Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

16 Good

About topcougar

  • Rank
    Newbie: Without form, and void

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. November 15 has passed and McKenna Denson did not file the required status report on her efforts to retain new counsel. There is a hearing on December 2. I expect she will file another late request for more time. That has worked three times now. It will be very interesting to see what happens this time around. The Court has given her three extensions and six months to fine new counsel. It seems unlikely that she has obtained or will obtain another attorney. She will have to actually proceed with representing herself if she wants the case to continue. No Judge wants to see that happen. Self represented litigants are a burden to Judges and the court system.
  2. I agree. This Church's reply brief is clear and legally incisive. This is what good legal writing looks like.
  3. The primary donors will be the Exmo community as the Trib is already their primary "credible" voice. This should suck donations away from Truth and Transparency; Dehlin and others who are competing for donations as they try to make a living as Exmo proponents.
  4. It is nice the the "church is welcome in Cuba" but when will they allow missionaries?
  5. If he is convicted of medicare fraud or adoption fraud some church discipline would be indicated. It is hard to understand what his explanation will be. He was apparently not striving to be honest in his dealings. It reflects poorly on the good name of the Church. If he makes a plea agreement and makes restitution, he might avoid excommunication. We will never know the what is actually considered in his Disciplinary Council and that is as it should be.
  6. I had the same reaction as SMAC when I read this story. This looks really bad. It is difficult to make $2.7 million in profit over ten years doing routine legitimate adoptions. it is possible that the $2.7 is gross income, not profit, and that some or many of these adoptions were legitimate. It could also be that the actual profit from the illegal ( I assume based on the article) enterprise is much less. Prosecutors often exaggerate the extent of ill gotten gains, but if Peterson really had $2.7 in taxable income from doing adoptions, it raises a lot of red flags for me.
  7. She has an additional problem suing under the new statute. She reported to the Police when she returned from her mission about 40 years ago and they did not prosecute - probably for lack of evidence ( i.e. witnesses). Now Kristy needs evidence that the Church knew of the abuse (about 50 years ago) and tried to cover it up. I doubt there are living witnesses. The disciplinary council on her father took place much later. Kristy's mother is deceased. The Bishop Kristy's mother spoke to is likely deceased. Note Craig Vernon is not taking this case. Craig Vernon did not sure the Church in round 1. Kristy does not have an attorney for this case. This is just a press opportunity.
  8. I don't think ANYONE speaking for our church is teaching God is against gay children. The church's position is not that most people chose to be gay. The general authorities acknowledge we do not know the answers to all questions in this area. Since this is a topic of great interest and discussion, I am pleased that the General Authorities address it in conference. I would be more frustrated if they pretended the issue did not exist. I find comfort that they have the humility to address that they do not know and address what they do know based on scripture and revelation. I still have questions. I hope LGBTQ members will endure while this issue is sorted out in a rather public way. There is a lot we do know and agree on which should comfort all. There are difficult questions remaining with which the Apostles are wrestling. But i am pleased they are trying and that their approach is grounded in scripture as well as science. I would be distressed if principles and doctrine were haphazardly abandoned based on this week's "science" - especially when much of the scholarship in this area is so tainted.
  9. I read this. It is interesting but not convincing. Each section contains accurate citations and then ends with a conclusion, but the conclusions are all a leap from A to Z without to the logical analysis or evidence to support their conclusion. Their conclusions might be right but they are not supported by their scholarship. There remain legitimate questions here.
  10. Thank you for your cogent analysis. It was "brief" relative to what you could have written about this 35 page brief by Burningham. I also read the brief and did not want to undertake a summary as you did. You made some really good points. I agree with all of them. It also seems interesting to me and ill considered that she began her brief with a quote by Professor Bauman. She is arguing that the leaders of the Church intentionally mispresented facts of the restoration. Professor Bauman's is not a leader of the Church. His opinion is not an admission by the church; it is not admissible evidence of fraud by the Church; and it is not persuasive legal authority on any of the theories she has alleged. His opinion cannot help her case - but once it becomes known that she has taken it out of context, it will diminish her credibility with the Court. Bauman's out of context quote may be useful for non legal reasons to persuade hearts and minds, but it does not help from a legal standpoint. From your summary I also see that she has cited cases that are easily distinguishable which will also undercut her case. Finally, her argument that a legal authority should be disregarded because it was "wrongly decided" is always viewed as a desperate argument - almost a concession that you have nothing better. The chances of a Federal Court agreeing that a State Supreme Court case was wrongly decided - in effect nullifying a state precedent - are minimal because it is the policy of the Federal Courts to respect state law that is not superseded by conflicting Federal law - which Kay didn't even suggest. Based on her brief, I think the Church's motion to dismiss has a good chance of be granted at least in part. The Court will either gut this case or throw it out entirely. Let's hope for the latter so the church can use sacred funds to build rather than defend the kingdom.
  11. One ward. California. Our Stake has consolidated 8 English wards plus a Spanish branch and a Singles ward into to Six English Wards, One Spanish Ward, One Spanish Branch, no singles ward. We have had many families move to Utah and Arizona. Fewer young families can afford to buy a home here. Immigrants are willing and happy to come here even without the prospect of home ownership.
  12. I believe that gathering will be 1) a return in some ways to what was taught by our early missionaries ( e.g. Wilford Woodruff ) that Zion would be a place of physical as well as spiritual refuge and safety on this continent, (though I hope Robert F. Smith's dire predictions about Holland and most of Europe are not correct) ; 2) the gathering which includes legal and illegal migration is a fulfilllment of prophecy; 3) the immigrants who join the church will be a great blessing to the Church - a leavening agent in a loaf that has been predominantly gentile - and that the descendants of Lehi will ultimately be the salvation of the Church as the gentiles continue to grow in pride and reject the gospel.
  13. The anti-Mos have Yes the anti-Mos have milked the bad publicity and she is of no further use to them. She had an opportunity for a monetary settlement before she let the Anti- Mos take her claims public. Now there is not even nuisance value on the table. The Anti-Mos have used here and have moved on to the next complainant without any regard to what might have been best for McKenna.
  14. No, I do not think she identified her counsel on the record. A judge would generally not probe into who she had consulted, as that is considered privileged at this point. I am sure everyone in the room wondered if she wondered if Mckenna was telling the truth but it does not matter, they need to give her the benefit of the doubt to insure there is due process.
  15. It will not go on for years. In order to create a clear record and have an appeal proof dismissal both the court the the defendant ( in this case the church ) have an interest in giving her lots of rope. This will eliminate any argument that she did not receive due process of law.
  • Create New...