I still don't understand the rules here on this forum. Someone puts up their own website that has no apparent legitimate connection to the Gaddy lawsuit but that asks for monetary donations to support the lawsuit. Then someone comes here to this forum and posts that there is this same website that those here on this forum can go to, to get updates on the lawsuit. This same website also claims to have the support of the Exmormon foundation, which it claims will handle the money and get it to the Gaddy side of the lawsuit. That claim is questioned by others in another thread where the legitimacy of that website is questioned. Then the thread that questions this questionable website and its promotion on RFM is deleted while the original post that encourages people to go to that website remains on RFM.

Is there some inside connection that I am unaware of? Is it acceptable for RFM to be used that way? Can anyone here on this forum start a fundraising website and then use RFM as a promotional tool for that website? What am I missing here? Why was that thread that questioned this apparent scheme deleted? Why does the thread that promotes that questionable website remain here on RFM?

To the Moderators: I am not challenging you here. Please do not delete this post. Please educate us.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/12/2019 09:25AM by azsteve.

Thanks for pointing this out, azsteve.

Regardless of the topic, no one is allowed to advertise or solicit funds on the board without admin approval. The poster "letsbreal" did not obtain such approval, so I've pulled their posts.

I don't know what is going on with the Gaddy suit, but this site has no connection with it. I have no firsthand knowledge of what either the Exmormon Foundation or Postmormon are doing these days, and they don't consult with us. RfM has no current affiliation with either of those groups.

People should feel free to post actual news articles about the suit, as events occur, but we're not going to be a venue to promote someone's personal blog about it.

Please use the report feature to let us know of any suspicious posts that you find in the future.

Thanks,

CZ (admin)

A successful class-action lawsuit can result in a huge eruption of wealth.

I've never seen a request for donations made by the plaintiff or the law firm in a class action.

Here's a summation of what the class action wants the court to award it, should the plaintiffs triumph:

"Among the special damages being sought for Gaddy and the class members are payments relating to tithing, tuition, missionary expenses and their affiliation with the Mormon Corporate Empire as well as treble damages under RICO and attorneys' fees and costs."
      https://legalnewsline.com/stories/513080130-former-mormon-says-she-found-out-the-truth-about-religion-s-founding-sues-for-emotional-distress

One thing to which I doubt the press has been made privy is the payment schedule, as in how much does the attorney get versus how much the plaintiffs get.

I know nothing about class actions except what one reads in the media, with the principle reporting featuring how much the law firm got - millions - and how little, by comparison, the 'class' made.

Here's a 'for instance': Ford Motor Company did a lousy job with the 'infotainment' center on some of their Ford and Lincoln cars. If you, one of the plaintiffs, took your car in for service of the crappy infotainment center three or more times, you get $400 in settlement money. What do the attorneys get for winning this money for the clients they never met?

"Class Counsel have pursued the Litigation on a contingent basis and have paid all the costs of the Litigation. They have not yet been paid or recovered any of their expenses. As part of the proposed Settlement, Class Counsel will ask the Court to award them up to $16 million in attorneys’ fees and expenses and to approve a $9,000 service award for each of the Named Plaintiffs. The Court will decide the amount of the fee award, the expense award, and the service awards at the Fairness Hearing. None of these payments will reduce the benefits that you, as a Settlement Class Member, receive. Ford will pay any money the Court awards to Class Counsel and to the Named Plaintiffs, within those limits."
      https://www.myfordtouchclassaction.com/faqs

Yeah, the attorneys expect to get $9,000 for each person who signed on as a member of the class and they are of course actively seeking additional clients who want to make '...up to $400.'


Which is all fine and dandy. It's $400 someone could put in their pocket for their time and trouble because Ford screwed up.

But what I haven't seen is an attorney involved in a class-action lawsuit asking for donations. There are no laws against it, I suppose; she could stand at the end of a freeway offramp with a sign, "Need money for class action lawsuit" and I'd be find with that.

But based on how enormous the jackpot is for these class-action lawsuit attorneys, doesn't it make more sense to be asking for investment money? How about, "Invest in my class-action lawsuit and if I win, I'll double your money!"


All of us ought to read the 75-page complaint. You can see it here: https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Mormons.pdf


I've started to read it. I found what I considered to be a glaring, but minor error. The complaint says, on page 13:

" These institutions offer religious instruction limited to the study of Mormonism. Upon information and belief, throughout most if not all these institutions’academic histories, no class in comparative religion has been offered to the students at any of
them."

I took "World Religions" one semester, which was a blessed relief from having to pay $15/unit to suck up to mormonism. Do they not teach that anymore?

Huh! A five-minute search of the BYU catalog of classes found these:

REL C 351 - Survey of World Religions
REL C 352 - Survey of Christianity
REL C 353 - American Christianity and the Restored Gospel
REL C 357 - Survey of Judaism and Islam
REL C 358 - Survey of Eastern Religions
   https://catalog.byu.edu/courses?cd=11



Certainly, I agree with the premise of the complaint, that a fraud has been perpetrated on a hapless, ignorant (I love my preferred spelling, 'ignert', but will stay above it for now) multi-generational foundation of adherents and on the converts who succumb to their hope that what the missionaries offer them will supply what they believe they are missing.

Will I line up for a share of the proceeds to be doled out should they (hopefully!) win?

In all honesty, I can't. I got so much more out of mormonism than I gave it. But yeah, if they give every RM $1,000 for every month between being set apart and being honorably released, yeah, I'll take it.

You go, Laura!!!


But keep in mind how much money the current system will bestow upon the lead plaintiff and her attorneys.

Thanks CZ,
I hope that Laura Gaddy wins her lawsuit and that many others can join in to the class and win large awards from the Mormon Corporate Empire also. There is also nothing wrong with attorneys getting paid well for their professional services, especially if they win. If done correctly and with some justice, this lawsuit could ir-reversably cripple the Mormon Empire financially, or bankrupt the church all-together. A large award from the court will also change peoples' perception of the church, perhaps to the cult status that the mormon church deserves. Maybe the church will even reform to a more truely Christian model if they get publicly spanked hard enough.

I think it is morally wrong for others to try to raise funds off of this lawsuit unless the plaintiff's attorney approves in each and every case where the fundraising takes place. I might donate some money to help support legal fees myself if the plaintiffs attorney expresses a need for others to help fund their case and gives instructions about how those donations should be made.

Thanks to the moderators here for enforcing their own policies in this case. Next time I'll use the Report feature.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/12/2019 05:01PM by azsteve.

If you use the report feature,someone will see it. They may not if you simply post it on the board. There is a lot to read and they have lives outside the board.

only one rule. Don't piss off Susan I/S/ :)

Susan hasn't been a moderator here for some time. She's simply moved to treasured insider status.

Doesn’t matter, the rule still applies: don’t piss off Susan.

I was going to say that!

Oh SD, after all these years together what am I to do with you! :)

Susan I/S, I think sd needs to be spanked.

Remembering back...
Who else would get a CTR tattoo on his rear and talk about "Mr. Big" but sd? It must have been a full time job for you just warning him all the time. Those were entertaining times!

How come the FLDS thread was shut down? Again, not challenging anyone, just trying to understand.

LJ12 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> How come the FLDS thread was shut down? Again, not
> challenging anyone, just trying to understand.

It was a resurrected thread from 2012.

As a general rule (with some exceptions from time to time), new threads are preferred over old threads.

Also, resurrected threads tend to be resurrected by "drive-by" chance encounters. For example, a TBM is searching for something for a talk and on of our posts come up in their search results. The TBM unknowingly clicks the link and after reading a bit discovers where they are and posts something, usually unhelpful or rule breaking. This brings the thead to the top of the list again, even if it's years old. The person who resurrected the thread didn't mean to be on our site in the first place and usually doesn't return to follow up on their post.

Often the TBM's post will get reported and removed, causing the thread to fall back into history, assuming no one else has posted elsewhere before that happens, which would keep it in the main page. So, the original thread hasn't been removed, it just back in the history where it came from.

I've gotten in the habit of checking the dates of posts to make sure I'm not replying about something that's no longer relevant. There have been several cases where questions about how to respond to a family member have boiled to the top from years prior only to have current members trying to answer questions that are no longer relevant to the original poster.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/13/2019 11:15AM by Finally Free!.

An excellent explanation of the phenomenon. Thanks, Finally Free!

Concrete Zipper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> An excellent explanation of the phenomenon.
> Thanks, Finally Free!


An immensely excellent explanation, Finally Free!

Thank you!