Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

7. The Ninth Circuit nevertheless gets reversed a lot.  A lot.  And the Politifact article doesn't get things totally right.  See, e.g., here (from 2017) :

So . . . yeah.  The Ninth Circuit is pretty bad.


...
image-asset.png?format=1000w

Do you know why Professor Muller made this cumulative graph going backwards in time rather than forward? This seems awfully misleading. It would appear that from about 2004 to 2015, the 9th Circuit had a lower reversal rate than the 6th, the 11th, or both. From 1994 to 2003 or so the 9th was worse, but shouldn't it get some credit for having cleaned up its act 18-or-so years ago?

Link to comment
24 minutes ago, Danzo said:

I would clarify that to say that a decision that is appealed to SCOTUS and Granted Certiorari  by SCOTUS has an average a 82% likelihood of being reversed.

Okay.  I think "appealed to SCOTUS" assumes that cert is granted.  Otherwise, there is no appeal.

24 minutes ago, Danzo said:

the supreme court doesn't review very many 9th circuit opinions.  Most opinions (99%) are not reviewed by SCOTUS.

Yes.  But regarding the few that are reviewed, the Ninth Circuit has a very poor reputation and record.  

24 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Also SCOTUS doesn't randomly review opinions, its got to be significant for them to even look at it. 

Yes.  But the point is that every circuit has its decisions reviewed by SCOTUS.  Comparatively speaking, then, the Ninth Circuit does a fairly bad job of getting the law right.  

The reversal rate of the Ninth Circuit is a well-known punchline is legal circles.  See, e.g., here:

Quote

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit went 1-11 in argued Supreme Court cases this term, including unanimous rejections of the San Francisco-based circuit’s approach on immigration and tribal police stops.

The lopsided record, capped by end-of-term rulings on voting rights and donor disclosure, isn’t unusual for the Ninth. The nation’s largest circuit, encompassing California and eight other states, has long been a conservative target for its perceived liberal rulings. Nor is it atypical for the justices to reverse lower court rulings: other circuits with fewer cases at the high court this term finished with 100 percent reversal rates.

Still, the Ninth circuit’s track record this term suggests its judges remain out of step with the Supreme Court even after 10 Donald Trump appointments to the 29-member court shifted its membership somewhat to the right.

“The Ninth Circuit just has a different way of looking at the law,” said Arthur Hellman, professor emeritus at University of Pittsburgh School of Law.

“There is something in the air or in the water,” said Hellman, a federal courts scholar focused on the Ninth Circuit. “The judges collectively look at the legal world differently than the Supreme Court.”

Yep.

24 minutes ago, Danzo said:

The "odds" being "against" them not because the Ninth Circuit got the law right, but that SCOTUS lacks the resources to babysit the Ninth Circuit.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
29 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The reversal rate of the Ninth Circuit is a well-known punchline is legal circles. 

Did you hear the one about the lawyer opening his arguments before SCOTUS:

        "Your Honors, I'm here to appeal a decision by the Ninth Circuit Court.  But I also have other arguments in my favor ..."

        CJ Roberts interrupts: "That's fine, but they won't be necessary. You win."


Seriously, this is not even especially controversial. The Supremes beat down on the Ninth Circuit so often you would think they owe them money.

Just take a look at the numbers and see for yourself: https://ballotpedia.org/SCOTUS_case_reversal_rates_(2007_-_Present)

SCOTUS decided 16 cases coming out of the Ninth Circuit this last term - more than twice the amount originating from any other Circuit - and all but one were reversed.

Term before that? 9 out of 10 reversed. And the term before that? 12 out of 14 reversed. Etc.

People can try to massage the numbers to suit their liking, but the facts are the facts, and the Ninth Circuit's reputation is pretty clearly deserved.

 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Okay.  I think "appealed to SCOTUS" assumes that cert is granted.  Otherwise, there is no appeal.

Yes.  But regarding the few that are reviewed, the Ninth Circuit has a very poor reputation and record.  

Yes.  But the point is that every circuit has its decisions reviewed by SCOTUS.  Comparatively speaking, then, the Ninth Circuit does a fairly bad job of getting the law right.  

The reversal rate of the Ninth Circuit is a well-known punchline is legal circles.  See, e.g., here:

Yep.

The "odds" being "against" them not because the Ninth Circuit got the law right, but that SCOTUS lacks the resources to babysit the Ninth Circuit.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

25 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Did you hear the one about the lawyer opening his arguments before SCOTUS:

        "Your Honors, I'm here to appeal a decision by the Ninth Circuit Court.  But I also have other arguments in my favor ..."

        CJ Roberts interrupts: "That's fine, but they won't be necessary. You win."


Seriously, this is not even especially controversial. The Supremes beat down on the Ninth Circuit so often you would think they owe them money.

Just take a look at the numbers and see for yourself: https://ballotpedia.org/SCOTUS_case_reversal_rates_(2007_-_Present)

SCOTUS decided 16 cases coming out of the Ninth Circuit this last term - more than twice the amount originating from any other Circuit - and all but one were reversed.

Term before that? 9 out of 10 reversed. And the term before that? 12 out of 14 reversed. Etc.

People can try to massage the numbers to suit their liking, but the facts are the facts, and the Ninth Circuit's reputation is pretty clearly deserved.

 

I am not disputing that the ninth circuit gets overturned, I am not disputing their numbers, I am just trying to clarify what that means. It does not mean  you can ignore a decision by that circuit.  The supreme court only hears what I decides to hear. The vast majority of the 9th circuit opinions are not even contriversial. 

In 2019 9 ninth circuit opinions were overturned  in 2019 6,594 cases were resolved on the merits which means 0.14%.. or 14/10ths of one percent!  were overturned by the supreme court (granted the overturn numbers don't exactly corispond with the cases resolved because it take a bit of time to resolve the apeal).

Even with the 9th Circuit, the chances of the supreme court reversing an opinion can be rounded to 0%

 

 

 

Link to comment
58 minutes ago, Danzo said:

I am not disputing that the ninth circuit gets overturned, I am not disputing their numbers, I am just trying to clarify what that means.

I think it means that, when the chips are down, the Ninth Circuit is comparatively not very good at getting the law right.

58 minutes ago, Danzo said:

It does not mean  you can ignore a decision by that circuit. 

I don't think anyone is suggesting that.

58 minutes ago, Danzo said:

The supreme court only hears what I decides to hear. The vast majority of the 9th circuit opinions are not even contriversial.

Perhaps so.

The question, then, is whether Huntsman's lawsuit has a likelihood of being reversed by the Ninth Circuit.  On balance, I will venture a guess that the district court's decision will be upheld.  But it's the Ninth Circuit, so who knows?

58 minutes ago, Danzo said:

In 2019 9 ninth circuit opinions were overturned  in 2019 6,594 cases were resolved on the merits which means 0.14%.. or 14/10ths of one percent!  were overturned by the supreme court (granted the overturn numbers don't exactly corispond with the cases resolved because it take a bit of time to resolve the apeal).

Even with the 9th Circuit, the chances of the supreme court reversing an opinion can be rounded to 0%

Agreed.  I think this case has little to no chance of being heard by SCOTUS.  What chance there is would arise because the Ninth Circuit reverses the trial court.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
3 hours ago, Amulek said:

Just take a look at the numbers and see for yourself: https://ballotpedia.org/SCOTUS_case_reversal_rates_(2007_-_Present)

According to that link, from 2007 to the present the SCOTUS has affirmed more cases from the ninth circuit than any other circuit.

By percent, it has reversed 79.2% of cases since 2007, which is second to the sixth court, which has had 81.1% of its heard cases reversed. In aggregate, the Supreme Court overturns or vacates 70.7% of everything it hears.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I think it means that, when the chips are down, the Ninth Circuit is comparatively not very good at getting the law right.

I'm not sure. In aggregate, something like 99.8% of its decisions are not overturned or vacated. Is that materially or statistically different than a court that has, say, 99.9% of its decisions not overturned or vacated? 

 

Edited by Analytics
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Analytics said:

Is that materially or statistically different than a court that has, say, 99.9% of its decisions not overturned or vacated? 

Are there any stats for the full district->circuit->supreme court flow?

i.e. percentages of 

A -> A -> A

A -> A -> B

A-> B -> A

A -> B -> B

As in, is it the circuit that's the "problem", or the districts that are the "problem"? (Let's assume for a moment that the supreme court isn't the problem)

Edited by JustAnAustralian
Link to comment
14 minutes ago, JustAnAustralian said:

Are there any stats for the full district->circuit->supreme court flow?

I don't know of percentages but Ballotpedia has most of the raw data.  For example, the 9th circuit case load can be found at https://ballotpedia.org/United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Ninth_Circuit (go to the Caseloads section).  In the Jurisdiction section, you can see all of the district courts it has jurisdiction over.  In each of those, there is a Caseloads section.  And for the Supreme Court, you can take a look at https://ballotpedia.org/SCOTUS_case_reversal_rates_(2007_-_Present)

Link to comment
14 hours ago, Analytics said:

According to that link, from 2007 to the present the SCOTUS has affirmed more cases from the ninth circuit than any other circuit.

And by the same metric - aggregate numbers - SCOTUS has reversed more cases from the Ninth Circuit than any other circuit as well.

But, for comparison purposes, how does that stack up? What is the gap between them and, say, the next most prevalent court across the same period of time?

Well, on the approval side you are looking at 42 cases affirmed from the 9th followed by 28 from the 2nd: a difference of 15. (good times)

But for reversals you are looking at 164 cases reversed from the 9th compared to 60 from the 6th: a difference of 104. (hmm...bad times)

So yes, the Ninth Circuit has had more cases affirmed than any other circuit, but they've got way more reversed. And it's pretty clear that the reversal gap is much wider than the difference in affirmations.

 

Quote

By percent, it has reversed 79.2% of cases since 2007, which is second to the sixth court, which has had 81.1% of its heard cases reversed.

Yeah, this is kind of what I was hinting at earlier when I talked about messaging the numbers. If you ignore the big picture, run the clock back far enough, squint really really hard, and focus only on percentages then you can finally get to a place where the Ninth Circuit isn't the most reversed Circuit Court...by < 2%.

But if you look a little closer, the trends are pretty clear. For example, let's look at data from the last five terms - summarized from the site above in the table below.

Over the past five years the Ninth Circuit has been (hands down) the most reversed court, period: both in terms of the aggregate number of cases reversed (55) and in the percentage of reversals (87.30%) as well.

And that is pretty representative for them. They are consistently at the top of the pack in terms of getting the Constitution wrong, and that's just by looking at the raw numbers. It doesn't get much better once you start digging into the cases themselves and examining the legal reasoning behind them. That's why they have gotten the reputation they have.
 

+==================+==========+==========+===========+===========+===========+===========+===========+===========+===========+===========+=========+==========+==========+============+
|     Circuit      |   2020   |   2020   |   2019    |   2019    |   2018    |   2018    |   2017    |   2017    |   2016    |   2016    |  TOTAL  |  TOTAL   |  TOTALS  |   TOTAL    |
|     Courts       | Affirmed | Reversed | Affirmed  | Reversed  | Affirmed  | Reversed  | Affirmed  | Reversed  | Affirmed  | Reversed  | Decided | Affirmed | Reversed | % Reversed |
+==================+==========+==========+===========+===========+===========+===========+===========+===========+===========+===========+=========+==========+==========+============+
| First Circuit    | 0        | 1        | 0         | 1         | 1         | 1         | 0         | 1         | 1         | 0         | 6       | 2        | 4        | 66.67%     |
+------------------+----------+----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+---------+----------+----------+------------+
| Second Circuit   | 1        | 2        | 2         | 6         | 2         | 3         | 2         | 2         | 1         | 4         | 25      | 8        | 17       | 68.00%     |
+------------------+----------+----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+---------+----------+----------+------------+
| Third Circuit    | 2        | 4        | 2         | 2         | 1         | 2         | 0         | 3         | 0         | 2         | 18      | 5        | 13       | 72.22%     |
+------------------+----------+----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+---------+----------+----------+------------+
| Fourth Circuit   | 0        | 3        | 3         | 1         | 2         | 2         | 0         | 0         | 1         | 1         | 13      | 6        | 7        | 53.85%     |
+------------------+----------+----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+---------+----------+----------+------------+
| Fifth Circuit    | 2        | 5        | 1         | 6         | 2         | 2         | 1         | 3         | 2         | 2         | 26      | 8        | 18       | 69.23%     |
+------------------+----------+----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+---------+----------+----------+------------+
| Sixth Circuit    | 0        | 5        | 3         | 0         | 4         | 3         | 0         | 4         | 1         | 6         | 26      | 8        | 18       | 69.23%     |
+------------------+----------+----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+---------+----------+----------+------------+
| Seventh Circuit  | 0        | 1        | 0         | 1         | 0         | 1         | 3         | 4         | 0         | 2         | 12      | 3        | 9        | 75.00%     |
+------------------+----------+----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+---------+----------+----------+------------+
| Eighth Circuit   | 1        | 3        | 1         | 0         | 1         | 3         | 1         | 2         | 0         | 2         | 14      | 4        | 10       | 71.43%     |
+------------------+----------+----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+---------+----------+----------+------------+
| Ninth Circuit    | 1        | 15       | 1         | 9         | 2         | 12        | 3         | 12        | 1         | 7         | 63      | 8        | 55       | 87.30%     |
+------------------+----------+----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+---------+----------+----------+------------+
| Tenth Circuit    | 0        | 3        | 2         | 2         | 1         | 1         | 2         | 1         | 0         | 3         | 15      | 5        | 10       | 66.67%     |
+------------------+----------+----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+---------+----------+----------+------------+
| Eleventh Circuit | 2        | 3        | 3         | 4         | 4         | 3         | 1         | 5         | 2         | 3         | 30      | 12       | 18       | 60.00%     |
+------------------+----------+----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+---------+----------+----------+------------+
| D.C. Circuit     | 0        | 4        | 1         | 3         | 2         | 1         | 1         | 4         | 1         | 2         | 19      | 5        | 14       | 73.68%     |
+------------------+----------+----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+---------+----------+----------+------------+
| Federal Circuit  | 0        | 3        | 1         | 3         | 2         | 2         | 1         | 2         | 1         | 6         | 21      | 5        | 16       | 76.19%     |
+------------------+----------+----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+---------+----------+----------+------------+
Link to comment
On 8/18/2021 at 7:08 PM, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I wonder if the government used tax dollars to set up an investment fund and then used the proceeds of that investment fund to pay for abortions, how many individuals on this board would be satisfied with the response: “You have nothing to complain about. No tax dollars were used to fund abortions.”

Very nice! Quite clever, in fact.

But I don't want the federal government funding abortion at all, whether by tax dollars or by the proceeds of investment of tax dollars. 

The problem is that abortion isn't really analogous to City Creek. And personally, I don't much care whether the church funded City Creek with tithing or not. It's a tempest in a teapot to me.

Link to comment
6 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Very nice! Quite clever, in fact.

But I don't want the federal government funding abortion at all, whether by tax dollars or by the proceeds of investment of tax dollars. 

The problem is that abortion isn't really analogous to City Creek. And personally, I don't much care whether the church funded City Creek with tithing or not. It's a tempest in a teapot to me.

My sense is the vast majority of tithe payers are of the same mind as you. 
 

Furthermore, tithe paying is voluntary; taxes are not. 

Link to comment
On 9/15/2021 at 6:12 PM, JustAnAustralian said:

Are there any stats for the full district->circuit->supreme court flow?

i.e. percentages of 

A -> A -> A

A -> A -> B

A-> B -> A

A -> B -> B

As in, is it the circuit that's the "problem", or the districts that are the "problem"? (Let's assume for a moment that the supreme court isn't the problem)

The federal district courts are the ones that get a first crack at the legal and factual issues.  The circuit courts are then supposed to review the legal (but usually not the factual) decisions of the district courts, and either "affirm" or "reverse" those decisions.  SCOTUS then reviews whether the circuit court's review was correct.

It looks like your A/B thing is intended to be something like this:

  • 1. "A -> A -> A" means the (the District Court) reaches a legal conclusion (the first "A"), which both the Circuit Court SCOTUS uphold and affirm as correct (the second and third "As", respectively).
  • 2. "A -> A -> B" means the District Court reaches a legal conclusion (the first "A"), which the the Circuit Court affirms (the second "A"), but then SCOTUS reverses and tells the Circuit Court and the District Court that they got the law wrong ("B").
  • 3. "A-> B -> A" means that the District Court reaches a legal conclusion (the first "A"), which the Circuit Court reverses ("B"), but then SCOTUS reverses that reversal and tells the Circuit Court that it got the law wrong (the second "A").
  • 4. "A -> B -> B" means that the District Court reaches a legal conclusion (the first "A"), which the Circuit Court reverses (the first "B"), and then SCOTUS affirms the Circuit Court's affirms/upholds the Circuit Court's reversal (the second "B").

In other words, (1) and (4) are instances where the Circuit Court was more likely to have done its job correctly (since their decisions are affirmed in (1) and (4)), and (2) and (3) are instances where the Circuit Court was more likely to have screwed up (since its decisions are reversed in (2) and (3)).

I think (2) and (3) (SCOTUS reversing the Circuit Court decision) happen far more than they should in the Ninth Circuit.  Again from this article:

Quote

“The Ninth Circuit just has a different way of looking at the law,” said Arthur Hellman, professor emeritus at University of Pittsburgh School of Law.

“There is something in the air or in the water,” said Hellman, a federal courts scholar focused on the Ninth Circuit. “The judges collectively look at the legal world differently than the Supreme Court.”

That's a diplomatic way of saying that the Ninth Circuit is pretty bad at its job.

Nevertheless, you raise an interesting question as to (1) and (4).  (1) has the District Court getting the law right and SCOTUS ultimately affirming that.  (4) has the District Court getting the law wrong the SCOTUS affirming the Circuit Court's reversal.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
Link to comment
18 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

My sense is the vast majority of tithe payers are of the same mind as you. 
 

Furthermore, tithe paying is voluntary; taxes are not. 

Amusingly, IRS publications I have read describe the tax system as "voluntary". I think what they mean by that is you voluntarily fill out your own tax forms, rather than having the IRS "serve" you by filling it out for you themselves.

It's the same sense as "volunteering" in the military. More like "voluntold".

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

Amusingly, IRS publications I have read describe the tax system as "voluntary". I think what they mean by that is you voluntarily fill out your own tax forms, rather than having the IRS "serve" you by filling it out for you themselves.

It's the same sense as "volunteering" in the military. More like "voluntold".

Do you mean I can opt to have the IRS do my tax return? (Not that I’d want to.)

Link to comment
24 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Do you mean I can opt to have the IRS do my tax return? (Not that I’d want to.)

Actually, that's possible to do. Or at least it was the last time I looked. I'm quite serious.

This may have changed in the meantime.

Link to comment
50 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Actually, that's possible to do. Or at least it was the last time I looked. I'm quite serious.

This may have changed in the meantime.

I just checked online. Yes, they’ll do it, but you’ll pay the maximum amount; they won’t figure any credits or deductions to which you may be entitled. No reasonable person would opt for this. 

Link to comment
4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Do you mean I can opt to have the IRS do my tax return? (Not that I’d want to.)

Its called a substitute for return (SFR).

The problem with SFRs is they figure the tax as married filing separately with no deductions. Most of the time the tax calculated is higher than if you did it yourself.  The IRS will do this for you if you take too long to file your own return.

Link to comment

The majority of cases reviewed by SCOTUS are reversed. There is a lot of selection bias in there though. If it was a random sampling you would be left with the assumption that (in the eyes of SCOTUS) the vast majority of all the appellate court decisions are decided wrongly based on the law.

Link to comment

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...