Fox 13 SLC has an investigative report today about a letter that went out last week to leaders about not getting involved in court cases. I read the online report. It seems like it is really going to stir up stuff. Even the Chad Daybell case is mentioned.
Here is the link....you legal types please respond!

https://www.fox13now.com/news/local-news/fox-13-investigates-lds-church-urges-leaders-to-not-participate-in-any-type-of-court-case

I didn't see the other thread on this till now.

So by extension....if as a faithful member I want to pursue a court case such as child custody, wrongful death or recovering money owed I'd need to consult the church first?

What about filing for a divorce?

If the case involves the church or any of its officers or bodies- bishops, ward leaders, YM or YW events- then yes. Probably even if it involves any fellow church member.

I agree- they have gone too far this time.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/13/2020 01:26PM by slskipper.

I'd like to see more discussion as I think this is a HUGE issue. Something that should bother a lot of members, though it won't. I do know who it will bother. My sister. Everything they do these days bothers her. She's been on her way out for YEARS, but her husband likes her to go.

this stance will be upheld by a federal court.

Church leaders CAN'T ignore or refuse to honor a subpoena, this letter / instruction is a PILE OF SHEITE!

GNPE Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Church leaders CAN'T ignore or refuse to honor a
> subpoena, this letter / instruction is a PILE OF
> SHEITE!

You miss the point. Any Church leader subpoenaed for deposition or Court testimony, can be represented by legal counsel (Church lawyers), who can subject these processes to rigorous legal scrutiny, and by so doing undermine the process, and possibly affect the outcome.

What the Church is trying to avoid are renegade Church leaders who naively think they can participate in the legal system and still protect themselves and the Church from a cleaver and experienced attorney attempting to draw them and the Church into their client's liability claim.

In short, the letter is smart, legitimate, and typical of corporate America.

Did one of us 'miss' the word (or meaning) of 'participate'?

Depositions are more often than not where the outcome of a court case can be foretold. About 79% of civil unlimited cases in California are resolved prior to trial. The stats I found (https://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/2019-Court-Statistics-Report.pdf) did not break down the remaining 21% as to how many actually were decided by a judge or jury, as opposed to the parties settling prior to a judgment.

And it's a no-brainer that the in any action in which the church is a defendant, the church lawyers want to try to control the narrative, i.e., the 'facts' that faithful church members will reveal. Any and every party in an action feels exactly the same way!

Pretty much in any case involving the church as a defendant, the church was named because they are the deep pockets defendant, the party that has the bucks to pay million and multi-million dollar verdicts.

Remember Kori's story about the scout master who made all Kori's friends rich? It wasn't the scout master who paid the millions of dollars, it was the church.

The narrative a jury needs to hear, and believe, is that the "church" knew or should have known that the scout master was doing bad things, and when they didn't stop him from doing bad things, they could be judged as "approving" of what he did, and thus became equally liable.

That West Virginia case, Plaintiffs v. Michael Jensen & the mormon church (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2018/01/17/sexual-abuse-case-against-mormon-church-scheduled-to-begin-friday/) was an anomaly because this kind of case usually settles before the trial. In this case, they started the trial and THEN the church cried out, "Is there no help for the widow's son!" and fell on their checkbook and started paying out, along with getting their newest scriptures, the NDAs, signed.

All the church leaders want is for anyone involved in a lawsuit to shut the hell up until the lawyers of Kirtland-McCosto can tell them what to say. Is that so much to ask of a TBM? It's what your own auto insurance company would want to do after you you got involved in an accident. Everyone has 'rights' and the church simply, along with your insurance company, to try their hardest to make it hard for the plaintiffs to convince a jury that they/you owe a bunch of money.

You certainly don't think the church attorneys would simply tell you to ask of ghawd, who giveth liberally, what you should say to investigators and lawyers for the other side?

Could it wind up being something sleazy and underhanded? Absolutely! It all depends from which side you're viewing the action. It's life in the Big City, is what it is. The more money you have control of, the more you're going to want to control the system.

Am I cynical? Do Beth's ducks like water?

this was from fox 13 news today

https://www.fox13now.com/news/local-news/attorney-representing-lori-vallow-responds-to-fox-13-investigation-into-lds-church-policy

Good find.

When the church goes public with a restatement of an old policy, there is usually a precipitating factor. And in this case, it ain't worries about members' divorces.

I think you have found the trigger. The church is telling its local authorities and members not to engage with the Daybell court process. That Daybell's attorney reacted so fast indicates that he probably saw this coming.

Thank you.

I thought it was a very interesting twist and proves that it didn't just come out of nowhere with no connection to current events. TSCC just lies.

There might be other cases involving church leaders/members that have not been revealed yet.

Keep in mind that the first course of action for church leaders is to report confessed crimes to the church's hotline for legal assistance, not contact the local police.

I'm 99% sure the SL call receivers on the 'hotline' (24 hours???) have a matrix that tells them for each jurisdiction whether or not there is mandatory reporting for DV & sexual abuse situations...