Church fined by SEC

[california boy]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

My legal training has, I think, allowed me to develop a more informed and reasoned and accurate assessment of what this story is about.

And unlike some of our critics, I have no ax to grind, no sense of gleeful schadenfreude, no pound of flesh to seek.  I have repeatedly affirmed that if the Church errs in complying with the law, then it "needs to take its legal lumps like anyone else."  

Here, I have some questions about whether the Church actually violated the governing statute.  If it did, then it needs to pay the piper.  But there is no indication that it did so with the nefarious motives you and yours are alleging.

Thanks,

-Smac

You act as if your legal training gives you some superhuman insight unable to be achieved by us mere mortals that don't have a law degree to understand SEC rules and regulations.  You are a foreclosure attorney for heavens sake.  

I am an artist and designer by profession.  That hardly makes me qualified to do restoration work on the Sistine Chapel ceiling.

I don't find any of the SEC report to be all that difficult to read.  And Tribe has done a very good job of explaining the procedures.  He actually seems to be very well qualified to clarify the proceedings.  You on the other hand hid behind your law degree as if it is some special hammer while lobbing personal insults and far fetched analogies that even someone without a law degree can see are not relevant.  

You are welcome to your opinion of course.  But please, pretending that a foreclosure attorney has special insights to how the SEC handles things is way overblown.  Just make your arguments the best you can and quit with the I am an attorney, so I know more about this stuff than all you other people out there.  And I won't claim to know how to do restoration work on the Sistine Chapel.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

37 minutes ago, Calm said:

I think the defense would be they are not laying them up for themselves.

I’m sorry. This thread is fast moving. I tend to (and it’s a fault - really) mirror what I see. Kfisher was quoting out of context scripture at Pogi as if he wasn’t aware of what the verses said. So I mirrored him with a bit of a joke at the end. 

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Calm said:

So are you (and I would like to hear from Teancum as well in hopes of helping me understand your positions better, I may be getting confused by the multiple strands of conversation in this thread) okay with the Church wanting neither the market nor the media connecting the LLC to EPA, but just have a problem with the way they went about it?

To be honest, I’m far less interested in the church’s actions than I am in the repeated accusations here that people who find those actions dishonest are just bitter people hostile to the church. 

As for me, I couldn’t care less that the church wants to obscure the nature of its finances. I do think they did so in a dishonest way, which is why they have been fined. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

father taught his children to expect human failings in humans, especially church leaders. As my sister so aptly put it, we expect mistakes, so we are never shocked or disappointed when they happen.

One of the problems (maybe the only one, but I am being careful) with expecting mistakes is we may see them when they are not there.  This is not to condemn the approach because it is my own and I think I am happier over all because of it.  But I also see it has for me the drawback of never trusting enough to let go, be fully open with someone.  Maybe a risk taker could avoid what I see as going hand in hand with the expectation of significant fallibility, but I would like to see how they managed if so.  My guess is most of us with this view do hold back some to protect ourselves, it is reasonable to do so.

This is just an aside as I am in that kind of mood….plus the SEC stuff is getting repetitive so I am more easily distracted.

In no way am I suggesting everyone who sees mistakes made here by the Church, including myself, are seeing things that aren’t there….though I am not seeing the mistakes the same way as many of you.

[Teancum]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I have not done that.  I have, instead, noted your substantial lack of training and experience.

See you keep doing it. It seems arrogant quite frankly. Especially after you impugn numerous others by pointing out their apparent lack of legal training.  But as noted personally I deal with a certain are of law ALL DAY LONG. And I deal with regulatory agency settlements quite often.  And I have dealt with two major SEC cases in significant ways.  And I worked with a SEC attorney who was a former SEC high level employee. So I would guess I no more about specifics in dealing with the SEC and other regulatory agencies than you do. 

That said, I readily concede your legal experience and your experience with litigation of which I have zero.  However, some of the conclusions one can reach on this case need absolutely no legal experience.

 

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

An "appeal to authority" is not an error when the topic in question is actually within the realm of that person's authority.

As between your assessment of this legal issue and my assessment, I think mine is better.  Not because I am a better person than you, or smarter than you.  Rather, I have substantially more experience and training than you do. 

Sure.  I have conceded that. And I don't think you think you are smarter than me or anyone.  I agree. You have more experience with legal matter than I do.

 

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

 

The topic at hand is a legal one, a technically complex one.

Yes. And I have assisted hammering out an agreement with the SEC. Twice. So I have more experience with this than you do.

 

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

 

  Much of your commentary is flawed not because you are a bad or dumb person (I don't think that at all), but because you are ignorant of the law and how the legal system works.

Certainly I agree when it comes to litigation. 

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Well, I think I do.  When you are making arguments and drawing conclusions about legal issues, and when those arguments and conclusions are patently flawed, and when those flaws arise from substantial ignorance of the law, then it's entirely appropriate to point that out.  And when you persist in repeating your errors, I will persist in explaining why I think you are in error.

You have made all sorts of legal assertions, and then used those assertions to bash the Church.  A sampling:

• "The only reason to do things like this is to hide things."

Opinion based on what we know.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

• "Is this being honest in dealing with your fellow men?"

Opinion based on what we know.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

• "Umm they knew what they were doing. Setting up shell LLCs to limit reporting requirements is not an act of omission."

Why did the set up the LLCs?  For fun?

 

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

• "Yes it is when you know you are trying to hide things you are supposed to legally report."

They were required to report. Do you deny that?

 

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

• "It is not a settlement. It is a fine.  Which means they agreed to wrong doing."

It is a fine.  And the conclusion is reasonable.  Why pay a fine unless there is some culpability?

 

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

• "The SEC does not just decide something is a problem.  There are rules and regulations in this space."

That is factual.  How is that a legal opinion.  Do you claim the SEC does not have rules and regulations?  Do they launch an investigation without a reason to think such regulations are not being followed?  You seem to be grasping.

 

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

• "You tell me oh wise one, why did EPA splist assets among 13 LLCs?  Just for fun?"

A question that you answered poorly.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

• "A Nobody pays a fine to the SEC unless there is a greater threat if they don't and if they are not guilty of something.  As I said, I have some experience with the SEC..."

Opinion and experience.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

• "Because they were guilty at going to lengths to hide their investments from the SEC."

I will give you this one though it seems the wanted to hide things from the church membership and public.

 

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

• "In other words we got caught doing something we should not have done."
• "So you are quite fine with dishonesty and skirting the rules?"

Did they properly file the forms?  Where the forms truthful?

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

• "There is something wrong with concealing it when the SEC requires disclosure."

Well isn't there?

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

• "It is pretty clear your church went to great length to keep their massive investment fund secret.  Secret from the public and secret from its members.  The fine should have been much more than $5 million."

IMO and I stand by it.

 

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

• "Keep on defending your dishonest church."

Opinion. Not legal issues.

 

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

• "Do you think the church would have paid the $5 million fine if they thought they would prevail?"

Opinion and a question. 

 

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

• "Had there not been a problem of to complying with the regulations the SEC would not have brought action  against EPA and the Church."

Yes.  Truth. Not a legal opinion. 

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

• "The church did not want the public or its members to know about this.  Why is that?  What are they afraid of?"

Opinion. Not a legal position.

 

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

• "Oddly many other churches go to great lengths to be transparent with their financial actions even though US law does not require it.  But not the self proclaimed Church of Jesus Christ.  Was it fraudulent?  I don't that I would go that far.  Was it improper?  Well they took steps to avoid required reporting did they not?  Is that honest? Maybe you should spent sometime reading up  on what your church and its leaders say about honesty as well as what is expected of its members."

Opinion. And I think you should read up on what the church says about honesty.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

• "I am sure you know that settlements are reached all the time and language is accepted between the two parties that let them save face."
• "If the Church could have fought this they would have.  They knew they did likely would not succeed."

And, of course this one:

• "By the way I am not hostile."

<snark>

Of course your not hostile to the Church.  How could anyone think otherwise given your various published-to-the-world statements about it ("Is this being honest in dealing with your fellow men?" ... "Which means they agreed to wrong doing" ... "they were guilty at going to lengths to hide their investments from the SEC" ... "So you are quite fine with dishonesty and skirting the rules?" ... "The fine should have been much more than $5 million" ... "Keep on defending your dishonest church").

Yep.  No hostility here!

 

Ok. I am hostile. So what?  I gave hundreds of thousands of dollars to a church that is not open about its finances and seems to want to accumulate great wealth and keep it hidden from its member. If I critique that and that is hostile so be it.

 

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

 

 

[Amulek]

I don't have a problem admitting the Church and (by proxy) it's agents were in the wrong on this one.

But I also have a hard time caring about it.

On the spectrum of "wrongs" that can be committed, this isn't anywhere near the top of the list - at least not for me, personally.

It isn't like the Church was doing anything truly scandalous - no tax evasion, no illegal funneling of monies as contributions to non-Libertarian Party campaigns, no secret hooker islands, nothing. All they did was attempt to legally obfuscate how much money they were controlling.

Now, I think it's pretty clear they were in the wrong on how they went about doing that, notwithstanding whatever weak 20-year old legal advice they may have been relying on to the contrary. But I also think that what they did isn't worth getting too excited about either. And the SEC obviously agreed - otherwise they would have gone after the Church for more than just a weak slap on the wrist.

Seriously, when compared to a $40B+ investment portfolio growing (on average) at 7% annually, a $5M fine comes out to be less than what we make in a single day.

If people want to be upset with the Church, fine. But let's keep things in perspective.

What the Church and EPA did was the financial equivalent of smoking a little weed, so let's not go around pretending like they were guilty of raping and cannibalizing babies or anything crazy like that.

 

Edited February 24, 2023 by Amulek

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

One of the problems (maybe the only one, but I am being careful) with expecting mistakes is we may see them when they are not there.  This is not to condemn the approach because it is my own and I think I am happier over all because of it.  But I also see it has for me the drawback of never trusting enough to let go, be fully open with someone.  Maybe a risk taker could avoid what I see as going hand in hand with the expectation of significant fallibility, but I would like to see how they managed if so.  My guess is most of us with this view do hold back some to protect ourselves, it is reasonable to do so.

This is just an aside as I am in that kind of mood….plus the SEC stuff is getting repetitive so I am more easily distracted.

In no way am I suggesting everyone who sees mistakes made here by the Church, including myself, are seeing things that aren’t there….though I am not seeing the mistakes the same way as many of you.

There’s a difference between acknowledging errors and looking for them. Constantly looking for and pointing out errors is not a great way to live, but acknowledging errors does not make one hostile or biased. 

[ttribe]

1 minute ago, jkwilliams said:

There’s a difference between acknowledging errors and looking for them. Constantly looking for and pointing out errors is not a great way to live, but acknowledging errors does not make one hostile or biased. 

You just described what I do for a living, man....it has turned me into an empty husk of a person; devoid of life and joy.

[Analytics]

41 minutes ago, webbles said:

We have 20/20 hindsight to say that the SEC didn't agree with the scheme.  But, back in 1998, 2005, etc, the church leadership and EPA leadership had a goal.  That goal was to make it harder for people to determine how much investments the church really had.  They had legal consultation and came up with a solution.  They would create mini LLCs which would have control of the stocks and those mini LLCs would file the 13Fs.

My impression is the scheme as you just described it complies with the letter of the law but not the spirit. The spirit of the law is that organizations with more than $100M in 13F securities need to disclose their 13F securities to the public. Skirting this requirement by setting up secret LLC's with misleading names and addresses might comply with the letter of the law, but it doesn't comply with the spirit. If that's all the Church would have done, I'd give them kudos on their creativity. But creating fake LLC's that submit dishonest reports signed by people who have no clue what's going on crosses the ethical line by a mile.

It's worth revisiting the ethics of transparency. A large association of non-profits has this to say about transparency:

Quote

 

Nonprofits have a legal and ethical obligation to their constituents and the public to conduct their activities with accountability and transparency. Nonprofits should regularly and openly convey information to the public about their mission, activities, finances, accomplishments, and decision-making processes. 

Information from a nonprofit organization should be easily accessible to the public. It should establish external visibility and build public understanding and trust in the organization.

 

https://www.minnesotanonprofits.org/resources-tools/principles-practices-for-nonprofit-excellence/transparency-and-accountability

Of course the Church rejects these mainstream ethical standards. Yet they are still mainstream ethics.

41 minutes ago, webbles said:

Since the purpose of those mini LLCs was to hide their connection to the church and EPA, using names that were common makes a lot of sense.  I don't see how that shows that EPA was intentionally trying to break the law.  Were they misleading?  Yes.  But I doubt they considered themselves to be breaking the law. 

Setting up mini LLC's with fake addresses is a clever way of obeying the letter of the law while violating the spirit. That in all likelihood would be legal if it was done in a legal way, but I would say it is not ethical.

The Church went way beyond that, though. It purposefully filed false reports in the name of the LLC's and has them signed by "managers" who had nothing to do with said LLC's and weren't even given the opportunity to read what they were signing. That crosses the ethical and legal line by a mile.

41 minutes ago, webbles said:

Hiding the church's wealth isn't necessarily a "sinister motive" or a bad thing. 

Actually, it is.  According to the National Council of Nonprofits:

Quote

 

As tax-exempt public charities, charitable nonprofits embrace the values of accountability and transparency as a matter of ethical leadership, as well as legal compliance.

Leaders of charitable nonprofits know that financial transparency will help preserve the important trust community members and donors place in a nonprofit. Additionally, and no less importantly, conduct that is accountable and transparent earns employees' trust and creates a positive workplace culture.

Earning trust through financial transparency and accountability goes beyond what the law requires.

 

https://www.councilofnonprofits.org/tools-resources/financial-transparency-and-public-disclosure-requirements

Edited February 24, 2023 by Analytics

[jkwilliams]

3 minutes ago, ttribe said:

You just described what I do for a living, man....it has turned me into an empty husk of a person; devoid of life and joy.

You were already a shell of a man when I met you years ago. Heaven knows what you’re like now. 😂

[smac97]

52 minutes ago, Analytics said:

You said, "there does not seem to be grounds to indict the Church in any particular moral sense...." I'm simply trying to understand how in the heck you came to this conclusion.

Because unlike some here, I value the Constitution, Due Process, the presumption of innocence, and so on.  I value these things even when people or groups I dislike use them to their advantage or benefit.  These legal protections are important, and ought not to be disregarded or subordinated to religious prejudice (or any other kind).

52 minutes ago, Analytics said:

I'm merely citing the uncontested facts we have to work with. 

The Church did not admit the allegations, and the SEC did not establish their verity via presentation of evidence to an impartial factfinder.

So no, you are not doing this.  You are disregarding a fundamental tenet of American jurisprudence, namely, the presumption of innocence.

52 minutes ago, Analytics said:

If those things didn't happen, why in the hell did the Church agree to a settlement that resulted in not only a $5,000,000 sanction, but also in them not being allowed to correct these balled-faced lies the SEC made up that tarnish their good name?

Because that's how the system works.

Because this happens all the time.

Because the settlement was expressly predicated on the Church's Offers of Settlement, which were in turn predicated on the Church not admitting wrongdoing, and because the the "findings"  in the settlement were, in turn, expressly predicated on the Offers (and, therefore, on the Church's not having admitted wrongdoing).

Because the risks associated with "them not being allowed to correct" the allegations were minimal to nonexistent.  (Also, I am not sure that your assertion here is correct.)

Because of these reasons:

Quote

Brian says:

February 22, 2023 at 12:37 pm

I’m a securities lawyer, though haven’t ever dealt with Forms 13F specifically. A few points on this:
...

What most people do not appreciate is that the securities laws and rules are a very complex web of statute, regulation, practice, and enforcement where interpretation in many instances is unclear or highly ambiguous. Even those who intend to comply fully with the securities laws and regulations can find themselves in trouble without meaning to.

In addition, and I can’t emphasize this enough, the SEC’s enforcement arm is likely to take the most aggressive reading of any particular statute or regulation while others may take a significantly different view. Over the years, the SEC has been defeated in a number of enforcement actions when its interpretations have been challenged in court. The SEC’s interpretations of statutes and regulations are not law.

However, a party under investigation may choose to settle, even believing that they have the better argument, because the consequences of fighting the SEC can be catastrophic, both in terms of time and money lost, impact to reputation (even if you win), and the fact that litigation can be a huge gamble with devastating penalties if you end up with the wrong judge or jury. I’m not saying that is the case here – I don’t know – but without having more information, I am saying it is plausible.

I’m a securities lawyer and I think defendants in securities law trials are at an even worse disadvantage in securities law cases than they would be in other cases. The securities statutes and regulations in many cases are vague and difficult even for securities lawyers to parse and fully appreciate and understand, let alone someone who doesn’t have expertise in the subject. A defendant in a securities law matter would have very justifiable concerns that the defendant would not receive a fair trial.

• "[S]ecurities laws and rules are a very complex web of statute, regulation, practice, and enforcement where interpretation in many instances is unclear or highly ambiguous."
• "Even those who intend to comply fully with the securities laws and regulations can find themselves in trouble without meaning to."
• "{T}he SEC’s enforcement arm is likely to take the most aggressive reading of any particular statute or regulation while others may take a significantly different view.  ... However, a party under investigation may choose to settle, even believing that they have the better argument, because the consequences of fighting the SEC can be catastrophic, both in terms of time and money lost, impact to reputation (even if you win), and the fact that litigation can be a huge gamble with devastating penalties if you end up with the wrong judge or jury."
• "{D}efendants in securities law trials are at an even worse disadvantage in securities law cases than they would be in other cases."
• "The securities statutes and regulations in many cases are vague and difficult even for securities lawyers to parse and fully appreciate and understand, let alone someone who doesn’t have expertise in the subject."
• "A defendant in a securities law matter would have very justifiable concerns that the defendant would not receive a fair trial."

I think this may be the fifth or sixth time I have quoted this stuff.  And yet here you are, asking questions that have been answered - to varying degrees - over and over.

This is why I keep bringing up your lack of training and experience in the law.  You are drawing broad and sweeping conclusions about the Church in a legal setting, and you are doing so without having much familiarity with that setting.

As this thread progresses, I think you are becoming more and more entrenched in your preferred narrative about the Church, so much so that you are ignoring substantive issues that have been presented to you on a silver platter.

52 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Why wouldn't they fight to protect their good name and the truth, rather than let these lies go uncontested?

The Church's actions don't make any sense unless the uncontested facts in the Order are in fact true.

The Church's actions make all sorts of sense to those who are familiar with how the law works, particularly as pertaining to the Administrative State, to settlements, to pleadings versus findings, to allegations verses "findings of fact," and so on.

You lack the requisite competency to reach this conclusion precisely because you are ignorant of the law.

52 minutes ago, Analytics said:

We can in fact be confident that the things in the SEC report really did happen. 

No, I don't think we can.  See above.

I find your adoration for the Administrative State to be grimly amusing.  I genuinely hope you never land in their crosshairs.  If you do, I suspect you will rather quickly step away from your current reflexive regard for the Administrative State's competency, ethics, and regard for the rule of law (which regard I think you only hold at present because you want to bolster the credibility of the SEC and its allegations against the Church).

52 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Pretending that we don't know and that none of this has been demonstrated is doing just what I accused you of: ignoring the ethical issues.

Pretending that we do "know" whether unadmitted, untested allegations by the Administrative State "{have} been demonstrated" is a marked indicator that you do not know what you are talking about. 

You are claiming, falsely, that you are "merely citing the uncontested facts we have to work with," when we have no such things to "work with," and when the Church has not admitted to any such things, and when the SEC has not proven any such things.

You are conflating allegations by an investigative agency with "facts" adjudicated as such by an impartial factfinder.

You are ignoring Due Process altogether (I surmise because you do not want the lack of it to impede your rush to condemn the Church based on factual allegations which have been neither admitted nor adjudicated).

You are ignoring the presumption of innocence altogether (presumably because you don't want it to apply to the Church).

You are asking questions that have been answered several times over.

You are making assertions and drawing legal conclusions that are not warranted.

You are demonstrating, over and over and over, just how badly you want to paint the Church, which is - unsurprisingly - with the blackest brush and in the worst possible way.  You want to be able to say that it "violated securities laws," or some such.  That is a legal conclusion, and one that can only be reached by the Church admitting to the misconduct (which hasn't happened) or by the SEC proving its allegations before an impartial factfinder, an Article III judge or an administrative law judge (which also hasn't happened). 

52 minutes ago, Analytics said:

In my profession, Precept 1 of the Code of Professional Conduct says:

"An Actuary shall act honestly, with integrity and competence, and in a manner to fulfill the profession’s responsibility to the public and to uphold the reputation of the actuarial profession."

If I received "bad (or incomplete) legal advice" that told me I could get away with acting dishonestly and without integrity, I would hold myself to a higher standard anyway. Blaming it on the lawyers is a copout.

I initially began my previous response to you with this: "Oh, goody.  A 'let me get this straight' from Analytics is almost always code for "'let me radically distort and mischaracterize what you are saying, so as to obscure and distract from what you actually said.'"

Almost immediately after I posted it, I thought it went a bit too far, so I went back and deleted it.

And yet here you are, doing exactly what I said: radically distorting and mischaracterizing what I said, so as to obscure and distract from what I actually said.

Anyhoo, nobody has said that the legal advise encouraged "acting dishonestly and without integrity."  That is a load of codswallop entirely of your own fabrication.

52 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Given all of the other uncontested facts from the SEC investigation,

No.  That is not a "given."  

You are, yet again, demonstrating your ignorance of the law.  An allegation, even those styled as "facts," remains as such until they are either admitted to by the Church nor adjudicated as "facts" by an Article III court or an administrative law judge.  None of these happened here.  Instead, the matter was settled.  The allegations therefore remain . . . allegations.

52 minutes ago, Analytics said:

it's clear that these two Church employees resigned because they didn't want to sign false reports anymore. 

Who were these two employees?  

How do you know why they resigned?

How do you know the reports were "false?"

You don't know any of these things, so they ain't "clear."

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 24, 2023 by smac97

[ttribe]

1 minute ago, jkwilliams said:

You were already a shell of a man when I met you years ago. Heaven knows what you’re like now. 😂

Slowly crumbling into a pile of ash, daily.

[jkwilliams]

Just now, ttribe said:

Slowly crumbling into a pile of ash, daily.

You and me both, brother. 

[jkwilliams]

26 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I’m sorry. This thread is fast moving. I tend to (and it’s a fault - really) mirror what I see. Kfisher was quoting out of context scripture at Pogi as if he wasn’t aware of what the verses said. So I mirrored him with a bit of a joke at the end. 

Let him who is without SEC violations cast the first stone, as it were. 

[ttribe]

@smac97 I could be wrong, but I don't believe there is a "presumption of innocence" in civil matters. I previously pointed out that the SEC has no criminal prosecution powers; those would need to be referred to the DOJ. This case was a civil matter.

Edited February 24, 2023 by ttribe

[smac97]

55 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Quote

For the umpteenth time, in a legal setting, nothing is a "fact" unless it's admitted by the party charged or adjudicated as fact by an impartial factfinder.

So yes, "assumptions" abound in this discussion.

So the SEC just made an assumption about the employees and how they were directed to sign off on the 13Fs?  

We don't know.  The allegations presented by the SEC have neither been admitted to by the Church nor adjudicated as facts by an impartial factfinder.

And because we don't know, the presumption of innocence carries the day (or it ought to). 

Do you think the presumption of innocence should apply to the Church in a legal context?  This is a sincere question.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Quote

For the umpteenth time, in a legal setting, nothing is a "fact" unless it's admitted by the party charged or adjudicated as fact by an impartial factfinder.

Are we in a legal setting here????

Are we discussing a legal issue here????

Yes.  Yes, we are.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Analytics]

15 minutes ago, smac97 said:

This is why I keep bringing up your lack of training and experience in the law.  You are drawing broad and sweeping conclusions about the Church in a legal setting, and you are doing so without having much familiarity with that setting.

As this thread progresses, I think you are becoming more and more entrenched in your preferred narrative about the Church...

Yes, you've made your point about how I'm unqualified to have an opinion because I'm not a lawyer. Ad nauseam. Yes, you've made your point about how my opinion is hopelessly biased because I don't believe in the Church. Ad nauseam.

And yet Sam Brunson is a lawyer and is a member of the Church, and came to the same conclusions I did.

Quote

I’ve spent a lot of time explaining why the Sturm und Drang over the EPA’s taxes is overblown. And I stand by that. With what has been brought to light by the whistleblower and by other investigators, EPA and the church are perfectly compliant with federal tax law.

But not with securities law. It’s telling that in their release, the church stated that it “regret[s] mistakes made,” a statement that, frankly, as passive as it is, is as close to an expression of wrongdoing as I’ve heard the church make.
But here’s the thing: the church didn’t make a mistake. It’s not that it was unaware that EPA had a filing requirement—EPA informed the top church hierarchs almost immediately that it needed to file 13Fs

But rather than comply with the law, top church leaders decided to obfuscate, to stretch the law to (or, imho, beyond) the breaking point. It’s not that mistakes were made—it’s that the church took deliberate action to do wrong.

And how should we, as active members, look at this deliberate action to do wrong? I don’t think there’s any way to justify it, and I don’t think members should be asked to justify it. After all, we believe in being honest. To receive a temple recommend, we have to affirm that we’re honest in our dealings. Seriously, honesty is such a lonely word.

And, in spite of our teachings and belief, the top church leaders chose dishonesty. They chose not only to bend the law, but to break it.

https://bycommonconsent.com/2023/02/21/the-church-the-investment-advisor-and-the-sec/

Edited February 24, 2023 by Analytics

[pogi]

23 minutes ago, Amulek said:

I don't have a problem admitting the Church and (by proxy) it's agents were in the wrong on this one.

But I also have a hard time caring about it.

On the spectrum of "wrongs" that can be committed, this isn't anywhere near the top of the list - at least not for me, personally.

It isn't like the Church was doing anything truly scandalous - no tax evasion, no illegal funneling of monies as contributions to non-Libertarian Party campaigns, no secret hooker islands, nothing. All they did was attempt to legally obfuscate how much money they were controlling.

Now, I think it's pretty clear they were in the wrong on how they went about doing that, notwithstanding whatever weak 20-year old legal advice they may have been relying on to the contrary. But I also think that what they didn't isn't worth getting too excited about either. And the SEC obviously agreed - otherwise they would have gone after the Church for more than just a weak slap on the wrist.

Seriously, when compared to a $40B+ investment portfolio growing (on average) at 7% annually, a $5M fine comes out to be less than what we make in a single day.

If people want to be upset with the Church, fine. But let's keep things in perspective.

What the Church and EPA did was the financial equivalent of smoking a little weed, so let's not go around pretending like they were guilty of raping and cannibalizing babies or anything crazy like that.

 

I agree with this completely.  I have stated as much previously that in terms of legal wrongs, I think this is pretty miniscule. 

I have thought long and hard about why this particular issue is affecting me so adversely when compared against all the other issues that I have had with the church.  I think seeing the extent that the church went to keep this secret gave me pause.  It cause me to wonder that if they are willing to go to this level of deception and unethical behavior for something as simple as financial privacy, what else are they capable of in more serious matters?  It is reminiscent of their treatment history.  What about more serious matters like abuse, etc.?  How far are they willing to go to hide stuff they think might have "negative consequences"?   You know what they say about people getting busted for smoking weed (since you used that comparison) - it is almost guaranteed that it is not their first joint.   After reading their response to these allegations, I am left feeling less assured that it will be their last.   I have decided that it is not a matter of legal seriousness, it is a matter of trust.   There is also the element of expecting my leaders to keep the same temple recommend standards that I am expected to keep.  Do as I say and not as I do. 

 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, MrShorty said:

Among those whose memories stretch back to the '80s, how many are now singing and humming to themselves, "You tell one lie, It leads to another. So you tell two lies To cover each other. So you tell three lies. Oh brother! You're in up to your ears! So you lie and lie Without even trying, And each lie you tell Just keeps multiplying...[and my memory ends there]"

Brought to you by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The Mormons!

We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming.

Was it one of the Homefront Ads?

I could just find this…

.

[Calm]

Found it…feel sorry for the kid, bit freaky…also never saw it.

Here are some more…

 

Edited February 24, 2023 by Calm

[smac97]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Quote

No.  Because they are "allegations" means that we should not accept them outright.  Due Process.  Presumption of innocence.  Actual evidence presented to an impartial factfinder (rather than unadorned assertions, as we have in the SEC Order).  These things are important.

No.  That is not how this works. 

That is precisely how this works.

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Due process?  You say that like I am robbing them of it    

No.  I am saying that the allegations have not been established as fact, either through admissions by the Church or via adjudication by an impartial factfinder.

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Opting out of their right to due process doesn't give them a clear pass of presumption of innocence

When the Church expressly predicates its agreement to settle on not admitting any of the allegations asserted by the SEC, it most certainly does preserve the presumption of innocence.

See here:

Quote

A presumption of innocence means that any defendant in a criminal trial is assumed to be innocent until they have been proven guilty.  

As such, a prosecutor is required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person committed the crime if that person is to be convicted. To do so, proof must be shown for every single element of a crime. That being said, a presumption of innocence does not guarantee that a person will remain free until their trial has concluded. In some circumstances, a person can be held in custody.

The presumption of innocence is not guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution. However, through statutes and court decisions–such as the U.S. Supreme Court case of Taylor v. Kentucky–it has been recognized as one of the most basic requirements of a fair trial.

"Assumed to be innocent until they have been proven guilty."

That hasn't happened here.  

1 hour ago, pogi said:

in the court of public opinion. 

Oh, brother.  The "court of public opinion" is meaningless.  No rules.  No adjudicator.  No protections.  Just utter mayhem.

You are judging the Church there?  Well, okay.  Have at it.  But you will not be able to honestly and credibly assert that the Church violated securities laws.  

Meanwhile, I hope you give some consideration to Matthew 7:2 - "For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again."

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Sorry.  This is not a court of law.

Sure.  But the SEC Order was not drafted in "the court of public opinion."  It was, instead, drafted pursuant to the laws of the United States.  It must therefore be viewed within that paradigm.

That doesn't mean that you can't throw the Church to the wolves in the "court of public opinion."  Again, have at it.

But it does mean that you are acting out of anger and malice more than by reasoned assessment.

1 hour ago, pogi said:

We HAVE to make judgments (non-legal of course). 

I agree.  By way of example, I reached conclusions about Joseph Bishop in the McKenna Denson matter.  But here's the thing: I did not reach those conclusions and then try to pass off my surmise as anything other than a surmise.  I did not try to pass off my surmise as established "fact."  And I also did essentially nothing with my surmise.  I stated my surmised conclusions here, but otherwise I left the disposition of Joseph Bishop to the law of the land, and to God.

As for "judgments" we "HAVE to make" regarding this SEC story, what are you talking about there?  We can surmise, sure.  But then what?  Aren't we supposed to forgive?  "I, the Lord, will forgive whom I will forgive, but of you it is required to forgive all men."  (D&C 64:10.)  Does this apply to the folks running EPA?  To the Brethren?

Moreover, does your "judgment" take into account the corrective measures the Church has taken?  If not, why not?  

Is it your place, or mine, to "judge" the folks involved in the SEC issue?  If yes, how do you figure?  If not, then what is it that you are doing right now?  

I'm reminded of an episode of Frasier:

Is that what is going on here?

1 hour ago, pogi said:

I refuse to be a doormat and blindly trust. 

Oh, get real.  Nobody has suggested anything of the kind.

1 hour ago, pogi said:

I am required to judge this matter based on the best evidence presented to me.      

You are required?  How so?  Where did this imperative arise?

And isn't "judge this matter" a sidestep?  You seem to be judging people.

But after you have "judge{d} this matter," what next?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 24, 2023 by smac97

[pogi]

1 hour ago, OGHoosier said:

I give it as my opinion that EPA acted unethically in how it handled the Business Manager's signatures. 

I think that the general scheme of the shell LLCs was not unethical. I think the EPA's decision to file separate 13(f)s was done under an interpretation of statute which was viable, though ultimately not upheld. Such is the way with regulation and litigation. 

I agree with your point about the Business Managers.  I have to ask though, if they honestly felt like everything was ethically on the up-and-up, why would they need to hide that information from the business managers in the first place?   For me, the hiding of the info from the business managers is simply the cover up of other obvious unethical and untruthful behavior.  

As then allegation goes, "even though" they reported that the LLCs had full control (that is what they had to report to guarantee privacy) they understood and acted differently.  That is what they were hiding from the managers.  They knew it was dishonest.  That is the only reasonable explanation I can think of as to why they would intentionally hide info from these managers.  

1 hour ago, OGHoosier said:

Roger Clarke was not saying that the Church wanted to give the impression of being dependent on tithing in order to "keep members paying" as some have put it. He was saying that the Church wanted to protect the Saints from being assailed by facile arguments that they are wrong to give tithes to a visibly wealthy organization. I think Clarke's words have been misinterpreted to ill effect.

I have read his quote over and over, and I simply don't see it that way:

Quote

"Paying tithing is more of a sense of commitment than it is the church needing the money," Clarke said two years ago. "So they never wanted to be in a position where people felt like, you know, they shouldn't make a contribution."

Why would we be in a position to where we felt like we shouldn't pay tithing?  Members of faith can handle "facile arguments".  Those who pay for the wrong reasons perhaps shouldn't be coddled.   We can do the right things for the right reasons.  Everyone else can use their agency given caorrect and clear information and expectations.  Either way you look at it he is saying that their motivation in all of this was to in essence infantilize us members.  

[smac97]

19 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Yes, you've made your point about how I'm unqualified to have an opinion because I'm not a lawyer.

Baloney.  I have not said you cannot have an opinion.  Of course you have that right.  Unfortunately, your opinion is based on ignorance of the law and malice toward a religious minority.

19 minutes ago, Analytics said:

And yet Sam Brunson is a lawyer and is a member of the Church, and came to the same conclusions I did.

https://bycommonconsent.com/2023/02/21/the-church-the-investment-advisor-and-the-sec/

I am also a lawyer and a member of the Church, and I have come to quite different conclusions from yours.

So where does that leave us?  In my view, I think Sam's conclusions were overwrought and emotional, and likely knee-jerk / heat-of-the-moment.  But even if they weren't, I think he's wrong.  More to the point, what he is wrong about is not so much the points of law, but his "moral" condemnations.  His being a lawyer or law professor lends no particular gravitas to his conclusion about that.

Thanks,

-Smac

[webbles]

26 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Actually, it is.  According to the National Council of Nonprofits:

Quote

As tax-exempt public charities, charitable nonprofits embrace the values of accountability and transparency as a matter of ethical leadership, as well as legal compliance.

Leaders of charitable nonprofits know that financial transparency will help preserve the important trust community members and donors place in a nonprofit. Additionally, and no less importantly, conduct that is accountable and transparent earns employees' trust and creates a positive workplace culture.

Earning trust through financial transparency and accountability goes beyond what the law requires.

 

That doesn't say it is sinister or bad.  It just says that nonprofits should strive to be transparent in what they are doing.  I don't read that to say that a nonprofit (or church, company, etc) that tries to hide their wealth is automatically unethical.  Only that they aren't showing "ethical leadership".  You can definitely argue that the church is not showing "ethical leadership" in its transparency.

And I agree that a nonprofit charity should be transparent.  People should be able to determine whether the nonprofit charity is acting in the manner they say they are.  If people don't want to donate to the church because they don't like how it acts with its money, they shouldn't donate to it.