Digital Citizens on Scribd.

com
https://www.scribd.com/user/302351110/Digital-Citizens

MISSION STATEMENT
Digital Citizens is an area on Scribd.com created for the purpose of encouraging good digital
citizenship and combating hate on the Net. This is done by uploading documents which debunk
hate material or claims by hate groups.
Web 2.0 is a place where discussions dont occur in a single location, but emerge from different
forums like blogs, video hosting sites, photo sharing sites, and document repositories like
Scribd.com. The documents uploaded by Digital Citizens are typically responses to pre-existing
issues. They continue the conversation, and help raise the level of discourse by focusing
attention on accurate source material. This is a defensive measure, or bulwark against hate.
When discussing topics like freedom, religious tolerance, media awareness, and building a
society where each person is free to pursue their dreams and goals, it can be awkward to include
voluminous source material within the discussion itself. Digital Citizens is an area on
Scribd.com holding source documents which can easily be referenced in discussions. Interested
readers can examine the source material at their leisure to enhance their understanding.

Legal Matters
Digital Citizens was started by a critic of attorney Joseph C. Kracht of the Lawton law firm of
San Diego. Mr. Kracht sometimes calls himself Yogaloy on the Internet, and has his own area
on Scribd.com where he uploads various items, including denouncement messages or hate
testimonials containing salacious sexual material some of it anonymous or semianonymous. Mr. Kracht uses this material culled from Internet message boards to conduct show
trials of spiritual figures. These show trials are not subject to any judicial authority or oversight,
and in them Mr. Kracht suppresses or ignores exculpatory evidence. In some cases, these public
show trials are conducted parallel to (or in anticipation of) civil cases in which Mr. Kracht may
have some interest.
The underlying issue is that hate material is being circulated for social, political, or economic
reasons, and this hate material comes to pollute the public information space.
Digital Citizens helps bring to light and make available evidence which is being suppressed
elsewhere. This material is relevant and necessary to resolving public controversies which have
been artificially manufactured through the circulation of material containing false depictions of
(1)

spiritual figures and groups. This leads to other adverse effects in society, such as making
minority spiritual groups the object of hatred and harassment, or contaminating the prospective
jury pool where such groups are targeted for civil litigation. The net effect is to curtail the civil
rights of minority adherents, in contravention of the U.S. Constitution as amended by the Bill of
Rights.
The corrective measure of uploading exculpatory evidence is a lawful purpose and protected
form of speech. Where Person A purposefully manufactures a public controversy by attacking
the character and reputation of Person B through the circulation of hateful or salacious material,
the public has a right to view other material authored by Person A (or concerning Person A)
which speaks to his or her credibility. In such cases, the publics right to know trumps other
interests. Uploading of such material deemed necessary to resolving matters of public concern
constitutes fair use of existing source material.
Though show trials are (virtually by definition) not about due process, people and organizations
subjected to show trials may restore some semblance of due process by airing exculpatory
evidence in an alternative forum where it will not be censored. This may also be done by third
parties sympathetic to the targets of the show trials.
If Person A publishes a denouncement message on the Internet, the public has a right to know
that this material squarely contradicts claims made by Person A over a 20-year period. Person A
is under no obligation to come before the public and denounce Person B or participate in an
Internet show trial in which Person B is found guilty in absentia. But once having done so,
Person A cannot suppress their prior statements, nor other evidence which may reveal ulterior
motives for Person A to make false or misleading statements.

Pitfalls of Trying A Case In The Media

Digital Citizens is also a response to the problems which may ensue when an attorney, client, or
surrogate attempts to try a case in the media, particularly on the Internet. This can lead to
circumstances in which the legal case has been settled, but the public space is still being polluted
by hate material which was used to apply legal pressure during the pendency of the legal case,
and was never removed from the Internet. Here, the legal case and the lingering public
controversies may follow separate tracks. The public may be left with a false perception of
wrongdoing which continues to traduce the reputation of innocent persons. If hate material
remains actively before the public, then members of the public have a right to respond and to
bring exculpatory evidence to light.
Use of the Internet by lawyers, spin doctors, or surrogates can be a double-edged sword. Short
term, it may help a client win a case, but long term it may mobilize some segments of the public
against the client, especially if foul tactics were used by the client or his/her legal team or
surrogates. The client may get a cash payout, but may be viewed as vindictive, two-faced, and
mendacious by some members of the public who are still haunted by the false depictions.
The client may want to take the money and run, but because the client, legal team or
surrogates engaged in smear tactics, the client is left with a long-term reputation management
problem which outweighs his/her short-term cash award. Members of the public who know that
the client lied and smeared opponents and who are still confronted with the smear material in
(2)

perpetuity may not forgive and forget so easily. They may continue to call attention to the
clients nefarious behaviour, which may become attached to his/her rsum.
In short, if a civil suit is accompanied by a public show trial, the plaintiff may gain from the civil
suit, but be a net loser as the public show trial drags on, fueled by inflammatory material which
the plaintiff or his/her legal team or surrogates published on the Internet and never took down.
Once one brings ones case before the public, one is then at the mercy of the public. This is
something lawyers dont always adequately explain to those whom they would counsel.
If Person A or their legal team stuffs a Complaint with false or misleading allegations of an
emotionally charged nature, and uses surrogates to draw public attention to the contents of the
Complaint, implying that the Complaint proves that the target of the allegations is
blameworthy, then at any future time members of the public may discuss, analyze, or rebut the
contents of the Complaint, even if the legal case has already been settled. (Of course, the public
always has a right to discuss legal cases and filings, but that right is underscored when a plaintiff
rubs the publics nose in a Complaint which was drafted for shock value rather than truth value,
and which propounds exotic legal theories.)
The suppression of exculpatory evidence is likewise a double-edged sword. Theres always the
possibility that someone will be able to produce the suppressed evidence, with the result that the
duplicitous party is publicly revealed to be a hypocrite or liar, and the associated attorney shown
to be unethical. Suppressing exculpatory evidence is (to coin a phrase) a goofy game for dopey
lawyers.
For these reasons, Digital Citizens considers uploading exculpatory evidence to be a powerful
antidote to hate on the Net, including hate material which remains before the public in the
aftermath of a previously settled legal case.

The Importance of Accurate Information

An article by Michael Howard entitled The ACLU and Religious Freedom Part 3 contains
additional information about the activities of hate groups, particularly those motivated by anticult ideology. The article also includes critical discussion of attorney Joe Kracht and the type of
material he publishes or uploads. Quoting and adapting portions of the article dealing with broad
concepts:
In a populist society, rights, freedoms, and the enforcement of laws intended to protect people
come to depend on popularity. If you can make a group appear unpopular, you can do a great
many things to them before anyone will sound a note of protest. Thats why accurate definitions,
descriptions, and information are not merely of abstract interest to scholars. These things affect
how people are treated (or mistreated) every day in society. Where hate material is successfully
injected into the public discourse, this spurs acts of hatred and harassment, and also encourages
local law enforcement to ignore pleas for help from victims, despite top-level policies intended
to foster respect and tolerance.
Its not uncommon for attorneys to use the Internet to spin or propagandize, even where it may
cross the line into ethics violations. According to Diane Karpman, a California State Bar certified
specialist in legal malpractice, theres been an explosion of dedicated lawyer spinners in law
(3)

firms attempting to influence public opinion. Their goal is typically to try a case in the media
(where standards are lax and hearsay is not only admissible, but slavered over), rather than in a
courtroom, where standards of evidence tend to be higher.
Such activities by lawyers, operatives, or surrogates may include softening up the target of a
lawsuit by flooding the Internet with hate material disparaging the target, such as fictional
narratives intended to proliferate religious hatred. In the mid-nineteenth century, fictional
narratives like The Awful Disclosures of Maria Monk were used to target Roman Catholics, and
today similar tactics are used to target other spiritual minorities.
Where attorneys, operatives, or surrogates circulate fictional narratives, negative testimonials,
or hate propaganda, this may correspond to the definition of information terrorism developed
by scholars, which includes offensive operations reaching the minds of a population by
injecting content into the populations information space.
What can be done about such efforts to prejudice public opinion? One solution is to take a cue
from law professors Danielle Keats Citron and Helen Norton, who urge those targeted with
cyberhate to challenge hateful speech by responding with counter-speech and empowering
community members to enforce norms of digital citizenship. This is the goal of Digital Citizens,
in keeping with the view that the cure for bad speech is more speech and better speech.
Those responding to Internet smear campaigns inherit the level of discourse established by the
original authors. By uploading exculpatory evidence, responders can raise the level of discourse,
taking a reasoned approach to the problem of hate material targeting spiritual minorities,
replacing demagogic scare material with real world facts.

Documents on Digital Citizens

This file Digital_Citizens_Mission_Statement is the first document to be uploaded, in order to
define the mission of Digital Citizens.
The full scope of documents to follow is not yet known, but the documents will generally speak
to the innocence of people and organizations unfairly targeted for show trials.
Civil cases where the Complaint was stuffed with false or misleading allegations of an
emotionally charged nature and where bizarre legal theories were propounded may also be
addressed by documents uploaded here.
Where some people have published libelous claims or denouncement messages which directly
contradict their prior statements, are riddled with inconsistencies, are biased, self-serving, or
appear to be the product of coaching and editing, documents addressing this will be uploaded
here.
Where attorney Joe Kracht conducts Internet show trials in which exculpatory evidence is
suppressed or ignored, such missing evidence will be uploaded here.
Where Mr. Kracht has called for investigations, and has unilaterally done a public document
dump which strategically omits certain key documents, then as a defensive measure, the missing
(4)

documents will be uploaded here. This includes bankruptcy filings, which are relevant, speaking
as they do to circumstances, motive, and character.
Note: Where legal documents are uploaded, every effort will be made to redact personal
information such as social security numbers, home addresses, etc.
* * *

(5)