Woman Accusing Joseph Bishop to File Suit (Against Bishop & LDS Church)

[Calm]

47 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I'm not sure doing nothing shows negligence in and of itself.  She'd have to prove that the bishop's reaction wasn't reasonable or logical.  The law usually respects people's right to act to the best of their ability given the information that they have.  They don't usually hold people accountable for decisions that seemed reasonable at the time, just because they end up being wrong.  

I am not saying she can win the case, just that it is a reasonable case to take to court.  I have read some as being completely dismissive of the idea.

[Teancum]

20 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Because fabrications do happen. In a conservative magazine Jason Richwine makes the case that false accusations may be more common than we think

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/how-common-are-false-rape-charges-really-jason-richwine/

But I am not taking a side. I will let the authorities decide if Bishop is guilty or not. 

Many reasons

https://ocrsm.umd.edu/files/Why-Is-Sexual-Assault-Under-Reported.pdf

The church doesn't tolerate sexual abuse

Ummmm yea that church does tolerate it and ignore it.  Hate to burst your bubble.

[smac97]

2 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

We are talking about an experience so regimented you can’t even see a doctor without getting permission from the mission president’s wife. It’s ridiculous to blame missionaries for not thinking critically and acting on their own judgment. 

I have to agree to some extent.  The answer, I think, is more training about what to do when you find yourself in a compromising position, or after you have been abused or assaulted.  Clear instructions on how to go about avoiding such circumstances, or stopping them, or reporting them after-the-fact, is important.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

She can prove negligence by the bishop she originally told back in 87 because he has admitted to ignoring her accusations and doing nothing.  He was acting as an agent of the Church at that time.

Wouldnt that be a valid claim?

I'm not sure.  "Negligence" claims presumes the existence of a legally cognizable "duty."  Does an LDS bishop have an affirmative duty to reporty accusations of misconduct in any and all circumstances?  If so, to whom?  The police?

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

2 hours ago, why me said:

I can see one problem. Someone leaked all this to mormonleaks. Why? What was the purpose for the leak. To harm the church?

I think that's the most likely answer.  The woman is upset at the leak, but it apparently came from a friend of hers.  I think the friend let animus against the Church trump the welfare (and legal efforts) of the abuse victime.

2 hours ago, why me said:

To get publicity? For a lawsuit? This all could have been done quietly between lawyers and bishop.

The negotiations were between the woman's lawyer and the Church.

2 hours ago, why me said:

But...instead it goes on the net to harm the lds church? Most likely to harm the church. No other reason to leak it to mormonleaks. And here we are discussing it on the thread...Publicity achieved. And money assured, perhaps?

Don't know.  It's not a front-burner issue for me.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Doubt it. If she was a minor at the time of the incident it would be more likely.

She wasn't.  She would have been at least 21.  Minority ends at 18.

Thanks,

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I have to agree to some extent.  The answer, I think, is more training about what to do when you find yourself in a compromising position, or after you have been abused or assaulted.  Clear instructions on how to go about avoiding such circumstances, or stopping them, or reporting them after-the-fact, is important.

Thanks,

-Smac

Agreed. I know of a mission president who sought out vulnerable elders to work in the mission office so he could groom them for abuse. I can’t even imagine. Who were they supposed to report to when the person in charge of every missionary in the country was their abuser?

[smac97]

2 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

It could easily have been someone at the church office building who thought this needed to be publicized for any number of reasons.

Perhaps.  But concern for the welfare of the victim is probably not one of those reasons.  She was keeping things confidential, and her right to do so was compromised by ML.

2 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

Do you think this harms the church? I don’t. It certainly provides some motivation for doing things differently in the future. 

I think some harm has happened and will happen.

Thanks,

-Smac

[bsjkki]

18 minutes ago, Ginger Snaps said:

A second missionary making accusations has come to light.  

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/900013796/lds-church-says-a-second-missionary-made-sexual-abuse-allegation-against-former-mtc-president.html

So, in 2010, two missionaries made accusations and he denied them and that was the end of it. The church should have put this in their first statement but I’m happy they may be choosing greater transparency now. 

"When she reported the alleged abuse to her local church leaders in 2010, they provided emotional support as well as professional counseling services. Mr. Bishop’s local ecclesiastical leaders were contacted and they confronted him with her claims, which he denied, and local leaders did not feel they could pursue church discipline for Mr. Bishop."

...

The release said church leaders share "anger and distress church members and others feel to learn of incidents where those entrusted with sacred responsibilities violate God’s commandments and harm others."

It called such behavior repulsive and sinful.

"The church is looking into all aspects of the assertions on the recording of Joseph Bishop. This includes the work of outside legal counsel, who are interviewing priesthood leaders, family members, law enforcement officials and others with knowledge of these incidents."

Edited March 23, 2018 by bsjkki

[smac97]

2 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

I’ll reserve judgment on whether my cousin’s actions were despicable because I have no information about what happened and why. If he did wrong, he’ll hear about it from me, but I don’t have the facts.

He released an audio file of a woman who now stands to have her identity published to the world, and hence linked to all of the horrible things described in the audio file.

Did you know this woman's identity has already been accidentally leaked?  Substantial efforts were made to rectify that, but the damage may already be done.  And that damage is directly attributable to . . . MormonLeaks.  He released the file without her consent (unless she is lying about that, and I doubt she is).  His release of the file compromised her desire to address this issue in a way of her choosing (confidentially).

So . . . yeah.  "Despicable" seems to fit the ticket.

2 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

Generally speaking, he’s not the kind of person who would do something despicable. I, on the other hand. ...

He has risked exposing the identity a victim of horrific sexual abuse, when she had gone to great efforts to avoid that.

He has risked her legal remedies.

He did not seek her consent to release her profoundly sensitive personal information.

"Despicable" seems to fit the ticket.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

47 minutes ago, rpn said:

Because for more than 20 years, the sister had reported it repeatedly without any sense that anything was done about it.   For two months the Church had the tape and nothing happened.   The BYU police had gotten his testimony and the prosecutor would have prosecuted except it was beyond the statute of limitation.   BUT THE CHURCH had not done anything.     Someone (the survivor says it wasn't her (though it is not clear whether she released the transcript but not the tape, or whether she released neither), and for all we know it could have been someone at church headquarters) decided it ought to be disclosed.

As far as not doing anything, they were apparently in  negotiations and investigating.  I assume part of that might be looking for other victims to see the extent of his actions.    This might be difficult to do discreetly and thus might take time.  We don't know how cooperative people were being, for example; what other work was on the plate of those dealing with this.  Maybe someone had to go through Elder Asay's records that might not have been computerized.  It sounds like something that might need time to do right. 

Now whether or not the Church should have acted to discipline him just based on the tape (they may not have had the BYU police report, right?) given it appears they haven't prior to learning the full extent to the best of their ability, I think that can be debated from multiple POVs.  I also admit that if they disciplined him and that info got out, it might affect the settlement discussion so there could have been some clinical decisionmaking that looks cold hearted, but may been seen by those making the decision as prudent care of the stewardship they have...

It is complicated.  Generally I fall on the side of privacy, but this situation has a lot of fallout and full transparency by the Church might help that.  Otoh, if precedents are set, then that might cause problems for cases where transparency is damaging to victims.

I am very undecided as far as the Church leadership decisions are concerned.

[Duncan]

3 hours ago, bsjkki said:

So, in 2010, two missionaries made accusations and he denied them and that was the end of it. The church should put this on their first statement but I’m happy they may be choosing greater transparency now.

"When she reported the alleged abuse to her local church leaders in 2010, they provided emotional support as well as professional counseling services. Mr. Bishop’s local ecclesiastical leaders were contacted and they confronted him with her claims, which he denied, and local leaders did not feel they could pursue church discipline for Mr. Bishop."

I bet they have egg on their face now, what will Bishop's leaders do now that this all hit the fan?  and another sister came forward, his 2017 confession?

Edited March 24, 2018 by Duncan

[Calm]

11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

He released an audio file of a woman who now stands to have her identity published to the world, and hence linked to all of the horrible things described in the audio file.

Did you know this woman's identity has already been accidentally leaked?  Substantial efforts were made to rectify that, but the damage may already be done.  And that damage is directly attributable to . . . MormonLeaks.  He released the file without her consent (unless she is lying about that, and I doubt she is).  His release of the file compromised her desire to address this issue in a way of her choosing (confidentially).

So . . . yeah.  "Despicable" seems to fit the ticket.

He has risked exposing the identity a victim of horrific sexual abuse, when she had gone to great efforts to avoid that.

He has risked her legal remedies.

He did not seek her consent to release her profoundly sensitive personal information.

"Despicable" seems to fit the ticket.

Thanks,

-Smac

And the fact that there is now documentation to her admitting her threat to kill someone was not a joke as she claimed to the police doesn't not put her in a good light and could have impact on negotiations, current and future relationships, her ability to get a job (can you imagine an employer hiring someone they knew thought of killing the person they were angry at?)....yeah, I don't think there was any consideration for the victim or they would have gotten permission from her first because the chance of her identity coming out is ineveitable once that tape went public.

Also it is now public knowledge she had a child out of wedlock (probably from rape, the language is ambiguous) and gave it up for adoption.  This might impact any future relationship with the child if that is desired by either her or the child.

Edited March 24, 2018 by Calm

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

Indeed it is. As I said, I know exactly why he started the site, and if you’ve been paying attention, you would too. 

Give us titillating documents about General Authority travel policy?

[jkwilliams]

Just now, The Nehor said:

Give us titillating documents about General Authority travel policy?

Everything else is secondary. 

[bsjkki]

I think the church should have done more in 2010 when they knew of two allegations. It doesn’t sound like they did a thorough investigation at that time and just let him denie it.

[jkwilliams]

12 minutes ago, smac97 said:

He released an audio file of a woman who now stands to have her identity published to the world, and hence linked to all of the horrible things described in the audio file.

Did you know this woman's identity has already been accidentally leaked?  Substantial efforts were made to rectify that, but the damage may already be done.  And that damage is directly attributable to . . . MormonLeaks.  He released the file without her consent (unless she is lying about that, and I doubt she is).  His release of the file compromised her desire to address this issue in a way of her choosing (confidentially).

So . . . yeah.  "Despicable" seems to fit the ticket.

He has risked exposing the identity a victim of horrific sexual abuse, when she had gone to great efforts to avoid that.

He has risked her legal remedies.

He did not seek her consent to release her profoundly sensitive personal information.

"Despicable" seems to fit the ticket.

Thanks,

-Smac

If he did something wrong, he should be condemned. For now, I’m not sure what happened. 

[The Nehor]

5 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

I think the church should have done more in 2010 when they knew of two allegations. It doesn’t sound like they did a thorough investigation at that time and just let him denie it.

What should they have done? It probably looked like a “he said, she said” situation. There were no witnesses. If I were the Priesthood leader I would be very hesitant to call a disciplinary council. I would probably interview him but he could deny everything. The Church does not have an FBI to ferret out a lot of witnesses or anyone who may know anything and you cannot publicize the accusation in the hopes someone could come forward.

Maybe they knew more then that and screwed up but I am not convinced they did.

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

If he did something wrong, he should be condemned. For now, I’m not sure what happened. 

Is he claiming that he released the file with her consent? That seems to be the seminal issue. If he did not have her consent, then despicable is the word of the day.  Tomorrow's word will be thoughtless. or unbelievably stupid. Or "so invested on sticking it to the church that he threw the welfare and rights of a victim of sex abuse under the bus."

[The Nehor]

27 minutes ago, smac97 said:

She wasn't.  She would have been at least 21.  Minority ends at 18.

Thanks,

-Smac

I know. I was just pointing that out because there is almost no legally required mandatory reporting for adults being abused.

[bsjkki]

2 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

What should they have done? It probably looked like a “he said, she said” situation. There were no witnesses. If I were the Priesthood leader I would be very hesitant to call a disciplinary council. I would probably interview him but he could deny everything. The Church does not have an FBI to ferret out a lot of witnesses or anyone who may know anything and you cannot publicize the accusation in the hopes someone could come forward.

Maybe they knew more then that and screwed up but I am not convinced they did.

It was a he said, she said, she said. Is this how things go down regularly? A woman makes an accusation, he denies it to church leaders and that is the end of it? That doesn’t give me confidence that the flock is being well protected from the wolves. And, his position could have intimidated local priesthood leaders.

[jkwilliams]

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Is he claiming that he released the file with her consent? That seems to be the seminal issue. If he did not have her consent, then despicable is the word of the day.  Tomorrow's word will be thoughtless. or unbelievably stupid. Or "so invested on sticking it to the church that he threw the welfare and rights of a victim of sex abuse under the bus."

He’s not claiming anything, as far as I know. And Ryan is not invested in sticking it to the church. Don’t be melodramatic. 

[bsjkki]

Good advice. https://bycommonconsent.com/2018/03/23/holding-an-abuser-accountable/

“Most of the women I know who were sexually abused or assaulted and who had unsatisfactory experiences with their bishops were unaware of what the Church Handbook of Instructions says, and how would they not be? This information is not public to non-leaders, and because there are no women allowed to sit in disciplinary councils, they don’t have access to this information. By contrast, abusers in leadership positions do have access to this information which spells out for them how to avoid being held accountable by the church.

So what can women do if they’ve been abused and feel that their complaint is being dismissed?

• Be aware that a conviction is not required for the accused to be held accountable in a Church disciplinary council.
• Be aware that even if the abuser is not convicted in a criminal court, a disciplinary council can still be convened for misconduct with moral overtones such as rape, incest, domestic abuse, and sexual assault.
• Offer to give evidence in the disciplinary council. There is power in facing your abuser.
• Do not accept excuses that contradict what the handbook actually says.
• If the bishop demurs, demand to know why the accused will not be disciplined. Ask the bishop or stake president to read aloud from the handbook. Do not accept their word for it that a council cannot be convened without a conviction.
• Pursue a police investigation for criminal activities. This may delay the disciplinary procedures and may be unlikely to result in a conviction, but it can still give a victim a sense of regained empowerment.”

[bluebell]

48 minutes ago, Calm said:

I am not saying she can win the case, just that it is a reasonable case to take to court.  I have read some as being completely dismissive of the idea.

I personally don't see that she has any chance at winning unless she can prove that he didn't follow the rules about what bishops should do when someone reports this kind of thing to them.  If bishops aren't required to report abuse, and instead they are allowed to use their best judgement, then I don't think she has a leg to stand on from that angle.  It really doesn't matter if it turns out his best judgement was wrong, if his judgement was reasonable given the information he had, then that's all the matters usually.

[Amulek]

Quote

But...instead it goes on the net to harm the lds church? Most likely to harm the church. No other reason to leak it to mormonleaks. And here we are discussing it on the thread...Publicity achieved. And money assured, perhaps?

I'm not certain that the leak helped her chances with a civil suit. For all we know, her attorney may have been using the yet unreleased tape as part of their negotiations with the church's council. Once the tape went public and it was discovered that Bishop never admitted to sexually assaulting her they may have decided to walk away from the table. 

Also, as a matter of general curiosity, for any who have been following the story closely, do we know the exact dates for when the alleged assault took place and when she reported it to her single's ward bishop? I seem to remember thinking that the indecent occurred in 1983 and the reporting occurred in 1987. And I recall one of the articles saying there was a four year statute of limitations. Had the statute of limitations passed by the time the first church leader been made aware of it? If so, that might account for what it was never reported to the police and only to Elder Assay (sp?).