MormonLeaks does not break the law

[jkwilliams]

Whistleblowing is, to my mind, one of those gray areas in life. What exactly is "illicit activity"? I once worked for a company that contributed in a major way to a charitable organization. They issued press releases explaining that they were doing this out of the goodness of their hearts with no hidden selfish motivations. But I had seen the internal discussions that made it clear the company had done this for entirely self-serving reasons, and the charitable effect was merely a happy side effect, nothing more. Some of the communications I saw were appallingly cynical, making it clear that they were using the charitable organization to further entirely different corporate goals. One colleague came to me in tears because she was so upset about this whole affair.

I didn't leak any of that, nor did anyone else, to my knowledge. Was the company involved in illicit activities? No, but one could argue that they were lying about their actions and motivations. Suppose my colleague had shared the internal communications revealing the real reasons for the "charity." Would she have violated her employment agreement? Obviously. Would it have been morally wrong for her to share that information? If she felt the company needed to be held to account for its cynical actions, I would not have faulted her for leaking that stuff. 

So, yes, context and intent matter. Admittedly, I don't follow MormonLeaks much, but I haven't seen anything that suggests they are doing something evil and malicious. YMMV.

[PacMan]

3 hours ago, california boy said:

Just a question that I think is pretty relevant to this discussion.  Does anyone know what this employment contract looks like?  I did a little bit of freelance work for the church while I was in college.  Never signed anything.  I worked at BYU as well.  Never signed any employment agreement.  i have never signed an employment contract for anyone that I have worked for.  Do the housekeepers have to sign some kind of legal document to work in the church office building?  Does everyone sign this employment agreement?  And what does it prohibit them from doing exactly?  

All these assumptions of breaking the law seem to be built on a shaky foundation.

I do agree that few people care about anything Mormonleaks has published.  I can't see that any of it has damaged the church.  The real damage done to the church seems to be coming from policies instigated by church leaders.  If you did a poll asking people what they know about the Mormon Church, how much GA's make or bubble charts wouldn't even register.  They are not the big issues the church faces. I would say the top three issues that bother most people are

Polygamy

Priesthood ban

LGBT issues

Every one of those issues came from within the leadership of the church.  Of course Mormons believe they all came from God, but that is not the view held by the general public.

You are operating under the false assumption that contracts are all written.  Most are not.  And the attending fiduciary duties need not be written out.

Further, most employment "contracts" are actually employment handbooks.  In other words, if you don't like the policies of the job, you can quit.  If you stay, it's because you agree to abide by them.

[ALarson]

8 minutes ago, PacMan said:

You are operating under the false assumption that contracts are all written.  Most are not.  And the attending fiduciary duties need not be written out.

Further, most employment "contracts" are actually employment handbooks.  In other words, if you don't like the policies of the job, you can quit.  If you stay, it's because you agree to abide by them.

But aren't those just assumed if it's not in writing?  How would those be enforced legally as being a breach of contract or agreement?  

[PacMan]

1 hour ago, FearlessFixxer said:

We have said it in multiple interviews and I say it to sources if it comes up.  We also usually discuss unintended, non-legal consequences that could occur if their identity is discovered.  This sometimes discourages people from going through with sending us stuff.

Mr. McKnight,

Please state conclusively whether you intentionally help employees and former employees of the LDS church to publicize confidential documents belonging to the church.

I'm not asking whether you solicit them or not (although I think that answer is clear).  Please confirm the statement and I will go away.

Edited June 19, 2018 by PacMan

[Amulek]

30 minutes ago, smac97 said:

A whistleblower is, by definition, "a person who informs on a person or organization engaged in an illicit activity."

The LDS Church is not engaged in "illicit activity."

Exactly. The people submitting confidential information to ML are not (at least, to date, are not) whistleblowers. They are simply disgruntled employees. 

 

Quote

In fact, the only parties who are engaged in "illicit activity" (or at least potentially so) are - even by Mr. McKnight's own admission - the people who steal private information from the LDS Church and send it to Mr. McKnight.  You know, the guy who has set up a website for that exact purpose.  The guy who publicly brags about having "sources" who are employees of the LDS Church.  The guy who has come to this board to gloat about how he may be able to get away with such things while leaving his "sources" to suffer the consequences of doing what he is inviting them to do.

I think that is a point worth remembering.

MormonLeaks has been set up to operate in such a way as to primarily protect the owners and proprietors of MormonLeaks from legal liability - not Mormon Leakers (if that's even a word). The only safeguard Leakers have is the hope that they are not caught. 

 

[PacMan]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

You seem obsessed with McKnight. You're tracking his browsing and calling him out for not talking to you? Sounds a bit stalker...ish. Did he kick your dog or something? Why so much personal animosity?

 

 

 

"Unbridled anger is evidence of a blackened soul."

Animosity?  See, I know you're trying to bait me into saying that I think that Mr. McKnight is a moral fraud and clown that should be exposed so that you can accuse me of more personal animosity.  Sorry, I'm not going to do it.

In any event, I'd appreciate you re- direct your obsession with me.  I'm not interested.  Sorry.

[stemelbow]

7 minutes ago, PacMan said:

Robert, then why are you making normal observations that have nothing to do with the conversation at hand?  What journalism is "concerned" with has nothing to do with anything. We are talking about their legal rights.

And, I've said nothing to deny them their rights of journalism.  But that does not extend to participating in illegal conduct, particularly when it is a tort in a private civil action having nothing to do with the government.  And aiding and abetting the breach of fiduciary duty is illegal conduct.  Journalists, however legitimate or not, are not above the law.

You may hold whatever opinion you'd like.  But do not hold it out to be well-informed.  It is not.  And it is completely unsupported.  If you have an actual case that you would like to present, I'd be happy to read it.  But I'm not interested in you sharing an uneducated opinion with no basis no law.

I think you're talking a big game, PacMan.  I also am not sure if all this talk amounts to much.  I did my 3.5 minutes of research on this to make confirm or not all of your talk.  From what I've seen (I'll use one example I've googled) I'm not sure you have much of a case.  

Quote

Aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty claims are creatures of state law. To establish the claim in Delaware, a plaintiff must prove “(1) the existence of a fiduciary relationship, (2) a breach of the fiduciary’s duty, and (3) knowing participation in that breach.” Carsanaro v. Bloodhound Techs., Inc., 65 A.3d 618, 643 (Del. Ch. 2013).

This piece goes on to define a fiduciary relationship as:

Quote

A fiduciary relationship exists either when there is a formal commitment to act for the benefit of another or when there are special circumstances from which the law assumes an obligation to act for another’s benefit. The most widely known examples of formal fiduciary relationships are those existing between attorney and client, executor and heir, trustee and beneficiary, and doctor and patient.

 

In the corporate environment, the primary focus is on fiduciary relationships between corporate officers, directors, and employees and their respective organizations or shareholders. In cases involving allegations of aiding and abetting, these fiduciaries are generally purported to have breached their duty of loyalty by engaging in self-interested conduct or failing to resolve conflicts.

This seems to suggest the fudiciary duty and employee has relates to the organizations bottom line--their moneys.  I'm not sure this even is a play in the same ballpark.  

Quote

Courts frequently consider the third element of an aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty claim as having two separate prongs. First, a plaintiff must plead and prove that the aider and abettor had actual knowledge of the perpetrator’s breach of fiduciary duty.

Mormonleaks would have to know that the leaker breached their duty.  How would one prove that?

Quote

Second, a plaintiff must plead and prove that the aider and abettor substantially assisted or encouraged the underlying breach of fiduciary duty.

If so, "substantially" and "encouraged" might be the key elements.  But the first still needs to be proved.  

http://apps.americanbar.org/litigation/committees/businesstorts/articles/fall2013-1013-changing-landscape-of-aiding-and-abetting-breach-of-fiduciary-duty-claims.html

I don't know that you have any particular case wherein any particular current employee has leaked anything that could be considered a breach of his/her duty as an employee.  You seem to only have an assumption at this point.  It may be that an employee did breach his/her duty...but we don't know that's the case.  Do we?

[PacMan]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

By that standard, there would never be any whistleblowers at all. But you're right that the people who are giving that private information to ML are knowingly violating the trust of their employer or church, whichever the case may be (if I recall correctly, I had to sign some kind of NDA when I worked at the church--not that I've ever leaked anything confidential from my days there). They have to answer for their actions and motivations. But as I said, if someone is going to leak confidential information (and that was happening long before Ryan was even born), I'd rather it go to someone like Ryan, who does have a sense of ethics and morality, than to someone like the guy who's been filming the endowment. 

I get it. What Ryan is doing is seen as a malicious attack on the church. I probably would have seen it the same way back when I was a believer. 

Hold on, this is good.

Paraphrase: "If I was going to violate the law, I'd rather those fruits go to someone like Ryan, who does have a sense of ethics and morality in helping people violate their fiduciary duties and breaking the law, than to someone like the despicable guy that is not violating the law but is breaking religious covenants that I don't believe in anyway."

And thus we see the problem with subjective morality.  It is perversely and irrationally warped.

[jkwilliams]

Just now, PacMan said:

Hold on, this is good.

Paraphrase: "If I was going to violate the law, I'd rather those fruits go to someone like Ryan, who does have a sense of ethics and morality in helping people violate their fiduciary duties and breaking the law, than to someone like the despicable guy that is not violating the law but is breaking religious covenants that I don't believe in anyway."

And thus we see the problem with subjective morality.  It is perversely and irrationally warped.

I'd suggest you're misunderstanding me, but then I don't think it matters.

[ALarson]

7 minutes ago, PacMan said:

Hold on, this is good.

Paraphrase: "If I was going to violate the law, I'd rather those fruits go to someone like Ryan, who does have a sense of ethics and morality in helping people violate their fiduciary duties and breaking the law, than to someone like the despicable guy that is not violating the law but is breaking religious covenants that I don't believe in anyway."

I find it best to allow people's actual words (in the posts they write) to speak for themselves.  I doubt you'd like someone coming on here and paraphrasing one of your posts and adding words and their own inferences.  jkwilliams wrote what he meant to write....read it and comment on it if you choose to respond.  But don't rewrite his post in your words.

Edited June 19, 2018 by ALarson

[PacMan]

19 minutes ago, ALarson said:

But aren't those just assumed if it's not in writing?  How would those be enforced legally as being a breach of contract or agreement?  

I don't even understand your question.  If someone shows up for work and gets a paycheck, there is a contract there.  And implied in every contract in the state of Utah (as a matter of law) is the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, meaning the parties to the contract won't take actions to undermine the benefits of the contract.  Stealing information would be a violation of that covenant and the attending fiduciary duties to employees applied by law.

[jkwilliams]

Just now, ALarson said:

I find it best to allow people's actual words (in the posts they write) speak for themselves.  I doubt you'd like someone coming on here and paraphrasing one of your posts and adding words and their own inferences.  jkwilliams wrote what he meant to write....read it and comment on it if you choose to respond.  But don't rewrite his post in your words.

I don't much care. I wrote what I wrote, and he's not the only one who saw it as "moral relativism." But, yes, his "paraphrase" is a gross distortion of my words, suggesting to me that there's little point in engaging.

[PacMan]

2 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I find it best to allow people's actual words (in the posts they write) to speak for themselves.  I doubt you'd like someone coming on here and paraphrasing one of your posts and adding words and their own inferences.  jkwilliams wrote what he meant to write....read it and comment on it if you choose to respond.  But don't rewrite his post in your words.

He's here.  So he can correct my obviously flawed logic.  Except he decided not to.  Why?  Because once a disciple of moral relativism, disjointed nonsense is your bible.

[smac97]

Just now, jkwilliams said:

Not moral relativism at all. I don't have a problem with what he's doing, obviously.

Yes, I get that.

Just now, jkwilliams said:

I don't find it morally wrong or reprehensible.

Would you find it "morally wrong or reprehensible" if Mr. McKnight were to induce your family members to steal your private information and send it to him, for the purpose of him publishing it to the world?

Just now, jkwilliams said:

And it's not because "anything goes" with the Mormons (sheesh, Spencer, enough with the nastiness).

Well, then explain it.  I don't understand what you are saying here.  

Your moral indignation is odd.  You have no qualms with Mr. McKnight setting up a website designed to facilitate theft from the LDS Church, but my criticism of that scheme is "nasty?"

Just now, jkwilliams said:

I feel the same way about other leaks as well. I think what, say, Bradley Manning did was reprehensible, as I don't think there was even a pretense of whistleblowing.

This only makes your position all the more obtuse.  Again, a whistleblower is, by definition, "a person who informs on a person or organization engaged in an illicit activity."  The LDS Church is not engaged in illicit activity.

Just now, jkwilliams said:

But the reporters who received what he leaked are not the ones at fault, IMO. 

What if those reporters set up a website with the specific and intended purpose of allowing Bradley Manning types to steal information and send it to them?

Fault is not an "either/or" allocation here.  I quite agree that the Bradley Manning types who work for the LDS Church and use Mr. McKnight's website to send him documents they have stolen are at fault.  But that doesn't exculpate the fellow who set up the website and is soliciting such submissions (and even bragging about it afterwords ).

Mr. McKnight is Fagin.  He's trading in stolen goods.  He is coaxing others to go out and steal "sensitive documents" from the LDS Church, then send them to him anonymously via his website.  He even admits that his "sources" may be breaking the law by doing what his website is designed to help them do.  He is now on this board bragging about how this setup insulates himself from legal consequences, while also admitting that his "sources" may not be so lucky. 

You find none of this "morally wrong or reprehensible."  And yet taking exception to these things is, by your reckoning, "nastiness."

What a weird world.

Just now, jkwilliams said:

Like I said, I understand where you're coming from. As for your questions, I suppose it depends on what was revealed and for what purpose.

Really?  The morality of a person persuading your family members or trusted associates to steal your information (as in without your awareness or consent) and send it to him, for the purpose of publishing such information to the world, is contingent on "what was revealed and for what purpose?"

Just now, jkwilliams said:

If I did something wrong that I was trying to hide and it was revealed in an effort to expose my wrongdoing, I might be angry and upset, but I wouldn't think it was morally wrong. Context and purpose matter.

What if we don't know?  What if the whole purpose of the exercise is to find out if you have done "something wrong?"  Would you be okay with the theft and publication of your personal information in that context?

Thanks,

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

Just now, PacMan said:

He's here.  So he can correct my obviously flawed logic.  Except he decided not to.  Why?  Because once a disciple of moral relativism, disjointed nonsense is your bible.

This would be the rhetorical equivalent of "neener neener." Seems my decision not to engage was the correct one.

[ALarson]

1 minute ago, PacMan said:

I don't even understand your question.  If someone shows up for work and gets a paycheck, there is a contract there.  And implied in every contract in the state of Utah (as a matter of law) is the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, meaning the parties to the contract won't take actions to undermine the benefits of the contract.  Stealing information would be a violation of that covenant and the attending fiduciary duties to employees applied by law.

You answered my questions.  I doubt an employee can be sued for an implied or assumed agreement (or contract).  Now you're talking about it being a "covenant"?  

I can see this being a moral dilemma or problem, but not a legal one if there's been nothing in writing between the two parties.  Trying to enforce an implied contract in court would be difficult, IMO.

[ALarson]

3 minutes ago, PacMan said:

He's here.  So he can correct my obviously flawed logic.  Except he decided not to.  Why?  Because once a disciple of moral relativism, disjointed nonsense is your bible.

You really should stop with the accusations and personal insults if you want to have a civil, productive discussion here.  I have to believe that's why your last thread was closed by the mods.

You shouldn't be rewriting other's posts here.  I doubt you'd appreciate someone doing that to you.  Just quote their actual words and respond....then discuss. 

Edited June 19, 2018 by ALarson

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

What if we don't know?  What if the whole purpose of the exercise is to find out if you have done "something wrong?"  Would you be okay with the theft and publication of your personal information in that context?

Thanks,

-Smac

I think this is the heart of the matter. I do not believe Ryan is engaged in an exercise to find out if the church has done something wrong. Obviously, you disagree. I can't answer for the morality of those who do the leaking, as I don't know the situation. Legally they are apparently breaking their contracts, I'm pretty sure. But the morality of something depends on the situation, as Joseph Smith so clearly taught.

What you seem to be asking me is for a blanket condemnation of an activity (leaking) regardless of the circumstances. I won't do that, because sometimes leaking is the morally correct thing to do. If that makes me a moral relativist, so be it. 

[ALarson]

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

What if we don't know?  What if the whole purpose of the exercise is to find out if you have done "something wrong?"  Would you be okay with the theft and publication of your personal information in that context?

There are a lot of "ifs" in these questions  

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I think this is the heart of the matter.

I disagree.  We are speaking of means as much as ends.

2 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I do not believe Ryan is engaged in an exercise to find out if the church has done something wrong.

Honestly, it looks like he is out to impose his will on the LDS Church, regardless of the legality or morality or ethics of the means he uses to do that.

2 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Obviously, you disagree. I can't answer for the morality of those who do the leaking, as I don't know the situation. Legally they are apparently breaking their contracts, I'm pretty sure.

And Mr. McKnight is encouraging them to do this.  He is bragging about them doing this.

And you are justfying and defending Mr. McKnight.

2 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

What you seem to be asking me is for a blanket condemnation of an activity (leaking) regardless of the circumstances. I won't do that, because sometimes leaking is the morally correct thing to do. If that makes me a moral relativist, so be it. 

Well, let's narrow things down a bit.

Would you find it "morally wrong or reprehensible" if Mr. McKnight were to induce your family members to steal your private information - without your knowledge or consent - and send it to him, for the purpose of him publishing it to the world?

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[PacMan]

8 minutes ago, ALarson said:

You answered my questions.  I doubt an employee can be sued for an implied or assumed agreement (or contract).  Now you're talking about it being a "covenant"?  

I can see this being a moral dilemma or problem, but not a legal one if there's been nothing in writing between the two parties.  Trying to enforce an implied contract in court would be difficult, IMO.

You doubt it?  Based on what grand legal knowledge?  The implied covenant exists for the purpose of providing a cause of action!  And if you breach that covenant, you breach the contract--oral or written!

My apologies, but I simply cannot stomach any more legal debates with you.  I cannot debate against utterly foolish comments based on a complete ignorance of the law.

[PacMan]

8 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I think this is the heart of the matter. I do not believe Ryan is engaged in an exercise to find out if the church has done something wrong. Obviously, you disagree. I can't answer for the morality of those who do the leaking, as I don't know the situation. Legally they are apparently breaking their contracts, I'm pretty sure. But the morality of something depends on the situation, as Joseph Smith so clearly taught.

What you seem to be asking me is for a blanket condemnation of an activity (leaking) regardless of the circumstances. I won't do that, because sometimes leaking is the morally correct thing to do. If that makes me a moral relativist, so be it. 

That's exactly what he's doing!  Ryan uses the word "whistleblower" on the website!  Except the documents he's producing have nothing to do with whistleblowing, as Smac has pointed out.  Mormon Leaks is a moral farce!

[LoudmouthMormon]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Would you find it "morally wrong or reprehensible" if Mr. McKnight were to induce your family members to steal your private information - without your knowledge or consent - and send it to him, for the purpose of him publishing it to the world?

I think it's interesting that smac97 keeps asking this question, and nobody will answer it.

[jkwilliams]

Just now, smac97 said:

I disagree.  We are speaking of means as much as ends.

Honestly, it looks like he is out to impose his will on the LDS Church, regardless of the legality or morality or ethics of the means he uses to do that.

And Mr. McKnight is encouraging them to do this.  He is bragging about them doing this.

And you are justfying and defending Mr. McKnight.

Well, let's narrow things down a bit.

Would you find it "morally wrong or reprehensible" if Mr. McKnight were to induce your family members to steal your private information - without your knowledge or consent - and send it to him, for the purpose of him publishing it to the world?

Thanks,

-Smac

 

I don't think Ryan is inducing anyone to do anything. As he explained it to me, someone shared the infamous November 2015 policy change with him, and he felt it should be published. Was he right to do that? Reasonable and moral people can disagree. After that, strangers started sending him leaked information, unsolicited, and he wondered what he should do. Eventually he decided that he should come up with a way to share important information he had received without exploitation, hence the formation of MormonLeaks. Again, reasonable and moral people can disagree with his choices.

I am not justifying or defending Ryan. He can do that himself. I am simply giving my perspective. Apparently, that makes me evil incarnate. 

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

I think it's interesting that smac97 keeps asking this question, and nobody will answer it.

I answered it, twice. First by saying I wouldn't find it morally reprehensible if someone shared private information that showed I'd done something wrong. Second, I said I don't believe Ryan is inducing anyone to do anything. He's not some little guy in a red devil suit standing on the shoulder of a church employee saying, "Come on! Leak it! You know you want to!"