Response To Criticism and the Road Ahead

[_Trevor]

I have followed this thread ("Why I am not a Mormon") and here are a few comments I'll make which you have my permission to post on that message board if you wish (though you certainly don't have to and I'm not asking you to do so for my sake):

Bold Trevor's

Can we say "hairsplitting?"

[_harmony]

I am now beginning to see how all these past comments, in combination with the "test" post, could create a case for libel - if damages can be shown. That would be the tricky part - damages. But it certainly is possible that people who know Eric have read some of these things, and have damaged his reputation.

Unless someone can show that something Daniel has said, even the accumulation of the things Daniel has said, damaged GoodK's reputation in such a way that GoodK suffered in some way, I don't see how GoodK could prove he's been damaged by Daniel's words. The suffering has to be real and documented in order for someone to claim damages.

The familial relationship was damaged long before Daniel entered it, so that incident cannot be used as a legal requirement for damages. Was GoodK so affected by the things Daniel said on the board to seek counseling? If not (and there is no indication in any of his posts that GoodK ever sought counseling for anything about his experience at UBR let alone his online relationships) there can be no expectation of discernible damage to his mental state. Has the things Daniel said here damaged his ability to earn his living? That doesn't appear to be the case, either, so there is no damage there.

I don't see how anything Daniel said, individually or accumulatively, could rise to the legal level needed to claim damages. It's possible I'm missing something though.

[_WjExMo]

Much of what is written above is substantially false, but my response to the falsehoods will be left, should it come to that, for the courtroom.

I will vigorously defend myself.

I can see it now. DCP droning on and on about himself for hours on end until the jury is so god damned bored, they finally find him not guilty just to get his fat ass out of the courtroom.

"Will somebody just SHUT HIM UP?!"

I'm glad that somebody is finally taking this asshole windbag to court.

I think it is also time for a little birdy to whisper into the ears of certain parties at the Church Office Building letting them know that their "Moses of Provo", the Prophet Seer and Revelator of FARMS - has through his much windbaggery and great douchebaggery - may be involved in a lawsuit.

I think the suits at the COB, who are always stressing about PR need to know about DCP's long diatribes on this board and the other aptly named board. I would revel in the heat that it could possibly bring down on his esteemed position at BYU and FARMS.

DCP, you are nothing but an arrogant little “F”.

[_beastie]

Unless someone can show that something Daniel has said, even the accumulation of the things Daniel has said, damaged GoodK's reputation in such a way that GoodK suffered in some way, I don't see how GoodK could prove he's been damaged by Daniel's words. The suffering has to be real and documented in order for someone to claim damages.

The familial relationship was damaged long before Daniel entered it, so that incident cannot be used as a legal requirement for damages. Was GoodK so affected by the things Daniel said on the board to seek counseling? If not (and there is no indication in any of his posts that GoodK ever sought counseling for anything about his experience at UBR let alone his online relationships) there can be no expectation of discernible damage to his mental state. Has the things Daniel said here damaged his ability to earn his living? That doesn't appear to be the case, either, so there is no damage there.

I don't see how anything Daniel said, individually or accumulatively, could rise to the legal level needed to claim damages. It's possible I'm missing something though.

Well, as I said, that's the weak part of the case, at least as it appears to us. However, it is possible that people who know Eric in real life read some of these things and have altered their behavior toward him due to these things. Whether or not that altered behavior would rise to damages, I don't know. I really don't know anything about the legal details to cases like this.

I will say, though, if someone came on this board, claimed personal knowledge of me and my family, and repeatedly insinuated they knew serious information about me that would damage my reputation, without ever specifying exactly what it was, I would be furious, and would feel that my reputation had been damaged - at least among that group on the internet. I'm not sure that would be legally significant, however.

[_harmony]

In fact, in retrospect, I would say that DCP was very ill-advised to post this, after being made aware that Eric was pursuing a legal case:

Trust me, beastie. The distress was already there, and had been for years. Don't forget that I've known this man for more than two decades. We're not close pals, but we've communicated by phone and by e-mail from time to time during those years, and had visited with one another in California and in Utah. He had already told me a great deal. I know this drives you nuts, but it's true: I don't know everything about this family situation, but I know more than I've ever let on (or would let on), and I've known it, in some cases, as it was happening.

Have I taken pleasure in this? Not by a long shot. Have I sometimes wished I could blurt? Yes. But I haven't.

Posts like this will help Eric make his case.

This post is about GoodK's family, not GoodK personally. Daniel is not responsible for GoodK's family dysfunction. It was there years before DCP ever involved himself in the side issue of GoodK's participation here. Nothing that Daniel did could be construed to have damaged an already damaged relationship, and he can prove that by the email response he got from GoodK's stepdad. He is absolved from damages to the family.

GoodK's relationship with his family has been dysfunctional for years, so proving that Daniel's words or actions damaged that relationship will be nigh unto impossible. Daniel can simply claim the relationship was damaged prior to his interaction. GoodK will have to prove that in some way, Daniel's words damaged him personally, and I'm not seeing how that's possible, given the information we have currently available.

I mean, did GoodK lose his job or is he unable to earn a living because of what Daniel said? We have no proof of that, and I don't see that happening. Did GoodK seek counseling because of what Daniel said? This speaks to damage to his mental state, but we have nothing that says he ever sought counseling, so I see no damage to his mental state.

Damages must be real and documentable. Where are these damages to GoodK?

[_beastie]

Damages must be real and documentable. Where are these damages to GoodK?

I have no idea, but isn't it possible damaged occurred that we don't know about?

[_harmony]

Well, as I said, that's the weak part of the case, at least as it appears to us. However, it is possible that people who know Eric in real life read some of these things and have altered their behavior toward him due to these things. Whether or not that altered behavior would rise to damages, I don't know. I really don't know anything about the legal details to cases like this.

I will say, though, if someone came on this board, claimed personal knowledge of me and my family, and repeatedly insinuated they knew serious information about me that would damage my reputation, without ever specifying exactly what it was, I would be furious, and would feel that my reputation had been damaged - at least among that group on the internet. I'm not sure that would be legally significant, however.

Whoever would have thought that class in tort law would ever be useful?

Whether or not GoodK is furious is not at issue. The law doesn't care how furious he is. Daniel can wind him up like a top on a daily basis, and the law doesn't care.

In order for a libel lawsuit to be successful, the plaintiff must prove they have suffered damages. Proving that Daniel damaged GoodK's reputation anywhere would be very difficult for GoodK to do, unless he can show that he somehow suffered monetarily, suffered enough mental distress to seek counseling, or that Daniel's actions destroyed his familial relationship. As far as I can see, GoodK can't show any of those.

[_harmony]

Damages must be real and documentable. Where are these damages to GoodK?

I have no idea, but isn't it possible damaged occurred that we don't know about?

It's possible. Heck, it's possible archeologists will someday dig up an artifact that clearly says "Zarahemla", but I'm not holding my breath.

From what's been posted here, it appears to me that GoodK is wasting his money if he files that lawsuit. And Daniel will likely make him pay for years to come for dragging him into court. A bit of caution and wisdom would not be remiss.

[_beastie]

In order for a libel lawsuit to be successful, the plaintiff must prove they have suffered damages. Proving that Daniel damaged GoodK's reputation anywhere would be very difficult for GoodK to do, unless he can show that he somehow suffered monetarily, suffered enough mental distress to seek counseling, or that Daniel's actions destroyed his familial relationship. As far as I can see, GoodK can't show any of those.

I understand, but I'm saying it's possible that "real life" damages occurred we know nothing about.

Of course, I've been saying along the damages portion appears to be the weakest part of the case, unless, as I say, something's happened we don't know about.

[_beastie]

From what's been posted here, it appears to me that GoodK is wasting his money if he files that lawsuit. And Daniel will likely make him pay for years to come for dragging him into court. A bit of caution and wisdom would not be remiss.

I definitely agree with that.