[ashman165]

"I get the sinking feeling that you're a professional victim. I digress."

By that I meant your passive aggressive approach, which I see you gleefully continue here. For instance, you take an objective, factually accurate, non-threatening, non-inflammatory remark about the potential legal fallout of such a thing as "abusive". That says to me, "Hi there. I'd like to hear your thoughts on this matter so long as they confirm what I want to be the case. Any comments otherwise are a personal attack on me, and are consequently abusive." Professional victim.

I guess the other twenty plus people (not including those in my church) I spoke with are also "proffesional victims". Everyone of them checks the site regularly because they fear that his behavior will escalate and someone could be seriously injured (he tells people they don't need their meds). They all chip in by telling other members and myself what he is up to.

The other 20 people, such as I know, aren't on here asking about the potential consequences of a court battle over this and responding to a highly accurate, factual post which only provides a warning as their being personally attacked and abused. If you're ill-prepared to hear the answer, or can't accept advice you don't want to hear because it's an attack on you, don't ask questions.

By the way, I don't know if you have ever heard of something called a server..but here is the deal..I can prove he sent those e-mails if necessary.

Excellent. This would fall under the whole bit about our having said that truth is absolute defense. So long as you can prove each claim you make about him, he has no grounds upon which a defamation lawsuit can stand.

By the way, as a "proffesinal victim" I also have to state that I have been at the same congregation for 12+ years and never had problem one with any of the people there. This is the only situation I have come into where I have felt the need to do something.

Great for you. We should all be so lucky. Perhaps this is why when a non-threatening, non-abusive, realistic accounting of what potential pitfalls might exist for you comes up, you perceive it as an attack. Or, perhaps you're just telling me this because all of the other times in your life someone has dared to warn you about what could potentially happen, you've rationalized it as an attack. Either way, I don't care. The comment you were given was apt; if you perceive something that mild as abuse, I can only imagine the reaction you'd have if someone dared dislike your shoes.

I considered it a way to keep other people from having their heads messed with since the state won't do anything. There are people I care about that got hurt with his quack counseling....i.e. him telling an underage girl I know that she was demon possesed and he tried to convince her that she is suicidal.

Well, this is a product of credulous people who are already predisposed to accepting that either demons or magic exist and can affect their lives. At the end of the day, if someone takes seriously an assertion they're possessed by a demon and lets that in anyway affect their lives, they bear a considerable amount of responsibility for being that gullible in the first place.

But your right..since I started a blog about the guy I must really think I'm a victim all the time and in all situations. Kudos, maybe you should be a therapist since you are so good at diagnosing people.

I'll consider your advice. However, I won't consider your platitude as an attack.

"But you're perfectly willing to undergo the hassle of creating a website to lambaste this guy in a public forum where nothing can actually result instead of handling it in the one place in our system where a conclusion and final set of actions can be wrought. Groovy."

First of all, the blog was very easy to set up and only requires a minimal amout of time and effort. Second of all, what is the point of suing someone that can't pay you? I can post all of his other civil suits on my site and not have to pay for it. Two months ago someone else sued him...guess what? He claimed bankruptcy and they let it go. Why would people spend the money to take someone to court if they aren't going to get anything out of it? Also, suing him in civil court won't stop him...I was never looking for money. I want the guy to stop.

Well, if someone's goal is to get money out of some bad situation (like say a professional victim might be wont to do), then I could see there is no point in suing him. After all, all you can get out of a lawsuit of that type is public recognition of his bad dealings with people. But if there's no monetary gain possibly involved, I can see why you wouldn't do it.

"Be sure to keep us up-to-date; I'm awash with anticipation."

Here is the update...you don't know my motives...maybe what you think of me has to do with what you think of yourself.

Maybe. Anything is possible, but it's highly unlikely. Anyway, good luck in your quest against this guy.

[caselfrepresentation]

Couple of quick comments. As described, the issue is not criminal. The FBI would not get involved in this, and neither would any state authorities. There is no matter of "jail time." This is purely - and at best - a civil matter (meaning the complainant would need to bring a civil suit, i.e. a claim for defamation.)

It does not appear that a suit for defamation has legs in this instance (based on your posts.) Note that either (1) the truth of the contested statements; or (2) a demonstration that a reasonable effort was made to ascertain the truth or falsity of statements at issue, defeats such a claim.

A good resource to figure out what a plaintiff needs to prove to prevail on a claim are the California Jury Instruction: (http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/jury/civ...s/juryinst.htm). As I recall, there are different pleading standards for defamations actions against public individuals and private individuals, and different standards depending on the type of statements at issue, so you will need to find the situation that applies to you.

[cyjeff]

I will also add that making a statement that says, "Citizen A abuses collies, exposes himself to elm trees and uses the word 'actually' so often that he should be maimed"... followed by "this may not be accurate" doesn't really protect you.

If you wonder if the words are accurate, don't say them.

Further, unless you want to be bankrupted in court, don't say them.

That's right... even if you are absolutely right, you could end up paying so much in legal fees to defend yourself that you would be the most morally upright person ever to live in a cardboard box.

[Bubba Jimmy]

If you say anything at all about this person there is nothing to prevent him from filing a lawsuit. That does not mean that he would win his suit, but you can be sued and you would need to hire an attorney to represent you. He would also have to hire an attorney to represent him. I cannot tell if the things you are saying about him are true, and even if you believe them to be completely accurate I cannot tell if you would be able to prove that in court. Only you and your lawyer can evaluate those things. If you want to ensure that you do not get sued then you should not put anything on the Internet about him. That will protect you 100%. If you decide to post the things you say are true to the internet then you need to evaluate the likelihood that he will spend his money to sue you, whether you're prepared to spend money to defend yourself, and whether you have proof of what you've said or not.

[mmmagique]

[QUOTE=cyjeff;366492]I will also add that making a statement that says, "Citizen A abuses collies, exposes himself to elm trees and uses the word 'actually' so often that he should be maimed"... followed by "this may not be accurate" doesn't really protect you.

/QUOTE]

OMG Jeff! You know "A" too?!!

(personally I think he's interested in my poodle...)

[brandirosejc]

Thanks for the joke...
Levity is important at times like these ...
I got a really good laugh off of it.

[ashman165]

If this keep up, we'll have to change the name of this thread to "exposing myself to predators on my blog".

[brandirosejc]

Let's just say that the guy is bankrupt and he can't find a job. I'm not likely to get sued I have been told (by an attorney) because apparently there is a large grey area in defamation and attorneys don't take such cases on contingency unless they think there is a great chance of winning and they believe there is money to be had.
I feel much better now than I did when I first posted.

Johnathan,

I do see your points about previous posts, and I concede to the fact that I likely overreacted to your comment. However, I do have an issue with this....

"Well, this is a product of credulous people who are already predisposed to accepting that either demons or magic exist and can affect their lives. At the end of the day, if someone takes seriously an assertion they're possessed by a demon and lets that in anyway affect their lives, they bear a considerable amount of responsibility for being that gullible in the first place"

This girl is a teenager, not an adult with world experience to counter such claims. While I am a Christian I am also a Biology major and I have a great deal of faith in science. I would find such an assertation stupid at best. But, I'm not a teenager who was raised by someone who is I'm sad to say very driven by "spiritual" beliefs. I personaly believe that most people who are called possessed are merely people with some kind of organic brain disease or mood/psychotic disorders.
But to say she (the teenager) is responsible for believing what she was taught to believe isn't a fair statement. Just saying...

[ashman165]

Johnathan,

I do see your points about previous posts, and I concede to the fact that I likely overreacted to your comment. However, I do have an issue with this....

Thank you.

This girl is a teenager, not an adult with world experience to counter such claims. While I am a Christian I am also a Biology major and I have a great deal of faith in science.

Well, as Cat Stevens said, "you're young and that's your fault." While it's expected that children will lack the mental firepower to critically evaluate claims, there comes a point when we start requiring of people the exercise of their mental faculties. You say she's a teenager, and I'll maintain that it's irrelevant that she's a teenager. She's not a child. Granted, certain parts of her brain are still developing, and we can't expect of her the same kind of mental acuity we should like to expect of a 30 year old, it's far from saying that because she's a teenager she has no responsibility for her credulity.

She has, presumably, learned to read and to write. She has learned to add, subtract, multiply and divide. Each of these in turn requires the translation of one set of skills to a new type of problem. This underlies the critical reasoning process to the extent that we regularly take what we're told and evaluate those claims against other things we've been told. Now, it's possible this gal has been locked away from all of society such that her mental processes have been carefully contrived through the privation of intellectual liberty common among our society. I don't think it's likely given that she knows you.

If she blindly accepts whatever she's told, then she's gullible to a contemptible degree such that someone should come along and slap her into reality. At a certain point in anyone's growth, the onus falls onto one to start thinking for one's self.

Incidentally, it's a non-starter to claim you have faith in science. Things with evidence require no faith. Science is the exact opposite of faith as it obliges people to deal with what is evidently true by dispensing with belief in things for which there is no way to actually know it.

I would find such an assertation stupid at best. But, I'm not a teenager who was raised by someone who is I'm sad to say very driven by "spiritual" beliefs. I personaly believe that most people who are called possessed are merely people with some kind of organic brain disease or mood/psychotic disorders.

While that might make for an interesting meta-analysis or something, what anyone "personally" wants to believe isn't material. When dealing with claims of this sort we're relegated to dealing with only one of two possible outcomes: the claim is either true or false. Any assertion submitted without the benefit of evidence can be, and should be, just as quickly rejected without evidence. Perhaps your being in this gal's life can impart that upon her. However, that doesn't change the burden of responsibility from her to think for herself.

But to say she (the teenager) is responsible for believing what she was taught to believe isn't a fair statement. Just saying...

Sure it is. We require in our societies that people conform themselves to certain objective standards. Pleading stupidity has never been a defense for anything, and we out of hand reject that notion because it's the unique feature of the human species that we're capable of thought and reason. And we expect and require this out of almost everyone (we make exceptions for the mentally deficient for obvious reasons).

That's my $.02

[brandirosejc]

"Incidentally, it's a non-starter to claim you have faith in science. Things with evidence require no faith. Science is the exact opposite of faith as it obliges people to deal with what is evidently true by dispensing with belief in things for which there is no way to actually know it."

lol....touché

"Now, it's possible this gal has been locked away from all of society such that her mental processes have been carefully contrived through the privation of intellectual liberty common among our society. I don't think it's likely given that she knows you."

I understand your comment but I think you are oversimplifying a complex issue. You are not giving the credit that is due to primary socialization. When the person is also getting secondary socialization from a group with similar thinking/behaviors to the primary caregiver it's more difficult to draw on ones own ideology.

Eventually there will be a point wherein the intelligent person struggles with cognitive dissonance and comes to their own system of belief. This, according to sociologists usually happens around the age of eighteen in America (which is why people choose their faith at this age). I absolutely hold her mother accountable for being ridiculous. She is so ridiculous in fact that she didn’t have a discussion about menstruation with this girl until it was time for it to happen. Such subjects I have found out were taboo in their home. This illustrates the nonsensical sheltering that was going on.

You could make the argument that she still has her own mind to figure things out. But it’s a proven fact that people in dysfunctional homes tend to think in a dysfunctional manner. I.e. even though society says incest is wrong, a person living in a home where that is taking place may think it is normal. They may not challenge that until they get old enough to engage in the process of cognitive dissonance. While this is an extreme example the position of the argument holds true.

I have spoken with her several times lately and believe that she is reaching that point in her life and right on schedule…She is extremely bright and I believe she will throw away unhealthy religious ideas and hold on to healthier ones. Even if religion is just a crutch and there is no god, she can still benefit from the structure that religion provides. Religion is a way that many people learn self control and patience among other things; this is the benefit to which I speak, regardless of what religion the person chooses.