Any Word On The March 14 Summons Deadline?

[Calm]

Is there likely to be any wheeling and dealing outside the court?

[Duncan]

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.

 

 

That's what I think too! Sheila is the poster of the year!

[Bikeemikey]

Is there likely to be any wheeling and dealing outside the court?

Like a plea deal?

So have monsoon plead to the manslaughter equivalent of fraud - like, opps, looks like I accidentally tricked people into paying tithing but it was well intentioned.

Some how I don't I think they are going to make a plea.

[MichelleD]

It's been posted that there will be different attorneys for the church on Thursday. Sheila, is that usually done (one set of attorneys for the hearing and another set for follow up)?

And yes, we are all very grateful for your posts on here, Sheila!

[David T]

Here's a summary posted on Facebook by Chris Smith:

 

"Several hours of preliminary arguments on the Tom Philips v. Thomas Monson fraud case today. The judge said he will not decide today whether the case can proceed to trial. 

 

Church lawyers argued that Philips has no standing to bring the case (an argument the judge threw out), that the lawsuit is a vexatious PR stunt, that the judge had abused due process by illicitly advising Philips on how to frame the case, that Monson didn't cause any fraud that may exist and therefore isn't responsible, that the Church frames its teachings as beliefs rather than fact and tithes are optional, that the court can't possibly decide matters of religious belief, and that a fraud judgment would contravene the Church's human rights/religious freedom. 

 

Philips's lawyers replied that if someone says, "God is the almighty father," that's a statement of belief. If someone says, "this book is translated from this document," that's a statement of fact. Philips is asking the court to decide on the church's assertion of facts, which he says may be proved to be false. While courts can't decide on matters of correct doctrine, they can and do decide on crimes committed in the course of religious worship, such as use of cannabis by Rastafarians. The court in this case is being asked to rule on fraud, not doctrine. The lawyers said that Monson is an educated man and thus surely knows that the world isn't 6000 years old, that humanity isn't descended from Adam and Eve, that the Indians aren't descended from Israelites, and that the Book of Abraham wasn't translated from the papyri. He is lying for the Lord. Monson has a right to practice his religion, but not to smoke cannabis or to demand money under false pretenses.

 

A BBC reporter was present, so there will likely be official reports later today."

 

Also, FWIW, : "This is based on summaries from an ex-Mormon who was present in the courtroom. Summaries were posted in the Mormon VIP Lounge Facebook group."

Edited March 14, 2014 by David T

[sheilauk]

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.

 

you're welcome!

 

No, real court is nothing like the TV, though to a legal buff, its still usually interesting and entertaining.  Some things, if shown on TV, wouldn't be believed!  Magistrates' Courts are a unique institution, there's nothing really similar anywhere in the World and they are never properly represented on TV!! 

 

Is there likely to be any wheeling and dealing outside the court?

 

Unlikely.  Crown prosecutors and defence do discuss cases outside of court - and the defence will, where appropriate, try to get a charge changed to a lesser one, but plea bargaining of the type undertaken in the US is not done.  Discussions involve the strength of the evidence and how much the defendant is prepared to admit and is about whether the case can be proved and what charges are acceptable. The CPS has strict rules and sentencing is solely in the preserve of the Court, the Prosecution has little role to play there so it doesn't affect their decision on the appropriate charge.  In this case, with a private prosecutor, I can't imagine that there would be much room for wheeling and dealing.

[sheilauk]

That's what I think too! Sheila is the poster of the year!

 

I wouldn't go that far!  Poster of the month maybe!! 

[ALarson]

It's been posted that there will be different attorneys for the church on Thursday. Sheila, is that usually done (one set of attorneys for the hearing and another set for follow up)?

 

 

I saw this posted too and would love to hear your response, Sheila.  If we can trust the source, they state that the church's lawyers said that a different team will be there next week.

 

I'm wondering if this first team was to attempt to get the charges dismissed and now that they are having to argue some of the points, they'll send in a different team who is more familiar with the church teachings, etc.  Maybe they will be members of the church?  (I understand that these first 6 were not members.)  

Edited March 14, 2014 by ALarson

[Calm]

 

 

 

Unlikely.  Crown prosecutors and defence do discuss cases outside of court - and the defence will, where appropriate, try to get a charge changed to a lesser one, but plea bargaining of the type undertaken in the US is not done.  Discussions involve the strength of the evidence and how much the defendant is prepared to admit and is about whether the case can be proved and what charges are acceptable. The CPS has strict rules and sentencing is solely in the preserve of the Court, the Prosecution has little role to play there so it doesn't affect their decision on the appropriate charge.  In this case, with a private prosecutor, I can't imagine that there would be much room for wheeling and dealing.

 

 

I didn't think so.  There was a comment on the linked to thread about all the goings on outside the courtroom or something and I was thinking 'not really much to talk about in this case given how it has been framed'.

[Calm]

I wouldn't go that far!  Poster of the month maybe!! 

Depends on how long this goes on.  

[sheilauk]

 

Several hours of preliminary arguments on the Tom Philips v. Thomas Monson fraud case today. The judge said he will not decide today whether the case can proceed to trial. 

 It was late in the day – Court usually finishes around 4p.m. so I’m not surprised.  Probably also wants to write out his judgement to make sure its absolutely correct and may want to check on some of the legal points.  Plus, I think I'd be pretty fed up after hearing these two at it for 6 hours!

 

Church lawyers argued that Philips has no standing to bring the case (an argument the judge threw out), that the lawsuit is a vexatious PR stunt, that the judge had abused due process by illicitly advising Philips on how to frame the case, that Monson didn't cause any fraud that may exist and therefore isn't responsible, that the Church frames its teachings as beliefs rather than fact and tithes are optional, that the court can't possibly decide matters of religious belief, and that a fraud judgment would contravene the Church's human rights/religious freedom. 

 

Dismissing the “No standing” claim surprises me – it was something I thought might be a good ground for dismissal.

Vexatious – possible.

Abuse of process by advising Phillips – shows a lack of understanding of the role of impartiality expected by the Courts and the practice direction that the Courts are to assist unrepresented persons.

No fraud – matter for trial after evidence

Religious belief and breach of religious freedom – possible

 

Philips's lawyers replied that if someone says, "God is the almighty father," that's a statement of belief. If someone says, "this book is translated from this document," that's a statement of fact. Philips is asking the court to decide on the church's assertion of facts, which he says may be proved to be false. While courts can't decide on matters of correct doctrine, they can and do decide on crimes committed in the course of religious worship, such as use of cannabis by Rastafarians. The court in this case is being asked to rule on fraud, not doctrine. The lawyers said that Monson is an educated man and thus surely knows that the world isn't 6000 years old, that humanity isn't descended from Adam and Eve, that the Indians aren't descended from Israelites, and that the Book of Abraham wasn't translated from the papyri. He is lying for the Lord. Monson has a right to practice his religion, but not to smoke cannabis or to demand money under false pretenses.

 

 

 No, he can’t demand money under false pretenses. Of course one cannot commit a crime under the cover of religious freedom and so fraud is possible – eg by saying you are collecting money for the church and then spending it all on yourself.  But the Court is being asked to rule on doctrine here – all of the claims.  The claims that religions make, even couched as facts are, for legal purposes, beliefs.  Science v Religion – creationists would be in trouble on the above argument.  All religion would be in trouble on the Adam and Eve one.  I doubt that Phillips can prove any of these statements categorically false and a statement of fact and not belief.  Hard to prove something wasn’t translated from a document when you don’t have the document!  Then there is the non existent link to tithing and demands for money.  But – matter for trial.  None of this counters the defence’s argument other than that whether or not there is a fraud is an issue for trial.   

[sheilauk]

It's been posted that there will be different attorneys for the church on Thursday. Sheila, is that usually done (one set of attorneys for the hearing and another set for follow up)?

And yes, we are all very grateful for your posts on here, Sheila!

Thank you.

 

For ALarson too

 

Tells me its a big firm!  Not many clients have a large team assembled.  Most clients have one or two lawyers present in court and its usually the same person.  Usually, only one person addresses the Court - the lead lawyer and the one with seniority (so the QC in this case).  Ongoing hearings need the same leading lawyer except in an emergency - so you'd expect the same person to attend every day of a trial unless he fell ill or such like for example.  The rest of the team can change, depending on requirements and availability.  Where the case is adjourned and its a new hearing, there can be different lawyers.  Court dates are fixed according to the Court's availability not the lawyers.  So, I instruct a particular QC, he attends the hearing and the case is adjourned and its a date when he's got another case in Court - I have to have another QC at my second hearing.  Its not unusual in that sense for there to be different people.  This is not an ongoing hearing.  It's likely due to the QC not being available rather than a change of tactic or needing someone more familiar with the Church.  I don't think the trial of the issue will take place next time.  The District Judge will say whether or not the case is dismissed and the parties will proceed from there - to decide venue/trial date/costs etc depending on the decision.

 

I work for a small firm, so its usually the same lawyer at every hearing, but not always and when it comes to the barristers we use - we instruct one but he may not be available on the particular date and so someone else will go in his place.  We have had cases where its been a different person every time! 

 

Does that make sense?  Its getting late here and I haven't eaten yet so I think I'm rambling a bit!  Going to go home and eat and return later...

[AndyDnom]

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

 

which comments?

[Bikeemikey]

which comments?

 

Well honestly, all of the posts on the New Order Mormon website thread (link is earlier in this thread) were pretty lame.

[Tacenda]

Well honestly, all of the posts on the New Order Mormon website thread (link is earlier in this thread) were pretty lame.

Well it's NOM.  They aren't as diverse as this board.  All are pretty much on the same page.  

 

BTW, there was a rumor on another site that Pres. Monson along with Uchtdorf, Holland and Cook boarded a plane.  But I think it's probably false.

Edited March 14, 2014 by Tacenda

[Duncan]

Well it's NOM.  They aren't as diverse as this board.  All are pretty much on the same page.  

 

BTW, there was a rumor on another site that Pres. Monson along with Uchtdorf, Holland and Cook boarded a plane.  But I think it's probably false.

 

 

they are probably flying here to see what the 3 year hold up is on the Temple but that's just wishful thinking

[Scott Lloyd]

Well it's NOM.  They aren't as diverse as this board.  All are pretty much on the same page.  

 

BTW, there was a rumor on another site that Pres. Monson along with Uchtdorf, Holland and Cook boarded a plane.  But I think it's probably false.

You don't have to follow that thread through very far to find that most people there realize that the thread originator was putting everybody on.

[ALarson]

Thank you.

 

For ALarson too

 

Tells me its a big firm!  Not many clients have a large team assembled.  Most clients have one or two lawyers present in court and its usually the same person.  Usually, only one person addresses the Court - the lead lawyer and the one with seniority (so the QC in this case).  Ongoing hearings need the same leading lawyer except in an emergency - so you'd expect the same person to attend every day of a trial unless he fell ill or such like for example.  The rest of the team can change, depending on requirements and availability.  Where the case is adjourned and its a new hearing, there can be different lawyers.  Court dates are fixed according to the Court's availability not the lawyers.  So, I instruct a particular QC, he attends the hearing and the case is adjourned and its a date when he's got another case in Court - I have to have another QC at my second hearing.  Its not unusual in that sense for there to be different people.  This is not an ongoing hearing.  It's likely due to the QC not being available rather than a change of tactic or needing someone more familiar with the Church.  I don't think the trial of the issue will take place next time.  The District Judge will say whether or not the case is dismissed and the parties will proceed from there - to decide venue/trial date/costs etc depending on the decision.

 

I work for a small firm, so its usually the same lawyer at every hearing, but not always and when it comes to the barristers we use - we instruct one but he may not be available on the particular date and so someone else will go in his place.  We have had cases where its been a different person every time! 

 

Does that make sense?  Its getting late here and I haven't eaten yet so I think I'm rambling a bit!  Going to go home and eat and return later...

Thanks for the response, Sheila.  And yes, what you wrote makes sense.

 

So, do you have a feeling one way or the other whether this is going to go to trial or not after hearing what took place today?

[Bikeemikey]

they are probably flying here to see what the 3 year hold up is on the Temple but that's just wishful thinking

More likely going to catch up with the 3 Nephites.

Edited March 14, 2014 by Bikeemikey

[Bikeemikey]

Thanks for the response, Sheila. And yes, what you wrote makes sense.

So, do you have a feeling one way or the other whether this is going to go to trial or not after hearing what took place today?

I would say the chance of this going to trial are zero with a very small sampling error tolerance.

[ERayR]

they are probably flying here to see what the 3 year hold up is on the Temple but that's just wishful thinking

 

Or coming to reorganize our stake.

[Duncan]

Or coming to reorganize our stake.

 

 

oh man 2/3 of the 1st Presidency and an Apostle going to your stake? What is going on that you need all of them for?!

[USU78]

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.

 

I was questioning the court's jurisdiction . . . and still have a question in that regard, since I've dealt with international service of process as well as haling foreign residents into domestic courts to answer criminal charges, but nothing like this . . . and, almost as soon as I posted it, I took it down, only to find somebody had responded to it.  Oh well . . . I've got to get quicker on the draw.

 

Thanks, cal!

Edited March 14, 2014 by USU78

[Duncan]

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865598685/British-judge-hears-arguments-in-case-LDS-Church-calls-mischief.html

 

There is this

[The Nehor]

oh man 2/3 of the 1st Presidency and an Apostle going to your stake? What is going on that you need all of them for?!

 

Excommunicating the entire stake probably.