At EqualRightsforDivorcedFathers.com, we believe in transparency, truth, and supporting fathers who face challenges navigating the legal system. As part of this commitment, we want to provide clarity about a recent legal matter involving our founder and the judgment for business disparagement.

Setting the Record Straight The court’s judgment in this case was not for defamation or slander but rather for business disparagement. This distinction is crucial because the statements shared on our website were truthful and validated by independent testimony from Del Casal and Arturo. These individuals, who are no longer employed by the Plaintiff, have no incentive to lie, unlike those testifying on behalf of the Plaintiff who remain or were on Harris’s payroll.

The judgment focused on claims related to the temporary alteration of a Google listing and alleged damages. However, it is important to note that there was no way to calculate any actual loss of business or clients due to the content posted online. The alteration in question lasted less than 24 hours and did not result in provable damages. We have repeatedly requested evidence to support these claims, yet none has been provided.

The Rebranding Narrative During the proceedings, the Plaintiff admitted under oath that he intended to disassociate from the name “Equal Rights for Divorced Fathers” due to its reputation. His plan to reform and rebrand the organization under a new name undermines the original purpose of the organization—to provide affordable services to fathers who cannot afford high attorney fees like those charged by Kurt Harris. This raises questions about the Plaintiff’s commitment to the organization’s founding principles.

Legal Precedent and Attorney Fees One aspect of this case that warrants attention is the Plaintiff’s motion for attorney fees. To be accurate about the governing statute, NRS 18.010(2) operates the opposite of how this article originally described it. Under NRS 18.010(2)(a), a court may award attorney fees to a prevailing party “[w]hen the prevailing party has not recovered more than $20,000.” A modest recovery is what permits a fee award under that provision — it does not bar one. Under NRS 18.010(2)(b), fees may also be awarded when the court finds a claim, defense or counterclaim was brought or maintained without reasonable ground or to harass the opposing party. In either case the award is discretionary with the court, not automatic.

We have corrected this passage. Our position on the merits is unchanged — we maintain that no actual loss of business was ever proven — but we no longer rely on the incorrect assertion that the size of the judgment alone made attorney fees unavailable.

Conclusion While we acknowledge and take responsibility for the alteration of an image, the broader context of this case underscores our commitment to the truth. The information shared on our website was accurate, as confirmed by unbiased witnesses, and the claims of defamation or theft are entirely unfounded. The judgment for business disparagement reflects the Plaintiff’s strategy to misrepresent the facts and obscure the real issues at hand.

We remain steadfast in our mission to support fathers who need help navigating the legal system and will continue to advocate for fairness and transparency. Thank you for standing with us as we work to uphold the values of integrity and justice.

For more information or to join our cause, please explore the resources available on our website.