- Quickdraw McLaw
- 37 Comments
- 304 Views
- Justice of the Peace Joe Bonaventure recuses himself from Ruggs case. [RJ]
- Effective 2/17/23, the attorneys at Santoro Whitmire are now practicing at different firms/locations.
- What else is happening today?
And Another One Gone
- Law
- Posted on 2 years ago
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints proposed a settlement to pay the SEC $5 million for willfully and intentionally hiding its investments, and filing false reporting forms with the SEC.
It was done intentionally and knowingly to conceal the size of the church's investments.
SEC Press Release: https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2023-35?utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
Order: https://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/2023/34-96951.pdf
To allay the 'this was just checking a wrong box' crowd:
>The Church was concerned that disclosure of the assets in the name of Ensign Peak, a known Church affiliate, would lead to negative consequences in light of the size of the Church’s portfolio. Ensign Peak did not have the authority to implement this approach without the approval of the Church’s First Presidency.
>11. On March 15, 2005, the Church became aware that the public might link this first LLC to the Church because the person signing the Forms 13F was listed in a public directory as a Church employee. To address this issue, on March 21, 2005, the senior leadership of the Church approved a new reporting entity to be created with “better care being taken to ensure that neither the ‘Street’ nor the media [could] connect the new entity to Ensign Peak.”
> 13. Several years later, in 2011, Ensign Peak became concerned that its portfolio had become so large that the Form 13F filings it made using the name of the second LLC might attract unwanted attention and sought the Church’s approval to form additional LLCs to file Forms 13F. On May 19, 2011, the Church’s senior leadership approved Ensign Peak’s recommendation to “clone” the second LLC to create new Form 13F filers.
>15. In 2015, Ensign Peak became aware that a third party appeared to have connected the holdings of various LLCs back to Ensign Peak. Ensign Peak brought this issue to the attention of the Church. The senior leadership of the Church approved Ensign Peak’s recommendation to “gradually and carefully adapt Ensign Peak’s corporate structure to strengthen the portfolio’s confidentiality.”
>22. Ensign Peak was responsible for designating the Clone LLCs’ Business Managers, many of whom were Church employees. Business Managers were selected because they had common names and a limited presence on social media, and were therefore less likely to be publicly connected to Ensign Peak or the Church. Ensign Peak provided the Business Managers very limited information about the Clone LLCs or why they were created.
"Are *you* honest in your dealings with your fellow man?"
Meh. Form 13F aint breaking any shelves.
Yawn
Obviously,
OP = ExMo.
Hence the snark.
This is a classic example of a thing that is a giant raging boner to an ExMormon or some atheists and a nothingburger to the rest of the world.
Still debatable if what they did (effectively, checking the "sole" box on the form and not disclosing the nature of their control) is wrong. Hence the small settlement. Not a Mormon, just saying this isn't a big deal.
Exactly.
My personal challenge for the month of March is to use the phrase "giant raging boner" in a Motion / Opps.
Going to have to select my judge VERY carefully.
To mis-quote the great Bubs, you people are equivocating like a mother-effer. But that's the key to most people's blind eye towards their religion, whichever flavor it is.
Now, I don't know how SEC administrative proceedings are conducted, but if something similar to what 1:19 describes was ever before a state or federal court for a jury trial, how would you like to be one of the attorneys attempting to distill and explain all those intricate details to a lay jury?
I was involved in a trial years ago which included the battle of the experts on a very narrow, hyper-technical chemical engineering issue. When the jury was canvassed following the trial, they made it abundantly clear that both experts lost the jury very early on, and thus the expert reports and testimony played zero role in their decision.
If I recall, neither side found the jury verdict to be really unreasonable or anything, and no one in fact appealed it. But however they got to their not unreasonable result, it was clear the experts had nothing to do with it.
Most of my colleagues also report that very often the jury ignores the experts. They may put more weight in something like a forensics expert in a criminal case, but in complex civil cases, including things like complex accounting, or very detailed and technical engineering or construction issues, that they tend, more often than not, to not put much weigh in the experts.
Do you guys have similar views and experiences?
No, although they are very expensive and often not too helpful to the jury, isn't there sometimes a potential malpractice risk of not retaining one?-particualry if the other side retains one.
And I have seen that-cases where no one can really prove the effect of one side having an expert and the other side not having one, but an attorney still faces a potential malpractice claim for not engaging an expert.
Yawn ^^
(To clarify, yawn re: 4:14)
4:30-For me it's a mixed bag.
Yes, often experts have no real impact on the jury and were just a drain of resources and time. But sometimes they do seem to have a real impact. I agree that if they are too technical, and are testifying about something really specialized, they will often lose the jury, unless the expert has the gift to really distill it.
As to your point about forensic experts, in criminal trials, being provided more credence by juries than technical engineering experts in civil cases, that sounds like a potentially credible position(in light of the big emphasis on DNA since the late 90's), but I don't know if you can really generalize about something like that.
Most attorneys opinion on that issue probably rests upon the anecdotal experience of the attorney and their colleagues, although there may actually be some studies on this issue(of how much credence and validity juries tend to afford to experts, and what effect the type of case has upon that issue).
This analysis is all horseshit. For lay juries, it ALWAYS comes down to "If the glove don't fit, you must acquit."
How did this go from giant raging exmo boners to OJ Simpson?
Because I control the narrative like a board game.
7:31-I don't think the analysis is horsehit(at least not totally). I kind of agree with some of what 4:30 and 4:42 mention.
It's always difficult to know, in advance, what credence the trier of fact will attach to some expert or specialist.
The Santoro split is interesting. Looks like all but 2 are going over to this Holley firm. Wonder what the story is. Seems like Santoro was in the name of one of the top local firms when I was interviewing with firms out of law school. Seems like there has been lots of bouncing around and firm name changes since then.
FIFY "Looks like all but 2 are going back over to this Holley firm."
Oh that was the old Santoro firm? I didn't realize that. I thought it was "Driggs."
LOL, I guess I could pay more attention. The Holley firm is Holley Driggs. I've been out of the loop for awhile.
The name of the firm when I interviewed there in the 90s was Santoro Driggs Walch.
Santoro (and Whitmire) left, as I recall in the early 2000s. That was when the name changed to Holley Driggs.
Walk of shame, as referenced yesterday. Maybe the firm should just use a moniker moving forward. How 'bout Revolving Legal.
The awkward farewell statement on the website says Santoro Whitmire lasted 11 years. So they didn't leave Whatever Driggs (possible new name?) in the early 2000s. The firm didn't last very long.
They are all still friends. Whitmire wanted to be solo. Santoro was partners with Driggs years ago. Santoro, Jason Smith and Pancheti are excellent attorneys.
I'm sure they're "still friends." They aren't a broken high school clique. Weird thing to say.
Partnerships are like divorces. It is rare they end well.
The State Bar is yet again attempting to press us into unpaid servitude with more pro bono recruiting events. Meanwhile OBC continues to run amok. Gee thanks
OBC has and does run amok. Recruiting to do pro bono work is a good thing for the entire legal system.
OP here. Not arguing against pro bono. I’d just prefer BoG represent us instead of engaging in feel-good platitudes.
I wish they were more careful about who got pro bono help. I have had a few cases where I felt like the person I represented pro bono was clearly the bad guy and felt terrible that the person on the other side now got to pay an attorney while my terrible client got free representation.
@9:49 been on both sides of that. I have seen felony DV abusers with LACSN attorneys in family court.
Suing-the-Bar guy back. I am taking my time but we are inching closer exactly as I said. I am 100% sure they will find a way to retaliate, but why make it any easier for them. One question, if I put in the complaint information that would typically be confidential (not about any clients but about communications between the Bar and myself), does it then become public by virtue of filing? Or will the say it should've been sealed or something. Seems ripe for getting me in trouble. As I say, I know it's coming, but but why make it easy for them. Thank you.
Generally the purpose of the confidentiality rule is to protect the respondent. Waive if you like. Remember that the shield of absolute immunity from civil liability for participants in the discipline process fails to apply to statements made outside of the proceedings. SCR 121 (16).
This guy is so screwed. Wait until you get hit with SBN's atty fees, and then a OBC compliant when you lose. Oh but wait, its the principle…. How many clients have died on that sword?
This guy has been on the verge of filing for quite some time, if you go back and read past comments. He is probably 100% sincere, but lies to himself. This Complaint will never be filed. Ever. And that's a good thing because it's an act of extraordinary self-immolation.
Thich Quang Duc, Esq.
This comment has been removed by the author.