Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

New Lawsuit Against Church in Oregon


Recommended Posts

Here:

Quote

A Salem man says he was sexually abused by a youth group leader with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who was allowed to continue to work with children even after being convicted for molesting another boy.

David Hiser, now 51, filed a federal suit Tuesday in Eugene against the church, seeking $5 million in noneconomic damages, $500,000 in economic damages and unspecified punitive damages.

Here is a link to the complaint.

Quote

The suit also claims the church kept secret files dating back to the 1960s that showed church leaders knew who had molested children. Hiser’s lawyers said they plan to seek public release of the files.

I wonder if this is true.  I also wonder what the prospects are of these documents being publicly released.

Quote

Hiser alleges in the suit that Ronald Lynn Kerlee molested him dozens of times when Kerlee was the youth leader at the Corvallis Stake. The abuse occurred for several years until about 1985 from when Hiser was about age 12 to age 15 or 16, he said.

The suit accuses the church of negligence in failing to warn members of Kerlee’s 1983 sex abuse conviction and in allowing Kerlee to have continued contact with Hiser children in church groups until the late 1980s.
...
Hiser’s abuse occurred before, during and after youth group events, at Kerlee’s home in Philomath, at a church camp and at a father-son campout, he said. The Oregonian/OregonLive generally doesn’t name alleged abuse victims but Hiser agreed to use his name.

At times, Kerlee videotaped the abuse, setting up a video camera on a tripod beside the couch in his home, he said.

Horrible stuff.  However, I suspect there will be significant evidentiary and statute of limitations issues in this case.  Not unlike what we saw in the McKenna Denson case.  

Apparently the statute of limitations for civil claims of child sexual abuse require that the suit must be filed before the victim attains 40 years of age.  However, the statute is more complex than that.  This article goes into some explanation about it:

Quote

On July 19, 2017, the Oregon Court of Appeals released its opinion in Doe v. Silverman et al, 286 Or App. 813, ___ P3d ___ (2017), an action for damages based on child sexual abuse.  The opinion addresses Oregon Revised Statute (“ORS”) 12.117 – which is Oregon’s extended statute of limitations applicable to certain claims based on child abuse.  Under the statute, the plaintiff is permitted to file a lawsuit by the later of two periods: (1) before the plaintiff turns 40 years old; or (2) within five years of the date the plaintiff discovered, or reasonably should have discovered, the causal connection between the child abuse and his/her alleged injury.  This statute constitutes an exception to the general rule in Oregon that tort claims are subject to a two-year statute of limitations and a ten-year statute of ultimate repose.[i]

ORS 12.117(1) applies to two classes of claims: (1) claims against a defendant that actually committed the alleged “child abuse”; and (2) claims against a defendant that “knowingly allow[ed], permit[ed] or encourage[d] child abuse.”  However, this invites the question: what does it mean to “knowingly” allow, permit or encourage child abuse?  The answer to this question is potentially significant because the applicability of ORS 12.117 often determines whether a civil child abuse claim is, or may be, time-barred.

Here is the statute being referenced:

Quote

Notwithstanding ORS 12.110 (Actions for certain injuries to person not arising on contract), 12.115 (Action for negligent injury to person or property) or 12.160 (Suspension for minors and persons who have disabling mental condition), an action based on conduct that constitutes child abuse or conduct knowingly allowing, permitting or encouraging child abuse that occurs while the person is under 18 years of age must be commenced before the person attains 40 years of age, or if the person has not discovered the causal connection between the injury and the child abuse, nor in the exercise of reasonable care should have discovered the causal connection between the injury and the child abuse, not more than five years from the date the person discovers or in the exercise of reasonable care should have discovered the causal connection between the child abuse and the injury, whichever period is longer.

A few thoughts:

1. It looks like Mr. Hiser has a problem with the "40 years of age" bit, since he's over 40.

2. Consequently, Mr. Hiser must rely on the alternative provision that puts the statute of limitations to five (5) years from the date the party "discovered the causal connection between the injury and the child abuse {or} in the exercise of reasonable care should have discovered the causal connection between the injury and the child abuse."  I think it could be difficult to establish that he did not know about this "causal connection" until the last five years.

3. The above article goes on to explain some applicable case law:

Quote

The Fearing Court held that ORS 12.117 applies to a negligence claim only if the plaintiff establishes the defendant “had actual knowledge that {the alleged abuser} was, in fact, abusing children and that it then allowed, permitted or encouraged such abuse to continue.”  “That ... is the only sort of conduct on which a claim subject to ORS 12.117 successfully may be predicated.”
...
{F}or ORS 12.117 to apply, the plaintiff must proffer evidence that the defendant received prior knowledge/notice that the abuser at issue had abused at least one other victim before the plaintiff was abused.
...

{I}f there is evidence that the defendant received actual, contemporaneous knowledge or notice that the plaintiff was being abused, and if the defendant then allowed, permitted, or encouraged such abuse to continue, then the extended limitations period of ORS 12.117 applies. 

The attorneys who filed it clearly know what they are doing.

4. From the above article:

Quote

In 1993, ORS 12.117(1) required that civil claims of child sexual abuse be filed within six years of the child’s eighteenth birthday. In 2009, however, state lawmakers amended the statute to require that litigation be commenced before the victim attains 40 years of age. The 2009 legislation provided that the amendment would apply to all causes of action “whether arising before, on or after the effective date” of the act, unless a judgment was previously entered before the effective date.

There may be a question about whether the Oregon legislature can retroactively apply the amendment to the statute.  Utah's legislature tried something similar, but in 2020 the Utah Supreme Court held that "the Utah Legislature is constitutionally prohibited from retroactively reviving a time-barred claim in a manner depriving a defendant of a vested statute of limitations defense."  That decision was based on the Due Process clause of the Utah Constitution, but I suspect similar arguments could be made under the Oregon Constitution.  Essentially, when a prior version of statute (such as the 1993 version of ORS 12.117(1)) creates a "vested right" (such as a defendant's right to assert the prior version of the statute of limitations as a defense to a civil claim), then the legislature cannot eliminate that right by amending the statute and applying it retroactively.  Doing so violates the "Due Process" clause (of the Utah Constitution, anyway).  Could the same be said of the Oregon Constitution?

Back to the first article above:

Quote

The church further wrote a letter to a Benton County judge in support of Kerlee to shave off two years of his five-year sentence of probation for third-degree sodomy, court records show.

Wow.  That seems . . . unusual.  The complaint doesn't seem to mention this at all.  And it seems unusual for the Church to do such a thing.  No date is given for when this happened.

Quote

Hiser said in an interview that he never told anybody about the abuse at the time because the discussion of sex was taboo in the church. But he began to remember, he said, after starting counseling in the last couple of years to deal with deep depression and suicidal thoughts.

While attending a class to become a foster parent, he said he couldn’t hold back the tears as the instructor identified past abuse as one of the reasons that kids sometimes act out.

“I was just triggered during that class. My eyes were watering the whole time,” he said. After class, the instructor advised Hiser that he might have been an abuse survivor.

“That’s what really started the process of remembering and realizing what had happened,” he said.

This part of Mr. Hiser's narrative may make his claims difficult.  The statute of limitations can only be extended if he, "in the exercise of reasonable care should have discovered the causal connection between the injury and the child abuse."  It seems like something of an uphill battle to argue that he knew about the abuse for the last 36 years, but nevertheless never had no obligation to exercise "reasonable care" about the ramifications of that abuse.  

Quote

Kerlee, now 79, and living in Longview, Washington, did not return messages for comment.

In preparing the suit, Hiser’s attorneys Peter Janci and Stephen Crew said they discovered one bishop in the church had learned of Kerlee’s suspected child abuse in the late 1970s and warned his own son to stay away from Kerlee, yet no such warnings were given to other church parents to safeguard their own children.

I'm not sure how well this will hold up.  Learning about "suspected child abuse" is likely not sufficient to meet the "actual knowledge" requirement noted above.  

Quote

“Despite learning that there was a sexual predator in their midst, the Mormon Church leaders did not warn families or investigate about other victims,” Crew said in a statement. “Instead, the Mormon Church kept the conviction a secret from children and their parents while lobbying the Court on the perpetrator’s behalf -- helping him shave off two years of his probation.”

This seems more of a press release than a legal argument.

Quote

Hiser, who with his wife remains active in the church, said he was reluctant at first to sue. But after learning of the church’s active support of Kerlee, a convicted sex abuser, he said he felt he needed to act.

“In my mind, it’s a way I can help past victims and prevent future ones,” Hiser said. “I’m more upset and angry now than I was in the beginning. I want them to focus on helping the victims rather than the perpetrators.”

I can appreciate and respect his anger.  It sounds like "active support of Kerlee" (the Church purportedly writing "a letter to a Benton County judge in support of Kerlee to shave off two years of his five-year sentence of probation for third-degree sodomy") is part of what precipitated this lawsuit.  I'm not sure why the Church did this (assuming the allegation is true).

Quote

Hiser’s lawyers want a court to order the release of the so-called “red flag” notes that documented alleged sex abuse in church membership files.

“We intend to seek discovery of all the church’s ‘Red Flag’ documents to allow an Oregon jury to determine what the Mormon Church knew, when they knew it, and what they did about it,” Janci said.

Wow.  All sorts of entanglement and privacy problems with proposal.

Quote

In Hiser’s case, he has been “forced to live with negative repercussions of the abuse without even realizing the cause,” Crew said. “Meanwhile, the Church and the perpetrator have continued on with business as usual. The evidence will show that the perpetrator remained a member of the Mormon Church in Corvallis for decades after his criminal conviction for sexual abuse.”

Again, this is more press release than legal argument.

And allowing a person who has committed criminal acts to join or re-join the Church is not, I think, a basis for civil liability.

Quote

Kerlee went on to serve as a licensed mental health counselor but in 2014 had his Oregon license revoked for having “sexual contact with a counseling client” and exploiting any trust the client had placed in him, according to state records.

Kerlee, then 71, was working with a young college student who suffered from depression and had concerns about his sexuality. The student went to Kerlee for counseling from fall 2012 through winter 2013, the state records show. The state’s Board of Licensed Professional Counselors and Therapists found Kerlee used the counseling sessions to engage the man in “discussions about sex and pornography,” exposed his penis to the man and “mutually masturbated’' with his client on multiple occasions, according to the state.

It revoked his license for using his counseling relationship with a client “to further his personal and sexual interests,” the board’s notice said.

Kerlee didn’t contest the state’s action, according to the state board’s order.

Wow.  

Quote

Hiser said he’s determined to shed light on the church’s alleged silence on serious child abuse.

The Church isn't silent about child abuse.  It regularly and publicly condemns it and disciplines members who do it.

Quote

He said he’s attended church councils where “they discuss an individual’s” alleged improper behavior, are “told not to discuss” the person publicly “but have someone in the congregation ‘keep an eye on them.’”

“Things have got to change,” he said.

Awfully vague, this.  He's speaking about disciplinary councils (now "membership councils").  What is it about these that he proposes be changed?  

Anyway, the allegations seems credible, and I hope Bro. Hiser finds some peace.  I'm not sure he will get it through suing the Church, though I don't fault him for his current course of conduct.

Thoughts?

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment

Do you think the church should wait for the probability of judicial judgment against it before compensating victims of its leaders? 

Hypothetical example: the church has credible and substantial evidence of abuse by leaders but, due to legal reasons, can defend itself from claims to compensation. Should the church pay anyway? Or should it only pay when the legal case is solid?

Link to comment
8 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Do you think the church should wait for the probability of judicial judgment against it before compensating victims of its leaders? 

Generally, yes.  Legal liability is important.  It helps differentiate legitimate victims from opportunists.

The Church often helps victims of abuse in other ways.  

8 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Hypothetical example: the church has credible and substantial evidence of abuse by leaders but, due to legal reasons, can defend itself from claims to compensation.  Should the church pay anyway? Or should it only pay when the legal case is solid?

I think such things would need to be addressed on a case-by-case basis.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment

More news coverage:

https://www.fox13now.com/news/local-news/man-sues-mormon-church-over-alleged-sexual-abuse

https://www.opb.org/article/2021/02/23/oregon-man-sues-mormon-church-over-alleged-sexual-abuse/

Some added information from the above articles:

Quote

When Kerlee was convicted in Oregon of sodomy in 1983, church officials sent a letter to the court in support of Kerlee, who was given five years of supervised release, according to court documents provided by Janci.

I wonder who these "church officials" are.

Quote

Hiser and his attorney contend the incident reflects a larger pattern of negligence within the faith of not adequately responding to abuse claims and protecting victims. The church’s hotline may sound good in theory, but sometimes serves as a way for the faith to protect its own interests over what’s best for the victim, Hiser said.

This seems a bit odd.  He's referencing events from 35+ years ago as reflecting "a larger pattern of negligence within the faith" now.  That seems neither fair nor accurate.

And again, there is no particular proposal for what sort of response would be "adequate."

Also, I'm befuddled at the ongoing hostility to the bishop's helpline that is reflected in these lawsuits.  

Thanks,

-Smac

EDIT TO ADD: More news coverage:

https://kjzz.com/news/lawsuit-lds-church-protected-allowed-youth-leader-to-stay-on-after-child-sex-abuse

https://www.abc4.com/news/local-news/man-sues-the-church-of-jesus-christ-of-latter-day-saints-over-alleged-sexual-abuse/

https://www.registerguard.com/story/news/2021/02/23/corvallis-man-sues-mormon-church-over-alleged-sexual-abuse/4564423001/

These seem identical to the two above.

https://nbc16.com/news/local/lawsuit-alleges-child-sexual-abuse-by-adult-leader-at-corvallis-stake-of-lds-church

Some further details from this article:

Quote

They cit{e} as example Kerlee's November 1983 conviction for felony Sodomy III, for which Kerlee received a suspended sentence of five years of probation.

"Public records show the LDS Church submitted a letter to the court in support of early termination of Kerlee’s probation," the attorneys said. "Despite the criminal conviction, the lawsuit alleges that the Mormon Church allowed Kerlee to continue to serve in positions of leadership over youth in the Corvallis Stake until the late 1980s."

https://www.kxl.com/corvallis-man-sues-mormon-church/

https://www.salemreporter.com/posts/3730/around-oregon-salem-man-sues-mormon-church-alleging-it-allowed-youth-group-leader-with-child-sex-conviction-to-abuse-him

https://lebanon-express.com/lifestyles/faith-and-values/religion/lds-church-sued-over-sexual-abuse-allegations-surrounding-corvallis-stake/article_3b4517c1-8461-5524-88d7-241851c52a2a.html

Quote

“We believe the evidence in this case is going to show that the perpetrator held various positions with youth in the (Latter-day Saints) Church, where he met and gained the trust of this victim and many other children,” Janci said in a news release issued Tuesday. “These children and their parents had no idea they were being targeted by a predator.  But we intend to prove that the church knew of the danger — and that they decided to keep it a secret and allow this man to continue as a church youth leader.”

Hiser alleges he was sexually abused by Kerlee for several years as a young teenager, with the abuse ending in the mid-1980s. Kerlee was in his late 30s and early 40s at the time. The lawsuit claims the church allowed Kerlee to continue working with youth after a prior sex crime conviction and several other instances of the church being notified of separate allegations against him.

Kerlee was convicted of third-degree sodomy in 1983 and received a suspended sentence of five years probation, according to the release. A court document provided by Hiser’s attorneys shows an order terminating Kerlee’s probation in Benton County in 1986 that references “letters submitted by Mr. Kerlee’s church authorities as requested by the court,” in support of his probation ending early. Hiser’s attorneys allege the Corvallis stake allowed him to proceed in leadership roles over youth members after this point.

Wow.  The Court asked the Church (likely the local leaders) for "letters?"  That's what "letters submitted by Mr. Kerlee’s church authorities as requested by the court" sounds like.  That seems really weird.  Why would the court solicit letters from religious leaders?  

Quote

Hiser’s attorneys claim that his experience is indicative of a pattern of the Latter-day Saints Church protecting child predators in its ranks dating back to the 1960s. They said they intend to file for discovery of the church’s “red flag” documents, which are said to track instances of abuse committed by members of the church to establish a timeline of what the church knew and when.

Once again we see no acknowledgment of the Church's changes and improvements pertaining to handling abuse allegations.  None.  Because that would weaken their case, I think.

 

Edited by smac97
Link to comment

Some thoughts/questions

 

Quote

(This complaint does not seek damages for any other incidents of abuse that occurred within the context of activities affiliated with the Boy Scout troop sponsored by the Corvallis Stake.)

Does he have another suit relating to scouting abuse?

 

Quote

Part 19
"Kerlee’s Grooming was  (1) committed in direct connection and for the purposes of fulfilling Kerlee’s for LDS Defendants;"

are there some words missing here?

Quote

part 19 "(3) done initially and at least in part from a desire to serve the interests of LDS Defendants;"

Is he claiming the grooming and molestation was to serve the church?

Quote

"20...false imprisonment of Plaintiff"

I can't find the actual things relating to this in the suit.

Quote

"25 .f On information and belief, around November of 1983, one or more agents of LDS Defendants learned that Kerlee was convicted of Sodomy III (Class C Felony) for sexual abuse of a child."

Depending on exactly who that agent was, this isn't a good look.

 

Quote

"WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against LDS Defendants, and each of them, as follows:"

Does this mean he is seeking the costs from CoP and CoPB individually or together?

 

As smac noticed, there also seems to be many repeated claims about widespread abuse (or potential for abuse) in the church youth programs. This (to me) just seems like this particular lawyer is jumping on the child sex abuse by religions bandwagon. ANY situation which puts children and adults together could result in the same thing. Despite repeated instances of teachers sexually abusing their students, I don't see calls for schools to issue warnings that say "Enrolments open now, but be careful, there's a risk a teacher might abuse your child".

And requesting all the annotations will be interesting. Annotations are there for many reasons besides child abuse. Never having been a bishop, stake president, member of the first presidency, or MLS/LCR developer, I don't know how free-form the annotations can be, but it could be a lot of work to get all of them if requested globally. 

Requesting just Kerlee's one should be easy enough, but I don't know how what was presumably a paper annotation would have survived the move to electronic. (If one even existed in the first place)

4 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Do you think the church should wait for the probability of judicial judgment against it before compensating victims of its leaders? 

 

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Generally, yes.  Legal liability is important.  It helps differentiate legitimate victims from opportunists.

I'm not a lawyer. But here's my opinion from news articles etc I've read previously.

The other thing is compensation will require a settlement. The accusers would need to decide wither a guaranteed small amount that they can't talk about, is better than the possibility of a larger amount (or possibility of nothing) that they can. From the defendants point of view, do they want to save the time/money purely for trial/suit related matters at the expense of the implication of guilt (which let's face it, will always be there if the settlement terms are sealed). If a defendant knew they were guilty, and were going to get raked over the coals judgement wise, then I suppose they might settle, and then take it to trial if they don't think they are guilty.

If the church was genuinely concerned that the accuser got the amount that was necessary for their expenses, then taking it to trial is the best way forward I would think.

 

Link to comment
7 hours ago, smac97 said:

Kerlee went on to serve as a licensed mental health counselor

What are the legal issues for the organization who licensed him?  Are they not in the same alleged position as the Church?  Assuming they did a background check or should have.

Link to comment
Quote

He said he’s attended church councils where they have discussed someone’s alleged improper behavior but are “told not to discuss” the person publicly yet “have someone in the congregation ‘keep an eye on them.’”

I am guessing he wants a public announcement.   But if it is suspected/alleged, but not convicted behaviour, that is very different than announcing a conviction.

Wonder if this is my sister-in-law’s old ward.  Definitely her stake. Time period is probably shortly after she married and moved out, but her parents were still there.

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
11 hours ago, smac97 said:

Kerlee went on to serve as a licensed mental health counselor but in 2014 had his Oregon license revoked for having “sexual contact with a counseling client” and exploiting any trust the client had placed in him, according to state records.

Weird. In 2016, Kerlee and his wife are listed as board investigators for another case....unless that Ron is their son.  Oops...misread. They are just witnesses. They are the owners of the practice the guy worked for.  The guy sounds like an absolute scumbag, with an accusation of rape and documented two timing while one of the women was pregnant, lying about his job history, talking about female clients in disrespectful manner, illegally paying one of his girlfriends to type up client notes....
 

https://www.oregon.gov/oblpct/BoardAction/PRIDMORE_2.pdf

Quote


The hearing was held on August 16 and 17, 2017, in Salem, Oregon. Licensee appeared and was represented by Ms. Lovejoy. Mr. Foote represented the Board. The following witnesses were called to testify by the Board: WITNESS 2; TD, husband of former client RD; Licensee; WITNESS 1; Board consultant Roy Huggins, LPC; Board investigator Rogelio Daniels; Ann Kerlee; and Ron Kerlee. Licensee called the following witnesses to testify: Licensee; Vanessa Pridmore; Matt Harner; Angela Clausen; Mike Sallis; and Paul Garrison. The hearing record closed on August 

Kerlee is also listed as an industry contact for an elementary school:

https://allpeople.com/ouida+packard_grant-avenue-pre-school-us
 

Linked in had him listed as substance abuse and addiction counselor. 

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
7 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Do you think the church should wait for the probability of judicial judgment against it before compensating victims of its leaders? 

Hypothetical example: the church has credible and substantial evidence of abuse by leaders but, due to legal reasons, can defend itself from claims to compensation. Should the church pay anyway? Or should it only pay when the legal case is solid?

If the Church was aware it should compensate.  However what is fair compensation.  In this lawsuit it is for "$5 million in noneconomic damages and  $500,000 in economic damages."  Where are they getting those numbers from?   I would like to see an itemized list that equals 5 million.  Compensation should not mean you get to buy that Ferrari you always wanted to take the pain away.

Link to comment

Not sure if this info was in the other articles, it is in the complaint (haven’t finished reading that yet):

Quote

According to the lawsuit, Ron Kerlee became a youth Seminary Teacher, Sunday School Leader, and youth leader within the LDS Church’s youth program

https://kpic.com/news/local/federal-lawsuit-seeks-5m-from-lds-church-alleges-child-sex-abuse-in-corvallis-in-1980s

Quote

The lawsuit allges Church officials "learned that Kerlee was dangerous on at least six different occasions, but failed to take action to remove Kerlee from a leadership position or otherwise protect the children in the church," the law firm said in a statement.

 

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
6 hours ago, JustAnAustralian said:

 

As smac noticed, there also seems to be many repeated claims about widespread abuse (or potential for abuse) in the church youth programs. This (to me) just seems like this particular lawyer is jumping on the child sex abuse by religions bandwagon. ANY situation which puts children and adults together could result in the same thing. Despite repeated instances of teachers sexually abusing their students, I don't see calls for schools to issue warnings that say "Enrolments open now, but be careful, there's a risk a teacher might abuse your child"

The claim of fraud because there were not disclosures that other youth leaders had been known to be predators....generically speaking...does seem a stretch given this should be considered common knowledge, as in predators work with youth to target them. A claim that Kerlee was known and nothing was said is right on target for a lawsuit, imo.  If the letter report is accurate, highly problematic.  
 

Wonder how much, if any, evidence the abuse happened outside the testimony of the victim.  (Though given Kerlee’s history before and after the alleged abuse, I don’t doubt that it happened even though the story of his remembering comes across as perhaps somewhat a repressed memory...a counselor suggesting he might have been abused and then him going that route; if Kerlee was charged, claiming it was a false recovered memory seems a useful defense...he could claim Heiser heard of his conviction and imagined the rest.)

However, if I understand it correctly, aren’t they also saying the Church should have been telling everyone ‘we have allowed known molestors to be kids’ leaders and covered it up, do you still want your kid to participate?’  That sounds like a more appropriate claim. And they want the red flagged documents to prove it not just for Kerlee’s case, but setting it up as standard operating procedure to cover up and more or less ignore. 

The fraud claim doesn’t even need to prove the victim was assaulted, does it?  Though more damages if so, I am guessing.

 

If the judge actually went so far as to grant the request for all the red flag, I am guessing the Church will try very hard to settle if only so members feel secure in belief that their records are confidential, but also given the era I suspect they will find cases where nothing public was done.

Not sure it could prove coverup which would be not only not saying something, but lying or creating an illusion that something didn’t happen imo...which seems impossible to me for anyone paying attention at the time.  Stranger Danger and programs to footprint your babies and fingerprint older kids, safety programs were all over where I lived in Utah and California, through schools and the Church. Maybe Oregon was different. 
 

I was a new parent back in the early 80’s at BYU and there was in my memory plenty of talk about child abuse in and out of the Church...my boss’ six year old was kidnapped and taken to California (found alive after a month or so) and there were two reports of attempted kidnappings around my son’s birth at malls, so that might have resulted in unusual amount of discussion.  Bought a leash for my kid, but he hated it and never ran off like the younger one did, so only used it once.  Also found out in 82 iirc my brother in law had been raped at Scout Camp as a teen and was told there was massive abuse there.   And my toddler nephew had been beaten by his young LDS babysitter.  A relative of my husband was found to have been molesting his kids around then.  And a few other cases that created a hyper vigilant parent in me.  
 

Added:  since the Benton County letter wasn’t mentioned in the lawsuit, maybe it was found after it was submitted.  The only other thing I can think of is the alleged church leader who wrote it wasn’t acting as a church leader at the time, though the letter is used as proof of knowledge more than anything else imo. 

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
1 hour ago, carbon dioxide said:

If the Church was aware it should compensate.  However what is fair compensation.  In this lawsuit it is for "$5 million in noneconomic damages and  $500,000 in economic damages."  Where are they getting those numbers from?   I would like to see an itemized list that equals 5 million.  Compensation should not mean you get to buy that Ferrari you always wanted to take the pain away.

If it was a church leader abusing, then "the church" knew. Even worse, though, if other church leaders knew of the abuse or knew of an inappropriate relationship, etc... but did not respond appropriately.

Link to comment
8 minutes ago, Calm said:

That Kerlee was known and nothing was said is right on target, imo. 

If it was legitimately known, then there definitely needs to be some action. 25 d,e,f will be the key points there (as they are "knowns" not allegations), but rely on 1) the disciplinary council actually happening*, 2)the results being sent to church HQ, 3)an annotation being made, 4)other notes still existing. 

 

*It's interesting that it doesn't say that he was disfellowshipped or excommunicated.

 

24 minutes ago, Calm said:

However, if I understand it correctly, aren’t they also saying the Church should have been telling everyone ‘we have allowed known molestors to be kids’ leaders and covered it up, do you still want your kid to participate?’  That sounds like a more realistic claim. And they want the red flagged documents to prove it. 

Current church policy is that if a record has an annotation, the person can't have a calling. If we had a copy of the 1978 and 1983 handbooks we could see if it was policy then. If so it would fall down to that bishop and stake president for going against church policy, and the dragnet approach could be countered.

Link to comment

Question:  in a criminal case there needs to be probable case to get a search warrant I believe.  Is just knowing about the existence of red flag documents enough probable cause to assume there would be evidence of coverups, etc found in them, combined with one case (the current one) of what appears to be just that (allowed to continue as SS, Seminary, and/or a Scout-YM leader after his condition).  And it being a civil case, less probable cause needed?

Question:  why is it in federal court?  Because another state is church headquarters or something else?

Question:  If Kerlee was convicted in 83 on child abuse sodomy charges and put on 3 years probation instead of going to jail (really want to know how that happened given he was in his 40s at the time), wouldn’t he have been under supervision of the state during this time?  And possibly in jail for part of those years (thinking he got probation because he already had some jail time prior to the conviction).  What was his probation officer doing?

Question:  came across a wedding announcement for Kerlee. He was married to his wife when he was 26 iirc...may have been 23. Same woman who was co-owner of the Albany counseling center where he was later accused of an improper relationship with a client.  Got to wonder what was going on with her. Wonder if they had kids and she didn’t feel capable of supporting them or if he convinced her the kids were lying and videos weren’t found or she didn’t care or contributed.  But probation instead of jail time seems unlikely if he didn’t plead out and admit his guilt, so suggests she accepted he repented or didn’t care enough...maybe was fearful  

Observation:  if there were truly lots of other kids he had videoed as is claimed, I wonder if they will come forward now. I wonder if any of the other victims in the alleged tapes were kids the victim knew and could name. If they were also members of the Church at the time as likely as the Benton County case involved a member of the church as victim, I would assume the lawyers would want to add them to the lawsuit.  
 

Question:  is there a way to look up the 83 Benton County court case?  I didn’t see anything online. Couldn’t find a file for the 2014 license revoking either, which I would expect to be online just like the 2016/7? case. 
 

Question:  was he practicing again in 2016 or was he allowed to participate only in administrative capacity ...he testified he told his employee the employee needed to get caught up on his paperwork, typing up his notes on his clients, etc.; didn’t follow through though, claims he assumed the guy was following the rules. Apparently either wasn’t a good judge of character or didn’t care he had an immoral liar, cheat, adulterer, possible rapist as an employee.

Edited by Calm
Link to comment

Found this similar case looking for a copy or excerpts of the Handbook versions, they had subpoenaed records of his excommunication and relevant documents, including pastoral (nonconfessional) communication.  Would seem to suggest the red flag documents are protected as intra faith communication for the purpose of church discipline.

https://cite.case.law/frd/133/610/
 

Quote

From these observations, it is apparent the constitutional claims of defendant and the LDS Church are substantial. Utah Code Ann. § 78-24-8 should not be interpreted to enhance a constitutional conflict if the statute can be reasonably interpreted to avoid the conflict. In this case, it seems appropriate to use the term “confession” to mean a confidential communication within the doctrine of the church involved. The privilege should respect the privacy of the communication in the case of an intra-faith communication unless there is a compelling state interest to the contrary.14Therefore, in the context of this case, the communications of defendant, to either his LDS Church bishop or state president, were confidential; they were for the religious purpose of receiving church counseling and ecclesiastical advice. Therefore, the communications are privileged from discovery.

The intra-faith communications from one ecclesiastical officer to another for the purpose of carrying out church discipline are also protected. Reutkemeier v. Nolte, supra, In re Verplank, 329 F.Supp. 433 (D.C.C.D.Cal.1971); In re Grand Jury, supra.

It is appreciated that the communication in this case is different than one that involves a declaration by the church member to an assemblage of church officials. In this case, the communication was passed vertically from one religious authority up to another within the church hierarchy. Such communication was necessary as a part of the church sanction process and in carrying out church discipline. The need for the privilege to follow the communication in such circumstances is obvious and appropriate. Otherwise, the privilege would be destroyed and the confidence abridged. Therefore, the repeating of the defendant’s statement and its communication to superior religious authorities must be deemed cloaked with confidentiality and privileged15 from forced disclosure.

Applying the above standards to the defendant’s motion for a protective order, and the LDS Church’s motion to quash in this case,

 

Link to comment

Kerlee ran uncontested in 1977 for the Alpine School District Director

https://www.co.benton.or.us/sites/default/files/fileattachments/elections/archive/3207/e77apr_sb.pdf

weird factoid:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benton_County,_Oregon

Quote

Benton County has the lowest church attendance per capita of any county in the nation (25% attendance).[13]

Has him on a current list of providers for Linn County Corrections:

http://docpub.state.or.us/Treatment/showTreatments.jsp

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
6 hours ago, Calm said:

Question:  in a criminal case there needs to be probable case to get a search warrant I believe.  

Yes.  

6 hours ago, Calm said:

Is just knowing about the existence of red flag documents enough probable cause to assume there would be evidence of coverups, etc found in them, combined with one case (the current one) of what appears to be just that (allowed to continue as SS, Seminary, and/or a Scout-YM leader after his condition).  

I'm not sure what you are referencing here.  Who would be "knowing about the existence of red flag documents?"  And what "red flag documents" are you referencing here?

6 hours ago, Calm said:

And it being a civil case, less probable cause needed?

Search warrants are not issued in a civil case.  Search warrants are used by prosecutors and law enforcement to gather evidence in a criminal matter.  In a civil matter, the litigants use the "discovery process," which is fairly different.  In a lawsuit, one side gets to ask (compel, really) the other side (and other people as well) to respond to "yes or no" statements ("Requests for Admission"), respond to written questions ("Interrogatories"), produce documents and other evidence ("Requests for Production of Documents") and to provide deposition testimony. 

Such discovery requests can be fairly wide-reaching, but there are some real constraints as well.  For example, I had a case where the plaintiff had bought a property that was subject to a mortgage.  My client, the bank, then wanted to foreclose on the mortgage.  The plaintiff sued and tried to get information about the loan.  We objected, saying that the information requested was the private financial information of the plaintiff's predecessor, the previous owner of the home, and that providing such information could run afoul of consumer privacy laws.  Also, discovery requests generally need to request evidence that is relevant to the subject matter of the litigation, or else be likely to lead to the discovery of relevant, admissible evidence.

In sum, the discovery process is not intended to be some sort of pretextual excuse for a fishing expedition by the plaintiff (or, as here, the plaintiff's attorneys).  The first article I quoted in the OP specifically has plaintiffs' attorneys telling the media that they are going to try to compel the Church to turn over purported "secret files dating back to the 1960s," and that they "plan to seek public release of the files."  This statement may come back to haunt them, as "seek{ing} public release of the files" seems more about the attorneys using the discovery process to try to injure or embarrass the Church, and less about them seeking evidence that is relevant to the subject matter of the litigation, or else be likely to lead to the discovery of relevant, admissible evidence.  There are also some serious Free Exercise and Right of Privacy considerations here.  

6 hours ago, Calm said:

Question:  why is it in federal court?  Because another state is church headquarters or something else?

When there is "diversity of citizenship" the proper venue for a lawsuit is federal court.  Mr. Hiser is a resident of Oregon, and the Church is headquartered in Utah.

6 hours ago, Calm said:

Question:  If Kerlee was convicted in 83 on child abuse sodomy charges and put on 3 years probation instead of going to jail (really want to know how that happened given he was in his 40s at the time), wouldn’t he have been under supervision of the state during this time?  

To some extent, yes.

6 hours ago, Calm said:

And possibly in jail for part of those years (thinking he got probation because he already had some jail time prior to the conviction).  What was his probation officer doing?

A fair question, but one that we are unlikely to have answered.  We're talking about events from nearly 40 years ago.

6 hours ago, Calm said:

Question:  came across a wedding announcement for Kerlee. He was married to his wife when he was 26 iirc...may have been 23. Same woman who was co-owner of the Albany counseling center where he was later accused of an improper relationship with a client.  Got to wonder what was going on with her. Wonder if they had kids and she didn’t feel capable of supporting them or if he convinced her the kids were lying and videos weren’t found or she didn’t care or contributed.  But probation instead of jail time seems unlikely if he didn’t plead out and admit his guilt, so suggests she accepted he repented or didn’t care enough...maybe was fearful  

Hard to say.

6 hours ago, Calm said:

Observation:  if there were truly lots of other kids he had videoed as is claimed, I wonder if they will come forward now. I wonder if any of the other victims in the alleged tapes were kids the victim knew and could name. If they were also members of the Church at the time as likely as the Benton County case involved a member of the church as victim, I would assume the lawyers would want to add them to the lawsuit.  

Well, that would be their decision.

6 hours ago, Calm said:

Question:  is there a way to look up the 83 Benton County court case?  

Online?  Very likely not.  

6 hours ago, Calm said:

Question:  was he practicing again in 2016 or was he allowed to participate only in administrative capacity ...he testified he told his employee the employee needed to get caught up on his paperwork, typing up his notes on his clients, etc.; didn’t follow through though, claims he assumed the guy was following the rules. Apparently either wasn’t a good judge of character or didn’t care he had an immoral liar, cheat, adulterer, possible rapist as an employee.

We don't have much to go on at present.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
11 hours ago, Calm said:
Quote

Kerlee went on to serve as a licensed mental health counselor

What are the legal issues for the organization who licensed him?  Are they not in the same alleged position as the Church?  Assuming they did a background check or should have.

Government immunity likely kicks in.  But that does present an interesting question.  If the government issued a license, did it do so in ignorance of his conviction in '83?  

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
11 hours ago, Calm said:
Quote

He said he’s attended church councils where they have discussed someone’s alleged improper behavior but are “told not to discuss” the person publicly yet “have someone in the congregation ‘keep an eye on them.’”

I am guessing he wants a public announcement.  

The government compelling religious organizations to publicly announce the confessed sins of its members?  I don't think that would work.

11 hours ago, Calm said:

But if it is suspected/alleged, but not convicted behaviour, that is very different than announcing a conviction.

You think he wants bishops to announce to the ward when a member of the ward has been convicted of a crime?  Which crimes?  

11 hours ago, Calm said:

Wonder if this is my sister-in-law’s old ward.  Definitely her stake. Time period is probably shortly after she married and moved out, but her parents were still there.

This sort of think can be very hard on a stake.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
11 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

If the Church was aware it should compensate.  However what is fair compensation.  In this lawsuit it is for "$5 million in noneconomic damages and  $500,000 in economic damages."  Where are they getting those numbers from?   I would like to see an itemized list that equals 5 million.  Compensation should not mean you get to buy that Ferrari you always wanted to take the pain away.

I guess the billions and billions the church has will come in handy.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Tacenda said:
Quote

If the Church was aware it should compensate.  However what is fair compensation.  In this lawsuit it is for "$5 million in noneconomic damages and  $500,000 in economic damages."  Where are they getting those numbers from?   I would like to see an itemized list that equals 5 million.  Compensation should not mean you get to buy that Ferrari you always wanted to take the pain away.

I guess the billions and billions the church has will come in handy.

Your comment sort of exemplifies the problem here, namely, that some folks look at the Church for its deep pockets.  This can create all sorts of problems, not the least of which is attorneys like Craig Vernon seeking to make millions by extracting settlements and/or judgments from the Church under what I think are false pretenses.  The two biggies in my view are

1) predicating such suits on the false characterization of the Church as not having made any changes or improvements in terms of handling matters of abuse, and

2) the temptation for litigants to embellish or even falsify allegations, which embellishments/falsifications become difficult or impossible to address due to the inherent evidentiary and equitable problems arising from these suits being filed several decades after the purported events.

These attorneys want to portray themselves as crusaders, which is all well and good until they resort to false characterizations and deliberate omissions about the Church.  I've seen this happen again and again.  They need a narrative that the Church was bad in the past, and is bad now.  That the Church has not taken remedial measures to address matters of abuse, such that it needs to be held to account now for things that happened decades ago, and that it needs to be punished for not having taken appropriate remedial measures.

This is a profoundly dishonest narrative, as it does not account for the changes and improvements the Church has implemented in its policies and practices.  This seriously diminishes my respect of the attorneys involved, as I think it exposes their motives.  Their crusader schtick is belied by their deliberate distortions and misrepresentations about the Church.  The Church has made substantial improvements in this area since the 80s.  That these attorneys ignore these changes suggests, to me, that they are not interested in getting the Church to improve its policies and procedures, and instead are merely out to get into the perceived deep pockets of the Church.  Their thinking likely mirrors what you have said here: "I guess the billions and billions the church has will come in handy."

This narrative is also quite inequitable because a defendant is almost always going to be substantially disadvantaged in a lawsuit about events that happened many years ago, and for which most of the evidence, and hence most of the defenses the defendant could raise, has degraded or disappeared.  This is why we have statutes of limitation.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
Link to comment
27 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Your comment sort of exemplifies the problem here, namely, that some folks look at the Church for its deep pockets.  This can create all sorts of problems, not the least of which is attorneys like Craig Vernon seeking to make millions by extracting settlements and/or judgments from the Church under what I think are false pretenses.  The two biggies in my view are

1) predicating such suits on the false characterization of the Church as not having made any changes or improvements in terms of handling matters of abuse, and

2) the temptation for litigants to embellish or even falsify allegations, which embellishments/falsifications become difficult or impossible to address due to the inherent evidentiary and equitable problems arising from these suits being filed several decades after the purported events.

These attorneys want to portray themselves as crusaders, which is all well and good until they resort to false characterizations and deliberate omissions about the Church.  I've seen this happen again and again.  They need a narrative that the Church was bad in the past, and is bad now.  That the Church has not taken remedial measures to address matters of abuse, such that it needs to be held to account now for things that happened decades ago, and that it needs to be punished for not having taken appropriate remedial measures.

This is a profoundly dishonest narrative, as it does not account for the changes and improvements the Church has implemented in its policies and practices.  This seriously diminishes my respect of the attorneys involved, as I think it exposes their motives.  Their crusader schtick is belied by their deliberate distortions and misrepresentations about the Church.  The Church has made substantial improvements in this area since the 80s.  That these attorneys ignore these changes suggests, to me, that they are not interested in getting the Church to improve its policies and procedures, and instead are merely out to get into the perceived deep pockets of the Church.  Their thinking likely mirrors what you have said here: "I guess the billions and billions the church has will come in handy."

This narrative is also quite inequitable because a defendant is almost always going to be substantially disadvantaged in a lawsuit about events that happened many years ago, and for which most of the evidence, and hence most of the defenses the defendant could raise, has degraded or disappeared.  This is why we have statutes of limitation.

Thanks,

-Smac

I do agree that many will look at it as the church has billions why not sue for a lot of $ and agree that we need to make sure the church improves it's policies and procedures, and that should be a top priority for those that sue. I wonder too and you know much better than I, if people sue for more $ knowing they wouldn't get near the money they are asking, also to make it hurt for those that are being sued so they will change or better themselves to not harm again. 

Something that may or may not have come up on this thread is the information that the church helped the abuser, such as submitting a letter to the court in support of early termination of his probation. Also, that the church allowed Kerlee to serve in leadership positions over the youth in the Corvallis Stake until the late 80's. Not sure if this has been proven yet or not.

Edited by Tacenda
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...