Tim Ballard

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I read the comments on KSL and some mention it's just because he said he wants to run for Senate.

I think VICE times the story to coincide with, or precede, his announced senate run.  That doesn't mean, though, that the factual allegations are fabricated.

Thanks,

-Smac 

[Tacenda]

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

From the article: 

An anonymous and vague and conclusory hearsay statement doesn't really move the ball down the field, evidence-wise.

Yes.  But did that "ruse" involve Ballard coercing women "into sharing a bed {with him} or showering together"?  If yes, then let's hear it.  If not, then what was the "sexual harassment, spiritual manipulation, grooming and sexual misconduct" referenced here?  Who did/said what?  When?  Where?  

I hope so.  We have legal processes whereby claims of misconduct, whether civil or criminal or both, can be examined and vetted and tested by an impartial factfinder (a judge or jury) via the submission of competent, probative, admissible evidence.  So far I have not seen much of this relative to the allegations of sexual misconduct.

Thanks,

-Smac

Thanks,

-Smac

Sitting here listening to the ABC4 news at noon and the lawyer that made the statement for the women, said eventually they will share their stories but it will take time. I'll bet, because this will change their lives once they open up and share their identity etc. Which has never been easy for any woman to do. 

[smac97]

9 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Sitting here listening to the ABC4 news at noon and the lawyer that made the statement for the women, said eventually they will share their stories but it will take time.  I'll bet, because this will change their lives once they open up and share their identity etc.

I understand that there are mechanisms by which a plaintiff in a lawsuit can file anonymously.  I don't know what the particular procedures are, though.

9 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Which has never been easy for any woman to do. 

Sure.  I think things get complicated when A) someone ("X") wants to make serious allegations of misconduct against another ("Y"), B) X wants to maintain his/her anonymity, but publishes allegations against X, and C) wants to hash out some or all of the dispute with Y in the "Court of Public Opinion" (with X's identity remaining hidden, but Y's identity being published to the world).

Thanks,

-Smac

[morgan.deane]

Vice came out with an article with specific names and concerns of ex employees, as well as documents where they are discussed. Ballard comes off as very arrogant and dismisses many of the concerns that have now discredited him. (Such as complaints about their cowboy tactics, sensationalist narratives about militarized raids, the behavior of operatives, Ballard talking about arrests when they have no arresting power.)

To answer the concern above, OUR also seems like a pass through organization. Where they send money to various groups and claim credit for their work. So I imagine they make two small donations to active groups and claim those are their missions and operations they conduct weekly.

https://www.vice.com/en/article/g5y8pm/operation-underground-railroad-investigation-misled-donors-lied

Edited September 28, 2023 by morgan.deane

[CMZ]

Does anyone have an org chart for the Church's communications department or whatever it's called?

[The Nehor]

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I understand that there are mechanisms by which a plaintiff in a lawsuit can file anonymously.  I don't know what the particular procedures are, though.

Sure.  I think things get complicated when A) someone ("X") wants to make serious allegations of misconduct against another ("Y"), B) X wants to maintain his/her anonymity, but publishes allegations against X, and C) wants to hash out some or all of the dispute with Y in the "Court of Public Opinion" (with X's identity remaining hidden, but Y's identity being published to the world).

Thanks,

-Smac

Mostly because X is expecting a barrage of death threats, harassment, phone calls with rape threats, having to leave their home after the address is published online, possibly having to hire personal security, etc.

All of this has happened before and it will all happen again.

[Calm]

14 minutes ago, CMZ said:

Does anyone have an org chart for the Church's communications department or whatever it's called?

Media Relations, I believe.  I have never seen one.

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Mostly because X is expecting a barrage of death threats, harassment, phone calls with rape threats, having to leave their home after the address is published online, possibly having to hire personal security, etc.

All of this has happened before and it will all happen again.

If I was in this situation and had minor children and possibly college aged kids, I don’t think I would come forward after seeing the intensity of some of the denials.  I wouldn’t put my kids at risk….

Edited September 28, 2023 by Calm

[Calm]

Fox has posted a file of the documents, not sure how many there are as haven’t had time to look yet.  It sounds like it may be the full file.

https://www.fox13now.com/news/fox-13-investigates/full-documents-tim-ballard-lied-to-donors-according-to-ex-our-employees

Nothing really new from a quick scan of the article, but more detail on the psychic and inner workings of OUR, concerns about how their “storytelling” is alienating law enforcement, as well as involvement of Sean Reyes and his being required not to be involved in the investigation (a good call by the AG office).  Not taking the time now to even glance at the files.

Quote

Records show Utah Attorney General Sean Reyes and his chief of staff, Ric Cantrell, were forbidden from discussing or participating in the case due to their personal relationships with Ballard and OUR.

Reyes is a known ally of OUR and Ballard.

Documents indicate any communication involving Reyes or Cantrell related to the case is forbidden and must be supervised by Chief Criminal Deputy Spence Austin.

This is despite the fact that Austin typically reports to Reyes.

 

Edited September 28, 2023 by Calm

[ksfisher]

Former O.U.R. employees, contractors release statement on Tim Ballard

‘We now stand together to affirm the truth behind these allegations’ the statement said, in part

https://www.deseret.com/utah/2023/9/28/23894444/operation-underground-railroad-tim-ballard-allegations

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

We have legal processes whereby claims of misconduct, whether civil or criminal or both, can be examined and vetted and tested by an impartial factfinder (a judge or jury) via the submission of competent, probative, admissible evidence.  So far I have not seen much of this relative to the allegations of sexual misconduct.

So your complaint is that we haven’t had a jury trial yet? Lol. Nothing against the criminal justice system but that’s not the only means we have for determining what likely happened. Not even the best one. A criminal trial for a well funded defendant presents a very high bar for determining guilt. Which is good and as it should be for putting someone in jail. For deciding someone is has done really scummy things, isn’t worth supporting anymore? A much lower bar. 
 

What we do now know is that several women came forward with complaints of sexual harassment. They showed these complaints to OUR. And OUR found them legitimate enough to fire Ballard. Seems pretty damning to me. 

[smac97]

18 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Quote

We have legal processes whereby claims of misconduct, whether civil or criminal or both, can be examined and vetted and tested by an impartial factfinder (a judge or jury) via the submission of competent, probative, admissible evidence.  So far I have not seen much of this relative to the allegations of sexual misconduct.

So your complaint is that we haven’t had a jury trial yet? Lol.

No.  I am not complaining.  I am commentating.

18 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Nothing against the criminal justice system but that’s not the only means we have for determining what likely happened. Not even the best one.

What system do you think is superior to the U.S. legal system (criminal or civil)?

18 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

A criminal trial for a well funded defendant presents a very high bar for determining guilt.  Which is good and as it should be for putting someone in jail.

I agree.

However, in this context I think we are speaking more of civil claims, by the (presently anonymous women) against Tim Ballard and/or OUR.  The "bar" for proving civil claims is mere preponderance (i.e., more likely than not).

18 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

For deciding someone is has done really scummy things, isn’t worth supporting anymore? A much lower bar. 

I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you are saying here.  We might agree more than we disagree.

18 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

What we do now know is that several women came forward with complaints of sexual harassment.

Anonymously.  And the allegations are conclusory.  No details.  No evidence.  Just the say-so of a lawyer.

If Tim Ballard or his lawyer came out with a public denial of the allegations, would you accept that denial at face value?  Uncritically?  No questions asked?

18 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

They showed these complaints to OUR.

Okay.  Do you think a "complaint" is evidence of itself?

18 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

And OUR found them legitimate enough to fire Ballard.

According to OUR, Ballard resigned.

18 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Seems pretty damning to me. 

Ballard denies the allegations.  And the allegations are, to date, and AFAIK, devoid of any competent, probative, admissible evidentiary support.

Do you think a private organization's assessment of allegations of sexual misconduct is, in your view, superior to the U.S. legal system?

The Deseret News article includes this:

Quote

On Tuesday, Ballard posted a video on his Instagram with a statement from a woman whose face was blurred. She was identified only as Nataliya.

“I’ve worked on various missions with Tim Ballard specifically ranging from different countries, different continents, and during my time working with him there has been zero inappropriate behavior, any sexual contact, any inappropriate sexual contact whatsoever, before, during or after a mission. Everything was kept very respectful, very professional,” she said. “In fact, I think the OUR team went above and beyond to make sure the safety of both the operators and the victims and anybody involved in a mission.”

Do you lend this statement any probative weight?  Why or why not?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 28, 2023 by smac97

[Calm]

15 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Do you lend this statement any probative weight?  Why or why not?

I have no problem believing this woman.  It says nothing though about how he acted with other women when they were alone in their hotel room or wherever they stayed.  Maybe she didn’t read “vulnerable” to him or the risk was too great in other ways.  Maybe this is how he acted with all women.

[Calm]

https://adamcarolla.com/tim-ballard-wife-katherine-jim-lampley/
 

An interview from last night I believe.  I am not interested in watching it, but thought someone might be.  I think this is where he shows the photo of himself in briefs and explains what it is according to him.

Another interview I won’t listen to….TB is definitely making the rounds, going aggressive to keep his supporters.  I feel so sorry for his wife and family.  If he is innocent, I feel bad for him, but I also believe anyone who works as hard as he does to be a celebrity should be aware of the risk of becoming a target and if he wasn’t prepared for it, that’s on him.  I think I would feel different if more of his public appearances actually benefitted the cause directly.  For example, none of the profits from the movie, which have to be substantial, has gone to OUR.

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/better-a-millstone-around-your-neck-with-tim-ballard/id1087110764?i=1000629182979

Edited September 28, 2023 by Calm

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

Do you lend this statement any probative weight?  Why or why not?

I have no problem believing this woman.  

So you lend the woman's statement probative weight.  Okay.  Why is that?  You know nothing about her.

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

It says nothing though about how he acted with other women when they were alone in their hotel room or wherever they stayed.  

Tim Ballard has denied all allegations of sexual misconduct.  Does his denial carry any probative weight?

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

Maybe she didn’t read “vulnerable” to him or the risk was too great in other ways.  

And maybe Tim Ballard is not a sexual predator.

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

Maybe this is how he acted with all women.

That is, professionally?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 28, 2023 by smac97

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Mostly because X is expecting a barrage of death threats, harassment, phone calls with rape threats, having to leave their home after the address is published online, possibly having to hire personal security, etc.

All of this has happened before and it will all happen again.

Deznats alone!

[Calm]

15 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Does his denial carry any probative weight?

Sure.

Quote

That is, professionally?

Yes.  The women could be lying, hoping to get a massive settlement or win with a civil lawsuit (I feel one coming in the air).  Ballard was getting paid $300,000 and $500,000 a year recently and he must be getting a nice pile of money from the movie.  They likely would sue OUR as well and that could net them major money, assuming OUR haven’t given it all away in salaries, spent it on missions and/or pass through donations to organizations actually doing the work as claimed by one former employee.

Otoh, Eric Moutsos claims to have talked to four of the women (wondering how he got access, why him, is he that big and more trustworthy to people as a former police officer?) and has stated he believes them based on his experience interviewing victims.  He also says Ballard’s behaviour has destroyed marriages. (Hasn’t said how many iirc). (From the Vice article just posted iirc)

Edited September 28, 2023 by Calm

[ttribe]

37 minutes ago, smac97 said:

According to OUR, Ballard resigned.

Ballard denies the allegations.  And the allegations are, to date, and AFAIK, devoid of any competent, probative, admissible evidentiary support.

Do you place no probative weight on the fact that, on the heels of receiving the allegations of sexual misconduct, the OUR Board: 1) hired an independent law firm to conduct an investigation; and 2), Ballard resigned after meeting with the Board regarding the findings of the investigation?

[smac97]

9 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Quote

According to OUR, Ballard resigned.

Ballard denies the allegations.  And the allegations are, to date, and AFAIK, devoid of any competent, probative, admissible evidentiary support.

Do you place no probative weight on the fact that, on the heels of receiving the allegations of sexual misconduct, the OUR Board: 1) hired an independent law firm to conduct an investigation;

No.  An investigation, in and of itself, is not evidence of anything.  Any organization worth its salt would have done that.  

9 minutes ago, ttribe said:

and 2), Ballard resigned after meeting with the Board regarding the findings of the investigation?

No, I don't lend that probative weight.  It requires too much speculation, and does not have enough foundation to constitute evidence of culpability.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

So you lend the woman's statement probative weight.  Okay.  Why is that?  You know nothing about her.

I probably should define how I am using probative weight here…I am not using it in a legal sense as in appropriate to be given in testimony at a criminal trial.

I am thinking more in terms of the ‘trial’ going on in my head.  I give her some weight because she is willing to take the risk to go public with her support at a time that is going to make her a target by some hefty haters….I am assuming her voice wasn’t distorted.  If not, then if her face was blurred and her voice distorted, I give it little weight, but some.

Quote

Does his denial carry any probative weight?

Sure, but both more because he would know best and less because it is massively in his interest to deny the charges.  Again, by probative I am talking about my personal weighting, not what I would assume it would be in a legal setting, lacking the experience and appropriate info for that.

Edited September 28, 2023 by Calm

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Anonymously.  And the allegations are conclusory.  No details.  No evidence.  Just the say-so of a lawyer.

This is always funny to me. For people like Tim Ballard this is not enough to form an opinion. But for your enemies, the merest whiff of internet rumor is enough for you to accept…

[SeekingUnderstanding]

John Dehlin is reporting Ballards excommunication Monday night. 
 

https://x.com/johndehlin/status/1707481973617525016?s=46&t=ipJkniRwl_1iK-eoUKxnNw

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Do you lend this statement any probative weight?  Why or why not?

100 percent I think that woman experienced no sexual harassment. 

[CA Steve]

12 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

John Dehlin is reporting Ballards excommunication Monday night. 
 

https://x.com/johndehlin/status/1707481973617525016?s=46&t=ipJkniRwl_1iK-eoUKxnNw

To clarify, Dehlin is reporting that on Monday the church held a disciplinary court for Ballard on Monday and notified Ballard on Wednesday that he had been excommunicated.  I am sure none of that would be considered probative evidence in a court of law.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

2 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

To clarify, Dehlin is reporting that on Monday the church held a disciplinary court for Ballard on Monday and notified Ballard on Wednesday that he had been excommunicated.  I am sure none of that would be considered probative evidence in a court of law.

It’s all hush-hush and top-secret