Whacky Lawsuit Against the Church Goes Awry

[smac97]

This board has hosted a number of threads about lawsuits against or about the Church.  Suits filed by McKenna Denson, Laura Gaddy and Lynnette Cook, Kristine Johnson, Kristy Johnson are examples.

As with litigation generally, the factual elements underlying these cases are quite a mixture of fact, fiction, speculation, unknowns, and so on.  McKenna Denson's lawsuit, though overall deeply problematic, appears to have brought to light some legitimate grievances against Joseph Bishop (and perhaps how her claims were handled by the Church).  Kristy Johnson's suit against her father likewise included allegations that were troubling.

However, some of these lawsuits are overwhelmingly lacking in merit.  They are piffle.  Crapola.  Poppycock.  They have no business being filed in court, particularly when the plaintiff is filed by an attorney.  IMO, the most egregious of the above examples is the suit filed by Laura Gaddy, who is represented by attorney Kay Burningham, who has utterly embarrassed herself with filing this dreck of a lawsuit.

It looks like Ms. Burningham is not the only attorney out there who is willing to torch their reputation and professional standing in attempting to get the Church.  See here:

Quote

Div. One of the Fourth District Court of Appeal has imposed a $15,000 sanction on a lawyer who handled an appeal from an action against the Mormon Church which the San Diego Superior Court had dismissed as being of a crackpot nature.

Presiding Justice Judith McConnell wrote the opinion, filed Tuesday and not certified for publication. It upholds the judgment of Judge Kenneth J. Medel who dismissed an action filed by Jamieson Brown against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and others.

The "Fourth District Court of Appeal" here is one of the state appellate courts for California.

Quote

Medel properly exercised his inherent powers to scuttle an action manifestly predicated on poppycock, she declared—describing the allegations as “absurd and delusional”—and said attorney Francisco Javier Aldana must be penalized for filing a frivolous appeal.

She wrote:

“The notion that the Mormon Church, with the aid of dozens of codefendants, including prostitutes, police officers, and judicial officers, perpetrated a wide-ranging scheme of violence, intimidation, manipulation of the judicial system, ritualistic curses, sleep deprivation, romantic sabotage, and the theft of Brown’s spiritual power—all based on Brown’s opposition to Mormonism—falls, in our view, decidedly outside the realm of possibility. These allegations, and Brown’s defense of them on appeal, are so frivolous to the point of absurdity.”

Brown’s allegations are so absurd and delusional that we have significant concerns that his counsel of record—Francisco Javier Aldana—would defend such frivolous allegations against the defendants’ demurrers and motions to strike, much less appeal the trial court’s order dismissing the case.

Wow.  It's pretty rare to see an appellate court "call out" an attorney in this way.

Quote

McConnell said the lawyer also violated various rules of appellate procedure, noting:

“Several dozen pages of the briefing Mr. Aldana filed on behalf of his client are devoted to matters outside the appellate record. To take a few illustrative examples, the briefs discuss numerous passages from religious texts to support Brown’s claims that Satanists commit ‘evil and wicked acts’ and the Mormon Church has levied ‘war against this country.’ ”

She continued:

“The briefs analyze sixteen different entries from the website Wikipedia on topics including Brigham Young University, the Book of Mormon, the History of San Bernardino, the mythology of bees, symbols of the State of Utah, and the Mexican-American War. They describe an individual user’s YouTube channel and the user’s alleged efforts to document ‘bizarre temple rituals taking place in the Mormon temples.’ Further, they examine the contents of myriad magazine and newspaper articles, films, opinion pieces, and websites—far too many for us to recite here.”

Aldana, arguing against imposition of sanctions, pointed out that was his client, not he, who filed the 93-page complaint in Superior Court. McConnel responded:

“[W]e are not imposing sanctions against Mr. Aldana for the content of the complaint or Mr. Aldana’s conduct before the trial court. Rather, we are imposing sanctions against Mr. Aldana for pursuing a frivolous appeal—an appeal Mr. Aldana had a professional obligation to forego—and for committing unreasonable and extensive violations of the Rules in the appellate briefing he filed on behalf of his client.”

Here's the full text of the appellate court decision.  Some excerpts:

Quote

Plaintiff Jamieson Brown filed a complaint alleging defendants Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (together, the Mormon Church) orchestrated a conspiracy to spy on, kidnap, and harm him with the assistance of dozens of codefendants and conspirators, including male prostitutes, pimps, devil worshippers, gang members, Brown’s former landlords, participants in a lynch mob, the employees and owners of a cocktail bar and a bathhouse, members of law enforcement, and members of the state judiciary. The trial court dismissed the action under its inherent power to control litigation, prevent harassment of defendants, and avert misuse of the judicial process.
...
In 2017, Brown, proceeding in propria persona, filed a 93-page complaint against 27 defendants and hundreds of doe defendants. The complaint alleged the Mormon Church perpetrated a multifaceted scheme of surveillance, oppression, and violence against him based on his vocal opposition to Mormonism. It asserted numerous torts and causes of action based on alleged statutory violations. After Brown filed the complaint, attorney Francisco Javier Aldana substituted in as Brown’s counsel of record.

Brown averred the Mormon Church’s scheme took many forms. First, he alleged the Mormon Church hired a male prostitute and “devil worshipper” to befriend him, become his roommate, and spy on him. He alleged the Mormon Church instructed its spy to “keep[] [Brown] awake as much as possible” to hinder his participation in a landlord-tenant dispute involving Brown and his former landlords, who were members of the Mormon Church. Brown alleged the Mormon Church manipulated judicial assignments for the landlord-tenant dispute to ensure Mormon judges were assigned to the case.

Second, Brown alleged the Mormon Church hired a different male prostitute and pornography star to enter a romantic relationship with him and “wreak havoc in [his] life.” According to Brown, the man hired to be his romantic partner had sexual encounters with other men “to emotionally devastate him.” He averred his romantic partner and his roommate—both of whom he described as Satanists and Sureños gang members—spied on him from a cocktail bar near his residence with the aid and assistance of the bar’s employees. He further alleged he was “attacked” while leaving the bar by unidentified assailants who desired to “tak[e] blood from [his] face to decrease his spiritual power.”

Finally, Brown alleged several instances in which the Mormon Church, unnamed defendants, and conspirators intimidated him. In one case, defendants allegedly kidnapped his companions at a bathhouse and organized a lynch mob to chase him down the streets of San Diego. On another occasion, defendants and conspirators allegedly surveilled him while he rode a bus and tried to “lay curses” on him. In another instance, defendants “with close connections to” United States Senator Mitt Romney allegedly stalked, screamed, and chanted at him. Brown alleged he reported certain of these incidents to police, but the responding officers did not help him because they were Mormons.
...
The notion that the Mormon Church, with the aid of dozens of codefendants, including prostitutes, police officers, and judicial officers, perpetrated a wide-ranging scheme of violence, intimidation, manipulation of the judicial system, ritualistic curses, sleep deprivation, romantic sabotage, and the theft of Brown’s spiritual power—all based on Brown’s opposition to Mormonism—falls, in our view, decidedly outside the realm of possibility. These allegations, and Brown’s defense of them on appeal, are so frivolous to the point of absurdity. “[N]o reasonable attorney could have thought this complaint or this appeal meritorious.” (Simonian v. Patterson (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 773, 785.)

Again, I am not discounting all the litigation filed against the Church.  Sometimes the Church and/or its agents/representatives errs legally.  When and if that happens, and can be established through evidence and argument, the Church needs to take its legal lumps like anyone else.  So I don't begrudge anyone who has a legitimate (or at least colorable) grievance against the Church and avails himself to filing a lawsuit.

That said, there are a lot of frivolous lawsuits filed against the Church.  Those filed by Cook and Gaddy come immediately to mind.  And these are just the recent ones.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 21, 2020 by smac97

[Kenngo1969]

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is using my tithing dollars to hire prostitutes?!

I want to intervene in Mr. Brown's lawsuit!

How do I do that?    I take it that I'll probably need to file a motion, yes?

Do you suppose Mr. Aldana will help me do that, and do you think it'll fly with the judge hearing Mr. Brown's case?

 

[The Nehor]

I want to know more about the lynch mob.

[JamesBYoung]

What a stupid lawsuit.

[Calm]

9 hours ago, smac97 said:

Quoted by Smac:  Medel properly exercised his inherent powers to scuttle an action manifestly predicated on poppycock, she declared—describing the allegations as “absurd and delusional”—and said attorney Francisco Javier Aldana must be penalized for filing a frivolous appeal.

Nice.  While when it gets into more subjective areas, I think extra care should be taken, truly frivolous lawsuits should be fined as taking advantage of a system paid for by others.

This lawyer was taking advantage of a mentally disturbed client, imo.  I am guessing he charged a fee and didn't take it on contingency or whatever it's called where if lose, it is free, split the settlement if win as no lawyer in his right mind would assume there would be a win or even a settlement to make it go away or to help an obvious disturbed individual pay for therapy that would justify his time.

What are the basic fees for filing lawsuits?  I assume it is not completely free, but wondering if it even begins to cover the cost ofeven minimal attention. 

Edited May 22, 2020 by Calm

[Michael Sudworth]

11 hours ago, smac97 said:

Again, I am not discounting all the litigation filed against the Church.

Then what is the point of your OP?

11 hours ago, smac97 said:

Sometimes the Church and/or its agents/representatives errs legally.  When and if that happens, and can be established through evidence and argument, the Church needs to take its legal lumps like anyone else

I agree with this but am curious if you can point out an instance where the Church needed to take its legal lumps? 

11 hours ago, smac97 said:

So I don't begrudge anyone who has a legitimate (or at least colorable) grievance against the Church and avails himself to filing a lawsuit.

Again, would love to have you name a specific example.

11 hours ago, smac97 said:

That said, there are a lot of frivolous lawsuits filed against the Church.

Duh.  Any organization with means is the subject of frequent frivolous lawsuits. Do you think you are actually making an insightful observation here?

11 hours ago, smac97 said:

Those filed by Cook and Gaddy come immediately to mind.  And these are just the recent ones. 

Again, what is your point beyond mere sophistry?

Your OP has no thesis.  You are stating an obvious fact and dressing it up like it is some sort of "hot take."

So the Church is sued by idiots on occasion?  What's your point?  Because it seems like you are employing sophistry to discredit *all* lawsuits against the Church - your disingenuous "aww shucks, the Church should take its lumps just like everyone else" schtick notwithstanding.  

pic unrelated:

Edited May 22, 2020 by Michael Sudworth

[smac97]

10 hours ago, Michael Sudworth said:

Then what is the point of your OP?

To talk about the crummy lawsuit filed against the Church.

Quote

I agree with this but am curious if you can point out an instance where the Church needed to take its legal lumps? 

McKenna Denson's suit was a possible one.  Respondeat superior and all that.  If liability had been established, and the statute of limitations was somehow tolled or deemed inapplicable...

Also, the Church lost in the Main Street Plaza case, as it should have.  The deal with SLC was clearly unconstitutional.

Also, the Church erred in its daily reporting requirements during Prop 8, and as a result paid a small fine (see here).

Late last year I said (regarding the story about the Church's financial stockpile): "I'm sure the IRS will sort out whether the Church has complied with the law.  If the Church has not complied with it, it needs to be held accountable."  

I'm sure there are more instances than these.

Quote

Duh.  Any organization with means is the subject of frequent frivolous lawsuits. Do you think you are actually making an insightful observation here?

I was posting a news item.

Quote

Again, what is your point beyond mere sophistry?

Sophistry was not my point at all.

Quote

Your OP has no thesis.  You are stating an obvious fact and dressing it up like it is some sort of "hot take."

Again, I was posting a news item.  I don't think it's a "hot take."

Quote

So the Church is sued by idiots on occasion? 

I don't know if the fellow is an idiot.  He sounds mentally ill.  The lawyer who took his money to prosecute the case seems to have done so unethically.

Quote

What's your point? 

To post a news item.

Quote

Because it seems like you are employing sophistry to discredit *all* lawsuits against the Church - your disingenuous "aww shucks, the Church should take its lumps just like everyone else" schtick notwithstanding.  

I said: "I am not discounting all the litigation filed against the Church.  Sometimes the Church and/or its agents/representatives errs legally.  When and if that happens, and can be established through evidence and argument, the Church needs to take its legal lumps like anyone else.  So I don't begrudge anyone who has a legitimate (or at least colorable) grievance against the Church and avails himself to filing a lawsuit."

I am not discrediting all lawsuits against the Church.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 22, 2020 by smac97

[Kenngo1969]

16 hours ago, Calm said:

...What are the basic fees for filing lawsuits?  I assume it is not completely free, but wondering if it even begins to cover the cost of even minimal attention. 

https://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/filingfees.pdf

[Kenngo1969]

15 hours ago, Michael Sudworth said:

... what is the point of your OP?

 

15 hours ago, Michael Sudworth said:

... am curious if you can point out an instance where the Church needed to take its legal lumps? 

Again, would love to have you name a specific example.

 

15 hours ago, Michael Sudworth said:

Duh.  Any organization with means is the subject of frequent frivolous lawsuits. Do you think you are actually making an insightful observation here?

 

15 hours ago, Michael Sudworth said:

Again, what is your point beyond mere sophistry?

 

15 hours ago, Michael Sudworth said:

Your OP has no thesis.  You are stating an obvious fact and dressing it up like it is some sort of "hot take."

 

15 hours ago, Michael Sudworth said:

So the Church is sued by idiots on occasion?  What's your point?  Because it seems like you are employing sophistry to discredit *all* lawsuits against the Church - your disingenuous "aww shucks, the Church should take its lumps just like everyone else" schtick notwithstanding.  ...

 

It seems, Mr. Sudworth, that your only point is to come here and lob gratuitous insults at a longtime, highly-respected poster.

[Michael Sudworth]

3 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

It seems, Mr. Sudworth, that your only point is to come here and lob gratuitous insults at a longtime, highly-respected poster.

Nein.  I am responding to rhetorical sleight of hand.  I think most posters recognize good arguments from simple smoke and mirrors. 

[mrmarklin]

I would venture to say that 99.99% of these lawsuits are filed on contingency. The idea being that to avoid nuisance and legal expense, the defendant settles without admitting any guilt. The attorney gets a 30% fee or more for very little work, and the plaintiff also gets something. It’s not a lot of money in absolute terms for the lawyer, but it adds up and fills what may otherwise be dead time on his schedule. 
Farmers auto insurance put a lot of ambulance chasers out of business in the early nineties here in CA, by taking to trial every case. It cost a lot of legal fees in the short run, but effectively stopped nuisance suits since the lawyers that did this were now incurring real costs of going to trial. No easy settlements.  I know of at least one attorney that retired early because of this. 
 

The real problem we have with lawsuits in the US, is that the loser does not have to pay the legal costs of the defendants in frivolous suits. Britain, as an example, has loser pays rule, and avoids a lot of stupidity clogging their courts. 

[Kenngo1969]

2 hours ago, Michael Sudworth said:

Nein.  I am responding to rhetorical sleight of hand.  I think most posters recognize good arguments from simple smoke and mirrors. 

If you are attempting to respond to "rhetorical sleight of hand" here, then you are tilting at windmills.  Even people who might disagree with Smac97's views as he has expressed them in this thread would not go so far as to say that he has engaged in "rhetorical sleight of hand" or that he is simply using "smoke and mirrors."  To me, your accusations to the contrary, on the other hand, are not indicative of someone who wishes to engage in good-faith dialogue, because the first step in doing so is to avoid imputing bad faith to your interlocutors.  I strongly suspect that Smac97 will be making substantive, well-reasoned arguments on this Board, on any successors it might have, and perhaps in similar fora long after you, by contrast, have lost interest and have gone the way of the Dodo Bird.  That's not to say, however, that perfectly valid contrary viewpoints won't exist or that people won't disagree with Smac97.

Agree with Smac97?  Fine.  Disagree with Smac97?  Fine.  Vive le difference!  But he is possessed of a formidable intellect and excellent reasoning skills, so anyone who dismisses him, as you have done on this thread, does so at his own peril.

[let’s roll]

2 hours ago, Michael Sudworth said:

Nein.  I am responding to rhetorical sleight of hand.  I think most posters recognize good arguments from simple smoke and mirrors. 

Well, so far the count is smac 10– Mike 0.  That seems about right to me.  But no need to worry, posters here are generally kind hearted so probably won’t pile on.  

[Calm]

7 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

https://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/filingfees.pdf

That is more than I expected.  Thanks.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, mrmarklin said:

Britain, as an example, has loser pays rule, and avoids a lot of stupidity clogging their courts. 

I wouldn't want this to occur in all cases as it could prevent those without financial backing from being able to take on those who do out of fear they might lose and be financially destroyed, but some penalty for poorly substantiated lawsuits should occur, imo.

[LoudmouthMormon]

On 5/21/2020 at 11:31 AM, smac97 said:

I am not discounting all the litigation filed against the Church.  Sometimes the Church and/or its agents/representatives errs legally.

 

22 hours ago, Michael Sudworth said:

What's your point?  Because it seems like you are employing sophistry to discredit *all* lawsuits against the Church

 

*snort*

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

That is more than I expected.  Thanks.

When you say "more," are you referring to the cost of filing, or to the amount of information?

[Calm]

Cost.   But now I think of it, wasn't expecting more than a couple of estimates, so the second too.

[Kenngo1969]

Yeah.  I recently filed an action against someone here in Utah.  I went for broke ... literally, in my case, since I no longer have a job ... didn't ask for a specific amount of monetary damages ($360) and requested a jury, even though I can't see wasting a jury's time with it and would be fine with having a judge hear it (but, if I understand the rules correctly, either party can request a jury), which is another $250.  My opponent is judgment proof, which means I'll never see a dime from her, even if I win. Just for, ummm, fun, here's  Utah's fee schedule.  https://www.utcourts.gov/resources/fees.htm

[The Nehor]

11 hours ago, Michael Sudworth said:

Nein.  I am responding to rhetorical sleight of hand.  I think most posters recognize good arguments from simple smoke and mirrors. 

Then why are you still here?

[Michael Sudworth]

18 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

 Even people who might disagree with Smac97's views as he has expressed them in this thread would not go so far as to say that he has engaged in "rhetorical sleight of hand" or that he is simply using "smoke and mirrors." 

LOL.  You are busting me up.  Ha. @Robert F. Smith presents arguments.   Smac uses a lot of words that essentially mean nothing.

 

Quote

I strongly suspect that Smac97 will be making substantive, well-reasoned arguments on this Board, on any successors it might have, and perhaps in similar fora long after you, by contrast, have lost interest and have gone the way of the Dodo Bird.

I agree.  I am don't have the stamina to match Smac's nonsense.  He's driven many good posters away through his sophistry by simply wearing them down with Zeezrom-esque language and tricks.

Quote

That's not to say, however, that perfectly valid contrary viewpoints won't exist or that people won't disagree with Smac97.

Most sensible people disagree with Smac's posts on this board.

Quote

But he is possessed of a formidable intellect and excellent reasoning skills

Poppycock, so I am issuing an official CFR.  As I said, @Robert F. Smith and @Kevin Christensen are intellectuals with solid reasoning skills.  Smac is lawyer who uses underhanded and disingenuous rhetoric to win arguments.  Winning arguments does not equal truth; something folks with quality reasoning skills understand.

Quote

so anyone who dismisses him, as you have done on this thread, does so at his own peril.

Peril? LOL

Oh man.... this post made my day

Edited May 23, 2020 by Michael Sudworth

[Michael Sudworth]

8 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Then why are you still here?

Are you dating anyone, Nehor?  How's that going for you?

[Calm]

7 minutes ago, Michael Sudworth said:

Most sensible people disagree with Smac's posts on this board.

 

What is your list of sensible people?  If you put it up first, then we can poll them to see if they match your assessment. 

[bluebell]

8 minutes ago, Calm said:

 

What is your list of sensible people?  If you put it up first, then we can poll them to see if they match your assessment. 

He sounds like the kind of poster where anyone who doesn't agree with him isn't sensible.    

[Michael Sudworth]

23 minutes ago, bluebell said:

He sounds like the kind of poster where anyone who doesn't agree with him isn't sensible.    

I disagree with @Robert F. Smith about nearly everything.  But he is an honest, sensible intellectual.

I believe @mfbukowski pollutes the Gospel message with his Rorty fetish. But I respect the effort @mfbukowski puts into developing and expressing his arguments.

Smac is Zeezrom.  Fancy words, no substance.

Edited May 23, 2020 by Michael Sudworth