Kate Kelly Is Threatening To Sue The Lds Church

[why me]

So where do open and honest discussions get to take place? Is discussing priesthood for women in a Sunday meeting sowing discord? In her interview on Radio West the church spokesperson implied such a discussion is quite fine in her RS meeting. How about the recent statement on the BoA on the church web site? Is that a fair topic? Or is it only the plain vanilla correlated curriculum that church provides that is fair game. I know what the church says about this. Stick to the manuals.

There really is no forum for open and honest discussion about difficult issues in a church setting. Maybe a few friends can do so or a in a meeting with a leader. But not much else.

I would think that when priesthood is discussed in the meetings, the issue of women and the priesthood can come up for discussion. No problem at all. However, if I would say that women must have the priesthood to achieve equality and that the GAs are sexist old men that are out of touch with reality, well, that may be over the top. The ensign already in june had a wonderful article about the priesthood. I could bring that up etc. When the D and C is being discussed I can bring up the BoA. Why not? However, if I state that the church is false because of the B o A I may be over the line. Church is not a place for disruption and contention, especially when people only wish to worship in peace. And this is why kate missed the boat on this issue. I have no idea why this is so hard to understand. I can only assume that her excommunication took the wind out of the sails of many of the critics and they are a little upset about it.

 

What church would allow me to claim that the bible is trash and not true and because of this, christianity is a made up religion during their sunday school? I may get away with it once, but I do think that I may have a problem doing it again.

 

In terms of kate being bullied by her excommunication seems to be a claim of sour grapes. Kate is a feninist lawyer and very intelligent. I am sure that she mentally prepared for a church discipline even though she didn't expect it. By claiming being bullied, she would more of less be daying that she is a victim. And this is a common tactic these days to claim victim status to get some sympathy. Of course, we do have victims in our society but it is the overclaiming of the title that is the problem.

 

Could I also claim being bullied by kate because of her website? And because I am a male? I think so. I will also now claim victim status as I attempt to navigate through the dislike that certain feminists have toward men as they lump all of us men oppressors of women because of the male patriarchal nature. I am  also a victim of hollywood as they constantly show men as stupid, inept, and weak in comedy sitcoms whereas women are shown as level headed, strong, and having it all together. (Everyone loves Raymond, The Simpsons, Two and a Half Men, Friends, Married with Children etc) I love being a victim...

Edited July 27, 2014 by why me

[Calm]

So this thread has pretty much played out in terms of substantive commentary on Kate Kelly's letter, and has largely devolved into bickering. Does anyone have anything substantive to say regarding Kate Kelly's letter? If not, I will request that the mods lock this thread.Thanks,-Smac

Smac, if you look down at the bottom of the thread, I think you will see a "topic moderation" since you started the thread, iicr. You can then use that menu to close it yourself.

It was a combined thread iirc so I am not certain it will be accessible to you in that case.

[carbon dioxide]

Just imagine how much damage Kate Kelly could do with the Priesthood.

[Teancum]

You're right. It is getting old.

 

So let me get this straight. You're saying that excommunication used as a bullying bludgeon is pretty much the norm. All of these people you mention were innocent individuals who were bullied out of the church by their heavy handed excommunications. It didn't really have anything to do with what they said or did; the mere fact that they're excommunicated is prima facie evidence that they were bullied by a heavy handed church that uses the threat of discipline to keep all of us cowed members in line.

 

Does your imagination go into overdrive as the night gets older? And will you be attending this imaginary church of yours tomorrow? It sure doesn't look like the one I attend.

Are you enjoying this tiresome and poor argument? Once again, you epically fail to give any substance other than to claim your view is correct and mock mine as imaginary. I am done with you because you don't discuss. As you stated yourself, apparently you malign those whose views differ from yours. So malign away.

[Calm]

Just imagine how much damage Kate Kelly could do with the Priesthood.

None.

[readstoomuch]

I just saw that KK and her husband did a MS podcast.  There are three parts.  I am not sure it is the thing for me to listen to.  When I did some research about KK, I found that they have had an outspoken LGBT agenda at least back to 2008.  I want to say that Neil Ransom`s relative was gay and Kate participated in the SSM of some friends.  I wonder how many things besides OW and SSM they are progressive about?  She reviews her history in the Church and getting married.   It will be nice to hear what she has to say about herself.  This is a much more accurate way to find out what she is about rather than seeing what she says in press releases, which frankly don`t make her look good.  

 

Because of my experience with OW and my daughter I just can`t listen right now.  Maybe someone else can.  Maybe it can make some sense to someone.  I hope the interview is more than just a publicity ploy.  I want to understand my daughter and OW better.  I would like to feel some peace and for those involved in this disruption (on both sides) to start healing.  These things I pray for. 

[sjdawg]

Is saying that something is "potentially actionable" the same as threatening to sue someone?  I'm not sure that it is.  

[Storm Rider]

sj, it depends upon the context and who is speaking.  When it comes from a lawyer that has been an antagonist and one that demands change i.e. the only option is her option; when the individual demeans a process in terms of being overwhelming abusive and sexist; when the individual demeans the individual leaders then you probably in a situation that the individual involved is being pretty threatening. 

 

It is true that in this case Ms. KK is not being absolutely blunt, i.e. she is using layer-speak, but let's assume that she is threatening to sue.  What is the big deal in assuming that is what she means?  When I hear someone say I will sue it is more blustering than anything else.  I cannot believe that anyone who assumes that another person is threatening to sue is demeaning their character.

 

US society is extremely litigious.  Assuming she threatened to sue the Church is not a big deal. I suspect that 50 threatened to sue the Church yesterday they just did not publicize their intentions.  This is another storm in a teapot and is rather meaningless.  Even if she files a suit against the Church it would not be the first time and it won't be the last.  She joins a long line of people who will have threatened to sue the church and followed through on their statement. 

[Bob Crockett]

Is saying that something is "potentially actionable" the same as threatening to sue someone? I'm not sure that it is.

It is.

If you had a neighbor who was a lawyer who complained about your tree making droppings in her yard, telling you that such is potentially actionable, there would be few reasonable people that wouldn't see that as a threat.

If you were reading a published paper by an academic on some school issues, and she said that something was potentially actionable, not a threat.

It depends on context.

Edited July 27, 2014 by Bob Crockett

[Mystery Meat]

So far I count five attorneys who say it was a threat. Not a single no from an attorney yet.

[Bikeemikey]

So far I count five attorneys who say it was a threat. Not a single no from an attorney yet.

Thanks you for demonstrating why we all have such distrust of lawyers... Looks like their issues begin with a failure of reading comprehension.

[Mystery Meat]

Thanks you for demonstrating why we all have such distrust of lawyers... Looks like their issues begin with a failure of reading comprehension.

 

Ok. I am sorry for pointing out that the lawyers on the board recognized another attorneys veiled threat for what it is. Your continued adherence to your position doesn't make a lot of sense. It was a threat. Pure and simple.

[Calm]

Thanks you for demonstrating why we all have such distrust of lawyers... Looks like their issues begin with a failure of reading comprehension.

I think you are ignoring the dynamics of ingroup communication or jargon. Something may hold a significant difference of meaning whether used with another member of an ingroup or an outsider. A technical or academic meaning may vary a great deal. One example is cult. A casual use would often be used as an insult, an academic context has no such connotations attached.

Since lawyers are the ones involved in legal discussions most often, it seems like common sense we let them define what their own jargon/usage means rather than insisting we know better.

[bluebell]

Thanks you for demonstrating why we all have such distrust of lawyers... Looks like their issues begin with a failure of reading comprehension.

It is normal for people in certain professions to use words differently, as well as to understand each other differently, than people who are not a part if that profession. I have a lot of people in my family in the medical profession and you can bet that sometimes I have no idea what they are talking about, even when they are using words I otherwise understand. My husband works in engineering and it's the same problem.

Maybe the best response to this kind of thing (rather than calling everyone who disagrees with you essentially stupid and untrustworthy) is just to say "as a non lawyer I would never interpret those words to mean that. I understand that lawyers might interpret them differently."

[Scott Lloyd]

Thanks you for demonstrating why we all have such distrust of lawyers... Looks like their issues begin with a failure of reading comprehension.

<I> don't have a distrust of lawyers, and I regard such a blanket condemnation of an entire profession as ignorant and thoughtless.

As for your remark about "reading comprehension," I'll say this: I'm not a lawyer. My profession is communication, the use of English to convey thought and meaning. With that background, I say that the point made by Bob Crockett and others here is eminently sensible. Context makes an immense difference in how a message is to be understood and evaluated. In the context of insolence and hostility, the conclusion is compelling that an accusation of "potentially actionable" behavior is made by way of threat.

[Avatar4321]

We don't know that she does think that.

She never said anything about legal action.

This thread is simply a lesson in reading comprehension.

 

Funny cause all the lawyers see legal speak. She threatened a lawsuit. That's what "Potentially actionable" means.

[Avatar4321]

I don't suggest to a person that an offense is actionable unless I'm trying to suggest to them that I may sue them. Or unless they are my client asking legal counsel.

[Bikeemikey]

I think you are ignoring the dynamics of ingroup communication or jargon. Something may hold a significant difference of meaning whether used with another member of an ingroup or an outsider. A technical or academic meaning may vary a great deal. One example is cult. A casual use would often be used as an insult, an academic context has no such connotations attached.

Since lawyers are the ones involved in legal discussions most often, it seems like common sense we let them define what their own jargon/usage means rather than insisting we know better.

I work in business with a large law firm comprising of over 100 lawyers and well over double that number in legal admin role (clerks etc). Most a non-members.

None of them (I haven't talked to every single one obviously) viewed the statement "potentially actionable" as a direct and immediate threat to sue.

Is it a threat... Yes, KK entire letter disputing her discipline was a threat. Just not a threat to sue, it was a threat to continue challenging the decision made by her church leaders.

Now I don't know any of you lawyers on this forum personally. I do know these other lawyers personally and so far there is a about an 8-1 ratio of those disagreeing with smac interpretation of this matter.

Is it possible the current threat may escalate and KK may actually threaten to use legal remedies in the future, possibly. So far I'm going with the majority of lawyers that I personally work with who have kindly suggested a mound has been made out of a mole hill.

This is not just a distinction between industry/professional jargon vs. lay language use. Smac's interpretation is not universally agreed to with in the legal profession.

Edited July 27, 2014 by Bikeemikey

[Bikeemikey]

I don't suggest to a person that an offense is actionable unless I'm trying to suggest to them that I may sue them. Or unless they are my client asking legal counsel.

Or unless you are attempting to highlight why a particular action or series of actions were inappropriate, as KK was doing.

It is clear from the context of her letter that she was attempting to demonstrate why she was justified in her decision to dispute her excommunication. Her claim is that violations of church policy (and possibly civil law) justify her disputation of said excommunication.

It is also clear from her letter that she was focused on making a case for overturning the excommunication verdict, and not a case for civil or criminal litigation.

[Storm Rider]

Or unless you are attempting to highlight why a particular action or series of actions were inappropriate, as KK was doing.

It is clear from the context of her letter that she was attempting to demonstrate why she was justified in her decision to dispute her excommunication. Her claim is that violations of church policy (and possibly civil law) justify her disputation of said excommunication.

It is also clear from her letter that she was focused on making a case for overturning the excommunication verdict, and not a case for civil or criminal litigation.

 

You must be right. We are all wrong.  Sure glad you are around because the rest of us are just stupid old lawyers and silly professionals.  I am counting my lucky stars that you are right.

 

Let's move on. 

[Bikeemikey]

You must be right. We are all wrong. Sure glad you are around because the rest of us are just stupid old lawyers and silly professionals. I am counting my lucky stars that you are right.

Let's move on.

So the point isn't to discuss different responses and interpretations of the content of KK letter?

What are we meant to move on to if not discussing the letter?

[Calm]

You are the one dismissing the other view as totally wrong to the point of saying the lawyers here shouldn't be trusted

Edited July 27, 2014 by calmoriah

[ERayR]

You are the one dismissing the other view as totally wrong to the point of saying the lawyers here shouldn't be trusted

 

I wish you wouldn't do that I have to bite my tongue really hard to pass up such an opportunity.

[Bikeemikey]

You are the one dismissing the other view as totally wrong to the point of saying the lawyers here shouldn't be trusted

I didn't say lawyers here shouldn't be trusted. I said that the lawyers here are at variance in their response to this issue with non-LDS lawyers that I work with. I also stated that based on my lack of my personal experience with lawyers on this forum I prioritize the opinion of the lawyers I know over those I don't.

I also made a tongue and cheek comment about not trusting any lawyers :-)

Either way, I think your hyperbole misplaced.

I do find the title of the thread to be deliberately exaggerating and misleading in the way it presents KK letter.

I have been consistent in providing my reasons why.

[Avatar4321]

Are any of the people claiming KK did not threaten a law suit attorneys? I will be honest, as I read through her letter I was starting to get frustrated with Smac. I thought he had pulled the threat out of nowhere. Then I read the potentially actionable language and I said, "wow there it is. clears as day." I am also an attorney. This is legalese for a threat of suit (albeit a stupid threat and a meritless lawsuit. In fact, I think you could make a pretty strong argument for malicious prosecution. Not to mention my guess is she would lose a lot of support from some of her followers...).

 

I don't know how any attorney could not interpret this as a threat (even if it is empty). Sister Kelly knew it would be interpreted as a threat by her lawyer Stake President because she is an attorney as well.

 

In fact I would be interested to have all board attorneys respond to this post with a simple yes or no to the question did KK threaten a lawsuit?

 

My answer: yes.

 

Yes. I don't see another way to read it. I can't imagine it's anything but an empty threat. But it is a threat.