Denson interrupts Bishop's home ward testimony meeting

[Abulafia]

2 hours ago, provoman said:

CFR "In Bishop's case, there are 6 possibly 7." 

 

 

 

[Duncan]

10 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

 

 

who is President Jones and where did this come from? and the Irish guy?

[Abulafia]

Amulek said "

I think you are willfully trying to ignore every piece of evidence that paints Denson in a negative light.

You are welcome to do that, of course, but you can’t do so without showing how biased you are."

Actually I am not. McKenna has acknowledged her criminal history on Facebook. Including..

1. A DUI

2. An allegation of rape by an unknown person in Washington DC which she freely admits was a nervous breakdown after Bishop's treatment of her.

3. Shoplifting

4. An ongoing case of identity theft involving an ex boyfriend. 

 

 

"the complainant has confessed to providing misleading and incomplete information... "

 

Thankyou. This was the restaurant claim, yes? Do we have any more detail on specifics? Incomplete? Misleading?

 

 

 

 

[Abulafia]

And of course none of this indicates or proves she is lying about Joseph Bishop.

[Abulafia]

Amulek, let me also say, that sometimes the church gets it right with the sexual abuse of the vulnerable , but it also gets it spectacularly wrong.

And the various Amicus Briefs that have been filed by Catholic and Mormon Bishop's attempting to shield themselves from prosecution based on first amendment rights, (as recent as 2009 in Nevada) does not give me confidence that the corporate church is interested in protecting or taking responsibility for victims.

[Amulek]

7 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

Amulek said "

I think you are willfully trying to ignore every piece of evidence that paints Denson in a negative light.

You are welcome to do that, of course, but you can’t do so without showing how biased you are."

Actually I am not. McKenna has acknowledged her criminal history on Facebook. Including..

1. A DUI

2. An allegation of rape by an unknown person in Washington DC which she freely admits was a nervous breakdown after Bishop's treatment of her.

3. Shoplifting

4. An ongoing case of identity theft involving an ex boyfriend. 

That's true. You do admit McKenna has a checkered past.

I retract my statement about you willfully ignoring every piece of evidence that paints her in a negative light. 

 

Quote

"the complainant has confessed to providing misleading and incomplete information... "

Thankyou. This was the restaurant claim, yes? Do we have any more detail on specifics? Incomplete? Misleading?

This was the claim against her employer. Off the top of my head, I don't recall if she was working for a restaurant or some other establishment at the time.

I'm not exactly sure what you are asking for here. Are you wanting to know what specific statements she made to law enforcement that were misleading? I don't have a copy of the police report, but considering that the case was determined to be unfounded, it seems pretty obvious that the "misleading" statements were about the assault itself. 

 

 

 

 

[smac97]

10 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

Amulek, let me also say, that sometimes the church gets it right with the sexual abuse of the vulnerable , but it also gets it spectacularly wrong.

And the various Amicus Briefs that have been filed by Catholic and Mormon Bishop's attempting to shield themselves from prosecution based on first amendment rights, (as recent as 2009 in Nevada) does not give me confidence that the corporate church is interested in protecting or taking responsibility for victims.

CFR, please.  Which briefs are you referencing here?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Abulafia]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

CFR, please.  Which briefs are you referencing here?

Thanks,

-Smac

Just spent 2 hours on a plane reading it.

Let me know if the link doesn't work.

http://rfraperils.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/RAMANI.Final_.Amicus.12.10.pdf

[Amulek]

16 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

And of course none of this indicates or proves she is lying about Joseph Bishop.

Absolutely. As I (and others) freely admit, it is certainly possible that she is being completely honest in recounting what happened with Joseph Bishop.

Are you willing to similarly admit to the possibility that she is lying or exaggerating what happened between her and Joseph Bishop?

 

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Why was he thrown in jail so often? It wasn't because he started a religion. That is the old narrative. But here is the Fair Mormon stance on it. But it was evident to me that he was arrested for it. https://www.fairmormon.org/conference/august-2002/the-1826-trial-of-joseph-smith  And the Kirtland Bank situation doesn't sound very good. I do believe Joseph Smith was a very imperfect man. Such as McKenna an imperfect woman, so shall we discount every thing she says?

As Bluebell has noted, this doesn’t say he was “charged with money digging.” Is this all you’ve got? 

[smac97]

16 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

And of course none of this indicates or proves she is lying about Joseph Bishop.

"Proves?"  You are correct.  Evidence of past dishonest behavior does not "prove" anything.

But is past dishonest behavior "indicat[ive]" of something?  Yes.  Definitely.  It is indicative of her credibility.

I am curious as to your thoughts about her behavior in the podcast interview.  Specifically, I am thinking of all the chuckles and laughs during her vivid description of the many lies she told to many people when she was setting up her "interview" with Joseph Bishop.  See here (my summary of her remarks):

Quote

• 5. She called Church HQ and posed as a former missionary who had served in Argentina when Joseph Bishop was the mission president.  The someone at the Church, Jared Kessler, gave her Bishop's address in Chandler, AZ.  She looked up that address in the Church's meetinghouse locator website and obtained the address for Bishop's ward, and the bishop's number, and the missionaries' number.  She called the bishop, who didn't answer.  She then called the missionaries and spoke with an "Elder Stark," who she says was obviously "brand new" because he "didn't have a clue what he was talking about."  She then used false pretenses (she lied) to the missionary, saying that a group of former missionaries who had served under Joseph Bishop, and that they were planning a "surprise" for him.  They then gave her his cell number.
• 6. She then called and made airline and car rental reservations.  Then she called Joseph Bishop and again used false pretenses (lied) to him, introducing herself as writing an article about "high-level Mormon officials, mission presidents, temple presidents, because they don't get enough attention for the work that they do," and that she would "love to" interview him.  He agreed (enthusiastically).  [Both Denson and the interviewer laugh at her description about how excited he was at the prospect of being interviewed.]
• 7. She flew down to Arizona, then called Josph Bishop and yet again used false pretenses (lied) to him, saying that her other appointment with a temple president from Taiwan, Mark Gillespie, was running late, and asked if he (Bishop) could come to her hotel and meet with her in a conference room there.  He asked if he could bring his wife and son with him, and she said yes, but then she again used false pretenses (lied) to get him to agree to a one-on-one interview with her, even if he brought family members.

What are your thoughts about these items?  Do they affect your assessment of McKenna Denson at all?  Why or why not?

What about the whole "Mark Gillespie" and "surprise" lies described above?  You previously spoke of Ms. Denson's ability to recollect details of the purported assault as evidence of her credibility ("She remembers what she was wearing.  A white dress with a bow.  This is what people remember when they are traumatised.").  But in the podcast interview, she laughingly describes the detailed lies she told about "a group of former missionaries who had served under Joseph Bishop, and that they were planning a 'surprise' for him," that she was "writing an article about 'high-level' Mormon officials, mission presidents, temple presidents, because they don't get enough attention for the work that they do," and that on the day of her appointment with Bishop, she had "[another] other appointment with a temple president from Taiwan, Mark Gillespie, [which] was running late."

How is that that, in your view, her purported memory of details about "a white dress with a bow" is evidence of her honesty, but her demonstrably and deliberately false statements (about a group of former missionaries planning a "surprise," or Ms. Denson writing an article, or Ms. Denson having a late-running appointment with Mark Gillespie, etc.) are not evidence of her dishonesty?

Thanks,

-Smac

[ALarson]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

As Bluebell has noted, this doesn’t say he was “charged with money digging.” Is this all you’ve got? 

Here are all of the charges brought against Joseph Smith:

Quote

 

Chronology of charges

3.1In New York (1817–30)

3.1.1Disorderly person, March 1826

3.1.2Disorderly person, June 1830

3.2In Ohio (1831–38)

3.2.1Illegal banking, February 1837

3.2.2Conspiracy to murder Newell, June 1837

3.2.3Banking fraud, 1838

3.3In Missouri (1838–39)

3.3.1Threats to Judge Adam Black, August 1838

3.3.2Missouri treason case, November 1838–39

3.4In Illinois (1839–44)

3.4.1Arrest for fleeing Missouri, 1841

3.4.2Conspiracy to murder Governor Boggs, 1842–43

3.4.3Missouri treason case, June 1843

3.4.4Perjury, fornication and polygamy, May 1844

3.4.5Inciting a riot destroying the Nauvoo Expositor, June 1844

3.4.6Treason against Illinois, June 1844

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Smith_and_the_criminal_justice_system

[smac97]

18 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

Just spent 2 hours on a plane reading it.

Let me know if the link doesn't work.

http://rfraperils.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/RAMANI.Final_.Amicus.12.10.pdf

This is not a brief written by the Church or the Roman Catholic Church.

Again, you said: "And the various Amicus Briefs that have been filed by Catholic and Mormon Bishop's attempting to shield themselves from prosecution based on first amendment rights, (as recent as 2009 in Nevada) does not give me confidence that the corporate church is interested in protecting or taking responsibility for victims."

Again, my CFR: "CFR, please.  Which briefs are you referencing here?"

And where in the briefs you are referencing do they purport to "shield themselves from prosecution based on first amendment rights?"  Chapter and verse, please.

Thanks,

-Smac

EDIT TO ADD: Is this what you have in mind?

Edited September 20, 2018 by smac97

[Abulafia]

Smac, the link I supplied is a response by concerned organisations, yes?

 

[Abulafia]

"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (“LDS”) and the Roman Catholic Bishops of Las Vegas and Reno (“Bishops”) ask this Court to craft a rule of legal immunity for religious organizations involved with sexual assault and abuse.1  These are not new arguments for the Bishops and the LDS; they have been making them in courts across the country to avoid liability for abuse of children and adults.  But these attempts to twist the First Amendment into a refuge for harmful behavior have not been widely successful."

[smac97]

31 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

Smac, the link I supplied is a response by concerned organisations, yes?

Yes.  But you referenced "various Amicus Briefs that have been filed by Catholic and Mormon Bishops."  My CFR pertains to those.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

31 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (“LDS”) and the Roman Catholic Bishops of Las Vegas and Reno (“Bishops”) ask this Court to craft a rule of legal immunity for religious organizations involved with sexual assault and abuse.1  These are not new arguments for the Bishops and the LDS; they have been making them in courts across the country to avoid liability for abuse of children and adults.  But these attempts to twist the First Amendment into a refuge for harmful behavior have not been widely successful."

Not sure what you are quoting here. 

Meanwhile, the Nevada case you appear to be referencing, Ramani v. Segelstein, appears to have ended up this way:

Quote

The Nevada Supreme Court has ruled that two Las Vegas synagogues and their rabbis are protected from a lawsuit that resulted from the intentional misconduct of one of its members.

The decision closes the 10-year-old case filed by Theressa "Zissa" Janetta Ramani, who filed a civil lawsuit after she was sexually assaulted by Michael Segelstein in the parking lot of Temple Beth Shalom in 2001.

Segelstein pleaded guilty to open and gross lewdness, a gross misdemeanor.

Ramani then filed a civil suit against the Chabad of Southern Nevada and Rabbi Yehoshua Harlig, and the Chabad of Summerlin and Rabbi Yisroell Schanowitz.

She said she sought help, but instead of counseling her they said they did not believe she was Jewish. And her son, who attended studies at the Chabad of Summerlin, was treated differently, no longer being asked to read from the Torah or pray from the stage during services.

The Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision written by Chief Justice Michael Douglas, said the synagogues and rabbis cannot be held liable "for Segelstein's intentional conduct, as it was outside the scope of Segelstein's duties."

Douglas said there was a question about whether Segelstein was an employee, volunteer or cantor, but it still does not make the synagogues liable.

The court also rejected Ramani's claim that Harlig sought sexual favors from her. Harlig filed a slander countersuit. The court said Ramani's intentional infliction of emotional distress claim was deficient, and District Judge Timothy Williams was correct in granting a summary judgment in the case.

The court also said it could not consider the appeal of Ramani, who was ordered to pay $175,000 in attorney fees and court costs. It said the appeal was filed beyond the legal deadline.

This seems like pretty mainstream stuff.  Are you suggesting that the Nevada decision is an anomaly?  

Thanks,

-Smac

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

Here are all of the charges brought against Joseph Smith:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Smith_and_the_criminal_justice_system

Do we know which ones courts believed had actual merit?

Edited September 20, 2018 by bluebell

[Abulafia]

16 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Not sure what you are quoting here. 

Meanwhile, the Nevada case you appear to be referencing, Ramani v. Segelstein, appears to have ended up this way:

This seems like pretty mainstream stuff.  Are you suggesting that the Nevada decision is an anomaly?  

Thanks,

-Smac

I have no idea. Perhaps you can explain why this...

"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (“LDS”) and the Roman Catholic Bishops of Las Vegas and Reno (“Bishops”) ask this Court to craft a rule of legal immunity for religious organizations involved with sexual assault and abuse."

 

is right and proper. I'm not a lawyer,  but it seems pretty horrendous to me. 

[ALarson]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Do we know which ones courts believed had actual merit?

That may be a good topic for another thread (don't want to derail).  I'd imagine each charge would need to be evaluated separately....one at a time.  

[Abulafia]

Smac p14 of the link I provided.

 

[provoman]

12 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

I have no idea. Perhaps you can explain why this...

"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (“LDS”) and the Roman Catholic Bishops of Las Vegas and Reno (“Bishops”) ask this Court to craft a rule of legal immunity for religious organizations involved with sexual assault and abuse."

 

is right and proper. I'm not a lawyer,  but it seems pretty horrendous to me. 

Maybe you could quote the LDS and Catholic briefs and not and someone else's personal interpretation of what the LDS and Catholic briefs state.

Edited September 20, 2018 by provoman

[Abulafia]

14 minutes ago, ALarson said:

That may be a good topic for another thread (don't want to derail).  I'd imagine each charge would need to be evaluated separately....one at a time.  

The 1826 one is particularly interesting. I didn't mean to derail, I just felt it needed highlighting.  Joseph too, had a chequered past when it comes to criminal activity.  

[Abulafia]

9 minutes ago, provoman said:

Maybe you could quote the LDS and Catholic briefs and not and someone else's personal interpretation of what the LDS and Catholic briefs state.

That is a direct quote.

[smac97]

25 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

I have no idea. Perhaps you can explain why this...

"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (“LDS”) and the Roman Catholic Bishops of Las Vegas and Reno (“Bishops”) ask this Court to craft a rule of legal immunity for religious organizations involved with sexual assault and abuse."

is right and proper. I'm not a lawyer,  but it seems pretty horrendous to me. 

Okay.  Let's give that a go.  Here's a hypothetical:

1. You own a chain of stores that has made you rich.  You are worth many millions of dollars.

2. One day, one of the many hundreds of your employees, a janitor who works at a warehouse, is arrested for having sexually assaulted his girlfriend while parked in the parking lot of that warehouse (on his day off).

3. The janitor is convicted of sexual assault.

4. The victim then files a lawsuit seeking millions of damages against you and your store for the sexual assault she suffered.

Would it be "horrendous" for you to fight this lawsuit?  Or would you give in and pay the victim many millions of dollars?  Would you publicly admit to being financially and legally and morally liable for your employee committing rape?

Thanks,

-Smac