Lawsuit against FAIR

[LDS4EVER]

And another cheap shot.

Another pot calling the kettle black comment... seems to be an epidemic on this site

Sorry, but I have not set up a series of bogus websites to lead people astray.

No, but you have bad mouthed FAIR but when anyone bad mouths the Tanners, you take offense. I guess that is your BAC/EV (un)Christ-like hypocrtical attitude you embrace.

[USU78]

Who's plaintiffs' counsel?

Sorry, I just saw this. The Complaint lists the law firm of Morriss O'Bryant Campagni, P.C. as Attorneys for Plaintiff.

So . . . Randy Bateman left that group, eh? Interesting.

Say, CI, what say we offer our joint services pro bono to our hosts here? I emailed Scott yesterday. Haven't yet heard back. Whaddya say?

[Dunamis]

Do not use this as an opportunity to denigrate either party. How much you like or dislike the participants has nothing to do with the topic. If this cannot be discussed civily the thread will be closed.

[Jaybear]

Mongo, I understand how that you may take issue with the Tanners' statement, but I do not see that you have proven them to be liars.

You raise three points.

1. Their date for the change in the First Vision narrative of 1877 (Brigham Young's death) is mind-boggling.

[but in the passage, the Tanners are not chronically the CHANGES to the first vision. They are refering to the date after which the first vision became LDS "doctrine." As I read it, the Tanners' point was prior to the death of BY, the current accepted version of the First Vision with JS being visited by God was not part of LDS doctrine. My reading is based on the phrase "not part of early church doctrine." I don't read that to mean that the first vision was not chronicalled and changed prior to 1870.]

2. Note that through the blatant use of ellipses (. . .), they cut out important portions and destroy vital context in an effort to make it appear that President Young was saying that the Lord did not come to Joseph Smith at all...

[im sorry, but my reading longer narrative, is consistent with the Tanners, that according the BY, God send angels to JS to convey His message. At best BY's statement is ambiguous, and can also be read to suggest a visit by God, but I can certainly see how the Tanners reached their conclusion, because that is how I read it.

That said, if you are aware of seperate writing or speach by BY about the God having visited JS in person, then, although not rising to the level of lie, the failure of the Tanners to address that material on this fact sheet, in my opinoin, would render the Tanners' work at best incomplete, and at worst misleading. Do you have any such evidence? If the First Vision was part of LDS docrine prior to BY's death, then I would expect that BY commented on it on many occassions.]

3. What believing member have EVER said that "early church leaders . . . simply did not understand Joseph Smith's story?"

[Here the Tanners' were addressing the explanations offered by the faithful for issues the Tanners have raised. I have no reason to doubt that this excuse has been offered to the Tanners. I would not expect every resposne to every issue to be the same. For example, how many different answers will I get from the faithful when I ask why did JS's mom say that JS was visited by the Angel Nephi?]

[sorry, but I don't see this as a compelling example justifying anyone accusing the Tanners of lying. What we have here is an difference of opinion over context, and meaning. Just about every thread on the board offers examples of differece of opinions over context and meaning. I expected whoppers to in the nature of Paul Dunn. ]

[wenglund]

I'm not aware of any outright lies that come to mind. I know they are trying to sell their version of christianity, but I'm not aware of any outright lies about mormonism. Is your father's critique of the Tanners available on-line?

Perhaps you missed this earlier in the thread, so let me repost it here:

There's no grounds for a lawsuit!  The purpose of the law is to protect the "goodwill" of an established brand.

Where's the "goodwill" in the Tanner's efforts? 

The good will with the Tanner's is that at least they tell the truth.

My investigation of a single chapter of the Tanners' booK "Mormonism: Shadow or Reality" suggest quite the opposite. See for yourself here:

http://www.aros.net/~wenglund/chapt35.htm

Several years ago I tried posting a link to this critique on the Tanners own discussion board, and the post was quickly deleted and I was subsequently banned by Webguy, their board administrator. I later learned that my experience was not unique, but that many people who dared question the questioners, or critique the critics, had been similarly and radically censored there. Consequently, those thus prevented from "telling the truth" at UTLM, formed their own discussion board called ZLMB.

Contrast this with what may be found here (where FAIR has allowed critics to question and critique the actions and material of its members on their own board--including this thread), and one may get a better sense of who may really be the ones fearing whom, as you say.

If you would like to discuss this particular issue further, you are welcome to open a thread devoted specifically to it, so as not to derail this thread further.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

I would be interested is seeming a choice example of a Tanner lie. SIne they are allegd by many here to be consumate liars, I would hope that someone could present one of the more egregous lies of the Tanners.

Given the serious nature of the allegation, I would expect there must be some real whoopers to chose from.

Please see my post above.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[smac97]

The Deseret News has an article on this story.

-Smac

[Dale]

Hi,

Dunamis I dissagree with closing posts just because a little heat is generated her & there. I feel I would prefer heat here than drive to person over to the CARM site. Certainly there should be limits but not restrictions on people dissagreeing strongly.

--------

About the lawsuit perhaps FAIR is causing them troubles because their credibility has been hurt. For years the Tanners have accused LDS from hiding from the issues which isn't true anymore. The lawsuit sounds like an act of desperation because much of their material would have to be written at this point. The Tanner case against Mormonism is like a bucket for water with holes in it.

Emily Partride appeared in the Temple Lot case & the Judge based on legal weaknesses of her claim rejected it. The Tanners quote the Temple Lot case but leave out the Judges decision. I thought this an example of the bad Tanner habit of leaving information out.

Sincerely,

Dale

[Avatar4321]

Having looked at the complaint, I am seriously curious how the tanners will prove that these websites were taken for comercial gain. Especially since they are suing a non profit organization. How does a non profit organization comercially gain on anything? Perhaps one of the lawyers with more legal experience than I have yet can explain this to me cause I can't figure it out yet.

[smac97]

I think the relevant federal statute is 15 U.S.C.

[lwyatt]

I think the relevant federal statute is 15 U.S.C.

[smac97]

> From what I understand of how my father does things, it was first time registration. These names that the Tanners are so upset about, had never been used before.

> I am sure that if they had, my father would not have done what was done, since that would have skirted too close to violations of the law.

==Actually, your father would have been further away from implicating the ACPA had he re-registered these domains instead of registering them for the first time. The "split of authority" I referenced earlier means that some courts have held that the ACPA applies only to first-time registrations, not re-registrations.

> Anyway, again I would like to apologize for any offending comments that I made yesterday, and would at the same time like to thank everyone for taking a closer look at this matter, and the applicable laws in this case.

==You're welcome. I'm not sure this is a matter that's worth litigating, but if that happens, I think the Tanners will ultimately lose. Unless they can come up with a profit motive, they're outta luck.

-Smac

[lwyatt]

I am not sure that I understand how he would have been further away from transgressing the law if he had reregistered the names, as opposed to utilizing them for the first time.

If they had already existed (and lapsed or something) wouldn't that be more of a trademark infringement, cyber-squatting, whatever, than they are accusing him of?

While I am trying to study the law, I am not making the claim to understand it perfectly. Could you please help me to understand what you mean?

Thankyou.

[smac97]

> I am not sure that I understand how he would have been further away from transgressing the law if he had reregistered the names, as opposed to utilizing them for the first time.

==Some courts have interpreted the statute's reference to "registration" very strictly. "Registration," these courts say, "imparts to us no other meaning but the initial registration of the domain name." Schmidheiny v. Weber, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11852 (E.D. Pa. 2002). As I understand the court's meaning, the ACPA only applies when a so-called cybersquatter registers a domain that has never been registered as a domain previously. If the domain has been previously registered, then a cybersquatter who comes along and picks it up has "re-registered" the domain, which conduct is not actionable under the ACPA.

==Keep in mind, though, that I'm operating on a very cursory reading of these decisions.

> If they had already existed (and lapsed or something) wouldn't that be more of a trademark infringement, cyber-squatting, whatever, than they are accusing him of?

==The Schmidheiny court restricted the statute to its precise terminology, because "if Congress chose to treat re-registrations as registrations, it could have used words appropriate to impart that definition." Id.

> While I am trying to study the law, I am not making the claim to understand it perfectly. Could you please help me to understand what you mean?

==See above (and to be clear: I'm not offering legal advice or acting as an attorney in any way. I'm just speculating and offering my personal opinion.). Keep in mind, though, that the Schmidheiny court was a Pennsylvania district court, and hence a Utah federal district court is free to disregard Schmidheiny if it so chooses.

==In any event, the point is more or less moot if if your dad registered the domains for the first time. The "split of authority" I mentioned doesn't even come into play.

-Smac

[lwyatt]

Ok, thanks. I think that this will help in my understanding a bit more. Thanks again for the time and effort that you put into looking up that case.

[azlabguy]

Okay, I've read through 6 pages of posts regarding the legality of buying/registering these domain names. I have one basic question. Why would someone/anyone register domains for names/organizations with which they have no affiliation? I can think of reasons that would result in making financial gain. Other than that, I just don't get it. Would someone please enlighten me.

[smac97]

> Okay, I've read through 6 pages of posts regarding the legality of buying/registering these domain names. I have one basic question. Why would someone/anyone register domains for names/organizations with which they have no affiliation? I can think of reasons that would result in making financial gain. Other than that, I just don't get it. Would someone please enlighten me.

==There are plenty of reasons other than financial gain. Satire. Political statements. Personal preference.

==Wyatt doesn't really have to explain why he did it. The Tanners, however, have an evidentiary burden of showing that he bought these domains "with the specific intent to profit from such name by selling the domain name for financial gain..." I suppose we'll see whether they can meet this burden.

-Smac

[Scott Lloyd]

Okay, I've read through 6 pages of posts regarding the legality of buying/registering these domain names. I have one basic question. Why would someone/anyone register domains for names/organizations with which they have no affiliation? I can think of reasons that would result in making financial gain. Other than that, I just don't get it. Would someone please enlighten me.

There are reasons other than financial gain that one might want to attract Web surfer's to a particular Web site. Influencing public opinion comes to mind. Pamphleteering is a time-honored practice, and it is no less honorable when done electronically.

[Jaybear]

Why: Here are some theoretical reasons where no money is at issue:

(1) vindictiveness or malice. See FireRonZook.com.

(2) Squelch an opposing viewpoint. Lets say, ancticapating Hillary's forray into the 2004 election, someone registers numerous variations of Hillary2004. Even if no traffic is diverted, it becomes harder for Hillary to get her message out.

(3) Prank.

I suppose there are others.

[mnn727]

Correct.....

[Dunamis]

Dunamis I dissagree with closing posts just because a little heat is generated her & there. I feel I would prefer heat here than drive to person over to the CARM site. Certainly there should be limits but not restrictions on people dissagreeing strongly.

--------

There is no purpose whatsoever in demonizing one side or the other. It is irrelevant to the topic and will not be tolerated.

[smac97]

Here is another article on this subject.

-Smac

[smac97]

Here is yet another story on this topic. Not much in the way of details, tho.

-Smac

[Joey]

Whether you agree with the Tanners or not, it is most obvious that those who are attempting to register the "Lighthouse brand" names, with apparently no purpose to use them, have concluded that the Tanners' work and/or ministries are very effective.

I don't think there is any other "reasonable" conclusion one can reach than that such actions are either to "profit" from a "brand recognition" build-up that the Tanners' have created, or to somehow try and dilute the effectiveness of the Tanners' work.

Either motivation is, I suppose, the right of these FAIR supporters. The legalities of such actions will, apparently, be decided by the courts and not this message board.

[urroner]

Whether you agree with the Tanners or not, it is most obvious that those who are attempting to register the "Lighthouse brand" names, with apparently no purpose to use them, have concluded that the Tanners' work and/or ministries are very effective.

I don't think there is any other "reasonable" conclusion one can reach than that such actions are either to "profit" from a "brand recognition" build-up that the Tanners' have created, or to somehow try and dilute the effectiveness of the Tanners' work.

Okay Joey, other than you personal and obviously totally unbiased opinion, what evidence can you present that you above statement is true? I'm all ears.