(4th) Update on Arizona Abuse Case

[smac97]

We previously had a discussion (also discussed here) about Paul Adams, a man in Arizona who abused his children, who was excommunicated for his abuse, and who later committed suicide.  And another discussion here in 2020: Update on AZ Abuse Case. 

And yet another: (2nd) Update on Arizona Abuse Case.

And yet another: (3rd) Update on Arizona Abuse Case

Today, I came across another article published recently: Sex-abuse video victimizes child long after abuser is gone

It is by the same guy, Michael Rezendes, who has been covering this story for a while.  Some excerpts:

Quote

The video of a man raping his 9-year-old daughter was discovered in New Zealand in 2016 and triggered a global search for the little girl.

Investigators contacted Interpol and the pursuit eventually included the FBI, the U.S. State Department and the Department of Homeland Security. Months later, investigators raided the Bisbee, Arizona, home of Paul Adams, arrested him and rescued the girl in the video along with her five siblings.

While Adams can no longer physically hurt his daughter — he died by suicide in custody — the videos live on, downloaded and uploaded by child pornographers across the U.S. and around the globe, growing ever more popular even as as police, prosecutors and internet companies chase behind in a futile effort to remove the images.

The number of times the Adams video has been seen soared from fewer than 100 in 2017 to 4,500 in 2021, according to data provided to The Associated Press with the permission of the girl and her adoptive mother, Nancy Salminen. The tally was produced by the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, a nonprofit that tracks child pornography on the internet and works with law enforcement agencies throughout the world.

What a truly terrible thing.

Quote

The ongoing victimization of the child could have been avoided.

Six years before the video surfaced in Auckland, Adams, a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, widely known as the Mormon church, confessed to his bishop that he abused his daughter, identified by the AP as MJ.

But a prominent church lawyer told the bishop to keep the abuse secret. And as a result, MJ was brutalized for seven more years. Today, she continues to be victimized almost daily in a different way, as the video, and others Adams took, circulate on the internet. Details of the Mormon officials’ cover-up of the Adams rapes were reported in an AP investigation in August.
...
The Adams case has also highlighted a glaring loophole in state child sex abuse reporting laws. Adams, a member of the Mormon church, confessed he was abusing his daughter to his Bishop, John Herrod, in 2010. In Arizona, clergy are among the professionals required to report child sexual abuse to police or child welfare officials.

But when the bishop called the church’s “help line” for advice, Merrill Nelson, a lawyer representing the church, directed him to withhold the information from police and child welfare officials.

According to legal documents, Nelson, who was also a Utah legislator, pointed to an exception in the state’s mandatory child sex abuse reporting law that allows clergy to keep information revealed during a confession to themselves. The so-called clergy-penitent privilege is on the books in 33 states, the AP found.

Behind this veil of church secrecy, Adams continued molesting MJ and, five years later, started raping her younger sister as well, beginning when she was just 6 weeks old. He was also taking videos and photographs of the abuse and posting them to the internet, including the nine-minute video that was eventually his undoing.
...

Lynne Cadigan, one of several attorneys representing three of the Adams children, said MJ will seek compensation from the child pornographers.

But she and Salminen, the girl’s adoptive mother, lay most of the blame for the sexual abuse on officials of the Mormon church, who knew Adams molested MJ as early as 2010 and did nothing to stop it.

“She went to church with people who didn’t help her and as a result thousands of people are looking at the video and there’s nothing she can do about it,” Cadigan said.

This appears to be a pretty substantial mischaracterization of what happened.  See, e.g., here:

Quote

When you look at the transcript of Edwards's interview with Herrod, Herrod's deposition, Mauzy's deposition, Leizza's testimony, and Warr's testimony, then a constant and clear pattern emerges.  Paul confessed at one meeting, and only one, and never spoke of it again to either bishop at least through when he was arrested.  Herrod thought the problem was avoided afterward by Leizza because that Paul was rarely at home and Leizza never let him be alone with the kids.  Also, in that one confessional meeting, the most consistent answer with the first hand sources was the confession referred to one past incident, but more than one past incident in the confession is a possibility.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Thinking]

 This appears to be a pretty substantial mischaracterization of what happened.  See, e.g., here:

Quote

Paul confessed at one meeting, and only one, and never spoke of it again to either bishop at least through when he was arrested.

I'm not sure what your point is here. Are you saying that because he confessed only once, the Church was reasonable is keeping the abuse confidential?

[Dario_M]

What is the point of making an update about this?. To spread more negativity? 

Btw... has also not really much to do with the church as well. 

[smac97]

On 12/28/2022 at 2:45 AM, Dario_M said:

What is the point of making an update about this?. To spread more negativity? 

To provide information about this story to those who are interested in such things.

On 12/28/2022 at 2:45 AM, Dario_M said:

Btw... has also not really much to do with the church as well. 

The intersection has been discussed at length in the prior threads.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

On 12/26/2022 at 7:00 PM, Thinking said:

 This appears to be a pretty substantial mischaracterization of what happened. 

Well, the evidence is mixed.  This is why I have provided links, so each reader can review the materials and reach their own conclusions.

On 12/26/2022 at 7:00 PM, Thinking said:

See, e.g., here:

Quote

Paul confessed at one meeting, and only one, and never spoke of it again to either bishop at least through when he was arrested.

I'm not sure what your point is here.

I did not say that, Helix did.  He elsewhere points to "Herrod's deposition, Mauzy's deposition, Warr's testimony, and Leizza's testimony,"  See also here:

Quote

I've called out Rezednes for his blatant factual errors elsewhere in this forum.  I was hoping it was a one-off and he'd be more careful in his followup article.  But he's still making them.  How AP green lights this stuff is beyond me.

From the latest article: "...show that Utah Republican State Rep. Merrill F. Nelson took the initial call from a bishop reporting that church member Paul Adams had sexually abused his daughters. "

No Rezendes, the second daughter wasn't even alive, she was born in 2015.  This was even mentioned in the court cases when the Agent Edwards made the same mistake, and then his lawyer handheld him through fixing that mistake later.  Rezednes is not reading the court evidence.

From the article "he AP reported in August that Adams confessed to Herrod in 2010 that he sexually abused his daughter, identified as MJ."

No, it was 2011. The rest of the article covers that, it was late 2011 when he confessed and the bishop phoned the church.

This is after his recent conversation with the Salt Lake Tribune when he stated the church assisted Leizza in shredding documents.  But the court case has testimony from Leizza stating exactly the opposite, that the visiting teacher saw Leizza shredding documents about her husband, the visiting teacher told her she should stop, and Leizza stated she ignored her. 

These are basic, basic factual errors.  This is not good journalism.

And here:

Quote

Whew, I just went and read through much of that document weebles just posted.  Much of it is snippets from documents we've already seen here on the forum.  Some of it is testimony I hadn't seen.  One interesting takeaway for me:

I'm seeing numerous hints that Paul Adams's one-time confession to Bishop Herrod was limited in description and not a full confession.  Herrod didn't know the full scope of the abuse.  Mauzy definitely didn't.  Both tried desperately to pry open to get more info, and walked away with either no new info or minimal info.

 Herrod phoned it into the church in November 2011 when he learned of something going on, and the church's guidelines is that if a child is in immediate danger to contact authorities, which didn't happen here.  Herrod also commented that he didn't know the extent of it all until Adams was arrested many years later.  Herrod said he wouldn't start a disciplinary council if there would be any legal issues pending, so he didn't. 

But more interestingly, Mauzy didn't know much of this at all.  He tried and failed to get any info from the kids.  He tried and failed to get info from Leizza Adams.  He said he once had Paul and Leizza in for counseling and they said nothing.  After Mauzy recounted that he was told nothing, Mauzy said once he found out later what was happening it tore him up, because he wondered how this could go hidden.    Mauzy didn't seem to really know what was going on until the church called him and told him to start a disciplinary hearing based on what Herrod told the church.  While talking about what occurred in the excommunication, he said he got little info from either Paul or Leizza.  He specifically mentioned he had no proof of sexual abuse, because Paul was cagey or vague in how he talked.   Mauzy said tried to get info to help the wheels of justice turn.  As we've pointed out elsewhere (and also is found in this PDF), strong hints are given that he was excommunicated for having sex with his mother.  For example, one of the participants in the disciplinary council reported that he helped foster and care for Paul and Leizza's children, and he remarked that he had no idea there was sexual child abuse going on.   Additionally, Paul refused to talk to Mauzy after the excommunication (until he was arrested and in prison).  Mauzy knew very, very little, and Paul or Leizza wouldn't talk to him about it. 

The narrative in the media seems markedly different from the narrative gleaned from the testimony of the percipient witnesses.

On 12/26/2022 at 7:00 PM, Thinking said:

Are you saying that because he confessed only once, the Church was reasonable is keeping the abuse confidential?

The allegation is that the bishop knew, but did nothing about, ongoing abuse.  

See above (from Helix) : "I'm seeing numerous hints that Paul Adams's one-time confession to Bishop Herrod was limited in description and not a full confession.  Herrod didn't know the full scope of the abuse.  Mauzy definitely didn't.  Both tried desperately to pry open to get more info, and walked away with either no new info or minimal info."

Thanks,

-Smac

[Dario_M]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

 

The intersection has been discussed at length in the prior threads.

Thanks,

-Smac

Well... i am not really agree with this. 

And "-Smac" is also something i don't really wanna read actually thank you very much sir. 

[MustardSeed]

2 hours ago, Dario_M said:

Well... i am not really agree with this. 

And "-Smac" is also something i don't really wanna read actually thank you very much sir. 

You can quietly hide members you choose not to see on your feed. Smac is a valued long time participant, very intelligent and we like him well enough. 

Edited December 30, 2022 by MustardSeed

[smac97]

2 hours ago, Dario_M said:

Well... i am not really agree with this. 

And "-Smac" is also something i don't really wanna read actually thank you very much sir. 

That's fine.  There are any number of threads I ignore.  Free country and all that.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Dario_M said:

Well... i am not really agree with this. 

And "-Smac" is also something i don't really wanna read actually thank you very much sir. 

If it is just the name, it is for Spencer MacDonald. Maybe think Spencer instead when you read it. 
 

But you can also go into your profile and then your account, choose “ignored users” and that will hade their posts, but not their names plus they may be quoted in others’ posts so you may need to skip threads if a particular poster bugs you. 

—

 

This thread has an issue that is, I think, important to discuss and that is the priest penitent confidentiality law. I don’t know what the law is in Portugal, but in the US there are mandatory report laws for abuse in many places that are conflicting with confidentiality for confessions laws.  The conflict concerns many of us and discussing different viewpoints can help us better define our own positions and may affect how we vote or push our lawmakers to act. 
 

Details of the abuse are being discussed because the timing of when the bishops involved and what was told them is relevant to the reporting issue. 

[helix]

I am unsurprised at this latest AP article update. The AP reporter Rezednes writes a story every time the court case moves forward.  He uses each piece to push his agenda rather than educating readers.  Here, the only update is that the church won a pretrial appeal.  Judges ruled that priest-penitent privilege still remains even if the penitent later speaks of some of his crimes to another.  Likewise, those who were at the disciplinary hearing, specifically the ward clerk, are also covered under this privilege and cannot be required to testify.

So that's it.  That's the update.  It triggered a new AP article.  Guess where Rezednes mentioned the appeal result.  Buried in paragraph 46 in a 50 paragraph article.  Why do you think Rezednes buried it all the way down there?

Additionally, all Rezednes articles to date about this case have always contained glaring factual errors and dishonestly clever wordplay.  This simple paragraph in this article is packed with them:

Quote

Adams, a member of the Mormon church, confessed he was abusing his daughter to his Bishop, John Herrod, in 2010. In Arizona, clergy are among the professionals required to report child sexual abuse to police or child welfare officials.

No Rezendes, Paul Adams confessed in late 2011, not 2010.  That's a factual error. 

Clever wordplay (or poor writing) makes you think the abuse also happened in 2010, and not prior.  The writing also makes the reader think Paul confessed multiple incidents of abuse, and that the abuse being reported was ongoing.  Neither of which are supported by any court document evidence, and the church adamantly asserts this was not the case.   

As for "clergy are among the professionals required to report", that's dishonestly clever wordplay.   Imagine a scenario where a defense attorney talks with a client, and the client tells the defense attorney what happened.  Then an AP reporter writes "In Arizona, lawyers are among professionals required to report child sexual abuse".  You'd think the lawyer should report.   But then elsewhere the article states lawyers have this "glaring loophole" that prevents them from reporting, and two paragraphs later refers to it as "the so-called attorney-client privilege".  Huh?  But that's exactly what happened in this article with priest-penitent privilege. 

As for the appeals court ruling, my feelings are mixed. 

On one hand, I was deeply curious what the ward clerk knew about that disciplinary meeting.  He was the clerk when Paul Adams was excommunicated.  So he may know what the bishop knows.  But interestingly, when Leizza Adams couldn't raise the children, this ward clerk took the children into his home and fostered them.  He stated that up until the time that Paul Adams was arrested, he had no idea the children had been abused.  So I am curious why Paul was ex'd. The court documents suggest that Paul Adams was removed from the church because he had sex with his mother as well as several other women while married to Leizza.

On the other hand, this appeals court ruling is a victory for religious liberty for four reasons:

1) Confessions to priests are some of the most sacred moments of a religion, and government should not be regulating it.  The First Amendment forbids it.  This ruling expands who is considered a priest.

2) Catholic priests are under core religious doctrine to not report what they heard in confessionals, and this appeals court ruling continues to preserve a Catholic priests right to holy silence.  The now overturned order further would have put a person deeper into states of constitutional contradictions.  The right to silence, especially a religious right to silence, is not a crime.  Otherwise a Catholic priest could literally do nothing, following his religious convictions, and be thrown in jail for it.  It would be a strange thing to tell religious individuals "You do not have the right to remain silent, anything you don't say can and will be used against you in a court of law".

3) Religious communities still retain their freedom from worry as they assist fellow troubled congregants.  They do not need to worry that even though they suspect troubled congregants may be doing something illegal, that won't imperil themselves by working with these folks.  So far in this case, Rezendes has thrown both the ward clerk and the visiting teacher under the bus and slandered them for their help with the Adams family.  In the case of the visiting teacher, Rezendes told a blatant lie that the visiting teacher encouraged Leizza Adams to shred key evidence, when in reality the visiting teacher encouraged Leizza to do exactly the opposite.  This same visiting teacher suspected something was wrong with the family and tried numerous methods to coax any info out of the wife and children, and never succeeded.  But Rezendes says she helped a coverup. These two ward members stuck out their necks and put in years of service to a troubled family, only to be rewarded with their names being dragged through the mud nationwide.  At least now this clerk and future clerks have freedom knowing they won't be required to testify about a confessional.  The ruling likely extends to future Relief Society sisters who hear a confession as well.  This overall lawsuit will likely fail, indicating religious congregants can continue to assist their fellow members without worry that trying to engage troubled families won't endanger them with legal consequences. 

4) No research has shown that mandated reporting actually is a net positive.  On the contrary, research has hinted abusers will refrain from confessing to priests if they know they will be reported.  The AP reporter asserts, without evidence, that if government simply regulates religious speech and requires reporting, then abusers will still confess at the same rates, more abusers will be reported to the government, and more children will be saved.  He then repeatedly whacks the church with this unfounded assertion.  This court appeal ruling helps preserve a religious institution's ability to assist confessors, which could reasonably result in more children being saved from abusers. 

4b) Anecdotally, I'm aware of another issue.  When mandatory reporting exists, people report anything out of an abundance of caution, which sweeps up many innocent individuals in life altering situations while the slow wheels of legal justice turn.  For example, decades ago I led an after school effort to tutor disadvantaged children at an elementary school.  One day a child went home, mad at me for reasons I still don't understand, and told his mom I physically abused him.  The mother reported this to the principal.  I did no such thing.  The principal knew this child to be a habitual liar, told me as much, warned me going forward to ensure I continue to have witnesses around me at all time while I work with him, then dropped the matter.  Had today's mandatory laws been in effect, I would have had to stop tutoring, retain a lawyer for assistance, had my name circulated through the community as being a potential abuser, and waited months for the investigation to conclude with the case quietly dropped.  In another example, a decade ago in my ward I was made aware of a teenage girl who had a deserved reputation of seeking attention via inventing wild fictional stories involving herself.  In one of her episodes, she started accusing ward leaders of sexually assaulting her.  The bishop warned many of us to be extremely careful in her presence.  Because these were part of a confessional, the bishop didn't have to mandatory report, and the government didn't step in to publicize the accuser and all the accused.  The end result was good.  The teenage girl mellowed drastically in just a couple of years, then continued maturing as a normal adult.  Had the government been forced to be involved here, I'm certain that either ward members would always suspect others forever after, or this girl would have continued her current downward spiral, or both.  Mandatory reporting scares people into reporting suspicions and messy situations, out of fear for their own legal consequences, which endangers many more innocents. 

[Dario_M]

9 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

You can quietly hide members you choose not to see on your feed. Smac is a valued long time participant, very intelligent and we like him well enough. 

Ooh my bad. I thought you wanna like...Smac me or something. I whas confussed. I don't wanna hide anyone. I also just can ignore somebody right. I don't have problems with doing that. 

God bless. ✝️

[Dario_M]

9 hours ago, smac97 said:

That's fine.  There are any number of threads I ignore.  Free country and all that.

Thanks,

-Smac

Sorry about that. I didn't know Smac whas a person. My bad. 

[Dario_M]

8 hours ago, Calm said:

If it is just the name, it is for Spencer MacDonald. Maybe think Spencer instead when you read it. 
 

But you can also go into your profile and then your account, choose “ignored users” and that will hade their posts, but not their names plus they may be quoted in others’ posts so you may need to skip threads if a particular poster bugs you. 

—

 

This thread has an issue that is, I think, important to discuss and that is the priest penitent confidentiality law. I don’t know what the law is in Portugal, but in the US there are mandatory report laws for abuse in many places that are conflicting with confidentiality for confessions laws.  The conflict concerns many of us and discussing different viewpoints can help us better define our own positions and may affect how we vote or push our lawmakers to act. 
 

Details of the abuse are being discussed because the timing of when the bishops involved and what was told them is relevant to the reporting issue. 

Yes Smac is a person here i did not know that.

Offcourse it is really good that these type of topics get discussed. I am totally upvote for that. I just didn't know that Smac whas a person. Sorry about that. 💟

Edited December 30, 2022 by Dario_M

[smac97]

5 hours ago, Dario_M said:

Sorry about that. I didn't know Smac whas a person. My bad. 

No worries at all.

My handle on this board is a contraction of my IRL name (Spencer Macdonald) combined with a portion of the MOS (Military Occupational Specialty) I had when I was in the Army National Guard: 97E (Interrogator - Prisoners of War, since re-designated as 35M).

Thanks,

-Smac

[Niblo]

7 hours ago, Dario_M said:

Sorry about that. I didn't know Smac whas a person. My bad. 

Smac is a person??? 🤪 

[Dario_M]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

No worries at all.

My handle on this board is a contraction of my IRL name (Spencer Macdonald) combined with a portion of the MOS (Military Occupational Specialty) I had when I was in the Army National Guard: 97E (Interrogator - Prisoners of War, since re-designated as 35M).

Thanks,

-Smac

Oh my oh my.....impresive indeed. 

[Dario_M]

16 minutes ago, Niblo said:

Smac is a person??? 🤪 

Yes he is a user here on this lovely forum i mean. 😉

[webbles]

19 hours ago, helix said:

Judges ruled that priest-penitent privilege still remains even if the penitent later speaks of some of his crimes to another.  Likewise, those who were at the disciplinary hearing, specifically the ward clerk, are also covered under this privilege and cannot be required to testify.

That's not exactly what they ruled.

In the first question, they ruled that the penitent has to divulge the material in the priest-penitent privilege before the privilege is considered to be revoked.  From their decision:

Quote

It is not enough to publicly admit the “facts” involving the same conduct that may have been previously disclosed in confidence. The communicant must also reveal the substance of the confession itself. That is, here, waiver could exist had Adams not only revealed that he had committed these offenses but also what he had communicated in confession to Harrod or Mauzy.

Quote

Adams publicly disclosed only his crimes, not the content of his confession to the church. Thus, the respondent erred by concluding his advertising of his crimes and later confession to law enforcement waived the priest-penitent privilege.

It kind of makes a chicken and egg problem for the plaintiffs.  For them to break the priest-penitent privilege, they have to show that the penitent (Adams) divulged his confession.  But they don't know what he said in his confession so how do they show that he divulged it?

An interesting thing about the ruling for the first question is that they didn't take into account the phone call between Adams and the second bishop.  They couldn't accept it as it had not been used by the judge and so is considered new evidence.  But I do think that call will change the decision making.  It looks like Adams was planning/wanting/willing to break the priest-penitent privilege.  The Church had tried to argue that the bishop has an "independent right to maintain confidentiality of confessions" (because of subsection L in 13-3620) but the court disagreed.

In the second question, they didn't say that the ward clerk was covered.  They said that the judge erred in deciding that Brother Fife was the ward clerk.  Brother Fife had been both a ward clerk and 1st councilor.  And the Church states that he was the 1st councilor during that time period and in his own deposition, Brother Fife said he was not the secretary.  A 1st councilor is definitely a clergy and so is protected.  They didn't rule on whether a ward clerk or anyone else attending the hearing would be covered.

 

[Tacenda]

This case is awful, and it goes in depth on many things. But what we can't ignore is that in the years past the perps are given a lot of space to be forgiven and not be held accountable where the victims haven't been given the help they've needed and their perps were able to continue to abuse other victims. It's still ongoing: https://floodlit.org/

Edited December 31, 2022 by Tacenda

[smac97]

On 12/30/2022 at 12:47 AM, helix said:

As for "clergy are among the professionals required to report", that's dishonestly clever wordplay.   Imagine a scenario where a defense attorney talks with a client, and the client tells the defense attorney what happened.  Then an AP reporter writes "In Arizona, lawyers are among professionals required to report child sexual abuse".  You'd think the lawyer should report.   But then elsewhere the article states lawyers have this "glaring loophole" that prevents them from reporting, and two paragraphs later refers to it as "the so-called attorney-client privilege".  Huh?  But that's exactly what happened in this article with priest-penitent privilege. 

Yes, the characterization of the Priest-Penitent Privilege as a "loophole" is, IMO, pretty inaccurate and dishonest.  Broadly speaking a "loophole" is "an ambiguity or inadequacy in a system, such as a law or security, which can be used to circumvent or otherwise avoid the purpose, implied or explicitly stated, of the system."  See also here:

Quote

Loopholes come into being through the passage of statutes, the enactment of regulations, the drafting of contracts or the decisions of courts. A loophole allows an individual or group to use some gap in the restrictions or requirements of the law or contract for personal advantage without technically breaking the law or contract. In response, lawmakers and regulators work to pass reforms that will close the loophole. For example, in the federal tax code, a long-standing loophole was the socalled tax shelter, which allowed taxpayers to reduce their tax debt by making investments. Although not closed entirely, this loophole was substantially reduced by the tax reform act of 1986 (Pub. L. No. 99-514, 100 Stat. 2085 [codified as amended in numerous sections of 26 U.S.C.A.]).

Loopholes exist because it is impossible to foresee every circumstance or course of conduct that will arise under, or in response to, the law. Loopholes often endure for a time because they can be difficult to close. Those who benefit from a loophole will lobby legislators or regulators to leave the loophole open.

In other words, a legal loophole is a mistake.  An oversight.  A bug, not a feature.

Conversely, the Priest-Penitent privilege (and other legal privileges, such as the Doctor-Patient and Attorney-Client privileges) are intentional.  They are intentionally addressed and accounted for in the law.  A constitutional feature, not a accidentally legislated "bug."

On 12/30/2022 at 12:47 AM, helix said:

As for the appeals court ruling, my feelings are mixed. 

On one hand, I was deeply curious what the ward clerk knew about that disciplinary meeting.  He was the clerk when Paul Adams was excommunicated.  So he may know what the bishop knows. 

The court clerk, Richard Fife, was present at the disciplinary council "as a non-participating 'ward clerk.'"  This is in accordance with the Handbook's instructions in place at the time.  The ward clerk attended disciplinary councils to keep a record, but not to participate in questioning or deliberations.

Paul Adams was excommunicated in 2013.  He was excommunicated by his bishop, Kim Mauzy because he had never been ordained to the Melchizedek Priesthood.

From Mauzy's sworn declaration (emphases added) :

Quote

8. When I became Bishop of the Bisbee Ward in 2012, as authorized by Church doctrine, Bishop Herrod shared with me in confidence information he had received in confidence from Paul Adams.

9. It is common for a Bishop to share confidential information about a Ward member with the succeeding Bishop in order to ensure that ministry, counseling and other religious issues are properly dealt with by the succeeding Bishop. Such communications are strictly confidential.

10. In August 2013, based on the information Bishop Herrod shared with me, I conducted a confidential Church disciplinary proceeding involving Paul Adams. Such proceedings are part of the repentance process under Church doctrine and are considered strictly confidential. The Church Handbook says that “all who take part in Church disciplinary councils” have a “solemn duty to keep all information” from the council confidential. Handbook 1, 2010 § 6.5.

11. The council was based on certain confidential information I received in my role as Bishop regarding Paul Adams. To a very limited extent, I involved Leizza Adams in that Church disciplinary proceeding and had confidential communications with her in my role as Bishop. I considered any and all information disclosed to me by Paul Adams and Leizza Adams regarding the reasons for such discipline to have been shared with me in my role as Church clergy and to be confidential within the dictates of my religion.

12. As a result of that confidential disciplinary proceeding, I made the decision to excommunicate Paul Adams from the Church.

13. All of the information I knew about any misconduct by Paul Adams was the result of confidential communications I received in my role as Bishop in the course of the discipline enjoined by the Church. I have always believed that maintaining these communications in confidence is reasonable and necessary within the concepts of my religion. Thus, I have never violated that confidence.
...
17. I did not know that Paul Adams was abusing his children while I was Bishop until he was arrested in 2017. The communications with me were about a past one-time incident (and other conduct by Paul Adams that gave rise to his excommunication). I did not know until Paul Adams was arrested in 2017 that he had abused Plaintiffs John Doe or Jane Doe II. I did not know until he was arrested that he had viewed or disseminated child pornography, including videos of his own children.

A few thoughts:

1. I am not clear on whether or how Bishop Mauzy's communications from Leizza Adams were covered by the Privilege.

2. This declaration is a wee bit ambiguous, as paragraph 10 suggests that the disciplinary council was held "based on the information Bishop Herrod" had shared with Bishop Mauzy.  However, in paragraph 11 he (Bishop Mauzy) states that he had "information disclosed to me by Paul Adams and Leizza Adams."  This is reiterated in paragraph 17, in which Mauzy states that "communications with mere were about a past one-time incident (and other conduct by Paul Adams that gave rise to his excommunication)."  

3. It appears that Mauzy had three sources of information: Bishop Herrod (hearsay confession attributed to Adams) and Adams himself.  Both of these communications were likely covered by the Priest-Penitent Privilege.

4. I suspect that the reference in paragraph 17 to "other conduct by Paul Adams that gave rise to his excommunication" has to do with Adams' incestuous contact with his mother.

5. The declaration is also ambiguous in that paragraph 17 is worded in such a way as to leave unclear whether the behavior "that gave rise to his {Adams'} excommunication" included both the "one-time incident" and the "other conduct," or just the "other conduct." 

6. Regarding the incest, per hearsay testimony from Shaunice Warr (she quotes Leizza Adams and "rumors"), Adams was excommunicated for "{having} sex with his mother," and that he had confessed to this "years before" he was arrested in 2017.  This is actually multiple hearsay since Leizza Adams would not have participated in the disciplinary council.  So we have 1) Shaunice Warr saying what 2) Leizza Adams had said about what 3) someone else had said.  We don't even know how or where - or if - Leizza received this information.  However, if we take a "connect the dots / read between the lines" approach between this hearsay testimony and the reference to "other conduct" in Bishop Mauzy's sworn statement, I suspect the excommunication was for both the abuse of the daughter and the incest.

7. Per hearsay testimony from DHS Agent Edwards (he quotes Bishop Herrod, who was himself not involved in the disciplinary council of Adams), the excommunication was "for the sexual molestation of his oldest and youngest daughter."  A few noteworthy issues here:

• First, we have hearsay-within-hearsay since Bishop Herrod - like Leizza Adams - was not involved in the disciplinary council of Adams, which means we have 1) Agent Edwards saying what 2) Bishop Herrod had said about what 3) someone else had.  As with Leizza, we don't know or where or if Bishop Herrod got this information.  Moreover, Edwards mentions Bishop Mauzy (the one who actually excommunicated Adams) only in passing.
• Second, Agent Edwards also quotes Leizza for her explanation of the basis for the excommunication ("She told us because he was having a sexual relationship with his mother"), and that Leizza did not mention anything about the abuse of of Adams' children ("Q. So she didn't tell you it {the excommunication} was due to molestation of M-1? / A. No.").
• Third, Agent Edwards, when asked how Leizza knew about "what went on in the excommunication proceedings," responded by stating that he had interviewed "Bishop Herrod" and other "individuals ... about the hearing," and that according to them "Leizza Adams was present during the disciplinary hearing where Paul Adams was allowed to, as they said, plead his case before the disciplinary council."  I find this . . . unlikely.
• Fourth, Adams' second daughter wasn't born until after 2013, and therefore after Adams had been excommunicated, so Edwards' testimony that Adams had been excommunicated for molesting both daughters cannot have been accurate.  This is addressed during re-direct questioning.

So, yeah.  A few red flags regarding the credibility of Agent Edwards.

On 12/30/2022 at 12:47 AM, helix said:

But interestingly, when Leizza Adams couldn't raise the children, this ward clerk took the children into his home and fostered them.  He stated that up until the time that Paul Adams was arrested, he had no idea the children had been abused. 

Could you provide a citation to this (about the clerk saying he "had no idea the children had been abused")?  I was not aware of that point.

Per Bishop Herrod, Adams confessed at least once to a "one-time incident" of abuse of the older daughter.

Also per Bishop Herrod, he asked Adams for permission to disclose the abuse to law enforcement (in other words, to waive the privilege), and Adams refused.  Herrod also encouraged Leizza to go to the police, but she did not.

Per Bishop Mauzy, he excommunicated Adams in 2013 for either "other conduct" (presumably incest) or else both that and the "one-time incident" of abuse of the daughter (which Adams had confessed to Herrod). 

Also per Bishop Mauzy, he "did not know that Paul Adams was abusing his children while I was Bishop until he was arrested in 2017."

On 12/30/2022 at 12:47 AM, helix said:

So I am curious why Paul was ex'd. The court documents suggest that Paul Adams was removed from the church because he had sex with his mother as well as several other women while married to Leizza.

Could you provide references for Adams having "had sex with ... several other women while married to Leizza"?

On 12/30/2022 at 12:47 AM, helix said:

On the other hand, this appeals court ruling is a victory for religious liberty for four reasons:

1) Confessions to priests are some of the most sacred moments of a religion, and government should not be regulating it.  The First Amendment forbids it.  This ruling expands who is considered a priest.

2) Catholic priests are under core religious doctrine to not report what they heard in confessionals, and this appeals court ruling continues to preserve a Catholic priests right to holy silence.  The now overturned order further would have put a person deeper into states of constitutional contradictions.  The right to silence, especially a religious right to silence, is not a crime.  Otherwise a Catholic priest could literally do nothing, following his religious convictions, and be thrown in jail for it.  It would be a strange thing to tell religious individuals "You do not have the right to remain silent, anything you don't say can and will be used against you in a court of law".

Yes, mandatory reporting laws can create that sort of problem.

On 12/30/2022 at 12:47 AM, helix said:

3) Religious communities still retain their freedom from worry as they assist fellow troubled congregants.  They do not need to worry that even though they suspect troubled congregants may be doing something illegal, that won't imperil themselves by working with these folks. 

This is one of the primary arguments against mandatory reporting (or at least expanding the current parameters as to who qualifies as a mandatory reporter).  See:

Unintended Consequences of Expanded Mandatory Reporting Laws

Should a member of the clergy report sex abuse of the penitent? A look inside the priest-penitent privilege

As with so many other societal problems, emotionalistic knee-jerk responses like "More Money!" and "More Government!" as fixes need to be regularly re-evaluated.

On 12/30/2022 at 12:47 AM, helix said:

So far in this case, Rezendes has thrown both the ward clerk and the visiting teacher under the bus and slandered them for their help with the Adams family.  In the case of the visiting teacher, Rezendes told a blatant lie that the visiting teacher encouraged Leizza Adams to shred key evidence, when in reality the visiting teacher encouraged Leizza to do exactly the opposite.  This same visiting teacher suspected something was wrong with the family and tried numerous methods to coax any info out of the wife and children, and never succeeded.  But Rezendes says she helped a coverup. These two ward members stuck out their necks and put in years of service to a troubled family, only to be rewarded with their names being dragged through the mud nationwide. 

Yep, the "Witch Hunt" / "Scorched Earth" mentality that comes out of these sorts of societal problems can be very damaging, particularly when self-appointed crusaders lean in, get caught up in the heat of the moment, and disregard normative standards of investigation, evidence, Due Process, and so on.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

On 12/31/2022 at 11:08 AM, Tacenda said:

This case is awful, and it goes in depth on many things. But what we can't ignore is that in the years past the perps are given a lot of space to be forgiven and not be held accountable where the victims haven't been given the help they've needed and their perps were able to continue to abuse other victims. It's still ongoing: https://floodlit.org/

Not really impressed with the website.

First, it's anonymous.  A "Jane Young," posting on one of its endorser's FB page, states she is running the website.

Second, it encourages users to add "information" anonymously.  This creates all sorts of opportunity to malevolence and mischief.

Third, there is essentially no vetting.  It looks like it is built on the 2017 compilation of allegations, which itself is mostly just allegations.

Fourth, the whole effort seems more about stoking outrage, moral posturing, and lurid gossip-mongering than actually doing anything substantive or constructive in terms of reducing abuse.

Fifth, it seems to be padding its numbers a bit.  Here it says the group "is tracking 500 LDS/Mormon sex crime cases," and yet most of them are years in the past.  By way of example, one "sex crime case" they claim to be "tracking" involves a "Mormon apostle" named . . . Joseph Smith (d. 1844).  Another involves a "Mormon general authority" named . . . George P. Lee (d. 2010).  Still other cases they are "tracking" purportedly involve four stake presidents, one of whom pled guilty in 2004 (see here, here), one convicted in 1997 (later set aside in 2003) (see here, here, here), another who was publicly accused in a 2002 news article (but apparently never charged or convicted), and who was never actually a stake president, and who died last year (see here, here), and one who pleaded guilty to soliciting a prostitute in 1994, and who died in 2014 (see here, here, here).  And yet another story they are "tracking" involves a grandson going on Mormon Stories to accuse his grandfather - who died in 2000 - of sexual abuse (see here).

To be sure, there is abuse occurring in the Church (as it is everywhere), but this website isn't doing anything to improve the situation.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

 

[webbles]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

The court clerk, Richard Fife, was present at the disciplinary council "as a non-participating 'ward clerk.'"  This is in accordance with the Handbook's instructions in place at the time.  The ward clerk attended disciplinary councils to keep a record, but not to participate in questioning or deliberations.

Brother Fife was most likely not the ward clerk at that time.  The documentation is a little confusing, but from his deposition, it says:

Quote

Q. BY MS. CADIGAN: Were you a scribe for that disciplinary meeting regarding Paul Adams?
MR. MALEDON: Object to the form.
THE WITNESS: No, I was not.
Q. BY MS. CADIGAN: Was Ellsworth a scribe?
MR. MALEDON: Object to the form.
THE WITNESS: He was.

Quote

Q. You're saying that you were a secretary at a disciplinary council where --
A. I was not. In fact, I already stated that I was not. I think it's on the record.

Brother Fife was most likely at the disciplinary council because he was the 1st counselor.  He had been released as ward clerk earlier.

 

 

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

Could you provide references for Adams having "had sex with ... several other women while married to Leizza"?

In the trial transcript

Quote

The first -- he was actually -- the first time he had given his car or loaned his car to an illegal, um, woman, that he was sleeping with actually.

Quote

Yes. Her husband was sleeping with multiple women, and she didn't know.

 

 

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Could you provide a citation to this (about the clerk saying he "had no idea the children had been abused")?  I was not aware of that point.

It is from Brother Fife's deposition.  I don't know of any place besides the court website to read it.  The file number is 2028896.  Here's some quotes from it:

Quote

Q. BY MS. CADIGAN: Okay. So my question to you is, you're willing -- you know [Jane Doe 1]. You -- she lived with you, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. How long did she live with you?
A. Three months.

Quote

Q. BY MS. CADIGAN: And when you had the children in February of 2017, you knew Paul Adams had been arrested, correct?
A. I did.
Q. So you knew it probably had something to do with what happened at the disciplinary hearing, correct?
MR. MALEDON: Object to the form.
THE WITNESS: No. I had no idea.

This last statement is from the plaintiff's attorney while talking to the judge during the deposition.

Quote

He just testified that in 2017, when Paul Adams was arrested, and it was all over the news, and he took the children into his home, he had no idea, really, why it may have something to do with child abuse. This is a man who sat through his excommunication hearing in 2013.

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, webbles said:

Quote

Quote

He was the clerk when Paul Adams was excommunicated.  So he may know what the bishop knows.  But interestingly, when Leizza Adams couldn't raise the children, this ward clerk took the children into his home and fostered them.  He stated that up until the time that Paul Adams was arrested, he had no idea the children had been abused. 

Could you provide a citation to this (about the clerk saying he "had no idea the children had been abused")?  I was not aware of that point.

It is from Brother Fife's deposition.  I don't know of any place besides the court website to read it.  The file number is 2028896.  Here's some quotes from it:

...

Quote

Q. BY MS. CADIGAN: And when you had the children in February of 2017, you knew Paul Adams had been arrested, correct?
A. I did.
Q. So you knew it probably had something to do with what happened at the disciplinary hearing, correct?
MR. MALEDON: Object to the form.
THE WITNESS: No. I had no idea.

This last statement is from the plaintiff's attorney while talking to the judge during the deposition.

Quote

He just testified that in 2017, when Paul Adams was arrested, and it was all over the news, and he took the children into his home, he had no idea, really, why it may have something to do with child abuse. This is a man who sat through his excommunication hearing in 2013.

 

On December 15, 2022, the Arizona Court of Appeals issued its decision in response to the Church's "special action review" of the trial court's rulings regarding whether Fife could be compelled to testify.  Some excerpts:

Quote

¶4 Several disputes arose during discovery in the matter.  Relevant here, in resolving those disputes, the respondent judge addressed whether LDS was required to disclose the file related to Adams’s disciplinary council proceeding and whether a witness to that proceeding, Richard Fife, was constrained by the priest-penitent privilege from testifying about the proceeding.  

¶5 The respondent judge determined Adams had waived the priest-penitent privilege by his “subsequent, overtly public admission of his sexual abuse of his children,” including his statements on social media and posting of videos.  The respondent also determined that Fife was not restrained from testifying by the priest-penitent privilege because he was not a “clergyman or priest” as contemplated by A.R.S. § 12-2233 and instead had attended the proceeding as a non-participating “ward clerk.”  The respondent ordered LDS to disclose the disciplinary file.  She determined that “all members of the disciplinary council, as well as any member of the Church with knowledge of the acts of Paul Adams resulting in his excommunication from the church, subsequent arrest and indictment, [we]re relieved of the duty of confidentiality” and required “to respond to any questions regarding their knowledge of any information regarding Paul Adams’ sexual abuse of his children.”  This petition for special action followed.  A trial court’s ruling that information is not privileged is appropriate for special action review.  See Waters v. O’Connor, 209 Ariz. 380, ¶¶ 1, 3 (App. 2004); see also Ariz. R. P. Spec. Act. 1(a), 3(c). 

Note the bolded point above.  Compare it to this bit:

Quote

¶13 The LDS next asserts the respondent erred in determining Fife was merely a ward clerk and not clergy subject to the privilege, thus requiring Fife to submit to questions about the disciplinary council proceeding.
...
¶14 LDS argues there is nothing in the record supporting the respondent judge’s conclusion that Fife was present merely to record the proceedings without participating in the discussion or decision.  It asserts, instead, that the only evidence in the record is that Fife attended the council as First Counselor of the Bishopric.  The plaintiffs cite no evidence supporting the respondent’s conclusion that Fife was merely a ward clerk and acknowledged at oral argument that the record does not support the respondent’s finding.  Based on the record citations the LDS has provided, Fife’s role at the disciplinary council is not apparent—he acknowledged having served as a ward clerk and as first counselor.  But he refused to answer any questions about the disciplinary council itself, including about his role in that proceeding, although he claimed he was not a “secretary” at the time.  Given the lack of evidence and the plaintiffs’ concession, the respondent erred by concluding that Fife was not clergy.

It could be that the Church's local attorney was making a technical argument about "the only evidence in the record."  Hard to say, really.

Anyway, I'm trying to figure out why Fife's comment is problematic.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Not really impressed with the website.

First, it's anonymous.  A "Jane Young," posting on one of its endorser's FB page, states she is running the website.

Second, it encourages users to add "information" anonymously.  This creates all sorts of opportunity to malevolence and mischief.

Third, there is essentially no vetting.  It looks like it is built on the 2017 compilation of allegations, which itself is mostly just allegations.

Fourth, the whole effort seems more about stoking outrage, moral posturing, and lurid gossip-mongering than actually doing anything substantive or constructive in terms of reducing abuse.

Fifth, it seems to be padding its numbers a bit.  Here it says the group "is tracking 500 LDS/Mormon sex crime cases," and yet most of them are years in the past.  By way of example, one "sex crime case" they claim to be "tracking" involves a "Mormon apostle" named . . . Joseph Smith (d. 1844).  Another involves a "Mormon general authority" named . . . George P. Lee (d. 2010).  Still other cases they are "tracking" purportedly involve four stake presidents, one of whom pled guilty in 2004 (see here, here), one convicted in 1997 (later set aside in 2003) (see here, here, here), another who was publicly accused in a 2002 news article (but apparently never charged or convicted), and who was never actually a stake president, and who died last year (see here, here), and one who pleaded guilty to soliciting a prostitute in 1994, and who died in 2014 (see here, here, here).  And yet another story they are "tracking" involves a grandson going on Mormon Stories to accuse his grandfather - who died in 2000 - of sexual abuse (see here).

To be sure, there is abuse occurring in the Church (as it is everywhere), but this website isn't doing anything to improve the situation.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

 

I appreciate your vetting it.

[puzzlehobbit]

22 hours ago, smac97 said:

Not really impressed with the website.

First, it's anonymous.  A "Jane Young," posting on one of its endorser's FB page, states she is running the website.

Second, it encourages users to add "information" anonymously.  This creates all sorts of opportunity to malevolence and mischief.

Third, there is essentially no vetting.  It looks like it is built on the 2017 compilation of allegations, which itself is mostly just allegations.

Fourth, the whole effort seems more about stoking outrage, moral posturing, and lurid gossip-mongering than actually doing anything substantive or constructive in terms of reducing abuse.

Fifth, it seems to be padding its numbers a bit.  Here it says the group "is tracking 500 LDS/Mormon sex crime cases," and yet most of them are years in the past.  By way of example, one "sex crime case" they claim to be "tracking" involves a "Mormon apostle" named . . . Joseph Smith (d. 1844).  Another involves a "Mormon general authority" named . . . George P. Lee (d. 2010).  Still other cases they are "tracking" purportedly involve four stake presidents, one of whom pled guilty in 2004 (see here, here), one convicted in 1997 (later set aside in 2003) (see here, here, here), another who was publicly accused in a 2002 news article (but apparently never charged or convicted), and who was never actually a stake president, and who died last year (see here, here), and one who pleaded guilty to soliciting a prostitute in 1994, and who died in 2014 (see here, here, here).  And yet another story they are "tracking" involves a grandson going on Mormon Stories to accuse his grandfather - who died in 2000 - of sexual abuse (see here).

To be sure, there is abuse occurring in the Church (as it is everywhere), but this website isn't doing anything to improve the situation.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

 

Hi Smac, I'm Jane, creator of FLOODLIT. Proof: https://floodlit.org/site-verifications/

I appreciate your feedback and criticism.

Many people, particularly abuse survivors, prefer to remain anonymous when they submit information to our website. So we allow them to do that. We don't automatically publish that info, however. Here's our posting policy: https://floodlit.org/posting-policy/ We're extremely careful about vetting information for accuracy. There's no gossip on the site. If you find any, please let me know and I'll remove it right away. Thank you.

We're trying to do something similar to what bishop-accountability.org has been doing for around 20 years, but with a focus on the LDS church instead of the Catholic church. We're trying to keep track of public information and public reports about accusations against Mormon church leaders and members. Hundreds of the cases we're tracking go back decades, and in some cases, the accused is now deceased. I'll try to make the wording more clear on the website so it doesn't give any impression that we're saying that every case we're researching is still developing or running through the court system, etc.

The effort's not about gossip or making people upset - it's simply about shining a light on the topic of sexual abuse or sex crimes in the Mormon church. We feel that for a long time, there's been a lot of secrecy there. We're just trying to provide accurate information to help people research or discuss this topic.

As stated on our homepage, we're not an advocacy organization. As an abuse survivor, I do very much want to help reduce the amount of abuse in this world. But FLOODLIT's aim is mainly to provide accurate information, because how can we hope to tackle a problem if we don't even understand it? So I'm working as hard as I can each day to help survivors feel like there's somebody out there who's trying to shine a light and help their voices be heard.

How bad is the problem of sexual abuse in the LDS church? Has the church ever been accused of covering up abuse? Has it ever been ordered to make payments to abuse victims? How many men have ever been arrested for or charged with sex crimes while serving as Mormon bishops? In what percentage of Mormon stakes and wards have there been instances where a local LDS member was convicted of a sex crime? How has the church responded to each instance of alleged or confirmed abuse? We're simply trying to help answer questions like those.

I invite you and anyone else with research skills to help us. We've currently got a backlog of about 100 cases to sift through.

If you were running a research project to shed light on the topic of sex abuse in the Mormon church, what would you do to ensure that it was helpful and not harmful? I want to show that I'm listening. I've shed so many tears already as I've researched these stories. The last thing I would ever want to do is make anybody's suffering worse. I'm hoping that a lot of people will end up saying, thanks to FLOODLIT, they were able to find accurate information that ended up leading to better discussions about this topic, which ultimately can lead to better solutions.

Again, thank you and I appreciate the opportunity to be here and share my thoughts with you.