I was just wondering... Since we have lawyers on here, and we know that Mormon leaders have lied and deceived, why hasn't the church been sued for fraud yet?

See my discussion of this at the FAQ: "Can I sue the church?" at http://packham.n4m.org/lawsuit.htm (short answer: no legally recognized basis)

I recently had an email from an exmormon solicitor (lawyer) in England who is planning to file suit, in spite of my comments in that article. I assume he will let me know how it goes.

Meanwhile, I suggest you discuss it with your own lawyer. I would appreciate comments from other attorneys.

Richard
(recovering lawyer)

Richard,

Could you please let me have contact details for the UK solicitor as I am convinced they can be sued under UK law.

I have read the comments on your site and bow to your knowledge of the US law in this regard. However, there is UK legislation, which clearly IMHO renders them liable to a fraud charge and the territorial limits for action are not confined to the UK.

So, please may I have contact details to pursue/help in this case? My email is tomphillips1@gmail.com

Thanks, Richard

Are you the same "annointed one" that posted a year or so about the 2nd annointing?

anointed one Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Richard,
>
> Could you please let me have contact details for
> the UK solicitor as I am convinced they can be
> sued under UK law.
>
> I have read the comments on your site and bow to
> your knowledge of the US law in this regard.
> However, there is UK legislation, which clearly
> IMHO renders them liable to a fraud charge and the
> territorial limits for action are not confined to
> the UK.
>
> So, please may I have contact details to
> pursue/help in this case? My email is
> tomphillips1@gmail.com
>

I have sent your e-mail address to the solicitor and asked him to contact you. Hope that works!

Richard

If there was a good chance to win a suit against the church, it would have been done before. The church has many legal counsellors, and it has investigated all the flaws.

Of course, laws differ between various jurisdictions, and the church is most familiar with law in the USA and other big mormon markets (Europe, Latin America, AUS & NZ,...). Our best chance may be in some very small country with few mormons and an anomalous law they may have broken. But such a place may also have few exmos who can get the thing started.

"If it hasn't been done, it's impossible, so give it up."

Not buying that reasoning whatsoever.

Cheryl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "If it hasn't been done, it's impossible, so give
> it up."
>
> Not buying that reasoning whatsoever.

I agree with Cheryl. What annoys me is that it's always people saying that "somebody ought to do it" but they mean "somebody ELSE" - if they are so anxious to see it done, why don't they scout around for a lawyer, put up the retainer, and DO IT?

A legal suit against TSCC for using dubious,unproven,
using claims of having a prophet who talks to God, in order to entice and solicit money from members

is tantamount to cheating.

The entire GA is liable to be jailed (OMG) for life, because
the illegally gained moneys involved is now more US$50 billion.

Gideon - mytemplename Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> A legal suit against TSCC for using
> dubious,unproven,
> using claims of having a prophet who talks to God,
> in order to entice and solicit money from members
>
>
> is tantamount to cheating.
>
> The entire GA is liable to be jailed (OMG) for
> life, because
> the illegally gained moneys involved is now more
> US$50 billion.

Gideon, read my article. The law (at least in the U.S.) does not protect stupidity. You are expected to use reasonable means to protect yourself. If you are stupid enough to accept stories of angels and magic and superstitions, without checking out the facts, you can't expect the law to make you whole.

Imagine the Mormon church's own lawyers making the case that Mormonism is too stupid to be believable with multiple examples such as peepstones and magic underwear. That in itself would be worth distributing to members.

upon being sued for alimony by one of his wives who was divorcing him, his defense was "we aren't really married so I don't have to pay."

I understand the legal road blocks and hope with all of the growing exmo brain power that someone will find a way.

I admit to being bothered by the hatred, name calling, and venom expressed when anyone mentions the possibility. Good grief! Even if it's unlikely to succeed, it doesn't hurt to ask the question and to hypothetically disuss it!

Thanks for staying up on this, Richard. I'm your most admirering fan.

Wasn't this the background plot of the first Godmakers film? How to go about suing the LDS Church for fraud, etc?

Even in that film, put together by Ed Decker, it is admitted that there are no legal grounds to sue the Mormon Church for fraud.

And if it could have been done, all other churches that make claims to being the One Way, or One of Few Ways (Roman Catholics, Southern Baptists, Orthodox Judaism, etc), would also be subject to the same legal arguments. And if the argument is that the Morgdom is different as they claim to have a living profit, the same argument would then be pointed at the Pope and Rabbi Schnearson (sp??).

I haven't read Richard Packham's article in some time, but I somewhat remember him coming to about that same position.

I will try to post more specifics and an outline of the "case" against them in the new year.

Will be interesting to read this. I understand from your previous posts that you probably have some very interesting insights to share as someone that has been 'fortunate' to see the workings of the church a little more deeply than many.

The reason I wish they could be sued is because of the lying. I understand that we have the responsibility of doing the research ourselves, but that's a whole lot easier to do now.

I only just found out about the Book of Abraham fraud 2 years ago. But at that time, I discovered that they knew it was a fraud 10 years before I was baptized, and yet they still presented it to me as scripture. They didn't inform us that the scrolls were in their possession.

They didn't disclose the multiple First Visions. They only taught that there was one.

It's not so much whether or not they're presenting a true product. It's the lying, the cover-ups, and the deceit which bothers me. They have willingly covered up details which could expose the real truth.

The Hoffman affair shows that cover-up, and yet I didn't even know about that incident either. In Eastern Canada, we weren't even aware of Hoffman. A Christian co-worker told me about that.

One problem I see is this: mormons do not read the ensign, and I know of at least 2 things you mention which were told to the members in there, so probably other things they hide were mentioned ONCE, and once only, in there as well. They DID publish 4 versions of the first vision in the ensign years ago when I was TBM and tried to explain it all away - I know this for a fact because I read them and was disturbed.

Also in 1993 (I think March, but not sure) Russell Nelson talked about the stone in the hat method of translation, just one short paragraph in a long article, but there it was. I was like WTH?, and just moved right on. Brainwashing is such a strange thing- it allows you just to ignore things, huge red flags, at least it did for me, until I was ready to really open my eyes and search for truth.

Also in the church news weekly magazine I remember reading in tiny print at the bottom of a page that they were changing the preface to the BOM to "some" rather than the "principle "ancestors, or whatever it says, you know what I mean.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/27/2010 10:59AM by think4u.

They collect money based on that lie or fraud. You'd think it would be possible to sue. They collect huge amounts of money at that.

It's a shame there isn't a way to nail them. So far anyway. I want to see them squirm.

The lie that there is a God? Prove there is not. Moreover, prove that the "liars" know, or should know, that there is no God.

The lie the Book of Mormon is true? Prove it is not. Moreover, prove that the "liars" know, or should know, that the Book of Mormon is not true.

The lie that paying tithing results in blessings. Prove it does not. Moreover, prove that the "liars" know, or should know, that tithing does not result in blessings.

I think it would be possible to sue based on some legitimate claim of harm. I just don't happen to think the general assertion that "they taught me the church is true but then I saw some stuff that called that into question and I changed my mind so I want my tithing back" is a legitimate claim.

"A legal suit against TSCC for using dubious,unproven,
using claims of having a prophet who talks to God, in order to entice and solicit money from members

is tantamount to cheating.

The entire GA is liable to be jailed (OMG) for life, because
the illegally gained moneys involved is now more US$50 billion."


This would not work, simply due to the fact that it's not illegal to lie. It's not illegal to have a faith or to do any number of religious things. It's not their legal responsibility that people have joined the church because of it - unfortunately, or fortunately, the government would never interfere in such a religious matter, and neither would the courts, I'd wager.

However, with an organization this large, there has to be some laws that have been broken. Somewhere. At some time. Statistically, it has to have happened. The question is where, by whom, and would it instigate corporate liability, or just can a random bishop or something.

*sigh* Yeah, I know it's not legal grounds. I just wish it was, because the lying and the deceit is so morally wrong.

I hear you. The same is true of a lot of people/companies in life. I wish there was an infallible lie detector that we could give everyone culpable in these sorts of cases... at least we could weed out and discipline the ones who are deceiving churchgoers, customers, patients, and etc purposefully.

I agree that it would be very satisfying to sue church leaders for some sort of fraud, but understand the various reasons why such a case would be dismissed.

There are ways, however, that the church tries to limit liability, but still leaves itself wide open. For a "volunteer" organization, the church requires a lot of its members, establishes a clear regime that must be followed, but provides no training and/or follow-up on certain policies.

For example, many people here have complained about male nursery workers, or other "leaders" who undergo absolutely no background check or training. I think this is a very dangerous practice, and somebody's going to ding the church for big money when their child is hurt or abused.

In my own experience, LDS family services is ripe for something big. My church leaders instructed me to go see their therapists, who hold themselves out as licensed and trained. Then, I was told that the costs were to be shared between myself and my ward. Because of this, I was asked to waive my rights to confidentiality - at least with respect to ecclesiastical authority. Then, the counseling I received was clearly below the standard of care that most licensed counselors and therapists would give.

Had I suffered or caused any significant damages (hurt myself or someone else), I think a very good case could be brought against the therapist and the church for assuming the duty to provide me some sort of reasonable psychiatric care, then absolutely falling below the standard of care, and possibly causing the resulting harm.

Suits for malpractice against psychiatric care-givers have been successful in the past, when the care-giver clearly falls below the standard of care and the patient hurts himself or someone else. I imagine there are hundreds of parents, spouses, or children who have been injured by this arm of the church, and the time will soon come that one of them exposes this organized malpractice to the tune of millions.

But they don't attack the church on any "special ground" or reveal the church as a fraud, which is what most of the "why hasn't the church been sued" posters want.

Also, psychiatric and especially psychologic malpractice is difficult to prove unless there is a very clear breach of the standard of care and resulting harm, e.g., prescription of the wrong drug and resulting chronic physical or demonstrable mental repercussions. In many jurisdictions non-economic damages are severely capped in such cases. Legitimate grounds for suit? Probably. Big payday or significant blow to the church? Eh, generally speaking, probably not.

The lie that a group of people called the Nephites and the Lamanites ever actually lived. The lie that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon, although they finally did admit in the Ensign the rock-in-the-hat deal.

The one they knew was a fraud at the time I was baptized is that the Book of Abraham scrolls had nothing whatsoever to do with Abraham. Mark Hoffman came up with forgeries which, if real, would have been extremely damaging to the claims of Joseph Smith. What does the Church do? They try to buy up the forgeries, thinking them real, so that they could hide them away and no one would have to find out about them.

The list of evidence against the Church is long. Proof of God's existence? There is good circumstantial evidence that he doesn't, but that's not even necessary to prove that the LDS Church has worked long and hard to cover up their messy history of deceit.

Did you pay tithing based on the lie that the Book of Abraham had something to do with Abraham (assuming you can prove by clear and convincing knew or should have known that there was no such connection at the time it made that represenation to you) ? If so, what percentage of your tithing was paid as a result of that misrepresentation and what percentage was paid based on other misrepresentations for which you have tenuous or no evidence? And can you prove that by clear and convincing evidence?

The thing that few people seem to understand about fraud is that it isn't about lying. You can lie yourself blue in the face and never commit fraud. There must be actual DAMAGE. The person claiming fraud must rely to his or her detriment on the actual misrepresentation at issue - not simply on statements or actions related to that issue. In fact, the "evidence" of a pattern of lying or covering up you suggest likely is irrelevant and inadmissible in a case for fraud based on another particular misrepresentation. Evidence that a man lied about his sexual prowess in 1997 is irrelevant to proving that he committed fraud in regards to a particular real estate transaction in 2008.

My real issue is not with the tithing, but is it not damage when your entire family is ripped apart, divorce, grown kids disown you because of the lies they tell? It has been pretty severe emotional and psychological damage for me, does that count in a court?