Mithryn’s breakdown of the lawsuit against Monson. Has it got a chance?
I’ve done some digging on the 2006 fraud act, and the 7 claims that are specifically mentioned in the brief may not hold up.
Of them, most claims (Nauvoo expositor was full of lies, Book of Abraham legitimacy, DNA and indians, etc.) were made publically before Jan 15th 2007, so they don’t apply to the law.
However, if Tom can show correspondence between himself or others and the General Authorities claiming these things, that might suffice.
Further the church can use Monson’s Alzheimers or “I cannot recall” as a defense at any time, but that might cost them.
Click on full text for legal breakdown and links.