Huntsman's Lawsuit Against The Church Moves Forward

[Everybody Wang Chung]

More bad publicity for the Church. A federal appeals court has reinstated James Huntsman's lawsuit against The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

The panel held that there was a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the Church fraudulently misrepresented the source of money used to finance the shopping mall development. Based on the evidence in the record, including statements by church officials and in church publications, a reasonable juror could conclude that the Church knowingly misrepresented that no tithing funds were being or would be used to finance the shopping mall development and that Huntsman reasonably relied on the Church’s misrepresentation.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/in ... r-AA1eVw8K

[Res Ipsa]

Here’s a link to the opinion. https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/ ... -56056.pdf

[drumdude]

The Church has requested that we seal portions of our opinion that include “confidential and competitively sensitive business and financial information relating to the operation of the Church and its affiliated commercial entities.” The Church contends that the “disclosure of such information would put the Church’s commercial activities at an unfair disadvantage and cause the Church irreparable harm.” The Church further contends that Huntsman seeks to make public the Church’s financial information “for improper purposes,” and that disclosure of such information “risk[ s] . . . violating the Church’s First Amendment rights.”

There are no “compelling reasons” to seal the financial information in this opinion. We reveal very little of the Church’s financial information. We reveal only the amount transferred from Ensign Peak to finance the City Creek Mall (including earnings on that amount), Ensign Peak’s earnings in 2003, and the amount spent to finance the Mall. The amount spent by the Church to finance the Mall has already been publicly revealed and, in any event, would not be protected information in the context of this suit. If this were a fraud case brought against a secular institution, there is nothing about the expenditure that would warrant protection. Further, as we discuss below, a religious institution is not protected by the First Amendment from a civil fraud suit. We therefore deny the Church’s request.

It seems like this has the potential to force the church to either disclose more sensitive information to make their case, or to settle with Huntsman.

Either way is a huge victory.

[I Have Questions]

The church’s legal argument throughout the case has been that no actual tithing was used in either $1.4 billion of spending on City Creek or $600,000 spent to rescue Beneficial Life — but that instead, the church used earnings from invested tithing funds kept in reserve.

But Gordon B. Hinckley didn’t say the earnings being used had come from invested tithing. Here’s what he said at the time:

In faith’s April 2003 General Conference, then-President Gordon B. Hinckley insisted that tithing funds “have not and will not be used” for the shopping center, stating that the money came from “commercial entities owned by the church” and the “earnings of invested reserve funds.”

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/in ... r-AA1eVw8K

The Church’s definition of “Lying” seems relevant on the back of what Hinckley said, versus what was actually the case.

Lying is intentionally deceiving others. Bearing false witness is one form of lying. The Lord gave this commandment to the children of Israel: “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour” (Exodus 20:16). Jesus also taught this when He was on earth (see Matthew 19:18). There are many other forms of lying. When we speak untruths, we are guilty of lying. We can also intentionally deceive others by a gesture or a look, by silence, or by telling only part of the truth. Whenever we lead people in any way to believe something that is not true, we are not being honest.

https://site.churchofjesuschrist.org/st ... y?lang=eng

I think Hinckley deliberately avoided saying the money for City Creek was coming from earnings on invested tithing, and chose instead to use the word “reserves” in place of “tithing” so as to mislead the membership. In my opinion it’s clear he lied, per the Church’s definition.

[Dr. Sunstoned]

This could open a whole can of worms for the church. I'm sure there are lots of folks out there who would like to get their money back.

[Tapir Rodeo]

More bad publicity for the Church. A federal appeals court has reinstated James Huntsman's lawsuit against The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

The panel held that there was a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the Church fraudulently misrepresented the source of money used to finance the shopping mall development. Based on the evidence in the record, including statements by church officials and in church publications, a reasonable juror could conclude that the Church knowingly misrepresented that no tithing funds were being or would be used to finance the shopping mall development and that Huntsman reasonably relied on the Church’s misrepresentation.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/in ... r-AA1eVw8K

Great news! Hopefully the church not only loses but gets exposed along the way.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

This could open a whole can of worms for the church. I'm sure there are lots of folks out there who would like to get their money back.

I want my money back. With invested interest - I was very aggressive throughout my military career with regard to investing, and could've used the six years worth of tithing I handed over to the 'church' on either myself or my portfolio. I estimate I would've had 150k-230k just off that alone.

ugh.

- Doc

[Rivendale]

On page 30 the judge claims persecution for multiple moves by the early church. Sure, to an extent....

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints traces its
roots to Joseph Smith, who, in 1830, published the Book of
Mormon and organized the church in New York.1 Smith
faced persecution even before the church was organized,
which continued in the decades to follow, and led to several
forced migrations of members of the church. Church
members ultimately fled from Ohio to Missouri, where they
were also persecuted and driven out of the state by 1839.
Smith and church members built a new city in Illinois, and
in 1844, Smith and his brother were imprisoned in a nearby
jail and murdered by a mob.
Fleeing persecution, church members traveled to Utah,
first arriving in 1847. Brigham Young, the successor to
Smith, served as the president of the church until his death
in 1877.

[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).

[Everybody Wang Chung]

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.