Status of Discovery in Denson Lawsuit

[Tacenda]

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I just noticed that almost exactly one year ago, on July 19, 2019, I posted some predictions about how the Denson lawsuit would play out:

Items 1-4 seem to have been borne out so far.  Foreseeing that is nothing to brag about, though.  Litigation is tough.  Complex.  Intimidating.  I know lawyers who are scared stiff about going into a courtroom.  I've been litigating for 15 years, and I find it quite challenging.  That Ms. Denson would fail to "meaningfully participate in the litigation" was eminently predictable.

What I did not foresee, though, was how visceral the ex-mo crowd would be in turning against her.  Consider this prediction I had made in September 2018:

I had thought that Ms. Denson would be cast aside as a part of the progression of

• A) triumphal exploitation (by McKnight/Consig/Norton, etc. of Denson, against the Church), to
• B) their realization that Denson's narrative has had it's 15 minutes of utility as a weapon against the Church, to
• C) their neglecting and ignoring her, and finally
• D) their tossing her aside and moving on to the next narrative to weaponize against the Church.

 It looks like I got it wrong.  I did not anticipate Mike Norton being shocked - shocked! - to discovery that Denson's credbility was extremely poor, that she had a history of fraud and deceit for monetary gain, etc.  I had thought that people like Norton and her other supporters were aware of these issues and just didn't care.  As it turns out, I substantially underestimated their ignorance.  I'm still now sure whether that collective ignorance was deliberate or inadvertent. 

I think Ms. Denson's credibility, given her past history (which was known at the early stages of the lawsuit) was trashed from the get-go.  The only thing that changed was that Mike Norton turned many/most of her anti-mormon friends/allies against her by screaming about information  that had long been a matter of public record, but which her friends/allies had studiously ignored (again, not sure if that was inadvertent or deliberate).

I did not anticipate the anti crowd turning against Ms. Denson.  Items 5-7 above were predictions predicated on Ms. Denson continuing to spin yarns that would be credulously and uncritically and reflexively accepted by her supporters.  That, I think, is not going to happen now.

Thanks,

-Smac

To the bold, yes they were pretty brutal. I guess they don't like untruth as much as the next guy.

[Calm]

10 hours ago, Tacenda said:

guess they don't like untruth as much as the next guy.

Or maybe they were embarrassed about being scammed and wanted to restore their own credibility.  (Thinking about a couple of the leaders here)

Edited July 18, 2020 by Calm

[helix]

15 hours ago, smac97 said:

I did not anticipate Mike Norton being shocked - shocked! - to discovery that Denson's credbility was extremely poor, that she had a history of fraud and deceit for monetary gain, etc.  I had thought that people like Norton and her other supporters were aware of these issues and just didn't care.  As it turns out, I substantially underestimated their ignorance.  I'm still now sure whether that collective ignorance was deliberate or inadvertent.

Mike Norton was very likely aware of her past, and only used her to benefit him.  Once he saw the writing on the wall, her tossed her aside.  He only used her when it was convenient for him. 

Mike Norton frequents Reddit and routinely viewed the major church subreddits (critical and faithful).  When McKenna's original allegations came out, a handful of posters pointed out her con-artist past.  Unfortunately, these posts were either downvoted or shouted down.  (The #MeToo movement meant people were in no mood to say anything negative about an accuser.)  If Mike didn't know of her past before, he likely saw these posts on Reddit.

A year later, McKenna made national news again with her latest allegations that the church was violently suppressing her.  In response, an /r/latterdaysaints submission re-compiled her past from sources in the public domain and highlighted her lengthy con-artist behavior:  https://www.reddit.com/r/latterdaysaints/comments/bqx33l/a_recent_top_rall_post_and_slc_fox_13_news_story/.  This post also calls out Mike Norton too. 

Faithful members on Reddit now all knew her past.  Ex-members were starting to tell each other she shouldn't be trusted.  Mike Norton saw the winds of change coming.  Sure enough, seven days later, he said that seven days prior he was tipped off to her past.  Though he won't credit /r/latterdaysaints for it.  He made his big expose, threatened to shoot her in the head, etc.  That's when the ex-member community turned on her in full, including on Facebook, where she deleted her page the next day. 

 

Edited July 18, 2020 by helix

[smac97]

On 7/9/2020 at 9:41 AM, smac97 said:

Another update:

On June 29, the federal court issued a "Memorandum Decision and Order Granting Defendant's Motions" (available for download here).

Another update:

On July 14, the federal court issued a "Memorandum Decision and Order Granting Defendant's Emergency Motion" (available for download here).

A few thoughts/observations:

1. On July 13 the Church's attorneys filed an "Emergency Motion to Enforce Order" (available for download here), and the July 14 Memorandum Decision is a response to that Motion. 

2. In this Motion, the Church's attorneys reference the Court's June 29, 2020 order to Ms. Denson to provide a third-party data recovery company ("XDD") with access to "her online accounts." On July 10, XDD contacted Ms. Denson, who told them that she "lost" her cell phone three weeks ago, and that she cannot remember the logins for her Facebook and Twitter accounts.  Her FB account is now no longer accessible.  The Motion asks the Court to order Ms. Denson to immediately restore her Facebook accounts and recover her password, and also provide a sworn statement regarding how she lost her cell phone.

3. The Motion also includes a few more details:

• XDD began the collection process on Friday, July 10, 2020. XDD reported on their efforts to counsel for COP on Monday, July 13, 2020.  {Footnote: Per the Court’s Order, XDD has not provided counsel for COP any of the documents collected nor access to Ms. Denson’s accounts. The report from XDD concerned only their ongoing efforts to collect the accounts and devices."}
• XDD reports that Ms. Denson now claims that she lost her phone about three weeks ago. She indicated she purchased a new phone but elected to switch carriers and thus has a new phone number. This means much (if not all) of the data from her prior phone, including her text messages, cannot be collected.  {Footnote: Ms. Denson’s new phone is an iPhone but was not “restored” from a backup of a prior phone.}
• The login information for Ms. Denson’s Facebook and Twitter accounts she provided to XDD was incorrect. Ms. Denson stated that she either could not remember or did not know the current passwords.  {Footnote: Ms. Denson claims that she gave several other individuals access to her account some months ago and suggests they may have changed the password without her knowledge.}
• XDD attempted to work with Ms. Denson to recover passwords for those accounts. Those attempts were unsuccessful because the accounts were connected to her “old” phone number. Without access to that phone, her password cannot be recovered.
• COP requests that the Court set an emergency hearing as soon as possible on this Motion without waiting for Ms. Denson to file a written response. Ms. Denson has repeatedly missed deadlines for filing responses to COP’s motions. In this case, any such delay could cause further data loss. Ms. Denson may, of course, file a response prior to the hearing. Otherwise she may respond orally during the hearing.

Whoa.  The Church's attorneys are not messing around.

4. The Court notes that Ms. Denson apparently provided incorrect login information to XDD pertaining to her Facebook and Twitter accounts.  The Court also notes that Denson's Facebook page "is no longer accessible on-line meaning it has been marked private, deactivated, or deleted" and that per Facebook, "a deleted account can be restored for up to 30 days, after which, the account and all information will be permanently deleted."

5. The Court includes the following pretty-strongly-worded statement:

Quote

The court is very concerned by this turn of events and the difficulties that have arisen in complying with it prior order. Once again the court reminds all parties, including Plaintiff, of their duties under the Federal Rules concerning discovery. A failure to comply with such duties may be the basis for serious sanctions, including the imposition of fees and the dismissal of a case. See Ehrenhaus v. Reynolds, 965 F.2d 916, 921 (10th Cir. 1992) (discussing factors courts consider when entering sanctions); Klein-Becker USA, LLC v. Englert, 711 F.3d 1153, 1159 (10th Cir. 2013) (outlining when default judgment is appropriate as a sanction). The court does not address sanctions at this time because it is more concerned with the preservation of information that is critical to the remaining issues in this case.

This is a shot across Denson's bow, I think.  If I was her attorney, I would be sweating bullets.

6. The Memorandum Decision concludes with a number of specific instructions to Ms. Denson:

Quote

Plaintiff is ORDERED to immediately take all steps necessary to recover her cellular phone data and access to all her accounts. Plaintiff is to contact her prior phone provider within one (1) day of this order, to obtain a new phone with her old phone number and recover any data that can be salvaged. Many modern smart phones, such as Apple’s iPhone, offer cloud services with a backup of prior data. Plaintiff is ORDERED to use any and all such services to recover lost data.

Plaintiff is ORDERED to immediately contact Facebook, Twitter and any other social media providers to recover and or reset her passwords so XDD may have access to her accounts.

Plaintiff is to comply with this requirement within one (1) day from the date of this order.

The Memorandum Decision was issued on 7/14, so Ms. Denson was obligated to comply with the foregoing provisions by 7/15, which was last Wednesday.  Nothing has been filed with the Court, so we don't know if she did.  We'll find out soon enough, I suppose.

More:

Quote

Plaintiff is again ORDERED to preserve all accounts and data. Willful destruction of evidence may be the basis for sanctions.

Wow.  Another shot across Ms. Denson's bow.  Ms. Denson is not looking good here.

Quote

Plaintiff is FURTHER ORDERED to provide a sworn declaration or affidavit within seven (7) days from the date of this order, detailing the circumstances surrounding her missing cellular phone. Plaintiff is to provide the date on which she lost her phone, where she was when she realized it was missing, where she believes it was lost, all efforts she has made to recover it, and other details regarding its loss.

Plaintiff is ORDERED to provide a sworn declaration or affidavit within seven (7) days detailing the steps taken in compliance with this order to recover her cellular phone data and access to all her accounts. This is to include the specific efforts taken to ensure XDD has access to Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, and any other social media accounts.
Finally, Plaintiff is ORDERED to respond within seven (7) days to the representations and allegations set forth in the Emergency Motion.

This 7-day deadline ends today (7/21).  No affidavit appears in the docket right now.  However, Ms. Denson probably lacks the ability to file documents electronically, so if she mails in an affidavit, it may not show up on the docket for a few days.

7. Ms. Denson is in a real pickle here.  She has to put up or shut up.  I suspect she "lost" her phone deliberately.  I think she has also deliberately shut down her Facebook account, and deliberately "forgot" her various social media passwords.  The Court is requiring her to provide an affidavit - a sworn, "under oath" statement - about what is going on.  Lying to a federal judge while under oath can be a pretty big deal.

8. I think we're seeing the end stages of Ms. Denson's lawsuit.  What a mess she has created here.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 22, 2020 by smac97

[Calm]

40 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Whoa.  The Church's attorneys are not messing around.

Yeah, her excuses will just go on and on.  She is either a total space case and has lost all the relevant stuff (in which case I feel sorry for her, but not the church's fault) or is trying to avoid producing the evidence, either because she never had it in the first place or she is hoping to hold on to it to threaten the Church...Imo.  I think it is the first case...never had it.

It needs to stop.  I don't know if her behaviour is criminal, but it feels at least harrassment of the Church or its lawyers to have to have this hanging on forever on their 'to do' lists.  Time to allow them to mark it as resolved, imo.

Edited July 22, 2020 by Calm

[smac97]

8 hours ago, Calm said:

Yeah, her excuses will just go on and on.  She is either a total space case and has lost all the relevant stuff (in which case I feel sorry for her, but not the church's fault) or is trying to avoid producing the evidence, either because she never had it in the first place or she is hoping to hold on to it to threaten the Church...Imo.  I think it is the first case...never had it.

It needs to stop.  I don't know if her behaviour is criminal, but it feels at least harrassment of the Church or its lawyers to have to have this hanging on forever on their 'to do' lists.  Time to allow them to mark it as resolved, imo.

The federal court is giving Ms. Denson plenty of opportunity to participate in her own lawsuit.  I've long suspected that she has no actual interest in pursuing it, ever since her attorneys withdrew, and perhaps even before then.

The Church, of course, would prefer to have the lawsuit dismissed as well.  If my surmise is correct, we're therefore left with the odd spectacle of a lawsuit that nobody wants to pursue.  However, Ms. Denson doesn't want to voluntarily dismiss it, either.  The Church, being the defendant, is unable to dismiss the suit, and therefore has no choice but to proceed with it.  Hence the various motions pertaining to Ms. Denson's failure to meaningfully participate in the discovery process.

IIRC, Ms. Denson has inquired if she can dismiss the lawsuit "without prejudice," meaning she would be able to re-file it in the future.  I suspect the Church's attorneys have opposed this, as they don't want to go through another lawsuit (though I think it highly unlikely that Ms. Denson would actually re-file the thing).   I think the Church's attorney's therefore want the lawsuit to proceed, not because they want to go to trial, but because they are anticipating that Ms. Denson would, well, do what she has been doing for the past many months: refuse to cooperate, tell whoppers to the judge, etc. 

If, as seems likely, Ms. Denson continues to disobey/evade the Court's orders, the likely outcome will be that the judge will dismiss the case without having it go to trial.  The judge specifically pointed out this possibility ("A failure to comply with such duties {to participate in the discovery process} may be the basis for serious sanctions, including the imposition of fees and the dismissal of a case.").  The dismissal will be "with prejudice," meaning Ms. Denson will never be able to re-file her claims.

Again, back in July 2019 I predicted the following:

Quote

I think we're witnessing the slow-motion demise of Ms. Denson's lawsuit.  Here are some predictions that I am making today, July 19, 2019:

1. Ms. Denson will not retain new attorneys.

2. The hearing on August 19, 2019 may result in further procedural steps (such as giving Ms. Denson a specific deadline to more fully respond to outstanding discovery requests).

3. Ms. Denson will not comply with the Court's instructions, probably by missing deadlines and not responding to discovery requests.

4. The litigation will be dismissed, either sua sponte or on motion, because of Ms. Denson's failure to meaningfully participate in the litigation and comply with the procedural and substantive requirements inherent in pursuing a federal lawsuit.

5. Ms. Denson will use the dismissal, and Mr. Vernon's withdrawal of his representation of her, as a basis for further efforts to garner attention for herself.  She may even make allegations of some sort of combination or conspiracy against her. 

6. In a way, this may be the best way out for her.  By letting her case die on procedural grounds, she can continue in maintaining claims against Joseph Bishop and the Church.  These claims will have never actually been tested and adjudicated in a court of law, but that's not her fault, you see.  It's Craig Vernon's.  And she didn't have the money to hire anyone else, and no attorney would step forward and help her.

7. Thus, rather than having her claims fail in court, a dismissal allows her to keep some semblance of them going.  For those still predisposed to believe her (largely due, I think, to a shared animus toward the Church), she will have become the victim of a flawed legal system.

Items 1-4 have been spot-on, and we are getting closer to the dismissal in item 4.  However, items 5-7 have been way off.  I don't think Ms. Denson will continue to try to pursue her claims against the Church in the "court of public opinion."  Nobody believes her (at least, not enough to continue to support/encourage her), not even the most virulent opponents of the Church.

Litigation is a tough process.  It is expensive, time-consuming and stress-inducing.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

long suspected that she has no actual interest in pursuing it, ever since her attorneys withdrew, and perhaps even before then.

That would require her to do something substantial rather than dramatic. 
 

Quote

though I think it highly unlikely that Ms. Denson would actually re-file the thing).  

I think it very likely she would if she felt the climate had changed so that people would forgive her if her past issues in hopes she could damage the Church, especially if she could find someone for an additional victim or more, so that the weakness of her case might be lost in others’ stronger ones and she could do the drama, the attention, and they do the work. 

I think she goes for a quick return of investment...which is why she leaked the Bishop tape when it was her best leverage against the Church as long as it was not made public.  Once it starts dragging out, she kept the drama going as long as the money was coming in, but once that dried up, I bet she just didn’t walk away, but kept saying she would file, find, whatever in hopes the Church would pay her something to go away as it costs them money to keep track of what she hasn’t done, etc. 

In her past lawsuits or investigations, where I read the police reports, she appears imo to lose interest quickly if she sees herself being challenged or doubted, iirc there were two cases the police detective couldn’t get her to follow through on anything once he made it clear he was checking out her claims. One said it appeared she had even forgotten about it iirc. I think she just moves on to the next thing if it gets to be too much work, boring, or she has to answer too many questions.  

Edited July 22, 2020 by Calm

[smac97]

13 minutes ago, Calm said:

That would require her to do something substantial rather than dramatic. 
 

I think it very likely she would if she felt the climate had changed so that people would forgive her if her past issues in hopes she could damage the Church, especially if she could find someone for an additional victim or more, so that the weakness of her case might be lost in others’ stronger ones. 

I think she goes for a quick return of investment...which is why she leaked the Bishop tape when it was her best leverage against the Church as long as it was not made public.

In her past lawsuits or investigations, where I read the police reports, she appears imo to lose interest quickly if she sees herself being challenged or doubted, iirc there were two cases the police detective couldn’t get her to follow through on anything once he made it clear he was checking out her claims. One said it appeared she had even forgotten about it iirc. I think she just moves on to the next thing if it gets to be too much work, boring, or she has to answer too many questions.  

I think in those other cases she has been a through-and-through fraudster.

In this case, however, I think there may well be some truth to her claims.  Only some, mind you.  I think Mr. Bishop did something to her, but it was more likely what was described by Ron Leavitt (showing her pornography) rather than what she described (rape or attempted rape).  If so, Mr. Bishop's misconduct is still an extremely serious thing.  However, I think her past history of fraudulent claims caught up with her in this case.  I think she couldn't present her claims as is.  She had to embellish and exaggerate, perhaps even to the point of rank falsehood in some ways.  I also think she couldn't resist the allure of attention and sympathy, such that rather than listen to her attorneys (who could have negotiated a settlement for her), she continuously ran her mouth, even to the point of comitting outright fraud to solicit funds from her supporters.  And then they caught on...

What a mess she has made for herself.  In spite all she has done to harm my community of faith, I find her to be a pitiable person.  What a bleak future she has in store for herself if she continues as she had for so many years.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Tacenda]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think in those other cases she has been a through-and-through fraudster.

In this case, however, I think there may well be some truth to her claims.  Only some, mind you.  I think Mr. Bishop did something to her, but it was more likely what was described by Ron Leavitt (showing her pornography) rather than what she described (rape or attempted rape).  If so, Mr. Bishop's misconduct is still an extremely serious thing.  However, I think her past history of fraudulent claims caught up with her in this case.  I think she couldn't present her claims as is.  She had to embellish and exaggerate, perhaps even to the point of rank falsehood in some ways.  I also think she couldn't resist the allure of attention and sympathy, such that rather than listen to her attorneys (who could have negotiated a settlement for her), she continuously ran her mouth, even to the point of comitting outright fraud to solicit funds from her supporters.  And then they caught on...

What a mess she has made for herself.  In spite all she has done to harm my community of faith, I find her to be a pitiable person.  What a bleak future she has in store for herself if she continues as she had for so many years.

Thanks,

-Smac

She did shoot herself in her foot for sure. And Bishop picked the wrong girl for showing porn to, or whatever. But hopefully this situation gave awareness that no matter the status of someone, you shouldn't blindly trust those in the church or elsewhere with authority. I do wonder if she had kept it quiet what her outcome could have been, but her being abused at a young age, can do so much to someone's psyche. They say that it's the gateway to drugs, mental illness, crime, homelessness you name it. So I give her that. Wish someone had helped her early on.

[Calm]

10 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Wish someone had helped her early on.

They tried to, they hooked her up to a therapist; she refused to speak to him. 
 

Or do you mean as a child or youth?

[Tacenda]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

They tried to, they hooked her up to a therapist; she refused to speak to him. 
 

Or do you mean as a child or youth?

Yes, when she was a child, and then the fall out because of it.

[esodije]

Denson very much reminds me of a relative of mine, who suffered a head injury in a car accident at around age 19 and who now, 40+ years on, has virtually no grasp of reality. Highly intelligent, but almost completely delusional—has abundant memories of things that never happened and no memory of things that did. One can speak to this person and conclude they are perfectly lucid and very knowledgeable—for a time. Eventually one realizes that he/she is crazy or this person is—and even I have questioned my own sanity on multiple occasions.

[provoman]

On 7/22/2020 at 8:56 AM, Tacenda said:

She did shoot herself in her foot for sure. And Bishop picked the wrong girl for showing porn to, or whatever. But hopefully this situation gave awareness that no matter the status of someone, you shouldn't blindly trust those in the church or elsewhere with authority. I do wonder if she had kept it quiet what her outcome could have been, but her being abused at a young age, can do so much to someone's psyche. They say that it's the gateway to drugs, mental illness, crime, homelessness you name it. So I give her that. Wish someone had helped her early on.

 

"I do wonder if she had kept it quiet what her outcome could have been" ... she very likely would have NDA and a settlement, and probably paid counseling. She sent out the recording she had to many other places, it was published without her consent, and after publication settlement negotiations were put to an end. (I tend to think she authorized or released the so called dossier early on, as it served to initially champion her cause in the minds of many)
 

Edited July 25, 2020 by provoman

[juliann]

Is there any evidence of a life of abuse beyond what she has said? 

[provoman]

On 2/3/2020 at 4:43 PM, Kenngo1969 said:

 

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6356059/denson-v-corporation-of-the-president-of-the-church-of-jesus-christ-of/ 

[Rain]

On 7/23/2020 at 9:19 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

Helping keep the record straight. It’s worldwide in scope, not in origin 

 

On 7/21/2020 at 9:01 PM, smac97 said:

Another update:

On July 14, the federal court issued a "Memorandum Decision and Order Granting Defendant's Emergency Motion" (available for download here).

A few thoughts/observations:

1. On July 13 the Church's attorneys filed an "Emergency Motion to Enforce Order" (available for download here), and the July 14 Memorandum Decision is a response to that Motion. 

2. In this Motion, the Church's attorneys reference the Court's June 29, 2020 order to Ms. Denson to provide a third-party data recovery company ("XDD") with access to "her online accounts." On July 10, XDD contacted Ms. Denson, who told them that she "lost" her cell phone three weeks ago, and that she cannot remember the logins for her Facebook and Twitter accounts.  Her FB account is now no longer accessible.  The Motion asks the Court to order Ms. Denson to immediately restore her Facebook accounts and recover her password, and also provide a sworn statement regarding how she lost her cell phone.

3. The Motion also includes a few more details:

• XDD began the collection process on Friday, July 10, 2020. XDD reported on their efforts to counsel for COP on Monday, July 13, 2020.  {Footnote: Per the Court’s Order, XDD has not provided counsel for COP any of the documents collected nor access to Ms. Denson’s accounts. The report from XDD concerned only their ongoing efforts to collect the accounts and devices."}
• XDD reports that Ms. Denson now claims that she lost her phone about three weeks ago. She indicated she purchased a new phone but elected to switch carriers and thus has a new phone number. This means much (if not all) of the data from her prior phone, including her text messages, cannot be collected.  {Footnote: Ms. Denson’s new phone is an iPhone but was not “restored” from a backup of a prior phone.}
• The login information for Ms. Denson’s Facebook and Twitter accounts she provided to XDD was incorrect. Ms. Denson stated that she either could not remember or did not know the current passwords.  {Footnote: Ms. Denson claims that she gave several other individuals access to her account some months ago and suggests they may have changed the password without her knowledge.}
• XDD attempted to work with Ms. Denson to recover passwords for those accounts. Those attempts were unsuccessful because the accounts were connected to her “old” phone number. Without access to that phone, her password cannot be recovered.
• COP requests that the Court set an emergency hearing as soon as possible on this Motion without waiting for Ms. Denson to file a written response. Ms. Denson has repeatedly missed deadlines for filing responses to COP’s motions. In this case, any such delay could cause further data loss. Ms. Denson may, of course, file a response prior to the hearing. Otherwise she may respond orally during the hearing.

Whoa.  The Church's attorneys are not messing around.

4. The Court notes that Ms. Denson apparently provided incorrect login information to XDD pertaining to her Facebook and Twitter accounts.  The Court also notes that Denson's Facebook page "is no longer accessible on-line meaning it has been marked private, deactivated, or deleted" and that per Facebook, "a deleted account can be restored for up to 30 days, after which, the account and all information will be permanently deleted."

5. The Court includes the following pretty-strongly-worded statement:

This is a shot across Denson's bow, I think.  If I was her attorney, I would be sweating bullets.

6. The Memorandum Decision concludes with a number of specific instructions to Ms. Denson:

The Memorandum Decision was issued on 7/14, so Ms. Denson was obligated to comply with the foregoing provisions by 7/15, which was last Wednesday.  Nothing has been filed with the Court, so we don't know if she did.  We'll find out soon enough, I suppose.

More:

Wow.  Another shot across Ms. Denson's bow.  Ms. Denson is not looking good here.

This 7-day deadline ends today (7/21).  No affidavit appears in the docket right now.  However, Ms. Denson probably lacks the ability to file documents electronically, so if she mails in an affidavit, it may not show up on the docket for a few days.

7. Ms. Denson is in a real pickle here.  She has to put up or shut up.  I suspect she "lost" her phone deliberately.  I think she has also deliberately shut down her Facebook account, and deliberately "forgot" her various social media passwords.  The Court is requiring her to provide an affidavit - a sworn, "under oath" statement - about what is going on.  Lying to a federal judge while under oath can be a pretty big deal.

8. I think we're seeing the end stages of Ms. Denson's lawsuit.  What a mess she has created here.

Thanks,

-Smac

Oddly her losing her phone, forgetting her passwords and accounts being inaccessible are some things I could believe because of my own experiences.  While I have never lost my phone, I can easily see that happening. Then I have had a hard time with facebook passwords and accessing the site on occasion and have had terrible luck with my son's gmail account while on his mission.  

If this were the only problems I would not disbelieve her (would not automatically believe her either), but with the timing and all the other stuff it looks really bad.

[Calm]

3 hours ago, juliann said:

Is there any evidence of a life of abuse beyond what she has said? 

As far as I know, one of her daughters backs up what she said in general though her exhusband says she lies. Many of her life choices would seem to indicate a possibility of abuse in her background, but scammers, etc. can come from decent family backgrounds, so I don’t think it can be seen as confirmation in itself. 

[smac97]

21 hours ago, provoman said:

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6356059/denson-v-corporation-of-the-president-of-the-church-of-jesus-christ-of/ 

I'll be quite interested in seeing what happens in the next few weeks.

Terms like "death throes" and "circling the drain" come to mind.

Thanks,

-Smac

[topcougar]

McKenna filed some documents in response to the Court Order. They are sealed so it is impossible to know whether she has done enough to comply with the Court's orders. 

[provoman]

3 hours ago, topcougar said:

McKenna filed some documents in response to the Court Order. They are sealed so it is impossible to know whether she has done enough to comply with the Court's orders. 

I have been surprised at the number of sealed documents. 

[smac97]

18 hours ago, topcougar said:

McKenna filed some documents in response to the Court Order. They are sealed so it is impossible to know whether she has done enough to comply with the Court's orders. 

Here is what little is publicly available about what Ms. Denson submitted to the Court:

Quote

Full docket text for document 122:
**SEALED DOCUMENT** Answer re [121] Order Granting Defendant's Emergency Motion to Enforce Order filed by Plaintiff McKenna Denson.

This looks like she is responding to the Court's order.  Whether her response is sufficient remains to be seen.

Quote

Full docket text for document 123:
**SEALED DOCUMENT** Exhibits re [122] Sealed Document filed by Plaintiff McKenna Denson. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit C, # (2) Exhibit D, # (3) Exhibit E, # (4) Exhibit F, # (5) Exhibit G, # (6) Exhibit M, # (7) Exhibit P, # (8) Exhibit BYU Police Report)

This appears to be a packet of exhibits that are related to her response tot he Court's order.  It seems a little weird to see them start at "Exhibit C" (where are Exhibits A and B?), go through "Exhibit G," then skip to "Exhibit M" and "Exhibit P" and "Exhibit BYU Police Report."

Ah, well.  One can only stare at a dumpster fire for so long before it starts seeming kinda dull.

Thanks,

-Smac

[JustAnAustralian]

So on September 1 the case got referred back to a magistrate judge. Does that mean we probably won't hear anything more about it until they release the court outcome?

[Kenngo1969]

4 hours ago, JustAnAustralian said:

So on September 1 the case got referred back to a magistrate judge. Does that mean we probably won't hear anything more about it until they release the court outcome?

I don't know the answer to my own question; I'm just thinking out loud here (so feel free to ignore me).  I wonder if this is what happens when all of the trial judges in a particular district say, "No, no.  We don't want any more to do with this one.  Anything else that happens, Mr./Ms. Magistrate Judge, we're sure you can handle it!"  (For any of the uninitiated [of whom, largely, I'm one: Hell, I'll never practice in the federal system, or probably anywhere else for that matter! ] magistrate judges usually handle matters short of/other than trials: for example, a magistrate judge might handle a preliminary hearing in a criminal case to determine if there is enough evidence for it to be bound over for trial.) 

[alter idem]

On 7/17/2020 at 8:50 AM, Tacenda said:

To the bold, yes they were pretty brutal. I guess they don't like untruth as much as the next guy.

maybe, but personally, I think they didn't like being made out to look like fools.  In her defense, if they had looked more carefully into her background (it was all there), they would've been more cautious about just believing everything she said.  She obviously had problems and they should have recognized it. imo

[esodije]

On 9/26/2020 at 12:23 AM, JustAnAustralian said:

So on September 1 the case got referred back to a magistrate judge. Does that mean we probably won't hear anything more about it until they release the court outcome?

Magistrates in U.S. federal courts act under the authority of the court; they serve for a limited time period and are not lifetime appointments. They typically don’t conduct actual trials, but they handle arraignments in criminal cases and often will hear pretrial motions, particularly related to discovery matters. To use the vernacular, their job is to take care of “housecleaning” chores in order to free up the judges’ time for trials and other weightier matters. If this case was referred to a federal magistrate, it’s almost certainly to address the church’s motions to compel discovery or to compel preservation of documents that the other party might otherwise feel inclined to destroy. It certainly doesn’t mean the entire case has been turned over to a lower court for dismissal or summary disposition.