Church Loses "Emotional Distress Case"

[smac97]

So is this all the victims fault or her lawyers? 

Neither, it's her mothers fault for not acting on the information years ago.

C.I.

How about the <i>perp</i>? If we are going to be assigning blame, shouldn't we start with <i>him</i>?

-Smac

I assumed that was a given. I thought we were assigning secondary blame here.

C.I.

Ah. Okay. Sorry for busting in during the conversation.

-Smac

[Serious]

Perps shouldl pay, not any organization. Otherwise the city policeforce should be sued and made to pay for all the perps they fail to catch.

Of course who pays for the police? US! So is there any real reason for one to sue and another not?

[charity]

I see a major problem in all the people who think that if something happens to you, it is your ticket to the lottery. Money does not cure problems. It can't give a sexual abuse victim back an innocent childhood. It can't give a widow back a husband. It can't make a paraplegic walk again.

If there has been true liability, then the actual damages are reasonable. The sexual abuse victim gets the costs of continuting therapy. The widow gets her husband's projected income. The paraplegic gets all his medical bills and accomodations for living adjustments. But millions of dollars, just because, is ridiculous.

[jessicazi]

I am one of the plaintiffs in this case. This case could've been dealt with 4 years ago with an apology and a change in Church policy. What the Church neglects to tell the Tribune is one of the Church's own witnesses testified that in 1996 I told her I told the first bishop about the abuse. The Church only mentions anything that helps their case, but doesn't mention the mounds of evidence and conduct that is simply inexcuseable.

Two bishops, 1 stake president, and two offices of LDS Family Services (in Renton and Provo) all knew about the abuse, but NO ONE reported it. Then, when it was finally reported by my mom, the Church wouldn't cooperate at all with the investigation.

The Church also refused to release the records of Pete Taylor's Church court, wherein he said that he had gone through the repentance process with the first bishop in 1994. The Church had previously released Church court records in another case in Portland, Oregon. Why all of the sudden not release another set of records?

Never forget, there are two sides to every story.

[USU78]

I am one of the plaintiffs in this case. This case could've been dealt with 4 years ago with an apology and a change in Church policy. What the Church neglects to tell the Tribune is one of the Church's own witnesses testified that in 1996 I told her I told the first bishop about the abuse. The Church only mentions anything that helps their case, but doesn't mention the mounds of evidence and conduct that is simply inexcuseable.

Two bishops, 1 stake president, and two offices of LDS Family Services (in Renton and Provo) all knew about the abuse, but NO ONE reported it. Then, when it was finally reported by my mom, the Church wouldn't cooperate at all with the investigation.

The Church also refused to release the records of Pete Taylor's Church court, wherein he said that he had gone through the repentance process with the first bishop in 1994. The Church had previously released Church court records in another case in Portland, Oregon. Why all of the sudden not release another set of records?

Never forget, there are two sides to every story.

So . . . this means you'll give back to the Church your portion of any award ultimately upheld?

I didn't think so.

[USU78]

This I can't let go by without commenting:

This case could've been dealt with 4 years ago with an apology and a change in Church policy.

Church policy has adequately addressed the situation for more than four years. You just lost all credibility.

Enjoy the bling.

It will be so much more comforting than addressing the real issues here.

[USU78]

This also needs addressing:

The Church also refused to release the records of Pete Taylor's Church court, wherein he said that he had gone through the repentance process with the first bishop in 1994. The Church had previously released Church court records in another case in Portland, Oregon. Why all of the sudden not release another set of records?

It had to do with a specific ruling in that case by a specific judge. And it was wrong.

The Church never voluntarily releases minutes of proceedings in High Council courts. If you were the subject of such a court, you would not want your records released either.

Were you truly LDS and not an opportunist, you would know this.

[jessicazi]

Actually they did release the records in the Jeremiah Scott case in Portland, Oregon-look it up.

The Church has a deficiency in Church policies to deal with abuse victims, abuse, and the pedophiles. If there were no deficiency, there would be no situations involving 2 bishops, 1 stake president, and two LDS Family Services offices. Why don't you read the court records and get the full story before you call me an opportunist? But it really shows character that you like to criticize abuse victims.

[Moksha]

Enjoy the bling.

It will be so much more comforting than addressing the real issues here.

What were the real issues???

Is somebody here enjoying Bling?

Is that a new dairy product from the folks up in Logan using skinny cows?

[Pahoran]

Actually they did release the records in the Jeremiah Scott case in Portland, Oregon-look it up.

The Church has a deficiency in Church policies to deal with abuse victims, abuse, and the pedophiles. If there were no deficiency, there would be no situations involving 2 bishops, 1 stake president, and two LDS Family Services offices. Why don't you read the court records and get the full story before you call me an opportunist? But it really shows character that you like to criticize abuse victims.

I'm sorry, but that last remark is simply untrue. It is clearly an attempt to claim immunity from criticism by exploiting your "Victim"[TM] status.

If you read this thread, you will discover what you presumably already know, namely that the Church made specific policy changes in 1994 to address this very issue.

The criticism you have bought for yourself with your ill-gotten $4,200,000 is not for being an abuse victim (sob) but for your opportunistic money-grubbing.

I don't have a problem with you going after the abuser; so you should. But siccing that vile ambulance-chaser onto us on the flimsy pretext that your stepfather was a member of the Church at the time was utterly cynical and self-serving.

Regards,

Pahoran

[cjcampbell]

Typical hype from a trial lawyer, calling the church a haven for child molesters. In my experience the church has generally been proactive in protecting children from child molesters. I have, in the capacity of various callings, been involved with investigating several accused child molesters. I have never seen an example where the abuse was not reported immediately to the police. I myself have reported abuse to the police. Indeed, if there is any foot dragging going on, I have invariably found it with the police, many of whom don't like to investigate these claims and some of whom have actually told me that the victim deserved the abuse!

I know people who work for Child Protective Services in Washington very well. I can tell you that as far as CPS is concerned, the church has a very good reputation for protecting children. The Federal Way case, if anything, is an anomaly.

The church does not have the resources to verify every case of alleged child abuse. It needs the cooperation of police and agencies such as CPS. Cases like this do not help children and damage the church's relationship with law enforcement agencies. If anything, they greatly encourage people to cover up wrongdoing out of fear that if the matter becomes known then they and the church will be subject to multi-million dollar lawsuits.

[Priestess]

So is this all the victims fault or her lawyers? 

Neither, it's her mothers fault for not acting on the information years ago.

C.I.

How about the <i>perp</i>? If we are going to be assigning blame, shouldn't we start with <i>him</i>?

-Smac

I assumed that was a given. I thought we were assigning secondary blame here.

C.I.

Even then, the abuse is NEVER, I repeat, never the victim's fault! According to the law in many states, bishops are included on the list of mandated reporters of suspected child abuse as they are considered clergy. If a bishop fails to report abuse and it turns out to be real, he should be punnished according to the law. I thought the LDS church has something that says that they are to obey all laws of the land. If so, they should make sure that local bishops report any suspicion of child abuse to the police and CPS to investigate. Look at what happened to the RCC, would you want your church to face such negative press?

[Pahoran]

Even then, the abuse is NEVER, I repeat, never the victim's fault! According to the law in many states, bishops are included on the list of mandated reporters of suspected child abuse as they are considered clergy. If a bishop fails to report abuse and it turns out to be real, he should be punnished according to the law.

And who here has actually said that any part of the abuse was the victim's fault?

Don't lose your temper and let the mask slip, Priestess, or your current internet persona might go the way of your former Alpha_FemaleCA one.

As far as mandatory reporting: as has been pointed out already, if the bishop learns of the abuse from the abuser in a confession situation, he is not only not required to report it, but the clergy/penitent privilege holds. Note that this exists not to let the clergy off the hook, but to protect the penitent, to the extent that clergy disclosure is considered highly unethical and is usually not admissible as evidence.

I thought the LDS church has something that says that they are to obey all laws of the land. If so, they should make sure that local bishops report any suspicion of child abuse to the police and CPS to investigate. Look at what happened to the RCC, would you want your church to face such negative press?

The two cases are not at all comparable. As I rather suspect you perfectly well know, Fedelm.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Sput]

It is clearly an attempt to claim immunity from criticism by exploiting your "Victim"[TM] status.

Its a shame how much these ppl exploit themselves and their situation. I trully feel sorry for them. For both being victimized and not speaking up about it then thinking money is the solution to their problems. But in all reality is all they did was make a scam artist 40% profit from their victimization.

[Free From Mo's]

Actually they did release the records in the Jeremiah Scott case in Portland, Oregon-look it up.

The Church has a deficiency in Church policies to deal with abuse victims, abuse, and the pedophiles. If there were no deficiency, there would be no situations involving 2 bishops, 1 stake president, and two LDS Family Services offices. Why don't you read the court records and get the full story before you call me an opportunist? But it really shows character that you like to criticize abuse victims.

You are so brave to come on this board and speak of this. My heart and soul goes out to and what you have endured. I hope this verdict helps in your healing process. Others here will criticize you the victim, shame on them.

I guess you should have not done the lawsuit??????

No one wants to see the truth or cares to admit what is true.

[Enish-go-on-doshling]

The criticism you have bought for yourself with your ill-gotten $4,200,000 is not for being an abuse victim (sob) but for your opportunistic money-grubbing.

Were you truly LDS and not an opportunist, you would know this.

I am continually amazed at how having the fulness of the gospel in people's lives makes them so much more meek, humble, charitible, and understanding towards others.

This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.

Matt 15:8

[Pahoran]

You are so brave to come on this board and speak of this. My heart and soul goes out to and what you have endured. I hope this verdict helps in your healing process.

Your gushing emotional admiration is so completely out of sync with your usual cynical sneering that I have to wonder what has affected this transformation.

Ah yes, this lady has been instrumental in inflicting harm upon the Church of Jesus Christ. Yes, that explains it.

Others here will criticize you the victim, shame on them.

Absolutely. Once someone has had something bad happen to them, no-one should ever criticise anything that person does ever again. Because now they are a Victim[TM] and should only be loved and cared for and nurtured and adored.

I guess you should have not done the lawsuit??????

I guess she shouldn't have, either. The Church was not to blame for what happened to her; the lawsuit was a cynical money-grab.

No one wants to see the truth or cares to admit what is true.

Clearly you don't, but I just did; see above.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Sput]

No one wants to see the truth or cares to admit what is true.

I want to know the truth but I dont think ill get it from a lawyer who profits from these victims.

[Pahoran]

The criticism you have bought for yourself with your ill-gotten $4,200,000 is not for being an abuse victim (sob) but for your opportunistic money-grubbing.

Were you truly LDS and not an opportunist, you would know this.

I am continually amazed at how having the fulness of the gospel in people's lives makes them so much more meek, humble, charitible, and understanding towards others.

And when five young girls in Salem Village, Massachusetts claimed that they were being persecuted by local witches, all the good Christian folk there saw things just the way you do.

Evidently you admire them.

This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.

Matt 15:8

And this applies to us--how, exactly? Because seeing things as they are, we refuse to be "Politically Correct" and sweet and nice to someone who has enriched herself at the Church's expense?

I think she's got all that she can reasonably expect to get out of us, don't you?

Regards,

Pahoran

[asbestosman]

Why are we going after the church insted of the bishop? Wasn't it the bishop's fault? Was the church at fault for not sufficiently instructing him?

And no, I don't want to hear the cynical answer that it's because the church has deep pockets. What is the legal issue here?

Also, why didn't the counselors from Social Services report the abuse? How about the mother? Was she aware and was she punished?

[smac97]

> I am one of the plaintiffs in this case. This case could've been dealt with 4 years ago with an apology and a change in Church policy.

==Are you denying that a change in Church policy has taken place?

==Also, did your attorneys ever offer to drop this case in exchange for "an apology and a change in Church policy?" I'd really be interested in an answer to this question.

> What the Church neglects to tell the Tribune is one of the Church's own witnesses testified that in 1996 I told her I told the first bishop about the abuse. The Church only mentions anything that helps their case, but doesn't mention the mounds of evidence and conduct that is simply inexcuseable.

==The Church is a party to the case. It can't comment on all the evidence, so it focuses on that which supports its position. Tim Kosnoff did the same thing, so are you going to take <i>him</i> to task for "only mention[ing] anything that helps [your] case?"

> Two bishops, 1 stake president, and two offices of LDS Family Services (in Renton and Provo) all knew about the abuse, but NO ONE reported it. Then, when it was finally reported by my mom, the Church wouldn't cooperate at all with the investigation.

==Why? Did the Church have a reason? Or was it just being capricious?

> Never forget, there are two sides to every story.

==A good point. For everyone. That would include Tim "stopmormonsexabuse.com" Kosnoff and Jeffrey "[This church] is a safe haven for pedophiles" Anderson. (Anderson, by the way, made this comment at a press conference he called right in front of the LDS Salt Lake City Temple - a remarkably crass, vulgar thing to do.)

> The Church has a deficiency in Church policies to deal with abuse victims, abuse, and the pedophiles.

==What is the deficiency?

-Smac

[Enish-go-on-doshling]

The criticism you have bought for yourself with your ill-gotten $4,200,000 is not for being an abuse victim (sob) but for your opportunistic money-grubbing.

Were you truly LDS and not an opportunist, you would know this.

I am continually amazed at how having the fulness of the gospel in people's lives makes them so much more meek, humble, charitible, and understanding towards others.

And when five young girls in Salem Village, Massachusetts claimed that they were being persecuted by local witches, all the good Christian folk there saw things just the way you do.

Evidently you admire them.

Regards,

Pahoran

I have to admit, I can't imagine a weirder serious repsonse than that.

This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.

Matt 15:8

And this applies to us--how, exactly? Because seeing things as they are, we refuse to be "Politically Correct" and sweet and nice to someone who has enriched herself at the Church's expense?

I think she's got all that she can reasonably expect to get out of us, don't you?

Hmmm.. I guess if you think expressing vitrol rather than compassion for those that have been hurt is the proper way to take on Jesus' name, I won't stand in your way. You go girl. Blast her with all you got!

[Pahoran]

Why are we going after the church insted of the bishop? Wasn't it the bishop's fault? Was the church at fault for not sufficiently instructing him?

And no, I don't want to hear the cynical answer that it's because the church has deep pockets. What is the legal issue here?

Also, why didn't the counselors from Social Services report the abuse? How about the mother? Was she aware and was she punished?

Okay Asbestos, in the absence of the yank lawyers, I'll bite on this one.

The idea is that the Bishop acts as a servant or agent of the Church, and therefore the Church, as the principal, is liable for any negligence on the Bishop's part. That part of the argument is quite well established legally, it's pretty well understood, and I don't think anyone has any problems with it; if the Bishop did something wrong in the discharge of his ecclesiastical duty, then the Church is liable.

The question is whether the Bishop actually did anything wrong. Ambulance-chaser Kosnoff did some pretty fancy tap-dancing to pull that one off, claiming that the Bishop was not acting as a clergyman when he received the incriminating disclosures, yet somehow holding that the Church was still liable for his actions.

Regards,

Pahoran

[DH]

I thought even clergy, of any denomination, are required by law to report child abuse of any kind. It would therefore make sense that if Church officials either actively tried protecting someone, or simply withheld information, from police investigators, the Church could be held liable.

[Pahoran]

I am continually amazed at how having the fulness of the gospel in people's lives makes them so much more meek, humble, charitible, and understanding towards others.

And when five young girls in Salem Village, Massachusetts claimed that they were being persecuted by local witches, all the good Christian folk there saw things just the way you do.

Evidently you admire them.

I have to admit, I can't imagine a weirder serious repsonse than that.

IOW, you don't have a response. I fully understand.

Please explain where you think the analogy is deficient. Do you deny that the subsequent witch-hunt mirrored your "don't question the Victims" mentality?

This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.

Matt 15:8

And this applies to us--how, exactly? Because seeing things as they are, we refuse to be "Politically Correct" and sweet and nice to someone who has enriched herself at the Church's expense?

I think she's got all that she can reasonably expect to get out of us, don't you?

Hmmm.. I guess if you think expressing vitrol rather than compassion for those that have been hurt is the proper way to take on Jesus' name, I won't stand in your way. You go girl. Blast her with all you got!

As I'm sure you perfectly well understand (but prefer not to engage) it has nothing to do with compassion or otherwise for her being hurt. Her being hurt is not even under discussion here; it's her subsequent effort to find $4,200,000.00 worth of balm for her wounds that we are questioning right now.

Regards,

Pahoran