Tim Ballard

[Calm]

45 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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.  

You don’t watch enough TV.  Seen this done in several shows.  It is assumed the room is bugged or there are cameras…and they are right, so of course they have to get in bed and pretend to make out.

I don’t find it implausible. I found it weird that he would use untrained volunteers in a sting.  He seems reckless.

Edited September 18, 2023 by Calm

[Calm]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

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

The women are said to be worried about death threats (for good reason, imo).  This likely extends into going public in court.  
 

Without testimony of actual victims, how far would this go in court?
 

Also, as you say jurisdictional issues… it sounds like it may have taken place out of the country…which also makes sense as people may be more vulnerable in strange situations.  If so, US law enforcement agency likely have no jurisdiction, correct?

Quote

Mandatory reporting laws are often part of the equation. 

What mandatory reporting laws exist with sexual misconduct involving adults, not children?

I wonder if OUR is like IJM requiring only believing Christians to be part of their volunteers since they are listed as a Christian ministry, though there was no required affirmation statement according to the ministrywatch site. If so, this could be another reason the women do not wish to go public.

Quote

Regardless of what O.U.R. says, they’re a largely dominant Mormon organization. Most employees, trainees, even the psychiatrist conducting evaluations was Mormon. A trainee told me that if you mention ‘God’ in your psych evaluation you’re a shoo-in. The evaluation was conducted out of a hotel room and felt very unprofessional. He asked why I wanted to do this, what led me to it, and if I’m comfortable with praying before operations, all of this asked while he ate dinner in front of me. Those were the main questions I was asked. No note taking that I could see. I threw in the phrase ‘trust in God’ as a joke as recommended, and sure enough after that, the evaluation was completed. It lasted 5–7 minutes and that was it! Something definitely didn’t feel right.

 

Edited September 18, 2023 by Calm

[smac97]

28 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

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. 

You think adult women are the only ones who "don't want to press criminal charges"?  I am speechless at that.

Don't take my word for it.  Ask anyone with experience in working with victims of sexual assault, particularly children, and particularly children who have been victimized by family members, relatives, trusted neighbors, and the the like.  Getting victims to cooperate is a huge part of the process, and not uncommonly a futile one.

I can differentiate the two.  As it happens, I have been personally involved in a number of instances where victims of abuse - both adults and minors - have not wanted to press criminal charges.  And their reasons include the ones you cite.  

There is no easy answer here.  And I am not indicting OUR for not reporting the allegations of misconduct.  I just want to know the reason why it did not.  And along the way, I am noting the apparent inconsistency in your position.  If the Church were to say "We did not disclose these allegations of abuse to law enforcement because the victim did not want us to," would you find that a reasonable justification?  With mandatory reporting laws in play?  With mandatory reporting laws not in play?

Thanks,

-Smac

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

You think adult women are the only ones who "don't want to press criminal charges"?  I am speechless at that.

Mandatory reporting laws don’t require charges to be brought. Only to let the state no about ongoing abuse so that they can stop said abuse. You seem really confused. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

We did not disclose these allegations of abuse to law enforcement because the victim did not want us to,"

If the victim was an adult? Of course. 🙄🤔🤦‍♂️

[ttribe]

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

You think adult women are the only ones who "don't want to press criminal charges"?  I am speechless at that.

Don't take my word for it.  Ask anyone with experience in working with victims of sexual assault, particularly children, and particularly children who have been victimized by family members, relatives, trusted neighbors, and the the like.  Getting victims to cooperate is a huge part of the process, and not uncommonly a futile one.

I can differentiate the two.  As it happens, I have been personally involved in a number of instances where victims of abuse - both adults and minors - have not wanted to press criminal charges.  And their reasons include the ones you cite.  

There is no easy answer here.  And I am not indicting OUR for not reporting the allegations of misconduct.  I just want to know the reason why it did not.  And along the way, I am noting the apparent inconsistency in your position.  If the Church were to say "We did not disclose these allegations of abuse to law enforcement because the victim did not want us to," would you find that a reasonable justification?  With mandatory reporting laws in play?  With mandatory reporting laws not in play?

Thanks,

-Smac

The logical inference is that they didn't want to do reputational harm to OUR or to the movie that was just about to come out. It wouldn't be the first time an organization did such thing.

[Calm]

Found this article about how volunteers were evaluated and trained (poorly) for the stings and appears it was more about them having money rather than relevant experience or skills.

Anonymous though, so could have been false.  It is about as bad as you could get without doing anything wrong, so this easily could have been created in someone’s basement to discredit the organization.

https://nonapplicable39.medium.com/i-was-trained-by-operation-underground-railroad-to-be-an-undercover-operative-overseas-45db37fb1bd2

Quote

During the training one instructor said, “Believe it or not, civilians have been our best operatives”. And clearly it’s true. I can’t speak to the demographics of their current operatives. But it seems as though O.U.R. is not above sending private citizens with no prior training or background into dangerous trafficking areas. The training they did provide was minimal at best. At the same time, not even compensating their operatives’ expenses fully, and being fully aware that the same victims they’re designed to help might be exploited by their very own operatives.

 

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

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.  

You don’t watch enough TV.  

I'm not sure TV shows are the benchmark by which we measure the reasonableness of "undercover" methods.

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

Seen this done in several shows.  It is assumed the room is bugged or there are cameras…and they are right, so of course they have to get in bed and pretend to make out.

That seems pretty contrived.  It makes for an entertaining "Law & Order: SVU" episode, but even then the police officers involved in the ruse would have all sorts of oversight, paperwork, etc. to facilitate things.  I would think someone other than Tim Ballard would be aware of and on board with

A) there being a need for Tim Ballard to go with a fake "wife" on an overseas operation,

B) the need for the ruse to include Ballard and the fake wife staying in the same room (that the risk of "traffickers" bugging or videorecording his/their apartment or hotel room is real),

C) the need for the ruse to include Ballard and the fake wife doing fake "marital" things in the confines of their hotel room / apartment in order to fool surveilling "traffickers" (sleeping in the same bed, taking showers together, etc.),

D) the added logistical issues and expenses associated with the fake wife going on the operation (passport, plane tickets, room and board, etc.),

E) the need to train and obtain the consent of the fake wife as regarding the foregoing matters, 

And so on. 

For this allegation to hold water, I think Tim Ballard would need to have been the only person at OUR to be aware of and approved of the foregoing matters.  Nobody else at OUR knew what he was doing?  Nobody batted an eye at family-man-and-observant-Latter-day-Saint Tim Ballard taking a fake wife on operations?  Many times over, apparently?

Was there no oversight of Tim Ballard at OUR?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

Otoh, all the volunteer reviews here are 5 star…

https://greatnonprofits.org/org/operation-underground-railroad-inc

[Calm]

12 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'm not sure TV shows are the benchmark by which we measure the reasonableness of "undercover" methods.

Of course not, but it could be an indicator of what nonprofessionals might accept as reasonable if they were told it was expected…yeah, I saw that on a tv show about spies meeting up with the bad guys.  Personally I think anyone who is not a professional who thinks it is a good idea to do undercover operative work has a strong streak of gullibility in them.

Speaking of which…

Quote

Interested in becoming a member of the O.U.R. Jump Team?

O.U.R. is searching for exceptional men and women to increase our already successful South East Asia Jump Team.

If you possess:

Situational awareness in high visceral environments;

Superior interpersonal and liaison skills in order to build strong relationships with people from diverse cultures and backgrounds;

Excellent written communication skills;

Self-management skills, with excellent judgement and the ability to assess risk;

Resourcefulness in situations that require critical thinking;

Resilience and self-motivation to achieve results in difficult and high-pressure environments.

-then we'd love to hear from you! You can be based anywhere, but the selection will be held in Sydney, Australia in September. You don't need to be former military or law enforcement, you don't need to be Sherlock Holmes or a forensic investigator (although that could help!), you just need to be motivated with good intention to help bring a change to the lives of children around the globe.

Please reach out to info@ourrescue.org with "Australian Selection Course" in subject line. Thank you! #JointheFight #Australia

https://www.facebook.com/OURrescue/posts/interested-in-becoming-a-member-of-the-our-jump-teamour-is-searching-for-excepti/1984105735160515/

Edited September 18, 2023 by Calm

[smac97]

25 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

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

The women are said to be worried about death threats (for good reason, imo).  

Could you point me to this information?  Threats from whom?

25 minutes ago, Calm said:

This likely extends into going public in court.  

Okay.  But that may be a decision that is within the province of law enforcement or the prosecutor's office.

As it is, OUR apparently never reported the allegations to law enforcement.  

25 minutes ago, Calm said:

Without testimony of actual victims, how far would this go in court?

A fair question, but one that is typically left to the prosecutor in deliberating whether to press charges, whether to plead out or go to trial, etc.

Is it the province of a private organization to unilaterally decide the viability of a prosecution as a factor in whether it should disclose allegations of abuse in the first instance?

As it happens, I think the answer can be "yes."  This is why I am not jumping on OUR's case for not disclosing the abuse to law enforcement, and instead merely stating that I think this question needs to be answered.  If I were in Tim Ballard's shoes, I sure would want it answered.

25 minutes ago, Calm said:

Also, as you say jurisdictional issues… it sounds like it may have taken place out of the country…which also makes sense as people may be more vulnerable in strange situations.  If so, US law enforcement agency likely have no jurisdiction, correct?

I'm not sure.  I am aware of the Protect Act (Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to End the Exploitation of Children Today Act of 2003), which according to Wikipedia, inter alia, "{a}uthorizes fines and/or imprisonment for up to 30 years for U.S. citizens or residents who engage in illicit sexual conduct abroad."

If the allegation is that Tim Ballard took these women overseas from the United States with the intent to coerce them into engaging in problematic/sexual behavior, that would seem to implicate a variety of federal laws, and perhaps some state laws as well.  

All the more reason, then, for OUR to notify law enforcement - both state and federal - of allegations of overseas abuse.

Instead, the purported story is 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.'"  Oh.  Were the putative victims all on board with this?  And what if one thereafter changed her mind?

And such nondisclosure provisions are essentially unenforceable in the context of governmental investigation, particularly as to criminal matters.  That is, private parties don't have the luxury of telling the government "Hey, I'm sorry, but I can't disclose this information due to an NDA."

The "OUR's hands were tied" explanation doesn't sit well with me.  Either

A) the allegations against Tim Ballard were credible/viable, in which case OUR did not report the matter to law enforcement (and if this is the case, I want to know why OUR did not do this), or else

B) the allegations against Tim Ballard were not credible/viable, such that OUR did not report the matter to law enforcement (and if this is the case, I want to know why OUR did not do this), or else

C) the putative and anonymous victims "are said to be worried about death threats" (and if this is the case, I would like to know more about this claim).

25 minutes ago, Calm said:

What mandatory reporting laws exist with sexual misconduct involving adults, not children?

There are plenty of laws about adults in terms of elder abuse, dependent adults, adults with disabilities, intimate partner violence, etc.  I'm not sure about mandatory reporting laws for a run-of-the-mill adult not fitting within these constrains.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

25 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Quote

You think adult women are the only ones who "don't want to press criminal charges"?  I am speechless at that.

Don't take my word for it.  Ask anyone with experience in working with victims of sexual assault, particularly children, and particularly children who have been victimized by family members, relatives, trusted neighbors, and the the like.  Getting victims to cooperate is a huge part of the process, and not uncommonly a futile one.

I can differentiate the two.  As it happens, I have been personally involved in a number of instances where victims of abuse - both adults and minors - have not wanted to press criminal charges.  And their reasons include the ones you cite.  

There is no easy answer here.  And I am not indicting OUR for not reporting the allegations of misconduct.  I just want to know the reason why it did not.  And along the way, I am noting the apparent inconsistency in your position.  If the Church were to say "We did not disclose these allegations of abuse to law enforcement because the victim did not want us to," would you find that a reasonable justification?  With mandatory reporting laws in play?  With mandatory reporting laws not in play?

Mandatory reporting laws don’t require charges to be brought.

I know that.  It is not relevant to my point, which is this: There are all sorts of victims of abuse who "don't want to press criminal charges."

25 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Only to let the state no about ongoing abuse so that they can stop said abuse.

That is part of the purpose of mandatory reporting laws, not the sole purpose.

25 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

You seem really confused. 

Right.

I remain curious as to why OUR failed to disclose to law enforcement what it deemed to be credible allegations of sexual misconduct by Tim Ballard.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

26 minutes ago, ttribe said:

The logical inference is that they didn't want to do reputational harm to OUR or to the movie that was just about to come out. It wouldn't be the first time an organization did such thing.

An equally logical and plausible inference is that OUR found these allegations to lack credibility/evidence (and, therefore, did not report them to law enforcement), but that they were sufficient to do reputational harm to Tim Ballard, and so used them to force him out of the organization.  

It wouldn't be the first time an organization did such a thing.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 18, 2023 by smac97

[Calm]

https://www.christianitytoday.com/news/2023/july/anti-trafficking-ministries-nonprofits-sound-of-freedom.html
 

Quote

We’re not taking doors down. We’re not taking people over our shoulder,” Jeff Shaw told CT. Shaw is the chief program officer for Frontline Response, a Christian anti-trafficking organization based in Atlanta that has operations in Georgia and Ohio. Shaw was “blown away” by the movie and is recommending it to people, but has caveats: “Even child trafficking victims that have been ‘taken,’ most of the time, they’re resistant to being rescued, because they’re not in that psychological space, either. So a big part of our trainings is deprogramming our volunteers into what their expectation should be about how people are going to respond to them, and what sex trafficking looks like.”

Rescue operations do happen, experts told CT, but they are often a small part of anti-trafficking work. Anti-trafficking ministries in the US do the less dramatic work of offering hot meals during street outreaches, having safe houses available that involve long-term rehab and recovery, educating and supporting children at risk of exploitation, training employers to recognize trafficking, and collaborating with law enforcement. Sometimes ministries’ work looks like poverty fighting, addiction recovery, or relationship building.

Quote

Some of the trafficking fighting methods depicted in the film—creating an island where Ballard and his team ask traffickers to bring children, or one character buying children out of sex trafficking to free them—could inadvertently create more demand for trafficking children and worsen the problem.

“You can’t help but ask the question, ‘Did they go take more kids away from their families in their communities to come meet this demand?’” said Shaw from Frontline Response. “It’s complicated.”

 

Quote

Bob Rodgers is the CEO of anti-trafficking ministry Street Grace, which is focused on helping children in Georgia, Tennessee, and Texas. Street Grace has partnered with OUR in the past. He thought the film was well done but that it depicts a “sliver” of what trafficking can look like.

“We’re grateful to the film and the attention that it draws to the issue, but it’s important for people to realize that that’s not necessarily what trafficking looks like in Houston or DC,” he said. “It’s our kids in our communities being bought and sold by people in our communities.” He’s not criticizing the film—“it was not filmed to be a domestic or local issue”—but he wants audiences to know what domestic organizations are doing.

Street Grace, for example, focuses on using technology to interrupt demand for child sexual exploitation and has long-term programs to keep children out of trafficking situations. On an average day, Street Grace is doing corporate trainings, talking to law enforcement, and instructing children in youth leadership academies about leadership skills, healthy boundaries, and how to protect themselves online.

Quote

Lewis-Johnson, the former FBI agent who is now CEO of No More Trafficking, left the bureau in part because she wanted to be able to talk to Christian audiences about what trafficking is really like.

“We want to do the big giant thing,” she said. But fighting trafficking “requires all of us to do what seems like the small things, consistently, together.”

She said rescue operations by inexperienced people can be botched because traffickers are good at deception—“They try to make the good guy look like the bad guy.” And she has encountered well-intentioned nonprofits that mishandled trafficking situations because they didn’t have experience—buying a ticket for a woman to go back to her trafficker, for example. In trafficking cases, “you’re trying to put a puzzle together, and you don’t have the picture on the box or know how many pieces there are,” she said.

 

[Calm]

11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

f the allegation is that Tim Ballard took these women overseas from the United States with the intent to coerce them into engaging in problematic/sexual behavior, that would seem to implicate a variety of federal laws, and perhaps some state laws as well.  

Good point, hadn’t thought about that.

Quote

The "OUR's hands were tied" explanation doesn't sit well with me.

Same here.  It sounded to me more like they were trying to protect their own reputation more than get justice or stop a possible predator (if one assumes that claims were actually made that OUR leaders had to deal with).

Edited September 18, 2023 by Calm

[Calm]

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

That is part of the purpose of mandatory reporting laws, not the sole purpose.

If you are unsure if there are mandatory reporting laws in this case, why are you bringing them up here?  I don’t understand your reasoning.

[The Nehor]

28 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'm not sure TV shows are the benchmark by which we measure the reasonableness of "undercover" methods.

I agree but I am not sure Tim Ballard would since he spent a long time trying to get someone to make a reality show about his “stings”.

[ttribe]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

An equally logical and plausible inference is that OUR found these allegations to lack credibility/evidence (and, therefore, did not report them to law enforcement), but that they were sufficient to do reputational harm to Tim Ballard, and so used them to force him out of the organization.  

It wouldn't be the first time an organization did such a thing.

Thanks,

-Smac

Why the snark? I simply provided a potential inference based on what I've seen from doing investigations. They trotted T. Ballard out there to promote the film and have made millions off his name. If they were trying to preserve their cash flow, without harming his reputation (because he was key to that cash flow), they might allow him to go to another organization without comment. They likely didn't count on reporters digging up evidence and the Church getting involved.

[The Nehor]

15 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'm not sure.  I am aware of the Protect Act (Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to End the Exploitation of Children Today Act of 2003), which according to Wikipedia, inter alia, "{a}uthorizes fines and/or imprisonment for up to 30 years for U.S. citizens or residents who engage in illicit sexual conduct abroad."

Yep, I believe that is what got this one creep on a website I was on.

He wasn’t exactly a criminal mastermind. He came in bragging about how he had paid for child prostitutes in Thailand. Everyone blew him off as a liar. So this genius started posting pictures. He swirled his face to hide his identity. So someone easily unswirled his face and sent them to the FBI along with the idiot’s identity which he had shared before.

I heard he went to prison but not for how long.

[Calm]

Sorry about that….

I can’t figure out how to,put up a one picture visual, so forget the post

Was just wondering if OUR had changed any fundraising practices since 2020 since that was their Twitter account’s last posting date ((at least that one).

Edited September 18, 2023 by Calm

[Calm]

Charity Navigator apparently had given OUR a rating of 100 earlier this year***.  It is now down to 84%.

https://www.charitynavigator.org/ein/463614979

***https://impactful.ninja/best-charities-to-end-child-trafficking/

OUR’s protest to the alert sent out by CN because of the Vice article

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1TaoJokSElCqat3XX7P_3zIAADMo6NkqR/view

I am not impressed by the response, it waves at “too many inaccuracies” but addresses none of them and instead relies on Ballard no longer having direct connections with their org.

Edited September 18, 2023 by Calm

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

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

You are a woman who is invited to go abroad to help with a child trafficking bust. You show up and are flown into a foreign country. As part of the sting you are told you will pretend to be Ballard’s wife. You agree.

Then you are taken into a room with him and told that to make the ruse convincing you have to get pretty intimate with Ballard. The reasoning is, as you point out, weak but you are in a foreign country where you probably don’t speak the language, in the middle of a quasi legal at best sting operation and your only easy way home is through Ballard. Do you say “no” and risk him getting upset and leaving you trapped there?

Yeah, it makes him a sleazy manipulative predator but based on his approach to “charity” it seems completely in character.

[Calm]

Charity Navigator also linked to this article:

Quote

Campbell worries the picture of trafficking and how to address it presented by Operation Underground Railroad and, by extension, Sound of Freedom, diverts people's attention, resources and policy proposals away from where they're most needed.

"It becomes easy for people to say, 'Well, if I just spread a message that we need to support law enforcement in freeing these child victims,' they don't have to do the hard work of asking what role they play in the purchasing of goods for forced labor, or they don't have to play the hard role of figuring out how do we reduce poverty and the sort of inherent vulnerability that comes with poverty that leads to this kind of exploitation," she said.

"Those difficult questions are never asked because we're just sort of saying, 'Well, the best thing you can do is support this particular group in this one particular action against these particular bad guys.'"

https://www.npr.org/2023/07/19/1188405402/qanon-supporters-are-promoting-sound-of-freedom-heres-why

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

I'm not sure.  I am aware of the Protect Act (Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to End the Exploitation of Children Today Act of 2003), which according to Wikipedia, inter alia, "{a}uthorizes fines and/or imprisonment for up to 30 years for U.S. citizens or residents who engage in illicit sexual conduct abroad."

If the allegation is that Tim Ballard took these women overseas from the United States with the intent to coerce them into engaging in problematic/sexual behavior, that would seem to implicate a variety of federal laws, and perhaps some state laws as well.  

Good point, hadn’t thought about that.

We should also keep this in mind (from the VICE article) :

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.
...

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.

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.

These allegations seem to involve conduct going back for some time.

See also these excerpts from this VICE article:

Quote

In an email to Sean Reyes, the Utah attorney general, Troy Rawlings, a prosecutor in Davis County, Utah whose office carried out the now-closed investigation into OUR, wrote that he had “somewhere around 10,000 pages” of psychic readings. Those were conducted by Janet Russon, a psychic medium who “talks to dead Mormon leaders, particularly a Mormon Prophet from 600BC named Nephi, to get intel,” Rawlings wrote. (Russon declined to comment on her work with OUR when reached by VICE News; Rawlings did not respond to a request for comment.)

 

Rawlings made it clear that he thought donors to OUR would be dismayed by the idea that its paramilitary missions were guided by a psychic and a deceased Mormon prophet. “Donors are not made aware that Nephi, via Mr. [sic] Russon, is the key piece of O.U.R. Operational Intelligence,” he added. 

Criminal investigators were interested in the nexus between Russon, Tim Ballard, and the church. One document VICE News obtained is a memo describing an interview between an FBI special agent and a Davis County investigator and a former OUR development director, whom we are not naming at her request. This person "said she had not heard that Janet was ever vetted or vouched for by the LDS church," the memo reads. "But stated Tim blurred lines and would frequently say, 'I told Elder Ballard all about it.'"
...

Other former OUR insiders had also gotten an earful from Tim Ballard about his ties to the Mormon power structure. According to one document, in October 2020 an FBI special agent named Luke (no last name provided) and Bryan Purdy, an investigator for the Davis County Attorney’s Office, interviewed Dave Lopez, a former Navy SEAL who previously led the “ops team” at OUR. 

“Tim said multiple times, ‘It's his job to use the sizzle of the rescue to lead people back to the Mormon covenant,’” Lopez said, according to Purdy’s report. “Dave stated that according to Tim, that's what this is all about, that's why he's doing all the movies and all the storytelling. He believes the Mormon Church is actually doing that with him, that Elder (M. Russell) Ballard of the Mormon Church is working with him on that secret agenda. He believes that it's his job to be this famous kind of celebrity that gets everyone's attention, but then in turn leads everyone to Mormonism."

Lopez told investigators that Tim Ballard had developed a messianic view of himself.  "Dave said he thinks Tim is fully convinced that he is supposed to be the 'Mormon Messiah and lead people back to the church,'" the report reads.
...
The relationship between the two Ballards, however, did not end there, according to the documents. In August 2021, Purdy, the Davis County investigator, and the FBI special agent referred to in documents only as Luke, interviewed the woman who worked as OUR’s director of development.
...

In response to requests for comment about this story as well as another two, an OUR spokesperson sent one statement, which read as follows:

These allegations have been raised previously, written about by Vice and thoroughly investigated by the Davis County District Attorney. That investigation concluded without the filing of any charges.

Following Tim Ballard's departure from O.U.R. three months ago, we have been working tirelessly to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of our domestic and international operations.

At O.U.R., we are proud to support law enforcement in liberating any person in the grips of human trafficking or exploitation and we strive to ensure ongoing aftercare for all those affected.  Our resources have contributed to the arrest of over 7,400 suspected predators and have impacted the lives of over 7,800 individuals. Currently, we are carrying out an average of five missions per week worldwide. We are committed to this important work until everyone in need is safe.

A few thoughts/observations:

1. It looks like the investigation by the Davis County Attorney's Office started more than two years ago ("In August 2021, Purdy, the Davis County investigator, and the FBI special agent referred to in documents only as Luke, interviewed the woman who worked as OUR’s director of development...").

2. It looks like this investigation focused entirely on the first set of misconduct allegations against Tim Ballard as referenced in the Church's statement ("the unauthorized use of President Ballard’s name for Tim Ballard’s personal advantage"), but did not address anything associated with what looks like the second sent of misconduct allegations ("activity regarded as morally unacceptable"), which we are here surmising are those pertaining to Ballard repeatedly coercing women to shower with him, etc.

3. The FBI was involved in the County Attorney's investigation.  Consequently, the possibility of federal charges against Tim Ballard (such as for taking women overseas for purposes of sexual exploitation) would seemingly have been available.

4. It looks like the allegations re: sexual misconduct are entirely absent from the County Attorney's investigation.  I find that . . . pretty odd.  If they were looking at Ballard regarding financial mismanagement, investigators would seem likely to encounter information about sexual misconduct as part of the process.  

5. VICE only cites anonymous "{s}ources familiar with the situation" as the basis for allegations of sexual misconduct.  I also find this pretty odd.  There is no evidence beyond anonymous "sources" for these allegations?

6. That the County Attorney's investigation concluded "without the filing of any charges" against Ballard is also pretty odd.  Prosecutors often have the ability (and the willingness) to "overcharge" someone with more serious criminal charges, and then negotiate them down to a plea to less serious offenses.  If Ballard had such an extensive record of taking women overseas to exploit them sexually, why did the County Attorney's office and the FBI make no mention of this?  Why did they not pursue any charges, and instead concluded the investigation?  And again, why did OUR not refer these allegations to law enforcement?

7. OUR had this matter investigated by "an independent law firm to conduct a comprehensive investigation of all relevant allegations" (not sure when this happened), and yet OUR has still not referred these allegations of abuse to law enforcement.

8. Regarding the allegations of sexual misconduct, the FBI, the Davis County Attorney's Office, and "an independent law firm" have all apparently done some serious investigation into the actions of Tim Ballard, and yet

• the allegations of sexual misconduct against Tim Ballard would seem to implicate federal criminal statutes, 
• the investigation was fairly extensive, producing more than ten thousand pages of documentation,
• there is apparently no reference to these allegations (re: sexual misconduct) in the investigative notes from the prosecutor/FBI,
• the prosecutor has concluded its investigation,
• the prosecutor has not filed any charges against Tim Ballard,
• the FBI was involved in the investigation, but there is no indication that it (or any other law enforcement agency) is contemplating charges against Tim Ballard,
• OUR has still not referred the allegations to law enforcement (and, at this point, is probably not likely to), and
• all we have is anonymous "sources" cited by VICE, which sources are making very serious allegations against Tim Ballard, allegations of misconduct apparently spread out of a period of years and involving at least seven women, and allegations that somehow never became part of the formal law enforcement investigation against Ballard.  I think we would expect to see some overlap.

9. Based on the foregoing, I'm more skeptical about the sexual misconduct allegations against Tim Ballard than I am about the other set of allegations (misappropriation of Pres. Ballard's name, etc.).

10. Is it possible that the allegations about Tim Ballard misstating/overstating/fabricating associations with Pres. Ballard are, to a lesser or greater extent, true, but that the allegations of sexual misconduct have been embellished/fabricated/sensationalized?

11. Is it also possible that Tim Ballard's actions relative to Pres. Ballard may have been morally problematic, but not legally so?  That this is why no charges are pending and the investigation closed?

12. Is it also possible that Pres. Ballard had some correct information about Tim Ballard's "unauthorized use of President Ballard’s name for Tim Ballard’s personal advantage," and then also heard about (but did not have specific and competent and credible information/evidence for) allegations of sexual misconduct by Tim, and in the process gave undue credence to these latter allegations?  That this is why the Church's statement is fairly specific as to the former ("Once it became clear Tim Ballard had betrayed their friendship, through the unauthorized use of President Ballard’s name for Tim Ballard’s personal advantage...") and yet markedly more vague as to the latter ("and activity regarded as morally unacceptable")?

13. Is it possible that that this disparity (yes, there is some evidence as to Tim Ballard misappropriating Pres. Ballard's name, but no, the allegations of sexual misconduct are false / distorted / sensationalized) could explain Tim Ballard's indignation?  I can think of all sorts of ways Tim may have name dropped too much, too many times, perhaps even to the point of giving others the reasonable impression of authorized "use of President Ballard’s name for Tim Ballard’s personal advantage."  That seems a lot more susceptible to "shades of gray" justifications, and would also explain why the Davis County Attorney and the FBI dropped the investigation and didn't press any charges. Meanwhile, the more morally inflammatory charge - sexual misconduct - is presently bereft of any evidence beyond the say-so of anonymous "sources" cited by VICE.  This could, in my mind, explain Tim's behavior.  He's really upset because he has A) denied and/or rationalized the "unauthorized use of President Ballard's name" allegations and feels that they are substantive false (or exaggerated, blown out of proportion, etc.), and because he was accused of these things publicly by the Church (which, candidly, I think he sincerely loves, as compared to other poseurs in the past who have only feigned devotion/affection), and B) the charges of sexual misconduct (the evidence for which, I again not, is very poor) are altogether fabricated or substantially false.

14. I do not altogether fault Tim Ballard for monetizing his story.  Worthwhile efforts take money, typically in the form of donations.  But when the money starts coming in, strange things can happen.  Self-aggrandizement.  Pride.  Avarice and the pursuit of money (and notoriety) obscure the larger goal.  And with prominence comes power, and with power comes the risk of exploiting/misusing it.  How much of this, if any, applies to Tim Ballard?  I don't know.  I think we need more information.  This story is pretty complex.  And lurid.  And sensationalized.  And politicized.

Thanks,

-Smac 

[smac97]

51 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Quote

An equally logical and plausible inference is that OUR found these allegations to lack credibility/evidence (and, therefore, did not report them to law enforcement), but that they were sufficient to do reputational harm to Tim Ballard, and so used them to force him out of the organization.  

It wouldn't be the first time an organization did such a thing.

Why the snark? I simply provided a potential inference based on what I've seen from doing investigations.

I was not intending snark, but I can see that I gave that impression.  I apologize.

My point was to note that, based on the presently-available evidence, there is an equally logical and plausible inference that favors, rather than disfavors, Tim Ballard.

51 minutes ago, ttribe said:

They trotted T. Ballard out there to promote the film and have made millions off his name.

The movie was made several years ago.  And Tim Ballard is front and center.  

And yet OUR forced Ballard out.

51 minutes ago, ttribe said:

If they were trying to preserve their cash flow, without harming his reputation (because he was key to that cash flow), they might allow him to go to another organization without comment. They likely didn't count on reporters digging up evidence and the Church getting involved.

That seems to have been what they were trying to do.  

Hence my question about why, if they believe the allegations of sexual misconduct against Tim Ballard are credible, did OUR not report them to law enforcement.

Thanks,

-Smac