Someone in the other thread brought up the issue of tactics the church normally uses when threatened with lawsuits. I'd like to hear about some of those tactics.
The Morg paid big bucks to expensive lawyers (our tithing money at work!) in their attempt to cover up for a Mormon pedophile. They knew he had molested children but made no attempt to protect the children in the wards he was in!
Years went by and their were many victims before someone finally decided to sue the church.
* Claim priest-penitent privilege to prevent a bishop from testifying about what he knew and when. They really overstep their bounds because the privilege is intended to protect a person who confesses to his clergy from being convicted on that confession. But, in this case, the church's attorneys used it to prevent information that was given to bishops by the parents of the abused and that is not what the law intended to protect.
* "Death by a thousand paper cuts." Writing a brief or motion or responding to the same is time-consuming and expensive. A one-man, solo attorney practice cannot hope to compete with Kirten-McConkie and their staff of hundreds. So, the church cranks out the paperwork that requires the plaintiff to respond and then they hope that the other party just gives up or settles.
Those are the main things, but there were others. I'll respond more when I have more time.
Thanks, mcarp. I had heard of Church lawyers using the clergy privilege defense before. They used it in cases involving abuse of Boy Scouts.
But I hadn't heard about the "death by a thousand paper cuts" defense. Figures. To the tithing-supported Church, spending millions of dollars to pay flocks of lawyers to churn out paperwork is worth it if it keeps the LDS reputation unsullied.
I also remember reading something (again, in the Boy Scout cases) about the LDS Church doing almost anything in order to avoid revealing its own finances. Finances, I think, must be revealed in civil cases where the plaintiff is suing for reparation. This means that the Church pays people off to keep itself out of court battles that would be too revealing. When it pays people off, it also gets to claim that no guilt was established, and that Church leaders were just trying to spare the victim more psychological trauma.
" The man told her that while it was a ‘sin for others to act in such a way’, it was not for him as he ‘worthy and had been chosen by God’. She also that he tried to convince her that ‘everything he did manifested through the holy spirit’. "
probably what happened is he and she were fooling around with the hopes he would marry her and bring her back to the states. When she got dumped, she got pissed (not the British term for drunk), and she's now trying to get back at him.
I agree it could be a scenario. What are the odds to have one elder stand watch while the other commits the crime. Two twisted elders just so happened to be partners?
"The man told her that while it was a ‘sin for others to act in such a way’, it was not for him as he ‘worthy and had been chosen by God’. She also that he tried to convince her that ‘everything he did manifested through the holy spirit’.
The missionary also told the girl that ‘dreadful things’ would happen to her if she told anyone of the abuse."
I suspect they are waiting to see if it goes to court or wether the Church settles using a confidentialty compromise agreement before that, as per all the Scouts abuse cases in the US.
This is strange - is that the official name of the Mormon church in Ireland: "the Church elder who served as a missionary in Ireland for the Irish Association of the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints Ltd."?