Kate Kelly Is Threatening To Sue The Lds Church

[smac97]

What if it goes to court and the judge is Mormon?

The same thing that would happen if the judge is a Jew, or an atheist, or a Baptist: The judge would hear the case and adjudicate it appropriately.

Thanks,

-Smac

[ksfisher]

What if it goes to court and the judge is Mormon?

 

Then the judge may choose to recuse himself.

[ksfisher]

The same thing that would happen if the judge is a Jew, or an atheist, or a Baptist: The judge would hear the case and adjudicate it appropriately.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

If a (male) judge were to also hold a leadership position in the church could that be seen as a conflict of interest?

Edited July 25, 2014 by ksfisher

[smac97]

If a judge were to also hold a leadership position in the church could that be seen as a conflict of interest?

I doubt it. A bishop or stake president may have a conflict of interest if a litigant is a member of the bishop's ward or the stake president's stake, but I don't think a lay ecclesiastical calling is a per se conflict of interest.

I imagine this issue arises frequently in Utah and surrounding states, with judges who are LDS being called upon to adjudicate claims against by Mormons, or against Mormons, or claims asserted by or against the LDS Church proper. Having appeared before dozens of judges in Utah, both federal and state, I can honestly state that I have never perceived a judge's relationship to the LDS Church based upon his or her actions as a judge.

I once had an eviction lawsuit where the defendant accused the judge during a conference call of being prejudiced against the defendant because she (the defendant) was A) a woman, B) Hispanic, and C) not LDS. The judge (a Caucasian woman, I don't know her religious affiliation) called the accusations absurd, but nevertheless recused herself (the accusations were absurd, by the way).

Thanks,

-Smac

[why me]

of course, we can also say that the more publicity we give to kate by starting threads aboiut her plays into her publicity seeking. But then again, we should know what she is up to and how she is conducting herself now that she is excommunicated. By challenging her excommunication she is demonstrating her lack of belief in priesthood authority. And that does say much about her. And I think that it was basically right to have her excommunicated because now we see her lack of faith in the process.

[smac97]

of course, we can also say that the more publicity we give to kate by starting threads aboiut her plays into her publicity seeking.

I am not persuaded that messages on this board give appreciable additional publicity to Kate Kelly. In any event, while your concern is well-taken, I don't think we can cede the field to people like Kate Kelly.

Thanks,

-Smac

[rodheadlee]

It's just a way to keep her name in the media, you all are enabling her. Stop it.

[Avatar4321]

What if it goes to court and the judge is Mormon?

 

And what are the odds of finding a mormon judge on the east coast with the jurisdiction to hear this case?

[smac97]

If a (male) judge were to also hold a leadership position in the church could that be seen as a conflict of interest?

Gender, either male or female, is never a per se basis for a conflict of interest claim against a judge.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

And what are the odds of finding a mormon judge on the east coast with the jurisdiction to hear this case?

Let's see if I can dust off my recollection of jurisdictional requirements:

1. Kate Kelly lives in Utah now, but would probably be living in Africa by the time a lawsuit is filed. That would place her residency as outside the U.S.

2. Her stake president lives in Virginia, so jurisdiction could lie there. However, if the stake president is construed as an agent of the Church, then perhaps the state's residency in Utah would vest that state with jurisdiction. I am admittedly unclear on this point of law. Perhaps one of the other attorneys on this board could weigh in.

3. If complete diversity of jurisdiction exists, then would jurisdiction lie with the federal court in Virginia? In Utah? Either?

Thanks,

-Smac

[USU78]

Whatever happened to this sick relative in Utah that she had that she couldn't leave but had ample time for the media and stuff?

 

Died.

 

It's the Church's fault.

 

Savage misogynists to a man.

[USU78]

So has her activism. So is she going to change course because of that?

I don't think anyone is disputing her right to contest her excommunication.

 

Here you go:

So here she's threatening to sue the Church. "Potentially actionable" is lawyerspeak for "I am thinking about suing you." The precise nature of the potential lawsuit is unclear, but would appear to relate to the priest-penitent privilege (or, rather, the stake president's alleged intention to breach the privilege).

It's a hokey theory, but we'll see if Kate Kelly follows through with it. Filing a lawsuit would, under most circumstances, be too audacious and brazen for me to take seriously as a likely prospect. But Kate Kelly has a track record of trashing boundaries, relishing the spotlight, and seeking to harm the Church. So I will not be surprised if it happens.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

 

Didn't do Paul Toscano any good to make similar noises, did it?

[ksfisher]

Gender, either male or female, is never a per se basis for a conflict of interest claim against a judge.Thanks,-Smac

So then it really shouldn't matter to Kelly that all the priesthood leaders who judged her were male.

[Nofear]

By challenging her excommunication she is demonstrating her lack of belief in priesthood authority. And that does say much about her. And I think that it was basically right to have her excommunicated because now we see her lack of faith in the process.

Her statement alone does not demonstrate lack of belief in priesthood authority, only that of her bishop. Bishop's can and do make mistakes. Errors in church discipline can and do occur, that's why we have an appeals process. While in my ignorance I quite suspect her bishop made the right call, but I do not know. That doesn't give me leave to put her in a rhetorical catch-22 of unfaithfulness.

[smac97]

So then it really shouldn't matter to Kelly that all the priesthood leaders who judged her were male.

Well, that's sort of an apples-to-oranges comparison. I was speaking of secular judges, not "Judges in Israel."

Thanks,

-Smac

[ksfisher]

Well, that's sort of an apples-to-oranges comparison. I was speaking of secular judges, not "Judges in Israel."Thanks,-Smac

It is, but I find a bit of humor in it. If the lawyer Kelly should have no reservations about whether a secular judge was male or female then shouls she have reservations about Israel's judges. But, as you say, apples-to-oranges.

Edited July 26, 2014 by ksfisher

[The Nehor]

It's just a way to keep her name in the media, you all are enabling her. Stop it.

 

I am okay with this. I find it entertaining.

[readstoomuch]

Sorry to hear your daughter has been taken in.

Thanks, I have gotten quite a bit of support around here. 

[Bikeemikey]

What if it goes to court and the judge is Mormon?

What if what goes to court?

No court action has been either threatened or begun. This entire thread is based entirely on a very narrow interpretation of the phrase "potentially actionable".

The notion that legal action against the church has been undertaken, or has even been considered, by Kelly is impossible to determine from the article.

It is entirely reasonable to point out that something could potentially be a certain way while having absolutely no intention, interest or inclination in actualizing that potential.

[Avatar4321]

Let's see if I can dust off my recollection of jurisdictional requirements:

1. Kate Kelly lives in Utah now, but would probably be living in Africa by the time a lawsuit is filed. That would place her residency as outside the U.S.

2. Her stake president lives in Virginia, so jurisdiction could lie there. However, if the stake president is construed as an agent of the Church, then perhaps the state's residency in Utah would vest that state with jurisdiction. I am admittedly unclear on this point of law. Perhaps one of the other attorneys on this board could weigh in.

3. If complete diversity of jurisdiction exists, then would jurisdiction lie with the federal court in Virginia? In Utah? Either?

Thanks,

-Smac

 

I was thinking it would be in VA. but maybe they could argue for Utah. who knows. I would think if they were worried about the bias of a mormon judge utah would not be the most prudent jurisdiction.

[Bikeemikey]

Yes, she has so threatened. A lawyer telling another party that the other party's conduct is "potentially actionable" is threatening a lawsuit. That is the only feasible interpretation of this statement.

You are entitled to your "interpretation".

It is also entirely reasonable to also read it as a statement of legal fact/interpretation, though one the party has absolutely no interest in pursuing.

Pointing out the potential of something is not a threat. A threat would be, "that is potentially actionable... And if you don't do x I'm going to take action based on that potential".

If I was standing next to my son on a step cliff and said you could potentially fall off that cliff if I bumped you it does not follow that I am intending to bump him.

The example she is citing is illustrative of what she feels is an injustice. She is pointing out all the ways in which she feels the proceedings were inappropriately conducted.

One such example is the issue of confidentiality which she highlights was inappropriate for two reasons, one it possibly contravenes church policy and two it possibly contravenes legal protections.

No where in that process has she threatened any form of legal action.

I also disagree with both her assertions and her methodology, however, my disagreement has not caused me to totally misrepresent her position on this matter in order to make her look as terrible as possible.

Edited July 26, 2014 by Bikeemikey

[Bikeemikey]

Let's see if I can dust off my recollection of jurisdictional requirements:

1. Kate Kelly lives in Utah now, but would probably be living in Africa by the time a lawsuit is filed. That would place her residency as outside the U.S.

2. Her stake president lives in Virginia, so jurisdiction could lie there. However, if the stake president is construed as an agent of the Church, then perhaps the state's residency in Utah would vest that state with jurisdiction. I am admittedly unclear on this point of law. Perhaps one of the other attorneys on this board could weigh in.

3. If complete diversity of jurisdiction exists, then would jurisdiction lie with the federal court in Virginia? In Utah? Either?

Thanks,

-Smac

You have again provided interesting analysis of a hypothetical proposition that you have imagined via a misreading of Kelly's letter.

[sethpayne]

Died.

 

It's the Church's fault.

 

Savage misogynists to a man.

 

Her mother underwent very serious surgery and has/is recovering well.

[Bikeemikey]

By challenging her excommunication she is demonstrating her lack of belief in priesthood authority. And that does say much about her. And I think that it was basically right to have her excommunicated because now we see her lack of faith in the process.

This is a untenable position. Because we excommunicated her we can demonstrate that we were right to excommunicate her?

Does the church having a formally and clearly articulated appeals process established specifically to challenge church discipline also show this same lack of belief on priesthood authority?

See where this kind of damned if you do damned if you don't logic leads.

By your argument the church has a lack of faith in priesthood.

Edited July 26, 2014 by Bikeemikey

[thatjimguy]

This is all a ruse to keep here in the spot light and keep the movement going. This sort of tactic gets old fast. But I guess for some people it is effective.

 

Double that. I have nothing against people's personal hopes for change if they truly feel the spirit about it. The more I hear from this woman and the movement, the more it feels like a passive aggressive extortion organization.