This week federal court ruled that I need a jurisdiction other than Ohio in my Defamation case. Because the Defendants claim they didn’t know I was in Ohio when they defamed me. Yes, in the age of the internet, that shouldn’t matter. But the law is weird. This means I shall have to re-file my lawsuit against each Defendant individually in their own states of residence. I am working on that now.
You may have been misleadingly told the case was dismissed on the merits. It wasn’t. It was solely the Ohio jurisdiction that was rejected. And solely on technicalities that have nothing to do with whether the claims made by the Defendants were true or false. Anyone who told you otherwise, you now know to distrust. I could have been accused of raping and eating Jewish babies and the ruling would have been the same.
In the meantime, while I try to fund a fair trial in more unavoidable jurisdictions, I would appreciate it if you all judged my case yourselves, on the evidence we now have. Indeed I hope you would insist anyone do so, before trusting or relying on their judgment in the matter. Especially now, because I acquired a lot of evidence through my pursuit of the case in Ohio.
These facts are indisputable now:
- They have no evidence I violated any sexual harassment policy I was subject to.
- The only investigation conducted, by the Secular Student Alliance, did not find I violated any sexual harassment policy.
- No one has even claimed I sexually assaulted them, groped them, or touched them in any way that doesn’t commonly occur in ordinary social interaction.
- No one has even claimed I coerced them or had any sexual contact with them they did not approve of.
- They have no evidence I persisted in any behavior I was told to stop.
- And all they have presented any evidence of to date is my asking for consent and respecting the answer.
So why am I being treated as though I sexually harassed anyone?
The defendants have presented no evidence I ever did. Nor has any investigation found that I did.
If I can’t get justice because of the irrelevant technicality of where I live, the only justice left is for you to examine my case and the evidence provided by both sides, yourself. Please do so before continuing to judge me.
Sincerely. Please. Check the evidence yourself. It’s all collected at RichardCarrier.info/Case. Even their own evidence submitted to the court confirms my point. The evidence now also shows the defendants lied several times in the course of the Ohio case. Which is evidence you should not even be trusting them.
Next week I’ll put out a more direct call for lawyers who can practice in Federal court in Arizona, Minnesota, or Missouri. But if you’re a lawyer practicing in any of those states and interested in picking up this case, or even just working as an advisor on it (I will welcome any assistance), please email me. Or if you know someone like that who might be interested, please bring their attention to this.
I haven’t been following Richards case but through my life’s experience with similar cases with friends and family. It’s not whether you’re innocent or not. …half the people will presume you’re guilty, the others will tend to stay away from defendant so not to offend the people that do believe.
All I know is, just that the accused loses no matter what…so called friends, business relationships and future monetary enrichment, and in some cases the accused has to move to another environment just to be able to put food on the table again. Richard please no matter what …Keep fighting… I’ll try to follow with more interest and thanks for the information. …
What about statute of limitations issues, now that over two years has transpired?
There are principles in law like “tolling the statute” that cover that. What will happen is that the defense will file a motion to dismiss on statute, and we’ll file a brief in opposition arguing the statute was satisfied by the cause of action having been initiated within the appropriate time and was delayed by legal process. Since you can’t file in multiple jurisdictions simultaneously, and it’s generally agreed the law cannot expect you to do the impossible, a dismissal for jurisdiction in one venue can warrant something akin to statute tolling elsewhere as the action seeks an appropriate venue. It’s all very technical. But the upshot is, odds are, this won’t be an obstacle. It will just be a waste of billed hours fighting a useless motion and then the case will move forward. Which waste of time and money describes, I’ve come to learn, about 95% of any lawsuit.
The irony. When other prominent skeptics were accused of bad behavior by unnamed people, Richard Carrier was in the vanguard of people piling on and proclaiming them guilty.
The only thing this demonstrates is that the entire lot of the old Freethought Bloggers were despicable people, and this is what happens to people who live to tear others down.
My quandary now is determining who I dislike more, Carrier or the pack of wolves arrayed against him. Can I call it a tie?
Wait, you’re not going to sue me for this, are you?
These aren’t equivalent cases. As I note in the section summary in other persons accused, the evidence against other men is much better, whereas it’s exactly the opposite in my case, the evidence supporting the claims being false, across the board. So only if you don’t think evidence matters, can you say they are the same. We have to go where the evidence leads. If it points to guilt, it points to guilt. If it doesn’t, it doesn’t. Rational people apply that standard. Not a standard of false equivalence.
What about Ben Radford? You called him an “awful human being” and said he “engaged in a sustained campaign of sexual harassment against Dr. Karen Stollznow”. Did you ever correct that characterization when he proved that her “evidence” was doctored?
Actually he didn’t. He only proved a small part of the evidence was altered (in fact only that it had been redated, not its content; and this may not have been her doing, and had minimal impact on her claims). He didn’t address the rest of it. And their settlement included, conspicuously, no retractions from either of them of what they claimed happened. They merely agreed to regard what happened as “a misunderstanding.” Which basically admits everything they said about each other was true as to the facts, but should be “interpreted” differently. Now that we have all that outcome, we can say both of them look like very dodgy people. But that gives me little basis for changing my opinion of Radford. Only for changing my opinion of Stolznow.
(Remember, even then I said “I do not have to trust all of Stollnow’s report to reach that conclusion about him” and then updated even that post with a correction when he released his evidence. And also publicly noted what this changed. See also my followup comments here. Notably, again, unlike Radford, I have far more evidence, discrediting everything claimed about me; and haven’t just called the claims I am challenging a mere “misunderstanding,” but outright false.)
With the appropriate disclaimer that I am not a lawyer, having to refile in the jurisdictions where each defendant lives/works might be to your benefit. Some states have a more generous several and joint liability statutes than others. Under several and joint liability, if multiple parties participated in the same tortious act, a single defendent can be sued for the entire amount of damages, and it is then on that defendant to recoup the appropirate share from any other injured parties.
Atheism Plus coming back to bite you in the ass ?
Hopefully this will all work out in the end.
Very annoying. When you need a contribution to the cost of this again, just ask.
I’m only licensed in Illinois and California, and my California license is inactive, so I can’t help on that front. But if you want to run anything past me, to avoid that 1/4 hour charge for calling your hired attorney, please feel free. 🙂
If your case was dismissed for venue, then it is unlikely that you have conducted discovery on any of the issues raised by the complaint other than those limited to the venue issue.
Thus it would not be expected that you would have the evidence in support of their case at this point. Have you done any written discovery on the merits of the complaint? Interrogatories? Requests to admit? Depositions? Those would be the means to discern their evidence. But from what you’ve described, any discovery done so far would typically be limited to the issues raised by the procedural matter that resulted in the non-prejudicial dismissal.
Good luck in any event.
Yes. They moved for an evidentiary hearing on jurisdiction which triggered a limited discovery process. Which of course we used to get as much as we could that overlapped the cause of action, since they also argued absence of malice as grounds for lack of personal jurisdiction. They evaded a lot, but we got several things. Also in motions and briefs their exhibits added a lot more evidence and information about the case to work with (including sometimes revealing what evidence they didn’t have, which is evidence in itself). Which is where most of the evidence I document in the linked summaries comes from (i.e. those two sources during the Ohio case).
On the substance; it seems you are largely in the right. Obviously this situation harms your reputation and your opportunities as a speaker and lecturer.
I somewhat predicted this in 2013, when due to the increasingly out-of-control spiral of ever more erratic, unnuanced and absolutist dogma at FTB, it appeared inevitable that this community would start to eat its own, and I mentioned you (after Myers, in which case I was wrong) as being in the most immediate danger zone. It appears to me however, that the root of the issue lies with Ms L. I’m not quite comfortable seeing your private communication made public, but it seems clear that she had become infatuated with you, used sex as a means to get you, and that when you ultimately rejected her in favor of your then-wife, she felt not only rejected, but ‘used’. No doubt, your clumsy attempt to reconnect after her feelings toward you were reversed did nothing to help.
Nevertheless, I believe you are, in this case and others, wrong to infer that people are lying simply because they are persisting in incorrect claims. The human memory adjusts to incorporate memories that we have come to believe must have happened. Thus, it seems much more likely that Ms F, after having come to ‘know’ that you are a creepy person, came to remember physical advances at a much earlier date, that either did not happen at all, or were made by someone else, and that she did not at the time consider significant. Likewise, Ms L now probably honestly believes that you chased her, rather than the other way around, and that her now negative feelings toward you were always negative.
While, in principle, it’s certainly the case that many or all of the people you have sued have behaved irresponsibly and unfairly, I’m not convinced that it is wise to pursue this legally. I don’t see how such a lawsuit would bring an end to the gossip and spreading of defamatory opinions about you, even in the best case. On the other hand, it is sure to cost you a lot of time, money and energy. Instead, I would try to find some way to seek arbitration, and my theory is that if Ms L can be convinced that it is time to end this feud, the others will follow. You are of course aware of how Mr B R and Ms K S made peace after a similarly messy conflict, and I believe that the settlement in that case was the best thing that could happen for both of them given what had already transpired in public. Perhaps, you can think of some mutually respected person who could attempt such arbitration, certainly you cannot do it yourself.
They were already offered arbitration and rejected it. In fact I tried to work with them multiple times on a resolution, they rejected everything. Indeed it was when Myers flat out refused to properly investigate the claims against me before judging them (by refusing to tell me, at the time, who was even accusing me, and of what), the only recourse I had to get that investigation (as I then told him), was the law. He told me to sue. And that remains the only way these claims will ever be investigated (apart from the one SSA investigation, which already did not find me in violation of their sexual harassment policy). My reputation has no remaining recourse but the lawsuit, as many organizations have told me they must await the outcome of one before contracting with me again. While others argue my inability to prevail in a lawsuit is an admission of guilt. It’s not logical, but I can’t make the world logical. I can only get results. By getting the evidence, and getting it published. Which requires subpoenas. Which requires a lawsuit. Moreover, we have to stop this now. Or else they will keep ruining lives with false claims, with total impunity. If there are no consequences, there will be nothing to stop it.
Even if you managed to win the court cases, your ability to show damages has diminished given the current state of the atheist movement.
For example, let’s take a look at future speaking fees.
In 2017, The atheist activist Lee Moore said about atheist conferences, “Most conferences are gone now. They’re either gone or in some kind of life support form.” (source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QvG6LKUbOdk ). Atheist David Smalley wrote: “And we wonder why we’re losing elections, losing funding, and our conferences are getting smaller.” (source: https://www.patheos.com/blogs/dogmadebate/2017/06/reasonably-controversial-regressive-left-killing-atheist-movement/).
Even Aron Ra has indicated that the atheist movement is dead (source: http://examiningatheism.blogspot.com/2017/10/now-that-that-poseur-atheist-aron-ra.html).
I actually have abundant evidence that’s not true. But it’s also not relevant. I’m suing per se. I do not even have to show damages. Damages are presumed. Because of the second reason below.
But first, there are still many conferences. Conferences aren’t the only gigs I get. And I have actual logged lost revenue from disinvites and non-invites (conference and non) and can show declines in patronage and sales, both actual and potential (e.g. opportunity losses). You also recover expected lifetime losses, not just past losses. So even a small per annum loss adds up to a large award.
But if you ever read a civil complaint for defamation you’ll know financial damages aren’t the only recoverable damages.
Actual damages include, and are not even limited to, loss of prestige and respect (for scholars and public figures, that has a dollar value, and my social status extends well beyond the atheist community, but also took demonstrable harm in the atheist community), emotional distress (there is a dollar value to emotional labor and pain resulting from the related public abuse and anxiety that being falsely accused entails, as well as the damages to social relationships; I even have medical records showing a weight loss from stress the first year as documentation).
Plus, and this is most important, I get my legal costs recovered.
But actual damages are also not the only damages you get to claim. You can also receive punitive damages. Which are often more than the actual damages. Punitive damages exist to discourage defamation in general, and to encourage parties to settle out of court, which is why they are usually awarded if a case goes to trial and the plaintiff prevails, precisely to discourage defendants taking it that far when they should have known better. But they are also awarded as a deterrent to future defamation (not just by the defendants, but anyone, i.e. it is a partial deterrent against defamation everywhere).
Dr, Carrier, the atheist Hemant Mehta quotes you stating: “If I can find affordable counsel I’m just going to refile in their jurisdictions, going after each of them separately.” (source: https://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/2018/11/15/judge-dismisses-richard-carriers-defamation-lawsuit-against-atheist-bloggers/ ).
As far as the affordable counsel issue, there appears to be greater difficulty for atheists to fund their various efforts related to their atheist activities.
In 2017, the atheist activist Lee Moore declared about American atheist organizations:
“If you look at the major atheist groups right now, like the national groups, the ones that are doing the real activist work… They are not bringing in the kind of donations they used to. Most of them are starved for cash. They’re downsizing left and right. Because people aren’t just giving like they used to. And I talked to a lot of the major donors out there and they said, “Well, we’re kind of tired of seeing the atheist community just fight amongst itself and not really get anything done. We’d rather not give money if we don’t think it’s going to go somewhere.” (source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QvG6LKUbOdk ),
Hemant Mehta said about raising money from fellow nonbelievers: “Meanwhile, I’ve had one hell of a time convincing people to give to the Foundation Beyond Belief — and I help lead that organization.” (source: https://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/2014/01/08/a-few-thoughts-about-fundraising/ ).
You have a fundraising page in order to raise funds for your legal expenses at https://www.richardcarrier.info/fairtrial.html , but I have my doubts that you will be able to fund your legal efforts related to to this matter sufficiently.
It’s not clear what your point is. I already have raised money for my legal defense. I might raise more. And may locate pro bono or contingency legal assistance. My supporters also go beyond the atheism movement, including people of all spheres concerned that false accusations face consequences, for warranted fear of the world in which they don’t. Indeed, that should be reason enough for you yourself to donate to my legal fund. Or do you want to live in that world?
Just to be pedantic, you are suing for libel per se, You are not suing pro se. That would mean you were representing yourself in court without an attorney.
I know it undoubtedly was a typo or auto-correction, but just for the record. 😉
Yes indeed! That was an auto correct I missed. Fixed. Thanks.
Is it true you’re banned from speaking at SSA events and/or certain colleges? I’m curious if this rumor is true.
It is not. No colleges have involved themselves in any of the accusations against me. And as the resources linked above demonstrate (see the link for the Frank case), the SSA has explicitly authorized me to speak at SSA affiliate events. The SSA investigation also did not find I had violated any sexual harassment policy. I’m just not on their bureau, and wouldn’t want to be (for the reasons also explained there).
The evidence you’ve submitted pretty clearly shows that the defendants were telling the truth. You used your position in inappropriate ways and in inappropriate contexts to get sex from people you had power over. You pushed boundaries, something most clearly seen in your exchange with HD. If that’s how you normally behave when trying to get sex, no wonder you had a reputation as a creep. You very clearly made the environments you were in uncomfortable and unsafe.
The fact that you can present the evidence you have and yet still consider yourself the aggrieved party shows that you do in fact have a very poor understanding of boundaries, consent, and appropriate behavior, and no one in their right mind would bring you to a conference where young women are present.
There is no evidence I ‘got sex’ through any position of power. Or sought it. Asking people out is not boundary pushing. It’s consent seeking. Particularly in private contexts, as these all were. I never had any position or power or authority over anyone involved. And I violated no harassment policy, the very policies that state what is and isn’t acceptable.
Boundary pushing would be if they said no and I continued. There is no evidence I ever did that. All the evidence, witnesses and documents, shows I heeded every answer tendered, and respected every boundary stated. Including my exchange with HD. We were long time friends. I had no position over her. I asked politely after her interest. In a completely private and safe context. She said no. I respected her answer and never pursued the matter further.
Meanwhile, if you think your notion of “boundary pushing” is bad, you should be criticizing my employer and ex-girlfriend, Lauren Lane. Who had power over me (as my employer and supervisor), pursued me repeatedly with ribald and suggestive comments for years (as documents demonstrate), and initiated sex with me by surprise all on her own (as witnesses verify), at her own conference, that she was running and employing me at. If you don’t condemn that behavior, you cannot possibly have anything to condemn in my behavior, which never consisted of anything of the kind.
You need to pay more attention to the actual evidence. And adopt more consistent values. Because you aren’t making sense on either point.
So what is the latest on this and where does this now appear to be headed? Or is this lawsuit just going to die on the vine?
Things are still in development. I can say more in a few months.