Case 1:18-cv-00364-LEK-KJM Document 74 Filed 05/08/19 Page 1 of 108
1105

PageID #:

UTZURRUM LAW OFFICES, A.P.C.
Joe Utzurrum, Esq. 9834
7 Waterfront Plaza
500 Ala Moana Boulevard, Suite 400
Honolulu, Hawai’i 96813
Tele 808.587.7070
Email joe@ulawoffices.com
11620 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 900
Los Angeles, California 90025
Tele 310.887.1837
Attorneys for Plaintiff, DANNY
GALLAGHER
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
DANNY GALLAGHER,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
MATERNITYWISE INTERNATIONAL )
LLC, ANNE CROUDACE, JANE
)
HOPAKI, EMILEE SALDAYA,
)
RACHAEL AUGHENBAUGH,
)
JENNIFER CHIDESTER,
)
STEPHANIE BYERS, BETHANY
)
KIRILLOV, SAMANTHA LAJOIE,
)
AERIN LUND, KATE PAVLOVSKY,
)
CHANNA JAYDE WALZ, MADISON )
SISLEY BOULTER, ESME
)
WHRITENOUR, ADRIANNA
)
BROOKS, NICOLETTE RAYMOND, )
JULIE BELL, CARA GWIZD, HOLLY )
1

CIVIL NO. 1:18-cv-00364-LEKKJM
FOURTH AMENDED
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Libel
Libel Per Se
Trade Libel
False Light
Intentional Infliction of
Emotional Distress
6. Negligent Infliction of Emotional
Distress
7. Permanent Injunction
8. Declaratory Relief

Fourth Amended Complaint and
Demand for Jury Trial

 Case 1:18-cv-00364-LEK-KJM Document 74 Filed 05/08/19 Page 2 of 108
1106

LEPPARD-WESTHAVER, ELOISE
VICTORIA, VIVIAN CHAU BEST,
JANE DOE ONE, JANE DOE
THREE, and DOES 1-10, inclusive,

PageID #:

)
)
)
)
)
)

Defendants.

Plaintiff, DANNY GALLAGHER, an individual, hereby, by and through
its counsel of record, allege as follows:
I.JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1.

This court has original jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1332, because
all plaintiff is a citizen of the state of Hawai’i and all defendants are
citizens of the states other than the state of Hawai’i. Additionally, the
amount in controversy in this matter exceeds $75,000.00, exclusive
of costs and interests as more specifically plead infra.

2.

Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. §1391(b)(1), because all defendants
reside in the Federal District of Hawai’i and further proper under 28
U.S.C. §1391(b)(2), because a substantial amount of the events and
omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in the Federal District of
Hawai’i, and otherwise were knowingly directed at harming a citizen
of the State of Hawai’i and the citizens ability to take part in his
occupation, as more specifically plead infra.
II.PARTIES

3.

Plaintiff, DANNY GALLAGHER (Gallagher or Plaintiff) is, and was,
at all times relevant, domiciled in Hawai’i and thus a citizen of
Hawai’i.

4.

Defendant, MATERNITYWISE INTERNATIONAL LLC (MATWISE),
is, and was, at all relevant times, a limited liability company, acquiring
its charter under the laws of the state of New York all of its partners
and members being citizens of the State of Texas and New York.
2

Fourth Amended Complaint and
Demand for Jury Trial

 Case 1:18-cv-00364-LEK-KJM Document 74 Filed 05/08/19 Page 3 of 108
1107

5.

PageID #:

Defendant, Anne Croudace (CROUDACE) is, and was at all relevant
times, domiciled in the State of New York and thus a citizen of the
State of New York.

6.

Defendant, Jane Hopaki (HOPAKI), named and referred to in the
prior complaints as, “Elizbeth Anoatubby”, sometimes using the name
“Jane Yaakni Hopaki” and Elizabeth Anoatubby, is, and was at all
relevant times, domiciled in the State of Minnesota and thus a citizen
of the State of Minnesota.

7.

Defendant, Emilee Saldaya (SALDAYA), sometimes using the
identity Emily Benner and Emilee Saldaya is, and was at all relevant
times, domiciled in the State of Colorado and thus a citizen of the
State of Colorado.

8.

Defendant, Rachael Aughenbaugh (AUGHENBAUGH), named and
referred to in the prior complaints as, “Rachael Brown”, sometimes
using the name “Rachael Phoenix”, “Rachael BirthKeeper Phoenix”
and Rachael Brown is, and was at all relevant times, domiciled in the
State of Colorado and thus a citizen of the State of Colorado.

9.

Defendant, Jennifer Chidester (CHIDESTER) named and referred to
in the prior complaints as, “Jenna Chidester”, sometimes using the
name “Jenna Chidester” is, and was at all relevant times, domiciled in
the State of Oregon and thus a citizen of the State of Oregon.

10.

Defendant, Stephanie Byers (BYERS), named and referred to in prior
complaints as “Stephanie Gilbert”, sometimes using the name
“Stephanie BYERS”, is, and was at all relevant times, domiciled in the
State of Iowa and thus a citizen of the State of Iowa.

11.

Defendant, Bethany Kirillov (KIRILLOV), named and referred to in
the prior complaints as “”Bethany Kirillova”, sometimes using the
identity Bethany Kirillova, is, and was at all relevant times, domiciled
3

Fourth Amended Complaint and
Demand for Jury Trial

 Case 1:18-cv-00364-LEK-KJM Document 74 Filed 05/08/19 Page 4 of 108
1108

PageID #:

in the State of Alaska and thus a citizen of the State of Alaska
12.

Defendant, Samantha Lajoie (LAJOIE) is, and was at all relevant
times, domiciled in the State of North Carolina and thus a citizen of
the State of North Carolina.

13.

Defendant, Aerin Lund (LUND) is, and was at all relevant times,
domiciled in the State of Utah and thus a citizen of the State of Utah.

14.

Defendant, Kate Pavlovsky (PAVLOVSKY) is, and was at all relevant
times, domiciled in the State of Texas and thus a citizen of the State
of Texas.

15.

Defendant, Channa Jayde Walz (WALZ) is, and was at all relevant
times, domiciled in the State of Arizona and thus a citizen of the State
of Arizona.

16.

Defendant, Madison Sisley Boulter (BOULTER), named and referred
to in the prior complaints as “Maddison Weikle”, sometimes using the
social media identity “Maddie Boulter”, is, and was at all relevant
times, domiciled in the State of North Carolina and thus a citizen of
the State of North Carolina.

17.

Defendant, Esme Whritenour (WHRITENOUR), is, and was at all
relevant times, domiciled in the State of Oregon and thus a citizen of
the State of Oregon.

18.

Defendant, Adrianna Brooks (BROOKS) named and referred to in the
prior complaints as “Jane Doe Two” using the social media identity
“Aydree Ahnah” and sometimes known as Adrianna Hutchinson, is,
and was at all relevant times, domiciled in the State of California and
thus a citizen of the State of California.

19.

Defendant, JANE DOE ONE, using the social media identity “Jess
Young” (YOUNG), is, and was at all relevant times, not domiciled in
the State of Hawai’i and thus not a citizen of the State of Hawai’i.
4

Fourth Amended Complaint and
Demand for Jury Trial

 Case 1:18-cv-00364-LEK-KJM Document 74 Filed 05/08/19 Page 5 of 108
1109

PageID #:

Plaintiff will amend the complaint when the true name of JANE DOE
ONE is ascertained.
20.

Defendant, JANE DOE THREE, using the social media identity
“Marie-Soleil Deschamps” (DESCHAMPS), is, and was at all relevant
times, not domiciled in the State of Hawai’i and thus not a citizen of
the State of Hawai’i. Plaintiff will amend the complaint when the true
name of JANE DOE THREE is ascertained.

21.

Defendant, Nicolette Raymond (RAYMOND) is, and was at all
relevant times, domiciled in Ontario, Canada and thus a citizen of
Canada.

22.

Defendant, Julie Bell (BELL), sometimes using the social media
identity “Melbourne Doula Birth Support”, is, and was at all relevant
times, domiciled in Victoria, Australia and thus a citizen of Australia.

23.

Defendant, Cara Gwizd (GWIZD), is, and was at all relevant times,
domiciled in Canada and thus a citizen of Canada.

24.

Defendant, Holly Leppard-Westhaver (LEPPARD-WESTHAVER),
sometimes using the name “Hollie Michelle” is, and was at all relevant
times, domiciled in Canada and thus a citizen of Canada.

25.

Defendant, Eloise Victoria (VICTORIA), is, and was at all relevant
times, domiciled in New South Wales, Australia and thus a citizen of
Australia.

26.

Defendant, Vivian Chau Best (BEST), is, and was at all relevant
times, domiciled in the State of California and thus a citizen of the
State of California.

27.

The full extent of the facts linking the fictitiously named designated
defendants with the claims alleged herein is unknown to plaintiff, or
the true names and/or capacities, whether an individual, plural,
corporate, a partnership, an associate, or otherwise, of defendants,
5

Fourth Amended Complaint and
Demand for Jury Trial

 Case 1:18-cv-00364-LEK-KJM Document 74 Filed 05/08/19 Page 6 of 108
1110

PageID #:

DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, are unknown to plaintiff. Plaintiff
therefore sues defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiff is
informed and believe, and thereon alleges that each of the
defendants designated herein as a DOE is negligently, wantonly,
recklessly, tortiously, intentionally, strictly and unlawfully responsible
in some manner for the events and happenings herein referred to,
and did negligently, wantonly, recklessly, tortiously, intentionally,
strictly and unlawfully proximately cause injuries and damages
thereby to plaintiff, as herein alleged. Plaintiff will amend this
Complaint to allege said defendants’ true names and capacities when
same have been ascertained. Each reference to “defendant,”
“defendants,” or a specifically named defendant, refers to all
defendants including those sued under fictitious names.
28.

At all times herein mentioned, each defendant was the agent,
principal, master, servant, employer, employee, partner and joint
venturer of the other defendants, and in doing the things hereinafter
mentioned, was acting in the scope of his, her, or its authority as
such, and with the permission and consent of the other defendants,
and each of them.
III.FACTS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION

32.

Each, and every, defamatory statement described herein has gone
“viral”; that is to say that the described defamatory statements have
been shared, forwarded, commented on and used hundreds to
thousands of times on, and in, the same social media platform the
defamatory statement(s) were originally made or posted, and also on,
and in, other social media platforms different from the platform in
which the defamatory statements were originally made or posted. The
viral nature of the defamatory statements and subject matter was of
6

Fourth Amended Complaint and
Demand for Jury Trial

 Case 1:18-cv-00364-LEK-KJM Document 74 Filed 05/08/19 Page 7 of 108
1111

PageID #:

no doing of plaintiff. Gallagher has made numerous and every
reasonable effort to prevent the further dissemination of the lies that
have been spread about him, lies that were intended to prevent
Gallagher from engaging in his constitutional right to pursue the
lawful occupations and professions that he has been engaged in the
past few years, including as a photographer and a doula.
33.

The herein unjustifiable acts of the defendants have been as
successful as each of the defendants intended, that is to say, that
each of the defendant’’ acts have irreparably damaged Gallagher’s
reputation, personal relationships, business relationships, income,
emotional well-being, and financial well-being, inter alia.

34.

MATWISE is a business that promotes the training of persons who
want to become doulas, who are persons who provide assistance
during the childbirth process. Although no state requires government
mandated training or certification, for a large fee MATWISE provides
“certification” through the completion of its training courses.
MATWISE characterizes its “graduates” as “certified” to create and
manufacture a public perception that paying for and completing a
series of MATWISE courses will somehow legitimize its graduates. In
fact, there is no government-regulated medical program or any major
or minor United States educational institution that offers certification
to be a doula, or call oneself a doula. Any person who wants to call
himself or herself a doula may do so without regulatory oversight.
MATWISE and its principals make and enjoy a profit from its
perceived regulatory behavior.

35.

On information and belief, the business form of MATWISE is a limited
liability company.

36.

CROUDACE is a principal of MATWISE and has been “certified”
7

Fourth Amended Complaint and
Demand for Jury Trial

 Case 1:18-cv-00364-LEK-KJM Document 74 Filed 05/08/19 Page 8 of 108
1112

PageID #:

through MATWISE as a
(1)“MaternityWise Certified Labor Doula Trainer”
(2)“MaternityWise Certified PostPartum Doula Trainer”
(3)“MaternityWise Placenta Encapsulation Certification”
(4)“MaternityWise Certified Lactation Support and Educator Trainer”
37.

CROUDACE conducts business through numerous fictitious business
names, including, “Maternity Wise”, “Maternity Wise International”,
“MaternityWise Intl”, “MaternityWiseInternational”, “Maternity Wise
Institute”, inter alia.

38.

MATWISE conducts business through fictitious business names,
including, “Maternity Wise”, “MaternityWise Intl”,
“MaternityWiseInternational”, “Maternity Wise Institute”, inter alia.

39.

CROUDACE and MATWISE use the web address
http://www.maternitywise.com, the Facebook page
https://www.facebook.com/pg/maternitywise.intl/about/?ref=page_inte
rnal and various social media discussion groups to market to those
intending on become “certified” doulas through its program.
CROUDACE and MATWISE reach out to the residents of every state
and country, including the State of Hawai’i, to find candidates, i.e.,
clients and students, for its certification programs that CROUDACE
and MATWISE derive income.

40.

In order to lure candidates to paying for its programs and classes,
CROUDACE and MATWISE use the fact that they have in the past,
and in the future, provided training in Hawai’i and do so to capitalize
on the natural beauty and tourism in Hawai’i.

41.

Gallagher exchanged valuable consideration and did undergo the
certification program provided by CROUDACE and MATWISE in
Hawai’i and did so through CROUDACE’s and MATWISE’s marketing
8

Fourth Amended Complaint and
Demand for Jury Trial

 Case 1:18-cv-00364-LEK-KJM Document 74 Filed 05/08/19 Page 9 of 108
1113

PageID #:

efforts in the State of Hawai’i.
42.

Gallagher operated, and operates, a Hawai’i business in photography
and also is employed as a doula.

A.

Defendants’ use of Facebook to target Gallagher in Hawai’i with
the knowledge that Gallagher lives and works in Hawai’i.

43.

Facebook is a social networking website wherein users create a
customized profile to connect with other users or visitors by “posting”
communications, including photos and documents, for other users to
read and review. As of January 2018 Facebook had more than 2.2
billion monthly active users. All defendants were aware of Facebook’s
extensive reach and the “viral” effect that defendants’
communications could have; in fact each and all herein defendants
intended on having their communications “go viral”, “viral” meaning
that a communication is republished thousands of times in a short
period of time.

44.

Herein “users” and “visitors” can be used interchangeably. “Users” of
Facebook and Facebook Pages (infra) generally refer to Facebook
subscribers who have their own personal or Facebook Pages
accounts, whereas “visitors” are generally those persons who are not
Facebook subscribers. Facebook subscribers’ pages that are made
“public” can be accessed by any person, whether or not the person
has a Facebook account. “Private” Facebook accounts are accessible
to those persons who also have a Facebook account, i.e., between
users, and consent is given to view the pages associated with the
account.

45.

Facebook also allows persons to create a business page through
“Facebook Pages”. Facebook represents, inter alia, on its creation
page that Facebook Pages are used to “[c]reate [a] beautiful online
9

Fourth Amended Complaint and
Demand for Jury Trial

 Case 1:18-cv-00364-LEK-KJM Document 74 Filed 05/08/19 Page 10 of 108
1114

PageID #:

home for your business” and that the pages “[i]ncrease awareness of
your business with a free online presence …”, also “[c]reating a
Facebook Page allows the more than 2 billion people on Facebook to
discover your business – think of your Page as a digital storefront…”
and “2/3 of Facebook users across all countries surveyed say they
visit the Page of a local business at least once a week.”
46.

On all dates relevant, including 2018, Gallagher maintained a
business page on Facebook called “Danny the Doula”, i.e., separate
from his personal identity page.
1.

The Danny the Doula and Maternity in Motion Facebook
Business Pages are patently operated by a person who
lives and works in Hawai’i and directs its business to serve
the citizens of Hawai’i or those who desire a Hawaiian
themed audio visual product or assisted childbirth in
Hawai’i.

47.

The Danny the Doula business page (DTD), like many business
websites, have subpages that categorize certain aspects of the
business, i.e., akin to visiting different departments of a business, that
cater to the varying interactive interests of users.

48.

The DTD business page has seven subpages, specifically Home,
Posts, Reviews, Photos, About, Community and Info and Ads.

49.

When interacting with DTD, the Home page is the first page that a
user or visitor must interact with before accessing DTD. The Home
page uses Hawaiian words and phrases, for example, “Aloha Kakou”,
“Mahalo”, “Aloha” and lists Gallagher’s 808 phone number,
communicating, signifying and establishing that Gallagher lives in
Hawai’i and that the business is a Hawai’i based business.

50.

The DTD business page also directs users and visitors to “[p]lease
10

Fourth Amended Complaint and
Demand for Jury Trial

 Case 1:18-cv-00364-LEK-KJM Document 74 Filed 05/08/19 Page 11 of 108
1115

PageID #:

support me by liking and subscribing to my sister page for all
maternity and birth visuals @Maternity in Motion! Mahalo!,” including
a link to Gallagher’s other Facebook Pages (business) site
maternityinmotion.
51.

The DTD Home page also has another separate link to
www.maternityinmotion.com.

52.

The Maternity in Motion business page (MIM) displays Gallagher’s
audio-visual work and uses such to promote his photography
business. MIM has samples of Gallagher’s work providing photos and
videos of pregnant women immersed in the backdrops of Hawai’i, for
example Haleakala, Maui, Makena, Maui, Kihei, Maui, and St. Louis
Heights, Oahu. The videos and photographs are overwhelmingly of
scenes in Hawai’i that cannot be mistaken as to location because of
the express statement of where the photo shoots took place.
Gallagher’s Hawai’i area code phone number is displayed on every
subpage on MIM.

53.

The connection of DTD and MIM are not separable and every person
who visited DTD or MIM were fully aware that Gallagher was
operating a doula and photography business that was based in the
state of Hawai’i and was primarily reaching out to and for the
business of Hawaiian citizens or whoever wanted a Hawaiian
experience.
2.

Defendants’ knowledge that Gallagher lives and works in
Hawai’i by those who interacted with Docker’s post on the
DTD Reviews page on June 3, 2018 and after.

54.

After reviewing the Home page of DTD, every defendant herein then
visited the DTD Reviews page to post defamatory statements about
Gallagher and his businesses.
11

Fourth Amended Complaint and
Demand for Jury Trial

 Case 1:18-cv-00364-LEK-KJM Document 74 Filed 05/08/19 Page 12 of 108
1116

55.

PageID #:

The “Reviews” page is a page expressly made to review the
business, in the instant case, Gallagher doing business as a doula
and photographer through DTD.

56.

Each and every defendant was fully aware that a comment, reply,
emoji, post, inter alia, on DTD or MIM would affect Gallagher’s
reputation as a doula and photographer and consequently his
photography and doula business.

57.

One of the first posted reviews was a post on June 3, 2018 made by
Chrystal Docker (DOCKER). DOCKER defended Gallagher’s
integrity, transparency and high level of professionalism, including
that the below described false accusations made by MATWISE and
CROUDACE were false and not supported by any evidence.
(attached hereto as Exhibit “2” and incorporated herein by this
reference is a true and correct copy of the pertinent part DOCKER’s
post defending Gallagher and the following replies. It should be noted
however that others might have deleted a reply prior to making the
herein copy or otherwise prior to when the DTD was disabled to
prevent further libel.)

58.

Soon after DOCKER’s positive review, Facebook placed the review
above all other reviews so that any and all visitors of DTD would have
to first read DOCKER’s review and subsequent posts by others
including DOCKER’s statement that Gallagher lived in Hawai’i.

59.

Defendants, YOUNG and AUGHENBAUGH, with AUGHENBAUGH
using the identity “Rachael BirthKeeper Phoenix”, responded and
posted laughing emojis to DOCKER’S review, acknowledging that
YOUNG and AUGHENBAUGH disagreed with DOCKER’s statement.

60.

After DOCKER’s post, defendant BOULTER sarcastically replied with
the question, “[y]ou have personally met him?”
12

Fourth Amended Complaint and
Demand for Jury Trial

 Case 1:18-cv-00364-LEK-KJM Document 74 Filed 05/08/19 Page 13 of 108
1117

61.

PageID #:

Defendant, WALZ, responded and posted a thumbs-up emoji to
BOULTER’s question, thereby apparently approving of the question.

62.

DOCKER replied to BOULTER, “No he is in Hawai’i and I am
stateside. But know him from birth group, talking on the phone,
chatting online, etc. I’ve also talked to other people who know him
and he has plenty of people backing him up. And most of the people
who are coming out against him, don’t even know him, have never
used his services, etc. They are only going by what they’ve heard
today from these rumors being spread. Very petty, immature and
unprofessional.”

63.

Immediately after DOCKER’s reply that Gallagher lived in Hawai’i and
in the same string of responses to BOULTER’s sarcastic question,
YOUNG posted a false statement defaming Gallagher, “[m]ost of the
women coming out against him HAVE dealt with him ….Victim
dismissal is nothing new,” although the truth is that with the exception
of CROUDACE, none of the accusers and persons committing
defamation ever met Gallagher or have “dealt with him”. YOUNG’s
response in accentuating “HAVE” attempted to directly refute
DOCKER’s statement that Gallagher’s accusers have met him. As
such, YOUNG acknowledges the review of DOCKER’s post,
establishing YOUNG’s knowledge that YOUNG was aware that
Gallagher lived in Hawai’i.

64.

Defendant, WALZ and HOPAKI responded and posted a thumbs-up
emoji to YOUNG’s defamatory statement, apparently approving of
YOUNG’s defamation and established knowledge of DOCKER’s
statement that Gallagher lived in Hawai’i.

65.

Continuing in the same conversation, Jacob Hildreth, posted a
response to the DOCKER’s second post that Gallagher lived in
13

Fourth Amended Complaint and
Demand for Jury Trial

 Case 1:18-cv-00364-LEK-KJM Document 74 Filed 05/08/19 Page 14 of 108
1118

PageID #:

Hawai’i, “[s]o …you don’t know him then. First Sentence of your
review is a lie.” Jacob Hildreth’s response established that Jacob
Hildreth did read the first sentence of DOCKER’s statement that
Gallagher lived in Hawai’i.
66.

Defendant, YOUNG posted a thumbs-up emoji to Jacob Hildreth’s
statement acknowledging that YOUNG read the first sentence of
DOCKER’s statement that Gallagher lived in Hawai’i and subsequent
response by Jacob Hildreth.

67.

Jordan Ashley Hocker (Hocker) then posted a direct response to
DOCKER’s post of whether DOCKER ever had a face-to-face
meeting with GALLAHER, “Chrystal Docker You haven’t actually met
him but you’re attempting to say women who had a direct
inappropriate experiences are just trying to discredit him by coming
forward? …That literally makes no sense.” Hocker apparently
acknowledges that Hocker read DOCKER’s second post including the
first sentence of DOCKER’s statement that Gallagher lived in Hawai’i.

68.

Defendant, YOUNG posted a thumbs-up emoji to Hocker’s reply.

69.

Defendant, AUGHENBAUGH using the identity “Rachael BirthKeeper
Phoenix” then posted, “[s]o sorry he is grooming you too!” which was
a derogatory statement directed at DOCKER who in the string of
posts and replies established that Gallagher lived and worked as a
photographer and doula in Hawai’i. That is to say, AUGHENBAUGH’s
statement acknowledges that AUGHENBAUGH was following along
and reading DOCKER’s posts including the first sentence of
DOCKER’s second post that Gallagher lived in Hawai’i.

70.

“Grooming” becomes a prevalent theme of attacks made upon all
those supporting Gallagher, that is to say, all those who support
Gallagher have lost all volition to defend against Gallagher’s sexually
14

Fourth Amended Complaint and
Demand for Jury Trial

 Case 1:18-cv-00364-LEK-KJM Document 74 Filed 05/08/19 Page 15 of 108
1119

PageID #:

predatory behavior and the support was without merit expanding the
scope of the defamation by discrediting and making factually false
any and all positive statements about Gallagher and his photography
and doula business.
71.

Defendants, YOUNG and WALZ posted thumbs-up emojis to
AUGHENBAUGH’s statement.

72.

Continuing in the string of replies, defendant, CHIDESTER, posted,
“Ok even if you don’t believe the handful of women who have come
forward about him [meaning Gallagher] making them feel fetishized
about him taking partially nude maternity pics but never actually
providing the edited photos etc. …” That is to say, CHIDESTER’s
statement acknowledges that CHIDESTER was following along and
reading DOCKER’s posts including the first sentence of DOCKER’s
second statement that Gallagher lived in Hawai’i because
CHIDESTER’s post refuted the content of DOCKER’s post.

73.

Defendant, YOUNG posted a thumbs-up emoji to CHIDESTER’s
statement.

74.

Elizabeth Geftakys (Geftakys) using the identity “Becca Russell” then
posted the entire defamatory memorandum created and prepared by
MATWISE and CROUDACE, described below and attached as
Exhibit “1”. That is to say, Geftakys’ post acknowledges that Geftakys
was following along and reading DOCKER’s posts including the first
sentence of DOCKER’s second statement that Gallagher lived in
Hawai’i. Geftakys’ post was not intended to standalone but used to
refute DOCKER’s assertions supporting Gallagher.

75.

Defendants, YOUNG, CHIDESTER and GWIZD posted thumbs-up
emojis to Geftakys’ statement, thereby acknowledging that YOUNG,
CHIDESTER and GWIZD were following along in the conversation
15

Fourth Amended Complaint and
Demand for Jury Trial

 Case 1:18-cv-00364-LEK-KJM Document 74 Filed 05/08/19 Page 16 of 108
1120

PageID #:

including DOCKER’s statement that Gallagher lived in Hawai’i.
76.

As such, defendants who participated in the first string of replies that
originated from DOCKER’s two posts on June 3, 2018 that
established that Gallagher lived and worked as a photographer and
doula in Hawai’i were fully aware that Gallagher lived and worked as
a photographer and doula in Hawai’i. Specifically, defendants,
AUGHENBAUGH, WALZ, BOULTER, YOUNG, HOPAKI,
CHIDESTER and GWIZD were expressly aware that Gallagher lived
and worked as a photographer and doula in Hawai’i when
AUGHENBAUGH, WALZ, BOULTER, YOUNG, HOPAKI,
CHIDESTER and GWIZD posted defamatory statements about
Gallagher.
3.

Defendants’ knowledge that Gallagher lives and works in
Hawai’i by those who interacted with Hildreth’s post on the
DTD Community page on June 7, 2018 and after.

77.

On June 7, 2018, Jacob Hildreth posted on the Community page of
DTD, ““Aloha Danny. You don’t know me but I know you. This is a
problem. I know everything about you. from [sic] your battle with
homelessness and obesity, to losing your wallet and home. And yes,
the really disturbing stuff, using a trusted role to persuade pregnant
women to do pornography. This is none of my business and I am
indeed judging you. You need to make your profiles private, take that
picture of the poor girl off your wall, and probably move off Maui. Not
sure how life can remain the same for you from this point.”

78.

Defendants, KIRILLOV and LAJOIE posted a thumbs up to Jacob
Hildreth’s statement acknowledging that Gallagher lived and worked
in Maui, Hawai’i.

B.

Defendants’ Defamatory Statements
16

Fourth Amended Complaint and
Demand for Jury Trial

 Case 1:18-cv-00364-LEK-KJM Document 74 Filed 05/08/19 Page 17 of 108
1121

79.

PageID #:

After reviewing the DTD Home page, every defendant herein then
visited the DTD Reviews page to post the above and below described
defamatory statements about Gallagher and his businesses.

80.

Defendants also then posted the same defamatory statements on
and in Facebook groups that had thousands of members and links to
other Facebook groups so that that tens of thousands of members did
review the defamatory statements.

81.

Before posting their defamatory statements, every defendant did
review the string of posts and replies that extended from DOCKER’s
review indicating that plaintiff lived in Hawai’i because Facebook
positioned DOCKER’s review and post on the DTD Reviews page as
the first review and post as the “most helpful.”

82.

Each and every one of the defendants’ defamatory post was made
after DOCKER’s post that Gallagher lived in Hawai’i and each and
every defendant read DOCKER’s post that Gallagher lived in Hawai’i
before making the defamatory post described herein.
1.

83.

Defendants, CROUDACE and MATWISE

On, or about, June 5, 2018, CROUDACE as an individual, and on
behalf of the business entity MATWISE, prepared then disseminated
to defendants, Elizbeth HOPAKI (HOPAKI), Madison BOULTER
(BOULTER) and Elizabeth Geftakys (Geftakys) and others a
“Memorandum of Official Statement” dated 05 June 2018. The
Memorandum of Official Statement accused plaintiff, inter alia, of (1)
furthering and promoting pornography in a manner that violated the
ethical and professional practices adhered to and expected of doulas
and photographers; (2) being a sexual predator, acting in a manner
that, and thereby, violated the ethical and professional practices of
doulas and photographers and also violated criminal statutes; (3)
17

Fourth Amended Complaint and
Demand for Jury Trial

 Case 1:18-cv-00364-LEK-KJM Document 74 Filed 05/08/19 Page 18 of 108
1122

PageID #:

enticing others to participate in pornography because of the
possibility of financial gain and plaintiff did so in a manner that
violated the ethical and professional practices adhered to and
expected of doulas and photographers; (4) encouraging pregnant
women and others to become involved in selling pornography in a
manner that violated the ethical and professional practices adhered to
and expected of doulas and photographers; (5) dishonesty in his
practice as a doula for plaintiff’s sexual gratification, financial gain
and self-interest; (6) deceiving the public in his practice as a doula for
plaintiff’s sexual gratification, financial gain and self-interest; (7) being
unethical in his practice as a doula in a manner that, and thereby,
violated the ethical and professional practices of doulas; (8)
dishonesty in his profession as photographer in a manner that, and
thereby, violated the ethical and professional practices of
photographers; (9) deception in his profession as a photographer for
plaintiff’s sexual gratification, financial gain and self-interest; and (10)
unethical conduct in his profession as a photographer in a manner
that, and thereby, violated the ethical and professional practices of
photographers. (MATWISE’s SET OF DEFAMATORY
STATEMENTS) (attached hereto as Exhibit “1”.)
84.

On or about June 5, 2018 and thereafter CROUDACE, expressly
and/or impliedly directed others to republish MATWISE’s SET OF
DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS through social media and thereafter
others did republish MATWISE’s SET OF DEFAMATORY
STATEMENTS through social media. CROUDACE knew that others,
including HOPAKI, BOULTER, Geftakys, were republishing
MATWISE’s SET OF DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS and did nothing

18

Fourth Amended Complaint and
Demand for Jury Trial

 Case 1:18-cv-00364-LEK-KJM Document 74 Filed 05/08/19 Page 19 of 108
1123

PageID #:

to stop the republishing of MATWISE’s SET OF DEFAMATORY
STATEMENTS.
85.

On, or about, June 4, 2018, Jess Young posted the statement on
Facebook, thus published the statement on Facebook, and did so
with the intent that many others would read the statement and
republish the statement to others, “[t]his man [meaning Gallagher] is
a predator, luring women into nude photo shoots, refusing to return
paid-for photographs from session over a year later, selling women's
nakedness to other males. After he has groomed a group of females,
he pits them against one another and quietly messages individual
women he has targeted as financially or emotionally struggling, and
tries coercing them into sexualized photos and videos for his profit.
There are screenshot after screenshot of this behavior, with multiple
women. The only women speaking up for him are the ones he has
groomed fully and have not been contacted about sex work for him,
yet. They are victims of his as much as anyone else involved. The
fact that they are demanding evidence beyond what has already been
given, shows what a masterful work this man has done to keep
women from protecting one another in the birthing community. He is a
predator - beware.”

86.

On the same day, CROUDACE, thus also MATWISE in furtherance
of MATWISE’s business interest, posted a thumbs-up to the Young’s
statement.

87.

On the same day, in response to YOUNG’s statement BOULTER
posted, “[H]e [referring to Gallagher] shared their photos without
permission” and then BOULTER posted the entire defamatory
memorandum created and prepared by MATWISE and CROUDACE,

19

Fourth Amended Complaint and
Demand for Jury Trial

 Case 1:18-cv-00364-LEK-KJM Document 74 Filed 05/08/19 Page 20 of 108
1124

PageID #:

described below and attached as Exhibit “1”, to which CROUDACE,
posted a thumbs-up.
88.

As such, CROUDACE and MATWISE approved and ratified the use
of its memorandum by others and was n furtherance CROUDACE’s
and MATWISE’s business interest.
a.

89.

Innuendo, Inducement and Colloquium

CROUDACE and MATWISE, in other communications with HOPAKI,
BOULTER and Geftakys and in MATWISE’s SET OF DEFAMATORY
STATEMENTS, did not attempt to prevent or otherwise limit use of,
prevent the further publication of MATWISE’s SET OF
DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS or the content therein, through social
media, but instead CROUDACE and MATWISE encouraged the
unlimited world wide dissemination of MATWISE’s SET OF
DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS. CROUDACE and MATWISE have
done absolutely nothing to prevent HOPAKI, BOULTER and Geftakys
from referencing and republishing MATWISE’s SET OF
DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS through social media platforms,
including for example Facebook, Twitter and Instagram, since
CROUDACE and MATWISE became fully aware of HOPAKI’s,
BOULTER’s and Geftakys’ posting of MATWISE’s SET OF
DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS on or about June 3, 2018 and posted
a thumbs up to each posting of the memorandum.

90.

In the two pages that consist of the MATWISE’s SET OF
DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS, CROUDACE and MATWISE use the
word “Integrity” five times; use the word “ethics” three times; use the
word “pornography” nine times, use the word “credible” and phrases
“sexual predator” and “excuses in context” each once; and use the
words in reference to Gallagher’s character and conduct in his
20

Fourth Amended Complaint and
Demand for Jury Trial

 Case 1:18-cv-00364-LEK-KJM Document 74 Filed 05/08/19 Page 21 of 108
1125

PageID #:

personal and professional endeavors. The words are used in a
negative manner and used to cast a false light about plaintiff’s
conduct and character, including in the manner that plaintiff conducts
his professions.
91.

CROUDACE and MATWISE established credibility in MATWISE’s
SET OF DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS by indicating that
“authorities” are conducting an ongoing investigation targeting
Gallagher’s conduct and market itself as an organization that has
worldwide membership which is apparent from MATWISE’s website.
In fact, no regulatory body or law enforcement agency has
undertaken any investigation.

92.

MATWISE’s SET OF DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS was understood
by the thousands of persons who did review MATWISE’s SET OF
DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS, to mean that Gallagher, inter alia, (1)
furthered and promoted pornography in a manner that violated the
ethical and professional practices adhered to and expected of doulas
and photographers; (2) was a sexual predator acting in a manner
that, and thereby, violated the ethical and professional practices of
doulas and photographers and also violated criminal statutes; (3)
enticed others to participate in pornography because of the possibility
of financial gain and plaintiff did so in a manner that violated the
ethical and professional practices adhered to and expected of doulas
and photographers; (4) strongly encouraged pregnant women and
others to become involved in selling pornography in a manner that
violated the ethical and professional practices adhered to and
expected of doulas and photographers; (5) was dishonest in his
practice as a doula for plaintiff’s sexual gratification, financial gain
and self-interest; (6) deceived the public in his practice as a doula for
21

Fourth Amended Complaint and
Demand for Jury Trial

 Case 1:18-cv-00364-LEK-KJM Document 74 Filed 05/08/19 Page 22 of 108
1126

PageID #:

plaintiff’s sexual gratification, financial gain and self-interest; (7) was
unethical in his practice as a doula in a manner that, and thereby,
violated the ethical and professional practices of doulas; (8) was
dishonest in his profession as photographer in a manner that, and
thereby, violated the ethical and professional practices of
photographers; (9) was deceptive in his profession as a photographer
for plaintiff’s sexual gratification, financial gain and self-interest; and
(10) was unethical in his profession as a photographer in a manner
that, and thereby, violated the ethical and professional practices of
photographers.
93.

Prior to CROUDACE and MATWISE publishing MATWISE’s SET OF
DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS, CROUDACE and MATWISE
knowingly did absolutely nothing to determine, or otherwise verify the
truth of the defamatory statements and negative implications of
MATWISE’s SET OF DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS and the
accusations they leveled against plaintiff.

94.

Prior to publishing MATWISE’s SET OF DEFAMATORY
STATEMENTS, CROUDACE and MATWISE knew that the
accusations were false, however still published MATWISE’s SET OF
DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS and have since continued to publish
MATWISE’s SET OF DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS to other
persons, on social media, and directly to MATWISE’s subscribers and
clients, family, friends, business acquaintances and persons
CROUDACE and MATWISE do not have any prior knowledge, i.e.,
indiscriminately publishing MATWISE’s SET OF DEFAMATORY
STATEMENTS to whomever will listen, may use the internet and has
the ability to read MATWISE’s SET OF DEFAMATORY

22

Fourth Amended Complaint and
Demand for Jury Trial

 Case 1:18-cv-00364-LEK-KJM Document 74 Filed 05/08/19 Page 23 of 108
1127

PageID #:

STATEMENTS, which was, and is, CROUDACE’s and MATWISE’s
intention.
95.

Moreover, CROUDACE and MATWISE have continued, through the
present, to outwardly ratify, endorse, approve, consent, confirm and
validate the accusations in MATWISE’s SET OF DEFAMATORY
STATEMENTS to other persons, that is to say, that Gallagher inter
alia, (1) furthered and promoted pornography in a manner that
violated the ethical and professional practices adhered to and
expected of doulas and photographers; (2) was a sexual predator
acting in a manner that, and thereby, violated the ethical and
professional practices of doulas and photographers and also violated
criminal statutes; (3) enticed others to participate in pornography
because of the possibility of financial gain and plaintiff did so in a
manner that violated the ethical and professional practices adhered to
and expected of doulas and photographers; (4) strongly encouraged
pregnant women and others to become involved in selling
pornography in a manner that violated the ethical and professional
practices adhered to and expected of doulas and photographers; (5)
was dishonest in his practice as a doula for plaintiff’s sexual
gratification, financial gain and self-interest; (6) deceived the public in
his practice as a doula for plaintiff’s sexual gratification, financial gain
and self-interest; (7) was unethical in his practice as a doula in a
manner that, and thereby, violated the ethical and professional
practices of doulas; (8) was dishonest in his profession as
photographer in a manner that, and thereby, violated the ethical and
professional practices of photographers; (9) was deceptive in his
profession as a photographer for plaintiff’s sexual gratification,
financial gain and self-interest; and (10) was unethical in his
23

Fourth Amended Complaint and
Demand for Jury Trial

 Case 1:18-cv-00364-LEK-KJM Document 74 Filed 05/08/19 Page 24 of 108
1128

PageID #:

profession as a photographer in a manner that, and thereby, violated
the ethical and professional practices of photographers, including by
publishing to its members, subscribers, affiliated persons and any
person interested becoming associated with CROUDACE and
MATWISE that MATWISE’s SET OF DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS
“will be available in PDF form on our website at the following URL:
http://www.maternitywise.com/6-5-18StatmementMWI.pdf
96.

It was, is, and has always been, untrue, and false, that plaintiff, inter
alia, (1) furthered and promoted pornography in a manner that
violated the ethical and professional practices adhered to and
expected of doulas and photographers; (2) was a sexual predator
acting in a manner that, and thereby, violated the ethical and
professional practices of doulas and photographers and also violated
criminal statutes; (3) enticed others to participate in pornography
because of the possibility of financial gain and plaintiff did so in a
manner that violated the ethical and professional practices adhered to
and expected of doulas and photographers; (4) strongly encouraged
pregnant women and others to become involved in selling
pornography in a manner that violated the ethical and professional
practices adhered to and expected of doulas and photographers; (5)
was dishonest in his practice as a doula for plaintiff’s sexual
gratification, financial gain and self-interest; (6) deceived the public in
his practice as a doula for plaintiff’s sexual gratification, financial gain
and self-interest; (7) was unethical in his practice as a doula in a
manner that, and thereby, violated the ethical and professional
practices of doulas; (8) was dishonest in his profession as
photographer in a manner that, and thereby, violated the ethical and
professional practices of photographers; (9) was deceptive in his
24

Fourth Amended Complaint and
Demand for Jury Trial

 Case 1:18-cv-00364-LEK-KJM Document 74 Filed 05/08/19 Page 25 of 108
1129

PageID #:

profession as a photographer for plaintiff’s sexual gratification,
financial gain and self-interest; and (10) was unethical in his
profession as a photographer in a manner that, and thereby, violated
the ethical and professional practices of photographers.
2.
97.

Defendant, Jane Hopaki (HOPAKI)

On, or about, June 3, 2018, Jane Hopaki (HOPAKI), sometimes
using the social media identity “Jane Yaakni Hopaki”, posted the
statement on Facebook, thus published the statement on Facebook,
to a Facebook group called Free Birth Society Group that had contact
and links of tens of the thousands of other persons, and did so with
the intent that many others would read the statement and republish
the statement to others, “Birthy women, beware ‘male doula’ Danny
Gallagher. He has been reported to his certifying body for his
behavior in person an online with pregnant women. This man is a
predator who has been on my radar and the radars of some very
intelligent birthworker friends of mine for quite some time.”
(HOPAKI’s FIRST SET OF DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS)

98.

On, or about, June 3, 2018, HOPAKI posted the following statements
on Facebook in communications between other Facebook members,
to a Facebook group called Free Birth Society Group that had contact
and links of tens of the thousands of other persons, thus published
the statement on Facebook, and did so with the intent that many
others would read the statement and republish the statement to
others, “you are friends with this predator. [referring to plaintiff] …
himself as a ‘millionaire serial entrepreneur’ and his target is
vulnerable pregnant women. This is exploitation. … I set this [sic]
posts to friends for that reason, but I guess because I tagged him his
friends can see. … the new accounts of abuse keep flooding in
25

Fourth Amended Complaint and
Demand for Jury Trial

 Case 1:18-cv-00364-LEK-KJM Document 74 Filed 05/08/19 Page 26 of 108
1130

PageID #:

behind closed doors. I believe someone is compiling a file to provide
to those who may actually need it, not to the women naysayers who
demand proof instead of trusting and listening to the victims. I’ve
seen plenty of proof, and I trust my gut, but let me say this: I need no
proof to believe women or put the dots together that a single childless
man has no good reason to be passionate about childbirth.” HOPAKI
then posted MATWISE’s SET OF DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS on
Facebook, thus published posted MATWISE’s SET OF
DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS on Facebook, and did so with the
intent that many others would read posted MATWISE’s SET OF
DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS and republish the statement therein
to others. (HOPAKI’s SECOND SET OF DEFAMATORY
STATEMENTS)
3.
99.

Defendant, Emilee Saldaya (SALDAYA)

On, or about, June 9, 2018, Paula Brown Ricchi (RICCHI) defended
Gallagher stating in a Facebook post that RICCHI has known “Danny
for many years and have found him to be only honorable, kind,
honest, encouraging and uplifting! I would work with Danny in a heart
beat no matter what the circumstances!” and “[a]s I have stated,
Danny has impeccable integrity: Definition: noun: the quality of being
honest and having strong moral principles; moral uprightness.”

100. On or about one week after RICCHI made the positive statement on
Facebook about Gallagher, SALDAYA posted the statement on
Facebook, to a Facebook group called Free Birth Society Group that
had contact and links of tens of the thousands of other persons, thus
published the statement on Facebook, and did so with the intent that
many others would read the statement and republish the statement to
others, “Paula Brown Ricchi Are you supportive of a man being in the
26

Fourth Amended Complaint and
Demand for Jury Trial

 Case 1:18-cv-00364-LEK-KJM Document 74 Filed 05/08/19 Page 27 of 108
1131

PageID #:

birth industry, a lactation consultant, and also grooming pregnant and
breastfeeding women to be on porn sites? I would certainly not want
my "male doula" or my "male lactation consultant" to also be telling
other moms how to lactate for money on porn sites. But to each their
own I suppose” and "Paula Brown Ricchi I'm sorry I am a bit
confused, does that mean you either haven't seen the proof in which
he is caught in the act of doing this, or you have experienced him to
be transparent about both infiltrating the birth world and grooming
women for sex work? I'd be happy to share the screen shots the
women have shared off of this review, as screenshots get taken down
here. That's wonderful to meet a woman who knows him personally
that he hasn't made feel extremely uncomfortable, glad to know there
is one out there!” (SALDAYA’s FIRST SET OF DEFAMATORY
STATEMENTS)
101. On, or about, June 3,2018, SALDAYA posted the statement on
Facebook, including to a Facebook group called Free Birth Society
Group that had contact and links of tens of the thousands of other
persons, thus published the statement on Facebook, and did so with
the intent that many others would read the statement and republish
the statement to others, “[h]ere’s some wonderful evidence of Danny
being a porn agent! I have received over 50 accounts of personal
stories (some with screen shots some just personal narratives) of the
many ways he has harassed, manipulated and victimized women.”
SALDAYA then posted communications between plaintiff and another
person that SALDAYA asserted as “evidence” that plaintiff was a
sexual predator. SALDAYA’s “evidence” were screenshots of a
communication between plaintiff and another person however the
“evidence” was presented by SALDAYA in a disjointed manner,
27

Fourth Amended Complaint and
Demand for Jury Trial

 Case 1:18-cv-00364-LEK-KJM Document 74 Filed 05/08/19 Page 28 of 108
1132

PageID #:

lacking continuity, and without including the complete communication,
thus in a way as to lead others to believe that plaintiff was a sexual
predator. In no way could the communication be construed as
predatory conduct if the truthful context was presented by SALDAYA.
The true context of the communication between plaintiff and the other
person was that the other person was asking and inquiring from
plaintiff of means in which the other person might be able to derive
income from certain media, because of plaintiff’s knowledge,
experience and training in media and promotion. SALDAYA then
further posted, thus published, on Facebook in the same string,
“[p]lease remember predators are often charming, smart, and nice.
They know how to push just enough. This is one of many exchanges
women had reluctantly with him. Many women do not want to share
their story or details publicly. …women aren't believing other women
when they have the courage to call out a predator in our community?
fucking shocker. The socialized misogyny runs so deep, it's painful.”
(SALDAYA’s SECOND SET OF DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS)
102. On or about June 3, 2018, SALDAYA indicated to a Facebook group
called Free Birth Society Group that had contact and links of tens of
the thousands of other persons, “you can use my words from the
original post”, “the original post” accusing Gallagher, inter alia, of (1)
furthering and promoting pornography in a manner that violated the
ethical and professional practices adhered to and expected of doulas
and photographers; (2) being a sexual predator, acting in a manner
that, and thereby, violated the ethical and professional practices of
doulas and photographers and also violated criminal statutes; (3)
enticing others to participate in pornography because of the
possibility of financial gain and plaintiff did so in a manner that
28

Fourth Amended Complaint and
Demand for Jury Trial

 Case 1:18-cv-00364-LEK-KJM Document 74 Filed 05/08/19 Page 29 of 108
1133

PageID #:

violated the ethical and professional practices adhered to and
expected of doulas and photographers; (4) encouraging pregnant
women and others to become involved in selling pornography in a
manner that violated the ethical and professional practices adhered to
and expected of doulas and photographers; (5) dishonesty in his
practice as a doula for plaintiff’s sexual gratification, financial gain
and self-interest; (6) deceiving the public in his practice as a doula for
plaintiff’s sexual gratification, financial gain and self-interest; (7) being
unethical in his practice as a doula in a manner that, and thereby,
violated the ethical and professional practices of doulas; (8)
dishonesty in his profession as photographer in a manner that, and
thereby, violated the ethical and professional practices of
photographers; (9) deception in his profession as a photographer for
plaintiff’s sexual gratification, financial gain and self-interest; and (10)
unethical conduct in his profession as a photographer in a manner
that, and thereby, violated the ethical and professional practices of
photographers. In the same string, or conversation on Facebook,
SALDAYA posted the statement on Facebook, thus published the
statement on Facebook, and did so with the intent that many others
would read the statement and republish the statement to others, “this
broker/pimp/predator is allowed to continue”, referring to plaintiff.
(SALDAYA’s THIRD SET OF DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS)
103. On or about June 3, 2018, SALDAYA indicated to a Facebook group
called Free Birth Society Group that had contact and links of tens of
the thousands of other persons that Gallagher “is a predator” and told
those same tens of thousands of person who asked SALADAYA for
the name of the person she believed was a predator that it was
Gallagher who was the predator. (SALDAYA’s FOURTH SET OF
29

Fourth Amended Complaint and
Demand for Jury Trial

 Case 1:18-cv-00364-LEK-KJM Document 74 Filed 05/08/19 Page 30 of 108
1134

PageID #:

DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS)
a.

SALDAYA’S CONNECTION TO HAWAI’I AND
KNOWLEDGE OF PLAINTIFF LIVING IN HAWAI’I

104. For many years, SALDAYA lived on Maui, Hawai’i and that Gallagher
lived in Maui, Hawai’i and ran a doula and photography business.
105. Along with Yolande Norris-Clark, SALDAYA is the owner and
principal of a for-profit business called Free Birth Society (FBS) that
has a presence on the World Wide Web. For a fee, FBS provides
training on childbirth without the assistance of medical professionals
and also provides home birth “coaching packages”, i.e., doula
services. FBS services are in direct competition with Gallagher’s
intended profession.
106. FBS has a large presence in the doula community on Instagram
where from at least December 12, 2017 through February 1, 2018,
SALADAYA used FBS’ Instagram account, or identity, to allow the
general public to intimately follow her journey to Maui, Hawai’i for the
birth of her child. Every photo posted by FBS and SALDAYA was
that of an apparently pregnant SALDAYA immersed in a location that
would normally be associated and recognized as in the state of
Hawai’i.
107. Throughout FBS’ and SALDAYA’s multiple Instagram posts, the
words used and photos attached carried the theme of Hawai’i and
was pervasive and constant, including displaying Hawai’i’s majestic
natural beauty and splendor. Hawai’i was used as a prop to convince
FBS and SALDAYA’s followers, i.e., potential clients, that what FBS
and SALDAYA were offering was different from others in the freebirth
and doula community. FBS and SALDAYA apparently intended to
communicate to others, including potential clients, was that FBS and
30

Fourth Amended Complaint and
Demand for Jury Trial

 Case 1:18-cv-00364-LEK-KJM Document 74 Filed 05/08/19 Page 31 of 108
1135

PageID #:

SALDAYA would also bring others a birth that is natural, majestic and
beautiful. As such, FBS and SALDAYA used Hawai’i in the
advertisement of its business.
108. From at least December 12, 2017 through February 1, 2018, FBS
and SALDAYA posted Hawaiian themed advertisements on
Instagram, each having multiple comments and hundreds of “likes”.
109. On December 12, 2017, on the FBS Instagram account, FBS and
SALDAYA posted a photo of SALDAYA in an airplane leaving for
Maui, stating, “One way flights to Maui – a literal dream come true.
…In our favorite place on the planet.”
110. On December 16, 2017, on the FBS Instagram account, FBS and
SALDAYA posted a video of a beach in Maui and posted “Mama
Maui”.
111. On December 16, 2017, on the FBS Instagram account, FBS and
SALDAYA posted a photo of herself on a beach in Maui stating
“Having arrived on the gorgeous island of Maui, we are actively call in
our nest to call home for the birthing time.”
112. On December 26, 2017, on the FBS Instagram account, FBS and
SALDAYA posted another photo of SALADAY, apparently pregnant,
on a beach in Maui.
113. On December 28, 2017, on the FBS Instagram account, FBS and
SALDAYA posted a photo of herself in front of Hawaiian themed wall
art and recognizable palm trees in the background, stating, “…it’s
why I’m here, on this slow moving magical island – to watch the
turtles sunbath (sic), to feel the sun set on my face, my feet in the
sand, to fall asleep to the rain ….”
114. On January 7, 2018, on the FBS Instagram account, FBS and
SALDAYA posted a photo of herself in a Maui stating, “…Now I have
31

Fourth Amended Complaint and
Demand for Jury Trial

 Case 1:18-cv-00364-LEK-KJM Document 74 Filed 05/08/19 Page 32 of 108
1136

PageID #:

nothing to do but be here, in this sacred space, on this special island,
opening up to a completely new existence inside myself.”
115. On January 16, 2018, on the FBS Instagram account, FBS and
SALDAYA posted another photo of SALADAY, apparently pregnant,
on a beach in Maui.
116. On January 27, 2018, on the FBS Instagram account, FBS and
SALDAYA posted another photo of SALADAY, apparently pregnant,
with and open Hawaiian themed blouse displaying her belly and
wearing a haku lei.
117. On February 1, 2018, on the FBS Instagram account, FBS and
SALDAYA posted another photo of SALADAY, apparently happy with
her new born child, stating “…born freely at home in Maui, Hawai’i.”
118. On February 19, 2018, on the FBS Instagram account, FBS and
SALDAYA posted an advertising pamphlet advertising her doula
services, stating “I am thrilled to announce my new project here in
Maui, ‘Mamatoto’. Two wonderful mama friends and I are launching
Village Prenatals for Hapai women and Motherbaby postpartum
circles – upcountry and on the north shore, beginning in March. If you
know any mamas on Maui please help us spread the word. …More
info on www.mamatotomaui.com.”
119. FBS and SALDAYA continued, and continue, to post Hawaiian
themed photos and messages to advertise its doula services.
4.

Defendant, Rachael Aughenbaugh (AUGHENBAUGH)

120. On, or about, June 3, 2018, Chrystal Docker (DOCKER) defended
Gallagher’s integrity, transparency and high level of professionalism,
including that MATWISE’s accusations were false and not supported
by any evidence, in a Facebook post.

32

Fourth Amended Complaint and
Demand for Jury Trial

 Case 1:18-cv-00364-LEK-KJM Document 74 Filed 05/08/19 Page 33 of 108
1137

PageID #:

121. On or about two weeks after DOCKER made the positive statement
posted on Facebook about Gallagher and in response to DOCKER
making the positive statement about Gallagher, AUGHENBAUGH
sometimes using the social media identity “Rachael Phoenix” posted
the statement on Facebook, including on and in DTD, thus published
the statement on Facebook, and did so with the intent that many
others would read the statement and republish the statement to
others, “[s]o sorry to hear he’s grooming you too!”
(AUGHENBAUGH’s FIRST SET OF DEFAMATORY
STATEMENTS)
122. Prior to AUGHENBAUGH publishing AUGHENBAUGH’s FIRST SET
OF DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS, the term “groomed” was
referenced in other Social Media discussions that AUGHENBAUGH
participated in and reviewed, including discussions on Facebook
referenced herein. “Groomed” was understood by AUGHENBAUGH
to refer to Gallagher’s victims who were the object of plaintiff’s (1)
furthering and promoting pornography in a manner that violated the
ethical and professional practices adhered to and expected of doulas
and photographers; (2) being a sexual predator, acting in a manner
that, and thereby, violated the ethical and professional practices of
doulas and photographers and also violated criminal statutes; (3)
enticing others to participate in pornography because of the
possibility of financial gain and plaintiff did so in a manner that
violated the ethical and professional practices adhered to and
expected of doulas and photographers; (4) encouraging pregnant
women and others to become involved in selling pornography in a
manner that violated the ethical and professional practices adhered to
and expected of doulas and photographers; (5) dishonesty in his
33

Fourth Amended Complaint and
Demand for Jury Trial

 Case 1:18-cv-00364-LEK-KJM Document 74 Filed 05/08/19 Page 34 of 108
1138

PageID #:

practice as a doula for plaintiff’s sexual gratification, financial gain
and self-interest; (6) deceiving the public in his practice as a doula for
plaintiff’s sexual gratification, financial gain and self-interest; (7) being
unethical in his practice as a doula in a manner that, and thereby,
violated the ethical and professional practices of doulas; (8)
dishonesty in his profession as photographer in a manner that, and
thereby, violated the ethical and professional practices of
photographers; (9) deception in his profession as a photographer for
plaintiff’s sexual gratification, financial gain and self-interest; and (10)
unethical conduct in his profession as a photographer in a manner
that, and thereby, violated the ethical and professional practices of
photographers.
123. AUGHENBAUGH was aware that the persons AUGHENBAUGH
published AUGHENBAUGH’s FIRST SET OF DEFAMATORY
STATEMENTS understood the meaning and implications of the term
“groomed” in the manner that AUGHENBAUGH used the term, which
was essentially that it was wrong for any person to discount or
disbelieve the persons accusing Gallagher, inter alia, of (1) furthering
and promoting pornography in a manner that violated the ethical and
professional practices adhered to and expected of doulas and
photographers; (2) being a sexual predator, acting in a manner that,
and thereby, violated the ethical and professional practices of doulas
and photographers and also violated criminal statutes; (3) enticing
others to participate in pornography because of the possibility of
financial gain and plaintiff did so in a manner that violated the ethical
and professional practices adhered to and expected of doulas and
photographers; (4) encouraging pregnant women and others to
become involved in selling pornography in a manner that violated the
34

Fourth Amended Complaint and
Demand for Jury Trial

 Case 1:18-cv-00364-LEK-KJM Document 74 Filed 05/08/19 Page 35 of 108
1139

PageID #:

ethical and professional practices adhered to and expected of doulas
and photographers; (5) dishonesty in his practice as a doula for
plaintiff’s sexual gratification, financial gain and self-interest; (6)
deceiving the public in his practice as a doula for plaintiff’s sexual
gratification, financial gain and self-interest; (7) being unethical in his
practice as a doula in a manner that, and thereby, violated the ethical
and professional practices of doulas; (8) dishonesty in his profession
as photographer in a manner that, and thereby, violated the ethical
and professional practices of photographers; (9) deception in his
profession as a photographer for plaintiff’s sexual gratification,
financial gain and self-interest; and (10) unethical conduct in his
profession as a photographer in a manner that, and thereby, violated
the ethical and professional practices of photographers, and that the
accusations were in fact true.
124. On or about two weeks after WALZ, infra, posted the statement on
Facebook, including on and in DTD, thus published the statement on
Facebook, and did so with the intent that many others would read the
statement and republish the statement to others, “Bizarre, narcissistic
and Predatory”, AUGHENBAUGH posted communications between
plaintiff and another person that AUGHENBAUGH asserted as “proof”
that plaintiff was a sexual predator. AUGHENBAUGH’s “proof” were
screenshots of a communication between plaintiff and another person
however were presented by AUGHENBAUGH in a disjointed manner,
lacking continuity, and without including the complete communication,
thus in a way as to lead others to believe that plaintiff was a sexual
predator. In no way could the communications be construed as
predatory conduct if the truthful and full context of the circumstances
and communications were presented by AUGHENBAUGH. The true
35

Fourth Amended Complaint and
Demand for Jury Trial

 Case 1:18-cv-00364-LEK-KJM Document 74 Filed 05/08/19 Page 36 of 108
1140

PageID #:

context of the communication between plaintiff and the other person
was that the other person was asking and inquiring from plaintiff of
means in which the other person might be able to derive income from
certain commercial media platforms. Plaintiff directed advised the
other person based on plaintiff’s knowledge, experience and training
in media and promotion. (AUGHENBAUGH’s SECOND SET OF
DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS)
125. On or about June 3, 2018 Channa Jayde Walz (WALZ) posted the
statement on Facebook, including on and in DTD, thus published the
statement on Facebook, and did so with the intent that many others
would read the statement and republish the statement to others,
“Bizarre, narcissistic and Predatory …I am not ashamed of warning
women of a predatory man. …The screenshots and his own
interactions within birth spaces say otherwise [i.e., that plaintiff is not
a sexual predator] …None of the other male doulas I've seen display
predatory behavior or are messaging vulnerable women about selling
their panties "tactfully" on the internet … Defend him all you want. My
views based on what I have seen him post in groups and based off
what other women have accounted and shown from him is enough for
me to feel it pertinent other women know of this. Multiple women
have come forward and I believe them along with what I've seen for
myself.
I'm basing my opinion off of interactions I quietly sat back and
observed on various occassions [sic] in different places. His polls and
post and interactions with women within birthing spaces was bizarre
and narcissistic at minimum and definitely predatory. In all my years
of being in birth communities never once have I heard of doula pm
info on how to get in to sex work by selling panties etc to women in
36

Fourth Amended Complaint and
Demand for Jury Trial

 Case 1:18-cv-00364-LEK-KJM Document 74 Filed 05/08/19 Page 37 of 108
1141

PageID #:

financial crisis. A male doing this in predominately female spaces is
predatory at best. The dismissal of various women's accounts against
this one man is rather reminiscent of rape victims being silenced for
speaking out against thier [sic] attackers. I know what I've seen and I
most certainly believe the various accounts given and screen shotted
by multiple women. Just because you've had a pleasant experience
and do not find his behavior this way, does not mean others have not
experienced otherwise or perceive his actions differently. … He has
made himself known as a broker in the industry which enticed
vulnerable women. Yes she reached out to him. Yes she had a
conversation with him. You can then see how she gets a bit
standoffish. He even asks if he has overwhelmed her. Ever been
offered something that you later regret taking? Ever accepted a date,
go to his home and then decide things maybe went too fast and you
have second thoughts? Many women have the "nice girl" complex
and don't know how to shut a man down once they no longer feel
comfortable. Sex work is not the issue. The issue is that a MAN has
targeted vulnerable women within birthing spaces. He is not just
giving them advice and sending them on their way. He is having them
send him their content and "building their platform" for them. He has
also directed multiple women to ONE domain instead of giving
resources for multiple places to do this. He is objectifying women in
these spaces. … And again, this is not an isolated incident to just one
or two women. … The other screen shots etc are not mine to share.
When those women feel the time is right They will put them out there.
Not me.”
126. Immediately after and within the string of posts set forth immediately
above, AUGHENBAUGH posted the statement on Facebook, thus
37

Fourth Amended Complaint and
Demand for Jury Trial

 Case 1:18-cv-00364-LEK-KJM Document 74 Filed 05/08/19 Page 38 of 108
1142

PageID #:

published the statement on Facebook, and did so with the intent that
many others would read the statement and republish the statement to
others, “Exactly what Channa said,” thus adding attempted add
validity and veracity to WALZ’s defamatory statement.
(AUGHENBAUGH’s THIRD SET OF DEFAMATORY
STATEMENTS)
5.

Defendant, Jenna Chidester (CHIDESTER)

127. On, or about, June 3, 2018, Chrystal Docker (DOCKER) defended
Gallagher’s integrity, transparency and high level of professionalism,
including that MATWISE’s accusations were false and not supported
by any evidence, in a Facebook post.
128. On, or about, two weeks after DOCKER made the positive statement
on Facebook about Gallagher and in response to DOCKER made the
positive statement of Gallagher, CHIDESTER replied by, thus
publishing, the statement on Facebook, including on and in DTD, “Ok
even if you don’t believe the handful of women who have come
forward about him making them feel fetishized, about him taking
partially nude maternity pics but never actually providing the edited
photos etc, I disagree with that approach but I guess you can play
devil’s advocate if you want. But the video he posted to Doula Talk
where he violated HIPAA over and over again, and then revealed
details of a domestic violence situation about his ‘first birth client’ right
after he posted photos of that client- that we all saw and watched with
our own eyes in real time- this isn’t a conspiracy and you’re neutrality
here is siding with the oppressor.” (CHIDESTER’s FIRST SET OF
DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS)
129. On, or about, June 6, 2018, CHIDESTER posted on the Facebook,
including on and in DTD, that “Danny has revealed HIPAA protected
38

Fourth Amended Complaint and
Demand for Jury Trial

 Case 1:18-cv-00364-LEK-KJM Document 74 Filed 05/08/19 Page 39 of 108
1143

PageID #:

information and enough detail about domestic violence situations that
his client was identifiable in self promotional YouTube and Facebook
live videos, and then blocked birth workers who pointed out the ethic
violations. This would disqualify him from certification w all reputable
professional doula organizations. Just be careful, he has signaled
many times over that he doesn’t care if that puts his client in danger.”
(CHIDESTER’s SECOND SET OF DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS)
130. In stating that those who disbelieved the accusations against
Gallagher were “playing devil’s advocate” in CHIDESTER’s FIRST
SET OF DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS, CHIDESTER represented
that the accusations leveled against Gallagher were true.
131. In CHIDESTER’s FIRST SET OF DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS and
CHIDESTER’s SECOND SET OF DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS
CHIDESTER stated that Gallagher violated the Health Insurance
Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPPA) although Gallagher
was not a covered entity under the Act and even if Gallagher was a
covered entity, he never made any violation of any person’s privacy.
CHIDESTER knew that Gallagher was not subject to compliance with
HIPPA however wanted the thousands of persons CHIDESTER knew
would review CHIDESTER’s statements that Gallagher was violating
a law and that he was unethical, dishonest and practiced being a
doula in a manner that fell below that expected of other doulas in the
same circumstances.
6.

Defendant, Stephanie Byers (BYERS)

132. On, or about, June 5, 2018, BYERS, sometimes using the social
media identity “Stephanie Byers”, posted the statement on Facebook,
including on and in DTD, thus published the statement on Facebook,
and did so with the intent that many others would read the statement
39

Fourth Amended Complaint and
Demand for Jury Trial

 Case 1:18-cv-00364-LEK-KJM Document 74 Filed 05/08/19 Page 40 of 108
1144

PageID #:

and republish the statement to others, “[e]very interaction I have
witnessed from Danny on social media has been passive-aggressive,
gaslighting, and an attempt to gain sympathies from those struggling
with internalized misogyny. There are so many women who are left
feeling violated by his actions, but nobody is bothering to validate the
subtle abuse happening to them, only kowtowing to this
presumptuous act Danny puts on. Red flags are all over this guy.“
(BYERS’ FIRST SET OF DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS)
133. BYERS was aware that the persons who read BYERS’ FIRST SET
OF DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS understood the meaning and
implications of the phrase “women who are left feeling violated by his
actions” and “subtle abuse happening to them” in the manner that
BYERS used the phrase, which was essentially that it was wrong for
any person to discount or disbelieve the persons accusing Gallagher,
inter alia, of (1) furthering and promoting pornography in a manner
that violated the ethical and professional practices adhered to and
expected of doulas and photographers; (2) being a sexual predator,
acting in a manner that, and thereby, violated the ethical and
professional practices of doulas and photographers and also violated
criminal statutes; (3) enticing others to participate in pornography
because of the possibility of financial gain and plaintiff did so in a
manner that violated the ethical and professional practices adhered to
and expected of doulas and photographers; (4) encouraging pregnant
women and others to become involved in selling pornography in a
manner that violated the ethical and professional practices adhered to
and expected of doulas and photographers; (5) dishonesty in his
practice as a doula for plaintiff’s sexual gratification, financial gain
and self-interest; (6) deceiving the public in his practice as a doula for
40

Fourth Amended Complaint and
Demand for Jury Trial

 Case 1:18-cv-00364-LEK-KJM Document 74 Filed 05/08/19 Page 41 of 108
1145

PageID #:

plaintiff’s sexual gratification, financial gain and self-interest; (7) being
unethical in his practice as a doula in a manner that, and thereby,
violated the ethical and professional practices of doulas; (8)
dishonesty in his profession as photographer in a manner that, and
thereby, violated the ethical and professional practices of
photographers; (9) deception in his profession as a photographer for
plaintiff’s sexual gratification, financial gain and self-interest; and (10)
unethical conduct in his profession as a photographer in a manner
that, and thereby, violated the ethical and professional practices of
photographers, and that the accusations were in fact true.
134. On, or about, June 3, 2018, BYERS posted the statement on
Facebook, including Facebook groups that have thousands of
members and links, thus published the statement on Facebook, and
did so with the intent that many others would read the statement and
republish the statement to others, “Danny Gallagher is a predator.
Women have been his prey for a specific audience he gets
compromising photos for, and he is NOT a doula of any kind. Be
warned and steer clear. Political correctness has blinded so many
into acceptance of predators into supposed safe spaces. Don’t worry,
I have never accepted his requests to join any of my groups, and he
is being exposed as we speak. If you are a moderator or admin for a
birth group, I compel you to give him the boot immediately. He is a
PIMP. Not a doula. … Its being worked on now by at least one of his
victims speaking up. A file is being made…. Just the fact that he
requests these photo shoots is one huge red flag. I dont know of any
FEMALE doulas who do that … Ive [sic] seen milk bath photo shoots
before and a couple other naked ones, come to think of it... However
those have been more woman-led images of powerful (although not
41

Fourth Amended Complaint and
Demand for Jury Trial

 Case 1:18-cv-00364-LEK-KJM Document 74 Filed 05/08/19 Page 42 of 108
1146

PageID #:

my taste) art, and not woman-exposing images of exploitation. If you
could see them side by side to compare, I think most people would
note the stark contrast. …he gives off a VERY creepy vibe. Screen
shots of his actual conversations requesting naked photos of
women... I’d call that proof … I wont violate those women’s privacy to
prove this guy is a predator. Its really quite shocking it has taken this
long for some women to cotton on. … I have not been given the
green light to share the evidence yet, but it is being compiled and a
case is being made right now, by at least one of his victims who is
speaking out. Women are being preyed upon by this guy, so yes, I
am sending out a caution for those who will benefit from such a
warning. … It makes me CRINGE to think of his predator eyes being
in that supposed safe space” (BYERS’ SECOND SET OF
DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS)
7.

Defendant, Bethany Kirillov (KIRILLOV)

135. On, or about, June 4, 2018, KIRILLOV responded to
WHRITENOUR’S SET OF DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS and
posted the statement on Facebook, including on and in DTD, thus
published the statement on Facebook, and did so with the intent that
many others would read the statement and republish the statement to
others, “[t]here is much screenshotted evidence that this guy is luring
vulnerable women into doing sexual videos and photography. He has
used birth photos without permission and refuses to take them down.
I have heard account after account that this guy is targeting pregnant
and financially vulnerable victims. The truth has come out and he was
never a birth worker in the first place. Do not let this man into your
birthing space. He uses the word "doula" to gain women's trust. A
doula literally means "woman servant". This person is not a servant of
42

Fourth Amended Complaint and
Demand for Jury Trial

 Case 1:18-cv-00364-LEK-KJM Document 74 Filed 05/08/19 Page 43 of 108
1147

PageID #:

women. He is very cunning in the way he lures and traps his victims.
They feel he is charming and very helpful up front when in reality it's
a way for him to profit off his sickness. He has a strange sexual fetish
for women giving birth. He makes many ladies very uncomfortable
and a few were brave enough to come forward with their evidence.
He toots his horn in a way to show how "progressive" he is as a
"male" doula. "I am special because I am a man interested in birth.
Let me grace you with my presence.."

many are afraid to call him

out for what he is because they like the idea of accepting a male
doula and they do not want to discriminate because he is a man. I
however, have no issue calling it what it is. Preying on women.
Selling their birth pictures. Using their bodies as a financial gain
without permission. No sir. Birth still belongs to women and you're not
invited! Down with the patriarchy!" (KIRILLOV’s SET OF
DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS)
136. Since KIRILLOV’s SET OF DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS was
made on the Facebook, including on and in DTD in the “Reviews
Page”, and that WHRIITENOUR referred to “Danny”, KIRILLOV’s
SET OF DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS was of an concerning
Gallagher and the thousands of person who viewed KIRILLOV’s SET
OF DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS understood the KIRILLOV’s SET
OF DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS as of and concerning Gallagher.
8.

Defendant, Samantha Lajoie (LAJOIE)

137. On, or about, June 3, 2018 LAJOIE, posted the statement on
Facebook, including on and in DTD, thus published the statement on
Facebook, and did so with the intent that many others would read the
statement and republish the statement to others, “I had open
conversations with multiple women who have came forward they [sic]
43

Fourth Amended Complaint and
Demand for Jury Trial

 Case 1:18-cv-00364-LEK-KJM Document 74 Filed 05/08/19 Page 44 of 108
1148

PageID #:

don't feel he is safe and should be a doula bc he has ulterior motives.
He has been in the wrong many many times and women who
personally know him have come forward. Many of us were asked not
to share too much of the compiling info that is being gathered which
will come forward in the near future.” (LAJOIE’s FIRST SET OF
DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS)
138. On, or about, June 9, 2018 LAJOIE, posted the statement on
Facebook, thus published the statement on Facebook, including on
and in DTD, and did so with the intent that many others would read
the statement and republish the statement to others, “[so] it definitely
appears my profile was permanently disabled bc I spoke up against a
predator on FB and shared proof of such. Some of his followers
flagged my review as spam/abusive so apparently on FB now women
cannot speak up against such or we may be banned from fb. This is
ridiculous I should not have lost my account for speaking up and
telling other women and nothing I wrote was out of line just that he
was a predator and a liar, screen shots of proof and standing up for
all the women who came forward. How is that acceptable for fb to
silent me and other's who did such bc I'm not the only one who got
my account disabled and reported, but many who did speak up and
still are have not had anything done to them but I believe those who
shared proof were removed. So I guess fb protects predators and
silences those speaking out. This is wrong and I will fight for my
profile back because they are in the wrong for protecting that man. I
have seen child pornography posted from people who don't loose
their pages or groups, sex predators, racism, prejudice, real abusive
post and comments and nothing done about it or taken serious but
they try and silence me! If anyone on my friends list wants to
44

Fourth Amended Complaint and
Demand for Jury Trial

 Case 1:18-cv-00364-LEK-KJM Document 74 Filed 05/08/19 Page 45 of 108
1149

PageID #:

message fb support standing up for me that would be great. I know
one other person already has and I won't stop reaching out until
someone listens to me. My profile never should have been disabled
for such! I'll continue fighting back.” (LAJOIE’s SECOND SET OF
DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS)
9.

Defendant, Aerin Lund (LUND)

139. On, or about, June 4, 2018 LUND, sometimes using the social media
identity, “Aerin Wolf Lund”, posted the statement on Facebook,
including on and in DTD, thus published the statement on Facebook,
and did so with the intent that many others would read the statement
and republish the statement to others, “now you have been exposed
as the predator you are and made yourself an example of WHY MEN
DO NOT BELONG IN BIRTH” (LUND’s SET OF DEFAMATORY
STATEMENTS)
10.

Defendant, Kate Pavlovsky (PAVLOVSKY)

140. PAVLOVSKY is a competing doula and photographer, that is to say,
PAVLOVSKY is directly competing with Gallagher and is in the same
profession and industry as Gallagher.
141. On, or about, June 3, 2018, PAVLOVSKY posted the statement on
Facebook, including on and in DTD and Facebook groups that have
thousands of members and links, thus published the statement on
Facebook, and did so with the intent that many others would read the
statement and republish the statement to others, referencing
Gallagher throughout the post by referencing PAVLOVSKY’s earlier
post that identified Gallagher,
“For those of you who saw my earlier post, I 100% stand by what I said.
However, I am not the only victim of this predator and I do not feel like
being singled out. I do not wish for the burden of proof to fall only on me.
45

Fourth Amended Complaint and
Demand for Jury Trial

 Case 1:18-cv-00364-LEK-KJM Document 74 Filed 05/08/19 Page 46 of 108
1150

PageID #:

This person is dangerous and detrimental to the birth realm. Please
beware.
Also, victim blaming is not ok. Distrusting victims is not ok. This is creating
a rift among birthworkers while this predator walks free to cause harm. It’s
sickening to say the least.
Thank you to everyone who reached out in support. I love you all very
much; you are special people.
Please watch out for a predator infiltrating natural birth groups on social
media. This is his MO:
1. He gets permission from the group moderator. Then he posts an intro full
of heart-rending tales of disadvantage and trauma. This incites sympathy
from women conditioned to be caring.
2. Having gained access to the group, he then makes ego-centric and
grandiose posts. This hooks into the way that women are socialized to
praise, adulate and stroke the egos of men, and to show humility in the
face of male bragging.
3. Around this time, any women in the group with finely tuned radars for
narcissism, bullshit or perve are likely to call him on a breach of
confidentiality or some other crossing of basic boundaries. At this point, he
arcs up defensively way out of proportion to the issue. Then some women
in the group are likely to rush to his defence and make allowances for him.
The ones with misgivings then start to doubt themselves and back down a
little so as not to cause upset within the group.
4. He is a master at using women’s strengths against them. He gives the
impression that he is doing everything with the Moderator’s permission. He
infers that he has special favour and a special connection with the group
leader, or any woman of prominence and influence. He piggy-backs on the
trust and credibility that lead woman has with the group by invoking her.
46

Fourth Amended Complaint and
Demand for Jury Trial

 Case 1:18-cv-00364-LEK-KJM Document 74 Filed 05/08/19 Page 47 of 108
1151

PageID #:

Members then feel constrained to complain about him or report him,
because of their love and loyalty for their LEADER – and they don’t want to
seem to be questioning her judgement or second-guessing what is
apparently her call (according to his claims). In this way, he subverts the
loyalty of women and uses it against them. In one case, he claimed a
leading midwife in his community was his “mentor”. She wasn’t. In our
group, he claimed that he was in business with our leader and that she was
collaborating with him. She wasn’t.
5. Then he posts polls about whether he should stay in the group or leave.
This appeals to women’s eagerness to express an opinion and to cast a
vote. In our culture women are often not consulted, don’t have access to
forums and are thus under-represented, so this opportunity is highly
attractive.
6. He then incites division in the group. He plays the misunderstood,
misjudged victim and those whose alarm bells are loudly clanging are not
only depicted by him as mean, judgemental, non-inclusive and sexist – but
other women, desperate to not be written off by A Man as being a “nasty
woman” quickly round on the dissenters and tip staggering dump-truck
loads of internalized misogyny all over them. But this is merely a diversion.
While he continues to stoke the drama and strife, he’s actually quietly going
about his real work.
7. Which is to trawl the group for women who are insecure or unstable in
terms of their financial security, self-esteem or in need of sexual validation.
He wins their trust, makes alluring promises and grooms them to provide
naked photos of themselves, or their underwear, to sell to a select
audience of men. Guess who is the broker. He is a predatory pimp, no less,
and he is *not* a doula.
8. Fall-out from the above subversions are diverse. Some women may feel
47

Fourth Amended Complaint and
Demand for Jury Trial

 Case 1:18-cv-00364-LEK-KJM Document 74 Filed 05/08/19 Page 48 of 108
1152

PageID #:

ashamed that they trusted him, (or that they pretended to trust him for a
while in order to figure out if he was legit or not). Vulnerable women talk
about how nice and kind he was to them, not aware that he is grooming
them. Other women turn on those who express a negative or distrustful
opinion of him, to the point of screen-shotting their posts and sending them
to him, seemingly unaware that he has manipulated them into acting as his
handmaids. He acts gracious in the face of criticism publically, while
privately attacking those who confront him venomously.
The point of this post is not only to warn about this individual and others
like him. It’s so that we can question, and examine, how we as women –
from the naïve ingénues to the jaded, skeptical crones, can be so easily
manipulated, exploited and turned on each other. …
Even if you don’t think he is in the wrong to approach women about getting
them into sex work.... do you want men out there who would say or do
these things to lure your daughter into taking nude photos or selling her
panties?! It’s outrageous. The thing is we all do have proof. It is not yet
compiled altogether but it won’t be long til it is and everyone can see his
patterns. It makes me sick knowing there are WOMEN defending him. He
does not belong in the birth world. This work is not safe if he is able to
infiltrate our groups this way. He is a master manipulator which is why we
all have to be together in defending ourselves against him. …”
(PAVLOVSKY’s FIRST SET OF DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS)
142. On, or about, June 3, 2018, Hayley Huber made the statement on
Facebook abut plaintiff, “[t]he comments on his business page from
women defending him are pretty scary. These doulas are claiming
that they “know” him because they have spent hours chatting with
him, talking on the phone, and talking to him on fb groups - but
they’ve never actually met him. I want to comment so badly and ask
48

Fourth Amended Complaint and
Demand for Jury Trial

 Case 1:18-cv-00364-LEK-KJM Document 74 Filed 05/08/19 Page 49 of 108
1153

PageID #:

them what they’d think if their daughter came to them and told them
about an amazing guy they met online, and how well they knew him
because they’d spent hours chatting him up online... the internet is so
scary. You could download a dating app today and set up 10 dates, I
guarantee at least 3 of them wouldn’t live up to their online persona and that’s not even the scary side of what you can get away with
online these days. How these women and specifically doulas who are
trained to protect a woman’s space are defending him without ever
having met him in person is baffling to me.”
143. On, or about, June 3, 2018, in response to the statement made by
Hayley Huber, PAVLOVSKY posted the statement on Facebook,
including on and in DTD and Facebook groups that have thousands
of members and links, thus published the statement on Facebook,
and did so with the intent that many others would read the statement
and republish the statement to others, “I love everything about this
comment here because I have gone through all of these same
thoughts. Especially the thought of .. what if these women were your
daughters? Even if you don’t think he is in the wrong to approach
women about getting them into sex work.... do you want men out
there who would say or do these things to lure your daughter into
taking nude photos or selling her panties?! It’s outrageous. The thing
is we all do have proof. It is not yet compiled altogether but it won’t be
long til it is and everyone can see his patterns. It makes me sick
knowing there are WOMEN defending him. He does not belong in the
birth world. This work is not safe if he is able to infiltrate our groups
this way. He is a master manipulator which is why we all have to be
together in defending ourselves against him.” (PAVLOVSKY’s
SECOND SET OF DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS)
49

Fourth Amended Complaint and
Demand for Jury Trial

 Case 1:18-cv-00364-LEK-KJM Document 74 Filed 05/08/19 Page 50 of 108
1154

11.

PageID #:

Defendant, Channa Jayde Walz (WALZ)

144. On or about two to five weeks after June 3, 2018 when Jenni Gall
(GALL) posted a comment on Facebook relating to plaintiff, WALZ
posted the statement on Facebook, including on and in DTD, thus
published the statement on Facebook, and did so with the intent that
many others would read the statement and republish the statement to
others, “this doula has displayed behaviors that have elicited concern
from many women due to his own interactions in various spaces.
…Not all interactions were made in just one post or to one woman.
And I am pretty sure I know of the woman you refer to and it is not
just her who had messages refering [sic] to porn sites etc Just
because one woman initiated the contact doesn't mean others did
not. …Even if some of these women did initiate messages to him or
whatever and found him respectful, do you not find it predatory to be
in birth groups directing vulnerable pregnant women to sex work as a
man? And to one particular site.... Have you EVER heard of a woman
doula doing this to multiple women? Honestly. Does that not make
other women feel objectified by him knowing he does those things
with other women he met in birthing communities?” (WALZ’s FIRST
SET OF DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS)
145. On or about June 3, 2018 WALZ posted the statement on Facebook,
including on and in DTD, thus published the statement on Facebook,
and did so with the intent that many others would read the statement
and republish the statement to others, “BIZARRE, narcissistic and
Predatory …I am not ashamed of warning women of a predatory
man. …The screenshots and his own interactions within birth spaces
say otherwise [i.e., that plaintiff is not a sexual predator] …None of
the other male doulas I've seen display predatory behavior or are
50

Fourth Amended Complaint and
Demand for Jury Trial

 Case 1:18-cv-00364-LEK-KJM Document 74 Filed 05/08/19 Page 51 of 108
1155

PageID #:

messaging vulnerable women about selling their panties "tactfully" on
the internet … Defend him all you want. My views based on what I
have seen him post in groups and based off what other women have
accounted and shown from him is enough for me to feel it pertinent
other women know of this. Multiple women have come forward and I
believe them along with what I've seen for myself.
I'm basing my opinion off of interactions I quietly sat back and
observed on various occassions [sic] in different places. His polls and
post and interactions with women within birthing spaces was bizarre
and narcissistic at minimum and definitely predatory. In all my years
of being in birth communities never once have I heard of doula pm
info on how to get in to sex work by selling panties etc to women in
financial crisis. A male doing this in predominately female spaces is
predatory at best. The dismissal of various women's accounts against
this one man is rather reminiscent of rape victims being silenced for
speaking out against thier [sic] attackers. I know what I've seen and I
most certainly believe the various accounts given and screen shotted
by multiple women. Just because you've had a pleasant experience
and do not find his behavior this way, does not mean others have not
experienced otherwise or perceive his actions differently. … He has
made himself known as a broker in the industry which enticed
vulnerable women. Yes she reached out to him. Yes she had a
conversation with him. You can then see how she gets a bit
standoffish. He even asks if he has overwhelmed her. Ever been
offered something that you later regret taking? Ever accepted a date,
go to his home and then decide things maybe went too fast and you
have second thoughts? Many women have the "nice girl" complex
and don't know how to shut a man down once they no longer feel
51

Fourth Amended Complaint and
Demand for Jury Trial

 Case 1:18-cv-00364-LEK-KJM Document 74 Filed 05/08/19 Page 52 of 108
1156

PageID #:

comfortable. Sex work is not the issue. The issue is that a MAN has
targeted vulnerable women within birthing spaces. He is not just
giving them advice and sending them on their way. He is having them
send him their content and "building their platform" for them. He has
also directed multiple women to ONE domain instead of giving
resources for multiple places to do this. He is objectifying women in
these spaces. … And again, this is not an isolated incident to just one
or two women. … The other screen shots etc are not mine to share.
When those women feel the time is right They will put them out there.
Not me.” (WALZ’s SECOND SET OF DEFAMATORY
STATEMENTS)
12. Defendant, Madison Sisley Boulter (BOULTER)
146. On, or about, two weeks after the posting of YOUNG’s FOURTH SET
OF DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS (infra), BOULTER, sometimes
using the social media identity “Maddie Boulter”, posted the
statement on Facebook, including on and in DTD, thus published the
statement on Facebook, and did so with the intent that many others
would read the statement and republish the statement to others, that
Gallagher “shared their photos without permission” and then
published MATWISE’s SET OF DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS on
Facebook and by doing so adopted, ratified, affirmed and outwardly
confirmed as true, the false statements in the MATWISE’s SET OF
DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS. (BOULTER’s FIRST SET OF
DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS)
147. In the “Home” section of DTD Facebook page, after Gallagher made
a positively toned post about his business on May 28, 2018,
BOULTER made an unsolicited and unrelated defamatory statement
by posting and thereby publishing the MatternityWise International
52

Fourth Amended Complaint and
Demand for Jury Trial

 Case 1:18-cv-00364-LEK-KJM Document 74 Filed 05/08/19 Page 53 of 108
1157

PageID #:

(MATWISE) “Memorandum of Official Statement” dated 05 June
2018, attached hereto as Exhibit “1”. (BOULTER’s SECOND SET OF
DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS)
13. Defendant, Esme Whritenour (WHRITENOUR)
148. On, or about, June 4, 2018, WHRITENOUR posted the statement on
Facebook, thus published the statement on Facebook, including on
and in DTD, and did so with the intent that many others would read
the statement and republish the statement to others, “[t]he birth world
is full of men who believe they're entitled to do what they want with
women's bodies, in the name of "helping them". Danny takes this to
the next level by lying about his "tragic past" in order to gain women's
trust so he can groom them and later exploit them for his profit/sexual
pleasure . For as many women as have had mundane encounters
with him, there are 10 more that have been repeatedly violated and
harassed by him. It truly disgusts me to see someone fetishizing and
exploiting women in their childbearing year as blatantly as he has.”
(WHRITENOUR’s SET OF DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS)
149. Since the WHRITENOUR’s SET OF DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS
was made in DTD in the “Reviews Page”, and that WHRIITENOUR
referred to “Danny”, WHRITENOUR’s SET OF DEFAMATORY
STATEMENTS was of an concerning Gallagher and the thousands of
persons who viewed WHRITENOUR’s SET OF DEFAMATORY
STATEMENTS understood WHRITENOUR’s SET OF
DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS as of and concerning Gallagher.
14. Defendant, Adrianna Brooks (BROOKS)
150. On, or about, June 4, 2018, Adrianna Brooks (BROOKS), using the
identity “Aydree Ahnah”, posted the statement on Facebook, in DTD
and Facebook groups that have thousands of members and links,
53

Fourth Amended Complaint and
Demand for Jury Trial

 Case 1:18-cv-00364-LEK-KJM Document 74 Filed 05/08/19 Page 54 of 108
1158

PageID #:

thus published the statement on Facebook, and did so with the intent
that many others would read the statement and republish the
statement to others, “[d]on't be scammed! This man is not who he
says he is. He preys on vulnerable pregnant women, and lies to try
and cover his tracks. He recently used a photo of a mom giving birth
for his own profit and REFUSED to take down the photo when she
asked. He wasn't even at her birth! Don't be his next victim!!!”
(BROOKS’ SET OF DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS)
15.

Defendant, Nicolette Raymond (RAYMOND)

151. On, or about, June 4, 2018, RAYMOND posted the statement on
Facebook, including on and in DTD, thus published the statement on
Facebook, and did so with the intent that many others would read the
statement and republish the statement to others, “[n]ot only does this
guy have a sick fetish for pregnant women, an
maternity/breastfeeding photography, [sic] he also shares photos of
his clients that she has not gotten permission for with random
women, and most likely others (men, porn sites etc)! He has been
known to post women’s personal birth pictures on his business page
without any sort of permission and ignores and blocks whoever tries
to get the image down. He doesn’t care about women, [sic] he only
cares about himself and making money by any means necessary,
even if that means making up stories to get himself ahead. Do not
trust him.” (RAYMOND’s FRIST SET OF DEFAMATORY
STATEMENTS)
152. On, or about, June 4, 2018, RAYMOND posted the statement on
Facebook, including on and in DTD, thus published the statement on
Facebook, and did so with the intent that many others would read the
statement and republish the statement to others, “Oh fuck anyone
54

Fourth Amended Complaint and
Demand for Jury Trial

 Case 1:18-cv-00364-LEK-KJM Document 74 Filed 05/08/19 Page 55 of 108
1159

PageID #:

who thinks this guy is not a complete predator is part of the problem.”
(RAYMOND’s SECOND SET OF DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS)
16. Defendant, Jess Young (YOUNG)
153. On, or about, June 3, 2018, Chrystal Docker (DOCKER) defended
Gallagher’s integrity, transparency and high level of professionalism,
including that MATWISE’s accusations were false and not supported
by any evidence, in a Facebook post.
154. On or about, two weeks after DOCKER made the positive statement
on Facebook about Gallagher and in response to DOCKER made the
positive statement of Gallagher, YOUNG posted the statement on
Facebook, including on and in DTD, thus published the statement on
Facebook, and did so with the intent that many others would read the
statement and republish the statement to others, “[m]ost of the
women coming out against him HAVE dealt with him, have
screenshots, and people scream ‘liar’ at them because they love
coddling male feelz. Victim dismissal is nothing new." (YOUNG’s
FIRST SET OF DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS)
155. On, or about, June 4, 2018, after WHRITENOUR published
WHRITENOUR’s SET OF DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS, YOUNG
posted the reply on Facebook, including on and in DTD, thus
published the statement on Facebook, and did so with the intent that
many others would read the statement and republish the statement to
others, “I knew GraceLynn Willard or Danny would remove her
female-hating comments, as happened with a male who came on to
defend Danny, calling women who want to protect other women
‘FemiNazis.’ GraceLynn Willard, wishing rape and death on other
women who you hate - your hate and vile is the very kind of thing
others are willing to see the truth of in Danny's screen shots of private
55

Fourth Amended Complaint and
Demand for Jury Trial

 Case 1:18-cv-00364-LEK-KJM Document 74 Filed 05/08/19 Page 56 of 108
1160

PageID #:

conversations - he just has enough self-control to sugar-coat it and
make it look like care and compassion for struggling women. You just
come right out and wish rape and assault on other women. When the
website goes up to share all of these complete conversations, your
name will not be erased from the screen shots. You are a betrayer of
women. We will still be here for you if you ever are willing to see the
truth from countless women rather than boot-lick this man who lies
and deceives the women of birthing communities.” (YOUNG’s
SECOND SET OF DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS)
156. On, or about, June 3, 2018, GraceLynn Willard (WILLARD) defended
Gallagher’s integrity in a Facebook post and encouraged others to
have Gallagher coach them through childbirth.
157. On or about two weeks after WILLARD’s defense YOUNG posted the
statement on Facebook, including on and in DTD, thus published the
statement on Facebook, and did so with the intent that many others
would read the statement and republish the statement to others,
“Danny's story/background of a dead wife/girl friend in a plane
crash/suicide/death at birth/car accident has connected MANY
women to him!! Screenshots from many many women of these
shifting and changing stories - you can choose to pay heed or ignore
them and be his flying monkey. You have been groomed like so many
others and there is NO motive in these women to "destroy a man"
only to SAVE WOMEN. I don't give a crap about destroying anyone,
only speaking truth to save others.
His stories of hardship and struggle are a ruse to lure women into
trusting him and defending him. Narcissists tactics literally never
change - you have become his flying monkey, and that is also a tale
as old as time. Like Jenna commented in another review: " Ok even if
56

Fourth Amended Complaint and
Demand for Jury Trial

 Case 1:18-cv-00364-LEK-KJM Document 74 Filed 05/08/19 Page 57 of 108
1161

PageID #:

you don’t believe the handful of women who have come forward
about him making them feel fetishized, about him taking partially
nude maternity pics but never actually providing the edited photos
etc, I disagree with that approach but I guess you can play devil’s
advocate if you want. But the video he posted to Doula Talk where he
violated HIPAA over and over again, and then revealed details of a
domestic violence situation about his “first birth client” right after he
posted photos of that client- that we all saw and watched with our
own eyes in real time- this isn’t a conspiracy and you’re neutrality
here is siding with the oppressor.” (YOUNG’s THIRD SET OF
DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS)
158. On, or about, June 4, 2018, YOUNG posted the statement on
Facebook, including on and in DTD, thus published the statement on
Facebook, and did so with the intent that many others would read the
statement and republish the statement to others, “[t]his man [meaning
Gallagher] is a predator, luring women into nude photo shoots,
refusing to return paid-for photographs from session over a year later,
selling women's nakedness to other males. After he has groomed a
group of females, he pits them against one another and quietly
messages individual women he has targeted as financially or
emotionally struggling, and tries coercing them into sexualized photos
and videos for his profit. There are screenshot after screenshot of this
behavior, with multiple women. The only women speaking up for him
are the ones he has groomed fully and have not been contacted
about sex work for him, yet. They are victims of his as much as
anyone else involved. The fact that they are demanding evidence
beyond what has already been given, shows what a masterful work
this man has done to keep women from protecting one another in the
57

Fourth Amended Complaint and
Demand for Jury Trial

 Case 1:18-cv-00364-LEK-KJM Document 74 Filed 05/08/19 Page 58 of 108
1162

PageID #:

birthing community. He is a predator - beware.” (YOUNG’s FOURTH
SET OF DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS)
159. On or about June 4, 2018, YOUNG posted the statement on and in a
Facebook group of thousands of members, thus published the
statement on Facebook, and did so with the intent that many others
would read the statement and republish the statement to others,
“Danny the creepy doula (who has in other places, said he should
start selling pictures I’ve women’s bodies/bottoms in sexual poses
because he can’t get more money and’ maybe I am in the wrong line
a business’ – basically, become their pimp) is the talk of several other
birth groups, and not in a warm, fuzzy way. You’re not alone! … he is
a predator and I want to make as many females are aware of him as
possible. … make a public album of these, to start spreading around.
Maybe these can be shared with a RedFem page that exposes male
violence and predatory behavior” (YOUNG’s FIFTH SET OF
DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS)
17. Defendant, Marie-Soleil Deschamps (DESCHAMPS)
160. On, or about, June 4, 2018, DESCHAMPS posted the statement on
Facebook, including on and in DTD, thus published the statement on
Facebook, and did so with the intent that many others would read the
statement and republish the statement to others, “WARNING: Danny
Gallagher is a predator who has infiltrated the birth world and needs
to be removed immediately. He has been removed from the big
groups and the admins of Doula Talk are reporting him to his
certifying board. He has been caught victimizing women and his
scheme has been exposed. He trawls birth groups for women who
are insecure or unstable in terms of their financial security, self
esteem or in need of sexual validation. He contacts them privately,
58

Fourth Amended Complaint and
Demand for Jury Trial

 Case 1:18-cv-00364-LEK-KJM Document 74 Filed 05/08/19 Page 59 of 108
1163

PageID #:

wins their trust, makes enticing promises, and grooms them to
provide naked photos of themselves to sell to a select audience of
men. He's the broker. He is a predatory pimp, he is not a doula. He
has harassed a number of women online to sell them their used
panties. This has all been confirmed. This is very serious, he is a
sexual predator and is dangerous. Please help me in shutting this shit
down. *this is why men are not allowed in this fucking group.*”
(DESCHAMPS’ SET OF DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS)
18.

Defendant, Julie Bell (BELL)

161. On, or about, June 3, 2018, Julie Bell (BELL), sometimes using the
social media identity “Melbourne Doula Birth Support”, posted the
statement on Facebook, including on and in DTD, thus published the
statement on Facebook, and did so with the intent that many others
would read the statement and republish the statement to
others,“[p]lease watch out for a predator infiltrating natural birth
groups on social media. This is his MO:
1. He gets permission from the group moderator. Then he posts an intro full
of heart-rending tales of disadvantage and trauma. This incites sympathy
from women conditioned to be caring.
2. Having gained access to the group, he then makes ego-centric and
grandiose posts. This hooks into the way that women are socialized to
praise, adulate and stroke the egos of men, and to show humility in the
face of male bragging.
3. Around this time, any women in the group with finely tuned radars for
narcissism, bullshit or perve are likely to call him on a breach of
confidentiality or some other crossing of basic boundaries. At this point, he
arcs up defensively way out of proportion to the issue. Then some women
in the group are likely to rush to his defence and make allowances for him.
59

Fourth Amended Complaint and
Demand for Jury Trial

 Case 1:18-cv-00364-LEK-KJM Document 74 Filed 05/08/19 Page 60 of 108
1164

PageID #:

The ones with misgivings then start to doubt themselves and back down a
little so as not to cause upset within the group.
4. He is a master at using women’s strengths against them. He gives the
impression that he is doing everything with the Moderator’s permission. He
infers that he has special favour and a special connection with the group
leader, or any woman of prominence and influence. He piggy-backs on the
trust and credibility that lead woman has with the group by invoking her.
Members then feel constrained to complain about him or report him,
because of their love and loyalty for their LEADER – and they don’t want to
seem to be questioning her judgement or second-guessing what is
apparently her call (according to his claims). In this way, he subverts the
loyalty of women and uses it against them. In one case, he claimed a
leading midwife in his community was his “mentor”. She wasn’t. In our
group, he claimed that he was in business with our leader and that she was
collaborating with him. She wasn’t.
5. Then he posts polls about whether he should stay in the group or leave.
This appeals to women’s eagerness to express an opinion and to cast a
vote. In our culture women are often not consulted, don’t have access to
forums and are thus under-represented, so this opportunity is highly
attractive.
6. He then incites division in the group. He plays the misunderstood,
misjudged victim and those whose alarm bells are loudly clanging are not
only depicted by him as mean, judgemental, non-inclusive and sexist – but
other women, desperate to not be written off by A Man as being a “nasty
woman” quickly round on the dissenters and tip staggering dump-truck
loads of internalized misogyny all over them. But this is merely a diversion.
While he continues to stoke the drama and strife, he’s actually quietly going
about his real work.
60

Fourth Amended Complaint and
Demand for Jury Trial

 Case 1:18-cv-00364-LEK-KJM Document 74 Filed 05/08/19 Page 61 of 108
1165

PageID #:

7. Which is to trawl the group for women who are insecure or unstable in
terms of their financial security, self-esteem or in need of sexual validation.
He wins their trust, makes alluring promises and grooms them to provide
naked photos of themselves, or their underwear, to sell to a select
audience of men. Guess who is the broker. He is a predatory pimp, no less,
and he is *not* a doula.
8. Fall-out from the above subversions are diverse. Some women may feel
ashamed that they trusted him, (or that they pretended to trust him for a
while in order to figure out if he was legit or not). Vulnerable women talk
about how nice and kind he was to them, not aware that he is grooming
them. Other women turn on those who express a negative or distrustful
opinion of him, to the point of screen-shotting their posts and sending them
to him, seemingly unaware that he has manipulated them into acting as his
handmaids. He acts gracious in the face of criticism publically, while
privately attacking those who confront him venomously.
The point of this post is not only to warn about this individual and others
like him. It’s so that we can question, and examine, how we as women –
from the naïve ingénues to the jaded, skeptical crones, can be so easily
manipulated, exploited and turned on each other.” (BELL’s FIRST SET OF
DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS)
162. On, or about, June 4, 2018, BELL posted the statement on Facebook,
including on and in DTD and Facebook groups that have thousands
of members and links, thus published the statement on Facebook,
and did so with the intent that many others would read the statement
and republish the statement to others, “DG [referring to plaintiff] is a
predator. He infiltrates groups, including a business mentoring group I
am in. He prays on the trusting nature I’ve women and on our anxiety
to not be accused of being sexist or not inclusive. He arcs up
61

Fourth Amended Complaint and
Demand for Jury Trial

 Case 1:18-cv-00364-LEK-KJM Document 74 Filed 05/08/19 Page 62 of 108
1166

PageID #:

defensively at any one who picks up his narcissism on their radar and
tries to shut them down and discredit them. … he then sifts the group
for vulnerable women that he can manipulate and groom. He
carefully grins his hand-picked victims, then entices them to sell
naked photos of themselves to a select audience of men. Guess who
the broker is. He is a trafficker. He makes women who picked up that
creepy vibes feel guilty so they keep quiet while he prays on the
vulnerable. He is a ConMan.” (BELL’s SECOND SET OF
DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS)
19.

Defendant, Cara Gwizd (GWIZD)

163. On, or about, June 18, 2018, Cara Gwizd (GWIZD), sometimes using
the social media identity “Cara Gwizd”, posted the statement on
Facebook, including on and in DTD, thus published the statement on
Facebook, and did so with the intent that many others would read the
statement and republish the statement to others, “If this individual
[referring to plaintiff] had wanted to start a business of selling sex
fetish items or of a pornographic nature then please do not use birth
groups as a place to promote such business ventures- use other
spaces.” (GWIZD’s SET OF DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS)
20.

Defendant, Holly Leppard-Westhaver

(LEPPARD-WESTHAVER)
164. On, or about, June 5, 2018 LEPPARD-WESTHAVER, sometimes
using the social media identity “Hollie Michelle”, posted the statement
on Facebook, including on and in DTD, thus published the statement
on Facebook, and did so with the intent that many others would read
the statement and republish the statement to others, “[t]his man is
NOT a doula.. He is a womanizing predator who prays on vulnerable
women; sharing their intimate photos without permission, funnelling
62

Fourth Amended Complaint and
Demand for Jury Trial

 Case 1:18-cv-00364-LEK-KJM Document 74 Filed 05/08/19 Page 63 of 108
1167

PageID #:

[sic] them into sex work, and uses lies and manipulation to create a
persona within the birth world to attract victims...” (LEPPARDWESTHAVER’s SET OF DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS)
21.

Defendant, Eloise Victoria (VICTORIA)

165. On, or about, June 7, 2018 and on a prior occasion within the prior
thirty days, VICTORIA posted the statement on Facebook, including
on and in DTD, thus published the statement on Facebook, and did
so with the intent that many others would read the statement and
republish the statement to others, “[w]ow - i didnt know reviews could
be deleted at the whim of the page owner. Is there a point to the star
rating if it can just be manipulated and undesirable feedback
eliminated? Well i will share my review again and see how long it
lasts this time. I continue to be horrified by 'Danny The Doula''s
appalling conduct on his page and across various doula groups. I
have seen vast and shocking accounts of harrassment [sic] and
grooming of vulnerable women. My greatest concern is still 'Danny
The Doula''s use of Marissa's personal birth photo on his
page. Marissa commented four times below the photo for it to be
deleted as she never gave her permission for its use. These
comments have been removed, however i still have an original photo
of two of them which i have linked below. Abusing and silencing
women, especially whilst profiting from them for your so-called doula
business, is utterly unacceptable and frankly disgusting You may
delete my review again, but your lack of integrity is catching up with
you either way. May you learn to truly love and honour [sic] women.”
(VICTORIA’s SET OF DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS)
22.

Defendant, Vivian Chau Best (BEST)

63

Fourth Amended Complaint and
Demand for Jury Trial

 Case 1:18-cv-00364-LEK-KJM Document 74 Filed 05/08/19 Page 64 of 108
1168

PageID #:

166. At all relevant times including 2018 to the present, a Facebook group
existed and exists, that had and has, thousands of members. The
Facebook Group WLS PSI Hawaii. Only Facebook users who lived in
Hawai’i were permitted to be part of the group and thus all persons
who were members of WLS PSI Hawaii were fully aware that the
other members of WLS PSI Hawaii were residents of Hawaii.
167. BEST was a member of WLS PSI Hawaii and BEST sent direct
messages regarding plaintiff to other members of WLS PSI Hawaii
warning the other members of WLS PSI Hawaii to not have any
contract with plaintiff.
168. On June 3, 2018, BEST warned hundreds of WLS PSI Hawaii
members, "[i]n case you come across him, please don't accept a
friend request from Danny Gallagher. I just found out some very
upsetting information about someone who has many PSI friends in
common with me. I had to let you know. Warning. Danny Gallagher is
a predator who has infiltrated the birth world and needs to be
removed immediately. He has been removed from the big groups and
the admins of Doula Talk are reporting him to his certifying board. He
has been caught victimizing women and his scheme has been
exposed. He trawls birth groups for women who are insecure or
unstable in terms of their financial security, self esteem or in need of
sexual validation. He contacts them privately, wins their trust, makes
enticing promises, and grooms them to provide naked photos of
themselves to sell to a select audience of men. He's the broker. He is
a predatory pimp, he is not a doula. He has harassed a number of
women online to sell them their used panties. This has all been
confirmed. I see that we have many internet friends in common who
are PSI grads and wanted you to know. This is very serious, he is a
64

Fourth Amended Complaint and
Demand for Jury Trial

 Case 1:18-cv-00364-LEK-KJM Document 74 Filed 05/08/19 Page 65 of 108
1169

PageID #:

sexual predator and is dangerous. Please help me in shutting this shit
down.” (BEST’s FIRST SET OF DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS)
169. On June 3, 2018, BEST began to directly contact plaintiff’s Facebook
friends as BEST was one of plaintiff Facebook friends and could
access plaintiff’s friends list. On June 3, 2018, BEST directly
messaged two of plaintiff’s Facebook friends and two thousand of
plaintiff’s other friends, "[h]i [Name]! I just found out some very
upsetting information about one of our mutual friends. I had to let you
know. Warning. Danny Gallagher is a predator who has infiltrated the
birth world and needs to be removed immediately. He has been
removed from the big groups and the admins of Doula Talk are
reporting him to his certifying board. He has been caught victimizing
women and his scheme has been exposed. He trawls birth groups for
women who are insecure or unstable in terms of their financial
security, self esteem or in need of sexual validation. He contacts
them privately, wins thei r trust, makes enticing promises, and
grooms them to provide naked photos of themselves to sell to a
select audien ce of men. He's the broker. He is a predatory p mp, he
is not a doula. He has har assed a number of iwomen online to sell
them their used panties. This has all been confirmed • I see that
you're internet friends with him and wanted you to know. This is very
serious, he is a sexual predator and is dangerous. Please help me in
shutting this shit down.” (BEST’s SECOND SET OF DEFAMATORY
STATEMENTS)
170. As to a few of plaintiff’s Facebook friends who attempted to defend
plaintiff, on April 7, 2019 through on or around April 17, 2019, BEST
continued directly messaging plaintiff’s Facebook friends with, “[h]e is
not a good person. He takes advantage of vulnerable women and is
65

Fourth Amended Complaint and
Demand for Jury Trial

 Case 1:18-cv-00364-LEK-KJM Document 74 Filed 05/08/19 Page 66 of 108
1170

PageID #:

highly manipulative. You don't know me, so you don't have to trust my
opinion at all. I never met him. I just know that he's had some
questionable experiences with many women and don't like the word
on the street about him. I would stay away from interacting with him.
period. There are great photographers out there without awful
reviews.” (BEST’s THIRD SET OF DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS)
171. As to a few of plaintiff’s Facebook friends who attempted to defend
plaintiff, on April 7, 2019 through on or around April 17, 2019, BEST
continued directly messaging plaintiff’s Facebook friends with "I gave
you my honest response. I don't know either of you. You don't have to
believe me. But I urge you to be wary. He gaslights women. Period. I
have read a conversation between him and a friend on her phone and
was astounded by how quickly his communications turned mean and
ugly. It has nothing to do with his photo skills. He works with
vulnerable women and takes advantage of them. What I saw were
screenshots of him talking women into taking pornographic photos.
He offers discounts to vulnerable women, and then tries to get them
to take naked photos. It's not "empowerment" when he's then turning
around and selling them to porn site. That has been a strategy that
has gotten him removed from many pages, and warned about across
mom groups. It has been a little while, and perhaps he's improved his
former behavior. I am a stand for women, for mothers, and for sharing
of useful information. I wouldn't consider working with him based on
his reputation." (BEST’s FOURTH SET OF DEFAMATORY
STATEMENTS)
172. As to a few of plaintiff’s Facebook friends who attempted to defend
Plaintiff, on April 7, 2019 through on or around April 17, 2019, BEST
continued directly messaging plaintiff’s Facebook friends with To
66

Fourth Amended Complaint and
Demand for Jury Trial

 Case 1:18-cv-00364-LEK-KJM Document 74 Filed 05/08/19 Page 67 of 108
1171

PageID #:

same set of thousands of plaintiff’s Facebook friends, BEST directly
messaged them that “I have heard too many stories to want to send
anyone to work with him. I don’t even live in Hawaii anymore
…[plaintiff] was having weird and pornographic conversations with
others.” (BEST’s FIFTH SET OF DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS)
173. From April 7, 2019 to through April 17, 2019, BEST made the same
statements as those set forth in the above paragraphs to plaintiff’s
Facebook friends by direct message, i.e., BEST’S FIRST SET OF
DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS through BEST’S FIFTH SET OF
DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS. (BEST’s SIXTH SET OF
DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS)
174. BEST was conspicuously warning residents who she knew lived in
Hawai’i, i.e., Facebook group members and plaintiff’s Facebook
friends who lived in Hawaii, and that BEST was safe from plaintiff
because she no longer lived in Hawai’i and Best was doing some kind
of service to Hawai’i residents by warning them of plaintiff, who she
knew as sexual predator who lived among the Hawaiians.
B.

Innuendo, Inducement and Colloquium

175. Each of the defamatory statements, i.e., those defined with all capital
letters described above, falsely accused plaintiff of being deceptive in
his careers, occupations and professions, including as a doula and a
photographer.
176. Each of the defamatory statements, i.e., those defined with all capital
letters above, falsely accused plaintiff of rape, attempted murder,
sexual exploitation, prostitution, “pimping” and/or sexual harassment
which as described in each of the defamatory statements are felonies
in all jurisdictions in the United States and otherwise serious violent
offences.
67

Fourth Amended Complaint and
Demand for Jury Trial

 Case 1:18-cv-00364-LEK-KJM Document 74 Filed 05/08/19 Page 68 of 108
1172

PageID #:

177. All of the defendants referenced above made the defamatory
statements, i.e., those defined with all capital letters above, with
authority, in that Defendants defamatory statements were apparently
factually based and any opinion that defendants had were based on
defendants’ independent verification and having superior knowledge.
178. Additionally, defendants were fully aware that those persons that
would read, and did read, Defendants defamatory statements, i.e.,
those defined with all capital letters above, would regard and consider
defendants as being in a position of superior knowledge, thus
creating and manufacturing an umbrella of truth and validity in
Defendants defamatory statements.
179. From the history of posts that are accessible to anyone using the
Internet, and especially those of the thousands of persons, including
defendants, and each of them, all of whom reviewed the past linked
and related statements on the Facebook identity, “DannytheDoula”,
“radfem –exposing” “The Doula Group”, inter alia, t is clear to those
thousands of persons that the defamatory statements i.e., those
defined with all capital letters above, that defendants, and each and
every one of them, were referring to the Facebook posts that began
on or about June 1, 2017, and those that occurred immediately
before and after MATWISE’s SET OF DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS
accusing Gallagher, inter alia, of (1) furthering and promoting
pornography in a manner that violated the ethical and professional
practices adhered to and expected of doulas and photographers; (2)
being a sexual predator, acting in a manner that, and thereby,
violated the ethical and professional practices of doulas and
photographers and also violated criminal statutes; (3) enticing others
to participate in pornography because of the possibility of financial
68

Fourth Amended Complaint and
Demand for Jury Trial

 Case 1:18-cv-00364-LEK-KJM Document 74 Filed 05/08/19 Page 69 of 108
1173

PageID #:

gain and plaintiff did so in a manner that violated the ethical and
professional practices adhered to and expected of doulas and
photographers; (4) encouraging pregnant women and others to
become involved in selling pornography in a manner that violated the
ethical and professional practices adhered to and expected of doulas
and photographers; (5) dishonesty in his practice as a doula for
plaintiff’s sexual gratification, financial gain and self-interest; (6)
deceiving the public in his practice as a doula for plaintiff’s sexual
gratification, financial gain and self-interest; (7) being unethical in his
practice as a doula in a manner that, and thereby, violated the ethical
and professional practices of doulas; (8) dishonesty in his profession
as photographer in a manner that, and thereby, violated the ethical
and professional practices of photographers; (9) deception in his
profession as a photographer for plaintiff’s sexual gratification,
financial gain and self-interest; and (10) unethical conduct in his
profession as a photographer in a manner that, and thereby, violated
the ethical and professional practices of photographers.
180. Prior to defendants publishing each and any of their defamatory
statements, i.e., those defined with all capital letters above, the term
“groomed” was referenced in other Social Media discussion groups
that any and each of the defendants participated. “Groomed” was
understood by defendants and the readers of Defendants defamatory
statements as referring to Gallagher’s “victims” who were the object
of plaintiff (1) furthering and promoting pornography in a manner that
violated the ethical and professional practices adhered to and
expected of doulas and photographers; (2) being a sexual predator,
acting in a manner that, and thereby, violated the ethical and
professional practices of doulas and photographers and also violated
69

Fourth Amended Complaint and
Demand for Jury Trial

 Case 1:18-cv-00364-LEK-KJM Document 74 Filed 05/08/19 Page 70 of 108
1174

PageID #:

criminal statutes; (3) enticing others to participate in pornography
because of the possibility of financial gain and plaintiff did so in a
manner that violated the ethical and professional practices adhered to
and expected of doulas and photographers; (4) encouraging pregnant
women and others to become involved in selling pornography in a
manner that violated the ethical and professional practices adhered to
and expected of doulas and photographers; (5) dishonesty in his
practice as a doula for plaintiff’s sexual gratification, financial gain
and self-interest; (6) deceiving the public in his practice as a doula for
plaintiff’s sexual gratification, financial gain and self-interest; (7) being
unethical in his practice as a doula in a manner that, and thereby,
violated the ethical and professional practices of doulas; (8)
dishonesty in his profession as photographer in a manner that, and
thereby, violated the ethical and professional practices of
photographers; (9) deception in his profession as a photographer for
plaintiff’s sexual gratification, financial gain and self-interest; and (10)
unethical conduct in his profession as a photographer in a manner
that, and thereby, violated the ethical and professional practices of
photographers. That is to say that the term “groomed” was familiar to
both the defendant making the above described defamatory
statements and the person reading the term in the defamatory
statements
181. Defendants defamatory statements, i.e., those defined with all capital
letters above, were understood by the thousands of persons who did
review defendants defamatory statements to mean that it was wrong
and a factual mistake for any person to discount or disbelieve the
persons accusing Gallagher, inter alia, of (1) furthering and promoting
pornography in a manner that violated the ethical and professional
70

Fourth Amended Complaint and
Demand for Jury Trial

 Case 1:18-cv-00364-LEK-KJM Document 74 Filed 05/08/19 Page 71 of 108
1175

PageID #:

practices adhered to and expected of doulas and photographers; (2)
being a sexual predator, acting in a manner that, and thereby,
violated the ethical and professional practices of doulas and
photographers and also violated criminal statutes; (3) enticing others
to participate in pornography because of the possibility of financial
gain and plaintiff did so in a manner that violated the ethical and
professional practices adhered to and expected of doulas and
photographers; (4) encouraging pregnant women and others to
become involved in selling pornography in a manner that violated the
ethical and professional practices adhered to and expected of doulas
and photographers; (5) dishonesty in his practice as a doula for
plaintiff’s sexual gratification, financial gain and self-interest; (6)
deceiving the public in his practice as a doula for plaintiff’s sexual
gratification, financial gain and self-interest; (7) being unethical in his
practice as a doula in a manner that, and thereby, violated the ethical
and professional practices of doulas; (8) dishonesty in his profession
as photographer in a manner that, and thereby, violated the ethical
and professional practices of photographers; (9) deception in his
profession as a photographer for plaintiff’s sexual gratification,
financial gain and self-interest; and (10) unethical conduct in his
profession as a photographer in a manner that, and thereby, violated
the ethical and professional practices of photographers, and that the
accusations were in fact true.
182. Prior to publishing each and any of the defamatory statements
alleged above, i.e., those defined with all capital letters above,
defendants, and each of them, knowingly did absolutely nothing to
determine, or otherwise verify the truth of the implications of any and

71

Fourth Amended Complaint and
Demand for Jury Trial

 Case 1:18-cv-00364-LEK-KJM Document 74 Filed 05/08/19 Page 72 of 108
1176

PageID #:

all of the defamatory statements defendants leveled against
Gallagher.
183. In fact all of the defendants were warned by many persons, that the
accusations leveled against plaintiff were untrue and to proceed with
caution in further disseminating the false accusations.
184. Prior to publishing each and all of the defamatory, i.e., those defined
with all capital letters above, defendants, and each of them, knew that
the accusations were false, however still published the defamatory
statements, and have since continued to publish the defamatory
statements to other persons, on social media, and directly to each
and all of defendants’ family, friends, business acquaintances and
persons and who do not have any prior knowledge of plaintiff, i.e.,
indiscriminately to whomever will listen, may use the Internet and has
the ability to read Defendants defamatory statements, which was, and
is, each and every one of the defendants’ intention.
185. Prior to publishing the defamatory statements, defendants knew and
otherwise were fully aware that the defamatory statements were not
true.
186. Prior to publishing the defamatory statements, defendants acted in
reckless disregard for the truth in the defamatory statements by not
conducting any diligence, inquiry and investigation as to whether or
not the defamatory statements were true or false.
187. Prior to publishing the defamatory statements, defendants failed use
reasonable care to determine the truth or falsity in the defamatory
statements by not conducting reasonable diligence, inquiry and
investigation as to whether or not the defamatory statements were
true or false.

72

Fourth Amended Complaint and
Demand for Jury Trial

 Case 1:18-cv-00364-LEK-KJM Document 74 Filed 05/08/19 Page 73 of 108
1177

PageID #:

188. Moreover, by each and every defendant publishing the defamatory
statements, each and every defendant outwardly ratified, endorsed,
approved, consented, confirmed and validated the accusations made
by MATWISE, that is to say, that Gallagher inter alia, (1) furthered
and promoted pornography in a manner that violated the ethical and
professional practices adhered to and expected of doulas and
photographers; (2) was a sexual predator acting in a manner that,
and thereby, violated the ethical and professional practices of doulas
and photographers and also violated criminal statutes; (3) enticed
others to participate in pornography because of the possibility of
financial gain and plaintiff did so in a manner that violated the ethical
and professional practices adhered to and expected of doulas and
photographers; (4) strongly encouraged pregnant women and others
to become involved in selling pornography in a manner that violated
the ethical and professional practices adhered to and expected of
doulas and photographers; (5) was dishonest in his practice as a
doula for plaintiff’s sexual gratification, financial gain and self-interest;
(6) deceived the public in his practice as a doula for plaintiff’s sexual
gratification, financial gain and self-interest; (7) was unethical in his
practice as a doula in a manner that, and thereby, violated the ethical
and professional practices of doulas; (8) was dishonest in his
profession as photographer in a manner that, and thereby, violated
the ethical and professional practices of photographers; (9) was
deceptive in his profession as a photographer for plaintiff’s sexual
gratification, financial gain and self-interest; and (10) was unethical in
his profession as a photographer in a manner that, and thereby,
violated the ethical and professional practices of photographers.

73

Fourth Amended Complaint and
Demand for Jury Trial

 Case 1:18-cv-00364-LEK-KJM Document 74 Filed 05/08/19 Page 74 of 108
1178

PageID #:

189. The context of these defamatory statements of and concerning
plaintiff is that all, of the defamatory statements were made by each
and every defendant knowing that the listeners and readers had
participated in past, or ongoing, discussions concerning plaintiff and
that defendants’ defamatory statements were intended by defendants
to mean and that the listeners and readers would understand, and did
understand, that plaintiff (1) furthered and promoted pornography in a
manner that violated the ethical and professional practices adhered to
and expected of doulas and photographers; (2) was a sexual predator
acting in a manner that, and thereby, violated the ethical and
professional practices of doulas and photographers and also violated
criminal statutes; (3) enticed others to participate in pornography
because of the possibility of financial gain and plaintiff did so in a
manner that violated the ethical and professional practices adhered to
and expected of doulas and photographers; (4) strongly encouraged
pregnant women and others to become involved in selling
pornography in a manner that violated the ethical and professional
practices adhered to and expected of doulas and photographers; (5)
was dishonest in his practice as a doula for plaintiff’s sexual
gratification, financial gain and self-interest; (6) deceived the public in
his practice as a doula for plaintiff’s sexual gratification, financial gain
and self-interest; (7) was unethical in his practice as a doula in a
manner that, and thereby, violated the ethical and professional
practices of doulas; (8) was dishonest in his profession as
photographer in a manner that, and thereby, violated the ethical and
professional practices of photographers; (9) was deceptive in his
profession as a photographer for plaintiff’s sexual gratification,
financial gain and self-interest; and (10) was unethical in his
74

Fourth Amended Complaint and
Demand for Jury Trial

 Case 1:18-cv-00364-LEK-KJM Document 74 Filed 05/08/19 Page 75 of 108
1179

PageID #:

profession as a photographer in a manner that, and thereby, violated
the ethical and professional practices of photographers.
I.CLAIM I
(Libel against all Defendants and Does 1 through 10)
190. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 189 as
though fully set forth herein.
191. Defendants made and published the defamatory statements as
specifically described above and herein,
(1)MATWISE’s publication of MATWISE’s SET OF DEFAMATORY
STATEMENTS;
(2)CROUDACE’s publication of MATWISE’s SET OF DEFAMATORY
STATEMENTS;
(3)HOPAKI’s publication of HOPAKI’s FIRST SET OF
DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS;
(4)HOPAKI’s publication of HOPAKI’s SECOND SET OF
DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS;
(5)SALDAYA’S publication of SALDAYA’s FIRST SET OF
DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS;
(6)SALDAYA’s publication of SALDAYA’s SECOND SET OF
DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS;
(7)SALDAYA’s publication of SALDAYA’s THIRD SET OF
DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS;
(8)SALDAYA’s publication of SALDAYA’s FOURTH SET OF
DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS;
(9)AUGHENBAUGH’s publication of AUGHENBAUGH’s FIRST SET
OF DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS;
(10)AUGHENBAUGH’s publication of AUGHENBAUGH’s SECOND
SET OF DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS;
75

Fourth Amended Complaint and
Demand for Jury Trial

 Case 1:18-cv-00364-LEK-KJM Document 74 Filed 05/08/19 Page 76 of 108
1180

PageID #:

(11)AUGHENBAUGH’s publication of AUGHENBAUGH’s THIRD
SET OF DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS;
(12)CHIDESTER’s publication of CHIDESTER’s FIRST SET OF
DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS;
(13)CHIDESTER’s publication of CHIDESTER’s SECOND SET OF
DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS;
(14)BYERS’ publication of BYERS’ FIRST SET OF DEFAMATORY
STATEMENTS;
(15)BYERS’ publication of BYERS’ SECOND SET OF
DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS;
(16)KIRILLOV’s publication of KIRILLOV’s SET OF DEFAMATORY
STATEMENTS;
(17)LAJOIE’s publication of LAJOIE’s FIRST SET OF DEFAMATORY
STATEMENTS;
(18)LAJOIE’s publication of LAJOIE’s SECOND SET OF
DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS;
(19)LUND’s publication of LUND’s SET OF DEFAMATORY
STATEMENTS;
(20)PAVLOVSKY’s publication of PAVLOVSKY’s FIRST SET OF
DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS;
(21)PAVLOVSKY’s publication of PAVLOVSKY’s SECOND SET OF
DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS;
(22)WALZ’s publication of WALZ’s FIRST SET OF DEFAMATORY
STATEMENTS;
(23)WALZ’s publication of WALZ’s SECOND SET OF
DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS;
(24)BOULTER’s publication of BOULTER’s FIRST SET OF
DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS;
76

Fourth Amended Complaint and
Demand for Jury Trial

 Case 1:18-cv-00364-LEK-KJM Document 74 Filed 05/08/19 Page 77 of 108
1181

PageID #:

(25)BOULTER’s publication of BOULTER’s SECOND SET OF
DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS;
(26)WHRITENOUR’s publication of WHRITENOUR’s SET OF
DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS;
(27)BROOKS’ publication of BROOKS’ SET OF DEFAMATORY
STATEMENTS;
(28)RAYMOND’s publication of RAYMOND’s FRIST SET OF
DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS;
(29)RAYMOND’s publication of RAYMOND’s SECOND SET OF
DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS;
(30)YOUNG’s publication of YOUNG’s FIRST SET OF
DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS;
(31)YOUNG’s publication of YOUNG’s SECOND SET OF
DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS;
(32)YOUNG’s publication of YOUNG’s THIRD SET OF
DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS;
(33)YOUNG’s publication of YOUNG’s FOURTH SET OF
DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS;
(34)YOUNG’s publication of YOUNG’s FIFTH SET OF
DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS;
(35)DESCHAMPS’ publication of DESCHAMPS’ SET OF
DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS;
(36)BELL’s publication of BELL’s FIRST SET OF DEFAMATORY
STATEMENTS;
(37)BELL’s publication of BELL’s SECOND SET OF DEFAMATORY
STATEMENTS;
(38)GWIZD’s publication of GWIZD’s SET OF DEFAMATORY
STATEMENTS;
77

Fourth Amended Complaint and
Demand for Jury Trial

 Case 1:18-cv-00364-LEK-KJM Document 74 Filed 05/08/19 Page 78 of 108
1182

PageID #:

(39)LEPPARD-WESTHAVER’s publication of LEPPARDWESTHAVER’s SET OF DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS;
(40)VICTORIA’s publication of VICTORIA’s SET OF DEFAMATORY
STATEMENTS.
(41)BEST’s publication of BEST’s FIRST SET OF DEFAMATORY
STATEMENTS;
(42)BEST’s publication of BEST’s SECOND SET OF DEFAMATORY
STATEMENTS;
(43)BEST’s publication of BEST’s THIRD SET OF DEFAMATORY
STATEMENTS;
(44)BEST’s publication of BEST’s FOURTH SET OF DEFAMATORY
STATEMENTS;
(45)BEST’s publication of BEST’s FIFTH SET OF DEFAMATORY
STATEMENTS;
(46)BEST’s publication of BEST’s SIXTH SET OF DEFAMATORY
STATEMENTS;
192. All defendants used at least Facebook, including on and in DTD and
MIM, to write, and thereby publish, the defamatory statements
described above and incorporated by reference herein, which
included, that plaintiff (1) furthered and promoted pornography in a
manner that violated the ethical and professional practices adhered to
and expected of doulas and photographers; (2) was a sexual predator
acting in a manner that, and thereby, violated the ethical and
professional practices of doulas and photographers and also violated
criminal statutes; (3) enticed others to participate in pornography
because of the possibility of financial gain and plaintiff did so in a
manner that violated the ethical and professional practices adhered to
and expected of doulas and photographers; (4) strongly encouraged
78

Fourth Amended Complaint and
Demand for Jury Trial

 Case 1:18-cv-00364-LEK-KJM Document 74 Filed 05/08/19 Page 79 of 108
1183

PageID #:

pregnant women and others to become involved in selling
pornography in a manner that violated the ethical and professional
practices adhered to and expected of doulas and photographers; (5)
was dishonest in his practice as a doula for plaintiff’s sexual
gratification, financial gain and self-interest; (6) deceived the public in
his practice as a doula for plaintiff’s sexual gratification, financial gain
and self-interest; (7) was unethical in his practice as a doula in a
manner that, and thereby, violated the ethical and professional
practices of doulas; (8) was dishonest in his profession as
photographer in a manner that, and thereby, violated the ethical and
professional practices of photographers; (9) was deceptive in his
profession as a photographer for plaintiff’s sexual gratification,
financial gain and self-interest; and (10) was unethical in his
profession as a photographer in a manner that, and thereby, violated
the ethical and professional practices of photographers.
193. All defendants did use other social media websites to write, and
thereby publish, the defamatory statements described above and
incorporated by reference herein.
194. Prior to publishing their defamatory statements, all defendants were
fully aware that Facebook and the other social media websites used
to publish defendants’ defamatory statements described above and
incorporated by reference herein had members and subscribers
located worldwide.
195. Prior to publishing their defamatory statements, all defendants were
fully aware that Facebook had a membership of approximately two
billion persons and that by publishing their defamatory statements,
the defamatory statements would be read by hundreds to thousands
of Facebook’s membership.
79

Fourth Amended Complaint and
Demand for Jury Trial

 Case 1:18-cv-00364-LEK-KJM Document 74 Filed 05/08/19 Page 80 of 108
1184

PageID #:

196. Prior to publishing their defamatory statements, all defendants were
fully aware that publishing the defamatory statements described
above and incorporated by reference herein would reach the eyes
and ears of at least hundreds to thousands of persons, and that after
defendants did publish the defamatory statements described above
and incorporated by reference herein that the published defamatory
statements did reach the eyes and ears of at least hundreds to
thousands of persons.
197. All defendants published the defamatory statements described above
and incorporated by reference herein fully aware that plaintiff lived in
Hawai’i and that plaintiff was a professionally practicing doula and
photographer in the state of Hawai’i.
198. All defendants were fully aware that Defendants defamatory
statements described above and incorporated by reference herein
would cause a negative effect on plaintiff professionally practicing as
a doula and photographer, i.e., defendants intended that their
defamatory statements would prevent plaintiff from professionally
practicing as a doula and photographer. In addition, defendants were
fully aware that because of their defamatory statements, plaintiff’s
reputation would be damaged in the community in Hawai’i and the
virtual community located in the world-wide-web.
199. It was, is, and has always been, untrue, and false, that plaintiff 1)
furthered and promoted pornography in a manner that violated the
ethical and professional practices adhered to and expected of doulas
and photographers; (2) was a sexual predator acting in a manner
that, and thereby, violated the ethical and professional practices of
doulas and photographers and also violated criminal statutes; (3)
enticed others to participate in pornography because of the possibility
80

Fourth Amended Complaint and
Demand for Jury Trial

 Case 1:18-cv-00364-LEK-KJM Document 74 Filed 05/08/19 Page 81 of 108
1185

PageID #:

of financial gain and plaintiff did so in a manner that violated the
ethical and professional practices adhered to and expected of doulas
and photographers; (4) strongly encouraged pregnant women and
others to become involved in selling pornography in a manner that
violated the ethical and professional practices adhered to and
expected of doulas and photographers; (5) was dishonest in his
practice as a doula for plaintiff’s sexual gratification, financial gain
and self-interest; (6) deceived the public in his practice as a doula for
plaintiff’s sexual gratification, financial gain and self-interest; (7) was
unethical in his practice as a doula in a manner that, and thereby,
violated the ethical and professional practices of doulas; (8) was
dishonest in his profession as photographer in a manner that, and
thereby, violated the ethical and professional practices of
photographers; (9) was deceptive in his profession as a photographer
for plaintiff’s sexual gratification, financial gain and self-interest; and
(10) was unethical in his profession as a photographer in a manner
that, and thereby, violated the ethical and professional practices of
photographers.
200. Defendants’ defamatory statements were not privileged and plaintiff
did not consent to the publication of the defamatory statements.
Plaintiff, in fact, implored defendants to stop the publication of the
defamatory statements.
201. Prior to publishing the defamatory statements, defendants knew and
otherwise were fully aware that the defamatory statements were not
true.
202. Prior to publishing the defamatory statements, defendants acted in
reckless disregard for the truth in the defamatory statements by not
conducting any diligence, inquiry and investigation as to whether or
81

Fourth Amended Complaint and
Demand for Jury Trial

 Case 1:18-cv-00364-LEK-KJM Document 74 Filed 05/08/19 Page 82 of 108
1186

PageID #:

not the defamatory statements were true or false.
203. Prior to publishing the defamatory statements, defendants failed use
reasonable care to determine the truth or falsity in the defamatory
statements by not conducting reasonable diligence, inquiry and
investigation as to whether or not the defamatory statements were
true or false.
204. The hundreds to thousands of person who did read defendants’
defamatory statements on Facebook and other social media websites
understood that the defamatory statements to be of and concerning
plaintiff and were understood by the hundreds to thousands of
persons to mean that plaintiff (1) furthered and promoted
pornography in a manner that violated the ethical and professional
practices adhered to and expected of doulas and photographers; (2)
was a sexual predator acting in a manner that, and thereby, violated
the ethical and professional practices of doulas and photographers
and also violated criminal statutes; (3) enticed others to participate in
pornography because of the possibility of financial gain and plaintiff
did so in a manner that violated the ethical and professional practices
adhered to and expected of doulas and photographers; (4) strongly
encouraged pregnant women and others to become involved in
selling pornography in a manner that violated the ethical and
professional practices adhered to and expected of doulas and
photographers; (5) was dishonest in his practice as a doula for
plaintiff’s sexual gratification, financial gain and self-interest; (6)
deceived the public in his practice as a doula for plaintiff’s sexual
gratification, financial gain and self-interest; (7) was unethical in his
practice as a doula in a manner that, and thereby, violated the ethical
and professional practices of doulas; (8) was dishonest in his
82

Fourth Amended Complaint and
Demand for Jury Trial

 Case 1:18-cv-00364-LEK-KJM Document 74 Filed 05/08/19 Page 83 of 108
1187

PageID #:

profession as photographer in a manner that, and thereby, violated
the ethical and professional practices of photographers; (9) was
deceptive in his profession as a photographer for plaintiff’s sexual
gratification, financial gain and self-interest; and (10) was unethical in
his profession as a photographer in a manner that, and thereby,
violated the ethical and professional practices of photographers.
205. Because of the facts and circumstances that were known to the
hundreds to thousands of readers of the defamatory statements,
including that plaintiff was a professionally practicing doula and
photographer in Hawai’i,
(1)The defamatory statements tended to injure plaintiff in his
occupations as a doula and photographer, and otherwise injure
plaintiff whether or not plaintiff was a doula or photographer;
(2)The defamatory statements exposed plaintiff to hatred, contempt,
ridicule, and shame by (1) persons residing in Hawai’i; (2) persons
involved and interested in the doula community and matters
concerning doula; (3) persons who were involved and interested in
photography; and (4) those persons using the world-wide-web
interested in plaintiff, doulas and/or photography; and
(3)The defamatory statements discouraged others from associating
or dealing with plaintiff.
206. Defendants knew that the listeners and readers of the defamatory
statements would be compelled to republish the defamatory
statements to others by word of mouth, electronic communication and
through social media websites and the persons who did hear and did
read the defamatory statements did republish the defamatory
statements to others.
207. Defendants’ defamatory statements caused plaintiff to lose
83

Fourth Amended Complaint and
Demand for Jury Trial

 Case 1:18-cv-00364-LEK-KJM Document 74 Filed 05/08/19 Page 84 of 108
1188

PageID #:

employment and income.
208. Defendants’ defamatory statements caused plaintiff’s Hawaiian and
virtual community to shun him, avoid him and hate him and further
caused plaintiff’s Hawaiian and virtual community to stop being his
friend, stop following him, or otherwise end any, and all, connection
and association to plaintiff.
209. Plaintiff’s personal and professional reputation was harmed as a
result of defendants’ defamatory statements and such reputation is
continuing to be harmed because defendants continue to make the
same defamatory statements as described and continue to permit the
defamatory statements to go viral on social media websites.
210. Plaintiff sustained reputational and financial harm to his businesses,
professions and occupations as a result of the defamatory
statements.
211. Plaintiff was damaged as set forth below and as follows,
WHEREFORE plaintiff prays that this court grant relief in
compensatory damages against each defendant and in favor of plaintiff in
the amount of $5,000.000.00, for an order retracting and correcting the
defamatory statements, for equitable relief based on principles that are fair
and just, and for judgment as also set forth below.
II.CLAIM II
(Libel Per Se against all defendants and Does 1 through 10)
212. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 211 as
though fully set forth herein.
213. Defendants made and published the defamatory statements as
specifically described above, which among other things falsely
accused plaintiff of committing a crime that was a felony.

84

Fourth Amended Complaint and
Demand for Jury Trial

 Case 1:18-cv-00364-LEK-KJM Document 74 Filed 05/08/19 Page 85 of 108
1189

PageID #:

214. All defendants used at least Facebook to write, and thereby publish,
the defamatory statements described above and incorporated by
reference herein, which included, that plaintiff (1) furthered and
promoted pornography in a manner that violated the ethical and
professional practices adhered to and expected of doulas and
photographers; (2) was a sexual predator acting in a manner that,
and thereby, violated the ethical and professional practices of doulas
and photographers and also violated criminal statutes; (3) enticed
others to participate in pornography because of the possibility of
financial gain and plaintiff did so in a manner that violated the ethical
and professional practices adhered to and expected of doulas and
photographers; (4) strongly encouraged pregnant women and others
to become involved in selling pornography in a manner that violated
the ethical and professional practices adhered to and expected of
doulas and photographers; (5) was dishonest in his practice as a
doula for plaintiff’s sexual gratification, financial gain and self-interest;
(6) deceived the public in his practice as a doula for plaintiff’s sexual
gratification, financial gain and self-interest; (7) was unethical in his
practice as a doula in a manner that, and thereby, violated the ethical
and professional practices of doulas; (8) was dishonest in his
profession as photographer in a manner that, and thereby, violated
the ethical and professional practices of photographers; (9) was
deceptive in his profession as a photographer for plaintiff’s sexual
gratification, financial gain and self-interest; and (10) was unethical in
his profession as a photographer in a manner that, and thereby,
violated the ethical and professional practices of photographers.
215. All defendants did use other social media websites to write, and
thereby publish, the defamatory statements described above and
85

Fourth Amended Complaint and
Demand for Jury Trial

 Case 1:18-cv-00364-LEK-KJM Document 74 Filed 05/08/19 Page 86 of 108
1190

PageID #:

incorporated by reference herein.
216. Prior to publishing their defamatory statements, all defendants were
fully aware that Facebook and the other social media websites used
to publish defendants’ defamatory statements described above and
incorporated by reference herein had members and subscribers
located worldwide.
217. Prior to publishing their defamatory statements, all defendants were
fully aware that Facebook had a membership of approximately two
billion persons and that by publishing their defamatory statements,
the defamatory statements would be read by hundreds to thousands
of Facebook’s membership.
218. Prior to publishing their defamatory statements, all defendants were
fully aware that publishing the defamatory statements described
above and incorporated by reference herein would reach the eyes
and ears of at least hundreds to thousands of persons, and that after
defendants did publish the defamatory statements described above
and incorporated by reference herein that the published defamatory
statements did reach the eyes and ears of at least hundreds to
thousands of persons.
219. All defendants published the defamatory statements described above
and incorporated by reference herein fully aware that plaintiff lived in
Hawai’i and that plaintiff was a professionally practicing doula and
photographer in the state of Hawai’i.
220. All defendants were fully aware that Defendants defamatory
statements described above and incorporated by reference herein
would cause a negative effect on plaintiff professionally practicing as
a doula and photographer, i.e., defendants intended that their
defamatory statements would prevent plaintiff from professionally
86

Fourth Amended Complaint and
Demand for Jury Trial

 Case 1:18-cv-00364-LEK-KJM Document 74 Filed 05/08/19 Page 87 of 108
1191

PageID #:

practicing as a doula and photographer. In addition, defendants were
fully aware that because of their defamatory statements, plaintiff’s
reputation would be damaged in the community in Hawai’i and the
virtual community located in the world-wide-web.
221. It was, is, and has always been, untrue, and false, that plaintiff 1)
furthered and promoted pornography in a manner that violated the
ethical and professional practices adhered to and expected of doulas
and photographers; (2) was a sexual predator acting in a manner
that, and thereby, violated the ethical and professional practices of
doulas and photographers and also violated criminal statutes; (3)
enticed others to participate in pornography because of the possibility
of financial gain and plaintiff did so in a manner that violated the
ethical and professional practices adhered to and expected of doulas
and photographers; (4) strongly encouraged pregnant women and
others to become involved in selling pornography in a manner that
violated the ethical and professional practices adhered to and
expected of doulas and photographers; (5) was dishonest in his
practice as a doula for plaintiff’s sexual gratification, financial gain
and self-interest; (6) deceived the public in his practice as a doula for
plaintiff’s sexual gratification, financial gain and self-interest; (7) was
unethical in his practice as a doula in a manner that, and thereby,
violated the ethical and professional practices of doulas; (8) was
dishonest in his profession as photographer in a manner that, and
thereby, violated the ethical and professional practices of
photographers; (9) was deceptive in his profession as a photographer
for plaintiff’s sexual gratification, financial gain and self-interest; and
(10) was unethical in his profession as a photographer in a manner
that, and thereby, violated the ethical and professional practices of
87

Fourth Amended Complaint and
Demand for Jury Trial

 Case 1:18-cv-00364-LEK-KJM Document 74 Filed 05/08/19 Page 88 of 108
1192

PageID #:

photographers.
222. Defendants’ defamatory statements were not privileged and plaintiff
did not consent to the publication of the defamatory statements.
Plaintiff, in fact, implored defendants to stop the publication of the
defamatory statements.
223. Prior to publishing the defamatory statements, defendants knew and
otherwise were fully aware that the defamatory statements were not
true.
224. Prior to publishing the defamatory statements, defendants acted in
reckless disregard for the truth in the defamatory statements by not
conducting any diligence, inquiry and investigation as to whether or
not the defamatory statements were true or false.
225. Prior to publishing the defamatory statements, defendants failed use
reasonable care to determine the truth or falsity in the defamatory
statements by not conducting reasonable diligence, inquiry and
investigation as to whether or not the defamatory statements were
true or false.
226. The hundreds to thousands of person who did read defendants’
defamatory statements on Facebook and other social media websites
understood that the defamatory statements to be of and concerning
plaintiff and were understood by the hundreds to thousands of
persons to mean that plaintiff (1) furthered and promoted
pornography in a manner that violated the ethical and professional
practices adhered to and expected of doulas and photographers; (2)
was a sexual predator acting in a manner that, and thereby, violated
the ethical and professional practices of doulas and photographers
and also violated criminal statutes; (3) enticed others to participate in
pornography because of the possibility of financial gain and plaintiff
88

Fourth Amended Complaint and
Demand for Jury Trial

 Case 1:18-cv-00364-LEK-KJM Document 74 Filed 05/08/19 Page 89 of 108
1193

PageID #:

did so in a manner that violated the ethical and professional practices
adhered to and expected of doulas and photographers; (4) strongly
encouraged pregnant women and others to become involved in
selling pornography in a manner that violated the ethical and
professional practices adhered to and expected of doulas and
photographers; (5) was dishonest in his practice as a doula for
plaintiff’s sexual gratification, financial gain and self-interest; (6)
deceived the public in his practice as a doula for plaintiff’s sexual
gratification, financial gain and self-interest; (7) was unethical in his
practice as a doula in a manner that, and thereby, violated the ethical
and professional practices of doulas; (8) was dishonest in his
profession as photographer in a manner that, and thereby, violated
the ethical and professional practices of photographers; (9) was
deceptive in his profession as a photographer for plaintiff’s sexual
gratification, financial gain and self-interest; and (10) was unethical in
his profession as a photographer in a manner that, and thereby,
violated the ethical and professional practices of photographers.
227. Because of the facts and circumstances that were known to the
hundreds to thousands of readers of the defamatory statements,
including that plaintiff was a professionally practicing doula and
photographer in Hawai’i,
(1)The defamatory statements tended to injure plaintiff in his
occupations as a doula and photographer, and otherwise injure
plaintiff whether or not plaintiff was a doula or photographer;
(2)The defamatory statements exposed plaintiff to hatred, contempt,
ridicule, and shame by (1) persons residing in Hawai’i; (2) persons
involved and interested in the doula community and matters
concerning doula; (3) persons who were involved and interested in
89

Fourth Amended Complaint and
Demand for Jury Trial

 Case 1:18-cv-00364-LEK-KJM Document 74 Filed 05/08/19 Page 90 of 108
1194

PageID #:

photography; and (4) those persons using the world-wide-web
interested in plaintiff, doulas and/or photography; and
(3)The defamatory statements discouraged others from associating
or dealing with plaintiff.
228. Defendants knew that the listeners and readers of the defamatory
statements would be compelled to republish the defamatory
statements to others by word of mouth, electronic communication and
through social media websites and the persons who did hear and did
read the defamatory statements did republish the defamatory
statements to others.
229. Defendants’ defamatory statements caused plaintiff to lose
employment and income.
230. Defendants’ defamatory statements caused plaintiff’s Hawaiian and
virtual community to shun him, avoid him and hate him and further
caused plaintiff’s Hawaiian and virtual community to stop being his
friend, stop following him, or otherwise end any, and all, connection
and association to plaintiff.
231. Plaintiff’s personal and professional reputation was harmed as a
result of defendants’ defamatory statements and such reputation is
continuing to be harmed because defendants continue to make the
same defamatory statements as described and continue to permit the
defamatory statements to go viral on social media websites.
232. Plaintiff sustained reputational and financial harm to his businesses,
professions and occupations as a result of the defamatory
statements.
233. Plaintiff was damaged as set forth below and as follows,
WHEREFORE plaintiff prays that this court grant relief in
compensatory damages against each defendant and in favor of plaintiff in
90

Fourth Amended Complaint and
Demand for Jury Trial

 Case 1:18-cv-00364-LEK-KJM Document 74 Filed 05/08/19 Page 91 of 108
1195

PageID #:

the amount of $5,000.000.00, for an order retracting and correcting the
defamatory statements, for equitable relief based on principles that are fair
and just, and for judgment as also set forth below.
III.CLAIM III
(Trade Libel against all defendants and Does 1 through 10)
234. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 233 as
though fully set forth herein.
235. Defendants made and published the defamatory statements as
specifically described above, which among other things falsely
accused plaintiff of committing rendering unprofessional and
substandard services as a doula and photographer using the services
to violated plaintiff’s clients’ rights.
236. All defendants used at least Facebook to write, and thereby publish,
the defamatory statements described above and incorporated by
reference herein, which included, that plaintiff (1) furthered and
promoted pornography in a manner that violated the ethical and
professional practices adhered to and expected of doulas and
photographers; (2) was a sexual predator acting in a manner that,
and thereby, violated the ethical and professional practices of doulas
and photographers and also violated criminal statutes; (3) enticed
others to participate in pornography because of the possibility of
financial gain and plaintiff did so in a manner that violated the ethical
and professional practices adhered to and expected of doulas and
photographers; (4) strongly encouraged pregnant women and others
to become involved in selling pornography in a manner that violated
the ethical and professional practices adhered to and expected of
doulas and photographers; (5) was dishonest in his practice as a
doula for plaintiff’s sexual gratification, financial gain and self-interest;
91

Fourth Amended Complaint and
Demand for Jury Trial

 Case 1:18-cv-00364-LEK-KJM Document 74 Filed 05/08/19 Page 92 of 108
1196

PageID #:

(6) deceived the public in his practice as a doula for plaintiff’s sexual
gratification, financial gain and self-interest; (7) was unethical in his
practice as a doula in a manner that, and thereby, violated the ethical
and professional practices of doulas; (8) was dishonest in his
profession as photographer in a manner that, and thereby, violated
the ethical and professional practices of photographers; (9) was
deceptive in his profession as a photographer for plaintiff’s sexual
gratification, financial gain and self-interest; and (10) was unethical in
his profession as a photographer in a manner that, and thereby,
violated the ethical and professional practices of photographers.
237. All defendants did use other social media websites to write, and
thereby publish, the defamatory statements described above and
incorporated by reference herein.
238. Prior to publishing their defamatory statements, all defendants were
fully aware that Facebook and the other social media websites used
to publish defendants’ defamatory statements described above and
incorporated by reference herein had members and subscribers
located worldwide.
239. Prior to publishing their defamatory statements, all defendants were
fully aware that Facebook had a membership of approximately two
billion persons and that by publishing their defamatory statements,
the defamatory statements would be read by hundreds to thousands
of Facebook’s membership.
240. Prior to publishing their defamatory statements, all defendants were
fully aware that publishing the defamatory statements described
above and incorporated by reference herein would reach the eyes
and ears of at least hundreds to thousands of persons, and that after
defendants did publish the defamatory statements described above
92

Fourth Amended Complaint and
Demand for Jury Trial

 Case 1:18-cv-00364-LEK-KJM Document 74 Filed 05/08/19 Page 93 of 108
1197

PageID #:

and incorporated by reference herein that the published defamatory
statements did reach the eyes and ears of at least hundreds to
thousands of persons.
241. All defendants published the defamatory statements described above
and incorporated by reference herein fully aware that plaintiff lived in
Hawai’i and that plaintiff was a professionally practicing doula and
photographer in the state of Hawai’i.
242. All defendants were fully aware that Defendants defamatory
statements described above and incorporated by reference herein
would cause a negative effect on plaintiff professionally practicing as
a doula and photographer, i.e., defendants intended that their
defamatory statements would prevent plaintiff from professionally
practicing as a doula and photographer. In addition, defendants were
fully aware that because of their defamatory statements, plaintiff’s
reputation would be damaged in the community in Hawai’i and the
virtual community located in the world-wide-web.
243. It was, is, and has always been, untrue, and false, that plaintiff (1)
furthered and promoted pornography in a manner that violated the
ethical and professional practices adhered to and expected of doulas
and photographers; (2) was a sexual predator acting in a manner
that, and thereby, violated the ethical and professional practices of
doulas and photographers and also violated criminal statutes; (3)
enticed others to participate in pornography because of the possibility
of financial gain and plaintiff did so in a manner that violated the
ethical and professional practices adhered to and expected of doulas
and photographers; (4) strongly encouraged pregnant women and
others to become involved in selling pornography in a manner that
violated the ethical and professional practices adhered to and
93

Fourth Amended Complaint and
Demand for Jury Trial

 Case 1:18-cv-00364-LEK-KJM Document 74 Filed 05/08/19 Page 94 of 108
1198

PageID #:

expected of doulas and photographers; (5) was dishonest in his
practice as a doula for plaintiff’s sexual gratification, financial gain
and self-interest; (6) deceived the public in his practice as a doula for
plaintiff’s sexual gratification, financial gain and self-interest; (7) was
unethical in his practice as a doula in a manner that, and thereby,
violated the ethical and professional practices of doulas; (8) was
dishonest in his profession as photographer in a manner that, and
thereby, violated the ethical and professional practices of
photographers; (9) was deceptive in his profession as a photographer
for plaintiff’s sexual gratification, financial gain and self-interest; and
(10) was unethical in his profession as a photographer in a manner
that, and thereby, violated the ethical and professional practices of
photographers.
244. Defendants’ defamatory statements were not privileged and plaintiff
did not consent to the publication of the defamatory statements.
Plaintiff, in fact, implored defendants to stop the publication of the
defamatory statements.
245. Prior to publishing the defamatory statements, defendants knew and
otherwise were fully aware that the defamatory statements were not
true.
246. Prior to publishing the defamatory statements, defendants acted in
reckless disregard for the truth in the defamatory statements by not
conducting any diligence, inquiry and investigation as to whether or
not the defamatory statements were true or false.
247. Prior to publishing the defamatory statements, defendants failed use
reasonable care to determine the truth or falsity in the defamatory
statements by not conducting reasonable diligence, inquiry and
investigation as to whether or not the defamatory statements were
94

Fourth Amended Complaint and
Demand for Jury Trial

 Case 1:18-cv-00364-LEK-KJM Document 74 Filed 05/08/19 Page 95 of 108
1199

PageID #:

true or false.
248. The hundreds to thousands of person who did read defendants’
defamatory statements on Facebook and other social media websites
understood that the defamatory statements to be of and concerning
plaintiff and were understood by the hundreds to thousands of
persons to mean that plaintiff (1) furthered and promoted
pornography in a manner that violated the ethical and professional
practices adhered to and expected of doulas and photographers; (2)
was a sexual predator acting in a manner that, and thereby, violated
the ethical and professional practices of doulas and photographers
and also violated criminal statutes; (3) enticed others to participate in
pornography because of the possibility of financial gain and plaintiff
did so in a manner that violated the ethical and professional practices
adhered to and expected of doulas and photographers; (4) strongly
encouraged pregnant women and others to become involved in
selling pornography in a manner that violated the ethical and
professional practices adhered to and expected of doulas and
photographers; (5) was dishonest in his practice as a doula for
plaintiff’s sexual gratification, financial gain and self-interest; (6)
deceived the public in his practice as a doula for plaintiff’s sexual
gratification, financial gain and self-interest; (7) was unethical in his
practice as a doula in a manner that, and thereby, violated the ethical
and professional practices of doulas; (8) was dishonest in his
profession as photographer in a manner that, and thereby, violated
the ethical and professional practices of photographers; (9) was
deceptive in his profession as a photographer for plaintiff’s sexual
gratification, financial gain and self-interest; and (10) was unethical in
his profession as a photographer in a manner that, and thereby,
95

Fourth Amended Complaint and
Demand for Jury Trial

 Case 1:18-cv-00364-LEK-KJM Document 74 Filed 05/08/19 Page 96 of 108
1200

PageID #:

violated the ethical and professional practices of photographers.
249. Because of the facts and circumstances that were known to the
hundreds to thousands of readers of the defamatory statements,
including that plaintiff was a professionally practicing doula and
photographer in Hawai’i,
(1)The defamatory statements tended to injure plaintiff in his
occupations as a doula and photographer, and otherwise injure
plaintiff whether or not plaintiff was a doula or photographer;
(2)The defamatory statements exposed plaintiff to hatred, contempt,
ridicule, and shame by (1) persons residing in Hawai’i; (2) persons
involved and interested in the doula community and matters
concerning doula; (3) persons who were involved and interested in
photography; and (4) those persons using the world-wide-web
interested in plaintiff, doulas and/or photography; and
(3)The defamatory statements discouraged others from associating
or dealing with plaintiff.
250. Defendants knew that the listeners and readers of the defamatory
statements would be compelled to republish the defamatory
statements to others by word of mouth, electronic communication and
through social media websites and the persons who did hear and did
read the defamatory statements did republish the defamatory
statements to others.
251. Defendants’ defamatory statements caused plaintiff to lose
employment and income.
252. Defendants’ defamatory statements caused plaintiff’s Hawaiian and
virtual community to shun him, avoid him and hate him and further
caused plaintiff’s Hawaiian and virtual community to stop being his
friend, stop following him, or otherwise end any, and all, connection
96

Fourth Amended Complaint and
Demand for Jury Trial

 Case 1:18-cv-00364-LEK-KJM Document 74 Filed 05/08/19 Page 97 of 108
1201

PageID #:

and association to plaintiff.
253. Defendants knew that their defamatory statements would cause
plaintiff’s potential clients, clients, and other persons involved in the
professional doula and professional photography community, would
rely on the defendants’ defamatory statements and cause financial
loss to plaintiff.
254. Plaintiff sustained harm to his businesses, professions and
occupations as a result of the defamatory statements.
255. Plaintiff sustained financial harm because plaintiff’s potential clients,
clients, and other persons involved in the professional doula and
professional photography community, did rely on defendants’
defamatory statements.
256. In reliance on defendants’ defamatory statements, plaintiff’s potential
clients, clients, and other persons involved in the professional doula
and professional photography community did shun and disassociate
themselves from plaintiff that was a substantial factor in plaintiff’s
financial harm.
257. Plaintiff was damaged as set forth below and as follows,
WHEREFORE plaintiff prays that this court grant relief in
compensatory damages against each defendant and in favor of plaintiff in
the amount of $5,000.000.00, for an order retracting and correcting the
defamatory statements, for equitable relief based on principles that are fair
and just, and for judgment as also set forth below.
IV.CLAIM IV
(False Light against all defendants and Does 1 through 10)
258. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 257 as
though fully set forth herein.
259. Defendants published the defamatory statements as specifically
97

Fourth Amended Complaint and
Demand for Jury Trial

 Case 1:18-cv-00364-LEK-KJM Document 74 Filed 05/08/19 Page 98 of 108
1202

PageID #:

described above and incorporated herein and the statements showed
plaintiff in a false light.
260. The false light was highly offensive to a reasonable person in
plaintiff’s position.
261. Defendants knew that the publication of the defamatory statements
would create a false impression that plaintiff, (1) furthered and
promoted pornography in a manner that violated the ethical and
professional practices adhered to and expected of doulas and
photographers; (2) was a sexual predator acting in a manner that,
and thereby, violated the ethical and professional practices of doulas
and photographers and also violated criminal statutes; (3) enticed
others to participate in pornography because of the possibility of
financial gain and plaintiff did so in a manner that violated the ethical
and professional practices adhered to and expected of doulas and
photographers; (4) strongly encouraged pregnant women and others
to become involved in selling pornography in a manner that violated
the ethical and professional practices adhered to and expected of
doulas and photographers; (5) was dishonest in his practice as a
doula for plaintiff’s sexual gratification, financial gain and self-interest;
(6) deceived the public in his practice as a doula for plaintiff’s sexual
gratification, financial gain and self-interest; (7) was unethical in his
practice as a doula in a manner that, and thereby, violated the ethical
and professional practices of doulas; (8) was dishonest in his
profession as photographer in a manner that, and thereby, violated
the ethical and professional practices of photographers; (9) was
deceptive in his profession as a photographer for plaintiff’s sexual
gratification, financial gain and self-interest; and (10) was unethical in
his profession as a photographer in a manner that, and thereby,
98

Fourth Amended Complaint and
Demand for Jury Trial

 Case 1:18-cv-00364-LEK-KJM Document 74 Filed 05/08/19 Page 99 of 108
1203

PageID #:

violated the ethical and professional practices of photographers.
262. Defendants’ defamatory statements were not privileged and plaintiff
did not consent to the publication of the defamatory statements.
Plaintiff, in fact, implored defendants to stop the publication of the
defamatory statements.
263. Prior to publishing the defamatory statements, defendants knew that
publishing the defamatory statements would create a false
impression about plaintiff.
264. Prior to publishing the defamatory statements, defendants acted in
reckless disregard for the truth in the defamatory statements by not
conducting any diligence, inquiry and investigation as to whether or
not the defamatory statements were true or false.
265. Prior to publishing the defamatory statements, defendants failed use
reasonable care to determine the truth or falsity in the defamatory
statements by not conducting reasonable diligence, inquiry and
investigation as to whether or not the defamatory statements were
true or false.
266. Plaintiff sustained reputational and financial harm as result of
defendants’ publication of the defamatory statements.
WHEREFORE plaintiff requests that this court grant relief in
compensatory damages against each defendant and in favor of plaintiff in
the amount of $5,000.000.00, for an order retracting and correcting the
defamatory statements and any equitable relief based on principles that are
fair and just.
V.CLAIM V
(Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress against all defendants and Does
1 through 10)
267. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 266 as
99

Fourth Amended Complaint and
Demand for Jury Trial

 Case 1:18-cv-00364-LEK-KJM Document 74 Filed 05/08/19 Page 100 of 108
1204

PageID #:

though fully set forth herein.
268. Defendants published the defamatory statements as specifically
described above and incorporated herein.
269. Defendants’ conduct was outrageous.
270. Defendants’ conduct was intended by each of the defendants, or
carried out in reckless disregard, to cause plaintiff emotional distress.
271. Plaintiff suffered severe emotional distress.
272. Defendants’ conduct was a substantial factor in causing plaintiff’s
emotional distress.
273. WHEREFORE plaintiff prays that this court grant relief in
compensatory damages against each defendant and in favor of
plaintiff in the amount of $5,000.000.00, for an order retracting and
correcting the defamatory statements, for equitable relief based on
principles that are fair and just, and for judgment as also set forth
below.
VI.CLAIM VI
(Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress against all defendants and Does
1 through 10)
274. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 273 as
though fully set forth herein.
275. Defendants published the defamatory statements as specifically
described above and incorporated herein.
276. Prior to publishing the defamatory statements, defendants failed use
reasonable care to determine the truth or falsity in the defamatory
statements by not conducting reasonable diligence, inquiry and
investigation as to whether or not the defamatory statements were
true or false.
277. Defendants were negligent.
100

Fourth Amended Complaint and
Demand for Jury Trial

 Case 1:18-cv-00364-LEK-KJM Document 74 Filed 05/08/19 Page 101 of 108
1205

PageID #:

278. Plaintiff suffered severe emotional distress.
279. Defendants’ negligent conduct was a substantial factor in causing
plaintiff’s emotional distress.
WHEREFORE plaintiff prays that this court grant relief in
compensatory damages against each defendant and in favor of plaintiff in
the amount of $5,000.000.00, for an order retracting and correcting the
defamatory statements, for equitable relief based on principles that are fair
and just, and for judgment as also set forth below.
VII.CLAIM VII
(Injunctive Relief - against all defendants and Does 1 through 10)
280. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 279 as
though fully set forth herein.
281. Defendants have caused irreparable harm to plaintiff’s businesses, in
reputation, in income, in the goodwill in the businesses that no
amount of damages could adequately compensate plaintiff for injuries
he sustained, is sustaining and will sustain, because defendants
defamatory statements continue to be posted on internet websites
such as Facebook, and defendants continue to assert that the
statements are true thereby destroying plaintiff’s reputation and
business in an ongoing and continuous manner.
282. Defendants continue to publish the defamatory statements on social
media making it impossible for plaintiff to practice as a doula and a
professional photographer and thus limiting plaintiff’s income, making
the harm ongoing.
283. Defendants’ conduct is a substantial factor in plaintiff’s ongoing harm.
284. Plaintiff prays this court for an order enjoining defendants, and each
of them, from making and publishing any, and all, defamatory
statements that accuse plaintiff of (1) furthering and promoting
101

Fourth Amended Complaint and
Demand for Jury Trial

 Case 1:18-cv-00364-LEK-KJM Document 74 Filed 05/08/19 Page 102 of 108
1206

PageID #:

pornography in a manner that violated the ethical and professional
practices adhered to and expected of doulas and photographers; (2)
being a sexual predator, acting in a manner that, and thereby,
violated the ethical and professional practices of doulas and
photographers and also violated criminal statutes; (3) enticing others
to participate in pornography because of the possibility of financial
gain and plaintiff did so in a manner that violated the ethical and
professional practices adhered to and expected of doulas and
photographers; (4) encouraging pregnant women and others to
become involved in selling pornography in a manner that violated the
ethical and professional practices adhered to and expected of doulas
and photographers; (5) dishonesty in his practice as a doula for
plaintiff’s sexual gratification, financial gain and self-interest; (6)
deceiving the public in his practice as a doula for plaintiff’s sexual
gratification, financial gain and self-interest; (7) being unethical in his
practice as a doula in a manner that, and thereby, violated the ethical
and professional practices of doulas; (8) dishonesty in his profession
as photographer in a manner that, and thereby, violated the ethical
and professional practices of photographers; (9) deception in his
profession as a photographer for plaintiff’s sexual gratification,
financial gain and self-interest; and (10) unethical conduct in his
profession as a photographer in a manner that, and thereby, violated
the ethical and professional practices of photographers.
285. Plaintiff prays this court for an injunction ordering defendants, and
each of them, to retract the defamatory statements and to take the
defamatory statements down from the websites in which the
statements were made and published, specifically defendants should
retract and take down any, and all, defamatory statements made and
102

Fourth Amended Complaint and
Demand for Jury Trial

 Case 1:18-cv-00364-LEK-KJM Document 74 Filed 05/08/19 Page 103 of 108
1207

PageID #:

published by defendants that accuse plaintiff of (1) furthering and
promoting pornography in a manner that violated the ethical and
professional practices adhered to and expected of doulas and
photographers; (2) being a sexual predator, acting in a manner that,
and thereby, violated the ethical and professional practices of doulas
and photographers and also violated criminal statutes; (3) enticing
others to participate in pornography because of the possibility of
financial gain and plaintiff did so in a manner that violated the ethical
and professional practices adhered to and expected of doulas and
photographers; (4) encouraging pregnant women and others to
become involved in selling pornography in a manner that violated the
ethical and professional practices adhered to and expected of doulas
and photographers; (5) dishonesty in his practice as a doula for
plaintiff’s sexual gratification, financial gain and self-interest; (6)
deceiving the public in his practice as a doula for plaintiff’s sexual
gratification, financial gain and self-interest; (7) being unethical in his
practice as a doula in a manner that, and thereby, violated the ethical
and professional practices of doulas; (8) dishonesty in his profession
as photographer in a manner that, and thereby, violated the ethical
and professional practices of photographers; (9) deception in his
profession as a photographer for plaintiff’s sexual gratification,
financial gain and self-interest; and (10) unethical conduct in his
profession as a photographer in a manner that, and thereby, violated
the ethical and professional practices of photographers.
VIII.CLAIM VIII
(Declaratory Relief against Defendant and Does 1 through 10)
286. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 285 as
though fully set forth herein.
103

Fourth Amended Complaint and
Demand for Jury Trial

 Case 1:18-cv-00364-LEK-KJM Document 74 Filed 05/08/19 Page 104 of 108
1208

PageID #:

287. So that plaintiff may present to social media websites that the herein
defamatory statements violate the terms and conditions of social
media websites, if they do, regarding publication of false and
defamatory statements that tend to harass and harm other persons,
plaintiff prays that this this court to declare as false accusations of
plaintiff (1) furthering and promoting pornography in a manner that
violated the ethical and professional practices adhered to and
expected of doulas and photographers; (2) being a sexual predator,
acting in a manner that, and thereby, violated the ethical and
professional practices of doulas and photographers and also violated
criminal statutes; (3) enticing others to participate in pornography
because of the possibility of financial gain and plaintiff did so in a
manner that violated the ethical and professional practices adhered to
and expected of doulas and photographers; (4) encouraging pregnant
women and others to become involved in selling pornography in a
manner that violated the ethical and professional practices adhered to
and expected of doulas and photographers; (5) dishonesty in his
practice as a doula for plaintiff’s sexual gratification, financial gain
and self-interest; (6) deceiving the public in his practice as a doula for
plaintiff’s sexual gratification, financial gain and self-interest; (7) being
unethical in his practice as a doula in a manner that, and thereby,
violated the ethical and professional practices of doulas; (8)
dishonesty in his profession as photographer in a manner that, and
thereby, violated the ethical and professional practices of
photographers; (9) deception in his profession as a photographer for
plaintiff’s sexual gratification, financial gain and self-interest; and (10)
unethical conduct in his profession as a photographer in a manner
that, and thereby, violated the ethical and professional practices of
104

Fourth Amended Complaint and
Demand for Jury Trial

 Case 1:18-cv-00364-LEK-KJM Document 74 Filed 05/08/19 Page 105 of 108
1209

PageID #:

photographers.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays for judgment as set forth below.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Plaintiff, DANNY GALLAGHER, prays as to the first through eighth
claims:
1.

Award plaintiff $100,000.00 in economic damages as to each
defendant;

2.

Award plaintiff $5,000,000.00 as to each defendant in non-economic
damages.

3.

Order and an injunction permanently restraining and enjoining
defendants as set forth in the Seventh Claim including:

a. Preventing defendants from making and publishing the defamatory
statements or any iteration of the defamatory statements as set forth
above and herein;
b. Ordering defendants to retract the defamatory statements as set forth
above and herein;
c. Ordering defendants to direct any, and all, websites that defendants
posted the defamatory statements as set forth above and herein, to
delete he defamatory statements;
4.

Award plaintiff his actual damages;

5.

Award plaintiff his costs, attorneys fees, investigatory fees and
expenses to the fullest extent provided by law;

6.

Award punitive and exemplary damages against defendant and in
favor of plaintiff in the sum of $10,000,000.00 by reason of
defendants’, and each of them, malice, hatred, ill-will, despicable and
intentional acts.

7.

Awarding plaintiff such additional and further relief as the Court
deems just and proper.
105

Fourth Amended Complaint and
Demand for Jury Trial

 Case 1:18-cv-00364-LEK-KJM Document 74 Filed 05/08/19 Page 106 of 108
1210

PageID #:

Dated: Honolulu, Hawai’i May 07, 2019
UTZURRUM LAW OFFICES, A.P.C.

By:

/s/ Joe Utzurrum

Joe Utzurrum, Attorney for plaintiff, DANNY
GALLAGHER

106

Fourth Amended Complaint and
Demand for Jury Trial

 Case 1:18-cv-00364-LEK-KJM Document 74 Filed 05/08/19 Page 107 of 108
1211

PageID #:

UTZURRUM LAW OFFICES, A.P.C.
Joe Utzurrum, Esq.
9834
7 Waterfront Plaza
500 Ala Moana Boulevard, Suite 400
Honolulu, Hawai’i 96813
Tele 808.587.7070
Email joe@ulawoffices.com
11620 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 900
Los Angeles, California 90025
Tele 310.887.1837
Attorneys for Plaintiff, DANNY
GALLAGHER

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII

DANNY GALLAGHER,

) CIVIL NO.: 1:18-cv-364-LEK-KJM
)
Plaintiff,
) DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
)
vs.
)
)
MATERNITYWISE INTERNATIONAL )
LLC, ANNE CROUDACE, JANE
)
HOPAKI, EMILEE SALDAYA,
)
RACHAEL AUGHENBAUGH,
)
JENNIFER CHIDESTER,
)
STEPHANIE BYERS, BETHANY
)
KIRILLOV, SAMANTHA LAJOIE,
)
AERIN LUND, KATE PAVLOVSKY,
)
CHANNA JAYDE WALZ, MADISON )
SISLEY BOULTER, ESME
)
WHRITENOUR, ADRIANNA
)
BROOKS, NICOLETTE RAYMOND, )
107

Fourth Amended Complaint and
Demand for Jury Trial

 Case 1:18-cv-00364-LEK-KJM Document 74 Filed 05/08/19 Page 108 of 108
1212

JULIE BELL, CARA GWIZD, HOLLY
LEPPARD-WESTHAVER, ELOISE
VICTORIA, VIVIAN CHAU BEST,
JANE DOE ONE, JANE DOE
THREE, and DOES 1-10, inclusive,
Defendants.

PageID #:

)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff, DANNY GALLAGHER, hereby, by and through its counsel of
record, request and demand that the case and matters therein be tried in
front of a jury.
Dated: Honolulu, Hawai’i May 07, 2019
UTZURRUM LAW OFFICES, A.P.C.

By:
/s/ Joe Utzurrum
Joe Utzurrum, Attorney for plaintiff, DANNY
GALLAGHER

108

Fourth Amended Complaint and
Demand for Jury Trial