The MTC Abuse Story

[paracaidista508]

3 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

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?

Before releasing an initial contact report, a records officer should consider whether the entire report or any of the information contained within it should be restricted. Following are some protected categories to consider.

The report or information within it should be protected if disclosure would:

1) reasonably interfere with an investigation (Utah Code Section 63G-2- 305(10)(a));..............Provo PD thought so and BYU should have respected that. Instead they suspended the student

...

5) reasonably could be expected to disclose investigative techniques, procedures, policies, or orders not generally known outside of government (Utah Code Section 63G-2-(10)(e);

6) jeopardize someone’s life or safety (Utah Code Section 63G-2-305(11));

...

8) reveal a home address or telephone number that was provided in order to comply with a law, ordinance, rule, or order and with the reasonable expectation that it will remain confidential (Utah Code Section 63G-2- 305(51)(a) and (b). Utah Code Section 63G-2-301 – Public records (3) The following records are normally public, but to the extent that a record is expressly exempt from disclosure, access may be restricted under Subsection 63G-2-201(3)(b), Section 63G-2-302, 63G-2-304, or 63G-2-305; ….. .. (g) chronological logs and initial contact reports. 4 Revision April 2017

Reports or information within them should be restricted and classified as private when disclosure would: 1) describe a person’s medical history, diagnosis, condition, treatment, or evaluation (Utah Code Section 63G-2-302(1)(b)), or 2) be a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy (Utah Code Section 63G-2- 301(2)(d).

Yea I can safely say the BYU PD officer violated the act. He shared the physical exam details with the honor police. That is a violation. more on that later.

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

But school documents leaked to The Tribune and police files show a BYU lieutenant reviewed Barney's rape report after an Honor Code investigator requested information on the case, and that he shared with the Honor Code investigator intimate details from the medical records of Barney's sexual-assault exam.

https://www.sltrib.com/news/crime/2016/07/31/salt-lake-tribune-sues-says-byu-police-should-have-to-release-records/

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

Since you are not a cop I'll tell you how this works. 

Before getting access to these systems and databases, there is manadatory training. Some is on statute, some is procedure, some is admin, but all of it is training. Nationwide it is very similar as the people who have access to these databases also have access to NCIC (loookitup). NCIC has very strict compliance requirements. Most if not all states I have ever dealt with have structured their access rules to mirror that requirement. Generaly in this training officers are educated on penalties for misuse, neglect, unauthorized access etc..
https://bci.utah.gov/ucjis-user-training/officer-certification-on-ucjis-files/

Here is an example of a violation of NCIC access rules:  https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndal/pr/us-attorney-charges-former-police-dispatcher-unauthorized-use-crime-computers

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.That would require a polygraph to determine whether or not the applicant intends on violating the contract. The remedy for violation of a contract is nearly always a civil law suit, not prison. Sure that happens from time to time, but in the scope of school admissions, tuition etc...Im not seeing prison time for violations being used.

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

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

Taking a report on a broken window at an LDS building is not furthering their religious agenda. It is documenting a crime which has taken place against them. If I was to arrest some priest for ditching church and taking him back to church then I would be guilty of kidnapping. The police cannot access police reports with the express purpose of investigating an honor code violation. It is a non-criminal issue. Now if later on BYU got the report from Provo PD and after reading whatver they release to them, well that is different. The information is released as a part of public record. Cases that BYU investigates themselves probably can be uses to honor code someone...like drinking in the dorm, smoking a cig on campus, having a girl in your dorm etc.. Those probably generate a police report and since the person is on-campus it becomes the schools business. Barney alleged the incident took place off-campus thus the reason Provo PD investigated. Again, none of BYUs biz.

Cops dont get to release active investigations to a church when they have no legal interest in it, much less details of a gyno sex assault exam which would go to help determine whether or not intercourse (forcible or not) had taken place, existence of semen, foreign pubic hair, presence of STDs etc...I think you get the point. That is what the BYU cop gave them and shame on him. If you think that is a justifiable release of info then so be it-That info was none of BYUs business.

Why dont you go find a case of BYU getting someone tossed in prison for pre-marital consensual sex and perhaps we can discuss this non-sense further. Until then, the BYU PD is a govt entity and they have no business being the morality police.

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.

Can we agree that whenever it took place was well before this Barney case? If so, its not an issue

Lastly as for your assertion the BYU PD is private... 

https://www.heraldextra.com/news/local/education/college/byu/judge-rules-byu-police-is-a-government-entity-in-regard/article_4d9b9ab9-49d7-50ad-9656-8b6b80ecaae4.html

 

[paracaidista508]

4 hours ago, Carborendum said:

  On 4/2/2018 at 11:01 AM, 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. 

Here ya go---practically holding hands:

But school documents leaked to The Tribune and police files show a BYU lieutenant reviewed Barney's rape report after an Honor Code investigator requested information on the case, and that he shared with the Honor Code investigator intimate details from the medical records of Barney's sexual-assault exam.

https://www.sltrib.com/news/crime/2016/07/31/salt-lake-tribune-sues-says-byu-police-should-have-to-release-records/

 

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.

Yep, and lack of or inadequate policy wont excuse the behavior legally, will just allow an employee off the hook maybe. If they dont have a policy in place for this stuff, then they have been operating in a legally permissive environment for way too long. 

  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.

 

Edited April 3, 2018 by paracaidista508

[Maureen]

8 minutes ago, person0 said:

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.

Okay, so I have an hypothetical question: If an LDS member decides to always allocate zero dollars for Tithing on their tithing slip and always allocate dollars to Humanitarian Aid, then in a sense they are not paying Tithing. But if the LDS church decides to execute their disclaimer, does the money that was once considered a "donation", now become "tithing"?

"Though reasonable efforts will be made globally to use donations as designated, all donations become the Church's property and will be used at the Church's sole discretion to further the Church's overall mission."

M. 

[Guest]

15 minutes ago, paracaidista508 said:

Here ya go---practically holding hands:

But school documents leaked to The Tribune and police files show a BYU lieutenant reviewed Barney's rape report after an Honor Code investigator requested information on the case, and that he shared with the Honor Code investigator intimate details from the medical records of Barney's sexual-assault exam.

https://www.sltrib.com/news/crime/2016/07/31/salt-lake-tribune-sues-says-byu-police-should-have-to-release-records/

You don't read very well, do you?  Did you even read the article you linked to?

Look, you're apparently going to believe what you want to believe even though the words on the page don't say what you want them to mean.  So, I don't see the point in walking you through it.  But, no, that didn't refute what I had said before.

I can only guess that you're so blinded by what you want to see, that you don't even see what I'm getting at or what the BYU PD actually said and what the Honor Code Office's involvement was.

[person0]

8 minutes ago, Maureen said:

if the LDS church decides to execute their disclaimer, does the money that was once considered a "donation", now become "tithing"?

No.  Tithing is about the intention and heart of the giver.  Intentionally circumventing the Lords prescribed method of paying tithing can not be considered tithing, regardless of how the money is ultimately used.

If a parent intentionally does not give their child food to eat, but then gives the child food that the child is supposed to feed to the family pet.  If the child decides to eat the food that is intended for the pet, does that all of a sudden make the parent not irresponsible and neglectful?

[Vort]

56 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?

Yes.

57 minutes ago, Maureen said:

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

This paragraph describes the normal method of remitting tithing (that is, through the local bishop) and the fact that the bishop then sends that tithing on to Church headquarters at Salt Lake City, where the Church uses those tithing funds as it sees fit. Some of those uses may well include Church initiatives to which you may, if you desire, also donate directly.

Guess I'm not sure where the confusion is.

[Maureen]

6 minutes ago, person0 said:

No.  Tithing is about the intention and heart of the giver.  Intentionally circumventing the Lords prescribed method of paying tithing can not be considered tithing, regardless of how the money is ultimately used.

If a parent intentionally does not give their child food to eat, but then gives the child food that the child is supposed to feed to the family pet.  If the child decides to eat the food that is intended for the pet, does that all of a sudden make the parent not irresponsible and neglectful?

That's a weird analogy, but I get what you mean. So then an LDS member could donate thousands of dollars to the LDS church in their lifetime and if they do not allocate that money as Tithing, then they are not following the covenant of tithing that they agreed to - is that what you're saying?

M.

[Maureen]

5 minutes ago, Vort said:

Yes.

This paragraph describes the normal method of remitting tithing (that is, through the local bishop) and the fact that the bishop then sends that tithing on to Church headquarters at Salt Lake City, where the Church uses those tithing funds as it sees fit. Some of those uses may well include Church initiatives to which you may, if you desire, also donate directly.

Guess I'm not sure where the confusion is.

I'm getting a better idea of how the LDS church and its members understand Tithing, donations and offerings. The replies have been helpful.

M.

[Vort]

35 minutes ago, Maureen said:

Okay, so I have an hypothetical question: If an LDS member decides to always allocate zero dollars for Tithing on their tithing slip and always allocate dollars to Humanitarian Aid, then in a sense they are not paying Tithing. But if the LDS church decides to execute their disclaimer, does the money that was once considered a "donation", now become "tithing"?

"Though reasonable efforts will be made globally to use donations as designated, all donations become the Church's property and will be used at the Church's sole discretion to further the Church's overall mission."

No, of course not. If the person does not pay tithing, he's not a tithe-payer. Other contributions are irrelevant.

[person0]

1 minute ago, Maureen said:

That's a weird analogy, but I get what you mean. So then an LDS member could donate thousands of dollars to the LDS church in their lifetime and if they do not allocate that money as Tithing, then they are not following the covenant of tithing that they agreed to - is that what you're saying?

M.

Correct.  Although, In my opinion, because the Lord knows our hearts, if someone was accidentally and unintentionally allocating their tithing to the wrong fund, I assume the Lord would accept their offering.  However, since we do an annual tithing settlement meeting with the Bishop, they would at the very latest be taught the proper method of allocation within 1 year of beginning to make contributions.

[paracaidista508]

23 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

You don't read very well, do you?  Did you even read the article you linked to?

Look, you're apparently going to believe what you want to believe even though the words on the page don't say what you want them to mean.  So, I don't see the point in walking you through it.  But, no, that didn't refute what I had said before.

I can only guess that you're so blinded by what you want to see, that you don't even see what I'm getting at or what the BYU PD actually said and what the Honor Code Office's involvement was.

Ok- I give up. What am I missing? Just quote it from the article if its so easy to see.

Edited April 3, 2018 by paracaidista508

[zil]

1 hour 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?

They are not considered tithing.  They are offerings (or "donations", if you wish).  Tithing is a separate, distinct thing required of the Lord and accounted for at tithing settlement and in worthiness interviews.  Offerings are handled separately and will not, for example, keep you from getting a temple recommend.

I don't see how that statement is in conflict.  The Church uses the tithes as they deem appropriate.

41 minutes ago, Maureen said:

If an LDS member decides to always allocate zero dollars for Tithing on their tithing slip and always allocate dollars to Humanitarian Aid, then in a sense they are not paying Tithing.

There is no "in a sense" about it - they are definitely not paying tithing.  (IMO, with the exception of new members and children who were not taught by their parent, this is something every member understands - and as mentioned, it would not be long before they were taught, once active / once they joined.)

43 minutes ago, Maureen said:

But if the LDS church decides to execute their disclaimer, does the money that was once considered a "donation", now become "tithing"?

Definitely not.

14 minutes ago, Maureen said:

That's a weird analogy

I agree.

14 minutes ago, Maureen said:

So then an LDS member could donate thousands of dollars to the LDS church in their lifetime and if they do not allocate that money as Tithing, then they are not following the covenant of tithing that they agreed to - is that what you're saying?

Correct. (Just adding confirmations here.)

As someone mentioned, a tithe is not simply an offering, it is ten percent of your interest annually (as the scripture says).  It cannot be done by accident or without math or partially or whatever other adverbs one might apply.  It has to be very deliberate and thoughtful - and that's why we teach it so clearly - so there can be no doubt, since it impacts your ability to get a temple recommend and probably certain callings / ordinations.

[Guest]

The only say we have over tithing is whether we want to pay it or not.  If we don't believe the overall pattern is an acceptable pattern of spending, then we can choose to not pay tithing.

This is no different than any donation to any charity.  If we don't believe they're doing a good job at spending money efficiently for the overall goal of the charity, then we have the option of not donating.  Why should it be any different in that regard?

The difference is that commercial charities (like The American Cancer Society) are beholden to the donors.  They have to do everything they can to satisfy the donors.

With a religious charity, we are beholden to the Lord, not individuals who have whims, passions, misinformation, biases, distrust, etc. that may cloud or magnify things to distort reality.  If we don't believe the Lord is holding them all accountable eventually, then what are we doing in the Church at all?

Dave Ramsey responded to a question about what to do with churches that do things with money that you don't like.

Quote

If you're looking for any charity or organization that does EVERYthing just like you'd approve of, then you're going to be looking for a very long time.  Any organization includes human beings that are imperfect, weak, ignorant, and sometimes evil.  Any organization will be like that.  So, you really can't expect perfection.

What you CAN do is look over it and see if the overall effect is positive.  You can look to see if the bad stuff is either small enough or infrequent enough that you can overlook it for all the good they do.

There's a lot of stuff that I disagree on with my pastor.  But I still give him money because overall, he does more good than bad.  And I just plain like being there.

---paraphrased

 

[lostinwater]

6 hours ago, Carborendum said:

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?

Thanks Carb.  Appreciate that.

i tried to write something, but nothing felt both correct and like it wouldn't create an argument.  Maybe that it was just a few days growth and not a beard.  But honestly, i don't know - i'm not him.  i was just relating an experience/answering a question.

But it's OK - he left BYU and its culture.  He's doing better now.

[Guest MormonGator]

@Carborendum-Dave Ramsey is a wise man. Thanks for the quote, I like his show but I don't listen to it much. 

[Just_A_Guy]

16 hours ago, paracaidista508 said:

Before releasing an initial contact report, a records officer should consider whether the entire report or any of the information contained within it should be restricted. Following are some protected categories to consider.

The report or information within it should be protected if disclosure would:

1) reasonably interfere with an investigation (Utah Code Section 63G-2- 305(10)(a));..............Provo PD thought so and BYU should have respected that. Instead they suspended the student

...

5) reasonably could be expected to disclose investigative techniques, procedures, policies, or orders not generally known outside of government (Utah Code Section 63G-2-(10)(e);

6) jeopardize someone’s life or safety (Utah Code Section 63G-2-305(11));

...

8) reveal a home address or telephone number that was provided in order to comply with a law, ordinance, rule, or order and with the reasonable expectation that it will remain confidential (Utah Code Section 63G-2- 305(51)(a) and (b). Utah Code Section 63G-2-301 – Public records (3) The following records are normally public, but to the extent that a record is expressly exempt from disclosure, access may be restricted under Subsection 63G-2-201(3)(b), Section 63G-2-302, 63G-2-304, or 63G-2-305; ….. .. (g) chronological logs and initial contact reports. 4 Revision April 2017

Reports or information within them should be restricted and classified as private when disclosure would: 1) describe a person’s medical history, diagnosis, condition, treatment, or evaluation (Utah Code Section 63G-2-302(1)(b)), or 2) be a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy (Utah Code Section 63G-2- 301(2)(d).

Yea I can safely say the BYU PD officer violated the act. He shared the physical exam details with the honor police. That is a violation. more on that later.

It is very gratifying to see you finally using the source I provided to you.  Before replying, I think it’s important to reiterate a few points.  First, BYUPD at no time passed the written police report on to BYUHCO; rather, BYUPD verbally provided some salient details (exactly which details, we still don’t know) on to BYUCHO.  Second, barely three days after that conversation happened BYU’s Title IX office received a full copy of the written report from Randolph, which was passed on to BYUHCO.  Third, Utah County Attorney Jeff Buhman stated in April of 2016 that BYU had done nothing illegal; and Randolph’s own Internal Affairs department cleared him of wrongdoing in his actions with the police report.  So, at this point, we’re arguing over the release of information that BYU would undeniably have received lawfully by the end of the week.  And finally, the Utah AG's office has had the results of the DPS investigation into BYUPD's use of police reports since at least July of 2017; and the Utah County Attorney's office has known about BYUPD's use of the Spillman system for about a year and a half before then--and still no charges have been filed. 

Now, with that in mind, let's go through the examples you cite:

1.  Did the details given by BYUPD to BYUHCO interfere with Provo's investigation or prosecution of the rape case?  No.  Provo PD already had Barney's testimony and, apparently, Seidu's confession.  Barney's ability to testify was not contingent on her status as a student at BYU, or even on her residing in the state of Utah.

5.  Did the details given by BYUPD to BYUHCO disclose otherwise-unknown government investigative techniques? No.

6.  Did the details given by BYUPD to BYUHCO jeopardize anyone's life or safety?  No. The details were still kept within the BYUHCO, and no one inside HCO was threatening Barney's life or safety.  The only person who was conceivably a threat to Barney's life or safety was her attacker, Seidu; who already had a copy of the police report at the time Randolph called his tip into BYU.

8.  Did the details given by BYUPD to BYUHCO provide Barney's contact information to BYUHCO?  This isn't clear from the news coverage; and even if it did--you're suggesting that Barney's own university didn't have her address and phone number before getting the police report?  Really?  

[Unnumbered]  Did the details given by BYUPD to BYUHCO describe medical history, diagnosis, condition, treatment, evaluation, or similar medical data?  That's the strongest case you have, and it's not going to get you to "beyond a reasonable doubt" you'd need for a criminal conviction proving "illegal" behavior because of the following weaknesses:

1. Even assuming the July 31, 2016 story you cite is accurate (more on that in a moment) that BYUPD "shared with the Honor Code investigator intimate details from the medical records of Barney's sexual-assault exam"—this could cover anything from “yes, the exam showed there was sex” to “yes, the exam showed there was forcible sex” to a detailed review of anatomy, anatomical irregularities, fluid samples and so on.  The latter types of statements are clearly more problematic than the former
2. The story you cite is based on handwritten notes from the Honor Code Office investigator—notes that the Tribune accessed but is refusing to pass on to the general public for independent judgment; so we have to take their word for it.  And the Tribune’s first analysis of those notes was actually published over a month earlier, on June 15, 2016.  In that story (http://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=3956084&itype=CMSID) there is reference to "intimate details" being passed on to HCO but no suggestion that they were "medical details".  Is the later reference to “intimate details from the medical records” based on the authors having gone back and re-evaluated the notes?  Or is it simply an authorial “mistake” of the sort you and I have both made in this discussion?  And let’s not forget, this is the same Salt Lake Tribune that willfully concealed from its readers, for over a year, the fact that Barney had voluntarily begun sexual relations with Seidu.
3. Context matters here.  The June 15, 2016 article includes the text of an email that the BYUHCO investigator first sent to BYUPD, which states that what they were investigating was the possibility that Barney had made a false report.  BYUPD’s providing BYUHCO with a summary of the police report, and the fact that a rape kit had been run, actually exonerated Barney of the original accusation.  This takes the officer into the "good faith" exception to GRAMA's remedy provision.  It wasn’t BYUPD’s fault that other data in the same report (not the medical data) also confirmed Barney had been dealing falsely with the University; Barney's got no one but herself to blame there.

Also, let's be blunt here:  Even if it were crystal clear that BYUPD did not provide any medical data, however vague or conclusory, to BYUHCO; I don't think you'd be willing to exonerate BYUPD.  You fundamentally hate the fact that Barney's deceit was uncovered using publicly-available information; and the medical business is more a pretext than anything else.  

[Unnumbered] Did the details given by BYUPD to BYUHCO constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy?  Again, depends on the details given; but you seem to think that a person has a right to privacy whilst engaging in theft by deception.  I’m not willing to go that far. 

Quote

Before getting access to these systems and databases, there is manadatory training. Some is on statute, some is procedure, some is admin, but all of it is training. Nationwide it is very similar as the people who have access to these databases also have access to NCIC (loookitup). NCIC has very strict compliance requirements. Most if not all states I have ever dealt with have structured their access rules to mirror that requirement. Generaly in this training officers are educated on penalties for misuse, neglect, unauthorized access etc..
https://bci.utah.gov/ucjis-user-training/officer-certification-on-ucjis-files/

Here is an example of a violation of NCIC access rules:  https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndal/pr/us-attorney-charges-former-police-dispatcher-unauthorized-use-crime-computers

I’m well aware of all this, being somewhat familiar with the Utah UCJIS system myself.  But you’re deploying two verbal sleights-of-hand here: 

1. The word you used was illegal, which constitutes a violation of statute.  You’re now trying to shift the discussion into one of procedure.  If you’re going to tell me that as a matter of procedure a law enforcement agency can’t use database info to prevent the commission of a crime—feel free.  But I’m going to reply that such a procedure, if it exists, is stupid.
2. NCIC is not Spillman; and regardless of the conditions applying to NCIC use, the salient rules here are the ones applying to Spillman. 

By the way, speaking of verbal sleights-of-hand:  Why would you have earlier told me that there was a procedure BYU could have utilized to get the report had they really wanted it; if you really held the position you’re now advancing—to wit, that there’s no way BYU could have received that information through a legally or procedurally appropriate mechanism? 

Quote

That would require a polygraph to determine whether or not the applicant intends on violating the contract. The remedy for violation of a contract is nearly always a civil law suit, not prison. Sure that happens from time to time, but in the scope of school admissions, tuition etc...Im not seeing prison time for violations being used.

If Barney had withdrawn from BYU, or voluntarily reported her indiscretion, immediately after violating the honor code; then sure—the only question would have been whether Barney sincerely intended to keep the honor code at the time she enrolled.   But Barney didn’t withdraw, and she didn’t begin the repentance process.  Rather she continued to pass herself off as honor-code compliant, knowing that that was a condition precedent to her agreement with BYU; and she continued to receive services and an education from the University. 

As a police officer would well know, the immediate issue isn’t whether you see “prison time”—that’s for the judge and the lawyers to work out.  The issue is whether it appears a statute is being violated.

Also, your talk of a polygraph is a red herring since polygraphs aren't generally admissible evidence in court proceedings.

Quote

Taking a report on a broken window at an LDS building is not furthering their religious agenda. . .

Of course it furthers their agenda; it’s identifying the individual from whom they can seek financial restitution and deterring future acts that harm the church’s financial interests.  As you say, though, it's also a crime; and state resources can be used in addressing or preventing crimes (like theft)--even against religious institutions.  

Quote

That info [re Barney] was none of BYUs business.

Barney made it BYU’s business when she a) entered into a contract, b) ceased performing her obligations under the contract, c) concealed the fact that she was no longer performing her obligations under the contract, and d) continued to collect benefits under the contract.  Barney’s behavior was as much BYU’s business as Bernie Madoff’s behavior was the business of his clients. 

Quote

Why dont you go find a case of BYU getting someone tossed in prison for pre-marital consensual sex and perhaps we can discuss this non-sense further.

Because as I said earlier in this thread, “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.” 

Quote

Until then, the BYU PD is a govt entity and they have no business being the morality police.

Not the morality police; the theft police.  Try to keep up here. 

Quote

Can we agree that whenever it took place was well before this Barney case? If so, its not an issue

Sure.  But why did you bring it up at all, then? 

Quote

Lastly as for your assertion the BYU PD is private... 

Yeah, I corrected myself on that twelve hours ago. 

 

Edited April 4, 2018 by Just_A_Guy

[NeuroTypical]

15 hours ago, Maureen said:

So then an LDS member could donate thousands of dollars to the LDS church in their lifetime and if they do not allocate that money as Tithing, then they are not following the covenant of tithing that they agreed to - is that what you're saying?

Yes.  There are many, many ways to donate or contribute to the church that are not tithing.  

I totally get your question on this hypothetical: 

Quote

 

 But if the LDS church decides to execute their disclaimer, does the money that was once considered a "donation", now become "tithing"?

"Though reasonable efforts will be made globally to use donations as designated, all donations become the Church's property and will be used at the Church's sole discretion to further the Church's overall mission."

 

 

The answer is, from the member's perspective, if they're not paying tithing, then they are not paying tithing.  It doesn't matter what the church does with their donations, but if they're donating in ways other than tithing, it's not tithing.  I'm pretty sure any bishop will tell you the same.  The focus is always on tithing first and foremost, fast offerings as a distant second, and anything else is sort of a "thank you for your generous additional donation" thing.   If some member were to fall into your hypothetical, I'm reasonably certain the bishop would counsel with them to find out why they're not paying tithing, and to urge them to pay their tithing first.   Tithing blesses the tithe payer as well as the church, and is a commandment.  The other donations just bless the church and recipients of the funds.   Help others all you want, but if you're not following one of the Lord's commandments, then you're not following one of the Lord's commandments, and you can expect bishops to want to counsel you to follow the Lord's commandments, even if you're helping others in wonderful ways. 

In this hypothetical, if a member says something like "oh sorry, I didn't realize", then both bishop and member would probably walk over to the clerk's office, and they'd ask bro. Neuro the finance clerk to go into the records and change where the money was categorized.  I'd probably have to call someone at the finance tech support line, but I could probably do that.   If I couldn't, I would guess the bishop would say 'ok, that's not a problem, come next tithing settlement or temple recommend interview, remind me what happened here, and I'm happy to indicate you are a full tithe payer.'

Edited April 4, 2018 by NeuroTypical

[paracaidista508]

20 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

It is very gratifying to see you finally using the source I provided to you.  Before replying, I think it’s important to reiterate a few points.  First, BYUPD at no time passed the written police report on to BYUHCO; rather, BYUPD verbally provided some salient details (exactly which details, we still don’t know) on to BYUCHO.  Second, barely three days after that conversation happened BYU’s Title IX office received a full copy of the written report from Randolph, which was passed on to BYUHCO.  Third, Utah County Attorney Jeff Buhman stated in April of 2016 that BYU had done nothing illegal; and Randolph’s own Internal Affairs department cleared him of wrongdoing in his actions with the police report.  So, at this point, we’re arguing over the release of information that BYU would undeniably have received lawfully by the end of the week.  And finally, the Utah AG's office has had the results of the DPS investigation into BYUPD's use of police reports since at least July of 2017; and the Utah County Attorney's office has known about BYUPD's use of the Spillman system for about a year and a half before then--and still no charges have been filed. 

Agreed, they stated BYUs involvement did not interfere with the prosecution of the rape case. That still does not justify illegal access of the report. Just because one ended up getting the report later on in a legal means apparently, does not justify the illegal access and verbalized dissemination of information at an earlier time. It doesn't work that way. You don't get to go search a persons house for weed while they are at work, find some, go get a warrant and then come back to get it and arrest them. You have to have legal cause for the search in the first place . BYU had no cause other than an honor code issue which they admit is the reason they accessed the report.

Additionally, you seem to think that just verbally passing on info is ok, it is not. 

'We will not stand' for abuses • Policies governing how Utah County agencies can share and access records stress that the information in the database is sensitive and is intended to be viewed only by those whose job is directly connected to law enforcement.

A police agency can only share its own records with its mayor, city manager or government heads — but data from other agencies can not be released without approval, according to a redacted version of the shared system policy released to The Tribune.

While the policy prohibits users from sharing information from another agency's case or investigation — "including verbalizations of content, digital copying or printing material" — it does not state what consequences an agency or user could face for breaking the rules.

http://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=4451529&itype=CMSID

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now, with that in mind, let's go through the examples you cite:

1.  Did the details given by BYUPD to BYUHCO interfere with Provo's investigation or prosecution of the rape case?  No.  Provo PD already had Barney's testimony and, apparently, Seidu's confession.  Barney's ability to testify was not contingent on her status as a student at BYU, or even on her residing in the state of Utah. OK

5.  Did the details given by BYUPD to BYUHCO disclose otherwise-unknown government investigative techniques? No. How do you know?

6.  Did the details given by BYUPD to BYUHCO jeopardize anyone's life or safety?  No. The details were still kept within the BYUHCO, and no one inside HCO was threatening Barney's life or safety.  The only person who was conceivably a threat to Barney's life or safety was her attacker, Seidu; who already had a copy of the police report at the time Randolph called his tip into BYU. OK...what if she was staying at another location and was fearing for her safety?? Its entirely possible esp in the case where a suspect knows where she lives.

8.  Did the details given by BYUPD to BYUHCO provide Barney's contact information to BYUHCO?  This isn't clear from the news coverage; and even if it did--you're suggesting that Barney's own university didn't have her address and phone number before getting the police report?  Really?  OK- agreed they probably had her address....what if she was staying at another location and was fearing for her safety?? Its entirely possible esp in the case where a suspect knows where she lives. 

[Unnumbered]  Did the details given by BYUPD to BYUHCO describe medical history, diagnosis, condition, treatment, evaluation, or similar medical data?  That's the strongest case you have, and it's not going to get you to "beyond a reasonable doubt" you'd need for a criminal conviction proving "illegal" behavior because of the following weaknesses:

1. Even assuming the July 31, 2016 story you cite is accurate (more on that in a moment) that BYUPD "shared with the Honor Code investigator intimate details from the medical records of Barney's sexual-assault exam"—this could cover anything from “yes, the exam showed there was sex” to “yes, the exam showed there was forcible sex” to a detailed review of anatomy, anatomical irregularities, fluid samples and so on.  The latter types of statements are clearly more problematic than the former Agreed and that disclosure still violates the statute.
2. The story you cite is based on handwritten notes from the Honor Code Office investigator—notes that the Tribune accessed but is refusing to pass on to the general public for independent judgment; so we have to take their word for it.  And the Tribune’s first analysis of those notes was actually published over a month earlier, on June 15, 2016.  In that story (http://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=3956084&itype=CMSID) there is reference to "intimate details" being passed on to HCO but no suggestion that they were "medical details".  Here ya go : But school documents leaked to The Tribune and police files show a BYU lieutenant reviewed Barney's rape report after an Honor Code investigator requested information on the case, and that he shared with the Honor Code investigator intimate details from the medical records of Barney's sexual-assault exam.  http://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=4105633&itype=CMSID    Is the later reference to “intimate details from the medical records” based on the authors having gone back and re-evaluated the notes?  Or is it simply an authorial “mistake” of the sort you and I have both made in this discussion?  And let’s not forget, this is the same Salt Lake Tribune that willfully concealed from its readers, for over a year, the fact that Barney had voluntarily begun sexual relations with Seidu.
3. Context matters here.  The June 15, 2016 article includes the text of an email that the BYUHCO investigator first sent to BYUPD, which states that what they were investigating was the possibility that Barney had made a false report.  BYUPD’s providing BYUHCO with a summary of the police report, and the fact that a rape kit had been run, actually exonerated Barney of the original accusation.  This takes the officer into the "good faith" exception to GRAMA's remedy provision.  It wasn’t BYUPD’s fault that other data in the same report (not the medical data) also confirmed Barney had been dealing falsely with the University; Barney's got no one but herself to blame there. That said, don't you think if BYU believed BArney might be lying to Provo PD, they should have let Provo PD investigate that??? They never even told Provo PD about this.

Also, let's be blunt here:  Even if it were crystal clear that BYUPD did not provide any medical data, however vague or conclusory, to BYUHCO; I don't think you'd be willing to exonerate BYUPD.  I absolutely would not exonerate them. They accessed the record, shared the info and kicked her out of the school for it. While the Honor code violatation is legit, they illegally accessed a police report and used it to kick someone out of school. If they would have waited 72 hrs for the report to come marching in , there would not be any problem today. The problem is their access and how they abused it. This is only one case. If they were so nonchalant about communicating their legal violation by email one has to wonder what the heck they are doing over there. Apparently Provo PD, Salt Lake CTY SO and the State all agree with me thus the big investigation into their access history which is quite extensive for a virtually crime free campus I might add..You fundamentally hate the fact that Barney's deceit was uncovered using publicly-available information; and the medical business is more a pretext than anything else.  I don't hate the fact it was uncovered. I hate the fact the Police department at BYU feels it can violate the law all in the name of kicking someone out of school. They were so brazen about it, one must wonder what else they are up to. 

[Unnumbered] Did the details given by BYUPD to BYUHCO constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy?  Again, depends on the details given; but you seem to think that a person has a right to privacy whilst engaging in theft by deception.  I’m not willing to go that far. Im not alleging invasion of privacy, Im alleging illegal access of a report. Theft by deception??? That is a far stretch. Like I said before. If BYU wants to go that route they should have been doing it all along. Even BYU isn't sayin g that is what it was. You are just pulling excuses for them out of your butt.

I’m well aware of all this, being somewhat familiar with the Utah UCJIS system myself.  But you’re deploying two verbal sleights-of-hand here: 

1. The word you used was illegal, which constitutes a violation of statute.  You’re now trying to shift the discussion into one of procedure.  If you’re going to tell me that as a matter of procedure a law enforcement agency can’t use database info to prevent the commission of a crime—feel free.  But I’m going to reply that such a procedure, if it exists, is stupid. Yea policy and procedure. Typically organizations use those to keep its employees from violating the law...at least in LE circles. You follow policy and it ends up being a legal problem, the organization generally has to take the hit. You violate a policy that clearly outlines a procedure designed to keep you from breaking the law, then you get shot at dawn.
   
   As for your assertion this whole thing was because BYU was preventing fraud.They already stated they made the inquiry for honor code- not fraud. You don't get to go back later and change your intent when the intent was sent via e-mail. Also- if this was even the case, BYU would have done a fraud investigation and charged her. This did not happen and they don't do it. They don't get to start with this case all of a sudden. 
2. NCIC is not Spillman; and regardless of the conditions applying to NCIC use, the salient rules here are the ones applying to Spillman.  Yep I said that and the access rules I have seen and published here ae nearly the same...Need a legal purpose to access the report. Honor code is not a legal reason.

By the way, speaking of verbal sleights-of-hand:  Why would you have earlier told me that there was a procedure BYU could have utilized to get the report had they really wanted it; if you really held the position you’re now advancing—to wit, that there’s no way BYU could have received that information through a legally or procedurally appropriate mechanism?  Sleight of hand??? They can ask Provo PD for the report. If PPD gives it to them, well then the legality of the sharing of info isn't a problem for BYU at that point. 

If Barney had withdrawn from BYU, or voluntarily reported her indiscretion, immediately after violating the honor code; then sure—the only question would have been whether Barney sincerely intended to keep the honor code at the time she enrolled.   But Barney didn’t withdraw, and she didn’t begin the repentance process.  Rather she continued to pass herself off as honor-code compliant, knowing that that was a condition precedent to her agreement with BYU; and she continued to receive services and an education from the University.  Yea this is what we need....the police arresting students for fraud if they don't confess and start the repentence process...lol do you hear yourself??? What do you want a religion enforcement agency??? You need to move to Afghanistan, they would love you there. Funny how my Pioneer ancestors left not only England and New England for freedom from religious persecution and now all these years later we have LDS people supporting using the Police to enforce the Word of Wisdom and Chastity law.

As a police officer would well know, the immediate issue isn’t whether you see “prison time”—that’s for the judge and the lawyers to work out.  The issue is whether it appears a statute is being violated. I agree...what is your point?

Also, your talk of a polygraph is a red herring since polygraphs aren't generally admissible evidence in court proceedings. That was referring to your claim that someone applying for BYU and agreeing to the Honor Code without intent to follow it should be investigated for fraud....If you wan to do that, you would have to hook them up to a polygraph while they sign their paperwork if you want to find out if they truly intend on doing that.

Of course it furthers their agenda; it’s identifying the individual from whom they can seek financial restitution and deterring future acts that harm the church’s financial interests.  As you say, though, it's also a crime; and state resources can be used in addressing or preventing crimes (like theft)--even against religious institutions.  

Barney made it BYU’s business when she a) entered into a contract, b) ceased performing her obligations under the contract, c) concealed the fact that she was no longer performing her obligations under the contract, and d) continued to collect benefits under the contract.  Barney’s behavior was as much BYU’s business as Bernie Madoff’s behavior was the business of his clients. I agree it is BYUs business...they still need to obey the law. This ultimately will cost BYU more than they have saved by honor coding someone.  

Because as I said earlier in this thread, “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.” 
Yea- well if that is what they want to do, then perhaps they should start. If the last...well forever in the history of BYU is any indicator, the fraud aspect doesn't seem to be of the least concern. It is a concern of image of the church and that is just fine. Problem is no one respects image when it is a result of using a police force to enforce morality. 

 

ON EDIT: Here is the latest annual security report. https://police.byu.edu/sites/police.byu.edu/files/provo-cr2017.pdf

ZERO cases of theft or fraud for three years, yet all these people kicked out for honor code...Thieves, liars and fraudsters...but no one charged. BYU and the PD don't care. It is 100% image and maintenance of honor code. That's ok, just do it legally.

 

 

Edited April 5, 2018 by paracaidista508

[paracaidista508]

Noble cause corruption

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Jump to: navigation, search

Noble cause corruption is corruption caused by the adherence to a teleological ethical system, suggesting that people will use unethical or illegal means to attain desirable goals,^[1] a result which appears to benefit the greater good. Where traditional corruption is defined by personal gain,^[2]noble cause corruptions forms when someone is convinced of their righteousness, and will do anything within their powers to achieve the desired result. An example of noble cause corruption is police misconduct "committed in the name of good ends"^[3] or neglect of due process through “a moral commitment to make the world a safer place to live."^[4]

Conditions for such corruption usually occur where individuals feel no administrative accountability, lack morale and leadership, and lose faith in the criminal justice system.^[5] These conditions can be compounded by arrogance and weak supervision.

 

I don't have a problem with BYU having an honor code. Lots of organizations have similar features for a variety of reasons. The problem arises when they use a police force to enforce it in cases where there is no violation of the law. Defenders of that practice never have a problem with  it until they become victim of police misconduct. Police officers as a whole hate misconduct because it is generally only a few who engage in it and when discovered well the community treats all of us as if we are the ones who did it. This treatment lasts for years. An agency here in the Phoenix area had a sex scandal almost 30 years ago involving probably a dozen people- some were lds. To this day, their cops are getting an earful about it from people who were not even alive when it happened.  Oddly enough, Im finding out BYU PD and their former security force (pre police days) had a reputation for wearing wires, staking out various locations, following students off campus etc... in order to honor code them. I have never hear these stories, but after reading commentary on some of these news articles im finding it is well known in Utah. One article I found the police chief essentially admitted to placing a fake ad in order to entrap a gay kid. ...ha wow that's some police work right there.

Every agency has a story and for the 99% who had nothing to do with it- well it is a nightmare because we are the ones who take the heat for it. Same will happen to BYU. Additionally, the Police Agencies surrounding BYU will probably stop cooperating with them except for very clearly criminal matters.

Edited April 5, 2018 by paracaidista508

[clwnuke]

Just so everyone knows I wasn't mistaken, now that the lawsuit is public knowledge and the woman's name is public please note that I knew her as Sister June Hughes at the MTC. She is now using the name McKenna Denson. 

You can search these names on the internet and find:

June Denson is 55 years old and was born on 07/18/1962. Sometimes June goes by various nicknames including June M Hughes, Mckenna Denson, June Marie Denson, June M Hughes-denson, June M Denson,. 

 

[omegaseamaster75]

1 hour ago, clwnuke said:

Just so everyone knows I wasn't mistaken, now that the lawsuit is public knowledge and the woman's name is public please note that I knew her as Sister June Hughes at the MTC. She is now using the name McKenna Denson. 

You can search these names on the internet and find:

June Denson is 55 years old and was born on 07/18/1962. Sometimes June goes by various nicknames including June M Hughes, Mckenna Denson, June Marie Denson, June M Hughes-denson, June M Denson,. 

 

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4431649/Denson-v-Bishop-LDS-Church.pdf

If true this is not good for those who had stewardship over Bishop.

Edited April 5, 2018 by omegaseamaster75

[NeuroTypical]

Well, anyone with actual legal training can chime in, but an opening complaint like this is where you'd find every conceivable complaint and claim possible, where the complainant complains about everything from the actual events to the weather, and asks the court for relief.  Not sure if I'm right or not, but this list gets smaller from here, as things are thrown out for being unsupported, frivolous, inadequate, or a billion other legal words I don't know.  

So just because it shows up on a complaint, doesn't mean it's all true.  Some of it might be laughably false.

I think.  I'm not a lawyer, and only have limited experience.

[Grunt]

2 hours ago, clwnuke said:

Just so everyone knows I wasn't mistaken, now that the lawsuit is public knowledge and the woman's name is public please note that I knew her as Sister June Hughes at the MTC. She is now using the name McKenna Denson. 

You can search these names on the internet and find:

June Denson is 55 years old and was born on 07/18/1962. Sometimes June goes by various nicknames including June M Hughes, Mckenna Denson, June Marie Denson, June M Hughes-denson, June M Denson,. 

 

You know who else goes by "nicknames"?   Con artists and criminals.

[JohnsonJones]

2 hours ago, Grunt said:

You know who else goes by "nicknames"?   Con artists and criminals.

Not necessarily.  JohnsonJones is actually NOT my full real name (and may in fact be a combination of mine and an ancestor's name).  Of course, on a legal document I would use my full real name, but going by a nickname doesn't necessarily make one a Con artist or criminal.  I believe there have been some LDS prophets that went by nick names (most recently would be Thomas S. Monson who even referred to his nickname at times with Tommie or Tom) as well as some US presidents (though some might say those are all crooked) such as Teddy Roosevelt as one of the more famous of those (even had a stuffed animal named after him...the Teddy Bear).

I don't think a nick name is necessarily indicative of anything regarding the person (unless it's something with them being a gangster and the nickname being something like Slick Al, Big Boss Capone...or something like that).

Edited April 5, 2018 by JohnsonJones

[Grunt]

9 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

Not necessarily.  JohnsonJones is actually NOT my full real name (and may in fact be a combination of mine and an ancestor's name).  Of course, on a legal document I would use my full real name, but going by a nickname doesn't necessarily make one a Con artist or criminal.  I believe there have been some LDS prophets that went by nick names (most recently would be Thomas S. Monson who even referred to his nickname at times with Tommie or Tom) as well as some US presidents (though some might say those are all crooked) such as Teddy Roosevelt as one of the more famous of those (even had a stuffed animal named after him...the Teddy Bear).

I don't think a nick name is necessarily indicative of anything regarding the person (unless it's something with them being a gangster and the nickname being something like Slick Al, Big Boss Capone...or something like that).

Sure.  Only in the indicated circumstance "nicknames" are really made up "aliases".  Which is why I included quotes.

Edited April 5, 2018 by Grunt