Kate Kelly Is Threatening To Sue The Lds Church

[MorningStar]

I think it's strange that she thinks legal speak is going to somehow undo this.

[Bikeemikey]

I think it's strange that she thinks legal speak is going to somehow undo this.

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.

Edited July 26, 2014 by Bikeemikey

[MorningStar]

If she's appealing and she's using legal language, it shows she thinks her approach might work.  Or maybe she's not really trying to appeal and it's more about negative publicity for the church again?

[Bikeemikey]

If she's appealing and she's using legal language, it shows she thinks her approach might work. Or maybe she's not really trying to appeal and it's more about negative publicity for the church again?

She's a lawyer.

She likely always uses legal speak... That is after all how she speaks.

I have no idea what her intentions are and don't much like how she is doing stuff. That said, not liking the style of her writing and accessing her of threatening to sue the church are very different things.

She did not threaten to sue the church.

[MorningStar]

She's a lawyer.

She likely always uses legal speak... That is after all how she speaks.

I have no idea what her intentions are and don't much like how she is doing stuff. That said, not liking the style of her writing and accessing her of threatening to sue the church are very different things.

She did not threaten to sue the church.

As Smac pointed out, he's a lawyer and understands what "potentially actionable" means coming from another lawyer.  If it's not a threat, why did she bring it up?

[Bikeemikey]

As Smac pointed out, he's a lawyer and understands what "potentially actionable" means coming from another lawyer. If it's not a threat, why did she bring it up?

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 read her comment as a statement of legal fact/interpretation, though one she 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 steep 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

[Calm]

She likely always uses legal speak... That is after all how she speaks.

Haven't seen it in some of her unofficial comments online.  

[Bikeemikey]

Haven't seen it in some of her unofficial comments online.

I've always found her style a little lawyerly, even when she was a intermittent poster on some forums. Not sure I've read enough of the unofficial stuff to comment on that.

Regardless, accusing a professional lawyer of sounding lawyerly strikes me as a little odd. Most of us will use the skills and toolset we are most proficient with to resolve the obstacles we face.

While that can create style mismatches in instances such as this not sure it warrants the level of negative attention it had been drawing.

[Duncan]

I've always found her style a little lawyerly, even when she was a intermittent poster on some forums. Not sure I've read enough of the unofficial stuff to comment on that.

Regardless, accusing a professional lawyer of sounding lawyerly strikes me as a little odd. Most of us will use the skills and toolset we are most proficient with to resolve the obstacles we face.

While that can create style mismatches in instances such as this not sure it warrants the level of negative attention it had been drawing.

 

 

i dunno, to me it isn't what she is saying but what she intends to do that people find objectionable

[Stone holm]

I've always found her style a little lawyerly, even when she was a intermittent poster on some forums. Not sure I've read enough of the unofficial stuff to comment on that.

Regardless, accusing a professional lawyer of sounding lawyerly strikes me as a little odd. Most of us will use the skills and toolset we are most proficient with to resolve the obstacles we face.

While that can create style mismatches in instances such as this not sure it warrants the level of negative attention it had been drawing.

Sometimes I think unprofessional lawyers tend to use "legal speak" more than professional ones. Or was that intended as a superfluous redundancy?

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

It's not a narrow interpretation. You tell somebody something they've done is "potentially actionable" as an accusation that he has violated civil law and with the intent to make him stew with worry over whether you intend to take him to court.

Kelly's use of that phrase reflects hostility in this context, especially when she has no reasonable chance of prevailing in court, as she surely must realize.

Edited July 26, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[jwhitlock]

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.

 

This is quite interesting. If someone comes to me and tells me that they think something I've done is "legally actionable", and then proceed to slander me in other ways, I'm going to feel threatened - and reasonably so.

 

And here you are telling us to ignore the common sense reading into what she's saying. You're instead going to interpret it properly for us.

 

Of course, your inconsistency has been rather glaring. Here you tell us that "She never said anything about legal action" when she specifically uses the phrase "legally actionable".

 

And smac isn't comprehending what he's reading? He isn't the one with the growing credibility problem here.

[smac97]

You are entitled to your "interpretation".

As are you.

The difference is that my interpretation is informed by many years of experience in working with lawyers. In my experience, Lawyer X telling Lawyer Y that Lawyer Y's conduct is "potentially actionable" is threatening a lawsuit, and nothing else.

Now, it may be an empty threat. It may be a threat which Kate Kelly has no plans to actualize. But to suggest that her remark is not a threat at all is just, well, wrong.

 

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.

Which would make it an empty threat, but a threat nonetheless.

Lawyers do this all the time. They threaten to do things, but they don't intend on actually following through with the threatened action.

 

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".

A threat would also be Lawyer X telling Lawyer Y that Lawyer Y's conduct is "potentially actionable." Neither your nor my respective scenario has an exclusive claim to being a "threat."

 

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.

Again, "potentially actionable" is lawyerspeak for "I am thinking about suing you." That's all it means. It's a threat. Whether the lawyer really means to file suit or not is another question. But it's a threat nonetheless.

 

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.

Mindreading, are we?

I am not claiming to know Kate Kelly's mind. I am simply taking her statement at face value. "Potentially actionable" is lawyerspeak for "I am thinking about suing you."

Actually, I think we are sort of talking past each other now. You seem to think that a lawyer making an empty threat (that is, one which she does not intend to follow up on) is not making a threat at all. I, on the other hand, think that lawyers make empty threats all the time, and that Kate Kelly's statement could be either an empty threat or a genuine, I-intend-to-file-suit-if-I-don't-get-my-way type of threat. I'm content to leave as unanswered the question of which type of threat she had in mind.

 

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.

"Possibly actionable" means the stake president's actions "possibly contravene legal protections," and are thus "actionable," as in filing a lawsuit. As in Kate Kelly filing a lawsuit. Against her stake president, and very likely the Church itself. I'm not sure why this is such a painful point for you to concede, but you are conceding it. In a roundabout way, to be sure. But Kate Kelly's statement about conduct being "potentially actionable" refers to legal "action" which she could "potentially" take against her stake president and the Church. That, my friend, is a "threat."

And for the second time, what sort of legal claims do you think she could pursue against her stake president and/or the Church? This is a sincere, non-rhetorical question. I'd really like to hear what you have to say about this.

 

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

Yes, she did. "Potentially actionable" is lawyerspeak for "I am thinking about suing you." It may be an empty threat, but that doesn't mean it wasn't a threat at all.

 

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.

I have not misrepresented her. It is strange that you concede I am entitled to my "interpretation," only to label it as "totally misrepresnt(ing)" Kate Kelly. Kate Kelly, a lawyer, has used a phrase while communicating with another lawyer that is widely and broadly understood in that profession as a threat of legal action. Mine is a totally viable and reasonable interpretation of her statement.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 26, 2014 by smac97

[Scott Lloyd]

If she's appealing and she's using legal language, it shows she thinks her approach might work. Or maybe she's not really trying to appeal and it's more about negative publicity for the church again?

Even when one has minimal chance of prevailing in court there may be other motives for pursuing a case. One is, as you say, to embarrass or bring down bad public opinion on a party. Another might be simply to annoy or harass someone. Joseph Smith's enemies frequently abused the legal system for just those purposes.

[smac97]

She's a lawyer.

She likely always uses legal speak... That is after all how she speaks.

I have no idea what her intentions are and don't much like how she is doing stuff. That said, not liking the style of her writing and accessing her of threatening to sue the church are very different things.

She did not threaten to sue the church.

So you "have no idea what her intentions are," but you know for a fact that her intentions do not include suing the Church. Please explain how you arrived at this conclusion.

And yes, she did threaten to sue. The threat was directed against her stake president, who was acting solely in his capacity as a stake president, and hence as an agent for the Church. General principles of agency law, specifically the doctrine of respondeat superior, would, I think, require the Church to be named as a party in any anticipated litigation.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Scott Lloyd]

If she's appealing and she's using legal language, it shows she thinks her approach might work. Or maybe she's not really trying to appeal and it's more about negative publicity for the church again?

Even when one has minimal chance of prevailing in court there may be other motives for pursuing a case. One is, as you say, to embarrass or bring down bad public opinion on a party. Another might be simply to annoy or harass someone. Joseph Smith's enemies frequently abused the legal system for just those purposes.

[mormonnewb]

This is quite interesting. If someone comes to me and tells me that they think something I've done is "legally actionable", and then proceed to slander me in other ways, I'm going to feel threatened - and reasonably so.

And here you are telling us to ignore the common sense reading into what she's saying. You're instead going to interpret it properly for us.

Of course, your inconsistency has been rather glaring. Here you tell us that "She never said anything about legal action" when she specifically uses the phrase "legally actionable".

And smac isn't comprehending what he's reading? He isn't the one with the growing credibility problem here.

I don't believe she used the term "legally actionable" but rather just "actionable." In any case, pointing out that someone has committed a civil wrong is NOT a threat to sue them.

How many times have people on this board described KK's actions as "trespassing on church property"? I believe that a church spokesperson has even described it that way. Should KK take that as a threat that she will be arrested and jailed for her "crime"?

Finally, if she has threatened to sue, she has done a really poor job of delivering the threat. Who is she planning to sue -- her local leaders and/or the Church itself? If so, what are her in demands in exchange for not filing this lawsuit? To be reinstated to full participation? Or perhaps, just to be disfellowshipped?

And on what time frame must the unspecified defendants take action to avoid this "threat" so that KK can stop her race to the courthouse?

Finally, it would be EXTREMELY poor legal strategy to publish her threat on the Internet. After all, the purpose of threatening litigation is to get an out of court settlement. In almost all cases, a person settling out of court will want as much secrecy as possible. However, KK has already laid out her terms for settlement (according to Team Threat). There is no way for the Church to take her offer without letting the whole world know that it rescinded excommunication to avoid a lawsuit. It simply can't set that kind of precedent.

Given what I've been able to glean from her CV, I wasn't HALF the lawyer that KK is, and even I can see how this "incompetence" might rise to the level of malpractice. And oh yeah, if you're reading this Sister Kelly, I am NOT threatening to sue you for malpractice (even though I used the term TWICE in this post).

[mormonnewb]

This is quite interesting. If someone comes to me and tells me that they think something I've done is "legally actionable", and then proceed to slander me in other ways, I'm going to feel threatened - and reasonably so.

And here you are telling us to ignore the common sense reading into what she's saying. You're instead going to interpret it properly for us.

Of course, your inconsistency has been rather glaring. Here you tell us that "She never said anything about legal action" when she specifically uses the phrase "legally actionable".

And smac isn't comprehending what he's reading? He isn't the one with the growing credibility problem here.

I don't believe she used the term "legally actionable" but rather just "actionable." In any case, pointing out that someone has committed a civil wrong is NOT a threat to sue them.

How many times have people on this board described KK's actions as "trespassing on church property"? I believe that a church spokesperson has even described it that way. Should KK take that as a threat that she will be arrested and jailed for her "crime"?

Finally, if she has threatened to sue, she has done a really poor job of delivering the threat. Who is she planning to sue -- her local leaders and/or the Church itself? If so, what are her in demands in exchange for not filing this lawsuit? To be reinstated to full participation? Or perhaps, just to be disfellowshipped?

And on what time frame must the unspecified defendants take action to avoid this "threat" so that KK can stop her race to the courthouse?

Finally, it would be EXTREMELY poor legal strategy to publish her threat on the Internet. After all, the purpose of threatening litigation is to get an out of court settlement. In almost all cases, a person settling out of court will want as much secrecy as possible. However, KK has already laid out her terms for settlement (according to Team Threat). There is no way for the Church to take her offer without letting the whole world know that it rescinded excommunication to avoid a lawsuit. It simply can't set that kind of precedent.

Given what I've been able to glean from her CV, I wasn't HALF the lawyer that KK is, and even I can see how this "incompetence" might rise to the level of malpractice. And oh yeah, if you're reading this Sister Kelly, I am NOT threatening to sue you for malpractice (even though I used the term TWICE in this post).

[smac97]

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

I "imagined" one lawyer telling another that his conduct is "potentially actionable?"

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

She's a lawyer.

She likely always uses legal speak... That is after all how she speaks.

I have no idea what her intentions are and don't much like how she is doing stuff. That said, not liking the style of her writing and accessing her of threatening to sue the church are very different things.

She did not threaten to sue the church.

So you "have no idea what her intentions are," but you know for a fact that her intentions do not include suing the Church. Please explain how you arrived at this conclusion.

And yes, she did threaten to sue. The threat was directed against her stake president, who was acting solely in his capacity as a stake president, and hence as an agent for the Church. General principles of agency law, specifically the doctrine of respondeat superior, would, I think, require the Church to be named as a party in any anticipated litigation.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

This is quite interesting. If someone comes to me and tells me that they think something I've done is "legally actionable", and then proceed to slander me in other ways, I'm going to feel threatened - and reasonably so.

She said that the stake president's conduct is "potentially actionable" (she did not say "legally actionable").

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

I am unclear as to the big deal about saying that Kate Kelly has threatened to sue the Church.

First, she has so threatened. "Potentially actionable" is lawyerspeak for "I am thinking about suing you," or perhaps "I could sue you if I wanted to."

Second, her threat, if carried out, is vacuous. The Church has no exposure to liability. It would just be a gimmick for Kate Kelly to garner more attention to herself, and so be just another in a long line of gimmicks (publishing her letter to the stake president, her previous publication of her bishop's letter, trespassing and protesting on Temple Square, protesting at the Conference Center, trying her hand at Orwellian newspeak (she is not "protesting," she is engaging in "faithful agitation"), aligning with excommunicated apostates to schedule a quasi-church meeting which conflicted with a General Conference session, encouraging church members to "raise hell" in the Church, and so on and so forth).

Finally, threatening to sue the Church is no more outrageous than her various other antics (see above). In fact, I find it rather mundane compared to some of the more outrageous things she has done. So why the hissy fit over the fairly reasonable observation that her letter today includes a threat to sue the Church? Why is that such a big deal?

Thanks,

-Smac

[jwhitlock]

She said that the stake president's conduct is "potentially actionable" (she did not say "legally actionable").

Thanks,

-Smac

 

I stand corrected on the terminology.

 

Perhaps some real world examples would serve to demonstrate the threat implied by "potentially actionable".

 

If the mods on this board tell me something I don't like about one of my posts and I tell them that what they did was "potentially actionable", I wonder how fast I'd get banned.

 

If I told my boss at work that something he did or said to me was "potentially actionable", I wonder how fast I'd get reprimanded or fired.

 

If I tell a TSA worker at the airport that what they're doing is "potentially actionable", I wonder when I'm going to be able to catch another flight because I'm going to miss mine.

 

If I have a nasty disagreement with someone doing work for me on my house, and I tell them that what they've done is "potentially actionable", I wonder if they're going to do anything else for me without getting their lawyer involved.

 

You're correct that Kate Kelly has made a threat. That's more than clear. You're also correct that it's most likely an empty threat, but it is still a threat. Most likely it's simply being used for effect and to play to the home crowd who are more than willing to applaud what she is doing.

[smac97]

I don't believe she used the term "legally actionable" but rather just "actionable."

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

 

In any case, pointing out that someone has committed a civil wrong is NOT a threat to sue them.

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.

 

How many times have people on this board described KK's actions as "trespassing on church property"?

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.

 

Finally, if she has threatened to sue, she has done a really poor job of delivering the threat.

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

 

Who is she planning to sue -- her local leaders and/or the Church itself?

Both, I would think.

 

If so, what are her in demands in exchange for not filing this lawsuit? To be reinstated to full participation? Or perhaps, just to be disfellowshipped?

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.

 

And on what time frame must the unspecified defendants take action to avoid this "threat" so that KK can stop her race to the courthouse?

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.

 

Finally, it would be EXTREMELY poor legal strategy to publish her threat on the Internet.

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

Edited July 26, 2014 by smac97

[why me]

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

Thanks,

-Smac

Kate has managed to create an organization that was radical feminist, thereby alienating scores of lds women and men. Her mistake was in her ideology and in her ineptness in believing that she was untouchable. She seemed to see herself as more important than she actually was. The lds church is made up of very intelligent people and it is a relatively small church. Movements such as kate's can cause immense problems for a small church through their attempts to create cracks in its foundation.

 

And so far, groups like kate's are very american in orientation. Most members in other parts of the world would never be able to understand such an organization as kate's because their history is different from kate's american upbringing and in her philosophical foundation in identity politics. So, far the new women's movement in the lds church is typically rooted in american understandings which in itself is alienating to women in other parts of the world, for example, in russia or in africa.

 

It is the anglo-amer-centricism of the lds women movement that is the problem and where kate also made a mistake as are many other lds women who are rooted in anglo-american-centrism.