Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

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 post
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 IslandsCayman Islands International Organization

 

Sort Descending Date Filed Venue Case Number Title Party Type Space
 
  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

Corporation-Of-The-Presiding-Bishop-Of-T

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Link to post
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 post
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.

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
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?

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
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 post
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 post
18 minutes ago, 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 sanction obal offense.

Link to post
Posted (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 by ttribe
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
  • 1 month later...
Posted (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 by JustAnAustralian
Link to post
Posted (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 by Calm
Link to post

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 post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...