Ethics Scenario

[_GoodK]

Okay, I'm back.

So, GoodK, did your attorney run through the following issues with you:

I'll assume you are talking about the defamation case.

1 Did you discuss damages? I don't believe you were damaged. Without damages, your court case, even if you win, will largely be meaningless.

Yes, of course I did.

2. Did you also tell your attorney that you don't post under your real name so for you to be defamed, people would have to already know who you are. Some already know who you are, but there is still a serious proof issue here.

No, I haven't mentioned that yet. We have only spoken at length once, so far.

3. Did you discuss whether you are a public figure for the purpose of this controversy? If so, you have to show actual malice. This probably won't be too hard either since DCP admits it was false.

Yes, I have.

4. Oh, and did you forget to mention to your attorney that you retaliated by starting a thread about DCP alleging that he was addicted to 5-MEO-AMT? And DCP posts under his real name and seems more likely to be damaged by your posting than you by his.

No, I didn't forget to mention it at all. I just chose not to mention it. But in response to your assumption I worded my post much more carefully than Mr. Peterson, you'll notice.

I guess some attorneys are desperate these days, but your case sounds like a sure loser.

We will see, we will see. Even if you're MDB legal advice is accurate, sometimes the journey is the destination.

[_Daniel Peterson]

We will see, we will see. Even if you're MDB legal advice is accurate, sometimes the journey is the destination.

The intent, I suppose, is to run my legal bills up as high as you can, whether you win or lose, so that you can inflict maximum financial damage on me, my wife, and my kids. Have I got it right?

[_karl61]

This is perhaps where I can tell anyone who cares (not GoodK in this case) that I while believe it's important to work within the law, I think we need tort reform, badly. People sue too much.

We don't need tort reform for this. Any suit GoodK would bring under the circumstances of this Board would expose him and his lawyer to sanctions. In California, they would be anti-SLAPP sanctions and fees. I don't know what they are in Utah, but they could be Rule 11 filing sanctions. And then there is the mandatory deposition of Mr. Goodk where he gets to explain his past doings.

cool - now you are in an area that you know something about.

[_GoodK]

deleted by harmony. Do not post about PMs.


Actually, in this circumstance I will post about PMs. It is entirely warranted. Have you asked Dr. Shades?

To be clear, when pressed about his comments towards me, SpongeBob admitted:

It is all fun. It is all games. Nothing more than that.

It's important to know that.

[_GoodK]

We will see, we will see. Even if you're MDB legal advice is accurate, sometimes the journey is the destination.

The intent, I suppose, is to run my legal bills up as high as you can, whether you win or lose, so that you can inflict maximum financial damage on me, my wife, and my kids. Have I got it right?

Wait a minute! Are you actually trying to say that the church doesn't provide legal services for you?

When you were sued by Kurt Van Gordon, did you have to retain a lawyer or was it on the house, so to speak?


.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Wait a minute! Are you actually trying to say that the church doesn't provide legal services for you?

That's correct.

When you were sued by Kurt Van Gordon, did you have to retain a lawyer or was it on the house, so to speak

When I was sued by Kurt Van Gorden, it was for something that I had published in a University publication, so BYU's legal counsel defended me. But that, you'll perhaps be pleased to know (or maybe you'll be distressed to know it, since it would mean that your lawsuit against me won't be costing the Church any money), won't apply in this case. This will be a private matter, with you merely suing a message board participant. (Will that perhaps cause your attorney to lose interest, since I don't have particularly deep pockets? You should probably make sure that he understands that the best you two can hope for will be the house and other assets of a college professor and his family.)

[_GoodK]

This will be a private matter, with you merely suing a message board participant.

Are you sure you weren't accessing this message board via a BYU computer on company time?

The libel occurred on Wednesday, April 8, at approximately 2:00 PM Pacific Standard Time.

Also, I'm not merely suing a message board participant. I am suing a BYU ambassador for libel. I am doing that because, frankly, you need to learn that what you have been doing to me is wrong. You also need to learn that of all the people to wrong, I am not one who will roll over and take it lightly. The Utah Boys Ranch is learning that lesson the hard way, and now so will you.

[_GoodK]

I don't see any lawyers' names, do you? Does anybody?

Actually, I do. Plenty of people have, probably. Clearly, you have slipped off the phonebooks stacked on your computer chair.

I mean, why would he conceal the name of his lawyers?

I'm not.

I hear those sweet violins now.

I hear just one violin, playing a sad, sentimental tune to the following wallowing:

Public boards are all fun, but you cross the line with your private attacks.

Oh that's cute. You crossed the line a long time ago, my friend. As far as I am concerned, there is no line between you and I.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Are you sure you weren't accessing this message board via a BYU computer on company time?

University faculty don't follow rules about "company time." You and your attorney will learn about this, I presume, when you take me to court.

The [ostensible] libel occurred on Wednesday, April 8, at approximately 2:00 PM Pacific Standard Time.

I wasn't on campus on Wednesday. I was working from home. This will all come out, I expect, in court.

Also, I'm not merely suing a message board participant. I am suing a BYU ambassador for libel.

BYU doesn't have "ambassadors," of course, but this is an intriguing angle you intend to pursue: Because I work at BYU and am something of a very minor public figure, the University (which presumably has deep pockets) is responsible for everything I do.

I don't know. It will be interesting to see how that pans out. If you sue the University, of course, the University's legal counsel will rise to the University's defense. That might prove to be a bad move on your part, but the potential megabucks (far beyond what I'm capable of surrendering) could make the risk worthwhile from your point of view.

I am doing that because, frankly, you need to learn that what you have been doing to me is wrong. You also need to learn that of all the people to wrong, I am not one who will roll over and take it lightly. The Utah Boys Ranch is learning that lesson the hard way, and now so will you.

Well, we'll see how things go.

Best wishes.

[_JoetheClerk]

Mr. Peterson, you are too typical of the Utah Mormon mindset with what you have posted here. Threats of lawsuits while publicly smearing someone else.

How very Mormon of you. Joseph Smith and you are truly kindred spirits as he did the same type of thing to anyone who fell out of favor with him.

About time to quit all this crap and get on with life free of people of your stripe.