Wyatt & Fair Defeat Utlm And Sandra Tanner

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_dartagnan
_Emeritus
Posts: 2750
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2006 4:27 pm

Wyatt & Fair Defeat Utlm And Sandra Tanner

Post by _dartagnan »

Or at least that is how Lance Starr (Confidential Informant) puts it over at MAD

http://www.sltrib.com/ci_5524587

FAIR contended that the domain names were registered and the parody site was created without its knowledge by Allen Wyatt


Wow, did FAIR really make such a ridiculous claim? I don’t believe this for a second. The talking heads at FAIR are a really tight group and Allen Wyatt is just as much a part of FAIR as its President Scott Gordon. I find it virtually impossible to believe Allen had been pulling this stunt without at least nudging elbows and giggling about it with the rest of the pack.

In his ruling, Kimball rejected the claim that FAIR was cybersquatting, the practice of registering domain names to profit from the goodwill associated with someone else's trademark or to extort payment by selling the name to the owner of the trademark.


Well, if making money off of it was the only way they’d be breaking the law, then I agree. I doubt FAIR was making any money from it. But then, that was never the intention. It is absurd to say FAIR didn’t “profit” from this in some sense, since its sole purpose is to dissuade people from the arguments of the anti-Mormons, and since they are tripping over themselves, losing the battle, they have to stoop lower and try to make sure people never read the anti-Mormon arguments to begin with. Only a “Kimball” judge could be blind to this obvious fact.

Nor was any of this intended as a mere “parody.” You do not put that much time and effort into a parody unless you want to advertise it and reap from the benefits in a laugh. He didn’t advertise it to any of his friends at FAIR, so he says. Nor do you put that much time and effort and money into purchasing thirteen domain names for the sake of a giggle. One domain name would have served that purpose. It is perfectly clear to anyone who knows Allen and the entire FAIR lot that the intention was to cause confusion and hopefully divert a would be LDS fence-straddler from the Tanner’s website. Sometimes it just takes a click of the finger guided by a temporary sense of curiosity and a Mormon is trapped in that world of information they would otherwise know nothing about. Of the millions of visitors to the Tanner’s website there are probably hundreds of curious Mormons. Of those hundreds perhaps dozens would have become inactive or leave the faith due to the information presented by the Tanners. The Tanners boast far more converts from their efforts than FAIR ever will.

So Mormons are all in support of open inquiry and they do not feel information can do damage? Yeah, right.

Apparently Allen feels that everything the Tanners post online is “deception and lies” and regular Mormon folks need him to save… er… um, “steer” them away because they are too stupid to think critically for themselves.

And then there is the spiritual factor. In Mormon thought one hits a wall of evil spirits just by reading material critical of the “one true Church.” Allen felt he was doing a religious service for the world wide web.

Incidentally, they are crowing and howling over at FAIR about how they defeated the Tanners. Yea, milk it for all it is worth. Victories over the evil anti-Mormons are very hard to come by, so I can see why they are trying to over celebrate this relatively pointless event. Juliann just called nana “unbelievably stupid” for saying both boards should just go back to business as usual and drop the subject.

You have obviously never been sued. That is a unbelievably stupid thing to say. It has nothing to do with what anyone believes...this was a misuse of the legal system and one of the most emotionally destructive things you can be involved in. There was zero chance FAIR would have lost and I'm sure she only went after Allen to get to her real target, FAIR. If Allen had lost it would have been because he broke a law, dear, not because he was persecuted or "right in his beliefs".


Juliann seems to have missed the point of the entire spectacle, and wishes to play the victim card. Cry us a river Juliann. The legal matter draws attention to FAIR’s dishonesty. I doubt the Tanner’s really expected to win anything. Several people grilled Allen Wyatt on the FAIR boards a few years ago when this first happened. And I was not the only Mormon to do so. Ultimately it would have been in FAIR’s best interest to have kept this out of the media spotlight, but I am sure there are many Mormons whose moral compasses are functional, who can see how dishonest Wyatt was. There were at least three or four who was criticizing him on FAIR’s own message forum. How many SLT readers will feel the same?
_Runtu
_Emeritus
Posts: 16721
Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 5:06 am

Post by _Runtu »

I always thought this action from Allen et al. was juvenile at best and indeed reflected poorly on FAIR. I still can't figure out what they thought they were accomplishing, though your interpretation seems the most likely. But hey, they won their court case, so everyone can be reminded of how evil and petty Sandra Tanner is. And of course, they get to call an exmo "unbelievably stupid." It's a win-win for everyone!
Runtu's Rincón

If you just talk, I find that your mouth comes out with stuff. -- Karl Pilkington
_dartagnan
_Emeritus
Posts: 2750
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2006 4:27 pm

Post by _dartagnan »

Juliann says, "this was a misuse of the legal system." So everyone who loses a case is "misusing" the legal system? If it were such an obvious misuse the judge would have thrown it out a long time ago. It is ironic that Juliann would accuse anyone at this point of unbelievable stupidity.

She also says it was "one of the most emotionally destructive things you can be involved in"and then says "there was zero chance FAIR would have lost." How is something so guaranteed to be a win, an "emotionally destructive" thing? If it was so guaranteed to work out in FAIR's favor then they should have been advertising their upcoming victory beforehand. But instead they shut up about it until after the judgment was released. Juliann is really tight with that crew and I am sure she was revealing more than she probably intended here. Apparently Allen had been stressing out over this, causing his own "emotional destruction." But now that a Mormon judge turned a blind eye to the points where FAIR obviously benefited from his little immature stunt, Juliann feels it is safe to make absurd statements like "there was zero chance" of a loss. In court there is always a chance that justice will not prevail. Just look at the OJ trial for crying out loud. Do we really need to list obviously bad judgments in the history of the American legal system?
_Runtu
_Emeritus
Posts: 16721
Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 5:06 am

Post by _Runtu »

dartagnan wrote:Juliann says, "this was a misuse of the legal system." So everyone who loses a case is "misusing" the legal system? If it were such an obvious misuse the judge would have thrown it out a long time ago. It is ironic that Juliann would accuse anyone at this point of unbelievable stupidity.

She also says it was "one of the most emotionally destructive things you can be involved in"and then says "there was zero chance FAIR would have lost." How is something so guaranteed to be a win, an "emotionally destructive" thing? If it was so guaranteed to work out in FAIR's favor then they should have been advertising their upcoming victory beforehand. But instead they shut up about it until after the judgment was released. Juliann is really tight with that crew and I am sure she was revealing more than she probably intended here. Apparently Allen had been stressing out over this, causing his own "emotional destruction." But now that a Mormon judge turned a blind eye to the points where FAIR obviously benefited from his little immature stunt, Juliann feels it is safe to make absurd statements like "there was zero chance" of a loss.


I believe it's called "gloating."

I guess I'm still surprised that Allen would have done something like that. Honestly, in all the years I've interacted with Allen, I've had nothing but positive experiences. I'm really not sure how to reconcile the "immature stunt" with my experience with the man. Maybe some of you have had different experiences with him, but I genuinely like him.
Runtu's Rincón

If you just talk, I find that your mouth comes out with stuff. -- Karl Pilkington
_harmony
_Emeritus
Posts: 18195
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:35 am

Re: Wyatt & Fair Defeat Utlm And Sandra Tanner

Post by _harmony »

dartagnan wrote:Juliann just called nana “unbelievably stupid” for saying both boards should just go back to business as usual and drop the subject.


Nana's only problem is understanding what the mission of the MAD board is. Does she really think it's discussion instead of gloating and backslapping? Silly girl.

I doubt the Tanners expected to win. They live in Utah after all. What Utah judge (especially one named Kimball) would ever rule against the church, no matter what form it takes? I think they just wanted to make a point, that justice in Utah is hard to come by.

On another note, how do you know CI's real name?
_Runtu
_Emeritus
Posts: 16721
Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 5:06 am

Re: Wyatt & Fair Defeat Utlm And Sandra Tanner

Post by _Runtu »

harmony wrote:On another note, how do you know CI's real name?


I was going to ask the same thing, and then I noticed that he was "outed" over there as being one of the attorneys who represented Allen.
Runtu's Rincón

If you just talk, I find that your mouth comes out with stuff. -- Karl Pilkington
_dartagnan
_Emeritus
Posts: 2750
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2006 4:27 pm

Post by _dartagnan »

Confidential Informant is Lance Starr.

I think he once sent me an email through the FAIR forum, but his style has Lance Starr written all over it.

It is him.
_Runtu
_Emeritus
Posts: 16721
Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 5:06 am

Post by _Runtu »

dartagnan wrote:Confidential Informant is Lance Starr.

I think he once sent me an email through the FAIR forum, but his style has Lance Starr written all over it.

It is him.


What a name: sounds like a quarterback or a porn star (sorry, couldn't resist).
Runtu's Rincón

If you just talk, I find that your mouth comes out with stuff. -- Karl Pilkington
_harmony
_Emeritus
Posts: 18195
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:35 am

Re: Wyatt & Fair Defeat Utlm And Sandra Tanner

Post by _harmony »

Runtu wrote:
harmony wrote:On another note, how do you know CI's real name?


I was going to ask the same thing, and then I noticed that he was "outed" over there as being one of the attorneys who represented Allen.


Oh, that's really tacky. His attorney is posting about the case on an internet board? Tacky, tacky, tacky.

I thought CI was in the prosecutor's office. Or maybe I'm thinking of Smac.
_dartagnan
_Emeritus
Posts: 2750
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2006 4:27 pm

Post by _dartagnan »

This whole “it was just a parody” excuse flies in the face of at least one fact. Allen explained his own reasons back in December of 2004 for his acquisition of the savegrantpalmer domain:

I saw that someone was planning to create a Web site on a topic that I know something about, to do it using a "take" that I disagree with, by means that I think are ill-conceived. So, I purchased the domains. I did nothing illegal, unethical, or immoral. Domain name availability and registration is purely capitalistic, on a first-come, first-served basis. I used the system without any abuse or coercion on my part.


Obviously unethical and illegal are not synonymous as Allen would have us believe. He continues,

I did not purchase the domains with the intent of somehow stopping or censoring those wishing to somehow support Grant Palmer by attempting to insert themselves into what should be a purely ecclessiastical matter. They can still rally support or publish information in any manner they wish--they just can't do it with domain names that I purchased. - Dec 5 2004


So where does the parody excuse come into play? When DCP provides it for him moments later:

I'm afraid that I can't see what all the righteous ventilating is about. Allen Wyatt's action seems to me something of a prank, nothing more. Nobody's rights have been violated, nobody has been harmed, nobody's wallet has been emptied (except, apparently, Allen's), nobody has been silenced, nobody has been wronged. – DCP


Look how DCP spins and rationalizes and focuses attention on what the incident wasn’t, in order to divert away from what the incident was. Yes, we recognize it probably wasn’t illegal. We recognize it wasn’t “violating rights.” We recognize it wasn’t physically “harming” anyone. We recognize it has not financially damaged anyone. We realize it hasn’t “silenced” anyone. But to say nobody has been wronged is up for debate, and the fact remains Allen’s actions go contrary to the Golden Rule. It was immature, and in bad taste. I agree with Smac97’s sentiments on the matter:

The law seldom works as a decent proxy for one's conscience. It is quite easy to do something that is "legal" (or not illegal) and yet still be "wrong" in a moral sense. In the instance of taking domain names like Allan has done, I can't help but apply the Golden Rule. I conclude that this is not how I would like to be treated, so I would not treat the Tanners that way. - Spencer McDonald (smac97) Apr 26 2005


Smac97 also detailed the relevant federal statute is 15 U.S.C. § 1129 and notes that,

The language is subsection A is significant: "Any person who registers a domain name that consists of the name of another living person, or a name substantially and confusingly similar thereto, without that person’s consent, with the specific intent to profit from such name..." I think the Tanners will have a hard time proving that Wyatt had this "specific intent."


Indeed. It is virtually impossible to prove what someone else’s intent was, no matter how obvious it may seem to the rest of us. All Allen has to do is play stupid and insult everyone’s intelligence with this “parody” excuse and the burden is on the Tanner’s to prove it wasn’t intended as such. It seems this was a crucial point that worked in Allen’s favor. And of course, he had Lance Starr at his side the whole time to inform him about the “parody” loophole. That was the exception to the rule he had to fall back on. He makes this point on the FAIR forum in April of 2005:

Why don't some of you actually look up the law? You'll note that the law inquestion makes exception for "fair use" for critiques and parodies, etc.


Thus, so long as Allen claimed it was all just fun and games, his underhanded efforts in his apologetic mission could be furthered under the guise of “parody.” This is the advantage of having a lawyer for a buddy; someone who can point out the loopholes where immorality can run amuck in the legal system. And as long as he insults our intelligence and says “FAIR” wasn’t aware of his actions on the sidelines, he puts the burden on the Tanners to prove “FAIR” was behind it. The Tanners would have to come up with some evidence virtually impossible to acquire; some private communications between Allen and the rest of the FAIR board members.

Anyway, I still can’t get over the fact that the judge said Allen’s efforts didn’t cause nor did they intend to cause confusion. What the hell is he taking us for? Allen grabbed 13 different, yet similar domain names, all of which contained content nobody typing in that address would expect to find. For what other purpose could this have served other than to cause confusion?
Post Reply