Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
esodije

Status of Discovery in Denson Lawsuit

Recommended Posts

33 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

And why wouldn't you want to represent McKenna smac97? ;)

Oh, any number of reasons.  Her being a horrible client being the most obvious.  Her case being hugely problematic is another.  And I'm not really that into Plaintiff-side tort litigation.  And the Church as a defendant?  Yes, that's a concern for me.  I am not sure I could be an effective advocate in these circumstances.

Thanks,

-Smac

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

Looks like the Magistrate has granted Mckenna another extension of time to obtain new counsel, but court set a date in mid august to resume discovery deadlines,  so if McKenna cannot get new counsel she will have to navigate the discovery issues on her own. I suspect she will find lawyers who don't want to the financial commitment to represent her but are willing to help her ghost write filings to keep her case alive. This case is a a long short  with counsel for all the reasons that have been discussed.  Without counsel, this case is on life support. 

Share this post


Link to post

Topcougar,

I'm not a lawyer, of course, so if you are, I'll defer to you.  However, if memory serves, it's an ethical violation to not sign pleadings.  We can argue all day long whether such a technical violation ought to carry the potentially serious consequences it does, and, of course, you might know better than I, but if simply failing to sign a pleading constitutes an ethical violation, I can't see how writing a pleading and having someone else sign it (other than in a case, for example, of a paralegal or junior lawyer drafting a pleading and a senior lawyer signing it) doesn't violate the rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Quote

6. In a way, this may be the best way out for her.  By letting her case die on procedural grounds, she can continue in maintaining claims against Joseph Bishop and the Church.  These claims will have never actually been tested and adjudicated in a court of law, but that's not her fault, you see.  It's Craig Vernon's.  And she didn't have the money to hire anyone else, and no attorney would step forward and help her.

Yep.  The rules of evidence and procedure are waaaaay different in a court of law than they are in the "court" of public opinion: In the latter, a mere allegation serves as its own "evidence," sufficient to try, convict, sentence, and (at least where a "defendant's" reputation is concerned) execute him.  (I'm speaking generally: Joseph Bishop likely did something(s) inappropriate, but there are reasons good-and-sound why the law limits the time potential plaintiffs have to bring their claims forward and to have them heard, and this case is a perfect rationale for the existence of those reasons.)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I agree with SMAC's prediction. It would be nice if the Church would file a summary judgment motion instead of getting the case dismissed based on failure to prosecute.  An adjudication on the merits of at least some issues might be helpful to put this to bed. 

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, topcougar said:

I agree with SMAC's prediction. It would be nice if the Church would file a summary judgment motion instead of getting the case dismissed based on failure to prosecute.  An adjudication on the merits of at least some issues might be helpful to put this to bed. 

You can't go to summary judgment while discovery is outstanding:  an unrepresented individual will complain to the Court that (s)he hasn't had a chance to do discovery in order to find(fish for) facts supportive of the allegations in the complaint, and the Court will grant an open-ended extension of time to respond to the motion until discovery is closed.

But you're absolutely right in a sane world.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

It would be nice to know the unalloyed truth, whatever that is. For all the speculation and efforts to interpret the muddled evidence that has come out, it’s still literally the case that the truth could lie anywhere in a range between an MTC president’s having had inappropriate conversations with sister missionaries (and the church’s having no inkling of it as an institution until much later) and said MTC president’s having tried to force himself sexually on a sister missionary (or two?) in a manner legally constituting rape (and the church’s knowing about it but leaving him in that assignment until his term was up).  If the news media had been doing their job, we would long ago have had input from other accusers (including the other MTC accuser), people who’ve known Bishop at various stages of his career, Denson’s ex-husband, missionaries who knew Denson in the MTC and interacted with her there for hours on end every day, and law-enforcement agencies that have either arrested Denson or investigated various allegations made by her over the years.

But people seem to prefer inkblots, and that’s the perfect description of this case.

Share this post


Link to post

Church investigators have interviewed Todd Denson and probably other missionaries who know her. They would have asked these people not to talk to the press  while the lawsuit is pending.  But it would be really nice to know exactly where the truth lies.  It seems clear that Mckenna is a very flawed plaintiff but it is also clear that something was amiss with Joseph Bishop.  

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, topcougar said:

Church investigators have interviewed Todd Denson...

I assume this is true, but was this specified somewhere or are you guessing?

Hopefully if the lawsuit gets dismissed or whatever happens if Denson can’t make it work for herself, they will be able and willing to speak up.  But they may prefer just to let it fade away now it is not much in the news to avoid upsetting their own lives anymore.  

Edited by Calm

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, Calm said:

I assume this is true, but was this specified somewhere or are you guessing?

Hopefully if the lawsuit gets dismissed or whatever happens if Denson can’t make it work for herself, they will be able and willing to speak up.  But they may prefer just to let it fade away now it is not much in the news to avoid upsetting their own lives anymore.  

Unless the case is decided decisively and there is little to no chance of it coming back if I was a witness I would be tempted to stay silent to avoid future complications. Either that or I would cash in and write a book about it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Unless the case is decided decisively and there is little to no chance of it coming back if I was a witness I would be tempted to stay silent to avoid future complications. Either that or I would cash in and write a book about it.

I can see this happening unless one wanted to defend someone or defend oneself. Denson was nasty about her ex husband, but given her history of cons and blaming others (such as the identity fraud case iirc her claim is that a boyfriend had promised to help with rent and such, gave her his credit card, and then lied about that when he found out she wasn’t planning on moving back...which is a suspicious story in the first place as why wouldn’t he know that from the beginning unless she lied to him about that?) T Denson may be long used to the attacks and chooses to ignore them. 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, topcougar said:

Church investigators have interviewed Todd Denson and probably other missionaries who know her. They would have asked these people not to talk to the press  while the lawsuit is pending.  But it would be really nice to know exactly where the truth lies.  It seems clear that Mckenna is a very flawed plaintiff but it is also clear that something was amiss with Joseph Bishop.  

This happens so often in the church, the leaders not reporting. And this tops it all off, the latest. 

https://truthandtransparency.org/news/2019/7/24/court-documents-show-local-mormon-leaders-failed-to-report-the-manufacturing-of-child-pornography-following-confession?fbclid=IwAR2IAql7PXR4G3Uc7XsNK5uJu7E1yu4Zo6_bDBVNL8p2dY6SjHi23xoaXd8

Share this post


Link to post
16 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

This happens so often in the church, the leaders not reporting. And this tops it all off...

Given the info was from a confession, it may not have been legal for his church leaders to report it unless there is evidence of ongoing abuse, I believe. 

https://www.utcourts.gov/resources/rules/ure/0503.htm

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Is it your position that the church did something wrong here?

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Tacenda said:

What an interesting link.

Quote

In Utah, clergy are not required to report sex abuse to authorities if they are made aware of the abuse through the confession of the perpetrator.

Which links to this section of the Utah State code that says this:

Quote
(2) Subject to Subsection (3), the notification requirement described in Subsection (1)(a) does not apply to a member of the clergy, with regard to any confession made to the member of the clergy while functioning in the ministerial capacity of the member of the clergy and without the consent of the individual making the confession, if:
(a) the perpetrator made the confession directly to the member of the clergy; and
(b) the member of the clergy is, under canon law or church doctrine or practice, bound to maintain the confidentiality of that confession.

I didn't realize that Utah had such an exemption.

Can folks tell me if this is a standard thing in some/many states?

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

What an interesting link.

Which links to this section of the Utah State code that says this:

I didn't realize that Utah had such an exemption.

Can folks tell me if this is a standard thing in some/many states?

 

 

 

13 states have no exemption at all for clergy.

The rest of the states either have a full exemption or a hybrid one like Utah.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, FearlessFixxer said:

13 states have no exemption at all for clergy.

The rest of the states either have a full exemption or a hybrid one like Utah.

37 out of 50 states have some form of exemption to ecclesiastical leaders having to report child abuse, if they learn about it from the abuser?

I honestly didn't expect this was a thing.  Huh.  Well, back to the thinking board for me!

@Tacenda, did you know this was a thing?

Edited by LoudmouthMormon

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, FearlessFixxer said:

13 states have no exemption at all for clergy.

The rest of the states either have a full exemption or a hybrid one like Utah.

How did any of the Clergy "fail" as your title states? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Calm said:

Given the info was from a confession, it may not have been legal for his church leaders to report it unless there is evidence of ongoing abuse, I believe. 

https://www.utcourts.gov/resources/rules/ure/0503.htm

On the nosie.

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Not exactly sure what this has to do with court discovery and witnesses not wanting to talk outside of the court, but I read this link and I don't see any issue with the church.  Looks like when he finally confessed on his mission, he was sent immediately home.  And when he confessed, the church held a disciplinary council and he then went willingly to the police.

Share this post


Link to post
21 minutes ago, provoman said:

How did any of the Clergy "fail" as your title states? 

Fail in the title of the article means 'did not'.

Most people, when told about felony sex abuse, contact the authorities, including the church in states where they are required to to.

 

The church has even made statements that they work with authorities when their clergy learn of abuse 

There was nothing legally stopping them in this case from reporting and they chose not to.

 

We asked them 7 days ago to comment on why and they have not responded.

Share this post


Link to post
23 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Ecclesiastical confidence and the seal of confession have long, long histories in the West. On more than one occasion, blood has been shed to defend them. A Catholic priest who reports something heard in a confession will be excommunicated.

Our local government just enacted a law to violate this longstanding right. It contradicts our national law. Our Catholic archbishop has ordered his clergy to engage in civil disobedience. Instead, priests are instructed to work with penitents so that they will self-report (i.e., turn themselves in) as this young man clearly did. (This has been longstanding Catholic practice.)

No one knows how this will end. It's interesting that I now can have a completely protected conversation with my solicitor and my GP -- both of whom would be committing a crime if they violated that confidence -- but I no longer have the same right with my bishop.

This is a cynical if not evil attack on our civil liberties.

  • Like 1

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...