whistleblower on Church finances

[The Nehor]

On 2/19/2020 at 4:48 PM, carbon dioxide said:

Kind of confusing. its a 100 billion dollar fund then then it has a 40 billion portfolio.  Where is the other 60 billion?

President Nelson's money bin.

[Scott Lloyd]

On 5/22/2020 at 6:52 AM, smac97 said:

An update:

Thanks,

-Smac

I notice that the major stock indices (the Dow, S&P 500) have regained over half of the cumulative losses suffered in the pandemic-engendered market plunge. I would assume the Church’s portfolio has recovered commensurately. I know my 401(k) account has. 

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I notice that the major stock indices (the Dow, S&P 500) have regained over half of the cumulative losses suffered in the pandemic-engendered market plunge. I would assume the Church’s portfolio has recovered commensurately. I know my 401(k) account has. 

Interesting times these are.

[Stargazer]

On 6/1/2020 at 12:36 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

I notice that the major stock indices (the Dow, S&P 500) have regained over half of the cumulative losses suffered in the pandemic-engendered market plunge. I would assume the Church’s portfolio has recovered commensurately. I know my 401(k) account has. 

The time to sell assets is not when they have gone down. Unless you somehow know they are going to keep going down. Or unless you need a loss to offset some of your profits for tax purposes.

If one had plenty of cash on hand, this past month or two would have been a good time to buy some temporarily reduced stock.

Buying high and selling low is not an effective strategy. But a lot of people (including me a time or two) seem to think so, by the evidence.

[Themoreofles]

On 1/8/2020 at 1:28 PM, smac97 said:

Well, let's see:

Not sure "a church helping one of its members pay for housing and transportation" amounts to "financial abuse."

Sounds like this story being trumpeted in the public sphere is intended "to exacerbate a messy divorce."

Well, that does sound strange at first glance.  

But it also seems that "Lesley Butterfield" has a pretty huge chip on her shoulder relative to the Church (see, e.g. here ("I bet you didn’t know, but Lesley Butterfield ... {has} not yet resigned from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, more popularly referred to as the 'Wins For Satan' Church...", here, here, here, here, here, and many more).  So I'm not exactly certain we are getting the straight dope, or all of it.

Tax implications for her soon-to-be-ex-husband, possibly.  But so what?  How is this newsworthy?

I think that's probably the correct thing to do.  She's not entitled to this information.

I suppose they could/should call her and explain this.

What is a "local audit committee"?  

Well, she is entitled to that.

Still not sure how this is newsworthy.  Seems like Ms. Butterfield is just using ABC4 to harange her ex and the Church about a private, non-newsworthy issue.

Thanks,

-Smac

 I must say I’ve never had such entertainment reading 10 pages of a thread about myself. 

 

So let’s do this: I am an open book and you can ask me anything. Instead of speculating which you have on this entire thread assuming things that are very very far from reality just ask me and I will answer them if I can. I am STILL in the middle of a divorce that won’t end, going on 3 1/2 years now. (A fact that you have challenged against my credibility in this arena.) 

I’ll start addressing some of the main points that have been brought up here. First the new story. In my own investigations a journalist sought me out not the other way around. I did not seek to share the story nor did I try to exploit it or capitalize it in anyway other than to put pressure on the powers that be to rectify an alarming situation. 

As with any news story (And I have done several not having to do with the church), The interviewee is usually interviewed for maybe 15 to 20 minutes. The story will get cut down to a one or two minute segment. This is all very typical. I cannot do anything to explain every last detail of the circumstances involved here even if I wanted to. And this new station did their journalistic duty when they reached out to the church and asked for a comment and to explain their side (which they declined to do.) 

Also, addressing the fact that I live in Virginia in the story was aired in Utah. Again not atypical in the least. I am from Utah I lived in Utah for a large part of my childhood and adult life. When I left my marriage, myself and my four children had a restraining order and we went to Utah  during this time where our entire family lives (as well as extended family). We received great care and resources to help us in our journey to healing. I have nurtured many of the relationships formed during this time because what I learned was so enlightening to me. This is where I first learned about how the church structure and system is exploitative to abuse victims and can be cleverly utilized by an abuser to coerce, manipulate, and further control a victim. Utah has a serious problem with domestic violence—rates are higher than the national average to my understanding. Perhaps because of the tie to the church and because of public health initiatives in place to address the domestic abuse problem in Utah—In addition to coming on the heels of the whistleblower national news story involving Ensign Peak, the news station may have found this story relevant and applicable. 
 

And unfortunately another part of your narrative that is not reality is that I have a chip on my shoulder and I have done everything I can to exploit bats. This is not the case at all. In reality I experienced abuse by and unrighteous bishop. When I went to seek help and report this abuse to someone I found that the mechanism for members to report these things is virtually nonexistent. This is what caused me to examine the structure of the church and experience firsthand how unsafe the systems can be for vulnerable members. I know this is true because I lived it— After all this is what we would call a testimony building experience as members of the church wouldn’t we? 
 

I think everyone has confirmation bias. You have it I have it everyone has it. Yes after my experience I became extremely concerned about the lack of resources to keep Member safe if they should experience and unrighteous unethical or abusive leader. Admittedly that is a bias of mine because it’s an experience I can never extract from myself. But you have bias too—the bias of a believing member. When you doubt my story because you simply believe that the church is true, then that is a harmful bias that arguably can do much more damage than a few viral op-Ed’s in the Tribune (which you have taken great care to link to).

Your assumptions seem to be leaning on tired troupes like me being an angry/scorned ex-wife that has a big chip on her shoulder and a disgruntled, lost ex-mormon that can never find true happiness without the gospel. It may be helpful if you first realized that people do not just wake up one day and decide to become “disgruntled ex Mormon’s”. Usually something happens to them that simply opens their eyes—something very grievous, some thing very hurtful, and something very wrong. 
 

Also, I don’t know whether to be disturbed or creeped out by your extensive Google search of me complete with linking to some of my work and posting about my employment. It seems to be a bit of overkill; when I am easily contacted—you could have just asked me these things instead of doxxing me and speculating on a plethora of issues. 
 

this issue is relevant because my husband came in to court and claimed that he could not pay the support that was ordered because he was so broke. I have his bank statements because those have all been subpoenaed. He spends money on alcohol, liquor, and hustler TV every month and has put over 30k into his own retirement account during the same time he was drawing these very large checks from the church to pay his mortgage and car payment. So, yes, most members would think that’s a very serious problem because none of this was checked or verified and the support given was long-term. It was also given by the exact same bishop who I have been very public about his inappropriate behavior towards me so that is another problem and another twist to the story. 
 

Finally my husband does not pay any tithing. I asked for food assistance when my husband refused to pay the court ordered support and the bishop permitted to food orders for myself and my children and then cut me off completely telling me that I needed to “sell my house and get a job.” I have all of these exchanges and emails in case anyone really cares to see all of this but needless to say I’m in the middle of a divorce I can’t sell my house until the divorce is finalized but I did get a full time job as soon as I possibly could as I am a very hard worker in addition to a being single mother to two children with special needs and four children who have experienced trauma. A fact I’m surprised you did not attack on this thread along with your other careless speculations. 

I didn’t assume or pretend that I would be entitled to this information from the church. Certainly I’m aware that people can and should have their confidential privacy protected. But as members we assume that there are checks and balances in place especially with things like fast offerings which we give freely and generously.  There is a local audit committee as Ive learned throughout my investigation—which also shows that you DONT know this because you have not investigated this issue like I have but instead are assuming that the church would be transparent about this. Furthermore, in this case I am on these loans that the church paid for. Because we have not gone through the process of equitable division of assets or property this is most certainly a relevant issue for our ongoing civil matter of divorce. The leaders know my husband is a physician and I’m not sure what story he told them in order to get these very large sums of money but I do know that whatever it was could’ve at least been verified by me if they happened to ask—I’m in the same ward. Instead his word was taken at face value when mine was doubted, defamed, and scrutinized. 

 

Like I said any other questions you have—please just ask instead of speculating so recklessly. With all your sleuthing and assumptions, it seems like you could have just written me an email, no? That would have been easier than ten pages of discussion boards in which you repeat the same points over and over again. That is unless you didn’t actually want to know the reality of the situation. 

 

Very truly yours—

[rodheadlee]

On 2/11/2020 at 9:48 AM, rockpond said:

Agreed.

I don't see much merit in Nielsen's legal argument.  It's just my opinion that there ought to be some sort of limitations on how much wealth a tax-exempt entity can build up in investment accounts.  Admittedly, not easy to define.  But if the Church's annual overhead expenses are $6B, than I believe $100B or $124B is excessive.

It's about 6700.00 per member. It is not really all that much. 

[smac97]

Lesley,

I did not "dox" you.  I read the ABC4 "news" article about your marital dispute.  I listened to most of your "Thoughtful Faith" interview.  I watched your diatribe against the Church posted on YouTube.  I watched the WDBJ piece about you.  I looked at your LinkedIn profile.  I read your "Mormon Trauma Mama" article, and skimmed your "Mormon Happy Hour" podcasts, your April 2018 Op-Ed in the Tribune,  and the April 2019 one as well.  I listened to as much as I could of your "Naked Mormonism" podcast.  So I formulated conclusions, not assumptions.  

The only things I have posted about you are things you have publicly posted about yourself.  You are the one putting your private life on public display.  On ABC4.  On WDBJ.  On YouTube.  In newspapers and podcasts.  I didn't dox you.  I didn't hack your emails.  I ran a google search.  Everything I quoted you have affirmatively and voluntarily published to the world.

Other than denying your false accusation, I have no interest in interacting with you.  The only doxxer in view is you.  If "dox" is defined as "search for and publish private or identifying information about (a particular individual) on the Internet, typically with malicious intent," then your treatment of your husband plainly qualifies as doxxing.

-Smac

Edited June 14, 2020 by smac97

[Themoreofles]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Lesley,

I did not "dox" you.  I read the ABC4 "news" article about your marital dispute.  I listened to most of your "Thoughtful Faith" interview.  I watched your diatribe against the Church posted on YouTube.  I watched the WDBJ piece about you.  I looked at your LinkedIn profile.  I read your "Mormon Trauma Mama" article, and skimmed your "Mormon Happy Hour" podcasts, your April 2018 Op-Ed in the Tribune,  and the April 2019 one as well.  I listened to as much as I could of your "Naked Mormonism" podcast.  So I formulated conclusions, not assumptions.  

The only things I have posted about you are things you have publicly posted about yourself.  You are the one putting your private life on public display.  On ABC4.  On WDBJ.  On YouTube.  In newspapers and podcasts.  I didn't dox you.  I didn't hack your emails.  I ran a google search.  Everything I quoted you have affirmatively and voluntarily published to the world.

Other than denying your false accusation, I have no interest in interacting with you.  The only doxxer in view is you.  If "dox" is defined as "search for and publish private or identifying information about (a particular individual) on the Internet, typically with malicious intent," then your treatment of your husband plainly qualifies as doxxing.

-Smac

Hmmm interesting that you have no interest in interacting with me now that I am here; but there are 10 pages of discussion posts by YOU repeating the same ill-informed and recklessly drawn conclusions as nauseam about me and my situation. 
 

So I ask: why wouldn’t you want a chance to ask me anything after you have taken a vast (and honestly disturbingly creepy) amount of time to post numerous discussions speculating about, well, ME!? 
 

If I may offer one conclusion; your propensity to doubt the woman, blame her, shame her, and discredit her outside of any other facts illustrates in a beautifully disastrous way exactly what women in the church experience. 
 

This IS the problem. 
 

You would rather believe a false narrative created about me by yourself rather than actually truly wanting to know the reality of the situation. 
 

Heaven help all that you may have stewardship over if you ever become a bishop yourself. 
 

-Very truly yours

 

 

[mgy401]

Me. Butterfield, it sounds to me like *you* are the one trying to craft a one-sided narrative and promote it to the press; and you’re just miffed that @smac97 did his due diligence before accepting your claims at face value.

I have no idea as to the veracity of your other claims.  But as for your claim that “In my own investigations a journalist sought me out not the other way around. I did not seek to share the story . . .” — Frankly, I do not find it credible that either the Church or your ex-husband would alert the press to the existence of a story that would tend to embarrass both of them.  That leaves you, and only you, as the one who set the wheels in motion for this story going public.

It is an unfortunate truth of human nature that if a person is caught saying one inaccuracy, folks will wonder how many of that other person’s statements are similarly inaccurate.

I’m sincerely sorry for whatever you’ve gone through, and I wish you the best.  But I’m not going to automatically accept conclusory allegations that are contrary to evidence and common sense just because you, as a trauma victim, tell me that you deserve to be believed.  The natural response is going to be to investigate before I make up my mind; and as is clear from your statements to smac97–you don’t want your claims to be investigated.

Edited June 14, 2020 by mgy401

[smac97]

27 minutes ago, Themoreofles said:

Hmmm interesting that you have no interest in interacting with me now that I am here; but there are 10 pages of discussion posts by YOU repeating the same ill-informed and recklessly drawn conclusions as nauseam about me and my situation. 
 

So I ask: why wouldn’t you want a chance to ask me anything after you have taken a vast (and honestly disturbingly creepy) amount of time to post numerous discussions speculating about, well, ME!? 

Because you seem to be a vicious doxxer.  

-Smac

 

Edited June 14, 2020 by smac97

[Themoreofles]

1 hour ago, mgy401 said:

Me. Butterfield, it sounds to me like *you* are the one trying to craft a one-sided narrative and promote it to the press; and you’re just miffed that @smac97 did his due diligence before accepting your claims at face value.

I have no idea as to the veracity of your other claims.  But as for your claim that “In my own investigations a journalist sought me out not the other way around. I did not seek to share the story . . .” — Frankly, I do not find it credible that either the Church or your ex-husband would alert the press to the existence of a story that would tend to embarrass both of them.  That leaves you, and only you, as the one who set the wheels in motion for this story going public.

It is an unfortunate truth of human nature that if a person is caught saying one inaccuracy, folks will wonder how many of that other person’s statements are similarly inaccurate.

I’m sincerely sorry for whatever you’ve gone through, and I wish you the best.  But I’m not going to automatically accept conclusory allegations that are contrary to evidence and common sense just because you, as a trauma victim, tell me that you deserve to be believed.  The natural response is going to be to investigate before I make up my mind; and as is clear from your statements to smac97–you don’t want your claims to be investigated.

What I said was through the course of my investigation, I was contacted by a journalist. I’m confused at to how you seem to be taking this any different. 
 

I won’t reveal where I went to or everyone I spoke to in order investigate the mechanisms for ensuring responsible stewardship of church finances (or in this case—irresponsible stewardship) but I will say that it was during the course of this investigation that a reporter reached out to me in order to learn more about the situation. 
 

I have very clearly stated; Ask me anything—to which smac has refused this offer— seemingly to preserve his own worldview, unable to engage in any reasonable discussion that may point him to having to consider a contrary point of view and one that may make him uncomfortable with how he makes sense of the world.

That is, one where the church’s failure to establish safe and ethical policies and mechanisms for members to report inappropriate actions by leaders, is highly problematic because if the church was true and safe for everyone, as it purports itself to be, it wouldn’t have these types of problems, would it? 

[pogi]

18 hours ago, Themoreofles said:

 Like I said any other questions you have—please just ask instead of speculating so recklessly. With all your sleuthing and assumptions, it seems like you could have just written me an email, no? That would have been easier than ten pages of discussion boards in which you repeat the same points over and over again. That is unless you didn’t actually want to know the reality of the situation. 

 

Very truly yours—

You have gone above and beyond in publicly making your side of the story known.  If we “want to know the reality of the situation”, I don’t know if you could tell us much more than you already have.  To better understand the situation, I would like to hear the other sides of the story.  I think that would give us a better and more comprehensive view of “reality”.

[Themoreofles]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Because you seem to be a vicious doxxer.  

-Smac

 

I mean, name calling is the lowest form of refutation. I think you would know that now with how many posts you seem to spend your time on engaging in this arena, no? 
 

Again: How about you ask me a question and I will answer it? 
 

If I’m vicious, angry, scorned, and whatever else you’ve labeled me with during your hours of (uniformed) conclusions, you should jump at the chance to prove yourself right. 
 

I also must say that it’s a tired thing I see all too often: Men touting they have all the answers, but then when challenged, they become so uncomfortable with the implication that they may be wrong that they prove themselves to be severely ego-fragile without any one else’s help at all. 
 

So if you sincerely seek the truth and want to know the reality of the situation, you could start with, Hmmmm I don’t know, may be asking the source? 
 

And here’s my prediction, not because I have the priesthood or any special power to foresee the future, but because you don’t: 

You will resort to more name-calling, a few other people may jump on in your defense and resort to name calling (because they no doubt receive my engagement here as an attack on the church and this is the status quo of how to respond when the church is threatened—to attack the credibility of the threaten-er), more attempts to shame me into silence will be offered, you will do another google search and ignore the other evidence you find on me that does not for your narrative about me—cherry picking only the work of mine that fits your narrative ignoring the fact that I’ve been recognized for various volunteer and other worthy efforts of mine (because of course scary, vicious people aren’t good stewards in their community) and then finally you will decline to take me up on my offer to simply ask me any questions you have in order to clear up the gross amount of misinformation you have posted about myself in speculation. 

-Very truly yours 

 

[Calm]

48 minutes ago, Themoreofles said:

Ask me anything—

Do you have any documentation outside assertion on your part to demonstrate the accuracy of your claims? (Serious question, not a challenge, documentation could be interesting to me, straight assertions you have supplied sufficiently to understand your claims so there isn't additional need at this point, imo).

Edited June 14, 2020 by Calm

[Themoreofles]

24 minutes ago, pogi said:

You have gone above and beyond in publicly making your side of the story known.  If we “want to know the reality of the situation”, I don’t know if you could tell us much more than you already have.  To better understand the situation, I would like to hear the other sides of the story.  I think that would give us a better and more comprehensive view of “reality”.

If I’ve gone above and beyond in sharing “my side” why all the speculation about me and my side on this thread? 
 

And in case you didn’t see the news clip, the church refused to offer a comment. 
 

I also have a few hours of documented conversations as well as several emails attempting to discuss this with: my local bishop (male), my local stake president (male), my local area authority (male)—who I emailed  several times at all of the emails I was provided NOT by my local leaders but by another person who was able to find some possible contact info for him, the fraud department at church headquarters (both males)—yes there is such a thing and they confirmed to me they call themselves the “fraud squad”,  the dept head of church welfare (male), and finally routed to Dan McKonkie (male) of Kirton Mckonkie (law firm for the church). 
 

Now I’m on this discussion board with, let me guess, Males, who find it more palatable to defend abusers than to give the benefit of the doubt to a woman.
 

If this does not also illustrate where the problems lie within our church system, then it really shouldn’t surprise anyone why more safe and ethical practices have not been implemented or adopted yet. 

[Themoreofles]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

Do you have any documentation outside assertion on your part to demonstrate the accuracy of your claims? (Serious question, not a challenge, documentation could be interesting to me, straight assertions you have supplied sufficiently to understand your claims so there isn't additional need, imo).

Yes. I thank you for the question. Can you clarify what part of my claims do you want evidence of? 
 

Evidence: I have emails and texts from unethical abusive Bishop to me stating the things I have said above. Follow up emails to the Stake President about abusive Bishop, many of which went unanswered and/or ignored. 
 

I have a recording of the abusive Bishop defaming me to a complete stranger. Sharing what I would deem confidential information as a bishop with literally a person who walked into the church off the street. I also have two other women’s testimonies of him saying/doing similarly inappropriate and unethical actions to them. 

I have a copy of my (and my children’s) restraining order for my husband. Along with pictures of my injuries. 
 

I have my husbands paystubs, 403b retirement balance, and bank records to show that he DID have more than adequate money to pay for these things and that he has placed over 30k into his 403b AT THE SAME TIME the church paid these expenses. 
 

I have copies of the checks paid by the church, some of them not even signed by the two signatures that are supposedly required for these funds to be distributed. 

Is there anything I missed? Or is there any certain information or evidence you are looking for? Thank you, again, for the question. 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Themoreofles said:

So I ask: why wouldn’t you want a chance to ask me anything after you have taken a vast (and honestly disturbingly creepy) amount of time to post numerous discussions speculating about, well, ME!? 
 

If I may offer one conclusion; your propensity to doubt the woman, blame her, shame her, and discredit her outside of any other facts illustrates in a beautifully disastrous way exactly what women in the church experience. 
 

A couple of us on the board have the habit of dissecting/analyzing topics quite thoroughly.  Smac is good at it.  Most of the time the focus of the topic either can't or shouldn't respond.  I have never reached out to anyone involved in a lawsuit because I have always thought it is not to their advantage to share additional info here.  We are too small/have no influence so attempting to persuade us is worthless imo and there is a chance that something might be said that damages their case later on.  I have on occasion called an institution to get clarification on a policy because I figure those people are paid in part to waste their time with me.  Smac may use the same reasoning.

Just an FYI, Smac's history is clear that if you were a man criticizing the church for the same thing, he would doubt you in the same way.  In this case at least, it is not that you are a woman that is why he doubts you.

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, Themoreofles said:

Yes. I thank you for the question. Can you clarify what part of my claims do you want evidence of? 
 

Evidence: I have emails and texts from unethical abusive Bishop to me stating the things I have said above. Follow up emails to the Stake President about abusive Bishop, many of which went unanswered and/or ignored. 
 

I have a recording of the abusive Bishop defaming me to a complete stranger. Sharing what I would deem confidential information as a bishop with literally a person who walked into the church off the street. I also have two other women’s testimonies of him saying/doing similarly inappropriate and unethical actions to them. 

I have a copy of my (and my children’s) restraining order for my husband. Along with pictures of my injuries. 
 

I have my husbands paystubs, 403b retirement balance, and bank records to show that he DID have more than adequate money to pay for these things and that he has placed over 30k into his 403b AT THE SAME TIME the church paid these expenses. 
 

I have copies of the checks paid by the church, some of them not even signed by the two signatures that are supposedly required for these funds to be distributed. 

Is there anything I missed? Or is there any certain information or evidence you are looking for? Thank you, again, for the question. 

Are you willing to publish them here for discussion?

[Themoreofles]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

A couple of us on the board have the habit of dissecting/analyzing topics quite thoroughly.  Smac is good at it.  Most of the time the focus of the topic either can't or shouldn't respond.  I have never reached out to anyone involved in a lawsuit because I have always thought it is not to their advantage to share additional info here.  We are too small/have no influence so attempting to persuade us is worthless imo and there is a chance that something might be said that damages their case later on.  I have on occasion called an institution to get clarification on a policy because I figure those people are paid in part to waste their time with me.  Smac may use the same reasoning.

Just an FYI, Smac's history is clear that if you were a man criticizing the church for the same thing, he would doubt you in the same way.  In this case at least, it is not that you are a woman that is why he doubts you.

Yes I appreciate this. Thank you for your kindness and willingness to engage. Yes I am willing to publish these things. I will have to redact identifying information of course and I am still in the middle of my divorce. But I certainly will get these files ready and will share as soon as I possibly am permitted to. 
 

 

[mgy401]

35 minutes ago, Themoreofles said:

If I’ve gone above and beyond in sharing “my side” why all the speculation about me and my side on this thread? 
 

And in case you didn’t see the news clip, the church refused to offer a comment. 
 

I also have a few hours of documented conversations as well as several emails attempting to discuss this with: my local bishop (male), my local stake president (male), my local area authority (male)—who I emailed  several times at all of the emails I was provided NOT by my local leaders but by another person who was able to find some possible contact info for him, the fraud department at church headquarters (both males)—yes there is such a thing and they confirmed to me they call themselves the “fraud squad”,  the dept head of church welfare (male), and finally routed to Dan McKonkie (male) of Kirton Mckonkie (law firm for the church). 
 

Now I’m on this discussion board with, let me guess, Males, who find it more palatable to defend abusers than to give the benefit of the doubt to a woman.
 

If this does not also illustrate where the problems lie within our church system, then it really shouldn’t surprise anyone why more safe and ethical practices have not been implemented or adopted yet. 

My gender is irrelevant to the question of whether you deliberately tried to create the impression that the public limelight found you rather than vice-versa.

Edited June 14, 2020 by mgy401

[Calm]

On 1/8/2020 at 1:04 PM, pogi said:

Has she revealed how much she makes?  Has she revealed if she herself is making payments towards the mortgage, or leaving him with two mortgages (or mortgage and rent) etc. etc

Going through previous posts to remind myself of the controversy as I have a crap memory, might post something that is already answered later by other info, my apologies for being redundant if so.

Questions:

Lesley, one of the posters in the earlier conversation considered the above as useful info in understanding the context of your complaint.  The first question about your own salary is inappropriate usually, but just putting it up in case you want to share that info as part of your story.  The second I am curious about...

Are you making payments to the mortgage as well and if not, why not since shared property?  Are you aware if your ex has two or more mortgages/rent to pay?  

One of my own:  who is currently living in the home the mortgage was paid for?

[Calm]

27 minutes ago, Themoreofles said:

Yes I appreciate this. Thank you for your kindness and willingness to engage. Yes I am willing to publish these things. I will have to redact identifying information of course and I am still in the middle of my divorce. But I certainly will get these files ready and will share as soon as I possibly am permitted to. 
 

 

Thank you.  It will take time because life interrupts, but I plan on rereading the earlier discussion and post questions I see there whether from myself or others as well as any new ones that occur to me.  Probably take a couple of days to get through if extensive (you said ten pages...that could be dense in relevant info or a lot of chatter, so I am guessing right now assuming it is dense) especially since I need to look at linked material for more context and any questions I might have about that.  If you want to wait until I am done so I can remove questions I find answers for or respond as I post, I have no issue with either process.

Others may have new questions or they may need to refresh their memory as well and therefore may wait for me to pull up the old stuff.

Sometimes I miss posts...no need to repeat an answer in that case, a link back to the original one or time so I can find it will be fine.

There is no deadline so no reason everyone who wants to post should take their time.  I do tend to post daily being the obsessive I am, but I think I am the only poster who does.  As long as everyone understands people are taking their time, but intend to post, hopefully no one will get too impatient.   

Edited June 14, 2020 by Calm

[Themoreofles]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

Going through previous posts to remind myself of the controversy as I have a crap memory, might post something that is already answered later by other info, my apologies for being redundant if so.

Questions:

Lesley, one of the posters in the earlier conversation considered the above as useful info in understanding the context of your complaint.  The first question about your own salary is inappropriate usually, but just putting it up in case you want to share that info as part of your story.  The second I am curious about...

Are you making payments to the mortgage as well and if not, why not since shared property?  Are you aware if your ex has two or more mortgages/rent to pay?  

One of my own:  who is currently living in the home the mortgage was paid for?

We own two houses. He pays for one and I pay for the other. The church paid for the mortgage of the home he lives in, as well as the car he drives. He has the children less than 30% of the time, but if you wanted to research this fully—you would see that on various dating sites, he claims he has 50/50 custody, which is untrue. 
 

The mortgage I pay for is actually 2.5 times the mortgage he pays for. This arrangement was court ordered until the final division of property and assets occurs. (Which still has not happened since the divorce is still ongoing). 
 

My salary is 1/5 of his, if that helps at all. The child support I receive does not cover my mortgage payment. The support ordered by the court is a straight calculation according to his income and mine. 

[Calm]

22 minutes ago, Themoreofles said:

As you can see, I tried several different emails, ALL of which were sent back to me with no response. 

Why those particular emails?  Did someone give them to you, did you find them online, or something else?

[Themoreofles]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

Why those particular emails?  Did someone give them to you, did you find them online, or something else?

Someone did a search for his contact info for me when I could not find the info myself. 

These emails are what they provided me with. No one could find a contact number for Bennett. 
 

This information is not published or accessible anywhere. At least, not for me it wasn’t.