"If you really believe that this document needs to be shielded from public view, perhaps you should ask yourself why that is. I imagine that any efforts to keep your inner workings under wraps would be more of an indictment of how the LDS church is doing things than any criticism it could suffer by release of this earthly document."
Hello dumb Mormon church. Hello
From the lds release time fools: "The Twelve are a Traveling Presiding High Council, to officiate in the name of the Lord, under the direction of the Presidency of the Church, agreeable to the institution of heaven; to build up the church, and regulate all the affairs of the same in all nations. D&C 107:33"
IN THE NAME OF THE LORD, hell!
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/15/2017 12:09AM by readwrite.
One lawyer telling another how to do his job, accompanied by veiled threats of events that are outside the lawyer's control and, therefore, may or may not happen.
I think Mr. Randazza is about to get intimately acquainted with Kirton McConkie.
In his reply to the LDS church, it would have been more effective had counsel explained, by way of reference to applicable statute, how his client had lawfully obtained the material that is at the center of this dispute, and then to have pledged to defend his client's publication of that material not only under terms of fair use, but also under terms of fair acquisition.
As it stands now, he comes across as something of a blowhard.
I'm not convinced this lawyer is good. There is so much in that letter that is bombastic and patronizing, telling the church how to manage its own PR. That stuff is not legal argumentation. A judge won't take it seriously and may well find it offensive.
In my view it would have been preferable to focus strictly on the law. Adding that other stuff weakens the argument. Likewise, challenging the church to a long battle of attrition is pretty stupid. I don't see how Randazza has the resources to engage in that struggle against the church. My guess is the Lord's Law Firm will call his bluff.
It's good to see the presentation back up, but I'm not sure the legal case is firmly founded. I guess we'll see. . .
The first thing to remember is that this is a legal document, one that may well go to the courts. If it does, the non-legal arguments will suggest to the judge that Mormonleaks is using the judicial system for non-legal purposes. No judge will be happy with that. The civil rights movement and a lot of other worthy causes have used the courts that way but they generally avoid highlighting that fact in legal filings since that can be interpreted as abusive.
As for the Mormonleaks strategy, I can see two possible motivations. One is to persuade the church to adopt a different strategy. I'm comfortable saying that there is absolutely nothing in that letter that the church and its PR advisers do not know. The idea that a small law firm can whip out a short letter that includes sound legal reasoning and brilliant public relations strategy strains credulity.
The alternative interpretation is that the letter is intended to insult the church. That is in fact the import of the letter given the COB's superior PR resources. Neither the church nor any possible judge is going to like that; it is unprofessional, simply put.
I don't agree. I think the letter's shrewd. It's not a legal document, and it's not going to a judge either. It's an outline of the press release TSCC will face if they persist. It made a good point: not much attention was paid to the document itself, but the story about suppressing the document could garner far more interest. Is it worth the risk? That's what the letter's asking. It's not a legal question. Being a good sport about The Book of Mormon staved off a PR disaster. Same with this. Let it go, and no one pays it any more mind. That's the best result for TSCC.
Randazza's letter is in fact a legal document and most definitely will go before the judge.
The church's demand that the presentation be taken down was exactly what the law requires. It took the form of a letter that included the requisite legal points; it need not be on court paper or filed with a court. That is how many legal processes start--with demand letters typed at home or handwritten--and they initiate the legal process.
By the same token, Randazza's rejection of the church's demand is a legal document even if it is neither on court forms nor filed in a court. The powerpoint presentation is back up, so the adequacy of the grounds Randazza offered is precisely the issue that a court will examine. The next step will presumably be for the church's attorneys to file an official complaint in court showing that its complaint was legally proper and Randazza's reply was legally deficient. That filing will include both the church's original demand and Randazza's reply. Randazza will then file a reply on court forms explaining why his letter is legally sufficient. If he doesn't provide and defend the letter on legal grounds, he loses.
The problem for Mormonleaks is that Randazza did not write a legally sophisticated rejection letter but, in your words, the "outline of a press release." That is not something a judge is going to respect--public relations advice has no legal force--and may leave MormonLeaks legally vulnerable. If I were Mormonleaks, I would urge Randazza to write a newer, tighter, legally persuasive letter right now and deliver it to the church's lawyers immediately in the hope that that letter becomes the actual topic of the court's analysis. Randazza should also delete the public relations advice since he offers nothing that is not blatantly obvious and hence looks patronizing, even self-indulgent.
Have him, or a replacement, do the legal work. Leave the PR campaign to people who have expertise in that area, which Randazza pretty obviously does not.
It seems like this is the kind of response a lawyer would advise against. Which makes me think one point is very true, 'knocking over a candle starting a fire'...it really doesn't matter. It is a powerpoint that can and has been downloaded thousands of times and posted all over. I wonder if MormonLeaks is just using it as their own PR opportunity to communicate their strength and larger mission - knowing full well the DMCA notice is useless.
The document was great as a statement, but it seemed to be a very badly worded legal document. Far too opinionated, wordy, and like others have said full of bombast and Flowery, unnecessary language. Legal documents should be short and to-the-point and have very concise and specific language. Others have said that this is not a document that's going to be sent to lawyers and go before a judge, and some here have said that it is that kind of document, so I don't know what to think.
If what was written and posted on Mormon WikiLeaks is going to the church then I don't think it makes the best impression, personally. It just doesn't seem very professional.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/16/2017 07:57AM by midwestanon.