Notatbm Posted February 12 Posted February 12 (edited) 2 hours ago, webbles said: Van Komen is talking about the Family Services records. Those are destroyed every day. There are no records of those. But Rytting isn't using those. We know that the call logs are kept. No one has ever said those are destroyed. They have been used in multiple cases (both the West Virginia and the Bisbee case used them). We also have absolutely no idea if there are records being stored by the attorneys. It seems like there are records of those kept around but the only people with access to them are the lawyers. And Van Komen isn't a lawyer so he wouldn't know. Rytting isn't lying. Rytting stated he would check the “helpline” records. Vankomen under oath stated he is not only authorized to speak for the church. But that the “helpline” and “hotline” are the same thing and it is a division of lds family services: “ A. No. 21 Q. Okay. Category Number 1 in this document 22 is "The Abuse Help Line, formerly and/or currently 23 at: 1-800-453-3860, [extension] 1911, or its 24 subsequent form/call line...." It designates 25 subcategories. 1 Are you qualified to speak on behalf of 2 this category regarding the Help Line today? 3 MR. MALEDON: Object to the form. 4 A. I don't know what you mean "qualified." 5 Q. Are you familiar with the Abuse Help Line? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. Were you at all a part of the Help Line's 8 creation? 9 A. No. 10 Q. Okay. When was the LDS Help Line created? 11 A. In 1995 … 5 Q. Okay. Are you familiar with any policies 6 regarding the Help Line that have changed from its 7 creation to 2010? 8 A. I am not aware of any. 9 Q. I may today refer to it as "the Help Line" 10 or the "Hotline." I'm not trying to distinguish 11 anything, but I want to confirm with you that you'll 12 know that we're still talking about this 1-800 number 13 if I refer to it as either. 14 Is that okay with you? 15 A. That's fine. 16 Q. Okay. That is, unless there is something 17 separate in The LDS Church that is the "hotline" 18 versus the "Help Line." It's my understanding that 19 that's not the case. 20 Is that your understanding as well? 21 MR. MALEDON: Object to the form. 22 A. The Help Line is the Abuse Help Line that I 23 know of. 24 Q. Okay. Perfect. Has the number changed 25 since the Help Line's creation in 1995?” Anyway… helpline and hotline is same thing. Ryttling knows that.. and he knows no records are kept … the spokesman for the church can omen said so. Ryttling is just blowing smoke. Edited February 12 by Notatbm
Pyreaux Posted February 12 Posted February 12 (edited) 1 hour ago, Notatbm said: Rytting stated he would check the “helpline” records. Vankomen under oath stated he is not only authorized to speak for the church. But that the “helpline” and “hotline” are the same thing and it is a division of lds family services: “ A. No. 21 Q. Okay. Category Number 1 in this document 22 is "The Abuse Help Line, formerly and/or currently 23 at: 1-800-453-3860, [extension] 1911, or its 24 subsequent form/call line...." It designates 25 subcategories. 1 Are you qualified to speak on behalf of 2 this category regarding the Help Line today? 3 MR. MALEDON: Object to the form. 4 A. I don't know what you mean "qualified." 5 Q. Are you familiar with the Abuse Help Line? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. Were you at all a part of the Help Line's 8 creation? 9 A. No. 10 Q. Okay. When was the LDS Help Line created? 11 A. In 1995 … 5 Q. Okay. Are you familiar with any policies 6 regarding the Help Line that have changed from its 7 creation to 2010? 8 A. I am not aware of any. 9 Q. I may today refer to it as "the Help Line" 10 or the "Hotline." I'm not trying to distinguish 11 anything, but I want to confirm with you that you'll 12 know that we're still talking about this 1-800 number 13 if I refer to it as either. 14 Is that okay with you? 15 A. That's fine. 16 Q. Okay. That is, unless there is something 17 separate in The LDS Church that is the "hotline" 18 versus the "Help Line." It's my understanding that 19 that's not the case. 20 Is that your understanding as well? 21 MR. MALEDON: Object to the form. 22 A. The Help Line is the Abuse Help Line that I 23 know of. 24 Q. Okay. Perfect. Has the number changed 25 since the Help Line's creation in 1995?” Anyway… helpline and hotline is same thing. Ryttling knows that.. and he knows no records are kept … the spokesman for the church can omen said so. Ryttling is just blowing smoke. Do they delete everything? No. If they did, they would not have been able to refute Beau Oyler's claims with 11-year-old data. Rytting’s statement might actually be accurate. The Church’s recent actions (like the Beau Oyler rebuttal) prove that records do exist. How could Van Komen have meant they don't keep any records, while the Church Newsroom publishes details from a call 11 years ago? Van Komen was a director at Family Services (Clinical Records). He likely meant that the social workers do not keep a permanent clinical file on the caller. The calls are routed through Kirton McConkie (Legal Records). Lawyers almost always keep a log of calls and the advice given to maintain their own liability records and conflict of interest checks. Rytting works for Risk Management. Risk Management keeps its own files on potential or ongoing lawsuits. If a call to the help line results in a legal file being opened, that file exists independently of the "help line notes." The "raw notes", the scratchpad paper used during the call, might be destroyed daily to protect privacy, but an administrative summary is often entered into a database. This summary isn't a transcript, but it would include the date, the caller’s name, and the general outcome. Whatever way, Rytting must be right, and Notatbm must be wrong. If Rytting were truly blowing smoke and no records exist at all, the Church would have had no way to rebut Beau Oyler with specific dates and the names of the people he talked to. The Church clearly has a database or a log system, a legal or risk management log, just not the social worker's notepad. Edited February 12 by Pyreaux 1
webbles Posted February 12 Posted February 12 7 hours ago, Notatbm said: Rytting stated he would check the “helpline” records. Vankomen under oath stated he is not only authorized to speak for the church. But that the “helpline” and “hotline” are the same thing and it is a division of lds family services: “ A. No. 21 Q. Okay. Category Number 1 in this document 22 is "The Abuse Help Line, formerly and/or currently 23 at: 1-800-453-3860, [extension] 1911, or its 24 subsequent form/call line...." It designates 25 subcategories. 1 Are you qualified to speak on behalf of 2 this category regarding the Help Line today? 3 MR. MALEDON: Object to the form. 4 A. I don't know what you mean "qualified." 5 Q. Are you familiar with the Abuse Help Line? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. Were you at all a part of the Help Line's 8 creation? 9 A. No. 10 Q. Okay. When was the LDS Help Line created? 11 A. In 1995 … 5 Q. Okay. Are you familiar with any policies 6 regarding the Help Line that have changed from its 7 creation to 2010? 8 A. I am not aware of any. 9 Q. I may today refer to it as "the Help Line" 10 or the "Hotline." I'm not trying to distinguish 11 anything, but I want to confirm with you that you'll 12 know that we're still talking about this 1-800 number 13 if I refer to it as either. 14 Is that okay with you? 15 A. That's fine. 16 Q. Okay. That is, unless there is something 17 separate in The LDS Church that is the "hotline" 18 versus the "Help Line." It's my understanding that 19 that's not the case. 20 Is that your understanding as well? 21 MR. MALEDON: Object to the form. 22 A. The Help Line is the Abuse Help Line that I 23 know of. 24 Q. Okay. Perfect. Has the number changed 25 since the Help Line's creation in 1995?” Anyway… helpline and hotline is same thing. Ryttling knows that.. and he knows no records are kept … the spokesman for the church can omen said so. Ryttling is just blowing smoke. Yes, the helpline and the hotline are the same thing. I don't see what that has to do with anything. There are 3 types of records. I don't know why you are ignoring that. There are the call logs which we absolutely do have. In that affidavit, they reference the call logs (the attorneys refer to it as the "privilege log"). So it makes no sense to say that Van Komen said there were no call logs when they talk about the call logs in the same affidavit. There are the Family Service notes. This is what Van Komen is talking about. This is what is destroyed. He solely talks about what he and his colleagues at the Family Services do. And then there are attorney records. We have no insight into them. They are protected by attorney/client privilege. In that affidavit, the plaintiff attorney tries several questions to get information about what the attorneys might have and is either rebuffed with a privilege objection or Van Komen says he doesn't know. It would appear that there are records that the attorneys keep and that is what Rytting is possibly using (though the call log seems to be enough for his comment to Chelsea). This new announcement from the church definitely looks like it is using some sort of attorney record. So it makes it more likely that those are being kept. 3
Notatbm Posted February 12 Posted February 12 7 hours ago, Pyreaux said: Do they delete everything? No. If they did, they would not have been able to refute Beau Oyler's claims with 11-year-old data. Rytting’s statement might actually be accurate. The Church’s recent actions (like the Beau Oyler rebuttal) prove that records do exist. How could Van Komen have meant they don't keep any records, while the Church Newsroom publishes details from a call 11 years ago? Van Komen was a director at Family Services (Clinical Records). He likely meant that the social workers do not keep a permanent clinical file on the caller. The calls are routed through Kirton McConkie (Legal Records). Lawyers almost always keep a log of calls and the advice given to maintain their own liability records and conflict of interest checks. Rytting works for Risk Management. Risk Management keeps its own files on potential or ongoing lawsuits. If a call to the help line results in a legal file being opened, that file exists independently of the "help line notes." The "raw notes", the scratchpad paper used during the call, might be destroyed daily to protect privacy, but an administrative summary is often entered into a database. This summary isn't a transcript, but it would include the date, the caller’s name, and the general outcome. Whatever way, Rytting must be right, and Notatbm must be wrong. If Rytting were truly blowing smoke and no records exist at all, the Church would have had no way to rebut Beau Oyler with specific dates and the names of the people he talked to. The Church clearly has a database or a log system, a legal or risk management log, just not the social worker's notepad. Ryttling stated he would check the helpline records. Vankomen was very clear in the deposition the “helpline” does not keep record of the calls. They destroy them. Any call routed to the lawyers (Ryttling office) he assumed they kept privileged records. Ryttling knows there are no records to check at the helpline. His own office is the one with any call records. Vankomen was very clear the family services office is independent of kirton mckonkie and he could not speak for their record keeping. read the transcript of the deposition. Weebles ( thank you) provided that and after reading it you can see how much of a mess this place is. Administratively they are operating in the Stone Age.
Pyreaux Posted February 12 Posted February 12 24 minutes ago, Notatbm said: Ryttling stated he would check the helpline records. Vankomen was very clear in the deposition the “helpline” does not keep record of the calls. They destroy them. Any call routed to the lawyers (Ryttling office) he assumed they kept privileged records. Ryttling knows there are no records to check at the helpline. His own office is the one with any call records. Vankomen was very clear the family services office is independent of kirton mckonkie and he could not speak for their record keeping. read the transcript of the deposition. Weebles ( thank you) provided that and after reading it you can see how much of a mess this place is. Administratively they are operating in the Stone Age. It seems like you're playing a very specific game of "gotcha" with the semantics. In the legal world, destroying informal notes while keeping a formal summary is high-level risk management, not incompetence. Your portrayal of the Church as disorganized to make Rytting look like a liar is completely deflated by the Beau Oyler case. If the Church was really keeping no records, they wouldn't have been able to produce a detailed timeline of calls from 2013 to publicly correct a former bishop. The records of the "Help Line" calls exist. The Church has clearly demonstrated they have a centralized way to retrieve the history of these calls when they need to defend themselves. 2
Notatbm Posted February 12 Posted February 12 (edited) 48 minutes ago, Pyreaux said: It seems like you're playing a very specific game of "gotcha" with the semantics. In the legal world, destroying informal notes while keeping a formal summary is high-level risk management, not incompetence. Your portrayal of the Church as disorganized to make Rytting look like a liar is completely deflated by the Beau Oyler case. If the Church was really keeping no records, they wouldn't have been able to produce a detailed timeline of calls from 2013 to publicly correct a former bishop. The records of the "Help Line" calls exist. The Church has clearly demonstrated they have a centralized way to retrieve the history of these calls when they need to defend themselves. Van komen must be lying in his deposition then… he stayed very clearly thehelpline / hotline doesn’t keep any records of calls at all. He said the kirton mckonkie has records. why Ryttling would say he would check records he knows do not exist is beyond me. read the deposition. You will see what a confused mess that place is. Van komen is probably the only one who knows what goes on there. Edited February 12 by Notatbm
Pyreaux Posted February 12 Posted February 12 6 minutes ago, Notatbm said: Van komen must be lying in his deposition then… he stayed very clearly thehelpline / hotline doesn’t keep any records of calls at all. He said the kirton mckonkie has records. why Ryttling would say he would check records he knows do not exist is beyond me. read the deposition. You will see what a confused mess that place is. Van komen is probably the only one who knows what goes on there. Van Komen's testimony is actually very precise. In a legal deposition, you only answer for your own department. Van Komen isn't lying, and Rytting isn't either. They are simply on two different ends of the phone line. The deposition shows, from a legal defense perspective, it is highly organized. A Bishop calls the number. A social worker gives clinical advice. The notes are destroyed daily, so, there is nothing to subpoena. Then a lawyer gives legal advice. Those records are kept under Attorney-Client Privilege. If the Church is sued or accused of lying later, they unlock those privileged records to defend themselves. That is not a mess, it's a very sophisticated system. The Church is a brilliant multi-billion dollar global entity. We have proof they don't lose records, they just stored them in the legal department. 3
Notatbm Posted February 12 Posted February 12 48 minutes ago, Pyreaux said: Van Komen's testimony is actually very precise. In a legal deposition, you only answer for your own department. Van Komen isn't lying, and Rytting isn't either. They are simply on two different ends of the phone line. The deposition shows, from a legal defense perspective, it is highly organized. A Bishop calls the number. A social worker gives clinical advice. The notes are destroyed daily, so, there is nothing to subpoena. Then a lawyer gives legal advice. Those records are kept under Attorney-Client Privilege. If the Church is sued or accused of lying later, they unlock those privileged records to defend themselves. That is not a mess, it's a very sophisticated system. The Church is a brilliant multi-billion dollar global entity. We have proof they don't lose records, they just stored them in the legal department. Did you read the deposition? It is clearly a confused mess there. The only thing that isn’t confusing is they destroy their records. The rest they just throw jello on the wall to see what sticks. They do not have a policy manual even… since 1995 no written policy. Amateur hour or plausible deniability.
Pyreaux Posted February 12 Posted February 12 13 minutes ago, Notatbm said: Did you read the deposition? It is clearly a confused mess there. The only thing that isn’t confusing is they destroy their records. The rest they just throw jello on the wall to see what sticks. They do not have a policy manual even… since 1995 no written policy. Amateur hour or plausible deniability. I read the snippet you've shared. It looks like a textbook example of a legal discovery battle. In the legal world, this is often a strategy called "I don't know" testimony. If a witness can be accused of a lie, a witness says "I don't know what you mean by 'qualified'" they provide a smaller target for the opposing lawyer. You are assuming the witness’s apparent lack of specific, written knowledge is proof the Church is disorganized or deceptive. It's possible there may not be a manual, but unwritten protocols. The policy could actually be very simple and has remained the same for 30 years. 1
Notatbm Posted February 12 Posted February 12 (edited) 1 hour ago, Pyreaux said: I read the snippet you've shared. It looks like a textbook example of a legal discovery battle. In the legal world, this is often a strategy called "I don't know" testimony. If a witness can be accused of a lie, a witness says "I don't know what you mean by 'qualified'" they provide a smaller target for the opposing lawyer. You are assuming the witness’s apparent lack of specific, written knowledge is proof the Church is disorganized or deceptive. It's possible there may not be a manual, but unwritten protocols. The policy could actually be very simple and has remained the same for 30 years. By saying I don’t know when you actually do.. that is called “lying” I was taught in the church to not lie. I would think the same would apply to temple recommend holding high priests but maybe I’m a bit naive. carefully worded denial comes to mind .. that is the example our prophet set so why not? Edited February 12 by Notatbm
webbles Posted February 12 Posted February 12 5 hours ago, Notatbm said: Ryttling stated he would check the helpline records. Vankomen was very clear in the deposition the “helpline” does not keep record of the calls. They destroy them. Any call routed to the lawyers (Ryttling office) he assumed they kept privileged records. Ryttling knows there are no records to check at the helpline. His own office is the one with any call records. Vankomen was very clear the family services office is independent of kirton mckonkie and he could not speak for their record keeping. read the transcript of the deposition. Weebles ( thank you) provided that and after reading it you can see how much of a mess this place is. Administratively they are operating in the Stone Age. Oh, I see what you are trying to say. You think that Rytting and Van Komen are talking about the same records because they both talk about the helpline. But the helpline can call both Family Services employees and McConkie lawyers. As the privilege log for the Bisbee case shows, there are times that the call goes directly to the attorneys and doesn't go through any social worker. So, the Family Services notes are NOT the only helpline records. Van Komen is talking about the records that he knows about. He is not talking about other helpline records that might exist. Rytting isn't talking about the Family Services notes when he talks about the helpline records. Also, have you seen the call log (aka privilege log)? Here's the one from the Bisbee case - https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/22277029-mormon-church-help-line-call-logs/. You'll want to go to page 260/261. It has a "Description of Entry" which discusses a short item about it. So the first entry says "Initial Case Summary based on conversation between Merrill Nelson (A) and Bp. John Herrod". There's another one that says "Note discussing Merrill Nelson's (A) conversation with Bp. John Herrod." There's one that says "Summary of Merrill Nelson's (A) call with SP Kevin Goates". Notice how we have summaries and notes? We don't know whether they destroy them or not but it looks like they don't. That is the helpline records that Rytting is using. 2
Pyreaux Posted February 12 Posted February 12 1 hour ago, Notatbm said: By saying I don’t know when you actually do.. that is called “lying” I was taught in the church to not lie. I would think the same would apply to temple recommend holding high priests but maybe I’m a bit naive. carefully worded denial comes to mind .. that is the example our prophet set so why not? There is a distinct difference between lying and how a witness is instructed to speak in a deposition. To say "I don't know" if they aren't 100% certain of a specific fact, isn't seen as lying in the law, it's actually avoiding lying and perjury by not guessing or speaking for a department (like Legal) that they don't actually manage. 3
Notatbm Posted February 13 Posted February 13 (edited) 17 hours ago, Pyreaux said: There is a distinct difference between lying and how a witness is instructed to speak in a deposition. To say "I don't know" if they aren't 100% certain of a specific fact, isn't seen as lying in the law, it's actually avoiding lying and perjury by not guessing or speaking for a department (like Legal) that they don't actually manage. Read again what I wrote- By saying “ I don’t know” when you actually do.. that is called “lying” Edited February 13 by Notatbm
webbles Posted February 13 Posted February 13 1 hour ago, Notatbm said: Read again what I wrote- By saying “ I don’t know” when you actually do.. that is called “lying” Where in the deposition do you believe his "I don't know" is actually lying? I've read it a few times and I seem to be missing this part that you are talking about. 1
Notatbm Posted February 13 Posted February 13 (edited) 20 hours ago, webbles said: Oh, I see what you are trying to say. You think that Rytting and Van Komen are talking about the same records because they both talk about the helpline. But the helpline can call both Family Services employees and McConkie lawyers. As the privilege log for the Bisbee case shows, there are times that the call goes directly to the attorneys and doesn't go through any social worker. So, the Family Services notes are NOT the only helpline records. Van Komen is talking about the records that he knows about. He is not talking about other helpline records that might exist. Rytting isn't talking about the Family Services notes when he talks about the helpline records. Also, have you seen the call log (aka privilege log)? Here's the one from the Bisbee case - https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/22277029-mormon-church-help-line-call-logs/. You'll want to go to page 260/261. It has a "Description of Entry" which discusses a short item about it. So the first entry says "Initial Case Summary based on conversation between Merrill Nelson (A) and Bp. John Herrod". There's another one that says "Note discussing Merrill Nelson's (A) conversation with Bp. John Herrod." There's one that says "Summary of Merrill Nelson's (A) call with SP Kevin Goates". Notice how we have summaries and notes? We don't know whether they destroy them or not but it looks like they don't. That is the helpline records that Rytting is using. Yes... Rytting is an attorney for the church and does not take hotline/helpline calls (which as we know the notes for are destroyed), he goes around the country writing checks to pay off victims. The problem is he is dishonest in dealing with Chelsea and what he says to her. Perhaps he is confused with what different records and notes are called, but I highly doubt he is that dumb. He knows who keeps records and who doesnt. Ryttings statement about how he presents himself and the "checking" with the helpline is troubling in three respects: 1- In one of the meetings, Paul was asked if he was representing the church as an attorney. This is what he said: Eric Alberdi: Is it fair to say that you’re representing the church corporation as a paid attorney, I assume, in this meeting or not? Paul Rytting: No, I’m a church employee. I have a legal background. My job is with the church’s risk management division. Rytting is a paid attorney for the church. His Linkdin profile shows him continuously in that status for 34 ish years. He is literally a lawyer and has been such since 1991 in Utah according to their Bar records: Utah State Bar ID Number: 6027 Since 1991 He is the DIRECTOR of risk management. Interesting how he calls being an attorney "a legal background" and basically words his response to imply yea he is some sort of para-legal or whatever instead of really being an actual lawyer. It isn't a very honest response and it is designed to take people off-guard because no one trusts any lawyer except for their own. He must have listened to Dallin Oaks talk on duty to disclose AKA lying without lying. As an attorney working for the church he knows darn well his number one mission is to protect the "good name of the church" whatever that may entail. If in his travels he runs into info that exposes the church to liability his mission is to defend the church however that may be done. The notion of him saying he isnt a paid attorney for the church is a total lie. 2- Rytting knows helpline does not keep notes. The Goodrich case is in possession of the church attorneys and as a rep of the church who is out writing checks, he likely is highly educated in the details of these cases as he is meeting with victims and is negotiating settlements. He knows the details of the cases. Why offer to check something he knows does not exist. His job is to write a check and get another mess cleaned off the church's table. As for him thinking Kirton McKonkie's records are helpline notes??? I highly doubt that. 3- Rytting stated he would check with the helpline notes to see if the suspect had confessed to his Bishop... What?? Who does he think he is by offering to violate clergy/penitent privilege by checking a record for a confession and sharing it with the victim? He didnt say he would share what he found, but if he didnt intend on sharing the info, why even say something? The link you provided is a law firms privilege log and all the entries are by attorneys it would seem. None of them show any kind of commentary of a call to the helpline. Sure a call may have come from there, but the log does not say that. Anyway Rytting has probably found he is more effective over the years by presenting this way, but it is patently dishonest how he presents himself. Also looking for a confession to a bishop in the helpline notes??? What business is it of his or Chelsea? Edit: Just adding here re the link and the "Summary of Merrill Nelson's (A) call with SP Kevin Goates" comment. This is not a helpline call center note, it is a record of the call between the stake president and the attorney Merrill..and it is privileged and those are notes belonging to Kirton McKonkie. Edited February 13 by Notatbm
Notatbm Posted February 13 Posted February 13 (edited) 1 hour ago, webbles said: Where in the deposition do you believe his "I don't know" is actually lying? I've read it a few times and I seem to be missing this part that you are talking about. It isn't there. It was part of the whole rytting / vanKomen contradiction discussion where Rytting is stating he will check helpline records while we have another guy representing the church stating the helpline doesn't keep any call records. It was maintained by Pyreaux Rytting didn't lie to Chelsea about checking help line call records, but we have contradictory statements by church representatives in regards to whether helpline records are destroyed or not. This is what the whole controversy is about. Church reps are not on the same sheet of music and they are basically creating a scenario where they can be accused of lying. I understand the deposition itself and also never accused Van Komen of lying. This is what I wrote: "Van komen must be lying in his deposition then… he stayed very clearly the helpline / hotline doesn’t keep any records of calls at all." Basically since the two have made different statements about the helpline notes, obviously Van Komen is lying since Rytting is allegedly not lying. Both of their statements cannot be true at the same time. It was a smart alec comment to describe the absurdity of how church reps contradicting each other. It wasnt meant to be taken seriously but apparenlty some folks need a "/S" tag after such statements because they don't have a sense of humor. Pyreaux thinks the privilege log and helpline call notes are the same thing: This is what a privilege log is: A privilege log is a mandatory legal document in US litigation, often required under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(5)(A), that identifies documents withheld from discovery due to privilege (e.g., attorney-client privilege, work product). It lists key metadata—date, author, recipients, and subject matter—without revealing the protected content. That is not the same as helpline call notes. Rytting should know that and needs to change how he describes things. Also if Rytting were to offer up Privilege log notes he would be opening up another can of worms. Edited February 13 by Notatbm
JVW Posted February 13 Posted February 13 11 minutes ago, Notatbm said: It isn't there. It was part of the whole rytting / vanKomen contradiction discussion where Rytting is stating he will check helpline records while we have another guy representing the church stating the helpline doesn't keep any call records. It was maintained by Pyreaux Rytting didn't lie to Chelsea about checking help line call records, but we have contradictory statements by church representatives in regards to whether helpline records are destroyed or not. This is what the whole controversy is about. Church reps are not on the same sheet of music and they are basically creating a scenario where they can be accused of lying. I understand the deposition itself and also never accused Van Komen of lying. This is what I wrote: "Van komen must be lying in his deposition then… he stayed very clearly the helpline / hotline doesn’t keep any records of calls at all." Basically since the two have made different statements about the helpline notes, obviously Van Komen is lying since Rytting is allegedly not lying. Both of their statements cannot be true at the same time. It was a smart alec comment to describe the absurdity of how church reps contradicting each other. It wasnt meant to be taken seriously but apparenlty some folks need a "/S" tag after such statements because they don't have a sense of humor. Pyreaux thinks the privilege log and helpline call notes are the same thing: This is what a privilege log is: A privilege log is a mandatory legal document in US litigation, often required under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(5)(A), that identifies documents withheld from discovery due to privilege (e.g., attorney-client privilege, work product). It lists key metadata—date, author, recipients, and subject matter—without revealing the protected content. That is not the same as helpline call notes. Rytting should know that and needs to change how he describes things. Also if Rytting were to offer up Privilege log notes he would be opening up another can of worms. Dude, shut up. You are being obstinate and disingenuous. What even is your point? Your butthurt because people did deposition stuff and records were released to discredit slanderous claims?
webbles Posted February 13 Posted February 13 56 minutes ago, Notatbm said: It isn't there. It was part of the whole rytting / vanKomen contradiction discussion where Rytting is stating he will check helpline records while we have another guy representing the church stating the helpline doesn't keep any call records. It was maintained by Pyreaux Rytting didn't lie to Chelsea about checking help line call records, but we have contradictory statements by church representatives in regards to whether helpline records are destroyed or not. This is what the whole controversy is about. Church reps are not on the same sheet of music and they are basically creating a scenario where they can be accused of lying. I understand the deposition itself and also never accused Van Komen of lying. This is what I wrote: "Van komen must be lying in his deposition then… he stayed very clearly the helpline / hotline doesn’t keep any records of calls at all." Basically since the two have made different statements about the helpline notes, obviously Van Komen is lying since Rytting is allegedly not lying. Both of their statements cannot be true at the same time. It was a smart alec comment to describe the absurdity of how church reps contradicting each other. It wasnt meant to be taken seriously but apparenlty some folks need a "/S" tag after such statements because they don't have a sense of humor. Pyreaux thinks the privilege log and helpline call notes are the same thing: This is what a privilege log is: A privilege log is a mandatory legal document in US litigation, often required under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(5)(A), that identifies documents withheld from discovery due to privilege (e.g., attorney-client privilege, work product). It lists key metadata—date, author, recipients, and subject matter—without revealing the protected content. That is not the same as helpline call notes. Rytting should know that and needs to change how he describes things. Also if Rytting were to offer up Privilege log notes he would be opening up another can of worms. The problem is that you keep saying that the helpline doesn't take notes. I've shown multiple times that it does keep notes. Van Komen never, ever says that the helpline doesn't keep notes. If you believe Van Komen does say that, find it for me, please. This is what Van Komen does say (all from the Bisbee deposition): First, just to clarify that we are talking about the helpline/hotline: Quote 9 Q. I may today refer to it as "the Help Line" 10 or the "Hotline." I'm not trying to distinguish 11 anything, but I want to confirm with you that you'll 12 know that we're still talking about this 1-800 number 13 if I refer to it as either. 14 Is that okay with you? 15 A. That's fine. So, Van Komen is talking about the helpline and hotline. Specifically the 1-800 number. Now, to discuss who answers it. This is several question/answers: Quote 9 Q. While we're waiting for that, where is the 10 Help Line located? 11 A. The Help Line is located wherever the 12 people are who answer the calls. 17 Q. When you say it's "wherever they're 18 located," I'm wondering if you're being glib or 19 you're letting me know that people are answering from 20 all across various areas? 21 MR. MALEDON: Object to the form. 22 A. The Help Line is answered by individuals 23 who may be at The Church Office Building, or it may 24 be answered by other people who are on call, and they 25 may be located in other parts of the country. 1 Q. So when the phone rings -- when somebody 2 calls the Help Line number and it rings through, 3 where does that phone ring to? 4 A. Now it rings to Kirton McConkie. 5 Q. Starting when? 6 MR. MALEDON: Object to the form. 7 Q. You said, "Now it rings." Starting when? 8 A. Starting when -- how do you mean? 9 Q. Is there a reason you said "now it rings to 10 Kirton McConkie"? 11 A. Yes. The phone calls now go to 12 Kirton McConkie, and they answer the phone and 13 respond. 17 A. I cannot give you the exact names of all 18 the individuals who answer the phone. 19 Q. Why is that? 20 A. I do not know all the receptionists who may 21 answer at Kirton McConkie or if the line goes 22 directly to attorneys immediately, and I believe you 23 have a listing of those who have talked to -- or who 24 have answered the calls from Kirton McConkie. 4 When the bishop calls the Help Line, who is 5 the first person to pick up the phone? 6 MR. MALEDON: Object to the form. 7 A. I presume it is an attorney who answers 8 those calls. 9 Q. Why do you say "presume"? 10 A. Because I am not on those calls when they 11 come in -- 12 Q. You're designated -- 13 A. Or a member of Family Services. 11 Q. Has anyone who is employed by 12 LDS Family Services ever answered the Help Line? 13 A. Yes. 2 A. There have been times when they were the 3 ones who were the first to answer those calls. 4 Q. How do you know that? 5 A. I was one of those who did answer those 6 calls In these question/answers, he states that both attorneys and Family Service employees answer the phones. Sometimes the attorneys answer first, sometimes the Family Service employees answer first. The helpline IS NOT the Family Service. It goes to both attorneys and Family Service employees. So notes written by both groups are, by definition, helpline notes. If an attorney answers the phone and takes notes, he is taking notes about the helpline. Additionally, Van Komen even mentions notes by the attorneys: Quote 16 Q. Don't you think it would be important to 17 keep track of the first report that a bishop or a 18 stake president is making to the Help Line? 19 MR. MALEDON: Object to the form. You're 20 just arguing, Counsel. Objection. 21 Q. You can answer. 22 A. We did not keep records at our end as the 23 legal reporting requirements were not part of 24 Family Services responsibilities. That was a legal 25 responsibility, and those records were kept by the 1 lawyers. 2 Q. So you're saying there was no 3 responsibility by LDS Family Services to keep records 4 of the phone calls they received; correct? 5 A. We did not keep records of those phone 6 calls. Right there, Van Komen is explicitly stating that the Family Services employees who answer the helpline do not keep notes but the attorneys who answer the phone do. So, what am I missing? Why are the attorney notes not helpline notes even though they are answering the helpline and taking notes while listening to the helpline. Why are you insisting the helpline notes are destroyed when it is only the Family Service notes of the helpline that are destroyed. 2
Pyreaux Posted February 13 Posted February 13 1 hour ago, Notatbm said: It isn't there. It was part of the whole rytting / vanKomen contradiction discussion where Rytting is stating he will check helpline records while we have another guy representing the church stating the helpline doesn't keep any call records. It was maintained by Pyreaux Rytting didn't lie to Chelsea about checking help line call records, but we have contradictory statements by church representatives in regards to whether helpline records are destroyed or not. This is what the whole controversy is about. Church reps are not on the same sheet of music and they are basically creating a scenario where they can be accused of lying. I understand the deposition itself and also never accused Van Komen of lying. This is what I wrote: "Van komen must be lying in his deposition then… he stayed very clearly the helpline / hotline doesn’t keep any records of calls at all." Basically since the two have made different statements about the helpline notes, obviously Van Komen is lying since Rytting is allegedly not lying. Both of their statements cannot be true at the same time. It was a smart alec comment to describe the absurdity of how church reps contradicting each other. It wasnt meant to be taken seriously but apparenlty some folks need a "/S" tag after such statements because they don't have a sense of humor. Pyreaux thinks the privilege log and helpline call notes are the same thing: This is what a privilege log is: A privilege log is a mandatory legal document in US litigation, often required under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(5)(A), that identifies documents withheld from discovery due to privilege (e.g., attorney-client privilege, work product). It lists key metadata—date, author, recipients, and subject matter—without revealing the protected content. That is not the same as helpline call notes. Rytting should know that and needs to change how he describes things. Also if Rytting were to offer up Privilege log notes he would be opening up another can of worms. The disagreement isn't really about the definition of a log, it’s about whether any "record" exists at all and who is being truthful about it. The answer is in determining how many sources of data comes out of a single Help Line call. This is how both Rytting and Van Komen can be telling the truth. The "Call Notes" (Clinical/Social Work) are the handwritten or typed notes a social worker takes to understand the situation. Van Komen said these are destroyed daily. The "Work Product" (Legal) are the notes the attorney takes. Under U.S. law, Attorney Work Product is a specific category of record created in anticipation of litigation. These are not destroyed daily; they are the "records" Rytting likely refers to. The "Privilege Log" as you noted, is just Metadata that says, "On Oct 12, Bishop X called Lawyer Y." It doesn't contain the conversation, but it proves the conversation happened. Your argument that if one says records exist and the other says they don't, someone is lying. But in a legal setting, they are often speaking about different buckets. Your point is that if the Church calls the 1-800 number a "Help Line," then anything kept from that call is a "Help Line record", Rytting is "lying" by using a broad term for a specific legal file. He is not. Obviously, the Church keeps records locked tight under attorney-client privilege. In the Oyler case, the Church voluntarily waived that privilege to defend itself. Rytting and Van Komen are applying a Litigation standard of honesty (being technically accurate within your specific department's silo). Family Services (the Help Line office) doesn't keep records. Kirton McConkie (the Law Firm) does. We didn't lie. 2
Notatbm Posted February 13 Posted February 13 (edited) 6 hours ago, webbles said: The problem is that you keep saying that the helpline doesn't take notes. I've shown multiple times that it does keep notes. Van Komen never, ever says that the helpline doesn't keep notes. If you believe Van Komen does say that, find it for me, please. 2 Q. So you're saying there was no 3 responsibility by LDS Family Services to keep records 4 of the phone calls they received; correct? 5 A. We did not keep records of those phone 6 calls. 6 hours ago, webbles said: This is what Van Komen does say (all from the Bisbee deposition): First, just to clarify that we are talking about the helpline/hotline: So, Van Komen is talking about the helpline and hotline. Specifically the 1-800 number. Now, to discuss who answers it. This is several question/answers: In these question/answers, he states that both attorneys and Family Service employees answer the phones. Sometimes the attorneys answer first, sometimes the Family Service employees answer first. The helpline IS NOT the Family Service. It goes to both attorneys and Family Service employees. So notes written by both groups are, by definition, helpline notes. If an attorney answers the phone and takes notes, he is taking notes about the helpline. Additionally, Van Komen even mentions notes by the attorneys: Right there, Van Komen is explicitly stating that the Family Services employees who answer the helpline do not keep notes but the attorneys who answer the phone do. So, what am I missing? Why are the attorney notes not helpline notes even though they are answering the helpline and taking notes while listening to the helpline. Why are you insisting the helpline notes are destroyed when it is only the Family Service notes of the helpline that are destroyed. My understanding is the helpline is the conduit to either an attorney or a counselor. Once the call taker whether it be a counselor or a lawyer (sounds like both can / do take incoming calls) determines what the call is (abuse allegation or request for counseling services) the call is diverted to the proper place. The counselors who initially take the call of abuse do not ask for names or specifics, just whether or not it is some form of abuse and who the reporting leader is. Call then goes to the lawyers at Kirton McKonkie and the counselor no longer has any involvement. The record of the call to the counselor is then apparently destroyed. This is the final involvement of LDS Family service who run the hotline. legal reporting requirements were not part of 24 Family Services responsibilities. That was a legal 25 responsibility, and those records were kept by the 1 lawyers. If the person who initially took that call is an attorney, then the call gets converted to the privileged notes which are property of the law firm (KM). If the attorney who answers the call finds it is just someone looking for a counselor he/she likely just routes it back to the counselors and goes about his/her day. So…per the deposition notes LDS Family services does not keep ANY helpline notes. That means there are none to look up…ever. Why Ryttling calls KM Law Firm’s privileged records “helpline notes” is frankly amateurish. There is no chance in a million he would call them that in a court of law. KMs privilidged records are not the helpline. The helpline is how you get to the lawyers. LDS family services supposedly cannot even look up if anyone called at all. KM can look up any call that their lawyers are handling because the call itself met the threshold for privileged information. That is waaaay different than....hey a couple in our ward keeps going to swinger parties...can I get a counselor that specializes in sexual deviancy??? KM wont be keeping a record of that one. “6 Q. Don't you think it would be important to 17 keep track of the first report that a bishop or a 18 stake president is making to the Help Line? 19 MR. MALEDON: Object to the form. You're 20 just arguing, Counsel. Objection. 21 Q. You can answer. 22 A. We did not keep records at our end as the 23 legal reporting requirements were not part of 24 Family Services responsibilities. That was a legal 25 responsibility, and those records were kept by the 1 lawyers. 2 Q. So you're saying there was no 3 responsibility by LDS Family Services to keep records 4 of the phone calls they received; correct? 5 A. We did not keep records of those phone 6 calls.. That said, you can google this whole situation and see that the statements of these two guys are creating a firestorm of doubt as to who is telling the truth. Like you guys say, they likely are and are just exchanging terminology for the helpline. I can accept that, but one must wonder how in the world a supposedly sophisticated organization can have a hotline system since 1995 and not eventually create some sort of policy manual for the people to work at the hotline to use. According to VanKomen, they dont even keep records of who has been handing calls. There is like five pages of the deposition detailing how no one knows who, when or how many times anyone has done anything. They pretty much don't keep records. pp35 Q. Was it a written or was it a spoken policy 21 to destroy the assignment records for the Help Line? 22 MR. MALEDON: Object to the form. 23 A. There is no written policy that I am aware 24 of. A written policy will allow them to define what calls are what, what gets destroyed and what is saved and who has custody of the notes. As of this time, the current “policy” pretty much allows them to destroy every single thing they have so long as they call it a “hotline” or “helpline” note, log etc. Maybe that is by design? If so, that is dishonest. They seriously need to up their game in this department especially in the light of this abuse problem having already cost the church hundreds of millions of dollars in payouts and likely many million$ more to come because too many of our priesthood leaders can’t keep their hands off of children. Seems as if having a quarry to make millstones is in order so when Jesus comes back he can launch legions of rapists into the sea. I seriously doubt any attorney is walking around at Kirton McKonkie referring to his / her cases as helpline notes. My theory is Ryttling uses that terminology so he always has an out….yea they destroyed those notes lol. He by his own conduct on a recording has shown he is dishonest in his presentation as to who he really is. Additionally, how stupid does one have to be to state while being recorded (he was aware he was being recorded) he is going to look through the hotline notes to see if he can find a statement about a confession and forgiveness?? I thought that kind of thing was clergy/penitent privilege?? Stupid thing to say. I’m betting the only truthful guy in the room is VanKomen. Edited February 14 by Notatbm forgot a deposition entry
Pyreaux Posted February 14 Posted February 14 42 minutes ago, Notatbm said: 2 Q. So you're saying there was no 3 responsibility by LDS Family Services to keep records 4 of the phone calls they received; correct? 5 A. We did not keep records of those phone 6 calls. My understanding is the helpline is the conduit to either an attorney or a counselor. Once the call taker whether it be a counselor or a lawyer (sounds like both can / do take incoming calls) determines what the call is (abuse allegation or request for counseling services) the call is diverted to the proper place. The counselors who initially take the call of abuse do not ask for names or specifics, just whether or not it is some form of abuse and who the reporting leader is. Call then goes to the lawyers at Kirton McKonkie and the counselor no longer has any involvement. The record of the call to the counselor is then apparently destroyed. This is the final involvement of LDS Family service who run the hotline. legal reporting requirements were not part of 24 Family Services responsibilities. That was a legal 25 responsibility, and those records were kept by the 1 lawyers. If the person who initially took that call is an attorney, then the call gets converted to the privileged notes which are property of the law firm (KM). If the attorney who answers the call finds it is just someone looking for a counselor he/she likely just routes it back to the counselors and goes about his/her day. So…per the deposition notes LDS Family services does not keep ANY helpline notes. That means there are none to look up…ever. Why Ryttling calls KM Law Firm’s privileged records “helpline notes” is frankly amateurish. There is no chance in a million he would call them that in a court of law. KMs privilidged records are not the helpline. The helpline is how you get to the lawyers. LDS family services supposedly cannot even look up if anyone called at all. KM can look up any call that their lawyers are handling because the call itself met the threshold for privileged information. That is waaaay different than....hey a couple in our ward keeps going to swinger parties...can I get a counselor that specializes in sexual deviancy??? KM wont be keeping a record of that one. “6 Q. Don't you think it would be important to 17 keep track of the first report that a bishop or a 18 stake president is making to the Help Line? 19 MR. MALEDON: Object to the form. You're 20 just arguing, Counsel. Objection. 21 Q. You can answer. 22 A. We did not keep records at our end as the 23 legal reporting requirements were not part of 24 Family Services responsibilities. That was a legal 25 responsibility, and those records were kept by the 1 lawyers. 2 Q. So you're saying there was no 3 responsibility by LDS Family Services to keep records 4 of the phone calls they received; correct? 5 A. We did not keep records of those phone 6 calls.. That said, you can google this whole situation and see that the statements of these two guys are creating a firestorm of doubt as to who is telling the truth. Like you guys say, they likely are and are just exchanging terminology for the helpline. I can accept that, but one must wonder how in the world a supposedly sophisticated organization can have a hotline system since 1995 and not eventually create some sort of policy manual for the people to work at the hotline to use. According to VanKomen, they dont even keep records of who has been handing calls. There is like five pages of the deposition detailing how no one knows who, when or how many times anyone has done anything. They pretty much don't keep records. pp35 Q. Was it a written or was it a spoken policy 21 to destroy the assignment records for the Help Line? 22 MR. MALEDON: Object to the form. 23 A. There is no written policy that I am aware 24 of. A written policy will allow them to define what calls are what, what gets destroyed and what is saved and who has custody of the notes. As of this time, the current “policy” pretty much allows them to destroy every single thing they have so long as they call it a “hotline” or “helpline” note, log etc. Maybe that is by design? If so, that is dishonest. They seriously need to up their game in this department especially in the light of this abuse problem having already cost the church hundreds of millions of dollars in payouts and likely many million$ more to come because too many of our priesthood leaders can’t keep their hands off of children. Seems as if having a quarry to make millstones is in order so when Jesus comes back he can launch legions of rapists into the sea. I seriously doubt any attorney is walking around at Kirton McKonkie referring to his / her cases as helpline notes. My theory is Ryttling uses that terminology so he always has an out….yea they destroyed those notes lol. He by his own conduct on a recording has shown he is dishonest in his presentation as to who he really is. Additionally, how stupid does one have to be to state while being recorded (he was aware he was being recorded) he is going to look through the hotline notes to see if he can find a statement about a confession and forgiveness?? I thought that kind of thing was clergy/penitent privilege?? Stupid thing to say. I’m betting the only truthful guy in the room is VanKomen. You think Rytting is lying because he called these "Help Line notes" when he knows they are actually "KM Legal Records?" In reality, I'd say Rytting is using that terminology as a way to keep the conversation in "church-speak" (which to a bishop's end there is no distinction) rather than "lawyer-speak" (there clearly is a distinction) which, as you note, provides a convenient "out." You find the lack of a manual "dishonest." From a legal perspective, no manual = no standard to be sued against. Having no written policy and relying on professional judgment alone, the Church makes it much harder for a plaintiff's attorney to prove the Church broke its own rules. I guess we actually agree on the mechanics. Records exist at the law firm, but not at the Family Services office. The disagreement is it's actually a complex system, and Rytting is just used a catch-all term for the records that survive. 1
Notatbm Posted February 14 Posted February 14 10 minutes ago, Pyreaux said: You find the lack of a manual "dishonest." From a legal perspective, no manual = no standard to be sued against. Having no written policy and relying on professional judgment alone, the Church makes it much harder for a plaintiff's attorney to prove the Church broke its own rules. That’s cute and all, but when it prevents a victim from getting justice because of a technicality when they actually deserve it, it doesn’t sound so Christlike. millstones for those who operate that way too
webbles Posted February 14 Posted February 14 58 minutes ago, Notatbm said: My understanding is the helpline is the conduit to either an attorney or a counselor. Once the call taker whether it be a counselor or a lawyer (sounds like both can / do take incoming calls) determines what the call is (abuse allegation or request for counseling services) the call is diverted to the proper place. The counselors who initially take the call of abuse do not ask for names or specifics, just whether or not it is some form of abuse and who the reporting leader is. Call then goes to the lawyers at Kirton McKonkie and the counselor no longer has any involvement. The record of the call to the counselor is then apparently destroyed. This is the final involvement of LDS Family service who run the hotline. That's my understanding as well. 1 hour ago, Notatbm said: So…per the deposition notes LDS Family services does not keep ANY helpline notes. That means there are none to look up…ever. Why Ryttling calls KM Law Firm’s privileged records “helpline notes” is frankly amateurish. There is no chance in a million he would call them that in a court of law. KMs privilidged records are not the helpline. The helpline is how you get to the lawyers. LDS family services supposedly cannot even look up if anyone called at all. KM can look up any call that their lawyers are handling because the call itself met the threshold for privileged information. That is waaaay different than....hey a couple in our ward keeps going to swinger parties...can I get a counselor that specializes in sexual deviancy??? KM wont be keeping a record of that one. Yes, the Family Services does not keep any helpline notes. But that doesn't mean there are no helpline notes. The two are not the same: "Family Service notes" != "helpline notes". The Family Service notes are a part of the helpline notes. The attorneys also have helpline notes. Why do you think calling the attorney notes "helpline notes" amateurish? That's what I would call them. That's apparently what he calls them as well. Why would you not think he would call them that in the court of law? They are privileged records, but they are also helpline records. What would you call the notes of the attorney who answered the helpline? 1 hour ago, Notatbm said: That said, you can google this whole situation and see that the statements of these two guys are creating a firestorm of doubt as to who is telling the truth. Like you guys say, they likely are and are just exchanging terminology for the helpline. I can accept that, but one must wonder how in the world a supposedly sophisticated organization can have a hotline system since 1995 and not eventually create some sort of policy manual for the people to work at the hotline to use. According to VanKomen, they dont even keep records of who has been handing calls. There is like five pages of the deposition detailing how no one knows who, when or how many times anyone has done anything. They pretty much don't keep records. They don't keep records at Family Services. We know they keep records with the attorneys. And it makes sense to not keep records at the Family Services. It would be poor form for them to be keeping records. Why should they keep notes of people they don't have a relationship with? I would suspect that is probably a HIPAA violation of some sort. And why do they need to keep a record of who answers the calls? I agree that people are having issues with it, but I believe it is mostly caused by really bad reporting. Take your initial abc news article. It was poorly done. It used the wrong names, said the wrong things. Poor reporting has been very unhelpful. Van Komen has only said that the Family Service keeps no records and if that had been properly reported by news articles, there would be a lot less confusion. 1 hour ago, Notatbm said: A written policy will allow them to define what calls are what, what gets destroyed and what is saved and who has custody of the notes. As of this time, the current “policy” pretty much allows them to destroy every single thing they have so long as they call it a “hotline” or “helpline” note, log etc. Maybe that is by design? If so, that is dishonest. They seriously need to up their game in this department especially in the light of this abuse problem having already cost the church hundreds of millions of dollars in payouts and likely many million$ more to come because too many of our priesthood leaders can’t keep their hands off of children. Seems as if having a quarry to make millstones is in order so when Jesus comes back he can launch legions of rapists into the sea. The Family Service destroys every single record for when they work on the helpline because they don't have a relationship with those involved. Their records aren't privileged so it could be used in courts. Say you go to the bishop and talk about a marital issue and how you need counseling. The bishop calls the helpline to find a good counselor for you. You start to go to that counselor and don't tell you spouse. Your spouse discovers you going to a counselor and for some reason decides to divorce you. If the helpline counselor had kept notes, the spouse could bring that into the divorce proceedings. I wouldn't want that to happen. They aren't destroying notes to harm children. It is to protect people. If abuse happens, it seems they send it directly to attorneys because the attorneys can take notes and have them legally privileged. That can then be used to actually help the children. The helpline has actually been used to turn in abusers. 1 hour ago, Notatbm said: I seriously doubt any attorney is walking around at Kirton McKonkie referring to his / her cases as helpline notes. My theory is Ryttling uses that terminology so he always has an out….yea they destroyed those notes lol. He by his own conduct on a recording has shown he is dishonest in his presentation as to who he really is. Additionally, how stupid does one have to be to state while being recorded (he was aware he was being recorded) he is going to look through the hotline notes to see if he can find a statement about a confession and forgiveness?? I thought that kind of thing was clergy/penitent privilege?? Stupid thing to say. I don't see why an attorney would not call it helpline notes. But let's say they aren't. Why wouldn't Rytting call it that when talking to a non-attorney? And clergy/penitent privilege only deals with what is allowed in court. And it also has nothing to do with the helpline. That is covered under attorney/client privilege, which also really only deals with what is allowed in court. But let's say it does matter here. Who the client is for the helpline? The church. So Rytting, in his job for the church, is a client of the attorneys and definitely can use those records to help others. 2
Pyreaux Posted February 14 Posted February 14 (edited) 41 minutes ago, Notatbm said: That’s cute and all, but when it prevents a victim from getting justice because of a technicality when they actually deserve it, it doesn’t sound so Christlike. millstones for those who operate that way too Your "technicality" in the legal system is also called Due Process. Following the law, including laws regarding privilege, is a form of integrity. It ensures that the Church isn't acting as a vigilante organization, but as a law-abiding entity. Funny how critics who invoke "Christlike" behavior define it as radical, transparent advocacy for the individual victim at any cost. Never at the "Christlike" mandate from a broader, more complex perspective that considers the protection of the many, the sanctity of the law, and the actual results. As seen in the Beau Oyler case, your so-called "justice" is often sought by people whose memories or motives are flawed. If the Church didn't have its sophisticated record-keeping, it would be defenseless against every false or exaggerated claim. The church has a duty to protect the pockets of tithe payers from predatory or misinformed lawsuits, that in of itself is a "Christlike" act of stewardship. Allowing the Church to be looted because it was too naive to keep professional records would be stupid. But we're smart, and the system actually results in more reporting in many cases. By having a Help Line staffed by professionals, the Church ensures that a local Bishop doesn't make a legal mistake that actually lets a criminal go free. The Help Line's purpose is to ensure that the reporting is done correctly, legally, and in a way that will stand up in court. This is arguably more "Christlike" than a disorganized system that might botch a criminal investigation. Compassion without order is chaos. Sorry the Church refuses to be bullied by critics into abandoning the very protections that allow it to function as a global refuge for millions. Edited February 14 by Pyreaux 1
Notatbm Posted February 14 Posted February 14 22 minutes ago, webbles said: So Rytting, in his job for the church, is a client of the attorneys and definitely can use those records to help others. To include sharing notes of a confession of a sin to a bishop with a third party? That’s what it seems like what he was offering to do
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now