Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

smac97

Church Loses "Emotional Distress Case"

Recommended Posts

Note: I have not made a single comment or judgement about the victims in this case. My only question has been from the beginning, why does the institution of the Church bear responsibility for agents who did not follow policy? If the reason is they failed to train them properly prior to 1994 then I can see the decision. But that's not what the published facts in the case (which are certainly not all the facts in the case) indicate. So there remains the question - why is the Church liable? That is for the appeals process to remedy.

A better motivation for change than money (reward or punishment) is if people would listen to the Spirit, obey the laws of chastity and honesty, and eliminate abuse in the first place. The teachings and culture of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are a better safeguard than most if followed by the membership.

The personal shots are really asinine, and you are no more innocent than Pahoran or anyone else of them. Please knock it the heck off! :P

Share this post


Link to post
The comment has been made that a jury made the decision, so it must be right.

At the time of the O.J. Simpson trial, one of my students said, in great amazement at the verdict, "I thought he was guilty, but the jury said he was innocent.

Share this post


Link to post

Who has the resonsbility?  The person who knows, or the person who gets it second hand.

In cases of child sexual abuse or alleged child sexual abuse, all responsible adults involved.

It is not good if a false rumor of child sexual abuse is spread. But once I hear it, I act on it, and flesh out who told it, spread the rumor, truth, and hopefully it becomes settled. I won't just decide to myself that, because it's second hand, it's as good as fairy tale. When allegations of child sexual abuse are raised, ACT. SPEAK. VOCALIZE. GET TO THE BOTTOM OF IT. It IS your responsibility as a responsible adult in this society to do AT LEAST this much.

The fact that some here are speculating if a grown adult has any responsibility at all to get to the bottom of allegations of child sexual abuse is proof to me that serious lawsuits and prosecution for inaction is entirely appropriate. Sometimes, people just won't do the right thing - be it because of fear or pride or worse: being oblivious.

Share this post


Link to post

Post # 18 over on the By Common Consent board is from Ms. Cavalieri. As this thread will probably become a clearing house for relevant information on this story (news links, etc.), I reproduce it here for the sake of convenience:

My name is Jessica Cavalieri and I am one of the plaintiffs in this case. I did tell the first bishop and another bishop (and stake president and LDS Social Services). No one reported it, not in 1994 and not in 1998. What is not reported in the Tribune is the Church called a witness who testified that in 1996 I told her I had gone to see the bishop. The Church loves to bring up the witness who testifies that I denied telling the bishop but they never mention the other witness who testified to the exact opposite. What is also neglected is the bishop

Share this post


Link to post

Nomdujour,

I have enjoyed your opening posts. I especially enjoyed learning that, much to my surprise, I am "sainted" and "worshipped."

Please understand that there are two quite separate issues in view: the abuse and the lawsuit. As far as the abuse is concerned, I'm on the side of the girls.

The lawsuit, however, is a different matter. I hope you can try to keep the two things separate in your head, as they are in real life.

We have heard of Ambulance-chaser Kosnoff before. Jessica has probably heard a sanitised version of the Oregon case in which he enriched himself at our expense, but here's a precis:

A woman asked her bishop whether he thought she should take in an elderly man, a ward member, as a boarder. The bishop advised her against doing so. The woman ignored the bishop's advice, which makes us wonder why she asked him in the first place, took the old fellow into her home and, because she didn't have much room, put him in the same bed as her young son.

He then proceeded to molest her son. Turned out he'd been excommunicated for child molestation in another state several years before, and subsequently rebaptised. This was before record annotation, so when he moved to Oregon, nobody knew what he'd been up to.

The woman sued the Church for her own gross negligence and incredible stupidity. The case had no merits and should have been tossed, but the trial judge made a number of bad rulings that indicated that the case was moving in a direction that would make it very costly to defend; the Church found that settling would be cheaper than defending, so they did so. Kosnoff held a press conference on the Church Plaza in Salt Lake City, in front of the gates of Temple Square.

He's a shyster and a demagogue. That's a bankable fact.

I hope it is sensitive to the plaintiff to convey to her

Share this post


Link to post
Happy Holidays (Pahoran excepted :P )

I don't believe they celebrate Thanksgiving where Pahoran lives. Here in Canada we celebrated ours last month.

Share this post


Link to post
Thanksgiving is not celebrated in New Zealand. Nevertheless, we have much to give thanks for--Google "New Zealand Rugby" and you'll find out why.

[minor thread derailment]

The bishopric, YM organization, and YM in our ward learned and perfected the "All Black Haka" and performed it at a stake luau. It was a blast!

[/minor thread derailment]

Share this post


Link to post

Moderator:  Pahoran,  knock it off.  This is the kind of inflammatory ***-for-tat responding that we want out of this thread. 

Pahoran: considering the volume and pitch of Nom's personal sniping, I think I've been rather restrained.

I think "***-for-tat" is a perfect summary of P's standard operation.

Moderator: It seems to describe yours as well. What was this empty ***-for-tat supposed to accomplish? That is a rhetorical question. Do not respond just knock it off.

Share this post


Link to post
And also #20:
Sorry, forgot to add this. When the police were investigating Pete Taylor, the Church did refuse to cooperate. The prosecuting attorney did comment that she was very close to charging some Church leaders with obstruction of justice. I think that was the straw that broke the camel

Share this post


Link to post
Thanksgiving is not celebrated in New Zealand.  Nevertheless, we have much to give thanks for--Google "New Zealand Rugby" and you'll find out why.

[minor thread derailment]

The bishopric, YM organization, and YM in our ward learned and perfected the "All Black Haka" and performed it at a stake luau. It was a blast!

[/minor thread derailment]

Clearly your ward is one with highly cultured and well-travelled leaders!

I presume you learned "Ka mate" and not the new haka, "Kapa o pango."

Regards,

Pahoran

Share this post


Link to post

It was "Ka mate."

We had some help from two recent move-ins who are polynesian, and the bishop served his mission in New Zealand in the 1980's.

Share this post


Link to post
And also #20:
Sorry, forgot to add this. When the police were investigating Pete Taylor, the Church did refuse to cooperate. The prosecuting attorney did comment that she was very close to charging some Church leaders with obstruction of justice. I think that was the straw that broke the camel’s back for me.

How exactly did they "refuse to cooperate?" What kind of co-operation was being sought? Disclosure of confidential records, perhaps? Like everyone else with a job to do, police would like it if everyone just did whatever they demand; most of the time they have the legal power to compel co-operation. They don't take it well when there are people or institutions that have legitimate rights to not just give up everything they might want to see.

Note the one and only hard fact that is to be found in Jessica's statement: whatever the prosecutor said (and for whatever reasons she said it) in the event, she did not charge any Church leaders with obstruction of justice.

Regards,

Pahoran

I understand that in the Oregon case, part of the reason the Church settled out of court was that the judge -- not the prosecutor, but the judge -- was making outrageous demands upon the Church for disclosure of private records. The reason for the settlement was to get the case out of the courtroom of this loose cannon of a judge.

Like I said, there's something about the environment up there in the Pacific Northwest. :P

Share this post


Link to post

It'd be interesting to have comments from the Judge and police involved in this case before criticizing their character and actions. Really, how do make such an ***umption? Do you always degrade and mock the character/judgement of law enforcement and judges, or just in cases where they might disagree with the church of your religious affiliation? Privacy rights are the supreme towering gem to protect even in cases of child sexual abuses?? While one invasion may seem offensive, the other is utterly repugnant. I wonder, which of the two most offends your senses?

Share this post


Link to post
I understand that in the Oregon case, part of the reason the Church settled out of court was that the judge -- not the prosecutor, but the judge -- was making outrageous demands upon the Church for disclosure of private records. The reason for the settlement was to get the case out of the courtroom of this loose cannon of a judge.

Like I said, there's something about the environment up there in the Pacific Northwest. :P

As much as we sometimes wish that people would call bluffs on frivolous or predatory lawsuits, settling is often in the best interests even if a case could ultimately be won. I remember being frustrated when I worked at the Richards Building as a janitor at BYU when the edges of sidewalk segments were all shaved to eliminate the slightest amount of unevenness. This was due to a lawsuit against the school that was settled, where a girl running in high heels caught a heel between two segments and broke her ankle. At the time, I wanted BYU to defend itself in court, but they settled with her and shaved the sidwalks.

I dont' have a reference, but Elder Oaks (a former Utah Supreme Court justice) said that "The worst settlement out of court is usually better than the best settlement in court," for a number of reasons. I don't like settling with gold diggers as a rule, but I recognize that due to many factors, it might be the best option, even if one is likely to ultimately prevail.

Share this post


Link to post
It'd be interesting to have comments from the Judge and police involved in this case before criticizing their character and actions. Really, how do make such an ***umption? Do you always degrade and mock the character/judgement of law enforcement and judges, or just in cases where they might disagree with the church of your religious affiliation? Privacy rights are the supreme towering gem to protect even in cases of child sexual abuses?? While one invasion may seem offensive, the other is utterly repugnant. I wonder, which of the two most offends your senses?

In the case I am referencing, the Church was unjustly accused for an incident that stemmed from the reckless and irresponsible actions of the mother. So I can quite reasonably and logically condemn the crime perpetrated on the victim in the case, even as I voice contempt for the actions of the judge.

And thus fails your attempt to draw a false dichotomy.

Share this post


Link to post

Wow Mr. O! You might want to ease up on the hair trigger there just a bit. :P

Share this post


Link to post
It'd be interesting to have comments from the Judge and police involved in this case before criticizing their character and actions. Really, how do make such an ***umption? Do you always degrade and mock the character/judgement of law enforcement and judges, or just in cases where they might disagree with the church of your religious affiliation? Privacy rights are the supreme towering gem to protect even in cases of child sexual abuses?? While one invasion may seem offensive, the other is utterly repugnant. I wonder, which of the two most offends your senses?

So Observer, once you've dispensed with privacy rights, the better to combat child sexual abuse, what gets tossed aside next? The presumption of innocence? The right to a robust defense? The right to counsel? The right to silence? Is dispensing with any of these rights any more repugnant than child abuse? And if not, why keep them?

So there we have it, in a nutshell: the mentality of the witch hunt. Child sexual abuse is evil (true) therefore we should simply steamroll over any other considerations to combat it (false.)

From the play A Man For All Seasons:

More: There is no law against that.

Roper: There is! God's law!

More: Then God can arrest him.

Roper: Sophistication upon sophistication.

More: No, sheer simplicity. The law, Roper, the law. I know what's legal not what's right. And I'll stick to what's legal.

Roper: Then you set man's law above God's!

More: No, far below; but let me draw your attention to a fact - I'm not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing, I can't navigate. I'm no voyager. But in the thickets of the law, oh, there I'm a forester. I doubt if there's a man alive who could follow me there, thank God....

Alice: While you talk, he's gone!

More: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law!

Roper: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law!

More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

Roper: I'd cut down every law in England to do that!

More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you - where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast - man's laws, not God's - and if you cut them down - and you're just the man to do it - d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake.

Be grateful, Observer, that the rule of law means that there is no cause celebre that can give the self-righteous the power to dispense with your rights. For your own safety's sake.

Regards,

Pahoran

Share this post


Link to post
Really, how do make such an ***umption? Do you always degrade and mock the character/judgement of law enforcement and judges, or just in cases where they might disagree with the church of your religious affiliation?

This is the second time I have had to have a little talk with you for your inflammatory moralizing. The opinon expressed on an unnamed court case did not merit this response. Three strikes and you are out on the queue.

Share this post


Link to post

Pahoran,

Is it safe to quote More on this thread? After all I think the administrators are asking us in effect not to loose our heads over this matter. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Dill: Then that would be sometime between 1994 and 1996, since it says she was in junior high.

Maybe my math is wrong. The SLTrib reports that the victim said she was abused for ten years leading up to reporting the abuse to Bishop Hatch. The Trib reports her abuse started in 1988. 1988 + 10 = 1998. Perhaps ten years of abuse spanned a period before and after she claims to have reported the abuse to her bishop. However, I don't get that impression from the Trib's report.

Six: With respect, that is the newspaper account from one side of the dispute. There is no documentary evidence to support that claim. The Bishop has stated a different set of events. He-said-she-said.

Dill: I thought the newspaper was reporting what was said in court. If that is not so, I apologize. However the article says " In the lawsuit..." and then goes on to enumerate several points in the lawsuit. I assumed that meant there is documentation to support the claim, and the jury agreed.

Six: The newspaper was reporting what was claimed by the plaintiff in court. From the media accounts there was not factual documentation...just two conflicting accounts. They jury had to choose whom to believe...10 out of 12 jurors picked the plaintiff's story. While that may be sufficient settle a civil lawsuit it does not conclusively prove who was telling the truth.

Dill: the only way the attorney can tie Bishop Hatch to LDSSS ("But Kosnoff successfully argued in court that Hatch was acting as a social services counselor when Jessica came to him for help." [emphasis by the Pickle]), and thus to a social worker's duty to report, is if Bishop Hatch is the one who made the referral to LDSSS. Without that referral, it's not possible to tie Hatch to a social worker's duty. So, since the attorney did successfully tie Bishop Hatch, not Bishop Wade, to LDSSS, assumedly via the referral and the intake process, then that is a valid assumpiton on my part.

Six: You are making an awfully big leap of logic here. The media reports did not state that the Bishop was found to be acting as a social worker because he made a referral to LDSSS. My impression was simply that his act of meeting with the plaintiff, her mother and step-father was considered by the jury to be "social work"

Six: We do know that she found out for sure at the same time the abuser made his confession to the second Bishop.

Dill: Yes. So how can she be held liable for something she didn't know (that Jessi was being abused, which Bishop Hatch knew years prior)?

Six: My reading of the media reports is that the non-reporting of the abuse came in two phases. Phase One was Bishop Hatch in 94/96/98. At this time my impression is that there was no social workers involved and the mother was not made aware by the Bishop. Phase Two is when the second Bishop got the confession -- and allegedly the Bishop, Stake President and the LDS counselors did not report the abuse. This non-reporting was also a part of the settlement. This is the period in which the mother knew...but apparently did not report the abuse herself. If the Church is liable during this time period...why not the mom?

Six: That assumes that Hatch made a referral related to the first meeting...and that he understood that there was sexual abuse...and that the counselor at the time understood that there was sexual abuse. I think this is an assumption based on speculation.

Dill: see above. The attorney convinced the jury that Hatch knew on all those accounts, and that is a matter of record, if the Trib is reporting what is in the public record.

Six: As I said above...convincing the jury to believe one person's story over anothers without the basis of factual documentation does not make it an immutable truth.

Regards,

Six

Share this post


Link to post

I am closing this thread because, 1. It is obvious some posters are going to throw flames and others are going to respond to keep the fire going; 2. I have a family dinner to go to and I can't babysit any longer; 3. I can't think of one thing that hasn't been said in 20 something pages.

Everyone go take a nap.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...