Denson interrupts Bishop's home ward testimony meeting

[Calm]

 

26 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

I also found out I am not a robot. ☺️

Glenn

Always a relief to get that confirmed.

[Abulafia]

Calm, about the 2nd/3rd September on McKenna's public page. Took me ages to scroll down. Am very protective of McKenna so would hate for any information I have supplied from my linking to her public posts to be used against her in any way. 

[Calm]

10 hours ago, Abulafia said:

Calm, about the 2nd/3rd September on McKenna's public page. Took me ages to scroll down. Am very protective of McKenna so would hate for any information I have supplied from my linking to her public posts to be used against her in any way. 

How could this info be used against her unless she lied?

[Abulafia]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

How could this info be used against her unless she lied?

True. 

 

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=279710686192020&id=100024592716248

 

[Calm]

So besides this, is there any info about her not being prosecuted?  It seems like she is saying the first three are valid convictions and thus she would have been charged...though maybe it is meant she never got taken to trial because she plea guilty?

I don't consider them significant, so that is not why .I am asking.  I am just wondering where the no prosecution claim came from (prosecution for Denson does not reflect on whether or not the Church is culpable or the level of .Bishop's abuse, I just want my understanding to be accurate).

Sorry if it feels like badgering.  I spent way more time trying to figure out what was said and what wasn't from the transcript.  Easier when .I have some to ask.  

Edited September 23, 2018 by Calm

[Abulafia]

As I understand it, and maybe smac can interject, those are what she was prosecuted for. All the other things that Smac mentions, cancer, accusations against her place of work, were dropped on further investigation. We really don't know the contexts of any one of them. Perhaps she was drunk, depressed, on medication. We don't know. She has received counselling, as the link I gave shows and which she addresses further down on the post. 

When the dossier was released to her lawyers, they were pretty ticked, but each point was addressed and explained satisfactorily to Craig Vernon by McKenna. This information I am getting from the discussion with McKenna and Derrick Clements on the Mosaic podcast, part 1. 

Amongst those downs, McKenna has also had many ups. None of which anyone has addressed. She went on to work with courts and addictions. She's a tough cookie who has got through much of the utter horror life has thrown at her.

Having seen the results of the case where 3 Native Americans have just agreed to a settlement, and have signed NDAs. I am just fed up with the church as an institution, for not apologising nor agreeing to amend any of their policies. 

No one has addressed the church amicus brief . Something I took time to type out by hand. There the church, in effect puts itself beyond the courts, or at least attempts to.

As smac has said elsewhere, Elder Wells can claim priest/penitent privilege; 

 

Asay is dead; Leavitt may or may not give more detail, depending on what he has been advised to say and not say by church lawyers.

In that case, what the other victims say and do becomes paramount. These are victims that need to take the church to task and ignore settlement issues. 

I've chatted to members who believe that anyone who takes the institutional church to task, is in fact, taking Jesus to task. Really. But this isn't what's going on. The church as an institution, and in direct connection with its policies, procedures and culture, is harbouring child abusers, attracting child abusers, and protecting them from the law where possible. It's strange to me though, because George P Lee was not protected. There may be legal reasons for that. I don't know.  My opinion on this has been developed not only from friends I know in real life, but also from the numerous accounts of abuse that I have become aware of. It's a significant issue.

To me, the church should be held liable for whom it employs, even on a voluntary basis and who have access to vulnerable adults and children as part of their calling. It should not be able to hide behind priest/penitent privilege. 

The current situation tells me that if anything goes wrong at church, whether it be bullying, sexual abuse, or the like, particularly in a one to one setting with a bishop, then the potential victim is much more vulnerable than the leaders, despite the power differentials within that context.

For that reason, I would not want to raise a child in the church.

On a related issue. I went to one YW camp as a trainee teacher at the time. I was flabbergasted at the lack of health and safety concerns with one activity in particular, where we were all walking on a dangerous cliff lined beach with the real possibility of the tide cutting us off and death. The coast guard was horrified that the leaders hadn't done tide checks. I decided there and then that my future children would never go on any camps.

Edited September 24, 2018 by Abulafia

[provoman]

"No one has addressed the church amicus brief ."

The introduction section of the Church Amicus brief shows the error of the personal opinion in the opposing brief that so many have falsely attributed to the Church.

 

The attorney for Native Americans who recently settled with the Church, is Craig Vernon, he is also Mckenna Denson's attorney; he has also been involved with several suits against the Church, I tend to think he kniws what he is doing when he accepts settlement.

Edited September 24, 2018 by provoman

[Amulek]

10 hours ago, Abulafia said:

When the dossier was released to her lawyers, they were pretty ticked, but each point was addressed and explained satisfactorily to Craig Vernon by McKenna. 

I think you are seeing this through McKenna-colored glasses. 

Her lawyers were upset because they had just been blindsided with information damaging to their case - information which McKenna had apparently failed to make known to them previously.

Which isn't terribly surprising to anyone who has been following this case. McKenna has been, far and away, her own worst enemy in this lawsuit - failing to disclose relevant information to her lawyers, leaking the recording to the media without consulting her attorneys, disrupting religious services, etc.

 

Edited September 24, 2018 by Amulek

[Abulafia]

1 hour ago, provoman said:

"No one has addressed the church amicus brief ."

1.The introduction section of the Church Amicus brief shows the error of the personal opinion in the opposing brief that so many have falsely attributed to the Church.

 

2.The attorney for Native Americans who recently settled with the Church, is Craig Vernon, he is also Mckenna Denson's attorney; he has also been involved with several suits against the Church, I tend to think he kniws what he is doing when he accepts settlement.

1. The introductory section of the church amicus brief is the section I referred to. It, in effect, puts the church beyond litigation imho. It does this because negligence is difficult to prove when witnesses can hide behind priest/penitent privilege.  Smac  has acknowledged this.

2. Vernon's clients asked for an apology and a change in policy. They got neither.

 

[Abulafia]

On the Native American lawsuits

"The lawsuits sought monetary damages, written apologies and a guarantee that Mormon leaders would report suspected abuse. Vernon said his clients did not receive an apology and church policies remain unchanged."

https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/tribal-members-settle-abuse-cases-mormon-church-58011472

[provoman]

6 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

1. The introductory section of the church amicus brief is the section I referred to. It, in effect, puts the church beyond litigation imho. It does this because negligence is difficult to prove when witnesses can hide behind priest/penitent privilege.  Smac  has acknowledged this.

2. Vernon's clients asked for an apology and a change in policy. They got neither.

 

1. The Church brief states the basis for liability. You even quoted and placed in bold where the Church states a basis for liability. Now with the Church providing the Church with "here is where we should held liable". So the original you incorrectly attributed to Church, you have demonstrated to incorrect, because you quoted the words of the Church brief that show when the Church says it could be held liable

2. The plaintiff attorney obviously accepted a settlement wherein as you suggest the plaintiffs did not get everything they wanted; why would an attorney do that?

[smac97]

6 hours ago, Abulafia said:

As I understand it, and maybe smac can interject, those are what she was prosecuted for. All the other things that Smac mentions, cancer, accusations against her place of work, were dropped on further investigation.

If we are only going to go by proven-in-court misconduct, do you apply that same standard to Joseph Bishop?  It seems . . . not.

6 hours ago, Abulafia said:

We really don't know the contexts of any one of them. Perhaps she was drunk, depressed, on medication. We don't know. She has received counselling, as the link I gave shows and which she addresses further down on the post. 

We really don't know the context of virtually all of the allegations against Joseph Bishop.  And yet your assessment of him is presently . . . what?

6 hours ago, Abulafia said:

When the dossier was released to her lawyers, they were pretty ticked, but each point was addressed and explained satisfactorily to Craig Vernon by McKenna.

How do you know what has been "addressed and explained?"

6 hours ago, Abulafia said:

This information I am getting from the discussion with McKenna and Derrick Clements on the Mosaic podcast, part 1. 

So the information by which you are measuring McKenna Denson's credibility is entirely dependent on . . . McKenna Denson's credibility.

Do you see a problem with that?

6 hours ago, Abulafia said:

Amongst those downs, McKenna has also had many ups. None of which anyone has addressed. She went on to work with courts and addictions. She's a tough cookie who has got through much of the utter horror life has thrown at her.

You are uncritically accepting McKenna Denson's word at face value.  And you are using this uncritical acceptance as the basis for vouching for McKenna Denson's credibility.

6 hours ago, Abulafia said:

Having seen the results of the case where 3 Native Americans have just agreed to a settlement, and have signed NDAs. I am just fed up with the church as an institution, for not apologising nor agreeing to amend any of their policies. 

Apologizing for what?

And policies have been changed since the purported abuse took place.  And the Indian Placement Program was shut down years ago.

6 hours ago, Abulafia said:

No one has addressed the church amicus brief . Something I took time to type out by hand. There the church, in effect puts itself beyond the courts, or at least attempts to.

I disagree.

6 hours ago, Abulafia said:

As smac has said elsewhere, Elder Wells can claim priest/penitent privilege; Asay is dead;

Yes, I have said these things.

6 hours ago, Abulafia said:

Leavitt may or may not give more detail, depending on what he has been advised to say and not say by church lawyers.

This is not true.  I have not said anything like this.  Please either provide a reference or withdraw this false statement.

Consider this a formal CFR.  We can disagree about all sorts of things, but I take serious exception to you falsely attributing statements to me.

6 hours ago, Abulafia said:

In that case, what the other victims say and do becomes paramount.

I agree.  But what other purported victims are there?

And what are your thoughts about the legal concept of "vicarious liability," including its limitations?

6 hours ago, Abulafia said:

These are victims that need to take the church to task and ignore settlement issues. 

"These are victims" presupposes that which has yet to be demonstrated.

6 hours ago, Abulafia said:

I've chatted to members who believe that anyone who takes the institutional church to task, is in fact, taking Jesus to task.

I think that's an overbroad and unfortunate characterization.

6 hours ago, Abulafia said:

Really. But this isn't what's going on. The church as an institution, and in direct connection with its policies, procedures and culture, is harbouring child abusers, attracting child abusers, and protecting them from the law where possible.

No, it's not.  You are bearing false witness here, I think.

6 hours ago, Abulafia said:

It's strange to me though, because George P Lee was not protected.

Which kinda makes me wonder why you are claiming the Church "as an institution . . . is harbouring child abusers."

People found to be abusing children are disciplined by the Church and, where possible, are referred to civil authorities.  If they retain their membership in the Church, their records are annotated.

Again, you are bearing false witness.

6 hours ago, Abulafia said:

There may be legal reasons for that. I don't know. 

As I understand it, George P. Lee was excommunicated because he committed child abuse.  Which, again, militates against your characterization of the Church as "harbouring child abusers."

6 hours ago, Abulafia said:

My opinion on this has been developed not only from friends I know in real life, but also from the numerous accounts of abuse that I have become aware of. It's a significant issue.

Abuse is a horrific thing.  The Church condemns it.  The Church disciplines members for it (as evidenced by the excommunication of George P. Lee).  The Church annotates the records of people found guilty of abuse.  The Church refers such matters to law enforcement where it can.

6 hours ago, Abulafia said:

To me, the church should be held liable for whom it employs, even on a voluntary basis and who have access to vulnerable adults and children as part of their calling.

"To me" being the operative words there.  The law is more impartial than that.

6 hours ago, Abulafia said:

It should not be able to hide behind priest/penitent privilege. 

It's not just the Church's privilege, though.

I am curious as to your thoughts about doctor/patient and attorney/client privileges.  Do you likewise disparage these?  Do you object to doctors and lawyers who "hide behind" them (meaning they are bound by them)?

6 hours ago, Abulafia said:

The current situation tells me that if anything goes wrong at church, whether it be bullying, sexual abuse, or the like, particularly in a one to one setting with a bishop, then the potential victim is much more vulnerable than the leaders, despite the power differentials within that context.For that reason, I would not want to raise a child in the church.

I encourage you to give this matter some more thought and consideration.  Bishops are hugely helpful in detecting and stopping abuse.  This is a point that Sam Young, and you, and others who resent the Church generally are consistently refusing to address.

6 hours ago, Abulafia said:

On a related issue. I went to one YW camp as a trainee teacher at the time. I was flabbergasted at the lack of health and safety concerns with one activity in particular, where we were all walking on a dangerous cliff lined beach with the real possibility of the tide cutting us off and death. The coast guard was horrified that the leaders hadn't done tide checks. I decided there and then that my future children would never go on any camps.

That is unfortunate.  Our stake's YW activities have substantial safety considerations in place, probably in large part due to individuals in the past expressing concerns and seeking to improve the environment and situation.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, Abulafia said:

1. The introductory section of the church amicus brief is the section I referred to. It, in effect, puts the church beyond litigation imho. It does this because negligence is difficult to prove when witnesses can hide behind priest/penitent privilege.  Smac  has acknowledged this.

 

I don't think Smac97 would characterize his position the way you have characterized it. You may not have much use for the priest-penitent privilege, and someone who is antipathetic toward the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or toward religion in general may not see the point of the priest-penitent privilege but it survives, even in this day and age in which so many put religion on par with belief in lucky rabbit feet and lucky pennies and lucky sweaters and so on, for very important reasons.

[Abulafia]

"This is not true.  I have not said anything like this.  Please either provide a reference or withdraw this false statement.

Consider this a formal CFR.  We can disagree about all sorts of things, but I take serious exception to you falsely attributing statements to me."

You are misreading me. The only information I gleaned from you was that Wells could hide behind priest/penitent privilege.

[Abulafia]

 I'll ask the question again..the church recognises liability only when it can be proven that it acted negligently. I take this to mean that, for instance, if Wells knew Bishop was a predator, and if he told those higher in command, and yet they still put him in an environment where he would be working with vulnerable women, - is that not negligent? But Wells will never acknowledge that Bishop admitted to being a predator if a confession was given under priest/penitent privilege. 

 

Out of interest, can you name me one occasion in the last 50 years where the church has admitted liability or negligence. Just one?

[Abulafia]

Smac, I'll edit my post to make it clear. I thought the semi colon was enough.

Edited September 24, 2018 by Abulafia

[provoman]

48 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

 

Out of interest, can you name me one occasion in the last 50 years where the church has admitted liability or negligence. Just one?

A jury will decide that in Mckenna's case. Or as of now a jury trial has been requested.

 

But Mckenna suggests she has already won, this is towards the end of her recorded conversation with the member of the Stake Presidency after her F&T meeting recording.

Edited September 24, 2018 by provoman

[Abulafia]

9 hours ago, provoman said:

A jury will decide that in Mckenna's case. Or as of now a jury trial has been requested.

 

But Mckenna suggests she has already won, this is towards the end of her recorded conversation with the member of the Stake Presidency after her F&T meeting recording.

So the answer is no.

[Abulafia]

It's a genuine question asked in good faith.

[Abulafia]

Smac, there have been a number of studies done over the last 50 years that suggest I am not bearing false witness. I am not arguing that the harbouring of predators is intentional or malicious. I'm really not. It is an inevitable result of policies and procedures. I wish McKenna were the only one who was disbelieved, with men in high places, but she isn't. For some reason the victims were believed in George P Lee's case. 

[Tacenda]

6 hours ago, Abulafia said:

Smac, there have been a number of studies done over the last 50 years that suggest I am not bearing false witness. I am not arguing that the harbouring of predators is intentional or malicious. I'm really not. It is an inevitable result of policies and procedures. I wish McKenna were the only one who was disbelieved, with men in high places, but she isn't. For some reason the victims were believed in George P Lee's case. 

This was on last night's news I believe. So the church settles out of court with the Native Americans, who's children were adopted into many LDS homes and children were sexually abused and the ward's leaders didn't go to the law, just sweeped it under the rug, IMO and in the written report of allegations. I believe the church shouldn't require the victims who get compensation to shut up about it or the gag order, forgot what it's called, why do they do this? https://fox13now.com/2018/09/24/lds-church-settles-sex-abuse-lawsuits/, 

ETA: Quote from the article:  "In some lawsuits, the plaintiffs claimed they disclosed sexual abuse to people within the church, but little or nothing was done about it."

Edited September 25, 2018 by Tacenda

[provoman]

21 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

This was on last night's news I believe. So the church settles out of court with the Native Americans, who's children were adopted into many LDS homes and children were sexually abused and the ward's leaders didn't go to the law, just sweeped it under the rug, IMO and in the written report of allegations. I believe the church shouldn't require the victims who get compensation to shut up about it or the gag order, forgot what it's called, why do they do this? https://fox13now.com/2018/09/24/lds-church-settles-sex-abuse-lawsuits/, 

ETA: Quote from the article:  "In some lawsuits, the plaintiffs claimed they disclosed sexual abuse to people within the church, but little or nothing was done about it."

Do you hold Craig Vernon to the same disdain? It would seem odd, that plaintiff attorney would not have agreed to settlement?

[Abulafia]

30 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

This was on last night's news I believe. So the church settles out of court with the Native Americans, who's children were adopted into many LDS homes and children were sexually abused and the ward's leaders didn't go to the law, just sweeped it under the rug, IMO and in the written report of allegations. I believe the church shouldn't require the victims who get compensation to shut up about it or the gag order, forgot what it's called, why do they do this? https://fox13now.com/2018/09/24/lds-church-settles-sex-abuse-lawsuits/, 

ETA: Quote from the article:  "In some lawsuits, the plaintiffs claimed they disclosed sexual abuse to people within the church, but little or nothing was done about it."

Thankyou Tacenda.  I don't have access to the link from the UK.  Do they say why they settled?

[provoman]

...............

Edited September 25, 2018 by provoman

[smac97]

21 hours ago, Abulafia said:

"This is not true.  I have not said anything like this.  Please either provide a reference or withdraw this false statement.

Consider this a formal CFR.  We can disagree about all sorts of things, but I take serious exception to you falsely attributing statements to me."

You are misreading me. The only information I gleaned from you was that Wells could hide behind priest/penitent privilege.

 

Please quote me verbatim, then.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 25, 2018 by smac97