Tim Ballard as Plaintiff - He's Filed 2 Lawsuits

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I don’t disagree.  What I disagree with is calling that method “due process”.  

I am not calling it that.  I am saying that the Church's policies and procedures have elements within them that are akin to concepts typically referred to in American legal parlance as "due process."

1 hour ago, Calm said:

It contributes to setting up expectations that the Church acts like a juidical organization when it comes to membership councils.

That was not my intent.  Rather, my intent is to demonstrate that local leaders have a procedural framework within which they are obligated to operate, and that this framework provides safeguards in terms of procedure, basic fairness, etc.

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I think that attitude is already enough present so that some people get upset when they find out they can’t handle things like they can in court, such as choosing someone to defend them or presenting their own defense like cross examining ‘witnesses’ meaning leaders, having whoever they want be witnesses, and being able to have whoever they want come into the council to support or witness the proceedings.  Iirc, Snuffer refused to attend his council because they wouldn’t let his children in as spectators.  Runnells, if I understand correctly, presents his council as a “kangaroo court” because he couldn’t cross examine the Stake President and others (he was recording them as well).  As long as others expect the Church to run councils like actual trials, including anything that comes before the council, they will be seeing church leaders as violating the rules when it turns out that is not how things are done.  

A membership council should proceed under the provisions in the Handbook.  Snuffer and Runnells were unserious in their expectations (particularly Snuffer, who is an attorney and would appreciate that the Handbook's provisions govern).  

My references to "due process" have been more along the lines of analogy, of a comparison of traits shared by two otherwise dissimilar things.

I think most Latter-day Saints will appreciate the propriety and decorum that flows from observing the procedures in the Handbook.  Local leaders cannot be arbitrary, make things up as they go along, etc.

1 hour ago, Calm said:

And that can cause unnecessary offense and pain for the individual and their friends and family who may even lose faith in the Church because of the supposedly unfair treatment they see themselves as receiving (or so it seems from the conversations I have seen online about it).  

The Handbook as been available to the public for many years now.  Friends and family have every opportunity to read it and understand how things play out.

Moreover, reading the Handbook and the "due process"-like provisions in it will, i think, militate against the notion that someone facing a council will endure "unfair treatment."

1 hour ago, Calm said:

And for those who are apostates, it can become part of their public narrative of how they were so wronged by the Church like Runnells played it with even a press conference afterwards iirc.

Snuffer and Runnells sabotaged the proceedings, or attempted to.  Not much we can do about that.

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Quote

 

Quote

I don’t think it is appropriate to act like a non judicial organization like ours has a “due process” system.

Except it does.

 

No, it doesn’t.  

Yes, it does.  I laid out the parallels at some length here.

The Handbook plainly includes provisions for membership councils that are intended to provide the person under discipline with notice of the proceedings, an opportunity to be heard, and to admit or deny the allegations, and to present a defense, and to have the allegations evaluated by an impartial adjudicator, and to have a right to appeal, and to have the charges proven by evidence, etc.  Many of these components are part of what our legal system calls "due process."  So I think the analogy fits pretty well.

You don't have to take my word for it.  Ask the other attorneys on this board whether they think the Handbook's guidelines on membership councils include provisions which are akin to "due process" found in secular courts.

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Sharing some similarities and having its own relatively consistent system does not mean that the Church has a set legalish process that if not followed closely enough means the person has a right to appeal and challenge any findings and get them vacated.

That is precisely what it means.  The proceedings are formal, not lax.  They require specific procedural components to be observed by those administering the council.  If these procedures are not followed, a person does have "a right to appeal."  It's right there in Section 32.13.  

The Church itself seems to acknowledge the influence of legal frameworks on matters of Church governance and discipline.  What we now call "Membership Councils" were previously called . . . "Church Courts."  See, e.g., here: Doctrine and Covenants Instructor’s Guide: Religion 324–325.

This chapter has 40 references to "court" in a church context.

See also this 1972 General Conference talk by Elder Elder Robert L. Simpson: Courts of Love.

Often sarcastically referenced, but those of us who take membership in the Church seriously, and who have participated in disciplinary matters (Membership Councils, f/k/a "Church Courts") know better.  The proceedings are solemn, formal, and intended to help the individual.  As Elder Simpson aptly put it: 

Quote

Priesthood courts of the Church are not courts of retribution. They are courts of love. Oh, that members of the Church could understand this one fact.

The terminology is now, of course, outdated.  I think it makes sense for the Church to minimize or move away from overtly legalistic terminology in the context of disciplining members, but I see no harm in observing that the Church has instituted "due process"-style provisions in the Handbook.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited November 12, 2024 by smac97

[Calm]

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

That was not my intent.  Rather, my intent is to demonstrate that local leaders have a procedural framework within which they are obligated to operate, and that this framework provides safeguards in terms of procedure, basic fairness, etc.

I realize that.  But there are often unintended consequences to our behaviours that are quite undesirable.  Rather than referring in any way to “due process”, why not just say as far as you can tell they didn’t follow the usual procedures as outlined in the Handbook.  Accurate and adds no baggage by throwing in the term “due process” to your comments.

Quote

I am not calling it that. 

When you say stuff like the below, how are you not calling it “due process”?

Quote

I think the statement should have been qualified so as to let "due process " play out unhampered. 

Quote

Tim Ballard had not yet received "due process .

Quote

And some notion of "due process ," even in an ecclesiastical setting, may be in order

I disagree with your analysis that the Handbook excludes the issues that may be present in Ballard’s situation, such variations to the procedures as timing of announcements, whether or not there are interviews where the person is asked to explain themselves beforehand, or the Church has to warn a person before making any public statement.

I say may here because we don’t know what was privately done….and it actually surprises me in this case you are not giving the Church the benefit of the doubt like you did, iirc, in the SEC and other cases.

Quote

I think it makes sense for the Church to minimize or move away from overtly legalistic terminology in the context of disciplining members, but I see no harm in observing that the Church has instituted "due process"-style provisions in the Handbook.

My problem is you are throwing around “due process” as if it accurately describes the entire process rather than shares some elements, but not others.  See the above quotes for examples.

Edited November 12, 2024 by Calm

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

I realize that.  But there are often unintended consequences to our behaviours that are quite undesirable.  Rather than referring in any way to “due process”, why not just say as far as you can tell they didn’t follow the usual procedures as outlined in the Handbook.  

I see no harm in characterizing the Church as providing "due process"-style protections to members of the Church facing a Membership Council.

You seem to have some aversion to the phrase.  That's okay.  I think people can have varying thoughts on this.

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

Accurate and adds no baggage by throwing in the term “due process” to your comments.

I don't know what you mean by "baggage."  "Due process" to me has only positive connotations.

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

When you say stuff like the below, how are you not calling it “due process”?

By, me telling you I am not "calling" it that, by putting the phrase in scare quotes, by me explaining that "I am saying that the Church's policies and procedures have elements within them that are akin to concepts typically referred to in American legal parlance as 'due process,'" and so on.

Thanks,

-Smac

[MiserereNobis]

We're all about due process in Catholicism, so much so that we've even dug up the corpse of a pope so that he was present during his trial.

Cadaver Synod

[The Nehor]

5 hours ago, longview said:

Devious attempt on your part at misdirection. I did NOT hint at Tim having access to that list. You are desperately trying to understate the involvement of "higher ups" to curtail OUR and Tim. Because Tim's earth-shaking movie "Sound of Freedom" made a huge impact in raising public awareness of the massive underground scourge of human trafficking. Which the "higher ups" have a vested interest in destroying the legitimacy of OUR and Tim and many other "small scale organizations" that do try to fight this terrible plague. The Epstein operation was part and parcel of this worldwide secret obscenity which does include the "higher ups".

Earth-shaking movie?

They aren’t fight this “terrible plague”. They are performing dangerous self-aggrandizing stunts that do virtually nothing to liberate children and others from human traffickers.

5 hours ago, longview said:

No. Tim is a heavy-duty threat to the underground conspiracy (fact). That includes government agencies that soft peddle the extent of human trafficking. Which was why Tim got frustrated and made the decision to leave government employment and organize with other allies (including South American governments) in making daring rescues of many children.

That wasn’t Tim’s original story of why he left. Has it perhaps changed at some point? I remember the heart-rending version of how he was asked to fight human trafficking in government but wanted to demur thinking it would be too emotionally taxing but they begged him and he acquiesced and then it became a burning crusade. He left government service not because of corruption but because he thought he could do more outside of it.

Not saying any of that garbage actually happened but that was his story. Now governments are the villain? Because Q-Anon?

5 hours ago, longview said:

Warfare is brutal and violent with sometimes unavoidable injuries and deaths of innocent bystanders. As is the case for the military so it is with law enforcement and anti-trafficking efforts. I am NOT claiming Tim is lily-white and pure. We don't know for sure what lines Tim has crossed that would put him in legal and moral jeopardy.

Law enforcement is not warfare! Thinking that way is why police are becoming more and more despised. A friend of mine who came back from combat in Afghanistan got a job in law enforcement. He quit in disgust because the rules of engagement for policing were so sloppy and loose. Let that sink in. Police have less strict rules of engagement than combat soldiers in a literal war zone.

Fighting human trafficking doesn’t need a bunch of liberators with guns. It needs anti-poverty efforts, child protection agencies, assistance for those caught up in coercive prostitution schemes, etc. The idea that a ‘good guy’ with a gun is going to achieve anything is a pipe dream. That is what all the other anti-human trafficking organizations say anyways. You know, the actual experts.

It is gratifying to imagine that all it would take is a some action movie hero to solve deeply embedded social and cultural issues is attractive because it is simple and falls into our nice little cult of badassery we developed in America but the facts don’t support this approach. OUR is sloppy as hell. They do their sting and generally put the kids right back in the homes they were trafficked from. But they busted some bad guys! I am sure no one will step right in to fill the gap.

5 hours ago, longview said:

You are just blathering. Tim was a professional. From the Google:

You could NOT be more WRONG! You have lied about Tim's professionalism.

He might have been a professional when he worked for the government. I don’t know. He is not acting like one now even if he theoretically knows how to be one. He is currently an inept gloryhounding amateur putting people at risk. Also planned to become an apostle and eventually rule the church. The megalomania is strong in this one.

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

We're all about due process in Catholicism, so much so that we've even dug up the corpse of a pope so that he was present during his trial.

Cadaver Synod

But they didn’t even bring in a necromancer to commune with his spirit so he could speak in his own defense.

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, teddyaware said:

At the start of this thread I said that there are individuals on this board who fervently want Tim Ballard to be found guilty of all the charges that have been made against him. Why? Because in their minds they believe Ballard is  already guilty before all the pertinent evidence has been presented and fully aired in impartial courts of law. This approach of guilty before trial smacks of Lavrentiy Beria‘s “show me the man and I’ll find you the crime” method of “legal justice.”

Personally, I’m on the fence when it comes to Ballard’s guilt or innocence, and will not settle the cases made against him in my own mind until all the evidence, both pro and con, has fully been presented. Those who’ve already decided that Ballard is guilty before all the evidence has been fully disclosed should excuse themselves from any jury service in the future by making it clear they cannot be impartial because their minds are hardwired to make hasty judgements based on what they want to be true, rather than being able to exercise the mental and moral discipline needed to put on the blindfold of Lady Justice and give all the evidence a fair hearing and careful, conscientious analysis. I guess there are some who haven’t taken to heart the lessons they should have learned and internalized after reading about that unjust, presumptuous mob who cried out, “give us Barabbus!’

Oh please, you are one of the most biased people about Ballard here. You’ve gone to great lengths to talk about how you believe him completely whenever he speaks and also cast aspersions and spun conspiracy theories about the plaintiffs in these cases. Whining about how other people should never be on a jury while doing this? Really?

[JVW]

2 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Oh please, you are one of the most biased people about Ballard here. You’ve gone to great lengths to talk about how you believe him completely whenever he speaks and also cast aspersions and spun conspiracy theories about the plaintiffs in these cases. Whining about how other people should never be on a jury while doing this? Really?

To be fair, as I've been reading through the comments, many people do view him as guilty already. I don't know where the phrase comes from but I thought in America it was "innocent until proven guilty" but my personal impression from posters here is that it's "guilty until proven innocent".

I don't really know anything about Tim Ballard except that: he's controversial, and his trial by jury hasn't been resolved yet so nothing has been proven. If Tim was my dad or best friend I would really hope that the courts find him innocent, and that he was innocent. If he was my worst enemy I would hope that he would be found guilty of every crime and get the death penalty for them. But regardless of my hopes, I assume innocence until the courts are done, and then sometimes I don't believe the courts (like in the case of OJ Simpson).

[The Nehor]

6 minutes ago, JVW said:

To be fair, as I've been reading through the comments, many people do view him as guilty already. I don't know where the phrase comes from but I thought in America it was "innocent until proven guilty" but my personal impression from posters here is that it's "guilty until proven innocent".

I don't really know anything about Tim Ballard except that: he's controversial, and his trial by jury hasn't been resolved yet so nothing has been proven. If Tim was my dad or best friend I would really hope that the courts find him innocent, and that he was innocent. If he was my worst enemy I would hope that he would be found guilty of every crime and get the death penalty for them. But regardless of my hopes, I assume innocence until the courts are done, and then sometimes I don't believe the courts (like in the case of OJ Simpson).

I believe in the presumption of innocence in a trial setting and in terms of judicial punishment. I do not think that means we have to assume innocence until the court reaches a verdict on a social level. O.J. Simpson did it. Trump is as guilty as sin in at least one of the pending trials that will probably never happen now so there will probably be no verdict. I don’t owe either of them an assumption of innocence.

I also know that I would have no business serving on a jury trying either of them or on a jury for Ballard. I know too much already. The system exists for a reason. It is glaringly imperfect in about a million ways but it is better than most alternatives and that system is important. It should not serve as a shield against social scorn or criticism.

[Calm]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

I don't know what you mean by "baggage."  "Due process" to me has only positive connotations.

5 hours ago, Calm said:

By baggage I mean the assumptions of how the Church works based on how legal due process works…the baggage is those beliefs of what due process must be.  Using due process to label church behavior sets up false expectations by bringing in ideas associated with legal due process. 
 

I have no aversion to the phrase.  I use it all the time in the correct context. 
 

“at "I am saying that the Church's policies and procedures have elements within them that are akin to concepts typically referred to in American legal parlance as 'due process,'"”…

Yes, added after the fact, after I protested about the use.

I am very aware of the problems with false expectations. Through FAIR as well as other sources online, it has been very easy for me to see how false expectations of how the Church is supposed to work in discipline situations have created unnecessary anger and resentment at the Church.  Given this makes it harder to resolve problems, I see misuse of the term by attaching it to the Church process as harmful. Not so much here where there is plenty of dialogue showing it and other attempts to stick the Church in a legal organization box are inaccurate in application from me and others (Nehor in this conversation), but in other places where the idea is not challenged or where someone is so certain they have certain legal rights with the Church there is no discussion with them. 
 

It is the same sort of baggage as “innocent till proven guilty” which applies in a legal setting and thank goodness, but not elsewhere.  It is unusual imo one is provided the type of evidence required in a court of law before making a decision about someone or something.  For example’s , if one insists on following the innocent until proven guilty theme in everything, one will be a perfect victim for scammers.  Go ahead and click on that website link, there is nothing proving it is unsafe after all. Can you imagine insisting a woman accept a date with a stranger she gets creep vibes from based on innocent until proven guilty?  Making decisions that something is likely not as safe as portrayed based on instinct and experience happens all the time and is necessary for survival. 

Edited November 12, 2024 by Calm

[longview]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

I see no harm in characterizing the Church as providing "due process"-style protections to members of the Church facing a Membership Council.

Do the protections include requiring the presence of both the accused and the accuser? If there is just rumor mongering with no clear accuser, how does the Church handle that?

[Calm]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

I see no harm in characterizing the Church as providing "due process"-style protections to members of the Church facing a Membership Council.

You seem to have some aversion to the phrase.  That's okay.  I think people can have varying thoughts on this.

I don't know what you mean by "baggage."  "Due process" to me has only positive connotations.

By, me telling you I am not "calling" it that, by putting the phrase in scare quotes, by me explaining that "I am saying that the Church's policies and procedures have elements within them that are akin to concepts typically referred to in American legal parlance as 'due process,'" and so on.

Thanks,

-Smac

“” are quotes, you should not assume people will mind read that you mean “sort of like, but not actually that close” and not “exactly like” when using quotes (which is why I always use ‘ ‘ for scare quotes as you did here at the very end, but did not before).

Edited November 12, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

20 minutes ago, longview said:

Do the protections include requiring the presence of both the accused and the accuser?

No, they do not….an expectation that they should is one of the problems associating “due process” with the Church’s way of doing things.  The Church cannot force the presence of either and malicious individuals could stop the Church from ever acting affirmatively by refusing to be present at such meetings, interviews.

20 minutes ago, longview said:

If there is just rumor mongering with no clear accuser, how does the Church handle that?

  
 

I don’t know how the Church handles rumor mongering, though I suspect they look for more info if it’s relevant to them before acting in the professional level.  With a lay leadership, one risks some leaders will overreact.

Btw, Ballard’s case is certainly is not rumor mongering (at least the accusations I am aware of) if you read the Davis county documents (the witnesses may be lying, but there were clear details and evidence provided to back up the accusations made; plus the accusations were made by former employees that claimed to be aware of the malfeasance because it was part of their jobs).

Edited November 12, 2024 by Calm

[smac97]

45 minutes ago, longview said:

Quote

I see no harm in characterizing the Church as providing "due process"-style protections to members of the Church facing a Membership Council.

Do the protections include requiring the presence of both the accused and the accuser?

I do not believe so.

45 minutes ago, longview said:

If there is just rumor mongering with no clear accuser, how does the Church handle that?

Most Membership Councils involve voluntary admissions of misconduct, not accusations.

When accusations are made, and when the accused denies them, the credibility of the accusation is assessed.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

48 minutes ago, Calm said:

By baggage I mean the assumptions of how the Church works based on how legal due process works…the baggage is those beliefs of what due process must be.  Using due process to label church behavior sets up false expectations by bringing in ideas associated with legal due process. 
 

I have no aversion to the phrase.  I use it all the time in the correct context. 
 

“at "I am saying that the Church's policies and procedures have elements within them that are akin to concepts typically referred to in American legal parlance as 'due process,'"”…

Yes, added after the fact, after I protested about the use.

Your protest is noted.  I respectfully disagree with you on this sissue.

48 minutes ago, Calm said:

I am very aware of the problems with false expectations. Through FAIR as well as other sources online, it has been very easy for me to see how false expectations of how the Church is supposed to work in discipline situations have created unnecessary anger and resentment at the Church.  Given this makes it harder to resolve problems, I see misuse of the term by attaching it to the Church process as harmful.

I don't, but reasonable minds can disagree about such things.

Thanks,

-Smac

[webbles]

1 hour ago, JVW said:

To be fair, as I've been reading through the comments, many people do view him as guilty already. I don't know where the phrase comes from but I thought in America it was "innocent until proven guilty" but my personal impression from posters here is that it's "guilty until proven innocent".

I don't really know anything about Tim Ballard except that: he's controversial, and his trial by jury hasn't been resolved yet so nothing has been proven. If Tim was my dad or best friend I would really hope that the courts find him innocent, and that he was innocent. If he was my worst enemy I would hope that he would be found guilty of every crime and get the death penalty for them. But regardless of my hopes, I assume innocence until the courts are done, and then sometimes I don't believe the courts (like in the case of OJ Simpson).

I think there are several aspects of people's idea on his guilt.  I, personally, expect him to not be found guilty in any of the court cases.  I haven't seen anything that looks to cross a legal line, but I am also not a lawyer so curious where the cases go.

But, I do think he is guilty of misusing President Ballard's name and association. That isn't in any of the court cases.  But the whiteboard and the church's statement are pretty bad. I also haven't seen any denial of the whiteboard and since it isn't involved in a court case, I would have expected him to explain it by now.

I think some supporters of him are lumping everything together in the court cases. But the court cases are just one part. If he is find not guilty in those doesn't mean the other problematic aspects should be ignored.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, JVW said:

To be fair, as I've been reading through the comments, many people do view him as guilty already. I don't know where the phrase comes from but I thought in America it was "innocent until proven guilty" but my personal impression from posters here is that it's "guilty until proven innocent".

I don't really know anything about Tim Ballard except that: he's controversial, and his trial by jury hasn't been resolved yet so nothing has been proven. If Tim was my dad or best friend I would really hope that the courts find him innocent, and that he was innocent. If he was my worst enemy I would hope that he would be found guilty of every crime and get the death penalty for them. But regardless of my hopes, I assume innocence until the courts are done, and then sometimes I don't believe the courts (like in the case of OJ Simpson).

In the American justice system, it's innocent until proven guilty, but people are under no obligation to wait for someone to be proven guilty before they believe they have done something wrong.

[Calm]

53 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Your protest is noted.  I respectfully disagree with you on this sissue.

I don't, but reasonable minds can disagree about such things.

Thanks,

-Smac

I can go along with this resolution. I was just about to tell you I was completely burnt out on this topic and let’s call it quits.
I do feel quite strongly about it, having seen the impact of legal behaviour expectations while I don’t see much benefit, if any to be frank, in using a legal term for a nonlegal situation, but it is obvious to me I am not changing your mind today, lol.

Edited November 13, 2024 by Calm

[The Nehor]

5 hours ago, longview said:

Do the protections include requiring the presence of both the accused and the accuser? If there is just rumor mongering with no clear accuser, how does the Church handle that?

Go with the spirit or their gut. Except adultery/fornication which by scriptural mandate must have two witnesses though this is interpreted to mean two pieces of evidence that may or may not be independent.

They do not require that an accuser be present and there is no right of cross-examination or anything like that.

[The Nehor]

5 hours ago, webbles said:

I think there are several aspects of people's idea on his guilt.  I, personally, expect him to not be found guilty in any of the court cases.  I haven't seen anything that looks to cross a legal line, but I am also not a lawyer so curious where the cases go.

But, I do think he is guilty of misusing President Ballard's name and association. That isn't in any of the court cases.  But the whiteboard and the church's statement are pretty bad. I also haven't seen any denial of the whiteboard and since it isn't involved in a court case, I would have expected him to explain it by now.

I think some supporters of him are lumping everything together in the court cases. But the court cases are just one part. If he is find not guilty in those doesn't mean the other problematic aspects should be ignored.

There are people that everyone (who cares to know) KNOWs work in organized crime but no one can build a case that would satisfy a judge by the rules the courts work within.

I am agreeing that the standard of no conviction is proof of innocence or of a lack of wrongdoing is absurd.

Edited November 13, 2024 by The Nehor