MormonLeaks does not break the law

[FearlessFixxer]

I don't mean for this to be controversial and I hope it doesn't get shut down.

I logged on today and saw there was a thread about me breaking the law. It was already closed so I was unable to respond there.

I don't want to be long-winded because I don't think many people here believe anything I say, something that interestingly highlighted in the linked thread when smac97 says he thinks it is more likely that what I said about taking precautions was not a typo...and interesting train of thought, but I digress.  

We have never solicited or asked for anyone to contact us and send us documents.  Every document we have ever received has been from someone who has initiated the contact with us. The closest thing you can get to us soliciting is the creation of the website, but I don't believe that is soliciting...we can agree to disagree.

Not only do we not solicit, we take precautions even after a source contacts us to not solicit from them.  For example, we once had a source tell us there had a window of time where they could access the church's network and basically download a bunch of drives.  They asked if we wanted them to do that.  We said no.  I suppose that person could have done that without asking us and we would have never known, but they did ask us and we said no.

We break no laws, criminal or civil.  Our sources might be depending on the situation and we have made statements in the past that they should take these things into consideration.

The chance of us being compelled to reveal our sources is nearly zero.  This is typically only possible when dealing with matters of national security.  If you don't believe me, spend the money and go and consult with an attorney that specializes in this field.

There have been two attempts to shut down ML, at least in part.  The first time was the church threatening to sue us if we did not take down copyrighted material.  The second was from the heirs of Bruce McConkie for basically the same thing.  We responded to both with letters from our attorney telling them to go pound sand and that if they continued these types of letters that we would sue them under 17 U.S.C. § 512(f).  To date, both parties have backed off and have not threatened any more lawsuits. 

I am ok with all the folks here that don't like what we are doing or want to call us names.  I get it.  I don't take offense.  At this point, it is more entertaining than anything.  This year at Sunstone we are going to do a live video where we read the craziest criticism we get from people and this board has definitely provided material for that...keep up the good work.

Cheers.

[provoman]

the existance of the website is a invitation and solicitation for documents....that is my opinion on the issue

Edited June 19, 2018 by provoman

[ALarson]

10 minutes ago, FearlessFixxer said:

I don't mean for this to be controversial and I hope it doesn't get shut down.

I logged on today and saw there was a thread about me breaking the law. It was already closed so I was unable to respond there.

I don't want to be long-winded because I don't think many people here believe anything I say, something that interestingly highlighted in the linked thread when smac97 says he thinks it is more likely that what I said about taking precautions was not a typo...and interesting train of thought, but I digress.  

We have never solicited or asked for anyone to contact us and send us documents.  Every document we have ever received has been from someone who has initiated the contact with us. The closest thing you can get to us soliciting is the creation of the website, but I don't believe that is soliciting...we can agree to disagree.

Not only do we not solicit, we take precautions even after a source contacts us to not solicit from them.  For example, we once had a source tell us there had a window of time where they could access the church's network and basically download a bunch of drives.  They asked if we wanted them to do that.  We said no.  I suppose that person could have done that without asking us and we would have never known, but they did ask us and we said no.

We break no laws, criminal or civil.  Our sources might be depending on the situation and we have made statements in the past that they should take these things into consideration.

The chance of us being compelled to reveal our sources is nearly zero.  This is typically only possible when dealing with matters of national security.  If you don't believe me, spend the money and go and consult with an attorney that specializes in this field.

There have been two attempts to shut down ML, at least in part.  The first time was the church threatening to sue us if we did not take down copyrighted material.  The second was from the heirs of Bruce McConkie for basically the same thing.  We responded to both with letters from our attorney telling them to go pound sand and that if they continued these types of letters that we would sue them under 17 U.S.C. § 512(f).  To date, both parties have backed off and have not threatened any more lawsuits. 

I am ok with all the folks here that don't like what we are doing or want to call us names.  I get it.  I don't take offense.  At this point, it is more entertaining than anything.  This year at Sunstone we are going to do a live video where we read the craziest criticism we get from people and this board has definitely provided material for that...keep up the good work.

Cheers.

Thanks for responding and explaining some things, Fixxer.  

It's interesting to learn about the legal threats you've received thus far.....and that no one has pursued them further.

Glad you're here to give your input and provide more information.  Agree or disagree with you, that's the fair thing to do here.

[Robert F. Smith]

13 minutes ago, provoman said:

the existance of the website is a invitation and solicitation for documents....

Is that a legal opinion sanctioned by a lawyer? If so, please name him or her, and please provide citation to case law.

The mere existence of a website is hardly solicitation.

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Although it is true that Church employees and their agents may break the law or contractual agreements by disclosing confidential information to the press, the 1st amendment on freedom of the press allows the recipient of such leaked information to use it without fear of prosecution.  McKnight is not in jeopardy, and is not committing an illegal act.  Professional journalists typically refuse to disclose their sources, even when found in contempt by judges.

Quote

Robert,

Respectfully, that's just not correct.  The First Amendment has virtually no place in defense of a civil tort action as I've outlined.

Sorry PacMan, I just don't see it.  I know of no tort action possible in the situation faced by MormonLeaks, and any such action would be laughed out of court.

•  

Edited June 18, 2018 by Robert F. Smith

[FearlessFixxer]

41 minutes ago, provoman said:

the existance of the website is a invitation and solicitation for documents....

Luckily your opinion won't hold up in court.

[Thinking]

59 minutes ago, provoman said:

the existance of the website is a invitation and solicitation for documents....

I believe this was already addressed in the OP.

1 hour ago, FearlessFixxer said:

The closest thing you can get to us soliciting is the creation of the website, but I don't believe that is soliciting...we can agree to disagree.

 

[provoman]

22 minutes ago, FearlessFixxer said:

Luckily your opinion won't hold up in court.

your hubris will likely be your ruin

[provoman]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Is that a legal opinion sanctioned by a lawyer? If so, please name him or her, and please provide citation to case law.



The mere existence of a website is hardly solicitation.

Good thing I did not post "a website". Rather I posted "the website" which in context it is understood what website, and the statement incorporates by reference the totality of the website, in my opinion.

Edited June 19, 2018 by provoman

[FearlessFixxer]

21 minutes ago, provoman said:

your hubris will likely be your ruin

What is the maximum penalty under law for hubris?

[USU78]

7 minutes ago, FearlessFixxer said:

What is the maximum penalty under law for hubris?

Let's check with Sophocles.

[provoman]

 

Quote

"In a forum for ex-Mormons on Reddit, McKnight posted recently that three people approached him and said a secure site would make them feel more comfortable sharing files, and that he hopes the site “tips that scale for them.” 

... and on your website are instructions for TOR and securedrop.

Quote

 

“Sometimes people come across information through the course of their jobs that makes them feel uneasy or like it is something that church members deserve to know.”

He said the web site provides an anonymous “avenue” for them to share it.

 

 

Edited June 19, 2018 by provoman

[Amulek]

2 hours ago, FearlessFixxer said:

There have been two attempts to shut down ML, at least in part.  The first time was the church threatening to sue us if we did not take down copyrighted material.  The second was from the heirs of Bruce McConkie for basically the same thing. 

I wouldn't really characterize a couple of DMCA takedown notices as "attempts to shut down ML." The purpose of the notice is to get the (allegedly) offending party to simply take down the copyrighted work - not to put them out of business. 

 

Quote

We responded to both with letters from our attorney telling them to go pound sand and that if they continued these types of letters that we would sue them under 17 U.S.C. § 512(f).  To date, both parties have backed off and have not threatened any more lawsuits. 

Yeah, it's called the Streisand effect. I doubt you'll ever get anything from the church again. 

 

[smac97]

3 hours ago, FearlessFixxer said:

I don't mean for this to be controversial and I hope it doesn't get shut down.

I logged on today and saw there was a thread about me breaking the law. It was already closed so I was unable to respond there.

I don't know if you've broken the law.  That's actually not my point.  The law cannot regulate all behaviors.  Just because conduct is not illegal does not make it moral or ethical.  Case in point: Setting up a website specifically designed to facilitate the pilfering of the LDS Church's internal documents and information.

Quote

I don't want to be long-winded because I don't think many people here believe anything I say,

I believe some of what you say.  I believe you when you brag about having employees of the LDS Church pilfering (stealing, really) materials and passing them on to you.  It is precisely because I believe you on this point that I find your conduct so reprehensible.

Quote

something that interestingly highlighted in the linked thread when smac97 says he thinks it is more likely that what I said about taking precautions was not a typo...and interesting train of thought, but I digress.  

That's just a matter of common sense.  Of course you would not publicly admit to breaking the law, and would instead assert that you have taken precautions to "[not] break the law."

That says nothing about your reprehensible conduct, except that it may not technically be illegal.   

Quote

We have never solicited or asked for anyone to contact us and send us documents. 

From your website: "[MormonLeaks] provides sources and whistleblowers the technical ability to anonymously submit sensitive documents."

You set up a website to gather "sensitive documents" about the LDS Church.  You admit to "provid[ing] ... the technical ability to anonymously submit" such documents.

I'm not particularly interested in parsing out the legality of what you are doing.  I'm not familiar with this area of law, and I'm not particularly interested in delving into it.  

Quote

Every document we have ever received has been from someone who has initiated the contact with us.

Sorry, not buying this.  If I take out an ad campaign that says "I have set up a website that provides sources and whistleblowers the technical ability to anonymously submit sensitive documents about the finances and personal life and any other sensitive information about Ryan McKnight," and if I provided detailed instructions about how such "sources and whistleblowers" could utilitize that technical ability, and if I thereafter received anonymous submissions, can I really credibly claim that I "have never solicited or asked for anyone to contact {me} and send {me} documents about Ryan McKnight's personal information?"

Quote

The closest thing you can get to us soliciting is the creation of the website, but I don't believe that is soliciting...we can agree to disagree.

The website is nothing but a solicitation.  

Quote

Not only do we not solicit, we take precautions even after a source contacts us to not solicit from them.  For example, we once had a source tell us there had a window of time where they could access the church's network and basically download a bunch of drives.  They asked if we wanted them to do that.  We said no. 

So there are levels of unethical conduct to which you will not stoop.  Well, I'm glad of that.  

But c'mon.  Your "source" didn't contact you by random chance, right?  He/she contacted you  because of your website.  Because you regularly advertise your website and its "technical ability to [allow people, including employees of the Church to] anonymously submit sensitive [stolen] documents."

Quote

I suppose that person could have done that without asking us and we would have never known, but they did ask us and we said no.

That person asked because you have solicited such behavior.  For pete's sake, it's right there on your website: "[MormonLeaks] provides sources and whistleblowers the technical ability to anonymously submit sensitive documents."

What is the difference between what you are promoting on your website about its abilities and what this "source" offered to do for you?  The only difference I can see is . . . he asked.  And you said no.  If he had not asked and simply downloaded and sent the drives to you, then you would have had those drives.  And why?  Because you are actively promoting your website's "technical ability" to do exactly what your "source"  offered to do.

Again, I'm glad that you said no.  I'm glad there is some permutation of ethics that are in play.  But in the end, you are still encouraging other people to send you pilfered information, likely in violation of their employment terms with the LDS Church.  We know it.  You know it.

Quote

We break no laws, criminal or civil.  Our sources might be depending on the situation and we have made statements in the past that they should take these things into consideration.

"Our sources might be."  Four important words.  

You are inducing people who are employed by the LDS Church to steal documents and information from the Church and send them to you.  You publicly acknowledge that their behavior "might" be illegal.  

I'm glad we've established that.  

Quote

The chance of us being compelled to reveal our sources is nearly zero.  This is typically only possible when dealing with matters of national security.  If you don't believe me, spend the money and go and consult with an attorney that specializes in this field.

You may well be right.  

Quote

There have been two attempts to shut down ML, at least in part.  The first time was the church threatening to sue us if we did not take down copyrighted material.  The second was from the heirs of Bruce McConkie for basically the same thing.  We responded to both with letters from our attorney telling them to go pound sand and that if they continued these types of letters that we would sue them under 17 U.S.C. § 512(f).  To date, both parties have backed off and have not threatened any more lawsuits. 

The Church may very well lack the legal ability to stop you from what you are doing.  If so, that's just the way of things.  

But at the end of the day, you are still inducing people who are employed by the LDS Church to steal documents and information from the Church and send them to you.

Quote

I am ok with all the folks here that don't like what we are doing or want to call us names.  I get it.  I don't take offense.  At this point, it is more entertaining than anything.  This year at Sunstone we are going to do a live video where we read the craziest criticism we get from people and this board has definitely provided material for that...keep up the good work.

Cheers.

I don't think it's crazy criticism to take exception to what you are doing.

-Smac

Edited June 19, 2018 by smac97

[PacMan]

3 hours ago, FearlessFixxer said:

I don't mean for this to be controversial and I hope it doesn't get shut down.

I logged on today and saw there was a thread about me breaking the law. It was already closed so I was unable to respond there.

I don't want to be long-winded because I don't think many people here believe anything I say, something that interestingly highlighted in the linked thread when smac97 says he thinks it is more likely that what I said about taking precautions was not a typo...and interesting train of thought, but I digress.  

We have never solicited or asked for anyone to contact us and send us documents.  Every document we have ever received has been from someone who has initiated the contact with us. The closest thing you can get to us soliciting is the creation of the website, but I don't believe that is soliciting...we can agree to disagree.

Not only do we not solicit, we take precautions even after a source contacts us to not solicit from them.  For example, we once had a source tell us there had a window of time where they could access the church's network and basically download a bunch of drives.  They asked if we wanted them to do that.  We said no.  I suppose that person could have done that without asking us and we would have never known, but they did ask us and we said no.

We break no laws, criminal or civil.  Our sources might be depending on the situation and we have made statements in the past that they should take these things into consideration.

The chance of us being compelled to reveal our sources is nearly zero.  This is typically only possible when dealing with matters of national security.  If you don't believe me, spend the money and go and consult with an attorney that specializes in this field.

There have been two attempts to shut down ML, at least in part.  The first time was the church threatening to sue us if we did not take down copyrighted material.  The second was from the heirs of Bruce McConkie for basically the same thing.  We responded to both with letters from our attorney telling them to go pound sand and that if they continued these types of letters that we would sue them under 17 U.S.C. § 512(f).  To date, both parties have backed off and have not threatened any more lawsuits. 

I am ok with all the folks here that don't like what we are doing or want to call us names.  I get it.  I don't take offense.  At this point, it is more entertaining than anything.  This year at Sunstone we are going to do a live video where we read the craziest criticism we get from people and this board has definitely provided material for that...keep up the good work.

Cheers.

Well, that's what we'd call a self-serving proffer.  Unfortunately, it is all easily rebuttable.

I explained how you are aiding and abetting the breach of fiduciary duties.  Your only legal rebuttal is turning the law on its head by focusing on your lack of "solicitation."  I said nothing about solicitation (although I think it is very clear that you are ACTIVELY soliciting confidential information).  It is not a legal element.  To the contrary, the Utah Court of Appeals has "observed that the gravamen of the claim of aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty is the defendant's knowing participation in the fiduciary's breach."  Mower v. Simpson, 2012 UT App 149, P 37 (internal citations omitted).

In other words, the only thing you need to do to aid and abet is to knowingly participate in the fiduciary's breach.  And to the extent these employees (which you admit they are) are attempting to reveal confidential documents to the public, you are certainly aiding and abetting in that illegal disclosure.

You, sir, have a problem.

I'd also expose your lack of knowledge given 17 U.S.C. 512(f).  That is ONLY relevant to claims brought "under this section."  The claim I outlined is a civil action under Utah law.  Federal law has no jurisdiction over it, let alone 17 U.S.C. 512(f).

Simply said, you are wrong at every level.  And more alarming is that you refuse to acknowledge that possibility.  Par for the course, I suppose.

All you potential leakers: If you follow Mr. McKnight's nonsense legal reasoning you will deserve what follows.

Edited June 19, 2018 by PacMan

[PacMan]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Although it is true that Church employees and their agents may break the law or contractual agreements by disclosing confidential information to the press, the 1st amendment on freedom of the press allows the recipient of such leaked information to use it without fear of prosecution.  McKnight is not in jeopardy, and is not committing an illegal act.  Professional journalists typically refuse to disclose their sources, even when found in contempt by judges.

Sorry PacMan, I just don't see it.  I know of no tort action possible in the situation faced by MormonLeaks, and any such action would be laughed out of court.

•  

Robert, I genuinely enjoy your comments regarding antiquity.  Unfortunately, you are probably out of your area of expertise.  If you have a cogent legal analysis, I'd be happy to hear it.  As of yet, you've offered nothing.  I suggest you go back and look at my OP on the prior thread regarding the aiding and abetting of fiduciary duties and take another stab with appropriate legal citations.

Edited June 19, 2018 by PacMan

[USU78]

21 minutes ago, PacMan said:

Well, that's what we'd call a self-serving proffer.  Unfortunately, it is all easily rebuttable.

I explained how you are aiding and abetting the breach of fiduciary duties.  Your only legal rebuttal is turning the law on its head by focusing on your lack of "solicitation."  I said nothing about solicitation (although I think it is very clear that you are ACTIVELY soliciting confidential information).  It is not a legal element.  To the contrary, the Utah Court of Appeals has "observed that the gravamen of the claim of aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty is the defendant's knowing participation in the fiduciary's breach."  Mower v. Simpson, 2012 UT App 149, P 37 (internal citations omitted).

In other words, the only thing you need to do to aid and abet is to knowingly participate in the fiduciary's breach.  And to the extent these employees (which you admit they are) are attempting to reveal confidential documents to the public, you are certainly aiding and abetting in that illegal disclosure.

You, sir, have a problem.

I'd also expose your lack of knowledge given 17 U.S.C. 512(f).  That is ONLY relevant to claims brought "under this section."  The claim I outlined is a civil action under Utah law.  Federal law has no jurisdiction over it, let alone 17 U.S.C. 512(f).

Simply said, you are wrong at every level.  And more alarming is that you refuse to acknowledge that possibility.  Par for the course, I suppose.

All you potential leakers: If you follow Mr. McKnight's nonsense legal reasoning you will deserve what follows.

Intentional interference with contract?

[PacMan]

Just now, USU78 said:

Intentional interference with contract?

IMHO, Mr. McKnight has admitted to enough facts for aiding and abetting the breach of fiduciary duty.  I don't know that he has done so for tortious interference.  But I think it is a colorable claim worth fleshing out in discovery.

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, FearlessFixxer said:

The chance of us being compelled to reveal our sources is nearly zero.  This is typically only possible when dealing with matters of national security.  If you don't believe me, spend the money and go and consult with an attorney that specializes in this field.

 

According to this Census from the Reporters' Committee for Freedom of the Press, journalists have been jailed or fined for refusal to reveal their sources going back the past 30 years or so. None of the cases I see listed here have anything to do with national security.

In short, if a judge orders you to reveal your sources and you refuse, you can go to jail, be the case criminal or civil.

 

 

 

https://www.rcfp.org/jailed-journalists

Edited June 19, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[PacMan]

10 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

According to this Census Report from the Reporters' Committee for Freedom of the Press, journalists have been jailed or fined for refusal to reveal their sources going back the past 30 years or so. None of the cases I see listed here have anything to do with national security.

In short, if a judge orders you to reveal your sources and you refuse, you can go to jail, be the case criminal or civil.

 

 

 

https://www.rcfp.org/jailed-journalists

Yes, I forgot to address that.

If you are served a discovery request, you can move to quash it.  But I know of absolutely no grounds to quash an aiding and abetting discovery request on the basis of journalistic privilege (whatever that means).

In fact, the crime-fraud exception is an exception to just about every privilege, including the attorney-client privilege (which is a lot stronger than anything that Mr. McKnight could rely on).  Illegality is NEVER privileged.

Or did Mr. Randazza forget to tell you that?

And so, the good judge would order Mr. McKnight to reveal his list of sources.  Mr. McKnight would refuse because he thinks he's a journalist.  Then the judge would laugh, ask the court marshal to escort Mr. McKnight to a cell, and give him a good long time to think about the definition of "contempt."

Edited June 19, 2018 by PacMan

[PacMan]

Attention:  FearlessFixxer is now "browsing."  Get ready for his response.  It will be a good one, I'm sure....

[Calm]

https://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comments/57ma2c/a_message_for_eric_hawkins_et_al_plus_an_update/

Normally I don't post links to exmormon, no vulgarity that I saw in a skim, but it is exmormon Reddit so be prepared for criticism of all types if you choose to go there.  Since Fearless is posting, it seemed fair to allow the original content to be easily accessible.

Quote

If I have learned one thing over the last year (and more so over the last couple of weeks), it is that there is a lot less loyalty at COB than any of you realize.... It is not just what has been leaked, but what many want to share but haven't yet found the courage. One day they will find that courage and the damn will break.

As for the current status of leaks....We are still working on one that could be big....it will take time....

On a bigger note, I am working with a developer to create a secure, wikileaks style, site where people can submit stuff totally annonymously. I think that might help light a fire under many of those COB employees I was talking about.

You are expressing a desire that COB employees will leak material to your site.  How is this not solicitation?

One site had a definition of solicitation as "offering one's services" in prostitution.

It seems here a service is being offered to help someone commit a crime, though of course not prostitution.  I can't decide if that is quite the same sense...is the one who uses a prostitute also committing a crime?  Not something I paid attention to.  Maybe lawyers could comment if it would be viewed in a similar sense or not.

Edited June 19, 2018 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

2 minutes ago, PacMan said:

Yes, I forgot to address that.

If you are served a discovery request, you can move to quash it.  But I know of absolutely no grounds to quash an aiding and abetting discovery request on the basis of journalistic privilege (whatever that means).

In fact, the crime-fraud exception is an exception to just about every privilege, including the attorney-client privilege (which is a lot stronger than anything that Mr. Knight could rely on).  Illegality is NEVER privileged.

And so, the good judge would order Mr. Knight to reveal his list of sources.  Mr. Knight would refuse because he thinks he's a journalist.  Then the judge would laugh, ask the court marshal to escort Mr. McKnight to a cell, and give him a good long time to think about the definition of "contempt."

Courts have generally rejected reporter privilege as a legal concept, even with respected and established journalists, much less wannabees with an axe to grind.

[LittleNipper]

The biblical Christian view is that everything Christians do should be open for public observation. Does the Bible say to hide our light under a bushel or place it upon a lamp stand?  Obviously, we are not speaking of meeting secretly where the participants are being arrested for their faith. This was the case in Ancient Rome. However, even Roman soldiers became converts by being witnessed to and brought into church meetings. It is very hard for me to imagine that there are any rituals that Jesus taught to His disciples that He wanted hidden from the public at large simply because they were not "club" members. Christ became the Holy of Holies and the one, only and last perfect sacrifice for all time. And this in fact ended all the repetitious ritualism that was a mere shadow of that which Christ performed in His death, burial, and resurrection. And it is most obvious that the truth of this is revealed by the distortions that some pagans perpetrated --- namely:

That Christians ate their children.

They were unpatriotic to  Caesar/Rome.

Christians' were atheists! 

Edited June 19, 2018 by LittleNipper

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Intentional interference with contract?

From St. Benedict's Dev. Co. v. St. Benedict's Hosp., 811 P.2d 194, 201 (Utah 1991):

Quote

A party is subject to liability for an intentional interference with present contractual relations if he intentionally and improperly causes one of the parties not to perform the contract. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 766 (1979).

So if the LDS Church has its employees sign an employment agreement promising not to disseminate the Church's sensitive internal documents/information, then is there a potential for liability here?

Can Mr. McKnight's website be construed as an effort by him to "intentionally and improperly cause" employees of the Church to breach such a provision in their employment agreement with the Church?

Could Mr. McKnight evade liability by claiming, as he has here, that his website is not a solicitation or inducement for employees of the Church to breach such a provision in their employment agreement with the Church?  That, to me, is an interesting question.  

Back to the St. Benedict case:

Quote

There is no allegation in the complaint that any existing sublease between the development company and its tenants was breached or that the performance under any of those subleases was in any way impaired by defendants' actions.

In contrast, the Church's employer relationship with its employees is impaired when an employee breaches his/her employment agreement.  Can the Church state a claim that Mr. McKnight's website functions as an inducement/solicitation for Church employees to breach their employment agreement with the Church?

And what about employees that the Church discovers as having sent documents to Mr. McKnight?  If they are fired for their misconduct, and if they were to then approach Mr. McKnight, what would his response be, I wonder?  "Hey, I never formally, technically 'solicited' anything from you personally.  I just set up and run an organization and website that give 'sources and whistleblowers the technical ability to anonymously submit sensitive documents.'  If you engage in the behavior that my website is designed to facilitate, and if that behavior is a breach of your employment agreement, and if you get fired as a result, too bad.  Not my problem.  Go pound sand."

Mighty upstanding guy, this Mr. McKnight.  He's essentially admitted to this possibility ("We break no laws, criminal or civil.  Our sources might be depending on the situation...").

Pac Man was right.  Anyone who trusts Mr. McKnight is kidding themselves.  He may have protected himself legally from the fallout of the behavior he is encouraging from others.  That only speaks to the lack of ethics inherent in his effort.  Him coming here to gloat about how he has insulated himself from legal repercussions while throwing his "sources" under the bus only makes him look worse.

Back to the St. Benedict case:

Quote

With regard to the existing contracts, therefore, the development company has not satisfied the first prong of the Leigh Furniture test. It has not shown an intentional interference on the part of the hospital or Boyer. Without more, no claim for interference with present contractual relations can lie. 

The "Leigh Furniture test" referenced here is a separate, prior case cited elsewhere in the decision as follows:

Quote

We first recognized the tort of intentional interference with economic relations in Leigh Furniture and Carpet Co. v. Isom, 657 P.2d 293 (Utah 1982). The tort protects both existing contractual relationships and prospective relationships of economic advantage not yet reduced to a formal contract. Id. at 302. In Leigh Furniture, we established three requirements for a plaintiff to sustain a claim for intentional interference with economic relations. A plaintiff must prove (1) that the defendant intentionally interfered with the plaintiff's existing or potential economic relations (2) for an improper purpose or by improper means, (3) causing injury to the plaintiff. Id. at 304. 

Do statements by Mr. McKnight, both on his website and elsewhere (particularly where he brags about having "sources" who are employees of the Church) constitute evidence that Mr. McKnight has "intentionally interfered" with the Church's "contractual relationships" with its employees?  Honestly, I'm not sure.  Perhaps Mr. McKnight can get away with it.  Perhaps he can induce others to do his dirty work for him.  Perhaps he can then get off scot-free while his "sources" who are employed by the Church, who responded to his website, lose their jobs, and while the Church's contractual relationship with its employees is damaged or destroyed.  Perhaps the Church has no remedy at law for what Mr. McKnight is doing.  Perhaps that explains why Mr. McKnight has chosen to come here and gloat about all of this.

-Smac