Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the News

[Donuthole]

Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the News

I don't know if he is either of those things, but I am confident he hasn't completely thought this through. What happens if the church produces a list and there are missionaries who do not want that information shared with the court? The assumption that the court and in turn the accuser has an absolute right to that information is problematic.

It really is that simple. He’s either not understanding what that article says, or he’s being intellectually dishonest about it. Stupid or liar.

As for the list, I disagree that there is an expectation of privacy as to whether you served a Mormon mission and when. That’s stuff that the accuser is probably entitled to through the discovery process. And the Church isn’t saying they aren’t entitled to it, from what I can glean. Just that a list that old as requested by the accuser probably doesn’t exist. I encounter this all the time. I often request documents from large corporations, and this is a common response. It doesn’t mean they don’t have the information, it just means they don’t have it in the format I’ve requested. Sometimes I’m able to work things out with the other side and sometimes we have to go before the judge, discovery commissioner, or Magistrate to argue the issues. So the mere fact that a motion to compel this stuff was either filed or opposed is certainly not indicative of SJ’s assumption.

[ScoopJahoop]

Stupid or liar? You are either one or the other. I'll let you go ahead and pick. Let us know, though.

Undoubtedly both.

[All-American]

I'm not sure why you don't believe them when they say they don't have the names of people who were in the MTC in a 2 month period in 1984, or the names of the people who served during a particular time frame. It was 1984. The local records weren't computerized until 1986. They may have had that information in 1985, or even 1986. But there were 29,000 missionaries in 1984 (based on the 29,265 number provided in April 1985 conference). So that's roughly 5,000 people who were in the MTC for a brief period of time. Probably a few handfuls of Sisters. In 1984. There's a reason Statutes of Limitations exist, you know.

Now, can they run a search on Sex=Female, Mission=Buenos Aires Argentina North Mission? Sure. That information, at least, is kept in the Membership record. It's less certain that the dates of service are included. The dates of service aren't kept for any other non-leadership calling.

I’m pretty sure it is a certain rule on this board that 1984 wasn’t really THAT long ago. We are a BYU sports board after all.

[tooblue]

It really is that simple. He’s either not understanding what that article says, or he’s being intellectually dishonest about it. Stupid or liar.

As for the list, I disagree that there is an expectation of privacy as to whether you served a Mormon mission and when. That’s stuff that the accuser is probably entitled to through the discovery process. And the Church isn’t saying they aren’t entitled to it, from what I can glean. Just that a list that old as requested by the accuser probably doesn’t exist. I encounter this all the time. I often request documents from large corporations, and this is a common response. It doesn’t mean they don’t have the information, it just means they don’t have it in the format I’ve requested. Sometimes I’m able to work things out with the other side and sometimes we have to go before the judge, discovery commissioner, or Magistrate to argue the issues. So the mere fact that a motion to compel this stuff was either filed or opposed is certainly not indicative of SJ’s assumption.

I am certainly not a lawyer, but in my mind there are distinctions to be made. Regardless the church’s status as a corporation, missionaries though representatives are not employees. Missionaries pay to serve a mission, and their efforts could be considered a private enterprise. In that era they may actually have arranged for and paid for their rent and utilities etc. They certainly paid for their own transportation to their area of service. As such there could be an expectation of privacy argued in their favour.

The fact the church isn’t fighting the request to produce a list doesn’t mean they couldn’t fight it on privacy grounds, which bolsters the argument that the church isn’t hiding anything. It’s obviously and simply a challenging list to produce.

[UVACoug]

Horrifying.

https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/...l-abuse-claims

Church leader speaks to Church attorney about Church leader's legal obligation to report sexual abuse allegations to police. What a scandal!

And why is the Plaintiff's attorney talking about a sealed deposition? Isn't that contempt?

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[UVACoug]

No. If, as a volunteer/employee/whatever, you feel that the organization has different interests than you should probably not consult with their lawyers. But as has been firmly established the church has nothing but the best intentions at all times and in all places. It would be impossible for a conflict of interest to exist. Really, the people suing the church should have used KM for representation as well.

Where did anyone say the bishop felt like his interests conflicted with the church's?

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[UVACoug]

Are we talking about the same woman? According to the article, this is what was testified in court:

Oh. So the bishop is clearly lying because everyone knows that bishops have the gift of discernment and can see the entire picture no matter what he is told. [emoji23][emoji23][emoji23]

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[UVACoug]

Come on now. You know very well that what people object to is being dishonest or unethical to protect yourself from lawsuits. If the way someone chooses to avoid being caught speeding is to call in a bomb threat at the courthouse to occupy all law enforcement than no, we DON’T WANT people doing that.

If a lawyer ever told someone to call in a bomb threat to avoid getting a speeding ticket, he'd be disbarred and likely thrown in jail. Come the F on.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[UVACoug]

The church has refused to provide the identities of those who reported assault to their ecclesiastical leaders and told the court they “didn’t have that information” re missionaries who served under him. BS they don’t.

That sentence is internally inconsistent. You can't refuse to provide the identities of people that you don't know. Maybe the church is lying to a federal judge (you obviously think they are). If they are, they can be held in contempt. But if they aren't your criticism makes absolutely no sense.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[Donuthole]

Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the News

I am certainly not a lawyer, but in my mind there are distinctions to be made. Regardless the church’s status as a corporation, missionaries though representatives are not employees. Missionaries pay to serve a mission, and their efforts could be considered a private enterprise. In that era they may actually have arranged for and paid for their rent and utilities etc. They certainly paid for their own transportation to their area of service. As such there could be an expectation of privacy argued in their favour.

The fact the church isn’t fighting the request to produce a list doesn’t mean they couldn’t fight it on privacy grounds, which bolsters the argument that the church isn’t hiding anything. It’s obviously and simply a challenging list to produce.

I certainly am a lawyer. I am licensed to practice in Utah and have appeared multiple times in Federal District Court in Utah, and before Magistrate Pead specifically. I have litigated discovery requests surrounding the assertion of privacy numerous times in both state and federal court.

While in your mind there may be an argument of privacy in this situation, I can assure you that is not a viable legal position. There is nothing private about having served a mission for the Church. Indeed, your entire job as a missionary is to introduce yourself to people and tell them you are a missionary for the Church. If you gave a public farewell and/or homecoming, if you had your picture in the paper announcing your departure or return, or if you in fact told anyone at all that you were serving a mission, there is simply no reasonable expectation of privacy as to the fact that you served a mission during a certain period of time.

[tooblue]

I certainly am a lawyer. I am licensed to practice in Utah and have appeared multiple times in Federal District Court in Utah, and before Magistrate Pead specifically. I have litigated discovery requests surrounding the assertion of privacy numerous times in both state and federal court.

While in your mind there may be an argument of privacy in this situation, I can assure you that is not a viable legal position. There is nothing private about having served a mission for the Church. Indeed, your entire job as a missionary is to introduce yourself to people and tell them you are a missionary for the Church. If you gave a public farewell and/or homecoming, if you had your picture in the paper announcing your departure or return, or if you in fact told anyone at all that you were serving a mission, there is simply no reasonable expectation of privacy as to the fact that you served a mission during a certain period of time.

I understand it may not be a viable legal position, but up to a point. Serving a mission isn't a matter of public record or there would in fact be a public record and this discussion wouldn't be necessary because no request by a judge on behalf of a litigant would have been made in the first place.

[Donuthole]

I understand it may not be a viable legal position, but up to a point. Serving a mission isn't a matter of public record or there would in fact be a public record and this discussion wouldn't be necessary because no request by a judge on behalf of a litigant would have been made in the first place.

Whether something is a matter of public record is not the standard for whether there is a legal right to privacy. Stop digging already.

[tooblue]

Whether something is a matter of public record is not the standard for whether there is a legal right to privacy. Stop digging already.

Call it public knowledge then, if the words public record as a standard do not fit. Regardless, the choice to serve a mission is a private choice someone may or may not choose to make public. But making that choice known to the public does not mean the individual then summarily waives their right to privacy as it relates to that choice.

There are limits. What will litigants ask for next, once or if they receive the list of missionaries—access to their letters sent home to family and friends? Their personal journals—their farewell and homecoming talks?

Oh, it's just a list you say. Horse sh**. The only digging going on here is a lawyer with a weak case looking for something more. They can't get money out the individual who allegedly committed the crime, so they are going after the entity with the deep pockets.

[Donuthole]

Call it public knowledge then, if the words public record as a standard do not fit. Regardless, the choice to serve a mission is a private choice someone may or may not choose to make public. But making that choice known to the public does not mean the individual then summarily waives their right to privacy as it relates to that choice.

There are limits. What will litigants ask for next, once or if they receive the list of missionaries—access to their letters sent home to family and friends? Their personal journals—their farewell and homecoming talks?

Oh, it's just a list you say. Horse sh**. The only digging going on here is a lawyer with a weak case looking for something more. They can't get money out the individual who allegedly committed the crime, so they are going after the entity with the deep pockets.

Ahh, the old slippery slope argument. Lol. I accept your white flag. Or are you really arguing that the fact that someone served a mission is equally as private as all of their communications home while on the mission? And if the church has to divulge the names of those who served missions, then it will have to disclose everything else? Stupid or liar?

[tooblue]

Ahh, the old slippery slope argument. Lol. I accept your white flag. Or are you really arguing that the fact that someone served a mission is equally as private as all of their communications home while on the mission? And if the church has to divulge the names of those who served missions, then it will have to disclose everything else? Stupid or liar?

Ahh the old "slippery sloap, stupid or liar" trick when you can't win an argument ... lol.

Why do they want the list counsellor? Because, uhh they like lists? ropeller: