As in the Tom Phillips case,he will insist the church can be prosecuted for fraud.However,there are a number of different religious groups guilty of making converts by deceptive means or only giving investigators the half truths of what they are buying in to.Jehovahs Witnesses would be the best and closest possible example.

Religious practise and belief is simply regarded by British law as a persons free will.It is hard to believe the legal system would want to become so involved in a case which delves so deeply in to the doctrines and beliefs of a particular religion without applying the same standard to another group like JW`s.

Given the workload of the courts in Britain,my view is that a prosecution would give priority to secular crimes and the only crimes involving religion prosecuted would be a clear cut case of child abuse from a church official or member or the stealing of church funds.Possibly a case involving a cult kidnapping person to fore them to convert.

Regardless of the insistence of Tom Phillips and his claim that many law experts agree with him on his private prosecution of the church,do most of you think a fraud case is wot the time to pursue?It is unheard of for a person to be prosecuted for teaching that the earth is 6000 years old,or even one person being extradited from one nation to another for such an accusation.

Tom's case has the benefit of involving money -- which bolsters the fraud case.

At any rate, the time is Tom's to spend. You can support him or not, but it's not wasting any of your time. If that's how Tom wants to spend his time, he can do so.

I support him. I'd help financially if he asks. Even if he loses all the cases. Because it airs things that the church tries to keep secret, even if the cases are lost -- and *that* is worth time and money to me (and Tom).

Ervil, you old dead polygamous bastard! I met a couple of your sons while I was on my mission! They had come down to Cuautla, Morelos and they came to the chapel, where four of us missionaries lived in a little house next to the chapel. It was my first posting as a senior companion.

They were trying to convert us to the 'proper' form of mormonism but I was (and always have been) such a clueless, silly, dumb ass that I didn't pay any attention to them. I don't think I remembered the very next day what they were talking about, much less now, over 49 years later. They probably threw their arms up in the air and despaired that the church was sending out such religious lightweights.

I recall they hung around for a few days, but they just couldn't any traction with us, much less any of the members. I had no trouble remembering their surname, so when I read Under the Banner of Heaven, and some of the LeBaron history was told therein, I tried to latch onto a little attention (like now) by mentioning that odd, useless bit of personal history.

Suing for fraud and winning is one of the most difficult things to succeed at. If you sue for "appropriation" or "unjust enrichment" (the civil lawsuit equivalents of their criminal counterparts - theft), the burden of proof is lower. For fraud in the US, you have to prove that the other party intended to deceive you also. Proving their state of mind is extremely difficult, especially when they rant about god and their right to believe what they choose to believe.

Tom should have left Adam & Eve out of it and stuck to the stuff that is uniquely mormon. No court wants to take on all "christians" but I'm guessing plenty would like to give LD$ inc the electric chair.

When you look at it on the surface it seems like a waste of time and Tom getting vengeance.

In systems that use common law, (precedent cases to establish interpretation of legislation) trialing cases of this sort are considered highly important. This is why they have assigned Queens Council to the case. These are eminent lawyers picked to argue this type of groundbreaking interpretation of the parliamentary law in British courts.

From how the law is written Tom appears to have a very strong case. Which-ever way the case goes it will clearly set precedence for future interpretation of the law. Something no upper echelon lawyer would pass up on.

As for the Adam & Eve inclusion, you never know what the courts will deem applicable and what they will toss out. If you don't include it at the beginning you are not likely to have another chance at it. This is why criminals in the U.S. generally face multiple charges in court.

I gotta stop having my lunches with lawyers....

Is it realistic to value the opinions of people with vast and intimate knowledge of certain subjects and not base my opinion my own VERY limited knowledge on a subject?

This is an interesting idea.

Could someone sue the founder of a false religion for fraud?

Probably.

But could someone sue a -for example- tenth generation follower of the original founder, if that person was as big a dupe as you had previously been?

Not certain what grounds you could use? "They are still as duped as I was?"

Tom has the advantage of a unique law in the UK that we do not have here. My suggestion to anyone in the US interested in recovering past tithes would be to sue the Church for negligence. The burden of proof is lower than it is for fraud, but the statute of limitations is also shorter.

The Church has 100% control over the contents of the lesson manuals printed each year, but fails to correct the myths that the members-teaching-members system perpetuates. Even the Church's recent essays would not protect it from claims of negligence, since they have NOT been proactive in any way to disseminate that information.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/01/2016 05:54PM by Facsimile 3.

Judge Riddle threw out the case with a warning that the action was vindictive on Phillips part.
Phillips was humiliated, and any further action that may be considered of this kind, has been more or less stopped in its tracks by Riddle's judgment.
It's a win win for the cult.

Higher court threw out the dismissal. Deemed that riddle did was illegal. Case is continuing. Like many things with the church an apparent winning hand leads to disaster, Prop 8, Olympics, etc..

Sounds good.
Where's the evidence though, court documents, statements, articles?
If not, just wishful thinking and waste of time.

CFR that a higher court ruled that Riddle acted illegally.

...and waiting....

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1713672
http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1715226,1718964#msg-1718964
http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1717361,1718768#msg-1718768
http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1712251,1712813#msg-1712813

Since Tom Phillip posts here on occasion a simple thread search can find some interesting stuff.

I tried to post on here last night but it seems not to have shown up.

Whilst it is possible to prosecute privately for fraud, I see no reason why it has to be a private prosecution.

There are a number of public bodies in the UK which have a power to prosecute various offences, including fraud and trading standards offences. I am an experienced litigation solicitor and manage a team of prosecutors in one such organisation.

The two fold test for whether to bring a prosecution is:
1. whether it is in the public interest; and
2. whether there is a reasonable prospect of success.

I am satisfied that it is in the public interest to bring the prosecution. I like many thousands of others have been deeply wounded by this corrupt brainwashing organisation. The drain on members resources, both in terms of time and money, coupled with the severe emotional harm has gone on for far too long and it is time for the law to intervene.

I watched with interest as Tom Philips bravely took on the cult. Whilst disappointed I was not surprised by the result. I had only relatively recently discovered the truth about LDS Inc and with the typical family pressures involved in a part member family I did not seek to offer any assistance at that stage. I do however now regret not offering my support sooner. I am absolutely convinced that this organisation is in no way shape or form a force for good in the world today and its mind controlling techniques that have been fine tuned over the years are seriously detrimental to a person's emotional well being. Members are systematically being robbed of the ability to reason.

I cannot sit back any longer and watch this organisation continue to exerts so much influence over my family and others without at least making an effort to bring it to justice.

Whilst I am considering a criminal prosecution, I am also conscious of the fact that a large scale civil claim would likely do as much damage. I would encourage all persons who have paid tithing in the 6 years prior to them discovering that it was all a fraud to obtain from LDS Inc, all the personal information that is held on them including a breakdown of all the tithing and offerings they have paid. Again I am happy to assist in bringing the civil claim.

Over the past 3 years I have perused numerous documents, many of which will be admissible in evidence, and I am satisfied in myself beyond any reasonable doubt that the church's behaviour is fraudulent, I am conscious of the fact that others, most notably, Tom have already prepared bundles of evidence and I do not want to re-invent the wheel so would gladly work with Tom and/or anyone else who is already in the process of collating evidence.

If Tom or anyone else is interested in having a chat, please respond to this post and I will investigate the best way to communicate securely thereafter.

UK Lawyer

UK Lawyer,

Please email me at tomphillips@romneysfaith.com to discuss strategy.

Regarding a civil action in the UK, a criminal prosecution can also include compensation for vistims, i.e. a return of tithing paid (since January 2007).

Let's discuss off line.
Tom

Thank you for the response Tom.

I will be in touch shortly.

UK Lawyer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I tried to post on here last night but it seems not to have shown up.

I tried to answer - same thing :-(


> The two fold test for whether to bring a prosecution is:
>
> 1. whether it is in the public interest; and
> 2. whether there is a reasonable prospect of success.

You make your case for no. 1 by stating that Mormonism is harmful to the public, therefore prosecution is in the public interest. In order to prove that, you would have to establish a direct, clear and causal link between Mormon Church actions or policies and demonstrable harm to the general public. If you can't do that, you'll be arguing that religion in general is harmful to the public. The case will be thrown out because no court will be willing to single out a specific church without this kind of evidence.

Allow me to play the devil's advocate here:

What public interest?

Hardly anybody buys into Mormonism and in the UK, 75% of those who do, leave the Church within 12 months of baptism. Very few people are affected. There is a difference between protecting the public interest and protecting a few gullible idiots against themselves (I speak from experience, having been such a gullible idiot myself).

There is no drain on members' resources, neither in terms of time nor money. Very few of the very few Mormons pay tithing at all, some pay a little, only gullible idiots pay 10% on gross income. Very few of the very few Mormons devote any time to the Church at all. In the UK, only 18% are "active", meaning they attend Church at least once every three months.


There is no severe emotional harm. As I pointed out above, most of the people who become Mormons walk away unscathed within months after baptism. How are you going to prove that the ones who did experience emotional harm weren't basket cases to begin with?

Don't get me wrong, as an exmo myself, who lost all his friends and extended family on leaving, I know a thing or two about the emotional harm Mormonism causes but it will never ever stand up in court without some serious, peer-reviewed double-blind experiments.

We're mostly fighting ourselves during the recovery process. The world doesn't need to be protected against Mormonism. Outside the Morridor, Mormonism is irrelevant.

Still, I wish you luck. Tom's case may have been thrown out, as yours will be (unless you can provide the kind of evidence I outlined above) but many good things came of it, too. Here was a chance for the self-proclaimed prophet of God to appear before the King's magistrates and boldly assert the truth of Mormonism. Instead, he weaseled out, sent lawyers, and had them deny that doctrine was doctrine.

I for one would love to see them use the huge inactivity rate as a defence. I would love to see them argue their own insignificance and irrelevance.

Look at the deliberate tax evasion of multi nationals in the UK.
Google, paying just 120 million on a turnover of tens of billions.
LDS Corp is just another mighty multi national up to its neck in tax evasion on laundered income.
One major difference though is the 2006 fraud act and the cult's insistence on receipt of money for member advancement and other priveleges of membership.
This could be its achilles heel.
But the church will use its mighty war chest and every subversive trick in the book to halt or postpone any further action.

As allmade up says "But the church will use its mighty war chest and every subversive trick in the book to halt or postpone any further action."

TSCC did that in the first prosecution but will not succeed in the next.

Please stop leading people on with this nonsense.

....and your legal arguments (substantiated by legal statute and evidence) are...?

And your track record in suing the Church is....?


Here is R. Packham's take on the question.
http://packham.n4m.org/lawsuit.htm

I think you already know what Justice Riddle thinks about it...

Someone starts a thread about suing to get their tithing back almost every year. They go nowhere.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/04/2016 10:16AM by pettigrew.

At least Tom has a track record. He got much further than anyone else on the issue of fraud, and I for one will give him the benefit of the doubt with regard to the future.

How far did he get?

I assume that you know the history, so why are you tro...err...asking? The summons speaks for itself.

Right, and apparently you missed the point.

From the article: "I'm frankly shocked that a magistrate has issued it [the summons]," said Neil Addison, a former crown prosecutor in England and author on religious freedom.


In other words, the summons was no easy thing to gain. Thank you, Tom.

*facepalm*

Hope this helps victims to get justice.

Hello lawyers, when you have your team together and ready to file I am happy to help support your efforts. Thank you

If you throw money at this 'team' you will be throwing good money after bad.

Having been a builder for decades I love that saying " throwing good money after bad", it's a great cue to rethink actions and avoid money pits without solutions, and just walk away. It this case I do not see the solution as prevailing with s judgement though. The good I feel in pursuing a case is the national publicity of "fraudulent" behavior. Thanks.

I absolutely understand the idea of drawing the public's attention to problematic items that the Church may wish to keep a low profile on. However, getting summarily dismissed and labelled as 'frivolous' is perhaps not the best way of achieving that. The Church came out of the Tom Phillips unmitigated disaster with more credit and sympathy than it had before. The only reputations that were damaged were Tom's and the numbnuts who issued the summons.

Start a blog, make it popular, put it on Facebook or Twitter.

Here's what 'UK Lawyer' had to say back in 2014

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1157723,1157813#msg-1157813

"Sadly I have to agree that this is unlikely to go very far save that it may generate some publicity.

Given that the prosecution has been brought by a private individual, which is unusual in the UK, I can only presume that the Crown Prosecution Service has declined to prosecute. IMHO must have good reason for doing so as the likely sums involved in the alleged fraud would certainly meet their threshold for prosecution if they were indeed satisfied that the named individuals had in fact been defrauded.

I hope I am wrong. I admire the anointedone for what he is trying to achieve. It certainly takes balls of steel, particularly as he runs the risk of a significant costs award against him if unsuccessful."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/04/2016 10:21AM by pettigrew.

People are demonstrating the same kind of critical thinking on this thread that led them into handing over tithing in the first place.

YOU ARE NOT GETTING YOUR MONEY BACK, no matter what Tom and UK Lawyer might suggest. Next they'll be wanting donations to help with the expenses...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/04/2016 10:25AM by pettigrew.

Why you should be so eager for Tom to throw in the towel just goes to show the savvy posters here that you have a bit of an agenda.

The suits can only pray that they're home free this easily.

What part of 'loose the battle and win the war' don't you understand about human history?

I'll see your war quote, and raise you an Einstein...

"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."
Albert Einstein

I am sure the church is ready for more action.
It is prepared to lose in the UK, if indeed that does happen.
They are desperate to consolidate their unchallenged position in the US though. And that is far more important to the celestial crooks than a British outpost.
They probably know their time is up in the UK and they have prepared for the financial fallout.
There is a war chest of £120 million+ sitting in their UK Accounts, doing zilch year in year out.
This sum "loaned" by SL some 8 years ago now.
I wish Tom and all the other participants well in the battle ahead. The church will fight tooth and nail, but the UK legal system cannot be manipulated quite so easily.