Response To Criticism and the Road Ahead

[_solomarineris]

GoodK, how did you fill out that form you sent in? It seems to be more specifically applied to complaints against a lawyer that has been retained in some way to perform lawyerly services for you, not a "if you don't like someone who is a lawyer let us know" form.

(♠He didn't write Jack s**t)
Daniel Peterson wrote:
This is not a joke.
Pokotator
It doesn't sound like a joke it sounds like a threat.

Look at the whole thing;
One tries to intimidate, the other runs scared, another much learned one (pretends to be a lawyer, runs w'out looking back)
This resembles a terrible drama. I wonder any of these guys have real jobs; I know DCP lives off a welfare stipendiary of BYU/Church, others are suspect making a daily living, considering how much time they blow here.
I think Dr Shades is Puppet Master, pulls all the strings.
Great job!

[_Daniel Peterson]

I cannot let him have my house and my life savings, Inconceivable. I have a wife and children.

But, if you're willing, I'm perfectly happy for him to take yours.

[_Yoda]

Dan, what do you mean, specifically, regarding posters being involved in the lawsuit? In your countersuit, are you planning on suing MDB as well as Eric? Or are you simply talking about some of us being called as witnesses?

[_Yong Xi]

GOODK,

Would you be willing to drop your lawsuit if Daniel would check himself in to the Utah Boy's Ranch for a year?

[_KimberlyAnn]

And this is the danger of what Goodk is doing. I suspect others will wonder if it is worth it to continue to post here when the threat of lawsuits is very real. This was supposed to be a "free speech" board--but who wants to get sued for exercising their free speech?

I think Shades is going to have to do something or this could really hurt the board--it has the potential to drive posters away as well as suppress the whole premise for which the board was created.

GoodK knows I don't approve of this pending lawsuit, but it's his call and he's doing what he deems right.

I do believe, however, that "free speech" doesn't include libel. It's an actionable offense for good reason.

Dr. Peterson has threatened to sue Gadianton and, If I recall correctly, Scratch as well. I certainly didn't fear posting on this board after Dr. Peterson's notice of his intention to sue. I don't fear posting on it now. I go on record, though, as finding both the legal threats of Dr. Peterson against Gad and the threats of legal action from GoodK against Dr. Peterson to be unnecessary. I also understand GoodK's anger and frustration. I wish an apology could fix this mess.

And I think it best should it become necessary to sue someone for libel that it be handled behind the scenes instead of publicly. Maybe that's the Southerner in me. I loathe airing dirty laundry.

KA

[_Pokatator]

GOODK,

Would you be willing to drop your lawsuit if Daniel would check himself in to the Utah Boy's Ranch for a year?

Hey, Crocket's gotta be part that deal, too!

[_Droopy]

You know, I may be crazy, but a libel suit, to be justifiable, must, regarding the claims made for it, be true. The things said about another poster, or anyone, must be false, malicious, and, well, libelous.

The bar for libel is rather high. Taking someone to court because they exposed information one did not want exposed, or said things about them they do not like, will not cut the mustard.

[_John Larsen]

<sigh> I am going to check back on this board in a couple of weeks when (maybe) we start discussing Mormonism again.

[Guest]

Dan, what do you mean, specifically, regarding posters being involved in the lawsuit? In your countersuit, are you planning on suing MDB as well as Eric? Or are you simply talking about some of us being called as witnesses?

No, I have no interest in suing MDB nor in hurting Shades.

But I think several here could potentially be called as witnesses, or deposed. I'm not threatening when I say that. However, if GoodK really creates a legal maelstrom, I'm not the only one likely to be engulfed in it. Of course, my lawyers would dictate the strategy, and I don't pretend to be an attorney. But, as I've thought about the defense I would make regarding this matter, I've already thought of arguments that would involve others here.

I regret it, but, since GoodK's explicitly declared goal is to take away my home and my life savings, and to ruin me, my family, and my children financially, I have no choice but to fight back with everything at my disposal.

Is his lawsuit absurd? Yes, I think it is. But I've been sued once before, and I know that lawsuits don't have to have any merit at all to ravenously consume money and time. Even if, as I fully expect, I were to prevail, the suit would be very costly to me in many ways. Would I attempt to make it as costly for GoodK as I could? Absolutely. You can count on it. I'll try to send a message to the next person who thinks of suing me without valid grounds, that he should think long and very hard about how much he wants to sacrifice for the effort. And, once my name has been formally besmirched, I'll seek full and unambiguous vindication. And, subject to counsel, I'll drag into my defense absolutely anybody who might be useful in that cause.

Well, that's enough here. I really did feel the obligation to warn people of what might be on the horizon.

Other than that, I'm done. I deny any and all wrongdoing, and deny feeling even the slightest malice toward GoodK. Even now.

If anybody has any questions for me, I'm reachable, as always, via daniel_peterson@BYU.edu.

[_Trevor]

And, subject to counsel, I'll drag into my defense absolutely anybody who might be useful in that cause.

Oh crap.