Tim Ballard's New Rants About the Church

[JVW]

On 12/4/2025 at 3:48 PM, Calm said:

Broke you?  If so, why would you want a personality trait that likely harms those who depend on or love you? (Serious question, you have a way of writing that often makes me quite curious about the way you think, no judgment of it being good or bad, just mysterious to me  )

Let me start by stating this belief I have about power - Those who break the rules are perceived as more powerful than those who don't. The inference here is that if one is truly powerful they have the ability to break rules. Example: a saint who pays tithing every month for their entire life and would have a panic attack if they missed a payment VS a saint who has historically paid whenever they felt like it and consciously choose to pay tithing even though could not without a second thought.

My mother was a powerful person. She could get things done, and she always got things the way she wanted them. She used that power, somewhat naively, in a bad way that damaged me and my siblings probably beyond repair. As I grew up my mother, whether consciously or not, would spend every opportunity trying to break my will until she succeeded at which point I did not have agency anymore. I don't know how much of my personality comes from my mom, but if I ever had any semblance of her powerful personality I don't remember it because she broke me at such a young age.

Because of the trauma I went through I do not really have any childhood or early adolescent memories. Only small fragments. Within a year after my parents divorce when I was 15 I was kicked out by my mom (because her new husband threatened to call the cops on me) and I moved in with my dad. He told me of a time shortly after that when he took me to McDonald's drive thru and asked me what I wanted to which I replied, "Whatever you want me to have." That small event is indicative of the way I had been raised, conditioned, and beaten into.

My life's journey now is twofold:

1) to not want to be dead (as an atheist because I thought ceasing to exist sounded so peaceful, as a theist because I know the afterlife is beyond any happiness I can feel on Earth).

2) to care, to be plugged in, to be passionate and loud and temperamental and have power to effect the changes I want to see in the world. As it stands right now I feel like I'm only 5% there but in reality I'm probably more like 40% there. Though my apathy, poor memory (b/c of lack of strong emotional response to most things), and lack of ability to connect makes me feel like I'm going to end up with Alzheimer's one day.

I want to be powerful and use that power in the right way, to build and uplift those around me, not in the wrong way to produce slavery and misery. Since I have lived through the "how not to do it" I hopefully would be able to avoid those pitfalls that would cause harm. Did that answer your question?

[teddyaware]

1 hour ago, JVW said:

It doesn't matter, what matters is their passion and dedication to their cause and ideals, even if they are evil. From the perspective of my little brain I view most powerful people as worshipping money, so money is their primary motivation and what they think about all day. I don't think that applies to everyone listed above, or on my larger personal list of people who have this drive.

Your view on his motivations is entirely possible. I'm going to take him at his word here as far as what motivates him because that's what I tend to do when it comes to public figures. If they are deceiving it tends to come to light sooner or later.

I’ll repeat myself: If Tim Ballard is indeed guilty, the aggressive legal actions he’s taking against his accusers will almost certainly backfire and expose his criminality. The man is passionately bound and determined to have every piece of evidence brought to light, disclosed, and exposed for all the world to see. Consequently, I’ve come to the conclusion that he’s either convinced of his own innocence or he’s criminally insane. If he is ultimately exonerated, his big mistake was thinking it was a good idea to recruit women who were too emotionally delicate to convincingly play the role of the most extreme kinds of sexual perverts without realizing that they could end up being psychologically traumatized and extremely resentful that he convinced them to degrade and humiliate themselves in pursuit of a “higher good.”

Edited December 8, 2025 by teddyaware

[webbles]

10 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

I’ll repeat myself: If Tim Ballard is indeed guilty, the aggressive legal actions he’s taking against his accusers will almost certainly backfire and expose his criminality. The man is passionately bound and determined to have every piece of evidence brought to light, disclosed, and exposed for all the world to see. Consequently, I’ve come to the conclusion that he’s either convinced of his own innocence or he’s criminally insane. If he is ultimately exonerated, his big mistake was thinking it was a good idea to recruit women who were too emotionally delicate to convincingly play the role of the most extreme kinds of sexual perverts without realizing that they could end up being psychologically traumatized and extremely resentful that he convinced them to degrade and humiliate themselves in pursuit of a “higher good.”

He is not passionate about having all evidence brought to light, discussed, and exposed.  The Celeste Borys case was tossed because of how she gained the evidence, not because of what was in the evidence.  If he was really fine with all evidence being seen, he should have not tried to kill that case at this point.  Yes, she gained the evidence through extremely unethical means, but it shows that Ballard doesn't want the evidence seen.  He is trying to hide the evidence.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, JVW said:

"I always felt safe with Tim and was never abused" that kind of does her in as far as that allegation goes. We'll see how the rest play out.

I haven’t watched it yet and won’t until I get some stuff done.  Based on my experience reading complaints and listening to lawyers promote their clients’ cases (very limited, not an expert), I don’t trust the accuracy of their representation. They don’t have to prove the facts of their case until they are in court.  The complaint may be full of errors, possibly intentional.

So it weakens her position, but it depends on when she wrote it and under what circumstances and if she was coerced to do so, if she can prove that she was coerced or at least pressured by TB.  She wouldn’t be the first or last victim who acted like they are in a great relationship with their predator or even believe it for a time.  Fear can play major games with one’s mind.

Not saying this is for sure, but ruling out she was a victim based on that is premature, imo.

[JVW]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

I haven’t watched it yet and won’t until I get some stuff done.  Based on my experience reading complaints and listening to lawyers promote their clients’ cases (very limited, not an expert), I don’t trust the accuracy of their representation. They don’t have to prove the facts of their case until they are in court.  The complaint may be full of errors, possibly intentional.

So it weakens her position, but it depends on when she wrote it and under what circumstances and if she was coerced to do so, if she can prove that she was coerced or at least pressured by TB.  She wouldn’t be the first or last victim who acted like they are in a great relationship with their predator or even believe it for a time.  Fear can play major games with one’s mind.

Not saying this is for sure, but ruling out she was a victim based on that is premature, imo.

The lawyer video was him reviewing a case that the judge has already ruled on, against the woman, and he shows the timeline and screenshots. He rambles about the Sound of Freedom movie for a few minutes, I didn't like that part, the rest of it was interesting. The email she wrote to the church is around the 15:40 mark.

[Calm]

53 minutes ago, JVW said:

Let me start by stating this belief I have about power - Those who break the rules are perceived as more powerful than those who don't. The inference here is that if one is truly powerful they have the ability to break rules. Example: a saint who pays tithing every month for their entire life and would have a panic attack if they missed a payment VS a saint who has historically paid whenever they felt like it and consciously choose to pay tithing even though could not without a second thought.

My mother was a powerful person. She could get things done, and she always got things the way she wanted them. She used that power, somewhat naively, in a bad way that damaged me and my siblings probably beyond repair. As I grew up my mother, whether consciously or not, would spend every opportunity trying to break my will until she succeeded at which point I did not have agency anymore. I don't know how much of my personality comes from my mom, but if I ever had any semblance of her powerful personality I don't remember it because she broke me at such a young age.

Because of the trauma I went through I do not really have any childhood or early adolescent memories. Only small fragments. Within a year after my parents divorce when I was 15 I was kicked out by my mom (because her new husband threatened to call the cops on me) and I moved in with my dad. He told me of a time shortly after that when he took me to McDonald's drive thru and asked me what I wanted to which I replied, "Whatever you want me to have." That small event is indicative of the way I had been raised, conditioned, and beaten into.

My life's journey now is twofold:

1) to not want to be dead (as an atheist because I thought ceasing to exist sounded so peaceful, as a theist because I know the afterlife is beyond any happiness I can feel on Earth).

2) to care, to be plugged in, to be passionate and loud and temperamental and have power to effect the changes I want to see in the world. As it stands right now I feel like I'm only 5% there but in reality I'm probably more like 40% there. Though my apathy, poor memory (b/c of lack of strong emotional response to most things), and lack of ability to connect makes me feel like I'm going to end up with Alzheimer's one day.

I want to be powerful and use that power in the right way, to build and uplift those around me, not in the wrong way to produce slavery and misery. Since I have lived through the "how not to do it" I hopefully would be able to avoid those pitfalls that would cause harm. Did that answer your question?

Yes, thank you for opening yourself up and sharing. I hope your achieve your dreams in ways that benefit both you and those around you.

[Calm]

29 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

The man is passionately bound and determined to have every piece of evidence brought to light, disclosed, and exposed for all the world to see.

You never encountered someone who promised to get the evidence out for all to see until he was actually in a place of power to do just that and then it didn’t happen for quite some time, maybe even called it a hoax?

Edited December 8, 2025 by Calm

[Calm]

17 minutes ago, webbles said:

He is not passionate about having all evidence brought to light, discussed, and exposed.  The Celeste Borys case was tossed because of how she gained the evidence, not because of what was in the evidence.  If he was really fine with all evidence being seen, he should have not tried to kill that case at this point.  Yes, she gained the evidence through extremely unethical means, but it shows that Ballard doesn't want the evidence seen.  He is trying to hide the evidence.

Very, very good point.

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, JVW said:

The lawyer video was him reviewing a case that the judge has already ruled on, against the woman, and he shows the timeline and screenshots. He rambles about the Sound of Freedom movie for a few minutes, I didn't like that part, the rest of it was interesting. The email she wrote to the church is around the 15:40 mark.

Thanks for the summary. I just can’t go down that rabbit hole right now.   will later. 

[ttribe]

3 hours ago, teddyaware said:

I’ll repeat myself: If Tim Ballard is indeed guilty, the aggressive legal actions he’s taking against his accusers will almost certainly backfire and expose his criminality. The man is passionately bound and determined to have every piece of evidence brought to light, disclosed, and exposed for all the world to see. Consequently, I’ve come to the conclusion that he’s either convinced of his own innocence or he’s criminally insane. If he is ultimately exonerated, his big mistake was thinking it was a good idea to recruit women who were too emotionally delicate to convincingly play the role of the most extreme kinds of sexual perverts without realizing that they could end up being psychologically traumatized and extremely resentful that he convinced them to degrade and humiliate themselves in pursuit of a “higher good.”

Once again, you demonstrate how little you understand the lengths to which conmen will go to maintain their image as being in the right.

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, teddyaware said:

I’ll repeat myself: If Tim Ballard is indeed guilty, the aggressive legal actions he’s taking against his accusers will almost certainly backfire and expose his criminality. The man is passionately bound and determined to have every piece of evidence brought to light, disclosed, and exposed for all the world to see. Consequently, I’ve come to the conclusion that he’s either convinced of his own innocence or he’s criminally insane.

False dichotomy. Set the bar so high for the ‘bad’ outcome and your favored ‘good’ outcome becomes probable by default.

I don’t see how his countersuits are likely to expose him. Discovery is happening with or without the countersuits.

4 hours ago, teddyaware said:

If he is ultimately exonerated, his big mistake was thinking it was a good idea to recruit women who were too emotionally delicate to convincingly play the role of the most extreme kinds of sexual perverts without realizing that they could end up being psychologically traumatized and extremely resentful that he convinced them to degrade and humiliate themselves in pursuit of a “higher good.”

This is just totally wrong. Seriously, read the text exchanges. He wasn’t training anyone to act like a “sexual pervert”. The stuff he was doing was all very vanilla and was ostensibly entirely about him and the woman being able to convince people they were a couple. He was creepily pressing for doing more things to supposedly be better at faking this bond.

As a certified sexual pervert I can say the stuff they were doing wouldn’t make her ready even for the ethical side of the kink world. There was nothing about getting her to act like a predator.

And, of course, it is nonsensically stupid to use this ruse in the first place. You don’t have to have a romantic partner to set up a child predator party. He only did this so he could do this fake flirting thing. I have no idea how far he planned on taking it. Even if it didn’t go all the way guys like Ballard feed on the attention and being desired. My guess if he could get them to go all the way they would.

The only times they were degraded and humiliated were with him. Not in the actual sting. That should show exactly how necessary it was.

It may be time for serious self-examination if you are defending predatory sex pest behavior as a necessary evil to achieve a “higher good”. It is stupid and morally reprehensible.

“Thou shalt not commit adultery or lust after a woman in your heart unless it is part of unnecessary preparatory method acting for a hamfisted sex trafficking sting that won’t put a dent in actual sex trafficking.” -Jesus (probably)

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

You never encountered someone who promised to get the evidence out for all to see until he was actually in a place of power to do just that and then it didn’t happen for quite some time, maybe even called it a hoax?

Something about underage parties on an island somewhere? Something about that rings a bell.

[The Nehor]

7 hours ago, JVW said:

Did you watch the lawyer video he posted? I'd say cliffnotes are if you start at around 15:40 until the end of the video. Considering that she wrote in an email to the church basically "I always felt safe with Tim and was never abused" that kind of does her in as far as that allegation goes. We'll see how the rest play out.

Abuse victims often rationalize away the abuse at first or blame themselves. That is not as vindicating as it sounds.

[Calm]

9 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Something about underage parties on an island somewhere? Something about that rings a bell.

Really?  It was just a pure thought experiment for me.😇

[grapevine]

Now it is called membership restrictions formerly disfellowshipped and withdrawal formerly excommunication.  I don’t think a High Council participates in membership councils formerly disciplinary councils.  Leaders do not say what goes on in those councils.  Respect privacy of the people involved in councils.

 

I am sure most people that need to repent are humble about it and will work with their leaders so the full repentance process can take place.  Since details of councils are kept confidential you won’t hear from leaders there. But the apostates rant about the injustice of the council, things they did wrong on and on.  People that did not make the rules or seek their positions.  That is people that don’t want to repent but find fault with those called to preside over them.

[JVW]

14 hours ago, grapevine said:

Now it is called membership restrictions formerly disfellowshipped and withdrawal formerly excommunication.  I don’t think a High Council participates in membership councils formerly disciplinary councils.  Leaders do not say what goes on in those councils.  Respect privacy of the people involved in councils.

 

I am sure most people that need to repent are humble about it and will work with their leaders so the full repentance process can take place.  Since details of councils are kept confidential you won’t hear from leaders there. But the apostates rant about the injustice of the council, things they did wrong on and on.  People that did not make the rules or seek their positions.  That is people that don’t want to repent but find fault with those called to preside over them.

They recently excommunicated Karen Hyatt described her excommunication experience during an interview on Mormon Stories podcast. She thought it was a great experience and that everyone did the best they could. One thing she described which I thought was fascinating was that councils no longer follow the D&C. They don't divide 6 for and 6 against anymore.

[JustAnAustralian]

4 hours ago, JVW said:

They don't divide 6 for and 6 against anymore.

D&C never specified 6 against. It only ever talked about 6 for.

 But yes, the split is not longer discussed in the handbook. Handbook 32.10.3 now says "7. The bishop or stake president asks for comments or insights from his counselors. If the high council has participated in a stake membership council, he asks for their comments and insights."

Edited December 31, 2025 by JustAnAustralian

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, JustAnAustralian said:

D&C never specified 6 against. It only ever talked about 6 for.

 But yes, the split is not longer discussed in the handbook. Handbook 32.10.3 now says "7. The bishop or stake president asks for comments or insights from his counselors. If the high council has participated in a stake membership council, he asks for their comments and insights."

One more Doctrine and Covenants section we ignore.

[smac97]

Salt Lake Tribune:

Anti-trafficking activist Tim Ballard says LDS Church ‘excommunicated’ him to hide child abuse in the faith

Quote

Anti-trafficking celebrity Tim Ballard is accusing people within The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints of derailing his U.S. Senate bid and booting him from the faith after he brought them what he has called evidence of pedophilia within the religion.

In a nearly four-hour video posted recently on YouTube, Ballard alleges he supplied “an abundance of evidence about child abuse in the church ranks being covered up” to a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, the second highest presiding body of the global church.

Hmm.  I am curious why he has not published this "abundance of evidence."

Quote

Ballard alleges that the church leader told him, “Don’t go down this rabbit hole,” but he said that he “knew that Jesus would condemn me if I didn’t go down this rabbit hole, so I continued.”

“They knew that Senator Ballard would expose that with the power of President [Donald] Trump and the power of “Sound of Freedom” behind me,” Ballard said, referring to the 2023 blockbuster film loosely based on his story. “So they had plenty of reasons to make sure I couldn’t win.”

Okay.  So why not "expose" this information/evidence now?  If the Church wanted this stuff to remain hidden, and if it acted improperly, why is he seemingly aiding and abetting the Church by not publishing what he has?

Quote

Ballard said the church, as a nonprofit, committed criminal offenses by interfering with the election.

Asked to comment, a church spokesperson did not provide a response to Ballard’s latest accusations, some of which echo assertions he made last year, along with a threat to sue the church. It is the first time, however, that Ballard has alleged the faith was attempting to hide child abuse.

The church has repeatedly stated that it has “zero tolerance” for abuse of any kind and that “abuse of a child or any other individual is inexcusable.”

If Ballard's allegations are true, I would want to know about it.  

Seems like Ballard would be vindicated to a substantial degree by publishing.  So far, though, he seems to be both decrying a cover-up and helping to maintain it at the same time.

Quote

In his video, Ballard says that Trump and other Republican leaders had asked him to run for the Senate seat, but he was told before announcing his bid that he received a phone call — he did not say from whom — telling him, “Tim, they’re not going to let you run for Senate” and that someone had paid $10 million to “destroy my life.”

Who is "they?"  Who paid whom $10M?  How was this money supposed to be used to "destroy {his} life?"

Quote

He said individuals at church headquarters, spokesperson Doug Andersen, in particular, conspired to issue a statement to VICE News condemning Ballard for allegedly using the name of then-senior apostle M. Russell Ballard “for Tim Ballard’s personal advantage and [for] activity regarded as morally unacceptable.”

We've all seen the white board photograph that seems to show Ballard characterizing Elder Ballard as a "silent partner" in (Tim) Ballard's money-making endeavors.  AFAICS, so far he has not publicly addressed that photograph.  I am curious as to why.

Quote

In September 2023, Tim Ballard said he was summoned to a meeting with a recently installed stake president — a regional lay leader in the church — and was “excommunicated” from the religion, which now refers to the practice as withdrawal of membership.

The church’s action came after Ballard had been sued by multiple women accusing him of using his campaign against child sex trafficking to lure them in so he could engage in sexual misconduct and assault. Ballard has denied the allegations, and prosecutors in Utah and Salt Lake counties have declined to charge him criminally.

In his church hearing, Ballard asserts the stake president referenced allegations by one woman who Ballard said “doesn’t exist in the real world.”

“I think she does exist in another realm,” he says in the video. “I think she’s an angel from hell that torments these people.”

What is the name of this (non-existent) woman?  

Quote

Mark Eisenhut, an attorney for Ballard, said Tuesday his client stands by what he said in the video and may still file a lawsuit against the church.

“He did intend to sue The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, as he strongly believes they have committed wrongs against him and others,” Eisenhut said. “However, he loves the church and has stood for many years as one of its strongest advocates and, thus far, has chosen not to file a lawsuit.”

According to Ballard, the Church is hiding child abuse and excommunicated Ballard as part of that effort.  Also according to Ballard, he has evidence of the Church's misconduct but is not publishing it.

Ballard is publicly disparaging the Church using some of the most serious allegations of misconduct imaginable.  Also, Ballard is publicly saying he "loves the Church and has stood for many years as one of its strongest advocates," and so has not yet filed a lawsuit against this hiding-child-abuse organization.

Quote

Status of women’s lawsuits

The lawsuit filed by one of Ballard’s accusers, Celeste Borys, was dismissed, but Borys is appealing. The lawsuit brought by five other women is ongoing.

Ballard is suing the accusers for defamation. As part of that lawsuit, attorneys for the accusers filed a brief that included an exhibit with previously unreported allegations by another woman, these in a written recounting of sexual encounters with Ballard, short of intercourse. The former employee of Operation Underground Railroad said he had exploited her belief in the anti-trafficking cause and her isolation to persuade her to engage in the sex acts.

The document had been sent to leaders at Operation Underground Railroad, the anti-trafficking organization Ballard founded, and are the first known sexual misconduct allegations made against Ballard.

The OUR board agreed to pay Ballard a settlement to leave the organization shortly before “Sound of Freedom” was released. The statement from the woman, referred to as “JJ,” was obtained by the attorneys through a subpoena to Matt Osborne, OUR’s former president and chief operating officer.

Hmm.  Looks like there are no filings in this lawsuit (where Ballard is the plaintiff) since April 2026 (but it also looks like it may have been merged into the lawsuit where Ballard and a bunch of others were named as defendants).

In September 2025 the defendant, Amy Davis, filed a raft of notices about subpoenas to various businesses, including "All 4 You" (apparently a South Salt Lake escort business) and requesting that it provide credit card charges made at that establishment by Ballard, OUR, Matthew Osborne, Mike Porenta, Matthew Cooper, The Nazarene Fund and Blain Ballard.  Another subpoena apparently went out to "American Bush" (apparently a South Salt Lake strip club) seeking the same cc information as above.  Other subpoenas, similar to those above, apparently went out to "BP Strippers," "Duces Wild," "Exotic Kitty Gentlemens Club," "Pinky's Cabaret," "Southern X-Posure Chinatown," "The Den," "The Exchange Nightclub," "Trails Gentlemens Club," and "Utah Doll House."  All of these seem to be, shall we say, places of ill repute.  It could be that the attorneys are just casting a wide net, issuing subpoenas to anywhere Ballard and the others mentioned above might have attended.  Or they might have evidence that Ballard et al. really did patronize these places.

In any event, eww.

Also, there are all sorts of "Filed Under Seal" documents in both of these lawsuits, meaning they are not available to the public (as is the default for most cases).  In July 2026, there was this: "**** PRIVATE **** Filed: Motion for Judicial Notice of the Memorandum Decision and Order Entered by United States District Judge Robert J. Shelby (Filed Under Seal)."  I am curious what a federal judge's order has to do with this litigation, and why it was filed under seal.

Also, it looks like the Ballard-as-Defendant lawsuit, in which a bunch of other defendants were named, has had an order entered dismissing all other defendants against Ballard.

Also, it looks like the plaintiffs' attorneys have made some serious mistakes regarding the use and publication of privileged materials.

A bit of a mess.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

 

Edited Thursday at 07:30 PM by smac97

[The Nehor]

51 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Hmm.  I am curious why he has not published this "abundance of evidence."

Same reason those grifters who recently announced they had comprehensive and definitive proof that they had found Noah’s ark (again) but somehow never get around to actually releasing the data. He’s got nothing.

This whole demon woman persecuting me and everyone turned against me and I tried to hold off on incriminating/beating the Church/woman I love thing is standard narcissist and/or abuser behavior and pretty standard mentality. I didn’t want to do it but she left me no choice but to hurt her. On some level he probably even believes it.

[smac97]

21 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Same reason those grifters who recently announced they had comprehensive and definitive proof that they had found Noah’s ark (again) but somehow never get around to actually releasing the data. He’s got nothing.

That is my suspicion as well.

21 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

This whole demon woman persecuting me and everyone turned against me and I tried to hold off on incriminating/beating the Church/woman I love thing is standard narcissist and/or abuser behavior and pretty standard mentality. I didn’t want to do it but she left me no choice but to hurt her. On some level he probably even believes it.

Also, there was a letter uploaded from a former FBI special agent opining about Ballard's "couple's ruse" thing.  A Grok summary of the letter:

Quote

Rogers (Exhibit D) — former FBI undercover opinion. The writer is a retired FBI special agent (1988–2017), former Chief Division Counsel in Oklahoma City and Salt Lake City, former AUSA in the Western District of Texas, a founding member of the FBI’s Child Sex Tourism Team, and Salt Lake undercover coordinator from 2013 until retirement. After reviewing the complaints and Ballard’s media interviews, he concludes the couple’s ruse is not an acceptable technique in child sex tourism or trafficking work.

His reasons: traffickers in Southeast Asia usually meet clients in legal adult clubs and do not surveil where clients stay; in years of that work he never saw a pedophile travel with a spouse, because active offenders hide it from family. There was therefore no operational need to share a room, shower together, get couple’s massages, or pretend to be married. Federal and state undercover rules bar sexual activity between operatives. When he did use a female undercover as a spouse or girlfriend (militia and motorcycle-gang cases), they stayed in separate rooms, followed the no-sex rules, and both were trained, certified operatives. His opinion is that the ruse was an unprofessional, unethical, manipulative device for Ballard’s own sexual gratification, not a scenario designed to make an operation succeed. The letter is dated 16/23/2025 on 2 Shots Private Investigations letterhead.

This has been my assessment of the "ruse" for a while now.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[ttribe]

Where's Teddy? I thought he was Ballard's biggest fan.

[Calm]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

What is the name of this (non-existent) woman?  

If he’s not being sarcastic, but actually believes there’s an evil angel working this way…. (I suspect he is just getting even more carried away with his story).

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

According to Ballard, the Church is hiding child abuse and excommunicated Ballard as part of that effort.  Also according to Ballard, he has evidence of the Church's misconduct but is not publishing it.

Every last person who is affected by this abuse Ballard is not exposing, but using to threaten the Church/publicize himself should sue him into oblivion.

Is it legal to form a class action suit or whatever for unknown individuals to force him to put up or shut up?  To expose his hypocrisy of using victims for his own benefit rather than protecting them and future victims?

Any chance Ballard lives in a mandatory report state?

Edited Thursday at 08:08 PM by Calm

[Calm]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

has had an order entered dismissing all other defendants against Ballard.

Requested or issued by the judge?  And does “against” here mean “besides”?  Ballard is the only remaining defendant?

Edited Thursday at 08:07 PM by Calm

[Calm]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

This has been my assessment of the "ruse" for a while now.  

Oh yeah.