UPDATE: House Bill 125 (More Info)  

Posted by Jessica in , ,

This spring, Sen. Jorgensen (Hayden Lake), who was a sponsor of House Bill 125 on the Senate side, threatened to pull his support when he discovered that the LDS church, through Ruchti, had changed the language of the bill to allow for a "carve out" for the LDS church.

This particular story caught very brief attention in the CDL paper at the time, but I have learned that Jorgenson confronted Ruchti and Ruchti confessed that the language he used in the statute was intended create a "carve out" for the LDS church and was crafted by the Kirton McConkie law firm in Salt Lake City which is the same firm that defends the Mormon Church in hundreds of child sexual abuse lawsuits now pending against them all around the country.

Jorgenson threatened to publicly "cry foul" on what the Mormon Church was doing when Ruchti agreed to a change in the language that diluted the employer/volunteer issue by changing it to "employer-related" circumstances. Ruchti assured Sen Jorgenson that the law would then apply even-handedly to all religious and secular groups including those using volunteers. It was only then that Jorgensen and the other non-LDS supporters of the bill agreed to continue supporting the bill.

However, reading Ruchti's comments in the Statesman article today confirmed that Ruchti's "word" is not to be trusted on anything having to do with the Mormon Church and House Bill 125.

Fortunately for victims, neither Ruchti nor the LDS legal "brain trust" in Salt Lake City bothered to read the law very carefully because subsection (d) outlines a cause of action irrespective of whether it occurred under employer-related circumstances. Subsection (d) merely tracks the language of the criminal child abuse statute which has nothing at all to do with employment related situations. It merely require proof that a person "willfully caused or permitted a child to be placed in a situation that the child's physical or mental health was endangered."

Ruchti's comments to the Statesman demonstrate that he doesn't even understand the fundamental application of his own bill.

2 comments

Anonymous   says July 16, 2007 at 3:20 PM

I certainly agree that molesters shouldn't be able to avoid lawsuits. And I think H0125's extending the statute of limitations on such suits is a great thing. A couple of questions come to mind, though:

Sen. Jorgensen (Hayden Lake), who was a sponsor of House Bill 125

Sen. Jorgensen isn't listed as a sponsor on the bill. Do you know what role he had in crafting it? He certainly voted for it (as did all 34 other senators).

I have learned that Jorgenson confronted Ruchti and Ruchti confessed that the language he used in the statute ... was crafted by the Kirton McConkie law firm

Rep. Ruchti has denied being contacted by the LDS church or Kirton McConkie during crafting of the bill. I've talked to three cosponsors of the bill, and all three support Rep. Ruchti's statement. Given that corroboration, Sen. Jorgenson's claim just doesn't sound credible to me.

neither Ruchti nor the LDS legal "brain trust" in Salt Lake City bothered to read the law very carefully because subsection (d) outlines a cause of action irrespective of whether it occurred under employer-related circumstances...Ruchti's comments to the Statesman demonstrate that he doesn't even understand the fundamental application of his own bill.

I think you're misinterpreting the law. Subsection (d) applies to persons, not employers or organizations. I don't know whether an argument that a church or the BSA falls under the definition of a person would be successful, but I doubt it. IANAL, however.

I think I agree with you that it would have been good to extend the statute of limitations to organizations in which volunteers act in supervisory capacities. But I, at least, can't think of a way to write the language in a way that wouldn't have a negative effect on all volunteer organizations. And I have to agree with the sponsors' assessment that crafting the law in a way that it would pass accomplished more than a broader bill being shot down.

I think it's important to remember that H0125 didn't diminish, in any way, victims' rights or recourse. Instead it significantly expanded their right to recover damages from individuals, and, in limited circumstances, employers.

Jessica   says July 16, 2007 at 5:25 PM

"Rep. Ruchti has denied being contacted by the LDS church or Kirton McConkie during crafting of the bill."

You do realize that Ruchti has admitted, as has Paul Steed, to working with Randy Austin of Kirton McConkie on this issue, correct?

"Sen. Jorgenson's claim just doesn't sound credible to me."

So you are saying that Sen Jorgensen is lying? Did you read the article in the CDA? Why and how would he pull that law firm out of his ass to create some conspiracy theory?

"I think you're misinterpreting the law."

That wasn't my interpretation, but thanks for thinking I am a lawyer. That was the interpretation of a someone who has worked in this area of law for 20 years. I think I will trust his legal interpretation over yours.

Post a Comment

Newer Post Older Post