Laswuit Against Pres. Nelson's Daughter Dismissed

[smac97]

Back in October 2018 I started a thread about this story:

Quote

Here:

Quote

SALT LAKE CITY — Allegations rejected 30 years ago by multiple law enforcement investigations resurfaced Wednesday in a federal lawsuit filed against the daughter and son-in-law of the president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

The couple was identified only as John and Jane Doe in the suit, but an attorney for the defendants identified them as Brenda and Richard Miles, the daughter and son-in-law of President Russell M. Nelson, president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, often called the Mormon church.

The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Utah by six unnamed plaintiffs, alleges that their father and the Mileses were part of a ring of adults and babysitters who sexually assaulted them as young children during "touching parties" at homes in their Bountiful neighborhood.

The Mileses rejected the lawsuit’s claims through their attorney, calling them "patently false and deeply, utterly offensive" and "long-ago debunked accusations."

"We have never abused these children or anyone else. To do so would be contrary to our beliefs, our principles, our character and the way we have always lived our lives. Police investigated these allegations against us more than 30 years ago and found no evidence to support them. To protect ourselves from the specter of false allegations, we voluntarily took a polygraph test. The results of the tests, which we took in 1986, support the reality that we did not sexually abuse these children.”

The Mileses’ attorney, Jim Jardine, said, "Child abuse is evil, but so is a false accusation of child abuse."

Wow.

Decades-old allegations of sexual abuse are deeply problematic. 

The suit has now been dismissed.  See here:

Quote

A lawsuit filed in Salt Lake City’s federal court in 2018 alleging sexual abuse and a cover-up involving family members of the president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was dismissed this week.

The case was filed by six unnamed plaintiffs, identified as “Jane Doe” and “John Doe,” against Brenda and Richard Miles, who are the daughter and son-in-law of church President Russell M. Nelson.

The Mileses vigorously denied the allegations.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs and defendants filed a motion Wednesday to dismiss the case, which was granted the next day by U.S. District Court Judge Jill N. Parrish.

The lawsuit was dismissed with prejudice, meaning it cannot be refiled again, according to FOX 13.

“The Miles are grateful for our judicial process that resulted in the dismissal of this case, which should never have been brought in the first place,” James Jardine, the couple’s attorney, told FOX 13 on Friday.

The plaintiffs dropped the suit, their attorney Craig Vernon told the station, after a recent Utah Supreme Court ruling “eviscerated” their case. That decision deemed that a new state law removing the statute of limitations in civil suits alleging sexual abuse could not be applied retroactively.

The now-dismissed lawsuit alleged that a man identified in court documents as the “Perpetrator” sexually abused his children in 1985. It also says a 16-year-old babysitter was both victimized and victimized others. The suit then accuses Brenda and Richard Miles of abuse.

See also here:

Quote

A federal lawsuit alleging sexual abuse involving relatives of the president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has been dismissed.

Court records show U.S. District Judge Jill Parrish agreed to dismiss the lawsuit this week at the request of lawyers for both the six unnamed plaintiffs and Brenda and Richard Miles, the daughter and son-in-law of Latter-day Saint leader Russell M. Nelson. The lawsuit was dismissed with prejudice, meaning it cannot be refiled again.

"The Miles are grateful for our judicial process that resulted in the dismissal of this case, which should never have been brought in the first place," James Jardine, the Miles' attorney, told FOX 13 on Friday.

The lawsuit, originally filed in 2018, accused the couple of involvement in the sexual abuse of children in the 1980s in Bountiful. It also claimed there was a cover-up to halt police investigations. The lawsuit originally did not name the couple (using pseudonyms) but the Miles' attorney publicly disclosed their names and vigorously denied the accusations, arguing they were the product of false-memories from a therapist and that police had already investigated and found nothing to the claims. Within hours of the original lawsuit being filed, they asked a judge to dismiss it and issued a statement vigorously denying the accusations.

During the litigation, the unnamed plaintiffs who alleged abuse sought to depose President Nelson. The Church itself has called the claims of a cover-up "baseless and offensive."

The plaintiffs dropped the lawsuit after a recent Utah Supreme Court ruling, said their attorney, Craig Vernon. The ruling found that Utah's new law that removed the statute of limitations for civil lawsuits alleging sexual abuse cannot be applied retroactively.

"The Miles brought a motion to dismiss arguing that the new (2015) statute extending the time to sue perpetrators was unconstitutional. Our case was stayed so that very issue could be determined by the Utah Supreme Court in Mitchell v Roberts. Our case was eviscerated when it was determined that these claims could not be revived and that this statute was unconstitutional," Vernon said in a statement to FOX 13.

The Utah Supreme Court's ruling not only impacts this case, but other pending lawsuits in state and federal courts. A state lawmaker and sex abuse survivors are discussing a proposed constitutional amendment that would overturn the Utah Supreme Court's ruling in future cases.

A few thoughts:

1. Sexual abuse is a horrible crime.  I condemn it.  Full stop.

2. Allegations of sexual abuse are not equivalent to actual sexual abuse.  I previously posted what I thought were axiomatic statements, but which apparently need repetition (NOTE: These remarks were presented at the height of the Kavanaugh debate, hence the reference to allegations from women about abuse) :

Quote

An allegation of sexual abuse is not evidence of itself.

The presumption of innocence applies to allegations of sexual abuse.

Due process applies to allegations of sexual abuse.

Statutes of limitations apply to allegations of sexual abuse.

Requiring the same standards of evidence as used for other claims applies to allegations of sexual abuse.

Scrutinizing allegations of sexual abuse is not, in and of itself, "victim-blaming" or "victim-shaming."

Women are not entitled to their say-so about a sexual assault claim being taken as the gospel truth simply because they are women.

Women are not entitled to privilege their claims of sexual assault from normative measures of scrutiny and evidentiary requirements simply because the accuser is a woman and the accused is a man.

Politicizing allegations of sexual assault (deeming them established without evidence, or else utterly without merit, depending on the political affiliation of the accuser and/or the accused) is a terrible, terrible thing.

Unbridled, let's-destroy-a-man's-life-solely-on-the-uncorroborated-and-unsubstantiated-say-so-of-a-woman's-claims activism is a terrible, terrible thing.

These things are indeed indicative of the pendulum having swung way too far.

3. I hope victims of abuse become aware of the legal necessity to file suit in a timely manner.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 26, 2020 by smac97

[The Nehor]

I have a legal question I am hoping you can answer. According to the lawyer for the plaintiffs they dropped the case. Yet the judge also dismissed it with prejudice. If the plaintiffs withdraw the case is that normal to still have judgment. I would think a withdrawal would just end it.

That being said I am glad it is over and cannot come back. There seemed little merit to it.

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I have a legal question I am hoping you can answer. According to the lawyer for the plaintiffs they dropped the case.

Sorta.  The plaintiffs technically don't have the right to "drop the case" once a defendant files an answer to the complaint.  Thereafter, the plaintiffs must either A) reach an agreement with all the parties who have appeared in the lawsuit (including the defendants), or B) by order of the court "on terms that the court considers proper."  See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a).

5 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Yet the judge also dismissed it with prejudice.

Yes.  At the request of all parties.  From the first article quoted above: "Attorneys for the plaintiffs and defendants filed a motion Wednesday to dismiss the case, which was granted the next day by U.S. District Court Judge Jill N. Parrish."

5 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

If the plaintiffs withdraw the case is that normal to still have judgment. I would think a withdrawal would just end it.

There was no judgment.  The case was dismissed prior to a judgment being entered.  

5 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

That being said I am glad it is over and cannot come back. There seemed little merit to it.

Ditto.

Thanks,

-Smac

[The Nehor]

When I said judgment I meant in the sense of there being prejudice in the dismissal. I should not have used the word “judgment”. Thanks for the explanation.

[smac97]

33 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

When I said judgment I meant in the sense of there being prejudice in the dismissal. I should not have used the word “judgment”. Thanks for the explanation.

In terms of the ability to re-file a lawsuit, a dismissal with prejudice has the same effect as a judgment on the merits.