Kate Kelly Is Threatening To Sue The Lds Church

[Bikeemikey]

Point well taken. But my main thought is that if she were shown to be suffering from a personality disorder, many of her followers would likely take a step or two back and do some serious rethinking. Enough said. Will 'see' everyone in about 5 hours.

If someone was able to demonstrate that Joseph Smith had a mental disorder would step back and do some serious rethinking, or would it just be more evidence of God using the weak things of the earth?

Edited July 26, 2014 by Bikeemikey

[Calm]

Well she sort of used that tactic to dismiss feminists who disagreed with her, but it was ridiculous then if taken seriously and unless I've missed something major, it would be ridiculous to apply it to her. And inappropriate all around.

[USU78]

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

this is getting ridiculous. There is only 1 way to read this. When I saw what she had written, my first thoughts were, bring it!it is not even a close question

[jwhitlock]

No he is not correct. She did not threaten to sue the Church. She did not threaten to sue the stake president. And, all your examples demonstrate that you do not understand the context in which the "potentially actionable" statement was made. Each of your examples involves conduct that was committed, and your "potentially actionable" comments refer to past actions or present actions being committed (TSA example). Has the stake president gone to the media "to correct the public record regarding your standing in the Church." (allegedly the stake president made this statement to kate kelly via email) If the stake president did not go to the media then the stake president has not committed the conduct; which means Smac also error with this statement "Kate Kelly, a lawyer, told her stake president, another lawyer, that his conduct was "potentially actionable." There was no conduct on the part of the stake president, so she was not stating "that his conduct" was potentially action. She was quite clearly stating that the alleged potential future actions were "potentially action".

 

Your comment is pretty irrational, as the highlighted section demonstrates.

 

This is pretty twisted.

[jwhitlock]

 

 

Let me be perfectly clear.  I am NOT objective here.  I am very much in Sister Kelly's corner.  I am incredibly impressed by her courage and tenacity.  I'm also impressed by her ability to organize and mobilize.

 

Now, as for her needing a man to protect her, if that is true, then what does it say for the 20-30 MEN on this board protecting the Brethren for this MERE woman?  I guess they need YOUR protection even more.

 

And it's a good thing that the Brethen have such a valiant group of saints to help them in this great work.  I will confess that it takes a lot of courage to stand with the institution against the individual.  Perhaps, that is why Christ continually preached about the importance of casting out the 1 to protect the 99.  He was trying to give us the courage to stand with the rich and powerful because He knew that true progress only comes when people blindly follow the calls of their leaders.

 

It must have taken a lot of courage for those Jewish brothers and sisters to side with the Pharisees and Sadducees and clamor for the crucifixion of Christ.  It would have been so easy to pick up their crosses and follow the Savior, but they had the courage to listen to their leaders.  Of course, their courage must have only been matched by that of the Roman citizens who cheered while their leaders threw the early saints to the lions.  How easy it would have been to raise their voices in defense of religious liberty and risk being thrown into the lion's den themselves.  But let's not forget the courage of that mob that descended on four defenseless men in a jail in Carthage.

 

And I would be remiss in pointing out the great courage of Latter-day Saints who parroted now defunct theories of racial superiority as an act of fidelity to this Church's policy of segregation.  It would have been so easy to face the criticism and ridicule of those who believed the truth about ancient curses and "fence sitting."  Yet, these brave folks had the courage to resist the "philosophies of men" and embrace justifications that turned out to actually be false (at least, according to the Church's most recent statement on the matter).  However, that's not the important thing.  The important thing is that they had the courage to blindly follow error.

 

So yes, I am terribly biased in favor of those who will stand up to the majority to fight for their vision of truth.  These cowardly folks can use all of the support they can get.

 

 

How nice. Comparing church leaders to those who crucified Christ. Telling us that those who stand in opposition to the church are the ones with truth. And, of course, denigrating faithful church members who don't side with the world like you do.

[Calm]

This is another relevant observation regarding the context of this.

And it is still the case that pointing out the "potentially actionable" nature of future actions is still not a threat to sue, even if future actionable actions take place.

Except that is not what she said:

"Your statement denying me confidentiality was shameful, and potentially actionable."

She is claiming his statement to her was potentially actionable. She is not claiming any other action is the issue such as the action his statement was about, but just the statement itself refusing to grant full confidentiality in her view.

She may not have meant that (though I find it hard to believe) but that is what she wrote.

It also doesn't make sense to say of something that hasn't happened yet it "was shameful".

Edited July 26, 2014 by calmoriah

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Having read her letters and seeing her comments, I am convinced, because of experience with a brother in my Branch, that Kate has a high-functioning form of Aspergers and she is completely sincere in her letters and her completely one-sided version of events. That is really how she sees things as happening, she is not being deceptive. And she sincerely cannot comprehend why her former Priesthood holders can't figure out what the heck she is talking about. She has the complete inability to see the other side of an issue.

Edited July 26, 2014 by BookofMormonLuvr

[smac97]

There is a possible element to this whole KK saga that's been prodding its way into my consciousness lately and I've decided I'm finally going to bring it out into the open. Could it be KK is suffering from some sort of personality disorder?

We don't really have any way of discerning that. And it's a far too sensitive topic to speculate about, particularly in an adversarial forum such as this. Let's critique Kate Kelly's actions and avoid conjecture about her mental state.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

I don't know what her intentions are, but I do know that she has not threatened to sue the church.

Whom has she threatened to sue, then? If the stake president's conduct has been "potentially actionable," then against whom is it "actionable?"

I have already presented my view, so I'd like to hear yours, and the basis for it.

 

In order to arrive at the conclusion she has threatened to sue the church you first have to engage in an "interpretation" of what is at best an ambiguous single couplet of words in a much larger letter.

There is no ambiguity in Lawyer X telling Lawyer Y that Lawyer Y's conduct is "potentially actionable." So while I concede that there is ambiguity about how serious her threat is (that is, whether she plans to actually sue, or was instead merely rattling a saber), I see no ambiguity in the existence of the threat itself. It's there, plain as day, for anyone versed in the American legal system to see.

You yourself have already conceded that she was referring to the stake president's conduct as violating the law. I agreed with you. Her statement that his conduct is "actionable" means she is threatening litigation against him (and, via respondeat superior, against the Church). That's all that "potentially actionable means."

 

The letter is entirely about challenging her discipline via the internal church process. It is also pointing out all the ways Kate Kelly feels the action taken against her was unfair.

Whoa, there, bubba! You previously admitted this: "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." But now you're saying that her letter was "entirely" about "internal church processes," and you are specifically omitting the second point you conceded not 24 hours ago (that her letter claims that the stake president's conduct "possibly contravenes legal protections").

Kate Kelly is the one that raised the specter of lawfare against the Church in her letter. It's there. "Potentially actionable" is - even by your (prior, though now apparently discarded as inconvenient) reckoning - a reference to secular law. So her letter affirmatively asserts a claimed violation of secular law by her stake president (which violation would be legally attributable to the Church under agency theory). Kate Kelly is threatening to take legal "action" (as in "potentially actionable") against her stake president (and, almost certainly, against the LDS Church).

 

You say it was a threat, I say it is more likely to be illustrative of her broader concern with her discipline process.

It's both. She has claimed that the stake president's conduct relative to her disciplinary process constitutes a violation of secular law, and that it is "potentially actionable," meaning that she is threatening to pursue litigation about it against her stake president and the LDS Church.

You have previously conceded that I am entitled to my opinion about this matter. You are entitled to yours as well. So we've both had our say, and then some. Let's move on.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 26, 2014 by smac97

[smac97]

Many have to added "legally" in front of actionable as discussion grew. Thanks for correcting that.

How about this, a couple of lawyers from the same firm talking and one of them reviews a situation and makes the comment, you really need to be careful, this is potentially actionable". Is that lawyer attempting to threaten the other lawyer, or simply making an observation.

Lawyers in the same firm are not situated in an adversarial construct. So using the phrase "potentially actionable" in this context would be an observation that someone else might sue. But Kate Kelly is situated to sue her stake president. Her comment was not comparable to the situation above.

I have already conceded that Kate Kelly's comment might be an empty threat. But empty threats are still threats.

Context matters, it is not the case that all instances where using the phrase "potentially actionable" constitute a threat of pending lawsuit.

I agree context matters, which is why I find it amusing that your scenario above A) completely avoids the context in which Kate Kelly's statement was made, and B) instead fabricates an alternative context having no bearing on the situation involving Kate Kelly. You want us to ignore the context. I don't.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

No he is not correct. She did not threaten to sue the Church.

Yes, she did (well, almost certainly).

 

She did not threaten to sue the stake president.

Yes, she did.

 

And, all your examples demonstrate that you do not understand the context in which the "potentially actionable" statement was made. Each of your examples involves conduct that was committed, and your "potentially actionable" comments refer to past actions or present actions being committed (TSA example). Has the stake president gone to the media "to correct the public record regarding your standing in the Church." (allegedly the stake president made this statement to kate kelly via email)

Nope. But that only means that Kate Kelly's threat was specious and without legal foundation. But it was still a threat.

And for a person lecturing others on "context," you seem to be missing it yourself. Here's what Kate Kelly said: "Your statement denying me confidentiality was shameful, and potentially actionable."

She was speaking of conduct - the stake president's "statement" - that had already occurred. Her accusation is that her stake president's "statement . . . was . . . potentially actionable." She did not qualify her statement by saying something like "If you proceed to act on your statement and deny my request for absolute confidentiality by notifying others about a change in my membership status, then you will have engaged in conduct that is potentially actionable." She claimed that past conduct by the stake president was "legally actionable."

Now, she happens to be wrong about that. Spectacularly wrong. Embarrassingly wrong. Holy-cow-are-you-really-an-attorney kind of wrong. The stake president's conduct is not "potentially actionable." But she has threatened litigation over it anyway.

 

If the stake president did not go to the media then the stake president has not committed the conduct;

That's not what Kate Kelly said. She said his statement "was ... potentially actionable." "Was." Completed action. The cause of action - whatever she thinks it is - has accrued.

 

which means Smac also error with this statement "Kate Kelly, a lawyer, told her stake president, another lawyer, that his conduct was "potentially actionable."

This is becoming a bit amusing. There is no dispute that Kate Kelly wrote the letter I quoted. Or that she is a lawyer. Or that her stake president is a lawyer. Or that she referred to his conduct (his statement) as "potentially actionable." So there is not any portion of my letter that is factually incorrect, but you nonetheless call it an "error."

 

There was no conduct on the part of the stake president,

No conduct? He did not write the email that Kate Kelly says he wrote? Writing is not "conduct?"

Let me clarify: Kate Kelly has alleged that her stake president's conduct, consisting of writing an email to her, "was . . . potentially actionable." Does that help?

 

so she was not stating "that his conduct" was potentially action. She was quite clearly stating that the alleged potential future actions were "potentially action".

The phrase is "potentially actionable." "Actionable" in this context refers to filing a lawsuit, and to nothing else.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 26, 2014 by smac97

[smac97]

" you really need to be careful, this is potentially actionable"

Since Kelly is the only one who could bring a suit, are you suggesting her comment means something like "you need to be really careful, I would hate to have to sue you"?

Since she is the only one capable of having standing to sue, if she didn't have a possible lawsuit in mind, why would she even bring it up as potentially actionable?

It is only potentially actionable for her. The context is of her being a potential suitor (no sleep for way too long, this is mean being lazy, not funny...what is the right word? Plaintiff?) and the other being the potential suitee.

So by Bikeemikey's apparent reckoning, we're reduced to re-defining Kate Kelly's threat to an indirect, "Nice place you have it, it'd be a shame if something were to happen to it" kind of wink-wink, nudge-nudge, "observation." Apparently someone else might sue her stake president, and Kate Kelly was just making an observation about it.

Well, that doesn't work. She is the only one in a position to sue. Her statement was a threat of legal action. It may be an empty threat, but it was a threat nonetheless.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 26, 2014 by smac97

[smac97]

this is getting ridiculous. There is only 1 way to read this.

Well, what do we know? We only have 40 years of legal practice between us. Perhaps by "potentially actionable" Kate Kelly was referring to the possibility of Trey Parker and Matt Stone turning her story into a Broadway musical! They'll name it "Gimme the Priesthood, And Nothing Less Will Suffice!" With lyrics by Robert Lopez!

Yeah, that's the ticket! Lawyers using the words "potentially actionable" in communications with other lawyers are referring to Broadway action. Yeah, baby!

When I saw what she had written, my first thoughts were, bring it!it is not even a close question

That's what I thought, too. But why the fuss about it? Kate Kelly has done plenty of outrageous, beyond-the-pale things. Why is her threat to sue her stake president and the Church just too horrible to admit?

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

Having read her letters and seeing her comments, I am convinced, because of experience with a brother in my Branch, that Kate has a high-functioning form of Aspergers and she is completely sincere in her letters and her completely one-sided version of events. That is really how she sees things as happening, she is not being deceptive. And she sincerely cannot comprehend why her former Priesthood holders can't figure out what the heck she is talking about. She has the complete inability to see the other side of an issue.

Again, public speculation about Kate Kelly's mental state is inappropriate. Please do not do it, at least not in this thread.

Thanks

-Smac

[Teancum]

She is using the tactics of a bully.  Give me what I want or I will hurt you.  I read somewhere (can't find it now) she has never been one to accept no as an answer.

Sort of like the church did with her....take down your site, stop speaking publicly about women receiving the priesthood or we will kick you out, which they did.

[Teancum]

What's the line, they can leave the church but not leave it alone.

Kate did not leave she was kicked out.

[Analytics]

Put me back in the church or I'll sue.  "Are you threatening me?"  She has really gone of the deep end here. She cannot sue for being ex'd. I mean she can try I just don't think she, as a lawyer, has really thought this one through. And no, "It has also been an extremely negative experience for thousands of other Mormons with questions and concerns about gender inequality"

 

She is making this up.

 

 

Some years ago I heard a discussion about the power newspaper editors have to sway public opinion.  One person said it was the editor in charge of the editorial section that had the most influence.  The person in-the-know said no, it's the title editor that has the most power.  By carefully choosing the title of articles, you can sharply influence what people think and what they feel.

 

This thread is a perfect example of that.  Buried in the letter is a sentence that says, that if the church were to publicly releases confidential information about her, that might be actionable (and the whole purpose of that section of the letter is to explain why she didn't want to attend the excommunication via a video link).  Smac says that the only confidential information that the Stake President threatened to publicly divulge was whether or not Kate Kelly is a member in good standing.  Does he really think that Kate Kelly was threatening, "If you let the world know that I'm no longer a member in good standing, I'll sue you!"  Give me a break.

 

An honest title would be: Kate Kelly Appeals Her Excommunication.  Instead, Smac chose one that demonstrably leads casual readers to believe she said something to the effect, "put me back in the church or I'll sue."   Well done Smac, well done.

Edited July 26, 2014 by Analytics

[Hestia]

mormonweb is out of topic for continual personal accusations.

[Hestia]

Do not speculate on psychological state of mind. Keep discussion based on the facts.

[ERayR]

 

 

Let me be perfectly clear.  I am NOT objective here.  I am very much in Sister Kelly's corner.  I am incredibly impressed by her courage and tenacity.  I'm also impressed by her ability to organize and mobilize.

 

Now, as for her needing a man to protect her, if that is true, then what does it say for the 20-30 MEN on this board protecting the Brethren for this MERE woman?  I guess they need YOUR protection even more.

 

And it's a good thing that the Brethen have such a valiant group of saints to help them in this great work.  I will confess that it takes a lot of courage to stand with the institution against the individual.  Perhaps, that is why Christ continually preached about the importance of casting out the 1 to protect the 99.  He was trying to give us the courage to stand with the rich and powerful because He knew that true progress only comes when people blindly follow the calls of their leaders.

 

It must have taken a lot of courage for those Jewish brothers and sisters to side with the Pharisees and Sadducees and clamor for the crucifixion of Christ.  It would have been so easy to pick up their crosses and follow the Savior, but they had the courage to listen to their leaders.  Of course, their courage must have only been matched by that of the Roman citizens who cheered while their leaders threw the early saints to the lions.  How easy it would have been to raise their voices in defense of religious liberty and risk being thrown into the lion's den themselves.  But let's not forget the courage of that mob that descended on four defenseless men in a jail in Carthage.

 

And I would be remiss in pointing out the great courage of Latter-day Saints who parroted now defunct theories of racial superiority as an act of fidelity to this Church's policy of segregation.  It would have been so easy to face the criticism and ridicule of those who believed the truth about ancient curses and "fence sitting."  Yet, these brave folks had the courage to resist the "philosophies of men" and embrace justifications that turned out to actually be false (at least, according to the Church's most recent statement on the matter).  However, that's not the important thing.  The important thing is that they had the courage to blindly follow error.

 

So yes, I am terribly biased in favor of those who will stand up to the majority to fight for their vision of truth.  These cowardly folks can use all of the support they can get.

 

 

A question if you don't mind:  What was it that brought you to this church from your Baptist roots?

[Scott Lloyd]

I was listening to a podcast with Maxine Hanks. I think it was on Mormon Matters. She mentioned that those (September 6) who actually went to their Church court avoided excommunication. Sending a thousand support letters and strongly worded demands/pronunciations to the council and refusing to appear (even by Skype) do not bode well for someone who wants to avoid discipline. It is almost like a someone daring you to do something and the Church loses either way. If she were to appear in person to her appeals and show any signs of remorse or faith-it might make a difference in her appeal. Since this seems to be more about other opportunities to demean the Church in the court of public opinion, I doubt she will be showing up to an appeal.

As far as a lawsuit or legalese, the legalese drenches her communications with the Church. She hash`t threatened a lawsuit, but she is constantly making judgements and implying that she will continue to push and drag the Church through the mud in any means at her disposal. Since legal means are at her disposal, it raises the possibility. It is so sad and so obvious that she is trying to extort the Church bending to her cause or else.

From the impudent tone of her latest communications with the stake president, I don't see how she can hope for a reinstatement on appeal. Rather, I think she is pursuing yet more public attention in her effort to embarrass and bring public pressure on the Church.

[Storm Rider]

and yet that is exactly what this lawyer, Ms. KK, did.  She is not stupid; she is not ignorant of the law, she is a lawyer and she knew exactly what she was saying.  But, I guess for those who are bending over backwards to not dare to besmirch the sanctity and holy reverence that we should pay this 15 minute glory hound, Ms. KK was not completely blunt.

 

I am so glad you use that same standard when it comes to the church.

[ERayR]

There is a possible element to this whole KK saga that's been prodding its way into my consciousness lately and I've decided I'm finally going to bring it out into the open. Could it be KK is suffering from some sort of personality disorder? I ask this question quite compassionately and sincerely because though I'm not a medical professional, I've had the unfortunate experience of having to deal with some folks with personality disorders, and what I've learned is a real eye-opener. If there are any professionally qualified board participants willing to comment, it would be interesting to get their input on this possible angle.

It's important to understand that, generally speaking, personality disorders (10 in number) are not considered mental illnesses. Here's the mental health community's official definition of a personality disorder:

"an enduring pattern of inner experience and behavior that deviates markedly from the expectations of the individual’s culture, is pervasive and inflexible, has an onset in adolescence or early adulthood, is stable over time, and leads to distress or impairment. (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual)”

 

If KK is suffering from a personality disorder, it could turn out to be a game changer. For each personality disorder there is a list of diagnostic criteria that must be met before a qualified mental health professional can make a diagnosis.

 

Again, please note I bring up this point in a spirit of respectfulness. From my vantage point, KK's behavior seems so irrational and self-destructive that it begged the asking of  the question.

 

 

Or it could be that she was never taught what no meant.

[ERayR]

Sort of like the church did with her....take down your site, stop speaking publicly about women receiving the priesthood or we will kick you out, which they did.

 

You mean like somebody jabbing at your eyes with a sharp stick.  Are you going to put your hands in your pocket and stand there or are you going to push them away in any way available to you?

[ERayR]

Kate did not leave she was kicked out.

 

No she was warned and she chose to walk away in defiance with her head held high.