Ha Et Al V. Conn

Case Background

On September 30, 2020, Johnny Ha and his wife, Jenny Pham, and mother-in-law Helen Le filed a defamation lawsuit against Tina Conn for posting videos about them on YouTube slandering and defaming them using vulgar and obscene language. The case was heard before the United States District Court, Vermont, Burlington Division and Judge William K. Sessions III presided over this case. [Case number: 2:20cv155]

Cause

Plaintiff Johnny Ha, also known as Mr. Ha, lived in Alexandria, Virginia. He was married to Jenny Pham, who also resided in Alexandria and was the daughter of Helen Le. Helen Le, a resident of Alexandria, was Jenny’s mother and Johnny’s mother-in-law.

Defendant Tina Conn, a Vermont resident, posted several videos on YouTube. In these videos, she made derogatory statements about the Plaintiffs. Her videos, which were viewed hundreds of times, falsely accused the plaintiffs of criminal acts, including adultery, prostitution, and bestiality.

DEFENDANT’S YOUTUBE VIDEO #1 (AUGUST 2020)

In one video from August 2020, Tina Conn directed offensive language at Helen Le, calling her derogatory names and making inappropriate comments. Conn’s statements in this video suggested that Helen engaged in prostitution and bestiality, charges that are criminal offenses involving moral turpitude. Helen Le had never participated in such activities. Conn made these claims knowing they were false or with reckless disregard for their truthfulness. Her intent was to harass and intimidate the plaintiffs based on ethnic, racial, religious, and gender animosity.

DEFENDANT’S YOUTUBE VIDEO #2 (JULY 2020)

In another video from July 2020, Conn reacted angrily after Johnny Ha contacted the police about her defamation. She insulted him and dismissed the police’s ability to address her actions, challenging him to take her to court.

DEFENDANT’S YOUTUBE VIDEO #3 (JULY 2020)

In a third video from July 2020, Conn specifically targeted Jenny Ha, describing her mother, Helen Le, with vulgar terms. Conn’s remarks included insulting language and false accusations.

DEFENDANT’S YOUTUBE VIDEO #4 (JUNE 2020)

In June 2020, Defendant posted a YouTube video (“Video #4”) where she pointed to a picture of Ms. Ha’s mother, Ms. Le. Defendant described Ms. Le in Vietnamese using derogatory terms such as “whore mother,” “slut,” “old whore,” and “whore who fucks.”

In Video #4, the Defendant used Vietnamese to refer to Plaintiffs Jenny Ha and Helen Le, making several offensive statements. She insulted Ms. Le, calling her a “pig-ignorant daughter” and a “stupid idiot.” The Defendant claimed Ms. Le allowed others to desecrate her ancestors’ graves and cursed her ancestors continuously. She derogatorily labeled Ms. Le as a “slut,” “bitch,” and “brute,” and accused her of not teaching her daughter properly. The Defendant expressed her disdain by cursing Ms. Le and using profane language, aiming to belittle and insult both Ms. Le and Jenny Ha.

DEFENDANT’S YOUTUBE VIDEO #5 (JULY 8, 2020)

On July 8, 2020, Defendant posted a YouTube video titled “Video #5,” which included the names of Mr. and Ms. Ha. In the video, Defendant referred to Ms. Ha in Vietnamese as a “mistress of Mr. Obama.” Defendant made several derogatory comments about Ms. Ha, alleging she was involved in immoral activities and used offensive language to describe her.

DEFENDANT’S YOUTUBE VIDEO #6 (JUNE 2020)

In June 2020, Defendant released Video #6 on YouTube, where Defendant directed vulgar remarks at Ms. Ha and Ms. Le. The video included accusations that Ms. Ha’s mother was a prostitute and that Ms. Ha allowed her husband to have inappropriate relations with her mother. .

DEFENDANT’S YOUTUBE VIDEO #7 (JULY 9, 2020)

On July 9, 2020, Defendant posted Video #7 on YouTube, making vile and unfounded accusations against Ms. Ha. Defendant falsely claimed that Ms. Ha engaged in bestiality and urged her to take legal action, mocking her in the process.

DEFENDANT’S YOUTUBE VIDEO #8 (AUGUST 2020)

In August 2020, Defendant posted Video #8, making severe and offensive claims about Mr. Ha, Ms. Ha, and Ms. Le. Defendant used explicit language to accuse them of various immoral acts, including adultery and prostitution, which were untrue. The statements were made to inflict personal, social, and financial harm and were fueled by prejudice.

DEFENDANT’S YOUTUBE VIDEO #9 (SEPTEMBER 2020)

In September 2020, Defendant released Video #9, continuing the harassment by calling Ms. Le and Ms. Ha derogatory names and making false claims of incest involving Mr. Ha and his family. The statements were deliberately false and intended to cause harm, reflecting deep-seated animosity.

DEFENDANT’S YOUTUBE VIDEO #10 (SEPTEMBER 18, 2020)

On September 18, 2020, Defendant posted Video #10, accusing Ms. Ha of lying about her education and claiming Mr. Ha had inappropriate relations with a business customer. These accusations were baseless and aimed at damaging their reputations, motivated by malice.

DEFENDANT’S YOUTUBE VIDEO #11 (JUNE 2020)

In June 2020, Video #11 was posted, containing severe and unfounded insults against Johnny and Jenny Ha. The Defendant’s statements were made with malicious intent to harass and demean the Plaintiffs.

DEFENDANT’S YOUTUBE VIDEO #12 (JUNE 2020)

In another June 2020 video, the Defendant made vulgar accusations against Ms. Ha and Ms. Le, including false claims of prostitution and other immoral behavior. These statements were intentionally harmful and rooted in bias.

DEFENDANT’S YOUTUBE VIDEO #13 (DECEMBER 2019)

Around December 2019, after receiving a cease-and-desist letter from Attorney Nguyen on behalf of the Plaintiffs, Defendant posted Video #13. In the video, Defendant mocked the letter and made derogatory remarks about Ms. Ha and Attorney Nguyen, accusing Ms. Ha of being a prostitute and the lawyer of being a “male prostitute.” These statements were false and intended to belittle and harass the Plaintiffs, reflecting continued animosity.

Throughout these videos, Conn acted with malicious intent, aiming to damage the Plaintiffs personally, socially, and financially, driven by prejudice and hostility.

Damages

The Defendant’s defamatory statements significantly harmed Plaintiffs Johnny Ha, Jenny Ha, and Helen Le, affecting their reputations, and community standing, and causing personal humiliation, injury, and emotional distress. All of them endured mental anguish and professional damage. Johnny Ha, Jenny Ha, and Helen Le were each entitled to presumed damages exceeding $75,000 and punitive damages. The videos not only contained defamatory content but also constituted an intentional campaign of intimidation and harassment motivated by ethnic, racial, religious, and gender animosity.

Key Arguments and Proceedings

Legal Representation

  • Plaintiff(s): Johnny Ha | Jenny Pham also known as Jenny Ha | Helen Le
    • Counsel for Plaintiff(s): Daniel A. Seff | John M. Mazzuchi
  • Defendant(s): Tina Conn
    • Counsel for Defendant(s): Kevin A. Lumpkin

Claims

The Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit alleging defamation and harassment by Tina Conn.

The Defendant falsely and maliciously accused the Plaintiffs of committing criminal offenses that involve moral turpitude. Such offenses, if true, could lead to indictment and punishment. These allegations included adultery, prostitution, and bestiality.

In at least two recent YouTube videos, Defendant falsely and maliciously claimed that Plaintiff Johnny Ha was unfit to perform his job duties and lacked integrity in his professional responsibilities.

Defense

Tina Conn denied all allegations of defamation. Instead, she filed a counter-complaint against Jenny Pham alleging defamation. The Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff, Tina Conn resided in Williston, Vermont, and owned a nail salon in Essex Junction. Originally from Vietnam and fluent in Vietnamese, she and her husband traveled to Vietnam between 2016 and 2018. During these visits, they donated a significant amount of money to a woman in Vietnam, who promised to use it to acquire real estate to build a religious temple.

However, Tina Conn later discovered that the woman had not used the funds as promised and had engaged in inappropriate contact with Tina Conn’s husband. Consequently, Tina Conn and her husband demanded the return of their donation. Although the woman initially responded with angry and threatening messages, she returned the money in January 2020.

Before these events, Tina Conn had never heard of Johnny Ha, Jenny Pham/Ha, or Helen Le. Shortly after recovering the donation, around February or March 2020, Tina Conn began facing attacks on social media from Jenny Pham. Pham conducted live-stream videos criticizing and disparaging Tina Conn, reaching Tina Conn quickly due to the close-knit Vietnamese social media community. Pham made no fewer than ten live-stream videos attacking Tina Conn without provocation, encouraging viewers to post negative comments about her.

Jenny Pham made numerous false and defamatory statements about Tina Conn, including claims of bigamy and adultery. Pham’s campaign of bullying included not only live-stream videos but also efforts to harass Tina Conn through social media, sending agents to photograph her business, and sending bizarre packages. The threats and slander caused Tina Conn to fear physical harm and experience severe emotional distress, including loss of appetite, sleep disruption, and general misery. Allegedly this relentless harassment continued for many months.

Jury Verdict

On June 26, 2024, the Vermont jury found Tina Conn was not liable for defamation to Johnny Ha or Jenny Pham. The jury, however, found her to be liable for defamation of Helen Le and awarded her $75.oo.

On July 29, 2024, judgment was entered on the verdict in favor of Plaintiff Helen Le, awarding her Seventy-Five Dollars ($75) against defendant Tina Conn.

Previously, on August 17, 2023, the Court issued an Opinion and Order, directing Defendant Tina Conn to pay Plaintiffs $27,678.70 in sanctions. Then, on October 23, 2023, the Court revised its earlier order in an Opinion and Order. The modification allowed Defendant to settle the $27,678.70 amount through 36 monthly payments of $768.85.

In the final judgment, the court retained jurisdiction to ensure compliance with the sanctions award of $27,678.70 imposed on the Defendant.
Moreover, according to the court’s Order filed on January 14, 2022, it granted Jenny Pham’s Rule 41(b) Motion to Dismiss Tina Conn’s Counterclaims. The dismissal was based on Tina Conn’s failure to comply with the court’s November 5, 2021 Order. Consequently, the counterclaim was dismissed with prejudice. The effective post-judgment interest rate set for this case was 4.83%.

Court Documents:

Available upon request