Update on McKenna Denson Lawsuit (Hearing Schedule)

[JulieM]

9 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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

Where did he state that the “best interviewers” “never ask probing questions”?

I see where he’s saying for this type of interview (where the purpose is to tell their story), he did a great job (especially if this was his first interview).  I agree!!

Listen to it and then give us your analysis or opinion.  

 

Edited July 18, 2018 by JulieM

[Scott Lloyd]

5 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

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.

As I’ve said multiple times now, I’m not criticizing the podcast. I’m taking issue with jkwilliams’s assertion that a mark of “the best interviewers” is to not do any probing or prompting during an interview. Again, I don’t have to have heard the interview to disagree in principle with this assertion by jkwilliams. 

[Tacenda]

16 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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:

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

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:

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:

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:

"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:

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):

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:

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. 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

Smac, maybe this needs it's own thread. But we have another case where the abused is suing the church for not reporting or letting someone who abused her, her father, keep doing it and the church leaders involved with the case advising her and her mother not to go to the police. Here is an article and video's Part 1 & 2, and a 3rd on the way of her story. Do you know much about this case? If you don't mind my asking. Apparently her father was eventually ex'd but it took many years before anything was done. This case is one of the worst I've seen. 

https://www.heraldextra.com/news/local/faith/lds-church-policy-on-handling-sex-abuse-cases-at-core/article_b655b13a-c802-5eba-9215-2cfce6bfb68c.html

https://hotm.faith/podcasts/

 

[Jeanne]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

As I’ve said multiple times now, I’m not criticizing the podcast. I’m taking issue with jkwilliams’s assertion that a mark of “the best interviewers” is to not do any probing or prompting during an interview. Again, I don’t have to have heard the interview to disagree in principle with this assertion by jkwilliams. 

Okay.

[JulieM]

7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

As I’ve said multiple times now, I’m not criticizing the podcast. I’m taking issue with jkwilliams’s assertion that a mark of “the best interviewers” is to not do any probing or prompting during an interview. 

He was commenting on a post that stated the purpose of the interview was to allow Mckenna to tell her story.  I don’t see it that he was giving his opinion about every type of interview.  He’s right that since this wasn’t an interrogation (or debate), consig did well.

Here’s jkwilliam’s post (is this what you’re referring to?):

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/70698-update-on-mckenna-denson-lawsuit-hearing-schedule/?do=findComment&comment=1209835205

If so, you’re misrepresenting him.  He didn’t say that there should “never” be any “probing questions” asked.

But anyway,  if you follow his posts, he explains why he feels consig did well and I agree.  

Edited July 18, 2018 by JulieM

[smac97]

14 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Smac, maybe this needs it's own thread. But we have another case where the abused is suing the church for not reporting or letting someone who abused her, her father, keep doing it and the church leaders involved with the case advising her and her mother not to go to the police. Here is an article and video's Part 1 & 2, and a 3rd on the way of her story. Do you know much about this case? If you don't mind my asking. Apparently her father was eventually ex'd but it took many years before anything was done. This case is one of the worst I've seen. 

https://www.heraldextra.com/news/local/faith/lds-church-policy-on-handling-sex-abuse-cases-at-core/article_b655b13a-c802-5eba-9215-2cfce6bfb68c.html

https://hotm.faith/podcasts/

Yes, I am aware of this case.  The same attorney who is representing McKenna Denson is representing the plaintiff in this case.  I've addressed it here and here and here and here.

To sum up: I have great sympathy for Kristy Johnson.  I have increasing measures of disappointment in her attorney.  I think his rhetoric, his vendetta against the Church, his desire to make a buck of the Church, is coming at the expense of him worsening the prospects of abuse victims getting the help they need.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

Here are a few more thoughts on yesterday's hearing based on news reports.

https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/chandler/2018/07/18/mormon-church-urges-judge-toss-rape-claim-vs-missionary-leader/798743002/

Quote

SALT LAKE CITY — Mormon church lawyers asked a judge Wednesday to toss out a lawsuit from a woman who says she was raped in the 1980s by a Mormon missionary leader who held the powerful position even though church officials knew he had a history of sexual misconduct.

...

Lawyers for McKenna Denson pushed back against church attorneys, saying she didn't know until last year that leaders had covered up Bishop's 1970s confession about his "acts of sexual predation."

...

"This is about sexual predatory behavior, and victim shaming and people not feeling like they have a voice. But they have a voice. They have a global platform," Denson said after the hearing.

Actually no, it's not about "sexual predatory behavior" in the abstract.  It's not even about whether Joseph Bishop engaged in misconduct as to other women.  It's a federal lawsuit about the purported injury to McKenna Denson.  She doesn't have standing to sue Mr. Bishop as to his other purported misconduct.

And the bit about "victim shaming" is just agitrop.  It's a buzzword that's getting play online, but I don't see it as having much relevance here.  Her lawsuit doesn't allege that the Church "shamed" her.  Her lawsuit claims that the Church knowingly put her in harm's way.

Quote

Church attorney David Jordan said courts shouldn't decide how religious leaders deal with such complaints. "No church owes an obligation to a plaintiff who is claiming sexual assault to take disciplinary action," he said.

Denson says she reported the assault several times over the past three decades but the church failed to take disciplinary action. The church has said Bishop wasn't punished because he denied the allegations and church members could not verify them.

I'm glad this point was raised.  If Ms. Denson's suit is based, in part, on a grievance that the Church did not impose discipline on Mr. Bishop, she should lose on that.  Bigly.  The civil courts have no business telling a religious institution how to handle internal disciplinary matters.  They are specifically prohibited from doing that, in fact.

That is not to say that church discipline isn't (or wasn't) warranted.  Only that it is not the place of a federal judge to say so, or of Ms. Denson and her attorney to sue about it.  

Quote

Church lawyers are citing Denson's efforts as they ask to have her case dismissed, arguing her repeated reports show she could have sued earlier but didn't.

"Her own allegations reveal she knew she was ignored," Jordan said.

Again, this is a weird tack for the Church's attorney to take.  "She can't sue the Church because the Church ignored her for too long" is technically correct, but a bad soundbite.  There are plenty of ways to emphasize a point of law about the statute of limitations without making the Church sound callous / indifferent / uncaring.

Here's the next one:

https://www.heraldextra.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/lds-church-seeks-to-dismiss-sexual-abuse-case/article_fe47b0e9-2e00-5aa2-a8e1-e719139c2e66.html

Quote

At a public press conference after she filed the lawsuit, Denson said she stood hand-in-hand with other survivors of abuse to call the church to change its policy and culture surrounding sexual assault.

“Right now, the gates are open and a tsunami is coming,” she said.

The lawsuit calls for policy changes within the church, encouraging church leaders to call police rather than the church’s help line if a church member alleges sexual assault.

Hmm.  This sort of activist rhetoric ("a tsunami is coming," actually asking a federal judge to tell a Church how to run itself, etc.), for me, makes me lend less credence to her narrative.  It sounds like she has a vendetta against the Church, rather than a reasoned and legitimate legal grievance.

Quote

The lawsuit also says church members accused of sexual misconduct should be removed from exposure to potential victims.

This is the part of this lawsuit that gets frustrating.  Ms. Denson and her attorney are acting as if the Church hasn't changed since the 80s.  It has.  A lot.  It has worked very hard to formulate and implement policies and resources designed to do exactly what they are saying they want the Church to do.  But acknowledging that would hurt their narrative, so they (dishonestly) act as if the Church's efforts don't exist.

I have sympathy for Ms. Denson, but I am disappointed in her on this point.

The next one:

https://www.sltrib.com/news/2018/07/18/judge-decides-whether/

Quote

Attorneys for former MTC President Joseph L. Bishop and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have asked the judge to toss the suit, filed in April, arguing McKenna Denson had missed a legal deadline years ago to make her claims.

Denson’s attorney Craig Vernon told U.S. District Judge Dale Kimball in Salt Lake City that while Denson was reportedly sexually assaulted by Bishop in 1984, she didn’t know about his alleged sexual addiction or “lifelong” predation until December 2017, when she clandestinely recorded him discussing his past confessions to Mormon officials.

This just does not seem like a viable argument.  Whether he had a "lifelong" pattern of sexual misconduct doesn't seem relevant to Ms. Denson's lawsuit.  And I think she can't get around the basic fact that she knew of his sexual misconduct toward her in 1984, but didn't do anything about it (legally speaking) until decades after the fact.

Quote

The defense insists that Denson’s allegations of the sexual assault, subsequent emotional distress and fraud (all of which they deny) are too old and should be thrown out based on the statute of limitations, which it said ended in the late 1980s or early ’90s, based on when Denson was allegedly assaulted and when she should have concluded a cover-up was taking place.

Denson told reporters afterward: “Nice try.”

That, Vernon said, was when she learned the church had known about Bishop’s addiction and risk to members but still allowed him in leadership positions around potential victims. Hence, the fraud assertions.

I don't think this works.  The "inquiry notice" / "constructive notice" concept (explained here) kicks in here.  

I sure wish Ms. Denson had done something back in the 80s.  Perhaps she would have been spared many of the problems she has faced since then (some of which are self-inflicted).  Law enforcement and the courts could have investigated when the evidence was still extant, when witnesses' recollections were more recent, when forensic evidence was possibly available.  The Church could have been definitively notified about all of this.  Mr. Bishop (if he is guilty) could have been held accountable for his misconduct, both under the laws of the land and the laws of the Church.

Quote

Bishop’s lawyer Andrew Deiss argued generally for the merits of statutes of limitation Wednesday, saying they “can feel tough,” but “reality is, as the Supreme Court says, they’re vital.”

Over time evidence degrades, memories fade and witnesses die, Deiss said, and because of that a defendant can’t get a fair trial so many years after something was alleged to have happened. That, he said, is true for Bishop in this case.

This is a very solid point, and it merits attention and repetition.  For those folks who dislike the application of the statute of limitations in this case, I ask you to consider how you would feel if you or a loved one were accused of committing a heinous crime on, say, March 25, 1984.  Wouldn't you feel it rather unfair to be expected to mount a defense?  Do you even know where you were on March 25, 1984?  What you were doing?  Whom you were with?  Could you provide evidence of such things? 

Quote

Vernon said that tolling provisions — extenuating factors that extend the amount of time a plaintiff has to file a lawsuit despite statutes of limitations — apply and, thus, allow Denson’s case to go forward to a jury.

I don't think Vernon will win here.  Again, the "inquiry notice" / "constructive notice" concept kicks in here.  

Quote

Denson said some of the arguments she heard — like the suggestion she should have filed fraud charges when she asked the church to investigate Bishop years ago — underscore how little people understand about sexual assault survivors.

“They don’t understand that you can’t, as a survivor, understand being raped or being assaulted just because you want to,” she said. “So, I think that’s unfair, and I think it minimizes the trauma that survivors experienced.”

Ms. Denson has a point.  But her remarks also demonstrate her lack of awareness of the complexities of surrounding these matters.  I think our society is getting better and addressing sexual abuse.  However, the rights of the accused and the ability of the courts to do their job (both of which are infringed upon by the passage of time, hence the need for statutes of limitations) are also extremely important considerations.

The next one:

http://kutv.com/news/local/lawyers-for-lds-church-ask-judge-to-throw-out-lawsuit-filed-by-alleged-sex-assault-victim

Quote

An attorney for 85-year-old Joseph Bishop argued it’s unfair to proceed with a case against him when Carlos Asay, the Mormon church leader to whom Denson reported the assault, died years ago and can’t provide testimony.

He also said documents useful to the case are gone and witnesses who can provide testimony have "fading" memories.

Craig Vernon, Denson's attorney, said the key people in the case — Denson and Bishop, are still alive, as are other important witnesses.

Wow.  You can sense Mr. Vernon's desperation here.  His case hinges on what was supposedly told to Carlos Asay, who is dead.  The case also hinges on the communications between Wells and Bishop in 1977 or so.  These communications would almost certainly be protected from disclosure by priest/penitent privilege anyway.  And even if those communications weren't protected, the parties (Wells and Bishop) are 90 and 85, respectively.

What a train wreck of a case.  

Quote

Jordan also told the judge that if this lawsuit proceeds, it would invite government “entanglement in the policies of a religious organization,” which is a violation of the constitution.

Yep.  I think the court is going to be very uncomfortable with that aspect of the case, even more so since Ms. Denson's attorneys specifically ask the Court to entangle itself in the Church's internal policies.  

Honestly, what was Mr. Vernon thinking when he threw in a claim that asks the court to tell the LDS Church how to run itself?  That portion of the lawsuit pretty much invites a dismissal.  Mr. Vernon cannot possibly be so obtuse.  So that leaves . . . showboating.  Virtue signalling.  He knew he was going to lose the lawsuit anyway, so why not throw in an absurd, sure-to-fail claim that creates a soapbox for him to preach from?

Blech.  This is not the purpose of the U.S. legal system.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 19, 2018 by smac97

[Tacenda]

17 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Here are a few more thoughts on yesterday's hearing based on news reports.

https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/chandler/2018/07/18/mormon-church-urges-judge-toss-rape-claim-vs-missionary-leader/798743002/

Actually no, it's not about "sexual predatory behavior" in the abstract.  It's not even about whether Joseph Bishop engaged in misconduct as to other women.  It's a federal lawsuit about the purported injury to McKenna Denson.  She doesn't have standing to sue Mr. Bishop as to his other purported misconduct.

And the bit about "victim shaming" is just agitrop.  It's a buzzword that's getting play online, but I don't see it as having much relevance here.  Her lawsuit doesn't allege that the Church "shamed" her.  Her lawsuit claims that the Church knowingly put her in harm's way.

I'm glad this point was raised.  If Ms. Denson's suit is based, in part, on a grievance that the Church did not impose discipline on Mr. Bishop, she should lose on that.  Bigly.  The civil courts have no business telling a religious institution how to handle internal disciplinary matters.  They are specifically prohibited from doing that, in fact.

That is not to say that church discipline isn't (or wasn't) warranted.  Only that it is not the place of a federal judge to say so, or of Ms. Denson and her attorney to sue about it.  

Again, this is a weird tack for the Church's attorney to take.  "She can't sue the Church because the Church ignored her for too long" is technically correct, but a bad soundbite.  There are plenty of ways to emphasize a point of law about the statute of limitations without making the Church sound callous / indifferent / uncaring.

Here's the next one:

https://www.heraldextra.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/lds-church-seeks-to-dismiss-sexual-abuse-case/article_fe47b0e9-2e00-5aa2-a8e1-e719139c2e66.html

Hmm.  This sort of activist rhetoric ("a tsunami is coming," actually asking a federal judge to tell a Church how to run itself, etc.), for me, makes me lend less credence to her narrative.  It sounds like she has a vendetta against the Church, rather than a reasoned and legitimate legal grievance.

This is the part of this lawsuit that gets frustrating.  Ms. Denson and her attorney are acting as if the Church hasn't changed since the 80s.  It has.  A lot.  It has worked very hard to formulate and implement policies and resources designed to do exactly what they are saying they want the Church to do.  But acknowledging that would hurt their narrative, so they (dishonestly) act as if the Church's efforts don't exist.

I have sympathy for Ms. Denson, but I am disappointed in her on this point.

The next one:

https://www.sltrib.com/news/2018/07/18/judge-decides-whether/

This just does not seem like a viable argument.  Whether he had a "lifelong" pattern of sexual misconduct doesn't seem relevant to Ms. Denson's lawsuit.  And I think she can't get around the basic fact that she knew of his sexual misconduct toward her in 1984, but didn't do anything about it (legally speaking) until decades after the fact.

I don't think this works.  The "inquiry notice" / "constructive notice" concept (explained here) kicks in here.  

I sure wish Ms. Denson had done something back in the 80s.  Perhaps she would have been spared many of the problems she has faced since then (some of which are self-inflicted).  Law enforcement and the courts could have investigated when the evidence was still extant, when witnesses' recollections were more recent, when forensic evidence was possibly available.  The Church could have been definitively notified about all of this.  Mr. Bishop (if he is guilty) could have been held accountable for his misconduct, both under the laws of the land and the laws of the Church.

This is a very solid point, and it merits attention and repetition.  For those folks who dislike the application of the statute of limitations in this case, I ask you to consider how you would feel if you or a loved one were accused of committing a heinous crime on, say, March 25, 1984.  Wouldn't you feel it rather unfair to be expected to mount a defense?  Do you even know where you were on March 25, 1984?  What you were doing?  Whom you were with?  Could you provide evidence of such things? 

I don't think Vernon will win here.  Again, the "inquiry notice" / "constructive notice" concept kicks in here.  

Ms. Denson has a point.  But her remarks also demonstrate her lack of awareness of the complexities of surrounding these matters.  I think our society is getting better and addressing sexual abuse.  However, the rights of the accused and the ability of the courts to do their job (both of which are infringed upon by the passage of time, hence the need for statutes of limitations) are also extremely important considerations.

The next one:

http://kutv.com/news/local/lawyers-for-lds-church-ask-judge-to-throw-out-lawsuit-filed-by-alleged-sex-assault-victim

Wow.  You can sense Mr. Vernon's desperation here.  His case hinges on what was supposedly told to Carlos Asay, who is dead.  The case also hinges on the communications between Wells and Bishop in 1977 or so.  These communications would almost certainly be protected from disclosure by priest/penitent privilege anyway.  And even if those communications weren't protected, the parties (Wells and Bishop) are 90 and 85, respectively.

What a train wreck of a case.  

Yep.  I think the court is going to be very uncomfortable with that aspect of the case, even more so since Ms. Denson's attorneys specifically ask the Court to entangle itself in the Church's internal policies.  

Honestly, what was Mr. Vernon thinking when he threw in a claim that asks the court to tell the LDS Church how to run itself?  That portion of the lawsuit pretty much invites a dismissal.  Mr. Vernon cannot possibly be so obtuse.  So that leaves . . . showboating.  Virtue signalling.  He knew he was going to lose the lawsuit anyway, so why not throw in an absurd, sure-to-fail claim that creates a soapbox for him to preach from?

Blech.  This is not the purpose of the U.S. legal system.

Thanks,

-Smac

d

(bold mine)

Smac, do you remember mentioning how things have changed since the 80's (see your quote below)? See how things were before in how Kristy's mom went to the bishop instead of the cops? And then we find out the bishop said not to go to the cops? And it was because Melvin Kay Johnson was an employee in the CES department and continued in this job even though the leaders knew of the abuse.  

So McKenna not going to the cops at first makes perfect sense and the fact that Joseph L. Bishop was an MTC president at the time and the story happened exactly as Kristy's or close to it, the leaders protecting the abuser and not the abused. The church leaders protected this from going public, to protect the church's reputation. And both abusers, Johnson and Bishop continued in callings that could hurt others.

IMO, this is what happened to both McKenna and Kristy. They were conditioned, as well as the adult members to believe to try to handle it through the church first. So I think the LDS church deserves this lawsuit and all the other pay outs it's had to make because of this repeated offence.

Interesting article below about crime vs. sin in the church. I think it's time for the church to be even more adamate about changing this seriously flawed thinking in the past. Maybe more people would stop abusing for fear of jail.

Good points in this article. http://kuer.org/post/what-happens-when-mormon-leaders-treat-child-sexual-abuse-sin-not-crime#stream/0

Here's your quote Smac: http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/70698-update-on-mckenna-denson-lawsuit-hearing-schedule/?do=findComment&comment=1209831367

"Again, it is frustrating to see both Ms. Johnson and Mr. Vernon utterly ignore the Church's current policies and training for local leaders.  They are acting as if nothing has changed since Ms. Johnon was abused."

Me: What I'm trying to point out here if you haven't figured it out by more lack of skills in putting across, and I'm no lawyer, is that you said McKenna should have gone to the police, yet you admit things were different in the 80's and the church's current policies and training are better. Or did I put words in your mouth? Just thought I needed to point this out to you.

 

[Jeanne]

28 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

(bold mine)

Smac, do you remember mentioning how things have changed since the 80's (see your quote below)? See how things were before in how Kristy's mom went to the bishop instead of the cops? And then we find out the bishop said not to go to the cops? And it was because Melvin Kay Johnson was an employee in the CES department and continued in this job even though the leaders knew of the abuse.  

So McKenna not going to the cops at first makes perfect sense and the fact that Joseph L. Bishop was an MTC president at the time and the story happened exactly as Kristy's or close to it, the leaders protecting the abuser and not the abused. The church leaders protected this from going public, to protect the church's reputation. And both abusers, Johnson and Bishop continued in callings that could hurt others.

IMO, this is what happened to both McKenna and Kristy. They were conditioned, as well as the adult members to believe to try to handle it through the church first. So I think the LDS church deserves this lawsuit and all the other pay outs it's had to make because of this repeated offence.

Interesting article below about crime vs. sin in the church. I think it's time for the church to be even more adamate about changing this seriously flawed thinking in the past. Maybe more people would stop abusing for fear of jail.

Good points in this article. http://kuer.org/post/what-happens-when-mormon-leaders-treat-child-sexual-abuse-sin-not-crime#stream/0

Here's your quote Smac: http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/70698-update-on-mckenna-denson-lawsuit-hearing-schedule/?do=findComment&comment=1209831367

"Again, it is frustrating to see both Ms. Johnson and Mr. Vernon utterly ignore the Church's current policies and training for local leaders.  They are acting as if nothing has changed since Ms. Johnon wBigas abused."

Me: What I'm trying to point out here if you haven't figured it out by more lack of skills in putting across, and I'm no lawyer, is that you said McKenna should have gone to the police, yet you admit things were different in the 80's and the church's current policies and training are better. Or did I put words in your mouth? Just thought I needed to point this out to you.

 

Big rep point here. 

[smac97]

40 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

(bold mine)

Smac, do you remember mentioning how things have changed since the 80's (see your quote below)?

Yes.

Quote

See how things were before in how Kristy's mom went to the bishop instead of the cops?

I don't see a conflict between going to the bishop and going to the cops.  The two are not mutually exclusive.  To the contrary, bishops have a helpline that connects them to a law firm that can give them guidance on what legal requirements they face in dealing with allegations of sexual misconduct.

Moreover, there are plenty of people who are very reluctant to report to the police.  A bishop can, and often does, facilitate such reporting.  A bishop can also help with other practicalities, such as arranging for an abused spouse to stay in a hotel for a few days, get counseling, get assistance from sisters in the ward in helping with kids and food and such, etc.

But McKenna Denson and her execrable attorney are on a crusade against talking to bishops at all.  I find that deeply problematic.  If a bishop discourages an abuse victim from calling the police, he is not acting in accordance with the teachings and guidelines of the Church.  If a bishop ignores allegations of abuse, he is not acting in accordance with the teachings and guidelines of the Church.  And so on.  In many, many instances, bishops are helping abuse victims.  A lot.  The Church's training of its bishops is working.  The Church facilitates the reporting of sexual abuse where required by law, such as in this recent story:

Quote

An Arizona judge is being investigated on allegations of sexually abusing a girl from when she was 13 until she reached adulthood, The Associated Press has learned.

The alleged victim, now 25, told investigators last year that Pinal County Superior Court Judge Steven Fuller touched her genitals and buttocks repeatedly and also showed her pornography, according to a police report obtained by The Associated Press.

...

The alleged abuse occurred years ago and was reported in late September to police in the Phoenix suburb of Mesa by a lawyer for the Mormon church who said the alleged victim revealed the alleged abuse to her bishop. She spoke with investigators several weeks later, saying she was coming forward after being encouraged to do by Paul Babeu, a family friend who was the Pinal County Sheriff from 2009 through 2016.

...

The lawyer for the Mormon church went to police in Mesa, thinking that was where some of the alleged abuse occurred. Mesa police initially investigated but turned over the case to Pinal County authorities after discovering the alleged abuse happened in Pinal County.

Now how is it that "a lawyer for the Mormon church" came to be involved in this matter, when the disclosure of abuse was made by the abuse victim "to her bishop?"  The answer is . . . the Church's training and resources.  Bishops in the U.S. and Canada have a "help line" connected to a law firm (Kirton & McConkie) that they can (and are specifically instructed to) call whenever allegations of abuse or serious misconduct are disclosed to a bishop.  The laws of the various states (and Canadian provinces) vary, so the law firm helps the local bishop in determining which disclosures are necessarily to be reported to law enforcement, which disclosures might need to be reported, and which disclosures which must not be reported.  When a bishop is obligated to disclose, the attorneys at Kirton & McConkie often make the report on behalf of the bishop.  This is how the "lawyer for the Mormon church" became involved in the above story.

So the Church already has some pretty good safeguards in place.  The Law of Chastity.  Clear policies for when priesthood leaders are meeting with youth or women (they are to be chaperoned).  A published-to-the-world "zero tolerance" policy for abuse by ecclesiastical leaders.  A helpline staffed with lawyers to help local leaders navigate legal complexities that can arise.  Sadly, there are still bad people in the world who will work to circumvest these safeguards.  

None of this is being acknowledged by the execrable Craig Vernon, who knows about all of these efforts, but also knows that these efforts undermine the false narrative he is crafting against the LDS Church.  And that narrative is useful for filing lawsuits, which in turn generate notoriety for him and sometimes hefty financial payouts as well.

I've long been disgusted at race hustlers like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, who make money off racial discord in society, and hence have an incentive to foment and exacerbate racial discord in society, and hence actually go out and act on that incentive.  At this point, I'm inclined to categorize Craig Vernon as about on par with these whackdoodles.  He's affirmatively injuring society by making false accusations and spreading fear and resentment and distruct, all so he can make a buck and get his name in the media.  That's pretty vile.

Quote

And then we find out the bishop said not to go to the cops?

Again, this is not an either/or situation.  Bishops can, and do, help in addressing abuse allegations.  It happens all.  The.  Time.

Have you ever worked with victims of sexual abuse (particularly by family members)?  As I see it three of the biggest impediments to them getting help are A) a feeling of helplessness, a lack of control over their lives, and B) profound confusion and despair at the abuse, and C) misplaced feelings of shame and guilt.  Going to the police can come across as exacerbating these things. 

If the police get involved, then the abuser may end up getting arrested (which can be distressing when it's a family member, even to the victim). 

If the police get involved, then the "secret" is out, which may enhance the confusion / despair / shame / guilt (at least that's the fear the victim may have).

If the police get involved, then the police (and/or DCFS) intrude into the home, ask very sensitive questions, and do so by the coercive power of government.  The victim's sense of helplessness or lack of control might actually get worse (again, that's the fear the victim may have at the prospect of contacting the police).

And so it goes.  But you know what?  The police and DCFS still need to be involved.  That is the decision our society has made, and I think it's a necessary one.  So my point is that sometimes the victim may not want to call the police (because of the above concerns), which is why a disclosure to the bishop becomes so valuable.  Bishops, after all, are generally good and decent men, and they have an obligation to monitor the welfare of their flock, and in most jurisdictions they have a legal obligation to report most allegations of abuse.  The Church, recognizing this, has spent considerable time and effort to create a helpline for bishops, a helpline that works (see above).  Bishops are not perfect, but they are clearly a net benefit in terms of addressing allegations of abuse.

And yet we have people likes of Craig Vernon, who goes out of his way to distort and hide what the Church has been doing about this issue, who is so vested in his opposition to the LDS Church (and, I think, his financial incentives stemming from his various lawsuits against the Church) that he is publicly trying to make LDS kids terrified and suspicious and distrustful of their church and their church leaders.

It's a pretty disgusting display.

Quote

And it was because Melvin Kay Johnson was an employee in the CES department and continued in this job even though the leaders knew of the abuse.  

I can't really speak to anecdotes about things that happened or didn't happen nearly a half century ago.  We don't have any facts, just allegations by Ms. Johnson (though I'm inclined to believer her story in most respects).  My point is that things are demonstrably better now, and have been improving for some time, but Mr. Vernon is pretending otherwise.

Society teaches children to go to someone they trust when something bad happens to them.  That could be a parent, a teacher, a police officer . . . or a religious leader.  Now, it so happens that in some circumstances that parent or teacher or police officer or religious leader fails to take appropriate action in response to allegations of abuse.  That's what happened in the here.  Kristy Johnson's bishops failed to act property.  Kristy Johnson's mother failed to act properly.  The police, when they were eventually notified, apparently never arrested or sought a prosecution against Ms. Johnson's parents.  That is a great tragedy. 

In the ensuing decades, the LDS Church has recognized this and has gone to great lengths to give bishops training and resources as to how to handle allegations of sexual abuse.  And yet here we have Craig Vernon and Ms. Johnson publicly accusing the LDS Church of "protecting sexual predators" at the expense of children.  No acknowledgment of the Church's efforts to improve.  At all.  And no consideration given to the injury they are possibly doing to children by instilling them a sense of fear and distrust and loathing of bishops - the very people who the Church is training to properly handle these sorts of allegations.

What's next?  Is Mr. Vernon going to publicly encourage children to not tell their parents about sexual abuse they encounter?  After all, if Kristy Johnson's mother failed to act, then that must mean that all mothers everywhere are "protecting sexual predators."

Quote

So McKenna not going to the cops at first makes perfect sense

Not really.  From a legal standpoint, if she wanted to pursue criminal claims against Mr. Bishop, she needed to talk to the police within the limitations period.  She didn't.  If she wanted to pursue civil claims against Mr. Bishop and/or the Church, she needed to do so within the limitations period.  She didn't.

Sociologically and emotionally and psychologically, I can understand why she did not report to the police.  That is not a new issue.  But it doesn't take away from the straightforward reality that our legal system involves checks and balances.  Her right to pursue legal claims is checked in terms of the defendants' right to be able to defend themselves.  She waited 34 years before bringing claims.  Most of the time, that is simply too long.

Quote

and the fact that Joseph L. Bishop was an MTC president at the time and the story happened exactly as Kristy's or close to it, the leaders protecting the abuser and not the abused.

We don't know any of this as to Joseph Bishop.  All we have are unadorned allegations.  We don't know what he confessed to Elder Wells in 1977.  

As for Melvin Johnson, that is a horrific story.  Full stop.

Quote

The church leaders protected this from going public, to protect the church's reputation.

I am curious is you are likewise going to condemn Kristy Johnson's mother.  She knew about the abuse, but didn't report it to the police.  And the police didn't even prosecute when the abuse was reported.

There was a systemic problem in our society for a long time.  It basically amounted to "Let's just sweep this under the rug and pretend it's not there."  Local leaders in the LDS Church apparently did this.  Kristy Johnson's mother did this.  The police did this.  The reasons were probably many and varied.  But it was all inexcusable.

The Church has been improving quite a bit on this issue for many years now.  Society has been improving as well.  But Mr. Vernon, who stands to make quite a bit of money by suing entities like the LDS Church, refuse to acknowledge this, and actively work against the Church.  Can't slow down the gravy train, I guess.

Quote

And both abusers, Johnson and Bishop continued in callings that could hurt others.

Again, we don't know what happened re: Johnson.  He deceived a lot of people, it seems.

Quote

IMO, this is what happened to both McKenna and Kristy. They were conditioned, as well as the adult members to believe to try to handle it through the church first.

Many decades ago, yes.  Society in general was handling these things poorly.  But we are doing better now.  Do you agree?

Quote

So I think the LDS church deserves this lawsuit and all the other pay outs it's had to make because of this repeated offence.

I can understand that.  I think you would be singing a different tune, however, if you or a loved one were in the crosshairs.  If you were accused of wrongdoing stemming from acts or omissions which occurred 34 or 48 or so years ago, and if you had no real means of recalling the alleged events and gathering evidence about it, would you seriously just roll over and let yourself be sued into oblivion?  Or would you rely on the same sorts of laws that the LDS Church is presenting now?

The LDS Church is entitled to the same sorts of legal protections as the rest of us, don't you think?  

BTW, Kristy Johnson isn't suing the LDS Church.  Just her father.  And she's not suing her mother, even though her mother knew about the abuse for years while it was happening, yet didn't report it to the police.  Do you think she should?  Should she sue her own mother?  If not, why not?

Quote

Interesting article below about crime vs. sin in the church. I think it's time for the church to be even more adamate about changing this seriously flawed thinking in the past. Maybe more people would stop abusing for fear of jail.

Good points in this article. http://kuer.org/post/what-happens-when-mormon-leaders-treat-child-sexual-abuse-sin-not-crime#stream/0

Here's your quote Smac: http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/70698-update-on-mckenna-denson-lawsuit-hearing-schedule/?do=findComment&comment=1209831367

"Again, it is frustrating to see both Ms. Johnson and Mr. Vernon utterly ignore the Church's current policies and training for local leaders.  They are acting as if nothing has changed since Ms. Johnon was abused."

Me: What I'm trying to point out here if you haven't figured it out by more lack of skills in putting across, and I'm no lawyer, is that you said McKenna should have gone to the police, yet you admit things were different in the 80's and the church's current policies and training are better. Or did I put words in your mouth? Just thought I needed to point this out to you.

Yes, McKenna Denson should have gone to the police.  Even though "things were different in the 80s," she still should have gone to the police.  That's a requirement of the law.

I understand why she may not have wanted to.  I understand that she was living overseas when some or all of the limitations periods lapsed.  But the plain reality is that if she wants to rely on the law, she has to comply with the law herself.  That includes the statute of limitations.

I'm not faulting her for her that.  I'm just presenting the law as it is.

I feel very badly for Kristy Johnson.  Assuming her allegations are true, they are horrific.  But I disagree with her and her attorney's efforts to use her lawsuit as a vehicle to run down the Church, and to actively work against it as it seeks to help in addressing allegations of sexual abuse.

As for how I view the errors and omissions by Church actors in the Kristy Johnson case, I'll leave judgments about such things to civil authorities, to local authorities of the Church (assuming any of those actors are still alive), and/or to God.  Meanwhile, Moroni 9:31 is apropos:

Quote

Condemn me not because of mine imperfection, neither my father, because of his imperfection, neither them who have written before him; but rather give thanks unto God that he hath made manifest unto you our imperfections, that ye may learn to be more wise than we have been.

At present, I am grateful that the Church has made substantial and ongoing efforts to meaningfully address issues pertaining to sexual abuse.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 19, 2018 by smac97

[Jeanne]

When my Dad was beating my mom...this is in the 60's...she did not call the cops..she called the Bishop...again...and again...and again.

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Here are a few more thoughts on yesterday's hearing based on news reports.

https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/chandler/2018/07/18/mormon-church-urges-judge-toss-rape-claim-vs-missionary-leader/798743002/

Actually no, it's not about "sexual predatory behavior" in the abstract.  It's not even about whether Joseph Bishop engaged in misconduct as to other women.  It's a federal lawsuit about the purported injury to McKenna Denson.  She doesn't have standing to sue Mr. Bishop as to his other purported misconduct.

And the bit about "victim shaming" is just agitrop.  It's a buzzword that's getting play online, but I don't see it as having much relevance here.  Her lawsuit doesn't allege that the Church "shamed" her.  Her lawsuit claims that the Church knowingly put her in harm's way.

I'm glad this point was raised.  If Ms. Denson's suit is based, in part, on a grievance that the Church did not impose discipline on Mr. Bishop, she should lose on that.  Bigly.  The civil courts have no business telling a religious institution how to handle internal disciplinary matters.  They are specifically prohibited from doing that, in fact.

I'd be interested to know if Bishop had confessed as he claimed previous to being MTC president to his indiscretions.  If so, putting him in a position of power and influence over younger women, even letting him set up a room wherein he took women to be one on one with is pretty problematic.  I would hope the law has something to say to that.  If not, if the law can't interfere at all because it's the Church, well, then, we have a problem that needs resolved.  It appears in this case the Church could have done something to protect Bishop's victims by simply not putting him in a position wherein he could take advantage of women.  I realize the complaint to this point would be that we don't know all that Bishop confessed previous to being in the MTC.  But that's why I said "if".  There is plenty to this that is unanswered.  

 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

That is not to say that church discipline isn't (or wasn't) warranted.  Only that it is not the place of a federal judge to say so, or of Ms. Denson and her attorney to sue about it.  

Again, this is a weird tack for the Church's attorney to take.  "She can't sue the Church because the Church ignored her for too long" is technically correct, but a bad soundbite.  There are plenty of ways to emphasize a point of law about the statute of limitations without making the Church sound callous / indifferent / uncaring.

Here's the next one:

https://www.heraldextra.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/lds-church-seeks-to-dismiss-sexual-abuse-case/article_fe47b0e9-2e00-5aa2-a8e1-e719139c2e66.html

Hmm.  This sort of activist rhetoric ("a tsunami is coming," actually asking a federal judge to tell a Church how to run itself, etc.), for me, makes me lend less credence to her narrative.  It sounds like she has a vendetta against the Church, rather than a reasoned and legitimate legal grievance.

This is the part of this lawsuit that gets frustrating.  Ms. Denson and her attorney are acting as if the Church hasn't changed since the 80s.  It has.  A lot.  It has worked very hard to formulate and implement policies and resources designed to do exactly what they are saying they want the Church to do.  But acknowledging that would hurt their narrative, so they (dishonestly) act as if the Church's efforts don't exist.

I have sympathy for Ms. Denson, but I am disappointed in her on this point.

Uh...having a help line doesn't really address the problem, at least not to the degree of saying the Church has worked very hard to formulate and implement policies.  The help line is designed for bishop's to make calls...not victims.  I don't see how it has accomplished what they want the Church to do.  If she told her bishop and he did nothing, it could happen the same now as it did then.  And if the Church knew about Joseph BIshop's behavior, at least to some extent, before or after something was reported to her bishop in the 80s, then this is more about a coverup than it is about that former Bishop doing nothing.  

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

The next one:

https://www.sltrib.com/news/2018/07/18/judge-decides-whether/

This just does not seem like a viable argument.  Whether he had a "lifelong" pattern of sexual misconduct doesn't seem relevant to Ms. Denson's lawsuit.  And I think she can't get around the basic fact that she knew of his sexual misconduct toward her in 1984, but didn't do anything about it (legally speaking) until decades after the fact.

How is telling her bishop something about it after her mission doing nothing about it until decades later?  Also, a pattern of lifelong suggests clearly that the Church might have known about his behavior and yet still gave him a position of authority, capable of hurting more people.  That seems wholly relevant.  

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I don't think this works.  The "inquiry notice" / "constructive notice" concept (explained here) kicks in here.  

I sure wish Ms. Denson had done something back in the 80s. 

She did.  She told her bishop.  That bishop allegedly set up a meeting with a high level Church person who apparently did nothing about it.  She was told  they would look into it and get back to her.  She never heard more, but assumed they must have done something.  

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Perhaps she would have been spared many of the problems she has faced since then (some of which are self-inflicted).  Law enforcement and the courts could have investigated when the evidence was still extant, when witnesses' recollections were more recent, when forensic evidence was possibly available.  The Church could have been definitively notified about all of this.  Mr. Bishop (if he is guilty) could have been held accountable for his misconduct, both under the laws of the land and the laws of the Church.

The Church was told.  The very representative fo the Church was her bishop who claims to have done absolutely nothing about it.  Thus, the Church did nothing.  It appears though that bishop did do something and the higher level Church did nothing after having been informed...unfortunately.  Joseph Bishop told McKenna he heard nothing from the Church on these matters.  

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

This is a very solid point, and it merits attention and repetition.  For those folks who dislike the application of the statute of limitations in this case, I ask you to consider how you would feel if you or a loved one were accused of committing a heinous crime on, say, March 25, 1984.  Wouldn't you feel it rather unfair to be expected to mount a defense?  Do you even know where you were on March 25, 1984?  What you were doing?  Whom you were with?  Could you provide evidence of such things? 

I'm far more repulsed by heinous crimes that cause such victims I guess.  I'd be all for it.  Mount a defense for confessed crimes?  Not a chance.  I'd say the system failed this poor lady for decades.  The system needs to be fixed.  The Church was informed--her bishop was a Church representative.  

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I don't think Vernon will win here.  Again, the "inquiry notice" / "constructive notice" concept kicks in here.  

Ms. Denson has a point.  But her remarks also demonstrate her lack of awareness of the complexities of surrounding these matters.  I think our society is getting better and addressing sexual abuse.  However, the rights of the accused and the ability of the courts to do their job (both of which are infringed upon by the passage of time, hence the need for statutes of limitations) are also extremely important considerations.

The next one:

http://kutv.com/news/local/lawyers-for-lds-church-ask-judge-to-throw-out-lawsuit-filed-by-alleged-sex-assault-victim

Wow.  You can sense Mr. Vernon's desperation here.  His case hinges on what was supposedly told to Carlos Asay, who is dead.  The case also hinges on the communications between Wells and Bishop in 1977 or so.  These communications would almost certainly be protected from disclosure by priest/penitent privilege anyway.  And even if those communications weren't protected, the parties (Wells and Bishop) are 90 and 85, respectively.

What a train wreck of a case.  

I guess we'll see.  They certainly have a steep hill to climb, but in truth this sounds more and more fishy for Bishop and the Church the more these pieces are considered, in my estimation.  Also, this problem is easily resolved when you toss out the complexities.  It's pretty simple really.  He victimized people, self-admittedly.  that's awful.  All the complexities do is give him a way to get away with it.  That's awful.  

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Yep.  I think the court is going to be very uncomfortable with that aspect of the case, even more so since Ms. Denson's attorneys specifically ask the Court to entangle itself in the Church's internal policies.  

Honestly, what was Mr. Vernon thinking when he threw in a claim that asks the court to tell the LDS Church how to run itself?  That portion of the lawsuit pretty much invites a dismissal.  Mr. Vernon cannot possibly be so obtuse.  So that leaves . . . showboating.  Virtue signalling.  He knew he was going to lose the lawsuit anyway, so why not throw in an absurd, sure-to-fail claim that creates a soapbox for him to preach from?

Blech.  This is not the purpose of the U.S. legal system.

Thanks,

-Smac

d

The whole point of fraud, as they call it, against the Church is that the church handled it poorly.  Indeed, the representative of the Church, the one who she would most likely go to at the time she did, was her bishop.  She went to him and he did nothing as he claimed.  

[stemelbow]

12 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 

But McKenna Denson and her execrable attorney are on a crusade against talking to bishops at all.  

You really think they don't want any LDS bishops to have conversations with anyone at all?  They are trying to get bishop's wives and kids not talking to them?  They are trying to get no one in the ward to ever say a word to a bishop?  

Seems completely silly for you to accuse them of that, but I'm sure you have something that says that is what they are doing, right?

[smac97]

1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

I'd be interested to know if Bishop had confessed as he claimed previous to being MTC president to his indiscretions. 

Yep.  But I don't think it'll ever happen.  We don't know what his "indiscretions" were.  They could have been merely "lustful thoughts" for all we know.

1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

If so, putting him in a position of power and influence over younger women, even letting him set up a room wherein he took women to be one on one with is pretty problematic. 

"If so" being the key words there.  We don't know what his "indiscretions" were.  We don't know what he confessed to Elder Wells (or anyone else in authority).

1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

I would hope the law has something to say to that. 

The statute of limitations is part of that "something."  If you have a legal claim, you almost always have a ticking clock to get it filed in court.

The priest/penitent privilege is also part of that "something."

1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

If not, if the law can't interfere at all because it's the Church, well, then, we have a problem that needs resolved. 

Not really.  The priest/penitent privilege exists for some pretty good reasons.  Few people who are trained and experienced in the law and understand the rationale underlying this concept do not see it as "a problem that needs [to be] resolved."

1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

It appears in this case the Church could have done something to protect Bishop's victims by simply not putting him in a position wherein he could take advantage of women. 

"It appears" being the operative phrase here.  Again, we don't know what his "indiscretions" were.  We don't know what he confessed to Elder Wells (or anyone else in authority).

1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

Uh...having a help line doesn't really address the problem, at least not to the degree of saying the Church has worked very hard to formulate and implement policies. 

Yes, it does.  It helps a lot.  The helpline is a tremendous benefit.  For example, say we have a bishop may be reluctant to report allegations of abuse to the police.  The attorneys manning the helpline explain to him the legal necessity of doing so.  The attorneys can (and often do) make the report to the police on behalf of the bishop.  

This happens.  Frequently.  Regularly.  All the time.  So if "the problem" is that bishops are sometimes not reporting allegations of abuse, the helpline certainly does "really address the problem."

With respect, I think you are speaking from a position of ignorance.  Have you served as a bishop?  Or as a stake president?  If not, you're probably not really in a position to speak intelligently about the effectiveness of the helpline.  

1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

The help line is designed for bishop's to make calls...not victims. 

I do not understand what this means.

1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

I don't see how it has accomplished what they want the Church to do. 

See above.  

1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

If she told her bishop and he did nothing, it could happen the same now as it did then. 

Or . . . the bishop could call the helpline, and would then be instructed to report the allegations to the police.

That is a pretty big difference between what the Church is doing now versus what the Church did (or did not do) many decades ago.

Again, the Church, recognizing the need for bishops to improve how they address allegations of abuse, has spent considerable time and effort to create a helpline for bishops, a helpline that works (see above).  Bishops are not perfect, but they are clearly a net benefit in terms of addressing allegations of abuse.

1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

And if the Church knew about Joseph BIshop's behavior, at least to some extent, before or after something was reported to her bishop in the 80s, then this is more about a coverup than it is about that former Bishop doing nothing.  

"If" being the operative word here.  Again, we don't know what his "indiscretions" were.  We don't know what he confessed to Elder Wells (or anyone else in authority).  We don't know if there was a "cover up."

1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

How is telling her bishop something about it after her mission doing nothing about it until decades later? 

Yes, she did.  And he states that he did nothing with it.  And I have repeatedly acknowledged this as a substantial error in judgment on his part.  Moreover, the Church today has both training and resources in place for bishops to better handle situations such as this.  And the training and resources are working.  All the time.  I am sort of confused why you are having a hard time acknowledging this.

1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

Also, a pattern of lifelong suggests clearly that the Church might have known about his behavior and yet still gave him a position of authority, capable of hurting more people.  That seems wholly relevant.  

Yet again, this is conjecture.  Speculation.  We don't know what his "indiscretions" were.  We don't know what he confessed to Elder Wells (or anyone else in authority). 

1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

She did.  She told her bishop.  That bishop allegedly set up a meeting with a high level Church person who apparently did nothing about it. 

Alas, we'll probably never really know.  Elder Asay is dead.  There is substantial conflicting evidence about whether the meeting even happened.  And even Ms. Denson admits that she reported to Elder Asay about some forms of Bishop's purported misconduct (inappropriate communications and "grooming"), but not the alleged rape.

1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

She was told  they would look into it and get back to her. 

Supposedly.  We'll never really know.

And from a legal standpoint, she had a duty to look after her own legal interests.  That's just the way the law works.

1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

She never heard more, but assumed they must have done something.

Which, even if true, is pretty much irrelevant to her legal claims pending now.

1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

The Church was told. 

Supposedly.  We'll probably never really know.  

1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

The very representative fo the Church was her bishop who claims to have done absolutely nothing about it.  Thus, the Church did nothing. 

In a very abstract sense, yes.  But for purposes of respondeat/superior liability, I'm not sure that would've been enough.  In any event, she still had an obligation under the law to file claims under the statute of limitations.

1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

It appears though that bishop did do something and the higher level Church did nothing after having been informed...unfortunately. 

Actually, the best evidence is that the bishop did nothing.  He denies setting up a meeting with Elder Asay.  The Church has no evidence of a meeting with Elder Asay.  All we have is Ms. Denson's say-so.  And as we've seen, her credibility is very poor.

1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

Joseph Bishop told McKenna he heard nothing from the Church on these matters.  

Which could indicate that Ron Leavitt is telling the truth (that he did not report the allegations).

1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

I'm far more repulsed by heinous crimes that cause such victims I guess.  I'd be all for it.  Mount a defense for confessed crimes?  Not a chance.  I'd say the system failed this poor lady for decades.  The system needs to be fixed.  The Church was informed--her bishop was a Church representative.  

You keep talking about the Church needing to "fix" things, but you aren't acknowledging what the Church has already done, except to discount such efforts outright.  Why is that?

1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

I guess we'll see.  They certainly have a steep hill to climb, but in truth this sounds more and more fishy for Bishop and the Church the more these pieces are considered, in my estimation. 

My assessment of the evidence is that Bishop abused Ms. Denson, but not to the extent she claims.  I think Ron Leavitt's characterization of Ms. Denson's disclosure to him (that Bishop showed her pornography) is likely more correct.  I think she has embellished her claims.  She has very, very poor credibility.

1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

Also, this problem is easily resolved when you toss out the complexities.  It's pretty simple really.  He victimized people, self-admittedly.  that's awful.  All the complexities do is give him a way to get away with it.  That's awful.  

Again, with respect, you are speaking from ignorance.  The legal principles here are not arbitrary.  Or unnecessary.  They have been developed and refined over many centuries by tens of thousands of attorneys and judges.  

And you would be singing a very different tune if you were being sued for something you purportedly did 34 years ago.  These so-called "complexities" would suddently have a lot of value for you.

I am reminded here of an amazing scene from A Man for All Seasons.  This film, based on a play, is about Sir Thomas More during the reign of Henry VIII.  More is appointed by the king as Lord Chancellor, but thereafter finds that the appointment comes with expectations from the king that are not compatible with More's sense of ethics.  The scene in question involves More interacting with a poor but ambitious young man, Rich, who wants More's help in obtaining political power.  More declines, and Rich hints that he (Rich) might be willing to pursue his ambitions in other ways, including ways that could injury More.  More nevertheless lets Rich go, much to the consternation of his (More's) wife (Alice), daughter (Margaret) and soon-to-be-son-in-law (Roper).  Here's a link to the video and the dialog:

Quote

Alice More: Arrest him! 
Sir Thomas More: For what? 
Alice More: He's dangerous! 
Will Roper: For lying, lord, he's a spy! 
Margaret More: Father, that man's bad! 
Sir Thomas More: There's no law against that. 
Will Roper: There is - God's law. 
Sir Thomas More: Then God can arrest him. 
Alice More: While you talk he's gone! 
Sir Thomas More: And go he should if he were the devil himself until he broke the law. 
Will Roper: So, now you'd give the devil benefit of law? 
Sir Thomas More: Yes, what would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the devil? 
Will Roper: Yes! I'd cut down every law in England to do that? 
Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down and the devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws from coast to coast, - man's laws not God's - and if you cut them down - and you're just the man to do it - do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes. I give the devil benefit of law for my own safety's sake. 

I hope you someday come to recognize, Stemelbow, that the rule of law means that there is no cause celebre that can give others the power to dispense with your rights. For your own safety's sake, I hope you come to appreciate the value of the law.

1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

The whole point of fraud, as they call it, against the Church is that the church handled it poorly. 

No.  That's not a correct characterization.  Mr. Vernon is trying to have it that way, but he's failing at it.  His fraud claim pertains not to how the Church "handled it" after-the-fact, but rather that the Church committed fraud against Ms. Denson before-the-fact.  His muddled statements to the press are just a bit of showboating, not legally substantive arguments.

1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

Indeed, the representative of the Church, the one who she would most likely go to at the time she did, was her bishop.  She went to him and he did nothing as he claimed.  

And that was wrong.  But the Church is doing much better now.  And yet Mr. Vernon isn't acknowledging that.  And for some reason, it seems, neither are you.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

35 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

You really think they don't want any LDS bishops to have conversations with anyone at all? 

They are advocating that the LDS Church change its policies and instruct members to not go to a bishop, but to instead go the police.

Thanks,

-Smac

[JulieM]

22 minutes ago, smac97 said:

They are advocating that the LDS Church change its policies and instruct members to not go to a bishop, but to instead go the police.

Thanks,

-Smac

I see that they are wanting victims of abuse to report it to police first.  I doubt they’re advocating for members not to then (or ever) go to church leaders for support and help with healing.

Edited July 19, 2018 by JulieM

[stemelbow]

55 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yep.  But I don't think it'll ever happen.  We don't know what his "indiscretions" were.  They could have been merely "lustful thoughts" for all we know.

"If so" being the key words there.  We don't know what his "indiscretions" were.  We don't know what he confessed to Elder Wells (or anyone else in authority).

The statute of limitations is part of that "something."  If you have a legal claim, you almost always have a ticking clock to get it filed in court.

The priest/penitent privilege is also part of that "something."

Not really.  The priest/penitent privilege exists for some pretty good reasons.  Few people who are trained and experienced in the law and understand the rationale underlying this concept do not see it as "a problem that needs [to be] resolved."

"It appears" being the operative phrase here.  Again, we don't know what his "indiscretions" were.  We don't know what he confessed to Elder Wells (or anyone else in authority).

Yes, it does.  It helps a lot.  The helpline is a tremendous benefit.  For example, say we have a bishop may be reluctant to report allegations of abuse to the police.  The attorneys manning the helpline explain to him the legal necessity of doing so.  The attorneys can (and often do) make the report to the police on behalf of the bishop.  

This happens.  Frequently.  Regularly.  All the time.  So if "the problem" is that bishops are sometimes not reporting allegations of abuse, the helpline certainly does "really address the problem."

I'm not sure that's true.  I don't know that the helpline helps victims as much as tries to make sure the liability in regards to Church is covered.  

55 minutes ago, smac97 said:

With respect, I think you are speaking from a position of ignorance.  Have you served as a bishop?  Or as a stake president?  If not, you're probably not really in a position to speak intelligently about the effectiveness of the helpline.  

Are you saying in every respect that Bishops since this helpline have not tried to coverup abuse (Rob Porter case, allegations of ex-wives)?  I'm not saying the helpline isn't a positive step in some way, I might suggest though, that it is not nearly enough.  But, that jury is still out for me.  

55 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I do not understand what this means.

See above.  

Or . . . the bishop could call the helpline, and would then be instructed to report the allegations to the police.

Surely a possibility.  But perhaps not.  The step of the representative of the Church calling the helpline in the first place needs to be made.  The next step is the helpline advising to call the police and then the Bishop actually has to do that.  It's probably best if the Church stops the presses and calls the police right away and in such a spirit reports upfront that members should go to the police before the Bishop on illegal activity.  

55 minutes ago, smac97 said:

That is a pretty big difference between what the Church is doing now versus what the Church did (or did not do) many decades ago.

In 1987 when McKenna told her bishop, what failed?  Was it just him or was he advised to do what he did, or didn't do?  What was broken decades ago that you say this helpline fixes?  

55 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Again, the Church, recognizing the need for bishops to improve how they address allegations of abuse, has spent considerable time and effort to create a helpline for bishops, a helpline that works (see above).  Bishops are not perfect, but they are clearly a net benefit in terms of addressing allegations of abuse.

"If" being the operative word here.  Again, we don't know what his "indiscretions" were.  We don't know what he confessed to Elder Wells (or anyone else in authority).  We don't know if there was a "cover up."

Yes, she did.  And he states that he did nothing with it.  And I have repeatedly acknowledged this as a substantial error in judgment on his part.  Moreover, the Church today has both training and resources in place for bishops to better handle situations such as this.  And the training and resources are working.  All the time.  I am sort of confused why you are having a hard time acknowledging this.

Yet again, this is conjecture.  Speculation.  We don't know what his "indiscretions" were.  We don't know what he confessed to Elder Wells (or anyone else in authority). 

Alas, we'll probably never really know.  Elder Asay is dead.  There is substantial conflicting evidence about whether the meeting even happened.  And even Ms. Denson admits that she reported to Elder Asay about some forms of Bishop's purported misconduct (inappropriate communications and "grooming"), but not the alleged rape.

Apparently others were privy to the notion that Elder Asay and she met.  If it comes out that this is verified by others, then it would be possible the Bishop Leavitt guy is lying--not only about not doing anything, as he claimed, but about what was told him.  To me it seems he's already hard to trust because he supported her, sent his child to live with her, granted her a temple recommend--all of that.  If as he claimed she was making up crap about a leader of the Church, it's hard to imagine he'd do that.  

55 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Supposedly.  We'll never really know.

And from a legal standpoint, she had a duty to look after her own legal interests.  That's just the way the law works.

Which, even if true, is pretty much irrelevant to her legal claims pending now.

Supposedly.  We'll probably never really know.  

In a very abstract sense, yes.  But for purposes of respondeat/superior liability, I'm not sure that would've been enough.  In any event, she still had an obligation under the law to file claims under the statute of limitations.

Actually, the best evidence is that the bishop did nothing.  He denies setting up a meeting with Elder Asay.  The Church has no evidence of a meeting with Elder Asay.  All we have is Ms. Denson's say-so.  And as we've seen, her credibility is very poor.

The curiousity gets piqued for me when you consider Bishop Leavitt was contacted multiple times by the Church before this story broke, about this incident.  If it was true that he did nothing, did not see anything credible in her allegations, I'd imagine there'd be very little reason for them to reach out beyond once.  He said very little and his story does not fit well with McKenna's (about the contents of what was said then).  He seemed to pull this watching pornography out of nowhere.  Yet the church apparently already knew about his secret room, and his tv and vcr.  That makes this all very suspicious to me.  It's possible that Josehp Bishop showed her pornography and that was part of her initial allegations, but I haven't seen that.  

55 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Which could indicate that Ron Leavitt is telling the truth (that he did not report the allegations).

I don't see how so, at all.  Indeed, his story doesn't fit well.  Why would he trust her after this if he was so sure she was making up crap about an LDS leader?  "well, she seems completely incredible, unreliable, and a bit looney...I might as well send my own kid to live with her in a far away country and give her a temple recommend....why not?"  That doesn't make sense to me at all.  

55 minutes ago, smac97 said:

You keep talking about the Church needing to "fix" things, but you aren't acknowledging what the Church has already done, except to discount such efforts outright.  Why is that?

I'm not sure a helpline fixes it.  It seems like a big ol' coverup took place.  If the Church continues to cover things up, even as the Rob Porter stuff seems to indicate, then I'm not sure it's all fixed and all is well in zion.  

55 minutes ago, smac97 said:

My assessment of the evidence is that Bishop abused Ms. Denson, but not to the extent she claims.  I think Ron Leavitt's characterization of Ms. Denson's disclosure to him (that Bishop showed her pornography) is likely more correct.  I think she has embellished her claims.  She has very, very poor credibility.

I'm the opposite.  His story doesn't add up, as explained.  Her's fits in well.  

55 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Again, with respect, you are speaking from ignorance.  The legal principles here are not arbitrary.  Or unnecessary.  They have been developed and refined over many centuries by tens of thousands of attorneys and judges.  

And you would be singing a very different tune if you were being sued for something you purportedly did 34 years ago.  These so-called "complexities" would suddently have a lot of value for you.

If I did something as Joseph Bishop admitted to have done 34 years ago, I'd hope I'd have some level of integrity and not sing a different tune.  Of course I couldn't have possibly done anything of the sort 34 years ago.  I was but a wee lad, so we won't know how I'd be singing 34 years later until I get old enough to have done something so heinous 34 years ago.  I dont' care if I'm speaking from ignorance.  I made a point of breaking this down in simple terms.  I'm sticking by it.  

55 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I am reminded here of an amazing scene from A Man for All Seasons.  This film, based on a play, is about Sir Thomas More during the reign of Henry VIII.  More is appointed by the king as Lord Chancellor, but thereafter finds that the appointment comes with expectations from the king that are not compatible with More's sense of ethics.  The scene in question involves More interacting with a poor but ambitious young man, Rich, who wants More's help in obtaining political power.  More declines, and Rich hints that he (Rich) might be willing to pursue his ambitions in other ways, including ways that could injury More.  More nevertheless lets Rich go, much to the consternation of his (More's) wife (Alice), daughter (Margaret) and soon-to-be-son-in-law (Roper).  Here's a link to the video and the dialog:

I hope you someday come to recognize, Stemelbow, that the rule of law means that there is no cause celebre that can give others the power to dispense with your rights. For your own safety's sake, I hope you come to appreciate the value of the law.

No.  That's not a correct characterization.  Mr. Vernon is trying to have it that way, but he's failing at it.  His fraud claim pertains not to how the Church "handled it" after-the-fact, but rather that the Church committed fraud against Ms. Denson before-the-fact.  His muddled statements to the press are just a bit of showboating, not legally substantive arguments.

And that was wrong.  But the Church is doing much better now.  And yet Mr. Vernon isn't acknowledging that.  And for some reason, it seems, neither are you.

Thanks,

-Smac

Thanks.  I'm glad I see it the way I do.  I hope you change your tune, but I ain't counting on it.  We've already been over most of this months ago.  We probably didn't need to rehash it.  But, what are we to do but express our disagreement and see if we can suss out why the other disagrees.  

Take care.  

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

They are advocating that the LDS Church change its policies and instruct members to not go to a bishop, but to instead go the police.

Thanks,

-Smac

I'm with Julie M on this.  I think you were exaggerating quite a bit so I challenged your phrase.  But even this seems like an exaggeration.  I don't think they have concerns about people talking to their bishops.  They just want members to know going to a bishop should not replace going to the law when it comes to reporting illegal  activity.  

 

But with that said, I stand behind the movement to say kids should stop sitting one on one with bishops and talking about their sexual lives and feelings.  That continues to disturb me.  

[smac97]

16 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I'm not sure that's true.  I don't know that the helpline helps victims as much as tries to make sure the liability in regards to Church is covered.  

I have first-hand experience with the helpline being an effective resource for addressing allegations of sexual abuse.

16 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Are you saying in every respect that Bishops since this helpline have not tried to coverup abuse (Rob Porter case, allegations of ex-wives)? 

No.  Bishops can and do make mistakes.  But broadly speaking, the helpline is a very good and effective resource in helping bishops properly address allegations of abuse.

16 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I'm not saying the helpline isn't a positive step in some way, I might suggest though, that it is not nearly enough.  But, that jury is still out for me.  

Okay.

16 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Surely a possibility.  But perhaps not.  The step of the representative of the Church calling the helpline in the first place needs to be made.  The next step is the helpline advising to call the police and then the Bishop actually has to do that. 

And that happens.  All the time.  In fact, the attorneys at the helpline often make the call on behalf of the bishop.

16 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

It's probably best if the Church stops the presses and calls the police right away and in such a spirit reports upfront that members should go to the police before the Bishop on illegal activity.  

Plenty of room to disagree here.  Plenty of people trust their bishop, but don't know or trust the police.  They should certainly report the abuse to someone, right?  To whom it is reported first doesn't really matter in my book (or, I think, in the Church's).

16 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

In 1987 when McKenna told her bishop, what failed? 

He did.  He did not report the matter to the Church or to the police.

16 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Was it just him or was he advised to do what he did, or didn't do?  What was broken decades ago that you say this helpline fixes?  

Bishops are now trained to call the helpline and get guidance on the legal steps for reporting allegations of abuse.

16 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Apparently others were privy to the notion that Elder Asay and she met. 

Allegedly.  We don't really no.  The evidence would seem to weight against this.  Ron Leavitt denies setting up this meeting.  And although Ms. Denson alleges that her fiance accompanied her to (but did not participate in) the interview with Elder Asay, he (now her ex-husband) has accused her of fabricating rape claims, and calls her lawsuit an "insult" to real victims of abuse.  That doesn't sound like someone who would corroborate her story about meeting with Elder Asay.

Ms. Denson has presented both of these men (Ron Leavitt and her fiance/ex-husband) as corroborating witnesses.  Neither of them appear to be corroborating her substantive claims.

16 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

If it comes out that this is verified by others, then it would be possible the Bishop Leavitt guy is lying--not only about not doing anything, as he claimed, but about what was told him. 

"If" being the operative word there.

Frankly, I don't think we'll ever explore that "if."  I think the case will be dismissed.

16 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

To me it seems he's already hard to trust because he supported her, sent his child to live with her, granted her a temple recommend--all of that. 

And yet also felt that she "embellished."  And he may have been aware of her false rape claim when she was in Washington D.C.

16 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

If as he claimed she was making up crap about a leader of the Church, it's hard to imagine he'd do that.  

I dunno.  I can see him as seeing her as a good person, but also someone prone to "embellishing."

16 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

The curiousity gets piqued for me when you consider Bishop Leavitt was contacted multiple times by the Church before this story broke, about this incident. 

Yes.  If the Church was blindsided by his disclosures to the press that he knew about these allegations in 1987 but didn't report them, then a few calls would seem to make sense.

I also can see how cynics might see these calls as an effort by the Church to conspire with Ron Leavitt to present false statements about Ms. Denson.  I think that's unlikely.  

16 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

If it was true that he did nothing, did not see anything credible in her allegations, I'd imagine there'd be very little reason for them to reach out beyond once. 

Sure there are.  I've had many times where I've had to call a client multiple times to get information, and then further information.

16 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

He said very little and his story does not fit well with McKenna's (about the contents of what was said then). 

Yep.  But Ms. Denson's credibility does not seem to be the most reliable benchmark for gauging Ron Leavitt's credibility.  Hers is very poor.

16 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

He seemed to pull this watching pornography out of nowhere. 

Huh?  He was asked about a conversation he had with her 31 years ago.  He answered.  What's suspicious about that?

16 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Yet the church apparently already knew about his secret room, and his tv and vcr. 

But not the cot/bed.  

16 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

That makes this all very suspicious to me. 

I can understand that.  The evidence is pretty ambiguous, though.

16 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

It's possible that Josehp Bishop showed her pornography and that was part of her initial allegations, but I haven't seen that.  

Yes, we're left with her say-so.  And her say-so is not very good, I'm afraid.  She has very poor credibility.

16 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I'm not sure a helpline fixes it.  It seems like a big ol' coverup took place.  If the Church continues to cover things up, even as the Rob Porter stuff seems to indicate, then I'm not sure it's all fixed and all is well in zion.  

I get your cynicism, but it's not a viable substitute for looking at the evidence.

16 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

If I did something as Joseph Bishop admitted to have done 34 years ago,

That "something" is very much in dispute.

16 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I'd hope I'd have some level of integrity and not sing a different tune. 

Right.  But if the "something" was showing a young woman porn (not rape), and if you were being accused of rape (not showing a young woman porn), what would you do?

16 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Of course I couldn't have possibly done anything of the sort 34 years ago.  I was but a wee lad, so we won't know how I'd be singing 34 years later until I get old enough to have done something so heinous 34 years ago.  I dont' care if I'm speaking from ignorance.  I made a point of breaking this down in simple terms.  I'm sticking by it.  

I wasn't trying to insult you, and I apologize if I did.  My point is that these are complex issues.  We can't speak intelligently about them if you summarily brush them aside.

16 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Thanks.  I'm glad I see it the way I do.  I hope you change your tune, but I ain't counting on it. 

What is it about my "tune" that needs to be changed?  I am no advocate of Joseph Bishop.  I think it's pretty clear that he did some pretty awful things.  I am not excusing or justifying his misconduct.

My assessment of Ms. Denson is that she is a very troubled person and needs a lot of help.  She has my sympathy.  But her lawsuit is, from a legal/evidentiary standpoint, very poor.

I think the LDS Church is doing a very good job of addressing allegations of abuse.  We can do better, of course, but Mr. Vernon's characterization of the Church is pretty crappy and dishonest.

Thanks,

-Smac

[stemelbow]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I have first-hand experience with the helpline being an effective resource for addressing allegations of sexual abuse.

Gross..oh wait you don't mean....nevermind.  Ok.  It very well could be an effective resource.  But then again someone back in the day could have had a bishop who handled allegations of the stripe we talking about much better than it was handled.  

Quote

No.  Bishops can and do make mistakes.  But broadly speaking, the helpline is a very good and effective resource in helping bishops properly address allegations of abuse.

Okay.

And that happens.  All the time.  In fact, the attorneys at the helpline often make the call on behalf of the bishop.

Plenty of room to disagree here.  Plenty of people trust their bishop, but don't know or trust the police.  They should certainly report the abuse to someone, right?  To whom it is reported first doesn't really matter in my book (or, I think, in the Church's).

Fair enough.  I'm not sure it matters who first.  It matters though if one reports to a bishop and is made to feel like that the bishop will follow up and does not.  

Quote

He did.  He did not report the matter to the Church or to the police.

Bishops are now trained to call the helpline and get guidance on the legal steps for reporting allegations of abuse.

Allegedly.  We don't really no.  The evidence would seem to weight against this.  Ron Leavitt denies setting up this meeting.  And although Ms. Denson alleges that her fiance accompanied her to (but did not participate in) the interview with Elder Asay, he (now her ex-husband) has accused her of fabricating rape claims, and calls her lawsuit an "insult" to real victims of abuse.  That doesn't sound like someone who would corroborate her story about meeting with Elder Asay.

Well he could.  

Quote

Ms. Denson has presented both of these men (Ron Leavitt and her fiance/ex-husband) as corroborating witnesses.  Neither of them appear to be corroborating her substantive claims.

"If" being the operative word there.

Frankly, I don't think we'll ever explore that "if."  I think the case will be dismissed.

And yet also felt that she "embellished."  And he may have been aware of her false rape claim when she was in Washington D.C.

I dunno.  I can see him as seeing her as a good person, but also someone prone to "embellishing."

Yes.  If the Church was blindsided by his disclosures to the press that he knew about these allegations in 1987 but didn't report them, then a few calls would seem to make sense.

I also can see how cynics might see these calls as an effort by the Church to conspire with Ron Leavitt to present false statements about Ms. Denson.  I think that's unlikely.  

Sure there are.  I've had many times where I've had to call a client multiple times to get information, and then further information.

Yep.  But Ms. Denson's credibility does not seem to be the most reliable benchmark for gauging Ron Leavitt's credibility.  Hers is very poor.

Huh?  He was asked about a conversation he had with her 31 years ago.  He answered.  What's suspicious about that?

But not the cot/bed.  

I can understand that.  The evidence is pretty ambiguous, though.

Yes, we're left with her say-so.  And her say-so is not very good, I'm afraid.  She has very poor credibility.

I get your cynicism, but it's not a viable substitute for looking at the evidence.

That "something" is very much in dispute.

Right.  But if the "something" was showing a young woman porn (not rape), and if you were being accused of rape (not showing a young woman porn), what would you do?

He admits to far more than showing a young woman porn.  He even admits it would not surprise him if he did rape someone.  

Quote

I wasn't trying to insult you, and I apologize if I did.  My point is that these are complex issues.  We can't speak intelligently about them if you summarily brush them aside.

What is it about my "tune" that needs to be changed?  I am no advocate of Joseph Bishop.  I think it's pretty clear that he did some pretty awful things.  I am not excusing or justifying his misconduct.

My assessment of Ms. Denson is that she is a very troubled person and needs a lot of help.  She has my sympathy.  But her lawsuit is, from a legal/evidentiary standpoint, very poor.

I think the LDS Church is doing a very good job of addressing allegations of abuse.  We can do better, of course, but Mr. Vernon's characterization of the Church is pretty crappy and dishonest.

Thanks,

-Smac

I'm leaving the courts to decide.  You may be right.  it may be thrown out.  That certainly doesn't mean there are not inherent problems in the system that need fixing.  This story highlights for me problems.  You seem tot hink they are all fixed.  I'm not so sure.  

Not even close to cute. If you ever joke about another poster committing sexual abuse again you will be banned.

[Calm]

Quote

It's possible that Josehp Bishop showed her pornography and that was part of her initial allegations, but I haven't seen that.  

She stated in the press conference she could not speak to the contents of the videos because she didn't see the contents, iirc.

[provoman]

21 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Smac, maybe this needs it's own thread. But we have another case where the abused is suing the church for not reporting or letting someone who abused her, her father, keep doing it and the church leaders involved with the case advising her and her mother not to go to the police. Here is an article and video's Part 1 & 2, and a 3rd on the way of her story. Do you know much about this case? If you don't mind my asking. Apparently her father was eventually ex'd but it took many years before anything was done. This case is one of the worst I've seen. 

https://www.heraldextra.com/news/local/faith/lds-church-policy-on-handling-sex-abuse-cases-at-core/article_b655b13a-c802-5eba-9215-2cfce6bfb68c.html

https://hotm.faith/podcasts/

 

The LDS Church IS NOT bei g sued by Kristy Johnson....she is only sueing her Dad.

[jkwilliams]

22 hours ago, JulieM said:

Where did he state that the “best interviewers” “never ask probing questions”?

I see where he’s saying for this type of interview (where the purpose is to tell their story), he did a great job (especially if this was his first interview).  I agree!!

Listen to it and then give us your analysis or opinion.  

That is correct. I never said any such thing. 

[Tacenda]

5 minutes ago, provoman said:

The LDS Church IS NOT bei g sued by Kristy Johnson....she is only sueing her Dad.

Got it. 🙂

[rongo]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Surely a possibility.  But perhaps not.  The step of the representative of the Church calling the helpline in the first place needs to be made.  The next step is the helpline advising to call the police and then the Bishop actually has to do that.  It's probably best if the Church stops the presses and calls the police right away and in such a spirit reports upfront that members should go to the police before the Bishop on illegal activity.  

In my personal experience, when the police need to be called, the helpline attorney instructs (not just suggests) the bishop that he will do it for him. Over and over they stress they don't want bishops to be involved and on record with it. They want the bishops to be completely shielded from subpoena, testimony, etc. And when they call the police, they follow-up and keep the bishops posted. Sometimes, when there is repeated attempts by police to contact the bishop, they get involved again and make it clear that all queries and questions are to be directed to them. My stake president and I once both had to keep referring police to the attorney and reminding them that counsel had instructed us to direct all questions to them. More recently, I was contacted by local police and the FBI about a ward member (for a non-abuse thing), and the helpline attorney wanted me to have nothing to do with that --- not even filling out a lengthy, detailed questionnaire. He said that filling out even parts of it could constitute waiving clergy privilege and that I should simply send him the questionnaire and direct all communication to him (i.e., not to say a word, other than that I have been instructed by counsel to direct everything to them), and that "we don't want your name on anything connected with this. Let us do all communication with the authorities." This resulted in law enforcement trying to get me to do it, after being told I would not be ("C'mon, you're making this out to be a bigger deal than it is. Can't you just fill this out?"). I had to repeat that counsel has instructed me not to and to refer it to them. 

What the Church doesn't want is for bishops to simply "call the police right away," knee-jerk style, because of social and press pressure, high-profile legal things like Denson v. LDS Church, etc. As someone who has had experience with the hotline over eight years, I'm grateful that I can call and be instructed how to proceed (often resulting in them taking it over and taking it completely out of my hands), without it becoming a matter of "wow, this could be one of those land mines being discussed in the press, better just call the police and turn everything in so I don't get Vernoned down the road ." What a mess that would actually be!

Edited July 19, 2018 by rongo