The Church statement reads:
As we've said in both statements, our work to address this matter has included the work of outside legal counsel to interview and investigate the facts and allegations. This requires access to membership information. During this process, it is customary and acceptable for outside counsel to correspond with the attorneys representing other parties, including sharing information that may support or refute their claims.
But it's also important to not confuse the legal and ecclesiastical lines. Attorneys are doing the legal work, and that has contributed substantially to what we understand about this case. But ecclesiastical decisions about Church members remain in the hands of local leaders, whose responsibility it is to determine how to minister to, discipline and care for the members in their stewardship.
http://kutv.com/news/local/exclusive-do ... ex-scandal
Hiding behind outside legal counsel
Eric Hawkins, on behalf of the Church, has made several statements to attempt to absolve the Church of any blame for the behaviour of its lawyer, David Jordan. He has tried to suggest that the Church is involved only in ecclesiastical matters, leaving the lawyers to do the lawyering. He is trying to separate the Church from being associated with the hit-piece dossier compiled by David Jordan (who was given access to the victims Church records and LDS adoption services records) as a mechanism for re-abusing the victim into dropping the case.
What the Church lawyers are attempting as a defence is basically - “Yeah we know Bishop abused her, but look at her track record, she either had it coming or she’s maybe not telling the truth and anyways, she’s a bad person (even though we know she is wink wink). And if anyone else out there has been abused by a Church leader, if you come forward we will do this to you too.”
Back to my point. David Jordan is an agent of the Church, he is working on its behalf, he is being employed to do its bidding. There is NO separation between lawyer and Church when one is acting on behalf of the other. Let me prove my point by asking a couple of questions.
Has the Church, via Hawkins, expressed that it thinks what David Jordan has done is wrong?
Has the Church replaced David Jordan?
Has the Church asked David Jordan to apologise for his behaviour?
Has the Church in anyway expressed a negative opinion towards the work David Jordan has done?
Has it apologised for giving access to personal membership records?
No.
So the Church actually gives tacit approval to the lawyers actions, and has facilitated them, fully. The appeal to “outside legal counsel’ needs to be seen for the nefarious subterfuge that it is.