Head of Mormon Church Summoned to Appear in Court in London

From today's Telegraph:

Head of Mormon church Thomas Monson summoned by British magistrates' court over Adam and Eve teaching

Thomas S Monson, president of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, ordered to appear before British magistrate's court amid claims that the organisation's teaching amounts to 'fraud'

A British magistrate has issued an extraordinary summons to the worldwide leader of the Mormon church alleging that its teachings about mankind amount to fraud.

Thomas S. Monson, President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has been ordered to appear at Westminster Magistrates’ Court in London next month to defend the church’s doctrines including beliefs about Adam and Eve and Native Americans.

A formal summons signed by District Judge Elizabeth Roscoe warns Mr Monson, who is recognised by Mormons as God’s prophet on Earth, that a warrant for his arrest could be issued if he fails to make the journey from Salt Lake City, Utah, for a hearing on March 14.

In one of the most unusual documents ever issued by a British court, it lists seven teachings of the church, including that Native Americans are descended from a family of ancient Israelites as possible evidence of fraud.

It also cites the belief that the Book of Mormon was translated from ancient gold plates revealed to the church’s founder Joseph Smith by angels and that Adam and Eve lived around 6,000 years ago.

The document suggests that asking members of the church to make contributions while promoting theological doctrines which “might be untrue or misleading” could be a breach of the Fraud Act 2006.
The Church dismissed the summons as containing “bizarre allegations” and signalled that Mr Monson has no plans to attend.
It was issued in response to a private prosecution attempt by Tom Phillips, a disaffected former Mormon who now runs MormonThink a website highly critical of the church.
Under little-used legal procedures, people who say they have evidence that someone has committed a crime can ask a magistrate to issue a summons requiring them to attend a court hearing.
The district judge would then decide whether or not to proceed with a case or dismiss it.
Similar procedures were used by Palestinian activist in 2009 to have an arrest warrant issued against the Israeli justice minister Tzipi Livni, leading to an international diplomatic incident.
Two virtually identical summonses were sent to Mr Monson naming Stephen Bloor, a former Mormon bishop, and Christopher Denis Ralph, another former convert, as victims of the alleged fraud.
It argues that by being persuaded to pay a tithe to the church on the basis of teachings which might not be true, the president could have committed fraud.
Among teachings it singles out as suspect are the assertion that the Book of Mormon was “translated from ancient gold plates by Joseph Smith [and] is the most correct book on Earth and is an ancient historical record” and that the Mormons’ Book of Abraham, was translated from Egyptian papyri by Joseph Smith.
Other beliefs cited include the assertion that “Native Americans are descended from an Israelite family which left Jerusalem in 600 BC” and that “all humans alive today are descended from just two people who lived approximately 6,000 years ago.”
The document then demands that Mr Monson appears in court number six at Westminster Magistrates’ Court on Marylebone Road at 10am on March 14 or face arrest.
Malcolm Adcock, the church’s public affairs director for Europe, said: “The Church occasionally receives documents like this that seek to draw attention to an individual’s personal grievance or embarrass church leaders.
“These bizarre allegations fit into that category.”
But Mr Phillips said: “The head of the Mormon Church has been summoned to a court to answer allegations of fraud – I don’t think a judge at Westminster Magistrates’ Court would sign off on ‘bizarre allegations’ – I certainly hope they never would.
“This has been a very serious matter that has been looked at in extreme detail.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/reli...-teaching.html

Bold going after a Church for fraud or anything. Respect. I wish my country had the balls to go after the Catholic Church. All the racial diversity in my city's politics but also all frightened Catholics that used to be afraid of Cardinal Mahony.

LA's Cardinal Mahoney covered up child sex abuse - YouTube

If the Church were passing off lies as truth and selling it to unsuspecting suckers, that might be fraud. But spreading falsehoods which they themselves believe to be true and accepting donations from suckers to continue to spread the word is probably not deliberate fraud.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

If the Church were passing off lies as truth and selling it to unsuspecting suckers, that might be fraud. But spreading falsehoods which they themselves believe to be true and accepting donations from suckers to continue to spread the word is probably not deliberate fraud.

---

Nothing to do with The Bible but The Catholic Church does give you the belief your donations help the poor and needy. I'm not a lawyer, just an angry citizen.

They'll allow Cosa Nostra to marry as long as the envelope is heavy enough so...

Jesse Ventura: Catholic Church should be prosecuted using RICO laws - YouTube

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

But spreading falsehoods which they themselves believe to be true and accepting donations from suckers to continue to spread the word is probably not deliberate fraud.

---

That is true. For true fraud, need to know you're selling a false bill of goods. Somewhere there's a tort for negligent misrepresentation but I think that's only for sale of goods.

Also, maybe some strange carve-outs that prevent religious organizations from getting sued because of the fear that it would violate the free exercise clause. For instance, religious organizations are allowed to violate anti-discrimination laws because forcing them to comply would presumably prevent them from practicing their religion free from government interference. So very difficult to hale religious groups into court here.

With the exception of its recent vintage, I don't see how there's anything unique about Mormonism that should make it susceptible to a suit based on its religious tenets. As Dino said, maybe religious organizations actually could be sued if they say "we're earmarking this money for flood victims" and they instead give it to members of the clergy. But I can't imagine they can be sued based on proselytizing their system of beliefs, no matter how outlandish they may seem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

With the exception of its recent vintage, I don't see how there's anything unique about Mormonism that should make it susceptible to a suit based on its religious tenets. As Dino said, maybe religious organizations actually could be sued if they say "we're earmarking this money for flood victims" and they instead give it to members of the clergy. But I can't imagine they can be sued based on proselytizing their system of beliefs, no matter how outlandish they may seem.

---

I am not sure 'unique' is the word. This is an example of permissive legislation where an individual court can decide if it wants to issue summons based on a 'liberal' interpretation of the law. We have a more permissive law on libel in the UK which is why there are more cases here than there are in the USA and why some have sought to pursue a libel action here rather than in the USA -there I believe it must be proven that the libel was malicious, whereas here it only needs to be proven true.

I think the weakness in this case that Trish and Broncofan have identified, is also made worse by the fact that members of the Church, as far as I know, are not compelled to make financial contributions or where membership of the church is dependent on having paid a fee, rather in the way that, as an example, membership of the Labour Party requires the payment of an annual fee. It is not as if you hand over $10 and then find that the founding beliefs are phoney, and can't get the money back.

My argument against Scientology as a religion is based precisely on the view that to join it means becoming locked into a process of 'enlightenment' but that every stage of the process must be paid for and without paying a fee, you cannot become 'clear' -whereas religion in my view is and ought always to be free.

This is a case brought by a disaffected Mormon who wants to expose what he sees as weaknesses in Mormon beliefs in a case I don't think he can win. The criminal element only comes in if Mr Morson defies the Court and refuses to appear.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dino Velvet

Nothing to do with The Bible but The Catholic Church does give you the belief your donations help the poor and needy. I'm not a lawyer, just an angry citizen.

They'll allow Cosa Nostra to marry as long as the envelope is heavy enough so...

---

At the risk of diverting the thread, this report by the UN on institutionally condoned child abuse in the catholic church is a rather momentous document, although the authors have given the church an escape route by including other issues.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26044852

I'm no fan of religion; nevertheless, I find it disturbing anytime the law is used to question a personal or religious belief system. Personally, I think he should write "Go Fuck Yourself" on the summons and mail it back.

Yet, the law should be invoked to prevent pregnant women from aborting the tiny souls that have attached themselves to their fertilized eggs.

More seriously, it should perhaps be invoked to protect children from the miseducation they receive when home schooled by pious, anti-science parents. In the U.S. neither home schooling nor private schooling is subject to the mandates, regulation and testing required of public schools. The result is children who are even worse than the average American at mathematics, science, writing, geography and history.

Speaking of history, Joseph Smith really was a con man and his religion was a fraud. In 1844 there might have been a strong case for a suit. Instead he was lynched by an angry mob for burning down the town's newspaper.

When I see religious "leaders" like Pat Robertson performing miracles on TV and growing fat off the donations of the misled pious I always wonder, "Are they fooling themselves too, or are they just shrewd, cynical con artists through and through?"

I agree with most of the above sentiments, that no matter how absurd some of the claims made by religion sound, where people choose to believe and are not forced into behaving in an illegal way or being forced to part company with money, the judgement is moral rather than legal. I think that religion is open to prosecution when its institutions break the law, be it financial. or in the case of the Roman Catholic Church, when its priests abuse children in their care, and while it may reflect badly on the Church it is hardly a meaningful attack on Christianity. I wonder, could a retired metal worker in Russia sue the Communist Party for not providing him with a worker's paradise?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

Yet, the law should be invoked to prevent pregnant women from aborting the tiny souls that have attached themselves to their fertilized eggs.

More seriously, it should perhaps be invoked to protect children from the miseducation they receive when home schooled by pious, anti-science parents. In the U.S. neither home schooling nor private schooling is subject to the mandates, regulation and testing required of public schools. The result is children who are even worse than the average American at mathematics, science, writing, geography and history.

Speaking of history, Joseph Smith really was a con man and his religion was a fraud. In 1844 there might have been a strong case for a suit. Instead he was lynched by an angry mob for burning down the town's newspaper.

When I see religious "leaders" like Pat Robertson performing miracles on TV and growing fat off the donations of the misled pious I always wonder, "Are they fooling themselves too, or are they just shrewd, cynical con artists through and through?"

---

I'll sidestep the abortion issue so as not to run astray. When it comes to adults, religion is a matter of what they choose to believe or think, and the government should have no place in that. As for children, while I might wish that less of them had to endure what I see as myth teachings, it still comes down to leaving parents the freedom to raise their own children. The alternative is that some other segment of society gets to decide what everyone has to think or believe, and that strikes me as being a form of extreme oppression.

Btw, I'd characterize Joseph Smith as a con-artist too; I just don't think it should be up to me, you, or anyone else to tell someone that they have to agree with that assessment.

Yeah, we wouldn't want to live in a society where all children went to real schools and all schools were held to the same standards. We wouldn't want to live in a place where everyone was compelled to believe that 455/5 = 91 or to believe that Iraq and Iran are different countries.

Foreign government attempting to charge an American with a crime for their religious beliefs. LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL. Monson should just pick up a good old American AR-15 and tell the Redcoat scum to come and get him. Just because England doesn't have a Bill of Rights, doesn't mean we don't either. It's called the 1st Amendment, which protects religious liberty. The United Kingdom can go fuck itself.

Additionally, this opens up a flood of BS foreign criminal prosecutions and suits against sovereign American citizens for a multitude of things that are "illegal" under the laws in said foreign countries. Imagine getting a summons to appear in Saudi court for being transsexual.

Imagine being penned up in gitmo because a warlord was said you were a terrorist.

This Courtroom tried and hung Jamie Michelle for her religious beliefs, then again she wasn't summoned, and she didn't force her beliefs on anyone.
I remember my Catholic friend's Mom had nothing against homosexuals, but she didn't want them teaching her kids in school.
This was back when Catholic Priests were the most trustworthy babysitters you could find.

The Amish clashed with the government when they didn't want their kids going past eighth grade, because farmers don't need the DEVIL'S WORK that is High School. The Amish won in court.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by buttslinger

This Courtroom tried and hung Jamie Michelle for her religious beliefs, then again she wasn't summoned, and she didn't force her beliefs on anyone.
I remember my Catholic friend's Mom had nothing against homosexuals, but she didn't want them teaching her kids in school.
This was back when Catholic Priests were the most trustworthy babysitters you could find.

The Amish clashed with the government when they didn't want their kids going past eighth grade, because farmers don't need the DEVIL'S WORK that is High School. The Amish won in court.

---

You mean our Jamie Michelle and the Court of Hung Angels?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

You mean our Jamie Michelle and the Court of Hung Angels?

---

Yes, the Hung Jury. haw haw.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

Imagine being penned up in gitmo because a warlord was said you were a terrorist.

---

Or if you were dumb enough to have the same name and just happened to be on the wrong street....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by buttslinger

Yes, the Hung Jury. haw haw.

---

Good one. But just one correction. Jamie claims in every other post that the omega point theory and the existence of the Christian God follows with ironclad logic from the currently accepted laws of physics. That's not a religious claim. It's a claim about what conclusions strictly follow from the premises of general relativity and quantum field theory.

IF......

You are in an organized religion where you believe that by loving God you will most assuredly fly through the plate of this earth and re-unite with a God that is the future of all mankind, the Father of us all, the peace that defies all understanding, then it's not so hard to understand why blind faith is so important. Like a version of a Zen Monastery where you completely ignore the world until enlightenment, then you understand.
No one who has seen God is going to tell you it wasn't that great, and unless you fall off your horse and see God through a heat stroke, you'll never see God unless you make a determined effort to see God.
You have to admit Jamie has imagination off the charts. You should never let the facts get in the way of a great story!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kittyKaiti

Foreign government attempting to charge an American with a crime for their religious beliefs. LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL. Monson should just pick up a good old American AR-15 and tell the Redcoat scum to come and get him. Just because England doesn't have a Bill of Rights, doesn't mean we don't either. It's called the 1st Amendment, which protects religious liberty. The United Kingdom can go fuck itself.

Additionally, this opens up a flood of BS foreign criminal prosecutions and suits against sovereign American citizens for a multitude of things that are "illegal" under the laws in said foreign countries. Imagine getting a summons to appear in Saudi court for being transsexual.

---

1) The summons has been issues by Westminster Magistrates Court, not by the Government of the United Kingdom; and

2) A Bill of Rights was passed by the United Kingdom Parliament in 1689, which means it preceded the Bill of Rights presented to the US Congress in 1789. I think that is a gap of 100 years, but maths is not my strongest feature so you might want to double check it. I could be out by a few months.

I know this is meant to be serious, but this is good:)

South Park Tells About the Foundation of Mormonism and Joseph Smith - YouTube

Sammi, I am sure I speak for many when I say your barbed interjections are always welcome...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

Sammi, I am sure I speak for many when I say your barbed interjections are always welcome...

---

its my gift for you all, dear sir. ;-)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

1) The summons has been issues by Westminster Magistrates Court, not by the Government of the United Kingdom; and

2) A Bill of Rights was passed by the United Kingdom Parliament in 1689, which means it preceded the Bill of Rights presented to the US Congress in 1789. I think that is a gap of 100 years, but maths is not my strongest feature so you might want to double check it. I could be out by a few months.

---

I suppose you could add in the sadly too-typical American reaction of "Fuck debate, where's my gun?", but that would be churlish, wouldn't it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SammiValentine

its my gift for you all, dear sir. ;-)

---

Nice avatar missy. Now, what were you saying?

Oops, deja vu, deja dit. :dancing:

Going off of the topic slightly but keeping in with the Mormons....

I rescued a Chihuahua about 12 months ago.. I couldn't house train her for love nor money, couldn't keep her in the house no matter how much I tried, even at night she wanted to be outside... so I gave in and let her have her way... she lived happily outside at a friends yard alongside a Rottweiler (They adored each other)... she was in her element... she had warmth, food and 24/7 company ...

Anyway..... she was stollen by a Mormon 3 months ago!

We checked the CCTV footage when we realised she had gone and wow and behold the Morman nabbed her!

I did confront him, he denied it until I mentioned the CCTV, he then confessed yet refused to give her back! :-(

x

Thought I'd share.... back to your discussion! ;-)

Are you sure you don't mean Moron? How would have known the person who took the dog as a Mormon, and isn't that against their faith? Or maybe they thought the dogs as abandoned? Weird, but if you choose to live in London, this is what happens....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by robertlouis

I suppose you could add in the sadly too-typical American reaction of "Fuck debate, where's my gun?", but that would be churlish, wouldn't it?

---

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.

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'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kittyKaiti

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kittyKaiti

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.

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://assets.vice.com/content-image...y%20Garcia.jpg

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by robertlouis

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

And one other word: Guantanamo.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kittyKaiti

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

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.