The MTC Abuse Story


Guest LiterateParakeet
 Share

Recommended Posts

28 minutes ago, Traveler said:

 

I thought to add something here – Title 9 generally is not doing well (what was intended).  There are unintended consequences.   Also having the experience of suffering greatly through an IRS audit I have learned that an investigation that is going on by the govt is not the sign that justice is the intent or the inevitable result.   When a lawyer must be hired and paid more than the maximum fine – regardless of the investigation results – justice is not served by any stretch of the imagination.

 

The Traveler

yea that is the irs, not the state level le office. they likely cant levy fines, only criminal charges if necessary. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, paracaidista508 said:

Sorry you don't like my posts...either ignore me or get used to it

Or I can call out your hate for what it is in the hope that you'll get help..  After all you are all about trying to help someone you have no stewardship over aren't you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

Yea they looked into it alright...from the standpoint of getting her on an honor code violation. That is caring, but not in the sense I thought of it as initially.

Well, I'm not going to stop you from rebutting your own presumptions.  The point, of course, is that BYUHCO got involved first because they believed Barney might be making a false police report (which is a violation of the honor code); and then because they learned that she was having consensual sex (another violation).  

Quote

No I was mistaken...the BYU cop actually illegally accessed the report for the Honor code office. That's even worse than siting there with them. He went and looked it up...illegally I might add or reemphasize.

I already acknowledged that he looked up the report, and verbally passed on salient details to HCO.  He did not, of course, pass the entire document on to BYUHCO.

Now, as to this word "illegal" . . . I went ahead and looked up the statute, rather than just relying on the Tribune's characterization thereof as I did earlier.  You are correct that (contra the Tribune's restatement of the statute) the penalty applies to anyone who has access to private, controlled, or protected records as defined in statute; not just public employees.  The million-dollar question then becomes whether those records are indeed "private, controlled, or protected" records.  Previously you've suggested that BYU "knows the protocol for getting these reports"--hinting that BYU could have gotten the report via legal means if they'd just worked through channels.  The thing is, if the report was obtainable through a GRAMA [Government Records Access and Management Act] request, then that would have been because the report was not considered private, controlled, or protected; which would mean that the criminal penalties of Utah Code Ann. 63G-2-801 don't apply.  

Furthermore, GRAMA begins with the presumption that police reports are public unless one of a series of exceptions apply; in which case only the part of the report that violates that exception (not the entire document) is non-public.  Utah Code 63G-2-103(14) and -301(3); for a nonexhaustive sum-up, see also https://archives.utah.gov/opengovernment/What-Does-GRAMA-say-about-Police-Reports.pdf).  While one potential reason for nondisclosure is that disclosure could reasonably interfere with an investigation or deny a person a right to a fair trial or impartial hearing, there is no evidence that this was the case in Seidu's prosecution.  (Utah County Attorney Jeff Buhman specifically told the Tribune in April of 2016--when he knew that BYU had accessed the police report--that BYU had not acted unlawfully and that even if Barney had to return to her home state, Seidu's prosecution would go forward.)

And finally, even if it turns out that someone somehow botched the GRAMA classifications and there was a prima facie violation of GRAMA's remedy statute, subsection (d) of 63G-2-801 provides a defense if "the public employee or other person disclosed, provided, or used the record based on a good faith belief that the disclosure, provision, or use was in accordance with the law."  

Quote

The news of the investigation broke on June 1, 2016. Yea it dropped off when the news of the investigation (wherever that came from) reached the end user, not necessarily the "news" per se.

So, "news" that "broke" doesn't necessarily refer to "news media", just like "steal" doesn't necessarily mean "stealing".  Any other magic vocabulary I should be aware of here?

Quote

The timeline suggests that Stott learned there was a problem with rogue employees  (Agreed) in early-to-mid May, told his department to knock it off, and then asked DPS for an audit/investigation to find out just how pervasive the problem had been. I agree...that's why the activity dropped off. If it was on the up and up, why any change at all??

Oh, you believe that BYU as an institution did nothing wrong vis a vis police reports?

Quote

What is out of line? Well for one, some girl having sex with some dude does not constitute fraud. 

She's receiving a private-university education that would cost $30-$40K per year at other schools, for under $6,000 per year.  BYU gives her this deal in exchange for her promise to, inter alia, live a chaste life.  Law enforcement has as much right to intervene as they would if, in the midst of my selling a "lightly used" car to you for $10,000, a highway patrolman were to walk up and say "excuse me, Paracaidista508, but I happen to know that that particular car has a salvage title and is only worth about $3,000."

Quote

Can you tell me how many honor coded people have been charged for fraud for breaking the honor code? Im betting ZERO. That is because it is not a crime. the punishment according to BYU honor code page is discipline up to and possibly including expulsion.

Current students don't have to be charged with fraud, because BYU simply expels them (or, at its option, attempts to rehabilitate them) if it finds out about it in a timely manner.  And the law recognizes a difference between preventing current crime (including fraud) versus disclosing past crime (again, including fraud)--defense attorneys have no duty to disclose their client's past crimes; but they do have a duty to warn potential victims of a crime they believe their clients are about to commit; so it's perfectly rational for BYU to choose not to pursue past frauds perpetrated by ex-students.

Quote

Additionally, using a function of the state to further the interest of a religious organization is about as much of a violation of the 1st amendment . . . 

So when you were a cop, you chose not to investigate crimes committed against religious organizations and/or their members?

You didn't respond to calls of church vandalism, or church arson, or a church shooting?

Quote

I can think of at the moment except perhaps the police smashing the BOM printing press.

The First Amendment wasn't incorporated as to states and municipalities until 1931 (free press) and 1947 (anti-establishment of religion).  Thanks for playing the "tired anti-Mormon arguments" game, though.

Quote

it is not a crime to violate the byu honor code. It is a crime, however; for a police officer (even a "private cop" lol) to illegally access a police report and share the contents with an unauthorized end user.

Apparently not a crime to access and disseminate public data, as per my writings above.

Quote

Using the police as a means to not only protect, but mandate a certain expression of speech reminds me of these guys:

Sharia

Bwa, hahahahahahahaha!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

first-presidency-2018-cropped.jpg

 

 

That made my day.  Thanks, bud. ;)

 

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

As a private school, this is a private contract.  If you don't want to abide by the standards, then don't agree to it and go somewhere else.  It really is that simple.  No one forces anyone to sign it.  No one forces anyone to attend BYU.

Chill. I agree. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Well, I'm not going to stop you from rebutting your own presumptions.  The point, of course, is that BYUHCO got involved first because they believed Barney might be making a false police report (which is a violation of the honor code); and then because they learned that she was having consensual sex (another violation).  

I already acknowledged that he looked up the report, and verbally passed on salient details to HCO.  He did not, of course, pass the entire document on to BYUHCO.

Now, as to this word "illegal" . . . I went ahead and looked up the statute, rather than just relying on the Tribune's characterization thereof as I did earlier.  You are correct that (contra the Tribune's restatement of the statute) the penalty applies to anyone who has access to private, controlled, or protected records as defined in statute; not just public employees.  The million-dollar question then becomes whether those records are indeed "private, controlled, or protected" records.  Previously you've suggested that BYU "know the protocol for getting these reports"--hinting that BYU could have gotten the report via legal means if they'd just worked through channels.  The thing is, if the report was obtainable through a GRAMA [Government Records Access and Management Act] request, then that would have been because the report was not considered private, controlled, or protected; which would mean that the criminal penalties of Utah Code Ann. 63G-2-801 don't apply.  

Yep, if BYU wanted the report, they can request it and if it meets certain criteria for public release, then it likely can be released. Generally in a sex assault report, HIPPA stuff is redacted along with much of the victim's info. That said, it is not up to the police Lieutenant at said agency to just go look it up and pass on the info without it being vetted, redacted etc. As it was an ongoing investigation with Provo PD, Im 100% certain they would have denied the request...esp to honor code someone. T

Furthermore, GRAMA begins with the presumption that police reports are public unless one of a series of exceptions apply; in which case only the part of the report that violates that exception (not the entire document) is non-public.  Utah Code 63G-2-103(14) and -301(3); for a nonexhaustive sum-up, see also https://archives.utah.gov/opengovernment/What-Does-GRAMA-say-about-Police-Reports.pdf).  While one potential reason for nondisclosure is that disclosure could reasonably interfere with an investigation or deny a person a right to a fair trial or impartial hearing, there is no evidence that this was the case in Seidu's prosecution.  (Utah County Attorney Jeff Buhman specifically told the Tribune in April of 2016--when he knew that BYU had accessed the police report--that BYU had not acted unlawfully and that even if Barney had to return to her home state, Seidu's prosecution would go forward.)

And finally, even if it turns out that someone somehow botched the GRAMA classifications and there was a prima facie violation of GRAMA's remedy statute, subsection (d) of 63G-2-801 provides a defense if "the public employee or other person disclosed, provided, or used the record based on a good faith belief that the disclosure, provision, or use was in accordance with the law."  

Given the nature of public records access and the training that officer received prior to being granted access to the system...there is no way he can justify or even show any good faith for giving the info to the honor code people. If he did think it was ok, then there is a huge institutional problem there and it needs to be fixed. Part of the fixing would likey be going back to find out who had been honor coded with improperly accessed police reports and the lawsuits sure to follow.

So, "news" that "broke" doesn't necessarily refer to "news media", just like "steal" doesn't necessarily mean "stealing".  Any other magic vocabulary I should be aware of here?

Oh, you believe that BYU as an institution did nothing wrong vis a vis police reports?

What are you referring to?

She's receiving a private-university education that would cost $30-$40K per year at other schools, for under $6,000 per year.  BYU gives her this deal in exchange for her promise to, inter alia, live a chaste life.  Law enforcement has as much right to intervene as they would if, in the midst of my selling a "lightly used" car to you for $10,000, a highway patrolman were to walk up and say "excuse me, Paracaidista508, but I happen to know that that particular car has a salvage title and is only worth about $3,000."

No they don't. if they did, it would be a normal procedure to charge people with fraud. Im calling bull puckey on that one

Current students don't have to be charged with fraud, because BYU simply expels them (or, at its option, attempts to rehabilitate them) if it finds out about it in a timely manner.  And the law recognizes a difference between preventing current crime (including fraud) versus disclosing past crime (again, including fraud)--defense attorneys have no duty to disclose their client's past crimes; but they do have a duty to warn potential victims of a crime they believe their clients are about to commit; so it's perfectly rational for BYU to choose not to pursue past frauds perpetrated by ex-students.

It isn't a crime...BYU would say do in their honor code policy if it was. If it was there would be people charged.

So when you were a cop, you chose not to investigate crimes committed against religious organizations and/or their members?

Honor code is not a crime

You didn't respond to calls of church vandalism, or church arson, or a church shooting?

I have (except for a church shooting) and charges are filed when appropritate. Honor code violation is not a crime. 

The First Amendment wasn't incorporated as to states and municipalities until 1931 (free press) and 1947 (anti-establishment of religion).  Thanks for playing, though.

The 1st was enacted on dec 15, 1791

Apparently not a crime to access and disseminate public data, as per my writings above.

That made my day.  Thanks, bud.  ;)

 

Edited by paracaidista508
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, zil said:

@Just_A_Guy - remove the square brackets and "s" - or put spaces before / after the brackets: [ s ] and [ / s ] - otherwise, it sees them as BB codes for strikethrough.

Thanks, Zil.  I bracketed the “s” since it wasn’t original to paracaidista’s use of “know”, which I was quoting; and inadvertently triggered the strike through function.  Should be fixed now, though . . .

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
3 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Paranoia strikes deep . . .

True paranoia is when you Google your symptoms at 2AM because you can't sleep. Worst night of my life, believe me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, lostinwater said:

Thanks Carb.

No indignation here.  i'm learning that expressing indignation does very little good - for anyone involved.  Just gets everyone's hackles up.

Was commenting on one of MG's questions by relating an experience of my family.

Thank you.  I am not really indignant either.  But I did need to be clear about what the grooming standards are.  I'm also surprised about your brother being surprised that he was sent away for not abiding by the grooming standards that he should have known about.  Was he not a student?

If, for example, he were a parent paying for his child's tuition, that might be a different story.  He in no way should have been held to that standard.  But if he was a student there, then why the surprise?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Thanks, Zil.  I bracketed the “s” since it wasn’t original to paracaidista’s use of “know”, which I was quoting; and inadvertently triggered the strike through function.  Should be fixed now, though . . .

I did the same thing once - that's how I know. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@paracaidista508

Yep, if BYU wanted the report, they can request it and if it meets certain criteria for public release, then it likely can be released. Generally in a sex assault report, HIPPA stuff is redacted along with much of the victim's info. That said, it is not up to the police Lieutenant at said agency to just go look it up and pass on the info without it being vetted, redacted etc. As it was an ongoing investigation with Provo PD, Im 100% certain they would have denied the request...esp to honor code someone. T

Again, under state law the report is presumed public unless one of the statutory exceptions applies.  Can you name what statutory exceptions should have applied here; and can you say for certain that the BYUPD officer’s oral statements violated these exceptions?

Can you say for certain that HIPAA-protected data was among the information relayed verbally to BYUHCO by BYUPD?

You said the release was illegal.  Not against procedure or contrary to training—illegal.  So, what law was violated?  Or is thus yet another example of your magically mutant vocabulary?

Given the nature of public records access and the training that officer received prior to being granted access to the system...there is no way he can justify or even show any good faith for giving the info to the honor code people. If he did think it was ok, then there is a huge institutional problem there and it needs to be fixed. Part of the fixing would likey be going back to find out who had been honor coded with improperly accessed police reports and the lawsuits sure to follow.

What training?  Please be specific, since I’ve already cited to the statute governing confidentiality of police reports and since you have failed to show that the statute was in fact violated.

And, what would the basis for any lawsuits be?  That BYUPD used their police resources to intervene in a financial fraud that Barney or others were perpetrating on the University?   

No they don't. if they did, it would be a normal procedure to charge people with fraud. Im calling bull puckey on that one

. . .

It isn't a crime...BYU would say do in their honor code policy if it was. If it was there would be people charged.

. . .

Honor code is not a crime.

You’re part right; in reviewing the definitions within the Utah Criminal Code, it might not be “fraud”.  But lying about a condition precedent to a financial transaction is most certainly “theft by deception”.  UCA 76-6-405.  Read the statute.  Keeping the honor code is a condition precedent to enrolling at BYU and receiving a $30K education for $6K.

Whether BYU elects to pursue charges after-the-fact does not deprive them of the right to seek law enforcement assistance in preventing deceptive thefts that are in progress or are about to occur.

I have (except for a church shooting) and charges are filed when appropritate. 

Even when doing so “furthers the interest of a religious organization”?  How very First-Amendment-violative of you.  

The 1st was enacted on dec 15, 1791

 . . . and applied only to the federal government, not states or municipalities, well into the twentieth century; as I outlined above.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, paracaidista508 said:

The honor code office apparently has been working hand in hand with BYU PD. I find it highly unlikely that

 the honor code office likely has a policy in place that tells employees

So, you don't know. That is what I was getting at.  When I get into debates like this with my anti-Mormon, liberal friend, we can often come to a recognition of facts.  But at some point, we have to admit that much of our conclusions are because of our own biases and suspicions rather than the facts at hand. 

I'm pointing out to you that when you accuse a party of unethical behavior AND illegal behavior, you need to first get your facts straight and then determine if the accusation fits the facts.  And the fact is that you don't know.  But you're using words like "unethical" and "illegal" based on suspicion alone.

It doesn't matter how closely the Honor Code office works with the BYU PD -- another fact you have yet to prove (but admittedly, I've been gone from this thread for a couple pages and have not caught up).  The fact is that any individual from the office who DIRECTLY received a document from a police officer would have no reason to suspect that it was illegally obtained.

23 hours ago, paracaidista508 said:

If BYU does not have a policy in place (at that time) re report sharing etc...then they are severely mistaken.

maybe BYU didn't and that will be a problem for them.

At least you're leaving yourself open to the possibility of being wrong.  That's something I can appreciate from someone on the other side of a debate.

23 hours ago, paracaidista508 said:

Randolph knew what he was doing was wrong and so did BYU PD/ Honor code office.

Did I not already admit that he should have been terminated?  Yes I did.  But for some reasons, you keep harping back to a point of agreement as if it would support your interpretation of a point of disagreement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Vort said:

Tithing dollars over which you have no ownership, control, or say in the least amount -- including the tithing dollars that you had the privilege of contributing.

Is this absolutely the case? Don't you have a small say in where you want your tithing dollars to go when you fill out your slip. The LDS church does have its disclaimer but you do have some say, whether it's followed or not is up to the LDS church.

https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/first-presidency-approves-online-tithing-donations

http://www.ldsliving.com/LDS-Church-adopts-new-tithing-slips/s/69822

M.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Maureen said:

Is this absolutely the case? Don't you have a small say in where you want your tithing dollars to go when you fill out your slip. The LDS church does have its disclaimer but you do have some say, whether it's followed or not is up to the LDS church.

https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/first-presidency-approves-online-tithing-donations

http://www.ldsliving.com/LDS-Church-adopts-new-tithing-slips/s/69822

M.

Tithing is separate from offerings.  Tithing is tithing and no, you have no say in what the Church does with it upon receipt.  You are entrusting it to the servants of the Lord.

With offerings - such as fast offerings, mission funds, and the humanitarian aid fund - you have a choice in whether to make a donation to one of those funds and how much.  You may have some expectation that the funds will be used as described by their name, but you have no guarantee, and you have no say in the details1.  Again, you are entrusting the money to the servants of the Lord.  You are trusting that the Lord will hold them accountable for their choices and reward them accordingly.

1Some funds are used locally, and if you are involved in those decisions then you do have some say in it (mostly whether or not to approve an expenditure), but not otherwise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Maureen said:

Is this absolutely the case?

Yes.

38 minutes ago, Maureen said:

Don't you have a small say in where you want your tithing dollars to go when you fill out your slip.

No.

39 minutes ago, Maureen said:

The LDS church does have its disclaimer but you do have some say, whether it's followed or not is up to the LDS church.

You are mistaken.

40 minutes ago, Maureen said:

Curious whether you actually read these articles you linked to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, zil said:

Tithing is separate from offerings.  Tithing is tithing and no, you have no say in what the Church does with it upon receipt.  You are entrusting it to the servants of the Lord.

With offerings - such as fast offerings, mission funds, and the humanitarian aid fund - you have a choice in whether to make a donation to one of those funds and how much.  You may have some expectation that the funds will be used as described by their name, but you have no guarantee, and you have no say in the details1.  Again, you are entrusting the money to the servants of the Lord.  You are trusting that the Lord will hold them accountable for their choices and reward them accordingly.

1Some funds are used locally, and if you are involved in those decisions then you do have some say in it (mostly whether or not to approve an expenditure), but not otherwise.

Agreed.

I am not sure why people confuse charitable contributions with capital investments. The former represents a transfer of ownership of the funds, and thus a transfer of rights to having a say in how the funds are used. Whereas the later is the use of funds to purchase ownership, and thereby purchase rights to say how the funds are used.

Payment of tithing doesn't purchase stock in the Church's corporation.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Maureen said:

Is this absolutely the case? Don't you have a small say in where you want your tithing dollars to go when you fill out your slip. The LDS church does have its disclaimer but you do have some say, whether it's followed or not is up to the LDS church.

https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/first-presidency-approves-online-tithing-donations

http://www.ldsliving.com/LDS-Church-adopts-new-tithing-slips/s/69822

M.

I see where your confusion is coming from, and it's an understandable mistake. The "tithing slip" that you fill out when paying tithing might better be called a "donation slip", because you use it for all donations, not just tithing. I think @zil explained it pretty well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Vort said:

I see where your confusion is coming from, and it's an understandable mistake. The "tithing slip" that you fill out when paying tithing might better be called a "donation slip", because you use it for all donations, not just tithing. I think @zil explained it pretty well.

So are you saying that if you fill out your Tithing slip and allocate zero dollars for Tithing but allocate dollars for Ward Missionary and Humanitarian Aid that those donations are not considered Tithing?

And if that is the case, please explain this paragraph to me:

Tithing donations are most usually remitted through the local congregational leader, or bishop, and from there to Church headquarters, where they are allocated and disbursed directly to the Church’s many worldwide programs, including its educational, missionary, building, humanitarian and welfare efforts.

https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/tithing

M.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Maureen said:

So are you saying that if you fill out your Tithing slip and allocate zero dollars for Tithing but allocate dollars for Ward Missionary and Humanitarian Aid that those donations are not considered Tithing?

And if that is the case, please explain this paragraph to me:

Tithing donations are most usually remitted through the local congregational leader, or bishop, and from there to Church headquarters, where they are allocated and disbursed directly to the Church’s many worldwide programs, including its educational, missionary, building, humanitarian and welfare efforts.

I can help.  The paragraph you quote is a bit confusing.  This is a "tithing slip":

image.png.05252eccfb07fb9bf90247f717730a49.png

Tithing should be "a tenth of your increase" (and the definition of increase, is between you and the Lord).  Everything else on that slip is not tithing, but is instead an additional offering.  

So, the answer to your question is Yes, if you pay no tithing, but make other offerings, then you are not paying tithing.  An example would be a non-member who is supportive of someone going on a mission - that person would give to the missionary fund, to pay specifically for that missionary.  Those funds wouldn't end up supporting worldwide programs or welfare efforts, etc.  Another example would be someone wanting to donate only to Humanitarian Aid, because they've read an article about how mormons totally rock at this, and want to help.  Those contributions would go to non-proselytizing, non-temple, non-education, humanitarian-only purposes.

Hope this helps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Maureen said:

So are you saying that if you fill out your Tithing slip and allocate zero dollars for Tithing but allocate dollars for Ward Missionary and Humanitarian Aid that those donations are not considered Tithing?

And if that is the case, please explain this paragraph to me:

Tithing donations are most usually remitted through the local congregational leader, or bishop, and from there to Church headquarters, where they are allocated and disbursed directly to the Church’s many worldwide programs, including its educational, missionary, building, humanitarian and welfare efforts.

https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/tithing

M.

The Lord requires us to pay tithing, He also calls individuals to be stewards over the tithing to allocate it.  If we donate only to something specific, such as humanitarian aid, we are choosing to be the steward of our donation, and in essence, would be rejecting the Lord's chosen steward's responsibility to allocate the funds as inspired.  Tithing is a specific thing, we pay it as commanded, others allocate it as instructed.  While, we may freely donate to any other fund or cause, however, those donations are not considered tithing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • pam unfeatured this topic

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share