Tom Phillips said if the jury found Mr. Monson not guilty it would have been because Mr. Monson and his attorneys will use “trickery” to get the not guilty verdict. Who used trickery on the judge to get the judge to throw the lawsuit out?

It is a short opinion–only three pages–which can be found at http://img.ksl.com/slc/2516/251638/25163829.pdf

Here are excerpts from the decision:

***

“The information on which the summonses are based is contained in correspondence from Mr Phillips to the court from October 2013 to January 2014.

***

“These two summonses both state that failure to attend may result in a warrant being issued for Mr Monson’s arrest. It is common ground that that is wrong.

***

“The way the information was put before the court over a period of time makes it hard to isolate the essential ingredients. I have looked for a direct assertion that Mr Monson made the specific representations set out in the summonses. To this end I have read the 120 pages provided by the prosecutor [Mr Phillips]. I invited Mr Bird [Phillips' attorney] to take me to the relevant passages. In the paperwork I find assertions that Mr Monson “has caused to be made statements of fact which are untrue”; assertions that as President of the Church Mr Monson is responsible for statements of the Church; numerous assertions that Mr Monson knew false statements were being made; and assertions that Church doctrine makes the particular statements averred. It would be relatively easy to state explicitly that Mr Monson has made these specific representations, and when and how the misrepresentations were made. This has not been done.

“Even if Mr Monson has made the representations complained of, the basis for the complaint that he made them dishonestly (or intending a gain or a loss) is too tenuous. It is not sufficient to found a criminal prosecution.

“I do not accept that the essential elements of the offence are present in the information as presented to me.

“Is the prosecution vexatious?

“It is obvious that this proposed prosecution attacks the doctrine and beliefs of the Mormon Church, and is aimed at those beliefs rather than any wrong-doing of Mr Monson personally. The purpose is to use criminal proceedings to expose the false (it is said) facts on which the church is based.

“It is inevitable that the prosecution would never reach a jury, even if Mr Monson chooses to attend. To convict, a jury would need to be sure that the religious teachings of the Mormon Church are untrue or misleading. That proposition is at the heart of the case. No judge in a secular court in England and Wales would allow that issue to be put to a jury. It is non-justiciable.

“I am satisfied that the process of the court is being manipulated to provide a high-proflle forum to attack the religious beliefs of others. It is an abuse of the process of the court.”

***

The 70 should come forward and identify himself and his convictions. I don’t intend on developing my full argument here, but simply I think this man over values his influence and under values honesty, personal integrity and doesn’t properly value those he is supposed to lead. The idea that it is better to keep people in the dark by one’s efforts, position, and authority is the ultimate affront to human dignity. Especially when the desire to exercise this control arises from determining that to do so is best for them. I could say more, but doubt there is much point.

If history has proven anything about Mormonism and similar movements, it will survive any crisis. There is a core of believers who will never leave, no matter what happens. This 70 could go and do a favour for those who would likely leave anyway over time and allow those who stay to be greatful for their own righteousness and sense of proximity to the second coming as even the very elect are deceived.

To continue to participate in a deliberate deception by stealthily attempting to change what the book of Abraham is and other things is to play a dark role indeed.