Posted by:
steve benson
(
)
Date: May 24, 2011 04:12PM
"Legal Precedent
"[The Hancock] case is important to establish the [Mormon] church's vulnerability to lawsuits when they refuse to honor resignations. . . .
"THE NORMAN HANCOCK LAWSUIT (Mesa AZ 1985)
"In 1985 the Mormon church 'excommunicated' Norman Hancock AFTER he submitted a letter of resignation to the church. Hancock filed an $18 million lawsuit against the [Mormon] church, saying a person has a right to voluntarily resign from a church. The suit was settled out of court and the settlement was sealed. An account on line reports that Hancock filed the suit himself, without the aid of a lawyer, after studying the Guinn case [see the link below for an explanation of that particular case]. The same account says that [Mormon] church lawyers started discussing with Hancock just how much money he wanted, but he told them he didn't want their money, that what he wanted was to have his name cleared. [Mormon] Church representatives agreed to change the records such that there would no longer be any record of an 'excommunication': the records would show that he resigned (that he asked for 'name removal').
"The Hancock case shows that the [Mormon] church is willing to settle out of court when someone sues because the church 'excommunicates' them after they've resigned their membership. There were some defamation issues in the Hancock case that do not apply to most other cases, however.
"The Guinn and Hancock cases were the end of the era when the [Mormon] church told members that there was no way to stop being a member except by excommunication. The [Mormon] church began having a process it calls 'name removal'. However, the [Mormon] church still tells bishops and stake presidents that a member who is 'transgressing' should not be allowed to resign, that 'name removal should not be used as a substitute for church discipline.' If you've paid attention to the Guinn case, you already know that the [Mormon] church is wrong about that and they can be sued for 'excommunicating' someone who already resigned. At [Mormon] church headquarters they know this very well and they will usually put a quick halt to 'discipline' proceedings if they find out that the former members knows what his or her rights are."
http://www.mormonnomore.com/legal-precedent_____
P.S.--Some years ago, I personally telephoned Hancock and congratulated him on successfully challenging the Mormon Church per the matter of his membership resignation vs. the LDS Cult's attempt to excommunicate him despite his previous resignation. Hancock was gracious and low-key about the whole thing. A classy guy, in my opinion.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/24/2011 04:22PM by steve benson.