Mormon WikiLeaks (MormonLeaks)

[ERCougar]

You keep calling it a "leak", which is part of your problem. If anything was "leaked", it wasn't by the Church, it was by Bishop's side. Another one of your problems is that you keep conflating the disclosure of certain information to the interested parties during settlement talks (which, as others have noted, is completely normal and not immoral in the slightest) with Bishop's publicizing of that information. I tend to agree with you about its publication - I don't think its good or right, whether from a PR or a "moral" standpoint. But you cannot pin that on the church or its attorney's. Its also interesting to not that Bishop's camp publicizing the info is not illegal, though the ethics of it are questionable.

Ok, fair point on the word "leak". I won't use the word anymore.
I can understand Bishop's action.
But then, if it is unethical for him to go to the media, and totally predictable that he would, what are the ethics or sharing it with him?

I think the taped interview reveals that Joseph Bishop was/is a duplicitous dirtbag, but I didn't see anywhere in the transcript where he admitted to this alleged assault.

I'm not a fan of Bishop's son/attorney having the information compiled by the church, but if he was going to get it anyway as part of the legal process, then I'll save my outrage for another day.

Well, the point that one of the attorneys made was that the information obtained through discovery could have been suppressed by court order, had a lawsuit been filed. I don't know if that's true. And maybe that just indicates poor strategy on the victim's part. But ugh. That sucks that victims need to pursue a good strategy to not have their past exposed.

Why is it ethically questionable? Assuming it is true, documented and not subject to privilege/protection?

If I was defending the church I might be pissed because I wouldn't want to share all of it now. I would want to save some of it for later. but thats just tactics, not ethics.

I'm not sure what you mean by "documented", but I don't think "true" and "not subject to privilege/protection" are sufficient conditions for "ethically defensible". I don't know. Believe it or not, I'm seeing some validity to the idea that this is standard protocol in all civil suits. I kind of wish anyone had said this last week, when all of the responses seemed to center around "we don't really know the church did that" or "I hope that isn't true", but I've learned something. I think it's horribly sad for victims that they face having their past publicly exposed like this if they ever file a lawsuit, but I guess that's the system.

[creekster]

Ok, fair point on the word "leak". I won't use the word anymore.
I can understand Bishop's action.
But then, if it is unethical for him to go to the media, and totally predictable that he would, what are the ethics or sharing it with him?


Well, the point that one of the attorneys made was that the information obtained through discovery could have been suppressed by court order, had a lawsuit been filed. I don't know if that's true. And maybe that just indicates poor strategy on the victim's part. But ugh. That sucks that victims need to pursue a good strategy to not have their past exposed.



I'm not sure what you mean by "documented", but I don't think "true" and "not subject to privilege/protection" are sufficient conditions for "ethically defensible". I don't know. Believe it or not, I'm seeing some validity to the idea that this is standard protocol in all civil suits. I kind of wish anyone had said this last week, when all of the responses seemed to center around "we don't really know the church did that" or "I hope that isn't true", but I've learned something. I think it's horribly sad for victims that they face having their past publicly exposed like this if they ever file a lawsuit, but I guess that's the system.

Look, you cant just say something is unethical because you don't like it. What, specifically, is unethical about the specific disclosure in question? As a matter of ETHICS, not as a matter fo tactics or feel-goods?

[ERCougar]

In testing. One of the lawyers in that thread (if there are more than one, I don't know) is a Las Vegas attorney. I've never heard of him or his firm, but that is likely because his area of practice is "estate, business and asset protection planning." In other words, someone who has zero experience with litigation, document/information disclosures, and the concomitant practices and obligations. And yet he feels confident enough to confirm ER's supposition that the Church had to authorize the release of the info.

Um...your tribal loyalties are in the way. Try again--I was pretty clearly disputing his supposition that the Church authorized the release.
Also, isn't that what you're claiming? That the Church did authorize the release, and that's ok?

[falafel]

Why is it ethically questionable? Assuming it is true, documented and not subject to privilege/protection?

If I was defending the church I might be pissed because I wouldn't want to share all of it now. I would want to save some of it for later. but thats just tactics, not ethics.

Yeah, I thought about modifying that after I typed it. I didn't mean legal ethics, just more "regular" ethics. Really, ethics is the wrong term, but I'm struggling to think of the correct one.

[BigFatMeanie]

some kirton nerd wearing crew neck garments, a short sleeve white shirt and ecco shoes is probably responsible

Crew neck G's rock! Screw you and your stupid eternal smile!

[Eddie]

ER - this is really starting to look like a moving target. Seems like you're pretty sure you should be pissed off at the LDS church, and you're going to find a reason to justify it. We are 3 steps away from what originally pissed you off at this point - but we're getting closer to nailing it down!

[Surfah]

No, I don't think he was negligent/careless, because I don't think attorneys are that stupid. That he was negligent or careless is your narrative. I'll go ahead and accept it for the sake of argument, because I'm curious: 1) how commonly that happens, 2) if the Church has any recourse, 3) why the Church hasn't pointed out that they didn't intend for that to be shared.

How in the world have you been an active participant on this site for a decade and still believe that?

[ERCougar]

ER - this is really starting to look like a moving target. Seems like you're pretty sure you should be pissed off at the LDS church, and you're going to find a reason to justify it. We are 3 steps away from what originally pissed you off at this point - but we're getting closer to nailing it down!

Eddie, I like you, but I don't know if you could misread it more completely.
No, I'm not a fan of a lot that the Church does, but that wasn't at all the reason I came here this time. My whole point to coming here was to ask how much oversight outside counsel works with. In other words, I completely believed that Jordan inappropriately shared--on his own--information with the Bishop's son (who I was aware was defending him, but didn't really see why he needed to be involved in an email conversation between the Church and the victim's attorney--I understand that a little better now). So, if anything, that exonerated the Church in my mind, but made them the victim of a bad lawyer. If that's "pretty sure I should be pissed off at the Church", you'll note that MBN and GM both on record yesterday as also of the opinion/hope that the Church wasn't behind the info-dump, so I assume you're addressing this to them as well.

I now understand that litigators have a lot of latitude (in answer to my primary question), and that it was likely the Church's intent that that information be shared, but that that's normal procedure. You're right that I kind of hate the normal procedure was followed in a case like this, but I sort of get it, at least better than I did before the discussion. But I do think a little less of the Church in their response now than I did two days ago, when I really believed it was the attorney's own prerogative.

So yeah, you're right that we've drifted 3 steps away from my original question, but that's due to education from the attorneys (which is exactly why I brought it here).

[myboynoah]

Eddie, I like you, but I don't know if you could misread it more completely.
No, I'm not a fan of a lot that the Church does, but that wasn't at all the reason I came here this time. My whole point to coming here was to ask how much oversight outside counsel works with. In other words, I completely believed that Jordan inappropriately shared--on his own--information with the Bishop's son (who I was aware was defending him, but didn't really see why he needed to be involved in an email conversation between the Church and the victim's attorney--I understand that a little better now). So, if anything, that exonerated the Church in my mind, but made them the victim of a bad lawyer. If that's "pretty sure I should be pissed off at the Church", you'll note that MBN and GM both on record yesterday as also of the opinion/hope that the Church wasn't behind the info-dump, so I assume you're addressing this to them as well.

I now understand that litigators have a lot of latitude (in answer to my primary question), and that it was likely the Church's intent that that information be shared, but that that's normal procedure. You're right that I kind of hate the normal procedure was followed in a case like this, but I sort of get it, at least better than I did before the discussion. But I do think a little less of the Church in their response now than I did two days ago, when I really believed it was the attorney's own prerogative.

So yeah, you're right that we've drifted 3 steps away from my original question, but that's due to education from the attorneys (which is exactly why I brought it here).

Point of clarification. I said that I did not think The Church intended to smear the plaintiff.

[Moliere]

How in the world have you been an active participant on this site for a decade and still believe that?

I thought it but you said it.

[Eddie]

Eddie, I like you, but I don't know if you could misread it more completely.
No, I'm not a fan of a lot that the Church does, but that wasn't at all the reason I came here this time. My whole point to coming here was to ask how much oversight outside counsel works with. In other words, I completely believed that Jordan inappropriately shared--on his own--information with the Bishop's son (who I was aware was defending him, but didn't really see why he needed to be involved in an email conversation between the Church and the victim's attorney--I understand that a little better now). So, if anything, that exonerated the Church in my mind, but made them the victim of a bad lawyer. If that's "pretty sure I should be pissed off at the Church", you'll note that MBN and GM both on record yesterday as also of the opinion/hope that the Church wasn't behind the info-dump, so I assume you're addressing this to them as well.

I now understand that litigators have a lot of latitude (in answer to my primary question), and that it was likely the Church's intent that that information be shared, but that that's normal procedure. You're right that I kind of hate the normal procedure was followed in a case like this, but I sort of get it, at least better than I did before the discussion. But I do think a little less of the Church in their response now than I did two days ago, when I really believed it was the attorney's own prerogative.

So yeah, you're right that we've drifted 3 steps away from my original question, but that's due to education from the attorneys (which is exactly why I brought it here).

I'm just saying that as info was clarified, everyone else seems to have taken the "oh, that's what happened? OK. Maybe the LDS Church didn't do something wrong" approach. And you've really struggled with it.

First - pissed that the LDS church released information.
Then pissed that the LDS church gave information to Greg Bishop - the perpetrator's son - to be released.
Then pissed that the LDS church gave information to Greg Bishop - the perpetrator's attorney - to be released.
Then we spend a little extra time pissed that while it's normal to share that information in a court case - the lawsuit hadn't actually been filed yet, so why are they sharing information during the negotiation stage?

And I think that's where we ended up - maybe slightly LESS pissed, but still pissed that maybe the LDS attorney didn't wait until the last possible moment to share the information - which maybe actually IS before a lawsuit is filed but maybe still wasn't, because even if it's legal it doesn't seem ethical or at least not nice to the victim who was "smeared" kinda but not really since the information was all true and correct - and even if it wasn't nice it wasn't done by the LDS church or its representatives but it's still kinda their fault because they did the investigation and passed on the information.

I appreciate that there is a learning process - I asked some questions and learned a few things too. But it sure felt to me like you were just jumping from one reason to be pissed to another without processing what you were learning or stopping to breath in between. We all have our biases. Maybe I should've been more pissed at the beginning and you should've been less pissed and we could've met in the middle.

[ByronMarchant]

Everyone here just needs to think based on the assumption that the Church is operated by good family men that will do anything (and I mean ANYTHING) necessary to protect the organization.

And if you disagree, they'll just offer you a deal that you cannot refuse.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Everyone here just needs to think based on the assumption that the Church is operated by good family men that will do anything (and I mean ANYTHING) necessary to protect the organization.

And if you disagree, they'll just offer you a deal that you cannot refuse.

That seems perfectly rational.

[ERCougar]

I'm just saying that as info was clarified, everyone else seems to have taken the "oh, that's what happened? OK. Maybe the LDS Church didn't do something wrong" approach. And you've really struggled with it.

First - pissed that the LDS church released information. I'm not even sure what you're talking about here. What information? The information about the victim's sketchy past? I'll try this one more time: I came here thinking that the LDS Church likely *didn't* intend for that information to be released. I really don't know how else or how many more times I can explain this, so this will be the last.
Then pissed that the LDS church gave information to Greg Bishop - the perpetrator's son - to be released.See above. I thought it was likely that the attorney gave the information to him without the consent of the Church
Then pissed that the LDS church gave information to Greg Bishop - the perpetrator's attorney - to be released.This looks exactly like what you just said.
Then we spend a little extra time pissed that while it's normal to share that information in a court case - the lawsuit hadn't actually been filed yet, so why are they sharing information during the negotiation stage?Now you're actually with me. I am a little pissed--no, pissed isn't even the right word....surprised?--that they released this information. Yes, I now understand this is standard procedure with your standard corporation with your standard litigation. I guess I think that a Church dealing with sexual assault might hold itself to a bit higher standard than your standard corporation with your standard litigation matter. That seems almost cynical to not be a little surprised at that, but maybe messing with the standard protocol invites more problems than it solves. But you can't blame me (or the vast majority of non attorneys--yes, JL, I know, but just pointing out that I'm not really the outlier here--for feeling a bit of surprise, and even disgust. That's hardly "desperately looking for a reason to hate the church". It's a pretty normal reaction.

And I think that's where we ended up - maybe slightly LESS pissed, but still pissed that maybe the LDS attorney didn't wait until the last possible moment to share the information - which maybe actually IS before a lawsuit is filed but maybe still wasn't, because even if it's legal it doesn't seem ethical or at least not nice to the victim who was "smeared" kinda but not really since the information was all true and correct - and even if it wasn't nice it wasn't done by the LDS church or its representatives but it's still kinda their fault because they did the investigation and passed on the information.

I appreciate that there is a learning process - I asked some questions and learned a few things too. But it sure felt to me like you were just jumping from one reason to be pissed to another without processing what you were learning or stopping to breath in between. We all have our biases. Maybe I should've been more pissed at the beginning and you should've been less pissed and we could've met in the middle.

Sigh.
I don't know if this is worth it, but I'll try one more time.
That isn't the trajectory of my thoughts on this, like at all.

[Topper]

In the end, good seems to be coming out of it. The new procedures will help prevent what happened or at least prevent it from happening as often.

Society is slowing awakening to the frequency of the abuse situations. I thought we learned something in the 80s, but apparently that was the tip of the iceberg. Society may go too far and ignore rights of those accused, but ultimately a zero tolerance attitude is shaping up.

The Bishop situation is tragic, and a corporation will use its legal advantages to minimize exposure. The Board of Trustees have a fiduciary duty of loyalty, due care and obedience to ensure the assets of the corporation are preserved and dedicated to its charitable purpose. Many of these people are former lawyers and will think in these terms. It should come as no surprise that corporate Mormonism reacts in a corporate manner. It also allows the Corporation to negotiate from a position of legal strength, even if it is not negotiating from a position of PR strength. Seattle Ute would do what he could to destroy the Defendant, as would Funk.