UK Fraud Case Thread - Get in here, people!

[_suniluni2]

I thought Monson was just supposed to appear to answer the charges, not for a trial or argument of the merits. If Monson actually showed, he waived any objections as to service or personal jurisdiction so not sure why they would argue that.

[_Willy Law]

Any idea if any of the six attorneys sent to represent the church are members?

[_Madison54]

Any idea if any of the six attorneys sent to represent the church are members?

From what I understand, none of them are members.

[_Madison54]

Posted over on NOM:

I think last update for day ****

Went through points ... Merely said opposite of what church lawyer said .

Monson aided abetted or procured or counselled people to make false representations .

Basics exist for this to proceed .

Talking about community of Christ denying validity of Book of Mormon .

False representations made in order to procure tithing for the church

Judge wants evidence that monson made these statements , , sources given . Taught by all leaders .

Philips lawyer taking church to pieces ,, it's like a boxing match where rocky comes back off the floor ,

Listing sources for statements of facts .... Woah !!! Ensign websites talks videos the list goes on ...

I'm tired out , it's relentless .

Judge roscoe really looked into things and filled gaps that she found.

Wish I could take a picture of devonshires 5 man and 1 woman team , all laid back in their seats with swag . Philips 2 guys one girl team up and down consulting Philips , working and doing .

Human rights , monson , he has right to practice religion , but not to commit fraud , any more than he has the right to smoke his cannabis ,,, lol . Philips lawyer is funny .

One hour 45 minutes

Now church is on his feet again ,,
He did a tongue slip ,,, monson is not responsible for what the company ... Errr I mean church says .... Funny !!!

Fact vs belief brought up again

Church saying there is no differentiation between the two , Saying that if church is in court then all religion would have to be .

Trying to say again that religion is not a justice matter . Trying to say all this is an abuse of process , no one has ever complained to the police about church .

Saying monson is not identify able as responsible for what the church says !!

If there is a trial then it brings church into disrepute .

Judgment as to how things will proceed along with reasons to be given next Thursday !! M
Magistrate all done
Next thurs 10 am !!!

[_No Mas Mentiras]

Any idea if any of the six attorneys sent to represent the church are members?

From what I understand, none of them are members.

I am very interested in ordering a transcript of the proceedings as it seems there were several gaffes by the attorneys for the church.

[Guest]

Wow.

Philips certainly got his day in court. Even if this is where it ends, the substantive arguments forced the church into defending things it normally did not want to talk about at all. Worth it, I'd say.

But on to next Thursday ... more press coverage for that, I'd think.

Wonder what Deseret News and President Newsroom will say?

MADB? Only this - they are not venturing to quote much of the copious detail available elsewhere, of course:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/630 ... ine/page-2

[_Bazooka]

It actually sounds like the Church's lawyers weren't that well prepared.
Some really basic errors including getting their own clients title wrong.

[_Chap]

It actually sounds like the Church's lawyers weren't that well prepared.
Some really basic errors including getting their own clients title wrong.

And 'the company' instead of 'the church'.

For once a smiley is in order. Nay, two:

[_Mayan Elephant]

it appears that the NOM information was cut and pasted from the rfm conversation.

is there only one source, cityworker, in the courtroom?

i really really hope the judge comes back and lets this continue without the creation and adam and eve nonsense. Jesus Christ on zues's chariot of linguini, the creation in court, what a ****show.

i do not know a lot about this case, or courts in general. but i trust that there is a real process here, and that the judge must follow the process as best she can. i suspect the attorneys for both sides are sufficiently informed of the process and responded accordingly. anything that happened today doesn't mean a goddamn thing except to show where this is in the process. nothing, not a goddamn thing, from cityworker or anyone else, is going to be enough to show whether one side had any kind of upper hand on the other side. the only conclusion anyone can make from today, is that both teams played hard, and the judge will say something more about it thursday.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BrOH-KHxXg0

[_Mayan Elephant]

It actually sounds like the Church's lawyers weren't that well prepared.
Some really basic errors including getting their own clients title wrong.

it may sound like the non-mormon lawyers said a few things that sound goofy to a few Mormons that were not in the courtroom. there is no possible way you can make any sort of conclusion about their preparations from the stuff that cityworker was posting. there is no way.

the lawyers for monson probably had a very clear strategy of going in there and saying this case is ridiculous, and look at us wasting dollars arguing about adam and eve, so throw this thing out. they are not going to argue the case on the first day, nor are they going to show any more than one or two of their intended moves. i am surprised, actually, that they said as much as they did. if i was the attorney, and i am not one, i would have showed up and said one thing - this is not a fraud case and we are not prepared to discuss any points of contention because monson committed no fraud. good night and god save the queen.

at that point, if this continues, then you have a real case with courty thingies and stuff to present, but not on the goddamn first day.