Should the Dehlin/Rosebud drama be deleted?

[Rosebud]

And as much as I would love to release the depositions that I believe ought to be publicly available, I haven’t. I have respected Judge Faust’s order even though I have zero respect for Faust himself.

And I didn’t argue when moderators retracted my Affidavit filed in the Kamp case even though I believe the public really needs to know what Faust is helping hide, funded by the Mormon Stories donors.

I get that this is a tense situation.

But it is not inappropriate to talk about what it is that a lot of people are evidently highly invested in getting people to believe they’re not allowed to talk about as long as I don’t break a judge’s orders.

[Rosebud]

And these are public matters.

I am repetitively accused of immaturity and drama by people who are immature and dramatic.

[Rosebud]

The person who isn’t a public figure who I’ve named recently is my grandfather’s cousin (although I didn’t use his real name so that I wouldn’t have to deal with posts by imbeciles — sorry not sorry — claiming that our shared last name means I’ve doxxed myself). But as CEO of Deseret Management Corporation, he’s still an appropriate person to be referring to as I document what has occurred.

It’s kinda strange…. public figures who are prophets. But who’s really in charge?

What happened here? Did I touch too close to the money and the power?

[drumdude]

[Marcus]

The person who isn’t a public figure who I’ve named recently is my grandfather’s cousin (although I didn’t use his real name so that I wouldn’t have to deal with posts by imbeciles — sorry not sorry — claiming that our shared last name means I’ve doxxed myself). But as CEO of Deseret Management Corporation, he’s still an appropriate person to be referring to as I document what has occurred...

The relative you are referring to retired as CEO of DMC over a year ago.

[drumdude]

https://www.deseret.com/2023/11/16/2396 ... ment-corp/

So that I wouldn’t have to deal with posts by imbeciles — sorry not sorry — claiming that our shared last name means I’ve doxxed myself).

Just like it was you that "doxed" yourself here, by posting your professional website, and later claiming it was others who "doxed" you.

Schrodinger's Rosebud. Hero and victim. Helplessly naïve, and brilliantly street smart.

Since Rosebud forgot that she doxxed herself countless times in the past. I’ll try not to call her an imbecile (sorry not sorry.)

[canpakes]

I didn’t say Dehlin was in “cahoots” with child abusers. I use language carefully. I don’t have any idea what or who he is and isn’t in cahoots with.

I said that the timing of his podcasts discrediting organized child sexual abuse in the Mormon church aligned very will with the organized child sex abuse lawsuit filed against Nelson’s daughter, Brenda Miles, and that named Nelson as a possible future defendant for helping cover it up.
…

Shades, if it helps one way or the other with the decision, I’ve added a screenshot of the post referred to above, taken prior to any mod edit, to the relevant thread within the mod forum.

[Jersey Girl]

This thread has existed on this board since 2021. No modifications and apparently no objections. Just take a gander at this and tell me again how her in real life has never been connected to her screen name on this board.

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=803

[Jersey Girl]

Oh wait. Look. One of many examples. Check the links embedded in the post below.

James Patterson laid out his case on reddit that this seems like a coverup by Open Stories Foundation to avoid sexual harassment charges.
https://old.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comme ... _rosebuds/

Mr. Patterson wrote:

It is hard to tell without being able to examine correspondence between John and Joanna what transpired that resulted in the decision for John to keep his job and Rosebud to be fired. But it is clear that that's what happened. On the surface, this seems like a coverup to protect Open Stories Foundation from sexual harassment charges, but more information is needed to understand Joanna's mindset and approach.

What is the definition of sexual harassment and would charges even make sense in this situation?

Courts and employers generally use the definition of sexual harassment contained in the guidelines of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). This language has also formed the basis for most state laws prohibiting sexual harassment. The guidelines state:

• submission to such conduct is made either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of an individual's employment,
  
  submission to or rejection of such conduct by an individual is used as the basis for employment decisions affecting such individuals, or
  
  such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual's work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment.

A key part of the definition is the use of the word unwelcome. Unwelcome or uninvited conduct or communication of a sexual nature is prohibited; welcome or invited actions or words are not unlawful. Sexual or romantic interaction between consenting people at work may be offensive to observers or may violate company policy, but it is not sexual harassment.

https://legal-dictionary.thefreediction ... harassment

This is the crux of the issue, and why Rosebud had to make up a fake story about John pressuring her for sex to keep her job. We now have the texts and the blackmail letter which completely absolve John of these fake accusations.

Rosebud's Story:
I told John I wouldn't continue any sexual relationship with him (August 9)

The actual text messages from August 9:

Anne: Yeah, we seem to need each other. Glad I've helped in some way. Am wondering where this crazy life will take us (or me at least).

John: Day by day is all we have.

Anne: Im just happy that someone I need needs me too

John: It's so crucial that we don't skype or be in the same city. I think we'd crack.

Anne: I guess that means I shouldn't tell you what I'm wearing....

Anne: Just kidding

Anne: (mean joke)

John: Yes Terrible Say Agreed. Walking. No Skype. Never in the same city unless chaperoned. Agreed. Agreed.

Anne: I just love you.

Anne: I would make some very very nice love to you.

Anne: It's hard not to seduce you. You should give me lots of credit here.

Anne: ooooo.... but what if I want you to seduce me?

Anne: I think I know what you need right now. Yup. I could do that so enjoyably.

Anne: We need each other. Plain and Simple.

John: I want to be clear about something. This isn't because you said something that hurt my feelings today. It is because I've believed for over a year that working together would hurt you, me, and our families. And it has.

John: It's been beautiful, and harmful. And it's harming me now. And I believe it's harming you and our families now. And I really, sincerely want/need us to stop working together.

John: I hope you can understand. It's not because I'm ungrateful for all you've done.

John: It's because this is hurting me. And I believe it's hurting us. And definitely our families. Please, please go. Please don't make me keep asking. Please just go this time. For good. Please.

This is where Rosebud inserted the completely fabricated story that John threatened to fire her if she didn't have sex with him. Now she says this is where she ended the relationship with John. Neither is true.

The text messages:
https://mormonismlive.org/wp-content/up ... sponse.pdf

The blackmail letter:
https://mormonismlive.org/wp-content/up ... -Email.pdf

Anne's blackmail threat:

Anne plays victim

Anne proves sexual harassment to the public

John Spends hours of his time defending himself on message boards instead of taking care of his family

Anne makes a lot of money on book sales

posting.php?mode=quote&f=4&p=20661

[Jersey Girl]

I'll just save everyone the trouble.

https://mormonismlive.org/wp-content/up ... sponse.pdf
https://mormonismlive.org/wp-content/up ... -Email.pdf