"IP-Wars.net posted stories and content stating Merkey worked for SCO and was a drug addict, advocating his murder, and [posted] contents that invaded his privacy."

These are the charges against Jeff. Translated they are

defamation -  posted stories and content stating Merkey worked for SCO and was a drug addict,

incitement to violence - advocating his murder

invasion of privacy - [posted] contents that invaded his privacy

civil contempt - he's threatened about the sealed settlement and the opinion, but Jeff isn't charged in the complaint with doing this. in fact he never  states this claim against anyone AFAICS.

Conspiracy to violate civil rights

defamation by google bombing and hacking

weird crap - violation of right of expressive association, and identity theft

The important question is what are the pleading requirements for each offense.

I have the answer for defamation. The requirements are relative strict and merkey hasn't met them.

"To state such a claim for defamation, plaintiff 'must show that defendants published the statements concerning him, that the statements were false, defamatory, and not subject to any privilege, that the statements were published with the requisite degree of fault, and that their publication resulted in damage.' Id. at 1007-08. "
Computerized Thermal Imaging Inc. v. Bloomberg, 10th circuit 2002  quoting West v. Thomson Newspapers, 872 P.2d 999 (Utah 1994)

This is a Massachusetts case, but I expect utah is the same:

" A court may dismiss written defamation claims, i.e., libel claims, if the communication is "incapable of a defamatory meaning." Brauer v. Globe Newspaper Co., 217 N.E.2d 736, 738 (Mass. 1966) (quoting Muchnick v. Post Publ'g Co., 125 N.E.2d 137, 138 (Mass. 1955). This threshold question, "whether a communication is reasonably susceptible of a defamatory meaning, is a question of law for the court." Phelan v. May Dept. Stores Co., 819 N.E.2d 550, 554 (Mass. 2004)."

As for advocating his murder, as alleged, that isn't a crime, even if he alleged malice. You can say "someone should shoot the SOB".

With civil rights conspiracy, it comes down to the allegation that all "these websites" engaged in such activity. Considering that includes "numerous other websites", I doubt this states a claim, but I need to do more research.