Calm Posted April 1, 2018 Posted April 1, 2018 (edited) Why did Vernon include Greg Bishop, a lawyer representing his father, in an email conversation with Church lawyers over a pending lawsuit? And why didn't KUTV report they had asked this question of Vernon or Jordan or even Bishop? I think it is likely a pretty easy guess. Am confirming with a lawyer friend. Edited April 1, 2018 by Calm 1
california boy Posted April 1, 2018 Posted April 1, 2018 17 minutes ago, juliann said: Oh geez. Bishop was an employee. Do you know why it is never a good idea to have your employer or your insurance company represent you? Because they are there to represent themselves. When I sued a contractor, the insurance company had to provide a personal attorney for the contractor. So there were two attorneys. The personal one seemed like a bit of a dufus, I'm not sure how helpful it is when the personal attorney is hired by the insurance company who is protecting its own interests. And it is absurd to think that before this went public that the First Prez was micromanaging so stop "the church" stuff unless you have a reference. The legal system sucks. It took me two lawsuits to finally get that it has nothing to do with right and wrong. You just play the game by its rules. We have expressed our outrage, now it is time to get real and acknowledge that "the church" and the legal system are two different things. I am confused by your statement. Do you think Bishop is being defended by church lawyers? Do you think they are working in concert together ?
Calm Posted April 1, 2018 Posted April 1, 2018 (edited) Bishop is an employee of his father. Do you think Joseph Bishop is being sued by the victim or not? Which do you think would put more pressure on the Church to settle...a separate lawsuit for Joseph Bishop or naming the Church and Joseph Bishop in the same lawsuit? Edited April 1, 2018 by Calm
california boy Posted April 1, 2018 Posted April 1, 2018 2 minutes ago, Calm said: Why did Vernon include Greg Bishop, a lawyer representing his father, in an email conversation with Church lawyers over a pending lawsuit? And why didn't KUTV report they had asked this question of Vernon or Jordan or even Bishop? This is exactly what I am getting at.
Danzo Posted April 1, 2018 Posted April 1, 2018 (edited) 28 minutes ago, california boy said: So it is standard practice to gather dirt on victims of sexual assault and then send that dirt to third parties? Has the church publicly rebuked it's lawyers for leaking the information to Bishop's son? Have they fired the attorneys for such an egregious act? Like it or not, it is standard practice. Not just for the church, but for any part of the legal system. In criminal law its called the 6th amendment, It involves the right to confront your accusers. Unfortunately it applies even if your accuser is accusing you of sexual misconduct. I believe bishop is a party in the potential legal action so he (or his attorney) would have a right to discovery of the facts (including facts that could impeach the primary witness). Welcome to the united states legal system! I hope you don't have to become too familiar with it. It can be difficult at times. Edited April 1, 2018 by Danzo 4
Calm Posted April 1, 2018 Posted April 1, 2018 (edited) 3 minutes ago, california boy said: This is exactly what I am getting at. Yet you appear to be assuming the worst of the Church before knowing why Vernon included another lawyer, Greg Bishop, in on the email. Maybe there is a perfectly logical reason why documents get sent to multiple parties...such as all are involved in the same lawsuit? Add-on: what Danzo said. Can the Church legally withhold any documents they share with Vernon or are they legally required to give anything used as evidence for a settlement to all parties involved in a settlement? It sounds like Danzo is saying it is the law. Edited April 1, 2018 by Calm 1
california boy Posted April 1, 2018 Posted April 1, 2018 1 minute ago, Calm said: Bishop is an employee of his father. Do you think Joseph Bishop is being sued by the victim or not? I would guess that Bishop is included in the lawsuit. That is how these lawsuits are usually handled. BUT the church only is required to defend itself. Bishop should be on his own in defending his actions unless the church feels his actions are worth defending. And yes, I use the term church here because these decisions are laid out to the client by the law firm that is defending them.
ERMD Posted April 1, 2018 Posted April 1, 2018 3 hours ago, Duncan said: where did you serve? Argentina Buenos Aires Norte. He preceded my mission president in that mission. 1
Danzo Posted April 1, 2018 Posted April 1, 2018 5 minutes ago, california boy said: I am confused by your statement. Do you think Bishop is being defended by church lawyers? Do you think they are working in concert together ? Both the church and Bishop have been named as potential defendants. It would be normal for them to work together for their mutual defense.
Danzo Posted April 1, 2018 Posted April 1, 2018 1 minute ago, california boy said: I would guess that Bishop is included in the lawsuit. That is how these lawsuits are usually handled. BUT the church only is required to defend itself. Bishop should be on his own in defending his actions unless the church feels his actions are worth defending. And yes, I use the term church here because these decisions are laid out to the client by the law firm that is defending them. Even if Bishop and the Church were not working together, bishop would have a right to any discoverable facts uncovered by the church. 1
Jeanne Posted April 1, 2018 Posted April 1, 2018 2 minutes ago, Danzo said: Both the church and Bishop have been named as potential defendants. It would be normal for them to work together for their mutual defense. It is not normal at all for any church to associate with potential defendant on rape. IMO..There is just nothing right about this..
california boy Posted April 1, 2018 Posted April 1, 2018 1 minute ago, Danzo said: Like it or not, it is standard practice. Not just for the church, but for any part of the legal system. In criminal law its called the 6th amendment, It involves the right to confront your accusers. Unfortunately it applies even if your accuser is accusing you of sexual misconduct. I believe bishop is a party in the potential legal action so he (or his attorney) would have a right to discovery of the facts (including facts that could impeach the primary witness). Welcome to the united states legal system! I hope don't have to become too familiar with it. It can be difficult at times. This is not a criminal case, this is a civil case. Parties are NOT required to share discovery information. Each party only represents their client. And discussions between parties may very well be held completely separate.especially when no trial is set. They are at the negotiation stage. Digging up dirt is not a requirement. A good faith settlement can occur without any of this kind of discrediting and blaming of the victim. It can be done in the privacy between the victim and the church. Bishop is not required to be privy to any of that information.
Calm Posted April 1, 2018 Posted April 1, 2018 3 minutes ago, california boy said: I would guess that Bishop is included in the lawsuit. That is how these lawsuits are usually handled. BUT the church only is required to defend itself. From what two lawyers have said now, I believe you are wrong. Evidence must be shared with all parties. If Vernon has named Bishop and the Church in the same lawsuit, they may not have a choice to sever any connection with Bishop legally if the judge does not allow them to...it is in the benefit of the victim to sue them together, so I suspect Vernon would fight that. Danzo can correct me if I am wrong. 1
Calm Posted April 1, 2018 Posted April 1, 2018 2 minutes ago, Jeanne said: It is not normal at all for any church to associate with potential defendant on rape. IMO..There is just nothing right about this.. They may not have a choice in the matter.
Calm Posted April 1, 2018 Posted April 1, 2018 (edited) 3 minutes ago, california boy said: This is not a criminal case, this is a civil case. Parties are NOT required to share discovery information. Each party only represents their client. CFR please. Utah law. Am curious if you are right because I have heard multiple lawyers say differently. I believe they can remove themselves if they agree to a settlement separately, but not sure if they can do so otherwise. Edited April 1, 2018 by Calm 1
california boy Posted April 1, 2018 Posted April 1, 2018 6 minutes ago, Calm said: Yet you appear to be assuming the worst of the Church before knowing why Vernon included another lawyer, Greg Bishop, in on the email. Maybe there is a perfectly logical reason why documents get sent to multiple parties...such as all are involved in the same lawsuit? Calm did you look at the list of questions DBMormon posted? At this point, why would I NOT assume the worst. Is there any point in this entire saga where the church acted honorably?
Danzo Posted April 1, 2018 Posted April 1, 2018 Just now, california boy said: This is not a criminal case, this is a civil case. Parties are NOT required to share discovery information. Each party only represents their client. And discussions between parties may very well be held completely separate.especially when no trial is set. They are at the negotiation stage. Digging up dirt is not a requirement. A good faith settlement can occur without any of this kind of discrediting and blaming of the victim. It can be done in the privacy between the victim and the church. Bishop is not required to be privy to any of that information. Parties are absolutely required to share discovery information even, and especially in civil cases. The discovery phase in a civil case is often much more costly than the trail phase. Most often settlements are made in civil cases during the discovery phase bucause that is were the strengths and weakness of the parties cases are presented. Laying out ones case informally is often a large part of the settlement phase. Often informal discovery is used during the settlement phase to avoid getting the courts to compel discovery. 2
california boy Posted April 1, 2018 Posted April 1, 2018 5 minutes ago, Danzo said: Even if Bishop and the Church were not working together, bishop would have a right to any discoverable facts uncovered by the church. So basically the church gathered as much dirt on the victim they could find, knowing full well that the information would be released to Bishop who could do whatever he wanted to do with it. Which he did.
The Nehor Posted April 1, 2018 Posted April 1, 2018 35 minutes ago, california boy said: Yeah I get all of that. Tell me how Bishop's son enters into that conference settlement. Why was he given the dirt the church gathered on the victim? I don't know. The reporting is someone added him to the email chain. I have no idea why. One article I read hinted the victim's lawyer added them but I am not sure. 33 minutes ago, california boy said: I do know this about the legal system and lawyers. Things like this are the kind of things that will trigger a lawsuit against the law firm. The odds of something like this happening are VERY slim. Any lawyer who does something as incompetent as this should be fired immediately. Someone might be. We are operating on limited information so I have no idea who screwed up.
Calm Posted April 1, 2018 Posted April 1, 2018 "A good faith settlement can occur without any of this kind of discrediting and blaming of the victim. It can be done in the privacy between the victim and the Church" You are assuming the victim is being reasonable and operating in good faith. Do you have any evidence for this?
Danzo Posted April 1, 2018 Posted April 1, 2018 1 minute ago, california boy said: So basically the church gathered as much dirt on the victim they could find, knowing full well that the information would be released to Bishop who could do whatever he wanted to do with it. Which he did. Exactly! and if the church attorneys did anything different they would be guilty of malpractice. 1
Calm Posted April 1, 2018 Posted April 1, 2018 (edited) 7 minutes ago, california boy said: Calm did you look at the list of questions DBMormon posted? At this point, why would I NOT assume the worst. Is there any point in this entire saga where the church acted honorably? Is DB a lawyer? Is DB involved personally so that I should take his word as authority. I read the KUTV article. I ignored DB's post as irrelevant. He has in the past gone to extremes, imo, I have no desire to waste time on. Did he have new information from any involved? Edited April 1, 2018 by Calm 1
california boy Posted April 1, 2018 Posted April 1, 2018 3 minutes ago, Calm said: CFR please. Utah law. Am curious if you are right because I have heard multiple lawyers say differently. I withdraw the assertion. I am not a lawyer, let along a Utah lawyer. I am just trying to point out what the right thing to do is, not what the legal system requires. In my opinion, I see no evidence that the church has done the right thing at ANY time in this saga. Victims of sexual abuse always seem to get the brunt end of the stick, even when dealing with a church who makes lofty claims about morality. If sexual abused victims can not get fair treatment when so much evidence supports their case, and with an institution like the Mormon Church, then sexual abuse will continue to be rampant. After all, these victims have no power. A point the church continues to make perfectly clear. 1
Danzo Posted April 1, 2018 Posted April 1, 2018 3 minutes ago, The Nehor said: I don't know. The reporting is someone added him to the email chain. I have no idea why. One article I read hinted the victim's lawyer added them but I am not sure. Someone might be. We are operating on limited information so I have no idea who screwed up. If the church was working with bishop (since they were being threatened with a legal action by the same person with the same cause of action) then it would be normal for the attorney for the church to share information with the other attorneys. If an actual lawsuit were filed the church could be compelled to share the information. Often to save the hassle of doing the subpoenas and enforcing the discovery, the parties voluntarily share the information. In the Court that I frequently operate in, informal discovery is strongly encouraged and the judges get very grumpy if they have to force someone to give up the information.
california boy Posted April 1, 2018 Posted April 1, 2018 7 minutes ago, Calm said: "A good faith settlement can occur without any of this kind of discrediting and blaming of the victim. It can be done in the privacy between the victim and the Church" You are assuming the victim is being reasonable and operating in good faith. Do you have any evidence for this? Do you have any evidence that she his not being reasonable? Is it fair to always blame the victim, in this case, of being unreasonable? 1
Recommended Posts