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

[Abulafia]

The survivor in the case has made a statement supporting Mormonleaks disclosure after the fact.

 

https://mormonleaks.io/newsroom/2018/03/24/statement-on-behalf-of-victim-in-joseph-l-bishop-audio/

[juliann]

14 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I agree Bishop was an abuser but legally....what? Negligence requires that the negligent party allow something to happen. Unless she was assaulted again OR the timeline lines up that her reporting could have prevented another crime she has no cage for negligence. Now it is possible that a later abuse case could sue for negligence but it would have to pass the "reasonable person" standard and is still dubious because you would have to prove that that negligence directly led to the later abuse. Pulling someone out of a church position would not necessarily qualify. I just do not see it.

That being said I hope Bishop is sued into abject poverty. I just do not think it will happen.  

I'm scratching my head over this merely because of the multiple lawsuits that have already occurred where the tie to the church was much more tenuous. The most egregious, in my opinion, was the lady who let the sunday school teacher sleep with her kid and then sued the church. She won, as I recall. They use "the priesthood" as if it is a job rather than a lay calling, which is how the rest of society does see it. 

So I am really bewildered by the insistence there has to be a higher bar in this case.

[juliann]

Here is a case proceeding right now with much more tenuous ties to church responsibility than a man put into the MTC by higher leadership   https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2018/01/17/sexual-abuse-case-against-mormon-church-scheduled-to-begin-friday/?utm_term=.cfdfd1d8ba2f

But for years, Jensen was a trusted member of the local church community, a young man whom Mormon leaders praised as a role model for youths — and recommended as a babysitter for one child after another, even as reports allegedly came back to some church volunteers that Jensen was sexually abusing boys and girls as young as two.

[Tacenda]

43 minutes ago, juliann said:

I'm scratching my head over this merely because of the multiple lawsuits that have already occurred where the tie to the church was much more tenuous. The most egregious, in my opinion, was the lady who let the sunday school teacher sleep with her kid and then sued the church. She won, as I recall. They use "the priesthood" as if it is a job rather than a lay calling, which is how the rest of society does see it. 

So I am really bewildered by the insistence there has to be a higher bar in this case.

Wasn't it because the woman was never told that he abused boys in the past, by his bishop? Too bad no one slipped an anonymous note and warn her. But agree that it was lame that she let that old man sleep with her son, I'm assuming though they didn't share a bed. My memory is faulty, but do remember reading all about this case in the past.  

The "priesthood" in the case of the mission president job, is a lay calling? Aren't mission presidents and presidents of the MTC a paid position? 

Edited March 24, 2018 by Tacenda

[Duncan]

14 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Wasn't it because the woman was never told that he abused boys in the past, by his bishop? Too bad no one slipped an anonymous note and warn her. But agree that it was lame that she let that old man sleep with her son, I'm assuming though they didn't share a bed. My memory is faulty, but do remember reading all about this case in the past.  

The "priesthood" in the case of the mission president job, is a lay calling? Aren't mission presidents and presidents of the MTC a paid position? 

I think.............? what they mean when it's a lay calling is that they picked you, you didn't pick the calling, which in our church is everyone, as opposed to a paid clergy. My Mum had an uncle and her cousin's husband were ministers in their Church's but they chose that career and they got paid for it, nobody was beating down their door and begging them to become a clergyman ( I hope!)

[Danzo]

3 minutes ago, juliann said:

Here is a case proceeding right now with much more tenuous ties to church responsibility than a man put into the MTC by higher leadership   https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2018/01/17/sexual-abuse-case-against-mormon-church-scheduled-to-begin-friday/?utm_term=.cfdfd1d8ba2f

But for years, Jensen was a trusted member of the local church community, a young man whom Mormon leaders praised as a role model for youths — and recommended as a babysitter for one child after another, even as reports allegedly came back to some church volunteers that Jensen was sexually abusing boys and girls as young as two.

For the record, I think that the church, as an institution would definitely be liable for damages in this case.  The MTC leader clearly was allegedly acting in his capacity as an ecclesiastically leader when the alleged tort occurred.  

The only defense the church would have, in my opinion would be time based defenses (statute of limitation or laches) .

Of course there could be a factual dispute on what actually occurred (was it consensual?, did it really happen?, etc).

I don't think we have the whole story yet.

 

 

[Danzo]

27 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Wasn't it because the woman was never told that he abused boys in the past, by his bishop? Too bad no one slipped an anonymous note and warn her. But agree that it was lame that she let that old man sleep with her son, I'm assuming though they didn't share a bed. My memory is faulty, but do remember reading all about this case in the past.  

The "priesthood" in the case of the mission president job, is a lay calling? Aren't mission presidents and presidents of the MTC a paid position? 

In my recollection, in the case you are referring to, there was a settlement, not a decision by the court. I think it was done to avoid discovery.

 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, juliann said:

I'm scratching my head over this merely because of the multiple lawsuits that have already occurred where the tie to the church was much more tenuous. The most egregious, in my opinion, was the lady who let the sunday school teacher sleep with her kid and then sued the church. She won, as I recall. They use "the priesthood" as if it is a job rather than a lay calling, which is how the rest of society does see it. 

So I am really bewildered by the insistence there has to be a higher bar in this case.

Iirc, she didn't "win", but rather the judge ordered the Church to open their financial records prior to any wrongdoing was shown and so the Church settled.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

Wasn't it because the woman was never told that he abused boys in the past, by his bishop? Too bad no one slipped an anonymous note and warn her. But agree that it was lame that she let that old man sleep with her son, I'm assuming though they didn't share a bed. My memory is faulty, but do remember reading all about this case in the past.  

Iirc, that is the claim though the bishop told her his recommendation was not to take him in and iirc (has been a few years since I read the testimony) I believe the bishop claimed he didn't find out until after she asked and he may not have been aware she had gone against his advice.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Duncan said:

I think.............? what they mean when it's a lay calling is that they picked you, you didn't pick the calling, which in our church is everyone, as opposed to a paid clergy. My Mum had an uncle and her cousin's husband were ministers in their Church's but they chose that career and they got paid for it, nobody was beating down their door and begging them to become a clergyman ( I hope!)

More often it means no professional education for the career such as attending a seminary as well as not getting paid for it.  Lay ministers in other faiths often feel "called" to serve.

Edited March 24, 2018 by Calm

[smac97]

17 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I agree Bishop was an abuser but legally....what? Negligence requires that the negligent party allow something to happen.

Putting aside thes statute of limitations issue, a negligence claim against the Church (certainly not against Bishop) could be framed this way:

Generally, an injured plaintiff must be able to prove 4 elements in order to succeed in a personal injury claim in Utah. These are,

(1) a DUTY on the part of the defendant to conform to a specific standard of conduct to avoid risk of injury to others;
(2) a BREACH of that duty by the Defendant;
(3) that the breach was the actual and proximate CAUSE of the plaintiff’s injury, and
(4) that the defendant actually incurred DAMAGES.

The first element is key.  The LDS Church, it would be argued, has a "duty of care" toward its missionaries.  The scope and breadth of this duty is not precisely defined, but is broadly characterized this way:

Quote

Negligence means that a person did not use reasonable care. We all have a duty to use reasonable care to avoid injuring others. Reasonable care is simply what a reasonably careful person would do in a similar situation. A person may be negligent in acting or in failing to act.

The amount of care that is reasonable depends upon the situation. Ordinary circumstances do not require extraordinary caution. But some situations require more care because a reasonably careful person would understand that more danger is involved.

So the LDS Church encourages its young adults, as an expression of faith, to "go on a mission."  This means volunteering to serve wherever the Church sends you, to enter into the MTC on a prescribed date, to follow stringent rules for missionaries, and so on.

So what is the "duty of {reasonable} care" which the LDS Church owes to its missionaries relative to their stay in the MTC?  Well, it would certainly involve safeguards against sexual abuse.  Questions like these are probably salient:

• Would a "reasonably careful person" anticipate potential abuse of ecclesiastical authority by individuals assigned to run the MTC, including sexual abuse and/or rape, and thereafter take precautionary steps to avoid such abuse?
• What safeguards did the Church have in place for the physical safety of missionaries in 1985, particularly relative to the risk of sexual assault?
• Was the Church aware, at the time, of the basement room where the alleged rape occurred?
• Was allowing the MTC president to have a basement room with a cot/bed "negligent?"
• Did Joseph Bishop have any history of sexual misconduct, or allegations of such misconduct, prior to being called as MTC president?  If so, was the Church aware of this history?  Was he "vetted" before being called?  

So there are a lot of factual inquiries that precipitate a finding of a duty of care.  It will take some time to sort out.

The remaining elements also require some attention.  If there is a duty of care, then what is is?  And did the Church breach that duty?  If so, then what is the injury to to the victim, and what portion of that injury is causally linked to the breach?

A fairly useful case to read is Graves v. North Eastern Services, Inc., 2015 UT 28, 345 P.3d 619, available online here.  Pay attention to the parts referencing negligence in terms of hiring, training and supervision.  It may well be that Joseph Bishop did not have a discernible record of abuse prior to serving as MTC president.  However, there may be some questions as to the amount of training he received relative to maintaining safeguards for missionaries at the MTC, such as specific rules requiring all employees - including ecclesastical leaders like Joseph Bishop - follow guidelines limiting one-on-one interactions with missionaries, chaperoning, etc.  And there is very likely to be plenty of argument about negligence in terms of supervision.  

Consider, for example, that a bishop of a ward is "supervised" in at least two material respects.  First, the stake president has plain supervisory authority over the bishop.  However, the SP is seldom around to personally supervise a bishop.  This leads to the second aspect of "supervision," which is the Church's mandate that a priesthood leader interviewing a woman or child be "chaperoned" (that's the closest word for it, I think).  From Section 7.4 of Handbook 1:

Quote

7.4 Protecting against Misunderstandings

When a member of a bishopric or stake presidency meets with a child, youth, or woman, he asks a parent or another adult to be in an adjoining room, foyer, or hall. A parent would usually be available for a child. The leader should avoid all circumstances that could be misunderstood.

I suspect there is a similar mandate for employees/leaders at the MTC, both now and in the 1980s.  If so, there will therefore be a factual inquiry as to how this mandate was not followed.  Where was the woman's companion?  Was Joseph Bishop chaperoned regularly when he was meeting with sister missionaries?  If not, why not?  If so, why was he not chaperoned in this instance?

This sort of factual inquiry becomes very difficult when so much time has passed (33 years).  This is why we have statutes of limitations.

17 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Unless she was assaulted again OR the timeline lines up that her reporting could have prevented another crime she has no cage for negligence.

The law in this area is complex, but my short response is that she may well have a claim for negligence.  I'm not particularly well-versed in this area of Utah law, though.

17 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Now it is possible that a later abuse case could sue for negligence but it would have to pass the "reasonable person" standard and is still dubious because you would have to prove that that negligence directly led to the later abuse. Pulling someone out of a church position would not necessarily qualify. I just do not see it.

That being said I hope Bishop is sued into abject poverty. I just do not think it will happen.  

I think the Church may be exposed to liability.  But that's a very preliminary assessment, and assumes that the threshhold issue (statute of limitations) can be overcome.

Does anyone have any information about the statute of limitations?

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

3 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Wasn't it because the woman was never told that he abused boys in the past, by his bishop? Too bad no one slipped an anonymous note and warn her. But agree that it was lame that she let that old man sleep with her son, I'm assuming though they didn't share a bed. My memory is faulty, but do remember reading all about this case in the past.  

The "priesthood" in the case of the mission president job, is a lay calling? Aren't mission presidents and presidents of the MTC a paid position? 

I don't think compensation matters.  Employer/employee legal principles will be applied here.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Wasn't it because the woman was never told that he abused boys in the past, by his bishop? Too bad no one slipped an anonymous note and warn her. But agree that it was lame that she let that old man sleep with her son, I'm assuming though they didn't share a bed. My memory is faulty, but do remember reading all about this case in the past.  

The "priesthood" in the case of the mission president job, is a lay calling? Aren't mission presidents and presidents of the MTC a paid position? 

They shared a double bed.

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/862366/Lawyer-blasts-LDS-Church.html

[smac97]

3 hours ago, Danzo said:

For the record, I think that the church, as an institution would definitely be liable for damages in this case.  The MTC leader clearly was allegedly acting in his capacity as an ecclesiastically leader when the alleged tort occurred.  

The only defense the church would have, in my opinion would be time based defenses (statute of limitation or laches) .

I am still trying to sort out the statute of limitations / laches issue.  I have not been able to locate a recent state statute that extends the limitations period for civil sex abuse claims.  

I hope the parties can work something out.  That may be the best way to go for this woman, as her claims may otherwise be time-barred.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Duncan]

Where did this idea of one of the women signing a NDA come from?

[Calm]

14 minutes ago, Duncan said:

Where did this idea of one of the women signing a NDA come from?

I think her recent statement implied she was being asked to sign one.

" It is my belief that they were concerned about ALL of the victims that may become forgotten if my story was silenced by a settlement and non-disclosure agreement"

The way it is written may mean they speculated she would be asked to sign one, but wouldn't have known so there might not have been one or she could be talking her actual option.

I think a NDA would likely have been included in a settlement myself.

Edited March 24, 2018 by Calm

[provoman]

5 hours ago, juliann said:

Here is a case proceeding right now with much more tenuous ties to church responsibility than a man put into the MTC by higher leadership   https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2018/01/17/sexual-abuse-case-against-mormon-church-scheduled-to-begin-friday/?utm_term=.cfdfd1d8ba2f

But for years, Jensen was a trusted member of the local church community, a young man whom Mormon leaders praised as a role model for youths — and recommended as a babysitter for one child after another, even as reports allegedly came back to some church volunteers that Jensen was sexually abusing boys and girls as young as two.

Reading through the State's Supreme Court ruling, it appears that the plantiffs are claiming a conspiracy about the abuse, such that conspiracy is an active cover-up of abuse while at the same time recommending the abuser for baby sitting duties.

In the instance at hand, and based ONLY on the information available,

The Church has no record of  Elder Asay meeting with the victim - so it is reasonable to believe that COB did not know of the accusation?

The victim's former Bishop stated that the claims were illogical, I believe from his statements it is reasonable to assume that he did not inform COB, Area 1st Presidency, etc about the accusation - so we have 1 person who confirms being informed of the accusation, which would not be a conspiracy in the legal sense.

2010 -  it appears from the available evidence that 2 people made accusations and that local leaders took charge. With the 2010 accusations, did COB know of both or just one - the only one being the one that involved the death threat? Did local leaders know about both accusations?

So while yes, at first glance the Jenson case is tenuous on it face, the knowledge of the abuse and potential cover-up is what tends to support the issues in that case.

[Calm]

Lots of details:

https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona-investigations/2018/03/24/amid-quiet-life-chandler-explosive-sexual-assault-allegations-hit-mormon-leader/449975002/

[Calm]

Having problems editing...

"Joseph Layton Bishop lives in a suburban golf resort — a quiet, gated community in south Chandler....

A woman posing as a journalist had claimed to be doing an article on unheralded leaders within the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and invited Bishop to meet in a Valley hotel conference room."

So not living or residing at that time in a nursing home or rehab for the surgery apparently.  How did he get to the hotel?  If he drove himself, the medication claim takes a hit.

add-on:  ending of transcript appears to suggest someone brought him as Red the woman said she would call _____ because he needed to go to the bathroom.

Edited March 25, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

Specifics are finally being provided for the false accusation claims:

"As recently as February, the woman was arrested in New Mexico on suspicion of identity theft. According to a police report, she used an ex-boyfriend's name and Social Security number to obtain utility services and to lease an apartment. Detectives obtained a phone recording wherein the woman posed as the ex-boyfriend, using his name, according to the police report. That case is pending.

Another police report, from South Carolina, describes a 1999 case in which the woman claimed she was pistol-whipped and locked in the trunk of a car by two men outside a restaurant where she had worked. Detectives learned she had been fired shortly before the incident and had made inquiries about the restaurant's security liability. They concluded she was dishonest and her report "unfounded."

In separate interviews with The Republic, the woman's former husband and another family member also questioned her motives and credibility.

On at least two additional occasions, they said, the woman reported being raped — once while on her Mormon mission in Washington, D.C.

The ex-husband, who is not named in this report so as not to reveal the woman's identity, said, "This is an insult, especially, to women who have gone through something like that and really have been hurt.""

----

"In a brief phone conversation, the accuser said LDS Church lawyers had prepared an extensive dossier on her background. She refused to address specific allegations but said, "Some of it's true. A lot of it isn't."

The woman referred further questions to her attorney, Craig Vernon, who said trauma from sexual abuse led, in part, to his client's troubles. He would not address particular events except to acknowledge that she had fabricated the alleged rape in Washington, D.C.

"Like many survivors of sexual assault, she has struggled her entire life," Vernon said. "She has cried out for help. She has done things she regrets ... This has been a big smear campaign against my client.""

----

add-on:  The exhusband (divorced 25 years ago) might have a reason to lie about her or at least be angry with her as she accuses him of  cheating with 14 women including some he baptized.

Edited March 25, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

If the Church knew about the 1999 case (which I would be surprised if they didn't), it makes sense they weren't offering a settlement.

Edited March 25, 2018 by Calm

[Thinking]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/862366/Lawyer-blasts-LDS-Church.html

"This settlement mitigated or lessened the damage to their reputation, which they covet."

I have believed that the Church frequently makes decisions based on what is best for the Church, and not necessarily based on what is the right thing to do. It seems my belief has merit.

[Calm]

"The church has vigorously denied any legal liability in the case, saying Tuesday it was settling the lawsuit based on "litigation economics" alone....

" In an unusual move, the settlement was made with the understanding there would be no confidentiality surrounding either the amount or the ability of either party to discuss the facts of the case. The church has settled with other plaintiffs in such cases only with the understanding that the amount paid and any facts surrounding the case remain confidential."

Thinking, you are assuming the plaintiff's attorney who gets paid by the amount he can get out of the accused and who has invested a huge amount of his time and energy and probably passion into supporting the plaintiff and attempting to weaken the Church's claims would have an informed/impartial view of the Church's motives to keep such cases confidential or to settle to avoid having to share financial information prior to any show of wrongdoing.

I don't know if .i agree with the decision to keep things confidential to the extent they have in the past, the only way to prove it is the right decision is unfortunately something that can't be known without violating confidentiality.  

Edited March 25, 2018 by Calm

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Thinking said:

"This settlement mitigated or lessened the damage to their reputation, which they covet."

A settlement helps both sides.  Both sides were apparently pursuing a settlement until MormonLeaks did its thing.

1 hour ago, Thinking said:

I have believed that the Church frequently makes decisions based on what is best for the Church, and not necessarily based on what is the right thing to do. It seems my belief has merit.

Self-interest and "the right thing to do" don't necessarily conflict.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

Someone wanted to see the full police report (Smac?), I don't remember it being posted yet, no transcript but image of at least part of it.

https://m.imgur.com/gallery/BnyIo

Edited March 25, 2018 by Calm