Update on Huntsman Lawsuit: Ninth Circuit Reverses Trial Court

[smac97]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Quote

Regarding evidence, in addition to the second-hand story about Packer, we also have “Financial Standard 6230: Accessing and Securing Financial Information,” which was signed by the Church’s controller on June 3, 2013.

I would love to know if this has been vetted by a handwriting expert. Of all the leaks, this is the one that has surprised me the most that they managed to get it…if it is for real.  Given what tech can do, I do not exclude the possibility that there is someone practicing forgery and the Church leadership decided to let it stand unchallenged as that would confirm as for real anything they left unchallenged in the future.  But I see no reason not to treat it as a possibility in these casual discussions.  I would just think if ever used in a court of law for evidence, they would have to demonstrate it was for reals.

It is the obligation of the person submitting evidence to the court to establish its provenance/authenticity.  This would not be difficult, though, since Huntsman could just ask the Church whether it disputes the authenticity and, if so, on what grounds.  

2 hours ago, Calm said:

I really wonder how the leaker got it as well as the paystubs of Elder Erying iirc that had his tithing calculations on the back of it (not saying it was the same person, who knows).

Ironically, the above document "emphasizes the critical need to control access to financial information and to safeguard this data at all times."

Someone, probably an employee of the Church, betrayed the Church's trust.  Bummer, but it happens.

2 hours ago, Calm said:

That one was just how odd…perhaps the person picked it up from Eyring’s desk or trash can as a keepsake or had been instructed to shred old documents and picked out stuff they thought might be useful, but what a nerve to take someone’s personal financial info (it had Elder Eyring’s social security number on it).  I hope the one who took it was fired as that is just wrong imo. lol, apparently my anger on behalf of Elder Eyring has not diminished over the years, maybe it has gotten even stronger.

Take a bow, David Nielsen, Ryan McKnight (and their enablers, fans, acolytes, etc.)!

I sure hope nobody ever betrays their trust they way they betrayed the Church's (or encouragedenabled others to betray it).

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

16 minutes ago, smac97 said:

This "something" is defined by the Church, not the State.  So we still have no "secular definition" of "tithing" in view.

Is the conflict here because Analytics is referring to concrete actions that you can ‘see’, the labeling of contributions as tithing by the Church etc, as “secular fact” and smac is talking about the why such actions are taken, the religious purpose of the contribution in this case…which itself is not a secular fact even if it is a secular fact that it has a religious purpose and is therefore labeled tithing. 
 

That makes sense in my head if not in this post. 

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

Huntsman is essentially asking the courts - which like the IRS are governmental entities - to do the equivalent of re-defining dogs as reptiles, or turtles as mammals.  He wants the courts to essentially conflate, to treat as indistinguishable from each other, the Church's "Charitable Contributions" income from its "Unrelated Business" income.  He wans the courts to do this because that is how he sees these categories (he claims this, anyway - I don't believe him).

You have me confused here.

Well, it was sort of a stream-of-consciousness exercise.  Maybe the analogy doesn't work.

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

Isn’t Huntman equating “charitable contributions” [tithing] and “investment income” [earned income off of the investment of contributions and reinvested earned income]?

Perhaps it would be better to say that he is conflating them.  So where by some strange notion a dog is both a mammal and also a reptile, per Huntsman, "tithing" is both a "charitable contribution" and also "investment income" and/or "unrelated business income."

Again, I don't believe Huntsman.  I think he knows exactly what tithing is, and what it is not.  Mammals and reptiles are mutually exclusive categories.  A dog or a turtle or whatever is either in one or the other, not both.  "Tithing" is an individual's voluntary donation of one-tenth of one's income annually.  It is not money that the Church generates post-donation by investing in this or that venture.

Thanks,

-Smac

Thanks,

-Smac

[webbles]

48 minutes ago, Calm said:

This point hasn’t sunk in, so I am missing it. Can you (or Analytics) briefly remind me what the point of referring to this is?

LDS Philanthropies explicitly stated that 100% of donations would go to the needy.  So, if any portion of that was used for building temples, printing Book of Mormons, or stored in a reserve, then they would have been soliciting fraudulently.  Tithing, on the other hand, is to help build up the Kingdom of God which allows it to be used in almost any manner (embezzlement would not be allowed).

The MDL case includes LDS Philanthropies probably because it has a stronger case.  The whistleblower did show some money flowing between LDS Philanthropies and EPA, though it goes through several hops and it is possible that money from LDS Philanthropies never does make it to EPA.

[Calm]

19 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Well, it was sort of a stream-of-consciousness exercise.

I am shocked you do those too!  🤣

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, webbles said:

LDS Philanthropies explicitly stated that 100% of donations would go to the needy.  So, if any portion of that was used for building temples, printing Book of Mormons, or stored in a reserve, then they would have been soliciting fraudulently.  Tithing, on the other hand, is to help build up the Kingdom of God which allows it to be used in almost any manner (embezzlement would not be allowed).

The MDL case includes LDS Philanthropies probably because it has a stronger case.  The whistleblower did show some money flowing between LDS Philanthropies and EPA, though it goes through several hops and it is possible that money from LDS Philanthropies never does make it to EPA.

Likely this handout is the reference.  
 

[Analytics]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I don't think he can.  The point is incoherent.

To me it makes perfect sense.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

You elide past defining "tithing" by calling the donation "something called 'tithing.'"

That was on purpose. That is because the religious definition of tithing is irrelevant. In the context of discussing tithing revenue, “tithing” is well-defined in the secular accounting system, not in the Church’s doctrine.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

And the government does not "call" such donations "tithing," except as to acknowledge the religious nature of the donation.  There is no "secular" definition of tithing which is numerically distinct from its religious one.  So I don't think you can call this "a secular fact."

It doesn’t matter what the government calls it, and it doesn’t matter who defines it.

What we are talking about are real dollars that were donated to the Church that were categorized by the donors as “tithing.” Whether or not those dollars were spent as promised is a secular issue and is something that can be adjudicated without encroaching on the Church’s doctrine.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

This "something" is defined by the Church, not the State.  So we still have no "secular definition" of "tithing" in view.

Tithing is defined in the Church’s accounting system. That makes the definition secular in nature, regardless of who did the defining. 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Gotta love the passive voice.  "Charitable donations ... that have been classified as tithing."

Who did this "classifying"?  the Church or the State?

Neither. The individual donors who indicated that their donations were “tithing” are the ones who did the classifying. The fact that they did so and the fact that the Church keeps track of that in their accounting system are secular facts. When the Church’s secret report says, “We collected $6,135,632,665.12 in tithing last year,” that is a well-defined thing that can be verified without encroaching on the Church’s doctrine.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

 Well, no.  Nobody is disputing that Huntsman donated "tithes" to the Church, or that he "classified" his donations as tithes.

In your view, how is this not nonsense? How could a secular court determine whether or not Huntsman made these alleged donations without knowing what “tithes” actually means? Wouldn’t he have to make judgements from the bench about religious doctrine in order to know if these donations are really “tithing”?

From my viewpoint, in the context of this lawsuit “tithing” is a well-defined, secular concept. We’re talking about dollars that were donated to the Church, dollars that the Church spent on various projects, and statement that were made about those expenditures. A court can comfortably evaluate if these statements about money without encroaching on the Church’s religious principles.

CFR 1: Your 2nd definition, "the amounts of money stated on the Church’s secular income statements that represent the donations that were given to the Church" doesn't work.  It is just a wordy restatement of the religious definition (not unlike "charitable contribution"). An amount listed on some IRS form does not "define" tithing.  If you dispute this, then please produce these supposed "secular income statements" and point us to where these documents define the term "tithing."

The Church produces financial statements but does not publicly disclose them.

How is my definition secular even though it is defined by the Church’s accounting system? A secular definition means the word is interpreted without religious context, focusing on practical or legal aspects. In this case, a secular definition of "tithing" would treat it as "a donation to a religious organization," focusing on the financial act, not the spiritual intent behind it. Being secular doesn’t necessarily mean the word is defined by the state, but rather that its meaning can be understood and applied in a way that is neutral toward religion.

CFR2: Your 3rd definition, "One of three 'buckets of money' on the Church’s balance sheet that can be spent on different projects," also doesn't work.  You appear to have culled it from the Church's attorney's oral argument at yesterday's hearing.  But he was merely speaking metaphorically.  Nobody in or out of the Church defines "tithing" as "one of 'three buckets of money.'"  Moreover, this phrase does not "define" tithing.   If you dispute this, then please produce the source of this supposed definition and point us to where this source defines the term "tithing."

In accounting and in economics, financial numbers fall into two categories: stocks and flows. If somebody says “the Church took in about $6 billion in tithing last month,” they are talking about a flow. If somebody else says, “the Church has a bucket of money with $30 billion of unspent tithing in it”, they are talking about a stock. The Church talks about these two different secular things, so there must be two different secular definitions for them. I’m not talking about defining “tithing” in a religious sense. I’m talking about defining it in a secular, accounting sense. 

CFR3: The third CFR ("Chapter and verse, please, as to where you found these "secular" definitions of "tithing.") is duplicative of the first and second.

The precise definitions are found in the Church’s accounting manuals, and I was able to confidently infer their secular meaning from the secular way in which they were used to talk about secular things.

CFR4:  Please point us to these "already accepted and used definitions {!} of thing."  Chapter and verse, please.  Where will Judge Shelby find these definitions?

The precise definitions are found in the Church’s accounting manuals, and I was able to confidently infer their secular meaning from the secular way in which they were used to talk about secular things. 

Edited September 26, 2024 by Analytics

[Analytics]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Tax question…do smaller businesses get taxed at a lower rate than larger ones similar to the different income brackets for individuals?  What if the profits are rolled completely back into the company?  Are those profits still taxed?

In general, small businesses do tend to be taxed at a lower rate than large businesses, but what really drives it is how the businesses are incorporated. Large businesses are usually incorporated as a “C-Corp”, meaning the business itself pays tax on its profits, and then the after-tax profits get passed to the owners, who then pay individual income tax on what’s given to them. This is generally seen as double-taxation.

Smaller businesses are usually “S-Corps” or partnerships. The profits are “passed through” to the individuals without being taxed at the business level, so there is no double taxation.

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

This "something" is defined by the Church, not the State.  So we still have no "secular definition" of "tithing" in view.

Is the conflict here because Analytics is referring to concrete actions that you can ‘see’, the labeling of contributions as tithing by the Church etc, as “secular fact” and smac is talking about the why such actions are taken, the religious purpose of the contribution in this case…which itself is not a secular fact even if it is a secular fact that it has a religious purpose and is therefore labeled tithing. 

That makes sense in my head if not in this post. 

I think Huntsman is trying to pound a proverbial square peg into a round hole.  He wants to sue the Church for fraud even though the representations from the Church about City Creek do not support such a claim, and because Huntsman's efforts to characterize them in such a way as to avoid the Church Autonomy Doctrine is not working.

The Ninth Circuit yesterday repeatedly scrutinized Huntsman's claims in relation to both the Church Autonomy Doctrine and the definition issue (they are intertwined quite a bit).  We are not privy to their deliberations, but there was a pretty decent "the writing is on the wall" vibe coming out of their questions.  We'll see whether this assessment is borne out when they publish their decision in the next few weeks/months.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

37 minutes ago, webbles said:

LDS Philanthropies explicitly stated that 100% of donations would go to the needy.  So, if any portion of that was used for building temples, printing Book of Mormons, or stored in a reserve, then they would have been soliciting fraudulently. 

We may never know, since I do not think the MDL plaintiffs ever actually alleged that they donated money to LDS Philanthropies.  They therefore lack standing to sue on that basis.  Further, damages are an essential and prima facie element of a fraud claim.  No donations = no damages = no fraud claims.

37 minutes ago, webbles said:

Tithing, on the other hand, is to help build up the Kingdom of God which allows it to be used in almost any manner (embezzlement would not be allowed).

The MDL case includes LDS Philanthropies probably because it has a stronger case.  The whistleblower did show some money flowing between LDS Philanthropies and EPA, though it goes through several hops and it is possible that money from LDS Philanthropies never does make it to EPA.

Could you elaborate?  I'm not seeing he "stronger case" here.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

39 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

Well, it was sort of a stream-of-consciousness exercise.

I am shocked you do those too!  🤣

All the time.  But I normally write them out and vet them a bit before sharing them with anyone.  Today was an exception.  Oh, well.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Analytics]

58 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Again, I don't believe Huntsman.  I think he knows exactly what tithing is, and what it is not. 

Do you have a link to Huntsman’s actual lawsuit? I’d like to see where you are getting this idea that he is trying to redefine tithing. I didn’t get that from watching the video today.

[Analytics]

1 hour ago, juliann said:

Soooo…you apparently think President Nelson woke up one morning a few years ago and said, “I’m going to build a medical school!  And it was a done deal? 

No, I don’t think that.

1 hour ago, juliann said:

Now the medical school isn’t BIG enough? Seriously? The church has to outdo every other school as it enters into new territory for it to count? That is just lame. 

I have no idea how big the medical school is going to be, and I have no idea how big it should be. 

I do have four points:

• There are well-developed economic principles and guidelines for the proper balance between saving and spending for churches. According to those guidelines, the Church saves obscenely too much.
   
• I think the Church should be transparent with its finances so that all of the members of the Council on the Disposition of Tithes, including the apostles, can properly evaluate opportunities to further the Church’s mission with full knowledge of all of the Church’s resources.
   
• I think the Church should be transparent with members so that they can make informed decisions about whether or not to donate.
   
• David Nielsen’s leak made the Church better, because it is forcing the Church to deal with its overabundant resources that aren’t being deployed towards the Church’s purported missions. The medical school is an example of this.

Edited September 26, 2024 by Analytics

[webbles]

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

We may never know, since I do not think the MDL plaintiffs ever actually alleged that they donated money to LDS Philanthropies.  They therefore lack standing to sue on that basis.  Further, damages are an essential and prima facie element of a fraud claim.  No donations = no damages = no fraud claims.

Could you elaborate?  I'm not seeing he "stronger case" here.

Thanks,

-Smac

In the Huntsman case, the church's lawyer said that a church could be sued if they solicit donations for one thing and then use it for something else.  "stronger" is probably the wrong word.

I do have a question about the lack standing to sue.  The class in the MDL lawsuit groups everyone that donated anything to the church.  From paragraph 134:

Quote

All persons in the United States who donated money to Defendants from January 1, 1998 through the date the Class is certified. Excluded from the Class are all persons who make a timely election to be excluded, governmental entities, and the Judge to whom this case is assigned and his/her immediate family.

They are not separating tithing from fast offerings or LDS Philanthropies.  Can they lump them together?  LDS Philanthropies, I believe, is a subsidiary of the Church.  Hypothetically, if I donate to an entity and give $10 to their hurricane fund and $20 to their earthquake fund and then later find out that they used money from their earthquake fund to buy a boat, can I create a class action that includes everyone that donated to the entity, even if they only donated to the hurricane fund?  Because it is the same entity that solicited both.  Or does each solicitation or fund have to have its own class action?  I don't know how broad a class action can be.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Take a bow, David Nielsen, Ryan McKnight (and their enablers, fans, acolytes, etc.)!

I sure hope nobody ever betrays their trust they way they betrayed the Church's (or encouragedenabled others to betray it).

Yes…my feelings too

If there was something obviously criminal or contrary to business or church code, if there is such a thing, I am more sympathetic. Fishing expeditions one hopes to find evidence and does not, I have less…but then putting up stuff that has no demonstrated connection to something established as criminal or at least dishonest, just so you can show off you have inside knowledge is pretty disgusting to me. I always debate about using the info, but people would be clueless about what I was talking about in many cases and couldn’t draw their own conclusions on whether someone’s argument is valid or not. I am guessing these handouts are in the lawsuit as well now, so public record…but urggg

Edited September 26, 2024 by Calm

[JAHS]

I was always taught that the tithing money I donate is not my money and never was my money in the first place.
I was taught to consider all I have originally belongs to God and I am just giving some of it back to help His church grow.
If Huntsman was a faithful member of the Church, I assume at the time he donated that was his belief as well (perhaps not).
Once it leaves my hands it has gone back to God and I have no say how it is used since it never was mine in the first place. 
The issue is what he believed when he donated the money. If after he left the church and still donated money then I can see
how he would think it was originally his hard earned money and would require it to be used they way he thinks it should be used.

[smac97]

16 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Quote

You elide past defining "tithing" by calling the donation "something called 'tithing.'"

That was on purpose.

It does not serve your argument well.

16 minutes ago, Analytics said:

That is because the religious definition of tithing is irrelevant.

The Ninth Circuit sure seems to think that the definition of tithing is relevant.  They hammered that point home several times during yesterday's hearing.

If "tithing" has some sort of formal, purely "secular" definition, then trot it out and let's look at it.  You haven't done that, and I don't think you can.  I therefore surmise that no such definition exists, which would mean that Huntsman would need to ask the federal court to create such a definition and impose it on the Church.  Such an exercise would violate the Church Autonomy Doctrine.

16 minutes ago, Analytics said:

In the context of discussing tithing revenue, “tithing” is well-defined in the secular accounting system, not in the Church’s doctrine.

CFR: Please cite, chapter and verse, this "well-defined ... in the secular accounting system" you reference here.

And after you present it, please explain why that definition supersedes the Church's religious definition.

16 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Quote

And the government does not "call" such donations "tithing," except as to acknowledge the religious nature of the donation.  There is no "secular" definition of tithing which is numerically distinct from its religious one.  So I don't think you can call this "a secular fact."

It doesn’t matter what the government calls it, and it doesn’t matter who defines it.

You're just making this up as you go along, arncha?

Huntsman's own attorney disagrees with you.  It was the very first argument that he presented, and the judge immediately called him on it (see my notes, item #1).  

He then went on to assert - without evidence - that the Church has its own "secular definition of tithing" (his words), and was again immediately called on that by not one judge, but two (see my notes, items #4 and #5).

He then tried again, this time claiming that the Church's definition is "not secular."  And not only does he contradict himself (as he had earlier asserted that the Church does have a "secular" definition of tithing), he again gets cut off by a judge.

Huntsman spent a fair portion, perhaps 1/3 to 1/2, of his oral argument trying to advance definitional arguments, and the Ninth Circuit judges spent that time ragged with questions about and critiques of and challenges to his definitional argument. I think the most incisive - and, frankly, brutal - exchange during the hearing was about Pres. Hinckley's use of the term, and it came in the part cited in items #12 and #13 of my notes:

Quote

12. The attorney responds that the judge's recitation of "the record" is actually just "the Church's position," and not "what the record shows."  He then says that Huntsman "doesn't differentiate," and that he "took President Hinckley at his word."  I think the attorney is stepping in it here.  He is disputing what "the record" of the case states, which really isn't going to be in dispute.  And he says Huntsman didn't "differentiate" between principal and earnings in the way that President Hinckley differentiating these sources of funds, but then he says Huntsman took President Hinckley "at his word."  So this is pretty incoherent stuff.  The judge apparently picked up on this right away: "Okay, if you take him at his word, then you take the first statement that he would understand what President Hinckley was talking about, right?"  Oi.  The judge is cornering him here.

13. The next part gets even more interesting:

• Attorney: {If} we just look at his {President Hinckley's statement, and we look at how his statement has been explained in the record, as he was referring purely to principal.  That does not change the ultimate disposition...
• Judge: Who said that he was just referring to principal in the first talk?  Who says that President Hinckley in his first remarks was just referring to principal?
• Attorney: The Church, your honor.
• Judge: The Church says that?
• Attorney: The Church has differentiated in their papers between the 'principal' donations made by members and the interest generated by the investment...
• Judge: And that's exactly what I'm saying.  President Hinckley made that clear.

The attorney really stepped in it here, I think.  He tried to claim that President Hinckley "was referring purely to principal," but the judge - who has clearly worked to familiarize himself with the facts of the case - calls the attorney out and says that President Hinckley was not "referring {only} to principal," but was instead differentiating principal from earnings, and that he "made that clear."

And so it goes.

I look at all of this time and effort expended on the issue of tithing, its definition, Pres. Hinckley's usage, etc., by Huntsman's attorneys and the en banc panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and then I look at your ongoing insistence that "it doesn’t matter what the government calls it {tithing}, and it doesn’t matter who defines it."  

I think I'll go with the Ninth Circuit on this.

16 minutes ago, Analytics said:

What we are talking about are real dollars that were donated to the Church that were categorized by the donors as “tithing.”

Well, not quite.  The lawsuit is about the Church's public statements about "tithing" and whether such monies were used to fund City Creek.

16 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Whether or not those dollars were spent as promised is a secular issue and is something that can be adjudicated without encroaching on the Church’s doctrine.

President Hinckley didn't say "those dollars."  He said "tithing."  See here:

Quote

In the April 2003 general conference, President Gordon B. Hinckley explained “tithing funds have not and will not be used to acquire this property. Nor will they be used in developing it for commercial purposes.” Instead, “funds for this have come and will come from those commercial entities owned by the Church. These resources, together with the earnings of invested reserve funds, will accommodate this program.”^[5] 

You do not advance your argument that the definition of tithing is irrelevant to the lawsuit when you persist in dancing around its usage, even to the point of substituting the word "tithing" with "those dollars."

16 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Quote

This "something" is defined by the Church, not the State.  So we still have no "secular definition" of "tithing" in view.

Tithing is defined in the Church’s accounting system.

CFR.  Chapter and verse, please.  Where does the "Church's accounting system" define "tithing"?

And why would the Church's accounting system govern Pres. Hinckley's usage of that word?

16 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Quote

Gotta love the passive voice.  "Charitable donations ... that have been classified as tithing."

Who did this "classifying"?  the Church or the State?

Neither.  The individual donors who indicated that their donations were “tithing” are the ones who did the classifying.

You're just making this stuff up as you go along.

CFR.  Please cite where "individual donors" "classified" their "tithing" and "charitable donations."

16 minutes ago, Analytics said:

The fact that they did so

This is a "fact," is it?  Okay.  Show us where.  Chapter and verse, please.

 

 

16 minutes ago, Analytics said:

and the fact that the Church keeps track of that in their accounting system are secular facts.

We still have no "secular definition" of "tithing" in view.

16 minutes ago, Analytics said:

When the Church’s secret report says, “We collected $6,135,632,665.12 in tithing last year,” that is a well-defined thing that can be verified without encroaching on the Church’s doctrine.

What "well-defined thing" are you talking about?

Where is this "secular definition" of "tithing" you insists exist?

16 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Quote

Nobody is disputing that Huntsman donated "tithes" to the Church, or that he "classified" his donations as tithes.

In your view, how is this not nonsense?

I do not understand your question.

16 minutes ago, Analytics said:

How could a secular court determine whether or not Huntsman made these alleged donations

Easily.  He could produce bank records showing the transaction.  But there's not much point to that, since, again, nobody is disputing that Huntsman made tithing donations to the Church.

16 minutes ago, Analytics said:

without knowing what “tithes” actually means?

Sheesh.  This has been my point for, I think, years now.  And it's one you've been fighting me on for just as long.

I think secular courts cannot adjudicate disputes about tithing without a definition of the term being established.

If there is a "purely secular" or "exclusively secular" definition of the term that is binding on the federal judiciary, by all means trot it out.  

Alternatively, if there is no "purely secular" or "exclusively secular" definition of the term, then its meaning must be derived from the comments person who used it: President Hinckley.  And he plainly used it in a religious - not "secular" - context.  And having federal judges parsing out this religious meaning of the term is pretty much guaranteed to run afoul of the First Amendment.

16 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Wouldn’t he have to make judgements from the bench about religious doctrine in order to know if these donations are really “tithing”?

Not if the parties are not disputing that he paid tithes, no.

The Church isn't denying that Huntsman paid tithes.  It is denying that Pres. Hinckley committed fraud, and denying that he used "fraud" to refer to both "tithing" and earnings on invested reserves.

One of the Ninth Circuit judges tried to explore the question of whether a misrepresentation even exists.  That line of inquiry got lost in the shuffle.

16 minutes ago, Analytics said:

From my viewpoint, in the context of this lawsuit “tithing” is a well-defined, secular concept.

Fine.  CFR.  Please present, chapter and verse, this "well-defined, secular" meaning of the word "tithing."

Where did it come from?  Who created it?  When?  Where?  Why is this definition binding on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals?

16 minutes ago, Analytics said:

We’re talking about dollars that were donated to the Church, dollars that the Church spent on various projects, and statement that were made about those expenditures.

You do not advance your argument that the definition of tithing is irrelevant to the lawsuit when you persist in dancing around its usage, even to the point of substituting the word "tithing" with "dollars."

16 minutes ago, Analytics said:

A court can comfortably evaluate if these statements about money without encroaching on the Church’s religious principles.

Again, President Hinckley did not say "{money has} not and will not be used to acquire this property."  

You do not advance your argument that the definition of tithing is irrelevant to the lawsuit when you persist in dancing around its usage, even to the point of substituting the word "tithing" with "dollars."

This one illustrates, I think, why you are so reluctant to use the word.  What you should be saying is: "A court can comfortably evaluate if these statements about {tithing} without encroaching on the Church’s religious principles."  But then, saying this with a straight face becomes kind of difficult.

Imagine somewhat trying to say this: "A court can comfortably evaluate if these statements about {whether Jesus Christ was the Son of God} without encroaching on the Church’s religious principles."

Or this: "A court can comfortably evaluate if these statements about {whether Joseph Smith translated The Book of Mormon by 'the gift and power of God'} without encroaching on the Church’s religious principles."

Or this: "A court can comfortably evaluate if these statements about {whether the resurrected angelic personages of Peter, James and John appeared to Joseph Smith and bestowed on him the Melchizedek Priesthood} without encroaching on the Church’s religious principles."

These don't work because the divinity of Jesus Christ, the translation of The Book of Mormon, and Joseph Smith's theophanies are quintessentially religious issues.  So it is with "tithing," which is why you keep replacing that word with "money."

16 minutes ago, Analytics said:

CFR 1: Your 2nd definition, "the amounts of money stated on the Church’s secular income statements that represent the donations that were given to the Church" doesn't work.  It is just a wordy restatement of the religious definition (not unlike "charitable contribution"). An amount listed on some IRS form does not "define" tithing.  If you dispute this, then please produce these supposed "secular income statements" and point us to where these documents define the term "tithing."

The Church produces financial statements but does not publicly disclose them.

CFR: Where did you get your 2nd definition?  Please cite, chapter and verse, its source.  (Or, alternatively, you can admit you just made it up out of thin air.)

16 minutes ago, Analytics said:

How is my definition secular even though it is defined by the Church’s accounting system?

"{M}y definition"?  Are you admitting that you just made it up?  That you fabricated your 2nd definition of "tithing"?  If not, please response to the CFR.  

16 minutes ago, Analytics said:

CFR2: Your 3rd definition, "One of three 'buckets of money' on the Church’s balance sheet that can be spent on different projects," also doesn't work.  You appear to have culled it from the Church's attorney's oral argument at yesterday's hearing.  But he was merely speaking metaphorically.  Nobody in or out of the Church defines "tithing" as "one of 'three buckets of money.'"  Moreover, this phrase does not "define" tithing.   If you dispute this, then please produce the source of this supposed definition and point us to where this source defines the term "tithing."

In accounting and in economics, financial numbers fall into two categories: stocks and flows.

This is nonresponsive.

Here, again, is my CFR: Please produce the source of this supposed definition {that tithing is "One of three 'buckets of money' on the Church’s balance sheet that can be spent on different projects," and point us to where this source defines the term "tithing."

A "CFR" is a call for references/sources, not for embellishments on past fabrications.  If you fabricated these definitions, just say so.  Otherwise, respond to the foregoing CFRs.

16 minutes ago, Analytics said:

If somebody says “the Church took in about $6 billion in tithing last month,” they are talking about a flow. If somebody else says, “the Church has a bucket of money with $30 billion of unspent tithing in it”, they are talking about a stock. The Church talks about these two different secular things, so there must be two different secular definitions for them. I’m not talking about defining “tithing” in a religious sense. I’m talking about defining it in a secular, accounting sense. 

Dandy!  CFR.  Please provide such a "secular, accounting" definition of tithing.  Chapter and verse, please.

And after you respond to this CFR, please explain why you think this definition is binding on President Hinckley and on the federal judiciary.

16 minutes ago, Analytics said:

CFR3: The third CFR ("Chapter and verse, please, as to where you found these "secular" definitions of "tithing.") is duplicative of the first and second.

The precise definitions are found in the Church’s accounting manuals,

CFR, please.  Chapter and verse.  Where are these "precise definitions" from?  Which "manuals?"  When were they published?  By whom?  On what pages do these "precise definitions" appear?  What is the wording?

And after you respond to this CFR, please explain why you think a definition in an accounting manual is binding on President Hinckley and on the federal judiciary.

16 minutes ago, Analytics said:

and I was able to confidently infer their secular meaning from the secular way in which they were used to talk about secular things.

Well, if you don't mind, I would prefer to read these materials rather than rely on your "inferences" about them.  So . . . pony up and respond to my CFRS.  Thanks in advance.

16 minutes ago, Analytics said:

CFR4:  Please point us to these "already accepted and used definitions {!} of thing."  Chapter and verse, please.  Where will Judge Shelby find these definitions?

The precise definitions are found in the Church’s accounting manuals, and I was able to confidently infer their secular meaning from the secular way in which they were used to talk about secular things. 

Same as above.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

31 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

Take a bow, David Nielsen, Ryan McKnight (and their enablers, fans, acolytes, etc.)!

I sure hope nobody ever betrays their trust they way they betrayed the Church's (or encouragedenabled others to betray it).

Yes…my feelings too

If there was something obviously criminal or contrary to business or church code, if there is such a thing, I am more sympathetic.

Same here.  But even Ryan McKnight (!) publicly acknowledged that he had no documents indicating wrongdoing by the Church.  So his efforts to encourage employees and members of the Church to steal the Church's sensitive materials and information and secretly send them to him were not about detecting anything "criminal."  It was about something else.

31 minutes ago, Calm said:

Fishing expeditions one hopes to find evidence and does not, I have less…but then putting up stuff that has no demonstrated connection to something established as criminal or at least dishonest, just so you can show off you have inside knowledge is pretty disgusting to me.

And not just showing up, but sticking it to the Church.  Pound of flesh sort of stuff.

31 minutes ago, Calm said:

I always debate about using the info, but people would be clueless about what I was talking about in many cases and couldn’t draw their own conclusions on whether someone’s argument is valid or not. I am guessing these handouts are in the lawsuit as well now, so public record…but urggg

Once it's out, it's out.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

48 minutes ago, webbles said:

In the Huntsman case, the church's lawyer said that a church could be sued if they solicit donations for one thing and then use it for something else.  "stronger" is probably the wrong word.

I think the case law differentiates between fraud committed when soliciting donations and fraud committed when using donations.  The scenario above would likely be viewed under the former.

48 minutes ago, webbles said:

I do have a question about the lack standing to sue.  The class in the MDL lawsuit groups everyone that donated anything to the church.  From paragraph 134:

They are not separating tithing from fast offerings or LDS Philanthropies.  Can they lump them together? 

I don't think so.  Class actions are, like civil RICO, easily subject to abuse by litigants.  So there are some substantial vetting procedures which must be followed.  I don't think the MDL plaintiffs will be able to do it.  The Church's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 81) addresses this well.

48 minutes ago, webbles said:

LDS Philanthropies, I believe, is a subsidiary of the Church.  Hypothetically, if I donate to an entity and give $10 to their hurricane fund and $20 to their earthquake fund and then later find out that they used money from their earthquake fund to buy a boat, can I create a class action that includes everyone that donated to the entity, even if they only donated to the hurricane fund? 

I doubt it.  There are several fundamental requirements for a lawsuit to be certified as a class action lawsuit (from ChatGPT) :

Quote

1. Numerosity (Rule 23(a)(1)):

• The class must be so large that joinder of all members is impracticable. While there is no specific number that qualifies, generally a class of 40 or more is sufficient, but the exact number depends on the circumstances of the case.

2. Commonality (Rule 23(a)(2)):

• There must be questions of law or fact common to the class. This means that the claims of the class members must depend on a common contention that is capable of being resolved for all members in one stroke.

3. Typicality (Rule 23(a)(3)):

• The claims or defenses of the named plaintiff(s) must be typical of the claims or defenses of the entire class. This ensures that the representative plaintiff(s) will adequately represent the interests of the class.

4. Adequacy of Representation (Rule 23(a)(4)):

• The named plaintiffs and their attorneys must fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. This requirement ensures that there are no conflicts of interest between the named plaintiffs and the class members.

5. Predominance and Superiority (Rule 23(b)):

• In addition to the above, for most class actions, plaintiffs must meet the requirements of Rule 23(b)(3):
  • Predominance: The common questions of law or fact must predominate over individual questions. The legal or factual issues common to the class must be more significant than those affecting only individual class members.
  • Superiority: A class action must be the superior method for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy. Courts consider factors like the class members' interest in controlling the litigation individually, the existence of other pending litigation, and the manageability of the class action.

6. Class Definition:

• The complaint must provide a clear and precise definition of the class. The court must be able to determine who is in the class and who is not.

7. Class Certification Motion:

• To proceed as a class action, the plaintiffs must file a motion for class certification, which demonstrates that the Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b) requirements are met. This is typically done after the pleadings but before trial, and courts will closely scrutinize this motion.

A class action lawsuit about, say, a brand of toothpaste has a good chance of being certified because everyone is similarly situated.  Everyone in the class bought the toothpaste, used it, was actually or potentially injured by it, etc.

A class action lawsuit about a variety of different types of charitable donations to a church, by millions of people, for various personal reasons, will be quite a different inquiry.

48 minutes ago, webbles said:

Because it is the same entity that solicited both.  Or does each solicitation or fund have to have its own class action?  I don't know how broad a class action can be.

See above, and see also the Church's Motion to Strike.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

Quote

Again, I don't believe Huntsman.  I think he knows exactly what tithing is, and what it is not. 

Do you have a link to Huntsman’s actual lawsuit?

Try this.

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

I’d like to see where you are getting this idea that he is trying to redefine tithing.

I wonder if you are similarly curious about where the Ninth Circuit is "getting this idea."  They asked plenty of questions about it.

I think the main bit is in paragraph 18, in which they quote Pres. Hinckley's 2003 statement.  They go on to claim that this was a false statement, that tithing was used.  This was addressed fairly pointedly during yesterday's hearing.  Some excerpts from my notes:

Quote

11. The next part gets pretty interesting.  The attorney says that Pres. Hinckley's comments about tithing "may have been qualified."  The judge cuts him off: "It was qualified.  And your client apparently recognized that.  He understood it.  He heard it.  He saw that Pres. Hinckley was saying 'You've got tihing {over here (gesturing)}, and you've got reserve earnings {over there (gesturing)}.  And from the earnings of entities owned by the Church.  The Church has shown, by the record as I understand it, that that's all that was being used to do the City Creek development."  This is, in my view, a pretty devastating line of questioning.

See, the Judge is differentiating between tithes and "reserve earnings," while Huntsman's lawsuit only makes sense if these two are conflated.  To conflate is to re-define.

More:

Quote

12. The attorney responds that the judge's recitation of "the record" is actually just "the Church's position," and not "what the record shows."  He then says that Huntsman "doesn't differentiate," and that he "took President Hinckley at his word."  I think the attorney is stepping in it here.  He is disputing what "the record" of the case states, which really isn't going to be in dispute.  And he says Huntsman didn't "differentiate" between principal and earnings in the way that President Hinckley differentiating these sources of funds, but then he says Huntsman took President Hinckley "at his word."  So this is pretty incoherent stuff.  The judge apparently picked up on this right away: "Okay, if you take him at his word, then you take the first statement that he would understand what President Hinckley was talking about, right?"  Oi.  The judge is cornering him here.

13. The next part gets even more interesting:

• Attorney: {If} we just look at his {President Hinckley's statement, and we look at how his statement has been explained in the record, as he was referring purely to principal.  That does not change the ultimate disposition...
• Judge: Who said that he was just referring to principal in the first talk?  Who says that President Hinckley in his first remarks was just referring to principal?
• Attorney: The Church, your honor.
• Judge: The Church says that?
• Attorney: The Church has differentiated in their papers between the 'principal' donations made by members and the interest generated by the investment...
• Judge: And that's exactly what I'm saying.  President Hinckley made that clear.

The attorney really stepped in it here, I think.  He tried to claim that President Hinckley "was referring purely to principal," but the judge - who has clearly worked to familiarize himself with the facts of the case - calls the attorney out and says that President Hinckley was not "referring {only} to principal," but was instead differentiating principal from earnings, and that he "made that clear."

I think this stuff was considerably more fleshed out in the summary judgment proceedings.  The parties' summary judgment briefs, and the lower court's order on the motion, plus the now-vacated panel decision, will all be good reading for you.

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

I didn’t get that from watching the video today.

I sure did.  His attorney went on and on about a "secular" definition of tithing being out there, one that the courts can use to evaluate Pres. Hinckley's claim.  The only reason I can see to modify "definition" to make the term into "secular definition" is to differentiate that definition from a religious definition.  Unless, of course, there is only a "secular" definition for "tithing."  But the Ninth Circuit sure seemed to disagree with that proposition.  And the attorney certainly did not present it.  

Which takes us back, then, to "tithing" being a religious term.  And even if it has, in some sense, secular dimensions (such as for taxation and other purposes), I don't see how the federal courts can examine Pres. Hinckley's statements about it without running afoul of the Church Autonomy Doctrine.  That concern seemed really clear from yesterday's hearing.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Analytics]

22 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Which takes us back, then, to "tithing" being a religious term.  And even if it has, in some sense, secular dimensions (such as for taxation and other purposes), I don't see how the federal courts can examine Pres. Hinckley's statements about it without running afoul of the Church Autonomy Doctrine.  That concern seemed really clear from yesterday's hearing.

Thanks for the link to Huntsman’s complaint. I’ll read it and respond to everything else. 

In the meantime, here is an idea that went through my head when I was watching the hearing:

The Church has apparently made two different arguments for dismissing the case. Their first reason for dismissing the case is their assertion that President Hinckley told the truth and no fraud was committed. Their second reason for dismissing the case was Church Autonomy. 

It seems to me that the Court could dismiss the case for one of the reasons or for the other, but not both. If it dismisses the case on the grounds that no fraud was committed, that dismissal proves they were able to evaluate the case without encroaching on the Church’s rights. Conversely, if it dismisses the case because of Church Autonomy, that proves that there is no way they can evaluate whether fraud was committed or not.

[smac97]

12 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Thanks for the link to Huntsman’s complaint. I’ll read it and respond to everything else. 

In the meantime, here is an idea that went through my head when I was watching the hearing:

The Church has apparently made two different arguments for dismissing the case. Their first reason for dismissing the case is their assertion that President Hinckley told the truth and no fraud was committed. Their second reason for dismissing the case was Church Autonomy. 

Yes.  I think I commented on this back when the lawsuit was first filed.  I was surprised that the Church chose to go into the merits of the lawsuit and then filed a Motion for Summary Judgment (as opposing to filing a Motion to Dismiss, presumably based on the Church Autonomy Doctrine and other grounds for dismissal under Rule 12).

This was addressed at the hearing yesterday.  One of the judges asked why the Church had not sought dismissal under the Church Autonomy Doctrine as a threshold matter.  The attorney's explanation was, in essence, that the Church felt it had done nothing wrong, and so wanted to defend its reputation on the merits.  It later determined that one of the arguments for dismissal should of been, and still was, the Church Autonomy Doctrine.

12 minutes ago, Analytics said:

It seems to me that the Court could dismiss the case for one of the reasons or for the other, but not both. 

Well, sort of.  Generally, the Church Autonomy Doctrine would likely have been evaluated as a basis for dismissal under Rule 12.  I don't think that precludes the doctrine as also being a basis for summary judgment under Rule 56.

12 minutes ago, Analytics said:

If it dismisses the case on the grounds that no fraud was committed, that dismissal proves they were able to evaluate the case without encroaching on the Church’s rights.

Or that the Church wanted to defend its reputation more than it wanted to rely on the Church Autonomy Doctrine in a Rule 12 context.

Or perhaps the Church's attorneys just messed up.  They should have raised the Doctrine right out of the gate, but they did not.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[Analytics]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

If "tithing" has some sort of formal, purely "secular" definition, then trot it out and let's look at it....

I don’t think you and I agree on what “secular” means in this context. ChatGPT helped me articulate the following:

Under U.S. law, the concept of a “secular definition” refers to a meaning that can be understood and applied without reference to religion or religious doctrine. A secular definition is neutral and grounded in terms that are legally or practically applicable in a non-religious context, typically for the purposes of law, governance, or societal interactions. The key point is that the definition should not depend on interpreting religious teachings or principles, which would entangle the courts with religious doctrine, something the First Amendment generally prohibits.

It goes on to say:

If the court can resolve the dispute without interpreting or passing judgment on religious doctrine (for example, by focusing purely on whether there was a misrepresentation of how the funds would be used), the case may proceed without violating the Church Autonomy Doctrine.

That is how I understand what we’re talking about.

I demonstrated that my definition of tithing is secular by eliding past defining "tithing" by calling the donation "something called 'tithing.’” I demonstrated that a court could ascertain the facts about how tithing was used and what promises were made about it without interpreting or passing judgement on religious doctrine.

I’ll re-respond to your points and CFRs, but first, I want to make sure we understand these basic issues about what “secular” means and what the Church Autonomy Doctrine means.

Is ChatGPT out in left field in what I quoted above?

[smac97]

Deseret News: 9th Circuit judges pepper attorneys with questions on both sides of James Huntsman’s tithing lawsuit

Quote

A panel of 11 judges should dismiss James Huntsman’s lawsuit seeking the return of $5 million in tithing he donated to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for two reasons, the church’s attorney said Wednesday before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.

First, the church did not misrepresent how it paid for the City Creek Center project in downtown Salt Lake City and second, courts should not be involved in religious doctrine decisions such as how tithing is used, said Paul Clement, who served as Solicitor General of the United States during the George W. Bush administration.

The judges peppered Clement and David Jonelis, the attorney representing Huntsman, with questions during the one-hour hearing.

That's fair.  But the "peppering" was quite a bit more potent as to Jonelis than as to Clement.

Quote

“It was a very well-prepared and very engaged court for this argument,” said Jeremy Rosen, managing partner for the San Francisco office of Horvitz & Levy, which filed an amicus brief on behalf of charitable organizations that supported the church.

“I think most all of the questions evidenced a deep concern that the court had in having courts interfere with the autonomy of churches to control their doctrine and their faith, which is fundamental to the First Amendment and to the ability of churches to function,” Rosen said.

I quite agree.  The hearing was one of the most spirited and vigorous I have ever seen.

Quote

What Huntsman argued

Jonelis asked the court to reinstate Huntsman’s lawsuit seeking a refund of his tithing.

By way of clarification: The trial court dismissed Huntsman's lawsuit.  The three-judge panel at the 9th Circuit reversed the trial court, but when the Church obtained the en banc review by the 9th Circuit, the circuit vacated the 3-judge panel's decision, which means Huntsman's lawsuit is, presently, dismissed.  This is why they are now asking that it be "reinstate{d}."

Quote

Huntsman’s argument is that church leaders misrepresented how they paid for City Creek. He believes they used tithing funds, based on a three-page declaration by David Nielsen, a disaffected former church member who worked at Ensign Peak after the City Creek project began, according to one of the judges.

“This is a fraud case, a simple fraud case for which the First Amendment provides no sanctuary,” said Jonelis of the Los Angeles firm Lavely & Singer.

...

Jonelis began his argument by repeating lyrics from the Beatles’ song, “Let It Be”: “When I find myself in times of trouble, Mother Mary comes to me speaking words of wisdom. Let it be.”

“In most contexts, the name Mother Mary has religious connotations, but here, it’s just Sir Paul McCartney singing about his mother, Mary McCartney. It’s secular,” Jonelis said. “And the same is true of the word tithing. In many cases, that word would invoke religion. But here, in this narrow case, the implications are no more robust than the song, ‘Let It Be.’”

Boy, the more I think about it, the worse the "Mother Mary" analogy sounds.

Quote

Is tithing inherently religious, or can a court consider it secular?

Judge Milan Smith swiftly interrupted Jonelis. “Tithing is a quintessential religious issue,” he said. “In fact, I don’t know of any use of the term tithing that is not religious in context. What am I missing?”

Jonelis said the case was about accounting and fully secular, but several of the judges questioned how they could consider tithing anything but religious.

“How can a church have a secular definition of a religious obligation?” Judge Daniel Bress asked.

Boy, that is a great question.

Quote

Jonelis repeated Huntsman’s arguments that the late church prophet, President Gordon B. Hinckley, said during a 2003 general conference talk that no tithing would be used for City Creek but that Nielsen said he heard people say tithing funds were used.

“Isn’t there a concern,” Judge Gabriel Sanchez asked, “if you’re asking courts to start parsing these speeches, whether it’s going to chill something within religious doctrine or internal church governance that a church leader might have to run a speech by legal before he can deliver a sermon?”

I like this question.  It actually implicates the Free Speech clause of the First Amendment.  I hadn't thought of that.

Quote

Jonelis said the 9th Circuit panel should refrain from what he said would be “cloaking civil torts in immunity” because of religious protection.

I agree with him.  The Church Autonomy Doctrine does not do that.

Quote

The judges asked both attorneys about whether Huntsman needed to rely on President Hinckley’s statement.

“It goes to the question of what motivates someone to tithe,” said Rosen, who observed the hearing in the courtroom. “I think that goes to the religious purpose of tithing. Generally, you tithe because it’s a religious command to give 10% of your income, not because of a particular use of the funds. You don’t tithe because the money is going to be used for ‘x’ project or ‘y’ thing.”

Yeah, Huntsman's representations that he "relied" on Pres. Hinckley's 2003 statement has never really passed the smell test for me.  It's threadbare, after-the-fact posturing.  But this would seem to be a matter for the jury (if the case ever gets there).

Quote

What the church’s attorney argued

Clement told the 11-judge panel that the church did what President Hinckley said and has careful records of the project.

“What the record here reflects in an irrefutable way is that the funds for this project — that started out with $1.2 billion on Jan. 1, 2004, and then were segregated from all other funds — that $1.2 billion came from earnings on investment returns exclusively,” Clement said. “That is the unrefuted testimony of Mr. (Paul) Rytting, and that’s in his declaration.”3

Rytting is a director in the church’s Finance and Records Department. In his declaration to the court, Rytting stated that additional funds transferred from Ensign Peak Advisors, the affiliated investment management company for the church, also came exclusively from earnings in the church’s reserve fund.

Rytting also declared that additional funds for the project “came from the church’s earnings on its general reserve funds from Ensign Peak’s main investment account.”

"Unrefuted."  That's interesting.  I wonder what the trial court made of David Nielsen's contrary affidavit (stating that tithing funds were used).  Perhaps the unadorned and unsubstantiated say-so of a mid-level functionary employed by an "integrated auxiliary" of the Church was not seen as sufficient to create a "genuine issue of material fact."  

Quote

Judge Smith questioned Clement about why the church’s first argument was that there was no misrepresentation. The judge asked whether appealing first to the church autonomy doctrine would have resulted in the case being tossed even before summary judgment.

@Analytics asked about this.

Quote

What is church autonomy doctrine?

Church autonomy doctrine, which is rooted in the First Amendment, both protects religious organizations from state control of their beliefs and internal affairs and ensures that the state does not establish a religion, according to Lael Weinberger, a Constitutional lawyer and non-resident fellow at Stanford Law School.

Clement said the church should win either way.

“At a certain point, money is fungible,” he said. “If the church hadn’t been as careful in its accounting, I think I would still be up here saying, what are we talking about? In year 2003 alone, the church had earnings on reserve funds that are well in advance on anything they spent on this project, and so there’s just no issue that they had to go into current year’s tithing.”

Judge Smith noted that no party has asserted the church engaged in a Ponzi scheme or that anyone in the church enriched themselves.

This sure seems to weaken the notion that anyone was defrauded.  At best, Huntsman's claim seems to come down to a question of accounting.  

Quote

Clement told the judges tithing refund claims should be presumptively rejected under the church autonomy doctrine subject to two exceptions. First, he said, a church should not be protected if embezzlement takes place, and second, a church should not be protected if it holds a fundraiser for a specific purpose and then diverts the money to something else.

Neither happened in the case of City Creek, he said.

Rosen found the discussions interesting because of the constitutional avoidance doctrine, which states that courts should resolve cases without delving into constitutional questions if possible.

“As an appellate lawyer,” Rosen said, “I would always start with the non-constitutional question first. That doesn’t mean I wouldn’t get to the constitutional question or that it’s not important, it’s just typical to start with the non-constitutional question.

“Many of the judges seemed to want to talk about the constitutional issue of the church autonomy doctrine.”

Yep.  Whomever decided to not file a Rule 12 Motion based on the Church Autonomy Doctrine is probably feeling a bit sheepish now.

And again, @Analytics keeps insisting that the Church Autonomy Doctrine is entirely irrelevant to this case, even though it was a key issue raised by the Ninth Circuit judges.

Quote

A curveball about Huntsman’s residence

Judge Jacqueline Nguyen asked both attorneys for their opinions on whether Huntsman had standing to bring the lawsuit in California based on when he moved from Utah to California. Jonelis said Huntsman moved to California in October 2020, five months before he filed the lawsuit, but Nguyen said Huntsman’s company filed a form with the state of California using his Utah address.

Neither party raised the issue with the district court.

Clement said the church did not think it had a good faith basis to question Huntsman’s claim of a California residence.

It would be hilarious, and frustrating, if the Ninth Circuit punted and sent the case back to the trial court for a review of the jurisdictional issue.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

18 minutes ago, Analytics said:

I don’t think you and I agree on what “secular” means in this context. ChatGPT helped me articulate the following:

Under U.S. law, the concept of a “secular definition” refers to a meaning that can be understood and applied without reference to religion or religious doctrine. A secular definition is neutral and grounded in terms that are legally or practically applicable in a non-religious context, typically for the purposes of law, governance, or societal interactions. The key point is that the definition should not depend on interpreting religious teachings or principles, which would entangle the courts with religious doctrine, something the First Amendment generally prohibits.

It goes on to say:

If the court can resolve the dispute without interpreting or passing judgment on religious doctrine (for example, by focusing purely on whether there was a misrepresentation of how the funds would be used), the case may proceed without violating the Church Autonomy Doctrine.

That is how I understand what we’re talking about.

I demonstrated that my definition of tithing is secular by eliding past defining "tithing" by calling the donation "something called 'tithing.’” I demonstrated that a court could ascertain the facts about how tithing was used and what promises were made about it without interpreting or passing judgement on religious doctrine.

I’ll re-respond to your points and CFRs, but first, I want to make sure we understand these basic issues about what “secular” means and what the Church Autonomy Doctrine means.

Is ChatGPT out in left field in what I quoted above?

As regarding "tithing," yes, I think it is (and you are).

There are all sorts of words that have readily and necessarily "secular" meanings:

• Baseball
• DNA
• Hiccup
• Television
• Canada

If President Hinckley had used any of these words, his comments could have been "understood and applied without reference to religion or religious doctrine," and so on.  

From the Deseret News article:

Quote

Is tithing inherently religious, or can a court consider it secular?

Judge Milan Smith swiftly interrupted Jonelis. “Tithing is a quintessential religious issue,” he said. “In fact, I don’t know of any use of the term tithing that is not religious in context. What am I missing?”

Jonelis said the case was about accounting and fully secular, but several of the judges questioned how they could consider tithing anything but religious.

“How can a church have a secular definition of a religious obligation?” Judge Daniel Bress asked.

"Tithing is a quintessential religious issue."  "Quintessential."  As in "perfectly typical or representative of a particular kind of person or thing."

"I don't know of any use of the term tithing that is not religious in context."

Can you say the same about words like baseball, Canada and hiccup?  Nope, nope and nope.

We have spent who knows how many posts with you insisting that somehow, somewhere, there is a "secular" definition of "tithing" that the lower court should use to examine Pres. Hinckley's comments in 2003.  And yet even with multiple CFRS, you still can't come up with a citation.  Instead, you have made up definitions out of whole cloth.  Fabricated.  Concocted.  Contrived.  Invented.

As between ChatGPT and Judge Milan Smith, I'll go with the latter.

Thanks,

-Smac