Update on McKenna Denson Lawsuit (Hearing Schedule)

[jkwilliams]

16 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yes, I acknowledge that.  However, I am not sure that Ms. Denson will benefit from this public discussion.  The LDS Church has already made substantial improvements in guarding against sexual improprieties.  Ms. Denson's spectacle hasn't really changed much, except to destroy her reputation and air her troubles to the world.

Alas, he will not face legal consequences "at this late date."  The statute of limitations is almost certain to bar Ms. Denson's claims against him.  

I think the best that Ms. Denson could have hoped for, legally speaking, was a confidential settlement from the Church.  But she destroyed her own attorney's settlement negotiations, so that's that.

The courts cannot provide a remedy here.

Thanks,

-Smac

I agree that she hasn't done herself any favors with the public interviews, etc. I just find it fascinating that, from the moment this story broke, a lot of people have simply taken sides without looking into it. As I recall, almost immediately people were attacking her for taking advantage of a frail and possibly senile old man, and it has gone on from there. Of course, other people take what she says as gospel truth. My guess is that Bishop did something inappropriate, though I don't think we'll ever know exactly what happened, barring some corroboration. 

I finally contacted her yesterday and mentioned that I had entered the MTC apparently on the same day she did. We got talking about what I remembered of President Bishop, and her recollection dovetailed quite nicely with mine. He made frequent mention of how unconfessed sexual sin (especially masturbation) would drive the spirit away from the MTC and make us ineffective missionaries. At the time I wracked my brain trying to think of anything I had done that I hadn't confessed (I wasn't guilty of anything even remotely serious) and ended up feeling guilty because I was sure I'd forgotten something and hadn't repented. The pressure to confess was pretty constant. Years later, I was talking to a therapist in Provo, and we talked about my lifelong issues of guilt and shame. She asked me to tell her about a time when I felt the most intense guilt and shame, and I mentioned my experience in the MTC. She got really defensive and said, "That's not what the MTC is like. My husband and I served for 3 years in the MTC, and we never saw anything like that! You must be projecting." It was nice to hear from Ms. Denson that I'm not crazy, but I remember it clearly. Of course, other people I know who were there around the same time tell me the same thing. But looking back on it, his near-obsession with sexual sin should have raised a few red flags for me, but then I was young, and as she describes, I was pretty much in awe of church leaders back then.

 

Edited July 17, 2018 by jkwilliams

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, Exiled said:

I'll admit that it really seems that Ms. Denson just wanted to shine the spotlight on Bishop and her attorney wants a little publicity so he can get other similar cases with a better chance to succeed.  I think the attorney from Idaho has gone against the church a bunch.  In any event, I wouldn't be surprised if J. Kimball dismisses part or all of the claim but gives a chance to amend. 

Could you explain what you think an amended complaint could do to overcome the statute of limitations issue?  

IIRC, Mr. Vernon didn't even ask for a leave to amend the complaint as an option.  I think he knows it would be futile.

6 minutes ago, Exiled said:

This seems to be what happens whenever I am in Fed Court regarding a motion to dismiss.

That hasn't been my experience.  I suppose it depends on what sort of litigation is involved.  In my line of work (consumer finance litigation), there are rarely factual circumstances or legal theories that, if clarified via amended pleadings, could proceed.  I think that is what we are going to see here.  There is simply no set of facts that gets Ms. Denson around the Statute of Limitations.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

14 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I agree that she hasn't done herself any favors with the public interviews, etc. I just find it fascinating that, from the moment this story broke, a lot of people have simply taken sides without looking into it.

I don't think I have done that.  I have looked into this quite a bit.

Quote

As I recall, almost immediately people were attacking her for taking advantage of a frail and possibly senile old man, and it has gone on from there.

There are multiple things that Ms. Denson has done wrong.  Using subterfuge and deceit to secure an interview with Joseph Bishop is, I think, one of the lesser problems.

Quote

Of course, other people take what she says as gospel truth. My guess is that Bishop did something inappropriate, though I don't think we'll ever know exactly what happened, barring some corroboration. 

That's my assessment also.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 17, 2018 by smac97

[ttribe]

11 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Hosting a podcast anonymously strikes me as a tad irregular. 

 

11 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

But he’s not shy about disclosing his irl identity. No siree!

 

10 hours ago, kllindley said:

And he's so insistent on getting the unredacted names of other victims and anyone involved in the investigation made public. 

 

10 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Yes, you’re right. The irony is palpable. 

Meh, I don't have a dog in the fight.  If he's more careful with his IRL name than I thought, so be it.  

Edited July 17, 2018 by ttribe

[jkwilliams]

20 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't think I have done that.  I have looked into this quite a bit.

There are multiple things that Ms. Denson has done wrong.  Using subterfuge and deceit to secure an interview with Joseph Bishop is, I think, one of the lesser problems.

That's my assessment also.

Thanks,

-Smac

I have a hard time condemning her using subterfuge and deceit (which she obviously did) to get her interview with Joseph Bishop, as I doubt she would have been able to speak with him otherwise. Sometimes victims become so focused on being vindicated and obtaining some sense of justice that they make huge mistakes, and I agree with you that Ms. Denson has hurt her legal case with her public actions, and if that results in the case being dismissed, then we definitely will never know what happened. And that would be a shame. 

Edited July 17, 2018 by jkwilliams

[jkwilliams]

8 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Meh, I don't have a dog in the fight.  If he's more careful with his IRL name than I thought, so be it.  

Nor do I. I'm just kind of shocked that people around here don't know his name. It wasn't hard for "Mr. Itchy" to dox a number of posters several years ago, so why not the host of RFM? I figured if I knew who he is, pretty much everyone else around here did, too. Maybe I was wrong.

[Exiled]

32 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Could you explain what you think an amended complaint could do to overcome the statute of limitations issue?  

IIRC, Mr. Vernon didn't even ask for a leave to amend the complaint as an option.  I think he knows it would be futile.

That hasn't been my experience.  I suppose it depends on what sort of litigation is involved.  In my line of work (consumer finance litigation), there are rarely factual circumstances or legal theories that, if clarified via amended pleadings, could proceed.  I think that is what we are going to see here.  There is simply no set of facts that gets Ms. Denson around the Statute of Limitations.

Thanks,

-Smac

I guess we will see, maybe as early as tomorrow.

[smac97]

18 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I have a hard time condemning her using subterfuge and deceit (which she obviously did) to get her interview with Joseph Bishop, as I doubt she would have been able to speak with him otherwise.

I sort of agree with you.

Quote

Sometimes victims become so focused on being vindicated and obtaining some sense of justice that they make huge mistakes, and I agree with you that Ms. Denson has hurt her legal case with her public actions, and if that results in the case being dismissed, then we definitely will never know what happened. And that would be a shame. 

Agreed.  We apparently disagree, however, on the culpability of McKnight and Consigliere in actively facilitating Ms. Denson's behaviors which have wrecked her legal case.

I hope Ryan "Mr. Transparency" McKnight has learned from what he has done in this case.  His behavior has made things worse for Ms. Denson.  I'd like to think that he was merely thoughtless, that his behavior vis-à-vis Ms. Denson was wreckless in a "law of unintended consequences" kind of way, but not malicious.  But then we see his behavior via his website, where he is actively encouraging employees of the LDS Church to steal from their employer.  And then he has come to this board and bragged about how he has insulated himself from any legal fallout from the behavior he is encouraging from others ("We break no laws, criminal or civil.  Our sources might be depending on the situation...").  That reeks of malice.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 17, 2018 by smac97

[jkwilliams]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I sort of agree with you.

Agreed.  We apparently disagree, however, on the culpability of McKnight and Consigliere in actively facilitating Ms. Denson's behaviors which have wrecked her legal case.

I hope Ryan "Mr. Transparency" McKnight has learned from what he has done in this case.  His behavior has made things worse for Ms. Denson.  I'd like to think that he was merely thoughtless, that his behavior vis-à-vis Ms. Denson was wreckless in a "law of unintended consequences" kind of way, but not malicious.  But then we see his behavior via his website, where he is actively encouraging employees of the LDS Church to steal from their employer.  And then he has come to this board and bragged about how he has insulated himself from any legal fallout from the behavior he is encouraging from others ("We break no laws, criminal or civil.  Our sources might be depending on the situation...").  That reeks of malice.

Thanks,

-Smac

Well, again, I'm not Ryan, but my interpretation of his posts here wasn't that he was "bragging" but that he was defending himself against the accusation that he has broken the law. If he has hurt her cause, I assume it was inadvertent, not malicious. I know, I'm biased because I've known him most of his life, but he's neither an idiot or a malicious church-hater. As for consig, you'd have to talk to him about why he did the interview. 

[smac97]

18 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Nor do I. I'm just kind of shocked that people around here don't know his name. It wasn't hard for "Mr. Itchy" to dox a number of posters several years ago, so why not the host of RFM? I figured if I knew who he is, pretty much everyone else around here did, too. Maybe I was wrong.

Nobody here seems to know his name.  If he wants to hide behind a pseudonym while attacking the Church, I guess that's his privilege.  It's moral cowardice IMO, but I have no interest in outing him because of it.

But if he is doing this so as to obfuscate and hide his identity from his local leaders, I think that's a bit more problematic.

Thanks,

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Nobody here seems to know his name.  If he wants to hide behind a pseudonym while attacking the Church, I guess that's his privilege.  It's moral cowardice IMO, but I have no interest in outing him because of it.

But if he is doing this so as to obfuscate and hide his identity from his local leaders, I think that's a bit more problematic.

Thanks,

-Smac

Again, I'm really surprised (shocked, stunned) that no one here knows his name, given that he's posted here and on the "other" board for years. If he doesn't want his name known, for whatever reason, I'm not going to share it, but I don't see anything nefarious in using a pseudonym. Knowing him, I doubt hiding from his local leaders is at all a concern. But again, you'd have to ask him. 

There are a lot of posters here who have not revealed their IRL names. Are they guilty of moral cowardice? I don't think so. Many times I have regretted using my real name here and elsewhere, not least because it put my wife in the cross-hairs of some evil people who threatened us and caused her to have a major PTSD episode. I don't blame anyone for keeping their identities hidden online. It's common sense.

Edited July 17, 2018 by jkwilliams

[Jeanne]

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Nobody here seems to know his name.  If he wants to hide behind a pseudonym while attacking the Church, I guess that's his privilege.  It's moral cowardice IMO, but I have no interest in outing him because of it.

But if he is doing this so as to obfuscate and hide his identity from his local leaders, I think that's a bit more problematic.

Thanks,

-Smac

Are you talking about consig's name and identity? 

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, Jeanne said:

Are you talking about consig's name and identity? 

Yep. I honestly thought it was pretty widely known. Go figure. I mean, I never know anything, and yet I know his name. 

[smac97]

45 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Well, again, I'm not Ryan, but my interpretation of his posts here wasn't that he was "bragging" but that he was defending himself against the accusation that he has broken the law.

Right.  He's just encouraging others to do so.  To break the law.  To steal stuff and send it to him.  If he were encouraging others to steal money and send it to him, I don't think we'd be having this discussion.  But somehow, stealing stuff other than money from the LDS Church is just fine?

And "bragging" seems quite apropos.

Quote

If he has hurt her cause, I assume it was inadvertent, not malicious.

"Inadvertent."  Yes.  Boneheaded.  Wreckless.  Thoughtless.  Feckless.  Stupid.

But the ends justify the means in his world.  So any injury he has caused to Ms. Denson is not his fault.  And any injury to employees of the LDS Church who steal from their employer on his behalf and send the stolen materials to him is also not his problem.  They're just a bunch of patsies to him. 

Quote

I know, I'm biased because I've known him most of his life, but he's neither an idiot or a malicious church-hater.

Again, from Mr. McKnight: "We break no laws, criminal or civil.  Our sources might be depending on the situation..."

He has set up a website specifically designed to facilitate theft from the LDS Church.  He is encouraging employees of the LDS Church to steal materials from their employer and send them to him.  He is encouraging them to break the law.  He plainly doesn't care about their welfare, as he would not otherwise be asking them to put their job on the line by stealing for him (and possibly face criminal penalties as well).

This behavior is nothing but malicious.  Directed at the LDS Church.  I don't really expect you to publicly condemn your relative, but I would hope that you would understand why others are disgusted at his behavior.

Quote

As for consig, you'd have to talk to him about why he did the interview. 

Given the heavy-handed editorializing in the podcast, it's not exactly a mystery as to "why he did the interview."  He wants to craft a narrative that makes the LDS Church look as bad as possible.  McKenna Denson is just a useful tool for those ends.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 17, 2018 by smac97

[Exiled]

21 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I sort of agree with you.

Agreed.  We apparently disagree, however, on the culpability of McKnight and Consigliere in actively facilitating Ms. Denson's behaviors which have wrecked her legal case.

I hope Ryan "Mr. Transparency" McKnight has learned from what he has done in this case.  His behavior has made things worse for Ms. Denson.  I'd like to think that he was merely thoughtless, that his behavior vis-à-vis Ms. Denson was wreckless in a "law of unintended consequences" kind of way, but not malicious.  But then we see his behavior via his website, where he is actively encouraging employees of the LDS Church to steal from their employer.  And then he has come to this board and bragged about how he has insulated himself from any legal fallout from the behavior he is encouraging from others ("We break no laws, criminal or civil.  Our sources might be depending on the situation...").  That reeks of malice.

Thanks,

-Smac

I think you are jumping the gun.  Let's see what happens in Ms. Denson's case prior to making judgments about what if anything consig and Mr. McKnight have done.

[Jeanne]

2 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Yep. I honestly thought it was pretty widely known. Go figure. I mean, I never know anything, and yet I know his name. 

I know who he is...and one thing he really is...is my friend.  Has helped me through so many bad times.  Took the time to write and help me understand things.  He is a good person.  I know his name...and I know that he is fair.

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Again, I'm really surprised (shocked, stunned) that no one here knows his name, given that he's posted here and on the "other" board for years.

He posted here under a pseudonym, yes?

5 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

If he doesn't want his name known, for whatever reason, I'm not going to share it, but I don't see anything nefarious in using a pseudonym. Knowing him, I doubt hiding from his local leaders is at all a concern. But again, you'd have to ask him. 

I'm not sufficiently interested in outing him to explore that.

5 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

There are a lot of posters here who have not revealed their IRL names. Are they guilty of moral cowardice?

When they claim to be a member of the Church?  When they attack the Church while enjoying the privileges of membership within it (including, most appallingly, holding a temple recommend or prominent position in the Church)?  When they use a pseudonym to mask their comments so as to hide their authorship from their local leaders?  Yeah, that's moral cowardice.  YMMV.

5 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I don't think so. Many times I have regretted using my real name here and elsewhere, not least because it put my wife in the cross-hairs of some evil people who threatened us and caused her to have a major PTSD episode. I don't blame anyone for keeping their identities hidden online. It's common sense.

You raise a fair point.  There are times when hiding IRL info is legitimate and reasonable.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

Just now, smac97 said:

But the ends justify the means in his world.  So any injury he has caused to Ms. Denson is not his fault.  And any injury to employees of the LDS Church who steal from their employer on his behalf and send the stolen materials to him is also not his problem.  They're just a bunch of patsies to him. 

You are attributing intent and attitude to Ryan, as if he doesn't give a crap about these "patsies." I will say I don't agree with everything he does, but the way you are describing him is not right. You are acting as if he were a manipulative and cold person driven by animus toward the church such that he doesn't care who gets hurt. And you're basing that simply on his belief that he isn't breaking the law and isn't doing anything wrong. In short you're reading his mind.

I have had a few conversations with him about what motivates him, and I know him well enough to believe he sincerely believes he's doing the right thing in the right way. It's fair to take issue with what he does (such as calling his behavior "reprehensible"), but it's a different matter entirely to attributes thoughts and motives. 

I find a lot of Joseph Smith's behavior reprehensible, but I have no idea what motivated him. Was he a sincere man trying to serve God, or a manipulative huckster trying to escape a life of poverty, or somewhere in between? I don't know, but that doesn't stop me from finding his behavior wrong.

[jkwilliams]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

He posted here under a pseudonym, yes?

I'm not sufficiently interested in outing him to explore that.

When they claim to be a member of the Church?  When they attack the Church while enjoying the privileges of membership within it (including, most appallingly, holding a temple recommend or prominent position in the Church)?  When they use a pseudonym to mask their comments so as to hide their authorship from their local leaders?  Yeah, that's moral cowardice.  YMMV.

You raise a fair point.  There are times when hiding IRL info is legitimate and reasonable.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Hmmmm. I don't believe he's active in the church and holds either a temple recommend or a prominent position in the church. What makes you think that? I could be wrong, but I don't believe that's his situation.

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, Exiled said:

I think you are jumping the gun.  Let's see what happens in Ms. Denson's case prior to making judgments about what if anything consig and Mr. McKnight have done.

I think we can already see the consequences of what they've done.  Her settlement negotiations were destroyed, due in large part to Mr. McKnight publishing her recording to the world.  She obviously bears a lot of responsibility for that, perhaps even the lion's share.  But Mr. McKnight's role in that was not insignificant.

Consig has just published a podcast that does huge damage to Ms. Denson's credibility.  And Consig was there every step of the way.  Egging her on.  Prodding her for details.  Laughing along with her as she vividly describes all the deceptions and false details she used to embellish the narrative she used to track down Joseph Bishop.  

I don't know definitively that Ms. Denson's lawsuit is DOA.  But if it manages to survive the motions to dismiss, Consig has made Mr. Vernon's job in prosecuting it on behalf of Ms. Denson substantially more difficult.  Consig is a lawyer, isn't he?  Couldn't he have stopped for five minutes and given some consideration to the wrecking-ball effect his podcast would have on Ms. Denson's credibility as a witness?  Does he even care?  Or does his animosity toward the LDS Church (and the ego boost of scoring an interview with Ms. Denson) trump all other considerations?  

Thanks,

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

21 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

I know who he is...and one thing he really is...is my friend.  Has helped me through so many bad times.  Took the time to write and help me understand things.  He is a good person.  I know his name...and I know that he is fair.

We've been friends a long time, since the days when he was still a defender of the church here and elsewhere (heck, maybe since I was, too). Your experience with him has been mine, as well, as he's reached out to me a number of times when I was struggling. I'm honored to call him a friend. 

One thing he said toward the end of the interview was that, when faced with a choice whether to help an individual or protect the institution, the church always chooses the latter. I don't know if it's "always," but certainly that's the pattern I've seen, as well. 

Edited July 17, 2018 by jkwilliams

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

You are attributing intent and attitude to Ryan, as if he doesn't give a crap about these "patsies."

He is actively encouraging them to betray their employer, to steal from their employer and send the stolen materials to him.

Yes, my assessment is that a person who does such things "doesn't give a crap" about these people.  If he did, he wouldn't be asking them to break the law for his benefit.

3 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I will say I don't agree with everything he does, but the way you are describing him is not right.

Again, he is encouraging employees of the LDS Church to steal from their employer and send the stolen materials to him.  That is how I am describing his behavior.  From that I am inferring malice, because "malice," by definition, "desire to inflict injury, harm, or suffering on another, either because of a hostile impulse or out of deep-seated meanness."

X encouraging Y to steal stuff and send it to X seems malicious. 

X coming here and bragging about insulating himself from legal fallout from the behavior he is actively encouraging others to do for him is malicious. 

Admitting that the behavior he is encouraging others to perform is (or may be) illegal, while continuing to encourage them to do it, is malicious.

3 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

You are acting as if he were a manipulative and cold person driven by animus toward the church such that he doesn't care who gets hurt.

Mr. McKnight is encouraging them to steal from their employer and secretly send the stolen materials to him.  If encouraging others to steal from the LDS Church and send the proceeds to him is not "manipulative" and driven by animus, I don't know what is.

He admits that the behavior he is encouraging others to perform is (or may be) illegal, while he is continuing to encourage them to do it.  If that's not "cold" and indifferent to "who gets hurt," I don't know what is.

3 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

And you're basing that simply on his belief that he isn't breaking the law and isn't doing anything wrong. In short you're reading his mind.

No, I'm making a reasonable inference from his behavior.

3 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I have had a few conversations with him about what motivates him, and I know him well enough to believe he sincerely believes he's doing the right thing in the right way.

I'm sure he'll keep telling himself that, even after McKenna Denson is left without any negotiated settlement.

I'm sure he'll keep telling himself that, even after some of his patsies are caught stealing for him and lose their jobs (and possibly face criminal charges as well).

He can "sincerely" believe that encouraging employees of the LDS Church to steal for him is "the right thing in the right way."  But you'll understand why others may not feel the same way.

3 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

It's fair to take issue with what he does (such as calling his behavior "reprehensible"), but it's a different matter entirely to attributes thoughts and motives. 

Again, I'm making a reasonable inference from his behavior.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

15 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Hmmmm. I don't believe he's active in the church

Hmm.  I found it odd that he referenced the 40th anniversary of his membership in the Church during the podcast.  I guess he was being ironic.  My bad.

15 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

and holds either a temple recommend or a prominent position in the church. What makes you think that? I could be wrong, but I don't believe that's his situation.

These were aggravating factors, not specific conclusions about Consig.  I should've made that more clear.

Thanks,

-SMac

[smac97]

29 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Quote

Nobody here seems to know his name.  If he wants to hide behind a pseudonym while attacking the Church, I guess that's his privilege.  It's moral cowardice IMO, but I have no interest in outing him because of it.

But if he is doing this so as to obfuscate and hide his identity from his local leaders, I think that's a bit more problematic.

Thanks,

-Smac

Are you talking about consig's name and identity? 

Only in the abstract.  I know virtually nothing about him (hence my caveat: "But if he is doing this...").

Thanks,

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

He is actively encouraging them to betray their employer, to steal from their employer and send the stolen materials to him.

Yes, my assessment is that a person who does such things "doesn't give a crap" about these people.  If he did, he wouldn't be asking them to break the law for his benefit.

Again, he is encouraging employees of the LDS Church to steal from their employer and send the stolen materials to him.  That is how I am describing his behavior.  From that I am inferring malice, because "malice," by definition, "desire to inflict injury, harm, or suffering on another, either because of a hostile impulse or out of deep-seated meanness."

X encouraging Y to steal stuff and send it to X seems malicious. 

X coming here and bragging about insulating himself from legal fallout from the behavior he is actively encouraging others to do for him is malicious. 

Admitting that the behavior he is encouraging others to perform is (or may be) illegal, while continuing to encourage them to do it, is malicious.

Mr. McKnight is encouraging them to steal from their employer and secretly send the stolen materials to him.  If encouraging others to steal from the LDS Church and send the proceeds to him is not "manipulative" and driven by animus, I don't know what is.

He admits that the behavior he is encouraging others to perform is (or may be) illegal, while he is continuing to encourage them to do it.  If that's not "cold" and indifferent to "who gets hurt," I don't know what is.

No, I'm making a reasonable inference from his behavior.

I'm sure he'll keep telling himself that, even after McKenna Denson is left without any negotiated settlement.

I'm sure he'll keep telling himself that, even after some of his patsies are caught stealing for him and lose their jobs (and possibly face criminal charges as well).

He can "sincerely" believe that encouraging employees of the LDS Church to steal for him is "the right thing in the right way."  But you'll understand why others may not feel the same way.

Again, I'm making a reasonable inference from his behavior.

Thanks,

-Smac

I've already had this discussion with you of why Ryan started MormonLeaks and his stated motives. Go ahead and attack his methods, but I think you're overreaching when you portray him as callous and evil. I know, you didn't use those exact words, but someone who maliciously encourages people to break the law and then is willing to throw them under the bus to attack God's true church is, by definition, callous and evil. I do not believe that's what Ryan is doing. Obviously, you disagree.