Epic Mormonism Live on Rosebud Accusations

[Dwight]

That's like just your opinion man.

Despite your earlier claims then seems like you have a whistleblower case for the IRS. The fact that you come and waste your time trying to convince us is misguided, you don't need the public or us or anyone to take John down. Woo!

Or does John also do a podcast for the Open Stories Foundation? Is it possible he wears two hats, and that any reasonable person, so I know that excludes you, would look at it that way. Can you point to a law, regulation, interpretation that someone can only do one thing for a non-profit, and that if one is being a executive that it supersedes all other considerations?

[Dwight]

Again, you're comparing for-profit apples to non-profit oranges.

but when an independent salary committee looks at what a salary should be they can't just limit themselves to non-profits, they also look at the for-profit world.

[Thranduil]

John made the decision to hire her. John determined her salary. John entered into a quid pro quo agreement with her, and then John ultimately decided he wanted her gone. She was fired, he got a raise.

Most of which is a red herring to the issue of sexual harassment, here. As is often the case with new and small organizations, how this organization operated and who had authority (or not) is at best murky in this case, and citing tax forms or any other single or even multiple pieces of evidence that were done for other purposes as if they are conclusive of anything is, at best, stretching the evidence too far. Sexual harassment does not require the abuser to have actual or apparent power over the victim, although such evidence can help to prove the case. But, an inferior can sexually abuse a superior, especially the type of sexual harassment you keep referring to (called quid-pro-quo sexual harassment, which has different elements and proof requirements from the other form of sexual harassment, called absolute (or sometimes hostile work environment) harassment).

So, arguing endlessly about whether Dehlin had power or authority over the person called Rosebud, especially a decade later, on the basis of tax forms or anything else is pointless, and nearly irrelevant. The relevant legal question is: did her employee (who I take as the Foundation, not Dehlin) condition a job benefit or continued employment on her compliance with sexual demands? This is the relevant question whether Dehlin was her supervisor or not. And, before you start citing or quoting Google'd legal cases out of context, to be as clear as possible, I am not saying that the power dynamic is irrelevant as to whether sexual harassment occurred in other cases; far from it. But, in this case, this issue seems to me to be a red herring, and citing old tax forms as if they are conclusive of anything, and especially what the power dynamic was between these two people at any point in time and as that power dynamic undoubtedly changed over time, is folly. Such statements also misunderstand the law of sexual harassment and related torts and other potential claims, and, with respect, do nothing but show that your credibility on this topic should, at a minimum, be seriously questioned. You seem determined to call out every big and little thing that you perceive Dehlin has ever done wrong in his life, which hardly convinces the reader that your conclusions should be taken as even slightly credible.

There are, of course, ways that society uses to resolve questions such as whether sexual harassment occurred, but unfortunately (for them, for society) Rosebud did not avail herself of those ways. Title VII's 15 employee limit (and the corresponding provision under state law, which was the subject of discussion in this thread) is hardly a bar to obtaining redress for sexual harassment. Tort claims are widely available in respect of such conduct, and, if pled carefully, do not require an EEOC right to sue letter as a pre-condition. A few examples: assault, battery, intrusion (whether this tort exists varies from state to state; I have not researched in what state or states Dehlin's alleged harassment occurred), and, what often turns out to be the best tort claim in such instances, intentional infliction of emotional distress. Typically, IIOED requires only a showing of extreme or outrageous intentional (some states allow reckless conduct for this element) conduct that causes severe emotional distress to another. I have not read this entire thread, or the entirety of the documents that the two parties have released, but, based on a few text messages I did read, I think Rosebud likely would have trouble proving that Dehlin's conduct was extreme or outrageous, sufficient to meet this legal standard. Perhaps, and I admit I am speculating on this point, perhaps this is why Rosebud never filed a civil suit availing herself of a contingent fee lawyer, many of which are typically readily available to take a case that is supported by even a modicum of evidence.

[Thranduil]

The IRS considers excess compensation by interested parties to be personally benefiting off the profits of a non-profit organization.

No doubt, you have reported this outrageous tax fraud to the IRS, using Form 3949-A? I'm sure it took you less time to complete (and mail) that form than it did to complete your most recent three posts.

[jpatterson]

The relevant legal question

I'm not asking legal questions. I've made it clear that Open Stories Foundation is not legally liable because it is a small business with fewer than 15 employees.

I'm raising the issue of Open Stories Foundation having a sexual harassment policy in place that its Executive Director clearly violated with no apparent ramifications. John proudly and loudly published the policy in 2018, using some very strong language about never having violated it.

"And if I did I should be fired!" is what he said. His words, not mine.

We've been over this several times here.

John's not making a legal defense, either. He's using non-legal arguments within this thread to defend himself, arguments which I have debunked. That's why we're talking about tax forms and emails.

I'll continue to ignore arguments about the legalities of sexual harassment because it's not relevant to the current discussion.

[Thranduil]

I'm not asking legal questions. I've made it clear that Open Stories Foundation is not legally liable because it is a small business with fewer than 15 employees.

This statement is even more wrong than it is clear.

Not being subject to Title VII != "not legally liable." Instead, "not being subject to Title VII" = "not being subject to Title VII." There are plenty of other ways in which Open Stories Foundation (and/or Dehlin) could have been held legally liable (assuming a tort or other violation occurred), including the examples I gave in my first post. Those jurisdictional hurdles in those statutes mean simply that the Foundation was not subject to those statutes. They have zero impact on other ways in which a sexual harasser can be held liable. Use common sense: does it make sense that firms with fewer than 15 employees may freely sexually harass employees with no risk of liability? Of course not. Your "clear" statement is akin to saying that because I did not speed, I can freely run a red light with no risk of liability.

Rosebud's statements or insinuations that Title VII's jurisdictional hurdle, and the companion state hurdle, are the reason she could not go after Dehlin are 100% incorrect. As are yours.

Live and learn.

[Thranduil]

I'll continue to ignore arguments about the legalities of sexual harassment because it's not relevant to the current discussion.

You mean "continue to ignore" by writing an entire post about it?

This word "continue." I do not think it means what you think it means.

[Jersey Girl]

The IRS considers excess compensation by interested parties to be personally benefiting off the profits of a non-profit organization.

No doubt, you have reported this outrageous tax fraud to the IRS, using Form 3949-A? I'm sure it took you less time to complete (and mail) that form than it did to complete your most recent three posts.

How much time did you spend searching the thread? He already covered that issue.

[Thranduil]

No doubt, you have reported this outrageous tax fraud to the IRS, using Form 3949-A? I'm sure it took you less time to complete (and mail) that form than it did to complete your most recent three posts.

How much time did you spend searching the thread? He already covered that issue.

Searching? None. Reading? Obviously not enough, as I must have missed his post on this issue. Apologies, I will admit I have not read every post in this thread and certainly do not recall everything I did read.

I do recall seeing this post:

In terms of your tax law quip, I've spoken with several tax attorneys who confirm that what John has done does violate tax code, but at a level that is so low that the chances of anything ever being done about it are close to zero. If you know how to read between the lines of Open Stories Foundation's financial statements, balance sheets and 990s, you can easily see that somewhere in 2016/2017 someone finally convinced John he needed to get Open Stories Foundation's finances above board by FINALLY instituting an independent compensation committee to decide his salary. Because he was just winging it before.

Having spent so much time focusing on this, it would be a shame if Mr. Patterson let someone else claim the whistleblower award for reporting tax fraud. With an AGI north of $200,000 at issue, the IRS might actually investigate this one, although I admit it is old and probably beyond the SOL. But filling out the reporting form would take a trivial amount of time, having already done all of this work. With such an assured conclusion of tax fraud and his obvious hatred of Dehlin, it would seem taking 30 minutes to report the fraud would be higher up on the priority list. The lack of doing that makes me wonder what Mr. Patterson's real goal is here: justice, or just besmirching Dehlin's reputation (or whatever tatters are left of Dehlin's reputation after all of this).

[jpatterson]

Having spent so much time focusing on this, it would be a shame if Mr. Patterson let someone else claim the whistleblower award for reporting tax fraud. With an AGI north of $200,000 at issue, the IRS might actually investigate this one, although I admit it is old and probably beyond the SOL. But filling out the reporting form would take a trivial amount of time, having already done all of this work. With such an assured conclusion of tax fraud and his obvious hatred of Dehlin, it would seem taking 30 minutes to report the fraud would be higher up on the priority list. The lack of doing that makes me wonder what Mr. Patterson's real goal is here: justice, or just besmirching Dehlin's reputation (or whatever tatters are left of Dehlin's reputation after all of this).

This is a continued pattern of Dehlin defenders here. When you can no longer defend the documented evidence, attack the accuser. Throw cold water by questioning motives, make all sorts of assumptions about what they are doing and not doing outside of this board.

You're not very clever here, Thranduil. Nor original in your criticisms. This is like the third time someone's tried the above. It gets old.