Griever/Disclaimers and Intentions

Staddon vs. Griever: Disclaimers and Intentions

Legal Disclaimers and other related explanations

Intent

The contents of this web site (where "this web site" is any pages on hypertwins.org bearing the label "Staddon vs. Griever" at or near the top of the page) are not indended to in any way demean, belittle, intimidate, harass, or in any other way cause harm to the defendants in this case. Its sole intentions are:

• To aid the Plaintiff (me) in organizing my thoughts
• To aid in obtaining the thoughts and suggestions of other individuals not necessarily involved in this case
• To avoid the spread, intended or otherwise, of inaccurate information (as in rumors) regarding the participants in this case, by making correct information available to all
• To aid with the correction of any inaccurate information upon which I may be carrying forth this suit by posting said information online in wiki format, which allows others to edit existing pages and to add their own information
• In general, to aid in the pursuit, discovery, and dissemination of the truth -- whatever it may be, and whomever it may favor -- in all matters related to this case.

Usage

Anyone, including the Defendants and those sympathetic to them, are welcome to post to this site. I ask only that they use editorial discretion in placement of their edits and that they draw a clear distinction between opinion and fact:

• If something is a fact, the documentation should be given or mentioned (e.g. "sales receipt from Company X on [date]"). Where possible, the item in question should be posted in its entirety on a separate page (if it is a receipt, scanned images may be uploaded to this site and linked).
• If something is an opinion, the statement should be prefixed with "We contend that..." or "The Defense contends that" or "[Name] says...". If you create a new page for such opinions, the "We contend..." phrase only needs to appear once at the top of the page.

If I have made any lapses in this area, please feel free to point them out.

Initiative

My lawyer has advised me against posting anything on the web about this case. My lawyer also suggested that if I posted anything, I should post only the official court documents, since they are available to the public (on file at the Athens-Clarke County Courthouse, I believe). This entire site was created at my own initiative, and I will not hold my lawyer accountable for any disputes that may arise due to its existence. (And no, my lawyer didn't ask me to write this statement.)

Motivation

When I initially created this area, I "played it safe" and posted only public documents. I have come to feel that the benefit of full disclosure outweighs the risk. This case has dragged on far too long, and if this "brings down some heat" then at least it has gotten things moving again.

I believe that the risk of such "heat" is very low, however, for the following reasons:

• I do not believe that posting this information, per se, violates any law
• Any information unfavorable to the Defense is backed up with documentation and therefore shown to be factual, thus removing it from the realm of libel or slander, or else is clearly stated as opinion, which also cannot be considered libel or slander in the U.S. (see Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc.)
• This information is not being distributed in secret; it is on the worldwide web, where anyone (including the defendants) can access it, including the Defendants. (Note: Google searches for "Willard Dale Griever" and "Norma Lynne Griever" currently return no hits; I do not know why these pages are not yet showing up there.) They are therefore able to see what is being said about them and to take corrective action if they have any objections.
• My understanding is that the usual reason for being careful not to discuss a court case publicly is that you don't want the opposition to know your strategy. I have arrived at a point where I really don't care what they know. If I am in the right, the facts will show it. If I am in the wrong, I don't want to win by subterfuge and tactics.

On this last item, I should say something more. You need to understand that I extended the hand of trust to the defendants long after people began advising me to pull out, to stop doing business with them. One family member described them repeatedly as "losers". I nonetheless defended them to friends and family, believing that in time we would be able to sort everything out, and that our problems to date had simply been the result of repeated miscommunication.

It was only when the defendants took certain actions which clearly violated my standards of how people should treat each other that I felt I had a mandate (for lack of a better word) to take action against them. Having gotten to that point, however, I pay the price of feeling like an idiot for not listening to that same advice (and certain of my own inner misgivings, even at the very beginning!).

If I am right, and I win the case, that's great. If I am wrong, however, and I lose the case -- it may be a financial loss, but it will also restore a bit of my faith in humanity, and prove that I wasn't a total idiot for continuing to trust. (The only real loss would be if I'm right but the defendants win on a technicality. I don't know how to prevent that except by being as organized as possible.)

Caveats

I make no warrant or promise, however, that I will not remove or alter postings which violate the intent of this web site. (Please note that the edit history for any given page may be viewed by clicking on the "History" tab at the top of the page; if you think a page has been altered, check there. I won't mess with the history data.) I also reserve the right to block users who abuse the site in any way, subject to my judgement.

In general, I make no warrants or promises about the usability or accuracy of this site.

--Woozle 14:27, 5 Jul 2005 (EDT)