In February of 2019, four women accused noted RPG author Zak (Sabbath) Smith of sexual, physical and emotional abuse. Justin Stewart (Dragons Gonna Drag) has an excellent summary post of the RPG community's response. I posted my own notes here. You can also read this Polygon article, or this article, or any number of contemporary responses.
If you don't know who Zak is, consider yourself lucky.
Since the initial reaction in 2019, reporting on Zak's activities has been sparse at best. One school of thought says that you should
let this sort of thing fade away naturally. It's like a bad smell in
your kitchen. Turn on a fan, open the window, take out the trash, and
it's gone.
But if there's a bad smell in your basement, it might be time to call in the expensive specialists and start digging up pipes. The smell won't go away if you ignore it. The longer you wait, the greater the potential damage.
If you want something done, and nobody else is doing it, sometimes you've got to do it yourself. I couldn't find a good summary of Zak's post-2019 legal adventures, and I felt one would be useful (since there's some speculation online) so I decided to write one.
The court system does not (in my opinion) reliably generate fair results. If I'd ignore or downplay results where the court "got it wrong", it seems unfair to celebrate times when they "got it right", so merely listing the results of the various lawsuits wouldn't be valuable. Examining the arguments and conclusions presented, regardless of results, is more useful. Providing links to the original documents is better still.
I was aided by the tireless work of someone who seemed to have Zak's worst interests in mind. Someone who relentlessly dragged Zak's personal and intellectual flaws into the spotlight, exposed errors, and presented deeply unflattering arguments.
That person is Zak Smith.
Part 1: Mind Like A Sue-er
Zak announced, many times, that anyone who'd commented on, shared, supported, etc. the original posts was in line for a good legal thrashing, and had better watch what they say. Ideally, people would have to do some of the legwork for him, but still! Lawsuits! So many lawsuits!
 |
Dramatic reenactment provided by Gary Oldman. |
Edit 2022/03/16. Additional screenshot for context.
And then he started suing people.
Part 2. Smith v. Ettin
In February of 2019, internet resident Ettin posted a long-form Something Awful-style essay on Zak. You can read an archived version here. With a hearty blend of fact, fiction, self-aggrandizing unhelpfulness, and poop jokes, it fits SA's house style. This (and some past collisions) made Ettin a target, and he was (it seems) sued.
Side Note: this is peculiar, because it's widely accepted that Zak ran "The Dongion", a "satirical" blog featuring a hearty blend of fact, fiction, self-aggrandizing unhelpfulness, and poop jokes. You'd think he'd fit in with the goons. And he did! Until he got banned.
Anyway, I don't know if this suit ever made it to court or formal mediation, or
if the parties settled out of court. The latter seems likely. As part of the settlement terms, it appears Ettin had to post an apology on various forums, delete the article and associated tweets, and hand over some money. Again, none of this is part of a court record that I can find, so it's mostly speculation.
Posters on SA responded to Ettin's apology with the grace and quiet dignity of a pack of howler
monkeys on amphetamines. The thread was moved to SA's ambitiously named "Comedy Goldmine"
section and archived. Zak repeatedly replied to his critics with a copy of the apology for most of 2020.
Ettin's subsequent GoFundMe raised around $7,000. Since Ettin said "All my costs have been covered", I think it's safe to assume Zak walked away with somewhere between $2k and $5. It could be more (if "costs" just included legal fees), but it'd be unusual to settle for a huge payment when gambling on a lawsuit would be cheaper.
This settlement appears to be Zak's only triumph to date.
If that seems like a whole lot of squeeze for not a lot of juice, just wait.
 |
| Zak (left) and Mike Mearls (right) |
Part 3: Smith v. Mearls 20-2-15294-7 KNT
Documents available here (backup here) courtesy of Law Orc.
Back in 2014, Zak was invited to consult on the next edition of Dungeons and Dragons, as part of (effectively) market research on the up-and-coming Old School Renaissance. For Mike Mearls, this was probably a totally innocuous part of game development that should have begun and ended with some comments on a PDF.
Instead, six years later, it lead to this lawsuit. Once Zak is in your life, it seems you won't ever get him out.
On to the lawsuit. People seem to expect legal documents to be full of jargon and deliberately confusing language, when, if they're written well, they are extremely clear and linear. Their clarity can be intimidating. Blog posts and novels can be vague and meandering; anything submitted to court should cut like a razor to the heart of the issue. I encourage you to read the documents in full.
A good response boils away everything superfluous, rendering a clear path for the court. Here is what I want the judge to do. Here are the core rules. Here are applicable situations where past judges, faced with the same situation, and in the same region, came to the decision I want this judge to make.
The documents filed by Zak's lawyer... do not do that.
Mearls' lawyers cut to the heart of the matter in their motion to dismiss, and they succeeded. Their basic argument is that, even if everything Zak said was true, it's still not actionable. After a few minutes in court, basically the bare minimum needed to read out names and ensure everything is in order, and the suit was dismissed.
Because this is a blog post, I can take a luxurious ramble through all the arguments Mearls' lawyers ignored as irrelevant nonsense. Take this bit, from Zak's response.
Yes. Moving on...
Ok, fine. Promissory estoppel is a fancy legal term for "no take-backsies". "Sword and shield" is also D&D term. Lord Denning is dead and I wish I was too. Happy?
I don't know, maybe Zak or Zak's lawyer searched for the term in a legal dictionary and slapped in the first definition they could find, not recognizing that arguing "the defendant knows the law" doesn't really help your main case (i.e. that the defendant broke the law). It's not quite Meads v Meads word salad, but it's definitely not relevant.
This feels like something a lawyer would do when faced with a client with micromanagement tendencies. They're just doing what Zak asks. Sure. No problem. As long as the cheque clears. As we'll see in Part 6, sometimes that approach doesn't merely fail, it backfires.
Tossing in a few cheap shots (like "obscure") is either a clever tactic to potentially distract the opposition (since obscurity is not the issue under litigation, and any effort spent disproving the point is wasted), or just common pettiness.
It's tempting to get sidetracked by, say, examining Zak's adult film career, getting further sidetracked by an incongruous AVN award nomination in 2014 (after a four year gap), discussing the AVN awards voting process, discussing industry awards and vanity nominations, comparing credits to see who could have engineered a vanity nomination, using seeded torrents to compare popularity, digging into adult film revenue numbers for the early 2000s, etc, etc... but it's just not relevant.
There are a lot of amusing gems in Zak's response, but here's just one more.
Examples:
"In Zak's response, he confuses the 'conclusion as a termination of an article' with 'conclusion as a synthesis of formal arguments'. He hurt himself in his confusion."
Anyway, case dismissed with prejudice.
Part 4: Smith v. Gen Con 21-2-01684-3 KNT
Documents available here, courtesy of Robert Bohl and Eric Tenkar. Again, I strongly encourage you to read them.
In February of 2019, Gen Con banned Zak. In 2021, Zak sued. The case was also dismissed, for largely the same reason. Here's the opening paragraphs of Gen Con's Motion to Dismiss.
Let's see what Zak filed.
If you're not aware of how modern art collecting works, this might strike you as an impressive list of institutions. To a certain extent, it is. At some point after WWII, museums and galleries realized that art is a great investment vehicle. For the cost of a warehouse, some shelves, and some archival paper, the institution can place a bet on the future. 99% of the art they accumulate will be worthless, but if even 1% turn out to be early Rothkos, the museum makes money and gains prestige. Most works are donated. Artists get a prestigious line to add to their Wikipedia page (or their lawsuits, for some reason), the museum gets art, everyone is happy.
The fact that a Yale graduate with a lot of charm and hustle has works in a few permanent collections, and displays art in art galleries, shouldn't be a surprise. That's the job. If you're a ditch-digger, you can proudly point to the ditches you've dug, but nobody should be surprised that you've dug them.
It's also largely irrelevant to the case at hand, but by this point, that should come as no surprise. Zak's whole opposition to the motion to dismiss is irrelevant. It's meandering, weakly strung together, seems to ignore the concept of linear time, and is demolished by Gen Con's lawyers with what appears to be unusual relish.
Case dismissed with prejudice.
Update 2022/03/16. Zak has announced he is appealing this case.
Update 2022/07/12. Zak's appeal of the dismissal was granted (PDF). It seems to be a procedural thing, as far as I can tell. All the above comments on the dismissal stand. However, in March 2021
"Smith moved for reconsideration, asking for leave to file an amended complaint.
He attached a proposed amended complaint containing additional facts and exhibits and only requesting relief for defamation, defamation per se, and false light."
Basically, as I understand it, he and his lawyer did a poor job (see above) and asked for a redo, presenting new documents. The judge said "nah, still dismissed". He appealed, and the new judge, looking at the new motion (which I do not have access to at this time), said "OK, this might be enough to actually go to trial."
The ruling notes that Zak "was not required to provide evidence showing how the statements caused the specific damages" and that while he "may not have alleged specific facts proving that Gen Con and Adkison knew or should have known that the statements were false, that is not the issue at the CR 12(b)(6) [should we dismiss?] stage." No additional facts are stated in the ruling, just the same allegations more coherently phrased.
The judge, and Zak's appeal, seems to emphasize the damage the GenCon ban did to what could be generously called Zak's career. I'm not sold on the idea. The ban came relatively late in the sequence of events. Zak has been banned from many places over the years and never seems to take it well.
Update 2023/05/15. Zak's appeal has been dismissed with prejudice. Backup of the order here. The document is very short and well worth reading. I suspect the judge in this case was as sick of dealing with Zak's usual tactics as the rest of the RPG community.
The basis of Zak's appeal of the initial summary dismissal was that evidence linking Gencon's statement to his claimed damages (2.85 million dollars!!) would be provided at trial. Come the trial, Zak was (of course) unable to show any causal link, because none exists, or provide any new facts, because no new facts can be found. Some new opinions were asserted, to what seems to be general confusion and derision. He did provide his full Enemies List to the court, which didn't help either. Zak also ignored sanctions and orders to pay.
In my opinion, this decision, combined with the Zak v. Grey decision, have rendered Zak both figuratively and literally toothless. Anti-SLAPP motions can use Zak's "discovery abuses or violations of this Court's orders," the judge's statement that "it appears that he has sued a number of [people on his enemies list] without factual basis", or that he "demonstrated a wilful and deliberate noncompliance with discovery sanctions by making retaliatory threats to the Defendant and the Defendant's counsel" to, hopefully, shut down any potential shakedown case at minimal cost. Anyone can now cite Zak's own statements in Zak v. Grey regarding the believability of the original posts.
And Zak’s lawyers, present and future, can also review these decisions and orders and decide if Zak is someone they really want to help shakedown random internet commentators for small sums based on a non-existent link between an arbitrary damage value and a few old tweets.
Zak has announce that he is appealing this decision to a higher court.
Intermission: Demon City
In July of 2018, Zak launched a Kickstarter campaign for a book called Demon City, with delivery expected in June of 2019.
As of this article, the book has not been finished, let alone printed and shipped.
When Mandy, Hannah, Jennifer, and Vivka posted their stories in Feb. 2019, Demon City was the centre of a firestorm of controversy. A number of OSR luminaries had signed on for stretch goals. Some said nothing, some posted about their contributions. Demands for refunds poured in... and ran into a brick wall.
That seems like an unusual funding allocation. If the Kickstarter funded the book's production only (and all the money was already spent), how were physical copies going to be printed? Where's the money to pay for distribution and warehousing? Who's going to pay to print the extra non-KS copies that will then need to sell to generate a refund? Who's been paying for the editing over the last 2+ years?
Mike seemed to be grimly set on steering this ship into port. His co-star, the driving force behind the project, seemed focused on other things.
It's not great when someone running a project and desperately trying to moderate the comments section says "stop fighting", and the book's author/artist says "no".
I almost feel sorry for Mike here, but nobody forced him to carry the scorpion.
Presented without comment.
EDIT 2022/03/16. Actually, one comment. The terms of the Demon City affidavit are worth examining. I can't find a copy of it to link to (though I'd be happy to include one), but a backer posted an excerpt (verified by Zak). I'd be especially interested to see what lawyers (if any) attached their name to such a document.
What an interesting agreement.
Tensions between Zak and Demon City editor and Zak fan Jacob Hurst (of Hot Springs Island
fame) also seem high, though Jacob's continued presence on the project
seems odd to me. Mike, I can understand. As the project lead, he's lashed himself to the mast
of this doomed vessel, but surely everyone else could just... quit? Hand
back the money for any work not completed. Heck, if you can afford it,
hand back the whole sum and take the loss; it'd be hard to argue sabotage and bad faith
with a full refund.
Does anyone left on the project really want a credit on Zak Sabbath's Demon City? Really? Why? Even if you accept Zak's proposition that "There is very little room at
the top in the cut-throat entertainment industry of RPG." [sic] (Smith v.
Gencon, Zak's response), which I don't, does this feel like the top?
Part 5: Smith v. Nagy, 2021 ONSC 4265
In August of 2020, Amanda Nagy filed a SLAPP motion against Zak. The background section of the decision summarizes this case, and it's probably the best place to start.
A Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation ("SLAPP") suit is designed to use the legal system as a weapon to silence critics. Several jurisdictions have enacted anti-SLAPP laws to allow for speedy dismissal of such cases. SLAPP motions in Ontario, Canada, have unintentionally turned into high-speed mini-lawsuits, where the whole proposed case gets litigated before it can get litigated. Unlike a standard motion to dismiss, there are extra steps and delays, as well as a higher bar to clear. A dismissal says, "there's no case here". A SLAPP motion says, "there might be a case here, but it's not worth it."
In this case, the judge determined it was worth it to hear the case in full, and explained process by which they arrived at their decision.
"Theyre no better than nazis and should be treated as such" is quite a statement.
It's also difficult to say if public debate was chilled by Zak demanding critics send him sworn affidavits, or offering to send them books if they signed affidavits, or demanding critics send him their full name and place of residence. On the one hand, it's hard to take that sort of thing seriously. On the other hand, it's possible - given the disorganized and confused public knowledge of Zak's legal history - that people elected not to speak up because of the threat of a potential lawsuit.
 |
| Original tweet deleted. I wonder why? |
Describing your opponents via military euphemisms does not pair well with a quest for truth and justice. "Whom shall I target next?" is not, perhaps, the best way to commence a legal campaign.
"Smith earned only $24,000 in 2019 and virtually nothing in 2020" is an interesting disclosure.
Merriam-Webster defines "impecunious" as "that scene where the character opens their wallet and moths fly out". It may be difficult for Zak to prove that pecuniary motives don't lie behind any subsequent suits... especially since he's openly admitted to it.
 |
| Link to tweet. |
EDIT: 2017/03/17
I finally tracked down another comment.
Once again, I've got nothing to say.
Finally, the decision notes that Zak has "no [prior] history of using litigation to silence critics". While this may be true, he's never shied away from talking about potential litigation. Take this PM to me, for example. You can read the full thread here (and it might be worth it just for the spats joke).
In any case, the judge determined that the case was worth hearing in full, and the SLAPP motion failed. James Cook of Gardiner Roberts LLP wrote a decent neutral summary of the decision. As far as I can tell, James has no connection to the RPG industry or Zak's other lawsuits, and may not be aware of the hideous quagmire into which he's inadvertently stumbled.
Part 6: Smith v. Grey 20STCV09708
The legal background to this case is complex. Zak is suing Vivka
Grey for defamation; Vivka is countersuing, and the two suits are smushed together for convenience. This ruling comes in the middle of that suit, and only covers the issues around a single deposition. This ruling isn't as clear as some of the other legal documents, so I'm going to present a section below with references stripped out. Please consult the judge's original ruling if clarification is required.
The parties have identified non-party Amanda Nagy as a trial witness for this matter. Amanda Nagy’s deposition was set to take place on July 18, 2021 at 9:30am PDT via remote video conference. “[Grey] intends to ask questions and elicit testimony at deposition regarding Ms. Nagy’s three-way polygamous sexual relationship with her husband, Plaintiff Smith, and [Grey].”
On July 28, 2021 at 9:20 a.m., or ten (10) minutes before the start at Ms. Nagy's deposition, Plaintiff Zachary Smith's counsel, Henry L. Self III, informed me for the first time by email that nonparty witnesses Charlotte Stokely and Michelle Ford would be attending the remote deposition.
At 9:26 am, Grey’s Counsel objected by email to Charlotte Stokely and Michelle Ford being present at Ms. Nagy’s deposition and met and conferred as to the attendance of Charlotte Stokely and Michelle Ford. The parties were unable to come to an agreement.
Grey contends that a protective order excluding all nonparty witnesses from attending Amanda Nagy’s deposition is necessary. The burden is on Grey to show good cause for the exclusion of all nonparty witness from attending Amanda Nagy’s deposition.
[...]
Here, in California there is a clear longstanding right to privacy of an individual’s sexual practices. The parties anticipate eliciting testimony from non-party Amanda Nagy as to her “three-way polygamous sexual relationship with her husband, Plaintiff Smith, and [Grey].” Nagy has a privacy interest as to the testimony that the parties anticipate eliciting from her.
Further, though parties and their counsel have a right to be present at a deposition, there is no such similar right for non-parties. In fact, Code of Civil Procedure section 2025 expressly provides that non-parties may be excluded from attending a deposition. Given Nagy’s strong privacy interest in the testimony sought, the Court finds exclusion of nonparties from the deposition is proper.
Moreover, as to Michelle Ford and Charlotte Stokely, additional good cause exists to exclude them from the deposition. Amanda Nagy states in her declaration that “Michelle Ford has sworn an affidavit supporting Zak Smith in his case against [Nagy] here in Ottawa, Canada, and Charlotte Stokely has provided Zak Smith a statement of support.” Amanda Nagy also states that she has “post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), officially diagnosed by Doctor David Bakish on February 20, 2020, here in Ottawa, Canada.” Nagy states that “[h]aving Charlotte Stokely, Michelle Ford, or any other non-party, especially other witnesses [Nagy] know[s] personally and that support Zak Smith, is highly trigger for [Nagy] and [her] PTSD.”
In opposition, Smith offers scant explanation as to why Charlotte Stokely or Michelle Ford are necessary at the deposition.[...]
Here, there is an obvious longstanding privacy interest in the testimony sought in the deposition of Amanda Nagy. The timing of Smith’s last-minute insistence on the attendance of non-party attendees who are testifying against the deponent in another action is somewhat suspect. Moreover, Smith’s opposition to this motion was without merit. Accordingly, the Court finds that some sanctions are warranted.
Accordingly, based on the totality of the circumstances, sanctions are granted in the amount of $1,847.19.
Zachary Smith and his Counsel of Record, Henry L. Self III, are jointly and severally liable and ordered to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,847.19 to Vivka Grey by and through counsel, within thirty (30) days of notice of this order.
This, in my opinion, is the Doom That Came To Sabbath.
If you want to try this greasy daytime-TV-lawyer tactic in court, you'd normally get your supporters to show up and sit in the gallery. Maybe the judge throws them out, maybe not, but the intimidation works either way and is plausibly deniable.
Trying it on a zoom call? That's... ambitious.
It's absolutely transparent what Zak was trying to do, so transparent that the judge tossed sanctions at both him and his lawyer. Judges don't like surprises. Judges don't like bogus reasoning. Judges don't like intimidation. Qui maledixerit feritor, as the well known legal maxim goes. Anyone who wishes to formally cite Zak's bullying, harassment, and generally bad behavior can use this ruling as an example.
Edit 2022/03/16: I missed a second ruling in this case. Link. This one is more of a procedural ruling, determining if a portion of the combined defamation case can go forward. There's not too much of general interest. Vivka's portion of the defamation suit seems to have sufficient grounds to proceed, but the "Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress" portion should be smushed into the defamation portion under California precedent.
Zak's lawyer for this case is "Henry L. Self III". Amazingly, this isn't another Zak sockpuppet account. Irony is dead and we're living in its remains.
Update 2023/03/07 - Smith v. Grey 20STCV09708 Decision
The decision is here.
So, Zak has won a lawsuit... but the manner of victory and its results would make even Pyrrhus of Epirus wince at the cost. Of the eight allegedly defamatory statements against Zak evaluated by the court, six were found to be true, one was found to be nonactionable opinion, and one was found to be false. But one is all you need, so Zak won... $1 and court costs (not his legal fees, just the procedural fees paid directly to the court).
Why
is this all coming out now, in 2023? As far as I can tell, it's because
Zak announced a reprint of a book and then started publicizing his
"victory" via assorted minions. And if you believe his narrative, it's a flawless victory. But if you read the decision... it's really not.
I strongly recommend reading the decision. I genuinely cannot imagine having any respect for Zak Sabbath, as a person, after reading it. If you can't be bothered, there's a point-by-point summary on twitter here. There's very little I feel I can add. I'm not sure breaking down the decision in this post would be useful when you can just... read the decision.
Once again, Zak seems to have his own worst interests at heart. Leaving aside the testimony of others, let's see what Zak has to say about himself.
Here's a convenient image with the completely normal post-trial victory selfie.
If these quotes seem bad out of context, they are, in my opinion, much worse in context. Zak seems to be trying to re-litigate the trial on twitter, using video from the depositions, which is really weird and uncomfortable, and also not how trials work. You had your chance. You won. The ashes you taste are victory.
Vivka Grey has a GoFundMe for her legal expenses, which she says total $560,000. As of this update, she has raised $60,000.
Update 2023/04/18: Part 6.5: Cameron Banks
On 2023/04/16, RPG designer Cameron Banks posted the following on twitter.
As with Smith v. Ettin (Part 2, above) this appears to be a settlement, not a judgement. A settlement is not the result of a judge ruling on the merits of a case. A settlement is the result of lawyers agreeing on a way to prevent a lawsuit from happening (or stop one that's in progress), for reasons that could have nothing to do with the law and everything to do with the cost of going to court. Zak refers to this as "winning a lawsuit", but that is, in my opinion, misleading.
Additionally, thanks to the Smith v. Grey decision, anyone who wants "proof [Zak] did anything wrong" can potentially cite Zak's words or the court's findings.
Part 7: Next Steps
It seems unlikely that Zak will quit. It does not appear to be in his nature. The smell in the basement will linger. But at least the lights are on, and we need no longer fumble in total darkness.
Since February 2019, I will take any opportunity to talk to any lawyer, especially in person--former judge, current DA, public defender, divorce lawyer, patent lawyer, someone on the side of a bus, whatever. I buy them lunch and ask them questions.
-Zak
Watching a person with strongly felt and dubiously coherent legal grievances rant at an unrelated legal professional lured into lunch under false pretenses is painfully awkward. It's like meeting a dentist while shopping and showing them your rotten teeth. Nobody wants to see that! Put them away and book an appointment like a normal human being.
Also, most good trial-hardened legal professionals will refuse (out of pride or self preservation) to offer anything close to an opinion on any subject outside of their full control. You might think they're confirming your statements, but if you boil it down, they're making noncommittal noises. I can't imagine Zak, in person, is somehow able to present his arguments more clearly than he can manage in court. Oh well.
Poor unsuspecting lawyers of the Los Angeles area. Good luck out there.
Final Notes
I've tried to cover all
the cases and rulings I can find. If you find others, post a link in
the comments or write your own post. If I've made any significant errors, let me know. If you find any particularly amusing or relevant details in the documents that I've missed, post them too.
Mandy has a GoFundMe for legal fees. As of this post, it's raised $12,561 with a goal of $20k.
Zak (via a proxy) also has a GoFundMe for legal fees. As of this post, it's raised $3,029 with a goal of $20k.
I
am not a legal expert (if the commentary above didn't make that clear).
Nothing in this post should be construed as legal advice.
How
ReplyDeleteInteresting.
Thank you for doing this. This is a very useful document for anyone with interest (or concern) about certain elements of the OSR community. +1
I feel it's a pile of slander against an innocent man, but to each their own
Deletewhat a cult member might say...
DeleteFirst off - the cases are defamation cases - and secondly, a reasonable and informed person would say - "Zak is innocent"
DeleteSeeing all these updates in one place is a great help in trying to keep track, seriously.
ReplyDeleteInteresting to see Hurst snapping at him given his fanboyism and longtime shilling of lotfp products.
ReplyDeleteAs much as I'd rather we just forget he exists, I recognize what you're saying about the importance of "cleaning the basement" and I really appreciate the extent to which you've documented all of this for posterity or for actual benefit to others in the future. It will hopefully now be that much more difficult for him to do what he does.
ReplyDeleteIt's also good to demonstrate just how impotent and ineffectual all of his threats and intimidation actually are, and what a buffoon he has made of himself. It doesn't defang him to his "alleged" victims/survivors (legal or otherwise), but hopefully it helps defangs him against others in the future.
I had one case dismissed because MEarls phrased his attck vaguely, succeeded in the other and the rest are ongoing.
DeleteWhy would you pretend that this is "ineffectual" or "impotent"
And for that matter, why are you pretending I tried to "intimidate" anyone?
Let's do clean the basement - I think continuing to go after a man, long after the accusations have taken place and no criminal or legal action has taken place is distasteful
DeleteIt shows what an incestuous little cliche the OSR community has become, I'm embarrassed to be associated with it after this witch hunt
Dorothy called....she wants her strawman back.
DeleteThank you for putting all this together, Skerples -- very much appreciated. I hadn't known that he was suing Vivka.
ReplyDelete(Also daaaaaaamn WTF re: trying to bring in third parties to a deposition?! Trying to sneak them in *ten minutes* before the deposition was scheduled to start?! ...decisions were made.)
Why exactly do you think Mandy's other victims _shouldn't_ be allowed to confront her?
DeleteWhat exactly do you have against Charlotte Stokely, Michelle Ford and the other women who are witnesses against Mandy's abuse, Humza?
What did they do to you?
This is insanity - you may not like Zak, but he is well within his rights to defend his name against slander
DeleteMaybe because it’s a deposition, where a party or witness is being questioned — not a trial. There is no legitimate purpose served by having alleged victims of the deposed be present during the deposition.
DeleteAs to the “defending his name against slander” again, a deposition is not the time nor place for that. Depositions are not public spectacles. They are a discovery mechanic in the lead up to the trial.
There was a great purpose:
DeleteThe witnesses were Mandy's former best friends, so they'd be well-positioned to spot a lie or inconsistency about events I wasn't present for and inform our questions after.
So you're not telling the truth.
I’m not disputing you had a purpose for doing so — obviously you felt having them there would help you or you wouldn’t have tried bringing them to the deposition.
DeleteYou conflate your own purpose with the purpose of a deposition. Once more, the purpose of deposition is to elicit testimony from an adverse party as part of the discovery process.
It isn’t a trial, and it isn’t even necessarily the place to evaluate the truth of what the deponent is testifying to. The time for that would be at trial, and it’s worth noting that witnesses may not even be in the courtroom during trial to evaluate a lie or inconsistency.
What part was I not telling the truth on, exactly?
I don't "conflate" anything. You are lying.
DeleteThe lawyer asks questions--it's perfectly acceptable to have someone with special information there--an expert on the subject--not just to evaluate the answers for truth but the
to
help
direct
the
follow-up
questions.
Duh.
"Nothing prevents Smith from communicating and consulting with Ford during recesses at Nagy’s deposition." Smith v. Grey 20STCV09708
DeleteBut that's suboptimal because the recesses aren't long enough to communicate to the witnesses every single thing said during the deposition.
DeleteSo:
You are now lying if you're pretending there would be _no good purpose_ to her presence--or Stokely's.
Life, in general, is suboptimal.
DeleteEither way, the point is that Anon was lying when they said "There is no legitimate purpose served by having alleged victims of the deposed be present during the deposition."
DeleteI showed a legitimate purpose.
Oh I didn’t realize you had tendered all three people as subject matter experts following the rules of civil procedure for establishing their qualifications regarding such a technically-complex deposition.
DeleteIf everything you did regarding that deposition was perfectly acceptable, why don’t you tell the class why you were sanctioned?
No problem. The judge weighed two things:
Delete-The claim by the person being deposed (no medical practitioner was cited) that having to look at her former girlfriends (who are now her victims) would cause her ptsd. This was news to all of us because the last time she saw Michelle they made out and the last time she saw Stokely they were on good terms and she never claimed to have any kind of ptsd related to them before that day.
-My claim that having a pair of experts on the witness present would help direct questioning.
In this (one of mannnnnny judgment the judge made) the judge said that she'd side with the person being deposed. I believe we could've filed a thing with more evidence for her to reconsider, but figured it was not worth the extra time it would take to reschedule.
So:
We had a perfectly legitimate reason (one of the reasons that attending a deposition is usually legal in that jurisdiction) the judge just weighed the (suddenly) alleged risk to the deposee's mental health as being more important than our legitimate reason.
Just because one reason is not considered _more important_ than another in a given case doesn't mean there is no legitimate reason.
And, like I said, Skerples didn't look at every sanction or rling by the judge, just--by some bizarre happenstance--one that went against us in this 2-year-long fiesta of motions and countermotions.
You (or anyone else) are welcome to post other sanctions in this case. At this time, I don't believe there are any. For my comments on Zak attempts to minimize this ruling or disguise its nature for his own benefit, please refer to this comment thread.
DeleteAs I stated before, all this is easily searchable - the extent of your belief is grounded in your sources, which are just Google searches.
DeleteAnyone can find everything you presented, as it is googlable - these cases details are not some new revelation, anyone who actively looks and keeps up, or better yet - asks Zak directly - will not have been surprised by any of the information you presented Skerples.
The other sanctions are not nessecarily in the public view.
This is cherry picking information, and not presenting the information with context - as the case has other parts still being adjudicated, as I understand it.
What will you give us if it turns out you were wrong and there were other sanctions, Skerples?
DeleteIf the answer isn't something pretty substantial then it doesn't really matter what you think: you don't stand behind your claims, you're just making them for rhetorical effect.
You would never acknowledge a thing which proved you were lying.
I have no wish to entertain your hypothetical situations or engage in ridiculous bets.
Delete1. Are there any other rulings resulting in sanctions associated with this case?
2. Are there any other cases, successful or not, that I have not listed? Downthread, Nicholas Stanosheck says "accusers have been found guilty and/or settled". Other than Ettin, are there any settlements or cases?
You are in the best possible position to provide this information, and have no reason not to share it (especially if it's in your favour). If you are concerned that I am being selective, please feel free to show me what I've missed.
If you keep refusing to answer Zak's questions, he doesn't have to answer yours.
DeleteThere was an update:
Delete"So, Zak has won a lawsuit... but the manner of victory and its results would make even Pyrrhus of Epirus wince at the cost. Of the eight allegedly defamatory statements against Zak evaluated by the court, six were found to be true, one was found to be nonactionable opinion, and one was found to be false. But one is all you need, so Zak won... $1 and court costs (not his legal fees, just the procedural fees paid directly to the court)."
He gave a link...it's almost as if you supported a liar.
I feel like Zak owes me at least $2.00 for the brain cells I've had to use to be aware of his shenanigans. How do I sue? I want my $2.00?
ReplyDeleteThanks Skerples. You brought up a point that I have been thinking all along- "I was aided by the tireless work of someone who seemed to have Zak's worst interests in mind."
ReplyDeleteIt is so evident that this clown has zero ability to learn from his mistakes and instead, doubles down.
I sued a bunch of people, one successful, one dismissed because Mearls claim was vague (not because it was alleged to be _true_) and the rest are ongoing.
DeleteWhat's the "mistake" here?
If you're saying that you and the other bad actors involved would've happily helped clear my name without lawsuits--please let me know how, nobody's been forthcoming.
Otherwise: it is important that bad people be brought to justice. Even if it's hard.
How can a man convicted of nothing have anything to learn from?
DeleteHis only mistake seems to be getting involved with the OSR community
Outstanding Great work. Brave too. The Hound of Tindalos will be looking your way today.
ReplyDeleteI love the porn credits. Or lack thereof. “Porn star “ indeed.
Thanks so much for the good work. Sunlight is truly the best disinfectant.
That link clearly shows 9 credits -
DeleteI’m not sure that’s the compliment you think it is.
DeleteInspired by Zak’s “obscure” comment in Smith v. Mearls, I started, and then quickly abandoned, a totally pointless analysis of Zak’s adult film career. It’s not worth including in the main post, but since you mentioned his stats (and enjoying information processing), I might as well show you what I’ve got.
Comparing Zak to every actor in the IAF database wouldn’t be useful or meaningful. I decided to compare Zak to the 15 other actors nominated for the 2014 AVN Awards Non-Sex Performance. If this was baseball, I’d be comparing the stats of nominees for the 2014 MLB Reliever of the Year Award.
Of the 15 nominees, Zak has the 2nd lowest total # of films with 9, the 3rd lowest films per year with an average of 1.3, and the 3rd briefest career duration of 7 years. Career duration was calculated by subtracting last film year from first film year; gaps were not included because I didn’t feel like doing more data entry.
I created a series of charts to help compare Zak to the other nominees: https://i.imgur.com/kf5SOoc.png
Wikipedia defines a movie star as “an actor or actress who is famous for their starring, or leading, roles in movies. The term is used for performers who are marketable stars and whose names are used to promote movies, for example in trailers and posters.” If I wanted to continue this line of inquiry, I could examine if any reviews of any adult films featuring Zak mention him by name, or if Zak was featured in any marketing material. I don’t want to. This has gone far enough already. “Porn star” is not a protected term like “dentist”. Anyone can call themselves a porn star (or an artist, or an author) without any statistics to back up their claim. Additionally, male adult film actors may have more difficulty gaining recognition, so applying a gender-neutral standard for “stardom” may not be helpful. And finally, this analysis is pretty haphazard and arbitrary.
I agree, how come this is dragging on. You'd almost think the man was innocent and being pursued by a mob, wouldn't you?
Delete@Benny
DeleteYeah it's super-weird that Skerples is obsessing over my career highlights rather than just answering straightforward questions about why they think I did anything wrong.
It's like something a liar would do.
obsessing over my career highlights "
Deletelowlights is a more appropriate term.
Zak has made statements in the past such as "had sex for a living." So yeah, 9 credits don't really add up to a career in it. It's actually tragi-comic. I know somebody who has credits in the hundreds. He died the other year, after working a gas station mini mart counter for years.
DeleteAnd no, wanking off to them multiple times does not increase the credit count, Benjy.
My career has always been selling paintings--I never claimed otherwise.
DeleteYou, like Skerples, are changing the subject because you can't really address the fact that I did nothing wrong .
Maybe you people are just anti-sex work.
DeleteMost of his friends were in sex work - he met them after being in pornographic films.
This started his blog, which then started I Hit It With My Axe.
So a huge part of his presence in the RPG and OSR community was his work on porn and it's effects - and the people he had to defend from internet trolls and harassers were the women and men he played rpg games with - often LGBTQ and people of color, and nearly all sex workers.
Maybe you want to ignore Zak's witnesses, and claim "I believe women" but then ignore the 17+ poc LGBTQ and sex worker friends and associates who made legal statements about Zak - statements that exonerate him.
Maybe you have no desire to examine evidence, provide proof, or tell the truth.
Ah yes, Zak Smith... defender of women. Absolutely hilarious.
DeleteYou protrayed yourself as an RPG designer, not an artist.
DeleteThanks for digging through all this and putting together the response. It's somewhat stunning when laid out together and the documents themselves speak volumes about how these cases are being managed.
ReplyDeleteAnglo-American defamation law, despite reform efforts, still seems to flourish mostly as a way for the abusive, especially the wealthy and abusive, to enlist the courts in continued harassment of their victims rather serving any public good (not sure it ever has - though I guess duels are down?) Anyway thanks again, and here's a hilarious/fascinating law review article on the early history of defamation (how many shillings is the fine for calling someone a "hare" - find out!) that might align with your interests.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/1109121.pdf
Which thing do you think is abusive, Gus?
DeleteMe suing people who, like you, lied about abuse?
Or something else?
Ah it's Zak, all I have to say about him is rhetorical hyperbole, vigorous epithets, lusty and imaginative expressions of contempt.
DeleteZak's reply to this post to appear in 3...2...
ReplyDeleteREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!
DeleteLook at yourself, how dare an innocent man defend himself
DeleteGrow up, mate, seriously
You need to get out of your parents basement and live
Is your mom's basement where you guys have mobbed up to stand up for your cult leader?
DeleteInsults are childish.
DeleteYou need to take these serious claims, think about them from both sides, consider the legal and emotional implications, and above all - have some empathy.
Wow, what an incredibly toxic person. Thank you for sharing this, it's very useful for someone who's new to all of this.
ReplyDeleteWaht exactly are you pretending is toxic, Alex?
DeleteI'm an innocent person suing shitty people who did bad things.
Woof. 2019 feels like a decade ago.
ReplyDeleteGood post, very thorough.
Actually it wasn't thorough at all. Skerples forgot to mention a _lot_ of things, see below.
DeleteAlso: Skerples lied a lot.
I can believe that, I've seen a mountain of censorship across the OSR community in regards of this to push the narrative Zak is guilty.
DeleteI've never met him, he's probably a toad, but he's a toad that has done nothing wrong in the eyes of the law
It's important to note that the reason Ettin settled, and why Zak went after him in particular in the first place, is that Ettin lives in a country where defamation cases put the burden of proof more on the defendant than the accuser, meaning it's much more difficult to successfully prove innocence and cheaper to settle.
ReplyDeleteThis is also why, despite all of Zak's posturing, he has completely failed to go after most of his critics, because they live in places where the law wouldn't be so easy for him to abuse.
I'm not sure I follow. Assuming Zak was dead set on suing Ettin, where should he have file? In Australia, in California, or somewhere else entirely? This doesn't appear to be a case of venue shopping.
DeleteWithout access to the original documents, I don't think it's easy to say why Ettin settled. It could be the strategically correct choice; the cost of settling (both financial and reputational) could be low enough that Ettin accepted them as the best option. Ettin's reputation (such as it is) doesn't seem to have suffered from the settlement.
If Ettin claimed things, and claimed he had proof - Which he DID, then got sued and provided None of the supposed proof - then how does it have any bearing on where the case was taken up?
DeleteHe should not have been making claims for which he had done no suitable fact-check, or if he did posses any evidence to back the claims he made, he should have presented it and made his case.
INSTEAD
He settled and had to publicly apologize, and that apology contains statements that he DID NOT take adequate effort or time to fact-check his claims!
Here is Ettin's Apology - https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-1s97wpzbptk/Xo5PZVCXarI/AAAAAAAAkL4/-jGGfyfWnqUd8hb5gVYJq7Hxka7Ua9b4gCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/paul_matijevic_ettin_apology.jpeg
In the US, if someone comes after you for defamation, they have to materially prove that what you have said was both substantially false and damaging to their reputation. In Australia, the legal system instead places the burden of proof on the accused, resulting in a costly, drawn-out trial process that Ettin simply could not afford to take on.
DeleteEttin published an apology because it was required under the terms allowing him to settle the case at a cost he could afford, rather than suffering under the expenses of a full trial. The apology doesn't mean that Ettin was wrong, merely that he was bullied by a trust fund baby using the legal system as a cudgel.
If Zak S knew that he could prove these statements were false, he would be going after all of his detractors in the US, confident his arguments were rigorous enough to pass the legal scrutiny required. But he has in fact not done that, excepting the cases Skerples outlined above where it turned out his arguments were not legally sufficient, because as we all know, Zak S actually is a rapist, abuser, and serial harasser.
1. I don't have a trust fund, You are participating in an antisemitic conspiracy theory when you pretend I am.
Delete2. You're seriously suggesting that _the only reason I didn't sue hundreds of people all at the same time_ is because their accusations must be true?
There's lots of reasons not to sue hundreds of people all at once. You can sue one, win, then sue a few more, win again, etc.
3. You also are lying about all the other shit you claimed I did. If you weren't, you would respond to requests for proof, rather than linking to your fellow abuser_ claiming I did these things_ rather than actual links or screenshots of me doing them.
4. In order for your claims to be true, all the witnesses--mostlya lot of women who you refuse to address or acknowledge, need to be lying. Why don't take the witnesses on instead of studiously avoiding them?
Your response (if any) will include some excuse for not approaching the witnesses. We will all watch that.
Hey, quick note - Blocking someone before they can address claims levied against them is very wrong.
DeleteYou are lying about me presenting anything as if it is Just because I Believe Zak - I believe him and the many witnesses he has.
You lied about him being a harasser, you lied about him doxxing anyone - And you provided no proof and blocked me - which is evading questions.
Unblock me and continue to converse - or continue to lie and evade.
Please provide evidence of him "juggling lies while he ruined lives", doxing or being a harasser.
Prove your points through evidence, or continue to lie and evade.
Zak, I do believe the witnesses. I believe the many, many witness-quite a few of whom are also women-who have watched you conduct harassment campaigns over the years online, or even been subject to those campaigns themselves. You simply dismiss them as liars and harassers because they're not on your side, which is the classic DARVO behavior you've always done.
DeleteWhy do you believe people who have been claiming to be harased online for years but don't have a single screenshot and _have_ been caught lying dozens of times?
DeleteTsilkani, I'm a gamer from Australia and remote from this idiocy
DeleteI believe Zak, I believe in the Australian court system and I believe the OSR community has some serious issues in admitting it got something wrong and punishing an innocent man
Do you know what a sunk cost fallacy is?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunk_cost#Fallacy_effect
It's important to know that the reason Ettin was settled is because he had not a single thing to prove his allegations against Zak. This is how the law works.
DeleteIt's good that you have faith in the law, Benny, but it turns out the actual Australian legal experts don't share your opinion:
Deletehttps://www.theguardian.com/law/2019/nov/24/australias-unworkable-defamation-laws-what-the-governments-changes-could-mean
Note how the article specifically calls out the current laws as having a chilling effect on the reporting of sexual harassment. Gosh, that sounds like a familiar situation.
Tsilkani you're dodging the question you were asked:
DeleteWhy do you believe people who have been claiming to be harased online for years but don't have a single screenshot and _have_ been caught lying dozens of times?
(as well as all the other questions)
DeleteHow come you pretend you are one of them when you conuldn't prove it in court.
DeleteI have read this carefully, and was already aware of pretty much every detail - they are all publicly available and searchable with google - I cannot see how any of these cases prove that Zak has done any wrongdoing.
ReplyDeleteGot to congratulate you on your speed reading, considering you hadn't read the post at 11:58 UCT and have read it carefully by 12:31 UTC. https://twitter.com/knubberub/status/1504245832278851588
DeleteOh well, I tried.
Like I said, most of this information was already known by me -
DeleteAnd you are cherry picking some of this because only some of the court documents are searchable - such as the the case against Viv.
When rulings happen, sometimes parties owe each other some small amount of legal fees, thse kinds of fees are common.
Or the fact that Charlotte Stokely and Michelle Ford were being brought in because they could directly address whether or not Mandy was lying, as they were her best friends and were there during the events!
Or The fact that Mandy tried, and Failed, to get the case dismissed as a SLAPP case, which obviously means it isn't going to work some second magical time.
Other things you get wrong is that Jacob Hurst and Mike Evans, alongside Shawn Cheng and Zak Smith - did a Kickstarter, and in doing so, are contractually obligated to provide what was presented - it is not a choice in this case.
How is a successful suing of someone, someone who claimed they had evidence that Zak was a harasser or abuser, not evidence that clearly shows that Zak is innocent? If Ettin had evidence, why did he not present it?
Also, none of those screencaps show threats of legal action?
So why do you present his comments as if some, or even one of them, are dammning in any way?
PS - Thanks for the congratulations, information processing is my favorite thing!
This asshole is Knubberub? Good to know.
DeleteI am Ben Cusack or Knubberub on all platforms I appear in.
DeleteI don't have to constantly change my name, or block people, or delete my tweets.
If you care about my name - I should be able to see or know yours.
If you want to talk - have a persistent online identity, and don't evade questions or shirk your duty to provide proof.
have a persistent online identity, and don't evade questions or shirk your duty to provide proof."
Deleteparroting the leaders schtick. Sign number one of a cultist.
Having basic qualms about people using anonymity to dodge responsibility is not something that originates with Zak.
DeleteIt's common sense.
It's not a schtick, it's the right thing to do.
let's take a look at this bullshit:
ReplyDeleteSection 1:
"Zak announced, many times, that anyone who'd commented on, shared, supported, etc. the original posts was in line for a good legal thrashing," That's a lie--none of the screencaps show me threatening ot sue anyone.
2:
I successfully sued Ettin, why are you putting this in his list of reasons I'm bad?
3:
Mearls case was dismissed because he was vague in his phrasing, that's it.
(also, I don't write my own court documents, the lawyer did, obviously, anyone claiming I wrote these things is unreliable)
4:
This case is on appeal, you cherry-picked that out.
Intermission Demon City:
What's supposed to be the problem here? Some people, like Skerples, lied about rape and abuse. They should stop. You didn't list any compelling reason they shouldn't/
5:
You buried the lede: Mandy tried and _failed_ to get this dismissed as a SLAPP/frivolous lawsuit.
6:
Again you buried the lede--this is one ruling on a motionm, nothing to do with the merits of the case.
You cherry-picked this because rulings on motions where the parties owe each other some small amount of legal fees are common--you left out the ones where Viv owes me money.
AND you dismisses the people who wanted to be present at Mandy's deposition are women who were witnesses and Mandy's former best friends: Charlotte Stokely and Michelle Ford. Why aren't you confronting that?
7. so far none of the lawyers I've talked to have been anything but helpful and in one case a lawyer donated 10,000$ to help my case along.
1: I have added a screenshot showing where you state "legal action is on the table for everyone involved in this harassment campaign", and name me directly. While the other screenshots may be open to interpretation, I believe this new screenshot is perfectly clear.
Delete2: I believe, at this point, that you successfully settled with Ettin. I can't find any evidence the case made it to trial, and I'd be happy for you to prove me wrong. You should have access to the case # or, if you're feeling generous, the documents and decision. Post a link and I'll amend the post accordingly.
I am attempting to list _all_ your legal actions post 2019, successful or not. If there are any I've missed, please feel free to include case #s or direct links rulings or filings and I'll add them.
3: The reasons for dismissal of Smith v. Mearls are linked in the relevant section of this article.
4: I was not aware Smith v. Gen Con is being appealed. I have amended the post accordingly and added a link to the oldest comment on the appeal that I could find. If you can link to any documents filed as part of the appeal, or a case #, I'll also include it in the post.
Intermission
The problem, broadly, is a significantly delayed Kickstarter campaign, an unusual reason to deny refunds for said campaign, and tensions among the remaining contributors. I am uncertain how to respond to the rest of your comment.
5: I believe I was fairly clear that the SLAPP motion failed, and I went to some trouble to link to both the judge's reasons and a third party summary.
6: I believe I was fairly clear on the nature of this ruling as well.
I am not currently aware of any other preliminary rulings or sanctions associated with this case. If you have links to such rulings, I will happily include them in the post.
I do not need to offer an opinion on your "last-minute insistence on the attendance of non-party attendees who are testifying against the deponent in another action" (Smith v. Vivka, 20STCV09708). The judge examined your reasons, rejected them, and explained why in the ruling.
7. Congratulations.
1. That's not a legal threat, that's a statement of the reality of the world from the point of view of all humans. Anyone can be sued by anyone. You made that up, liar.
Delete2. Yes, Ettin settled because he has no case. He did it in record time, as well. Because, exactly like you, he pretended that he had proof I did something bad and then, when it was put up or shut up time, he didn't. He is a liar, like you are.
3. Yeah and it's that Mearls was vague. I watched the hearing: Mearls wrote a long post about "abusers" (not mentioning me) and then added something to the effect of "in other news, I wish Mandy the best".
So, please don't pretend that this is significant, you know it isn't.
4. So, it's being appealed. The rest of the shit you posted isn't especially relevant--you;re pretending this is significant, it isn't.
Intermission:
Yeah, the Kickstarter's delayed. Since I did all the necessary art and writing years ago, that's kind of on the production team, not me.
And the idea it's somehow _bad for a falsely accused person to defend himself_ is threaded through your summary.
Why do you think it's bad for a falsely-accused person to defend himself?
You all won't engage me outside a courtroom setting, I don't have any other arena to prove my innocence _THE ANTISLAPP REJECTION YOU READ ACTUALLY SAYS THAT Quote "Given the impact of the Facebook post on Smith, this lawsuit is not a disproportionate response. Since Nagy has not filed a criminal complaint against him and Smithhas not been able to obtain a retraction, it is difficult to see how he would otherwise re-establish his personal and professional reputation."
You read or skimmed that, yet you are still performing for your audience a little dance where you act as if suing people is some kind of martian behavior.
You guys committed textbook defamation by pretty much every law in the English-speaking world. You knew you couldn't back up what you said and said it anyway. People got sued. What's the problem here?
5. Since Mandy's motion failed, why are you pretending this is significant? The motion basically says what I've said all along: I have every right to sue people for doing bad things.
6. If you miraculously found one ruling but not others, that's on you. You should explain how you managed to find _only this_ ruling after 2 years of litigation.
7. Thanks, so, again you'd have to completely change your contention that I was talking to lawyers under false pretenses, that I was ranting at them or that they are "poor" and "unsuspecting".
In other words: you lied again.
You also lied when you pretended that I wrote my own legal briefs or made my own arguments
-
You are presenting a bunch of random facts about some legal cases as if they amount to me doing something bad--much the way you did 3 years ago when you posted screenshots of me doing a really good thing (asking you not to support an actual, proven toxic harasser named Fred Hicks) and took a screenshot of it and presented me making that request as if it were a dark secret.
You also, in the same hatepost, openly said a bunch of 4channers lied to you about me and what I'd do if you disagreed with me, you found out they were wrong, and you didn't even point out that, oh shit--this kind of militates against their point.
Why are you doing these things? You have been harassing me for a very long time and lying about me consistently.
If asked for proof of your claims, I have zero doubt that you don't have a shred. You cannot possibly think you have any evidence.
In fact, in one of our first conversations _you were surprised to discover that when I called someone out, I came with proof_.
You don't traffic in that stuff. What _actual real incidents in your life_ (not vague intimations) made you decide to join in waving pitchforks against me?
After 3 years nobody's been able to find an instance of me doing something bad. How did you get like this?
1. I do not share that interpretation.
Delete2. I disagree that "successfully sued" and "settled with" are the same. A settlement makes no claims about a case or potential case’s merits. A settlement is not a lawsuit, it is an agreement to avoid a lawsuit. Attempting to conflate the two may confuse people.
3. & 4 & Intermission. I can find nothing to reply to here.
5. Please refer to my previous comment. I am attempting to list all your legal actions post 2019, successful or not. I believe the judge’s decision is both significant and relevant.
6. Please refer to the final statement of this article. I am not a legal expert by any means. I have limited familiarity with court records. It’s possible, even probable, that I’ve missed records or judgements that should be included and I’ve invited both you and any other readers to post them. As the person most closely involved with all these cases, you should have the relevant information easily accessible, and (if you believe I am selecting some rulings while ignoring others), a strong motive to provide them.
7. Ah, my apologies, you seem to have interpreted “poor” as “impecunious”, where I meant “poor” as “unfortunate”. I believe the context makes it sufficiently clear. I have no opinions on the relative wealth or poverty of any legal professionals that cross your path. I firmly believe, based on your descriptions of these meetings and your legal campaign in general, that they are unfortunate.
I am unsure how to address the rest of your comment. Zak, the things you say frequently surprise me. The things you have your lawyers file surprise me.
1. You don't understand the difference between:
Delete"If you do x I will sue you" (a legal threat)" and
"A person is allowed to sue people"
?
2. Ettin's own admission makes claims about his case's merits: he openly admitted what he said wasn't true.
3. Since my claim against Mearls was dismissed because Mearls claim was _vague_ not because anyone determined _I did anything wrong_ why are you including this in what purports to be a catalogue of me doing something wrong?
4. Since the case is being _appealed_ and that hasn't been rejected why are you including this in what purports to be a catalogue of me doing something wrong?
Intermission:
Why are you including other peoples' actions in what purports to be a catalogue of me doing something wrong?
Why are you including me seeking justice in what purports to be a catalogue of me doing something wrong?
5. Why is is it signifiant to you that Mandy's bullshit assertion was rejected by the judge, especially in what purports to be a catalogue of me doing something wrong?
6. That's not a description of how you found the record. Please recount how you found it. If you are honest and direct and stop beng evasive, I'd be happy to give you all the records I can lay my hands on.
7. Why would you say "unfortunate" if the lawyers were happy to talk to me, sympathetic and helpful (which they were)? Why did you lie about that?
8. I'll put numbers on these so it's clearer what's being asked: Why did you decide to pretend that _I_ as making legal arguments and not my lawyers?
9. Why did you decide to pretend that _I_ was the one who made the assertions in my legal docs and not my lawyers?
10. You decided to begins harassing me many years ago. Why did you decide to do that?
11. You have no evidence I ever did anythign wrong, why do you appear to believe I did?
12. Why don't you believe the many women who have come forward as witnesses against Mandy?
---
Those are straightforward questions that anyone in your position should easily be able to answer. If you are an honest person, you should be able to answer them.
1. That seems like a remarkably narrow (and convenient) definition of a legal threat.
Delete2. Ettin has, over the years, said a whole lot of nonsense. He said his tweets were defamatory. He could also say, with the same authority, that he believed the moon was made of cheese. For what or what is not actually defamatory in Australian law, I’d trust the ruling of a judge, and for the moon I’d trust an astronomer.
Please note that throughout this article, I’ve made no statements about the merits of a potential case against Ettin, only its outcome. My beliefs in the matter are irrelevant.
3, 4, & 5. The reasons for the dismissal of Smith v. Mearls and Smith v. Gen Con, and the reasons for the rejection of the Smith v. Nagy SLAPP motion, are linked in the relevant sections of this article. Once again, the main purpose of this article is an attempt to list all your legal actions post 2019, successful or not.
6. I see no reason why my methods of finding this record are relevant, or why you feel the need to set conditions on providing other case numbers or rulings.
7. I believe my reasons are described in the paragraph in the article starting “Watching a person with strongly felt...” and ending with “Oh well.”
8. & 9. It seems that lawsuits that involve clients with strong opinions about their own abilities, intellectual prowess, and legal knowledge, tend to blend a client’s work or ideas with a lawyer’s polish and formatting. I would be very surprised to hear that these filings were entirely your lawyers’ ideas. Your lawyers didn’t decide to launch these suits on their own. You told them to. Conflating you and your lawyers, and your words and their words, seems entirely sensible, and even charitable to your lawyers skills.
10 & 11. These are very good examples of loaded questions, which presuppose a number of facts. The classic loaded question “Have you stopped beating your wife?” seems in poor taste under the circumstances.
12. I believe my discussion around non-participant witnesses, and your testimonial strategy in general, can be found in the section of this post
https://coinsandscrolls.blogspot.com/2019/02/osr-on-zak-sabbath-smith.html
beginning after “EDIT 2019/10/12” and ending with “But that’s not how it works.”
!. So where's the line between a threat and merely stating a fact?
Delete2. Well either Ettin's claim that he did not tell the truth is:
-True like I said, or
-Not true
Are you claiming it's not true? If so: present proof.
3-5.
I;m not asking what's in the articles, I am asking WHY you made decisions that you did. So, again:
Since my claim against Mearls was dismissed because Mearls claim was _vague_ not because anyone determined _I did anything wrong_ why are you including this in what purports to be a catalogue of me doing something wrong?
4. Since the case is being _appealed_ and that hasn't been rejected why are you including this in what purports to be a catalogue of me doing something wrong?
Intermission:
Why are you including other peoples' actions in what purports to be a catalogue of me doing something wrong?
Why are you including me seeking justice in what purports to be a catalogue of me doing something wrong?
5. Why is is it signifiant to you that Mandy's bullshit assertion was rejected by the judge, especially in what purports to be a catalogue of me doing something wrong?
6. You don't need to know the motive behind a question to answer it.
Please recount how you found it. If you are honest and direct and stop beng evasive, I'd be happy to give you all the records I can lay my hands on.
7. The characterization in that paragraph is objectively false. That paragraph does not accurately describe how I approached the lawyers or how my approahc was received. So, now that you know that: why aren't you rescinding it?
8 & 9. Well get ready to be surprised again: The parts you cited were not my idea. I have NO IDEA whether it's normal or necessary for a litigant to talk about their resume in a legal document in order to give context to who is sung who. It never would've occurred to me. The only reason the documents talk about my resume is because it was in there when it was submitted to me and so I assumed my lawyer (a hired expert) put it there for some reason.
Now that you know this, will you change what you wrote? Or do youy want your lie to stay up there?
10 & 11. So say what the inaccurate suppositions are.
12. That's not relevant because you lied about the witnesses. They did not say "I didn't see anything" they said "I saw what happened and Mandy is lying".
So: Please address that and change your statements.
Zak, if you've got other cases or rulings that you'd like me to add to this post, please post links or case #s in a comment.
DeleteOtherwise, I don't believe you have any other relevant information to add.
I don't know what you think is "relevant" because you keep dodging questions.
DeleteThese are straightforward questions that anyone in your position should easily be able to answer. If you are an honest person, you should be able to answer them.
Why aren't you doing that?
Skerples, answer Zak's questions, should be simple - lets see those answers
DeleteThis is kind of funny to read
DeleteWow, you could've just written "I don't like Zak, I don't like his career, and that's why I think he shouldn't legally defend himself in court, which I also don't like". Would've saved us the bother of reading the rest of it.
ReplyDeleteSeriously, what's the point of all this? You're bringing a load of cherry picked quotes and legal texts into one place so people can watch you misinterpret them all at once like you're speed running your grudge against him? Thanks, now people can dismiss just one post instead of several, how helpful.
Go find a hobby or something, I've heard gaming is popular these days...
Is being a straggler in the Zak cult a hobby, a religious thing, or what?
Deletedecided to take up a new career in drama farming? Has your crummy snake module lost its luster in the osr-sphere? The view count at ole coins and scrolls must be dismal these days for this kind of attention seeking post. Zak isn't even a regular topic of discussion anywhere online having been cancelled over lies and allegations this wreaks of "pick me" behavior
ReplyDeleteI get the feeling you're a fairly low level member of he cult. Or just some dumbshit who likes Vornheim or something.
DeleteSkerp laid out things very intelligently, with pretty smart humor as well (Zak seems to express his humor with lots of dumb meme's in his posts these days). It doesn't seem like "drama" to me. Zak has consistently name checked this person again and again the last couple of years. Skerples has a right to lay things out like this. Its a proper response, IMO. And a smart one.
All you have to offer is cheap insults.
Lying isn't a "proper response".
DeleteIf I had done anything wrong, you'd be able to give us proof. You can't. You're just trying to change the subject by attacking people who are telling the truth.
If you even manage to respond to this, you'll just do it again--no proof, just trolling.
@Magnus, Skerples has been off my radar for years now but hits my TL due to Zak-posting, seems like attention seeking to me, they are not directly involved in any of this but has decided to play historian now when they are no longer the darling of the osr-sphere as they used to be.
DeleteThe opening of your article ignores the much larger number of more credible women who have argued publicly, and legally, in defence of Zak. You've scoured several legal documents - you are presumably aware that several of Zak and Mandy's close mutual friends have submitted affidavits in support of Zak. I did not believe Zak in the opening weeks of these accusations. I spoke with those women, and the women (that I could contact) who accused him. I spoke with Mandy's father.
ReplyDeleteOver time and careful consideration, I believed those people. Not Zak. It was their arguments, their evidence, that supplies the greatest weight to Zak's defence. No-one sensible is defending Zak based on his word; they're defending him on the weight of evidence.
Not to mention the heinous abuse those women have suffered from self-proclaimed supporters of women in the public comments they've made supporting him.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteA useful summation - what a long pointless saga. I know this will fall on deaf ears but I can't understand after all of this why Zak has never shown even a shred of remorse or at the very least a bit of reflection on his own behavior. There is a reason everyone immediately believed Mandy.
ReplyDeleteI successfully sued one guy, Mearls got away because he phrased his attack vaguely and the rest are ongoing. What exactly is pointless here?
DeleteIt is important to bring bad actors to justice.
Why would someone innocent show remorse?
DeleteI have no idea of what happened in your personal relationship but your online persona is manipulative, thin-skinned, argumentative, and narcissistic. If that is how you are in real life it would be a lot for someone to take and it is certainly makes it easy to believe Mandy's accusations. By remorse and reflection I was thinking of the damage you did to a lot of people in this particular corner of the RPG world, of that you are not innocent. I think especially of those you decided to drag down with you like Jeff Rients and James Raggi. Do you ever think maybe you own actions and personality caused your troubles and not scores of people who somehow have it out for you?
Delete@lige
DeleteYour entire claim is based on the unspoken assumption that I did something wrong--if you remember the truth: I didn't do anything wrong and you all attacked everyone who supported me, then none of your accusations make sense, including those of "dragging down" people you attacked. An innocent person is not "manipulating" people by pointing out he's innocent.
Either you are dishonest or you're not smart enough to realize your begging-the-question fallacy: your claim assumes the thing you set out to prove.
The more I think the grosser what you tried to pull just there is:
DeleteJeff did the right thing--the thing everyone here should've done: he asked why the witnesses (women) weren't believed.
Y'all attacked him.
Then you're blaming me?
You are the bully who punches someone for being kind enough to help someone who tripped, then _blaming the person who tripped_ for the punch.
What happened to you that you got like this?
So the answer is no - you have no intention of ever contemplating the consequences of your own actions its all blame everyone else all the time. Got it.
DeleteIf you think I did something wrong:
DeletePlease provide proof.
You can't--so you are a lying when you claim that this is my fault.
@lige
DeleteThis is why Mr. Smith stays cancelled. No reflection, no remorse. Everyone else is the problem, right?
@3
DeleteIf you think I did something wrong:
Please provide proof.
You can't--so you are a lying when you claim that this is my fault.
Zak, while I'm happy to give you a venue to reply, I will start deleting repeated spam-like comments.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteSkipping the step where I'm shown to have done something bad and then tut-tutting that I haven't shown the proper remorse for the nonexistent bad action is disgustingly dishonest.
DeleteIf you want each new person who lies in this way to be addressed in different language, that's fine.
It's simply important to point out that both lige and 3 are doing that.
"There is a reason everyone immediately believed Mandy."
DeleteInternal social pressures from the design subculture and convenient longstanding grudges are certainly reasons, though maybe not the ones people like to admit.
I don't know why I'm still commenting but pretty much all I personally accused you of was being an unpleasant, manipulative, and argumentative person in your online interactions. This is a personal observation from being aware of your internet presence for 10+ years and is most recently supported in great part by pretty much every one of your responses on this blogpost. Again if this is in any way indicative of how you relate with other human beings in real life the more serious allegations against you ring very true. Though since you can't seem to see that here who knows what you believe about your own behavior elsewhere.
DeleteCould you provide proof of Zak being manipulative?
DeleteI have trouble imagining the childish cliquish of the OSR community
ReplyDeleteGive it up, it's years later and no conviction or criminal action has taken place
It's time to accept that due to the heightened hysteria around the #MeToo movement the OSR has decided to punish a man guilty of nothing in the eyes of the law and move on
I have little belief any of the players that have hitched their cart to punishing Zak are adult enough to do so though
" I couldn't find a good summary of Zak's post-2019 legal adventures"
ReplyDeleteIf you were looking for one, the first thing you had to do was ask Zak, since he's the person in question. Did you do that?
"The court system does not (in my opinion) reliably generate fair results."
And that's the phrase that makes your opinion legally worthless. The good thing about it is that it is rather early in the post, so that people know in advance. It's not unique, of course, another case of treating the court system as "unfair" is, I believe, Vladimir Putin's current regime. Not a company a decent person would like to keep, I'd say.
"Examining the arguments and conclusions presented, regardless of results, is more useful. Providing links to the original documents is better still."
It is useful and good. Where are the links to the statements by Charlotte Stokely, Kimberly Kane and other women who had known Zak and Mandy personally and chose to present their statements in court? By ignoring them, you make your review, in your own words, more useless and worse.
"As part of the settlement terms, it appears Ettin had to post an apology on various forums, delete the article and associated tweets, and hand over some money. Again, none of this is part of a court record that I can find, so it's mostly speculation."
Did you ask Ettin? Again, this is the simplest way to find out. Also it's hardly speculation when it went like this:
Person A: I have to apologize to Person B and give them money because of a court decision.
Person B: Person A apologized to me and gave me money because of a court decision.
I don't see anything speculative here, the two accounts correspond perfectly.
"This settlement appears to be Zak's only triumph to date."
And later you mention Mandy's failed attempt to use the anti-SLAPP defence, which does seem like Zak's success.
"It's not great when someone running a project and desperately trying to moderate the comments section says "stop fighting", and the book's author/artist says "no"."
It's not great. Whose fault is it, though? Could it be the people who attack the book's author/artist in comments?
Oh, look, it's me on Twitter, asking if Zak would elaborate. Hi, everyone.
I don't remember what exactly we were talking about, but Zak did talk a lot about the toxic people in the tabletop RPG community since then, so I'd say he did elaborate.
"Describing your opponents via military euphemisms does not pair well with a quest for truth and justice."
Targetting people who are untruthful and injust pairs perfectly well with a quest for truth and justice.
"Zak's lawyer for this case is "Henry L. Self III". Amazingly, this isn't another Zak sockpuppet account."
Seriously.
https://www.martindale.com/attorney/henry-l-self-iii-2766799/
Do you seriously suggest that Zak had been pretending to be a lawyer since 2002, just in case he needs to make a joke while representing himself in court?
Zak could write these legal summaries himself, or post links, if he wanted to. It would have saved me a ton of time His last "legal update" in 2020, before the majority of the linked actions took place, and doesn't contain any documents or case #s. https://officialzsannouncements.blogspot.com/2020/11/as-requested-legal-update.html
DeleteI haven't spoken to Ettin because I strongly suspect the terms of the settlement discourage him from any Zak-related comments, or comments on the settlement itself.. Ettin is welcome to provide any relevant information.
If the SLAPP motion dismissal was a triumph for Zak, one might expect him to post it everywhere, as he did with Ettin’s apology settlement. It seems neutral, at best.
Of course I didn’t assume Zak’s lawyer was actually Zak sockpuppet, but you can imagine my amusement at the coincidence. “Henry L. Self” would be funny enough, but “Henry L. Self III” is hilarious in context. I don’t expect Mr. Self to share my amusement. Maybe you had to be there.
The antislapp result was very much a good thing, with the judge--as I explained above--pointing out that the harassers were lying about a bunch of things in her decision.
DeleteBut no, I don't report every little victory ont he way to the actual court outcome.
As you've proven, you and the rest of the hatemob take any information you have--even information that's neutral or positive for me--and use it to stir up harassment against me. You are doing that now.
Keeping you all up to date on all the stuff going on in court would be a lot of work for no reward, or, worse, to get attacked more--I'm happy to just way for the final outcomes of my cases.
I cannot find any such claim in the ruling. In fact, I find the opposite.
Delete“Whoever is correct on this point, I am faced with untested but contradictory affidavits. [...] I am not in a position to adjudicate the merits of this claim, nor is that my task... I am merely assessing the paper record before me on the motion.” (Smith v. Nagy, ONSC 4265)
You are the person in the best possible position to provide information on your own legal activities, if you chose to do so.
Well let me point you to it. Here's 4:
Delete1. The decision itself proves the lawsuit's not frivolous (that's what antislapps are for), so everyone who claimed it was was lying.
2. The decision itself proves everyone who said I'd be laughed out of court was lying.
3.""Given the impact of the Facebook post on Smith, this lawsuit is not a disproportionate response. Since Nagy has not filed a criminal complaint against him and Smithhas not been able to obtain a retraction, it is difficult to see how he would otherwise re-establish his personal and professional reputation."
So that proves that every single one of you who claimed the lawsuit was a disproportionate response was lying.
4. "Nagy's allegations have had a devastating impact on Smith. His career has been derailed..." etc
That proves everyone who said I had no damages was lying.
So there that is.
We won't pretend you will acknowledge these things since you dodge and don't acknowledge any information that doesn't fit your claims.
That's because you're dishonest.
If you weren't you'd answer the questions you were asked.
"I haven't spoken to Ettin because I strongly suspect the terms of the settlement discourage him from any Zak-related comments, or comments on the settlement itself."
DeleteIf you're reviewing the facts, you need to have some proof for your suspicions. If you don't bother to even try and factcheck, which is what you admit here, it makes your review worse and less useful.
Ahem....Sneed's Feed & Seed. Formerly Chuck's.
ReplyDeleteThat is all.
The post had my interest.
ReplyDeleteBut this comments section has my full attention, and I keep coming back to it.
Jesus Christ, the drama and the mess LOL
On a more serious note, Skerples, I'm huge fan of your work! Keep it up!
So in the end, the important thing is he has never been found guilty in a court of law of anything that people claimed he did online, but some his accusers have been found guilty and/or settled, and other court cases have been approved to move forward where he is suing them for slander and/or malicious intent. If he really did anything wrong, wouldn't he have been found guilty in a court of law (where one is innocent until proven guilty) after being on trial in a proper courtroom after legal charges are raised for these things instead of the kangaroo court of public opinion with a trial by trolls? Doesn't seem like a good or ethical reason to cancel somebody.
ReplyDeleteDefamation I think, not slander bit libel.
Delete*or, not supposed to say but
DeleteOops
You may wish to reread the linked ruling in Smith v. Grey 20STCV09708.
DeleteZak has claimed that “When rulings happen, sometimes parties owe each other some small amount of legal fees, thse kinds of fees are common.” [sic] which appears to be an attempt to minimize the seriousness of the sanctions, and their unusual nature. They’ve raised a “WTF” from a lawyer in these comments; reactions elsewhere have been similar. I can find no other record of other sanctions being imposed in this case. The act that prompted the sanctions is not normal behavior, either morally or legally, and the judge treated it accordingly. I can see why Zak would chose to portray it to his supporters and to the public as merely routine, but it does not appear to be so.
While this is not a verdict, it is certainly a legal judgement against Zak and his methods. If your question is, “Has Zak done anything wrong?” and you require wrong to be backed by the opinion of a judge, this should satisfy your criteria. The Superior Court of California is not a “kangaroo court of public opinion with a trial by trolls”.
Additionally, I can find no evidence that any of Zak’s accusers have been found guilty of anything. I have found evidence of one (Ettin) who settled out of court, though calling Ettin an “accuser” is perhaps a stretch. If you are able to provide other cases or citations, I’d be interested to see them, and I’ll amend the post accordingly.
These may be talking points given to you by Zak, inside a carefully managed bubble, but reality does not appear to support them.
You are lying again Skerples.
DeleteThis is how it worked:
The lawyer said anybody could appear at the deposition short of a special order.
I asked some witnesses if they wanted to be there. This makes sense: they can provide help by catching the person being deposed in a lie. There's nothing legally or morally suspect.
They said yes, they showed up to the deposition.
All of that is legal and nothing is bad about it.
At that point _THEN_ the opposition raised a complaint.
Then the judge had to adjudicate that complaint. It's one of DOZENS of such rulings the judge had to make.
This is how the entire legal system works:
One side asks to do something, the other side raises a complaint or doesn't, the judge adjudicates which side gets to do that thing.
This isn't special or indicative that I did something wrong--it's just the judge decided that she wants to draw the line in a certain place.
This is normal and expected:
They give testimony and the judge says it's not relevant, they ask for a document and the judge rules they can't have it, they ask for an extension and the judge says they can or can't have it.
Both lawyers push this as far as they can, because they want all the concessions they can get--not getting one is not indicative of me doing anything wrong.
----
Are you really pretending that literally _every time the judge chooses to go with one lawyer over the other_ that means that the client that lawyer represents did something bad?
You are not:
You are cherry picking for rhetorical advantage.
If you were informed that the other legal team got fined far more than my lawyer was, you wouldn't for a second admit that your logic demands they did something bad.
You are a liar.
--
Further: Ettin, like you 100% Accused me of lots of things. So no stretch.
Ettin also:
1. Admitted to wrongdoing AND
2. You, Skerples, yourself, said Ettin did bad things above.
---
Please stop lying and answer the questions you were asked.
I do not wish to examine the legal merits of the issues surrounding the deposition. The judge already did that.
DeleteMoving the responsibility for bringing non-party witnesses to a deposition onto your lawyer and the witnesses seems irresponsible. It's your case. The buck stops with you.
Again, I could find only one other ruling in this case (a procedural ruling) and I've linked it in the relevant section. I'm using "ruling" in the formal sense here, not "any time a judge makes a choice". Judges make choices all the time. Additionally, the sanctions in this ruling have nothing to do with "choosing one lawyer over another", or some minor quibble on a point of procedure or a misfiled document. They are serious, and should be treated seriously.
I did something legal, the judge made a call. That's not indicative I did something wrong.
DeleteAgain:
If you were informed that the other legal team got fined far more than my lawyer was, you wouldn't for a second admit that your logic demands they did something bad.
You are a liar.
You are such an obvious liar that you won't even entertaint that hypothetical since you know you will be caught in your lie.
I do not expect you to _admit_ you did something wrong. Given your history, that would be ridiculous. Your admission is not required.
DeleteThe purpose of this post is to document all of your post-2019 legal actions. If there was a ruling in this case where Vivka's legal team experienced sanctions, I would of course include it. Are you able to provide such a ruling? Once again, I'll extend an offer to submit any other case #s or documents.
Would you agree that if Viv (or you, or anyone) experienced sanctions, that's proof they did something wrong?
DeleteYou won't answer that because it will reveal you are a liar.
Without context? It's an irrelevant hypothetical.
DeleteThere's lots of context:
DeleteYou asserted in your comment at "Skerples17/03/2022, 16:51" (on my screen) that the fact the judge made sanction was relevant to whether I did anything bad.
Well: is a sanction relevant or not?
The important thing to remember is don't let this man distract you from the fact that in 1998, The Undertaker threw Mankind off Hell In A Cell, and plummeted 16 ft through an announcer's table.
ReplyDeleteDicey, I thought you said you were "doing my best to stay out of that kind of drama these days".
DeleteWell, you sure as fuck decided to throw me into the pile by putting a screencap of me into it. Nothing is stopping you from removing that, either, I'd like it if you did. I have done a really good job of staying the fuck out of and away from the OSR and its drama - I haven't had anything resembling a drama moment in years. I get along with former 'enemies' just fine, I'm learning how to play guitar, changed careers(to make more money) and got into other hobbies far away from this shit. And here I am making cameos in your posts. Why?
DeletePLEASE take the screenshot down - it doesn't even prove anything, very few people who lose lawsuits internalize the loss as a fact of their character, they just seethe and cut a check, which is exactly what Zak will do if and or when he loses one.
Of course I can't force you to do anything, so we'll just put it down as a test of your character.
I haven't redacted any names in any screenshots, but by your request, I'll replace it with an edited version.
DeleteI'm not entirely sure I can support your statement that you've "done a really good job of staying the fuck out of and away from the OSR and its drama", considering the amount of dramatic forum rubbernecking with your name on it that I sifted through while preparing this article, but that's subjective.
Well, maybe you'll find a better use for your time. Thanks for redacting my name, sincerely.
Deleteoutie
I like how something like five people in this whole thing have accused Zak of actual real crimes, but rather than, ya know, go to the police so something can be done about it, all of them have just posted it on social media so people who Zak was mean to can call him a meanie and a criminal now.
ReplyDeleteBecause that's definitely what sane, sensible, non-toxic people do right? Use accusations of serious crimes purely for their own vendettas on Twitter, because there wouldn't be any future consequences to leaving someone who's supposed to be doxxing, gaslighting, and raping people free to keep doing that right?
So this is a all crap. Get back to us when someone treats a crime like an actual crime and stop whining like a six year old.
Like you guys (Zaks remaining cult members) are doing?
DeleteI have nothing to do with Zak, I'm just sick of hearing about it. Every time someone mentions something he's worked on anywhere on the net (which apparently includes D&D5 and Vampire the Masquerade 5, things that are kinda hard to ignore), a bunch of idiots pop up and start dropping links to the same shit that's in this post, over and over.
DeleteAnd for what? If he did the crimes, is it going to stop him doing it again? No. That would require getting the authorities involved, like grown ups deal with crimes, instead of turning it into some years long bitching contest. And if he didn't do the crimes, then it's just a bunch of idiots turning discussions on gaming into the same self-satisfied masturbation fest over and over.
And the joke is that when anyone tells them to give it a rest, these people say they've got to do this to 'keep Zak out of our spaces'. Well bad news guys, he's living rent free in all your heads instead.
Well bad news guys, he's living rent free in all your heads instead."
DeleteYou mad bro? You seem ragin' mad about it for somebody claiming not to be sucking at his tit. This is living in your head, dipshit. Do you love this blog? NO? Then how did you hear about this post? Must be from the other cult members, right? You showed up right away just like the others. You have clearly drank the brackish Kool Aid. Oh yeah!
Oh yeah, rambling how everyone's part of a cult out to get you, that doesn't sound crazy at all.
DeleteI heard about this post because someone I'm arguing with elsewhere linked me to it, as more 'proof' of all this nonsense. So this post is yet another thing that's going to be dragged out wherever idiots gather to repeat your mantras and accuse everyone you see of being Zak in a wig. Just great.
I'm not mad, really I'm not. Just bored of it all. You've got all this stuff that you keep gathering and linking and fawning over, then regurgitating whenever anyone commits the sin of mentioning a game that Zak was near once. Again, for what? As far as I can see, all it's doing is making you all look crazy.
I actually follow Skerples blog, have enjoyed several of the things he done over the years (MMM, TotSK). I also love what Zak has created, pretty much got me into the OSR a while back.
ReplyDeleteThis post was thoroughly dismaying. Cancel culture is ugly and it always seemed at it's ugliest here, in RPG circles. I found Zak tough to get on with in our brief relating. But you know, that's always been on me too. Everybody is weird here.
But... nothing about this multi year witch hunt (that's how it looks, I'm sorry), has smacked of justice or sanity. The anxiety that comes with speaking out against a flimsy, yet dominant consensus is very real. It's easier to be silent, than risk some fucked up inquisition, based upon the slow and inadequate accumulation of text responses the medium lends itself unto.
So no, we're not all cult members. And we have wide ranges of taste and opinion. The death of nuance is to be mourned.
The problem isn't anythign as vague as "culture" --cancel or otherwise.
DeleteThe problem is _people lying on the internet_ and using the fact that they're on the internet to dodge questions and requests for proof.
It's just lying, that's all.
I agree with Nick
DeleteOk, my first response, is that I'm telling you how it looks to me.
ReplyDeleteHonestly, I get what you're saying, you're living in it. But from the outside, it's always looked like people ready to believe something which suits a pre-conception. Is believing a lie, a lie? Like, 'I have no proof, but I do know this guy is a prick, and I _think_ he's capable of it'? And maybe the unconscious 'he deserves it anyway' .
So lies, ok. But I don't know that. I just know that I have no right to judge somebody on heresay. Innocent until proven guilty, etc.
Over to you, should you take issue with what I'm saying.
Believing a lie is not a lie. Believing isn't saying.
DeleteBut none of these people ever stopped there: in order to hide the embarassing admission that they can't think of any rational reason that they believed the thing, they start inventing things out of whole cloth.
And, once they're asked a question that would expose them, dodging it is dishonest.
A person can believe the moon is made of green cheese, but when you hold a moon rock in front of them ad they go "I don't have to debate you" then they're no longer just stupid--they've become dishonest.
And, of course, no matter what you believe, if you have no proof it's irresponsible to make any claim against someone.
DeleteSo the moment they open their mouths they go from merely stupid to evil even before getting to "dishonest". If you don't know: investigate or don't talk.
It is adorable when non-lawyers try to discuss the law.
ReplyDelete139 comments l m a o
ReplyDeleteYes, Maxwell, it is a series of high fantasy novels. Thanks for asking.
ReplyDeleteI'd like to read them. Where are they available?
DeleteThanks! They are available in many bookstores in most countries, but here's a link to Amazon, who has book #2 on sale for 50% off right now: https://bit.ly/VhaidraSaga.
DeleteZak continues to prove a useful boogeyman for the remainder of the TTRPG subculture, serving as a reminder for why you shouldn't defend yourself from what everybody "already knows" is true.
ReplyDeleteSure hope somebody posts a thread of "evidence" full of broken links and bad-faith interpretations of G+ screencaps from ten years ago to prove his alleged monstrosity again!
If any of the links are broken, let me know.
DeleteWhat you have posted here connects where it ought, this is fine. I agree with others that these are at worst value-neutral documents. Paragraph 61 in the SLAPP suit dismissal ruling is the one to screencap if you really want to put something damning out-of-context out there.
DeleteI refer to older posts which are histories of Zak "harassment" claims that are increasingly collections of busted links to G+ posts and articles that no longer exist.
Ah, yeah, linkrot comes for us all sooner or later. Not much I can do about that.
DeletePara 61 appears to be part of a definition of defamation. The SLAPP motion doesn't make a ruling on the truth of any of the statements (para 71), only that they appear to be contradictory (as one might expect).
Thanks for doing this, Skerples. It’s important to document evidence of manipulation and abuse.
ReplyDeleteAnd, uh, if Zak can’t restrain himself or a sockpuppet from replying to this: good *day*, sirs.
Nah if any of what was posted here was evidence of manipulation or abuse then the opposing lawyers (who've been trying and failing for 3 years to find evidence of manipulation or abuse) would have used it and won.
DeleteThey didn't and haven't.
Oh hey it turns out legal systems favor rich failsons like you.
DeleteI understand its an article of faith with antisemitic trolls like you that every jewish person was born rich and has a trust fund but actually: no
DeleteYou're just a jew-hating piece of shit that believed that or made that up.
It's a matter of public record: I'm just a guy who had a job.
Fuck off, Nazi.
@Pata
DeleteThe idea that I have a rich family is an antisemitic cosnpiracy theory that you are helping spread.
I don't have a trustfund, this is a matter of public record, and you're a liar.
Pata, I've been thinking about how to address this. It's not relevant to the lawsuits under discussion, but it feels like it's a common talking point, and this might be a good opportunity to put it to rest.
DeleteThere is credible evidence that Zak is not backstopped by significant generational wealth. Firmly in the "dentist/senior accountant" bracket. Solid Rotarian material. It is possible people are mislead by an overstuffed resume, a game of internet rumour telephone, or some illusions about the status of a "vice president" in American financial companies. I don't know.
Normally, I'd provide links to back this up, but the evidence would drag someone who doesn't _appear_ to be directly involved into this mess. And, once again, it's irrelevant to the purpose of this article.
Zak, while I can appreciate your frustration, your response is insane.
Any further comments on the subject will be deleted.
Skerples, Zak is doing exactly what you suggest he should do: Call in expensive specialists. Just laying out a personalized, lay, ad hominem attack before you deign to examine a single case pretty well shows what kind of point you are trying to make.
ReplyDeleteThrowing in Demon City, which has nothing to do with litigation, is again only to raise more pitchforks for Zak. (Skerples btw you do not understand civil damages i.e. someone can't just make a "full refund" of money paid to avoid damages which are based on the difference between what was contracted for and what was received with added flavor of whether damages were foreseeable. Ha, I am a practicing lawyer who does a fair amount of pro-bono work. A person can owe damages even when someone pays that person nothing.)
From a bird’s-eye level, Skerples, you don't differentiate between court results that involved an examination of the allegations truth or falsity versus those examining whether there was a causal link to damages Zak suffered (i.e. it appears in the Mearls’ case and GenCon thus far truth or falsity didn't matter if Zak can’t prove a causal link to damages).
A more nuanced "summary" based on the issues litigated would be Zak won on a case (Ettin’s) where truth of the allegations should have been a defense; won on a case (SLAPP) that Zak uses litigation to silence his critics and confirming the ancillary point of the allegations’ devastating impact on Zak’s career; lost on 2 cases (although GenCon is on appeal) that causality of comments to harm wasn’t proved; and everything else is still being litigated.
I'd suggest checking out the excerpt from affidavit Zak sent out before saying Demon City has nothing to do with litigation. As a lawyer, you might have opinions on its... interesting scope.
DeleteI wouldn't claim to understand civil damages fully, but I agree with your general statement. I didn't want to dig into it because it feels like legal advice, but neither of us has the contracts in hand. You're right in that it's a largely irrelevant side issue.
As far as I can tell, Zak did not "win" Ettin's case because there was no case. It's a settlement, which could occur for any number of reasons. Merits, possibly, or financial distress, or time pressures. As stated in the intro, I wanted to do more than look at results. It is also difficult to say if Zak “won” the SLAPP motion, considering he didn’t initiate it. He didn’t lose, but it’s just another way of dismissing a case. The case continues. The content of the Gen Con and Mearls cases, and in particular the arguments Zak makes, are well worth a read. Not proving a causal link to damage is one thing, but _how_ Zak attempts to prove it is another. I noticed you didn’t mention the sanctions in Smith v. Grey.
You’re more than welcome to write such a nuanced summary and link it here though.
You're lying agsin.
DeleteI didn't "send out an affadavit" I proposed what an agreement would have to contain in it.
There was 100% a case against Ettin, it has a case number and everything.
Ettin even hired a lawyer and said he was going to file a defense....and then didn't file one once he had a lawyer.
Most cases don't go to trial: I got what I wanted from him, that's what they call "winning" in lawyer speak.
Ah, see, I wasn't able to find evidence that case was actually filed. Happy to add it though, just send over the case #.
DeleteIf you say so. The proposed affidavit/agreement is still absolutely bonkers as a contract of any kind.
Maybe if you don't believe in reparataive justice but it makes perfect sense if you do.
DeleteIf someone lies about someone (like you do) then the harm they have caused is that people believe it--they've aided in the spread of the false belief which then leads people who belief it to act on that belief, often to the detriment of the original victim.
The agreement I proposed merely states that the liar, once shown proof that they are incorrect, must then help repair the damage done by the lie.
This shouldn't seem like a burden at all because the liar (like you) keeps insisting that proof could never exist. So the agreement could say virtually anything and it shouldn't bother them if they were honest since they have made a massive show of how sure they are they're right.
But in reality, they are lying (like you) and (also like you) averse to acknowledging facts that disprove their ideas.
If any of them actually put their money (or whatever) where their mouth was then I'd turn it over to a contract lawyer in the relevant jurisdiction and they could make sure to make sure it was enforceable and legally "non bonkers" if that was necessary.
But we all know it never will be. There will never be a circumstance where you guys will willingly go "I was wrong, I hurt an innocent person", and signing any kind of agreement to acknowledge evidence gets you that much closer to that dreaded dilemma.
Ha, some lawyer I am. I actually practice family law - not contracts - so the proper term is "prevailing" which in California civil cases one definition is "the party with net monetary recovery" so if Ettin's case were in California (it's not) Zak would have "prevailed."
DeleteAnother definition of "prevailing" is "“a defendant in whose favor a dismissal is entered” so were the Anti-SLAPP action to have been filed in California (it wasn't) Zak also would have met the definition of having "prevailed."
These definitions are intended to determine the prevailing party when a lawsuit is attempting to recover costs meaning mileage may vary under other circumstances, so if you need legal advice do what Zak did and consult with an attorney.
(and if you don't, that makes me even more sad for your following of him than I currently am)...
ReplyDeleteits so odd that he still has followers with his more current behaviors. The constant cries over any opinion "...affidavit...affledavid...sign a worn appledabbit or else liar liar pants on fire." Like anybody would run out and shell out the time and dough for that to appease him. His early self hyping of a "porn career" when the credits are exceptionally weak. His cries of anti-Semitism for his revenue stream being questioned (nobody who truly considered themselves Jewish would compare such to the killing of 6 million). using the term "nazi" for personal slights is cringe worthy to the max.
The most hilarious is expecting anybody (especially anybody with true legal experience - I have some) to believe that lawyers who don't know him actually sit down for any amount of time with him because an 8 dollar lunch is dangled in front of them. And if anybody gave him 10 grand for his legal causes I'd like to know who that is or to at least see a receipt or something. Zak always demands proof. Lets see some in this case. It certainly isn't reflected in the floundering crowd sourcing.
A few months or so ago, after Zak in his comments section told his handful of true-believers they need to mob up in other comments sections and forums where somebody says a negative is being reflected here. And while a lot of this is indeed chortle-inducing, its kind of sad for them. But some folk just seem to be predisposed to hoisting creeps unto their shoulders. Maybe they think he'll get them laid or something.
Zak has been running Skerples down on his blog for a couple of years, so this post is not out of left field. And I think it is well reasoned out. But you will never convince a toady otherwise.
When his most ardent supporter Raggi told him to F-off, you'd think they'd have cause to think. But nope. Their messiah can do no wrong. yeesh.
If you want proof of any claim I've made here, contact me : zakzsmith AT hawtmayle dawt calm
DeleteSkerples has begun to erase comments (without anye explanation) in order to further cherry-pick proof, so this may not reach you.
You can find my explanation in the previous comment thread, but just to be clear, I intend to delete any new comments that do not contain either:
Delete1. New information that is relevant to this article.
2. Notes or analysis people who have legal experience or other relevant experience.
Going forward, general anger, notes of support, irrelevant details, or repeated arguments will be deleted. Zak, you've had abundant space to say... whatever it is you think you're trying to say. I will err on the side of caution when it comes to evaluating the relevance of your future comments, but you've made 47 of the current 171; that seems like plenty of opportunity to speak your piece.
Im new to OSR and to the issues surrounding Zak S. But I am an retired attorney of almost 20 years and to be blunt, and with all due respect, you should not make posts such as these. I don't know if this post is done out of an altruistic intent to inform others? out of malice? or just out of general ignorance of legal procedure and terms of art?? But in any event, the net result is the same, the spreading of a hodgepodge of cherry-picked information that you deemed personally relevant enough to include in a post and then color with your commentary is at best, a presentation of a timeline of events that is incomplete in context, understanding and consequently merit; and at worst, you may avail yourself to potential liability by involving yourself in a debate of an ongoing, yet unresolved series of disputes (especially if parties are as litigious as you claim and on are present this very platform) ....and for what?? as far as I can tell, no apparent reason other than you want to??
ReplyDeleteI will defend my legal brethren here and say that I don't know Zak's legal team's strategy, but there definitely does appear to be one from a legal perspective. Hypothetically speaking, if there was say, a legal strategy to clear their client's name in the face of false accusation, their approach makes absolute, perfect legal sense and is spot on. Zealous representation of their client and a hard-line legal posture against instances of libel and slander is almost textbook counter-measure.
For better or worse, a few years ago Zak was a juggernaut of creation in the Fine Art, RPG, RPG internet broadcasting and to a lesser extent the adult film fields. That is a crucial element for courts to understand in almost all instances. His accomplishments and consistent industry awards have bearing and speak to level of damages, scope of impact, relevancy of involved parties etc. The fact that Zak is aggressively standing on, and, up for his rights in court, in person or online, does not make him a demon, arrogant, or self-aggrandizing, especially since he is legally presumed innocent. Lastly, I said "false accusation" in the hypothetical because I do not know a attorney worth their salt that would endanger a client by entering civil action, if revelations therein could have repercussions in a potential criminal case under exclusions to the hearsay evidentiary rule. Take that as you may.
I would suggest letting the legal proceedings take their course and just stay out of it. If you feel the overwhelming, uncontrollable urge to comment and update people, a post with a link to latest relevant court documents is sufficient.
I believe I made my reasons clear in the introduction to the article. As you've said, you're new to all this (and I’m so, so sorry this is your introduction to the OSR; this is an unusual situation). Zak has been a notorious internet presence for over a decade. He seems to operate best in the dark, when people don't compare notes , and when he can carefully control the narrative by keeping everyone in separate rooms, laying on the charm , and keeping his stories straight. I decided to publically lay out his legal campaign (or as much of it as I could find), instead of relying on rumours and vague hints, because nobody else was doing it.
DeleteWithout some sort of record, Zak can turn prevailing in a settlement and a SLAPP motion into a nebulous cloud of righteousness, allowing his supporters to believe that “some of his accusers have been found guilty” and silencing potential critics. It’s difficult to say if his reputation (both for litigation and belligerence) silences people, but it’s my impression that it does.
I haven’t commented on Zak’s overall legal _strategy_, as strategic analysis is best left to the experts, and would also require knowing what Zak’s end goals are (as they do not appear to be consistent). Some tactical-level decisions are well worth examining (and, in some cases, amusing to both layers and the general public). “What should Zak do instead?” is not a question I feel comfortable answering.
Zak’s status as a “juggernaut of creation in the Fine Art, RPG, RPG internet broadcasting and to a lesser extent the adult film fields” is... debatable. It’s certainly how he presents himself, and self-promotion isn’t inherently wrong, but some elements of his resume are very thin when examined. Not really relevant to the larger issues, but it is interesting.
I haven’t selected cases or issues with some secret scheme in mind. I’m not an expert. If I’ve missed any cases or rulings, I’m happy to add them. Zak, so far, has _suggested_ that some might exist (particularly when discussing the sanctions imposed in Smith v. Grey), but hasn’t actually provided any, which is also interesting.
The fact that, in your view, Zak aggressively stands up for “his rights in court, in person or online” does not excuse his _actual_ behavior. It’s one thing to champion one’s rights. It’s quite another to ask people to sign ludicrous pseudolegal agreements, bring non-party witness to a deposition, and say that critics (myself included) are “no better than nazis and should be treated as such”, etc, etc.
Only linking to the relevant court documents would be fine in a world where everyone has the time and inclination to read them, and instantly knows the context of Zak’s non-lawsuit behavior, but that’s not the world we live in. The context is vital. It’s not fun, and it’s possibly not prudent, but I believe it is necessary.
You linked to Patrick and Ben L so here's some facts about that:
DeletePatrick filed an affadavit for the court where he admits he has not evidence at all of me being dishonest or malicious, even though he accused me of it.
So all that supposedly damning stuff he _claimed_ I did? He has no proof and he lied about it. All he can prove is when his friend Paolo mistakenly (both admit it was a mistake) attacked me, I told people and asked him to stop. After 3 years.
Ben L of Mazirian's garden also has no proof of anything, but our conversation went like this:
I was in Ben's online game. We liked playing together, he invited me in all the time.
Evlyn M got mad because Evlyn had a troll friend who I asked not to troll and I told people to stop following Evlyn's troll friend.
Evlyn then lied about that, claiming me going "don't follow a person who lies on the internet" constitutes "abuse". (If it is, you guys are all abusers, since you say that all the time.)
Ben put up one of his weekly game invites. I accepted again, then Ben asked to talk via chat.
In the chat, Ben started with "I love you man" and was extremely effusive and apologetic. He had a dilemma:
-Evlyn also wanted to play that night
-She had beef with me
-He understood Evlyn was wrong in our argument
-He felt really sorry for Evlyn because of stuff in her own life, felt she was emotionally fragile, and would be really upset if she wasn't playing that night because I was.
-I was like "Hey I get it. Evlyn's wrong but you are friends and she's fragile and for you that trumps whether she's right or wrong. As for me, clearly Evlyn needs an online game of D&D more than I do. Let's figure a way around this"
-He accepts this and was extremely gracious around this and we talked.
-He spun this afterwards into the bs you see on that blog because, well, all the dudes who spent years linking to my blog needed to cover their asses.
Zak, in your own mind, you've done nothing wrong. It’s one of your main features. You have curious aversion to responsibility. Just as another example, in this comment section, you’ve tried a variety of increasingly desperate tactics to avoid even partial responsibility for the sanctions in Smith v. Grey.
DeleteI am also skeptical of your ability to neutrally summarize information in affidavits that aren't publicly available, or your side of conversations and online feuds. Your unusual methods of reasoning are consistently noted in the linked legal documents. You seem to confuse your perspective with the truth. The two linked posts (well, one post and one comment on a post) speak for themselves. They do not need your spin.
And since this conversation with Evlyn was online it is (of course) recorded, which proves I am telling the truth. Because when you say something happened online and you're telling the truth, there will be a record.
DeleteLet me now if you need it.
"Your unusual methods of reasoning are consistently noted in the linked legal documents."
DeleteAgain you're citing legal docs as if the judge's claim is automatically meaningful. Which is fine: does that mean that if the judge says something you will accept it?
If not: Why are you doing that?
If so: you must be prepared to admit I'm innocent if the judge says so.
Zak, you aren't prepared to admit you are guilty if a judge says so . Seems hypocritical to demand others follow a standard you aren’t willing to follow yourself. Anyway, as stated in the article, I’m less interested in binary outcomes and more interested in what’s revealed along the way. The outcomes of your cases will be the outcomes of your cases.
DeleteYou also seem to be confusing legal innocence with moral innocence. Whatever the outcome, it won’t change the actions you took along the way.
Since I was there and you were not, it makes perfect sense for me to hold to what I know regardless of what a judge says.
DeleteBut if -you- think court judgments are morally meaningless, why do you keep citing them in your moral argument?
"So, Zak has won a lawsuit... but the manner of victory and its results would make even Pyrrhus of Epirus wince at the cost. Of the eight allegedly defamatory statements against Zak evaluated by the court, six were found to be true, one was found to be nonactionable opinion, and one was found to be false. But one is all you need, so Zak won... $1 and court costs (not his legal fees, just the procedural fees paid directly to the court)."
DeleteThis is a victory?
Thanks for the summary, Skerp.
ReplyDeleteI left this issue prior to my career change, and now read this stuff for a living. Damn good leg work.
Just think, someone had some promise of a good career and now it's ruined because everyone knows they are a sexual abuser. They can try to deny it or sue people, and that might make them feel better, but everyone, especially in the RPG community, knows they sexual abuse women and nothing will ever change that because they truth is 100% transparent at this point. The lawsuits will only squabble at certain minor points, and will never get them back into this community. They will never be more famous than being famous for being a sexual abuser. Hopefully their story shows all victims that it is worth outing sexual abusers.
ReplyDeleteI was the one who asked Zak what he could have learned from "all that has transpired". I thought I was lobbing him a softball to knock out of the park. Truly, I thought he would say something like, "I need to be more compassionate and see things from others' perspectives", or "I dont need to win every fight that I get into", or "There is probably a good reason that everyone in the RPG community and three women I had relationships with all have abandoned me...I need to look inside to find and fix that problem".
ReplyDeleteI was gobstruck when I saw his cold-hearted reply that was completely divorced from any self-reflection or accountability. His problems run so deep that he cannot even see them and he believes that they exist in others instead of where they really exist.
I do feel bad for him as all of his suffering is his own making. But he is such an asshole that he is no longer worth my time.