Jump to content

RICO Act, Proposed Class Action against the Church - it is filed


Recommended Posts

16 minutes ago, changed said:

Luke 11:42-44.

Well, I admit that my family does like to sit in the same seat each week. Whether or not it's the best seat is probably debatable.

To be honest, the only place where I demand the best seat is in the movie theater. Seriously, I am unapologetically picky when it comes to both theater and seat selection. 

Back in the day, I used to go to the box office well before it opened to be sure and get tickets for the screen I wanted to watch the film on, and then I would show up (at minimum) 30-45 minutes early - though if it was a blockbuster / opening day film kind of thing I would go hours early and just bring a book to read.

Ah, those days are gone. Now I can reserve the best seat in the best theater in the entire DFW metroplex from the comfort of my computer and show up right as the trailers begin. Life is good. :) 

 

Link to comment
11 hours ago, changed said:
On 9/30/2019 at 12:03 PM, LoudmouthMormon said:

Let's test that out.

Hey @Changed, here is a link to the Church's 100% financial transparency document about all the finances for all of Great Britain.

http://apps.charitycommission.gov.uk/Accounts/Ends51/0000242451_AC_20171231_E_C.PDF

All good for Great Britain?

Do you have a link for America? For all of it?  

No.  It's not available for America.  Is there a problem?

 

Link to comment

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints complies with the respective financial disclosure laws in the various countries in which it has operations, including the United States.  If you think that the United States should mandate more detailed disclosure, contact your Congressman.  I'm Ken Gourdin, and I approved this message. ;) 

Link to comment

Yesterday Gaddy's attorney filed a motion seeking permission to file a longer-than-normal response to the Church's motion to dismiss (up to 8,000 words, where the usual limit is 6,500 words).

I think the Court will grant this motion.  I also think it won't make a difference.  The law is too much on the Church's side.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Yesterday Gaddy's attorney filed a motion seeking permission to file a longer-than-normal response to the Church's motion to dismiss (up to 8,000 words, where the usual limit is 6,500 words).

I think the Court will grant this motion.  I also think it won't make a difference.  The law is too much on the Church's side.

Thanks,

-Smac

Is that rhetorical, response equivalent of the old saying, "When the law's not on your side, pound the facts.  When the facts aren't on your side, pound the law.  When neither the law nor the facts are on your side, pound the table!" at work? ;) :D 

Edited by Kenngo1969
Link to comment
On 10/4/2019 at 12:31 PM, Kenngo1969 said:

Is that rhetorical, response equivalent of the old saying, "When the law's not on your side, pound the facts.  When the facts aren't on your side, pound the law.  When neither the law nor the facts are on your side, pound the table!" at work? ;) :D 

Either that, or else "quantity over quality."

Thanks

-Smac

Edited by smac97
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Is that rhetorical, response equivalent of the old saying, "When the law's not on your side, pound the facts.  When the facts aren't on your side, pound the law.  When neither the law nor the facts are on your side, pound the table!" at work? ;) :D 

 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Either than, or else "quantity over quality."

Thanks

-Smac

Or both! ;) 

Link to comment
On 10/2/2019 at 11:37 PM, Tacenda said:

Thanks for the story, but I clicked on the highlighted reference and it didn't work. Do you have the precise link? I'd love to read and follow up on this. 

Sorry, but I guess it's behind a paywall.

The article is adapted from a talk, for which there is fortunately a YouTube video, I just discovered. I'm afraid the audio leaves a bit to be desired.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vg47Ph4LjsI

You can also read the Wikipedia article for more background -- it's more complicated than Br. Parry had time to get into.  It was a horrendous event indeed.  It wasn't the Church that ordered it, but there was sentiment against the Indians among some church members and local leaders.  A lot of *** for tat, and it wasn't all one way or the other way.

I find myself greatly affected by this event because of my ancestors -- I'm slightly native american, and my ancestors' tribe got some pretty bad treatment, too, at the hands of the whites.  In my own peoples' case, it wasn't as blatantly violent, but the results were not pretty either.  My great great grandmother's two sisters were murdered by white settlers in Northern California, because they were Indian (they were actually married to white men, but this didn't seem to matter to those who took their lives).

Jews have a lot of grievances against Germans, for the Holocaust, but even many of them strive to find forgiveness and not hold those responsible who were not involved (because they weren't born then, for one thing).  Grudge-holding is almost always counterproductive and soul-destroying.

Quote

Also, is there a way to say it and not use a word like "evil" being done?   

Don't know!  Plenty of evil is being done in the world. Sometimes people do evil to their own selves, by way of emotional outburst, or sustained ill will.  I can understand that someone who has evil done to them may feel it justified to return evil upon those who did the evil.  And perhaps such evil is deserved.  But when they return evil to those who have not harmed them, they do wrong not only to those who have not harmed them, but to themselves as well.

If the word "evil" is too strong for this case, I can substitute "wrong" for it, no problem.  "Evil" may be too strong, actually, since it may hold the connotation of intentional wrongdoing.  Few people who do wrong to themselves do so by intention; it's mainly by oversight.  And they may find themselves being affected by the backsplash of what they deal out.  The only time that I ever deliberately stole something, I did it because someone first stole from me.  And the person that I stole from wasn't the one who stole from me.  I did it out of anger -- because my property was stolen, even though it was hidden from sight, and this other person left his out in plain sight and wasn't stolen.  Of course I was wrong to do so, and my only excuse was my anger.  It could have gotten me in a lot of trouble, but fortunately I escaped any serious repercussions.  The man from who I stole got his property back, because I gave it back to him.  I never got mine back.

Edited by Stargazer
Link to comment
1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

So when are you posting your bank and credit card statements?

If you were donating money to a cause that changed was in charge of, then it would be appropriate for changed to be transparent. If not, then transparency should not be expected.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Thinking said:

If you were donating money to a cause that changed was in charge of, then it would be appropriate for changed to be transparent. If not, then transparency should not be expected.

 But that is not what changed said or implied given the connotation of “hidden” when linked with finances. 

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
10 hours ago, Thinking said:

If you were donating money to a cause that changed was in charge of, then it would be appropriate for changed to be transparent. If not, then transparency should not be expected.

Changed gave no such proviso. Just a total declaration that if you are not transparent you are hiding something.

Link to comment
17 hours ago, Calm said:

 But that is not what changed said or implied given the connotation of “hidden” when linked with finances. 

7 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Changed gave no such proviso. Just a total declaration that if you are not transparent you are hiding something.

I disagree.

On 9/27/2019 at 3:29 PM, changed said:

I think all non-profits, including religious non-profits, should be required to be 100% transparent about all the finances.

Anyone who is not transparent with financial information is hiding something.

Compare the price and benefits to say, the YMCA, to the price and benefits of the lds Corp and... well... 

Anyone obviously refers to the non-profits in the preceding sentence. Changed can correct me if I'm wrong.

Edited by Thinking
Link to comment
On 10/5/2019 at 5:58 PM, The Nehor said:

Changed gave no such proviso. Just a total declaration that if you are not transparent you are hiding something.

It's perfectly reasonable to hide things, by the way.  I'm hiding my kidneys, for instance.  You really don't want to see them, trust me.

3885861430_2f1e0a8afd_z.jpg

Link to comment
4 hours ago, Stargazer said:

It's perfectly reasonable to hide things, by the way.  I'm hiding my kidneys, for instance.  You really don't want to see them, trust me.

3885861430_2f1e0a8afd_z.jpg

Someone arrest this man! He is clearly smuggling something in his kidneys. Hand me a scalpel and I will check.

Link to comment

Litigation Update:

On Friday the court in the Gaddy matter granted Gady's motion seeking permission to file a longer-than-usually-allowed memorandum in opposition to the Church's Motion to Dismiss.

The memorandum in opposition is due tomorrow (10/8).

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
On 8/5/2019 at 11:56 PM, Calm said:

At the bottom is the proposed class action paper. I can’t cut and paste from it and haven’t read much, but it specifies it is not about beliefs, but is focused on the Church misrepresenting its history and thus leading to members making choices they wouldn’t have if they had known the truth. 

 

In that case, it mirrors exactly a similar lawsuit  (not a class action) brought around fifty years ago be Walter Martin on the same basis: that the Church was misrepresenting its own doctrine to investigators and then doing a kind of "bait and switch," particularly with the temple.

Martin's suit was thrown out of court, as I recall.

Link to comment

Thank you for your cogent analysis. It was "brief" relative to what you could have written about this 35 page brief by Burningham.  I also read the brief and did not want to undertake a summary as you did.  You made some really good points.  I agree with all of them. It also seems interesting to me  and ill considered that she began her brief with a quote by Professor Bauman.   She is arguing that the leaders of the Church intentionally  mispresented facts of the restoration.  Professor Bauman's is not a leader of the Church. His opinion is not an admission by the church; it is not admissible evidence of fraud by the Church; and it is not persuasive legal authority on any of the theories she has alleged.  His opinion cannot help her case - but once it becomes known that she has taken it out of context, it will diminish her credibility with the Court. Bauman's out of context quote may be useful for non legal reasons to persuade hearts and minds, but it does not help from a legal standpoint. 

From your summary I also see that she has cited cases that are easily distinguishable  which will also undercut her case. Finally, her argument that a legal authority should be disregarded because it was "wrongly decided"  is always viewed as a desperate argument  - almost a concession that you have nothing better.  The chances of a Federal Court agreeing that a State Supreme Court case was wrongly decided - in effect nullifying  a state precedent -  are minimal because it is the policy of the Federal Courts to respect state law that is not superseded by conflicting Federal law - which Kay didn't even suggest. 

Based on  her brief, I think the Church's motion to dismiss has a good chance of be granted at least in part.   The Court  will either gut this  case or throw it out entirely.  Let's hope for the latter so the church can use sacred funds  to build rather than defend the kingdom. 

Link to comment
  • 3 weeks later...
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...