How could I? You removed all your posts.


Yes, and we are just exchanging ideas as you are. That works both ways.


No one has attacked you for your "professional expertise" but for your wayward bias against a very effective tool that you dressed up as "professional expertise." Your bias against a tool that everyone knows you don't like. Keep in mind we have other attorneys on this thread who don't support your position. One even suggested that attempts like yours to shut down exposure efforts with legal threats was tantamount to extortion.

Do we take the bank robber seriously when he proffers his "professional opinion" about removing the penalties for bank robbers? Or do we recognize such an opinion for what it is: biased and self serving.


Your sincerity is highly questionable when you ignore very real threats, such as divorce, and focus on the one thing you don't like: exposure. If you were sincerely "concerned" about a BS, you would fear divorce, which is the usual result when one doesn't expose. Yet you never mention that which looks like you are carrying water for waywards.

There have been times I have riled up people with my views
Some have passed positive remarks on occasion to some of my posts

There have been people that I have both reactions from

I think you YOU should expect the same. If YOU can't have people disagreeing with you, you need IC. Contrasting view points helps to open eyes. So don't get mad. Come here to open eyes and have yours open as well.

Better off defending your ideas not yourself.

This place is about the ideas.

Let us be very clear here. Seeking, are you saying that you are pro-exposure even if there are consequences for the WS/OP? I would appreciate a YES/NO response. Thanks.

It's not that; it's that you (and a few others) are always there to help give someone support if they are thinking it might not be a good idea. The official position of this board is that it is a good idea in most situations. The board functions as a place for learning the official positions of Marriage Builders, for what they are worth, not a place to compare and contrast all points of view. I have no problem with the idea of comparing and contrasting all points of view, but if somebody says "Hey, please don't do it in my classroom, we are trying to have class here!" I respect their request.

People come here because they like what's served here. If you think there's a problem with what's served here that's fine but say it on your own dime, or the dime of someone willing to help you say it with their resources. As a lawyer I'd hope you be all over the property-rights implications, here.

You may be an attorney but you really have very, very little experience with saving marriages, right? And very, very little experience with the Marriage Builders program, right? When somebody says, on this board, "I'm not so sure about exposure" or "I'm not so sure about this polygraph suggestion," throwing in your own two cents on the subject isn't noble. There's a big sign on the door saying "School for learning Marriage Builders." It's a big Internet and people who want other approaches can find them somewhere else. Perhaps you think that some people will be worse off for following the official Marriage Builders line. That's fine, but it still doesn't mean it's acceptable to pop into Marriage Builders and disrupt "class" and stage a protest. And nobody grabbed those people and forced them to go to the Marriage Builders board and only the Marriage Builders board. It's a big Internet and you and I both know we can compare ideas from multiple websites to make up our own minds, and so can the poor souls you are worried about.

Hence the MB forum policy, which has been implicit for quite a while but has recently been made explicit: debating the merits of a particular Marriage Builders concept is fine on a standalone discussion thread, or on your own thread if you are not sure about it, but not fine on some other poster's thread where they are seeking help for their situation. Perhaps you feel that limiting such folks to only hearing the official Marriage Builders party line is not best for their marriage, but they are all grown and capable of deciding for themselves if being here is in their best interest or not.

I really don't see why this is considered so insensitive. Suppose I were Muslim and inviting people over to my home once a week to study what the Koran says about marriage. You might feel that what the Koran says about marriage is not best for all marriages, but does that mean that you can attend the Koran study in my living room and refuse to follow the rules and interrupt the speaker to give your personal take on how you think a couple of principles from the Bible are better plus some lessons you've learned from the Talmud and the Hindu Vedas? If you are concerned for those people the right thing to do is contact them on your own and see if you can convince them to come to your house; not come to my house and disrupt my living room Koran study.

{Disclaimer: I'm not Muslim. I don't think I even own a Koran, although with all my books I'm truly not sure... Anyway, it's an illustration...}

If I hold Koran study in my kitchen it's not insensitive to ask invitees to refrain from offering opposing viewpoints from the Bible, is it?

I mean, after all, they're not paper dolls, right? They are real people who can go to another study if they prefer.

I might attend that reading, markos. If it existed. It sounds like it'd be a great learning experience.

An unequivocal yes, absolutely, 100% no question about it.

There SHOULD be consequences for the unfaithful spouse and AP -- that's just logic.

What I DON'T want to see, and what my comments were directed towards, is for the faithful spouse to have ANY consequences.

Why is it so hard for you all to see that my comments are directed towards protecting the faithful spouse? Why would anyone assume otherwise?

Isn't the POINT of exposure to CAUSE consequences for OP/WS?

I have never once done this and I defy you to come up with a single example where I even posted on an exposing faithful spouse's thread.

Not a single post will you find.


If answering a question on this meta thread is throwing my 2 cents in, guilty as charged.

If Harley has a hard and fast position on polygraphs like he does exposure and not mentioning the A after the details are out, I haven't seen it. If you have a link, I'd love to read it.

I THOUGHT that was what this thread was.

Maybe because a betrayed spouse doesn't need "protection" from exposure. Yet you are trying to assert that they do on the basis of absolutely nothing.

So why don't you define what further "protections" you have in mind?

Well, Mel, my thoughts are always so well received here, right?

Like there is no one here who would think for one mad minute that if I suggested a change in language to the classic exposure letter or a documentation methodology that might foreclose some evidentiary challenges , it was because I have a "wayward" perspective rather than that I am an "excellent" lawyer.

I have to confess that I was a little disappointed because when I read Susie's question and started thinking about the specifics, I started composing a list of all of the elements of every cause of action listed from the Restatement of Torts in hopes that this thread could brainstorm around that. All you have to do is conclusively defeat one element, and that claim is toast.

Then I found out I am vindictive, foggy, unrepentant and anti-exposure etc., so I stopped.

One thing I have found is that there is never any shortage of people who want free legal services!

Like I always say: DON'T PUT OUT FOR FREE!

It is, and I think such discussion is perfectly fine, here, if I understand the rules correctly.

You may not have done so about exposure, but you certainly did on another topic or two. And there are plenty of others who have done this about exposure, so I figured it was good to mention.


Good point; I don't know what he says about that, specifically.

Rogers sued for exposure of woman's affair
Last Updated: Monday, May, 2010 | 7:24 PM ET The following is a current news report about exposure and liability.

It is interesting because the case is based on technology and exposure, because quite a bit of A are discovered this way.

BUT;
It is being persued in Canada, and the exposure was done via a brech of contract, between a cell phone provider and a client. This was done by ell phone provider combining and listing calls within a cell phone contract.

I did quite a bit of searching for real cases of liability and affair exposing. I found very little to support AP threats or any real lawsuit being successfully presented.

I think that the absence of documented lawsuits re: exposure and liability should be a clear indication of the real threat to a BS.

This does not mean that intellegence and relavince to helping your personal situation should not be considered.

No, I am not a WS
nor legal counsel

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

CBC News
A Toronto woman is suing cellphone provider Rogers Wireless for a breach of privacy that led to the end of her marriage.

Gabriella Nagy is asking for $600,000 in damages for invasion of privacy, breach of confidence, breach of contract and negligence.


Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2010/05/17/con-rogers-suit.html#ixzz17QZp2b6U

barbie,

That lawsuit was brought in May 2010. Has it reached a verdict yet?

The issue is not whether a WS could launch a lawsuit; the issue is whether a WS could WIN one. I have asked for evidence that a claim like this has succeeded, and so far I haven't been given any. As Mr W said earlier, anyone can launch a lawsuit over anything, if they are so inclined. what we are trying to establish here is whether a BS should fear an exposure lawsuit to the extent that s/he declines exposure.

Additionally, suing a telephone company (with whom you do have the expectation of privacy) because their sloppy procedures led to a third party obtaining your data is not the same as suing your BS, or the OP suing the BS, because she revealed the affair - on FB or anywhere else.

We do have data protection rights in most of the countries we live in (we who post here on MB).

Do we have laws that say you may not tell a third party about the affair that someone is having with your spouse? That is the issue I am trying to raise on this thread.

I can't imagine any such law in any jurisdiction. How would it be any different from a news reporter talking about any current event - they are all speaking about the actions of a third party. Adultery, while immoral, isn't illegal, and even if it was, one is allowed to report a crime performed by a third party.

The Rogers WS, to me, seems to be displaying all the traits characteristic of a wayward, especially self-entitlement. Rogers is a big company with deep pockets and likely attracts lawsuits from many people for many reasons.

There is also this lawsuit, also in Canada from March 2010 where the BW is suing the insurance company that the OW worked for. Though it's not over, so far the only loser is the OW. http://www.thestar.com/mobile/NEWS/article/784399. Again, there is a big company involved.

Exactly the case. Someone giving up your records is not being exposed by a BS.

I know of now laws saying you can't say the truth.

No we do not. The problem in America is that sticky old issue of FREE SPEECH. We can tell anyone the truth!