rongo Posted March 12, 2014 Posted March 12, 2014 It's been quiet. Too quiet. Seriously ---- I would have thought there would be more known or more going on by now. Any chance that the Church knows something we don't know, and may not formally respond at all? Or, more likely, will it enter a plea via counsel on the deadline?
BCSpace Posted March 12, 2014 Posted March 12, 2014 (edited) Despite their huge salaries, none of the GA's spends much time at island resorts... Edited March 12, 2014 by BCSpace
Tacenda Posted March 12, 2014 Posted March 12, 2014 What?I know you'd think that was Nehor or Kenngo speaking, now we have BCSpace to add to the list of kidders.
rongo Posted March 12, 2014 Author Posted March 12, 2014 (edited) I still don't get it. Great Britain is an island --- so GAs won't be going to that particular "island resort?" If you have to explain the punch line, BC, then it wasn't very funny to begin with . . . Edited March 12, 2014 by rongo
The Nehor Posted March 12, 2014 Posted March 12, 2014 I know you'd think that was Nehor or Kenngo speaking, now we have BCSpace to add to the list of kidders.Objection!!!!! My jokes make more sense then that.
ALarson Posted March 12, 2014 Posted March 12, 2014 This is the only thing I've read (March 5th, SLT: http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/blogsfaithblog/57631967-180/church-court-lds-temple.html.csp ) Salt Lake City-based church representatives also could not immediately provide an update on a summons for LDS Church President Thomas S. Monson to appear in a British court on charges of fraud brought by a former Mormon bishop, who alleges the faith’s teachings are deceptive. I would think that if they'd filed for a postponement, we would have heard. But, I don't know the laws and deadlines for that over in the UK. I tend to believe that attorneys representing President Monson will appear and ask for the charges to be dismissed.
Popular Post sheilauk Posted March 12, 2014 Popular Post Posted March 12, 2014 (edited) Its not a deadline that they have to submit a brief for or anything like that. As its criminal proceedings, nothing will happen in public until the hearing on the 14th. Pres Monson's Counsel may well have written to the Court to give it an indication of what he intends to do, but they don't have to have done so and it won't be made public until the Court considers it, in Court on the day. In any event, whilst it can be dealt with in Pres Monson's absence, it would be unwise to try to deal with it in the absence of anyone for the Defence and so I expect Counsel to attend the hearing on the 14th. In the UK, in criminal proceedings, if its not said in open Court, its not public or made public. Edited to add - re ALarson's post above - Even if Counsel have written in to request an adjournment, that will not be considered or made public until the hearing on the 14th. Such matters are not considered administratively, but have to be determined by the Court and listings are rarely amended in the Magistrates' Court to consider such applications. The position is slightly different at Crown Court - but the case isn't there yet. Edited March 12, 2014 by sheilauk 5
Kenngo1969 Posted March 12, 2014 Posted March 12, 2014 I know you'd think that was Nehor or Kenngo speaking, now we have BCSpace to add to the list of kidders. Heh! "Thank you, thank you very much ladies and gentlemen! I'll be here all week. (Try the chicken. It's delicious! )"
Kenngo1969 Posted March 12, 2014 Posted March 12, 2014 Objection!!!!! My jokes make more sense then that.Sustained! Rephrase, or withdraw your last comment, counsel! 1
ALarson Posted March 12, 2014 Posted March 12, 2014 (edited) Its not a deadline that they have to submit a brief for or anything like that. As its criminal proceedings, nothing will happen in public until the hearing on the 14th. Pres Monson's Counsel may well have written to the Court to give it an indication of what he intends to do, but they don't have to have done so and it won't be made public until the Court considers it, in Court on the day. In any event, whilst it can be dealt with in Pres Monson's absence, it would be unwise to try to deal with it in the absence of anyone for the Defence and so I expect Counsel to attend the hearing on the 14th. In the UK, in criminal proceedings, if its not said in open Court, its not public or made public. Edited to add - re ALarson's post above - Even if Counsel have written in to request an adjournment, that will not be considered or made public until the hearing on the 14th. Such matters are not considered administratively, but have to be determined by the Court and listings are rarely amended in the Magistrates' Court to consider such applications. The position is slightly different at Crown Court - but the case isn't there yet.Hi Shelia!Thanks for the information. Your input is always greatly appreciated!! A couple of questions I have are these:If the church intends to file for a delay or postponement, would that have had to have taken place prior to now? In other words, if they haven't done this yet, can we assume the hearing will take place on the 14th? Edited March 12, 2014 by ALarson
Calm Posted March 12, 2014 Posted March 12, 2014 I second that question....is there anything lawyers would be doing on either side before the hearing? Like taking depositions or something?
rpn Posted March 12, 2014 Posted March 12, 2014 (edited) Mr. Phillips has raised over 20K (mostly in L10-50 increments) on a web funding site. He announce last week or weekend that he'd talked to his attorneys (who have not yet been identified so it is impossible to evaluate the quality of the representation or even to speculate on the same) and they had said they needed more before the hearing, claiming the church was spending more. What I cannot figure out is how they could legitimately spend $20K (presumably on top of the $11K that Mr. Phillips said he had paid personally, before he started asking for money) before the hearing and without any motions. If this were the US, a defendant could file a motion to dismiss before an arraignment (which is sort of the equivalent of the March 14th hearing). But it is unlikely such a motion will be actually argued in the first hearing, even if filed. And in the US criminal practice such a filing would be highly unusual at that stage. And any rescheduling could be done outside the court in many courts across the US, without notice to anyone but the parties. Of course UK isn't the US. And I have not been able to locate an electronic public docket from which we could follow the proceedings. Edited March 12, 2014 by rpn 1
Popular Post The Nehor Posted March 12, 2014 Popular Post Posted March 12, 2014 I second that question....is there anything lawyers would be doing on either side before the hearing? Like taking depositions or something?As a card-carrying Danite I can say "witness persuasion" is already underway. We have got this. 8
jaxenro Posted March 12, 2014 Posted March 12, 2014 Are they really serious? Seems like a publicity seeking magistrate. Couldn't they start by calling the arch bishop of cantebury and question church of england doctrine?
Kenngo1969 Posted March 12, 2014 Posted March 12, 2014 Are they really serious? Seems like a publicity seeking magistrate. Couldn't they start by calling the arch bishop of cantebury and question church of england doctrine?That's why, although many are surprised the case has gotten this far, many observers are doubting it'll go much further. I've said it before (No kidding?!!) and I'll say it again: Courts are poor fora for adjudicating religious truth claims and causes of action [much less criminal charges, which this is] arising therefrom.
Calm Posted March 12, 2014 Posted March 12, 2014 (edited) Are they really serious? Seems like a publicity seeking magistrate. Couldn't they start by calling the arch bishop of cantebury and question church of england doctrine?Look up sheilauk's past posts on the subject. The magistrate was just following the law (reluctantly from Phillips' description IMO). Edited March 12, 2014 by calmoriah 2
sheilauk Posted March 12, 2014 Posted March 12, 2014 Bear with me and the time differences. I will post an answer to your questions tomorrow my time - about 10 hours from now! Hope you can wait!
Calm Posted March 12, 2014 Posted March 12, 2014 (edited) Gives us something to look forward to tomorrow, always nice.Sent you a pm btw. Edited March 12, 2014 by calmoriah
Kenngo1969 Posted March 12, 2014 Posted March 12, 2014 Bear with me and the time differences. I will post an answer to your questions tomorrow my time - about 10 hours from now! Hope you can wait!Oh, please! Sleep? Who needs a little thing like sleep?! Personally, I'll sleep when I'm dead ... that's what I always say! (Sweet dreams, my Sister From Across The Pond! ) 1
The Nehor Posted March 13, 2014 Posted March 13, 2014 Look up sheilauk's past posts on the subject. The magistrate was just following the law (reluctantly from Phillips' description IMO). Yeah, Philips said that he had to educate the magistrate and others about the law and had to answer every objection in advance. I read this as the magistrate reluctantly putting it through only because he had to (it's the law) and tried to dissuade Philips and point out how flawed his case is. 1
Calm Posted March 13, 2014 Posted March 13, 2014 Yeah, Philips said that he had to educate the magistrate and others about the law and had to answer every objection in advance. I read this as the magistrate reluctantly putting it through only because he had to (it's the law) and tried to dissuade Philips and point out how flawed his case is.She....and apparently she is well respected. 1
The Nehor Posted March 13, 2014 Posted March 13, 2014 She....and apparently she is well respected. Wait.....we are letting women run courts now????? THE END IS NIGH!!!!!!! 1
Duncan Posted March 13, 2014 Posted March 13, 2014 Wait.....we are letting women run courts now????? THE END IS NIGH!!!!!!! it's like Christine Sullivan has taken over
Recommended Posts