Scott Lloyd Defends Sexual Abuse

[_Mister Scratch]

Well, well, well. It seems that, in some cases, defense of the Church will stoop so low that it descends into some very, very ugly places. Of course, when the person doing the defending is none other than the hate-filled, dunder-headed "Scotty Dog" Lloyd, you can bet that clear thinking is going to vanish down the septic tank in quite a hurry. I have to hand it to one of my "little birdy" informants for drawing my attention to the extraordinarily disgusting thread on the MADboard entitled, "Sexual Abuse Cases Against the Church." Here is the OP:

Yesterday, on another thread, there was some discussion about why it happens to be in Oregon that so many sexual abuse lawsuits are brought against the Church and, specifically, why a decades-old incident that happened in Idaho is being litigated in Oregon. I think this Web site pretty much answers the question:

http://www.boyscoutabuse.com/abuse-case ... eSuccesses

Evidently, this guy has found his market niche.

Now, is this is smear? This *is* sort of a sensitive topic, after all. Calmoriah immediately sees some of the problems with Scotty Dog's knee-jerk thread:

I would agree that he has chosen to specialized, but this is common for lawyers as I doubt any can be an expert on all the laws. I do not see this as automatically problematic. Do you?

Here is the poster called "Lightbearer," whose need to defend the Church has utterly warped his sense of proportion and fairness:

In other words this guy is a sleazball opportunist lawyer on par with Zeezrom, who is using the Oregon legal system as his own perverse version of a "protection racket" against all organizations that he thinks may have deep pockets, and an aversion to bad PR. Sounds familiar:

(Alma 10:14-18) "Now it was those men who sought to destroy them, who were lawyers, who were hired or appointed by the people to administer the law at their times of trials, or at the trials of the crimes of the people before the judges. Now these lawyers were learned in all the arts and cunning of the people; and this was to enable them that they might be skilful in their profession. And it came to pass that they began to question Amulek, that thereby they might make him cross his words, or contradict the words which he should speak. Now they knew not that Amulek could know of their designs. But it came to pass as they began to question him, he perceived their thoughts, and he said unto them: O ye wicked and perverse generation, ye lawyers and hypocrites, for ye are laying the foundations of the devil; for ye are laying traps and snares to catch the holy ones of God. Ye are laying plans to pervert the ways of the righteous, and to bring down the wrath of God upon your heads, even to the utter destruction of this people."

Once again, Calmoriah seems to be the only one with her head screwed on tight:

Would you feel the same way if the guy was going after Big Tobacco companies? I'm not saying that he might not be a sleazeball, but I think given the information at the moment it is a bit of a jump.

Next, Mbeesley weighs in:

I don't get it. We continually stress that while the Church is perfect, the members are not. But as soon as an advocate for someone who was harmed by an imperfect Church member tries to seek redress for those wrongs, some of us want to demonize him.

And there is nothing wrong with going after the Church as an institution. Not all policies and procedures in the Church are a result of revelation.

If I were Mr. Clark, I would be quite flattered by the comparison with Zeezrom who, when taught the truth, converted. It shows that attorneys are teachable.

And here comes Lloyd, with more baloney spin:

By "going after the Church as an institution," I presume you have in mind punitive damages as well as restitution.

Short of slamming the door altogether on Scouting and any other adult-youth mentoring or youth-instruction program (and I suppose that would include Primary, Young Men, Young Women, Seminary, the whole gamut) can you devise a set of polices and procedures that would absolutely prevent any and all cases of child sexual abuse in any setting that might, however loosely, be connected with the Church?

If not, I would be wary about condoning "going after the Church as an institution." We're talking about tithing funds here -- "widow's mite" and all that.

Really, this is pretty unbelievable, no? To my mind, this is all reminiscent of those threads where Church defenders said things like, "The MMM victims were better off," etc.

Later, Scotty Dog starts to flip out at the fact that the Church might be asked to shell out a massive payment, only to get smacked down due to his poor grasp of the facts (i.e., he tried to bring up an infamous McDonald's case):

Ack. I hate when this case is brought up as what is wrong with tort litigation in the US. The original case has been greatly distorted. In reality, McDonald's sold a cup of coffee that was outrageously hot (and they knew it was too hot, as shown by their own records). The poor old woman was awarded only $160,000 for compensatory damages. She had suffered 3rd degree burns to 6% of her skin, requiring 8 days of hospitalization and skin grafts, so I'd guess that the compensatory damages barely covered her actual costs. If she had insurance, the insurance company would have taken most of the amount. In fact, the award was originally $200k, but the jury found that she was 20% liable for her injuries, so the award was reduced by that amount. The jury originally also awarded punitive damages in the amount of $2.7 mil (with the presumed intent to make it "hurt" for McD's), but the judge reduced that to $480,000 (or triple the compensatory damages, which is typical in personal injury cases). The actual final payout is unknown - the parties entered into a confidential settlement during the appeals process. But I'm fairly certain that the final settlement wasn't that much different than the original court numbers (after reduction by the judge). Oh, and I'll bet the lawyer took about half of the punitive damages for his fees and the compensatory damages paid for actual costs of treatment. The old woman didn't see that much in the end, considering her injuries. So, not exorbitant.

With that being said, there were a plethora of copy-cat cases brought thereafter, with people looking for easy money. Having defended one of those, I can guarantee that folks didn't find quick cash.

[/steps off soapbox]

Thanks for filling in the details.

But the fact still remains, the jury awarded her the $2.7 million in the first place. The point being that juries, taking pity on a hapless defendant, are apt to go overboard in an effort to punish faceless "institutions" -- like corporations. And large churches.

Moreover, the late political campaign of Mitt Romney has shown us that a significant portion of the populace doesn't have a great deal of affinity for the Church to begin with.

Right. Lawsuits against the Church over sexual abuse should be put on the back burner due to "anti-Mormonism." I bet the dog turd that Scott Lloyd stepped in last week was put there by antis as well? And the hair he found in his soup? Gee, I bet the bad weather he had last week was the doing of the anti-Mormons too!

Anyways, if you thought this thread would last without Rusty "Pahoran" McG storming in to stink up the joint, then you thought wrong:

Let me start by saying I don't agree with Kelly's actions. However, I do believe something should be done to punish the perpetrators and help the victims.

And the Church was not the perpetrator, and the alleged victim has had decades to recover.

(emphasis added)

Gee, would it be too much to ask for a bit of sympathy on this highly charged subject? At least the "All-Seeing Eye" has sense enough to see through this crap:

Thank god for the statute of limitations. Without it, I would probably be penniless now, and my victims would be much better off monetarily.

Sheesh! Anyways, back to Pahoran's textual bowel movement:

I also believe the Church should be held accountable for policy’s that discouraged reporting of abusers.

Despite the fact that those alleged policies have never been proved to actually exist; while actual policies directly addressing the problem have been in place for close to twenty years now. Every possible real remedy has been applied, but the lawsuits, based entirely upon long past history, keep on coming.

Funny, that.

I know and have worked with Kelly for years.

Brave of you to admit that, considering that you may find yourself tainted by the company you choose to keep.

He is not a sleaze ball,

You're right. "Scumbag" is much more appropriate.

he is a devoted committed man who feels sexual abuse of minors is wrong

Lucrative, too.

and the perpetrators of the abuse should be punished.

Which explains why he goes after those who are not the perpetrators--how, exactly?

While I do not agree with him on everything, I do agree that the Churches approach to abuse victims during the 1960’s, 70’s and 80’s was reprehensible and they did nothing to report abusers and often protected them from public exposure.

And that it has always been the proper role of churches to publicly expose wrongdoers, right? I suppose he thinks we should make pedophiles wear a big red "P," the new scarlet letter, does he?

Besides all that, what approach has the Church taken since that time? Going after someone for what they used to do wrong, long after they've put it right, serves no valid purpose.

But it does seem like a good way for someone without a real job to make lots of money.

And I can tell you from personal experience that the claim that any such thing was "the Churches[sic] approach to abuse victims during the 1960’s, 70’s and 80’s" is a lie. The problem was that the Church had no approach or policy regarding the problem back then.

Kelly is seeking to;

Make lots of money from institutions with deep pockets.

1. Punish the organization that protected abusers.
2. Provide relief for those that suffer from the scares of abuse.

Funny, that. Civilised people, as opposed to anti-Mormons and slimy lawyers, understand that the sole valid purpose of punishment is to bring about a modification of behaviour. It is a fact not open to dispute that the Church has indeed taken steps, from the very top, to modify the not-always-wise actions of local leaders acting without any actual policy to guide them.

Thus, any attempt to punish the Church at this very late date can only be motivated by one or both of two rather unworthy motives: (1) greed, and (2) vindictive malice.

So is "Kelly" motivated by both of these, or just one?

Oregon’s laws make it easier to bring these kinds of suits against abusers and require that Churches bear responsibilities of their agents. Anyone called by the Church as lay leader is an agent of the Church under Oregon law. Therefore the Church is held liable for the abuse.

Under the laws of more civilised jurisdictions, a person is only held to be acting as an agent of a principal when he or she is (1) acting under the principal's direction, or (2) is acting in the principal's interest. Child sexual abuse is (1) in direct opposition to the Church's unambiguous moral teachings, and (2) completely contrary to its vital interest in the wellbeing of its children. Thus, any person who molests a child is acting entirely in their own interest, and not as an agent of the Church.

I understand that in this case the abuser was witnessed by an assistant scout master in the act of molesting the victim.

Do you? And will the assistant scoutmaster be called to give evidence? Will the assistant scoutmaster be sued? Will the actual alleged perpetrator be sued?

Or do neither of them have pockets deep enough to make such an action worthwhile?

You are misrepresenting Kelly’s role in the lawsuit. Kelly defended the Oregon law against attacks by the homosexual lobby; he worked for the Defense of Marriage Coalition. The Alliance Defense Fund was fighting to protect Oregon’s marriage amendment.

So he will work for whoever will pay him. Just like anyone else in his and similar professions.

Regards,
Pahoran

Wow, that's pretty unbelievable, and pretty low, even for a mercenary hack like Pahoran.

A bit later, "Lightbearer" completely flips out:

Yes he is a sleezeball for attacking an innocent institution. The Church does not and never has had a policy of "covering up" any alleged child abuse. They would be excommunicated and handed over to the law enforcement authorities. Actually I believe child abusers should receive the DEATH PENALTY. But I do not believe that anyone has the right to sue the Church for something that was beyond their control. I further defy anyone to show any written policy that told Church leaders to ignore abusers of any kind! CFR!

(caps and histrionics ibid)

So, I have to ask: How can one possibly respond to such a thread? How appalling all of this behavior is! I guess the best thing to do is leave the final response to the genuinely respectable RedSox:

So he "deserves a remedy." And if the abuser has not the means to provide it, well, let's go after someone--anyone at all--who can, is that it?

It may not work that way in New Zealand, but that is how it works in the U.S. of A. (although I think that the doctrine of respondeat superior was borrowed from the Commonwealth, so I'm sure things are similar in N.Z.) We can either whine about it (which will change nothing) or compensate a victim for a heinous act committed againt the victim by someone representing the Church. If I have to choose between two injustices, I choose punishing a wealthy organization over failing to compensate a victim, but that is just me.

(emphasis added)

[_Brackite]

Here is the URL Address to that Discussion Thread:

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... opic=33207

[_asbestosman]

I fail to see where anyone defends sexual abuse. In fact, I'll bet most of them would love to see the abusers receive a just but harsh punishment. What they are complaining about is how the law works in these cases--should the church be held liable after 20, 30, 40 years? Should the church be held liable for the actions of people who clearly violate the church's standards?

The law indicates that perhaps it should. And putting the shoe on the other foot I suppose I could see that. I, might, for example, still wish to hold an insurance company liable years later even if the salesman violated company policy and lied to me about what I was buying. I might wish to hold a factory responsible for my (hypothetically) poor health even if the company had put new policies into place to clean up its emissions--even if previous emissions were against company policies, but were only the result of one person's negligence acting contrary to company policy (because their recent changes won't fix my damaged health).

Still, I'm not completely satisfied with how the law plays out.

Given the liability of working with children, I wonder why any orginization dares.

[_Sethbag]

My problem with a lot of these sexual abuse cases from 40 or 50 years past are just completely unworkable. I'm 39 years old, and I've already forgotten so many details of my life, I can't even imagine someone coming up to me when I'm 70 and saying that 45 years ago I did something to them, and having to try to actually provide a defense that would convince the jury that I was actually innocent. Unless the bishop at the time kept some sort of journal with actual dates and confessions, and his own documented plan to keep things under wraps and protect the guilty party. Barring that sort of thing, I just don't see how these cases can be prosecuted, and how the defense can offer up anything meaningful.

What's to stop someone just making it up? How would the 70 year old priest actually defend himself? By looking the jury in the eye and saying "um, no, I didn't."?

[_Boaz & Lidia]

I'm 39 years old, and I've already forgotten so many details of my life, I can't even imagine someone coming up to me when I'm 70 and saying that 45 years ago I did something to them, and having to try to actually provide a defense that would convince the jury that I was actually innocent.

But will we ever forget the repetitive pounding gang MINDF*** we all experienced with our own parents taking turns on us?

[_guy sajer]

In spite of these sexual abuse claims against Mormon Inc., it continues to shutter adolescent and teenage boys and girls in closed rooms with adult men who ask them intimate questions about their sexual activity. (Many Bishops and SPs are very discreet about this; many others much less so.)

I'm waiting for the first law suit against Mormon Inc. related to this horribly inappropriate practice.

Honestly, in today's age, and with all we know about how men and women we trust sexually abuse childen, why any parent would consent to this practice almost as much as anything demonstrates how Mormon indoctrination has blinkered their thinking.

[_truth dancer]

In spite of these sexual abuse claims against Mormon Inc., it continues to shutter adolescent and teenage boys and girls in closed rooms with adult men who ask them intimate questions about their sexual activity. (Many Bishops and SPs are very discreet about this; many others much less so.)

I'm waiting for the first law suit against Mormon Inc. related to this horribly inappropriate practice.

Honestly, in today's age, and with all we know about how men and women we trust sexually abuse childen, why any parent would consent to this practice almost as much as anything demonstrates how Mormon indoctrination has blinkered their thinking.

ABSOLUTELY!

This practice is sick. Seriously sick. How any parent can continue to support this AMAZES me.

Even if nothing happens behind closed doors, the idea that girls are put in a position where a powerful man gets to have information about her sexual experience, where she is required to share her most private life with a grown powerful man, is disgusting. Seriously disgusting.

I do not like the idea of boys being interviewed either but what this practice teaches girls is just sick.

~dancer~

[_guy sajer]

In spite of these sexual abuse claims against Mormon Inc., it continues to shutter adolescent and teenage boys and girls in closed rooms with adult men who ask them intimate questions about their sexual activity. (Many Bishops and SPs are very discreet about this; many others much less so.)

I'm waiting for the first law suit against Mormon Inc. related to this horribly inappropriate practice.

Honestly, in today's age, and with all we know about how men and women we trust sexually abuse childen, why any parent would consent to this practice almost as much as anything demonstrates how Mormon indoctrination has blinkered their thinking.

ABSOLUTELY!

This practice is sick. Seriously sick. How any parent can continue to support this AMAZES me.

Even if nothing happens behind closed doors, the idea that girls are put in a position where a powerful man gets to have information about her sexuality, where she is required to share her most private life with a grown powerful man, is disgusting. Seriously disgusting.

I do not like the idea of boys being interviewed either but what this practices teaches girls is just sick.

~dancer~

I'm not a lawyer (but I play one on this discussion board), I would advise Mormon Inc. that this practice subjects it to unacceptable litigation risks. I wouldn't be surprised that this has been raised. If so, I'm guessing that the Corp's cost/benefit calculation is that the the benefit it gains in terms of control outweigh the risks in terms of litigation--for now at least.

[_harmony]

I'm not a lawyer (but I play one on this discussion board), I would advise Mormon Inc. that this practice subjects it to unacceptable litigation risks. I wouldn't be surprised that this has been raised. If so, I'm guessing that the Corp's cost/benefit calculation is that the the benefit it gains in terms of control outweigh the risks in terms of litigation--for now at least.

All it will take is one lawsuit that hits the front page of the SL Trib and/or New York Times, and then we'll see another change in policy.

[_truth dancer]

All it will take is one lawsuit that hits the front page of the SL Trib and/or New York Times, and then we'll see another change in policy.

I wonder if the practice alone (even without serious abuse) is enough to get the practice changed?

In other words, similar to polygamy, even though the church itself didn't want to stop practicing it, pressure from the outside world made it necessary to end the illegal acts.

It seems to me that this interview practice alone is enough to get society upset at how children are being treated.

I think most people would find the practice very inappropriate if not potentially dangerous.

Is there any other church that engages in such practices? Having children meet alone, behind closed doors with an adult male neighbor, (church leader though he may be), to discuss sexual issues?

:-(


~dancer~