More From Jeremy Runnells

[Scott Lloyd]

11 hours ago, Analytics said:

In this case, it isn't just about their "reasonable expectations" and what the Stake President explicitly told Jeremy to do.  At the beginning of the meeting, the Stake President actually produced a legal document promising that the proceedings must be kept confidential and would not be recorded, and required everyone present to sign it.  In the official summons to the council, the Stake President had told Jeremy he'd be required to sign such a document, so Jeremy was expecting it. 

I'd love to see the Church sue Jeremy for breaching this written agreement.

What was bizarre is that the Stake President refused to give Jeremy an executed copy of the contract.  Isn't it standard legal procedure that when contracts are signed, two identical copies are signed and each party gets their own copy with original signatures?  But the Stake President refused to give Jeremy an executed copy of the document he signed--neither an original nor a copy of the original.  That's just weird.  I wish Jeremy would have brought an attorney and would have said he never signs documents without his attorney reviewing it first.  I'd love to hear the Stake President explain to Jeremy's attorney that he is requesting Jeremy sign a document which he cannot get a copy of.  But I doubt it even would have gotten so far; based on how he was acting, I bet the Stake President wouldn't have even allowed Jeremy's attorney to see the document he wanted Jeremy to sign.  "Only people who are invited to the council may see this document.  Your attorney is not invited to the council."

Perhaps my memory is wrong (and I'm not about to slog through that boring recording again to verify it) but I thought the stake president said a copy of the document would be provided to Runnells later. I gathered that they didn't have a spare copy on hand at the moment to give him.

Interesting -- and rather amusing -- circumstance I noticed: Runnells insisted on leaning forward toward the stake president. At one point the stake president asked him not to do that, saying an interpreter was being provided for him, but Runnells said he wanted to be able to hear it as well as receive the sign language interpretation of what was happening. I now suspect, given the camera angle, that Runnells was more concerned about getting a clear shot of the stake president with the recording device that he, Runnells, had secreted on his person.

Edited April 27, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[USU78]

President Ivens: 

Quote

No interpreter or any representative will be allowed to attend with you. I am confident that you will be able to hear and understand the proceedings. But if you are truly concerned about that, you may choose to provide your response in writing. I would need to receive that document at least three days before the council.

Where in this communication does the SP deny Runnells an ASL interpreter?

[ALarson]

11 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Where in this communication does the SP deny Runnells an ASL interpreter?

SP Quote:   "No interpreter or any representative will be allowed to attend with you. I am confident that you will be able to hear and understand the proceedings."

And, if the SP was going to provide an interpreter, why would he have gone on to inform Runnells that he could provide his "response in writing" if he was truly concerned (about not having an interpreter present)?  Why not just tell Runnells that the stake would provide an interpreter?

Hey. I think it's great that in the end, an interpreter was there for Runnell's DC.  But this part of the planning was handled poorly, IMO.  Things could have been communicated better so there was no confusion going into the DC.

.

Edited April 26, 2016 by ALarson

[gopher]

4 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Not only does he have a following, now, he's ...

Jeremy Runnells, P.A.^*

^* Professional Apostate

He has a Foundation!  For the low, low price of just $14 per month (U.S.), you, too, can support the cause!

 

I wonder if he'll end up disappointed with how little money there is to make as a full time critic of the LDS church.  John Dehlin and Kate Kelly showed up daily on my Facebook feeds before they were excommunicated, now I never see mention of either of them.  BTW, I'm not accusing Jeremy of being motivated only by money.  I just don't know if it makes any business sense to continue trying to profit off the CES letter.  He may lose followers now that he is no longer a member of the church.

[Calm]

Runnells states in the link in th OP he is publishing the recordings (the ones he promised not to make) and emails because the Church and Pres Ivins are spreading vague accusations about him.

Anyone aware of any comment about Runnells from the Church itself?  Anyone aware of any public or private rumormongering done by Ivins?

The only information from Ivins that I am aware of is the stuff Runnells is releasing himself.

The complaint about multiple attempts to excommunicate him is ridiculous given he was the one ask for the delay of the first "attempt".

Edited April 26, 2016 by Calm

[Analytics]

44 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Perhaps my memory is wrong (and I'm not about to slog through that boring recording again to verify it) but I thought the stake president said a copy of the document would be provided to Runnells later. I gathered that they didn't have a spare copy on hand at the moment to give him.

He said that he'd provide him with the text of the document sometime over the next week, but emphasized it would be the text of the agreement only and would not contain the signatures.  That detail is what drew my attention to the issue.  Why is one party entitled to a copy with signatures, but the other is not?

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

I agree (and I hope you noted that you were not actually quoting me, but that was a quote I had posted from someone else.  Just clarifying.)

I wouldn't have used the word "remarkable", but feel that Runnells choosing to resign is understandable.

.

I did know it wasn't you saying that and didn't mean to make it look like it was.

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, Analytics said:

He said that he'd provide him with the text of the document sometime over the next week, but emphasized it would be the text of the agreement only and would not contain the signatures.  That detail is what drew my attention to the issue.  Why is one party entitled to a copy with signatures, but the other is not?

Why does he need a copy with signatures if he has the text?

[why me]

19 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

i just listened to a portion of the recording or the excommunication hearing -- as much as I could stand before sheer boredom made it unbearable.

It's clear Runnells wanted to turn the whole thing into a grandstanding debate, and the fact that he was surreptitiously recording it makes the reason obviousl

He seems to want to make a great deal over none of the people in the room having read his CES letter or the Church essays. The more likely conclusion, it seems to me, is that they were declining to answer out of refusal to subject themselves to his grilling.

 

It just shows how far such people who dislike the lds church are willing to go even when it makes a fool of them doing it. And then of course, we have the exmo chorus singing his praises regardless of the ethics behind it. The only thing that I can ask of myself is not to be like such people if I ever leave the church. I don't think that I could look at myself in the mirror without experiencing some sort of malaise. .

Edited April 26, 2016 by why me

[why me]

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

Runnells states in the link in th OP he is publishing the recordings (the ones he promised not to make) and emails because the Church and Pres Ivins are spreading vague accusations about him.

Anyone aware of any comment about Runnells from the Church itself?  Anyone aware of any public or private rumormongering done by Ivins?

The only information from Ivins that I am aware of is the stuff Runnells is releasing himself.

The complaint about multiple attempts to excommunicate him is ridiculous given he was the one ask for the delay of the first "attempt".

Why would someone who dislikes the church speak in honesty about the lds church? Of course, he wishes to be a martyr for the cause and increase his fame for 15 minutes inside the exmo community. Amazingly, the world is slipping and slidding into oblivion and some people have nothing better to do than be involved in this rather unimportant nonsense. Does anyone really care about this follow and his decisions? I don't think so. Most people are just trying to keep it together these days.

[Analytics]

21 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Why does he need a copy with signatures if he has the text?

It's standard practice that whenever two parties enter into a contract, they both are given an original, fully-signed and executed copy. 

In general, contracts involve two parties both agreeing to do something--e.g. both agreeing to keep a meeting confidential.  Both parties need a signed copy of the contract so they can understand their obligations and defend their rights.  If both parties don't get a signed copy, why bother signing it at all?

[Calm]

47 minutes ago, Analytics said:

He said that he'd provide him with the text of the document sometime over the next week, but emphasized it would be the text of the agreement only and would not contain the signatures.  That detail is what drew my attention to the issue.  Why is one party entitled to a copy with signatures, but the other is not?

Probably because Ivins knew of Runnells' habit of publishing anything he cared to despite agreeing not to and Ivins realized it could make others attending the council targets.  He was willing to be a target himself, but not willing to have others be ones if he could help it.

[Scott Lloyd]

15 minutes ago, Analytics said:

It's standard practice that whenever two parties enter into a contract, they both are given an original, fully-signed and executed copy. 

In general, contracts involve two parties both agreeing to do something--e.g. both agreeing to keep a meeting confidential.  Both parties need a signed copy of the contract so they can understand their obligations and defend their rights.  If both parties don't get a signed copy, why bother signing it at all?

Standard practice or not, it seems to me that signatures of all present on a single, original copy attests to their mutual agreement that the proceedings be kept confidential.

Assuming there are nine high councilors in the room in addition to Runnells, the stake president and, probably, a clerk taking minutes (not to mention the ASL interpreter), are you saying that each individual would have to sign his name on 12 separate pieces of paper to make sure each and every person had a copy of the agreement with original signatures in order to live up to "standard practice"?

 

[USU78]

43 minutes ago, ALarson said:

SP Quote:   "No interpreter or any representative will be allowed to attend with you. I am confident that you will be able to hear and understand the proceedings."

And, if the SP was going to provide an interpreter, why would he have gone on to inform Runnells that he could provide his "response in writing" if he was truly concerned (about not having an interpreter present)?  Why not just tell Runnells that the stake would provide an interpreter?

Hey. I think it's great that in the end, an interpreter was there for Runnell's DC.  But this part of the planning was handled poorly, IMO.  Things could have been communicated better so there was no confusion going into the DC.

I'm actually quite impressed with the language choice:  no lawyer, no pretend interpreter, no real interpreter with an agenda, no friend, no witness to the proceedings, no body would be permitted to accompany Runnells.  That's what the SP said.  He quite clearly did not refuse access to an ASL interpreter, though he did express with implicit skepticism his suspicion of the claim of need.  He also left himself the option of providing an interpreter if Runnells (a) whined about it to the press [a near surety], and/or (b) showed up with one whose bonafides the SP would not be in a position to judge.

To which I give a hearty bravo!

 

Quote

 

 

[Storm Rider]

21 minutes ago, Analytics said:

It's standard practice that whenever two parties enter into a contract, they both are given an original, fully-signed and executed copy. 

In general, contracts involve two parties both agreeing to do something--e.g. both agreeing to keep a meeting confidential.  Both parties need a signed copy of the contract so they can understand their obligations and defend their rights.  If both parties don't get a signed copy, why bother signing it at all?

A contract, to be worth the paper it is written upon, must suppose the good faith of both parties.  Regardless of the text, if neither party assumes the other is acting in good faith, it makes signing such a document a bit of a mockery.  That is not to say that such a contract is meaningless.  It would be a great tool to demonstrate the bad faith of the offending party.  

The signatures do nothing to inform either party of their obligations according to the contract.  A signed original is effective for enforcing the the contract be honored IF one is willing to take the case through the legal system. Most of us have no desire for such an action.  It is prohibitively expensive in most cases and time consuming. 

[Calm]

13 minutes ago, Analytics said:

It's standard practice that whenever two parties enter into a contract, they both are given an original, fully-signed and executed copy. 

In general, contracts involve two parties both agreeing to do something--e.g. both agreeing to keep a meeting confidential.  Both parties need a signed copy of the contract so they can understand their obligations and defend their rights.  If both parties don't get a signed copy, why bother signing it at all?

Runnells has already demonstrated how much agreeing to keep stuff confidential means to him.  Having him sign it demonstrates that Pres Ivins was clear and Runnells understood the condition in case it becomes necessary for that to be made clear, either to other church leaders for an appeal as was possible before he resigned (such as Kate Kelly did) or as a part of a council if Runnells expresses a desire to rejoin the Church to ensure an accurate portrayal of his actions (memories can change overtime) or for another reaon.  If it was only to be sure that Runnells understood and was never intended to be used for legal reasons, then a copy of the document without a signature would be fine for his use, just like one only has to sign the merchant's copy of a credit card receipt.

[USU78]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

He said that he'd provide him with the text of the document sometime over the next week, but emphasized it would be the text of the agreement only and would not contain the signatures.  That detail is what drew my attention to the issue.  Why is one party entitled to a copy with signatures, but the other is not?

...  because Runnells would research the councilmen's, addresses, places of work/business, emails, websites, for publication on his website where Runnells' supporters would get them for purposes of harassment.

[stemelbow]

14 minutes ago, Calm said:

Probably because Ivins knew of Runnells' habit of publishing anything he cared to despite agreeing not to and Ivins realized it could make others attending the council targets.  He was willing to be a target himself, but not willing to have others be ones if he could help it.

And their signatures would put them in Runnel's crosshairs? 

 

Edited April 26, 2016 by stemelbow

[USU78]

1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

And their signatures would put them in Runnel's crosshairs? 

Is there any question?

[The Nehor]

I keep saying that Danite wet work squads leave less of a mess behind but I keep getting told that is "uncharitable" and "against the commandments". When will we learn?

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, USU78 said:

Is there any question?

Why would having their signatures be any different for him?  If he wanted to target them he could do so without having a copy of their signatures. 

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, USU78 said:

...  because Runnells would research the councilmen's, addresses, places of work/business, emails, websites, for publication on his website where Runnells' supporters would get them for purposes of harassment.

Runnells likely knows the people anyway and probably could do that for many or most, if not all of them.  Not too hard to find out who the high councilmen are in a stake if you are a member of it. 

I think a more likely concern would be that he would publish the document with signatures if he had them, thus allowing others who normally couldn't have access to them whether he intended those who signed to become targets or not.  Given Runnells' past behaviour and current approach, it seems a valid concern to me if it was one.

[Calm]

7 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

And their signatures would put them in Runnel's crosshairs? 

 

No, in the crosshairs of the few crazies that are out there.  I bet Runnells has had some nasty stuff sent to him, but it has been his choice to be in the public eye.  I don't think it is right to do this to church leaders who have no intention of making any public statements themselves and this ensures it won't slip through because Runnells might make a poor decision based on transparency or something else.

 

[stemelbow]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

Runnells likely knows the people anyway and probably could do that for many or most, if not all of them.  Not too hard to find out who the high councilmen are in a stake if you are a member of it. 

I think a more likely concern would be that he would publish the document with signatures if he had them, thus allowing others who normally couldn't have access to them whether he intended those who signed to become targets or not.  Given Runnells' past behaviour and current approach, it seems a valid concern to me if it was one.

I guess it's a moot point anyway, since Runnels resigned.  or did they decide to go through the paper work to excommunicate him? 

[USU78]

7 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Why would having their signatures be any different for him?  If he wanted to target them he could do so without having a copy of their signatures. 

If he simply puts information on his website and somebody reads it and does something bad with it, he has plausible deniability if somebody gets hurt or has their stuff broken/damaged.