https://www.statesmanjournal.com/story/news/crime/2020/01/08/turner-woman-mormon-lds-church-child-sex-abuse-lawsuit-oregon/2832368001/
Nobody wants $$$ out of MORmONs more than me, but, hoping she has to pay for frivolous lawsuit.

“A Turner woman is suing the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints for $9.54 million after her husband's confession to church leaders led to his arrest, conviction and imprisonment on child sexual abuse charges.“

Too bad they can’t lock her up on a conspiracy charge.

Nobody wants to squeeze $$$ out of abusive MORmON CULT of Jesus Smith of Doomsday Sycophants more than me, but, if there's anything I hate more than a GD doomsday CULT it's a pedophile and I hope his wife has to pay court costs for her frivolous lawsuit. If anybody ought to be getting $$$ from the CULT it ought to be the victims, not those who enabled this pedophile by keeping quiet about the abuse they had to know was happening.
Saw it more times than I can count on two hands in the abusive CULT and I encourage any and all ExMormons to file multi-billion dollar lawsuits against this cult, especially if you have been abused and MORmONs kept it quiet out of "maintaining the good name of the church." the #mormonmetoo moment is upon us, about 40yrs too late for my friends, who were abused, but never too late, especially now that we know they're sitting on $100billion for a homecoming party for Jesus that is NEVER going to happen.

Come on everybody!!
show compassion for the poor benighted attorneys that will be able to retire on her charges

Sheesh!

how could this happen?

the 'lawyer part of me / my alleged brain' wants to get all the Facts on this before I make a call.

it should be clear to members what ChurchCo policies & procedures are, but, well, we all know that's a Myth/Lie all in itself.

I agree that this woman is wrong and deserves to lose her lawsuit against the church. But this lawsuit is partially a result of the church's duplicity. The stated goals of the church when it comes to church leadership involvement in the sins of its members is 1.) Save the transgressor, 2.) Protect the innocent, 3.) Protect the good name of the church. They also teach that there are six steps to repentance which require (amongst other things) confession to the victem and restitution to the degree possible. This should cause the church to always require that regardless of the legal punishments that are nearly always going to result, that god will not forgive a child molestation until after the confession to the victem and the victem's parents has happened. By assisting the perpetrator to escape justice through covering the crime up and allowing the pedophile to be forgiven without making a confession to the victem as what usually happens in these cases, the church routinely goes against it's own beliefs and teachings most of the time. I can't see how anyone could really repent without taking responsibility for their actions and paying the price that society places on them as a result. So now when the church does the right thing by reporting the crime, that action is such an anomaly that the perpetrator believes that the church has betrayed him. If the church had been living by what they teach all-along, the perpetrator would know in advance that the church would report him after he makes his confession unless he is willing to turn himself in to the police soon after his confession to the bishop.

The correct way to transact this confession to legal authorities would be for the Bishop to tell the perpetrator that he must report himself to the police and that if he fails to turn himself in, then the Bishop will call the police and report the crime himself. This way the perpetrator must confess to the victem but at least he might earn some leniency in sentencing because he turned himself in, thus demonstrating his sincerity by making a self-initiated confession to begin with. I don't know if it would be right or not though to have the perpetrator go directly to the child's parents with the confession and willingness to turn himself in to the police. That could result in violence. If the parents and the child forgave him and told him that he didn't have to turn himself in to the police, then there is a question of whether or not a person should be allowed to escape legal justice because of religious forgiveness. I don't know that anyone can forgive on behalf of a child and doubt that the child would have the informed capacity to forgive on behalf of the state either, even though they are the victem. In any event, the church has it all wrong because of their own duplicity. They have no authority to cover up crimes and yet they do exactly that routinely. When the institutional practice of covering up crimes is not honored by the church in this case, then the perpetrator calls foul. There is no honor among thieves. Everyone including the church is culpable.

It’s like Sammy “the bull” Gravano crying “rat”.

The wife told him to confess. Clergy did the right thing to report it. Thank you Clergy!

Only one of the people involved reported it. And likely did so only because of his day job as a pharmacist. They rest of the clergy happily went along with the cover up.

"The lawsuit requests $5.5 million for his wife for loss of his income and for extreme emotional distress and $1 million for each of his four children." When a person has emotional distress that's life, nobody gets $5.5 million for stress. We get compensation for property damage. This wife should pay the victim girl $5.5 million. Obviously the Wife is an ugly crook like her husband.

"The lawsuit also requests $40,000 to pay for Johnson's criminal defense attorney." What's most likely going to happen is that on top of being a pedophile now he's going to have to pay 40,000 to his crooked lawyer, not to mention a civil lawsuit to the girls parents that hasn't even been mentioned in the article.

The guy is in serious trouble, and it hasn't even dawned on him!

OK, so the guy's in prison for 15 years. He probably is aware that he is in serious trouble.

"We get compensation for property damage. This wife should pay the victim girl $5.5 million. Obviously the Wife is an ugly crook like her husband."

The guy was charged with sex abuse of a child under 16. I can think of no way that can be called being a "crook", no matter how loosely defined. The article stated nothing about either one being ugly, so that's just a hyperbolic insult. What you stated about compensation is true in small claims court, and even there is is not restricted to strictly property damage. In regular court, well, see below.

"What's most likely going to happen is that on top of being a pedophile now he's going to have to pay 40,000 to his crooked lawyer, not to mention a civil lawsuit to the girls parents that hasn't even been mentioned in the article."

Again, convicted of sexual abuse of a child under 16. That's certainly bad enough. Fifteen years is not a slap on the wrist. Pedophile is sexual abuse of a prepubescent child, basically pre-teen. If that had been the case, he'd have been so charged. So not a pedophile. That term is usually thrown around (most particularly by schrodeingerscat) for its outrage-generating value, not because it is accurate.

Second point in that sentence: "crooked lawyer" for billing for his criminal defense? What's crooked about that? Nothing in the article implied that the same lawyer is filing this damages lawsuit.

Third point: "civil lawsuit to the girl's parents...". Wait, didn't you just say that you can only sue for property damage? Or do you think children are considered property under the law. I'm confused.

That was a lot of misinformation to pack into a single sentence.


As for the case, I think they are just trolling for money, but it is not impossible that they have a case. There are instances when clergy is not required to report certain types of abuse. If this was improperly reported, they may have a case. It is the flip side of the JW Montana case in another thread right now.

I found it interesting how many articles are naming the woman and/or the husband while some a refusing to name them because the victim is their daughter and naming them would tell others the victim's name.

https://www.oregonlive.com/news/2020/01/child-molesters-wife-sues-mormon-church-for-95-million-says-husband-is-in-prison-because-clergy-reported-his-confession.html

Also from this article it states that the 4 children included in the lawsuit for $1M does not include the victim.

"Further complicating matters, the lay clergy member who reported the abuse outlined in this lawsuit, Brian Saari, is a pharmacist, according to the plaintiff’s lawyer. Pharmacists also are listed as mandatory reporters of child abuse in Oregon -- whether they’re on the job or not when they learn about alleged abuse, according to state officials."

Thank you Brian Saari!

the not-so-hidden Context here is that maniacal orgs will ignore serious harm(s) to others to maintain compliance - conformity to their need to control their supporters / donors.

Maybe she’s trying to flush more victims out of the woodwork because she wants hubby away a good long time.

The victim was his own daughter! How can a woman not wanting to protect her own child! He did it to her daughter. Instead this mom sues? Now their daughter went through abuse by her father and doesn't even get support from her mother.

I worked at a law enforcement office where two female officers were smitten over one particular sex offender. There was a lot of bad blood between these two female officers, since the sex-registrant lived with one, then the other, alternately.

It's amazing how so many women are gaw-gaw over these awful men, even at the expense of their own children.

Maybe the daughter in the above case is eyeing her own $1,000,000 out of the deal.

Now I have the Bad Boys song stuck in my head. Do you think TBM women would have the hots for us outer darkness bound apostates?

My son has a lot of young mormon girls after him. He is 34 and they are early 20s. Their purpose is to get him ready to marry them in the temple.

https://nbcmontana.com/news/local/court-reverses-35m-verdict-against-jehovahs-witnesses

https://www.exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,2279218

Sued for disclosing - sued for not disclosing ------

so how are these two threads reconciled?

>so how are these two threads reconciled?

Different states, different laws.

The Oregonian article says that the man confessed to a "church panel" -- this sounds like a court of love. The pharmacist was a bishop's counselor, not a bishop or a stake president. Calling a bishop's counselor "clergy" is IMO a stretch.

Another point is that the Oregon law guarantees confidentiality for mandatory reporters. The law also gives mandatory reporters who make a report in good faith immunity from civil or criminal liability. The only exception for the guaranteed confidentiality is if the mandatory reporter is required to testify in court. So the pharmacist either outed himself (which IMO is unlikely,) or he testified in the man's trial.

https://www.courts.oregon.gov/programs/jcip/EducationMaterials/Documents/ChildAbuseReportQA.pdf

Never tell anyone your crimes.