- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
This was known as the “October Surprise” , as it was supposed to have happened last October. You can Read the actual complaint on MormonThink. [
Admin Note:] The admins had a LONG discussion of that site, as a result of a thread specifically about it in our archives. We decided that at this point, that site functions in practical terms as an anti-Mormon launching pad, regardless of its original intent. Thus, the link has been removed from this post, since linking to anti-Mormon sites is prohibited. Besides, anyone can Google the site name and look up the announcement. Totally and completely stupid, in my own humble opinion. I’m not a lawyer, but I know enough about the basic laws and the motivation of the person who is behind it to shake my head in sadness over this action. I get being angry and disillusioned, but something like this? No thanks.
Do the British courts really have nothing else to do? IANAL and all that, but I think you’re only perpetrating fraud if you’re selling something that *you* know to be untrue. “Mr. Monson” believes all the statements named in the case to be true, so how is that fraud? Correct me if I’m wrong.
Are they going after all the heads of the world’s major religions? They gonna nail the Pope for transubstantiationalism?
This is the very definition of a frivolous lawsuit. Sent from my SGH-T989D using Tapatalk
A comment from another forum with a different take on the real motive (discovery) Quote:
As an attorney, I would be very surprised if Phillips’ legal team hasn’t already thought several more steps down the road. If I were in their shoes, I wouldn’t care what any church official said about whether they truly believed the church’s claims, or whether they claim the freedom of religious belief. That doesn’t matter. That wouldn’t be the goal. Document discovery would be the goal. This case involves claims of historical fact that are falsifiable. So the question would be, did the Brethren have access to internal information showing those claims to be false, or likely to be false? In a civil suit against a corporation, executives can claim ignorance, but that opens the door to internal records and communication to see whether the executives are being truthful, or whether they should have known of wrongdoing given the internal information that they had access to. This kind of discovery is done all the time.So what could they conceivably go for? Oh, just all of the First Presidency’s correspondence, meeting minutes, diary entries, archives, records, writings, studies, etc. Pretty much anything in the First Presidency’s vault. The argument to get access and make the church produce it is easy: there might be information showing either that a) Monson and the Brethren and their predecessors knew that the claims weren’t true, or b) should have known that their claims weren’t true, or c) withheld factual information that could have materially altered the decision-making of converts and members if that information had been disclosed. It’s obviously relevant to the question of what information they had through the years to either support or weaken their claims to the church’s veracity. At this moment, I can’t imagine a strong argument to protect it from discovery. I don’t see a relevant privilege at issue. The church could claim that it is sensitive material, but they would then have to explain why. The “why” would have to be an argument that the disclosure of such evidence might be embarrassing or damaging to the church or its membership, but that goes to the fraud claim (i.e., if there’s something so embarrassing or earth shattering that the First Presidency has been hiding because it could damage members’ belief in the enterprise, that is fraud by concealment). Moreover, the argument would be made that if the Brethren truly believe it all, then the material in their possession should support their belief and they should be happy to disclose it to the world.
.
Previous comment repeated. I hope I never get so bitter and warped that I would even contemplate something like this.
Catholicism is HUGE compared to the LDS Church (as is Buddhism and Hinduism) and their religious claims and abuses make the LDS Church’s issues look like kindergarten playground fun, so why isn’t he going after the Pope and other religious leaders?Obvious: He is bitter about his own commitment to the LDS Church over time and appears not to care about global numbers or reach. He’s after blood, and he doesn’t care a bit about how many people he leaves lying in his wake – assuming he leaves anyone in his wake and the case doesn’t die a quiet death. He’s been bragging about what he’s going to do for a while now and been hyping it online obsessively.
I get it. I despise it. I say that about very, very, very few things.
I guess I don’t know the history that much but I don’t see those actions as being completely unjustified. He’s someone that feels like they were duped into sacrificing time, money, etc. It can be hard to get past a profound sense of lost time and resources. Stage 4 for many can be a time where one feels the need to expose their new findings to the world. Isn’t that what this is? It’s hard to come down on Monson because he actually believes what he preaches… and I find it equally hard to come down on this guy for the same reasons. Again, I don’t know the history.
I wouldn’t do it, I think harboring hate is a waste of time and I think it can even harm one’s health, but at the same time I get where he’s coming from. He’s trying to open other people’s eyes, even if it’s prying them open. In his mind he wants to save others from his fate, right?
Hate to say this Curtis, but due to the censorship, I don’t have a clue what this about. I usually appreciate your work here, but am confused what’s going on here. Pres Monson asked to attend an English court?!
Had a look at Mormon think, still none the wiser. My hunch is this will come to nothing, but will appear in mainstream press. Monson’s lawyer will probably come up with some legal gymnastics so he won’t have travel over.
By the way, filming is not allowed in English courts.
As I said, nibbler, I understand the mentality. I just hope I never get to that position about anything remotely like this. SamBee, the story is on the main page of MormonThink. You need to scroll down a little to see it, but it is on the main page.
If this causes the church to reform or change some of its cultish policies and practices, such as its stance on civil/temple marriage in the US, then I think it is a good thing in the end. Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
Do we know if this is even a real charge against Thomas S. Monson? Or is it another myth afforded by the reach of the Internet? Also, for the people who don’t know anything about the case, the key to this is the claims that Monson is being charged for making…
Quote:
1) The Book of Abraham is a literal translation of Egyptian papyri by Joseph Smith2) The Book of Mormon was translated from ancient gold plates by Joseph Smith is the most correct book on earth and is an ancient
historical record.
3) Native Americans are descended from an Israelite family whilch left Jerusalem in 600 B.C.
4) Joseph and Hyrum Smith were killed as martyrs in 1844 because they would not deny their testimony of the Book of Mormon.
5) The Illiinois newspaper called the Nauvoo Expositor had to be destroyed because it printed lies about Joseph Smith
6) There was no death on the planet until 6000 years ago.
7) All humans alive today were descended from just two people who lived approximately 6000 years ago.
Questions:
1. I think there is a bit of a problem here. For example, if #7 is considered fraud, then won’t all leaders of all Christian Churches who teach the literality of Adam and Eve also be guilty of fraud?
2. Also, how is Thomas S. Monson required to prove these historical facts are true when there are no living witnesses? Could the vagaries of history translate easily into reasonable doubt?
3. Also, I thought the premise of English law was that people are innocent until proven guilty? So, isn’t the onus on the claimant to prove the claims are false, that TSM knew it, and perpetuated the myth in spite of this knowledge?
4. Do we know for sure this is a valid case and not some farce circulating the internet?
I don’t understand how they got a proper authority to sign off on the summons. I’d call it ridiculous. SilentDawning wrote:3. Also, I thought the premise of English law was that people are innocent until proven guilty? So, isn’t the onus on the claimant to prove the claims are false, that TSM knew it, and perpetuated the myth in spite of this knowledge?
Yes, and personally I think that is probably what this whole thing is about. I would guess they don’t care as much about a judgment against Pres. Monson as they do about demonstrating to the satisfaction of the court that these things are “false.” If successful in that regard they could say “proven false in a court of law.”
…but that’s just my feeling at the moment.
It has reached the mainstream press. I’ll refrain from linking to the pages 
Below (from NOM) is an excellent analysis by a former federal prosecutor on why this lawsuit is stupid, and going nowhere.
Quote:
I’m a former federal prosecutor. I’ve been involved in a number of cases that involved getting both defendants and witnesses from overseas. I’ve worked both extradition and warrants of attachment for witnesses. So believe me (or don’t – it doesn’t really matter what any of us think, after all) when I say:TSM will never, ever see the inside of a British courtroom. He will not see the inside of a US courtroom. He will never see the inside of any nations’ courtroom. He will not be deposed by TP’s lawyers. There will be no document discovery given by the Church. These are pipe dreams. These things are so for these reasons:
In extradition from the US to Britain, the principle of reciprocity applies – if an offence is not an offence in the US, a US citizen will not be extradited to Britain. Therefore, getting TSM extradited from the US to Britain would require getting a Queen’s Magistrate to issue an arrest warrant, then the British Ministry of Justice presents the warrant to the British Foreign Affairs Office. Then the British Foreign Affairs Office presents the warrant to the U.S. Department of State. State then passes it to the US Department of Justice. Then a U.S. Attorney takes the warrant into a U.S federal district court to get a U.S. arrest warrant issued. Does anyone out there actually think any of that is going to happen? Getting a warrant for such a high-profile American citizen is as much political as it is legal, my friends. Harry Reid, Orrin Hatch et al would squash that like a bug in the very unlikely event this made it far enough to get to the US DOJ. However, if it made it through that impossible gauntlet, getting a US federal district court judge to agree that the filed information I read contains a violation of US law has as much chance of success as I do in becoming the next LDS prophet.
There will be no depositions, because this is a criminal case, not a civil case. In criminal cases, the defendant has the right to remain silent, which TSM would most certainly invoke.
There will be no document discovery for the same reason as above – this is a criminal case, not civil litigation. In order for the defendant to be ordered to turn over documents, the prosecution must secure the equivalent of a search warrant. As has been noted in above comments, this is a private prosecution, meaning no Crown Prosecutor thought this case was worth his/her time. The likelihood of TP convincing a British magistrate that the probable cause standard has been met for a document seizure, then getting that warrant enforced in the United States through the gauntlet I described above — again, there’s as much chance of all of that happening as there is of me becoming the Prophet.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.