User talk:Liv Grohn

Ms. Grohn,

Please recognize that we don't have any evidence whatsoever that this claim was true. Until and unless such evidence comes up, we need to describe the incident as what it is--a reckless accusation. Red Slash 08:23, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

July 2014
Your recent editing history at Roger Goodman shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:47, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Roger Goodman Background
I am posting this here in the hopes that those who continue to make false claims on this page have the facts.

"Goodman has stated that the allegations are completely unsubstantiated and originated from a 2012 divorce filing, where he claims that his ex-wife was trying to convince the judge of her then-husband's unworthiness in an attempt to get more money from the divorce.[12]"

Please review the sourced information. Goodman did not "state that the allegations were completely unsubstantiated" and does not "claim" anything about his former partner. This sentence should be removed.

FYI. The research would show that the divorce declaration cited, occurred in October 2012. The Motion of Contempt filed in August 2013 (presented in court September of 2013) is a completely separate entity from the Temporary Orders filed back in October. The Motion of Contempt, was in fact, filed in regard to violations to the Final Order (which was the settlement) which occurred in June of 2013. The divorce documents from October 2012 were not a part of the Final Order.

The original quote "I asked Carns if it was fair to quote contentious divorce documents in the Goodman ad, particularly since they're part of his ex-wife requesting more money in the settlement." was a false statement and has since been removed by KOMO 4 TV--the source continues to be quoted but if you look at the source it is simply not there. Since it is not sourced, the libelous statement should be removed.

The divorce documents had nothing to do with the Motion of Contempt mentioned in that false quote which continues to be cited. And since it is is impossible to change any financials after a divorce settlement is signed (in our case June 2013)--the three things are not one related to the other, placed in a sentence as if they are:

contentious divorce documents (Temporary Order--October 2013) and settlement (Final Order/Settlement--June 2013) requesting more money (Motion of Contempt--August/September 2013)

Requests for financial relief for attorney fees when forced to return to court for violations of parenting plans and settlement agreements is routine, but completely separate from the final settlement (inferring money) Final Order.

That is why I continue to edit this page so that it remains factual. Innocent parties should not be harmed erroneously or on purpose. The "undo" edits are disingenuous and an inaccurate picture. Erroneous and libelous.

I need to add that while you might have an opinion that statements made under penalty of perjury were simply allegations, that is an opinion--not based in fact. Contentious indicates: causing or likely to cause an argument; controversial. Roger too, had the right to respond to the supposed "allegations," under penalty of perjury but chose not to. That was the time to dispute the supposed "allegations." Under penalty of perjury. Through the court of law. Not now, through a medium other than the court of law that doesn't apply the same standards or opportunity to rebut the accusations made.

Therefore, it should be assumed that the divorce declaration statements were not contentious because they caused no argument or disagreement. Roger, making no response to the court, indicates concurrence, not controversy.

I can only assume that the edits are made by supporters who are not caring about the Wikipedia standards for truth and non-inflamotory statements. Facts are very different from truth in Wiki world as well as my world. The edits essentially state that statements made under penalty of perjury are assumed false while statements with no standards for assessment or recourse are not. That is incongruent with reason. As you know, edits must be made fairly and rationally accessing the validity of claims. The rules for biographies are not being followed. The quote referenced is not sourced because the source does not exist. Do I need to continue to report those who continue to make libelous claims?

If you would like, I can have one of my attorneys explain in legalese. If you have any questions please feel free to ask.

I understand completely how this kind of error could have been made. That is why I simply request that you make the corrections asked.

Liv Grohn (talk) 14:42, 23 July 2014 (UTC)Liv Grohn


 * I have changed the sentence because it was not backed up by the source. I take it that was the bit you were objecting to? While Wikipedia is hard to navigate and understand this would have gone a lot better if you had explained earlier why you were removing the material. If there are any more problems the best thing would be to contact the Volunteer Response Team. You can/should provide them with proof that you are who you say you are. Also can you drop things like "libellous" and "my attorneys". If you do use words like that, then sooner or later someone is going to claim that you are making a legal threat (see No legal threats) which I don't think you are doing. Please remember that editors are from all over the world. Not all of us will know who you are by your username. I'm in Canada and had to use Google to figure out your interest in this. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 22:34, 23 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I removed the entire paragraph. I hadn't thought about the fact that children were involved and did not need to be dragged onto a Wikipedia page. There is also the fact that having it in the lead may be a Due and undue weight|undue weight. I see that you make a report at the Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard and I added a bit there. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 04:16, 24 July 2014 (UTC)