Dr. Lillian Glass responds to the Interview with Marsha Petrie Sue. Where are the ETHICS with a verdict of Liable for Copyright Infringement?

On January 15, 2011, I wrote a series of blogs about the ethical implications of NSA Certified Speaking Professional – Marsha Petrie Sue – being found liable for Copyright Infringement.  Since NSA (National Speakers Association) has some clear guidelines related to ethics and the use of intellectual property, I wondered what the outcome would be when a recognized speaker is found liable (Copyright Infringement) for something that is clearly inappropriate use of intellectual property.

As this blog is written I have no further information regarding any NSA ethics complaints or resolution regarding this matter.  However, after posting the second in my series of two blogs on the subject, I found that Dr. Lillian Glass had some issues with the responses Marsha Petrie Sue gave in my interview with her.  Dr. Glass contacted me recently and ask to have the opportunity to respond to Petrie Sue’s comments.  Below is the exact information that Dr. Lillian Glass provided to me yesterday.  Other than correcting the spelling of my name…the material is printed via cut and paste…so I attribute all the content below to Dr. Lillian Glass as it is her response to the former blog.  As you can see, the blog is an entire reprint of my blog with Dr. Glass’s comments being highlighted in blue for ease to the readers.

Dr. Lillian Glass states:

Dear Mr. Gallagher,

I am addressing copyright infringer and accused plairgerist Marsha Petrie Sue’s false allegations in red with evidence to back up my responses.

Dr. Lillian Glass


1.     In December 2010 you were found liable, by a jury in Federal Court, of “Copyright Infringement”.  Were you surprised by the verdict?

“Shocked because I did nothing wrong.  I prevailed on the majority of the lawsuit.  See below!”


Marsha Petrie Sue’s being “shocked that she” did nothing wrong” clearly shows, in my view, that she may very well be in a state of denial. She did a lot “wrong” by copying my materials and placing these materials in her book without attribution. A unanimous jury of 8 in a US Federal Court in Los Angeles found that she did indeed do something wrong as she was found liable of being a “willful copyright infringer”. Glass v Marsha Petrie Sue Case # CV 09-08570-RGK (SHx).

2.     Assuming you were (if not skip this question), before this ever got to Federal Court, what attempts did you make to settle the dispute that arose between you and Dr. Glass?

“Yes – many.  See PDF 154-24.  We tried mediation and Glass would not even be in the same room as me.  Finally she agreed and would not shake my hand or even recognize that I was there except when she yelled abusive and vile comments at me.  Her lack of maturity and hate for me, for whatever reason, were very apparent.”


It should be noted that any mention of what occurred at the mediation settlement conference is confidential and improper.  So,  Marsha Petrie Sue has once again done what she is not supposed to do by her even mentioning it. This case went before a mediator working with a top mediation firm.  Everyone attending such a mediation (lawyers   and clients) signs a pledge to keep everything that happens at the mediation confidential.  Obviously, this helps parties reach an agreement and allows them to speak freely.  Thus, I will not respond about anything that happened at the mediation and I and my attorneys are  very disturbed with Marsha Petrie Sue’s actions  to see it mentioned here.

However, I will say that I was indeed in the same room as Petrie Sue,  so her  above statement  that “I would not be in the same room as her”  is clearly  a false statement. It is true that I did not shake her hand as I did not want to be a hypocrite and shake the hand of a person who copied my materials and claimed them as her own.

I never yelled any abusive or vile comments to her during that mediation which took place in Los Angeles, and have witnesses to prove this from my attorneys to the mediator to everyone else attending the mediation proceedings. So once again Petrie Sue’s statement is false and defamatory.

After she completed her deposition in Arizona and I heard what she had to say, I spoke to her directly face to face off the record where I told her that “her actions were despicable” and that she was “an embarrassment to any author.” Anyone who does not do a book title search when they write a book on a specific topic and does not give attribution to the original source in my view is   highly unprofessional. I told her this directly to her face. There was no yelling or vile  comments made by me. My attorney Eric Bjorgum can validate my statement.

3.     Did Dr. Glass – when (I assume) she raised the issue at the beginning of copyrighted material request a non-court settlement?  And if so, what were her demands?

“Partly, but her settlement requests were ridiculous.  For example, in the original claim she said that she coined “Sticks and Stones will break my bones and names will never hurt me” and that I had stolen that from her books.  I believe it was Rudyard Kipling.  She said I should never be allowed to use that statement again.”


This statement where Petrie Sue wrongly states that in the original claim I coined
“ Sticks and stones can break my bones and names will never hurt me” places Marsha Petrie Sue in jeopardy of yet another lawsuit.

This time the lawsuit against her would be for Defamation of Character. There was never any allegation in the case that I said   that I coined “ Sticks and Stones will break my bones and names will never hurt me” This is a false statement.  I never said that she” should never use that statement again.” This is completely false as verified by my initial claim against her which is now part of the public record.

4.     According to published media reports, you had material (two lists) in your book, “Toxic People” that was previously included in Dr. Glass’s book – “He Says, She Says.”  How did you come about that material?

“Many years ago, as people often do, I was sent two lists with very generic information concerning men and women in the workplace. I asked the person if I could use their information and they said yes. The language was so common and the information so generic, containing 132 words that I didn’t think there was an original author and that the person that approved this was the originator. Being a professional speaker and author people often send me quotes, quips, lists and other information they deem of interest. I’ve even had people pass me notes after a presentation. Glass’s He Says, She Says, where the lists originally printed is a full chapter, Paragraph style and over 1900 words.  So they are NOT exact.”


Petrie Sue’s statement reflects her unprofessionalism in my view. No reputable author I know or well educated professional would ever ask a person if they could use their information without attribution. That information that she claims was sent to her by a yet to be named unknown third party, happened to be MY information and MY material that she used in her book and on her website without  MY permission.

Every bit of information has a source and I was the originator of that source. In the deposition and in the  court proceedings Ms. Sue could not even come up with the name of the person who allegedly gave her that list and whom she allegedly asked if she could use the list, which made the jury doubt her credibility. She also could not produce that information she was given in court and claimed that she threw everything away.

It does not matter if my original list had 1900 words in it and she only copied 132 of those words, word for word.  If someone comes into your home and steals your TV but leaves your couch and your coffee table and your jewelry they have still stolen your TV and committed an illegal act of theft. Marsha Petrie Sue still took written material which was not hers and claimed as her own.

5.     Were you aware of Dr. Glass’s book – “Toxic People” – before you penned your book?

“No and I never heard of her either.  I began writing “Toxic People” in 2004 and Google searching was not something I did.  My original submission to Wiley had the title of “Decontaminate Toxic People” and they changed the name to “Toxic People.”


The fact that Marsha Petrie Sue claims she never heard of me validates her unprofessionalism in my view. My “Toxic People” book was written in 1995 and I popularized the term by appearing on countless television shows and in the media on the topic over the past 13 years. In fact, I became a staple on daytime TV back in the 90’s because of the “Toxic People: book I wrote.

A Google search would have shown over 100,000 references to me in relation to the book “Toxic People”. Any reputable professional author would have done a Google Search for the title to see if there was any other book out there with the same title. I have written 15 books to date and every time I write a book the first thing I do is a Google search for the title I plan to use for the book.

Stating that it was “not something she did”  also speaks volumes about  her lack of unprofessionalism  and sophistication in my view, as doing a Google search on the topic is basic common practice.

6.     Based on your earlier email (Chuck’s voice here – I had sent an email requesting an interview) in which you said or inferred that the lists were sent to you by a connection, did you make any attempt to search the wording to find out if it was copied from another source?

“The lists are VERY generic.  I knew many people had come up with similar information.  They were too common to search.”

CHUCK’S VOICE  – There are ways to scrub your material to compare it to copyrighted material and/or to evaluate whether it might be subject to a claim of plagiarism.  Apparently this is how many in the academic community are now being discredited with respect to former writing.  Years back technology was not available to scrub material in the same way it is today.  Was it available in 2004/2005?  I don’t know, but I would assume that publishers would protect themselves and their authors by using such technology.  Perhaps they don’t!


Despite what Ms. Petrie Sue thinks, the lists are not VERY generic.  They were VERY specific and many people did NOT come up with the same material that I did in the lists which I created as she wrongly reports.

My lists were original and I was the one who proposed what to do in the workforce for men and women.  Prior to my book which I wrote in 1992, no one else had done that. I had been researching the topic since 1974 and was one of the early pioneers in the area of gender differences in communication. I conducted my own research studies and even commissioned Gallop polls to come up with the original information in those lists back in the 1980’s. While other researchers have studied gender differences they had never done the  original research I put forth in the specific lists I put forth in the specific order that I put forth which Petrie Sue lifted and placed in her version of “Toxic People”.

7.     As you know from the Dr. Lillian Glass website – Stanford University Professor Robert I. Sutton accused Marsha Petrie Sue, an Arizona professional speaker, of “plagiarism” – what comments do you have regarding the Sutton allegation?

“I’ve never heard of him, and don’t know who he is.  He never contacted me. You might also find interesting http://www.pogowasright.org/?tag=dr-lillian-glass


Marsha Petie Sue has blatantly lied here. Of course Professor Sutton contacted her. He contacted her directly  on her Amazon blog.  Here is the exact quote from the blog which she subsequently removed. She obviously knew that he contacted her because she was the one who removed the post from her own Amazon blog.
Robert I Suton says:

The quote about Lars Dalgaard is taken nearly word for word from an article that I published in the McKinsey Quarterly earlier in the year called “Building the Civilized Workplace.” There are some words omitted, but there is no attribution to original source and note below how you have pretty much simply removed some of the words from the opening of the original article. Note that I am a professor at Stanford, and directly taking text from a source with providing any attribution fits our definition of plagiarism.”

He goes on to say to Petrie Sue, whom he contacted:

“Perhaps Amazon blogs don’t need to follow the Stanford  honor code, but I would never use so much text from another source without attribution, and I think that nearly  all other universities –and authors –would agree that acknowledgment of the source is appropriate.”

Ms. Petrie Sue provided a link to a site called pogowasright .  That link displays an assemblage of quotes by or about  me  that are taken out of context and are misleading.  The original material was propagated by an anonymous blogger who’s  identity I was able to personally discover. She is a Tourette’s  Syndrome psychologist named Leslie E. Packer who writes the blog pogowasright and chronicles of dissent. According to numerous postings throughout the internet about her, she is considered to be a” discredited”  and “unethical psychologist”  who I believe has been  removed from the American Psychological Association and her state  psychological associations.

Suffice it to say that these allegations are not true and in themselves are defamatory. Marsha Petrie Sue’s reference to  this irrelevant material has nothing to do with the fact that another professional, a Stanford University professor accused Marsha Petrie Sue of plagiarism in  her copying the work of Professor Lars Dalgaard, word for word and claiming it as her own by not giving any attribution to him.

8.     NSA has specific rules related to “intellectual property” and being found liable in Federal Court of “Copyright Infringement” would seem to fly in the face of those rules.  As a CSP and respected NSA member, what comments would you make regarding your conviction and the NSA position on “intellectual property”?

“I have done nothing wrong.  I have no control over a vindictive person who in the summary judgment had all issues thrown out except for the 132 words in the list.  The case is not finished.  Please also refer to below information re: details of the case – and I have more.”


Once again Marsha Petrie sues claiming “ I have done nothing wrong” clearly appears to me that she is in denial as a  unanimous jury of 8 in a US Federal court has found her liable  of copyright infringement.

She has once again opened herself up to a defamation suit by calling me “ a vindictive person”. Protecting my copyright is not “vindictive.” It is my right as an American citizen- to protect what is rightfully mine. The case is indeed finished as the jury has spoken with a verdict of Marsha Petrie Sue being a “willful copyright infringer.”

9.     Likewise, NSA has specific ethics rules that we (NSA members) are held accountable to follow.  Some would say that you violated Article 4 – Intellectual Property.  What would you say in defense of that ethics violation claim (please note I am aware that no such claim has yet been made – however some at NSA feel that a formal complaint will be forthcoming)?

“Gosh – and this is the first I’ve heard of it.  I guess my colleagues and friends would rather solve this problem behind my back.  No. I have done nothing wrong.”


Once again by Ms. Petrie Sue stating “No. I have done nothing wrong.” It appears  to me that she that she has not yet digested the fact that a unanimous jury in US Federal Court found her liable of doing something “wrong”-  copying my copyrighted material and claiming it as her own.

CHUCK’S VOICE:  I regret the manner in which the question was asked as it inferred I had some inside information with NSA and I do not!  Rather, I have heard from a number of NSA leading speakers that they expected that a formal complaint would be filed since a finding of being liable of  “Copyright Infringement” would almost certainly be deemed by most to be a clear ethics violation, especially since that is directly connected to “intellectual property” and NSA has taken a clear stand on such issues.  I accept responsibility for my poorly worded question and apologize to Marsha and NSA if I inferred something inaccurate.

10.  From a different ethics perspective, it seems that Dr. Glass has gone to extraordinary lengths to expose your being found liable including material front and center on her website, notices on Facebook and a make shirt blog on WordPress.  What do you make of all the public and national attention this case seems to have received?

“I believe Glass is trying “ruin” me because she is jealous and vicious. Also believe that she is trying to sell her own books creating a platform from my visibility. I think she should be pitied.”


I am not trying to “ruin” anyone as Ms. Petrie Sue wrongly claims.  Ms. Petrie Sue has “ruined” herself and her own reputation by being accused of plagiarism by a Stanford university professor and now by being found liable in a US Federal court of willful copyright infringement.

Once again Petrie Sue has set herself up for a defamation suit by calling me “jealous and vindictive”. I am neither of those adjectives she has called me. I am also not “trying to sell my own books by creating a platform from her visibility” which is yet another false claim made by Ms. Petrie Sue.

I believe the world needs to know that her egregious act will not be tolerated.  They need to know that it serves as an example  that  by copying my material and claiming it as her own not only in her version of “Toxic People”  but on her website,  where she had the audacity to give readers permission to use my material as long as they shared her email address and website, there are serious consequences.

My sharing this information in a public form has empowered others to take action against those who have plagiarized their work no matter what field they are in. They are inspired as they no longer have to feel victimized. They are now aware that they can take  the  copyright infringer through the legal system where justice will be served. My experience with taking Petrie Sue through the legal system serves as a powerful example of what is possible in this great country.

11.   I have been told your book – “Toxic People” – can now NOT be sold since it contains “Copyright Infringement” material – is that accurate?

“Not true.  She settled with Wiley with no monetary exchange.  They still sell the book on all outlets (Amazon, B&N, etc.)  The book is still there and I am still selling.”


Marsha Petrie Sue mentions my settlement with Wiley.  That   settlement was supposed to be confidential and was only  produced to Petrie Sue’s attorney Jeff Riffer only in response to a subpoena. The details of the settlement were supposed to be confidential as Marsha Petrie Sue has no business whatsoever revealing my settlement or even mention of the name of the publisher with anyone, let alone in a public form which she did. In essence she violated my confidentiality in this regard.

Also, Petrie Sue states that “The book is still there and I am still selling.”  It may interest you to know that my motion for a permanent injunction against further sales by Petrie Sue is still pending.

12.  Do you plan on revising the book to remove the offensive content and then reissue?

The content was not offensive nor copied. This is Wiley’s call not mine.


The content was indeed copied as determined by a unanimous Federal Court jury.

Here are my lists – and her list was over 1900 words and set as an entire chapter – and in paragraphs.

What women need to do in the business world when working with men:

1.     Do not minimize your accomplishments at work.

2.     Keep discussions to job-related issues or news events.

3.     Lower the pitch of your voice.

4.     Get to the point and include who, what, when, where and how.

5.     Do not use tag endings, such as “isn’t it?” or “right?”

6.     Drop your tone down to make a declarative statement.

7.     Monitor your head-nodding and smiles.

8.     Do not apologize unless you are wrong.

What men need to do in the business world when working with women:

1.     Use more terms of politeness like “Please” and “Thank you.”

2.     Do not be afraid to ask for help – forget about your ego.

3.     Provide more facial and verbal feedback.

4.     Make more polite requests instead of barking out commands.

5.     Control your temper and handle yourself in a professional manner.

6.     Be aware of addressing women with condescending terms like honey, sweetheart, babe or dear.

7.     Do not interrupt or monopolize conversations. “

13.  According to your website – the publisher was John Wiley and Sons, the publisher of record – wouldn’t they “scrub” the book for content and compare it to other material so any issues of plagiarism or “copyright infringement” would be discovered in advance of printing?

“The material is so generic that is would be very, very difficult to “scrub” – see above comment.”


The material is not generic at all. The material is very specific in terms of what men and women need to do in the workplace. Prior to my writing this list in my “He Says She Says “book, this specific information did not exist.

Petrie Sue could have re-phrased every one of those sentences on the list in many different ways and changed the order. Had she taken the time and effort to do so,   she would not have been found as a copyright infringer.

Instead, she lifted my exact words and phrases in the same order I used them. Those were my exact words that were based on my original research efforts, which she clearly copied as you can see.

14.   If you were on the NSA Ethics review board (it may not be called that) – as a CSP – if this came up for another member and you were to judge whether an ethics violation had occurred – what would your opinion be?  And, what outcome do you feel would be appropriate considering all the facts and circumstances?

“I would want to fully understand out members side and why this has come about.  She sued Wiley and me in New York – and the case was thrown out (maybe not the right term) Her attorneys work on contingency and I believe this round of attorneys is her third group. And with a settlement of $31,000 – they and she lost a considerable about of money.

Pat the member on the back for not stooping to Glass’s level of vile attack and upholding the character and professionalism of NSA.”


Marsha Petrie Sue states that I “sued Wiley and her  in New York – and the case was thrown out (maybe not the right term).”  That is not true.  This again sets Petrie Sue up for a defamation suit.

A state court in New York eventually found that New York did not have personal jurisdiction over me.  Marsha Petrie Sue was never a party to that suit or involved in it, and I did not instigate it.  Thus her statement is completely false.

Also, technically speaking, there has been no “settlement of $31,000.”  That was the amount of the verdict.  My motion for attorney’s fees has already been determined by the court as well as the amount for costs which Petrie Sue is now liable for. This has increased what she owes. Also, the  motion for permanent injunction is still pending.


Glass was not the prevailing party because there can only be one “prevailing party” and Glass was not such a party. Glass alleged that I infringed copyrights to four of Plaintiff’s books: Say It Right; The

Complete Idiot’s Guide to Understanding Men and Women; Toxic People: 10 Ways to Deal with People Who Make Your Life Miserable; and He Says, She Says. This Court granted Ms. Petrie Sue’s motion for summary adjudication on first three of those books. Although Glass prevailed at Trial on the fourth book, that is not enough to overcome the fact that her copyright claim as to three of her books had no merit as a matter of law.

A plaintiff who prevails on one copyright claim, but loses on even more copyright claims (as well as all of her non-copyright claims), see Riffer Decl. ~~ 2-4, is not “the” prevailing party.

Glass’s motion which cites 24 cases, does not even address the dispositive fact for this motion — that she lost more copyright claims than she won. This is further evidence (as explained below) that


Marsha Petrie Sue’s above statement is really nothing more  than a brief filed by Petrie Sue’s attorney Jeff Riffer, which she obviously copied, which is  taken out of context with a few nouns and pronouns changed to make it read correctly.

The question of who “prevailed” is a legal question that was be decided in connection with the pending motion for fees.  Hon. Judge Klausner did indeed rule that I was the prevailing party on 2/8/11 so Ms. Petrie Sue has given false information.  In fact below is the exact judge’s ruling on the matter:

On December 9, 2010, the jury found in favor of Plaintiff on her copyright infringement claim, awarding Plaintiff $31,000 in statutory damages. Defendant argues that Plaintiff is not the prevailing party because only one of Plaintiff’s claims proceeded to trial. However, a plaintiff can still be the prevailing party if the plaintiff recovers less than what was originally sought. Wall Data Inc. v. L.A.

County Sheriff’s Dep’t, 447 F.3d 769, 787 (9th Cir. 2006). In Wall Data Inc., the Ninth Circuit held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorneys’ fees to the plaintiff, even though the plaintiff’s copyright infringement claim was the only one that went to trial. Id. In the current case, Plaintiff similarly prevailed on only a single copyright infringement claim. Plaintiff recovered damages for this single claim, resulting in a material alteration of the legal relationship between both parties.

Therefore, Plaintiff is the prevailing party for the purpose of awarding attorneys’ fees.”

Petrie Sue continues:

Glass’s counsel looked at this case as creating a billing opportunity.

Glass had no interest in resolving her dispute with me in a reasonable manner. She wanted a Trial, irrespective of the value of her case or the cost of litigation. She retained her attorneys on a contingency, so cost did not matter to her; her attorneys viewed the case as an opportunity for an attorney fee award, so the higher the cost, the better. She viewed the Trial as a publicity event that could generate stories about her to help her sell her books. Her final settlement demand ($233,000) was more – about $85,000 more — than the maximum a jury could award her ($150,000) for statutory damages.! The $85,000 figure was no coincidence either.

Her counsel candidly admitted that she really wants to go to trial – again publicity stunt material. I believe her counsel’s motivation was to create a billing opportunity. Her motivation was to generate publicity to help her sell her books.  Taking the energy and resources needed to tear me down could have been used to sell her latest books – and even the old ones.

Why would I pay more to settle than it risked even if lost a Trial, especially after such I had prevailed on all the other (copyright and non-copyright) claims in the case?

So, Glass received her wish. She had her Trial.  She so she claims to have ‘won’, even though she:

~ lost on three of her four copyright claims; ~ lost on every other claim in the case; and ~received a jury verdict of $31,000 when her last settlement demand, made only a few days before Trial, was $233,000.

Obviously, anyone who is “very happy” with such “results” had her own agenda, which was not to resolve the case in a reasonable manner, but rather to generate publicity to sell her other books.


The statements regarding the motivations of my counsel by Petrie Sue are not appropriate, though I  along with my attorneys  understand they not much more than hyperbole and will be discounted by intelligent readers.

The detail of the settlement negotiations is misleading.  If Ms. Petrie Sue wishes to engage in a blow-by-blow on the settlement discussions, the really important fact is that she made no offer to pay anything until one week before trial, at which point my attorneys had spent countless hours on this case.  That offer Petrie Sue gave was a mere $7,500 and never changed.

Her statement “She viewed the Trial as a publicity event that could generate stories about her to help her sell her books.” is completely false.

This trial was not used as a means to sell books in any way. Media appearances are used to sell and promote books, not trials. This trial was not a publicity event as she erroneously stated.

It was a very serious event that took place because she had violated the law and infringed my copyrighted material and I was protecting my rights. She was unwilling to settle and offered nothing until one week before trial where she offered a mere $7,500.

REMOVED COMMENT  due to factual dispute… Couple that with her counsel having their own agenda as well. Obviously, anyone who represents to a Federal Court that the outcome of this case — a $31,000 jury verdict on one claim after losing all other claims — was “exceptional,” “very successful” and an “excellent result” had his own agenda, which was not resolving the case in a reasonable manner.


My counsel has one agenda and that was to represent me in protecting my legal rights which they did. The outcome of the case according to the jury shows that I won the case and according to the judge showed that I was the prevailing party, despite any other claims.

To me, that is a “very successful” and “excellent result” as this case was not just about the money. It was about holding Marsha Petrie Sue accountable for taking what was not hers and presenting it as her own. It was about justice and about inspiring others to do the same thing if someone infringes on their copyright.

It was about Truth and Justice and indeed Justice was served against Marsha Petrie Sue- a willful copyright infringer.


I guess I now need to retake the content control and say – WOW!  My intent was to open the door to an ethics discussion and I think I got a bit more than I bargained for.  While I am sure both parties will take offense to my next comment I suspect that those who care to read will agree…this is a bit of a cat fight!


This is by no means a” cat fight” by two women and I find your comment objectionable.

This is a very serious matter Mr. Gallagher and sets a precedent. This was a legal fight  not only for my rights as an author but for the rights of every single person in America who creates, whether it is a songwriter, screenwriter, architect, inventor, scientist, sculptor, painter, composer, artist, architect, photographer, or designer.

No one in this country has the right to take someone else’s work and claim it as their own. If someone had taken any of the material from any book which you published  and claimed it as their own I am certain you would feel the same way and take the action I took through the legal system.

Dr. Lillian Glass, who I will admit handled herself professionally in my interview of her, clearly had a strong emotional charge to the outcome and the fact that (whether Petrie Sue likes it or not) Glass won in a federal court.  Whether you win one count, four or forty…being convicted is being convicted!  Based on my personal experience, and I’ve had personal experience in Federal Court, if you’re found guilty – a good dose of humility and reflection is in order.

You are indeed correct in this statement Mr.Gallegher when you say “whether you win one count, four or forty…being convicted is being convicted!” If this was a criminal trial Petrie Sue would have been convicted, but since it is a civil trial she is instead found liable of willful copyright infringement.

Your next statement   if you’re found guilty – a good dose of humility and reflection is in order.” I have yet to receive an apology from Ms. Petrie Sue for her egregious act. Instead as we have all seen in her response, a  stubborn refusal to admit in this public forum   that she outright copied my material,  as  repeatedly said that she “did nothing wrong”  .

When a US Federal Court says she was found guilty and a judge states that I am the prevailing party, it is clear that she did indeed do something wrong.

Ms. Petrie Sue also had the audacity in her deposition and in a US Federal Courtroom to say that she thought there was nothing wrong with manipulating the system and purchasing her own  books  (retail) so that they could be called a “best seller”. Apparently Ms. Petie sue spend over $30,000 of her own money to buy her own “Toxic People” books so that it could receive “Best Seller Status”. In my view that is very wrong and highly unethical.

Marsha Petrie Sue, on the other hand, is (in my opinion) in defensive mode related to her conviction.  That is common when someone finds that they are in unfamiliar territory and for most, being convicted in Federal Court is unfamiliar territory.

Rather than making a judgment on Dr. Lillian Glass’s or Marsha Peterie Sue’s actions – pre or post jury decision, I’d rather quote from my book as I leave the issue of an ethics violation to NSA and you – the readers.

Every choice we make in life will have either a negative consequence or a positive result. The outcome we receive is directly connected to the choices we make. As we live our outcomes, the more aware we become of how our choices impact the results we live, the greater power we have to produce the outcomes we desire.  Choices made without self-integrity or ethics result in negative results, while choices made with self-integrity result in positive results. My life demonstrates both extremes. –

from SECOND CHANCES: Transforming Adversity into Opportunity – by Chuck Gallagher

Perhaps it’s time for both Glass and Petrie Sue to look in the mirror and ask the more significant question – what choices am I making today that reflect self-integrity and will be deemed to empower and benefit others?

I have indeed looked in the mirror and can proudly answer that  I made the choice that reflects my- self integrity by sticking up for myself and not allowing anyone like Marsha Petrie Sue  to violate my rights or to take my hard work and claim it as her own.

I have definitely empowered others  based on the countless comments of support which I have received. My actions have definitely benefited others as they know they have recourse. They now know that they can use the legal system to protect what is rightfully theirs so that justice can be served.

Meanwhile…is it possible that one can become the title of one’s book?



Final comments.  First as a point of clarification.  In my original blog I used the terms guilty, convicted and liable as equal terms.  I was corrected and once again here clarify that Marsha Petrie Sue was found LIABLE for Copyright Infringement which is the appropriate and legal term when deciding a civil matter.

The questions raised here are significant.  From my perspective the primary interest is ethics and the ethical implications that arise when an NSA member is, in fact, found liable for inappropriate use of intellectual property.

Beyond that…as I’ve opened the blog up for Marsha Petrie Sue’s comments via the interview and Dr. Lillian Glass’s response…either Petrie Sue or Glass may continue to comment via responses and yes, as always – YOUR COMMENTS ARE WELCOME!

16 Responses to Dr. Lillian Glass responds to the Interview with Marsha Petrie Sue. Where are the ETHICS with a verdict of Liable for Copyright Infringement?

  1. […] Dr. Lillian Glass responds to the Interview with Marsha Petrie Sue … […]

  2. […] is a new Chuck Gallager blog post and it is fascinating. Apparently, he had a blog post which another person had issues with (I want […]

  3. Thank you for providing a forum to discuss a topic that is vital to all members of NSA. I hope that those who need to read it do. I appreciate the way you have reported this and added your commentary. Thanks Chuck.

  4. Chuck, the extent of my knowledge about the facts of this case are limited to what I’ve read from both parties. So in that regard, it is not appropriate for me to comment on the veracity of either party’s response.

    What is interesting is the perception that being found liable necessitates an assumption of being unethical. Unethical acts require an awareness about right from wrong that it is impossible to determine based on your interviews with the parties. In fact, it appears that both parties steadfastly believe that they did nothing wrong. So taking those comments at face value, isn’t it possible for this to simply be a mistake?

    The fact that cannot be disputed at this point is that Ms. Sue was found liable on one count of copyright infringement. This is a civil matter that was answered in court. We can speculate that the act was or wasn’t “unethical,” but it would remain speculation without additional information.

    As for any violation of NSA’s ethics code, there are clear standards of conduct for NSA members expressed in the code. My observation over the years is that these issues are investigated and determined privately and not debated in a public forum – especially with names attached to them.

    I can see why you commented that this turned out to be more than you expected. It is obvious that both parties are passionate about their position. The root question is an interesting one: Does an error that violates the law automatically assume a breach of personal, professional, or societal ethics? It is my belief that the two can be separated and that sometimes a mistake is just a mistake. The liability is not mitigated or reduced in either case. I can wreck my car out of knowing recklessness or unfortunate accident. Either way, I’m responsible for the damages.

    • Randy…finally a clear and thoughtful comment about the question of ethics. When I started this, after talking with NSA, it seemed that question was one that was worth the discussion. What I got was an amazing banter that did nothing to address the issue of ethics. I like the response dialogue about a mistake being different than an automatic violation of ethics.

      Regarding your comment that “over the years … these issues are investigated and determined privately and not debated in a public forum – especially with names attached to them” – I agree that in the past I am confident you speak the truth. In this case, Dr. Lillian Glass has made it her mission to, in a very public way, shout from the mountain top the outcome of the verdict and show Marsha Petrie Sue to be a terrible person for her actions. Today…sometimes whether we like it or not, with media as it is, the dialogue and debate turns public – something that was impossible years ago. From my perspective, I tried to open a forum to discuss ethics issues and debated whether to go with this one. I elected to…thinking that I would give Marsha Petrie Sue a voice to address Dr. Lillian Glass’s very open (my word) attack on Petrie Sue since the verdict was rendered. Frankly, I got very little of what I expected and rather I feel that both spent more time defending themselves and “cat fighting” than discussing whether – as you asked – a mistake did not mean an automatic ethics violation.

      What I did find interesting is that Petrie Sue…still holds that she did nothing wrong. Would it not make more sense for Petrie Sue to say, “I made a mistake. I did not intend to copy Dr. Glass’s work. My actions weren’t intentional and there was no intent to violate the very clear rules concerning ‘intellectual property’ that NSA has espoused.”?? What I am missing is the acceptance of responsibility for Petrie Sue’s actions and the very public (not started by me) dialogue that is a part of this case.

      You are very right. It is possible to make a mistake and not be in violation of an ethics rule. It is also possible that no mistake was made and that Petrie Sue took material (intellectual property) and used it not expecting to get caught. From Petrie Sue’s comments I’m not sure which it is. And, in the end, it is up to NSA to decide assuming there is a complaint filed in the first place. When I talked to NSA – at that time there wasn’t and I don’t know whether it has changed since then.

      Again, Randy…thanks for the comments!

      • Great points, Chuck. When I mentioned that in the past these issues were considered outside of the public eye, I was referring to how NSA handles its ethics investigations. I agree that Dr. Glass has made this a very public issue, and that can happen overnight in today’s media driven world. I often tell the elected officials with whom I work that they are a slow news day from being on the front page. When you have someone as invested as Dr. Glass appears to be, there is even more interest in keeping this in the news.

        At the risk of channeling former President Clinton, Petrie Sue’s assertion that she did nothing wrong probably depends on what your definition of “did” is. If it means that she did not intentionally or knowingly commit copyright infringement, my guess is that she is absolutely correct. If “did” means that the material in her book was not found to be in violation of copyright laws, I’m sorry, but eight jurors disagreed.

        When I was a teenager, I was involved in an auto accident when the car I was driving collided with a motorcycle. The rider suffered a broken leg. It was dusk, the rider didn’t have his light on, and he was wearing dark clothing. Never the less, I pulled out in front of him and was found at fault. I didn’t technically do anything wrong, but I still had to accept responsibility.

        The allegation of unethical conduct is often the easiest response to any action with which we disagree. That doesn’t make it the correct response.

        There will come a time when both parties decide to move on and stop beating this issue. My takel, for what it is worth, is that should be sooner rather than later.

    • Al says:

      When a US Federal Court says she was found guilty and a judge states that I am the prevailing party, it is clear that she did indeed do something wrong.

      A verdict or decision by a judge in the Civil Case DOES NOT mandate intent or purpose by the defendent at all. It’s an opinion. Thats the whole purpose of the court. It’s not to determine intent nor is it intended to determine the defendents purpose at the time of the writing. There was a determination that the verbiage was similar, thus the award.
      It is completely feasable, as in this case, that there was NO intent and NO plan to copy the Plantiffs words. That would be too obvious and, quite frankly, counter the whole objective of writing an informative, effective book. The expectation that anyone could research and collect pertinent information for this book, through the internet, library, word of mouth, etc would obviously lead to reproducing others information. Thats a given. Not intentionally, but as a by product of the research. That information isn’t trademarked, as words cannot be trademarked per say. Aren’t those simply footnotes ? If I were to reference the Ten Comandments in a book, would I be liable to God ? If I were to reproduce Amendments to the Constitution in my book, would I be liable ? The words or list of steps that were listed and questioned are obvious, repetative and learned. Are they saying that if the Plaintiff taught me some steps in a training seminar, I couldn’t reproduce them as a reference to my topic or learning ? Thats sad…..
      In this example, the Plantiff had everything to gain, which is obvious by her legal representation, which was completely and wholly based on a winning verdict financially ( zero financial risk), and the Defendent has everything to lose. Successful and popular writer and speaker. Period.
      I know Marsha personally, as many of her clients and associates do, and to the letter, there has never been any indication or suspecion of her values or ethics. Do the comparision, research the participants and their bios. I’m not pointing fingers, but where there is smoke, well you get it. Period.
      When you have nothing to lose, have no financial investment, why not sue ? Clearly another example of someone using the system to test their ability to benefit themselves, in my opinion, regardless of ethics or morals. $31,000 and the ambulance chasers get the majority of that….how does that decision contribute to the Plantiffs success, or the Defendents demise, which was the Plaintiffs goal ?
      Everyone loses…except the Lawyers. What a waste of time and effort.

      • Al, I like Marsha as well, and I agree with you that there was no intent on her part. But, copyright laws are not based on intent. They exist to protect the expression of ideas. It is entirely possible that two people would come up with the same idea and even express it in similar ways. And to your point, you might be liable if you created something called “The Ten Commandments” using the exact words of the original without attribution. Trademarks and copyrights are two completely different things.

        I agree with you that Dr. Glass is working very hard to keep this alive. That doesn’t mean that she isn’t right about the infringement.

  5. Mr Gallagher ,I have NEVER under any circumstances stated or shown that Marsha Petrie Sue was a” terrible person” as you stated in your blog. Those are YOUR words not mine! I have only reported exactly what occurred- that Marsha Petrie Sue was found liable by a unanimous jury of 8 in a US Federal Court for copyright infringement of my materials which she placed in her Toxic People Book, (which by the way was the same name of my book which I wrote 13 years earlier). In addition I find your referring to this legal case as a”catfight” to be sexist rhetoric and most degrading. This is has been a legal battle where I have exercised my rights an American citizen after Marsha Petrie Sue took my copyrighted material and claimed it as her own both in her book and on her website without any attribution to me. If someone had taken your materials and placed them in their book without attribution to you,I doubt you would be calling the matter a “catfight.”

  6. Dr. Glass…I guess I’m blind but I don’t see a reference by me attributed to you calling Marsha Petrie Sue a “terrible person”. Although I will say in the several phone calls we have had that you have been less than flattering in your commentary related to Petrie Sue.

    I accept your opinion regarding the “catfight” comment…however, I believe if someone took my materials and I won, I would stand behind my win and let it go vs. hanging on and keeping the battle or verdict alive. I suppose that as humans we all have the opportunity to chose how we respond.

    Petrie Sue lost so why continue the media exposure and fight? Haven’t you won?

  7. Ah…finally I found what Dr. Lillian Glass was referring to when I said in response to Randy Pennington’s comment… (WHICH ARE MY WORDS BASED ON MY OPINION) that “Dr. Lillian Glass has made it her mission to, in a very public way, shout from the mountain top the outcome of the verdict and show Marsha Petrie Sue to be a terrible person for her actions.”

    TO BE CLEAR … that is my opinion and I stand by that opinion. BUT SO THERE IS NO CONFUSION…THE OPINION IS MINE AND THEY ARE MY WORDS.

    Now…considering the blogs Dr. Glass has posted, her numerous FB posting (which is how I became interested in the ethics aspect of this), her web-site posting and references, and her news release…it appears clear to me that Glass wishes all to know that Petrie Sue copied her work.

    There are some times when you just gotta let things go. The court has ruled. Let NSA rule if there is an ethics challenge…and then move on!

  8. This just posted by Dr. Lillian Glass on Facebook:

    Dr.Lillian Glass won a Copyright Infringement Claim Against Marsha Petrie Sue in a US Federal Court on December 9, 2010. A unanimous jury of 8 found Marsha Petrie Sue, a public speaker from Arizona liable of copyright infringement where she placed Dr. Glass’ materials in her 2007 TOXIC PEOPLE book and on her website.By the way, Petrie Sue’s book is the same name as Dr. Glass 1995 book called TOXIC PEOPLE.
    Background on Dr. Lillian Glass’ TOXIC PEOPLE
    Source: http://www.toxicpeople.net

    And she (Dr. Glass) wonders why I said what I said above. Some folks just can’t let it go. Through her actions I wonder if Dr. Glass is becoming one of those “Toxic People”?

  9. Chuck Gallagher says:

    This comment has been removed at the author’s request. Apparently the concept of free speech is challenging when it comes to the subject matter and Dr. Lillian Glass. The author (not me but the author of the removed comment) stated that he/she could did not wish to be challenged by the threat of a lawsuit by Glass. I have removed the comments, but personally feel that it’s sad when someone can use fame, position and/or power to muscle free speech and opinion.

  10. Chuck Gallagher says:

    Comments related to Lillian Glass removed at the author’s request

  11. Valerie says:

    I think Dr. Glass’ comments of ‘if this had happened to you’ creates the case that yes, if it had happened to you, you would have some feelings about it and for those not directly involved, letting it go takes time. Also note, most bloggers wish to discuss their views, opinions and uninformed basic understanding of the law and this creates a forum for someone such as Dr. Glass to comment back and remind people of the facts. Let’s not mis-direct this discussion…how this is being handled is secondary. The facts remain and we are all best to learn from this experience about copywrite law and plagerism. Diverting the discussion is what creates the illusion of not being able to let go. We all must let it go by stopping side comments. This is where I believe blogging’s attempt to ‘discuss matters’ can really do more harm to the people originally involved at times. To me the ethical question might be: Were all parties, especially the 2 original people involved, represented properly here as a result of people’s comments and opinions?

Leave a Reply to chuckgallagher Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: