Church Loses "Emotional Distress Case"

[USU78]

A victim is still a victim if they want food. They are still a victim if they want shelter.

Say what?

What, if anything, did the LDS Church do that caused the alleged victim to suffer for want of food? Do you know?

What, if anything, did the LDS Church do that caused the alleged victim to suffer for want of shelter? Do you know?

$4.2 Mill buys a whole lotta Wonder bread.

[Sput]

Money cant make everything better. But change can make something better. It looks like it took money to get something rolling to create change.

So the money makes it better. Wow I guess I should start sueing everyone to. I should sue the DMV for not having enough ppl to service the long lines to get a drivers license cause I want that to change. I should sue the hospitals for not tending to me fast enough in emergancy rooms cause they dont have an infinite amount of personel and I want that to change for the better of everyone. The fact is its a hanus crime plain and simple. Jail time is being served. She wants to make church policy and thats just not going to happen. I feel for Jessica she got the crap end of a stick on life. But how is this going to make her happy? Why not sue the friend for not going to the police. If she is so correct about the church being liable then why not the friend she told? Cause the friend doesnt have money like the church does. And personal revenge for allegations of obstruction of justice and not excummincating the abuser. (Which I hope he is excommincated hes a scum bag).

[SlackTime]

Alright everyone,

Clean up these posts or the thread will be closed. Nom de jour, I am paying close attention to your posts.

Please everyone, lets have meaningful, substantive dialogue. If that isn't possible on this thread, then we'll close it.

-SlackTime

[Moksha]

I thought this interesting from the By Common Consent link:

"The abuse you have been enduring over at FAIR is really disgusting. I am confident that you can expect much better treatment in the bloggernacle.

Comment by NFlanders

[nomdujour]

Alright everyone,

Clean up these posts or the thread will be closed. Nom de jour, I am paying close attention to your posts.

Please everyone, lets have meaningful, substantive dialogue. If that isn't possible on this thread, then we'll close it.

-SlackTime

Thanks

The wonder bread reference was not lost on me here. Is that your Poor White Trash Slam? I got it. Interesting that I am on probabation and that comment is so wholesome.

My point in mentioning food or shelter was twisted. There is an amount of compensation that would be satisfactory by your standards. There is nothing indecent about wanting food and shelter, that does not make the person no longer a victim. I was simply pointing out that there are shades of gray as to what you or I or the Church would consider justifiably pursued by the victim. You, me, the jury and the Church may all come up with a different value. But wanting something does not forfeit victim status.

The Church offered to settle, as I understand it, they too must have thought there was a value that would have been worth exchanging.

[nomdujour]

And personal revenge for allegations of obstruction of justice and not excummincating the abuser. (Which I hope he is excommincated hes a scum bag).

I understand the abuser was a High Priest, was a friend of the Bishop involved, and initially he was only disfellowshipped for events related to the victim. I may be wrong.

[Dill Pickles]

from the Pickle:

1. It started in 1988, when she was 7 yrs old, not 1998, Bsix.

Six: I am aware of that. I was making reference to when the abuse was supposedly first reported to the original bishop.

Dill: Then that would be sometime between 1994 and 1996, since it says she was in junior high.

2. 6-8 yrs later, she told a friend (when she was 13-15, junior high is 7-9 grade in Washington). The friend told the bishop; the bishop called the family in to his office. According to the account on the 1st page of this thread, "Hatch told her to be glad she had not told civil authorities, who would try to destroy her family." She had obviously told him of the abuse at some point prior to that statement, and his advice was that she not tell civil authorities because they "would try to destroy her family."

Six: With respect, that is the newspaper account from one side of the dispute. There is no documentary evidence to support that claim. The Bishop has stated a different set of events. He-said-she-said.

Dill: I thought the newspaper was reporting what was said in court. If that is not so, I apologize. However the article says " In the lawsuit..." and then goes on to enumerate several points in the lawsuit. I assumed that meant there is documentation to support the claim, and the jury agreed.

3. At that point, Hatch did not tell her mother she was being abused. She, however, thought her mother knew, and felt abandoned: "Hatch then spoke with her parents, but never mentioned the abuse, Kosnoff said. Believing her mother had been told, Jessica felt abandoned, she said."

Six: Again, that is the media's version plaintiff's telling of the event...for which there is absolutely no documentary evidence.

Dill: again I thought this was part of a report of what was presented in court. If not so, then I apologize. I haven't read the original suit.

4. At some point, he referred her to LDSSS.

Six: With all due respect, that is not evident from the media accounts. I got the impression that the LDSSS referal was made by the second bishop in conjunction with the confession made years after the first bishop met with the family. Also, if a referral was made by the first Bishop, he may have made the referral for matters unrelated to sexual abuse.

Dill: the only way the attorney can tie Bishop Hatch to LDSSS ("But Kosnoff successfully argued in court that Hatch was acting as a social services counselor when Jessica came to him for help." [emphasis by the Pickle]), and thus to a social worker's duty to report, is if Bishop Hatch is the one who made the referral to LDSSS. Without that referral, it's not possible to tie Hatch to a social worker's duty. So, since the attorney did successfully tie Bishop Hatch, not Bishop Wade, to LDSSS, assumedly via the referral and the intake process, then that is a valid assumpiton on my part.

...

6. It is not clear from the articles when the mother knew, but it is clear that she did not know when Jessi had her initial meeting with Hatch.

Six: We do know that she found out for sure at the same time the abuser made his confession to the second Bishop.

Dill: Yes. So how can she be held liable for something she didn't know (that Jessi was being abused, which Bishop Hatch knew years prior)?

7. LDSSS does have a duty to report and did have a connection with Jessi via the referral from Hatch. If the only way to access LDSSS is via the bishop, then that is likely how the attorney in question convinced the jury that the bishop was acting as an agent of LDSSS. The attorney maintains that because of LDSSS's intake process, the bishop clearly is part of LDSSS. LDSSS is wholly owned by the church. If LDSSS is liable, then the church is liable.

Six: That assumes that Hatch made a referral related to the first meeting...and that he understood that there was sexual abuse...and that the counselor at the time understood that there was sexual abuse. I think this is an assumption based on speculation.

Dill: see above. The attorney convinced the jury that Hatch knew on all those accounts, and that is a matter of record, if the Trib is reporting what is in the public record.

[Sput]

And personal revenge for allegations of obstruction of justice and not excummincating the abuser. (Which I hope he is excommincated hes a scum bag).

I understand the abuser was a High Priest, was a friend of the Bishop involved, and initially he was only disfellowshipped for events related to the victim. I may be wrong.

Does it matter if hes a high priest? And yes im disgusted he was only disfellowshiped.

[Scott Lloyd]

From USU:

And address, if you would, why, if we are not living under tyranny, the Church should be solely responsible for all damages ever suffered by the girls, notwithstanding its ephemeral involvement.

Answer that to my satisfaction and I'll share a hanky with you.

Too much ozone in that question for me to answer.

Ozone or not, it's a reasonable question.

Do I now feel free to go after the Church for every real or imagined ill inflicted upon me by one of its members?

I have a concern that the adamant defenders of the Church, by attacking the two girls and their mother, are unintentionally portraying the Church as monstrous in the eyes of every other ethical human being reading this.

"Ethical" being the operative word here. How is it ethical to hold a person or organization responsible for wrongs it did not commit? Why is it unethical to resent it when that happens?

The message I would hope would be sent is that this was a regrettable situation in which the root problem has been corrected so it won't happen again.

The message being sent is you can go after the Church of Deep Pockets of Latter-day Saints as proxy for the real offender.

[Scott Lloyd]

Alright everyone,

Clean up these posts or the thread will be closed.  Nom de jour, I am paying close attention to your posts. 

Please everyone, lets have meaningful, substantive dialogue.  If that isn't possible on this thread, then we'll close it.

-SlackTime

Thanks

The wonder bread reference was not lost on me here. Is that your Poor White Trash Slam? I got it.

What a reach that one was!

[Dunamis]

NO BOARD WARS

We have a policy of allowing posters freedom to discuss topics with a very few exceptions. We do not censor ideas but we do censor bad behavior. This lawsuit is in the public domain. It is of obvious interest to an LDS audience. It can be discussed in a dispassionate manner. Knock off the moralizing. Knock off the personal attacks. We do not monitor this board 24/7. If you see bad language, harrassment, flaming or any of the other deadly board sins turn in a post report. If you have not done that do not come here to board nanny.

[nomdujour]

Does it matter if hes a high priest? And yes im disgusted he was only disfellowshiped.

It sort of matters. As a High Priest, any disciplinary councils typically require the entire High Council. Which means as many as 15 men could have been aware of the events. If the typical standards were not followed for a High Priest that also presents an issue for the Church as they may have selectively doled out their consequence. I would only be guessing, but I would suggest, that being a High Priest would have invited more input from the Stake President than would typically be involved for other Priesthood holders.

On a more pessimistic take, It is a bit more of an embarrassment to some members when a leader falls or faulters versus a backbench member or inactive member. This may have also had an influence on the decisionmakers.

[Sput]

That was a rhetorical question as in why would it matter if hes a high priest or deacon hes still a scum.

[Scott Lloyd]

On a more pessimistic take, It is a bit more of an embarrassment to some members when a leader falls or faulters versus a backbench member or inactive member. This may have also had an influence on the decisionmakers.

Being a high priest does not necessarily imply that one holds a leadership position.

Confusion over this point has been unfairly exploited in the past in court cases against the Church. But someone who is familiar with Church administration (as you apparently are) ought to know better.

[Dill Pickles]

Do I now feel free to go after the Church for every real or imagined ill inflicted upon me by one of its members?

from the Pickle:

Under the law, a bishop is not on the same plane as a member of the church. A bishop is held to a higher standard because bishops are the legal agents of the church. One of the tasks for which bishops are responsible is making referrals to LDSSS. A member can not refer anyone to LDSSS. Only bishops can do that. Members are not part of LDSSS's intake process at all; bishops are. And that is where the legal responsibility starts. LDSSS is wholly owned by the LDS church, therefore they are responsible to make sure that LDSSS follows all laws pertaining to social welfare agencies in the states in which they do businesses. LDSSS is a social welfare agency, and is required by law in WA state to report all abuse to the proper authorities. The attorney successfully convined the jury that the Bishop was acting as a social worker, assumedly because of his part in the intake process.

"Ethical" being the operative word here. How is it ethical to hold a person or organization responsible for wrongs it did not commit? Why is it unethical to resent it when that happens?

The jury felt the organization was responsible for the wrong that was committed (the wrong being the bishop's lack of what the jury thought was appropriate action, not the abuse itself). Years of abuse took place because this crime was not reported. You are free to disagree with the jury. But calling the jury unethical isn't fair. You have no way of knowing whether they were unethical or not, just because you don't like their verdict.

[nomdujour]

Being a high priest does not necessarily imply that one holds a leadership position.

Confusion over this point has been unfairly exploited in the past in court cases against the Church. But someone who is familiar with Church administration (as you apparently are) ought to know better.

Fair enough. Sure, there are ward in Federal Heights with over a hundred High Priests. I doubt that is the norm in Washington State, but honestly, I have no clue.

From other posts I have read, and mine is a veritable jambalaya of information, the guy was the home teacher to the bishop in question. I take from that that he had some access to Leadership in general. Maybe that is a stretch too.

What is not confusing is the prescribed methods for treating transgressions by High Priests, regardless of their leadership acumen.

[Scott Lloyd]

"Ethical" being the operative word here. How is it ethical to hold a person or organization responsible for wrongs it did not commit? Why is it unethical to resent it when that happens?

The jury felt the organization was responsible for the wrong that was committed (the wrong being the bishop's lack of what the jury thought was appropriate action, not the abuse itself). Years of abuse took place because this crime was not reported. You are free to disagree with the jury. But calling the jury unethical isn't fair. You have no way of knowing whether they were unethical or not, just because you don't like their verdict.

I didn't call the jury unethical.

I was responding to Moksha's remark that we are making the Church seem "monstrous" to "ethical" people just because we disagree with the jury's verdict. That is preposterous. If they really are ethical, they will not see mere disagreement as "monstrous."

[KevinG]

I wish this would close now.

My wife and I are both adult survivors of sexual abuse. She is also the survivor of extreme physical and emotional abuse by her stepfather. Her mother turned a blind eye becuase she didn't want to lose her home. Her school counselors ignored reports and so did the local police.

I have alread had a child fondled by another child at pre-school who was a victim of an adult abuser. None of these cases had anything to do with the LDS Church and we or the perpetrators weren't members when it happened, with the exception of my little girl bieng LDS (her juvenile perp was not, nor was his abuser).

In none of these cases have we ever felt a suit would help anyone, and would probably require victims to relive their abuse. It was not worth money. But that was our choice.

Having established that I have been there,

-I am flabbergasted that someone would blame an institution for the actions of it's members that are in direct conflict with the ideals and policies of that institution.

-Despite the rumors and opinions of those who haven't been there, the Church had made great strides in it's training and policies to safeguard it's youth. Even prior to 1994 I have been in callings requiring youth protection training and the Church has has some of the better resources I've seen among the many volunteer organizations, educational institutions and professional orgainzations I've been a part of. Church discipline is if anything more strict on High Priests or people in public callings.

-Time and the appeals process will tell if the onus of responsibility should be on the Church for failing to train it's lay clergy, the Bishop for mishandling the case or elsewhere. Thank you to those who brought relevant legal information to the table. For those who added nothing but rumor and innuendo - a pox on your keyboards.

-It is useless to use this type of incident as fodder for pro or anti church stances and as such if people can't discuss the legal aspects of the case and who the responsibility lies with without the emotional and opinionated outbursts, this type of discussion ends up being hurtful and pointless. If you can't resist throwing bombs then at least do it on another thread that doesn't deal with such serious matters. Or better yet grow up.

[Dunamis]

The wonder bread reference was not lost on me here. Is that your Poor White Trash Slam? I got it. Interesting that I am on probabation and that comment is so wholesome.

First, we do not have "probation". Second, you came in here with guns blazing while lecturing peace. Villifying others for engaging in villification is never a very effective strategy.

Folks, other websites are linking to this. This creates board wars and fans the flames. If you are new to this board, have the courtesy to find out how we operate. We have a board policy pinned to the top of the page. Please visit it. I am not going to read 22 pages of anything on a holiday week. If you want us to smack someone it is your responsibility to report it. We will be happy to oblige as anyone here can tell you.

If we have the plaintiff here it would be to our benefit to hear the full story. Be sensitive to her situation.

[charity]

The comment has been made that a jury made the decision, so it must be right.

At the time of the O.J. Simpson trial, one of my students said, in great amazement at the verdict, "I thought he was guilty, but the jury said he was innocent. I guess I was wrong." Her tests and assignments similarly showed the lack of critical thinking.

Does a jury verdict indicate truth? One of the O.J. jurors said she voted not guilty because she didn't believe all the science stuff because she had a home pregnancy test once that was wrong. Jurors don't have to pass tests on critical thinking. And we see a wave of "the poor victim ought to get some money, and who has it?" as a major factor in outrageous jury decisions.

I wonder why people are jumping up and down demanding an end to the death penalty because juries get it wrong so often, they say, and yet the civil damages juries are held up on pedestals of righteous judgement.

[Scott Lloyd]

The comment has been made that a jury made the decision, so it must be right.

At the time of the O.J. Simpson trial, one of my students said, in great amazement at the verdict, "I thought he was guilty, but the jury said he was innocent. I guess I was wrong." Her tests and assignments similarly showed the lack of critical thinking.

Does a jury verdict indicate truth? One of the O.J. jurors said she voted not guilty because she didn't believe all the science stuff because she had a home pregnancy test once that was wrong. Jurors don't have to pass tests on critical thinking. And we see a wave of "the poor victim ought to get some money, and who has it?" as a major factor in outrageous jury decisions.

I wonder why people are jumping up and down demanding an end to the death penalty because juries get it wrong so often, they say, and yet the civil damages juries are held up on pedestals of righteous judgement.

I too have noticed this phenomenon, Charity.

I used to cover courts for a newspaper and, thus, have witnessed my share of legal proceedings. I can attest that juries can -- and very often do -- make wrong decisions.

The famous incident in which a woman spilled hot coffee on her lap and then won a judgment against McDonalds for damages is a case in point.

[Dill Pickles]

"Ethical" being the operative word here. How is it ethical to hold a person or organization responsible for wrongs it did not commit? Why is it unethical to resent it when that happens?

The jury felt the organization was responsible for the wrong that was committed (the wrong being the bishop's lack of what the jury thought was appropriate action, not the abuse itself). Years of abuse took place because this crime was not reported. You are free to disagree with the jury. But calling the jury unethical isn't fair. You have no way of knowing whether they were unethical or not, just because you don't like their verdict.

I didn't call the jury unethical.

I was responding to Moksha's remark that we are making the Church seem "monstrous" to "ethical" people just because we disagree with the jury's verdict. That is preposterous. If they really are ethical, they will not see mere disagreement as "monstrous."

from the apologetic Pickle: my apologies for not reading you right, Scott. I thought you were referring to the jury, when you were talking about holding an organization responsible for wrongs committed. Thanks for the clarification.

[nomdujour]

I wish this would close now.

My wife and I are both adult survivors of sexual abuse. She is also the survivor of extreme physical and emotional abuse by her stepfather. I have alread had a child fondled by another child at pre-school who was a victim of an adult abuser. None of these cases had anything to do with the LDS Church and we or the perpetrators weren't members when it happened, with the exception of my little girl.

In none of these cases have we ever felt a suit would help anyone, and would probably require victims to relive their abuse. It was not worth money. But that was our choice.

Having established that I have been there,

-I am flabbergasted that someone would blame an institution for the actions of it's members that are in direct conflict with the ideals and policies of that institution.

-Despite the rumors and opinions of those who haven't been there, the Church had made great strides in it's training and policies to safeguard it's youth. Even prior to 1994 I have been in callings requiring youth protection training and the Church has has some of the better resources I've seen among the many volunteer organizations, educational institutions and professional orgainzations I've been a part of.

-Time will tell if the onus of responsibility should be on the Church for failing to train it's lay clergy, the Bishop for mishandling the case or elsewhere. Thank you to those who brought relevant legal information to the table.

-It is useless to use this type of incident as fodder for pro or anti church stances and as such if people can't discuss the legal aspects of the case and who the responsibility lies with without the emotional and opinionated outbursts, this type of discussion ends up being hurtful and pointless. If you can't resist throwing bombs then at least do it on another thread that doesn't deal with such serious matters. Or better yet grow up.

I will make this my last post so when Pahoran returns he can have free shots.

like Dadof7 I will give a brief sign off.

Maybe my guns were a blazin, that is subjective. This is a hot topic for me. I have lived in a ward plagued with incest and molestation. I have seen it in my family and seen the reaction of the Church. Forgive me if my guns dont blaze as much over other topics.

I hope it is sensitive to the plaintiff to convey to her that all people dont judge her as a moneygrubber for following a path that took incredible fortitude.

If others are linking to this site, so be it. Let them conclude as they may. It is obvious I am new, and those critical of me are part of the established dialogue on the board. That is a harmless communication.

There is not one post on this board that I would flag for editing. While I may find them repulsive, I have no basis for assuming they are not the honest expression of the author and state clearly thier position, though it varies from mine.

Now, back to the topic at hand.

I consider Jessica a victim and dont consider anything she did in her pursuit of justice or her search for spiritual, emotional and temporal aid a means of forfeiting her right to justice, in whatever form she chooses.

I think the perpetrator is as despicable as they get and deserves his sentence. I however, feel that it is possible that other adults in the victims life, including church leaders, failed to serve her sufficiently.

I will not blanketly and blindly defend the church, or consider it flawless and blameless when they expect the level of loyalty to Bishops and others that I feel is comminicated.

I feel this debate is helpful. I wish it was public and involved the voices of Elder Oaks and other legal minds and leaders in the Church.

I think money will motivate change. I know others disagree.

I have many other points but I am tiring of the topic.

Happy Holidays (Pahoran excepted )

[Pahoran]

The comment has been made that a jury made the decision, so it must be right.

At the time of the O.J. Simpson trial, one of my students said, in great amazement at the verdict, "I thought he was guilty, but the jury said he was innocent.  I guess I was wrong."  Her tests and assignments similarly showed the lack of critical thinking.

Does a jury verdict indicate truth?  One of the O.J. jurors said she voted not guilty because she didn't believe all the science stuff because she had a home pregnancy test once that was wrong.  Jurors don't have to pass tests on critical thinking. And we see a wave of "the poor victim ought to get some money, and who has it?" as a major factor in outrageous jury decisions.

I wonder why people are jumping up and down demanding an end to the death penalty because juries get it wrong so often, they say, and yet the civil damages juries are held up on pedestals of righteous judgement.

Add to that, the fact that in a civil complaint, the standard of proof is considerably lower. In a criminal case, a conviction means that the jury was convinced of guilt beyond reasonable doubt; in a civil case, the finding goes to "the balance of probabilities" or "the weight of the evidence," which means that the jury can pick whichever side they like the best.

The Church should absolutely appeal this decision because it is so clearly wrong. The question, of course, is whether an appellate court will want to overturn a jury verdict. They almost never do overturn a jury's findings of fact, and only review the trial judge's rulings and instructions to see if there has been a mistake in law.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Dill Pickles]

The comment has been made that a jury made the decision, so it must be right.

At the time of the O.J. Simpson trial, one of my students said, in great amazement at the verdict, "I thought he was guilty, but the jury said he was innocent. I guess I was wrong." Her tests and assignments similarly showed the lack of critical thinking.

Does a jury verdict indicate truth? One of the O.J. jurors said she voted not guilty because she didn't believe all the science stuff because she had a home pregnancy test once that was wrong. Jurors don't have to pass tests on critical thinking. And we see a wave of "the poor victim ought to get some money, and who has it?" as a major factor in outrageous jury decisions.

I wonder why people are jumping up and down demanding an end to the death penalty because juries get it wrong so often, they say, and yet the civil damages juries are held up on pedestals of righteous judgement.

from the Pickle jar: Charity says juries make mistakes. Scott says juries very often make mistakes. Just because juries have been known to get things wrong occasionally doesn't automatically mean they get it wrong often. If the majority of the time the system didn't work, I think we'd have a different system, don't you? That is why we keep it, with all its thorns and mistakes: because the majority of the time, it works.

This time, the jury saw the evidence, heard the arguments, discussed it all, listened to the judge, and came up with a verdict. They didn't read it in the papers, they were there in the courtroom. And now we can armchair quarterback their decision, question their decision making skills, judge their judgment, all without seeing the evidence they saw, without hearing the arguments they heard, without the instructions the judge gave them. They are ordinary folks just like us. They did the best they could, and just because we don't like it, we assume those who do agree lack critical thinking skills or were simply going for the sympathy vote? Oh my. Can we give them the benefit of the doubt, and think that maybe, just maybe, those 12 people did their best to do what they saw as right, the same as we would have done?