Daniel Peterson Rips It Up

[Stargazer]

For those who won't bother to click on the link, I'll point out that the lead paragraph of that very old news story says that the Church denied it.

 

The story is from 1975. That's nearly 40 years ago. Do you have anything more recent showing that there is anything to this other than an accusation?

 

Anybody can make an accusation regardless of merit. How much time has to pass before an accusation that has never been substantiated is properly left in the past and not dredged up as innuendo?

 

Indeed, it has been said that a grand jury could indict a ham sandwich if it so chose.

 

In the spirit of the ham sandwich, then, j'accuse! Scott Lloyd of splitting an infinitive about twenty years ago.  The infinitive suffers to this day.

[Craig in Austin]

I'm glad you brought this up.  Another thing that needs to be taken into consideration is something that a friend of mine caught while viewing the video.  In most states, (if not all, I believe), don't minor children need to have written consent from their parent/guardian before their image can be posted on a public forum like YouTube?  My friend said that there were several places where the camera caught a couple of the kids sitting in the audience on the video.  I didn't look at it closely enough to notice whether or not you could make out the face of anyone, but it is another thing worth considering.  I think that Norton could definitely have a lot of trouble on his plate.

 

This is an interesting topic, and in Googling the topic, there's a mishmash of amatuer and professional legal advice out there.  And laws vary both inside and outside the US.  I am summarizing the laws in the US.  Of course, my legal advice is of the amatuer class.

 

A few sites appear to be more accurate- here and here

 

- generally, it is legal to take photos (or video) of people in "public places".  The legal definition of a "public place" is whether a person would have a reasonable expectation of privacy.   There is no distinction regarding age- while children do not have any special protection for this statute, for pornographic images special laws apply, of course.

 

- however, care should be taken, even for photos taken legally.  The person should not be "identifiable".   And there are laws regarding commercial use of such photos. Here's Utah's statute.

 

- for violations of these laws, a violator cannot be legally detained, but recourse (legal and/or civil) should be through the courts.

 

For Norton's case, taking the video would be a class B misdemeanor in Utah, and could be sued for compensation.  

 

Interestingly, for photos taken of members for use in a Ward Annual History, there is a release that needs to be signed by the photographer, but persons photographed do not need to sign a release. Here's the legal statement.

[Scott Lloyd]

Indeed, it has been said that a grand jury could indict a ham sandwich if it so chose.

 

In the spirit of the ham sandwich, then, j'accuse! Scott Lloyd of splitting an infinitive about twenty years ago.  The infinitive suffers to this day.

And, of course, it will do me no good to deny it, because every day there are people somewhere in the world who deny things that actually happened.

 

[K-2]

Speaking of denial, Scott, the Church denied wiretapping, which is completely true. Local leaders did, however, use illegally recorded tapes as evidence in disciplinary trials. They didn't do the right thing and refuse to accept it as evidence.

 

I have, by the way, received letters from a controversial academic public figure who had been excommunicated, that had been cut open and taped shut again. This person, who lived in the Salt Lake area, denied having cut their own letters open. I'm not sure if the Church was involved, of course. A search warrant would be needed to do that legally, however I'm not aware of the person ever having done anything illegal, and no charges were ever filed against them. I'm not sure if the clumsy cutting open and taping was due to an inept person, as there are methods of doing the same thing that are much less detectable, or if it was intended to send me a message.

[wenglund]

Speaking of denial, Scott, the Church denied wiretapping, which is completely true. Local leaders did, however, use illegally recorded tapes as evidence in disciplinary trials. They didn't do the right thing and refuse to accept it as evidence.

 

I have, by the way, received letters from a controversial academic public figure who had been excommunicated, that had been cut open and taped shut again. This person, who lived in the Salt Lake area, denied having cut their own letters open. I'm not sure if the Church was involved, of course. A search warrant would be needed to do that legally, however I'm not aware of the person ever having done anything illegal, and no charges were ever filed against them. I'm not sure if the clumsy cutting open and taping was due to an inept person, as there are methods of doing the same thing that are much less detectable, or if it was intended to send me a message.

 

Evidently, for some people, no matter how strained and outdated the tu quoque. it is a valid rationalization for or distraction from certain people's current misbehavior.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund

[frank_jessop]

Craig,

What is you reasoning that the meeting was a private place where there was a reasonable expectation of privacy?

Was the meeting closed to all except members of the American Fork 5th Ward?

[Rain]

Speaking of denial, Scott, the Church denied wiretapping, which is completely true. Local leaders did, however, use illegally recorded tapes as evidence in disciplinary trials. They didn't do the right thing and refuse to accept it as evidence.

 

I have, by the way, received letters from a controversial academic public figure who had been excommunicated, that had been cut open and taped shut again. This person, who lived in the Salt Lake area, denied having cut their own letters open. I'm not sure if the Church was involved, of course. A search warrant would be needed to do that legally, however I'm not aware of the person ever having done anything illegal, and no charges were ever filed against them. I'm not sure if the clumsy cutting open and taping was due to an inept person, as there are methods of doing the same thing that are much less detectable, or if it was intended to send me a message.

I've cut open and taped mail that wasn't mine several times.  I didn't read the envelope, opened up the letter and found it wasn't mine.  Sometimes the mail was for prior owners.  Sometimes the mail was delivered to a completely wrong house.  I have always added a note though before sticking it back in the mail.

[wenglund]

Craig,

What is you reasoning that the meeting was a private place where there was a reasonable expectation of privacy?

Was the meeting closed to all except members of the American Fork 5th Ward?

 

I am guessing that invitations for the meeting where sent out in mass to the world in general and to websites for disaffected members in particular. I have no doubt that Norton received a personally embossed notification.l

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[frank_jessop]

I am guessing that invitations for the meeting where sent out in mass to the world in general and to websites for disaffected members in particular. I have no doubt that Norton received a personally embossed notification.l

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wade, will you provide evidence of horse bones discovered in the Americas which have been C14 dated to the time of Christ?

[wenglund]

Wade, will you provide evidence of horse bones discovered in the Americas which have been C14 dated to the time of Christ?

 

I would if I had made the claim and had thought it pertinent to coming to Christ and becoming like him.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[frank_jessop]

I would if I had made the claim and had thought it pertinent to coming to Christ and becoming like him.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Do you have the evidence of horse bones discovered in the Americas that were C14 dated to the time of Christ?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Do you have the evidence of horse bones discovered in the Americas that were C14 dated to the time of Christ?

Plants face firmly in palm.

[wenglund]

Do you have the evidence of horse bones discovered in the Americas that were C14 dated to the time of Christ?

 

Do you have evidence that I have made such a claim and that I think it relevant to bringing us to Christ and becoming like him?

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[frank_jessop]

Do you have evidence that I have made such a claim and that I think it relevant to bringing us to Christ and becoming like him?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

There is an important difference between

Having evidence and not sharing because you do not think it relevant,

and

Not having evidence but believing any such evidence is not relevant.

I only asked if you had evidence or willing to share it. It was a question to clarify your statement.

[Craig in Austin]

Craig,

What is you reasoning that the meeting was a private place where there was a reasonable expectation of privacy?

Was the meeting closed to all except members of the American Fork 5th Ward?

 

 

The legal definition, in the state of Utah, is found at the beginning of the section on privacy violations.  The relevant sections are 

Utah Code Ann. §§ 76-9-401, 76-9-403, 76-9-702.7.

 

"76-9-401.   Definitions.

            For purposes of this part:

            (1) "Private place" means a place where one may reasonably expect to be safe from casual or hostile intrusion or surveillance.

            (2) "Eavesdrop" means to overhear, record, amplify, or transmit any part of a wire or oral communication of others without the consent of at least one party thereto by means of any electronic, mechanical, or other device.

            (3) "Public" includes any professional or social group of which the victim of a defamation is a member.""

[wenglund]

There is an important difference between

Having evidence and not sharing because you do not think it relevant,

and

Not having evidence but believing any such evidence is not relevant.

 

There is also a much bigger difference between those two statements and my not having made the claim for which you have repeated asked for evidence as well as my not thinking it relevant to coming to Christ and becoming like him.

 

I only asked if you had evidence or willing to share it. It was a question to clarify your statement.

 

Hopefully, after the third attempt, you now understand that I did not make the claim, nor do I think it relevant to coming to Christ and becoming like him.

 

If not, then I will be happy to reiterate and clarify it as many times as it may take for you to finally get it.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[frank_jessop]

There is also a much bigger difference between those two statements and my not having made the claim for which you have repeated asked for evidence as well as my not thinking it relevant to coming to Christ and becoming like him.

Hopefully, after the third attempt, you now understand that I did not make the claim, nor do I think it relevant to coming to Christ and becoming like him.

If not, then I will be happy to reiterate and clarify it as many times as it may take for you to finally get it.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wade, I did not mean to suggest in my first question to you, that you made the claim. I simply asked if you had evidence regarding a subject of this thread. Edited April 15, 2014 by frank_jessop

[K-2]

Rain, it was two separate letters on two separate occasions, so it would be quite a coincidence if neighbors had gotten the letters and opened them by mistake. I never thought to ask them, but they didn't mention anything about misdelivered letters. I've never received any other letters that have been cut open and taped. I got one that was ripped open by a sorting machine and the post office put it in a plastic bag with an explanatory note. I don't like Mike Norton at all by the way, and I don't think the Church should let him get away with what he's been doing.

[frank_jessop]

The legal definition, in the state of Utah, is found at the beginning of the section on privacy violations.

Craig, the definition of legal ramifications were brought up in the first dozen post of this thread. The question of "private place" is determination for the jury or the judge (depending on whether a jury trial is had or just a trial before the judge).

The issue of "private place" would boil down to the setting, probably who was permitted, why was a non-member (of the Ward and Church) permitted. This would mean calling witnesses; who made the announcement that Daniel Peterson would speak; why was the gathering held in the first place; are any of the parties involved aware of other such meetings that have been recorded in some form; who was invited; who was not permitted to attend.

The final consideration is it worth the time to take this to court? Does the Bishop involved, the various ward members, Daniel Peterson, have the time to dedicate to being deposed, testifying as a witness or both. And who is willing to spend the money for such a case? Are you willing to fund such a trial?

I am sure the Church could quite easily get a restraining order or notice of trespass.

[wenglund]

Wade, I did not mean to suggest in my first question to you, that you made the claim. I simply asked if you had evidence regarding a subject of this thread.

 

I have yet to suggest that you had made the claim. I simply answered that if I had made the claim and thought it pertinent to coming to Christ and becoming like him, then I would provide the evidence.

 

Feel free to continue the clarifying rounds until you finally get it.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Bob Crockett]

The legal definition, in the state of Utah, is found at the beginning of the section on privacy violations.  The relevant sections are 

Utah Code Ann. §§ 76-9-401, 76-9-403, 76-9-702.7.

 

"76-9-401.   Definitions.

            For purposes of this part:

            (1) "Private place" means a place where one may reasonably expect to be safe from casual or hostile intrusion or surveillance.

            (2) "Eavesdrop" means to overhear, record, amplify, or transmit any part of a wire or oral communication of others without the consent of at least one party thereto by means of any electronic, mechanical, or other device.

            (3) "Public" includes any professional or social group of which the victim of a defamation is a member.""

This permits the recording in Utah. It wasn't unlawful.

[wenglund]

Rain, it was two separate letters on two separate occasions, so it would be quite a coincidence if neighbors had gotten the letters and opened them by mistake. I never thought to ask them, but they didn't mention anything about misdelivered letters. I've never received any other letters that have been cut open and taped. I got one that was ripped open by a sorting machine and the post office put it in a plastic bag with an explanatory note. I don't like Mike Norton at all by the way, and I don't think the Church should let him get away with what he's been doing.

 

I have sealed envelopes to be sent out only to remember that I had neglected to include material, and have had to reopen and tape close the envelopes.

 

I have had to do the same after realizing that I had inadvertently put material to one person in the envelope to another.

 

I have also had to tape full envelopes closed to keep them from bursting open.

 

Then, there have been the envelopes with cheap adhesive that would come unstuck before mailing and required taping them shut.

 

But, don't let any of this keeping you from taking conspiratorial flights of fancy.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Craig in Austin]

This permits the recording in Utah. It wasn't unlawful.

 

Please elaborate.  You are an attorney, correct?

 

My understanding was based on a number of opinions I read, but then, I am not an attorney...

[Brian 2.0]

I have yet to suggest that you had made the claim. I simply answered that if I had made the claim and thought it pertinent to coming to Christ and becoming like him, then I would provide the evidence.

Feel free to continue the clarifying rounds until you finally get it.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wouldn't a simple no be clearer (and easier to type)?

[K-2]

Wade, I already mentioned that the guy said he didn't cut the letters open himself.