Denson interrupts Bishop's home ward testimony meeting

[Abulafia]

I'm not talking about teachings Smac, on you response to my question about policies.  I know what the church teaches. 

 

I'm talking about clearly written policies and procedures.  

[smac97]

8 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

Quote

Do you think this should only apply to clergy members? What about attorneys, doctors, psychiatrists, etc.? Should all of them be required to report matters to the police "at all times?"

If a serious crime has been committed? Yes.

This is a facile, emotional position.  It is not reasoned or reasonable, IMO.  These legal privileges exist for many good reasons, but you utterly ignoring them.  

The gist of it is this: Perpetrators of wrongful acts are rarely wholly and irretreivably evil.  As Sirius Black put it: “Besides, the world isn't split into good people and Death Eaters. We've all got both light and dark inside us. What matters is the part we choose to act on. That's who we really are.”

In a sense, we are all "perpetrators of wrongful acts."  Sometimes, however, those wrongful acts go so far as to be criminal, particularly those actions that injure others, and those actions that are repeated or ongoing.

There are people in our society or are so situated as to be more likely than others to be in communication with perpetrators of wrongful acts about those wrongful acts.  These include doctors/therapists (from whom a perp may seek help/guidance in terms of medical/mental health issues - including issues that may be contributing to their proclivity to engage in wrongful conduct), attorneys (whose job it is to help people address their legal difficulties), and clergy (whose job it is to provide spiritual/moral guidance and assistance to those who seek it).

These people cannot become de facto (and, if I am reading you correctly, even de jure) agents of the state.  Mandatory reporting laws are an important and appropriate caveat, but perpetrators need to have a "safe" place where they can talk about their misconduct.  If psychiatrists and attorneys and clergy were obligated by law to report confessions of misconduct, people would . . . stop confessing their misconduct to psychiatrists and attorneys and clergy. 

Again, I invite you to give this matter more thought and study.  I suspect you have not thought through the ramifications of what you are proposing.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Abulafia]

Smac said

 

*Do you likewise expect police and prosecutors to publicly announce each and every accusation against each and every person?  Do you have any idea how utterly destructive that would be?  How would you account for false accusations?  Or bolstered/exaggerated accusations?  Would you really propose that reputations and livelihoods be destroyed based on unvetted and unsubstantiated claims?

I'm sorry, but I'm having a hard time believing you have given this matter much thought or study or research.  What you are advocating hereis profoundly unreasonable and naive and destructive*

Oh sigh. Honestly Smac, I've seen the church and some apologists assassinate peoples characters  where it suits them to do so.  Really. 

The majority of victims do not falsely accuse when it comes to rape and child abuse. Are you an expert in abuse? Is it your area of practice? 

[Abulafia]

I'll listen to Kosnoff. I'll listen to Vernon. I'll listen to lawyers whose area of expertise is sexual abuse. They offer a different perspective as lawyers who have actually taken on the church.

[provoman]

17 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

Hey. I know I'm not the best advocate. I don't claim to be. I'm doing the best I can whilst trying not to tick you or anyone else off here. Because if I tick you off and make you defensive, then I have failed miserably. I get that.

So, please tell me the difference.  As a lawyer.  I'm no lawyer.

Under what circumstances would the church ever admit liability in real terms?

When has it ever admitted liability and apologised?

I've never had an answer as far as I can tell.

I am not the Church legal representative, and I would say no on eon this board is. 

The Amicus brieff is not about admissions of liability. The Amicus brief was written to defend a core American value, i.e The Court is not legally permitted to second guess or review religious decisions.

And the Church clearly outlined when a Court may impose liability, and the situation they outlined is exactly wjat Denson is claiming - prior knowledge and failed to act.

[smac97]

17 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

And none of this is to hurt the church. It is to make it a safer place.

Publicly libeling the Church and substantially ignoring and/or mischaracterizing its efforts to address allegations of abuse do not help "make it a safer place."

🤨

-Smac

[Abulafia]

*And the Church clearly outlined when a Court may impose liability, and the situation they outlined is exactly wjat Denson is claiming - prior knowledge and failed to act.*

And she'll lose as every other victim has lost, because the church will hide behind priest/penitent privilege. Oh. There will be settlements and NDAs, but no apologies and no admission of liability.

[smac97]

17 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

Smac. I try not to be obtuse or thick headed. 

Here's what I wrote

*B. " The first amendment bars a claim against a church for the negligent supervision of a clergy member or unpaid volunteer,  (my bold) but may permit a claim for intentional failure to supervise if the church disregards a known risk of harm" (p22)*

*So, as the lawyer here, Smac,  when can the church be realistically held to account?*

Did you answer that? 

No, I didn't.  The answer seems axiomatic.  The Church can be "held to account" on "a claim for intentional failure to supervise if the church disregards a known risk of harm."

For example, if Joseph Bishop was a "sexual predator," and if Joseph Bishop had a history of preying on younger women under his ecclesiastical authority (such as the sister missionaries in Argentina when he was the mission president), and if the Church knew about these things, and if the Church nevertheless assigned him to be president of the MTC, then I think the Church may be liable for having intentionally failed to supervise Joseph Bishop as "a known risk of harm."

A lot of "ifs" in there, but it's possible.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Abulafia]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

Publicly libeling the Church and substantially ignoring and/or mischaracterizing its efforts to address allegations of abuse do not help "make it a safer place."

🤨

-Smac

Publicly libelling.   There you go again Smac. Jump to defend the church on the assumption that the institution can  never act negligently.  

 

I have to take a break. I do appreciate you engaging me on this.

Just about to drop son off at college..😔

[smac97]

28 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

I'm not talking about teachings Smac, on you response to my question about policies.  I know what the church teaches. 

I'm talking about clearly written policies and procedures.  

C'mon.  I linked to the Church's published-to-the-world summary of its "clearly written policies and procedures."  Here it is again.  Within that summary are references to numerous other materials that provide further explanation on the Church's policies and procedures:

• First Presidency letter, “Responding to Abuse,” July 28, 2008.
• “The Family: A Proclamation to the World,” Ensign or Liahona, May 2017, 145
• Doctrine and Covenants 121:37
• Doctrine and Covenants 101:78
• “Save the Children,” Ensign, Nov. 1994, 52–54
• "{A} free and confidential abuse help line, 1-800-453- 3860, ext. 2 -1911"
• Handbook 1: Stake Presidents and B ishops [2010], 17.3. 2
• Preventing and Respond ing to Spouse Abuse: Helps for Members (1997)
• Preventing and Responding to Child Abuse: Helps for Members (1997 )
• Handbook 2: Administering the Church [2010], 11.8.1
• First Presidency letter, May 12, 2017
• Guide to Safe Scouting
• Handbook 1, 7.4
• Handbook 2, 13.6.12
• Protect the Child: Responding to Child Abuse, found under “Abuse: Help for the Victim” (ministeringresources.lds.org)
• Handbook 1, 6.4 and 6.5
• Handbook 1, 17.1.26
• “Abuse: Help for the Victim,” ministeringresources.lds.org
• “Abuse: Help for the Offender,” ministeringresources.lds.org
• Articles of Faith 1:12
• Doctrine and Covenants 121; 123
• Gordon B. Hinckley, “Personal Worthiness to Exercise the Priesthood,” Ensign, May 2002, 52–59
• Gordon B. Hinckley, “What Are People Asking about Us?” Ensign, Nov. 1998, 70–72
• Dallin H. Oaks, “Priesthood Authority in the Family and the Church,” Ensign or Liahona, Nov. 2005, 24–27
• Richard G. Scott, “To Heal the Shattering Consequences of Abuse,” Ensign or Liahona, May 2008, 40–43
• LDS Family Services courses Strengthening Marriage and Strengthening the Family

And yet here you are, publicly accusing the Church of "[refusing to] formulate clear policies on physical and sexual abuse."  Did you do any research prior to publicly libeling the Church by making this claim?  How do you reconcile your statement with the existence of the foregoing resources (most of which have been in place for many years)?

There are people who are so invested in their hostility and anger against the Church that they refuse to give the Church a fair shake.  I honestly hope you are not one of these people.  Truly.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 28, 2018 by smac97

[smac97]

14 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

*And the Church clearly outlined when a Court may impose liability, and the situation they outlined is exactly wjat Denson is claiming - prior knowledge and failed to act.*

And she'll lose as every other victim has lost,

You can't say this.  You don't know this.

14 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

because the church will hide behind priest/penitent privilege.

The privilege belongs to Joseph Bishop also.  Are you aware of that?

If you committed a crime and spoke with your attorney about it, and if you spoke to your attorney on the assumption that he would keep your communications privileged, would you be okay with him reporting you to the police?

What if you had a son who was falsely accused of misconduct?  Would you want him presumed guilty until he proves himself innocent?

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Abulafia said:

Publicly libelling.   

Yes.  Your accusation that the Church "[refuses to] formulate clear policies on physical and sexual abuse" is a rank falsehood.  I am appalled that you said this.  Frankly, I think you should be ashamed of yourself, and that you should retract this statement.  But I'll leave that to you.

Quote

There you go again Smac. Jump to defend the church on the assumption that the institution can  never act negligently.  

That is not my assumption.  To the contrary, I readily agree that the Church can "act negligently."  Of course it can.  We are all human.  We all make mistakes.  We all have lapses in judgment.  The individual actors representing the Church can act negligently to commit a wrong.  Or even intentionally to commit a wrong (as apparently happened with Joseph Bishop).

That I defend the Church is undeniable.  I have spent a lot of time studying its precepts and history and practices.  I find it to be an overwhelmingly good and even wonderful organization.  This despite the flaws and errors of its constituent members and leaders.  I don't think it is perfect.  I think it has plenty of room to improve.  

The Latter-day Saints are my people.  We are not perfect by any measure, but we are working hard and are doing good things.  They, and the message of the Restored Gospel they imperfectly carry to the world, deserve some real allegiance and respect.  So they have such things from me.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 28, 2018 by smac97

[provoman]

22 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

*And the Church clearly outlined when a Court may impose liability, and the situation they outlined is exactly wjat Denson is claiming - prior knowledge and failed to act.*

And she'll lose as every other victim has lost, because the church will hide behind priest/penitent privilege. Oh. There will be settlements and NDAs, but no apologies and no admission of liability.

Again, please stop misrepresenting the Amicus brief filed in the Ramani case. 

The brief was about the Constitutional relationship between the Court and Religious organizations.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Abulafia said:

Smac said

*Do you likewise expect police and prosecutors to publicly announce each and every accusation against each and every person?  Do you have any idea how utterly destructive that would be?  How would you account for false accusations?  Or bolstered/exaggerated accusations?  Would you really propose that reputations and livelihoods be destroyed based on unvetted and unsubstantiated claims?

I'm sorry, but I'm having a hard time believing you have given this matter much thought or study or research.  What you are advocating hereis profoundly unreasonable and naive and destructive*

Oh sigh. Honestly Smac, I've seen the church and some apologists assassinate peoples characters  where it suits them to do so.  Really. 

I didn't assasinate your character.  I suggested that you have not given this matter much thought or study or research.  I say this based on your cursory and unfettered and unreasoned position that all privileges in the law (doctor/patient, attorney/client, clergy/penitent) should be summarily abolished.  That strikes me as facile and naive.  And by "that" I don't mean your "character" (which I haven't addressed once), but rather your statement/idea.  Again: "What you are advocating here is profoundly unreasonable and naive and destructive" (emphasis added).

Quote

The majority of victims do not falsely accuse when it comes to rape and child abuse. Are you an expert in abuse? Is it your area of practice? 

I am an attorney.  I am fairly familiar with the legal privileges under discussion.  The ones you want to utterly abolish.  Which abolition you have not supported with reasoning and argument.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 28, 2018 by smac97

[Amulek]

1 hour ago, Abulafia said:

2 hours ago, Amulek said:

Do you think this should only apply to clergy members? What about attorneys, doctors, psychiatrists, etc.? Should all of them be required to report matters to the police "at all times?"

If a serious crime has been committed? Yes.

I genuinely believe that doing away with privileged communications, as you are suggesting here, would be a net negative for society. 

 

[Abulafia]

Here we go. 17.3 2 is inadequate. 

"Specifically, the Church’s public claim that it “cooperate with law enforcement 
to report and investigate abuse” is contradicted by the instructions in Handbook 1:17.3.2, which 
advises the Church leaders, “[t]o avoid implicating the Church in legal matters to which it is not a 
party, [by not] testifying in civil or criminal cases or other proceedings involving abuse."

 

[smac97]

Just now, Abulafia said:

Here we go. 17.3 2 is inadequate. 

"Specifically, the Church’s public claim that it “cooperate with law enforcement 
to report and investigate abuse” is contradicted by the instructions in Handbook 1:17.3.2, which 
advises the Church leaders, “[t]o avoid implicating the Church in legal matters to which it is not a 
party, [by not] testifying in civil or criminal cases or other proceedings involving abuse."

 

"Specifically, the Church’s public claim that it “cooperate with law enforcement to report and investigate abuse” is contradicted by the instructions in Handbook 1:17.3.2, which advises the Church leaders, “[t]o avoid implicating the Church in legal matters to which it is not a party, [by not] testifying in civil or criminal cases or other proceedings involving abuse."

I don't understand.  What is it that you find problematic about this section?

 

Thanks,

-Smac

[ksfisher]

6 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

Here we go. 17.3 2 is inadequate. 

"Specifically, the Church’s public claim that it “cooperate with law enforcement 
to report and investigate abuse” is contradicted by the instructions in Handbook 1:17.3.2, which 
advises the Church leaders, “[t]o avoid implicating the Church in legal matters to which it is not a 
party, [by not] testifying in civil or criminal cases or other proceedings involving abuse."

 

The reading in the handbook is actually much more clear than your paraphrase

"To avoid implicating the Church in legal matters to which it is not a party, Church leaders should avoid testifying in civil or criminal cases or other proceedings involving abuse."

The key here is the phrase "to which it is not a party."  Meaning, if the church is not involved it should not get involved.  Let the proper authorities handle things.  This seems like prudent advice for anyone to follow. 

[Abulafia]

Because the policy advice to leaders contradict the public teachings.

I'm travelling at the moment. I will get back on this. 

[Abulafia]

*The key here is the phrase "to which it is not a party." *

 

Under what circumstances would the church be a party?  

[Amulek]

2 hours ago, Abulafia said:

I'll listen to Vernon. I'll listen to lawyers whose area of expertise is sexual abuse. They offer a different perspective as lawyers who have actually taken on the church.

McKenna shopped her suit around to 40+ lawyers / firms before someone agreed to represent her. 

The only reason Craig Vernon took McKenna's case was because he saw an opportunity to make a quick buck on settlement. 

Unbeknownst to him, however, McKenna had already sabotaged the only chance that had of happening by releasing her recording of Bishop to the media.

This may be unchristian of me, but I'm kind of glad that the church has pushed for a jury trial on the one surviving claim. If Craig Vernon really wants the light to shine, then he can go ahead and have his day in court - right along with all of the billable hours he's going to have to waste preparing for and participating in the trial.

 

[Danzo]

7 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

*The key here is the phrase "to which it is not a party." *

 

Under what circumstances would the church be a party?  

The church would be a party to a lawsuit when the church is actually named as a party.

 

If I were to sue you, I would be a party and you would be a party.

If I were to sue the church, I would be a party and the church would be a party.

If the church were to sue you, the church would be a party and you would be a party. 

[smac97]

19 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

Because the policy advice to leaders contradict the public teachings.

No, I don't think it does.

19 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

I'm travelling at the moment. I will get back on this. 

Okay.

Thanks,

-Smac

[ksfisher]

17 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

*The key here is the phrase "to which it is not a party." *

 

Under what circumstances would the church be a party?  

Danzo's answer is good.

 

The guidance seems to be that if a bishop becomes aware of abuse involving a ward member that the bishop should not insert himself in the legal proceedings. 

Edited September 28, 2018 by ksfisher

[smac97]

18 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

*The key here is the phrase "to which it is not a party." *

Under what circumstances would the church be a party?  

When the Church is a defendant (that is, when there are legally-cognizable causes of action asserted against the Church).

The Church's general policy against bishops testifying is, I think, pretty understandable.  The Church doesn't want its local ecclesiastical leaders to "take sides" in legal disputes.  There are, I think, possible exceptions, but in the main the bishops are supposed to function in their ecclesiastical capacity.  That capacity is not supposed to be a segue to testifying in court.

Most organizations do this.  

Thanks,

-Smac