Re: Private and Confidential, in response to our meeting.

Attached you will find a letter from my attorney, along with a letter he sent to Buzzfeed earlier in this week regarding the defamatory and false story they were planning on printing. The story was then published yesterday morning. I wanted to add to his letter, to reiterate our concern about how your office was planning to follow up on the false and defamatory third-party allegations from Buzzfeed. Because this was initiated by an online entertainment news outlet with a clear agenda and established record of propagating false allegations about me, rather than by any of the individuals they refer to as sources, this should not be considered a credible allegation worthy of investigation. I believe that our initial discussion was sufficient to settle this matter. Whether or not you agree with this, there are two things I think are important to establish.

Firstly, that the University should not propagate what can be false allegations from such a source by presenting them directly to current and/or former employees or to others. To do so would be to further their libelous agenda, as Mr. Waldman has emphasized. In this regard, I would appreciate seeing copies of the correspondence you might send to current or former employees about this in the process of carrying out and concluding your investigation.

Secondly, I reiterate once again that the Origins Project environment is supportive, candid, frank, honest, and productive, with all employees being treated with respect, as well as being supported and mentored. I am proud of our team, and I believe they feel the same way.

Thanks for your attention to these letters.

My name is Adam Waldman, and I am Professor Lawrence Krauss' litigation counsel. Earlier this week, I sent the attached letter to Buzzfeed via one of their reporters named Peter Aldhous.

I am also in receipt of Mr. Aldhous' letter to ASU, which is a variation on defamation — both libel and slander — that Mr. Aldhous and his colleagues have been manufacturing for at least 6 months (notably without any reporting) in a campaign with a purpose known only to them. Buzzfeed's first method is to call or write third parties, posit a list of fake, anonymous, recklessly false and malicious "allegations," and ask if the third party has anything to add. Buzzfeed's second method is to seek tortious interference with Professor Krauss' professional contracts, by writing third parties with whom Professor Krauss is in privity, present a similarly inflammatory series of anonymous, recklessly false and malicious accusations, and then question: how can the email's recipient allow such a person to serve on their board, or speak at their conference? The letter from Buzzfeed to the University falls into both categories. There will be appropriate legal consequences for Buzzfeed's actions.

It is my understanding that your office believes it is compelled by the above to investigate false, defamatory, anonymous accusations posited by the online tabloid Buzzfeed by contacting third parties and potentially rebroadcasting the tabloid Buzzfeed's accusations. To be clear, these accusations were not made to the University by actual human beings who are alleging they were victims. There is no evidence they were presented to Buzzfeed by actual human beings. Moreover, no present or former employees of ASU have made any such allegations to your office, or to any office at ASU, to our knowledge. They are simply alleged by a tabloid, and one that had yet published a "story" on the topic when they forwarded these to you. You may propose to rebroadcast this tabloid's libel to other third parties who have also made no accusation against Professor Krauss. I suggest that you consult with the University's counsel before taking so rash a step as re-broadcasting hearsay defamation that came to you via an online tabloid under these circumstances.

Professor Krauss and I both recognize the absolute need to investigate real allegations. Some of the women who have bravely come forward with personal harassment allegations against Harvey Weinstein are my clients and friends. Some of these victims have been advised by me. Those actual allegations are entirely distinct from a tabloid attempting to manufacture allegations to create harm.

I am writing as litigation counsel to Professor Lawrence Krauss. It has come to my attention that you and Buzzfeed have engaged in an outrageous and protracted defamation campaign against Professor Krauss, including both libel and slander. Buzzfeed's campaign has been malicious, undertaken with absolute reckless disregard for the truth, and despite repeated disprovals of the falsehoods you continue to harmfully disseminate. Your defamatory efforts have also been undertaken, for reasons known only to you and your colleagues, with the intention of tortiously interfering with the contracts of Professor Krauss, and Buzzfeed has unfortunately succeeded in this malignant purpose. We have both testimony and documents from a litany of well respected third parties that provide overwhelming evidence of your and Buzzfeed's malfeasant attacks on Professor Krauss. We are still tallying the damage.

You and Buzzfeed will immediately cease and desist from further defamatory statements regarding Professor Krauss, and you and Buzzfeed will immediately cease and desist from any further efforts to tortiously interfere with Professor Krauss' contracts. If you and Buzzfeed are unwise enough to ignore this notice to cease and desist from the actions described above, the appropriate legal response will be swift. Notwithstanding the foregoing, all legal rights are reserved.

If you have more harassing emails or any prospective communication you wish to transmit to Professor Krauss, you are instructed to send them to me as he is now represented by counsel. If your or Buzzfeed's counsel, whomever they may be, wish to send me a letter in response to the above, be aware that I may, depending on its contents and because I would be obligated to forward it to my client, consider such letter to also constitute a trigger of the above and react accordingly. Professor Krauss has suffered enough abuse at your hands without commensurate consequences.

Fyi
Just got back on wifi and reading now

Mr. Waldman,

Your client, Lawrence Krauss, copied me on his February 23rd email communication to the Office of Equity and Inclusion. I am writing to convey the University's position on its responsibility to conduct administrative investigations into allegations of conduct that could violate institutional policy, if true. Because Dr. Krauss has retained legal counsel, I am writing directly to you. You may forward my communication on to your client. Without having first secured your permission, I did not think it was proper for me to copying him on this reply.

Our policy on the Prohibition Against Discrimination, Harassment, and Retaliation (ACD 401 https://www.asu.edu/aad/manuals/acd/acd401.html) and its accompanying procedures (P20— link to the procedures is embedded in the policy document) directs the Office of Equity and Inclusion to conduct prompt and equitable investigations. Among the points stated are that the office accepts anonymous complaints as well as direct complaints. University employees are required to cooperate with any investigation or allegations of violations of this policy. Providing false or misleading information or failing to cooperate may result in disciplinary action. Individuals making a complaint or participating as a witness in an investigation cannot be retaliated against. Any employee who engages in retaliation will be disciplined. The Office of Equity and Inclusion does not make any findings until such time as it determines that it has completed its fact gathering.

Our courts recognize that participants in an administrative investigation have a privilege against a defamation charge. In Paros v. Hoemako Hospital, 140 Ariz. 335, 681 P.2d 918 (Ct. App. Div. 2 1984), the court recognized that the employer's response to a notice of charge of discrimination filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission was absolutely privileged. In Miller v. Servicemaster by Rees, 174 Ariz. at 520, 851 P.2d 240, 243 (Ct. App. Div. 1 1993), the court recognized the existence of a conditional privilege for employees to report perceived acts of sexual harassment as public policy dictated that employees must be protected from workplace sexual harassment. Cited approvingly, Carey v. Maricopa County, 2009 WL 750225 (D. Ariz. 2009). Both Paros and Miller were cases concerning discrimination and harassment under Title VII. In addition to its obligations under Title VII, the University must also operate its educational programs and activities to be free from gender discrimination under Title IX.

The Office of Equity and Inclusion will proceed with its investigation as outlined in ACD 401 and P20. The Office will not provide your client with its investigative file. We look forward to Dr. Krauss's continuing cooperation. Regards,

you dont understand. AT ALL . !! they dont need your permission to copy you. they now need your lawyers approval . to copy you her letter is makes clear that your telling them how to do their job is bullshit and they can investigate claims brought by anyone at anytime. .. and complaints made to them are protected from defamation claims. . They must do a new thorough investigation. . and dig deeper. . and take every allegation from buzz feed an run it down. . and anyone else now who decides to join the bandwagon. . sad!!! as most of this but clearly not all was self inflicted.

Dear Cynthia et al:

Adam forwarded me your note while on a plane. I wanted to let you know that you can feel free to cc me on all communication or email me and cc Adam, as you wish. . Adam is advising me on matters related to Buzzfeed, and so it is appropriate to communicate to both of us in this regard. I expect he will be writing to you. In any case, I wanted to assure you that I will continue to cooperate with all your offices, as I have done thus far. I value the collegial relationship I have with all of my colleagues at ASU. I hope Naimah's group has taken all of our concerns about Buzzfeed under advisement, but I also understand the requirements on the university as well.

Thanks for your attention to this.

Best

Lawrence Krauss

at the airport and delayed for 3 hours so I can write. I have written the university clarifying this again. I understand your concern, but the University can only investigate what they interviewed me about, which is the buzzfeed allegations related to the university.. And, in addition, the University has already dispensed with all the others.. When I met the investigator she simply handed me the document that buzzfeed had sent to the university regarding the claims by former Origins employees.. and asked me to comment on them. That is the 'complaint' they are investigating, and the only complaint they received directly from buzzfeed after December, when all the other complaints were dealt with.

In any case, I have made it quite clear to them that I am not being represented by Adam..

So, I thank you for getting me to clarify the situation for them, but happily at least your other concern is not relevant at this point.

Lawrence