Continuing having fun with some speculation on the UK fraud case.

So, assuming that due to Monson's health, the UK court allows a proxy to represent the Church Corp. Who would that be?

Would the court allow only the lawyers to do that? Doing so would allow for the Church to maintain some level of deniability without an official of the Church making statements.

Or would the UK court force an actual GA to appear. Any bets on who the Church would send?

If forced to send a leader to testify, my bet is on Dallin H. Oaks. Now that would be fun. Especially after his most recent talk. Rumors are around that Uchtdorf is being prepped for it.

Who do you think the Church will send?

If they're smart and have one available, they'd have a high powered UK (solicitor, barrister?) attorney be the proxy. But I'm not sure how the system works.

Devoted Exmo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If they're smart and have one available, they'd
> have a high powered UK (solicitor, barrister?)
> attorney be the proxy. But I'm not sure how the
> system works.

--------------------

There is (or certainly was) an English Seventy, who was also a practicing Solicitor. He spoke at my ward a few years ago, back when I was still actIve

I'll play, since this case has me sucked in. I think elder Hoax is a good bet, along with whatever barristers the church has hired. Hoax has the law and judge schtick background, but his true assets are his psychopathy. I swear that dude is Brother Brigham reincarnated. He will say or do anything in his power, anything at all, to further his personal agenda. He'll perjure, misdirect, launch ad hominem attacks and anything else with brazen impunity.

They will not have a proxy defendant.

The case will be tried in abstention.

LDS Inc will have teams of the top lawyers in England to represent the defendant.

I am not so sure that England really wants or needs TSM. My guess is that they are most interested in the money that has been lost to the treasury because of this fraud.

We may be fortunate enough to read the arguments, and the excuses. Hopefully, I think it is reasonable that we expect the court to disclose to the public forensic accounting of LDS financial practices.

If and when that becomes public, other countries will have some questions to ask, as well as the public.

It is going to be a lot of fun kids. Buckle up.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/03/2014 03:36PM by deco.

I think you mean 'in absentia.' I thought Tom commented that he either has to be there, or have a proxy. Or an arrest warrant will be issued. This is not the US and definitely not Utah.

They meant "in dementia".

Hahaha!!! ; ' )

you are correct that I meant in abstentia

I really hate the spelling feature Apple uses, but must leave it on due to my lack of spelling and typing talent. :)

I think it would be a nice touch, should a proxy be required, that Daniel Peterson be sent in as his expertise in mormon theology and history is bound to create millions of new converts.

Where's the "LIKE" button for this post! The only thing you failed to mention is the abundant charms of Brother Peterson. I think the judge would be quite smitten!

he'd never go. No donuts in the UK.

I so hope you are right about the finances! Because churches are tax subsidized in Germany, I'm betting that or France may follow up. But church co may prefer to give up all assets in Europe rather than opening their books...

Imagine the scenario. I receive a summons to appear on a certain date and time to answer to a criminal charge in my local Magistrates court.

I am taken ill - so ask if I can send my proxy.

Not a bloody chance - case will be adjourned until I'm better then I'd better show up or a warrant will be issued for my arrest.

I'd probably be arrested in the hospital bed if the charge were to be serious enough.

That's how it works for us anyway :-)

Briggy

It wouldn't be fair to let any trial proceed without TSM actually present. Monson needs to be subject to possible arrest and a stint in prison if his case doesn't go well for him. If he isn't willing to take that risk by showing up, then the church isn't subject to Majestrates. Kick the whole church out of the UK after seizing it's assetts.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/03/2014 09:37PM by azsteve.

Is it possible that if the US refuses to extradite him, there is some way he could weasel out of it? Which raises another question - has anyone heard whether machinations are going on within the Dept of State or the Dept of Justice or whoever is in charge of extradition proceedings, to cancel Tommy's trip?

I somehow can't imagine the US simply handing him over, like a plate of pheasant under glass. But I can't figure out what legal means they could use for refusing. As far as I know, we DO have an extradition treaty with the UK.

It would be a complete disaster to let Tommy take the stand on his own behalf. (I'd pay to watch.) But I can't figure out what else they can do.

My guess is they'll send Udork. He's just so... European. And probably the only one in the presidency who isn't decrepit.

Monson just traveled to AZ yesterday to dedicate a temple;

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/blogsfaithblog/57625866-180/temple-arizona-lds-mormon.html.csp

He should be healthy enough to appear in court.

brigantia is correct, as far as I'm aware there can be no proxies. The case could be adjourned providing a reason acceptable to the court is given but delaying tactics won't work.
It would be as well to remember that under English law a defendant may be tried in his/her absence & that is the most likely course of events should Monson simply choose to ignore the summons.
The following is a brief guide from a Government publication:

If the defendant fails to attend court without a court-approved reason for doing so, they may have their case heard in their absence and be charged with the offence of 'failing to appear'.

Criminal procedure rules
PART 37
TRIAL AND SENTENCE IN A MAGISTRATES’ COURT

37.11
(a) applies where a party is absent; but
(b) does not apply where the defendant has served a notice of guilty plea under rule 37.8
(written guilty plea: special rules)

(3) Where the defendant is absent—
(a) the general rule is that the court must proceed as if the defendant—
(i) were present, and
(ii) had pleaded not guilty (unless a plea already has been taken) and the court must give reasons if it does not do so;

My money is on Uchtdorf being sent. I read in another forum that he has been receiving crash courses on church history/doctrine issues over the last month or so.

hmmm.

Uchtdorf seems like the most logical one to me as well due to his European decent, demeanor and actually being a member of the FP.

I see Oaks as a dark horse possibility due to his legal background though, but he is not as high up as Uchtdorf

All great points for sending DU. But I sometimes get a sense the other "take no prisoners" members of the Gang of 15 don't really trust him for such a task. He is the only one who has obliquely referred to problems with the church's past. He might be, you know, reasonable and admit to some of the charges.

Speculation city, so, meh. Who I'd *like* to see go would be

a) Bedner - he'd be the gift that kept on giving
b) Daniel Peterson - he'd be the gift you couldn't shut up. And, like Nibley, he's a towering intellect. <he says with a totally deadpan expression> Just ask him. Though every time I stumble across something from these two worthies a quote from The Princess Bride comes to mind: "truly, you have a dizzying intellect".

If things got dodgy, Dieter could exclaim, "Now we dance."

Thank you for making my day :-)

He'd try to get them to touch his monkey.

Oak's legal background keeps getting mentioned, but really, how effective would it be? What kind of law does he specialize in? Would it be that useful in a British court?

Too bad Packer is about dead.

Female judge? Packer would get her and the Queen in the kitchen where they belong...preparing dinner for their priesthood holder.

Packer and two of the faceless COB string pullers could do a Weekend at Bernie's act.

Financial conman Monson and his fellow cohort Eyring travel 700 miles to Arizona and attend an open air celebration in full view in the pouring rain. Monson is also smiling and waving to everyone and is reasonably animated in his movements.
If he is able to travel and attend such an event in the open air in dreadful weather, then there is absolutely nothing to stop the rich conman, with all the accompanying comforts he will enjoy with all his assistants on tow, from travelling to London and attending a criminal court case in the relative comfort of a warm London court room.

Imagining Thomas Monson arriving at the Magistrate Court, waving his arms like he just did in AZ, with Boyd Packer riding in his wheelchair in tow.

Upon seeing the pair, the UK court would undoubtedly request they pay a fine (no problem), and send them home.

+1 offradar.

March 14 will be interesting...

I guess that for this first hearing that Monson can send legal council to represent him. But when it comes to the trial, how can he send a proxy to court? If you or I were to violate the UK criminal code, could we just pick someone to go in our stead? Hopefully if he is a no-show, no defense would be allowed in for him either.