Tim Ballard

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I don't see Elder Ballard mentioned, but are these the tweets? 

Yes

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, bsjkki said:

It’s not on their main page today and also not on their most read listing. I find that odd. It is major news.

 

33 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

KSL…not on Home Screen or most viewed. 

 

Therefore what? It was on both over the weekend (as I recall). 

Edited September 18, 2023 by SeekingUnderstanding

[smac97]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I don't see Elder Ballard mentioned, but are these the tweets? 

I think Glenn Beck is a good example of someone who lets their sociopolitical ideology/identity predominate all others.

And these have all been deleted?

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[Tacenda]

19 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think Glenn Beck is a good example of someone who lets their sociopolitical ideology/identity predominate all others.

And these have all been deleted?

Thanks,

-Smac

 

I guess, not sure. And I was in the distant past, a Glenn Beck fan. I think the political has reared it's ugly head and become idolized over everything else.

Edited September 18, 2023 by Tacenda

[bsjkki]

I have no idea what is true or not but am troubled by the statement and how it was handled. 

[Tacenda]

Just now, bsjkki said:

I have no idea what is true or not but am troubled by the statement and how it was handled. 

I agree, but it makes me wonder if there's an underlining reason for it. But maybe it'll all go away until there is some substantial evidence or concrete enough. It would be nice to know the goings on before it was published.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, bsjkki said:

KSL…not on Home Screen or most viewed. 

 

I have been quite surprised by how quickly news items move off the list and Home Screen or were never on them (some daybell stuff).  While Tim Ballard might interest many if they make the connection between him and the movie, my guess is most people reading the DN aren’t aware of him yet.  And given DN went with his political aspirations as the leader part of the article (my guess is that was in the works already and they just tacked on the other, but perhaps someone wanted to downplay it) and not the Media Relations announcement, they may be ignoring it as too soon to be concerned about. 

Edited September 18, 2023 by Calm

[bsjkki]

44 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I agree, but it makes me wonder if there's an underlining reason for it. But maybe it'll all go away until there is some substantial evidence or concrete enough. It would be nice to know the goings on before it was published.

I prefer substantial evidence and not closed investigations, anonymous letters and unsubstantiated allegations before people's reputations are ruined publicly. The church's statement is powerful and final and there is not really anything anyone can do after such a statement is made. I am disturbed investigative materials are under FOIA. Again, no way for the accused to cross examine or refute such evidence except a very public hearing of the non-charged items. The documents are only in the hands of the government because of an investigation that did not lead to charges. All government documents are fair game but these are documents acquired from others during the course of an investigation where no charges are brought. I thought they would be protected like grand jury evidence. Grand jury evidence is secret because it is not fair to smear someone when no charges are brought. Maybe SMAC, can enlighten me on this. Any lawyers want to weigh in and correct me? I remember BYU was able to hide their law enforcement documents under grama (this policy changed.) I am unaware that we could FOIA those documents, if they were part of a broader investigation, from the investigation itself. Is this possible? 

Edited September 18, 2023 by bsjkki

[bsjkki]

How the other major news sources in Utah are covering this. So, yes, the lack of follow-up coverage is odd. 

 

Fox 13

 

SL Trib

KUTV

ABC4

 

[smac97]

On 9/18/2023 at 10:25 AM, Tacenda said:

Yes, seems this is causing many members to question the church and possibly leave the church over this. After watching the @wardradio with Kwaku, Brad and Cardon, I read the live chat and comments, there are a whole host of members that are upset with the church condemning Tim Ballard. They are almost worshiping Tim. It's troubling all around, everything. 

Again, here are what I see are the three options:

Quote

Option (A) - Pres. Ballard and the Church have pivoted to a politically activist posture, and have initiated that pivot by derailing the political aspirations of one of the members of the Church.

Option (B) - Tim Ballard did actually "betray" his friendship with Pres. Ballard "through the unauthorized use of President Ballard’s name for Tim Ballard’s personal advantage and activity regarded as morally unacceptable."

Option (C) - Pres. Ballard has been duped, that is, Tim Ballard did not make "unauthorized use of President Ballard’s name for Tim Ballard’s personal advantage and activity," or that he engaged in "activity regarded as morally unacceptable," but that Pres. Ballard has somehow been persuaded through misinformation or unsubstantiated claims.  Alternative (per Calm), the Church believed the allegations and was so nervous about being associated with TB, they hurriedly issued a statement without consideration for the fallout or the target nor took as careful of an approach as they should have.

I think (A) is to unserious, so I reject it.  (B) and (C) are still on the table.

A few thoughts:

1. I am, at present, unsure which of (B) or (C) is the most likely.  

2. There are two potentially discrete sets of allegations against Tim, one being "unauthorized use of President Ballard’s name for Tim Ballard’s personal advantage and activity" and the other being "activity regarded as morally unacceptable."

3. Lynn Packer's video does a good job of laying out what I think will prove to be the "activity regarded as morally unacceptable" alleged in the Church's statement (that is, allegations against Tim Ballard of sexual misconduct).  

4. What Packer presents is innuendo, rumor, unsubstantiated allegations, etc.  Not a lick of competent, probative evidence.  Not.  A.  Lick.

5. I think John Q. Public is going to be, or ought to be, confused about these allegations.  We've all seen sensationalized stories about allegations of misconduct against public figures such as Harvey Weinstein, Jeffrey Epstein, Donald Trump, Bill Clinton, Brett Kavanaugh, Prince Andrew, Kevin Spacey, Bill Cosby, the Duke lacrosse case, Tawana Brawley, Michael Jackson, the "Central Park Five," the "Orkney child abuse scandal," McMartin Preschool (and a bunch of other "daycare abuse" stories), Russell Brand, Jimmy Savile, Danny Masterson, and many others.

I jumbled these together because I listed them in the order they came to mind, and because the jumbled sequence reflects, I think, the public's cumulative and jumbled recollection of these stories.  Consider, for example, Bill Clinton.  Does anyone presently believe his denial of misconduct as to Monica Lewinsky?  No.  But what about Juanita Broaddrick?  Paula Jones?  These are presently unsettled.  Harvey Weinstein appears to be altogether horrible. But then, so did Kevin Spacey, and yet he was recently acquitted in a court of law.  But then, Danny Masterson was just convicted.  The allegations against Bill Clinton were heavily politicized, but that didn't negate the accuracy of at least some of them.  The allegations against Brett Kavanaugh remain controversial.  Bill Cosby appears to have gotten away with years of abuse, but the young men in the Duke lacrosse and "Central Park Five" cases were wrongfully accused.  Allegations against Russell Brand have just come out in the last 48 hours or so, and the verity of these are still in flux.  And on and on and on.  

6. Based on the foregoing, I think we need to generally pump the brakes in terms of reaching broad conclusions about Tim Ballard.  We have very little competent, probative evidence of actual misconduct.  Allegations alone are not, or should not be, evidence unto themselves.  

7. For me, the statement from the Church is serious business, but not actually "evidence" of misconduct.  As noted above, Option (B) ("Pres. Ballard has been duped...") is still very much on the table.

8. The VICE article is troubling, but I am not inclined to give it the benefit of the doubt (because to do so would require me to not give the benefit of the doubt to Tim Ballard).  It is, after all, only reporting unsubstantiated allegations.

9. I think the likely best source of information about Tim Ballard is the investigation by the Davis County Attorney's Office.  I have submitted a public records request for this.  However, "best" is a relative term, and no charges were actually made against Tim Ballard.

10. The image of the whiteboard in the VICE article, and the attendant appearance of Tim Ballard "monetizing" his efforts, is troubling to me.  I need to gain a better understanding of this.

11. The disclosure of the eye-popping compensation to Tim Ballard (and others) at OUR is somewhat troubling.  

12. The statement from the Church is, to me, very troubling, regardless of whether the allegations contained in it are substantively correct or incorrect.  If the allegations are, in the end, proven to be correct, then Tim Ballard has let a lot of people down.  Alternatively, if the allegations are, in the end, proven to be incorrect or substantially misstated or overstated, then the Church (specifically, the Public Affairs Department, or whatever it's called) has materially erred in how it handled the inquiry from VICE.  And if Pres. Ballard signed off on the public statement, and if that statement proves to be substantively incorrect or misstated or overstated, then he has also made a serious error in judgment.

13. Does any of the above affect my perspective on the Church?  Not substantively.  If Option (C) turns out to be the best explanation of what has happened, I think the leaders of the Church ought to hold themselves to a high, but not impossible, standard.  Frankly, I think several of the early leaders of the Church made very serious mistakes, both in judgment and in conduct.  The current leaders of the Church have all sorts of advantages in terms of hindsight, readily-available information, training, "counseling in councils," and so on.  And yet they can and will make mistakes.  

If Option (C) materializes, then that will be a disappointment, but far from a fatal one (for me).  Such errors do not retroactively negate the reality of the First Vision, the Gold Plates, the restoration of the Priesthood, Joseph's theophanies and revelations, and so on.  

I think I'm in the Church, come what may.  I believe any member of the Church can be led astray, including leaders (witness the many who apostatized in the early days of the Church).  I also reject the notion of inerrancy (though I note that it is quite possible for a church leader to make a mistake, or even many mistakes, and yet not be "astray").  However, I subscribe to the position that the Church and its leaders, collectively, will not be led astray.  I believe in the prophecy found in Daniel 2 and in how it has been interpreted.  I agree with Wilford Woodruff that "The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God."  I think that's right.

I believe in The Book of Mormon, in its testimony of Jesus Christ, and of the implications that are associated with the prophetic mantle involved in its production, preservation, and transmission to us.  I believe the sentiment expressed here (attributed to Joseph Smith): "‘I will give you a key that will never rust, —if you will stay with the majority of the Twelve Apostles, and the records of the Church, you will never be led astray."  The Church is not perfect.  But it is, in my view, overwhelmingly good.  I love it a lot.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 4, 2024 by smac97

[smac97]

53 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I guess, not sure. And I was in the distant past, a Glenn Beck fan. I think the political has reared it's ugly head and become idolized over everything else.

Yep.  I see that in a lot of folks, not just Glenn Beck.  Sociopolitical ideologies and trends are having too much of an influence on us.  Our perspective on these things ought to be downstream from something more fundamental and deeply rooted.

Thanks,

-Smac

[bsjkki]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Again, here are what I see are the three options:

A few thoughts:

1. I am, at present, unsure which of (B) or (C) is the most likely.  

2. There are two potentially discrete sets of allegations against Tim, one being "unauthorized use of President Ballard’s name for Tim Ballard’s personal advantage and activity" and the other being "activity regarded as morally unacceptable."

3. Lynn Packer's video does a good job of laying out what I think will prove to be the "activity regarded as morally unacceptable" (that is, sexual misconduct against Tim Ballard).  

4. What Packer presents is innuendo, rumor, unsubstantiated allegations, etc.  Not a lick of competent, probative evidence.  Not.  A.  Lick.

5. I think John Q. Public is going to be, or ought to be, confused about these allegations.  We've all seen sensationalized stories about allegations of misconduct against public figures such as Harvey Weinstein, Jeffrey Epstein, Donald Trump, Bill Clinton, Brett Kavanaugh, Prince Andrew, Kevin Spacey, Bill Cosby, the Duke lacrosse case, Tawana Brawley, Michael Jackson, the "Central Park Five," the "Orkney child abuse scandal," McMartin Preschool (and a bunch of other "daycare abuse" stories), Russell Brand, Jimmy Savile, Danny Masterson, and many others.

I jumbled these together because I listed them in the order they came to mind, and because the jumbled sequence reflects, I think, the public's cumulative and jumbled recollection of these stories.  Consider, for example, Bill Clinton.  Does anyone presently believe his denial of misconduct as to Monica Lewinsky?  No.  But what about Juanita Broaddrick?  Paula Jones?  These are presently unsettled.  Harvey Weinstein appears to be altogether horrible. But then, so did Kevin Spacey, and yet he was recently acquitted in a court of law.  But then, Danny Masterson was just convicted.  The allegations against Bill Clinton were heavily politicized, but that didn't negate the accuracy of at least some of them.  The allegations against Brett Kavanaugh remain controversial.  Bill Cosby appears to have gotten away with years of abuse, but the young men in the Duke lacrosse and "Central Park Five" cases were wrongfully accused.  Allegations against Russell Brand have just come out in the last 48 hours or so, and the verity of these are still in flux.  And on and on and on.  

6. Based on the foregoing, I think we need to generally pump the brakes in terms of reaching broad conclusions about Tim Ballard.  We have very little competent, probative evidence of actual misconduct.  Allegations alone are not, or should not be, evidence unto themselves.  

7. For me, the statement from the Church is serious business, but not actually "evidence" of misconduct.  As noted above, Option (B) ("Pres. Ballard has been duped...") is still very much on the table.

8. The VICE article is troubling, but I am not inclined to give it the benefit of the doubt (because to do so would require me to not give the benefit of the doubt to Tim Ballard).  It is, after all, only reporting unsubstantiated allegations.

9. I think the likely best source of information about Tim Ballard is the investigation by the Davis County Attorney's Office.  I have submitted a public records request for this.  However, "best" is a relative term, and no charges were actually made against Tim Ballard.

10. The image of the whiteboard in the VICE article, and the attendant appearance of Tim Ballard "monetizing" his efforts, is troubling to me.  I need to gain a better understanding of this.

11. The disclosure of the eye-popping compensation to Tim Ballard (and others) at OUR is somewhat troubling.  

12. The statement from the Church is, to me, very troubling, regardless of whether the allegations contained in it are substantively correct or incorrect.  If the allegations are, in the end, proven to be correct, then Tim Ballard has let a lot of people down.  Alternatively, if the allegations are, in the end, proven to be incorrect or substantially misstated or overstated, then the Church (specifically, the Public Affairs Department, or whatever it's called) has materially erred in how it handled the inquiry from VICE.  And if Pres. Ballard signed off on the public statement, and if that statement proves to be substantively incorrect or misstated or overstated, then he has also made a serious error in judgment.

13. Does any of the above affect my perspective on the Church?  Not substantively.  If Option (C) turns out to be the best explanation of what has happened, I think the leaders of the Church ought to hold themselves to a high, but not impossible, standard.  Frankly, I think several of the early leaders of the Church made very serious mistakes, both in judgment and in conduct.  The current leaders of the Church have all sorts of advantages in terms of hindsight, readily-available information, training, "counseling in councils," and so on.  And yet they can and will make mistakes.  

If Option (C) materializes, then that will be a disappointment, but far from a fatal one (for me).  Such errors do not retroactively negate the reality of the First Vision, the Gold Plates, the restoration of the Priesthood, Joseph's theophanies and revelations, and so on.  

I think I'm in the Church, come what may.  I believe any member of the Church can be led astray, including leaders (witness the many who apostatized in the early days of the Church).  I also reject the notion of inerrancy (though I note that it is quite possible for a church leader to make a mistake, or even many mistakes, and yet not be "astray").  However, I subscribe to the position that the Church and its leaders, collectively, will not be led astray.  I believe in the prophecy found in Daniel 2 and in how it has been interpreted.  I agree with Wilford Woodruff that "The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God."  I think that's right.

I believe in The Book of Mormon, in its testimony of Jesus Christ, and of the implications that are associated with the prophetic mantle involved in its production, preservation, and transmission to us.  I believe the sentiment expressed here (attributed to Joseph Smith): "‘I will give you a key that will never rust, —if you will stay with the majority of the Twelve Apostles, and the records of the Church, you will never be led astray."  The Church is not perfect.  But it is, in my view, overwhelmingly good.  I love it a lot.  

Thanks,

-Smac

I am much in agreement. This does not affect my testimony. But, I am one who does not think it bad to question certain actions by the church (such as the BYU debacle), express I don't like certain policies (many have changed) and other actions by public affairs, which I've been not happy with. Church members are not perfect and I believe our leaders are fallible and make mistakes. It actually makes more sense to me to accept this. 

[bsjkki]

...and the next shoe drops. 

Tim Ballard’s Departure From Operation Underground Railroad Followed Sexual Misconduct Investigation (vice.com)

I've learned not to trust reporting with 'sources familiar with the matter." This is disturbing stuff but all anonymous. 

"Women believed to be at the center of the investigation have not responded to requests for comment, or have declined to comment. People who know them say they fear retaliation and the effects scandal could have on OUR as it seeks to move on without Ballard—whom sources say is currently trying to work his way back into the organization."

Edited September 18, 2023 by bsjkki

[Calm]

26 minutes ago, smac97 said:

f Option (C) materializes, then that will be a disappointment, but far from a fatal one (for me).  Such errors do not retroactively negate the reality of the First Vision, the Gold Plates, the restoration of the Priesthood, Joseph's theophanies and revelations, and so on.  

I think I'm in the Church, come what may.  I believe any member of the Church can be led astray, including leaders (witness the many who apostatized in the early days of the Church).  I also reject the notion of inerrancy (though I note that it is quite possible for a church leader to make a mistake, or even many mistakes, and yet not be "astray").  However, I subscribe to the position that the Church and its leaders, collectively, will not be led astray.  I believe in the prophecy found in Daniel 2 and in how it has been interpreted.  I agree with Wilford Woodruff that "The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God."  I think that's right.

I believe in The Book of Mormon, in its testimony of Jesus Christ, and of the implications that are associated with the prophetic mantle involved in its production, preservation, and transmission to us.  I believe the sentiment expressed here (attributed to Joseph Smith): "‘I will give you a key that will never rust, —if you will stay with the majority of the Twelve Apostles, and the records of the Church, you will never be led astray."  The Church is not perfect.  But it is, in my view, overwhelmingly good.  I love it a lot.  

Well summarized and put, I am pretty much in agreement.  Looking forward to hearing about what’s in the documents.

[bsjkki]

The allegations:

... invited women to act as his “wife” on undercover overseas missions ostensibly aimed at rescuing victims of sex trafficking. He would then allegedly coerce those women into sharing a bed or showering together, claiming that it was necessary to fool traffickers. Ballard, who was played by Jim Caviezel in the hit film Sound of Freedom, is said to have sent at least one woman a photo of himself in his underwear, festooned with fake tattoos, and to have asked another “how far she was willing to go,” in the words of a source, to save children. 

[smac97]

14 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

...and the next shoe drops. 

Tim Ballard’s Departure From Operation Underground Railroad Followed Sexual Misconduct Investigation (vice.com)

I've learned not to trust reporting with 'sources familiar with the matter." This is disturbing stuff but all anonymous. 

"Women believed to be at the center of the investigation have not responded to requests for comment, or have declined to comment. People who know them say they fear retaliation and the effects scandal could have on OUR as it seeks to move on without Ballard—whom sources say is currently trying to work his way back into the organization."

From the article:

Quote

Tim Ballard’s exit from Operation Underground Railroad earlier this year followed an investigation into claims of sexual misconduct involving seven women, according to sources with direct knowledge of the organization.

It becomes hard to think that multiple women could all be lying about Tim Ballard's behavior.  But then, they are all anonymous.  And the only information we have about their claims comes through OUR, with which Ballard has had a serious falling out.  

Quote

Sources familiar with the situation said that the self-styled anti-slavery activist, who appears to be preparing for a Senate run, invited women to act as his “wife” on undercover overseas missions ostensibly aimed at rescuing victims of sex trafficking. He would then allegedly coerce those women into sharing a bed or showering together, claiming that it was necessary to fool traffickers. Ballard, who was played by Jim Caviezel in the hit film Sound of Freedom, is said to have sent at least one woman a photo of himself in his underwear, festooned with fake tattoos, and to have asked another “how far she was willing to go,” in the words of a source, to save children. These sources requested anonymity because they fear retaliation.

The total number of women involved is believed to be higher than seven, as that would only account for employees, not contractors or volunteers. One source close to OUR has detailed knowledge of Ballard making sexual advances to a volunteer using methods similar to those he allegedly used with OUR employees. Those methods are also consistent with his conduct toward another former volunteer who spoke to VICE News.

Pretty serious stuff, this.  If he sent this photo, there's likely a copy of it somewhere, hopefully with solid provenance.

Quote

In response to a detailed request for comment, a spokesperson for Operation Underground Railroad told VICE News:

Tim Ballard resigned from O.U.R. on June 22, 2023.  He has permanently separated from O.U.R. 

O.U.R. is dedicated to combatting sexual abuse, and does not tolerate sexual harassment or discrimination by anyone in its organization.  

O.U.R. retained an independent law firm to conduct a comprehensive investigation of all relevant allegations, and O.U.R. continues to assess and improve the governance of the organization and protocols for its operations.

To preserve the integrity of its investigation and to protect the privacy of all persons involved, O.U.R. will not make any further public comment at this time.  

O.U.R. is confident in its future as the leading organization committed to combatting sex trafficking and saving children who have been captured and sold into slavery.

OUR hired a law firm to investigate the claims, but then apparently did nothing with it (except, it seems, to use it to force Ballard to leave OUR).  No referral to law enforcement.

Quote

The information from the sources with direct knowledge of OUR corroborates an anonymous letter that’s been circulating in the Utah philanthropic community for the past several months, which accuses Ballard of sexual harassment. VICE News first reported on the letter in July; the journalist Lynn Packer published it in full on Sunday.

“Several weeks ago, an OUR employee who accompanied Tim on an undercover operation filed a sexual harassment complaint against him with OUR’s HR department,” the letter, which was sent this summer to donors to anti-trafficking causes, reads. “This resulted in an extensive internal investigation into Tim and his individual operational tactics and led to more women speaking up as part of the investigation process.

“It was ultimately revealed through disturbingly specific and parallel accounts, that Tim has been deceitfully and extensively grooming and manipulating multiple women for the past few years with the ultimate intent of coercing them to participate in sexual acts with him, under the premise of going where it takes and doing ‘whatever it takes’ to save a child.”

If "Tim has been deceitfully and extensively grooming and manipulating multiple women for the past few years with the ultimate intent of coercing them to participate in sexual acts with him," why did OUR not report this to law enforcement?  The allegation seems to be a pattern of "coerc{ing} those women into sharing a bed or showering together, claiming that it was necessary to fool traffickers."  Wouldn't that merit the attention of law enforcement?  

There could, I suppose, be jurisdictional issues.  

Quote

The letter further said that OUR’s board and lawyers had made agreements preventing executives from discussing the circumstances of Ballard’s exit from the organization he founded, making it “virtually impossible for them to defend the organization against Tim’s false narratives.” The author or authors of the letter did not respond to requests for comment. An OUR spokesperson did not dispute what was in the letter when asked about it by VICE News In July, or respond further when told that reporters could only take this as confirmation of its accuracy. 

Hmm.

Quote

Women believed to be at the center of the investigation have not responded to requests for comment, or have declined to comment. People who know them say they fear retaliation and the effects scandal could have on OUR as it seeks to move on without Ballard—whom sources say is currently trying to work his way back into the organization.  

Ballard did not respond to requests for comment submitted through his personal website; that of his new organization, the SPEAR Fund; and through a spokesperson whom OUR previously told VICE News is his personal representative. 

Hmm.

Quote

Ballard, an ally of Donald Trump—he held an appointed post on a public-private anti-trafficking council in the Trump administration, and recently hosted the former president on his podcast—has said he’s strongly considering a run for the Senate seat set to be vacated by Mitt Romney. Speculation in the LDS community indicates that he’s planning to announce his bid on October 10.

Ah.  The politicization.  There it is.  I can't really blame VICE, though.  They're raking muck.  It's their job.

Quote

Last week, a spokesperson for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints issued a statement to VICE News that contained a pointed rebuke of Ballard. The statement accused Ballard of inappropriately using the name of a church elder, President M. Russell Ballard—the two are not related, despite sharing a last name—“for Tim Ballard’s personal advantage and activity regarded as morally unacceptable.” 

The church did not specify in its statement what activity it regarded as “morally unacceptable.” 

Over the weekend, Ballard responded to VICE News’ reporting by giving an impassioned speech to a small crowd in Boston in which he said, “It’s not true, nothing you hear is true.” He also said he outright did not believe that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints condemned him in a statement issued to VICE News—something that did in fact happen, as has been confirmed by multiple Utah news outlets.

No charges against Tim Ballard by any governmental authority.

No conclusion that misconduct occurred by any governmental or private authority.

The allegations of misconduct are all anonymous.

Lots of rumor and innuendo.  Precious little substantive and probative evidence.

Thanks,

-Smac

[SeekingUnderstanding]

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

why did OUR not report this to law enforcement? 

Because bringing charges against him means going to court and being slandered and having dirt dug up against you? Not to mention the rabid dogs from DezNat and Q anon? Who would want that in their life? I mean, I wouldn’t. 

[bsjkki]

12 minutes ago, smac97 said:

From the article:

It becomes hard to think that multiple women could all be lying about Tim Ballard's behavior.  But then, they are all anonymous.  And the only information we have about their claims comes through OUR, with which Ballard has had a serious falling out.  

Pretty serious stuff, this.  If he sent this photo, there's likely a copy of it somewhere, hopefully with solid provenance.

OUR hired a law firm to investigate the claims, but then apparently did nothing with it (except, it seems, to use it to force Ballard to leave OUR).  No referral to law enforcement.

If "Tim has been deceitfully and extensively grooming and manipulating multiple women for the past few years with the ultimate intent of coercing them to participate in sexual acts with him," why did OUR not report this to law enforcement?  The allegation seems to be a pattern of "coerc{ing} those women into sharing a bed or showering together, claiming that it was necessary to fool traffickers."  Wouldn't that merit the attention of law enforcement?  

There could, I suppose, be jurisdictional issues.  

Hmm.

Hmm.

Ah.  The politicization.  There it is.  I can't really blame VICE, though.  They're raking muck.  It's their job.

No charges against Tim Ballard by any governmental authority.

No conclusion that misconduct occurred by any governmental or private authority.

The allegations of misconduct are all anonymous.

Lots of rumor and innuendo.  Precious little substantive and probative evidence.

Thanks,

-Smac

Did he coerce anyone into sexual acts?  It says his intent was to do so but is strangely vague on whether sexual acts occurred. I’m confused. 

[ttribe]

I'm guessing we now have the reason(s) for Ballard's sudden departure from OUR in July.

https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/sound-of-freedom-tim-ballard-leaves-operation-underground-railroad-1234787753/

[MustardSeed]

7 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

Did he coerce anyone into sexual acts?  It says his intent was to do so but is strangely vague on whether sexual acts occurred. I’m confused. 

Looks like rumors are flying.  😕 

[ttribe]

Meanwhile, Kwaku El has decided to choose a side in this kerfuffle:
 

 

[smac97]

16 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

Did he coerce anyone into sexual acts?  It says his intent was to do so but is strangely vague on whether sexual acts occurred. I’m confused. 

From the article (again, these are only anonymous allegations) :

Quote

Sources familiar with the situation said that the self-styled anti-slavery activist, who appears to be preparing for a Senate run, invited women to act as his “wife” on undercover overseas missions ostensibly aimed at rescuing victims of sex trafficking. He would then allegedly coerce those women into sharing a bed or showering together, claiming that it was necessary to fool traffickers.

Sexual misconduct that include things that do not include actual, penetrative sex.  Pressuring a woman (who is, for lack of a better word, a "co-worker") into "sharing a bed or showering together" would be deeply problematic.

Frankly, I'm kind of skeptical about this claim, as it is both salacious and implausible (and, again, anonymously-sourced, and hearsay).  How would "sharing a bed or showering together" be involved in a ruse "to fool traffickers"?  How would "traffickers" be situated to observe him and his wife showering or sleeping together?  And if that is unlikely, then so may be the notion that Ballard resorted to such chicanery.  

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[smac97]

46 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Quote

why did OUR not report this to law enforcement? 

Because bringing charges against him means going to court and being slandered and having dirt dug up against you?

I don't understand.  Haven't you previously been upset at the Church for not disclosing allegations of abuse to law enforcement?  And yet if OUR fails to disclose, you offer speculation to rationalize and justify it.

Might it be that OUR did not feel the allegations were sufficiently credible to warrant reporting? 

Might it be that there were evidentiary and/or jurisdictional obstacles or reasons to not disclose?

Might it be that OUR used these allegations as a pretext to force Ballard out of the organization?  Might it be that factions within OUR encouraged these allegations, knowing that the allegations alone, regardless of their verity, would be sufficient to destroy the reputation of family-man-and-observant-Latter-day-Saint Tim Ballard (or, indeed, anyone else)?

We could speculate along these lines all day long.  But still, if OUR was aware of credible allegations against its own founder of such misconduct, don't you think it should have reported them anyway, and let law enforcement decide how to proceed?

46 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Not to mention the rabid dogs from DezNat and Q anon? Who would want that in their life? I mean, I wouldn’t. 

The same could be said of the Church not reporting allegations of abuse.  To avoid "being slandered and having dirt dug up," to avoid "the rabid {ex-Mormon} dogs" on Reddit and elsewhere who are constantly baying for a bound of flesh?  Who would want that in their life? I mean, I wouldn’t. 

But that's not the end of it.  Mandatory reporting laws are often part of the equation.  There may be evidentiary issues, such that there is real doubt about whether the allegations are valid.  There may be jurisdictional issues (U.S. prosecutors can't prosecute conduct that occurred outside American jurisdiction, which would likely be the loci for the alleged misconduct ("He would then allegedly coerce those women into sharing a bed or showering together, claiming that it was necessary to fool traffickers...").

But in the end, I think the question merits attention.  If OUR was aware of allegations of serious misconduct by Tim Ballard, why did it only hire a law firm to investigate and not report the matter to law enforcement? 

They may have had legitimate reasons for this course of action (as, I think, the Church has had in prior instances where it has not reported unsubstantiated allegations of abuse to law enforcement), but I'd still like an answer.

Tim Ballard deserves, I think, the benefit of the doubt.  A presumption of innocence.  I would hope to say the same about anyone, including people with whom I have sharp ideological disagreements (the allegations against John Dehlin come to mind).

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 18, 2023 by smac97

[smac97]

36 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Meanwhile, Kwaku El has decided to choose a side in this kerfuffle:
 

I generally like Kwaku, and I think we both have strong ideological alignment with the Restored Gospel.

However, he's something of a provocateur.  Calm, restrained, methodical evaluation of serious claims is hard to do when you're part of a podcast and the clock is ticking on generating "timely" content (measured, these days, in hours rather than days or weeks).

Ironically, if he is right, that the Church erred or jumped the gun in disparaging Tim Ballard without cause, then he is doing the same thing by rushing to judgment against the Church.

Thanks,

-Smac

[SeekingUnderstanding]

11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't understand.  Haven't you previously been upset at the Church for not disclosing allegations of abuse to law enforcement? 

If you can’t differentiate turning a blind eye to helpless children, whose lives are a daily living hell with no possible way to escape, and grown women sexually harassed at work that don’t want to press criminal charges (especially after getting the harasser fired), I am speechless. I shouldn’t be because it’s you, but I am none the less.