Denson's Lawsuit Dismissed by Federal Judge

[juliann]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

 

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.

 

I suspect the misconduct allegations are from the woman who wrote about what an incompetent creep he was at the college. The misygny seemed pretty standard for the time. But she said nothing about sexual impropriety. So unless they have contacted her and she is willing to say more, I don't know where they could go with this. 

[Thinking]

3 hours 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?

Where did Denson grow up? Would she have had any chance of knowing about this?

[provoman]

5 minutes ago, Thinking said:

Where did Denson grow up? Would she have had any chance of knowing about this?

well public knowledge is public knowledge, ignorance of the law is not a defense because the law is public knowledge.

[provoman]

12 minutes ago, Thinking said:

Rule 503 makes the connection.

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.

I do not think your application of 503 to 507 is correct. 

[Thinking]

2 hours ago, provoman said:

I do not think your application of 503 to 507 is correct. 

In your opinion, what is the application of 503 to 507 as referenced in 503?

Rule 503 clearly states, "Problems of waiver are dealt with by Rule 507."

[USU78]

Per waiver: given family members' descriptions of Bishop's memory and clarity of present perceptions, I seriously doubt that Denson's conversation with him will hold up as a knowing waiver of the privilege.

[provoman]

1 hour ago, Thinking said:

In your opinion, what is the application of 503 to 507 as referenced in 503?

Rule 503 clearly states, "Problems of waiver are dealt with by Rule 507."

 

I do not think one take wording from 503 and substitutes it into 507 the way you did. Clearly 507 refers to a particular set of people in a group setting. Not an individual setting.

 

[provoman]

22 hours ago, USU78 said:

 

 

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

-Smac

A question about pleadings for you two. Reading the pleadings, there is some information in there that may not be true.

Paragraph 16 "BISHOP admits to disclosing some details of inappropriate sexual actions toward women to his mission president [as a young mission] and to his church leaders in Florida."

I do not find in the recording where he states he talk to any Church Leader in florida about the woman and the skimpy bathing suit. 
Kimball's memo, however, relies on this "florida" confession - though, I do not believe there is a evidence of it. 

Also "Bishop disclosed to Elder Wells every indiscretion, sin, or other misdeed that had occurred up to that point in his life, including his sexual addiction and previous instances of sexual predation against women." (Kimbal Memo page 3, Denson complaint paragraph 20)

Bishop admits he confessed, the extent and of what in particular is not in the audio, that I can I find.

Procedurally, what can be done, if a complaint/pleading contains inaccurate information? And what can be done if the Court relies on the inaccurate information when issuing a decision?

 

[provoman]

1 hour ago, USU78 said:

Per waiver: given family members' descriptions of Bishop's memory and clarity of present perceptions, I seriously doubt that Denson's conversation with him will hold up as a knowing waiver of the privilege.

Yeah I have wondered about that as well. This from 2013 " Waiver of a privilege occurs when the "person who holds a privilege ... (1) voluntarily discloses or consents to the disclosure of any significant part of the matter or communication, or (2) fails to take reasonable precautions against inadvertent disclosure." Utah R. Evid. 510(a).^[6] Additionally, "it is not necessary under Rule [510] to show that a [privilege holder] intended to waive the privilege but only that she intended to make the disclosure."

 

Bishop admits to a confession, he does not detail what he confessed about. So I do not think he "discloses ...any significant part of the matter or communication"

[smac97]

21 minutes ago, provoman said:

 

A question about pleadings for you two. Reading the pleadings, there is some information in there that may not be true.

Paragraph 16 "BISHOP admits to disclosing some details of inappropriate sexual actions toward women to his mission president [as a young mission] and to his church leaders in Florida."

I do not find in the recording where he states he talk to any Church Leader in florida about the woman and the skimpy bathing suit. 
Kimball's memo, however, relies on this "florida" confession - though, I do not believe there is a evidence of it. 

In the context of a motion to dismiss, all factual averment in the complaint are construed as true. But that construction only holds while the motion to dismiss is under consideration. So no martialling of evidence is technically required. At that stage anyway.

21 minutes ago, provoman said:

Also "Bishop disclosed to Elder Wells every indiscretion, sin, or other misdeed that had occurred up to that point in his life, including his sexual addiction and previous instances of sexual predation against women." (Kimbal Memo page 3, Denson complaint paragraph 20)

Bishop admits he confessed, the extent and of what in particular is not in the audio, that I can I find.

Procedurally, what can be done, if a complaint/pleading contains inaccurate information? And what can be done if the Court relies on the inaccurate information when issuing a decision?

There really isn't anything procedurally to do at this point. The defendant has to seek relief under rule 12 under the temporary assumption that all the factual allegations in the complaint are true.

[smac97]

2 hours ago, USU78 said:

Per waiver: given family members' descriptions of Bishop's memory and clarity of present perceptions, I seriously doubt that Denson's conversation with him will hold up as a knowing waiver of the privilege.

In her podcast interview she went out of her way to brag about the various deceitful measures she used to track down, locate, communicate with, meet with, and secretly record Joseph Bishop.  

[USU78]

17 minutes ago, smac97 said:

In the context of a motion to dismiss, all factual averment in the complaint are construed as true. But that construction only holds while the motion to dismiss is under consideration. So no martialling of evidence is technically required. At that stage anyway.

There really isn't anything procedurally to do at this point. The defendant has to seek relief under rule 12 under the temporary assumption that all the factual allegations in the complaint are true.

PSJ is possible, taking Denson's public statements as admissions against interest.

[smac97]

1 minute ago, USU78 said:

PSJ is possible, taking Denson's public statements as admissions against interest.

Could you elaborate on what you mean here? I don't quite follow.

[USU78]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

Could you elaborate on what you mean here? I don't quite follow.

She's been flapping her gums on the internet etc about a lot of things over the last year. A PSJ to tie her down to unfriendly positions and limit her lawyer's maneuvering options might really be helpful.

Put the 2nd year guys to work combing the nets.

[cdowis]

On 8/13/2018 at 3:31 PM, smac97 said:

Again, I am really wondering why the Church's attorneys didn't cite 9(b) as a basis for dismissal.  

Thanks,

-Smac

I think the answer is obvious == the church feels it bears some responsibility  for what happened to her, and an executive  decision was made to leave this door open to her.  Eventually a negotiated settlement.

Edited August 16, 2018 by cdowis

[smac97]

4 hours ago, cdowis said:

I think the answer is obvious == the church feels it bears some responsibility  for what happened to her, and an executive  decision was made to leave this door open to her.  Eventually a negotiated settlement.

I doubt it.  Here are a few potential reasons why:

1. Allowing the lawsuit to continue allows Ms. Denson and her lawyers to have a spotlight under which they can continue to disparage and vilify the Church.  For months and months and months.

2. Ms. Denson is manifestly not trustworthy.  Ms. Denson and her lawyers seem intent on publicly ripping apart the Church.  This makes settlement difficult or impossible.  Any settlement would be trumpeted by Ms. Denson as a vindication of her claims and an indictment against the LDS Church.  Imagine how many interviews and news articles (probably even a book deal) she would get about how she "took on the Mormon Church and won."  She would position herself as a cause célèbre, a never-ending source of accusations and slanders about the evils of the LDS Church.  Settling with her will only embolden her (look at how Sam Young responded to the Church's attempts to make some concessions relative to his arguments - he spurned them and continued chugging forward.  I think Ms. Denson would do the same, only much, much worse).  Settling with her will only prolong and exacerbate her antagonism.  Settling with her makes no sense when she will plainly cannot be trusted to adhere to the terms of settlement.

3. A Rule 12 dismissal of the lawsuit would have allowed the Church to provide a settlement offer to Ms. Denson, but on terms more within its control (such as installment payments contingent on her adherence to nondisclosure and non-disparagement provisions).  This would not really be a "settlement," since the lawsuit would have been dismissed by this point.  Instead, this would be an attempt to provide her with some recompense for whatever injury it was that she suffered while at the MTC.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Stargazer]

11 hours ago, smac97 said:

So no martialling of evidence is technically required. At that stage anyway.

That's "marshalling".  I wouldn't have mentioned this, except for this being the second time you've used the wrong word for this.

• to marshall: to arrange in proper order; set out in an orderly manner; arrange clearly:
• martialling is not a word, since "martial" has no verb form, but if it did, it would pertain to military matters.

[smac97]

51 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

That's "marshalling".  I wouldn't have mentioned this, except for this being the second time you've used the wrong word for this.

• to marshall: to arrange in proper order; set out in an orderly manner; arrange clearly:
• martialling is not a word, since "martial" has no verb form, but if it did, it would pertain to military matters.

D'oh!  I keep getting it right the first time, then going back and changing it to "martial."  

Thanks for the correction.

-Smac

[Tacenda]

13 hours ago, USU78 said:

She's been flapping her gums on the internet etc about a lot of things over the last year. A PSJ to tie her down to unfriendly positions and limit her lawyer's maneuvering options might really be helpful.

Put the 2nd year guys to work combing the nets.

flapping gums? where is the compassion? 

[USU78]

40 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

flapping gums? where is the compassion? 

You're unaware that she has been publicly confessing to chicanery?

[Tacenda]

2 minutes ago, USU78 said:

You're unaware that she has been publicly confessing to chicanery?

Had to look up 'chicanery', once again, when reading comments from you.  Trickery, as in her taping him w/o his knowledge? One side of me thinks this was wrong as well, but another part of me thinks that was the only way for her to get the confession. She tried the leaders, her singles ward bishop who said he was on it, she tried the church who told her she wasn't allowed to have that knowledge, she tried the Provo police, actually threatened Bishop with his life, in order to get action. I think she was left with no alternative.

I'm learning about human beings with behavoiral issues since I'm about to embark on a new job. And found out that many so-called bad people/kids, need to be taught to self-regulate. They were most likely traumatized in their early years, even in the womb. And they act out totally different then people that haven't. I picture this from McKenna, I think she was traumatized as a child, when she was sexually abused by her step father? Well that leads to behavoir problems, which really isn't her fault. And she will act a lot different than those that haven't been traumatized.

[USU78]

10 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Had to look up 'chicanery', once again, when reading comments from you.  Trickery, as in her taping him w/o his knowledge? One side of me thinks this was wrong as well, but another part of me thinks that was the only way for her to get the confession. She tried the leaders, her singles ward bishop who said he was on it, she tried the church who told her she wasn't allowed to have that knowledge, she tried the Provo police, actually threatened Bishop with his life, in order to get action. I think she was left with no alternative.

I'm learning about human beings with behavoiral issues since I'm about to embark on a new job. And found out that many so-called bad people/kids, need to be taught to self-regulate. They were most likely traumatized in their early years, even in the womb. And they act out totally different then people that haven't. I picture this from McKenna, I think she was traumatized as a child, when she was sexually abused by her step father? Well that leads to behavoir problems, which really isn't her fault. And she will act a lot different than those that haven't been traumatized.

We all suffer at the hands of others who suffered at the hands of yet others, ad nauseum.

That's why we are required both not to judge and to forgive.

I'm unimpressed by actions taken to stick it to innocent third parties in aid of ancient grudges, where the claimed actual malefactor is in dementia.

Moreover, tricking dotards suffering from existential guilt into disclosing alleged ancient admissions in order to defeat privileges is immoral.

Edited August 16, 2018 by USU78

[Jeanne]

17 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Had to look up 'chicanery', once again, when reading comments from you.  Trickery, as in her taping him w/o his knowledge? One side of me thinks this was wrong as well, but another part of me thinks that was the only way for her to get the confession. She tried the leaders, her singles ward bishop who said he was on it, she tried the church who told her she wasn't allowed to have that knowledge, she tried the Provo police, actually threatened Bishop with his life, in order to get action. I think she was left with no alternative.

I'm learning about human beings with behavoiral issues since I'm about to embark on a new job. And found out that many so-called bad people/kids, need to be taught to self-regulate. They were most likely traumatized in their early years, even in the womb. And they act out totally different then people that haven't. I picture this from McKenna, I think she was traumatized as a child, when she was sexually abused by her step father? Well that leads to behavoir problems, which really isn't her fault. And she will act a lot different than those that haven't been traumatized.

she shouldn't have to do what she did..what else could she do ???  Everything else had not worked.

[Tacenda]

12 minutes ago, USU78 said:

We all suffer at the hands of others who suffered at the hands of yet others, ad nauseum.

That's why we are required both not to judge and to forgive.

I'm unimpressed by actions taken to stick it to innocent third parties in aid of ancient grudges, where the claimed actual malefactor is in dementia.

Moreover, tricking dotards suffering from existential guilt into disclosing alleged ancient admissions in order to defeat privileges is immoral.

Please CFR that Bishop is in dementia, I know what dementia looks like, having had my mother struck with the horrible disease at a young age.

[Danzo]

10 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

she shouldn't have to do what she did..what else could she do ???  Everything else had not worked.

So you are an "ends justifies the means" sort of person.