Denson interrupts Bishop's home ward testimony meeting

[provoman]

14 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

That is a direct quote.

It is a direct quote from an opposing brief - opposing the LDS Church amicus brief, wherein the writer offered their personal interpretaion.

What you provided is not a direct quote of LDS brief or Catholic Church amicus briefs. 

So again, maybe you could post the amicus brief of the LDS Church and not someone's biased interpretation of the brief.

Edited September 20, 2018 by provoman

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

Quote

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.

It is a direct quote of the brief opposing the one filed by the Church.

Again, the brief you linked to and are quoting is not a brief written by the Church or the Roman Catholic Church.

So of course it sounds "horrendous."  That's rather the point of an opposing brief.

Here is a link to the brief filed by the Church.

If you are going to characterize the Church's position, I think you would be better off in quoting . . . the Church's brief (rather than the one filed in response/opposition to it).

And for what it's worth, the Nevada Supreme Court appears to have rendered a decision that conforms to the Church's arguments.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

Abulifa, do you require the same standard of pronouncing guilt when it comes to Bishop, Leavitt, Church, leadership, and Joseph Smith?

Quote

 It takes a jury, if enough evidence is available, to convict and pronounce innocence or guilt

 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Duncan said:

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

This includes the meeting after her interruption of Sacrament Meeting with her from the pulpit accusations, Pres. Jones was a stake presidency counselor apparently presiding that day, the "Irish" guy is probably the Australian filmmaker, Ethan Kruk, who has done antimormon films before ( so labeled by himself).  

[Abulafia]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

It is a direct quote of the brief opposing the one filed by the Church.

Again, the brief you linked to and are quoting is not a brief written by the Church or the Roman Catholic Church.

So of course it sounds "horrendous."  That's rather the point of an opposing brief.

Here is a link to the brief filed by the Church.

If you are going to characterize the Church's position, I think you would be better off in quoting . . . the Church's brief (rather than the one filed in response/opposition to it).

And for what it's worth, the Nevada Supreme Court appears to have rendered a decision that conforms to the Church's arguments.

Thanks,

-Smac

Smac. It is a direct quote from the amicus brief filed by the church which you linked to 

I'll quote it again.

"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."

 

[provoman]

8 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

Smac. It is a direct quote from the amicus brief filed by the church which you linked to 

I'll quote it again.

"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."

 

It is the first few swntences of the Introductory section of an opposing brief.

Edited September 20, 2018 by provoman

[Abulafia]

Provoman...they clearly reference the quote to the amicus brief.??? Are they lying? 

[provoman]

2 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

Provoman...they clearly reference the quote to the amicus brief.??? Are they lying? 

The opposing brief from which you have taken the statement and incorrectly attributed to the LDS Church amicus, does not put the statement in quotes, nor does the footnote provide a reference to the exact statement.

You are taking someones personal opinion and making it the official posistion of the Church.

Edited September 20, 2018 by provoman

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

Provoman...they clearly reference the quote to the amicus brief.??? Are they lying? 

Let's review this a bit.  You are attributing the following words to the Church: "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 ."

Please point to the page and paragraph in the Church's brief where I can find this statement.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 20, 2018 by smac97

[Calm]

26 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

Smac. It is a direct quote from the amicus brief filed by the church which you linked to 

I'll quote it again.

"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."

 

What line is the quote from (they are numbered)?  I tried to search "legal immunity" and no matches came up (search doesn't work for easy access so you need to provide the direct reference and not the whole article)

Edited September 20, 2018 by Calm

[Abulafia]

Okay, so it's a summing up of their position.  Yes? 

Smac and Provoman I am reading the Amicus Brief now and it's overall position appears to be as per the description of the brief on the opening page of the link Smac provided.

The Church is claiming it cannot be held responsible for the sexual abuse of its clergy because that would impede on 1st amendment rights. 

My position would be that any member, male, female, who advises/works with children and youth as a volunteer should be vetted. The Church has a duty of care and where they have failed to do proper background checks, or advances someone with a record of predatory behaviour on the naive notion that said abuser has repented and will not abuse again..Yes.. darn right the church should be held responsible.

 

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

 

The Church is claiming it cannot be held responsible for the sexual abuse of its clergy because that would impede on 1st amendment rights.

Please provide quote as paraphrases often leave out nuances or even misinterpret the main premise.

 

[Abulafia]

27 minutes ago, Calm said:

What line is the quote from (they are numbered)?  I tried to search "legal immunity" and no matches came up (search doesn't work for easy access so you need to provide the direct reference and not the whole article)

Call, it's from page 1 of the link I provided. Which is not the Amicus Brief (as Provoman and Smac pointed out) but refers to it. It's headed Introduction. P1.

INTRODUCTION. 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.  Most state courts have rejected the notion that the First Amendment creates immunity from the tort laws deterring and redressing sexual assault or abuse.  See Malicki v. Doe, 814 So. 2d 347, 351 n.2 (Fla. 2002) (listing states); State v. Young, 974 So. 2d 601, 613 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008); Melanie H. v. Defendant Doe, No. 04-1596-WQH-(WMc), slip op. at 8 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 2005); Perry v. Johnston, No. 4:09-CV-105, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74706, at *11 (E.D. Mo. Aug. 24, 2009); Martinelli v. Bridgeport Roman Catholic Diocesan Corp., 196 F.3d 409, 431 (2d Cir. 1999); N.H. v. Presbyterian Church, 998 P.2d 592, 602 (Okla. 1999); Young v. Gelineau, No. 03-1302, 2007 WL 3236736 (R.I. Super. Sept. 20, 2007); Roman Catholic Diocese of Jackson v. Morrison, 905 So. 2d 1213 (Miss. 2005); Olson v. First Church of Nazarene, 661 N.W.2d 254 (Minn. Ct. App. 2003); Odenthal v. Minnesota Conference of Seventh-Day Adventists, 649 N.W.2d 426 (Minn. 2002); Rashedi v. General Bd. of Church of Nazarene, 54 P.3d 349 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002); Doe v. Evans, 814 So. 2d 370, 371 (Fla. 2002).  The LDS and the Bishops principally rely on the most extreme cases in the country, Pritzlaff v. Archdiocese of Milwaukee, 533 N.W.2d 780 (Wis. 1995), and Gibson v. Brewer,                                                  1 See Brief Amicus Curiae of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, Ramani v. Segelstein, No. 49341 (Nev. Oct. 5, 2009) [hereinafter “LDS Amicus”]; Joinder of the Roman Catholic Bishop of Las Vegas and of the Roman Catholic Bishop of Reno, Ramani v. Segelstein, No. 49341 (Nev. Oct. 12, 2009) [hereinafter “Bishops’ Amicus”]. 

Edited September 20, 2018 by Abulafia

[Abulafia]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

Please provide quote as paraphrases often leave out nuances or even misinterpret the main premise.

 

Need to go to sleep now, but the Amicus Brief Smac linked to, is very intetesting despite being couched in lawyer speak. It's worth reading and reading again. I'll have another go tomorrow.

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

Need to go to sleep now, but the Amicus Brief Smac linked to, is very intetesting despite being couched in lawyer speak. It's worth reading and reading again. I'll have another go tomorrow.

Lines numbers are okay with me if the quote is too difficult to copy /paste or dictate (if you are using a phone).  However, others may want the quote if they disagree with your interpretation so they can point to where the disagreement occurs.

[smac97]

21 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

Okay, so it's a summing up of their position.  Yes? 

It's a group of groups that are strongly opposed to and critical of the Church's position.

More to the point, you are repeatedly - and incorrectly - attributing a specific statement to the Church.  I think that's not good.

21 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

Smac and Provoman I am reading the Amicus Brief now and it's overall position appears to be as per the description of the brief on the opening page of the link Smac provided.

Not really.

21 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

The Church is claiming it cannot be held responsible for the sexual abuse of its clergy because that would impede on 1st amendment rights. 

Where?  CFR.  Chapter and verse, please.  

21 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

My position would be that any member, male, female, who advises/works with children and youth as a volunteer should be vetted.

I'm quite open to that.  But what does "vetted" mean?

21 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

The Church has a duty of care and where they have failed to do proper background checks, or advances someone with a record of predatory behaviour on the naive notion that said abuser has repented and will not abuse again..Yes.. darn right the church should be held responsible.

What "proper background checks" do you have in mind?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Scott Lloyd]

5 hours 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

Thank you.

Nothing there, then, about Joseph being "charged with money digging."

 

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

Abulifa, do you require the same standard [below] of pronouncing guilt when it comes to Bishop, Leavitt, Church, leadership, and Joseph Smith?

 

Repeating my question in case it was missed as apparently several others are also interested.

Quote

 It takes a jury, if enough evidence is available, to convict and pronounce innocence or guilt

 

[Danzo]

4 hours ago, Abulafia said:

Call, it's from page 1 of the link I provided. Which is not the Amicus Brief (as Provoman and Smac pointed out) but refers to it. It's headed Introduction. P1.

INTRODUCTION. 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.  Most state courts have rejected the notion that the First Amendment creates immunity from the tort laws deterring and redressing sexual assault or abuse.  See Malicki v. Doe, 814 So. 2d 347, 351 n.2 (Fla. 2002) (listing states); State v. Young, 974 So. 2d 601, 613 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008); Melanie H. v. Defendant Doe, No. 04-1596-WQH-(WMc), slip op. at 8 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 2005); Perry v. Johnston, No. 4:09-CV-105, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74706, at *11 (E.D. Mo. Aug. 24, 2009); Martinelli v. Bridgeport Roman Catholic Diocesan Corp., 196 F.3d 409, 431 (2d Cir. 1999); N.H. v. Presbyterian Church, 998 P.2d 592, 602 (Okla. 1999); Young v. Gelineau, No. 03-1302, 2007 WL 3236736 (R.I. Super. Sept. 20, 2007); Roman Catholic Diocese of Jackson v. Morrison, 905 So. 2d 1213 (Miss. 2005); Olson v. First Church of Nazarene, 661 N.W.2d 254 (Minn. Ct. App. 2003); Odenthal v. Minnesota Conference of Seventh-Day Adventists, 649 N.W.2d 426 (Minn. 2002); Rashedi v. General Bd. of Church of Nazarene, 54 P.3d 349 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002); Doe v. Evans, 814 So. 2d 370, 371 (Fla. 2002).  The LDS and the Bishops principally rely on the most extreme cases in the country, Pritzlaff v. Archdiocese of Milwaukee, 533 N.W.2d 780 (Wis. 1995), and Gibson v. Brewer,                                                  1 See Brief Amicus Curiae of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, Ramani v. Segelstein, No. 49341 (Nev. Oct. 5, 2009) [hereinafter “LDS Amicus”]; Joinder of the Roman Catholic Bishop of Las Vegas and of the Roman Catholic Bishop of Reno, Ramani v. Segelstein, No. 49341 (Nev. Oct. 12, 2009) [hereinafter “Bishops’ Amicus”]. 

Can you just quote from the brief the church wrote?

Is it that hard?

 

Edited September 21, 2018 by Danzo

[provoman]

15 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Can you just post from the brief the church wrote?

Is it that hard?

 

I first came across the quote on a rabid anti-mormon discussion board; they didn't seem too keen on what was actually in the LDS Church brief.  

From the LDS Church amicus brief:

Quote

By contrast, this Court could craft a constitutionally appropriate claim against a church for failing to supervise a clergy member (issue #5) by expressly limiting the claim to cases where the church disregarded actual notice ofthe danger. See Gibson v. Brewer, 952 S.W.2d 239 (Mo. 1997). Through such a claim-and others like battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress that generally do not implicate First Amendment concerns-this Court can satisfy the need for a remedy in egregious cases of clergy misconduct without infringing on the First Amendment rights of religious organizations.

Interesting that the introduction of the LDS Church amicus brief contradicts what so many have grabbed a hold of from the opposing amicus brief.

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Thank you.

Nothing there, then, about Joseph being "charged with money digging."

 

That's funny, then why was he found guilty? Did you read the chronological list of his charges? 

Edited September 21, 2018 by Tacenda

[provoman]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

That's funny, then why was he found guilty? Did you read the chronological list of his charges? 

The questioningmormonism site didnt claim he was convicted

Edited September 21, 2018 by provoman

[Calm]

“Brigham Young said that he had to defend himself in forty-eight criminal cases, including many personally involving Brigham–but that Joseph was never convicted in any of them. We believe that this count of criminal cases against him is quite accurate. We’ll focus mainly on some criminal charges that took his liberty, his assets and ultimately his life. Knowing that not once was he found legally guilty of any charges against him has strengthened my own faith and regard for Joseph Smith–the man and the Prophet.”

https://www.fairmormon.org/conference/august-2006/legal-trials-of-the-prophet-joseph-smiths-life-in-court

[Glenn101]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

That's funny, then why was he found guilty? Did you read the chronological list of his charges? 

Digging for money was and is not a crime in New York. Joseph was never charged with that. He was charged with being a disorderly person in 1826 and 1829. The results of the 1826 examination are disputed. The only person who claimed to have been at the trial said that Joseph was acquitted.

There was one incident where Joseph got a bit physical with another person, went to a magistrate and admitted to the affair, then paid the fine. That is the only criminal offense that anyone could specifically point out where Joseph was found guilty, but this was not a case of someone hauling him into court.

Glenn

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, Tacenda said:

That's funny, then why was he found guilty? Did you read the chronological list of his charges? 

Found guilty? Of what?