Status of Discovery in Denson Lawsuit

[MustardSeed]

17 minutes ago, smac97 said:

However, that does not give her unending carte blanche to behave the way she has.

Obviously. 

[LoudmouthMormon]

Mercy and justice.  We struggle in our poor fallen earthly human ways to balance the two.  Whatever we end up with, is usually a hollow shadow of what the Godly balancing must look like.

Closest I can come to it, is to feel genuinely sorry for Ms. Denson (mercy), while being supportive of the legal process which is about to give her the latest of a long series of legal beatings she brings on herself (justice).

Edited November 24, 2019 by LoudmouthMormon

[Thinking]

On 11/24/2019 at 8:06 AM, LoudmouthMormon said:

Closest I can come to it, is to feel genuinely sorry for Ms. Denson (mercy), while being supportive of the legal process which is about to give her the latest of a long series of legal beatings she brings on herself (justice).

I think we need to escape from this black and white thinking that because Ms. Denson has mishandled the legal process, she brought it on herself. From the beginning she was not believed and dismissed. That could cause a person to not trust the process and act in a way that seems to be irrational. What I find interesting is that it seems that almost everybody agrees that something bad happened to her, yet the legal process seems to be more important.

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, Thinking said:

I think we need to escape from this black and white thinking that because Ms. Denson has mishandled the legal process, she brought it on herself. From the beginning she was not believed and dismissed. That could cause a person to not trust the process and act in a way that seems to be irrational. What I find interesting is that it seems that almost everybody agrees that something bad happened to her, yet the legal process seems to be more important.

I found her lacking in credibility when I found out her habit of lawsuits, including swallowing razor blades. 

I am not sure how you can claim everyone was dismissing her at first when there was huge support for her in the greater community, including significant fundraising:

[Tacenda]

3 minutes ago, Thinking said:

I think we need to escape from this black and white thinking that because Ms. Denson has mishandled the legal process, she brought it on herself. From the beginning she was not believed and dismissed. That could cause a person to not trust the process and act in a way that seems to be irrational. What I find interesting is that it seems that almost everybody agrees that something bad happened to her, yet the legal process seems to be more important.

That's what lack of trust can do/undo! Speaking of possible or past attorneys.

I think something happened as well, just not sure to what extent. Wish she had handled things better. But her being abused by a few people could have led up to her reacting/behaving in strange ways. I believe she really clung to the church after being abused by her step father, but then having someone like an mtc president also abuse her, could have caused her to totally change her mind and not believe anyone loves her and then being taken advantage thereafter.

Also, my sister in law was sexually abused by her father as a child and she is very much clinging to the LDS church now to feel safe, if she could be in the temple 24/7 should would, I believe. At first as a sister missionary, I believe that Ms. Denson clung to the church as well, only to have it disappoint her in the end.

 

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Thinking said:

Quote

Closest I can come to it, is to feel genuinely sorry for Ms. Denson (mercy), while being supportive of the legal process which is about to give her the latest of a long series of legal beatings she brings on herself (justice).

I think we need to escape from this black and white thinking that because Ms. Denson has mishandled the legal process, she brought it on herself.

I think it's hard to deny that Ms. Denson has engaged in misconduct, and that she is now facing downstream consequences of that misconduct.  So to some extent, it is accurate to say that she is responsible for some of the bad things that have happened to her (those "bad things" being the legal repercussions, the damage to her credibility, the damage to her lawsuit, etc.).  Her shakedown scams, lying to the police, committing fraud, etc. should not be ignored because she was a victim of abuse at other times in her life.  

This does not diminish our ability to feel sorry for her, to pity her.  To hope that she can stop her self-destructive tendencies.

People do this all the time.  They make unwise decisions that bring negative consequences upon themselves.  And yet the teachings of Jesus Christ (the Prodigal Son, the women caught in adultery, etc.) are full to overflowing with both justice and mercy.

Quote

From the beginning she was not believed and dismissed.

Here is what I wrote back in June 2018:

Quote

In other words, at present I am inclined to conclude that Denson was molested or otherwise subjected to serious misconduct by Joseph Bishop, but not to the extent that it was rape or attempted rape.  If we go by what Leavitt states she disclosed, then that goes a long way for me in terms of reconciling Denson's claims with my reservations about those claims.  What Leavitt states she disclosed to him about Bishop was something profoundly sinful and wrong, but not rape or attempted rape.  The rape claim, then, became an embellishment on the (still very wrong) misconduct that did occur.  It grew over time.  

But I'm not wedded to that conclusion.  We'll see what happens.

This is, in my view, the best assessment of the evidence at hand.  

And here:

Quote

{My assessment of Ms. Denson's allegations is} based on a number of factors, including:

• Bishop's admissions to the BYU Police (which bolster, to an extent, Denson's allegation of misconduct);
• Bishop's errors in his admissions to the BYU Police (which raise concerns about his mental competency/lucidity, and hence concerns about the probative value of his confessions);
• Some portions of Bishop's admissions during Denson's recording of him (which bolster, to an extent, Denson's allegations misconduct);
• Various portions of Denson's recording of Bishop where his lucidity is in doubt (which raise concerns about the probative value of his confessions);
• Ron Leavitt's public statements;
• The absence of any forensic or corroborating evidence (as to the rape claim);
• Bishop's lack of criminal history or of other accusations of violent sexual assault;
• Denson's prior history of false rape claim(s) (at least one she has admitted to, and more than that as alleged by her ex-husband and another family member);
• Denson's history of using false claims for financial gain (her claims against the restaurant, which give rise to concerns about her credibility/honesty); and
• Denson's various instances of serious misconduct and dishonesty (her threat to murder Joseph Bishop, her identity fraud charges, etc., which give rise to concerns about her credibility/honesty).

There are a few other factors for me as well.  

So I think it's not quite accurate to say that her claims were dismissed out-of-hand ("{f}rom the beginning she was not believed and dismissed").

Quote

That could cause a person to not trust the process and act in a way that seems to be irrational. What I find interesting is that it seems that almost everybody agrees that something bad happened to her, yet the legal process seems to be more important.

I'm not sure what you are saying here.  What does "yet" mean?  

I am grateful that we live in a society governed by laws.  I am grateful that we have a "legal process" (however imperfect it is) for fairly applying those laws.  At the end of the day, the legal process is the means by which we A) ascertain, for legal purposes, what "happened to her," and B) what, if any, legal consequences can be meted out because of what "happened to her."

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited November 26, 2019 by smac97

[provoman]

:::::::::::::::::::::

Edited November 27, 2019 by provoman

[smac97]

An update:

Quote

A lawsuit alleging rape at The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints’ Missionary Training Center could end in a settlement.

During a status conference in U.S. District Court on Monday, McKenna Denson said she is working with a lawyer who might take her case. That attorney suggested he was open to mediation.

Lawyers for the Church said they were also open to having a settlement discussion.

“We’re always happy to talk about those things, but I don’t want to portray optimism about that,” said David Jordan, an attorney for the Corporation of the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

They suggested free mediation involving a federal judge. U.S. Magistrate Judge Dustin Pead put the case on hold and gave Denson until early February to secure legal counsel. Her high-profile lawsuit against the Church has been in limbo since her attorneys abruptly quit the case in June.

“I think the case should be moving forward, but I’m happy to give everyone a couple of months if you’d like it,” Judge Pead said.

“Thank you very much, your honor,” Denson replied.

I'm not surprised that the Church's attorney is pessimistic about settlement prospects.  "I don't want to portray optimism" is code for "I really don't think settlement will work."

And I don't blame him.  I wouldn't be optimistic, either.  Settlement necessarily requires some measure of trust that both parties will adhere to the terms of the settlement.  Ms. Denson is a loose cannon.  She is profoundly untrustworthy.  Moreover, the Church has a fairly strong legal position relative to Ms. Denson's failure/refusal to cooperate in responding to discovery requests.  

That said, the Church likely wants to avoid going to trial, or the risk of going to trial.  And perhaps some recompense to Ms. Denson is appropriate.  I just wish she and her enablers hadn't gone to such efforts to screw things up for her (looking at you, Ryan McKnight, Consigliere, Mike Norton, etc.).

Thanks,

-Smac

[esodije]

Talk of settlement of this case reminds me  of Mel Brooks’ discussion of how Hedy Lamarr threatened suit over Harvey Korman’s “Hedley Lamarr” character in Blazing Saddles back in 1974.  Brooks said, “Bless her heart. She wants money? Let’s get her some money. And the studio gave her some money.” At this point, the church’s settling with Denson would be an act of pity based on the church’s being a deep pocket which can easily bear dropping a little chump change to make a nuisance lawsuit go away. I still say there’s no way this case goes to trial; if any evidence favorable to Denson had come out in the Wells and Leavitt depositions, it would have leaked ages ago.

[Tacenda]

17 minutes ago, esodije said:

Talk of settlement of this case reminds me  of Mel Brooks’ discussion of how Hedy Lamarr threatened suit over Harvey Korman’s “Hedley Lamarr” character in Blazing Saddles back in 1974.  Brooks said, “Bless her heart. She wants money? Let’s get her some money. And the studio gave her some money.” At this point, the church’s settling with Denson would be an act of pity based on the church’s being a deep pocket which can easily bear dropping a little chump change to make a nuisance lawsuit go away. I still say there’s no way this case goes to trial; if any evidence favorable to Denson had come out in the Wells and Leavitt depositions, it would have leaked ages ago.

Yes, the church giving Denson some chump change, has me a bit unsettled, doesn't sit well just yet. Edit: maybe saying chump change is not appropriate. I've now thought it over and believe that she deserves some compensation from the church, because I believe some leaders dropped the ball throughout the years on addressing Denson on this.

Edited December 3, 2019 by Tacenda

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

Yes, the church giving Denson some chump change, has me a bit unsettled, doesn't sit well just yet. Edit: maybe saying chump change is not appropriate. I've now thought it over and believe that she deserves some compensation from the church, because I believe some leaders dropped the ball throughout the years on addressing Denson on this.

My current assessment is that her local bishop "dropped the ball" by not reporting her allegations to the Church.  However, I do not think the compensation should stem from this.  The Church is not a law enforcement or governmental agency.

Rather, to the extent Ms. Denson should receive compensation, it should be for the injury done to her by Joseph Bishop.  I think Mr. Bishop victimized Ms. Denson in a very serious and inappropriate way while he was functioning in an ecclesiastical role, but not something amounting to rape or attempted rape.  Because the apparent misconduct occurred while Mr. Bishop was functioning as a representative/agent of the Church.  I am not sure the Church is legally liable, but the reasons for that end up in complex issues (statute of limitations, vicarious liability, "scope of employment," etc.). 

If so, we're left whether the Church has a moral obligation to pay Ms. Denson for Mr. Bishop's alleged misconduct.  On balance, I think the answer is no, there is not a moral "obligation."  However, there may be grounds for it to be a "right thing to do" kind of thing.  

There may also be grounds to not do it.  Ms. Denson is untrustworthy.  I cannot conceptualize a scenario in which she could be relied upon to adhere to a settlement agreement (which, I think, would involve money, and nondisclosure, and nondisparagement clauses).  I think she would take the Church's money, then spend months or years publicly ripping the Church apart.  Perhaps the Church could stagger payments over a period of years, conditioned on her continuing observance of the settlement terms.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[MustardSeed]

It is my opinion that folks should not be paid off under such circumstances. 

She should be granted a series of healing therapy sessions with several church reps accompanying to take accountability for botched processes. 

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

It is my opinion that folks should not be paid off under such circumstances. 

I can't speak as to "folks," but you may be right that McKenna Denson should not be paid off.  She is not trustworthy.

4 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

She should be granted a series of healing therapy sessions with several church reps accompanying to take accountability for botched processes. 

I think she wouldn't want to have therapy with "church reps."

Thanks,

-Smac

[MustardSeed]

7 hours ago, smac97 said:

I can't speak as to "folks," but you may be right that McKenna Denson should not be paid off.  She is not trustworthy.

I think she wouldn't want to have therapy with "church reps."

Thanks,

-Smac

Nope, don't imagine she would want that either.  But those who did her wrong are dead or incapable - for the most part, I understand.  
 

No one wins in this pool party.

[Thinking]

On 11/26/2019 at 12:59 PM, Calm said:

I am not sure how you can claim everyone was dismissing her at first when there was huge support for her in the greater community, including significant fundraising:

At first meaning when she first came forward years ago.

[Calm]

12 hours ago, Thinking said:

At first meaning when she first came forward years ago.

Her very first coming forward according to her was when she claimed she had been raped back in DC.  She was treated seriously at the time, sent back to Provo, sent to a therapist and interviewed by Elder Monson iirc before being sent back out after she refused to tell them anything. 

As far as the second time, she was either dismissed by one and only one person (her YSA Bishop) or treated seriously by him when he passed the complaint to higher ups, which resulted in her being interviewed by Elder Acey. She herself said she didn’t claim she had been raped in that alleged interview. 

Edited December 4, 2019 by Calm

[Prof]

Is there any concern that settling with her might inspire others to bring suits?

[Jeanne]

2 hours ago, Prof said:

Is there any concern that settling with her might inspire others to bring suits?

That is a real good question. 

[Tacenda]

21 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

That is a real good question. 

This has been going on for decades, the church settling out of court.

[smac97]

5 hours ago, Prof said:

Is there any concern that settling with her might inspire others to bring suits?

I doubt it.  The Church having "deep pockets" is already pretty well-known, so this suit is unlikely to precipitate suits that otherwise would not have been filed. 

I also think the Church's litigation posture is fairly moderate.  It's not a pushover, but it's not hard-nosed / take-no-prisoners / never-settle-no-matter-what, either.

Moreover, the Church has had some pretty good safeguards in place for quite a while, which I think have been effective in reducing instances of local ecclesiastical leaders violating mandatory reporting laws, and also effective in reducing instances of abuse in situations where the Church could be exposed to liability (e.g. the two-deep leadership rule).

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited December 4, 2019 by smac97

[Danzo]

7 hours ago, Prof said:

Is there any concern that settling with her might inspire others to bring suits?

The only thing that inspires others to bring suits is the church's deep pockets.

IF the church had no money the lawsuits would stop.

There is a local church in our area that had one of its pastors convicted of some pretty bad stuff, worse than most of the stuff the LDS people are being accused of. They are not going to get sued for the simple fact that they don't have any money. 

 

[Amulek]

3 hours ago, Danzo said:

11 hours ago, Prof said:

Is there any concern that settling with her might inspire others to bring suits?

The only thing that inspires others to bring suits is the church's deep pockets.

Well, that's part of the equation. I think the potential for a payout - especially if there is a potential for a large payout - is indeed one of the factors, but so is the likelihood of being able to actually obtain that payout, either by victory or through settlement.

The church has, or is perceived to have, deep pockets already, so nothing about the Denson suit would do anything to alter that perception should there be a settlement, even at this late stage in the game.

However, a settlement for Denson at this point in the process - after the damage to the church has already been done, with a case that is doomed to fail, and with a litigant who is as...unreliable as Denson - might just encourage other attorney's to take up similar long-shot cases on the off chance that the church might end up settling even when they have nothing to gain.

 

[Calm]

If there is a settlement, I would love to see it tied to certain things such as paying for long term therapy or medical costs (trauma can have physical effects so there is a potential connection) as opposed to a cash payout. The money, imo, should never be given directly to Denson. 

Edited December 5, 2019 by Calm

[Tacenda]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

If there is a settlement, I would love to see it tied to certain things such as paying for long term therapy or medical costs (trauma can have physical effects so there is a potential connection) as opposed to a cash payout. The money, imo, should never be given directly to Denson. 

I wonder if some cases, or most, require the recipient to keep their mouths shut and not go around publicly with their story. Of course Denson has already done that.

[Danzo]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

I wonder if some cases, or most, require the recipient to keep their mouths shut and not go around publicly with their story. Of course Denson has already done that.

Which is why she was so much damaged by the mormonleaks thing.  Up until she went public, she had something to offer in exchange for money from the church.  Now she has nothing to offer.  When MormonLeaks published her account, it destroyed her chances for a settlement.  MormonLeaks did her no favors.   One of the sad things we see from this episode is people like McKenna are just tools used by others, to be discarded when they are no longer useful.