Illegitimate Women's Council Explained (from outline 1.a.viii.ix.2.a.b.)

This post will present evidence supporting paragraph (1.a.viii.ix.2.a.b.) from the outline.

1. Attendance

1. Louis requested to come to Women’s Council #1 but was not allowed. 

     viii. Witnesses against Louis not only were allowed to participate in the majority of the proceedings, they were also allowed time to provide persuasive arguments about what the outcome should be. They were further allowed to remain after witness testimony was given to respond to Louie’s written explanations, whereas Louie himself could not respond likewise. 

      ix. To this day, he does not know what was witnessed against him.

2. Witnesses

1. Council #1 - The witnesses were anonymous. WITNESS TESTIMONY WAS NEVER GIVEN TO LOUIS. Before the council, he did not know what was witnessed against him, he was only able to discern generalities based on the questions he was asked to respond to. 

2. Council #2 - Louis was notified of three categories of offenses (priestcraft, deceit, abuse) with no details of events belonging to those categories. He was only allowed 3 character witnesses. He could not possibly know who to call as witnesses without knowing details of those events. Conversely, they reported that witnesses against him were given 7 hours to discuss the actual events.  To this day, he does not know what was witnessed against him.

Council #1

May 14, 2024 at 2:16 PM Angela O’Rullian Member of Council #1 in comment section:

. . . much of the witness written testimonies contained many personal opinions and persuasive language. The witnesses were then asked to be in attendance, staying the majority of the time and offering their own persuasive arguments toward what the outcome should be . . .

January 18, 2024 10:05 PM Louis responds to 3 known council members:

. . . I also need to know all of the charges, so I can call relevant witnesses.

Thank you

Ten Talks [Preserving the Restoration pg. 510-511]

. . . In removing authority, at least two witnesses should speak against the accused, and he should be allowed to speak on his behalf and call upon such witnesses as he chooses. 

January 25, 2024, 9:05 p.m. from Jennifer Willis to five known council members plus two men:

. . . As I said before, I do not have an issue with you calling a council for Louis. This is not about defending Louis or forcing an outcome. But we do not have secret councils and hide our identities from the man we are questioning. You have an obligation to tell him who is on the council. He also has the right to hear the accusations being made against him.

We do not make secret agreements or rules to keep this information from the man. I’m saddened to hear that women have been intimidated, threatened, and cast out; so they feel as though they have no other option than to keep this secret. 

Let’s not be like the LDS church and hide what we are doing. The Lord has a wonderful way of bringing everything into the light. 

. . . And woe unto them that seek deep to hide their counsel from the Lord, and their works are in the dark, and they say, Who seeth us? And who knoweth us? And they also say, Surely your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the potter’s clay. But behold, I will shew unto them, saith the Lord of Hosts, that I know all their works . . . 2 Nephi 11:21

Have a good evening,

Jennifer

9:48 p.m. Organizer #2 Responds: 

Louis does know the charges against him. He was sent them so he could respond to them.

9:57 p.m. Jennifer Replies: 

Where are the testimonies of the witnesses? Is there a recording of the conference? Who attended the conference?

To this day, Louis does not know what was witnessed against him.

Council #2

April 21, 2024 at 9:05 PM from Organizer #1 wrote: 

. . . Council is being convened to consider new charges which are as follows: 

-Priestcraft  -Deception  -Abuse 

You may invite up to 3 witnesses to speak to your character. Anyone you bring to speak on your behalf will  be asked to address the Council first. After addressing the Council, they will be dismissed and expected to leave the premises . . . 

Given the illegitimacy of the first council, there was little reason for Louis to believe a second one would be held in fairness when the same organizers were calling another council within weeks of the first. 

TO THE MOVEMENT: April 29, 2024 at 10:55 p.m. 

. . . He was charged with priestcraft, deceit, and abuse, and numerous first-hand witnesses provided overwhelming evidence to support the three charges. Louis was invited to attend, to speak on his behalf, and bring his own witnesses. He declined to do so.

After hearing nearly seven hours of compelling testimony regarding Louie’s behavior, the 14 women voted unanimously to revoke his certificate . . .

Transcript of Council #2 Not Shared With Louis

First phone call to Jennifer

April 30, 2024, 7:08 p.m., Organizer #1 called me, and we talked for 16 minutes. 

Organizer #1 said, they are preparing a transcript of their 7 hour meeting. Because of the pressure the women feel from me to be transparent, they are considering sending the transcript out to the entire “Movement”. I said that is not a good idea. The recording of the Women’s Councils should be given to Louis, not the public. He has the right to know what was witnessed against him. To this day the recording and/or transcript has not been shared with Louis. 

It is not wise to send the transcript out to the public, considering the fact that Organizer #1 has already taken steps to involve this women’s council in a defamation lawsuit. That 7 hour recording and transcript may be viewed in a court of law as libel and slander against Louis.

May 3, 2024, 10:13 pm., Jennifer received an attorney letter from the husband of Organizer #1 notifying Louis, John and Jennifer Willis: “. . . Should you fail to cease and desist your unethical and indefensible behavior, I will seek every available remedy at law or equity . . .”

Second phone call to Jennifer

May 15, 2024, 5:36 p.m., Husband of a council member called me, and we talked for 27 minutes. 

During our conversation, this man said the Women’s Council #2 is considering releasing the 7 hour recording and/or transcript of the council to the general public. I again asked that the recording be given to Louis but not to the public. 

To this day the recording and/or transcript has not been shared with Louis.

To Be Concluded. . . 

*If you have an objection to what I have written. Please submit your evidence along with your first and last name.*

[emphasis added throughout and minor grammatical errors corrected]