Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

President Monson Issued A Court Summons? Is This For Real?


Recommended Posts

It was just released an hour ago, and posted by the individual, a former Stake President, who'd been claiming to be working on a 'crushing blow to the church' for months now. This is an actual legal attempt to get Monson on the stand in the UK.

 

Actually, I doubt an English court would want to touch it with a ten foot pole, because the Church of England, which is headed by the Queen, has been claiming for centuries that the Bible is literally true, and that those who don't follow it and the CoE's dictates is going to hell, and guess what, the CofE is supported by the government, by forced donations via taxes.  Or maybe it is.  Maybe Alan could say.  I am not sure about how the CofE is financed, but if the crown is the boss of it, well, there we are.

Link to comment

 

Hah.  This appears to be on your own blog.  Am I right?

 

Nothing wrong with that, btw.  The picture on the blog looks like your avatar here, so...  or that's your twin brother?  :-)

Link to comment

Just noticed the address on the summons.  "East Temple Street" actually is Main Street.  If Phillips's counsel can't even be bothered to get the Defendant's address right, it makes me wonder how effective s/he'll be overall.

 

President Monson's office is not in the church office building. It's in the Church Administration Building directly to the south of the COB and east of the Joseph Smith Building. Its address is 47 East South Temple.

 

Link

Edited by Thinking
Link to comment

And the charges for the criminal case, were they hinted at too so the leadership would have a clue how to respond?

I honestly must have read between the lines because from the posts, it was clear to me what it would most likely entail. I also know there is older correspondence between Elder Holland and Tom, where Tom aired his greviences.
Link to comment

I honestly must have read between the lines because from the posts, it was clear to me what it would most likely entail. I also know there is older correspondence between Elder Holland and Tom, where Tom aired his greviences.

I think that most internet exmormons were blindsided by this surprise. It was not long ago when I was reading on an exmo board the complaints that no surprise was forthcoming from Tom. And they are just as surprised as we are about it all and they do have mixed feelings about it. I think that many exmormons will see it as being petty. But I think that they are still recovering from being blindsided. Even some of internet exmormons from Tom's area seem to not have known or had a clue.

Link to comment

Sheilauk thank you for your opinion on this matter. From what I understand the church is fully aware of this and has been actively trying to stop it get this far, so it may be that Tom and Robert see this as a win, even if it goes no further.

The C of E has a lot of land and property and isn't provided for through the tax system. All donations are voluntary. I believe in some European countries a small amount of taxed income goes to the upkeep of churches that are historic in nature.

Our village church is maintained (12th century) through fund raising and voluntary contributions.

Link to comment

The C of E has a lot of land and property and isn't provided for through the tax system. All donations are voluntary. I believe in some European countries a small amount of taxed income goes to the upkeep of churches that are historic in nature.

 

 

Thanks for that info, Mary.

 

I should think that the C of E is probably just as liable for a fraud suit as Pres. Monson, though.  And for the same reasons.

Link to comment

Stargazer, as I understand it, the case revolves around asking for tithing money in missionary discussions whilst giving incomplete and inaccurate information to investigators. Despite the legal opinions of the two solicitor's in the USA today article (which I thought was pretty fair, but interesting on many levels) neither are Mormons, neither have read the specifics of the case.

What is genuinely amazing is that the judge, based on the information given, thought there was a case for fraud.

Apparently the HMRC are also interested.

Edited by Abulafia
Link to comment

Calmoriah, I don't have any references on that, except for comments made by various significant parties online over the past few months, who said as much.

Edited by Abulafia
Link to comment

I have always said that the missionaries should give full disclosure to investigators so that they can make an informed choice, I just don't know that I feel comfortable with Tom trying to force the churches hand on this matter. They were/are doing so well in opening up the history vaults themselves.

Link to comment

Actually, I doubt an English court would want to touch it with a ten foot pole, because the Church of England, which is headed by the Queen, has been claiming for centuries that the Bible is literally true, and that those who don't follow it and the CoE's dictates is going to hell, and guess what, the CofE is supported by the government, by forced donations via taxes.  Or maybe it is.  Maybe Alan could say.  I am not sure about how the CofE is financed, but if the crown is the boss of it, well, there we are.

Not wanting to threadjack, but do want to make the point that the Church of England is not supported by the Government.  No taxes go to the Church.  It is the State Church because it is the default church for formal and ceremonial occasions eg prayers in Parliament, state funerals, and because the Queen is its Head and she is also the Head of State (a formal position in both cases, she has no control over either though she does give advice in private).  The Queen is both because when King Henry VIII (an absolute monarch and true ruler of the country) broke from the RCC, he declared himself the Head of the Church in England and took all of the land and property owned by the RCC into his (and therefore, at the time, the Government's) control.  And despite changes in government - to a Parliamentary system - the Monarch continued to be Head of the Church.  The land and property was handed back to the Church.  Like all churches in the UK the Church of England is supported by its tithe payers (donors if you prefer), other fundraising initiatives and its investments.

 

I imagine the Court isn't happy about the summons, not because of the possibility of a similar charge against the Church of England, but because no Court likes to be used as a soapbox.  However, I'm sure it will decide the case on the basis of the existing principles of English law.

Link to comment

Sheilauk thank you for your opinion on this matter. From what I understand the church is fully aware of this and has been actively trying to stop it get this far, so it may be that Tom and Robert see this as a win, even if it goes no further.

 

What is the Church meant to have been doing?  Negotiating?  Perhaps they have taken out an injunction - but as that would have been in the public Courts we would have heard about it wouldn't we?  Maybe they attended the Court when the information was laid and argued against it and that's why its taken so long for the surprise to come to fruition.  Sorry, I'm skeptical.

 

CFR please....

 

 

Calmoriah, I don't have any references on that, except for comments made by various significant parties online over the past few months, who said as much.

So no evidence then.  Anonymous comments.  Speculation and paranoia?  I remain skeptical.

Link to comment

Sheilauk,

 

So ... President Monson appears remotely or through counsel in response to the summons.  What then?  In the U.S., a grand jury would return either a "true bill," allowing the case to go to trial, it would "no bill" the case (meaning it doesn't go to trial), or a judge would hold a preliminary hearing to determine if there is enough evidence to go to trial.  In the UK, what happens after President Monson's appearance?

 

Thanks in advance for your invaluable knowledge and insight regarding the inner workings of the British criminal system.  The fact that a private citizen can bring a criminal case fascinates me.  In the U.S., that's pretty rare.  (I believe a private citizen could present evidence to a grand jury, which would then follow the procedure I described ...  Perhaps the more legally erudite among us with respect to U.S. criminal procedure can further enlighten us.)

 

Thanks again.

Edited by Kenngo1969
Link to comment

President Monson's office is not in the church office building. It's in the Church Administration Building directly to the south of the COB and east of the Joseph Smith Building. Its address is 47 East South Temple.

 

Link

I don't believe I said anything about the address number ... just the street.

 

Sheilauk,

 

How petty and literalist is the British system?  Could counsel for President Monson/the Church of Jesus Christ attack the summons (and perhaps flout it) on the basis of such a technical defect?

Link to comment

So no evidence then.  Anonymous comments.  Speculation and paranoia?  I remain skeptical.

Sheilauk, would the legal arm of the UK church be bound by client confidentiality?

Link to comment

Sheilauk,

 

So ... President Monson appears remotely or through counsel in response to the summons.  What then?  In the U.S., a grand jury would return either a "true bill," allowing the case to go to trial, it would "no bill" the case (meaning it doesn't go to trial), or a judge would hold a preliminary hearing to determine if there is enough evidence to go to trial.  In the UK, what happens after President Monson's appearance?

 

Thanks in advance for your invaluable knowledge and insight regarding the inner workings of the British criminal system.  The fact that a private citizen can bring a criminal case fascinates me.  In the U.S., that's pretty rare.  (I believe a private citizen could present evidence to a grand jury, which would then follow the procedure I described ...  Perhaps the more legally erudite among us with respect to U.S. criminal procedure can further enlighten us.)

 

Thanks again.

 

 

I don't believe I said anything about the address number ... just the street.

 

Sheilauk,

 

How petty and literalist is the British system?  Could counsel for President Monson/the Church of Jesus Christ attack the summons (and perhaps flout it) on the basis of such a technical defect?

Bringing a private prosecution in the UK is also very rare, not least because of the costs.  Should a private prosecutor lose, he can be ordered to pay the Defendant's costs.  There is no Grand Jury system in the UK.  The Magistrates Courts deal with the vast majority of criminal cases and in those cases the Magistrates are the sole arbiters of the law and of the facts.  Magistrates will determine any legal issues such as the admissibility of evidence and they determine the facts and decide if someone is guilty or not guilty and whether a case should be dismissed for technical reasons, vexatious prosecution or because of insufficient evidence.  They do sit with a legal adviser, a lawyer who only advises and is not involved in the decision making.  Where the case is more serious, which is based on the likely sentence (Magistrates can only impose a maximum of 12 months imprisonment), the case is sent to the Crown Courts.  Here a Judge sits, with a Jury on a trial.  However, the Judge decides on matters of law and deals with preliminary matters such as whether the case is a vexatious prosecution and he can dismiss a case if he believes there is insufficient evidence.  The Jury only sits when the case gets to its trial and only decides on guilt.

 

The UK legal system is not very petty or literalist.  Mistakes can by readily rectified if they don't affect the clear identification of the Defendant and the offence.  A small error in the address is unlikely to lead to the dismissal of the summons.  BTW - the summons should not have been issued unless the Magistrate was satisfied that the defendant and offence were clearly identified and the Court had jurisdiction.

 

In a case that can be tried at either Court, such as fraud, at the first hearing, the Defendant is usually expected to indicated a plea and the Magistrates decide where the case should be tried/sentenced - Magistrates or Crown.  This is where I'd have to speculate a little as I don't have the information necessary to be definitive.  The sentencing guideline penalty for fraud is dependent on the value of the fraud and the nature of the allegation.  Many frauds remain in the Magistrates' Courts as the recommended sentence is less than 12 months.  But a large scale confidence fraud will go to the Crown Court.  Also, a summons can be dismissed for being 'vexatious'.  So, at the hearing in March, the first decisions will have to be whether the Defendant pursues a vexatious prosecution claim first or whether the Magistrates decide on the suitable Court of trial first and this decision is dependant on the information presented to the Court - information which is not tested or proved in any way and remains allegations.  The decision on where a case is heard is not dependant on the Court deciding that there is sufficient evidence, or that there is even a case to answer, just IF the defendant is convicted of the circumstances alleged by the Prosecuter, what would be the sentence.  Mostly, defendants want to stay in the Magistrates because of the lesser sentences, but this raises serious legal questions and then you often want to be before the Judge who is more experienced in dealing with complex issues.  (Most magistrates are ordinary members of the public, without legal qualificiations who sit part time - a District Judge will no doubt deal with this in Westminster - a District Judge is a qualified lawyer and sits full time as a Magistrate).

 

sorry about the length of this post and I hope I've not lost anyone.  Its quite a different system from the USA.  I hope I've answered the questions at least in part.  I'm not going to speculate on the outcome/decisions - Courts are very difficult to predict anyway.

 

However, in my opinion, I don't think Pres Monson will be appearing in a Court to stand trial.

Link to comment

Sheilauk, would the legal arm of the UK church be bound by client confidentiality?

Undoubtedly and that would include making any kind of comment on a message board even anonymously.  Breaching client confidentiallity in any way is a serious matter for lawyers.  If they were aware of anything, they shouldn't have been discussing it.  Lawyers get struck off for that and employees are fired.

Link to comment

I read on another forum that the summons was leaked and wasn't finished, apparently more is to follow. But that is purely hearsay. If that is the case it makes more sense that the courts accepted it if there is more damning information. Again, speculation here. ETA: It may be someone's wishful thinking too and they're just thinking outloud, pretty sure the Mormon Think site would have mentioned it.

Edited by Tacenda
Link to comment

I read on another forum that the summons was leaked and wasn't finished, apparently more is to follow.

 

The summons is finished.  It states name, address, charge and gives a date of hearing and is signed.  There is nothing more to do except send it to Pres. Monson.  Now, possibly they didn't want him to know about it so soon and possibly they think they'll find more evidence but if they haven't finished, they shouldn't have got the summons issued.  It will be listed in Court on the date noted unless some has a good reason for getting it adjourned (and the Prosecution not being ready isn't a good reason).

 

But that is purely hearsay.

 

Indeed.

 

If that is the case it makes more sense that the courts accepted it if there is more damning information.

 

The Court did not accept it.  A Magistrate considered the information passed to her/him and issued a summons.  S/he does not have to consider the evidence before doing so.  Just the technicalities of the information.

 

Again, speculation here. ETA: It may be someone's wishful thinking too and they're just thinking outloud, pretty sure the Mormon Think site would have mentioned it.

 

Indeed

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...