It's been a long 9 years Lloyd Evans / John Cedars

by Newly Enlightened 11530 Replies latest watchtower scandals

• 

  TonusOH

  ForeverAlone: Can anyone provide any examples that can be construed as a false statement that any of the M7 has posted that Lloyd may be referring too here?

  That is Lloyd's obligation, though he insists that it isn't. It would make no sense for a defendant to offer up examples of defamation, especially if they feel they have not defamed anyone. Thus, the person who makes the accusation of (in this case) criminal behavior must demonstrate that a crime was committed by providing evidence. Evans pretends to believe that a defendant must prove the plaintiff's case, even though it makes him appear either naïve or unintelligent.
• 

  Chinapomo

  It makes him appear fully retarded, let's be honest
• 

  Toblerone5

  Saw this from Facebook, Who said that man is not busy, January 15 Patrons zoom call , next day he will be hosting this event...On a Monday?

  seriously ,the reason i post this I thought it was funny how this have NO Covers charge , but didn't he charge one ,when he release is first book , and he was on a book tour ? I guess the freeloading is just for the Ex-jw community

  
  
• 

  Diogenesister

  Would he have resigned to protect his Father's position in Watchtower?

  I think if that were the case, Vintage, he would have resigned a long time ago. As LMsA said it's an inactive company and probably always has been.
  I also agree with Simon that if Dijana divorced him (and there was any bad blood between them) getting child support wouldn't necessarily be a straightforward thing, particularly if he left Croatia. Establishing his having regular, reliable income could be tricky too.
• 

  Simon

  First an accuser would have to prove that the statement or statements are "false statement(s)" before anything can be labeled as "criminal". This shuts down his case before it can even leave the ground. Nothing that I have seen that the M7 has posted is false. Can anyone provide any examples that can be construed as a false statement that any of the M7 has posted that Lloyd may be referring too here? Is there anything that the M7 has stated that could be considered a grey area in this regard?

  That's why he won't actually point to anything specific that he claims to be untrue - because he doesn't have anything he can point to! He's relying on innuendo and suggestions that there is something. But as Wendy's once advertised, "where's the beef?", way past the time to put up or shut up.

  It also torpedoes his own case, but again he's too stupid to see it, because the first thing a court would ask is "so they refused to remove their false statement?" and if the answer is that you never asked and never pointed to any false statement? Well, it can't have been that important to you can it?
• 

  pr0ner

  @Las Malvinas son Argentinas

  It’s all about appearances to him. He’s getting off on calling the M7 defendants and uses that term and “criminally prosecuted” as a way to slander them and scare off critics at the same time. He’s deluded enough to think a conviction is likely, but failing that, I agree that having that case open for some time also works in his favour.
  

  Honestly, I think it's worse than that. I truly believe (no evidence here) that Lloyd was told by his legal team that the only thing he could do was put something in the system and this would at least allow him to save some face. I think he fully understands it will go nowhere this is just all PR. He has to look like he is committed otherwise it all falls apart. Kind of the Costanza it's not a lie if you believe it, but of course, it's still a lie.
  
• 

  pr0ner

  @Simon

  That's why he won't actually point to anything specific that he claims to be untrue - because he doesn't have anything he can point to! He's relying on innuendo and suggestions that there is something. But as Wendy's once advertised, "where's the beef?", way past the time to put up or shut up.
  

  I believe he would also have to prove there was intent to damage. So he would need to prove that we knew it was a lie, then after knowing it was a lie we continued with it...but could be wrong there.
• 

  Simon

  I think he fully understands it will go nowhere this is just all PR

  Did anyone notice that he forgot that he claimed he had a PR team? (didn't he?)
  
• 

  Simon

  he would also have to prove there was intent to damage

  Not only that, he would also have to prove that actual damages were caused ... that weren't due to his own livestream.

  No one else has any control over his patreons. If we did he'd have none whatsoever.

  He probably wishes his patreons were devoid of their own free will to donate or not, but the vast majority of normal people find behavior like his repugnant, which is why he's haemorrhaged support.

  He doesn't actually have a business that provides any real service. It's all based on soliciting donations and making content and it's easy to show he's not been doing that.

  i.e. all the damage he's suffered has been self inflicted.

  He should sue himself. He might finally be a success at something.
  
  
• 

  Las Malvinas son Argentinas

  Did anyone notice that he forgot that he claimed he had a PR team? (didn't he?)

  He actually only mentioned this once, and that was on his "I'm Back" video (roughly 4 minute mark) where he said this:

  I'm also working on hiring a PR manager so I can focus on my work

  Hiring lawyers is one thing, but a PR manager would have absolutely been driven insane by his online behaviour.

  Not only that, he would also have to prove that actual damages were caused ... that weren't due to his own livestream.

  He'd also have to open up his books and prove the monetary losses. This is why you don't litigate your case ONLINE. He actually did accuse Kim of spreading a specific lie - He flatly denied he was earning a 6 figure salary. What he did by making that accusation public was to provide the defence an opening to use their powers of discovery to rebut his claim and actually prove him to be the liar.

  Maybe pr0ner's on to something. Perhaps the legal case he filed is his "PR". He then gets to use loaded language about defendants and the criminally prosecuted as his way of destroying the credibility of his detractors. For example, look at his reply to his own tweet when he announced the lawsuit on Twitter:

  

  Now this is a clearcut example of the level of manipulation he relies upon to maintain his support. He immediately moves to label any support of the M7 as "taking the side of defendants in a criminal lawsuit". No debate - they are defendants so how dare you defend criminals? Notice how he used the words "defendants" and "criminal" in the same sentence even though one or the other could have easily sufficed. So instead of "letting the legal process do its thing", he's already slandering the people he is suing with the fact that he is suing them.

  This is WT-style circular reasoning being employed. It's basically amounts to "These people I am suing have to be guilty because they are defendants in the same criminal lawsuit I initiated".