DiscussMormonism.com

MsJack wrote:The judge is a BYU graduate who was born in Provo and is adjunct faculty with the J. Reuben Clark Law School.

This case is getting dismissed for that reason alone. .

.... the ignorance

boris wrote:.... the ignorance

Why is that ignorance?

Every single time a sex abuse case against the LDS church has been brought in Utah, Utah courts have found some reason why the case cannot go forward. Every. Single. Time.

Other states have allowed sex abuse cases against the LDS church to proceed.

MsJack wrote:

boris wrote:.... the ignorance

Why is that ignorance?

Every single time a sex abuse case against the LDS church has been brought in Utah, Utah courts have found some reason why the case cannot go forward. Every. Single. Time.

Other states have allowed sex abuse cases against the LDS church to proceed.

The level of bigotry and prejudice required for your statement that the sole reason for dismissal is affinty of the Judge to a party, is pure ignorance.

And your quote herein that every single case has been dismissed...on what legal basis were the cases dismissed?

with a 100% dismissal rate surely plantiffs attorneys have filed complaints.
plantiffs attorney would know with a 100% dismisal rate that the plantiff attorney must request the Judge recuse
Surely plantiffs attorneys have filed for a change of venune or file a complaint with the DOJ, AMA, State Bar of Utah, and who every else.
Witha 100% dismissal rate surely the DOJ would recognize that Mormon Judges are biased.

And perhaps you may not know, but Denson's attorney has addressed the issue of recusal and does not believe it is necessary

I just wish...just once...all else aside..that just once, the comeuppance of this deceitful church could come out on top.

boris wrote:The level of bigotry and prejudice required for your statement that the sole reason for dismissal is affinty of the Judge to a party, is pure ignorance.

Is it ignorance or bigotry? You seem to be confused. For my own part, I don't think it's bigotry to believe that a judge who is affiliated with one of the parties in a lawsuit will be inclined to rule in favor of that party.

And judging by all of the "surely"s in your response, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that you are not actually more informed on this subject than I am.

boris wrote:And your quote herein that every single case has been dismissed...on what legal basis were the cases dismissed?

Shouldn't you already be familiar with these cases since you're so informed?

Some examples:

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/ut-supreme- ... 56128.html
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/ut-supreme- ... 70015.html
https://law.justia.com/cases/utah/court ... 81904.html
https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2018/06 ... n-program/
https://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/05/us/m ... -case.html
https://www.heraldmailmedia.com/news/tr ... 16b56.html

boris wrote:And perhaps you may not know, but Denson's attorney has addressed the issue of recusal and does not believe it is necessary

I don't know what the success rate is for demanding judges in Utah recuse themselves, and what the odds are of getting a non-LDS judge if you do. Many non-members in Utah also have deep business ties to the LDS community. Denson's attorneys may have seen it as pointless to push for recusal or change of venue.

Anti-Mormons will never admit that McKenna Denson is lying.

peacemaker wrote:Anti-Mormons will never admit that McKenna Denson is lying.

The person on trial is Bishop and the Church.
Bishop for sexual abuse - which he’s confessed to.
The Church for failing to act to protect someone for whom they had a duty of care - which is beyond doubt the Church is culpable and now complicit in trying to cover up.

Your accusations about Denson are all post-trauma incidents - meaning Bishop and the Church are also culpable for her behaviours.

That you don’t see this can only be because you are being wilfully ignorant of the data.

I have a question wrote:

peacemaker wrote:Anti-Mormons will never admit that McKenna Denson is lying.

The person on trial is Bishop and the Church.
Bishop for sexual abuse - which he’s confessed to.
The Church for failing to act to protect someone for whom they had a duty of care - which is beyond doubt the Church is culpable and now complicit in trying to cover up.

Your accusations about Denson are all post-trauma incidents - meaning Bishop and the Church are also culpable for her behaviours.

That you don’t see this can only be because you are being wilfully ignorant of the data.

It doesn't excuse her crime. Filing a false police report is a serious felony. McKenna Denson's original plan was to make money via confidential negotiations before sending the recording to Mormon leaks. It is all about the money.

The church didn't know about Joseph Bishop's abusive behavior because McKenna Denson never met with Elder Carlos E. Asay. McKenna's ex-husband is not a corroborating witness for a meeting that never happened. I know Mckenna's ex-husband is not a witness because he accused her of fabricating the rape claims.

One wonders, if the lawsuit is ultimately dismissed on SOL grounds, how many friends McKenna Denson will still have among those who’ve expressed or provided support thus far. Will she continue to be emblematic of church abuse, and thus remain in the public consciousness? Or will she fall back into obscurity inasmuch as she no longer represents a direct financial or public-relations threat to the church? Call me cynical, but I think one outcome is as likely as the other.

esodije wrote:One wonders, if the lawsuit is ultimately dismissed on SOL grounds, how many friends McKenna Denson will still have among those who’ve expressed or provided support thus far. Will she continue to be emblematic of church abuse, and thus remain in the public consciousness? Or will she fall back into obscurity inasmuch as she no longer represents a direct financial or public-relations threat to the church? Call me cynical, but I think one outcome is as likely as the other.

Is that what you think friendship is based on?