sheilauk Posted February 13, 2014 Posted February 13, 2014 Tom Phillips has answered several questions (it was posted online last night), here's just part of it (feedback welcome from any legal experts which I am definitely not):QuoteQuestion: Why do you think CPS hasn't shut down your case? Is it possible that they are not aware of it? Or do you know if they are aware of it?Phillips: “The CPS are aware of it. I reported the matter to the Serious Fraud Office and the police last April, I believe, and they are still investigating it. Typically, they take about two years on such a matter. That is why I went the pp [private prosecutor] route. I can't wait that long.“Neither I nor D[istrict] J[udge] Roscoe have any duty to inform them [CPS] about the pp and summons but could anyone seriously believe they are not aware? Why haven't they closed it down? Well, firstly, they can take their time considering their decision. No doubt, Monson’s team has been in touch with them pleading for them to take over and close it down. I am of the opinion [that] they [CPS] have no legal grounds to close this down, and I will vigorously challenge any such attempt by them, to the extent it will become an embarrassment to the Prime Minister [PM] who is already planning his re-election against other difficulties. I mention the PM because the ONLY reason I can see for them shutting this down is political. There will be fury in the British popular press were this to happen. Particularly the [uK] ‘Daily Mail’ would get on to ‘letting criminals off because they pose as an American church,’ and the ‘Daily Mail’ will cause the loss of votes from the Conservatives to the UKIP [united Kingdom Independent Party] and other parties. Bye-bye, [british Prime Minister] David Cameron. He answered other questions, but I thought his take on this topic might be of interest to some on here. My feedback is better left unsaid.
why me Posted February 13, 2014 Posted February 13, 2014 Tom Phillips has answered several questions (it was posted online last night), here's just part of it (feedback welcome from any legal experts which I am definitely not): He answered other questions, but I thought his take on this topic might be of interest to some on here.I think that he has a huge ego problem and a is disconnected from reality. The british public could not care much about this case. They have other problems to consider in their own lives and in their society. Here is a superego statement: No doubt, Monson’s team has been in touch with them pleading for them to take over and close it down. I am of the opinion [that] they [CPS] have no legal grounds to close this down, and I will vigorously challenge any such attempt by them, to the extent it will become an embarrassment to the Prime Minister [PM] who is already planning his re-election against other difficulties. I mention the PM because the ONLY reason I can see for them shutting this down is political. There will be fury in the British popular press were this to happen. Particularly the [uK] ‘Daily Mail’ would get on to ‘letting criminals off because they pose as an American church,’ and the ‘Daily Mail’ will cause the loss of votes from the Conservatives to the UKIP [united Kingdom Independent Party] and other parties. Bye-bye, [british Prime Minister] David Cameron. Does he really believe this? The daily mail? My gosh, I think that he is living in a fantasy world. Most brits would be highly embarrassed with this case if they actually cared about it at all. The press seems to be treating it as a joke. 4
ALarson Posted February 13, 2014 Author Posted February 13, 2014 (edited) My feedback is better left unsaid.I think we'd all love to hear your feedback. You have been so extremely helpful and generous with your time on this. Edited to add: But Sheila, if you feel you can't do this, I certainly understand. Edited February 13, 2014 by ALarson
ALarson Posted February 13, 2014 Author Posted February 13, 2014 Does he really believe this? The daily mail? My gosh, I think that he is living in a fantasy world. Most brits would be highly embarrassed with this case if they actually cared about it at all. The press seems to be treating it as a joke. Well, that was another part of his statement (as crazy as it is): *The Mormon Church is Currently Engaged in a Full-Court Press to “Kill” Negative Media Reports on the Criminal Fraud Case Filed by Phiilips Against MonsonPhillips: “Did I tell you I saw an email that quoted Michael Purdy (Church PR boss) ordering his PR people around the world to ‘kill this at all costs’? So, don't answer specific allegations; just kill the story and attack the messenger as some angry, crazy apostate.”Question: Purdy actually said that? What is the source and the nature of the email to which you refer that contained this information? Is the "kill this at all costs" a direct quote from Purdy?Phillips: “I cannot reveal the source, though he is well-known. The actual quote from the email was, ’Just learned from LDS Church PR dept. that Church wants the England media coverage of the lawsuit quashed at all costs. This comes down from PR dept. leader Michael Purdy.'
Avatar4321 Posted February 13, 2014 Posted February 13, 2014 Tom Phillips has answered several questions (it was posted online last night), here's just part of it (feedback welcome from any legal experts which I am definitely not): He answered other questions, but I thought his take on this topic might be of interest to some on here. So we are criminals posing as a Church. Yeah there is no way this guy is anti mormon:)
Avatar4321 Posted February 13, 2014 Posted February 13, 2014 Well, that was another part of his statement (as crazy as it is): Im starting to wonder if he is alright in the head.
Kenngo1969 Posted February 13, 2014 Posted February 13, 2014 (edited) Im starting to wonder if he is alright in the head.Yes, of course he's alright in the head! After all, this is The Evil Empire we're talking about here, and anything goes against The Evil Empire! Edited February 13, 2014 by Kenngo1969
Alan Posted February 13, 2014 Posted February 13, 2014 Im starting to wonder if he is alright in the head. He (Phillips) is a good example of someone who can leave the church but can't leave it alone.If he dislikes the church so much now, one would think he would get well away. But he obviously misses the respect and "fame" he had as a Stake President, so is trying to fill the void some other way. 2
Kenngo1969 Posted February 13, 2014 Posted February 13, 2014 (edited) I haven't read the whole of this thread from beginning, so apologies if this has already been covered. From a British perspective I think there is a lot of 'ignoring the elephant in the room' going on here by apologists.Hmmm. With due respect, can I see the certificate granting you authority to speak on behalf of all Brits, please? For me, the question is this. Does the Church have an ethical responsibility to be open and forthcoming with its history before it baptizes people and asks them to pay tithing? I would say most certainly, yes.OK. The problem with that is that we don't see things, especially things that are as complex and opaque as history, as they are: we see them as we are. And you want to talk about elephants in the room? How about we talk about Pandora's Boxes? There's a reason why we've arrived at the point in the common law world at which we've concluded that courts are poor fora for adjudicating religious truth claims and for resolving disputes arising therefrom. It may be that people believe so strongly that the Church 'is' the Gospel, that they hide or are embarrassed about past history, teachings, and practice, and it may be that the church is finally beginning to be more open 'officially' about its own history, but that doesn't help the many people who joined under false pretenses. (as they would view it). It's fine if you want to talk about a person's subjective opinion that he's been deceived ... In any given case, maybe that's true, maybe it's not. No one likes feeling that he (or that another) has been deceived. The question, though, is whether subjective experience works in a court of law. The higher the stakes, the less credence a court should give to subjective evidence (and the more credence it should give to objective evidence. Phillips, et al, contend that President Thomas S. Monson is knowingly perpetrating an ongoing fraud. I have absolutely no idea how they could possibly know that by any objective standard! Does the church have a legal obligation to disclose certain information to investigators before they start parting with their money? This is apparently what Tom has convinced a judge in the positive. With due respect, that might say more about Phillips (are you guys close friends, or something? OK. I'll try not to judge you by the company you keep! ) and the judge than it says about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. P.S.: By the way, wasn't this thread supposed to be about Joseph Smith, and pistols, and martyrdom, and whether the Church lies about its history? Oh. Sorry for the derail! Edited February 13, 2014 by Kenngo1969 2
why me Posted February 13, 2014 Posted February 13, 2014 Im starting to wonder if he is alright in the head.I don't think that it looks good for him. I am sure that he is now under much pressure about this case. We have no idea just what is now happening around him. But his statements do sound a little off. Also, these remarks would not go over well with the courts. He sounds a little conspiratorial. And his poor family who are still in the church must be a little embarrassed too.
Buzzard Posted February 13, 2014 Posted February 13, 2014 (edited) Tom Phillips has answered several questions (it was posted online last night), here's just part of it (feedback welcome from any legal experts which I am definitely not): He answered other questions, but I thought his take on this topic might be of interest to some on here.That's actually kind of funny. I'd bet dimes to donuts-or schillings to fried bread in the case of the Brits-that the good Mr. Cameron either has not even heard of this, or has not given it a second thought if he has heard tell in passing. Edited February 13, 2014 by Buzzard 1
ALarson Posted February 13, 2014 Author Posted February 13, 2014 (edited) He (Phillips) is a good example of someone who can leave the church but can't leave it alone.If he dislikes the church so much now, one would think he would get well away. But he obviously misses the respect and "fame" he had as a Stake President, so is trying to fill the void some other way.I think it has more to do with his problems with his own family. I think his anger comes from that mainly. Maybe he could leave the church alone if his family was still intact and if they had left with him? I don't know. I think he handled things with his family poorly too from what I've read. Edited February 13, 2014 by ALarson
The Nehor Posted February 13, 2014 Posted February 13, 2014 I think that he has a huge ego problem and a is disconnected from reality. The british public could not care much about this case. They have other problems to consider in their own lives and in their society. Here is a superego statement: No doubt, Monson’s team has been in touch with them pleading for them to take over and close it down. I am of the opinion [that] they [CPS] have no legal grounds to close this down, and I will vigorously challenge any such attempt by them, to the extent it will become an embarrassment to the Prime Minister [PM] who is already planning his re-election against other difficulties. I mention the PM because the ONLY reason I can see for them shutting this down is political. There will be fury in the British popular press were this to happen. Particularly the [uK] ‘Daily Mail’ would get on to ‘letting criminals off because they pose as an American church,’ and the ‘Daily Mail’ will cause the loss of votes from the Conservatives to the UKIP [united Kingdom Independent Party] and other parties. Bye-bye, [british Prime Minister] David Cameron. Does he really believe this? The daily mail? My gosh, I think that he is living in a fantasy world. Most brits would be highly embarrassed with this case if they actually cared about it at all. The press seems to be treating it as a joke. I don't think Conservatives read the Daily Mail. I don't think people with two brain cells to rub together read it except as a kind of irony like someone who buys tabloids for the fun of it. 1
sheilauk Posted February 13, 2014 Posted February 13, 2014 My feedback is better left unsaid. I think we'd all love to hear your feedback. You have been so extremely helpful and generous with your time on this. Edited to add: But Sheila, if you feel you can't do this, I certainly understand.Thank you. I posted that comment very quickly because if I'd responded then, I'd probably have been thread or even board banned it makes me very angry that he hasn't listened to advice or done the minimal amount of research in terms of the criminal law and procedure. Whatever he is like as a person, his words come off sounding arrogant when read. As for the legal position - the Serious Fraud Office can take a long time to investigate complaints. I doubt that they took his complaint seriously, but if they did, the Church would know about it before now and that, of course would explain why they have been posting all those essays! I don't know of any obligation from the Court to inform the CPS of the private prosecution, so I don't know if they'd be aware of it. It will show up on the Court lists but I doubt the CPS scrutinising the lists for cases to take over. Of course, it has been in the press so someone is probably aware. I imagine that there is gossip amongst the local practitioners! The Court can ask the CPS to take over, as can the Defendant, or they can find out on their own and do so. As to grounds - they have an obligation to take over in fact and don't need any "legal grounds". I don't think any challenge to their decision would succeed either, as its their duty to prosecute cases. As for the political fall out - I imagine it would be ... zero. The Daily Mail tends to like Americans. I think they carried a small report about it as did the Times, but its not exactly "Big News". At the moment, the weather is the news (the English love weather news!) I imagine the outcome in March will be reported on in the same quiet way. I can't see the press making a fuss about it at all and it won't affect the politicians as people know they have no say over the Courts. Our Courts are very independant and jealously guard that - they really dislike political interference and don't take kindly to being told what to do by Government and people know that. They have a high degree of trust, in my experience. And if someone is thought to have been let off by the Courts, the usual response seems to be to demand the Government change the law, rather than blame the Government for the Court's decision! The Government is not doing well at present in the polls and if the Conservatives are not reelected (the election is due in May 2015), it won't be because a year before the election, the leader of the Mormon Church was "let off". As for the suggestion that the Church's PR wants to kill the story - nothing will get the British press more interested in covering a story than an attempt to quash it. Strangely - no front pages about it. That darn weather again and the British obsession with it! 3
Nemesis Posted February 14, 2014 Posted February 14, 2014 We don't allow speculation on personal life. So off topic comments have been removed. Nemesis
Kenngo1969 Posted February 14, 2014 Posted February 14, 2014 (edited) The Mods LIVE!!! ( I was beginning to wonder ... ) I'm glad you're OK, Nemesis. Edited February 14, 2014 by Kenngo1969 2
Avatar4321 Posted February 14, 2014 Posted February 14, 2014 I think it has more to do with his problems with his own family. I think his anger comes from that mainly. Maybe he could leave the church alone if his family was still intact and if they had left with him? I don't know. I think he handled things with his family poorly too from what I've read. What happened with his family? Im completely ignorant here
rpn Posted February 14, 2014 Posted February 14, 2014 (edited) Do we really want to be gossiping about this man, however strange we find his choice to press the charges? He remains a beloved child of God, and making fun of him just doesn't speak well of anyone. Edited February 14, 2014 by rpn 4
Scott Lloyd Posted February 14, 2014 Posted February 14, 2014 (edited) As for the political fall out - I imagine it would be ... zero. The Daily Mail tends to like Americans. I think they carried a small report about it as did the Times, but its not exactly "Big News". At the moment, the weather is the news (the English love weather news!) I imagine the outcome in March will be reported on in the same quiet way. I can't see the press making a fuss about it at all and it won't affect the politicians as people know they have no say over the Courts. Our Courts are very independant and jealously guard that - they really dislike political interference and don't take kindly to being told what to do by Government and people know that. They have a high degree of trust, in my experience. And if someone is thought to have been let off by the Courts, the usual response seems to be to demand the Government change the law, rather than blame the Government for the Court's decision! The Government is not doing well at present in the polls and if the Conservatives are not reelected (the election is due in May 2015), it won't be because a year before the election, the leader of the Mormon Church was "let off". I'm predicting this will fairly soon fall off the public radar. It will have about as much staying power as Grant Palmer's weird story about the visits with the sitting General Authority who allegedly told him none of the Brethren believe in Mormonism and they are only in it for the money. Who's really talking about that anymore? Edited February 14, 2014 by Scott Lloyd 1
The Nehor Posted February 14, 2014 Posted February 14, 2014 Do we really want to be gossiping about this man, however strange we find his choice to press the charges? He remains a beloved child of God, and making fun of him just doesn't speak well of anyone. Lucifer is a beloved child of God and I mock him all the time. The only difference I see between the two is that one is embodied and one is disembodied. I think to treat them differently would be to show racism against the unliving and I can't abide racism. Think of the Zombies!!!!
BCSpace Posted February 14, 2014 Posted February 14, 2014 FYI: Apparently Tom Phillips has begun posting on the Shady board in case you'd like to see more of what he has to say and possibly interact with him.
Abulafia Posted February 14, 2014 Posted February 14, 2014 Again, many apologies if this has already been covered. I think the judge may have issued the summons because the Church actively proselytizes by cold calling.I can't think of any other religious organisation over here in the UK (except for Jehovah Witnesses) that does this. The C of E, and the Catholic Church certainly don't.The C of E did advertise the Alpha Course at one time on billboards, but that seems to have gone quiet.Just a thought.
Kenngo1969 Posted February 14, 2014 Posted February 14, 2014 Lucifer is a beloved child of God and I mock him all the time. The only difference I see between the two is that one is embodied and one is disembodied. I think to treat them differently would be to show racism against the unliving and I can't abide racism. Think of the Zombies!!!!The best way to mock Lucifer is to be righteous!
Kenngo1969 Posted February 14, 2014 Posted February 14, 2014 (edited) Again, many apologies if this has already been covered. I think the judge may have issued the summons because the Church actively proselytizes by cold calling.I can't think of any other religious organisation over here in the UK (except for Jehovah Witnesses) that does this. The C of E, and the Catholic Church certainly don't.The C of E did advertise the Alpha Course at one time on billboards, but that seems to have gone quiet.Just a thought.Abulafia, No response to my #784? Edited February 14, 2014 by Kenngo1969
Kenngo1969 Posted February 14, 2014 Posted February 14, 2014 Generally speaking, when people think of fraud (at least, fraud on a large scale) they think of people who establish dummy corporations, "dummy up" statements showing a consistent (too) high return to send to investors, use money from new investors to pay old investors, and use the rest of the money to buy multimillion dollar mansions, exotic cars, lavish vacations, and so on. Phillips, et al, can try all they like to associate President Monson with people of that ilk in the public mind, but if this prosecution gets far enough it will end up backfiring on them (if it hasn't already). 1
Recommended Posts