Judge Denise Posse Lindberg Rules on UEP Proposals
First, despite the requirement that the Trust be neutrally governed for the general benefit of all potential beneficiaries, the Utah A.G./FLDS proposal decidedly favors the FLDS church and its adherents to the detriment of other Trust beneficiaries. Page 2
The FLDS Church as an entity is not a recognized Trust participant … Page 2
[T]he proposal’s lack of religious neutrality violates constitutional law and trust law. Page 3
[T]he Utah A.G./FLDS proposal gives control of important community assets- including the park, the zoo, and the cemetery- to the FLDS church. The charitable nature of the Reformed Trust requires that it be maintained for purposes beneficial to the entire community of potential beneficiaries, including individuals who are not affiliated with the FLDS church. Page 3
In a footnote, the Court also found that the requirement of particular style of dress and behavior to access the cemetery is an impermissible religious test.
Also interesting was the Court’s reliance on the Second Restatement of Trusts in striking down Shurtleff’s proposal as violating trust law. The Second Restatement was discussed previously by Ron in Houston in a post made July 3, found here. Both Ron and Lindberg quote the Second Restatement of Trusts:
Illegal Purpose. A trust to promote a religious organization or doctrine is invalid if it is criminal or against public policy. Thus a trust to promote polygamy is illegal, even though the belief in polygamy is one of the tenents of a religious sect
Finally …a bit more “I told you so.” We raised many of these issues in May when the Shurtleff’s proposal was first circulated publicly:
Willie Jessop, , Dan Johnson, Merlin Jessop, Wendell Neilson, Merril Jessop, Lyle Jeffs, Warren S. Jeffs, Truman I. Barlow, Leroy S. Jeffs, James K. Zitting, William E. Timpson (collectively referred to as the “Representative Individuals”)….
p. 2 I. The Representative Individuals represent and warrant as follows:
(i) they have the authority to act on behalf of the FLDS Church and its members.
Ok, right out of the gate I have a big problem with this. Why would these individuals have any standing to participate in negotiations or speak for anyone or be granted any rights or benefits by the trust over and above the rights of each and all the beneficiaries? And what difference does it make whether they have authority to act on behalf of the FLDS Church — the FLDS Church is not a party to the trust, it is not the predecessor to the trust, it is not a beneficiary and it has no standing or rights with respect to trust property or distributions. That is just crazy that this is even being talked about … and I havent gotten past page 2.
FLDS TEXAS said this on May 22, 2009 at 4:38 AM (edit)
So … everytihing goes to the “FLDS Church” except 80 acres in the Gap, and that little slice of land goes to the former members or other claimants that the “FLDS Church” have tried to run out of the twin cities forever.
Seriously, has Shurtleff lost his last marble?
My prediction: there will be no agreement. Wisan and his board will never agree to this, the Arizona AG will never agree to this, and the Judge will never approve it. What a complete waste of time it was to give Willie any legitimacy or include him in something that most of knew he would never approach in good faith.
I’d like to see that document where every member of the “FLDS Church” voted and gave the “Representative Individuals” the authority to act on their behalf. And what exactly constitutes the “FLDS Church” anyway? Is it the list of people Warren says are in? Is there some membership card that people sign and turn in …. What if I say I’m a member of the FLDS Church, do I get a deed too that I have to waive my interest in in favor of a “third party or entity”?
FLDS TEXAS said this on May 22, 2009 at 4:45 AM (edit)
So, any guesses on what NewCo would be? How can a settlement — a land conveyance, no less– include a fictitious entity? For that matter, the “FLDS Church” is a fictitious entity also ..at best a loose voluntary association that can’t take title to land.
FLDS TEXAS said this on May 25, 2009 at 6:31 PM (edit)
Utah Attorney General Shurtleff apparently has not issue with discriminatory practices, so long as they are the practices of the FLDS and not directed against the FLDS. The recent UEP settlement proposal submitted by Attorney General Shurtleff proposes that the public cemetery in Short Creek as well as the public park be subject to a similar dress code requirement. I believe Shurtleff’s proposal would have non-FLDS seek permission from the FLDS Bishop to gain entry into the cemetery/and or public park. It just blows my mind that Shurtleff has signed off on this nonsense that is clearly illegal and prohibited by the U. S. Constitution.