Ahab Posted March 4, 2020 Posted March 4, 2020 10 minutes ago, smac97 said: I disagree a bit here. The "Kingdom of God," in its full flower, will exercise civil authority. The Church, as presently constituted, does not do that. Consider, for example, D&C 103 (emphasis added) : And Articles of Faith 1:10: See also this excerpt from the Church's "True to the Faith" manual: The Nephites were living in a quasi-theocracy (where some of the judges held both civil and religious authority). We don't have that situation today. A pure theocracy - including civil authority - will happen in the future. Meanwhile, however, the Church claims no civil authority for itself, and in fact specifically disclaims such. Thanks, -Smac Okay, good points, but I would still say we are the kingdom of God even though we are not in "full flower" right now. Just as we have the priesthood of God right now even though we don't have the full power of it as our Lord or our Father in heaven do now. So whether we have civil authority or not, we are still the kingdom of God. And yet as I said this is something that we likely could not prove in a secular court of law.
Ahab Posted March 4, 2020 Posted March 4, 2020 5 minutes ago, PacMan said: Jeff, stop. Please. Just stop. You're embarrassing yourself. SMAC is an attorney. You are not. I am an attorney. You are not. In fact, I clerked in federal court. I (meaning the judge) routinely threw out RICO claims better pled than this one. This complaint sound like an amateur tin-foil conspiracy rant. It is really, really poor. I don't mean to be offensive, but it is bad. Really, really bad. I hope the Church attorneys see it this way and will not settle out of court. That may be all that Jeff is hoping for here, trying to make himself as much of a nuisance as possible while hoping some people will pay to make him go away.
smac97 Posted March 4, 2020 Author Posted March 4, 2020 3 minutes ago, Ahab said: Quote I disagree a bit here. The "Kingdom of God," in its full flower, will exercise civil authority. The Church, as presently constituted, does not do that. Consider, for example, D&C 103 (emphasis added) : And Articles of Faith 1:10: See also this excerpt from the Church's "True to the Faith" manual: The Nephites were living in a quasi-theocracy (where some of the judges held both civil and religious authority). We don't have that situation today. A pure theocracy - including civil authority - will happen in the future. Meanwhile, however, the Church claims no civil authority for itself, and in fact specifically disclaims such. Okay, good points, but I would still say we are the kingdom of God even though we are not in "full flower" right now. So would I. Hence my use of the word "inchoate." See, for example, the following comment in the Church's "Guide to the Scriptures" under the entry of "Kingdom of God or Kingdom of Heaven": Quote The kingdom of God on earth is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (D&C 65). The purpose of the Church is to prepare its members to live forever in the celestial kingdom or kingdom of heaven. However, the scriptures sometimes call the Church the kingdom of heaven, meaning that the Church is the kingdom of heaven on earth. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the kingdom of God on the earth, but it is at present limited to an ecclesiastical kingdom. During the Millennium, the kingdom of God will be both political and ecclesiastical. See also D&C 65 (emphasis added) : Quote Revelation on prayer given through Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Hiram, Ohio, October 30, 1831. 1–2, The keys of the kingdom of God are committed to man on earth, and the gospel cause will triumph; 3–6, The millennial kingdom of heaven will come and join the kingdom of God on earth. 1 Hearken, and lo, a voice as of one sent down from on high, who is mighty and powerful, whose going forth is unto the ends of the earth, yea, whose voice is unto men—Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight. 2 The keys of the kingdom of God are committed unto man on the earth, and from thence shall the gospel roll forth unto the ends of the earth, as the stone which is cut out of the mountain without hands shall roll forth, until it has filled the whole earth. 3 Yea, a voice crying—Prepare ye the way of the Lord, prepare ye the supper of the Lamb, make ready for the Bridegroom. 4 Pray unto the Lord, call upon his holy name, make known his wonderful works among the people. 5 Call upon the Lord, that his kingdom may go forth upon the earth, that the inhabitants thereof may receive it, and be prepared for the days to come, in the which the Son of Man shall come down in heaven, clothed in the brightness of his glory, to meet the kingdom of God which is set up on the earth. 6 Wherefore, may the kingdom of God go forth, that the kingdom of heaven may come, that thou, O God, mayest be glorified in heaven so on earth, that thine enemies may be subdued; for thine is the honor, power and glory, forever and ever. Amen. And here: Quote Elder Bruce R. McConkie of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles has written: “With the millennial advent, the kingdom of God on earth will step forth and exercise political jurisdiction over all the earth as well as ecclesiastical jurisdiction over its own citizens. When the saints pray … ‘Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven’ (Matt. 6:10), they are petitioning the Father to send the political or millennial kingdom so that complete righteousness, both civically and religiously, will prevail on earth” (Mormon Doctrine, 2d ed., Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1966., p. 500; see also LDS Bible Dictionary, s.v. “kingdom of heaven,” p. 721). In like manner, the Prophet Joseph Smith prayed: “Wherefore, may the kingdom of God go forth, that the kingdom of heaven may come, that thou, O God, mayest be glorified in heaven so on earth” (D&C 65:6). Earlier in this dispensation, in anticipating the day when the Savior would preside over his earthly kingdom, Church leaders made a distinction between the Church and the coming kingdom of heaven, which they sometimes referred to then as the “kingdom of God.” For example, Elder George Q. Cannon of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles said, “We are asked, Is the Church of God, and the Kingdom of God the same organization? and we are informed that some of the brethren hold that they are separate. “This is the correct view to take. The Kingdom of God is a separate organization from the Church of God. There may be men acting as officers in the Kingdom of God who will not be members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. On this point the Prophet Joseph gave particular instructions before his death, and gave an example, which he asked the younger elders who were present to always remember. It was to the effect that men might be chosen to officiate as members of the Kingdom of God who had no standing in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The Kingdom of God when established [during the Millennium] will not be for the protection of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints alone, but for the protection of all men, whatever their religious views or opinions may be” (History of the Church, 7:382). On 8 July 1855 President Brigham Young said that the millennial kingdom “grows out of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but it is not the church; for a man may be a legislator in that body which will issue laws to sustain the inhabitants of the earth in their individual rights and still not belong to the Church of Jesus Christ at all” (ibid.). Thanks, -Smac 2
smac97 Posted March 4, 2020 Author Posted March 4, 2020 10 minutes ago, Ahab said: I hope the Church attorneys see it this way and will not settle out of court. I don't think the Church will settle. The plaintiffs' extortion settlement efforts were already rejected, and yesterday the Church's attorneys filed a Motion to Dismiss. These actions indicate that the Church is not looking at this case as one meriting settlement negotiations. 10 minutes ago, Ahab said: That may be all that Jeff is hoping for here, trying to make himself as much of a nuisance as possible while hoping some people will pay to make him go away. I'm not sure what Jeff's relationship to the plaintiffs is. Perhaps he will explain. Thanks, -Smac 1
Ahab Posted March 4, 2020 Posted March 4, 2020 6 minutes ago, smac97 said: So would I. Hence my use of the word "inchoate." See, for example, the following comment in the Church's "Guide to the Scriptures" under the entry of "Kingdom of God or Kingdom of Heaven": See also D&C 65 (emphasis added) : And here: Thanks, -Smac Okay, so we're the kingdom of God now but not the kingdom of heaven yet. I'm looking forward to that whenever it comes. 1
The Nehor Posted March 4, 2020 Posted March 4, 2020 21 hours ago, Jeff Wangsgard said: Since my name was dropped at the beginning of this thread...I need to respond to smax97 1. The three plaintiffs are Lynnette Cook (Orem), Rodney Jay Vessels (Orem), and Julie Little Taggart (Salt Lake City). AGREED. 2. The plaintiffs filed the complaint pro se (they are representing themselves, no attorney). AGREED. 3. The lawsuit is based on the federal RICO statute ("Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations" Act). This statute is used by the government to go after organized crime, gangs, etc. It has a "civil" component as well, meaning that a private party can theoretically use it against another private party. IT IS NOT “THEORETICAL”—THE PLAINTIFFS ARE PROPERLY SUING UNDER THE CIVIL RICO PROVISIONS A DEFENDANT THAT IS NOT A “PRIVATE PARTY.” 4. The gist of RICO is to go after groups of people who commit crimes as a group. So the claimant (the plaintiffs) have to establish that the defendant (the Church) has engaged in "racketeering activity," which is one or more of the criminal offenses set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 1961. So this is stuff like gambling, murder, kidnapping, extortion, arson, robbery, bribery, dealing in obscene matter, or dealing in a controlled substance, counterfeiting, money laundering, and so on. These are the potential "predicate offenses." The claimants can't just make vague allegations of misconduct. They must specify what predicate offenses the Church has committed. Moreover, they must show "pattern" of such "racketeering activity" (at least two predicate offenses). SMAC HAS NO CLUE RE THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS AND RIGHTS THAT PLAINTIFFS RELY ON. THEIR ALLEGATIONS ARE MADE WITH SPECIFICITY AND ACCORDING TO THE REAL TRUTH AND WITH PRECISION AS TO THE PREDICATE ACTS REQUIRED. The claimants must also must allege the existence of an "enterprise," which may be an illegitimate enterprise (e.g., a Mafia family) or a wholly legitimate enterprise (a corporation). THIS IS TOTALLY INACCURATE. THE ENTERPRISE CONSISTS OF A FOR PROFIT CORPORATION AND A CHURCH THAT IS CLAIMS TO BE A NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION—TWO SEPARATE ENTITIES THAT FORM AN ENTERPRISE. 5. The "predicate offenses" cited in complaint are mail fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1341), wire fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343), and money laundering (18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(A)(i)). SMAC HAS FALSELY LIMITED THE MULTIPLE PREDICATE OFFENSES THE PLAINTIFFS RELY ON. 6. This lawsuit, then, appears to be fairly similar to the Gaddy lawsuit we have been discussing for a while. It appears to share the same fundamental flaws as exist in the Gaddy lawsuit, and will likely be summarily dismissed. For example, paragraphs 125-139 talk about the content of the Book of Mormon, and then claims that the Church "totally ignores the powerful message of the BOM and inserts in its place false doctrines, including vain and foolish promises that families can be together forever, subject to false ordinances, rituals, temple attendance requirements, church attendance requirements, tithing requirements, and endless genealogies." The claimants then state that "{t]he Church snares the souls of unexpectant victims, claiming that if the BOM is true, then the Church must be true," that "{m}embers are coerced" into paying tithing, that "{t}he BOM plays no role in the Church's doctrine, and thus, the Church uses a bait and switch tactic." THE PLAINTIFFS LAWSUIT IS TOTALLY DIFFERENT FROM GADDY AND WILL SURVIVE DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS, PURSUANT TO RULE 12, WHICH SMAC HAS NO CLUE ABOUT. 7. In other words, this is a fraud lawsuit. I have litigated many dozens of lawsuits predicated on a fraud theory. They virtually always fail, most often at the very beginning of the lawsuit because the lawyer did such a poor job of vetting the claims and pleading them in the complaint, or else, as here, because the plaintiffs are not trained in the law, and hence don't know how to properly draft a complaint. I eventually became so fed up with the sheer number of poorly-drafted fraud-based lawsuits that I wrote an article about it and had it published in the Utah Bar Journal: A Primer on Pleading Fraud Claims in Utah. SMAC HAS OFFERED A POORLY DRAFT RESPONSE TO THE PLAINTIFFS LAWSUIT. 8. The complaint does not properly plead a fraud claim, nor does it properly please a RICO claim. Moreover, the complaint only names the Church. I don't think the Church can conspire with itself. THE DEFENDANT IS THE CORPORATION OF THE FIRST PRESIDENCY. THE ENTERPRISE IS BETWEEN THE DEFENDANT AND A SEPARATE NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION. 9. The truth or falsity of religious doctrines is a question that is virtually never addressed by the civil courts. Civil courts are simply not interested in being a forum for people to argue about religious claims. It's called the "Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine." THE FIRST AMENDMENT DOES NOT PROTECT ACTS OF FRAUD. 10. The substantive defects in the complaint, and the Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine, will combine to make dismissal of this suit a near certainty. THERE IS NEAR CERTAINTY THAT PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT WILL SURVIVE THE MOTION TO DISMISS AND THAT DEFENDANT WILL SETTLE BEFORE ALLOWING ITS FALSE PROPHET TO BE DEPOSED.. 11. The "Request for Relief" (the specific requests from the plaintiffs for the court to do something) is a doozy: Quote WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for the following relief: An order for injunctive relief against the Church, prohibiting the Church from doing any of the following: An order that the Church and its leaders and members are prohibited from claiming that the BOM is the "keystone" of the religion of the Church. An order that the Church and its leaders, members and missionaries of the Church are prohibited from claiming that the BOM proves or is evidence of the truthfulness of the Church. An order prohibiting the Church and its leaders, members, missionaries and members from claiming that the Church follows the teachings of the BOM. An order prohibiting the Church from claiming that the tithing and offerings members give to the Church have had any benefit for those who are not members of the Church. An order prohibiting the Church from claiming that it has done anything to truly help the poor and the needy outside of the members of the Church. And order prohibiting the Church from claiming that it has done good for the poor that it has alleged to have helped through its so-called humanitarian efforts, when, in fact it has done great evil. 12. In a way, I sort of feel bad for these folks. I hope they did not invest much time or emotional energy in this lawsuit. I FEEL SORRY FOR SMAC. Please tell me it was also submitted in all caps. 3
Calm Posted March 4, 2020 Posted March 4, 2020 5 hours ago, bluebell said: Has Jeff been back since Smac responded? Not according to his profile, but he could have logged out...I am assuming you can read the board logged out. Can't remember my password and too lazy to dig it out or I would try it. 2
Popular Post smac97 Posted March 5, 2020 Author Popular Post Posted March 5, 2020 (edited) On 3/3/2020 at 8:26 PM, smac97 said: As luck would have it, today the Church's attorney's filed a Motion to Dismiss. See here. Yesterday, one day after the Church's attorneys filed the above Motion, the Plaintiff's filed their memorandum in opposition. See here. It's . . . well, read it yourself. It's almost entirely conclusory. That is, it is mostly devoid of legal argument, and instead relies on because-I-say-so conclusions of law. This approach just does not work. The Plaintiffs can make allegations of fact, and the federal court is more or less obligated to accept those allegations as true (though only at this very early stage of the litigation). However, the Plaintiffs do not get to insist on conclusory statements of what the law it, or how it should be applied. That's pretty much all the memorandum in opposition does. A choice excerpt: "The Church pretends to be all about religion; but the Church is all about money and popularity and combining with politicians and business leaders to control the world politically." The memo is only six pages long. The "argument" section is a little over one page. Not the best outing for the Plaintiffs. -Smac Edited March 5, 2020 by smac97 5
InCognitus Posted March 5, 2020 Posted March 5, 2020 1 minute ago, smac97 said: A choice excerpt: "The Church pretends to be all about religion; but the Church is all about money and popularity and combining with politicians and business leaders to control the world politically." That sounds more like an internet blog rant than something that came from a legal document. I don't get it. Is this whole thing about getting attention? I can't imagine that any reasonable person would think they actually have a case.
The Nehor Posted March 5, 2020 Posted March 5, 2020 2 minutes ago, InCognitus said: That sounds more like an internet blog rant than something that came from a legal document. I don't get it. Is this whole thing about getting attention? I can't imagine that any reasonable person would think they actually have a case. I went ahead and bolded the problem there. 1
smac97 Posted March 5, 2020 Author Posted March 5, 2020 2 minutes ago, InCognitus said: That sounds more like an internet blog rant than something that came from a legal document. I don't get it. Is this whole thing about getting attention? I can't imagine that any reasonable person would think they actually have a case. There are some folks in our society who really think that if the harrumph enough, they can win in court. I once had a fellow try to argue that he did not need to re-pay his loan because the loan was not backed by gold bullion stored at Fort Knox. In another case, the borrowers repeatedly asked the bank to not foreclose on them, and to instead review their multiple loan modification applications (they also declared bankruptcy with the specific purpose of delaying foreclosure). The bank accommodated these requests and delayed foreclosure. The borrowers kept doing this, for years, after which they filed a lawsuit against the bank to strip the mortgage from the title to their house. Their legal theory is that the bank had waited too long to foreclose. Chutzpah personified. The case is currently on appeal. I had an eviction case where the tenant stayed in the property without paying rent for more than six months. He showed up for a hearing and insisted that he needed another six months, but could not afford any rent (either for the previous six months, or the prospective six months he was asking for). Most attorneys who litigate long enough will accumulate war stories involving fighting stupid, futile lawsuits. Thanks, -Smac 1
Ahab Posted March 5, 2020 Posted March 5, 2020 6 minutes ago, smac97 said: There are some folks in our society who really think that if the harrumph enough, they can win in court. I once had a fellow try to argue that he did not need to re-pay his loan because the loan was not backed by gold bullion stored at Fort Knox. In another case, the borrowers repeatedly asked the bank to not foreclose on them, and to instead review their multiple loan modification applications (they also declared bankruptcy with the specific purpose of delaying foreclosure). The bank accommodated these requests and delayed foreclosure. The borrowers kept doing this, for years, after which they filed a lawsuit against the bank to strip the mortgage from the title to their house. Their legal theory is that the bank had waited too long to foreclose. Chutzpah personified. The case is currently on appeal. I had an eviction case where the tenant stayed in the property without paying rent for more than six months. He showed up for a hearing and insisted that he needed another six months, but could not afford any rent (either for the previous six months, or the prospective six months he was asking for). Most attorneys who litigate long enough will accumulate war stories involving fighting stupid, futile lawsuits. Thanks, -Smac For some reason I thought of this hymn, probably because I realize that while there is no end to good things there is no end to bad stupid things either and I would rather think about the good things there is no end to than all of the bad things there is no end to. If You Could Hie to Kolob If you could hie to Kolob In the twinkling of an eye, And then continue onward With that same speed to fly, Do you think that you could ever, Through all eternity, Find out the generation Where Gods began to be? Or see the grand beginning, Where space did not extend? Or view the last creation, Where Gods and matter end? Methinks the Spirit whispers, “No man has found ‘pure space,’ Nor seen the outside curtains, Where nothing has a place.” The works of God continue, And worlds and lives abound; Improvement and progression Have one eternal round. There is no end to matter; There is no end to space; There is no end to spirit; There is no end to race. There is no end to virtue; There is no end to might; There is no end to wisdom; There is no end to light. There is no end to union; There is no end to youth; There is no end to priesthood; There is no end to truth. There is no end to glory; There is no end to love; There is no end to being; There is no death above. There is no end to glory; There is no end to love; There is no end to being; There is no death above. Text: William W. Phelps, 1792–1872
JAHS Posted March 5, 2020 Posted March 5, 2020 (edited) 19 minutes ago, smac97 said: There are some folks in our society who really think that if the harrumph enough, they can win in court. I once had a fellow try to argue that he did not need to re-pay his loan because the loan was not backed by gold bullion stored at Fort Knox. In another case, the borrowers repeatedly asked the bank to not foreclose on them, and to instead review their multiple loan modification applications (they also declared bankruptcy with the specific purpose of delaying foreclosure). The bank accommodated these requests and delayed foreclosure. The borrowers kept doing this, for years, after which they filed a lawsuit against the bank to strip the mortgage from the title to their house. Their legal theory is that the bank had waited too long to foreclose. Chutzpah personified. The case is currently on appeal. I had an eviction case where the tenant stayed in the property without paying rent for more than six months. He showed up for a hearing and insisted that he needed another six months, but could not afford any rent (either for the previous six months, or the prospective six months he was asking for). Most attorneys who litigate long enough will accumulate war stories involving fighting stupid, futile lawsuits. Thanks, -Smac Here's another one for you Smac Mormon church accused of embezzling couple's estate Not much information in this article though. SALT LAKE CITY (Legal Newsline) - A son is bringing attention to a religious organization that allegedly embezzled his parent’s entire estate. Trustee and agent Brett L. Eliason sued on behalf of Max and Joyce Eliason. The Corporation of The President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and The Law Offices of Kirton McConkie were accused of embezzling the estate during the estate planning process. They were sued in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah's Central Division on Feb. 26. Brett claims the defendants stole tens of millions of oil properties in Texas, Utah, Wyoming, and Colorado. “All evidence proves that the defendants used fraudulent misrepresentation to secure the estate planning relationship and told me that I needed to secure outside legal counsel for both myself and my father and his and my mother’s estates since they never had any intention of protecting the estates they were paid to protect,” the lawsuit claims. He accused the defendants of “targeting” his parents with bribes and even accuses them of assaulting the plaintiff and his children. He also pointed out that his mother was dying, and that he couldn’t visit his father since last April. Edited March 5, 2020 by JAHS
smac97 Posted March 5, 2020 Author Posted March 5, 2020 11 minutes ago, JAHS said: Here's another one for you Smac Mormon church accused of embezzling couple's estate Not much information in this article though. In the article there is a hyperlink to the complaint, which has more information, including that the plaintiffs apparently previously filed suit about this dispute in state court (in Salt Lake County). I looked that case up, and it was apparently dismissed last fall. The complaint also shows that it was filed by the plaintiff without an attorney. The present case will, I think, be dismissed based on res judicata. If a person has a legal dispute, he does not get to submit it over and over to the courts for adjudication. He essentially gets one bite at the apple. Once the claims have been adjudicated, they are thereafter barred from being presented again (either in the same court or in another one). Lots of legal complexity, though, so I guess we'll have to wait and see. Thanks, -Smac
Calm Posted March 5, 2020 Posted March 5, 2020 (edited) Decided not necessary... Edited March 6, 2020 by Calm
The Nehor Posted March 6, 2020 Posted March 6, 2020 5 hours ago, smac97 said: Yesterday, one day after the Church's attorneys filed the above Motion, the Plaintiff's filed their memorandum in opposition. See here. Finally had a chance to read that and that is hilarious. I am not a lawyer but I have, in previous jobs, had to read quite a few legal documents and edit them and that one is ridiculous. I doubt it will get that far but I would love to see them try to argue that the Church is committing fraud by not spending all tithing money on it's 'alleged mission to help the poor'. For those who have been in the LDS Church who here thought or had represented to them that tithing money was primarily for the relief of the poor? Anyone? This part is particularly adorable: "The Church pretends to be all about religion; but the Church is all about money and popularity and combining with politicians and business leaders to control the world politically." "They are basically the Illuminati" is not exactly a sound legal argument to show fraud. It is a good supporting argument for an argument that the plaintiffs are mentally incompetent and should have power of attorney taken away from them for their own protection but I don't think that is what they are trying to argue for here. 1
The Nehor Posted March 6, 2020 Posted March 6, 2020 (edited) 6 hours ago, JAHS said: Here's another one for you Smac Mormon church accused of embezzling couple's estate Not much information in this article though. SALT LAKE CITY (Legal Newsline) - A son is bringing attention to a religious organization that allegedly embezzled his parent’s entire estate. Trustee and agent Brett L. Eliason sued on behalf of Max and Joyce Eliason. The Corporation of The President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and The Law Offices of Kirton McConkie were accused of embezzling the estate during the estate planning process. They were sued in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah's Central Division on Feb. 26. Brett claims the defendants stole tens of millions of oil properties in Texas, Utah, Wyoming, and Colorado. “All evidence proves that the defendants used fraudulent misrepresentation to secure the estate planning relationship and told me that I needed to secure outside legal counsel for both myself and my father and his and my mother’s estates since they never had any intention of protecting the estates they were paid to protect,” the lawsuit claims. He accused the defendants of “targeting” his parents with bribes and even accuses them of assaulting the plaintiff and his children. He also pointed out that his mother was dying, and that he couldn’t visit his father since last April. That one is also somehow supposed to be a RICO case. Oh, wow, read this if you have the time. This is hilariously cute and why you get a lawyer. This is from the actual court filing. It is only an excerpt: Quote It is impossible to describe the damages associated with something so horrific and heinous as to wake up after taking care of my dying mother for five years and to realize the "God and Religion' I have worshiped my entire life had targeted my parents for "assimilation" via bribes and had turned and assaulted my parents, my daughters, and my own lives for the past seven years with the clear intention of "eliminating the bodies and evidence". This submission to the Federal Court is the last chance for the US Consititution and the Bill of Rights to be upheld and those who have been involved in this extensive display of Corruption and apparent "Deep State" activities stopped and held accountable for their respective involvement which may have countless other victims under fire as this case is being reviewed. The Defendants have refused to respond to one of the approximate 50 criminal allegations and has not provided one statement as to the location of the approximate $200 Million Estates which went missing prior to the death of Joyce S Eliason on May 21st, 2018 and before the death of Max D Eliason who is still alive and was competent the day his wife died meaning all assets should still be held within the Marital Trust of the A/B Trust Estate Plan. Plaintiff pled with President Lee Wright and President Dallin Oaks for mercy and for reverance for the desecrated sacred estates which had been destroyed; and instead Plaintiff and his father have been assaulted in an unprecedented manner of retaliation against victims with Max Eliason being deemed "incompetent" and put on "house arrest" from seeing his youngest son and Plaintiff who has been the target of Felony Defamation of Character among various Courts and Adult Protective Services and has been accused of abusing and exploiting his father instead of them admitting their guilt and making one attempt to show good faith. I have been unable to visit my father Max D Eliason since April 17th, 2019 when I told KMC Law that Max D Eliason was their client and that they sat in felony waters knowing that they had intentionally breached their Fiduciary Duties to those that paid them to protect their sacred estates. Plaintiffs role of Co-Trustee and Beneficiary and Personal Representative have all been illegally dismissed and his life has been completely destroyed as has his possiblity to ever recover the life he once knew nor that of his daughters who are being totured along with the other victims. Every Civil Right provided by the Bill of Rights of the Constitution has been violently deprived of Plaintiffs and every Fiduciary involved in protecting this family has been "bought, threatened, or lost their sense of integrity". Allow me to give my personal translation: "The big bad Church is the borg and they assimilated my parents into their Collective and then destroyed all the evidence. I am calling this assault even though there was no assault and that they buried bodies even through there are no bodies because I want to make it very clear to the court that I am M-A-D MAD about this!!!!! This is my last appeal and if it is not heard the Constitution will be burned tomorrow and my God-given right under the Bill of Rights to get a big inheritance will be denied. I am also sure the Deep State is colluding against me in this case because they are in tight with the Church. I would explain this but it is so self-evident I do not need to. Just trust me. I asked the church and their lawyers nicely to give me all my parent's money that they did not leave to me in their will but they set it on fire and cackled laughing as I wept. They then kidnapped my father and refused to let me see him. They then tried to sue me just because I made up crazy stories about them when clearly you can see I am the sanest of men. Basically they are bad people and they took all my parent's money like bad people do. Fix this! They kicked me out of their life and fired me from managing the estate and ruined my entire life irrevocably and that of my daughters. EVERY CIVIL RIGHT in the Bill of Rights has been violated. EVERY SINGLE ONE! They took away my rights to free speech with duct tape and forced me to become a Scientologist. They denied the right of the press somehow despite my not being a journalist. They booted me from my community militia and would not let me buy a tactical nuke for self-defense. Navy SEALs have been illegally quartered in my home without my consent for three weeks now and the war on terror does not have legislation allowing them residence. They have ripped through all my papers and effects and strip searched me and all their warrants have not had probable cause. They arrested me for capital offenses without using a grand jury TWICE (double jeopardy) and compelled me to testify. They then killed me, imprisoned me, and took all my stuff without going through the courts. The trial was lengthy and held in secret in another state while not telling me what I was being accused of and without the ability to cross-examine witnesses. They would not let me call witnesses and I was not allowed a lawyer. Furthermore in another case they did not use a jury even though I insisted and the matter involved $20.01 and the case was illegally reexamined. The bail for my imprisonment was excessive and they fined me lots of money for being an idiot and they locked me in a room and made me watch "Cats" which is clearly cruel and unusual. They also denied me all rights not in the Constitution and the federal government interfered in what was clearly a state matter. Whew, sure I missed something in the Bill of Rights but for his statement to be factual something like that all had to happen. Allow me to tell you what I think happened: This guy was not going to get as much of an inheritance as he expected and may not have gotten any yet as one of his parents is still alive. He insisted that the church made his parents give some of their estate to the church which is somehow sacred desecration and injures him. All this property is missing but he cannot substantiate it in any way and it may not even exist or not to the value he wants. Then dad or whoever has power of attorney (another saner sibling?) if he is not competent got a restraining order against him (the supposed house arrest) because this git was harassing everyone involved trying to get a financial cut. He started making wild accusations and somebody sued him for defamation of character. That has a pretty high bar so if a competent lawyer is trying for that this guy was not subtle or reserved in trying to win some kind of PR battle. That evil law group. They sit like the whore of Babylon in "felony waters" breaching their fiduciary duties in regards to sacred estates. What is the world coming to? EDITED BECAUSE PART OF IT GOT CUT OFF SOMEHOW Edited March 6, 2020 by The Nehor
The Nehor Posted March 6, 2020 Posted March 6, 2020 2 hours ago, Calm said: Almost a year of not seeing the dad....well, perhaps both were physically incapable of traveling (some might see me as not particularly dutiful in my visits). Let's hope they talked constantly by phone.. hmm...it would seem, however, both live in the Salt Lake area: https://www.legacy.com/obituaries/saltlaketribune/obituary.aspx?n=joyce-stillman-eliason&pid=189108262&fhid=11609 https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/32545184/Eliason_et_al_v_Corporation_of_the_President_of_the_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_LatterDay_Saints,_The_et_al I am guessing it was a restraining order.
The Nehor Posted March 6, 2020 Posted March 6, 2020 4 minutes ago, Calm said: Not linking to his Facebook (if I could be sure and just hit the post and not his whole page so no searching for it ever, I would, but hasn't worked in the past for me at times) but posting his comment here without comment except to say I think he wants his stuff publicized, otherwise I treat FB as generally more private: I am pretty sure judges don't have a fiduciary duty. It is adorable how he thinks that an impartial judge will tear down everything because he is non-LDS, has children, and supports same-sex marriage. I also love the apocalyptic stance where he is convinced that he is the messiah come to deliver the world from EVIL!!!!
The Nehor Posted March 6, 2020 Posted March 6, 2020 21 minutes ago, Calm said: It has him listed as Trustee. Can there be more than one? As in a family trust with all the siblings as Trustees? One of my brothers is executor of Mom's trust, the rest of us no access (thank goodness, worrying about her day to day expenses which are simple enough is more than enough anxiety for me). Reading between the lines a little I suspect he was a trustee of the estate. There can be more than one. Also reading into it a little he insists he was illegally ejected from it. Quote Plaintiffs role of Co-Trustee and Beneficiary and Personal Representative have all been illegally dismissed and his life has been completely destroyed as has his possiblity to ever recover the life he once knew nor that of his daughters who are being totured along with the other victims. So it looks like there was more than one. This may have been tied to the charges of elder abuse that he complains about as well. I am guessing if you are convicted of that you would probably lost trustee status in regards to the estate.
Bernard Gui Posted March 6, 2020 Posted March 6, 2020 1 hour ago, The Nehor said: I am pretty sure judges don't have a fiduciary duty. It is adorable how he thinks that an impartial judge will tear down everything because he is non-LDS, has children, and supports same-sex marriage. I also love the apocalyptic stance where he is convinced that he is the messiah come to deliver the world from EVIL!!!! Serious comment....this fellow has some problems that could prove dangerous.
Recommended Posts