Scott Lloyd Posted June 18, 2018 Posted June 18, 2018 1 minute ago, ALarson said: It's not just "his word" that supports this. No legal action (that we know of) has been brought against him. I believe this would have happened if he'd broken the law and if the church could have successfully shut him down....but this hasn't happened. Of course, there's always the possibility that the church leaders don't want to give him more attention and publicity. See my last post.
ALarson Posted June 18, 2018 Posted June 18, 2018 3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: And you’ve neglected or ignored a third possibility: that the attorneys are biding their time waiting for when the time is right to strike. You're wrong about that: http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/70679-misuse-of-confidential-information-a-public-service-announcement/?do=findComment&comment=1209827615
SouthernMo Posted June 18, 2018 Posted June 18, 2018 1 hour ago, PacMan said: Don't confuse facts with anger. If I were angry, I promise that you and everyone else would know it. Can you show me how the MormonLeaks team are half-wits (IQ Data, or similar)? Give me facts, as you claim. If you can’t, this just seems like emotional vomit. Judgemental, not factual. I’m not sure I agree with what McKnight and team are doing, but the vitriol they e received makes me wonder why they have struck a nerve with some people! 3
JulieM Posted June 18, 2018 Posted June 18, 2018 (edited) 50 minutes ago, PacMan said: Boom. Exactly. ..... I will also say, if the Church attorneys are interested I am more than happy to pass along my thoughts to them. Yeah, you do that. Maybe copy your very impressive opening post here and include all your anger and name calling 😛 I’m sure they really need your help! (As if they’re not already aware and on top of this.) Edited June 18, 2018 by JulieM
Jason_Allred Posted June 18, 2018 Posted June 18, 2018 IANAL, but here are some Utah laws that may be potentially relevant: Utah Code 76-6-408 (emphasis added): Quote A person commits theft if he receives, retains, or disposes of the property of another knowing that it has been stolen, or believing that it probably has been stolen... Utah Code 13-24-2 (emphasis added): Quote (1) "Improper means" includes theft, bribery, misrepresentation, breach or inducement of a breach of a duty to maintain secrecy, or espionage through electronic or other means. (2) "Misappropriation" means: (a) acquisition of a trade secret of another by a person who knows or has reason to know that the trade secret was acquired by improper means; or (b) disclosure or use of a trade secret of another without express or implied consent by a person who: (i) used improper means to acquire knowledge of the trade secret; or (ii) at the time of disclosure or use, knew or had reason to know that his knowledge of the trade secret was: (A) derived from or through a person who had utilized improper means to acquire it; (B) acquired under circumstances giving rise to a duty to maintain its secrecy or limit its use; or (C) derived from or through a person who owed a duty to the person seeking relief to maintain its secrecy or limit its use; or (iii) before a material change of his position, knew or had reason to know that it was a trade secret and that knowledge of it had been acquired by accident or mistake. (3) "Person" means a natural person, corporation, business trust, estate, trust, partnership, association, joint venture, government, governmental subdivision or agency, or any other legal or commercial entity. (4) "Trade secret" means information, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique, or process, that: (a) derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable by proper means by, other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use; and (b) is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy. As I've said before, how is this any different than someone at Google trying to solicit trade secrets from Microsoft employees and publishing them? Isn't there a big difference between a news organization publishing a whistle-blower's inside information of unethical operating procedures on one hand and on the other hand having an organization which claims to be a news organization but then deliberately solicits and publishes a specifically targeted company's internal trade secrets with the only goal of just trying to get rid of the ability of that company to have any trade secrets at all? I can see abuse disclosure as being a legitimate duty of the press. But unless there is something about a financial transaction or a policy or procedure that merits a "whistle-blow," then how is that different than trade secret theft? If I didn't like a specific company like Microsoft or Google, what would prevent me from stealing and publishing all their trade secrets if I could just claim the law didn't apply to me because I had freedom of the press which allowed me to disclose their trade secrets? I guess I'm just not seeing how the press's right to inform the public can be stretched to become a right to remove the privacy rights of a targeted company. Mormon leaks claims: Quote Our position is that churches have an ethical obligation to disclose their finances to their donors. I think that position is precisely what makes them an activist group rather than a news organization. Their goal isn't to inform--it's to enforce their view of ethical responsibility. Could I form an "Anti-porn" activist group and say that it is my position is that every user of pornography should have an "ethical obligation" to disclose their use to their spouse? And then can I claim that gives me the right to hack into people's computers and release their browser history?
Scott Lloyd Posted June 18, 2018 Posted June 18, 2018 12 minutes ago, ALarson said: You're wrong about that: http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/70679-misuse-of-confidential-information-a-public-service-announcement/?do=findComment&comment=1209827615 Your prior post gave only two possibilities of which that was not one.
ALarson Posted June 18, 2018 Posted June 18, 2018 (edited) 5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Your prior post gave only two possibilities of which that was not one. This is a discussion thread. Or are we just held to our last post as being representative of all our opinions? You are wrong about what you stated and I corrected you by showing my post where I had not ignored nor neglected the possibility that the church is just biding it's time and watching McKnight. I agreed with you. Edited June 18, 2018 by ALarson 1
PacMan Posted June 18, 2018 Author Posted June 18, 2018 16 minutes ago, ALarson said: You honestly believe the church's legal counsel hasn't thought of everything PacMan has posted here on this? Come on....seriously? I believe the church has some of the very best attorneys available working for them (and they should). I have to believe that either McKnight hasn't broken any laws, or the attorneys may believe it's not worth drawing more attention to the leaks or going after him, IMO. PacMan is most likely way behind any of the attorneys involved regarding what they've already tried or considered. I would actually be very surprised if they have thought of it. You obviously have little association with the law, so let me explain a few things. The law is not only very complex but also very specialized. Further, two similar cases may ride differently based on very discrete facts. And, as I have already mentioned, the aiding and abetting the breach of fiduciary duty is not well established in Utah. It simply has not come up very often. So, unless an attorney (however great) thinks of the claim specifically, they are not going to find it. And based on the Church's prior letters/statements (re: intellectual property) I tend to think they may not even have the right attorneys looking at the issue. Thus, I have no reason to believe my assessment is wrong. I'd further note that your "either...or" is non sequitur. The Church's attorneys considering what I have offered has nothing to do with deciding to not draw more attention to the leaks, etc. As I have (repeatedly) said, the Church is not litigious. For all I know, they would rather take another course. But that does not mean they don't have a claim and has no bearing on whether their attorneys have already thought about it. If you don't agree with me, so be it. It does not matter. There are probably some good attorneys that would disagree with me (although I know of none). I will mention, however, that I graduated from a T-10 law school. I feel very comfortable in my opinions stated herein. But, of course, they are merely my opinions and nothing more. 1
ALarson Posted June 18, 2018 Posted June 18, 2018 1 minute ago, PacMan said: I would actually be very surprised if they have thought of it. You believe you're smarter and know more about this than all the attorneys working for the church? Ok. I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on that. I'm not very impressed with your writing and thoughts thus far on this thread. 2
PacMan Posted June 18, 2018 Author Posted June 18, 2018 20 minutes ago, SouthernMo said: Can you show me how the MormonLeaks team are half-wits (IQ Data, or similar)? Give me facts, as you claim. If you can’t, this just seems like emotional vomit. Judgemental, not factual. I’m not sure I agree with what McKnight and team are doing, but the vitriol they e received makes me wonder why they have struck a nerve with some people! Yeah. Sure. Go back and read the OP. I think it's pretty clear that assisting people in violating the law out of subjective moral superiority (stemming from an ax to grind) while telling them they are safe from disclosure is pretty foolish. They strike a nerve because they are dishonest hypocrites. And if you disagree, I could not care less. 2
PacMan Posted June 18, 2018 Author Posted June 18, 2018 1 minute ago, ALarson said: You believe you're smarter and know more about this than all the attorneys working for the church? Ok. I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on that. I'm not very impressed with your writing and thoughts thus far on this thread. That's not what I said. Now, given your dishonesty it comes as no surprise you support Mr. McKnight.
Scott Lloyd Posted June 18, 2018 Posted June 18, 2018 6 minutes ago, ALarson said: This is a discussion thread. Or are we just held to our last post as being representative of all our opinions? You are wrong about what you stated and I corrected you by showing my post where I had not ignored nor neglected the possibility that the church is just biding it's time and watching McKnight. I agreed with you. I was only pointing out that my response pertained to your last post, the one with the binary either-or construction.
ALarson Posted June 18, 2018 Posted June 18, 2018 2 minutes ago, PacMan said: That's not what I said. Now, given your dishonesty it comes as no surprise you support Mr. McKnight. My "dishonesty"? You're really crossing the line on this thread with the accusations and name calling. Where have I been dishonest? And, I actually do not support much of what McKnight has done. 1
ALarson Posted June 18, 2018 Posted June 18, 2018 (edited) 5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: I was only pointing out that my response pertained to your last post, the one with the binary either-or construction. And I was only pointing out that I'd already agreed with you regarding that 3rd possibility. I didn't feel that I needed to keep repeating it in every one of my additional posts on this. Let's just agree to agree here Edited June 18, 2018 by ALarson 1
Scott Lloyd Posted June 18, 2018 Posted June 18, 2018 21 minutes ago, JulieM said: Yeah, you do that. Maybe copy your very impressive opening post here and include all your anger and name calling 😛 I’m sure they really need your help! (As if they’re not already aware and on top of this.) Pot meet kettle.
Scott Lloyd Posted June 18, 2018 Posted June 18, 2018 (edited) 7 minutes ago, ALarson said: And I was only pointing out that I'd already agreed with you regarding that 3rd possibility. I didn't feel that I needed to keep repeating it in every one of my additional posts on this. Let's just agree to agree here Then maybe you shouldn’t have used the either-or construction. Edited to add: Good one on the “agree to agree” remark. I’ll rep you for that. Edited June 18, 2018 by Scott Lloyd
Scott Lloyd Posted June 18, 2018 Posted June 18, 2018 6 minutes ago, ALarson said: My "dishonesty"? You're really crossing the line on this thread with the accusations and name calling. Where have I been dishonest? And, I actually do not support much of what McKnight has done. What has he done that you don’t support? Two or three examples will suffice.
ALarson Posted June 18, 2018 Posted June 18, 2018 3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Pot meet kettle. I've seen no posts of her's where there is anger and name calling involved.....only PacMan's.
ALarson Posted June 18, 2018 Posted June 18, 2018 (edited) 3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: What has he done that you don’t support? Two or three examples will suffice. I think some of the information has actually been interesting. I'd have to go searching for specific leaks and really have no interest in taking the time to do that. I do remember some that many on here seemed to find interesting too and it hasn't all be negative information, IMO. I do not agree with him publishing personal information (such as a man's earnings, etc., for example). Edited June 18, 2018 by ALarson
Scott Lloyd Posted June 18, 2018 Posted June 18, 2018 (edited) 6 minutes ago, ALarson said: I've seen no posts of her's where there is anger and name calling involved.....only PacMan's. Name calling, not so much. Anger reflected in the unbridled sarcasm and taunting saturating her post. Edited June 18, 2018 by Scott Lloyd
Scott Lloyd Posted June 18, 2018 Posted June 18, 2018 1 minute ago, ALarson said: I think some of the information has actually been interesting. I'd have to go searching for specific leaks and really have no interest in taking the time to do that. I do remember some that many on here seemed to find interesting too and it hasn't all be negative information, IMO. I do not agree with him publishing personal information (such as a man's earnings, etc., for example). That’s one example. You seem hard pressed to come up with others, though said there’s not much he has done that you support.
ALarson Posted June 18, 2018 Posted June 18, 2018 2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Name calling, not so much. Anger reflected in the unbridled sarcasm saturating her post. Sarcasm isn't the same as the anger expressed here by PacMan.....not at all the same.
Exiled Posted June 18, 2018 Posted June 18, 2018 1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said: You can harbor any image you want about what a church is or does, but that’s not binding on anyone else. When there is as much enmity toward a church as there exists against the Church of Jesus Christ, I believe keeping some things secret is not only reasonable but prudent. It’s part of being wise as serpents but harmless as doves. Of course my ideal of what a church should be isn't binding on the church or anybody. However, ultimately authority is dependent on the adherents aquiesing to said authority. If the adherents don't agree, then there is a chance they leave. Also, as Ashe showed in his conformity experiments, if adherents harbor doubt but don't leave due to family or other social pressure, one public disaffection can lead to a slew of other disaffections. I am just some random guy making suggestions, but, the church should really consider being more open. I think the church leaders are sincere for the most part (even though I don't agree with their authority claims). I also think many would lose some of their uncomfortable feelings with the church if it were more open. None of the leaks from mormon leaks have caused any lasting damage to the church and so what is the reason to keep things secret? What possibly could the so-called enemies use against the church? That the church has human leaders that are quite ordinary? That the church has a lot of money? These things are obvious to even the casual observer.
ALarson Posted June 18, 2018 Posted June 18, 2018 1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said: That’s one example. You seem hard pressed to come up with others, though said there’s not much he has done that you support. That's one example of something I didn't care for regarding what McKnight has published. I'm not at all "hard pressed" to come up with either positive or negative information he's published....I just don't have the interest to search for specific leaks. I did find the bubble chart revealing and interesting (not alarming though....) and some of the videos were interesting to watch (kind of a behind the scenes view.). Much of what has been leaked isn't all that interesting, IMO. I admit that I haven't read all the leaks nor do I check McKnight's website, etc....I mainly read here if something is posted about them.
Recommended Posts