THE JERSEY GIRL MEGATHREAD

[_Dr. Shades]

[MODERATOR NOTE: In order to prevent thread overlap, I have merged the last 2/3 of the "Shades, it's time to restore the thread" thread and the full "Jersey Girl: It's time to put up or shut up" thread into this one. From now on, in order to prevent "scatterization," let's put all posts relating to the Jersey Girl fiasco into this thread only.]

Actually Nort, based on the only other break in standard operating procedure here at MDB which I have observed in over three years of regular activity here (the perma banning of Jersey Girl), it was my impression that Shades dug his heels in and let personal animosity drive a personally biased, bad decision.

*sigh* It appears as though there's still some lingering confusion in the ranks regarding the Jersey Girl incident. Allow me to explain again:

This board is (part of) a self-contained legal entity. We even have an attorney on retainer (or whatever the lingo is). It's entirely possible to sue this board; if one does so, I won't be affected at all.

Now, we have received legal threats in the past. One I ignored because it wasn't credible, even to me, a layman. The other two were indeed credible and referred to material that I judged to be legally actionable. Even so, the two threats in question weren't so much directed at me so much as directed at the board itself as a legal entity. On top of that, they weren't aimed at embroiling me (or anyone else connected with the site) in a legal and financial morass with the intent to ruin my life; they were aimed at merely getting the objectionable material removed, nothing more.

In Jersey Girl's case, her legal threat wasn't aimed at the board itself as a legal entity, it was directed at me and my moderators. And it wasn't just to get objectionable material removed, it was to embroil us in a legal and financial quagmire as punitive punishment for not bowing down to her demands. To make matters worse, it wasn't because of anything me or my moderators had done; it was something done by a completely unrelated third party when I wasn't even online! Now, I can handle a legal threat against me for something I have done, if it's legally objectionable, but I simply cannot shoulder the liability for what everyone else does when my computer isn't even turned on.

In spite of all that, I still could've ignored it or otherwise brushed it off, but then she took specific, tangible steps to prove to us that she wasn't bluffing and had every intent to carry out her threat. It was only at that point that I had to do what needed to be done.

TL;DR:

• Threaten to sue the board to get actionable material removed: O.K.
• Threaten to sue the board just to be a dick: O.K.
• Threaten to sue me personally for something actionable that I have done: O.K.
• Threaten to sue me personally over the actions of a completely unrelated third party: **NOT** O.K.

Now, are we all completely clear on this issue? Can we finally say we understand how Jersey Girl's legal threat was in a class altogether by itself?

[_Equality]

Thanks for the detailed answer on the Nortinski and Jersey Girl situations, Shades. You are a class act in my book.

[_RockSlider]

*sigh* It appears as though there's still some lingering confusion in the ranks regarding the Jersey Girl incident. Allow me to explain again:

This board is (part of) a self-contained legal entity. We even have an attorney on retainer (or whatever the lingo is). It's entirely possible to sue this board; if one does so, I won't be affected at all.

Now, we have received legal threats in the past. One I ignored because it wasn't credible, even to me, a layman. The other two were indeed credible and referred to material that I judged to be legally actionable. Even so, the two threats in question weren't so much directed at me so much as directed at the board itself as a legal entity. On top of that, they weren't aimed at embroiling me (or anyone else connected with the site) in a legal and financial morass with the intent to ruin my life; they were aimed at merely getting the objectionable material removed, nothing more.

In Jersey Girl's case, her legal threat wasn't aimed at the board itself as a legal entity, it was directed at me and my moderators. And it wasn't just to get objectionable material removed, it was to embroil us in a legal and financial quagmire as punitive punishment for not bowing down to her demands. To make matters worse, it wasn't because of anything me or my moderators had done; it was something done by a completely unrelated third party when I wasn't even online! Now, I can handle a legal threat against me for something I have done, if it's legally objectionable, but I simply cannot shoulder the liability for what everyone else does when my computer isn't even turned on.

In spite of all that, I still could've ignored it or otherwise brushed it off, but then she took specific, tangible steps to prove to us that she wasn't bluffing and had every intent to carry out her threat. It was only at that point that I had to do what needed to be done.

TL;DR:

• Threaten to sue the board to get actionable material removed: O.K.
• Threaten to sue the board just to be a dick: O.K.
• Threaten to sue me personally for something actionable that I have done: O.K.
• Threaten to sue me personally over the actions of a completely unrelated third party: **NOT** O.K.

Now, are we all completely clear on this issue? Can we finally say we understand how Jersey Girl's legal threat was in a class altogether by itself?

I assumed he would dig in his heels again with this strange (for this site) moderating decision and what also appears to be some personal bias.

No personal bias. I've done it before. I'll do it again if absolutely necessary--even for you.

Jersey Girl would not hurt a fly, you know it as well as anyone here that really knows Jersey Girl. She was never a legal threat to you personally or the board. I call B.S. and see it as a personal bias issue ... but what ever.

I would also like to note that Stem got beat up big time about posting his in real life information and got no such relief from you or any of the mods as he was being brutally attacked with it and asking for some help/compassion. But whatever, once again your bias is showing.

[_RayAgostini]

I do my best. It's a balancing act. I always allow free speech to reign supreme unless it has the potential for negative real-life, real-world consequences to someone (unless the mainstream media has already reported it).

Did you take this into account when allowing Evenson to post here?

Trojan Horses In Mormon Land.

Death Threats

In the Salt Lake City Messenger for July 1990, we reported that Ed Decker claimed he had received a "call from a man who told him he was part of an assassination team that received directions from a member of the First Presidency in the Mormon Church. According to Decker, the man said that three people had been marked for death. One of the authors (Jerald Tanner) was among that number and was to be killed with a bomb." We found it very hard to believe that a member of the First Presidency would be involved with an assassination team. That they would use a bomb to commit a murder seemed even more unlikely. The Hofmann scandal clearly demonstrated how much publicity the use of bombs can generate. Would the Mormon leaders be so foolish as to bring national attention to the problems they have with us by using a bomb?

We had almost forgotten about this supposed threat to our lives when Darrick Evenson came into our bookstore on April 22, 1991. After the confrontation which ensued and Mr. Evenson was asked to leave the premises, he made a very strange statement; he referred to the murderous plan mentioned above and suggested that there may really be something to it and that we should take it as being a serious threat. While we still could not believe that a member of the First Presidency [Gordon B. Hinckley] would be involved in such a project, we began to wonder what Evenson knew about the phone call. Could it be possible that he or one of his associates made such a call in an attempt to cause fear and dissension among the ministries? He, in fact, knew that Ed Decker had been leveling serious charges against Hinckley for some time and seemed to be very angry about the matter. Perhaps he wanted Decker to make some foolish move against Hinckley. While we may never know whether Darrick Evenson knew anything about the origin of the mysterious phone call, it seems obvious that he was so upset about being asked to leave our bookstore that he used the incident in an attempt to strike terror into our hearts.

From all that we can learn, Darrick Evenson has a reputation for being very combative. In the interview on Mike Mistretta's radio program on KHEP, Ed Decker suggested that Darrick Evenson may be a dangerous man: "...every single person I've talked to, Mormons included, have just said to me in the final analysis because of his extreme hatred toward me... they've said, 'Ed, this man is dangerous. He scares me.'... just about every single person I've spoken to [have said], 'he scares me.'... one man said, 'you know I'm a married man with four kids, I'm a Mormon but you know my wife gets real nervous around him... he scares us.' "

Darrick Evenson, however, claims that it is the other way around — he is the one who is being persecuted and "assaulted" by over zealous Mormon critics and people involved in the New Age movement. In his letter to the Browns, They Lie In Wait To Deceive, vol. 1, 2nd edition, page 280, Mr. Evenson claims that some Mormon critics have cursed him "to the eternal flames of Hell to be tortured continually forever. I have even been assaulted on several occasions."

On the back cover of New Age Messiah Identified, we read: "After years of undercover investigation, late night clandestine meetings and disguised rendezvous with New Age elite, Troy Lawrence unveils the secret plans spawned by the occult hierarchy. Placing his life on the line, this former disciple of Benjamin Creme... provides photos of the New Age Messiah... 'I've placed my life in danger to get this information out,' says Lawrence, ' we all know what has happened to some who have come out of the New Age movement...' On page 3 of his book, Darrick Evenson related:

"But the paper trail... led me from California to Karachi... from the Ahmadiyya movement to a small but powerful group called the 'Hassasines.' A group so dangerous we derive the term 'assassins' from them.

"My life has been threatened many times, I have been physically attacked, and I've even been the victim of a high-speed chase—all in the hope of silencing me. I have, however, never regretted my decision to go public (not even after I learned that fellow laborer Randall Baer had been mysteriously killed)."

Darrick Evenson would have us believe that it was necessary for him to use the alias "Troy Lawrence" because he feared assassination. We, of course, believe that the real reason was that he wished to hide his real identity from Mormons and those who criticized the LDS Church.

In 1990, Mr. Evenson came to the Salt Lake Alliance Church to hear a presentation on Mormonism by Dick Baer. He took offense over what was said and began to interrupt the meeting. The situation became so serious that Pastor Gary Atwood finally had to ask him to leave. Evenson left the building but before doing so threatened that he would "get" the pastor! For some time he paced back and forth on the sidewalk in front of the church as though he were stalking the pastor. Although those who were present feared for Pastor Atwood's safety, Mr. Evenson finally left the area. Fortunately, he has never returned to the church.

Some of the Latter-day Saints we talked to about Darrick Evenson were concerned about his violent outbursts and even apologized for his behavior. At least two Mormons felt that he could be dangerous to others. One, in fact, suggested that he was like a "keg of dynamite ready to go off."

Because of Darrick Evenson's contentious attitude and unpredictable behavior, we have been somewhat concerned about reporting this story. We felt, however, that it was very important for people to have this information. We would ask those who have an interest in our ministry to hold us up in prayer. In addition, the reader should remember Mr. Evenson in prayer. After all, he has probably experienced a great deal of emotional distress in his long and unsuccessful battle to counter critics of the Mormon Church. He put a great deal of effort into trying to set up a large and powerful organization that would silence the "gainsayers," and must have been very disappointed when he was unable to rally the support he envisioned. Moreover, his attempt to establish himself as an important writer on the occult has been brought to a screeching halt by the exposure of his dual identity. Darrick's greatest need is to find peace with God through submission to Jesus Christ.

Death Threats.

[_Dr. Shades]

Thanks for the detailed answer on the Nortinski and Jersey Girl situations, Shades. You are a class act in my book.

Thanks so much for the kind words. :-)

Jersey Girl would not hurt a fly, you know it as well as anyone here that really knows Jersey Girl.

Apparently you don't know her as well as I do. She says precisely what she means and means precisely what she says. She even takes pride in it.

She was never a legal threat to you personally or the board.

Right. She only A) declared point-blank that she was a legal threat, and B) took tangible steps to prove it. But in the bizarro parallel universe that you inhabit, this equals "never a legal threat." You're amazing, RockSlider. You really are.

I call B.S. and see it as a personal bias issue ... but what ever.

Of course you do. It was never your livelihood that was on the line, so you can afford to be charitable.

I would also like to note that Stem got beat up big time about posting his in real life information and got no such relief from you or any of the mods as he was being brutally attacked with it and asking for some help/compassion.

Dude, EVERYBODY gets beat up big time around here.

Now, if someone else had posted his in real life information, then yes, I would've deleted it. But the limited information he voluntarily chose to share couldn't reasonably be expected to lead to real-life consequences such as him becoming excommunicated, divorced, or sued. Therein lies the difference.

But whatever, once again your bias is showing.

Right. Go ahead and articulate my bias for me in light of what I've clarified above.

Did you take this into account when allowing Evenson to post here?

Trojan Horses In Mormon Land.

No.

[_RayAgostini]

She's no threat at all, Shades. Never was, and never will be. Those who know her best, know that, and two of your moderators here are close friends of hers. They never felt threatened. Do you seriously think she had the time, money, or even will, to pursue this full on into a court? In the past year, she has suffered enough with a death in the family, and the ensuing turmoil and heartbreak that accompanied it. She even blogged about it here. You've misread her motives, and even what she said, which implied no direct threat to you, your family, or your livelihood.

Do you think she'd take any joy in seeing you or your family threatened? All she wanted was to have Evenson removed from the board, because of his "history", and because she felt personally threatened by him, on account of the way he acted in regard to her and a few others in wanting to identify them in real life. And he is a known stalker and predator who was exposed by the Tanners over 20 years ago.

You seriously need to rethink this, and get a better perspective.

[_Drifting]

She's no threat at all, Shades. Never was, and never will be. Those who know her best, know that, and two of your moderators here are close friends of hers. They never felt threatened. Do you seriously think she had the time, money, or even will, to pursue this full on into a court? In the past year, she has suffered enough with a death in the family, and the ensuing turmoil and heartbreak that accompanied it. She even blogged about it here. You've misread her motives, and even what she said, which implied no direct threat to you, your family, or your livelihood.

Do you think she'd take any joy in seeing you or your family threatened? All she wanted was to have Evenson removed from the board, because of his "history", and because she felt personally threatened by him, on account of the way he acted in regard to her and a few others in wanting to identify them in real life. And he is a known stalker and predator who was exposed by the Tanners over 20 years ago.

You seriously need to rethink this, and get a better perspective.

Being a Bishop is easy....until you get called as a Bishop...

[_Yoda]

Ray should know. He has been a bishop. Have you?

I will be making comments concerning my take on the Jersey Girl debacle. I have a conference all day, so it will be later this evening.

For now, I will simply say that Ray is correct in his perspective and I disagree strongly with Shades. This should not be new to Shades or anyone else as I have been very vocal about this issue, as has Harmony. Let me state here that at no time did I EVER feel threatened of being the victim of a personal lawsuit from Jersey Girl. Shades seems to think he is the only one concerned about "bread being stolen from his children's mouths". Believe me, if I had cause to fear this, I would be backing Shades' decision. I never did fear it, and I do not back Shades in his decision with this.

I will be posting more detail concerning this issue later this evening.

She's no threat at all, Shades. Never was, and never will be. Those who know her best, know that, and two of your moderators here are close friends of hers. They never felt threatened. Do you seriously think she had the time, money, or even will, to pursue this full on into a court? In the past year, she has suffered enough with a death in the family, and the ensuing turmoil and heartbreak that accompanied it. She even blogged about it here. You've misread her motives, and even what she said, which implied no direct threat to you, your family, or your livelihood.

Do you think she'd take any joy in seeing you or your family threatened? All she wanted was to have Evenson removed from the board, because of his "history", and because she felt personally threatened by him, on account of the way he acted in regard to her and a few others in wanting to identify them in real life. And he is a known stalker and predator who was exposed by the Tanners over 20 years ago.

You seriously need to rethink this, and get a better perspective.

Being a Bishop is easy....until you get called as a Bishop...

[_Drifting]

Ray should know. He has been a bishop. Have you?

Have you?

If Ray has been a Bishop then he knows full well that it is far far easy to sit on the sidelines shouting than it is to be on the field of play taking the hits.

[_Yoda]

Ray should know. He has been a bishop. Have you?

Have you?

If Ray has been a Bishop then he knows full well that it is far far easy to sit on the sidelines shouting than it is to be on the field of play taking the hits.

True. However, I think that as a website owner myself, my constructive criticism of the situation is fair game.