If I did it, was it wrong?

[_Eric]

I'm not saying that the email template posted on this message board was really sent to Bob's boss, but if I did really send it, was it the wrong thing to do? 

Let's consider the facts: 

Bob has said horrible things about my sister and me, things that bring shame not only to him but to his priesthood, and to Mormon apologists everywhere.

Bob sent me all sorts of menacing and blackmail-like messages when I posted here anonymously, and to be fair, in response I posted a publicly available picture of him with some older lady as my avatar. That wasn't nice of me, but it wasn't nearly as malicious as what he's done to me.

Bob sent me numerous vulgar private messages containing homosexual slurs, and attacked my little sister for corroborating my story, "Trapped In A Mormon Gulag". 

While Bob claims to have had several State Bar complaints filed against him, if his word is to be trusted, I didn't file any of those complaints. To be honest, it just wasn't worth the calories or postage, but if I believed Bob about the complaints, I still wouldn't feel bad for him. He has a long history of nasty Internet behavior, and I'm sure he has made many enemies over the years.

I wrote a huge thread evidencing what he said to my sister, and more importantly, all the glaring inconsistencies in his many accusations about me. It was a beautiful thread, and Dr. jumpy joshi Shades deleted it for reasons he has yet to comment on, other than Bob threatened him with legal action. Many people commented on that thread, many sent PMs to me about that thread, and that thread's deletion marked the last time I ever respond to a CFR from Bob or about Bob. 

Bob "Uncle Creeper" Crockett started saying that he was my family's attorney, and that in his role as our lawyer was privileged to certain information about me, information he said destroyed my reputation and credibility. I objected to this claim, as did my parents, but he continued to make it. 

His insults were one thing (I mean, for Bob to call me a bad writer is almost a compliment since his writing is some of the dullest, thin, belabored prose I've ever read. Droopy is a far better writer than Bob). To say that I "know his daughter" and thus our families have some sort of familiarity also means nothing to me, since I imagine most of the SCV knows his daughter, and I attended different schools and our families different stakes. To call me a liar about the Mormon Gulag means even less, since my story has been corroborated dozens of times over since I told it, and I there isn't much in my story that needs to be 'believed'. To say mean things to my little sister just reflects on his character and demonstrates how little of a man he is. 

But to use his profession as some sort of tool to libel me, over and over again, I believe that crosses the line and violates the ethics he is supposed to live by as a lawyer. As a Californian, as one who respects the profession, and as someone who had tolerated more than enough harassment by the aging troll, I feel like to abide this particular form of libel is a sin. 

If I was speaking on behalf of Bank of America, saying Bob defaulted on his HELOC or something like that, and thus was a bad person or a bum, would I have any reason to cry about my misbehavior when Bank of America found out? 

Recently in Utah, two racist government workers were rightly fired (and should be prosecuted) for using their employers resources to assemble and distribute a list of "illegal" immigrants living in the state. 

So look at the email I supposedly sent to his firm again, read what is written, keep in mind Troll-Bob lies and lies and lies to get a reaction out of posters, and then tell me -- if I did it, was it wrong? I'm open to criticism. 

If someone like Trevor, or Gad, or beastie, or Liz, or Jersey Girl, or Ray, or Some Schmo -- posters whom when we disagree cause me to question my own position -- thinks I was out of line (if I really did it), I will apologize to Bob (if I really did it). In other words: trolls need not reply.

[_Darth J]

I don't know how or why exactly this whole saga arose, but maybe you could just answer a few questions to help me understand this thing better:

1. Why do you feel that whatever Bob talks about on a message board about Mormonism is relevant to his practice of law?

2. Why are you talking about the substance of pending lawsuits in which you are directly or indirectly involved on a message board that anyone with internet access can see?

3. In what way were you damaged by any of Bob's statements on this board, assuming that the statements with which you take issue are false?

4. What is it that you ultimately intend to accomplish with all this?

EDIT: What does the Utah "illegal immigrant list" have to do with anything?

[_Eric]

I don't know how or why exactly this whole saga arose, but maybe you could just answer a few questions to help me understand this thing better:

1.  Why do you feel that whatever Bob talks about on a message board about Mormonism is relevant to his practice of law?

2.  Why are you talking about the substance of pending lawsuits in which you are directly or indirectly involved on a message board that anyone with internet access can see?

3.  In what way were you damaged by any of Bob's statements on this board, assuming that the statements with which you take issue are false?

4.  What is it that you ultimately intend to accomplish with all this?

1. Don't try and straw man me, man.

2. I clearly answered that question in the thread discussing it. 

3. Please read paragraphs 8 through the last paragraph, and I bet you'll find the answer, or ask a better question.

4. Accomplish with what? This thread? I was hoping it would end world hunger. 

[_Jersey Girl]

"If I did it"....I'm assuming that was intentional? ;-)

[_Darth J]

I don't know how or why exactly this whole saga arose, but maybe you could just answer a few questions to help me understand this thing better:

1.  Why do you feel that whatever Bob talks about on a message board about Mormonism is relevant to his practice of law?

2.  Why are you talking about the substance of pending lawsuits in which you are directly or indirectly involved on a message board that anyone with internet access can see?

3.  In what way were you damaged by any of Bob's statements on this board, assuming that the statements with which you take issue are false?

4.  What is it that you ultimately intend to accomplish with all this?

1. Don't try and straw man me, man.

2. I clearly answered that question in the thread discussing it. 

3. Please read paragraphs 8 through the last paragraph, and I bet you'll find the answer, or ask a better question.

4. Accomplish with what? This thread? I was hoping it would end world hunger. 

1. You are the one who brought up Bob's ethics and apparently complained to the California State Bar. The ethical rules for lawyers concern a person's conduct as it pertains to the practice of law. How is anything Bob has done on this board relevant to your comments about his ethics as a lawyer? This isn't an accusation; it's a question. I'm just asking you to connect the dots for me, because I'm not seeing it.

Maybe it will help if I do this. The American Bar Association's Model Rules of Professional Conduct are here:

http://www.abanet.org/cpr/mrpc/mrpc_toc.html

These rules are not binding on anyone (because the ABA doesn't license anyone), but they are persuasive in how most jurisdictions adopt and interpret ethical rules for lawyers. Which model rules do you believe Bob violated by his conduct toward you?

2. I'm not sure which thread that was. I should have been more clear. If you would mind telling me which thread it is, I'll go read it and then maybe I'll understand better.

3. If you are claiming that Bob disclosed confidential information about you or your family, that would seem more like invasion of privacy than defamation. Is this what you're claiming, or is it something else? Or is your claim of defamation that Bob never was your family's attorney and that he is making false statements about information he says he has about you?

4. What are you trying to accomplish in general by posting all this on Mormon Discussions?

[_Jersey Girl]

Eric,

I'm off to a meeting. I'll come back later and see what I think about this.

[_Eric]

1. Come on, man. Read. For the love of god, Read! 

I said: "While Bob claims to have had several State Bar complaints filed against him, if his word is to be trusted, I didn't file any of those complaints." 

2. The thread wherein I asked advice? Mentioned the lawsuits. Explained why I don't feel good about this particular lawsuit. 

3. This is what I said: "Bob "Uncle Creeper" Crockett started saying that he was my family's attorney, and that in his role as our lawyer was privileged to certain information about me, information he said destroyed my reputation and credibility. I objected to this claim, as did my parents, but he continued to make it."

4. I don't know how to answer this question differently. I don't understand why adult male posters post pictures of Miley Cyrus and talk about how "hot" the teenager is, yet I don't question why they post on this message board. Seems a bit odd. 

[_Darth J]

1. Come on, man. Read. For the love of god, Read! 

I said: "While Bob claims to have had several State Bar complaints filed against him, if his word is to be trusted, I didn't file any of those complaints." 

Yes. And you also said this in your OP:

But to use his profession as some sort of tool to libel me, over and over again, I believe that crosses the line and violates the ethics he is supposed to live by as a lawyer. As a Californian, as one who respects the profession, and as someone who had tolerated more than enough harassment by the aging troll, I feel like to abide this particular form of libel is a sin.

What ethical rules did he violate?

2. The thread wherein I asked advice? Mentioned the lawsuits. Explained why I don't feel good about this particular lawsuit. 

You don't see public discussion of that on an internet message board as a tactical error? Okay. Maybe nobody from the opposing side is reading this. There's no way to be sure of that until it's too late, though.

3. This is what I said: "Bob "Uncle Creeper" Crockett started saying that he was my family's attorney, and that in his role as our lawyer was privileged to certain information about me, information he said destroyed my reputation and credibility. I objected to this claim, as did my parents, but he continued to make it."

Are you denying the existence of an attorney-client relationship, or just denying the substance of what he said?

4. I don't know how to answer this question differently.

So you are serious about ending world hunger. That's as good an answer as any, I suppose, because there is no other apparent objective you intend to accomplish.

I don't understand why adult male posters post pictures of Miley Cyrus and talk about how "hot" the teenager is, yet I don't question why they post on this message board. Seems a bit odd. 

Yes, Eric. I think that a 17 year-old girl is pretty. Clearly, this must be equivalent to actually having a sexual relationship with a teenage girl. Because, you know, I actually know Miley Cyrus and have a realistic chance of getting her in bed. It's not like the context of my talking about Miley Cyrus was being a smart ass to jskains.

I also wrote a thread where I said that the underwater city of R'lyeh has been corroborated by underwater listening devices. This must mean that I really think that Cthulhu exists, instead of an allegory for the apologist theory about "Nahom." And I have another thread where I present arguments in favor of the Book of Mormon being set in ancient Italy, so obviously I am serious about that, too, and not making a comment about Book of Mormon "archaeology." I also said that Brigham Young's words when he got to Salt Lake Valley were, "“F” this crap, I'm not going any further." I really believe that to be a historical fact, you know. So there can be no doubt that I am serious about Miley Cyrus, too.

By the way, Eric, a 17 year-old girl in Utah can consent to sex with a man who is less than 10 years older than her. Utah Code Ann. 76-5-401.2. I'm out of the running for having unwed sex with Miley Cyrus, but if I could get her parents to consent, I could marry a 17 year-old girl.

But thanks for turning my sarcastic comments in a thread in which I was responding to jskains into a thinly-veiled suggestion that I'm a pedophile. Why would Bob say that you have a way of making crazy accusations about people who disagree with you? I don't know where he would get that. (And I didn't disagree with you---I'm just asking questions about your claims.)

[_Eric]

This is what you accused me of:

"...complained to the California State Bar."

You are wrong. I didn't complain to the State Bar. I said I didn't in the post you replied to. I corrected you, but you don't seem to want to be corrected. If you don't want to be corrected, chose your words better when asking questions.

Saying he behaved unethically as a lawyer is not the same thing as saying I complained to the State Bar about him.   

You don't see public discussion of that on an internet message board as a tactical error? Okay. Maybe nobody from the opposing side is reading this

.

You misunderstand my 'tactical' plan, if you believe that. You clearly don't read the threads you comment on -- at least not this one or that one. 

Are you denying the existence of an attorney-client relationship, or just denying the substance of what he said?

[face-palm] Yes I deny the existence of an attorney-client relationship. [/face-palm]

Yes, Eric. I think that a 17 year-old girl is pretty. 

Good for you. Why post about it here? 

But thanks for turning my sarcastic comments in a thread in which I was responding to jskains into a thinly-veiled suggestion that I'm a pedophile.

Nerve struck? Easy there. I'm not judging you. I was just wondering why posters post pictures of her here, on MormonDiscussions.com. Also for world hunger? 

[_beastie]

Yes, Eric, I think it would be wrong had you emailed Crocket’s work.

There are times when real-life intervention is necessary for safety issues. But these times are few and far between, so I think it’s a good rule of thumb to not attempt to take internet disagreements and battles into real life. Of course Bob violated this rule of thumb when he attempted to email your step-father, as did DCP when he did email your step-father. LDS have a hard time recognizing, much less respecting, personal boundaries. But if you had contacted Bob’s workplace, that would have been a significant escalation of aggression. It doesn’t sound to me like you were concerned for your safety or your sister’s safety. If you did contact bob’s workplace, it would appear it was an act of vengeance or retribution, to “punish” Bob for his online behavior. Part of the reason that I think it’s inappropriate to attempt to punish people in real life for online behavior, unless that behavior itself is a threat to real life in some way is that online communications is hopelessly murky and ambiguous. I objected to you referring to Bob mentioning his mother’s “intimacies” with the bishop as a reason for his testimony because it was an obvious sexual double entendre. Perhaps you didn’t mean it to be so, or perhaps your id momentarily got the better of you. Who knows. And it is that “who knows” part that is so problematic with internet communications. It can be very difficult to read people online. So sometimes issues become exaggerated in our own minds (bob is the perfect example of this) and lose touch with probable reality. You don’t want bob’s exaggerated version of what happened to interfere with your real life, and likewise you should consider that your possibly exaggerated version of what happened to could unjustly interfere with his. Our minds are so prejudiced in our behalf, and when emotions start to run high, we really do lose objectivity and the ability to even “see” all the pieces of data that may contradict our preconceived notions. If bob isn’t just lying, apparently he really believes you called him a child molester, and yet you believe you did not. And that’s the crux of the issue.

An example: I’m against the death penalty not because I don’t think some people deserve to die for their vicious crimes, or that they might not be better off dead as well, but rather because our justice system is hopelessly flawed, and innocent people are put to death at the hands of the state. While a more extreme example, this is analogous to what I’m trying to explain here. The costsof contacting someone’s workplace is potentially so very high that there should be no possibility of error. And it is simply impossible to eliminate that possibility of error, particularly with internet communications.