ALarson Posted March 19, 2014 Posted March 19, 2014 This has been posted on a few other forums and I didn't see it over here yet. It's interesting as he does give some hints about what his plans are (albeit vague) if the judge rules against him tomorrow: Tom Phillips:“District Judge Riddle will make his ruling based on the submissions he has. He will hear no further argument or input.“No further argument can be submitted to Senior District Judge Riddle. He heard all the arguments last Friday and will now rule upon those submissions. That is what I understand, as I would love to make further representations.“I am confidant he will rule in our favour albeit with a condition that the summonses are amended and served again.“If it goes totally against us, plans b,c,d and e come into play.”“He [Judge Riddle] also know that whichever side 'loses' will most probably seek judicial review by the High Court.”“Tom”
Popular Post The Nehor Posted March 19, 2014 Popular Post Posted March 19, 2014 (edited) Is it wrong to hope that plan E is "light myself on fire in the courtroom to delay judgment"? Edited March 19, 2014 by The Nehor 8
Popular Post Duncan Posted March 19, 2014 Popular Post Posted March 19, 2014 This has been posted on a few other forums and I didn't see it over here yet. It's interesting as he does give some hints about what his plans are (albeit vague) if the judge rules against him tomorrow: he sounds like a 6 year old 5
ALarson Posted March 19, 2014 Author Posted March 19, 2014 Is it wrong to hope that plan E is "light myself on fire in the courtroom to delay judgment"?Now, that is funny (You have a great sense of humor, thanks for the laugh!!)
Bob Crockett Posted March 19, 2014 Posted March 19, 2014 (edited) I always believed that predicting a victory in a submitted ruling, not yet ruled upon, could jinx it. In particular, I happen to know that judges' law and courtroom clerks, and their spouses and kids, google frequently and look for information to help with the research or just to entertain. They could come across this comment and convey it to the judge. But, lawyers and parties can't resist. Edited March 19, 2014 by Bob Crockett
bluebell Posted March 19, 2014 Posted March 19, 2014 Is it wrong to hope that plan E is "light myself on fire in the courtroom to delay judgment"? That is so evil, but i have to admit that i laughed out loud when i read it. 3
jaxenro Posted March 19, 2014 Posted March 19, 2014 I always believed that predicting a victory in a submitted ruling, not yet ruled upon, could jinx it. In particular, I happen to know that judges' law and courtroom clerks, and their spouses and kids, google frequently and look for information to help with the research or just to entertain. They could come across this comment and convey it to the judge.But, lawyers and parties can't resist.English law must be very different don't think that would be allowed here
Kenngo1969 Posted March 19, 2014 Posted March 19, 2014 Yaaaaay! Go, Tommy! (Monson, that is ... not Phillips!)
why me Posted March 19, 2014 Posted March 19, 2014 I don't believe that anything will come of it. But of course, if it is a very secular judge, the judge may make a decision just to see where it all leads. However, this is not a case just against mormons but against all religions. And it is here that we have the problem. No british court would want islam hauled into court for fraud. And yet, this could be the case if this case is successful. Thus, I don't believe that it will be successful. Also, the pope could also be accused of fraud. Doesn't the catholic church encourage its members to give money each sunday? And tithing is very much apart of the five pillars of islam. So, it seems that there would be a problem if this case is successful.
The Nehor Posted March 20, 2014 Posted March 20, 2014 Ad hominem much? Ad hominem is where you attack the character of the person instead of the argument. I would suggest that we are attacking both the character of the person AND the argument as separate issues so the fallacy really does not apply. 1
jaxenro Posted March 20, 2014 Posted March 20, 2014 I thought Muslims paid Zakat and not tithes? Different concept
sdc999 Posted March 20, 2014 Posted March 20, 2014 he sounds like a 6 year old Matthew 18:3 "And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. In your effort to insult him, you have now given him credibility through the scriptures.
Popular Post Duncan Posted March 20, 2014 Popular Post Posted March 20, 2014 (edited) Matthew 18:3 "And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. In your effort to insult him, you have now given him credibility through the scriptures. I retract my earlier statement and will now use Jesus' statement from DC 121:23 "Wo unto all those that discomfort my people, and drive, and murder, and testify against them, saith the Lord of Hosts; a generation of vipers shall not escape the damnation of hell." Edited March 20, 2014 by Duncan 6
rpn Posted March 20, 2014 Posted March 20, 2014 TP's position is that it is different to pass the collection plate, than it is to having tithing a condition of temple attendance that involves family celebrations, and also has tithing settlement. He sees the latter as coercive and abusive given he believes that the church lied to him about historical issues. So in his world he doesn't see this as having any implication for the Anglican church or Catholicism. Is strange that he said that the last court was on Friday? Was he physically in the court room last week? Were the two actual complainants there? 1
MichelleD Posted March 20, 2014 Posted March 20, 2014 (edited) TP's position is that it is different to pass the collection plate, than it is to having tithing a condition of temple attendance that involves family celebrations, and also has tithing settlement. He sees the latter as coercive and abusive given he believes that the church lied to him about historical issues. So in his world he doesn't see this as having any implication for the Anglican church or Catholicism.Is strange that he said that the last court was on Friday? Was he physically in the court room last week? Were the two actual complainants there?I think that Tom Phillips was present for the hearing last Friday but I'm not sure about the 2 complainants. Maybe someone else knows if they were there? Edited March 20, 2014 by MichelleD
EllenMaksoud Posted March 20, 2014 Posted March 20, 2014 This has been posted on a few other forums and I didn't see it over here yet. It's interesting as he does give some hints about what his plans are (albeit vague) if the judge rules against him tomorrow: Who is Tom Phillips
Calm Posted March 20, 2014 Posted March 20, 2014 Ad hominem is where you attack the character of the person instead of the argument. I would suggest that we are attacking both the character of the person AND the argument as separate issues so the fallacy really does not apply.I think why me's post was pure ad hom myself against the British court.
CMZ Posted March 20, 2014 Posted March 20, 2014 "I am confidant he will rule in our favour..." Is Tom Phillips the one who misspelled "confident"? Or did someone else misspell it for him?
why me Posted March 20, 2014 Posted March 20, 2014 I thought Muslims paid Zakat and not tithes? Different conceptNot really. It is something that they must pay because it is in the five pillars of islam. And of course, there are implications for not fulfilling the five pillars. http://www.islamawareness.net/Zakat/tithe.html There is a mormon twist in the above link.
why me Posted March 20, 2014 Posted March 20, 2014 (edited) I think why me's post was pure ad hom myself against the British court.I think that one must know the situation of islam in the UK. Muslims are becoming much more conservative in dress because they feel attacked within the dominant culture. It reached its crucial point when Corporal Rigby was murdered by two radical muslims in broad daylight near his base in the UK a year ago. If Tom succeeds in his case, the same case can be brought against islam and the koran. Likewise against the pope. This is not just an attack against mormonism but against all religions. So, I will be very surprised if it succeeds. In all three faiths mentioned, the lds church is the weakest link in defending itself. But the attack must start somewhere. It will set a precedent. Edited March 20, 2014 by why me
Helen47 Posted March 20, 2014 Posted March 20, 2014 There is an interesting interview with him on this sitehttp://infantsonthrones.com/the-summons-tom-phillips-vs-thomas-s-monson-part-1/
Alan Posted March 20, 2014 Posted March 20, 2014 I know we shouldn't judge. But in my part of this green and pleasant land we call a spade a spade - and Tom Phillips is an idiot.
Recommended Posts