them or access them without Plaintiff’s permission. Allegedly ownership of these items was in dispute.
29, TPD Internal Affairs later returned Plaintiffs personal password protected laptop computer and cell phones to Roberts. At no time was Plaintiff contacted by Brashears or TPD Internal Affairs personnel and told they had possession of his stolen property.
30. Once Roberts learned Brashears and TPD Internal Affairs personnel were not going to review the contents of Plaintiffs personal password protected laptop computer, she told Brashears that she and Plaintiff had engaged in sexual activity in Plaintiff’s TPD patrol car and while he was on duty. It was this statement by Roberts which resulted in a TPD Internal Affairs investigation of Plaintiff in February, 2012.
31. During March and April, 2012, Cullen andlor Cullen & Associates was, upon information and belief, in the employ of Roberts.
32. Cullen, individually, andlor on behalf of Cullen & Associates, at the direction of Roberts went to the homes of multiple families living in the same neighborhood where Plaintiff was
staying with friends. He told these families a child molestor and kidnapper was living in their midst, referencing Plaintiff. Cullen also distributed pictures from the Plaintiffs personal password protected laptop computer and a compilation of pictures created by Roberts meant to portray Plaintiff in a false light. These pictures were given to him by Roberts.
33. As a result of the February TN) Internal Affairs investigation of Plaintiff, on April 3,2012, he received a 40 hour suspension without pay because he truthfully admitted to having sexual activity while on duty, in his patrol unit, in 2009 with Roberts.
34. Not satisfied with Plaintiff only receiving a 40 hour suspension, Roberts intensified her efforts to destroy him.
35. In April, 2012, Roberts tried to peddle Plaintiffs personal password protected laptop computer and cell phones to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”), alleging they contained child pornography. The FBI was given a flash drive with photographs provided by Roberts, along with Plaintiffs personal password protected laptop computer and cell phones. Upon information and belief, Roberts represented to the FBI that the photographs and/or videos on the flash drive had come directly from Plaintiffs personal password protected laptop computer. An FBI agent later told a TPD Internal Affairs investigator that they had accessed the flash drive, but not Plaintiffs personal password protected laptop computer and cell phones. The FBI agent also said they found no material on the flash drive which was child pornography. The FBI returned the flash drive, the Plaintiffs personal password protected laptop computer and cell phones to Roberts on April 25, 2012.
36. Upon information and belief, sometime in March or early April, 2012, Roberts contacted
This Land about publicizing the damning and untrue information about Plaintiff that she claimed to have in her possession. LoVoi, Mason and Kline all bought into this as a way to increase the readership of This Land. All three of them became complicitous in the actions which followed.
37. On April 26, 2012, This Land ran an on-line news story with the headline “Conduct Unbecoming: Tulsa Police Captain, Officer Ensnared in Sex Scandal.” The story was posted on the internet by Kline at 4:54 p.m. The news story named Plaintiff as being engaged in “.. ,lewd and deviant sexual behavior while on duty, and is suspected of sexual-related crimes.” In addition, it was reported that thousands of “pornographic photographs and videos” of Plaintiff and Kellerhals, as well as hundreds of images” of young girls found on Plaintiff’s personal password protected laptop computer. The news story also stated there were photographs of a “uniformed King [Plaintiff] masttirbating in his work office.”
38. On April 27, 2012, Brashears contacted This Land and requested the information it had obtained from Roberts. Later that day, Mason called Brashears and advised him that This Land’s attorney had told him to not turn over any material to anyone.
39. On the morning of April 27,2012, Kline was interviewed on “The Big Bad Morning Show” on 92.1, The Beat, one of the highest rated Tulsa morning radio shows. During this interview, Kline repeatedly accused Plaintiff of engaging in sexually inappropriate behavior on duty and calling for his termination by TPD. Kline also repeatedly directed listeners to the April 26th article appearing on This Land’s website.
40. Also on April 27, 2012, This Land printed online its 2 story about Plaintiff entitled “Conduct Unbecoming.” This article alleged Plaintiff sexually molested one of Roberts’
children over a period of two years. The article also reported Roberts had filed a petition for an emergency protective order against Plaintiff in Osage County, which was granted by Judge Gambill. A hearing regarding a permanent protective order was scheduled for May 22, 2012.
41. Unbeknownst to Plaintiff on April 27, 2012, Roberts filed a complaint against him with the Osage County Sheriff’s Department accusing Plaintiff of raping her minor child and engaging in child pornography. After this investigation was initiated, the Osage County Sheriff’s Department took possession of Plaintiff’s personal password protected laptop computer and cell phones.
42. On May 1, 2012, LoVoi, This Land’s publisher, wrote an article expressing This Land’s response to the first two articles printed by it regarding Plaintiff. For the first time, LoVoi reports that Roberts has alleged Plaintiff’s personal password protected computer was her personal property because it was allegedly a “family” computer during the four months Plaintiff lived with her.
43. On May 2, 2012, with no explanation, Mason delivered to TPD Internal Affairs a business envelope containing a cover letter, an 8G flash drive containing numerous photographs and videos of person(s) engaging in sexual activity. Some of the photographs were also printed on 8 ‘4 x 11 paper and included in the envelope. Allegedly this flash drive and the printed photos came from Plaintiff’s personal password protected laptop computer.
44. On May 2” Plaintiff was placed on restricted duty by TPD because a criminal investigation had been commenced by the Osage County Sheriff’s Department based on the child molestation and pornography allegations made by Roberts against Plaintiff. Also a second TN) Internal Affairs investigation of Plaintiff began as a result of the pornographic photographs found in the materials delivered to TPD Internal Affairs by Mason. This investigation sat idle until June 14, 2012, when it commenced in earnest at the direction of TPD Chief Jordan.
45. On May 6, 2012, Jim Roberts, Roberts’ father, died.
46. On May 22, 2012, Roberts and her children filed a Motion to Dismiss the Protective Order against Plaintiff. Hence, the emergency protective order was also dismissed against Plaintiff.
47. On June 21, 2012, an Osage County Judge granted a search warrant for Plaintiffs personal password protected laptop computer, according to This Land, The following day, June 22, 2012, This Land published its fourth article regarding Plaintiff entitled, “Conduct Unbecoming: Search Warrant Issued for Laptop.” This article begins with “[a]n Osage County judge granted a search warrant for a laptop used by a Tulsa police captain accused of rape .... As first reported by This Land, Shawn King [Plaintiffj a first-shift captain in north Tulsa Gilcrease Division, has been accused of raping a minor child of his ex-fiancee Keena Roberts and possessing child pornography, as well as engaging in sexual activity while in unifonri and on duty.” Also, according to This Land, the Osage County Sheriffs Office looked at the Plaintiffs personal password protected laptop computer pursuant to a search warrant and asked the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation (“OSBI”) to review the materials found on the laptop.
48. On July 29, 2012, Roberts’ son died of a self-inflicted gun shot wound. On July 31,2012, This Land published the fifth article regarding Plaintiff entitled, “Conduct Unbecoming: 17 year old Takes his life, Distraught Mother blames embattled Tulsa Police Captain”Absolutely nothing new was reported in this article other than Roberts’ assertions that she believed her son’s suicide was caused by Plaintiff.
49. On August 2, 2012, Roberts contacted Deputy TPD Chief Mark McCrory (“McCrory”) and Lewis and told them she wanted to give TPD another flash drive containing photographs of Plaintiff that she believed would be of interest to TPD. Roberts had a lengthy telephone conversation with McCrory and Lewis wherein she made multiple additional allegations against Plaintiff. The flash drive was delivered later on the night of August 2, 2012 to Lewis. Before delivery of the flash drive to TPD Internal Affairs, McCrory viewed the pictures on the flash drive on August 3, 2012 and Lewis delivered it then to TPD Internal Affairs.
50. The following day, August 3, 2012, Plaintiff had an additional interview with TPD Internal Affairs.
51. On September 14, 2012, Plaintiff was placed on paid administrative leave by TPD pending the outcome of the criminal investigation by the Osage County Sheriffs Office into allegations of child molestation against him. This Land wrote a sixth article on September 14, 2012, regarding Plaintiff’s placement on administrative leave.
52. On October 18,2012, a pre-termination hearing was held by TPD regarding Plaintiff. Instead of being terminated he was demoted from the rank of Captain to the rank of field officer and transferred to the Training Division. It was determined he had engaged in inappropriate sexual behavior while on duty, in his police uniform, in his office at Gilcrease Division in 2008. This allegation was brought forward following the delivery of the flash drive to TPD Internal Affairs by Mason. It was also believed by TPD that a picture had been delivered by cell phone to Kellerhals by Plaintiff. Finally it was determined Plaintiff had brought discredit and embarrassment to TPD because This Land published an article on April 26, 2012 about Plaintiff’s alleged behavior, based on information it had received from Roberts.
53. On October 20, 2012, This Land published its seventh story regarding Plaintiff entitled, “Conduct Unbecoming: Shawn King Demoted from Captain to Officer, Stays on Paid Suspension.”
54. On information and belief, sometime in November, 2012, Osage County District Attorney closed his investigation into Plaintiff and declined to file charges against him.
55. At all times relevant to this action, Kline, Mason, LoVoi, This Land and Cullen and/or Cullen & Associates knew the pictures from Plaintiffs personal password protected laptop computer and cell phones had been illegally obtained, without Plaintiffs authorization and/or approval. They knew these pictures were stolen property. They knew these pictures did not depict child pornography or child molestation. They knew Plaintiff had intended to keep these pictures personal and private.
56. At all limes relevant to this action, the employees and agents of This Land who made the statements referenced above, or participated in their making, specifically including LoVoi, Kline and Mason, were acting on behalf of This Land, as its duly authorized agents. Thus, all of their acts and omissions are attributable to This Land.
COUNT I
INVASION OF PRIVACY - PUBLICATION OF PRIVATE FACTS
(Against All Defendants)
57. Plaintiff incorporates the allegations ofparagraphs 1 through 56 above as if set forth in Count Tin full.
58. This is a claim against Defendants This Land, Roberts, LoVoi, Kline, Mason, Cullen and/or
Cullen & Associates for invasion of privacy by publication of private facts.
59. Defendants’ conduct resulted in the publication of images and facts about Plaintiff which were intended to remain private and were shared with Kellerhals in the utmost confidence that they would not be publicly disseminated.
60. The publication of these facts and images would be highly offensive to a reasonable person because of their extremely intimate and private naffire, and the public embarrassment and harm to reputation which inevitably resulted from their publication.
61. These private images and facts about Plaintiff were publicly disclosed by Roberts to TPD, LoVoi, Kline, Mason, Cullen and This Land (among others), and were publicly disclosed by LoVoi, Kline, Mason, Cullen and This Land to the general public.
62. The private images and facts about Plaintiff are of no legitimate public concern. The facts involved an intimate relationship between two consenting adults. The conduct on the part of Plaintiff and Kellerhals described in the Articles in This Land did not occur during the course of their duties as police officers. Moreover, the relationship between Plaintiff and Kellerhals was appropriate in light of the fact that Plaintiff was at no time Kellerhals’ supervising officer. To the extent these Articles contained any issues of public concern, those were discovered by Defendants through unlawful means.
63. As a direct result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff has suffered, and will continue to suffer, substantial damages in an amount to be proven at trial, but which exceeds $10,000.
64. In addition, the above-described of Defendants was intentional, with malice, in reckless disregard of the rights of Plaintiff; grossly negligent, and otherwise wrongful for purposes of 23 Okla. Stat. § 9.1 such that they should be punished by an award to Plaintiff of exemplary and punitive damages in an amount sufficient, taking into consideration the assets and worth of Defendants, to render the consequences of their conduct an example to themselves and others and, in any event, in an amount at least equal to the actual damages awarded to Plaintiff for Defendants’ public disclosure of private facts.
COUNT JI
INVASION OF PRIVACY - INTRUSION UPON SECLUSION
(Against All Defendants)
65, Plaintiff incorporates the allegations of paragraphs 1 though 64 above as if set forth in Count II in full.
66, This is a claim against Defendants This Land, LoVoi, Kline, Mason, Roberts and Cullen for invasion of privacy by intrusion upon seclusion.
67. Defendants’ acquisition and publication of the extremely private images and information about Plaintiff constitute a non-consensual intrusion upon the solitude and seclusion of Plaintiff’s private affairs.
68. This intrusion is highly offensive to a reasonable person because of the intimate and private nature of the information acquired and published, and the resulting public embarrassment and harm to reputation.
69. As a direct result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff has suffered, and will continue to suffer, substantial damages in an amount to be proven at trial, but which exceeds $10,000.
70. In addition, the above-described of Defendants was intentional, with malice, in reckless disregard of the rights of Plaintiff, grossly negligent, and otherwise wrongful for purposes of 23 Okia. Stat. § 9.1 such that they should be punished by an award to Plaintiff of exemplary and punitive damages in an amount sufficient, taking into consideration the assets and worth of Defendants, to render the consequences of their conduct an example to themselves and others and, in any event, in an amount at least equal to the actual damages awarded to Plaintiff for Defendants’ intrusion upon seclusion.
COUNT III
INVASION OF PRIVACY - APPROPRIATION
(Against all Defendants)
71. Plaintiff incorporates the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 70 above, as if set forth in Count III in full.
72. This is a claim against Defendants This Land, LoVoi, Mason, Kline, Roberts and Cullen and/or Cullen Associates for defamation.
73, The Articles published by This Land, authored by Kline and LoVoi, and edited by Mason, contained materially false statements regarding the number of images and videos involving Plaintiff found on his personal password secured computer laptop, and the content of these images and videos.
74. These false statements were made in bad faith, with malice, and with the specific intent of harming Plaintiff’s career and reputation. Further, the false statements about Plaintiff made by Defendants were unprivileged as they did not relate to any matter of public concern.
75. Defendants’ false statements constitute slander per se and libel per se in that they tended to injure Plaintiff in his business and in that they tended to deprive Plaintiff of public confidence.
76. It was reasonably foreseeable to Defendants when they made the false representations regarding Plaintiff that other persons would re-publish those statements to third parties.
77. Such re-publications did, in fact, occur, and Defendants are liable for such re-publications.
78. Plaintiffwas injured by Defendants’ false representations in that he suffered special damages.
79, As a direct result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff has suffered, and will continue to suffer, substantial damages in an amount to be proven at trial, and which includes, but is not limited to, the special damages suffered by Plaintiff, which sum exceeds $10,000.
80. In addition, the above-described conduct of Defendants is intentional, with malice, in reckless disregard of the rights of Plaintiff, grossly negligent, and otherwise wrongful for purposes of 23 Okla. Stat. § 9.1, such that they should be punished by an award to Plaintiff of exemplary and punitive damages in an amount sufficient, taking into consideration the assets and worth of Defendants, to render the consequences of their conduct an example to themselves and others and, in any event, in an amount at least equal to the actual damages awarded to Plaintiff for Defendants’ intrusion of privacy by appropriation.
COUNT IV
INVASION OF PRIVACY - FALSE LIGHT
(Against all Defendants)
81. Plaintiff incorporates the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 80 above, as if set forth in Count IV in full.
82. This is a claim against all Defendants for invasion of privacy by portraying Plaintiff in a false light with the malicious intent of damaging his career and reputation.
83. All of the Defendants publicly disseminated material which would be highly offensive to a reasonable person about the Plaintiff which they knew was false or they recklessly disregarded its falsehood and the false light it would shed upon the Plaintiff.
84. As a direct result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff has suffered, and will continue to suffer, substantial damages in an amount to be proven at trial, and which includes, but is not limited to, the special damages suffered by Plaintiff, which sum exceeds $10,000.
85, In addition, the above-described conduct of Defendants is intentional, with malice, in reckless disregard of the rights of Plaintiff, grossly negligent, and otherwise wrongful for purposes of 23 Okia. Stat. § 9.1, such that they should be punished by an award to Plaintiff of exemplaxy and punitive damages in an amount sufficient, taking into consideration the assets and worth of Defendants, to render the consequences of their conduct an example to themselves and others and, in any event, in an amount at least equal to the actual damages awarded to Plaintiff for Defendants’ invasion of Plaintiff’s privacy and shedding him in a false light publicly.
COUNT V
DEFAMATION - SLANDER/LIBEL PER SE
(Against This Land, Kline, LoVoi, Mason and Cullen)
86. Plaintiff incorporates the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 85 above, as if set forth in Count V in full.
87. This is a claim against Defendants This Land, Kline, LoVoi, Mason and Cullen for defamation.
88. The articles published in This Land, written by Kline and LoVoi, and edited by Mason, contained materially false statements regarding the number of images and videos found on Plaintiff’s personal password protected laptop computer, the allegations made against Plaintiff and the basis for his discipline in April 2012 by TPD.
89. These false statements published by This Land, Kline, LoVoi and Mason were made in bad faith with malice and with the specific intent of harming Plaintiff’s career and reputation. Further, the false statements about Plaintiff made by This Land, Kline, LoVoi and Mason were unprivileged as they did not relate to any matter of public concern.
90. The false statements of This Land, Kline, LoVoi and Mason constitute slander per se and libel per se in that they tended to injure Plaintiff in his business and they tended to deprive Plaintiff of public confidence.
91. It was reasonably foreseeable to This Land, Kline, LoVoi and Mason when they made the false representations regarding Plaintiff that other persons would re-publish those statements to third parties.
92. Cullen did publish to multiple families living in the neighborhood where Plaintiff was staying in March and April 2012 claims that Plaintiff was a child molestor and kidnapper. He also circulated to these multiple families pictures provided to him by Roberts which were not of Plaintiff, but nevertheless depicted Plaintiff falsely.
93. The publications to these multiple families by Cullen contained materially false statements regarding his status as a child molestor and kidnapper. The pictures also were false impressions of Plaintiff.
94. These false statements published by Cullen were made in bad faith with malice and with the specific intent of harming Plaintiff’s career and reputation. Further, the false statements about Plaintiff made by Cullen were unprivileged as they did not relate to any matter of public concern.
95. The false statements of Cullen constitute slander per se and libel per se in that they tended to injure Plaintiff in his business and they tended to deprive Plaintiff of public confidence.
96. It was reasonably foreseeable to This Land, Kline, LoVoi, Mason and Cullen when they made the false representations regarding Plaintiff that other persons would re-publish those statements to third parties.
97. Such re-publications did, in fact, occur, and Defendants are liable for such re-publication.
98. Plaintiff was injured by Defendant’s false representations in that he has suffered special damages.
99. As a direct result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff has suffered, and will continue to suffer, substantial damages in an amount to be proven at trial, and which includes, but is not limited to, the special damages suffered by Plaintiff, which sum exceeds $10,000.
100. In addition, the above-described conduct of Defendants is intentional, with malice, in reckless disregard of the rights of Plaintiff, grossly negligent, and otherwise wrongfUl for purposes of 23 Okla. Stat. § 9.1, such that they should be punished by an award to Plaintiff of exemplary and punitive damages in an amount sufficient, taking into consideration the assets and worth of Defendants, to render the consequences of their conduct an example to themselves and others and, in any event, in an amount at least equal to the actual damages awarded to Plaintiff for Defendants’ defamation.
COUNT VI
CONVERSION
(Against Roberts)
101. Plaintiff incorporates the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 100, as if set forth in Count VI infüll,
102. This is a claim against Roberts for the conversion of Plaintiffs personal password protected laptop computer and cell phones.
103. At all times Plaintiff was the exclusive owner of a personal laptop computer. Plaintiff protected the contents of this personal laptop computer with a password which he created and kept private to himself. The laptop computer was registered to Plaintiff.
104. In order to further protect the contents of his personal password protected laptop computer, he stored it in a locked closet in the master bathroom adjacent to his master bedroom suite. He did not share this master bathroom or bedroom with anyone else, including Roberts.
105. At all times Plaintiff was the exclusive owner of the two Blackberry cell phones. Plaintiff protected the contents of these cell phones with passwords which he created and kept private to himself. The service for these cell phones was billed directly to Plaintiff and the cell phones were registered in his name.
106. Roberts intentionally took Plaintiff’s personal password protected laptop computer and cell phones from the locked closet in Plaintiffs master bathroom for her own personal benefit.
107. As a result of Roberts taking the property which belonged to Plaintiff, Plaintiff has suffered damages.
108. As a direct result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff has suffered, and will continue to suffer, substantial damages in an amount to be proven at trial, and which includes, but is not linited to, the special damages suffered by Plaintiff, which sum exceeds $10,000.
109. In addition, the above-described conduct of Defendants is intentional, with malice, in reckless disregard of the rights of Plaintiff, grossly negligent, and otherwise wrongfiul for purposes of 23 Okla. Stat. § 9.1, such that they should be punished by an award to Plaintiff of exemplary and punitive damages in an amount sufficient, taking into consideration the assets and worth of Defendants, to render the consequences of their conduct an example to themselves and others and, in any event, in an amount at least equal to the actual damages awarded to Plaintiff for Defendant’s conversion of personal property.
COUNT VII
INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACT
(Against Roberts)
110. Plaintiff incorporates the allegations of paragraphs I through 109 above, as if set forth in Count VII in 11th.
111. Plaintiff has an employment contract with TPD.
112. Roberts interfered with this employment contract when she went to TPD and TPD Internal Affairs making false allegations against Plaintiff.
113. These false allegations made by Roberts to TPD and TPD Internal Affairs were malicious and wrongful, and such interference was neither justified, privileged or excusable.
114. Significant damages were suffered by Plaintiff when he was investigated by TPD and suspended for 40 horns, placed on restricted duty, placed on administrative leave and then demoted to the rank of field officer from that of captain.
115. As a direct result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff has suffered, and will continue to suffer, substantial damages in an amount to be proven at trial, and which includes, but is not limited to, the special damages suffered by Plaintiff, which sum exceeds $10,000.
116. In addition, the above-described conduct of Defendants is intentional, with malice, in reckiess disregard of the rights of Plaintiff, grossly negligent, and otherwise wrongful for purposes of 23 Okla. Stat. § 9.1, such that they should be punished by an award to Plaintiff of exemplary and punitive damages in an amount sufficient, taking into consideration the assets and worth of Defendants, to render the consequences of their conduct an example to themselves and others and, in any event, in an amount at least equal to the actual damages awarded to Plaintiff for Defendant’s intentional interference with contract.
COUNT VIII
INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
(Against All Defendants)
117. Plaintiff incorporates the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 116 above, as if set forth in Count VII in full.
118. This is a claim against all Defendants for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
119. Defendants intentionally and/or recklessly made public highly confidential and intimate details of Plaintiff’s private life.
120. Defendants’ conduct in this regard was extreme, outrageous, and beyond all standards of decency in a civilized society.
121. Plaintiff suffered severe emotional distress as a result of Defendants’ conduct.
122. As a direct result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff has suffered, and will continue to suffer, substantial damages in an amount to be proven at trial, and which includes, but is not limited to, the special damages suffered by Plaintiff, which sum exceeds $10,000.
123. In addition, the above-described conduct of Defendants is intentional, with malice, in reckless disregard of the rights of Plaintiff, grossly negligent, and otherwise wrongful for purposes of 23 Okla. Stat. § 9.1, such that they should be punished by an award to Plaintiff of exemplary and punitive damages in an amount sufficient, taking into consideration the assets and worth of Defendants, to render the consequences of their conduct an example to themselves and others and, in any event, in an amount at least equal to the actual damages awarded to Plaintiff for Defendants’ intentional infliction of emotional distress.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Shawn King, prays for judgment against Defendants as follows:
A. Damages, including without limitation damages for emotional distress, pain and suffering, and loss of reputation, lost wages and benefits, in an amount to be proven at trial, but which exceed $75,000.00, with respect to each Count;
B. Punitive and exemplary damages in an amount sufficient to render the consequences of their conduct an example to themselves and others, and in any event, in an amount at least equal to the greater of $500,000.00, or twice the actual damages awarded;
C. An award of all costs incurred by Plaintiff in bringing and prosecuting this action, including reasonable attorney fees.
D. Pre-judgment interest; and
E. Such other relief to which Plaintiff is entitled at law or in equity.

ANSWER OF DEFENDANTS THIS LAND PRESS, JOSHUA KLINE. MICHAEL
MASON AND VINCE LOVOI TO PLAINTIFF’S PETITION
Defendants This Land Press (“This Land”), Joshua Kline (“Kline”), Michael Mason (“Mason”) and Vince LoVoi (“LoVoi”) (collectively “Defendants”), hereby answer the Plaintiffs Petition (the “Petition”). All allegations stated in Plaintiffs Petition which are not specifically admitted herein are denied.
PARTIES. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1. In response to Paragraph 1 of the Petition, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations related to the residence of Plaintiff and therefore deny the same.
2. In response to Paragraph 2 of the Petition, Defendants admit This Land is an Oklahoma limited liability company, that it is headquartered in Tulsa County, Oklahoma and that it produces a print and online newspaper. However, Defendants deny the remaining allegations contained therein.
3. In response to Paragraph 3 of the Petition, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations related to the residence of Defendant Keena Roberts (“Roberts”) and therefore deny the same.
4. In response to Paragraph 4 of the Petition, Defendants admit the allegations contained therein.
5. In response to Paragraph 5 of the Petition, Defendants admit the allegations contained therein.
6. In response to Paragraph 6 of the Petition, Defendants admit the allegations contained therein.
7. Tn response to Paragraph 7 of the Petition, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations related to the residence or occupation of Defendant Eric Cullen (“Cullen”) and therefore deny the same.
8. Tn response to Paragraph 7 of the Petition, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations related to Defendant Cullen & Associates, LLC (“C&A”) and therefore deny the same.
9. In response to Paragraph 9, Defendants admit the allegations contained therein as they relate to Defendants, but are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in relation to Defendants Roberts, Cullen or C&A.
10. In response to Paragraph 10, Defendants admit the allegations contained therein.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
11. In response to Paragraph 11 of the Petition, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained therein and therefore deny the same.
12. In response to Paragraph 12 of the Petition, Defendants are aware that Plaintiff and Christy Kellerhals (“Kellerhals”) were in a romantic relationship at some point in time but are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations and therefore deny the same.
13. In response to Paragraph 13 of the Petition, Defendants are aware of photographs, images and videos of a sexual nature and activities related to Plaintiff and Kellerhals but deny the remaining allegations.
14. In response to Paragraph 14 of the Petition, Defendants are aware of a relationship between King and Roberts at some point in time but are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations and therefore deny the same.
15. In response to Paragraph 15 of the Petition, Defendants are aware that Plaintiff resided with Roberts at some point in time but are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained therein and therefore deny the same.
16. In response to Paragraph 16 of the Petition, Defendants are aware that Roberts obtained a laptop from a locked closet in a bathroom of her home (the “Laptop”) but are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained therein and therefore deny the same.
17. In response to Paragraph 17 of the Petition, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained therein and therefore deny the same.
18. In response to Paragraph 18 of the Petition, Defendants are aware that at some point Roberts engaged a private investigator but are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations contained therein and therefore deny the same.
19. In response to Paragraph 19 of the Petition, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained therein and therefore deny the same.
20. In response to Paragraph 20 of the Petition, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained therein and therefore deny the same.
21. In response to Paragraph 21 of the Petition, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained therein and therefore deny the same.
22. In response to Paragraph 22 of the Petition, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained therein and therefore deny the same.
23. In response to Paragraph 23 of the Petition, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained therein and therefore deny the same.
24. In response to Paragraph 24 of the Petition, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained therein and therefore deny the same.
25. In response to Paragraph 25 of the Petition, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained therein and therefore deny the same.
26. In response to Paragraph 26 of the Petition, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained therein and therefore deny the same.
27. In response to Paragraph 27 of the Petition, Defendants are aware that Roberts made a complaint regarding Plaintiff to the Tulsa Police Department (“TPD”) Internal Affairs Division (“Internal Affairs”) but Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained therein and therefore deny the same.
28. In response to Paragraph 28 of the Petition, Defendants are aware that Roberts provided the laptop to TPD Internal Affairs but are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations contained therein and therefore deny the same.
29. In response to Paragraph 29 of the Petition, Defendants are aware that Roberts received the laptop back from TPD Internal Affairs but are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations contained therein and therefore deny the same.
30. In response to Paragraph 30 of the Petition, Defendants are aware that Roberts told TPD Internal Affairs that she had engaged in sexual activity with King while he was on duty
but are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations contained therein and therefore deny the same.
31. In response to Paragraph 31 of the Petition, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained therein and therefore deny the same.
32. In response to Paragraph 32 of the Petition, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained therein and therefore deny the same.
33. In response to Paragraph 33 of the Petition, Defendants are aware Plaintiff was suspended without pay by TPD but Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained therein and therefore deny the same.
34. In response to Paragraph 34 of the Petition, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained therein and therefore deny the same.
35. In response to Paragraph 35 of the Petition, Defendants are aware that Roberts contacted the FBI in relation to the contents of the Laptop but are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained therein and therefore deny the same.
36. In response to Paragraph 36 of the Petition, Defendants admit that Roberts contacted Kline about publishing a story which related to Plaintiff but Defendants deny all other allegations contained therein.
37. In response to Paragraph 37 of the Petition, Defendants admit that on April 26,
2012, This Land published an article on its website which was titled “Conduct Unbecoming:
Tulsa Police Captain, Officer Ensnared in Sex Scandal” (the “Article”), the contents of which Article speaks for itself, but Defendants deny all remaining allegations therein.
38. In response to Paragraph 38 of the Petition, Defendants admit that Brashears contacted This Land on April 27, 2012 and requested the information Roberts had given This Land and that Mason called Brashears back that same day and declined to turn the materials over, but Defendants deny all remaining allegations therein.
39. In response to Paragraph 39 of the Petition, Defendants admit that Kline appeared on “The Big Bad Morning Show” on 92.1, The Beat but deny the remaining allegations contained therein.
40. In response to Paragraph 40 of the Petition, Defendants admit that This Land published an article on April 27, 2012 entitled “Conduct Unbecoming Part 2” in which it was reported that Roberts had filed a petition for an emergency protective order against Plaintiff in Osage County, that the petition was granted by Judge Gambill, and that a hearing was set on the matter for May 22, 2012. Defendants also admit that many of the allegations contained in Roberts’ Osage County petition were reported in this article but deny all remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 40.
41. Tn response to Paragraph 41 of the Petition, Defendants are aware that Roberts filed a complaint against Plaintiff with the Osage County Sherriff’s Department in which Roberts accused Plaintiff of raping her minor child and engaging in child pornography but are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations contained therein and therefore deny the same.
42. In response to Paragraph 42 of the Petition, Defendants admit that This Land published an article on May 1, 2013 authored by LoVoi, publisher of This Land Press, entitled “The Best We can Do”, the content of which article speaks for itself, but deny the remaining allegations contained therein.
43. In response to Paragraph 43 of the Petition, Defendants admit that on May 2, 2012 Mason delivered to TPD Internal Affairs an envelope containing a cover letter, an 8G flash drive containing photographs and videos of persons engaging in sexual activity, and printed 8.5” x 11” copies of some of these photographs, all of which originated from the Laptop according to Roberts, but Defendants deny all remaining allegations contained therein.
44. In response to Paragraph 44 of the Petition, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained therein and therefore deny the same.
45. In response to Paragraph 45 of the Petition, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained therein and therefore deny the same.
46. In response to Paragraph 46 of the Petition, Defendants are aware that Roberts filed a Motion to Dismiss the Protective Order against Plaintiff but are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained therein and therefore deny the same.
47. In response to Paragraph 47 of the Petition, Defendants are aware that an Osage County Judge granted a search warrant for the Laptopon June 21, 2012 and that This Land published an rticle on June 22, 2012 entitled “Conduct Unbecoming: Search Warrant Issued for Laptop”, the content of which article speaks for itself, but deny the remaining allegations contained therein.
48. In response to Paragraph 48 of the Petition, Defendants are aware that Roberts’ son died of a self-inflicted gunshot wound on July 29, 2012 and admit that This Land published an article on July 31, 2012 entitled “Conduct Unbecoming: 17 year old Takes his life, Distraught Mother blames embattled Tulsa Police Captain”, the content of which article speaks for itself, but deny the remaining allegations contained therein.
49. In response to Paragraph 49 of the Petition, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained therein and therefore deny the same.
50. In response to Paragraph 50 of the Petition, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained therein and therefore deny the same.
51. In response to Paragraph 51 of the Petition, Defendants are aware that Plaintiff was placed on paid administrative leave by TPD on September 14, 2012 pending the outcome of the criminal investigation by the Osage County Sheriffs Office into allegations of child molestation against him, and Defendants admit that it wrote and published an article regarding Plaintiffs placement on administrative leave on September 14, 2013.
52. In response to Paragraph 52 of the Petition, Defendants are aware that Plaintiff was demoted from the rank of Captain to the rank of Field Officer pursuant to Personnel Order #12-172 which states that TPD determined that Plaintiff had engaged in inappropriate sexual behavior while on duty, in his police uniform, in his office at Gilcrease Division in 2008, that Plaintiff sent a photograph of said activity via his personal cellular phone to another departmental employee and that This Land Press’ reporting of Plaintiffs inappropriate sexual behavior while on duty, in his police uniform, in his office at Gilcrease Division in 2008 caused embarrassment to TPD, but Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations contained therein and therefore deny the same.
53. Tn response to Paragraph 53 of the Petition, Defendants admit the allegations contained therein.
54. In response to Paragraph 54 of the Petition, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained therein and therefore deny the same.
55. In response to Paragraph 55 of the Petition, Defendants deny the allegations contained therein as they relate to Defendants and are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained therein regarding the knowledge of Cullen or C&A, and therefore deny the same.
56. Tn response to Paragraph 56 of the Petition, Defendants admit that LoVoi, Kline and Mason were employees andlor agents of This Land during the times relevant to this action but deny the remaining allegations contained therein.
COUNT I
INVASION OF PRIVACY - PUBLICATION OF PRIVATE FACTS
(Against All Defendants)
57. In response to Paragraph 57 of the Petition, Defendants adopt previous responses to the allegations set forth hereinabove as if fully set forth and incorporates the same by reference.
58. In response to Paragraph 58 of the Petition, Defendants admit Plaintiff labeled this claim as one for invasion of privacy by publication of private facts but deny Plaintiff has stated a claim for invasion of privacy by publication of private facts.
59. In response to Paragraph 59 of the Petition, Defendants deny the allegations contained therein.
60. In response to Paragraph 60 of the Petition, Defendants deny the allegations contained therein.
61. In response to Paragraph 61 of the Petition, Defendants deny the allegations contained therein.
62. In response to Paragraph 62 of the Petition, Defendants deny the allegations contained therein.
63. In response to Paragraph 63 of the Petition, Defendants deny the allegations contained therein.
64. In response to Paragraph 64 of the Petition, Defendants deny the allegations contained therein.
COUNT II
INVASION OF PRIVACY - INTRUSION UPON SECLUSION
(Against All Defendants)
65. In response to Paragraph 65 of the Petition, Defendants adopt previous responses to the allegations set forth hereinabove as if fully set forth and incorporates the same by reference.
66. Defendants are not required to respond to Count II of Plaintiffs Petition pursuant to the Court’s July 3, 2013 Order.
67. Defendants are not required to respond to Count II of Plaintiffs Petition pursuant to the Court’s July 3, 2013 Order.
68. Defendants are not required to respond to Count II of Plaintiffs Petition pursuant to the Court’s July 3, 2013 Order.
69. Defendants are not required to respond to Count II of Plaintiffs Petition pursuant to the Court’s July 3, 2013 Order.
70. Defendants are not required to respond to Count II of Plaintiffs Petition pursuant to the Court’s July 3, 2013 Order.
COUNT III
INVASION OF PRIVACY - APPROPRIATION
(Against All Defendants)
71. In response to Paragraph 71 of the Petition, Defendants adopt previous responses to the allegations set forth hereinabove as if fully set forth and incorporates the same by reference.
72. Defendants are not required to respond to Count III of Plaintiffs Petition pursuant to the Court’s July 3, 2013 Order.
73. Defendants are not required to respond to Count III of Plaintiffs Petition pursuant to the Court’s July 3, 2013 Order.
74. Defendants are not required to respond to Count III of Plaintiffs Petition pursuant to the Court’s July 3, 2013 Order.
75. Defendants are not required to respond to Count III of Plaintiffs Petition pursuant to the Court’s July 3, 2013 Order.
76. Defendants are not required to respond to Count III of Plaintiffs Petition pursuant to the Court’s July 3, 2013 Order.
77. Defendants are not required to respond to Count III of Plaintiffs Petition pursuant to the Court’s July 3, 2013 Order.
78. Defendants are not required to respond to Count III of Plaintiffs Petition pursuant to the Court’s July 3, 2013 Order.
79. Defendants are not required to respond to Count III of Plaintiffs Petition pursuant to the Court’s July 3, 2013 Order.
80. Defendants are not required to respond to Count III of Plaintiffs Petition pursuant to the Court’s July 3, 2013 Order.
COUNT IV
INVASION OF PRIVACY - FALSE LIGHT
(Against All Defendants)
81. In response to Paragraph 81 of the Petition, Defendants adopt previous responses to the allegations set forth hereinabove as if fully set forth and incorporates the same by reference.
82. In response to Paragraph 82 of the Petition, Defendants admit Plaintiff labeled this claim as one for invasion of privacy by false light but deny Plaintiff has stated a claim for invasion of privacy by false light.
83. In response to Paragraph 83 of the Petition, Defendants deny the allegations contained therein.
84. In response to Paragraph 84 of the Petition, Defendants deny the allegations contained therein.
85. In response to Paragraph 85 of the Petition, Defendants deny the allegations contained therein.
COUNT V
DEFAMATION - SLANDER/LIBEL PER SE
(Against This Land, Kline, LoVoi, Mason and Cullen)
86. In response to Paragraph 86 of the Petition, Defendants adopt previous responses to the allegations set forth hereinabove as if fully set forth and incorporates the same by reference.
87. In response to Paragraph 87 of the Petition, Defendants admit Plaintiff labeled this claim as one for defamation but deny Plaintiff has stated a claim for defamation.
88. In response to Paragraph 88 of the Petition, Defendants deny the allegations contained therein.
89. In response to Paragraph 89 of the Petition, Defendants deny the allegations contained therein.
90. In response to Paragraph 90 of the Petition, Defendants deny the allegations contained therein.
91. In response to Paragraph 91 of the Petition, Defendants deny the allegations contained therein.
92. In response to Paragraph 92 of the Petition, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained therein and therefore deny the same.
93. Tn response to Paragraph 93 of the Petition, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained therein and therefore deny the same.
94. In response to Paragraph 94 of the Petition, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained therein and therefore deny the same.
95. In response to Paragraph 95 of the Petition, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained therein and therefore deny the same.
96. Tn response to Paragraph 96 of the Petition, Defendants deny the allegations contained therein.
97. In response to Paragraph 97 of the Petition, Defendants admit Plaintiff labeled this claim as one for defamation but deny Plaintiff has stated a claim for defamation.
98. In response to Paragraph 98 of the Petition, Defendants deny the allegations contained therein.
99. In response to Paragraph 99 of the Petition, Defendants deny the allegations contained therein.
100. In response to Paragraph 100 of the Petition, Defendants deny the allegations contained therein.
COUNT VI
CONVERSION
(Against Roberts)
101. In response to Paragraph 101 of the Petition, Defendants adopt previous responses to the allegations set forth hereinabove as if fully set forth and incorporates the same by reference.
102. Defendants are not named with respect to Count VI of Plaintiffs Petition and are therefore not required to respond.
103. Defendants are not named with respect to Count VI of Plaintiffs Petition and are therefore not required to respond.
104. Defendants are not named with respect to Count VI of Plaintiffs Petition and are therefore not required to respond.
105. Defendants are not named with respect to Count VI of Plaintiffs Petition and are therefore not required to respond.
106. Defendants are not named with respect to Count VI of Plaintiffs Petition and are therefore not required to respond.
107. Defendants are not named with respect to Count VI of Plaintiffs Petition and are therefore not required to respond.
108. Defendants are not named with respect to Count VI of Plaintiffs Petition and are therefore not required to respond.
109. Defendants are not named with respect to Count VI of Plaintiffs Petition and are therefore not required to respond.
COUNT VII
INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACT
(Against Roberts)
110. In response to Paragraph 110 of the Petition, Defendants adopt previous responses to the allegations set forth hereinabove as if fully set forth and incorporates the same by reference.
111. Defendants are not named with respect to Count VII of Plaintiffs Petition and are therefore not required to respond.
112. Defendants are not named with respect to Count VII of Plaintiffs Petition and are therefore not required to respond.
113. Defendants are not named with respect to Count VII of Plaintiffs Petition and are therefore not required to respond.
114. Defendants are not named with respect to Count VII of Plaintiffs Petition and are therefore not required to respond.
115. Defendants are not named with respect to Count VII of Plaintiffs Petition and are therefore not required to respond.
116. Defendants are not named with respect to Count VII of Plaintiffs Petition and are therefore not required to respond.
COUNT VIII
INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
(Against All Defendants)
117. Tn response to Paragraph 117 of the Petition, Defendants adopt previous responses to the allegations set forth hereinabove as if fully set forth and incorporates the same by reference.
118. In response to Paragraph 118 of the Petition, Defendants admit Plaintiff labeled this claim as one for intentional infliction of emotional distress but deny Plaintiff has stated a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
119. In response to Paragraph 119 of the Petition, Defendants deny the allegations contained therein.
120. In response to Paragraph 120 of the Petition, Defendants deny the allegations contained therein.
121. In response to Paragraph 121 of the Petition, Defendants deny the allegations contained therein.
122. In response to Paragraph 122 of the Petition, Defendants deny the allegations contained therein.
123. In response to Paragraph 123 of the Petition, Defendants deny the allegations contained therein.
DEFENSES
1. Some or all of Plaintiffs allegations fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted against Defendants.
2. Some or all of Plaintiffs claims may be barred by the relevant statute of limitations, andior the doctrine of waiver, estoppel, and/or release.
3. Consent was not required with respect to Plaintiffs claims for invasion of privacy.
4. Images captured on public property are not private with respect to Plaintiffs claims for invasion of privacy by publication of private facts.
5. Plaintiff waived his privacy rights by voluntary and intentional relinquishment or abandonment of his known rights with respect to each of Plaintiffs claims for invasion of privacy.
6. Defendants have qualified privileges with respect to Plaintiffs claim of invasion of privacy by publication of private facts and defamation.
7. The information published by Defendants was for the public benefit/interest.
8. The information published by Defendants was newsworthy and of legitimate public interest.
9. Defendants’ publications in this matter are protected speech under the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America and under the Constitution of the State of Oklahoma.
10. Defendants’ publications in this matter are fair comment.
11. The matters/statements contained in the Defendants’ publications are true.
12. The matters/statements contained in the Defendants’ publications are substantially true.
13. Any damages suffered by Plaintiff are a result of his own conduct and in no way were caused by or attributed to Defendants.
14. Defendants reserve the right to amend, supplement or change any defenses as discovery proceeds.
WHEREFORE Defendants This Land Press, LLC, Joshua Kline, Michael Mason and Vince LoVoi pray: (a) that judgment be granted in their favor and against Plaintiff on the claims asserted in the Petition; (b) that Plaintiff take nothing by reason thereof; (c) that Defendants be awarded their costs of defending this action, including reasonable attorney’s fees; and (d) any other and further relief be afforded to Defendants that is just and proper.
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED.

SECOND MOTION OF SHAWN KING TO ENFORCE
MEDIATION AGREEMENT AND FOR DAMAGES, AND ATTORNEYS’ FEES
Shawn King (“King”), Plaintiff, by and through his undersigned attorney, hereby moves this Court for the second time to enforce the Mediation Agreement executed in this matter on July 16, 2014, between the Defendants herein, as to Keena B. Roberts (“Roberts”). Further, King requests that Roberts be ordered to fuliy compensate him for the harm he has suffered due to Roberts’ failure to comply with the terms of the above-referenced Mediation Agreement. To the extent that damages are inadequate, King requests that Roberts be required to pay damages to King for breaching the Mediation Agreement. King also requests that Roberts be ordered to pay his attorneys’ fees and costs in connection with his attempt to have Roberts comply with the terms of the Mediation Agreement As grounds for this Motion, King states as follows;

BACKGROUND AND RELEVANT FACTS
Comes now the Plaintiff, Shawn King (“King”), by and through his counsel of record, and he does hereby respectfully move this Court to grant a Motion to Enforce Mediation Agreement as to Roberts. In support of this Motion, the Plaintiff would state the following:
1. On Wednesday, July 16, 2014, a Mediation in this matter was held with the assistance of Joseph Paulk. During that mediation, a settlement was reached by all parties and it was memorialized in a Mediation Agreement, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A, under Seal.
2. According to the terms of the Mediation Agreement, this agreement was to have been
memorialized into a written Settlement Agreement and funds paid and properties transferred
by Roberts to King and his counsel no later than twenty (20) days thereafter or August 5,
2014.
3. As of today, August 25,2014, no funds have been paid and no written Settlement Agreement has been entered into by the parties.’
4. In June, 2014 and again in July, 2014, King sold the two houses in Britton Meadows which Roberts and her father had built. Roberts and her father placed mortgages on both of these houses. At the conclusion of these sales, Roberts received a total of $250,000.
5. On August 1, 2014, Roberts posted on Facebook, along with a picture of herself, that she had won a $42,500 jackpot on a slot machine at the casino. These winnings, coupled with the revenues from the sale of the two houses in Britton Meadows, yielded her a healthy cash gain of $292,500.
6. King and his counsel have specifically attempted on multiple occasions to get this matter resolved unsuccessfully.
7. Because settlement agreements, and thus settlement agreements, are contracts, “[ijssues involving the formation and construction of a purported settlement agreement are resolved by applying state contract law.” Shoels v. Kiebold, 375 F.3d 1054, 1060 (10th Cir.2004). Under Oklahoma law, settlement agreements, which may be oral or written, are controlled by “the rules of offer and acceptance and of mutual assent which control any issue of contract formation.” In re De—Annexation of Certain Real Property from City of Seminole, 204 P.3d 87, 89 (Okla.2009). The consent of the parties must be free, mutual, and “[c]ommunicated by each to the other.” Id. A party generally may not repudiate a settlement agreement absent fraud, duress, undue influence, or mistake. Whitehorse v. Johnson, 156 P.3d 41, 46 (Okla.2007). All of the elements necessary to form a contract following execution of the Mediation Agreement were present in this case.
8. As stated in Whitehorse v. Johnson, 156 P.3d 41 at ¶9:
The law and public policy favor settlements and compromises, entered into fairly and in good faith between competent persons, as a discouragement to litigation and such agreements are generally enforced absent fraud, duress, undue influence, or mistake. A contract is an agreement to do or not to do a certain thing. A settlement agreement is a contract which constitutes a compromise between two or more parties to avoid a lawsuit and amicably to settle their differences on such terms as they can agree. A contract includes not only the promises set forth in express words, but all such implied provisions as are indispensable to effectuate the intent of the parties and as arise from the language of the contract and the circumstances under which it was made. [Footnotes omitted.]
9. In Oklahoma, Title 23, Section 21 provides the general rule as to breach of contract damages:
For the breach of an obligation arising from contract, the measure of damages, except where otherwise expressly provided by this chapter, is the amount which will compensate the party aggrieved for all the detriment proximately caused thereby, or which, in the ordinary course of things, would be likely to result therefrom. No damages can be recovered for a breach of contract, which are not clearly ascertainable in both their nature and origin.
10. Oklahoma strictly adheres to the “American rule concerning attorney’s fees.” North Texas Prod. CreditAss’n v. McCurtain County Nat’l Bank, 222 F.3d 800,817,818(10th Cir.2000). Attorney fees are not available unless (1) the opponent acts in bad faith, (2) attorney fees are authorized under a specific statute, or (3) a contract exists between the parties which governs attorney fees. Id. Oklahoma law provides a statutory exception authorizing attorney fees for breach of contract claims. See 12 Okia. Stat. § 936. No similar statutory exception exists for tort actions. R.J.B. Gas Pipeline Co. v. Colorado Interstate Gas Co., 813 P.2d 1, 14(1989), overruled on other grounds by Taylor v. Chubb Group oflns. Cos., 874 P.2d 806 (Olcla. 1994).
11. However, in Hall v. Cole, 412 U.S. 1, 93 S.Ct. 1943, 36 L.Ed.2d 702 (1973), in addressing an issue involving the awarding of attorney fees in the absence of a statutory provision or contract, as cited by City Nat. Bank& Trust:Co. V. Owens, 19770K 86, 565 P.2d 4,8 stated:
Although the traditional American rule ordinarily disfavors the allowance of attorneys’ fees in the absence of statutory or contractual authorization, federal courts in the exercise of their equitable powers, may award attorneys’ fees when the interests of justice so require. Indeed, the power to award such fees ‘is part of the original authority of the chancellor to do equity in a particular situation,’ Sprague v. Ticonic National Bank, 307 U.S. 161, 166, 59 S.Ct. 777, 780, 83 L.Ed. 1184 (1939), and federal courts do not hesitate to exercise this inherent equitable power whenever ‘overriding considerations indicate the need for such a recovery.’ Mills v. Electric Auto-Lite Co.,
396 U.S. 375,391-392,90 S.Ct. 616,625,24 L.Ed.2d 593 (1970); see
Fleischmann Distilling Corp. v. Maier Brewing Co., 386 U.S. 714,
718, 87 S.Ct. 1404, 1407, 18 L.Ed.2d 475 (1967).
Thus, it is unquestioned that a federal court may award counsel fees to a successful party when his opponent has acted ‘in bad faith, vexatiously, wantonly, or for oppressive reasons.’ 6 J. Moore, Federal Practice § 54.77[2], p. 1709 (2d ed. 1972); see, e.g., Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc., 390 U.S. 400, 402 n. 4, 88 S.Ct. 964, 966, 19 L.Ed.2d 1263 (1968); Vaughan v. Atkinson, 369 U.S. 527,82 S.Ct. 997, 8 L.Ed.2d 88 (1962); Bell v. School Bd. of Powhatan County, 321 F.2d 494 (C.A.4 1963); Rolax v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 186 F.2d 473 (C.A.4 1951).” [Footnotes omitted].
12. Here, Roberts is a realtor and a real estate investor. She has no less than three (3) attorneys at her beck and call - Gene Dennison, Edward Lindsey and Stephan Wangsgard. It is impossible to believe that she was not familiar with the status of her own assets. She consistently offered assets to King which are owned by others, mortgaged or in foreclosure. King and his counsel have been forced to spend a significant number of hours verifying the status of assets offered to him by Roberts. Had Roberts been without the support of three experienced attorneys, or had she herself been unfamiliar with real estate, these problems might be excused. However, her continual offer of assets which were not owned by her or owned by her free and clear was done in bad faith and fraudulently. Hence, King is entitled to attorneys fees herein.
13. It is customary in real estate transactions to require specific performance as the courts generally view real estate to be unique. It is this same principle which makes specific performance inapplicable in this case. King does not want assets which which are not comparable to those offered in the Mediation Agreement. When specific performance is not available, as is the case here, the Defendant must pay to the Plaintiff the value of his loss.
14. Additionally, King is entitled to attorney fees arising from the breach of the contract, i.e., the Mediation Agreement.
15. King’s counsel has consulted with the attorneys for Eric Cullen, This Land Press, Joshua Kline, Vince LoVoi, and Michael Mason and they do not object to this Motion.
WHEREFORE, King asks this Court to order Roberts to comply with the Mediation Agreement which she signed in regards to this matter and that the Court order Roberts to comply with the Mediation Agreement and pay attorneys’ fees and costs.

Outcome: 07-10-2013 DISPDWOP 2 ROBERTS, KEENA B 86028940 Sep 18 2013 1:51:18:810PM - $ 0.00
DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE

08-19-2014 DISPCVDMWP 2 CULLEN, ERIC 91047518 Aug 20 2014 7:46:27:730AM - $ 0.00
DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE
08-19-2014 DISPCVDMWP 2 CULLEN & ASSOCIATES LLC 91047519 Aug 20 2014 7:46:27:770AM - $ 0.00
ISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: