Tacenda Posted May 7, 2021 Share Posted May 7, 2021 9 minutes ago, smac97 said: There have been three tax-exempt corporations: 1) "The Corporation of the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" (the "COP"). Per Wikipedia, the COP was created in 1923 and "manage{s} money and church donations" for the Church. 2) "The Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" (the "CBP"). Per Wikipedia, the CBP was created in 1916 and its function is to "acquire, hold, and dispose of real property." 3) "Intellectual Reserve, Inc." was, per Wikipedia, "incorporated in 1997 to hold the church's copyrights, trademarks, and other intellectual property." Meanwhile, the Church itself is (or, until very recently, was) an "an unincorporated religious association." The damage was done to a building, which is considered real property, which is apparently owned by the CBP. Here is the corporate entry for the CBP per Utah state records: It looks like this was registered in 2019, whereas the article in Wikipedia says it was incorporated in 1916. I can't find any such Utah corporation, but I did find this information: The CPB was incorporated in 1916 in the Cayman Islands? That would be pretty interesting if true. I wonder if the CPB previously existed from 1916 to 2019 as a corporation formed in the Caymans, and thereafter was re-formed in 2019 as a Utah tax-exempt "8131" corporation. Thanks, -Smac That is interesting! I hope you can help identify why they did this offshore like that. Link to comment
smac97 Posted May 7, 2021 Author Share Posted May 7, 2021 Just now, Tacenda said: That is interesting! I hope you can help identify why they did this offshore like that. I just found this site, though I'm not quite sure what to make of it: Quote Corporation Of The Presiding Bishop Of The Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter-day Saints Cayman Islands International Organization Date Filed Venue Case Number Title Party Type 5/24/2019 Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles 19STCV18093 Ceasar Robert Herrera v. John Edward Stacey, et al. Defendant 5/1/2017 Idaho District Court 1:17-cv-00184 Doe XX v. Boy Scouts of America Defendant 3/17/2016 Utah District Court 2:16-cv-00225 Sweet et al v. Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the Ch... Defendant 3/14/2016 Superior Court of California, County of Alameda RG16807479 Robinson v. Ino-Chun Wang Corporation Defendant 11/13/2015 Superior Court of California, County of Alameda RG15793197 Allstate Northbrook Indemnity Company a/s/o Ear v. Taukeiaho Cross Complainant 11/13/2015 Superior Court of California, County of Alameda RG15793197 Allstate Northbrook Indemnity Company a/s/o Ear v. Taukeiaho Cross Defendant 11/13/2015 Superior Court of California, County of Alameda RG15793197 Allstate Northbrook Indemnity Company a/s/o Ear v. Taukeiaho Defendant 4/21/2015 Texas Southern District Court 1:15-cv-00072 Barajas v. Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the Church... Defendant 4/10/2015 Nevada District Court 2:15-cv-00658 Kaur et al v. Long et al Defendant 4/10/2015 Nevada District Court 2:15-cv-00658 Kaur et al v. Long et al Counter Claimant 9/25/2014 Pennsylvania Middle District Court 1:14-cv-01864 Nunemaker v. Peralta et al Defendant 12/27/2013 Oregon District Court 3:13-cv-02297 Zhu v. Judkins et al Defendant 7/1/2013 Washington Western District Court 3:13-cv-05537 Mudgett v. Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the Church... Defendant 6/24/2013 Idaho District Court 1:13-cv-00275 Doe I v. Boy Scouts of America Defendant 6/20/2013 Arizona District Court 2:13-cv-01230 Haigler v. Grand Canyon Education Incorporated et al Movant 7/2/2012 Utah District Court 2:12-cv-00620 Jenkins v. Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the Church... Defendant 3/7/2012 Louisiana Eastern District Court 2:12-cv-00607 Herbert v. Thornton et al Defendant 2/4/2011 Alaska District Court 3:11-cv-00014 Rosemore v. Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the Churc... Defendant 1/26/2011 Mississippi Southern District Court 2:11-cv-00020 Young v. Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the Church o... Defendant 1/26/2011 Mississippi Southern District Court 2:11-cv-00020 Young v. Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the Church o... Cross Defendant 12/31/2009 Oregon District Court 3:09-cv-01523 Doe v. Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the Church of ... Defendant 11/2/2009 Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco CGC 09 494032 John Doe 1 Et Al v. Doe 1, A Utah Corporation Et Al*****case... Defendant 11/14/2008 California Central District Court 2:08-cv-07553 Michael J. v. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Defendant 6/30/2008 Arizona District Court 3:08-cv-08080 Cooke v. Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus... Defendant 6/19/2008 Maine District Court 1:08-cv-00198 SAUCIER et al v. CORPORATION OF THE PRESIDING BISHOP OF THE ... Defendant 3/25/2008 Oregon District Court 2:08-cv-00371 Doe v. Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the Church of ... Defendant 12/11/2007 Nevada District Court 2:07-cv-01650 Turpin v. Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the Church ... Defendant 10/9/2007 Oregon District Court 3:07-cv-01499 Doe 1 et al v. Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the Ch... Defendant 10/4/2007 Oregon District Court 3:07-cv-01477 Doe v. Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the Church of ... Defendant 2/13/2007 Nevada District Court 3:07-cv-00076 Manzanares v. Elko County School District et al Defendant 7/26/2006 Utah District Court 2:06-cv-00616 Lerwick v. Lerwick et al Defendant 1/24/2006 Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco CGC 06 448821 Robert Cantley v. Asbestos Defendants (bp) As Reflected On E... Defendant 12/12/2005 Washington Eastern District Court 2:05-cv-00399 Waite v. Church of Jesus Christ, Latterday Saints et al Defendant 9/29/2005 Oregon District Court 3:05-cv-01515 Tomaszewski v. Clayson et al Defendant 12/9/2004 Illinois Central District Court 1:04-cv-01420-JAG Haynes v. Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of The Church ... Defendant 4/4/2003 Utah District Court 2:03-cv-00320 Van Gorden v. Corp Presiding Bisho, et al Defendant 3/5/2003 Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco CGC 03 417994 Richard Cazier Et Al v. Asbestos Defendants (b*p)as Reflecte... Defendant 4/4/2002 Missouri Western District Court 4:02-cv-00296 Riordan v. Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the Church Defendant 9/2/1998 Idaho District Court 4:98-cv-00341 Pirente v. GAB Robins, et al Defendant 4/13/1998 Idaho District Court 4:98-cv-00149 Corp of the Pres v. Farm Bureau Mutual Plaintiff 3/19/1998 Oregon District Court 6:98-cv-00366 Scott, et al v. Church of Jesus Chri, et al Defendant 41 Rows Total This looks like an online history of lawsuits involving the CPB, which would make sense if the CPB had been incorporated in the Caymans. The list goes back to 1998, which may be when the Internet became sufficiently sophisticated to begin keeping online records of such things. And the list ends in late May of 2019. As noted previously the Utah corporation known as the "Corporation of the Presiding Bishop..." was apparently incorporated on July 8, 2019. So perhaps the Cayman Islands kept track of litigation involving the CBP until July 2019? I also found this website, that has the following image (not sure how legit it is) : Quote Thanks, -Smac Link to comment
Tacenda Posted May 7, 2021 Share Posted May 7, 2021 10 minutes ago, smac97 said: I just found this site, though I'm not quite sure what to make of it: This looks like an online history of lawsuits involving the CPB, which would make sense if the CPB had been incorporated in the Caymans. The list goes back to 1998, which may be when the Internet became sufficiently sophisticated to begin keeping online records of such things. And the list ends in late May of 2019. As noted previously the Utah corporation known as the "Corporation of the Presiding Bishop..." was apparently incorporated on July 8, 2019. So perhaps the Cayman Islands kept track of litigation involving the CBP until July 2019? I also found this website, that has the following image (not sure how legit it is) : Thanks, -Smac Thanks Smac! Link to comment
webbles Posted May 7, 2021 Share Posted May 7, 2021 19 minutes ago, smac97 said: I just found this site, though I'm not quite sure what to make of it: This looks like an online history of lawsuits involving the CPB, which would make sense if the CPB had been incorporated in the Caymans. The list goes back to 1998, which may be when the Internet became sufficiently sophisticated to begin keeping online records of such things. And the list ends in late May of 2019. As noted previously the Utah corporation known as the "Corporation of the Presiding Bishop..." was apparently incorporated on July 8, 2019. So perhaps the Cayman Islands kept track of litigation involving the CBP until July 2019? I also found this website, that has the following image (not sure how legit it is) : Thanks, -Smac I've checked various lawsuits that include the CPB and they say that CPB is a "Utah Corporation sole" (see https://cite.case.law/idaho/123/410/ as one case from 1993 and https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/594/791/1902517/ as another case from 1987). Not sure what to make of the Cayman Island. 1 Link to comment
mgy401 Posted May 7, 2021 Share Posted May 7, 2021 4 hours ago, smac97 said: Also, how do you think the Church would be able to recoup its fees in a tort case? The "American Rule" and all that? If his pleading specifically alleged (and not just on information or belief) that he had paid a specific amount of tithes during a specific time window, and the Church can prove that he didn’t—then that falls under the umbrella of Rule 11, no? 1 Link to comment
smac97 Posted May 7, 2021 Author Share Posted May 7, 2021 30 minutes ago, mgy401 said: If his pleading specifically alleged (and not just on information or belief) that he had paid a specific amount of tithes during a specific time window, and the Church can prove that he didn’t—then that falls under the umbrella of Rule 11, no? His Complaint doesn't plead a specific amount, though. See paragraphs 5, 6, 16, 24, 32, 37 and 28 (all of which referenced "millions of dollars," but no specific amount). In paragraphs 1 and 41 he references damages "in excess of $5,000,000." Is that what you mean? So if he donated less than $5M, he faces possible sanctions under Rule 11? Thanks, -Smac Link to comment
jkwilliams Posted May 7, 2021 Share Posted May 7, 2021 32 minutes ago, smac97 said: His Complaint doesn't plead a specific amount, though. See paragraphs 5, 6, 16, 24, 32, 37 and 28 (all of which referenced "millions of dollars," but no specific amount). In paragraphs 1 and 41 he references damages "in excess of $5,000,000." Is that what you mean? So if he donated less than $5M, he faces possible sanctions under Rule 11? Thanks, -Smac I’m not sure I’d read that much into this. I’m aware of the church’s attorneys challenging a plaintiff’s being in the ward they claimed, even though that was not in dispute. Link to comment
smac97 Posted May 7, 2021 Author Share Posted May 7, 2021 (edited) On 5/7/2021 at 3:20 PM, jkwilliams said: I’m not sure I’d read that much into this. I’m aware of the church’s attorneys challenging a plaintiff’s being in the ward they claimed, even though that was not in dispute. I have never seen a motion for sanctions granted. It happens, but not very often. I think the complaint is not particularly well drafted, but I don't think it rises to a sanctionable offense. Edited August 15, 2021 by smac97 Link to comment
ttribe Posted May 7, 2021 Share Posted May 7, 2021 (edited) 1 minute ago, smac97 said: I have never seen a motion for sanctions granted. It happens, but not very often. I think the complaint is not particularly well drafted, but I don't think it rises to a sanction obal offense. I've provided affidavits in support of motions for sanctions in a number of cases (usually in discovery disputes). I can count on one hand the number of cases where I've actually seen those motions granted to any meaningful degree. Edited May 7, 2021 by ttribe 2 Link to comment
JustAnAustralian Posted June 8, 2021 Share Posted June 8, 2021 (edited) THE REV. ALBERT C. JONES* is filing as a self represented amicus curiae. He wants to move the hearing that is scheduled for June 28, until mid-August or later. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.814559/gov.uscourts.cacd.814559.15.0_1.pdf *Publisher and Screenwriter Sole Proprietor, Doing Business As America, The Diversity Place (formerly Utah, The Diversity Place) Edited June 8, 2021 by JustAnAustralian Link to comment
Calm Posted June 8, 2021 Share Posted June 8, 2021 (edited) 2 hours ago, JustAnAustralian said: Publisher and Screenwriter Sole Proprietor, Doing Business As America, The Diversity Place (formerly Utah, The Diversity Place) My response is officially: Huh? Added: https://www.linkedin.com/in/albert-jones-40182926 From his website: Quote The Diversity Times, a 10,000 monthly newspaper, ceased publishing with the February 2009 issue. In that historic last issue, The Diversity Times staff reported on scores of Utahns who attended the inauguration of President Barack Obama. Being among millions in Washington for the inauguration sparked hours of conversation and fomented numerous ideas about a national publication that would capture diversity in the nation. America, The Diversity Place formed as a Utah company in April 2009 with the mission to report nationally on diversity and multicultural voices as an Internet-only publication. America, The Diversity Place launched its website, www.americadiversityplace.com, on July 1, 2009. “On the Road: People Bridges People” was the first nationwide project of America, The Diversity Place. The objective was to document in each of the 48 continental states “Stories of America” and “Multicultural Voices Across the Nation.” “On the Road: People Bridges to People” began August 1, 2009 in Utah and successfully completed reporting from 48 continental states on January 7, 2010 in Colorado. More than 44,000 miles were driven in the 2006 Pontiac Vibe that carried us incident free throughout the 48 continental states. “On the Road: People Bridges to People” netted for America, The Diversity Place hundreds of stories and a growing catalogue of more than 150,000 photos. Stories are posted to the website, www.americadiversityplace.com, weekly on Mondays. After completion of “On the Road: People Bridges to People,” America, The Diversity place relocated to Washington, D.C. to focus on putting together a Generational Plan to increase graduation rates among high school students in the nation. Execution of the Generational Plan will be the sole mission of Collegiate Bridges, a nonprofit formed in Utah to advance educational opportunities for students from underrepresented populations. After 15 months based in Alexandria, Virginia, America, The Diversity Place returned to Salt Lake City in June 2012. If you would like to be involved as a partner or assist Collegiate Bridges with execution of the Generational Plan, please contact Albert C. Jones, publisher, America, The Diversity Place. Jones is an experienced journalist, editor, photographer and marketing professional. In the print newspaper industry, he has worked as an editor, copy editor, managing editor, sports editor, reporter and photographer at three dailies and four weeklies. http://www.americadiversityplace.com/ContactUs/About.aspx Do amicus curiae have to have any connection to the case or can they be random strangers expressing an opinion? His claimed connection in the brief: Quote brief filings and widely reported in media throughout the United States, but not limited to the United States, statements and counter statements were made regarding the history of specific groups experiencing severe discrimination regarding policies dating back to 1847, perhaps before then. Amicus Curiae is a member of a certain group, a particular group, belongs to that group, to which allegations of a history of discrimination apply and has been doing diversity and inclusion work (missions) in Utah since March 2006. Also this from 2006 https://www.deseret.com/2006/7/30/19966154/diversity-times-debuts Edited June 8, 2021 by Calm -1 Link to comment
The Nehor Posted June 8, 2021 Share Posted June 8, 2021 I have my doubts that a court would delay a hearing because a “friend of the court” brief will take a while to prepare. They might delay it for all kinds of other reasons. Full Disclosure: I dislike the concept of amicus briefs so I might be biased. Link to comment
JustAnAustralian Posted July 31, 2021 Share Posted July 31, 2021 (edited) The Amicus Curiae Brief has been filed by Albert C. Jones. Basically 28 pages of waffle about race relations, speaking truth to power, and how the church refused to parter up with his company. Concluding with: Quote PRAYER FOR RELIEF On this soil, abridging any American’s right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” Amicus Curiae included, is an infraction. In 2005, Gov. Jon M. Huntsman Jr. and the Utah Office of Ethnic Affairs introducing the “prosperity” initiative was good for all people in the state of Utah. All of the state’s residents belong to an ethnic group. Forming ethnic chambers of commerce was diversity in action and, more importantly, opening doors to inclusion. Argument and documents presented by Amicus Curiae, joined with Plaintiff’s assertion about “organizations and communities whose members have been marginalized by the Church’s teachings and doctrines” means James Huntsman’s desire for remedies, hopefully, will be satisfied by the Court? Plaintiff says “organizations and communities whose members have been marginalized by the Church’s teachings and doctrines, including by donating to charities supporting LGBTQ, African-American, and women’s rights.” In matters regarding creation of the “Billy Jensen’s Radio Utah” screenplay and development of “Billy Jensen’s Radio Utah Prospectus,” no funds were ever sought from The LDS Church, First Presidency of The LDS Church, Family History Department of The LDS Church or anyone else named in the prospectus. Focus of proprietorships started and operated by Albert C. Jones, business plans for the past 15 years in Utah and across the United States have developed and expanded diversity and inclusion as a genre in journalism and photojournalism, content development, public speaking, giving voice to a multiplicity through interviews, stories and photos, screenplays, including developing business plans (prospectus). Our accomplishments in Utah and across the nation — what the future will call to fore — represent the main purpose for bringing to fruition our vision, representing our core values through hard work, faithfully serving our mission by building capacity first as Utah, The Diversity Place, building a variety of capacities since March 2009 as America, The Diversity Place. “The individual’s right to work,” it is commonly expressed, “has been upheld as sacrosanct.” This is another precise moment available to The LDS Church to issue a fiat that make amends, extending a “new day” as has been trumpeted about relationship development with other organizations. America, The Diversity Place’s Salt Lake City-based company office is within walking distance to Temple Square. If a “new day” moment is not agreed to through stipulation between Plaintiff and Defendant, then the outcome will be nullification by design, not only of the objectives of America, The Diversity Place, but other upstart enterprises. Amicus curiae asks that conciliation between Plaintiff and Defendant be reached by making generous donations to the following five mission-driven nonprofits working toward the betterment of society, plus a Letter of Inclusion from First Presidency of The LDS Church as described in exhibits (A-21-Case 221-cv-02504-Rev. France A. Davis-Letter-8-21-2019) and (A-22-Case 221-cv-02504-Pastor Morgan-Letter-9-7-2019). In other words, he wants to say where the money should go. Edited July 31, 2021 by JustAnAustralian 1 Link to comment
Kenngo1969 Posted July 31, 2021 Share Posted July 31, 2021 On 5/7/2021 at 3:40 PM, smac97 said: I have never seen a motion for sanctions granted. It happens, but not very often. I think the complaint is not particularly well drafted, but I don't think it rises to a sanction obal [spelling/typography sic, bold added by Kenngo1969] offense. That does, though! Come on, Dude! You're slippin'! You're not reppin' JRCLS very well, here, Bro! Sorry! Couldn't resist! We now return you to your regularly-scheduled, on-topic programming Link to comment
Calm Posted July 31, 2021 Share Posted July 31, 2021 45 minutes ago, JustAnAustralian said: The Amicus Curiae Brief has been filed by Albert C. Jones. Basically 28 pages of waffle about race relations, speaking truth to power, and how the church refused to parter up with his company. Concluding with: In other words, he wants to say where the money should go. Thanks, that needed translation for me. Link to comment
sheilauk Posted July 31, 2021 Share Posted July 31, 2021 6 hours ago, JustAnAustralian said: In other words, he wants to say where the money should go. More than that, he wants the money to come to him. That "prayer for relief" is a crock. 4 Link to comment
smac97 Posted July 31, 2021 Author Share Posted July 31, 2021 13 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said: That does, though! Come on, Dude! You're slippin'! You're not reppin' JRCLS very well, here, Bro! Sorry! Couldn't resist! We now return you to your regularly-scheduled, on-topic programming Talk-to-text error. 1 Link to comment
JustAnAustralian Posted August 6, 2021 Share Posted August 6, 2021 (edited) Not part of the Huntsman lawsuit, but the tithing part of the Gaddy lawsuit has been allowed to progress (her other claims have been thrown out). Quote Laura Gaddy, a former Latter-day Saint who lives in North Carolina, won a small legal victory in her fraud lawsuit against the church last week. In a July 28 ruling, federal Judge Robert Shelby dismissed Gaddy’s arguments about church founder Joseph Smith, his supposed spiritual experiences, and statements about the faith’s scripture, reasoning, as he has in the past, that the First Amendment bars such assertions when they would require a court to “consider the truth or falsity of a church’s religious doctrines.” But the judge allowed a narrow issue about the church’s use of tithing to go forward. https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2021/08/05/latest-mormon-land-better/ You can read the court document at https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.utd.116009/gov.uscourts.utd.116009.100.0.pdf Edited August 6, 2021 by JustAnAustralian 1 Link to comment
JustAnAustralian Posted August 6, 2021 Share Posted August 6, 2021 (edited) And with the Huntsman lawsuit... Quote Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Rick Lloyd Richmond counsel for Defendant Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Adding Troy S. Tessem as counsel of record for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for the reason indicated in the G-123 Notice. Filed by Defendant The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. (Richmond, Rick) (Entered: 08/03/2021) Quote NOTICE of Change of firm name and address by Rick Lloyd Richmond attorney for Defendant Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Changing firm name to Larson LLP and address to 555 So. Flower St., Suite 4400, Los Angeles, CA 90071. Filed by Defendant Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. (Richmond, Rick) (Entered: 08/03/2021) It looks like Rick Richmond has moved from Jenner and Block to Larson LLP, and Troy is an associate at Larson LLP and is being added to the case. Edited August 6, 2021 by JustAnAustralian 1 Link to comment
Tacenda Posted August 6, 2021 Share Posted August 6, 2021 14 hours ago, JustAnAustralian said: Not part of the Huntsman lawsuit, but the tithing part of the Gaddy lawsuit has been allowed to progress (her other claims have been thrown out). https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2021/08/05/latest-mormon-land-better/ You can read the court document at https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.utd.116009/gov.uscourts.utd.116009.100.0.pdf Was thinking @smac97would have posted by now on this. Thanks for posting it. Link to comment
JustAnAustralian Posted August 9, 2021 Share Posted August 9, 2021 (edited) Protective order now (6th Aug) in place for certain documents produced as a result of discovery in both directions. Filed by the Church's representation, but signed by both sides. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.814559/gov.uscourts.cacd.814559.28.0.pdf Quote Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to enter the following Stipulated Protective Order.... Also, a new attorney of record added to the Church's side. Surprised it took this long, but maybe they are expecting Gaddy's lawyers to subpoena info from Huntsman's lawyers to try and get backdoor access to the church's records. Edited August 9, 2021 by JustAnAustralian Link to comment
smac97 Posted August 10, 2021 Author Share Posted August 10, 2021 An update: LDS Church asks judge to dismiss Huntsman lawsuit alleging fraud Quote The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is asking a federal judge to dismiss a fraud lawsuit filed by a member of a high-profile Utah family. In a new court filing obtained by FOX 13 on Tuesday, lawyers for the faith ask a Los Angeles federal judge to dismiss James Huntsman's lawsuit. "James Huntsman seeks an extraordinary remedy—the refund of his voluntary, unrestricted contributions to his former church, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints," church attorney Rick Richmond wrote in the filing. "Huntsman quit making contributions and resigned from the Church because he had a crisis of faith and no longer believes in certain religious doctrines or practices. Huntsman attempts to avoid the obvious obstacles to seeking a refund by cloaking his claim in the garb of a fraud action." Huntsman, the brother of former Utah governor Jon Huntsman Jr. and a member of the wealthy Utah family, sued the church alleging fraud. Specifically, he claims that tithing dollars were spent on commercial ventures, including the City Creek Center project in downtown Salt Lake City, instead of charitable purposes. The lawsuit filed by James Huntsman seeks millions in damages and he claims he will take any money he wins to donate to charities "supporting LGBTQ, African-American, and women’s rights." But in their motion to dismiss the lawsuit, the Latter-day Saint church repeats its claim that no tithing dollars were used to fund City Creek. Instead, the money came from its real-estate arm and other sources, including Ensign Peak and a source of money that was redacted in the court filing. A few thoughts/observations: 1. The motion is one for summary judgment ("MSJ"). A PDF copy of it is at the bottom of the article (here is a direct link). 2. A That means that the Church's attorneys think that they can establish that A) there is no genuine factual dispute between the parties, and B) the Church is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Essentially, the Church's attorneys are saying that there is no need to continue to lawsuit (because there is no factual dispute, ergo no need to explore the facts) and also no need for a trial. 3. The MSJ's primary argument is to undercut Huntsman's claim of fraud by showing that the statements made by the Church (regarding funding of City Creek) are true, such that they cannot form the basis for a fraud claim: Quote First, and most important, summary judgment should be granted because the statements by the Church on which Huntsman relies, are true. The first of the five statements identified by Huntsman is the most specific, with the other four following along in kind. The first statement was made by the Church’s thenpresident with respect to a particular Church-financed project to invest in and revitalize the area next to Church headquarters in downtown Salt Lake City, Utah, known as the City Creek project. The president said the funding for the project would come from “earnings of invested reserve funds” and from “commercial entities” owned by the Church, rather than from “tithing funds.” The undisputed summary judgment record confirms that the statement was entirely true: no tithing funds were used. The undisputed evidence shows that the other allegedly fraudulent statements are likewise true. This is . . . a pretty good approach. Huntsman's attorneys will now need to either A) present evidence that the statements are not true (or that there is a genuine factual dispute about their truthfulness), or B) ask for additional time to gather information about the allegations of fraud. 4. The second argument in the MSJ is that Huntsman cannot establish "reliance" on the above-referenced statements from the Church, and/or that his purported reliance was reasonable/justified: Quote Second, although the Court need not reach this second ground, summary judgment should also be granted because Huntsman cannot establish reliance on the Church’s statements. Fraud claims must be pled and proved with particularity. Fraud claimants cannot identify statements made years earlier and then later claim they subjectively relied on those statements when the evidence shows such claimed reliance is unreasonable and unjustified. Here, Huntsman regularly tithed and made other contributions to his Church for all of his adult life until he lost his faith. Huntsman makes vague allegations that he made his annual contributions over the course of more than two decades because he believed none of them would be used for long-term investments. But these allegations are an advocate’s afterthoughts. Huntsman is a sophisticated businessman who grew up in an environment in which the Church owned and operated many long-term investments and he began making tithing contributions after the Church made clear its plan to invest some amount of tithing contributions into reserve funds to save for a rainy day. Because Huntsman’s purported reliance is unjustified, summary judgment is warranted on this ground as well. From this California case: “‘The elements of fraud, which give rise to the tort action for deceit, are (a) misrepresentation (false representation, concealment, or nondisclosure); (b) knowledge of falsity (or “scienter”); (c) intent to defraud, i.e., to induce reliance; (d) justifiable reliance; and (e) resulting damage.’” As you can see, the Church's first argument is that there was that there was no "misrepresentation (false representation, concealment, or nondisclosure)." The second argument pertains to (d) - "justifiable reliance" on the statement. 5. The third argument is that Huntsman's suit is not in good faith, and is instead a "fishing expedition" designed to embarrass the Church, and is a violation of the First Amendment: Quote Third, summary judgment is also appropriate because the First Amendment prohibits plaintiffs from using the courts as vehicles to conduct fishing expeditions into how and why churches use their unrestricted, voluntary contributions to further their useful purposes. Here, Huntsman appears to be interested in generating publicity and embarrassing his former Church in whose doctrines and practices he no longer believes. He has made no secret of his intention to attempt wide-ranging discovery into how the Church uses the contributions it receives, naming the Church’s three highest ecclesiastical authorities as people “likely to have discoverable information” about the church’s “use of tithing funds.” (SUF 126.) Any such discovery would be an impermissible intrusion on the Church’s First Amendment-protected ability to use the voluntary contributions it receives as it sees fit. 6. P. 10 of the MSJ gets into some interesting details about the funding of City Creek. Some portions are redacted. I wonder if the protective order previously put in place is intended to prevent Huntsman and his attorneys from publicly disclosing the redacted materials in the MSJ. Read the whole thing. Interesting stuff. Thanks, -Smac 2 Link to comment
provoman Posted August 10, 2021 Share Posted August 10, 2021 5 hours ago, smac97 said: Read the whole thing. Interesting stuff. Thanks, -Smac Thanks for the analysis. Link to comment
JustAnAustralian Posted August 11, 2021 Share Posted August 11, 2021 (edited) A bunch of related documents to the MSJ have been uploaded to courtlistener. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/59754309/james-huntsman-v-corporation-of-the-president-of-the-church-of-jesus/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc If you want a long slog of reading, sections of James Huntsman's deposition are also available (attachment 2) https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.814559/gov.uscourts.cacd.814559.32.2.pdf Edited August 11, 2021 by JustAnAustralian 1 Link to comment
JustAnAustralian Posted August 11, 2021 Share Posted August 11, 2021 (edited) I'm putting this in a separate comment for easy of replies etc, but Mr Jonelis (Huntsman's lawer) seems out of his depth with religious stuff. I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on tv, but I keep seeing objections like this (taken from bottom of PDF page 28) Just after he said he and his wife gave a large tithing donation, there was this. Quote Q In 2003, at that time, did you believe you were obeying one of God's commandments by paying tithing? MR. JONELIS: Objection. Vague and ambiguous, lacks foundation, argumentative. Could a lawyer explain how that question is any of the things Mr Jonelis says it is in his objection? Edited August 11, 2021 by JustAnAustralian 1 Link to comment
Recommended Posts