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

[Tacenda]

TP and Tal are speaking right now if anyone wants to listen!   http://drewmarshall.ca/livestream-html

[canard78]

Come on, don't you think if he got up on the stand and then anyone who tried to shut him up got zapped by an angelic shock, it would at least make the back pages of the news.

I like the guys who are demanding an Abinadi stand for President Monson or they just won't be convinced…but this is the first I've heard that England has brought back burning at the stake.

now that would indeed be newsworthy.

But not the back pages in UK, they're sacrosanct and reserved for sport and sport only. He's have to sign as the new centre forward for Manchester United for it to make the back pages.

I think that's probably more likely than him needing to take the stand in a UK court.

[Calm]

now that would indeed be newsworthy.

But not the back pages in UK, they're sacrosanct and reserved for sport and sport only. He's have to sign as the new centre forward for Manchester United for it to make the back pages.

I think that's probably more likely than him needing to take the stand in a UK court.

If he's as buff as Abinadi, they should be demanding him as centre forward (or do those guys run more lean and mean?)

 

Just think about it…a lightening bolt if anyone comes near him as he takes the ball down the field….would score everytime.

Edited February 8, 2014 by calmoriah

[canard78]

If he's as buff as Abinadi, they should be demanding him as centre forward (or do those guys run more lean and mean?)

Yep a bit too chunky maybe, I reckon that Manning guy at Broncos should be replaced by Abinadi.

(This cross the pond sporting banter is going to run dry from me fairly soon. I can only name a few more American sports people).

[Scott Lloyd]

However, comments sections are hardly an accurate method of finding out the typical resident's reaction to something.

Comments sections of the average online news source are hardly an accurate metric for anything except for the presence at large  of bigots, fanatics, polemicists and would-be demagogues.

[Scott Lloyd]

Erik, have you ever heard of any of the following logical fallacies:

• False dilemma
• Black-and/or-White thinking
• Bifurcation
• Denying a Conjunct
• The Either-or Fallacy
• False Dichotomy
• Fallacy of Exhaustive Hypotheses
• Fallacy of False Choice
• Fallacy of the False Alternative
• Fallacy of the Excluded Middle
• Fallacy of Two Extremes

Your post was a great example of all the above.

 

Okay, so you don't have to look them up, they, generally, refer to the same logical fallacy.

 

 

Then there is Morton's Fork.  You did that also.

 

Wow, two for the price of one.

 

But then again, with not a lot of twisting, you also committed an argumentum ad hominem. or possibly even "poisoning the well."

Either President Monson is a brave and honorable man and will go to England and face the consequences like a real man OR he will quell and shake is his SLC bunker house while high powered lawyers, scourges and scrounges of the Earth, born pond scum, will make it easy for him.

Awesome!!!

 

And then you just had to throw in the old "WWJSD."

Gee, I don't know what he would do, but this I can tell you, if he was alive right now, he'd probably clawing frantically at the inside of his coffin.

Why don't you tell us what JS would do in this situation.

The post by Five Solas was wrong in so many ways and such an egregious instance of sophistry, I hardly knew where to begin to counter it. You have dissected it nicely. Bravo! 

[rpn]

TP's intentions aside, the two involved in the summons say that they aren't trying to get Pres. Monson to defend the 7 points.   They are trying to get the courts to require that the church train its missionaries to teach clearly everything that they claim is demonstrably false so that church members can give informed consent to payment of tithing, which they characterize as payment for salvation and family togetherness.

 

TP seemed to suggest in some of his comments that he is also looking for UK to remove the tax deductibility of tithing (and force the church to pay penalties for all church members who have paid it in the past.

 

And thirdly he wants the church to be charged for tax evasion for its advice to MP not to declare as income the stipends they get for their household expenses.  

 

I would love to know what this judge's experiences with Mormons are and who persuaded her to issue the summons. 

[Abulafia]

Kenngo, Sheilauk will have to correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that 'Lawyer' is a non-protected title in the UK.  (My husband and I learned this to our own detriment in dealing with a will writing firm).  Sheila is more likely to be a Solicitor?  Sheila ??

 

[Kenngo1969]

TP's intentions aside, the two involved in the summons say that they aren't trying to get Pres. Monson to defend the 7 points.  They are trying to get the courts to require that the church train its missionaries to teach clearly everything that they claim is demonstrably false [Emphasis added by Kenngo1969] so that church members can give informed consent to payment of tithing, which they characterize as payment for salvation and family togetherness.

 

 I'm afraid nothing short of prefacing every principle taught with the disclaimer, "A lot of people, even many inside the Church, think that what we're about to tell you is demonstrably false, but here goes ..." would satisfy the Mormon"Think" Crowd ...

 

TP seemed to suggest in some of his comments that he is also looking for UK to remove the tax deductibility of tithing (and force the church to pay penalties for all church members who have paid it in the past.

 

 

I didn't hear the podcast, and it's been a couple days since I read the summons, but if that's what he wants, one wonders why it wasn't more clearly spelled out in the summons.  I'm reminded of the old adage, "A lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client," and if lawyers who represent themselves are fools, well, that makes nonlawyers who represent themselves ... Uhhh, never mind!  (And I know nothing of English law, but still, the deductibility of tithing sounds more like a civil matter than a criminal one.  (In fact, the fact that this is a criminal complaint rather than a civil one seems to speak volumes about the complainants' true motives ...)

 

I would love to know what this judge's experiences with Mormons are and who persuaded her to issue the summons. 

 

 

Me, too.  Personal prejudices either way aren't supposed to factor into it, but (as much as I hate to admit it) judges are people, too!

[why me]

Kenngo, Sheilauk will have to correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that 'Lawyer' is a non-protected title in the UK.  (My husband and I learned this to our own detriment in dealing with a will writing firm).  Sheila is more likely to be a Solicitor?  Sheila ??

 

How are the exmormons in your neck of the woods handling this case? I would think that many are a little embarrassed. It certainly doesn't put them in a positive light. I heard from my daughter and she says that her mormon friends consider it all rather ridiculous.

Edited February 8, 2014 by why me

[Kenngo1969]

Kenngo, Sheilauk will have to correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that 'Lawyer' is a non-protected title in the UK.  (My husband and I learned this to our own detriment in dealing with a will writing firm).  Sheila is more likely to be a Solicitor?  Sheila ??

 

I admit ... because of the fact that there are only two (maybe three) titles here in the States and that they're basically used interchangeably (attorney, lawyer, and/or counselor-at-law ... here, "solicitor" is a much narrower term than it is elsewhere: it's used only to refer to lawyers who represent the government [and to my knowledge, only the federal government] in legal proceedings ... I'm completely ignorant of the distinctions between barristers, solicitors, and attorneys/lawyers.  I should ask a former professor of mine: he's not from "across the pond," but he's forgotten more about that sort of thing than I'll ever know!

 

P.S.:  I asked my friend, Google.  Here's what he told me:  (Source:http://www.translegal.com/legal-english-lessons/barrister-vs-solicitor).

 

http://www.translegal.com/legal-english-lessons/barrister-vs-solicitor%C2'>

 

Let's have a look at these first two, solicitor and attorney. You're probably familiar with the term attorney. Attorney is a common term in American Legal English for lawyer. Solicitor is not quite the same. Solicitor is particular to England and a lot of Commonwealth countries, and it's a particular type of lawyer. And in the UK we contrast the term solicitor with another branch of the legal profession, the barrister. Now, one of these, the solicitor or the barrister has rights of audience at court. That means that they can go and represent clients at court and carry out the advocacy work. One of them does the preparation – all of the work that leads up to the actual advocacy work in court. Which one do you think is which? OK, it's the solicitor that does the initial litigation, the initial work or the preparatory work and generally speaking if it's, say, a breach of contract case, or a non-criminal matter, the case usually begins and ends with a solicitor, because most cases end in an out-of-court settlement. If the parties can't settle then the solicitor will get a barrister's advice. The barrister if often seen as the expert in particular areas of law and then the barrister will take the brief, the file, the documents from the solicitor that cover all of the facts of the case and will then represent the client in court. The solicitor will generally speaking go to court as well, In the higher courts he doesn't have rights of audience. He can't represent a client. What he can do is instruct the barrister. So the barrister may need to ask questions of the solicitor during the court case, and the solicitor will be there to support the barrister. In the lower courts, the courts of first instance, the solicitor can also represent the client and carry out advocacy work, but generally speaking that work is undertaken by the barrister.

 

Edited February 8, 2014 by Kenngo1969

[Calm]

http://www.translegal.com/legal-english-lessons/barrister-vs-solicitor

I learned the difference by watching Rumpole.

Ps: I posted my link before you posted your edit.

Edited February 8, 2014 by calmoriah

[Kenngo1969]

http://www.translegal.com/legal-english-lessons/barrister-vs-solicitor

I learned the difference by watching Rumpole.

Ps: I posted my link before you posted your edit.

Just before!   Great minds think alike!

 

P.S.: But, Melady, 'twas I who posted the relevant excerpt.  So ... neener, neener!

 

P.P.S.:  If you like Rumpole, does that make you "She Who Must Be Obeyed"?

Edited February 8, 2014 by Kenngo1969

[Abulafia]

Whyme, mixed response. Ranging from Tom, Steve and Chris being bitter, twisted people who need to move on and get a life. (I know Steve and Chris personally and know this not to be true) to full support.

I like the open letter calling for more honesty and openness. That I can get behind. As for the summons, I just don't know enough about the 2006 fraud act to know if the church has broken the law. Information is out there on the issues in the summons, and surely it would be *buyer beware*?

It's certainly got people talking, and one of my very active friends from the UK linked to the Deseret News article.

Edited February 8, 2014 by Abulafia

[ALarson]

Well...I listened to Tom Phillip's interview.  I can list some of the points he made, if you'd like but I didn't really learn anything new.  He did say that he was "intensely scrutinized" for over 3 months and then personally called into the judge's courtroom for more questioning before they'd sign off on the summons.  So this was not done lightly....but it sounds odd that it would take that long if he had a strong case IMO.  He also hinted that there may be more summons coming that will be served on other church leaders.  Crazy.

 

Also, he said that if the case was going to be thrown out for being frivolous that most likely would have already happened (it's done very soon after the summons are served....within days usually...his words).  But again, who knows?

Edited February 8, 2014 by ALarson

[sheilauk]

Kenngo, Sheilauk will have to correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that 'Lawyer' is a non-

protected title in the UK. (My husband and I learned this to our own detriment in dealing with a will writing firm). Sheila is more likely to be a

Solicitor? Sheila ??

Yep, lawyer is a very generic term in the UK and covers anyone with a professional law qualification. I'm actually a barrister though

currently working in a solicitors office. Previously I worked for a magistrates court. Criminal law is my specialty!

And to be fair, I did refer to myself (as I often do) as a lawyer!

And to add - the explanation of the differences between solicitor and barrister in the UK posted by kenngo isn't particularly accurate but it will do!

Edited February 8, 2014 by sheilauk

[ALarson]

Yep, lawyer is a very generic term in the UK and covers anyone with a professional law qualification. I'm actually a barrister though currently working in a solicitors office. Previously I worked for a magistrates court. Criminal law is my specialty!

Sheila, thank you for all of your excellent posts!  Very informative.

 

I have a question for you.  In the interview I just heard, Tom Phillips seemed confident that President Monson will have to personally appear on the 14th.  Is that true?  Can't he just have his attorneys show up representing him?  Phillips stated that President Monson has to be there to enter a plea.  

 

Thanks again.

Edited February 8, 2014 by ALarson

[sheilauk]

Sheila, thank you for all of your excellent posts! Very informative.

I have a question for you. In the interview I just

heard, Tom Phillips seemed confident that President Monson will have to personally appear on the 14th. Is that true? Can't he just have his attorneys show up representing him? Phillips stated that President Monson has to be there to enter a plea.

Thanks again.

You're welcome.

There is a little used provision that means that Pres Monson, as this is a summons and so he is not on bail, means that Pres Monson does not have to attend Court even to enter a plea if his lawyers (solicitors or barristers) do and they have full instructions as to trial venue (magistrates or crown) and plea. On the whole, people do attend, but it is sufficient to send lawyers. The warning about issuing a warrant is standard on all summons but will only be done if no one attends. In fact, even the trial could be conducted in his absence.

[ALarson]

You're welcome.

There is a little used provision that means that Pres Monson, as this is a summons and so he is not on bail, means that Pres Monson does not have to attend Court even to enter a plea if his lawyers (solicitors or barristers) do and they have full instructions as to trial venue (magistrates or crown) and plea. On the whole, people do attend, but it is sufficient to send lawyers. The warning about issuing a warrant is standard on all summons but will only be done if no one attends. In fact, even the trial could be conducted in his absence.

Great.  Thanks again!

[Tacenda]

Great. Thanks again!

Does someone like Phillips spend a big fee to take out this summons Sheilauk?

[Five Solas]

The post by Five Solas was wrong in so many ways and such an egregious instance of sophistry, I hardly knew where to begin to counter it. You have dissected it nicely. Bravo! 

For every word I typed, urroner typed four.  Next time you don't know where to begin Scott, just Google "logical fallacies" and start listing them out.  Don't stop until the critic is buried in words.  If the critic doesn't make a detailed rebuttal, then you can charge his/her posts lack substance.  It's a brilliant strategy--you'll be declared the winner every time!

;0)

 

--Erik

 

PS.  Microsoft's IE 11 doesn't play well with this board...

[sheilauk]

Does someone like Phillips spend a big fee to take out this summons Sheilauk?

Hmm, not sure. There was no fee payable a few years ago but now I don't know for certain. Unlikely to be a big fee though. I'll check and confirm.

[urroner]

For every word I typed, urroner typed four.  Next time you don't know where to begin Scott, just Google "logical fallacies" and start listing them out.  Don't stop until the critic is buried in words.  If the critic doesn't make a detailed rebuttal, then you can charge his/her posts lack substance.  It's a brilliant strategy--you'll be declared the winner every time!

;0)

 

--Erik

 

PS.  Microsoft's IE 11 doesn't play well with this board...

You didn't defend your post in spite of the nimis diu et morum solutione I posted.

 

Was your post an example of a false dichotomy or not?

 

PS: I don't know Latin in the slightest.  I don't know if nimis diu et morum solutione means diddly squat.  It's supposed to mean "exceedingly long and boorish rebuttal."

[Kenngo1969]

As for the summons, I just don't know enough about the 2006 fraud act to know if the church has broken the law.  . . . 

Well, I know absolutely nothing about English criminal law and procedure, but if I were a betting man, I know where I'd put my money!

[Kenngo1969]

For every word I typed, urroner typed four.  Next time you don't know where to begin Scott, just Google "logical fallacies" and start listing them out.  Don't stop until the critic is buried in words.  If the critic doesn't make a detailed rebuttal, then you can charge his/her posts lack substance.  It's a brilliant strategy--you'll be declared the winner every time!

;0) . . . 

Yeah, it's not like words actually mean things or anything ... We confess; you got us: we're just throwing a buncha crap at you to see what sticks, Erik.  

Edited February 9, 2014 by Kenngo1969