halconero Posted February 5, 2014 Posted February 5, 2014 Sheilauk, maybe the post I read on the other forum was about some evidence that the magistrate saw that made them ok the summons. Maybe there is something like that that's going to come out.Magistrates in the UK don't consider private prosecution evidence the same way a DA in the United States considers evidence before going to trial. They just check to make sure the accusation being brought to them is written out properly, and has actual people acting as the defendant and accused. 1
stemelbow Posted February 5, 2014 Posted February 5, 2014 I'm plainly astounded by the stupidity of this. Please someone tell me why we should ever take Mormonthink, David Twede, Tom Phillips seriously again? What a pile of goons. Luckily many an ex-LDS and others are treating this seriously--making them look foolish too, in my view. 1
Calm Posted February 5, 2014 Posted February 5, 2014 Calmoriah, I don't have any references on that, except for comments made by various significant parties online over the past few months, who said as much.Significant in the Church or significant among observers of the Church and if the last, why would we assume they would know? Serious question, I know you don't go in for the more critical stuff.
halconero Posted February 5, 2014 Posted February 5, 2014 (edited) It's interesting to see the online reaction. Many bitter ex-members are really pushing the "see everbody?! The mormon president is a fraud!!!" angle, and the general reaction is "I may not be mormon, but this is ridiculous." Edited February 5, 2014 by halconero
Mystery Meat Posted February 5, 2014 Posted February 5, 2014 It is odd to me how those who are dissatisfied with the Church outright refuse to listen to what a British Lawyer is saying about this on our very board. Tacenda I respect you, but just because you read it online doesn't make it true. The magistrate did not accept this case because of some overwhelming piece of evidence that was shown him or her, he did it because the prosecutor was able to more or less copy and paste the fraud language from statute. In other words there is a low standard to get a summons issued.
Popular Post Calm Posted February 5, 2014 Popular Post Posted February 5, 2014 Bringing a private prosecution in the UK is also very rare, not least because of the costs. Should a private prosecutor lose, he can be ordered to pay the Defendant's costs. There is no Grand Jury system in the UK. The Magistrates Courts deal with the vast majority of criminal cases and in those cases the Magistrates are the sole arbiters of the law and of the facts. Magistrates will determine any legal issues such as the admissibility of evidence and they determine the facts and decide if someone is guilty or not guilty and whether a case should be dismissed for technical reasons, vexatious prosecution or because of insufficient evidence. They do sit with a legal adviser, a lawyer who only advises and is not involved in the decision making. Where the case is more serious, which is based on the likely sentence (Magistrates can only impose a maximum of 12 months imprisonment), the case is sent to the Crown Courts. Here a Judge sits, with a Jury on a trial. However, the Judge decides on matters of law and deals with preliminary matters such as whether the case is a vexatious prosecution and he can dismiss a case if he believes there is insufficient evidence. The Jury only sits when the case gets to its trial and only decides on guilt. The UK legal system is not very petty or literalist. Mistakes can by readily rectified if they don't affect the clear identification of the Defendant and the offence. A small error in the address is unlikely to lead to the dismissal of the summons. BTW - the summons should not have been issued unless the Magistrate was satisfied that the defendant and offence were clearly identified and the Court had jurisdiction. In a case that can be tried at either Court, such as fraud, at the first hearing, the Defendant is usually expected to indicated a plea and the Magistrates decide where the case should be tried/sentenced - Magistrates or Crown. This is where I'd have to speculate a little as I don't have the information necessary to be definitive. The sentencing guideline penalty for fraud is dependent on the value of the fraud and the nature of the allegation. Many frauds remain in the Magistrates' Courts as the recommended sentence is less than 12 months. But a large scale confidence fraud will go to the Crown Court. Also, a summons can be dismissed for being 'vexatious'. So, at the hearing in March, the first decisions will have to be whether the Defendant pursues a vexatious prosecution claim first or whether the Magistrates decide on the suitable Court of trial first and this decision is dependant on the information presented to the Court - information which is not tested or proved in any way and remains allegations. The decision on where a case is heard is not dependant on the Court deciding that there is sufficient evidence, or that there is even a case to answer, just IF the defendant is convicted of the circumstances alleged by the Prosecuter, what would be the sentence. Mostly, defendants want to stay in the Magistrates because of the lesser sentences, but this raises serious legal questions and then you often want to be before the Judge who is more experienced in dealing with complex issues. (Most magistrates are ordinary members of the public, without legal qualificiations who sit part time - a District Judge will no doubt deal with this in Westminster - a District Judge is a qualified lawyer and sits full time as a Magistrate). sorry about the length of this post and I hope I've not lost anyone. Its quite a different system from the USA. I hope I've answered the questions at least in part. I'm not going to speculate on the outcome/decisions - Courts are very difficult to predict anyway. However, in my opinion, I don't think Pres Monson will be appearing in a Court to stand trial.Length is good...very informative, thank you again for taking the time. 5
Avatar4321 Posted February 5, 2014 Posted February 5, 2014 I'm plainly astounded by the stupidity of this. Please someone tell me why we should ever take Mormonthink, David Twede, Tom Phillips seriously again? What a pile of goons. Luckily many an ex-LDS and others are treating this seriously--making them look foolish too, in my view. Why did we take them seriously before?
The Nehor Posted February 5, 2014 Posted February 5, 2014 Twelve Months Later on anti-LDS sites:"The evil LDS church again shows its true colors as Tom Philips was forced to pay the legal fees in the suit against Thomas Monson. Instead of showing christlike compassion after the suit was unjustly dismissed they took action to discourage others from doing this in the future and now Tom Philips is unable to feed his family and pay his rent. The LDS church leaders are undoubtedly gleefully laughing at this turn of events and glorying in the suffering of others. They disgust me." 4
Duncan Posted February 5, 2014 Posted February 5, 2014 One thing too is that maybe tying up Pres. Monson and the brethren with all this legal hoofluntz then maybe they can answer these types of questions and give it thought
Mystery Meat Posted February 5, 2014 Posted February 5, 2014 (edited) Twelve Months Later on anti-LDS sites:"The evil LDS church again shows its true colors as Tom Philips was forced to pay the legal fees in the suit against Thomas Monson. Instead of showing christlike compassion after the suit was unjustly dismissed they took action to discourage others from doing this in the future and now Tom Philips is unable to feed his family and pay his rent. The LDS church leaders are undoubtedly gleefully laughing at this turn of events and glorying in the suffering of others. They disgust me."My first thought when i saw this was i hope for his sake he has a case because in the UK in many cases the losing party pays the other sides legal fees. That is not the case here in the US. If it gets to trial the Church could rack up a hefty bill. Edited February 5, 2014 by lvjd66
juliann Posted February 5, 2014 Posted February 5, 2014 Twelve Months Later on anti-LDS sites:"The evil LDS church again shows its true colors as Tom Philips was forced to pay the legal fees in the suit against Thomas Monson. Instead of showing christlike compassion after the suit was unjustly dismissed they took action to discourage others from doing this in the future and now Tom Philips is unable to feed his family and pay his rent. The LDS church leaders are undoubtedly gleefully laughing at this turn of events and glorying in the suffering of others. They disgust me."What is this referring to? What suit was dismissed?
sheilauk Posted February 5, 2014 Posted February 5, 2014 It reminds me of the claims made against Joseph Smith. He was arrested on fraud allegations and no convictions were recorded, yet there are still those who claim he was convicted of fraud. Often times, all it takes is for there to be a Court case. 1
David T Posted February 5, 2014 Posted February 5, 2014 What is this referring to? What suit was dismissed? His post was a speculative joke, juliann. 2
Scott Lloyd Posted February 5, 2014 Posted February 5, 2014 What is this referring to? What suit was dismissed? The Nehor, with tongue in cheek, is peering into a figurative crystal ball and predicting how anti-Mormons will react after the current action is dismissed and complainants are compelled to pay the legal fees for the defense. 3
Damien the Leper Posted February 5, 2014 Posted February 5, 2014 This was posted by Bridget Jack Jeffries: 4
juliann Posted February 5, 2014 Posted February 5, 2014 His post was a speculative joke, juliann. Oops Meanwhile, another article from the UK which isn't very flattering in identifying Phillips as a "disaffected Mormon" who runs a "website highly critical of the church." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/10619538/Head-of-Mormon-church-Thomas-Monson-summoned-by-British-magistrates-court-over-Adam-and-Eve-teaching.html It is looking like the biggest loss for MormonThink will be their identification as a site hostile to the church as opposed to the fair and balanced image they were going for.
wtrdog Posted February 5, 2014 Posted February 5, 2014 Sheilauk thank you for your opinion on this matter. From what I understand the church is fully aware of this and has been actively trying to stop it get this far, so it may be that Tom and Robert see this as a win, even if it goes no further.The C of E has a lot of land and property and isn't provided for through the tax system. All donations are voluntary. I believe in some European countries a small amount of taxed income goes to the upkeep of churches that are historic in nature.Our village church is maintained (12th century) through fund raising and voluntary contributions. Church ought to embrace it. Let the Kangaroo Court proceed, Tom Philips will single-handedly discredit the whole antimo movement, and the smart ones realize this and are flaming him over at the mormon discussions forum. Mormon Think is already done as a legitimate web site. Your previous post contained vulgarity and has been removed. Please read board guidelines before posting again. 2
Johnnie Cake Posted February 5, 2014 Posted February 5, 2014 I once asked a church apologist why the church doesn't just give a more honest picture of its foundational stories when teaching investigators...to which he replied..."Don't be silly Craig, No one would join the church if we did that"... Seems like its coming back to bite 'em in the Arse
Scott Lloyd Posted February 5, 2014 Posted February 5, 2014 (edited) I once asked a church apologist why the church doesn't just give a more honest picture of its foundational stories when teaching investigators...to which he replied..."Don't be silly Craig, No one would join the church if we did that"...CFR. Or is this one of those self-serving albeit impossible-to-verify anecdotes? Edited to add: Who is the "church apologist" you conversed with? Is it someone prominent? Can we contact him/her? I suspect we'll get a somewhat different account of the conversation, assuming it actually happened. Edited February 5, 2014 by Scott Lloyd 1
Buzzard Posted February 5, 2014 Posted February 5, 2014 I once asked a church apologist why the church doesn't just give a more honest picture of its foundational stories when teaching investigators...to which he replied..."Don't be silly Craig, No one would join the church if we did that"... Seems like its coming back to bite 'em in the ArseSo instead of presenting the First Vision, the Book of Mormon, and the Plan of Salvation, missionaries should teach investigators about discontinued polygamy, what Brigham Young said in a sacrament meeting in Salina, UT in 1856 about blood atonement, and possibly missing or not papyri? That's rich. 2
Popular Post The Nehor Posted February 5, 2014 Popular Post Posted February 5, 2014 I once asked a church apologist why the church doesn't just give a more honest picture of its foundational stories when teaching investigators...to which he replied..."Don't be silly Craig, No one would join the church if we did that"... Seems like its coming back to bite 'em in the ArseI once asked an anti-Mormon why he left the Church despite having a testimony and he replied,"Don't be ridiculous. We all know it is true but we are damned and we figure we might as well try to bring others with us. The devil asks it of us and we obey."I love anecdotal stories. 13
Tacenda Posted February 5, 2014 Posted February 5, 2014 (edited) (Repeating someone elsewhere) "The February surprise did do something, it gave Mormon Think a lot more traffic!. But people will soon forget and life moves on. The only dog I have in this fight, is to drive the church to let open the windows and let the sun in, breath the fresh air, clear the cobwebs out and not let anyone get entangled in the not knowing again. I don't want anyone to hurt like so many have. Yes, people do take their religion seriously and believe every word of it. And put men on pedestals. Even when they shouldn't. I hope there will be a day that Mormon Think and places like it, don't need to exist. Edited February 5, 2014 by Tacenda
Scott Lloyd Posted February 5, 2014 Posted February 5, 2014 I once asked an anti-Mormon why he left the Church despite having a testimony and he replied,"Don't be ridiculous. We all know it is true but we are damned and we figure we might as well try to bring others with us. The devil asks it of us and we obey."I love anecdotal stories.lol! I considered doing something like this but couldn't immediately figure out how to pull it off. Bravo!
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted February 5, 2014 Posted February 5, 2014 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: It says he must appear on 14/03/2014...I did not know such a date was possible.
The Nehor Posted February 5, 2014 Posted February 5, 2014 It says he must appear on 14/03/2014...I did not know such a date was possible.British reverse month and day compared to the US. Their way actually makes more sense going from smallest unit to largest.
Recommended Posts