Church fined by SEC

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Again, no criminal allegations.

Again, the SEC only conducted an investigation, which could have gone anywhere.

That the investigation apparently yielded no grounds for allegations of criminality is . . . actually a good thing for the Church.

5 minutes ago, ttribe said:

No criminal statutes referenced by the SEC in its Order.  No basis for invoking criminal standards of evidence to this discussion.

Point taken.  The overall concept, though, applies to both.  In a criminal context, the presumption is "innocent until proven guilty."  In a civil context, the presumption "not liable until proven liable."

The wall between civil and criminal is neither as wide nor as tall as you might think.  Do a bit of reading about civil forfeitures and you'll see what I mean.  See also here (
The presumption of innocence ... applies to some civil cases, which are technically 'civil,' but which can be classified as 'quasi-criminal,' such as proceedings to determine the status of "delinquency" under juvenile delinquency statutes").

The distinction, really, is the burden of proof, which is a matter of degree.

Thanks,

-Smac

[ttribe]

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Again, the SEC only conducted an investigation, which could have gone anywhere.

That the investigation apparently yielded no grounds for allegations of criminality is . . . actually a good thing for the Church.

Point taken.  The overall concept, though, applies to both.  In a criminal context, the presumption is "innocent until proven guilty."  In a civil context, the presumption "not liable until proven liable."

The wall between civil and criminal is neither as wide nor as tall as you might think.  Do a bit of reading about civil forfeitures and you'll see what I mean.  See also here (
The presumption of innocence ... applies to some civil cases, which are technically 'civil,' but which can be classified as 'quasi-criminal,' such as proceedings to determine the status of "delinquency" under juvenile delinquency statutes").

The distinction, really, is the burden of proof, which is a matter of degree.

Thanks,

-Smac

Well, I found a proposal to expand the definition of "presumption of innocence" to civil matters in a Virginia Bar Journal, but there are also compelling counters to the article. I looked at the case in CA you previously mentioned, but can find no case examples outside of that one, and certainly not in Federal Court. But, admittedly, my own resources are limited. Nevertheless, strictly speaking, and assuming the continued desire to stay true to the applicability of legal terminology, it seems the "presumption of innocence" is out of bounds here, at least as far as holding the feet of us laymen to the fire, anyway.

Edited February 24, 2023 by ttribe

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Amulek said:

But I also have a hard time caring about it.

I care if it is a habit of being willing to play games, to deceive (a phone number where they delete all calls except from the government reads like deception to me as do business addresses all over the States when the managers are actually in SLC also seems deceptive to me) rather than an unusual choice of action.  Since I don’t know if it is a habit or not, it is a Schrödinger’s cat of caring as in sometime if I ever get a chance to open the box, I will find out if I care….or not.

[smac97]

18 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Well, I found a proposal to expand the definition of "presumption of innocence" to civil matters in a Virginia Bar Journal, but there are also compelling counters to the article.

I have not made such a proposal.  But the bar journal article is actually pretty good.

18 minutes ago, ttribe said:

I looked at the case in CA you previously mentioned, but can find no case examples outside of that one, and certainly not in Federal Court. But, admittedly, my own resources are limited.

I have conceded the point.  The "presumption of innocence" typically/mostly applies in a criminal context.  There is a comparable, but not identical, concept in civil law.  Both concepts are rooted in "presumptions" and burdens of proof.

18 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Nevertheless, strictly speaking, and assuming the continued desire to stay true to the applicability of legal terminology, it seems the "presumption of innocence" is out of bounds here, at least as far as holding the feet of us laymen to the fire, anyway.

Okay.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

But it does mean that you are acting out of anger and malice more…

Smac, please reconsider as I think you are going too far with “malice”, which is the intention to do evil, wanting to harm.  That is a  very inappropriate label for any poster here unless you know something that is not apparent from reading the board,

Edited February 24, 2023 by Calm

[Calm]

3 hours ago, pogi said:

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?

From what I can tell…which means it is a big guess…it could be just fine old church administration tradition of not sharing any info unless it’s necessary and they didn’t see it as necessary given they weren’t having the managers make business decisions.

[Calm]

3 hours ago, ttribe said:

You don't need to repeat the "beyond a reasonable doubt" and "preponderance of the evidence" standards to me. I've testified in both civil and criminal matters and know the differences well.

I needed it though.  

[pogi]

37 minutes ago, Calm said:

From what I can tell…which means it is a big guess…it could be just fine old church administration tradition of not sharing any info unless it’s necessary and they didn’t see it as necessary given they weren’t having the managers make business decisions.

I appreciate different perspectives but I’ve never known it to be traditional church administration procedure to not share documentation or information with a person that is required by law to verify the accuracy/correctness of it.  Ask any church clerk or auditor.  People who’s job it is to verify things, they are given the information to verify.
 

This wasn't about making business decisions either, so that angle doesn’t fit.

This is different from church administration, this is a legal signature attesting to correctness of documents they never received to review.   It is a legal document they were to verify the accuracy of.  They knew this.   To think that it was “not needed” would cause me to loose trust in them in other not pleasant ways.  I think they are smarter than that as business people.

Edited February 24, 2023 by pogi

[Calm]

11 hours ago, pogi said:

appreciate different perspectives but I’ve never known it to be traditional church administration procedure to not share documentation or information with a person that is required to verify the accuracy/correctness of.  This wasn't about making business decisions.

I agree.  Sorry if I gave that impression that it was procedure when I was simply suggesting the attitude may have contributed to making it seem like not a big deal to  whomever made that particular decision (guess they felt that way) to cross the line as they did..

About the only thing that has shocked me about this episode is requiring employees to sign a document they do not have the ability to read.  One could be held legally responsible for payment of an item they only technically bought or approve of the purchase or even liable (or is the word culpable?) for something criminal if one signs on the dotted line (where is this dotted line, now I think about it, the lines are always solid in my experience…hmmmm…).  I can just see someone going wonky at Church HQ and getting another employee to sign for the purchase of fertilizer and bomb parts and the Mr. Too Agreeable For His Own Good guy gets nabbed by the Feds for domestic terrorism.

I am very surprised that they had that many agree to do it.  I don’t like what it could say about the work environment. I am hoping it says they are all very good friends and know no one will take advantage of the other, but I have my doubts….but seriously, that is taking advantage of someone who is dependent on you for their job and just wrong, imo.

Edited February 24, 2023 by Calm

[smac97]

58 minutes ago, Calm said:

Smac, please reconsider as I think you are going too far with “malice”, which is the intention to do evil, wanting to harm.  That is a  very inappropriate label for any poster here unless you know something that is not apparent from reading the board,

It also means "ill will," and I meant it in that vein.  But your point is well-taken.  I withdraw the statement and apologize.

Thanks,

-Smac

[carbon dioxide]

3 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

It goes a bit beyond that for me. Church's don't pay property taxes. Don't help fund schools, roads, or other public works, but take full advantage of all of them. If an organization wants to run as opaque as possible, great, let them. I just want nothing to do with subsidizing them. 

Not sure you are.  Those roads, schools and public works would exist even if the church was not in the community.  You would be paying the same tax either way.  I however think it would be great for churches to pay tax.  Then they could be fully involved in politics.  Endorse candidates ect.  The same people would complain about churches not paying taxes will complain about how involved churches are involved in so many aspects in government that they will ask a return to how things were before.  Plus being a tax payer they would entitled to the benefits that taxpayers are.   Perhaps even government bail outs. 

Edited February 24, 2023 by carbon dioxide

[pogi]

37 minutes ago, smac97 said:

It also means "ill will," and I meant it in that vein. 

I have no ill will for the church either.  Not even close.  I am not angry in the way you seem to think I am.   I have always only wanted the best for the church and always will.   
 

Edited February 24, 2023 by pogi

[Calm]

31 minutes ago, smac97 said:

s "ill will,"

I see that as literally willing some ill or harm to a person, either passively or actively, so it is problematic imo.  How do you define it out of curiosity if you don’t mind the change to a vocabulary discussion…promise it will be short lived.

Thank you for withdrawing it.

Edited February 24, 2023 by Calm

[Kenngo1969]

5 hours ago, ttribe said:

This is not a criminal matter.

I realize that answer is supposed to make me slink away in shame to my own privately-inhabited dark little corner, and/or to clutch my chest as I breathe my last and say, "Gaaaah!  TTribe got me!  I'll never be able to show my cyberface in public again!"  Yeah.  Okay.  Whatever, Dude. 

Anytime the power of the State* is brought to bear against a private defendant, it is the State* that bears the burden of proving, by the relevant evidentiary standard (whatever it is) that the private party is guilty or liable.  As others have pointed out repeatedly, these proceedings never even got to that point, yet so many people in this thread seem determined to act as though a full trial was held on the merits, a jury rendered a verdict after due consideration of all of the evidence, and so on, ad infinitum.

Now, go ahead.  It's your turn.  Condescend to me some more.  It's what you do best.

________________

*Yes, I realize we're talking about the Federal government here and not about any specific State.  I'm using "State" in the generic sense to refer to the government.

[Thinking]

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

We are discussing a legal issue. 

Not just a legal issue. We are discussing an ethical issue.

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

I don't understand what you mean by "give it a pass on responsibility."  Responsibility for what?

Some defenders of the Church believe that the Church made honest mistakes, that it was simply following the advice of its legal and financial teams. You have suggested that since nothing was decided in a court of law, we have no business making inferences about how much the Church was involved in the decision to create shell companies.

"To obscure the amount of the Church’s portfolio, and with the Church’s knowledge and approval, Ensign Peak created thirteen shell LLCs, ostensibly with locations throughout the U.S., and filed Forms 13F in the names of these LLCs rather than in Ensign Peak’s name."

I think it's pretty clear that the Church was not just doing what its legal and financial teams told it to do. It was involved in the decision making process. The absence of court proceedings does not make it so that we cannot use the available information to infer was happened.

Edited February 24, 2023 by Thinking
Inserted "Some" in front of "defenders."

[pogi]

2 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I realize that answer is supposed to make me slink away in shame to my own privately-inhabited dark little corner, and/or to clutch my chest as I breathe my last and say, "Gaaaah!  TTribe got me!  I'll never be able to show my cyberface in public again!"  Yeah.  Okay.  Whatever, Dude. 

Anytime the power of the State* is brought to bear against a private defendant, it is the State* that bears the burden of proving, by the relevant evidentiary standard (whatever it is) that the private party is guilty or liable.  As others have pointed out repeatedly, these proceedings never even got to that point, yet so many people in this thread seem determined to act as though a full trial was held on the merits, a jury rendered a verdict after due consideration of all of the evidence, and so on, ad infinitum.

Now, go ahead.  It's your turn.  Condescend to me some more.  It's what you do best.

________________

*Yes, I realize we're talking about the Federal government here and not about any specific State.  I'm using "State" in the generic sense to refer to the government.

Is that really how you judge ttribe to be?  Guilty of perverted  malice and condescension? Kind of ironic given your position of non-judgment and presumed innocence.   His point seemed innocent and valid to me.  I guess we must each judge for ourselves, no?  Isn’t that how this life is supposed to work?  

The presumption of innocence operates in our courts of law to protect people charged with crimes from the overwhelming power of the state to deprive them of their liberty.  It does not operate to immunize the church or other powerful organizations/people in positions of trust from public scrutiny on matters of trust and wrong-doing. 

It is a legal procedural protection, not a moral operative.  (Please don’t feel tempted to slaughter scripture after reading that.)   If I was to withhold personal scrutiny of all people and organizations in all matters that they have not been convicted of in a court of law, then I would be easily victimized.  No thanks.

Imagine comic strip art with this:

“You’re late again Sam.”

”Nuh uh uh!  Presumed Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law!”

”…really?”

”Yes really! judge not lest ye be judged with the same judgment buddy boy.”

”Go home Sam”

 

Edited February 24, 2023 by pogi

[Calm]

9 hours ago, Thinking said:

Defenders of the Church believe that the Church made honest mistakes, that it was simply following the advice of its legal and financial teams.

I consider myself a defender of the Church.  Card carrying, dues paying FAIR apologist even.  
 

Does my position get included in the above?  It being I believe the Church (as in senior leadership and its employees involved in this matter) had good intentions, very good intentions in fact, which I listed the four likely possibilities above, but in essence they were interested in protecting people rather than taking advantage or harming them as well as protecting the Church itself, which is protecting the faith community I am grateful to belong to; that they made some honest mistakes by following the legal team’s advice and unwisely ignoring other advice given about risks as well as ignoring signs it was a system destined to fail eventually; they (either leadership or the employees they delegated the responsibility to) also made in my view some dishonest mistakes (phone numbers and addresses not really belonging to the employees) and unethical ones (requiring employees to sign off on official legal documents  without allowing them to read them first).

Edited February 24, 2023 by Calm

[jkwilliams]

6 hours ago, Calm said:

Smac, please reconsider as I think you are going too far with “malice”, which is the intention to do evil, wanting to harm.  That is a  very inappropriate label for any poster here unless you know something that is not apparent from reading the board,

I know a few people with genuine malice towards the LDS church. No one here fits that description. 

[Tacenda]

https://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/2023/34-96951.pdf

I'm sure this sec order has been shared, but listened to a podcast that spoke about how it does show direct information on the first presidencies involvement through the years. 

https://religionunplugged.com/news/2023/2/8/former-employee-of-ensign-peak-advisors-submits-document-to-senate-finance-committee]

This article really does show in a dramatic way the expanse of wealth the church has over most everyone. And the question what would Jesus do came up in the podcast. WWJD? What Would Jesus Do? 

Think about it. I know he'd do much more, with money that sits and builds while the needs are far and wide. Sure the church does a lot, with the members money. But not one iota came out of the Ensign Fund.  

[ttribe]

6 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I realize that answer is supposed to make me slink away in shame to my own privately-inhabited dark little corner, and/or to clutch my chest as I breathe my last and say, "Gaaaah!  TTribe got me!  I'll never be able to show my cyberface in public again!"  Yeah.  Okay.  Whatever, Dude. 

Anytime the power of the State* is brought to bear against a private defendant, it is the State* that bears the burden of proving, by the relevant evidentiary standard (whatever it is) that the private party is guilty or liable.  As others have pointed out repeatedly, these proceedings never even got to that point, yet so many people in this thread seem determined to act as though a full trial was held on the merits, a jury rendered a verdict after due consideration of all of the evidence, and so on, ad infinitum.

Now, go ahead.  It's your turn.  Condescend to me some more.  It's what you do best.

________________

*Yes, I realize we're talking about the Federal government here and not about any specific State.  I'm using "State" in the generic sense to refer to the government.

Okay.

[Nofear]

Thirty-one pages with basically the same talking points. Fun times!

Facts:

• The Church filed Form 13F for all of the LLCs separately from 1997 to 2019
• The Church changed its position of independent filings in 2019 (same year as James Jones's public complaint)
• SEC said because the LLCs were not substantively independent that the controlling entity (Ensign Peak Advisors) that a single aggregate form should have been filed
• SEC fined the Church for the many years it did not do so

Interpretations that can be applied (the main source of talking points):

1. The Church deliberately tried to obfuscate its vast non-tithing holdings by using the LLCs
2. The Church used this practice with reasonable intention, even if it erred in doing so
3. The Church did so with some degree of not-quite-so-good intentions, and this is part and parcel of the Church as a vast not-quite-benign fiscal empire

I think 1 is mostly uncontested. 2 and 3 seem to be the vast majority of the conversation. Problem is that the SEC findings do not and cannot truly address motivation. Any effort to apply one's interpretation is really just an exercise in revealing how one views the Church. smac97, bless his heart, has been arguing point 2 is reasonable (the interpretation I take) and that point 3 lacks a reasonable standard to justify its adoption. That said, one can always adopt an interpretation, reasonable rationale lacking notwithstanding (this statement is independently true aside from the particulars of this scenario, humans do it all the time).

[bsjkki]

16 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

https://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/2023/34-96951.pdf

I'm sure this sec order has been shared, but listened to a podcast that spoke about how it does show direct information on the first presidencies involvement through the years. 

https://religionunplugged.com/news/2023/2/8/former-employee-of-ensign-peak-advisors-submits-document-to-senate-finance-committee]

This article really does show in a dramatic way the expanse of wealth the church has over most everyone. And the question what would Jesus do came up in the podcast. WWJD? What Would Jesus Do? 

Think about it. I know he'd do much more, with money that sits and builds while the needs are far and wide. Sure the church does a lot, with the members money. But not one iota came out of the Ensign Fund.  

I have no issue with the church amassing this fortune. I save and have far more money in my retirement account than I spend annually. If I spent my retirement account now, what would I do later? 
 

The church saving 10 percent a year for a safety net for whatever purpose needed to fulfill the mission of the church is okay with me. Uncertainties abound in the world. 

How much in reserves is needed is not up for me to decide. 
 

 

 

[Kenngo1969]

The conventional wisdom is that it's okay to not apply rules of evidence and procedure, including those having their roots in the historical presumption of innocence, to non-trial proceedings because (so the reasoning, such as it is, goes) such rules are cumbersome and the matters decided in such proceedings are of lesser import that matters that are decided in civil and criminal trials.  If I can be pardoned for having the temerity to say so, I'm not so sure.

It seems to me that the presumption of innocence ought to hold more weight in administrative proceedings before the State (and before parties or tribunals acting on the State's behalf) rather than less, because in the case of non-trial proceedings, often (too often for my taste, in fact) rules of evidence and procedure that are supposed to protect parties who are, for all intents and purposes, Defendants, do not apply.  Yet such protections are even more important because in such proceedings, the State, or the party acting on the State's behalf, essentially is "judge, jury, and [when it comes to administering punishments or handing down other decisions that sure as hell don't feel inconsequential to the parties who are most affected by them] executioner" (my phrase).

But what the hell do I know.  I've only been railroaded by such proceedings about three times in my life (and counting?   )

Now, go ahead!  Flame on!

[ksfisher]

14 hours ago, pogi said:

I have always been taught by the church that this is speaking of condemnation, but that we should use righteous judgment

Right.  And I don't see how anyone, in the court of public opinion, could righteously make any sort of judgement without full possession of the facts and a complete understanding of the regulations involved and the intentions of the church.  

[ksfisher]

15 hours ago, pogi said:

I am not condemning them.  

I wasn't saying you were.  Those scriptures, however, seem to provide excellent guidance when looking at matters that we have only a portion of the understanding of.