Mormon WikiLeaks (MormonLeaks)

[myboynoah]

Oh boy. There it is.

Well at least he's not doing that silly dance anymore.

[ERCougar]

Clearly you're not really wanting to actually discuss this, so I'll stop taking the bait.

I guess that's one way to answer.

From the beginning, my curiosity has stemmed from how an independent counsel works for a client, and how much latitude he has over what he does vs how tightly he's controlled--check my posts. Yeah, I turned argumentative because I didn't anticipate anyone defending leaking the info to Greg Bishop. That seems crazy to me, and I have a hard time believing the Church wanted that to happen.

Are you really all ok with sharing damaging information about a victim to the perpetrator's son, in order to defend the organization from the victim? Is that really what you want to defend?

[ERCougar]

Oh boy. There it is.

Well at least he's not doing that silly dance anymore.

Silly dance? Um, I'm not the one throwing the Church under the bus here. I promise, most people would not be ok with the Church smearing the victim. I still don't think they intended it. Do you?

[ERCougar]

Isn’t Bishops son Bishops attorney? Seems like he’s connected to the case in that it’s his client that is being sued.

That's a good point--I didn't realize she was suing Bishop as well.

Ok, next (sincere) question. Does it matter that a suit hadn't been filed against Bishop when this info was shared? I guess once there's a lawsuit, the Church has to share all information it has gathered on her to all parties (although still--the earlier point about being free to file a request to have that suppressed)? Is that true? Would it be ok to hold off until the suit is filed? That seems like the right thing to do.

[Eddie]

I guess that's one way to answer.

From the beginning, my curiosity has stemmed from how an independent counsel works for a client, and how much latitude he has over what he does vs how tightly he's controlled--check my posts. Yeah, I turned argumentative because I didn't anticipate anyone defending leaking the info to Greg Bishop. That seems crazy to me, and I have a hard time believing the Church wanted that to happen.

Are you really all ok with sharing damaging information about a victim to the perpetrator's son, in order to defend the organization from the victim? Is that really what you want to defend?

I think what you keep missing here is that the perpetrator's son is also the perpetrator's attorney and has been speaking for the perpetrator from the beginning. I'm not sure the church gets to limit the information given to the attorney based on his relationship to the perpetrator - but like I've said before, I'm not attorney and could be wrong.

[myboynoah]

Silly dance? Um, I'm not the one throwing the Church under the bus here. I promise, most people would not be ok with the Church smearing the victim. I still don't think they intended it. Do you?

Of course not. But apparently I'm not very normal and am likely amoral.

[Moliere]

That's a good point--I didn't realize she was suing Bishop as well.

It’s not a good point. It is the point. How did you not know this? It’s on the first page of the files lawsuit. My guess is that most people here assumed you knew this, this resulting in them all talking past you.

Ok, next (sincere) question. Does it matter that a suit hadn't been filed against Bishop when this info was shared? I guess once there's a lawsuit, the Church has to share all information it has gathered on her to all parties (although still--the earlier point about being free to file a request to have that suppressed)? Is that true? Would it be ok to hold off until the suit is filed? That seems like the right thing to do.

Wtf??

All of this was answered in DH’s posts above. Go back and read them.

[falafel]

I guess that's one way to answer.

From the beginning, my curiosity has stemmed from how an independent counsel works for a client, and how much latitude he has over what he does vs how tightly he's controlled--check my posts. Yeah, I turned argumentative because I didn't anticipate anyone defending leaking the info to Greg Bishop. That seems crazy to me, and I have a hard time believing the Church wanted that to happen.

Are you really all ok with sharing damaging information about a victim to the perpetrator's son, in order to defend the organization from the victim? Is that really what you want to defend?

He's his dad's attorney, as has been pointed out several times but you haven't stopped to notice.

That's a good point--I didn't realize she was suing Bishop as well.

Ok, next (sincere) question. Does it matter that a suit hadn't been filed against Bishop when this info was shared? I guess once there's a lawsuit, the Church has to share all information it has gathered on her to all parties (although still--the earlier point about being free to file a request to have that suppressed)? Is that true? Would it be ok to hold off until the suit is filed? That seems like the right thing to do.

Its not only okay to share that info among the parties, but its also required (at least once a suit is filed). There is nothing immoral (or amoral) about sharing before a suit is officially filed, as clearly settlement negotiations have been taking place according to the victim's own words.

I think what you keep missing here is that the perpetrator's son is also the perpetrator's attorney and has been speaking for the perpetrator from the beginning. I'm not sure the church gets to limit the information given to the attorney based on his relationship to the perpetrator - but like I've said before, I'm not attorney and could be wrong.

Imagine if the church did an investigation right now and found additional negative information about Bishop that it didn't have before, but withheld it from the victim until the last possible moment. ERCoug and his fb friends would lose their minds.

[falafel]

It’s not a good point. It is the point. How did you not know this? It’s on the first page of the files lawsuit. My guess is that most people here assumed you knew this, this resulting in them all talking past you.

Ha. I almost typed the exact same thing.

[creekster]

That's a good point--I didn't realize she was suing Bishop as well.

Ok, next (sincere) question. Does it matter that a suit hadn't been filed against Bishop when this info was shared? I guess once there's a lawsuit, the Church has to share all information it has gathered on her to all parties (although still--the earlier point about being free to file a request to have that suppressed)? Is that true? Would it be ok to hold off until the suit is filed? That seems like the right thing to do.

No, short of some applicable privilege or restriction (e.g. HIPPA) it does not matter. Is there any claim that such a privilege applies? Is there any claim that any of the revealed information is incorrect or untrue? (Sincere questions as I am no longer following this very closely).

Do you know what I would consider to be very questionable? If an attorney for the church had approached the victim under the pretense of being a journalist or a researcher asking about women's issues or victimization or similar and had then obtained information it considered useful or incriminating about the victim's past from a recorded interview and had then released that publicly. That would be fairly sleazy, especially if it was before a suit was filed. I know it is not a perfect analogy as, ostensibly, the victim here did not cause the release of her transcript, but even so that is a much more questionable tactic than simply doing research and sharing it with the attorney for the accused.

[ERCougar]

It’s not a good point. It is the point. How did you not know this? It’s on the first page of the files lawsuit. My guess is that most people here assumed you knew this, this resulting in them all talking past you.



Wtf??

All of this was answered in DH’s posts above. Go back and read them.

I did, and in a general sense, without any view of the particulars of this case, I can see that yes, it's the standard practice to share information with all parties involved. However, we have a taped confession of multiple sexual assaults. I get that there's always more to the story, and that's why we have a trial and statute of limitations, etc, but I don't think there's much doubt in the Church's mind that there was a real crime and a real victim here (certainly not much doubt in this thread either, right?). So in that case, it seems that maybe a slight departure from protocol is in order? That when you know a (real) victim's name and history is going to be publicized if you follow protocol, you might hold off a bit if you could? I don't care about setting a precedent for all future actions--just that this is a very delicate situation and a little extra attention might be warranted.

But again--I don't think the Church intended for this information to be shared in the usual way (although rereading Hawkins' statement above, maybe I'm wrong). I don't think most people (including MBN, one post up, and nearly the entire rest of the board up until today) were ok with the leak, protocol or not. But now suddenly, everyone's saying "business as usual"?

[creekster]

I did, and in a general sense, without any view of the particulars of this case, I can see that yes, it's the standard practice to share information with all parties involved. However, we have a taped confession of multiple sexual assaults. I get that there's always more to the story, and that's why we have a trial and statute of limitations, etc, but I don't think there's much doubt in the Church's mind that there was a real crime and a real victim here (certainly not much doubt in this thread either, right?). So in that case, it seems that maybe a slight departure from protocol is in order? That when you know a (real) victim's name and history is going to be publicized if you follow protocol, you might hold off a bit if you could? I don't care about setting a precedent for all future actions--just that this is a very delicate situation and a little extra attention might be warranted.

But again--I don't think the Church intended for this information to be shared in the usual way (although rereading Hawkins' statement above, maybe I'm wrong). I don't think most people (including MBN, one post up, and nearly the entire rest of the board up until today) were ok with the leak, protocol or not. But now suddenly, everyone's saying "business as usual"?

Whatever. DH is right, you have no interest in listening, only talking. Have fun.

[falafel]

I did, and in a general sense, without any view of the particulars of this case, I can see that yes, it's the standard practice to share information with all parties involved. However, we have a taped confession of multiple sexual assaults. I get that there's always more to the story, and that's why we have a trial and statute of limitations, etc, but I don't think there's much doubt in the Church's mind that there was a real crime and a real victim here (certainly not much doubt in this thread either, right?). So in that case, it seems that maybe a slight departure from protocol is in order? That when you know a (real) victim's name and history is going to be publicized if you follow protocol, you might hold off a bit if you could? I don't care about setting a precedent for all future actions--just that this is a very delicate situation and a little extra attention might be warranted.

But again--I don't think the Church intended for this information to be shared in the usual way (although rereading Hawkins' statement above, maybe I'm wrong). I don't think most people (including MBN, one post up, and nearly the entire rest of the board up until today) were ok with the leak, protocol or not. But now suddenly, everyone's saying "business as usual"?

Why? I'm struggling to see what you're getting at here.

[ERCougar]

He's his dad's attorney, as has been pointed out several times but you haven't stopped to notice.



Its not only okay to share that info among the parties, but its also required (at least once a suit is filed). There is nothing immoral (or amoral) about sharing before a suit is officially filed, as clearly settlement negotiations have been taking place according to the victim's own words.



Imagine if the church did an investigation right now and found additional negative information about Bishop that it didn't have before, but withheld it from the victim until the last possible moment. ERCoug and his fb friends would lose their minds.

As I'm sure you're aware, the suit hadn't been filed, so nothing was required. And I see your point about withholding information about Bishop.
I get that attorneys work in generalizable hypotheticals, but we're dealing with a specific victim of multiple sexual assaults, with a taped confession. That seems like it might warrant some sort of special treatment, even if it's legally required.

No, short of some applicable privilege or restriction (e.g. HIPPA) it does not matter. Is there any claim that such a privilege applies? Is there any claim that any of the revealed information is incorrect or untrue? (Sincere questions as I am no longer following this very closely).

Do you know what I would consider to be very questionable? If an attorney for the church had approached the victim under the pretense of being a journalist or a researcher asking about women's issues or victimization or similar and had then obtained information it considered useful or incriminating about the victim's past from a recorded interview and had then released that publicly. That would be fairly sleazy, especially if it was before a suit was filed. I know it is not a perfect analogy as, ostensibly, the victim here did not cause the release of her transcript, but even so that is a much more questionable tactic than simply doing research and sharing it with the attorney for the accused.

No, I don't think there's any special privilege claimed, nor do I think there was any contesting of the information being false. There is some stuff about confidentiality, either implied or expressed, regarding adoption proceedings and church discipline proceedings, but I don't know the details.

I'm not defending her interview. It was understandable, but probably not very ethical.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Silly dance? Um, I'm not the one throwing the Church under the bus here. I promise, most people would not be ok with the Church smearing the victim. I still don't think they intended it. Do you?

Argumentum ad populum!

Thank you for enlightening us poor saps on what normal people are thinking.