Accuser of Joseph Bishop Files Suit

[JulieM]

17 minutes ago, Duncan said:

the QA session is hard to hear

I agree.  But it’s also really interesting and getting more information out there.

I hope everyone will take the time to listen to this conference in its entirety and not make light of it (or not take it seriously).  I feel she’s a courageous woman.  

Edited April 5, 2018 by JulieM

[Duncan]

7 minutes ago, CV75 said:

"You put the balm on? Who told you to put the balm on? I didn’t tell you to put the balm on. Why’d you put the balm on? You haven’t even been to see the doctor. If your gonna put a balm on, let a doctor put a balm on."

I guess I screwed up!

You're D%*)(*  right you screwed up!!!!!!

Edited April 5, 2018 by Duncan

[rpn]

51 minutes ago, rongo said:

The Church will never let that happen. Not only out of self-preservation, but because the Church *really* holds confessional confidentiality to be important

The problem with that argument is that there is no evidence at all that Elder Wells had any clergy/confessional relationship with Bishop --- he was a long time friend, who'd recommended bishop for various things.  (This was from the Bishop recording.)   It was (now-deceased) Carlos Asay who apparent was sent to investigation, and he didn't have a clergy/penitent relationship either, but he was Bishop's supervisor when Bishop was MTC president.

[cinepro]

1 hour ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Ok.  Time to go on record here.  

I was some random mormon in Colorado, who had a bit of information.  The information was about another mormon in Utah, who had sexually abused a young girl.  I sent my information to the guy's bishop and stake president, and asked to know the outcome.  They excommunicated him, and let me know the outcome.

I figure there are probably far more stories like mine, than what we keep seeing in the news.  Stories like mine don't make the news.  "Church does right, protects flock" just isn't headline material.

But did they report him to the police? 

[rongo]

15 minutes ago, rpn said:

The problem with that argument is that there is no evidence at all that Elder Wells had any clergy/confessional relationship with Bishop --- he was a long time friend, who'd recommended bishop for various things.  (This was from the Bishop recording.)   It was (now-deceased) Carlos Asay who apparent was sent to investigation, and he didn't have a clergy/penitent relationship either, but he was Bishop's supervisor when Bishop was MTC president.

I think the Church would argue that both, as Seventies, would fall under clergy privilege when talking to him about sensitive things. They have authority over local leaders, mission presidents, etc. 

If the Church doesn't settle this, it could well win legally (no damages) but lose in the court of public opinion. Given how bad the publicity has been, I'm not sure that trying to win at trial would make it any worse for the Church, and settling may not help at all with the bad publicity. It may be worth it to not settle, but I am far from an expert on this. Also, I'm not convinced that giving the plaintiff a hefty cash settlement really helps her emotionally, psychologically, etc. other than maybe giving her a feeling of revenge, retribution, justice, etc.

Edited April 5, 2018 by rongo

[Jeanne]

21 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I thought of you not being able to hear this Jeanne.  During the press conference the video isn't aligned right at all, hopefully they'll post a transcript.Because of my short term memory problems, I'm not that great of repeating most of what I'm hearing. 

Thank you for acknowledging me...!  See that..you have no problem with you memory...

[ALarson]

27 minutes ago, JulieM said:

I agree.  But it’s also really interesting and getting more information out there.

I hope everyone will take the time to listen to this conference in its entirety and not make light of it (or not take it seriously).  I feel she’s a courageous woman.  

I listened to it and I agree. 

This is very damaging to the church (the information given in the press conference in addition to what is already out there).  Mckenna presents herself very well and is very open and honest about her past, etc.  I was actually really impressed with her.

I have to believe that the church will offer a settlement and will try to keep this to as little damage as possible (which has already been considerable from what I can see).  I cannot imagine them wanting this to go to trial.

The information about Elder Well's support of Bishop was interesting (writing the forward to his book and so on even up through 2012).

Edited April 5, 2018 by ALarson

[juliann]

I listened to some of the just ended press conference. The woman is very attractive, very well spoken. She presents extremely well. She is a PR dream. The church is not going to come out on top of this with two high profile men having had knowledge while Bishop continued to be advanced. They intend to depose Wells. 

Her attorney said the church had every right to compile what they did in preparing for a legal case. His question was, should they have. This was an extraordinarily skilled weave of a measured presentation of position and advocacy for protecting members.  There was no church bashing and repeated support of church members who were  people trying to do good.

[provoman]

This case, if it does not settle, will provide a good lesson on various legal principles.

I question whether the bais of the statute of limitations. As reported on Deseret News, the claim is the statute of limitations has not run out because the victim did not know until 12/2017 that J Bishop was not disciplined. That is a very tedious claim, then it must be shown that the failure to discipline was done with the INTENT to futher inflict injury on the victim.

 

The demand the a the Court force policy changes on the Church internal policies, violates the 1st Amendment - Separation of Churvh and State.

[ALarson]

1 minute ago, provoman said:

This case, if it does not settle, will provide a good lesson on various legal principles.

I question whether the bais of the statute of limitations. As reported on Deseret News, the claim is the statute of limitations has not run out because the victim did not know until 12/2017 that J Bishop was not disciplined. That is a very tedious claim, then it must be shown that the failure to discipline was done with the INTENT to futher inflict injury on the victim.

 

Mckenna's attorney stated in the press conference that since this is a civil case, the statute of limitations does not apply as it does in a criminal case (if I understood him correctly).

Edited April 5, 2018 by ALarson

[Thinking]

14 hours ago, Calm said:

Weird the Trib made such a major mistake.  Someone is going to get a scolding.

"Correction at 8:17 p.m. on April 4, 2018: An Earlier version of this story incorrectly stated Joseph L. Bishop was not named as a defendant in the lawsuit."

I'm sure a certain poster on this board will tell you that you should rarely depend on the Trib for accurate information.

[provoman]

6 hours ago, ALarson said:

Mckenna's attorney stated in the press conference that since this is a civil case, the statute of limitations does not apply as it does in a criminal case (if I understood him correctly).

 

I listened to the press conference based on what you posted and what was teported by Deseretnews. The attorney did address statute of limitaions but said it was different than a criminal case. If the limitation is what I think it is, then it is has long passed. 

[provoman]

Based on the filing, the suit is, in my opinion very weak:

A main issue is the statute of limitations for all the claims, Utah law has specific limitations, where Utah law does not have a specific limitation, the limitation is 4 years.

Negligent and Intentional Infliction of emotional distress.

The action by the Elder Asay, her bishop(s), and the Local Church leaders in 2010 were "designed to cause severe emotional distress."  The claim essentially is that what the Church officials did each time she reported the assualt, they did specifically to "cause severe emotional distress" to the victim. 

Common Law Fraud and FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT or NONDISCLOSURE

The Fraud claims are based on the fraud presented by the Church and relied upon by the victim the fraud is described below:

Quote

At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendants held BISHOP out to the public and members of the Church, including prospective sister missionaries, as a safe, honorable, trustworthy and respected leader of the Church. Defendant COP taught DENSON and other sister missionaries that a man called to be the President of the MTC, like BISHOP, would be a beacon of faith, morality and religious leadership. Furthermore, Defendants also held the Provo, Utah MTC, and its premises, out as a safe, healthy, and trustworthy location and environment. Defendants taught DENSON and other sister missionaries to trust, respect, and obey BISHOP and his position as President of the MTC. ... Defendants failed to disclose to DENSON that BISHOP was just the opposite - a sexual predator with a sexual addiction that posed an unreasonable risk of harm to DENSON and other sister missionaries in the Church’s MTC. As a result of Defendants’ concealment or failure to disclose, DENSON trusted BISHOP and went to his secret room inside the Church’s MTC, where she was sexually assaulted and raped.

According to the victim, she is not "discovery"(Utah Code 78B-2-305(3)) until December 2017, 33 years after she was sexually assaulted,  that Bishop:

was not "safe, honorable, trustworthy"  AND was not a "beacon of faith, morality and religious leadership"; though after the assault she avoided him (see her response in the 04/05 press conference to a question about how she conducted herself during the remainder of her time at the MTC)

Further the victim did not "discovery"(Utah Code 78B-2-305(3)) until December 2017, 33 years after the assault on the Provo MTC campus, that the "Provo, Utah MTC, and it premises" WERE NOT:

"a safe, healthy, and trustworthy location and environment" 

 

Edited April 6, 2018 by provoman

[Danzo]

8 hours ago, ALarson said:

Mckenna's attorney stated in the press conference that since this is a civil case, the statute of limitations does not apply as it does in a criminal case (if I understood him correctly).

There is usually a statue of limitations for civil torts as well. 

[Danzo]

6 minutes ago, provoman said:

I also think the legal case is very weak and does not have a sound legal basis for it. Ideally I would like to see the case thrown out based on the legal merits or lack thereof, because I favor the integrity of the law.

We'll see if it survives a motion to dismiss.  If not excommunicating someone who deserves it is a tort then all churches will shortly be sued out of existence.

[Calm]

13 hours ago, Gray said:

I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV. But my understanding is discovery is standard for any lawsuit.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_(law)

Discovery is about facts relevant to the accusation though, such as credibility of witnesses as well as description of events, accountability questions.

The wealth of the person being sued should be irrelevant until they are found liable.

[Calm]

11 hours ago, Tacenda said:

http://kutv.com/news/local/lawsuit-former-mtc-president-had-history-of-allegations

Toward the end of the article it mentions the confession by Bishop to Robert E. Wells. A full confession of everything he had done. I wonder if they'll have Wells testify and what repercussions will stem from it.

Bishop said on the tape he confessed everything he had done.  Problem is, he never said what that actually was.  Given he denied any abuse to other church leaders multiple times and continues to deny to everyone but the police, I see no reason to assume he was actually more forthcoming in his talk with Brother Wells.

Edited April 6, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

11 hours ago, phaedrus ut said:

Any speculations as to why Bishop has never received any church discipline? 

The bishop that it was reported to in 87 said he never told anyone and I don't believe Bishop actually  confessed anything given his behaviour in the last 8 years, including how he was laying everything on his wife's shoulders (she didn't love me, we had a sexless marriage..her fault obviously, if only I had a normal life, normal marriage).  I think he just to,d Denson what she wanted to hear without saying anything that could get him in real trouble in terms of specifics.  Thus his son can accurately claim he only confessed in the tape to having trouble with his thoughts and one backrub that was consensual.

Unless the press conference demonstrated they had something besides the tape and police report, not sure how they can prove anything besides her being asked to expose herself.

Edited April 6, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

11 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Ok.  Time to go on record here.  

I was some random mormon in Colorado, who had a bit of information.  The information was about another mormon in Utah, who had sexually abused a young girl.  I sent my information to the guy's bishop and stake president, and asked to know the outcome.  They excommunicated him, and let me know the outcome.

I figure there are probably far more stories like mine, than what we keep seeing in the news.  Stories like mine don't make the news.  "Church does right, protects flock" just isn't headline material.

Stories like yours don't result in lawsuits.  Those happen when the system doesn't work or when someone tries to game it.

[clarkgoble]

21 minutes ago, Calm said:

Bishop said on the tape he confessed everything he had done.  Problem is, he never said what that actually was.  Given he denied any abuse to other church leaders multiple times and continues to deny to everyone but the police, I see no reason to assume he was actually more forthcoming in his talk with Brother Wells.

A lot rests upon what Wells knew and so far as I know that's completely speculative. Far too many are projecting onto him what they think happened but there's really no evidence that I know of. (I could be wrong but i've not seen anything) Asay of course would be good to hear from or at least notes of what he reported since he's deceased. Again though we don't have that information. It would not be at all surprising if Bishop lied to both Asay and Wells.

Of course in public opinion none of that matters. As others mentioned it behooves the Church to settle quickly and, if there's evidence Bishop is guilty, excommunicate him.

Edited April 6, 2018 by clarkgoble

[Duncan]

Just now, clarkgoble said:

A lot rests upon what Wells knew and so far as I know that's completely speculative. Far too many are projecting onto him what they think happened but there's really no evidence that I know of. (I could be wrong but i've not seen anything)

I was thinking that too, it hinges on Elder Wells, what did he know and did he say anything to anyone or what was his involvement

[Calm]

9 hours ago, rpn said:

The problem with that argument is that there is no evidence at all that Elder Wells had any clergy/confessional relationship with Bishop --- he was a long time friend, who'd recommended bishop for various things.  (This was from the Bishop recording.)   It was (now-deceased) Carlos Asay who apparent was sent to investigation, and he didn't have a clergy/penitent relationship either, but he was Bishop's supervisor when Bishop was MTC president.

When he allegedly confess to Elder Wells, iirc Elder Wells was the next guy upline.  Not sure if that places him in a confessor position.  TV has priests confessing to their immediate superiors, but LDS usually see that role as the bishop's.

[ALarson]

6 minutes ago, Duncan said:

I was thinking that too, it hinges on Elder Wells, what did he know and did he say anything to anyone or what was his involvement

They made a point in the press conference to talk some about Wells.  I think they said he'd be an important witness (I'd have to listen to make sure how they stated it).  The attorney held up Bishop's two books and pointed out how Wells had written in both of them (I think a positive review or comment on one of them...maybe the back cover?  And then Wells wrote the forward to his most recent book).

Was Wells one of Bishop's local leaders (ie. his Bishop or Stake President) when he allegedly confessed everything and Wells gave him a blessing?  If not, what are the confidentiality laws regarding this (if he was just a close friend and general church leader)?

Edited April 6, 2018 by ALarson

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

A lot rests upon what Wells knew and so far as I know that's completely speculative. Far too many are projecting onto him what they think happened but there's really no evidence that I know of. (I could be wrong but i've not seen anything)

I haven't watch the press conference yet, but everything reported so far by others was either on the tape or able to be found by google (the Weber State history Juliann reported on first here shortly after it broke, I came across the foreword by Wells the first day after it had been reported his books were pulled by DB and I looked them up on Amazon).

So if they have no new info (did they say anything about the second victim?), it all depends imo on what Wells says unless other victims come forward.

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, ALarson said:

They made a point in the press conference to talk some about Wells.  I think they said he'd be an important witness (I'd have to listen to make sure how they stated it).  The attorney held up Bishop's two books and pointed out how Wells had written in both of them (I think positive review or comments on one of them...maybe the back cover?  And Wells wrote the forward to his most recent book).

Was Wells one of Bishop's local leaders (ie. his Bishop or Stake President) when he allegedly confessed everything and Wells gave him a blessing?  If not, what are the confidentiality laws regarding this (if he was just a close friend and general church leader)?

Iirc from the tape, Bishop allegedly confessed to Wells when Bishop was a mission president in Argentina and Wells was the area authority.  He oversaw Bishop's work.  Bishop calls it a confession and describes it as one.

Edited April 6, 2018 by Calm