Would the lawyers for the defense be knowledgeable about Mormon claims and practices? It's an obscure area; most people know almost nothing about mormons. I wonder how well they have been briefed. Any thoughts on this?

They seem to be a bit unclear on what Mormonism is. At the very least, they can't get the name right.

But they did get it right when referring to them as a corporation instead of a church. Lol

While the word "corporation" does not *mean* business, it certainly does *imply* business.

They don't know or care. They are being paid to represent their client and his interests...

It is immaterial to them even if they are lds. Their concern is if the checks clear.

I was wondering the same thing. Why would they have non-LDS lawyers represent a case as nuanced as this where you really need to understand the theology and operations of the church in order to defend it. It seems like you would really want your rep to be very slick and say just the right thing. Most Mormons don't even know the church's own teachings, let alone a non-member.

The church's ranks are full of attorneys. You'd think there'd be some British ones too.

I'm actually shocked that they don't have LDS attorneys.

Also- and this is probably a very stupid question, but can legal counsel from the church come from the States, or do they have to be British? I'm sure you have to be licensed over there to actually practice law, but do they have a team of lawyers over their from SLC helping out?

You'd think that calling would be even more important and sacred than appearing in the temple vids!

Maybe they'll ask a 'Special Offering' / assessment to cover their legal fees....


ya think?

Six lawyers is a lot for a supposedly vexatious claim.

Good point.

Well I can say as a nevermo it took me a good three years to learn the intricacies of the church and there is a lot I still don't know. This is not something they could cram for. I'd be shocked if they didn't have LDS legal consultants.

Question for lurker lawyers and business people here.

Ballpark guess the legal team representing LDS Inc would have billed for today's actions?

3-6,000 Euro for junior counsel, $6-10 thou euro for senior counsel

Ballpark

In the US when a charge is made, and the court agrees to hear it, there is a "hearing." In most cases, it's an opportunity to mount a rigorous challenge to the charge to try to get the case dismissed. If the defense is quite sure that the case is going to tried in court, then it's a fishing expedition. That is, to get information about the other sides case. Many times the defense wants to get a feel for how the plaintiff's case is going to be presented so they can form a more precise defense later when it really counts. Also, they can get a feel for how good the lawyers for the plaintiff are.

While US law is not UK law, I wonder if these particular Morg lawyers were just the "B-Team" who will be replaced with a much better prepared legal team if/when the case goes to the higher court. Why waste money on high-powered lawyers if you have a belief that the case is going to "trial" regardless of what you present? This may be the reason why the defense people didn't seem to be too precise about naming the church correctly, and why they appeared to be relaxing while Tom's lawyers were consulting with each other, working efficiently together, and being precise in their claims.

If those of you in the UK would care to speculate, it would be helpful.

Interesting!

I'm still baffled why the church's entire legal counsel announced to the judge at the end that they were now off the case and someone else would show up next Thursday. There must be a juicy story there somewhere.

These guys were there to kill it on technical grounds. When they opened their mouths about the church they were disasters. If it gets past Thursday they will need a team that knows LDS inside and out. The LDS team comes next if there is a next.

Err, if such a team exists, why didn't they go in first to avoid the ignorance mistakes made by today's team?

Because the team that knows LDS won't know the technicalities as well. Their only shot of getting it killed today was on technicalities.

Think of it as when you have surgery, the first Dr that touches you is the anesthioligist not the surgeon.

This is about specialists.

Doesn't seem to hold up given what rescueranger reported below.

Boy was I wrong. I vastly overestimated the church's judgment. They are not taking this serious and it can crush them.

I'm not sure you're wrong, but it if that was their whale, their crack team, .......

But the mistakes that legal team will make the media. Bells were rung today that cannot be unrung.

You could put Oaks, Petersen, Jensen and all of FAIR there, my 17 yr old son would slaughter them.

Any of us could.

They don't understand how much research went with an exmos soul searching

Plus, they have NOTHING

the Morg knows that if they put LDS lawyers on the case, they will end up apostasizing

That is exactly what I am wondering as well.

3 of the lawyers there were lds. Daniel Clifford, Nick Grant and Julian Barker ... the firm who represented the church are
www.devonshires.com look at "the team" and you can meet the lawyers who were there today.

Do we know who did the actual arguing for them today? Was it one of the morg?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/14/2014 10:07PM by Void K. Packer.

Daniel Clifford is not LDS, Nick Grant is, this I know for sure. I don't know about the third one. They are working under direction of the Office of General Counsel in Frankfurt, or directly with the main OGC office in SLC. OGC in Frankfurt is directed by a US lawyer from Kirton & McConkie.

According to their website, Julian Barker is the head of the banking and governance team. Sounds like a mergers and acquisitions guy, not a fraud specialist.

Nick Grant specializes in medical negligence and personal injury claims
, and
"Daniel is a Partner in the Litigation and Dispute Resolution Department.

Daniel's main client is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which is one of our longest standing clients. In his role as legal counsel in the UK, Daniel provides a variety of litigation and non-litigation services from contractual disputes to injunction proceedings. He is currently attempting to extend the boundaries of Rating law as it applies to religious organisations, and the case is currently waiting to be reviewed by the European Court of Human Rights. "

It goes on to talk about Daniel's big medical litigation and divorce practices, the LDS church evidently not being big enough despite being the biggest client.

I don't know what the Rating law is.

I don't know that I would have sent these particular guys though.

Wow not what I was expecting at all. I figured they would pull out all the stops and pay anything for a whale to crush this. They may not come next week because they have a slip and fall case scheduled.

I presume that Rating law blurb was referring to the EU case they just lost of property tax rating for the Preston temple.

Void, you are right! I just looked it up. So their attorney today, Daniel Clifford, is the one who lost their tax exemption case for the temples last week

http://religionlaw.blogspot.com/

nationalnewscampaign Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Void, you are right! I just looked it up. So
> their attorney today, Daniel Clifford, is the one
> who lost their tax exemption case for the temples
> last week
>
> http://religionlaw.blogspot.com/

So he's 0 for 2 this week alone. He's my new hero.

0 for 2!

Hahahaha. I was going to say the same. Can't wait to see if this was the B-team or the A-team.

In 2014 a crack commando unit was sent to a British magistrate for a crime that they DID commit. These men promptly escaped to the golf course before their next hearing the following week. Today, still losing significant cases, these men are called upon by the TSCC.

If you have a problem, if no other Mormons can help, and if you can find them.....maybe you should hire

THE B-TEAM! Dun dun dun dun! Dun dun dun!

Nick Grant's dad is a former head of Public Affairs for the Church in the UK, a man who knew his way round every anti-Church argument with his eyes shut. The other names don't ring any bells though.

Thanks for the input, anon Brit

But there is no way around them?

Oh yes, yeah, obfuscate then testify

and frankly I'm hopeful that TSCC's "first string" of lawyers won't be that impressive either.

I know people seem to be afraid of Kirton & McConkie, and of TSCC's lawyers inside the COB but....I'm having some dealings with them and they are stepping all over their own d1cks. It's a pleasure to watch.

If they don't know enough to defend their client, that's malpractice.