Gaddy Lawsuit Judgement

[JustAnAustralian]

Previous thread: 

 

 

Courtlistener page: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/16025781/gaddy-v-corporation-of-the-president-of-the-church-of-jesus-christ-of/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc

Judgement has been released

 

As expected, a win for the church.

Quote

It is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that judgment is hereby entered in favor of Defendants.

SO ORDERED this 28th day of March, 2023.

 

For those who want to read the court's full reasoning

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.utd.116009/gov.uscourts.utd.116009.133.0.pdf

 

[helix]

Not surprised one bit.

I just wish that conclusions of lawsuits got at least a fraction as much media time as filing the lawsuit. 

[smac97]

8 hours ago, JustAnAustralian said:

Previous thread: 

Courtlistener page: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/16025781/gaddy-v-corporation-of-the-president-of-the-church-of-jesus-christ-of/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc

Judgement has been released

As expected, a win for the church.

For those who want to read the court's full reasoning

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.utd.116009/gov.uscourts.utd.116009.133.0.pdf

Wow.  The Memorandum Decision is a textbook example of how judges ought to evaluate legal claims and arguments.  It is a tour de force in calm, dispassionate reasoning, analysis and application of legal principles.

I am very grateful for the Constitution of the United States, and for the efforts of so many in the judiciary to impartially apply the law to disputes such as this one.  I am grateful that the Church is situated in the United States, and that it has legal recourse and rights.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 29, 2023 by smac97

[JustAnAustralian]

Gaddy doesn't know when to stop.

They've filed a motion to vacate, and are now going after the tithing angle and are bringing David A. Nielsen along for the ride.

Edited May 16, 2023 by JustAnAustralian

[jerryp48]

I'm just curious, did she self-fund this and how much do you think was shelled out in attorney's fees?  It's hard to believe an attorney was willing to take the case given the extremely slim odds of it succeeding.  The implications if winning such a case wouldn't end at the church's doorstep for sure.

Edited May 16, 2023 by jerryp48

[smac97]

11 hours ago, JustAnAustralian said:

Gaddy doesn't know when to stop.

They've filed a motion to vacate, and are now going after the tithing angle and are bringing David A. Nielsen along for the ride.

Here is a link to the Motion to Vacate, along with the supporting affidavits from Kay Burningham (Gaddy's attorney, which is completely redacted) and from David Nielsen.

A few thoughts:

1. The Motion is based on Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and asks the court to "vacate" or set aside the judgment based on "mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect."

2. Burningham is apparently claiming "excusable neglect" on her part.  That is, she is claiming that she did a poor job as an attorney when drafting the first two iterations of the complaint, and so wants permission to try a third time.

3. She also includes with the Motion a proposed "Third Amended Complaint" (here) which she claims overcomes her prior poor drafting efforts, and which now includes the appropriate amount of specificity and detail to survive a Motion to Dismiss by the Church.

4. Notably, Burningham now states that her clients have "abandoned the litigation of Defendant’s actions and omissions concerning its history and origins of its scripture."  As this was a central defect in her prior efforts, this is probably a good idea, but also probably too little, too late.

5. The proposed "Third Amended Complaint," despite purportedly abandoning legal claims concerning the Church's "history and origins of its scripture," includes a long list of disparagements against its early leaders.

6. Nielsen's Affidavit is apparently the exact same one that was filed in the Huntsman lawsuit.  Essentially, his argument is that EPA felt that the funds it was tasked with investing were treated like tithing funds, therefore they were tithing funds.

7. The drafting in the Third Amended Complaint is not very polished.  Some re-writes would have been in order.

8. Burningham cites, "upon information and belief," "research" by someone named Scott Bidstrup (apparently a gay rights activist), as well as by "anonymous financial experts," that "the combined value of Defendant’s real estate and security investment holdings as of 2021 are estimated to be from $255--$417 billion."

9. Burningham includes a multi-page table of the Church's real estate holdings.  Strangely, she repeatedly comments on how this or that real estate holding is X miles from this or that temple.  What is the relevance of the proximity of, say, an office building in Richardson, Texas to the Dallas Temple?

10. Burningham finally gets to the point in paragraph 24:

Quote

COP fraudulently induced outsiders’ as well as those who were already members, especially young peoples’ (who as minors could not consent), faith-based conclusions about the divinity of the Church by misrepresenting how tithing is used. Decisions to be baptized, remain a member of the organization and importantly for most, to further commit to the Church by serving as a full-time mission, and/or qualifying and renewing qualification for temple access and participation, are all conditioned upon paying a full 10% of one’s income as tithing. As recently as 2011, Defendant extorted tithing from its members by not only promising eternal salvation, and “forever families” but by characterizing payment of a full tithe as “fire insurance” to ensure safety from apocalyptic burning at the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. 

Hmm.  This sure sounds like a religious dispute.

11. At about page 30 my eyes started to glaze over (the Complaint is 82 pages long - oi).

12. The causes of action are: 1) "Fraud in the Inducement to Enter into an Oral Contract," 2) "Fraud," and 3) "Breach of Duty to Disclose Material Information."

13. I don't think this motion will be granted.

14. Burningham apparently did not file an appeal, so this motion is her only shot at keeping the case alive.

Thanks,

-Smac

Thanks,

-Smac

[JustAnAustralian]

And denied again.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.utd.116009/gov.uscourts.utd.116009.141.0.pdf

Judge gave Gaddy and her lawyer a good grilling.

[Kenngo1969]

Quote

Counsel acknowledges the court mentioned Rule 9(b) requirements in prior Orders but asserted she was unable to clearly understand due to her poor health and the scope of the Church’s fraud and misrepresentations.  [Emphasis added by Kenngo1969]

 

"Sure, I suck as an attorney, but it's the Church's fault!"

Yeah ... um, good luck with that!

I gather Ms. Burningham is a sole practitioner, or that she works for a small firm?  This'd be a pretty tough case to take on in either one of those circumstances.

[Kenngo1969]

Quote

[From Gaddy's Motion to Vacate as Posted by @smac97] As recently as 2011, Defendant extorted tithing from its members by not only promising eternal salvation, and “forever families” but by characterizing payment of a full tithe as “fire insurance” to ensure safety from apocalyptic burning at the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. [Emphasis added by Kenngo1969] 

Question for Ms. Gaddy & Ms. Burningham: If you were going to accuse the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints of extortion, how come that particular allegation wasn't in your Complaint?

[CV75]

23 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Question for Ms. Gaddy & Ms. Burningham: If you were going to accuse the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints of extortion, how come that particular allegation wasn't in your Complaint?

Gaddyanton robbers made them do it.

[Kenngo1969]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

Gaddyanton robbers made them do it.

"Gaddy-up!" 🐎

[smac97]

From footnote 84 of the ruling:

Quote

 Because this argument fails on other grounds, the court does not address the merits of whether it is excusable for an attorney’s health issues to interfere with her ability to represent a client.  There is case law in this Circuit discussing when counsel’s medical issues qualify as excusable neglect, but Plaintiffs do not address this in their briefing nor show its applicability to the facts here.  And Plaintiffs would be hard-pressed to make such an argument.  It strains credulity to argue counsel’s medical issues made her unable to recognize Rule 9 pleading deficiencies, yet she remained capable of drafting and filing over two dozen other legal documents in this case during the same time period. 

This bolded bit is federaljudgespeak for taking someone - here, Kay Burningham - to the proverbial woodshed.

"It strains credulity...."  Ouch.  Ouch.

Thanks,

-Smac

[JustAnAustralian]

Just posting the courtlistner link for her appeal to the 10th circuit court of appeals

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68222133/gaddy-v-corp-of-the-president-of-the-church-of-jesus/

 

Based on some of the items, it looks she is going for the mass document dump again.

[JustAnAustralian]

Latest from Gaddy

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca10.87060/gov.uscourts.ca10.87060.10011032583.0.pdf

Still trying to use (among other things) the artwork is doctrine angle.

[webbles]

35 minutes ago, JustAnAustralian said:

Latest from Gaddy

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca10.87060/gov.uscourts.ca10.87060.10011032583.0.pdf

Still trying to use (among other things) the artwork is doctrine angle.

Do you have a link to the "Appendix Volumes"?  There looks to be 4 of them, based on the citations AV1, AV2, AV3, and AV4.

[Stormin' Mormon]

39 minutes ago, JustAnAustralian said:

Latest from Gaddy

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca10.87060/gov.uscourts.ca10.87060.10011032583.0.pdf

Still trying to use (among other things) the artwork is doctrine angle.

Can you explain the artwork is doctrine angle for those of us just tuning in? Or if there's too much, can you sum it up?

[Kenngo1969]

Ms. Gaddy believes that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints misled her and other [potential] Plaintiffs similarly situated, because events in the founding narrative of the Church did not take place exactly in the way depicted in the Church's artwork.

[JustAnAustralian]

3 hours ago, webbles said:

Do you have a link to the "Appendix Volumes"?  There looks to be 4 of them, based on the citations AV1, AV2, AV3, and AV4.

I can't see them on CourtListener or PACER, not sure if we can get access to them.

[Kenngo1969]

8 hours ago, JustAnAustralian said:

I can't see them on CourtListener or PACER, not sure if we can get access to them.

Dang!  For an Aussie, you certainly do know a lot about accessing U.S. court records!  Good on ya, Mate!  

[Kenngo1969]

On 2/3/2024 at 8:30 PM, JustAnAustralian said:

Just posting the courtlistner link for her appeal to the 10th circuit court of appeals

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68222133/gaddy-v-corp-of-the-president-of-the-church-of-jesus/

 

Based on some of the items, it looks she is going for the mass document dump again.

I love how the caption of the case is truncated:

Gaddy v. Corp. of the President of the Church of Jesus (23-4110)

[smac97]

13 hours ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

Quote

Latest from Gaddy

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca10.87060/gov.uscourts.ca10.87060.10011032583.0.pdf

Still trying to use (among other things) the artwork is doctrine angle.

Can you explain the artwork is doctrine angle for those of us just tuning in? Or if there's too much, can you sum it up?

Gaddy is arguing that the Church committed fraud by authorizing artwork depicting Joseph Smith "appearing to translate the Book of Mormon (BofA) directly from open gold plates, no seerstone used," and then contrasting this with "the 2020 admission by LDS President Nelson that Smith peered into a hat containing seerstone(s) to translate the BofM, while the gold plates were 'covered usually.'"  This discrepancy, Gaddy claims, made her feel "shocked" when she "learn{ed} that Smith dictated the wisdom of the ancient Nephite prophets by peering at a stone in a hat, and not by looking at the Reformed Egyptian inscriptions on gold plates."

I don't see this as a winning argument. Fraud has multiple elements that must be both pleaded with particularity at the front end of the lawsuit and proved with "clear and convincing evidence" at the back end.  Among these elements is that there is a false statement of a "material" fact.  How do artistic depictions of Joseph translating "directly" from the Plates constitute representations of a "material" fact?  What is so "material" about translating "directly" from the Plates versus translating via the seerstone?  Aren't both of these miraculous?  

Another element of fraud is that the statement of fact "induced" the listener to do, or not do, something.  What was it that this artwork induced Gaddy to do or not do?  Pay tithing?  Go the Church?    Is she arguing that she would not have done these things if she had known than Joseph used a seerstone (rather than translating "directly from the open gold plates")?  How is a depiction of Joseph translating "directly" from the Plates a fraudulent inducement, where a depiction of him using the seerstone would not have been?  What is the significance of this distinction? 

Yet another element of fraud is "scienter," that is, an intentional effort to deceive.  Can artistic renderings of Joseph translating the Plates "by the gift and power of God" really be deemed by a secular court to be a representation of "material" fact, given the obvious influence of "artistic license"?  I don't think so.  From ChatGPT:

Quote

Artistic license refers to the freedom that artists have to deviate from strict reality or accuracy in order to create a work of art that is more aesthetically pleasing, emotionally resonant, or thematically coherent. It allows artists to take liberties with the truth, factual accuracy, or conventional rules in order to express their creativity and vision. This term is often used in various creative fields such as literature, visual arts, music, and film.

Again, the gravamen of a fraud claim is an intent to deceive.  "Deviat{ion} from strict reality or accuracy" is not intended to deceive, but is instead intended to allow the creation of "a work of art that is more aesthetically pleasing, emotionally resonant, or thematically coherent."  For example, look at this depiction of the restoration of the Aaronic Priesthood:

Did Oliver really kneel to the left of John the Baptist?  Was he really wearing a green coat?  Did he hold his hat in his hands, or did he put it on the ground, or did he even have one?  What kind of hat was it?  Was he clean shaven that day?  Did John have a beard?  If so, was it the length depicted in the above artwork?  Was Joseph kneeling or standing during the event?  Was he facing John's left side?  Right?  Facing forward (away from John), or toward him?

Do any of these questions matter a jot?  Is there any intent to deceive here?  Nope and nope.

Also, acceptance or rejection of Joseph's prophetic calling is, in the end, a matter of religious faith?  The Ecclesiastical Abstention doctrine seems to preclude the Court from adjudicating the truth or falsity of such matters.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited April 24, 2024 by smac97

[bluebell]

23 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Gaddy is arguing that the Church committed fraud by authorizing artwork depicting Joseph Smith "appearing to translate the Book of Mormon (BofA) directly from open gold plates, no seerstone used," and then contrasting this with "the 2020 admission by LDS President Nelson that Smith peered into a hat containing seerstone(s) to translate the BofM, while the gold plates were 'covered usually.'"  This discrepancy, Gaddy claims, made her feel "shocked" when she "learn{ed} that Smith dictated the wisdom of the ancient Nephite prophets by peering at a stone in a hat, and not by looking at the Reformed Egyptian inscriptions on gold plates."

I don't see this as a winning argument. Fraud has multiple elements that must be both pleaded with particularity at the front end of the lawsuit and proved with "clear and convincing evidence" at the back end.  Among these elements is that there is a false statement of a "material" fact.  How do artistic depictions of Joseph translating "directly" from the Plates constitute representations of a "material" fact?  What is so "material" about translating "directly" from the Plates versus translating via the seerstone?  Aren't both of these miraculous?  

Another element of fraud is that the statement of fact "induced" the listener to do, or not do, something.  What was it that this artwork induced Gaddy to do or not do?  Pay tithing?  Go the Church?    Is she arguing that she would not have done these things if she had known than Joseph used a seerstone (rather than translating "directly from the open gold plates")?  How is a depiction of Joseph translating "directly" from the Plates a fraudulent inducement, where a depiction of him using the seerstone would not have been?  What is the significance of this distinction? 

Yet another element of fraud is "scienter," that is, an intentional effort to deceive.  Can artistic renderings of Joseph translating the Plates "by the gift and power of God" really be deemed by a secular court to be a representation of "material" fact, given the obvious influence of "artistic license"?  I don't think so.  From ChatGPT:

Again, the gravamen of a fraud claim is an intent to deceive.  "Deviat{ion} from strict reality or accuracy" is not intended to deceive, but is instead intended to allow the creation of "a work of art that is more aesthetically pleasing, emotionally resonant, or thematically coherent."  For example, look at this depiction of the restoration of the Aaronic Priesthood:

Did Oliver really kneel to the left of John the Baptist?  Was he really wearing a green coat?  Did he hold his hat in his hands, or did he put it on the ground, or did he even have one?  What kind of hat was it?  Was he clean shaven that day?  Did John have a beard?  If so, was it the length depicted in the above artwork?  Was Joseph kneeling or standing during the event?  Was he facing John's left side?  Right?  Facing forward (away from John), or toward him?

Do any of these questions matter a jot?  Is there any intent to deceive here?  Nope and nope.

Also, acceptance or rejection of Joseph's prophetic calling is, in the end, a matter of religious faith?  The Ecclesiastical Abstention doctrine seems to preclude the Court from adjudicating the truth or falsity of such matters.

Thanks,

-Smac

If JS ever translated from the gold plates directly without using the seer stone, then the artwork is factual, right?  I could be misremembering, but I thought he did actually use the plates at some point.

[Tacenda]

21 minutes ago, bluebell said:

If JS ever translated from the gold plates directly without using the seer stone, then the artwork is factual, right?  I could be misremembering, but I thought he did actually use the plates at some point.

I thought it was used for the lost 116 pages of the BoM, and afterward the gold plates weren't used. 

[smac97]

53 minutes ago, bluebell said:

If JS ever translated from the gold plates directly without using the seer stone, then the artwork is factual, right? 

I suppose.  Or if Joseph ever sat at a table and leafed through the Plates, that would make the artwork "factual" as well.

53 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I could be misremembering, but I thought he did actually use the plates at some point.

I'm not aware of any historical sources for this.  Per this article, he "spent some time scrutinizing and transcribing some of the characters on them {the Plates}."  See also this article:

Quote

During the early months of translation, Emma Hale and Martin Harris served as Joseph’s principal scribes. Both provided several accounts of what it was like to be involved in the miraculous process. According to Emma, the method of translation was quite different than most modern Latter-day Saints initially assume it was or than what has been occasionally depicted in popular Latter-day Saint art. According to Emma, Joseph did not have the gold plates open in front of him as he ran his finger down the leaf, nor did he place the seer stones over the characters on the plates in order to read them. Rather, she explained, “I frequently wrote day after day, often sitting at the table close by him, he sitting with his face buried in his hat, with the stone in it, and dictating hour after hour with nothing between us.”

While she made a point of saying there was no sheet or divider between them as they translated, Emma also affirmed that the plates themselves remained covered during the process, which explains why she did not ever see the plates even though she sat across the table from Joseph while he was translating: “The plates often lay on the table without any attempt at concealment, wrapped in a small linen tablecloth, which I had given him to fold them in. I once felt of the plates, as they thus lay on the table, tracing their outline and shape. They seemed to be pliable like thick paper, and would rustle with a metallic sound when the edges were moved by the thumb, as one does sometimes thumb the edges of a book.”

As odd as that explanation seems to some modern Latter-day Saints who have pictured Joseph looking directly at the plates while he translated, perhaps the most startling aspect of her description was that Joseph placed the seer stone or stones into a hat and looked into the hat while translating. This seemingly strange and unexpected description has given fodder for others to mock and belittle the process and often bewilders believers who cannot comprehend the reason for translating this way.

This FAIR article appears to concede that Joseph did not translate "directly" from the Plates ("translate" being somewhat idiosyncratic in this context, since he did not know the source language, and rendered the English version "by the gift and power of God").

Per this FAIR article, "the Church has been very frank about the seer stone's use, though the product of the translation of the Book of Mormon is usually given much more attention that the process."

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited April 24, 2024 by smac97

[LoudmouthMormon]

If she wins, can I also sue my local mega-church for having one of these?  I'm thinking at least $20 grand for the amount of shock I might could potentially feel...

 

Edited April 24, 2024 by LoudmouthMormon