Recovery Board  : RfM
Recovery from Mormonism (RfM) discussion forum. 
Go to Topic: PreviousNext
Go to: Forum ListMessage ListNew TopicSearchLog In
Posted by: weeder ( )
Date: June 13, 2012 12:37PM

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2012/06/stolen-book-of-mormon-recovered-suspect-arrested/1#.T9jAT7BYuMg

Okay -- google Jay Linford and all you see is ponzi scammer from Orem.

Maybe he was trying to make good with his investors with prophets (haha) from one hot BofM.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Phoebe Dell ( )
Date: June 14, 2012 08:26AM

WRONG GUY... Do some research before you slander someones name. This man is from Duchesne utah.. There is more than one Jay Linford in America.Your comment and slander, is despicable.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: brainfrees ( )
Date: June 14, 2012 11:30AM

I think you misread the OP's post, which appeared to me to be a question, not a statement. The second post simply supplies a link to the reference made in the first post. I'm not a smart man <imitates forest gump voice>, but I read both posts and both linked articles and actually had the same question - was this the same guy? Because to me, I thought, how could this be the same guy because the ponzi guy should still be rotting in prison somewhere. However, then my inner criminal defense lawyer kicked in and remembered that just because someone is charged or indicted, doesn't mean they have to wait for their speedy "trial" in prison assuming he could make bail. And it's not uncommon for a person on bail to repeat or commit a new offense. As a criminal def atty, I would always be more nervous for my clients pre-trial if they were out rather than waiting in jail. And while on bail, a suspect could be assigned or could reside in a different city. So the question remains.

Anyways, assuming your read is correct, your reaction is more extreme than the law would support. Once charged, even if not convicted, with a crime related to honesty, that will typically follow that person for life. Ponzi Jay, for example, would probably never pass a background check in the future to work for a bank, investment firm, etc. That's not slander, it's the legal code.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: DNA ( )
Date: June 14, 2012 07:54PM

Phoebe Dell Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WRONG GUY... Do some research before you slander
> someones name. This man is from Duchesne utah..
> There is more than one Jay Linford in America.Your
> comment and slander, is despicable.

Phoebe, Tim Johnson, and Brad P all three posters in this thread come to set us straight and defend the honor of Jay Linford. And it is the first post ever on RFM for each of them.

Same person? Three separate people who are on an email list that is dispatching them to cleanse the internet for Jay?

Kind of strange, but I hope you got further light and knowledge while you were here.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Wrong guy?? ( )
Date: June 14, 2012 09:00AM

@Phoebe

Are you stating that posters here have confused two differnt men with the same name?

That the first Jay Linford is accused of advancing a Ponzi scheme; and that the second Jay Linford is only accused of stealing an original edition copy of the Book of Mormon?

Please clarify. I would hate to be one of those despicable people and accuse the wrong Jay Linford with the incorrect wrong doing.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Emma's Flaming Sword ( )
Date: June 14, 2012 10:20AM

poor Jay being accused of a stealing a BoM when all he really had done was stolen some money.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Jay's Brother ( )
Date: October 04, 2012 06:07PM

I am the brother of the Jay J. Linford from Orem and he is guilty of stealing money by fraudulent acts of telling investors that their money was safe and their investments were growing. He should have to pay back every dime he received from this scam and then some! Instead he has gotten off scot free. He was accused of stealing money from his own mother and his Bishop, instead of investigating the accusation, was instrumental in getting Jay appointed as a Bishop! He had nothing to do with the Book of Mormon being stolen in Arizona. That is another Jay Linford.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: runtu ( )
Date: June 14, 2012 09:12AM

"For many people, being photographed clutching the book was a religious experience that moved them to tears, she says."

Who says Mormons don't have relics? Seriously, holding a book moved people to tears?

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Brethren,adieu ( )
Date: June 14, 2012 11:14AM

Yes, let's not confuse one criminal with another criminal, who stole yet another criminal's claim to infamy.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: brad p ( )
Date: June 14, 2012 02:32PM

Funny how little minds are not capable of absorbing the truth.
If I accuse you of a crime does that make it true?
Do you even know a single fact that would make this the same person? Do you know any facts about the ponzie case? Would it destroy you to know that the reality is that the First Jay Linford has essentially been dropped from the case. These small facts would of course escape your attention because all that you want to do is make fun of these things regardless of the effect on others.
Its just like th coach from Cottonwood HS that was accused of having sex witha student. The Police said that there was nothing there to investigate and dropped it but the coach decided to get another job so some say he is guilty. This is all BS and its very stupid small minded and selfish to play with someone reputation and life this way.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: 3X ( )
Date: June 14, 2012 02:53PM

" ...the First Jay Linford has essentially been dropped from the case."

Clarification & sources, please ...

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: DNA ( )
Date: June 14, 2012 07:57PM

3X Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> " ...the First Jay Linford has essentially been
> dropped from the case."
>
> Clarification & sources, please ...


And the word “essentially” seems deliberately used. So was he not dropped from the case completely?

You sound like you are trying to manage perception rather than give the whole truth. How about bucking up and giving us the whole truth.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: manuel ( )
Date: July 05, 2012 05:50PM

Y and how dropped from the case? Did he fess up and give names of the others he gave the money to, other scammers like him in Florida and Texas the Ashby's to be specific. He took from so many to give to other scammers like himself and now all the investors are out except of course them because I'm sure the money is in other countries safely put away.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: loretta ( )
Date: July 05, 2012 05:44PM

Whoa, what info did poor Mr. Linford give over, did he tell SEC who he gave the investors money to? Does Robert Ashby, Roland Ashby, Thomas Burgos ring a bell to anyone?

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: scammed ( )
Date: July 17, 2012 06:49PM

These people you talking bout are from L'equipe company from Florida?????

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: BILLY BOB ( )
Date: December 05, 2012 06:18PM

This is really sad that our system has come down to judgeing people in the court of public opinion. It sounds like there are many assumptions being made that a completley free of fact.

When one invests in business there is a risk. Hence there can be a return if the risk has not taken the return away and caused a loss.

People invested money for a high return and lost it. There is inherent risk in this kind of activity. There was no intent to defraud, unless the money went somewhere other than disclosed.

From the facts that are available to the public, it looks like some people lost money on a risky venture and want someone to blame. All you have to do these days is yell ponzi or fraud and you can get attention.

The SEC documents show no wrong doing by Mr.Linford and since Raymond Morris and some of the others have been sentenced to jail time and Mr. Linford was not even imposed with civil penalties, I would say that the comments here are unfounded.

I am quick to say that I have lost money the same way but it does not mean that I was defrauded, I took a risk and lost.

Grow up people!! Know the facts before you launch the attacks.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Odell Campbell ( )
Date: June 14, 2012 04:09PM

Is that the same has being essentially not pregnant??

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: One Seeking Further Knowledge ( )
Date: June 14, 2012 05:39PM

Sis. Linford has a blog and wants to get the word out that her Jay Linford isn't that "imbecile" who is accused of stealing a first addition copy of the Book of Mormon in Arizona.

However, she deletes comments requesting confirmation or denial that her Jay Linford is the same Jay Linford who has been charged with participation in a Ponzi scheme.

Ironically, Sis. Linford doesn't appreciate people jumping to conclusions about her husband and the Ponzi scheme, but she has not problem calling the "other" Jay Linford, only accused of stealing a rare book, an "IMBECILE." Must be hard for her.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: xyz ( )
Date: June 14, 2012 06:13PM


Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: forbiddencokedrinker ( )
Date: July 05, 2012 05:50PM

Wait, so a thief steals from a vandal, a book, that was written by a conman?

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: resipsaloquitur ( )
Date: December 05, 2012 06:28PM

And he borrows another theif's name to do it.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: JSM ( )
Date: July 07, 2012 03:53PM

Mormons are disgusting people, the religion is fake and based on a huge lie. It's nothing more than a cult. Why do we even care about a STUPID book full of lies. The book is a complete myth. Why do we care about a stupid "so called" religion at all. Seems to me that there is so much attention called to this religion by websites like this one. Ex-Mormon is a stupid name for a website. And obviously YOU (Ex-Mormon) were once a member of the fake religion yourself, and probably still have a lot of family members and friends that still are members.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: goldenrule ( )
Date: July 17, 2012 07:39PM

Um, what in the hell is going on with this thread??? I sense sockpuppets. Overreact much?! Stop trolling and get a grip.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Phoebe Dell ( )
Date: August 05, 2012 11:58PM

~ATTENTION~
THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A FORMAL CHARGE MADE AGAINST ANY OF THESE MEN.

THIS IS A BLATANT LIE AND SLANDER IS A CRIME. you have got your facts completely wrong and are committing slander against all of these men with the exception of RAY MORRIS. Ray Morris is the only one named here that is still under investigation by the SEC, NONE of the other men have been CHARGED WITH ANY WRONG DOING, and ARE NOT UNDER INVESTIGATION BY ANY GOVERNMENT AGENCY...DO YOUR HOMEWORK AND GET YOUR FACTS RIGHT BEFORE YOU FALSELY ACCUSE.. These men were victims of Ray Morris he is the only criminal here and you are defaming and destroying these men's good names..

You are no better than Ray Morris. It is a matter of public record. Do your homework before you make FALSE ACCUSATIONS. ALL CIVIL ACTION HAS BEEN DISMISSED AGAINST ALL OF THESE INNOCENT MEN WITH THE EXCEPTION OF RAY MORRIS. This is a matter of public record. You should be ashamed of yourself for spreading lies on a public forum, and will be held accountable for doing so. I would recommend taking this post down and doing the research that will back up my claims and debunk your slanderous lies. SLANDER IS A CRIME!

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: resipsaloquitur ( )
Date: December 05, 2012 06:36PM

And before you accuse someone of slander, you might want to verify that you understand what slander is. Slander is "the speaking of base and defamatory words tending to prejudice another...." Black's Law Dictionary, 1388 (6th ed. 1990). Online typewritten material cannot by definition be slander.

I suppose you probably mean libel, which is "a method of defamation expressed by print, writing, pictures, or signs." Id. at 915.

But I don't presume to speak for you. I'd hate to be prosecuted for imputing something to you that you didn't mean.

Of course, there's the slight matter of criminal defamation statutes being unconstitutional infringements on First Amendment freedom of speech. See, e.g., I.M.L. v. State, 2002 UT 110, 61 P.3d 1038 (striking down Utah's criminal libel statute as constitutionally overbroad).

I'm finished. Continue with your indignation.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: wtf.am.i.doing.here ( )
Date: April 20, 2013 01:49AM

@resipsaloquitur

~an anon sequitur [NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS LEGAL ADVICE!]

i was never raised in the mormon "faith" and happen to find the teachings highly suspect due to smith's fraud convictions prior to its founding and many other reasons.

as an outsider i may be entirely misunderstanding the purpose of the religous teachings regarding "faith" and/or the obvious context therein, but doesn't that mean that:

a) if you steal a "holy book" to prevent its desecration, it may be construed as a "holy act" with extenuating circumstances under whatever belief system to which you so choose to ascribe, and could be subject to discretion in judicial analysis; or

b) you steal and desecrate a "holy book" for profit ... and then heaven (or whomever) help you, God willing. (Let's hope She likes you).

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: flyboy21 ( )
Date: August 06, 2012 12:04AM

Oh Jeebus here we go...

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


Screen Name: 
Subject: 
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.
       **  **     **   ******    **    **  **     ** 
       **  **     **  **    **   ***   **  ***   *** 
       **  **     **  **         ****  **  **** **** 
       **  *********  **   ****  ** ** **  ** *** ** 
 **    **  **     **  **    **   **  ****  **     ** 
 **    **  **     **  **    **   **   ***  **     ** 
  ******   **     **   ******    **    **  **     **