Mormon Times article on DCP

[_rcrocket]

Contrast them to the "simpletons" who sacrifice their character on this board. Yes, I mean you, Dude, you Rollo, you Harmony, you Jason and the rest.

If only there was that much at stake on this board. You are really over the top, man.

Not much is at stake. Just your character.

[_The Dude]

Not much is at stake. Just your character.

The Dude abides

[_skippy the dead]

I can also say that those California lawyers who participate on this board with anonymous smears of known and living people put themselves in direct opposition to the promises they made when they were sworn in as lawyers.

I believe we've discussed this before. Anonymity is not an issue with "smears," legal ethics or no. So you can let that one go. In addition, your "smears" of known and living people on this board are problematic under your theory, despite the fact that you may make your identity known.

And I would hope that any accusations you are making with respect to any member of the California bar are backed by facts, or perhaps they could be considered to be baseless "smears."

(by the way - do you routinely vet the experts you employ for use at trial as to whether they comment (anonymously or not) on religions, ethnic groups, musical tastes, or any other group? I don't recall ever doing so, nor do I recall it ever being relevant at trial.)

I don't smear persons with known identities on this board. I smear anonymous posters, such as yourself, who should be brought before the state bar.

And to you somehow this is better?

You still have failed to demonstrate my "smears" that would be actionable before the state bar. If you cannot back up your accusations, perhaps it is time to retire them and return to condemning me to hell and such.

You also did not respond to my question about your expert vetting techniques. I would find a great deal of amusement to learn that you inquire in any level of detail as to an expert's internet habits that are unrelated to his or her area of expertise.

[_rcrocket]

Oh yes indeed. I scour the internet for whatever the expert has written on any subject. I hire expert investigators to locate this stuff. Usually, in the cross-examination of experts, I have free reign. Particularly as to things they write. And, I find some pretty good stuff. Obviously, anonymous posts are hard to find.

The expert gets hit with a subpoena to produce all things he publicly has published That would include things like this Board -- anonymous or otherwise.

People like Guy Sajer are particularly at risk. I imagine he has or might testify as an expert -- it is not too difficult to figure out who he is.

Nobody's going to be all that interested in a poster liike me or Dr. Peterson who defends his faith. There's going to be a lot of fodder in a poster who denigrates the faith of another -- after all, religious classification is a protected class under the constitution. Under the eyes of the law, at least, an attack upon one's religion is the same as an attack upon one's race.

As far as whether the state bar would be interested in your posts, I work on state bar matters on occasion. If you would like proof in the pudding, email me your name. (It would be interesting to see how the state bar reacts to a complaint that a brother lawyer is publicly defaming another lawyer and that lawyer's religious beliefs. This is really rhetorical; I'd have no interest at all in retaliation for your buffoonery.)

[_Yoda]

As far as whether the state bar would be interested in your posts, I work on state bar matters on occasion. If you would like proof in the pudding, email me your name. (It would be interesting to see how the state bar reacts to a complaint that a brother lawyer is publicly defaming another lawyer and that lawyer's religious beliefs. This is really rhetorical; I'd have no interest at all in retaliation for your buffoonery.)

Enlighten us, Bob. Which posts, specifically, that Skippy has made would be of interest to the State Bar?

I don't recall her "publicly defaming a brother lawyer", namely you, in any of her posts. Also, where has she defamed your religious beliefs?

Skippy is a former member of the Church. She has spoken of aspects of the Church that she disagrees with, and why she left. Her posts regarding the Church, however, have been civil. I don't recall Skippy saying "the Church is crap" or some such thing.

As I have spoken with you about before, I can really only think of a handful of posters here who are vehemently ugly and attacking when it comes to the Church.

I could understand if you were addressing Boaz, Merc, or Infymus, but I really think that in this case, you're barking up the wrong tree.

[_skippy the dead]

As far as whether the state bar would be interested in your posts, I work on state bar matters on occasion. If you would like proof in the pudding, email me your name. (It would be interesting to see how the state bar reacts to a complaint that a brother lawyer is publicly defaming another lawyer and that lawyer's religious beliefs. This is really rhetorical; I'd have no interest at all in retaliation for your buffoonery.)

Please demonstrate any defamation on my part. I really do try to avoid such things, and would appreciate having my errors pointed out for correction. Thanks!

[_skippy the dead]

As far as whether the state bar would be interested in your posts, I work on state bar matters on occasion. If you would like proof in the pudding, email me your name. (It would be interesting to see how the state bar reacts to a complaint that a brother lawyer is publicly defaming another lawyer and that lawyer's religious beliefs. This is really rhetorical; I'd have no interest at all in retaliation for your buffoonery.)

Enlighten us, Bob. Which posts, specifically, that Skippy has made would be of interest to the State Bar?

I don't recall her "publicly defaming a brother lawyer", namely you, in any of her posts. Also, where has she defamed your religious beliefs?

Skippy is a former member of the Church. She has spoken of aspects of the Church that she disagrees with, and why she left. Her posts regarding the Church, however, have been civil. I don't recall Skippy saying "the Church is crap" or some such thing.

As I have spoken with you about before, I can really only think of a handful of posters here who are vehemently ugly and attacking when it comes to the Church.

I could understand if you were addressing Boaz, Merc, or Infymus, but I really think that in this case, you're barking up the wrong tree.

Thanks, Liz.

[_Yoda]

As far as whether the state bar would be interested in your posts, I work on state bar matters on occasion. If you would like proof in the pudding, email me your name. (It would be interesting to see how the state bar reacts to a complaint that a brother lawyer is publicly defaming another lawyer and that lawyer's religious beliefs. This is really rhetorical; I'd have no interest at all in retaliation for your buffoonery.)

Enlighten us, Bob. Which posts, specifically, that Skippy has made would be of interest to the State Bar?

I don't recall her "publicly defaming a brother lawyer", namely you, in any of her posts. Also, where has she defamed your religious beliefs?

Skippy is a former member of the Church. She has spoken of aspects of the Church that she disagrees with, and why she left. Her posts regarding the Church, however, have been civil. I don't recall Skippy saying "the Church is crap" or some such thing.

As I have spoken with you about before, I can really only think of a handful of posters here who are vehemently ugly and attacking when it comes to the Church.

I could understand if you were addressing Boaz, Merc, or Infymus, but I really think that in this case, you're barking up the wrong tree.

Thanks, Liz.

No prob. ;)

I'm looking forward to Bob's response. I seriously want to see him back up his claim on this and put his money where his mouth is.

Edited to add---I don't think he'll be able to.

[_Mad Viking]

I try jury trials for a living. I can assure you that if you were an expert testifying in your area of expertise before a jury, and it came out that you regularly insulted and maligned a major faith and its adherents all in the worship of the false god of anonymity, you'd be discredited and laughed from the stand. I can also say that those California lawyers who participate on this board with anonymous smears of known and living people put themselves in direct opposition to the promises they made when they were sworn in as lawyers.

Help me out here. I am not a lawyer, so I am confused about something you wrote. Why would an individual's derogatory statements about a religion and its adherents discredit them as an expert of an unrelated subject?

[_skippy the dead]

I'm looking forward to Bob's response. I seriously want to see him back up his claim on this and put his money where his mouth is.

Edited to add---I don't think he'll be able to.

I don't believe so, either. This isn't the first time I've asked for it, only to receive the same sort of reply with no support. At least I'm not the only one who has noticed.