More From Jeremy Runnells

[ALarson]

1 hour ago, USU78 said:

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. 

I believe Runnells was entitled to and would have been allowed to bring witnesses if he'd chosen to.  Isn't that correct?

.

Edited April 26, 2016 by ALarson

[stemelbow]

4 minutes ago, USU78 said:

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.

I think he put something on his site, somebody read it, and that somebody's (FAIRMORMON) did something bad with it.  I read the replies. 

Just playing. 

[JulieM]

31 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.

How would having their signatures make them a target?  Didn't Runnells already know their names?

I'm just wondering what difference it would make to have their signatures.  (Maybe I'm missing something here.)

[Calm]

10 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

  or did they decide to go through the paper work to excommunicate him? 

I don't know.

The CHI apparently no longers has the requirement to not allow theexcommunication process to be stopped by a resignation, but I don't know if resigning in the middle (beginning?) of a council itself would stop that meeting or if there is the option to compete it.  If they excommunicated him, I would be surprised if Runnells didn't publish the letter notifying him of the results, so if nothing is said after a month, I think we can assume it is officially considered a resignation.

Edited April 26, 2016 by Calm

[USU78]

13 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I believe Runnells was entitled to and would have been allowed to bring witnesses if he'd chosen to.  Isn't that correct?

Nope.  There are and can be no witnesses to confidential proceedings inside the confessional.

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, JulieM said:

How would having their signatures make them a target?  Didn't Runnells already know their names?

I'm just wondering what difference it would make to have their signatures.  (Maybe I'm missing something here.)

The difference would be if he publishes a photocopy of the document.  Would he be cautious enough not to include the signatures?  I have strong doubts.  He has proclaimed he is releasing everything Ivins has said, editing or altering nothing even if he is editing his own comments for personal information (I assume this means everyone, I am hoping Ivins was cautious enough not to include any, but due to a glitch I could only read the intro to the site).  I suspect this document would fall into the Ivins category for him, not the Runnells.

Again, my concerns are for the crazies that read his stuff.  Some may attack/stalk Runnells which is wrong, but his choice to put himself at risk just as Kevin Christensen posting a rebuttal as well as FM have chosen to put themselves at risk for targetting by the crazies of whatever stripe

[ALarson]

14 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Nope.  There are and can be no witnesses to confidential proceedings inside the confessional.

I believe you are wrong here.  Runnells could have brought witnesses to his disciplinary counsel if he'd chosen to do so.  At least that is my understanding.

 

CFR that no witnesses are allowed inside a DC.

.

Edited April 26, 2016 by ALarson

[USU78]

22 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I think he put something on his site, somebody read it, and that somebody's (FAIRMORMON) did something bad with it.  I read the replies. 

Just playing. 

badumbum

[USU78]

20 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I

 

duplicate

Edited April 26, 2016 by USU78
duplicate

[ALarson]

1 minute ago, USU78 said:

You misunderstand:  witnesses may be produced who would give testimony if, as smac stated above, there are facts in dispute that need to be sorted through; no witness to the proceedings may be brought, however.  Those witnesses would then be witnesses of their own testimony and what takes place during questioning, if any, but they are not otherwise witnesses to the proceedings.

I did not misunderstand.  You stated it poorly and now you're clarifying. So yes, Runnells could have brought witnesses and I agree.

I stated:

31 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I believe Runnells was entitled to and would have been allowed to bring witnesses if he'd chosen to.  Isn't that correct?

You replied:

17 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Nope.  There are and can be no witnesses to confidential proceedings inside the confessional.

 

[USU78]

14 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I believe you are wrong here.  Runnells could have brought witnesses to his disciplinary counsel if he'd chosen to do so.  At least that is my understanding.  CFR that no witnesses are allowed inside a DC.

You misunderstand.  It is witnesses of the proceedings that are forbidden, not witnesses at the proceedings.   Witnesses, should they be needed by either side, can clear up matters that are in dispute.  If, however, as smac states above, there are no matters that are in dispute and all agree as to the facts, then there is nothing left but statements concerning the significance of the agreed-upon facts.

Runnells certainly had a chance to argue the significance, but he has no right to question the SP, the councilmen, or the SP's counselors.

In other words, no cheering sections disguised as witnesses of the proceedings.

[USU78]

4 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I did not misunderstand.  You stated it poorly and now you're clarifying. So yes, Runnells could have brought witnesses and I agree.

You say tomahto  ...

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

The difference would be if he publishes a photocopy of the document.  Would he be cautious enough not to include the signatures?  I have strong doubts.  He has proclaimed he is releasing everything Ivins has said, editing or altering nothing even if he is editing his own comments for personal information (I assume this means everyone, I am hoping Ivins was cautious enough not to include any, but due to a glitch I could only read the intro to the site).  I suspect this document would fall into the Ivins category for him, not the Runnells.

Again, my concerns are for the crazies that read his stuff.  Some may attack/stalk Runnells which is wrong, but his choice to put himself at risk just as Kevin Christensen posting a rebuttal as well as FM have chosen to put themselves at risk for targetting by the crazies of whatever stripe

Out of fairness, I have to say that in the secret video recording he made of the disciplinary council proceedings, he did edit out certain images for reasons of privacy (titles on the screen gave that as the reason for the edits). So in this respect at least, Runnells did ensure privacy by redacting views of everyone except President Ivins and himself (at least in the portions I watched).

That said, one can be justifiably wary about an individual who would sneak a recording device into a session and then publish video images in direct violation of a signed confidentiality agreement.

 

 

Edited April 27, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[ALarson]

4 minutes ago, USU78 said:

In other words, no cheering sections disguised as witnesses of the proceedings.

That's not what I asked, but I'm sure you know that.  

Again, this is what I asked (and you replied "Nope"):

39 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I believe Runnells was entitled to and would have been allowed to bring witnesses if he'd chosen to.  Isn't that correct?

.

Edited April 26, 2016 by ALarson

[Scott Lloyd]

22 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I believe you are wrong here.  Runnells could have brought witnesses to his disciplinary counsel if he'd chosen to do so.  At least that is my understanding.

CFR that no witnesses are allowed for a DC.

It's also my understanding that in a typical disciplinary council, one is given the privilege to provide witnesses in his own behalf.

Perhaps I'm wrong (I don't have any personal experience with such a thing). Or perhaps the contrary is the case on some occasions.

[ALarson]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It's also my understanding that in a typical disciplinary council, one is given the privilege to provide witnesses in his own behalf.

Perhaps I'm wrong (I don't have any personal experience with such a thing). 

I agree.  This is my understanding too (although those I've been involved in did not have any witnesses present).  

Quote

Or perhaps the contrary is the case on some occasions.

This I don't know.  I've never heard of a person being denied witnesses who was involved in a DC.

Edited April 26, 2016 by ALarson

[Scott Lloyd]

13 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I agree.  This is my understanding too (although those I've been involved in did not have any witnesses present).  

This I don't know.  I've never heard of a person being denied witnesses who was involved in a DC.

Reading again the letter from the stake president, I get the impression that what was being denied was Runnells bringing in someone to take note of what was going on so he could noise it about later, similar to Dehlin being denied permission to bring in a "note taker."

Even if Runnells had been allowed to invite someone to testify in his behalf, as it were, I'm thinking that person would not have been allowed to be present except when he or she was giving his/her testimony.

Edited April 26, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Russell C McGregor]

3 hours 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.

.

Yes, it's understandable. He has for some time not been a Latter-day Saint in any meaningful sense, so leaving the Church is what we'd expect.

What's not quite so understandable is his insistence on having the Disciplinary Council, dragging out the proceedings and wasting the time of all concerned.

I know it can very easily be explained by the fact that he craves the attention, but that isn't quite the same as being understandable.

[consiglieri]

24 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It's also my understanding that in a typical disciplinary council, one is given the privilege to provide witnesses in his own behalf.

Perhaps I'm wrong (I don't have any personal experience with such a thing). Or perhaps the contrary is the case on some occasions.

There are some legal hearings at which the facts are not in dispute, and so no witnesses are necessary.

It is purely a question of how to apply the law to the facts.

I see this as more what was going on here.

What I continue to be surprised about, though, is the stake president surprising Jeremy with an interpreter at the hearing.

Under normal circumstances, one would expect the stake president to advise Jeremy in advance that an interpreter would be provided by the stake.

That would have been the courteous thing to do.

The fact that the stake president did not do so suggests that the stake president got pulled into the "gotcha" game right along with Jeremy.

Regardless of what kind of games the stake president perceives Jeremy as playing, the stake president should not have allowed himself to get drawn in.

[Russell C McGregor]

7 hours ago, ALarson said:

I see no problem with Runnells relating what took place with the interpreter and what his opinion is regarding what ended up happening.

So there's no problem imputing devious manipulative behaviour to others without any evidence?

And characterising this baseless accusation as an "observation?" Yeah, right.

7 hours ago, ALarson said:

 The way this aspect of the case was handled was odd.  Runnell's request should not have been denied several times leaving him to believe that he would need to provide his own interpreter if there was to be one present at the DC.

But that is not what he was left to believe. He was explicitly told that he was not to bring an interpreter.

Therefore, bringing one along just so he'd be turned away was pure grandstanding on Mister Runnells's part.

7 hours ago, ALarson said:

 And, the SP definitely should have told Runnells that he had changed his mind and would be providing an interpreter for him (which was the right thing to do here).   

It would have been good if he had; but how do you know that the interpreter didn't just become available at the last minute?

You don't know that -- and neither does Mister Runnells.

[ALarson]

22 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Reading again the letter from the stake president, I get the impression that what was being denied was Runnells bringing in someone to take note of what was going on so he could noise it about later, similar to Dehlin being denied permission to bring in a "note taker."

Even if Runnells had been allowed to invite someone to testify in his behalf, as it were, I'm thinking that person would not have been allowed to be present except when he or she was giving his/her testimony.

I agree and I think that's fair.

[toon]

2 hours ago, USU78 said:

Nope.  There are and can be no witnesses to confidential proceedings inside the confessional.

Generally, the party holding the privilege is the "penitent."  Although the clergy member may be able to assert the privilege on behalf of the person confessing or seeking spiritual guidance, that usually is only when the person in question is not present or capable of exercising the privilege.  Regardless, the clergy does not hold the privilege.

Also, the privilege only applies if the person seeking spiritual guidance intends for the conversation to be confidential.  If doesn't apply if the only party desiring confidentiality is the church.

I can see how in some disciplinary councils, the privilege would apply to the entirety of the proceeding, but there are others, like Runnells', where it clearly does not apply.

That said, I do have a problem with a surreptitious recording, especially when told not to do it and when you agree not to do it.  I think that if Runnells wanted a witness, or if he wanted to record the proceeding, he should have been upfront and insisted on that as a condition of his participation.  I imagine the response would have been that the proceeding would either have been discontinued, or the council would have moved forward without Runnells' participation.  If he didn't want that to happen, he then could have submitted his resignation.

[flameburns623]

2 hours ago, consiglieri said:

There are some legal hearings at which the facts are not in dispute, and so no witnesses are necessary.

It is purely a question of how to apply the law to the facts.

I see this as more what was going on here.

What I continue to be surprised about, though, is the stake president surprising Jeremy with an interpreter at the hearing.

Under normal circumstances, one would expect the stake president to advise Jeremy in advance that an interpreter would be provided by the stake.

That would have been the courteous thing to do.

The fact that the stake president did not do so suggests that the stake president got pulled into the "gotcha" game right along with Jeremy.

Regardless of what kind of games the stake president perceives Jeremy as playing, the stake president should not have allowed himself to get drawn in.

I'm going to speculate here.

I've been in private security for nearly 30 years. Been at numerous assignments where publicity and/or minimizing publicity were an issue.

The hearing looked "lawyered-up", which may or may not have included actual lawyers. It's a way of referring to the practice of saying absolutely as little as possible and directing all public statements through only one or a very few spokespeople. It's the simplest and least-damaging way to control one's image. There are other strategies possible, but this is the one I've seen most commonly, in boardroom protests, strikes, and Occupy! actions

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is run by laypeople. Mostly by laypeople with extensive business and even executive business experience. This minimalist way of dealing with touchy publicity would be familiar to such people.

Stake President Ivens, or one of his counselors, or some other trusted advisor (who might not even be a member of the Church), may have suggested this general, approach, anticipating that Jeremy Runnells would attempt to record proceedings.

I'n thinking that a trusted advisor was involved--again, not necessarily a Church representative--and that providing an Interpreter was one of the suggestions.

And, yes, the 'Terp may have been procured at the last minute. Which might even account for the slight delay.

It certainly could have been arranged within the 24 hours preceding the event, giving little time to notify Runnells of the change of heart.

So I don't know if this was a "gotcha". 

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Out of fairness, I have to say that in the secret videotape he made of the disciplinary council proceedings, he did edit out certain images for reasons of privacy (titles on the screen gave that as the reason for the edits). So in this respect at least, Runnells did ensure privacy by redacting views of everyone except President Ivins and himself (at least in the portions I watched).

That said, one can be justifiably wary about an individual who would sneak a recording device into a session and then publish video images in direct violation of a signed confidentiality agreement.

 

 

Thanks for the info.  I did not watch much of the council and can't see anything besides the top three paragraphs on the page linked to due to ipad glitches.  I am glad to hear that he showed this restraint.

[Calm]

Thinking back, I don't have a clue what I saw or didn't see.  These past two weeks are even more blurry than usual due to getting Mom successfully out of rehab for her hip surgery (again, thank you allwho helped with advice before it happened) and settled back home.  Hopefully tomorrow will be the final hurdle.