James Huntsman's Tithing Refund Lawsuit Thrown Out

[provoman]

Here is a thought.

I pay tithing.

The Church puts my contribution in a interest bearing account at CreditUnion Bank.

CreditUnion Bank pays interest into the account into which the Church puts the tithing.

So in my opinion, interest on surplus tithing is not tithing, interest is distinct as to source and distinct in the purpose it was giving.

And, financial institutions provide statements that clearly identify interest paid from the principal amount.

[webbles]

23 hours ago, smac97 said:

Here's a litigation update.  Two of them, actually.  Both from the Tribune:

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2022/02/04/james-huntsman-appeals/ (published at 6:22 p.m.)

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2022/02/04/read-james-huntsmans/ (published at 6:37 p.m.)

Both are written by the same journalist, Tony Semerad.  The first one is a bit longer.  Both provide a link to the actual appeal (Huntsman's opening brief) :

James Huntsman's 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Brief

This brief is an appeal of the trial judge's decision to dismiss the case, see here:

Judge rules against James Huntsman

Here's a synopsis of what happened at the trial court:

1. The Church's attorneys filed a "Motion for Summary Judgment" asking for the case to be dismissed on three basic arguments:

• The First Amendment bars Huntsman's claims;
• No reasonable juror could find that Plaintiff justifiably relied on any alleged misrepresentation; and
• No reasonable juror could find a misrepresentation.

2. The first argument above is distinct from the others.  The judge found that Huntsman's claims present "a purely secular dispute" (that is, the disposition of tithing money), such that the court was not being asked to adjudicate the Church's religious beliefs/teachings (which would be prohibited by the First Amendment).  So the Church did not persuade the judge on this argument.  

3. The second and third arguments above both pertain to "fraud."  While the particulars of how a fraud claim can vary from state to state, the basics always include a number of items, including that a "misrepresentation" was made (that is, a statement of fact that is false), and also that the plaintiff (the purportedly defrauded party) "justifiably relied" on the misrepresentation.  The judge found that A) "{no} reasonable juror {could} conclude that Hinckley made a false statement when he said that tithing funds would not be used on the City Creek project but earnings of invested tithing funds would be used," and B) that "no reasonable juror could conclude that it was justifiable for Plaintiff {Huntsman} to rely on" statements from the Church "as an assertion that Defendant would not use earnings on invested tithing funds."  

4. We've had hundreds of posts on this board arguing these points.  Candidly, I have been pretty surprised at the confusion about them.  Critics sought to conflate tithing with "earnings of invested tithing funds."  The judge was having none of it:

Tithing funds from donors are materially distinguishable from revenues generated by the donee's subsequent investment of those funds.  This point was made and re-made dozens upon dozens of times on this board.  See, e.g., here:

And here:

And here:

And here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.  And in many, many other places.

5. The appeal makes for somewhat interesting reading.  The drafting continues to be emotional and bombastic.  Lots of bolded and underlined text (for emphasis).  Such things are, in my experience, used very sparingly in legal briefs.

6. It looks like the appeal includes a fairly significant error (I'm not sure, as I'm tired as I am reading this stuff, so maybe I'm missing something).  Footnote 5 of the appellate brief states:

This appeal correctly states that the trial court found that the First Amendment does not bar Huntsman's claims.  However, as to the "no reasonable juror could find that Mr. Huntsman justifiably relied onthe Church’s misrepresentations" bit, I think that's quite wrong.  The trial court specifically states on page 10 of its ruling as follows:

In other words, the trial judge found that

A) "a reasonable juror could only conclude that Defendant used 'the earnings of invested reserve funds' to fund the City Creek project - i.e., Defendant did exactly what Hinckley said Defendant would do" (that is, there was no "misrepresentation"), and also

B) that "no reasonable juror could conclude that it was justifiable for Plaintiff to rely" on the Church's representations about what money would be used.

And yet Huntsman's attorneys above state that "the District Court ruled in Mr. Huntsman’s favor on" the "justifiable reliance" issue.  To me it looks like the judge ruled against Huntsman on this issue.  This may be significant because Huntsman's attorneys specifically say they are not appealing the trial judge's decision on the "justifiable reliance issue" ("since the District Court ruled in Mr. Huntsman’s favor on both of these grounds,Mr. Huntsman agrees with the rulings and does not seek to disturb them on appeal").  

This could potentially be a significant error.  If Huntsman's attorneys are not appealing the trial court's ruling on the "justifiable reliance" issue ("Huntsman agrees with the rulings {regarding justifiable reliance} and does not seek to disturb them on appeal"), and if the trial court ruled against Huntsman on this issue, then Huntsman's attorneys have left intact the trial court's ruling on this issue.

Hey, lawyers!  Can you help me out here?  Am I up in the night on this point?

Thanks,

-Smac

I've got a question about Huntsman's argument.  Part of the reason that the District Court ruled in favor of the Church's summary judgement was the fact that President Hinckley said, in 2003, that the mall would be funded, in part, by the invested reserve funds.  And President Hinckley had earlier explained, in 1991 and 1995, that those funds were created by the excess income of the Church.

Huntsman, in the appeal, appears to be arguing that the 1991 and 1995 statements (besides being potentially ambiguous) shouldn't matter because Hunstman didn't know about them.

Does that argument hold water for fraud cases?  What if about a member who was baptized after 2003 and hadn't heard President Hinckley's statement.  All of the other subsequent statements about tithing usage in relation to the mall don't have the caveat about invested reserve funds.  So, would that member be able to argue a fraud case since he/she only heard the later statements and not the 2003 statement?

 

[smac97]

On 2/5/2022 at 11:09 PM, webbles said:

I've got a question about Huntsman's argument.  Part of the reason that the District Court ruled in favor of the Church's summary judgement was the fact that President Hinckley said, in 2003, that the mall would be funded, in part, by the invested reserve funds.  And President Hinckley had earlier explained, in 1991 and 1995, that those funds were created by the excess income of the Church.

Huntsman, in the appeal, appears to be arguing that the 1991 and 1995 statements (besides being potentially ambiguous) shouldn't matter because Hunstman didn't know about them.

I don't see this as helping Huntsman.  But more to the point, I don't think this was the primary thrust of Huntsman's argument.  Huntsman was trying to argue that a factual dispute exists about whether tithes were used on City Creek because the employees and leaders of Ensign Peak "referred to and revered all funds of EPA as 'tithing' money, regardless of whether they were referring to principal or earnings on that principal." 

The trial court rejected this line of reasoning because the whistleblower (Neilsen) "conflates tithing funds with earnings on invested tithing funds, which conflation does not work because it contradicts Pres. Hinckley, who expressly differentiated tithes (which would not be used for City Creek) and earnings on invested tithes (which would be used for City Creek).  "That," the trial court concluded, "is exactly what happened," such that "{r}egardless of the nomenclature used by EPA employees, the distinction in Hinckley's statement renders his statement true."

Another point (apparently not raised by the trial court) is that the purported "nomenclature used by EPA employees" (referring to all of the money it worked with as "tithing") is irrelevant to Huntsman's claims because there is no allegation that EPA made any such representations to Huntsman.  Instead, these characterizations by EPA employees appear to have been just used "in house."  Huntsman cannot use these statements from EPA employees as the basis for a fraud claim when they (the statements) were not communicated to Huntsman.

On 2/5/2022 at 11:09 PM, webbles said:

Does that argument hold water for fraud cases? 

I don't think so.

First, the fraud claim is based on five statements:

• 1) April 2003 General Conference talk by Pres. Hinckley: "I wish to give the entire Church the assurance that tithing funds have not and will not be used {for the City Creek project}," and instead funds "will come from those commercial entities owned by the Church" and from "earnings of invested reserve funds."
• 2) October 2003 General Conference talk Bishop Burton: "None of this money comes from the tithing of our faithful members.  This is now how we use tithing funds."
• 3) Unattributed quote in Ensign article: "No tithing funds will be usedin the redevelopment."
• 4) Unattributed quote in a 2007 Deseret News article: "Money for the project is not coming from LDS Church members' tithing donations" and instead will come from "other real-estate ventures" associated with "the Church's real-estate development arm {Property Reserve, Inc.}."
• 5. October 2012 Salt Lake Tribune article quoting Keith McMullin, head of Deseret Management Corp.: "McMullin said not one penny of tithing does to the Church's for-profit endeavors.  Specifically, the Church has said no tithing went towards City Creek Center."

Second, the trial court found that Huntsman "does not properly consider the full statement made by Hinckley," which includes declarations that tithing would not be used and and that earnings from invested reserve funds would be used.

Third, the trial court found that there was no factual dispute about the accuracy of Hinckley's statement.  That is, "a reasonable juror could only conclude that Defendant used 'the earnings of invested reserve funds' to fund the City Creek project - i.e., {the Church} did exactly what Hinckley said {it} would do."  No false statement of fact = no fraud claim.

Fourth, without a "misrepresentation," a fraud claim falls apart.  If there was no "misrepresnetation," then there was nothing about which the Church could be aware.  Part of a fraud claim is that the defrauding party must have "knowledge" of the "falsity" of the statement.  If there was no "misrepresentation," then there was no intent to defraud.  Part of a fraud claim is that the defrauding party must have had "intent to defraud ... to induce reliance" on the false statement.  If there was no "misrepresentation," then Huntsman could not have "justifiably relied" on it or been "injured" by it.  And so on.

Fifth, Huntsman appears to try to bootstrap his fraud claim a bit by pointing to the bailout of the Beneficial Life.  However, the trial court rejected this effort because Huntsman never actually pointed to any actual statement by the Church about Beneficial Life.  Huntsman actually admitted this in his affidavit ("I do not recall any specific statement by the Church denying that tithing funds were being used to bail out Beneficial Life...").  Again, no false statement of fact = no fraud.  The trial court also rejected Huntsman's effort to point to "Sunday school manuals" or "the Church's teachings" to formulate a fraud claim about the bailout.  The trial court found that a fraud claim on those grounds would require the court to examine whether the Church's teachings prohibited the use of tithing funds to bail out Beneficial, which examination would violate the First Amendment. 

On 2/5/2022 at 11:09 PM, webbles said:

What if about a member who was baptized after 2003 and hadn't heard President Hinckley's statement.  All of the other subsequent statements about tithing usage in relation to the mall don't have the caveat about invested reserve funds.  So, would that member be able to argue a fraud case since he/she only heard the later statements and not the 2003 statement?

I don't think that matters.  The absence of the caveat would not give rise to a fraud claim.  "Tithing funds will not be used on City Creek" is a true statement, regardless of whether or not it is accompanied by the caveat about invested reserve funds.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 7, 2022 by smac97

[sunstoned]

I saw on the news tonight that Huntsman is appealing his case.

[Tacenda]

16 hours ago, smac97 said:

I don't see this as helping Huntsman.  But more to the point, I don't think this was the primary thrust of Huntsman's argument.  Huntsman was trying to argue that a factual dispute exists about whether tithes were used on City Creek because the employees and leaders of Ensign Peak "referred to and revered all funds of EPA as 'tithing' money, regardless of whether they were referring to principal or earnings on that principal." 

The trial court rejected this line of reasoning because the whistleblower (Neilsen) "conflates tithing funds with earnings on invested tithing funds, which conflation does not work because it contradicts Pres. Hinckley, who expressly differentiated tithes (which would not be used for City Creek) and earnings on invested tithes (which would be used for City Creek).  "That," the trial court concluded, "is exactly what happened," such that "{r}egardless of the nomenclature used by EPA employees, the distinction in Hinckley's statement renders his statement true."

Another point (apparently not raised by the trial court) is that the purported "nomenclature used by EPA employees" (referring to all of the money it worked with as "tithing") is irrelevant to Huntsman's claims because there is no allegation that EPA made any such representations to Huntsman.  Instead, these characterizations by EPA employees appear to have been just used "in house."  Huntsman cannot use these statements from EPA employees as the basis for a fraud claim when they (the statements) were not communicated to Huntsman.

I don't think so.

First, the fraud claim is based on five statements:

• 1) April 2003 General Conference talk by Pres. Hinckley: "I wish to give the entire Church the assurance that tithing funds have not and will not be used {for the City Creek project}," and instead funds "will come from those commercial entities owned by the Church" and from "earnings of invested reserve funds."
• 2) October 2003 General Conference talk Bishop Burton: "None of this money comes from the tithing of our faithful members.  This is now how we use tithing funds."
• 3) Unattributed quote in Ensign article: "No tithing funds will be usedin the redevelopment."
• 4) Unattributed quote in a 2007 Deseret News article: "Money for the project is not coming from LDS Church members' tithing donations" and instead will come from "other real-estate ventures" associated with "the Church's real-estate development arm {Property Reserve, Inc.}."
• 5. October 2012 Salt Lake Tribune article quoting Keith McMullin, head of Deseret Management Corp.: "McMullin said not one penny of tithing does to the Church's for-profit endeavors.  Specifically, the Church has said no tithing went towards City Creek Center."

Second, the trial court found that Huntsman "does not properly consider the full statement made by Hinckley," which includes declarations that tithing would not be used and and that earnings from invested reserve funds would be used.

Third, the trial court found that there was no factual dispute about the accuracy of Hinckley's statement.  That is, "a reasonable juror could only conclude that Defendant used 'the earnings of invested reserve funds' to fund the City Creek project - i.e., {the Church} did exactly what Hinckley said {it} would do."  No false statement of fact = no fraud claim.

Fourth, without a "misrepresentation," a fraud claim falls apart.  If there was no "misrepresnetation," then there was nothing about which the Church could be aware.  Part of a fraud claim is that the defrauding party must have "knowledge" of the "falsity" of the statement.  If there was no "misrepresentation," then there was no intent to defraud.  Part of a fraud claim is that the defrauding party must have had "intent to defraud ... to induce reliance" on the false statement.  If there was no "misrepresentation," then Huntsman could not have "justifiably relied" on it or been "injured" by it.  These are both necessary parts of a fraud claim.

Fifth, Huntsman appears to try to bootstrap his fraud claim a bit by pointing to the bailout of the Beneficial Life.  However, the trial court rejected this effort because Huntsman never actually pointed to any actual statement by the Church about Beneficial Life.  Huntsman actually admitted this in his affidavit ("I do not recall any specific statement by the Church denying that tithing funds were being used to bail out Beneficial Life...").  Again, no false statement of fact = no fraud.  The trial court also rejected Huntsman's effort to point to "Sunday school manuals" or "the Church's teachings" to formulate a fraud claim about the bailout.  The trial court found that a fraud claim on those grounds would require the court to examine whether the Church's teachings prohibited the use of tithing funds to bail out Beneficial, which examination would violate the First Amendment. 

I don't think that matters.  The absence of the caveat would not give rise to a fraud claim.  "Tithing funds will not be used on City Creek" is a true statement, regardless of whether or not it is accompanied by the caveat about invested reserve funds.

Thanks,

-Smac

Omitting information has been stated in LDS talks as the same as a lie.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

Quote

The absence of the caveat would not give rise to a fraud claim.  "Tithing funds will not be used on City Creek" is a true statement, regardless of whether or not it is accompanied by the caveat about invested reserve funds.

Omitting information has been stated in LDS talks as the same as a lie.

CFR, please.

Omitting information with the intent to deceive can certainly be characterized as "the same as a lie."  But that intention is vital, as otherwise every communication would be "a lie" since every communication omits information.

In the law, a party can sue for "fraudulent nondisclosure" by presenting "clear and convincing evidence that (1) the defendant had a legal duty to communicate information, (2) the defendant knew of the information he failed to disclose, and (3) the nondisclosed information was material."

Did the Church, in discussing the City Creek project, have an affirmative duty to renew and re-emphasize the above-referenced caveat in each and every public statement?  

Is the information in the caveat necessarily "material?"

Did the Church have the intent to deceive the membership and/or the general public when it did not include the caveat in a public statement, after having included the caveat in other public statements?

I think the answer to all three questions is "no."

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 7, 2022 by smac97

[Tacenda]

Just now, smac97 said:

CFR, please.

Omitting information with the intent to deceive can certainly be characterized as "the same as a lie."  But that intention is vital, as otherwise every communication would be "a lie" since every communication omits information.

In the law, a party can sue for "fraudulent nondisclosure" by presenting "clear and convincing evidence that (1) the defendant had a legal duty to communicate information, (2) the defendant knew of the information he failed to disclose, and (3) the nondisclosed information was material."

Did the Church, in discussing the City Creek project, have an affirmative duty to renew and re-emphasize the above-referenced caveat in each and every public statement?  

Is the information in the caveat necessarily "material?"

I think the answer to both questions is "no."

Thanks,

-Smac

I hate going up against you, the lawyer, Smac.

But what I think might be wrong or hidden, is tithing money was used after all, interest from tithing, not interest from investments, hidden is that we don't think tithing is being invested, we only think money from commercial entities is invested. Members think what we're told, that tithing is going to build the temples, churches, and administration costs of schools, missions and so forth. Maybe the church could explain this better. And then there wouldn't be a suit by Huntsman. What do you think?

https://mormonr.org/qnas/NnxpG/the_city_creek_mall?gclid=CjwKCAiAo4OQBhBBEiwA5KWu_-n9tWrcFpw0drNUk5JBkbUwsYsSSt0rl9P7xKw03DG8_W6QQzQPxhoCVycQAvD_BwE

Though tithing wasn't used, returns from invested tithing^[22] were used to develop City Creek.^[23]

[smac97]

On 2/7/2022 at 4:06 PM, Tacenda said:

I hate going up against you, the lawyer, Smac.

But what I think might be wrong or hidden, is tithing money was used after all,

I don't understand.  Tithing money was not "used after all."  That is why the federal judge dismissed Huntsman's case.

On 2/7/2022 at 4:06 PM, Tacenda said:

interest from tithing, not interest from investments, hidden is that we don't think tithing is being invested, we only think money from commercial entities is invested.

I don't understand this either.  I am not sure what you are saying.

The Church has never said that tithing is not invested.  It is.  I think it supposed to be invested (see the Parable of the Talents).

On 2/7/2022 at 4:06 PM, Tacenda said:

Members think what we're told, that tithing is going to build the temples, churches, and administration costs of schools, missions and so forth.

Yes.  The vast majority of tithes is expended on these things.  But the members are also told that the Church reserves some tithes, which is akin to what we members are supposed to do (have a financial reserve for ourselves).  Since about 1997 that reserve amount has been given to EPA, which invests it.  EPA has done a very good job, which is why the Church now has huge amounts of money and is being criticized for not spending more of it.

On 2/7/2022 at 4:06 PM, Tacenda said:

Maybe the church could explain this better.

Or perhaps John Q. Public would be better off listening to what the Church actually says, and less to the hysterical and distorting reactions of its enemies and critics.

Take a look again at a portion of the federal judge's ruling:

I suspect with that a few minutes with Google would yield a number of additional statements along these lines.

See also this 2007 Deseret News article:

Quote

Money for the project is not coming from LDS Church members' tithing donations. City Creek Center is being developed by Property Reserve Inc., the church's real-estate development arm, and its money comes from other real-estate ventures.

See also here, here, here, here, here and here.

On 2/7/2022 at 4:06 PM, Tacenda said:

And then there wouldn't be a suit by Huntsman. What do you think?

https://mormonr.org/qnas/NnxpG/the_city_creek_mall?gclid=CjwKCAiAo4OQBhBBEiwA5KWu_-n9tWrcFpw0drNUk5JBkbUwsYsSSt0rl9P7xKw03DG8_W6QQzQPxhoCVycQAvD_BwE

Though tithing wasn't used, returns from invested tithing^[22] were used to develop City Creek.^[23]

I think Huntsman, like Gaddy before him, and McKenna Denson before her, and Sam Young, and Bill Reel, and John Dehlin, and Jeremy Runnells, and so on, are all trying to use media, including social media, in various ways to harm and injure the Church.  Huntsman, Gaddy and Denson just happened to use lawsuits (and Denson appears to have had some substantive, albeit untimely, claims against Bishop).

As long as people pay less attention to the Church and more attention to its detractors, we'll see maneuvers like this.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 15, 2022 by smac97

[T-Shirt]

On 12/30/2021 at 6:30 PM, kimpearson said:

This is a very big Church with the vast majority of its local, regional  and general leadership lacking in financial training.  Most stake auditors, ward and stake financial clerks and councilors have very limited financial training and really do a poor job of understanding what is going on in my experience.  

You can't possibly know this.

[teddyaware]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I don't understand.  Tithing money was not "used after all."  That is why the federal judge dismissed Huntsman's case.

I don't understand this either.  I am not sure what you are saying.

The Church has never said that tithing is not invested.  It is.  I think it supposed to be invested (see the Parable of the Talents).

Yes.  The vast majority of tithes is expended on these things.  But the members are also told that the Church reserves some tithes, which is akin to what we members are supposed to do (have a financial reserve for ourselves).  Since about 1997 that reserve amount has been given to EPA, which invests it.  EPA has done a very good job, which is why the Church now has huge amounts of money and is being criticized for not spending more of it.

Or perhaps John Q. Public would be better off listening to what the Church actually says, and less to the hysterical and distoring reactions of its enemies and critics.

Take a look again at a portion of the federal judge's ruling:

I suspect with that a few minutes with Google would yield a number of additional statements along these lines.

See also this 2007 Deseret News article:

See also here, here, here, here, here and here.

I think Huntsman, like Gaddy before him, and McKenna Denson before her, and Sam Young, and Bill Reel, and John Dehlin, and Jeremy Runnells, and so on, are all trying to use media, including social media, in various ways to harm and injure the Church.  Huntsman, Gaddy and Denson just happened to use lawsuits (and Denson appears to have had some substantive, albeit untimely, claims against Bishop).

As long as people pay less attention to the Church and more attention to its detractors, we'll see maneuvers like this.

Thanks,

-Smac

With regard to the building of Church financial reserves for a “rainy day,” the scriptures make it crystal clear that that “rainy day” (the oft-prophesied latter-day period of great tribulation) is most assuredly going to come to pass. Therefore it would be a most extreme dereliction of duty for the leaders of the Church to ignore all prophecies in scripture concerning the fall of Babylon the Great and not do all in their power to financially prepare for the coming day of divine judgement and great scarcity. The ranks of those who constantly complain about the Church’s relatively modest financial reserves are scriptural ignoramuses who have no concept that Zion must needs arise in great majesty and glory, while the nations who fight against Christ and his Church will be utterly destroyed and overthrown. 

Edited February 7, 2022 by teddyaware

[ttribe]

3 hours ago, teddyaware said:

With regard to the building of Church financial reserves for a “rainy day,” the scriptures make it crystal clear that that “rainy day” (the oft-prophesied latter-day period of great tribulation) is most assuredly going to come to pass. Therefore it would be a most extreme dereliction of duty for the leaders of the Church to ignore all prophecies in scripture concerning the fall of Babylon the Great and not do all in their power to financially prepare for the coming day of divine judgement and great scarcity. The ranks of those who constantly complain about the Church’s relatively modest financial reserves are scriptural ignoramuses who have no concept that Zion must needs arise in great majesty and glory, while the nations who fight against Christ and his Church will be utterly destroyed and overthrown. 

Again, you still can't address the notion that stocks, bonds, and paper money would most likely become entirely worthless should the alleged prophesied calamities come to pass.  But, hey, keep banging that we-need-money-for-the-end-of-the-world drum.

[rodheadlee]

4 hours ago, ttribe said:

Again, you still can't address the notion that stocks, bonds, and paper money would most likely become entirely worthless should the alleged prophesied calamities come to pass.  But, hey, keep banging that we-need-money-for-the-end-of-the-world drum.

That would depend on when they were sold or traded. A little insider information from Heavenly Father will go a long way. This is specifically addressed in the Cardston Temple Prophecy. 

Edited February 8, 2022 by rodheadlee

[ttribe]

14 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

That would depend on when they were sold or traded. A little insider information from Heavenly Father will go a long way. This is specifically addressed in the Cardston Temple Prophecy. 

Oh...my. No...that's not how economic markets work. 

Edited February 8, 2022 by ttribe

[Teancum]

23 hours ago, smac97 said:

I don't understand.  Tithing money was not "used after all."  That is why the federal judge dismissed Huntsman's case.

Well technically if tithing went in the the Ensign Peak Fund there is principle in the fund that came from tithing.  So only if you can perfectly state that not one $ of the initial cash that is being invested was used for the mall some tithing $ could have been used. This is nitpicky I confess.  But say the principle that went into the fund was $20 billion and the fund is aat $100 billion.  Technically 20% of every $ that goes out of the fund is from tithing since money is fungible. But then the accountants could argue that the principle is still there and was never used.  Just earnings.

[Teancum]

22 hours ago, teddyaware said:

The ranks of those who constantly complain about the Church’s relatively modest financial reserves are scriptural ignoramuses who have no concept that Zion must needs arise in great majesty and glory, while the nations who fight against Christ and his Church will be utterly destroyed and overthrow

Modest? Over $100 billion is modest?  Plus all the real estate that likely is worth $500 billion or more.  Let me ask you Teddy, how much will stock and bond investments be worth if your end of the world calamity really does come to pass?  Another question. In New Orleans what was worth more right after hurricane Katrina? A bottle of water and a roll of toilet paper or a ounce of gold.  If what you think will happen really does happen the reserves of EPF will be worthless.

[Teancum]

14 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

That would depend on when they were sold or traded. A little insider information from Heavenly Father will go a long way. This is specifically addressed in the Cardston Temple Prophecy. 

Soo if they were sold and converted into $$ how much would the $$ be worth in an end of the world catastrophe?  Not much.

[smac97]

59 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Well technically if tithing went in the the Ensign Peak Fund there is principle in the fund that came from tithing. 

The judge found that "a reasonable juror could only conclude that Defendant used 'the earnings of invested reserve funds' to fund the City Creek project - i.e., Defendant did exactly what Hinckley said Defendant would do."

What do you think the judge means by "Defendant used 'the earnings of invested reserve funds' to fund the City Creek project"?

Here's how I view it: 

A. I have $10,000 and invest it in the stock market, real estate holdings, and other prudent things.  We will call this amount "Seed Money."

B. Over time my investments yield good returns, such that when I liquidate my investments I not only get the Seed Money back, but a further $3,000.

C. I then take that $3,000 and consider investing it in a real estate development (let's tall it the "Town River" project).  In conferring with my wife about this idea, she expresses concern about risking the Seed Money, the original $10,000.  I respond by telling her "I am not proposing that we use the Seed Money for the Town River project, but rather the $3,000 in earnings we received from our prior investments."  Satisfied with that, we then decide to proceed with the investment of the $3,000 in the Town River project.

Now, have we "technically" invested the "Seed Money" in the Town River project?  Nope.  Instead, we invested what could be called "the earnings of invested reserve funds."

Thoughts?

59 minutes ago, Teancum said:

So only if you can perfectly state that not one $ of the initial cash that is being invested was used for the mall some tithing $ could have been used.

With respect, I disagree.  You are making the same error Huntsman did.  You are conflating "tithing" with revenues subsequently generated by investments of tithing.

Tithing funds from donors are materially distinguishable from revenues generated by the donee's subsequent investment of those funds.

Tithes are charitable contributions from a donor to a donee.  Profits/interest generated by the donee subsequently investing a portion of those tithes are not charitable contributions from a donee.

If the Church thereafter invests a portion of that tithe and generates profit/revenue/interest, then the source of that profit/revenue/interest is . . . the investment.

The source of the funds is different (investment, not charitable donation).

The accounting and taxation of the funds is different.

The ownership of the funds is different.  I am not an investor.  I am not expecting an ROI.  I have a say in whether or not I pay a tithe (it's voluntary, after all), but thereafter I have no legal or equitable say in how my charitable contributions are spent.

By way of illustration: If I donate $1,000 to the Church and the Church invests $250 of that and generates a profit of an additional $250, is my tithe $1,000, or $1,250?  Can I report to the IRS that I donated $1,250 to the Church?  By your reasoning, I can because "the initial cash" that generated the $250 was tithing, therefore the $250 is tithing also.  But that reasoning just doesn't work.

By way of further illustration: 

1. The mall was paid for "from those commercial entities owned by the Church ... together with the earnings of invested reserve funds" and "income from Church businesses, rents on the property, and other such sources."

2. The Church's "commercial entities" and "invested reserve funds" and "businesses" and "rents" originated, ultimately, in tithed donations from members throughout the Church's nearly 200 years of existence.

3. My tithes came from money from my employer, a law firm.

4. My employer's money comes from its clients.

5. My employer's clients got their money from investments, sales, loans, and so on.

If your "not one $ of the initial cash that is being invested was used for the mall some tithing $ could have been used" reasoning holds, then why are you arriving at "tithing" and then stopping there?  Why not attribute the "initial cash that is being invested" to my employer, my employer's clients, my employers' clients' sources of income, and so on?  

If I as a tithepayer "funded" City Creek, then - by your reckoning - my employer also "funded" it.  But it doesn't stop there.  By your reckoning my employers' clients also "funded" it, and my employers' clients' employers also "funded" it, and so on, forever and ever.

The problem here is that your "not one $ of the initial cash that is being invested was used for the mall some tithing $ could have been used" theory has no limiting principle.  If it holds, then it goes back ad infinitum.  But because this endlessness becomes inconvenient for folks who want to weaponize the City Creek project against the Church, they create an arbitrary and specious standard of causation, then summarily and without explanation stop the causality at the tithe-payer.  Why?  Because attributing causation/financing beyond that (to, say, my employer, to my employer's clients', to my employers' clients' employers, etc.) works against their efforts to disparage the Church.  

Moreover, this reasoning can't really apply to Huntsman's lawsuit because whether or not you accept the differentiation between tithes and revenues subsequently generated by investments of tithes, Pres. Hinckley did.  This vitiates the fraud claim.

59 minutes ago, Teancum said:

This is nitpicky I confess. 

I'm not sure it's nitpicky.  It's just not legally correct.  You don't get to

A) arbitrarily disregard the Church's emphatic and repeated and public statements distinguishing tithes from revenues subsequently generated by investments of tithes, then

B) instead arbitrarily conflate these two things, then

C) impose that conflation on the Church, then

D) fault the Church for not going along with that conflation.

Neither, it turns out, can Huntsman.  This is why he lost his case.

59 minutes ago, Teancum said:

But say the principle that went into the fund was $20 billion and the fund is at $100 billion.  Technically 20% of every $ that goes out of the fund is from tithing since money is fungible.

Nope.  Tithing, as a word, has a fairly well-understood meaning.  It is a voluntary charitable contribution from a donor to a donee.  If the donee subsequently invests a portion of that donation and generates a profit thereby, that profit cannot - in any legal or reasonable sense - be characterized as also being a tithe.  It's not.  It is earnings from invested funds, which is different from a tithe in terms of its source, its owner, for legal/taxation purposes, and so on.

59 minutes ago, Teancum said:

But then the accountants could argue that the principle is still there and was never used.  Just earnings.

That's my point.  "Earnings" were spent on City Creek, not "tithes."  And "earnings" are not "tithes." 

I have been made this point dozens and dozens of times over.  It was never a secret.  It was never really in dispute.  This is why I think the trial judge got it right: "Based on the foregoing {evidence}, no reasonable juror could conclude that Hinckley's statement was false.  This is because a reasonable juror could only conclude that Defendant used "the earnings of invested reserve funds" to fund the City Creek project - i.e., Defendant did exactly what Hinckley said Defendant would do."

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 8, 2022 by smac97

[Teancum]

15 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The judge found that "a reasonable juror could only conclude that Defendant used 'the earnings of invested reserve funds' to fund the City Creek project - i.e., Defendant did exactly what Hinckley said Defendant would do."

What do you think the judge means by "Defendant used 'the earnings of invested reserve funds' to fund the City Creek project"?

Here's how I view it: 

A. I have $10,000 and invest it in the stock market, real estate holdings, and other prudent things.  We will call this amount "Seed Money."

B. Over time my investments yield good returns, such that when I liquidate my investments I not only get the Seed Money back, but a further $3,000.

C. I then take that $3,000 and consider investing it in a real estate development (let's tall it the "Town River" project).  In conferring with my wife about this idea, she expresses concern about risking the Seed Money, the original $10,000.  I respond by telling her "I am not proposing that we use the Seed Money for the Town River project, but rather the $3,000 in earnings we received from our prior investments."  Satisfied with that, we then decide to proceed with the investment of the $3,000 in the Town River project.

Now, have we "technically" invested the "Seed Money" in the Town River project?  Nope.  Instead, we invested what could be called "the earnings of invested reserve funds."

Thoughts?

With respect, I disagree.  You are making the same error Huntsman did.  You are conflating "tithing" with revenues subsequently generated by investments of tithing.

Tithing funds from donors are materially distinguishable from revenues generated by the donee's subsequent investment of those funds.

Tithes are charitable contributions from a donor to a donee.  Profits/interest generated by the donee subsequently investing a portion of those tithes are not charitable contributions from a donee.

If the Church thereafter invests a portion of that tithe and generates profit/revenue/interest, then the source of that profit/revenue/interest is . . . the investment.

The source of the funds is different (investment, not charitable donation).

The accounting and taxation of the funds is different.

The ownership of the funds is different.  I am not an investor.  I am not expecting an ROI.  I have a say in whether or not I pay a tithe (it's voluntary, after all), but thereafter I have no legal or equitable say in how my charitable contributions are spent.

By way of illustration: If I donate $1,000 to the Church and the Church invests $250 of that and generates a profit of an additional $250, is my tithe $1,000, or $1,250?  Can I report to the IRS that I donated $1,250 to the Church?  By your reasoning, I can because "the initial cash" that generated the $250 was tithing, therefore the $250 is tithing also.  But that reasoning just doesn't work.

By way of further illustration: 

1. The mall was paid for "from those commercial entities owned by the Church ... together with the earnings of invested reserve funds" and "income from Church businesses, rents on the property, and other such sources."

2. The Church's "commercial entities" and "invested reserve funds" and "businesses" and "rents" originated, ultimately, in tithed donations from members throughout the Church's nearly 200 years of existence.

3. My tithes came from money from my employer, a law firm.

4. My employer's money comes from its clients.

5. My employer's clients got their money from investments, sales, loans, and so on.

If your "not one $ of the initial cash that is being invested was used for the mall some tithing $ could have been used" reasoning holds, then why are you arriving at "tithing" and then stopping there?  Why not attribute the "initial cash that is being invested" to my employer, my employer's clients, my employers' clients' sources of income, and so on?  

If I as a tithepayer "funded" City Creek, then - by your reckoning - my employer also "funded" it.  But it doesn't stop there.  By your reckoning my employers' clients also "funded" it, and my employers' clients' employers also "funded" it, and so on, forever and ever.

The problem here is that your "not one $ of the initial cash that is being invested was used for the mall some tithing $ could have been used" theory has no limiting principle.  If it holds, then it goes back ad infinitum.  But because this endlessness becomes inconvenient for folks who want to weaponize the City Creek project against the Church, they create an arbitrary and specious standard of causation, then summarily and without explanation stop the causality at the tithe-payer.  Why?  Because attributing causation/financing beyond that (to, say, my employer, to my employer's clients', to my employers' clients' employers, etc.) works against their efforts to disparage the Church.  

Moreover, this reasoning can't really apply to Huntsman's lawsuit because whether or not you accept the differentiation between tithes and revenues subsequently generated by investments of tithes, Pres. Hinckley did.  This vitiates the fraud claim.

I'm not sure it's nitpicky.  It's just not legally correct.  You don't get to

A) arbitrarily disregard the Church's emphatic and repeated and public statements distinguishing tithes from revenues subsequently generated by investments of tithes, then

B) instead arbitrarily conflate these two things, then

C) impose that conflation on the Church, then

D) fault the Church for not going along with that conflation.

Neither, it turns out, can Huntsman.  This is why he lost his case.

Nope.  Tithing, as a word, has a fairly well-understood meaning.  It is a voluntary charitable contribution from a donor to a donee.  If the donee subsequently invests a portion of that donation and generates a profit thereby, that profit cannot - in any legal or reasonable sense - be characterized as also being a tithe.  It's not.  It is earnings from invested funds, which is different from a tithe in terms of its source, its owner, for legal/taxation purposes, and so on.

That's my point.  "Earnings" were spent on City Creek, not "tithes."  And "earnings" are not "tithes." 

I have been made this point dozens and dozens of times over.  It was never a secret.  It was never really in dispute.  This is why I think the trial judge got it right: "Based on the foregoing {evidence}, no reasonable juror could conclude that Hinckley's statement was false.  This is because a reasonable juror could only conclude that Defendant used "the earnings of invested reserve funds" to fund the City Creek project - i.e., Defendant did exactly what Hinckley said Defendant would do."

Thanks,

-Smac

I really don't dispute what you have outlined above. My post was just to outline that the "seed money" could be considered part of a $ that goes out.  But yea I can agree that earnings were used and the seed $ is still there.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Well technically if tithing went in the the Ensign Peak Fund there is principle in the fund that came from tithing.  So only if you can perfectly state that not one $ of the initial cash that is being invested was used for the mall some tithing $ could have been used. This is nitpicky I confess.  But say the principle that went into the fund was $20 billion and the fund is aat $100 billion.  Technically 20% of every $ that goes out of the fund is from tithing since money is fungible. But then the accountants could argue that the principle is still there and was never used.  Just earnings.

Isn’t that only valid if we are talking about the actual cash dollars and not the amount of money they represent?  As in there is a big pot and one tosses in 10,000 dollars and then someone tosses in another 3000, it gets stirred up and then the first draws out 3000 dollars and makes the claim none of them are from the original set…which can be checked by checking serial numbers.  
 

This is different than identifying that the original amount is 10,000$ and when one says they won’t touch the original, one is actually saying they vow to never let the fund drop below $10,000….because the actual money isn’t sitting anywhere and may even have been sent to be destroyed as worn out bills or the check that represented the money got shredded.

Edited February 8, 2022 by Calm

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I really don't dispute what you have outlined above. My post was just to outline that the "seed money" could be considered part of a $ that goes out.  But yea I can agree that earnings were used and the seed $ is still there.

Sounds good.

A public allegation of fraud is a serious thing.  I think Huntsman would have taken serious exception if someone filed a big, splashy, well-publicized lawsuit containing all sorts of horrible invective against him and his character, all of which centered on what is ultimately a pedantic issue.

He got his 15 minutes.  He got his chance to vent his spleen, to disparage the Church, to foment ill will against it, to damage its reputation.  

In a sense, it's "Mission Accomplished" for him.  I don't think it was ever about the money, not really.  It was about injuring the Church.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[rodheadlee]

17 hours ago, ttribe said:

Oh...my. No...that's not how economic markets work. 

Well no surprise there. My field of expertise is home construction.

[JustAnAustralian]

Huntsman is now trying to have the church's financial documents that were sealed in the original trial unsealed.

[Kenngo1969]

3 hours ago, JustAnAustralian said:

Huntsman is now trying to have the church's financial documents that were sealed in the original trial unsealed.

Yeah, well, good luck with that.  The matter that the Church of Jesus Christ used proceeds from investments, rather than the originally-invested funds, for the construction of City Creek now is res judicata,* which means that no other court will revisit the matter as regards these parties, Mr. Huntsman and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, without a very good reason (read, "It hardly ever happens").  

* Res judicata is a Latin phrase meaning "Things decided." 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Yeah, well, good luck with that.  The matter that the Church of Jesus Christ used proceeds from investments, rather than the originally-invested funds, for the construction of City Creek now is res judicata,* which means that no other court will revisit the matter as regards these parties, Mr. Huntsman and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, without a very good reason (read, "It hardly ever happens").  

* Res judicata is a Latin phrase meaning "Things decided." 

A fancy, Latin way of saying “settled”?

[JustAnAustralian]

The church's lawyers basically said "you were ok with them being sealed before, you don't get to change your mind in your appeal"

I'm just waiting for next instalment of the Gaddy lawsuit to have a section asking for the financials to be released.