Update on Huntsman Lawsuit: Ninth Circuit Reverses Trial Court

[smac97]

On 8/28/2024 at 6:36 PM, Rain said:

Quote

I disagree, but won’t repeat my points.

Here’s one other consideration you might not be aware of. This is a class action case that purportedly has millions of class members.

Millions? Where does that come from? 

The putative "class" would be people who donated tithes to the Church after the Church's statements about City Creek.  Theoretically, that could be "millions."

As I have noted previously, getting this case certified as a class action may well be impossible because A) the claims "sound in fraud," B) one of the core elements of a fraud claim is the recipient of a purportedly false statement relying on that statement to act or not act, C) case law is pretty clear that “a fraud class action cannot be certified when individual reliance will be an issue.”

Analytics seems to be suggesting that, theoretically, there are "millions" of people, essentially all Latter-day Saints, who are similarly situated to the MDL plaintiffs.  That is, these millions of Latter-day Saints all

• A) paid attention to the Church's handful of public comments about the funding of City Creek,
• B) construed the Church's statements about the non-use of tithing on City Creek in the same way the MDL plaintiffs did (that is to say, millions of Latter-day Saints listened to these statements and re-defined "tithes" to mean both "one tenth of one's increase annually" and also any revenue generated from the Church's investment of those donations),
• C) relied on the Church's statements as the basis for continuing to pay tithes,
• D) acted reasonably in that reliance, and
• E) actually did continue to pay tithes.

Analytics is technically correct.  This is . . . "possible."

But it's not very probable.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 30, 2024 by smac97

[Analytics]

15 minutes ago, smac97 said:

You continue to be starstruck and bedazzled (as further demonstrated with stuff like "This is their game and judging by their track record, they are very good at it."). 

Acknowledging their expertise in this type of lawsuit isn’t evidence that I am somehow “starstruck and bedazzled.” 

15 minutes ago, smac97 said:

A far better metric for evaluating the merits of a legal case is to look at the substantive law.  I am doing that.

I appreciate you sharing your opinion on these topics. However, I’m not an attorney; why would you be interested in my thoughts on the substantive law?

15 minutes ago, smac97 said:

My reference to .1% was exemplary, that's all.  I was not suggesting that this is the percentage likelihood of success I am attributing to the MDL plaintiffs.

Likewise, my references to numbers were exemplary too.

15 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And again, the big-name attorneys are getting big - and free - publicity.  

I would think that gaining notoriety as being attorneys who waste everybody’s time on cases without merit isn’t the kind of publicity they would want. 

[Analytics]

1 hour ago, Rain said:

Millions? Where does that come from? 

 

Paragraph 140 of the complaint that was filed on July 12 says:

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(1), the members of the Class are so numerous and geographically dispersed that individual joinder of all Class members is impracticable. While Plaintiffs are informed and believe that there are millions of members of the Class, the precise number is unknown...

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

Acknowledging their expertise in this type of lawsuit isn’t evidence that I am somehow “starstruck and bedazzled.” 

It is when you present "their expertise in this type of lawsuit" as evidence that the MDL plaintiffs' complaint has merit.

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

I appreciate you sharing your opinion on these topics. However, I’m not an attorney; why would you be interested in my thoughts on the substantive law?

Broadly speaking, I'm not particularly interested.  But if you are going to weigh in on the merits of a lawsuit, best do it in meaningful ways.

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

Likewise, my references to numbers were exemplary too.

I would think that gaining notoriety as being attorneys who waste everybody’s time on cases without merit isn’t the kind of publicity they would want. 

Suing a well-known-but-controversial religion will garner plenty of publicity at the outset of the case, and some during the pendency of it.  If the suit fails, the publicity will likely be considerably less.  So the publicity has lots of upside at the front end, and little downside on the back end.

McKenna Denson's lawsuit got all sorts of publicity when it was launched, and far less when it died on the vine.  Same goes for Gaddy.

Conversely, Huntsman's lawsuit got all sorts of publicity when it started, and continues to get a lot of attention because it is still pending.  I predict that if and when the Ninth Circuit disposes of Huntsman's case, the publicity for that dismissal will be considerably less.

This happens all the time.  News outlets pay lots of attention to the filing of sensationalistic lawsuits, and also to instances where the plaintiff wins in such lawsuits.  There is far less attention paid when the sensationalistic lawsuit is dismissed, whether on the merits or on procedural grounds.  Dismissal on procedural grounds is typically really boring, and that is how I see the MDL lawsuit ending.

So big-time attorneys get the benefit of all the front-end publicity, with little downside on the back end.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 29, 2024 by smac97

[Analytics]

9 hours ago, smac97 said:

It is when you present "their expertise in this type of lawsuit" as evidence that the MDL plaintiffs' complaint has merit.

I didn’t present that as legal evidence.

9 hours ago, smac97 said:

Suing a well-known-but-controversial religion will garner plenty of publicity at the outset of the case, and some during the pendency of it. 

I don’t see much value in that type of publicity.

[Robert F. Smith]

On 8/28/2024 at 8:23 AM, Analytics said:

I would estimate that about 99% of the Churches ranches and farms are simply businesses that grow corn and beef to be sold on the open market and are for-profit businesses in the same way that KSL, Deseret Book, and City Creek Mall are for-profit businesses. The Church doesn’t have the capacity to give away a fraction of the food it produces. Not even close.

I seem to recall that Church Philanthropies says just the opposite (never sold), but perhaps I'm wrong.  LDS Philanthropies actually makes contributions to Catholic Relief, and the Seventh Day Adventists, both of whom have worldwide ops -- which we do not have on the same scale.  I rented in an SDA bldg in Jerusalem half-century ago, and SDA doctors and nurses used to come through there and tell what they were doing.  It was amazing.  We mustn't underestimate what our Church actually does.

You may recall that Hugh Nibley (age 12) had an appendectomy at the SDA hospital in Loma LInda, California (they have 1,000 such facilities worldwide).  That's when Hugh had his NDE experience.

[Robert F. Smith]

On 8/28/2024 at 9:11 AM, Calm said:

Robert, great to see you!  I can’t believe you haven’t posted since 2022.  I missed you. 

I have missed you too, Calm, but have been very busy.

[InCognitus]

11 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I have missed you too, Calm, but have been very busy.

I'm glad your back too (but I do understand being busy).  Stick around if possible!

[Analytics]

8 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I seem to recall that Church Philanthropies says just the opposite (never sold), but perhaps I'm wrong. 

That the food the Church grows is never sold? I don’t see how that could possibly be true.

As a reference, the Church claims it gives away about a billion dollars every year in humanitarian causes, and it appears that fast offerings are counted as part of that.

Meanwhile, the Church owns about 2.3 million acres of farm land. If the average acre grows 170 bushels of corn at $6.00 per bushel, that’s about $1,000 of food per acre per year. That means 2.3 million acres grows $2.3 billion worth of food. Its giving report would look much different if it was giving that all away.  

8 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

We mustn't underestimate what our Church actually does.

I agree 100%.

[Tacenda]

Good to see you again Robert! Hope it's been a good busy that kept you away!

[smac97]

Trib update on the MDL lawsuit: Having billions in reserves is not fraud, LDS Church and its investment firm argue

Quote

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its investment arm have mounted their toughest defenses to date in a multipronged effort to persuade a federal judge to toss out a lawsuit by current and disaffected members over tithing.

In new briefs filed late Tuesday, the Utah-based faith says the plaintiffs pressing a would-be class-action case accusing it of fraud over the sacred donations are now seeking to breach ironclad legal shields forged under the First Amendment, which church lawyers contend bars such intrusions into its religious affairs by the courts.

Here are links to the three briefs referenced above which were filed this week, along with an outline of each motion's "Argument" section:

Doc. 79: MOTION TO DISMISS OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS, A UTAH CORPORATION SOLE AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT

I. THE CHURCH MANAGES ITS FINANCES IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE LAWS AND REGULATIONS GOVERNING CHURCHES AND OTHER CHARITIES

II. THE CHURCH AUTONOMY DOCTRINE BARS PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS

-A. The Church Autonomy Doctrine Bars Suits Over Control Of Church Finances
-B. The Church Autonomy Doctrine Protects A Church’s Decisions About The Degree Of Financial Disclosure To Members
-C. Plaintiffs’ Requested Relief Plainly Violates The Church Autonomy Doctrine

III. PLAINTIFFS FAIL TO STATE A CLAIM

-A. Plaintiffs Fail To State A Claim For Breach Of Fiduciary Duty
--1. The Church Does Not Owe Plaintiffs A Fiduciary Duty
--2. Plaintiffs Have Not Pled Any Breach Of An Alleged Fiduciary Duty
--3. Plaintiffs Lack Standing To Pursue A Claim For Breach Of Fiduciary Duty

-B. Plaintiffs Fail To State A Claim For Fraudulent Inducement Or Fraudulent Misrepresentation
--1. Fraudulent Inducement (Count 2)—Plaintiffs Fail To Plead Falsity
--2. Fraudulent Misrepresentation (Count 4)—Plaintiffs Fail To Plead Falsity
--3. Counts 2 And 4—Plaintiffs Fail To Adequately Plead Reliance

-C. Plaintiffs Fail To State A Claim For Fraudulent Concealment
--1. The Church Did Not Owe Plaintiffs A Duty Of Disclosure
--2. Plaintiffs Do Not Plead And Cannot Establish Materiality

-D. Plaintiffs Fail To Plead Unjust Enrichment

IV. PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS ARE TIME-BARRED

-A. Utah’s Three-Year Statute Of Limitations Applies To Plaintiffs’ Fraud Claims
-B. Plaintiffs’ Fraud Claims Accrued More Than Three Years Before Plaintiffs Filed Suit
-C. Equitable Tolling Does Not Apply
-D. Plaintiffs’ Claim For Breach Of Fiduciary Duty Is Barred
-E. Plaintiffs’ Unjust Enrichment Claim Is Also Time-Barred

Doc. 80: MOTION TO DISMISS OF ENSIGN PEAK ADVISORS, INC. AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT

I. PLAINTIFFS FAIL TO PLEAD A CLAIM FOR BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY AGAINST ENSIGN PEAK

II. PLAINTIFFS FAIL TO PLEAD A CLAIM FOR FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT AGAINST ENSIGN PEAK 
-A. Plaintiffs Identify No Representation Made To Them By Ensign Peak 
-B. The Statements In Ensign Peak’s Articles Of Incorporation Are True
-C. Plaintiffs Make No Allegations Of Reliance On Any Representation By Ensign Peak

III. PLAINTIFFS FAIL TO PLEAD A CLAIM FOR FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT AGAINST ENSIGN PEAK

-A. Ensign Peak Did Not Have A Duty Of Disclosure 
-B. Plaintiffs Fail To Plead Materiality, And The Church Autonomy Doctrine Otherwise Prohibits The Court From Determining What Material To A “Reasonable” Church Member In Deciding To Give Tithes 

IV. PLAINTIFFS DO NOT STATE A CLAIM AGAINST ENSIGN PEAK FOR FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION

V. PLAINTIFFS DO NOT STATE A CLAIM AGAINST ENSIGN PEAK FOR UNJUST ENRICHMENT 

VI. PLAINTIFFS’ ALLEGATIONS REGARDING ENSIGN PEAK’S SEC DISCLOSURES AND IRS FILINGS ARE UNRELATED TO PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS 

VII. PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS ARE ALSO BARRED BY THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS 

Doc. 81: DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STRIKE CLASS ALLEGATIONS AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT

A. Plaintiffs And Current Members Of The Church Have Inherent Conflicts Vis-à-Vis Their Core Religious Beliefs And Relationship To And With The Church

-1. The Inherent Conflicts Of Interest Between Plaintiffs And Proposed Class Members Render Plaintiffs Unable To Adequately Represent The Proposed Class
--a. Spiritual Interests And Core Religious Beliefs
--b. Church Autonomy And Governance 
--c. Support Of The Church As An Organization 
-2. The High Volume Of Anticipated Opt-Outs Confirms These Common Sense Insights Into The Inherent Conflicts That Beset The Proposed Class

B. Class Certification Would Independently Violate The First Amendment By Forcing The Disclosure Of The Identities Of Donors As Well As The Amount Of Their Donations

---

A lot to unpack here.  A few thoughts/observations:

1. The first Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 79) leans heavily into the Church's status as a religious institution.  This is a smart move, as it counters the MDL plaintiffs' efforts to characterize their lawsuit as being merely/purely a secular dispute over money.  This sets the stage for the application of the Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine and associated First Amendment protections.  From p. 3 of Doc 79: 

Quote

{W}ith its bald assertion that the Church’s financial reserves are too large, Plaintiffs’ lawsuit is nothing less than a frontal assault on the Church’s doctrine and the right of its ecclesiastical leaders to discern how God wants the Church to carry out its mission. As demonstrated below, whether couched as fraud or any of their other tenuous claims, the First Amendment bars Plaintiffs’ causes of action and their requested relief.

I am glad - and not at all surprised - to see this.  The Church is, in the main, a wonderful and kind institution.  When it is in a legal dispute, however, it must vigorously voice its rights, arguments and reasoning.

2. I have previously noted the oddity of this lawsuit alleging a financial scandal involving a church not spending enough of its money, as the typical "scandal" almost always goes entirely the other way.  Doc 79 makes this same observation:

Quote

In 2019, a self-styled “whistleblower” published an “exposé” he called “Letter to an IRS Director” that kindled controversy over the Church’s finances.  The crux of the IRS Letter was that the Church’s reserve fund was too big and too secret. Plaintiffs base their claims on this letter.
...
Plaintiffs cloak their claims in the language of fraud, but they are nothing like the oft-publicized cases where a minister fleeces the flock to line his own pockets. Like the IRS Letter, Plaintiffs allege only that the Church is saving too much and doing so in secret. As one historian wrote in response to the IRS Letter:

Quote

[I]t is important to note, as does Forbes’ Peter J. Reilly, “Most financial scandals involving churches involve the people running them looting them, not the church saving up too much money. There is nothing... that indicates that LDS leadership is enriching itself.” Indeed... there has been a remarkable lack of financial scandal in [T]he Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.2

The “critical material fact,” Plaintiffs say, is that a “portion of donations made to [the Church] are not applied to” religion and charity but are, instead, placed in the Church’s reserves and invested for future use. Consol. Compl. ¶¶ 47-48. Plaintiffs contend they “did not believe and had no reason to ever suspect that [the Church] would take any portion of their donations and invest it.” Id. ¶ 132.

But Plaintiffs identify no fraud. Having and investing reserve funds is not fraud.
...
2 Kathleen Flake, Mormonism and its Money, University of Virginia (Morman Studies) .

(I also note the typo in the footnote ("Morman").  Even the best legal writing can have an error or two slip by.)

3. Section I of Doc 79 is quite good.  Supported by extensive citations to legal authorities, it notes that

• "{s}ome mistakenly believe 'charitable' means only helping the poor and needy," but that "the 'advancement of religion' is also charity,"
• states that there is "nothing improper" in a religious institution "investing in 'noncharitable activities,'"
• cites to prior efforts to a 1960 case, Stone v. Salt Lake City, 356 P.2d 631 (Utah 1960), in which the plaintiff, a member of the Church, had "objected to the Church’s investment in a Salt Lake City mall—City Creek’s predecessor—saying (much like Plaintiffs here) that 'funds collected by the Church must be used for religious and charitable purposes,' not for investments in for-profit pursuits," and that the Utah Supreme Court had held that "of course donations must 'ultimately be applied to the purposes for which the [Church] exists and for which the funds were donated,' but 'it is obvious that all of the funds the Church collects would not be disbursed immediately and directly for such purposes,'" and that this is "common sense and common knowledge."

4. Section II of Doc 79 does a deep dive into the Church Autonomy / Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine.  Quite long, and very well-written.

5. Section III of Doc 79 attacks the MDL plaintiffs' "fiduciary duty" and "unjust enrichment" and "fraud" claims.  I have previously commented on this quite a bit.  These arguments do not rely on the First Amendment / Church Autonomy / Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine stuff at all, and are an independent basis for dismissal. 

6. I am particularly pleased to see, in Section III of Doc 79, a critique of the MDL plaintiffs' fraud claims.  I have a lot of professional experience in litigating fraud in Utah, and was surprised that this critique was not more robustly advanced in the Huntsman lawsuit.  The argument is that the MDL plaintiffs have failed to adequately plead the "falsity" and "reliance" elements of a fraud claim.  

7. Section IV of Doc 79 addresses statute of limitations issues, which appear to be substantial.  The limitations period is three years from the date the plaintiffs had “actual knowledge of the fraud or by reasonable diligence and inquiry should know, the relevant facts of the fraud.”  The statements by the Church are decades old.  And the latest potential date for them would be the December 2019 to early 2020 "whistleblower" thing.  Ironically, the Church's Motion cites to Huntsman's and Gaddy's lawsuits as examples of (potentially) timely lawsuits.  

8. Doc 80 is EPA's Motion to Dismiss, and right out of the gate it strongly critiques fraud claims against EPA.  The sine qua non of a fraud claim is a false representation by Party X to Party Y.  Here, Party Y (the MDL plaintiffs) have not alleged any representation from Party X (EPA). 

9. Section I Doc 80 argues that EPA owes no fiduciary duty to the MDL plaintiffs.  I think this is correct.  

10. Doc. 81 is a "Motion to Strike."  I have only rarely worked on such motions, and never in this sort of litigation or context.  The Motion argues that the MDL plaintiffs, "Plaintiffs—a handful of disaffected and (mostly) former Church members," are asking the court to let them litigate against the Church on behalf of "millions of persons—most of whom are faithful Church members—who have donated to the Church since 1998, without regard for the relationship each of those persons has with the Church or their current religious beliefs," so as to "turn every faithful, tithe-paying Church member in the United States into legal adversaries of the Church, seeking both injunctive relief as well as money damages."  The plaintiffs' claims, the Motion states, are "unsuitable for class treatment, given the inherent conflicts of interest between the named Plaintiffs and most members of the proposed class" because they (the plaintiffs) "must show that at every point in the litigation, they 'will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class," and that they cannot do so because of these conflicts of interest, which center on the fact that "the vast majority of putative class members are faithful Church members who give tithes as a fundamental part of their faith and who not only oppose this lawsuit but view it as an attack on their own religious beliefs, their Church and the Church leaders they support."

11. I have been waiting for some months to see how the Church would structure its legal arguments in seeking a dismissal of the MDL lawsuit.  These motions do a very good job of advancing the legal arguments available to the Church.  The Motions leave essentially no stone unturned.  In this context, legal arguments are far more important than factual or policy arguments.  The judge is being asked to dismiss the MDL lawsuits based on the law, even with a "benefit of the doubt" being given to the plaintiffs' factual claims.  

Back to the Trib article:

Quote

Not only does that legal quest clash with the well-established legal precedent of church autonomy, lawyers argue, but the claims have also missed a crucial deadline — coming as they have more than four years after an IRS whistleblower’s explosive revelations about the worldwide faith’s finances.

I will be curious whether Judge Shelby, if he dismisses the MDL lawsuit, will keep the basis for dismissal narrow (such as dismissing only due to statute of limitations issues), or whether he will take a "belt and suspenders" approach and evaluate and apply each of the Church's independently-stated grounds for dismissal.  

Quote

In three separate legal salvos, the church and Ensign Peak say the suit should be thrown out of court as a flagrant attack on religious liberties enshrined in the U.S. Constitution.

“Plaintiffs cloak their claims in the language of fraud,” church lawyers argue, “but they are nothing like the oft-publicized cases where a minister fleeces the flock to line their own pockets.

“Like the IRS [whistleblower],” they add, “plaintiffs allege only that the church is saving too much and doing so in secret.”

But having and investing reserve funds do not amount to fraud, church attorneys say. Plaintiffs might allege financial malfeasance, but their suit is really about competing views “of what should be done with church money and who gets to say so.”

“Whether the church is ‘hoarding’ or wisely preparing for the future depends on one’s vision of the church’s future and faith in its teachings and leaders,” the filing says. “But the First Amendment resolves that power struggle, by giving churches autonomy in making decisions regarding their own affairs.’"

Yep.

As a Latter-day Saint, I am admittedly biased in favor of the Church.  I admire it and its teachings and efforts, and its leaders, and its members.  Whatever its flaws and mistakes (institutionally, executively, and amongst the members), the Church is overwhelmingly good and decent.

That said, I do try to look at litigation against the Church as objectively as possible.  My first experience in attempting this came when I was in law school, during which period the Main Street Plaza dispute was in full swing.  My real property professor, John Fee, one day made an offhand remark about how the Church's granting of an easement had created a legal quandary.  I approached him afterwards and asked him how the easement could be legal if it restricted speech on the public easement.  He said something like "I don't think the Church can restrict speech on the easement.  The arrangement it made with Salt Lake City was likely a mistake." 

This was an epiphanic moment for me.  I was speaking to a BYU law professor about a legal issue involving the Church, and I think I subconsciously expected to hear him formulate a legal argument that would let the Church come out on top.  Instead, he simply looked at the facts and the law, and came to an objective and clinical (and preliminary) conclusion that the Church's legal position was weak or wrong.  And as it turns out, he was right.

I am trying to do the same thing here.  If the Church's position in the MDL lawsuit was weak or wrong, I am not doing myself or anyone else any favors by providing a biased or distorted assessment of the goings-on in the case.  I think the Church's legal position is quite strong, and that the above three motions are the beginning of the end of the MDL lawsuit.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 12, 2024 by smac97

[Calm]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

III. PLAINTIFFS FAIL TO STATE A CLAIM

-A. Plaintiffs Fail To State A Claim For Breach Of Fiduciary Duty
--1. The Church Does Not Owe Plaintiffs A Fiduciary Duty
--2. Plaintiffs Have Not Pled Any Breach Of An Alleged Fiduciary Duty
--3. Plaintiffs Lack Standing To Pursue A Claim For Breach Of Fiduciary Duty

-B. Plaintiffs Fail To State A Claim For Fraudulent Inducement Or Fraudulent Misrepresentation
--1. Fraudulent Inducement (Count 2)—Plaintiffs Fail To Plead Falsity
--2. Fraudulent Misrepresentation (Count 4)—Plaintiffs Fail To Plead Falsity
--3. Counts 2 And 4—Plaintiffs Fail To Adequately Plead Reliance

-C. Plaintiffs Fail To State A Claim For Fraudulent Concealment
--1. The Church Did Not Owe Plaintiffs A Duty Of Disclosure
--2. Plaintiffs Do Not Plead And Cannot Establish Materiality

-D. Plaintiffs Fail To Plead Unjust Enrichment

Why bring these up if not mentioned by plaintiffs?  Or does “fail to state” mean “fail to provide” here meaning a claim was made, but not supported by anything?

Edited September 12, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

belt and suspenders

“Belt and braces”, please, is the correct idiom! (Yes, I realize you often have to explain that “braces” is another word for “suspenders”, but the alliteration, man!  Anything else is just unacceptable.)

Edited September 12, 2024 by Calm

[smac97]

13 minutes ago, Calm said:

“Belt and braces”, please, is the correct idiom! (Yes, I realize you often have to explain that “braces” is another word for “suspenders”, but the alliteration, man!  Anything else is just unacceptable.)

Heh:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/belt-and-suspenders

Quote

belt-and-suspenders

adjective

 

US

: involving or employing multiple methods or procedures to achieve a desired result especially out of caution or fear of failure

 

[Calm]

Technically that is correct; it is the esthetic value that pushes “belt and braces” up to the only true and living idiom here, the way it rolls off the tongue…the clunky “belt and suspenders” will never reach the glory of “belt and braces”.   
 

***”belt and braces” is one of my favorite idioms to use ever since I heard one of my grandparents use it. My grandpa called his suspenders braces, so its meaning was always clear to me.   I am definitely a “belt and braces” type of person and have been since at least a teen.

Edited September 12, 2024 by Calm

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Why bring these up if not mentioned by plaintiffs?  

These matters have been "mentioned by plaintiffs."  In legalese, "failure to state a claim" means "failure to state {a legally viable} claim" for the court to review.  This failure can be attributable to insufficiently-articulated factual averments, or to legal theories, or both.

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Or does “fail to state” mean “fail to provide” here meaning a claim was made, but not supported by anything?

It means that the legal claims have not been sufficiently articulated and submitted to the Court, or else that even if the legal claims are sufficiently articulated, there are legal reasons the claims cannot proceed (statute of limitations, Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine, etc.).

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 12, 2024 by smac97

[Kenngo1969]

On 9/11/2024 at 10:37 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

I seem to recall that Church Philanthropies says just the opposite (never sold), but perhaps I'm wrong.  LDS Philanthropies actually makes contributions to Catholic Relief, and the Seventh Day Adventists, both of whom have worldwide ops -- which we do not have on the same scale.  I rented in an SDA bldg in Jerusalem half-century ago, and SDA doctors and nurses used to come through there and tell what they were doing.  It was amazing.  We mustn't underestimate what our Church actually does.

You may recall that Hugh Nibley (age 12) had an appendectomy at the SDA hospital in Loma LInda, California (they have 1,000 such facilities worldwide).  That's when Hugh had his NDE experience.

He decloaks!*   (*It's a Star Trek/Trekkie term: A ship that is "cloaked" is invisible.  It would need to decloak to become visible.)  Good to "Cyber-see" you, Brother.  I had been wondering if you're OK.   

[Kenngo1969]

 Arrrrrrgh!!!  

I realize this is probably one of those "either-is-correct" instances, but the past tense of "plead" is "pleaded."  Come on, K-M!  

Sorry.    Personal pet-peeve.   We now return you to your regularly-scheduled, on-topic programming.

[Kenngo1969]

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

* * * [Here, asterisks, in legal writing, are the equivalent of ellipses (...), noting content that, for brevity, has been removed]

3. Section I of Doc 79 is quite good.  Supported by extensive citations to legal authorities, it notes that

* * *

• cites to prior efforts to a 1960 case, Stone v. Salt Lake City, 356 P.2d 631 (Utah 1960), in which the plaintiff, a member of the Church, had "objected to the Church’s investment in a Salt Lake City mall—City Creek’s predecessor—saying (much like Plaintiffs here) that 'funds collected by the Church must be used for religious and charitable purposes,' not for investments in for-profit pursuits," and that the Utah Supreme Court had held that "of course donations must 'ultimately be applied to the purposes for which the [Church] exists and for which the funds were donated,' but 'it is obvious that all of the funds the Church collects would not be disbursed immediately and directly for such purposes,'" and that this is "common sense and common knowledge."

* * * 

ZCMI, I wonder?

 

[Robert F. Smith]

On 9/13/2024 at 4:25 AM, Kenngo1969 said:

He decloaks!*   (*It's a Star Trek/Trekkie term: A ship that is "cloaked" is invisible.  It would need to decloak to become visible.)  Good to "Cyber-see" you, Brother.  I had been wondering if you're OK.   

I have missed your wry comments

[Kenngo1969]

1 minute ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I have missed your wry comments

Me ... wry???   Heh.   

[Robert F. Smith]

On 9/12/2024 at 7:26 AM, Analytics said:

That the food the Church grows is never sold? I don’t see how that could possibly be true.

As a reference, the Church claims it gives away about a billion dollars every year in humanitarian causes, and it appears that fast offerings are counted as part of that.

Meanwhile, the Church owns about 2.3 million acres of farm land. If the average acre grows 170 bushels of corn at $6.00 per bushel, that’s about $1,000 of food per acre per year. That means 2.3 million acres grows $2.3 billion worth of food. Its giving report would look much different if it was giving that all away.  

..............

I don't have the time to research that, but perhaps someone else can take a closer look.

[Calm]

This newsroom article from 2016 calls Desert Cattle and Citrus a commercial operation, not a welfare one.   Mentions they sell their citrus to juice companies, etc. There is a distinction made between welfare farms which donate the products and commercial ones which are for the purpose of making money now and possibly using the products in the future for welfare.
 

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/church-ranch-balances-agriculture-conservation-central-florida

Quote

 

 

Deseret Cattle and Citrus is one of the Church’s investment farms, which operate as taxable commercial ventures. Unlike the Church’s welfare farms, which provide food and commodities for bishops’ storehouses to help the poor and needy, investment farms and ranches support the Church’s mission and principles by serving as a rainy-day fund. In administering Church financial resources, Church leaders practice the same sound economic principles they teach, such as avoiding debt, living within one’s means and setting aside savings for a rainy day.

Former Church President Gordon B. Hinckley (1910–2008) explained why the Church invests a portion of its rainy-day savings in farms and ranches:

Prudent management requires that [the reserves of the Church] be put to use. In that process, we have purchased and hold some good, productive farms. They are well operated under capable management, and they yield a conservative rate of return. We have felt that good farms, over a long period, represent a safe investment where the assets of the Church may be preserved and enhanced, while at the same time they are available as an agricultural resource to feed people should there come a time of need.

 

 

Cattle and Citrus

 

 

“Our core business is cattle production,” emphasizes Jacobsen, who began his career at the ranch as a cowboy in the mid-1980s. The ranch maintains a herd of approximately 45,000 beef cattle and has developed its own breeds that are well adapted to Florida’s semi-tropical climate.

“The temperatures and humidity can be pretty tough on cattle at times,” observes ranch operations manager David Genho, “so we’ve developed breeds that leverage the positive characteristics of Angus, Brahman, Simmental, Red Poll and South Devon.”

Deseret has over 1,600 acres of citrus with approximately 200,000 trees. Juice oranges, mostly Valencias, are the mainstay of the groves and are sold to large juice plants in Florida. Other varieties include navel oranges, Sunburst tangerines and Orlando tangelos for the fresh market.

 

 

Edited September 14, 2024 by Calm

[supersc]

The Stake welfare farm in Colorado near Hudson, for years, grew "cash crops" like potatoes, which were sold and the money going into the welfare system.

[Analytics]

16 hours ago, supersc said:

The Stake welfare farm in Colorado near Hudson, for years, grew "cash crops" like potatoes, which were sold and the money going into the welfare system.

That is the economically efficient way to do it.