Denson's Lawsuit Dismissed by Federal Judge

[ALarson]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

Is asking someone to expose themselves sexual assault legally speaking?  Serious question.

I'd say it's considered to be sexual harassment or sexual abuse.  But I'd for sure consider what Denson describes as happening in that secret room in the basement as being sexual assault.  I also think the same regarding what the other victim described (IIRC).

[Calm]

44 minutes ago, jpv said:

Bishop is the source. He stated in the recording (in his words) that he had "molested" a sister missionary while he was MTC president and that he is a "sexual predator." He also stated on-record to BYUPD that he asked a sister to expose her breasts to him at the MTC.

It's deeply disconcert if you're playing CFR-war in spite of these first-hand admissions aren't clear enough. 

He never used the term "molest" or "molested" to refer to his own actions.  He did respond in the affirmative to one question about molesting from Denson, but then he provided the details:

Quote

Well when did you molest her?

When she was living with us.

Oh God.

I want to tell you about this.

Please do.

[Crosstalk) - came in and she wanted a back rub. And I rubbed her back. And that got too much...frisky. that's all that ever happened with all, and with- ... I must have, you know that was hard on- too. 

Does this qualify as sexual assault legally? (Serious question)

Edited September 5, 2018 by Calm

[bluebell]

Just now, Calm said:

He never used the term "molest" or "molested" to refer to his own actions.  He did respond in the affirmative to one question about molesting from Denson, but then he provided the details:

Does this qualify as sexual assault legally? (Serious question)

It would depend on whether or not it got frisky with her permission or against her will, I think.  

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I'd say it's considered to be sexual harassment or sexual abuse.  But I'd for sure consider what Denson describes as happening in that secret room in the basement as being sexual assault.  I also think the same regarding what the other victim described (IIRC).

What did the other victim described?  I am unaware of any statement from her, just the info from the Newsroom.

I agree that Denson described assault, no problem calling it rape.  But he did not confess to that and emphatically imo denied it.  She unfortunately interrupted before he could give his own version.

[provoman]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

He never used the term "molest" or "molested" to refer to his own actions.  He did respond in the affirmative to one question about molesting from Denson, but then he provided the details:

Does this qualify as sexual assault legally? (Serious question)

Utah does not seem to have criminal statutes covering that. 

Utah Code 76, chapter 5 offenses againt person, section 4 sexual offense appears to only cover acts that require touching and done by an18+ year old against a minor.

[smac97]

14 minutes ago, Calm said:

Is asking someone to expose themselves sexual assault legally speaking?  Serious question.

I don't think so.  There would need to be something more (physical contact, threats/coercion, etc.).

14 minutes ago, Calm said:

Bishop's confession said nothing of touching the woman at that time as reported.

Giving a woman a backrub if she asked would not be assault either, even if abuse imo (due to her unstable mentality as she was in his home because of a suicide attempt as well as his position of authority).

It could be assault if she was incapable of giving consent, but that is a pretty high bar.

Thanks,

-Smac

[ALarson]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

What did the other victim described?  I am unaware of any statement from her, just the info from the Newsroom.

I was referring to this statement (and had to search and find it because I couldn't specifically remember what she stated):

Quote

Judith Baines Homer‎ to McKenna Denson

Yesterday at 9:01 AM · 

...

I'm no where near as brave as McKenna. She is far above and beyond me when it comes to fighting her fight. I don't want the world to hound me, for the church to dig up everything about me or for the courts to blame, shame or tell me I'm wrong. But I do want MeKenna to know she is not wrong, not alone and not to blame. 

FOR I TOO AM A VICTIM OF JOSEPH BISHOP.

Didn't realize it for many years, and i feel I have no case against him at this stage, it would not hold in court.

I have shared my story with both McKenna and her lawyer Craig. I know personally of one other victim besides myself and McKenna, she has not come forward to share her story other than with the above mentioned. She I am sure has her reasons and we will respect her and keep her story private unless she herself , shares it herself to the public. 

McKenna is not alone in being a victim of Joseph Bishop. She has my full support in her case and i sincerely hope she wins hands down. I am not willing to share my story in public for many reasons, but the right people do know of it. I just wanted to make this statement for those who doubt McKenna's story and to show that McKenna is not alone in this.. This man is a sexual pervert and predator and should of been stopped many many years ago.

 

[Abulafia]

49 minutes ago, smac97 said:

How is having sympathy for her incompatible with pointing out salient facts about her?

We don't know.  She disclosed abuse to her bishop in 1987, but the nature of that disclosure is disputed.

She claims she met with Elder Asay, but the existence of that meeting is disputed.

She claims that she made further efforts between 1987 and 2010 to contact the Church, but there is no evidence of such efforts except her say-so.  And the credibility of her say-so is very poor.

I can understand that.  But I'm not big into the "collective guilt" thing.

Not so.  There are plenty of members of the Church, myself included, who sympathize with her, and who condemn the fact that she was abused in the MTC in some way.

Meh.  This is a legal dispute.  Ms. Denson had her attorneys contact the Church.

And again, I've seen plenty members of the Church express sympathy ("the milk of kindness") to her.  But virtually none of us know her personally.  And most of what we can comment on pertains to factual claims, many of which are in dispute.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Sorry Smac. I've seen defence attorneys at work.  I know exactly what you are doing.... I wish there was a specialist here on the other side of the equation.  

[Abulafia]

Judith was in my home stake.  She lived with the Bishops way back when their boys were younger. 

[Calm]

18 minutes ago, rockpond said:

One of our attorneys here will have to answer but I think it is also important to include that he wasn't just some random person who bumped into her on the street.  Bishop was in a position of authority over Denson, he confessed to taking her to a private room and then asked her to show him her breasts.

That is sexual assault in my book.

I don't disagree, but when talking to multiple people it is probably best to either stick to saying what he did (asked a woman to expose herself) or use the appropriate legal term whatever that is.

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

Quote

How is having sympathy for her incompatible with pointing out salient facts about her?

We don't know.  She disclosed abuse to her bishop in 1987, but the nature of that disclosure is disputed.

She claims she met with Elder Asay, but the existence of that meeting is disputed.

She claims that she made further efforts between 1987 and 2010 to contact the Church, but there is no evidence of such efforts except her say-so.  And the credibility of her say-so is very poor.

I can understand that.  But I'm not big into the "collective guilt" thing.

Not so.  There are plenty of members of the Church, myself included, who sympathize with her, and who condemn the fact that she was abused in the MTC in some way.

Meh.  This is a legal dispute.  Ms. Denson had her attorneys contact the Church.

And again, I've seen plenty members of the Church express sympathy ("the milk of kindness") to her.  But virtually none of us know her personally.  And most of what we can comment on pertains to factual claims, many of which are in dispute.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Sorry Smac. I've seen defence attorneys at work.  I know exactly what you are doing.... I wish there was a specialist here on the other side of the equation.  

What is it that you think I am doing?

I am not defending Joseph Bishop.  Feel free to review my many posts referencing him.

I am trying to evaluate Ms. Denson's legal claims as objectively as possible.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Abulafia]

Just now, smac97 said:

What is it that you think I am doing?

I am not defending Joseph Bishop.  Feel free to review my many posts referencing him.

I am trying to evaluate Ms. Denson's legal claims as objectively as possible.

Thanks,

-Smac

Rubbish,  Smac. Imho.

[ALarson]

1 minute ago, Abulafia said:

Judith was in my home stake.  She lived with the Bishops way back when their boys were younger. 

Thanks for the additional information.  I thought it was brave of her to speak out, give her name and support Denson.  I also understood why she didn't want to pursue anything legally after watching all the Denson has been through.

[Calm]

10 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I was referring to this statement (and had to search and find it because I couldn't specifically remember what she stated):

 

Link please, this is the first I have heard of this...

Never mind, I remember this now.  Must have read it under the influence of Am bien as it didn't take.

Were there any other details besides saying she was a victim?

I don't know from this if she was one of the four sisters Denson reported and Bishop confirmed having private sessions with him and he shared the same type of sexual stories with her or it was something more.  Do you have this info?

Edited September 5, 2018 by Calm

[smac97]

Just now, Abulafia said:

Quote

What is it that you think I am doing?

I am not defending Joseph Bishop.  Feel free to review my many posts referencing him.

I am trying to evaluate Ms. Denson's legal claims as objectively as possible.

Thanks,

-Smac

Rubbish,  Smac. Imho.

What a witty riposte.

🤨

-Smac

[ALarson]

Just now, Calm said:

Link please, this is the first I have heard of this.

There was a thread discussing it at the time (I posted it that's why I remembered it).  I'll search for it again 

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

Rubbish,  Smac. Imho.

Are you not going to respond to his question?

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

Link please, this is the first I have heard of this.

Here.

[Abulafia]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

What a witty riposte.

🤨

-Smac

Smac, you seem to be deliciously revelling in maligning and discrediting her.  That's what I am seeing.  Hopefully her own lawyer has more confidence in her than you do. 

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, ALarson said:

There was a thread discussing it at the time (I posted it that's why I remembered it).  I'll search for it again 

See my edit...I remember it, no need for link.  Just want more details if she shared them.  Otherwise no detail besides another possible victim (I have no reason to doubt her, I am surprised more haven't come forward actually given his admission to asking the one missionary to expose herself and his likely predilection for sharing sexual stories, but I feel it is important to be specific in what the claims and confirmations are).

[Calm]

29 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

Smac, you seem to be deliciously revelling in maligning and discrediting her.  That's what I am seeing.  Hopefully her own lawyer has more confidence in her than you do. 

I think you are misreading him.  Smac has an obsession, imo, for precision even worse than my own (in my opinion it is good to have someone like him involved in a discussion of a legal matter though I might find it annoying if .I were discussing family matters just as I know my family gets annoyed when I do it)

I get the impression from his many posts that if he was counseling someone as a family member, friend, or minister, he would use a very different approach, though still with precision on his own side.

Edited September 5, 2018 by Calm

[stemelbow]

55 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

We should also add to the scriptures that having something bad happen to you is license to be an $&#*$&#* to anyone you like for the rest of your life so we can get her exalted.

That doesn't need to be added.  Just read them and find it all over them.  

[smac97]

9 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

Quote

What a witty riposte.

🤨

-Smac

Smac, you seem to be deliciously revelling in maligning and discrediting her. 

Meh.  I'm scrutinizing her behavior, much of which has been deeply problematic.

She has maligned herself.  She has a long history of unethical and dishonest conduct.  It's unreasonable to omit such things from an assessment of her legal claims, particularly when the quantum of evidence for those claims consists almost entirely of her personal credibility.

9 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

That's what I am seeing.  Hopefully her own lawyer has more confidence in her than you do. 

I have ample reason for my skepticism regarding Ms. Denson's overall lack of credibility.  And despite this, I have stated many times that I think she was abused by Bishop.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[Rising_Darkness]

25 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

Sorry Smac. I've seen defence attorneys at work.  I know exactly what you are doing.... I wish there was a specialist here on the other side of the equation.  

And what is it that he is doing exactly? Countering your claims?!? Or at least providing factual evidence to your premises.

And don’t do the nuclear option, please: “I’ve seen defence(sic) attorneys at work.”  Ad hominem. 

Sometimes you want to believe in something (or hate something) so much you can distort your own reality or truths. In a nutshell, it a copout. 

 

 

 

[smac97]

11 minutes ago, Calm said:

I think you are misreading him.  Smac has an obsession, imo, for precision even worse than my own (in my opinion it is good to have someone like him involved in a discussion of a legal matter though I might find it annoying if .I were discussing family matters just as I know my family gets annoyed when I do it)

Yes, I will own that I prefer to examine legal claims with legal precision.  That just makes sense to me.  Why abandon the training and experience I have accumulated over 15 years in favor of assessing this issue based on anger, disgust, etc.?

Moreover, I have repeatedly expressed sympathy for Ms. Denson, and disgust at the Bishop's apparent culpability.  But these are emotional responses, and I'm not big on regularly wearing my heart on my sleeve when participating in public discussions about complex legal disputes.  It's just not my thing.

11 minutes ago, Calm said:

I get the impression from his many posts that if he was counseling someone as a family memeet, friend, or minister, he would use a very different approach, though still with precision on his own side.

Yes, I would.

Thanks,

-Smac