Jump to content


New Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Is_this_really_True

  • Rank
    Newbie: Without form, and void

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Dear Kenngo1969. Sorry, I am lost in your logic that goes to this conclusion about a defense. No one in my example was charged with a crime and thus needs a defense. Money, to me, is not on the table. Integrity is. If my tithing or taxes pays for someone’s mistake (not wrong doing, if the traffic cadet told the motorcycle and the car to go at the same time, that is a mistake, unless it was on purpose. I may not want her to have a job in that capacity anymore as this, to me, would be a serious lack of judgement and couple that with the police, we need good judgement people). Integrity mounts a defense against a false accusation by saying I did no wrong and here is why. Integrity also acknowledges when it is wrong. At least 2 possible scenarios. 1. Cadet, working for the BYU police force mistakenly told both to go and was a major contributing factor in the crash, then the cadet acknowledges the mistake and BYU say, yep she works for us and she made a mistake so here is a reasonable settlement. 2. Cadet didn’t tell the car to go but it went anyway and caused an accident. BYU says we are not at fault because the car did not obey the cadet. No settlement. Now anyone can sue anyone, so in #1 if he sues because of the amount then BYU should mount a defense and have a reason why, #2, they are being unfairly accused and mount the defense that it was not their fault. Instead BYU defense is “You filed in the wrong place”, not that you are suing the wrong person or entity. To me, this just says “I am going to try and get out of this any way I can no matter my actual responsibility”. Maybe the motorcyclist went to BYU and said hey, your cadet caused and accident & BYU disagreed. Fine. Mount the defense of BYU on the merits of why they are not at fault, not the way they are doing it. To me, it just speaks poorly of them as an institution as a standard to the world. Don’t be like the world. Your statement “Guilt and liability are determined in courts of law, by judges and/or by juries; it doesn't matter what anyone, a priori, "knows": It only matters what s/he can prove in a court of law.” Disturbs me a little. Guilt is usually known immediately or is soon known after the facts are known. Someone may feel guilt initially but realize they did the best they could. The cadet may feel guilty for the crash and then when the facts come out that the car intentionally went forward anyway, she will realize that she was not responsible. What one knows is the most important thing, then integrity steps in and the person accepts responsibility for their or their company’s actions or inactions. I have acknowledged my limited knowledge and certainly can change my stance based on more knowledge. In the end, the plaintiff is only entitled to damages to them in the amount that equals their non-involvement in the crash. Did the motorcycle speed, no do due diligence and look both ways before entering the street, etc. In my investigations of incidents, I have mostly found that there is responsibility on everyone. If they don’t agree on the amount, sure let that courts have a say but only after the parties all got together and went over the facts and owned up to their part. Some of this is a priori, theoretical. I believe that starts the discussion so that people can learn and then change. We may continue to disagree and that is ok. All parties should try to keep it civil, respectful and stick to the facts the believe or know. Thanks for the comments. I appreciate them.
  2. Unaffiliated I had to answer you on this board because after you asked you question I see it was shutdown and no further replys could be made. How does that happen & why? Was the post so terrible??? Anyway, "Is_that_really_True" is because I have learned that there is WAY more dis-information and rethoritic than truth or thoughtful conversation. I suppose my name could be "Please cite your sources because I will check them for the context of the statement you took out of the article" but that is a little long in the tooth!! so that is my story and I am sticking to it. I was saddened to see it shut down for replies. Whom do I ask about that and also I could not post in General, it was grayed out??? Thanks,
  3. Should Illegal Aliens be able to get temple recommends? The question came up in another website with an interesting answer. I responded to it but it was not published. The gist of the sites response was that if the were paying taxes and supporting a family is was OK, if they were a murder it was not. My response was as follows; A good tactic (website), show and discuss families (who doesn't like families) & then drug dealers/murders (who does like these folks). Polarize us a little more and obscure the discussion. What about children sent here alone? What about teenagers that just rebel and want to get away? What about those that just want to make more money? My ancestors came here as immigrants, the legal way. Wasn't easy, but they did it. Is supporting a family honorable - yes, is it doing it illegally honorable - ???? Changing your conditions where you are and/or the government you live under is not always easy but it can be done as our and other countries histories have shown and benefits everyone, not just yourself.. "Elder Monson, we’ve watched you for 20 years, and we’ve learned we can trust you and your Church because you and your Church teach your members to obey the laws of the land.’” (emphasis added) cited in Examples of Great Teachers,” Liahona, June 2007, 74–80, "the fact that the vast majority of illegal aliens commit multiple job-related felonies, including document/Social Security fraud, perjury on I-9 forms, and, in many cases, identity theft that victimizes an estimated 50,000 Utah children and their families. cited in "Illegal, but Not Undocumented: Identity Theft, Document Fraud and Illegal Employment,” Ronald Mortensen, PhD. I personally have known someone who had their identity stolen. He worked in Washington state and the thief worked in Florida. He could not buy a house, I believe, because his debt load was too great. And why was it too great, because the thief had racked up large charge card bills. If the thief would have defaulted, whom would the police go after? HIM. He had to fly to Florida and prove who he was and then the thief got arrested. I never knew what became of the house buying. The United States and the Church try to fix the problem by giving aid (money, job training, distance education, etc) (and yes I donate to these programs) to the home countries and the church members their. The home country church members need to change their local conditions just like we try to change ours. Obey the law. don't like it, change it. Change can be hard and long but has more lasting effects than running away from problems. So for a person to be a contributing member of society, pay taxes, ect. they have to have a SSN. That was the case in the example I cited above with the house. I have read the responses in another blog in 2011 on this issue but the responses seem to be fairly standard, one camp or the other. Two questions. 1. I wonder about my response to the other website. I don't believe I was critical or demeaning or offensive. The opening statement was a bit harsh, yet this is what I see time and again on issues that people disagree on and I am a bit peeved on the use of these tactics instead of a balanced look. Certainly you can have an agenda and promote your sites ideas, but you should be willing to have civil disagreements. People come to these sites to get knowledge to decide for themselves. If all they see are one sided opinions, how shocking will it be when they learn something different. Sites like this one and the other ones, should encourage open, frank debate. If you think the 12 didn't debate, look at George Q Cannon's journal. A real eye opener. I am probably not 100% right but then neither 100% wrong. If i am wrong in any of my sources, I apologize and will make corrections. 2. Should the illegal alien be able to get a temple recommend after the Bishop and Stake President have interviewed them and received revelation during the interview (they are entitled to that revelation) that they are not dealing honestly with their fellow man?
  4. SMAC97 Maybe it is too simple for me. Lets take the Mallory Case. As I read the Supreme Court case and its non-detailed accident account, I can only guess at a few thing. The appeals court documents I believe support some of my assumptions. Facts as I believe them. 1. Mallory was on a motorcycle and stopped in a parking lot. 2. Traffic cadet Robinson directed Mallory to turn left onto University Ave (Supreme Court description of street). 3. Mallory was injured in a collision with a car due to turning onto the street. There may be many things missing here, I don't have and cannot find, (after googling several times for Mallory, suing BYU, traffic accident, etc.) the police report to see what was written down and even then it may not describe all of the facts. Think recent police reports on shootings and how folks change their stories a little each time they talk about it. Regardless of the court filing and deadlines and with whom he should have filed and when, the facts as i see then, are he followed a BYU traffic cadets directions and was injured by following her direction. By the court case pleadings, BYU is saying, "this is not our fault even though it was caused by one of our people" or worse yet to me "it is our fault but we are not to blame because the claim was not filed properly". BYU appears not take responsibility for the actions of its personnel. I remember an Apostle giving a general conference talk or maybe it was a BYU talk I heard, about a time when he was a lawyer and was represent a time when 2 partners were dissolving a company and on partner positioned himself, via lawyers, to make more money on the sale that the other partner, represented by the GA. His comments were that we should treat each other honestly. To me this is not honest and the GA's have direct authority over BYU. So this is what the GA's are saying to me, "It is our fault but we are not taking responsibility because the law allows us to." Now, does this reasoning have echos of other cases the church is facing or has faced in the past? If I have gotten any of this incorrect, please let me know.
  • Create New...