Scott Lloyd Posted September 3, 2018 Posted September 3, 2018 (edited) 6 hours ago, Calm said: Smac...and other lawyers or trained in the law... Is there any validity to the claim of assault because the bishop (assuming it was him) held her arm and touched her back and essentially pushed her away from the pulpit? I’m skeptical that it is unlawful to bodily remove from the premises one who persistently disrupts a meeting or assembly. I’ve seen it done at political rallies, lectures and the like. I’ve even seen it done at larger Church functions, such as in the Conference Center or the Salt Lake Tabernacle by what were probably security personnel or ushers. How would it be qualitatively different from removing an unruly individual from a theater or concert hall during a public performance? But I’m definitely no attorney or legal expert. Edited September 4, 2018 by Scott Lloyd 2
provoman Posted September 3, 2018 Posted September 3, 2018 1 hour ago, Calm said: Smac...and other lawyers or trained in the law... Is there any validity to the claim of assault because the bishop (assuming it was him) held her arm and touched her back and essentially pushed her away from the pulpit? I can only offer that Arizona is a comparative fault State, thus in a tort action, whatever amount of money the plaintiff would be granted is reduced by their % of fault.
Hamba Tuhan Posted September 3, 2018 Posted September 3, 2018 42 minutes ago, Calm said: The public rationale is so inconsistent. Making it quite clear that the real rationale is something else altogether. 1
provoman Posted September 3, 2018 Posted September 3, 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, juliann said: That would have been so unexpected I can see how they would have been so stunned and worried about how to get her out that they wouldn’t have thought about it. Which means that it is now time to have a procedure in place. I can only wonder if she thinks her lawsuit is past hope or her lawyer is trying to extricate himself from her ongoing train wreck. What in the world would motivate her to do that after the last disaster she created. I am sure she got some "legal advice" about her planned provocation; and with "friends" like nnn the stupidity of ones choices almost seem boundless. 2 hours ago, juliann said: Not knowing who she was, I wonder if there should be a procedure to evacuate the chapel. My first concern is that crazy lady would pull out a gun at the end of her bizarre speech. Did she miss the memo that Bishop resigned his membership so no one there was harboring him? According to the mob he didn't resign because he still attends sacrement at takes the sacrment Edited September 3, 2018 by provoman
Calm Posted September 4, 2018 Posted September 4, 2018 17 minutes ago, provoman said: According to the mob he didn't resign because he still attends sacrement at takes the sacrment I didn't see a face, but it looked like his head and if him, he was sitting at the back alone except for another older man (50s or 60s so maybe a son? Maybe someone assigned to stay with him). Somehow I don't see him as likely in full fellowship (as in everyone pretending nothing is wrong).
Avatar4321 Posted September 4, 2018 Posted September 4, 2018 7 hours ago, provoman said: She and NNN showed up a F&T meeting, she was escorted from the stand. NNN lamented that he didn't get to hear her give your "talk" - I do not know why he used the word talk. I also do not know if he was on Church property at the time, - after he was arrested at a Temple, NNN posted on his FB that he would never step foot on Church property....hmmmm. Hopefully, the Church will file trespass against both of them. I wonder what her Attorney thinks of her antics of showing up a former defendants ward to make a spectacle. NNN?
Avatar4321 Posted September 4, 2018 Posted September 4, 2018 3 hours ago, MiserereNobis said: I watched it. What a lame stunt. Isn't there a way to turn off the microphone? She is right that they cannot physically remove her (as far as I understand the law, someone could correct me). Who's the guy with her? Her lawyer needs to tell her to shut up and stop ruining the chances of her case. My understanding of her case is it’s a long shot anyway. when did this fast and testimony meeting happen? Yesterday?
Avatar4321 Posted September 4, 2018 Posted September 4, 2018 3 hours ago, Truth2Tell said: What else do you expect in Utah? There is no respect for either separation of church and state or conflict of interest. There is no conflict 1
Calm Posted September 4, 2018 Posted September 4, 2018 (edited) 4 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said: when did this fast and testimony meeting happen? Yesterday? Yes Hopefully none of the funds donated for her legal expenses and basic needs were diverted to this prank. Edited September 4, 2018 by Calm
Avatar4321 Posted September 4, 2018 Posted September 4, 2018 2 hours ago, Calm said: Smac...and other lawyers or trained in the law... Is there any validity to the claim of assault because the bishop (assuming it was him) held her arm and touched her back and essentially pushed her away from the pulpit? Not sure about Utah but most assault statute require an intent to do harm or recklessly endangering 1
Avatar4321 Posted September 4, 2018 Posted September 4, 2018 47 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said: Making it quite clear that the real rationale is something else altogether. I suspect that expecting consistent rationales from those influenced by the Adversary is unreasonable 1
Avatar4321 Posted September 4, 2018 Posted September 4, 2018 11 minutes ago, Calm said: Yes Hopefully none of the funds donated for her legal expenses and basic needs were diverted to this prank. I’m sorry this ward has their fast and testimony meeting interrupted. We had one of the most spiritual fast and testimony meetings in a while. A lot of focus on the restoration which I suspect was for the several investigators we had 2
smac97 Posted September 4, 2018 Posted September 4, 2018 2 hours ago, Calm said: Smac...and other lawyers or trained in the law... Is there any validity to the claim of assault because the bishop (assuming it was him) held her arm and touched her back and essentially pushed her away from the pulpit? Broadly speaking, assault refers to the threat to make harmful or offense of physical contact, and Battery refers to the actual harmful or offensive physical contact. In this case, there does not appear to have been any harmful contact, as all he did was touch her arm. Offensive physical contact generally refers to touching someone in a physically inappropriate way or an inappropriate location on the body. That did not appear to happen here, so in the absence of our harmful or offensive physical contact, I don't think that a criminal charge is feasible. Moreover, she was being disruptive and defensive in her own conduct. I would be very surprised if a prosecutor presented those charges. She could of course file a civil claim against the bishop. I don't think she would want on that either. 3
USU78 Posted September 4, 2018 Posted September 4, 2018 2 hours ago, provoman said: I can only offer that Arizona is a comparative fault State, thus in a tort action, whatever amount of money the plaintiff would be granted is reduced by their % of fault. Isn't comparative fault a negligence defense? Not an intentional tort defense? 1
Calm Posted September 4, 2018 Posted September 4, 2018 2 minutes ago, USU78 said: Isn't comparative fault a negligence defense? Not an intentional tort defense? Meaning?
USU78 Posted September 4, 2018 Posted September 4, 2018 1 minute ago, Calm said: Meaning? I'm confused by PM's offering.
Avatar4321 Posted September 4, 2018 Posted September 4, 2018 7 minutes ago, USU78 said: Isn't comparative fault a negligence defense? Not an intentional tort defense? Not sure what damages there could be for being escorted off property. Is she alleging any injuries?
Calm Posted September 4, 2018 Posted September 4, 2018 (edited) 17 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said: Not sure what damages there could be for being escorted off property. Is she alleging any injuries? I doubt it, I suspect she would just claim someone put their hands on her and forced her to move. He certainly looked gentle and wasn't that insistent to begin with probably he expected she wouldn't be rude enough to grab the pulpit or whatever she did and refuse, but he did eventually pushed her away from the pulpit, probably by using his height and weight. A second man came to stand on her other side, but he moved off pretty quickly which was wise imo. Two women, no problem as unlikely to be able to get physically rough without being obvious, but two men could lead to more dramatics, claims of her being hurt, etc. Edited September 4, 2018 by Calm
Scott Lloyd Posted September 4, 2018 Posted September 4, 2018 1 hour ago, smac97 said: Broadly speaking, assault refers to the threat to make harmful or offense of physical contact, and Battery refers to the actual harmful or offensive physical contact. In this case, there does not appear to have been any harmful contact, as all he did was touch her arm. Offensive physical contact generally refers to touching someone in a physically inappropriate way or an inappropriate location on the body. That did not appear to happen here, so in the absence of our harmful or offensive physical contact, I don't think that a criminal charge is feasible. Moreover, she was being disruptive and defensive in her own conduct. I would be very surprised if a prosecutor presented those charges. She could of course file a civil claim against the bishop. I don't think she would want on that either. Smac, could you address whether the local leadership would have the right to have her bodily removed for trespass and being persistently disruptive during a worship service?
Tacenda Posted September 4, 2018 Posted September 4, 2018 (edited) 27 minutes ago, Calm said: I doubt it, I suspect she would just claim someone put their hands on her and forced her to move. He certainly looked gentle and wasn't that insistent to begin with probably he expected she wouldn't be rude enough to grab the pulpit or whatever she did and refuse, but he did eventually pushed her away from the pulpit, probably by using his height and weight. A second man came to stand on her other side, but he moved off pretty quickly which was wise imo. Two women, no problem as unlikely to be able to get physically rough without being obvious, but two men could lead to more dramatics, claims of her being hurt, etc. As much as I hated that McKenna did this, and has NNN as her partner in crime or whatever, I hated to see two men take hold of her like that, like we need to hide something. Just let her speak her peace and then get up and say something Christ-like and mention that there is a case going on but the verdict is still out on it, and maybe have some kind of hymn to bring back the spirit? Edited September 4, 2018 by Tacenda
Exiled Posted September 4, 2018 Posted September 4, 2018 43 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said: Not sure what damages there could be for being escorted off property. Is she alleging any injuries? Damages seem to be negligable and I don't think any charges for assault will be forthcoming. I think she could make out a case for battery as the touching was offensive. However, there is little if any physical impact, so damages are little if any.
Popular Post Calm Posted September 4, 2018 Popular Post Posted September 4, 2018 (edited) 10 minutes ago, Tacenda said: As much as I hated that McKenna did this, and has NNN as her partner in crime or whatever, I hated to see two men take hold of her like that, like we need to hide something. Just let her speak her peace and then get up and say something Christ-like and mention that there is a case going on but the verdict is still out on it, and maybe have some kind of hymn to bring back the spirit? Right, because 12 year old kids and younger should be forced to listen to someone describe a rape. There is not going to be anything traumatic for them in that. Her choice to put kids in this position deeply angers me. If she has chosen to wait until SS when no kids were present, I would likely be rolling my eyes, but that would be it. Edited September 4, 2018 by Calm 7
Avatar4321 Posted September 4, 2018 Posted September 4, 2018 14 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Smac, could you address whether the local leadership would have the right to have her bodily removed for trespass and being persistently disruptive during a worship service? I would think the answer is yes. Such behavior in some states might constitute the crime of disorderly conduct. smac might be able to better answer the specifics for there though
Tacenda Posted September 4, 2018 Posted September 4, 2018 (edited) 19 minutes ago, Calm said: Right, because 12 year old kids and younger should be forced to listen to someone describe a rape. There is not going to be anything traumatic for them in that. Her choice to put kids in this position deeply angers me. If she has chosen to wait until SS when no kids were present, I would likely be rolling my eyes, but that would be it. Oh, I didn't think of that, yeah, lame. She should have known better. But the younger ones, would they know what pedophile or rape mean? And don't children hear those words on the news all the time. And what about getting questioned in bishop's interviews with the word masturbate? Or other words that some on here think children should know about? ETA: Or the youth that heard this will make sure to speak out against anyone that tries anything on them. That will forever stay in their minds that they are not to take sexual abuse of any kind. I think we need to openly discuss this problem in the world. Time to shout to the roof tops. Edited September 4, 2018 by Tacenda
Recommended Posts