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

[Abulafia]

Bob, I've just had permission to post this as an opinion.

The basis of the case for fraud, as I understand it, is that under UK law in order to ask for money (tithing in missionary discussions), missionaries give only partial and misleading information about the teachings and nature of the church, so lack of full disclosure.

I know nothing about UK law, do you have an opinion on this?

Edited February 4, 2014 by Abulafia

[Mystery Meat]

I spent some time on the exmormon reddit. There are some seriously bitter folks over there. I know people who have left the Church and their bitterness is strong. This just takes that bitterness to whole new heights. This just feels like grasping at straws to me. Meanwhile, the vast majority of the exmormons are salivating for some earth shattering announcement that will be the Church down on top of itself. If such a thing were to happen (it won't), some of these folks seem to have little concern for the lives of millions of faithful that would be devastated and destroyed.

[Mystery Meat]

Bob, I've just had permission to post this as an opinion.

The basis of the case for fraud, as I understand it, is that under UK law in order to ask for money (tithing in missionary discussions), missionaries give only partial and misleading information about the teachings and nature of the church, so lack of full disclosure.

I know nothing about UK law, do you have an opinion on this?

 

That's it? That's the basis?

 

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

I don't even know where to begin....HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

 

If that is true this will be very short indeed. Yes, let's have courts decide how much information is enough information before we can ask new members to voluntarily contribute money to the Church. I thought these folks were dense before, now I know that they are.

[ALarson]

I just read the following post online and I also have to wonder if this is really what Tom Phillips is after:

 

As an attorney, I would be very surprised if Phillips' legal team hasn't already thought several more steps down the road. If I were in their shoes, I wouldn't care what any church official said about whether they truly believed the church's claims, or whether they claim the freedom of religious belief. That doesn't matter. That wouldn't be the goal. Document discovery would be the goal. This case involves claims of historical fact that are falsifiable. So the question would be, did the Brethren have access to internal information showing those claims to be false, or likely to be false? In a civil suit against a corporation, executives can claim ignorance, but that opens the door to internal records and communication to see whether the executives are being truthful, or whether they should have known of wrongdoing given the internal information that they had access to. This kind of discovery is done all the time.

So what could they conceivably go for? Oh, just all of the First Presidency's correspondence, meeting minutes, diary entries, archives, records, writings, studies, etc. Pretty much anything in the First Presidency's vault. The argument to get access and make the church produce it is easy: there might be information showing either that a) Monson and the Brethren and their predecessors knew that the claims weren't true, or b) should have known that their claims weren't true, or c) withheld factual information that could have materially altered the decision-making of converts and members if that information had been disclosed. It's obviously relevant to the question of what information they had through the years to either support or weaken their claims to the church's veracity. At this moment, I can't imagine a strong argument to protect it from discovery. I don't see a relevant privilege at issue. The church could claim that it is sensitive material, but they would then have to explain why. The "why" would have to be an argument that the disclosure of such evidence might be embarrassing or damaging to the church or its membership, but that goes to the fraud claim (i.e., if there's something so embarrassing or earth shattering that the First Presidency has been hiding because it could damage members' belief in the enterprise, that is fraud by concealment). Moreover, the argument would be made that if the Brethren truly believe it all, then the material in their possession should support their belief and they should be happy to disclose it to the world.

Can they get it under the law? I'm quite certain that the answer is "yes". International litigation is common, with treaties in place to govern the smooth flow of discovery between jurisdictions. I cannot imagine that the US and the UK don't have such treaties in place that are very well-worn.

In my mind, the document discovery is the banquet they're going for. This personal summons to Monson is just setting the table. I'm by no means saying that it would be easy, as I'm sure that the church would fight tooth and nail until they've run every lawyer at Kirton & McConkie to death to oppose it. It may never happen, and if I had to bet right now, I'd probably come down on the side of doubt. However, it's a real enough possibility that I imagine a lot of a**holes are puckering on both sides of South Temple right now.

And perhaps that legal battle is all Phillips wants. To watch the church lash and writhe through endless legal wranglings, doing anything to squirm and weasel its way out of having to stand behind its doctrines and historical claims in an objective forum, far from the mindless audience of nodding heads at General Conference.

And oh, the contrast that would make. Peter stood in front of the Sanhedrin and declared with boldness that "by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole." Paul stood before King Agrippa and declared "I am persuaded that none of these things are hidden from him; for this thing was not done in a corner." But now, in the dispensation of the fullness of times, the "prophets, seers, and revelators" of God's alleged one true church will send their lawyers to object, deny, tie legal knots, and build a trans-Atlantic wall of weasel words.

[savedbygrace]

Isn't this a bit like trying.g to sue a burger chain because you got fat eating their burgers?

 Or, taking.g someone to court because you joined their group only to find that you didn't believe one word that they told you.If that is the case any amount of us could sue any amount of people. I feel this a publicity thing that will do no good for anyone.

[Abulafia]

I spent some time on the exmormon reddit. There are some seriously bitter folks over there. I know people who have left the Church and their bitterness is strong. This just takes that bitterness to whole new heights. This just feels like grasping at straws to me. Meanwhile, the vast majority of the exmormons are salivating for some earth shattering announcement that will be the Church down on top of itself. If such a thing were to happen (it won't), some of these folks seem to have little concern for the lives of millions of faithful that would be devastated and destroyed.

I'm sorry but the vast majority of ex mormons who have commented on this (that I have noted)are ridiculing this action by Tom.

[Mystery Meat]

I'm sorry but the vast majority of ex mormons who have commented on this (that I have noted)are ridiculing this action by Tom.

 

Not on reddit they aren't.

[Bob Crockett]

Don't see how document discovery can be done in a criminal case against an indiviual.

Sure, there may be a trial some day, but even then after extradition I don't see it. This lawyer blathering on about this doesn't realize the procedure the UK magistrate is employing.

[Abulafia]

Not on reddit they aren't.

On facebook they are. If you are on fb, I'm sure you'll see many of them. A lot of post and ex mormons are very unhappy about this and feel it confirms stereotypes.

[Duncan]

I just read the following post online and I also have to wonder if this is really what Tom Phillips is after:

 

As an attorney, I would be very surprised if Phillips' legal team hasn't already thought several more steps down the road. If I were in their shoes, I wouldn't care what any church official said about whether they truly believed the church's claims, or whether they claim the freedom of religious belief. That doesn't matter. That wouldn't be the goal. Document discovery would be the goal. This case involves claims of historical fact that are falsifiable. So the question would be, did the Brethren have access to internal information showing those claims to be false, or likely to be false? In a civil suit against a corporation, executives can claim ignorance, but that opens the door to internal records and communication to see whether the executives are being truthful, or whether they should have known of wrongdoing given the internal information that they had access to. This kind of discovery is done all the time.

So what could they conceivably go for? Oh, just all of the First Presidency's correspondence, meeting minutes, diary entries, archives, records, writings, studies, etc. Pretty much anything in the First Presidency's vault. The argument to get access and make the church produce it is easy: there might be information showing either that a) Monson and the Brethren and their predecessors knew that the claims weren't true, or b) should have known that their claims weren't true, or c) withheld factual information that could have materially altered the decision-making of converts and members if that information had been disclosed. It's obviously relevant to the question of what information they had through the years to either support or weaken their claims to the church's veracity. At this moment, I can't imagine a strong argument to protect it from discovery. I don't see a relevant privilege at issue. The church could claim that it is sensitive material, but they would then have to explain why. The "why" would have to be an argument that the disclosure of such evidence might be embarrassing or damaging to the church or its membership, but that goes to the fraud claim (i.e., if there's something so embarrassing or earth shattering that the First Presidency has been hiding because it could damage members' belief in the enterprise, that is fraud by concealment). Moreover, the argument would be made that if the Brethren truly believe it all, then the material in their possession should support their belief and they should be happy to disclose it to the world.

Can they get it under the law? I'm quite certain that the answer is "yes". International litigation is common, with treaties in place to govern the smooth flow of discovery between jurisdictions. I cannot imagine that the US and the UK don't have such treaties in place that are very well-worn.

In my mind, the document discovery is the banquet they're going for. This personal summons to Monson is just setting the table. I'm by no means saying that it would be easy, as I'm sure that the church would fight tooth and nail until they've run every lawyer at Kirton & McConkie to death to oppose it. It may never happen, and if I had to bet right now, I'd probably come down on the side of doubt. However, it's a real enough possibility that I imagine a lot of a**holes are puckering on both sides of South Temple right now.

And perhaps that legal battle is all Phillips wants. To watch the church lash and writhe through endless legal wranglings, doing anything to squirm and weasel its way out of having to stand behind its doctrines and historical claims in an objective forum, far from the mindless audience of nodding heads at General Conference.

And oh, the contrast that would make. Peter stood in front of the Sanhedrin and declared with boldness that "by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole." Paul stood before King Agrippa and declared "I am persuaded that none of these things are hidden from him; for this thing was not done in a corner." But now, in the dispensation of the fullness of times, the "prophets, seers, and revelators" of God's alleged one true church will send their lawyers to object, deny, tie legal knots, and build a trans-Atlantic wall of weasel words.

 

 

good luck to them finding documents on what they are looking for

[Nevo]

.

Edited October 1, 2014 by Nevo

[Bob Crockett]

Bob, I've just had permission to post this as an opinion.

The basis of the case for fraud, as I understand it, is that under UK law in order to ask for money (tithing in missionary discussions), missionaries give only partial and misleading information about the teachings and nature of the church, so lack of full disclosure.

I know nothing about UK law, do you have an opinion on this?

I only know US law. US law is basically that one cannot obtain a refund for religious contributions.

[knowone]

This is the "surprise" that Tom Phillips had planned. He just said it today.

 

Here's a copy of the summons for those interested. I think he's pulled the wool over his own eyes if he thinks this is going to be the straw that breaks the Church's back:

 

 

 

ok, first of all who is tom phillips?  & yeah thats so stupid & your analogy is spot on.  we know in the inspired book of moses that the adversary has no clue what is going on.  its probably in genesis as well.  he is simply another tool that the Lord uses to teach all mankind how to be happy.  so simple.

[canard78]

Honestly,

 

Isn't there just a wee bit in each of you that really would like President Monson to give a definitive answer to each of these charges?  Wouldn't it be wonderful for a prophet of God to declare emphatically exactly what the churches position is in each of these areas?  I know I would...

 

It's UK. We don't turn our trials into a media circus. TV cameras are not allowed in. So whatever happens, you'll only be able to read the court transcript (or more likely the court dismissal of the case)

[Palerider]

Not quite:  "but behold I say unto you, that by small and simple things are great things brought to pass; and small means in many instances doth confound the wise." 

 

While this group may indeed qualify as "small"; the jury is still out on whether they are "simple" too.

 

Just a paraphrase.........

[Tacenda]

I think they are disgruntled because they've lost family (Tom) and a lot of tithing money, without knowing all the facts.  I don't really blame them all that much.  I think it's good the church comes out in the open with everything, so that whomever joins will know exactly what is in history, and true doctrine, that of being Gods etc.  Also, the church should be more forthwith to where the tithing goes, enough with advertising so much, and so many videos.  Money could be better spent on the poor.  I'll bet the essays were put out there because of this suit.  I don't know if anything will come of it.  But hopefully the church will see the importance of honesty, not be afraid of some of its teachings scaring people off.  Address the situation that is happening.  Many members are suffering, maybe the Lord will guide the leaders on how best to help them.  I'd count myself with the disgruntled.  Finding out unknowns, made me lose precious time with family.  Made me feel like a freak.  It's time to be open and then heal, and then grow in the light of truth.         

Edited February 5, 2014 by Tacenda

[Palerider]

I spent some time on the exmormon reddit. There are some seriously bitter folks over there. I know people who have left the Church and their bitterness is strong. This just takes that bitterness to whole new heights. This just feels like grasping at straws to me. Meanwhile, the vast majority of the exmormons are salivating for some earth shattering announcement that will be the Church down on top of itself. If such a thing were to happen (it won't), some of these folks seem to have little concern for the lives of millions of faithful that would be devastated and destroyed.

 

You mean devastated like their own lives were and nobody in the church seemed to care? Instead they were treated like lepers.

[juliann]

And oh, the contrast that would make. Peter stood in front of the Sanhedrin and declared with boldness that "by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole." Paul stood before King Agrippa and declared "I am persuaded that none of these things are hidden from him; for this thing was not done in a corner." But now, in the dispensation of the fullness of times, the "prophets, seers, and revelators" of God's alleged one true church will send their lawyers to object, deny, tie legal knots, and build a trans-Atlantic wall of weasel words.

 

This guy needs to get a little more familiar with scripture if he hopes to compare it with anything else. Paul was a master weasel worder and he even went so far as to escape "justice".   And everything he said could be set up in a similar lawsuit.

[Palerider]

I just read the following post online and I also have to wonder if this is really what Tom Phillips is after:

 

As an attorney, I would be very surprised if Phillips' legal team hasn't already thought several more steps down the road. If I were in their shoes, I wouldn't care what any church official said about whether they truly believed the church's claims, or whether they claim the freedom of religious belief. That doesn't matter. That wouldn't be the goal. Document discovery would be the goal. This case involves claims of historical fact that are falsifiable. So the question would be, did the Brethren have access to internal information showing those claims to be false, or likely to be false? In a civil suit against a corporation, executives can claim ignorance, but that opens the door to internal records and communication to see whether the executives are being truthful, or whether they should have known of wrongdoing given the internal information that they had access to. This kind of discovery is done all the time.

So what could they conceivably go for? Oh, just all of the First Presidency's correspondence, meeting minutes, diary entries, archives, records, writings, studies, etc. Pretty much anything in the First Presidency's vault. The argument to get access and make the church produce it is easy: there might be information showing either that a) Monson and the Brethren and their predecessors knew that the claims weren't true, or b) should have known that their claims weren't true, or c) withheld factual information that could have materially altered the decision-making of converts and members if that information had been disclosed. It's obviously relevant to the question of what information they had through the years to either support or weaken their claims to the church's veracity. At this moment, I can't imagine a strong argument to protect it from discovery. I don't see a relevant privilege at issue. The church could claim that it is sensitive material, but they would then have to explain why. The "why" would have to be an argument that the disclosure of such evidence might be embarrassing or damaging to the church or its membership, but that goes to the fraud claim (i.e., if there's something so embarrassing or earth shattering that the First Presidency has been hiding because it could damage members' belief in the enterprise, that is fraud by concealment). Moreover, the argument would be made that if the Brethren truly believe it all, then the material in their possession should support their belief and they should be happy to disclose it to the world.

Can they get it under the law? I'm quite certain that the answer is "yes". International litigation is common, with treaties in place to govern the smooth flow of discovery between jurisdictions. I cannot imagine that the US and the UK don't have such treaties in place that are very well-worn.

In my mind, the document discovery is the banquet they're going for. This personal summons to Monson is just setting the table. I'm by no means saying that it would be easy, as I'm sure that the church would fight tooth and nail until they've run every lawyer at Kirton & McConkie to death to oppose it. It may never happen, and if I had to bet right now, I'd probably come down on the side of doubt. However, it's a real enough possibility that I imagine a lot of a**holes are puckering on both sides of South Temple right now.

And perhaps that legal battle is all Phillips wants. To watch the church lash and writhe through endless legal wranglings, doing anything to squirm and weasel its way out of having to stand behind its doctrines and historical claims in an objective forum, far from the mindless audience of nodding heads at General Conference.

And oh, the contrast that would make. Peter stood in front of the Sanhedrin and declared with boldness that "by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole." Paul stood before King Agrippa and declared "I am persuaded that none of these things are hidden from him; for this thing was not done in a corner." But now, in the dispensation of the fullness of times, the "prophets, seers, and revelators" of God's alleged one true church will send their lawyers to object, deny, tie legal knots, and build a trans-Atlantic wall of weasel words.

 

Whoa,

 

Excellent analysis.

[Palerider]

Isn't this a bit like trying.g to sue a burger chain because you got fat eating their burgers?

 Or, taking.g someone to court because you joined their group only to find that you didn't believe one word that they told you.If that is the case any amount of us could sue any amount of people. I feel this a publicity thing that will do no good for anyone.

 

No, it's much more like a pyramid scam where you're told to work your *** off and you'll get rich but in the end, only the guys already at the top continue to get richer.......... 

[Palerider]

I think they are disgruntled because they've lost family (Tom) and a lot of tithing money, without knowing all the facts.  I don't really blame them all that much.  I think it's good the church comes out in the open with everything, so that whomever joins will know exactly what is in history, and true doctrine, that of being Gods etc.  Also, the church should be more forthwith to where the tithing goes, enough with advertising so much, and so many videos.  Money could be better spent on the poor.  I'll bet the essays were put out there because of this suit.  I don't know if anything will come of it.  But hopefully the church will see the importance of honesty, not be afraid of some of its teachings scaring people off.  Address the situation that is happening.  Many members are suffering, maybe the Lord will guide the leaders on how best to help them.  I'd count myself with the disgruntled.  Finding out unknowns, made me lose precious time with family.  Made me feel like a freak.  It's time to be open and then heal, and then grow in the light of truth.         

 

I agree, there's a lot to be said for full disclosure. But I think they're afraid of the truth and the effect it will have on the membership.

[Buzzard]

No, it's much more like a pyramid scam where you're told to work your *** off and you'll get rich but in the end, only the guys already at the top continue to get richer.......... 

Oh, absolute CFR that the church is ANYTHING like a pyramid scheme. I am very familiar with them, and loath pyramids/MLM schemes. The tithes and offerings that are received by the church are disbursed around the world for buildings, missions, humanitarian work, and church welfare, among other uses. This is the exact opposite of that happens in a pyramid. 

[Palerider]

This guy needs to get a little more familiar with scripture if he hopes to compare it with anything else. Paul was a master weasel worder and he even went so far as to escape "justice".   And everything he said could be set up in a similar lawsuit.

 

Pretty bold words (coming from someone hiding behind their computer) about a man who was responsible for spreading so much of the Gospel throughout the known world and in the end was executed and gave his life for his beliefs.

 

I admire your bravery..........yes indeedy......

[Duncan]

I agree, there's a lot to be said for full disclosure. But I think they're afraid of the truth and the effect it will have on the membership.

 

 

that cuts both ways though as evidenced by the whole Grant Palmer phoney GA thing, can we believe anything he says now? Tom Philips is staking his reputation on this and I guess we'll see what comes of it

[sheilauk]

I don't even know where to begin with the errors and unfounded speculation evinced so far.

 

I live in the UK, I'm an active Mormon and I'm a criminal lawyer who has worked for over 25 years in Magistrates' Courts and this is very unlikely to go anywhere.

 

This is an attempt at a criminal prosecution.  In the UK a criminal prosecution is brought by the prosecutor laying an information - ie making an allegation to the appropriate Court, which is dependent on where the offence is alleged to have been committed.  The Court then issues a summons - signed by a Magistrate (a District Judge is simply a paid Magistrate) or by the Clerk to the Justices (a difficult role to describe as it exists no where else but the person in basically employed to proffer legal services to the Magistrates).  Usually, this role is delegated to Court legal advisers.  Usually, informations are laid by the police and the case is prosecuted by the Crown Prosecution Service (a little like the DA's office in the USA).  However, individuals can bring their own private prosecution.  When the information is signed, it is not the evidence that is checked but that the information alleges an actual offence, is within the time limits (if any) and names a real person.  There is no decision on its validity.  That is a matter for the Court.  The particulars of the offence do not matter at this stage - only that it is under the Fraud Act.  All you need to do to get the offence right is copy out the words in the section of the Act.  BTW, we do not refer to acts of parliament by starting it with the name of the monarch! 

 

All criminal prosecutions start in the Magistrates' Courts.  Fraud is a serious offence and can be sent to a higher Court - the Crown Court.  The Magistrates have to decide that their powers of punishment if the Defendant is convicted are insufficient, can't see that myself, but they might.  The Magistrates also have the power to dismiss the charges as malicious.  "Higher ups" in Parliament or the Legal system have very little impact on Magistrates!  However, the CPS are the National State prosecutors and have the power to take over private prosecutions and often do.  The CPS can then withdraw the charges without the consent of the instigator!  A possibility in this case.

 

Initially, Pres Monson does not have to attend so long as he sends lawyers who have instructions about where the case should be tried.  He could be extradited - a long process and I don't know if a private individual can apply for an extradition warrant - I've only dealt with European warrants issued by the police.  However, I'm sure that Defence lawyers will initially ask for the charges to be dismissed.

 

As in the USA, the prosecutor must prove the offences beyond reasonable doubt.  In this case, that the statements were false and led directly to the tithe paying.  Of course, though stated as facts, they fall into religious belief, not fact.  Apparently, documents were served that made a number of statements about more than these individuals eg the amount of tithes received from thousands of people  - irrelevant - the case must concentrate on the actions of the individuals mentioned in the charges.  A criminal trial has very explicit rules about what will be allowed in, something that non lawyers often get caught out on - they are not the opportunity for you to stand on your own personal soapbox.  Also, there is no defence disclosure/discovery.  The prosecution can't demand documents or anything else from the defendant to help them prove their case, so if these people are hoping to get information from the Church, they are going to be disappointed.  So the attorney's online comments quoted above aren't spot on for the UK.

 

As this is a private prosecution, and given the Defendant, it will have been considered in more detail than usual, which is why a Magistrate has signed it.  However, the Magistrate will not/cannot consider the validity of the evidence.  That is a matter for the Court.  He will not be presenting the case to the Court.  He is not investigating the case and will have nothing further to do with the case.  Mr Phillips or his lawyer will need to present the case to the Court, unless the CPS take it over.  UK magistrates are not like European magistrates, they don't investigate cases.  They are really a combination of judge and jury in that they decide on the facts and the law in a case, with assistance from their legal advisers.  If the information showed a valid offence, he probably felt he had no option but to issue it (though he could have refused).  However, I don't see this getting very far and I doubt it will reach plea stage let alone trial.  The documents also strike me as not having been prepared by a Criminal lawyer but I could be wrong.  I've seen other people bring private prosecutions for a variety of offences, only one or two have ever succeeded, usually for assault.

 

I also don't believe the Church published a series of articles which would take months to prepare and approve just because of this summons - how would they even know about its preparation?!  Seems paranoid.  Or does the Church really have a network of underground spies?  Perhaps Mr. Phillips timed his request for a summons to tie in with the series of articles which were coming out?

 

This will, of course, garner publicity...