When someone sues Gawdalmighty’s one and only true church on the face of the Earth (usually because of sexual abuse coverup), is the hundred bil listed in the assets available for settlement? Or because it’s sheltered away in a fiery-day Fund, is it considered money belonging to some other entity?

we may have a winner.

I just wonder. They DO have to open books, but doesn't TSCC usually settle prior to this point in a lawsuit?

The secret's out now, though.

Yes, as far as I know, they always settle. I'm sure there are gag orders built into the settlement that even if they'd had to make a financial disclosure, it can't be shared. In fact I really don't know the last time I heard of the church or any higher ups going to a trial. Even with Mark Hoffman, it was common knowledge that the settlement the state made with him was really the settlement the mormon church pushed for to keep Gordy from having to testify or even be deposed.

But now that the depth of their pockets are really known, sounds like there needs to be a good class action suit and those pockets need to be emptied for the people who have been hurt. I hope the recently filed suit goes somewhere. If they decide to be like lawyers who solicit clients who have ever taken an aspirin and had an upset stomach by it so they need to get them to join their class, if they put out a call for people who have been damaged by the mormon church, they will have to hire a lot more lawyers and paralegals to keep up with it.

This is from folks who worked in the Church Office Building a few years ago. I am paraphrasing, but I believe this to be accurate. One of the primary functions of general authorities is to contact wealthy Mormons to assist in the out of court settlements so that the church books do not have to be opened. It is obvious the church is all about money. The general authorities are not theologians, scholars of any note, nor compassionate individuals giving solace to those suffering. Their function is to increase the organization financially and protect it. The average member be damned.

Damned i was damned i was but not dead yet.

"The general authorities are not theologians, scholars of any note, nor compassionate individuals giving solace to those suffering. Their function is to increase the organization financially and protect it. The average member be damned."

What Erik K wrote above is absolutely true! These are the men that the Mormons are worshiping. The Mormons who have talked to me about the 100 billion, condemn those who do not "TRUST" the GA's and their cult. The GA's can get away with anything--their battling with human rights, polygamy and polyandry, supporting Prop 8, racism in denying Blacks the priesthood, murder in the MMM, child abuse and molestation, extortion of money under false pretenses, asking starving Africans for money so the GA's can travel in limos, in private jets, with first-class hotels, etc.

I know some very high-up, wealthy Mormons, and I'm certain they know what's been going on with the finances, all along. It makes sense for these elites to support the cult. Some are in the construction business, in real estate, Utah politics, high-ups in Zion's Bank, BYU, the LDS sugar and beef business, on various boards of directors, etc. They're all in it together. I believe that about half of the "regular" members know, too. Delusional Mormons have themselves too intertwined with the cult, and that means financially, too. We ex-Mormons know that to criticize their church is to criticize THEM, personally.

Yes, the Mormon rabble think they are somehow going to benefit from the church's wealth.

They definitely can get away with child abuse of this i can personally attest. Or they at least think they have got away with it so far. The warrior has met allies on the outside on my neverending journey. They may have abused the wrong kid as in myself. We shall see. If the universe gives me the shot to take the whole operation down i am taking the shot.

"Assets available for settlement..."

Such a listing might be made in the mind of the person(s) suing, but no such list would ever be made by the defendant(s).

Even after a lawsuit was won by the plaintiff(s), no such list would ever be made by the defendant(s)! It would be up to the plaintiff(s) to instruct the judge just how much the defendant(s) had to contribute to the payment pot.

And the whole time the defendant(s) would be lying his/her/its ass off in order to hide what it/they owned or controlled.

You're trying to apply logic and justice to the civil court process... Stop it!!!

> You're trying to apply logic and justice to the
> civil court process...

Implying that "logic and justice" work in the criminal courts?

How droll!

Glad you brought this up. Corrupt organizations like the church always have their lawyers REQUIRE that the victim sign an NDA (non disclosure agreement) when a case is settled. The victim is not allowed to talk about it to anyone (except usually a spouse).

For example if you are a woman and are raped by a contractor who comes to work in your house and you sue the contractor your law firm and his law firm will REQUIRE you to sign a Non-Disclosure Agreement as part of any settlement. This is a gag order on you.

Most likely your law firm will refuse to even write up a settlement if you say you won't be silenced.

And if the police refuse to send it to the prosecutor, which often happens, especially if the contractor is wealthy, then your only option is to try and sue in civil court.

Be Real; Be honest Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Glad you brought this up. Corrupt organizations
> like the church always have their lawyers REQUIRE
> that the victim sign an NDA (non disclosure
> agreement) when a case is settled. The victim is
> not allowed to talk about it to anyone (except
> usually a spouse).
>
> For example if you are a woman and are raped by a
> contractor who comes to work in your house and you
> sue the contractor your law firm and his law firm
> will REQUIRE you to sign a Non-Disclosure
> Agreement as part of any settlement. This is a gag
> order on you.
>
> Most likely your law firm will refuse to even
> write up a settlement if you say you won't be
> silenced.
>
> And if the police refuse to send it to the
> prosecutor, which often happens, especially if the
> contractor is wealthy, then your only option is to
> try and sue in civil court.

Sign the NDA, the the money and secure it so the cult can't come after it. Then talk all you want. What are they going to do, sue you for breaking an NDA clause? It is just a piece of paper saying you can't talk. You really can say what ever you want after you sign an NDA.

The flaw in your plan is the "secure it so they can't come after it" part. How exactly are you going to do that? If you have access to it, then they will have access too.

They will sue for their settlement back, or everything you've got, whichever comes first.

I am related to one of the Q15 members. I'm sure he would leave us (our bloodline) all in the dust if he had the chance. Funny thing is, he kind of looks like my brother, but much older.

As I understand it, they have to disclose assets in a court ordered settlement. Even then I'm sure they can be very creative in making claims that "they" don't actually own the asset, some other legal entity is the real owner.

I don't think they have to disclose assets at all in an out of court settlement. Of course now the $100B is public knowledge.

The phrase, 'court-ordered settlement' simply does not parse.

Courts adjudicate. They listen to presentations made by the warring sides and determine which side made the better presentation, based on case laws and/or statutes that apply. And most of the time, in personal injury lawsuits, it's the jury that decides the award, the amount owed. I've never heard of a court ADDING to the award, but I sure have heard of courts reducing the award.

Civil courts do not order settlements. They might be called on to approve a settlement (ALWAYS, in the case of a minor being awarded a settlement), but they don't order the parties to 'settle.'

And I repeat, only in the case of a judgment being entered might a court get involved in determining the assets. And it would be in the case of a dispute regarding what the defendant owns. And all they do is rule on the evidence presented.

It is quite common for defendants who know there is a good chance they are going to lose and who don't have enough insurance, to attempt to 'hide' assets. For most people, it's not a problem because the plaintiff attorney just wants his 40% cut of the easy money. A sorta wealthy defendant with a $100,000/$300,000 policy and a million dollar umbrella can only pay $1,300,000 in damages. In CA, the courts won't make him/her/them sell their mortgaged home or car. So even when the jury awards $20,000,000, the plaintiff attorney will stop work and take his $540,000, plus expenses, and move on to the next case.

Now, if the defendant DOES have lots of assets, one of the things that will have happened during the three to four years from the accident to the time the trial starts is that the defendant will have done everything he can to divest himself of his assets.

Let's say that the really rich defendant is the father of a 17-year-old girl driving her dad's car, totally wasted on drugs and alcohol and she speeds by a cop, who lights her up, but before he can even get close to her, she runs a red light, hits a car and kills one or more occupants. Obviously she gets sued and so does dad, as the R/O of the car, and in CA the basic limit for an R/O, $15,000/$30/000, is removed, as the law allows in the case of gross negligence, which is reasonable in that registered owners are grossly negligent when they allow drunk, drugged up minors to drive their cars. So all he owns is at risk.

So a couple of days after the accident, the rich father sees the handwriting on the wall and starts getting rid of assets his name. So that by the time the trial starts, he lives in an apartment, and is unemployed. Quite a comedown from owning a home and rental properties. And the business he owned, that netted him a few million a year, now belongs to someone else...

See where this takes you? When the jury awards the family of the deceased umpty million dollars, all that is available is the insurance money, $1,300,000, which State Farm was begging the plaintiff(s) to take so that they, State Farm, could close their books on the matter.

The plaintiff attorney doesn't know shizz about how to track down missing assets and doesn't care; he got his nice pay day.

What the plaintiffs, if they evidence of hidden assets, have to do is hire a firm that specializes in tracking down assets, and knows the minutiae involved in getting the trial court to issue the necessary orders to transfer ownership once the measures of proof have been met. And those firms take a healthy chunk of the recovered money.

But the courts, they don't do take action, they just rule on whatever actions are brought before them. Courts are not debt collectors. At best all they can do is order a judgment-debtor to appear to answer questions. If a judge feels that the 'proof' offered by the plaintiff is sufficient, and the defendant either doesn't show up or his testimony is nonsense, regarding something of value that the defendant tried to hide, then the court can issue an order to transfer that property.

But if the defendant is willing to leave the jurisdiction of the court and take that property with him, it will be up to the plaintiff to track down the defendant, get a 'sister-state' hearing set up and make a brand new presentation to that sister-state judge, after which the defendant could just run again.

Civil courts just issue orders, once the appropriate threshold has been met, and if a County Sheriff or Marshall can execute the order, you win. Where real property is involved, no problem. But if personal property is involved and the Sheriff's deputies can't find the personal property, you are SOL.


In the case of the church, as far as I'm aware, the church does NOT let lawsuits against them be decided by a jury. They settle... Plaintiff attorneys like sure things. Nobody likes to put their case in the hands of the jury. So there's never an official tally of the church's assets to be argued about in front of a judge.

But someday...