Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, letsbreal said:

Now this (post above) is an amazing display.   Very amusing for those who actually take the time to read each and every case cited above by Smac, and learn that it is he, who apparently didn't take the time.    The hubris is astounding... while amusing.   Someone obviously has an interest in discrediting the Gaddy complaint that exceeds their interest in intellectual integrity.   Of the cases cited above, there are those that support the Gaddy case.... and those that are irrelevant and off topic.   Here's to hoping Smac can manage to sleep through his restless nights haunted by the "ignorance" of those who actually read.   Let me guess....   I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess Smac is a true believing high priest, who is on a missionary assignment to discredit the Gaddy complaint.   I assure you,  he is not in Burningham's league.   And I hope the insulting arrogance of his delivery above is left there for the world to see, when the response the Church's MTD is published.  

For a clearer view of the subject matter consider the following:

https://www.xmoresources.org/Is-the-Scathing-Lawsuit-against-the-Mormon-Church-the-Moment-of-Truth-for-Ex-Mormons/?q=kbase&sid=X1568133929&expand=y

 

If the Gaddy case wins, wouldn't it affect all of religionists? Of course there are Scientologists that should definitely get their money back, for being lied to as far as their getting to the top to finally hear the truth of their journey to get there and then being told "sorry, you need to take another course". But I do know many are getting on the bandwagon of the LDS church not giving the full truth of the church's history before members join. And maybe asking the 10 percent tithing before being able to enter the temple. This is the only thing she may have in her favor, but honestly doubt it will go anywhere. Are you aware of the lawsuit againts Pres. Monson in England? It didn't go anywhere, and seems very similar. http://thisweekinmormons.com/2014/02/mormon-president-thomas-s-monson-summoned-british-court-facts/

Link to comment
On 8/30/2019 at 10:14 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.

Do you equally oppose Islamic and Jewish circumcision, Christian infant baptism and child confirmation, the Hindu Mundun, our name and blessing ordinance, Buddhists casting a horoscope for a newborn, Shinto’s Shichi-Go-San, or is it only our religious rites that require more age? If so, why?

Link to comment
20 minutes ago, letsbreal said:

Now this (post above) is an amazing display.   Very amusing for those who actually take the time to read each and every case cited above by Smac, and learn that it is he, who apparently didn't take the time.    The hubris is astounding... while amusing.   Someone obviously has an interest in discrediting the Gaddy complaint that exceeds their interest in intellectual integrity.   Of the cases cited above, there are those that support the Gaddy case.... and those that are irrelevant and off topic.   Here's to hoping Smac can manage to sleep through his restless nights haunted by the "ignorance" of those who actually read.   Let me guess....   I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess Smac is a true believing high priest, who is on a missionary assignment to discredit the Gaddy complaint.   I assure you,  he is not in Burningham's league.   And I hope the insulting arrogance of his delivery above is left there for the world to see, when the response the Church's MTD is published.  

For a clearer view of the subject matter consider the following:

https://www.xmoresources.org/Is-the-Scathing-Lawsuit-against-the-Mormon-Church-the-Moment-of-Truth-for-Ex-Mormons/?q=kbase&sid=X1568133929&expand=y

 

Did you take the time to read every case or are you parroting your pet article there?

You think we give missionary assignments to influence public opinion on litigation?

Your article is a seething mass of hate pretending to legal competence. I hope you will stick around when the case is almost certainly laughed out of court so you can continue to pontificate on Burningham’s impressive skills and how she was cheated of her chance to bring those evil Mormons down. 

Link to comment
34 minutes ago, letsbreal said:

Now this (post above) is an amazing display.   Very amusing for those who actually take the time to read each and every case cited above by Smac, and learn that it is he, who apparently didn't take the time.   

Actually, I have read all of those cases (some of them several times).

34 minutes ago, letsbreal said:

The hubris is astounding... while amusing.   Someone obviously has an interest in discrediting the Gaddy complaint that exceeds their interest in intellectual integrity.  

I think the Gaddy complaint does a fine job of discrediting itself.

We'll find out in a few weeks if it even gets out of the gate (I don't think it will).

34 minutes ago, letsbreal said:

Of the cases cited above, there are those that support the Gaddy case....

Which ones?

34 minutes ago, letsbreal said:

and those that are irrelevant and off topic.  

They are all relevant to the general issue of religious liberty, though.

34 minutes ago, letsbreal said:

Here's to hoping Smac can manage to sleep through his restless nights haunted by the "ignorance" of those who actually read.   Let me guess....   I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess Smac is a true believing high priest, who is on a missionary assignment to discredit the Gaddy complaint.  

I am a member of the Church, but "on a missionary assignment to discredit the Gaddy complaint?"  No.  That's a fabrication of conspiracy-theorists and whackdoodles.

34 minutes ago, letsbreal said:

I assure you,  he is not in Burningham's league.

I certainly hope that I never emulate the writing in the Gaddy Complaint, that's for sure.  And I hope I never file such dreck in a court of law.

Your link references praises given to Burningham for her trial work in 1994.  I'm glad to hear it.  But a lot can happen in 25 years, as evidenced by . . . the Gaddy Complaint.

34 minutes ago, letsbreal said:

And I hope the insulting arrogance of his delivery above is left there for the world to see, when the response the Church's MTD is published.  

Well, I suppose I can work on improving my civility.

"Should Religious Freedom have Reasonable Limits" is a banal question.  Is that more acceptable to you?

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, letsbreal said:

1.)  "your pet article" -  Typical motivated misrepresentation and spin.   It's not my article nor has it been "parroted".    

2.)  No, I don't think "we" give such missionary assignments.   I am absolutely aware, unlike most TBMs that the Church does in fact engage such efforts and then deny that truth.

Okay.  CFR, then.  You've made the claim, now back it up.  I look forward to you substantiating this allegation.

2 minutes ago, letsbreal said:

3.)  There is absolutely noting hateful at all in "the" (not my) article.   Let those who have eyes to see, see it for what it actually is, past the grotesque spin that intellectually dishonest TMBs have to put on everything that exposes their folly.    It comes no where near approximating the obvious hate that is apparent and supported in this form specifically directed at truth tellers about the fraud of Mormonism.    For an example of hate and bias, study the analysis in this forum of the Gaddy complaint.

Oh, I so enjoy lectures on civility like this one.

2 minutes ago, letsbreal said:

4.)  I have said nothing that could reasonably be interpreted as "pontificating" on Burningham's skills.   I have simply pointed out that Smac is not in her league, which is completely apparent by the obvious display of ridiculous arrogance and hubris and purported superior intelligence as displayed by posting a series of cases that mostly support the Gaddy complaint while declaring Burningham to be ignorant for not being up to speed on those cases.    No pontification on Burninham's skills is required for the conclusion that Smac is filled with hate and blinding bias and this forum is the most non-credible discussion on the subject matter.

Actually, my citation to those cases was not a commentary on Burningham, but on the poser of the question "Should Religious Freedom have Reasonable Limits."

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
26 minutes ago, letsbreal said:

1.)  "your pet article" -  Typical motivated misrepresentation and spin.   It's not my article nor has it been "parroted".    

2.)  No, I don't think "we" give such missionary assignments.   I am absolutely aware, unlike most TBMs that the Church does in fact engage such efforts and then deny that truth.

3.)  There is absolutely noting hateful at all in "the" (not my) article.   Let those who have eyes to see, see it for what it actually is, past the grotesque spin that intellectually dishonest TMBs have to put on everything that exposes their folly.    It comes no where near approximating the obvious hate that is apparent and supported in this form specifically directed at truth tellers about the fraud of Mormonism.    For an example of hate and bias, study the analysis in this forum of the Gaddy complaint.   

4.)  I have said nothing that could reasonably be interpreted as "pontificating" on Burningham's skills.   I have simply pointed out that Smac is not in her league, which is completely apparent by the obvious display of ridiculous arrogance and hubris and purported superior intelligence as displayed by posting a series of cases that mostly support the Gaddy complaint while declaring Burningham to be ignorant for not being up to speed on those cases.    No pontification on Burninham's skills is required for the conclusion that Smac is filled with hate and blinding bias and this forum is the most non-credible discussion on the subject matter.

1) Then can you convey any legal reasoning outside of it? Such as the cases you infer will topple us. You can parrot the article saying that but can you bring out a case that you think will help.

2) And I am aware that you are not very bright despite your denials. I think my assertion has more supporting evidence than yours.

3) Nothing hateful?

“The saga of Mormon Fraud and the shameful tolerance of it in American culture continues.”

How dare American culture tolerate religious diversity? It is positively unamerican!!!!

4) Hmmmm....

”not in Burningham’s league”

pontificate - express one’s opinion in a way considered annoyingly pompous and dogmatic

Yep, checks out.

 

Edited by The Nehor
Link to comment
6 minutes ago, letsbreal said:

Yes.   If Gaddy wins, in a manner of speaking it would affect all religions…. in a very reasonable  way.    They would all be placed on notice that willfully and intentionally misrepresenting secular facts as an inducement to faith in the foundational tenants of a religion's beliefs, is absolutely unacceptable and unlawful.   As a practical matter,  most other religions don't do this like Mormonism does.   So the hypothetical affect would be inconsequential to most other religions.   They already know better.   They don't need a law suit to help them grasp the moral turpitude of blatant misrepresentation of historical facts as a device of conversion to religious beliefs.   For a better understanding of that subject matter, maybe this article will help.

https://mormonfraud.blogspot.com/2019/08/the-gaddy-lawsuit-against-mormonchurch.html

 

For a better understanding of the subject matter? That article includes this gem:

“Corporate shills, PsyOps operatives representing the interests of the "Deep State", and otherwise motivated contributors to social media discussion boards are engaging in the predictable exercise of creating a false and contrived appearance of consensus that the lawsuit has no merit. The well informed know better.”

You know something is well reasoned when it uses the same language as someone ranting about reptilians, chemtrails, and mind control satellites.

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, letsbreal said:

No mention of reptilians.  No mention of chemtrails, (although their reality is well documented). no mention of mind control satellites.

But you did say this: "I am absolutely aware, unlike most TBMs that the Church does in fact engage such efforts {involving people like me receiving "a missionary assignment {from the Church} to discredit the Gaddy complaint"} and then deny that truth."

Again, CFR.  Please substantiate this "truth."

You're new to the board, so you should know that participation here can be contingent on responding to CFRs.  You are obligated to do so.

So . . . what evidence do you have that the Church issues "missionary assignment{s}" in situations like this ("to discredit the Gaddy complaint")?

3 minutes ago, letsbreal said:

This forum is a collection of hypocritical offensive rude bullies whose only acknowledgement of offensiveness is the act of calling out their own offensiveness and hubris.   The Mormon dogmatic approach to anything it doesn't want to hear or be told, is to misrepresent it and then criticize their own misrepresentation of it, as if that were the truth of what they are criticizing.... because rational discussion eludes them.   

I disagree with you.  I think this board has a lot of substantive discussions about things we Latter-day Saints don't necessarily "want to hear or be told."

You have six posts to your name, and have only been here a few days.  I've been here since 2004 and have 9100+ posts.  So you'll understand why I view your unsubstantiated say-so with about this forum with some skepticism.

Quote

There are interests, well represented on this site, that don't want the under represented sincere interests on this site to expose themselves to the truth about Mormonism or anything else.  

I don't understand what this means.

Are you suggesting that this board censors divergent viewpoints?  If so, I think that's quite inaccurate.  There are all sorts of perspectives represented on this board.

Quote

So they must sink to the tactic of discrediting things by obvious misrepresentation and spin.

Feel free to point out where I have misrepresented the Gaddy complaint.  

Quote

You won't see many challenges to their hubris on this site, because it isn't worth the effort.

There are all sorts of perspectives represented on this board.

Quote

Those who can't see how obvious the motivated dogmatic spin and bullying is, are probably too far gone to reach.

Right.  So no need to even try?  Your conclusory and unsubstantiated say-so is sufficient?

I think . . . not.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
36 minutes ago, letsbreal said:

No mention of reptilians.  No mention of chemtrails, (although their reality is well documented). no mention of mind control satellites.

The "Deep state" is acknowledged at very credible levels, including the President (not that I adore him) and senior members of Congress and of the Intelligence Community.   "Credible levels".... obviously does no include this forum of the blindly obedient.

I said the language used was the same, not the specifics. The “deep state” is a conspiracy theory taking a realistic and nuanced concern about the advantages and disadvantages of entrenched bureaucracy and turning it into the equivalent of the Illuminati. The President believes it but, to be fair, he is an idiot and buys into a lot of conspiracy theories.

40 minutes ago, letsbreal said:

This forum is a collection of hypocritical offensive rude bullies whose only acknowledgement of offensiveness is the act of calling out their own offensiveness and hubris.   The Mormon dogmatic approach to anything it doesn't want to hear or be told, is to misrepresent it and then criticize their own misrepresentation of it, as if that were the truth of what they are criticizing.... because rational discussion eludes them.      

“I demand rational discussion!” screams the crazy person spouting deep state conspiracy drivel. Even if the deep state were a thing why would it be defending the church? Isn’t it supposed to be a more leftist conspiracy? Beelzebub is giving people power to cast out devils again......

To make your statement untrue I acknowledge that my comments are sometimes offensive.

44 minutes ago, letsbreal said:

 There are interests, well represented on this site, that don't want the under represented sincere interests on this site to expose themselves to the truth about Mormonism or anything else.   So they must sink to the tactic of discrediting things by obvious misrepresentation and spin.

Wheels within wheels with secret interests everywhere? Are we talking about the same place? It is a forum board people come to for mental and spiritual stimulation and some good laughs. It is not a tool of the deep state or part of some Jewish banking cabal or an arm of the Illuminati. At least I do not think is......wait a minute.....have you guys all been holding out on me and keeping me out of your secret club?

I am still stuck doing the scrub tier secret society stuff:

mark.png

51 minutes ago, letsbreal said:

You won't see many challenges to their hubris on this site, because it isn't worth the effort.    Those who can't see how obvious the motivated dogmatic spin and bullying is, are probably too far gone to reach.

Untrue, my hubris is challenged all the time on here.

I also resent the accusation of us being bullies. It is outrageously untrue. It gives me the urge to give you a swirly followed by a wedgie and then to shove you into a locker.

Link to comment

A quick update:

On 9/17, plaintiff's counsel filed a motion asking the court for permission to conduct discovery (the exchange of information between the parties).  To sum up, she wants to compel the Church to provide a list of all members of the Church who have resigned their membership since August 4, 2015, and also for "documents confirming those resignations."

Her argument is that there has been a "mass resignation" from the Church, and that this has been "primarily due to the discovery of fraud."  She cites QuitMormon.org as having processed 43,325 resignations since 2012.

The Church's attorneys have advised her that the Church will not stipulate to this request.  Their position is that "class discovery" (the process of looking for other parties to be added to the "class action" lawsuit) will not be necessary, presumably because they think the case will be dismissed under Rule 12.

I am not well-versed in the particulars of class action certification, so I can't really speak as to the merits of this motion.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
On 8/5/2019 at 11:59 PM, provoman said:

Picture are exhibits to show how the narrative was misrepresented.

Summary: False narrative of: First Vision, Book of Mormon; Book of Abraham is false; 1st Watson Letter and Hill Comurah narrative; all the false narrative was known or should have been known and false narrative caused damage to plaintiff

Oh come on, that is like an ex-Christian saying they are harmed with differing narratives in different books of the NT. Some judge is actually going to allow this to even be entertained?  

Link to comment

letsbereal, how do I know you're real, and not a figment of my imagination?  Should I take the blue pill, or the red pill?  How do I know you're not an anti-Church-of-Jesus-Christ Spambot?  How do I know that reality isn't anything more than a computer simulation?  Largely, one's perspective depends upon one's vantage point.  And if I'm supposed to accept a contention, even one that is sincerely and firmly held, simply because the contention is contained in a legal pleading, then all of us, including you, better get ready for A Brave New World.

Edited by Kenngo1969
Link to comment
4 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Braaaaaaaaaaaaaaaap!

What? :huh:

Oh. :rolleyes:

Sorry. :unknw:

'Scuse me! :D

Edited by Kenngo1969
Link to comment
On 9/19/2019 at 1:28 PM, smac97 said:

A quick update:

On 9/17, plaintiff's counsel filed a motion asking the court for permission to conduct discovery (the exchange of information between the parties).  To sum up, she wants to compel the Church to provide a list of all members of the Church who have resigned their membership since August 4, 2015, and also for "documents confirming those resignations."

Her argument is that there has been a "mass resignation" from the Church, and that this has been "primarily due to the discovery of fraud."  She cites QuitMormon.org as having processed 43,325 resignations since 2012.

The Church's attorneys have advised her that the Church will not stipulate to this request.  Their position is that "class discovery" (the process of looking for other parties to be added to the "class action" lawsuit) will not be necessary, presumably because they think the case will be dismissed under Rule 12.

I am not well-versed in the particulars of class action certification, so I can't really speak as to the merits of this motion.

Thanks,

-Smac

Further to the above development, yesterday the Church's attorneys filed a response to the Plaintiff's motion seeking permission to conduct discovery, and also a separate motion to stay (postpone) discovery until after the Church's Motion to Dismiss is addressed.

This is a key bit from the Church's response:

Quote

All discovery and scheduling issues should be stayed pending the outcome of the Church’s Motion to Dismiss. As set forth in the Church’s Motion to Dismiss, the United States Supreme Court has explained that the “very process of inquiry” into a Church’s religious beliefs violates First Amendment, not just the ultimate “conclusions that may be reached.” NLRB v. Catholic Bishop of Chi., 440 U.S. 490, 502 (1979). The Court should therefore address the jurisdictional and constitutional issues raised in the Motion to Dismiss before allowing any discovery to be conducted.

I think that's right.  I think Ms. Burningham is trying to "backdoor" discovery, and I don't think it will work.

This bit is also noteworthy:

Quote

Judge Furse issued an “Order to Propose Schedule” on August 7, 2019.  (Docket 4). On August 29, 2019, following email correspondence between counsel, the parties agreed to jointly file a motion staying all discovery pending a ruling on the Motion to Dismiss. On September 4, 2019, plaintiff’s counsel reversed course and withdrew her stipulation. She indicated that she “wanted to leave the matter open to consider the potential of limited discovery as to subject matter jurisdiction.”

On September 10, 2019, plaintiff’s counsel sent an email indicating that she had “considered discovery on the subject matter jurisdiction issue and decided that [she does] not need it.” She then proposed a stipulation staying discovery and also extending the deadline to file a motion for class certification. Counsel for both parties had another telephonic conference that day to negotiate language that both counsel found acceptable. That language was memorialized by defense counsel and sent to plaintiff’s counsel who indicated she would circulate a draft proposed motion with the mutually-agreeable language by noon the next day.

On Friday September 12, 2019, plaintiff’s counsel again reversed course and did not prepare a stipulated motion based on the language prepared the afternoon before, citing concerns about the timing of “class discovery.” Counsel exchanged several emails and defense counsel again agreed to stay all discovery and the deadline for class certification so that “the ‘clock’ for class discovery (to the extent any is allowed) is not running during the pendency of the motion to dismiss.”  Defense counsel prepared another draft stipulated motion and proposed order thatsame day.

The following Monday, plaintiff’s counsel indicated that she would not agree to the stipulation. She instead filed her motion. (Docket 14).

So the parties 

  • Initially agreed to jointly file a motion to stay (postpone) discovery until the Motion to Dismiss is addressed by the Court, then
  • Burningham thereafter withdrew her agreement to stay/postpone discovery, then
  • Burningham withdrew her withdrawal and went back to agreeing to stay discovery and extend the deadline to file a motion for class certification, then
  • Burningham withdrew the withdrawal of her withdrawal, and went back to wanting to conduct discovery, then
  • The parties agreed, again, to stay/postpone discovery and the deadline for class certification, then
  • Burningham yet again withdrew her agreement to stay discovery, and then filed her motion.

This is . . . weird.

More from the Church's response:

Quote

It is sufficient to note that the United States Supreme Court has consistently held that courts “cannot engage in the forbidden process of interpreting and weighing church doctrine.” Presbyterian Church v. Mary Elizabeth Blue Hull Mem’l Presbyterian Church, 393. U.S. 440, 451 (1969). If, as the Church contends, Ms. Gaddy’s complaint would require the court to “engage” in that “forbidden process” then any action by the court (including permitting discovery) would violate the First Amendment. 

This is a pretty solid point.  

More:

Quote

Ms. Gaddy is not prejudiced by a stay of all discovery and scheduling pending the Motion to Dismiss. First, most of the facts Ms. Gaddy puts at issue occurred between 1820 and 1844. Compl. ¶¶ 64-101. A short delay pending the resolution of the Motion to Dismiss will hardly change the record about those events.

This is a pretty good point.  Simply put, there is no particular need to rush into discovery.  

Quote

Second, the only argument Ms. Gaddy advances is potential prejudice of being forced to file her motion for class certification before she is able to conduct any “class discovery.” But this problem is easily remedied by staying the deadline for class certification pending the Motion to Dismiss—the very stipulation repeatedly offered by defense counsel.

In this context "prejudice" is LegalSpeak for "inability to use the court system to pursue legal remedies."

That Burningham is being rather schizophrenic in agreeing and not agreeing to a stay (postponement) of the deadline for class certification is a rather strong indicator that her motion asking to expedite discovery is bogus.  Her sole reason for asking for expedited discovery is her "concern" about a procedural deadline.  If, as it appears, the parties can agree to postpone that deadline, then she is left without a basis for asking for expedited discovery.

So why is Burningham trying to squeeze in a request for discovery?  Well...

Quote

Finally, staying scheduling and discovery preserves judicial and party resources. If the Church’s Motion to Dismiss is granted, Ms. Gaddy’s entire case will be dismissed with prejudice. In that event, any resources that have been devoted by the Court or the parties to discovery (including, for example, resolution of the parties’ disagreements about pre-certification discovery) will have been wasted.

In other words, if the Church's Motion to Dismiss is granted, then Burningham loses her ability to use the court's authority to compel the Church to turn over its records to her.

The more this suit goes on, the more I am persuaded that it is a sham.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
Link to comment

What could be the benefit of agreeing and then pulling the agreement (besides having the Church attorneys waste time and resources)?  Could she be hoping they won’t be prepared when a deadline hits?  However, at this point they must be assuming she will change her mind and just act on both possibilities (the agreement stands, she backs out again).

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, Calm said:

What could be the benefit of agreeing and then pulling the agreement (besides having the Church attorneys waste time and resources)?  

I can't think of any benefit.  "Amateur Hour," yes.  But no particular benefit.  Having the Church's attorneys spend a few hours on this is not really any sort of "benefit," either.

Burningham has been practicing for 30+ years, so simple inexperience doesn't seem to explain anything.  

I have some speculation as what why Burningham is behaving this way, but I won't publish it.

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

Could she be hoping they won’t be prepared when a deadline hits? 

No.  The deadline she's been referencing is one she has to meet.

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

However, at this point they must be assuming she will change her mind and just act on both possibilities (the agreement stands, she backs out again).

I think at this point the Church's attorneys are not expecting to be able to rely on Burningham to negotiate procedural issues in good faith.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
9 hours ago, Calm said:

What could be the benefit of agreeing and then pulling the agreement (besides having the Church attorneys waste time and resources)?  Could she be hoping they won’t be prepared when a deadline hits?  However, at this point they must be assuming she will change her mind and just act on both possibilities (the agreement stands, she backs out again).

I suspect it is the client demanding the seesawing back and forth based on their present mood and not on any real strategy.

Link to comment

Another update:

Today the Church's attorneys filed a motion indicating that the parties have sorted out their disagreement regarding the deadline (for class certification) and about postponing discovery.  Essentially, both sides are getting what they want.  I think this result has always been within reach, but for whatever reason Burningham kept waffling about it.

The deadline for the plaintiff to file her response to the Church's Motion to Dismiss is still October 8.

On a somewhat related note, I went to lunch today with a friend who earlier this years was re-baptized into the Church.  He and I get together every few weeks to catch up.  I mentioned this lawsuit to him, as he likes staying up on current events.  During the discussion the complaint's reference to QuitMormon.org came up.  I told him that the lawyer who prepared the complaint (here) claimed that "at least twenty-six thousand Mormons have used the website www.quitmormon.org to resign since it was created in or about 2012."

However, she has subsequently altered her position, and more recently has claimed that "as of mid-September, 2019, QuitMormon alone has processed 43,325 resignations since Attorney Mark Naugle began offering his services to the public in or about 2012."

Just now, my friend pointed me to the stats published by QuitMormon.org itself, noting that it claims resignations totaling 10,678:

image001.png

I wonder where Burningham is getting her figures, as they seem to be significantly inflated.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
18 minutes ago, changed said:

The comments on the video are absolutely hilarious.  People are so ignorant.  :rofl:

Link to comment

(For those who don’t want to click, the video is two men from “Top Class Actions” discussing legal implications of Gaddy’s Case, crappy logo if they aren’t Christian oriented, why would you put your first initial in the center and make it look like a cross, very confusing)

I didn’t find the analysis that insightful.  Yes, she is challenging core beliefs even if she says she isn’t.  

“Mandated volunteerism isn’t volunteerism” doesn’t really work since there is no penalty for saying no when asked or called.  Just because someone is asked to help doesn’t negate they are volunteering any more than the ads out there to donate to charity remove the charity aspect.  Do they really want to go the route that no ministers can reach out to members to ask for help because that turns those members into employees rather than volunteers?  Somehow I doubt  that.  Or that if a church uses missionaries and then uses these concerts as volunteers it is a pyramid scheme (“don’t want to use ‘pyramid scheme’, but wow!).  Added is their phrasing makes it sound like “recruiting” is required.

“Mormon Educational Empire”.... yeah, bet they never heard of Pathways or checked out actual tuition compared to quality of education.  Instead presented more like Trump University.

Plus the bias against the faith is pretty obvious in their tone and choice of words, facial expression. “Mormonism” is not “Christianity”, “schemes”, etc.  There is no challenge of her claims. 

The website appears to track class action suits and settlements, basically advertising for lawyers pursuing class actions. If so, they would likely inflate the value of the plantiff’s case. Maybe if I get bored I will see how often they are negative about class action claims. Added-on:  looks like they never saw a class action suit they disapproved of, joining class actions suits is presented as a way to make money, not recover losses.

Positive review of website shows their purpose is to promote class action lawsuits ( a tab popped up on how to start one while visiting the site) and likely make money by being used in part to help get settlements.

I love Top Class Actions. The site shows you all of the current Class Action Lawsuits that are available. They list everything from small class action lawsuits, to huge multi-million dollar class action lawsuits. You would be AMAZED how many products that you have in your home right now are not as advertised and have ended up in a class action lawsuit. 

Generally speaking, most of the class action lawsuits I have qualified for were small items, where you get a free product coupon, or a check for $5. However, recently I qualified for the Aveeno Class Action Lawsuit and I was able to show receipts for over 150 Aveeno products through the years. That class action lawsuit makes all the time I spend filling out the forms I qualify for well worth it. 

Top Class Actions also has a newsletter that you can sign up for, that will send you the newest class action lawsuits each week. You can also check their website on a regular basis for new class action lawsuits. One of my favorite sections on the website (besides the currently active class action lawsuits section) is the investigations section where you can read about products and companies that are currently being investigated. Often times, these investigations will eventually turn into class action lawsuits. 

If you are tired of being wronged by companies, I urge you to keep an eye on Top Class Actions website, as sooner or later they are bound to post a class action lawsuit that you qualify for based on your past purchases.”

https://www.trustpilot.com/review/topclassactions.com

Another review:

”Free money...I absolutely love this site! No reason not to. They send you a weekly newsletter with the latest class action lawsuits. Most of the time it's something you qualify for. I get random checks in the mail and they always show up at the right time”

The BBA lists it as “Class Action Settlement Administrator”.

”The practice is easy, and can be lucrative, yet most people are passing up the free money and settlement checks.

“This can make a significant impact on your bottom line,” said Scott Hardy, founder and CEO of Top Class Actions website (www.topclassactions.com). "But people just ignore it because they think it’s only going to be a couple bucks.””

And they more or less imply you don’t even have to have bought the product since many don’t require proof at all.

”If you can look at your credit card or debit card transactions and find a charge at a place where you can buy that product and it fits that criteria, then a lot of times that can be submitted as proof," Hardy said.”

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/612795001

Yeah, don’t see it as a particularly impartial legal analysis service. More infomercial for class action suits. 

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Lots of special pleading there.  And mischaracterizing of the complaint, since Gaddy *is* asking the court to adjudicate religious doctrines.

I thought their saying the church was like a pyramid scheme was interesting. And them seeing the missionaries as salesmen, on top of that they're paying for their own missions. And found the mentioning of general authorities getting paid but the people below them are not. And the free labor the members give, such as cleaning toilets etc. If I wasn't a lifelong member, it would sound suspicious. 

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

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...