Judge Rules on Utah Court's Take-Over of FLDS

[Daniel2]

Judge rules state's control of FLDS trust unconstitutional and an illegal 'takeover' by Utah

Published: Thursday, Feb. 24, 2011 4:05 p.m. MST

SALT LAKE CITY

[USU78]

They made a mistake of not going all-out in the Doctrine & Covenants provisions implicit and explicit in the document . . . as well as the fraudulent misrepresentations made by the trust administrators inducing folks to part with title to their free-and-clear homes in favor of the UEP Trust.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Awesome decision that should be applauded by every member of the LDS Church. The time will come when the LDS Church will implement a similar system and the last thing they need is a precedent justifying governmental takeover of religion when they see $$ signs in their eyes. (Which was what this was really all about.)

[USU78]

Awesome decision that should be applauded by every member of the LDS Church. The time will come when the LDS Church will implement a similar system and the last thing they need is a precedent justifying governmental takeover of religion when they see $$ signs in their eyes. (Which was what this was really all about.)

Perhaps in part. The real problem was the despotic evictions of "dissidents" by the clan in charge of the Short Creek folks. People were getting evicted from their homes for "falling away" from the clan's good graces, either because of belief shortfalls or behavioral ones. These homes were built on land purchased by individual members, paid off, then donated to the United Effort Plan in alleged compliance with the Doctrine & Covenants provisions on the subject. Those evictions were the impetus for the 2nd Warders (those out of favor with the clan) to begin a lawsuit back 20 or so years ago. As a result of that lawsuit, the present trust was created: it put the clan in a better legal position to evict, and thus strip people of their equity.

The D&C provides that people who leave a UEP will receive their property back, less the portion set aside for the poor. It is an open issue to be determined on a case by case basis whether the products/produce of the land used in the Bishop's storehouse during time in the plan is the only amount kept back from the donor, OR a certain percentage (or acreage) was to be retained upon the Bishop's conveying the property back.

The Clan has usurped what was never in the D&C . . . all the time making affirmative representations to people that they were following the D&C.

I wish I had your confidence in precedent, but I'm afraid that, rather than help us should 50 E North Temple send out the call to reinstate the UEPs, this will end up hurting us because of the naked greed of the clan.