The Rosebud MEGATHREAD

[Canadiandude2]

You're exposing yourselves.

I am sorry for what you experienced.

I would respectfully ask whether Midnight Mormons actually practice really caring about people?

Is Midnight Mormons actually advocating for an institution that in turn respects, and advocates for marriage equality, gender equality, institutional transparency & accountability, and more?

~

It is perfectly appropriate to appraise critically people that have either harmed you or are believed to have harmed you; speak your truth on a public venue; continue to use the judicial system to seek redress and more.

I’m still learning your story. I have read both yours and others accounts, there’s much that I’m uncertain about but I would ask you this:

Why does RFM’s harms to you make Midnight Mormons ‘win’ the debate?

I can see from one standpoint an argument for their both losing, or (according to yourself) both being unworthy of any pedestal.

Midnight Mormons and other orthodox (and/or especially alt-right) Latter-Day-Saint groups have been continuously targeting marginalized actors critical of the church. Marginalized actors that would include people such as yourself and myself.

What makes their harm better?

What makes their position regarding women’s rights (current and historical) consistent in their championing your own specific case?

~

I’m not so certain that they would actually care about your case were it not associated with a perceived enemy, or threat to the church.

If I’m totally wrong here please correct me, but I just don’t understand the consistency in your argument here.

~

Continue sharing your truth.

Use your own personal accounts and what evidence is to be brought to bear to bear.

But please,

Please do not to imply that the Midnight Mormons have marginalized interests at heart.

I just realized…

I’ve been waiting 2 years for you to answer this.

I’ve dedicated more than a few hours trying to make head or tails of who’s right; who’s wrong; in what ways; and upon what grounds. I read your posts; fought your fights in these forums; I acknowledge that you don’t have to be ‘perfect’ to be deserving of of whatever ‘right looks like’, but I’ve my own battles up here that are a lot less ambiguous and a lot more proximate for the people I care most about, and who I have the ability to help.

You refuse to hold yourself accountable for the less ambiguous harms you have actually done, and you don’t care about the effect that this kind of behaviour has on the randos of the internet who are trying to care despite your relative lack of care in return.

I hope you find peace. But that’s the last I’m gonna say on the matter.

[jpatterson]

Questions:

1) Were the video recordings of the Aug 25th meeting between John and Jenn presented as evidence to the court? If not, why not?

2) What is this all about?

"John Dehlin brought up concerns about Jenn Kamp's poor job performance and Jenn Kamp's use of private information that she had access to in order to support a salary increase for herself."

I know from personal experience and from the Rosebud incident that John does not like it when people who work for him start to ask for more money, or act in any way like their compensation should be increased. You have to justify every penny of your compensation with this dude. Total paranoia about foundation money going into anyone's pocket but his own.

3) WTF is up with this?

"on February 14 2023 approximately four people at Jenn Kamp's place of employment received an email that contained a video of the August 30th board meeting and a copy of the complaint in John Dehlin's lawsuit."

Why does the court not mention who sent the email? If John or the Open Stories Foundation Board didn't send it, who else would have had access to it? Something doesn't smell right here. I have a realllly good guess as to what happened here and it rhymes with SchradioFreeSchmormon.

Really odd that the court didn't require more scrutiny into these points, but maybe I'm missing something.

Seems like it all hinges on taking John's Open Stories Foundation Board's word for it, when they're not exactly a disinterested party and we know John has a documented history of Open Stories Foundation board manipulation.

[Marcus]

...It’s no fault of John Dehlin that Rosebud and Jenn Kamp were broken by previous abuse before they even met John.

Sigh. Nor is your gossip relevant or appropriate.

[drumdude]

...It’s no fault of John Dehlin that Rosebud and Jenn Kamp were broken by previous abuse before they even met John.

Sigh. Nor is your gossip relevant or appropriate.

No gossip here. They have both explained publicly that they suffered abuse, provided many details about those prior abusers, and they have both unjustly mapped that abuse on to John Dehlin. They want to convince us that it's the "pattern of men like John Dehlin" when time after time their claims about Dehlin are demonstrably false.

It does incredible damage to bring false claims like this. It weakens the legitimate claims of those who aren't projecting their past experiences unjustly on to the men who have the misfortune to come across them. John did nothing to abuse them. John did nothing to act like their past abusers. They need to stop claiming he did.

[Marcus]

Sigh. Nor is your gossip relevant or appropriate.

...They have both explained publicly that they suffered abuse, provided many details about those prior abusers...

Ok. This could be factual, i don't know.

...and they have both unjustly mapped that abuse on to John Dehlin....

In your opinion.

...John did nothing...

hard disagree.

[drumdude]

...They have both explained publicly that they suffered abuse, provided many details about those prior abusers...

Ok. This could be factual, i don't know.

...and they have both unjustly mapped that abuse on to John Dehlin....

In your opinion.

...John did nothing...

hard disagree.

This is why I post direct evidence, so anyone who is interested in engaging with it can at least reference it in their argument against John Dehlin.

I think our main disagreement is if firing someone after you ended a relationship with them is sexual abuse. That's a matter of different moral opinion, but not of different objective legal opinion. There was no quid pro quo at any time; which is a necessary, and in this case, missing component for a viable legal sexual harassment claim related to firing an employee.

I still think John Dehlin is a scumbag. But being a scumbag isn't illegal. I would like people to call him out for what he actually did, not what Rosebud and Jenn Kamp accuse him of doing when all the evidence points to the contrary.

[Marcus]

Ok. This could be factual, i don't know.

In your opinion.

hard disagree.

This is why I post direct evidence, so anyone who is interested in engaging with it can at least reference it in their argument against John Dehlin.

You haven't posted evidence for this key point of your comment:

...and they have both unjustly mapped that abuse on to John Dehlin....

That's an opinion. If you have evidence this happened, please provide it.

I think our main disagreement is if firing someone after you ended a relationship with them is sexual abuse. That's a matter of different moral opinion, but not of different objective legal opinion. There was no quid pro quo at any time; which is a necessary, and in this case, missing component for a viable legal sexual harassment claim related to firing an employee.

Sexual harassment is the term, and no, i don't consider avoiding sexual harassment charges through technicalities to mean sexual harassment didn't occur.

I still think John Dehlin is a scumbag. But being a scumbag isn't illegal. I would like people to call him out for what he actually did, not what Rosebud and Jenn Kamp accuse him of doing when all the evidence points to the contrary.

i don't know the Jenn Kamp case, but in my opinion there is sufficient evidence in Rosebud's case to conclude sexual harassment.

[jpatterson]

I would like people to call him out for what he actually did, not what Rosebud and Jenn Kamp accuse him of doing when all the evidence points to the contrary.

I'm curious.

What evidence have you that points the contrary re: Rosebud's accusations that he entered her room against her will at early MSP conferences and, during those encounters, forced himself on her without her consent? What evidence do you have to the contrary re: Rosebud's allegation that John secretly recorded her via Skype while she was masturbating?

What evidence do you have to the contrary that John began talking explicitly about sex, and soliciting Rosebud to talk about her sex life, and talked about his own wife's sex life, without consent, from a volunteer of the non-profit he was running at the time? Before they ever entered into any consensual relationship. Because there are text messages which clearly show John being the one to slowly initiate more and more explicit conversations with a subordinate, which is clearly sexual harassment, regardless of how many technicalities you want to hide behind.

I would love to see whatever evidence you're talking about, but I'm pretty sure all you're talking about is circumstantial, not exculpatory.

If you're not aware of the difference, circumstantial evidence is where you bring up evidence that is not directly related to an accusation. For example, you want to say that there are text messages showing Rosebud "soliciting" John for sex via text, months after the above accusations took place. That is circumstantial, not exculpatory, as they are an attempt to paint the accuser as unhinged or hypocritical. Which is a common legal tactic. But they have nothing to do with the actual accusations I cited above, so they are not exculpatory as you seem to be claiming.

You also have a habit of cherry picking your circumstantial evidence (ie ignoring any evidence that contradicts your claims) such as the fact that said text messages were presented outside of their full context. Why is this important? Because Rosebud stated several times in her forensic interview that she had figured out the best way to get John to back off (and make him impotent, physically) was to be the aggressor with him. She stated several times that John only really got turned on by having to pursue her so hard in a sneaky way, so if there were ever occasions where she showed any sort of sexual assertiveness toward her, he would back down (this is very very common in sexually abusive relationships if you were to bother to read any literature or research). So, one could reasonably assume that, in those text messages, Rosebud was actually trying to get John to go away -- there is evidence showing that Rosebud attempted this several times in their relationship, and John refused to leave her alone, putting her in a position to believe that the only way to get him to back off was to be aggressive sexually with him.

And, guess what, that worked. As soon as she did that, he decided to be done with her. Oh but not before pulling out all the stops to get her to leave, and when that didn't work, he got her fired.

What specific evidence, drumdude, do you have that "points to the contrary" about the above? Be as specific as possible.

[drumdude]

The burden of proof is not on Dehlin or me.

The fact Rosebud took down the primary evidence days after posting it speaks volumes. Anyone is welcome to read through their relationship with full context.

You've claimed for years now with rosebud that there is more, but until you post it this is the record that stands:

www.mormonrosebud.wikidot.com

You and Rosebud have never acted in good faith so it means little when you demand it of others.

[jpatterson]

The burden of proof is not on Dehlin or me.

Oh, I'm sorry. You said above that it was very clear that the evidence refutes Rosebud's accusations. So now you're retracting that statement?