DiscussMormonism.com

consiglieri wrote: ↑

Wed Mar 08, 2023 10:42 pm

Too bad, Stem.

If you don’t listen to the podcast or read the court order, you won’t find out Jenn Kamp’s primary allegation of stalking was John Dehlin entering a live podcast Jenn was doing, then quickly exiting when he realized it was live and not recorded.

You can’t make this stuff up.

The judge found no reasonable person would be placed in fear by this.

Res Ipsa wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 09, 2023 12:14 am

Everybody Wang Chung, where did you find the text?

dastardly stem wrote: ↑

Wed Mar 08, 2023 11:34 pm

consiglieri wrote: ↑

Wed Mar 08, 2023 10:42 pm

Too bad, Stem.

If you don’t listen to the podcast or read the court order, you won’t find out Jenn Kamp’s primary allegation of stalking was John Dehlin entering a live podcast Jenn was doing, then quickly exiting when he realized it was live and not recorded.

You can’t make this stuff up.

The judge found no reasonable person would be placed in fear by this.

Lol. What’s he doing? “She’s trying to sue me so I’m gonna listen to her podcast show. Uh oh…wait… what does “live” mean? I better get out of here.”

You have to wonder if there was any interaction.

“John Dehlin? Is that a troll joining us or the real deal?”

Trying to disguise his voice, “it’s a different John Dehlin. uh…it’s uh…I mean…bye”. <click>

“I think that might have really been him. Is he stalking me? What details about my life is he trying to get? Now I’m afraid he’s gonna be showing up at my door.”

Her buddy: “You should file a stalking order against him.”

The judge sends down the order: “yawn…let’s do this when he shows up at your door.”

“That’ll be too late,” she bemoans after the gavel sounds.

Dehlin upon leaving the court room “ah yes. Contact the media another jealous woman trying to take me down is foiled again. I’ll have to make mention of this in my yearly proclamation on the family of my innocence.”

Everybody Wang Chung wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 09, 2023 12:10 am

a. Petitioner was understandably sensitive about the trauma she endured as a child. Although it was insensitive of Respondent to disclose that Petitioner was a victim of child sexual abuse during the August 10, 2022 podcast, Respondent did not disclose the information in an effort to exploit Petitioner’s vulnerability.

Petitioner had already agreed to do a multi-part podcast with Respondent detailing her child sexual abuse and had already recorded a podcast where she insinuated that she was a victim of child sexual abuse. In reviewing footage of the podcast, the Court finds that Respondent was attempting to promote the upcoming podcast about Petitioner’s child sexual abuse rather than exploiting Petitioner’s vulnerability about her experience as a victim of child sexual abuse.

pistolero wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 09, 2023 12:19 am

consiglieri wrote: ↑

Wed Mar 08, 2023 10:42 pm

Too bad, Stem.

If you don’t listen to the podcast or read the court order, you won’t find out Jenn Kamp’s primary allegation of stalking was John Dehlin entering a live podcast Jenn was doing, then quickly exiting when he realized it was live and not recorded.

You can’t make this stuff up.

The judge found no reasonable person would be placed in fear by this.

Asking for a friend. If I connect to a live internet public broadcast, to watch someone who asked to have no contact from me, then that can be construed as stalking? If Jenn Kamp had won, John Dehlin wouldn't have been able to watch any of her live broadcasts? But watching recorded broadcasts are fine?

I feel far too old to live in this world.

Any estimates on how much something like this would have cost to pursue?

Listening to the order being read (beautifully I might add) by RFM, it all seemed incredibly flimsy and it left me feeling, quite frankly, flummoxed.

Even if Jenn Kamp knew she might lose, does she or did she gain anything by filing this? Or just a bit more bad publicity to heap on Open Stories Foundation and its Supreme Leader? If I had a cent for the number of times during the last month that I've heard "no smoke without fire" or similar, regarding John Dehlin, then I would be ... EPA Inc. Does the smoke from this instance disperse? Or even though she lost, did she win in terms of inflicting a limited amount of reputational damage to John Dehlin?

Everybody Wang Chung wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 09, 2023 12:10 am

27.On February 14, 2023, approximately four people at Petitioner’s place of employment received an email that contained a video of the August 25, 2023 Board meeting and a copy of the complainant in Respondent’s lawsuit. There is no evidence that Respondent was directly or indirectly involved in sending the email to Petitioner’s workplace.

Dr Exiled wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 09, 2023 12:24 am

dastardly stem wrote: ↑

Wed Mar 08, 2023 11:34 pm

Lol. What’s he doing? “She’s trying to sue me so I’m gonna listen to her podcast show. Uh oh…wait… what does “live” mean? I better get out of here.”

You have to wonder if there was any interaction.

“John Dehlin? Is that a troll joining us or the real deal?”

Trying to disguise his voice, “it’s a different John Dehlin. uh…it’s uh…I mean…bye”. <click>

“I think that might have really been him. Is he stalking me? What details about my life is he trying to get? Now I’m afraid he’s gonna be showing up at my door.”

Her buddy: “You should file a stalking order against him.”

The judge sends down the order: “yawn…let’s do this when he shows up at your door.”

“That’ll be too late,” she bemoans after the gavel sounds.

Dehlin upon leaving the court room “ah yes. Contact the media another jealous woman trying to take me down is foiled again. I’ll have to make mention of this in my yearly proclamation on the family of my innocence.”

You really ought to listen to consig's reading of the order or read it when Everybody Wang Chung posts it. Sometimes stalking claims don't hold any water and this is one of them.

pistolero wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 09, 2023 12:30 am

Everybody Wang Chung wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 09, 2023 12:10 am

27.On February 14, 2023, approximately four people at Petitioner’s place of employment received an email that contained a video of the August 25, 2023 Board meeting and a copy of the complainant in Respondent’s lawsuit. There is no evidence that Respondent was directly or indirectly involved in sending the email to Petitioner’s workplace.

This is extremely uncool.

pistolero wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 09, 2023 12:19 am

consiglieri wrote: ↑

Wed Mar 08, 2023 10:42 pm

Too bad, Stem.

If you don’t listen to the podcast or read the court order, you won’t find out Jenn Kamp’s primary allegation of stalking was John Dehlin entering a live podcast Jenn was doing, then quickly exiting when he realized it was live and not recorded.

You can’t make this stuff up.

The judge found no reasonable person would be placed in fear by this.

Asking for a friend. If I connect to a live internet public broadcast, to watch someone who asked to have no contact from me, then that can be construed as stalking? If Jenn Kamp had won, John Dehlin wouldn't have been able to watch any of her live broadcasts? But watching recorded broadcasts are fine?

I feel far too old to live in this world.

Any estimates on how much something like this would have cost to pursue?

Listening to the order being read (beautifully I might add) by RFM, it all seemed incredibly flimsy and it left me feeling, quite frankly, flummoxed.

Even if Jenn Kamp knew she might lose, does she or did she gain anything by filing this? Or just a bit more bad publicity to heap on Open Stories Foundation and its Supreme Leader? If I had a cent for the number of times during the last month that I've heard "no smoke without fire" or similar, regarding John Dehlin, then I would be ... EPA Inc. Does the smoke from this instance disperse? Or even though she lost, did she win in terms of inflicting a limited amount of reputational damage to John Dehlin?