"District Judge Elizabeth Roscoe, who signed the summonses, ACCUSES Mr. Monson of ‘DISHONESTLY’ making a gain for himself or another’ by asking two men to pay tithes on the basis of ‘UNTRUE or MISLEADING’ representations." (emphasis added)

("Mormons' Leader Ordered to Appear at a British Court over Claims Organization's Teachings Amount to Fraud: Summonses issued against Thomas Monson in unprecedented legal move. It is over allegations the church’s request that followers pay a ‘tithe.' The tithe--10 per cent of income--could be in breach of Fraud Act 2006," by Richard Marsden, "UK Daily Mail," at: 6 Fevruary 2014, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2552686/Mormons-leader-ordered-appear-British-court-claims-organisations-teachings-fraud.html#ixzz2sVDgxb1X)



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 02/05/2014 08:57PM by steve benson.

This is my favorite article so far.

Does anybody have a subscription to the Times of London? They're running a story that looks promising but most of it is behind a paywall:

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/faith/article3997082.ece?CMP=OTH-gnws-standard-2014_02_05

I'm trying to track it down and will post here if I can find it.

Interesting that the Daily Mail is not accepting comments on this article. Too bad, they are if not #1, near the very of high-traffic websites in the world.

I have mine pretyped and ready to go. I have the top comment at the SLTrib. It is important to frame this first in the comments.

You are 1firstborn?

Congrats on the exposure.

Link to article please? The SLT article.

sayhitokolob4me Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Interesting that the Daily Mail is not accepting
> comments on this article.


maybe because there is a pending trial?

It is common practice by the Daily Mail to not allow comments for pending litigation. Recently the articles on the case against the assistants of Nigella Lawson also didn't accept comments. A bummer I know!

Thanks, Steve.

Just to clarify. The judge, by issuing the summons, has not accused TSM of anything. The accusation is made by the person laying the information (ie Tom Phillips).

The issuing of the summons is essentially an administrative procedure, which is often carried out by the clerk to the justices or a lay magistrate. The fact that this summons was issued by a District Judge (a paid magistrate who is legally qualified) may be indicative of the information being subjected to more scrutiny than is usual before being issued to ascertain that the allegations are not frivolous or vexatious and that there is an offence alleged. It is not however indicative of there being a prima facie case to answer.

on the nature and content of his case, questioned him every which-way over months' time, and eventually agreed that his presented points warranted a service of summons. It was a long ordeal for Phillips, as he has described it to me.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 02/05/2014 10:06PM by steve benson.

Thanks for that info Steve. I had a feeling that there was a lot more going on behind the scenes than is evident on the face of the summons.

UK Lawyer: Is it possible for someone (a lawyer?) to appear in the court instead of TJM, by a power of attorney? Or would his absence be automatically considered contempt of court?

Usually when an individual is summoned to court they are required to appear in person but representations can, and, in this case likely will, be made to excuse their attendance. When someone is out of the country permission is often granted to excuse a person's attendance particularly if it is likely that pleas will not be taken at the first hearing.

I would be surprised if an application is not made to excuse TSM's attendance, at least for the preliminary hearings. I also think it is likely that the church will make every effort to have the charges summarily struck out or dismissed before TSM is required to plead.

Wow. But, do they really think he IS going to appear?

over the pumpkin patch!

Monson has got to be pursued with care. When startled, he can wiggle his ears and take flight. He will hole up in a cave during daylight hours. At night he'll carouse and eat widows' mites.

UK Lawyer
As the Mormon church is a corporate sole doesn't that mean in legal terms at least, that Monson is the only member & therefore has to appear to represent 'his church'

I am not sure what the status of a corporate sole is in the UK but note that the charge has not been made against the corporation but against TSM himself.

It is TSM that has been summoned to court and not the corporate entity which may or may not qualify as a legal person in its own right in the UK.

For the time being, any defence, representations, applications etc will have to be made in the name of TSM. That is not to say he will be required to attend court. Permission may be granted for him to be represented, at least in the preliminary stages, without him having to be present.

This stood out to me as well.

Hopefully this will Hasten The Work of his demise and then BKKKP will be in the strapped down hot seat.

Would he then be summoned?

UK Lawyer, what procedures exist for TSM to have the summons cancelled, revoked, nulled, or whatever it might be called, before the appearance date? It seems that since a Magistrate signed off to the summons that it cannot be considered frivolous and without merit, so something else would presumably need to be employed?

I too would like to know the answer to this.

It can be challenged by claiming that it is an abuse of process to bring these proceedings and ask for this to be determined before the matter proceeds further.

Abuse of process has been defined as "something so unfair and wrong that the court should not allow a prosecutor to proceed with what is in all other respect a regular proceeding"

Both the Crown Courts and magistrates' courts have discretion to protect the process of the court from abuse. This includes protecting the accused person from oppression or prejudice. The courts have often emphasised that the power to stay a case for an abuse of process is an exceptional power to be exercised sparingly. A case might form an abuse of process where:

the defendant would not receive a fair trial; and/or
it would be unfair for the defendant to be tried.

The traditional view has been that the burden of proof is on the defence to show that the proceedings should be stayed as an abuse of process.


The decision to bring a prosecution can itself also be judicially reviewed, but only where there are exceptional circumstances, such as demonstrable fraud, corruption, mala fides, or failure to follow settled policy on the part of the decision-maker. The courts have reasoned that judicial review is inappropriate where an alternative remedy exists, in that the matters complained of could be considered by the criminal court on an application to stay the prosecution as an abuse of process.

Steve - Most of us know that Tom has given tons to this matter; blood, sweat, tears, money, time, his family, etc.
There are some hold-outs but I think it is because they don't realize how sincere Tom really is and how thorough. He is not one to "go off the handle" as they used to say. Anyone who thinks about this knows that no magistrate would sign something like this without having spent some time (or had employees spend some time) on it.
I think him so much because I might get some of my family out. I also thank you for your complete generosity with your time and resources to bring us news we would not have otherwise. THANKS.