Jump to content

RICO Act, Proposed Class Action against the Church - it is filed


Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Can you imagine how Eve felt when she realized that she had no choice at all other than to be married to that Adam character?

Yes, honored that she was chosen to be the one to come down here then and take her place as the Mother of every mortal to be born on this planet.  Before she came down here, I mean. Not after she didn't remember that..

 

Edited by Ahab
Link to comment

It could even be said about a child being baptized at eight! The age of eight is way too young to make the decision to bebaptized into a church they know practically nothing about...”

Tacenda,

Since it is usually parents that have legal guardianship over children  at 8 (could be grandparents or other relatives or perhaps the state) and never the Church, the legal responsibility to baptize a child at 8 falls on them, not the Church. And the problem of mind control is the same as the above in Smac’s summary (well done).

Edited by Calm
Link to comment

To the Legally Erudite Among Us,

E.g., but not necessarily limited to: @smac97 @USU78 @Mark Beesley @sheilauk @Confidential Informant @Anijen et cetera. Given my background, I know I probably should be, but I'm unfamiliar with how the timing of class action litigation works: Does a court's certification of a class (the group of people who are similarly situated to Ms. Gaddy, who have so tragically and egregiously been defrauded by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) operate independently of its consideration of any motions for summary judgement or motions to dismiss?  Or, generally, do courts say, "Let's not put the cart before the horse by certifying a class before we decide if a suit has merit?"

Thanks in advance for any enlightenment.

Edited by Kenngo1969
Link to comment
On 8/6/2019 at 9:44 AM, USU78 said:

Damages = actual harm + proximate causation. How's she gonna prove that?

@USU78 Excellent question, Monsieur le avocat!

Edited by Kenngo1969
Link to comment
4 hours ago, Ahab said:

Yes, honored that she was chosen to be the one to come down here then and take her place as the Mother of every mortal to be born on this planet.  Before she came down here, I mean. Not after she didn't remember that..

She always had a choice, just a lack of men to choose from. I'm pretty sure she made that choice long before, yet once she got here she still was not forced.

 

Link to comment
On 8/24/2019 at 12:43 PM, Meadowchik said:

The way I see this maybe having legal validity is in cases like my husband's. In 1990, he was taught by the missionaries in France. Of course, the reputation of Mormons in France, if any, was one as polygamists. So he asked the missionaries about it, and they told him polygamy started with Brigham Young as president of the church, and not with Joseph Smith. This would then not be a belief question, but a character question. To my husband, the fact that the founder Joseph Smith did not instigate polygamy, but that it originated with Brigham Young and was later disvowed by the church was essential to his conversion. For him, it spoke to the character of Joseph Smith as law-abiding versus non-law-abiding.

Nope.  Still no legal validity.  Jurisdictional issues.  Statute of limitations issues.  Constitutional issues.  12(b)(6) issues.  Probably more.

On 8/24/2019 at 12:43 PM, Meadowchik said:

So, what if it can be demonstrated that, during correllation, for example, church manuals and distribution materials were significantly cleared of most if not all clear references to Smith's polygamy? This might demonstrate an deliberate attempt at hiding these facts, and thus behaving in a fraudulant manner.

Huge stretch.  Plus the statute of limitations and constitutional issues remain (probably 12(b)(6) issues as well).

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
On 8/30/2019 at 1:14 PM, sheilauk said:

Thanks!   We're all well at the moment (mum is getting over pneumonia).  Hope all is well with you!  (Tried to send you a message but couldn't! )  (board members - please excuse the derail!)

Please pardon another momentary derail, all.  You're welcome to reach out to me at Ken(dot)Gourdin(at)gmail(dot)com, if you would like.  I would love to hear from you if you are so inclined!

Link to comment
50 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Nope.  Still no legal validity.  Jurisdictional issues.  Statute of limitations issues.  Constitutional issues.  12(b)(6) issues.  Probably more.

Huge stretch.  Plus the statute of limitations and constitutional issues remain (probably 12(b)(6) issues as well).

Thanks,

-Smac

For the uninitiated, Rule 12(b)(6) of the United States Rules of Civil Procedure governs "Failure to State a Claim Upon Which Relief May Be Granted."  You're welcome, Smac97.  Glad I could help.  (Civil Procedure was, oh, so long ago!!! 😀)

Edited by Kenngo1969
Link to comment
On 8/30/2019 at 9:14 AM, Tacenda said:

It could even be said about a child being baptized at eight! The age of eight is way too young to make the decision to be baptized into a church they know practically nothing about, 

With respect, I disagree.  All the more so since membership in the Church is voluntary.  

On 8/30/2019 at 9:14 AM, Tacenda said:

most at that age still believe in the tooth fairy, Easter Bunny, and Santa Claus.

I don't understand your point.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
On 8/30/2019 at 1:46 PM, Anijen said:

Also the lawyers could have (not saying they do) an ulterior motive. In RICO suits the lawyers are allowed treble fees.

I'm not sure about that.  I am open to correction, but I undrestand RICO claims to allow for treble damages, but not treble fees.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
On 8/30/2019 at 2:43 PM, Kenngo1969 said:

To the Legally Erudite Among Us,

E.g., but not necessarily limited to: @smac97 @USU78 @Mark Beesley @sheilauk @Confidential Informant @Anijen et cetera. Given my background, I know I probably should be, but I'm unfamiliar with how the timing of class action litigation works: Does a court's certification of a class (the group of people who are similarly situated to Ms. Gaddy, who have so tragically and egregiously been defrauded by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) operate independently of its consideration of any motions for summary judgement or motions to dismiss?  Or, generally, do courts say, "Let's not put the cart before the horse by certifying a class before we decide if a suit has merit?"

Thanks in advance for any enlightenment.

I have limited experience with RICO claims.  I have only pursued them twice, once at the very beginning of my career (I was basically a glorified law clerk, so I don't really feel any ownership for that one) and one earlier this year (which I think had a decent chance of success, but the client's case fell apart for other reasons).

A Rule 12 motion to dismiss is filed prior to an answer, which would usually mean that all stages of litigation (including, presumably, examination of class certification) are on hold untill the motion is adjudicated.  That's my take.  I am open to correction from more experienced practioners.

On a related note, I just saw this:

Quote

Many plaintiffs would be shocked to learn that a law firm could file a mass action consisting of over 5300 claims on behalf of asbestos victims and then be forced to pay over $7 million dollars to the opposing party because 11 of the plaintiffs—or just 0.2%—did not actually suffer the alleged harms. Yet that is precisely what happened in CSX Transportation, Inc. v. Gilkison, in which the defendants in a mass-action case aggressively and unconventionally used the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (“RICO”) statute against their opponents.

The CSX decision reflects a broader trend in which corporate defendants are fighting back—seeking to punish plaintiffs’ attorneys by bringing RICO claims alleging that plaintiffs’ attorneys have brought baseless lawsuits mixed in with their clients who actually suffered an injury. Members of the defense bar have made no secret about the fact that these RICO cases are part of a larger strategy to stamp out large-scale aggregate litigation.

The article goes on to criticize the idea of "corporate defendants {} fighting back" against RICO claims.  I say have at it!  Mass tort litigation is a corruption.  It's almost always just a massive cash grab for the lawyers, with the actual injured parties usually getting pittances.  The RICO statute is a blunt weapon, and was originally designed to go after organized crime.  So "unconventional" use of RICO can and does go both ways.

As for the Church, though, we all know the Church will defend itself, but will likely never "fight back" against frivolous cases like this one (as described above).  I'm reasonably sure that Kaye Burningham knows this, such that filing this lawsuit carries no real risk to her (except for her reputation, which may take a hit for filing this absurd lawsuit).

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
5 hours ago, smac97 said:

I'm not sure about that.  I am open to correction, but I undrestand RICO claims to allow for treble damages, but not treble fees.

Thanks,

-Smac

I should have been more clear (my bad). I meant damages, however, lawyers, usually will get a percentage based on those award damages. My estimate about 1/3, perhaps a little more if it goes to trial. 1/3 of 1000 is 333, but if you triple the 1000 to 3000 the lawyers will get 1/3 of 3000... This is what I meant...

Link to comment
On 8/30/2019 at 8:14 AM, Tacenda said:

It could even be said about a child being baptized at eight! The age of eight is way too young to make the decision to be baptized into a church they know practically nothing about, most at that age still believe in the tooth fairy, Easter Bunny, and Santa Claus.

Many Christian churches, including the Catholic Church, baptize children as infants... 

From Pres Hinckley... The innocence of little children is another revelation which God has given through the Prophet Joseph.  The general practice is the baptism of infants to take away the effects of what is described as the sin of Adam and Eve.  Under the doctrine of the Restoration, baptism is for the remission of one's individual or personal sins.  It becomes a covenant between God and man.  It is performed at the age of accountability, when people are old enough to recognize right from wrong...  And from D&C 68:25-28 ...And inasmuch as parents have children in Zion... when they arrive at the age of accountability... they shall teach them the doctrine of repentance, faith in Christ the Son of the living God, and baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of the hands, when eight years old.... And they shall also teach their children to pray, and to walk uprightly before the Lord.

GG

Edited by Garden Girl
Link to comment
On 8/30/2019 at 9:14 AM, Tacenda said:

It could even be said about a child being baptized at eight! The age of eight is way too young to make the decision to be baptized into a church they know practically nothing about, most at that age still believe in the tooth fairy, Easter Bunny, and Santa Claus.

I think reasonable minds can disagree about this.  

I also think this "way too young" assertion (that's all it is, really) could be employed at pretty much any stage of life:

  • 12 years old?  Nope!  Their in the throes of puberty, or maybe even haven't started yet.  
  • 15?  Of course not!  We don't even let kids that age drive!  
  • 18?  No way!  We don't even let them drink, or rent a car at that age!
  • 21?  No.  They need to get college done and out of the way.  They haven't experienced life and the Real World yet.
  • 25?  No.  Still too young.  Plus, people that age need to focus on building their careers.

And so it goes.  The list of "Somewhat Plausible Excuses for Not Teaching the Gospel" is endless.

In contrast, we have Proverbs 22:6 ("Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.").

And Matthew 18:2-3 ("And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them, 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.").

And Moroni 9:10 ("Behold I say unto you that this thing shall ye teach—repentance and baptism unto those who are accountable and capable of committing sin; yea, teach parents that they must repent and be baptized, and humble themselves as their little children, and they shall all be saved with their little children.").

And then there's the biggie, which is D&C 68:26-28 ("For this shall be a law unto the inhabitants of Zion, or in any of her stakes which are organized.  And their children shall be baptized for the remission of their sins when eight years old, and receive the laying on of the hands.  And they shall also teach their children to pray, and to walk uprightly before the Lord.").

I am reminded of this incident from Matthew 4:

Quote

18 ¶ And Jesus, walking by the sea of Galilee, saw two brethren, Simon called Peter, and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea: for they were fishers.
19 And he saith unto them, Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men.
20 And they straightway left their nets, and followed him.
21 And going on from thence, he saw other two brethren, James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother, in a ship with Zebedee their father, mending their nets; and he called them.
22 And they immediately left the ship and their father, and followed him.

Should we fault Peter, Andrew, James and John for what they did here?  Is one fortuitous fishing attempt really a valid basis for devoting their lives to a guy strolling along the beach, someone they know practically nothing about?

I assume you have an alternative preference for the appropriate age for baptism.  But wouldn't it be susceptible to the sort of "way too young"-type arguments you are making here?

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Link to comment
5 hours ago, sheilauk said:

I can't speak for others but I was christened  (baptised) (into a different Christian church) at 4.  I don't remember much about it or being asked (my parents made the decision for me, though they may also have asked me).  However,  I do remember going to the church every week for several years  (until we moved away) and often on my own (well without my family,  I went with an adult family friend!) and loving it!  Even at that age, I believed in Christ and I'm sure I would have agreed to being christened if asked.  I loved my church family then (and now).  I wouldn't have known much about that church,  but I knew Jesus and I was happy to go to that church.  As an adult I made a different decision.  Children know enough to be baptised.   And baptism doesn't force you to remain if you don't want to.  I stopped going to my 1st church when I was 8 and haven't been back since (for a number of reasons.)

Did your old church require tithing, did it have you as a member on record...although these two may seem mild, I think it's a bit different than just becoming baptized because of belief in Christ.

LDS baptism and membership is a whole different level. It's setting a youth up for lifetime of requirements without the full knowledge of the church doctrines because those are meat and when you are new to the church it's only milk first, for a long while.

ETA: Did you sing "Follow the Prophet" when you were 4 in the other church? I highly doubt it. 

Edited by Tacenda
Link to comment
On 8/31/2019 at 6:43 AM, Kenngo1969 said:

To the Legally Erudite Among Us,

E.g., but not necessarily limited to: @smac97 @USU78 @Mark Beesley @sheilauk @Confidential Informant @Anijen et cetera. Given my background, I know I probably should be, but I'm unfamiliar with how the timing of class action litigation works: Does a court's certification of a class (the group of people who are similarly situated to Ms. Gaddy, who have so tragically and egregiously been defrauded by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) operate independently of its consideration of any motions for summary judgement or motions to dismiss?  Or, generally, do courts say, "Let's not put the cart before the horse by certifying a class before we decide if a suit has merit?"

Thanks in advance for any enlightenment.

How do I sign up to the class action suit? 

Link to comment
12 hours ago, Suzanne Given said:

How do I sign up to the class action suit? 

I'm sure, if you were to contact Kay Burningham, she would be more that happy to facilitate your joining the suit.  ( Don't count on it being successful, however, for reasons already well documented on this thread.)

Link to comment
  • 2 weeks later...

Quick update: On September 9, the plaintiff filed a motion asking for more time to respond to the Church's Motion to Dismiss.  That same day, the Court granted the motion and gave the plaintiff until October 8 to file a response.

Asking for an extension is pretty standard stuff.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...