JAHS Posted June 19, 2018 Posted June 19, 2018 5 minutes ago, PacMan said: 13 minutes ago, LittleNipper said: The reason being that Jesus wanted to teach and not simply be seen as some magician. He didn't say anything to Herod for obvious reasons; however, that did not stop people. And He wasn't trying to hide from those seeking after HIM --- nor hide HIS teachings. Pearls and swine, my friend. And as they came down from the mountain, Jesus charged them, saying, Tell the vision to no man, until the Son of man be risen again from the dead." Matthew 17:9; see also, Mark 1:43-44, Mark 5:43, Mark 7:36, Mark 9:9, Matt 9:30, etc. That doesn't sound like transparency to me. Here's another one. In John 16:12 Jesus said this to His apostles, " I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now." He was even hiding things from His own Apostles. 1
PacMan Posted June 19, 2018 Posted June 19, 2018 2 minutes ago, The Nehor said: fix·er ˈfiksər/ noun 1. a person who makes arrangements for other people, especially of an illicit or devious kind. 2. a substance used for fixing a photographic image. Yeah. That's not aiding and abetting at all. LOL!
FearlessFixxer Posted June 19, 2018 Author Posted June 19, 2018 Hey all,. Thank you for the responses. I will go ahead an bow out of the conversation at this point. Some people here are incapable of having a productive conversation with, and that is fine. I went to cook dinner and eat with the fam, I made a few phone calls, took care of some stuff around the house... I came back to my phone only to see the geniuses here claim that I am running or hiding from this conversation because I have not responded yet. I really don't have time to deal with people who think like this. I will check every once in a while and if I see an interesting question or comment I will respond. Peace out 1
PacMan Posted June 19, 2018 Posted June 19, 2018 (edited) Edited to be nice: Mr. McKnight, yes. I do believe you are "running or hiding form this conversation." If you had time to post the OP, you have time to deal with us "geniuses." Just respond to my last rebuttal about how your legal analysis concerning your (non-)solicitation has nothing to do with with legal elements of aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty. Thanks. Edited June 19, 2018 by PacMan
Exiled Posted June 19, 2018 Posted June 19, 2018 7 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said: 1. The Church will take anyone to court if they have a good case for it. 2. "So, a court case could blow up in the church's face nationally and worldwide." This type of hyperbole would make Donald Trump blush. The reality is 99% of the population in the US does not care and 99.9% of the population of the world does not care. The vast majority of the population cares more about Kim Kardashian than issues between the LDS Church and ML. I think the church still is viewed as "Big Love" on HBO among a lot of the population. Whenever I am in LA, wearing my UofU gear, the LA fans, mostly USC in my experience, want to know about how many wives I have. They tell it as a joke but the issue remains. The hierarchy doesn't want the bad publicity. Damages would be hard to show and it could easily be portrayed as David against Goliath and the church would play Goliath in this play. Sure the church will defend itself but this is a different animal in my opinion. Juries don't like complainers and skeptically look at plaintiff's claims where damages are speculative.
smac97 Posted June 19, 2018 Posted June 19, 2018 (edited) 12 hours ago, Exiled said: Smac, my position is that churches are different and should be held to a different standard. Convenient, that. The LDS Church is a private party whose information is being published against its will. Your response is that private religious groups are not entitled to the same rights as other private parties, like you or me. That's entirely subjective. And again, you wouldn't feel this way if you and your private information were in Mr. McKnight's crosshairs. Quote Of course if I were Coke and an employee told Mr. Fixxer the secret formula, I would fight tooth and nail to keep my valuable trade secret confidential. Okay. Quote However, if I were a church, apparently spreading the Word, I would take a different tact and let the sunshine in. But because the LDS Church does not agree with you on this point, you advocate the notion that this choice should be taken away from the LDS Church and, and that your personal preferences be forced upon it against its will. Again, you would be singing a very different tune if someone like Mr. McKnight were to subjectively declare that you are not entitled to keep your personal information from being published to the world. There's a term for this: "Special pleading" (defined as "[an] argument in which the speaker deliberately ignores aspects that are unfavorable to their point of view"). That seems to be what you are doing. Quote Churches should be like government and sunshine laws should be supreme. But you don't really believe that, since you are indifferent to the legalities of what Mr. McKnight is doing, right? You support his efforts regardless of the law, so it's kind of hard for you to appeal to how the law should be set up when you disregard it either way. -Smac Edited June 19, 2018 by smac97 1
Robert F. Smith Posted June 19, 2018 Posted June 19, 2018 2 minutes ago, PacMan said: Robert, you know better than to lead with argumentum ad silentio. I disagree with your position on whistle-blowers in the federal law and government context. But that's not what we are talking about. We are talking about "whistle-blowers" in the state law and private context. You are effectively arguing that a journalist can know of and even intentionally assist a murder (think publishing a coded message) without repercussion because such is protected as a journalist because he just "reported" it. Nonsense. There are exceptions to privilege. And that exception is the crime-fraud exception. Whether you are aware or not of this case or another, you are simply incorrect. No one is asserting absolute freedom of the press, and no court has ever held that to be the case. Freedom of the press cannot be a shield for the commission of a crime, or of conspiracy to do so, and that is not what we are discussing here. Moreover, I did not restrict my comments to federal law or state law, nor to govt contexts or private contexts. Journalists cover all matters of interest to the public. Our immediate discussion here has to do with MormonLeaks and whether that activity is illegal or civilly actionable. You have yet to cite a legitimate case which makes your point. Assertion is not evidence. 2
Exiled Posted June 19, 2018 Posted June 19, 2018 Just now, smac97 said: Convenient, that. The LDS Church is a private party whose information is being published against its will. Your response is that private religious groups are not entitled to the same rights as other private parties, like you or me. That's entirely subjective. And again, you wouldn't feel this way if you and your private information were in Mr. McKnight's crosshairs. Okay. But because the LDS Church does not agree with you on this point, you advocate the notion that this choice should be taken away from the LDS Church and forced upon it. Again, you would be singing a very different tune if someone like Mr. McKnight were to subjectively declare that you are not entitled to keep your personal information from being published to the world. There's a term for this: "Special pleading" (defined as "[an] argument in which the speaker deliberately ignores aspects that are unfavorable to their point of view"). That seems to be what you are doing. But you don't really believe that, since you are indifferent to the legalities of what Mr. McKnight is doing, right? You support his efforts regardless of the law, so it's kind of hard for you to appeal to how the law should be set up when you disregard it either way. -Smac Don't you think different types of organizations should be treated differently? Should churches pay taxes? Isn't that different treatment? Maybe if the church doesn't have to pay taxes, society should demand that it disclose more?
Paiute Posted June 19, 2018 Posted June 19, 2018 7 minutes ago, FearlessFixxer said: Hey all,. Thank you for the responses. I will go ahead an bow out of the conversation at this point. Some people here are incapable of having a productive conversation with, and that is fine. I went to cook dinner and eat with the fam, I made a few phone calls, took care of some stuff around the house... I came back to my phone only to see the geniuses here claim that I am running or hiding from this conversation because I have not responded yet. I really don't have time to deal with people who think like this. I will check every once in a while and if I see an interesting question or comment I will respond. Peace out Well, you wanted to be humored for your Sunstone Powerpoint presentation, didn't you? 1
strappinglad Posted June 19, 2018 Posted June 19, 2018 20 minutes ago, PacMan said: Out of curiosity, what's he "Fixxing?" Antiquated spelling?
JulieM Posted June 19, 2018 Posted June 19, 2018 (edited) 1 minute ago, strappinglad said: Antiquated spelling? “Fixing” was probably already taken In all seriousness, I’m really glad he’s posting here. Let’s not drive him away!! Edited June 19, 2018 by JulieM
The Nehor Posted June 19, 2018 Posted June 19, 2018 18 minutes ago, FearlessFixxer said: Hey all,. Thank you for the responses. I will go ahead an bow out of the conversation at this point. Some people here are incapable of having a productive conversation with, and that is fine. I went to cook dinner and eat with the fam, I made a few phone calls, took care of some stuff around the house... I came back to my phone only to see the geniuses here claim that I am running or hiding from this conversation because I have not responded yet. I really don't have time to deal with people who think like this. I will check every once in a while and if I see an interesting question or comment I will respond. Peace out I did not think you were hiding. Nice to see you were eating and fixing things instead of burning down orphanages and torturing nuns for fun. Then again, Monday is probably a slow day for that kind of thing.
The Nehor Posted June 19, 2018 Posted June 19, 2018 6 minutes ago, JulieM said: “Fixing” was probably already taken In all seriousness, I’m really glad he’s posting here. Let’s not drive him away!! Counterpoint: Let’s drive him away instead!
smac97 Posted June 19, 2018 Posted June 19, 2018 (edited) 15 minutes ago, Exiled said: Don't you think different types of organizations should be treated differently? Not in the way you are advocating. How the law treats them is certainly up for discussion. But the point is that Mr. McKnight is violating the privacy of the Church regardless of its legality. Just look at his equivocations here. Even he admits that the conduct he is inducing others into may be illegal, but he justifies that by bragging about how he has insulated himself from that ("We break no laws, criminal or civil. Our sources might be [breaking the law]..."). And you are defending his position. So the law really isn't the point, is it? Quote Should churches pay taxes? Isn't that different treatment? Not particularly relevant to what Mr. McKnight is doing. And for the record, the LDS Church pays taxes on its for-profit interests. Quote Maybe if the church doesn't have to pay taxes, society should demand that it disclose more? But that's hardly the point. Mr. McKnight isn't inducing other people to steal sensitive information from the LDS Church and send it to him because of American tax policy. He's inducing other people to steal because it's the LDS Church in the crosshairs. And if he were to ever turn on you, you would be singing a very different tune. You wouldn't be referencing tax policy, or what the law "should" be. You would resent and object to Mr. McKnight setting up a website designed to coax other people to steal your private information and send it to him so that he could publish it to the world. But since it's the LDS Church . . . -Smac Edited June 19, 2018 by smac97
smac97 Posted June 19, 2018 Posted June 19, 2018 (edited) 24 minutes ago, FearlessFixxer said: Hey all,. Thank you for the responses. I will go ahead an bow out of the conversation at this point. Some people here are incapable of having a productive conversation with, and that is fine. Some of us are capable of having a productive conversaion. You could simply choose to respond to some posts and not to others. Instead, you are "bow[ing] out of the conversation" altogether. Thanks, -Smac Edited June 19, 2018 by smac97
JulieM Posted June 19, 2018 Posted June 19, 2018 11 minutes ago, The Nehor said: Counterpoint: Let’s drive him away instead! Oh, come on. We should welcome all views here and not be afraid of any light shone on us. Even those who don’t care for fixxer should want to hear his perspective and opinions. (My opinion )
JulieM Posted June 19, 2018 Posted June 19, 2018 (edited) 13 minutes ago, smac97 said: Some of us are capable of having a productive conversaion. You could simply choose to respond to some posts and not to others. Instead, you are "bow[ing] out of the conversation" altogether. He didn’t say “altogether”, just “at this point” while he fixes and eats dinner. He said he’d check back and respond (maybe)! Edited June 19, 2018 by JulieM
smac97 Posted June 19, 2018 Posted June 19, 2018 2 minutes ago, JulieM said: He didn’t say “altogether”, just “at this point” while he fixes and eats dinner. He said he’d check back and respond (maybe)! Fair enough.
carbon dioxide Posted June 19, 2018 Posted June 19, 2018 34 minutes ago, Exiled said: I think the church still is viewed as "Big Love" on HBO among a lot of the population. Whenever I am in LA, wearing my UofU gear, the LA fans, mostly USC in my experience, want to know about how many wives I have. They tell it as a joke but the issue remains. The hierarchy doesn't want the bad publicity. Damages would be hard to show and it could easily be portrayed as David against Goliath and the church would play Goliath in this play. Sure the church will defend itself but this is a different animal in my opinion. Juries don't like complainers and skeptically look at plaintiff's claims where damages are speculative. Perhaps but most people simply do not care. Nothing stays in people minds more than a day. Donald Trump is a genius in this way. He is always doing or saying something stupid so people forget what dumb thing he said or did a week ago. It is hard to keep up. Overall I see most of what Mormonleaks to be harmless and boring. Better for the Church to ignore it than give free publicity. The Church however should go hard at those who violate their employment contracts by accessing Church information systems in an inappropriate way. There is no reason the Church can't figure out who these people are.
PacMan Posted June 19, 2018 Posted June 19, 2018 33 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: No one is asserting absolute freedom of the press, and no court has ever held that to be the case. Freedom of the press cannot be a shield for the commission of a crime, or of conspiracy to do so, and that is not what we are discussing here. Moreover, I did not restrict my comments to federal law or state law, nor to govt contexts or private contexts. Journalists cover all matters of interest to the public. Our immediate discussion here has to do with MormonLeaks and whether that activity is illegal or civilly actionable. You have yet to cite a legitimate case which makes your point. Assertion is not evidence. Are we on the same thread? Because I have cited a number of "legitimate" cases. And you have cited none. For example, you authoritatively state that "[j]ournalists cover all matters of interest to the public." That is nonsense. You will never find a case that says that and offers such a sweeping privilege. It doesn't exist. And if you contend that it does, prove it. To the contrary, I can't prove a fantastical negative. Let me do one better. In many jurisdictions, the crime-fraud exception extends to any illegal activity. In fact, that is now the prevailing view. See Koch v. Specialized Care Services, Inc., 437 F.Supp.2d 362. This approach has further been adopted by the federal court in Nevada. "The determinant of the exception's applicability is the wrongfulness of the conduct before the Court, not the form of its pleading." Lewis v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 2:14-cv-01683-RFB-GWF (D. Nevada Dec. 23, 2015) (citing Koch). Lastly, as I've explained before, "illegal" is not left to criminal activity. A breach of contract is illegal. Conversion is illegal. Breaching of fiduciary duties is illegal. You are mixing legal terms to such an extent that it is difficult to even understand what you're trying to mean. For example, you talk about "whether that activity is illegal or civilly actionable." What are you trying to say? Civil actions pursue remedies for illegal conduct. That's their point. They are not mutually exclusive. Yet, you seem to suggest they are.
Paiute Posted June 19, 2018 Posted June 19, 2018 (edited) Georgie Porgie, puddin and pie, Leaked Church documents and made everyone cry! When the big boys with their attorneys came out to play, Georgie Porgie got an attorney and ran away! Put that in your Sunstone PowerPoint Presentation. It will make everyone laugh. Edited June 19, 2018 by Paiute
Robert F. Smith Posted June 19, 2018 Posted June 19, 2018 53 minutes ago, PacMan said: ............................., you authoritatively state that "[j]ournalists cover all matters of interest to the public." That is nonsense. You will never find a case that says that and offers such a sweeping privilege. It doesn't exist. ...................... I was not making an assertion about stare decisis, but only the normal observation that journalism is concerned with the broadest possible interests of the public. You are playing games. 53 minutes ago, PacMan said: Let me do one better. In many jurisdictions, the crime-fraud exception extends to any illegal activity. In fact, that is now the prevailing view. See Koch v. Specialized Care Services, Inc., 437 F.Supp.2d 362. This approach has further been adopted by the federal court in Nevada. "The determinant of the exception's applicability is the wrongfulness of the conduct before the Court, not the form of its pleading." Lewis v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 2:14-cv-01683-RFB-GWF (D. Nevada Dec. 23, 2015) (citing Koch). Lastly, as I've explained before, "illegal" is not left to criminal activity. A breach of contract is illegal. Conversion is illegal. Breaching of fiduciary duties is illegal. You are mixing legal terms to such an extent that it is difficult to even understand what you're trying to mean. For example, you talk about "whether that activity is illegal or civilly actionable." What are you trying to say? Civil actions pursue remedies for illegal conduct. That's their point. They are not mutually exclusive. Yet, you seem to suggest they are. I was trying to cover all manner of criminal and civil matters, and so used an infelicitous word or phrase. You seem focused on denying the right of journalists to cover their stories in the ways which they traditionally do, without violating any law. You are intent on finding any possible violation of law. Do such violations occur? Yes, but do they fit within your imaginary categories for MormonLeaks? No. For many people in modern society, free speech and free press have little value and their enemies are constantly trying to find ways in which to limit them. Nothing you have said thus far is a limitation on legitimate freedom of the press.
JulieM Posted June 19, 2018 Posted June 19, 2018 13 minutes ago, Paiute said: Georgie Porgie, puddin and pie, Leaked Church documents and made everyone cry! When the big boys with their attorneys came out to play, Georgie Porgie got an attorney and ran away! Put that in your Sunstone PowerPoint Presentation. It will make everyone laugh. Wow. How old are you? 2nd grade maybe? Just keep giving him material to use.... 1
sunstoned Posted June 19, 2018 Posted June 19, 2018 6 hours ago, FearlessFixxer said: 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. IMO you provide a needed service. You give transparency to areas where it is needed. The popularity of your site and of the material that you provide is evidence of this.
Exiled Posted June 19, 2018 Posted June 19, 2018 1 hour ago, carbon dioxide said: Perhaps but most people simply do not care. Nothing stays in people minds more than a day. Donald Trump is a genius in this way. He is always doing or saying something stupid so people forget what dumb thing he said or did a week ago. It is hard to keep up. Overall I see most of what Mormonleaks to be harmless and boring. Better for the Church to ignore it than give free publicity. The Church however should go hard at those who violate their employment contracts by accessing Church information systems in an inappropriate way. There is no reason the Church can't figure out who these people are. If I were representing the church, I would take the same tact as you advocate. If there are no leaks because the leakers are shut down or cut off, then Mr. Fixxer doesn't have a site. I wonder if that is possible though? I don't have the computer skills to guess either way.
Recommended Posts