smac97 Posted August 22, 2023 Author Share Posted August 22, 2023 48 minutes ago, Analytics said: Quote Sam Brunson weighs in on the 9th Circuit reversal: Was the Court of Appeals right? Frankly, I’m not convinced. It basically turns on whether a reasonable person would believe that “tithing” included not just the church’s tithing revenue, but income earned on that tithing revenue.[fn1] And honestly, that’s a pretty absurd assertion; every financial endeavor that includes both principal and income on the principal distinguishes the two. Sam Brunson is wrong on this point. I think he is broadly - even overwhelmingly - right on this point. 48 minutes ago, Analytics said: As an example, on November 30, 2016, a House subcommittee had a hearing about the Federal Long Term Care Insurance Program. In that hearing, Glenn Grothom (R-Wisconsin) asked the following: ...I don't care whether it's health insurance, car insurance, whatever, you always kind of wonder how much of that premium is going for claims and how much is going for overhead and commissions and that sort of thing. Could you give me, the insurance industry in general, how much of, say, auto insurance, health insurance, and long-term insurance, how much goes for claims? Marc Cohen answered the question as follows: At least historically when these products have been priced, the idea was that somewhere between 60 to 70 percent of the dollars that were collected would eventually get paid out in claims. See:https://www.congress.gov/event/114th-congress/house-event/LC52104/text?s=1&r=63 First, "Marc Cohen" is listed as "Ph.D, Clinical Professor of Gerontology, University of Massachusetts Boston." So I'm not sure he's an authoritative source for rebutting Brunson's point (distinguishing interest/income on invested principal from the principal itself). Second, the hearing seems to have had little to nothing to do with "principal and income on the principal," or on distinguishing the latter from the former. Third, that the only "example" you could muster (to demonstrate that Brunson "is wrong on this point") is so obscure, and so far afield from the topic at hand, suggests that your are scraping the bottom of the barrel. Fourth, on a whim I asked ChatGPT the following question: "In a financial sense, is income on principal ever conflated with principal?" The response: Quote In a financial sense, income and principal are distinct concepts, and they should not be conflated. Let's break down what each term refers to: Principal: The principal refers to the initial amount of money that is invested or borrowed. For example, when you deposit money into a savings account, the principal is the initial sum you put into the account. When you take out a loan, the principal is the initial amount you borrow. Income: Income, in a financial context, refers to the money that is earned or received from various sources. This can include interest, dividends, rental payments, wages, salaries, and other forms of revenue. Income is usually generated by the assets you have invested in, such as stocks, bonds, real estate, or savings accounts. The confusion might arise when discussing investments that generate income. For instance: Interest-Bearing Investments: When you invest in bonds or savings accounts, you receive regular interest payments. This interest is considered income, and it's typically separate from the principal amount you initially invested. Dividend-Paying Stocks: If you own stocks that pay dividends, the dividends are the income generated by those stocks. The principal, in this case, is the value of your stock holdings. It's important not to confuse the two because the distinction between income and principal has implications for taxes, financial planning, and investment strategies. Income is often subject to taxation, while changes in principal value (such as capital gains or losses) may have different tax implications. In summary, income and principal are separate financial concepts. Income refers to the money earned from investments or other sources, while principal is the initial amount of money invested or borrowed. Understanding this distinction is crucial for making informed financial decisions and managing your investments effectively. "{I}ncome and principal are distinct concepts, and they should not be conflated..." "It's important not to confuse the two..." "In summary, income and principal are separate financial concepts." "Understanding this distinction is crucial for making informed financial decisions and managing your investments effectively." Fifth, your argument does not really work to rehabilitate the merits of Huntsman's lawsuit. As noted in the dissenting 9th Circuit opinion (emphases added) : Quote Nonetheless, the majority takes a further journey to find a false representation, contending that “[e]ven if true, President Hinckley’s statement about ‘reserve funds’ is not necessarily a defense to Huntsman’s fraud claim.” Maj. Op. at 25. The majority suggests that Hinckley used an “undefined or specialized terms that his audience would not understand.” Maj. Op. at 25. I agree in principle that adding a caveat in a foreign language or a specialized term that could not be understood would not defeat a fraud claim. But in this case, there is no evidence that Hinckley’s statements would have been the equivalent of a foreign language to this specific plaintiff. Indeed, this is not a class action; Hinckley’s audience for purposes of this action was Huntsman, a sophisticated individual who has been immersed in the Church for much of his life. Hinckley had good reason to believe that Huntsman would have understood the language Hinckley used, and as the majority recognizes, Hinckley’s intent, which is based on such an understanding, is a critical element of plaintiff’s fraud claim. A reasonable juror could therefore not find that Hinckley made “a knowingly false representation of fact.” Orient Handel, 237 Cal. Rptr. at 672. Born in 1971, Huntsman was raised in a prominent family in the Church, and, as the majority points out, he considered himself to be “one of the Church’s most devout members.” Indeed, “he was raised in the LDS Church where he faithfully attended weekly meetings, watched biannual general conference broadcasts, tithed, and donated to the fast offering and missionary funds.” In 1990, Huntsman was ordained an Elder and began a two-year mission to Germany, and he has since “held numerous leadership and teaching assignments within the Church,” “including missionary zone leader and trainer (five times), Elders Quorum President, Ward Mission Leader, Stake Mission Presidency, High Council and Gospel Doctrine teacher (on and off for eight years).” Moreover, “Huntsman worked at Huntsman Corporation for 23 years, has run several businesses and currently owns and operates Blue Fox Entertainment.” Are we seriously supposed to look at Huntsman's background and from it deduce that he did not understand the difference between principal and income thereon? 48 minutes ago, Analytics said: I'm not 100% positive what Congressman Grothom meant by his question, but I am positive that Professor Cohen interpreted the question as including both principle and interest. Grothom was asking about "how much of that premium is going for claims and how much is going for overhead and commissions." This question does not reference, nor does seem to presuppose or have in view, the concept of premiums being invested to generate income/interest. And again, Prof. Cohen is a medical doctor. He seems to be speaking in broad generalities that have little or nothing to do with the distinction Brunson is addressing. 48 minutes ago, Analytics said: When a long-term care insurance policy is sold, most of the premiums in the early years of the policy are invested, and the insurance company then relies on both principle and interest to eventually pay the claims. When Professor Cohen said 60-70% of premiums goes to claims, he meant 60-70% of premiums, accumulated with interest, go to paying claims. He said nothing about accumulated interest. An anonymous online poster presuming to reading the mind of a medical doctor testifying before Congress in 2016 about issues that make no reference to the distinction at hand - principal versus accrued income/interest - is not very good evidence that "Brunson is wrong on {the distinction between principal and income/interest}." 48 minutes ago, Analytics said: Just as Marc Cohen interpreted "how much of that premium is going for claims" as including interest, it is eminently reasonable to infer that when the Church said "no tithing money was used" it meant that no tithing money, accumulated with interest, was used. No, it's not. Again, from the dissent (emphases added) : Quote Here, whether Hinckley intended to make such a false statement must be assessed in the context of what he would have expected Huntsman—the plaintiff—to understand. Simply, no reasonable juror could conclude that Hinckley intended to make a knowingly false representation to Huntsman, particularly because of Hinckley’s knowledge of Huntsman’s sophistication and substantial familiarity with the Church, a dispositive fact that is discussed further below. The case hinges on the first of the allegedly fraudulent statements that Huntsman points to: a statement by Hinckley at the Church’s April 2003 General Conference. The General Conference is a “semi-annual event consisting of worship services and messages from Church leaders broadcast to the worldwide Church.” The issue is whether Hinckley accurately represented the source of funding for the City Creek Mall project when he discussed the Church’s “decision to purchase the shopping mall property immediately to the south of Temple Square.” Hinckley explained of the project: Quote We feel we have a compelling responsibility to protect the environment of the Salt Lake Temple. The Church owns most of the ground on which this mall stands. The owners of the buildings have expressed a desire to sell. The property needs very extensive and expensive renovation. We have felt it imperative to do something to revitalize this area. He then explained the City Creek project’s funding sources: Quote But I wish to give the entire Church the assurance that tithing funds have not and will not be used to acquire this property. Nor will they be used in developing it for commercial purposes. Funds for this have come and will come from those commercial entities owned by the Church. These resources, together with the earnings of invested reserve funds, will accommodate this program. In that statement, Hinckley did represent “that tithing funds have not and will not be used to acquire this property,” but he then qualified that representation by explaining: “These resources, together with the earnings of invested reserve funds, will accommodate this program.” (Emphasis added). To be clear, as the district judge found, “the earnings of invested reserve funds were the earnings of invested tithing funds.” Hinckley thus clarified that the Church would use earnings from invested reserve tithing funds. It is eminently not reasonable for a listener - James Huntsman - to conflate what the speaker - Pres. Hinckley - explicitly differentiated, namely, "tithing funds" and "earnings of invested reserve funds." More from the dissent: Quote Indeed, statements by Hinckley in 1991 and 1995 made clear that the Church’s “reserves” referred to tithing funds, and thus earnings on reserves would refer to the earnings on tithing funds. In 1991, Hinckley said the church would set aside a portion of the contributions it received in tithes. “In the financial operations of the Church,” he said, “we have observed two basic and fixed principles: One, the Church will live within its means. It will not spend more than it receives. Two, a fixed percentage of income will be set aside to build reserves against what might be called a possible ‘rainy day.’” In 1995, Hinckley reiterated that message: “Not only are we determined to live within the means of the Church, but each year we put into the reserves of the Church a portion of our annual budget.” In context, these statements show that the Church’s “reserves” encompass tithing money. Pres. Hinckley differentiated "reserves" (tithing funds) and "earnings on reserves" (earnings on tithing funds). Quote The majority’s attempt to explain away the 1991 and 1995 statements is unpersuasive. First, contrary to the majority’s assertion, Hinckley did make clear that “income” in his 1991 statement included tithing. Specifically, Hinckley said: “The financial program of the Church—both income and disbursement—is found in sections 119 and 120 of the Doctrine and Covenants.” Hinckley then explained that section 119 refers to tithing. Because this statement roots the Church’s “income and disbursement” in section 119, which refers to tithing, it is clear that income for the Church includes tithing. This renders irrelevant the majority’s assertion that “[i]ncome is usually used as a secular term.” Maj. Op. at 24. Moreover, the 1991 statement is at odds with the majority’s assessment that “[t]he Church has significant commercial assets and income from those assets.” Maj. Op. at 24. Indeed, Hinckley stated in 1991 that the Church’s income from its commercial assets was “relatively small” and that its other assets generally did not generate income. With respect to what Hinckley described as “substantial assets,” he explained that “these are money-consuming assets and not money-producing assets”6 as they are largely in particular types of real estate such as meeting facilities and schools, and in welfare projects, and the like. And with respect to the Church’s commercial assets, Hinckley specified: “We have a few income-producing business properties, but the return from these would keep the Church going only for a very brief time.” He then returned to discussing tithing. Therefore, from the context of the 1991 statement, Hinckley’s reference to “build[ing] reserves” from “income” meant that the Church would build reserves from, at least in part, tithing funds. Second, the context of the 1995 statement is also clear that the Church’s reserves derived from tithing. Hinckley discussed tithing in the immediately preceding paragraphs to the statement that “we put into the reserves of the Church a portion of our annual budget.” Hinckley explained that “[t]he Church has been living within its means, and it will continue to do so. I am profoundly grateful for the law of tithing.” He then discussed the commandment to tithe and that the Church has “a compelling trust to use them carefully and wisely.” Hinckley then referred back to the beginning of his discussion of tithing when discussing the reserves by saying: “Not only are we determined to live within the means of the Church, but each year we put into the reserves of the Church a portion of our annual budget.” (Emphasis added). Thus, even if Hinckley did not expressly state that tithing funds would be placed into reserves, the context of his reference to the annual budget surrounded by a discussion of tithing makes it obvious they would be. These 1991 and 1995 statements must inform our understanding of Hinckley’s 2003 statement that “the earnings of invested reserve funds” would be used for the City Creek project. Indeed, they show that “reserve funds” refer to tithing funds. In other words, in his 2003 statement, Hinckley said that the Church would use earnings on tithings, not tithing principal, to fund the project. And that was true. The financial records of Ensign Peak Advisors (“Ensign Peak”), which the Church incorporated in 1997 to serve as the “primary investment vehicle for the Church’s reserve funds in stocks, bonds, and securities,” confirm this fact. In 2003 alone, as the district judge noted, Ensign Peak had enough earnings on invested reserves to fund the allocation of money to the fund designated for the City Creek project. To be more precise, the record reflects that Ensign Peak had earnings of over $3.9 billion in 2003. Then, on January 1, 2004, Ensign Peak earmarked $1.2 billion of its funds to an internal account for the City Creek project. Withdrawing $1.2 billion from an account that just earned $3.9 billion cannot mean that Ensign Peak cut into the principal instead of the earnings. The majority also argues that “there is evidence in the record indicating that the term ‘tithing funds,’ in common usage within the Church refers both to tithing principal and to earnings on tithing principal,” and thus Hinckley intended his audience to understand that neither tithing principal nor earnings would be used. Maj. Op. at 26. But the majority places too much weight on the declaration of David Nielsen, who worked as a Senior Portfolio Manager at Ensign Peak from 2010 until 2019, because, as the district judge pointed out, Nielsen did not work at Ensign Peak at the time that the funds were allocated for the City Creek project, and even if Nielsen’s statements could establish common usage at Ensign Peak during his employment there, it is a stretch to say that he could establish the common usage throughout the Church as a whole. Moreover, even this “common usage” would not change the conclusion that “the earnings of invested reserve funds were the earnings of invested tithing funds,” and Hinckley therefore effectively clarified that the Church would use earnings from invested reserve tithing funds. The subsequent statements made by the Church about the City Creek project also do not permit a fraud claim because they do not conflict with Hinckley’s 2003 statement. The district judge rightly found that “[n]one of the four statements are inconsistent with Hinckley’s statement.” Thus, they do not change the fact that Hinckley said that “earnings of invested reserve funds” would be used. Any subsequent statement would have been understood in the context of that earlier statement. The Church therefore did not make a false representation, and our analysis of plaintiff’s fraud claim should end here. Indeed, as the district judge found on these facts: “a reasonable juror could only conclude that Defendant used ‘the earnings of invested reserve funds’ to fund the City Creek project—i.e., Defendant did exactly what Hinckley said Defendant would do.” Nonetheless, the majority takes a further journey to find a false representation, contending that “[e]ven if true, President Hinckley’s statement about ‘reserve funds’ is not necessarily a defense to Huntsman’s fraud claim.” Maj. Op. at 25. The majority suggests that Hinckley used an “undefined or specialized terms that his audience would not understand.” Maj. Op. at 25. I agree in principle that adding a caveat in a foreign language or a specialized term that could not be understood would not defeat a fraud claim. But in this case, there is no evidence that Hinckley’s statements would have been the equivalent of a foreign language to this specific plaintiff. Indeed, this is not a class action; Hinckley’s audience for purposes of this action was Huntsman, a sophisticated individual who has been immersed in the Church for much of his life. ... Huntsman was aware that the Church owned commercial ventures, and he kept up to date on Church affairs, as his practice was to “read the complete conference sessions in the Ensign Special Edition.” Indeed, as a young man, as early as in his 20s and 30s, Huntsman was curious about the Church’s use of tithing contributions, but he did not need to ask how his contributions were being spent “[b]ecause the answer at the time was provided in Church manuals, priesthood manuals, General Conference, Church magazines, and Sunday school.” In other words, Huntsman was familiar with the Church’s operations and publications. All this significantly weakens the majority’s analogy to a foreign language. And, in my view, the record is clear that Hinckley would have expected Huntsman—from a prominent family and himself a leader in the Church—to understand the terminology Hinckley used. If Huntsman’s background and sophistication are not enough alone, as discussed above, Hinckley explained in two statements in 1991 and 1995 that the Church would set aside tithing funds as reserves. Thus, Huntsman should have understood that “earnings of invested reserve funds” referred to earnings on tithing principal. While Huntsman argues in his briefing that there is no evidence that he was aware of the 1991 or 1995 statements, a brief is not a substitute for an affidavit in the face of a record that establishes otherwise. As mentioned earlier, in his deposition, Huntsman indicated that he would have been aware of at least the following material during his 20’s and 30’s: “Church manuals, priesthood manuals, General Conference, Church magazines, and Sunday school.” Thus, there is evidence Huntsman would have read the 1991 and 1995 statements. In sum, Hinckley’s earlier statements show that the Church would set aside tithing funds as reserves. This, in addition to the financial records, makes clear that Hinckley’s 2003 statement was truthful and not a misrepresentation. Combined with Huntsman’s sophistication and knowledge of the Church, there is also no question that Hinckley would have expected Huntsman to understand his statement, which entirely undermines any claim that Hinckley made a knowingly false representation. Again, this is not a question of what Huntsman understood, but of what Hinckley intended. Thus, no reasonable juror could conclude that the Church fraudulently misrepresented the source of the money used to finance the City Creek Mall project. "Tithing" is a charitable contribution to the Church. If I donate $1,000.00 to the Church, and if the Church thereafter invests that money and obtains income or interest of $200.00, the "tithing" in view is . . . $1,000.00. I did not tithe the $200.00. It was never in my bank account and was never transferred by me to the Church. I cannot claim it as a charitable donation, and if I did the IRS would not recognize it as such. What you are presenting is just special pleading. There is nothing "reasonable," let alone eminently ("to a notable degree; very") reasonable, about conflating principal and income. The only folks advancing this silliness are ax-grinding opponents of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Folks who dislike the Church, and so are cheering on James Huntsman's contrived and ad hoc attempt to pound a round peg into a square hole. 48 minutes ago, Analytics said: Given the fungible nature of money, this should be obvious. I encourage you to re-read the dissenting opinion, particularly this bit: Quote These 1991 and 1995 statements must inform our understanding of Hinckley’s 2003 statement that “the earnings of invested reserve funds” would be used for the City Creek project. Indeed, they show that “reserve funds” refer to tithing funds. In other words, in his 2003 statement, Hinckley said that the Church would use earnings on tithings, not tithing principal, to fund the project. And that was true. The financial records of Ensign Peak Advisors (“Ensign Peak”), which the Church incorporated in 1997 to serve as the “primary investment vehicle for the Church’s reserve funds in stocks, bonds, and securities,” confirm this fact. In 2003 alone, as the district judge noted, Ensign Peak had enough earnings on invested reserves to fund the allocation of money to the fund designated for the City Creek project. To be more precise, the record reflects that Ensign Peak had earnings of over $3.9 billion in 2003. Then, on January 1, 2004, Ensign Peak earmarked $1.2 billion of its funds to an internal account for the City Creek project. Withdrawing $1.2 billion from an account that just earned $3.9 billion cannot mean that Ensign Peak cut into the principal instead of the earnings. "Withdrawing $1.2 billion from an account that just earned $3.9 billion cannot mean that Ensign Peak cut into the principal instead of the earnings." 48 minutes ago, Analytics said: Unless the Church has an account with only pure unadulterated "tithing money" and another account with the sullied investment income, how would it know whether a dollar it spent was actual tithing or whether it was the investment income? Basic math would do the trick. Thanks, -Smac 3 Link to comment
Analytics Posted August 23, 2023 Share Posted August 23, 2023 (edited) 16 hours ago, smac97 said: First, "Marc Cohen" is listed as "Ph.D, Clinical Professor of Gerontology, University of Massachusetts Boston." So I'm not sure he's an authoritative source for rebutting Brunson's point (distinguishing interest/income on invested principal from the principal itself). Marc Cohen is a renowned expert on long-term care insurance. It was for that expertise he was asked to testify before Congress. In the insurance industry, especially among the most sophisticated professionals (i.e. the actuaries), and especially in the lines of insurance that rely the most on investment income (e.g. long-term care insurance), the sophisticated practitioners generally do not distinguish between principal and interest, especially in the context of describing how premiums are allocated between claims, commissions, overhead, and profit. In this industry, if somebody says something like "60% of the premiums go to pay claims", sophisticated people interpret that to mean 60% of collected premium plus 60% of investment income go to pay claims. 16 hours ago, smac97 said: Second, the hearing seems to have had little to nothing to do with "principal and income on the principal," or on distinguishing the latter from the former. No. The quote I provided was simply an example of a sophisticated professional who interpreted "premium" to mean "premium plus investment income on the premium." 16 hours ago, smac97 said: Third, that the only "example" you could muster (to demonstrate that Brunson "is wrong on this point") is so obscure, and so far afield from the topic at hand, suggests that your are scraping the bottom of the barrel. I merely cited a single representative example of how sophisticated people think about how premium means premium plus investment income on that premium. The insurance industry in the U.S. has something on the order of $13 trillion in assets which earns something like $600 billion a year in interest. Interest is a huge part of the insurance industry; we even have a graduate-level textbook on it (The Theory of Interest by Stephen Kellison). I could go into this deeply if you want. I just cited a single representative example of how people in this space think about interest. 16 hours ago, smac97 said: Fourth, on a whim I asked ChatGPT the following question: "In a financial sense, is income on principal ever conflated with principal?" The response: "{I}ncome and principal are distinct concepts, and they should not be conflated..." "It's important not to confuse the two..." "In summary, income and principal are separate financial concepts." "Understanding this distinction is crucial for making informed financial decisions and managing your investments effectively." This is a great example of the weakness of ChatGPT. 16 hours ago, smac97 said: Are we seriously supposed to look at Huntsman's background and from it deduce that he did not understand the difference between principal and income thereon? I don't know the specifics of Huntsman's background, but if he were an elite financial professional like Marc Cohen, I would expect him to interpret "tithing money wasn't used" to mean "neither tithing money nor investment income on tithing money was used." Interpreting the phrase "tithing" this way doesn't mean you don't understand the difference between principal and investment income. 16 hours ago, smac97 said: Grothom was asking about "how much of that premium is going for claims and how much is going for overhead and commissions." This question does not reference, nor does seem to presuppose or have in view, the concept of premiums being invested to generate income/interest. The only way that question makes sense and has a cogent answer is to interpret "how much of that premium..." as meaning "how much of that premium, accumulated with interest..." You thinking that it doesn't have anything to do with investment income just shows that you don't know very much about the theory of interest, how insurance works, nor about how sophisticated insurance professionals use language. 16 hours ago, smac97 said: And again, Prof. Cohen is a medical doctor. No he's not. He is an insurance expert. 16 hours ago, smac97 said: He seems to be speaking in broad generalities that have little or nothing to do with the distinction Brunson is addressing. He said nothing about accumulated interest. An anonymous online poster presuming to reading the mind of a medical doctor testifying before Congress in 2016 about issues that make no reference to the distinction at hand - principal versus accrued income/interest - is not very good evidence that "Brunson is wrong on {the distinction between principal and income/interest}." When Marc Cohen said, "somewhere between 60 to 70 percent of the dollars that were collected would eventually get paid out in claims", he was saying that "somewhere between 60 to 70 percent of the dollars that were collected, accumulated with interest, would eventually get paid out in claims." Yes, I'm a quasi-anonymous online poster, and me saying this as an anonymous online poster doesn't constitute evidence. But that doesn't change the fact that in the real world I am fully qualified to testify as an expert witness on such things. What I'm saying here is true. If you'd like me to wonk out and demonstrate it I'd be glad to. Give me the word and I'll write it, on the condition that you promise to carefully read the whole thing. Edited August 23, 2023 by Analytics 1 Link to comment
SeekingUnderstanding Posted August 23, 2023 Share Posted August 23, 2023 I’m super curious. Let’s suppose a women’s crisis center asked for donations stated that no donated money would be used to pay for abortions. This organization relies exclusively on donations to operate. Later it turns out they were funding abortions all along using interest. Without telling anyone they created a large endowment, and used the interest from the endowment to pay for abortions. Would pro life donors have any right to complain? If they sued the organization, would it be a case of not being able to leave the organization alone? 1 Link to comment
Analytics Posted August 23, 2023 Share Posted August 23, 2023 51 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said: I’m super curious. Let’s suppose a women’s crisis center asked for donations stated that no donated money would be used to pay for abortions. This organization relies exclusively on donations to operate. Later it turns out they were funding abortions all along using interest. Without telling anyone they created a large endowment, and used the interest from the endowment to pay for abortions. Would pro life donors have any right to complain? If they sued the organization, would it be a case of not being able to leave the organization alone? It would be a case of somebody not knowing the difference between principal an interest, of course. The best way to explain to these hypothetical pro-life donors donors why they are being unreasonable would be to give them patronizing lectures about what the words “donations”, “principal”, and “interest” mean. Link to comment
bluebell Posted August 23, 2023 Share Posted August 23, 2023 59 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said: I’m super curious. Let’s suppose a women’s crisis center asked for donations stated that no donated money would be used to pay for abortions. This organization relies exclusively on donations to operate. Later it turns out they were funding abortions all along using interest. Without telling anyone they created a large endowment, and used the interest from the endowment to pay for abortions. Would pro life donors have any right to complain? If they sued the organization, would it be a case of not being able to leave the organization alone? As long as the donors knew that the organization was funding abortions, then no I don’t think they have any case to complain or be upset. 2 Link to comment
Amulek Posted August 23, 2023 Share Posted August 23, 2023 6 hours ago, Analytics said: In the insurance industry, especially among the most sophisticated professionals (i.e. the actuaries), and especially in the lines of insurance that rely the most on investment income (e.g. long-term care insurance), the sophisticated practitioners generally do not distinguish between principal and interest, especially in the context of describing how premiums are allocated between claims, commissions, overhead, and profit. Well, the actuaries might not care about making such a distinction but the accountants sure as heck do - especially when it comes to paying taxes. If there were really no difference between principal and interest, I know a lot of state agencies who would be more than happy to start treating all that accumulated interest as direct premiums and then subjecting those proceeds to their premium tax statutes. 1 Link to comment
Analytics Posted August 23, 2023 Share Posted August 23, 2023 2 minutes ago, Amulek said: Well, the actuaries might not care about making such a distinction but the accountants sure as heck do - especially when it comes to paying taxes. If there were really no difference between principal and interest, I know a lot of state agencies who would be more than happy to start treating all that accumulated interest as direct premiums and then subjecting those proceeds to their premium tax statutes. It depends upon the context, obviously. I’m not claiming that insurance company income statements don’t have separate lines for premiums and investment income, nor am I claiming that premium and investment income have the same tax treatment. What I am saying is that if somebody asks, “what percentage of premium is used to pay claims”, actuaries will implicitly assume “premium”, in this context, means premium plus investment income on that premium. Likewise, when an equally sophisticated person hears “no tithing money was used,” they will likely think tithing money wasn’t used directly, nor was interest on tithing money used. If somebody means to imply that investment income on tithing money was used to pay for a mall, they should say that. Link to comment
smac97 Posted August 23, 2023 Author Share Posted August 23, 2023 7 hours ago, Analytics said: I don't know the specifics of Huntsman's background, but if he were an elite financial professional like Marc Cohen, I would expect him to interpret "tithing money wasn't used" to mean "neither tithing money nor investment income on tithing money was used." Again, I invite you to consider the remarks of the dissenting judge. It is unreasonable to "expect" Huntsman to conflate what Pres. Hinckley differentiated. 7 hours ago, Analytics said: Interpreting the phrase "tithing" this way doesn't mean you don't understand the difference between principal and investment income. It is unreasonable for an experienced, educated, conversant Latter-day Saint to, having considered Pres. Hinckley's remarks, conflate principal and investment income. 7 hours ago, Analytics said: The only way that question makes sense and has a cogent answer is to interpret "how much of that premium..." as meaning "how much of that premium, accumulated with interest..." You thinking that it doesn't have anything to do with investment income just shows that you don't know very much about the theory of interest, how insurance works, nor about how sophisticated insurance professionals use language. No he's not. He is an insurance expert. Again, you're scraping the bottom of the barrel. 7 hours ago, Analytics said: Quote An anonymous online poster presuming to reading the mind of a medical doctor testifying before Congress in 2016 about issues that make no reference to the distinction at hand - principal versus accrued income/interest - is not very good evidence that "Brunson is wrong on {the distinction between principal and income/interest}." Yes, I'm a quasi-anonymous online poster, and me saying this as an anonymous online poster doesn't constitute evidence. Yes, I'm a quasi-anonymous online poster, and me saying this as an anonymous online poster doesn't constitute evidence. But that doesn't change the fact that in the real world I am fully qualified to testify as an expert witness on such things. No, you're not. First, nothing you presented here was based on your supposed expertise. You quoted something from congressional testimony in 2016. Anyone with access to Google and good Ctrl+C / Ctrl+V technique can do that. Second, the issue at hand is not one to be resolved via expert testimony. Such testimony is typically needed when a subject matter being discussed in a legal case requires specialized knowledge, technical expertise, or a level of understanding that is beyond the scope of knowledge possessed by the average person, judge, or juror. Technical or scientific matters, for example. Or in a medical context, the "standard of care" owed to a patient in a particular circumstance. Here, however, the issue is what did Mr. Huntsman understand Pres. Hinckley to mean in his public remarks regarding the use of tithing. For that, you are manifestly not "fully qualified to testify as an expert witness," nor even as a percipient/fact witness. Third, you are, instead, merely an ax-grinding anonymous lookyloo quoting a snippet of congressional testimony in 2016, which is wholly irrelevant to the issue at hand. My previous comments to that effect were not an attempt to present "evidence," but to undermine yours (such as it is). Fourth, Mr. Huntsman's lawsuit has, AFAICS, not involved any expert testimony. Even the testimony relied upon by the majority opinion - the written declaration of David Nielsen - posits him as a fact witness, not an expert one. Again, from the dissent: Quote The majority also argues that “there is evidence in the record indicating that the term ‘tithing funds,’ in common usage within the Church refers both to tithing principal and to earnings on tithing principal,” and thus Hinckley intended his audience to understand that neither tithing principal nor earnings would be used. Maj. Op. at 26. But the majority places too much weight on the declaration of David Nielsen, who worked as a Senior Portfolio Manager at Ensign Peak from 2010 until 2019, because, as the district judge pointed out, Nielsen did not work at Ensign Peak at the time that the funds were allocated for the City Creek project, and even if Nielsen’s statements could establish common usage at Ensign Peak during his employment there, it is a stretch to say that he could establish the common usage throughout the Church as a whole. Moreover, even this “common usage” would not change the conclusion that “the earnings of invested reserve funds were the earnings of invested tithing funds,” and Hinckley therefore effectively clarified that the Church would use earnings from invested reserve tithing funds. If "common usage" is, as the majority opinion seems to imply, a determinative issue (I don't think it is), you, as an admitted "quasi-anonymous online poster," are not "fully qualified to testify as an expert witness on such things." Frankly, I don't think anyone would qualify as an "expert" on that, which is likely why neither side has attempted to elicit any such testimony. 7 hours ago, Analytics said: What I'm saying here is true. What you are saying here has no substantive relevance to the litigation under discussion. 7 hours ago, Analytics said: If you'd like me to wonk out and demonstrate it I'd be glad to. Give me the word and I'll write it, on the condition that you promise to carefully read the whole thing. This is a case about "fraud." It is not a class action, so the only relevant recipient of the communications from the Church about City Creek is James Huntsman. Respectfully, I think you do not understand - or appreciate - the distinction between expert witness and fact witness testimony. If you did, you would not be offering to "wonk out" and spend time generating content that has no relevance to the lawsuit. What "a sophisticated professional who {in 2016, when presenting testimony to Congress about health insurance, and according to Analytics} interpreted 'premium' to mean 'premium plus investment income on the premium'" has no bearing on what James Huntsman understood when he heard remarks from Pres. Hinckley about the City Creek project. None. Thanks, -Smac 1 Link to comment
smac97 Posted August 23, 2023 Author Share Posted August 23, 2023 (edited) 3 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said: I’m super curious. Let’s suppose a women’s crisis center asked for donations stated that no donated money would be used to pay for abortions. This organization relies exclusively on donations to operate. Later it turns out they were funding abortions all along using interest. Without telling anyone they created a large endowment, and used the interest from the endowment to pay for abortions. Would pro life donors have any right to complain? If they sued the organization, would it be a case of not being able to leave the organization alone? A few thoughts: First, the analogy would need to include something like "no donated money would be used to pay for abortions, as we will be paying for abortions using other means than donated money, such as earnings derived from investments of those donations." The Church never hid that it was funding City Creek, or that it was doing so from earnings on investments, whereas in your analogy the women's crisis center did hide that it was funding abortions altogether. Second, that the Church invests a portion of tithed funds is common knowledge, whereas in your analogy the women's crisis center funding abortions is not, as evidenced by the fact that it has "pro life donors." Third, the issue at hand - statements by the Church differentiating between "principal" (tithes) and income (from invested principal) is addressed at length in the 9th Circuit dissent (bold emphases added) : Quote Hinckley explained of the project: Quote We feel we have a compelling responsibility to protect the environment of the Salt Lake Temple. The Church owns most of the ground on which this mall stands. The owners of the buildings have expressed a desire to sell. The property needs very extensive and expensive renovation. We have felt it imperative to do something to revitalize this area. He then explained the City Creek project’s funding sources: Quote But I wish to give the entire Church the assurance that tithing funds have not and will not be used to acquire this property. Nor will they be used in developing it for commercial purposes. Funds for this have come and will come from those commercial entities owned by the Church. These resources, together with the earnings of invested reserve funds, will accommodate this program. In that statement, Hinckley did represent “that tithing funds have not and will not be used to acquire this property,” but he then qualified that representation by explaining: “These resources, together with the earnings of invested reserve funds, will accommodate this program.” (Emphasis added). To be clear, as the district judge found, “the earnings of invested reserve funds were the earnings of invested tithing funds.” Hinckley thus clarified that the Church would use earnings from invested reserve tithing funds. Indeed, statements by Hinckley in 1991 and 1995 made clear that the Church’s “reserves” referred to tithing funds, and thus earnings on reserves would refer to the earnings on tithing funds. In 1991, Hinckley said the church would set aside a portion of the contributions it received in tithes. “In the financial operations of the Church,” he said, “we have observed two basic and fixed principles: One, the Church will live within its means. It will not spend more than it receives. Two, a fixed percentage of income will be set aside to build reserves against what might be called a possible ‘rainy day.’” In 1995, Hinckley reiterated that message: “Not only are we determined to live within the means of the Church, but each year we put into the reserves of the Church a portion of our annual budget.” In context, these statements show that the Church’s “reserves” encompass tithing money. This point - the public and clear differentiation of tithing from earnings on tithing funds - is entirely absent in your analogy. Quote The majority’s attempt to explain away the 1991 and 1995 statements is unpersuasive. First, contrary to the majority’s assertion, Hinckley did make clear that “income” in his 1991 statement included tithing. Specifically, Hinckley said: “The financial program of the Church—both income and disbursement—is found in sections 119 and 120 of the Doctrine and Covenants.” Hinckley then explained that section 119 refers to tithing. Because this statement roots the Church’s “income and disbursement” in section 119, which refers to tithing, it is clear that income for the Church includes tithing. This renders irrelevant the majority’s assertion that “[i]ncome is usually used as a secular term.” Maj. Op. at 24. Moreover, the 1991 statement is at odds with the majority’s assessment that “[t]he Church has significant commercial assets and income from those assets.” Maj. Op. at 24. Indeed, Hinckley stated in 1991 that the Church’s income from its commercial assets was “relatively small” and that its other assets generally did not generate income. With respect to what Hinckley described as “substantial assets,” he explained that “these are money-consuming assets and not money-producing assets”6 as they are largely in particular types of real estate such as meeting facilities and schools, and in welfare projects, and the like. And with respect to the Church’s commercial assets, Hinckley specified: “We have a few income-producing business properties, but the return from these would keep the Church going only for a very brief time.” He then returned to discussing tithing. Therefore, from the context of the 1991 statement, Hinckley’s reference to “build[ing] reserves” from “income” meant that the Church would build reserves from, at least in part, tithing funds. Second, the context of the 1995 statement is also clear that the Church’s reserves derived from tithing. Hinckley discussed tithing in the immediately preceding paragraphs to the statement that “we put into the reserves of the Church a portion of our annual budget.” Hinckley explained that “[t]he Church has been living within its means, and it will continue to do so. I am profoundly grateful for the law of tithing.” He then discussed the commandment to tithe and that the Church has “a compelling trust to use them carefully and wisely.” Hinckley then referred back to the beginning of his discussion of tithing when discussing the reserves by saying: “Not only are we determined to live within the means of the Church, but each year we put into the reserves of the Church a portion of our annual budget.” (Emphasis added). Thus, even if Hinckley did not expressly state that tithing funds would be placed into reserves, the context of his reference to the annual budget surrounded by a discussion of tithing makes it obvious they would be. Indeed, statements by Hinckley in 1991 and 1995 made clear that the Church’s “reserves” referred to tithing funds, and thus earnings on reserves would refer to the earnings on tithing funds. In 1991, Hinckley said the church would set aside a portion of the contributions it received in tithes. “In the financial operations of the Church,” he said, “we have observed two basic and fixed principles: One, the Church will live within its means. It will not spend more than it receives. Two, a fixed percentage of income will be set aside to build reserves against what might be called a possible ‘rainy day.’” In 1995, Hinckley reiterated that message: “Not only are we determined to live within the means of the Church, but each year we put into the reserves of the Church a portion of our annual budget.” In context, these statements show that the Church’s “reserves” encompass tithing money. These 1991 and 1995 statements must inform our understanding of Hinckley’s 2003 statement that “the earnings of invested reserve funds” would be used for the City Creek project. Indeed, they show that “reserve funds” refer to tithing funds. In other words, in his 2003 statement, Hinckley said that the Church would use earnings on tithings, not tithing principal, to fund the project. And that was true. The financial records of Ensign Peak Advisors (“Ensign Peak”), which the Church incorporated in 1997 to serve as the “primary investment vehicle for the Church’s reserve funds in stocks, bonds, and securities,” confirm this fact. In 2003 alone, as the district judge noted, Ensign Peak had enough earnings on invested reserves to fund the allocation of money to the fund designated for the City Creek project. To be more precise, the record reflects that Ensign Peak had earnings of over $3.9 billion in 2003. Then, on January 1, 2004, Ensign Peak earmarked $1.2 billion of its funds to an internal account for the City Creek project. Withdrawing $1.2 billion from an account that just earned $3.9 billion cannot mean that Ensign Peak cut into the principal instead of the earnings. None of this is present in your analogy. Thanks, -Smac Edited August 23, 2023 by smac97 2 Link to comment
smac97 Posted August 23, 2023 Author Share Posted August 23, 2023 2 hours ago, Analytics said: Quote I’m super curious. Let’s suppose a women’s crisis center asked for donations stated that no donated money would be used to pay for abortions. This organization relies exclusively on donations to operate. Later it turns out they were funding abortions all along using interest. Without telling anyone they created a large endowment, and used the interest from the endowment to pay for abortions. Would pro life donors have any right to complain? If they sued the organization, would it be a case of not being able to leave the organization alone? It would be a case of somebody not knowing the difference between principal an interest, of course. And since Mr. Huntsman surely does know the difference between principal and interest, the analogy to a women's crisis center doesn't really work well. 2 hours ago, Analytics said: The best way to explain to these hypothetical pro-life donors donors why they are being unreasonable would be to give them patronizing lectures about what the words “donations”, “principal”, and “interest” mean. I disagree. The best way would to be up front and candid, to explain that the women's crisis center is funding abortions, and that it is funding abortions using the earnings of invested reserve funds, not the reserve fund itself. Thanks, -Smac 1 Link to comment
smac97 Posted August 23, 2023 Author Share Posted August 23, 2023 (edited) . Edited August 23, 2023 by smac97 Link to comment
smac97 Posted August 23, 2023 Author Share Posted August 23, 2023 1 hour ago, Analytics said: Quote Well, the actuaries might not care about making such a distinction but the accountants sure as heck do - especially when it comes to paying taxes. If there were really no difference between principal and interest, I know a lot of state agencies who would be more than happy to start treating all that accumulated interest as direct premiums and then subjecting those proceeds to their premium tax statutes. It depends upon the context, obviously. I quite agree. Indeed, that is the central point of the dissenting opinion. The one against which you are arguing. 1 hour ago, Analytics said: I’m not claiming that insurance company income statements don’t have separate lines for premiums and investment income, nor am I claiming that premium and investment income have the same tax treatment. But you are claiming that James Huntsman, the well-educated and well-experienced son of a billionaire and business man in his own right, did not appreciate the difference between principal and investment income. Right? 1 hour ago, Analytics said: What I am saying is that if somebody asks, “what percentage of premium is used to pay claims”, actuaries will implicitly assume “premium”, in this context, means premium plus investment income on that premium. If an actuary makes such an implicit assumption, he is very bad at his job because he is ignoring the context you are now emphasizing. The "context" relative to Mr. Huntsman was the statements from the Church. Mr. Huntsman's lawsuit can only make sense if he - and you - ignore those statements, ignore "the context." Again, that is the point nailed home several times in the dissent. 1 hour ago, Analytics said: Likewise, when an equally sophisticated person hears “no tithing money was used,” they will likely think tithing money wasn’t used directly, nor was interest on tithing money used. Only if that "sophisticated person" does what you are arguing against, which is to ignore context. You are arguing against yourself now. 1 hour ago, Analytics said: If somebody means to imply that investment income on tithing money was used to pay for a mall, they should say that. Somebody (Pres. Hinckley) did "say that." Again, from the dissent: Quote Hinckley explained of the project: Quote We feel we have a compelling responsibility to protect the environment of the Salt Lake Temple. The Church owns most of the ground on which this mall stands. The owners of the buildings have expressed a desire to sell. The property needs very extensive and expensive renovation. We have felt it imperative to do something to revitalize this area. He then explained the City Creek project’s funding sources: Quote But I wish to give the entire Church the assurance that tithing funds have not and will not be used to acquire this property. Nor will they be used in developing it for commercial purposes. Funds for this have come and will come from those commercial entities owned by the Church. These resources, together with the earnings of invested reserve funds, will accommodate this program. In that statement, Hinckley did represent “that tithing funds have not and will not be used to acquire this property,” but he then qualified that representation by explaining: “These resources, together with the earnings of invested reserve funds, will accommodate this program.” (Emphasis added). To be clear, as the district judge found, “the earnings of invested reserve funds were the earnings of invested tithing funds.” Hinckley thus clarified that the Church would use earnings from invested reserve tithing funds. Indeed, statements by Hinckley in 1991 and 1995 made clear that the Church’s “reserves” referred to tithing funds, and thus earnings on reserves would refer to the earnings on tithing funds. In 1991, Hinckley said the church would set aside a portion of the contributions it received in tithes. “In the financial operations of the Church,” he said, “we have observed two basic and fixed principles: One, the Church will live within its means. It will not spend more than it receives. Two, a fixed percentage of income will be set aside to build reserves against what might be called a possible ‘rainy day.’” In 1995, Hinckley reiterated that message: “Not only are we determined to live within the means of the Church, but each year we put into the reserves of the Church a portion of our annual budget.” In context, these statements show that the Church’s “reserves” encompass tithing money. The majority’s attempt to explain away the 1991 and 1995 statements is unpersuasive. First, contrary to the majority’s assertion, Hinckley did make clear that “income” in his 1991 statement included tithing. Specifically, Hinckley said: “The financial program of the Church—both income and disbursement—is found in sections 119 and 120 of the Doctrine and Covenants.” Hinckley then explained that section 119 refers to tithing. Because this statement roots the Church’s “income and disbursement” in section 119, which refers to tithing, it is clear that income for the Church includes tithing. This renders irrelevant the majority’s assertion that “[i]ncome is usually used as a secular term.” Maj. Op. at 24. Moreover, the 1991 statement is at odds with the majority’s assessment that “[t]he Church has significant commercial assets and income from those assets.” Maj. Op. at 24. Indeed, Hinckley stated in 1991 that the Church’s income from its commercial assets was “relatively small” and that its other assets generally did not generate income. With respect to what Hinckley described as “substantial assets,” he explained that “these are money-consuming assets and not money-producing assets”6 as they are largely in particular types of real estate such as meeting facilities and schools, and in welfare projects, and the like. And with respect to the Church’s commercial assets, Hinckley specified: “We have a few income-producing business properties, but the return from these would keep the Church going only for a very brief time.” He then returned to discussing tithing. Therefore, from the context of the 1991 statement, Hinckley’s reference to “build[ing] reserves” from “income” meant that the Church would build reserves from, at least in part, tithing funds. Second, the context of the 1995 statement is also clear that the Church’s reserves derived from tithing. Hinckley discussed tithing in the immediately preceding paragraphs to the statement that “we put into the reserves of the Church a portion of our annual budget.” Hinckley explained that “[t]he Church has been living within its means, and it will continue to do so. I am profoundly grateful for the law of tithing.” He then discussed the commandment to tithe and that the Church has “a compelling trust to use them carefully and wisely.” Hinckley then referred back to the beginning of his discussion of tithing when discussing the reserves by saying: “Not only are we determined to live within the means of the Church, but each year we put into the reserves of the Church a portion of our annual budget.” (Emphasis added). Thus, even if Hinckley did not expressly state that tithing funds would be placed into reserves, the context of his reference to the annual budget surrounded by a discussion of tithing makes it obvious they would be. Indeed, statements by Hinckley in 1991 and 1995 made clear that the Church’s “reserves” referred to tithing funds, and thus earnings on reserves would refer to the earnings on tithing funds. In 1991, Hinckley said the church would set aside a portion of the contributions it received in tithes. “In the financial operations of the Church,” he said, “we have observed two basic and fixed principles: One, the Church will live within its means. It will not spend more than it receives. Two, a fixed percentage of income will be set aside to build reserves against what might be called a possible ‘rainy day.’” In 1995, Hinckley reiterated that message: “Not only are we determined to live within the means of the Church, but each year we put into the reserves of the Church a portion of our annual budget.” In context, these statements show that the Church’s “reserves” encompass tithing money. These 1991 and 1995 statements must inform our understanding of Hinckley’s 2003 statement that “the earnings of invested reserve funds” would be used for the City Creek project. Indeed, they show that “reserve funds” refer to tithing funds. In other words, in his 2003 statement, Hinckley said that the Church would use earnings on tithings, not tithing principal, to fund the project. And that was true. The financial records of Ensign Peak Advisors (“Ensign Peak”), which the Church incorporated in 1997 to serve as the “primary investment vehicle for the Church’s reserve funds in stocks, bonds, and securities,” confirm this fact. In 2003 alone, as the district judge noted, Ensign Peak had enough earnings on invested reserves to fund the allocation of money to the fund designated for the City Creek project. To be more precise, the record reflects that Ensign Peak had earnings of over $3.9 billion in 2003. Then, on January 1, 2004, Ensign Peak earmarked $1.2 billion of its funds to an internal account for the City Creek project. Withdrawing $1.2 billion from an account that just earned $3.9 billion cannot mean that Ensign Peak cut into the principal instead of the earnings. "In context, these statements show that the Church’s “reserves” encompass tithing money." "Therefore, from the context of the 1991 statement, Hinckley’s reference to 'build[ing] reserves' from 'income' meant that the Church would build reserves from, at least in part, tithing funds." "Second, the context of the 1995 statement is also clear that the Church’s reserves derived from tithing. Hinckley discussed tithing in the immediately preceding paragraphs to the statement that 'we put into the reserves of the Church a portion of our annual budget.'" "Thus, even if Hinckley did not expressly state that tithing funds would be placed into reserves, the context of his reference to the annual budget surrounded by a discussion of tithing makes it obvious they would be." "The subsequent statements made by the Church about the City Creek project also do not permit a fraud claim because they do not conflict with Hinckley’s 2003 statement. The district judge rightly found that '[n]one of the four statements are inconsistent with Hinckley’s statement.' Thus, they do not change the fact that Hinckley said that 'earnings of invested reserve funds' would be used. Any subsequent statement would have been understood in the context of that earlier statement." I am glad you are emphasizing context, but befuddled that you think it bolsters Huntsman's legal position. Thanks, -Smac Link to comment
smac97 Posted August 23, 2023 Author Share Posted August 23, 2023 2 hours ago, bluebell said: As long as the donors knew that the organization was funding abortions, then no I don’t think they have any case to complain or be upset. The analogy to pro-lifers being duped into donating to an abortion mill doesn't work well here. Putting aside the obvious intent to inflame and offend, the comparison between funding abortions and funding City Creek doesn't work because the Church publicly announced its funding of City Creek (and explained where the funds were coming from), and because there is nothing immoral or anathema to the core values of Latter-day Saints in the investment of tithed funds. Indeed, all reasonable and informed Latter-day Saints understand and appreciate that proper stewardship of funds requires such investments (heck, it's a principle inherent in the Parable of the Talents). The Brethren would be derelict in their responsibilities in not investing tithes. Now, if the Church had a practice of investing tithes in morally objectionable enterprises (from a Latter-day Saint perspective, anyway), and if the Brethren were secretive about this practice, then the abortion analogy would make a bit more sense. But the Church does not do this: No alcohol, tobacco, coffee or Coke stocks — a look at how the LDS Church has grown its wealth Quote The church has said Ensign Peak’s managers do not invest in industries that faithful Latter-day Saints consider objectionable, including alcohol, tobacco, coffee and gambling. Interestingly, though, of 30 large stocks that compose the Dow Jones Industrial Average, Ensign Peak has never invested in Coca-Cola. While some member shun caffeinated beverages, consuming drinks like Coke, Pepsi or Dr Pepper actually violates no teaching within the faith, including its Word of Wisdom health code. SEC documents show shares in the worldwide soft drink maker have not been part of its portfolio during the nine quarters it has reported to the agency, while every other Dow component — from Amgen, Boeing and Caterpillar to McDonald’s and Walmart — has drawn Ensign Peak investment interest at some point since late 2019. Also off the fund’s list are Coke rivals, PepsiCo and Keurig Dr Pepper, a conglomerate that also owns a prominent coffee brand. Ensign also seems to avoid most so-called pure-play coffee suppliers, such as Starbucks, as well as tobacco makers. Thanks, -Smac Link to comment
Analytics Posted August 23, 2023 Share Posted August 23, 2023 34 minutes ago, smac97 said: Again, I invite you to consider the remarks of the dissenting judge. It is unreasonable to "expect" Huntsman to conflate what Pres. Hinckley differentiated. Could you provide me a more specific reference? I'm not aware of Hinkley clearly differentiating between "principal" and "interest," and I don't want to scour a 40-page opinion to figure out what you are talking about. 34 minutes ago, smac97 said: It is unreasonable for an experienced, educated, conversant Latter-day Saint to, having considered Pres. Hinckley's remarks, conflate principal and investment income. When did Hinckley talk about "principal" and "investment income"? I'm aware of quotes about "tithing" but not about "principal" and "investment income." 34 minutes ago, smac97 said: First, nothing you presented here was based on your supposed expertise. You quoted something from congressional testimony in 2016. My IRL expertise is to understand that when Marc Cohen said "premium", he really meant "premium plus interest on that premium." Thinking of premium as including interest on premium is consistent with David Nielsen claiming that "EPA’s senior leadership and other EPA employees referred to . . . all funds of EPA as “tithing” money, regardless of whether they were referring to principal or earnings on that principal." And my point is that this is totally reasonable and expected. 34 minutes ago, smac97 said: Second, the issue at hand is not one to be resolved via expert testimony. Such testimony is typically needed when a subject matter being discussed in a legal case requires specialized knowledge, technical expertise, or a level of understanding that is beyond the scope of knowledge possessed by the average person, judge, or juror. The specific issue I'm talking about is what Marc Cohen meant in the quote I cited, and whether that is a common way to talk about and think about the relationship between interest and principal. The fact that you misunderstood him and don't think he means what he really meant proves that understanding the technical details of what he was talking about does require specialized knowledge and technical expertise. 34 minutes ago, smac97 said: Here, however, the issue is what did Mr. Huntsman understand Pres. Hinckley to mean in his public remarks regarding the use of tithing. The specific issue I'm addressing is whether "every financial endeavor that includes both principal and income on the principal distinguishes the two." I provided a relevant counterexample that shows Brunson was wrong about that and illustrates how Huntsman's interpretation was reasonable. 34 minutes ago, smac97 said: For that, you are manifestly not "fully qualified to testify as an expert witness," nor even as a percipient/fact witness. I merely claimed that IRL I have the expertise to interpret the Cohen snip and also testify that depending upon the context, "premium" can mean "premium plus investment income on premium." If somebody approaches what Hinckley said from this paradigm, Huntsman's interpretation is quite reasonable. 34 minutes ago, smac97 said: Third, you are, instead, merely an ax-grinding anonymous lookyloo quoting a snippet of congressional testimony in 2016, which is wholly irrelevant to the issue at hand. I'm not grinding an ax. I'm giving an example that shows Sam Brunson was wrong. 34 minutes ago, smac97 said: Fourth, Mr. Huntsman's lawsuit has, AFAICS, not involved any expert testimony. If the lawyers decided to turn to the insurance industry for examples how tithing being conflated with interest on tithing isn't an EPA idiosyncrasy but rather is a common way of allocating costs to sources of money when the time-value of money is considered, an expert witness would be required. You thinking what I'm saying here is irrelevant proves it. 34 minutes ago, smac97 said: Respectfully, I think you do not understand - or appreciate - the distinction between expert witness and fact witness testimony. The attorneys who have paid me hundreds of thousands of dollars for expert witness testimony would disagree with you. 34 minutes ago, smac97 said: If you did, you would not be offering to "wonk out" and spend time generating content that has no relevance to the lawsuit. If what Sam Brunson said regarding whether "every financial endeavor that includes both principal and income on the principal distinguishes the two" has relevance to the lawsuit, my example of how he is wrong about that in very material ways is also relevant. 34 minutes ago, smac97 said: What "a sophisticated professional who {in 2016, when presenting testimony to Congress about health insurance, and according to Analytics} interpreted 'premium' to mean 'premium plus investment income on the premium'" has no bearing on what James Huntsman understood when he heard remarks from Pres. Hinckley about the City Creek project. None. This was a single example of how, depending upon the context, insurance professionals routinely and appropriately conflate principal and interest. It illustrates that Huntsman's interpretation of Hinckley was a reasonable. Link to comment
Analytics Posted August 23, 2023 Share Posted August 23, 2023 39 minutes ago, smac97 said: But you are claiming that James Huntsman, the well-educated and well-experienced son of a billionaire and business man in his own right, did not appreciate the difference between principal and investment income. Right? No! I'm claiming that given the context, it was eminently reasonable for him to interpret the phrase "tithing money wasn't used" as meaning "neither tithing money nor investment income on tithing money was used." 39 minutes ago, smac97 said: If an actuary makes such an implicit assumption, he is very bad at his job because he is ignoring the context you are now emphasizing. I totally disagree. The full context includes Hinckely saying the following: But I wish to give the entire Church the assurance that tithing funds have not and will not be used to acquire this property. Nor will they be used in developing it for commercial purposes. Funds for this have come and will come from those commercial entities owned by the Church. These resources, together with the earnings of invested reserve funds, will accommodate this program. Why would Hinckley think it was necessary to provide "assurance that tithing funds have not and will not be used"? If somebody shares my sensibilities, then interest earned on tithing is just as sacred as tithing. Ensign Peak Advisors shares those sensibilities and considers the reserves “tithing money, regardless of whether they were referring to principal or earnings on that principal." This is congruous with insurance companies thinking that premiums and interest earned on premiums are all premiums. Apparently, Hinckley thought that "tithing money" was too sacred to spend on vanity building projects, but not too sacred to be invested in stocks, bonds, and commercial real estate so that those for-profit investments would result in earnings that could be spent on vanity building projects. But he never explained how or why this is the case. If somebody doesn't understand why Hinckley's thinks it would be problematic to invest tithing money into real estate across the street from the temple but thinks it is fine to invest tithing money on Wall Street, then I can see why they might not understand that "earnings of invested reserve funds" is talking about something other than earnings on unspent tithing. If the Church had been transparent with its donors, this misunderstanding would have been avoided. 1 Link to comment
webbles Posted August 23, 2023 Share Posted August 23, 2023 10 minutes ago, Analytics said: Apparently, Hinckley thought that "tithing money" was too sacred to spend on vanity building projects, but not too sacred to be invested in stocks, bonds, and commercial real estate so that those for-profit investments would result in earnings that could be spent on vanity building projects. But he never explained how or why this is the case. If somebody doesn't understand why Hinckley's thinks it would be problematic to invest tithing money into real estate across the street from the temple but thinks it is fine to invest tithing money on Wall Street, then I can see why they might not understand that "earnings of invested reserve funds" is talking about something other than earnings on unspent tithing. I'm a little confused about that last statement. Because the church's position is that "earnings of invested reserve funds" is talking about "earnings on unspent tithing". But you seem to be saying that it means something different. Link to comment
SeekingUnderstanding Posted August 23, 2023 Share Posted August 23, 2023 29 minutes ago, webbles said: Because the church's position is that "earnings of invested reserve funds" is talking about "earnings on unspent tithing". I wonder why they didn’t say that 🤔 Link to comment
Analytics Posted August 23, 2023 Share Posted August 23, 2023 3 minutes ago, webbles said: I'm a little confused about that last statement. Because the church's position is that "earnings of invested reserve funds" is talking about "earnings on unspent tithing". But you seem to be saying that it means something different. Hinckley said, "commercial entities owned by the Church" and "earnings of invested reserve funds," would be used to fund the projects. We now know because of the IRS whistle blower report that the "reserve funds" constitute unspent tithing revenue, accumulated with interest. But did we know that at the time? No--all we could do was speculate. If somebody agreed with Hinckley that tithing dollars were too sacred for this, it would be reasonable to believe that interest on tithing is too sacred, too. If someone sees the world that way, they'd think the "reserve funds" were unrelated to tithing. I wish we had archives of these forums that went back that far. I recall discussing this and apologists saying something to the effect that of course neither tithing money nor investment income of unspent tithing was used for this! The "reserve funds" used for the mall came from purely commercial assets the Church has owned since the early pioneer days and not from tithing. This whole process of distinguishing "tithing" from "earnings of invested reserve funds" and believing that one is somehow too scared for spending on a mall but the other isn't has a mental accounting vibe to it. Hinckley should have been transparent and unapologetically said, "this project is important to us and we have the resources to do it; between tithing revenue and our extensive portfolio of commercial real estate, stocks, bonds, and other financial assets, we can afford this." From the mental accounting link above: Quote Mental accounting is our tendency to mentally sort our funds into separate “accounts,” which affects the way we think about our spending. Mental accounting leads us to see money as less fungible than it is, and makes us susceptible to biases such as the sunk cost fallacy. By thinking that members needed rightful assurance that "tithing funds" wouldn't be used for this project but that it was appropriate for the church to use other non-tithing funds for this, Hinckley was engaging in this fallacy. Link to comment
Tacenda Posted August 23, 2023 Share Posted August 23, 2023 Okay, it might have been mentioned many threads or earlier, ago. But wondering if Huntsman paid tithing without knowing of the Ensign Peak fund, is that part of the suit? Link to comment
webbles Posted August 23, 2023 Share Posted August 23, 2023 (edited) 24 minutes ago, Analytics said: Hinckley said, "commercial entities owned by the Church" and "earnings of invested reserve funds," would be used to fund the projects. We now know because of the IRS whistle blower report that the "reserve funds" constitute unspent tithing revenue, accumulated with interest. But did we know that at the time? No--all we could do was speculate. If somebody agreed with Hinckley that tithing dollars were too sacred for this, it would be reasonable to believe that interest on tithing is too sacred, too. If someone sees the world that way, they'd think the "reserve funds" were unrelated to tithing. Hmm, so you are arguing the church's position. The whistleblower actually argues that "earnings of invested reserve funds" is tithing, not just earnings on tithing. The church also argues that Huntsman would have known at the time and the dissent agreed. It came down to two statements that President Hinckley gave earlier in 1991 and 1995. The statement from 1991 says: Quote In the financial operations of the Church, we have observed two basic and fixed principles: One, the Church will live within its means. It will not spend more than it receives. Two, a fixed percentage of the income will be set aside to build reserves against what might be called a possible “rainy day.” The statement from 1995 says: Quote Not only are we determined to live within the means of the Church, but each year we put into the reserves of the Church a portion of our annual budget. I, personally, find those two statements to be really obvious that the church is putting tithing money into a reserve fund. The dissent also found that to be obvious. The majority, though, had this really weird statement saying that "income" is always secular and so when President Hinckley said that "a fixed percentage of income", he is talking about secular income and not tithing. I'm not sure how they came up with that idea because I thought our church's income was the members' tithing. 24 minutes ago, Analytics said: This whole process of distinguishing "tithing" from "earnings of invested reserve funds" and believing that one is somehow too scared for spending on a mall but the other isn't has a mental accounting vibe to it. Hinckley should have been transparent and unapologetically said, "this project is important to us and we have the resources to do it; between tithing revenue and our extensive portfolio of commercial real estate, stocks, bonds, and other financial assets, we can afford this." I agree that President Hinckley was doing "mental accounting" but I don't see that as a problem. We all do that. He sees tithing funds and interest on the tithing funds as two separate things. What's wrong with that? I see my investment income different from my paycheck even though all of my investment income is built from my paycheck. I don't see how it is fraud to use "mental accounting". 24 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said: I wonder why they didn’t say that 🤔 The church is arguing that they did say that. It is Huntsman who is arguing that they didn't. Edited August 23, 2023 by webbles 1 Link to comment
webbles Posted August 23, 2023 Share Posted August 23, 2023 8 minutes ago, Tacenda said: Okay, it might have been mentioned many threads or earlier, ago. But wondering if Huntsman paid tithing without knowing of the Ensign Peak fund, is that part of the suit? That isn't part of the suit. I doubt it would either since I don't see how that is related to fraud. Link to comment
Nofear Posted August 23, 2023 Share Posted August 23, 2023 21 minutes ago, Analytics said: between tithing revenue and our extensive portfolio of commercial real estate, stocks, bonds, and other financial assets, we can afford this." Not that I've been following the thread closely at all, but isn't one of your main points (disputed by smac97) that the "extensive portfolio of commercial real estate, stocks, bonds, and other financial assets" is all tithing since the seed money for such was likely ultimately tithing, making the and part of the statement "tithing revenue and our extensive portfolio of..." redundant and unnecessary -- that it's pretty much all "tithing", full stop? Link to comment
SeekingUnderstanding Posted August 23, 2023 Share Posted August 23, 2023 55 minutes ago, Analytics said: I wish we had archives of these forums that went back that far. 1 Link to comment
Analytics Posted August 23, 2023 Share Posted August 23, 2023 13 minutes ago, webbles said: Hmm, so you are arguing the church's position. The whistleblower actually argues that "earnings of invested reserve funds" is tithing, not just earnings on tithing. The church also argues that Huntsman would have known at the time and the dissent agreed. It came down to two statements that President Hinckley gave earlier in 1991 and 1995. The statement from 1991 says: The statement from 1995 says: I, personally, find those two statements to be really obvious that the church is putting tithing money into a reserve fund. The dissent also found that to be obvious. The majority, though, had this really weird statement saying that "income" is always secular and so when President Hinckley said that "a fixed percentage of income", he is talking about secular income and not tithing. I'm not sure how they came up with that idea because I thought our church's income was the members' tithing. Part of the point, I think, is that "income" is inherently a commercial, for-profit word. For example, non-profits don't have "income statements." They have "statements of activities." It would be better to call the church's inflows "revenue" rather than "income." The IRS report clarified how the Church's finances work. My recollection is that before the IRS report, a lot of members had the impression that there was an important wall that separated the Church's for-profit businesses from its religious operations, and that revenue from the religious operations didn't fund the for-profit businesses. These various statements seem to be congruous with that--it would be morally wrong to use sacred tithing money for a mall. The prophet assured us they'd never do such a thing. Now it is more clear that "saving money for a rainy day" is the same thing as "capitalizing for-profit business ventures." But from my seat, arguing this was always clearly understood by the members is gaslighting. 13 minutes ago, webbles said: I agree that President Hinckley was doing "mental accounting" but I don't see that as a problem. We all do that. He sees tithing funds and interest on the tithing funds as two separate things. What's wrong with that? I see my investment income different from my paycheck even though all of my investment income is built from my paycheck. I don't see how it is fraud to use "mental accounting". Mental accounting isn't criminal, but it isn't clear thinking, either. If a Church or non-profit is secretive with their finances and engages in inconsistent mental accounting, one should expect donors to get confused, and maybe, perhaps, feel victims of fraud. For the record, I don't have a ton of sympathy for Huntsman in this case. I try to understand how he saw things and why he felt betrayed. The Church wasn't transparent, nor was it totally honest. But did their dishonestly rise to the level of fraud? I have my doubts, but am content with letting the courts have the final say. Link to comment
smac97 Posted August 23, 2023 Author Share Posted August 23, 2023 6 minutes ago, Analytics said: Quote Again, I invite you to consider the remarks of the dissenting judge. It is unreasonable to "expect" Huntsman to conflate what Pres. Hinckley differentiated. Could you provide me a more specific reference? I have. Several times. I am quoting the dissent, which quotes Pres. Hinckley. 6 minutes ago, Analytics said: I'm not aware of Hinkley clearly differentiating between "principal" and "interest," and I don't want to scour a 40-page opinion to figure out what you are talking about. You're willing to "scour" the congressional record for an obscure quote from a gerontologist in 2016, but you're not willing to read the 9th Circuit opinion? Since when do you, a self-declared "expert," need to be spoon-fed publicly available information? Anyhoo, you can read the excerpts I have provided, several times over. I have even bolded the most pertinent passages. You were waxing poetic about "context" five minutes ago, and now you are speaking of Pres. Hinckley "clearly differentiating." As it seems you are now distancing yourself from context, I'll quote what seems to be the most explicitly "differentiating" statement from Pres. Hinckley, from the 2003 General Conference: Quote I call attention to that which has received much notice in the local press. This is our decision to purchase the shopping mall property immediately to the south of Temple Square. We feel we have a compelling responsibility to protect the environment of the Salt Lake Temple. The Church owns most of the ground on which this mall stands. The owners of the buildings have expressed a desire to sell. The property needs very extensive and expensive renovation. We have felt it imperative to do something to revitalize this area. But I wish to give the entire Church the assurance that tithing funds have not and will not be used to acquire this property. Nor will they be used in developing it for commercial purposes. Funds for this have come and will come from those commercial entities owned by the Church. These resources, together with the earnings of invested reserve funds, will accommodate this program. Pres. Hinckley was clear as to what funds would not be used ("tithing funds") and which funds would be used ("funds...from those commercial entities owned by the Church ... together with the earnings of invested reserve funds." The bolded bits above have been quoted six times in this thread. And they were quoted four times in the 9th Circuit decision. And yet here you are, asking for "a more specific reference." From 2007 (also quoted in the 9th Circuit opinion) : Quote {O}n March 27, 2007, the Church’s newspaper Deseret News reported: Money for the project is not coming from LDS Church members’ tithing donations. City Creek Center is being developed by Property Reserve, Inc., the Church’s real-estate development arm, and its money comes from other real-estate ventures. (Emphasis added.) "{N}ot from ... tithing," but "from other real-estate ventures." See also this 2003 Ensign article (also quoted in the 9th Circuit opinion) : Quote Bishop Burton also emphasized the venture is funded through the commercial entities of the Church. “None of this money comes from the tithing of our faithful members,” Bishop Burton said. “That is not how we use tithing funds.” "{F}unded through the commercial entities of the Church," not "from the tithing of our faithful members." Most of this information has been publicly available for decades now, and yet you are not aware of it? 6 minutes ago, Analytics said: When did Hinckley talk about "principal" and "investment income"? I'm aware of quotes about "tithing" but not about "principal" and "investment income." Ah. I was wondering when the "No True Scotsman" fallacy would pop up: Quote No true Scotsman, or appeal to purity, is an informal fallacy in which one attempts to protect their generalized statement from a falsifying counterexample by excluding the counterexample improperly.[1][2][3] Rather than abandoning the falsified universal generalization or providing evidence that would disqualify the falsifying counterexample, a slightly modified generalization is constructed ad-hoc to definitionally exclude the undesirable specific case and similar counterexamples by appeal to rhetoric.[4] This rhetoric takes the form of emotionally charged but nonsubstantive purity platitudes such as "true", "pure", "genuine", "authentic", "real", etc.[2][5] Philosophy professor Bradley Dowden explains the fallacy as an "ad hoc rescue" of a refuted generalization attempt.[1] The following is a simplified rendition of the fallacy:[6] Person A: "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge." Person B: "But my uncle Angus is a Scotsman and he puts sugar on his porridge." Person A: "But no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge." Pres. Hinckley's remarks distinguishing "tithing funds" from "funds...from those commercial entities owned by the Church ... [and from] earnings of invested reserve funds," but since he did not use the specific terms "principal" and "interest," he was not distinguishing anything at all. No True Scotsman... 6 minutes ago, Analytics said: My IRL expertise is to understand that when Marc Cohen said "premium", he really meant "premium plus interest on that premium." Yes, yes. But your IRL expertise apparently does not involve reading Pres. Hinckley's remarks which plainly differentiate tithing funds from "funds...from those commercial entities owned by the Church ... [and from] earnings of invested reserve funds." Of course, I am wrong on this. Your IRL expertise does involve that. You are far too intelligent and informed for me to seriously suggest otherwise. Hence we have you resorting to special pleading, the No True Scotsman, refusing to read the most relevant document about this topic (the 9th Circuit decision), and instead spending time scouring the congressional record to extract a 2016 quote from a guy talking about insurance premiums. Your antagonism against the Church is steering your assessment of this case, and it is not serving you well. We all have our biases. I certainly do, and I tend to be pretty forthright about them. I think nobody with any experience with my posting history on this board has any doubt as to my affection and devotion to the Church of Jesus Christ. That said, I don't think I do myself or the Church any favors by allowing that affection/devotion to distort what should be a fairly clinical assessment of a legal dispute. I have previously noted when I think the Church has erred as a matter of law. See, e.g., here (from 2020) : Quote Quote Quote I am not discounting all the litigation filed against the Church. Sometimes the Church and/or its agents/representatives errs legally. When and if that happens, and can be established through evidence and argument, the Church needs to take its legal lumps like anyone else. So I don't begrudge anyone who has a legitimate (or at least colorable) grievance against the Church and avails himself to filing a lawsuit. That said, there are a lot of frivolous lawsuits filed against the Church. Those filed by Cook and Gaddy come immediately to mind. And these are just the recent ones. I agree with this but am curious if you can point out an instance where the Church needed to take its legal lumps? McKenna Denson's suit was a possible one. Respondeat superior and all that. If liability had been established, and the statute of limitations was somehow tolled or deemed inapplicable... Also, the Church lost in the Main Street Plaza case, as it should have. The deal with SLC was clearly unconstitutional. Also, the Church erred in its daily reporting requirements during Prop 8, and as a result paid a small fine (see here). Late last year I said (regarding the story about the Church's financial stockpile): "I'm sure the IRS will sort out whether the Church has complied with the law. If the Church has not complied with it, it needs to be held accountable." And here (from January) : Quote The Church has always condemned abuse, but if there is competent, probative, admissible, sufficient evidence presented to establish that one of its agents/representatives committed abuse, then it has to take its legal lumps like anyone else, and that might involve taking financial responsibility if the law requires it. And here (from 2021) : Quote The Church is subject to the laws of the land. "We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law." (AoF 1:12.) If there was a proverbial "gap in the roof" that caused injury, I would expect the Church to take its legal lumps just like anyone else. And here (from May) : Quote Quote As a taxpayer, I have no problem with whistleblowers being compensated for bringing tax cheats to the attention of the IRS. Oh, same here. I have repeatedly noted that I have no objection to the Church being subject to the laws of the land, including taking its legal lumps if and when it errs or does something wrong (see, e.g., here, here, here, here, here). I do so again here. But I think we're not having this discussion in our capacity as taxpayers. As much as I love the Church, I acknowledge that it can and does mess up sometimes. Here, however, an impartial assessment of what the Church said - both explicitly and via "context" - yields no basis for Mr. Huntsman's fraud claim. But because Mr. Huntsman is ideologically arrayed against the Church, there are folks who are doing their darndest to prop up his flailing legal theory. Even to the point of ignoring (as in refusing to read) hugely relevant sources of information and evidence, and context, in favor of citing far-flung abstractions like 2016 congressional testimony about health insurance premiums and the supposed "expert" testimony available from an online anonymous poster (in a fraud case in which expert testimony has no relevance at all). 6 minutes ago, Analytics said: The specific issue I'm addressing is whether "every financial endeavor that includes both principal and income on the principal distinguishes the two." I provided a relevant counterexample that shows Brunson was wrong about that and illustrates how Huntsman's interpretation was reasonable. Brunson was speaking in a legal context and setting. As between your assessment and his, I'm going with the latter. You're a smart guy, but you have no particularized training or experience in the law. Brunson does. I do. A judge would view Brunson's generalization as generally true, and your strained - and irrelevant - citation to an excerpt of congressional testimony about insurance premiums. 6 minutes ago, Analytics said: If what Sam Brunson said regarding whether "every financial endeavor that includes both principal and income on the principal distinguishes the two" has relevance to the lawsuit, my example of how he is wrong about that in very material ways is also relevant. Well no, I don't think so. Again, Brunson was speaking of a generalization, and one that I think pretty much every judge would find accurate - even axiomatically so. That some wonk, talking to Congress in 2016, tacitly conflated principal with income earned on invested principal is not relevant to the fraud lawsuit asserted by James Huntsman. I can't speak as to attorneys who have hired you as an expert witness. You're indisputably an intelligent fellow, but your comments here evince a marked lack of familiarity with or training in the law, particularly litigating tort claims. Brunson's generalization is, in this legal setting, both apt (again, to the point of almost being axiomatic) and relevant. Your contrary citation to 2016 congressional testimony from a guy talking about insurance premiums is neither apt nor relevant. 6 minutes ago, Analytics said: Quote What "a sophisticated professional who {in 2016, when presenting testimony to Congress about health insurance, and according to Analytics} interpreted 'premium' to mean 'premium plus investment income on the premium'" has no bearing on what James Huntsman understood when he heard remarks from Pres. Hinckley about the City Creek project. None. This was a single example of how, depending upon the context, insurance professionals routinely and appropriately conflate principal and interest. It illustrates that Huntsman's interpretation of Hinckley was a reasonable. "Depending upon the context" being the operative wording. You are studiously ignoring the context involving James Huntsman and public statements by the Church in favor of some nebulous reference to congressional testimony in 2016. I don't think what you are offering would see the light of day in a courtroom. Frankly, I don't think an attorney would even try to introduce it. Thanks, -Smac Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now