Status of Discovery in Denson Lawsuit

[Calm]

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.

I think in cases of settlement it is fair to require the person to be quiet or forfeit payout except to hide criminal behaviour from law enforcement, even though this undoubtedly protects jerks at times...but it also protects the innocent from giving money to stop harassment, but having to endure it anyway.  In the cases where a legal judgment has been made that finds for fault, that is different.  Payout then is for punishment and should not have strings attached.

[smac97]

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.

Most settlement agreements include provisions as to nondisclosure (re: the terms of settlement) and also nondisparagement (not publicly maligning the other party).

Given Ms. Denson's track record, I cannot conceptualize a situation where she could be trusted to either agree with such provisions, or else abide by them.  This is perhaps one of the factors influencing the negative outlook from the Church's position regarding settlement.

Thanks,

-Smac

[alter idem]

I don't believe the church should settle, because she made this way too public.  I think she and those claiming to help her brought so much publicity that it would not be in the church's interest to settle.  

[readstoomuch]

6 hours ago, Danzo said:

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. 

This so true!

[smac97]

On 12/5/2019 at 10:20 AM, Danzo said:

Which is why she was so much damaged by the mormonleaks thing.  

That was my thought, too.  Ryan McKnight really screwed things up for her.  In his zeal to tear down the Church, I don't think he thought of the potential ramifications that publishing the recording could have on Ms. Denson's then-pending settlement negotiations.

But then, Ms. Denson had sent the recording to all sorts of people, so she screwed up big-time, too.  And for the same reason: she was blinded by her desire to injure the Church, so much so that she did not think through the impact the publishing the recording could have on her settlement negotiations.

On 12/5/2019 at 10:20 AM, Danzo said:

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. 

Yep.  I made this same observation last fall:

Quote

I think she is being spurred on by people with ulterior motives.  Ryan McKnight.  Consig.  Mike Norton.  

I can't help but think of Cindy Sheehan, the political activist who enjoyed a stint in the media and public spotlight for her theatrics aimed against specific politicians (the Bush II Administration). Bush's political opponents expressed all sorts of solidarity with and support for Ms. Sheehan, but only while she was in the spotlight, and only while she was a useful tool against Bush. But once the spotlight shifted away from her, her notoriety plummeted and she now has no appreciable voice or influence on any of the issues which are seemingly so important to her.

I think McKenna Denson is being used by McKnight/Consig/Norton in the same way Sheehan was used.  And once the news cycle moves on, I think these guys will just move on to the next useful person and leave Ms. Denson where she is.  Sad.

Also here:

Quote

The case is a mess, both on the facts (poor evidence, decades old) and the law (statute of limitations, severe credibility issues).  The client is a total loose cannon.  Ms. Denson has killed her own case (helped, I think, by ennablers like Ryan McKnight, and Consigliere (can't recall his IRL name), and Mike Norton, and Shawn McCraney, etc. who exploited her and her story as a weapon against the Church, encouraging her to say and do stupid things while the lawsuit was ongoing, and then dropped/disavowed her credibility issues became impossible to ignore).

Also here (comments about Consig / "Radio Free Mormon"):

Quote

Consig released a podcast interview of Ms. Denson in which she brags, at some length and with much pride, about her skill in lies and deceit.  See, e.g., here (summarizing part of the podcast):

Quote

Ms. Denson seems to delight in describing her multiple subterfuges.  She tricked (lied to) the fellow at the Church HQ.  And the missionaries.  And Joseph Bishop.  She relishes in dishing on the fake details she added to make her lies appear sincere and legitimate (the "surprise" party for Bishop, the other interview with "Mark Gillespie" running late, etc.).

Does she not realize that publicly bragging about what a good liar she is doesn't exactly burnish her credibility as to other matters?  Including matters that hinge mostly or entirely on her say-so?

What on earth is she thinking she is doing in this interview?  "You can trust that I am telling the truth about Joseph Bishop.  By way of evidence, let me explain how good a liar I had to be, over and over and over again, to get that recording of him..."

A bit of free advice for Ms. Denson: Publicly bragging about what an effective liar you are while your lawsuit - that depends almost entirely on your personal credibility - is still pending is not a very good litigation strategy.

And here:

Quote

I am going to make a prediction here.  If Ms. Denson's case manages to survive the currently-pending motions to dismiss, her statements in this podcast are going to come back to haunt her.  Big time.

Imagine her trying to explain in a deposition that she is an excellent liar as to some things in this case, but that she's telling the truth about others.  Imagine her trying to explain why she was laughing in this podcast as she describes her multiple deceptions.  Imagine her trying to reject Ron Leavitt's characterizaton of her as "tend[ing] to embellish experiences" and then explaining her references to "Mark Gillespie" in her communications with Joseph Bishop.

What a trainwreck of a client she is.  She killed her own lawsuit in the first instance by scuttling negotiations between her attorneys and the Church.  And now she's destroying her own credibility by publicly bragging about what a superb liar she is.  And the sad part is that she seems to want to team up with people who have no interest at all in her welfare.  First Ryan McKnight helped her kill settlement negotiations, now this "interviewer" is helping her destroy her own credibility as a witness.  To them, I guess she's just a pawn.  Useful in making the LDS Church look bad for a bit, but otherwise disposable.  

Her attorney, Mr. Vernon, must be going out of his mind.  Unless, of course, they've already thrown in the towel on the lawsuit.  If that's the case, then her public bragging about her skillful use of deceit is probably a no-harm-no-foul kind of thing.

And here:

Quote

She destroyed the settlement negotiations her attorneys were working on for her.  And she worked hard in the RFM podcast to destroy her own credibility as a witness by publicly bragging about what a superb liar she is.  She is acting against her own interests.  She has nearly destroyed any moral authority many others may have been willing to grant her.  

What a sad spectacle she is making of herself.  These are not the decisions of a healthy-minded person.  I am left to conclude that she has led, and continues to lead, a very troubled life.  She appears to be being exploited, first by MormonLeaks, and more recently by Radio Free Mormon.  The people behind these entities, Ryan McKnight of MormonLeaks and "Radio Free Mormon" guy (aka The-Guy-Who-Hides-Behind-the-Online-Pseudonym-"Consigliere"-But-We-Can-Trust-Him-Anyway-Because-Reasons), are finding her to be a convenient brickbat against the LDS Church, and so are giving her a megaphone and cheering her on, even as she destroys her own legal case and her own credibility and reputation in the process.

Here's an interesting thought experiment: Will Ryan McKnight and the Trustworthy Mystery Man Behind Radio Free Mormon still be championing McKenna Denson in six months?  Will they still be inviting her back for discussions?  Advancing her narrative?  Or will they perhaps find her utility as a weapon against the LDS Church to have waned, and so drop her and move on to the next person to exploit?  Time will tell.

The newsworthiness of McKenna Denson's narrative appears to be winding down.  She clearly has had, and continues to have, a very troubled life.  She has made some very poor decisions, and has compounded those poor decisions over time by making more poor decisions.  She has also apparently been a victim of some evil behavior.  But she also seems to have some extensive issues to work out in her life.  Again, hers are not the decisions of a healthy-minded person.  She continues to act erratically.  She acts against her own self-interests.  

We also must acknowledge the misconduct by Joseph Bishop, the full extent of which remains unclear.  And by Ms. Denson's stepfather, who she claims sexually abused her during her childhood.  The long-term injuries inflicted by the misconduct of these persons have been significant.

And what to make of Ms. Denson?  For me, my present conclusions are that she is a very troubled person.  She clearly needs a lot of help.  Sadly, she seems to have sought "help" from people with ulterior motives, who see her as a useful weapon in their vendettas against the LDS Church, but who do not care about her actual well-being.  They have actively assisted in Ms. Denson's self-destructive behavior.  And I suspect they'll lose interest in her her pretty quick and move on to other exploitative efforts (in the case of Ryan McKnight, his efforts to exploit others for his own benefit are ongoing).

So what happens to Ms. Denson?  She has made a public spectacle of herself and her troubled past, with the eager assistance of feckless jerks who couldn't care less about her well-being, and who will abandon her forthwith.  She has wrecked her reputation by publicly bragging about her skills in deceit and dishonesty (and by airing her past ethical/criminal misconduct).  She has destroyed her lawsuit against the Church.  She has estranged herself from the LDS community.  So that leaves her . . . where?  With what?  What will happen to her?

I end up with quite a bit of sympathy for Ms. Denson.  I hope she stops her self-destructive behaviors and gets some help.  I hope she finds peace and reconciliation.

I also end up with quite a bit of disgust at the behaviors of the other participants in this imbroglio.

And here:

 

Consig has just published a podcast that does huge damage to Ms. Denson's credibility.  And Consig was there every step of the way.  Egging her on.  Prodding her for details.  Laughing along with her as she vividly describes all the deceptions and false details she used to embellish the narrative she used to track down Joseph Bishop.  

I don't know definitively that Ms. Denson's lawsuit is DOA.  But if it manages to survive the motions to dismiss, Consig has made Mr. Vernon's job in prosecuting it on behalf of Ms. Denson substantially more difficult.  Consig is a lawyer, isn't he?  Couldn't he have stopped for five minutes and given some consideration to the wrecking-ball effect his podcast would have on Ms. Denson's credibility as a witness?  Does he even care?  Or does his animosity toward the LDS Church (and the ego boost of scoring an interview with Ms. Denson) trump all other considerations?  

I continue to pity Ms. Denson, though her behavior makes that difficult.

I also continue to find the behavior of Ryan McKnight, Mike Norton, and Consig to be execrable.

Thanks,

-Smac

[LoudmouthMormon]

When I think about Denson's actions, I'm drawn to similarities with Roseanne Barr.  Over the decades, we've watched Roseanne give us a handful of very public, very self-destructive actions.  She once sang the national anthem at a baseball game, and it started out looking like a genuine attempt to do a good job, and ended up being a blatant mockery.  She then got herself kicked out of her own show by tweeting something stupid/offensive/racist thing.  (The wildly successful ABC show Roseanne is now re-tooled as The Connors.  They killed off her character in the first episode.)

Roseanne apparently had some pretty serious childhood trauma, and has been semi-public about suffering from mental illness to the point of being institutionalized.  Dissociative identity disorder (aka multiple personalities).  Enough to make you feel sorry for her, while at the same time seeing that she's her own worst enemy.

Edited December 6, 2019 by LoudmouthMormon

[Calm]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

But then, Ms. Denson had sent the recording to all sorts of people, so she screwed up big-time, too.  And for the same reason: she was blinded by her desire to injure the Church, so much so that she did not think through the impact the publishing the recording could have on her settlement negotiations.

I am not certain that Denson cares about injuring the Church given her history of scamming companies and individuals for money.  Feels more opportunistic.  I think she was looking for a way to put pressure on the Church to get money quicker without thinking through or understanding the issues of publicizing her evidence. Plus I think she has a need for attention.  It is the same sort of self destructive behaviour as the scam where she swallowed razor blades rather than just use them to cut up her mouth, a technique that raised pressure and therefore might have led to a possible attempt to make it quickly go away, but put herself at huge risk medically speaking. 

Edited December 6, 2019 by Calm

[Calm]

Looks like it may be fading out as not worth the trouble to Denson any more:

https://www.sltrib.com/news/2020/01/14/mckenna-denson-might-drop/

Quote

McKenna Denson’s lawsuit has been in limbo since May, when her lawyers quit the case. She has told U.S. Magistrate Judge Dustin Pead over the past few months that she had been working on finding someone new to represent her.

But on Tuesday, Denson said she might be ready to just dismiss the case.

“I’m not sure I want to secure counsel at the time,” Denson told Pead over the telephone from her workplace in Colorado.

But Denson didn’t seem like she had made up her mind quite yet. She peppered the judge with questions about whether she could refile the suit if she discovered “illegal activity” that happened during the course of the litigation.

Pead sidestepped most of the questions, telling Denson that he could not give her legal advice and that those questions should be brought to an attorney.

Denson was given two weeks to either file a motion to dismiss the case, express interest in mediation or decide to go forward to trial. Her previous lawyers have not publicly discussed why they quit the case.

 

Pretty much all her plans collapsed, right?  No movie released since the director decided she was a fraud, no book that I have seen, no lawyers willing to take it on if she actually tried to find any (I remember one of her cases...maybe the razor blade one...she just dropped it once the police officer started pushing her about inconsistencies and sounded like she had forgotten about it when he contacted her again for some followup, so she came across to me as someone who shifts gears when it gets more pain than gain).  And the Church critic cheering section that kept her in the public eye mostly calling her a fraud probably cut any donations down to not even covering postage for court documents that needed to be filed.  So why waste time and effort?

Edited January 15, 2020 by Calm

[Tacenda]

28 minutes ago, Calm said:

Looks like it may be fading out as not worth the trouble to Denson any more:

https://www.sltrib.com/news/2020/01/14/mckenna-denson-might-drop/

Pretty much all her plans collapsed, right?  No movie released since the director decided she was a fraud, no book that I have seen, no lawyers willing to take it on if she actually tried to find any (I remember one of her cases...maybe the razor blade one...she just dropped it once the police officer started pushing her about inconsistencies and sounded like she had forgotten about it when he contacted her again for some followup, so she came across to me as someone who shifts gears when it gets more pain than gain).  And the Church critic cheering section that kept her in the public eye mostly calling her a fraud probably cut any donations down to not even covering postage for court documents that needed to be filed.  So why waste time and effort?

One wonders if she should have not gone public with the tape recording, well, maybe no one wonders...she'd have maybe gotten compensation. But now...nothing.

[smac97]

11 hours ago, Calm said:

Looks like it may be fading out as not worth the trouble to Denson any more:

https://www.sltrib.com/news/2020/01/14/mckenna-denson-might-drop/

Quote

McKenna Denson’s lawsuit has been in limbo since May, when her lawyers quit the case. She has told U.S. Magistrate Judge Dustin Pead over the past few months that she had been working on finding someone new to represent her.

But on Tuesday, Denson said she might be ready to just dismiss the case.

“I’m not sure I want to secure counsel at the time,” Denson told Pead over the telephone from her workplace in Colorado.

I suspect it's not a matter of what she wants to do, but what she is capable of doing (namely, finding a lawyer willing to take on this nightmare of a case, with a nightmare of a client).

11 hours ago, Calm said:

Quote

But Denson didn’t seem like she had made up her mind quite yet. She peppered the judge with questions about whether she could refile the suit if she discovered “illegal activity” that happened during the course of the litigation.

Pead sidestepped most of the questions, telling Denson that he could not give her legal advice and that those questions should be brought to an attorney.

Judge Pead couldn't address her question, but I can.  The answer is almost certainly "No, you cannot re-file the suit."  The courts really dislike people stringing out or repeating lawsuits.  She could, I suppose, ask for a dismissal without prejudice (meaning she could theoretically file it again later).  However, I think the Church's attorneys would vigorously oppose such a motion, and I think the court would not be predisposed toward a dismissal without prejudice.  The parties have already spent a lot of time and money and effort in adjudicating her claims.  If she has "discovered 'illegal activity' that happened during the course of the litigation," she should present it to the court, rather than hiding it as potential ammo for a future suit.

There is a legal doctrine called res judicata (Latin for "a matter {already} judged") that would likely have some application here.  Simply put, this doctrine is designed to discourage the sort of serial litigation of the same issues (as Ms. Denson apparently has in mind).  If Person X has a legal dispute with Person Y about Subjects A, B and C, then X needs to present all such issues to the court in the same suit, rather than piecemeal.  And if that suit is resolved, then X is precluded from filing further lawsuits relating to Subjects A, B and C.  X would albo be precluded from filing further lawsuits as to any claims she could have or should have included in the first one.

Here, if Ms. Denson has "discovered 'illegal activity' that happened during the course of the litigation," then she is required to present it in the current lawsuit.  If she sits on it, thinking she can use it as the basis for a future lawsuit, I think such a future suit would be immediately subject to dismissal per the res judicata doctrine.

11 hours ago, Calm said:

Quote

Denson was given two weeks to either file a motion to dismiss the case, express interest in mediation or decide to go forward to trial. Her previous lawyers have not publicly discussed why they quit the case.

I'll be interested to see what she does.  I suspect she'll either blow past the deadline, or else file a motion to dismiss the case without prejudice.  If the latter, I think the Church's attorneys would oppose that, and ask that the dismissal be with prejudice (meaning she can't file any further suits), or else that the motion be denied and the litigation continue.  Again, the parties have already spent a lot of time and money and effort on evaluating her claims.  I think the judge will require her to either fish (continue the suit) or cut bait (dismiss it with prejudice).  We'll see.

Pursuing mediation is an interesting idea, but probably only an interim one.  As I have said previously, I have a hard time conceptualizing a settlement with Ms. Denson.  She is profoundly impulsive and untrustworthy, and hence pretty much guaranteed to violate any terms of settlement.

As far as "go{ing} forward to trial," that would be an interesting option.  I wonder if she'd be willing to go it alone.  Represent herself.  Go to trial with the idea of losing, but in the process creating a "shot down in the blaze of glory" spectacle.  I doubt this will happen.  Federal court can be pretty intimidating to seasoned lawyers, and the federal judge would insist on decorum and civility, and would not let the proceedings become "showy."

Thanks,

-Smac

11 hours ago, Calm said:

Pretty much all her plans collapsed, right?  No movie released since the director decided she was a fraud, no book that I have seen, no lawyers willing to take it on if she actually tried to find any (I remember one of her cases...maybe the razor blade one...she just dropped it once the police officer started pushing her about inconsistencies and sounded like she had forgotten about it when he contacted her again for some followup, so she came across to me as someone who shifts gears when it gets more pain than gain).  And the Church critic cheering section that kept her in the public eye mostly calling her a fraud probably cut any donations down to not even covering postage for court documents that needed to be filed.  So why waste time and effort?

 

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

If she has "discovered 'illegal activity' that happened during the course of the litigation," she should present it to the court, rather than hiding it as potential ammo for a future suit.

Sounded more like she was saying if sometime in the future she discovered something rather than making the claim there might be something she knew now. So no substance and a slam at the same time as in she views the Church or its attorneys as currently willing to engage in illegal behaviours...but then since she appears to be willing to commit fraud, there is a good chance she imagines others having the same standards. 

Edited January 15, 2020 by Calm

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

If she has "discovered 'illegal activity' that happened during the course of the litigation," she should present it to the court, rather than hiding it as potential ammo for a future suit.

Sounded more like she was saying if sometime in the future she discovered something rather than making the claim there might be something she knew now. 

Ah.  Okay.  I see your point.  I think you are correct.

If the suit is dismissed, and she thereafter discovers - for the first time - "illegal activity" that took place "during the course of the litigation," could she file a second lawsuit.  That's the question.

I'd need to research the issue, but my initial impression would be "very likely not."  Litigants are obligated to exercise due diligence during litigation.  So her theoretical second lawsuit would not only need to be about a new sort of "illegal activity" by the Church during the lawsuit, she would also need to demonstrate that she exercised due diligence, but still could not have discovered that illegal activity during the lawsuit.  Such a scenario, if it were to arise, would likely require some sort of malfeasance or bad faith by the Church.  The Church "hiding" something from her, such that she was incapable of finding out about it (such as through seeking discovery from the Church).

What are the chances of the Church engaging in "illegal activity" during the lawsuit?  What are the chances of the Church doing that and deliberately and successfully hiding such activity from Ms. Denson?

Seems pretty farfetched.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

An interesting bit from this article:

Quote

Back in May 2019, Denson's previous attorney, Craig Vernon, withdrew and she's been unable to find a law firm to take her case.

Denson said three firms were reviewing her case, but it's hard to find an attorney because some firms are "intimidated" by the Church.

Meh.  I'm open to a law firm being unwilling to sue the Church for a variety of reasons, but "intimidation" is not among them.

Her case is a train wreck, and she's a horrible client.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[Avatar4321]

On 12/6/2019 at 1:51 PM, smac97 said:

That was my thought, too.  Ryan McKnight really screwed things up for her.  In his zeal to tear down the Church, I don't think he thought of the potential ramifications that publishing the recording could have on Ms. Denson's then-pending settlement negotiations.

But then, Ms. Denson had sent the recording to all sorts of people, so she screwed up big-time, too.  And for the same reason: she was blinded by her desire to injure the Church, so much so that she did not think through the impact the publishing the recording could have on her settlement negotiations.

Yep.  I made this same observation last fall:

Also here:

Also here (comments about Consig / "Radio Free Mormon"):

I continue to pity Ms. Denson, though her behavior makes that difficult.

I also continue to find the behavior of Ryan McKnight, Mike Norton, and Consig to be execrable.

Thanks,

-Smac

Would she have suit against them for blowing up settlement? I would think it be difficult argument but when has she shied away from the before?

also any word when the next deadline is?

[smac97]

29 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

Would she have suit against them for blowing up settlement?

I don't think so.  She was an active participant in screwing up her own case.  Plus, they don't owe her any legal "duty of care."

29 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

I would think it be difficult argument but when has she shied away from the before?

also any word when the next deadline is?

Two weeks from the hearing (which was on Tuesday, I think) to either A) have a new attorney show up and formally start to represent her, B) agree to a mediation, or C) start preparing for trial.

Thanks,

-Smac

[topcougar]

On 1/13/2019 at 8:09 PM, Calm said:

Not seeing anything new online  

Mckenna missed another deadline this week. She was supposed to file a status report by the 28th. Meanwhile,  last week, the Church filed its motion to compel responses to earlier discovery requests from Denson. If she continues to fail to respond the Court could dismiss the case as a discovery sanction. 

[LoudmouthMormon]

Am I the only one wondering if people reading this thread, are giving more attention to the Denson lawsuit, than Denson is herself?

[smac97]

8 minutes ago, topcougar said:

Mckenna missed another deadline this week. She was supposed to file a status report by the 28th. Meanwhile,  last week, the Church filed its motion to compel responses to earlier discovery requests from Denson. If she continues to fail to respond the Court could dismiss the case as a discovery sanction. 

Actually, I think the Motion to Compel is about more recent developments.  From the Motion:

Quote

On January 13th, 2020, Ms. Denson contacted COP’s counsel via email and indicated that she was considering dismissing her case.  For the first time, she revealed that “a few weeks after” Ronald Leavitt’s January 17, 2019 deposition, she “went to visit him” and recorded their conversation.  She stated that she had intended to use the recording “during the trial” but was now considering releasing the recording to the media. She also included a thinly-veiled threat that such a release might “ruin . . . careers.” She ended by suggesting that if she is paid, she will not release the recording to the media.

The recording is clearly responsive to multiple discovery requests propounded in December 2018, including, for example, a request to produce: “All edited and unedited video and audio files regarding the allegations in the Complaint or this lawsuit.” {} As such, the recording should have been produced when it was created nearly a year ago. Regardless, counsel for COP requested that Ms. Denson produce it now. {} She refused, and gave no explanation other than her unwillingness to “offer it until {she} decide{s} what to do with it and when.” 

Ms. Denson’s refusal to produce the recording is improper. And her suggestion that she be paid in exchange for evidence in this case violates the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. COP requests that the Court order Ms. Denson to immediately produce the recording as well as any other responsive documents she has improperly withheld, and impose appropriate sanctions. 

Wow.  She's a piece of work.

Also, here's a footnote from the Motion:

Quote

In the email exchange in Exhibit B, Ms. Denson sought to justify her failure to produce the recording by claiming she was not represented by counsel at the time she met with Mr. Leavitt. That representation cannot be reconciled with her statement that she recorded him “a few weeks after” his deposition. Mr. Leavitt was deposed on January 17, 2019, but Ms. Denson’s former counsel did not withdraw until more than four months later on May 31, 2019. In any case, as was pointed out by email, whether or not she was represented by counsel at the time, she is still obligated to produce responsive documents.

Here's the text of her email (attached as "Exhibit A" to the Motion):

Quote

Mr. Jordan,

I am relieved the court case is coming to an end, even though justice has not been served. The Church knew about Joseph Bishop and covered it up. I was not convinced by Robert Wells' testimony. Having said that, I am not comfortable forcing other victims to come forward and expose them to the harassment and cruelty this case put me through.

Having said that, I have been contacted by another woman recently. Her experience was identical to mine. She is active in the church and has not told her husband. I don't want to disrupt her life.  I went to visit Ron Leavitt in his home a few weeks after he gave his deposition. I was curious as to why he lied to the media but told the truth so quickly in the deposition. I've always known him to be an honest man and lying is not in his nature. This was evidenced when he told the truth within the first half hour of his deposition. Our conversation lasted just over two hours. He shared information that was very disturbing to me. I recorded the conversation and planned to use it, if necessary, during the trial. I haven't shared the recording with anyone. I didn't want to ruin any careers. There are two others who have knowledge of the recording and its contents. Craig was no longer my attorney at the time of the recording and Mr. Hawkes released himself from my case before I shared the information with him.

There are two movie production companies interested in the story. They are not yet aware of the recent recording.

I never intended to smear the church. I don't believe the church is what it pretends to be, and I do believe they protect sexual predators to their advantage and care nothing for the victims. I guess that's business.

I haven't decided what to do with the recording yet, but I wanted control over if, or when, it is made public. I won't give it to anyone until I've made that decision. It is currently in a safe deposit box.  So it seems I have two options: Settle with the church and move on with my life or turn over the recording to one of the production companies and keep moving forward. 

Please advise.
Best,
McKenna Denson 

A few other items:

"Exhibit B" is an email from David Jordan, the Church's attorney.  It includes a back-and-forth exchange between him and Ms. Denson.  She states that she has spoken with an attorney friend, who is not representing her, but is giving her advice about the recording.

Mr. Jordan tries to move ahead with getting some discovery issues sorted out (such as her discovery responses, which are incomplete, and also the scheduling of depositions).  She responds with "I prefer to move to mediation.  I need this last portion to complete the final chapter."  Mr. Jordan responds with "I don't understand what you mean by 'I need this last portion to complete the final chapter.'"  Ms. Denson then says "I need to know that I exhausted every avenue of legal possibilities," that "{t}his chapter in my life" was a reference to "my life.  Not referring to a book," and that "{o}nce I exhaust every legal avenue, and have given every opportunity to the church and to you, I can move forward free of conscience."

"Move forward free of conscience."  Hmm.  A freudian slip, perhaps?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

39 minutes ago, topcougar said:

Mckenna missed another deadline this week. She was supposed to file a status report by the 28th. Meanwhile,  last week, the Church filed its motion to compel responses to earlier discovery requests from Denson. If she continues to fail to respond the Court could dismiss the case as a discovery sanction. 

Thanks for popping in to cover this.

[Calm]

14 minutes ago, smac97 said:

For the first time, she revealed that “a few weeks after” Ronald Leavitt’s January 17, 2019 deposition, she “went to visit him” and recorded their conversation. 

I am pretty sure she mentioned somewhere at sometime she had him on tape and it would cause problems.  If I am not imagining it,  her lawyer may have shut her down quick enough in hopes of keeping some leverage.

I just have no sympathy for her at this point, she is a blackmailer imo.  She has done it numerous times before and is still trying with the Church.

[Calm]

24 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I was not convinced by Robert Wells' testimony.

Which means nothing supportive for her in that.

Quote

There are two others who have knowledge of the recording and its contents. Craig was no longer my attorney at the time of the recording and Mr. Hawkes released himself from my case before I shared the information with him.

So an unnamed victim and unnamed witnesses...trying to establish credibility through others, most likely imo imaginary.

Both Jordan and her former lawyer (Craig?) would have been very familiar with Leavitt's disposition.  If he told a different story to the media that he did in the deposition, I find it hard to believe Craig wouldn't have kept at him until there was a decent explanation, so I find it highly unlikely that there is anything of value on the recording assuming there is one.  Why would Leavitt have agreed to see her privately in the midst of litigation?

Can she be charged with blackmail if it is this vague or perhaps contempt if she refuses to turn this recording over?  If I were the Church, there is no way I would want this left out there unresolved when they have the legal right to hear it.

Edited January 30, 2020 by Calm

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

I am pretty sure she mentioned somewhere at sometime she had him on tape and it would cause problems.  If I am not imagining it,  her lawyer may have shut her down quick enough in hopes of keeping some leverage.

She was obligated to provide the recording as soon as she made it.

If she mentioned it online, or during an interview, it's possible that the Church's attorney was not aware of that (as evidenced by her trying to use it as leverage in settlement negotiations).  

Her attorney either did not know about it, or else violated the Rules of Professional Conduct by not disclosing it, or else knew about it and withdraw because Ms. Denson refused to authorize them to release it.

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

I just have no sympathy for her at this point, she is a blackmailer imo.  She has done it numerous times before and is still trying with the Church.

From her email: "So it seems I have two options: Settle with the church and move on with my life or turn over the recording to one of the production companies and keep moving forward."

Yep, a real piece of work.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

she mentioned it online,

If my memory is not conflating something else, it was either Facebook or Reddit where her conversations were quickly deleted at times.

[LoudmouthMormon]

Just a reminder: 

 

[esodije]

I have to wonder what Denson could possibly have on Leavitt.  As I understand it, Leavitt originally said he didn't report Denson's accusations up the chain in 1987 because he didn't believe them.  But then he supposedly arranged the interview Denson said she had with Carlos Asay, to which her future ex-husband took her.  What could he have told her last year that would be a bombshell for the church?