Page 19 of 36
Re: Church comments on SEC settlement
Posted: Thu Feb 23, 2023 8:07 pm
by drumdude
Doctor CamNC4Me wrote: ↑Thu Feb 23, 2023 7:36 pm
The Stig wrote: ↑Thu Feb 23, 2023 6:26 pm
Intentionally creating 13 substance-free LLCs to conceal money? Check.
Creating false addresses for the 13 substance free LLCs? Check.
Intentionally finding 13 employees with common names to avoid fruitful social media searches to be 'managers' of the LLCs? Check.
Making those employees commit perjury by signing documents they didn't understand for years? Check.
The First Presidency and Presiding Bishopric reviewing and approving each step in the scheme? Check.
Blaming the lawyers who advised you when you got caught? Check.
Legal or not, ill-intentioned or not, these actions are unethical and indisputably dishonest. Church leadership ignored their own teachings and moral duties. End of story.
Perfect summary.
- Doc
DCP still spins it as simply an accounting error due to overly complex tax laws and regulations.
Re: Church comments on SEC settlement
Posted: Thu Feb 23, 2023 8:14 pm
by Doctor CamNC4Me
drumdude wrote: ↑Thu Feb 23, 2023 8:07 pm
DCP still spins it as simply an accounting error due to overly complex tax laws and regulations.
So, yet another lie to protect his corporate overlords? Huh. That’s weird.
- Doc
Re: Church comments on SEC settlement
Posted: Thu Feb 23, 2023 8:23 pm
by drumdude
“DCP 13 days ago” wrote: We'll see what, if anything, comes of it. I would be (to put it very mildly) positively astounded if it were to turn out that the Church was deliberately trying to flout federal tax laws. But those laws are so complex and arcane that I wouldn't be at all surprised if an investigation identifies arguable violations. I've been told that even experts at the Internal Revenue Service give conflicting responses to inquiries. And we've all seen cases of special prosecutors appointed to investigate x who, in the course of their work, may or may not find any real evidence for x but who do discover previously unsuspected offenses y and z along the way.
Re: Church comments on SEC settlement
Posted: Thu Feb 23, 2023 8:37 pm
by The Stig
drumdude wrote: ↑Thu Feb 23, 2023 8:23 pm
“DCP 13 days ago” wrote: We'll see what, if anything, comes of it. I would be (to put it very mildly) positively astounded if it were to turn out that the Church was deliberately trying to flout federal tax laws. But those laws are so complex and arcane that I wouldn't be at all surprised if an investigation identifies arguable violations. I've been told that even experts at the Internal Revenue Service give conflicting responses to inquiries. And we've all seen cases of special prosecutors appointed to investigate x who, in the course of their work, may or may not find any real evidence for x but who do discover previously unsuspected offenses y and z along the way.
Well, since none of this was about tax laws, his assessment is already flawed. These were acts intended to hide assets from prying eyes and regulators. The SEC requires this information to keep track of funds that, through the concentration of their decision making, could manipulate the market. The actions of the EPA and the Church deliberately prevented the SEC from doing its job. Moreover, there is no legitimate argument that can justify the unethical and dishonest steps taken by the EPA and the Church (e.g. the business 'managers' with no real authority or responsibilities other than to sign paperwork).
Re: Church comments on SEC settlement
Posted: Thu Feb 23, 2023 8:44 pm
by Doctor Steuss
The Stig wrote: ↑Thu Feb 23, 2023 8:37 pm
[...]oreover, there is no legitimate argument that can justify the unethical and dishonest steps taken by the EPA and the Church (e.g. the business 'managers' with no real authority or responsibilities other than to sign paperwork).
Also intentionally only providing those business "managers" the signature page of documents, so they were in the dark as well.
Re: Church comments on SEC settlement
Posted: Thu Feb 23, 2023 8:45 pm
by The Stig
Doctor Steuss wrote: ↑Thu Feb 23, 2023 8:44 pm
The Stig wrote: ↑Thu Feb 23, 2023 8:37 pm
[...]oreover, there is no legitimate argument that can justify the unethical and dishonest steps taken by the EPA and the Church (e.g. the business 'managers' with no real authority or responsibilities other than to sign paperwork).
Also intentionally only providing those business "managers" the signature page of documents, so they were in the dark as well.
Indeed. None of it indicates honesty, or even an 'honest' mistake, for that matter. It was intentional dishonesty.
Re: Church comments on SEC settlement
Posted: Thu Feb 23, 2023 8:59 pm
by drumdude
The Stig wrote: ↑Thu Feb 23, 2023 8:37 pm
Well, since none of this was about tax laws, his assessment is already flawed. These were acts intended to hide assets from prying eyes and regulators. The SEC requires this information to keep track of funds that, through the concentration of their decision making, could manipulate the market. The actions of the EPA and the Church deliberately prevented the SEC from doing its job. Moreover, there is no legitimate argument that can justify the unethical and dishonest steps taken by the EPA and the Church (e.g. the business 'managers' with no real authority or responsibilities other than to sign paperwork).
Classic DCP strategy.
Misrepresent the issue, minimize the issue, and if all else fails, play victim.
Re: Church comments on SEC settlement
Posted: Thu Feb 23, 2023 11:21 pm
by Kishkumen
drumdude wrote: ↑Thu Feb 23, 2023 8:59 pm
Classic DCP strategy.
Misrepresent the issue, minimize the issue, and if all else fails, play victim.
Nailed it.
Re: Church comments on SEC settlement
Posted: Thu Feb 23, 2023 11:27 pm
by Gadianton
yep nailed it; cover up the Church's dishonesty with dishonesty of your own.
That's a great way to score points with leadership.
I really do think that there are few greater virtues within an authoritarian regime that eclipse lying for the leaders. In fact, that might be the singular greatest virtue.
Re: Church comments on SEC settlement
Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2023 1:40 am
by Doctor Scratch
For my part, *I* will be “positively astounded” if DCP admits to or expresses disappointment about the Church’s obvious dishonesty. I see that he’s already checking off all the excuses he used when we found out, via IRS documents, that he had been brazenly lying about getting paid for his apologetic work. He said pretty much the exact same things: “tax rules are super confusing!” He even tried to blame the Maxwell Institute’s accountant! What, this accountant deliberately lied on the forms in order to make it seem like DCP was paid $20,000 in excess of what he actually got?