Yet Another Lawsuit Against the Church

[smac97]

Here:

Quote

As a result of the article posted by The Washington Post, dated Dec. 17, 2019, Mormon Church has misled members on $100 billion tax-exempt investment fund, whistleblower alleges (https://www.washingtonpost.com/…/e3619bd2-2004-11ea-86f3-3b…), a new federal lawsuit was filed on Monday, Feb. 10. It alleges fraud and racketeering against The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, citing the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).

While the church claims that it is protected under the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment, citing legal precedent, the Plaintiffs counter that acts of fraud are not protected by the First Amendment and that this case is unprecedented in that there has never been a case brought before any U.S. court that contains the material facts, allegations and evidence that their case presents.

The primary complaint of this lawsuit is the bait and switch tactic the church uses to entrap people into an organization that then, through fraud, demands money from even the poorest of the poor to support a church that actually perpetuates poverty. Claiming the Book of Mormon is the “keystone” of its religion and using it to entice people to join or continue to support the church that they have been raised in all of their life, the doctrine of the church blatantly opposes the teachings of the Book of Mormon. Plaintiffs are prepared to prove that the church and the Book of Mormon are not united in doctrine and teachings and therefore, the church should have no claim to the BOM.

Jeff Wangsgard

Morgan

I downloaded the Complaint and took a brief look.  Here are my preliminary observations:

1. The three plaintiffs are Lynnette Cook (Orem), Rodney Jay Vessels (Orem), and Julie Little Taggart (Salt Lake City).

2. The plaintiffs filed the complaint pro se (they are representing themselves, no attorney).

3. The lawsuit is based on the federal RICO statute ("Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations" Act).  This statute is used by the government to go after organized crime, gangs, etc.  It has a "civil" component as well, meaning that a private party can theoretically use it against another private party.

4. The gist of RICO is to go after groups of people who commit crimes as a group.  So the claimant (the plaintiffs) have to establish that the defendant (the Church) has engaged in "racketeering activity," which is one or more of the criminal offenses set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 1961.  So this is stuff like gambling, murder, kidnapping, extortion, arson, robbery, bribery, dealing in obscene matter, or dealing in a controlled substance, counterfeiting, money laundering, and so on.  These are the potential "predicate offenses."  The claimants can't just make vague allegations of misconduct.  They must specify what predicate offenses the Church has committed.  Moreover, they must show  "pattern" of such "racketeering activity" (at least two predicate offenses).

The claimants must also must allege the existence of an "enterprise," which may be an illegitimate enterprise (e.g., a Mafia family) or a wholly legitimate enterprise (a corporation).

5. The "predicate offenses" cited in complaint are mail fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1341), wire fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343), and money laundering (18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(A)(i)). 

6. This lawsuit, then, appears to be fairly similar to the Gaddy lawsuit we have been discussing for a while.  It appears to share the same fundamental flaws as exist in the Gaddy lawsuit, and will likely be summarily dismissed.  For example, paragraphs 125-139 talk about the content of the Book of Mormon, and then claims that the Church "totally ignores the powerful message of the BOM and inserts in its place false doctrines, including vain and foolish promises that families can be together forever, subject to false ordinances, rituals, temple attendance requirements, church attendance requirements, tithing requirements, and endless geneaologies."  The claimants then state that "{t]he Church snares the souls of unexpectant victims, claiming that if the BOM is true, then the Church must be true," that "{m}embers are coerced" into paying tithing, that "{t}he BOM plays no role in the Church's doctrine, and thus, the Church uses a bait and switch tactic."

7. In other words, this is a fraud lawsuit.  I have litigated many dozens of lawsuits predicated on a fraud theory.  They virtually always fail, most often at the very beginning of the lawsuit because the lawyer did such a poor job of vetting the claims and pleading them in the complaint, or else, as here, because the plaintiffs are not trained in the law, and hence don't know how to properly draft a complaint.  I eventually became so fed up with the sheer number of poorly-drafted fraud-based lawsuits that I wrote an article about it and had it published in the Utah Bar Journal:  A Primer on Pleading Fraud Claims in Utah.  

8. The complaint does not properly plead a fraud claim, nor does it propery please a RICO claim.  Moreover, the complaint only names the Church.  I don't think the Church can conspire with itself.

9. The truth or falsity of religious doctrines is a question that is virtually never addressed by the civil courts.  Civil courts are simply not interested in being a forum for people to argue about religious claims.  It's called the "Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine."

10. The substantive defects in the complaint, and the Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine, will combine to make dismissal of this suit a near certainty.

11. The "Request for Relief" (the specific requests from the plaintiffs for the court to do something) is a doozy:

Quote

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for the following relief:

An order for injunctive relief against the Church, prohibiting the Church from doing any of the following:

An order that the Church and its leaders and members are prohibited from claiming that the BOM is the "keystone" of the religion of the Church.

An order that the Church and its leaders, members and missionaries of the Church are prohibited from claiming that the BOM proves or is evidence of the truthfulness of the Church.

An order prohibiting the Church and its leaders, members, missionaries and members from claiming that the Church follows the teachings of the BOM.

An order prohibiting the Church from claiming that the tithing and offerings members give to the Church have had any benefit for those who are not members of the Church.

An order prohibiting the Church from claiming that it has done anything to truly help the poor and the needy outside of the members of the Church.

And order prohibiting the Church from claiming that it has done good for the poor that it has alleged to have helped through its so-called humanitarian efforts, when, in fact it has done great evil.

12. In a way, I sort of feel bad for these folks.  I hope they did not invest much time or emotional energy in this lawsuit.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

Quote

the poorest of the poor to support a church that actually perpetuates poverty

Would they have to prove this claim?

Eons ago I believe I read a study that demonstrated converting to the Church was correlated to increase in income, likely imo from the emphasis on education and self reliance while coupled with a strong welfare program aimed at getting people financially stable that includes job training.  

Not sure I could find it, but if my memory is accurate it would indicate they can’t actually prove this. 
 

[provoman]

It is curious that someone can do enough research to file a lawsuit, but then at the same time not come across something that about Separation of Church and State, especially that Courts/Government shy away from  compelling a religion.

[Kenngo1969]

I would sooooo love to read this entire complaint!

I'm sure it would be good for one of these! 

[bluebell]

Oh geez, this is embarrassing for those people.  

[PacMan]

The court should sanction them. Enough is enough. 

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, PacMan said:

The court should sanction them. Enough is enough. 

Can it?

[Scott Lloyd]

55 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I would sooooo love to read this entire complaint!

I'm sure it would be good for one of these! 

 

45 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Oh geez, this is embarrassing for those people.  

 

33 minutes ago, PacMan said:

The court should sanction them. Enough is enough. 

If for no other reason than the deterrence factor. It costs the Church time, energy and money to defend against these frivolous actions, meritless though they may be. Maybe if there were a punitive cost to the plaintiffs, it might hinder if not altogether stop this rash of them. 
 

Edited to add: It’s clear from the fact that they’re doing this pro se that they’re trying to do it on the cheap. 

Edited February 17, 2020 by Scott Lloyd

[Amulek]

In the words of Arnold Schwarzenegger, "It's NOT a tumor RICO!"

It's lawsuits like this that make me wish Utah had enacted much stronger anti-SLAPP laws. 

 

[Scott Lloyd]

18 minutes ago, Amulek said:

In the words of Arnold Schwarzenegger, "It's NOT a tumor RICO!"

It's lawsuits like this that make me wish Utah had enacted much stronger anti-SLAPP laws. 

 

Schwarzenegger? “Not a tumor”? “Anti-SLAPP laws”? You do love sending me to Google, don’t you?

[JAHS]

27 minutes ago, Amulek said:

In the words of Arnold Schwarzenegger, "It's NOT a tumor RICO!"

It's lawsuits like this that make me wish Utah had enacted much stronger anti-SLAPP laws. 

 

Actually it's pronounced "TOO-Mah"

[Bob Crockett]

57 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Oh geez, this is embarrassing for those people.  

It is the filing of the thing they want and the ability to say it;.

 

[provoman]

Case filed 02/10/2020, on 02/11/2020 Judge David Barlow recused himself - this same David Barlow recused, within the last few weeks, himself from another lawsuit where in the Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is the defendant.

[provoman]

3 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I would sooooo love to read this entire complaint!

I'm sure it would be good for one of these! 

Sign up for PACER, it is "free" (yes quotes needed) depending on your usage. Below are some of the things listed in the FACTS section

14. FURTHERMORE, the Church has amassed billions of dollars in savings and investment portfolios, which further proves that tithing and offerings are not being used as the Church claims to its members.

15. The Church forces members to do genealogy work as doctrine and a commandment from God, which is condemned in the BOM as "the things which are pleasing unto the world [but not] unto God and those who are not of the world." (BOM; 1Nephi6:5.)

16. Members are deceived by the Church into believing that genealogy work is necessary to "redeem the dead" (part of the Church's alleged mission), who have died "without law" (Doctrine and Covenants, section 76, verse 72) (i.e., those who have not accepted the Church's doctrine and ordinances while alive).

17. Redemption of the dead is a doctrine that is clearly condemned in the BOM as a "mockery before God" and "putting trust in dead works." (BOM; Moroni 8:23.)

 

73. The Church falsely claimed that it used the tithing and offerings "in worldwide efforts to love God and

neighbor." (20 December 2019 Salt Lake City News Release: "How the Church of Jesus Christ Uses Tithes and

Donations.")

74. The Church falsely claimed that it "is committed to helping the poor and the needy." (Id.)

75. The Church falsely claimed that it had "a global program that primarily benefits those who are not Latter-day Saints," partnering "with many global organizations like the Red Cross to provide assistance." (ld.)

 

78. The Church built a luxurious Conference Center, with a stand that rises above the congregation, so that its
leaders have their own "Rameumpton, which, being interpreted, is the holy stand." (BOM; Alma 31 :21.)

Edited February 18, 2020 by provoman

[rockpond]

Doesn't sound like this will go anywhere, especially without an attorney representing the plaintiffs.

Claiming that the church is guilty of "racketeering" seems ridiculous.

If a church misleading its members regarding its finances is a crime, they might have case (but I don't think it is).

[smac97]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

Would they have to prove this claim?

No.  The case will be dismissed.

 

[Calm]

15 minutes ago, smac97 said:

No.  The case will be dismissed.

 

But if for some reason there was a part of lawsuit against the Church that was deemed significant to go to trial, if the plaintiffs wanted to include a claim like that, would they have to prove it rather than the Church disprove it?

[JAHS]

3 hours ago, provoman said:

17. Redemption of the dead is a doctrine that is clearly condemned in the BOM as a "mockery before God" and "putting trust in dead works." (BOM; Moroni 8:23.)

Wow. That scripture is referring to faith without works being dead (James 2: 17) or performing works without faith. It can also refer to works that are no longer valid like the laws of Moses or laws not supported by God like baptism of infants.  Not redemption of the dead.

As bad as their "facts" are it's hard to believe they are really serious about this lawsuit. I see no other mention of it in the news, so I don't think anyone else is taking it seriously.

Edited February 18, 2020 by JAHS

[Calm]

A friend that is a bishop and is on a regional storehouse committee shared this info:

Quote

First, 10% of Bishop's storehouse commodities are earmarked for non-member organizations. On a cost-only basis, that represents about $200k in commodity contributions, worth about $400k in retail value for our region. Not chump change!

Second, all bishops are being told they are not doing enough to seek out the poor and the needy! The Church wants storehouse disbursements to go up! This has been true for at least the past 4 years!

Providing commodities is preferred over cash/paying bills because it is highly leveraged.

I am aware of many circumstances where storehouse disbursements are greater than tithing contributions to a family. This is hardly "grinding upon the poor".

 

Edited February 18, 2020 by Calm

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

Can it?

Yes, it comes under the heading Frivolous lawsuit.  The judge can order them to pay all costs.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

Doesn't sound like this will go anywhere, especially without an attorney representing the plaintiffs.

Claiming that the church is guilty of "racketeering" seems ridiculous.

If a church misleading its members regarding its finances is a crime, they might have case (but I don't think it is).

However, there are religious organizations which do engage in racketeering and other major crimes.  However, even in such cases, the govt is very hesitant to go after them.  That was tried on Scientology, and the result was that the govt was penetrated and forced to drop the matter by Scientology operatives.  Religions often get away with organized criminal activity.

[Traela]

2 hours ago, provoman said:

78. The Church built a luxurious Conference Center, with a stand that rises above the congregation, so that its

leaders have their own "Rameumpton, which, being interpreted, is the holy stand." (BOM; Alma 31 :21.)

???  Have they never actually been in the Conference Center?  A majority of the congregation looks down on the stand.

 

[provoman]

Just now, Traela said:

???  Have they never actually been in the Conference Center?  A majority of the congregation looks down on the stand.

 

I thought the same thing. 

[provoman]

41 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Wow. That scripture is referring to faith without works being dead or performing works without faith. (James 2: 17) Not redemption of the dead.

As bad as their "facts" are it's hard to believe they are really serious about this lawsuit. I see no other mention of it in the news, so I don't think anyone else is taking it seriously.

Have you read the full complaint? I could not find reference to it from the washington post, only what smac posted and a reddit post.

Edited February 18, 2020 by provoman

[smac97]

42 minutes ago, Calm said:

But if for some reason there was a part of lawsuit against the Church that was deemed significant to go to trial, if the plaintiffs wanted to include a claim like that, would they have to prove it rather than the Church disprove it?

Yes, the plaintiff would have the burden of proof.