UK Fraud Case Thread - Get in here, people!

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_suniluni2
_Emeritus
Posts: 1062
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2012 8:36 am

Re: UK Fraud Case Thread - Get in here, people!

Post by _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
_Emeritus
Posts: 1623
Joined: Sat Apr 17, 2010 10:53 pm

Re: UK Fraud Case Thread - Get in here, people!

Post by _Willy Law »

Any idea if any of the six attorneys sent to represent the church are members?
It is my province to teach to the Church what the doctrine is. It is your province to echo what I say or to remain silent.
Bruce R. McConkie
_Madison54
_Emeritus
Posts: 1382
Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2011 6:37 pm

Re: UK Fraud Case Thread - Get in here, people!

Post by _Madison54 »

Willy Law wrote: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
_Emeritus
Posts: 1382
Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2011 6:37 pm

Re: UK Fraud Case Thread - Get in here, people!

Post by _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
_Emeritus
Posts: 232
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 1:39 am

Re: UK Fraud Case Thread - Get in here, people!

Post by _No Mas Mentiras »

Madison54 wrote:
Willy Law wrote: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.
_Chap
_Emeritus
Posts: 14190
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 10:23 am

Re: UK Fraud Case Thread - Get in here, people!

Post by _Chap »

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
Last edited by Guest on Fri Mar 14, 2014 5:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Zadok:
I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis.
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
_Bazooka
_Emeritus
Posts: 10719
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2013 4:36 am

Re: UK Fraud Case Thread - Get in here, people!

Post by _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.
That said, with the Book of Mormon, we are not dealing with a civilization with no written record. What we are dealing with is a written record with no civilization. (Runtu, Feb 2015)
_Chap
_Emeritus
Posts: 14190
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 10:23 am

Re: UK Fraud Case Thread - Get in here, people!

Post by _Chap »

Bazooka wrote: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: :redface: :lol:
Zadok:
I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis.
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
_Mayan Elephant
_Emeritus
Posts: 2408
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2011 10:56 pm

Re: UK Fraud Case Thread - Get in here, people!

Post by _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
"Rocks don't speak for themselves" is an unfortunate phrase to use in defense of a book produced by a rock actually 'speaking' for itself... (I have a Question, 5.15.15)
_Mayan Elephant
_Emeritus
Posts: 2408
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2011 10:56 pm

Re: UK Fraud Case Thread - Get in here, people!

Post by _Mayan Elephant »

Bazooka wrote: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.
"Rocks don't speak for themselves" is an unfortunate phrase to use in defense of a book produced by a rock actually 'speaking' for itself... (I have a Question, 5.15.15)
Post Reply