Law&Crime Sidebar - Mississippi Ex-Trooper Shared Secret Sex Tape with Colleagues: Lawsuit

Episode Date: June 10, 2024

A woman in Mississippi claims that Ivana Williams, who was working for Mississippi Highway Patrol at the time, assaulted her when she was too inebriated to consent. Williams also allegedly filmed the sexual encounter. According to the lawsuit, Williams told the woman her face could not be seen in the video and refused to delete it. Williams has countered the lawsuit by saying she filmed the encounter with the woman’s permission and that the other woman was the aggressor. Law&Crime’s Jesse Weber has both sides of the story from a federal lawsuit.PLEASE SUPPORT THE SHOW:" If you’re ever injured in an accident, you can check out Morgan & Morgan. You can submit a claim in 8 clicks or less without having to leave your couch. To start your claim, visit: https://www.forthepeople.com/LCSidebarHOST:Jesse Weber: https://twitter.com/jessecordweberLAW&CRIME SIDEBAR PRODUCTION:YouTube Management - Bobby SzokeVideo Editing - Michael DeiningerScript Writing & Producing - Savannah WilliamsonGuest Booking - Alyssa Fisher & Diane KayeSocial Media Management - Vanessa BeinSTAY UP-TO-DATE WITH THE LAW&CRIME NETWORK:Watch Law&Crime Network on YouTubeTV: https://bit.ly/3td2e3yWhere To Watch Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3akxLK5Sign Up For Law&Crime's Daily Newsletter: https://bit.ly/LawandCrimeNewsletterRead Fascinating Articles From Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3td2IqoLAW&CRIME NETWORK SOCIAL MEDIA:Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lawandcrime/Twitter: https://twitter.com/LawCrimeNetworkFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/lawandcrimeTwitch: https://www.twitch.tv/lawandcrimenetworkTikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@lawandcrimeSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Wondery Plus subscribers can binge all episodes of this Law and Crimes series ad-free right now. Join Wondry Plus in the Wondery app Apple Podcasts or Spotify. Agent Nate Russo returns in Oracle 3, Murder at the Grandview, the latest installment of the gripping Audible Original series. When a reunion at an abandoned island hotel turns deadly, Russo must untangle accident from murder. But beware, something sinister lurks in the grand. View Shadows. Joshua Jackson delivers a bone-chilling performance in this supernatural thriller that will

keep you on the edge of your seat. Don't let your fears take hold of you as you dive into this addictive series. Love thrillers with a paranormal twist? The entire Oracle trilogy is available on Audible. Listen now on Audible. I have told you all that I am innocent and I can't wait until court to prove my innocence. It is a sex scandal that has rocked Mississippi. A state trooper fired after she allegedly sent a sex tape of her and another woman to other officers on the force. Well, now she's fighting back against allegations in a civil lawsuit with a lawsuit of her own. We're breaking it all down with Perry Falik, civil litigation attorney from the Morelli law firm. Welcome to Sidebar, presented by Law and Crime.

I'm Jesse Weber. Former Mississippi State Trooper Ivana Williams is finding herself in the middle of an intense court battle. You see earlier this year, another woman claimed in a lawsuit that Williams had an unconsensual sexual encounter with her and filmed it. And not only that, but this Jane Doe will refer her as Jane Doe, Jane Doe says Williams sent it to Williams' then-boyfriend Brad McClendon. And we're going to have more on that later because he too is named in this lawsuit. Now, when that lawsuit was filed, the Mississippi Highway Patrol, or MHP, opened an internal investigation, and they ended up firing Williams and listed several allegations against her in a disciplinary letter. Colonel Charles Haynes accused Williams of unprofessional conduct and misuse of state property. He claimed, in addition to the allegation that she shared that video of herself and Jane Doe, Williams also allegedly sent illicit photos of herself to several master sergeants.

at MHP and even visited porn sites on her state-issued foam. Now, Williams believes that her firing was retaliatory and discriminatory, and she has been fighting to get her job back. She claims that she was transferred by MHP to another county more than 100 miles away from her children, and that this was improper. And as for the accusations of porn and illicit photos, she claimed there were plenty of male troopers that did that, and they weren't getting fired for it. So we're going to dive into these legal particulars and to help me do that.

I want to bring on civil attorney Perry Falik of the Morelli law firm. Perry, so good to see you. Good to see you. Yeah, good to see you. A lot to talk about. Can I just start with that last part that she says that one of the things that makes her firing discriminatory was because there were other male troopers that allegedly did this.

In fact, she claims she has knowledge that a master sergeant has a video of him having sex with someone and it's on the state-issued phone. I thought that was an interesting defense. Yeah, it's interesting. I think, though, she's kind of missing the point that it's not a one-for-one. She's not even claiming the exact same allegations against her. And obviously, the most serious of the allegations against her are what's being alleged by the Jane Doe in the website that she took a non-consensual video of her, you know,

having intimate relations with Jane Doe and then distributed to at least one other person, McClend and the other defended. So in addition to that, she sent nude photos of herself to other colleagues and visited porn sites on the phone. So they basically called her out for a third strike, and the third strike being the most severe. So while there may be other allegations of similar type conduct, I don't think she makes the claim that anybody, any of her other male colleagues distributed images of another person around that weren't consensual.

I mean, again, if the allegation were true that you had state troopers film and stuff on state-issued phones, problematic, but I hear what you're saying. Okay, so now I want to go through some of these legal documents with you, because I think it's absolutely fascinating. So, back to Jane Doe. She files her lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, and the suit lays out what she claims happened in 2022 and the damages that she's seeking. So the filing states, quote, the two were friends in business. colleagues prior to this dinner. Plaintiff had several drinks at dinner and became intoxicated. The two went back to Ivana Williams' home, where plaintiff has some recollection of the events? Plaintiff became aware a sexual encounter took place. She could not remember everything

that happened. Plaintiff had never been with a female before, nor had any interest in being with a female. No other sexual activity took place with Williams before or after this one night. Jane Doe in the filing continues. a phone in Williams' hand that night. Plaintiff asked Williams the following morning if she recorded anything that took place. Williams replied that she did indeed record sex between the two of them. Plaintiff told her to delete the video. Williams falsely told plaintiff she had nothing to worry about as her face was not in the video.

And Jane Doe continues that while she asked Williams to delete the phone, she allegedly refused to do so. And then she discovered that the video hadn't been deleted on Earth. about May 3rd, 2023. Let's stop it right there. Perry, your thoughts. Obviously problematic allegations, and at this point, as the judge recently talked about in an order where he denied both motions to dismiss by both defendants, at this point, the court takes all well-pleaded allegations and the complaint is true.

So that's the factual basis we're working with here. But if true, they fit squarely within this federal statute that Jane Doe bought the brought the case under in federal court. There are some allegations, which I thought were interesting, that she brought a separate state court action first before bringing this. And maybe we could get into that later. Yeah, yeah. The allegations here fit squarely within the statute.

So if everything is ultimately proven, I think both defendants are in trouble under this statute and an additional causes of action. Yeah, let's hold that for a second because I'm going to get into it when we talk about the response or former. Trooper Williams. So this is where things do get a little messy, a little complicated here. So according to the complaint from Jane Doe, it seems Brad McClendon was dating Ivana Williams at this time. They were both state troopers, but McClendon was apparently married. Williams casually mentioned to Jane Doe that McClendon's wife had seen the video in her

husband's email, quote, Williams said she sent McClendon the video and that contrary to her earlier claim it indeed included plaintiff's face in said video. Plaintiff listened in a state of shock as she realized video of the non-consensual sex was being passed around the Mississippi Highway Patrol where both defendants worked at the time. The lawsuit says that there was no more contact with Williams after that, but then Jane Doe claims things got worse. Plaintiff is divorced with children. Her ex-husband asked her about a sex tape a month later during a child exchange.

The ex-husband named Williams and said, was talking about it. Shamed by Williams' alleged distribution of the sex tape. The plaintiff rarely leaves the home or socializes in the area. Claims her life has completely changed. So now let's talk about the lawsuit, the end of it, where they talk about a lot of different causes of action and the damages. So there are many causes of action or claims that Jane Doe or her counsel included in

the suit. Violation of the U.S. statute relating to disclosure of intimate images or video. intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, invasion of privacy, defamation, civil battery, civil assault, civil conspiracy, gross negligence, and fraudulent concealment. Perry, that's a lot. Any of those stand out to you? Yeah, as normally in these types of any, actually any complaint that's filed, you kind of lead with your strongest claim or your cause of action.

So the first cause of action here is the under the statute 6851 under the U.S. And that stands out for a couple of reasons. One, because you have to generally prove your damages in these cases, but this statute specifically allows for the greater of the actual damages you prove or liquidated damages of $150,000 plus costs, plus any types of attorney fees or other fees you have associated. So it's almost giving you, if proven, you have a baseline amount of damages of $150,000, and then that could be separate from actual damages you prove in another. claim or another cause of action while normally you can't double recover for the same allegations or same

conduct here there's a scenario whereby you could prove the statutory cause of action get liquidated damages then also improve uh prove additional damages under intentional infliction of emotional distress or defamation or invasion of privacy and be in a title to uh additional damages so that is interesting to me and the statute um is interesting because there's also an uh it's also accounts for injunctive relief which could be destroying the video refraining from distributing it so that is by far to me the most interesting cause of action in this complaint and everybody so i want to thank morgan and morgan for sponsoring this episode of sidebar always love talking about them now here is the incredible thing about morgan and morgan and one of the reasons why i like talking about them so

much hey say something about our big wins uh you're not supposed to come on camera the reason morgan and morgan america's largest personal injury law firm is so big and i'm sure you can guess it is because they win a lot and that's it forget huge verdicts yeah it was they've won big verdicts uh six point eight million dollars in new york 26 million dollars in philadelphia you see the thing about them is they don't settle for low ball and insurance offers from insurance companies, which is something that you can submit a claim from your couch at home and on your phone. Dan, they've completely modernized the process by submitting your claim, talking to your legal

team. It's all done straight from your smartphone. Again, that's something that- If eight clicks, eight clicks or less. Eight clicks or less. Yes. You can see if you have a case in just a few minutes. A thousand lawyers, we have over a thousand lawyers. All right. You know what, Dan? If you really think you can do better, maybe you should just do it yourself. What Jesse was getting at is if you've ever been injured in an accident, you can check out Morgan and Morgan. You can submit a claim in eight clicks or less.

To start your claim, just visit forethepeople.com slash LC sidebar. You came a little too close to me. It hurt me a little bit. I'm probably actually going to have to hire you guys now, but that was well said. That was well said. What about something like defamation, right? So the defendants publishing, what she claims, verbal statements that defame plaintiff, that they knew these statements were false. They showed reckless disregard for the truth of the statements.

They were negligent and failing to ascertain the truth of these statements. I know we talk about how defamation there's a difference between a, you know, a public individual or private individual in terms of the standard. You know, when you're dealing with celebrities, it's kind of harder to prove defamation. But here, you know, it was interesting to have that claim put in there as well. I actually noted. I thought that was interesting as well, kind of for a different reason. I didn't see in any of the underlying facts alleged in the complaint any facts that would actually support the claim for defamation. I didn't see anywhere where Jane Doe alleged that either of the defendant said A, B, and C about her and she was caused injury by it, or they sent an email to someone that said, you know, X, Y, and Z about her, and she was injured that way. So why she included the cause of action, which is, you know, a safe way to go about it. and preserve it. Ultimately, you're going to have to supply facts that support that. And he or she didn't even see, or the plaintiff didn't even seem to have even the most basic facts that she could point to to say, here are the facts that support my defamation claim.

Yeah, I thought that was interesting too. And it was also, you know, fraudulent concealment was basically lying to her face that saying that she wasn't in, her face wasn't in the video and it wasn't distributed. So there's all these different causes of action that they list. And in terms of damages. We talked about a little bit. It says, quote, plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer extreme and permanent emotional distress with physical manifestations, lifelong loss of income, earning capacity, loss of past and future wages, past and future expenses for medical and psychological treatment, loss of enjoyment of life, and other losses to be described and proven a trial for this matter. She's seeking $11 million in relief. You know, that last

part of the complaint where she talks about her life is no longer the same. that's important for the damages component, right? So taking everything is true in this complaint. Does this seem like an $11 million lawsuit? The short answer is no. Look, I don't think to raise the level of damages to $11 million on this type of case would take some, mostly that you're going to get that type of money from business losses, financial losses, to prove $11 million in reputational damage.

maybe someone who's a high-profile celebrity, who gets a lot of endorsement deals or things of that nature, then I could see it. For a private individual like Jane Doe here who was specifically allowed to remain private and remain a Jane Doe because there's no public interest in knowing who she is, I don't want to say, never say never. She's entitled to prove all of her damages throughout the course of litigation and at trial. And she's talking about physical manifestations. She's talking about psychological treatment. She's sought.

And that is all damages she is entitled to recover. But for that to reach $11 million seems pretty far-fetched based on these set of circumstances. And I'd also note that even though she's claimed $11 million in damages here, it doesn't really mean anything. You could ultimately, whatever is proven at trial is ultimately the number. It's a big number and it sounds good. But ultimately, you're entitled to whatever you prove and whatever a jury would award you at the end of a trial. And certain some of those claims like intentional negligent infliction of emotional distress can generate a higher damages award than other ones because if you think about it and you take it all as true, she was in this encounter, it was non-consensual, it was filmed, and it was distributed. I mean, it's a nightmare.

So I can understand why she's suing for this and maybe why she is suing for that much amount. I do have a question, though, about Williams. And this is kind of a broader question in terms of people. people who are, you know, fired or suspended from a job, if this lawsuit, if she wins this lawsuit, Williams, or it's dismissed, we'll get that in a second, or even if there's a settlement, would that affect her ability to get her job back with MHP? I think it all plays into it. Look, they've already terminated her. It seems like she filed an appeal. That's clear. It seems like that appeal is still pending. It'd be hard pressed for me to

see a scenario where she gets this same job back. If she wins her appeal and proves that she was wrongly terminated, that's a different story. But I would be hard pressed to see that the results of this lawsuit affecting her job because they have separate standards, they have their internal rules and regulations and policies. So I would think there would be two different tracks going here. She's going to fight her fight in the appeal and hope to get her job back that way or at least get some type of relief from that. I think ultimately the lawsuit's going to play out separate and apart. I think it may help her, and she wins this lawsuit or gets it dismissed, it may help her get a different job, a future job down the line. But it would be, I think it would be difficult for this to lead to her

getting her job back. So let's talk about her fighting this, because not long after William's attorneys filed a motion to dismiss, an answer that denied all the allegations in the complaint, and she even filed a counterclaim against Jane Doe. So in the motion to dismiss, William says that Jane Doe hasn't relayed a full and true representation of events, that the complaint is frivolous, that there is no mention of where this video is or who it was sent to. So there is a lack of specificity in this complaint. And there's another interesting part where William said, look, Jane Doe, she waited 10 months after this alleged incident to file complaints with the Attorney General and Department

of Public Safety, but she doesn't mention either of those in her complaint. says, quote, Jane Doe does not even relate the filing she made in state court concerning this matter. There have been no findings of any actions by an agency of government against this defendant as to any liability due to those filings. Now, that's interesting, Perry, because she's making arguments that there's a lack of specificity in this initial pleading, that if she finds it interesting, that Jane Doe went to other agencies and doesn't mention it.

The judge, though, denied the motion, and the case is moving forward. what did you make of the arguments and why do you think the judge decided that? Well, first of all, it seems to me that throughout the course of this case, I don't know if Williams has ever actually been represented by counsel. It seems that she's representing herself. The first telltel sign of that is when she filed an answer and her counterclaim, which is proper within there, she inserted her motion to dismiss within the same document and the judge quickly said, that's improper.

You need to file a separate motion to dismiss. The judge also in his order, talks about dismisses her claim about the last lack of specificity. This is a federal claims in federal court require notice pleading. You have to do enough to put the defendant on notice. You don't have to plead every single fact and circumstances. And the judge specifically talks about that you're not required to plead intent. And here, Jane Doe did enough to create a reasonable inference that this was improper, that she didn't want, she didn't consent to the video and didn't she didn't consent to it being shared. So Williams, he doesn't even, the judge actually goes in his order denying both defendants motions to dismiss.

he actually goes piece by piece and argument by argument through McClendon's motion, and then summarily dismisses Williams' argument and says, there's no law here, there's no facts here. And the argument that she waited 10 months, that Jane Doe waited 10 months, it's also dismissed as long as she was within the statute of limitations. And you could also refer from the facts that the reason she waited some time between the actual incident is because she pleads in the facts that she didn't discover that this video was shared until months and months later after the incident. So that would explain that. And the fact

that there was the state court filing, I think Williams is implying that, well, there are some facts to say that she, that Jane Doe used her actual name in the state court filing. And both defendants are arguing here that she shouldn't be allowed to use a pseudonym. But the judge again dismisses that in this case in his order and says, there's no, I'll take that under advisement moving forward. For example, if Jane Doe did a press conference, she did an interview and she starts putting herself out there using her real name, maybe that that would waive her right to use a pseudonym, but under the statute 6851, it specifically contemplates plaintiffs using a pseudonym.

So that's something that, and the judge said he looked at all the cases under that statute and every single time the plaintiff has been allowed to use the pseudonym, and there's a public interest in doing so. And to be clear, just because this case that is moving forward doesn't mean that she'll necessarily win this lawsuit and just to highlight one more thing, especially when you're dealing with cases of, you know, victims of a sexual assault or victims of sexual exploitation, you cannot put the blame on them for not coming forward the next day. Even if she knew about the tape, there's a lot of reasons why people might not come forward.

So that didn't seem like a winning argument. But I am going to ask you about this one. So Williams filed a counterclaim against Jane Dell. And she really ratched up the pressure because and the size of the damages that she's requesting. And I'm going to tell you the story. that Williams recounts is very different from what Jane Doe says. So it says, quote, Plaint of Jane Doe invited Williams to a bar on the night of the alleged incident.

Williams declined due to the fact that she was employed by the Mississippi Highway Patrol and was not placing herself in an establishment for the sole purpose of consuming alcohol. Thereafter, the two agreed to have dinner. The women were joined by two adult males for dinner. The four of them went to another restaurant, then went to the home of one of the men. Then they all traveled to Williams' home. Jane Doe did consume alcohol throughout the evening, but was not inebriated to the point that her body or cognitive abilities were limited. When at the home of Williams, Jane Doe became the aggressor for a sexual encounter with Williams.

Williams agrees to Jane Doe's approach. Jane Doe then agrees the encounter could be recorded on a cell phone. Afterward, Jane Doe gets up, puts on her clothing, but stays for the entire night. The next morning, Jane Doe views the video and allows with her full knowledge and consent, the video could be sent by Williams to one male person. No parties were ever sent the video in question other than the party to which Jane Doe agreed. No persons or entities other than the one which Jane Doe agreed to have been sent any video containing her likeness. After the encounter that is the subject of this filing, Jane Doe continued to travel, communicate,

and have a friendly relationship with Williams to the extent of having photographs taken. Even though Jane Doe now subjects Williams to a potential rape charge and she's filing for intentional negligent infliction of emotional distress, defamation, civil conspiracy, negligence, fraudulent concealment, tortious interference with business relationships. She's suing for $20 million, again, under kind of similar claims as Jane Doe. So many thoughts here, Perry. I mean, it's a complete opposite story. And she's not only negating the harm that Jane Doe claims, but basically saying she was in the driver's seat.

And it also seems like she's saying if this video was destroyed. to anybody at MHP or distributed to anyone outside, presumably her then-boyfriend? That seems like she's putting the blame on the boyfriend. So those are my initial thoughts. What about you? I agree on that last point completely. It seems like if that was proven, if Williams can prove that, and here's where it gets dicey. I don't know how either.

They were both drinking alcohol that night, whether Jane Doe was drinking a lot or a little and whether Williams was drinking a lot or a little. It's a definite, it's a she said, she said argument here. There's no one else who was there at the time besides the two of them, and they were both intoxicated. So ultimately, it's going to be Jane Doe's word versus Williams' word about what Jane Doe consented to, and she admitted she was intoxicated. So she's going to probably argue, I was not conscious enough to consent to anything, and I definitely wouldn't ever have said you could share this video with someone.

Look, Williams is going to tell a different story. And ultimately, if this case moves forward, I'm not sure what the discovery, the evidence is going to be other than what the two of them had to say about that. night maybe the two men they were with earlier could add some insight into the context about the relationship but there's not doesn't seem like there's going to be much else there and look williams makes a even though she's representing herself the best argument she could make is that jane do consented to her sending it to one other person it's unclear if that's mcclendon or someone else but if so that would take her out of the 6851 statute because that consent to that one person would say Williams is off the hook, but you're right.

But Clinton then sharing it with a bunch of other people, Jane Doe would have, there's no allegation that Jane Doe ever consented to that so that part of the case would continue. And Ms. Williams has, you know, portrayed herself as the victim in all this. In fact, she posted a video of local news coverage to her Facebook page along with some commentary. So I am a fired state trooper. I have not hid that from day one. And I have told you all that I am innocent, and I can't wait until court to prove my innocence,

because lately in society, it's not until you're proven guilty. No, you're guilty until proven innocent. She said, she said until court, because I am going through that process. And then there was more fallout from this investigation. So two male troopers were fired. according to termination letters, Master Sergeant Julius Houston and fellow Master Sergeant Jeremy Lott, the men violated the agency's general orders, their code of conduct, because they both allegedly requested and received nude photos of Ms. Williams.

Both men claimed in appeals to the state that they receive the photos while off duty and they're petitioning the state to reverse the termination. So I find it interesting, like them and like Williams, they're not like all out denials. This is all fabricated. They're like, no, there were photos that were sent, but we were off duty. Is that a defense? It depends if they were, like Williams talks about the allegations or the allegations

against Williams, if this was all done on employer issued cell phones, I would assume they're not off the hook for that, whether they were on duty or off duty. I think that's telling. I think when your best argument is, yes, we did this, but we didn't do it on the company dime, I think you're in trouble. If you can't deny it, and obviously they have the data in these investigations, they're going to see the cell phones, they're going to see the video, they're going to examine the metadata that shows, you know, when these videos were taken and sent. All that is easily accessible these days. So these officers, I would say, have tough sledding. And I would say the department may have to evaluate what's going on there because it seems like at least involving Williams, this was a larger issue than just the one night with Jane Doe in the one video. There's obviously a lot more going on here. And that's So the department obviously also has their own PR to do and make sure that they're doing their due diligence

to make sure this doesn't get out and blow out of proportion more than it already is. Well, I can see why this story is blowing up a lot and why she's commenting on. My gosh, what is going on over there? Well, Perry Falik, thanks so much for coming on. Appreciate your perspective. As always, breaking it down for us.

Thank you, sir. Thank you very much. All right, everybody. That's all we have for you right now here on Sidebar. Thank you so much for joining us. As always, please subscribe on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube, wherever you get your podcasts. I'm Jesse Weber. I'll speak to you next time.