Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
JulieM

Did Mckenna Denson Meet With Thomas S. Monson After MTC?

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, provoman said:

If her claims were different the limitation might be tolled. Her suit is very specific though. The fraud claimed is based on Churvh conduct in 1984 or early.  

The essence of the fraud is the character of JBishop. For sake of presentation lets say her claim of sex assualt to include raoe is true.

Do you think after the rape she thought JBishop was a safe person to be around or a moral leader, she admits to avoiding him during the remainder of her time at the MTC.

Again very interesting.  Thanks for the info

Share this post


Link to post
Quote

The 2016 incident with the leader on Colorado might be brought back into play I suppose.  If they can somehow show she did meet with asay and that the leader in Colorado did not do anything after having it reported or did inform higher authority and then nothing happened.  

Why would 2016 be the date to start the legal countdown when it is acknowledged by all she reported it in 2010 and we have a record of Church leaders responding by calling the police?

Share this post


Link to post
On 5/10/2018 at 7:50 AM, rockpond said:

I have to laugh at anyone who has studied the evidence and doesn’t believe that some level of misconduct occurred. 

Who is doing that?  Who has "studied the evidence and doesn't believe that some level of misconduct occurred?"

Quote

You’ve got the perpetrator’s recorded confessions to both the victim and the police. 

Yep.  But the secretly-recorded "confession" is problematic in a number of respects.  The statement to the police is more probative.  But even still, there is still the possibility of problems relating to Bishop's age.

Quote

A bishop validating that the victim made an accusation against JLB some three decades back. 

And yet that same bishop denies that he told anyone about it, and denies setting up a meeting between Ms. Denson and Elder Asay.

Do you believe Leavitt only to the extent that he "validates" Ms. Denson's narrative?  If so, why is that?

Quote

A second victim of JLB. 

MTC employees corroborating aspects of the story. 

Yes and yes.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
On 5/18/2018 at 5:00 PM, provoman said:

If her claims were different the limitation might be tolled. Her suit is very specific though. The fraud claimed is based on Churvh conduct in 1984 or early.  

The essence of the fraud is the character of JBishop. For sake of presentation lets say her claim of sex assualt to include raoe is true.

Do you think after the rape she thought JBishop was a safe person to be around or a moral leader, she admits to avoiding him during the remainder of her time at the MTC.

I am still not able to wrap my head around the judge's reasoning on the fraudulent nondisclosure claim.  Let me lay it out:

1. "X" is Joseph Bishop's history and status of being a "sexual predator" in the 70s and early 80s.

2. Denson alleges that the Church knew X prior to appointing Bishop as president of the MTC.

3. Denson alleges that the Church fraudulently failed to disclose X to her.

4. Denson alleges that Joseph Bishop sexually assaulted her while she was in the MTC.

So the fraud claim is that the LDS Church knew Bishop was a "sexual predator," but did not disclose that to Denson.  How is it that Denson's purported lack of awareness of Bishop being "a lifelong predator" prior to entering the MTC is severable from her finding out while in the MTC in 1984 that he was (puportedly) a "predator?"  Wouldn't she have been "on inquiry notice" about the undisclosed/concealed information in 1984?

I have previously posted my thoughts on this issue here.

“A plaintiff is deemed to have discovered his [legal cause of] action when he has actual knowledge of the fraud, or by reasonable diligence and inquiry should know the relevant facts of the fraud perpetrated against him.” Colosimo v. Roman Catholic Bishop of Salt Lake City, 156 P.3d 806, 811 (Utah 2007) (internal quotations omitted).

She is suing the Church because of fraudulent nondisclosure of X.  But per Colosimo, I think she would have been on "inquiry notice" about X, and about the Church's purported knowledge-and-nondisclosure of X.

This is called "inquiry notice" (also called "constructive notice").  From Words and Phrases (a secondary, but still useful, source of law):

  • (Citing Pioneer Buildings Co. of Nevada v.  K D A Corp., 292 P.3d  672 (Utah 2012)): "'Inquiry notice' ... is imparted to a [person] who has actual knowledge of certain facts and circumstances that are sufficient to give rise to a duty to inquire further."
  • (Citing F.D.I.C. v. Taylor, 267 P.3d 949 (Utah App. 2011)): "'Inquiry notice' ... occurs when circumstances arise that should pur a reasonable person on guard as to require further inquiry on his part."
  • (Citing LaSalle v. Medco Research, Inc., 54 F.3d 443 (7th Cir. 1995)): "'Inquiry notice,' for statutes of limitations purposes, is knowledge of facts that would lead [a] reasonable person to being investigating [the] possibility that his legal rights had ben infringed."
  • (Citing Brumbaugh v. Princeton Parters, 985 F.2d 157 (4th Cir. 1993)): "'Inquiry notice' is triggered by evidence of possibility of fraud, not by xomplete exposure of [the] alleged scam."
  • (Citing Ogle v. Salamatof Native ***'n, Inc., 906 F. Supp. 1321 (D. Alaska 1995)): "'Inquiry notice' exists where [a] person had knowledge of such facts as would lead [a] fair and prudent person using ordinary care to make further inquiries, and [a] person who fails diligently so to inquire is charged with knowledge that would have been acquried through such inquiry."

I'm not a federal judge, of course.  But Utah law on this point seems pretty clear.  Here's me in speculation mode: Ms. Denson's lawsuit lacks legal merit, but the federal judge wanted to let her have her "day in court."  So the parties will need to conduct some discovery, which is already underway.  But we'll end up back on the key point of what did Ms. Denson know, and when did she know it.  Assuming Ms. Denson's allegations to be true, she had actual notice in 1984 that Joseph Bishop was a "sexual predator."  I think it's hard to deny, then, that she was also on inquiry notice that he may have been a "sexual predator" before 1984.  To be honest, I'm not sure that's really a point to be differentiated.  But if it is, she was on inquiry notice.  Starting in 1984, she had "a duty to inquire further."  She didn't.  She had a duty to make "inquiries," regardless of what the LDS Church did (or did not do) relative to Joseph Bishop.  She didn't.  Instead, she waited for more than 30 years before interviewing Bishop and finding out more about him.  

Moreover, the claim that the Church knew about X seems very, very tenuous.  How would Ms. Denson propose to prove X and the Church's awareness of X?  

Thanks,

-Smac

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I am still not able to wrap my head around the judge's reasoning on the fraudulent nondisclosure claim.  Let me lay it out:

1. "X" is Joseph Bishop's history and status of being a "sexual predator" in the 70s and early 80s.

2. Denson alleges that the Church knew X prior to appointing Bishop as president of the MTC.

3. Denson alleges that the Church fraudulently failed to disclose X to her.

4. Denson alleges that Joseph Bishop sexually assaulted her while she was in the MTC.

So the fraud claim is that the LDS Church knew Bishop was a "sexual predator," but did not disclose that to Denson.  How is it that Denson's purported lack of awareness of Bishop being "a lifelong predator" prior to entering the MTC is severable from her finding out while in the MTC in 1984 that he was (puportedly) a "predator?"  Wouldn't she have been "on inquiry notice" about the undisclosed/concealed information in 1984?

I have previously posted my thoughts on this issue here.

“A plaintiff is deemed to have discovered his [legal cause of] action when he has actual knowledge of the fraud, or by reasonable diligence and inquiry should know the relevant facts of the fraud perpetrated against him.” Colosimo v. Roman Catholic Bishop of Salt Lake City, 156 P.3d 806, 811 (Utah 2007) (internal quotations omitted).

She is suing the Church because of fraudulent nondisclosure of X.  But per Colosimo, I think she would have been on "inquiry notice" about X, and about the Church's purported knowledge-and-nondisclosure of X.

This is called "inquiry notice" (also called "constructive notice").  From Words and Phrases (a secondary, but still useful, source of law):

  • (Citing Pioneer Buildings Co. of Nevada v.  K D A Corp., 292 P.3d  672 (Utah 2012)): "'Inquiry notice' ... is imparted to a [person] who has actual knowledge of certain facts and circumstances that are sufficient to give rise to a duty to inquire further."
  • (Citing F.D.I.C. v. Taylor, 267 P.3d 949 (Utah App. 2011)): "'Inquiry notice' ... occurs when circumstances arise that should pur a reasonable person on guard as to require further inquiry on his part."
  • (Citing LaSalle v. Medco Research, Inc., 54 F.3d 443 (7th Cir. 1995)): "'Inquiry notice,' for statutes of limitations purposes, is knowledge of facts that would lead [a] reasonable person to being investigating [the] possibility that his legal rights had ben infringed."
  • (Citing Brumbaugh v. Princeton Parters, 985 F.2d 157 (4th Cir. 1993)): "'Inquiry notice' is triggered by evidence of possibility of fraud, not by xomplete exposure of [the] alleged scam."
  • (Citing Ogle v. Salamatof Native ***'n, Inc., 906 F. Supp. 1321 (D. Alaska 1995)): "'Inquiry notice' exists where [a] person had knowledge of such facts as would lead [a] fair and prudent person using ordinary care to make further inquiries, and [a] person who fails diligently so to inquire is charged with knowledge that would have been acquried through such inquiry."

I'm not a federal judge, of course.  But Utah law on this point seems pretty clear.  Here's me in speculation mode: Ms. Denson's lawsuit lacks legal merit, but the federal judge wanted to let her have her "day in court."  So the parties will need to conduct some discovery, which is already underway.  But we'll end up back on the key point of what did Ms. Denson know, and when did she know it.  Assuming Ms. Denson's allegations to be true, she had actual notice in 1984 that Joseph Bishop was a "sexual predator."  I think it's hard to deny, then, that she was also on inquiry notice that he may have been a "sexual predator" before 1984.  To be honest, I'm not sure that's really a point to be differentiated.  But if it is, she was on inquiry notice.  Starting in 1984, she had "a duty to inquire further."  She didn't.  She had a duty to make "inquiries," regardless of what the LDS Church did (or did not do) relative to Joseph Bishop.  She didn't.  Instead, she waited for more than 30 years before interviewing Bishop and finding out more about him.  

Moreover, the claim that the Church knew about X seems very, very tenuous.  How would Ms. Denson propose to prove X and the Church's awareness of X?  

Thanks,

-Smac

I don't understand it either, that it was allowed to continue.

 

As for proving what the Church knew, only Bishop or Wells really know. And Bishop holds the penitent/priest priviledge; that is 1978 as the Bishop pentinent to Elder Wells, can in 2018 bar Wells from providing testimony about the "confession".  

And the "Church knew X" is tenious, and in my opinion based on misrespresntations made to Court by Denson, said alleged misrepresentations were cited by Judge Kimball as formering the basis to allow the claim to proceed.

 

Share this post


Link to post
41 minutes ago, provoman said:

I don't understand it either, that it was allowed to continue.

The "Let's let her have her day in court" theory may be worth considering.  

41 minutes ago, provoman said:

As for proving what the Church knew, only Bishop or Wells really know.

There could be church records, I suppose.  But these would be subject to the priest/penitent privilege too, I think.

41 minutes ago, provoman said:

And Bishop holds the penitent/priest priviledge; that is 1978 as the Bishop pentinent to Elder Wells, can in 2018 bar Wells from providing testimony about the "confession".  

And the "Church knew X" is tenious, and in my opinion based on misrespresntations made to Court by Denson, said alleged misrepresentations were cited by Judge Kimball as formering the basis to allow the claim to proceed.

I also remain flummoxed as to the Rule 9(b) particularity issue (which the Church's attorneys never brought up).

Thanks,

-Smac

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I also remain flummoxed as to the Rule 9(b) particularity issue (which the Church's attorneys never brought up).

Thanks,

-Smac

Good legal help is hard to find. It never ceases to amaze me how easy it is to make mistakes.

Can't tell you how many times I've proof read a pleading over and over again and then find something I missed, the second after I file it. 

We recently  won a lawsuit  against a government agency here. Although we thought we a good case, we were amazed at the help we kept receiving due to the incompetence of the Department of Justice's Attorneys. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Good legal help is hard to find. It never ceases to amaze me how easy it is to make mistakes.

Maybe.  It's such an obvious issue, though.  Or maybe they thought there was enough particularity.  They allege that in 1977 Bishop told Elder Wells something along the lines of "I'm a sexual predator," and that the Church thereafter A) sent Bishop to be president of the MTC, and B) failed to disclose to Ms. Denson that Bishop was a confessed sexual predator.

Maybe it meets the 9(b) requirements.  Oh, well.

3 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Can't tell you how many times I've proof read a pleading over and over again and then find something I missed, the second after I file it. 

We recently  won a lawsuit  against a government agency here. Although we thought we a good case, we were amazed at the help we kept receiving due to the incompetence of the Department of Justice's Attorneys. 

The practice of law is difficult, to be sure.

Thanks,

-Smac

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, smac97 said:

Maybe.  It's such an obvious issue, though.  Or maybe they thought there was enough particularity.  They allege that in 1977 Bishop told Elder Wells something along the lines of "I'm a sexual predator," and that the Church thereafter A) sent Bishop to be president of the MTC, and B) failed to disclose to Ms. Denson that Bishop was a confessed sexual predator.

Maybe it meets the 9(b) requirements.  Oh, well.

The practice of law is difficult, to be sure.

Thanks,

-Smac

Smac, you've been following this case like for forever and you appear to have a lapse of memory. Bishop admitted on the tape that he confessed theses sins.

https://mormondom.com/joseph-bishop-interview-transcript-2d0f7d489baa

Here's the part in the transcript where he said this. And early on he mentioned Elder Wells was his file leader and that they'd known each other for 40 years. Pretty interesting.

Yeah. So, but you had that storage room. Why did you take me down there? And why would you do what you tried to do?

Joseph Bishop

I think at that time I was still very much addicted.

Interviewer

You were really struggling?

Joseph Bishop

Oh my. I have struggled. I have struggled my whole life on this very issue.

Interviewer

With no counseling, no way of making a change of behavior?

Joseph Bishop

How could you, how could even … I used to say to myself all the time, I’m a hypocrite.

Interviewer

You were.

Joseph Bishop

Yeah, of course.

Interviewer

Yeah, damn right you were.

Joseph Bishop

Okay now what can a hypocrite do.

Interviewer

Oh, yeah. So you tried to change your behavior …

Joseph Bishop

Tried to solve it myself. I’m not going to do this anymore, I’m not going to do this anymore, I’m not going to think about this, I’m not going to, you know …

Interviewer

So you tried, your own kind of mind control where you focus on the appropriate things and try to set aside the things …

Joseph Bishop

All of those things … all of those things …

Interviewer

So, how many other women are there? How many other missionaries? How many other young women in The Church have been destroyed like me? I’m not a member of The Church anymore.

Joseph Bishop

I’m sorry.

Interviewer

I haven’t been for years. You know …

Joseph Bishop

Because of me?

Interviewer

Partly because of you. You know my stepfather was a pedophile, but he was not Mormon. I joined The Church. I lived …

Joseph Bishop

I remember that …

Interviewer

A very good healthy life. Went on a mission. All I wanted to do was serve the Lord. That is all I wanted to do. And you singled me out the very first day. The very first day you asked me to bear my testimony. And then the next time the missionaries met you asked me to give the prayer. And then you would call me out of class, the other missionaries were teasing me calling me teacher’s pet, and I can’t record, oh, ridiculous things. But I was so flattered. I thought I was so special. And you told me that I was special. That even though I had been abused that the Lord loved me. And that I was going to be amazing.

Joseph Bishop

I remember that.

Interviewer

I wasn’t amazing. I was nothing. I was no one. I was just a missionary. I was just like all the other kids, well 21 year o ld, 19 year o ld, trying to serve the Lord. And you took that away from me. And then you tried to rape me.

Joseph Bishop

That part I don’t remember.

Interviewer

Oh how convenient. I need, I need closure.

Joseph Bishop

I’m not trying to be convenient. I’m trying to be honest.

Interviewer

Okay Joe, I need, I need closure. Because I have options. I just want this to be over between you and me.

Joseph Bishop

I’m, I appreciate that. I do.

Interviewer

So did you, when you talked to Brother Wells and you repented, did you talk about this?

Joseph Bishop

Yes.

Interviewer

You talked about what you did with me and other women?

Joseph Bishop

Yes.

Interviewer

How many other women are there?

Joseph Bishop

It’s not that there’s so many other women, it’s just the two that were there, I remember one when I was in the Bishopric.

Interviewer

Oh yeah.

Joseph Bishop

Yeah.

Interviewer

That was so long before you were at the mission, a mission president.

Joseph Bishop

That was.

Interviewer

Oh my God.

Joseph Bishop

And I remember you.

Interviewer

Do you remember the other girl with me?

Joseph Bishop

Pardon me?

Interviewer

Do you remember the other girl with me? The other one you were grooming? Her name was- — — — — — Yes, that’s her last name.

Joseph Bishop

l remember-

Interviewer

Did you molest her?

Joseph Bishop

Yes.

Interviewer

Did you [inaudible]?

Joseph Bishop

Oh yes.

Interviewer

To her?

Joseph Bishop

Yes.

Interviewer

Directly?

Joseph Bishop

Yes.
Edited by Tacenda

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Smac, you've been following this case like for forever and you appear to have a lapse of memory. Bishop admitted on the tape that he confessed theses sins.

https://mormondom.com/joseph-bishop-interview-transcript-2d0f7d489baa

Here's the part in the transcript where he said this. And early on he mentioned Elder Wells was his file leader and that they'd known each other for 40 years. Pretty interesting.

What did Bishop confess to Wells, what specific acts did he confess to Wells?

Notice in what you posted Bishop admits he NEVER sought help. He admits he self medicated by serving multiple missions 

There is no evidence that Bishop confessed any sexual predatory behavior to Wells in 1977/78.

 

Also, what you quoted reveals the questionableness of th discussion, Bishop is asked directly if he confessed to Wells, in 1977, about Denson who he did not met until 1984; how could confess 7 years prior? Bishop never picked up on that, and it isnt until sometime later in the discussion that Denson states he could not have confessed to Wells about her.

Edited by provoman
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Smac, you've been following this case like for forever and you appear to have a lapse of memory.

No, not really.

8 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Bishop admitted on the tape that he confessed theses sins.

"These sins" being . . . what?  

8 hours ago, Tacenda said:

https://mormondom.com/joseph-bishop-interview-transcript-2d0f7d489baa

Here's the part in the transcript where he said this. And early on he mentioned Elder Wells was his file leader and that they'd known each other for 40 years. Pretty interesting.

Pretty vague, too.

Thanks,

-Smac

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...