MormonLeaks does not break the law

[PacMan]

5 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

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!"

That wasn't his question.  Try again.

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, PacMan said:

That wasn't his question.  Try again.

Spencer can speak for himself, as can I. 

[The Mean Farmer]

I think this board (and its posters) allow Fearless Fixxer to dominate the narrative too much.

Just sayin'

[jkwilliams]

Just now, The Mean Farmer said:

I think this board (and its posters) allow Fearless Fixxer to dominate the narrative too much.

Just sayin'

Tell that to the people who keep bringing him up. It's hard to stay out of it when people keep attacking you.

[ALarson]

2 minutes ago, PacMan said:

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.

I asked you about this in my first post to you (on this thread)...a few questions to clarify what you were stating.   You respond with more insults....nice.

I admit I'm no legal expert but I do find it difficult to understand how someone can be sued for breach of contract when they never signed a contract (you are now calling it a "covenant").  I do believe there are actual contracts signed by some employees and I can see how those people could be sued for breach of contract.  

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, ALarson said:

I asked you about this in my first post to you (on this thread)...a few questions to clarify what you were stating.   You respond with more insults....nice.

I admit I'm no legal expert but I do find it difficult to understand how someone can be sued for breach of contract when they never signed a contract (you are now calling it a "covenant").  I do believe there are actual contracts signed by some employees and I can see how those people could be sued for breach of contract.  

Also, what kind of damages might the Church possibly sue for, as it pertains to any of the leaks?  

From what I've seen, the employees fudiciary duty cannot possibly be tied to the info leaked on Mormonleaks.  Even if there was something in the leaks that would require any employee to have breached his/her fudiciary duty we'd have to know that that particular leak came from an employee.   

[smac97]

31 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I don't think Ryan is inducing anyone to do anything.

"Induce" is defined as "[to] succeed in persuading or influencing (someone) to do something."

Mr. McKnight advertises his organization as "provid[ing] sources and whistleblowers the technical ability to anonymously submit sensitive documents."

Nowhere on his website does he discourage the submission of documents obtained illegally.  He says he has mentioned "in multiple interviews" that that leaking confidential information may be in violation of civil or criminal laws, and that he mentions this to sources "if it comes up."

So Mr. McKnight does not discriminate between documents procured legally and documents procured through theft or other unlawful means.  He publicly admits (brags about, actually) having "sources" who are employees of the LDS Church.  He acknowledges that this sources "might be [breaking the law by using his website in exactly the way he intends it to be used]."

Again, I'm not into the either/or allocation of fault here.  The Artful Dodger was wrong in his thievery, but then so was the person who trained and encouraged him to do so (Fagin).

Quote

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.

Right.  If Mr. McKnight were to publish your stolen personal information without your consent, I don't think you'd be waxing philosophical about how "reasonable and moral people can disagree" about such a scheme.

But since Mr. McKnight is encouraging theft from the LDS Church . . . meh.  It's all good.  The ends justify the means.  

One set of "ethics and morality" for thievery from you and people you agree with and like, and another set of "ethics and morality" for thievery from the Mormons.  Is that how this works?

Quote

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.

Good.  That's just what we are doing.  I disagree with him inducing others to steal stuff and send it to him.  I find that reprehensible.

Quote

I am not justifying or defending Ryan.

You're not?

• "One person's whistleblowing and transparency is another person's pilfering and stealing."
• "But as I said, if someone is going to leak confidential information [], 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 don't have a problem with what he's doing, obviously. I don't find it morally wrong or reprehensible."

You are saying these things about Mr. McKnight, but you are not "justifyin or defending" him?

I guess reasonable minds can disagree about that.

Quote

He can do that himself. I am simply giving my perspective. Apparently, that makes me evil incarnate. 

I never said nor implied any such thing.

-Smac

Edited June 19, 2018 by smac97

[smac97]

15 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Also, what kind of damages might the Church possibly sue for, as it pertains to any of the leaks?  

From what I've seen, the employees fudiciary duty cannot possibly be tied to the info leaked on Mormonleaks.  Even if there was something in the leaks that would require any employee to have breached his/her fudiciary duty we'd have to know that that particular leak came from an employee.   

Mr. McKnight has publicly bragged about having "sources" who are employees of the Church.  I think we can reasonably surmise that they are using his website to submit stolen documents to him.

We also know, for a fact, that nowhere on his website does he prohibit or even discourage the submission of documents obtained or used illegally.

Thanks,

-Smac

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

I don't see this as true. It was during that time Christ gave the great commission. And Christ's work was essentially OVER. He was revealing the fact of His resurrection. He had taught His disciple during His ministry and now He was sending them out.

The great commission took less then five minutes to give verbally. Why did he stick around for so long? Was he just killing time?

[The Nehor]

25 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Tell that to the people who keep bringing him up. It's hard to stay out of it when people keep attacking you.

I would stop attacking him if he stopped doing morally bankrupt things.

[jkwilliams]

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"Induce" is defined as "[to] succeed in persuading or influencing (someone) to do something."

Mr. McKnight advertises his organization as "provid[ing] sources and whistleblowers the technical ability to anonymously submit sensitive documents."

Nowhere on his website does he discourage the submission of documents obtained illegally.  He says he has mentioned "in multiple interviews" that that leaking confidential information may be in violation of civil or criminal laws, and that he mentions this to sources "if it comes up."

So Mr. McKnight does not discriminate between documents procured legally and documents procured through theft or other unlawful means.  He publicly admits (brags about, actually) having "sources" who are employees of the LDS Church.  He acknowledges that this sources "might be [breaking the law by using his website in exactly the way he intends it to be used]."

Again, I'm not into the either/or allocation of fault here.  The Artful Dodger was wrong in his thievery, but then so was the person who trained and encouraged him to do so (Fagin).

Right.  If Mr. McKnight were to publish your stolen personal information without your consent, I don't think you'd be waxing philosophical about how "reasonable and moral people can disagree" about such a scheme.

But since Mr. McKnight is encouraging theft from the LDS Church . . . meh.  It's all good.  The ends justify the means.  

One set of "ethics and morality" for thievery from you and people you agree with and like, and another set of "ethics and morality" for thievery from the Mormons.  Is that how this works?

Good.  That's just what we are doing.  I disagree with him inducing others to steal stuff and send it to him.  I find that reprehensible.

You're not?

• "One person's whistleblowing and transparency is another person's pilfering and stealing."
• "But as I said, if someone is going to leak confidential information [], 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 don't have a problem with what he's doing, obviously. I don't find it morally wrong or reprehensible."

You are saying these things about Mr. McKnight, but you are not "justifyin or defending" him?

I guess reasonable minds can disagree about that.

I never said nor implied any such thing.

-Smac

I think the disagreement is over whether Ryan is inducing people to do anything. I do not believe he is doing that. 

And the idea that I have one rule about Mormons and another for everyone else is, again, a gross misrepresentation and a rather nasty personal attack.

And I wasn't referring to you in the last thing you quoted.

[smac97]

25 minutes ago, The Mean Farmer said:

I think this board (and its posters) allow Fearless Fixxer to dominate the narrative too much.

Just sayin'

Mr. McKnight has come to this board to taunt members of the Church, to brag about how he has "sources" who are employees of the Church, to brag about how he has (purportedly) insulated himself from legal liability for the theft of documents from the Church, to clarify that he is perfectly willing to throw his sources "might be [breaking the law by using his website in exactly the way he intends it to be used]," to brag that he doesn't differentiate between legally- and illegally-procured documents from the Church, and so  on.

He's not really "dominat[ing]" anything.  He is revealing his posture toward the LDS Church and its members with ever-increasing clarity.

We now have a much better idea as to the "ethics and morality" of Mr. McKnight's behavior.  We have his own words.  We have his own omissions.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

4 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I would stop attacking him if he stopped doing morally bankrupt things.

I have no problem with that. I just think it's funny that someone is complaining that Ryan is taking up too much of the board. 

[jkwilliams]

Just now, smac97 said:

Mr. McKnight has come to this board to taunt members of the Church, to brag about how he has "sources" who are employees of the Church, to brag about how he has (purportedly) insulated himself from legal liability for the theft of documents from the Church, to clarify that he is perfectly willing to throw his sources "might be [breaking the law by using his website in exactly the way he intends it to be used]," to brag that he doesn't differentiate between legally- and illegally-procured documents from the Church, and so  on.

He's not really "dominat[ing]" anything.  He is revealing his posture toward the LDS Church and its members with ever-increasing clarity.

We now have a much better idea as to the "ethics and morality" of Mr. McKnight's behavior.  We have his own words.  We have his own omissions.  

Thanks,

-Smac

I've never seen Ryan taunting members of the Church. I have seen him come here to explain what he does and why he does it. I've known him since he was about 9 years old, and he is simply not the caricature you are portraying.

[ALarson]

Just now, jkwilliams said:

I've never seen Ryan taunting members of the Church. I have seen him come here to explain what he does and why he does it. I've known him since he was about 9 years old, and he is simply not the caricature you are portraying.

But, he's easier to attack if he's made into some type of rabid, vicious caricature.  Instead he calmly comes here and posts and explains himself (in defense usually of a personal attack).  I'm impressed with him and have also watched his interviews where he conducts himself well.  I don't agree with all he's done....but he's not the horrible villain many here desire him to be, IMO. 

[smac97]

Just now, jkwilliams said:

I think the disagreement is over whether Ryan is inducing people to do anything. I do not believe he is doing that. 

Right.  And Fagin didn't induce the Artful Dodger to steal.

Mr. McKnight's website is specifically designed to facilitate the anonymous transfer of "sensitive documents" to Mr. McKnight.  Nowhere on his website does he discourage or prohibit his "sources" from sending him documents procured through theft or other unlawful or unethical means.

It's reasonable to surmise that Mr. McKnight does not differentiate between his website's use for legal purposes and illegal/unethical purposes.  He just doesn't care.  He's protected himself from liability, while admitting that his "might be [breaking the law by using his website in exactly the way he intends it to be used]."

Just now, jkwilliams said:

And the idea that I have one rule about Mormons and another for everyone else is, again, a gross misrepresentation and a rather nasty personal attack.

Well, I don't know how else to construe your position.  You are okay with Mr. McKnight trading in items stolen from the LDS Church.  But would you be okay with Mr. McKnight setting up a website with the specific purpose of facilitating the transmission of "sensitive documents" belonging to you?  And taken from you without your knowledge or consent?

Thanks,

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

Just now, ALarson said:

But, he's easier to attack if he's made into some type of rabid, vicious caricature.  Instead he calmly comes here and posts and explains himself (in defense usually of a personal attack).  I'm impressed with him and have also watched his interviews where he conducts himself well.  I don't agree with all he's done....but he's not the horrible villain many here desire him to be, IMO. 

Exactly. I have never had any interest in the kinds of things he does, and I have disagreed with his actions sometimes. But if you listened to the hyperventilating around here, he's second only to me in evil. 

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I have no problem with that. I just think it's funny that someone is complaining that Ryan is taking up too much of the board. 

Yeah.  Mr. McKnight is a drive-by poster.  He's hardly ever here, and pretty much never posts anything of substance, nor does he engage the substantive critiques of his behavior.

He came here to brag about how he's insulated himself from legal liability while leaving his sources to flap in the wind if they are caught doing what his website is specifically designed to facilitate.  Now he's gone.  I fault him for a few things, but "taking up too much of the board" is not one of them.

-Smac

[ALarson]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yeah.  Mr. McKnight is a drive-by poster.  He's hardly ever here, and pretty much never posts anything of substance, nor does he engage the substantive critiques of his behavior.

He came here to brag about how he's insulated himself from legal liability while leaving his sources to flap in the wind if they are caught doing what his website is specifically designed to facilitate.  Now he's gone.  I fault him for a few things, but "taking up too much of the board" is not one of them.

Come on smac.....he posted to explain and respond to some things he'd been accused of doing (in a now closed thread).  He's been back to post and respond to others too on this thread.  He explained why he's in and out, and that he'd be back when he could to follow up.  Not everyone can spend as much time on here as you are able to do.

Edited June 19, 2018 by ALarson

[stemelbow]

13 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Mr. McKnight has publicly bragged about having "sources" who are employees of the Church.  I think we can reasonably surmise that they are using his website to submit stolen documents to him.

Which documents on Mormonleaks would you consider stolen by an employee if an employee was the one who leaked that document?  

13 minutes ago, smac97 said:

We also know, for a fact, that nowhere on his website does he prohibit or even discourage the submission of documents obtained or used illegally.

Thanks,

-Smac

I don't see anything in this aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duties claim that has anything to do with this statement you make.  Can you expand on this?
 

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I've never seen Ryan taunting members of the Church.

Well, there was this: "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."

That sure comes across as taunting.  Baiting.  Gloating.

7 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I have seen him come here to explain what he does and why he does it. I've known him since he was about 9 years old, and he is simply not the caricature you are portraying.

He is encouraging other people to steal documents from the LDS Church and send them to him anonymously.  He admits that the conduct his website is specifically designed to facilitate may very well be a violation of the law.

I have no interest in critiquing the man as a whole.  I simply don't care about him as a 9-year-old.  I am critiquing his conduct which I find to be reprehensible.

You have repeatedly said that "reasonable and moral people can disagree" about what he is doing, and yet you keep complaining when we actually do disagree with what he is doing.  That's a bit odd.

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

Right.  And Fagin didn't induce the Artful Dodger to steal.

Mr. McKnight's website is specifically designed to facilitate the anonymous transfer of "sensitive documents" to Mr. McKnight.  Nowhere on his website does he discourage or prohibit his "sources" from sending him documents procured through theft or other unlawful or unethical means.

It's reasonable to surmise that Mr. McKnight does not differentiate between his website's use for legal purposes and illegal/unethical purposes.  He just doesn't care.  He's protected himself from liability, while admitting that his "might be [breaking the law by using his website in exactly the way he intends it to be used]."

Well, I don't know how else to construe your position.  You are okay with Mr. McKnight trading in items stolen from the LDS Church.  But would you be okay with Mr. McKnight setting up a website with the specific purpose of facilitating the transmission of "sensitive documents" belonging to you?  And taken from you without your knowledge or consent?

Thanks,

-Smac

I've said it would depend on the purpose. I don't know how to be clearer than that. It's the same standard for my personal information as it is for the church's information.

A few years ago, someone apparently gave my wife's email address to some overzealous apologists. I have no idea who did it or what they intended. What I took exception to was their sending a series of threatening emails to my wife, triggering a pretty bad episode of PTSD--all because they didn't like my blog. That's what I would call malicious use of personal information. You seem to believe Ryan is analogous to the apologists, assuming they solicited my wife's information and then used it for evil purposes. I'm sorry, I don't see him inducing anyone, let alone bragging or taunting. 

I'm about done here. I don't agree with everything Ryan has done, but this Bond villain portrait is ridiculous.

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

Well, there was this: "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."

That sure comes across as taunting.  Baiting.  Gloating.

He is encouraging other people to steal documents from the LDS Church and send them to him anonymously.  He admits that the conduct his website is specifically designed to facilitate may very well be a violation of the law.

I have no interest in critiquing the man as a whole.  I simply don't care about him as a 9-year-old.  I am critiquing his conduct which I find to be reprehensible.

You have repeatedly said that "reasonable and moral people can disagree" about what he is doing, and yet you keep complaining when we actually do disagree with what he is doing.  That's a bit odd.

-Smac

Hmmm. I've posted some "greatest hits" on my blog of ridiculous attacks on me. I find them funny. It's not taunting but simply a way to blunt the impact of hatred. 

And I don't care if you disagree with me about what he's doing. I'm objecting to the notion that he's some reprehensible person and that I have a moral double standard because I don't think he's done anything particularly wrong. I'm fine with disagreement, just not personal attacks or misrepresentation.

[Exiled]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Well, there was this: "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."

That sure comes across as taunting.  Baiting.  Gloating.

He is encouraging other people to steal documents from the LDS Church and send them to him anonymously.  He admits that the conduct his website is specifically designed to facilitate may very well be a violation of the law.

I have no interest in critiquing the man as a whole.  I simply don't care about him as a 9-year-old.  I am critiquing his conduct which I find to be reprehensible.

You have repeatedly said that "reasonable and moral people can disagree" about what he is doing, and yet you keep complaining when we actually do disagree with what he is doing.  That's a bit odd.

-Smac

Assuming Mr. McKnight has breached some duty owed to the church or aided and abetted a breach, what damages has the church suffered?

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours 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.

You are playing games with legal mumbojumbo and ignoring the question at hand:  Is MormonLeaks doing something actionable at law?  No.  Why do I say that?  Because it is a matter of settled law that journalists may pursue their stories in legitimate ways without fear of legal repercussions.  You imagine that they are vulnerable to claims of aiding and abetting or breach of fiduciary responsibility, but have not presented a reasonable scenario in which MormonLeaks could be pilloried for any of that.  And you will not see them successfully sued or prosecuted.  Empty threats?  Yes.  Substantive cases? No.  Your ad hominems do nothing to encourage confidence that you are saying something meaningful.