JulieM Posted April 1, 2018 Posted April 1, 2018 (edited) 18 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.. I agree. No tithing money (which is tricky but all church investments have come from donations especially in the mind of members that are paying tithing) should be used to defend a confessed sex offender. However, I do understand the church corporation needing to defend themselves if they are named in any lawsuits. Edited April 1, 2018 by JulieM 1
california boy Posted April 1, 2018 Posted April 1, 2018 8 minutes ago, Calm said: 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. Did he have new information from any involved? 8 minutes ago, Calm said: 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. Did he have new information from any involved? The issues that DB listed for the most part involve no legal issues. Do you not think his questions deserve some kind of answer? Is this case for the church only about the financial settlement?
Danzo Posted April 1, 2018 Posted April 1, 2018 2 minutes ago, california boy said: 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. The right thing for a lawyer to do is what the legal system requires. As soon as lawyers were called and used (I don't know who got a lawyer first, but I assume that it was the victim), then legal processes should be followed. If the victim want's legal compensation then the victim needs to use the legal system. Her attorney should have explained what that entailed. Most of the time these settlements are negotiated in private and the public never knows about the information obtained by the legal team. In this case things were made public.
The Nehor Posted April 1, 2018 Posted April 1, 2018 3 minutes ago, california boy said: 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? We have evidence of neither.
Danzo Posted April 1, 2018 Posted April 1, 2018 1 minute ago, california boy said: The issues that DB listed for the most part involve no legal issues. Do you not think his questions deserve some kind of answer? Is this case for the church only about the financial settlement? My experience is that DB doesn't want answers (which is why he asks such a lot of questions at the same time). He thinks he already knows the answer to the questions. His mind is made up. If it weren't, he wouldn't be asking the questions. (or if he really wanted answers, he would have asked one question at a time.) 2
Calm Posted April 1, 2018 Posted April 1, 2018 (edited) 29 minutes ago, california boy said: 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. There are parts of her claim that appear to be very well substantiated. There is at least one part that has not been that could, imo, drastically affect the settlement amount, the claim that the first bishop she reported to told Elder Asay. That bishop said he didn't report it at all because he thought it was nonsense. In the taped interview, Joseph Bishop said Elder Asay never spoke to him about anything. At this point in the settlement negotiations, her credibility as a witness comes in, imo. An investigation would have determined if she is a credible witness overall or not. I suspect no one upset now would be upset if the investigation had found she was very credible and the attorneys and judge and everyone else took her word about Elder Asay. Given her past attempts that have been apparently substantiated by outside reporters, including identity theft this February even while she must have known she was being investigated, she comes across as deeply troubled and not that credible (and understandably so if the basic claims that J Bishop confirmed are true...rape by stepfather, molestation by Bishop and then being dismissed by Leavitt, the bishop she reported the abuse to in 87 iirc). Edited April 1, 2018 by Calm
Calm Posted April 1, 2018 Posted April 1, 2018 7 minutes ago, california boy said: 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? I am not saying she is unreasonable, I am saying we don't know and therefore should withhold judgment on whether or not the Church was wrong not to settle immediately.
Danzo Posted April 1, 2018 Posted April 1, 2018 (edited) 58 minutes ago, Calm said: 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. This is not my specialty, but I believe the church and Bishop don't have to work together. They have a potential conflict of interest (Church could try to blame it on Bishop's sole actions and Bishop might be judgment proof). They do, however, have to share information. Edited April 1, 2018 by Danzo 2
JulieM Posted April 1, 2018 Posted April 1, 2018 5 minutes ago, Danzo said: This is not my specialty, but I believe the church and Bishop don't have to work together.... They do, however have to share information. Why if they aren’t working together? Don’t they have to go through proper legal procedure for discovery, etc.? Thanks for your legal input here, Danzo!
Calm Posted April 1, 2018 Posted April 1, 2018 (edited) 26 minutes ago, california boy said: Is this case for the church only about the financial settlement? No, but I am focusing on why the victim's dossier was sent to Greg Bishop and that might be a purely legal question which is reasonable and appears to me to be one based on what Danzo and other lawyers I know have said. Without knowing what the victim was requiring in terms of a settlement, we have no way of knowing whether the Church through its attorneys were being jerks or reasonable. I don't believe problems get solved by dumping everything in a pot and calling 'foul' on every action. Makes more sense to me to divide up issues by type and deal with those who share solutions. A solution that works in a legal court may have no impact on what happens in a Primary class or it may have great impact, but it makes most sense to approach that Primary class as a Primary class issue to me and not 'how will this play out in court' issue. Nor does it make sense to me to view a legal issue as a 'what does this mean for Primary' because it is just going to get very confusing since the law is already so tangled as it is. The Church did not set up the legal system. Some of its representatives royally messed up, one committed a crime even, so now it has to deal with legal issues. There is a debate on what can be done morally, but unless one is very familiar with legal culture and policies, I don't think it is appropriate to slam anyone for not being moral within those limits. This incident has problems that are short term, long term, legal, cultural, policy, etc. etc. etc. Cultural problems about learning to give women appropriate credibility will not be solved by insisting people ignore credibility issues of individual women in favor of protecting women even from themselves. I think we ran into big problems when culturally women's very human side was ignored and we were put on a pedestal and seen as inherently spiritual, nurturing, maternal. Edited April 1, 2018 by Calm 3
Calm Posted April 1, 2018 Posted April 1, 2018 11 minutes ago, Danzo said: This is not my specialty, but I believe the church and Bishop don't have to work together. They have a potential conflict of interest (Church could try to blame it on Bishop's sole actions and Bishop might be judgment proof). They do, however have to share information. I will adjust my future statements.
juliann Posted April 1, 2018 Posted April 1, 2018 35 minutes ago, california boy said: This is not a criminal case, this is a civil case. Parties are NOT required to share discovery information. Unless Utah has some crazy laws, you most certainly are required to share discovery in a civil case. Quote 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. OMG, you really think people go into something costing hundreds of thousands of dollars and don't do discovery?? Seriously????
juliann Posted April 1, 2018 Posted April 1, 2018 41 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.. Did you not see where I said the legal system is amoral? It has little to do with right and wrong in my experience. 1
juliann Posted April 1, 2018 Posted April 1, 2018 54 minutes ago, california boy said: The church's lawyers are handling this case the way most of these cases are handled. Shame the victim, justify the abuse, smear her name, be loose with who sees the dirt and have information "accidentally" leaked to the press. You want to separate the church entirely from the actions of the lawyer. What I do know about lawsuits is that the person paying for the attorneys are advised on how the case will be litigated and what evidence has been gathered. So. yes, the church is directly involved with what their lawyers do and how it handles its case. You have been watching too much TV. Unless you are paying a lawyer big big bucks, they work with what YOU give them and what YOU tell them. And if anyone is "smearing" without basis, there goes the defamation countersuit. No one is denying her difficult past, BTW. Not even her. Really, you need to stop. This isn't how it works. Quote I personally am outraged. I guess others, not so much. Just another "accident". oops. Why don't you familiarize yourself with all of the threads before making disgusting accusations like this. It is very possible to be rooting for the victim while also recognizing the reality of the legal system. Your attitude, BTW, is why people lose lawsuits. They expect their lawyers to do all the investigative work and scream about right and wrong instead of educating themselves so they can play the game, too. 2
california boy Posted April 1, 2018 Posted April 1, 2018 (edited) 20 minutes ago, juliann said: Unless Utah has some crazy laws, you most certainly are required to share discovery in a civil case. OMG, you really think people go into something costing hundreds of thousands of dollars and don't do discovery?? Seriously???? I was involved in a lawsuit. My first action was to try and come to a reasonable settlement. Mostly because of court costs. When that didn't work, then I defended myself. Never had to dig up dirt on the person who brought the lawsuit. I had no interest in going after her reputation to win the case. When my lawyer brought up that option, is said no. In the end, the person dropped the lawsuit because it had no validity. So yes, Diging up dirt is not a requirement to settling lawsuits. You always have that choice. Not everyone wins lawsuits by dragging their opponent's name through the mud. Edited April 1, 2018 by california boy
Danzo Posted April 1, 2018 Posted April 1, 2018 21 minutes ago, JulieM said: Why if they aren’t working together? Don’t they have to go through proper legal procedure for discovery, etc.? Thanks for your legal input here, Danzo! Sharing information is the proper legal procedure. Only when one side refuses to give up information do you need to ask the court to compel discovery. There is no point to withholding information just to have the other side compel you to give it up. Wastes time, money and goodwill with the court. 2
juliann Posted April 1, 2018 Posted April 1, 2018 11 minutes ago, juliann said: Unless Utah has some crazy laws, you most certainly are required to share discovery in a civil case. OMG, you really think people go into something costing hundreds of thousands of dollars and don't do discovery?? Seriously???? I'll tell you a story about discovery in a civil suit, CA. (CA law) There is a deadline for it and if you don't turn something over you can't use it later. So the crook contractor didn't turn over invoices for a disputed tile job. She was claiming that I had told her to order the wrong color tile after I made her return it and order the right color (it had already been laid when I wasn't home and it was the same wrong color.) So I went to the tile company, found a sympathetic worker who was leaving the company and she got into the database and found it for me. Sure enough, contractor had re-ordered the same tile. She thought the company had sent the wrong tile, not that she made the mistake. A few things like that and I got a nice settlement from the insurance company. Notice who had to figure that out and who had to do the leg work. Now, the church may be paying lawyers $800+ an hour with investigators to do this stuff. But I'd be very, very careful about making generalizations. 1
Calm Posted April 1, 2018 Posted April 1, 2018 (edited) 17 minutes ago, california boy said: I was involved in a lawsuit. My first action was to try and come to a reasonable settlement. Mostly because of court costs. When that didn't work, then I defended myself. Never had to dig up dirt on the person who brought the lawsuit. I had no interest in going after her reputation to win the case. When my lawyer brought up that option, is said no. In the end, the person dropped the lawsuit because it had no validity. So yes, Diging up dirt is not a requirement to settling lawsuits. You always have that choice. Did any of your lawsuit depend on the credibility of the person who brought the lawsuit? Was it a "he said, she said"? situation? (Btw, I am not referring in the case of the Church's reasonableness to investigate credibility to the Bishop claim since he admitted it to police, but the claim about Elder Asay being aware of the report) Edited April 1, 2018 by Calm 1
juliann Posted April 1, 2018 Posted April 1, 2018 7 minutes ago, california boy said: I was involved in a lawsuit. My first action was to try and come to a reasonable settlement. Mostly because of court costs. When that didn't work, then I defended myself. Never had to dig up dirt on the person who brought the lawsuit. I had no interest in going after her reputation to win the case. When my lawyer brought up that option, is said no. In the end, the person dropped the lawsuit because it had no validity. So yes, Diging up dirt is not a requirement to settling lawsuits. You always have that choice. One. More. Time. When a person has a background that relates to the case, such as making false rape accusations, it is called discovery. If it is "dirt" then it is called a defamation countersuit. 1
Calm Posted April 1, 2018 Posted April 1, 2018 Jeremy Scott was seeking a settlement of 1.5 billion in the case where his mother put him in a double bed with a man his bishop,had advised against taking in. I don't think one should assume all victims ask for reasonable amounts in settlements and it is understandable why they wouldn't in abuse cases. 1
california boy Posted April 1, 2018 Posted April 1, 2018 41 minutes ago, juliann said: Did you not see where I said the legal system is amoral? It has little to do with right and wrong in my experience. The legal system might encourage bad behavior, but it doesn't dictate bad behavior
california boy Posted April 1, 2018 Posted April 1, 2018 26 minutes ago, Calm said: Did any of your lawsuit depend on the credibility of the person who brought the lawsuit? Was it a "he said, she said"? situation? (Btw, I am not referring in the case of the Church's reasonableness to investigate credibility to the Bishop claim since he admitted it to police, but the claim about Elder Asay being aware of the report) It always depends on the credibility of both parties and what they claim. I don't think lawsuits are largely one-sided. Each side has their version of what happened.
Calm Posted April 1, 2018 Posted April 1, 2018 (edited) 5 minutes ago, california boy said: The legal system might encourage bad behavior, but it doesn't dictate bad behavior But it does dictate certain behaviour. 2 minutes ago, california boy said: It always depends on the credibility of both parties and what they claim. And wouldn't it be intelligent to learn whether or not the person accusing you is credible especially if there were claims you couldn't substantiate about your representatives? Edited April 1, 2018 by Calm
california boy Posted April 1, 2018 Posted April 1, 2018 (edited) 27 minutes ago, juliann said: One. More. Time. When a person has a background that relates to the case, such as making false rape accusations, it is called discovery. If it is "dirt" then it is called a defamation countersuit. And one more time. Is her claim of abuse still up for debate when the perp confessed to the police and again on tape? Edited April 1, 2018 by california boy
Calm Posted April 1, 2018 Posted April 1, 2018 2 minutes ago, california boy said: And one more time. Is her claim of abuse still up for debate when the perp confessed to the police and again on tape? Her claim that Elder Asay knew of it is up for debate. This could affect the settlement, right?
Recommended Posts