James huntsman (jon's brother) sues church for 'fraud'

[Scott Lloyd]

On 3/24/2021 at 11:49 PM, The Nehor said:

I find it hard to swallow that you can call a government that is run by the Son of God 'secular'.

I also question why the Bill of Rights is singled out as something that will survive. Does a worldwide government need to quarter troops in homes or need a well regulated militia. Will there even be state governments? Trials by jury? Bail being needed?

Maybe it won’t survive as a formal document. But I earnestly believe that the PRINCIPLES that it safeguards and supports that are consistent with the divine doctrine of moral agency will indeed extend into the eternities (see the Doctrine and Covenants passages that refer explicitly to the U.S. Constitution). 

[The Nehor]

56 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Maybe it won’t survive as a formal document. But I earnestly believe that the PRINCIPLES that it safeguards and supports that are consistent with the divine doctrine of moral agency will indeed extend into the eternities (see the Doctrine and Covenants passages that refer explicitly to the U.S. Constitution). 

While some of the doctrine underlying the constitution will survive it is a governing system for a telestial world even if it was partially inspired. I imagine a Terrestrial world will discard a lot of the detritus. There is also the simple reality that a governing system designed for a democratic republic will probably not fit an absolute theocratic monarchy.

[Scott Lloyd]

56 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

While some of the doctrine underlying the constitution will survive it is a governing system for a telestial world even if it was partially inspired. I imagine a Terrestrial world will discard a lot of the detritus. There is also the simple reality that a governing system designed for a democratic republic will probably not fit an absolute theocratic monarchy.

I take literally the phrase “pertaining to futurity” in the following Doctrine and Covenants passage and see it as being synonymous with “perpetual”:

77 According to the laws and ^aconstitution of the people, which I have suffered to be established, and should be maintained for the ^brights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles;

78 That every man may act in doctrine and principle pertaining to futurity, according to the moral ^aagency which I have given unto him, that every man may be ^baccountable for his own sins in the day of ^cjudgment.

79 Therefore, it is not right that any man should be in ^abondage one to another.

80 And for this purpose have I established the ^aConstitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose, and redeemed the land by the ^bshedding of blood.

Edited April 4, 2021 by Scott Lloyd

[The Nehor]

18 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I take literally the phrase “pertaining to futurity” in the following Doctrine and Covenants passage and see it as being synonymous with “perpetual”:

77 According to the laws and ^aconstitution of the people, which I have suffered to be established, and should be maintained for the ^brights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles;

78 That every man may act in doctrine and principle pertaining to futurity, according to the moral ^aagency which I have given unto him, that every man may be ^baccountable for his own sins in the day of ^cjudgment.

79 Therefore, it is not right that any man should be in ^abondage one to another.

80 And for this purpose have I established the ^aConstitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose, and redeemed the land by the ^bshedding of blood.

That is not the usual meaning of the word. You can kind of squeeze it into the definition but it is a radical interpretation to say that means the constitution will stand forever.

[california boy]

On 3/30/2021 at 4:41 PM, ttribe said:

Major recessions and depressions typically result in the liquidation of many companies.  To the extent the Church is invested in such companies, the investment would be worth nothing.  Your general understanding is correct, however, that post-economic downturn most equity investments (i.e. stocks) that did not involve a now-defunct entity would rise again.  Debt often behaves a little differently, but your general point still stands.  That being said, I don't think anyone is begrudging the Church having funds in reserve.  It seems to be the sheer magnitude of it that is staggering and leaves many with questions on what could possibly necessitate such a thing.

As I've tried to point out, efforts to explain away this fund by pointing to Armageddon levels of calamities are really rather silly.  Paper investments are unlikely to survive the foretold events, if they are real.  The assumption that any currency would hold value is equally problematic.  In fact, such a defense also seems to presuppose a continuation of capitalism-based economies during the Millennium.  I see no basis for that assumption, other than people trying to meld their U.S. political conservatism values with their religious ones.  As for land ownership, should governments collapse, there is really no one to enforce ownership laws, so it is once again pointless to try to justify these investments as savings for biblical calamities at the advent of the Millennium.

I am going to make a prediction that the fund will grow to 200 billion in 5 years if the Church continues to spend so little on using excess money on a more humanitarian effort.  The first 100 billion are always the hardest to get.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

That is not the usual meaning of the word. You can kind of squeeze it into the definition but it is a radical interpretation to say that means the constitution will stand forever.

I didn’t say “the Constitution will stand forever.” I said the principles pertaining to moral agency that are enshrined in the Bill of Rights will. And the scripture is very clear on that. 

[Tacenda]

deleted

Edited April 4, 2021 by Tacenda

[longview]

18 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

That is not the usual meaning of the word. You can kind of squeeze it into the definition but it is a radical interpretation to say that means the constitution will stand forever.

I didn’t say “the Constitution will stand forever.” I said the principles pertaining to moral agency that are enshrined in the Bill of Rights will. And the scripture is very clear on that.

Ezra Taft Benson said - - -

https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/ezra-taft-benson/constitution-heavenly-banner/

"The Lord Approved the Constitution

But we honor more than those who brought forth the Constitution. We honor the Lord who revealed it. God himself has borne witness to the fact that he is pleased with the final product of the work of these great patriots.

In a revelation to the Prophet Joseph Smith on August 6, 1833, the Savior admonished: “I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land” (D&C 98:6).

In the Kirtland Temple dedicatory prayer, given on March 27, 1836, the Lord directed the Prophet Joseph to say: “May those principles, which were so honorably and nobly defended, namely, the Constitution of our land, by our fathers, be established forever” (D&C 109:54).

A few years later, Joseph Smith, while unjustly incarcerated in a cold and depressing cell of Liberty Jail at Clay County, Missouri, frequently bore his testimony of the document’s divinity:

“The Constitution of the United States is a glorious standard; it is founded in the wisdom of God. It is a heavenly banner” (HC 3:304).

Heavenly banner is more that telestial.  It could even be Celestial!

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, longview said:

Ezra Taft Benson said - - -

https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/ezra-taft-benson/constitution-heavenly-banner/

"The Lord Approved the Constitution

But we honor more than those who brought forth the Constitution. We honor the Lord who revealed it. God himself has borne witness to the fact that he is pleased with the final product of the work of these great patriots.

In a revelation to the Prophet Joseph Smith on August 6, 1833, the Savior admonished: “I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land” (D&C 98:6).

In the Kirtland Temple dedicatory prayer, given on March 27, 1836, the Lord directed the Prophet Joseph to say: “May those principles, which were so honorably and nobly defended, namely, the Constitution of our land, by our fathers, be established forever” (D&C 109:54).

A few years later, Joseph Smith, while unjustly incarcerated in a cold and depressing cell of Liberty Jail at Clay County, Missouri, frequently bore his testimony of the document’s divinity:

“The Constitution of the United States is a glorious standard; it is founded in the wisdom of God. It is a heavenly banner” (HC 3:304).

Heavenly banner is more that telestial.  It could even be Celestial!

And that could even be idolatry.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

And that could even be idolatry.

Commending something that Joseph Smith called “a heavenly banner” is idolatry? I think you are employing a rather loose definition of that word. 

[smac97]

Anyhoo, back to the lawsuit.

The Salt Lake Tribune is chiming in: James Huntsman isn’t the first to sue the LDS Church for a tithing refund. Do any of them stand a chance?

Quote

Before James Huntsman, there was Laura Gaddy. And Rodney Jay Vessels. And Lynnette Cook. And Julie Taggart. And many others.

They all have sued The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, at one time or another, accusing the 16.5 million-member global faith of fraud.

Um, Vessels, Cook and Taggart all filed one lawsuit together.  And they withdrew it.  And Gaddy's lawsuit was about the religious teachings of the Church, and was filed prior to the Ensign Peak Advisors "whistleblower" thing.  So before James Huntsman, there were . . . one or two fraud suits (in recent memory, anyway).  The "and many others" bit seems a bit much.

Quote

“This is not a new phenomenon. It’s happened many times in the history of the church,” said Nathan Oman, a law professor and historian at Virginia’s College of William & Mary who tracks the pattern back to at least the early 1900s. And like previous cases of this kind, he and other legal scholars say, Huntsman’s latest action faces daunting hurdles.

“The Huntsman case is interesting,” the Latter-day Saint academic said, “in that his name is Huntsman.”

That's not much of a basis for calling the case "interesting."

The article goes on to re-hash, at some length, the Gaddy lawsuit, followed by the Vessels/Cook/Taggart lawsuit.  

Quote

Several legal scholars said Huntsman’s lawsuit appears to have similar motives of drawing attention to similar concerns.

“It doesn’t read like a serious complaint from someone who expects to get money,” said Oman, the William & Mary law professor. “It reads like an op-ed. … That complaint was written as much for [the media] as it was for any court.”

Brunson, the Loyola tax expert, called it “a performative lawsuit.”

“Not a lawsuit meant to actually win, but a lawsuit meant to emphasize a point,” Brunson said in last week’s Salt Lake Tribune “Mormon Land” podcast, “the point seeming to be that he is unhappy with the way the church talks about its finances.”

Oi.  I'm reasonably confident that federal judges don't like to be used as a backdrop for "performative lawsuits."

"A lawsuit {not} meant to actually win" but to "emphasize a point" is a frivolous lawsuit.

Quote

Others have noted the complaint’s unconventional use of a quote right at the start by early church leader Brigham Young and pointed to the bolded and italicized statements throughout that highlight a tone of indignation.

Yep.  The Complaint is a pretty unserious one.  

Quote

Brunson said that tax law governing voluntary contributions such as tithing will make it difficult for Huntsman to recover his donations, which Huntsman estimates in his court filings as exceeding $5 million. Without some kind of restrictive legal covenant covering his giving, Huntsman seems to have little redress in clawing the money back.
...
In an article for Public Square Magazine, attorney Kate Taylor Lauck called the Huntsman suit a “publicity stunt.”

Without mentioning specifics, Lauck, who reported working for the church as outside counsel with the Salt Lake City law firm Kirton McConkie, said, in her experience, “requests such as tithing refunds are handled respectfully, sincerely, dutifully, and seriously until the matter is fully resolved.”

Several legal analysts said the Huntsman case appears to have steered clear of asking a judge to decide any religious matters and focuses on proving fraud more in business terms.

I'd like to think that Huntsman's attorneys read Gaddy's lawsuit and chose to avoid its embarrassing elements.  They succeeded, I guess, but then went on to draft a complaint that has a slew of newembarrassing elements.

Quote

The case relies heavily on the veracity of the whistleblower’s assertions, which Brunson and others said could weaken the case. Whatever the moral or faith implications of those claims, tax experts have questioned the complaint’s legal standing.

After the Huntsman filing, a church spokesperson said Latter-day Saint leaders were not in talks with the IRS about the whistleblower case. Brunson said that could be a sign nothing has come from the complaint thus far — and, he predicts, nothing will.

Veteran tax accountant and Forbes contributor Peter J. Reilly noted shortly after the whistleblower’s allegations surfaced that their main legal thrust — that, as a private foundation, Ensign Peak Advisors violated tax requirements that it regularly spend a portion of its assets — is invalid.

“Ensign is not a private foundation,” wrote Reilly, adding that the fund “is an integrated auxiliary of a church.”
...
“It’s not illegal for churches or nonprofit entities to accumulate wealth, and they’re allowed to have a savings account,” added Oman, which leaves Huntsman’s challenge in a precarious spot.

“I’m very doubtful that the conduct of the church here rises to the level of fraud,” Oman added. “So I don’t think his lawsuit is going to go anywhere.”

I don't think the lawsuit is going anywhere, either.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited April 4, 2021 by smac97

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Anyhoo, back to the lawsuit.

The Salt Lake Tribune is chiming in: James Huntsman isn’t the first to sue the LDS Church for a tithing refund. Do any of them stand a chance?

Um, Vessels, Cook and Taggart all filed one lawsuit together.  And they withdrew it.  And Gaddy's lawsuit was about the religious teachings of the Church, and was filed prior to the Ensign Peak Advisors "whistleblower" thing.  So before James Huntsman, there were . . . one or two fraud suits (in recent memory, anyway).  The "and many others" bit seems a bit much.

That's not much of a basis for calling the case "interesting."

The article goes on to re-hash, at some length, the Gaddy lawsuit, followed by the Vessels/Cook/Taggart lawsuit.  

Oi.  I'm reasonably confident that federal judges don't like to be used as a backdrop for "performative lawsuits."

"A lawsuit {not} meant to actually win" but to "emphasize a point" is a frivolous lawsuit.

Yep.  The Complaint is a pretty unserious one.  

I'd like to think that Huntsman's attorneys read Gaddy's lawsuit and chose to avoid its embarrassing elements.  They succeeded, I guess, but then went on to draft a complaint that has a slew of newembarrassing elements.

I don't think the lawsuit is going anywhere, either.

Thanks,

-Smac

If it truly is a “performance lawsuit” intended to “emphasize a point” (the very definition of a vexatious lawsuit), I’m wondering if the Huntsman lad hopes it will inspire a slew of copycat actions from others intending to harass the Church and that maybe, along the line, one or more of them will stick. To prevent such an onslaught, I would love to see a judge summarily dismiss this one and go so far as to impose sanctions on the attorneys and court costs on the plaintiff for wasting the court’s time with such dross. 

[Scott Lloyd]

19 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I take literally the phrase “pertaining to futurity” in the following Doctrine and Covenants passage and see it as being synonymous with “perpetual”:

77 According to the laws and ^aconstitution of the people, which I have suffered to be established, and should be maintained for the ^brights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles;

78 That every man may act in doctrine and principle pertaining to futurity, according to the moral ^aagency which I have given unto him, that every man may be ^baccountable for his own sins in the day of ^cjudgment.

79 Therefore, it is not right that any man should be in ^abondage one to another.

80 And for this purpose have I established the ^aConstitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose, and redeemed the land by the ^bshedding of blood.

With apologies to Smac, and not wishing to continue a derail, I can’t resist pointing out that President Oaks is giving as his conference talk an important message on the US Constitution. 
 

Now back to your regularly scheduled discussing. 

Edited April 4, 2021 by Scott Lloyd

[smac97]

Anyhoo, back to the topic...

In a move that is sort of surprising to me, the Church has filed an Answer to Huntsman's Complaint, rather than a Motion to Dismiss:

Quote

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has asked a federal judge to toss a lawsuit over millions in tithing dollars brought by a member of a high-profile Utah family.

In a formal response filed in U.S. District Court in California, attorneys for the Latter-day Saint faith deny the allegations leveled by James Huntsman.

"The Church prays that Mr. Huntsman’s complaint be dismissed with prejudice. Additionally, because the complaint is without merit and was not maintained in good faith, the Church requests reimbursement of its costs and attorney’s fees. The Church also asks for any other relief that is just and proper," Church attorney Rick Richmond wrote.

...

The Church's response to the lawsuit is largely succinct. Line by line, it denies Huntsman's claims and declares some of his allegations to be "editorial comments."

"The Church admits that Church agents stated that no tithing would be used to develop City Creek and avers [asserts] that those statements were true," Richmond wrote.

It also questions how much Huntsman actually gave in tithing.

"The Church denies that Mr. Huntsman donated 10% of his annual income to the Church between 1993 and 2017 and also denies that his donations during this time 'amounted to millions of dollars,'" it states.

I am curious why it did this.  Perhaps things are handled differently in California federal courts.  

When a lawsuit is filed a defendant can respond to it in a few ways.

The first option is to file a response to it (an "Answer").  This allows the lawsuit to proceed into its next phase, discovery, in which the parties exchange information, conduct depositions, gather evidence and so on.  The discovery phase is typically the longest and most expensive part of a lawsuit.  It is also the most intrusive, in that each side can use the power of the courts to compel the other side to answer questions, produce documents and evidence, and so on.  For these reasons a defendant who feels a lawsuit is frivolous or otherwise legally deficient can, if circumstances allow, forego filing an Answer in favor of the second option.

The second opion is to file a "Motion to Dismiss."  This motion is a procedural mechanism in which the defendant admits, for the purposes of the motion only, that the facts as alleged in the Complaint are true, but that the Complaint should nevertheless be dismissed based on the law.  If a Motion to Dismiss is granted, then the lawsuit ends prior to discovery and trial.  However, such a motion can be procedurally difficult because a good plaintiff's lawyer will attempt to draft the complaint in such a way as to render it immune from a motion to dismiss.  Nevertheless, motions to dismiss are quite common.  The Church's lawyers have used them, largely successfully, in the McKenna Denson case, the Laura Gaddy case, and others.  

I would have thought that the Huntsman Complaint should have prompted a Motion to Dismiss.  It is possible that the attorneys felt such a motion had no chance of success, and so just went ahead and filed an Answer.  Alternatively, the Church and its attorneys decided to let the case proceed so that the Church can hash out the issues presented in the Complaint.  This would be somewhat surprising, as the Church is, quite sensibly, averse to litigation.  If it has the opportunity to avoid or shorten a lawsuit, it usually takes it.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Analytics]

25 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Anyhoo, back to the topic...

In a move that is sort of surprising to me, the Church has filed an Answer to Huntsman's Complaint, rather than a Motion to Dismiss:

I am curious why it did this.  Perhaps things are handled differently in California federal courts.  

When a lawsuit is filed a defendant can respond to it in a few ways.

The first option is to file a response to it (an "Answer").  This allows the lawsuit to proceed into its next phase, discovery, in which the parties exchange information, conduct depositions, gather evidence and so on.  The discovery phase is typically the longest and most expensive part of a lawsuit.  It is also the most intrusive, in that each side can use the power of the courts to compel the other side to answer questions, produce documents and evidence, and so on.  For these reasons a defendant who feels a lawsuit is frivolous or otherwise legally deficient can, if circumstances allow, forego filing an Answer in favor of the second option.

The second opion is to file a "Motion to Dismiss."  This motion is a procedural mechanism in which the defendant admits, for the purposes of the motion only, that the facts as alleged in the Complaint are true, but that the Complaint should nevertheless be dismissed based on the law.  If a Motion to Dismiss is granted, then the lawsuit ends prior to discovery and trial.  However, such a motion can be procedurally difficult because a good plaintiff's lawyer will attempt to draft the complaint in such a way as to render it immune from a motion to dismiss.  Nevertheless, motions to dismiss are quite common.  The Church's lawyers have used them, largely successfully, in the McKenna Denson case, the Laura Gaddy case, and others.  

I would have thought that the Huntsman Complaint should have prompted a Motion to Dismiss.  It is possible that the attorneys felt such a motion had no chance of success, and so just went ahead and filed an Answer.  Alternatively, the Church and its attorneys decided to let the case proceed so that the Church can hash out the issues presented in the Complaint.  This would be somewhat surprising, as the Church is, quite sensibly, averse to litigation.  If it has the opportunity to avoid or shorten a lawsuit, it usually takes it.

Thanks,

-Smac

What’s the difference between a motion to dismiss and an answer where the defendant “prays that Mr. Huntsman’s complaint be dismissed with prejudice?”

[Danzo]

48 minutes ago, Analytics said:

What’s the difference between a motion to dismiss and an answer where the defendant “prays that Mr. Huntsman’s complaint be dismissed with prejudice?”

In a motion to dismiss, the court doesn't make a decision as to whether the allegations are true or not, it just basically says "even if everything alleged is true, the law can't help".    No judgements are actualy made be the court other than the particular compaint is not asking for something the law can help with. The plaintiff can refile the suit.

A dismissal with predjudice, among other things invokes the doctrine of "Res Judicata" (thing already judged) which prevents the plaintiff from relitigating the issue in that court or any other court. 

Among other things, it might prevent a deep pocketed plaintiff from constantly refilng the same lawsuit over and over again until some judge denies the motion to dismiss.  Maybe the church just wants to get it over with it.

 

Edited May 6, 2021 by Danzo

[smac97]

3 hours ago, Analytics said:

What’s the difference between a motion to dismiss and an answer where the defendant “prays that Mr. Huntsman’s complaint be dismissed with prejudice?”

A Motion to Dismiss triggers a briefing schedule and is a specific request for the Court to act.  When such a motion is filed the plaintiff has 14 days to file a response, after which the moving party has 7 days to file a reply.  Then the motion is submitted to the judge, who can then either schedule a hearing on the motion and then make a decision about it, or else render a decision without a hearing.  The end result is that the court will either (A) grant the motion, (B) grant it in part and deny it in part, or (C) deny the motion altogether.  If (A) happens, then the case is dismissed and the defendant has 30 days to file an appeal if he so chooses (or the judge may give the plaintiff another bite at the apple and let him file an amended complaint, in which case the process starts all over).  If (B) or (C) happens, then the lawsuit continues and the defendant has to file an answer within a few weeks of the court's decision.  The parties then get going on discovery efforts, settlement efforts, trial prep, etc.

In contrast, the "Prayer for Relief" in an Answer is more of a formulaic conclusion of the document.  It only gives the court a general heads-up about what the defendant would like the eventual outcome of the case to be, and does not actually impose any obligation on the court to do anything like what is described above.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Edited May 6, 2021 by smac97

[smac97]

21 minutes ago, Danzo said:

In a motion to dismiss, the court doesn't make a decision as to whether the allegations are true or not, it just basically says "even if everything alleged is true, the law can't help".    No judgements are actualy made be the court other than the particular compaint is not asking for something the law can help with. The plaintiff can refile the suit.

A dismissal with predjudice, among other things invokes the doctrine of "Res Judicata" (thing already judged) which prevents the plaintiff from relitigating the issue in that court or any other court. 

Among other things, it might prevent a deep pocketed plaintiff from constantly refilng the same lawsuit over and over again until some judge denies the motion to dismiss.  Maybe the church just wants to get it over with it.

But if the Church "wants to get it over with," why file an Answer rather than a Motion to Dismiss?  It is true that the judge might grant the motion to dismiss but allow leave to amend to fix any defects int he pleading (as we saw in the Gaddy lawsuit).  However, filing an amended pleading usually has a ticking clock, 45 days or so, after which leave to amend expires and, presumably, res judicata would attach.  Am I correct on this?

In contrast, filing an Answer opens the Church to Huntsman's discovery efforts.  Mr. Huntsman's attorneys will likely propound some far-reaching discovery requests, which the Church may well oppose, thus resulting in a legal argument that Huntsman's attorneys will use to generate more publicity ("What are they hiding?"-style stuff).  

The Church's attorneys could "get it over with" by filing a Motion for Summary Judgment, but that would be predicated on there being no dispute of material facts.  And Huntsman's attorneys could theoretically dely consideration of such a motion by seeking a continuance under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f).  And even if the Motion for Summary Judgment is granted, Huntsman's attorneys could seek leave to amend, which could just re-start things.

I've had very little experience with Rule 12(c) motions for "judgment on the pleadings," but I suppose that could be an alternative to a Motion for Summary Judgment.  And wouldn't such a motion avoid the Rule 56(f) continuance problem?

It has been some years since I litigated these procedural complexities in federal court.  And I did so in Utah, not California, so local rules may come into play.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I am curious why it did this.  Perhaps things are handled differently in California federal courts. 

Perhaps it hopes to preempt future similar attempts?

Recycling arguments is not unknown among the critics of the Church. 

Edited May 6, 2021 by Calm

[rongo]

It looks like Kirton McConkie might be calling a bluff, and seeing if Huntsman has the stomach to risk having to pay attorney fees and court costs. It also sounds like they have Huntsman dead to rights on his claim of recouped tithing (probably by requiring tax documents through discovery). It sounds like his tithing might have even made Bill Reel blush.  

They must be confident that the court will agree with them on the tithing/total funding fungibility issues --- they are very confident about denying the "tithing was used for City Creek" claim. By the Church's definition, that's true, and proving otherwise is probably impossible (there is no smoking gun that refutes the Church's internal categories). 

This does seem to run counter to Elder Oaks' maxim "the worst settlement out of court is always better than the best settlement in court" (i.e., avoid court like the plague), and in what I would assume is an unfriendly (but fair) venue.

These Tom Phillips-esque moon shots run the risk of turning even more anti-religion courts against them. Maybe the Church is hoping to accelerate getting to this point by lancing the boil with this one.

[Calm]

18 minutes ago, rongo said:

also sounds like they have Huntsman dead to rights on his claim of recouped tithing (probably by requiring tax documents through discovery). It sounds like his tithing might have even made Bill Reel blush.

For those who did not read the article like me before wondering about the above:

Quote

"The Church denies that Mr. Huntsman donated 10% of his annual income to the Church between 1993 and 2017 and also denies that his donations during this time 'amounted to millions of dollars,'" it states

Seems rather stupid of Huntsman to make the claim when it could be easily disproved to the court.  Or maybe he was fishing to find out what records are kept after resigning.  But that doesn’t really make sense because donation records could be kept when others are not because of taxes and we already know significant records are kept because of what happens in cases of people being rebaptized. 

Edited May 6, 2021 by Calm

[rongo]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

For those who did not read the article like me before wondering about the above:

Seems rather stupid of Huntsman to make the claim when it could be easily disproved to the court.  Or maybe he was fishing to find out what records are kept after resigning.  But that doesn’t really make sense because donation records could be kept when others are not and we already know significant records are kept because of what happens in cases of people being rebaptized. 

I honestly don't think he (and his counsel) thought that the Church would dare call his bluff on that --- I think this part is probably a huge surprise. They have to know now, though, that not paying any tithing on Huntsman-level income for years, and then suing for millions in tithing from that period to be returned, would really undermine his credibility and case. It sounds like Kirton McConkie is holding a flush and knows that Huntsman is holding no more than a low pair.  

[Calm]

Would his tithing records become public knowledge if it continues or are there ways to keep those confidential?

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Calm said:

Would his tithing records become public knowledge if it continues or are there ways to keep those confidential?

I would imagine that, since the church is disputing the amount, it would have to be part of the court record. 

[jkwilliams]

12 minutes ago, rongo said:

I honestly don't think he (and his counsel) thought that the Church would dare call his bluff on that --- I think this part is probably a huge surprise. They have to know now, though, that not paying any tithing on Huntsman-level income for years, and then suing for millions in tithing from that period to be returned, would really undermine his credibility and case. It sounds like Kirton McConkie is holding a flush and knows that Huntsman is holding no more than a low pair.  

It's Jenner and Block (LA firm) that is arguing the case. Just saying. 

I sympathize with the man, as you do feel pretty sheepish when you realize you've given a substantial amount of money over many years to what you later understand to be a fraudulent organization. Unfortunately, he's on very shaky legal ground. In America, you can take any second-rate fraud, dress it up in religious garb, and for the most part the law can't touch it.