Misuse of Confidential Information - A Public Service Announcement

[Scott Lloyd]

For all the pushback he’s getting here, Pac-Man is apparently one of only two participants in this thread so far with any legal background or training. 

[JulieM]

5 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Sarcasm isn't the same as the anger expressed here by PacMan.....not at all the same.

Thanks ALarson.  I agree!

[JulieM]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

For all the pushback he’s getting here, Pac-Man is apparently one of only two participants in this thread so far with any legal background or training. 

I’ll put my trust in the attorneys that our leaders have hired.  I doubt they’d be impressed with how PacMan has conducted himself here. He’s not a good representation of how we should conduct ourselves in situations such as this, in my opinion.

Edited June 18, 2018 by JulieM

[Scott Lloyd]

5 minutes ago, JulieM said:

I’ll put my trust in the attorneys that our leaders have hired.  I doubt they’d be impressed with how PacMan has conducted himself here.

But you in fact have no idea, do you? They might find the fiduciary theory worth a look. 

Edited June 18, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[JulieM]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

But you in fact have no idea, do you? They might find the fiduciary theory wait a look. 

I imagine they’re aware and would use it if they could!  Maybe they will 😊

[Scott Lloyd]

12 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Sarcasm isn't the same as the anger expressed here by PacMan.....not at all the same.

Sarcasm may or may not reflect anger. I’m saying how it comes across to me in this instance. 

[ALarson]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Sarcasm may or may not reflect anger. I’m saying how it comes across to me in this instance. 

I saw no anger coming from her post....but PacMan's anger and name calling was pretty over the top, IMO.

I feel it's too bad he couldn't refrain from doing that because maybe this would have been an interesting discussion otherwise.  He accused me of dishonesty.  That's wrong to do when I've only been honest with my posts here.  A civil discussion without those tactics could have been good to see on this topic.

Edited June 18, 2018 by ALarson

[Scott Lloyd]

1 minute ago, JulieM said:

I imagine they’re aware and would use it if they could!  Maybe they will 😊

What law school did you attend?

[Scott Lloyd]

Just now, ALarson said:

I saw no anger coming from her post....but PacMan's anger and name calling was pretty over the top, IMO.

So we perceive it differently. No surprise there. 

[SouthernMo]

40 minutes ago, PacMan said:

They strike a nerve because they are dishonest hypocrites. 

Maybe they are, but why so much angst?  Find peace, brother!

[JulieM]

4 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I saw no anger coming from her post....but PacMan's anger and name calling was pretty over the top, IMO.

I feel it's too bad he couldn't refrain from doing that because maybe this would have been an interesting discussion otherwise.  He accused me of dishonesty.  That's wrong to do when I've only been honest with my posts here.  A civil discussion without those tactics could have been good to see on this topic.

All very true.  Thanks.

[Scott Lloyd]

19 minutes ago, ALarson said:

That's one example of something I didn't care for regarding what McKnight has published.  I'm not at all "hard pressed" to come up with either positive or negative information he's published....I just don't have the interest to search for specific leaks.  I did find the bubble chart revealing and interesting (not alarming though....) and some of the videos were interesting to watch (kind of a behind the scenes view.).  Much of what has been leaked isn't all that interesting, IMO.  I admit that I haven't read all the leaks nor do I check McKnight's website, etc....I mainly read here if something is posted about them.  

You said you didn’t support much of what he has done. Yet you have to go looking for examples of what you don’t support. Curious. 

[ALarson]

6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You said you didn’t support much of what he has done. Yet you have to go looking for examples of what you don’t support. Curious. 

I didn't have to "go looking" (I specifically stated that I have no interest in doing that).  You asked for examples and I gave you a few off the top of my head.  If you didn't want examples, don't ask for them.  Like I already said, I haven't followed all of the leaks and also don't agree with much of what they (MormonLeaks) have done but have found a few to be interesting.  There have been some good discussions on the leaks here as well (which is where I've mainly viewed the them or information about them.)

Edited June 18, 2018 by ALarson

[Scott Lloyd]

FYI. I can’t hang around here just now. The mod has said a thread closure is imminent, so I’ll iikely not have opportunity to respond to anything else here. 

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, PacMan said:

Regarding his accepting and publishing confidential information, on June 15, 2018, at 10:10am on a prior thread, FearlessFixxer (Brian McKnight) opined and then conceded "We have done nothing illegal and we take precautions to break the law."

......................  “For harm resulting to a third person from the tortious conduct of another, one is subject to liability if he knows that the other’s conduct constitutes a breach of duty and gives substantial assistance or encouragement to the other so to conduct himself.”  Farm Bureau Life Ins. Co. v. American Nat. Ins. Co., 505 F.Supp.2d 1178, 1189 (D. Utah 2007).  That's called aiding and abetting.

Now, Mr. McKnight admitted to John Dehlin (at about the 39:39 minute mark), "I have sources that are current employees, former employees, ect., all across the board."  He knows where he's getting his information.  Thus, I cannot understand how Mormon Leaks thinks it is not aiding and abetting the breach of Church employees' fiduciary duties to their employer, e.g. duty of loyalty and confidentiality, by giving "substantial assistance or encouragement to [the employee]."

My advice to potential leakers is--don't do it.  If the Church ever filed suit, forcing Mr. McKnight to spill his sources is really easy.  He has no First Amendment protections because it all involves an employer-employee relationship having nothing to do with constitutional protections.  And don't believe Mr. McKnight's nonsense to the contrary.  For instance, Mr. McKnight states that "breaking a nondisclosure [agreement] is not an illegal act."  How foolish.  A nondisclosure agreement is a contract, and breaching a contract is illegal.  It's against the law.  That's why people sue each other over contracts...............

Although it is true that Church employees and their agents may break the law or contractual agreements by disclosing confidential information to the press, the 1st amendment on freedom of the press allows the recipient of such leaked information to use it without fear of prosecution.  McKnight is not in jeopardy, and is not committing an illegal act.  Professional journalists typically refuse to disclose their sources, even when found in contempt by judges.

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I didn't have to "go looking".  You asked for examples and I gave you a few off the top of my head.  If you didn't want example, don't ask for them.  Like I already said, I haven't followed all of the leaks and also don't agree with all that they've done but found a few to be interesting.  There have been some good discussions on them here as well (which is where I've mainly viewed the leaks or information about them.)

You gave one example and said you’d have to look for others. I only asked for two or three things you don’t support. Not difficult if indeed there’s not much he’s done that you do support. 

Edited June 18, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

“Who’s he in trouble with?”

Time will tell, I suppose. 

“It seems to me he maintains it’s all done on the up and up.”

Do you really expect him to “maintain” otherwise? But your implicit trust in his word is touching. 

I'm not sure what the fuss is about.  if he's doing something illegal then perhaps someone ought to do something about it.  If he says he's not, who am I to say otherwise?  for some reason my believing someone else at face value is touching to you.  Perhaps if you practiced seeing people in a little more positive light you would see the benefit of it.  Don't knock it until you try it, I suppose.

What items up on Mormonleaks are purported to be there illegally?  What source for each of these items broke a contract or law?  This is kind of silly.  All these hostile comments and no actual substance.  Pacman made a couple of connections..."oh he has sources that work for the church...oh then there must be something illegal to all of this because church employees can't leak anything."  We don't know what leaks came from employees, nor whether any leaks from any unnamed employee was illegal.  

[ALarson]

6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You gave one example and said you’d have to look for others. I only asked for two or three things you don’t support. Not difficult if indeed there’s not much he’s done that you do support. 

I stated I didn't have an interest in searching for or looking through all the leaks.

I gave more than two or three examples of what I'd remembered....ones I disagreed with and a few I found of interest.  I really disliked any of the leaks regarding what a person earned or giving personal information, for example.  I do think they are much more careful to redact names and personal information now.

Edited June 18, 2018 by ALarson

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Although it is true that Church employees and their agents may break the law or contractual agreements by disclosing confidential information to the press, the 1st amendment on freedom of the press allows the recipient of such leaked information to use it without fear of prosecution.  McKnight is not in jeopardy, and is not committing an illegal act.  Professional journalists typically refuse to disclose their sources, even when found in contempt by judges.

Freedom of the press is not unlimited. Pac-Man May have hit on a limitation that passes legal muster. 

[HappyJackWagon]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Freedom of the press is not unlimited. Pac-Man May have hit on a limitation that passes legal muster. 

Great. Set a countdown timer and lets look at it in a year to see if anything happens and the church succeeds by taking PacMan's suggestion to litigate against McKnight. Then we'll see if it passes legal muster.

 

[ALarson]

1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Great. Set a countdown timer and lets look at it in a year to see if anything happens and the church succeeds by taking PacMan's suggestion to litigate against McKnight. Then we'll see if it passes legal muster.

 

Those countdown timers haven't always worked out so well in the past....just sayin....

[JulieM]

13 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I'm not sure what the fuss is about.  if he's doing something illegal then perhaps someone ought to do something about it.  If he says he's not, who am I to say otherwise?  for some reason my believing someone else at face value is touching to you.  Perhaps if you practiced seeing people in a little more positive light you would see the benefit of it.  Don't knock it until you try it, I suppose.

What items up on Mormonleaks are purported to be there illegally?  What source for each of these items broke a contract or law?  This is kind of silly.  All these hostile comments and no actual substance.  Pacman made a couple of connections..."oh he has sources that work for the church...oh then there must be something illegal to all of this because church employees can't leak anything."  We don't know what leaks came from employees, nor whether any leaks from any unnamed employee was illegal.  

I agree that there are a lot of unsubstantiated claims and accusations on this thread.  Good points.

[Scott Lloyd]

18 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I stated I didn't have an interest in searching for or looking through all the leaks.

I gave more than two or three examples of what I'd remembered....ones I disagreed with and a few I found of interest.  I really disliked any of the leaks regarding what a person earned or giving personal information, for example.  I do think they are much more careful to redact names and personal information now.

Right. So you can only come with one at the moment you  disapprove of.  Yet you purported to not see much he has done that you do support. That leaves a wide field from which you thus far can only identify one example. 

Just trying to clarify the matter. 

Edited June 18, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[JulieM]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Right. So you can only come with one at the moment you disappprove. Yet you purported to not see much he has done that you do support. That leaves a wide field from which you thus far can only identify one example. 

Looks like more than one!  All those containing wages or personal information are more than just one, right?

Edited June 18, 2018 by JulieM

[Scott Lloyd]

12 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Great. Set a countdown timer and lets look at it in a year to see if anything happens and the church succeeds by taking PacMan's suggestion to litigate against McKnight. Then we'll see if it passes legal muster.

 

I’m not at all certain it will pass muster. I’m just saying I think it’s worth consideration. 

I’m not an attorney. Are you?