And a defamation suit has grown out of those events.
A state-court ruling by Grand County, Utah, Judge Don Torgerson in State v. Hack, issued last year and cited in Friday’s Hack v. Preston (D. Utah), lays out the narrative:
It’s a harsh thing to interrupt your estranged sister’s costly destination wedding. Yet that is what Jeffrey Hack attempted. Angered by the fact that his mother wasn’t invited, Hack enlisted a former Marine buddy with unstable mental health—referred to as “Sprague”—to drive from Las Vegas to Moab, Utah, and create trouble at the ceremony. Hack supplied the wedding invitation’s details (date, time, and venue), shared some family specifics, asked Sprague to document whatever he did, and provided $400 for fuel and supplies. He even directed Sprague to Radio Shack to buy a GoPro and redirected him when he veered toward Ogden instead of Moab.
Sprague himself carried a peculiar assortment of wedding-crash gear. Upon arrest, he had a flying squirrel (a sugar glider), an antique birdcage, a bespoke chess set, biodegradable glitter boots for his outfit, glitter “bombs” or “balms,” nun chucks, a homemade slingshot, a broken arrow, a functioning arrow, a bow, walkie-talkies, a camera, party favors (hats and napkins), and mixed Tannerite—a stable explosive commonly found at sporting-goods stores. Sprague described the glitter as an invention of his own, made from coconut oil, mango butter, beeswax, and essential oils, claiming he carried several colors, shapes, sizes, and scents—including “dude ones” and “girl ones”—and asserting that he sells them to reduce microplastics in the world.
Sprague had bought Tannerite and party items at Walker Drug in Moab the night before the wedding. He contends he purchased the Tannerite because it was discounted and that its purchase was not related to crashing the wedding. He also states he never bought a GoPro from Radio Shack; instead, he spent the leftover Hack funds on cocaine and ketamine. He spent the night before the wedding using cocaine, ketamine, and Xanax. He camped, socialized, and shot his slingshot.
When the moment arrived for the ceremony, Sprague did not complete his “mission,” and the wedding’s disruption was only superficial. He drove toward the wedding site but was turned away by the wedding planner around 5:15 p.m. She testified that Sprague sat in his car and asked to speak with the person in charge. He showed her a box strapped to his leg with wires protruding, claiming it was a bomb. He also tossed a walkie-talkie into the shrubbery so the person in charge could contact him if conditions changed. Sprague departed, and the planner notified the police, who arrived after the ceremony concluded. Sprague resurfaced again around 1:00 a.m., after all wedding events had ended, and sat in his car before driving off. The Wedding Planner alerted law enforcement again, and Sprague was arrested a short distance from the venue.
All told, the bride was delayed roughly thirty minutes walking down the aisle. She was unaware of the reason for the delay and only learned of Sprague and the bomb threat after the ceremony, while posing for family photos. When Sprague returned after guests had retired to their cabins, she and her family ensured the guests’ safety and secured the premises. She recalls crouching low to the floor for about an hour until her new husband informed her of Sprague’s arrest.
Now, more from Friday’s ruling by Judge David Nuffer in the subsequent federal case:
After the wedding events, Mr. Hack faced two third-degree felonies: (1) conspiracy to commit criminal mischief; and (2) conspiracy to possess a dangerous weapon as a restricted person. 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 found [Mr.] Hack guilty of Conspiracy to Commit Criminal Mischief, a Class C misdemeanor. The Order Arresting Judgment explains that the jury had to prove the following elements, as set forth in the jury instructions:
Criminal Mischief: (1) the conspirators intentionally or unlawfully tampered with another person’s property, and as a result (2) endangered human health in a reckless manner.
Conspiracy: (1) Hack, intending [to commit criminal mischief], (2) agreed with Sprague to engage in or produce the conduct, and (3) any one of them committed an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
Months later, on September 2, 2025, the trial court in the state case entered an arrest of Hack’s judgment, holding as follows:
[Mr.] Hack clearly intended for Sprague to commit mischief in a plain sense. He sought disruption at the wedding through Sprague. Yet the record lacks sufficient evidence showing that Hack intended Sprague to 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 aimed for Sprague to tamper with the wedding venue, any guest’s property, or to detonate an explosive.
The sister sued her brother over the incidents, and the brother counterclaimed for defamation:
Mr. Hack’s Counterclaims grow out of the Statements he contends defamed him and cast him in a false light. First, after the jury verdict, on March 31, 2025, Ms. Hack texted Karen Cortez, a message summarized in the Counterclaims as follows:
- The jury found, 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 on Facebook, a statement also paraphrased in the Counterclaims, which reads:
[T]hat Hack engaged in “reprehensible actions against” her, made “threats against” the family, engaged in “fraudulent actions,” and showed a “lack of remorse for endangering innocent lives during [her] wedding.” Charlene further asserted that Hack’s “lack of remorse for endangering innocent lives during [her] wedding is appalling.” Mr. Hack has asserted two defamation claims—one based on the March 31, 2025 text and one based on the September 28, 2025 Facebook post….
The first counterclaim alleges that Ms. Hack defamed Mr. Hack via the March 31, 2025 text to Karen Cortez, asserting that the jury concluded, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Jeffrey was “behind the terroristic attacks on my wedding” and that he “sent a man with Molotov cocktails, explosives and weapons” to the wedding. The Motion contends that this counterclaim fails because the statements are true and subject to privilege. A successful defamation claim requires five elements: (1) publication of the statements by Ms. Hack; (2) falsity; (3) lack of privilege; (4) fault; and (5) damages. As explained 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 are substantially true. The statement need not be literally precise to be substantially true. The substantial-truth standard permits “insignificant inaccuracies of expression” when the overall truth remains intact in substance.
At the time Ms. Hack sent the text on March 31, 2025, Mr. Hack had been convicted of conspiracy to commit criminal mischief. The underlying proceedings established that Hack had enlisted Sprague to disrupt the wedding, and that Sprague arrived with Tannerite, an explosive, and other weapons. Although the jury did not convict Hack of a “terroristic attack,” and the record did not prove that Sprague possessed Molotov cocktails, those distinctions do not materially alter the gist or sting of the statement. The reference to Molotov cocktails was, at most, a nonessential inaccuracy in describing the dangerous materials involved….
The second counterclaim concerns Ms. Hack’s Facebook post, which, if accepted as true, accuses Hack of engaging in “reprehensible actions;” making “threats against” the family; engaging in “fraudulent actions;” and displaying a “lack of remorse for endangering innocent lives” at the wedding. The Motion argues this counterclaim fails entirely because the statements are protected opinion and substantially true. Unlike the Text Message, however, the Facebook post cannot be fully resolved on the pleadings alone….
Actionable defamation requires a false statement of fact. Utah law protects expressions of pure opinion—claims that cannot be proved true or false—from defamation suits. Moreover, as explained above, a statement that is substantially true does not amount to actionable falsity. …
Certain portions of the Facebook Post, as alleged, constitute non-actionable opinion or are substantially true. Phrases like “reprehensible” and “appalling” are value judgments reflecting Ms. Hack’s subjective view of the record. These statements cannot be objectively verified and are protected opinions under the First Amendment.
The assertion that Hack made “threats against” the family is substantially true when measured against the record. Coordinating a volatile individual to target a private family event, sharing private details about the invite, directing him to cause disruption, and funding the endeavor constitutes a threat to the safety and security of those present. The record shows that Hack’s instructions to Sprague led him to attempt to enter the wedding and, upon being denied access, to threaten the family gathering with a bomb.
However, the claim of “fraudulent actions” rests on a different legal basis. Unlike broad hyperbole, the term “fraudulent actions” implies specific, verifiable wrongful conduct. Because the full context of the post is not before the Court and the truth or falsity of this precise charge cannot be resolved on the pleadings alone, the Court cannot determine at this stage that the statement is protected opinion or substantially true as a matter of law.
