What Actually Happened:
Amy Frank is the only woman who has made anything close to a serious accusation against me. Which accusation is the most provably false of them all, warranting a lengthier summary. Frank (then Skiba) was a ranking officer and president-elect of the ASU Secular Student Alliance that hired me to speak for their group in 2015. Our interactions were friendly but not particularly flirty. I liked her but didn't engage any physical contact with her. Our direct interactions were minimal. When she was even near me at all, she mostly just hovered on the edges of conversations I was having with other people all night. Most of the time she was with her husband.
After the event and the official afterparty, and after a second, unofficial afterparty at a local bar on the way home, and after a third gathering at the home where I was staying, the next morning after I announced I was done for the evening and was going to bed, as I collected my electronics from the living room where witness Spencer Hawkins was sleeping, Amy Frank tracked me down there and told me she wanted to open her relationship but that her husband wasn't into it and that she couldn't contact me by email yet because he monitors all her communications.
I expressed sympathy and concern, and that I regretted I had no solution for her, and then simply said that if she ever does get the open relationship she wanted, she was welcome to ask me out in future if she was interested. That's literally the only thing that happened between us of any significance. She smiled and said she would consider it. It was a cordial, brief conversation that I didn't even register as asking someone out. She then drove her husband home and we never spoke again. Our only subsequent communication was a brief Facebook message exchange (shown below).
All of this I have affirmed already in my Complaint Affidavit (Pars. 27-58), and even under oath in a Deposition for the court, interrogated by Defense counsel (Carrier v. Freethought Blogs et al, Docket 41).
What Then Transpired:
Amy Frank files a complaint with the SSA
A month or two later the SSA emailed me that "one of the leaders" of "an affiliate group, which you recently spoke to" had "shared a concern with us that you had made sexual advances toward a student after a recent event. The student felt that they had made clear that such advances were unwelcome and felt very uncomfortable."
This did not describe any interaction I had with Amy Frank, who said nothing to me about my comment being unwelcome nor indicated it in any way; nor did it occur to me a future hypothetical could be considered a "sexual advance." So that event didn't even come to mind. Instead I assumed this referred to my interaction with the woman in Ohio (I had forgotten that was a CFI event and assumed it was an SSA event, because it was the only interaction I'd had I could possibly imagine being described that way). It wasn't until many months later that this confusion was corrected. Still to this day I find that characterization of what I said to Frank bizarre.
That did not violate the SSA policy against sexual harassment, however. Only if I had persisted after she indicated I should stop, perhaps. But I only made the one polite remark, and immediately we parted. And if she had said that remark was unwelcome, or even so much as looked displeased (rather than smiling and saying she'd consider it, as in fact she did), I'd have apologized straightaway. Instead, she actually confirmed her approval of this interaction in a Facebook message (shown below).
However, that interaction could violate a strict interpretation of the SSA's fraternization policy at the time, which said, "Speakers should not engage in sexual behavior with students with respect to Speakers Bureau events" (which bans even consensual interactions). And the SSA has publicly confirmed that is the only policy that their own investigation found I had violated (see the highlighted portion of the December 2016 SSA Announcement).
That policy, however, only applied to speakers on the SSA Speaker's Bureau (which membership granted special funds and promotion). That policy was separate from their sexual harassment policy, and did not apply to any other SSA speakers. For example, it no longer applies to me at SSA events, as I am not on the Bureau. As the SSA wrote to me themselves, in August of 2015, "You are free, of course, to continue to work independently with students on events, however SSA can no longer facilitate, promote, or support such events ourselves."
I think one could quibble over whether a private conversation the next morning that only discussed the hypothetical possibility of a future date constitutes "engaging in sexual behavior with students," but I have assumed that's how they view it, and I'm fine with that, as if that's the case, I'd rather not be on the Speaker's Bureau. Which is why I approved their removing me from it.
Amy Frank Stalks Me on the Internet
That concluded the matter. But Frank apparently continued keeping tabs on me, investigating every SSA event I did (even lying to event organizers to pry information out of them), to make sure the SSA national office wasn't funding me.
This is now admitted by Frank in legal documents.
After we presented evidence of her posing as someone interested in hiring me in order to find out how my speaking at an SSA event in Florida was funded (Exhibit Y of Exhibit 1, "Affidavit of Dr. Richard Carrier," for Plaintiff's Brief in Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss), Frank confessed she would "periodically Google and Facebook search for any SSA affiliate events [Dr. Carrier] was speaking at because she wanted to know if the SSA was still allowing him funding after removing him from the bureau (affiliates are only supposed to get grants from the SSA if they host a bureau member)" ("Response to Plaintiff's First Interrogatories," 18 October 2017, Response No. 7) and she admitted this is how she found out about my Florida event and how to contact its organizer (ibid., Response No. 8). Copies of her correspondence with him show her pretending to be someone wanting to hire me to ask how I was funded.
This demonstrates two things: (1) Frank knows the difference between the SSA fraternization policy and harassment policy; and (2) she knows I didn't violate the harassment policy—for had she believed that, she would have complained to the SSA that I was still speaking at SSA affiliate events, and not been concerned solely about whether the national office was funding my speaking at SSA affiliate events (and as the Florida organizer told Frank, they were not).
Amy Frank repeatedly changes her story
Frank's original complaint to the SSA was for fraternization and did not mention harassment or touching, nor mentioned telling me to stop any behavior. It was also not truthful—she never communicated or indicated any discomfort to me, about anything. In fact the contrary, as demonstrated by our subsequent conversation on Facebook, a complete record of which is shown here in reverse chronological order:
Note that Frank's last message to me above was sent by her nine hours after her first message, and was wholly unprompted by any message from me. She could have simply ended with the encouragingly positive "You made my night." Instead she came back to add even more encouragement, and no admonition. Her closing message clearly indicates her reaction to my conversation with her was not negative, but even inspired her to discuss opening her relationship with her husband, and she concludes with a hopeful message about the possibility of our dating. Which is impossible if she considered either thing repugnant or had told me to stop suggesting them. This proves her account of events completely changed in subsequent weeks.
[Sticklers for precision can also view the original 2015 version of our message thread, generated by Facebook on Pacific Coast Time, when she went by Amy Skiba; the above was generated by Facebook in 2019 on Eastern Standard Time, when she was going by Amy Frank; the content is otherwise identical.]
Upon service of discovery in 2019, Amy Frank admitted under oath that the above reproduction of our Facebook messages is accurate and complete (Defendant's Responses and Objections to Plaintiff's First Set of Requests for Admissions, 15 December 2019, Admissions Nos. 93 & 94). And yet just a few weeks after that Facebook conversation in 2015, Frank submitted a complaint to the SSA, completely changing her account of what happened. A year later Frank published on her Facebook wall an entirely new defamatory statement implying I wasn't even safe around children, and that I had "sexually harassed...and touched" her, and that she knew I had many other "victims" (three years of litigation, and no evidence of that has ever been brought to the court; it was also evidently untrue). Which declaration so surprised the SSA, they launched an investigation—which failed to find that any of these new allegations were true.
After an eyewitness to her interactions with me (and to her original complaint) challenged her claim that I'd touched her, or harassed her at all (he has now even submitted that fact to the court: Complaint, Par. 81(e), with Exhibit 24, Affidavit of Spencer Hawkins, esp. Pars. 16-17), she revealed how much her story kept changing by publishing her original complaint to the SSA.
That version of events (Complaint, Par. 70) omitted any mention of touching, and any mention of her indicating any disapproval of any of my behavior. Instead she fabricates a bizarre story of my hounding her with strange, lascivious statements and requests—which behavior contradicts the experience not only of my every other alleged accuser, but also nearly a dozen other women with experience of how I behave with women I'm interested in. It also contradicts what every other witness there saw—all of whom will deny her new story is what they saw, or even what she had previously told them; one has already said so in sworn testimony.
Ironically, in Frank's effort to construct what she must have thought would be a believable story, she claims "[Dr. Carrier] told me that he was disappointed that my husband wouldn't let me just have sex with him, but that'd [sic] he'd be willing to have my husband involved" (ibid.). Well over a dozen friends and lovers of mine can testify that in fact, MFM is my favorite kink. I suspect Frank assumed a typical man would dislike that, and so in her story she depicts me voicing what she thinks the typical man would say. But as it is certainly the exact opposite of what I would have said, had we ever had any such conversation, this slip not only demonstrates she is not telling the truth, it demonstrates we had no such conversations about sex.
Further supporting her fabrication of this story, is the fact that in it she claims "[Dr. Carrier] repeatedly pointed out the fact that'd [sic] he had a vasectomy and how it much [sic] it increased his sexual performance." In actual fact, that was a conversation I had with someone else, out loud, once. Because they asked about it. I never directed any such remarks at her; and she only knows of it from hovering by the group I was speaking to at the time. This is also confirmed by the sworn testimony of a witness (Hawkins, Pars. 12-13). Here we see her confabulating her story by taking a true event unrelated to her, and converting it into secret whispers directed at her.
Similarly, all witnesses will attest I never touched Amy Frank; but will likewise attest someone else did (Hawkins, Par. 14). So in her yet later versions of events, when she adds new accusations of my touching her (on her arm and leg, though only in nonsexual ways), it appears she took something that actually happened, unrelated to me, and converted it into something she now insinuates I did.
The witnesses will also all verify that another of her claims is false, that "Dr. Carrier kept whispering to me how my husband wasn't awake and wouldn't be for a while (insinuating that he wouldn't know if we did something inappropriate)." In fact, the house was full of people who would notice. And all the witnesses will attest Frank and I were never alone nor ever in any proximity for whispering until the very end of the evening when we parted ways (as Hawkins, again, confirmed to the court). In fact our sole private conversation was in the presence of Spencer Hawkins, whom Frank did not know was asleep, but that was literally the last few minutes of the night. Does she expect you to imagine the entirety of my "repeated whispering" of all these things to her occurred only in those final few minutes before she drove her husband home, and right there in the presence of a potential witness?
Amy Frank made false statements to the court
Already you've seen multiple evidences of Amy Frank's dishonesty (three different versions of her story, and claims that contradict demonstrable facts and independent eyewitness accounts). That alone should be compelling enough reason not to believe her. But there is more.
When Frank was asked, under penalty of perjury, to "admit...you knew Richard Carrier earned fees and other income from SSA affiliate speaking engagements, and from book sales thereat," Frank "Denied" knowing this (Defendant's Responses and Objections, 15 December 2019, Admissions Nos. 20-22). Since she herself paid me, and helped me arrange the selling of my books, for her own SSA event, spoke to another SSA event organizer about how I was funded, and was continually stalking me online (by her own admission) to ascertain how I was being funded, there is no possible way she can honestly claim to believe I am not paid to speak at SSA events or that I don't sell books at them.
Also under penalty of perjury, Frank declared that "at the time I published the Facebook post at issue in this action, I believed Defendant Richard Carrier was living in the state of California" and "I did not learn Carrier was living in Ohio until June 15, 2016," which is the same day as that post, so she must mean she learned it minutes or hours after that (Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, Exhibit 3, Pars. 5-6, 1 December 2016). Later, under penalty of perjury, she denied knowing this by June or even July of 2016 (Responses to Plaintiff's First Requests for Admissions, Admission Nos. 1 and 8). Both statements cannot be true.
In fact we know Frank "actively monitored Dr. Carrier's Facebook wall, prior to publishing her false statements, and would have seen the myriad announcements concerning his relocation to Ohio" (Plaintiff's Brief in Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, p. 3, 22 December 2016), especially as my move was repeatedly announced in connection with several speaking engagements, including one involving an SSA affiliate in Omaha, and Frank has admitted she was searching both Google and Facebook for announcements of my speaking engagements; in fact she was watching my Facebook wall so closely as to have even noticed obscure announcements wholly unrelated to speaking engagements or the SSA—such as Facebook's erroneous automated announcement that I had been newly employed by Camp Quest, which she herself republished (mistakenly believing it correct): Complaint, Par. 46, with Exhibit 4. That post was so obscure even I didn't notice it. So it's pretty much impossible that she "didn't notice" the many public announcements of my move to Ohio on Facebook. Particularly as they referenced speaking engagements, even involving the SSA.
On top of all that, in new court filings (Amy Frank's "Answer and Counterclaim," in United States District Court in Arizona, case no. 2:19-cv-02719, docket item 10, pars. 47-48) Frank claims she told me not to message her on Facebook, and so when I did, "Ms. Frank, wishing to avoid conflict, responded politely and did not contact Dr. Carrier again." That she is lying is now demonstrable: the complete Facebook message thread between us confirms she never told me not to message her, and that she did contact me "again," unprompted, adding a positive message encouraging my interest in her, not merely 'being polite to avoid conflict'.
All a pattern of dishonesty
All this evidence indicates a pattern of dishonesty. It suggests Frank is willing to make false or dubious statements even to avoid jurisdiction, rather than seeking a fair trial of the facts. Combined with the other evidence of her dishonesty, I do not know why anyone should believe her.
In fact, Any Frank is so unreliable, that even P.Z. Myers confessed to me he did not find her believable (Myers wrote to me that "the Amy Frank accusations...in themselves are not particularly believable," Defense Documents, Bates No. 541).
In fact the dishonesty or unreliability of the bloggers reporting on this is manifest. Stephanie Zvan, for example, is still claiming Spencer Hawkins corroborated Amy Frank's story ("there are comments from another student corroborating that these aren’t new accusations," Complaint, Par. 37), when in fact he has consistently said her story is false and not congruent with anything she had said before (Hawkins Affidavit). Neither Myers nor Zvan seem capable of accurately describing anything, or investigating it. Neither has even spoken to any of the relevant witnesses in this case.
So why should you trust them?
Conclusion:
The evidence that Amy Frank is not telling the truth about what happened between us, nor even a truthful person at all, is extensive and compelling.
No witnesses back any of Frank's multiple contradictory versions of events. All the witnesses will testify when called upon (and there are at least three, one of whom already offering sworn testimony in the case) will corroborate my version of events in every particular they are privy to.
No documents corroborate anything Frank has alleged, either. In fact, several documents now demonstrate her dishonesty. For example, her ever-changing story, and our complete Facebook message thread, which refutes numerous claims she has made, including her whole assertion of unwanted advances.
Frank's latest version of events also contradicts demonstrable facts about me, as well as facts witnessed by everyone present.
Ask yourself: What kind of evidence do you realistically expect there to be of a false claim? We aren't going to be so lucky as to have an audio or video recording. So, what then? Evidence of changing stories? Stories contradicting documented facts? Even contradicted by her own messages to me and by every witness available? Well. Here. What more, honestly, can you expect me to provide you?