Status of Discovery in Denson Lawsuit

[USU78]

54 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Keep in mind, I am not a licensed attorney:  I just "play" one here at MD&DB.    If the withdrawal motion says (essentially, if not in so many words: translate it into lawyer-and-judge-speak as necessary), "Your Honor, we can no longer represent our client effectively because she's Cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs," or otherwise discloses sensitive information about the case or about the client in support of the withdrawal, I can see a Judge granting a motion to seal so as to not make an even bigger mess of the case than has already been made of it (and, thereby, not even further prejudicing the Plaintiff or her case than has already occurred).

There's this, too:  If you know or have reason to know that your client will lie under oath, you have to disclose it to the Court.  This is done in chambers out of the hearing of other people, or, as was done here, under sealed document.  On the other hand, if no trial date has been sent and there are no motions pending, you pretty much have clear sailing out of the case simply by giving notice.

[Danzo]

1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Keep in mind, I am not a licensed attorney: 

You don't need to be a licensed attorney to know law.  

Just because a particular cartel doesn't accept you as a member doesn't take away what you know. 

[Amulek]

18 hours ago, provoman said:

I am wondering the too. Did he not know the extent of her past or not suspect her recent claims of assault

I don't think it was ignorance so much as a mistake in judgement. 

I suspect Craig Vernon and company knew McKenna's case was a loser all along. I believe they took the case anyway though because they assumed they could get a quick payout. 💰

Their problem, of course, was that they didn't recognize how much of a loose cannon their client really was. 

On the law, McKenna never had much going for her. What she did have was a story that sounded (or could be made to sound) believable, social momentum swinging in her direction, and a nice little piece of leverage in the form of an embarrassing recording. All the elements basically screamed for a settlement - one that was in the process of being hammered out, in fact, until McKenna traded in her leverage for her 15 minutes of fame by leaking the tape.

Once that was done, the incentive to settle disappeared and the church walked away from the negotiating table. 

Craig Vernon has been burning his own money (billable hours) on this case ever since. I'm sure he is overjoyed to have finally found a way out.

Still, I have to admit that I experience a certain amount of schadenfreude in seeing this whole situation blow up in the face of someone who was trying to extort the church in order to make a quick buck. 

 

Edited June 4, 2019 by Amulek
Spelling error (thanks Ken!)

[Kenngo1969]

56 minutes ago, USU78 said:

There's this, too:  If you know or have reason to know that your client will lie under oath, you have to disclose it to the Court.  This is done in chambers out of the hearing of other people, or, as was done here, under sealed document.  On the other hand, if no trial date has been sent and there are no motions pending, you pretty much have clear sailing out of the case simply by giving notice.

You mean, the Messrs. Vernon and Orritt didn't want to run the (further) risk of (further) suborning perjury?  Why, that's just crazy talk!   (But for the fact that, sometimes, it can be difficult to prove who knew what, when, they might've already run that risk when she was deposed!)

"Your Honor, as much as I hate to say this, I don't think my client would know the truth if it bit her in the ..."  Well, OK.  Never mind!

Edited June 4, 2019 by Kenngo1969

[Nofear]

I ran across this account of things (not sure how since I don't follow this kind of stuff at all and didn't even recognize the name Mike Norton). It has apparently caused quite a stir with the ex-Mormon community. I confess not being particularly sympathetic to their plight. I'm more sympathetic to Denna who clearly needs some help on many levels.

https://www.plonialmonimormon.com/2019/05/laffaire-denson-and-the-ex-mormon-dilemma.html

[Kenngo1969]

I wonder how Mr. Vernon's other case that implicates the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (or at least a couple of relatively-high profile members thereof) is faring? http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/71089-lawsuit-re-sex-abuse-allegations-against-daughter-of-pres-nelson-and-her-husband/page/27/

 

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

I don't think it was ignorance so much as a mistake in judgement. 

I suspect Craig Vernon and company knew McKenna's case was a [loser] all along. I believe they took the case anyway though because they assumed they could get a quick payout. 💰 ...

 

I don't know.   While there may be, ahem!, fifty shades of gray (or more) when it comes to legal ethics, and while different attorneys, legitimately, might weigh the odds of winning a particular case differently, at least in the civil context (in the criminal context, the constitutional guarantee of right to counsel [along with other constitutional rights], makes that a different ballgame) an attorney is duty-bound to not take a case he knows he cannot win, the standard being what a reasonable attorney in the same or similar circumstances might do.  Taking a case one knows one cannot win ties up scarce resources which may very well be better used on other cases, potentially impacts an attorney's ability to provide the sort of zealous representation which the ethics of his profession demands, brings the justice system as a whole into disrepute by, e.g., reinforcing mercenary stereotypes among attorneys, and so on.

Edited June 4, 2019 by Kenngo1969

[provoman]

11 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

 

I don't know.   While there may be, ahem!, fifty shades of gray (or more) when it comes to legal ethics, and while different attorneys, legitimately, might weigh the odds of winning a particular case differently, at least in the civil context (in the criminal context, the constitutional guarantee of right to counsel [along with other constitutional rights], makes that a different ballgame) an attorney is duty-bound to not take a case he knows he cannot win, the standard being what a reasonable attorney in the same or similar circumstances might do.  Taking a case one knows one cannot win ties up scarce resources which may very well be better used on other cases, potentially impacts an attorney's ability to provide the sort of zealous representation which the ethics of his profession demands, brings the justice system as a whole into disrepute by, e.g., reinforcing mercenary stereotypes among attorneys, and so on.

But forthe words"I confessed" I do not think this case would have gone to trial. However, those words "I confessed" is the foundation of the remaining claim, and with whispers of other victims I imagine the attorneys were hopeful to find a prior victim to establish prior knowledge.

I tend to think it would be about 50/50 on attorneys who would take the case as of December 2018, as of 06/2019 with deposition testimony being contradicted, I think very few attorneys would take up the case, especially with settlement not an option.

[esodije]

A sealed motion to withdraw as counsel could indicate that the lawyer has stated to the court that he/she can no longer assert his/her client’s claims in good faith, or that to do so would require the suborning of perjury.  I doubt, however, that very many of Denson’s erstwhile supporters, including her now-former lawyers, have decided that her rape claims are false. Her reversal of fortune seems much more about her antics and her rapidly diminishing value as an anti-Mo cause celebre.

Will a “larger law firm” take Denson on as a client? A problem she faces is that large law firms are typically managed first as businesses and only secondarily as purveyors of a service. (That’s how they get to be large in the first place.) Denson obviously can’t pay lawyers on an hourly basis, but it’s doubtful that many of them would regard her claim to be of such value, in terms of money (or, even, further embarrassment to the church), as to justify a contingent-fee arrangement.

Edited June 4, 2019 by esodije

[Anijen]

2 hours ago, Nofear said:

I ran across this account of things (not sure how since I don't follow this kind of stuff at all and didn't even recognize the name Mike Norton). It has apparently caused quite a stir with the ex-Mormon community. I confess not being particularly sympathetic to their plight. I'm more sympathetic to Denna who clearly needs some help on many levels.

https://www.plonialmonimormon.com/2019/05/laffaire-denson-and-the-ex-mormon-dilemma.html

So funny. You're right, she needs some help.

I read this topic just for the legal talk. 

[Abulafia]

I'm sad about this because of the other victims.  One a lady from my home stake, and her daughter who lived with Bishop and his family while he was MTC President. 

[Calm]

Has she shared what happened to her?  I don’t understand how the mom could be a victim as well as the daughter if she was abused while a sister missionary, even if she was on medical leave. 

[Abulafia]

Calm, she wasn't a missionary. Sorry if I didn't make that clear. She and her daughter lived at the Bishop's home.  I have never asked for details, but I know that she was deposed in the case. 

[Calm]

Thanks for the info. 

[Avatar4321]

Not sure if this has been posted elsewhere

 

https://www.heraldextra.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/attorneys-for-woman-suing-lds-church-drop-out-of-case/article_5c323a16-4397-5707-91cf-6d4b7754d74e.html?utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=user-share

[provoman]

33 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

Not sure if this has been posted elsewhere

 

https://www.heraldextra.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/attorneys-for-woman-suing-lds-church-drop-out-of-case/article_5c323a16-4397-5707-91cf-6d4b7754d74e.html?utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=user-share

That article is a better article than the sltrib and fox13 article.

As it provides insight into the legal problems with the case.

[USU78]

32 minutes ago, provoman said:

That article is a better article than the sltrib and fox13 article.

As it provides insight into the legal problems with the case.

With a plaintiff having failed to meet agreed-to deadlines incorporated into a scheduling order, the Court would have unassailable justification in dismissing.  Given the statute of limitation problems with the case we discussed in several threads last year, I suspect the bells of midnight are about to toll.

[Tacenda]

30 minutes ago, USU78 said:

With a plaintiff having failed to meet agreed-to deadlines incorporated into a scheduling order, the Court would have unassailable justification in dismissing.  Given the statute of limitation problems with the case we discussed in several threads last year, I suspect the bells of midnight are about to toll.

Unless some other witnesses or victims come forward because they fear nothing is going to be done and then some other attorney outfit might become involved. And the former attorneys will just have to pine away their loss, haha. 

 

[Anijen]

3 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Unless some other witnesses or victims come forward because they fear nothing is going to be done and then some other attorney outfit might become involved. And the former attorneys will just have to pine away their loss, haha. 

Statute of Limitations do not change even if other witnesses come forward. However, with new victims the SofL could be tolled or started fresh depending on the circumstances.

Judges, generally will allow continuances, which further delay the trial, but I wouldn't annoy their patience especially if they failed to cooperate with the scheduling order which is a big no no, and could get the lawyer sanctions.

[provoman]

55 minutes ago, Anijen said:

Statute of Limitations do not change even if other witnesses come forward. However, with new victims the SofL could be tolled or started fresh depending on the circumstances.

Judges, generally will allow continuances, which further delay the trial, but I wouldn't annoy their patience especially if they failed to cooperate with the scheduling order which is a big no no, and could get the lawyer sanctions.

The attorney for the Church submitted a table of some sort, which outlines either none response to scheduling order, and the documents covers apparent inconsistencies between deposition testimony and actual demonstrable evidence - these  inconsistencies also related to discovery requests

[Kenngo1969]

4 minutes ago, provoman said:

The attorney for the Church submitted a table of some sort, which outlines either none response to scheduling order, and the documents covers apparent inconsistencies between deposition testimony and actual demonstrable evidence - these  inconsistencies also related to discovery requests

This would, alas!, only be available to those with PACER access, I presume?

[provoman]

4 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

This would, alas!, only be available to those with PACER access, I presume?

Depending on document page views PACER does not charge, and it is a quarterly billing...and considering what the sad life and times of Aaron Swartz, I am not sure who/how/when PACER docs can be shared.

Edited June 5, 2019 by provoman

[Calm]

One example is provided of contradiction:

Quote

Ms. Denson’s productions and responses to interrogatories are incomplete and inconsistent with her deposition testimony,” court documents state. “For example, Ms. Denson testified that she is writing a book about her allegations and this case. She produced only a single page ‘outline’ and, when pressed, she indicated that was all she had written. Just a few days later, however, Ms. Denson posted on social media that her book is ‘nearly complete.’”

 

[Kenngo1969]

7 minutes ago, provoman said:

Depending on document page views PACER does not charge, and it is a quarterly billing...and considering what the sad life and times of Aaron Swartz, I am not sure who/how/when PACER docs can be shared.

It's a good thing Wikipedia is my friend!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Swartz

(Suicide, is, of course, no laughing matter.  Condolences to Mr. Swartz's family, friends, and acquaintances.  The good thing is, most all of us are going to get better than we deserve after we die.)

 

[JAHS]

On 6/4/2019 at 9:46 AM, Nofear said:

I ran across this account of things (not sure how since I don't follow this kind of stuff at all and didn't even recognize the name Mike Norton). It has apparently caused quite a stir with the ex-Mormon community. I confess not being particularly sympathetic to their plight. I'm more sympathetic to Denna who clearly needs some help on many levels.

https://www.plonialmonimormon.com/2019/05/laffaire-denson-and-the-ex-mormon-dilemma.html

Wonder how Norton feels now about making this little video on the day McKenna gave her "testimony" in Sacrament meeting?
Their attitude makes me sick to my stomach.