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

[sheilauk]

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.

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.   I asked my mother yesterday, would she have joined, had she known that black people couldn't hold the priesthood and that Joseph condoned polyandry.  She said that she wouldn't have joined.  And here you have the problem.  

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).

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.

I'm watching it with interest.

 

No.  The Judge has not been convinced of this or anything.  She has been convinced that he has provided a properly worded, jurisdictionally sound information alleging a offence which is on the Statute books and against a person who exists, that he has evidence (however poor, middling or good) to present to a Court and that he is prepared to go through with it.  As I have said before, she has not, should not and can not judge the strength of the evidence and the likely outcome.  He has got the procedure right is all she has decided on.

[sheilauk]

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.

Again no.  Perhaps I should say, I certainly hope not as Judges are to remain impartial in everything.  If she has, it would lead the way for a judicial review of the decision.  And proselytizing is hardly fraud.  But yes, i think only the LDS and Jehovah's Witnesses knock on doors.  Others use for example billboards, advertisements and coffee mornings. 

[Alan]

Again no.  Perhaps I should say, I certainly hope not as Judges are to remain impartial in everything.  If she has, it would lead the way for a judicial review of the decision.  And proselytizing is hardly fraud.  But yes, i think only the LDS and Jehovah's Witnesses knock on doors.  Others use for example billboards, advertisements and coffee mornings. 

 

Some evangelical groups also go door to door in places here in the UK.

It is, despite what the missionaries say, a very effective way of proselyting.

[Abulafia]

Sheliauk, thanks for feedback.  I just mean that the judge wouldn't have issued the summons had she thought there wasn't a case to be answered according to the details and evidence Tom P has given.  I bow very lowly to your superior wisdom!!

Edited February 14, 2014 by Abulafia

[Kenngo1969]

Sheliauk, thanks for feedback.  I just mean that the judge wouldn't have issued the summons had she thought there wasn't a case to be answered according to the details and evidence Tom P has given.  I bow very lowly to your superior wisdom!!

Unless I'm totally misunderstanding what has been said regarding UK criminal procedure, little "evidence" has been presented to this point.  While I'm fully mindful of those who have mentioned the differences between the US and the UK systems, respectively, perhaps this analogy is still valid: in the US, we have a saying that a prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich.  Why do we say that?  Because the minimal evidentiary showing that must occur to allow a criminal indictment to proceed to trial is vastly different (lower) than the evidentiary showing necessary to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt at trial.  The only thing Phillips, et al, have done to this point is manage to indict a ham sandwich.  All they've proven is that the case is procedurally sound: all of their "t's" are crossed and all of their "i's" are dotted, and they've used the right language and generally alleged the right things to manage to avoid having the complaint tossed out of court.  But there's a big difference between procedural soundness and evidentiary soundness beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

What about it?  Am I wrong?

Edited February 14, 2014 by Kenngo1969

[sheilauk]

Some evangelical groups also go door to door in places here in the UK.

I did not know that!  I've only ever had LDS and Jehovah's witnesses.

[sheilauk]

Unless I'm totally misunderstanding what has been said regarding UK criminal procedure, little "evidence" has been presented to this point.  While I'm fully mindful of those who have mentioned the differences between the US and the UK systems, respectively, perhaps this analogy is still valid: in the US, we have a saying that a prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich.  Why do we say that?  Because the minimal evidentiary showing that must occur to allow a criminal indictment to proceed to trial is vastly different (lower) than the evidentiary showing necessary to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt at trial.  The only thing Phillips, et al, have done to this point is manage to indict a ham sandwich.  All they've proven is that the case is procedurally sound: all of their "t's" are crossed and all of their "i's" are dotted, and they've used the right language and generally alleged the right things to manage to avoid having the complaint tossed out of court.  But there's a big difference between procedural soundness and evidentiary soundness beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

What about it?  Am I wrong?

No, you're correct, except that its not just evidentiary soundness beyond a reasonable doubt, which is the burden of proof at trial, that hasn't been tested or examined but also whether there is a prima facie case - or, in other words, a case to answer.  Tom Phillips may think that his evidence has been approved of and I imagine the Judge and the Court adviser commented on it but its not part of the test for the issuing of the summons.  So we can't be sure why the Judge issued the summons except that it was procedurally sound.  The Judge may have said that the evidence looked like it disclosed a fraud, but we don't know what was told her or shown her (namely if it was in any way reliable evidence) and only a Court can determine if there is a case to answer - usually after the defence has tested the prosecution evidence by cross examination.

[Thinking]

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).

 

You have described a ponzi scheme, which is only one type of fraud. Phillips' fraud allegations do not describe a ponzi scheme so your post is meaningless.

[Calm]

Sheila, I don't know if you have read this. It is from an anti site so can't provide link, I believe Michelle gave the unlinked address in an above post though. I am wondering how you read the judge's motivation if Phillips' claims of the time spent is accurate, especially what is implied by the bolded parts.

"Phillips is of the view that his dealings with the Magistrates’ Court system should have taken only a few days but, instead, extended out to almost four months. He made his written submissions to the Court on 10 October 2013 and attended an oral hearing before the District Judge at Westminster Magistrates’ Court on 15 October 2013. The Court’s legal advisers went through Philips’ legal submissions on 15 October 2013.

Rulings and discussions about the service of summons continued until the District Magistrates’ Court issued its summonses to Monson on 31 January 2014. The process of deliberation leading up to the Court’s decision to authorize the summonses involved the judge putting every conceivable defense on behalf of Monson to Phillips. The judge conducted a very detailed assessment of the evidence backing up the allegations made by Phillips. Why the process took so long is unclear, although Phillips has his private opinions on this. He suspects there may have been procedural Interference attempted by the Mormon Church, which might help account for the fact that it took him over three months to get the case filing through the lower UK Magistrates’ Court to the point of the summonses being issued to Monson.

Phillips was concerned that Monson may have already known that something was brewing. He noted, for example, that arguments put to Phillips by a Clerk to the Justices (before Phillips finally prevailed in getting the Court to issue its summons) contained legalistic-sounding use of English vernacular concerning matters of arrest warrants and summonses that sounded, to Phillips, like they could have perhaps been provided by Mormon Church legal advisors.

Phillips was eventually notified by the Magistrates’ Court that the summons had been signed off on by the District judge. The summons was sent out to Monson from the UK via first-class post."

[Abulafia]

Calmoriah, that's the information I have seen also.

[sheilauk]

Sheila, I don't know if you have read this. It is from an anti site so can't provide link, I believe Michelle gave the unlinked address in an above post though. I am wondering how you read the judge's motivation if Phillips' claims of the time spent is accurate, especially what is implied by the bolded parts.

"Phillips is of the view that his dealings with the Magistrates’ Court system should have taken only a few days but, instead, extended out to almost four months. He made his written submissions to the Court on 10 October 2013 and attended an oral hearing before the District Judge at Westminster Magistrates’ Court on 15 October 2013. The Court’s legal advisers went through Philips’ legal submissions on 15 October 2013.

Rulings and discussions about the service of summons continued until the District Magistrates’ Court issued its summonses to Monson on 31 January 2014. The process of deliberation leading up to the Court’s decision to authorize the summonses involved the judge putting every conceivable defense on behalf of Monson to Phillips. The judge conducted a very detailed assessment of the evidence backing up the allegations made by Phillips. Why the process took so long is unclear, although Phillips has his private opinions on this. He suspects there may have been procedural Interference attempted by the Mormon Church, which might help account for the fact that it took him over three months to get the case filing through the lower UK Magistrates’ Court to the point of the summonses being issued to Monson.

Phillips was concerned that Monson may have already known that something was brewing. He noted, for example, that arguments put to Phillips by a Clerk to the Justices (before Phillips finally prevailed in getting the Court to issue its summons) contained legalistic-sounding use of English vernacular concerning matters of arrest warrants and summonses that sounded, to Phillips, like they could have perhaps been provided by Mormon Church legal advisors.

Phillips was eventually notified by the Magistrates’ Court that the summons had been signed off on by the District judge. The summons was sent out to Monson from the UK via first-class post."

I've read the article and meant to comment.  Overall, it shows a complete lack of understanding of the process and a contempt for the people at the Court.

 

As to the first paragraph - dealing with a private prosecution always take a long time.  Invariably the Court is dealing with someone with a grievance, often imagined, who has no idea of the law and the legal process.  It is also dealing with someone where it has no idea of the investigation undertaken and evidence collected.  With the police and regular prosecutors an element of trust is built up so the summons is issued on the understanding that it will proceed and some evidence will be presented.  That trust is not always proved correct or cases would never be thrown out for lack of evidence and for mistakes and they are.  With an untrained individual, the Court will always take its time.  So, they would want to know that there was evidence to call before they agreed - it wouldn't be the first time that someone has wanted a summons but thought that the Court would do all the work thereafter and had done no preparation.  Secondly, if it were me, I'd have looked into questions arising because the Defendant is an American citizen.  Did he expect that they would simply nod it through?

 

Clerks to the Justices and District Judges are very busy people.  They spend most of their time in Court hearing live cases.  Justices Clerks have a considerable number of meetings - they are part of the senior managment team as well as qualified lawyers (either solicitors or barristers) and they are very experienced.  You don't get to be a Justices Clerk without having worked for years in the Magistrates' Courts.  As the Justices Clerk is a lawyer, its hardly surprising that they used legalistic vernacular!  They have spent a working lifetime listening to defence and prosecution solicitors.  As a magistrates' clerk myself, I can tell you that I could work out the defence in a case while the prosecution was giving its evidence.  I have also at times been required to ask questions of witnesses in trials.  So, yes, the Justices Clerk and the Judge knew all the law, defences and other issues.  District Judges and Justices Clerks and the other magistrates' courts legal advisers generally know more than any other lawyer in the court room and they know it without having to look it up - to do the job you simply have to.  It is insulting to suggest that they must have been briefed by the Church - the suggestion makes me so cross!  I've been there and done it - I know what they were going through and why - I think they were trying to help him understand just how much he would have to do to get a conviction and the consequences of it.  I also know that my previous colleagues would not in any way have alerted the Church of the matter, consulted them or allowed themselves to be influenced by them.  Magistrates and their staff are proud of their independence.  And I repeat, the Justices Clerk doesn't need anyone to tell him or her what the law is and what defences may be raised.

 

The rest of the article is like this.  A smattering of truth with a lot wrong or speculative, its so frustrating to read and I find it hard to comment on it because it raises my hackles so much!

[ALarson]

Sheila, I just want to thank you again for all of the time you've spent responding and giving us information.  It's been very helpful!

 

I have just seen posted elsewhere that the church has retained the law firm of Pinsent Masons in the UK.  I'm sure there are a lot of law firms in the UK, but do you know anything about this firm?

 

Here's a link to their website:

http://www.pinsentmasons.com/locations/united-kingdom/

[Duncan]

Sheila, I just want to thank you again for all of the time you've spent responding and giving us information.  It's been very helpful!

 

I have just seen posted elsewhere that the church has retained the law firm of Pinsent Masons in the UK.  I'm sure there are a lot of law firms in the UK, but do you know anything about this firm?

 

Here's a link to their website:

http://www.pinsentmasons.com/locations/united-kingdom/

 

 

Jiminy Christmas they look like big guns!

[wenglund]

Joseph Smith claimed to be a prophet of God. Should I not then test everything he claimed to receive from God? You are correct that MMM has nothing to do with JS but plural marriage is a principle that he practiced and claimed that God revealed to him the details of that doctrine. I should examine the Book of Mormon, the Book of Abraham, the Doctrine & Covenants and anything that was an official practice or teaching.

 

You are free to test and examine whatever you wish and use whatever methods of evaluation suites your fancy. You are also free to assume you are in a good position to judge.

 

However, doing so misses the essential point of the gospel. For one, it gets completely backward who is to be tested and examined, and by whom, using what methods, and for what purpose.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

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.

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.   I asked my mother yesterday, would she have joined, had she known that black people couldn't hold the priesthood and that Joseph condoned polyandry.  She said that she wouldn't have joined.  And here you have the problem.  

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).

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.

I'm watching it with interest.

 

I guess we differ as to what is the alleged "elephant in the room."  To me, it is the utter and seemingly impenetrable cluelessness of the parties to this abuse of law and those supporting it.

 

To each their own.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[sheilauk]

Sheila, I just want to thank you again for all of the time you've spent responding and giving us information.  It's been very helpful!

 

I have just seen posted elsewhere that the church has retained the law firm of Pinsent Masons in the UK.  I'm sure there are a lot of law firms in the UK, but do you know anything about this firm?

 

Here's a link to their website:

http://www.pinsentmasons.com/locations/united-kingdom/

There are a lot of law firms and I don't know this one.  In part, that would be because its not involved in the criminal sector which is my area!  It is obviously a very big firm but it doesn't deal with crime.  Pres Monson needs a high powered criminal lawyer, not a corporate one.  I just hope that the firm seeks out and instructs a criminal practice barrister rather than try to do it themselves. 

 

Thank you for your kind comments and you're welcome.  I'm glad its been helpful so far.  I spend a lot (too much?) of time on here and appreciate the information discussions and most of the time feel inadequate to comment as I'm still learning so much.  But this is my area of expertise!  Others have given a lot of their time here and now its my turn!  Plus, I'm passionate about my specialism, I do it because I enjoy it and I like to share that and help people learn more about it! 

[flameburns623]

There are a lot of law firms and I don't know this one.  In part, that would be because its not involved in the criminal sector which is my area!  It is obviously a very big firm but it doesn't deal with crime.  Pres Monson needs a high powered criminal lawyer, not a corporate one.  I just hope that the firm seeks out and instructs a criminal practice barrister rather than try to do it themselves.  Thank you for your kind comments and you're welcome.  I'm glad its been helpful so far.  I spend a lot (too much?) of time on here and appreciate the information discussions and most of the time feel inadequate to comment as I'm still learning so much.  But this is my area of expertise!  Others have given a lot of their time here and now its my turn!  Plus, I'm passionate about my specialism, I do it because I enjoy it and I like to share that and help people learn more about it!

Happy St. Valentine's Day, Counselor. From LDS and ex-Mo's alike.

[The Nehor]

The process of deliberation leading up to the Court’s decision to authorize the summonses involved the judge putting every conceivable defense on behalf of Monson to Phillips. The judge conducted a very detailed assessment of the evidence backing up the allegations made by Phillips.

 

An abject lie or a self-revelation of profound ignorance; not sure which. Perhaps Philips imagines basic procedural questions are "every conceivable defense" but that is proof of how vapid his imagination is and nothing more. Judges do not go to that level of inquiry without the defense being present. Otherwise the trial is a bit redundant.

[Kenngo1969]

You have described a ponzi scheme, which is only one type of fraud. Phillips' fraud allegations do not describe a ponzi scheme so your post is meaningless.

Au contraire!  Had I thought it meaningless, I would not have posted it.  Yes, of course there's more than one type of fraud.  While it may be unfair, in the minds of some, that Ponzi schemes [as long as we're lecturing and condescending to one another, it should be capitalized, since Ponzi is the proper surname of the person for whom this type of fraud is named ] get what they consider to be an inordinate amount of public and media attention, the fact of the matter remains: it is precisely because of the amount of public and media attention this kind of scheme gets that it is most closely associated in the public mind with the word "fraud."  As long as we're trading accusations of irrelevancy, I would argue that since I'm simply talking about public perception (which may or may not reflect reality), what Phillips' complaint actually says is irrelevant, because few people are apt to read it.

[Kenngo1969]

No, you're correct, except that its not just evidentiary soundness beyond a reasonable doubt, which is the burden of proof at trial, that hasn't been tested or examined but also whether there is a prima facie case [emphasis added by Kenngo1969] - or, in other words, a case to answer.  Tom Phillips may think that his evidence has been approved of and I imagine the Judge and the Court adviser commented on it but its not part of the test for the issuing of the summons.  So we can't be sure why the Judge issued the summons except that it was procedurally sound.  The Judge may have said that the evidence looked like it disclosed a fraud, but we don't know what was told her or shown her (namely if it was in any way reliable evidence) and only a Court can determine if there is a case to answer - usually after the defence has tested the prosecution evidence by cross examination.

Wow.  in order to bring a criminal prosecution, a private citizen doesn't even have to show he has a prima facie case, but, rather, simply has to convince a judge that he's met a few technical legal requirements?!  It's even easier to indict a ham sandwich in the UK than it is in the US?!!

 

Those, Ma'am, are scary thoughts!!

[sheilauk]

Indeed. Could be that's why we don't like to advertise the option!

Seriously, some of the attempts I've seen or heard lead me increasingly to think we should abolish the ability of private individuals to prosecute.

[Kenngo1969]

Indeed. Could be that's why we don't like to advertise the option!

Seriously, some of the attempts I've seen or heard lead me increasingly to think we should abolish the ability of private individuals to prosecute.

Let's seeeeee ... Is there anyone I would like to prosecute in the UK?  Hmmmm!!!

[Calm]

I've read the article and meant to comment.  Overall, it shows a complete lack of understanding of the process and a contempt for the people at the Court.

 

As to the first paragraph - dealing with a private prosecution always take a long time. 

Thank you very much.

When I read it, I got the distinct impression the judge was trying to show him what would be required rather than giving him the chance to teach/persuade her about the Church as was the implication I got from some of the initial comments (the impression there was that the judge issued the summons because she agree with the claims, something that you made clear wasn't necessary). His use of the term "prevailed" indicated to me a reluctance on the part of those involved as opposed to a wholehearted support.

Your explanation of the process puts his comments in a context where they make sense (his description of what was happening, not his claims about the judge).

Why do you think he is so uneducated in how the law works? Is this typical among Brits? I can understand Americans being clueless about it but I would have thought there would be more familiarity by someone who thought himself capable of a private prosecution....though perhaps that is the clue in that no educated private person would think herself capable and only the clueless dare to tread, etc.

[Abulafia]

http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/67752.article

An interesting link on private prosecutions in the UK.

[Kenngo1969]

http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/67752.article

An interesting link on private prosecutions in the UK.

Yes, it is.