The Official March 14 Prediction Thread

[_Chap]

<snip>

If however Philips is accurate in his accounts of long discussions with the judge over the time he was seeking to persuade her to issue the summons, during which (according to him, If I recall correctly) she led him through several of the defenses that Monson might offer and asked him to comment, it might be a bit odd if she just said 'there's no case' on coming into court.

<snip>

Why would it be a bit odd? At the time she authorized the summons, the judge hadn't been presented with any argument on behalf of Monson. Or do judges in the UK never change their minds?

We don't disagree: Please check the wording of my post.

There might be substantive to and fro argument between the two sides once the hearing begins, with one claiming that there was no case and the other claiming that there was. After that, the judge will decide, and it may be that she could be persuaded that there was no case. But under the circumstances, it seems extremely unlikely that a 'no case to answer' ruling by the judge could happen right at the start of the hearing after a simple application on behalf of the defendant.

Let's wait till Friday and see, though.

[Guest]

I originally predicted church would do nothing and stand by that. If the court issued an arrest warrant for Monson that would be the best possible outcome for the church. Turn the other cheek and let the silly mob get its tar and feathers out. And the british court knows this too, and that's why they would dismiss the case at a higher level before it came to that. They'd destroy their reputation.

One thing I can assure you of: no court in England or Wales (there are no 'British courts, strictly speaking, since Scotland has a separate legal system) will feel the slightest concern about 'damage to its reputation' in the eyes of US Mormons like Water Dog.

And (if it comes to that) we are not talking 'tar and feathers' here, but possible action against the assets of the church in the UK, of which the ultimate holder would appear to be the defendant, Thomas S. Monson, in his role as the Corporation Sole of the President.

[_Mayan Elephant]

And (if it comes to that) we are not talking 'tar and feathers' here, but possible action against the assets of the church in the UK, of which the ultimate holder would appear to be the defendant, Thomas H. Monson, in his role as the Corporation Sole of the President.

thomas q. monson, i believe.

[_Chap]

And (if it comes to that) we are not talking 'tar and feathers' here, but possible action against the assets of the church in the UK, of which the ultimate holder would appear to be the defendant, Thomas H. Monson, in his role as the Corporation Sole of the President.

thomas q. monson, i believe.

Jesus H. Christ! Thanks, I fixed it to 'S' ... I think something subconscious was going on there ...

[_Res Ipsa]

We don't disagree: Please check the wording of my post.

There might be substantive to and fro argument between the two sides once the hearing begins, with one claiming that there was no case and the other claiming that there was. After that, the judge will decide, and it may be that she could be persuaded that there was no case. But under the circumstances, it seems extremely unlikely that a 'no case to answer' ruling by the judge could happen right at the start of the hearing after a simple application on behalf of the defendant.

Let's wait till Friday and see, though.

Ah, understood and agreed. I think it would be odd if she just ruled based on papers filed with her.

[_Res Ipsa]

One thing I can assure you of: no court in England or Wales (there are no 'British courts, strictly speaking, since Scotland has a separate legal system) will feel the slightest concern about 'damage to its reputation' in the eyes of US Mormons like Water Dog.

And (if it comes to that) we are not talking 'tar and feathers' here, but possible action against the assets of the church in the UK, of which the ultimate holder would appear to be the defendant, Thomas S. Monson, in his role as the Corporation Sole of the President.

Which is why Monson has not retained AquaPuppy as his counsel.

[_WheatThins]

My main man Monson will flake out of appearing and be held in contempt and fined.

[_Chap]

I originally predicted church would do nothing and stand by that. If the court issued an arrest warrant for Monson that would be the best possible outcome for the church. Turn the other cheek and let the silly mob get its tar and feathers out. And the british court knows this too, and that's why they would dismiss the case at a higher level before it came to that. They'd destroy their reputation.

One thing I can assure you of: no court in England or Wales (there are no 'British courts, strictly speaking, since Scotland has a separate legal system) will feel the slightest concern about 'damage to its reputation' in the eyes of US Mormons like Water Dog.

If you think the damage I'm referring to is with the LDS people you're a fool.

Yeah, whatever, Water Dog.

[_Aristotle Smith]

The whole thing starts in about 7 hours, so by the time I wake up and check the news we should all know more about what happened.

My prediction: Nothing will happen. Tom Phillips will go apoplectic. No one outside of his fan base will care. Life will continue as before.

The End.

Nothing could mean anything from the beginning of a long drawn out set of legal maneuvers which will result in...nothing. Or, that nothing might happen all at once, with the whole case being dismissed with extreme prejudice. The most likely scenario? Something in between, with the end result being...nothing.

[_EmilyAnn]

The whole thing starts in about 7 hours, so by the time I wake up and check the news we should all know more about what happened.

My prediction: Nothing will happen. Tom Phillips will go apoplectic. No one outside of his fan base will care. Life will continue as before.

The End.

Nothing could mean anything from the beginning of a long drawn out set of legal maneuvers which will result in...nothing. Or, that nothing might happen all at once, with the whole case being dismissed with extreme prejudice. The most likely scenario? Something in between, with the end result being...nothing.

No...even if "nothing" happens, this is something. This moves "everything" forward on a whole host of fronts--whether those fronts be in the U.K., or elsewhere in Europe, or in North America, or elsewhere in the world.

This is precedent. How this will play out tomorrow (here; right now), or in the fairly immediate future, I don't know, but I do know enough about how the world operates to know that this is important.

The "game" has changed...and now the legal process can be utilized in ways no one (or very few) thought possible before.

But now the boundaries of the LEGAL possibilities have extended outward...and are waiting for the following extension which (unknown to us) is probably already waiting in the wings.