Recovery Board  : RfM
Recovery from Mormonism (RfM) discussion forum. 
Go to Topic: PreviousNext
Go to: Forum ListMessage ListNew TopicSearchLog In
Posted by: azsteve ( )
Date: October 09, 2019 12:25AM

It's been a few months now since Laura Gaddy's lawsuit was filed against the Church, more specifically against Nelson's Corporate Empire. Each side was given deadlines to respond back and forth (standard practice). It seems like at least one of those dates should have passed now, maybe both. Kay Burningham stated early on that if the case was dismissed, that she would be appeal that decision to a higher court. But none of the three search engines that I check says anything recent, much beyond the initial filing. Does anyone here know what is going on with this case? I was hoping that we would know more by now. Maybe no one cares. That would be nice in some respects. But I think it's more likely that the mainstream media might want to give the church a break and protect their image.

I love to see the church hauled in to court. There is nothing like forcing the church to submit to real authority, real court with real judges, and most of all, real testimonies. The church likes to use those legalistic terms in attempts to lend credibility to their fraudulent cult. If we're lucky, we'll see a real judgement... in favor of Laura Gaddy and the Class.

Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 10/09/2019 12:37AM by azsteve.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: elderolddog ( )
Date: October 09, 2019 10:07PM

Interpretations probably abound with regard to status, and certainly outcome.

Here is a link to a site that 'harvests' the docket information from the court's website (I suppose) and also allows you to purchase copies of the moving papers filed by all the parties. The PACER systems requires you to register and provide a debit/credit card and after that, it's just click, print and read.

The last tidbit that I heard was a ruling by the court granting the plaintiff's request to up the word-count of a responding motion by 1,500 words. So obviously plaintiff's counsel is not lacking for words.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: azsteve ( )
Date: October 09, 2019 10:43PM

Thanks Elderolddog, I am surprised that there is a charge for this paperwork. In cases involving ordinary people in lawsuits that both parties might rather be private, I can see how having some barriers to accessing case information might be reasonable. If for no reason other than that no one wants to do the work required to publish the information.

In the case of a higher profile case like this, I somewhat expected either the media or someone else to make the information more available. How long did it take for the Mueller report to hit the web? Does anyone know if the court documents of this case are protected by copyright or by court orders, so that not just anyone can publish them? Someone should pay a few bucks to get them and then put it up on the web for our examination and debate free of charge, if that's legal. I always question things when someone tells me their version of what someone else said.

There are probably a lot of subtleties to learn from with the church's response and request to dismiss the case. Gaddy/Burningham said that the suit was not about the church teaching false religious beliefs. Did the church ignore that and just claim that they can't be sued for teaching false religious beliefs? Or did they make a substantive arguement worthy of debate or maybe even merit?

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/09/2019 10:49PM by azsteve.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: elderolddog ( )
Date: October 09, 2019 11:01PM

It's always going to cost to get copies of paperwork.

Some courts now allow minutes orders to be seen online, but pretty much anything having to do with explanations as to what happened is going to cost, if for no other reason than there are manpower requirements to provide the paperwork / scan the paperwork.

In a case of this magnitude, there will be reporting when something happens that is reportable. The last thing that happened was Kay's 10/03 request to up the maximum word count of her response to a COP filing by 1,500 words. The next day the court filed a ruling that said, "Okie-dokes", which is an old Latin legal phrase of great majesty; makes me shiver just typing it!

If you want to keep abreast (or two), check the link every court day.

Options: ReplyQuote
Go to Topic: PreviousNext
Go to: Forum ListMessage ListNew TopicSearchLog In

Screen Name: 
Spam prevention:
Please, enter the code that you see below in the input field. This is for blocking bots that try to post this form automatically.
 **     **  **    **  ********   *******   **    ** 
  **   **    **  **   **        **     **  **   **  
   ** **      ****    **        **     **  **  **   
    ***        **     ******     ********  *****    
   ** **       **     **               **  **  **   
  **   **      **     **        **     **  **   **  
 **     **     **     ********   *******   **    **