Brothzilla, or “It’s a Cruel Thing to Disrupt Your Estranged Sister’s Expensive Destination Wedding”

From a state court decision by Grand County (Utah) Judge Don Torgerson in State v. Hack, decided last year, but referred to in Friday’s Hack v. Preston (D. Utah):

It’s a cruel thing to disrupt your estranged sister’s expensive destination wedding. But that’s what Jeffrey Hack tried to do. Apparently angry that his mother wasn’t invited to the wedding, Hack enlisted a former Marine Corps buddy with shaky mental health (“Sprague”) to drive from Las Vegas to Moab, Utah, and cause mischief at the wedding. Hack supplied a copy of the wedding invitation (date, time, and location), provided some details about the family, asked Sprague to record and photograph whatever he ended up doing, and provided $400 for gas and supplies. He even directed Sprague to a Radio Shack to purchase a GoPro camera and redirected Sprague when he was lost and heading to Ogden instead of Moab.

For his part, Sprague had a bizarre collection of wedding-crasher supplies. When arrested, he had a flying squirrel (sugar glider), an antique bird cage, a custom-built chess set, biodegradable glitter boots for his costume, glitter “bombs” or “balms,” nun chucks, a homemade slingshot, a broken arrow, a working arrow, a bow, walkie-talkies, a camera, party supplies (party hats and napkins), and mixed Tannerite {a stable explosive that is often sold at sporting goods stores}. {Sprague described the glitter as his own invention made from coconut oil, mango butter, beeswax, and essential oils. He claims to have brought multiple colors, shapes, sizes, and scents including “dude ones” and “girl ones.” He also claims to sell them to reduce microplastics in the world.}

Sprague had purchased the Tannerite and party supplies at Walker Drug in Moab the evening before the wedding. He claims to have bought the Tannerite because it was on sale and that it was unrelated to crashing the wedding. He also never bought a GoPro from Radio Shack, choosing instead to buy cocaine and ketamine with the remaining cash from Hack. He spent the night before the wedding using cocaine, ketamine, and Xanax. He camped, hung out, and shot his slingshot.

When it came time for the wedding, Sprague did not complete his “mission,” and the wedding was only superficially disrupted. He drove to the wedding venue but was turned away by the wedding planner around 5:15 p.m. She testified that Sprague was in his vehicle and asked to see the person in charge. He showed her a box wrapped around his leg with wires coming out of it, claiming it was a bomb. He also tossed a walkie talkie into the shrubs so the person in charge could contact him if they changed their mind. Sprague left and the wedding planner called law enforcement who arrived after the wedding ceremony was over. Sprague showed up again around 1:00 a.m., after all wedding events were completed, and sat in his vehicle before driving away. The Wedding Planner called law enforcement and Sprague was arrested down the road from the venue.

All told, the bride was delayed about 30 minutes in walking down the aisle. She did not know why she was delayed and she first found out about Sprague and his bomb threat after the ceremony was over, while taking family pictures. When Sprague returned the second time after the wedding guests were in their cabins for the night, she and her family made sure the guests were safe and locked in. She recalled being low to the ground and on the floor for about an hour until her new husband informed her that Sprague had been arrested.

Now, more from Friday’s opinion by Judge David Nuffer in the follow-up federal case:

Following the events at the wedding, Mr. Hack was charged with two third-degree felonies: (1) conspiracy to commit criminal mischief; and (2) conspiracy to commit the crime of being a restricted person in possession of a dangerous weapon.The State later amended the charges to a single class C misdemeanor, “Conspiracy to Commit Criminal Mischief.”

On or before March 31, 2025, a “jury convicted [Mr.] Hack of Conspiracy to Commit Criminal Mischief, a Class C misdemeanor.” To do so, the Order Arresting Judgment explains that the jury had to find the following elements, according to the jury instructions:

Criminal Mischief: (1) the conspirators intentionally or unlawfully tampered with the property of another, and as a result (2) recklessly endangered human health.

Conspiracy: (1) Hack, intending [to commit criminal mischief], (2) agreed with Sprague to engage in or cause the performance of the conduct, and (3) any one of them commits an overt act in pursuance of the conspiracy.

Months later, on September 2, 2025, the state trial court arrested Mr. Hack’s judgment holding:

[Mr.] Hack clearly intended for Sprague to commit mischief in a colloquial sense. He wanted Sprague to be disruptive at the wedding. But there is insufficient evidence that he intended Sprague to unlawfully tamper with property using Tannerite…. [Mr.] Hack conspired to have a friend crash his sister’s wedding. But nothing in the evidence demonstrates that Hack intended for Sprague to tamper with the wedding venue, any attendees’ property, or detonate an explosive.

The sister sued the brother over the incident, and the brother counterclaimed for defamation:

Mr. Hack’s Counterclaims stem from the Published Statements he alleges have defamed him and placed him in a false light. First, following the jury verdict, on March 31, 2025, Ms. Hack sent a text message to Karen Cortez, which is paraphrased in the Counterclaims to read:

• The jury concluded, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Hack was “behind the terroristic attacks on my wedding.”
• Hack “sent a man with Molotov cocktails, explosives and weapons into my wedding.”

Following the Order Arresting Judgment, on September 28, 2025, Ms. Hack posted to her Facebook profile which is also paraphrased in the Counterclaims and reads:

[T]hat Hack engaged in “reprehensible actions against” her, and made “threats against” the family and engaged in “fraudulent actions.” Charlene further stated that Hack’s “lack of remorse for endangering innocent lives during [her] wedding is appalling.” Mr. Hack has brought two defamation claims—one based on the March 31, 2025 text message and one based on the September 28, 2025 Facebook post ….

The first counterclaim alleges that Ms. Hack defamed Mr. Hack through the Text Message sent March 31, 2025 to her friend, Karen Cortez, stating that the jury concluded, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Jeffrey was “behind the terroristic attacks” on her wedding and that he “sent a man with Molotov cocktails, explosives and weapons” to the wedding. The Motion argues that this counterclaim fails because the statements are true and subject to privilege. A successful cause of action for defamation requires the following elements: (1) Ms. Hack published the statements in question; (2) her statements are false; (3) her statements are not subject to any privilege; (4) her statements were published with the requisite degree of fault; and (5) her statements resulted in damages. As set forth below, the Text Message is substantially true as a matter of law.

Under Utah law, a statement need not be literally true to defeat a defamation claim and minor inaccuracies do not establish actionable falsity when the substance, gist, and sting of the statement are substantially true.The statement need not be literally precise to be substantially true.Under the substantial-truth standard, the law permits “insignificant inaccuracies of expression” when the statement remains true in substance.

At the time Ms. Hack sent the text message, on March 31, 2025, Mr. Hack had been convicted of conspiracy to commit criminal mischief. The underlying proceedings established that Mr. Hack enlisted Mr. Sprague to disrupt the wedding, and that Mr. Sprague arrived with Tannerite, an explosive, and other weapons. Although the jury did not convict Mr. Hack of a “terroristic attack,” and the record did not establish that Sprague possessed Molotov cocktails, those differences do not materially alter the gist or sting of the statement. The reference to Molotov cocktails was, at most, an immaterial inaccuracy in describing the dangerous materials involved….

The second counterclaim arises from Ms. Hack’s Facebook Post which, taken as true, accuses Mr. Hack of engaging in “reprehensible actions;” making “threats against” the family; committing “fraudulent actions;” and showing a “lack of remorse for endangering innocent lives” during the wedding. The Motion argues that this counterclaim fails in its entirety because the statements are protected opinion and substantially true. Unlike the Text Message, however, the Facebook post cannot be entirely resolved on the face of the pleadings ….

Actionable defamation requires a false statement of fact. Under Utah law, expressions of pure opinion—statements that are not subject to being proven true or false—are protected under the First Amendment and cannot support a defamation claim. Furthermore, and explained more fully above, a statement that is substantially true does not constitute actionable falsity. …

Certainly, there are several portions of the Facebook Post as it is alleged that do constitute non-actionable opinion or are substantially true. Characterizations such as “reprehensible” and “appalling” are value judgments reflecting Ms. Hack’s subjective perception of the underlying record. These statements are incapable of objective verification, they are constitutionally protected opinions as a matter of law.

The reference that Mr. Hack made “threats against” the family is substantially true when measured against the established record. Orchestrating an unstable individual to target an intimate family event with private operational details (i.e., supplying an invite to a private event), direction to cause mischief, and money to cause disruption is inherently a threat to the peace, safety, and security of the family present at the wedding. The underlying record supports that in response to Mr. Hack’s directive, Mr. Sprague did attempt to access Ms. Hack’s wedding and when denied access, then threatened the family gathering with a bomb.

However, the allegation of “fraudulent actions,” stands on different legal footing. Unlike general hyperbole, the phrase “fraudulent actions” connotes specific, objectively verifiable wrongful conduct. Because the full context of the post is not before the Court and the truth or falsity of this specific charge cannot be resolved on the face of the pleadings, the Court cannot determine at this stage that the statement is protected opinion or substantially true as a matter of law.