I regarded the potential creation of sub-threshold LLCs, all controlled by EPA, as akin to structuring in the world of money laundering. It's an offence in and of itself, regardless of anything else.
Fair point. The church does seem to engage in a certain type of money laundering in Australia in order to make tithing tax deductible there. We shall see if that practice withstands scrutiny. Importantly, if it fails to hold up under investigation, there would be at least one more case in which the church is caught lying to further its financial interests. Simon Southerton wrote this in a prior thread, but essentially the church is trying to argue to the Australian Tax Office that somehow a few part-time, unpaid volunteers in Australia make all of the key decisions about what humanitarian aid programs to fund with the vast majority of donations to LDS Charities. A tax authority investigating will subpoena emails and process documents for proof.
If it turns out, as Simon expects, the US-based HQ with its hundreds of volunteers actually do all the diligence and make the judgment calls, then we will have a reckoning as related to the church knowingly making a deceptive statement about how it operates LDS Charities in Australia.
The recent SEC report indicates rather clearly that the most senior church leaders are perfectly willing to ask volunteer members to perjure themselves (lie) in public in order to knowingly perpetuate a violation of the law. Was Ensign Peak's clone LLC scheme the only instance of that behavior? Doubtful. Fool me once, shame on you...
I want to touch on something related to the shell companies thing that the money managers knew nothing and only for the page for their signature. The Sam Bruneson post on By Common Consent blog was good about this SEC thing, but I was put off of him cause I read the comments and he thinks the crap the church is pulling in Australia is completely legal in comparison. With what has been revealed it seems that the people in Australia are just names on paper. They aren’t making independent decisions or probably even suggestions to the puppeteers in Salt Lake. I bet if they pulled server logs or emails that either Salt Lake is entering the money transfers directly, or explicitly giving the Australian managers instructions. That is not just violating the spirit, but the word of the law.
[note: wrote this while the previous post was not posted, but we are touching on the same thing]
I am beginning to question the sanity of certain apologists.
It's interesting, BS, to see how, in your jaundiced summary of the matter, not only are the LLCs mere shells but EPA itself has disappeared, and it's simply "the Church" making all of the deliberately deceptive and unethical moves on which you insist.
As I've said elsewhere, this case seems to be emerging as a Rorschach test for some commentators.
Broke the law, Dan nitpicks on whether Shears includes EPA as a culpable party in every statement. And still won’t admit the LLCs were mere shells. (they were, not up for debate)
I guess we should take DCP at his word that he is not an expert on these matters. I would have hoped he might be able to read the relevant documents better, but that was just me naïvely expecting something like objectivity.
“The past no longer belongs only to those who once lived it; the past belongs to those who claim it, and are willing to explore it, and to infuse it with meaning for those alive today.”—Margaret Atwood
DCP wrote:BS:. "That is my point: the Church is not denying the findings!!"
And it's not admitting them, either.
BS:. "If the findings were false, the Church could easily demonstrate it."
The dispute isn't, I think, over simple "facts." It's about interpretation of regulations. That is a much more abstruse and complex matter, and potentially very expensive to litigate with no assurance of success.
When I was sued for $4.5M quite a few years ago by a malevolent critic of the Church, one of the non-LDS attorneys who defended me, this one based in California, reproved me for taking the suit somewhat too lightly, simply because it was supremely stupid and obviously malicious. He had, he said, lost cases that he had thought were slam-dunks and won cases where he left the courtroom scratching his head in amazement. Juries and judges, he told me, are unpredictable.
Of course, I don't have your specialist expertise in corporate finance and securities regulation, so I'm simply expressing a lay view.
BS:. " If the findings were false, why wouldn’t the Church defend its good name?"
It may yet do so, if folks like you continue to continue to fan the flames in your effort to discredit the Church and its leaders. As it is, the Church seems to believe, as it expressly says it believes, that the matter is closed. And, apart from a few websites and message boards (on most of which nothing the Church can ever do or say will satisfy the critics), that may soon be true.
Broke the law, Dan nitpicks on whether Shears includes EPA as a culpable party in every statement. And still won’t admit the LLCs were mere shells. (they were, not up for debate)
B.S. is one of the few who is making cogent points over at SeN. DP should stop digging.
“But if you are told by your leader to do a thing, do it. None of your business whether it is right or wrong.” Heber C. Kimball, 8 Nov. 1857
DCP wrote:BS:. "That is my point: the Church is not denying the findings!!"
And it's not admitting them, either.
BS:. "If the findings were false, the Church could easily demonstrate it."
The dispute isn't, I think, over simple "facts." It's about interpretation of regulations. That is a much more abstruse and complex matter, and potentially very expensive to litigate with no assurance of success.
When I was sued for $4.5M quite a few years ago by a malevolent critic of the Church, one of the non-LDS attorneys who defended me, this one based in California, reproved me for taking the suit somewhat too lightly, simply because it was supremely stupid and obviously malicious. He had, he said, lost cases that he had thought were slam-dunks and won cases where he left the courtroom scratching his head in amazement. Juries and judges, he told me, are unpredictable.
Of course, I don't have your specialist expertise in corporate finance and securities regulation, so I'm simply expressing a lay view.
BS:. " If the findings were false, why wouldn’t the Church defend its good name?"
It may yet do so, if folks like you continue to continue to fan the flames in your effort to discredit the Church and its leaders. As it is, the Church seems to believe, as it expressly says it believes, that the matter is closed. And, apart from a few websites and message boards (on most of which nothing the Church can ever do or say will satisfy the critics), that may soon be true.
Was this lawsuit against DCP public knowledge?
Yes. He was sued for defamation by, If I recall correctly, Kurt Van Gorden. My recollection is that BYU paid Dr. Peterson’s legal fees. So, in essence, this “hoard” of money was used both to pay him for overseeing smear articles, and for paying lawyers to defend him after he got sued.
"If, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14
Where exactly does the church “dispute” anything about the accusations in the SEC order?
Nowhere. They can’t.
There is no dispute, except in the minds of those who won’t see this as it is.
First Presidency deliberately broke the law for 22 years. And gave directions accordingly to Ensign Peak and 13 named clone LLC managers.
Got caught.
Paid to settle.
Can never deny the accusation.
There is no dispute. Only the lesser of two very bad outcomes.
