These are our thoughts and understandings in regards to the Fraud Case against Thomas Spencer Monson.
We are not lawyers, but this is what we have been given to understand and it is shared as information only, for those who are following the case. These are our opinions unrelated to any evidence we may be called upon to present at a trial:
“On the morning of what may prove to be an historic day in Mormon History, it is perhaps useful to consider what the potential outcomes may be at Westminster Magistrates Court today:
“At 10am a ruling will be given by Judge Riddle as to whether the two summonses should be withdrawn, and his judgment will be based largely on arguments put forward last Friday by the LDS church’s QC.
“Provided Judge Riddle rejects those arguments, a ruling would ordinarily then be given concerning venue and allocation of future hearings and trial. Considering the scale of the alleged fraud, the case would almost certainly be referred to Southwark Crown Court.
“However, it appears very unlikely that this will be possible today in the absence of Thomas S. Monson, and this is a point well understood by his legal team. However, the non-appearance of TSM would have further consequences beyond the immediate one of poor publicity, and potentially might include an application for a warrant for his arrest throughout the EU, and also for an extradition order. These would be lengthy and costly processes.
“Alternatively, Judge Riddle may rule today that the two present summonses should be withdrawn. Such a ruling would result if, for example, he accepted the LDS church’s argument that this action is “vexatious” (basically brought out of spite), or “untestable” because of the inter-relatedness of LDS facts and beliefs. It is not anticipated that the summonses will be withdrawn for such reasons, but if they are then we understand that there are other non-doctrinal issues which could form a new action.
“A third reason for withdrawing the summonses would be if Judge Riddle considered they were defective in some way, in which case he would need to explain his reasons, (as his colleague District Judge Roscoe drafted them in their present form), and then, based upon that guidance, corrected summonses would be issued, and the process would re-commence.
“Whatever the ruling today, we may be sure that this is about to become bigger and broader. Today will be a beginning of one kind or another.”
Christopher Ralph &