Tawandabelle wrote:


I asked

I am not questioning the appropriateness of exposure of FB walls, or of dropping flyers from planes (neither of which I have ever seen advocated here). I cannot see any reason to expose to minors not connected to the BS's family, or to old school friends that the OP hasn't seen in years, or to many other people.

I am questioning the legality.

We have seen some affairs halted after recommendations here to expose to key people via FB.

I have never heard of a case, here or IRL, where someone has successfully sued over FB exposure.

I would like to know the legal grounds on which someone could win a suit brought against FB exposure - where there is proof of an affair.

Does anyone know the answer to this?

It is the public-ness of FB that sets it apart.

See, the thing is, many people have hundreds of friend on FB. Harley, the founder of this site, says to expose to those who will have influence over killing the affair and can be a support to the M. No one can tell me that all of those hundreds of people acheive that purpose. So, what, then is left as the purpose?

Again, the founder of this site has never explicitly said the blast hundreds of FB participants with exposure. Ever. And I think it is irresponsible to recommend legally tenuous strategies to a complete stranger just because it appeals to OUR sense of justice (or, let's be honest, vicarious vengeance).

I fully expect that this will (again) invite mots of ire on my head. That's okay. I have finally reached the place where what God knows about me, what DH knows about me, and what I know about myself are enough.

If the purpose of exposure is to kill the A and support recovery, then I challenge one person to give me a non-vengeful reason to post it for 374 people to see.

Again, I am going by the consistent in-context writing and words of Dr. Harley, not a passing remark that somehow became the rule.

I am guessing that a private message through FB or an email would be fine legally for exposure. Those messages are a private exchange much like what a phone call would be.

Yes, a private message is fine. Posting on FB is considered the legal equivalent of putting it on the front page of the paper. And while it may be TRUE...and probably a WS would NOT win a case, the legal system could really do a number on a BS and a recovering M...and is that really the goal? Maybe it is, if making the WS pay is the goal...it just depends on the person's true motivation.

First off, no one here recommends posting it on people's walls. Normally that is not even possible because you have to be the person's FRIEND to do that and that is usually not the case. The REASON I don't recommend posting it on someone's wall is because it is not effective. Most people won't even see it, whereas, sending a private message to each of the OP/WS's facebook friends would be seen.

However, it is not illegal to expose truth to someone's friends and family. A person's facebook friends IS a collection of their most valued friends and family so it is the PERFECT scenario. We have had numerous affairs busted up this way.

Typically, we don't recommend taking out billboards or dropping fliers, although Steve Harley HAS recommended such tactics where it made sense.

I don't understand why there is so much concern about exposure when the real risk is the AFFAIR. Affairs can and do lead to much worse than legal action. They lead to nervous breakdowns, post traumatic stress disorder, suicides, divorce, destruction of families, ruination of children lives. THAT IS THE REAL THREAT PEOPLE.

So I am amazed that anyone would even bother for second about the very far reaching risk of legal ramifications over exposure. Since when is it illegal to tell truth in this country? I have YET to see a lawsuit on this forum over exposure, but I have seen MANY divorce lawsuits spring up over an affair. The reason is that most cheaters won't file suit because the charges are true and they don't want to see the proof trotted out in a courtroom.

There is RISK in absolutely everything we do in life. But this needs to be kept in perspective and the reality acknowledged that the "risk" of NOT EXPOSING is much, much greater.

It really is possible to be for exposure and NOT agree about every single tiny facet. It really is. Anyone who is able to objectively read my story and postings knows I am 100% against infidelity, 100% in favor of taking full responsibility, and 100% in favor of accountability and honesty (including exposure to friends, family, and workplace when needed). You don't have to be pro-FB exposure to be pro-M or even pro-MB.

I think there is a perceived difference when exposing to a BS and to someone's friends on FB. Exposure to all their friends on FB, IMO, can be construed as an inflammatory act. You're putting it out there for the whole world to see. Exposing to the BS can be construed as a act of kindness toward the BS.

Handpicking the exposure targets on FB makes a difference, too. You're exposing to those who can exert pressure to end that A when you go with family and close friends. It may appear to be a harassing or inflammatory act when you expose en masse to all their contacts.

There have been cases where a WS has filed suit over a perceived loss of business, where they have business contacts who unfriended them after exposure. However, the evidence of truth about the affair pretty much killed the defamation claim. That's the bottom line: truth is a valid defense against a defamation claim.

Sorry, but you are wrong. First off, our facebook accounts are a collection of our closest family and friends. That is the best place to expose. What is it about "TELL EVERYONE" do you not get? You can't come up with any valid reason NOT to expose on facebook other than it is "legally tenuous strategy" when the risk of a legal outcome is almost assured with adultery. ADULTERY is very legally risky because it almost always leads to divorce when stopped. If a facebook exposure stops affairs, then wouldn't that be the responsible thing to do?

Keep in mind that the more people who know about the affair, the more people to keep them accountable. There is no downside to this whatsoever.

And that is what is recommended on this board. The recommendation is to handpick FB friends and send out a private message to them. Generally, we would exclude children and single people and go for family and married couples. Those are the most influential targets.

It is ridiculous to say we are telling people to mass blast facebook or post on the affairees wall because it is impossible to mass blast and ineffective to post on someone's wall [even if you did have access, which most usually don't]

I think just as in the case of the term "nuclear" some who know little about facebook have jumped to yet more hasty conclusions about facebook.

i would stick to exposing to family members and very close friends to the family...

i have a friend who's going through a divorce due to his wife's affair and he had a web blog up detailing his experience and would post on FB...his lawyer advised him to take his blog down and limit his FB status updates in regard to his divorce...from what i gathered his wife and her lawyer where collecting information to be used against him, if their divorce went to trial.

If posting a private message "is fine" then what is your beef? That is the only way TO expose on facebook. Like I said in my previous post, this seems to be a misunderstanding what a facebook exposure REALLY IS. Another feeding frenzy launched over on an anti-MB board based on wrong definitions. [to wit the term "nuclear" ]

This is more of the same of some disgruntled posters whipping each other up into a feeding frenzy without ever getting the facts.


Hello?? That is not recommended and I even told you this a couple of weeks ago. So why are you continuing to say it?

I think my problem was twofold. First, when I was reading everyone, I was also reading friends, family, clergy, work. Second, I probably use FB differently than some people. I have some people as friends on FB that I haven;t seen since HS graduation, like glas I twirled with who I never even talk to IRL and have never even met DH. DH plays those silly games like Kingdoms of Camelot and Frontierville, so he has FB friends who are really just people he bought logs from for his log cabin (har har). If he cheated, me exposing to a knight on Kingdoms of Camelot would do no good. I'd have to go through and cull people for it to be effective.

So I guess I was just thinking from that perspective. If the only people on our lists were the 20 or so people who really are a part of our lives, then it would make sense to just send a message to the whole list.

I don't know if that makes any sense. Also, and this is slightly different but it's the only analogy I could come up with, I lost my tenured taching job last spring. Unbeknownst to me, my administrator had been "building a case" from the time I told her I had bipolar disorder. I was told by more than a couple of people that I should fight it based on the Americans with Disabilities Act. I seriously considered it. But my kids went to school in that system, my DH was about to finish his PhD and was already looking for jobs, and I was not extremely healthy. I had to weigh the potential legal victory with the price of fighting it. In the end, I resigned with the written understanding that I would receive excellent recommendations.

probably a BS would win a legal battle over exposure. But if an A is already over (which was the case in this original sitch), the couple wants to recover, etc.....would the stress of a trial/legal battle be beneficial? If the WS is repentant....what is the benefit?

That was what I was responding to. It would be easy for me to sit up very straight in this chair and say, "post that A right now!" But am I going to be there to cover legal costs? Am I going to be there to help pay the rent if someone loses their job? When I advise a person...it is a real live person with a family, kids, bills, etc. I don't ever want to find out that my encouragement of any kind of "gotcha" measure ends up causing even more suffering for a real live person.

I remember sitting in my youth minister's office at 17 crying because I had been stripped of my youth duties....because I went to the prom. There is no Biblical edict against the prom, but once legalism took hold.....At the time, I cried and "repented" and stood up before the entire group and apologized for going to the dance, which of course was a sin.

I'm not 17 anymore.

I agree with this advice about blogging on facebook, but that is not the issue. The issue is exposing to facebook friends and family via private message. We have 3-4 marriages that are in recovery right now because they killed the affair this way.

Actually, this question does not specify private messaging. Posting in most vernaculars means posting to a status, not a private message.

I would agree that private messaging would be very effective.

What ARE you talking about? Where has someone suggested to a BS that she do a facebook exposure on an affair that is already OVER?


On the other hand, when we have done exposures on the OP's facebook page, the EMBARRASSMENT of exposing her to any and all has run many of them OFF. You never know who will have the most influence over her, so you can't very well "hand pick" a few. Better to hit as many as possible! In the case of an OP, it is good for ALL his/her friends to know so they can watch their own spouses around him/her. We tell them in that exposure letter:

I made an incorrect assumption. I assumed that this thread was started as an offshoot of a thread where the A was over and the OP was asking about posting to a social networking site. So I was still thinking in terms of that thread. Sorry for the confusion.

A facebook exposure, as we define it here, is DONE VIA private messaging. However, if there is a social network where it would be more effective posting to a status, that should be done. For example, marriedforever killed her H's affair by exposing on a runner's website. [the skank and her H were members] She followed up by sending emails to all the OW's fellow teachers. Result? AFFAIR KILLED, MARRIAGE SAVED!

Problem solved.

And here is what she was told:

You know what? There is risk in everything, isn't there? I can be sued for wearing red on Sunday, but what are the odds? And so far on this forum, I have YET to see one lawsuit from exposure in 10 years, but have seen untold lawsuits that arose from adultery. I have seen numerous marriages SAVED using exposure and many marriages KILLED from not exposing.

Seekingbalance, I can understand why a wayward wife such as yourself would have an emotional investment in keeping adultery secret, but it has proven to be the most effective weapon we have against adultery. The greatest risk to board members is NOT exposing.

Dr Willard Harley has saved thousands of marriages using these tactics with no fallout:

I don't post often, but I have experience in both FB and exposure. You definitely want to expose via private messages rather than posting on the wall for various reasons:

1. While the legal stuff won't stick, it's an added expense and hassle you don't need.

2. Posting on someone's wall is highly ineffective. It only shows up on people's home pages for a short while, depending on how many friends they have and how active they are. The WS/OP can delete it. That means only those people who logged in soon after you posted, actually went to the WS/OP's wall and all before the WS/OP get there themselves (and they will likely be alerted by somebody. There is no guarantee you will hit the important targets and you won't get a second chance as you will be blocked.

3. People who read your post on someone's wall may perceive it to be vindictive. The same people, when reading the same information in a private message, will feel like they are "in on something". It's basic psychology.

4. Any adultery supporters/sympathizers or the like will not only perceive the wall posting to be vindictive, they will have the ability to add a comment and completely change the tone of your post. So, even if someone who could support you comes along, they will be influenced by what the affair cheerleaders have to say. With private messages, these cheerleaders won't know who else you contacted and any reaction from them will make them look paranoid. DON'T send a bulk email - send the same message but to each person one at a time!!!

5. Once you have PM'd a bunch of these people, you will have effectively compiled a list of potentially influential people. This could come in handy down the road in the event there is a false recovery or if the OP has a BS who needs the same info but gets blocked etc. It also means you have access to far more people who can help spy later on (you would be surprised how many of these people will stay in touch with you afterwards).

It's basic common sense. It's not illegal, even if you do post it, but posting it publically will be perceived differently and you also lose control of the content and distribution rather quickly.

I have seen you refer to FB exposure with a negative connotation like this before. Like Mr. Wondering's exposure thread. I believe you were told on that thread that is not the way FB exposure is advised...or something along those lines...

Can you point to where you are seeing this advised on these boards?

EXACTLY. But, that is not how we advise exposure in the first place. Like you said, it is ineffective. Better to send out personal messages/emails and sign your name.

I will add that marriedforever killed her H's affair DEAD and got a lot of support when she exposed the OW and her H on a running forum. So there are some situations where that kind of approach is effective. She also mass emailed the OW's teaching colleagues at her school. Affair: DEAD. Marriage: SAVED.

For the life of me, I don't understand why anyone could view exposure as "negative?" Why? Because it is embarrassing? Of course it is!! A wayward should be embarrassed!

Being embarrassed over being bad is a POSITIVE thing, not a negative thing. I view this fear and negativity of exposure as a sign of the fog.

So does Dr Harley:

here

Problem solved.

From a legal perspective, the only possible cause of action I can think of that a person could allege for someone having communicated to their FB friends that they are having an affair is defamation. Truth is a defense to a defamation claim. As long as a BS has proof that the two are having an affair, they would be able to defend against any legal claim for defamation.

SB, it needs to be pointed out that you are a wayward, so people understand why you would have this irrational perspective of exposure in the face of a very real threat, ADULTERY. That is like worrying about the toxicity of the paint in the girl's bathroom on the sinking Titanic. Why else would a person be on a marriage board trying to scare others about using the most effective, impactful weapon against adultery? I can think of no other way to explain your lack of perspective.

Surely, you can see that yours is not the most objective view given your very recent history? It is a little self serving to see a wayward on an infidelity board trying to scare folks against exposure, don't ya think?

Why else would you not be concerned about "claims" that might be brought when the marriage collapses from an affair? Rather, you focus on an almost UNHEARD of, and easily defended risk - but one that often kills affairs and saves marriages.

It should be pointed out that BritsBrat is a corporate attorney for a leading international company.

First off, anyone can sue anyone for practical anything. That being said, in my almost 6 years here, I have yet to see someone actually get sued for exposure. I've HAVE seen plenty of divorces over infidelity but not one specifically because of exposure (infidelity is by far the bigger problem in marriage NOT exposure)

Thus, even though it is SOOO unlikely it's hardly worth mentioning, anyone who enters this "exposure" situation SHOULD be somewhat aware of and protect themselves to some extent from such frivolous lawsuits (the practice of bringing lawsuits with little to no chance of winning). The deeper the exposure targets pockets and/or the closer association such target has with lawyers the greater the risk.

Wayward Spouse's VERY OFTEN threaten lawsuits. As I've said many times in the past, though they threaten...Waywards very RARELY follow through and sue anyone. Remember, the last thing a wayward spouse wants to do is walk into an OPEN and PUBLIC court room and attempt to defend their adulterous behavior. They want secrecy and the exposing party to STOP exposing them...not MORE exposure in court. In addition, any lawsuit involves "Discovery", a period of time both parties get to ascertain the facts of the lawsuit through depositions, interrogatories, admissions, private investigators, experts, etc. Again, Waywards don't want "discovery" and public courtroom drama, they just want you to stop exposing them. Thus, they "threaten" to manipulate you.

This is PRESUMING the wayward spouse IS having an affair. If you are wrong about such and expose to any third party that someone is having an affair and they are not...you are subject to being sued. I'm not concerned with liars because anyone that anonymously comes telling us their spouse is having an affair when they aren't; and, we anonymously tell them to expose such affair, isn't a problem with the exposure advice but the initial lie. If they get sued...it's not our problem. A bigger problem though is when a wayward KNOWS he/she is having an affair, they MAY threaten and actually sue you because they don't believe anyone can prove it. Most waywards are hiding behind a wall of denial which tells them that if no one has pictures, audio tapes and/or video of them actually screwing their affair partner, then it didn't happen. Lying is no big deal to these people in this state of mind so they MAY sue you even though THEY (and their affair partner they trust to lie for them too) know it's the truth. In addition, they may take exception to the exposure of their affair because they have not YET consummated the "adultery" and the exposure insinuates they have. They will claim you have defamed them implying "sexual immorality" when it's not true. In such situations, IF avoiding lawsuits is paramount to the "collectible" individual or person anticipating a protracted child custody dispute, then they better be sure to obtain some semblance of "proof" of the truth they intend to expose. They don't necessarily have to have overwhelming evidence like video tapes or witnessing of physical intercourse....rather, they just need enough circumstantial evidence to carry their burden of a "preponderance of the evidence" that what they are saying is the truth. This will then switch the burden of proof back to the wayward to prove it hadn't happened ever or yet. Evidence may include emails, text messages, direct witness testimony, cell phone bills, hotel receipts, private investigator reports, statements, admissions, deposition testimony, etc.

Another issue here is that the question of "truth" is generally a FACTUAL question. What that means is that if someone sues you for defamation/slander/breach of privacy and you don't have absolute proof of an act of adultery/infidelity....the case will GENERALLY survive Summary Deposition because the judge can't throw the cases out based upon the law. The JURY (or Judge) is the "trier of fact". By getting past Summary Deposition, the plaintiff has successfully made the case really expensive regardless of how frivolous it may be.

So it MAY be important for the exposing spouse, depending on the amount of proof they have of the infidelity, to coach their "exposure" language very carefully. Generally, the advice we give here is so "coached". It is not mean or vindictive. No one is advised to proclaim to anyone "my spouse is screwing [OW}". Beside such being a bad exposure tactic...it's "graphicness" also is more likely to result in lawsuits especially if you can't prove they are "screwing". Rather, we advise more generally statements like "My [spouse] is having an affair with [ow/om] and I am looking for your prayers and support". Though anyone can sue anyone for anything...this is quite un-actionable. The word "affair" could mean anything and doesn't necessarily imply "sexual immorality".

I will try to come back later and discuss the different types of potential lawsuits and discuss their relative low risks.

Mr. Wondering

Mr. Wondering is dead on. One other thing neither of us mentioned is that the only people who can file suit are the WS and the OP - they are the only ones who have what's called "standing" to make a claim. The people to whom exposure is made do not. "Standing" means that a person has sufficient stake in an otherwise justicable controversy to obtain judicial resolution of the controversy. In other words, it is a legal concept used to determine whether a person has been sufficiently affected such they have a legal claim for the wrong.

I'm sure you feel that by using scare tactics you are being responsible.

Every time I run across one of your posts, the fog becomes so thick I can hardly see. PLEASE for your own sake and that of your M, take the time here to learn and let the haze clear.

Far be it from me to censor anyone, it is merely my recommendation that you refrain from posting advise for now, and spend the time posting and receiving assistance with healing your M.

One should never fear telling the truth. Whether it happened today, or thirty years ago.

Problem solved.

In all these discussions of POTENTIAL lawsuits let's not forget the fact that any individual has the freedom of speech to state the facts about their life to anyone they want. The fact a wayward spouse may THREATEN you with lawsuits could also be considered "extortion"...wherein he/she is trying to coerce you into not exercising your legal first amendment rights to say whatever truthful thing you want to to anyone you want about your life by threatening legal action against you.

Having a good counter-claim helps so pay attention when your wayward spouse threatens you....If they say or more particularly write (by email)... "If you don't stop telling everyone...I'm going to sue you". That COULD BE considered extortion.

This is why collection companies or lawyer letters also advise people of POTENTIAL lawsuits for collection or whatever and tell you to discuss your options with your own attorney. We can't flat out THREATEN lawsuits. We have to coach our words carefully and speak in hypotheticals. "Pay up or we will sue you"...is extortion.

Mr. Wondering

I think butternut is my favorite...




Anyway - I wouldn't let fear of legal rebuttal deter me from defending my M, nor would any financial cost be too much.

If your WS doesn't want ya broke, they shouldn't have broke ya.

I don't doubt your training. It is also my opinion that you are probably, in most cases, objective. I have yet to see you be objective here.


The problem isn't your answer - it's your continual, chip-on-the-shoulder attitude. You won't learn what you need to learn until you set that down.

I am very sorry for the confusion my response may have caused. Again, I was answering a brand new poster who simply asked about posting to a social networking site. She did not specify private, and since she was new, I assumed she might not intrinsically know what "we" me mean when we say FB exposure. I was sharing a perspective, and since cautioning against posting on a public wall is not opposed to written MB principles, I didn't forsee an initial problem.

I am curious though. Since, I seemed to disagree, does that mean that I am now a wayward as well?

I'm not an attorney, but the easiest solution to the OP/WS suing you might be filing suit right back at them...certainly for intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligent infliction of emotional distress, and maybe for malicious prosecution, and whatever else the situation might warrant. Then, in my state, if the adultery results in divorce, the BS can also sue for alienation of affection. I know of two people who have won AOA suits.

A sue-happy bum once physically attacked my son, and my son successfully defended himself. The guy filed assault charges against my son, but my son had witnesses and was acquitted. THEN, the guy filed a civil lawsuit against my son for injuries...this time, claiming that my son beat up his ol' truck with a baseball bat (not true).

What we did? Filed a lawsuit right back at him for defamation of character, malicious prosecution, and I forget what else. That ended the whole matter, although it did cost a few bucks.

Why did it work? Well, sometimes lawyers are happy to sue someone based on a contingency...a percentage of the court award, if any. However, when it comes to DEFENDING someone, lawyers usually want their cash up front.

Also, I think that, by filing suit ourselves, we put his lawyer on notice that his client was probably lying to him.

Anyway, EXPOSE ANY WAY THAT YOU CAN! Just be sure that you have proof.

There are no viable legal claims that could arise from exposure.

I think the lesson to be found in Seeking Balance's posts is that if your spouse (or the OP) is an attorney or either has a hungry aggressive lawyer on constant retainer, you better document the crap out of things before you expose AND coach your words very carefully when you do so as to MINIMIZE (not eliminate) the possibility of a frivolous lawsuit.

Interesting, from a legal standpoint and these marriage recovery plans, it's SNOOPING that presents itself much more often in lawsuits than exposure. I've only read one case on the internet involving defamation with regards to exposure of adultery and the plaintiff lost because "adultery" was no longer considered an "illegal act" in such state thus, it wasn't defamation per se (which left the plaintiff with the burden of proving the affair didn't happen in a regular Defamation lawsuit which they lost in the lower court anyway).

Snooping presents many more likely issues of lawsuits yet every infidelity website recommends it. Wiretapping and invasion of privacy issues abound. In New Jersey they are particularly aggressive with enforcing privacy laws and punishing those that break them. I've read a custody dispute case where one spouse was snooping on the other and it appeared to have significant weight in the custody decision made by the court.

Thus, Snooping is the area of considerable legal risk. Exposure...not so much.

Mr. Wondering

p.s. - MaritalBliss...thanks for the word "Inflammatory". It was the word I was looking for. The more "inflammatory" the specific words are within any given exposure...the more likely it MAY result in litigation. There is a common sense defense of "unclean hands" (an equitable defense in which the defendant argues that the plaintiff is not entitled to obtain an equitable remedy on account of the fact that the plaintiff is acting unethically or has acted in bad faith with respect to the subject of the complaint). Courts (Judges and Juries) are FAR FAR FAR more unlikely to award or even listen to a wayward spouses legal complaint, however stated, about being exposed (presuming it's the truth) if you do it like it's always advised herein...nicey, seeking support. However, if you run around the world saying "my spouse is F__king OP" and include pictures of the OP and the spouse the court is MUCH more likely to see both of you in the wrong and thus, listen more closely to the plaintiff's arguments.

Well, I have asked around, and I have got a different answer. I haven't had any answers from lawyers that support your position.

I don't understand how someone could succeed on the grounds that you cited. This is partly because I don't know what they all mean!

Can we start with the first one cited? Could you (or anyone) tell me how someone could succeed with a defamation claim, if the person who exposed (the BS) has proof of the affair?

Gonna take your toys and go play somewhere else?

Running away does little to prove anything to support you. You got more spine than that, knock it off!

Thicken that skin, Chica. If you feel you have something relevant to say, say it. If it gets debunked without support, support it. You have the trial lawyer attitude, but you aren't bringing your... "A" game...?

Ah, lawyers. I have an opportunity to go do some mission work at an orphanage in Peru ran by a self-proclaimed "recovering lawyer."

I was honestly wondering where you have seen FB wall postings/status updates advised here as part of exposure since you have referred to it more than once. I did not mean to imply you were wayward.

Google age;

In law..."success" is relative.

How much "proof" do they have?
Is the "proof" admissable?
Was it illegally obtained "proof" (additional claims)?
Can we beat Summary Disposition?

If, like Seeking said, the homeowner's insurance policy company can be successfully brought into the action...then the insurance company attorneys will be handling the case. Though this MAY make things cheaper (and essentially irrelevant) for the betrayed spouse, it also makes it much more likely a settlement will be the final result. Like I said....the element of truthfulness is a question of fact the jury has to ascertain. Absent Summary Disposition the last thing the insurance company wants to do is go to trial over these matters. They'd rather give a nuisance settlement than pay twice as much to the law firm representing them and since, typically, the Wayward doesn't really want to go to court either these matters settle quickly with the plaintiff attorney getting paid and whatever small amount is left over going to the wayward. The result is the wayward gets to tell everyone they "won" and/or were "successful".

As others have said...for most people, their marriage and family are far more important than the risk of these type things. In most situations, I advise the betrayed spouse to disregard any threat of a lawsuit and INVITE the wayward so threatening them to "go ahead...make my day, I can't wait to depose your affair partner".

Mr. W

DH has pointed out before that sometimes my brain goes from A - R in .02 seconds, SuzieQ. I read a thread and the first thing that came to my mind was a wall post and possible stress for the BS. The sad thing is, an unrepentant active wayward often knows no bounds when it comes to hurtful and self-serving behavior. I can't go into stuff, but I am aware of something right now in someone's life that is FB centered and very ugly. So that was what came to mind when I read the OP on that thread.

I know that I am not longer wayward, just like I know I am mentally stable and that my two children are in fact my DH's (that still chaps my hide)....I just hate feeling like I am defined by something I no longer am. I understand it, but I don't like it. And I don't think you were doing that. I've never seen you wield that weapon.

I'm sure that sucks, TB. This isn't the first time I can remember seeing the resentment of that stigmatization coming out in your posts.

The more horrible of an action we commit, the harder time we will have ever shedding that label. Being remorseful does nothing to lessen that weight.

Don't make it an excuse, don't let it control you. Control the stigma - make it your strength; "Yes, I commited this horrible action, but that will NEVER AGAIN BE ME."

Not to get totally O/T...but that is actually pretty great advice. profound.

Since when is it the BS's problem if the AP's employer has a policy against adultery, and the AP violates that policy???? There is absolutely no sense and no desire for any BS to protect any AP, EVER, for any reason whatsoever!!!

If the AP were to sue, and they could if they wanted to, the BS has proof and likely by the time the ink was dry on the paper, the A would be over anyway and the WS would be on the road to FWS and, hence, be able to testify that, in fact, the A occurred.

This is absolutely the WORST excuse for not exposing that I have ever, EVER heard!

I keep reading my first amendment, and it keeps saying I can say what I want and nobody can make a law against it.

But maybe that's changed. Maybe some people have made laws against it.

IANAL. (I am not a lawyer.)

And you are also a very fogged out wayward and are about the least "objective" person on this thread. If we are to take into account your background as a trial lawyer, we should also take into account your background as an adulterer who does is still foggy and naturally averse to exposure. We need to look at your ENTIRE background, not selectively ignore your self serving interest in not exposing adultery.

The fact that you are on an infidelity website trying scare BS's against exposing affairs speaks to your lack of objectivity. The fact that you are hyper-focused on an unlikely risk, at the expense of a likely risk reflects your skewed perspective.

markos, I love the first amendment as well, but I have learned that sometimes the same people who herald it will squash it like a bug when it makes them uncomfortable.

The second offence cited is "invasion of privacy".

How would this succeed in the case of an affair? Doesn't freedom of speech have to be weighed against this claim?

If invasion of privacy were a successful defence, wouldn't the National Enquirer and every other scandal-sheet be sued successfully, all the time, even when they have proof?

(I know a plaintiff can win where there is no proof. I'm only asking about cases of proof, such as in my case, where I saw text messages describing wonderful sex between my H and OW. These could be subpoenaed. )

I apologise for being behind in this discussion. I'm several posts behind the rest of you!

BUT...if the employment was "compromised" it would be as a result of the adultery. Many companies do not choose to employ adulterers because they represent a legal risk by their activities. Workplace cheaters are a walking loose cannon. A company needs to know so they can protect themselves from workplace cheaters.

I have worked for TWO fortune 500 companies in the past 20 years and the policy in both companies is to terminate the adulterers. In one such case, the highest level employee, a Region VP, was escorted off the premises by an armed security guard. These people are usually fired on the spot. I do not know of a single BS who was ever held liable for exposing their spouse and the AP in the workplace.

Well, let's look at the AP's options in context with the potential liabilities you mentioned:

Defamation: throw this one out. The exposer has evidence that confirms the A.

invasion of privacy: On Facebook???

intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress:
Both of these are almost impossible to prove, as they speak to motive. To successfully prosecute either of these it would have to be proved that the BS acted solely to inflict distress. The prevailing motive asserted by even the most brain-dead defense attorney would be that the BS wants the A to END. The exposure letter confirms that. No jury would have a problem with a crushed spouse trying to end an affair.

Also, courts are tradionally loathe to entertain either of these when no physical damage is done. IIED, etc, is the risk one runs with one is screwing another person's spouse. They should be worried that THEY might be sued for that, especially if they have already been confronted by the BS!

negligent representation: Toss this one out, too - it relies on a lie being told. Exposure of the A is TRUTH.

tortious interference with contract: Nice try, but this one is so shaky that no sane attorney would bother with it. A specific element is missing, and that is that the BS intended to bollix up the AP's job by exposing them. It is clear by the (truth-packed) exposure letter that the intent is to END THE AFFAIR. If the AP gets into professional trouble as a by-product of the BS's plea to help end the affair, it is the AP's problem. Again, there ain't a jury in the land...

Bottom line: Sure, anyone can sue anyone at any time. But you've got to make it stick or it's a waste of time and money. Which is why we generally don't hear about anyone suing for exposure.

Thats was my exactly my thought when I saw posts trying to discourage exposure.

Another thing...

I don't think most of us advise broad exposure in an attempt to "take down" or otherwise punish any particular wayward spouse.

Since exposure is the most powerful weapon in the effort to bust up an affair and busting up the affair is in the best interests of the betrayed spouse, the family AND the wayward spouse, advice to expose is an act of kindness and friendship for ALL the parties involved.



I also find feigned warnings by former wayward spouses overstating the risk of legal ramifications to be feelings of misplaced sympathy for the wayward spouse and not a legitimate or genuine concern for the betrayed spouses herein. It's foggy...which unlike being wayward, is a condition we all have to some degree or another.

As a means of illustration. Suppose the government undertook a program to lock up (in a pseudo-jail) alcoholics for one year making them work a recovery program AND a work detail (picking up garbage on the road). Alcoholics would hate such program....they wouldn't want to be "incarcerated". Newly recovering alcoholics would likely hate it too...and get wrapped up in debating and protesting such a gross violation of civil liberties, whereas a truly recovered alcoholic would be much more likely to embrace the program and wish they'd have had that same program when they were younger and destroying their lives and the lives of those around them.

It's a wildly gross example and I'm not looking to argue the suggested example....merely pointing out that there is a process wherein one is no longer an alcoholic but still thinking unclearly to becoming a more clearly thinking final recovered product.

Along those lines...if one denies there is such a process and doesn't allow challenges to their thinking, then they risk getting stuck in the process and, perhaps, never healing fully. There is no doubt that their are an abundance of people stuck that would like nothing more than for you to be stuck too. They are like the druggie group in High School wherein all you need is to be willing to do drugs with them to belong. It's NOT friendship but co-misery.

Personally, I don't want to get stuck myself so I try to keep learning in hopes that one day, before I die, I truly get it all. "Foggy" is NOT a bad word.

Mr. Wondering

This is excellent advice. I would encourage any BS who is exposing to keep any record of a WS who threatens such lawsuits for a potential extortion case.

Additionally, betrayed spouses should carefully explore their state's laws against adultery. Some states, such as Michigan and Wisconsin actually have laws AGAINST adultery - you can bring civil suits against them. Several other states have laws against alienation of affection.

Yeah, I don't know why we keep electing those people.

/rimshot

Actually, I wasn't referring to elections or exposure. But I don't want to tempt First Amendment fate

Bingo! It is notable that of 3 attorneys on this very thread, the only one that is whipped up about exposure happens to be a fogged out wayward. The other 2 attorneys, who don't have a vested interest in protecting the consequences of adultery, do not support her fears.

All claims related to exposure are barred as a matter of law.

There are no lawyers out there who would file such a claim in hopes of making a quick buck.

Exposure at any level carries no risk of legal repercussions.

Is that better?

Have you read Love Busters?

No, it's not.

Instead of saying/advising:

"don't do it because it has legal risks or is legally too risky"

Which coming from a former wayward spouse SOUNDS LIKE a round about way of trying to scare a betrayed spouse into not exposing.

Perhaps a better or more productive post would be:

"do it...but be aware of these legal risks that you can minimize by doing x, y and z."

But this is a public forum and we are all relatively free to post however we want.

Mr. Wondering

p.s. - I don't deny that former waywards have to be careful how they post and what they say on an infidelity forum. But that is a consequence of the waywards choices (one to have the affair in the first place and the later to stick around and try to help others). If a former wayward wants to "help"/contribute (and I want them to) they need to somewhat carefully choose their words and realize they may tick off anyone that is anywhere in this process at any time (particularly the newly arrived). A degree of empathy and understanding of the audience is expected and required. For example, the poster Aphellion has stated that in real life he does not believe there is such thing as a real FORMER wayward spouse. He (and others like Piojitos) think they are like saskswatch (sp?)...they don't exist. He has stated that he will never be friends with or otherwise knowingly associate with a [former] wayward spouse in real life. My wife, a former wayward spouse herself, at first wanted to argue with him about that, but on second thought, considered it a legitimate choice of his. He has the right to associate with whomever he wants. That "opinion" or choice in no way reflects upon her. Such opinion shouldn't offend the truly recovered person.

I'm asking for one of these for Christmas.

Instead of putting it down, the chip just got exponentially bigger, inflated by burgeoning sarcasm.

sasquatch

I understand completely, especially the last sentence. I am, after all, Southern Baptist

So is my wife...

btw, she has been really busy lately. She is getting prepared for the holidays but she's been meaning to jump on and tell you, Luri, that she really really likes you and thinks highly of you. Seeing you do the things she'd always hoped her father would one day do was nice for her. Of all persons, she was perhaps the most saddened to see you (and saynomore another personal favorite of hers) fully and/or partially reject this place of personal growth and well being in favor of the unrepentant and certainly unholy. Like I told saddestwife, you are being deceived.

Mr. W

What? What? Are we losing her???? TB, what's going on???

I will never reject MB. Surviving An Affair was THE catalyst for me finally breaking....I still remember reading it poolside and crying because I started seeing how horrible I had become. Had it not been for Harley's stuff, we would never have understood so clearly EP's and NC and what steps I needed to take to really change. There were several people IRL who tried to tell me "you couldn't help it; you were manic." part of what kept me grounded in the idea of personal responsibility was MB.

There are people here who have listened to me agonize over the same issues repeatedly, and they haven't thrown a shoe at me yet . I have even received emails from one person in particular reaching out to suggest resources and giving me encouragement. Actually, more than one now that I think about it.

I can understand why someone who was betrayed in the worst way possible would think that the "F" in FWS was a myth, a sasquatch. If I ever teach again, you can bet I won't be telling an administrator about my disease - I was horribly hurt when I did that before - and that wasn't even close to the betrayal of infidelity.

But I am learning that my own DH is somewhat of a sasquatch too. It might surprise you to know that the times I have hung back or distanced myself from posting or reading were at DH's request. He sees (or at least fully believes he sees) a direct connection between me focusing on what I DID and what I WAS and a deterioration in my mental health. He asked me for a short while not to post and read, and then he said he would trust me to know when I was getting sucked into the "I will always be trash and even people who don't know me think so" routine. I would probably be even more involved in the MB forum if he did not have such concerns.

He sees the A as a part of our past. Something that altered our lives but is over...he is a "from this day forward" man. I posted his beautiful thoughts on his forgiveness once before (which wasn't liked by a few people).

I may not have much to offer MB, and that is okay. I know I definitely have shortcomings. And just like I was always one of those teachers who would use any resource she could find to engage her kids....I am not afraid to use any resource I can find to help my M, providing it does not violate the one and only book I see as infallible - the Bible.

Someone once told me via email, "I feel there is a part of you that you are afraid to share at MB." And they were right. Not some deep ugly, threesome, one night stand, continuing adultress part. But the fragile, sometimes doubtful, with lots of questions part that wants more than anything to have the M I saw in my parents but wonders if I have what it takes to make it happen some days. I am afraid to share that, to ask the same question too many times, to say 'but what about...." Because the way is soooooo narrow, I am afraid that I am just not good enough. And not because I did something awful in 2006 -- because I am ME.

So now that I have T/J'ed all over the place and will probably never convince the whole world that it ISN'T just a pity party rant, I will say again that I am in favor of exposure. We exposed my A together to many people after I confessed. I was just worried about one possible public scenario that might cause even more hurt to a BS at the hands of a vindictive WS.

I hope not, but I do know there are plenty of people out there on the internet that will be accepting of everyone no matter how ugly that person IS behaving and/or how unrepentant they are. Swingers, satanists, witches, unrepentant adulterers, fornicators and liars are all embraced...doesn't matter to them as long as you don't post or get help here.

Guess I shouldn't have said anything. Just kinda of thought everyone knew this board/forum and the Harley's were being attacked.

Email my wife and I if you have questions, MaritalBliss.

Mr. W

p.s. - to clarify I am NOT speaking about you luri [tb] nor seekingbalance.

I'm sorry you feel that way.

I'm a lot like your husband. In fact, one of my favorite sayings is "NOW is HOW" along with "Act, don't React" (having a tougher time with this one right now, obviously).


Anyway...all we have is NOW.

The past is over and the future is speculative.

Mr. W

Well, I think you should be wary about any possibly "vindictive WSs" who post "legal" warnings to BSs in an attempt to stop them exposing.

The "legal" scenarios that have been rehearsed on this thread have been dodgy, probably self-serving (to unrepentant WSs) and there is no evidence that they have come to pass in real life.

In real life, exposure on FB, to employers and the friends and family has halted many an affair. We have seen this happen countless times here on this board.

People are not advised here on this board to post to FB walls or drop flyers out of planes, so please do not say that they are.

People are given effective to help to stop affairs, and this works much of the time. The BS isn't hurt by exposure. The WS and OP in a continuing affair are hurt - and perhaps that is what the objections have been about, all along.

One question: Are you committed to your M?

I feel like I'm standing by and watching a train wreck happen. This whole thread saddens me.

I think it was stated much, much earlier that there was an original misunderstanding re: FB exposure - wall vs. private message, etc.

Now that that has been cleared up, I'm not sure why the thread seems rife with personal attacks.

It's one thing to discuss ideas in an academic manner; it's another to run off valuable posters, or to create an environment of perpetual attack.

I agree with Mr. W that, by our actions, (F)WS should indeed post with more care and empathy. I agree that fogginess should be called out, and that some 2x4s are deserved. However, I don't see that fogginess here, and I don't see the 2x4s being deserved for Tawandabelle.

I believe you sincerely felt that way...it's just not the way it comes/came across.

It's also not the first, second or twenty-fifth time it's come up, most all of which were "brought up" by trolls or much more fogged out [some former some not] waywards...so, perhaps, you too, could afford to cut some of us a break as well. It gets a little tedious having the same arguments time and time again.

This place is tough, not enabling.
This place is truth, not darkness.
This place is challenging, not complacent.
This place is safe (we are your friends and we won't lie, enable or coddle you)
This place is Godly

Confrontation IS biblical.

Good luck tb ... my wife and I certainly hope you stick around.

Mr. W

I should just like to point out that nowhere on this thread did anyone encourage you to focus on what you did. This thread was started in response to a point you made about the legality of FB exposure, but the thread was not about you or your past, in any way.

There has been enlightening discussion of legal issues here. These are the legal issues that you raised, and about which those planning to explore need clarity.

You have chosen to see "you will always be trash" talk where there was none. Nobody brought up your affair until you did. Nobody here referred to your status as a FWS. Indeed, FWS are valued here on MB; they are not attacked. It seems that you have projected the shame that you feel into the posts here that attacked the "legal" argument. The inference is that the "legal" argument was demolished, and thus you were.

No such thing happened here today.

Please point out ONE of those personal attacks or 2x4s on Tawandabelle.

It's all good Mrs. V. The 2x4's are merely being swung at the notion that broad exposure includes some large risk of legal ramifications. I think most everyone agrees that Luri/tb (can't ever get used to that new name) has/had good intentions.

Exposure is just so effective and such a hotbed issue that draws a lot of controversy on these forums that many people feel compelled to not let anything stand that opposes it...especially on newbie threads. By the time everyone gets their 2 cents in...it FEELS like a pile on.

I can only speak for myself but it's not personal to me. I'd help anyone here with anything. No hate here.

Mr. W

Mr. W, you've got mail.

Hmm, perhaps I am guilty of feeling this as well in regards to this thread. Thank you for pointing that out, SC.


Thanks for this, too, Mr. W, especially the bold part. I am heartened!

I really resent this attack.

I started this thread to seek clarification on a legal issue, and I believe we have received as much clarification as we can get on a public message board. We have not been provided with evidence of successful suits over FB exposure, but we have seen reference to cases where FB exposure stopped the affair, without an ensuing trial.

It has taken some back-and-forth for the issues - walls vs private messages, job consequences, defamation and all the rest - to be sifted through, but we have done so with civility. Where a weak argument has been recognised it has been challenged. There have been strongly-expressed views, but there is nothing wrong in this.

To read now that the thread has been "rife with personal attacks", that "valuable posters" have been "run off", that we have created "an environment of perpetual attack" and that, most astonishingly, Tawandabelle has been given "2x4s" is incredible. I challenge you to show me ONE instance of a personal attack, on Tawandabelle or on anyone else.

I posted before I saw your "heartened" response, Mrs V.

maritalbliss, I am absolutely committed to my M.

I haven't read a whole lot of new threads or SAA threads lately. I have spent more time in recovery and 101. I haven't read all of the discussions about exposure and didn't really realize I was beating a dead horse, so to speak.

I do acknowledge that I sometimes have my own personal struggle with shame over what I did 4 1/2 years ago. Sometimes the more I talk/write about it the more shame I feel. But then I really want something valuable to come from all the wreckage I caused; I want to make a difference if possible. It's a balancing act - too much talk and I get stuck in the shame, never talking about it means I can't use the experience to be helpful.

Sometimes love must be tough. I can handle the tough as long as there is the love - haha. I'm still a wienie at heart, which is why my DH's absolutely Christlike love for me is even more amazing.

I apologize. I really made this last few pages all about me. And I HATE that. This is supposed to be all about saving marriages.

Sugar, I am SO not attacking you, so I hope this isn't directed to me. I think this thread is great.

Nonononono!!

It was directed at the post I quoted!

Thanks for the support, bliss.

I do hope we can lay the question of attacks to rest now.

Not just quite yet.


And I gave you a legal answer. No one has disputed that the claims listed might be colorable claims based upon this scenario. What has been said is that they are hard to prove.

I gave an off the top of my head list of what might be out there. I never suggested that those claims were anything but viable.


This qualifies as an attack leveled by you at me.

Let�s look at actions. If I were as described, I would be popping into every exposure thread issuing dire warnings about possible legal ramifications.

I don�t. I read and root for the spouse. It�s a hard choice, but all indications are that it may be the only choice that will save the M.

You remember in Sixth Sense when the kid tells Bruce Willis �I see dead people�?

I am a trial lawyer. I see lawsuits. I see them EVERYWHERE. I see lawsuits where a lay person wouldn�t think of them and half the lawsuits I see are ones that an office lawyer wouldn�t see.

One of the reasons I am a good lawyer is that I think out of the box and ahead of the curve.

I can�t sign a field trip permission slip without seeing a lawsuit. I can�t walk in my neighborhood with my dogs without seeing a lawsuit.

I have seen lawyers twist facts beyond recognition.


Just because it is legally cognizable does not mean it is meritorious.

All a claim needs to be is colorable and the lawyer can ethically file.

You asked a question that I mistakenly thought was sincere.

I gave you an answer that has morphed into me being a vindictive, unrepentant, self-serving anti-exposure alarmist.

I have no idea whether it has happened IRL. I was simply answering the question you posed.

This wasn�t anyone�s thread, so I thought it was informational. Had it been someone�s thread, I would not have responded for fear that my answer might be a factor in the decision.

There are things in the standard exposure letter I would tweak towards avoiding the downside risk of litigation. There are things in almost every document carrying legal weight that I would tweak towards avoiding that downside risk. That doesn�t make the downside risk probable or me right.

I think any faithful spouse who feels it would be helpful in their sitch should expose like mad � but with care -- to anyone they think may be helpful towards ending the A and supporting both spouses and the M.

You, SugarCane, haven't a single clue as to what is going on in my life. You do NOT get to attack me without rebuttal based upon some initials in my sig line.

No, I own that one. But I think we're all set to rights, so woohoo!

I attacked your words, but that is hard to demonstrate since you have removed what you said.

Obviously, from this, we are not.

Then approach your new actions with pride, instead of shame.

I get you, I just have the other end of the yardstick here.

Hell, I'm still in the middle of the dang coaster, holding on, but reaching out to others, and saying "Man, that double-helix backwards loop is a doosy" helps.

The connection to addiction recovery here is astounding. Most of us with that WS or BS tag have been through hell - and I don't discount a remorseful WS in the least. I've said it before, and I'll say it again; I have no idea how I could handle being the only one responsible for the decisions that have lead my family into the worst crisis it will ever face.

I have faced that decision myself, multiple times. However, my B remains, and now I have to add another layer of protection to myself. I no longer have the delusion; she would never do that to me.


It is recovery. It is like AA meetings; it takes all types, and takes all stories. Yours counts, too TB.

SB... you always have me on my toes. One moment, I want to shake you, and ask what the hell is wrong with you - the next, you show your true breadth, depth, and potential. Sometimes, I think your issue is that you possibly have more heart than spine. You get all hurt and offended, and you retreat, albeit loudly.

You stated it yourself; sometimes lawyers twist the facts into an unrecognizable tangle of deceit. This is what I meant, way back when I said you carry that professional attitude. Your inner lawyer is just too loud sometimes.

Soften up. This is an anonymous, public forum. If you know how to back up your claims, back them up. No need to join in the mud slinging.

Nice try.

Let's list it out, just from this page:

Vindictive.

Dodgy

Self Serving

Unrepentant

That is directed at the person I am, not my words.

It is an unambiguous, completely unjustified character assasination.

Own it. Or don't.

But if you choose not to, consider being slow to suggest that others should own their stuff.

Oddly, you are oblivious to the type of lawsuit we see the most: DIVORCE. Which most often occurs when an affair is not exposed. We don't see lawsuits about exposure, we see lawsuits for divorce. That reflects a concern, not for the victim, for the perpetrator.

sb,

I own those words. I haven't removed MY posts. I stand by my posts. Everyone can see what I wrote. Can we say the same for you?

Some of the words in the list (like "dodgy") are directed at your words, and some of them are directed at the persona you have created in your many posts here, not just in the ones to this thread.

There have been posts where you have said that if your H had done the things that WSs are advised to do here on MB, you would have left. For example, you have ridiculed the idea of giving your H full access to your computer. You have said something to the effect that if your H had told people about your affair (not just on FB; anywhere) you would have walked.

Several posts like these have led me to see you as unrepentant. I'm not going to look up your old posts now, but I might do so another day, if you think I should.

It is 3AM here in England. TBC another time, if you wish.

I'm confused. That was my obviously poor attempt at levity to smooth over what I thought was a finished misunderstanding. I'm going to go back to the sidelines now and let the original thread carry on!

I would agree with this characterization based on your effort to scare BS's into not exposing.


True. Cannot defend her position and defends her arguments by claiming she is "objective" when it is clear she is not.


Absolutely. It's like the bankrobber who protests jail sentences for bank robbers. You have an emotional investment in condemning exposure and have even told others you would have left your spouse if he exposed your affair.


Trying to scare BS' into not exposing definitely reflects a lack of remorse, and most certainly a lack of repentance.


It was very accurate and very justified.


I'll be your huckleberry.

dang, you forgot the most important one!! click here

Please point out to me a single thread where I have tried to scare a faithful spouse's into not exposing.

Please point me to a single thread where I have commented on a faithful spouse's decision to expose.

Please point me to a single thread where I have posted a single word to an exposing faithful spouse.

I THOUGHT this was an informational thread where ideas as opposed to advice were being exchanged.


Since I don't have a position, I cannot possibly defend it.

What I had was a list. A list is not a position. A list is a list.


Again, please point out where I have ever tried to scare anyone out of exposure.

You can't do it because I haven't because I make it a point to never post on those threads because while I believe it is a good strategy, it trips my legal wires and I am fearful that any sort of cautionary signal I might inadvertently send might lead to a bad decision.

I hate it when the facts get in the way of a theory.

ALL I did was answer a question and try to explain how the system MIGHT work. If you have another lawyer on these boards who has represented both plaintiff and defendant in every cause of action I listed in a variety of different contexts and argued the evidentiary issues raised in these soft torts during discovery and through trial, THEY ARE REALLY QUIET.

If you have a lawyer on this board who completely disagrees with me that those might be colorable claims THEY ARE BEING VERY QUIET.

Why do you need to vilify me? You haven't the faintest idea what my life is like. You have not the first clue what I am doing for my M or what he is doing to me.

What purpose does it serve to attack me for answering a question on which I have professional expertise on an informational thread?

Why am I even having this conversation when I was sincerely just trying to help by answering what looked like a sincere question?

Abusing you?

THEN LEAVE.

Nobody here would vilify you for leaving an abusive spouse. NOBODY.

Is this the reasoning you use to paint every act of repentance, remorse, and reconciliation of a WS toward a BS as some type of stigmatized attck of the WS?

Is this why you project all over other the husbands of other women?

Adultery is damaging to everyone within it's blast radius, Seeking. That is why it is wrong. It can't be justified, and it is abuse.

If he is abusive, that is no justification for adultery, and your adultery is no justification for abuse.

If he is abusive, LEAVE. If he isn't, then quit alluding to it as some pity-driven flaccid trump card.

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!

On another note, adulterers in many states should beware, because adultery is a criminal offense in your state. In the state of Florida, for example:

Adultery and Florida Law

In the state of Florida, the law specifies that a person may be criminally charged if he or she is "living in open adultery". Anyone found to be engaging in extramarital relations may be found guilty of adultery. Furthermore, both individuals in the extramarital relationship may be charged with adultery, even if only one of the couple is married. This means that an unmarried individual engaging in an affair with a married person may be charged with "living in open adultery" as well.

Charges and Penalties

Under Florida law, "living in open adultery" is a second-degree misdemeanor. A person found guilty may be penalized as follows:


Imprisonment: Up to 60 days in jail
Fines: Up to $500 in fines
In addition to these court-ordered penalties, a person found guilty of adultery will have a criminal record. This can add insult to injury by further tarnishing an individual's personal and professional reputation. A criminal record can also make it more difficult to find or keep a job, secure a loan, or successfully apply to an educational institution. Clearly even one instance of adultery can have costly criminal and civil penalties that can cause irreparable harm to you and your family. here

We need to keep this in mind when speaking to betrayed spouses of Florida cheaters and encourage them to file criminal charges. Dr Harley also believes there should be civil pentalites for adutlerers. He advocates a TEN YEAR PRISON SENTENCE for those who climb into the pig pen with a spouse of a deployed soldier.

Seeking Balance,

I for one, am very dismayed at the turn of events on this thread. I see that you are giving YOUR PROFESSIONAL OPINION on the legalites of the BS being sued.

I DON'T see where you advised any BS's NOT to expose.

A question was asked and you answered it.

You should be able to voice that opinion without being attacked.

Just wanted to you to know that someone out here gets what you were trying to say.

I am a BS, NOT a WS.

Pup,

I am glad that sb's professional opinion on this thread helped you to understand the legalities of the BS being sued.

Picking, I would not expect you to be able to pick up on foggy attitudes after such a short time here. Even if you read all of SB's posts, you wouldn't necessarily pick up on it.

I call SB on her fog any time I see it, out of care. I don't go around randomly trashing on people. I want the very best for each and every person here, and sometimes that involves pointing out undesirable attitudes and thought patterns, especially when they occur over and over again.

SB hasn't gotten it yet, and I see you don't either. That's fine - recovery takes time on both sides of the fence. Plenty of people here do get it, not because we've all drunk the kool-aid, but because we have dealt with the fog day in and day out, and recognize it in any form or any amount.

My confidence comes from my own years of experience, not the approval of my peers, or anywhere else for that matter. Hopefully you, and SB too, will stick around, keep learning, and help defog the next generation.

I believe the original question asked by Sugar Cane is: What are the legal ramifications of exposing on FB?

This is the response given by Seeking Balance:
Off the top of my head: defamation, invasion of privacy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, negligent representation, & tortious interference with contract.

Nowhere did seeking say that exposure shouldn't be done. A question was asked, and an answer was given.

And Neak, IMHO, I feel that perhaps you and some of the others here don't GET what she was trying to say.

If a doctor is prescribing a drug for an illness, and I ask about the side effects, shouldn't I be told? In real life my father was prescribed a cholesterol drug, in which muscle failure occurs in 1% of people taking the drug. Guess what, he was that 1%. If someone else I knew were taking that drug and asked me about it, I would tell them about my Dad.

That doesn't mean that no one should ever take it, just that they should have a valid answer to a question they asked me.

To say that I don't get it, is again imho, a DJ on your part.

I will respectfully agree to disagree with you on this subject, and yes, I will continue to stick around.

Actually, THIS was Sugar's request.

Seeking's answer:
But I have yet to see any posts by Seeking to quote any case that demonstrates a lawsuit won under any of these grounds, which makes her comment unsupportable.

This is what caused this thread to take off in two different directions. Proper debate etiquette was not followed.

PUP, she was asked if it is illegal to expose an affair in the US and it most certainly is not. She was asked directly on what legal grounds someone could win a suit and she replied with a litany of nonsense: that was refuted by other posters and 2 other board attorneys. She couldn't defend her opinion obviously.

I know you mean well, but the answer seekingbalance gave was purposely distorted in order to scare betrayed spouses away from doing something which she does not approve. [for obvious reasons] Everyone here knows how she feels about exposure and why she feels that way. While she may be an attorney, she is first and foremost a very fogged out, self serving wayward and that attitude obviously colors her so called "professional" opinion.

As board members, I feel an obligation to point out obvious agendas when I see them, especially when they threaten to harm other board members. We have so many marriages here that have been saved by these exposure tactics. If one person doesn't expose because they read her scare tactics, then that would be a tragedy.

Again, I will respectfully agree to disagree with you regarding whether or not her answer was purposely distorted.

Again, I see it as a DJ.

Thanks for your response.

tortious interference with contract


That looks like a good one to bring against the om/ow.

"Intent of the third party to induce a party to the relationship to breach the relationship." If an ow/om's intent is to induce the mm/mw to breach the marriage contract by sleeping with them on the side, well...

Pup,

I liked your analogy to the medicine. As an intelligent, reasoning adult, I would weigh the pros and cons of taking such a medicine and make a thoughtful decision. I think the same about exposure. I think it is right that it is advocated here as it has been successful numerous times. I also agree with you that SB was simply stating what could happen. As an intelligent, reasoning adult, I would like to have that information as well. Who wouldn't?

Mr. W also brought up legal ramifications of snooping which is also a valid concern.

Many times I think those who have been betrayed are very focused on what SHOULD be and what is FAIR. I think it is safe to inform them that real life isn't always like that.

A woman sued McDonalds because SHE spilled hot coffee on her lap. There have been lawsuits by buglers who have injured themselves during a robbery.

I am one of those people that would like to know all the facts before making an informed decision. If SB were nearby and I needed an attorney, I would consider hiring her. (of course, I am a (F)WW as well so I am sure my opinion is suspect.)

I think it admirable of you as a BS to speak up on her behalf

And that is ok, because we are not trying to fill seekingbalance's lovebank: a big no no. It simply needs to be pointed out where she is coming from because her own mindset greatly affects her powers of reason.

Thanks for your response.

Well, this is the problem with seekingbalances's "advice" and why she couldn't defend it. It is not real life. She did not "inform" us about real life risks, but imagined risks. Our other board attorneys disagreed with her perspective. We have advocated thousands of exposures over the years and have to yet to hear anyone who was faced with the criminal penalties she cited. If it was a real life threat, surely there would be evidence, right?

So, no I don't agree that we stupid BS's are focused on what should be fair at the expense of legalities. Sure, there is risk in everything we do. But in this issue, there is more risk in NOT exposing because we do have actual cases here that ended in divorce because they didn't expose.

Did any of those lawsuits also involve the successful litigation against the BS who exposed? If not, how are they relevant here?

Does anyone know of any successful suits against the BS who exposed?

Anyone?

But speaking of risks, I would caution any waywards who believe they can scare a BS out of exposing with this lame threat: that your BS may have a case for extortion against you. As outlined by other board attorney, MrW:

Some of your previous posts have not lead me to believe that protecting the BS was a top priority to you.

One posting that comes to mind in particular was questioning whether the BS thinks about the consequences and humiliation before they expose...

I know of no successful suits...I haven't even heard of anyone filing a suit over exposure. I don't imagine any WS/AP would want to open that can of worms. Just look how Tiger Woods' bimbos were received by the public when they were whining and pouting. Unless a WS/AP wants to go there because of some perceived injustice given that there is PROOF and therefore TRUTH to such statements ....get real.

That is where my thinking is too.

Seeking, if you have seen thousands and thousands of frivolous suits, can you tell us how many were defamation cases in comparison to other types of cases?

I am just a layperson but in a business law class I took years ago, I recall the attorney teaching the class emphasizing that defamation is hard to prove and that attorneys don't pursue this type of litigation like they do others (car accidents, etc) because of that fact.

WOW. SB might be onto something, folks! Can you imagine how much EXPOSURE you could get if a WS brought such a suit and all the evidence of an affair was dragged out into the open court?? That would be awesome!! I relish the thought of a WS asking Texans on a jury to punish a poor betrayed spouse for simply saying the truth about her cruel, vindictive WS' behavior? That would go over real well! We so luuurve adultery here in Texas!! At my company we escort the cheatin buggers off the premises with an armed security guard! buh-bye..

And just think, the BS could then parlay that evidence into a nice, fat EXORTION case.

Giddy with excitement!

Okay. I have been on the phone with an attorney friend of mine (not to dismiss my attorney friends on this site ) We had a nice chat about this whole bowl of noodles, and he made reference to one thing that I think we need to look at: Publication Of Private Facts. This is a tort that relies on four elements for validation:
1. The facts must be disclosed publicly. (ie Facebook.)
2. The facts being disclosed must be private in nature and not facts that are generally known by the public.
3. The facts would be considered offensive by a 'reasonable' person.
4. The facts being disclosed must not be considered newsworthy or a matter of public concern.

That's one I'd take a look at. However, my attorney friend wondered (and I've got to agree) how many OPs would pursue making a public disclosure of their affair even worse by suing.

I've been combing the internet and can't find case law on this. The main thing I've seen that I would use caution with is the number of exposure targets.

I'm not an attorney, but if I were going to expose on FB I would make sure to attempt to expose to friends who appear to be related to the OP, and I'd keep the numbers low (no sending to all 1,000 friends, KWIM?) I would also add a line in my exposure letter:
"I do not wish to make this affair a matter of public knowledge. I am only trying to contact relatives of OP in order to ask for help and support in ending this affair."

A lawsuit, even a frivolous lawsuit, is not the end of the world.

Some of us would love to stand up for freedom of speech.

That is great feedback, MB, and what you described is pretty much what we do now. We don't expose to 1000 people because it is simply too time consuming.

However, you hit on the main point that others have made repeatedly on this thread:


Filing suit would bring MORE exposure of course, that would now be out on the public record. And I have to wonder how many juries would have sympathy for some as*hat who not only abused his spouse with an affair but then had the nerve to sue her for talking about it?? C'mon....

That cruel, vindictive scheme would enrage anyone with a heart.

And then we have MrW's suggestion that the threat of such a lawsuit in an attempt to punish the BS could actually be grounds for extortion.

If I were a BS, I would RELISH the thought of having my WS's adultery dragged out in court. And even more so, after he had the gall to sue me!

I relish the thought!

Of course an AP/WS could sue if they want but I really doubt any would go that route but to each his own. When Tramp-o-lean was foaming at the mouth mad and she threatened legal action, I told her to go right ahead...that I couldn't wait. Exposure was not the issue but still she thought she had been violated.

She shut up REAL fast when I told her I couldn't wait to see her on the stand explaining all the slimey details of the affair and that public records were GREAT for her words and deeds to be recorded for all to see...FOREVER!!!! Maybe I was supposed to feel sorry for her. Her BH also shut up as it turned out he was also a WS and didn't want to people to know that little detail. Pffffftttt

OW#2 aka Twatsicle knew I'd blast her publically (I connected the dots for her) so she slinked off as well...big surprise.

I was thinking the same thing ~ after d-day I so badly wished I could see all the erased text messages, etc. In the discovery process, I would guess you would probably gain access to all those records and not to mention have the opportunity to have your attorney grill the WS/OP in depositions. I would have welcomed all of that.

And as seeking pointed out, there is a good chance it would fall under your homeowners' which I think means they would pay the attorneys' fees... Sounds like win-win to me.

Of course I would think once the attorneys explained all of this to any wayward they would run screaming...

What a jackpot!!

Oh, I can see a real snowball effect, here. So the OP draws up on their high horse and decides to sue?

If I were the BS, I would threaten to counter-sue, picking one or more from the garden:
-alienation of affection
-criminal conversation
-vexatious litigation
-intentional infliction of emotional distress
-negligent infliction of emotional distress

Thank you for asking about this, and for giving us the information.

I think that we should try and incorporate these concerns into our exposure advice. The bolded sentence above seems a good idea to recommend for inclusion in an exposure letter.

I have a question, though, bliss, if you wouldn't mind please asking your friend:

1. Where you write

"The facts must be disclosed publicly. (ie Facebook.)" I wonder whether FB is indeed "public". If people's pages are set to "private", is this still "public"? If you can only be on someone site by invitation, is this "public"?

2. If it is, would sending a letter to a named individual (even if you send 50 at once) count as "public disclosure"?

3. Might a judge decide that adultery is a "matter of public concern"? After all, courts in our countries are normally open. We have the right to learn the details of matters discussed in courts. Criminal and civil offences are treated as matters of public concern; they are not decided in secret.

Divorce documents are public - at least in the USA. I'm not sure about Canada, but in the UK we can find out the broad details of a divorce.

What I mean is:

if a court can be told that my H had sex with Skankyho, and that is why I am petitioning for divorce,

and if the court hearing can be reported in national newspapers (UK) or the divorce documents looked up in a public records office (USA),

is telling the same facts to a third party via FB different, and actionable?

Phew. I'm confused by my own questions. I hope your friend can make sense of them!

Now, that's just MEAN.

Of course you violated her. You stopped her from shagging your H! You breached her civil rights!

I can't believe the auto-censor let that one through!

Dang, Sug, you're making my head numb!

I'll put a call in to him. And again, while I rub elbows with attorneys on a daily basis, I don't even play one on TV, but I'd say:

1. Facebook would be considered public if anyone can get the friends list without an invite.

2. I'd say yes, the same info is going out, over and over, which causes it to become general knowledge to the community/public. It could be construed as an act of vengence. That's why I'd say it's good to keep the number low enough that a court would assume that you took care to select your contacts, as opposed to shooting from the hip and blasting out a mass email. That would appear to be an inflammatory act.

3. This one, I'm afraid, has been relegated to a quaint, old notion, from the days when it actually WAS outrageous to commit adultery. That's why so many states no longer recognize adultery as a 'criminal' act.

As far as your divorce action: this is where it gets good as far as dragging the OP into court. The facts may well have to come out to defend the divorce lawsuit. That's not the same as voluntarily putting the fact of the A out to the public.

I think I need an aspirin.

Well, I am not MB's lawyer, but I am a lawyer.

The fact that a particular individual has committed "adultery" is definitely not a matter of "public concern". Public concern means something by its nature is considered to be of legitimate interest to the public. That means any member of the public would have an interest in knowing about X's adultery. It is a much narrower category than something, potentially, being made available to the public because it is part of a legal proceeding.

No one has yet engaged with the issue of what is eligible to be called "an affair" or "adultery". This site uses a pretty broad definition, incorporating EAs and even relationships that make one spouse uncomfortable. I'd be careful about how one describes the relationship to third parties if one does not have proof of its illicit nature.

ITA. That's why the BS needs solid proof before exposing.

It's an American autocensor. It doesn't even know how to pronounce that word. :p

I have stated a few times on this thread that I am asking for advice on exposing WHERE THERE IS PROOF.

The kinds of proof we have here include the WS's confession, the WS's moving out and living with OW, hotel bills, love-letters, text messages, emails, PI reports and legally-obtained voice recordings. (It is legal to put a voice recorder in your own house or car.) We NEVER advise exposure where the BS has only strong suspicions and no evidence. We have thread after thread here telling the BS to snoop and get evidence, then proceed from there.

We do not advocate exposure where there is no proof.

If the affair was an EA only, we wouldn't advise the BS to publicly call this "adultery". if there were text messages and love letters, however, we would tell the BS to tell the other spouse. The messages are proof of an EA.

We've never been stupid about this on this site, and I really don't wish to see us getting carried away by "what ifs" and outlandish hypotheticals.

We have long advised exposure here, as Dr Harley does. We have advised exposure on network sites where this seems appropriate. We have been told that we are inviting legal challenges by doing this, and the legal warnings from posters here seem to be increasing. Yet nobody, lawyer or lay person, has come up with a single case where a BS has been successfully sued.

Yeah well...she'll live.

I've often heard of OP threatening the BS with restraining orders for contacting the OP's family and friends.

HOWEVER, the OP can only get a restraining order against the BS is if the BS is contacting/harassing/threatening the OP directly. The OP has NO CONTROL over who else the BS talks to.

So, if a skankiola should threaten to get a restraining order against you for talking to her friends, tell her to kiss yo' grits!

I would gladly tell her to do that, but first I need to know what these are!

Oh, I love Southern sayings. I've learned such a lot during my time here!

Those Southern sayings are just charming, aren't they? Mel, why don't you and the other li'l gals down yonder explain just what you all mean with the 'grits' thing?

It's a polite way for a Southern lady to tell someone to ($*@ off.

"kiss my grits" is Southern ladynese for "kiss my @$$".

Grits is a food, SC. It's made of itty-bitty pieces of corn or hominy that are left after corn is ground for corn meal.

It's generally eaten as a breakfast food, with butter, salt, and pepper, but can also be mixed with other foods, such as cheese.

Wow, I just caught up on this thread and I'm actually laughing at the absurdity of some of this stuff. Guess if FB exposure is truly not worth the risk, then the people who created a "NO CHEATERS" FB page are in for a world of litigation.

Don't know if I can actually put their link on here, if not, I'm sure the mods will edit appropriately.

It's at: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=61304842197

BTW, I've been MIA because my firm blocked MB so I can only read at night. I've been participating somewhat on another "new" forum during the day and find it sad that SOME posters there complain loudly about MB. It makes me mad sometimes, especially when I know a poster's history.

Anyway, good to see you guys again! I miss posting here as often as I used to. The new place is okay but a little confusing.

If I could figure out a way to get around the block, I'd be back here full-time.

Princess Meggy!!!

ML!!!!

Just sent you a FB email.

We miss you. I had a similar phase a couple months ago where work was very busy and daytime MB access was out. I'm glad it's over.

You can set your number of posts per page to 99, load and save long pages in Firefox, and carry them on a USB thumb drive and sometimes even draft responses. I'm just sayin' ...

If there is irrefutable evidence of an affair (I mean photographic evidence or a recording of your spouse admitting to the affair), then there is no legal reason to prohibit posting on Facebook. However, if it is a case of he said/she said, there is grounds for a suit.
That said, publicly humiliating your spouse for hundreds of "close friends" (though I'm confused how anyone can have that many close friends, and if so why wouldn't a discreet phone call be more appropriate) doesn't seem to fulfill the purpose of the exposure. It is my understanding that the purpose is to spotlight the affair in hopes that the wayward spouse won't be able to continue his/her behavior under the scrutiny of those nearest and dearest and so there can be progress and healing in the marriage with the assistance and encouragement of those who love BOTH parties involved. I don't see how outting the wayward spouse to your mom's sorority sister from forty years ago via your mom's Facebook wall serves that purpose.

Really? So how would I post my responses? Would I have to wait until I can log in? I wish there was a way to reply through my Google Email. I have it set to send me posts from certain threads but I don't think I can reply. By the time I get on at night, the thread has moved on.

ANead, no one is saying to do any exposure through someone's FB WALL... what is usually advised is to find the most relevant "friends" (i.e., family members, close friends, etc.) and send them a PRIVATE FB message. You can do this even if you're not friends with someone personally.

What Princess Meggy said (good to see ya again...had me worried)


AND

typically the broad facebook exposure is on the OM/OW side of the equation where you don't know the best targets to hit (or really any of the targets) so you just hit them all (most of his or her FB friends) and hope you hit the right ones that will apply the right amount of pressure on THAT side of the fence.

Rarely is FB used on the wayward spouses side of the fence except maybe as a last ditch effort upon a really independent wayward spouse that has a bunch of FB friends the spouse doesn't even know (for example, old high school FB friends of the wayward spouse in situations where the affair is with a old high school flame or internet gaming "friends" that are part of the group which OW/OP resides as well as the wayward spouse but the betrayed spouse doesn't know them nor any other way to contact them).

Mr. W

Again, point was missed. We don't do exposures to anyone's wall. That point has been made so many times that I am not inclined to make it again.


This also misses the purpose of exposure. Exposure should not be "discreet." Why in the world would you want to be "discreet" when you expose? That is an oxymoron. Exposure is to EXPOSE. TO EVERYONE. And yes it is humiliating to be caught acting bad. It should be humiliating.

Hey! Who are you calling an oxymoron?

But no one has suggested that.

I don't think that anyone who has read this thread can seriously think that this is what we advise, or anything like it. How does a BS's mother's FB wall fit with anything we have been saying?

This is a wind-up, and se should ignore posters who keep making ignorant comments about distant acquaintances on FB walls.

You have to excuse her. English is her first language.

dis is true...

Thanks for getting this info! My question is about things that are private in nature. Is there any legal distinction regarding "ownership" of the private facts. For example, if one has an STD and someone else publicized this, it would meet all 4 categories above. But surely the person with the STD is free to publicize it if they want. It's quite simple when there is a sole owner of the private fact.

It an affair, the private fact is owned by several people: WS, BS, OP and OPS if they exist. There's no way you can convince anyone that the BS is not part-owner of this information! Therefore, as part owner of the private fact, do you not have the legal right to publicize this?

Any chance you can call him again and ask him for clarification?

That could certainly be argued in court, but my understanding is that a person's sexual activity is personal to them and is owned by them. I'll call my friend.

But again - I have yet to find an instance of this suit against a BS actually occuring in the context of an affair.

You worry too much, buddy!

"We know that God causes all things to work together for good" (Romans 8:28)

My argument would be that it is very personal to ME and my children, as the victims. As a free citizen, I have a right to tell anyone the truth about crimes committed against me. No one can take that right away from me. And if crimes were afforded some kind of right to privacy that supercedes our free speech right then we wouldn't see such behavior reported in the media every day. This is no more "private" than sexual molestation of a child. In those cases, we protect the identity of the victim, not the perpetrator. Crimes are meant to be committed in secret, but that doesn't mean they are "private" behavior and protected by law.

Thanks.

Also upon further thought, one could possibly argue how public FB really is.

NOTE: MB recomments private messaging FB friends NOT posting on their wall and I whole-heartedly agree with this as wall-posting is far less effective.

Anyway, even if one were to post on someone's wall, this is not exactly the same as renting a billboard on a highway that can be read by anyone who drops by. For one thing, the only people who see the wall are confirmed friends of the owner of the wall, unless the wall-owner doesn't have any privacy settings. If they have no privacy settings, they've essentially left their wall open for anyone to view and write on. If they DO have privacy settings, then the wall isn't exactly public, is it?

And because I strongly believe private messaging via FB is the way to go, can this really be considered publicizing a private fact? Does it make a difference if you tell one person, 10 people or 100? And does it matter that the people being told were hand selected from a group of friends on the WS/OP's list? I.e. addressing point #4 where the private fact is newsworthy or of public concern as it may be particularly newsworthy and of great concern to those who received the private message.

There have been lawsuits filed by one person after his paramour publicized their trysts. His position was that he owns his sex acts, even when they were with another person. She had no right to publicize 'his' acts, even though they were 'hers' as well.

Does that make sense?

Well, the truth is that the Congress can take away whatever rights it wants with a majority vote. It doesn't even have to be Constitutional. They are completely prohibited from passing any laws regulating speech, but they certainly pass some, and courts add other restrictions. So we are stuck in some areas relying on courts and lawyers to tell us what we can say, even though the First Amendment makes clear this should not be.

Maybe it'll get better some day.

Fortunately it seems that in this instance there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of danger of the long inconsistent arm of the law stepping in.

By the way, this is neither here nor there, but have you ever noticed how the First Amendment talks about the exercise of the press? Free speech rights are based in property rights: you have the right to use your own printing press (or pen, or website) to say what you want, but you don't get the right to go use somebody else's press (or pen, or website) against their will just because you have "free speech" rights. For example, you can't go shout "fire" in a crowded theater because you don't own the theater and the theater owner doesn't permit you to disrupt his customers in that way. {If people wanted to found a theater where customers sign up to be entertained by having their movies interrupted by somebody shouting "fire" and starting a stampede, I guess an owner would have the right to set that up if he wanted...}

Thought I'd mention that because it's a common misconception about the right to free speech.

It's great to live in this time, though, where speech is incredibly cheap and almost completely unrestricted and anybody who has something to say can get it out to whatever willing audience exists for their message.

Of course that makes no sense since if he owns his own sexual acts, she owns HERS by the same standard.

Well, shame on us if we allow that to happen! I realize many power mongers and facists TRY to stifle free speech but that has not been successful as of yet fortunately.

Exactly. And I think this is confusing to some. For example, I have seen forums moderate offensive posts and the moderated party complained his "free speech rights" were being violated.

In the matter of facebook, they would be perfectly within their rights to ban such exposures.

Yes, you'd have to save them as drafts in your email or files on the thumb drive and then post them when you can log in.


Yes, me too. If I ever get a tool made for posting to MB when MB is not available, I will share it with you.


You can also set it to email you posts from certain posters. I get everything Prisca posts, immediately, which is always a nice heads up.


You'd be surprised how often you can pull a thread back by replying to an older post.

Plus with an entire day to think you can revise what you are going to say and make it even better.

She is allowed to discuss hers. She cannot name him without possibly running afoul of the Publication tort.

"They" being facebook owners or the person/people who's wall you posted on? This is an interesting legal question which no doubt will find it's way to court whether it has to do with adultery or not.

Here's my final take on this:

Anyone can sue anyone for just about anything. That possibility would not deter me from protecting my family. If I need to expose an affair, gang, I'm going to do it. I think we've exhaustively seen that exposure protects our family. The importance of protecting my family is worth the narrow risk that some pissed off OW is litigious.

And I won't be shy about filing a few countersuits if I need to.

I can't see why an OP would sue anyway...oh, please, give me money! I took that man/woman's husband/wife and spit in the face of his/her marriage, and they told everybody about it!

My true lurvvvv deserves to be kept secret!


/sarcasm

Oh, I totally agree with you maritalbliss. I was just trying to explore the actual possible legal ramifications of exposure since that was what this thread was about. It is truly an extremely low risk - like getting hit by lightning.

In (my) reality, it has been the BS's who have initiated non-divorce-related legal action against the WS's. I took my WXH to small claims court to get my income tax refund back which was mistakenly deposited in his account. The OWH in my sitch had OW charged with assault when she ran him over with her truck. I personally know a few other BS's who had to take legal action of some sort against their WS above and beyond any divorce procedings. I can't think of any that happened the other way around. WS's crow a lot but they really just want to crawl under a rock.

ahhh, gotcha! But in the case of adultery, that cannot be done. One can't very well say they have been a victim of adultery and not specify her own husband. And since an OP committed a very public wrongdoing against the BS, she has a right to say who did it. It is more than owning a sexual act, it is a wrongful act committed against a spouse. If someone assaults me, they don't have a right to privacy just because they assaulted me in private for example. I have a right to say WHO committed that act against me.

Same here! I would RELISH having some skankho sue me after she climbed into the pig pen with my husband. Discovery would be so much fun!

"They" being facebook. And as was previously discussed, we don't post it to a wall, because you actually reach fewer targets that way.

That's some powerful stuff he must be on ...

Oh and one last thing with respect to waywards. My WXH, who practically exposed himself, refused to allow "adultery" appear on the divorce papers. The laws here allow you to divorce immediately for reasons of abuse or adultery, otherwise you have to wait until you have been legally separated one year. He wanted a divorce right away and asked me to sign the papers. I told him I would sign the papers provided we checked off "adultery" and name OW (it actually asks for that!). He didn't get his insta-divorce.

They talk the talk but they don't walk the walk. (Actually, I think they expect you to do that for them!)

It's been successful to some degree, but thankfully I have yet to see evidence that it has been successful in the realm of exposing adultery.

The Constitution doesn't distinguish between different types or areas of speech, but unfortunately some courts sometimes do. Fortunately it doesn't seem to affect us for this cause.

Facebook would be the owners, so they would be the ones with the right to set the rules. They might set the rule that members can set standards for their own pages and Facebook will enforce it. (Or any other rule, of course.)

Of course, this is what the MORAL rights would be. I can't speculate on what some goofball court might decide.

The guy was involved in Washington politics. 'Nuf said?

A previous post stated a BS can sue OP based on "tortious interference with contract..."Intent of the third party to induce a party to the relationship to breach the relationship." If an ow/om's intent is to induce the mm/mw to breach the marriage contract by sleeping with them on the side, well..." and another post listed several other possibilitiies....alienation of affection, etc...

Under what circumstances could a BS sue OP? Do you have to be in divorce proceedings to justify suing (i.e. if BS/WS are struggling to keep marriage together can you still sue OP or do you have to wait until both parties give up and begin proceedings to end M)? What benefits are there for BS to sue OP if there is proof of the A?

Joan, the laws vary state to state so that is where I would start. I don't think one has to be in a divorce action to launch such suits - I have yet to see that stipulation. The benefits of suing the OP would be to teach her a lesson and make him/her pay legally. Dr Harley is a firm believer that there should be civil and criminal penalties against adultery. If more of these legal avenues were pursued, people might think twice. If you want to read up on the legal history of adultery in the US check out Harley's book Defending Traditional Marriage. It has some really good research in it.

If WS is in the Army...I hear they're tough SOBs on adulterers. Especially if OP is another army member.

Still trying to catch up on the 50 or so posts I missed, but just wanted to take a moment to say hi to Nead...you seem so familiar, even though we've apparently only just met.

Oh yeah, lots of tools for a BS, or unfortunately a vindictive AP.

My brother got into a RA with a woman from his ship. He got her pregnant, and she threatened to report it to command if he didn't pony up the cash to terminate the pregnancy.

Wonderful woman. I'm sure he's proud that he divorced his first wife, blamed her for their M falling apart after he committed to recovery after her A, and then married his AP.

Even my unrepentant wayward mother doesn't like the chick, though she is trying, because she is her son's wife, and the mother of his second pair of daughters.

And it's only the woman in this story that you are disgusted with?