Denson's Lawsuit Dismissed by Federal Judge

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

I can see how that can be interpreted as calling the bishop first rather than him being one of those called immediately.  I might be too practical of a person to not immediately go in my head to call police when thinking criminal and getting as much help from as many as feasible, so I read it as "don't forget to call the bishop" rather than call him first or only.

My heart breaks for this Sister, first having to endure it, and then having to live with it so long without dealing with it. My daughters knew growing up that they could tell me anything, about anyone who even spoke out of line to them. My youngest had something happen in High School, where a boy "touched her inappropriately". I was on campus the next morning, and when the assistant principle asked if she would have said something to me, "if the child were white"? Things got ugly, and got ugly very fast! I told him just before reading him the "riot act", that up until that moment, I had no idea of the race of the offending boy. That was another child, if an adult, no matter his station had done such a thing, it would have resulting in the "laying on of hands", and then a trip to the police department! I am horrified that this happened to her, but going to his Ward and calling him and the Church out in front of unsuspecting children, out of the question; bad form! 

[smac97]

11 hours ago, provoman said:

I do not think that is a good idea. Hopefully her attorney asked her "please do not discuss this until the case is over"

I think it would be a disservice to her, to even suggest that she openly discuss a pending lawsuit.

Too bad Ryan McKnight and consiglieri and Mike Norton aren't as attentive to her welfare as you are here.

[rockpond]

55 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Too bad Ryan McKnight and consiglieri and Mike Norton aren't as attentive to her welfare as you are here.

Yep... the moment that the Church could no longer buy her silence and avoid the negative publicity, a settlement was off the table. 

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Yep... the moment that the Church could no longer buy her silence and avoid the negative publicity, a settlement was off the table. 

And today's award for best non sequitur goes to...

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

And today's award for best non sequitur goes to...

Sweet!

[JAHS]

LDS Church asks for jury trial in woman’s lawsuit alleging sexual assault at the MTC

SALT LAKE CITY — A new court filing asks a judge to set a jury trial in McKenna Denson’s lawsuit against The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

In a joint scheduling order obtained by FOX 13, Denson’s attorneys and LDS Church attorneys outlined the status of the case.

“The potential for resolution before trial is poor,” David Jordan, an attorney for the LDS Church’s Corporation for the President, wrote. “This case should not be referred to the court’s alternative dispute resolution program for arbitration or mediation.”

Jordan said in the filing that both sides would re-evaluate the odds of settlement in May 2019, but otherwise asked for a 13-day jury trial beginning in March 2020.

Denson is suing the LDS Church, alleging she was raped by then-Missionary Training Center President Joseph Bishop when she was a young sister missionary in 1984. A federal judge dismissed Denson’s lawsuit against Bishop and most of her claims against the LDS Church. However, the judge allowed a claim to continue alleging the Church knew of problems in Bishop’s past but still put him in charge of the MTC.

Earlier this week, Denson showed up at an Arizona church and spoke out against Bishop in a confrontation that was posted on YouTube.

[Duncan]

3 minutes ago, JAHS said:

LDS Church asks for jury trial in woman’s lawsuit alleging sexual assault at the MTC

SALT LAKE CITY — A new court filing asks a judge to set a jury trial in McKenna Denson’s lawsuit against The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

In a joint scheduling order obtained by FOX 13, Denson’s attorneys and LDS Church attorneys outlined the status of the case.

“The potential for resolution before trial is poor,” David Jordan, an attorney for the LDS Church’s Corporation for the President, wrote. “This case should not be referred to the court’s alternative dispute resolution program for arbitration or mediation.”

Jordan said in the filing that both sides would re-evaluate the odds of settlement in May 2019, but otherwise asked for a 13-day jury trial beginning in March 2020.

Denson is suing the LDS Church, alleging she was raped by then-Missionary Training Center President Joseph Bishop when she was a young sister missionary in 1984. A federal judge dismissed Denson’s lawsuit against Bishop and most of her claims against the LDS Church. However, the judge allowed a claim to continue alleging the Church knew of problems in Bishop’s past but still put him in charge of the MTC.

Earlier this week, Denson showed up at an Arizona church and spoke out against Bishop in a confrontation that was posted on YouTube.

so this is for the charge that wasn't dismissed? why would they say "suing" as if it's still on? I though that part was dismissed

[Tacenda]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Too bad Ryan McKnight and consiglieri and Mike Norton aren't as attentive to her welfare as you are here.

I agree on Ryan McKnight since he is the one that released the tape, and Mike Norton's lack of insight on the harm this latest episode may be on her, but consiglieri? Not saying you're not correct, just need you're input on consig, thank you. 

[Abulafia]

5 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Plus, before the interview the church called him three times, I believe.

The legal team has advised everyone involved in this.  Everyone.

[Tacenda]

5 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

The legal team has advised everyone involved in this.  Everyone.

Had a long day and like you, lack of sleep. What do you mean with this comment, not sure. Thanks in advance!

[Abulafia]

6 hours ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

My heart breaks for this Sister, first having to endure it, and then having to live with it so long without dealing with it. My daughters knew growing up that they could tell me anything, about anyone who even spoke out of line to them. My youngest had something happen in High School, where a boy "touched her inappropriately". I was on campus the next morning, and when the assistant principle asked if she would have said something to me, "if the child were white"? Things got ugly, and got ugly very fast! I told him just before reading him the "riot act", that up until that moment, I had no idea of the race of the offending boy. That was another child, if an adult, no matter his station had done such a thing, it would have resulting in the "laying on of hands", and then a trip to the police department! I am horrified that this happened to her, but going to his Ward and calling him and the Church out in front of unsuspecting children, out of the question; bad form! 

I'm willing to give McKenna leeway on this. I accept what you are saying about her use of the term rape in front of children, but better than *non-consensual immorality* I think. 

I think that had I been a child who was actually paying attention, (and let's be honest, most are not, and neither are they capable at a young age of concentrating for long),  then my attention would have been grabbed more by the men's attempts to physically restrain and silence her. 

 

As a child, that would have grabbed my attention, otherwise it would have most likely been ignored. (Trying to see it through kids eyes here).

 

 

[Abulafia]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

Had a long day and like you, lack of sleep. What do you mean with this comment, not sure. Thanks in advance!

Smac could maybe correct me on this but I find it inconceivable considering the media attention the released audio garnered,  that the church legal team wouldn't have advised anyone who were historically or currently involved and would likely be called upon by legal and media teams . That would include any of McKenna's past Bishops, Stake Presidents, and any General Authorities who may have consulted with her or infact with Joseph Bishop.

 

Edited September 6, 2018 by Abulafia
Syntax

[Abulafia]

We know surely that the church legal team (whether through Bishop's son or otherwise) went on a fact finding mission in order to discredit her.  The fact that her daughter found out about her mother through the release of ultra confidential adoption papers is problematic. Very problematic and not good form.  

[Calm]

51 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

 The fact that her daughter found out about her mother through the release of ultra confidential adoption papers is problematic

Areyou saying the daughter had not previously tracked down Denson on her own, but was first aware of her biomom's identity fromthe leak?  If so, CFR

[provoman]

5 hours ago, Abulafia said:

We know surely that the church legal team (whether through Bishop's son or otherwise) went on a fact finding mission in order to discredit her.  The fact that her daughter found out about her mother through the release of ultra confidential adoption papers is problematic. Very problematic and not good form.  

And the fact that no one knows who released that infirmation. 

But we do know that her attorney had copy. And we do know that Denson released the 2017 audio recording to various "people".

[smac97]

9 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I agree on Ryan McKnight since he is the one that released the tape, and Mike Norton's lack of insight on the harm this latest episode may be on her, but consiglieri? Not saying you're not correct, just need you're input on consig, thank you. 

Consig released a podcast interview of Ms. Denson in which she brags, at some length and with much pride, about her skill in lies and deceit.  See, e.g., here (summarizing part of the podcast):

Quote

Ms. Denson seems to delight in describing her multiple subterfuges.  She tricked (lied to) the fellow at the Church HQ.  And the missionaries.  And Joseph Bishop.  She relishes in dishing on the fake details she added to make her lies appear sincere and legitimate (the "surprise" party for Bishop, the other interview with "Mark Gillespie" running late, etc.).

Does she not realize that publicly bragging about what a good liar she is doesn't exactly burnish her credibility as to other matters?  Including matters that hinge mostly or entirely on her say-so?

What on earth is she thinking she is doing in this interview?  "You can trust that I am telling the truth about Joseph Bishop.  By way of evidence, let me explain how good a liar I had to be, over and over and over again, to get that recording of him..."

A bit of free advice for Ms. Denson: Publicly bragging about what an effective liar you are while your lawsuit - that depends almost entirely on your personal credibility - is still pending is not a very good litigation strategy.

And here:

Quote

I am going to make a prediction here.  If Ms. Denson's case manages to survive the currently-pending motions to dismiss, her statements in this podcast are going to come back to haunt her.  Big time.

Imagine her trying to explain in a deposition that she is an excellent liar as to some things in this case, but that she's telling the truth about others.  Imagine her trying to explain why she was laughing in this podcast as she describes her multiple deceptions.  Imagine her trying to reject Ron Leavitt's characterizaton of her as "tend[ing] to embellish experiences" and then explaining her references to "Mark Gillespie" in her communications with Joseph Bishop.

What a trainwreck of a client she is.  She killed her own lawsuit in the first instance by scuttling negotiations between her attorneys and the Church.  And now she's destroying her own credibility by publicly bragging about what a superb liar she is.  And the sad part is that she seems to want to team up with people who have no interest at all in her welfare.  First Ryan McKnight helped her kill settlement negotiations, now this "interviewer" is helping her destroy her own credibility as a witness.  To them, I guess she's just a pawn.  Useful in making the LDS Church look bad for a bit, but otherwise disposable.  

Her attorney, Mr. Vernon, must be going out of his mind.  Unless, of course, they've already thrown in the towel on the lawsuit.  If that's the case, then her public bragging about her skillful use of deceit is probably a no-harm-no-foul kind of thing.

And here:

Quote

She destroyed the settlement negotiations her attorneys were working on for her.  And she worked hard in the RFM podcast to destroy her own credibility as a witness by publicly bragging about what a superb liar she is.  She is acting against her own interests.  She has nearly destroyed any moral authority many others may have been willing to grant her.  

What a sad spectacle she is making of herself.  These are not the decisions of a healthy-minded person.  I am left to conclude that she has led, and continues to lead, a very troubled life.  She appears to be being exploited, first by MormonLeaks, and more recently by Radio Free Mormon.  The people behind these entities, Ryan McKnight of MormonLeaks and "Radio Free Mormon" guy (aka The-Guy-Who-Hides-Behind-the-Online-Pseudonym-"Consigliere"-But-We-Can-Trust-Him-Anyway-Because-Reasons), are finding her to be a convenient brickbat against the LDS Church, and so are giving her a megaphone and cheering her on, even as she destroys her own legal case and her own credibility and reputation in the process.

Here's an interesting thought experiment: Will Ryan McKnight and the Trustworthy Mystery Man Behind Radio Free Mormon still be championing McKenna Denson in six months?  Will they still be inviting her back for discussions?  Advancing her narrative?  Or will they perhaps find her utility as a weapon against the LDS Church to have waned, and so drop her and move on to the next person to exploit?  Time will tell.

The newsworthiness of McKenna Denson's narrative appears to be winding down.  She clearly has had, and continues to have, a very troubled life.  She has made some very poor decisions, and has compounded those poor decisions over time by making more poor decisions.  She has also apparently been a victim of some evil behavior.  But she also seems to have some extensive issues to work out in her life.  Again, hers are not the decisions of a healthy-minded person.  She continues to act erratically.  She acts against her own self-interests.  

We also must acknowledge the misconduct by Joseph Bishop, the full extent of which remains unclear.  And by Ms. Denson's stepfather, who she claims sexually abused her during her childhood.  The long-term injuries inflicted by the misconduct of these persons have been significant.

And what to make of Ms. Denson?  For me, my present conclusions are that she is a very troubled person.  She clearly needs a lot of help.  Sadly, she seems to have sought "help" from people with ulterior motives, who see her as a useful weapon in their vendettas against the LDS Church, but who do not care about her actual well-being.  They have actively assisted in Ms. Denson's self-destructive behavior.  And I suspect they'll lose interest in her her pretty quick and move on to other exploitative efforts (in the case of Ryan McKnight, his efforts to exploit others for his own benefit are ongoing).

So what happens to Ms. Denson?  She has made a public spectacle of herself and her troubled past, with the eager assistance of feckless jerks who couldn't care less about her well-being, and who will abandon her forthwith.  She has wrecked her reputation by publicly bragging about her skills in deceit and dishonesty (and by airing her past ethical/criminal misconduct).  She has destroyed her lawsuit against the Church.  She has estranged herself from the LDS community.  So that leaves her . . . where?  With what?  What will happen to her?

I end up with quite a bit of sympathy for Ms. Denson.  I hope she stops her self-destructive behaviors and gets some help.  I hope she finds peace and reconciliation.

I also end up with quite a bit of disgust at the behaviors of the other participants in this imbroglio.

And here:

Quote

Consig has just published a podcast that does huge damage to Ms. Denson's credibility.  And Consig was there every step of the way.  Egging her on.  Prodding her for details.  Laughing along with her as she vividly describes all the deceptions and false details she used to embellish the narrative she used to track down Joseph Bishop.  

I don't know definitively that Ms. Denson's lawsuit is DOA.  But if it manages to survive the motions to dismiss, Consig has made Mr. Vernon's job in prosecuting it on behalf of Ms. Denson substantially more difficult.  Consig is a lawyer, isn't he?  Couldn't he have stopped for five minutes and given some consideration to the wrecking-ball effect his podcast would have on Ms. Denson's credibility as a witness?  Does he even care?  Or does his animosity toward the LDS Church (and the ego boost of scoring an interview with Ms. Denson) trump all other considerations?  

A few more in that thread.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Abulafia]

6 hours ago, Calm said:

Areyou saying the daughter had not previously tracked down Denson on her own, but was first aware of her biomom's identity fromthe leak?  If so, CFR

Here's her daughter's statement

 

*Jessica Lowder is feeling angry. 12 hrs · San Diego, CA · I was adopted as a baby through the Mormon church. Two years after placing me for adoption my birth mother decided to serve a mission. When she was at the MTC (mission training center) she was raped by Joseph Bishop, the MTC President. Joseph Bishop had had previously sexually assaulted women and the church knew this fact through his confessions. Not only did the church not discipline him, they continued to put him in high positions where he worked with young vulnerable women. My birth mother has tried to get justice for over 30 years and after the church refused to take action and accountability she took matters into her own hands. She posed as a reporter and sat down with her attacker and was able to obtain a recorded confession where he apologized and explained he was a sex addict who should have never held those positions in the church. The church heard the tape and as an attempt to keep my birth mother quiet they compiled a dossier filled with any dirt they could gather. Not only did this include her private church records, they also dug into my confidential, closed adoption record and exposed my first and last name in the dossier. The church had this information because I was adopted through them. My name was then given to Joseph Bishop’s son Greg Bishop and leaked to the media which I believe was not only an intimidation tactic to scare my birth mother but also a warning to other victims to demonstrate what would happen if they decide to come forward as well. Not only was this a complete breach of privacy, they objectified me and used me as one of the skeletons in my birth mothers closet with complete disregard for my feelings and privacy. They didn’t even know if I was aware who my birth mother was or the circumstances of my birth. They didn’t care. I grew up in the church and never expected this. They have shown a dark and ruthless side that needs to be exposed. I will not be used and I will not allow them to get away with what they did. They have been digging this hole for the past 33 years and only seem to be making it worse. This is shameful. I can’t put into words how livid I am, how much anxiety this has caused and how hurtful the church has been by crushing others to keep up their facade. The church needs to take accountability now.*

[Calm]

She says they didn't know if she knew, not that she didn't know.

From the Trib:

Quote

The daughter’s adoption — conducted through an LDS Church agency — was closed. She said it took intense sleuthing on her part to find her birth mom

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2018/04/04/a-woman-was-shocked-to-see-her-name-in-a-mormon-church-compiled-dossier-which-she-says-was-designed-to-discredit-her-birth-mother/

I do not believe it was appropriate to share that info of adoption, either the fact it occurred or the details, just so it is clear.  Just concerned about correct info.

Someone pointed out from the Reddit thread you got the above from that there would be no need to get the info from a closed adoption file, there would have been files from other sources providing the info.  Still shouldn't been used.

Edited September 6, 2018 by Calm

[Guest]

13 hours ago, Abulafia said:

I'm willing to give McKenna leeway on this. I accept what you are saying about her use of the term rape in front of children, but better than *non-consensual immorality* I think. 

I think that had I been a child who was actually paying attention, (and let's be honest, most are not, and neither are they capable at a young age of concentrating for long),  then my attention would have been grabbed more by the men's attempts to physically restrain and silence her. 

 

As a child, that would have grabbed my attention, otherwise it would have most likely been ignored. (Trying to see it through kids eyes here).

 

 

I guess I am getting old, children to me is anyone prior to missionary age, maybe under 21 and not married. I do give her some leeway, she was hurt, and she is lashing out, but this was not the way to do it. It is also hurting her case, no matter if she would like to admit it. I am sure he attorney was upset, even though publicly, he probably said otherwise. 

BTW, can I say, being a "Lee", I hate that word "leeway"' 

Edited September 6, 2018 by Bill "Papa" Lee

[Tacenda]

7 hours ago, smac97 said:

Consig released a podcast interview of Ms. Denson in which she brags, at some length and with much pride, about her skill in lies and deceit.  See, e.g., here (summarizing part of the podcast):

And here:

And here:

And here:

A few more in that thread.

Thanks,

-Smac

Thanks, I agree this probably isn't helping.

[smac97]

2 hours ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

I guess I am getting old, children to me is anyone prior to missionary age, maybe under 21 and not married. I do give her some leeway, she was hurt, and she is lashing out, but this was not the way to do it. It is also hurting her case, no matter if she would like to admit it. I am sure he attorney was upset, even though publicly, he probably said otherwise. 

BTW, can I say, being a "Lee", I hate that word "leeway"' 

My wife was/is a Lee!  As it turns out, my great-great-grandfather, Alexander Macdonald, was a good friend to John D. Lee, my wife's great-great grandfather.

One of my sons has Alexander's father's name (Duncan) as his middle name.  And another son has "Lee" as his middle name.

-Smac

[Guest]

42 minutes ago, smac97 said:

My wife was/is a Lee!  As it turns out, my great-great-grandfather, Alexander Macdonald, was a good friend to John D. Lee, my wife's great-great grandfather.

One of my sons has Alexander's father's name (Duncan) as his middle name.  And another son has "Lee" as his middle name.

-Smac

It is a proud and wonderful name, which is why I referenced the term, "leeway", as it often is used as "making an excuse", for often bad behavior. 

[Stargazer]

On 9/6/2018 at 11:30 PM, smac97 said:

My wife was/is a Lee!  As it turns out, my great-great-grandfather, Alexander Macdonald, was a good friend to John D. Lee, my wife's great-great grandfather.

One of my sons has Alexander's father's name (Duncan) as his middle name.  And another son has "Lee" as his middle name.

-Smac

Well, not that it matters, but my middle name and my father's is "Lee".  Nobody knows why, it appears that when my grandmother was trying to decide on a name, her sister said she liked the name "Donald Lee".  And my Dad decided he wanted his middle name to go on.  I couldn't get my wife to let me give "Lee" to any of my children, boy or girl. 

[Stargazer]

On 9/7/2018 at 12:15 AM, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

It is a proud and wonderful name, which is why I referenced the term, "leeway", as it often is used as "making an excuse", for often bad behavior. 

You know it's a nautical term, right?  The other usage is a euphemism.

"Leeway is the amount of drift motion to leeward of an object floating in the water caused by the component of the wind vector that is perpendicular to the object’s forward motion."  See here.

[smac97]

Here's an update on the litigation:

• The Court has entered a "Scheduling Order" that sets forth the various deadlines for the parties.
• "Discovery" (the exchange of information between the parties, which is often a very interesting exercse) must be complete by May 2019.
• "Expert Discovery" (the use of experts in obtaining information about or from the other side) must be complete by January 2020.
• "Dispositive motions" (motions which, if granted, would resolve the case without it needing to go to trial) must be filed by February 2020.
• Pre-trial Disclosures (exhibit lists, witness lists, etc.) will be due by May 2020.
• Both parties agree that chances for mediation/settlement are poor.

Here are my guesses on what we will see prior to trial that could be interesting:

1. Elder Wells / Priest-Penitent Privilege

We may see fights about "discovery" issues.  Namely, Ms. Denson's attorneys may want to depose Elder Wells regarding what Joseph Bishop "confessed" to him in 1977 when he (Bishop) was a mission president in Argentina.  I think such communications would be immune from disclosure under the "priest/penitent privilege."  Surprisingly, it appears that there is no longer a formal rule recognizing this privilege in the Federal Rules of Evidence (though "Rule 506" is quoted in Wikipedia).  However, Rule 501 of the Federal Rules of Evidence specifically provides that "in a civil case, state law governs privilege regarding a claim or defense for which state law supplies the rule of decision."  In Ms. Denson's case, state law will clearly apply here.

Within its Rules of Evidence, Rule 503 ("Communications to Clergy") provides as follows:

Quote

(a)      Definitions.

-(1)   "Cleric" means a minister, priest, rabbi, or other similar functionary of a religious organization or an individual reasonably believed to be so by the person consulting that individual.
-(2)    "Confidential Communication" means a communication:
--(A)   made privately; and
--(B)   not intended for further disclosure except to other persons in furtherance of the purpose of the communication.

(b)   Statement of the Privilege. A person has a privilege to refuse to disclose, and to prevent another from disclosing, any confidential communication:

-(1)   made to a cleric in the cleric's religious capacity; and
-(2)   necessary and proper to enable the cleric to discharge the function of the cleric's office according to the usual course of practice or discipline.

(c)   Who May Claim the Privilege. The privilege may be claimed by:

-(1)   the person who made the confidential communication;
-(2)   the person's guardian or conservator;
-(3)   the person's personal representative if the person is deceased; and
-(4)   the person who was the cleric at the time of the communication on behalf of the communicant.

I think there is a strong likelihood that communications between Joseph Bishop (as a mission president) and Elder Wells (as a Seventy) will fall within the privilege.  And since the privilege can be claimed by both the "priest" (Wells) and the "penitent" (Bishop), I don't see how Ms. Denson's attorneys will be able to get the substance of that communication into the federal court's evidentiary record.  And if they can't, then her attorneys will need some other way to demonstrate that A) Joseph Bishop was a "sexual predator" prior to being appointed president of the MTC, and B) the Church knew about these proclivities prior to appointing him as president of the MTC.

Ms. Denson's recording made on September 2 (when she disrupted the ward meeting in Chandler, AZ, and thereafter recorded a conversation between her and a member of the stake presidency), she referenced A) "six witnesses" against Bishop, B) Joseph Bishop abusing sister missionaries in Argentina, and C) nondisclosure agreements (NDAs).  She did not reference these three things together, but I can't help but wonder if she is hinting that there was some substantial misconduct by Joseph Bishop against sister missionaries when he was a mission president (in the late 70s, and hence prior to the MTC), some of whom brought legal grievances against the Church which were settled and included NDAs.  

This may be a total nothingburger.  Ms. Denson may be blowing smoke.  Or I may be daisy-chaining together things that have no relationship with each other.  And the notion that the Church would not only utterly disregard substantial misconduct by a mission president against young sister missionaries, but then proceed to appoint him to be president of the MTC, just seems pretty far-fetched.  I guess we'll wait and see.

2. Discovery Disputes Re: Church Finances

The Church has previously been involved in litigation which included, as a litigation strategy, efforts to compel the Church to divulge its finances (see, e.g., here and here).  We may see similar efforts in this case.

3. Unsettling Information about McKenna Denson

We have had extensive discussions on this board about various instances of dishonesty which, in the aggregate, may substantially injure Ms. Denson's credibility as a witness.  In other words, she appears to have a lot of skeletons in her closet.  For her sake, I hope the litigation doesn't get that far.  I hope that the litigation instead focuses on what the Church knew (or did not know) and when.

Thanks,

-Smac