Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Sexual harassment and tax problems for dehlin or not?


Recommended Posts

35 minutes ago, rpn said:

501(c)(3)'s are supposed to operate on behalf of the  causes involving improvement of society (which may include the discussion of ideas), not on behalf of the persons who run them.    Whenever someone sets up a nominal 501(c)(3) (and state authorization) and the benefit of the donations innures to the founder, and boards are groupies of the founder who do not police, establish policies to prevent, and otherwise make sure it is the cause and not a person who benefits, then there is a problem.    What many of the critics did was set up 501(c)(3)'s intending to pay themselves all of most of the donations (without any correlation to what is produced and the time that is spent, and the progress of the cause. 

Here I think you have a better case. I personally think non-profits (including churches) should receive much greater tax scrutiny. They often serve as tax shelters for the wealthy to funnel money to their children in the form of ridiculous salaries. Based on what I’ve seen I doubt JD followed all the requirements in setting up his nonprofit and the way he ran it the first several years but suspect it is run much more in line with the law now. 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

With respect it doesn’t appear you know what you are talking about. In all my years paying tithing, they never deducted the cost of the building, printed materials etc on my statement. I donate to NPR every year and they don’t deduct for the cost of their content either. It’s my understanding that parents right off mission expenses as tax deductible as well without having to deduct what their child receives for rent, food and medical care. 
 

 

It’s common practice for charitable functions like dinners and golf tournaments to declare the value of the dinner or round of golf in the literature for the event so that the participant can determine how much of what they paid is deductible.  That wouldn’t be the case if what was received is available whether or not you choose to contribute (e.g. NPR content).

The issue would be whether any tangible value was received in connection with the donation that was not available but for the donation.

Link to comment
29 minutes ago, let’s roll said:

It’s common practice for charitable functions like dinners and golf tournaments to declare the value of the dinner or round of golf in the literature for the event so that the participant can determine how much of what they paid is deductible.  That wouldn’t be the case if what was received is available whether or not you choose to contribute (e.g. NPR content).

The issue would be whether any tangible value was received in connection with the donation that was not available but for the donation.

And since the podcast is free to the public…

Link to comment
11 hours ago, rpn said:

501(c)(3)'s are supposed to operate on behalf of the  causes involving improvement of society (which may include the discussion of ideas), not on behalf of the persons who run them.    Whenever someone sets up a nominal 501(c)(3) (and state authorization) and the benefit of the donations innures to the founder, and boards are groupies of the founder who do not police, establish policies to prevent, and otherwise make sure it is the cause and not a person who benefits, then there is a problem.    What many of the critics did was set up 501(c)(3)'s intending to pay themselves all of most of the donations (without any correlation to what is produced and the time that is spent, and the progress of the cause. 

The other problem is advertising for donations, without giving receipts that state the value of what they are getting (which isn't deductible).   For instance, when OSF says that they provide content, then they should be noting the value of the content the donor gets, and subtracting that from the donation to determine what if any of it is deductible.  (Because if the higher standard deduction, I suspect there aren't many donors who are individually declaring donations to OSF and others like it for tax purposes these days.   But it is fundamentally wrong of a charitable organization to tell its donors that all of their donations are tax deductible when only that amount that is more than the value of what they receive is deductible.).

How do you place a value on the content?  What is one donor listens to every podcast and another listens to few or none but simply wants to support the mission of OSF?  The rule you refer to that reduces the donation based on the benefit received is more focused on cases where there is something substantial given to entice the donation.  For example, say I give $1000 to my local PBS station and they give me tickets to some concert in return for the $1000 level of support.  If the tickets are valued at $200 my charitable donation for tax purposes is now $800.

Link to comment
13 hours ago, bluebell said:

In this case, I think the label of sexual harassment is less about the spirit of the law (vindicating or helping a victim) and more about the letter of the law (exposing a crime).  Not that anyone is trying to get JD held legally accountable in this case.  More so held morally accountable for his own double standards (in a "pot calling the kettle black" kind of way).

*As an aside, I've been struggling with the bolded section and I think I finally figured out why.  It sounds very reasonable at first glance but the more I think about it , the more it starts to sound like an argument for victim blaming or shaming.   

A woman going for a run after dark in a bad part of town (or, honestly, any part of town), or a woman choosing to get drunk at a frat party surrounded by males she doesn't know, or a woman hitchhiking alone and getting into a car with a total stranger because she wants to meet up with friends in the next town, knows she is taking a risk with those decisions.  And she is a grown adult making adult decisions. 

But if she is raped, she is no less a victim of sexual assault than if she was sleeping in her own bed and someone broke in and raped her. Taking risks, and being an adult knowing it's a risk when you do it, does not mean that you deserve what you get.  Nor does it mean that the people who break the law and hurt you when you are being dumb shouldn't be held accountable.

First, thanks for your thoughtful response. With that said we are talking about waaaaay different things. The loss of a job is an economic harm. We allow people all the time to take informed economic risks ("It's a risk that goes with the territory"). We allow people to invest their life savings in stock even though its value could go to zero. It's a risk that goes with the territory. That's not the same as getting raped. I'm sorry its just not. We allow people to go work at a start-up instead of a large corporation even though it means they could lose their job in six months and be poor. It's a risk that goes with the territory. We allow people without talent to move to LA and pursue acting careers even though their chance of success is zero. It's a risk that goes with the territory. We even allow people like me to go work for their spouses even if they might lose their job if the relationship falls apart. It's a risk that goes with the territory. 

The main difference here is consent. An individual that has a job, and is subjected to demeaning sexual insults has not consented to that and is being harassed. An individual that is pressured to have sex as a condition of employment did not consent to that situation. An individual that decides to go work for someone that they are in a relationship with, DID consent to the situation. That's a HUGE difference.

The problem with labels like "sexual harassment" for something that was completely and fully consensual (like me working for my wife, or deciding to work at a risky startup), is that people want to make comparisons to things like rape. So while I agree we should hold Dehlin accountable for his unethical behavior, I also think we should use words that are appropriate for the situation.   

Quote

So, I don't know that I can get behind it being insulting to call RB a victim of sexual harassment, even if her own dumb choices put her in that position to be hurt.  If JD did something morally wrong in his actions towards RB in regards to her employment, then he should be accountable for that, even if RB put herself in the position to be wronged.

For the record, I didn't say it was insulting to call RB a victim of sexual harassment. A certain poster seems to be saying that the current OSF standard of harassment is the only one that matters. Under that definition, I am a "victim" of sexual harassment every day. The idea that I am a victim is what is insulting to me.

 

Edited by SeekingUnderstanding
Link to comment
1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

First, thanks for your thoughtful response. With that said we are talking about waaaaay different things. The loss of a job is an economic harm. We allow people all the time to take informed economic risks ("It's a risk that goes with the territory"). We allow people to invest their life savings in stock even though its value could go to zero. It's a risk that goes with the territory. That's not the same as getting raped. I'm sorry its just not. We allow people to go work at a start-up instead of a large corporation even though it means they could lose their job in six months and be poor. It's a risk that goes with the territory. We allow people without talent to move to LA and pursue acting careers even though their chance of success is zero. It's a risk that goes with the territory. We even allow people like me to go work for their spouses even if they might lose their job if the relationship falls apart. It's a risk that goes with the territory. 

The main difference here is consent. An individual that has a job, and is subjected to demeaning sexual insults has not consented to that and is being harassed. An individual that is pressured to have sex as a condition of employment did not consent to that situation. An individual that decides to go work for someone that they are in a relationship with, DID consent to the situation. That's a HUGE difference.

The problem with labels like "sexual harassment" for something that was completely and fully consensual (like me working for my wife, or deciding to work at a risky startup), is that people want to make comparisons to things like rape. So while I agree we should hold Dehlin accountable for his unethical behavior, I also think we should use words that are appropriate for the situation.   

For the record, I didn't say it was insulting to call RB a victim of sexual harassment. A certain poster seems to be saying that the current OSF standard of harassment is the only one that matters. Under that definition, I am a "victim" of sexual harassment every day. The idea that I am a victim is what is insulting to me.

 

From my reading so far, I also question whether we are talking about sexual harassment in this case.  

What is more troubling is the grooming and manipulative massages that he sent, clearly playing on a vulnerability. Criminal? I don't think so. She was an adult with no indication of impaired mental capacity. Disgusting and immoral? Absolutely. 

Even more alarming though is the allegation of recording her sexual activity against her consent. That is definitely criminal even if it can't be proven in a court of law.  It is also abusive and indicative of a deeper lack of respect for women. Evidence of a misogyny that shows up in numerous other allegations against him. 

 

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Even more alarming though is the allegation of recording her sexual activity against her consent. That is definitely criminal even if it can't be proven in a court of law.  It is also abusive and indicative of a deeper lack of respect for women. Evidence of a misogyny that shows up in numerous other allegations against him. 

 

Yes, that is just so messed up.

Link to comment
9 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Even more alarming though is the allegation of recording her sexual activity against her consent.

Agree. That said without documentary evidence, I have a hard time taking anything either of these two say at face value. 
 

eta: I do agree there is more than enough there to conclusively say that Delhin is manipulative disgusting and immoral, and the recording does seem “in character” lending the allegation credibility. 

Edited by SeekingUnderstanding
Link to comment
1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

First, thanks for your thoughtful response. With that said we are talking about waaaaay different things. The loss of a job is an economic harm. We allow people all the time to take informed economic risks ("It's a risk that goes with the territory"). We allow people to invest their life savings in stock even though its value could go to zero. It's a risk that goes with the territory. That's not the same as getting raped. I'm sorry its just not. We allow people to go work at a start-up instead of a large corporation even though it means they could lose their job in six months and be poor. It's a risk that goes with the territory. We allow people without talent to move to LA and pursue acting careers even though their chance of success is zero. It's a risk that goes with the territory. We even allow people like me to go work for their spouses even if they might lose their job if the relationship falls apart. It's a risk that goes with the territory. 

The main difference here is consent. An individual that has a job, and is subjected to demeaning sexual insults has not consented to that and is being harassed. An individual that is pressured to have sex as a condition of employment did not consent to that situation. An individual that decides to go work for someone that they are in a relationship with, DID consent to the situation. That's a HUGE difference.

The problem with labels like "sexual harassment" for something that was completely and fully consensual (like me working for my wife, or deciding to work at a risky startup), is that people want to make comparisons to things like rape. So while I agree we should hold Dehlin accountable for his unethical behavior, I also think we should use words that are appropriate for the situation.   

For the record, I didn't say it was insulting to call RB a victim of sexual harassment. A certain poster seems to be saying that the current OSF standard of harassment is the only one that matters. Under that definition, I am a "victim" of sexual harassment every day. The idea that I am a victim is what is insulting to me.

 

I agree there are problems with the label of sexual harassment in this case.  For my part I think a more accurate accusation against JD would be sexual misconduct in the workplace.  It's not a legal term, which I think works better in this case because I don't think this whole mess is really about criminality.   

I just think we have to be careful because the line between "well she was dumb and and knew the risks" and "what happened to her was her fault"--when dealing with encounters that include sex--is very fine.  

Link to comment
2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

First, thanks for your thoughtful response. With that said we are talking about waaaaay different things. The loss of a job is an economic harm. We allow people all the time to take informed economic risks ("It's a risk that goes with the territory"). We allow people to invest their life savings in stock even though its value could go to zero. It's a risk that goes with the territory. That's not the same as getting raped. I'm sorry its just not. We allow people to go work at a start-up instead of a large corporation even though it means they could lose their job in six months and be poor. It's a risk that goes with the territory. We allow people without talent to move to LA and pursue acting careers even though their chance of success is zero. It's a risk that goes with the territory. We even allow people like me to go work for their spouses even if they might lose their job if the relationship falls apart. It's a risk that goes with the territory. 

The main difference here is consent. An individual that has a job, and is subjected to demeaning sexual insults has not consented to that and is being harassed. An individual that is pressured to have sex as a condition of employment did not consent to that situation. An individual that decides to go work for someone that they are in a relationship with, DID consent to the situation. That's a HUGE difference.

The problem with labels like "sexual harassment" for something that was completely and fully consensual (like me working for my wife, or deciding to work at a risky startup), is that people want to make comparisons to things like rape. So while I agree we should hold Dehlin accountable for his unethical behavior, I also think we should use words that are appropriate for the situation.   

For the record, I didn't say it was insulting to call RB a victim of sexual harassment. A certain poster seems to be saying that the current OSF standard of harassment is the only one that matters. Under that definition, I am a "victim" of sexual harassment every day. The idea that I am a victim is what is insulting to me.

 

That’s just silly. It’s important to acknowledge the policy of the very place someone works and I think it more than reasonable to give it priority. 
 

It seems we have moved from victim shaming to quibbling about word definitions in this discussion. You might consider that your experience as a married co-worker is as irrelevant to what happened in this instance as you think rape is. It would be helpful if you, being a man, would stop making what happened to this female victim in a very different work situation about you. Your experiences are certainly as valid but they aren’t applicable here. 

Link to comment
30 minutes ago, juliann said:

You might consider that your experience as a married co-worker is as irrelevant to what happened in this instance as you think rape is.

For what it’s worth I do consider the possibility. While I disagree I do recognize I might be wrong which is why I do appreciate your strong advocacy here (which I have not expressed but do so here). I respect your views (not just as expressed here but elsewhere), they are articulate and well thought out. While I don’t see it your way, I’ve changed my mind before. Consider this admitting I might be wrong! And with that I will probably bow out of the thread. I need to go wash my hands after coming across to some as defending Mr Delhin. 
 

Thanks -John

Link to comment
3 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

First, thanks for your thoughtful response. With that said we are talking about waaaaay different things. The loss of a job is an economic harm. We allow people all the time to take informed economic risks ("It's a risk that goes with the territory"). We allow people to invest their life savings in stock even though its value could go to zero. It's a risk that goes with the territory. That's not the same as getting raped. I'm sorry its just not.

I think I see what you are saying here.  At law, "assumption of the risk" is actually a legal defense against liability (in tort ) which "bars or reduces a plaintiff's right to recovery against a negligent tortfeasor if the defendant can demonstrate that the plaintiff voluntarily and knowingly assumed the risks at issue inherent to the dangerous activity in which the plaintiff was participating at the time of his or her injury."  By way of example:

A few years ago the Utah Supreme Court recently published a decision that may have some relevance here (emphases added):

Quote

Sometimes known as the "brawl that begins with prayer," recreational basketball in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has a history of getting out of hand.

There was even a movie made about it in 2006 called "Church Ball." An IMDb summary of the comedy includes the line, "What was supposed to strengthen the body, invigorate the mind and cultivate brotherly love seems to bring out the worst in these church-going ball players."

Though most incidents between opponents — typically members of the same geographic area known as a stake — don't end up in court, one case made it all the way to the Utah Supreme Court.

The court recently ruled against a Utah man who sued an opposing player after being injured in a church-sponsored game in 2012.

In his arguments, an attorney for the man invoked a quote attributed to the late Arizona Sen. John McCain during a 1989 Senate floor speech:

"While the lawlessness of MMA is a dangerous and brutal exercise, there is one sport, more vicious and cold-blooded, that takes place in Mormon meetinghouses across this great nation of ours. I speak, of course, of LDS Church basketball."

While the justices say they couldn't find the quote in the Congressional Record and that it might be "internet apocrypha," it conveys an accepted view of "church ball" among many who have "experienced this phenomenon — an athletic competition acclaimed on some local T-shirts as 'the brawl that begins with prayer.'”

"At least one of the parties to this case seems to see it that way," Associate Chief Justice Thomas Lee wrote in the court opinion.

Judd Nixon was dribbling the ball down the court to take a shot with Edward Clay chasing him to contest it. As Clay approached Nixon’s right side, he extended his right arm over Nixon’s shoulder to reach for the ball, according to court documents.

Nixon came to a “jump stop” at the foul line and began his shooting motion. Clay’s arm made contact with Nixon’s right shoulder. Nixon then felt his left knee pop and both men fell to the ground. The referee determined the contact wasn't intentional and called a common foul on Clay.

Three years later, Nixon filed a court complaint alleging that Clay's negligence caused his knee injury.

Clay asked the district court to adopt a “contact sports exception” that provides that participants in bodily contact sports are liable for injuries only when the injuries are the result of “willful” or “reckless disregard for the safety of the other player.”

The court agreed and ruled in Clay's favor, also accepting his other argument that no jury could find that he acted negligently based on the play.

Nixon appealed the ruling to the Utah Supreme Court.

In a 5-0 decision, the justices affirmed the lower court ruling, though on a slightly different legal basis.

Instead of relying on the “contact sports exception” that hinges on a defendant’s state of mind and on whether an activity qualifies as a "contact sport," the justices found basketball is inherently a contact sport, citing "boxing out" for a rebound as permitted under the rules.

"It is undisputed that Nixon was injured when Clay 'reached in' and 'swiped at the basketball,' incidentally making contact with Nixon’s shoulder," Lee wrote. "And the undisputed evidence shows that these actions are inherent in the game of basketball."

Lee wrote that the justices decided that voluntary participants in sports don't have to avoid contact that is inherent in the activity.

An injury arising from "actions {that} are inherent in the game of basketball" does not give rise to a legal claim.

The risk of injury is part of the game of basketball.  If you want to avoid such risks, don't play the game.

However, there is no principle of law by which nonconsensual sex (rape) is seen as an inherent risk.  There is no jurisdiction that would allow a defense of "She was dressed provocatively" or any other "she assumed the risk"-style justifications.  

That does not mean that there are no defenses against an allegation of rape.  Sure there are.  Innocence is the most obvious (that is, the sex was consensual).  Mistake-as-to-age defenses exist in some jurisdictions.  Romeo-and-Juliet laws.  Insanity / Mental Incapcity can also be available.  Apparently some jurisdictions allow a "mistake of fact as to consent" defense (see here).

3 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

The main difference here is consent. An individual that has a job, and is subjected to demeaning sexual insults has not consented to that and is being harassed. An individual that is pressured to have sex as a condition of employment did not consent to that situation. An individual that decides to go work for someone that they are in a relationship with, DID consent to the situation. That's a HUGE difference.

I agree as per the civil law.  However, per the OSF policy this is a distinction without a difference.  Nevertheless, the policy was not enacted until after Dehlin had done . . . what he did.  It is interesting to me that the OSF board is taking such a legalistic approach to Dehlin's behavior.

3 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

The problem with labels like "sexual harassment" for something that was completely and fully consensual (like me working for my wife, or deciding to work at a risky startup), is that people want to make comparisons to things like rape.

Well, not necessarily.  Most instances of sexual harassment fall far short of "rape."

3 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

So while I agree we should hold Dehlin accountable for his unethical behavior, I also think we should use words that are appropriate for the situation.   

Under OSF's current policy Dehlin's behavior was "sexual harassment."

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
On 5/18/2021 at 4:24 PM, Tacenda said:

I listen in bed to podcasts to help me sleep, lol.

I better start listening to your podcasts then, because the ones I listen to get my brain riled up half the time and I can't sleep! LOL

Link to comment
14 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think I see what you are saying here.  At law, "assumption of the risk" is actually a legal defense against liability (in tort ) which "bars or reduces a plaintiff's right to recovery against a negligent tortfeasor if the defendant can demonstrate that the plaintiff voluntarily and knowingly assumed the risks at issue inherent to the dangerous activity in which the plaintiff was participating at the time of his or her injury."  By way of example:

A few years ago the Utah Supreme Court recently published a decision that may have some relevance here (emphases added):

An injury arising from "actions {that} are inherent in the game of basketball" does not give rise to a legal claim.

The risk of injury is part of the game of basketball.  If you want to avoid such risks, don't play the game.

However, there is no principle of law by which nonconsensual sex (rape) is seen as an inherent risk.  There is no jurisdiction that would allow a defense of "She was dressed provocatively" or any other "she assumed the risk"-style justifications. 

 

Odd comparison.  In basketball you can get accidentally hurt. The risk argument fits. Rape doesn't happen accidentally.

 

Link to comment
11 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

I better start listening to your podcasts then, because the ones I listen to get my brain riled up half the time and I can't sleep! LOL

There's all kinds. Some are so intense, I cannot abide if I'm anxious. Others are too fluffy if I want my brain to have a workout! 

Link to comment
10 minutes ago, Rain said:

Odd comparison.  In basketball you can get accidentally hurt. The risk argument fits. Rape doesn't happen accidentally.

 

That's my point.  Assumption of the risk applies to all sorts of scenarios, but not to sexual assault.

Link to comment
3 hours ago, kllindley said:

From my reading so far, I also question whether we are talking about sexual harassment in this case.  

By OSF's reckoning, we are.

Under the civil law, however, I would say . . . no.  Rosebud was a willing participant, and the law requires that sexual advances, etc. be unwelcome.

Quote

What is more troubling is the grooming and manipulative massages that he sent, clearly playing on a vulnerability. Criminal? I don't think so. She was an adult with no indication of impaired mental capacity. Disgusting and immoral? Absolutely. 

And no problemo for OSF.

The members of the OSF Board of Directors are: Jeremy MacDonald, Keri Witbeck, Clint Martin and John Dehlin.

Quote

Even more alarming though is the allegation of recording her sexual activity against her consent. That is definitely criminal even if it can't be proven in a court of law. 

Assuming Dehlin's alleged behavior took place in Utah, I think the relevant statute would be Utah Code 76-9-702.7:

Quote

76-9-702.7.  Voyeurism offenses -- Penalties.

(1) A person is guilty of voyeurism who intentionally uses any type of technology to secretly or surreptitiously record video of a person:

-(a) for the purpose of viewing any portion of the individual's body regarding which the individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy, whether or not that portion of the body is covered with clothing;
-(b) without the knowledge or consent of the individual; and
-(c) under circumstances in which the individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy.

(2) A violation of Subsection (1) is a class A misdemeanor, except that a violation of Subsection (1) committed against a child under 14 years of age is a third degree felony.

(3) Distribution or sale of any images, including in print, electronic, magnetic, or digital format, obtained under Subsection (1) by transmission, display, or dissemination is a third degree felony, except that if the violation of this Subsection (3) includes images of a child under 14 years of age, the violation is a second degree felony.

(4) A person is guilty of voyeurism who, under circumstances not amounting to a violation of Subsection (1), views or attempts to view an individual, with or without the use of any instrumentality:

-(a) with the intent of viewing any portion of the individual's body regarding which the individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy, whether or not that portion of the body is covered with clothing;
-(b) without the knowledge or consent of the individual; and
-(c) under circumstances in which the individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy.

(5) A violation of Subsection (4) is a class B misdemeanor, except that a violation of Subsection (4) committed against a child under 14 years of age is a class A misdemeanor.

Subparts (1) and/or (4) would seem to apply to what has been alleged.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
Quote

Recovering founders must repair the damage caused by their past actions, and make appropriate amends to the impacted parties.

It is possible Dehlin cares some for the life of Mormonstories after he is gone, but given how he described Mormonstories as “it is me” iirc and other of his actions that show him to be self centered imo, I am guessing he doesn’t see much of an afterlife/afterJD for Mormonstories.  Unless it impacts his paycheck, I am guessing he won’t be seeing a need to make reparations in the future. 
 

Related to founderitis is another big problem for startups. Entrepreneurs who are successful generally need a lot of passion and commitment to their own vision for the business...unfortunately some won’t be successful or be able to maintain success because they must control their own creation to the point they sabotage their own efforts because they can’t relinquish decision making or innovation to others. 

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
7 hours ago, Calm said:

It is possible Dehlin cares some for the life of Mormonstories after he is gone, but given how he described Mormonstories as “it is me” iirc and other of his actions that show him to be self centered imo, I am guessing he doesn’t see much of an afterlife/afterJD for Mormonstories.  Unless it impacts his paycheck, I am guessing he won’t be seeing a need to make reparations in the future. 
 

Related to founderitis is another big problem for startups. Entrepreneurs who are successful generally need a lot of passion and commitment to their own vision for the business...unfortunately some won’t be successful or be able to maintain success because they must control their own creation to the point they sabotage their own efforts because they can’t relinquish decision making or innovation to others. 

It is always said that Mormonism is losing its best and brightest. I have a hard time imagining that one of them is not skilled enough, for a yearly $200K,  to replace him quite effectively. He cheered when it happened to the Maxwell Institute. This is the fault of the board. 

Edited by juliann
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...