Church fined by SEC

[Rain]

28 minutes ago, Nofear said:

I can totally imagine how these went.

(EPA Managing Director walks into the President's office.)
"Thank you Pres. [insert current prophet meeting]. Here are the reports of our investing and the returns. We made sure not to invest in anything too horrible (e.g. Playboy or Heineken), but did include Coca-Cola and Amazon. That ok still?"
"Sure. But are they profitable?"
"Oh, yes, very."
"Can those profits be traced back to the Church? If the tithe payers knew how much, they'd stop."
"Oh, as was planned by you and some of the other Brethren, we split the earnings up into many companies called LLCs so nobody would notice."
"LLCs.... Good, good. But, won't the government notice this LLD thing? We didn't have LLGs when I was your age."
"Actually President... (cuts himself off not to contradict the Prophet). The government won't notice. Not likely. Each of the forms that are signed by different names that come from disparate locations across the country."
"You mean we are paying for them to live elsewhere?!"
"Gosh no, President. They live here in Salt Lake City with us doing Zion's work."
"Thank goodness. So long the government doesn't notice and the tithe payers don't find out. ... [long pause] ... And it's legal?"
"We think it might be, maybe ... probably. Probably. Maybe. No. Yes. Our lawyers assure us it is, [mutters under breath, "possibly"]. Yes."
"Good enough for us. So long as you make returns on our 'talents' like the faithful steward. I'm busy now. Thank you, Brother [insert name]."
"Your welcome Pres. [insert name]." (Exits sighing both relief that not too many questions were asked and a bit of exasperation since the same dang thing has to be re-explained every. dang. year. dang it.)

That does not sound at all like I would imagine. Most of these men I can tell are pretty intelligent. The little experience I have had with them and experiences I have heard àbout them showed me they were intelligent and knowledgeable. 

[Nofear]

7 minutes ago, Rain said:

That does not sound at all like I would imagine. Most of these men I can tell are pretty intelligent. The little experience I have had with them and experiences I have heard àbout them showed me they were intelligent and knowledgeable. 

Quite agreed. As well as kind, thoughtful, sincerely empathetic, and honest.

 

Had to channel some Under the Banner of Heaven for that parody post.

Edited February 28, 2023 by Nofear

[Calm]

 

7 minutes ago, Nofear said:

Quite agreed. As well as kind, thoughtful, sincerely empathetic, and honest.

 

Had to channel some Under the Banner of Heaven for that parody post.

That explains the bad dialogue.  😛 

[jkwilliams]

7 minutes ago, Nofear said:

Quite agreed. As well as kind, thoughtful, sincerely empathetic, and honest.

 

Had to channel some Under the Banner of Heaven for that parody post.

I worked with a number of general authorities. Some kind, thoughtful, sincerely empathetic, and honest. Others, less so. 

[Okrahomer]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Can you please share the cite for the proposition that 5% of US investment funds are fined by the SEC each year? I have been practicing securities law for over 25 years and cannot find anything even orders of magnitude close to what this statement claims. In the first quarter of 2021 there were 37,161 REGISTERED investment funds (many funds do not have to register). In 2021 the SEC had a total of 462 enforcement actions OF ANY TYPE (not just against investment funds). Even doing the math on that yields 1.2%.

I think the reference above to the the total "REGISTERED investment funds" probably comes from here, but the SEC seems to base it's enforcement statistics on the number of "Registered Investment Advisors" (RAI's) which totaled 14,800 in 2021 (see pages 3-4 here.)  Also note that the "462 enforcement actions" reported above is actually for 2022 not 2021 (see here.)  Even so, the comment is still incorrect, because SEC reports 3 types of Enforcement Actions in 2022 for a TOTAL of 760 -- 462 "new" + 129 for "delinquent issuers" + 169 "follow-on".   760 Enforcement Actions = about 5 % of 14,800 total RIA's.

 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

56 minutes ago, Okrahomer said:

I think the reference above to the the total "REGISTERED investment funds" probably comes from here, but the SEC seems to base it's enforcement statistics on the number of "Registered Investment Advisors" (RAI's) which totaled 14,800 in 2021 (see pages 3-4 here.)  Also note that the "462 enforcement actions" reported above is actually for 2022 not 2021 (see here.)  Even so, the comment is still incorrect, because SEC reports 3 types of Enforcement Actions in 2022 for a TOTAL of 760 -- 462 "new" + 129 for "delinquent issuers" + 169 "follow-on".   760 Enforcement Actions = about 5 % of 14,800 total RIA's.

 

And is Ensign peak a registered investment fund or an RIA? They don’t seem to be in the advisor business (but do have it in the make) and I couldn’t find them here: https://adviserinfo.sec.gov/search/genericsearch/firmgrid (where I found my own RIA) but I’m no expert here. 

Edited February 28, 2023 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Okrahomer]

12 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

And is Ensign peak a registered investment fund or an RIA? They don’t seem to be in the advisor business (but do have it in the make) and I couldn’t find them here: https://adviserinfo.sec.gov/search/genericsearch/firmgrid (where I found my own RIA) but I’m no expert here. 

Good point.  I don’t think EPA is required to register as an RIA, because they represent a charitable organization.  That could change the calculus a little.  It seems companies are required to register when they hit $100 million in total investments. 

[The Nehor]

Heard a few people talking about this in church. My dad poked fun at it at a family dinner and how inept he thought the whole thing was.

[OGHoosier]

Was talking about it with my dad, who is a CPA fwiw. 

His whole opinion was that this is the fruit of a Church that is too worried about optics - a concern which will be beaten out of us in the coming decades as the social consensus around certain values solidifies. It matches up with his opinions about COVID lockdowns - notably, when the state of Indiana relaxed lockdown orders for churches, the Northeast Area Presidency wouldn't let us get back to meeting together. My dad thought this was due to an overweening desire to dodge bad press, and deplored it at the time. Same thing here. 

Avoiding bad news cycles and hit pieces will be impossible going forward, might as well do what we will and shamelessly ride it out. 

[smac97]

17 minutes ago, pogi said:

Quote

Well, the SEC presented no findings of fraud, or insider trading, or marked manipulation, or seeking "fiscal leverage," or anything "criminal" in nature, etc., nor did the SEC even make allegations to that effect, nor did the SEC require an admission of wrongdoing as a condition of settlement.

In the absence of any such findings or allegations (by the SEC) or admission of wrongdoing (by the Church), coupled with the presence of the fine, "honest mistake" seemed pretty apt.

Honest mistake is not an established fact. 

Nothing about this issue is "established fact."

You have, in this thread, periodically laid claim to some sense of proportion and constraint.  "I am not condemning them" and "I am not asserting anything as fact" and "I have no ill will for the church" and "I am not angry" and "ascribing 'evil' motives to them is going to{o} far" and "I am not attempting to substantiate anything as fact."

Okay.  But in between these claims you have spent days and days repeatedly and publicly accusing the Church and its leaders of being a "liar," of being "dishonest," of being hypocritical (boy, you are really hammering this one), of not doing the "right thing," of being "misleading" as "a real trend or habit," of "cover{ing} up their lies with more lies,"  of "intentionally deceiving and lying," of engaging in a "coverup," of "knowingly misrepresenting facts," of stating "more lies to cover up lies and deception," of "intentional deceit," of "First Presidency and the Presiding Bishopric" having "made the decision to hide this stuff from the public," of "efforts to deceive the public,"  of engaging in "egregious and misleading" conduct, of declaring that "the plain and simple fact that they intentionally lied," of engaging in "inexcusable" conduct, of "more efforts to keep this lie hidden," of "dishonestly hid{ing} truths," of "a web of lies," of "l{ying} about the location of the managers," of "hid{ing} behind more lies," of implying that members of the Church think "is it ok for the church to violate honest behavior," of "dishonest deception," of indulging in "this level of deception and unethical behavior," of "a lot of dishonest behavior in order to avoid 'negative consequences,'" and so on.

Ya know, the latter statements, consisting as they do of fairly vicious and conclusory denigrations against the Church (and, more specifically, against its leaders) cannot go unanswered.  As much as I would like to take a "Come now, let us reason together" approach per Isaiah 1:18, you have made that effectively impossible by dialing up your denigrations and disparagements up to eleven.  For days on end.  

Your membership in the Church does not entitle you to speak evil of the Lord's anointed, nor does that mean I won't defend the basic and overarching decency of both the Church and its leaders against your various - and oh-so-public - conclusory denigrations.

I am truly sorry that you are angry and disturbed by this story.  Candidly, I just don't think we know very much about what happened here.  And to the extent there are more 

17 minutes ago, pogi said:

That is your personal judgement.  My comment about irony still stands.  

Again,

• The Church neither admitted nor denied the allegations.
• And the SEC settled the matter without subjecting any of their allegations, nor any evidence, nor any argument, to an adjudicative body.
• And the allegations did not include any suggestions of fraud, insider trading, market manipulation, "fiscal leverage," etc. 
• And the SEC did not require any admission of wrongdoing (as it has the ability to require as a condition of settlement). 
• And the SEC fines about 5% of investment funds every year.
• And EPA has been around for 25 years, and this is apparently the first time any issue with them has arisen.
• And the EPA (and, I suspect, the Church) proceeded and relied on based on skilled legal advice "regarding how to comply with its reporting obligations."
• And the description of events - to me - sound far more credible a basis to complaint of m bureaucratic inertia / error / insufficient oversight as opposed to moral corruption / dishonesty / lies / malfeasance, etc.
• And I think there may be a bit of questionable legislative embellishment by the SEC, which may have contributed to the conclusions it reached.
• And I think it's difficult to say what the particular circumstances were - particularly including guidance from the SEC - when this approach to regulatory compliance was crafted an implemented 20+ years ago.
• And the Church has an overall excellent record regarding how it administers its finances (just ask D. Michael Quinn, R.I.P.).
• And, in any event, the Church has acknowledged its mistakes.
• And the Church is paying a fine.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Teancum]

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

Nothing about this issue is "established fact."

Well perhaps not when you use  weasley mealy mouth legal definitions and dodges.  But to the common peons, yea there are established facts.

And you wonder why attorneys have such a bad reputation.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

7 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

Avoiding bad news cycles and hit pieces will be impossible going forward, might as well do what we will and shamelessly ride it out. 

Do what is right, let the consequence follow. 

[bluebell]

30 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Do what is right, let the consequence follow. 

I think that’s what Hoosier said. The church might as well do it’s best to do what they believe is right and not care what anyone else thinks.

Because we can’t control how anyone responds to us anyway.

[jkwilliams]

7 hours ago, smac97 said:

Nothing about this issue is "established fact."

You have, in this thread, periodically laid claim to some sense of proportion and constraint.  "I am not condemning them" and "I am not asserting anything as fact" and "I have no ill will for the church" and "I am not angry" and "ascribing 'evil' motives to them is going to{o} far" and "I am not attempting to substantiate anything as fact."

Okay.  But in between these claims you have spent days and days repeatedly and publicly accusing the Church and its leaders of being a "liar," of being "dishonest," of being hypocritical (boy, you are really hammering this one), of not doing the "right thing," of being "misleading" as "a real trend or habit," of "cover{ing} up their lies with more lies,"  of "intentionally deceiving and lying," of engaging in a "coverup," of "knowingly misrepresenting facts," of stating "more lies to cover up lies and deception," of "intentional deceit," of "First Presidency and the Presiding Bishopric" having "made the decision to hide this stuff from the public," of "efforts to deceive the public,"  of engaging in "egregious and misleading" conduct, of declaring that "the plain and simple fact that they intentionally lied," of engaging in "inexcusable" conduct, of "more efforts to keep this lie hidden," of "dishonestly hid{ing} truths," of "a web of lies," of "l{ying} about the location of the managers," of "hid{ing} behind more lies," of implying that members of the Church think "is it ok for the church to violate honest behavior," of "dishonest deception," of indulging in "this level of deception and unethical behavior," of "a lot of dishonest behavior in order to avoid 'negative consequences,'" and so on.

Ya know, the latter statements, consisting as they do of fairly vicious and conclusory denigrations against the Church (and, more specifically, against its leaders) cannot go unanswered.  As much as I would like to take a "Come now, let us reason together" approach per Isaiah 1:18, you have made that effectively impossible by dialing up your denigrations and disparagements up to eleven.  For days on end.  

Your membership in the Church does not entitle you to speak evil of the Lord's anointed, nor does that mean I won't defend the basic and overarching decency of both the Church and its leaders against your various - and oh-so-public - conclusory denigrations.

I am truly sorry that you are angry and disturbed by this story.  Candidly, I just don't think we know very much about what happened here.  And to the extent there are more 

Again,

• The Church neither admitted nor denied the allegations.
• And the SEC settled the matter without subjecting any of their allegations, nor any evidence, nor any argument, to an adjudicative body.
• And the allegations did not include any suggestions of fraud, insider trading, market manipulation, "fiscal leverage," etc. 
• And the SEC did not require any admission of wrongdoing (as it has the ability to require as a condition of settlement). 
• And the SEC fines about 5% of investment funds every year.
• And EPA has been around for 25 years, and this is apparently the first time any issue with them has arisen.
• And the EPA (and, I suspect, the Church) proceeded and relied on based on skilled legal advice "regarding how to comply with its reporting obligations."
• And the description of events - to me - sound far more credible a basis to complaint of m bureaucratic inertia / error / insufficient oversight as opposed to moral corruption / dishonesty / lies / malfeasance, etc.
• And I think there may be a bit of questionable legislative embellishment by the SEC, which may have contributed to the conclusions it reached.
• And I think it's difficult to say what the particular circumstances were - particularly including guidance from the SEC - when this approach to regulatory compliance was crafted an implemented 20+ years ago.
• And the Church has an overall excellent record regarding how it administers its finances (just ask D. Michael Quinn, R.I.P.).
• And, in any event, the Church has acknowledged its mistakes.
• And the Church is paying a fine.

Thanks,

-Smac

Wow, evil speaking of the Lord's anointed? To steal a word you like to use, your attacks on pogi seem overwrought and more than a little abusive. 

[pogi]

8 hours ago, smac97 said:

Nothing about this issue is "established fact."

You have, in this thread, periodically laid claim to some sense of proportion and constraint.  "I am not condemning them" and "I am not asserting anything as fact" and "I have no ill will for the church" and "I am not angry" and "ascribing 'evil' motives to them is going to{o} far" and "I am not attempting to substantiate anything as fact."

Okay.  But in between these claims you have spent days and days repeatedly and publicly accusing the Church and its leaders of being a "liar," of being "dishonest," of being hypocritical (boy, you are really hammering this one), of not doing the "right thing," of being "misleading" as "a real trend or habit," of "cover{ing} up their lies with more lies,"  of "intentionally deceiving and lying," of engaging in a "coverup," of "knowingly misrepresenting facts," of stating "more lies to cover up lies and deception," of "intentional deceit," of "First Presidency and the Presiding Bishopric" having "made the decision to hide this stuff from the public," of "efforts to deceive the public,"  of engaging in "egregious and misleading" conduct, of declaring that "the plain and simple fact that they intentionally lied," of engaging in "inexcusable" conduct, of "more efforts to keep this lie hidden," of "dishonestly hid{ing} truths," of "a web of lies," of "l{ying} about the location of the managers," of "hid{ing} behind more lies," of implying that members of the Church think "is it ok for the church to violate honest behavior," of "dishonest deception," of indulging in "this level of deception and unethical behavior," of "a lot of dishonest behavior in order to avoid 'negative consequences,'" and so on.

Ya know, the latter statements, consisting as they do of fairly vicious and conclusory denigrations against the Church (and, more specifically, against its leaders) cannot go unanswered.  As much as I would like to take a "Come now, let us reason together" approach per Isaiah 1:18, you have made that effectively impossible by dialing up your denigrations and disparagements up to eleven.  For days on end.  

You are taking all of this out of context. My point is to establish that if the allegations are true, then there was misleading, there was lying, there was cover-up attempts, there was deception.  My point is also to point out that given the allegations, concerns about these issues are legitimate and deserve to be addressed.  Instead, I am personally attacked and mistreated and judged.  Personal attacks and judgments are the tactic of someone who knows their position is weak - or they are just genuinely not kind humans.  I never used the word "hypocritical", but I do believe that we need to apply the same temple standards of honesty, and the same definitions of honest that we are expected to obey.  I leave open the possibility that some of this can be explained as honest mistakes.  

I have a very hard time believing that they are all wrong or made up, especially given how some of these "managers" could no longer in good conscience continue working for the EPA after the whistle-blower expose.  It seems to have resonated with their personal experience.  There are so many details that don't seem likely to be made up or misrepresented and point to the same conclusion that what Roger Clarke said is accurate.   Good intentions to avoid negative consequences don't diminish the dishonesty if the allegations are true. 

Concerns over this are ok.  Considering that the allegations may be true, and what that mean, is ok.  We are all going to come to our own interpretations, I just wish that legitimate concerns were treated with greater care.  Sometimes what I say sounds bold only because they are counterbalancing what I perceive to be people delegitimizing my concerns and tucking it all under the rug or trying to establish as fact that it is all an "honest mistake".  

8 hours ago, smac97 said:

Your membership in the Church does not entitle you to speak evil of the Lord's anointed, nor does that mean I won't defend the basic and overarching decency of both the Church and its leaders against your various - and oh-so-public - conclusory denigrations.

Your judgment of me is unfair.  Once again you seem to be accusing me of malice.  You have been called out for this.  You apologized previously, but it doesn't seem to be genuine.  Yes, I have legitimate concerns given the allegations and fine by the SEC, and given the CAD concerns, and given the conscientious quitting of managers, and given the whistle-blower claims, and given the vague response to all of that seemed just another attempt to conceal what happened.  I am no enemy of the church or of our church leaders who I love and respect and view as inspired...and fallible. 

8 hours ago, smac97 said:

I am truly sorry that you are angry and disturbed by this story.  Candidly, I just don't think we know very much about what happened here.  And to the extent there are more 

Again,

• The Church neither admitted nor denied the allegations.
• And the SEC settled the matter without subjecting any of their allegations, nor any evidence, nor any argument, to an adjudicative body.
• And the allegations did not include any suggestions of fraud, insider trading, market manipulation, "fiscal leverage," etc. 
• And the SEC did not require any admission of wrongdoing (as it has the ability to require as a condition of settlement). 
• And the SEC fines about 5% of investment funds every year.
• And EPA has been around for 25 years, and this is apparently the first time any issue with them has arisen.
• And the EPA (and, I suspect, the Church) proceeded and relied on based on skilled legal advice "regarding how to comply with its reporting obligations."
• And the description of events - to me - sound far more credible a basis to complaint of m bureaucratic inertia / error / insufficient oversight as opposed to moral corruption / dishonesty / lies / malfeasance, etc.
• And I think there may be a bit of questionable legislative embellishment by the SEC, which may have contributed to the conclusions it reached.
• And I think it's difficult to say what the particular circumstances were - particularly including guidance from the SEC - when this approach to regulatory compliance was crafted an implemented 20+ years ago.
• And the Church has an overall excellent record regarding how it administers its finances (just ask D. Michael Quinn, R.I.P.).
• And, in any event, the Church has acknowledged its mistakes.
• And the Church is paying a fine.

Thanks,

-Smac

Given the history of the church of misleading narratives in order to avoid negative consequences, and only changing course when the truth is unavoidable, leads me to believe that this could be an engrained systemic attitude manifesting itself in its finances.  The allegations fit with our history of obfuscation to avoid perceived negative consequences.   That is all stuff I take into consideration.   It gives me reason to believe that given our history, and given Roger Clarkes on record statement, that this is not just all BS allegations. Good intentions notwithstanding, there is the question of honesty and deception.  

I don't expect you to share my concerns, but I do expect you to treat me as a brother in the faith who loves the church and our leaders and has concerns.  

Edited February 28, 2023 by pogi

[SeekingUnderstanding]

55 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think that’s what Hoosier said. The church might as well do it’s best to do what they believe is right and not care what anyone else thinks.

Because we can’t control how anyone responds to us anyway.

I repped his post and was trying to echo his sentiment. Sorry if that wasn’t clear. The age where information can be controlled is gone. Some people may not like the church’s fund, but most members who are hurt care way more about the manner things are found out than the fund itself. So if the fund is the right thing to do, just own it. So yes I agree completely with Hoosier’s dad. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

8 hours ago, smac97 said:

you have made that effectively impossible by dialing up your denigrations and disparagements up to eleven.

If Pogi’s comments on this thread are an 11 on your scale, it’s your scale that’s broken, not Pogi. Best to get going on that beam in your eye before attacking Pogi’s mote. 

[ttribe]

2 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

If Pogi’s comments on this thread are an 11 on your scale, it’s your scale that’s broken, not Pogi. Best to get going on that beam in your eye before attacking Pogi’s mote. 

I don't think that's an 11 in the "This is Spinal Tap," sense. It must be out of 100, otherwise that would just be overwrought disparagement. Surely that's not the case.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

I have a very hard time believing that they are all wrong or made up, especially given how some of these "managers" could no longer in good conscience continue working for the EPA after the whistle-blower expose. 

This is me being nit picky about the time line because I think it is important in thinking about possible motivations for decisions.  Again it was not the Nielsen whistleblowing document/event that preceded the resignations, but the Mormonleaks properties expose.  My guess is this was when the business managers understood what the LLCs’ purpose was and realized they were made potentially liable for something without being informed about what it was.

Quote

In May 2018, a public website reported that various entities that appeared to have ties to the Church had filed Forms 13F revealing holdings of approximately $32 billion. The website referenced evidence indicating that these entities’ domain names were all registered to an entity tasked with overseeing and protecting the intellectual property of the Church, and that each of the LLCs identified listed a Business Manager whose name matched that of a Church employee.
34. After the website reported this information, two Business Managers resigned their roles, voicing concerns about what they had been asked to do. Rather than changing the LLC Structure, two new Business Managers were assigned to replace the two who resigned.

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

[Harry T. Clark]

I think it's time to just deal with the facts.  There were great lengths taken to keep the finances in the shadows to prevent a drop in tithing.  Unfortunately, we were misled.

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, Harry T. Clark said:

I think it's time to just deal with the facts.  There were great lengths taken to keep the finances in the shadows to prevent a drop in tithing.  Unfortunately, we were misled.

How is that a fact though?

[Kenngo1969]

30 minutes ago, Harry T. Clark said:

I think it's time to just deal with the facts.  There were great lengths taken to keep the finances in the shadows to prevent a drop in tithing.  Unfortunately, we were misled.

 

29 minutes ago, bluebell said:

How is that a fact though?

Because it's in an SEC document, and since someone at the SEC said it, it must, res ipsa loquitur and ipso facto, be true.  It's not as though the SEC is one party in a dispute and the Church of Jesus Christ and/or Ensign Peak Advisers is another party in a dispute and, to have an established fact, a factfinder must issue findings of fact after hearing evidence pro and con !  No, no!  That's just legal nitpicking and a legal nicety, and the only people who care about such things are attorneys, and the average person cares about them not a whit, as so many have told us in this thread.

Here's the thing.  If, say, one of the participants on this thread were to start another thread seeking to commiserate with others, because the participant in question overwatered his lawn and then received notice from the Environmental Protection Agency that his overwatered lawn qualified as a wetland under EPA regulations and that, therefore, he was required to do some things and that he couldn't do other things on his overwatered-lawn-cum-wetland, I think a lot of people who are accepting the SEC's word as gospel on this thread would take exactly the opposite position vis-a-vis our hypothetical overwatered-lawn-cum-wetland owner and the EPA on my hypothetical thread. 

And for some reason, I don't think the same people who have accused the legally erudite on this thread of engaging in nothing but legal nitpicking would take the same position if the legally erudite were to rise up in defense of our hypothetical landowner on the hypothetical thread. Apples and oranges?  I don't think so.  "Facts" aren't facts until they are found to be such by a neutral factfinder.  The SEC isn't a neutral factfinder.  The SEC is a party, no different from any other party in any other proceeding.  

Edited February 28, 2023 by Kenngo1969

[mfbukowski]

29 minutes ago, bluebell said:

How is that a fact though?

Conspiracy theories are always true, didn't you know that??

Cheesh!

 

[Kenngo1969]

32 minutes ago, bluebell said:

How is that a fact though?

The SEC said it, I believe it, and that settles it!  

[mfbukowski]

3 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

 

Because it's in an SEC document, and since someone at the SEC said it, it must, res ipsa loquitur and ipso facto, be true.  It's not as though the SEC is one party in a dispute and the Church of Jesus Christ and/or Ensign Peak Advisers is another party in a dispute and, to have an established fact, a factfinder must issue findings of fact after hearing evidence pro and con !  No, no!  That's just legal nitpicking and a legal nicety, and the only people who care about such things are attorneys, and the average person cares about them not a whit, as so many have told us in this thread.

Here's the thing.  If, say, one of the participants on this thread were to start another thread seeking to commiserate with others, because the participant in question overwatered his lawn and then received notice from the Environmental Protection Agency that his overwatered lawn qualified as a wetland under EPA regulations and that, therefore, he was required to do some things and that he couldn't do other things on his overwatered-lawn-cum-wetland, I think a lot of people who are accepting the SEC's word as gospel on this thread would take exactly the opposite position vis-a-vis our hypothetical overwatered-lawn-cum-wetland owner and the EPA on my hypothetical thread. 

And for some reason, I don't think the same people who have accused the legally erudite on this thread of engaging in nothing but legal nitpicking would take the same position if the legally erudite were to rise up in defense of our hypothetical landowner on the hypothetical thread. Apples and oranges?  I don't think so.  "Facts" aren't facts until they are found to be such by a neutral factfinder.  The SEC isn't a neutral factfinder.  The SEC is a party.

There you go wit them big words agin