Huntsman's Lawsuit Against The Church Moves Forward

[Rivendale]

I think the 9th Circuit was correct on letting a jury decide the mall claim. A reasonable juror certainly could conclude that the statements by Hinkley (which read like they were drafted by lawyers) were misleading because they were not clear that the investment returns he mentioned were earned on invested tithing. That doesn't mean Huntsman's will win -- fraud cases have a high burden of proof. But at least he will get to make his case to a jury.

I was also glad to see the church smacked down on its request to seal certain financial evidence (i.e., hide it from public scrutiny). No private litigant gets its finances shielded from scrutiny in that manner.

Finally, I was happy to see that all judges involved at both the trial and appellate courts rejected the church's attempt to invoke what's called the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine. That's a doctrine that applies to matters of internal church governance (e.g., no one can ask a court to decide who gets to be the next prophet) or religious doctrine (e.g., no one can ask a court to determine whether the Book of Mormon is "true"). But there's ample precedent holding that the doctrine does not apply to secular aspects of church operations. (e.g., spending money on a mall).

And, good luck finding a jury pool that hasn't already heard about the SEC fraud/fiasco with the Church.

This case will definitely end with a confidential settlement. No chance the Church goes to court with this.

Do you think Huntsman really cares about the money? Would he decline the offer?

[Res Ipsa]

I think the 9th Circuit was correct on letting a jury decide the mall claim. A reasonable juror certainly could conclude that the statements by Hinkley (which read like they were drafted by lawyers) were misleading because they were not clear that the investment returns he mentioned were earned on invested tithing. That doesn't mean Huntsman's will win -- fraud cases have a high burden of proof. But at least he will get to make his case to a jury.

I was also glad to see the church smacked down on its request to seal certain financial evidence (i.e., hide it from public scrutiny). No private litigant gets its finances shielded from scrutiny in that manner.

Finally, I was happy to see that all judges involved at both the trial and appellate courts rejected the church's attempt to invoke what's called the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine. That's a doctrine that applies to matters of internal church governance (e.g., no one can ask a court to decide who gets to be the next prophet) or religious doctrine (e.g., no one can ask a court to determine whether the Book of Mormon is "true"). But there's ample precedent holding that the doctrine does not apply to secular aspects of church operations. (e.g., spending money on a mall).

And, good luck finding a jury pool that hasn't already heard about the SEC fraud/fiasco with the Church.

This case will definitely end with a confidential settlement. No chance the Church goes to court with this.

Based on history, I suspect you're right. Huntsman is kind of an unusual plaintiff -- a church member who actually cared about how the church spent his tithing dollars and who could make a credible case that he relied on Hinkley's statements. That makes him kind of a unicorn plaintiff. Meanwhile, the statutes of limitation are running on any other folks who could potentially bring this specific claim. Note that all of the judges who have looked at this case agree that Huntsman has no claim when it comes to claims based on bailing out Beneficial Life because there were no statements comparable to the mall case made about the Beneficial Life bailout. So, the church really has nothing to gain in terms of setting any kind of precedent with this specific case, and it risks having more of its financial dealings made public.

[Moksha]

There is a hot thread going on at the Mormon D&D board about this lawsuit.

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/75 ... ial-court/

The best source of information on this topic is the Mormon Stories podcast which was hosted by RFM:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTG3eQsYJk8&t=12s

Anyway back to the Mormon D&D board, it is amazing how Mormon defenders are able to justify lying about how the City Creek Mall was paid for by pretzelizing their logic. Lying for the Lord!!!

[Res Ipsa]

There is a hot thread going on at the Mormon D&D board about this lawsuit.

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/75 ... ial-court/

The best source of information on this topic is the Mormon Stories podcast which was hosted by RFM:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTG3eQsYJk8&t=12s

Anyway back to the Mormon D&D board, it is amazing how Mormon defenders are able to justify lying about how the City Creek Mall was paid for by pretzelizing their logic. Lying for the Lord!!!

Summary judgment motions are bread and butter for lawyers, but can be hard for non-lawyers to understand. The question before the trial court was "is there enough evidence to have a jury decide the case? That means that the court had to accept not only Huntsman's evidence (that would be admissible at a trial), it also had to accept every reasonable inference from that evidence. Comments in the MDD thread about the appellate justices "deciding things" misunderstand the nature of the issue on appeal.

[malkie]

There is a hot thread going on at the Mormon D&D board about this lawsuit.

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/75 ... ial-court/

The best source of information on this topic is the Mormon Stories podcast which was hosted by RFM:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTG3eQsYJk8&t=12s

Anyway back to the Mormon D&D board, it is amazing how Mormon defenders are able to justify lying about how the City Creek Mall was paid for by pretzelizing their logic. Lying for the Lord!!!

Summary judgment motions are bread and butter for lawyers, but can be hard for non-lawyers to understand. The question before the trial court was "is there enough evidence to have a jury decide the case? That means that the court had to accept not only Huntsman's evidence (that would be admissible at a trial), it also had to accept every reasonable inference from that evidence. Comments in the MDD thread about the appellate justices "deciding things" misunderstand the nature of the issue on appeal.

I believe that, like here, several lawyers comment regularly on the other board.

Are they not setting things straight?

[Res Ipsa]

Summary judgment motions are bread and butter for lawyers, but can be hard for non-lawyers to understand. The question before the trial court was "is there enough evidence to have a jury decide the case? That means that the court had to accept not only Huntsman's evidence (that would be admissible at a trial), it also had to accept every reasonable inference from that evidence. Comments in the MDD thread about the appellate justices "deciding things" misunderstand the nature of the issue on appeal.

I believe that, like here, several lawyers comment regularly on the other board.

Are they not setting things straight?

I didn't read the whole thread. The ones I saw were trying.

[BeNotDeceived]

The question and problem shouldn't be 'was tithing money used to build City Creek', the question and problem is why in the hell is a religion, that is supposed to be headed by Jesus Christ, building a freaking $5 billion mall complex??? Hunstman should be doing what Laura Gaddy is trying to do... going after the 'church' for outright fraud on every level given its fraudulent foundation and the fact that Joseph Smith was one of the greatest con men this nation has ever seen!

[Moksha]

The question and problem shouldn't be 'was tithing money used to build City Creek', the question and problem is why in the hell is a religion, that is supposed to be headed by Jesus Christ, building a freaking $5 billion mall complex??? Hunstman should be doing what Laura Gaddy is trying to do... going after the 'church' for outright fraud on every level given its fraudulent foundation and the fact that Joseph Smith was one of the greatest con men this nation has ever seen!

RFM and Kolby Reddish explained that truly provable fraud such as Huntsman specifically being assured that his tithing was not in any way paying for a shopping mall would stand up in a jury trial (not in Utah since it would be rigged from the start). We learned from the SEC case that proceeds from tithing paid for the mall and that Church leaders lied about it. That is provable fraud.

The Church will always be deceptive about those things since it is their established modus operandi at the HQ level.

[Res Ipsa]

The question and problem shouldn't be 'was tithing money used to build City Creek', the question and problem is why in the hell is a religion, that is supposed to be headed by Jesus Christ, building a freaking $5 billion mall complex??? Hunstman should be doing what Laura Gaddy is trying to do... going after the 'church' for outright fraud on every level given its fraudulent foundation and the fact that Joseph Smith was one of the greatest con men this nation has ever seen!

I've had extensive debates in the past over the premise of the Gaddy lawsuit: that religious beliefs (which are protected by the First Amendment) can be separated from "religious facts" (which are not protected). My position has always been that no court will buy that distinction -- religious belief is so entertwined with religious fact the two cannot be separated. As a result, any lawsuit brought against the Church using that theory would go down in flames (and, in my opinion, rightly so).

The original complaint in Gaddy was dismissed on First Amendment Grounds. Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint, which was dismissed except for claims that are the basically the same as those in the Huntsman case. Instead of pursuing those claims, Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint, which was dismissed in March. The court also denied Plaintiffs' motion to file a Third Amended Complaint on the grounds of futility (it would also be dismissed).

Plaintiffs then filed a motion to vacate, largely based on counsel's claim that health problems kept her from understanding the requirements for pleading a fraud claim. That motion was also denied. The order summarizes the entire saga. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... .141.0.pdf

The lawsuit will fare no better in the Court of Appeals because its based on a flawed understanding of what the First Amendment protects.

[Philo Sofee]

Summary judgment motions are bread and butter for lawyers, but can be hard for non-lawyers to understand. The question before the trial court was "is there enough evidence to have a jury decide the case? That means that the court had to accept not only Huntsman's evidence (that would be admissible at a trial), it also had to accept every reasonable inference from that evidence. Comments in the MDD thread about the appellate justices "deciding things" misunderstand the nature of the issue on appeal.

I believe that, like here, several lawyers comment regularly on the other board.

Are they not setting things straight?

They can't set things straight, they are lawyers for the Lord.