The Rosebud MEGATHREAD

[MsJack]

Complaints to the state bar about an attorney have become commonplace compared to the frequency in past decades. In my legal practice, I sometimes defend other attorneys against whom clients (or even opposing parties) have filed complaints. They almost always are flailing allegations with no evidence to back them up, or simply complain about things that do not implicate the attorney's license and good standing with the state bar. Such complaints are more often than not a last ditch effort to smear or damage the targeted attorney. Due to lack of evidence, or the conduct complained of not being a violation of any ethics rules, the state bar dismisses them. The attorney however gets jacked up premiums when his/her malpractice coverage comes up for renewal. So in the end, it is usually just an act of vandalism against the attorney who has to pay more for coverage despite the complaint having no merit.

I guess I should have specified competent, non-nuisance complaints. I imagined most of them are junk.

[Marcus]

Rosebud—[deleted]—you knock it off. I’ve known John personally for over 15 years. I attended those early Salt lake events you helped coordinate and I watched you, dewy-eyed, follow John like a puppy. I’m sick and tired of you being unable to own up to your part of this relationship. I remember watching you and thinking “Oh, my, that gal is trouble; she’s head over heels in love with John.” I grant you you were not the only one fawning over John. I’m over 70 so I was never in that camp; John could be my son.

John messed up with you and has admitted it. His marriage was teetering as was his life at the time. He was vulnerable. He saw what he was doing. He and Margi repaired it with a lot of hard work.

There is nothing about your opinion of how Rosebud or Dehlin looked or acted that is relevant to the concern discussed many times here, as to whether the accusations of sexual harassment within the foundation were handled appropriately.

Additionally, it's quite clear that you are excusing Delhin and excoriating Rosebud, over similar actions that are irrelevant to the actual issues. Please leave those aside, but if you can't, please don't be surprised when others express disagreement.

You and Jenn are made of the same stuff and it’s not good stuff. Jenn is nothing but sour grapes and so are you. She’s got nothing. There’s a reason her podcast is named “Our Truth Be Told” she had no clue about objective truth.

Thanks for your opinion. in my opinion, Delhin sexually harassed an employee and got away with it. He pretends now it didn't happen, and he and the board have never, in my opinion, adequately taken responsibility. It's a despicable way to act, and it created a history that will never go away.

There doesn't seem to be any way to correct the situation now, other than to explain, every time a post like yours is made, the actual situation.

[consiglieri]

You go from your “opinion” to” the actual situation” pretty quickly, don’t you, Marcus?

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Does Jenn Kamp mention Open Stories Foundation did investigate her complaint, found it not made in good faith, and then tried to contact her by phone on three separate occasions to discuss it with her (phone calls she refused to return) before Open Stories Foundation sent her the email letting her go?

Who was your source for this?

- Doc

Please answer the above quote.

Also, was John Dehlin or Open Stories Foundation or anyone affiliated with Open Stories Foundation your client at any time, or hire you in any capacity to work in their interest?

- Doc

I think it's interest Consig won't answer either question.

[Kishkumen]

I've seen some regular Mormons do it to prog Mormon bloggers as well, though perhaps they were Mopologist-influenced.

I was also always surprised by the number of Mormons who tried to tell my first husband about my online activities (like Karina Graham trying to contact my husband when I wouldn't take down the blog bio of Kevin that he willingly participated in). "I'll screw with your real life if I don't get my way" just struck me as a Mormon thing over the years.

I can agree that tattling is definitely a Mormon thing, but I am not sure “I’ll destroy you unless you give in to my demands” necessarily is.

[Canadiandude2]

I can't facepalm hard enough.

• Yes, attorneys can "fire" their civil clients. This is well-known vernacular among attorneys for when the attorney terminates the attorney-client relationship and withdraws from a case. Kamp's attorney is/was being disingenuous.
• Attorneys pretty much only fire their clients for two reasons: non-payment of fees or the client is uncooperative / unmanageable. If a client keeps switching attorneys, it's clearly the client who is the problem.
• Kamp filed her case pro se without even consulting an attorney?? (I know she didn't even bother consulting an attorney or she wouldn't have filed in the wrong court.) The level of insane on display here is somewhere between "Britney shaves her head" and "that motherf***** back there is not real."
• Then she thought she would just file and not bother serving Dehlin and Open Stories Foundation? That's not how this works. That's not how any of this works.
• A bar complaint is filed because it is alleged that an attorney has acted unethically as pertains to his or her practice of law. It isn't filed because he or she has acted unethically and just happens to be an attorney.
• Is Kamp sure that she's ex-Mormon? Because trying to sabotage someone's real-life livelihood over an online dispute is probably the most Mormon thing she's ever done.

I don't like to doubt any woman who says she has a sexual harassment claim, and it really rubs me wrong how women keep exiting Open Stories Foundation under claims of being mistreated by Dehlin. If there's enough smoke, then there's probably fire.

But Kamp needs to withdraw her lawsuit and offer Dehlin a settlement on his counterclaim, or at least beg him to drop it. She's lost the court of public opinion and she is going to lose in actual court.

This makes sense to me. I don’t have to like Dehlin to believe that the process for holding him accountable needs to follow the same evidentiary principles and procedures as anything else. Due process does matter- at least here in this case where there’s no evidence of any miscarriage of Justice using what evidence and arguments that have been pitted against each other so far. I don’t see a sufficient argument for why Rosebud cannot nor should not attempt recourse through established means.

She didn’t like the outcome? Tough. She shoulda brought more compelling evidence and arguments.

Take every claim of sexual abuse seriously I say- but don’t mistake taking them seriously to mean taking them as fact. Be approachable; affirm the person’s courage in coming forward; file the report faithfully and with promptness. But from what I recall of Rosebud’s respective case(s), I just haven’t seen any reason to disagree with the rulings.

Less relevant but still problematic to me is the fact that Rosebud has been more than willing to join forces, or tolerate without condemnation her allies who join forces with actors whose own pattern of blatantly unethical and discriminatory behaviour causes me to question the lengths she would go to achieve her own preferred outcome.

I have neither forgiven nor forgotten her position towards the “Midnight Mormons” when she saw their interests as aligning with her own. “Real” Feminists, emancipatory reformers, and revolutionaries should have a higher bar re: the conditions behind any “alliances of convenience”.

[Marcus]

You go from your “opinion” to” the actual situation” pretty quickly, don’t you, Marcus?

My opinion about the actual situation. But bless your heart for trying. You hang in there, gooseleg, you'll get the hang of reading one day!!!!!

[Marcus]

...Less relevant but still problematic to me is the fact that Rosebud has been more than willing to join forces, or tolerate without condemnation her allies who join forces with actors whose own pattern of blatantly unethical and discriminatory behaviour causes me to question the lengths she would go to achieve her own preferred outcome.

I have neither forgiven nor forgotten her position towards the “Midnight Mormons” when she saw their interests as aligning with her own. “Real” Feminists, emancipatory reformers, and revolutionaries should have a higher bar re: the conditions behind any “alliances of convenience”.

You are so right-- I don't know the more recent stories, but she hasn't behaved well at all, from the very beginning, all the way through all the years and years and years of stories we've heard, and that she's told here.

For me, however, the bottom line is a victim can be extremely ill-behaved in various other aspects of life, and still potentially be a victim, if the intent is to determine culpability or not of the other person. We don't judge a person's actions by how much we approve or disapprove of the potential victim. We judge by the facts of the case, as well as we are able to determine them.

[Canadiandude2]

You are so right-- I don't know the more recent stories, but she hasn't behaved well at all, from the very beginning, all the way through all the years and years and years of stories we've heard, and that she's told here.

For me, however, the bottom line is a victim can be extremely ill-behaved in various other aspects of life, and still potentially be a victim, if the intent is to determine culpability or not of the other person. We don't judge a person's actions by how much we approve or disapprove of the potential victim. We judge by the facts of the case, as well as we are able to determine them.

That’s fair- that’s why I said the other considerations were less relevant.

I guess my question what evidence did you find that suggested to you that the resultant rulings are suggestive of any miscarriage of justice, or that Dehlin got away with what he did- relative to the available evidence for what he was accused of?

As an outsider, it’s been difficult to follow this case and phenomenon- given that the evidence and important debates as well as accusations go well beyond public court proceedings, and into the blogosphere, where allegations, outcomes, and findings are argued without any to determine their validity and reliability. This is especially the case for those of the above that exist uniquely outside public court records)

I too believe that Dehlin committed an abuse of power. If I remember correctly, I’m also not sure that I’ve seen sufficient evidence for all of Rosebud’s claims.

So I guess I’m confused on then is what makes the outcomes- the ?settlement- insufficient that it legitimizes Rosebud attempts to re-litigate it socially- with dodgy alliances made with people who make it their grift to persecute victims like her, except when at the hands of social conservatism’s opponents?

I agree that Rosebud doesn’t have to be perfect to be considered a victim. What I’m struggling with however is determining her degree of victimhood relative to the degree that she has harmed others via stretching the truth, allying with victimizers, and attacking anyone who disagrees with her based upon illegitimate means and evidence.

I dunno. I’m open to being wrong, it’s just very difficult to parse the particulars, so let me know if/where I’m off.

[Canadiandude2]

The difficulty in determining the degree to which Dehlin is accountable for beyond what can be evidenced by in court is part of reason why I’d much rather point progressive and former/ex Mormons (and those interested in Mormonism) to Mormon scholars who have a good history of judgment and practice within their respective fields.

Benjamin Park; Gina Colvin; Joanna Brooks; Taylor Petrey; Dan McClellan.

These are societal actors who I admittedly trust enough to share their perspectives with others. Maybe I’m searching too hard for ‘purity’- but that’s part of the problem isn’t it? I just sometimes feel like Kate Kelly, Rosebud, even Calvin J Burke as demanding sometimes too much by way of loyalty or agreement with the arguments they make- personal policies they endorse or take- relative to the degree of transparency, ‘evidence’, internal consistency, etc. they are actually able to point to so as to legitimate the former.