Mormon WikiLeaks (MormonLeaks)

[Jeff Lebowski]

In the article I read, it seemed to be saying that the Church got a lawyer to do some investigating and put some stuff together looking at her history and the allegations, and then gave a copy of what he had done to both the woman's attorney, and Greg Bishop (who, reading between the lines, appears to be playing the role of attorney for daddy?)

I'm one of the few non-lawyers on the board - but is that a normal thing? If there's a lawsuit and both the "alleged" perpetrator and and organization are named as defendants in a civil case, would it be normal for the attorney representing the organization to put together information and provide it to both of the other parties involved?

I guess I'm just trying to decide if I should be more frustrated at the fact that the church gave this dossier to Greg Bishop, or more upset at what he did with it once he received it.

Did I misunderstand, and in turn mischaracterize what this dossier/file is and who it could/should be given to?

This article describes what happened:

http://kutv.com/news/local/exclusive...tc-sex-scandal

It sounds like there was an e-mail chain between the plaintiff's attorney and the defendants in the case. Various documents were shared as part of an ongoing discussion regarding a settlement. Part of that process involves assessing the strength of the case. In that context, the woman's veracity is certainly relevant. It sounds like this document ("dossier") was sent to the plaintiff attorney in direct response to an e-mail sent by the plaintiff attorney. It was sent to Bishop's attorney because the plaintiff's attorney had CC'd Bishop's attorney in his original e-mail (Reply All). Bishop's attorney then leaked part of that information to the media.

That doesn't seem nearly as sinister as mpfunk and ER's FB friends are making it out to be.

[Donuthole]

In the article I read, it seemed to be saying that the Church got a lawyer to do some investigating and put some stuff together looking at her history and the allegations, and then gave a copy of what he had done to both the woman's attorney, and Greg Bishop (who, reading between the lines, appears to be playing the role of attorney for daddy?)

I'm one of the few non-lawyers on the board - but is that a normal thing? If there's a lawsuit and both the "alleged" perpetrator and and organization are named as defendants in a civil case, would it be normal for the attorney representing the organization to put together information and provide it to both of the other parties involved?

I guess I'm just trying to decide if I should be more frustrated at the fact that the church gave this dossier to Greg Bishop, or more upset at what he did with it once he received it.

Did I misunderstand, and in turn mischaracterize what this dossier/file is and who it could/should be given to?

The LDS church is a separate defendant in the litigation (and leading up to the filing of the suit, certainly anticipated that it would be named). One litigation commences, the other parties will have a right to all non-privileged evidence. It the church looked into her background to see what they could find (this is what any defendant in a civil suit would do, BTW) it would be totally normal for them to disclose to all other parties in the litigation all discoverable information about the plaintiff. Unless the information they disclosed was protected under some privilege, there is absolutely nothing nefarious about giving this information to the other parties. In fact, showing some of your cards is a common negotiating tactic if the parties are trying to settle the case. Also, some privileges which might normally apply might be waived in a case like this, considering the nature of the suit (i.e. you can't claim clergy privilege while simultaneously using the stuff you supposedly told your clergyman as the basis for your lawsuit--at that point you've opened the door). The church doesn't control what Bishop's attorney does with the information--they are just turning it over. And turning it over is exactly what they would be required to do within 30 days of the filing of the complaint.

[Donuthole]

That doesn't seem nearly as sinister as ER's FB friends are making it out to be.

This is certainly nothing like a doctor intentionally leaking confidential patient information, which ER gave as an analogy.

[creekster]

This article describes what happened:

http://kutv.com/news/local/exclusive...tc-sex-scandal

It sounds like there was an e-mail chain between the plaintiff's attorney and the defendants in the case. Various documents were shared as part of an ongoing discussion regarding a settlement. Part of that process involves assessing the strength of the case. In that context, the woman's veracity is certainly relevant. It sounds like this document ("dossier") was sent to the plaintiff attorney in direct response to an e-mail sent by the plaintiff attorney. It was sent to Bishop's attorney because the plaintiff's attorney had CC'd Bishop's attorney in his original e-mail (Reply All). Bishop's attorney then leaked part of that information to the media.

That doesn't seem nearly as sinister as ER's FB friends are making it out to be.

It's not sinister at all. Calling it a 'dossier' is sort of amusing. Like DH said this happens in virtually every civil case and the information is also shared in virtually every civil case. Funk says it reflects badly because it proves the church is only interested in its own financial welfare but he know very well that is just poppycock. He would do exactly the same thing for any client he might represent where this sort of claim was made. Any of us would. Moreover, what is the alternative? Rolling over and just giving them whatever money they ask for without taking any steps to investigate the claimant? Imagine what sort of claims that would bring out of the woodwork. Bottom line: it is not sinister, it is normal. That Bishop decided to reveal some of the shared info is not as typical, but neither is the press attention this case is receiving. THat Bishop possessed the info, however, is not at all unusual.

[MartyFunkhouser]

This article describes what happened:

http://kutv.com/news/local/exclusive...tc-sex-scandal

It sounds like there was an e-mail chain between the plaintiff's attorney and the defendants in the case. Various documents were shared as part of an ongoing discussion regarding a settlement. Part of that process involves assessing the strength of the case. In that context, the woman's veracity is certainly relevant. It sounds like this document ("dossier") was sent to the plaintiff attorney in direct response to an e-mail sent by the plaintiff attorney. It was sent to Bishop's attorney because the plaintiff's attorney had CC'd Bishop's attorney in his original e-mail (Reply All). Bishop's attorney then leaked part of that information to the media.

That doesn't seem nearly as sinister as mpfunk and ER's FB friends are making it out to be.

I'm not sure why you have said that I am trying to make this look "sinister." All I said is that it is the actions of an entity that is protecting its financial interests first and foremost. I don't think that is sinister behavior at all. It is inconsistent with what the LDS church claims is its first priority, but not sinister.

[MartyFunkhouser]

It's not sinister at all. Calling it a 'dossier' is sort of amusing. Like DH said this happens in virtually every civil case and the information is also shared in virtually every civil case. Funk says it reflects badly because it proves the church is only interested in its own financial welfare but he know very well that is just poppycock. He would do exactly the same thing for any client he might represent where this sort of claim was made. Any of us would. Moreover, what is the alternative? Rolling over and just giving them whatever money they ask for without taking any steps to investigate the claimant? Imagine what sort of claims that would bring out of the woodwork. Bottom line: it is not sinister, it is normal. That Bishop decided to reveal some of the shared info is not as typical, but neither is the press attention this case is receiving. THat Bishop possessed the info, however, is not at all unusual.

I don't recall saying that church was only interested in its financial welfare, I said it was their first priority. I stand by that statement. You are also right that I would do the exact same thing for my client.

As with many things with the LDS church, it isn't even their behavior that makes them look bad, it is the duplicity about the actual motive.

[Topper]

I don't recall saying that church was only interested in its financial welfare, I said it was their first priority. I stand by that statement. You are also right that I would do the exact same thing for my client.

As with many things with the LDS church, it isn't even their behavior that makes them look bad, it is the duplicity about the actual motive.

Normal civil practice shouldn't be construed as sinister, corporate defendants must protect their interest in the context of the structure of civil litigation. It is not inconsistent even if those unfamiliar with the context of litigation may feel otherwise.

[myboynoah]

I'm not sure why you have said that I am trying to make this look "sinister." All I said is that it is the actions of an entity that is protecting its financial interests first and foremost. I don't think that is sinister behavior at all. It is inconsistent with what the LDS church claims is its first priority, but not sinister.

That's kind of weird. The Church is not allowed to protect itself?

[Eddie]

It's not sinister at all. Calling it a 'dossier' is sort of amusing. Like DH said this happens in virtually every civil case and the information is also shared in virtually every civil case. Funk says it reflects badly because it proves the church is only interested in its own financial welfare but he know very well that is just poppycock. He would do exactly the same thing for any client he might represent where this sort of claim was made. Any of us would. Moreover, what is the alternative? Rolling over and just giving them whatever money they ask for without taking any steps to investigate the claimant? Imagine what sort of claims that would bring out of the woodwork. Bottom line: it is not sinister, it is normal. That Bishop decided to reveal some of the shared info is not as typical, but neither is the press attention this case is receiving. THat Bishop possessed the info, however, is not at all unusual.

That's kind of what I thought.

To be honest - I don't have a problem with the LDS church protecting assets - which isn't the same thing (to me) as saying that she shouldn't be given some settlement or compensation if it were discovered that the LDS church as an organization were at fault here.

When legal action enters the equation, it tends to muck things up (in some ways).

In a perfect world, people could say "I screwed up", apologize profusely for said screw up, make appropriate changes to avoid future screw ups, compensate the person wronged, and move on. But there's always that line we're walking of trying to avoid acknowledging guilt due to potential runaway lawsuits. I get that there are times when people (and organizations) won't fix their messes or "make things right", and so there is a need for the legal process to intervene. But is sure seems at times like everyone is so busy walking on eggshells that they can't be adults about what happened - right the wrongs, and move on.

We get stuck with some people thinking what's being done to right the wrong isn't enough, others still so angry that they want more than what might be fair, and yet others who don't care about fair or right, they just want to burn down the person/organization that wronged them. I get that this isn't the lawyers fault - it has more to do with society. But it's frustrating.

[Moliere]

The LDS church is a separate defendant in the litigation (and leading up to the filing of the suit, certainly anticipated that it would be named). One litigation commences, the other parties will have a right to all non-privileged evidence. It the church looked into her background to see what they could find (this is what any defendant in a civil suit would do, BTW) it would be totally normal for them to disclose to all other parties in the litigation all discoverable information about the plaintiff. Unless the information they disclosed was protected under some privilege, there is absolutely nothing nefarious about giving this information to the other parties. In fact, showing some of your cards is a common negotiating tactic if the parties are trying to settle the case. Also, some privileges which might normally apply might be waived in a case like this, considering the nature of the suit (i.e. you can't claim clergy privilege while simultaneously using the stuff you supposedly told your clergyman as the basis for your lawsuit--at that point you've opened the door). The church doesn't control what Bishop's attorney does with the information--they are just turning it over. And turning it over is exactly what they would be required to do within 30 days of the filing of the complaint.

While that all sounds reasonable and good, I won’t believe it until you post it on Facebook.

[ERCougar]

This article describes what happened:

http://kutv.com/news/local/exclusive...tc-sex-scandal

It sounds like there was an e-mail chain between the plaintiff's attorney and the defendants in the case. Various documents were shared as part of an ongoing discussion regarding a settlement. Part of that process involves assessing the strength of the case. In that context, the woman's veracity is certainly relevant. It sounds like this document ("dossier") was sent to the plaintiff attorney in direct response to an e-mail sent by the plaintiff attorney. It was sent to Bishop's attorney because the plaintiff's attorney had CC'd Bishop's attorney in his original e-mail (Reply All). Bishop's attorney then leaked part of that information to the media.

That doesn't seem nearly as sinister as mpfunk and ER's FB friends are making it out to be.

This article is old, which is why I said earlier that the fact this information was leaked to Greg Bishop is not really in dispute. But I'm glad you guys are finally taking an interest in it, because I think it's easily the most (potentially) problematic part of the response, and I wanted to hear the Mormon attorney side of the story.

The LDS church is a separate defendant in the litigation (and leading up to the filing of the suit, certainly anticipated that it would be named). One litigation commences, the other parties will have a right to all non-privileged evidence. It the church looked into her background to see what they could find (this is what any defendant in a civil suit would do, BTW) it would be totally normal for them to disclose to all other parties in the litigation all discoverable information about the plaintiff. Unless the information they disclosed was protected under some privilege, there is absolutely nothing nefarious about giving this information to the other parties. In fact, showing some of your cards is a common negotiating tactic if the parties are trying to settle the case. Also, some privileges which might normally apply might be waived in a case like this, considering the nature of the suit (i.e. you can't claim clergy privilege while simultaneously using the stuff you supposedly told your clergyman as the basis for your lawsuit--at that point you've opened the door). The church doesn't control what Bishop's attorney does with the information--they are just turning it over. And turning it over is exactly what they would be required to do within 30 days of the filing of the complaint.

Ok, but when this info was leaked, there was no civil litigation pending (per the Church's own statement), and thus no obligation to share with anyone. These guys (attorneys) had no problem with the Church collecting the information, and even said that Greg Bishop had every right (even duty) to publicize it to strengthen his case. They said that had there been litigation pending, the plaintiff could have requested an order that the information be suppressed, I think at least from revelation to the public? This is all from my recollection of their points. Again, I really wish you had taken an interest in this earlier so I could have relayed things more directly, but that's my recall.

This is certainly nothing like a doctor intentionally leaking confidential patient information, which ER gave as an analogy.

Lol. I assure you that if I shared this info, "But I accidentally clicked Reply All!" would neither save my job, my personal HIPAA fine, or potentially, my license. I'm gathering that you guys are much looser/lazier with these issues, but isn't that a problem at least for the client (the Church)? The Church gets a black eye because its hired counsel can't control his clicking finger? Is there a kind of fiduciary responsibility to a client's interest to maybe click the right button? Or is this just an accepted lower standard? At the very least, he should be fired. I'm curious if he was.

[MartyFunkhouser]

This article is old, which is why I said earlier that the fact this information was leaked to Greg Bishop is not really in dispute. But I'm glad you guys are finally taking an interest in it, because I think it's easily the most (potentially) problematic part of the response, and I wanted to hear the Mormon attorney side of the story.



Ok, but when this info was leaked, there was no civil litigation pending (per the Church's own statement), and thus no obligation to share with anyone. These guys (attorneys) had no problem with the Church collecting the information, and even said that Greg Bishop had every right (even duty) to publicize it to strengthen his case. They said that had there been litigation pending, the plaintiff could have requested an order that the information be suppressed, I think at least from revelation to the public? This is all from my recollection of their points. Again, I really wish you had taken an interest in this earlier so I could have relayed things more directly, but that's my recall.



Lol. I assure you that if I shared this info, "But I accidentally clicked Reply All!" would neither save my job, my personal HIPAA fine, or potentially, my license. I'm gathering that you guys are much looser/lazier with these issues, but isn't that a problem at least for the client (the Church)? The Church gets a black eye because its hired counsel can't control his clicking finger? Is there a kind of fiduciary responsibility to a client's interest to maybe click the right button? Or is this just an accepted lower standard? At the very least, he should be fired. I'm curious if he was.

I would be shocked if he was fired. He actually acted consistent with his client's interests in the matter. The investigation was clearly in anticipation of litigation and for the purposes of minimizing costs. It had nothing to do with finding the truth about what happened.

[Eddie]

...
Lol. I assure you that if I shared this info, "But I accidentally clicked Reply All!" would neither save my job, my personal HIPAA fine, or potentially, my license. I'm gathering that you guys are much looser/lazier with these issues, but isn't that a problem at least for the client (the Church)? The Church gets a black eye because its hired counsel can't control his clicking finger? Is there a kind of fiduciary responsibility to a client's interest to maybe click the right button? Or is this just an accepted lower standard? At the very least, he should be fired. I'm curious if he was.

What makes you think it was accidental? If HER attorney brought the other guys attorney into the conversation, isn't somewhat safe to assume that he anticipated him being in the conversation? Seems like you're jumping to conclusions here and making it look like some dufus just wasn't paying attention.

Also - and again, I'm no attorney - but I would think that just the fact that the woman has an attorney representing her in all of this means that there is likelihood of some pending lawsuit. Who's to say they weren't in negotiations to determine what kind of settlement might be gained without having to actually file the lawsuit? I see that kind of stuff on the TV lawyer shows all of the time.

[ERCougar]

I would be shocked if he was fired. He actually acted consistent with his client's interests in the matter. The investigation was clearly in anticipation of litigation and for the purposes of minimizing costs. It had nothing to do with finding the truth about what happened.

I was referring to the Jordan guy (the outside counsel for the Church) who doesn't know how to specify recipients on replys.

[ERCougar]

What makes you think it was accidental? If HER attorney brought the other guys attorney into the conversation, isn't somewhat safe to assume that he anticipated him being in the conversation? Seems like you're jumping to conclusions here and making it look like some dufus just wasn't paying attention.

Also - and again, I'm no attorney - but I would think that just the fact that the woman has an attorney representing her in all of this means that there is likelihood of some pending lawsuit. Who's to say they weren't in negotiations to determine what kind of settlement might be gained without having to actually file the lawsuit? I see that kind of stuff on the TV lawyer shows all of the time.

Lebowski is the one who is implying it was an accidental inclusion in the email chain. I'm not at all convinced it was accidental (although I'm not convinced the Church was behind it)--even my kids know how to tell where an email is going.

As for the Church's involvement: I'm just trusting the Church's spokesman when he said that they were not in discussions with the plaintiff prior to the suit being filed. Maybe he was lying about that?