Lawsuit against FAIR

[Vooduguru]

The whole foundation of ethical behavior rests on treating others the way you would want to be treated.  I am rather appalled that anyone here thinks that the Tanners are being treated in an ethical way.  It would only require a little of decency to end this mess.  This should bne settled  fairly out of court.

You're right about a little decency--like the Tanners bothering to ask for the domain names before going to sue.

Gee, I wonder just who is actually trying to profit unethically from this.

Any hype is good hype (to a point) they (the tanners) I feel are looking to basically say "LOOK SEE THESE MORMONS ARE THEIVES!!11!!!oneoneeleven!!" and give some more anti's more fuel to "prove" their points in "proving" the LDS faith a "cult"

Do I use "" too much?

[smac97]

The whole foundation of ethical behavior rests on treating others the way you would want to be treated.  I am rather appalled that anyone here thinks that the Tanners are being treated in an ethical way.  It would only require a little of decency to end this mess.  This should bne settled  fairly out of court.

You're right about a little decency--like the Tanners bothering to ask for the domain names before going to sue.

Gee, I wonder just who is actually trying to profit unethically from this.

I think that the "rightness" and "wrongness" of trademark infringement are, in the main, manufactured, and not innate. That is, using a trademark is only "wrong" because there's a law on the books saying so. This law also has exceptions to it, and if these exceptions are met, then using a trademark becomes "fair use" or "news commentary" or "parody," all of which are "right." The behavior is largely the same, but legislators have formulated distinctions that differentiated "right" usage of a mark with "wrong" use. These distinctions are largely attenuated from the basic sense of ethics most people have, which is probably why we need lawyers to tell us when using a trademark is okay and when it is not. Legality, not morality, rules the day.

By the way, I wonder where all our resident moralists were when the Tanners were posting excerpts of the CHI without permission.

-Smac

[Dale]

Hi,

Although it's in bad taste for them to sue if their rights were violoated they have that right. But it's no been proven that they have been a victim of FAIR, or anyone else. Certainly they got some legal advice & I hope FAIR has gotten better advice. If FAIR hasn't done any wrong I don't want them to settle out of court. I want the court transcripts published on the FAIR website along with an eventual explanation of it's side. The unfortunate thing is it can sometimes take quite awhile to solve such disputes. My father had legal problems with his ex-wife that took more than a year to solve. Hopefully it will be resolved within a more reasonable amunt of time.

Sincerely,

Dale

[smac97]

> Although it's in bad taste for them to sue if their rights were violoated they have that right.

==Agreed.

> But it's no been proven that they have been a victim of FAIR, or anyone else.

==Agreed.

> Certainly they got some legal advice & I hope FAIR has gotten better advice.

==I hope so, too.

> If FAIR hasn't done any wrong I don't want them to settle out of court. I want the court transcripts published on the FAIR website along with an eventual explanation of it's side.

==That will be expensive. I think FAIR has better ways to spend money.

> The unfortunate thing is it can sometimes take quite awhile to solve such disputes. My father had legal problems with his ex-wife that took more than a year to solve. Hopefully it will be resolved within a more reasonable amunt of time.

==I hope so, too.

-Smac

[Bertram]

What's the latest position?

[Dale]

What's the situation status? I am curious to know whether this will be over any time soon. I realize that legal information can't be shared. But it would be nice to know if a court date has been set.

Sincerely,

Dale

[smac97]

What's the situation status? I am curious to know whether this will be over any time soon. I realize that legal information can't be shared. But it would be nice to know if a court date has been set.

Sincerely,

Dale

It's still very much in the preliminary stages. Setting a trial date is a long way off.

-Smac

[Bertram]

Thanks, all I wished to know if a date had been set or if the case had been withdrawn.

I am so remote from it all and do not have ready access to your Press/TV.

It would not make the news over here.

[Confidential Informant]

What's the situation status? I am curious to know whether this will be over any time soon. I realize that legal information can't be shared. But it would be nice to know if a court date has been set.

Civil procedure dictates that after a complaint is filed, the defendant's have 20 days after being served w/ the complaint to file a formal answer to the complaint.

That answer is usually a very simple document which goes paragraph by paragraph through the complaint and, to each allegation simply replies "Deny" or "admit", with maybe a few qualifiers such as "admit first part, deny all the rest" or "Admit, but deny the characterization" etc.

However, if the defense chooses to file a motion, specifically one of the rule 12( motions, (Rule 12( is a list of reasons why the case may be dismissed. It includes lack of jurisdiction, failure to state a claim, and several others) then the time for the answer is stayed while the court analyzes the motion.

In the Tanner's case, the motion was filed almost two months ago. Perhaps FAIR just filed an answer very quietly. Perhaps they quietly filed a 12( motion. Perhaps the two sides have agreed to an extension of time whilst they discuss the possibility of an out-of-court settlement. Point being that there are several things that could be happening that would make it appear as if the case was dormant when, in fact , it is quite active behind the scenes.

C.I.

[Hemidakota]

Ok, who killed the link?

The content item you have requested is no longer available.

[Dale]

Hi,

Anything can happen to links. Websites can go down temporarily or permanantly.

C.I. I assumed the suit had been filed months before that. My dad had been held up in court over a battle over visitation with my brother. He is mentally disabled & his mother had him sign a false affidavit alleging abuse. Her attorney would delay a decision through a variety of legal tricks. Eventually the court sided with my father but it took a year of not so fun & games in court. Neither side benifited from getting attorney's involved. But sometimes you have to stand up for yourself in court.

I saw a picture of a website that resembled the Tanners website & I was amused by it. Once this is resolved I hope it can go back up. The website had a lighthouse on it similar to the Tanners. The two didn't look exactly alike. The last Salt Lake City Messenger had information & reasons for the lawsuit.

I would love to see the FAIR response but of course that's private stuff. I am sure whether they win or lose when FAIR has it resolved they will let us know. Both sides are posturing & it depends how friendly or unfriendly he is to the Tanner case.

Sincerely,

Dale

[inspiratic]

I found a link to one of the "Fake" websites made by a member of Fair

I think this will work

http://www.utlm.org/images/newsletters/104_fakesitecolor.jpg

-Inspiratic

[inspiratic]

Does the Link work?

The original site is http://www.utlm.org/ so you can compare

[Confidential Informant]

I would love to see the FAIR response but of course that's private stuff.

Actually, it isn't. All motions submitted to the court are considered public documents. The only time they aren't is when one of the parties files a motion to seal the record and the judge grants it. This is true of both criminal and civil cases. The Tanners did not file such a motion and, in fact, just moments after filing ran to the press w/ a copy of their complaint which was also posted on the RfM site. I doubt that FAIR would consider such a thing since I can't imagine that their answer or any motions they file will contain any information they wish to keep secret.

In fact, after read the original complaint, I'm unsure of what theory the Tanners are using to include FAIR in the suit. They are somewhat ambiguous and seem to indicate that since Allen Wyatt is a FAIR volunteer that somehow that relationship makes them responsible for Wyatt's actions, but their complaint is very oblique on what, exactly, that relationship is or how FAIR -- an all volunteer organization with not a single paid employee (unlike the Tanners who have at least three paid employees including Sandra) -- can exercise any control over the other defendants.

I suspect that FAIR will want their answer or any motions they file to be just as public as the Tanner's complaint since it will containt refutations of the Tanner's assertions that FAIR would want to be made public.

C.I.

[Calm]

Then simply because an entity might be perceived as benefitting from an action doesn't mean it is legally implicated at all.

I would hope not as it doesn't make any ethical sense, but legality isn't always as logical as one would hope.

[Confidential Informant]

Then simply because an entity might be perceived as benefitting from an action doesn't mean it is legally implicated at all.

I would hope not as it doesn't make any ethical sense, but legality isn't always as logical as one would hope.

As near as I can figure, the Tanners are using some theory of "agency" such as respondeat superior. That's a legal doctrine that makes one's boss responsible for any torts committed by an employee in the "regular course" of their employment.

It's actually a very narrow rule and to be found liable the employee had to be doing his actual job and the employer must be able to exercise control over the employee and his actions.

That's why some bosses love to employ independant contractors. Technically, the contractor is an employee, but he is merely hired to do the job and the employer has no, or very little, control over how the contractor goes about his business.

Thus, I can remember one case where a flower delivery boy wanted to take a buncyh of flowers to his girlfriend. He was already on a delivery run and figured he'd just do it as part of the run. Long story short, he slammed into another car as he ran through a stop sign and ended up getting his employer sued because the court found that the accident happened during the course of his employment, even though the run to his girlfriend's house wasn't authorized. (Think also of the Domino's Pizza case from a few years back.)

The Tanners have a tough case to make because FAIR is an all-volunteer org. It's board ask for help and people provide it as best they can. But because FAIR is an internet org, the Board has very little to no control over how the volunteers go about their particular assignment. Moveover, what is one of the FAIR volunteers, completely unrelated to FAIR, creates their own website. What control can FAIR exercise over that person except to not give them any volunteer assignments any more?

When you consider that, you start to see the uphill battle the Tanners have in this case.

C.I.

P.S. I find it interesting that, with as many LDS critics as inhabit this list, so few of them -- especially the EV's -- seem to support or defend their lawsuit. Why is that?

Does Richard Abanes still visit here? I wonder if he has any thoughts on the topic seeing as how his work has relied so heavily on the Tanner's work but he has also faced the prospect of being sued by a "fellow Christian" for copyright infringement.

ci

[inspiratic]

http://www.utlm.org/images/newsletters/104_fakesitecolor.jpg

I have heard a lot of people saying that the Tanners are decievers. They are even a big subject in the book "they lie in wait to decieve." But it would seem to me like whoever took part in making those websites doesn't have much right to call them decievers anymore. I am not trying to be a jerk or anything but making a replica of another person's webiste and listing it under websites like sandratanner.com using their personal names ... is pretty decieving to me.

[Confidential Informant]

http://www.utlm.org/images/newsletters/104_fakesitecolor.jpg

I have heard a lot of people saying that the Tanners are decievers. They are even a big subject in the book "they lie in wait to decieve." But it would seem to me like whoever took part in making those websites doesn't have much right to call them decievers anymore. I am not trying to be a jerk or anything but making a replica of another person's webiste and listing it under websites like sandratanner.com using their personal names ... is pretty decieving to me.

Really? Then try typing in "www.bookofmormon.com" and see where it takes you. The compare that to "www.thebookofmormon.com" or "www.thebookofmormon.net".

Pots, kettles, etc.

C.I.

[inspiratic]

Woah! Point taken. I am sorry I really didn't know about that. That kinda throws my whole argument right out the window.

Truly sorry

-inspiratic

[Markk]

Hi CI,

I suppose that Nephi, Alma, and the rest of the BOM writers could get togather and sue the Tanners? The Book of Mormon is public demain as far as I know, if I'm wrong who owns the exclusive publishing rights? Also Wyatts deceptions were against individual people and their ministry.

If this goes to jury anything could happen, but if I were Wyatt and FAIR I would just admit the obvious and apoligize and see if Sandra and Jerald would forgive them and drop the case, if they do, then it all goes away, they would test the Christian reslove of the Tanners and win a much bigger battle of public opinion in that the Tanners are in it for the money, which I believe is the farthest thing from the truth.

The evidence is clear, deception by Wyatt is evident to any objective person, if they win or lose the court battle FAIR and Wyatt lose, but if they are honest and tell the truth and apoligize, the ball is then in the Tanners court for them to do the right thing, at the very most they should seek attorney fees and just let it go.

Mark

John 1:12

[Louis D.]

Dear Inspiratic: You are right in saying that Wyatt's behavior is deceptive and unethical. It does not therow your argument out the window--it has no bearing whatspevfer--if the Tanners (oer anmyone else) may have ever engaged in similar behavior. If you engage in deceptive, unethical behavior, that is what you are doing; that reality does not change because you believe others may have done so in the past. You cannot justify being a dishonest businessman, cheating your customers by arhuing that some of the people you've cheated have been dishonest with others. If you could make that justificatyion, then EVERYONE is justified in cheating.

Wyatt's website was very deceptive. It uses the words that it is an "official website" to confuse people into thinking at first that it is the wensite they were looking for. Yes, I'd rather see Wyatt andFAIR take the high ground, and apologize, and say they neither appriove of, or will give support to suc unethic behavior in the future. If they condone this sort of deception, they just give ammunition to every critic of the LDS faith.

[Confidential Informant]

I suppose that Nephi, Alma, and the rest of the BOM writers could get togather and sue the Tanners? The Book of Mormon is public demain as far as I know, if I'm wrong who owns the exclusive publishing rights? Also Wyatts deceptions were against individual people and their ministry.

You are talking about copyright law. The Tanners have sued fair under 15 U.S.C. 1125, also known as the Lanham Act which deals with trademark law.

If this goes to jury anything could happen, but if I were Wyatt and FAIR I would just admit the obvious and apoligize and see if Sandra and Jerald would forgive them and drop the case, if they do, then it all goes away,  they would test the Christian reslove of the Tanners and win a much bigger battle of public opinion in that the Tanners are in it for the money, which I believe is the farthest thing from the truth.

Gee, and while all this apologizing is going on, do you think we could convince the Tanners to apologize for all of their spurious allegations? What about the bible passage that says that the Saints shouldn't be suing each other? I guess that doesn't apply when Mormons are involved because Mormons aren't "christian" and it's okay to sue pagans?

Hey, I wonder if FAIR qualifies for that "Christian mediation" service that Kurt Van Gordon wanted to subject Richard Abanes to?

The evidence is clear, deception by Wyatt is evident to any objective person,

Deception? To what end? It seems to me that any "objective" person ought to recognize a valid (and legally protected) parody. BTW, what "evidence" are you referring to? Have you even read the Tanners' complaint? I have.

if they win or lose the court battle FAIR and Wyatt lose,

So, of course, FAIR should just allow the Tanners to bully them and use the courts as their brickbat of choice? Actually, I think you are wrong. If the court tosses this suit out on its ear, then FAIR and Wyatt would look pretty good and UTLM would look like a big bully who didn't like to be criticized or poked fun at and so they tried to shut up a critic.

but if they are honest and tell the truth and apoligize, the ball is then in the Tanners court for them to do the right thing, at the very most they should seek attorney fees and just let it go.

Gee, look at that. You haven't even shown that you've read the actual complaint and already you know whose telling the truth and whose being honest. That must be an amazing talent. I'm the criminal justice world could make good use of it. You ought to volunteer your services.

C.I.

[Confidential Informant]

Dear Inspiratic:  You are right in saying that Wyatt's behavior is deceptive and unethical.

Deceptive and unethical in what manner? Why are the Tanners such sacred cows that they cannot be parodied?

It does not therow your argument out the window--it has no bearing whatspevfer--if the Tanners (oer anmyone else) may have ever engaged in similar behavior.  If you engage in deceptive, unethical behavior, that is what you are doing; that reality does not change because you believe others may have done so in the past.

Are you making a legal argument here? If so, what is your legal back ground? Can you support this assertion with any case law or statute?

You cannot justify being a dishonest businessman, cheating your customers by arhuing that some of the people you've cheated have been dishonest with others.  If you could make that justificatyion, then EVERYONE is justified in cheating.

Interesting, but are the Tanners justified in using the courts to enjoin Wyatt from engaging in the same behavior they appear to be engaged in?

Wyatt's website was very deceptive.  It uses the words that it is an "official website" to confuse people into thinking at first that it is the wensite they were looking for.

Isn't that the essence of parody? The product looks enough like the original to be readily recognizable but at the same time is substantially different enough that any reasonable person can quickly recognize the difference? When the initial guitar riff of Al Yankovic's "Eat it" begins, it sounds very much like the same riff from Michael Jackson's original "Beat it." track. It really isn't until the lyrics start that we grasp the hilarity of the parody.

Yes, I'd rather see Wyatt andFAIR take the high ground, and apologize, and say they neither appriove of, or will give support to suc unethic behavior in the future.

I'm curious as to whose definition of ethical that you are employing? Your own? A legal definition? The Tanners? Whose?

If they condone this sort of deception, they just give ammunition to every critic of the LDS faith.

I've seen no evidence that FAIR even knew about the web site in question. Do you information to the contrary? In fact, I think Scott Gordon, the president of FAIR, has stated as much on this thread somewhere.

C.I.

[Markk]

Hi CI,

What i'm saying is that if you went to the site Wyatt created, it would be very hard to know what sgoing on, but on the other hand once you get to the Tanners site you know it is their site and their view on the BOM who is not owned by anyone, at least that i know of. The deception is clear, the Tanners are open and up front with there views whether right or wrong. And yes in the Tanners view, mormons are not Christian as a whole so you are correct, again, right or wrong.

It was not a legal parody as you claim in that Wyatt used the Tanners name as a pretense of getting to the "parody". If it was Wyatts personal sight with his call name then I don't think the law suit would have any legs, did you read the complaint?

I have read through the complaint, I have not studied it, I will do so though and if I am wrong on my opinions I will correct them.

I don't see UTLM as a bully, they are only defending their name. They are a small speck in a land of giants in Utah and has the LDS church tied in knots, if you belive that there is more money and power behind the Tanners than there is behnd FAIR and Wyatt then I believe you are naive, all it will take is one high roller to come to their defense and that is very likely to happen if it didn't already, can I prove that? no, do I believe that? yes.

Your trying to bend this to me and not the case, thats OK I understand but objectivity is looking at the facts, not the messenger. I am not a lawyer, but i am a contractor so I am very qualified...just joking, anyone in construction will understand the joke

Take care

Mark

john 1:12

[smac97]

Markk,

Please click on the following URL and then answer the subsequent questions:

http://www.bookofmormon.com

1. Do you think UTLM's "re-direct" use of the above URL is

A) More deceptive and unethical than Wyatt's websites?

B) Less deceptive and unethical than Wyatt's websites?

C) As deceptive and unethical than Wyatt's websites?

D) Not deceptive and unethical (or not very)?

2. Are you familiar with the legal doctrine of "unclean hands?"

A) Yes.

B) No.

3. Are you familiar with the Lanham Act (the statute that governs trademark violations)?

A) Yes.

B) No.

4. What evidence do you have that Wyatt's domains are "commercial?"

5. If you concede that Wyatt's domains are non-commercial, what legal arguments do you have that the Lanham Act applies to them (the domains)?

Thanks,

-Smac