End Times for Lawsuit Against End Times Preacher
From the Complaint in Diver v. Cote, which alleged intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, fraudulent misrepresentation, and an unfair and deceptive trade practice:
The Defendants produce and distribute religious content focused on eschatology, pre-tribulation rapture, and speculative end-times predictions. The Defendants' content includes repeated fear-based messages, such as:
- "Jesus is coming. The rapture is coming soon."
- "You do not want to experience standing before the Lord of the universe naked in your sin, apart from Jesus Christ."
The Defendants repeatedly emphasize 2025-2026 as a likely timeline for the rapture, fostering obsessive thought patterns and undue distress in vulnerable viewers.
The messaging in Defendants' videos induces psychological distress, anxiety, and religious trauma among susceptible individuals. The Defendants frame those who question their theology as "deceived", which promotes social isolation and cognitive rigidity for their followers. The Defendants have monetized their content through YouTube advertising, donations, and merchandise sales, potentially violating consumer protection laws if the financial solicitations are based on misleading claims.
As a direct result of the Defendants' content and messaging, the Plaintiff has suffered:
- Severe emotional distress.
- Anxiety and mental anguish.
- Disruption to personal and professional life.
No dice, Connecticut Superior Court Judge Trial Referee Joseph Shortall concluded, granting a motion to dismiss under Connecticut's anti-SLAPP statute:
The court has carefully examined the arguments made in support of the defendants' motions. The court finds that they have shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the complaints in both actions are based on the exercise of their right of free speech on matters of public concern [as required for the anti-SLAPP statute to apply], that is, issues related to health, community well-being and a public figure; namely, Jesus Christ. The defendants' speech was made in a public forum; namely, You Tube and websites open to the public, as required by [the statute].
Once there is a finding that a lawsuit is " in a public forum on a matter of public concern," the Connecticut statute requires that the plaintiff "set forth with particularity the circumstances giving rise to the complaint … and demonstrate to the court that there is probable cause, considering all valid defenses, that [he] will prevail on the merits of the complaints." But plaintiff, who is representing himself, failed to appear to present his argument on that, so the case was dismissed.
Mario Cerame (Aeton Law Partners LLP) represents defendants.