editpost 2: In my opinion calling a lawyer first, who is paid to protect an entity, is not acting in the best interest of children.
edit of post 4: In my opinion calling the lawyer first is little or nothing to do with protecting a Bishop; calling the lawyer first is about protecting an entity.
There now can any of you provide a conclusion based on seleks assumption that Church follows the law.
For the cases of Bishop Rojas and Bishop Moon, both in Utah, there is a mandatory duty to report immediately.
Bishop Rojas either plead guilty or no contest to failure to report, if he completes his part of the "bargain" his plea with be withdrawn (not relevant, but the result of probably not the most complete legal advice, but, according to the ATF, United States Supreme Court, and a few States he would be considered guilty even though the plea is withdrawn, due to the fact that inorder for him to get the bargain he recieved he had to plead guilty or no contest - it is a screwy situation.)
Bishop Moon states he did not know he had a duty to report.
So given that the Church follows the law for mandatory reporting, because that is the law in Utah, what is a conclusion that can be reached for both Rojas and Moon failing to report the abuse.
Can it reasonably be concluded that neither contacted the hotline?
Can it reasonably be concluded that one or both contacted the hotline and ignored the advice?
Can it reasonably be concluded that one or both contacted the hotline and either one or both were told not to report the abuse?
How does either option or an option of your own making comport with selek assumption that Church follows the law?
Edited by LDS_RM, 29 April 2012 - 08:33 PM.