Hey Steve,

The thread just got closed but I was making a similar point at the same time as you which was basically,

The USA today article seems like someone quickly called up a British legal expert they had on speed dial to get their immediate thoughts on the monson case, without giving any real background or info on the case itself.

I've dealt with press in the past(being a musician) with similar kinds of results.

Was that what you gleamed from this article?

. . . which, IMO, under UK law, arguably connect the dots between:

a) dishonestly-promoted false representations advanced by the Mormon Church; and

b) the Mormon Church's intent, at point of said advancement, to accrue financial gain for Monson and the Mormon Church which causes financial loss to others--or exposes others to the risk of financial loss--due to "truth" claims made by Monson that he either knew, or might have known, were false when he advanced them.

Such false representations can be empirically disproven; hence, under this interpretation of the meaning and intent of the Fraud Act of 2006, they constitute a case of criminal (not civil) financial fraud.

The arguments have been thoroughly vetted through the District Magistrate Court process (which was sufficiently convinced of its merits to issue an order of appearance) and, thus, will now advance up the line to the court-ordered appearance of Monson, per a non-territorial summons, on 14 March 2014.

This is not an attack on Mormon Church religious doctrine, per se, but, rather, on the Mormon Church's use of false representations under the cover of doctrine to gain monetary wealth at the expense of others. This is the essence of the legal case, as made within the context of Sections 2 and 3 of the 2006 Fraud Act.

(By the way, not all U.K. judges and other legal experts are of the view that this case lacks merit under British law. Let the debate begin--and God save the Queen).



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/05/2014 01:02AM by steve benson.

Well we know some believe it has merit or else it wouldn't be happening! Haha!

Kudos to you and Tom for everything. I can't wait to see where it all goes.

I'm also curious to see where the tax evasion stuff leads, but I guess we will have to be patient

Obviously the magistrate did look at the evidence over time and decided to go for it, that means something to it......the person who they talked to (in to UK) had to have been much less informed simply because there has not been enough time to have it be otherwise. Let's keep our fingers crossed and BE SUPPORTIVE OF TOM. THey are going to attack him and he is going to need us RfM people.

Just ask Tom.

This^

I am just a little peeved that people who aren't familiar with what's going on that are poo pooing it all, when it's obvious this has been brewing for some time and that there is sufficient enough evidence for it to move forward.

The simplicity of the summons means that there is something more lurking evidence wise

" Oh God , part 3 "

Hahaha!! Where's the "like" button?

I think part of the USA Today article shows that people outside of TSCC don't understand that LDS tithing is not the same as the voluntary contributions members of other religions make.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/05/2014 12:45AM by releve.

Exactly. This can not be overstated enough. Non mos don't realize tithing is pretty much mandatory. It's a COMMANDMENT!

Any lds who says otherwise is straight up lying

+1

Just ask any employee at the COB how optional tithing is, not to mention parents (and other family members) who would like to attend their child's Mormon temple wedding.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/05/2014 01:14AM by Surrender Dorothy.

Steve, how well do you know the author of the article? Would he have any bias in favor of the church (he works at the same paper as you, correct)? I understand if you can't answer.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/05/2014 01:09AM by joesmithsleftteste.

Wagner is a good, professional reporter.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/05/2014 01:12AM by steve benson.

I'm not saying anything about the merits of the case - if British law reflects standard human decency, the case should be strong. The subject of this thread was about questions for you regarding the USA Today article. I just wanted to know if the reporter was in the church's pocket. Thanks for answering. After researching them a little, I'm not impressed by the subjects he interviewed.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/05/2014 11:36AM by joesmithsleftteste.

. . . taking issue with the position of some of the critics. Tom is informed on that fact and can cite British case law. May the best arguments win.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/05/2014 02:44AM by steve benson.

I sure hope so because I really would love to be wrong and see something good come out of this. I'll gladly eat my words.

In short,
it's that the U.S. gives us way too much religious freedom, which in turn allows some of us to use the name of the Almighty to deceive. Not so much in Europe, where Scientology has its problems.
Right?

Regardless of the eventual outcome, I appreciate the efforts of all involved. Thank you.

Evidence? That's probably the unusual stuff the PR guys were talking about. Everyone knows that what the magistrate really should have done is pray about it, then have warm fuzzy feelings telling him that the church was in the right. No wonder Monson isn't responding to that Kangaroo Court. Now if it had been modeled after a court of love, he would have had no choice but to have gone.

Yeah - this judge presumably isn't even a priesthood holder with a valid temple recommend. How can this barbarian summon God's Anointed? He needs to go back and pray about it until he feels good about dropping the whole thing.

Hopefully the sarcasm in the above remark is self-evident.