The Administration of Justice

Religious Contracts Made to Obtain Tithing Money: The Mormon Theological Breach/Unjust Enrichment

Are there such things as enforceable religious contracts that may be made between human beings and entities called churches, in the same context as people engage in contracts with corporations, companies, governments, or with other people? A contract is simply defined as an offer made by a person, company, or business entity to another person, company, or business entity, which, if accepted, is based upon a certain consideration that might be money, a service, or a promise that certain events will occur for the benefit of both the offeror and offeree. In other words, I might offer John an apple for the sum of $1.00. If John likes the apple, and wants to obtain it, he will accept my offer and tender the required consideration of $1.00, which will allow him to obtain the apple. Hence, there are many types of contracts that are taken very seriously by, both, the offeror and offeree. One of the most complex types of contracts is a church’s offer of spiritual products, in the name of a deity, for a person’s promise to obey the commandments imposed by that church. For instance, if agents of a church make an offer to a person that, if he, or she, will strictly obey the commandments imposed by that church, the spirit of that person will, after death, go to a paradise and remain there for eternity, the proselyted person will, either, accept, or reject, the offer based upon the representation made by the agents. Such a representation would be much like Goethe’s “Faustus,” where a man sells his soul to the devil for power and influence while alive on the earth. Of course, while “Faustus” is purely fictional fantasy, there are churches that actually represent that they are the only medium or conduit through which mortal man may communicate with deity and through which, so to speak, mankind get to heaven. These churches have their own very ethnocentric scriptures, which, they claim, were obtained from deity via a centrally organizing character, usually called a prophet. These churches claim to possess powers that other churches don’t possess because of the lack of proper ecclesiastical authority. This tendency of a particular religious organization, or denomination, to proclaim unique power only reposed in that particular organization is what I shall refer to as religiocentricity.

When agents of these purely religiocentric churches, or cults, seek converts through active proselytizing and by making representations about what the churches have to offer, some people are immediately cajoled into believing and converting to that particular church’s standards and requirements, and others are never persuaded. One church in particular, the Mormon (LDS) Church, makes missionary representations about its theology, which are not, in the least bit, true in order to obtain converts. In other words, lies are told. Tens-of -thousands of full-time Mormon missionaries are constantly throughout the USA, and the world, offering individual men and women, and families, around the world a, supposedly, Christian theology that is actually a total misrepresentation of real Mormon theology. Millions of Christians have, during the dawn of the 20th Century, been induced by these false representations into joining the Mormon Church by baptism, thereby undertaking the tangible demands of Mormonism. Here is where the contract concept applies to the acceptance of a church’s theology by a person to whom the theology was fraudulently misrepresented by agents of the church; which is the proximate cause of the defrauded convert to seriously accept the demands, rules, and regulations based upon deliberate lies. In the case of a new Mormon convert, the most important mandated religiocentric rule to which a newly converted person must commit before baptism is the payment of a full-tithe of gross income to the Mormon Church. Believe me when I say that a person won’t be baptized into the Mormon Church without making this commitment. A formerly Christian convert to Mormonism is induced by the Mormon agent missionaries to believe that what the Book of Mormon, the “alleged” keystone of Mormon theology, says about God is true Mormon theology; that God is a Spirit with no beginning and no end, a Trinitarian Spirit that has never changed; and that Jesus Christ, God the Father, and the Holy Spirit are one Trinitarian God.

Yes, this is what the 1830 Book of Mormon entailed as the theology that Joseph Smith, Jr. wrote into the fictional 19th Century apocrypha between 1820 and 1830. Then, later, between 1831 and 1835, Smith met a follow of Alexander Campbell’s Disciples of Christ, a preacher by the name of Sidney Rigdon, who added his specious knowledge of the Holy Bible to Smith’s heretical imagination to produce a reconstructed Mormon theology that was as heretical, un-Christian, and unbiblical as the Islamic Koran. When this new pagan theology was introduced by Joseph Smith Jr., the Book of Mormon was extensively edited, later, in 1838, in an attempt to make the original Christian Book of Mormon theology conform, to some extent, with the unChristian scriptures written, and spoken, later by Joseph Smith Jr. While the 1830 Book of Mormon could not have been defended, in any way, form, or fashion as a book of divine origin, the Mormon missionary agenda was created by Smith and his successors in order for lies were contrived about the origin and content of the Book of Mormon to make it seem more credible to struggling Christians who believed in Jesus, but were ignorant of biblical scripture and prophecy. These material misrepresentations began the Mormon ritual of “lying for the Mormon lord.” The primary focus of real Mormon theology was the 1845 King Follett Discourse proclaimed by Joseph Smith Jr. during an LDS General Conference, in Nauvoo, Illinois, the year of his subsequent lynching and death in Carthage, Illinois. These theological ramblings of Smith added the heretical dimension of polytheism to what he had created between 1835 and 1839 in his fictional book, the “Book of Abraham,” a book he claimed was the product of his translation of Egyptian funeral papyri that he had acquired in 1835 from a seller of Egyptian antiquities. Having charismatically persuaded his disciples, in Kirtland, Ohio, that the Egyptian papyri had been personally written 5,000 years before the birth of Christ by the Prophet and Patriarch Abraham, and that he, and he alone, was able to translate it, the concept of the plurality of gods was introduced in his fictional book. In his 1844 King Follett Discourse, Smith defined the ritualistic polytheistic manner in which Mormon gods were perpetuated, which was expanded by the second Mormon Prophet, Brigham Young, in the first written Mormon temple liturgy in 1877 that he delivered before his death, later in 1877.

The current statement of real Mormon theology has been presented to the presiding Mormon Melchizedek Priesthood in written form, outside the venue of the Mormon temple (there are 149 operating Mormon temples throughout the world) approximately every 25 years since 1900. The most recent statement of real Mormon theology was presented in written form to the Mormon Melchizedek Priesthood, as a refinement of the comprehensive verbal statements of the first Mormon Prophet, Joseph Smith, Jr., in 1844, and the Mormon Prophet Lorenzo Snow, in 1896, about Mormon polytheism, in 1984 in the Melchizedek Priesthood Study Guide, “Search These Commandments,” in the form of “Lesson 21 -“Man May Become Like God.” In this written lesson, the expanded couplet coined by Lorenzo Snow, “As man is God once was, and as God is, man may become,” was succinctly explained in the context of the 1844 “King Follett Discourse” of Joseph Smith, Jr. The reason that the real theology of Mormonism is published so rarely and only talked about and extolled in the Mormon temples is because of plausible deniability in the face of the lies that are told by Mormon missionaries to people who are investigating Mormonism, called “investigators.”

As a brief summation of real and correct of Mormon theology, the Mormon (LDS) Church believes and maintains that the Mormon father-god, the father of Jesus Christ, was once a human man who was biologically born, and lived, on some planet in the cosmos; who followed the laws and commandments of Mormonism and, later, died, was resurrected and awarded the highest degree of celestial opportunity, called exaltation, wherein he was transformed into a god, with a capital G, and given limited power to organize, not create (Mormon gods are bound according to the earthly laws of physics), an earth of his own, and to procreate billions of spirit children, with his Mormon goddess wife, in order to populate his earth on the spirits obtaining mortal bodies. This process of Mormon godhood, in “Lesson 21” is further expanded by an explanation that all worthy Mormon elders (holders of the Melchizedek Priesthood) have the destiny of becoming as great as their Mormon father-god, with a capital G, by becoming, themselves, Mormon father-gods, with a capital G, to be able to do all that their father-god, with a capital G, was able to do. Brigham Young, in 1868 during a Mormon General Conference, in Salt Lake City, proclaimed that “there are as many Gods as there are stars, and as many saviors as there are Gods.” This additional principle of real Mormon theology is the main point of theological emphasis that the Mormon missionaries, in the 21st Century, want to hide from the prospective Mormons, with whom they connect in their door-to-door proselyting. What this means is that every Mormon elder, on the earth, who becomes a Mormon god, with a capital G, procreates his own version of Jesus Christ, as saviors for their world. This, of course, blasphemously makes the real Christian Jesus, the one and only God of the universe, just another “savior,” who was biologically procreated to ritually die just in order to provide provide resurrection, not universal salvation, to all of the inhabitants of an earth in the past, present, and future.

The foregoing explication of genuine Mormon theology is what is presented with emphasis, as a commandment, in “Lesson 21.” So, it is quite obvious why the Mormon Church wants to hide, and lie about, the real theology of Mormonism from the hundreds-of-thousands of struggling Christians, to whom the tens-of thousands of full-time Mormon agent missionaries, and the hundreds-of-thousands of part-time ward (local Mormon congregations) missionaries who assist the full-time agent missionaries, present the five currently scripted presentations (called discussions) every calendar year, which don’t contain, to any degree, real Mormon theology.

Hence, the application of contract law to the Mormon missionary dissemination of false theological information to struggling Christians, who know nothing about Mormonism, and a subsequent offer of membership in the Mormon Church based upon this information, goes hand-in-hand with the offer, acceptance, and consideration requirements of all legally enforceable contracts. What is the tangible consideration that is required to consummate the contract? The Mormon missionaries are agents of the Mormon Church hierarchy who offer membership in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints by baptism to all struggling Christians who sincerely “promise” to do certain specific acts of obedience to Mormon commandments. One of these acts of obedience is the paying of a full-tithe (1/10th of a person’s gross income) to the Mormon Church. Now, if an enforceable contract is, supposedly” formed through the offer of membership by baptism for a promise of obedience between the Mormon convert and the Mormon Church, the other laws of contracts must also apply. If the material representations made by the Mormon Church are false, and the struggling Christians base their acceptance of Mormonism on false material misrepresentations, then the contract is, by contract doctrine, void on its face, and all consideration paid to the Mormon Church by those struggling Christians must be returned by the Mormon Church, just like the legal obligations any other corporation.

Just how much continuing consideration is received by the Mormon Church from the duped struggling Christian, and non-Christian, converts within the time that they remain members of the Mormon Church, before realizing that they have been deceived? Well, the breach of the contract is immediate and begins with any and all promises and actions made by convert to the Mormon Church, especially the payment of the first tithing payment to the agent ward bishop, to whom all Mormons are required to submit their tithing, in the form of checks and cash. Let’s then say that the husband and wife of a convert family makes $200,000 per year gross. That is a total gross tithing sum of $20,000 for one year of membership. In the year 2014, over 150,000 struggling Christians, and people from other religions, were induced to join the Mormon Church. If the average gross income of these 100,000 individuals was $100,000, the Mormon Church received approximately $10,000 x 100,000 = $1,000,000,000 of tithing payments during one calendar year. Now, the average approximate time that a new Mormon remains a member of the Mormon Church before he, or she, realizes the lies that have been told about Mormon theology is 4 years. Within that time, a new Mormon convert is prepped and indoctrinated to accept the Mormon temple rite, which is an epitome of the polytheistic theology. Within those four years, the amount of tithing money received by the Mormon Church from those 100,000 Mormon converts is $4 billion. Now, on considering that the Mormon Church is the wealthiest Church, per capita, on the face of the earth, and that the average income of the, approximately, 10,000,000 active Mormons is approximately $100,000 per year, 10,000,000 tithe-paying Mormons multiplied by $10,000 tithing per year, which yields $100 billion per year. With that gross yearly income, the Mormon Church hierarchy makes sizable business investments throughout the world, which yield considerable dividends every year for the LDS Church. Hence, isn’t it, therefore, quite obvious why the Mormon Church, in the year 2016, is worth nearly $700 billion dollars?

But, as the parodic bard would cleverly say, herein lies the awful rub, for even though the contract between the Mormon Church and every Mormon convert is voided, or breached, at the outset of the acceptance of the offer of membership, because of the false theological information upon which the acceptance is based, the Mormon Church has never returned any part of the consideration that they have received from the deliberately duped converts; that is, the tithing money paid in good faith to the Mormon Church, amounting to billions of dollars. Why hasn’t it been returned? The main, and only, reason is that the LDS Mormon Church would never voluntarily return a penny of tithing money to the deceived Christians who paid it. The only way that it would be returned is if the Mormon Church were forced by a court of law, and equity, to repay the billions of dollars to those duped converts, to whom it is rightfully owed. This also applies to all other religious organizations that manipulate the minds of their converts to cause them to pay money to those churches based upon false information and criminally fraudulent misrepresentations of church doctrine, rules, and theology.

So does the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution’s Bill of Rights, guaranteeing freedom of religion in the USA, protect the actions of such churches that deliberately deceive people into joining them, in order to induce those unwitting people to pay the churches tithing money based upon fraudulent and deliberate misrepresentations? Currently, of the, approximately, 11 million active tithe-paying Mormons in the world in 2016, there are approximately 5 million of them who have been “Mormons” for five years-or-less, who have been deceived into believing the false theology of Mormonism, and who ignorantly continue to labor under the false information. The other 6-to-7 million members are the true-blue Mormons, Latter-day Saints who have been procreated into the Church through a long lineage of Mormon ancestors. Most of these people, born into the Mormon Church, know the truth about real Mormon polytheistic theology. These are the fraudulent, if not criminally illicit, men and women who are, either, employed by the Mormon Church or are ward and stake defenders of the faith, known as professional or part-time Mormon apologists. Yes, the Mormon Church hierarchy employs their very sophistic members as professional apologists to “lie for the Mormon lord.” Every time websites are posted by Christian and, generally, anti-Mormon information groups exposing real Mormon theology, these paid professional Mormon apologists produce opposing websites in an attempt to neutralize, or totally diminish, the effect of truthful facts upon the mostly ignorant religious public.

Hence, if fraudulent multi-state insurance companies, which send their door-to-door salesmen agents out to sell insurance polices that the companies never intend to honor, can be federally indicted for fraud and racketeering, under the federal RICO Statute, religious organizations that do the same basic thing in every State, deriving illegal money from converts through their agents’ false theological representations, are equally culpable of criminal fraud. I see no difference. Total disclosure of the facts, and the truth, about what the people accepting the churches’ offers will receive in return for their faithful payment of a full-tithe of their income, is necessary for there not to be fraud. Criminal and tort action should, therefore, be taken by the U.S. Department of Justice against each, and every, church in the USA that are enriched through deliberate intentional misrepresentation of their theologies by their proselyting agent missionaries, in order for the unfortunate and deceived converts to receive reparation payments to restore the money that has been lost through church racketeering, and for the criminally offending church organizations to be punished for their criminal conduct.

American Justice In The 1800’s

Lynch mobs, posses, noon showdowns….clearly, laws have changed considerably over the last two centuries. In the 19th century as the American frontier was expanding, many times there were simply not enough lawmen to enforce the laws, or people decided to take matters into their own hands. At any rate, the justice system of the 1800s had some significant differences than the one of today, both formally and informally. Following are three examples of the different ways that justice was obtained, from civil means to downright barbaric acts, in the 19th century.

The lynching of Henry Smith – The lynch mobs of the 1800s provide one of the best examples chaotic and ruthless vigilante justice that has ever been shown. Barbaric by nature, these acts were often committed in the heat of the moment, when anger levels were high and the need for revenge was great. Sadly, many of the people executed were not even guilty of the offenses with which they had been charged, or their crimes were certainly not enough to warrant such a punishment. One of the most famous lynchings during this time period was that of Henry Smith in 1893. Smith was an ex-slave living in Texas when he was accused of the murder of a 3-year-old white girl, the daughter of a policeman. Though his role in the child’s murder was not certain, there would be no trial for Smith; once he was found, he would be forced to endure one of the most horrific acts of torture recorded in American history. Before of a crowd of 10,000 people eager to watch Smith suffer, he was tortured relentlessly before being burned alive. With his body lifeless on the ground, the crowd cheered their joy at justice having been served.

The work of Pinkerton detectives – The Pinkerton National Detective Agency provided another means to bring criminals to justice. Founded in 1850, the Pinkertons, as the detectives were known, managed to track hundreds of criminals to see justice served, including Jesse James, Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, and the Irish Molly Maguires. At one time the agency employed more agents than the U.S. Army had soldiers, and it had more mug shots than any other law enforcement agency in the country. Besides their fine detective skills, the Pinkertons were also well-known for their diligence in tracking and capturing known criminals, even following some across the several states. The detectives worked hard to see justice served, and it paid off. Though the agency no longer exists today as it did then, it is remembered as a successful law enforcement group that worked tirelessly to defend the rights and freedoms of law-abiding citizens and give criminals their due.

The murder trial of Octavius Barron – When Octavius Barron murdered William Lyman in 1837, he was granted a fair trial by the public in Rochester, New York. On the night of October 20, 18-year-old Barron pointed his pistol at the back of Lyman’s head and fired at point blank range. It didn’t take long for authorities to piece together what Barron had done; with his open bragging of the crime, his reputation as a less than respectable citizen, and even eye witness accounts, police officers were quick to find and arrest the young man. Charged with murder, Barron faced a trial that was scheduled to begin on May 28, 1838. Though it lasted only 10 days, the trial was a spectacle to behold for the citizens of Rochester, who packed the courthouse daily. Eager to hear all the details, jurors, attorneys, court employees, and the public listened intently to hours of argument from both the prosecution and the defense. All the while, Barron maintained his plea of not guilty. The jury spent only 15 minutes deciding the young man’s fate; he was guilty with a sentence to die. After his execution on July 25, 1838, the majority opinion was that justice had been served – a life for a life.

But the story of Octavius Barron and William Lyman doesn’t end there. You can learn more about the men, the murder, and the meaning of redemption with “Visions: True Stories of the Supernatural,” a documentary by Ad-Hoc Productions. Learn more about this fascinating tale at http://www.ad-hoc-productions.com/.

Law Schools Fighting For Human Rights

As human rights violations continue to occur around the globe, law schools are establishing human rights clinics to meet the ever increasing demand for human rights lawyers. These United States based institutions are not only working to strengthen their own communities, but also to train students and professors, organizations and professionals, who are working to strengthen these rights outside of the United States.

Even though the Universal Declaration of Human Rights forms the basis of International Human Rights Law, the Declaration itself is not legally binding. However, civil rights clinics are training lawyers to strengthen the enforcement of such rights and increase adherence to the agreements that several nation-states have signed.

While international law is a relatively young field, many distinguished law schools have created outstanding programs for aspiring civil rights lawyers and professors. At Columbia Law School’s Justice Clinic, students and professors focus on the cross cultural implications of international law, and encourage students to immerse themselves in today’s human and civil rights battles.

The clinic focuses on providing students with a number of different skills that are necessary in the field. For example, the clinic instructs students on how to conduct investigative research and interviews that are necessary for human rights cases. Unlike many other fields of law, these on the ground skills are necessary for learning how to identify human and civil rights abuses in a number of different settings and how to empower local organizations and lawyers to bring violators to trial.  

Similarly in Harvard Law School’s International Justice Clinic, students learn about these rights through current events. While the clinic is based in Cambridge, students regularly travel internationally to document human and civil rights abuses and promote respect for international law.

Harvard’s program also provides students with connections to dozens of organizations throughout the world that are seeking to bring human and civil rights cases to trial. The clinic provides funding for research during summer and winter breaks and free support to dozens of countries where human rights violations occur on a mass scale.

At Yale Law School, the Lowenstein Human Rights Project enables students to pursue human and civil rights on an extracurricular basis. In this clinic, small groups of students work together with public interest and human rights NGOs, conducting research, designing advocacy activities, and organizing events that bring further attention to human and civil rights violations in the United States and abroad.

Stanford Law School’s International Human Rights Clinic also works to integrate classroom learning with experience in the field. In recent years, Stanford has mandated that students’ first course is about the clash between International Human and Civil Rights Law and the United States actions in Guantanamo. This course is coupled with subsequent international travel where students help universities abroad establish human and civil rights clinics of their own. Last fall, Stanford’s Human and Civil Rights Clinic also started providing free coordination of international doctors and psychologists in order to train local medical professionals to deal with rights violations in their own countries.  

While several distinguished universities have established human and civil rights clinics, one of the most promising clinics was launched just last year, in August of 2008. The Sanela Diana Jenkins International Justice Clinic at UCLA is a unique interdisciplinary program that seeks to be focused and dynamic.

Established with a generous donation of $4 million from Diana Jenkins [http://www.dianajenkins.co.uk/], a refugee of the Bosnian war in Sarajevo, the clinic helps students and professors create and implement new advocacy strategies. By focusing on advocacy, the Jenkins International Justice Clinic hopes to teach lawyers how to draw national and international attention to human rights violations, creating the necessary pressure that inspires nation-states to enforce human and civil rights law.

In honor of Diana Jenkins and the schools commencement, students and faculty dedicated their first academic year to the war crimes committed in Bosnia and the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia.

As these human rights clinics continue to grow, their efforts will surely be seen in the coming years. Already their work has deeply influenced individuals and organizations in the United States and abroad and strengthened the implementation of international law. In the fight against human rights violations, these clinics are necessary for training the future’s leaders and strengthening international law around the world.

The Future of Crime and Punishment

Gilbert and Sullivan said in their much loved opera Mikado well over a 100 years ago:

“My object all sublime

I shall achieve in time –

To let the punishment fit the crime-

The punishment fit the crime”.

Since then the criminal justice system has been quite predictable and clear. Once a person is found to be guilty of a crime, through the procedures set by policing, laws, courts and juries, they are subjected to fines, imprisonment lasting from a few days to life or even the death penalty (in countries that still have this.) Though one may not always agree with the specific punishment dished out in a particular case, the principles behind it are clear. But once the nature of crimes change, how will it affect our justice system? Will the nature of punishment be forced to change too?

The law enforcers and the justice system seem to be caught napping, always one step behind. Thus we see airport security beefed up after 9/11, hotel security instituted after attacks on hotels and malls being protected by close circuit cameras and X-ray machines after malls have been targeted.

New technologies have put new weapons in the hands of criminals, often to disastrous effect. Cyber crimes are already very much part of today’s world, but how far can the cyber criminals go? One of the biggest crimes so far has been that of a hacking attack that stole over 105 million records, and over a billion email addresses. These could lead the criminals to bank account details, health records and corporate networks, personal details that could be used for blackmail purposes, apart from a myriad of other uses.

Manipulation of close circuit cameras and X-ray machines at strategic location also gives access to people carrying unlawful weapons, bombs and other material. Are we about to witness a new epidemic of airplane hijacking, assassinations of leaders and takeover of strategic assets? If this sounds unrealistic and far-fetched, it makes sense to remember that in December 2009 insurgents in Iraq managed to hack into drones that were surveying the area and were able to watch the same images that US military were watching sitting in offices back home. This of course gave the insurgents a very good idea as to where to attack and when to lie low. The cost to the Iraqi insurgents was software available off the net for US$ 26. The cost to the US military for one Predator drone is $4-5 million. The cost per flight hour of Predator is around $2,500-3,500. Talk about asymmetry!

But going beyond the cyber attack, hackers could soon be manipulating genetic code as they do computer code. This leads to another level of crime altogether. Would a bio-hacker be able to manipulate the genome code to pass on viruses or malicious worms, much as are done via the internet today? Would they be able to fiddle remotely with bio-synthetic organs such as pace-makers and insulin pumps? Even today many of these can be adjusted remotely, with the huge benefit to patients of allowing more mobility and removing the need for repetitive surgery. However, if they can be manipulated by criminals, what would they be able to achieve? Would they be able to manipulate a persons mind, hormones and moods to turn them into criminals? Will future terrorist groups have a never-ending supply of manipulated people to be able to carry out acts of terror?

Its bonanza time for trans-national crime groups who can carry out crimes in distant parts of the world without any fear of being caught red-handed. As the criminals can transfer large funds of money and other resources across the world remotely, they can be sure of their own safety. Looking at the unbelievable damage that criminals could wreak upon the world using some of the new technologies, what kind of punishment would fit the crime? There is much discussion on neurological reconditioning of criminals, on transformation and on deterrence. In fact there is also the idea of punishing criminals for crime that would be committed in the future.

The most intriguing punishment that I came across has been recently revealed by Rebecca Roache who says that future biotechnology methods could be used to make a criminal serve 1000 years of jail in just 8 hours, by manipulating his mind to make the time pass more slowly. This would prevent the huge costs of looking after criminals in jails. It would be interesting to see what would be his reaction to the world around him once he was set free. Would he able to adjust to the world around him again, or live in a time warp, where he felt that he had been put into a time machine and sent back 1000 years, or would be just go back to the same old routines of the previous days and years?

“To let the punishment fit the crime” has never been an easy task. The nature of future crimes is only going to make it more difficult.