Trib’s Second Article on John Dehlin

[Moksha]

I think your attacks here have caused people to defend and like John Dehlin more than they would have otherwise here. Mission accomplished, I guess.

Like we got all Rosebudded out.

[jpatterson]

I am not a lawyer and not experienced in IRS reports. I have no clue what the so-called whistleblower stands to gain in an IRS complaint. And I do not know why an IRS complaint would be addressed by a non-IRS agent or agency.

There are two things at play here: an IRS whistleblower report and a consumer complaint filed with the Utah Attorney General's office. Those two are separate things which have made their way through the system.

I filed both reports last spring. At the same time, I sent the information I had gathered in support of the complaints to Peggy Fletcher Stack. Her editors brought on Tony Semerad, the Trib's investigative business journalist, to help.

Why it took the Trib almost a year to publish this story is beyond me. I had several (I think three?) interviews with Tony over the course of that time and gave him pages and pages of documentation to back up my complaints.

In terms of the IRS, a whistleblower is entitled to a percentage of the fine collected from the taxpayer or institution who has run afoul of the tax code. However, if that fine is less than $2 million, there is no reward. I told Tony in our interviews that I wasn't expecting any financial reward because I knew John's salary and Open Stories Foundation finances didn't come close the meeting that threshold.

I received a letter from the IRS some time in the fall acknowledging that my complaint had been received, but stating clearly that any outcome would not be communicated to me, unless I were to receive an award. The point is this: John could have been fined tens of thousands of dollars by the IRS and no one but John would know about it.

Do I know he's been fined? I absolutely do not. Is there a good chance he was fined? Every IRS lawyer I talked to said my complaint would absolutely lead to an IRS audit and they wouldn't be surprised at a modest fine levied at both John and Open Stories Foundation.

But again, we will never know.

As it relates to the AG's office, I filed that complaint the same week as the IRS. I stayed in touch with the lead investigator to whom my complaint was assigned several weeks later. He confirmed to me via phone that his office had indeed launched an investigation into Open Stories Foundation (which John confirmed in the story) but reiterated that even though I filed the complaint, I would not be privy to any of the information obtained or even the results of the investigation. But what was detailed in my report absolutely rose to the level of suspicion by the AG's office, so for John to say the accusations are completely "baseless" is an outright lie. Surprise, surprise.

John and his board chair now claim that they received a letter from the AG's office clearing him and Open Stories Foundation but conveniently refuse to produce the letter and won't even give a reason as to why not. How convenient.

So the bottom line is, the IRS received and acknowledged my complaint, the AG's office did an audit of Open Stories Foundation and we'll never know what the outcome of either of those investigations yielded.

[jpatterson]

I

The Rosebud Brigade wants to put itself out there as the righteous alternative to John Dehlin, but they focus on tearing John Dehlin down. What are they doing to show that they deserve to take his place as the leading voice of (ex-)Mormon progressivism?

This is where you're completely wrong.

No one you mention is trying to take John's place as the leading voice of ex-Mormonism. To the contrary. Other than steering tax-exempt donations out of John's dirty hands, I don't care a whit about ex-Mormonism. I don't care about Mormonism anymore at all.

Speaking truth to power is the best summation I have heard here. John abuses people, systems and power. And he gets away with it for two reasons: 1) Because people like his content, especially white male ex-Mormons who are highly trained in defending their spiritual leaders and 2) There's no other platform out there that has as big of a reach within ex-Mormonism that John hasn't already dominated, so any negative news about him is going to inevitably be drowned out.

I put in some time and effort last spring to the complaints. Then I forgot about it except for the couple of phone interviews I had with the Trib. It came back up this weekend cause the stories were published. I'll post on the subject for a day or two until the story dies down again and then I'll go back to not giving a hoot about Mormonism in all its forms.

Kate Kelly occasionally tweets about Mormonism/ex-Mormonism but mostly is focused on her work with the ERA. I have no idea what Rosebud is up to but I know she has no desire to do anything public in the ex-Mormon arena.

None of us are trying to run yet another ex-Mormon podcast. Good lord, no one needs another one of those. None of us are trying to get all up in the ex-Mormon space. None of us care that much about it.

Sorry to burst your bubble.

[Binger]

John and his board chair now claim that they received a letter from the AG's office clearing him and Open Stories Foundation but conveniently refuse to produce the letter and won't even give a reason as to why not. How convenient.

So the bottom line is, the IRS received and acknowledged my complaint, the AG's office did an audit of Open Stories Foundation and we'll never know what the outcome of either of those investigations yielded.

Okay, this is making more sense but also leads to some questions.

You became a whistleblower and had a stake in the recovery if that met a specific threshold. Were this to have gone further or if the stakes were higher, you would have skin in the game on a claim made by the IRS.

I am still not clear why the AG would do an "audit" if the IRS was doing an audit. I do not get that at all. Unless, you pursued this in parallel with state tax collection and federal collection. In which case, it is unlikely that the state would issue a levy or a fine if the feds were not pursuing it. Was there something unique as it relates to the state laws that would make the AG's decision differ? Was the investigator general given the same information as the IRS, or different information?

Also. I am going to call BS on all this, based SOLELY on the information available in this forum. I have no other reason to judge you or the case or the conclusion except from what is provided here. I hope that is clear. But, damn, this is some BS so far. Claims to be a whistleblower, claims to be cooperating with the IRS, claims to be cooperating with the Utah AG, claims to be a relator in the IRS case if a threshold is met and CLAIMS TO BE GIVING DOCUMENTATION TO THE PRESS!

Yeah, no. It is one or the other. Cooperating with the AG means NOT playing a game with the press. Being a relator as you claim means NOT cooperating with or divulging to the press. I ain't no lawyer, and I am probably wrong, but yowza hell. NO! This is not YOUR trial where you get to go full HealthSouth Media Campaign on the joint. As the whistleblower you do not get to also run amock in social media, the press or anywhere.

What in the hell are we missing here?

[dastardly stem]

Speaking truth to power is the best summation I have heard here. John abuses people, systems and power.

This is where your complaints come off as little more than whining about someone you don't like.
ETA: Deleted all the other crap I decided wasn't helpful.

[Binger]

Speaking truth to power is the best summation I have heard here. John abuses people, systems and power.

This is where your complaints come off as little more than whining about someone you don't like.
ETA: Deleted all the other crap I decided wasn't helpful.

Unfortunate. I found your take useful, you stemly dastard.

[Binger]

Other than steering tax-exempt donations out of John's dirty hands, I don't care a whit about ex-Mormonism. I don't care about Mormonism anymore at all.

Speaking truth to power is the best summation I have heard here. John abuses people, systems and power. And he gets away with it for two reasons: 1) Because people like his content, especially white male ex-Mormons who are highly trained in defending their spiritual leaders and 2) There's no other platform out there that has as big of a reach within ex-Mormonism that John hasn't already dominated, so any negative news about him is going to inevitably be drowned out.

I wish I still had that dastard's comments. I think he is a better contributor on this than I can be. I think it is a damn shame when people delete their comments.

Everything you are describing, jpatterson, is exactly NOT speaking truth to power. It is not the opposite, more, it is like too much of a good thing. Metaphorically speaking, it is like saying that waterboarding is just giving a person a drink when they can't serve themselves.

If we are wrong here, help us understand or make us understand. But so far, including what I have quoted above, you seem upset or even hurt by what Dehlin has done. You also seem to consider yourself a proxy victim for what John has done to others. Your description of Dehlin as "power" is based almost exclusively on what other people do not have, including a penis and subscribers that each have a penis to go along with their white skin. You seem to think his power comes from a share of the market that prevents you from getting an audience for your victimization.

Again, I am not a lawyer, but nothing here is actionable by the investigator general or the IRS agent. This is not spoken truth to obvious power. This is just an effing nuisance.

I believe in speaking truth to power. I also believe that it is rare, it is unique, it happens in individuals and it can be done within groups. I think that we need to push, fight, argue and be willing to die to speak truth to power. But, and you are welcome to prove me wrong, the examples shared in this forum fail to meet the criteria for speaking truth to power.

[jpatterson]

You became a whistleblower and had a stake in the recovery if that met a specific threshold. Were this to have gone further or if the stakes were higher, you would have skin in the game on a claim made by the IRS.

I never had skin in the game and knew that before I even filed. I knew there would never be a monetary reward for me because I know Open Stories Foundation finances in and out. The IRS whisteblower complaint was, as I was advised, the most efficient method of getting the IRS to look into shady practices.

I am still not clear why the AG would do an "audit" if the IRS was doing an audit.

Um, I don't know how to explain this more clearly, but the IRS is a federal agency. The Utah Attorney General's office is a state agency. They have completely different jurisdictions and enforce very different laws. They don't work together on cases like these and especially when investigating entities as small as Open Stories Foundation.

That's part of the frustration here, is that John escapes a lot of scrutiny just by the sheer fact that he doesn't generate enough revenue. $500k is a pittance to government agencies.

Yeah, no. It is one or the other.

I assure you, someone can be investigated by a federal agency and a state agency at the same time. I have no idea who gave you the idea that this doesn't happen all. the. time.

Cooperating with the AG means NOT playing a game with the press.

Says who? Using publicity to publicly pressure formal investigations is pretty standard. In my case, the Trib dragged its feet for way too long and by the time they published, the AG's office had already done its investigation. In the end, I got what I wanted (an investigation) and some publicity that exposes John's shady practices.

Being a relator as you claim means NOT cooperating with or divulging to the press. I ain't no lawyer, and I am probably wrong, but yowza hell. NO! This is not YOUR trial where you get to go full HealthSouth Media Campaign on the joint. As the whistleblower you do not get to also run amock in social media, the press or anywhere.

No idea what you're talking about here. Is there some law that says I can't talk to/utilize the media? Or is this just the Rules According to Binger?

What in the hell are we missing here?

I think the main thing you're missing is that you have no earthly idea what you're talking about. You seem to be woefully out of your depth when it comes to matters of tax law, government agencies' roles and responsibilities and such. It's really as simple as that.

[jpatterson]

This is where your complaints come off as little more than whining about someone you don't like.
ETA: Deleted all the other crap I decided wasn't helpful.

That conclusion is certainly not surprising given how unwilling you are to engage in the actual facts.

[Binger]

Is there some law that says I can't talk to/utilize the media?

I am not a lawyer and I do not have access to anything that could answer this question accurately.

Frankly, I do not know the difference between a law and a rule and a procedure and a practice. The fact that you would ask me whether there was a law, makes me think that you may not know the rules or process either. There are many types of cases that prohibit public disclosure. Some whistleblower cases may fall into that category but given the nature of an IRS whistleblower who knows the case will not meet minimum requirements for an award, it may not apply.