Church fined by SEC

[Analytics]

36 minutes ago, smac97 said:

...the best evidence indicates that the Church - if it erred at all - did so only in terms of technical compliance with reporting requirements from the SEC, and it did so based on legal advice it had received.

That is false.

In addition to its violations of of Section 13(f)(1) of the Exchange Act, it violated many norms of ethics and honesty in its scheme to hide its assets from its membership and from the public. Those breaches of ethics are described in paragraphs 3 through 35 of the following document: https://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/2023/34-96951.pdf

In the words of Sam Brunson, an active member, law school professor and frequent defender of the Church:

"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 23, 2023 by Analytics

[JustAnAustralian]

19 minutes ago, pogi said:

pretend like the case is closed

Isn't that the point of settling though? Agree to pay/do something rather than go through a trial. Neither side is forced to settle. 

 

[smac97]

18 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Good for POGI.  So?  Repeating your superior legal skill over and over

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

18 minutes ago, Teancum said:

looks like puffery to me.

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

18 minutes ago, Teancum said:

We all know you are an attorney.  We who are not know we are not. You don't need to keep pointing that out.

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.

18 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Hmmm.  Not sure I agree with a I made a legal conclusion but maybe.

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."
• "Is this being honest in dealing with your fellow men?"
• "Umm they knew what they were doing. Setting up shell LLCs to limit reporting requirements is not an act of omission."
• "Yes it is when you know you are trying to hide things you are supposed to legally report."
• "It is not a settlement. It is a fine.  Which means they agreed to wrong doing."
• "The SEC does not just decide something is a problem.  There are rules and regulations in this space."
• "You tell me oh wise one, why did EPA splist assets among 13 LLCs?  Just for fun?"
• "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..."
• "Because they were guilty at going to lengths to hide their investments from the SEC."
• "In other words we got caught doing something we should not have done."
• "So you are quite fine with dishonesty and skirting the rules?"
• "There is something wrong with concealing it when the SEC requires disclosure."
• "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."
• "Keep on defending your dishonest church."
• "Do you think the church would have paid the $5 million fine if they thought they would prevail?"
• "Had there not been a problem of to complying with the regulations the SEC would not have brought action  against EPA and the Church."
• "The church did not want the public or its members to know about this.  Why is that?  What are they afraid of?"
• "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."
• "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!

</snark> 

18 minutes ago, Teancum said:

My main issue is the lack off admission of guilt seems meaningless really. 

If so, that is yet another indication of your lack of training and experience in the law.

Absent an admission of wrongdoing or an adjudication of wrongdoing, all we have is the SEC's unproven, untested say so.

18 minutes ago, Teancum said:

And I thing the fact that @ttribe noted that the church cannot dispute the fact of the case, ever, is telling.

Not really.  This is a key criticism of "no-admit-no-deny" settlements, the constitutionality of which is likely to be challenged sooner or later.

But the Church deals with the law as it is, not how it ought to be.  And the SEC's requirement on this point is usually associated with third party lawsuits by persons who have been injured by the violation of securities laws.  There are no allegations that the Church injured anyone, which means that the risks associated with third-party lawsuits was negligible to nonexistent, which made settlement more attractive from the Church's perspective.  

18 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Quote

Oh, I think I'm doing all right.  I'm actually biting my tongue far more than I am speaking out.  I'm going easy on you.

It's not very hard for an experienced lawyer to dunk on someone who lacks legal training and experience.  I'm trying to minimize that.

I will refrain form snarky comments on this other than to say I find a number of your arguments less than convincing.  

I'm quite okay with that.  I find most of what you have said in this thread to substantially flawed.

18 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Quote

More to the point, the document is not really a settlement agreement, but rather an "Order instituting cease-and-desist proceedings ... making findings, and imposing a cease-and-desist order."

By the looks of it, much of the Order is boilerplate.

And you know this exactly how?

Because I did some legal research and found much of the order to be duplicated across some dozens of other SEC orders.

18 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Quote

Again, your lack of legal training and experience is really showing through.

God lord.  You have said that to me and others at least 20 times. I am sure you are a brilliant attorney.  Happy now?

My comment was about your flawed reasoning and your ignorance of the law.  It is not a comment on my competency as an attorney.

18 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Quote

Parties settle lawsuits all the time, including those they "could have fought," and really especially involving charges from the SEC.

And you have dealt with exactly how many SEC cases?

None.  But I have ample experience in both federal and state litigation, including settlements.

And I have researched the settlement practices of the SEC.

18 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Quote

You are just making this up.  Freewheeling speculation, with nary a scintilla of evidence to support it.

The Church settled a dispute without admitting any wrongdoing.  And percentage-wise, the fine is fairly small.  Meanwhile, the SEC corrected what it deemed problematic reporting by EPA, and did not require that the settlement include an admission of wrongdoing.  This was a win-win.

Sheer hostile guesswork on your part.  Nothing else.

And you are not engaging in guess work? 

Nope.  Not much.  I can back up (and have done) my statements with citations to sources and references.  You can't (or, at least, you haven't).

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

3 hours ago, pogi said:

While I will withhold judgment on this particular case, it seems so icky to hide funds for that reason, because in doing so they are also sticking it to potential true victims.

If the amount of judgment is based on the known amount of the Church’s wealth, perhaps.  I don’t know how the system typically works, but it seems like once an organization is known to have significant wealth and is capable therefore of paying appropriate damages, that the victim isn’t going to get less than they deserve if the Church is found liable.  And the Church’s wealth even without what was partitioned off into the clone LLCs was past that point in my view.

So I am not seeing how this sticks it to true victims since they can ask for the amount they deserve regardless of how much the Church owns above the point of enough wealth and they can agree to settle based on whether or not they are satisfied with the amount, they don’t have to be concerned if the Church can manage to pay when even the publicly known lower amount makes it obvious they can..  

What hiding assets seems to avoid, imo, is a jury—after hearing of horrendous abuse and believing the victim deserves compensation—choosing an organization with what feels like bottomless pockets to give it to them because the loss is not going to be that big of a deal and therefore awarding damages even in cases where proof of liability is not that well established and may even be nonexistent because the organization is not actually liable (the jury just labels them liable so there is a way to give money to the victim).

It is understandable that your ability to trust leadership to make the right decision in these case is lessened.  It is reasonable and I am hearing quite of few feel that way.  I am guessing I don’t feel that way because my trust of leadership has never been significantly anchored in that area or if it was, I set it aside long enough ago I don’t remember.  I have seen such ridiculous extremes taken not to share information by some in very trivial matters that seeing it done for nontrivial does not upset me though I am surprised by what appears to me to be a stupid choice to dig deeper when it appears the system to hide the info wasn’t working.  There seems to me to be an obsessive strand flowing through enough leaders and administrators for some reason, a desire to keep administrative information inaccessible unless needed just because.  Even the level of difficulty of finding useful telephone numbers has at times been ridiculous.  This case is just another facet of that obsession for me, a massive facet given the assets involved, but still it feels too familiar.  Maybe the size of it will be helpful just as the mass of issues with the idealized historical narrative pushed the Church to significantly open up in that area and even invest massive funds into doing it up right.  There is a lot of inertia/tradition built up though.

Edited February 24, 2023 by Calm

[Teancum]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

As you like.  I think you and yours are gearing up to weaponize this story.  I'm laying the groundwork for when and if that happens.

You and yours?  My what?  Weaponize? You really are a drama king.

 

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

If I end up being in error, I will apologize.

As long as you maintain erroneous suppositions about the law and what happened, I will continue to note the errors.

You seem to be making  assumptions as much as anyone.

 

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

It's not intended as a personal dig.  Just a statement of reality.  By large measures, you do not know what you are talking about.

You cannot seem to stop yourself.  But guess what? No legal expertise needed for figuring out that manipulating employees into signing documents that just aren't true is dishonest.  No legal expertise is needed to conclude that the Church went to great lengths to hide the facts that it has enormous assets under management.  If you think that is honest then I question your integrity. Sorry.  But that is how I see it. 

 

 

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Oh, I have little doubt of the antagonisms we face.  And now that you've said it, "spiteful" does see pretty apt.

It serve your persecution  complex well.

 

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Special pleading.  That's all you've offered.

Hardly

3 hours 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."  

You don't have an ax to grind but you certainly have a strong bias towards defending almost anything the Church does.  You are as biased as you think the critics are.  Likely more so IMO.

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

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

The motives were to hide their assets from public view. And they did dishonest things, IMO, to do so. See above.

Edited February 24, 2023 by Teancum

[smac97]

1 minute ago, Analytics said:

That is false.

Actually, I think it's pretty accurate.

1 minute ago, Analytics said:

In addition to its violations of of Section 13(f)(1) of the Exchange Act, it violated many norms of ethics and honesty in its scheme to hide its assets from its membership and from the public. Those breaches of ethics are described in paragraphs 3 through 35 of the following document: https://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/2023/34-96951.pdf

In the words of Sam Brunson, an active member, law school professor and frequent defender of the Church:

"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/

Also from Sam Brunson: 

Quote

1. Mike Sanders says:

   February 22, 2023 at 9:34 am

   Sam,

   “church leaders knew what they wanted, and that was to avoid mandated disclosure.”

   And apparently all they would have had to do differently in order to gain this desire without falling out of compliance would have been to devolve investment authority to the LLCs, right?

Quote

Sam Brunson says:

February 22, 2023 at 9:38 am

Mike, I think so. It still may have looked bad, but as far as I can see, it would have complied with the letter, and probably the spirit, of the law.

It looks like Sam succumbed to a knee-jerk emotional assessment.  If the distinction between the Church being compliant versus noncompliant is a legal technicality ("devolve investment authority to the LLCs"), and if the Church sought and obtained and relied on legal advice on how to proceed, and if the Church has altered its behavior to conform to SEC guidelines and expectations, and if the Church has expressed regret for its "mistakes" and agreed to pay a fine, then there does not seem to be grounds to indict the Church in any particular moral sense.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

27 minutes ago, pogi said:

The church denied their right to a fair legal trial and chose the court of public opinion over the legal courts.  That is what they will get. 

The Church settled on the express condition that it neither admitted nor denied the allegations.  

And the choice it had was between paying a fine (again, with no admission of wrongdoing) or litigation.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

3 hours ago, ttribe said:

Something that I think is getting lost in all of this discussion of 'facts' and 'allegations' and 'the Church admitted nothing' is the meaning of the Church's agreement that it also does not deny the findings of fact listed in the Order.

As I understand it, that is how "no-admit-no-deny" settlements with the SEC are structured.  All the time, actually.

But I'm not sure that is the case here.

3 hours ago, ttribe said:

In short, at no time in the future can the Church dispute the findings of fact in that document without violating its settlement agreement. Not ever.

Perhaps so, perhaps no.  But assuming you are correct, how is that a problem for the Church?  There is no indication that anyone was injured by the Church's purported noncompliance, hence there is nobody who will have standing to sue the Church, hence the risk of such future litigation was negligible or nonexistent, hence there is no particular downside to the Church surrendering a right that had essentially no chance of ever being needed.

3 hours ago, ttribe said:

As far as the SEC is concerned, those are the facts of the case and nothing can be done to legally change that.

"As far as the SEC is concerned" being the operative phrase.  The SEC has settled the matter, so what it considers as "the facts" doesn't really matter.

Moreover, footnote 1 of the SEC Order is possibly noteworthy: 

Quote

The findings herein are made pursuant to Respondents’ Offers of Settlement and are not binding on any other person or entity in this or any other proceeding

The "Offers of Settlement" are, in turn, expressly predicated on the Church "{not} admitting or denying the findings herein."

3 hours ago, ttribe said:

The SEC's job is to regulate and enforce securities law civilly (they have no criminal enforcement powers).  Their actions, their opinions, their conclusions carry considerable weight.

Well, no.  The SEC cannot adjudicate liability or wrongdoing.  It has to take the matter to an Article III court or to an Administrative Law Judge.  That did not happen here.  Instead, the matter was settlement.  The "facts" were therefore never established by admission or adjudication, and therefore remain as only allegations.

3 hours ago, ttribe said:

So, lawyers who don't actually represent the Church and amateur apologists can try to sow doubt about the findings of fact in the Order, the Church cannot join in on that effort.

There SEC is not, in and of itself, an adjudicative body.  It's "findings of fact" are relevant to the settlement, nothing more.  

3 hours ago, ttribe said:

They cannot join in because they are legally prevented from doing so and they agreed to that as part of the settlement. They knew the findings of fact would be published and, by entering into the settlement agreement, they agreed to that as well.

And yet the Church expressly did not admit the allegations.  So...

Thanks,

-Smac

[pogi]

34 minutes ago, JustAnAustralian said:

Isn't that the point of settling though? Agree to pay/do something rather than go through a trial. Neither side is forced to settle. 

 

Yes, from a legal aspect.  But when you are dealing with a matter of trust with a community that you lead, saying that the "case is closed" comes off as trying to tuck it under the rug and avoid the more delicate issue of trust.  In that regard, this case is just opening.  They have avoided judgment from a court of law, but now they are faced with judgment of the court of public opinion.  That is the court-room we are in right now. Case is open. 

Edited February 23, 2023 by pogi

[ttribe]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

As I understand it, that is how "no-admit-no-deny" settlements with the SEC are structured.  All the time, actually.

But I'm not sure that is the case here.

Perhaps so, perhaps no.  But assuming you are correct, how is that a problem for the Church?  There is no indication that anyone was injured by the Church's purported noncompliance, hence there is nobody who will have standing to sue the Church, hence the risk of such future litigation was negligible or nonexistent, hence there is no particular downside to the Church surrendering a right that had essentially no chance of ever being needed.

"As far as the SEC is concerned" being the operative phrase.  The SEC has settled the matter, so what it considers as "the facts" doesn't really matter.

Moreover, footnote 1 of the SEC Order is possibly noteworthy: 

The "Offers of Settlement" are, in turn, expressly predicated on the Church "{not} admitting or denying the findings herein."

Well, no.  The SEC cannot adjudicate liability or wrongdoing.  It has to take the matter to an Article III court or to an Administrative Law Judge.  That did not happen here.  Instead, the matter was settlement.  The "facts" were therefore never established by admission or adjudication, and therefore remain as only allegations.

There SEC is not, in and of itself, an adjudicative body.  It's "findings of fact" are relevant to the settlement, nothing more.  

And yet the Church expressly did not admit the allegations.  So...

Thanks,

-Smac

The optics of your defense are poor, counselor, but by all means carry on.

[Tacenda]

27 minutes ago, Analytics said:

That is false.

In addition to its violations of of Section 13(f)(1) of the Exchange Act, it violated many norms of ethics and honesty in its scheme to hide its assets from its membership and from the public. Those breaches of ethics are described in paragraphs 3 through 35 of the following document: https://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/2023/34-96951.pdf

In the words of Sam Brunson, an active member, law school professor and frequent defender of the Church:

"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/

And most of us don't have billions to where a fine of 5 million is like a drop in the bucket.

[Analytics]

14 minutes ago, smac97 said:

If the distinction between the Church being compliant versus noncompliant is a legal technicality ("devolve investment authority to the LLCs")...

That isn't a mere "legal technicality." That is significantly changing the way it insists on operating. That is why to gain compliance they didn't devolve investment authority, rather they started reporting at the aggregate level.

14 minutes ago, smac97 said:

...and if the Church sought and obtained and relied on legal advice on how to proceed, and if the Church has altered its behavior to conform to SEC guidelines and expectations, and if the Church has expressed regret for its "mistakes" and agreed to pay a fine, then there does not seem to be grounds to indict the Church in any particular moral sense....

There are two issues going on here. First, did the Church comply with the law? Second, did it act honestly and ethically?

You adamantly refuse to acknowledge the ethical issues detailed in the SEC order and focus merely on whether the law was broken. Just because you ignore the ethical issues doesn't mean Brunson made a "knee-jerk emotional assessment" by addressing them.

 

[pogi]

21 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The Church settled on the express condition that it neither admitted nor denied the allegations.  

And the choice it had was between paying a fine (again, with no admission of wrongdoing) or litigation.  

Thanks,

-Smac

That's right.  They refused a fair trial where they could potentially vindicate their good name, they refuse to admit or deny guilt, so now they get us - the court of public opinion where the law does not apply. 

[smac97]

12 minutes ago, pogi said:

Quote

The Church settled on the express condition that it neither admitted nor denied the allegations.  

And the choice it had was between paying a fine (again, with no admission of wrongdoing) or litigation.  

That's right.  They refused a fair trial where they could potentially vindicate their good name,

The Church did not admit any wrongdoing.  It's name is still good.

12 minutes ago, pogi said:

they refuse to admit or deny guilt, so now they get us - the court of public opinion where the law does not apply. 

Yes, the law still applies, at least to some extent.  For example, critics can't legitimately claim that the Church violated securities laws because A) it never admitted to any such thing, and B) there was no adjudication to that effect by an Article III court or an administrative law judge.

I suspect that some critics will do this anyway, and that's to be expected.  But they won't be doing it honestly or accurately.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

This is a fascinating thread. According to the SEC, a large corporation “went to great lengths to avoid disclosing [its] investments,” setting up 13 shell corporations and having figurehead managers sign the required legal forms. A couple of internet investigators (full disclosure: one is my cousin) discovered the shell corps and made the corporation’s actions public. Only at that point did the corporation revise its practices. Not surprisingly, the SEC fined the corporation for violating the law. 

At this point, there’s not much in dispute. But for some reason, people feel the need not only to justify the corporation’s actions, but they suggest that anyone who thinks the corporation actually did something wrong are motivated by bitterness and bias against said corporation. It’s even suggested that the SEC may have engaged in an abuse of power.

The bottom line for me is that, for whatever reason, some people cannot acknowledge the possibility that an organization whose daily operations are performed by humans, could ever do anything wrong. Such people believe in the theoretical fallibility of said organization, but will never acknowledge a specific instance of hypothetical wrongdoing.

Am I the only one who sees it this way? My 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. At what point is it OK to acknowledge that people we revere sometimes screw up?

[pogi]

19 minutes ago, smac97 said:

There is no indication that anyone was injured by the Church's purported noncompliance, hence there is nobody who will have standing to sue the Church, hence the risk of such future litigation was negligible or nonexistent, hence there is no particular downside to the Church surrendering a right that had essentially no chance of ever being needed.

I was injured. 

Trust in the church was injured for many, many members that I have heard from.  

The church's good name and reputation in the community as stalwarts of integrity and honesty was injured.  

While one may not be able to litigate against such things, it could have been avoided by going to trial and clearing their name if they truly are innocent of wrong-doing.  Apparently that is not important enough to be worth the money. Or, they knew that they didn't have a winning case. 

Beyond that though, if it is true that there are members who only payed tithing because they thought that the church needs their money and may not have paid tithing otherwise (as the President of the EPA has attested), then they could sue for paying under false pretense that the President of the EPA has testified on record of creating.  I don't know how successful they would be but if it is true that the church went to this extent of deception to get tithing dollars from people who may not otherwise pay - then they are liable to get sued by those people who paid under false-pretense created through deceptive means for the stated purpose of getting members to pay tithing.  

[pogi]

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The Church did not admit any wrongdoing.  It's name is still good.

So as long as we don't admit to things that we do wrong, it is all good, right?    That seems to be the name of the game.  This doesn't help with trust.  Members are not stupid.  They don't need to admit to anything for us to see the writing on the wall. 

[smac97]

17 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Quote

If the distinction between the Church being compliant versus noncompliant is a legal technicality ("devolve investment authority to the LLCs")...

That isn't a mere "legal technicality."

I didn't say "mere."  That's your editorial gloss/embellishment.

17 minutes ago, Analytics said:

That is significantly changing the way it insists on operating.  That is why to gain compliance they didn't devolve investment authority, rather they started reporting at the aggregate level.

Sure.  The Church has already demonstrated that it can and does devolve discretionary authority as to financial matters.  The kerfuffle with LDS Charities Australia is a good example of that.

More to the point, though, is that I question whether the governing law (the statute passed by Congress) requires that EPA devolve investment authority.  If not, then the SEC is wrong and the legal advice that the Church received was apt.

17 minutes ago, Analytics said:

There are two issues going on here. First, did the Church comply with the law?

There is an allegation of noncompliance, but the issue with resolved without any admission by the Church or any adjudication by an Article III court or an administrative law judge.

Given the settlement, this "issue" will almost certain remain unsettled and untested and unanswered in any formal or official or binding sense.  All we'll have is the dependably-hostile conjectures from anti-Mormons, and perhaps some more clinical and objective assessments from a few lookyloos (lawyers who may be interested for other reasons).  I fully expect the former, but I won't hold my breath as to the latter.

17 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Second, did it act honestly and ethically?

Yes, I think it did.

17 minutes ago, Analytics said:

You adamantly refuse to acknowledge the ethical issues detailed in the SEC order

Malarky.  I have addressed them at length.

17 minutes ago, Analytics said:

and focus merely on whether the law was broken.

As I have said a few times now, I just don't see much of a moral dimension to this story.  

The Church sought legal advice as to how to comply with technical reporting requirements which are based on statute and interpreted (perhaps not altogether correctly) by the SEC.  The Church enacted efforts that it felt - based on legal advice - was compliant with the law.

17 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Just because you ignore the ethical issues doesn't mean Brunson made a "knee-jerk emotional assessment" by addressing them.

I agree.  I think the evidence of Brunson's "knee-jerk emotional assessment" is evident from the vitriol in his post as compared to and contrasted with the more reasoned assessment he made later in the Comments section.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

1 minute ago, pogi said:

Quote

The Church did not admit any wrongdoing.  It's name is still good.

So as long as we don't admit to things that we do wrong, it is all good, right?   

You presume that which has yet to be demonstrated, namely, that the Church did "wrong."

But to answer your question, no.

1 minute ago, pogi said:

That seems to be the name of the game.  This doesn't help with trust.  Members are not stupid.  They don't need to admit to anything for us to see the writing on the wall. 

I don't think members are stupid, either.  But I also think most don't have the time or inclination or ability to parse out the particulars of this story, and so will instead rely on popular narratives, some of which will be from critics and dissidents.

Thanks,

-Smac

[webbles]

23 minutes ago, Analytics said:

That isn't a mere "legal technicality." That is significantly changing the way it insists on operating. That is why to gain compliance they didn't devolve investment authority, rather they started reporting at the aggregate level.

There wasn't any point to fully devolve investment authority. The 13 LLCs had been discovered and tied to the church/EPA.  They would get none of the benefits from the LLCs while having to deal with all of the cons.

So just because they went to an aggregate report doesn't mean that it was more than a mere "legal technical".

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, pogi said:

Quote

There is no indication that anyone was injured by the Church's purported noncompliance, hence there is nobody who will have standing to sue the Church, hence the risk of such future litigation was negligible or nonexistent, hence there is no particular downside to the Church surrendering a right that had essentially no chance of ever being needed.

I was injured. 

No, you weren't.  Not in any legally cognizable sense.

6 minutes ago, pogi said:

Trust in the church was injured for many, many members that I have heard from.

Given the near hysteria I've been reading for the past few days, that's understandable.

6 minutes ago, pogi said:

The church's good name and reputation in the community as stalwarts of integrity and honesty was injured.  

Which is not an "injury" in the legal sense I was referencing.

6 minutes ago, pogi said:

While one may not be able to litigate against such things, it could have been avoided by going to trial and clearing their name if they truly are innocent of wrong-doing. 

At the cost of how many millions of dollars, how many man hours, how much effort, etc.?  You are faulting the Church for not doing this?

And "going to trial" would also have brought all sorts of public attention to this story, right?  

6 minutes ago, pogi said:

Apparently that is not important enough to be worth the money. Or, they knew that they didn't have a winning case. 

Or there is Door #3: The Church settled the matter as a means of mitigating and minimizing cost and expense, and because settlement with the SEC is the nearly ubiquitous means of resolving such investigations, and because there would be fall-out from litigation (perhaps even worse than what is happening how), and so on.

6 minutes ago, pogi said:

Beyond that though, if it is true that there are members who only payed tithing because they thought that the church needs their money and may not have paid tithing otherwise (as the President of the EPA has attested), then they could sue for paying under false pretense that the President of the EPA has testified on record of creating. 

Sorry, but I do not know what you are saying here.

Payment of tithes and offerings is an expression of faith, not of reliance on a purported (hearsay?) statement from the president of Ensign Peak Advisors, or of reliance on the EPA having complied with the technical requirements for 13F reporting per SEC guidelines.

6 minutes ago, pogi said:

I don't know how successful they would be but if it is true that the church went to this extent of deception to get tithing dollars from people who may not otherwise pay - then they are liable to get sued by those people who paid under false-pretense created through deceptive means for the stated purpose of getting members to pay tithing.  

I am sorry you feel this way.  I think you are quite wrong in your assessment and accusations.

Thanks,

-Smac

[ksfisher]

49 minutes ago, pogi said:

That is the court-room we are in right now. Case is open. 

Judge not, that ye be not judged.

 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

 

Seems like good advice

Also this

 

And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.

[Kenngo1969]

38 minutes ago, ttribe said:

The optics of your defense are poor, counselor, but by all means carry on.

With due respect, by that standard, no one ever should plead "Not Guilty" in a criminal proceeding, nor should any defense attorney (particularly not a Latter-day Saint defense attorney) defend such a person ... because "the optics are bad."  It wouldn't matter even if everyone in the world were of exactly the same opinion that the conduct of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in this matter is reprehensible.  Unlike in the "court" of public opinion, in courts of law, there are rules of evidence and procedure.  (One of which, by the way, is that one party cannot use what another party says in settlement negotiations against the first party, and some of the very reasoning on display in this very thread provides an excellent rationale for that rule's existence.) 

In contrast to the foregoing "optics" standard, however, thankfully, the way things actually work is that it doesn't matter if everyone in the world believes a person or entity is guilty of a crime or guilty of wrongdoing unless and until the matter is proven by the relevant legal standard in a court of law.  In this case, nothing ... and I'll emphasize that again, nothing ... has been proven in a court of law.  Absolutely nothing.

 

[Analytics]

16 minutes ago, smac97 said:

As I have said a few times now, I just don't see much of a moral dimension to this story.  

The Church sought legal advice as to how to comply with technical reporting requirements which are based on statute and interpreted (perhaps not altogether correctly) by the SEC.  The Church enacted efforts that it felt - based on legal advice - was compliant with the law.

Let me get this straight. You think the Church's attorneys said that it would be legal and ethical to select "Business Managers" who didn't do anything whatsoever to run the business, hand those "Business Managers" signature pages of SEC documents that the Business Manager's didn't understand, and then attach those signed signature pages to filings that were full of deliberate lies misstatements?

You think that is proper, ethical advice that the Church got from its attorneys and followed in good faith, thinking it honest?

If there is no moral dimension to this story, why do you think two of the business managers resigned when this started to come to light? 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

But when you are dealing with a matter of trust with a community that you lead, saying that the "case is closed"…

I thought the use of “consider this matter closed” a poor choice.  Like waving a flag in front of a bull that is deciding whether to settle down or full on charge.

Do others respond to it as overly paternal similar to don’t worry your pretty little heads about it? Or maybe it’s more it brings back memories of Dad telling me he wasn’t interested in talking about something by saying “your mother and I don’t talk about such things”.  It’s the door being closed while I am still standing there with my mouth open ready to say something.

I think when it comes to the business side of things leadership focus on the typical member’s lack of interest….most of us don’t want to concern ourselves with our own finances and other ‘administrative’ details, so are happy to leave the church stuff to others…and forget about the very well developed sense of community.  We are a family, not biological, but social and spiritual and emotional and that is a characteristic that is stressed over and over again by leadership (and it is one of the things that makes me love the Church so much even with all its very human and very family like problems).  And if family is in trouble, we should be all front and center eager to help as much as we are able.  And to know how to help, you need to know what is wrong so you know what to volunteer for or have some leadership that looks like they know what they are doing closely directing what’s going on.  

It is a lot to ask church members to turn off their habit of getting involved when given very little in terms of reassurance the problem is solved and we can all stand down.  It is not the same as showing up to help move a family out of the ward and being told enough helpers came by earlier that the family is all settled down in their new home already and just wanted us to know how grateful they are for our willingness to help them in their hour of need.  It’s more like showing up at a house that has all its drapes pulled though you can tell there is someone inside by the slivers of light getting through, but otherwise there is nothing going on except a sign on the door saying “no solicitors” with a small addition penciled in the corner of “ward service project cancelled” and it’s pretty clear if you knock just to be sure there is nothing you can do, no one is going to answer.

Edited February 23, 2023 by Calm