UK Fraud Case Thread - Get in here, people!

[Guest]

...

i do not know a lot about this case, or courts in general. ...

Uh-huh. And so?

... anything that happened today doesn't mean a goddamn thing ...

On the contrary, two expensive professional teams did their best to present arguments arguing for and against the proposition that the case should proceed to trial, because that is the stage we have reached so far. And in the process we got to hear some quite interesting arguments from the church side, and from their opponents. We'll see what happens next Thursday anyway.

Why are you so worked up about all this? Just treat it as an interesting and rather bizarre vignette in the history of the public discussion of the status of religious claims.

[_Chap]

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.

I bet the church is glad it did not take your advice, which would probably have resulted in a rapid statement by the judge to the effect "Well, if your client is presenting no arguments against the case going to trial, and Mr Philips is asking for the case to proceed, I have no hesitation in setting the following trial date ...".

On the contrary, they have tried every shot in their locker to try to stop the case going further, because they really, really don't want that to happen. But Philips seems to have made a reasonable job of counter-argument. Now the judge will decide.

[_Res Ipsa]

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.

The problem is that the information we have has mainly been filtered through people who support the prosecution. The potential for confirmation bias is very high. Just as an example, the note taker referred to a discussion of freedom of religion and a pertinent case as a "tangent." The notion that this case has nothing to do with freedom of religion reflects endless echoing of Tom's framing of the case. I hope Tom's lawyers are taking the religious freedom argument more seriously than his cheerleaders are.

I'm hoping for an actual transcript and copies of any briefing filed with the court.

[_Mayan Elephant]

hey chap. i am not terribly worked up. mostly, i am not overly excited about it.

i think philips is a bold dude to take this on.

i guess my interest in this is high but for different reasons. i think there is real fraud happening, but that fraud does not lie in the claims the church makes that are related to beliefs in the Bible. if you asked me who won today, based on the notes from cityworker, i would conclude as i said - we do not know because nobody here really knows what the strategy was for both sides and what they expected from today's process.

if i was the church's lawyer, and i thought this had a remote chance of continuing, i would have done exactly what they did - compare beliefs to facts. and i would have a picture of adam and eve in every hearing. i would welcome the chance to get paid to make that argument.

[_Mayan Elephant]

On the contrary, they have tried every shot in their locker to try to stop the case going further, because they really, really don't want that to happen. But Philips seems to have made a reasonable job of counter-argument. Now the judge will decide.

you probably are right. but we have no information to support that conclusion. none. we have one dude's biased interpretation of the events. that is it.

maybe monson's lawyers were very prepared. i don't know that they were not. monson's lawyers looked at the situation like this - there is a probability of this going to trial, and a probability of it not going to trial. based on their judgment of those probabilities, they have to decide how much to say in the initial hearing. if the probability is very high, they are not going to say anything in the initial hearing. if the probability is low, and they have a shot at thwarting it, they may say more in order to get the process stopped. but they do that, knowing they are playing their hand prematurely with anything they say. if it is philips job to prove this is worth going to trial, do not give him anything to chew on in court. nothing. a stiff defense on the first day is ridiculous.

[_Chap]

The problem is that the information we have has mainly been filtered through people who support the prosecution. The potential for confirmation bias is very high.

Of course. But actually there is a lot of detail of the arguments on both sides in the account given, and the arguments ascribed to the Church's side do seem very like those one would expect from them - some of which you have yourself hinted at in earlier threads.

There are comments that show that the reporter relishes the arguments on the other side more - but he gives the same level of detail to the two sides, more or less.

You can download a pdf here to see what I mean:

http://www.mormonthink.com/files/fraud- ... ogging.pdf

I think we have a picture of what happened today that is certainly not a sober court report. But it has a fair amount of value in telling us what went on, more or less. by the way, it was odd to read in a late post on RfM that the church's lawyers said a different team will be fielded next week. Sounds as though these were the 'stop the case now' team, and next week's lot may be there to do a different job. We'll see.

Heck, here is the whole damn thing for your reading pleasure:

Fraud Case Against LDS Church
Someone with inside information of the court proceedings has passed it to the outside world via cityworker on RfM Friday, March 14, 2014.
[Scott’s clarification’s in square brackets.] {cityworker’s asides in squiggly braces}
Preface:
The church’s legal team are implying that Tom Phillips has harassed Judge Rosco and that it is vexatious.
The lawyer has also named the Church as the church of Jesus and Latter Day Saints.
He is arguing that judge Rosco guided TP how to do this and therefore was out of jurisdiction.
Seems people representing church are 6 lawyers. 3 lawyers from Tom Phillip's side.
Much discussion at the moment about vexation and discussions on Facebook/Mormonthink.
Today's proceedings:
Church has 6 lawyers present.

Church trying to set aside summons because of service irregularities. Spent 30 minutes arguing this.
Then church lawyer spent 10 mins saying that the claims are teachings - - not beliefs.
10:43 Church lawyer trying to discredit Phillips, saying he repeatedly corresponded with court trying to persuade court to issue summons, judge refused this a few times through late 2013.
Saying Phillips complained about Judge Roscoe.
Going through reasons judge originally declined to issue summons.
Then judge said Phillips had to produce statements from injured parties, church lawyer saying it's wrong that judge advised Phillips of this, boos in court!
Mentioned Ralph's statement then Bloor statements, judge observed Bloor should have mentioned WHEN HE WAS DEFRAUDED, church lawyers saying with respect that it's wrong that judge advised Phillips how to proceed.
Now ripping into Phillips lawyer, trying to say he is wrong on a number of points of law.
Church lawyer saying Phillips is mischief. And not authorized to lay summons.
Lots of arguing minutiae.
Church lawyer just wrongly quoted church name, Church of the Jesus of the Latter Days!
[Church lawyers] keep arguing it is vexatious saying Phillips kept asking for summons and warrant.
Now on page 88!
Church lawyer keeps referring to Mormon Church.
Mormonthink being dissected, referred to it as Phillips’ own site...
Talking about legal fees, saying it's astonishing that summons is published in Mormonthink, saying it shows it's for humiliation of church and vexation.
[Age of the earth is] 6000 years, saying a lot of Christian believe this.
Saying the motivation is promoting the crazy beliefs through 80,000 missionaries. Church lawyer says this is entitled under religious freedom human rights.
Saying it is an attack on church scriptures, and designed to harass.
One person shouted in court and judge says he will be asked to leave if he shouts again.
Quoting a lot of internet stuff, saying people want money back. Judge said that's nothing to do with case, church lawyer said it is.
{To those who said it will be over in 10 mins, it's now one hour 10 mins}
Now continually quoting Facebook chats, trying to assert that it's a bunch of idiots commenting, saying people just want Monson arrested.
Dredging through lots of internet speculation.
{3 reporters, 5 exmos and one TBM in court.}
Heart of defence, he is trying to say... it is civil and not criminal. Trying to say that the questions of belief are not allowed in law.
How can a court possibly embark on judging such issues, is main issue... Non justicability.
Again saying they are not fact, they are belief. Saying nothing is ever said is said as fact just belief!
{That's dissed practically every testimony given!} Now talking about catholic Eucharist!
Gay marriage being discussed.
Off on a tangent talking about very obscure case law ref freedom to hold religious belief. The right to express belief is allowed, therefore no case.
{It's 11:40, I think this will run until this afternoon, prosecution still has to state case.}
Now saying that if Phillips won, how could church continue its operations. And that would be judicial interference, a secular court cannot decide such issues.
Trying to say it's absurd that a religion would lie to obtain money, especially with 14 million members! {Oo no church would do that, all exmos in court thumbs up, church lawyer just dug a big hole!}
More freedom of right to follow teachings talk, lots of case law asserting this right, saying court cannot rule on this, quoted Australia, Canada and USA, said the same in court.
Freedom of religion phrase used many times, state has no jurisdiction asserted many times.
Lord Bingham’s speech quoted a lot, and custom and practice of religion used.
Just said Phillips is a disgruntled ex member {---- he is still a member!}
{Church lawyer has been very inaccurate on several key facts such as this. I think Church lawyer has missed the whole point, of the summons, I think that it should make Phillips lawyers job easier.}
Lunch break then back for the final bit of the church's defence Church Lawyers are talking about the first vision!
Then onto talking about the quad and tithing. {Not utterly sure he has a point here.}
And is stumbling around vexatious again.
End of defence submission.
Went through beliefs told first vision story,
Going through tithe. Gasps when it's stated as optional! Emphasizing Tom getting media attention!
Final argument, ref private prosecution, saying Phillips is not authorized - solicitor, or exempt, eg a victim. {Very complex here, I'm just summarizing, lots of legal talk.}
Judge asking questions and clarification. {Google if you wish legal services act.}
Church lawyer saying proceedings are not allowed by Phillips... Trying to say it's criminal that Phillips brought action because he does not fit the authorized criteria ?!?!
It's all section 3 sub paragraph 4 it's conjunctive with section 4a:b.... Type stuff, meaning Phillips cannot bring prosecution.
{I think church lawyer is clutching at straws, with obscure rules.} Church summarizing ten points of why it's not valid:
1. not compliant with criminal justice act
2. non justiciable
3. allegations are about belief not fact
4. no evidence Monson does not hold the beliefs
5. no vicarious criminal liability in UK law so Monson not accountable 6. Monson did not cause the fraud
7. vexatious harassment of church
8. prosecutor must refine evidence to prove it's not a flippant case and an abuse of process wrong to subject church to abusive process
9. it contravenes Monson’s human rights
10 Phillips is not qualified to bring the action
Judge straightaway threw out point 10 because Phillips is not being paid, the legal services rules exist to stop any fool practicing as a lawyer.
Judge now adjourning until 2:30, says he won't decide today. {that's 2 hours 35 for what was to be thrown out in ten mins!}
[Vexatious Litigation (Wikipedia)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vexatious_litigation
Vexatious litigation is legal action which is brought, regardless of its merits, solely to harass or subdue an adversary. It may take the form of a primary frivolous lawsuit or may be the repetitive, burdensome, and unwarranted filing of meritless motions in a matter which is otherwise a meritorious cause of action. Filing vexatious litigation is considered an abuse of the judicial process and may result in sanctions against the offender.

A single action, even a frivolous one, is usually not enough to raise a litigant to the level of being declared vexatious. Repeated and severe instances by a single lawyer or firm can result in eventual disbarment.
Some jurisdictions have a list of vexatious litigants: people who have repeatedly abused the legal system. Because lawyers could be disbarred for participating in the abuse, vexatious litigants are often unable to retain legal counsel, and such litigants therefore represent themselves in court. Those on the list are usually either forbidden from any further legal action or are required to obtain prior permission from a senior judge before taking any legal action. The process by which a person is added to the list varies among jurisdictions. In liberal democratic jurisdictions, declaring someone a vexatious litigant is considered to be a serious measure and rarely occurs, as judges and officials are reluctant to curtail a person's access to the courts.]
Tom Phillips’ lawyers up now.
Running through the history of the summons.
On his feet, going through skeleton argument then going to refute the 10 points.
Phillips lawyers very up-beat and clearer.
Going through judge Roscoe's process, confirming that she followed due process.
It was *not a rubber stamp summons*
Judge Roscoe even rephrased the summons, after much consideration and thought.
Phillips has *right* to bring a private prosecution as is his constitutional right.
Case law quoted where this has happened.
***Cases have started as a private prosecution in the past like this, and taken over by the CPS - in the UK the crown prosecution service is the queen ultimately who prosecutes people for crime, but Phillips has the right to start the prosecution***.
Quoting the start of private prosecution in British law. Phillips again does have the right, *parliament gives the right for this*.
The CPS can take it over and choose to continue or drop the case. Belief not fact being discussed.... The big one....
If someone says a belief (eg god) is the almighty father, that is a statement of belief.
If someone says this book is translated from this document then that is a statement of fact... {Wow! }
He says ***that*** is the key issue at stake here. Now saying let's talk this out at a future date.
Asking court to decide on the church’s assertion of facts, which he says may be proved to be false.
Case not about attacking beliefs of the church, but about fraud.
Saying that church is not immune to prosecution cannot hide behind doctrine because of belief, but when lies are involved, absolutely the church can be held to account.
Quoting other cases, Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Sikhs, Church of England, courts cannot decide on doctrinal validity. BUT.... They are in civil jurisdiction... And not above the law of the land; it's about where you draw the line. And done with caution.
E.g. Rastafarian in possession of cannabis, he was prosecuted. Because it was part of an act, worship Was no defence. It was illegal according to law, so Rastafarian was convicted!
So it's now about religion versus law... If any religious group, however well-established, carries out an illegal act, then the law can cross into belief observance.
If a priest carries out sexual assault in a confessional, it is no defence for the priest to say what happens in the box is religion.
Lots of sex crime talk. {.... (Irony much)}
Talking about Book of Abraham now, saying church states it as a fact, [refers to it as] a translation, this can be proven.
Book of Mormon, Phillips want to discuss, is created by Smith. America populated via Israel, can be proven by DNA.
Joseph’s and Hyrum’s deaths, [and the] circumstances surrounding, this is taught as fact not belief.
6000 year[s of] life question discussed. Adam and Eve discussed.
Phillips’ lawyer talking like the above is laughable. {See Monty Python type talk.}
Monson, did he know? Did he act dishonestly? Did he expose to risk of loss?
All can be answered without crossing to belief, just stating that this is fact, is fraud, if indeed it can be proved as known to be false and with intent to defraud.
Church conceded that everything it says is merely belief not fact. {THIS IS THE BIG ONE}
Further court update One hour 10 mins in
Publicity... Phillips’ lawyer hands magistrate a document, UK version of huff post, talking about summons, Monson pic on it, quote from church, the one where they say bizarre allegations, Neil [Addison].
The QC [Queen’s Counsel] the church has used today, saying the court was in error issuing the summons, a QC giving quotes to press that a case he is defending is nonsense! {DRAMA!}
{Red face and neck for Anderson in court... Wow, the arrogance!}
Ripping into Monson now, saying he is educated and knows it's false, and Quote -- - lying for The Lord ---
Asking for trial, because if Phillips, Bloor and Ralph made up allegations then they attempted to pervert the course of justice therefore there should be a trial.
Next up... Dealing with 10 points.
**** 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.
{Phillips’ 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. Phillips 2 guys one girl team up and down consulting Phillips, 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 Phillips 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 identifiable 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!
Magistrate all done
Thursday, March 20, 10:00 am.

[_Chap]

... if it is philips job to prove this is worth going to trial, do not give him anything to chew on in court. nothing. a stiff defense on the first day is ridiculous.

Wrong way round, I think. The fact that a summons was issued implies that the case will go to trial if no reason can be shown why it should not go to trial.

The church team put up a lot of arguments. If you believe that the report we have sets out to make the church case look worse than it was, then their arguments (which were not bad as presented in the document) must have been even stronger, which goes against your position.

[_Res Ipsa]

I read the whole thing before I posted the above. Yes, it gives a general sense of what was going on. But it's not very helpful in evaluating the merits of the positions taken.

The change of lawyers is interesting. Not sure what to make of it.

[_Mormon Think]

MT has a pdf transcript of cityworker's postings available at the top of our UK Fraud case page: http://www.mormonthink.com/monson-summons.htm

I haven't heard from Tom yet today. If he wishes to make a public statement, we'll put it on this page.

Bill

[_aznative]

I swear, on everything I hold dear, I just called the COB at 801-240-1000 and asked who I needed to speak to to begin the process to submit my membership resignation. The lady told me it was the Confidential Records department but all phone lines to that department are down right now, and asked if I could call back in an hour and maybe the lines will be working by then.