Any Word On The March 14 Summons Deadline?

[Wiki Wonka]

Wait.....we are letting women run courts now????? THE END IS NIGH!!!!!!!

 

Truly the Mormon Apocalypse must be upon us.

[The Nehor]

Truly the Mormon Apocalypse must be upon us.

 

I can assure you we are quite happy to share the apocalypse with everyone else.

[Scott Lloyd]

So what time is President Monson required to appear tomorrow?

 

Edited to add:

 

Never mind. I looked it up. It's at 10 a.m.

 

I assume that's Greenwich Mean Time.

 

Anybody know how many hours that is ahead of Mountain Daylight Time?

Edited March 14, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

It is now 3:17 AM London time, 6 hours and 44 minutes to go.

According to google, looks like the board's clock is off by three minutes.

Just google "London time"

So 4AM MT

Edited March 14, 2014 by calmoriah

[sheilauk]

Sorry that I didn't deal with the questions yesterday, work got in the way!

 

Anyway, I've combined a number of posts and questions into what may be one of the longest posts ever!  Good luck!

 

(I've put the name of the poster and their post and then my answer, in a different colour.  I know I could have multi quoted but I did it off line first!)

 

ALarson:

 

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?

 

No.  Firstly, it’s a criminal prosecution so, in the UK, it would be an application for an adjournment (rather than filing for a postponement/delay – we don’t use the word delay, it’s a bad word! The Government doesn’t like delays)(Is it a continuance in US criminal cases?).  As it’s a criminal prosecution and is in the Magistrates’ Court at the moment, the application will be heard on the 14^th itself.  Magistrates’ court procedure doesn’t really allow for applications to be considered prior to a hearing and most applications need to be considered in Court.  This is because of the status of the Magistrates’ Court – being the lowest Court and magistrates usually being non-professional (though there are more full time professionally qualified Judges than there used to be, most Courts and cases are decided by a Bench of three ordinary people, who don’t have any legal qualifications and aren’t even elected!)(its an ancient system but it still works quite well, but it means that almost everything has to be done in the open – trust issues).

 

Secondly, very little is going to happen on the 14^th.  The magistrates (or more likely a District Judge) will not try the case or hear any application to dismiss, there won’t be time.  They will either adjourn to allow the Defence more time or will determine whether the case should be sent to the Crown Court (the more I think about it, the more likely this seems) or will fix a date when an application to dismiss can be heard.

 

The Crown Court, where there are only Judges, deals with more matters outside of the Court room and is more flexible (as is the civil side of things in the magistrates – but I won’t bore you with UK jurisprudence!)

 

Calmoriah:

 

I second that question....is there anything lawyers would be doing on either side before the hearing? Like taking depositions or something?

 

I would hope that the lawyers on both sides would be preparing for whatever applications they intend to make.  They need to take witness statements (depositions in the US), obtain experts, apply for legal aid (if they want to – as the Defendant, I would), but they will have time after the hearing to do that.  Timetabling for various procedural and evidence matters will only take place if a trial date is fixed.  If the Defence want to apply for a dismissal, there is not a lot of evidence required, it will be a matter of obtaining precedents to present to the Court.

 

Rpn:

 

Mr. Phillips has raised over 20K (mostly in L10-50 increments) on a web funding site.  He announced 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.  

 

Not sure I buy, as a reason, that the Church is spending more than that.  Not sure how they would know how much the Church was spending, unless they know the hourly rate being charged and exactly who has been instructed to act.  I doubt there has been any communication between the two firms as yet, unless Phillips firm has written to the Church.  However, I don’t think they’ve actually yet spent the 31K.  Given that it is a private prosecution and given the nature of it and how much it will cost if there is a trial, I would be asking for a substantial amount of the estimated cost to be paid up front before I did any work.  I don’t want to work for free and it is very difficult to get money from people after the fact!  There is, I think, a lot of work to do in this case, researching the law, speaking to experts, getting statements and, if it goes to trial, and a specialist fraud barrister is used, probably a QC as well, the costs could easily exceed £100,000, even reaching £1.5 million (for each side).

There is another reason for asking for a lot of money – reluctance to take the case!

 

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.  

 

 I love the US language, so romantic!  Such lovely words to use and, if this were the Crown Court, it would apply. 

Generally speaking we refer to applications rather than motions. 

 

In the Magistrates’ Court – you’d make an application to dismiss at the first hearing and you wouldn’t have to give notice so you wouldn’t file it before hand.  Such an application would be unusual but only because most cases would never warrant it.  Magistrates consider everything at a hearing and everything is listed, though applications can be heard in the absence of the parties and listed at very short notice.

 

The Crown Court is different, there you would file in advance, you are arraigned and rescheduling is done outside the Courtroom, with notice only to the parties and the Court would be unlikely to hear an application without notice and without it being specifically scheduled..

 

All criminal cases must start in the Magistrates’ Court.  The Magistrates’ is a workhorse – practical and straightforward.  They are understaffed and overworked.  Over 90% of all criminal cases stay in the Magistrates’ Court.  They also deal with a vast amount of family work and a strange assortment of odd matters that need a Court and that the Government wants done quickly and cheaply!  Most cases are dealt with on the day – evidence handed over, guilty plea entered, sentencing report prepared, defendant sentenced and on his way before lunch!  Not guilty pleas are adjourned for a trial, which will be heard within a couple of months and last a few hours.  And its not just traffic offences – theft, burglary, assaults, fraud – all can be concluded in the Magistrates.  The more serious offences – murder, sexual assault, robbery, very serious burglaries, assaults and frauds – are sent by the Magistrates’ to the Crown Court – where it gets much more like the US and cases take many months.  I don’t know what course of action the Defence team will want to take, whether to go the Crown and then list for dismissal or have the Magistrates’ consider dismissal – which they could.  The magistrates probably won’t want it but that’s not a reason to send it up.  The parties probably both want it at the Crown Court and the Magistrates would then acquiesce.  There’s a lot to think about though when deciding venue.  I would LOVE to be in Court and hearing the arguments!

 

 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.

 

Unfortunately, our Courts are struggling to reach the 20^th century, technologically speaking!  We don’t have electronic dockets – in fact, these days in the Magistrates’ Court you’re lucky to have a piece of paper displayed with the dockets listed!  Magistrates’ Courts decisions are, of course, publicly available, but you have to go and ask!  They aren’t publicized or published.  Local newspapers get a copy of the results if they want them and some print some details in their paper, but that’s about it!  In high profile cases, the press have to send someone to the court to sit in and listen.  I hope that there is a reporter present and that there will be something in a paper eventually.  This is the UK – quaint is commonplace!

 

Jaxenro:

 

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?

 

The Nehor:

 

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.

 

As Cal said this came up in earlier posts.  As The Nehor says, I think the District Judge (aka Magistrate) was trying to dissuade Phillips.  However, if the information he put forward satisfied a number of technical issues (which it did), she was obliged to issue the summons if he insisted.  I’m certain that in no way was it a test of the evidence or done because he convinced her that it would be successful.

 

Courts have to deal with the complaints put before them and have to take them seriously.  And although this seems to be a ridiculous complaint to many, Phillips is taking it seriously, as, I’m sure is the Church and Pres Monson.  An appropriate application to dismiss, judicially considered, should deal with the merits.  As Kenngo said, Courts are not the place to try faith claims, whether they are presented as facts or otherwise.

 

The Nehor:

 

Wait.....we are letting women run courts now????? THE END IS NIGH!!!!!!!

 

J  Isn’t it just?  If you’d been in one of my Courts, when I worked there, you would probably have thought that!  I had a bit of a reputation for being mean!!!

 

Phew!  I did bore you with UK jurisprudence in the end!  If you got this far – congratulations!!   

[MichelleD]

There is information posted on Redit and the New Order Mormon forum with updates about what is taking place in court. I don't know if it's against board rules here to post the links to these. But, it's interesting to read.

[sheilauk]

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! )

 Cheers Brother Kenngo!

[ALarson]

There is information posted on Redit and the New Order Mormon forum with updates about what is taking place in court. I don't know if it's against board rules here to post the links to these. But, it's interesting to read.

Here is the link to the discussion on New Order Mormon regarding what is taking place in the hearing.  I cannot vouch for the information given and if the moderators are opposed to posting this link, I'll remove it as I don't want to violate any board guidelines:

 

http://forum.newordermormon.org/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=35615

[Calm]

The only thing that really interests me in the replay is this segment:

"10:43 church lawyer trying to discredit Philips , saying he repeatedly correspond ed with court trying to persuade court to issue summons , judge refused this a few times through late 2013 . Saying Philips complained about judge roscoe

Going through reasons judge originally declined to issue summons Then judge said Philips had to produce statements from injured parties , church lawyer saying it's wrong that judge advised Philips of this ,,, boos in court !!

Mentioned Ralph's statement then Bloor statements ,, judge observed Bloor should have mentioned WHEN HE WAS DEFRAUDED , church lawyers saying with respect that it's wrong that judge advised Philips how to proceed ."

Perhaps Sheila can explain the likely rationale here from both sides.

"boos in court"... There are apparently some critics in the audience, one was cautioned about being thrown out. I am assuming the boos are coming from them, but could they have come from the court people because the judge was being criticised?

"3 reporters , 5 exmos and one Tbm in court ."

Typical or demonstrates not a lot of interest?

Edited March 14, 2014 by calmoriah

[Calm]

Here is the link to the discussion on New Order Mormon regarding what is taking place in the hearing. I cannot vouch for the information given and if the moderators are opposed to posting this link, I'll remove it as I don't want to violate any board guidelines:

http://forum.newordermormon.org/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=35615

This thread itself seems safe so far. Perhaps they will make an exception about cross posting for purely informational purposes.

Thank you for the link and to the person doing the summarising there.

I wouldn't link to reddit, language there tends to go beyond board rules.

Edited March 14, 2014 by calmoriah

[Calm]

"Publicity ... Philips lawyer hands magistrate a document , uk version of huff post , talking about summons , monson pic on it , quote from church ,,, the one where they say bizarre allegations ,,,, Neil Anderson -

the qc the church have used today , saying the court were in error issuing the summonses ,,, a QC giving quotes to press that a case he is defending is nonsense !!! DRAMA!!"

The prosecutors are complaining about the defence speaking about the case? What about what Phillips was doing? Doesn't he count as one of the prosecutors?

"Going through judge Roscoe’s process, confirming that she followed due process .

It was not a rubber stamp summons; judge roscoe even rephrased the summons. “After much consideration and thought”."

What are the implications here?

[Avatar4321]

So it's almost 6pm in London now, any news reports?

[ALarson]

So it's almost 6pm in London now, any news reports?

I just read that the court has convened until 10:00 a.m. next Thursday. 

[Nevo]

.

Edited October 1, 2014 by Nevo

[rpn]

My understanding is that the hearing lasted from something after 10AM to after 4PM, with a lunch break.   The judge took the arguments under advisement and said he (she?) would rule next Thursday at 10AM. 

 

The reports off the rfm and reddit and other places are quite hard to follow because they don't seem to understand the basis of the legal arguments.  

[ALarson]

I think you mean adjourned.

Yes, I think you're right. I was just using the words of someone else, and it didn't sound right.  Thanks for the clarification.

[USU78]

Never mind

Edited March 14, 2014 by USU78

[ALarson]

Service of process of civil suits don't happen because just because something is notorious, and Courts don't get jurisdiction over individuals without actual service of the summons and accompanying documents.  This is by treaty between the US and the UK.

 

Does anybody have evidence that President Monson was served with process on this silly thing?

Attorneys for the church (6 of them) appeared in the UK for the hearing today.  There are links in previous posts on here to what transpired in court.  They were in session all day with a break for lunch and will reconvene next Thursday at 10:00 a.m.

[USU78]

Attorneys for the church (6 of them) appeared in the UK for the hearing today.  There are links in previous posts on here to what transpired in court.  They were in session all day with a break for lunch and will reconvene next Thursday at 10:00 a.m.

 

Gotcha.

[Avatar4321]

My understanding is that the hearing lasted from something after 10AM to after 4PM, with a lunch break.   The judge took the arguments under advisement and said he (she?) would rule next Thursday at 10AM. 

 

The reports off the rfm and reddit and other places are quite hard to follow because they don't seem to understand the basis of the legal arguments.  

 

That's an unusually long hearing for a first listing...

[ALarson]

That's an unusually long hearing for a first listing...

I would love to hear Sheila's input on this as maybe that's not unusually long for this type of hearing over in the UK.  (?)

 

Calling Sheila....

Edited March 14, 2014 by ALarson

[sheilauk]

The only thing that really interests me in the replay is this segment:

"10:43 church lawyer trying to discredit Philips , saying he repeatedly correspond ed with court trying to persuade court to issue summons , judge refused this a few times through late 2013 . Saying Philips complained about judge roscoe

Going through reasons judge originally declined to issue summons Then judge said Philips had to produce statements from injured parties , church lawyer saying it's wrong that judge advised Philips of this ,,, boos in court !!

Mentioned Ralph's statement then Bloor statements ,, judge observed Bloor should have mentioned WHEN HE WAS DEFRAUDED , church lawyers saying with respect that it's wrong that judge advised Philips how to proceed ."

Perhaps Sheila can explain the likely rationale here from both sides.

"boos in court"... There are apparently some critics in the audience, one was cautioned about being thrown out. I am assuming the boos are coming from them, but could they have come from the court people because the judge was being criticised?

"3 reporters , 5 exmos and one Tbm in court ."

Typical or demonstrates not a lot of interest?

 

Poor District Judge!  I assume that they had some idea that it would be a controversial hearing and hopefully not much else was listed, if anything!  Westminster Magistrates are used to dealing with difficult and international cases.

 

From this report, I'm guessing that the Defence went straight into their arguments for dismissing the summons but I hope they had more than the Court was forced into it and shouldn't have helped the Prosecution.  I hope that Pres Monson has criminal lawyers representing him.  Frankly, having 6 there is overkill and won't impress the District Judge at all.  Also, the Court has a duty to aid unrepresented people, so initially had to help Phillips - though if he now has lawyers, that shouldn't happen.  That's not to say that a Judge won't advise a party on either side, if necessary. The comment about Bloor seems proper to me, its an error that needs addressing.

 

The boos would be from Philips supporters.  Booing in Court or any comment is reprehensible and I wouldn't have given them a second chance, they'd have been out.  People are welcome to sit and watch but must NOT make any noise or comment.  This only shows how childish they are and is disrespectful to the Court.  In fact, its a criminal offence - contempt of court.  No court person would make any audible comment or sound, even if the Judge was being criticised.  Such criticism is not uncommon, plus you'd be in serious trouble! 

 

That number of people is unusual and shows there is a lot of interest!  Usually there is no one but the defendant and his family and possibly the complainant in court (plus a few lawyers).  Having any member of the public there is a rarity and the press only show up when they think its a significant case.

 

"Publicity ... Philips lawyer hands magistrate a document , uk version of huff post , talking about summons , monson pic on it , quote from church ,,, the one where they say bizarre allegations ,,,, Neil Anderson -

the qc the church have used today , saying the court were in error issuing the summonses ,,, a QC giving quotes to press that a case he is defending is nonsense !!! DRAMA!!"

The prosecutors are complaining about the defence speaking about the case? What about what Phillips was doing? Doesn't he count as one of the prosecutors?

"Going through judge Roscoe’s process, confirming that she followed due process .

It was not a rubber stamp summons; judge roscoe even rephrased the summons. “After much consideration and thought”."

What are the implications here?

 

I never thought that the summons was rubber stamped, nor would I expect it to be.  Any attempt by an individual to criminally prosecute another is very seriously considered and the prosecutor would be advised of a variety of things.  The Courts are to be fair to all - ie both sides.  And sometimes a bit of help stops a lot of future problems.  Like a lengthy hearing considering whether or not the case should be dismissed!  Again, it is not a comment on the validity of the case.  Philips is the prosecutor.  No one else.  The lawyers represent him.  Yes, the defence could complain about all the comments he has made and his fund raising efforts. 

 

Reporting and commenting on ongoing cases must be kept to a minimum or you can find yourself in contempt of court.  But people outside the UK aren't under the same constraint - so a US spokesperson can say much more.  Its one way the press can get around the rules, which apply to all of us including Phillips.

 

That's an unusually long hearing for a first listing...

 

It is an unusally long hearing for a first listing.  I would have expected the Court to adjourn to hear the representations, so they must have been expecting them somehow and taken it into account.  Its a long time for any hearing in the Magistrates' Court which isn't a trial.  Usually, hearings are no longer than 1-2 hours and that would be sentencing.  30 minutes is average.

[Bikeemikey]

I thought the comments from the new order Mormon website were pretty lame!

[Calm]

Gotcha.

Usu, it is also not a civil suit but a criminal charge. Not having posted for awhile, I assume you weren't reading, but Sheila is a barrister and has given a lot of good background for us laymen which likely will be even more informative for you. If you do a content search on her profile, her relevant posts will be eBay to find...think they are all in one thread in fact.

[Calm]

Thanks eternally, Sheila (trying to come up with new ways of saying it so it keeps sounding sincere. . )

There were a total of ten points summarised at the end according to reports. It was obviously being relayed by someone who didn't understand the law, I wish they had left out personal comments to avoid confusion, but what fun would that be.

Looking forward to reporters' comments, hopefully a lot of detail but am guessing not likely.

Interesting that it was a "large crowd". Not like the tv shows much.