Disclosure in a the Church's J.Reuben Clark Law Society Conference by Internal Church International Lawyer -

"Over the last year or two, a couple of friends have been pursuing the Church in the U.K. for copies of documents to which they are legally entitled. Rather than just comply with British law and send copies of the documents (which would cost the Church nothing), they naturally refused for various reasons ranging from confidentiality; entitlement; couldn’t locate them; they are in the States and no longer ‘available’ here; they comply with European Law rather than British law etc. My friends appealed to the ICO (Information Commissioner’s Office) for information and advice and their entitlement was firmly established. Some documents have now been obtained but a few are still outstanding. We await final details of the case which has been lodged with the ICO.

Meanwhile, much of the response material came from Church appointed lawyers rather than Church admin staff, and we thought it must be costing a lot of money which was being wasted for no reason whatsoever. One of my friends discovered the following video of a talk given by a Church lawyer at the J. Reuben Clark Law Society Conference early in 2010. This is a transcript of part of it.

"In the last month in the UK alone I think we've spent... err, well, for two individuals... two former members of the church who don't want to leave the church alone but want to be aggravants to us... have filed complaints with the regulatory authorities in the UK and I've spent close to 80,000 dollars in legal fees to respond to these. They're demanding copies of their membership records, of course they were disciplined so now they're demanding copies of their disciplinary courts... proceedings... so... councils. That's a problem we're facing... and that's just in one little... it's not a little country but it's two individuals and look at the cost and the aggravation it's caused us. So we're going to see more in the data privacy area... that's why I mention more disclosure in the content and information.

The First Presidency feels that that (disciplinary records) is very privileged... and we cannot disclose that unless we get First Presidency approval. That's how sensitive this type of information is with respect to the Brethren, so this is a big deal for us as we go around the world. (Addressing Issues for Good Around the World - William F. Atkin)."

http://www.law2.byu.edu/news/item.php?num=676

So, the Church spent close to $80,000 of tithing money in one just month on legal advice which my friends had already provided in copies of legislation obtained directly from the ICO. All the Church had to do was send the requested paperwork and spend no money at all. They will comply because the law demands it and they cannot do otherwise. It may also cost them a lot more money. And these are men who are supposed to represent God, honesty and integrity, and have the power of discernment. All they really needed was just a little common sense and reason. Modern Church leaders appear to lack that just as much as they lack any more integrity than Joseph Smith and his cohorts had. There is none. It is faithful tithe-paying members who have to finance the arrogant stand that Church leaders take on such issues. They always did think they were above the law. Nothing changes in Mormonism."

http://www.themormondelusion.com/page_1232378793406.html

See the January 2011 Update on the link.

Releasing those records would easily expose the abilities and probably wrong actions of the untrained and inexperienced lay clergy.

On the other hand, it also opens up exposure of confidentiality which a person is supposed to enjoy under ecclesiastical law.

Sounds like a difficult line to walk.

JoD3:360
>
> On the other hand, it also opens up exposure of
> confidentiality which a person is supposed to
> enjoy under

How can it jeopardize confidentiality to get one's own records?

My father would say that those people should stop thair leagl battle with the church in order to make sure the church complies with the law.

At 8 years old many of us are orderd to be a part of a relegion we didnt know would brake the law with keeping our records. I can see where this may become more of a leagal issue than they want to deal with.

I predict they'll permanently "lose" all the records.

In the meantime, the only thing that will really concern them is money, and the reputation of the LDS Church.

Mormon lawyer William F. Atkin lists some legal and political trends that might have an adverse impact on church now and in the future.

Taxation
- elinmination of tax exemptions/non-profit status
- financial transparency
Funding
- strength of the dollar

Data privacy
- more regulation
- more disclosure of confidential information

Immigration restrictions
- missionary visas
- business travel visas

Anti-discrimination legislation
- employment/temple worthiness

Secularism
- less accommodation to religions/e.g., zoning variances
- terrorism/security issues

In Germany Jehovahs Witnesses are issued on refusal of benefits corporate rights due to human rights issues.
JW:s also refuse to give diciplinary court documentation to subject it concerns.
European Union implements such like 12 article of universal declaration of human rights in Data privacy legislation.
Transfering personal data from EU to US might also violate data protection laws.

Transfer of personal data to third countries
Third countries is the term used in EU legislation to designate countries outside the European Union. Personal data may only be transferred to third countries if that country provides an adequate level of protection. Some exceptions to this rule are provided, for instance when the controller himself can guarantee that the recipient will comply with the data protection rules.




http://www.stuttgarter-nachrichten.de/inhalt.glaubensgemeinschaft-nein-zu-zeugen-jehovas.b1fce91b-7ae0-4daa-bfd3-068898f1c011.html

Translation
Stuttgart - With its magazines "Watchtower" and "Awake," Jehovah's Witnesses proselytize in residential areas and pedestrian zones. But the policy of the country so far they could not convince.

Until further, the Jehovah's Witnesses in Baden-Wuerttemberg are not equated with the Christian churches. The CDU-FDP government in Stuttgart, as our newspaper was told on Wednesday, now definitely decided to refuse the required state approval to the controversial religious community. "The Cabinet has decided to reject the request of the Jehovah's Witnesses to grant them the corporate rights," said a spokeswoman for the Ministry of Culture, on request of our newspaper. "We are in the process to work out the decision of refusing in close coordination with the Ministry of Justice, and that subsequently will be served on the Jehovah's Witnesses."

The relevant Cabinet decision, dated 20 December, is so far not been made public.

It is expected that the faith community that claims to have 28 000 members in Baden-Württemberg, will take action against the decision. The last word should then have the Administrative Court (VGH) in Mannheim. The state government justified its rejection by doubts about the loyalty of the faith community. Jehovah's Witnesses are known to be skeptical or even hostile to the state; therefore they should not take part in elections. Furthermore, even family members should break the contact with apostates, by which the country, according to a report by the Justice Department, sees adversely affected „the fundamental right of respect for family life and marriage" and the basic right of religious freedom. Moreover, the religious community, by their refusal of blood transfusions, risks "life and limb of minor children and young people."

Is the faith community a corporation under public law?

A recognition as a corporation under public law would have the advantage for the Jehovah's Witnesses that they would pay less taxes and administrative fees. In addition, they would then be partially out of state control, they even could impose a church tax and would, as the Protestant and Catholic Church, have the right to sit on the boards of public service broadcasting.

The expected lawsuit in Baden-Württemberg should get its attention in whole Germany. In 12 of the 16 states, the Jehovah's Witnesses at their request have now been legally upgraded, because despite concerns they saw no other way. The Baden-Württemberg Ministry of Education wanted to join the fact, but met widespread opposition in Parliament. Also, Rhineland-Palatinate, Bremen and North Rhine-Westphalia yet refuse recognition.

Those countries that capitulated referred above all to a supposedly ground-breaking decision of the Berlin Higher Administrative Court that awarded the Jehovah's Witnesses in 2006 after almost 15 years of litigation the status of a corporation under public law. According to the state government in Stuttgart, Berlin judges have only inadequately lit the inner life of the community.They waived to interview dropouts. The Justice Ministry in Stuttgart however has done this, when compiling its report.

If the Administrative Court (VGH) in Mannheim reaches a different verdict than the colleagues in Berlin, the Jehovah's Witnesses probably would be deprived of their status in most states again. Up to a verdict, however, its is expected to again take years.

participants all knew that their words would be available to the public?? All those nosy prying questions about the details of sexual transgressions would disappear in a heart beat if there was any accountability.

It's quite easy to see why the church doesn't want this stuff exposed.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/21/2011 04:33PM by Heresy.

Thanks for the breakdown IRanon. The video where Atkin discusses these 'issues' in the link to byulaw in my post. The country not allowing missionaries due to visas is Switzerland I believe - there was a news article I read. A missionary from outside the European Union needs to have a working visa to stay in the country - this is down to EU regulations about providing work for EU members before those outside the EU. Missionaries require a working visa even though they are unpaid. I don't see the problem because they can still send missionaries that are EU members to the country without them even having to have a visa.

Regarding data regulations - in the UK they have been in place since the 80's. EU decisions have made it more up-to-date and it is a problem today with how organisations use peoples data or disclose it when they shouldn't to third-parties. I think people are more aware of their rights over their own personal data. I requested my disciplinary records, at first, because I wanted to see what they said as the SP was abusive and exadurated my 'sins' - plus I wasn't in the room for their delibetation - which took three hours, I was only in the room for about 15mins before they asked me to sit in another room. I moved and wanted to know what the new SP would read about me and if that informaton was correct or not. I would have no idea if I don't have access to the report.

They first said they couldn't find the report - which was stupid - I knew the policy and where the reports were sent. I also looked into access to data that had been transferred overseas and knew I still had a right if access to it despite them telling me i didn't because it wasn't in the country.

I know of a JW who accessed their disciplinary records using the Australian Privacy Act.

http://jwfacts.com/watchtower/experiences/personal-files-privacy-act-1988.php

Yes I listened the link and picked up some points Atkin made in his speech. I understand your concern on this subject.

Have you consedered suing mormon church for vialation of your rights? Data privacy-authorities are in some EU countries reluctant to push harder on cults and are merely playing an advisory role in this subject. Maybe in the UK criminal code there are laws that relate to the data protection issues.

For instance in Finland where I live, the mormon church and other religions, has been under revision by data-protection authorities. In many cases even the authorities has given cults guiding priciples how to conduct, it seems the cults reluctant to obey the rules.


It seems you would have strong case although it seems mormon church is willing to meet the costs in legal battle.
As little as I know about UK legislation I guess mormon church could face major indemnity fees in case they violate UK laws.
Refering to Atkins speech regarding of concerns of the mormon church, money was one issue.

I listened to Atkin's entire speech. I first noticed and then began to listen intently to the content for gender bias.

Atkin lists his staff of area legal council and then even discusses a special missionary position created for retired attorneys. NOT ONE WOMAN in the 2 dozen or so lawyers mentioned. He even condescendingly mentions that particularly with the missionary couples called that they try and find something for the "sister" to do. WOW

Except for church clergy I have never seen worse gender bias in my life. Apparently it requires a penis to legally defend the church around the world. There is an irony that gender bias is pervasive in the group charged with keeping the church "legal" around the world.

To my ear, his entire presentation screams out of his devotion to a cult.

I understand your point, but the church is after the money.
Abandon of plural mariage and racist teachings had relevancy with money.

I find it intresting that church have made a contract with EU.
If you cant have the information from US you request, would that contract probably been violated.

Mormon church has explicitly denied that they are sending membership information outside EU. This happened in beginning of century when a case was handled by Finnish authorities.

I could sue but I've always made it clear that I'm not after money. The Information Commissioners Office can enforce compliance with this law and they have taken steps in their action against them. I'm seeing what the result of my ICO complaint is first. I have a copy of the church's EU contract to transfer data overseas and it says I have a right to access my data. I'm sure I'll hear something from the church or ICO soon as the ICO wrote to the church in early December.

I see your point. I find it intresting that the church has made a contract with EU. If you wont get the documents you request has morg probably violated that contract.

In the beginning of this century mormons church in Finland explicitly denied that they are sending membershiop information outside EU.

Even you arent after the money, church seems to be that. Abandon of plurar marrige and racist teachings had a relevant connection to money.
Maybe threat of loosing money in a fine, would bretherens see things in differnt poin of view...

doesn't common sense dictate here that in sensitive matters confidentality is there to protect the church MEMBER and not the CLERGY? Who on earth would suppose the CLERGY should have anything to be protected in these matters?

The Articles of Faith - #12:
We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.

Except when the lawyers can circumvent it. Ya. That works.

they believe in it/ obey when it suits thems.
as Jim WHitefield so splendidly pointed out in his 2010 ex mo conference presentation, Joes *polygamy* was always really bigamy & it was ALWAYS illegal.

MORmONS love to talk about their obedience to the law
and their patriotism, but in reality MORmONISM harbors some of the most bohemian attitudes that exist, and the MORmONS spewed some of the most seditious utterances ever construed against the U.S.A.

But when it suited them LDS INC funded the 2002 Oly bid scandal to buy the olympics & then a MORmON judge David Sams just tossed out the 11.5 million $ fed case against the LDs stooge perps like it was nothing.

LDS INC blustered about its respect for the law & then lobbied for an exemption for itself on hiring undocumented workers.

IRanon, do you have any details of this case - when they said they weren't sending data outside the EU?? Any links or information on this would be great. Thanks.

There are no links to these resolutions, but here is a quotation from a one. This case was dealing with mormon missionary records they are having on investigators. If this have any relevance to your case, You or UK authorities may contact the finnish authorities.
Documents are in finnish.

Quote: "Faktisesti tietosuojavaltuutettu ei ole todennut sitä, ettei kirkon rekisterissä olevia tietoja luovuteta USA:han. Kirkko on kuitenkin näin tietosuojavaltuutetulle kahdesti ilmoittanut. "

Translation by IRanon
"The Data Protection Ombudsman has not factually noticed that information from church records aren’t handed over to USA. The church has however twice notified this to Data Protection Ombudsman."

Case number: Dnro 570/45/2001
This resolution is dated May 16 th 2003
Finnish Data Protection Ombudsman
http://www.tietosuoja.fi/1560.htm