Breaking News: Judge Revokes Anti-Stalking Order

[Dr Exiled]

Not gonna lie, if four people sent my workplace an email with a conference video I held with my former employer I’d have a bad day. I’d wonder who it was, too. That act seems particularly ... something. Not quite sure what to call it.

However, if I were going around and trying to destroy the aforementioned people’s business with false allegations and malicious innuendo, and then someone retaliated with a video setting the record straight, I wouldn’t be surprised. I don’t where Kamp got the idea she can act like she did without any sort of consequence. People will fight back when maligned.

- Doc

Yeah not a huge fan of eye for an eye here. Now did I read the report right that there was no evidence that Dehlin was involved with sending that video to her place of employment? I'll admit I haven't been 100% following the Kemp timeline but I guess I don't see where else it would have come from outside of Dehlin or Open Stories Foundation more broadly. Was there any theory presented on who else could have done it.

It may be that Dehlin or his camp did it. However, the Judge said there wasn't any evidence proving it. He is a popular figure and someone unrelated could have done it, at least that's what I would have argued at the hearing. Kamp needed more tying Dehlin to the delivery. It's her burden.

[Xenophon]

It may be that Dehlin or his camp did it. However, the Judge said there wasn't any evidence proving it. He is a popular figure and someone unrelated could have done it, at least that's what I would have argued at the hearing. Kamp needed more tying Dehlin to the delivery.

I think that is just fine from a legal understanding and I'm not suggesting the ruling should have been any different. I'm more in arguing from a personal perspective. Was this video available to anyone outside of Open Stories Foundation? If it was then I guess that it literally could have been anyone but I'm just curious how long that list actually is.

[Res Ipsa]

Not gonna lie, if four people sent my workplace an email with a conference video I held with my former employer I’d have a bad day. I’d wonder who it was, too. That act seems particularly ... something. Not quite sure what to call it.

However, if I were going around and trying to destroy the aforementioned people’s business with false allegations and malicious innuendo, and then someone retaliated with a video setting the record straight, I wouldn’t be surprised. I don’t where Kamp got the idea she can act like she did without any sort of consequence. People will fight back when maligned.

- Doc

Yeah not a huge fan of eye for an eye here. Now did I read the report right that there was no evidence that Dehlin was involved with sending that video to her place of employment? I'll admit I haven't been 100% following the Kemp timeline but I guess I don't see where else it would have come from outside of Dehlin or Open Stories Foundation more broadly. Was there any theory presented on who else could have done it.

According to the order, the video was publicly available about a week before the e-mails were sent to Kamp’s employer. Dehlin included a link to the video in his defamation complaint.

The word I would use to describe the incident is harassment and I can’t think of word derogatory enough to describe the sniveling cowards who sent them. Given that Kamp has already filed suit, the risk to Dehlin and the Open Stories Foundation board would have been astronomical, so I think it is unlikely they were involved. This smacks of vindictive fanbois.

[Xenophon]

According to the order, the video was publicly available about a week before the e-mails were sent to Kamp’s employer. Dehlin included a link to the video in his defamation complaint.

The word I would use to describe the incident is harassment and I can’t think of word derogatory enough to describe the sniveling cowards who sent them. Given that Kamp has already filed suit, the risk to Dehlin and the Open Stories Foundation board would have been astronomical, so I think it is unlikely they were involved. This smacks of vindictive fanbois.

Thanks for that clarification. I agree that the behavior was quite terrible, thus my wanting to better understand the difference between what is legally provable and what is actually probable. I appreciate all the sharp legal minds offering input on the topic for us dumb laymen.

[dastardly stem]

According to the order, the video was publicly available about a week before the e-mails were sent to Kamp’s employer. Dehlin included a link to the video in his defamation complaint.

The word I would use to describe the incident is harassment and I can’t think of word derogatory enough to describe the sniveling cowards who sent them. Given that Kamp has already filed suit, the risk to Dehlin and the Open Stories Foundation board would have been astronomical, so I think it is unlikely they were involved. This smacks of vindictive fanbois.

It could be. It could have been Dehlin for all we know. It seems that's what Kamp thought. Couple it with him "accidentally" showing up on her live show (I mean the guy does shows for a living but didn't realize when one was live?) and her concern about him tracks a bit.

So the timeline is:

Feb 7 John files a lawsuit against Kamp
Feb 9 Mormon Discussion posts the video of the board meeting.
Feb 12 John shows up on her live show (Was the live show really about Dehlin, to give cover for his excuse that he was gathering evidence against her?)
Feb 14 someone sends anonymous email to Kamp's co-workers to hurt her current employment.
Feb 14 Kamp files for stalking injunction against Dehlin
Feb 15 John puts out a letter counter-acting smear campaigns that regularly get thrown his way, he contends.

I'm sure the judge did a fine job evaluating the evidence. So I see no reason to complain about that. Lack of evidence is lack of evidence, and it'd be hard to prove much given the above. And since that time it doesn't appear Dehlin was showing up on her shows or sending any other messages to her co-workers. So, its reasonable to conclude there's nothing to pursue legally.

But, we're kidding ourselves if we're not noticing that these kinds of things just happen to follow Dehlin around and as we inspect them, Dehlin comes off not looking so good. I've already concluded he doesn't seem like an honest actor in this space of ex-Mormonism. This only supports that, if you ask me. I'm not condemning him of something illegal.

[dastardly stem]

Not gonna lie, if four people sent my workplace an email with a conference video I held with my former employer I’d have a bad day. I’d wonder who it was, too. That act seems particularly ... something. Not quite sure what to call it.

However, if I were going around and trying to destroy the aforementioned people’s business with false allegations and malicious innuendo, and then someone retaliated with a video setting the record straight, I wouldn’t be surprised. I don’t where Kamp got the idea she can act like she did without any sort of consequence. People will fight back when maligned.

- Doc

I'm not feeling myself concerned or interested in Kamp's behavior. Kind of like Rosebud. No offense to them, but both seem difficult. But that's beside the point, if you ask me. Dehlin carries sway and has influence in a space I inhabit. He continually comes off as a dishonest actor to me. This is just another event in a long list of events where he against comes off as the bad actor he's already shown himself to be. Ya have hope that the guy will listen and change his ways. Maybe he's changed some and has listened some. But these things that keep cropping up show he's not treating his role and those around him responsibly.

[dastardly stem]

Okay. Who dropped stem on his head again?

I thought it caused damage only when you drop him on the pointy bit of the arm (is it OK to say that?)

Yes. The elbow's my weak spot. My head has had more blunt hits than Tyson. It can't possibly be the cause of my mixed up views.

[Res Ipsa]

According to the order, the video was publicly available about a week before the e-mails were sent to Kamp’s employer. Dehlin included a link to the video in his defamation complaint.

The word I would use to describe the incident is harassment and I can’t think of word derogatory enough to describe the sniveling cowards who sent them. Given that Kamp has already filed suit, the risk to Dehlin and the Open Stories Foundation board would have been astronomical, so I think it is unlikely they were involved. This smacks of vindictive fanbois.

It could be. It could have been Dehlin for all we know. It seems that's what Kamp thought. Couple it with him "accidentally" showing up on her live show (I mean the guy does shows for a living but didn't realize when one was live?) and her concern about him tracks a bit.

So the timeline is:

Feb 7 John files a lawsuit against Kamp
Feb 9 Mormon Discussion posts the video of the board meeting.
Feb 12 John shows up on her live show (Was the live show really about Dehlin, to give cover for his excuse that he was gathering evidence against her?)
Feb 14 someone sends anonymous email to Kamp's co-workers to hurt her current employment.
Feb 14 Kamp files for stalking injunction against Dehlin
Feb 15 John puts out a letter counter-acting smear campaigns that regularly get thrown his way, he contends.

I'm sure the judge did a fine job evaluating the evidence. So I see no reason to complain about that. Lack of evidence is lack of evidence, and it'd be hard to prove much given the above. And since that time it doesn't appear Dehlin was showing up on her shows or sending any other messages to her co-workers. So, its reasonable to conclude there's nothing to pursue legally.

But, we're kidding ourselves if we're not noticing that these kinds of things just happen to follow Dehlin around and as we inspect them, Dehlin comes off not looking so good. I've already concluded he doesn't seem like an honest actor in this space of ex-Mormonism. This only supports that, if you ask me. I'm not condemning him of something illegal.

Well, yes, if you start off with your conclusion that Dehlin is dishonest, then you will be able to construct a scenario in which he is a bad actor given almost any set of facts. That's how motivated reasoning works.

[dastardly stem]

It could be. It could have been Dehlin for all we know. It seems that's what Kamp thought. Couple it with him "accidentally" showing up on her live show (I mean the guy does shows for a living but didn't realize when one was live?) and her concern about him tracks a bit.

So the timeline is:

Feb 7 John files a lawsuit against Kamp
Feb 9 Mormon Discussion posts the video of the board meeting.
Feb 12 John shows up on her live show (Was the live show really about Dehlin, to give cover for his excuse that he was gathering evidence against her?)
Feb 14 someone sends anonymous email to Kamp's co-workers to hurt her current employment.
Feb 14 Kamp files for stalking injunction against Dehlin
Feb 15 John puts out a letter counter-acting smear campaigns that regularly get thrown his way, he contends.

I'm sure the judge did a fine job evaluating the evidence. So I see no reason to complain about that. Lack of evidence is lack of evidence, and it'd be hard to prove much given the above. And since that time it doesn't appear Dehlin was showing up on her shows or sending any other messages to her co-workers. So, its reasonable to conclude there's nothing to pursue legally.

But, we're kidding ourselves if we're not noticing that these kinds of things just happen to follow Dehlin around and as we inspect them, Dehlin comes off not looking so good. I've already concluded he doesn't seem like an honest actor in this space of ex-Mormonism. This only supports that, if you ask me. I'm not condemning him of something illegal.

Well, yes, if you start off with your conclusion that Dehlin is dishonest, then you will be able to construct a scenario in which he is a bad actor given almost any set of facts. That's how motivated reasoning works.

I'm saying he's shown himself a dishonest actor outside this case. As I said, i don't know his role in the events under question. But even if he's completely innocent, as in mistakenly logged on a live video, and didn't send out the emails which I'm happy to accept, I don't see how this story makes him come out looking good.

Its an interesting thought though. We'll take the church as an example. We'll say one concludes the Church is not what it claims to be. Something comes up, the church does something, and in the mind of the person, who already concluded the Church is not what it claims to be, this new event supports the view that the Church is not what it claims to be. It may seem to be motivated reasoning to point out the conclusion that this new event supports the notion that the church is not what it claims to be...but the person already concluded that based on previous evaluations. That means the conclusion may not have been made by motivated reasoning. It would be the previous evaluation that demonstrates the conclusion.

That's more or less what's happening here.

Motivated reasoning:

the phenomenon in cognitive science and social psychology in which emotional biases lead to justifications or decisions based on their desirability rather than an accurate reflection of the evidence

https://www.bing.com/search?q=motivated ... B1&PC=U531

I don't think I've portrayed anything that is not an accurate reflection of the evidence. So I'm not sure this applies well.

[Res Ipsa]

Well, yes, if you start off with your conclusion that Dehlin is dishonest, then you will be able to construct a scenario in which he is a bad actor given almost any set of facts. That's how motivated reasoning works.

I'm saying he's shown himself a dishonest actor outside this case. As I said, i don't know his role in the events under question. But even if he's completely innocent, as in mistakenly logged on a live video, and didn't send out the emails which I'm happy to accept, I don't see how this story makes him come out looking good.

Its an interesting thought though. We'll take the church as an example. We'll say one concludes the Church is not what it claims to be. Something comes up, the church does something, and in the mind of the person, who already concluded the Church is not what it claims to be, this new event supports the view that the Church is not what it claims to be. It may seem to be motivated reasoning to point out the conclusion that this new event supports the notion that the church is not what it claims to be...but the person already concluded that based on previous evaluations. That means the conclusion may not have been made by motivated reasoning. It would be the previous evaluation that demonstrates the conclusion.

That's more or less what's happening here.

Motivated reasoning:

the phenomenon in cognitive science and social psychology in which emotional biases lead to justifications or decisions based on their desirability rather than an accurate reflection of the evidence

https://www.bing.com/search?q=motivated ... B1&PC=U531

I don't think I've portrayed anything that is not an accurate reflection of the evidence. So I'm not sure this applies well.

The label you've affixed to a person isn't evidence -- it's the kind of emotional bias that forms the foundation of motivated reasoning.