Recovery Board  : RfM
Recovery from Mormonism (RfM) discussion forum. 
Go to Topic: PreviousNext
Go to: Forum ListMessage ListNew TopicSearchLog In
Posted by: azsteve ( )
Date: September 14, 2020 10:40PM

In Kay Burningham's initial filing against the Mormon Church, the Plaintiff's claims were prefaced with the statement that "This is not a lawsuit against the church for teaching false religious beliefs". The filing went on to claim how in several real instances, demonstratably false historical events were claimed as facts by the church, to create false inducements to faith based on real life provable lies, for the purpose of committing fraud to get money. An example is that you're free to teach or to believe that the moon is made of green cheese, if you want to teach or believe that, and that no one can fault you either way. But if you teach that the Apollo astronauts actually retrieved green cheese from the moon as proof that the moon is made of green cheese, and that someone gave you money as a result of that false information, that such fraud could be a valid reason to sue for damages.

The church countered by saying that they were being persecuted for teaching religious beliefs that could not be disproven. The church responded to what they wanted the lawsuit to be about and not to what the lawsuit was actually about. Then the Utah court tossed the case out based on what the church said the lawsuit was about and not based on what the case was actually about.

Kay Burningham preducted that this might happen and that if it does, that she would re-file or appeal. Does anyone know the current status of this case? Has she re-filed or appealed, or is the case dead for good?

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: GNPE ( )
Date: September 15, 2020 03:03AM

I have yet to see a breach in the legal armor of ChurchCo, I tried.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: elderolddog ( )
Date: September 15, 2020 05:23PM

After the case was filed, the church filed a motion to dismiss. Ms Burning ham filed an opposition to the request. This was back in October, 2019.

I have not seen anything regarding the court's decision on this issue, which was that the lawsuit was a direct attack on religious beliefs.

Ms Burningham's response was a reiteration that she was attacking the church's modus operandi, not the beliefs the church was pretending to believe.

If I hear anything new from her office, I will probably keep it to myself. She appears to want to play things close to the vest.

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

Screen Name: 
Your Email (optional): 
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.
 **      **  ********  **     **  ********   **    ** 
 **  **  **  **    **  **     **  **     **   **  **  
 **  **  **      **    **     **  **     **    ****   
 **  **  **     **     *********  **     **     **    
 **  **  **    **      **     **  **     **     **    
 **  **  **    **      **     **  **     **     **    
  ***  ***     **      **     **  ********      **