West Ridge Academy Chooses BYU Lawyer for Child Abuse Case

[_Yahoo Bot]

ETA: don't be so defensive. This thread was simply about the how a BYU alumni Mormon lawyer is representing child abusers at the Church's boot camp, and how I know of another lawyer with a similar background. I'm sure it's coincidence. Just an interesting one.

Keep me out of it. I want nothing to do with your lawsuit. Don't associate my name with it.

[_Eric]

Keep me out of it. I want nothing to do with your lawsuit. Don't associate my name with it.

Seems as though you should tell Bro. Adlong that, as I've never wanted your participation, as you say, they have. I didn't accuse you of being involved (you have represented other similar cases involving agents of the Church though) I guess your hatred for me and Encino Mexican food is too much for you to overcome. Sorry about that. I know a fantastic place on Reseda.

If I was a member, I would be concerned about something like this attached to my sacred beliefs, so it strikes me as odd that Mormon lawyers would represent people that have undoubtedly abused children.

I'm glad you aren't associated with their defense. I wish other Mormons, and the Church officially, took your stance. Many have. I'll tell you one thing: it would be much easier to get me back into a stake center on a Sunday if the FP or Qo12 pulled the plug on this nasty place.

[_sock puppet]

As far as representing child abusers as individuals versus the entities that employ them, I see no distinction regardless of Bob's denial.

I see quite a significant distinction. For example, defending a school district in a situation where a teacher is accused of having sex with a student is much different than representing that teacher. Representing the teacher is asserting that the sex act did not take place, trying to impeach the credibility of student--the victim. Representing the school district is asserting that it did not have any prior indicators that this teacher might be a sexual predator or otherwise a threat to students.

I would not defend someone accused of sex with a child, because I would think that trying to impeach the child's credibility would be pouring salt on the wound--if the sex act actually occurred. But I am glad that there are competent attorneys willing to defend those accused of sexual molestation of children, because not everyone so accused is guilty.

[_Eric]

I see quite a significant distinction. For example...

So you think a good counter-example is a hypothetical about the liability of a school district when a teacher employed by a school within the district commits a crime? Not the school, but the district.

That comparison doesn't even come close to the example I offered regarding Bob Crockett claiming to be legal counsel to my step-dad because Kurt Van Gordon sued the Church and the late FARMS review over something he wrote.

How about a different one? This is all hypothetical of course: How about a Mormon boarding school which has a history of physical abuse, torture, humiliation, sexual abuse, crimes against children, DHS code standards violations, etc. that gets sued for sexually abusing young boys. I imagine that the lawsuit would name both the hypothetical boarding school as an institution and the individual hypothetical perpetrators as individuals. Despite Bob and your attempt at equivocation, in this hypothetical case the BYU alumni Mormon lawyer that is representing the institution is also defending the individuals who abused the children, and -- as you say -- pouring salt in the victims wounds.

Can you provide evidence that the perpetrators retain separate counsel than the institutions that employ and enable them? I don't think so.

Can I provide evidence that most lawyers, including Mormon lawyer Daniel Adlong, that represent the institutions that abuse children and employ predators and child abusers, also present a defense for the child abusers themselves and individuals? Yes. Let me know if you'd like me to post some document images.

Read this account of how one Mormon lawyer we won't name, one you apparently admire for his willingness to defend a child molester, defended the Mormon Church from a lawsuit and subsequently prevented the perpetrator from being criminally prosecuted: http://articles.dailypilot.com/2009-03- ... mon-church

In most cases I'm familiar with, the defense of these institutions always includes lawyers trying to impugn the credibility of the victims -- in some of the most vile, immoral, evil, disgusting, dishonest ways possible. Asking if they were "aroused by the sexual abuse" and so on. I've linked to blogs about one Mormon lawyer who is said to behave very aggressively towards the victim of child abuse in the same manner and spirit as our other hypothetical Mormon lawyer. Coincidence?

A few questions: Did Bob represent the boy, or the Church? Should the perp. have retained private counsel? Did he provide absolutely no defense for what the perp. did to the child? Did he have anything to do with the perp. not being criminally convicted?
http://articles.dailypilot.com/2009-03- ... mon-church

But I am glad that there are competent attorneys will to defend those accused of sexual molestation of children, because not everyone so accused is guilty.

I know this is your area of expertise, so it doesn't surprise me that you cheer the profession no matter the client, but it does surprise me to hear a law school graduate try to make a distinction between an attorney representing institutions versus representing the agents of their institutions -- especially since you know that in most cases they are all named defendants in the same action and are almost always represented by the same firm (usually hired by the institution's insurance company).

I'm sincerely interested in such a seemingly confusing, contradictory explanation if you are so inclined.

Since Bob won't make good on his offer to take me to lunch, I'll have some time to check in on this thread and understand what point you are trying to make.

[_Eric]

Do you have information to the contrary, that Yahoo Bot has represented the acccused perps, not just the organizations in which the perps were functioning?

Robert Crockett, attorney for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, said no one had ever complained about Summers before his accuser came forward in 2007. Church leaders never noticed anything inappropriate about Summers’ behavior.


ETA: I respect Bob's wishes not to have his name attached to West Ridge Academy (who would?) so let me make a clear distinction that I am simply pointing out similarities in two BYU graduate Mormon lawyers in similar professions, with similar backgrounds, defending similar institutions.

[_sock puppet]

Do you have information to the contrary, that Yahoo Bot has represented the acccused perps, not just the organizations in which the perps were functioning?

Robert Crockett, attorney for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, said no one had ever complained about Summers before his accuser came forward in 2007. Church leaders never noticed anything inappropriate about Summers’ behavior.


ETA: I respect Bob's wishes not to have his name attached to West Ridge Academy (who would?) so let me make a clear distinction that I am simply pointing out similarities in two BYU graduate Mormon lawyers in similar professions, with similar backgrounds, defending similar institutions.

Crockett was not alleged perp Summers' attorney. Your link backs up Crockett, it does not contradict him.

[_sock puppet]

I see quite a significant distinction. For example...

So you think a good counter-example is a hypothetical about the liability of a school district when a teacher employed by a school within the district commits a crime? Not the school, but the district.

That comparison doesn't even come close to the example I offered regarding Bob Crockett claiming to be legal counsel to my step-dad because Kurt Van Gordon sued the Church and the late FARMS review over something he wrote.

How about a different one? This is all hypothetical of course: How about a Mormon boarding school which has a history of physical abuse, torture, humiliation, sexual abuse, crimes against children, DHS code standards violations, etc. that gets sued for sexually abusing young boys. I imagine that the lawsuit would name both the hypothetical boarding school as an institution and the individual hypothetical perpetrators as individuals. Despite Bob and your attempt at equivocation, in this hypothetical case the BYU alumni Mormon lawyer that is representing the institution is also defending the individuals who abused the children, and -- as you say -- pouring salt in the victims wounds.

Can you provide evidence that the perpetrators retain separate counsel than the institutions that employ and enable them? I don't think so.

Can I provide evidence that most lawyers, including Mormon lawyer Daniel Adlong, that represent the institutions that abuse children and employ predators and child abusers, also present a defense for the child abusers themselves and individuals? Yes. Let me know if you'd like me to post some document images.

Read this account of how one Mormon lawyer we won't name, one you apparently admire for his willingness to defend a child molester, defended the Mormon Church from a lawsuit and subsequently prevented the perpetrator from being criminally prosecuted: http://articles.dailypilot.com/2009-03- ... mon-church

In most cases I'm familiar with, the defense of these institutions always includes lawyers trying to impugn the credibility of the victims -- in some of the most vile, immoral, evil, disgusting, dishonest ways possible. Asking if they were "aroused by the sexual abuse" and so on. I've linked to blogs about one Mormon lawyer who is said to behave very aggressively towards the victim of child abuse in the same manner and spirit as our other hypothetical Mormon lawyer. Coincidence?

A few questions: Did Bob represent the boy, or the Church? Should the perp. have retained private counsel? Did he provide absolutely no defense for what the perp. did to the child? Did he have anything to do with the perp. not being criminally convicted?
http://articles.dailypilot.com/2009-03- ... mon-church

But I am glad that there are competent attorneys will to defend those accused of sexual molestation of children, because not everyone so accused is guilty.

I know this is your area of expertise, so it doesn't surprise me that you cheer the profession no matter the client, but it does surprise me to hear a law school graduate try to make a distinction between an attorney representing institutions versus representing the agents of their institutions -- especially since you know that in most cases they are all named defendants in the same action and are almost always represented by the same firm (usually hired by the institution's insurance company).

I'm sincerely interested in such a seemingly confusing, contradictory explanation if you are so inclined.

Since Bob won't make good on his offer to take me to lunch, I'll have some time to check in on this thread and understand what point you are trying to make.

I do not have the bias that comes from the experiences that you have suffered, Eric.

I know that not all accusations are accurate, even when it comes to allegations of child sexual abuse.

Accurate allegations need to be sifted from the inaccurate ones. I am glad there are competent advocates that are willing to help the sifting process for each and every type of accusation.

Like every advocate, there are types of cases I do not take for one reason or another. Given my personality, I would have a very difficult time in the aftermath of having made a vigorous cross-examination of a child making such accusations if the accusations turned out to be valid. It is not inconsistent that I am grateful for the fact other attorneys do such, so that the scurrilous accusers are outed as such and innocent people are not penalized.

[_Eric]

I do not have the bias that comes from the experiences that you have suffered, Eric.

Well maybe someone else will be so kind as to ask and I can just read the response.

If you don't want to answer any of the questions regarding any of the cases I cited that involved lawyers representing both institutions and their employed abusers, and what you think the difference is, I think it would behoove you (in light of your suggestion for me to make a correction) to specify that lawyers often represent both institutions and the child abusers that work for them, and in the process of representing these institutions, these abusers are often given excellent million-dollar legal services and are sometimes even given aid in avoiding criminal protection.

I know that not all accusations are accurate, even when it comes to allegations of child sexual abuse.

That's different from what you said earlier. I can agree with that. I know for a fact not all accusations are accurate. Exhibit A: Beastie's thread on Bob / rcrocket.