1. Repeatedly in my letters, I’ve used the terms “defame,” “defamation” and “defamatory.” The terms have both a general and a legal meaning. The general meaning, as the word suggests, is to speak about someone in a manner that diminishes that person’s credibility in the eyes of the hearer—or, if in written form, in the eyes of the reader. Clearly, Lincoln’s letters were designed to do just that—not to mention that he openly declared that intention.
The legal definition of defamation is far more elusive. Some rather amazing character assaults have been given a pass by juries, and some relatively innocuous comments have led to convictions. It seems that the legal definition is anything that a jury decides it is—as long as some appeals court doesn’t overturn the verdict. While both laypeople and lawyers make reasoned declarations about whether the legal definition of defamation has occurred or not, only the courts speak definitively in this sense.
In most categories of defamation, the onus rests on the plaintiff to prove that a defamatory message was “published” (i.e. disseminated orally or in print), as well as to prove that the message actually damaged the plaintiff’s reputation. There is, however, also a legal category of “defamation per se.” One internet site defines that category this way: “Libel or slander per se occurs when the message accuses the plaintiff of committing a crime, of having a loathsome disease, or of being professionally incompetent.”
Another site expands on that definition, noting that defamation per se “tends directly to injure [the plaintiff] in respect to his office, profession, trade or business, either by imputing to him general disqualification in those respects that the office or other occupation peculiarly requires, or by imputing something with reference to his office, profession, trade, or business that has a natural tendency to lessen its profits.”
2. In what’s posted here, I’ve made every effort to present the material in totally mistake-free form. However, we’re talking about a substantial amount of material! And it’s inevitable that some typographical or other errors will have slipped through. Even the movement of electronically stored data can cause slight mutation as it’s transferred from one form to another. Be assured, however, that any inaccuracy is unintentional.
The two alterations I’ve made intentionally are the dividing of some paragraphs in my letters and the bolding of some ordinals. As I viewed the material in electronic form, it struck me that there would be greater clarity and greater readability if some paragraphs were subdivided. I’ve done that without indicating where it has been done. No word content has been changed in the process, at least not intentionally. The second change I’ve made is to bold-face various ordinals, just to make them stand out a little more and make it easier for the reader to follow what’s being said. I apologize for any mistakes that have inadvertently gotten through.
3. You’ll note that I’ve included the names of those who’ve been recipients of all my letters, but have withheld the names of those who haven’t been. My rationale is this: I have no qualms about naming the high-level church-headquarters leaders to whom I’ve addressed my concerns. They’ve had ample opportunity to have appropriately responded to my requests, answered my queries and defended themselves.
On the other hand we encounter those whose involvement in this saga is really incidental—they’re in most cases innocent, passive bystanders who in varying degrees have been drawn into the vortex of this discussion quite by accident. So I’ve sought to ensure that their names—and even the names of some places and entities—don’t appear here. I don’t want to have them receiving emails or phone calls of interrogation, castigation or congratulation. They deserve to be shielded as much as possible from the fallout of this unfortunate situation. I certainly recognize that in many cases their identities can be readily deduced by those close to the situation. But at least it’s an attempt to shield them as much as possible.
My rationale for shielding the name of the high-level church-headquarters attorney who with Robert Kyte “regaled” two of my church members with details and comments about Lincoln’s feelings toward my wife and me is altogether different. While I find his behavior deplorable (to the degree that I know what he said and how he said it), I’ve had no direct correspondence with him. I haven’t asked for any clarification or explanation from him—nor has he offered any. So I think it would be inappropriate for his name to be circulated, when I don’t know that he even knows that he’s a topic of discussion. As a matter of principle, I try to be totally fair in all my dealings with everyone, including those whose behavior I find unacceptable.
4. The letters presented here are in their full and unexpurgated form—with just three or four brief exceptions. In my letters to the six high-level church-headquarters leaders, I volunteered to answer any questions they might have and to be investigated as fully as they might wish to investigate me concerning both my family relationships and my workplace performance. The three or four statements I made to them that aren’t included here would have been both substantiated and elucidated during such an investigation.
However, I’ve chosen not to repeat those statements in this presentation—not because they can’t be substantiated, but because to make the statements would raise issues that would require explanation. And to appropriately explain them would necessitate delving comprehensively into personal family details. When I contacted the six high-level church-headquarters leaders requesting their help, I would have been more than willing to go into such detail to them. I don’t choose to do so in this forum at this time. Keep in mind, this material isn’t being presented here to take my brother-in-law to task; it’s being presented to take six high-level church-headquarters leaders to task for their refusal to provide moral perspective and to call for employee accountability.
Copyright © 2008 James Coffin
