Denson interrupts Bishop's home ward testimony meeting

[provoman]

40 minutes ago, Calm said:

Could Denson's lawyer subpoena clients he had represented and got settlements with NDAs for or would he have to not share that knowledge under the NDA or attorney-client privilege (though I am thinking he could ask his clients if they would be willing before sharing this info)?

That I am not sure of. But it is curious how she could kbow of victims who are have signed a NDA.

I wish I knew about procedural things. In Mckennas "There will be no recording of conversations" recording, she says "We are not going to settle" - context settlement instead of going to trial - yet it was David Jordan on behalf of the Church that filed for a jury trial

[provoman]

It has occurred to me, that one motivation for sundays antics was to get a statement from someone in the know to speak authoritatively on Bishop's membership status. The annoying voice that suggested it was Mckenna's right to abuse F&T meeting at one piint said sonetbing like 'If you would just tells what is being to Bishop'.

 

I hope the David Jordan acted quickly to get word out that no one in position of authority shoukd talk to her; she is no linger looking for support, she is digging for things to bring to trial.

[smac97]

33 minutes ago, provoman said:

It has occurred to me, that one motivation for sundays antics was to get a statement from someone in the know to speak authoritatively on Bishop's membership status. The annoying voice that suggested it was Mckenna's right to abuse F&T meeting at one piint said sonetbing like 'If you would just tells what is being to Bishop'.

 

I hope the David Jordan acted quickly to get word out that no one in position of authority shoukd talk to her; she is no linger looking for support, she is digging for things to bring to trial.

I wonder if this is part of the reason why there has not yet been a disciplinary Council. Church discipline should not play a part in the civil lawsuit, but miss Denson appears to want to bring church discipline into the lawsuit.

[Abulafia]

7 hours ago, smac97 said:

I wonder if this is part of the reason why there has not yet been a disciplinary Council. Church discipline should not play a part in the civil lawsuit, but miss Denson appears to want to bring church discipline into the lawsuit.

I think her reasoning is much more basic.  This was an *on the fly* meeting.  I was impressed with the conduct of all parties in the conversation. 

 

I think McKenna shoots from the hip.  Whatever you think of her character, Smac, she has finally found her voice, and to be honest, I am so pleased someone is saying *No* to a settlement with NDAs. 

 

Despite provoman's assertion that I know nothing of the US legal system, I do appreciate that an NDA serves to maintain the reputation of the church, whilst silencing the victim, *for a price*.

 

I'm not in McKenna's head but it appears to me that her motives are more about raising awareness of how the church has treated victims and perpetrators historically, and currently. 

 

I'm not saying there isn't good practice  but there is also bad practice, as many attorneys who have taken on the church, have pointed out.  

 

I wish Elder Uchtdorf was still a powerful and influential voice in the 1st Presidency.  That one talk was..such a sigh of relief.

 

 

Edited September 7, 2018 by Abulafia

[smac97]

3 hours ago, Abulafia said:

I think her reasoning is much more basic.  This was an *on the fly* meeting.  I was impressed with the conduct of all parties in the conversation. 

So was I.

Still not impressed with Ms. Denson.  She's not doing herself any favors with stunts like this.

3 hours ago, Abulafia said:

I think McKenna shoots from the hip.  Whatever you think of her character, Smac, she has finally found her voice, and to be honest, I am so pleased someone is saying *No* to a settlement with NDAs. 

She's not really operating from a position of strength.  Her legal case still seems quite weak.  She has one claim still pending, and it's a fraud claim, which are fairly difficult to prove.

Both sides may see settlement as futile.  

3 hours ago, Abulafia said:

Despite provoman's assertion that I know nothing of the US legal system, I do appreciate that an NDA serves to maintain the reputation of the church, whilst silencing the victim, *for a price*.

There are all sorts of reasons for NDAs.

3 hours ago, Abulafia said:

I'm not in McKenna's head but it appears to me that her motives are more about raising awareness of how the church has treated victims and perpetrators historically, and currently. 

I don't think so (particularly the "and currently" bit).

3 hours ago, Abulafia said:

I'm not saying there isn't good practice  but there is also bad practice, as many attorneys who have taken on the church, have pointed out.  

In the past, yes there have been some bad practices.  And not just in the Church, but in all parts of society.

But the Church has worked hard to improve itself and its handling of these sorts of things.  And in many ways, it has succeeded admirably.  But that contravenes the narrative being fabricated by people like the "many attorneys who have taken on the church," so it gets ignored.

3 hours ago, Abulafia said:

I wish Elder Uchtdorf was still a powerful and influential voice in the 1st Presidency.  That one talk was..such a sigh of relief.

Elder Echtdorf is still a powerful and influential voice.  But he's not in a political office.

Thanks,

-Smac

[ALarson]

4 hours ago, Abulafia said:

I think her reasoning is much more basic.  This was an *on the fly* meeting.  I was impressed with the conduct of all parties in the conversation. 

 

I think McKenna shoots from the hip.  Whatever you think of her character, Smac, she has finally found her voice, and to be honest, I am so pleased someone is saying *No* to a settlement with NDAs. 

 

Despite provoman's assertion that I know nothing of the US legal system, I do appreciate that an NDA serves to maintain the reputation of the church, whilst silencing the victim, *for a price*.

 

I'm not in McKenna's head but it appears to me that her motives are more about raising awareness of how the church has treated victims and perpetrators historically, and currently. 

 

I'm not saying there isn't good practice  but there is also bad practice, as many attorneys who have taken on the church, have pointed out.  

 

I wish Elder Uchtdorf was still a powerful and influential voice in the 1st Presidency.  That one talk was..such a sigh of relief.

 

 

Great post and I agree with most of it.  I thought the tape of the meeting between Denson and the leadership was impressive from both sides.  Mckenna can be very effective and expresses herself extremely well in that type of situation (and in the original press conference).

I do however hate that she teamed up with Mike Norton and pulled the silly antics in the introduction of the original video.  I also feel she had the right to speak and bare her testimony as well, but not using such explicit language when there were kids there.  I feel for her though and understand her anger and frustration over how she's been treated over the years.  She has a voice now and wants to use it.  That's great....but she needs to be careful and selective and choose the right place & time (and distance herself from Norton!).

I'd imagine that her attorney would also prefer she wait until the trial is over.

Edited September 7, 2018 by ALarson

[Tacenda]

5 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Great post and I agree with most of it.  I thought the tape of the meeting between Denson and the leadership was impressive from both sides.  Mckenna can be very effective and expresses herself extremely well in that type of situation (and in the original press conference).

I do however hate that she teamed up with Mike Norton and pulled the silly antics in the introduction of the original video.  I also feel she had the right to speak and bare her testimony as well, but not using such explicit language when there were kids there.  I feel for her though and understand her anger and frustration over how she's been treated over the years.  She has a voice now and wants to use it.  That's great....but she needs to be careful and selective and choose the right place & time (and distance herself from Norton!).

I'd imagine that her attorney would also prefer she wait until the trial is over.

Agree, and I keep coming back to her life of lots of harm done to her since childhood, I guess you see what you get, or she's not pulling any punches, but doesn't realize some of her very tacky stunts/actions aren't helping her. She's not thinking before her actions very well. But one thing that comes through that is good, is her fight for sexual abuse not happening to anyone else. 

[HappyJackWagon]

Do NDA's ever have an expiration date, kind of like a statute of limitations? For example, could and NDA only limit the person for 10-20- or 30 years? Or is it an eternal NDA?

[Rain]

Just thinking over this in legal terms. Don't make any assumptions about how I feel about this or what I feel the church should or should not do - I'm just seeking legal understanding. 

First, this is a fraud case here right? Assuming that Denson is right about leaders keeping the info, what exactly makes it a fraud case? I'm trying to wrap my head around how it could be fraud. Is the whole thing based on if he was a sexual predator and the church knew then they defrauded her by making her believe it was a safe place? Are there cases where this has come to court in places of work or a gym or another church?

Second, does the church have a legal responsibility to report rape of an adult? Does my friend have a legal responsibility to report a rape that might occur to me? If the first question is yes and the second no, then what is the difference?

Edited September 7, 2018 by Rain

[ALarson]

16 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Do NDA's ever have an expiration date, kind of like a statute of limitations? For example, could and NDA only limit the person for 10-20- or 30 years? Or is it an eternal NDA?

It would be interesting to know when the church leaders settled with these other women and had them sign the NDAs.  Was it years ago (closer to when the abuse most likely took place) or was it recent?  Did they come forward when they heard of Denson speaking out or was it back when they went to church leaders for help or to report the abuse by Bishop?

Edited September 7, 2018 by ALarson

[smac97]

53 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Great post and I agree with most of it.  I thought the tape of the meeting between Denson and the leadership was impressive from both sides.  Mckenna can be very effective and expresses herself extremely well in that type of situation (and in the original press conference).

Sort of.  Her "Dial it to 11" rhetoric will start to lose its potency after a while, though.

53 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I do however hate that she teamed up with Mike Norton and pulled the silly antics in the introduction of the original video. 

Yes, teaming up with Mike Norton is revealing.  Perhaps the worst part was the intro to the video.  People who dislike the Church were perhaps amused, but it comes over really badly for those who like and respect the Church (but who still sympathize with her and condemn the abuse she suffered).

53 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I also feel she had the right to speak and bare her testimony as well,

No, she didn't.  

From a legal and ecclesiastical perspective, the bishop was totally within his rights to not let her hijack the meeting (though physically touching her was probably not appropriate).

And "hijacking" is what she was doing.  Nothing but.

53 minutes ago, ALarson said:

but not using such explicit language when there were kids there. 

Yeah, that was bad.  As was the disruptive and disrespectful behavior.

The bishop runs the show.  

53 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I feel for her though and understand her anger and frustration over how she's been treated over the years. 

So do I.  But that sympathy is waning a bit as time goes on.

53 minutes ago, ALarson said:

She has a voice now and wants to use it.  That's great....but she needs to be careful and selective and choose the right place & time (and distance herself from Norton!).

And Consig.  And Ryan McKnight.

53 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I'd imagine that her attorney would also prefer she wait until the trial is over.

To put it mildly.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

51 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Agree, and I keep coming back to her life of lots of harm done to her since childhood, I guess you see what you get, or she's not pulling any punches, but doesn't realize some of her very tacky stunts/actions aren't helping her. She's not thinking before her actions very well.

I think she is being spurred on by people with ulterior motives.  Ryan McKnight.  Consig.  Mike Norton.  

I can't help but think of Cindy Sheehan, the political activist who enjoyed a stint in the media and public spotlight for her theatrics aimed against specific politicians (the Bush II Administration). Bush's political opponents expressed all sorts of solidarity with and support for Ms. Sheehan, but only while she was in the spotlight, and only while she was a useful tool against Bush. But once the spotlight shifted away from her, her notoriety plummeted and she now has no appreciable voice or influence on any of the issues which are seemingly so important to her.

I think McKenna Denson is being used by McKnight/Consig/Norton in the same way Sheehan was used.  And once the news cycle moves on, I think these guys will just move on to the next useful person and leave Ms. Denson where she is.  Sad.

51 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

But one thing that comes through that is good, is her fight for sexual abuse not happening to anyone else. 

Possibly.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[ALarson]

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Sort of.  Her "Dial it to 11" rhetoric will start to lose its potency after a while, though.

For some...yes.  But not for many others.

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

No, she didn't. 

Sure she did.  But the leaders also had a right to ask her to stop speaking when she started into her more explicit language.  She had the right to go up and bare her testimony though just as others in the audience did.

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

So do I.  But that sympathy is waning a bit as time goes on.

My sympathy will not ever go away regarding what I believe happened to her and how she was treated afterwards.  But I definitely disapprove of some of her actions and methods for getting her story and message out there.  When she's in the proper venue, she's extremely effective, IMO and should carefully select when and where she does speaks out.

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And Consig.  And Ryan McKnight.

Eh.  I like Consig and feel he's really great at what he does (I don't know him personally but have been impressed with his work on this case).   As for Ryan McKnight....I don't feel much one way or the other regarding him and don't see much involvement from him (since the leaked video).

Edited September 7, 2018 by ALarson

[Amulek]

29 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Do NDA's ever have an expiration date, kind of like a statute of limitations? For example, could and NDA only limit the person for 10-20- or 30 years? Or is it an eternal NDA?

An NDA is just a contract, so it would depend on the contract.

Could two parties agree to have the contract automatically terminate after a certain amount of time (say, for example, after three years)? Sure. 

In my experience though, most NDA's aren't set up that way. 

[smac97]

34 minutes ago, Rain said:

Just thinking over this in legal terms. Don't make any assumptions about how I feel about this or what I feel the church should or should not do - I'm just seeking legal understanding. 

First, this is a fraud case here right?

Yes.  Specifically, a "fraudulent nondisclosure" claim against the Church.  The gist of it is that A) the Church knew that Joseph Bishop was a "sexual predator" in the last 70s, B) the Church nevertheless appointed him to be the MTC president, C) the Church did not disclose what it know about Bishop to McKenna Denson, and D) the Church had a duty to disclose that information.

34 minutes ago, Rain said:

Assuming that Denson is right sbout leaders keeping the info, what exactly makes it a fraud case? I'm trying to wrap my head around how it could be fraud. Is the whole thing based on if he was a sexual predate and the church knew then they defrauded her by making her believe it was a safe place? Are there cases where this has come to court in place of work or a gym or another church?

I don't know.  I haven't researched this.

34 minutes ago, Rain said:

Second, does the church have a legal responsibility to report rape of an adult?

No.  But I think the legal argument here is that the Church did have a duty to disclose Bishop's prior misconduct.  But that assumes A) that there was "prior misconduct," and B) that it was m

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

23 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Sure she did. 

No, she didn't.  The bishop sets the parameters.  Her accusations and comments about rape and Joseph Bishop are not a "testimony."

23 minutes ago, ALarson said:

But the leaders also had a right to ask her to stop speaking when she started into her more explicit language.  She had the right to go up and bare her testimony though just as others in the audience did.

But she didn't bear a testimony.  That's the problem.

23 minutes ago, ALarson said:

My sympathy will not ever go away regarding what I believe happened to her and how she was treated afterwards. 

Same here.  

23 minutes ago, ALarson said:

But I definitely disapprove of some of her actions and methods for getting her story and message out there.  When she's in the proper venue, she's extremely effective, IMO and should carefully select when and where she does speaks out.

Well said.

23 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Eh.  I like Consig and feel he's really great at what he does (I don't know him personally but have been impressed with his work on this case).   

He didn't do Ms. Denson any favors.  To the contrary, I think he helped her damage her own credibility.

23 minutes ago, ALarson said:

As for Ryan McKnight....I don't feel much one way or the other regarding him and don't see much involvement from him (since the leaked video).

He helped Ms. Denson destroy her own settlement negotiations.

Thanks,

-Smac

[ALarson]

Just now, smac97 said:

No, she didn't.  The bishop sets the parameters.  Her accusations and comments about rape and Joseph Bishop are not a "testimony."

You're wrong here, smac.  The Bishop opened up the mic for those in the audience (usually 8 and above, but many wards don't even limit it to that) to come up and bare their testimony.  She had every right to go up and speak and did begin with a testimony.  But, I agree that when she started speaking in explicit language (inappropriate for the age of many in the audience), the leaders had every right to stop her and remove her.

[ALarson]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

He didn't do Ms. Denson any favors.  To the contrary, I think he helped her damage her own credibility.

I disagree.  I think he actually helped her case.  But we can disagree on that.

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

He helped Ms. Denson destroy her own settlement negotiations.

He leaked the video which was going to be made public one way or the other, IMO.  Other than that, I haven't seen much involvement from him, have you?  (That's why I'm ambivalent regarding him.)

Edited September 7, 2018 by ALarson

[Rain]

48 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yes.  Specifically, a "fraudulent nondisclosure" claim against the Church.  The gist of it is that A) the Church knew that Joseph Bishop was a "sexual predator" in the last 70s, B) the Church nevertheless appointed him to be the MTC president, C) the Church did not disclose what it know about Bishop to McKenna Denson, and D) the Church had a duty to disclose that information.

So legally, not spiritually/morally, are you aware of anything that says they have that duty? If they do have that duty then wouldn't it be saying that businesses also have it? Would it only matter if the person is in a position of authority or does it also matter if this were just another member of the church or a coworker etc?

If the church is found to have a duty to report it then how does this work for all of the missionaries under him? Can they all come and sue the church indivually for not disclosing to them as well or do they have to have been harmed in some way because of it?

Quote

I don't know.  I haven't researched this.

No.  But I think the legal argument here is that the Church did have a duty to disclose Bishop's prior misconduct.  But that assumes A) that there was "prior misconduct," and B) that it was m

Thanks,

-Smac

B) that it was m? 

Edited September 7, 2018 by Rain

[smac97]

41 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Quote

No, she didn't.  The bishop sets the parameters.  Her accusations and comments about rape and Joseph Bishop are not a "testimony."

You're wrong here, smac.  The Bishop opened up the mic for those in the audience (usually 8 and above, but many wards don't even limit it to that) to come up and bare their testimony. 

A testimony of Jesus Christ.  Public accusations of rape do not fall within those parameters.

C'mon.  This isn't even a close call.  What's next?  Are you going to suggest that members of the Church are free to use F&T meetings to hawk multi-level marketing products?  "I'd like to share my testimony of Nu Skin.  And here's why!..."

41 minutes ago, ALarson said:

She had every right to go up and speak and did begin with a testimony. 

Nope.  False pretenses.

C'mon.  There was no good faith here.  She colluded with Mike Norton.  She had the thing recorded.  She went there to disrupt and accuse, not to share her testimony.

41 minutes ago, ALarson said:

But, I agree that when she started speaking in explicit language (inappropriate for the age of many in the audience), the leaders had every right to stop her and remove her.

Sounds like we are mostly in agreement.

Thanks,

-Smac

[ALarson]

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

A testimony of Jesus Christ.

Which she did, iirc. 

Are you claiming she does not have a testimony of Jesus Christ?  Do you believe one has to believe the Mormon church is true in order to have a true testimony of their Savior, Jesus Christ?  That's quite an accusation if that's what you're claiming here, IMO.

You're wrong regarding her not having a right to go up to the microphone and speak.  Once the Bishop opened up the mic, she had as much a right to go up as others in the audience, IMO.  Legally, she had every right to go up there.

But, when she started speaking too explicitly, the leaders had a right to stop her (and they did).  I feel they shouldn't have touched her or handled her like they did, but I think they did what they felt was right at the time.  But it's certainly not how we have been advised to deal with situations such as this one.

Edited September 7, 2018 by ALarson

[provoman]

4 minutes ago, Rain said:

So legally, not spiritually/morally, are you aware of anything that says they have that duty? If they do have that duty then wouldn't it be saying that businesses? Would it only matter if the person is in a position of authority or does it also matter if this were just another member of the church or a coworker etc?

If the church is found to have a duty to report it then how does this work for all of the missionaries under him? Can they all come and sue the church indivually for not disclosing to them as well or do they have to have been harmed in some way because of it?

B) that it was m? 

Part of proving the fraud is showing that the Church had "duty" to inform Denson.

The duty aspects raises the issue of if churches are required to disclose the sins of individuals in callings. 

Second, does the State get to place themselves in the posistion of Clergy and evaluate the repentance of the accused and then make the determination of if the accused should have been in X posistion - I would say such a reveiw is unConstititional as it unlawfully intertwins Goverment into Religious functions.

[provoman]

10 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Which she did, iirc. 

Are you claiming she does not have a testimony of Jesus Christ?  Do you believe one has to believe the Mormon church is true in order to have a true testimony of their Savior, Jesus Christ?  That's quite an accusation if that's what you're claiming here, IMO.

You're wrong regarding her not having a right to go up to the microphone and speak.  Once the Bishop opened up the mic, she had as much a right to go up as others in the audience, IMO.  Legally, she had every right to go up there.

But, when she started speaking too explicitly, the leaders had a right to stop her (and they did).  I feel they shouldn't have touched her or handled her like they did, but I think they did what they felt was right at the time.  But it's certainly not how we have been advised to deal with situations such as this one.

she was up there to advocate a cause - not to give her testimony of the Restored Gospel, which is the purpose of testimony as explained to her in her "There will be no recording" recording.

 

As for "legal right", well once she violated the purpose of the meeting she didnt have any "right" or priviledge.

 

 

Edited September 7, 2018 by provoman

[ksfisher]

2 hours ago, ALarson said:

You're wrong here, smac.  The Bishop opened up the mic for those in the audience (usually 8 and above, but many wards don't even limit it to that) to come up and bare their testimony.  She had every right to go up and speak and did begin with a testimony.  But, I agree that when she started speaking in explicit language (inappropriate for the age of many in the audience), the leaders had every right to stop her and remove her.

Here are the instruction in Handbook 2 regarding Fast and Testimony Meeting.

"After the sacrament, the bishopric member who is conducting the meeting bears a brief testimony. He then invites members to bear heartfelt testimonies and to relate faith-promoting experiences. The bishopric encourages members to keep their testimonies brief so more people may have the opportunity to participate."  [emphasis mine]

https://www.lds.org/handbook/handbook-2-administering-the-church/meetings-in-the-church?lang=eng#18.2.3

A couple points:

Testimony meeting is for "members" to bear testimony.  My understanding is that Denson is not a member of the church.

The testimony born should be "faith-promoting."  (Yes, I'm aware that this is not always the case with some.)  But a non-member of the church does not have a right to speak in this meeting, especially when her goal in getting up there was so different than than the stated purpose of the meeting.

 

 

Edited September 7, 2018 by ksfisher

[ALarson]

9 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Here are the instruction in Handbook 2 regarding Fast and Testimony Meeting.

"After the sacrament, the bishopric member who is conducting the meeting bears a brief testimony. He then invites members to bear heartfelt testimonies and to relate faith-promoting experiences. The bishopric encourages members to keep their testimonies brief so more people may have the opportunity to participate."  [emphasis mine]

https://www.lds.org/handbook/handbook-2-administering-the-church/meetings-in-the-church?lang=eng#18.2.3

A couple point:

Testimony meeting is for "members" to bear testimony.  My understanding is that Denson is not a member of the church.

The testimony born should be "faith-promoting."  (Yes, I'm aware that this is not always the case with some.)  But a non-member of the church does not have a right to speak in this meeting, especially when her goal in getting up there was so different than than the stated purpose of the meeting.

 

 

We have no idea what the Bishop stated when he opened up the mic (unless there's a record of that) or what instructions he gave.

Every single fast and testimony meeting we have people come up and speak who do not really bare a heartfelt testimony or relate faith-promoting experiences.  We have travel logs....health reports, etc. nearly every month.  They'll sit down and I'll think, "Wow....no testimony baring there!"

We also have had many go up who were not members of the church (under 8 years of age or investigators).  

So yes, Mckenna Denson has every right to go up once the Bishop opened up the microphone.  She did begin with a testimony of Jesus Christ.  But once she began speaking about Bishop and using explicit, inappropriate language,, the leaders had every right to stop her (and they did).

That doesn't change the fact that she had a right to go up to the microphone was it was opened up.

Edited September 7, 2018 by ALarson