What is even being claimed?

Nothing has even been said as to what M (an unnamed woman from Minnesota) is supposed to have accused me of. It's impossible to defend oneself against an allegation without being told who is accusing you or of what.

All that has been said so far is that there are "Incidents" that "occurred partially at a party in California and partially through e-mail between Dr. Carrier...and a woman living in Minnesota" (Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction 12-01-16, Exhibit 6, Declaration of Stephanie Zvan, Par. 17(e)).

What are "incidents"? Incidents of what? It has never been said.

The Defendants have generally alleged that I have continued unwelcome behavior toward people even after being told to stop, and/or that I have violated sexual harassment policies, and they claim these six women as evidence. They are thus alleging M is claiming this of me. In other words, of violating consent.

That is impossible.

How We Know This Claim Is False...

There is only one woman I know who (a) lives in Minnesota, (b) I have any email correspondence with, and (c) I've attended a party with in California. And when I asked her if she was the person they meant, she confirmed to me that she wasn't even aware anyone had accused me of anything. So it definitely wasn't her.

That leaves only two possibilities: she is lying; or someone is pretending to be her; or she didn't actually say any of these things to the bloggers making this claim. If she is lying, then I can present all our correspondence, which demonstrates nothing other than clearly consensual interactions, including a consensual sexual relationship. If someone is pretending to be her, the Defendants are trusting a forged correspondence, having failed to investigate its authenticity. I can't think of a more reckless or dangerous thing to do. But I suspect they simply aren't telling the truth about anything she actually said.

Incidentally, this woman happens 'by coincidence' to be the same person I referenced in Exhibit 25 ("Affidavit of Dr. Richard Carrierr"), Par. 22, of my original Complaint, as the woman with whom I was having a relationship that Lauren Lane expressed jealousy over ("for the duration of" Skepticon 2013 "I accompanied another woman, which I observed angered Ms. Lane further, who interrogated me about it and expressed evident annoyance"). Correspondence and witnesses will attest my relationship with this woman was fully consensual. And it is peculiar that she should neglect to tell the Defendants about our involvement at Skepticon. If someone is pretending to be her to defame me, I'll leave you to guess who the forger might be.

Conclusion

As I reported in my Complaint Exhibit 25 ("Affidavit of Dr. Richard Carrier"), Par. 77:

Dr. Myers proposed to investigate his claims [against me] only after the fact, but informed me, in a phone conversation on June 21, 2016, that he and the ethics committee at FreethoughtBlogs would not at any point tell me for the purposes of that investigation who was accusing me or what specifically they were accusing me of, nor where or when. ... I believe, and I believe reasonable professionals will agree, Dr. Myers' approach rendered impossible an investigation's ability to ascertain the truth.

M remains a perfect example of how these Defendants made my request for a fair investigation impossible, thereby forcing me to sue, merely to be fairly investigated. And after three years of fighting in court, the Defense still has not presented any evidence anything M said supports their allegations about me or is even true. Why should you trust bloggers claiming M said I'd somehow violated her consent, when they won't tell you what M even said, or how they confirmed M is telling the truth?

Can you imagine being in this predicament yourself? What would you do?

-:-

P.S. Update (August 2018)

Myers has since made more false claims about his sham investigation. In fact I was not even told what Amy Frank was actually accusing me of (much less any of the many others they were alleging) when I warned Myers by phone that I would need to know that, to defend myself in their investigation. I told him on that call that if he did not permit a real investigation, one in which I was told what I was accused of so I could present any witnesses and documents I had against it, then he'd leave me no recourse but to sue to force a proper investigation of the facts. He said fine, sue. So I did.

On June 28 of 2018, Myers published a video full of false claims and misrepresented and out-of-context facts about me (asking for a date becomes "soliciting sex"; bringing up examples in a discussion of human sexuality becomes "over-sharing"; and the like), in which, for example, he claims I was told what Frank was accusing me of. He "proves" this by quoting a document we alleged defamatory in our lawsuit (timestamp 4:55). But that document was Frank's GoFundMe narrative, which was published after I was forced to leave FreethoughtBlogs because of its sham investigation, a month after that pohonecall in which I warned Myers that if they weren't going to tell me what I was accused of, I'd have to sue them; indeed after I'd sent legal correspondence threatening that lawsuit. (Myers also omits to mention that sworn eyewitness testimony contradicts that statement he quotes from Frank.)

So Myers is basically lying to the public, to cover up the actual sequence of events, which exposes how bogus their "investigation" was and thus why I couldn't participate in it. He also deceives the public in that video by acting like the Frank accusation was the only one being concealed from me, when in fact there were several (like M). Which they still are concealing from me even after multiple court motions over several years. These people just can't construct any true narrative. Why trust anything they say?