Professional Documents
Culture Documents
INCIDENT INFORMATION
INCIDENT CODE INCIDENT TYPE INITIAL X DATE/TIME STARTED DATE/TIME ENDED DATE/TIME REPORTED
17G Sex/All Others SUPP 06/01/1978 11:55 PM 08/15/1978 01:00 AM 02/28/2018 04:06 PM
REPORT FILED FROM TRACKING NUMBER LOCATION OF OCCURRENCE APPROVED BY:
*** T18002517 1400 East 52 STREET, Tulsa, OK 10666/T Trevor
LOCATION TYPE THEFT TYPE METHOD OF ENTRY METHOD OF EXIT PT OF ENTRY PT OF EXIT ENTRY LOC
PERSON LISTINGS
TYPE LAST NAME FIRST NAME MIDDLE NAME DOB RACE SEX DRIVER LIC NO LIC ST
IV Cochrun James *** *** * *** ***
SSN ETHNICITY RESIDENT EYE COLOR HAIR COLOR AGE HEIGHT WEIGHT CELL PHONE
***
1
EMAIL RESIDENCE ADDRESS HOME PHONE
gmail.com *** ***
EMPLOYER NAME BUSINESS ADDRESS WORK PHONE
***
TYPE LAST NAME FIRST NAME MIDDLE NAME DOB RACE SEX DRIVER LIC NO LIC ST
SUS Smith Robert *** *** *
SSN ETHNICITY RESIDENT EYE COLOR HAIR COLOR AGE HEIGHT WEIGHT CELL PHONE
*** *** *** 62 510 200
2
EMAIL RESIDENCE ADDRESS HOME PHONE
*** ***
EMPLOYER NAME BUSINESS ADDRESS WORK PHONE
***
NARRATIVE
In 1978 I was 12 years old and I lived with my family in the 1400 block of E.52nd Street in a row of homes owned by Osborn
Ministries Intl. My father was the music minister at a church housed on the OMI campus. Robert D. Smith, 22, was my youth
pastor. One Saturday night at Robert's house, he poked his head around the wall of his bedroom, and called out “Hey –
Fred,” come in here a minute”. Entering his room, I saw him laying in bed. “Close the door – I want to show you something”. I
tentatively obeyed – he was my youth pastor. I climbed into the bed and he pushed the sheet to his waist to reveal that he
was naked and had an erection. He admonished me and said “Don’t go – stay here”. I obeyed. Robert placed my hand on his
erect penis, instructing me to grasp it and begin stroking him. I pulled my hand back and so “No! I don’t want to do this”. “It’s
OK - you’ll like it – I promise. I did as I was instructed and Robert told me to continue – I was doing fine. This continued for
several minutes until Robert’s body went tense as he ejaculated – it went everywhere – on his chest, stomach and coated my
hand. Robert produced a towel from next to the bed and began cleaning up the mess. He turned toward me and said “now it’s
my turn” and pushed me back on the bed. Robert pulled sheet back, removed clothing and began to stroke my penis. My
body responded and I got an erection…Robert smiled and said “I knew you would like it” I was dizzy and confused…what was
happening? Robert continued then stopped and slid down on the bed. He lowered his head and took my penis into his mouth.
I was confused and angry. I got up from the bed, retrieved my clothing from the bed and got dressed and told Robert I was
going to watch SNL. He asked “Are you OK Fred? This is going to be our little secret. You can never tell ANYONE about this.”
This scene was repeated several more times over that Summer of 1978. In 2008/2017 I confronted and I have a recorded
admission I can provide to TPD.
ROBERT D. SMITH, §
Plaintiff §
§
v. § Case No: 3:18-cv-00225
§ Judge Campbell
JIM COCHRUN, § Magistrate Judge Frensley
Defendant §
§
COMES NOW, Defendant JIM COCHRUN (“Cochrun”), and files this his Amended
Original Answer to Plaintiff’s Original Complaint, in the above-numbered and styled case.
Paragraphs No. 1 through and including 40 correspond to the same paragraph numbers in
I. Nature of Proceedings
1. Cochrun lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of many of
the allegations in this paragraph, and accordingly such allegations are therefore effectively
denied. However, it is denied that the Plaintiff has been damaged and it is denied that the
statements made by the Defendant were false or defamatory. It also is denied that the Plaintiff
II. Parties
2. Cochrun lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the
allegations in this paragraph, and accordingly such allegations are therefore effectively denied.
1
DEFENDANT’S AMENDED O RIGINAL ANSWER TO
P LAINTIFF’S O RIGINAL C OMPLAINT
Case 3:18-cv-00225 Document 18 Filed 03/29/18 Page 1 of 14 PageID #: 72
3. Cochrun admits that he is a resident of Austin, Texas.
4. Cochrun lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the
allegations in this paragraph, and accordingly such allegations are therefore effectively denied
as to Tennessee state courts. Cochrun admits that the Federal District Courts of the Middle
5. Cochrun lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the
allegations in this paragraph, and accordingly such allegations are therefore effectively denied
as to Tennessee state courts. Cochrun admits that the Federal District Courts of the Middle
District of Tennessee have jurisdiction and are the proper venue over this action.
6. Cochrun lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the
allegations in this paragraph, and accordingly such allegations are therefore effectively denied
as to Tennessee state courts. Cochrun admits that the Federal District Courts of the Middle
District of Tennessee have jurisdiction and are the proper venue over this action.
IV. Facts
7. Cochrun lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of such
allegations in this paragraph, and accordingly such allegations are therefore effectively denied.
8. Cochrun lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the
allegations in this paragraph, and accordingly such allegations are therefore effectively denied.
9. Cochrun lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the
allegations in this paragraph, and accordingly such allegations are therefore effectively denied.
10. Cochrun lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the
allegations in this paragraph, and accordingly such allegations are therefore effectively denied.
2
DEFENDANT’S AMENDED O RIGINAL ANSWER TO
P LAINTIFF’S O RIGINAL C OMPLAINT
Case 3:18-cv-00225 Document 18 Filed 03/29/18 Page 2 of 14 PageID #: 73
11. Cochrun denies that he set a plan in motion as alleged by Plaintiff. Cochrun lacks knowledge
or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remaining allegations in this
12. Cochrun admits to contacting Andy Andrews in the fall of 2017. Cochrun denies that he
defamed Plaintiff in these telephone and written communications. Cochrun lacks knowledge
or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remaining allegations in this
13. Cochrun denies defaming Smith. Cochrun lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form
a belief about the truth of the remaining allegations in this paragraph, and accordingly such
14. Cochrun denies defaming Smith and denies publishing defamatory statements to third parties.
Amid telling his story of the sexual abuse and molestation suffered at the hands of
Robert D. Smith, Cochrun has been sued by his alleged abuser and Christian writer
and artist Robert D. Smith.
In 1978, Defendant was 12 years old and lived in Tulsa, Oklahoma. His father was
the music minister at a local church. Robert D. Smith, then aged 22 years was the
Defendant’s youth pastor. One Saturday night at Plaintiff’s house, Smith poked his
head around the wall of his bedroom, and called out “Hey, Fred. Come in here for
a minute.” It was commonplace for Plaintiff to call Defendant by the name Fred in
reference to the character Bassett Hound in Smokey and the Bandit. Entering his
room, Defendant saw him lying in bed. “Close the door. I want to show you
something.” Defendant tentatively obeyed. Smith was his youth pastor. Defendant
climbed into bed and Plaintiff pushed the sheet to his waist to reveal that he was
naked and had an erection. Plaintiff admonished Defendant and said, “Don’t go,
stay here.” Defendant obeyed. Plaintiff placed Defendant’s hand on his erect penis,
instructing Defendant to grasp it and begin stroking Plaintiff’s penis. Defendant
pulled his hand back and said, “No! I don’t want to do this.” “It’s OK. You’ll like
it. I promise,” said Plaintiff Smith. Defendant did as instructed and Plaintiff told
Defendant to continue. This continued for several minutes until Plaintiff’s body
went tense as he ejaculated. It went everywhere—on Plaintiff’s chest, stomach, and
coated Defendant’s hand. Plaintiff produced a towel from next to the bed and began
cleaning up the mess. He turned to Defendant and said “now it’s my turn” and
3
DEFENDANT’S AMENDED O RIGINAL ANSWER TO
P LAINTIFF’S O RIGINAL C OMPLAINT
Case 3:18-cv-00225 Document 18 Filed 03/29/18 Page 3 of 14 PageID #: 74
pushed Defendant back on the bed. Plaintiff pulled the sheet back, removed
clothing and began to stroke Plaintiff’s penis. Defendant’s body responded and he
got an erection. Plaintiff smiled and said, “I knew you would like it.” Defendant
was dizzy and confused. What was happening? Plaintiff continued then stopped
and slid down on the bed. He lowered his head and took Defendant’s penis into his
mouth. Defendant was confused and angry. Defendant got up from the bed,
retrieved his clothing and got dressed and told Plaintiff that he was going to watch
Saturday Night Live. Plaintiff asked, “Are you OK, Fred? This is going to be our
little secret. You can never tell ANYONE about this.” This scene was repeated
several more times over the summer of 1978.
Cochrun lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of
the remaining allegations in this paragraph, and accordingly such allegations are
therefore effectively denied.
15. Cochrun denies disseminating defamatory allegations to additional people. Cochrun denies
that Plaintiff is entitled to any further temporary restraining order, a temporary injunction or
otherwise any injunctive relief from this Court. Cochrun notes that Plaintiff had obtained an
ex parte temporary restraining order in the Tennessee state courts prior to removal to federal
court, and Plaintiff has allowed such temporary restraining order to expire nearly a month ago
and has not sought further temporary injunctive relief in this Court. Cochrun lacks knowledge
or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remaining allegations in this
16. The Defendant incorporates and reasserts all previous responses to the allegations of the
Verified Complaint.
17. This paragraph calls for a legal conclusion. Cochrun admits that Tennessee law requires the
elements to prove a prima facie case of defamation by slander as stated in the Plaintiff’s
Complaint; however, Cochrun denies that the list of elements of the law is fully accurate as
Plaintiff’s recitation misses the legal element of “actual malice” required to prove defamation
4
DEFENDANT’S AMENDED O RIGINAL ANSWER TO
P LAINTIFF’S O RIGINAL C OMPLAINT
Case 3:18-cv-00225 Document 18 Filed 03/29/18 Page 4 of 14 PageID #: 75
18. Cochrun denies that the allegations regarding Plaintiff were false. Cochrun lacks knowledge
or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remaining allegations in this
19. Cochrun denies that the allegations regarding Plaintiff were false. Cochrun lacks knowledge
or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remaining allegations in this
20. Cochrun denies that he knew the statements were false when he published them. In fact,
21. Cochrun denies that the statements were false. Cochrun lacks knowledge or information
sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remaining allegations in this paragraph, and
22. Cochrun denies that the statements were defamatory. Cochrun lacks knowledge or information
sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remaining allegations in this paragraph, and
Count II – Defamation
23. The Defendant incorporates and reasserts all previous responses to the allegations of the
Verified Complaint.
24. This paragraph calls for a legal conclusion. Cochrun admits that Tennessee law requires the
elements to prove a prima facie case of defamation as stated in the Plaintiff’s Complaint;
however, Cochrun denies that the list of elements of the law is fully accurate as Plaintiff’s
recitation misses the legal element of “actual malice” required to prove defamation in the case
25. Cochrun admits that Plaintiff sexually molested him approximately forty (40) years ago.
5
DEFENDANT’S AMENDED O RIGINAL ANSWER TO
P LAINTIFF’S O RIGINAL C OMPLAINT
Case 3:18-cv-00225 Document 18 Filed 03/29/18 Page 5 of 14 PageID #: 76
Cochrun lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the
remaining allegations in this paragraph, and accordingly such allegations are therefore
effectively denied.
26. Cochrun denies that he knew the statements were false when he published them. In fact,
27. Cochrun denies making defamatory statements. Cochrun lacks knowledge or information
sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remaining allegations in this paragraph, and
28. Cochrun denies making defamatory statements. Cochrun lacks knowledge or information
sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remaining allegations in this paragraph, and
29. The Defendant incorporates and reasserts all previous responses to the allegations of the
Verified Complaint.
30. Cochrun lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the
allegations in this paragraph, and accordingly such allegations are therefore effectively denied.
31. Cochrun lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the
allegations in this paragraph, and accordingly such allegations are therefore effectively denied.
32. Cochrun denies that he placed Plaintiff in a false light. Cochrun lacks knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remaining allegations in this
33. Cochrun denies that he placed Plaintiff in a false light. Cochrun lacks knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remaining allegations in this
6
DEFENDANT’S AMENDED O RIGINAL ANSWER TO
P LAINTIFF’S O RIGINAL C OMPLAINT
Case 3:18-cv-00225 Document 18 Filed 03/29/18 Page 6 of 14 PageID #: 77
paragraph, and accordingly such allegations are therefore effectively denied.
34. Cochrun denies that he placed Plaintiff in a false light. Cochrun lacks knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remaining allegations in this
35. The Defendant incorporates and reasserts all previous responses to the allegations of the
Verified Complaint.
36. Cochrun lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the
allegations in this paragraph, and accordingly such allegations are therefore effectively denied.
37. Cochrun denies that he intended to cause a breach or termination of the business relationships.
Cochrun lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the
remaining allegations in this paragraph, and accordingly such allegations are therefore
effectively denied.
38. Cochrun denies that he induced any third parties to terminate business relations. Cochrun
denies that he disseminated any false defamatory information. Cochrun lacks knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the allegations in this paragraph, and
39. Cochrun lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the
allegations in this paragraph, and accordingly such allegations are therefore effectively denied.
40. Cochrun lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the
allegations in this paragraph, and accordingly such allegations are therefore effectively denied.
41. And now having answered fully, the Defendant asks the Court to dismiss the Verified
7
DEFENDANT’S AMENDED O RIGINAL ANSWER TO
P LAINTIFF’S O RIGINAL C OMPLAINT
Case 3:18-cv-00225 Document 18 Filed 03/29/18 Page 7 of 14 PageID #: 78
V. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
42. The Verified Complaint fails to state a claim on which relief cannot be granted in that Cochrun
asserts the defense of truth, in that Cochrun’s statements about Plaintiff Robert D. Smith are
43. The Verified Complaint fails to state a claim on which relief cannot be granted in that Cochrun
asserts the defense that the Verified Complaint does not allege actual malice against Plaintiff,
a public figure.
44. The Verified Complaint fails to state a claim on which relief cannot be granted in that
Cochrun further asserts that recovery by Plaintiff is barred by the doctrines of unclean hands
45. The Verified Complaint fails to state a claim on which relief cannot be granted in that Cochrun
Plaintiff’s own acts or omissions caused or contributed to his injury, not any action or omission
by Cochrun.
46. Cochrun affirmatively pleads the defense of failure to mitigate damages. Plaintiff failed to
47. Cochrun affirmatively pleads the defense of offset. Plaintiff has entered into a settlement
agreement with Andy Andrews that purportedly paid Plaintiff under his agreements with
Andrews. Defendant pleads that any such monies paid to Plaintiff would offset any damages
Plaintiff could plead in this case. Defendant asserts that Plaintiff has no damages at all.
48. The following assertions of avoidance or defense may or may not be considered affirmative
defenses. In any case, the following assertions of avoidance do not alter the fact that Plaintiff
has the burden of proof with regard to establishing all of the causes of action brought in his
8
DEFENDANT’S AMENDED O RIGINAL ANSWER TO
P LAINTIFF’S O RIGINAL C OMPLAINT
Case 3:18-cv-00225 Document 18 Filed 03/29/18 Page 8 of 14 PageID #: 79
Original Complaint, and Cochrun does not waive or assume a burden of proof or persuasion
on any defense. These avoidances or defenses are in the alternative, and as a supplement to the
49. Defendant Cochrun affirmatively pleads the defense of release. Plaintiff has released
50. Plaintiff’s claims are barred by estoppel as Plaintiff has admitted to Cochrun on at least one
occasion the underlying claims of sexual abuse and should be estopped from denying his
51. Plaintiff’s claimed are barred by waiver as Plaintiff has purportedly entered into a settlement
agreement with Andy Andrews in which he has waived the claims raised in Plaintiff’s
Complaint.
53. Plaintiff’s claims are barred because Plaintiff’s own acts and omissions caused or contributed
54. Plaintiff’s claims are barred because the contract between Plaintiff and third parties (namely
Andy Andrews and Thomas Nelson a/k/a Harper Collins) were not terminated, or in the
55. Defendant Cochrun affirmatively pleads that Plaintiffs has no standing to sue Defendant
because any injury in fact to Plaintiff has not been caused by Defendant Cochrun, but rather
56. Defendant Cochrun affirmatively pleads the defense of laches, in particular to any request for
injunctive relief at this time. Plaintiff has been unreasonably dilatory and/or negligent in
9
DEFENDANT’S AMENDED O RIGINAL ANSWER TO
P LAINTIFF’S O RIGINAL C OMPLAINT
Case 3:18-cv-00225 Document 18 Filed 03/29/18 Page 9 of 14 PageID #: 80
57. Defendant Cochrun further asserts that Plaintiff’s claims are barred to the extent Plaintiff
would be unjustly enriched by any recovery in that he has recovered in full from his
58. Defendant Cochrun further asserts that he was justified in taking the actions that he did as
59. Defendant Cochrun did not have actual knowledge of the contract between Smith and any
third parties (including Andy Andrews and Thomas Nelson a/k/a Harper Collins) and with no
knowledge of said contract(s), Defendant Cochrun could not have interfered with them.
60. Defendant Cochrun did not proximately cause the cancellation of any contract between
Plaintiff and any third party (including Andy Andrews and Thomas Nelson a/k/a Harper
Collins) .
61. Defendant states that the imposition of punitive damages against him in this case would be
fundamentally unfair and would violate the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution
(a) That Plaintiff’s prayer for punitive damages seeks an unconstitutional remedy by
seeking to impose an excessive fine within the meaning of the excessive fines clause of the
Eighth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
(b) That Plaintiff’s prayer for punitive damages seeks an unconstitutional remedy by
seeking to impose an excessive fine with the meaning of the excessive fine clause of Article 1,
§ 16 of the Constitution of the State of Tennessee.
(c) That the assessment of punitive damages would be to allow a remedy that is essentially
criminal in nature but absent safeguard other than those afforded by the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure and law, thereby constituting infliction of a criminal penalty without safeguards
guaranteed by the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the
United States, and without safeguards guaranteed by the Constitution of the State of Tennessee.
(d) That Plaintiff’s prayer for punitive damages seeks an unconstitutional remedy in terms
of size and obstructs the exercise of Defendants' right of access to the Courts in violation of the
Due Process and Contracts clauses of the United States Constitution as applied at both state and
federal levels.
10
DEFENDANT’S AMENDED O RIGINAL ANSWER TO
P LAINTIFF’S O RIGINAL C OMPLAINT
Case 3:18-cv-00225 Document 18 Filed 03/29/18 Page 10 of 14 PageID #: 81
(e) That as due process requires proof of gross negligence and punitive damages by a
standard greater than "preponderance of the evidence," Plaintiff be required to prove such claims
beyond a reasonable doubt under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, or, in
the alternative, by a clear and convincing standard of proof.
(f) That assessing punitive damages would violate the double jeopardy protection
afforded a Defendant under both state and federal law.
62. If, however, Defendant Cochrun is found liable for exemplary damages, those damages must
be capped under applicable Tennessee law, the Due Process Clause of the United States
63. Plaintiff has failed to state any item of special damage he claims to have suffered with
specificity, as required by FED. R. CIV. P. 9(g) and, therefore, cannot recover any alleged
special damages.
64. Defendant Cochrun further asserts that Plaintiff’s claims for injunctive relief are barred
because Plaintiff has an adequate and complete remedy at law, and because Plaintiff has not
65. Defendant Cochrun further asserts that any application for equitable and/or injunctive relief
against Cochrun must be denied because all of the required elements to obtain such
extraordinary relief are entirely absent given that: (a) Cochrun has not committed an act giving
rise to a remedy in equity; (b) there is no imminent harm that is amenable to injunctive relief;
(c) Plaintiff has not not suffered, and will not suffer, irreparable injury as a result of any
wrongful act; and (d) in any event, Plaintiff has an adequate remedy at law.
66. Cochrun demands a jury trial on all issues pursuant to Rules 38 and 39 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure.
11
DEFENDANT’S AMENDED O RIGINAL ANSWER TO
P LAINTIFF’S O RIGINAL C OMPLAINT
Case 3:18-cv-00225 Document 18 Filed 03/29/18 Page 11 of 14 PageID #: 82
VII. RESERVATION OF RIGHTS
67. Cochrun reserves the right to raise any additional defenses, affirmative defenses, and
VIII. PRAYER
68. Cochrun denies all claims and requests for relief and allegations made in the prayer of
Plaintiff’s Original Complaint, demands a trial by jury, request that the Plaintiff’s Original
Complaint be dismissed, request a take-nothing judgment against the Plaintiff and in favor of
Jim Cochrun, award his attorneys’ fees and court costs, and grant such other relief to which he
is entitled.
Respectfully submitted,
12
DEFENDANT’S AMENDED O RIGINAL ANSWER TO
P LAINTIFF’S O RIGINAL C OMPLAINT
Case 3:18-cv-00225 Document 18 Filed 03/29/18 Page 12 of 14 PageID #: 83
/s/ John D. Kitch (signed with permission)
John D. Kitch, BPR #4569
Of Counsel
CORNELIUS & COLLINS LLP
511 Union Street, Suite 1500
P.O. Box 190695
Nashville, Tennessee 37219
(615) 244-1440/fax 254-9477
jdkitch@cclawtn.com
ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT
JIM COCHRUN
13
DEFENDANT’S AMENDED O RIGINAL ANSWER TO
P LAINTIFF’S O RIGINAL C OMPLAINT
Case 3:18-cv-00225 Document 18 Filed 03/29/18 Page 13 of 14 PageID #: 84
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of Defendant Jim Cochrun’s Amended Original
Answer to Plaintiff’s Original Complaint, was served electronically on those persons who receive
electronic notification from the Court through the Court’s CM / ECF filing system, and by email
and facsimile to Plaintiff’s counsel, as indicated below pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, on this, the 29th day of March, 2018:
Kurt Beasley
Waterford Law Group, PLLC
PO Box 1089
Franklin, TN 37065
Telephone: 615-373-2500
Email: kbeasley@waterfordlaw.com
ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF
14
DEFENDANT’S AMENDED O RIGINAL ANSWER TO
P LAINTIFF’S O RIGINAL C OMPLAINT
Case 3:18-cv-00225 Document 18 Filed 03/29/18 Page 14 of 14 PageID #: 85