Page 1 of 6
Court orders Mormon church to disclose financial records
Posted: Thu Jul 12, 2007 3:38 pm
by _Mercury
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/1184210740215720.xml&coll=7
Interesting development from the plethora of molestation cases pending against the church. Hopefully this will give the community some food for thought.
FTA:
"The church is considering its position," said Stephen F. English, the LDS church's lead Portland attorney. "The church respects the rule of law but has profound constitutional concerns based on its constitutional right to protect the free expression of its religion."
Since when is financial subterfuge a religious right?
Ostling is quoted in the article:
"The full financial facts are probably known to only 15 or 20 men in Salt Lake City," he said.
Interesting, yes?
Posted: Thu Jul 12, 2007 3:48 pm
by _Who Knows
It won't happen.
This is why lawsuits against the church never go to full trial - they always settle - to avoid this sort of thing.
Interesting quote though about only 15 to 20 people knowing the full financial picture. That would suggest to me that not even some of the apostles know the figures. And how valid is their 'internal audit' if only perhaps a couple of auditors know the numbers.
Posted: Thu Jul 12, 2007 4:22 pm
by _harmony
Who Knows wrote:It won't happen.
This is why lawsuits against the church never go to full trial - they always settle - to avoid this sort of thing.
Even when they'd win, if they went to trial. Even when the settlement costs the church
millions in tithing funds. Make no mistake, those settlements come out of tithing funds.
They have something to hide, and they're protecting someone or someone(s), and whatever it is, it's pretty bad. Millions of dollars worth of bad.
Posted: Thu Jul 12, 2007 4:24 pm
by _Bond...James Bond
Gordon to the LDS Lawyers: Settle! Settle! Settttllleeee!!!!
Posted: Thu Jul 12, 2007 4:30 pm
by _Analytics
That Stephen English quote is bizzare. It seems to me that the point of "free expression" is the freedom to get information into the public. Now the church wants to use that right to hide information? Bizzaro.
Posted: Thu Jul 12, 2007 4:31 pm
by _The Nehor
Why does the guy need to know the Church's financial status when he claims to have been molested? Are punitive damages decided solely by someone's ability to pay?
Posted: Thu Jul 12, 2007 4:35 pm
by _Who Knows
The Nehor wrote:Why does the guy need to know the Church's financial status when he claims to have been molested? Are punitive damages decided solely by someone's ability to pay?
I don't know about 'solely', but it plays a part, I believe. Think OJ Simpson. Or any individual being sued. The court would need to know what exactly your equity, assets, holdings, etc. are.
To assess $1 million in punitive damages on myself, would indeed be 'punitive'. However, that wouldn't really be punitive to the church. And the only way for the court to know this (what would and wouldn't be punitive), would be by obtaining financials.
Posted: Thu Jul 12, 2007 4:40 pm
by _barrelomonkeys
The Nehor wrote:Why does the guy need to know the Church's financial status when he claims to have been molested? Are punitive damages decided solely by someone's ability to pay?
A punitive damage is supposed to be a deterrent and essentially punishment for the offender. So yes, it is very reasonable, and necessary, to understand how much wealth there is to ensure that the punitive award meets those goals.
Purposes of Punitive Damages: Punishment & Deterrence
It is important for juries to understand what the purposes of punitive damages are. The
U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly stated that the purposes of punitive damages are
punishment and deterrence. Various state statutes put forward similar goals. When
evaluating a punitive award, it is important to determine if the defendant has already been
deterred and whether penalties will further deter the defendant. This can be very
important in mass tort cases where the defendant may be the target of many suits and may
have already made very substantial payments prior to the trial date. Jurors also need to be
aware of any regulatory strictures that are already in place. For example, if the defendant
is in a closely regulated industry, or if the regulatory changes have already addressed the
issues that gave rise to the lawsuit, then this is a fact that a jury may want to be aware of.
Economic or financial experts can be quite helpful in interpreting financial information
for a jury as well as in helping a jury understand the extent to which the goals of punitive
damages may be served. The economic or financial expert may be able to help the jury
understand how a financial penalty will affect the corporation and who may be expected
to bear the brunt of the penalty.
http://www.economatrix.com/ten-concepts ... s-need.pdf
Posted: Thu Jul 12, 2007 5:46 pm
by _moksha
So does this mean they will be forced into a settlement each time financial records are demanded, in order to avoid showing any financial records?
Is there any chance they will appeal this ruling to a higher court?
Posted: Thu Jul 12, 2007 5:49 pm
by _Jason Bourne
Who Knows wrote:It won't happen.
This is why lawsuits against the church never go to full trial - they always settle - to avoid this sort of thing.
Interesting quote though about only 15 to 20 people knowing the full financial picture. That would suggest to me that not even some of the apostles know the figures. And how valid is their 'internal audit' if only perhaps a couple of auditors know the numbers.
Ostlings opinion only. How the hell does he know this?