Tim Ballard

[pogi]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

The identities of these women is presently unknown.  Ballard can likely piece together some or all of their identities, but he would have no reason to speak publicly about that at this point, and plenty of reasons not to.

How could he piece together their identities if the claims are untrue, and he never worked with them and has no recollection of such events?  

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I don't know about that.  Apart from their (anonymous) say-so, we have no evidence that they "were engaged in anti-trafficking efforts."

OUR has confirmed the internal investigation after complaints from employees.  

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Moreover, the issue to be explored is likely not whether there were so engaged, but whether Ballard did the things they attribute to him.  Again, apart from their (anonymous) say-so, we don't have much evidence to substantiate the allegations.  So I think there is presently plenty of room for "question{s}" about the veracity of the allegations (from a legal perspective, anyway).

I am not talking about the women's accusations.   Different issue.  I am talking specifically about his public accusations against these women, in attempting to influence public opinion in his favor.   Whether or not they were actually employees engaged in efforts to fight human trafficking very much matters in considering his public accusations and defense against these women.  Blaming the leftist media and defaming/attacking your accuser is becoming a familiar strategy in some circles.  It seems to work pretty well and can be more influential upon public opinion than court rulings ran by corrupt judges etc.  That is kind of scary.  Lack of trust in the system and conspiratorial beliefs run deep.   

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Ballard presently has no reason to has out these allegations in the Court of Public Opinion, and plenty of reasons not to.  

I don't know what you mean. 

All I know is that he is making his own nasty allegations and accusation against 5 women in the court of public opinion, when there seems to be evidence that they were indeed employees of OUR.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

As an abstraction, multiple allegations from different sources against the same target about the same (mis)conduct does look like it has a bolstering effect.  Nevertheless, I think we need to let the system do its thing. 

I don't disagree.   His accusations against these women are not specifically going to be tried by "the system" though, unless they sue him for defamation for these comments if/when their identities become known. 

 

Edited October 11, 2023 by pogi

[SeekingUnderstanding]

An additional lawsuit filed:

 

[smac97]

16 hours ago, pogi said:

How could he piece together their identities if the claims are untrue, and he never worked with them and has no recollection of such events?  

Those three things ("untrue," "never worked with them" and "has no recollection") are not interdependent.  He may know their identities because he did work with them, but then deny that he engaged in the alleged misconduct (which would, of course, explain why he has "no recollection" of them).

16 hours ago, pogi said:

OUR has confirmed the internal investigation after complaints from employees.  

A private, internal, undisclosed-to-the-public investigation is not determinative of much.

16 hours ago, pogi said:

Quote

Moreover, the issue to be explored is likely not whether there were so engaged, but whether Ballard did the things they attribute to him.  Again, apart from their (anonymous) say-so, we don't have much evidence to substantiate the allegations.  So I think there is presently plenty of room for "question{s}" about the veracity of the allegations (from a legal perspective, anyway).

I am not talking about the women's accusations.   Different issue.  I am talking specifically about his public accusations against these women, in attempting to influence public opinion in his favor.   

Okay, what "public accusations against" them do you have in mind?  My understanding is that he has denied the misconduct.  Is that denial an "accusation?"  Or is it that he has assigned motives to them (that they want to "destroy" him or whatever), and that is the "accusation"?

16 hours ago, pogi said:

Whether or not they were actually employees engaged in efforts to fight human trafficking very much matters in considering his public accusations and defense against these women. 

I agree.  Has he said these women were not "employees" or associated with OUR?

16 hours ago, pogi said:

Blaming the leftist media and defaming/attacking your accuser is becoming a familiar strategy in some circles. 

Could you specify what statements from Ballard you are referencing here?

16 hours ago, pogi said:

It seems to work pretty well and can be more influential upon public opinion than court rulings ran by corrupt judges etc. 

You think judges are "corrupt"?  All of them?

Do you think the "court of public opinion" is better situated to fairly and impartially sort out allegations of misconduct than courts operating under the rule of law, with rules of evidence and procedure in place, with the judge obligated to follow precedents developed over decades/centuries, with both sides having attorneys/advocates trained in the law, with substantial checks and balances and oversight relating to the behavior of the judge, the attorneys, the parties, etc.?

16 hours ago, pogi said:

That is kind of scary.  Lack of trust in the system and conspiratorial beliefs run deep.   

I don't understand.  Do you subscribe to this "corrupt judges" and mistrust of "the system" sentiment?  I would not think that of you.  So the above would be you assigning these sentiments to the "some circles" folks (conspiracy theorists, etc.).  Is that correct?

16 hours ago, pogi said:

Quote

Quote

Ballard doesn't seem to deny knowing and working with these women to fight against human trafficking. 

Ballard presently has no reason to hash out these allegations in the Court of Public Opinion, and plenty of reasons not to.  

I don't know what you mean. 

He is likely represented by counsel at this point.  And right now there is a lot of high emotion going on, including from Ballard, who seems to have a shoot-ready-aim streak in his thinking.  Everything Ballard says publicly is going to be recorded and scrutinized for inconsistencies, misstatements, fabrications, denials, admissions, and so on.  We've already seen that a lot in this very thread.  We saw it a few years ago, when McKenna Denson's public statements and behaviors scuttled her case.

Moreover, the "Court of Public Opinion" is, essentially, Thunderdome.  There are no rules.  It is anarchy.  Meanwhile, where these allegations will really be hashed out (as in resulting in actual legal consequences) will be a court of law. 

Ballard's attorneys, knowing these things, will be telling him to keep his yap shut.  

I should have finished or better expressed the thought above, and will do so now: "Ballard presently has no reason to hash out these allegations in the Court of Public Opinion, and plenty of reasons to refrain from making public statements, and to instead remain silent and let the attorneys and the system do their thing.

16 hours ago, pogi said:

All I know is that he is making his own nasty allegations and accusation against 5 women in the court of public opinion, when there seems to be evidence that they were indeed employees of OUR.

You'll need to provide the quotes of these "nasty allegations and accusation{s}."

But broadly, you are correct.  He ought to keep his yap shut.  For his own sake.  Quit playing around in Thunderdome.

16 hours ago, pogi said:

Quote

As an abstraction, multiple allegations from different sources against the same target about the same (mis)conduct does look like it has a bolstering effect.  Nevertheless, I think we need to let the system do its thing. 

I don't disagree.   His accusations against these women are not specifically going to be tried by "the system" though, unless they sue him for defamation for these comments if/when their identities become known. 

People accuse, and the targets of those accusations deny and counter-accuse, all the time.  But if they litigate under pseudonyms, it will be hard for them to claim defamation.

In any event, I am beginning to suspect that we are seeing the beginning of the end.  The poor quality of the complaint (discussed previously in this thread) suggests to me that the attorneys are in this not to litigate, but to settle.  That they threw the suit together in a mad dash to get it filed and get themselves situated to get Ballard into settlement discussions as quickly as possible.  To the extent he and OUR and such have millions of dollars, those monies are going to be spent very quickly, or run the risk of being squirreled away.  And since the marshaled evidence, to date, is very poor, there is likely very little chance of the plaintiffs' attorneys being able to freeze assets pending a judgment.  Doing this is a pretty difficult legal maneuver in the best of circumstances, and we have nothing close to that here.  The complaint is a slapdash mess, it was apparently crafted to maximize shock/inflammatory value and sensationalism, the lead attorney may be in way over her head, the attorneys appear to have no particular experience in this area of law, the attorneys appear to have a background in personal injury (meaning their go-to method of resolving a dispute is settlement, not trial), the only evidence submitted to the court is the poorly-written statements of the alleged victims, and so on. 

Meanwhile, if Tim Ballard is broadly innocent of the allegations against him, his attorneys will likely be encouraging him to settle rather than litigate, as public sentiment is already very much against him, and a settlement would almost certainly include a "no admission of liability/wrongdoing" provision.  And if Tim Ballard is broadly guilty of the allegations, his attorneys will definitely be encouraging him to settle, with the only questions being when and on what terms (including, obviously a "no admission of liability/wrongdoing" provision).

To me, these are indicia that the case is going to be settled.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Smiley McGee]

18 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

An additional lawsuit filed:

 

Doc link

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Do you think the "court of public opinion" is better situated to fairly and impartially sort out allegations of misconduct than courts operating under the rule of law, with rules of evidence and procedure in place, with the judge obligated to follow precedents developed over decades/centuries, with both sides having attorneys/advocates trained in the law, with substantial checks and balances and oversight relating to the behavior of the judge, the attorneys, the parties, etc.?

I don't understand.  Do you subscribe to this "corrupt judges" and mistrust of "the system" sentiment?  I would not think that of you.  So the above would be you assigning these sentiments to the "some circles" folks (conspiracy theorists, etc.).  Is that correct?

I am pretty sure Pogi was using the alt-right’s perception of reality here and saying it is easier for Ballard to win in the court of public opinion there since he can say that judges are corrupt and that it is all a conspiracy against him and yada yada.

[smac97]

22 minutes ago, Smiley McGee said:

Doc link

This one is a bit better than the first one, though not by a lot.

The evidence (the statements appended to the complaint) in its present form is not well organized, but it sure has a lot of details, produces a lot of "smoke" (particularly when considered in tandem with the statements from the five anonymous women).  And where there's smoke, there's usually . . . 

Thanks,

-Smac

[pogi]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

A private, internal, undisclosed-to-the-public investigation is not determinative of much.

Unless we are going to go into deep conspiracy, then it is suggestive that they were indeed employees (OUR has no reason to lie about this) and are not out to fight against anti-trafficking efforts, as Ballard claims.  

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Okay, what "public accusations against" them do you have in mind?  My understanding is that he has denied the misconduct.  Is that denial an "accusation?"  Or is it that he has assigned motives to them (that they want to "destroy" him or whatever), and that is the "accusation"?

It is the "or whatever" that I am talking about.  He is accusing them of lying to destroy anti-trafficking efforts.   He forwarded other conspiratorial tweets and accusations of motive:

“He accompanied that video with a screenshot of a tweet from conservative pundit Charlie Kirk, which listed three mens’ names: Ballard, Elon Musk, and Russell Brand. “All accused of sex issues or fake financial crimes,” Kirk wrote. “If you effectively speak against the Regime, they will crush you.” 

Women Accuse Tim Ballard of ‘Spiritual Manipulation, Grooming, and Sexual Misconduct’ (vice.com)

Also this:

Quote

Ballard has also suggested that his accusers, and the media covering them, have more sinister motivations. In July, when VICE News reported he’d left OUR following an internal investigation, but did not immediately state that it was of a sexual nature, he made an Instagram video saying that “godless leftists” would stop at nothing to keep people from watching Sound of Freedom, the heavily fictionalized film supposedly based on his work. 

  They felt compelled to address these accusations in a public statement:

Quote

“The women feel very strongly that the fight against human trafficking is a noble endeavor, and one that these women were eager to engage in. But the behavior of Tim Ballard crossed the line. And these women cannot remain silent,” 

Former O.U.R. employees release statement on Tim Ballard - Deseret News

 

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

You think judges are "corrupt"?  All of them?

Do you think the "court of public opinion" is better situated to fairly and impartially sort out allegations of misconduct than courts operating under the rule of law, with rules of evidence and procedure in place, with the judge obligated to follow precedents developed over decades/centuries, with both sides having attorneys/advocates trained in the law, with substantial checks and balances and oversight relating to the behavior of the judge, the attorneys, the parties, etc.?

I don't understand.  Do you subscribe to this "corrupt judges" and mistrust of "the system" sentiment?  I would not think that of you.  So the above would be you assigning these sentiments to the "some circles" folks (conspiracy theorists, etc.).  Is that correct?

His best defense is in the court of public opinion among his own kind who do believe in conspiratorial theories like this and believe in a deep state out to get them who fight the causes of anti-trafficking.   Keep it out of the legal courts and in the courts of public opinion - blaming it on conspiracy theories and godless leftists out to get him.  That kind of tactic seems to work very well for some. 

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Moreover, the "Court of Public Opinion" is, essentially, Thunderdome.  There are no rules.  It is anarchy.  Meanwhile, where these allegations will really be hashed out (as in resulting in actual legal consequences) will be a court of law. 

Agreed. 

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

To me, these are indicia that the case is going to be settled.

Perhaps.  

But then there is this:

Quote

The women said they came forward because they wanted the world to know the truth, “so that the humble, very well-intentioned donors across the world can decide with their eyes open, whether to donate to Ballard and his organizations,” court documents state.

Maybe these women have other motives than money and want their stories heard on record in court. 
 

Edited October 12, 2023 by pogi

[smac97]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Unless we are going to go into deep conspiracy, then it is suggestive that they were indeed employees (OUR has no reason to lie about this) and are not out to fight against anti-trafficking efforts, as Ballard claims.  

It is the "or whatever" that I am talking about.  He is accusing them of lying to destroy anti-trafficking efforts.   He forwarded other conspiratorial tweets and accusations of motive:

“He accompanied that video with a screenshot of a tweet from conservative pundit Charlie Kirk, which listed three mens’ names: Ballard, Elon Musk, and Russell Brand. “All accused of sex issues or fake financial crimes,” Kirk wrote. “If you effectively speak against the Regime, they will crush you.” 

That's sort of sly, as it takes focus away from the veracity of the misconduct allegations.

Both positions can be true, I suppose.  A person can A) run afoul of powerful individuals and groups, and also B) have skeletons in the closet that, when brought out in public, can be damaging to that person's reputation.  Susanna Gibson is a good recent example.  Al Franken.  Katie Hill.  

Similarly, powerful individuals/groups can A) be aware of a person's "skeletons in the closet" and B) "circle the wagons" to minimize or squelch public notoriety/fallout.  This is the central premise of the #MeToo movement.  

Also, A person can A) run afoul of powerful individuals and groups, and also B) not have "skeletons in the closet" (or else the skeletons have been embellished/distorted/exaggerated, or else there is no way to prove or disprove the allegations), but nevertheless C) a concerted effort to destroy his reputation is nevertheless made.  Brett Kavanaugh is, I think, a reasonable example.  The Duke lacrosse case.  The QAnon/Pizzagate quackery.  The "Rape on Campus" scandal.

So theoretically, there could be ideological opponents "out to get" Tim Ballard, but he gave have given them the factual basis to sully/destroy his reputation.  

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Maybe these women have other motives than money and want their stories heard on record in court. 

Litigation is very stressful.  And time-consuming.  And mentally and emotionally draining.  And expensive (though here, the victims may - likely - have a contingency fee agreement with their attorneys).

I regularly encourage clients - often quite strongly - to avoid litigation if at all possible, and to settle claims if at all possible, and to resist mightily the "I'm doing this as a matter of principle"-style thinking.  Not because I don't want their business, but because it is often in their best interests to do so. 

Here, though, I have no comment about what these women should do.  Their circumstances are unique.  My guess, though, is that they are not going to have "their stories heard on record in court," and that they will instead settle and move on.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

https://web.archive.org/web/20160509115111/http://www.littlefishlink.com/testimonials.html
 

I wonder if the number of psychic per capita has gone up since people started living their lives online.  Such easy access to intimate details.

Apparently the Trib tracked it down, a friend pointed me to it.

Edited October 13, 2023 by Calm

[Anonymous Mormon]

On 10/11/2023 at 4:23 PM, SeekingUnderstanding said:

An additional lawsuit filed:

 

 

So this lawsuit seems different than the others that were filed together:

• This person was deeply involved with Ballard for over a year
• When the initial allegations came to light she was interviewed and said positive things about Ballard discrediting the other ladies who came forward with their claims (she acknowledges she lied and was coached by Ballard on this)
• She continued to work with Ballard until the last 6 weeks or so, after all of the other allegations became public
• Unlike the others, her marriage was ended because of her relationship with Ballard and her texting / communicating with him all hours of days and nights
• She acknowledges she acted as Ballard's 'spy' to give him information on others in the office

 

It is interesting that she is not in the mass lawsuit with the other accusers. She came forward well after them and her interactions with Ballard doesn't seem to match theirs. It makes me wonder about her relationship with the other women and if they would have even allowed her to join their lawsuit if she had wanted to. It is also curious to me that she is so vague about the last few months of their interaction - I wonder if she is leaving out details incriminating herself.

Because this one is different and she was so deeply involved with Ballard, I am wondering how it would be perceived legally. Legally speaking, if she actively participated in all of this with Ballard, could he claim that they had a consensual relationship and she wanted the relationship (which may or may not be true).

What would make Ballard legally liable if after a year of consensual interactions, she got cold feet? I am sure that once everything came public she looked back on her past actions differently than before (this is pretty much her statement). I have felt the same way after I got caught doing something wrong, when it is over and light is shed on the situation, I begin to feel guilty and remorseful and see it all differently, but during the time I was enjoying the morally wrong activity.

So I would love if @smac97 and other lawyers can chime in. What makes someone a victim when they make their own choices as an adult? Because it was your boss that asked you to do things that were morally wrong are you a victim? If you were misled or lied to (i.e., he said it was to save children) are you a victim if you still chose to do it? If the two of them were in a long-term consensual romantic relationship would that change her victim status?  

Thanks to those who can shed light on the legalities.

[Tacenda]

I don't know if this is such a good idea, especially since O.U.R is under scrutiny right now.

[bluebell]

28 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I don't know if this is such a good idea, especially since O.U.R is under scrutiny right now.

I can't imagine how learning any of those things would be a bad thing?  

[Tacenda]

28 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I can't imagine how learning any of those things would be a bad thing?  

On the face, not a problem. Hopefully it will be geared to what can happen locally. Including from people that they know.

[bluebell]

36 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

On the face, not a problem. Hopefully it will be geared to what can happen locally. Including from people that they know.

Agreed.

[Tacenda]

16 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Agreed.

A couple of years ago or so in the Davis school district there was a group that went to different schools and taught the different grades about these things, particularly how it can be people they know. I can almost bet the students listening that day felt they could speak to an adult they could trust. I was a sub in an elementary classroom the day they came and was so impressed they brought up these things in the open. Had never seen that done. None of this stranger danger thing only.  

Edited October 15, 2023 by Tacenda

[CA Steve]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I can't imagine how learning any of those things would be a bad thing?  

The problem isn't the list of things they are going to talk about, it is the questions regarding the ability of organization itself to provide accurate information regarding those items and the methods that O.U.R. have employed in the past, which are very questionable.

I wouldn't want my children/grandchildren exposed to anything or anyone from that organization at this point and it is disappointing that it is being done in a church setting this time.

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, CA Steve said:

The problem isn't the list of things they are going to talk about, it is the questions regarding the ability of organization itself to provide accurate information regarding those items and the methods that O.U.R. have employed in the past, which are very questionable.

I wouldn't want my children/grandchildren exposed to anything or anyone from that organization at this point and it is disappointing that it is being done in a church setting this time.

And from my understanding Tim Ballard is the founder of O.U.R plus he was formerly the CEO. 

[bluebell]

3 hours ago, CA Steve said:

The problem isn't the list of things they are going to talk about, it is the questions regarding the ability of organization itself to provide accurate information regarding those items and the methods that O.U.R. have employed in the past, which are very questionable.

I wouldn't want my children/grandchildren exposed to anything or anyone from that organization at this point and it is disappointing that it is being done in a church setting this time.

Speaking for myself, with that agenda and that kind of a setting, I'd be fine with my kids going as long as I was with them.  I don't think too much harm can be done, given the topics going to be covered.

[Calm]

57 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Speaking for myself, with that agenda and that kind of a setting, I'd be fine with my kids going as long as I was with them.  I don't think too much harm can be done, given the topics going to be covered.

My only concern is the implied promotion of OUR as a good institution to support and therefore the likelihood it gets more donations that might be better used elsewhere.  Until there is more information released about what they do with the money and if they are still running sting operations with poorly trained volunteers and which may create demand more than it rescues kids, I wish they would get other experts to present this kind of thing.

Edited October 15, 2023 by Calm

[CA Steve]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

My only concern is the implied promotion of OUR as a good institution to support and therefore the likelihood it gets more donations that might be better used elsewhere.  Until there is more information released about what they do with the money and if they are still running sting operations with poorly trained volunteers and which may create demand more than it rescues kids, I wish they would get other experts to present this kind of thing.

That is one concern among many. Why in the world are we going to expose our kids to an institution run by people purporting to know how to save children who couldn't even recognize a predator within their own organization? Why support a group that may have, in fact, caused more damage to the very victims they claimed to be saving? Why use the church to support a group that is protecting itself over the Ballard's victims? This is not a group that should be receiving the support, tacit or otherwise, of the church. Those attending the meeting who are informed about the situation are committing the same error the women who were working with Ballard committed. "Hey it's worth it because of the kids"

 

No, it's not.

 

[Calm]

11 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

That is one concern among many. Why in the world are we going to expose our kids to an institution run by people purporting to know how to save children who couldn't even recognize a predator within their own organization? Why support a group that may have, in fact, caused more damage to the very victims they claimed to be saving? Why use the church to support a group that is protecting itself over the Ballard's victims? This is not a group that should be receiving the support, tacit or otherwise, of the church. Those attending the meeting who are informed about the situation are committing the same error the women who were working with Ballard committed. "Hey it's worth it because of the kids"

 

No, it's not.

 

It’s not worth it because of the kids, imo.

[Tacenda]

I think this is new, something about a hairdresser incident is pretty awful, and the photo doesn't really flatter him much.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/10/tim-ballard-lawsuit-sound-freedom-lds-couples-ruse-trafficking.html

[MustardSeed]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

I think this is new, something about a hairdresser incident is pretty awful, and the photo doesn't really flatter him much.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/10/tim-ballard-lawsuit-sound-freedom-lds-couples-ruse-trafficking.html

The guy is toast. 

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

I think this is new, something about a hairdresser incident is pretty awful, and the photo doesn't really flatter him much.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/10/tim-ballard-lawsuit-sound-freedom-lds-couples-ruse-trafficking.html

 

Quote

Ballard would get ketamine treatments and have a scribe come in with him while he would talk to the dead prophet Nephi and issue forth prophecies about Ballard’s greatness and future as a United States Senator, President of the United States, and ultimately the Mormon Prophet, to usher in the second coming of Jesus Christ. 

I almost envy his self-assurance.

[bluebell]

The latest development on the topic.

https://kutv.com/news/local/eric-moutsos-tim-ballard-friend-believes-accusers-operation-underground-railroad-human-trafficking-nonprofit-save-the-children-volunteer-employee-assaulted-anti-vax-covid-19-utah-business-revival

"Eric Moutsos, former Salt Lake City police officer and friend of Tim Ballard, told 2News on Wednesday he's spoken to six women who accused Ballard of sexual misconduct -- and believes they are telling the truth.

"You know when you know," said Moutsos, now a podcaster. "With my law enforcement background, I've interviewed hundreds and hundreds of people, and I know when a victim is speaking."