NOM

Hi, everybody!

Sorry I have been so busy with my self-imposed burden of putting up a new podcast at Radio Free Mormon every weekday that I haven't had a lot of time to look at what is happening here at the old homestead.

I did have a wonderful day at a hearing with BYUPD in front of the Utah State Records Committee last Thursday!

I recorded the hearing and posted it at the RFM website.

https://radiofreemormon.org/2020/05/rad ... e-hearing/

I won't ruin the anticipation by telling you what happened.

;^)

I hope all of you are healthy and doing well!

Mwah!

RFM

I have listened to both your pre-hearing episode and the hearing itself. And I had some questions.

In your pre-hearing episode, you gave a lot of detail on why you felt that BYU-PD's argument that the e-mails were protected under both attorney-client and the ongoing litigation clause of GRAMA were not valid interpretations of the applicable laws.

However, in the actual hearing, you send your 20 minutes for argument going over the reasons that BYU-PD was hiding something. As the BYU attorney said in his arguments, something that has already basically been ruled on by the State Records committee. Your closing arguments did seem to hit home with the analogy of Walmart telling the SLC-PD what to do.

So what was your reason for taking this approach? Why did not you address your arguments that Attorney-client privileged was not applicable in this situation? To me at least, it seemed like a wasted opportunity to directly address the arguments from BYU-PD.

I'm averting my eyes from this thread until I have listened, but I have to give you a virtual pat on the back for the Herculean you've been making, Consiglieri.

Very interesting recording, Consiglieri!

It was obvious that the lawyer representing BYU was very uncomfortable with the motion for en camera review of the correspondence. You could hear his discomfort when he began stuttering and repeating himself.

This is a very interesting situation. Some guy who has no dog in the fight, other than a desire for transparency, versus an organization who is obviously trying to take advantage of the law to conceal information regarding sexual predation on behalf of a religious organization.

Do you think the church has any influence simply because this is happening in Utah and some of the people making decisions might be swayed, however unintentionally, by their affiliation with the church? Do you think anyone listening in was equating you to Korihor?

Wonder if BYU will comply? I suspect they will appeal to a level where strange handshakes and religious gang signs are flashed during the ritual proceedings.

BTW, kudos to RFM for being the sharpest cookie in the virtual room.

To me, it seemed wise for RFM to concentrate his time on showing that decisions about what to redact probably had improper input from someone. Then the attorney for BYU made the attorney-client privilege argument for him. RFM was able to rebut in the end.

This is going to wind through the courts for as long as BYU can make it or until they win.

moksha wrote: ↑Thu May 21, 2020 3:02 am I suspect they will appeal to a level where strange handshakes and religious gang signs are flashed during the ritual proceedings.

blazerb wrote: ↑Thu May 21, 2020 5:30 am This is going to wind through the courts for as long as BYU can make it or until they win.

Goto Theodemocracy thread

It seems like BYUPD is still arguing that BYUPD is not a public entity. Is not BYUPD a public entity? I thought that was rules a while back.

2bizE wrote: ↑Fri May 22, 2020 12:10 pm It seems like BYUPD is still arguing that BYUPD is not a public entity. Is not BYUPD a public entity? I thought that was rules a while back.

They are now a public entity because a law was passed. I don't think the courts have ruled on whether BYUPD was a public entity at the time all the McKenna Denson stuff was going on. They still want to be a public entity when it gives them privileges and not a public entity when it costs them. I think it's an interesting question whether lawyers for BYU and administrators for BYU are protected by attorney-client privilege for the BYUPD.

I am not a lawyer, but this episode led me to do some research. All I know now is that attorney-client privilege is a messy subject. I guess that's worth an hour of reading.

It looks like BYUPD is back in the news. The case could go to trial...

https://www.ksl.com/article/50038074/by ... ion-appeal

2bizE wrote: ↑Mon Oct 26, 2020 9:49 pm It looks like BYUPD is back in the news. The case could go to trial...

https://www.ksl.com/article/50038074/by ... ion-appeal

I am wondering if the judge buys BYU's argument that it was acting in concert with the revolutions of Kolob. It might depend on the judge being receptive to the religious gang signs and the concluding sentence, "Is there no help for the widow's son?"

I wish Consiglieri was leading the State's case.

SALT LAKE CITY — The Brigham Young University Police Department didn't do "what any professional police department does," attorney Michael Hansen with the Utah Attorney General's Office argued Monday.

"What we have is a police department that doesn't act like a police department," he said.

What do you expect when it’s all owned and operated by a church that doesn’t act like a church, but rather a corporation?

I think it was Jesus who said, "If you don't behave like a dick you won't need to defend your dickish behavior." Or maybe it was Buddha.

It's sort of like the way you don't need apologists when your claims accord with the truth.

2bizE wrote: ↑Mon Oct 26, 2020 9:49 pm It looks like BYUPD is back in the news. The case could go to trial...

https://www.ksl.com/article/50038074/by ... ion-appeal

It is interesting that despite the article being on a church owned media outlet, the comments are overwhelmingly negative to BYUPD, agreeing with the motion to decertify BYUPD. KSL moderation asleep at the wheel?

I wonder with the nation wide movement to hold police to a tighter standard is affecting public perception of this case.