247 replies to this topic

[rongo]

Scott Lloyd, on Nov 23 2005, 02:38 PM, said:

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.  

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.

[Scott Lloyd]

Observer, on Nov 23 2005, 02:53 PM, said:

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.

Edited by Scott Lloyd, 23 November 2005 - 03:03 PM.

[KevinG]

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

[Pahoran]

Observer, on Nov 23 2005, 02:53 PM, said:

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:

Quote

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

Edited by Pahoran, 23 November 2005 - 03:22 PM.

[Dunamis]

Observer, on Nov 23 2005, 02:53 PM, said:

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.  

[KevinG]

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.  

[Bsix]

Quote

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.

Quote

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.

Quote

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"

Quote

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?

Quote

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

[Dunamis]

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.