Wyatt & Fair Defeat Utlm And Sandra Tanner

[_Bond...James Bond]

What a name: sounds like a quarterback....

Do you think his middle name is Bart?

[_dartagnan]

What Allen did was not unique. Pornography companies take these kinds of deceptive measures all the time. Don't you just hate it when you receive an email from some unknown stranger with a subject like "About your request" or "Did you know what happened to your mother?", just to pique your curiosity and get you to look inside? And then you find some corny advertisement for breast enhancers or penis enlargment. Or worse, some hyperlink that results in a pop-up ad with vulgar obscenities.

The principle is the same. People are being led to something they had no intentions of seeing. The fact that they are being led to something quite the opposite of where they intended, makes the move all the more in the wrong. Again, someone going to an AA meeting being led to a liquor store, or a porno site using the domain "Waltdisnyworld.cc", would be comparable to what Allen did.

But hey, its all legal right?

[_dartagnan]

Don't look now, but the MDB obsession board is now taking notice of this thread and mocking

That was a given. Here is what Jules said:

Anyone in their right mind who wouldn't willinging admit that lawsuits (no matter which side you are on) can be emotionally destructive? Wow.

I said nothing about lawsuits in general never having the capacity to be emotionally destructive. I am simply assuming Juliann’s comment had some relevance to this lawsuit , which we’re all discussing. This is a reasonable assumption to make, otherwise, why make this comment at all?

I am simply pointing out that if Allen was “emotionally” distraught over this event then it can hardly be said there was a “zero chance” he could have lost. Anything can happen in the courts, as “anyone in their right mind” should admit.

I am sure Tanner will put up the final judgement on her website along with her other trophies to give her readers a sense of reality.

But I doubt it would be nearly as dramatic as Lance’s triumphant declaration “Wyatt & Fair Defeat Utlm And Sandra Tanner.” Sounds like someone is polishing his own “trophy,” especially since he was the attorney involved.

It is amazing the lengths the antis will go to in hiding information.

Yea, kinda like buying up domain names in order to hide the information on the original websites. Amazing indeed.

[Anonymous]

Kevin, we can't let our convictions that the church is not true lead us to abandon all reason and latch onto simply anything anyone says about the church. That's one of the reasons I don't really spend much time at RFM anymore. Too many (not all) people over there are ready to just latch onto any anti-LDS thing that comes up, whether it's wrong or right, just like they used to latch onto anything the LDS said, wrong or right. Same s***, different side of the fence.

The thing is, yeah, Allan did something I don't really agree with, but I don't think the Tanners can demonstrate any actual harm, and since Allan offered to transfer over to them the domain names in question, that should have been the end of it. Tanners win. But no, it turned into revenge, or whatever, and it went beyond where it should have. So they took their issue to court anyway, and lost because their lawyer couldn't find a good argument that could prevail, based on the precedents set in other circuits. None of this means that the LDS church is true after all, nor that the judge only ruled the way he did because he's a Mormon, or that some huge injustice has been done. It just shows that, in retrospect, the Tanners probably should have not even taken this as far as they did. But we already knew that, because they weren't actually harmed in any demonstrable way, and Wyatt had already offered to transfer to them all of the domain names.

[_Jersey Girl]

If someone has already addressed this, just ignore it. My time is somewhat limited and I haven't read the whole thread.

On RFM, a poster said that Tanner was unprepared. If I recall correctly, they didn't give specifics of how she was unprepared. Does that mean that Tanner failed to register her UTLM?

What about the right to an appeal? Is there anything Tanner can do to prepare herself to win an appeal?

Please, dumb it down for me.

Jersey Girl

[Anonymous]

Why do you care if she can win on appeal? What is it about this case that makes so many of the exmos want for Sandra Tanner to prevail? Is it a desire to "stick it" to FAIR? You know, sort of use the court system as a proxy battlefield to resolve your religious differences? Seriously, what gives? The domain names that Wyatt registered and used, that are at issue, are already in Sandra Tanner's hands, and now point to the real UTLM website. She's already one in terms of the result that matters, ie: getting Allan Wyatt's domain name ruse off the net. She lost in court because the law really doesn't support the claims she made. I very much doubt she could win on appeal, especially because no new charges could be made on appeal, nor new evidence presented. She have to argue that the judge got it wrong as a matter of law, or that the law itself is unconstitutional. And I just don't see it happening.

But guess what? The church is still not true. Allan Wyatt is still stuck in a religion that simply isn't true, and so is everyone else at FAIR, etc.

Seriously, if the Jehovah's Witnesses took the Roman Catholic Church to court over something, one of them is going to win, and one of them is going to lose. Would the outcome of that mean anything at all with respect to which one, if any, is actually true? Of course not. Same thing here.

It would be helpful for some of you guys if you could stop seeing this court case as some kind of righteous struggle of Good versus Evil that must be prosecuted to the bitter end. It's just not healthy, and not helpful. Granted, to read the self-congratulation going on over on the MAD board, as people celebrate the triumph of Good versus Evil, it's got to be annoying to the anti/exmo crowd, but jeez, let it go. Both sides seem to be viewing this as something that it isn't, ie: a proxy battle to determine whose religious claims triumph. Someone's got to be the "bigger man" and get over it.

[_Jersey Girl]

Why do you care if she can win on appeal? What is it about this case that makes so many of the exmos want for Sandra Tanner to prevail? Is it a desire to "stick it" to FAIR? You know, sort of use the court system as a proxy battlefield to resolve your religious differences? Seriously, what gives? The domain names that Wyatt registered and used, that are at issue, are already in Sandra Tanner's hands, and now point to the real UTLM website. She's already one in terms of the result that matters, ie: getting Allan Wyatt's domain name ruse off the net. She lost in court because the law really doesn't support the claims she made. I very much doubt she could win on appeal, especially because no new charges could be made on appeal, nor new evidence presented. She have to argue that the judge got it wrong as a matter of law, or that the law itself is unconstitutional. And I just don't see it happening.

But guess what? The church is still not true. Allan Wyatt is still stuck in a religion that simply isn't true, and so is everyone else at FAIR, etc.

Seriously, if the Jehovah's Witnesses took the Roman Catholic Church to court over something, one of them is going to win, and one of them is going to lose. Would the outcome of that mean anything at all with respect to which one, if any, is actually true? Of course not. Same thing here.

It would be helpful for some of you guys if you could stop seeing this court case as some kind of righteous struggle of Good versus Evil that must be prosecuted to the bitter end. It's just not healthy, and not helpful. Granted, to read the self-congratulatory mutual masturbation going on over on the MAD board, as people celebrate the triumph of Good versus Evil, it's got to be annoying to the anti/exmo crowd, but jeez, let it go. Both sides seem to be viewing this as something that it isn't, ie: a proxy battle to determine whose religious claims triumph. Someone's got to be the "bigger man" and get over it.

Sethbag?

If the above reply was for me, you're reading FAR more into my questions than what the words represent.

My understanding so far of this event is that Tanner sued Wyatt because he used similarly worded domains (?) to UTLM. Tanner didn't have a registered trademark on UTLM. If that is so, her losing the case is fully justified.

I asked about a post I saw on RFM where a poster said she wasn't "prepared". I'm not sure if anyone addressed this here since your post is the first I'm reading and replying to. It seems to me, based on what little I've read, that the only way Sandra could have been more "prepared" would have been if she had registered UTLM as a trademark.

Jersey Girl

[_Sethbag]

Sorry if I read more into your question than you intended. To answer your question more pointedly: no, I don't think she could win on appeal, whatever level of preparation her lawyers achieved.

[_Jersey Girl]

Sorry if I read more into your question than you intended. To answer your question more pointedly: no, I don't think she could win on appeal, whatever level of preparation her lawyers achieved.

Is it because the case hinges on her failure to secure the trademark?

Jersey Girl

[_Dr. Shades]

Sorry if I read more into your question than you intended. To answer your question more pointedly: no, I don't think she could win on appeal, whatever level of preparation her lawyers achieved.

Is it because the case hinges on her failure to secure the trademark?

Jersey Girl, I'm 99% sure that "Utah Lighthouse Ministry" was a registered trademark. But that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about cyber-squatting: Allen "the domain hog" Wyatt bought up www.utlm.com --a URL extremely similar to www.utlm.org --in order to redirect people to FAIR articles who were looking for the Tanners' site but typed in the wrong URL by mistake.

In other words, a form of deception.