Kate Kelly Is Threatening To Sue The Lds Church

[Avatar4321]

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

 

None. as long as she has this current attitude, we could ordain her all she wants, she will have no priesthood, because ironically, she is doing exactly what she is accusing those who excommunicated her of doing. So amen to that priesthood.

[bluebell]

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.

 

And other's don't find it deliberately exaggerating and misleading, and have also been consistent in providing their reasons why.

 

Since everyone has posted their opinions, and all can be seen as valid under different contexts or circumstances, what else is there really to continue to argue about?

[wenglund]

I've wondered that myself, this whole thing sounds like a gigantic drama queen scene. 

 

It puts me in mind of...

 

 

Nellie Oleson

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Bikeemikey]

And other's don't find it deliberately exaggerating and misleading, and have also been consistent in providing their reasons why.

Since everyone has posted their opinions, and all can be seen as valid under different contexts or circumstances, what else is there really to continue to argue about?

I don't think there is anything much to argue about.

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

Bob Crockett and others pointed out that context makes a great deal of difference here. My impression is that the lawyers who have weighed in here understand quite well the context in which Kelly made her "potentially actionable" remark. There's no way any of us can be clear how diligently you made the context clear to those whom you buttonholed at work. Did you outline the circumstances adequately for them? How many had the patience to sit still long enough to grasp the context before telling you what you wanted to hear? You say it was something less than 100, but if it's even close to that number, you must have spent a great deal of time at it.

I suspect it's far below the 100 figure you gave.

But even at that, it has only been a matter of hours that the comment about the lawyers on this thread has been up. It must have been an engrossing labor to have personally contacted even one-fifth of those 100 lawyers and adequately explained the circumstances.

Or perhaps you called them all into a meeting and spoke to them all at once to get their take. That would seem an odd use of company time and human resources though.

[Bikeemikey]

Bob Crockett and others pointed out that context makes a great deal of difference here. My impression is that the lawyers who have weighed in here understand quite well the context in which Kelly made her "potentially actionable" remark. There's no way any of us can be clear how diligently you made the context clear to those whom you buttonholed at work. Did you outline the circumstances adequately for them? How many had the patience to sit still long enough to grasp the context before telling you what you wanted to hear? You say it was something less than 100, but if it's even close to that number, you must have spent a great deal of time at it.

I suspect it's far below the 100 figure you gave.

But even at that, it has only been a matter of hours that the comment about the lawyers on this thread has been up. It must have been an engrossing labor to have personally contacted even one-fifth of those 100 lawyers and adequately explained the circumstances.

Or perhaps you called them all into a meeting and spoke to them all at once to get their take. That would seem an odd use of company time and human resources though.

It is far less than 100 roughly 25 and some adding staff as well.

I've been soliciting opinions since the thread began... Not simply since the beginning of today.

[Scott Lloyd]

It is far less than 100 roughly 25 and some adding staff as well.

I've been soliciting opinions since the thread began... Not simply since the beginning of today.

Again, the context in which a matter like this is presented can make a world of difference. Bob Crockett gave a comparison illustrating quite well how that can be. Edited July 27, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Tacenda]

Actually, she said her stake president's conduct was "potentially actionable."

Kate Kelly, a lawyer, told her stake president, another lawyer, that his conduct was "potentially actionable." That is a threat. It may be an empty, vacuous, made-in-bad-faith, I-am-grasping-at-straws-here threat, but it's a threat.

None of us have standing to sue Kate Kelly for her conduct, so we are not in a position to issue a "threat" about her conduct. In contrast, the only person who would have standing to sue based on her stake president's "potentially actionable" conduct (and hence be in a position to publish a threat to sue) is . . . Kate Kelly.

She has done a really poor job at a lot of the things she has been doing.

Both, I would think.

Dunno. That's why her threat is vacuous. Boneheaded. But then, she's made a lot of boneheaded moves. She has alienated huge numbers of faithful Latter-day Saints with her rhetoric and actions. She has lost her membership in the Church. She has encouraged her followers to "raise hell" in the Church. None of this is going to result in her stated objective. Many more moderate feminists have decried her antics, saying she is doing more harm than good.

A fair question. But that could only be answered by Kate Kelly. And it could only be answered if she is serious about the prospect of litigation, and if she has thought the matter through. I suspect she is neither serious nor has she thought the matter through.

It would also be an extremely poor strategy to unnecessarily alienate huge swaths of LDS women, and to align with excommunicated apostates, and to demand the priesthood and say that "nothing less will suffice," and to disobey the law and the Church's instructions and trespass and protest on sacred ground during a sacred convocation, and to tell Church members to "raise hell" in the Church, and to call the Church to repentance.

The list of Kate Kelly's boneheaded moves is getting too long to repeat here.

Thanks,

-Smac

I'm going to make your day, her and her husband were interviewed by John Dehlin recently and it's up on Mormon Stories now.

[Calm]

Did you listen? Did she comment about her appeal?

[Raingirl]

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.

Well, of course you are going with the (supposed) opinion of the lawyers you do business with....they (purportedly) agree with you. Well, a few did, anyway.

And I know you would just dismiss the opinions of a larger number of attorneys at my firm being in agreement with Smac's assessment of the statement....because......you know.....it doesn't align with your wants. And you don't "personally" work with them, so that removes credibility as well.

[Tacenda]

Did you listen? Did she comment about her appeal?

I haven't yet, I'm going on a walk when it cools off and then listen. I'll let you know later if you want.

Something is off about this whole situation. I'm not even sure she even believes the church is true, it may be all about women's rights, more or less. I read on NOM a comment today that said JD asked why she would do all of this if there's a possibility the church isn't true, or something like that. And she acted like she would do what she has whether she believed in it or not. But I'll listen and see if it's true that she said that. Because to me, if she believed it was true, wouldn't she listen to a prophet and his apostles and believe the answer she'd been given?

[ERayR]

I haven't yet, I'm going on a walk when it cools off and then listen. I'll let you know later if you want.

Something is off about this whole situation. I'm not even sure she even believes the church is true, it may be all about women's rights, more or less. I read on NOM a comment today that said JD asked why she would do all of this if there's a possibility the church isn't true, or something like that. And she acted like she would do what she has whether she believed in it or not. But I'll listen and see if it's true that she said that. Because to me, if she believed it was true, wouldn't she listen to a prophet and his apostles and believe the answer she'd been given?

 

It would seem so wouldn't it. 

[readstoomuch]

I listened to the first part. Didn't think I would. They are pleasant enough. Very progressive. KK's mom is an attorney. She was never good with children and as a couple they decided to be childless. She identifies herself as the strong assertive part of their marriage, though they have "parody."

[smac97]

I listened to the first part. Didn't think I would. They are pleasant enough. Very progressive. KK's mom is an attorney. She was never good with children and as a couple they decided to be childless. She identifies herself as the strong assertive part of their marriage, though they have "parody."

"She was never good with children and as a couple they decided to be childless" refers to Kate Kelly, correct?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Bikeemikey]

Well, of course you are going with the (supposed) opinion of the lawyers you do business with....they (purportedly) agree with you. Well, a few did, anyway.

And I know you would just dismiss the opinions of a larger number of attorneys at my firm being in agreement with Smac's assessment of the statement....because......you know.....it doesn't align with your wants. And you don't "personally" work with them, so that removes credibility as well.

I don't have a dog in this fight relative to KK. I find both her process and objective objectionable.

That doesn't mean we should hype up and misrepresent what she had been saying. We don't need to and it's not helpful.

If the majority of lawyers are in strong uniform opinion that two words in a multi-page letter issued to her church leader (as a non legal document) during a routine (by the handbook) ecclesiastical dispute regarding her excommunication amounts to a threat to sue the church then I will go with majority of legal opinion and concede that KK did indeed threaten to sue the church.

So far my contact with lawyers suggests that it is approx a 7-3 split suggesting that as the document was not a legal statement and was not issued as part of a legal dispute her use of "potentially actionable" was illustrative and utilized in an attempt to provide merit to her ecclesiastical dispute, not a statement that was made as a legal threat.

Edited July 28, 2014 by Bikeemikey

[Bikeemikey]

I listened to the first part. Didn't think I would. They are pleasant enough. Very progressive. KK's mom is an attorney. She was never good with children and as a couple they decided to be childless. She identifies herself as the strong assertive part of their marriage, though they have "parody."

Are you sure "parody" is not meant to be "parity"? Or is that an intentional swap?

[smac97]

I don't have a dog in this fight relative to KK. I find both her process and objective objectionable.

That doesn't mean we should hype up and misrepresent what she had been saying. We don't need to and it's not helpful.

If the majority of lawyers are in strong uniform opinion that two words in a multi-page letter issued to her church leader (as a non legal document) during a routine (by the handbook) ecclesiastical dispute regarding her excommunication amounts to a threat to sue the church then I will go with majority of legal opinion and concede that KK did indeed threaten to sue the church.

So far my contact with lawyers suggests that it is approx a 7-3 split suggesting that as the document was not a legal statement and was not issued as part of a legal dispute her use of "potentially actionable" was illustrative and utilized in an attempt to provide merit to her ecclesiastical dispute, not a statement that was made as a legal threat.

Okay. Let's move on. Perhaps we can discuss the content of KK's MS interview. Can someone provide a summary?

Thanks,

-Smac

[readstoomuch]

Kate is not good with kids. Kate's own words.

Parity, not parody. Trying to let them speak for themselves.

[Tacenda]

Kate is not good with kids. Kate's own words.

Parity, not parody. Trying to let them speak for themselves.

Listening to Part 2 now, and in Part 1 she said she didn't like kids while growing up, and people would be willing to pay her a lot of money to tend for them but she refused to do it.  She's pretty set against it.  Even though she didn't like kids, or doesn't like kids, doesn't mean she won't like her own kids one day.  But like they say in the podcast there are a lot of good things you can do in the world you leave behind, besides leaving your DNA.  Now they're discussing her husband's testimony.  It sounds like so far she has never had a faith crisis.  But it does sound like her husband did and now believes a religion is good as long as it leads them to God, and he doesn't want to be an Atheist.   

 

ETA:  Listening now and John is about to ask the question I mentioned above....but he asks her husband instead and asked him if Kate has ever doubted that the church was true, he said she has never doubted but believes the church is very pliable and something else, but forgot.  Maybe that's why she thought she could ask for women to be ordained.  Sounds like she's not very orthodox, and doesn't believe the same way the average LDS believes, such as the temple ordinances and it being essential.  She doesn't believe in a God that would block an individual from being with their family if the ordinances weren't done for them.           

Edited July 28, 2014 by Tacenda

[readstoomuch]

They said they are never going to have kids, short of some major change in thinking.

[Stargazer]

I lost patience with this thread by about page 9, and all the intervening posts between there and this one I just have to bypass.  

 

But here is what it looks to me: 

 

1. One lawyer writes a letter to another lawyer to complain about the respondent's past conduct, and says that it is "potentially actionable."

2. Smac, a third, uninvolved but very experienced lawyer assesses the "potentially actionable" statement as a threat of possible suit.  A fourth lawyer in the thread concurs that this is how this is to be understood.

3. Several nonlawyers, bikeemikey, mormonnewb, and tonie, all jump in and say that "potentially actionable" certainly does not mean that there is a threat of a lawsuit.

 

Now, I am also not a lawyer, but I have an amazing resource called the Internet, and I can look up all kinds of things, whether using Google or Bing, and this is what I find:

 

• In Law, What Does "Actionable" Mean? - "The legal term actionable refers to a situation for which there is enough evidence to support the filing of a lawsuit."
• Dictionary.com on "Actionable" - The first two definitions are: "furnishing ground for a lawsuit." and "liable to a lawsuit"
• Dictionary on Law.com - "actionable: adj. when enough facts or circumstances exist to meet the legal requirements to file a legitimate lawsuit."
• Black's Law Dictionary - "That for which an action will lie; furnishing legal ground for an action." - An "action" is a suit at law, btw.
• The Free Dictionary - Just look.  There are several sources of definition for the word "actionable".  All of them support the idea of "actionable" as something that leads to a lawsuit

So, we have two professionals in the field of law, and several easily-located legal definition sources, and all say that potentially actionable means that the first lawyer is threatening a lawsuit.  And three complete amateurs asserting that that can't possibly be what that first lawyer meant.

 

When I was a child, I thought there was a monster in my closet.  But when my father turned on the lights, opened the closet and let me inspect it, I discovered that indeed there was no monster there.  Too bad there are so many for whom the light of day reveals no truth.  

Edited July 28, 2014 by Stargazer

[readstoomuch]

We are moving on to the KK interview.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

I listened to the first part. Didn't think I would. They are pleasant enough. Very progressive. KK's mom is an attorney. She was never good with children and as a couple they decided to be childless. She identifies herself as the strong assertive part of their marriage, though they have "parody."

 

More evidence of my previous speculation. Just sayin'

[Pahoran]

And you really think Kate Kelly is the bully?

It was Kate Kelly's idea to "stare down the Patriarchy." (Inter alia, the "Patriarchy" as personified by a teenage boy trying to walk into a meeting which he was actually entitled to attend. I call that bullying.) Either she genuinely didn't see this coming -- in which case, it simply didn't occur to her that the "Patriarchy" might not blink -- or else she is playing us.

I rather suspect the latter.

I've observed a kind of feminist schizophrenia -- a cultural, not a psychiatric phenomenon -- in which the very same women who are praised for their immense "courage" in saying "Gimme what I want now" -- but only when they think they've got public opinion on their side -- are simultaneously agonised over as the innocent victims of male cruelty when they don't get what they demand. The problem with the "Heroic Victim" narrative is that it gains neither admiration nor sympathy, except from those who already share the ideological predispositions of the alleged victim/hero.

I've said it before, but it bears repeating: to those who see the Church as merely another human institution, and the Priesthood as nothing more than an elite clique within that institution, Ms Kelly's activities make sense. Her perspective is entirely that of this world.

But to those who reject those assumptions -- believing Latter-day Saints, IOW -- her activites make no sense at all. Our perspective is not hers.

That's because she doesn't believe as we do.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Sleeper Cell]

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.

 

Just to clarify, did your lawyers say what KK did mean by “potentially actionable?"

Edited July 28, 2014 by Sleeper Cell