Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the News

[Donuthole]

Ahh the old "slippery sloap, stupid or liar" trick when you can't win an argument ... lol.

Why do they want the list counsellor? Because, uhh they like lists? ropeller:

They want the list because they believe it’s reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. And the magistrate apparently agrees. But you wouldn’t understand what that means. Go ahead continuing to apply PoliSci 1010 logic to the situation, though.

[tooblue]

They want the list because they believe it’s reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. And the magistrate apparently agrees. But you wouldn’t understand what that means. Go ahead continuing to apply PoliSci 1010 logic to the situation, though.

I understood what it meant in pointing to the reality of what they are looking for in my original suggestion that scoop hadn't thought this through. Evidently, you hadn't thought this through either until now.

[Moliere]

Call it public knowledge then, if the words public record as a standard do not fit. Regardless, the choice to serve a mission is a private choice someone may or may not choose to make public. But making that choice known to the public does not mean the individual then summarily waives their right to privacy as it relates to that choice.

There are limits. What will litigants ask for next, once or if they receive the list of missionaries—access to their letters sent home to family and friends? Their personal journals—their farewell and homecoming talks?

Oh, it's just a list you say. Horse sh**. The only digging going on here is a lawyer with a weak case looking for something more. They can't get money out the individual who allegedly committed the crime, so they are going after the entity with the deep pockets.

[Donuthole]

Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the News

I understood what it meant in pointing to the reality of what they are looking for in my original suggestion that scoop hadn't thought this through. Evidently, you hadn't thought this through either until now.

My position hasn’t changed. But you are still making a fool of yourself. Which I guess hasn’t changed either.

[tooblue]

The conversation has moved beyond you, as it typically does.

[tooblue]

My position hasn’t changed. But you are still making a fool of yourself. Which I guess hasn’t changed either.

So, a "reasonably calculated [effort that may] lead to the discovery of admissible evidence" could not result in the invasion of privacy? Good to know. Someone tell the Trump administration to stop fighting it and release his damn tax returns already.

[Surfah]

My brain hurts from reading the last two pages.

[clackamascoug]

My brain hurts from reading the last two pages.

I'm not a doctor.... but two advil will help your headache.

[Donuthole]

Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the News

So, a "reasonably calculated [effort that may] lead to the discovery of admissible evidence" could not result in the invasion of privacy? Good to know. Someone tell the Trump administration to stop fighting it and release his damn tax returns already.

An appeal to a modern-day Godwin’s law. Excellent. For the record, nobody said there isn’t privacy that could possibly be invaded. That is your straw man. What has been said is that there is no expectation of privacy as to the fact that someone served a mission for the church. The plaintiff may have any number of designs for its use of that information—that certain persons were missionaries from x date to y date—many of which may be an attempt to violate privacy. But that information itself does not violate privacy. And the legal system is designed to allow the disclosure of non-private information and then preclude further inquiries which would violate privacy.

Think about your position for a minute. You are saying that this is private information, but that the church is willing to waive privacy because it has nothing to hide? Do you really think that’s how the Church’s attorneys approach litigation? Do you really think that’s how the Church treats its parishioners’ private information?

This is my last post on this subject. I’ll not spam the board with further devolution of this dumb argument. So you can have the last word. But I believe both the logic and the law are on the side I’ve advocated.

[LiveCoug]

My brain hurts from reading the last two pages.

[tooblue]

An appeal to a modern-day Godwin’s law. Excellent. For the record, nobody said there isn’t privacy that could possibly be invaded. That is your straw man. What has been said is that there is no expectation of privacy as to the fact that someone served a mission for the church. The plaintiff may have any number of designs for its use of that information—that certain persons were missionaries from x date to y date—many of which may be an attempt to violate privacy. But that information itself does not violate privacy. And the legal system is designed to allow the disclosure of non-private information and then preclude further inquiries which would violate privacy.

Think about your position for a minute. You are saying that this is private information, but that the church is willing to waive privacy because it has nothing to hide? Do you really think that’s how the Church’s attorneys approach litigation? Do you really think that’s how the Church treats its parishioners’ private information?

This is my last post on this subject. I’ll not spam the board with further devolution of this dumb argument. So you can have the last word. But I believe both the logic and the law are on the side I’ve advocated.

First, Trump isn't Hitler.

Second, there is no straw man. I didn't misrepresent anything. What you have written before and after the erroneous use of that noun is what you should've posted instead of calling people stupid, or liars or insisting that you are more intelligent than they are because you are a lawyer (a logically fallacious assertion).

Third, you have closed your post with an appeal to authority, and at that same time taken your ball and gone home. So be it.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Lol.

[Paperback Writer]

An appeal to a modern-day Godwin’s law. Excellent. For the record, nobody said there isn’t privacy that could possibly be invaded. That is your straw man. What has been said is that there is no expectation of privacy as to the fact that someone served a mission for the church. The plaintiff may have any number of designs for its use of that information—that certain persons were missionaries from x date to y date—many of which may be an attempt to violate privacy. But that information itself does not violate privacy. And the legal system is designed to allow the disclosure of non-private information and then preclude further inquiries which would violate privacy.

Think about your position for a minute. You are saying that this is private information, but that the church is willing to waive privacy because it has nothing to hide? Do you really think that’s how the Church’s attorneys approach litigation? Do you really think that’s how the Church treats its parishioners’ private information?

This is my last post on this subject. I’ll not spam the board with further devolution of this dumb argument. So you can have the last word. But I believe both the logic and the law are on the side I’ve advocated.

I, for one, don't consider your responses spam. I enjoy reading your well-reasoned arguments and broadening my understanding of legal principles. Similar to how I like to read posts here by doctors relating to medicine. That, and your opinions on dress shirts. After all, there's still a few months before college football season.

[MartyFunkhouser]

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is about to be prominent in the news again. I wonder if the opposition to the Equality Act is Prop 8 the second for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

[wapiti]

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is about to be prominent in the news again. I wonder if the opposition to the Equality Act is Prop 8 the second for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

I doubt it.