Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

MormonLeaks does not break the law


Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

From St. Benedict's Dev. Co. v. St. Benedict's Hosp., 811 P.2d 194, 201 (Utah 1991):

So if the LDS Church has its employees sign an employment agreement promising not to disseminate the Church's sensitive internal documents/information, then is there a potential for liability here?

Can Mr. McKnight's website be construed as an effort by him to "intentionally and improperly cause" employees of the Church to breach such a provision in their employment agreement with the Church?

Could Mr. McKnight evade liability by claiming, as he has here, that his website is not a solicitation or inducement for employees of the Church to breach such a provision in their employment agreement with the Church?  That, to me, is an interesting question.  

Back to the St. Benedict case:

In contrast, the Church's employer relationship with its employees is impaired when an employee breaches his/her employment agreement.  Can the Church state a claim that Mr. McKnight's website functions as an inducement/solicitation for Church employees to breach their employment agreement with the Church?

And what about employees that the Church discovers as having sent documents to Mr. McKnight?  If they are fired for their misconduct, and if they were to then approach Mr. McKnight, what would his response be, I wonder?  "Hey, I never formally, technically 'solicited' anything from you personally.  I just set up and run an organization and website that give 'sources and whistleblowers the technical ability to anonymously submit sensitive documents.'  If you engage in the behavior that my website is designed to facilitate, and if that behavior is a breach of your employment agreement, and if you get fired as a result, too bad.  Not my problem.  Go pound sand."

Mighty upstanding guy, this Mr. McKnight.  He's essentially admitted to this possibility ("We break no laws, criminal or civil.  Our sources might be depending on the situation...").

Pac Man was right.  Anyone who trusts Mr. McKnight is kidding themselves.  He may have protected himself legally from the fallout of the behavior he is encouraging from others.  That only speaks to the lack of ethics inherent in his effort.  Him coming here to gloat about how he has insulated himself from legal repercussions while throwing his "sources" under the bus only makes him look worse.

Back to the St. Benedict case:

The "Leigh Furniture test" referenced here is a separate, prior case cited elsewhere in the decision as follows:

Do statements by Mr. McKnight, both on his website and elsewhere (particularly where he brags about having "sources" who are employees of the Church) constitute evidence that Mr. McKnight has "intentionally interfered" with the Church's "contractual relationships" with its employees?  Honestly, I'm not sure.  Perhaps Mr. McKnight can get away with it.  Perhaps he can induce others to do his dirty work for him.  Perhaps he can then get off scot-free while his "sources" who are employed by the Church, who responded to his website, lose their jobs, and while the Church's contractual relationship with its employees is damaged or destroyed.  Perhaps the Church has no remedy at law for what Mr. McKnight is doing.  Perhaps that explains why Mr. McKnight has chosen to come here and gloat about all of this.

-Smac

Boom.

I will note, however, that the improper purpose test has been abrogated under Utah law.  The question for that element is only whether there's an improper means.

Link to comment
Just now, PacMan said:

Boom.

I will note, however, that the improper purpose test has been abrogated under Utah law.  The question for that element is only whether there's an improper means.

Yeah, I was wondering if a 1991 case was still good law.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
44 minutes ago, PacMan said:

IMHO, Mr. McKnight has admitted to enough facts for aiding and abetting the breach of fiduciary duty.  I don't know that he has done so for tortious interference.  But I think it is a colorable claim worth fleshing out in discovery.

Improper purpose? Improper means?

Link to comment
3 hours ago, FearlessFixxer said:

I don't mean for this to be controversial and I hope it doesn't get shut down.

I logged on today and saw there was a thread about me breaking the law. It was already closed so I was unable to respond there.

I don't want to be long-winded because I don't think many people here believe anything I say, something that interestingly highlighted in the linked thread when smac97 says he thinks it is more likely that what I said about taking precautions was not a typo...and interesting train of thought, but I digress.  

We have never solicited or asked for anyone to contact us and send us documents.  Every document we have ever received has been from someone who has initiated the contact with us. The closest thing you can get to us soliciting is the creation of the website, but I don't believe that is soliciting...we can agree to disagree.

Not only do we not solicit, we take precautions even after a source contacts us to not solicit from them.  For example, we once had a source tell us there had a window of time where they could access the church's network and basically download a bunch of drives.  They asked if we wanted them to do that.  We said no.  I suppose that person could have done that without asking us and we would have never known, but they did ask us and we said no.

We break no laws, criminal or civil.  Our sources might be depending on the situation and we have made statements in the past that they should take these things into consideration.

The chance of us being compelled to reveal our sources is nearly zero.  This is typically only possible when dealing with matters of national security.  If you don't believe me, spend the money and go and consult with an attorney that specializes in this field.

There have been two attempts to shut down ML, at least in part.  The first time was the church threatening to sue us if we did not take down copyrighted material.  The second was from the heirs of Bruce McConkie for basically the same thing.  We responded to both with letters from our attorney telling them to go pound sand and that if they continued these types of letters that we would sue them under 17 U.S.C. § 512(f).  To date, both parties have backed off and have not threatened any more lawsuits. 

I am ok with all the folks here that don't like what we are doing or want to call us names.  I get it.  I don't take offense.  At this point, it is more entertaining than anything.  This year at Sunstone we are going to do a live video where we read the craziest criticism we get from people and this board has definitely provided material for that...keep up the good work.

Cheers.

I am definitely in the minority here and I think the church won't take you to court as it would open up a can of worms regarding the church's penchant for secrecy that society at large doesn't believe churches should practice.  So, a court case could blow up in the church's face nationally and worldwide.  In any event, I don't think you are breaking any laws and if there are laws in the future to curtail what you are doing, they should be changed.  Let's have some sunshine. 

Link to comment
1 minute ago, USU78 said:

Improper purpose? Improper means?

Eldridge v. Johndrow, 2015 UT 21, P 14, the Supreme Court of Utah rejected the improper-purpose rule.  Improper means is basically something else illegal, such as breaching a contract, defamation, violation of a privacy right, etc.

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, Exiled said:

I am definitely in the minority here and I think the church won't take you to court as it would open up a can of worms regarding the church's penchant for secrecy that society at large doesn't believe churches should practice.  So, a court case could blow up in the church's face nationally and worldwide.  In any event, I don't think you are breaking any laws and if there are laws in the future to curtail what you are doing, they should be changed.  Let's have some sunshine. 

I think you would be singing a very different tune if you and your private information were being targeted for "transparency" by Mr. McKnight.

But since it's the LDS Church that's in his crosshairs, it's all good?

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
1 minute ago, PacMan said:

Eldridge v. Johndrow, 2015 UT 21, P 14, the Supreme Court of Utah rejected the improper-purpose rule.  Improper means is basically something else illegal, such as breaching a contract, defamation, violation of a privacy right, etc.

Don't you young whippersnappers go counterdicting your elders with your newfangled 2015 cases overturning decades of perfectly good law.

Link to comment
26 minutes ago, LittleNipper said:

The biblical Christian view is that everything Christians do should be open for public observation. Does the Bible say to hide our light under a bushel or place it upon a lamp stand?  Obviously, we are not speaking of meeting secretly where the participants are being arrested for their faith. This was the case in Ancient Rome. However, even Roman soldiers became converts by being witnessed to and brought into church meetings. It is very hard for me to imagine that there are any rituals that Jesus taught to His disciples that He wanted hidden from the public at large simply because they were not "club" members. Christ became the Holy of Holies and the one, only and last perfect sacrifice for all time. And this in fact ended all the repetitious ritualism that was a mere shadow of that which Christ performed in His death, burial, and resurrection. And it is most obvious that the truth of this is revealed by the distortions that some pagans perpetrated --- namely:

That Christians ate their children.

They were unpatriotic to  Caesar/Rome.

Christians' were atheists! 

Of course you ignore the many times Jesus told people NOT to talk about something they witnessed or experienced.....

Link to comment

Edited to be nice:

I've been watching McKnight browse for 20 minutes.  I'm disappointed he left without addressing my rebuttal to his OP.  I think he's wrong and that I demonstrably showed why.

Edited by PacMan
Link to comment
9 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Of course you ignore the many times Jesus told people NOT to talk about something they witnessed or experienced.....

The reason being that Jesus wanted to teach and not simply be seen as some magician. He didn't say anything to Herod for obvious reasons; however, that did not stop people. And He wasn't trying to hide from those seeking after HIM --- nor hide HIS teachings.

Edited by LittleNipper
Link to comment
2 minutes ago, LittleNipper said:

The reason being that Jesus wanted to teach and not simply be seen as some magician. He didn't say anything to Herod for obvious reasons; however, that did not stop people. And He wasn't trying to hide from those seeking after HIM --- nor hide HIS teachings.

Then why do we know virtually nothing of what was taught to the Apostles in his 40 Day post-resurrection ministry. Seems like it might have been important but none of the gospel writers wrote it down...........almost as if they purposely left it out for some reason.

Link to comment
8 minutes ago, PacMan said:

LADIES AND GENTLEMAN, RYAN MCKNIGHT HAS LEFT THE BUILDING!

I've been watching him browse for 20 minutes.  And I'm so disappointed that he left without sharing his deep legal knowledge by adequately (or even inadequately) rebutting my analysis.  In fact, I bet he left to make a telephone call.  This is probably how it's going to go:

  • Ryan McKnight: "Marc, what's this about aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty?  Is that a thing?"
  • Marc Randazza: "I don't know.  I'm not a Utah attorney."
  • Ryan McKnight: "What do you mean you don't know?  Aren't you a First Amendment attorney?"
  • Marc Randazza: "Yeah, but you're talking about Utah tort law.  That's not my thing."
  • Ryan McKnight: "But you're my attorney!  Shouldn't you know about this stuff?"
  • Marc Randazza: "Well . . . ."
  • Ryan McKnight: "Can we sue this PacMan guy, for defamation or something?"
  • Marc Randazza: "Well, he's right.  And you realize I support the First Amendment, right?"
  • Ryan McKnight: "Arghh!  What good are you?" 
  • Marc Randazza: "So, I'm going to need a bigger retainer...."


Well, at least I'll sleep well tonight.  It's more than Mr. McKnight can say.

Maybe Fearless should submit an application of residency to the Embassy of Ecuador, London.

Link to comment
18 minutes ago, Exiled said:

I am definitely in the minority here and I think the church won't take you to court as it would open up a can of worms regarding the church's penchant for secrecy that society at large doesn't believe churches should practice.  So, a court case could blow up in the church's face nationally and worldwide.

1.  The Church will take anyone to court if they have a good case for it.

2.   "So, a court case could blow up in the church's face nationally and worldwide."   This type of hyperbole would make Donald Trump blush.  The reality is 99% of the population in the US does not care and 99.9% of the population of the world does not care.   The vast majority of the population cares more about Kim Kardashian than issues between the LDS Church and ML.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, PacMan said:

Robert, I genuinely enjoy your comments regarding antiquity.  Unfortunately, you are probably out of your area of expertise.  If you have a cogent legal analysis, I'd be happy to hear it.  As of yet, you've offered nothing.  I suggest you go back and look at my OP on the prior thread regarding the aiding and abetting of fiduciary duties and take another stab with appropriate legal citations.

I carefully read your OP at the outset, and my reaction is that the theory is novel and clever, but not applicable.  Perhaps you know of cases in which journalists were successfully sued for aiding and abetting (or criminally prosecuted for such), but I have never heard of such a case.  I have heard just the opposite:   https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014/05/27/glenn-greenwald-nsa-journalists-guardian-government-column/9641677/ .

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, LittleNipper said:

The reason being that Jesus wanted to teach and not simply be seen as some magician. He didn't say anything to Herod for obvious reasons; however, that did not stop people. And He wasn't trying to hide from those seeking after HIM --- nor hide HIS teachings.

Pearls and swine, my friend. 

And as they came down from the mountain, Jesus charged them, saying, Tell the vision to no man, until the Son of man be risen again from the dead."  Matthew 17:9; see also, Mark 1:43-44, Mark 5:43, Mark 7:36, Mark 9:9, Matt 9:30, etc.

That doesn't sound like transparency to me.

Link to comment
3 hours ago, provoman said:

Good thing I did not post "a website". Rather I posted "the website" which in context it is understood what website, and the statement incorporates by reference the totality of the website, in my opinion.

It sure would be nice to see some case law on that.  You know, stare decisis.

Edited by Robert F. Smith
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Paiute said:

Maybe Fearless should submit an application of residency to the Embassy of Ecuador, London.

Edited to be nice:

Out of curiosity, what's he "Fixxing?"

Edited by PacMan
Link to comment
22 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think you would be singing a very different tune if you and your private information were being targeted for "transparency" by Mr. McKnight.

But since it's the LDS Church that's in his crosshairs, it's all good?

Thanks,

-Smac

Smac, my position is that churches are different and should be held to a different standard.  Of course if I were Coke and an employee told Mr. Fixxer the secret formula, I would fight tooth and nail to keep my valuable trade secret confidential.  However, if I were a church, apparently spreading the Word, I would take a different tact and let the sunshine in.  Churches should be like government and sunshine laws should be supreme.

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, PacMan said:

Or at least drop "Fearless" and just go by "Fixxer."

Out of curiosity, what's he "Fixxing?"

fix·er

ˈfiksər/

noun

1. a person who makes arrangements for other people, especially of an illicit or devious kind.

2. a substance used for fixing a photographic image.

Link to comment
30 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Damnation. It is a delayed sentence though so enjoy while you can.

Fearless on the day of judgment when brought before the judgment seat of the Savior plans on telling the Creator of the Universe to pound sand. Then he thinks he'll be admitted to the Celestial Kingdom on a legal technicality.

"I was honest! I was! I was!"

Edited by Paiute
Link to comment
2 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I carefully read your OP at the outset, and my reaction is that the theory is novel and clever, but not applicable.  Perhaps you know of cases in which journalists were successfully sued for aiding and abetting (or criminally prosecuted for such), but I have never heard of such a case.  I have heard just the opposite:   https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014/05/27/glenn-greenwald-nsa-journalists-guardian-government-column/9641677/ .

Robert, you know better than to lead with argumentum ad silentio.

I disagree with your position on whistle-blowers in the federal law and government context.  But that's not what we are talking about.  We are talking about "whistle-blowers" in the state law and private context.

You are effectively arguing that a journalist can know of and even intentionally assist a murder (think publishing a coded message) without repercussion because such is protected as a journalist because he just "reported" it.  Nonsense.  There are exceptions to privilege.  And that exception is the crime-fraud exception.

Whether you are aware or not of this case or another, you are simply incorrect.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...