Former Bishop Hunger Strike for Youth Interview Policy Change

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, changed said:

Desperate times call for desperate measures. 

Melodramatic twaddle.

3 minutes ago, changed said:

The "right approach" seems to be - remain silent, ignore, belittle, deny, cover up... that is the approach that was originally taken, what has happened for year and years years, and it did not work.  

Baloney. 

3 minutes ago, changed said:

Sam started with "the correct" approach, and no one listened....

You don't know that.

3 minutes ago, changed said:

hundreds of people are sending him abuse stories,

Unvetted, uncorroborated anecdotes.

And how many of them actually pertain to abuse by a bishop arising from bishop's interviews?  

3 minutes ago, changed said:

he finds himself in the center of emergency situations that require immediate and drastic action -

Malarky.  He's inciting a moral panic, or trying to.  

3 minutes ago, changed said:

and he was strong enough to stand up and do what needed to be done to raise awareness.  

He's set himself up as a voice of authority that is alternative and superior to that of the Brethren.

He's vilifying and slandering tens of thousands of good and decent men as presumptive perverts and child molesters.

He has publicly maligned the integrity of apostles because they have not capitulated to his peremptory demands.

He's on a massive ego trip.

I am now persuaded he is not acting in good faith.  I don't think he ever was.

Nevertheless, I hope he has a change of heart.

Thanks,

-Smac

[rockpond]

10 minutes ago, changed said:

Desperate times call for desperate measures.  The "right approach" seems to be - remain silent, ignore, belittle, deny, cover up... that is the approach that was originally taken, what has happened for year and years years, and it did not work.  

Sam started with "the correct" approach, and no one listened.... hundreds of people are sending him abuse stories, he finds himself in the center of emergency situations that require immediate and drastic action - and he was strong enough to stand up and do what needed to be done to raise awareness.  

Examples of what is going around now...

Link - Mormon missionaries admitted to sexually abusing children — but the church didn’t refer them to police: leaked documents

Link - Instances of Child Sexual Abuse by Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.....    over 300 pages....

I was a supporter of Sam's petition and march.  Two of my family members were at the march.  I think his delivery of the book of stories was a great way to bring attention to this important issue.

I was less a fan of his hunger strike but wasn't opposed either.  I just didn't think it would be effective.

If his (potential) excommunication is based on either the petition/march/delivery of stories or the hunger strike - I would be strongly opposed to that.

What I suspect, however, is that his excommunication will be based on things he has published on his blog and public statements that he has made.  I cannot defend him on all of those.

[HappyJackWagon]

25 minutes ago, smac97 said:

No, it's a private story that one participant is publicizing.  The local leaders are not obligated to play along with his efforts.

And now it is public. Surely you're not claiming that all participants must agree before a story is considered public. I imagine Bill Clinton would have preferred that whole Blue dress thing never became public, but just because he didn't like it, doesn't mean it wasn't public.

And c'mon, Sam Young knew exactly what he was doing.  He knew the likely outcome of his course of action.  He actively pursued it.  He made his choice.  He's characterized his retention of membership as being a one or two "in a million" chance.  And we all know his behavior has been incompatible with continuing membership (or at least fellowship) in the Church.  

This is an attempt to distract. This has absolutely nothing to do with my comment.

Mr. Young appears to be in a state of rebellion.  I am saddened by that.  I hope he has a change of heart.

Why do you care? It's not your business.  

Funny how nobody seems to have cautioned against pursuing a course of behavior that was obviously incompatible with maintaining a relationship with the Church.

"Nobody" cautioned him. How could you know that. In any case, some, including Sam Young, may believe that addressing the issue is the most important thing, and they may believe that the church would appreciate efforts to protect LDS Children.

It sure would be nice if some of his supporters cared about how he treats the Church.  Which has been pretty abysmal.

This is another attempt to distract. It has nothing to do with my comment.

The local leaders are not obligated to pander to the idle curiosity of third parties.

No, they are obligated to treat the individual in the case with care and respect. At this point, most of the week has passed and they haven't informed the subject of their discipline of the decision. Unless you have evidence to the contrary, Sam Young followed all of the rules they laid out in advance of the DC. He did his part but so far the SP hasn't shown the respect to Sam to inform him of the decision.

There is no question that he has been treated fairly.

There is no question? Really? Just because you have a certain belief, doesn't mean there are no questions. Do other people's questions matter, or only yours?

No, it's not.  

Alas.  The kabuki theater that is Sam Young's behavior is hard to ignore.

You can do it. I believe in you. If it's not your business, I suspect you have the self-control to avoid commenting about it on a regular basis.

Thanks,

-Smac

It's funny that you think you can tell me what is and isn't my business.

Edited September 14, 2018 by HappyJackWagon

[changed]

20 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Unvetted, uncorroborated anecdotes.

And how many of them actually pertain to abuse by a bishop arising from bishop's interviews?  

808 stories about interviews: http://protectldschildren.org/read-the-stories-2/ 

Link - Mormon missionaries admitted to sexually abusing children — but the church didn’t refer them to police: leaked documents

Link - Instances of Child Sexual Abuse by Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.....    over 300 pages....

Edited September 14, 2018 by changed

[rongo]

4 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

No, they are obligated to treat the individual in the case with care and respect. At this point, most of the week has passed and they haven't informed the subject of their discipline of the decision. 

Quick comment on this:

I don't think it's disrespectful to him to send him the decision in a letter. Given the environment and situation (of Sam's own making), I think it was a very wise move. This undetermined waiting period also has the effect of forcing Sam and many other people who delight in the spiraling chaos of live streaming, live Facebook updates, etc. to . . . wait. And not only wait, but wait for a period of time not of their choosing. Up until now, Sam has been calling the shots and dictating the time frames, while the Church has thankfully not reciprocated. Sam has been able to delight his supporters with the uncontested shots and hijinks at the Church, and he has been afforded the full opportunity to make a spectacle of himself and to jump over as many sharks as he wants to. It has remained silent, let Sam do his Sam Young show, and then held the council in a dignified way. The stake president is also insisting through his actions that the announcement of the decision be likewise dignified, because he has stripped the Sam Young show of the ability to use timing and situations to his advantage. Not even his delighted supporters can be stimulated for long by indefinite shrieking outrage that THEY HAVEN'T GIVEN A DECISION YET! So, everyone has to wait, and we'll all know when the decision comes and what it is, because Sam will livestream it as he's opening the envelope. 

I think it's the fact that the critics aren't controlling the situation and calling the shots that is particularly galling to them. It's just eating them alive, and they can't stand it. It's good for them, and for the situation. 

[Avatar4321]

18 minutes ago, smac97 said:

No, it's a private story that one participant is publicizing.  The local leaders are not obligated to play along with his efforts.

And c'mon, Sam Young knew exactly what he was doing.  He knew the likely outcome of his course of action.  He actively pursued it.  He made his choice.  He's characterized his retention of membership as being a one or two "in a million" chance.  And we all know his behavior has been incompatible with continuing membership (or at least fellowship) in the Church.  

Mr. Young appears to be in a state of rebellion.  I am saddened by that.  I hope he has a change of heart.

Funny how nobody seems to have cautioned against pursuing a course of behavior that was obviously incompatible with maintaining a relationship with the Church.

It sure would be nice if some of his supporters cared about how he treats the Church.  Which has been pretty abysmal.

The local leaders are not obligated to pander to the idle curiosity of third parties.

There is no question that he has been treated fairly.

No, it's not.  

Alas.  The kabuki theater that is Sam Young's behavior is hard to ignore.

Thanks,

-Smac

I find it interesting that so many who say they care did not encourage him to repent and reconcile himself with the Lord and His Church in humility and yet feign outrage that he may reap what he has sown.

this was especially true when I invited him to humble himself and repent so he can keep his membership at his blog in the comments. The response was like that of those in the great and spacious building. It’s amazing how many people can be upset and outraged that he may get excommunicated from the Church they don’t believe has any actual power over him.

its a very odd situation 

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Avatar4321 said:

I find it interesting that so many who say they care did not encourage him to repent and reconcile himself with the Lord and His Church in humility and yet feign outrage that he may reap what he has sown.

this was especially true when I invited him to humble himself and repent so he can keep his membership at his blog in the comments. The response was like that of those in the great and spacious building. It’s amazing how many people can be upset and outraged that he may get excommunicated from the Church they don’t believe has any actual power over him.

its a very odd situation 

Yep.  It's almost as if the various concerns about Sam Young retaining his membership are pretextual.  Specious, even.  A show ("feign[ed] outrage," as you put it).

I would like to be wrong in that assessment.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 14, 2018 by smac97

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, changed said:

Quote

Unvetted, uncorroborated anecdotes.

And how many of them actually pertain to abuse by a bishop arising from bishop's interviews?  

808 stories about interviews: http://protectldschildren.org/read-the-stories-2/ 

Link - Mormon missionaries admitted to sexually abusing children — but the church didn’t refer them to police: leaked documents

Link - Instances of Child Sexual Abuse by Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.....    over 300 pages....

First, these stories are almost entirely anecdotal, unvetted, unsubstantiated, totally one-sided, and from anonymous sources.  We aren't in a court of law, but unfetterd and credulous acceptance of these narratives is not really the best way to go.  

Second, the fact that Sam Young seems to rely almost completely on these narratives, to the exclusion of any competent evidence, reasoned analysis, etc., rather strongly speaks against the merits and reasonableness of his demands, or at least makes me very cautious about them.  Mr. Young isn't looking to persuade others to his position through reasoning and evidence.  He is instead looking to whip people up into a frenzy of alarm, anger, resentments, and high emotion.  He's creating a mob mentality.  An hysteria.  

Third, Mr. Young's selective outrage is really disconcerting.  Why is he targeting bishops interviews?  Doesn't that seem way down on the list of things we could do to reduce sexual abuse of children?  As I recall, Mr. Young started all of this because a bishop purportedly asked his daughter some inappropriate questions.  Is that all this is, then?  Mr. Young's personal resentments against one bishop's misconduct blown up into a full-blown moral panic?  How else do we account for his utter disregard of the many other, and far more dangerous, factors that lead to sexual abuse of children?

Fourth, Mr. Young's self-aggrandizement is really a concern to me.  This issue seems to be all about him.  He's always front and center.  Talking to the media.  At the literal center of the marches and protests.  And now he's in the middle of a hunger strike, and claiming that Jesus will descend and sit in a chair next to him. 

Is this really all about concern for the welfare of children?  Or did it start out that way, but then morph into a massive ego trip for Sam Young?

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

26 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

And c'mon, Sam Young knew exactly what he was doing.  He knew the likely outcome of his course of action.  He actively pursued it.  He made his choice.  He's characterized his retention of membership as being a one or two "in a million" chance.  And we all know his behavior has been incompatible with continuing membership (or at least fellowship) in the Church.  

This is an attempt to distract. This has absolutely nothing to do with my comment.

It has quite a lot to do with your comment.  Quit trying to paint Sam Young as some hapless victim.  He knew the destination of the path he was taking.  And he took that path anyway.

26 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Mr. Young appears to be in a state of rebellion.  I am saddened by that.  I hope he has a change of heart.

Why do you care? It's not your business.  

He is still a child of God.  He is still a brother in the Gospel.  

26 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Funny how nobody seems to have cautioned against pursuing a course of behavior that was obviously incompatible with maintaining a relationship with the Church.

"Nobody" cautioned him. How could you know that. In any case, some, including Sam Young, may believe that addressing the issue is the most important thing, and they may believe that the church would appreciate efforts to protect LDS Children.

I don't believe his efforts are accurately characterized that way.  

26 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

It sure would be nice if some of his supporters cared about how he treats the Church.  Which has been pretty abysmal.

This is another attempt to distract. It has nothing to do with my comment.

I think it does.

26 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

The local leaders are not obligated to pander to the idle curiosity of third parties.

No, they are obligated to treat the individual in the case with care and respect.

There is nothing to suggest that they have deviated from this.

Meanwhile, the irony of concern about "care and respect" accorded to Sam Young is staggering.  He has been accorded such care and respect, but has been full of bile and contempt and derision for the bishops and the general authorities of the Church.

"Care and respect" is a one way street, I guess.

26 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

At this point, most of the week has passed and they haven't informed the subject of their discipline of the decision.

A few days.

And he himself has stated that he expects to be excommunicated.

And he knew his behavior would pretty much lead to that.  And he engaged in that behavior anyway.

And it's none of our business.

26 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Unless you have evidence to the contrary, Sam Young followed all of the rules they laid out in advance of the DC. He did his part but so far the SP hasn't shown the respect to Sam to inform him of the decision.

Spare us the Captain Renault impression.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

Quick comment on this:

I don't think it's disrespectful to him to send him the decision in a letter. Given the environment and situation (of Sam's own making), I think it was a very wise move. This undetermined waiting period also has the effect of forcing Sam and many other people who delight in the spiraling chaos of live streaming, live Facebook updates, etc. to . . . wait. And not only wait, but wait for a period of time not of their choosing. Up until now, Sam has been calling the shots and dictating the time frames, while the Church has thankfully not reciprocated. Sam has been able to delight his supporters with the uncontested shots and hijinks at the Church, and he has been afforded the full opportunity to make a spectacle of himself and to jump over as many sharks as he wants to. It has remained silent, let Sam do his Sam Young show, and then held the council in a dignified way. The stake president is also insisting through his actions that the announcement of the decision be likewise dignified, because he has stripped the Sam Young show of the ability to use timing and situations to his advantage. Not even his delighted supporters can be stimulated for long by indefinite shrieking outrage that THEY HAVEN'T GIVEN A DECISION YET! So, everyone has to wait, and we'll all know when the decision comes and what it is, because Sam will livestream it as he's opening the envelope. 

I think it's the fact that the critics aren't controlling the situation and calling the shots that is particularly galling to them. It's just eating them alive, and they can't stand it. It's good for them, and for the situation. 

I agree. It's a power play. It's political savy, but that's not what I expect from church leaders.

The longer this is delayed, the more I think the SP is having to justify is decision to higher ups. A letter, in and of itself isn't necessarily disrespectful, but the wait is. If it really is sent by mail instead of hand delivered, I think that is also disrespectful. I think the SP should look Sam in the eyes when he declares his judgement.

Critics have never controlled the situation. The critics, including Sam, are David facing off against Goliath. Goliath refuses to meet with David repeatedly. Then Goliath, offended by David's obstinacy demands David appear before him to be judged. David does what he's asked. Then Goliath waits and it appears he will only share his verdict via letter, instead of in person. Why? Because Goliath is scared of David making him look bad.

Edited September 14, 2018 by HappyJackWagon

[Avatar4321]

36 minutes ago, changed said:

Desperate times call for desperate measures.  The "right approach" seems to be - remain silent, ignore, belittle, deny, cover up... that is the approach that was originally taken, what has happened for year and years years, and it did not work.  

Sam started with "the correct" approach, and no one listened.... hundreds of people are sending him abuse stories, he finds himself in the center of emergency situations that require immediate and drastic action - and he was strong enough to stand up and do what needed to be done to raise awareness.  

Examples of what is going around now...

Link - Mormon missionaries admitted to sexually abusing children — but the church didn’t refer them to police: leaked documents

Link - Instances of Child Sexual Abuse by Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.....    over 300 pages....

You can’t have a cover up without something to cover up.

we can, however, encourage individuals to follow the Lord and put off the natural man & yields to the enticings of the holy spirit becoming submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, Etc

[provoman]

46 minutes ago, smac97 said:

It has quite a lot to do with your comment.  Quit trying to paint Sam Young as some hapless victim.  He knew the destination of the path he was taking.  And he took that path anyway.

He is still a child of God.  He is still a brother in the Gospel.  

I don't believe his efforts are accurately characterized that way.  

I think it does.

There is nothing to suggest that they have deviated from this.

Meanwhile, the irony of concern about "care and respect" accorded to Sam Young is staggering.  He has been accorded such care and respect, but has been full of bile and contempt and derision for the bishops and the general authorities of the Church.

"Care and respect" is a one way street, I guess.

A few days.

And he himself has stated that he expects to be excommunicated.

And he knew his behavior would pretty much lead to that.  And he engaged in that behavior anyway.

And it's none of our business.

Spare us the Captain Renault impression.  

Thanks,

-Smac

I feel for those on the DC.  A balance of the evidence to the charges, and a lack of denial of the charges from Sam. I recognize that though excommunication maybe what is dictated based on the evidence, but the Spirit guided otherwise.

 

 

 

 

Edited September 14, 2018 by provoman

[smac97]

1 minute ago, provoman said:

I feel for those on the DC. 

Same here.  

1 minute ago, provoman said:

A balance of the evidence to the charges, and a lack of denial of the charges from Sam, hmmmm. But I recognize and have even read a anecdote on an antimormon forum where the author informed that the Bishop wanted to excommunicate based on the evidence, but the Spirit guided otherwise.

This would be rather strange, given that Sam Young is a high priest, and hence would be disciplined by the stake president, not the bishop.

1 minute ago, provoman said:

In the words that Sam published on his blog, which he states are what he presented to the Council, he did not deny either charge against him. Instead he used his time to belittle Church Leadership, belittled the members of the Council, and continued his crusade.

Yep.  It sounds like he's in a state of open rebellion.

1 minute ago, provoman said:

And regarding his claim " Last month I was joined by 38 other ordained Mormon bishops ", he admitted that he did not verify that those individuals were at the very least a member of the Church or were ever a Bishop. The person who read the "apology" was Bill Moore - who I think was a Bishop, I do not know his current status in the Church. Bill Moore was present at the circus that was happening outside the Stake Center during Young's DC.  Bill Moore was also shown in footage of the "Sam Young DC after party",  Ethan Krok, and at least three other individuals were there, I believe Mckenna Denson was the one who recorded the after party footage. The footage of this after party was posted on Mckenna Denson's facebook page the late night/day after the DC.

An after party for a disciplinary proceeding.

And yet we are supposed to take seriously the melodramatic concerns about Sam Young's membership in the Church being imperiled.

I hope Sam Young has a change of heart.  I really do.  Meanwhile, however, he appears to place very little value on it.

Thanks,

-Smac

[HappyJackWagon]

2 minutes ago, provoman said:

I feel for those on the DC.  A balance of the evidence to the charges, and a lack of denial of the charges from Sam, hmmmm. But I recognize and have even read a anecdote on an antimormon forum where the author informed that the Bishop wanted to excommunicate based on the evidence, but the Spirit guided otherwise.

In the words that Sam published on his blog, which he states are what he presented to the Council, he did not deny either charge against him. Instead he used his time to belittle Church Leadership, belittled the members of the Council, and continued his crusade.

And regarding his claim " Last month I was joined by 38 other ordained Mormon bishops ", he admitted that he did not verify that those individuals were at the very least a member of the Church or were ever a Bishop. The person who read the "apology" was Bill Moore - who I think was a Bishop, I do not know his current status in the Church. Bill Moore was present at the circus that was happening outside the Stake Center during Young's DC.  Bill Moore was also shown in footage of the "Sam Young DC after party",  Ethan Krok, and at least three other individuals were there, I believe Mckenna Denson was the one who recorded the after party footage. The footage of this after party was posted on Mckenna Denson's facebook page the late night/day after the DC.

Can you provide a reference that shows him "belittling" church leadership.

Does anyone have access to the letter he wrote to the SP prior to the council? IIRC Sam specifically asked that one charge be dropped altogether as it was totally without merit. Whether or not he's right, isn't the point, I'm just trying to suggest that the claim "he did not deny either charge against him" is incorrect and misrepresents Sam as if he's accepting his own guilt. I don't think that's the case at all.

[Avatar4321]

39 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I agree. It's a power play. It's political savy, but that's not what I expect from church leaders.

The longer this is delayed, the more I think the SP is having to justify is decision to higher ups. A letter, in and of itself isn't necessarily disrespectful, but the wait is. If it really is sent by mail instead of hand delivered, I think that is also disrespectful. I think the SP should look Sam in the eyes when he declares his judgement.

Critics have never controlled the situation. The critics are David facing off against Goliath. Goliath refuses to meet with David repeatedly. Then Goliath, offended by David's obstinacy demands David appear before him to be judged. David does what he's asked. Then Goliath waits and it appears he will only share his verdict via letter, instead of in person. Why? Because Goliath is scared of David making him look bad.

You don’t expect church leaders to be as wise as serpents but as harmless as doves?

[HappyJackWagon]

15 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

You don’t expect church leaders to be as wise as serpents but as harmless as doves?

There's nothing wrong with being wise but I expect them to not play political games. I get enough politics at the office, school, and government. And I don't expect them to choose their actions out of fear.

They called him to a DC and he went. Fine.

Give him the decision. A letter is appropriate, but not in lieu of a face to face because the SP may fear looking bad. The SP holds all the power here. Sam just has to sit and wait until the SP is done playing his "serpent" games.

Edited September 14, 2018 by HappyJackWagon

[Avatar4321]

4 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

There's nothing wrong with being wise but I expect them to not play political games. I get enough politics at the office, school, and government. And I don't expect them to choose their actions out of fear.

They called him to a DC and he went. Fine.

Give him the decision. A letter is appropriate, but not in lieu of a face to face because the SP may fear looking bad. The SP holds all the power here. Sam just has to sit and wait until the SP is done playing his "serpent" games.

What makes you think the stake president is afraid of anything?

[rockpond]

40 minutes ago, smac97 said:

An after party for a disciplinary proceeding.

 

I think it is unfair to call that an "after party".  It was members of the vigil discussing their feelings about the DC and Sam's cause while Sam did interviews.  It appears that Provoman has deleted his comments regarding the alleged "after party" in his post.

Edited September 14, 2018 by rockpond

[Jane_Doe]

Did Sam Young officially get ex-ed yet?

[HappyJackWagon]

17 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

What makes you think the stake president is afraid of anything?

I'm just responding to what others are suggesting: that the delay is because he wants the "mob" to die down. That he hopes Sam's audience dissipates. I think fear is actually a kinder possibility for motive than... say...vindictiveness etc. The SP is doing things for a reason. No one really knows what those reasons are so we speculate why he didn't give the verdict at the DC as is customary. We speculate about why it's Friday and why the verdict still hasn't been given. We wonder what is motivating the delay. Fear seems like a reasonable possibility and is less offensive than claiming its due to vindictiveness, incompetence, or uncaring. So I'm comfortable suggesting fear is driving things. The SP doesn't want to look bad and it doesn't appear that he wants to face Sam Young, hence a letter instead of a face to face discussion.

Imagine if someone was accused of a crime and there was a bench trial where only the judge decided guilt or innocence. The trial concludes but the judge doesn't give his verdict. A week goes by. It's rumored that the judge is sending the defendant his decision via letter, but still, no word on the decision. Would that strike you as odd.

[smac97]

25 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I think it is unfair to call that an "after party".  It was members of the vigil discussing their feelings about the DC and Sam's cause while Sam did interviews.  It appears that Provoman has deleted his comments regarding the alleged "after party" in his post.

Well, I'm open to correction.  Does anyone have a link to the video in question?  Is "after party" apt or not?

Thanks,

-Smac

[provoman]

............................................

Edited September 14, 2018 by provoman

[Avatar4321]

14 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I'm just responding to what others are suggesting: that the delay is because he wants the "mob" to die down. That he hopes Sam's audience dissipates. I think fear is actually a kinder possibility for motive than... say...vindictiveness etc. The SP is doing things for a reason. No one really knows what those reasons are so we speculate why he didn't give the verdict at the DC as is customary. We speculate about why it's Friday and why the verdict still hasn't been given. We wonder what is motivating the delay. Fear seems like a reasonable possibility and is less offensive than claiming its due to vindictiveness, incompetence, or uncaring. So I'm comfortable suggesting fear is driving things. The SP doesn't want to look bad and it doesn't appear that he wants to face Sam Young, hence a letter instead of a face to face discussion.

Imagine if someone was accused of a crime and there was a bench trial where only the judge decided guilt or innocence. The trial concludes but the judge doesn't give his verdict. A week goes by. It's rumored that the judge is sending the defendant his decision via letter, but still, no word on the decision. Would that strike you as odd.

The judge can take as long as he wants to render a verdict if he isn’t the finder of fact.

why do you only see negative reasons to be wise here?

[provoman]

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Well, I'm open to correction.  Does anyone have a link to the video in question?  Is "after party" apt or not?

Thanks,

-Smac

The video(s) have been removed. It is my guess the video(s) were removed within the day or day after I viewed them on McKenna Denson facebook page. One video was very short and it started with a shot of Ethan Krok and a female dancing. The setting appeared to be someone's living room.

[smac97]

1 minute ago, provoman said:

Quote

Well, I'm open to correction.  Does anyone have a link to the video in question?  Is "after party" apt or not?

Thanks,

-Smac

The video(s) have been removed. It is my guess the video(s) were removed within the day or day after I viewed them on McKenna Denson facebook page. One video was very short and it started with a shot of Ethan Krok and a female dancing. The setting appeared to be someone's living room.

The videos were removed?  I wonder why.  

You had "Sam Young DC after party" in quotes.  Was that your term, or was it on Ms. Denson's webpage?

Thanks,

-Smac