Threatened Into Silence? Not Quite.
They told me to lawyer up.
Not anonymously, not behind closed doors. On Facebook. The local Moms for Liberty chapter had thoughts. Apparently, so did the Postal Service, whose Informed Delivery feature tipped me off that a letter from Illingworth Law was inbound. Curious how predictable things become when power and paranoia hold hands.
The letter arrived. Predictably sanctimonious. Predictably wrong.
According to the attorney for Academy District 20 Board of Education Director Derrick Wilburn, I had committed a civil sin: misappropriating his image on a GoFundMe page. The page? Created to support Bernadette Guthrie, a Colorado Springs mother and fellow parent being sued by Director Wilburn himself. Her alleged offense? Daring to speak her opinion publicly after Director Wilburn, then a candidate for the office, read graphic excerpts from Push by Sapphire at a student-led candidate forum.
That’s the whole case. She strongly objected. He sued. I posted the GoFundMe. Cue the legal letter.
What’s in a Name? Apparently, Misappropriation.
The cease and desist claimed I had exploited Director Wilburn’s name and likeness for “personal gain.” On a fundraiser I do not profit from. For a person he is suing. The proceeds of which I’ve never had access to.
Let’s pause.
Using Attorney David Illingworth’s logic, any campaign using an opponent’s face in a mailer could be sued. Any PAC that posts a photo of a candidate while asking for donations? Misappropriation. Any news outlet featuring a politician’s image alongside a “support our reporting” button? Roll the dice, people.
If that sounds absurd, it’s because it is. But absurdity rarely deters those who rely on intimidation as strategy.
Legally, it’s nonsense. As my lawyer put it, “the use of Mr. Wilburn’s name on that page is quintessential core speech on a matter of public concern, fully protected by the First Amendment.” And if that’s not clear enough, here’s some precedent:
“In the context of invasion of privacy by appropriation of name and likeness, there is a First Amendment privilege that permits the use of a plaintiff’s name or likeness when that use is made in the context of, and reasonably relates to, a publication concerning a matter that is newsworthy or of legitimate public concern.” — Joe Dickerson & Assocs., L.L.C. v. Dittmar, 34 P.3d 995, 1003 (Colo. 2001)
“The defendant’s speech is protected even if he intends it to result in profit to him, so long as the contents of the speech qualify for protection.” — ibid. at 1004
The Prequel: Moms for Liberty and Predictable Threats
The legal letter might have felt more surprising had it not already been foretold in the comments section. Days earlier, the El Paso County Moms for Liberty page called me out by name. “ALL these people better lawyer up,” one wrote.
Moms for Liberty isn’t new to drama. But it’s telling when a group tied to Wilburn starts pre-spinning legal action before the target receives a single demand. And just for the record, I haven’t defamed anyone, nor have I even been accused of doing so, regardless of the implications made by the Moms for Liberty El Paso County chapter chair.
It’s not subtle when the follow-through comes signed by former Woodland Park school board member and former deputy district attorney David Illingworth, who, incidentally, is busy filing defamation suits in other Colorado districts as well.
Same Playbook, New Zip Code
Consider Montezuma-Cortez. Superintendent Tom Burris faced scrutiny for allegedly failing to report a student-teacher relationship. He received a diversion deal. No conviction, just a requirement for training and a reporting plan. The Assistant DA described it as “…an appropriate level of accountability.” But that means that something happened that required accountability, right?
The real punch came later. Burris and his district, again through Illingworth, filed a defamation lawsuit against JJ Lewis, the social worker and former school board candidate who raised the alarm.
To recap: Public official gets heat. Blames a witch hunt of some sort. Files suit against a citizen.
Sound familiar?
This Isn’t About Photos. It’s About Fear.
The legal theory here is laughable, but the intent is not. These aren’t just overreaches. They’re tests. Probes. Who will panic? Who will stay quiet? Who has the resources to fight back?
Bernadette didn’t pick this fight. She’s a mom who spoke. I didn’t expect to become a defendant-by-association. But here we are. And honestly, I’m more insulted by the cowardice than the threat.
The Image? I Took It Down. Voluntarily.
Not because I had to. Because I chose to replace it with the header of the actual lawsuit Director Wilburn filed. His name, big and bold, across the top. A document more revealing than any image could be.
But from now on, I’ll be referring to him only as Dilburn and his trusty gopher sidekick Lightning. If that feels flippant, good. Flippancy is what you earn when your legal strategy amounts to: “She said bad things about something I did.”
Let’s Call This What It Is
This isn’t about dignity. It’s not about reputation. It’s about discouraging public scrutiny and punishing people who speak. It’s about creating a climate where parents feel safer staying quiet. Where teachers whisper instead of whistleblow. Where community members don’t bother raising questions because someone might have a lawyer on speed dial.
But if you’re going to make an example out of someone, choose more carefully. Some of us grew up on civil rights case law and late-night Supreme Court transcripts. We know the difference between privacy and power.
James Madison said it plainly in 1798:
“…the right of freely examining public characters and measures, and of free communication among the people thereon, which has ever been justly deemed the only effectual guardian of every other right.”
So, No. I’m Not Backing Down.
If you want to stand with Bernadette, here’s the link to her defense fund. She’s not a symbol. She’s a parent. She’s my friend. And she deserves better than SLAPP suits masquerading as civic virtue.