Former IHOPKC staffer sues KC Star, award-winning writer & alleged abuse victim, claiming defamation
The suit filed in Jackson County, MO this week may face an uphill battle, based on the plaintiff's steep burden of proof in defamation cases
[Special Guest Post to Dr. Dénouement]
If you watch FOX News, you may have a bit of familiarity with the lawyer, Karin M. Sweigart and/or her affiliation with the Dhillon Law Firm since her X feed is filled with clips from the network. For those connected to the IHOPKC abuse scandals, Bicklegate, and the tentacles attached to that, Sweigart’s name may soon collide with the prayer room—as well as a young man who has alleged he was abused there.
When Justin Werner filed a police report with the Kansas City Police Department in 2022, alleging Lawrence (Larry) Lucky of statutory rape, the case became news this past year because of the myriad events that don’t need repeating right now regarding IHOPKC, Mike Bickle, and various accusations and legal messes. These stories certainly made headlines, and those headlines included some in the Kansas City Star, published by McClatchy, a media group which has won dozens of Pulitzer prizes for its quality journalism, as well as a host of other awards.
Today the Kansas City Star published its own brief story on the filing; It reports that Bernie Rhodes, the attorney representing the Star and Thomas, said it’s well-established that the American press is free to report on police investigations.
The author of the stories about Werner and Lucky was Judy L. Thomas, who, along with colleague Laura Bauer, was a Pulitzer finalist, is also an inductee into the Kansas Press Association’s Newspaper Hall of Fame, has a CV of accolades for her accurate, detailed, and verifiable reporting. Therefore, it came as a surprise to many to learn that the respected veteran of print media for the past 37 years had been labeled as a “partner” to “destroy Lucky’s reputation.”
Thus, it was with a clash of realities for some when the Dhillon Law Group’s attorney, Karin Moore Sweigart, filed a 61-page lawsuit on behalf of Lawrence (Larry) Lucky, former IT worker at IHOPKC (the suit points out this was a paid position), and “volunteer” musician.
That lawsuit alleges defamation against Lucky by the Kansas City Star “Company,” (it is not clear why this is not listed as “McClatchy Media Network,” as that is the name of the entity which owns the Star…), Thomas, and—Werner. That is correct. The suit alleges that the newspaper and Thomas worked in a manner that was somehow a collusion of sorts with Werner, says he was absolutely not a victim of any abuse, and in fact, portrays Werner as the abuser.
“The Kansas City Star had the facts and still chose to run a false and defamatory story… These lies have cost me my reputation, my business, and my peace of mind.” -Larry Lucky
Because we, indeed, live in a litigious age and Sweigart has a host of suits to share, we can only comment on what is before us and present the facts we have. There certainly is a mound of paperwork, however, and it is now public record.
This newsletter has covered the IHOPKC community for 1.5 years now, but before that has also, in previous roles, covered other faith-based issues, as well as education issues, which require grasping legal filings, ruling, appeals, etc. They are not difficult reading because they are simply stated and numbered. This petition is a bit different, though, as it trips the light dramatic with a flair atypical, rather than the usual and customary—pro forma for these filings is, as Jack Webb would say, “just the facts, ma’am.”
The plaintiff alleges, your honor
While the Jackson County, MO filing is 16 pages on the MO Case.net site, the attorney’s website posts the entire filing, 61 pages, with a detailed introduction. First, however, for a matter of simple comparison of how these filings might look, let’s examine the most recent sexual assault related case filed in a Missouri court prior to this, also related to IHOPKC. That case is the one in which a minor child alleges an assault at an IHOPKC retreat, the same weekend as the Bickle allegations were made public. The filing on Nov. 19 by Caleb J. Aponte of also included a request for Basyle (aka “Boz”) Tchividjian to be granted Pro Hac Vice status, which is a common legal practice in which an attorney in good standing in another state is granted temporary admission to the state in which the case he requests to work on is located.
Please take a moment to read the linked case. It is nine pages, and it follows what is typical for virtually every filing I have seen thus far in Jackson County in these years. It states the facts, includes the counts alleged. Like any abuse allegations, the reading is not pretty, but it simply states, “here is what we are filing this case to allege, and what we want from this filing” (a jury trial). This is similar, in that sense, to the Sweigart filing on behalf of Lucky. And that is the point in showing the other filing—as a compare and contrast illustration. Frankly, this is not my first rodeo of writing about court cases.
- The Case -
Here is the Dhillon Law Group’s introduction to the lawsuit filed:
The hyperbolic language continues into the legal filing. Frankly, to posit that a Pulitzer-prize winning media group (and paper, many times) as well as veteran journalist, would deliberately, recklessly enter into a partnership to destroy anyone’s reputation is something exceedingly challenging to believe. No corporation or person who has vested almost four decades in a field would trade it off to conspire with a thirtysomething young person—in a worst-case scenario. However, the effect here is that the charges themselves reverse and Lucky, in turn, portrays Werner as the perpetrator. Rather than accuse him of defamation alone, the case perpetuates what some might construe as defamation due to its inciting and hyperbolic prose. This paper is not the Pendergast Machine of the Truman days. Have a gander at the way these lines are phrased.
It will be fascinating to find out if Thomas, as with virtually any reporter ever, has copies of notes, documents, interviews, etc. Having worked within journalism and media, it would seem unbelievable to grasp any veteran reporter or daily paper which did not retain copies and recordings. Thomas will be no different.
This phrasing of the petition, however, casts intent into Thomas’ mind, which is literally impossible to do apart from Thomas explicitly stating her intent into an including affidavit (she does not). The petition asserts Thomas was “seeking to recast innocent interactions as sexual, provocative, and inappropriate for the purposes of…” There is no possible way in which this can be a true statement. The words “seemed to seek” or “had the result of” would be a more understandable way to make such an egregious accusation, but certainly if someone said this in any trial Sweigart was arguing, she would stand up and say, “Objection, Your Honor! Speculation, seeks to read the mind of the accused” —or something like that—and His Honor would say “Sustained. Counselor, please refrain from psychic mind-reading practices in my courtroom, would you?”
Obviously, that pretend interaction is a bit of old Matlock imagination, but the truth contained in it is not. It proves surprising to see that the petition is dispersed with direct comments on what Thomas and Werner were thinking, feeling, and planning, as if the petition seeks to testify in a trial that has not yet been granted and, in fact, may never be granted.
Proving defamation/libel is a heavy and costly burden as it is, but some of the facts that Sweigart’s filing asserts are reported otherwise here. For example, the petition says in a few places that Lucky was never banned from IHOPKC. Thomas writes in one story (and repeats in some fashion in others):
This reporting is a result of someone at the IHOPKC ministry sharing this information with Thomas on the record for publication. It was not grabbed from a magic imagination cloud. Undoubtedly, the call recording or the email copy will be produced by the Star showing this was a summative comment, which included a quote from the ministry.
Additionally, comments throughout that the police found Lucky “innocent” of wrongdoing are a misstatement of the legal process, with which Sweigart should be acquainted. Judges and juries find people “innocent.” Police may decline to arrest or investigate based on a lack of evidence. In this case, one story reported that the Jackson County prosecutor declined to press charges, and the reason was a lack of being able to unequivocally prove whether or not Werner was 16 or 17 at the time of any sexual activity. The age of consent in MO is 17, so any statutory rape charges would not have held if the age factor could not be proven. That is a matter of fact and law. And the DA will send what is called a “yellow slip” to the police department in this case declining to prosecute. Thomas reported that had occurred when she wrote the story published Oct. 18. The yellow slip is written documentation, and Dr. Dénouement has requested a copy. However, the defendants, Thomas and the Star, will have already had access to this.
Lucky does not appear to deny that there was sexual activity, if you read the filing there are numerous points in which it states the “sexual activity was [fill in the blank],” indicating no denial it occurred. The issue at hand is that the suit asserts Lucky is the victim rather than the perpetrator.
Further, it posits Lucky is an inventor with patents, a person with a coffee business and locally known, as well as a sound mixer, and obviously a musician, who was clearly talented and skilled, as the case says he was parts of music projects that somehow suffered due to the stories. For example:
Due to these false and reprehensible claims, Lucky has become a pariah in his community. He and his wife have been shunned, threatened with physical violence, and live in fear of their safety. Lucky is no longer permitted to play music in local churches, musical projects he has been a part of are not being released for fear of backlash, and he and his family have been ostracized.
These are things no one can know apart from the Lucky family; however, it does beg the question: If Lucky is that prolific, is he then considered a “public figure” within the community, which means he falls under an even higher burden of proof for defamation?
Again, only a judge will be able to determine that one. But it is a legal question that is likely to arise since Lucky’s case flips the tables in regards to the statements about Werner. Thus, if Lucky is a public figure under the definition, but Werner is not, with the “he said/she said” nature of the entire process, can a countersuit be far off if this goes to trial?
Proving defamation, a tough line
The petition, despite over 100 points, does make the points any defamation suit will always attempt to make in a filing. In sum, the headers (with parallel points which follow) say:
Count I – Libel/Defamation by Judy Thomas and the Kansas City Star
Count II – Libel/Defamation by Justin Werner
Count III – Injurious Falsehood by Judy Thomas and the Kansas City Star
Count III – Injurious Falsehood by Justin Werner
Count V – Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress by Thomas and the Kansas City Star
Count VI – Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress by Justin Werner
The summaries of each defendant conclude with this statement:
“Thomas and the Kansas City Star’s [Werner’s] statements were outrageous because of evil motive or reckless indifference.”
The rest of the petition, pp. 17-61 include copies of the stories published, bafflingly some are from Yahoo News, rather than directly from the Kansas City Star.
Closing arguments
Proving defamation is never simple, and a review of Missouri defamation suits shows that it’s an uphill battle that may be higher than the Ozarks Mountains.
This link shows the standards regarding the defamation and libel laws for the state of Missouri, which, aptly, is named, the Show Me State.
Proving a person’s heart was to viciously or willfully inflict pain and harm, in an organized and ongoing way, while conspiring with a major media conglomerate is a deep pull. Can it be done? Sure. If defamation is real, it absolutely has punitive effect in a court of law. In a country whose cornerstone hinges on free speech in a free press, the most conservative of judges is often reluctant to quickly pound a gavel of punishment. This is precisely why it is such a deep burden of proof for showing actual intent occurred. Reporting is not intent—whether it is a crime, a story, or a narrative. Much more must be in place.
Perhaps the petition’s stronger language and accusatory tone throughout could be a case of attempting to include sufficient pathos to what Lucky’s attorney deems the logos of the case, in an effort to show what she perceives is the ethos. Certainly that is permitted in a filing, and she is the attorney. Only the 16th District and the Honorable Judge Adam Caine in the May 1, 2025 Case Management Conference. The notice for this and Order for Mediation, was sent to parties Thursday, one day after Sweigart filed.
The Honorable Judge Adam Caine has been assigned as the presiding judge and only he can determine what is and is not apropo for his courtroom. However, showing malice and reckless disregard when quoting police reports, obtaining interviews, and requesting comments from all sides, is a high burden of proof. Whether or not Sweigart and Lucky have that proof to counteract the documentation and filings from the defendants is something that cannot be determined in a report here. You can certainly follow the case at Missouri’s Case.net.
Hopefully, Dr. Dénouement will be back soon to update everyone on the latest events. This writer has it on excellent authority that she doesn’t have any ill intent, reckless regard, intentional infliction of distress, or any other sort of malevolent will to anyone.
She does, however, wish that certain ministers (not mentioned in this post), would keep their pants on. But that’s a story for another day.
Reoporting the news, even when it is not pretty, is a covered protection. Attorney Rhodes for the Star said:
“That’s what The Star did here and we look forward to defending our First Amendment right to inform our readers of what the police are investigating.”
-30-
The only reason this suit is going anywhere is because Lucky is a private person. For good reason, private people have a much lower bar to clear to win libel suits than public figures. Still, this case is really weak. Lucky would have to prove the Star didn’t exercise “ordinary and reasonable care,” and the Star has the documentation to back their reporting up.