Update on McKenna Denson Lawsuit (Hearing Schedule)

[Avatar4321]

5 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Good interviewers do more than that. When necessary, they probe to elicit information they think readers/viewers/listeners might find useful. I’m not talking here about an adversarial, attack-dog approach, but a good interviewer is actively engaged. 

Rudyard Kipling’s “six honest serving men”** are at their service in conducting the interview. 

** I keep six honest serving men. 

They taught me all I knew. 

Their names are What and When and Where

And Why and How and Who. 

Second time I've heard that today

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

It was his first interview, so I’d cut him some slack. 

Be that as it may, principles of good interviewing are what they are. You were presenting him as exemplifying “what the best interviewers do,” so I thought I would point out that good interviewing is more than just sitting back and letting the subject tell his/her story. If you are lucky, you can get by with that, as some folks seem instinctively to have a pretty good sense of what makes a good interview, but you need to be ready and willing to probe, prompt — and sometimes even challenge — where necessary. 

Edited July 18, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

22 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

Second time I've heard that today

OK, now I’m curious. What was the first occasion?

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

Be that as it may, principles of good interviewing are what they are. You were presenting him as exemplifying “what the best interviewers do,” so I thought I would point out that good interviewing is more than just sitting back and letting the subject tell his/her story. If you are lucky, you can get by with that, as some folks seem instinctively to have a pretty good sense of what makes a good interview, but you need to be ready and willing to probe — and sometimes even challenge — where necessary. 

I suppose it depends on the purpose of the interview. I thought it was fine, but I understand that you wish he had challenged her story more. 

[Scott Lloyd]

7 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I suppose it depends on the purpose of the interview. I thought it was fine, but I understand that you wish he had challenged her story more. 

I think good interviewing techniques apply universally, but if you mean to imply that he was trying to sustain a certain specific narrative with his questions and her responses, perhaps avoiding certain subjects or questions was essential to his purpose. (I’m speaking theoretically here, because I have not listened to the podcast nor do I plan to.)

Edited July 18, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Avatar4321]

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

OK, now I’m curious. What was the first occasion?

Was listening to a seminar this morning that mentioned Kiplings' six. 

 

I'm guessing it's something I need to know for some reason

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

Was listening to a seminar this morning that mentioned Kiplings' six. 

 

I'm guessing it's something I need to know for some reason

I’m learning it has application in fields other than journalism. Link:

http://www.destination-innovation.com/how-to-use-six-serving-men-as-a-problem-analysis-method/

[jkwilliams]

10 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think good interviewing techniques apply universally, but if you mean to imply that he was trying to sustain a certain specific narrative with his questions and her responses, perhaps avoiding certain subjects or questions was essential to his purpose. (I’m speaking theoretically here, because I have not listened to the podcast nor do I plan to.)

From what he's said, the interview was intended as a way for her to tell her story. I have no problem with that. There are things I wish he had dug into more, but as I said, it was his first time doing an interview. I do think he was "actively engaged," though it's odd that you are opining on an interview you haven't listened to. I enjoyed the interview, and frankly, I expected a lot more hostility to the church than there was from her. 

Edited July 18, 2018 by jkwilliams

[ALarson]

1 minute ago, jkwilliams said:

From what he's said, the interview was intended as a way for her to tell her story. I have no problem with that. There are things I wish he had dug into more, but as I said, it was his first time doing an interview. I do think he was "actively engaged," though it's odd that you are opining on an interview you haven't listened to. I enjoyed the interview, and frankly, I expected a lot more hostility to the church than there was from her. 

I plan on trying to listen to it today.  I've read consiglieri did an excellent job and have read very positive reports from those who have actually listened to it.  I agree that it's odd to hear someone give advice regarding this when they refuse to listen to the interview.  That consiglieri is one gutsy guy from what I can tell and I admire him for what he's trying to do.

[Exiled]

3 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

From what he's said, the interview was intended as a way for her to tell her story. I have no problem with that. There are things I wish he had dug into more, but as I said, it was his first time doing an interview. I do think he was "actively engaged," though it's odd that you are opining on an interview you haven't listened to. I enjoyed the interview, and frankly, I expected a lot more hostility to the church than there was from her. 

I thought he did a fine job. It was a friendly interview, however, I think his purpose was to get her side out like an attorney would on direct examination. Mission accomplished.

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, Exiled said:

I thought he did a fine job. It was a friendly interview, however, I think his purpose was to get her side out like an attorney would on direct examination. Mission accomplished.

That's how I see it, so I understand why people who oppose her feel like he should have challenged her more. If she gets her day in court, I am sure that will happen.

[smac97]

16 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Good interviewers do more than that. When necessary, they probe to elicit information they think readers/viewers/listeners might find useful. I’m not talking here about an adversarial, attack-dog approach, but a good interviewer is actively engaged. 

Rudyard Kipling’s “six honest serving men”** are at their service in conducting the interview. 

** I keep six honest serving men. 

They taught me all I knew. 

Their names are What and When and Where

And Why and How and Who. 

Hmm.  I am reminded of an legal article I wrote a few years ago about how to properly plead fraud claims in court, which includes a more difficult (as in more specific, for detailed) summary of factual allegations.  I included this summary:

Quote

The Utah appellate courts have provided extensive guidance on pleadings which do, and do not, meet this heightened pleading requirement. “[A] complaint cannot survive dismissal by pleading mere conclusory allegations . . . unsupported by a recitation of relevant surrounding facts.”  State v. Apotex Corp., 2012 UT 36, ¶ 21, 282 P.3d 66 (omission in original) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Instead, to satisfy this requirement, the claimant must “set forth in specific terms the time, place, content, and manner of [the] defendant’s alleged material misrepresentations or otherwise fraudulent conduct.” Cook v. Zions First Nat'l Bank, 645 F. Supp. 423, 425 (D. Utah 1986). These are what the Utah Court of Appeals has described as “the who, what, when, where, and how: the first paragraph of any newspaper story.” Coroles v. Sabey, 2003 UT App 339, ¶ 28 n.15, 79 P.3d 974 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

Funny how these "six honest serving men" pop up in different contexts.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

9 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

That's how I see it, so I understand why people who oppose her feel like he should have challenged her more. If she gets her day in court, I am sure that will happen.

Who is "opposing" McKenna Denson?

Thanks,

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Who is "opposing" McKenna Denson?

Thanks,

-Smac

I should have said “those who think she’s at the very least embellishing a story in order to damage the church and get some money.” 

[smac97]

15 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Quote

Who is "opposing" McKenna Denson?

Thanks,

-Smac

I should have said “those who think she’s at the very least embellishing a story in order to damage the church and get some money.” 

Huh.  It seems that critics of the LDS Church (whether a member or not) have long argued that they can criticize the Church without being "anti-mormon" or opposed to it.

So why can't people criticize McKenna Denson without "opposing" her?

At this point, I am far more inclined to feel sympathy for McKenna Denson.  I think she has some very deep and abiding problems in her life, some of which have manifested in obviously dysfunctional and inappropriate behavior (fake rape allegation, identity fraud, DUI, restaurant insurance scam, forging prescriptions, fake cancer claims, fake "razor in a cake" claims, etc.).  I think she needs meaningful, effective help and counseling.  I hope she gets it.  

As for her lawsuit against the Church, I don't oppose it on moral grounds.  I do, however, find it deeply flawed on legal and evidentiary grounds.

However, if a comparable lawsuit were to be filed today, only with better facts and evidence, I would not oppose it.  The Church wants to be on equal footing as all other citizens and groups.  That means being subject to the laws of the land.  That includes dealing with respondeat superior liability.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 18, 2018 by smac97

[jkwilliams]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Huh.  It seems that critics of the LDS Church (whether a member or not) have long argued that they can criticize the Church without being "anti-mormon" or opposed to it.

So why can't people criticize McKenna Denson without "opposing" her?

At this point, I am far more inclined to feel sympathy for McKenna Denson.  I think she has some very deep and abiding problems in her life, some of which have manifested in obviously dysfunctional and inappropriate behavior (fake rape allegation, identity fraud, DUI, restaurant insurance scam, forging prescriptions, fake cancer claims, fake "razor in a cake" claims, etc.).  I think she needs meaningful, effective help and counseling.  I hope she gets it.  

As for her lawsuit against the Church, I don't oppose it on moral grounds.  I do, however, find it deeply flawed on legal and evidentiary grounds.

However, if a comparable lawsuit were to be filed today, only with better facts and evidence, I would not oppose it.  The Church wants to be on equal footing as all other citizens and groups.  That means being subject to the laws of the land.  That includes dealing with respondeat superior liability.

Thanks,

-Smac

Fair point.

[kllindley]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

Huh.  It seems that critics of the LDS Church (whether a member or not) have long argued that they can criticize the Church without being "anti-mormon" or opposed to it.

So why can't people criticize McKenna Denson without "opposing" her?

👍

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Doxxing is wrong, no matter who does it. I am not familiar with the cases you outline, but if Ryan did that, I am disappointed. As I have said, I don’t agree with everything he does, but I’m not reluctant to point out when he does wrong. If he did what you say, he was wrong. 

The link I provided is a summary of what happened.  Ryan wrote it, and it includes screen caps, and it makes him (Ryan) look kind of bad.  So it seems pretty authentic.

Thanks,

-Smac

[HappyJackWagon]

A little update on the story.

Quote

SALT LAKE CITY — Attorneys for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and a former president of its Missionary Training Center asked a federal judge to dismiss a woman’s lawsuit alleging rape, claiming it is decades too late.

Quote

But U.S. District Judge Dale Kimball appeared skeptical in his questions to the LDS Church’s lawyer, David Jordan.

https://fox13now.com/2018/07/18/lds-church-asks-judge-to-dismiss-womans-lawsuit-alleging-rape-at-the-missionary-training-center/

[Unaffiliated]

So there's no jail time at stake, just financial compensation? How much money is at stake?

[Scott Lloyd]

7 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

From what he's said, the interview was intended as a way for her to tell her story. I have no problem with that. There are things I wish he had dug into more, but as I said, it was his first time doing an interview. I do think he was "actively engaged," though it's odd that you are opining on an interview you haven't listened to. I enjoyed the interview, and frankly, I expected a lot more hostility to the church than there was from her. 

I’m not “opining” about the interview. I’m “opinining” about your assertion that the “best interviewers” let the subject prattle on without ever being probed or prompted. I don’t have to have seen the podcast or even be acquainted with it’s content to challenge such an assertion on principle. 

Edited July 18, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[JulieM]

20 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I’m not “opining” about the interview. I’m “opinining” about your assertion that the “best interviewers” let the subject prattle on without ever being probed or prompted. I don’t have to have seen the podcast or even be acquainted with it’s content to challenge such an assertion on principle. 

I think it depends on the purpose of the interview.  This wasn’t an interrogation or debate.  Consig did an excellent job and asked good questions in an effort to allow Mckenna to tell her story.  I think that’s what his purpose was, and he achieved that.

You really should listen to it before you continue with your criticisms (if you want to be effective or listened to).  I enjoyed it and recommend listening!

Edited July 18, 2018 by JulieM

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Unaffiliated said:

So there's no jail time at stake, just financial compensation? How much money is at stake?

Nope.  No jail time.  This is a civil case, not a criminal one.  Incarceration is only a penalty for criminal offenses.

As for how much money is at stake, that's impossible to say.  

Ms. Denson's Complaint includes causes of action (independent theories of liability) for 1) Sexual Assault and Battery 2) Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress ("NIED"), 3) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress ("IEED"), 4) Common Law Fraud, 5) Fraudulent Concealment or Nondisclosure, and 6) Affirmative Injunctive Relief. 

I previously summarized my assessment of these claims here.  I think #2, #3 and #5 are the only potentially viable ones.

As to #2 ("NIED"), I wrote:

Quote

NIED claims are usually presented by, say, a bystander who witnesses a car accident and is traumatized by it.  NIED seems to fail here.  Denson's theory in her Complaint is that the Church negligently inflicted emotional distress on her because it "took no action against Bishop from 1987 to present."

In other words, the Church's failure to disfellowship or excommunicate Bishop has caused Denson "emotional distress."  Put another way, Denson is arguing that the court can punish the LDS Church for not meting out church discipline against Bishop.  There is no way the federal court is going to go along with that.  The courts are bound by the "Ecclesiastical Abstention" doctrine, which basically prohibits the courts from interfering with internal matters of church governance.  Whether or not Bishop should have been disciplined by the Church is purely an internal matter for the Church, and there is no way a federal court is going to say "Yes, a third party like Denson can sue the Church for money damages because it failed to discipline Joseph Bishop."

As to #3 ("IEED"), I wrote:

Quote

To show "intentional infliction of emtoional distress ("IIED"), Denson has to show the following:

1. Outrageous and intolerable conduct by the Church; and
2. The Church intended to cause emotional distress or acted with reckless disregard of the probability of causing emotional distress; and
3. Denson suffered severe or extreme emotional distress that was caused by the Church’s conduct.

This one just might work in surviving a motion to dismiss.  Denson's legal theory would have to be that the Church put a known "sexual predator" in charge of the MTC ("outrageous and intolerable conduct"), that it "acted with reckless disregard of the probability of causing emotional distress," and that Denson suffered emotional distress as a result.

This one seems hugely speculative, and perhaps so much so that it does not meet the minimum pleading requirements of Twombly/Iqbal (I'll explain that later).

As to #5 ("Fraudulent Concealment or Nondisclosure"),  “[t]he three elements of fraudulent concealment are…: (1) there is a legal duty to communicate information, (2) the nondisclosed information is known to the party failing to disclose, and (3) the nondisclosed information is material.” Yazd v. Woodside Homes Corp., 2006 UT 47, ¶ 35, 143 P.3d 283.

Here's how Denson's Complaint frames her fraud claim:

Quote

Defendants committed fraudulent concealment or nondisclosure by knowing that BISHOP was a sexual predator with a sexual addiction and posed an unreasonable risk to young women before he was called to be MTC President. DENSON did not know of these important facts; rather, she was taught by Defendants that BISHOP was safe, honorable, and trustworthy; that a man called to be the President of the MTC, like BISHOP, would be a beacon of faith, morality and religious leadership. 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.

I don't really see how a fraud claim like this can survive a statute of limitations challenge.  Denson is saying that the LDS Church knew Bishop was a "sexual predator" but failed to disclose that to her.  Okay, I get that allegation.  But how is it that she can claim that she was not aware of the "concealed" / "nondisclosed" information (that Bishop was a "sexual predator") until 2017?  She claims that he raped her in 1984.  She would therefore have been aware that he was a "sexual predator" in 1984.  She therefore would have been on notice of the information that the Church purportedly concealed or failed to disclosure in1984.  And yet she didn't file suit until 2018.

Based on the article, it looks like the judge was asking questions about the fraud claim:

Quote

Attorneys for the Church argued the statute began tolling in 1984, when Denson claims Bishop sexually assaulted her as a young missionary at the MTC. She also could have brought a claim in 1988, when she says she reported it to LDS leaders, whom she says took no action.

But U.S. District Judge Dale Kimball appeared skeptical in his questions to the LDS Church’s lawyer, David Jordan.

“How would she know anything happened in 1988 to Mr. Bishop?” he asked.

Jordon said the fact that Denson alleges she was stonewalled indicates she had knowledge of a coverup.

“The statute begins to run when you realize no one reported back to you,” he said.

Jordan also took issue with a claim that Denson’s lawyers have made demanding the LDS Church change its policies on investigating abuse allegations. He suggested an order of that nature would run afoul of the First Amendment and religious freedom rights.

...

Denson’s attorney, Craig Vernon, argued to keep the lawsuit alive. Of course she knew she was sexually assaulted, he said.

“What she didn’t know was he was a lifelong predator,” Vernon told the judge. “That was disclosed in 2017.”

...

Outside of court, Denson insisted to reporters she did not have prior notice.

“Did I know that he raped me? Yes. Did I know the Church covered it up? No. Did I know Joseph Bishop had already reported his sexual predation and sexual addictions to a General Authority before that? No. I had no idea,” she said.

...

Denson left court feeling optimistic, but her attorney said if they lost they would appeal to the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver.

“We’re cautiously optimistic,” Denson said.

So a few weird things here:

1. The judge asked about how Denson would have known "anything happened in 1988 to Mr. Bishop."  We'd need to look at the context of the hearing, but Ms. Denson is an adult.  Her awareness of the wrongful conduct against her took place in 1984.  Whether the LDS Church implemented discipline against Mr. Bishop, she still had the obligation to timely present her legal claims.  So I wonder if the Judge is just sort of sussing things out here.

2. The paraphrase of Jordan is really weird: "Jordon said the fact that Denson alleges she was stonewalled indicates she had knowledge of a coverup."  It seems odd for the Church's attorney to concede, even "for the sake of argument only," that there was a "coverup."  Moreover, a theoretical coverup of what?  The LDS Church purportedly didn't find out about the purported rape until years after the fact.  And perhaps not even then.  Ms. Denson's "Rough Draft" letter states:

Quote

I reported the incidents of President Bishop to my Bishop in about 1988. His name was Ron Leavitt. He reported to the Stake President’ who called and reported to church headquarters in Salt Lake.

Elder Carlos Asay visited me in Provo or Orem and interviewed me. I reported everything except the rape. I didn’t think of it as rape as he didn’t have a full erection.

Elder Asay said he would investigate the incident and let me know the outcome.

"I reported everything except the rape."  The one thing she is suing about she says she didn't report to Elder Asay.

And from her statements in the podcast:

Quote

Denson: You know, I don't really remember a whole lot about it, but I do remember explaining to Elder Asay the grooming process.  How there were four sister missionaries, including myself, and then there were two, including myself, and then it became one-on-one.  And I remember sharing the inappropriate sexual stories that Elder, excuse me, President Bishop shared with me about his wife, and about the hot tub or hot springs.  I don't remember a whole lot more.  I just remember telling him what happened.

Interviewer: What was Elder Asay's reaction?

Denson: He was rather stoic.  He didn't seem to have a lot of emotion.  He seemed very rigid, like he was just taking the information in.  But it didn't move him at all.  

So is she suing the LDS Church for an after-the-fact "coverup" relating to Bishop's misconduct?  How would that be actionable?  The allegations in the Complaint (see above) don't indicate that at all.  And how would she have standing to complain about the Church not disciplining Bishop after-the-fact?

3. Mr. Vernon's statement is also a bit odd: "'What she didn’t know was he was a lifelong predator,' Vernon told the judge. 'That was disclosed in 2017.'"

So the fraud claim is that the LDS Church knew Bishop was a "sexual predator," but did not disclose that to Denson?  How is it that Denson's purported lack of awareness of Bishop being "a lifelong predator" prior to entering the MTC is severable from her finding out while in the MTC in 1984 that he was (puportedly) a "predator?"  Wouldn't she have been "on inquiry notice" about the undisclosed/concealed information in 1984?

Let me illustrate my point: I purchase a red car from Jason, a neighbor down the street.  Jason sole me the care with the assurance that he knew nothing about any major problems with it.  A few weeks later I have a friend look it over, and he points to some cracks in the chassis that had apparently been haphazardly (and partially, and ineffectively) repaired (bear with me if this example is flawed as to how a chassis can be defective, I'm not a "car" guy).  However, around the same time I get a nice job overseas, so I leave the car in storage and head on out.  Ten years later, I return from overseas, pull the red car out of storage, and start thinking about the cracks in the chassis.  I mention this to a friend, Steve, who upon finding out I purchased it from Jason, tells me: "Oh, you bought his red car?  Bummer, dude.  I helped him try to fix the chassis 11 years ago.  I didn't know he was going to try to sell it to someone.  I thought he was going to junk it because we couldn't get the repairs complete."

So could I sue Jason for "fraudulent nondisclosure/concealment" about the cracked chassis, ten years after I find out about the cracked chassis?  I don't think so.  If I knew about the chassis ten years ago, I pretty much had an obligation to make "further inquiries" about it.  This is called "constructive notice" or "inquiry notice."  And since I had been on "constructive/inquiry" notice for ten years, I don't think I could sue Jason for the fraudulent nondisclosure, even though I technically did not find out about it until 11 years later.

From this 2017 federal case (in Utah):

Quote

1. Statute of Limitations for Claims Grounded in Fraud

Utah Code § 78B-2-305(3) provides for a three year statute of limitations for relief on the ground of fraud or mistake. The Utah Supreme Court has held the three year statute of limitations applies to all common law claims that are grounded in fraud. See Hill v. Allred, 28 P.3d 1271, 1276 (Utah 2001). All of Rabo’s causes of action other than its negligent misrepresentation claim are grounded in fraud because all of these causes of action allege the same underlying theory that Rabo was fraudulently induced to enter into the loan. Therefore Rabo’s claims for Common Law Fraud, Fraudulent Non-Disclosure, Aiding and Abetting Fraud, and Conspiracy are subject to the three-year statute of limitations period set forth in Utah Code § 78B-2-305(3) because all of these causes of action are grounded in fraud. 

Okay.  So far we know that claims that "are grounded in fraud" and "allege the same underlying theory" will be subjected to the same statute of limitations (three years).

Moving on:

Quote

a. Statute of Limitations Begins Upon Actual or Inquiry Notice of Fraud

As a general rule, a statute of limitations begins to run “upon the happening of the last event necessary to complete the cause of action.” Russell/Packard Development, Inc. v. Carson, 108 P.3d 741, 746 (Utah 2005). Damages is an essential element in order to bring a cause of action for fraud. Dugan v. Jones, 615 P.2d 1239, 1246 (Utah 1980). It is not necessary, however, for a “plaintiff to know the full extent of his injuries before the statute of limitations begins to run.” Indus. Constructors Corp. v. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, 15 F.3d 963, 969 (10th Cir. 1994). Utah courts adhere to the “benefit of the bargain rule” for determining damages in a fraud case. See Lamb v. Bangart, 525 P.2d 602 (Utah 1984). This means that “in an action for fraud and deceit the measure of damages is the difference between the actual value of what the party received and the value thereof if it had been as represented.” Id. at 609. “A plaintiff is deemed to have discovered his action when he has actual knowledge of the fraud, or by reasonable diligence and inquiry should know the relevant facts of the fraud perpetrated against him.” Colosimo v. Roman Catholic Bishop of Salt Lake City, 156 P.3d 806, 811 (Utah 2007) (internal quotations omitted).

That bit from the Colosimo case is, I think, important.  Here it is again: “A plaintiff is deemed to have discovered his action when he has actual knowledge of the fraud, or by reasonable diligence and inquiry should know the relevant facts of the fraud perpetrated against him.”

This is called "inquiry notice" (also called "constructive notice").  From Words and Phrases (a secondary, but still useful, source of law):

• (Citing Pioneer Buildings Co. of Nevada v.  K D A Corp., 292 P.3d  672 (Utah 2012)): "'Inquiry notice' ... is imparted to a [person] who has actual knowledge of certain facts and circumstances that are sufficient to give rise to a duty to inquire further."
• (Citing F.D.I.C. v. Taylor, 267 P.3d 949 (Utah App. 2011)): "'Inquiry notice' ... occurs when circumstances arise that should pur a reasonable person on guard as to require further inquiry on his part."
• (Citing LaSalle v. Medco Research, Inc., 54 F.3d 443 (7th Cir. 1995)): "'Inquiry notice,' for statutes of limitations purposes, is knowledge of facts that would lead [a] reasonable person to being investigating [the] possibility that his legal rights had ben infringed."
• (Citing Brumbaugh v. Princeton Parters, 985 F.2d 157 (4th Cir. 1993)): "'Inquiry notice' is triggered by evidence of possibility of fraud, not by xomplete exposure of [the] alleged scam."
• (Citing Ogle v. Salamatof Native ***'n, Inc., 906 F. Supp. 1321 (D. Alaska 1995)): "'Inquiry notice' exists where [a] person had knowledge of such facts as would lead [a] fair and prudent person using ordinary care to make further inquiries, and [a] person who fails diligently so to inquire is charged with knowledge that would have been acquried through such inquiry."

Assuming Ms. Denson's allegations to be true, she had actual notice in 1984 that Joseph Bishop was a "sexual predator."  I think it's hard to deny, then, that she was also on inquiry notice that he may have been a "sexual predator" before 1984.  To be honest, I'm not sure that's really a point to be differentiated.  But if it is, she was on inquiry notice.  Starting in 1984, she had "a duty to inquire further."  She didn't.  She had a duty to make "inquiries," regardless of what the LDS Church did (or did not do) relative to Joseph Bishop.  She didn't.  Instead, she waited for more than 30 years before interviewing Bishop and finding out more about him.  

I'm not a federal judge, of course.  But Utah law on this point seems pretty clear.

4. I previously summarized my thoughts about how Ms. Denson's Complaint lacks sufficient "particularity" to survive dismissal under Rule 9(b).  For some reason the Church's attorneys did not explore this.  Not sure why, as I think it could have been a solid supplementary or alternative basis for dismissal.

5. Lastly, I think Ms. Denson and her attorney see the writing on the wall.  An attorney confident in his case's prospects would probably not come out of a dispositive motion hearing and say "If we lose we're going to appeal."

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 18, 2018 by smac97

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, JulieM said:

I think it depends on the purpose of the interview.  This wasn’t an interrogation or debate.  Consig did an excellent job and asked good questions in an effort to allow Mckenna to tell her story.  I think that’s what his purpose was, and he achieved that.

You really should listen to it before you continue with your criticisms (if you want to be effective or listened to).  I enjoyed it and recommend listening!

Are you determined to ignore my point? I’m not criticizing the interview. I’m challenging jkwillams’s assertion that “the best interviewers” are those who never ask probing questions. 

Edited July 19, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Jeanne]

16 minutes ago, JulieM said:

I think it depends on the purpose of the interview.  This wasn’t an interrogation or debate.  Consig did an excellent job and asked good questions in an effort to allow Mckenna to tell her story.  I think that’s what his purpose was, and he achieved that.

You really should listen to it before you continue with your criticisms (if you want to be effective or listened to).  I enjoyed it and recommend listening!

I agree.  It is hard to take criticisms seriously from one who hasn't bothered to listen to it.  Just doesn't make sense.  Scott....just do it parts..take a couple of days..then get back to us.  Consig did a great job for a first timer.  He wanted clarification and called her out on things that needed that.  In my own journey, when I have been wrong about the church, Consig has called me out and straightened me up on doctrines that i had misunderstood.

Edited July 18, 2018 by Jeanne