Head of Mormon Church Summoned to Appear in Court in London

[Stavros]

Small correction: an English, not a British court. Scotland and Northern Ireland have their own judiciaries separate from the Law of England, and Wales.

I did suggest in an earlier post that I don't expect this summons to get anywhere, it is the problem that arises when someone in one country is accused of a crime in another country. The case was originally brought by a Mormon in the UK against the American branch of the Church, so it is in essence a dispute between two Mormons. There have been cases where cases of libel have been pursued in the English court which would not have been valid in the US because of the First Amendment.

In 2000 the Russian oligarch Boris Berezovsky (who committed suicide last year) and an associate sued Forbes Magazine for an article that was legal under the First Amendment in the US but which they claim libeled famed them in the UK -it was settled out of court with a partial retraction from Forbes.

In 2003 Ehrenfeld -v- bin Mahfouz was a case in which a resident of the UK sued an Israeli-American over a book published in the USA (but not in the UK) over claims he, Khalid bin Mahfouz, funded terrorism. Ms Ehrenfeld then counter-sued in the US using her First Amendment rights, but was fined by Mr Justice Eady in the UK in what remains, I believe a controversial decision.

I think in this case the problem is that it does not concern a dispute in law where verifiable facts can determine the outcome one way or another -however absurd the claims made by the Mormon Church may appear to be to some people, I don't see how any court of law can prove that the tenets of the faith are fraudulent if enough adherent believe them to be true.

The wider issue in law is of 'Universal jurisdiction' -can a person from one country be indicted from a crime by another country for a crime that was not committed there? The case of Adolf Eichmann first raised this issue as he committed his crimes in the 1940s on behalf of the German Government, mostly in occupied Poland; was illegally abducted in Argentina in 1960 and put on trial in Israel, which did not exist at the time of the crimes. The case of General Pinochet of Chile is another -indicted in 1998 by a Spanish Court and arrested under an international warrant in the UK a few weeks later and detained under arrest in the UK until being released in 2000.

Finally there is the case of Tzipi Livni who was indicted in 2009 for violations against Palestinians in the 'Operation Cast Lead' in Gaza shortly before visiting the UK at a time when she was a Minister in the Israeli government -to avoid the possibility of her arrest she did not enter the country, and the summons was revoked shortly after. She called the summons 'an abuse of the British legal system', when she should have used the word 'English'.

[broncofan]

In 2003 Ehrenfeld -v- bin Mahfouz was a case in which a resident of the UK sued an Israeli-American over a book published in the USA (but not in the UK) over claims he, Khalid bin Mahfouz, funded terrorism. Ms Ehrenfeld then counter-sued in the US using her First Amendment rights, but was fined by Mr Justice Eady in the UK in what remains, I believe a controversial decision.

'.

I think it's controversial as well since her books were not published in England. It seems reasonable that someone should have to take some affirmative act to subject themselves to the jurisdiction of another country. Either publishing there, or marketing there, etc. Of course if there were universal jurisdiction then a crime taking place anywhere can be punished by a court whose jurisdiction covers all localities. Universal jurisdiction makes more sense for crimes where there has historically been a consensus on the elements constituting the crime.

We have a law in the U.S called the Alien Tort Statute that allowed suits by foreign nationals to be heard in our federal courts for acts that violate "the law of nations". If I'm not mistaken the courts have now tried to rein in this statute by requiring some sort of nexus to a U.S interest so that our courts are not a forum for civil suits covering any action violating customary international law. But anyhow, it is an interesting (and archaic) law that is fairly close to an assertion of universal jurisdiction. It is also a vaguely worded law since it provides a cause of action as I said for violating the law of nations, which really means whatever a plaintiff can prove there is broad international agreement on.

[robertlouis]

I don't think there's anything to debate regarding an individual's personal right to freedom of religious belief being attacked by a court system under the threat of a "warrant for arrest" for not appearing to respond to such a ludicrous and unconstitutional foreign assault on the first amendment. The entire suit and charge of fraud is not about money, finances, bribery or extortion. It's about the religion's Christian beliefs of creationism being tantamount to fraud according to this court case. The fact the British court itself has the audacity to threaten an American citizen with arrest for ignoring such an absurd summons is laughable. The day foreign court systems start summoning Americans to defend themselves against allegations of criminal conduct only illegal in said foreign country is a dark day for liberty.

If only the American courts showed that supposed magnanimity in their attempts to extradite the citizens of other countries.

And one other word: Guantanamo.

[broncofan]

The day foreign court systems start summoning Americans to defend themselves against allegations of criminal conduct only illegal in said foreign country is a dark day for liberty.

I don't disagree with anything except by degree. There isn't going to be an extradition. I think it was more serious when we picked up poor shepherds from Afghanistan and placed them in detention and then argued they should not have access to the historic writ of habeas corpus. Then when the courts said they should, Congress passed the Military Commissions Act of 2006 that stripped the Supreme Court of jurisdiction to hear habeas cases.

In Boumedienne v. Bush the Court said that prisoners at Guantanamo need to have access to the writ of habeas corpus or an adequate substitute. In the opinion, there is a long section about the origins of the writ, and how it traces back to the 13th Century in England. In fact, when our Constitution talks about how the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended except under certain circumstances, notice how it does not create the Writ. It presumes that we inherited it from the English.

This all goes to say, would you prefer to be a Mormon in the U.S being summoned to a court in England, or an innocent Arab being detained at Guantanamo with our government arguing that you don't deserve a day in court? In fact, arguing that you don't even deserve to have formal charges levied against you. I agree that the summons should not have been issued and should not be enforced, but let's not be disingenuous.

[Stavros]

A clarification may be in order here -the case against the Mormon church is being judged in England on the basis of the Church's activities in England. The two plaintiffs, Steve Bloor and Christopher Ralph both worked for the LDS in official capacities, and are claiming that the LDS is defrauding its members by misrepresentation. The head of the LDS is being indicted in much the same way as the Pope might be indicted for fraud in relation to what Roman Catholics believe. However, while Mormons are encouraged to pay a tithe, they are not obliged to, so the belief that financial transactions are fundamental to membership of the LDS cannot be proven. I cannot understand why the Magistrate, Elizabeth Roscoe allowed this case to continue.
Details of the case can be found here:
http://mormondisclosures.blogspot.co...-to-court.html


The broader issue of 'universal jurisdiction' raises some important questions, but is not relevant to Guantanamo. In this case, the USA declined to treat the perpetrators of 9/11 as common criminals, even though the men tried and convicted of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing were tried as civilians in a civilian court. When Dick Cheney stated that " terrorists don’t deserve the same guarantees and safeguards that would be used for an American citizen going through the normal judicial process.” he actually agreed with the men concerned that they were 'warriors' and that their attack on the USA was an 'act of war' thereby giving them a political legitimacy that was denied to the 1993 criminals.

In theory, a Military Tribunal to try 'enemy combatants' was seen, historically, as a rapid mode of justice used by the military during or after a war, whereas the process in Guantanamo has been anything but rapid. Moreover, while the surviving higher officials of the Nazi Party were tried by a Military Tribunal in Nuremburg, Adolf Eichmann was tried in a criminal court in Jerusalem, which at the very least suggests either a confusion in law, or a choice of options where the reasoning for one over the other is obscure.

I think the concept of 'universal jurisdiction' is often moral rather than legal -that many people think the cases against Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein and General Pinochet, for example, had moral depth as well as legal justification (and Pinochet was tried in Chile, and Saddam Hussein in Iraq).

But the reason why governments around the world are terrified of 'universal jurisdiction' is the same reason why Human Rights has become a double-edged sword. If it is true that as a result of their policies, people have been killed directly, or died indirectly -from wounds, disease, even despair- then the moral case to prosecute the persons responsible appears to be strong. But just as Human Rights cannot select which humans have them, so the accusations levelled at Pol Pot could be levelled at, say, Tony Blair, not in terms of the numbers killed or the ideological cause behind it, but simply as a case of a policy that was implemented that led to the deaths of X,000 people.

Indeed, a barman and part-time Disc Jockey, Twiggy Garcia, while working in the Tramshed in Shoreditch in the east end of London, realised Tony Blair was there with friends and family, and laid a hand on his shoulder and said:
“Mr Blair, this is a citizen's arrest for a crime against peace, namely your decision to launch an unprovoked war against Iraq. I am inviting you to accompany me to a police station to answer the charge.”
Blair was debating Saddam Hussein's crimes and Syria while one of his son's went downstairs to fetch security, illuminating the limits of 'citizen's arrest' in the UK, or the possibility that it is not always the best way to apprehend someone you think has committed a crime.

Double-edged sword = double standardss -'we' want to prosecute 'them' for crimes against humanity; what 'we ' don't want, is 'them' arresting 'us' for the same crimes.

And here is Twiggy Garcia....



http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/tony-...ce=vicetwitter

[kittyKaiti]

If only the American courts showed that supposed magnanimity in their attempts to extradite the citizens of other countries.

And one other word: Guantanamo.

I don't disagree with anything except by degree. There isn't going to be an extradition. I think it was more serious when we picked up poor shepherds from Afghanistan and placed them in detention and then argued they should not have access to the historic writ of habeas corpus. Then when the courts said they should, Congress passed the Military Commissions Act of 2006 that stripped the Supreme Court of jurisdiction to hear habeas cases.

In Boumedienne v. Bush the Court said that prisoners at Guantanamo need to have access to the writ of habeas corpus or an adequate substitute. In the opinion, there is a long section about the origins of the writ, and how it traces back to the 13th Century in England. In fact, when our Constitution talks about how the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended except under certain circumstances, notice how it does not create the Writ. It presumes that we inherited it from the English.

This all goes to say, would you prefer to be a Mormon in the U.S being summoned to a court in England, or an innocent Arab being detained at Guantanamo with our government arguing that you don't deserve a day in court? In fact, arguing that you don't even deserve to have formal charges levied against you. I agree that the summons should not have been issued and should not be enforced, but let's not be disingenuous.

I don't agree with U.S. government foreign policies, nor did I say or imply I did. Both Bush and Obama are war criminals, to be honest, along with much of their executive cabinets during their administrations, as well as acts of treason against the U.S. Constitution.

[broncofan]

I don't agree with U.S. government foreign policies, nor did I say or imply I did. Both Bush and Obama are war criminals, to be honest, along with much of their executive cabinets during their administrations, as well as acts of treason against the U.S. Constitution.

No harm no foul.

The reason the British engage in acts that violate our first amendment is because they have chosen to emphasize a different set of values. To me the real question is not whether we agree with them but whether someone behaved in a way that should subject them to their jurisdiction and their set of policy choices. I personally think all countries need to show some restraint in asserting jurisdiction where it appears a plaintiff has chosen their forum to litigate based purely on the likelihood of a favorable outcome. The U.S is an attractive forum for litigants in a number of disputes that should more naturally be waged elsewhere as well.

There has been a lot of discussion about libel tourism in the UK. And while I think the libel laws in England are a bit too restrictive in that they only require someone to utter a falsehood to be subjected to liability, I can see why some would think the malice standard we require here is unreasonable. Imagine someone makes a completely irresponsible statement about a public figure on an issue of public concern, and they could have avoided doing so if only they had performed a little bit of research. Does that rise to the level of malice or recklessness? No. Maybe negligence, which is the standard we use for private figures on matters of public concern. I think that should be the standard set for all types of defamation, but it has been determined that negligence does not meet first amendment scrutiny for defamation cases involving public figures.

I also remember the French were up in arms over the pictures of likely rapist Dominique Strauss-Kahn being paraded around in handcuffs before trial. Free press v. presumption of innocence and the possibility of tainting a future panel of jurors. It always seems to rankle some people when they see their citizens subjected to a different set of policy choices (see my posts about the Amanda Knox trial). I would be interested to hear a discussion between legal scholars on the relative merits of each country's policy choices on speech and other conflicting values.

[broncofan]

I would be interested to hear a discussion between legal scholars on the relative merits of each country's policy choices on speech and other conflicting values.

Actually I say this out of more than intellectual interest. It would probably be an impetus for reform. I can imagine we wouldn't find it to be too grave a restriction of the press to withhold pictures of an overweight rapist being paraded around in shackles. Maybe the English would provide a more tiered system for libel suits depending upon the public interest in the information that turned out to be false...or failing that some means of precluding suits in which their forum was chosen simply based on the likelihood of success at trial and not because the events in question really had a profound effect there.

[Stavros]

I also remember the French were up in arms over the pictures of likely rapist Dominique Strauss-Kahn being paraded around in handcuffs before trial. Free press v. presumption of innocence and the possibility of tainting a future panel of jurors. It always seems to rankle some people when they see their citizens subjected to a different set of policy choices (see my posts about the Amanda Knox trial). I would be interested to hear a discussion between legal scholars on the relative merits of each country's policy choices on speech and other conflicting values.

I believe that it will be a criminal offence for a member of the jury to access internet information on any case they are there to judge, whether it is accessed by computer, iPad, phone, Facebook or whatever. There is already a problem with 'high profile' cases either because of their notoriety, such as in murder cases, or if the accused is a well-known stage/tv performer.

I think the point about libel in the UK is that if an appellant wants they can sue because the facts are wrong and the published version, they believe, damages them in some way, whereas in the US malice aforethought must be proven. In any case, the cost of litigation means that only people with access to substantial sums of money can afford to bring libel cases.