I realize my opinion is going to have the effect of a stink bomb, but based on my long experience observing Scientology, this is going nowhere.
Thomas S. Monson is not showing up at Southwark crown court.
If in fact there's some sort of default judgment against Monson, he will not be extradited, because what he's accused of is not a crime in the USA. This is essentially an attack on certain beliefs and NO US court is going to entertain making decisions on the basis of religious doctrine. It is practically the first thing discussed in constitutional law, because it goes to what cases a court will take. Also, fraud in religious dogma is not a crime in the US.
This case is not going anywhere and it's disturbing to see all these people fall into delusions of grandeur over what is essentially a non-starter.
If monson or the church doesn't respond somehow where does this leave the church and their assets in the UK? I think there is more to this than meets the eye. I think Tom may be kind of laying the ground work for something potentially bigger, depending on how this all goes down. There is the tax evasion stuff in the works as well. SOMETHING is going to come from this!
I think it's an interesting angle to argue that the church has long claimed "facts" that have been proven to be untrue and insists that members go along with the fraud whilst giving a mandatory 10% of their income to be in compliance.
Let's hope that this time, in a court of law, the church will be forced to stand up and give honest answers under cross examination or stumble on with their usual parcel of lies and deceit.
I wonder how they will feel, now that they will be summoned before a court and judged?
Either way it looks an interesting time ahead and a rather bleak prospect for them.
Hopefully, if the action goes ahead as planned, it will also attract a whole barrow load of national and international media attention. Good news week indeed!
Dear anointedone, or whomever is in charge at mormonthink.com, please provide a separate page for the story of Monson being summoned to court in the U.K.
We need a link that leads only to that story in order to facilitate spreading it around the internet, and to facilitate commenting.
With any luck the old fart will have croaked by then or rendered incapable of travel because of senility....would be great for the LDS SCC to have to admit that.
I haven't had a chance to read the original thread yet but my first question (maybe answered there?) is how can a UK court summon a US citizen? I mean, don't they have to request his extradition, or something like that? He doesn't have to go, does he? And his protectors can cite old age, failing health, as reasons he can't attend.
I can't see the USA forcibly sending one of its citizens to a foreign court, unless perhaps for a violent major crime demonstrably committed on that foreign soil.
Yes, the UK can summon. If the person refuses and the court goes to trial, if found guilty the person would need to be extradited. And, if the US decides not to extradite, I'm sure the British Govt would be more than happy to confiscate any and all properties belonging to the Corporate Sole that exists in GB. That would be a thing of beauty!
Any court can summon anyone, doesn't mean they have to comply, but that also means they might be forfeiting all of their rights in that country.
Also, the US and UK have had good legal relations, and don't take too kindly to trying to hide from criminal charges from the other nation. If the UK requested it, I would be surprised if the US doesn't comply, they have no reason not to, and Monson hasn't really done a great job of getting in good with anyone, it would be a different story if the case were against hinkley.
International relations over relations with a tiny religion, I know what the current administration would choose
There are obviously a lot of complexities with which I am not familiar, but this is my current understanding. Monson has a lot to lose by not going. Both PR wise and legally/financially in the UK. Not to mention what defaulting in the UK might mean for similar cases in other countries.
They have to kill this line of reasoning, and do it now. Any mistake could screw with the church royally.
Keep in mind that this isn't about Thomas Monson the person, but as the head of the organization that is a legal entity in the UK. He, as president of that organization, sets the policies and is to be the one to defend it. Whether or not he will actually appear in court will be determined by lawyers and how the court system works. If the church didn't have any offices or chapels in the UK, then there would be nothing that could be done, but since they are a legal entity in that country, it can be tried there.
And, think too, if he doesn't go, and the UK requests that he be extradited, no matter what happens, that doesn't look good for the church in general. The prophet becomes a fugitive and is unable to travel to countries that would extradite him to the UK. I think the church will avoid that at all costs.
Most likely, the church lawyers will protest that, due to health reason, he's unable to attend himself and will be represented by some legal team or other high ranking representative. But, that all depends on how the court proceeds.
Regardless, someone is going to have to answer some very difficult questions, under oath, in a court of law... It will be very interesting.
A very telling point they made was you have to have a temple recommend to attend your child's temple wedding. And you have to have tithing paid up to get a temple recommend. That is plain simple extortion. Add to that the fact that it's based on "beliefs" that are provably false and I think it will fly. But I don't actually know much.
I agree about the tithing payback being extortion, especially re temple weddings.
I found out after the fact that my TBM friend, with a wife and four young kids and a struggling business and a busy stressful dangerous career choice, paid a raft of back tithing so he could go to the temple with me, a convert, heavily influenced by him to join (and then he didn't end up coming with me my first time anyway). I felt terrible that a father with big expenses and business debts would spend money he obviously couldn't afford on something that shouldn't have to happen. Fortunately for me, the bishop in the ward I attended had a policy that "full tithe" meant start paying from this day forward with the intent to keep it up, not going back to the days of yore and paying exorbitant amounts "back" to the (wealthy) church.
When exmos complain about this rampant practice of ignorant bishops demanding money from their flock in this way, many come forward to explain that it's not church policy. (That's what they say about so many things!) But so, as with so many other issues, why does the Mormon top leadership not issue a proclamation to tell bishops and SPs to STOP demanding back tithes? They can't say they don't know it goes on. And they should stop the tithing settlement at Christmas every year too.
Tithing is supposed to be private and voluntary and should be paid from your "surplus", not your net income.
Pigs and Troughs come to mind. Unfortunately for the obedient members.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/04/2014 01:57PM by Nightingale.
The boys down in legal probably have case studies and mock trials that have addressed this sort of situation and have pre-built an entire defense in preparation for such an event...
Even if they win the court case, they still lose. Whatever happens stuff is going to get out. Dirty, nasty, stuff, that the members were never supposed to know about. Monson can keep all is millions, if I can simply have some of my family members back.
csuprovograd Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The boys down in legal probably have case studies > and mock trials that have addressed this sort of > situation and have pre-built an entire defense in > preparation for such an event...
---------------------------
In a nutshell the case will never get to court, not a chance. There is no way that any UK court will accept that people in a free country are forced to follow any specific religion. ALL religions promotes untold riches and blessings........after this life! In a free country you decide whether of not want to follow any religion. It's a free, personal choice.
Even regarding having to pay 10% to enter the temple is being overstated on here, the bottom line is that it's still choice & remember of course that in the UK all TBMs are first married in a church service, prior to getting the LDS rubber stamp in the temple. All parents (exmo/jackmo/nevermo) get to see their mormon children married in the UK
From earlier posts, I assumed that the October surprise was going to be based on tax fraud/tax avoidance by the Morg. The best we can realistically hope for, is that the very act of starting this legal action will possibly provide bad publicity for the Morg but I don't see it making many newspaper headlines here in the UK press.
That said, well done to Anointed one for even getting things this far but I don't see Tommy M having too many sleepless nights over this.
grubbygert Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "In a nutshell the case will never get to court, > not a chance." > > Um, what are you talking about? > > Because what the rest of us are talking about is > how this is, in fact, happening - in court - with > a judge and lawyers and a jury and all that jazz > > But don't let the facts get in your way...
--------------------
Court proceedings being instigated in London & American citizens being extradited & grilled in a London court are two very different things. I'll be ecstatic to be proved wrong but I wouldn't start queuing for tickets to the public gallery just yet.
I think Out in England meant "never get to trial." Although this is a criminal case, the mechanics appear to be similar to a civil case in the United States. Anyone can sue anyone else, but not all cases go to trial.
Is this for a civil action, or a criminal one? In my excitement I jumped to the conclusion that it must be the later. Even if it is civil, the fact that the judge has agreed to let it move forward, and to issue summons for the head of the church is telling. If you sue Microsoft, they don't make Bill Gates take the stand, unless there is a compelling reason to do so.
Well, TSCC IS a "corporation sole", as in, Monson is the whole thing. Gates is not the sole owner of Microsoft, which I believe is a public company, is it not?
*I just think, looking at the documents (Tom's)....looks like a child put together some "hard" questions...just to get attention, *...anybody that needed to read this, either won't read it or they will dismiss it as somebody who wanted to get attention for their website. *...I would imagine these kind of things are often filed and nothing ever comes of it. *If this was not a publicity stunt... the document looks unprofessional, like a spam email.
AzCaUt, your capacity to find fault like there was a reward for it, is breathtaking. I'm probably safe in saying you have zero knowledge what Tom's real game plan is. PERHAPS, as you say, he has Mormon Apostle(s) willing to testify on behalf of the prosecution. I don't know, you don't know, so just relax and let things play out. Who knows, Tom may even call on us and others to be a part of this thing, in some small capacity. Hang loose.
I saw a post where Az said s/he'd been unnecessarily negative, or something like that, so I guess sometimes we post our initial response and then think about it some more and change our opinion. Then meanwhile the thread has closed and we can't edit ourselves. Oops.
Nice post though, to ask someone to lighten up. Not a wintry blast but more like gentle spring sunshine.
Thanks, I did mention, I was being too contrarian, put too much on it (my own doing) and was intially underwhelmed (again, my own doing). I am willing to wait it out and hope for the best.
No matter what happens, I am just so exhilarated to see someone *DO* something of this magnitude. I can feel what went into this and I am in awe of the drive and the mental capacity to get this done.
Tom has the courage of his convictions--something the Mormons talk about, and then talk some more and have no clue what they are talking about.
It seems like this would hit the local news, particularly the Trib, if anyone on this side of the Atlantic thought it was significant.
Googling reveals the issue is hitting the boards and blogs, but I didn't see any hits on news agencies. Do the newsies not think this is significant, or is it still to early for the sh!t to hit?
It may be too soon, it may not be considered important enough to warrant a story just yet. Remember, unfortunately, we tend to overplay the importance that the church has in the real world... There isn't a mormon running for president anymore after all.
But really, I think that news sources will want to do some verification of the summons, and probably try to get some sort of response from the church before releasing any type of half baked story. They don't want to state something incase these aren't real. So, we'll see how big of a news story this is over the next few days I'm sure.
I sent a news-tip to Huffington Post. I think we should all do this. They, of course, need to vet the story, so it may take a couple of days for the news to hit the page.
Brian Leiter at the University of Chicago, who blogs at Huffington Post, would love to hear about this. He also has his own philosophy blog, which often deals with this type of thing.
Several of the points (age of the earth, Adam and Eve) made in the case are valid for all of the Abrahamic religions. If the LDS church was found guilty it would open the flood gates for all religions who believe in a young earth, and Garden of Eden with Adam and Eve would also be guilty of fraud. If this case gets traction it seems like the church might call on the help of other religions to back them up financially and with legal expertise.
Personally, I would love to see a world where religious organizations could be held to the same standards of honesty as regular businesses (which of late isn't even that high). I am not holding my breath, but it would be great to have some legal definition on what is and is not acceptable behavior for religious organizations in a civilized society. People should be free to believe what they want, but basic human rights should always trump the rights of a religious organization.
The church, specifically it's leader is being summons to a court of law to answer for charges of fraud... How exactly is that a joke?
I mean it may not end the church, and really there are people out there who would believe even if Tommy Monson announced in conference that it was all a lie... But it will certainly have a significant impact.
And since we're on the topic of being embarrassed, exactly what have you done to take down the church today? Anything on the scale of summonsing the head of the church to a foreign court?
This is huge!! I appauld Tom Phillips for all the super hard work and the courage to do what he did. I really think this will help open the eyes of so many of our TBM families and friends to the issues of church history that they may have had no idea about or were unwilling to even look at. Bravo!!
well. I'm not sure. On the one hand, this seems hard to win, but on the other hand, isn't this the actual reason we're all here? Because of the lies and coverups?
Then again, perhaps, like Al Capone... going for tax evasion might have been the right move even if it's not the real issue.
There are still a good number of doubters questioning this summons so I’ll repeat, with a few additions, what I said in an earlier post.
“Perhaps the few remaining doubters should remember that Tom has been fighting to get this case to court for a long time. He had to wait upon legal advice & a summons would not have been issued if there had been no case to answer. United States law is irrelevant in this case so let’s be clear about this, a summons has been issued because lawyers & court officials in this country have decided that there has been a clear & provable breach of UK law, there would no summons for fraud if that was not the case. Saying an arrest warrant MAY be issued is legal jargon only applicable should something completely unforeseen occur. Rest assured that if the court believes that Monson has a case to answer & he does not appear then a warrant for his arrest will be issued. There is an extradition treaty in force between our two countries & unless the LDS can present a very convincing case as to why Monson should not answer those charges then he will almost certainly be extradited. This case has nothing to do with religious belief, it hinges on whether those beliefs were used for financial gain. Notice the phrase in the summons “might be untrue or misleading.” The LDS know full well that they are guilty of misleading people hence the sudden flurry of ‘essays’ designed to put a different face on things. Unfortunately for the LDS it’s rather like shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted. The LDS will no doubt claim charity status in the United States in an attempt to make themselves untouchable but when this particular LDS ‘charity’ stone is turned over, & it will be, then a lot of unpleasant ‘worms’ will come crawling out.”
This is not the only case against the LDS; there is also the tax evasion issue that is ongoing. Hopefully there will be something good to report on that fairly soon. It’s quite probable that the serious newspapers in this country will have something to write about concerning that within the next few weeks. It wouldn’t be wise to say any more at the moment.
In my opinion the boys in salt lake are standing around the water cooler having a good laugh over this right now. This will only make the critics happy; everyone else of any religious persuasion will consider this a joke.
Which is why everytime a cult leader like warren jeffs gets legal action against him, no one cares against the anti cult groups... Oh wait, there are gobs of people who care. In fact, that is why it hits national news every freaking time. In fact, that is why the Mormons are in the national headlines right now for so many reasons, like anti masturbation videos. Because nobody cares.
I think it's harder to settle a criminal case than a civil case. It often involves pleading guilty.
I do think there are numerous motions that church attorneys can make. Numerous issues of evidence and relevance. I don't see a formal trial taking place.
This news has me in hysterical fits of the giggles!
Even IF.... even if it never gets to court and all that, all that stuff that has been said here already. ...
It is still one HELL of a publicity thing! It still has me giggling uncontrolably!
No matter WHAT that cult does, they can't win! Not really.
The point was raised: WHy does he not take this chance? Climb upon that city wall and shout out to all the sinners! This could be the biggest audience ever!
But they won't take the chance. They will ignore it and pretend it doesn't exict. They will try to sweep it under the carpet.. they will try to make it go away... pay off, settle out of court.. pay a good hearty sum to force silence...
But oh boy, does this news make me grin something awful!
This, AND my sister + family sending in their resignation.. this is possibly my best week in years!!
The BOM musical acquainted non-members with some of the lds' more ludicrous claims. The court case in Britain will be followed more closely than it would have been. The good news is Monson is charged, not the church itself. I would think more difficult to get dismissed. The bad news is Monson is charged. Should he pass before resolution of the case, the summons would need to be reissued in the name of the new prophet. Successful or not, you're witnessing a paradigm shift.
Heidi Thanks for your legal insight as to the corporate nature of the LDS Church.
What does your legal experience/training tell us of why Monson was sued as an individual person instead of in his capacity as the Corporate Sole?
Is this a civil lawsuit, or a criminal lawsuit?
Is there a lawyer/prosecutor bringing this matter?
Is the District Judge (Magistrate Court) an important judical post? Does the district judge (Magistrate Court) review the allegations/claims before issuing the summons?
Are there evidentiary materials specifically supporting the issuance of the summons?
Is there a legal method allowing Monson to challenge the sufficiency of the summons? Can the summons be withdrawn prior to the Court date?
Skeptical Mind Here: you want actual answers to your questions? Or your goal/intent is something else? Call me a skeptic but there's something odd in the way you phrased your response and questions to Heidi.
They could also just pay Tom Phillips what he paid to the church. Case closed. Anyway, the only way to make it scary for the church would be to make it a class action lawsuit.
Unfortunately you won’t find anything concerning this case on a UK court website. The initial hearing is taking place in a Magistrates court & they do not list trials in advance. Anyone is free to turn up on the day to watch the proceedings & I for one hope to be there along with my ex-wife who has recently become an ex Mormon, she can’t wait to go. As I understand it even if Monson does attend, the case will likely be transferred to a crown court & that means a criminal trial. Crown courts do publish advance listings so they can checked when the time comes.
The serving of this summons and the charges JUST HAVE to get on the internet and in as many other media sources as possible; NY Times, Wash Post, SL Tribune (not so big but lots of people even TBMs read it); etc. I would like to see it on CNN etc too. How can we do it as a RfM group? Tom has helped all of us with this. Now we need to help him spread this worldwide. No matter what happens in or out of court from this point on, this summons and these charges need to be spread across the world. Just the summons and charges are DAMAGING. Of course we want it to go much further, but let's take a step at a time and get this news out now.
"If he has to take the stand, will he be speaking as a prophet or as a man?" - he will be speaking as a liar.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/04/2014 04:41PM by verilyverily.