Help support Derrick Wilburn's defense against slander and defamation.

Summary

If you haven't met him you've likely seen him. Derrick's speech before a Colorado Springs' school board became one of the most seen viral videos in the world, featured on Fox News, UK Daily Mail, Washington Times and about every other news site, it speaks volumes about Derrick's views on educating children.

View the 3-minute speech: Black Father Addresses Local School Board on CRT

Derrick then ran for and was elected to the Colorado Springs District 20 school board. He is a dedicated member of our community and school board, tirelessly working to ensure academic excellence, transparency, accountability, and the safety of our children. However, for the past year and a half he has been under relentless attack through false and slanderous accusations after speaking out about explicit materials in school libraries. We need your support to help Derrick stand strong and hold those responsible for such slanderous actions.

The Situation

During a D20 school board candidate forum in October 2023, Derrick read explicit passages from books available in D20 school libraries. His intention was to create awareness of questionable library materials accessible to students and to advocate for better oversight and transparency.

As a result a community member launched a defamatory, malicious, slanderous campaign against him. More specifically, this individual has referenced Derrick as a "child sex predator", a "criminal", claimed he gets [sexually] "aroused by kids" and made a continuous string of baseless, vile accusations labeling Derrick as a "rapist" and "pedophile." These statements have been made publicly and pervasively on social media, to law enforcement, to legislative bodies and during public comments at school board meetings. View some of these very public statements:

Misc. comments during Board of Education meetings
November 16, 2023
December 14, 2023
January 4, 2024
February 15, 2024
March 7, 2024
May 9, 2024 (the 'retraction' of defamatory statements made)
February 1, 2025
April 10, 2025

These claims are utterly false and defamatory. In response, Derrick retained an attorney and issued a cease and desist with no success: Cease/desist comments May 9, 2024. He then proceeded to seek remedy through the legal system by filing a lawsuit against her.

In response to the lawsuit the defendant filed a "Motion to Dismiss." On April 18 District Court Judge Gregory Werner heard both litigant's arguments. On April 29 the judge issued his very strongly worded ruling denying the defendant's Motion writing, in part:

13. The Court has reviewed a number of the statements made by Guthrie regarding Wilburn. ... She has described Wilburn as a sexual predator and who has committed crimes against children and further claimed her daughter was one of his victims. She has described Wilburn as a sexual deviant who enjoys public displays of lewdness and exhibitionism. Guthrie has stated Wilburn committed the criminal act of purposely reading sexually explicit material to small children. She has said Wilburn preys on children for his own personal gain. She has said the biggest criminal in D20 sits behind the Dias. She has stated that, if Wilburn is convicted of the crime he committed, he will have to register as a sex offender and will not be eligible to hold a board of director seat. She also accused Wilburn of following her, harassing her and intimidating her following a board meeting. All of these statements are statements of fact and can be proven to be true or false. In addition, to the extent these statements convey the impression that Wilburn engaged in criminal activity, such statements are defamatory per se. Arrington v. Palmer, 971 P.2d 669 (Colo. App. 1998). Similarly, statements which falsely accuse a person of engaging in serious sexual misconduct are defamatory per se. Gordon v. Boyles, 99 P.3d 75 (Colo. App. 2004); Miles v. Nat’l Enquirer, Inc., 38 F.Supp.2d 1226, 1229 (D. Colo. 1999)(reference to plaintiff as “pedophile” and “sex offender” was defamatory per se because of allegations of serious sexual misconduct).

14. Guthrie’s attempt to claim these statements are simply statements of her opinion has no merit. Otherwise, someone would always be able to avoid liability simply by saying, “well, this is what I believe.” There is no wholesale defamation exemption for anything that might be labeled “opinion.” Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1, 18 (1990). Stated differently, a “speaker is not accorded free speech protection for attacks on an individual’s reputation interests by framing the attack as ‘opinion.’” Burns, 659 P.3d at 1358. That is especially true in this case since one of Wilburn’s allegations is that a CSPD Officer had apparently told Guthrie on or about December 5, 2023, following a complaint made by Guthrie, that Wilburn’s statements at the October 4, 2023 Candidate Forum did not constitute promoting obscenity to a minor. Nevertheless, Guthrie made statements after that date claiming Wilburn had committed that crime. See Salazar at ¶ 29-31; Coomer v. Donald Trump for President, Inc., 552 P.3d 562, ¶ 149 (Colo. App. 2024)(a defendant cannot defeat a claim of defamation simply by testifying that he published the statements with a belief that the statements were true).

15. It is true that a plaintiff will rarely have direct evidence of a defendant’s mental state. Nixon v. City & Cnty of Denver, 343 P.3d 1051, ¶ 29 (Colo. App. 2014). Nevertheless, actual malice may be proven by circumstantial evidence such as (1) a speaker’s hostility toward the plaintiff, (2) inconsistencies in the defendant’s account, (3) the inherent improbability of the claim and (4) other credible information contradicting the information. Coomer, 552 P.3d 562, ¶ 150. In this case, a jury could conclude that Guthrie had some ill will against Wilburn because she continued to make statements claiming Wilburn was promoting obscenity to a minor even though there was no basis for that claim. Although a speaker’s ill will toward a defamed party is not an element of actual malice, evidence of such a bad motive may serve as circumstantial evidence of actual malice as it is an indication of the subjective attitude of the publisher. L.S.S., at ¶ 40. Similarly, Guthrie at one point described Wilburn’s conduct at the forum as a political stunt. See Complaint, ¶ 98. A jury could interpret this as Guthrie’s acknowledgment that there was no factual basis for her statements. This, again, could serve as the basis for a jury’s finding of malice on the part of Guthrie.

16. Similarly, the Court finds Wilburn has presented sufficient evidence to establish a claim for outrageous conduct. Guthrie accused Wilburn of being a child predator, having committed sex crimes against children, being a sexual deviant, a person who preys on children for his own personal gain and harassing and intimidating her. Considering the number of statements made, the length of time over which the statements were made and the fact that these statements were made with an apparent attempt to reach a wide audience, Guthrie’s conduct went beyond “mere insults, indignities, threats, annoyances, petty oppressions, or other trivialities.” Pearson, 70 P.3d at 597. Given the magnitude of Guthrie’s accusations, the minimal to no evidence to support them and the repeated utterance of such accusations in the forums in which they were made, there is a reasonable likelihood that a jury could find Guthrie’s conduct to be “‘atrocious,’ ‘utterly intolerable,’ and ‘beyond all possible bounds of decency.’” Coomer, 552 P.3d 562, ¶ 205 (quoting Coors Brewing Co. v. Floyd, 978 P.2d 663 (Colo. 1999)). Such conduct can serve as the basis for a claim of outrageous conduct. S.M.S. v. M.M., 2025 WL 800875 (Colo. App. 2025)...

Conclusion
17. Given the facts and legal analysis outlined above, the Court finds Wilburn has established that there is a reasonable likelihood he will prevail on the claims he has asserted in this case as defined in C.R.S. §13-21-1101(3)(a). As such, the Court DENIES Bernadette Guthrie’s motion to dismiss.

The Impact

Derrick has raised three amazing children, is the only sitting black school board director in north Colorado Springs and as this letter penned by area pastors, men and women of God highlights, these attacks are not only harmful to Derrick's family, his personal and professional reputation but also detract from the critical work he is doing for the D20 community. He has won the first round and will win the last as well. As he navigates this unjust situation, Derrick is facing significant emotional and financial strain, including the legal costs associated with clearing his name.

Call to Action

We believe in truth, integrity, and the right for every individual to serve their community without fear of baseless and defamatory attacks. Stand with Derrick by contributing to this campaign and sharing it with others. Together, we can uphold justice and support a man's right to legally protect himself.

What Happens to the Funds?

Funds raised will directly offset legal costs associated with Derrick’s defamation lawsuit. Derrick has already won in court. He is soon to win in an appellate court and then will win in a court of peers. Once this case has concluded and a judge and jury determine a just monetary settlement, should any funds remain above and beyond what Derrick has spent on legal proceedings all who have contributed to this cause will be returned your generous contributions. So it could be said this is a loan, not a donation.

Thank you for standing with Derrick.