Denson's Lawsuit Dismissed by Federal Judge

[USU78]

16 minutes ago, Thinking said:

I read it. It's apparent that we understand things differently.

McKenna Denson vs LDS Church & Bishop

65. "DENSON did not know, prior to her abuse, that BISHOP was a sexual predator and a sex addict, nor that Defendant COP’s MTC was an untrustworthy and unsafe environment."

Avoiding her abuser does not mean that she knew about the prior allegations. That the Church knew about the prior allegations is the issue.

You're ignoring the biggest issue here: she knew in 1984 he was a predator, per her story. What the Church did or didn't know or say after that is irrelevant. Unless she filed within three years, it's time barred.

[Thinking]

13 minutes ago, USU78 said:

You're ignoring the biggest issue here: she knew in 1984 he was a predator, per her story. What the Church did or didn't know or say after that is irrelevant. Unless she filed within three years, it's time barred.

You apparently don't understand that the issue is what the Church knew prior to the abuse, not after..

[provoman]

38 minutes ago, Thinking said:

I read it. It's apparent that we understand things differently.

McKenna Denson vs LDS Church & Bishop

65. "DENSON did not know, prior to her abuse, that BISHOP was a sexual predator and a sex addict, nor that Defendant COP’s MTC was an untrustworthy and unsafe environment."

Avoiding her abuser does not mean that she knew about the prior allegations. That the Church knew about the prior allegations is the issue.

Fourth Cause of Action: Common Law Fraud, is distinct from

Fifth Cause of Action: Fraudulent Concealment or Failure to disclose.

Fourth Cause of action is barred by 3 year limitation because she knew or should know the implied representations were not true

Fifth Cause of Action is not barred, because she only recently learned the Church may have known.

[Thinking]

22 minutes ago, Duncan said:

and you wonder who "the Church" is? is it Elder Wells? The First Presidency?  how would the lawyers establish who knew what and when (when people are dead except for Elder Wells) and if Bishop was in fact all this stuff, or are they assuming he's guilty- glad i'm no lawyer!

The LDS Church, more than most, keeps very good records. If it can be established that those who called Bishop to serve as MTC president knew about his sexual problems, this could get ugly.

[The Nehor]

2 minutes ago, Thinking said:

The LDS Church, more than most, keeps very good records. If it can be established that those who called Bishop to serve as MTC president knew about his sexual problems, this could get ugly.

I am not so sure about that record keeping. Outside of formal discipline we generally do not keep records at the local level of interviews. I doubt it is different at the general level.

I don't think it will get legally ugly. I don't think there is a case here. Could make for nice propaganda though.

Edited August 15, 2018 by The Nehor

[USU78]

9 minutes ago, Thinking said:

You apparently don't understand that the issue is what the Church knew prior to the abuse, not after..

Exactly! The harm, if any, was done in 84.

[USU78]

6 minutes ago, Thinking said:

The LDS Church, more than most, keeps very good records. If it can be established that those who called Bishop to serve as MTC president knew about his sexual problems, this could get ugly.

You're ignoring the priest/penitent privilege.

How's she going to get the pre 1984 confession into evidence?

Edited August 15, 2018 by USU78

[smac97]

9 minutes ago, Thinking said:

The LDS Church, more than most, keeps very good records. If it can be established that those who called Bishop to serve as MTC president knew about his sexual problems, this could get ugly.

"If."

Just a two-letter word, but in litigation, that word is HUGE.

[Thinking]

15 minutes ago, USU78 said:

You're ignoring the priest/penitent privilege.

How's she going to get the pre 1984 confession into evidence?

Not All Faith-Based Communications Are Protected By The Clergy-Penitent Privilege

Quote

This privilege is not absolute and may be waived either by express consent of the penitent or by operation of law in specifically enumerated instances involving minors or instances of physical or mental abuse.

 

[Thinking]

13 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"If."

Just a two-letter word, but in litigation, that word is HUGE.

True. If prior knowledge can't be established, Denson will lose the suit.

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Thinking said:

No. All she knew at that time was that Bishop had assaulted her. She did not know that there had been allegations before he was called to be MTC President. If Denson was Bishop's first assault, she would have no fraud claim for concealment.

What allegations?  Who made these allegations?  Or do you mean the alleged confession of Bishop to Wells?

[provoman]

33 minutes ago, Thinking said:

Not All Faith-Based Communications Are Protected By The Clergy-Penitent Privilege

 

I beleive this is Utah rule, as follows

 

Rule 503. Communications to Clergy.

 

(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

[provoman]

If I undersand UTAH Rule 503, tbe Bishop can refuse to answer any questions about what he said to Wells,  And Bishop can prohibit Wells from divulging what Bishop confessed. 

[Thinking]

1 hour ago, provoman said:

I beleive this is Utah rule, as follows

 

Rule 503. Communications to Clergy.

(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

If you keep reading,

Quote

Problems of waiver are dealt with by Rule 507.

The Committee felt that exceptions to the privilege should be specifically enumerated, and further endorsed the concept that in the area of exceptions, the rule should simply state that no privilege existed, rather than expressing the exception in terms of a "waiver" of the privilege. The Committee wanted to avoid any possible clashes with the common law concepts of "waiver." Rule 503

Rule 507 covers first responder peer support, so its language is different. Here is the relevant part referred to by Rule 503.

Quote

(d) Exceptions. No privilege exists under paragraph (b) for:

(d)(1) communication to a peer support team member that is evidence of actual or suspected child neglect or abuse;

(d)(2) communication to a peer support team member that is evidence a person receiving peer support services is a clear and immediate danger to the person’s self or others,

(d)(3) communication to a peer support team member that establishes reasonable cause for the peer support team member to believe the person receiving peer support services is mentally or emotionally unfit for duty; or

(d)(4) communication to the peer support team member that is evidence that the person who is receiving the peer support services has committed a crime, plans to commit a crime, or intends to conceal a crime.

 

Edited August 15, 2018 by Thinking

[provoman]

6 hours ago, Thinking said:

If you keep reading,

Rule 507 covers first responder peer support, so its language is different. Here is the relevant part referred to by Rule 503.

 

What relevance do you think "First responder peer support" has to Bishop's "penitent/confession" to Wells? 

[smac97]

10 hours ago, Thinking said:

You apparently don't understand that the issue is what the Church knew prior to the abuse, not after..

Actually, I think the issue is what the Church knew and what McKenna Denson knew (and when).

I have previously provided a breakdown of Ms. Denson's claims here.  That was on June 13, and I correctly predicted among Ms. Denson's six causes of action, the only potentially viable one was the "fraudulent concealment" claim.

I have also previously provided a breakdown of Ms. Denson's fraud-related claims here.

I also have previously provided an assessment of the "statute of limitations" issue being presented in this case here.  I included excerpts from Colosimo v. Roman Catholic Bishop of Salt Lake City, 156 P.3d 806, 811 (Utah 2007), which appears to be the key case relied upon by the Court in its Memorandum Decision.  Here's the relevant portion of my assessment:

Quote

From this 2017 federal case (in Utah):

Quote

1. Statute of Limitations for Claims Grounded in Fraud

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

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

Moving on:

Quote

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I continue to be a bit flummoxed at why the Church didn't raise a Rule 9(b) "particularity" argument, which I have previously discussed here:

Quote

 "Are All Nine Prima Facie Elements of Fraud Pleaded with 'Particularity?'"

In addition to the foregoing questions, a practitioner evaluating a fraud claim should scrutinize rule 9(b) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides that “{i}n all averments of fraud…, the circumstances constituting fraud…shall be stated with particularity.”  Utah R. Civ. P. 9(b). This requirement acts as an exception to the general rule that “allegations in a complaint should be construed  liberally and against a motion for failure to state a claim for relief.” DeBry v. Noble, 889 P.2d 428, 443 (Utah 1995).

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

Denson's Complaint seems to be in deep trouble here.  She's nowhere near the "particularity" standard in terms of describing the Church's purported fraudulent misrepresentation about Bishop.  What was the misrepresentation?  Who said it?  When?  Where?  And so on.

This assessment was based on positive fraud (a misrepresentation of fact, rather than concealment of or failure to disclose a fact).  Still, fraudulent concealment is a species of fraud, and “{i}n all averments of fraud…, the circumstances constituting fraud…shall be stated with particularity.”  Utah R. Civ. P. 9(b).  The federal rule, which governs the Denson lawsuit (since it has been filed in federal court) is substantively identical to the Utah rule (the latter having been patterned after the former): "In alleging fraud or mistake, a party must state with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake."  So we have a claim arising from state law (fraudulent concealment) being governed by a federal procedural rule (Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b)).  

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 15, 2018 by smac97

[provoman]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

 

Thanks,

-Smac

Reading Kimball's memorandum and notice something that I should have noticed in Denson's complaint

"While in that posistion [President of Weber]  there allegedly were public claims, known to Church leaders, of Bisbop acting inappropriately toward women and allegations of dishonesty and lack of integrity" (page 2 of Kimball memo)

These allegations were public, prior to 1978, would that put Denson on notice of Bishop's character; which means there could be no concealment or failure to disclose regarding Bishop, as it was public knowledge?

[smac97]

1 hour ago, provoman said:

Reading Kimball's memorandum and notice something that I should have noticed in Denson's complaint

"While in that posistion [President of Weber]  there allegedly were public claims, known to Church leaders, of Bisbop acting inappropriately toward women and allegations of dishonesty and lack of integrity" (page 2 of Kimball memo)

First, I think Denson's attorneys would have a very hard time establishing what "Church leaders" knew 40 years ago.  In the Complaint they can present the unadorned factual assertion, but sooner or later Mr. Vernon will actually have to demonstrate this claim by presenting competent, probative, admissible evidence.  I have a very hard time conceptualizing how he would go about doing that.

Second, mere unsubstantiated allegations of misconduct are not worth a hill of lima beans.

Third, these allegations have a very strong "scraping the bottom of the barrel" feel to them.

1 hour ago, provoman said:

These allegations were public, prior to 1978, would that put Denson on notice of Bishop's character; which means there could be no concealment or failure to disclose regarding Bishop, as it was public knowledge?

I don't think so.  The Courts don't impute constructive knowledge of everything in the public sphere onto all of us.  That's just not reasonable.  I'm a fairly reasonably-informed member of the Church, but I have no clue whatsoever who the MTC president is, nor do I know anything about his history.  And I will be sending my daughter to the MTC next year.  I don't think it is incumbent upon me to investigate the MTC president prior to sending my daughter there (nor is it incumbent upon my daughter).

So no, I don't think the Court would find that these 1978 allegations "put Denson on notice of Bishop's character."

Thanks,

-Smac

[USU78]

1 hour ago, provoman said:

Reading Kimball's memorandum and notice something that I should have noticed in Denson's complaint

"While in that posistion [President of Weber]  there allegedly were public claims, known to Church leaders, of Bisbop acting inappropriately toward women and allegations of dishonesty and lack of integrity" (page 2 of Kimball memo)

These allegations were public, prior to 1978, would that put Denson on notice of Bishop's character; which means there could be no concealment or failure to disclose regarding Bishop, as it was public knowledge?

Good catch.

Here is a link to the Standard-Exaggerator Story on Bishop's WSU Prez tenure:  https://www.standard.net/news/education/joseph-bishop-faced-controversies-lawsuit-during-presidency-at-weber-state/article_f33da76c-4aae-57d4-975f-6727f4202799.html

This quote is telling:

Quote

 

Bishop’s stint as president of Weber State — from 1972 to 1978 — preceded his time at the training center. In both jobs, Bishop held a position of power over men and women in their late teens and early 20s. But as far as today’s Weber State administration knows, there were no allegations of sexual misconduct against him during his tenure at the college. 

The Standard-Examiner reviewed 36 boxes of administrative documents left behind by Bishop after he left the post. The boxes are part of Weber State University’s presidential archives. Weber State’s document retention policy complies with the Utah Government Records Management Act. However, during Bishop’s tenure, presidents were not required to retain documents, and they chose what to send to the presidential archives, Weber State spokeswoman Allison Hess said.

 

Where in the world is Denson going to get evidence of Bishop's alleged prior bad behavior if not from WSU [which hasn't got anything] or the LDS Church [which is bound by priest-penitent privilege]? 

[Kenngo1969]

50 minutes ago, provoman said:

Reading Kimball's memorandum and notice something that I should have noticed in Denson's complaint

"While in that posistion [President of Weber]  there allegedly were public claims, known to Church leaders, of Bisbop acting inappropriately toward women and allegations of dishonesty and lack of integrity" (page 2 of Kimball memo)

These allegations were public, prior to 1978, would that put Denson on notice of Bishop's character; which means there could be no concealment or failure to disclose regarding Bishop, as it was public knowledge?

I wonder, what would be sufficient notice to constitute "public knowledge"?  A single newspaper story or broadcast news item with no further follow up?  A series of them (an initial story with several follow-ups)? Today's environment, with the technical tools that exist now for dissemination of information (Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat, other social media, e-mail, the Internet, and so on) seems to be an "outlet-rich" and "content-rich" environment compared to the early-to-mid-1980s, when, essentially, three television networks (cable television still was rather a novelty), a handful of radio stations, and a few newspapers constituted the bulk of the average person's store of sources of information regarding such things.  

And given the then-relatively-narrow array of sources of information regarding such things, could the then-teenage McKenna Denson reasonably have been expected to pay attention to such things even if the allegations about Bishop's mistreatment of women had been widely disseminated and discussed in then-prevalent media?  If so, given the way society's attitudes in general toward sexual harassment and sexual assault may have changed between then and now (from a much more laissez faire, "boys'll-be-boys" attitude to one that, rightly, is much less dismissive and much more concerned: see #Metoo, Harvey Weinstein (and any other of a number of public figures I could name if I took the time), the current 24-hour news cycle, et cetera, almost ad infinitum) might Ms. Denson simply (and understandably) have shrugged if off, even in the unlikely event that she had made a connection?  "Wait a minute!  Joseph Bishop is the MTC president? Wasn't he accused of sexual harassment (etc.) at Weber State back in the 1970s?"

I'm not an apologist for Ms. Denson; I'm just a guy whose professional reputation (while sexual harassment/assault wasn't the issue, so I guess I can at least be thankful for that   ), essentially, has been destroyed permanently.  And I can see Ms. Denson's attorney(s) making exactly these sorts of arguments regarding the "constructive knowledge"/"What-did-she-know-and-when-did-she-know-it?" issue.  

[USU78]

2 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I wonder, what would be sufficient notice to constitute "public knowledge"?  A single newspaper story or broadcast news item with no further follow up?  A series of them (an initial story with several follow-ups)? Today's environment, with the technical tools that exist now for dissemination of information (Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat, other social media, e-mail, the Internet, and so on) seems to be an "outlet-rich" and "content-rich" environment compared to the early-to-mid-1980s, when, essentially, three television networks (cable television still was rather a novelty), a handful of radio stations, and a few newspapers constituted the bulk of the average person's store of sources of information regarding such things.  

And given the then-relatively-narrow array of sources of information regarding such things, could the then-teenage McKenna Denson reasonably have been expected to pay attention to such things even if the allegations about Bishop's mistreatment of women had been widely disseminated and discussed in then-prevalent media?  If so, given the way society's attitudes in general toward sexual harassment and sexual assault may have changed between then and now (from a much more laissez faire, "boys'll-be-boys" attitude to one that, rightly, is much less dismissive and much more concerned: see #Metoo, Harvey Weinstein (and any other of a number of public figures I could name if I took the time), the current 24-hour news cycle, et cetera, almost ad infinitum) might Ms. Denson simply (and understandably) have shrugged if off, even in the unlikely event that she had made a connection?  "Wait a minute!  Joseph Bishop is the MTC president? Wasn't he accused of sexual harassment (etc.) at Weber State back in the 1970s?"

I'm not an apologist for Ms. Denson; I'm just a guy whose professional reputation (while sexual harassment/assault wasn't the issue, so I guess I can at least be thankful for that   ), essentially, has been destroyed permanently.  And I can see Ms. Denson's attorney(s) making exactly these sorts of arguments regarding the "constructive knowledge"/"What-did-she-know-and-when-did-she-know-it?" issue.  

I'm thinking the point Denson was making was that the Church should be charged with notice of the allegations of misconduct because, perhaps, of the "public knowledge" that should have been part of the interview/vetting process of calling  an MTC president out of the private sector.  They should have known; therefore, they should have warned; therefore, they concealed the danger from her.  This, of course, is in addition to the reported priest-penitent omnibus confession into which Denson injects her claims of repeated sexual misconduct with young women.

[Kenngo1969]

7 minutes ago, USU78 said:

I'm thinking the point Denson was making was that the Church should be charged with notice of the allegations of misconduct because, perhaps, of the "public knowledge" that should have been part of the interview/vetting process of calling  an MTC president out of the private sector.  They should have known; therefore, they should have warned; therefore, they concealed the danger from her.  This, of course, is in addition to the reported priest-penitent omnibus confession into which Denson injects her claims of repeated sexual misconduct with young women.

Good enough.   You're probably right.  Ms. Denson's credibility problems aside, I wonder how, if at all, this whole episode might change how the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints deals with allegations of the McKenna Densons of the world institutionally.  

[smac97]

11 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Where in the world is Denson going to get evidence of Bishop's alleged prior bad behavior if not from WSU [which hasn't got anything] or the LDS Church [which is bound by priest-penitent privilege]? 

I think Mr. Vernon may end up resorting to a "scorched earth" approach.  I think this lawsuit is not going to earn him any money because . . .

• his client destroyed the settlement negotiations (and, I think the prospect of any such negotiations in the future),
• because the legal claims are very weak,
• because his client has very poor credibility,
• because any evidence or witness testimony would pertain to events from 34+ years ago,
• because such evidence has either disappeared or degraded,
• because such evidence may be inadmissable as privileged, and
• because such evidence may never have existed at all.

So if Mr. Vernon can't get money, he can at least get . . . notoriety.  His name in the press.  That means turning every step of this lawsuit into a media circus.

Thanks

-Smac

[USU78]

36 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think Mr. Vernon may end up resorting to a "scorched earth" approach.  I think this lawsuit is not going to earn him any money because . . .

• his client destroyed the settlement negotiations (and, I think the prospect of any such negotiations in the future),
• because the legal claims are very weak,
• because his client has very poor credibility,
• because any evidence or witness testimony would pertain to events from 34+ years ago,
• because such evidence has either disappeared or degraded,
• because such evidence may be inadmissable as privileged, and
• because such evidence may never have existed at all.

So if Mr. Vernon can't get money, he can at least get . . . notoriety.  His name in the press.  That means turning every step of this lawsuit into a media circus.

Thanks

-Smac

Lipstick on the pig it is!

[Thinking]

7 hours ago, provoman said:

What relevance do you think "First responder peer support" has to Bishop's "penitent/confession" to Wells? 

Rule 503 makes the connection.

Quote

Problems of waiver are dealt with by Rule 507.

Applied to rule 503, exception (d)(2) would read, "communication to a [clergy] that is evidence a person [confessing sins] is a clear and immediate danger to the person’s self or others,"

I don't know why the exceptions to Rule 503 are listed in Rule 507, but Rules 502, 504 and 506 also refer to 507 for the exceptions.