Update on Huntsman Lawsuit: Ninth Circuit Reverses Trial Court

[Analytics]

9 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think you are better of assessing the law as it exists, not as you think it ought to be.  The former is more likely to yield an accurate prediction, whereas the latter is mostly wishful thinking.

I'm not an attorney and I have no knowledge or insight into this aspect of the law. My acknowledgement of this fact isn’t wishful thinking.

What is wishful thinking is your opinion that Judge Shelby will grant the Church’s motion to dismiss based on the church autonomy doctrine. 

When are you going to address Judge Shelby’s analysis of the church autonomy doctrine as it applies to this case that is at adds with your own analysis?

Here is a link to the post you are ignoring. For reference, I said:

Quote

 

Judge Shelby concluded that with regards to the alleged lies about how tithing would be spent, Gaddy's theory “is based on a secular dispute” and that "the church autonomy doctrine does not apply as a defense."

Here is what Judge Shelby said in context:

As alleged in the Amended Complaint, the court concludes Gaddy's third alternative civil RICO theory is based on a secular dispute concerning statements by Church leadership about the specific ways tithing, once received, would in fact be spent. Justice Jackson provided a helpful example in his dissenting Ballard opinion in the context of criminal convictions based on misrepresentations of religious beliefs. There, he distinguished liability for fraud based on religious expressions with liability based on the misuse of donations, stating: "I do not doubt that religious leaders may be convicted of fraud for making false representations on matters other than faith or experience, as for example if one represents that funds are being used to construct a church when in fact they are being used for personal purposes." 

This example highlights the distinction between the religious teachings behind the principle of tithing, and the Church's statements to its members about its use of tithing proceeds. 

Here, Gaddy does not challenge the Church's tithing doctrine or teachings related to it. The court does not read her Amended Complaint to advance a claim that the doctrine is false. Gaddy instead points to specific factual statements allegedly made by the Church through its representatives concerning the Church's use of tithing funds and alleges those statements are false. The inquiry required to adjudicate this claim does not implicate religious principles of the Church or the truth of the Church's beliefs concerning the doctrine of tithing. This claim further does not require the court to determine whether the Church or its members were acting in accord with what they perceived to be the commandments of their faith. Gaddy has instead challenged secular representations concerning the use of money received by the Church. While the statements were made by Church officials, the church autonomy doctrine does not apply as a defense. The Church has not asserted any other challenge to Gaddy's RICO claim based on this alternative theory of liability. Accordingly, Gaddy's RICO claim based only on this alternative theory survives the Church's Motion to Dismiss...

The Motion [to dismiss] is DENIED as to Gaddy's third alternative civil RICO theory of liability relating to alleged misrepresentations concerning the Church's use of tithing.

(page 17 of Shelby’s July 28, 2021 decision)

What am I missing here? Why do you think the chances are "very low" that Judge Shelby will be consistent and apply the law in this class action case in the same way he did in Gaddy?

 

 

[Analytics]

[duplicate]

Edited September 24, 2024 by Analytics

[Analytics]

[duplicate]

Edited September 24, 2024 by Analytics

[edvantageous]

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

There isn’t a cartoon depiction of a stock broker that says, “The biggest use of tithing is to purchase stocks, bonds, and commercial real estate in an unnecessarily gargantuan, exorbitant reserve fund that is never used for anything."

@Analytics:
You have made this statement many times in this thread and other related discussions. Please provide the source for this. Thanks,
Ed

[Analytics]

31 minutes ago, edvantageous said:

@Analytics:
You have made this statement many times in this thread and other related discussions. Please provide the source for this. Thanks,
Ed

My source is the report The Widow’s Mite: A Report on the State of Wealth in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: 2023 Update.

On page 7 of that report, it shows their estimate of income and expenses. Including all donations and investment income, they estimate that in 2023 they had about $32.3 billion in income, of which about 77% ($24.5 billion) was used to grow the size of the investment portfolio.

Edited September 24, 2024 by Analytics

[smac97]

4 hours ago, Analytics said:

I'm not an attorney and I have no knowledge or insight into this aspect of the law.

But you are an intelligent fellow who can read case law and come to at least somewhat informed conclusions about what the law is and how it is likely to be applied.  However, to do so you must approach the case based on the law as it exists, not based on how you think the law should operate.

4 hours ago, Analytics said:

My acknowledgement of this fact isn’t wishful thinking.

Your comments in this thread endlessly meander into abstractions about what you think the law should say, rather than what it does say.  That is the "wishful thinking" to which I am referring.

4 hours ago, Analytics said:

What is wishful thinking is your opinion that Judge Shelby will grant the Church’s motion to dismiss based on the church autonomy doctrine. 

We'll see, I suppose.

Judge Gaddy applied the Church Autonomy Doctrine in Gaddy (in 2021):

Quote

In a March 31, 2020, Memorandum Decision and Order (the Prior Order), the court granted the Church's motion and dismissed Gaddy's original Complaint without prejudice, concluding the First Amendment's Religion Clauses barred each of Gaddy's claims. The Religion Clauses provide in part, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof[.]" The court acknowledged "[t]he free exercise of religion means, first and foremost, the right to believe and profess whatever religious doctrine one desires." To effectuate these rights "courts have long held that the truth or falsity of religious beliefs are beyond the scope of judicial review." The court's ruling relied upon "the fundamental right of churches to ‘decide for themselves, free from state interference, matters of church government as well as those of faith and doctrine. ’ " This doctrine is known as the church autonomy doctrine.

But the court also recognized in its Prior Order that the church autonomy doctrine "is not without limits." Churches may not invoke the doctrine to shield purely secular decisions. To determine whether the church autonomy doctrine applies in any given instance, courts must decide whether the dispute presented "is an ecclesiastical one about discipline, faith, internal organization, or ecclesiastical rule, custom or law, or whether it is a case in which we should hold religious organizations liable in civil courts for purely secular disputes between third parties and a particular defendant, albeit a religiously affiliated organization."

I think he will apply it in the present case as well.  He won't apply it will-nilly or in a catch-all manner, but he will apply it in the ways it is supposed to be applied.

4 hours ago, Analytics said:

When are you going to address Judge Shelby’s analysis of the church autonomy doctrine as it applies to this case that is at adds with your own analysis?

I have been doing that.  A lot.

4 hours ago, Analytics said:

Here is a link to the post you are ignoring. For reference, I said:

Quote

Judge Shelby concluded that with regards to the alleged lies about how tithing would be spent, Gaddy's theory “is based on a secular dispute” and that "the church autonomy doctrine does not apply as a defense."

Question: Judge Shelby's comment here, that "the church autonomy doctrine does not apply as a defense," applies to what claim in Gaddy?

Answer: To Gaddy's claim under the civil RICO statute, which at the time (in 2021) Judge Shelby allowed to proceed:

Quote

As alleged in the Amended Complaint, the court concludes Gaddy's third alternative civil RICO theory is based on a secular dispute concerning statements by Church leadership about the specific ways tithing, once received, would in fact be spent.

Question: Did the MDL plaintiffs include a civil RICO claim in their complaint?

Answer: No.  The claims are: 

• (1) Common Law Breach of Fiduciary Duty (based, oddly enough, on a statute (the Charitable Solicitations Act), not on common law),
• (2) Fraudulent Inducement (based on common law / tort law, not on the RICO statute),
• (3) Fraudulent Concealment (based on common law / tort law, not on the RICO statute),
• (4) Fraudulent Misrepresentation (based on common law / tort law, not on the RICO statute),
• (5) Unjust Enrichment (based on common law / tort law, not on the RICO statute).

Question: So why is Analytics invoking Judge Shelby's Gaddy analysis about civil RICO when he is discussing the MDL lawsuit?

Answer: I don't know.  You'll have to ask him.  I suspect he has not read the Gaddy decisions carefully, and/or is letting his antipathy against the Church unduly affect his interpretation of both the Gaddy and MDL lawsuits.

Question: Is the Church Autonomy Doctrine a defense to a properly-pleaded civil RICO claim?

Answer: No, just as it is not a defense to a properly-pleaded fraud claim, or any other properly-pleaded - and purely secular - claim against the Church.  But the Church Autonomy Doctrine can apply to improperly pleaded civil RICO claims, and to any other claim that is not "purely secular" (I am being a bit redundant here, since "purely secular" is part and parcel of "properly pleading" a claim against a religious group).  Judge Shelby said as much (in 2021):

Quote

The court also dismissed Gaddy's civil RICO and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims because, as pled, they necessarily implicated the veracity of the Church's teachings. Gaddy predicated her civil RICO claim on mail and wire fraud relying on the Church's alleged misrepresentation of facts related to Joseph Smith's First Vision, the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham. But the court concluded the Church could be liable for these predicate acts only if the statements communicated were false.

Judge Shelby let Gaddy amend her Complaint, which included 

Quote

a new alternative theory of liability for Gaddy's civil RICO claim based on misrepresentations to members concerning the Church's use of tithing. Gaddy now pleads as an independent basis for RICO liability that the Church misleads its members by falsely assuring them tithing funds are used only for "Church expenses and humanitarian aid." 
...
The court previously dismissed Gaddy's civil RICO claim. She reasserts the claim in her Amended Complaint, but includes in the amended claim a new alternative theory of liability. Gaddy's new theory is based on statements by Church leaders related to the use of tithing funds, i.e., that the funds would not be used for commercial purposes. Gaddy alleges these statements were false because tithing funds were in fact used for commercial purposes, including the development of the commercial City Creek Mall in Salt Lake City, Utah.

"The elements of a civil RICO claim are: (1) investment in, control of, or conduct of (2) an enterprise (3) through a pattern (4) of racketeering activity." Racketeering activity is defined as "any act which is indictable under federal law and specifically includes mail fraud, wire fraud and racketeering." These underlying acts are commonly called "predicate acts." The predicate acts forming the basis for Gaddy's RICO claim are mail and wire fraud. In its Prior Order, the Court dismissed Gaddy's civil RICO claim because it rested on theories that depended on the truth or falsity of the Church's religious statements communicated through the mails and wires.

Gaddy's new theory alleges the Church made misstatements of fact through the mail and wire communications about how the Church used or planned to use tithing funds. Gaddy alleges the Church used several billion dollars of principal tithing funds for profit-making business entity expenses, including the development of City Creek Mall. She further alleges the Church simultaneously and falsely assured members that "tithing funds have not and will not be used to acquire [the mall]. Nor will they be used in developing it for commercial purposes."
...
As alleged in the Amended Complaint, the court concludes Gaddy's third alternative civil RICO theory is based on a secular dispute concerning statements by Church leadership about the specific ways tithing, once received, would in fact be spent.
...
Here, Gaddy does not challenge the Church's tithing doctrine or teachings related to it. The court does not read her Amended Complaint to advance a claim that the doctrine is false. Gaddy instead points to specific factual statements allegedly made by the Church through its representatives concerning the Church's use of tithing funds and alleges those statements are false. The inquiry required to adjudicate this claim does not implicate  religious principles of the Church or the truth of the Church's beliefs concerning the doctrine of tithing. This claim further does not require the court to determine whether the Church or its members were acting in accord with what they perceived to be the commandments of their faith. Gaddy has instead challenged secular representations concerning the use of money received by the Church. While the statements were made by Church officials, the church autonomy doctrine does not apply as a defense.

Question: But all this was in 2021.  What happened to the civil RICO claim after that but before the hearing on 9/23/24?

Answer: Judge Shelby dismissed Gaddy's civil RICO claim in 2023, though on grounds other than the Church Autonomy Doctrine:

Quote

The court agrees with the Church that Plaintiffs have failed to plead a cognizable civil RICO claim.283 "The elements of a civil RICO claim are (1) investment in, control of, or conduct of (2) an enterprise (3) through a pattern (4) of racketeering activity." "Racketeering activity is defined ... as any 'act which is indictable' under federal law and specifically includes mail fraud, wire fraud and racketeering." These underlying acts are referred to as "predicate acts."
...
283. The Church's earlier Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint raised no arguments concerning the merits of the Amended Complaint's civil RICO claim, because the Motion focused entirely on the church autonomy doctrine issue. See Dkt. 38. Because the court concluded the tithing claims in the Amended Complaint concerned a secular issue, and in the absence of any additional argument about the civil RICO claim, the claim survived. In its Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint, the Church supplies extensive arguments on why the civil RICO claim fails on the merits. Faced with a different pleading and different arguments in a Motion to Dismiss, the court reaches a different conclusion.
...
In its Motion to Dismiss, the Church argues that to successfully plead a civil RICO claim, a plaintiff must sufficiently plead underlying claims (called "predicate acts"), and because all of Plaintiffs' underlying fraud-based claims fail, the civil RICO claim also fails. Additionally, the Church argues that even if Plaintiffs adequately alleged an underlying predicate act, they have failed to allege a "pattern of racketeering activity," a necessary element of a civil RICO claim. Finally, the Church maintains Plaintiffs have not identified any indictable conduct, which is also a necessary prerequisite for a civil RICO claim.
...

Plaintiffs have failed to allege with the necessary specificity a pattern of predicate acts supporting the civil RICO claim. Plaintiffs allege that the Church "engaged in a scheme or schemes to defraud [Plaintiffs] by concealing the fact that tithing was used for commercial purposes." But Plaintiffs fail to allege even a single actionable instance of fraud, let alone two, because they do not allege any specific instances in which Plaintiffs relied on the Church's representations concerning tithing. In their Opposition, Plaintiffs identify specific allegations in the Second Amended Complaint concerning false statements about tithing:
...
Because Plaintiffs fail to allege even a single predicate act of mail or wire fraud, the court agrees with the Church that Plaintiffs have failed to allege a "pattern" of predicate acts sufficient to plead a cognizable civil RICO claim. Accordingly, the claim fails and must be dismissed.

Question: Why did Judge Shelby initially allow the civil RICO claim to proceed, only to dismiss it later?

Answer: See footnote 283 above.  By 2023, Gaddy had amended her Complaint yet again, and the Church had then included arguments about the civil RICO claim (not based on the Church Autonomy Doctrine), which  Judge Shelby found sufficient to warrant dismissal of the claim.

Question: Has Smac97 ever argued that the Church Autonomy Doctrine applies carte blanche to any and every claim ever asserted against the Church?

Answer: No.  Far from it.  I have repeatedly acknowledged Judge Shelby's observation that the doctrine "is not without limits."  It applies to purely secular disputes and properly-pleaded claims based on those disputes.  This can include properly-pleaded (pled?") statutory claims (such as civil RICO), as well as properly-pleaded common law / tort claims (such as fraud).  The key point here is "properly-pleaded."  Gaddy hasn't done that so far, either as to RICO or fraud claims.  See, e.g., these portions of Judge Shelby's 2023 decision:

Quote

The court has twice considered and rejected Plaintiffs' arguments that fraud-based claims directed towards the Church's alleged misrepresentations and omissions concerning the First Vision, Church History, translations of the Books of Mormon and Abraham, and locations of events in the Book of Mormon are not subject to the church autonomy doctrine. The court also previously rejected Plaintiffs' theory that they can avoid the church autonomy doctrine by arguing the sincerity of the Church's beliefs or basing their claims on a theory of fraudulent omissions. In their Opposition, Plaintiffs point to no newly decided case law or changes in circumstance that would require the court to revisit these conclusions. Accordingly, to the extent the Second Amended Complaint and the parties' arguments concerning the sufficiency of that pleading overlap with factual allegations, arguments, and legal issues previously addressed, the court relies on and incorporates its prior Orders. As such, the court grants the Church's Motion to Dismiss each claim to the extent Plaintiffs' theories arise from the Church's teachings and representations concerning the First Vision, translations of the Books of Mormon and Abraham, and Church history.
...
"To prevail on a claim for fraudulent nondisclosure, a plaintiff must prove by clear and convincing evidence that (1) the defendant had a legal duty to communicate information, (2) the defendant knew of the information he failed to disclose, and (3) the nondisclosed information was material." The court concludes it cannot adjudicate the duty or materiality elements without running afoul of the church autonomy doctrine.
...
The primary failing of the Second Amended Complaint—which was also the primary failing of the original Complaint and Amended Complaint—is that the majority of Plaintiffs' fraud-based claims would require the court, in adjudicating the falsity element, to enter impermissible First Amendment territory.
...
The first element {for a constructive fraud claim, which is "a confidential relationship between the parties"}, as pleaded, would be subject to dismissal for running afoul of the church autonomy doctrine. To show a confidential relationship, a plaintiff must indicate "the circumstances are such that the defendant could exercise extraordinary influence over the plaintiff and the defendant was or should have been aware the plaintiff reposed trust and confidence in the defendant and reasonably relied on defendant's guidance." Thus, the court would have to determine that the Church "could exercise extraordinary influence" over its members, or that it should have been aware its members "reposed trust and confidence" in it, on the basis of its statements to members that "the Lord will never lead its mouthpiece astray." For the court to make that determination, it would necessarily have to consider matters of "church government as well as those of faith and doctrine," an inquiry forbidden by the Religion Clauses. Similarly, to determine whether Plaintiffs "reasonably relied on defendant's guidance," it would have to determine whether a reasonable person would rely on the statement "the Lord will never lead its mouthpiece astray," an inquiry that is also forbidden by the church autonomy doctrine because the court would have to consider the reasonableness of internal statements of religious doctrine.

Question: So will Judge Shelby apply the Church Autonomy Doctrine in the MDL lawsuit?

Answer: Yes.  The Church has specifically invoked this doctrine as a basis for dismissal, and Judge Shelby is pretty much obligated to address it.  However, merely incorporating the doctrine into his adjudication is not a guaranty that he will find it a sufficient basis to bar some or all of the MDL plaintiffs' claims.  

For example, as to the first cause of action ("Common Law Breach of Fiduciary Duty") Judge Shelby might not apply the Church Autonomy Doctrine to allegations regarding the solicitation of tithes (since the CSA is arguably applicable to such claims), but he might apply the doctrine to allegations regarding the post-donation management of tithed funds (because judicial scrutiny of the Church's financial decisions may run afoul of the First Amendment).  Also, the CSA does not create a private right of action for such claims.

Question: Will Judge Shelby apply the Church Autonomy Doctrine to the plaintiffs' fraud-based claims (2nd, 3rd, & 4th causes of action)?   

Answer: Again, he will apply it, but that does not mean the doctrine will necessarily work as a defense.  It does not work as a defense if the fraud-based claims as pled are "purely secular."  I suspect Judge Shelby will find that they are not "purely secular."  In Gaddy, Judge Shelby held that he "cannot adjudicate the duty or materiality elements without running afoul of the church autonomy doctrine."  Every species of fraud includes a requirement that the communication (or the omission) pertain to a "material" fact. 

As to the Second Cause of Action ("Fraudulent inducement"), the plaintiffs make claims that the Church made "false representations" that

• (A) "donated funds would be directed towards charitable purposes,"
• (B) "funds donated to specific church organizations would be directed to those organizations and used exclusively for those purposes,"
• (C) "the 'vast majority' of donated funds would be used for charitable purposes," and
• (D) that the Church "followed all applicable laws regarding its use of donated funds."

I think Judge Shelby may find that examining what does and does not constitute "charitable purposes" (items (A) and (C)) may run afoul of the Church Autonomy Doctrine because "charitable purposes" has a lot to do with "materiality," and Judge Shelby says he "cannot adjudicate the duty or materiality elements without running afoul of the church autonomy doctrine."

Judge Shelby may see items (B) and (D) to qualify as "purely secular" disputes that are not barred by the Church Autonomy Doctrine.  However, these claims are susceptible to dismissal on other grounds (failure to plead with particularity, etc.).

As to the Third Cause of Action ("Fraudulent Concealment"), the supposed "concealment" pertains to the Church's practice of holding and investing some funds.  In Gaddy, it appears that her fraudulent concealment claim was based on the Church's supposed concealment of some aspects of its history, the evaluation of the the "duty" and "materiality" elements of which Judge Shelby concluded he "cannot adjudicate ... without running afoul of the church autonomy doctrine."  So Judge Shelby's holding in Gaddy may not provide much insight as to how he will treat the MDL plaintiff's fraudulent concealment claim, which again is based on financial decisions, and not on church history.  I think he may conclude that no such duty exists at law, and to impose one would violate the Church Autonomy Doctrine.  

As to the Fourth Cause Cause of Action ("Fraudulent Misrepresentation"), the Church Autonomy Doctrine is clearly not an automatic and across-the-board defense to such claims.  Properly-pleaded and "purely secular" fraud claims can be asserted without violating the doctrine.  However, this claim centers on the meaning of "tithing," and I think Judge Shelby might find that a secular court cannot define or re-define this concept without violating the Church Autonomy Doctrine.  In any case, this claim will likely fail for other reasons (pleading defects, statute of limitations, etc.).

As to the Fifth Cause of Action ("Unjust Enrichment"), this claim appears to "sound in fraud."  If so, then the foregoing fraud analysis - possibly including the Church Autonomy Doctrine - would bar this claim as well.

4 hours ago, Analytics said:

Quote

Here is what Judge Shelby said in context:

SNIP

What am I missing here?

The law.   

4 hours ago, Analytics said:

Quote

Why do you think the chances are "very low" that Judge Shelby will be consistent and apply the law in this class action case in the same way he did in Gaddy?

See above.  You are quoting Judge Shelby's adjudication of Gaddy's civil RICO claim.  No such claim is pending in the MDL lawsuit.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 24, 2024 by smac97

[smac97]

11 hours ago, webbles said:

In Siebach, it also says:

Quote

35 We conclude that claims alleging the improper inducement of a charitable donation are distinguishable from claims seeking to enforce donative intent and that improper-inducement claims do not fall within the common-law donor-standing rule. The common-law rule is based on the precept that a donor relinquishes his or her personal interest in an unrestricted charitable gift once the gift is complete, and thereafter it becomes the duty of the attorney general to vindicate the public interest in ensuring that charitable organizations use donated funds appropriately. See Carl J. Herzog Found., Inc. v. University of Bridgeport, 699 A.2d 995, 997–98 (Conn.1997). But, when a donor alleges that fraud or negligent misrepresentation induced a charitable gift, it cannot be said that the donor freely relinquished his or her property to the charity such that only a general public interest in the matter remains. In this case, the Siebachs' Amended Complaint alleges that their donations to the RSA were induced by fraud or negligent misrepresentation. Those claims fall outside the reach of the common-law donor-standing rule, and the district court erred by dismissing them.

Doesn't that match what the plaintiffs are arguing? 

Sort of.  The MDL plaintiffs seem to be arguing both.  They are alleging that the Church did wrong in soliciting tithing and in using tithing.  The common-law donor-standing rule pertains to the latter, not the former.  The former (improper inducement of a charitable donation) might be a cognizable claim because the donation was fraudulently procured.  But if a donation is properly (non-fraudulently) procured, then the common-law donor-standing rule typically operates to bar claims on the use of tithing.

11 hours ago, webbles said:

Or is a "improper inducement claim" different than what they are alleging?

The claims in Siebach essentially sounded in fraud:

Quote

The Siebachs claim that BYU induced their donations with false or misleading statements about how the funds would be used and managed. See generally Crookston v. Fire Ins. Exch., 817 P.2d 789, 800 (Utah 1991) (reciting the elements of fraud); Atkinson v. IHC Hosps., Inc., 798 P.2d 733, 737 (Utah 1990) (discussing negligent misrepresentation claims). The Siebachs emphasize that their fraud and negligent misrepresentation claims differ from their donative-intent claims because they are based on BYU's communications to the Siebachs to induce their donations rather than on the Siebachs' communications to BYU limiting the use of the gifts. Nevertheless, the district court concluded that the fraud and misrepresentation claims were barred by the donor-standing rule because BYU's alleged “bad acts” could be viewed only as “failures in complying with the terms of a gift.”

The MDL plaintiffs are making similar allegations against the Church regarding tithing.  I think these claims fail for a variety of reasons.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

Quote

Quote

There isn’t a cartoon depiction of a stock broker that says, “The biggest use of tithing is to purchase stocks, bonds, and commercial real estate in an unnecessarily gargantuan, exorbitant reserve fund that is never used for anything."

@Analytics:
You have made this statement many times in this thread and other related discussions. Please provide the source for this. Thanks,
Ed

My source is the report The Widow’s Mite: A Report on the State of Wealth in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: 2023 Update.

On page 7 of that report, it shows their estimate of income and expenses. Including all donations and investment income, they estimate that in 2023 they had about $32.3 billion in income, of which about 77% ($24.5 billion) was used to grow the size of the investment portfolio.

My understanding is that the Church takes in about $7 billion per year in tithing, that it budgets for and uses about $6 billion of this income for the operations and programs of the Church, and that the unspent portion is given the EPA to invest.

If that is the case, then "the biggest use of tithing" would seem to be the $6 billion used to operate the Church, not the $1 billion set aside for investments and such.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Analytics]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

But you are an intelligent fellow who can read case law and come to at least somewhat informed conclusions about what the law is and how it is likely to be applied.  However, to do so you must approach the case based on the law as it exists, not based on how you think the law should operate.

Your comments in this thread endlessly meander into abstractions about what you think the law should say, rather than what it does say.  That is the "wishful thinking" to which I am referring.

What the law should say is a totally valid issue, despite the fact that you aren’t interested in it.

But I’ll tell you what. If you’ll upload to your google drive a comprehensive list of cases that deal with the fiduciary duties that churches and charities have in Utah towards the people from whom they solicit donations, along with copies all relevant journal articles on that topic, I’ll look over it. Otherwise, I’ll patiently wait until I’ve heard the arguments from both sides. At that point I might have a bit more to say, but again it will be tentative until I hear the actual judgment. 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

We'll see, I suppose.

Judge Gaddy applied the Church Autonomy Doctrine in Gaddy (in 2021):

I think he will apply it in the present case as well.  He won't apply it will-nilly or in a catch-all manner, but he will apply it in the ways it is supposed to be applied.

I have been doing that.  A lot.

It doesn’t come across.

 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Question: Judge Shelby's comment here, that "the church autonomy doctrine does not apply as a defense" applies to what claim in Gaddy?

Answer: To Gaddy's claim under the civil RICO statute, which at the time (in 2021) Judge Shelby allowed to proceed:

Question: Did the MDL plaintiffs include a civil RICO claim in their complaint?

Question: Is whether a claim is a civil RICO claim relevant to whether the Church autonomy doctrine applies?

Answer: No. The church autonomy doctrine is not about whether a claim is a civil RICO claim, a common law breach of fiduciary duty claim, or another type of claim. Rather, it is about whether the dispute “is an ecclesiastical one about discipline, faith, internal organization or ecclesiastical rule, custom or law,” or whether it is “a purely secular dispute between third parties and a particular defendant, albeit a religiously affiliated organization.” (Gaddy, page 4 quoting Bryce)

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Question: So why is Analytics invoking Judge Shelby's Gaddy analysis about civil RICO when he is discussing the MDL lawsuit?

Answer: I don't know.  You'll have to ask him. 

Answer: Judge Shelby said Gaddy’s RICO theory “is based on a secular dispute concerning statements by Church leadership about the specific ways tithing, once received, would in fact be spent."

“[Gaddy] points to specific factual statements allegedly made by the Church through its representatives concerning the Church’s use of tithing funds and alleges those statements are false. The inquiry required to adjudicate this claim does not implicate religious principles of the Church of the truth of the Church’s beliefs concerning the doctrine of tithing. This claim further does not require the court to determine whether the Church or its members were acting in accord with what they perceived to be the commandments of their faith. Gaddy has instead challenged secular representations concerning the use of money received by the Church.” (Gaddy p. 17)

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I suspect he has not read the Gaddy decisions carefully, and/or is letting his antipathy against the Church unduly affect his interpretation of both the Gaddy and MDL lawsuits.

Answer: Actually, you are projecting. Here is the “Shelby Test” his judgement implies to determine whether or not to grant a motion to dismiss based on church autonomy: 

• Do the allegations point to specific factual statements concerning the use of tithing funds?
• Do they allege those statements are false?
• Do the allegations steer free of implicating religious principles or doctrine?
• Do the allegations not require the court to determine whether the Church or its members were sincerely following the commandments of their faith?
• Do the allegations challenge secular representations concerning the use of money the Church received?

If the answer is “yes” to all of those questions, Gaddy implies the correct interpretation and application of church autonomy is to deny the motion to dismiss. 

That is what Gaddy says. Gaddy provides a clear map on how to sue the Church over its use of tithing without the case being dismissed for encroaching on church autonomy. The plaintiffs have a large team of very capable lawyers, and they are obviously following this map. 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Question: Has Smac97 ever argued that the Church Autonomy Doctrine applies carte blanche to any and every claim ever asserted against the Church?

Answer: No.  Far from it.  I have repeatedly acknowledged Judge Shelby's observation that the doctrine "is not without limits."  It applies to purely secular disputes and properly-pleaded claims based on those disputes.  This can include properly-pleaded (pled?") statutory claims (such as civil RICO), as well as properly-pleaded common law / tort claims (such as fraud).  The key point here is "properly-pleaded." 

However, as far as I’ve seen you haven’t acknowledged why Judge Shelby determined that the Church’s "secular representations concerning the use of money received by the Church” are in fact secular representations, much less fairly considered whether the same analysis applies here. 

In the MDL suit, the plaintiffs allege that the LDS Church and its financial arm, Ensign, breached fiduciary duties and committed fraud by misleading donors about how charitable donations would be used. They claim that funds were solicited under false pretenses, misused for non-charitable purposes, and that the full extent of the church's financial holdings was concealed. Plaintiffs seek damages for the misuse of donations and assert that the defendants unjustly enriched themselves at the expense of donors by failing to use the funds as promised.

These are secular issues in exactly the same way "secular representations concerning the use of money received by the Church” are secular issues.

The lawsuit has a ton of very significant hurdles to get past, but the more I study this the more confident I am that church autonomy isn’t one of them.

 

Edited September 24, 2024 by Analytics

[Analytics]

32 minutes ago, smac97 said:

My understanding is that the Church takes in about $7 billion per year in tithing, that it budgets for and uses about $6 billion of this income for the operations and programs of the Church, and that the unspent portion is given the EPA to invest.

If that is the case, then "the biggest use of tithing" would seem to be the $6 billion used to operate the Church, not the $1 billion set aside for investments and such.

Thanks,

-Smac

I generally agree with these estimates of the figures. When I said “the biggest use of tithing“ I meant “the biggest use of total income.” 

[smac97]

7 hours ago, Analytics said:

To the extent there is an obligation to the donors for money to be used “correctly,” then isn’t there a need for transparency so that the donors know what “correctly” even means?

Can secular courts impose on religious groups a "correct" use of funds without running afoul of the First Amendment?  If the claim is "purely" or "exclusively" "secular," then perhaps.  Otherwise, no.  And in the context of tithing funds donated to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I think the answer is almost certainly going to be no.  

Again, Harmston is a good source on this issue:

Quote

B. No Adjudication of Church Doctrine Necessary to Grant Relief

 ¶ 15 The trial court's second reason for denying Plaintiffs' motion to amend was that the Third Amended Complaint would require the fact finder to impermissibly judge the Church's religious doctrines.   Civil actions that “require the courts to review and interpret church law, policies, or practices in the determination of the[ir] claims are barred by the First Amendment under the entanglement doctrine.”  Franco v. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 2001 UT 25,¶ 15, 21 P.3d 198.

 ¶ 16 Here, Plaintiffs are alleging a variety of causes of action arising from the same set of decidedly secular facts.   Both of the Plaintiffs assert that they gave money to the Church in exchange for promises of future earthly benefits.   Hancock alleges that she was promised land and support;  Stewart alleges that she was promised repayment of her retirement funds including the costs and penalties of early withdrawal.

 ¶ 17 “[C]hurches must have ‘power to decide for themselves, free from state interference, matters of church government as well as those of faith and doctrine.’ ”  Id. (quoting Kedroff v. St. Nicholas Cathedral, 344 U.S. 94, 116, 73 S.Ct. 143, 97 L.Ed. 120 (1952)).   But here, Plaintiffs' claims do not necessarily implicate the Church's government, faith, or doctrine.²  Rather, each of the claims stated in the Third Amended Complaint is supported by allegations of secular activity potentially amounting to violations of generally applicable civil law.   Cf. Employment Div. v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872, 110 S.Ct. 1595, 108 L.Ed.2d 876 (1990) (upholding criminal laws of general applicability even though those laws interfere with sincerely held religious beliefs).   Accordingly, the trial court erred when it relied on the entanglement doctrine to deny Plaintiffs' motion to amend.
...
2.   This is not to say that every allegation in the Third Amended Complaint avoids conflict with the First Amendment.   For example, Plaintiffs' allegation that Hancock “never met Christ face to face as promised” appears to be an entirely religious matter beyond the courts' ability to adjudicate.

The problem with Siebach, Gaddy, Huntsman and the MDL lawsuits is that they all seem to delve, in varying degrees, into non-secular disputes.

The City Creek issue, for example, only creates a claim if the courts choose to define "tithes" to mean both "one tenth of one's increase annually" and also any revenue generated from the Church's investment of those donations).  Such an exercise must, in my view, violate the First Amendment.  

7 hours ago, Analytics said:

I appreciate your take on this.

I went to the Church’s official website and did a search on “tithing”. The first article that came up that talked about how tithing is used is a Liahona article called, “What We Believe: Tithing Helps Build of the Kingdom of God.” It has a graphic with cartoon images illustrating what they mean by “building the kingdom of God:"

• It shows the Salt Lake Temple with the COB in the background and says, “Tithing funds are transmitted from wards and branches to Church headquarters, where a council that includes the First Presidency decides how these funds will be used."
• It shows a young family walking into a Church and says, “Tithing pays for the cost of building and maintaining temples and meetinghouses."
• It shows somebody holding a couple of books and says, “Tithing pays for the translation and publication of scriptures and lesson materials."
• It shows some kinds in a classroom and says, “Tithing helps pay for educating young members in Church schools, seminaries, and institutes of religion."

There isn’t a cartoon depiction of a stock broker that says, “The biggest use of tithing is to purchase stocks, bonds, and commercial real estate in an unnecessarily gargantuan, exorbitant reserve fund that is never used for anything."

There is no evidence that this is "{t}he biggest use of tithing."  Instead, it appears that most tithing revenue is used to fund the operations of the Church, with a portion (1/7th or so) presumably given to EPA for investments and holdings (and perhaps to some of the Church's other ventures as well).

See, e.g., here:

Quote

A former senior portfolio manager who worked at the investment arm of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints alleges the firm masqueraded as a charity and violated its tax exempt status by directing funds built from member donations to bail out business with ties to the church.

David Nielsen filed a whistleblower complaint with the IRS in 2019. Nielsen says that during his nine years working at Ensign Peak Advisors, the value of the firm's investments ballooned past $100 billion. In his first public comments, Nielsen told 60 Minutes the firm used false records and statements to appear as a charity, while stockpiling money and misleading the church members.

"I thought we were going to change the world," Nielsen said. "And we just grew the bank account."

Each year, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints collects an estimated $7 billion in contributions from its 17 million members. The church expects members to participate in tithing by contributing about 10% of their income. Tithing is used to pay the church's bills and fund the church's programs. Whatever is left over, about $1 billion a year, is put into a reserve fund at Ensign Peak and invested. 

If we give Nielsen the benefit of the doubt, where are you getting the claim that "{t}he biggest use of tithing is to purchase stocks, bonds, and commercial real estate"?

7 hours ago, Analytics said:

A couple of points about this.

First, in the context of a fiduciary duty to the donors, whether or not putting their donations into an excessive reserve fund constitutes “misuse” must have something to do with the donors reasonable expectations about how their donations will be used, doesn’t it?

How would Judge Shelby determine whether a reserve fund is "excessive" without running afoul of the Church Autonomy Doctrine?

7 hours ago, Analytics said:

The Church might think what they are doing is proper, but that doesn’t change the fact that they hide from donors what they are actually doing because they are afraid if the donors knew the truth, they’d stop donating.

This is an allegation, not a "fact."

7 hours ago, Analytics said:

Second, if I were a donor and felt inclined to sue the Church, the angle I would explore would be suing the individual members of the Quorum of the Twelve for failing their fiduciary duty to the Church.

You would have no standing to sue based on such a theory.

7 hours ago, Analytics said:

Why? They have a very clear fiduciary duty to the church regarding all of these things, including the duty to exercise care and diligence when deciding the right balance between saving and spending.

They do?  References, please.  

Also, what evidence do we have that the Brethren have not "exercise care and diligence when deciding the right balance between saving and spending"?

Also, how would Judge Shelby decide what does and does not constitute "the right balance between saving and spending" in the Church without running afoul of the Church Autonomy Doctrine?

7 hours ago, Analytics said:

Despite being members of the Council on the Disposition of Tithes, I would argue that they do not do this with proper diligence because the Church doesn’t allow them to know how much money is in the reserve funds. How can they possibly make an informed decision about budgets if they don’t know how much money the Church has saved?

I would speculate that the reason the Church won’t allow the apostles to know how much money they have saved up is because they’d want to spend more of it if they knew.

Or it could be that, as a matter of doctrine, the financial management of the Church falls to the PBO as overseen by the First Presidency, not to the Quorum of the Twelve.  

7 hours ago, Analytics said:

In paragraph 133, they say that plaintiffs reasonably relied on LDS’s public statements, including a statement that the “vast majority” of donated funds were “used immediately.” I’d guess that is what they are quoting.

First, who made this statement involving the phrase "vast majority"?  Where?  When?  Is it this 2019 statement, or some other statement?

Second, why do you think this statement quoted in the MDL complaint but its source not cited?  Particularly where supposedly top-notch attorneys know that fraud claims fail under Rule 12 scrutiny when they are not pleaded with particularity?

Third, what evidence do we have that the "'vast majority' of donated funds" are not "used immediately"? 

As I have noted a few times now, the applicable law states that “{a} complaint alleging fraud should be filed only after a wrong is reasonably believed to have occurred; it should serve to seek redress for a wrong, not to find one.” Shah v. Intermountain Healthcare, Inc., 2013 UT App 261, ¶ 12, 314 P.3d 1079 (quoting Segal v. Gordon, 467 F.2d 602, 607–08 (2d Cir. 1972).  

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 24, 2024 by smac97

[smac97]

10 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Quote

My understanding is that the Church takes in about $7 billion per year in tithing, that it budgets for and uses about $6 billion of this income for the operations and programs of the Church, and that the unspent portion is given the EPA to invest.

If that is the case, then "the biggest use of tithing" would seem to be the $6 billion used to operate the Church, not the $1 billion set aside for investments and such.

I generally agree with these estimates of the figures. When I said “the biggest use of tithing“ I meant “the biggest use of total income.” 

But that's not what you have been saying.  You have been saying "tithing," not "total income."  According to David Nielsen, the "biggest use of tithing" is to fund the Church's operations (to the tune of about $6 billion), with the unused portion (around $1 billion) sent to EPA.

It is materially misleading and false to conflate "tithing" with "total income." 

Why are you doing this?  It looks like you are letting your antipathy against the Church get in the way of a reasoned and fairminded assessment.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Analytics]

46 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Can secular courts impose on religious groups a "correct" use of funds without running afoul of the First Amendment?  If the claim is "purely" or "exclusively" "secular," then perhaps.  Otherwise, no.

I disagree. In this context, the “correct” use of funds is how they told the donors the funds would be used. In other words, it is “a secular dispute concerning statements by Church leadership about the specific ways tithing, once received, would in fact be spent.” A court can adjudicate whether the church factually spent the money the way they told donors they would without encroaching on religious beliefs.

 

Edited September 24, 2024 by Analytics

[Analytics]

30 minutes ago, smac97 said:

But that's not what you have been saying.  You have been saying "tithing," not "total income."  According to David Nielsen, the "biggest use of tithing" is to fund the Church's operations (to the tune of about $6 billion), with the unused portion (around $1 billion) sent to EPA.

It is materially misleading and false to conflate "tithing" with "total income." 

Why are you doing this?  It looks like you are letting your antipathy against the Church get in the way of a reasoned and fairminded assessment.

Thanks,

-Smac

Actually, what I’ve said most frequently is, for example,

"In context, the real issue isn’t whether or not the Church was being true to the Church’s doctrine. Rather, it is about whether the Church gave the plaintiffs any reason to believe or even suspect that the Church was using most of its annual income to build up the size of its for-profit business empire. The Church has the right to do this, but it also has the legal and ethical obligation to be honest with donors and potential donors that this is what they are doing and planning to do with the donations they are soliciting."

It’s rich that you accuse me of being materially misleading about the Church’s finances in this thread.

In any case, claiming a specific dollar spent on project x came from tithing, investment income, past tithing that was saved, or something else is an exercise in the fallacy known as mental accounting. Saying the Church saves 100% of its investment income and 14% of its tithing income is the same thing as saying it saves 77% of its tithing income and saves 77% of its investment income.

[smac97]

18 minutes ago, Analytics said:

What the law should say is a totally valid issue, despite the fact that you aren’t interested in it.

In the context of evaluating the MDL lawsuit, no I am not interested in following you down this rabbit trail.

18 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Question: Is whether a claim is a civil RICO claim relevant to whether the Church autonomy doctrine applies?

Answer: No. 

The nature of the claim, and how it is pleaded, are both relevant to whether the Church Autonomy Doctrine Applies.

18 minutes ago, Analytics said:

The church autonomy doctrine is not about whether a claim is a civil RICO claim, a common law breach of fiduciary duty claim, or another type of claim.

Strange, then, that Judge Shelby applied it in Gaddy, which involved these sorts of claims.

18 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Rather, it is about whether the dispute “is an ecclesiastical one about discipline, faith, internal organization or ecclesiastical rule, custom or law,” or whether it is “a purely secular dispute between third parties and a particular defendant, albeit a religiously affiliated organization.” (Gaddy, page 4 quoting Bryce)

You are not probably understanding the Church Autonomy Doctrine.  

18 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Quote

Question: So why is Analytics invoking Judge Shelby's Gaddy analysis about civil RICO when he is discussing the MDL lawsuit?

Answer: I don't know.  You'll have to ask him. 

Answer: Judge Shelby said Gaddy’s RICO theory “is based on a secular dispute concerning statements by Church leadership about the specific ways tithing, once received, would in fact be spent."

In 2021, yes.  Because the pleadings were different, and because the Church had not argued grounds for dismissal in addition to the Church Autonomy Doctrine.

But Gaddy then amended her Complaint, and the Church successfully invoked other grounds for dismissal in addition to the Church Autonomy Doctrine.  So the "was it a secular dispute or not" issue was no longer relevant.

18 minutes ago, Analytics said:

“[Gaddy] points to specific factual statements allegedly made by the Church through its representatives concerning the Church’s use of tithing funds and alleges those statements are false. The inquiry required to adjudicate this claim does not implicate religious principles of the Church of the truth of the Church’s beliefs concerning the doctrine of tithing. This claim further does not require the court to determine whether the Church or its members were acting in accord with what they perceived to be the commandments of their faith. Gaddy has instead challenged secular representations concerning the use of money received by the Church.” (Gaddy p. 17)

You are only proving my point here.  I have repeatedly acknowledged that the Church Autonomy Doctrine does not apply to properly pleaded, purely secular, disputes.

18 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Quote

I suspect he has not read the Gaddy decisions carefully, and/or is letting his antipathy against the Church unduly affect his interpretation of both the Gaddy and MDL lawsuits.

Answer: Actually, you are projecting.

I am not the one invoking Judge Shelby's adjudication of civil RICO claims when discussing a lawsuit that does not have any civil RICO claims in it.

18 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Here is the “Shelby Test” his judgement implies to determine whether or not to grant a motion to dismiss based on church autonomy: 

• Do the allegations point to specific factual statements concerning the use of tithing funds?
• Do they allege those statements are false?
• Do the allegations steer free of implicating religious principles or doctrine?
• Do the allegations not require the court to determine whether the Church or its members were sincerely following the commandments of their faith?
• Do the allegations challenge secular representations concerning the use of money the Church received?

If the answer is “yes” to all of those questions, Gaddy implies the correct interpretation and application of church autonomy is to deny the motion to dismiss. 

Boy, that's quite a gauntlet.  But even then, you have missed a few, such as:

Can the Court adjudicate each element of each claim without running afoul of the Church Autonomy Doctrine?  In the context of the Church's solicitation and use of tithes, Judge Shelby has already said "no" in Gaddy as to some of these elements, such as the "duty" and "materiality" elements of a fraudulent nondisclosure claim.  Every species of fraud has a "materiality" component.  Every.  Single.  One.  And they are essentially identical to each other.  My surmise is that if Judge Shelby has already stated that evaluating "materiality" in the context of a "fraudulent nondisclosure" claim is barred by the Church Autonomy Doctrine, then he likewise cannot evaluate "materiality" as to any other claim sounding in fraud, and for the same reason (that such an evaluation is barred by the Church Autonomy Doctrine).

Also, are the allegations pleaded with particularity as required by Rule 9 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure? 

Also, do the allegations, though couched as being a "secular" dispute, nevertheless implicate any religious dispute (such as the definition of "tithing," how Church funds should be spent, etc.)?

18 minutes ago, Analytics said:

That is what Gaddy says.

Gaddy says quite a bit more than that.

18 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Gaddy provides a clear map on how to sue the Church over its use of tithing without the case being dismissed for encroaching on church autonomy.

Many of the claims in Gaddy were dismissed precisely because they did encroach on the Church Autonomy Doctrine.  And this is after several do-overs by Kay Burningham.

Not much of a map, that.

I think suing the Church "over its use of tithing" is reaching into threading-a-needle-with-your-teeth-while-under-water-and-blindfolded level of difficulty.  It is theoretically possible, but so far nobody has succeeded.  Huntsman has come closest, but I think he's more likely to eventually have to settle for a pyrrhic victory than a legal one. 

18 minutes ago, Analytics said:

The plaintiffs have a large team of very capable lawyers, and they are obviously following this map. 

However, as far as I’ve seen you haven’t acknowledged why Judge Shelby determined that the Church’s "secular representations concerning the use of money received by the Church” are in fact secular representations, much less fairly considered whether the same analysis applies here. 

Judge Shelby did not make any such "determination."  He was, instead, speaking of what Gaddy had alleged:

Quote

As alleged in the Amended Complaint, the court concludes Gaddy's third alternative civil RICO theory is based on a secular dispute concerning statements by Church leadership about the specific ways tithing, once received, would in fact be spent. Justice Jackson provided a helpful example in his dissenting Ballard opinion in the context of criminal convictions based on misrepresentations of religious beliefs. There, he distinguished liability for fraud based on religious expressions with liability based on the misuse of donations, stating: "I do not doubt that religious leaders may be convicted of fraud for making false representations on matters other than faith or experience, as for example if one represents that funds are being used to construct a church when in fact they are being used for personal purposes." This example highlights the distinction between the religious teachings behind the principle of tithing, and the Church's statements to its members about its use of tithing proceeds.

Here, Gaddy does not challenge the Church's tithing doctrine or teachings related to it. The court does not read her Amended Complaint to advance a claim that the doctrine is false. Gaddy instead points to specific factual statements allegedly made by the Church through its representatives concerning the Church's use of tithing funds and alleges those statements are false. The inquiry required to adjudicate this claim does not implicate  religious principles of the Church or the truth of the Church's beliefs concerning the doctrine of tithing. This claim further does not require the court to determine whether the Church or its members were acting in accord with what they perceived to be the commandments of their faith. Gaddy has instead challenged secular representations concerning the use of money received by the Church. While the statements were made by Church officials, the church autonomy doctrine does not apply as a defense. The Church has not asserted any other challenge to Gaddy's RICO claim based on this alternative theory of liability. Accordingly, Gaddy's RICO claim based only on this alternative theory survives the Church's Motion to Dismiss.

I'm not sure what the "statements by Church leadership about the specific ways tithing, once received, would in fact be spent" were, as I have not reviewed Gaddy's Amended Complaint in a while.  But it doesn't seem to matter.  At the time, Judge Shelby concluded that her civil RICO claim, as drafted, was a purely secular one that did not run afoul of the Church Autonomy Doctrine.  

Yet again, I have never argued that the Church Autonomy Doctrine applies carte blanche to any and every claim ever asserted against the Church.  The doctrine will not apply to properly-pleaded and purely/exclusively secular claims.  In Gaddy, the civil RICO claim failed for other reasons.  Similarly, the Church is seeking dismissal of the MDL lawsuit for a multiplicity of reasons, including but not limited to the Church Autonomy Doctrine.

18 minutes ago, Analytics said:

In the MDL suit, the plaintiffs allege that the LDS Church and its financial arm, Ensign, breached fiduciary duties and committed fraud by misleading donors about how charitable donations would be used. They claim that funds were solicited under false pretenses, misused for non-charitable purposes, and that the full extent of the church's financial holdings was concealed. Plaintiffs seek damages for the misuse of donations and assert that the defendants unjustly enriched themselves at the expense of donors by failing to use the funds as promised.

These are secular issues in exactly the same way "secular representations concerning the use of money received by the Church” are secular issues.

Again, I have never argued that the Church Autonomy Doctrine applies carte blanche to any and every claim ever asserted against the Church.  The doctrine will not apply to properly-pleaded and purely/exclusively secular claims. 

How many times do I need to say this?

I don't agree that the MDL lawsuit includes allegations in "exactly the same way" Gaddy did.  I suspect the MDL attorneys looked at Kay Burningham's slow-motion trainwreck and said "Hey, let's not do that, except for this and that pieces."  But merely insisting that the MDL claims are purely secular is self-serving, and not binding on Judge Shelby.  

Perhaps one of the more obvious examples a religious-dispute-being-couched-in-supposedly-"secular"-terms is the stuff about tithing and City Creek.  The only way it works is for Judge Shelby to define "tithes" to mean both "one tenth of one's increase annually" and also any revenue generated from the Church's investment of those donations).  Such an exercise must, in my view, violate the First Amendment.  And this is so even though the MDL plaintiffs are calling this a purely "secular" question.

I also think the MDL plaintiffs stepped in it when, in paragraph 132 of their Complaint, they allege that the Church has used donations “in manners antithetical to the purported mission of” the Church. 

Hoo, boy. 

So they want Judge Shelby to adjudicate what "matters" of use of funds are and are not "antithetical" to the religious missions of the Church, and they want him to do this without violating the First Amendment? 

How do you think he can do this?

18 minutes ago, Analytics said:

The lawsuit has a ton of very significant hurdles to get past, but the more I study this the more confident I am that church autonomy isn’t one of them.

Despite Judge Shelby liberally applying this doctrine in Gaddy?

Well, okay.  I think the doctrine is quite relevant.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

25 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Actually, what I’ve said most frequently is, for example,

"In context, the real issue isn’t whether or not the Church was being true to the Church’s doctrine. Rather, it is about whether the Church gave the plaintiffs any reason to believe or even suspect that the Church was using most of its annual income to build up the size of its for-profit business empire. The Church has the right to do this, but it also has the legal and ethical obligation to be honest with donors and potential donors that this is what they are doing and planning to do with the donations they are soliciting."

It’s rich that you accuse me of being materially misleading about the Church’s finances in this thread.

I don't think I have been misleading about the Church's finances.

You have repeatedly claimed that "{t}he biggest use of tithing is to purchase stocks, bonds, and commercial real estate in an unnecessarily gargantuan, exorbitant reserve fund that is never used for anything."

You have spent years finding fault with the Church.  And the Church has faults to find.  You ought to be able to criticize the Church without resorting to - and then maintaining through equivocation - flagrantly false statements like the one above.  I hope you retract it and apologize so that we can move on.  

Or you can refuse to retract it despite tacitly acknowledging its falsity.  Your call.  But I'll be sure to include a mental asterisk next to all of your various axiomatic pronouncements about how other people have a moral obligation to be honest in their statements.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 24, 2024 by smac97

[smac97]

24 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Quote

Can secular courts impose on religious groups a "correct" use of funds without running afoul of the First Amendment?  If the claim is "purely" or "exclusively" "secular," then perhaps.  Otherwise, no.

I disagree. In this context, the “correct” use of funds is how they told the donors the funds would be used. 

Yes.  That would be a claim that could be "purely" or "exclusively" "secular."

Here, however, the MDL plaintiffs, like Gaddy, are having a hard time A) pointing to statements in which the Church "told the donors {how} the funds would be used" alongside B) the falsity of such statements.  They have to resort to chicanery and rhetorical sleight-of-hand not unlike your "biggest use of tithing" whopper.  When called on it, you equivocate by claiming that what you meant was “the biggest use of total income.”  The MDL plaintiffs must likewise equivocate by claiming that the Church's statements about City Creek should be construed using an idiosyncratic and newly-minted-by-them-and-later-by-a-judge definition of "tithes," where the word means both "one tenth of one's increase annually" and also any revenue generated from the Church's investment of those donations).  

And Judge Shelby is supposed to define "tithing" in this way without running afoul of the Church Autonomy Doctrine.  I don't see that happenign.

24 minutes ago, Analytics said:

In other words, it is “a secular dispute concerning statements by Church leadership about the specific ways tithing, once received, would in fact be spent.” A court can adjudicate whether the church factually spent the money the way they told donors they would without encroaching on religious beliefs.

"The money" being . . . what?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Stormin' Mormon]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

I disagree. In this context, the “correct” use of funds is how they told the donors the funds would be used. In other words, it is “a secular dispute concerning statements by Church leadership about the specific ways tithing, once received, would in fact be spent.” A court can adjudicate whether the church factually spent the money the way they told donors they would without encroaching on religious beliefs.

 

Church leaders said that they wouldn't use money from Pot A, but would use money from Pot B.  In order to determine the factualness of that statement, the courts will have to first determine what constitutes Pot A and what constitutes Pot B.  

The Church says that interest generated from Pot A is part of Pot B.  They claim that Pot A is ONLY those dollars that are the result of the faith, sacrifice, and consecration of dedicated Church members.  Since generated interest is a business transaction and NOT the result of faith, sacrifice, or consecration, it rightly belongs in Pot B. 

In order for the courts to rule against the Church, they would have to tell Church Leaders what kinds of money is and is not the product of faith, sacrifice, and consecration.  And THAT implicates the Church Autonomy Doctrine.

[webbles]

6 hours ago, Analytics said:

To the extent there is an obligation to the donors for money to be used “correctly,” then isn’t there a need for transparency so that the donors know what “correctly” even means?

I don't believe the transparency requires the church to specify things like "how much was spent on temples" or "how much was put in a reserve fund".  Only that they are following what they said they would do.  And the church does that every year with the audit report.  I get that the audit report isn't very transparent (which bugs me) but it is an audit that is making sure that the church is following the fiduciary duty.  Now, a whistleblower could point out that the church failed in its fiduciary duty and thus was lying, but that's different from being "more transparent".

6 hours ago, Analytics said:

I went to the Church’s official website and did a search on “tithing”. The first article that came up that talked about how tithing is used is a Liahona article called, “What We Believe: Tithing Helps Build of the Kingdom of God.” It has a graphic with cartoon images illustrating what they mean by “building the kingdom of God:"

• It shows the Salt Lake Temple with the COB in the background and says, “Tithing funds are transmitted from wards and branches to Church headquarters, where a council that includes the First Presidency decides how these funds will be used."
• It shows a young family walking into a Church and says, “Tithing pays for the cost of building and maintaining temples and meetinghouses."
• It shows somebody holding a couple of books and says, “Tithing pays for the translation and publication of scriptures and lesson materials."
• It shows some kinds in a classroom and says, “Tithing helps pay for educating young members in Church schools, seminaries, and institutes of religion."

There isn’t a cartoon depiction of a stock broker that says, “The biggest use of tithing is to purchase stocks, bonds, and commercial real estate in an unnecessarily gargantuan, exorbitant reserve fund that is never used for anything."

Interesting that that is your first result.  I get https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/liahona/2014/12/tithing-helps-build-up-the-kingdom-of-god?lang=eng.  The search engine on the site is weird.

But, the title of that article is "Tithing Helps Build Up the Kingdom of God".  It also says:

Quote

The funds are transmitted to Church headquarters, where a council comprising the First Presidency, the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, and the Presiding Bishopric determines how the sacred funds will be used.

So, we believe that tithing builds up the Kingdom of God and that the Council on the Disposition of Tithes will determine its use.  Putting a decent portion of tithing in a gargantuan, exorbitant reserve fund that is never used is in line with those teachings.  Sure, the nice graphic doesn't show it, but I don't see that as misleading.

6 hours ago, Analytics said:

First, in the context of a fiduciary duty to the donors, whether or not putting their donations into an excessive reserve fund constitutes “misuse” must have something to do with the donors reasonable expectations about how their donations will be used, doesn’t it? The Church might think what they are doing is proper, but that doesn’t change the fact that they hide from donors what they are actually doing because they are afraid if the donors knew the truth, they’d stop donating.

I don't see anything that requires the church to follow the "donors reasonable expectations about how their donations will be used".  The Church says that the tithing will be used to build up the Church.  It says that the Council on the Disposition of Tithes will decide what to do with that money.  So, when you donate to the church, you are letting the Church do both of those things how ever it wants to do it.  If a massive reserve fund is building up the Church, then it is following what it said.  If the Council on the Disposition of Tithes prayerfully decided to make a massive reserve fund, then it is following what is said.  Now, if you donated Fast Offerings and that was going into a massive reserve fund, that's a different thing.  Because we are taught that Fast Offerings is to help the needy and that is the purpose of that donation.  But tithing's purpose is to build up the Church which encompasses a lot of stuff (and is probably outside the jurisdiction of courts since the usage involves prayer).

6 hours ago, Analytics said:

Second, if I were a donor and felt inclined to sue the Church, the angle I would explore would be suing the individual members of the Quorum of the Twelve for failing their fiduciary duty to the Church. Why? They have a very clear fiduciary duty to the church regarding all of these things, including the duty to exercise care and diligence when deciding the right balance between saving and spending. Despite being members of the Council on the Disposition of Tithes, I would argue that they do not do this with proper diligence because the Church doesn’t allow them to know how much money is in the reserve funds. How can they possibly make an informed decision about budgets if they don’t know how much money the Church has saved?

I'm not sure it is possible to sue an individual member.  Is there a law that allows that type of suit?  I would expect it would be something that only Attorney Generals could instigate.  Also, I know the whistleblower said that President Packer was trying to find out what was in EPA but I'm pretty sure President Packer had a general idea of what was in there.  Because he has been sitting on the Council for decades and had known about the reserve and how much was going into it each year.  Also, their fiduciary duty is to ensure that tithing is to help build the Kingdom of God.  So if they believe that a massive reserve fund is need to build the Kingdom of God, then that is an appropriate use of the money.

7 hours ago, Analytics said:

I would speculate that the reason the Church won’t allow the apostles to know how much money they have saved up is because they’d want to spend more of it if they knew.

But the First Presidency knows the amount and all of them were once in the Quorum of the 12 Apostles, so why aren't they trying to spend more?  I don't think this is the correct reason.

7 hours ago, Analytics said:

In paragraph 133, they say that plaintiffs reasonably relied on LDS’s public statements, including a statement that the “vast majority” of donated funds were “used immediately.” I’d guess that is what they are quoting.

Yeah, I saw that.  It looks like they are quoting something there but don't provide the quote.  I'd like to know what the public statements that they are quoting.  I would think that is something they have to provide.  I suspect it is https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/first-presidency-statement-church-finances which says "The vast majority of these funds are used immediately to meet the needs of the growing Church".  If it is, then they are misusing that quote.  It is talking about the yearly tithing income.  And it is correct.  The vast majority of the yearly tithing income is used immediately.  The rest is put in a reserve fund (which that statement also mentions).

[smac97]

14 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

Quote

I disagree. In this context, the “correct” use of funds is how they told the donors the funds would be used. In other words, it is “a secular dispute concerning statements by Church leadership about the specific ways tithing, once received, would in fact be spent.” A court can adjudicate whether the church factually spent the money the way they told donors they would without encroaching on religious beliefs.

Church leaders said that they wouldn't use money from Pot A, but would use money from Pot B.  In order to determine the factualness of that statement, the courts will have to first determine what constitutes Pot A and what constitutes Pot B.  

Actually, Judge Shelby would have to do more than that.  He would have to say that there is only one pot.  That "tithing" is a term that includes both Pot A ("one tenth of one's increase annually") and also Pot B (any revenue generated from the Church's investment of those donations). Judge Shelby would than foist this definition onto the Church, and then allow a jury to decide whether the Church's statements about tithing were false and fraudulent using this judge-made definition of the word.

I don't think Judge Shelby can do that without running afoul of the Church Autonomy Doctrine.

14 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

The Church says that interest generated from Pot A is part of Pot B.  They claim that Pot A is ONLY those dollars that are the result of the faith, sacrifice, and consecration of dedicated Church members.  Since generated interest is a business transaction and NOT the result of faith, sacrifice, or consecration, it rightly belongs in Pot B. 

In order for the courts to rule against the Church, they would have to tell Church Leaders what kinds of money is and is not the product of faith, sacrifice, and consecration.  And THAT implicates the Church Autonomy Doctrine.

Yep.

Thanks,

-Smac

[webbles]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

I disagree. In this context, the “correct” use of funds is how they told the donors the funds would be used. In other words, it is “a secular dispute concerning statements by Church leadership about the specific ways tithing, once received, would in fact be spent.” A court can adjudicate whether the church factually spent the money the way they told donors they would without encroaching on religious beliefs.

 

I think this depends on what the Church said how it would spend the money.

For tithing, it definitely encroaches on religious beliefs as the purpose for tithing is to build up the Kingdom of God.  It usage is determined by prayer.  That is what donors of tithing are taught.  I don't see how a court can rule on the proper way to build up the Kingdom of God.

For the LDS Philanthropies, I do think the court can rule on it since the website and pamphlets said it would go to the needy.

[smac97]

29 minutes ago, webbles said:

I don't believe the transparency requires the church to specify things like "how much was spent on temples" or "how much was put in a reserve fund".  Only that they are following what they said they would do.  And the church does that every year with the audit report.  I get that the audit report isn't very transparent (which bugs me) but it is an audit that is making sure that the church is following the fiduciary duty.  Now, a whistleblower could point out that the church failed in its fiduciary duty and thus was lying, but that's different from being "more transparent".

And the Church failing to satisfy the arbitrary and subjective preferences of a handful of members of the Church does not give rise to a claim for fraud, or breach of fiduciary duty, etc.

29 minutes ago, webbles said:

I don't see anything that requires the church to follow the "donors reasonable expectations about how their donations will be used". 

"{D}onors' reasonable expectations" is a pretty amorphous concept.

If the Church were spending tithed contributions on wild parties and yachts, or else on immoral/criminal enterprises, then they might have a claim.  Might.  But we're nowhere near that sort of thing.

29 minutes ago, webbles said:

The Church says that the tithing will be used to build up the Church.  It says that the Council on the Disposition of Tithes will decide what to do with that money.  So, when you donate to the church, you are letting the Church do both of those things how ever it wants to do it.  If a massive reserve fund is building up the Church, then it is following what it said.  If the Council on the Disposition of Tithes prayerfully decided to make a massive reserve fund, then it is following what is said.  Now, if you donated Fast Offerings and that was going into a massive reserve fund, that's a different thing.  Because we are taught that Fast Offerings is to help the needy and that is the purpose of that donation.  But tithing's purpose is to build up the Church which encompasses a lot of stuff (and is probably outside the jurisdiction of courts since the usage involves prayer).

I am curious how much the Church is going to have to spend to get the BYU medical school up and running and maintained in perpetuity.  My understanding is that the Church had previously decided to not create any more educational institutions, but adding a medical school to BYU sure seems to be a nearly comparable thing to that. 

It is also my understanding that the Church's sponsorship and subsidization of its various educational endeavors is the single biggest category of expenses borne by the Church.  The Church is going to build a medical school with an international focus, which I assume means massive subsidization of students on top of normal operating expenses.  

I think the Church has not previously been situated, in terms of long-term financial stability and sustainability, to create a medical school and absorb the opening costs and ongoing operational expenses associated with it.

I think that but for the Church's substantial reserve fund, which Analytics and so many others regularly denounce and denigrate, the medical school would never have even been proposed. 

I also think that the Church's substantial reserve fund will be utilized quite extensively in lean days ahead.  

29 minutes ago, webbles said:

I'm not sure it is possible to sue an individual member.  Is there a law that allows that type of suit? 

Short answer: No.

29 minutes ago, webbles said:

Quote

In paragraph 133, they say that plaintiffs reasonably relied on LDS’s public statements, including a statement that the “vast majority” of donated funds were “used immediately.” I’d guess that is what they are quoting.

Yeah, I saw that.  It looks like they are quoting something there but don't provide the quote. 

Which is a pretty glaring oversight.  Perhaps even a fatal one under Rule 9 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires particularity in pleading.  Merely putting words in quotations marks doesn't do it.

Analytics keeps pointing to the big-wig attorneys whose names are at the top of the plaintiffs' lawsuit.  My sense is that the local attorneys are doing the drafting, not the big-wigs.  Heck, the big-wigs may not even be paying much attention (because, as you note, the plaintiffs "don't provide the quote").

29 minutes ago, webbles said:

I'd like to know what the public statements that they are quoting.  I would think that is something they have to provide.  I suspect it is https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/first-presidency-statement-church-finances which says "The vast majority of these funds are used immediately to meet the needs of the growing Church".  If it is, then they are misusing that quote.  It is talking about the yearly tithing income.  And it is correct.  The vast majority of the yearly tithing income is used immediately.  The rest is put in a reserve fund (which that statement also mentions).

Analytics has been misusing this quote as well.  According to him, "the biggest use of tithing is to purchase stocks, bonds, and commercial real estate in an unnecessarily gargantuan, exorbitant reserve fund that is never used for anything."  He is now equivocating and suggesting that when he said "biggest use of tithing" he meant "biggest use of "total income."

But that's an entirely different kettle of fish, and I think both the MDL plaintiffs and Analytics know it.  Equivocation about key terms and concepts is, it seems, an important component of this lawsuit.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Analytics]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

In 2021, yes.  Because the pleadings were different, and because the Church had not argued grounds for dismissal in addition to the Church Autonomy Doctrine.

We are talking about the church autonomy doctrine, not other grounds for dismissal that were eventually argued.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

But Gaddy then amended her Complaint, and the Church successfully invoked other grounds for dismissal in addition to the Church Autonomy Doctrine.  So the "was it a secular dispute or not" issue was no longer relevant.

We are talking about the church autonomy doctrine, not other grounds that were eventually argued.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

You are only proving my point here.  I have repeatedly acknowledged that the Church Autonomy Doctrine does not apply to properly pleaded, purely secular, disputes.

So you are suggesting that it does apply to purely secular disputes that aren’t properly pleaded?

The issue is that you’ve refused to look at the reasoning for why this dispute is purely secular for the exact same reasons that Gaddy’s RICO claim was purely secular.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Also, are the allegations pleaded with particularity as required by Rule 9 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure? 

How many times have I said that I tend to agree with the Church on just about every issue they raise except their church autonomy doctrine claim?

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Also, do the allegations, though couched as being a "secular" dispute, nevertheless implicate any religious dispute (such as the definition of "tithing," how Church funds should be spent, etc.)?

Gaddy says quite a bit more than that.

Many of the claims in Gaddy were dismissed precisely because they did encroach on the Church Autonomy Doctrine.  And this is after several do-overs by Kay Burningham.

But the one claim that didn’t encroach on the church autonomy doctrine is that one the MDL suit is about. Like that point in Gaddy, the MDL suit "points to specific factual statements allegedly made by the Church through its representatives concerning the Church’s use of tithing funds and alleges those statements are false. The inquiry required to adjudicate this claim does not implicate religious principles of the Church of the truth of the Church’s beliefs concerning the doctrine of tithing. This claim further does not require the court to determine whether the Church or its members were acting in accord with what they perceived to be the commandments of their faith. Gaddy has instead challenged secular representations concerning the use of money received by the Church.”

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Judge Shelby did not make any such "determination."  He was, instead, speaking of what Gaddy had alleged:

The point is that the alleged factual allegations are secular and nature and can be adjudicated without encroaching on the Church’s doctrine.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I'm not sure what the "statements by Church leadership about the specific ways tithing, once received, would in fact be spent" were, as I have not reviewed Gaddy's Amended Complaint in a while.  But it doesn't seem to matter.  At the time, Judge Shelby concluded that her civil RICO claim, as drafted, was a purely secular one that did not run afoul of the Church Autonomy Doctrine.

Exactly. And I think he will conclude that the MDL lawsuit, as drafted, is a purely secular one that does not run afoul of church autonomy.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Yet again, I have never argued that the Church Autonomy Doctrine applies carte blanche to any and every claim ever asserted against the Church.  The doctrine will not apply to properly-pleaded and purely/exclusively secular claims.  In Gaddy, the civil RICO claim failed for other reasons.

And I’ve said over and over again that the MDL will likely fail for other reasons.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Similarly, the Church is seeking dismissal of the MDL lawsuit for a multiplicity of reasons, including but not limited to the Church Autonomy Doctrine.

And I’ve said over and over again that the church autonomy doctrine argument is their weakest one.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I don't agree that the MDL lawsuit includes allegations in "exactly the same way" Gaddy did.  I suspect the MDL attorneys looked at Kay Burningham's slow-motion trainwreck and said "Hey, let's not do that, except for this and that pieces." 

Of course. Which is why it’s weird that you think they didn’t successfully avoid the church autonomy doctrine issues, after Gaddy showed them how to do it.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

But merely insisting that the MDL claims are purely secular is self-serving, and not binding on Judge Shelby. 

Likewise, insisting that these issues aren’t secular aren’t binding on him, either.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Perhaps one of the more obvious examples a religious-dispute-being-couched-in-supposedly-"secular"-terms is the stuff about tithing and City Creek.  The only way it works is for Judge Shelby to define "tithes" to mean both "one tenth of one's increase annually" and also any revenue generated from the Church's investment of those donations).  Such an exercise must, in my view, violate the First Amendment.  And this is so even though the MDL plaintiffs are calling this a purely "secular" question.

I know you like this argument, and you must have repeated it 750 times by now. I know you think that the only way this works is if the judge redefines tithing. However, the plaintiffs' strategy is to point to specific factual statements allegedly made by the Church through its representatives concerning the Church’s use of tithing funds and alleges those statements are false. In Gaddy, the judge decided factual statements about the use of funds is a secular issue. 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I also think the MDL plaintiffs stepped in it when, in paragraph 132 of their Complaint, they allege that the Church has used donations “in manners antithetical to the purported mission of” the Church. 

And I think your argument here is unserious because it is taking one phrase of one sentence out of context.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Hoo, boy. 

So they want Judge Shelby to adjudicate what "matters" of use of funds are and are not "antithetical" to the religious missions of the Church, and they want him to do this without violating the First Amendment?

No. Look. At. The. Context.

What they want is for Judge Shelby to evaluate their actual claim: that the Plaintiffs did not believe and had no reason to ever suspect that LDS would take any portion of their donations and invest it into Ensign, where it would sit and accumulate interest in perpetuity. 

In context, that is that the “anthithetical” sentence is about. If you doubt this, go talk to a high school english teacher.

 

[Analytics]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I don't think I have been misleading about the Church's finances.

The Church has been.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

You have repeatedly claimed that "{t}he biggest use of tithing is to purchase stocks, bonds, and commercial real estate in an unnecessarily gargantuan, exorbitant reserve fund that is never used for anything."

That is false. My actual words were:

There isn’t a cartoon depiction of a stock broker that says, “The biggest use of tithing is to purchase stocks, bonds, and commercial real estate in an unnecessarily gargantuan, exorbitant reserve fund that is never used for anything."

My actual statement is true, and I’ve been very candid about what I actually believe throughout this conversation, and have provided references and clarification when asked. If you think what I actually said is wrong and that I owe you an apology, show me the a cartoon depiction that says that, and I’ll acknowledge my wrongdoing.

 

[Analytics]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

The MDL plaintiffs must likewise equivocate by claiming that the Church's statements about City Creek should be construed using an idiosyncratic and newly-minted-by-them-and-later-by-a-judge definition of "tithes," where the word means both "one tenth of one's increase annually" and also any revenue generated from the Church's investment of those donations).  

No, they musn’t ask a judge to redefine tithing. All they need to do is point "to specific factual statements allegedly made by the Church through its representatives concerning the Church's use of tithing funds and [allege] those statements are false.” If they do that, all they need to do is remind the judge that he’s already decided that he’s already said “the inquiry required to adjudicate this claim does not implicate religious principles of the Church or the truth of the Church's beliefs concerning the doctrine of tithing. This claim further does not require the court to determine whether the Church or its members were acting in accord with what they perceived to be the commandments of their faith."

Like in Gaddy, all they need to do is "challenge secular representations concerning the use of money received by the Church."

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

And Judge Shelby is supposed to define "tithing" in this way without running afoul of the Church Autonomy Doctrine.  I don't see that happenign.

I don’t either. What I see happening is that he is going to see that this is a secular dispute and that defining religious terms isn’t necessary.

Edited September 24, 2024 by Analytics