Denson's Lawsuit Dismissed by Federal Judge

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, Abulafia said:

Hi all. 

 

I know I will be vehemently disagreed with here, I just wanted to add another perspective on this.

 

1. Both McKenna and Mike Norton were sexually abused in childhood.  Mike by a close relative who is currently serving as a Mission President. McKenna was not only raped in childhood but then by the MTC president.  There are other victims and one is from my home stake. We have all heard the tape.

 

2. This was an empowering act for both McKenna and actually for Mike. Remember that Joseph B told McKenna no one would believe her, all those years ago.  He was right.

 

3. A parent could well use this event to talk about inappropriate  relationships and abuse. Given there is likely to be at least one child experiencing abuse or an adult that has experienced abuse in the congregation, this could be seen as an empowering act.  

 

4. This sends a message to abusers that they cannot hide behind anonymity or NDAs.

 

My 2 cents.

 

30 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

All of this, even if absolutely correct (frankly, given the track records of some of the individuals involved, I would need to ingest about a case of salt in order to be persuaded that I should believe them when it comes to some of the particulars alleged) is irrelevant.  No one here is arguing that they don't have a right to speak out.  However, even in the United States, where there aren't a lot of restrictions the government legally can impose on one's right to speak out, time, place, and manner all matter.  Indecent exposure, disorderly conduct, and whatever other statutes might  apply aside, if you want to protest whatever by getting naked and howling at the moon downtown, have at it.  Be my guest.  More power to you.  However, don't expect to be able to do the same thing in my living room.  ("Ay, there's the rub!")  And that's why everything you just wrote is irrelevant here.

 

And another thing: If convincing 99.9% of your audience that you're simply Cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs does something for your cause, then, congratulations to Ms. Denson!  Mission accomplished!   And even if I grant that horrible things happened both to Ms. Denson and to Mr. Norton, life is 10% about what happens to you and 90% about how you respond to it.  If someone is motivated to do so, s/he can recover even after the most awful things happen to her (Cf. Elizabeth Smart with Ms. Denson and Mr. Norton). 

And if this little stunt was all about recovery and empowerment, if Ms. Denson and Mr. Norton had put a fraction of the effort into recovery from their traumas that they've put into trying to garner publicity and smear the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, they could have recovered and been empowered a thousand times over by now.  Why on earth do I suspect that recovery is the last thing Ms. Denson and Mr. Norton are interested in, since wallowing in non-recovery will garner more publicity, will ensure their continued presence in the spotlight, and will win them the adulation, sympathy, and sycophancy of acolytes who, likewise, are antipathetic toward the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?  Just my cynical nature, I guess!   

[provoman]

2 hours ago, Abulafia said:

Hi all. 

 

I know I will be vehemently disagreed with here, I just wanted to add another perspective on this.

 

1. Both McKenna and Mike Norton were sexually abused in childhood.  Mike by a close relative who is currently serving as a Mission President. McKenna was not only raped in childhood but then by the MTC president.  There are other victims and one is from my home stake. We have all heard the tape.

 

2. This was an empowering act for both McKenna and actually for Mike. Remember that Joseph B told McKenna no one would believe her, all those years ago.  He was right.

 

3. A parent could well use this event to talk about inappropriate  relationships and abuse. Given there is likely to be at least one child experiencing abuse or an adult that has experienced abuse in the congregation, this could be seen as an empowering act.  

 

4. This sends a message to abusers that they cannot hide behind anonymity or NDAs.

 

My 2 cents.

Point 4 shows tends to show me how little you understand about the situation. 

A NDA is a legally binding agreement between at least two parties  What a NDA does is legally bind BOTH parties TO NOT TALK ABOUT/DISCLOSE what was agreed too. So Mckennas grotesque disrespect, has nothing to do with NDAs.

In my opinion, The rest of your points show the same poor judgement that denson demostrated.

[juliann]

1 hour ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I note that the first part of the video has now been censored. Interesting.

That is beyond ironic considering the ongoing commentary about the church doing exactly that with its history. 

[JAHS]

Woman who accused former MTC president of rape confronts his LDS Church ward in Arizona

"The woman who alleges the former president of the Missionary Training Center of raped her in 1984 brought her battle to an LDS ward in Arizona Sunday, and a video of her repeating her accusations there has been posted on YouTube."

She was removed form the podium under protest and several people in the audience were recording it. I wonder if it is better to just let someone finish what they are saying and clean up afterwards, or to ask them and/or physical help them leave the podium?  

[juliann]

2 hours ago, Abulafia said:

Hi all. 

 

I know I will be vehemently disagreed with here, I just wanted to add another perspective on this.

Welcome back! I think it would be very helpful to you to read the former thread on this. We are fortunate to have attorneys here. Also the advantage of a message board is that people bring in different bits of information.

I completely backed McKenna's story at first, which you can see in the first thread and I do believe something awful happened. It is digusting that that man is still a member. There was a story out that he had resigned. But the more I saw, the less I trusted her full account, beginning with her leaking the tape, initially denying it, and blowing up any chance of a settlement with the church. 

I can't get past the beginning to that video, which is obviously problematic if even they saw it needed to be hidden from view. I don't know if that would ever be admitted to a trial, but if I saw that it would give me a very negative impression of her. She didn't look serious at all, it was all about pranking. 

I continue to think she presents as a very troubled person who was abused and who needs support and help rather than being cheered on. The first thing her supporters should be doing if they care at all about her is to get it through her head that once you go legal you go silent. 

[ALarson]

4 minutes ago, juliann said:

I can't get past the beginning to that video, which is obviously problematic if even they saw it needed to be hidden from view.

I just now watched the video linked to in this thread.  It started with them sitting together on the sofa and planning to go to the F&T meeting.  How did it start before and what did I miss?  (Thanks)

[juliann]

9 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Woman who accused former MTC president of rape confronts his LDS Church ward in Arizona

"The woman who alleges the former president of the Missionary Training Center of raped her in 1984 brought her battle to an LDS ward in Arizona Sunday, and a video of her repeating her accusations there has been posted on YouTube."

She was removed form the podium under protest and several people in the audience were recording it. I wonder if it is better to just let someone finish what they are saying and clean up afterwards, or to ask them and/or physical help them leave the podium?  

I do have a problem with strangers coming in and forcing children to listen to stories about rape. I do believe the church handled this poorly from the beginning. She deserved to be heard and even compensated. Her best chance of being heard was in court and she is burning that to the ground. I wonder if her attorney will throw in the towel after this. 

[juliann]

12 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I just now watched the video linked to in this thread.  It started with them sitting together on the sofa and planning to go to the F&T meeting.  How did it start before and what did I miss?  (Thanks)

Oops, I thought they were talking about the video itself, but it must have been KUTV's version of the video. 

[ALarson]

10 minutes ago, juliann said:

Oops, I thought they were talking about the video itself, but it must have been KUTV's version of the video. 

Oh, ok....;thanks!

I hate that she's hooked up with Mike Norton.  It's so disappointing to see her acting like this because I was impressed with her composure and how she expressed herself in the initial news conference.  But watching the two of them together in this video was like watching two giddy kids (before the video shows her at the microphone).

I get that she still wants to speak out and I honestly don't blame her for feeling frustrated (especially if Bishop is still a member and it seems we're not sure on that point).  I feel for parents in that congregation who had their children there to hear this.  I do wish the Bishop had just cut the microphone immediately and I don't know if any assault charges are legitimate, but I really don't know how they could have handled it without physically escorting her out (even if they had turned the microphone off,  she most likely would have continued speaking or yelling.)

Edited September 4, 2018 by ALarson

[rpn]

I think that Sis Denson was reacting to the fact that her claims against Bro Bishop were dismissed.   That means she cannot run him up on a flag in any public forum.  Doing this at least means that his fellow ward members know what he did (which they may not have otherwise known) --- not sure whether she defamed him by also calling him a pedophile which could subject her to a lawsuit that she probably has no way to defend.  

There has been some discussion online about what Bro. Bishop's church standing is.  If I'd been his priesthood leadership, I'd have excommunicated him the day I heard the December tape, plus the police saying her charges were believable (plus the time required for having the disciplinary council and proper notice).     Visiting his ward may well have been Bro. Norton's idea, but it is one way of confirming what he is doing.   Personally, if Bro. Bishop had been excommunicated, I would have expected him to still be attending Sacrament meeting.  I did note that on reddit it was claimed that he took the sacrament, but that was not on the tape, which I would have expected it to be if it were true.    I was glad to see Bro. Bishop  was not sitting alone (though I don't know him so if it wasn't really him, I would never know from that from the video): members who have done what he has done should not be alone on church property, especially because all church members may not know about the history.  

In the video, as Sis. Denson begins to speak, someone from the audience goes to the stand and sits next to someone and appears to whisper in his ear --- I wondered if he recognized Sis. Denson and was giving them a heads up.   (Could have just been someone going up to bear testimony, alternatively.)

I saw the bishop restrain her hand and arm, which I do not think was appropriate.   If I recall correctly both Sis. Denson and Bro Norton have received notices that they are not allowed to be on any church property worldwide.   Bro. Norton admitted as much on the first version of the tape in the comedy show part.    (And I wonder if this will affect his trespass charge in Salt Lake for his attempting to film last month on temple grounds.)

I wish bishops would talk to organists about what to play loudly if the bishop ever signals them to do so in the middle of the meeting.   I wonder why they didn't turn off the mic--- that seems like the very first thing to do.   The recording we saw though was taken from within the audience because at one point someone from the audience stood up blocking the video, and her cellphone was probably making an audio record.

As for the assault, and Bro. Lloyd's comments about people being removed in multiple similar contexts ---- sometimes people are arrested for hauling people out (which would be battery not assault in most jurisdictions).   But if the over all circumstances of the removal were appropriate, few prosecutors would prosecute.   That doesn't mean that in those same circumstances the removed person wouldn't have recourse in civil law.   But if it were a jury, I'd not expect to win if I trespassed, upset the congregation, and insisted on continuing after being asked to leave, but wanted damages because someone physically removed me.  Probably not if heard by a judge, either.

 

 

[rockpond]

7 minutes ago, rpn said:

I think that Sis Denson was reacting to the fact that her claims against Bro Bishop were dismissed.  

Yep... while I find her actions in this case to be horribly inappropriate, it is not a surprising reaction given the Church's decision to protect the institution over the victim.

[juliann]

7 minutes ago, ALarson said:

  I do wish the Bishop had just cut the microphone immediately and I don't know if any assault charges are legitimate, but I really don't know how they could have handled it without physically escorting her out (even if they had turned the microphone off,  she most likely would have continued speaking or yelling.)

Disruptive people are "escorted" out of private property all the time so I can't see that being a problem at all unless the point was to physically hurt her.  It just wasn't a good visual. 

Given all the shootings, my biggest concern when there is resistance would be a fear of the disgruntled person pulling out a gun. In that sense, I think it was wise to have the two men flanking her. (I have no reason to think she would even think of doing that, but as something we do have to think about nowadays....) I also think it would really, really take the fun and glory out of it if these showboaters were immediately responded to as potential mass murderers.) 

[stemelbow]

Oh man.  This is bad.  Sounds like she is just really angry that Bishop got away with it all these years.  I don't know what it'd be like to be in her shoes and therefore don't really understand what she's feeling, but getting with Mike Norton to do this, I'd say, will turn off many members who were sympathetic to her cause, at the very least.  Doing it to feel empowered or send a message to everyone in that ward to watch out is one thing.  To make it a stunt where you had others record it and put it on youtube was just awful.  

I dont' know about the bishop getting physical with her.  There was definitely a point it appears she felt overpowered and wasn't about to struggle out of it.  Turn off the mic.  Tell her you'll call the police but please don't touch her.  That was some disappointing intimidation he did in getting that close and putting his hands on her like that.  If I were there, I would probably have gotten a little frightened by that action, moreso than her inappropriate bombardment of their meeting.   

[Prof]

12 minutes ago, rpn said:

I wish bishops would talk to organists about what to play loudly if the bishop ever signals them to do so in the middle of the meeting.  

 

 

I had thought about this as well. God of our father comes to mind. The intro to that song could stop any discussion. 

And I love that song!

[LoudmouthMormon]

In 2016, US bishops/BPs got a "Security Guidelines for Church Meetinghouses" bulletin.  With her comments about personal space , I'm thinking Denson had access to it.  If she did, she was a) testing adherence to the policy, or b) trying to shut down the meeting.

Quote

Section 5 Responding to a Disruptive Person in a Church Meeting
If a person becomes disruptive during a Church meeting, be respectful, speak calmly and with self-control, and respect his or her personal space.

Whether the person causing the disturbance remains seated in the congregation, approaches the stand, or stands at the pulpit, approach the person and ask him or her to stop or to leave, or invite the person to meet with a priesthood leader in the foyer. Tell the person that his or her behavior or comments are inappropriate. If the person has been asked to leave but refuses, inform him or her that the police may be notified and he or she may be arrested for trespassing.
If the person refuses to leave and continues to cause a disturbance at the pulpit, turn off the microphone and dismiss the meeting. Do not attempt to physically restrain the person unless it is absolutely necessary. (Adapt these guidelines as needed for auxiliary meetings, classes, or other Church events or activities.)

If a serious or dangerous disruption is occurring on Church property, call the police. When the situation is under control, notify your priesthood leader and the Church Security Department.

 

Edited September 4, 2018 by LoudmouthMormon

[provoman]

22 minutes ago, rpn said:

I think that Sis Denson was reacting to the fact that her claims against Bro Bishop were dismissed.   That means she cannot run him up on a flag in any public forum.  Doing this at least means that his fellow ward members know what he did (which they may not have otherwise known) --- not sure whether she defamed him by also calling him a pedophile which could subject her to a lawsuit that she probably has no way to defend.  

There has been some discussion online about what Bro. Bishop's church standing is.  If I'd been his priesthood leadership, I'd have excommunicated him the day I heard the December tape, plus the police saying her charges were believable (plus the time required for having the disciplinary council and proper notice).     Visiting his ward may well have been Bro. Norton's idea, but it is one way of confirming what he is doing.   Personally, if Bro. Bishop had been excommunicated, I would have expected him to still be attending Sacrament meeting.  I did note that on reddit it was claimed that he took the sacrament, but that was not on the tape, which I would have expected it to be if it were true.    I was glad to see Bro. Bishop  was not sitting alone (though I don't know him so if it wasn't really him, I would never know from that from the video): members who have done what he has done should not be alone on church property, especially because all church members may not know about the history.  

In the video, as Sis. Denson begins to speak, someone from the audience goes to the stand and sits next to someone and appears to whisper in his ear --- I wondered if he recognized Sis. Denson and was giving them a heads up.   (Could have just been someone going up to bear testimony, alternatively.)

I saw the bishop restrain her hand and arm, which I do not think was appropriate.   If I recall correctly both Sis. Denson and Bro Norton have received notices that they are not allowed to be on any church property worldwide.   Bro. Norton admitted as much on the first version of the tape in the comedy show part.    (And I wonder if this will affect his trespass charge in Salt Lake for his attempting to film last month on temple grounds.)

I wish bishops would talk to organists about what to play loudly if the bishop ever signals them to do so in the middle of the meeting.   I wonder why they didn't turn off the mic--- that seems like the very first thing to do.   The recording we saw though was taken from within the audience because at one point someone from the audience stood up blocking the video, and her cellphone was probably making an audio record.

As for the assault, and Bro. Lloyd's comments about people being removed in multiple similar contexts ---- sometimes people are arrested for hauling people out (which would be battery not assault in most jurisdictions).   But if the over all circumstances of the removal were appropriate, few prosecutors would prosecute.   That doesn't mean that in those same circumstances the removed person wouldn't have recourse in civil law.   But if it were a jury, I'd not expect to win if I trespassed, upset the congregation, and insisted on continuing after being asked to leave, but wanted damages because someone physically removed me.  Probably not if heard by a judge, either.

 

 

Mike Norton is no Bro. Norton, as used by Members of the LDS Church. It would be great if he is on video admitting he is not suppose to trespass yet he does anyways. norton posted that the person who went to the stand was J Bishop's son. 

As for Denson and Norton and the several other conspirators....indefensible poor form.

Edited September 4, 2018 by provoman

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, sunstoned said:

That would be kind of scary.   Maybe a switch to turn off the mic.  

Why are critics so humorless?

[Thinking]

There is an excellent episode of Law & Order SVU (Educated Guess - Season 13, Episode 8 )about a girl who was abused by a family member but not believed. She ended up in a mental hospital.

I don't really know how I would react if I had been abused and when I disclosed the abuse, was not believed. What would that do to my sanity? Would I ever trust anybody again? Would I have legal problems? I won't judge McKenna for how she is reacting to the situation because I haven't come close to suffering what she has suffered.

Many of the responses to McKenna's situation have repeated what happened initially. She is still not believed by many, and there doesn't seem to be any justice.

Edited September 4, 2018 by Thinking

[juliann]

24 minutes ago, rpn said:

I think that Sis Denson was reacting to the fact that her claims against Bro Bishop were dismissed.   That means she cannot run him up on a flag in any public forum.  Doing this at least means that his fellow ward members know what he did (which they may not have otherwise known) --- not sure whether she defamed him by also calling him a pedophile which could subject her to a lawsuit that she probably has no way to defend.  

 

Court would have been the tallest flag pole she could have had. She seems to prefer short lived theater performances, unfortunately. 

[provoman]

5 minutes ago, Thinking said:

There is an excellent episode of Law & Order SVU (Educated Guess - Season 13, Episode 8 )about a girl who was abused by a family member but not believed. She ended up in a mental hospital.

I don't really know how I would react if I had been abused and when I disclosed the abuse, was not believed. What would that do to my sanity? Would I ever trust anybody again? Would I have legal problems? I won't judge McKenna for how she is reacting to the situation because I haven't come close to suffering what she has suffered.

Many of the responses to McKenna's situation have repeated what happened initially. She is still not believed by many, and there doesn't seem to be any justice.

What is justice? Does justice throwout the law?

Or is Justice when we go to Law, allow the law to consider the state of affairs, and then the law provides either a remedy to plaintiff or defendant? Justice was served, we may not like it, but what has ocurred for her in the legal world is Justice. 

Justice isn't ignoring the law or taking it into our hands.

[juliann]

4 minutes ago, Thinking said:

There is an excellent episode of Law & Order SVU (Educated Guess - Season 13, Episode 8 )about a girl who was abused by a family member but not believed. She ended up in a mental hospital.

I don't really know how I would react if I had been abused and when I disclosed the abuse, was not believed. What would that do to my sanity? Would I ever trust anybody again? Would I have legal problems? I won't judge McKenna for how she is reacting to the situation because I haven't come close to suffering what she has suffered.

Many of the responses to McKenna's situation have repeated what happened initially. She is still not believed by many, and there doesn't seem to be any justice.

It's not a matter of judging her, it is a matter of self-destructive acts that are inexplicable and a fan base who won't help her keep her nose to the grindstone during the extended legal action.

I think there would be very few people who wouldn't believe that Bishop is a predator if they are introduced to his history. As to the details, who knows, and the more she presents herself as unhinged, the more likely the details of her version of his predation will be questioned. At the beginning, the Bishop family had the same problem but they were reined in and went silent. 

[ksfisher]

36 minutes ago, rpn said:

I think that Sis Denson was reacting to the fact that her claims against Bro Bishop were dismissed.   That means she cannot run him up on a flag in any public forum.  Doing this at least means that his fellow ward members know what he did (which they may not have otherwise known) --- not sure whether she defamed him by also calling him a pedophile which could subject her to a lawsuit that she probably has no way to defend.  

There has been some discussion online about what Bro. Bishop's church standing is.  If I'd been his priesthood leadership, I'd have excommunicated him the day I heard the December tape, plus the police saying her charges were believable (plus the time required for having the disciplinary council and proper notice).     Visiting his ward may well have been Bro. Norton's idea, but it is one way of confirming what he is doing.   Personally, if Bro. Bishop had been excommunicated, I would have expected him to still be attending Sacrament meeting.  I did note that on reddit it was claimed that he took the sacrament, but that was not on the tape, which I would have expected it to be if it were true.    I was glad to see Bro. Bishop  was not sitting alone (though I don't know him so if it wasn't really him, I would never know from that from the video): members who have done what he has done should not be alone on church property, especially because all church members may not know about the history.  

In the video, as Sis. Denson begins to speak, someone from the audience goes to the stand and sits next to someone and appears to whisper in his ear --- I wondered if he recognized Sis. Denson and was giving them a heads up.   (Could have just been someone going up to bear testimony, alternatively.)

I saw the bishop restrain her hand and arm, which I do not think was appropriate.   If I recall correctly both Sis. Denson and Bro Norton have received notices that they are not allowed to be on any church property worldwide.   Bro. Norton admitted as much on the first version of the tape in the comedy show part.    (And I wonder if this will affect his trespass charge in Salt Lake for his attempting to film last month on temple grounds.)

I wish bishops would talk to organists about what to play loudly if the bishop ever signals them to do so in the middle of the meeting.   I wonder why they didn't turn off the mic--- that seems like the very first thing to do.   The recording we saw though was taken from within the audience because at one point someone from the audience stood up blocking the video, and her cellphone was probably making an audio record.

As for the assault, and Bro. Lloyd's comments about people being removed in multiple similar contexts ---- sometimes people are arrested for hauling people out (which would be battery not assault in most jurisdictions).   But if the over all circumstances of the removal were appropriate, few prosecutors would prosecute.   That doesn't mean that in those same circumstances the removed person wouldn't have recourse in civil law.   But if it were a jury, I'd not expect to win if I trespassed, upset the congregation, and insisted on continuing after being asked to leave, but wanted damages because someone physically removed me.  Probably not if heard by a judge, either.

 

 

Hindsight is 20/20, isn't it.

[stemelbow]

15 minutes ago, Thinking said:

There is an excellent episode of Law & Order SVU (Educated Guess - Season 13, Episode 8 )about a girl who was abused by a family member but not believed. She ended up in a mental hospital.

I don't really know how I would react if I had been abused and when I disclosed the abuse, was not believed. What would that do to my sanity? Would I ever trust anybody again? Would I have legal problems? I won't judge McKenna for how she is reacting to the situation because I haven't come close to suffering what she has suffered.

Many of the responses to McKenna's situation have repeated what happened initially. She is still not believed by many, and there doesn't seem to be any justice.

I will add that I do believe she's mentioned that this event from long ago had contributed negatively to her life.  I think you are right in that this really hit her and I think she's just been reliving it in so many ways this past year or so.  

[Prof]

5 minutes ago, juliann said:

It's not a matter of judging her, it is a matter of self-destructive acts that are inexplicable and a fan base who won't help her keep her nose to the grindstone during the extended legal action.

I think there would be very few people who wouldn't believe that Bishop is a predator if they are introduced to his history. As to the details, who knows, and the more she presents herself as unhinged, the more likely the details of her version of his predation will be questioned. At the beginning, the Bishop family had the same problem but they were reined in and went silent. 

Agreed. I think she has something important to say. For that matter, I think Sam has a point to be discussed as well. But in both cases, their shenanigans overpower the points they want to make and their messages gets lost.

[rockpond]

19 minutes ago, juliann said:

Court would have been the tallest flag pole she could have had. She seems to prefer short lived theater performances, unfortunately. 

With her current case dismissed, does she have more legal avenues?  Is a civil suit still a possibility?