DiscussMormonism.com

The new petition claims the suit should be dismissed because of the statute of limitation, the doctrine of laches and because, "Ms. Denson’s claims are barred by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and by Section 4 of the Utah Constitution."

The First Amendment states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

https://kutv.com/news/local/lds-church- ... llegations

So the Church is claiming it should be allowed to commit fraud on its’ members because that’s protected under the first amendment, have I got that right?

I note that the Churchs’ Lawyers abbreviated the name to simply COP, I wonder how Nelson feels about that...

The problem with that, and from what I see BYU is doing, once you try to obstruct justice or, if it comes out BYU destroyed any evidence of the crimes, then the statute of limitations doesn't apply. I kind of wonder if this is why the Church cum BYU is trying to prevent anyone looking into those interviews? I hope we find out. Then again I am not a lawyer, so maybe one would like to chime in?

- Doc

I have a question wrote:So the Church is claiming it should be allowed to commit fraud on its’ members because that’s protected under the first amendment, have I got that right?

When you say "fraud," do you mean "attempted rape?"

'Cause I don't see how her allegations include fraud.

I foresee that legal entanglements for the COP will increase to the point the COP will be nothing but a legal department in itself. It's not a church. It's a cult running a religious scam and funneling millions and billions of dollars into God knows what.

President Nelson -- you're liar for the Lord. I rebuke you.

Dr. Shades wrote:

I have a question wrote:So the Church is claiming it should be allowed to commit fraud on its’ members because that’s protected under the first amendment, have I got that right?

When you say "fraud," do you mean "attempted rape?"

'Cause I don't see how her allegations include fraud.

No. If you had read the article I linked to you would’ve seen it start with...

The Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints filed to have a lawsuit against it for fraud dismissed.

Are you referring to the recent filing by the COP on August 27? In it, the COP claims that it has an affirmative defense of the 1st Amendment. The exact language contained in the Answer is:

Third Affirmative Defense
Ms. Denson’s claims are barred by the First Amendment to the United States
Constitution and by Section 4 of the Utah Constitution.

In the answer stage, the COP attorney doesn't have to articulate how the above defense would apply. So, we will see in the future if this theory gets pushed and how. However, it reeks of Oak's religious liberty defense he wants to push after the marriage defeat in the supreme court. I can't see how a fraud claim would impinge on religious liberty or the establishment clause. However, maybe this defense was thrown in to satisfy Mr. Oaks' new pet theory?

I have a question wrote:

The new petition claims the suit should be dismissed because of the statute of limitation, the doctrine of laches and because, "Ms. Denson’s claims are barred by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and by Section 4 of the Utah Constitution."

The First Amendment states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

https://kutv.com/news/local/lds-church- ... llegations

So the Church is claiming it should be allowed to commit fraud on its’ members because that’s protected under the first amendment, have I got that right?

I note that the Churchs’ Lawyers abbreviated the name to simply COP, I wonder how Nelson feels about that...

The dumbassery of your post is what I expect and anticipate on reddit, not here.

But, if you read the articles about the motion to dismiss hearing, you would gain insight into why the Church claiming the 1st Amendment.

boris wrote:The dumbassery of your post is what I expect and anticipate on reddit, not here.

But, if you read the articles about the motion to dismiss hearing, you would gain insight into why the Church claiming the 1st Amendment.

Please feel free to share the insight you have gained from reading the articles about why the Church is claiming the 1st amendment.

I will be interested to see if the judge even considers this argument. The standard rule in such things is that the church had the opportunity to bring this argument in the original hearing, and a party doesn't typically get a second bite at the Apple with an argument they should've brought up before this.

I have a question wrote:

boris wrote:The dumbassery of your post is what I expect and anticipate on reddit, not here.

But, if you read the articles about the motion to dismiss hearing, you would gain insight into why the Church claiming the 1st Amendment.

Please feel free to share the insight you have gained from reading the articles about why the Church is claiming the 1st amendment.

I don't need to. It is in the articles about the motion to dismiss hearing.