Official statements call for robust discussion, and this episode tries to provide just that through engaging not only the statement but also the human face of this issue and marriage of religion and politics that is often so prevalent in policy debates related to this issue. And it even ends with the episode’s panelists—Brent Beal, a business professor in Texas who for many years has served in LDS branches containing many undocumented church members, Ben Daniel, a Presbyterian minister in northern California who likewise ministers to many people here illegally and who recently wrote a book, Neighbor: Christian Encounters with “Illegal” Immigration, and Mark Alvarez, a Salt Lake City attorney, radio host, and advocate for smart immigration reform—sharing their ideas for better discussions and improved policies.

After listening, we hope you will share your ideas in the discussion below! We also extend a special invitation to contribute to the disccuion to those who advocate positions that differ from those of the panelists. If you favor a hardline approach to illegal immigration, support enforcement-only legislative approaches increased deportations, etc., we would love to engage with you, especially on the intersection between your political positions with your religious views.

HOST’S NOTE: In the months, weeks, and days leading up this Mormon Matters episode, I was blessed to be able to speak with many people about the immigration issue and various different framings for this podcast discussion, as well as possible panelists. All were gracious with their time, all made great suggestions, AND THEN I FORGOT TO THANK THEM DURING THE EPISODE! I know it’s not as fun to be mentioned only here, and I’m very sorry, but thank you, thank you Jason Echols, Ryan Cragun, David Knowlton, David King Landreth, Jana Riess, and Joanna Brooks!

It is Sunday, and Mike and his new bride, Valerie, are up visiting Mike’s family for the weekend. Mike is a physics major and has just finished finals. He is looking forward to some much needed freedom, as well as catching up on neglected chores. Although Mike’s parents typically plant a garden each year, this time Valerie is particularly interested in harvesting her own set of vegetables. The ground was prepared last weekend, but rain has prevented them from planting, and even more rain is in the forecast for the coming week. Now is the time to plant! Unfortunately, contrary to the weather forecast, it also rained yesterday. That means today, Sunday, is likely the only day Mike and Valerie will be able to get their vegetables planted.

But Mike is concerned. He wants to keep the Sabbath Day holy. He approaches his mother and asks “Mom, is it okay to plant the vegetables today, even though it’s Sunday”? “I think it’s okay, but you should do what you feel is right.” she responds. “Do you think the vegetables will grow okay? Do you think they’ll be safe for us to eat”? Mike asks innocently. “Why wouldn’t they be”? mom questions. “Well, because, you know, we’re planting them on Sunday”?

Mike’s mom smiles a little at this, but recognizing the innocent nature of the question responds “You know Mike, in today’s global economy there’s a good chance some of the vegetables you buy at the store were planted, nourished, or even harvested on Sunday. And yet they grew large and ripe, and you don’t get sick when you eat them.” Still a bit apprehensive, but feeling more confident, Mike and Valerie proceed to plant the garden on Sunday after church.

Mormonism has its roots in the magical worldview. While this worldview has been molded and shaped, and is admittedly less prominent than in times past, it still carries on in subtle ways. I admit that I shared this worldview, in similarly subtle ways, before my faith crisis. Perhaps some of this is nothing more than innocence of youth, or one’s choice of friends, or one’s longing to be a dedicated Saint, etc. But I think the language we use in church settings encourages this worldview, and sets our youth (and adults in many cases) up for disappointment, and disaffection.

Recently, in priesthood opening exercises, a councilor from the Stake Presidency was giving us a special message. The Stake Presidency had been in our ward that day, and we had already heard from the Stake President. The topic was missionary work, and the presidency was emphasizing the goals of our stake to share the Gospel with more people. Specifically, this particular goal was for each member to invite at least one person to hear the missionary discussions each month. The Stake President, in sacrament meeting, had recapitulated this goal, and testified he had, since stake conference (when the goals were set), met this goal. The councilor, in priesthood opening exercises, also had met this goal, but admitted all his invitations had been turned down. The councilor then said (paraphrasing) “I testify that as we live righteously, and strive to complete the goals our Stake President has set for us, the Lord will place people in our path who are ready to hear the Gospel.”

I think this type of promise is a fairly common one. We promise, and testify of many great things that will happen if we are obedient to God’s commandments. Paying tithing, keeping the Word of Wisdom, reading scriptures daily, all have associated promises from the Lord. Because the promised blessings are vague, however, if one obeys a commandment, they have license to claim anything they want as a direct blessing from God. It is certainly a valid claim that one has financial success because he/she paid tithing. This may or may not be supported by reality but the claim, at least according to scripture, is a valid one.

From D&C 130:

20 There is a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this world, upon which all blessings are predicated-
21 And when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated.

In logic, these scripture verses can be taken as sufficient and necessary conditions. That is, obtaining a blessing from God implies we obeyed the corresponding law.  And similarly, if we obey the law, we receive the blessing.  This works in the negative as well.  If we do not obey the law, we won’t get the blessing, and, worst of all, if we don’t get the blessing we didn’t obey the law.

These two verses, along with misinterpretations of “blessings” and “laws” upon which blessings are predicated, coupled with the vernacular of grand promises in our meetings, gives rise to the magical worldview.

Having said that, I actually think the solution to squelching the magical worldview (if it indeed ought to be squelched) is also found in those same verses. It is up to us to appropriately understand which laws are associated with any particular blessing. Financial success (blessing) is not predicated on tithing. Rather, it is based on making sound financial decisions, wise investment, saving, and thrift (law). Growing large, ripe, non-poisonous vegetables (blessing) is based on watering, healthy soil, proper sunlight, and other proper growing conditions (law). Additionally, spiritual growth, particularly in the Mormon context, may be predicated upon adherence to tithing, keeping the Sabbath Day holy, fasting, etc.

I think as we more closely scrutinize the blessings and associated laws, our tendency to make grand promises for physical life, predicated upon adherence to spiritual laws, will decrease, thereby diminishing the magical worldview.

What say you?  Is the magical worldview a setup for disappointment and/or disaffection?  What do you think causes it and what can be done to diminish its significance in the lives of people?

In 2009, I counted around 50 federal and state court opinions involving the LDS Church and its members. (This does not include cases where the Church is named in a cited opinion and where the Church or its members were not otherwise involved in the controversy). This count is slightly down from prior years; in 2007 and 2008, there were 71 and 63 cases, respectively. Many of these 2009 cases fall neatly into the various topics I have been writing about over the past few months.

My September 12, 2009 post, “The Surprising Truth About Mormon Employment Discrimination,” for example, noted that the LDS Church differs from the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Seventh-Day Adventists because most of its employment discrimination cases involve Mormon employers. Put another way, where the LDS Church is mentioned in employment discrimination cases, it is generally a Mormon alleged as the discriminator (against non-Mormons), rather than an aggrieved Mormon employee who is suing a non-Mormon employer. This is not yet true of the other two American faiths.

This past year followed this trend. I counted four employment discrimination cases in 2009 that mention Mormonism. Three of these involved Mormon supervisors who, it was claimed, engaged in religious discrimination against non-Mormons. Aga v. Winter, 2009 WL 4406086 (D.Haw. December 1, 2009); DeFreitas v. Horizon Inv. Management Corp., 577 F.3d 1151, 2009 WL 2482030 (10th Cir. August 14, 2009); Webb v. ATK Thiokol Inc., 2009 WL 2043853 (D.Utah July 7, 2009). The fourth mentioned the LDS Church in its facts but did not fall into this pattern. It involved a plaintiff who claimed that his colleagues were harrassing him, by teasing and name-calling, and by signing him up for visits from Mormon missionaries and to receive Nazi literature. McWhorter v. Miller, Einhouse, Rymer & Boyd, Inc., 2009 WL 92846 (M.D.Fla. January 14, 2009).

In “Overseas Persecution of Mormons: A Comparative Analysis” (September 5, 2009), I examined cases in which alien Mormons sought to stay within the U.S. by showing a well-founded fear of religious persecution in their homelands. The year 2009 saw only two cases of Mormon asylum-seekers. Terreros-Guarin v. Holder, 2009 WL 4282847 (10th Cir. December 2, 2009)(Mormon who feared being sent to Colombia); Xue Zhi Chen v. Attorney General Of U.S., 2009 WL 3367628 (3rd Cir. October 21, 2009)(Mormon investigator who feared being sent back to China). This could be good news for people who think about Mormonism: it might be a sign that fewer of the LDS faith are being persecuted abroad.

The year 2009 saw more Mormons doing nasty things, the title of my September 9, 2009 post, which asked whether Mormons are more likely to engage in crime than members of other similar religions. This past year saw some Mormon murders and an LDS rapist. Sayres v. Walker, 2009 WL 1834310 (C.D.Cal. June 24, 2009); Forrest v. State, 290 S.W.3d 704, 2009 WL 1674922 (Mo. June 16, 2009); People v. Carpenter, 2009 WL 776113 (Cal.App. 4 Dist. March 25, 2009). Other criminal cases involved Mormon victims. People v. Avila, 46 Cal.4th 680, 2009 WL 1651379 (Cal. June 15, 2009); State v. Marchet, 219 P.3d 75, 2009 WL 2960392 (Utah App., September 17, 2009).

There were several Mormon prisoners who took to the courts in 2009, a phenomenon I described in “What Mormon Prisoners Want” (September 16, 2009). Ramirez v. Ferguson, 2009 WL 3158205, (W.D.Ark., September 28, 2009); Barhite v. Caruso, 2009 WL 440682 (W.D.Mich. February 23, 2009); Blount v. Echols, 2009 WL 1110815 (W.D.Ark. April 24, 2009). Another prisoner claimed that the Utah Board of Pardons shows favoritism towards Mormon sex offenders. Straley v. Utah Bd. of Pardons, 582 F.3d 1208 (10th Cir. September 28, 2009).

How did Mormons fair in family court this past year? Mormons were involved in some ugly divorces in 2009. In re Marriage of Mataele and Brittain, 2009 WL 1264069, Cal.App. 4 Dist., May 08, 2009); DeLay v. Larsen, 150 Wash.App. 1003, 2009 WL 1178512 (Wash.App. Div. 1 May 4, 2009). As I discussed in “Family Court, Mormon Style” (September 30, 2009), however, there is relatively little anti-LDS animus exhibited by judges in divorce and custody disputes. Instead, family courts tend to view Mormonism as a source of family stability. Jarnagin v. Jarnagin, 2009 WL 4639740 (La.App. 3 Cir. December 9, 2009); In re R.N., 178 Cal.App.4th 557, 2009 WL 3353630 (Cal.App. 2 Dist. October 20, 2009); In re K.M., 2009 WL 2737532 (Cal.App. 1 Dist. August 31, 2009).

In “Bringing Out the Delusional” (September 19, 2009) I asked whether the Church tends to bring out the delusional in some people. The most high-profile alleged delusional in Mormondom who was in court this year was almost certainly Brian David Mitchell, Elizabeth Smart’s abductor. U.S. v. Mitchell, 2009 WL 3837222 (D.Utah November 16, 2009). Some other less famous litigants rolled out some strange theories. Frank G. Fox believes that LDS Church employees are cyberstalking him, harrassing him through electronic communications. Fox v. Tippetts, 2009 WL 3790173 (W.D.La. November 10, 2009); Fox v. Eyring, 2009 WL 675355 (D.Utah March 12, 2009). Roland Cooke maintains that the Mormon Church and the FBI confiscated hundreds of millions of dollars of his property in violation of the Constitution. Cooke v. Federal Bureau Of Investigation, 2009 WL 3188470 ( D.Ariz. September 29, 2009); Cooke v. Corporation of President of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, 2009 WL 2450478 (D.Ariz. August 11, 2009). Paul Desfosses believes there is a grand criminal conspiracy involving the LDS Church, several IRS officers, Idaho Democratic party officials and politicians, including former U.S. Representative Richard H. Stallings, former Idaho Supreme Court Justice Robert C. Huntley, former United States Attorney Thomas E. Moss, and Chief United States District Judge B. Lynn Winmill, who worked together in an effort to “destroy Congressman George Hansen.” Desfosses v. Keller, 2009 WL 3109814 (D.Idaho September 22, 2009)

Finally, there are indications that the bad news will continue in light of the growing Mormon sex abuse scandals (September 23, 2009). Mormon pedophiles were charged, and the Church is being sued by people who claimed it was negligent in not redressing child molestation about which it should have known. State v. Archibeque, 2009 WL 4840740 (Ariz.App. Div. 1, December 15, 2009); Kathleen B. v. Shubeck, 2009 WL 4647873 (Cal.App. 4 Dist. December 9, 2009); Kathleen B. v. Corporation of President of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, 2009 WL 2438419, (Cal.App. 4 Dist. August 11, 2009); Doe v. Corporation of The Ass’n of the Presiding Bishop of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, 2009 WL 2132722 (D.Or. July 10, 2009); In re Detention of Andrews, 150 Wash.App. 1007, 2009 WL 1212039 (Wash.App. Div. 2 May 5, 2009).

In addition to these cases, there were a couple of curiosities that did not fit into the categories about which I have written.

The FLDS Church was in the news, and it was similarly in the courts. An excommunicated FLDS member got in trouble for sending threatening communications to the IRS (U.S. v. Barlow, 2009 WL 2516843 (10th Cir. August 19, 2009)), and a major Salt Lake City law firm was disqualified from being involved in the disposition of the FLDS assets. Snow, Christensen & Martineau v. Lindberg, 2009 WL 3584003 (Utah November 3, 2009).

At the University of Florida, where the University of Utah’s former President and football coach are both employed, the Beta Chi Upsilon fraternity sued to protect its right to exclude non-Christians from membership. (The fraternity maintains that Mormons were not Christians.) Beta Upsilon Chi Upsilon Chapter at the University of Florida v. Machen, 586 F.3d 908 (11th Cir. October 27, 2009).

The Mormon Church’s involvement in the California anti-gay marriage initiative gained the Church some unwanted attention, and entered into legal lore. Opponents of the measure interrupted church services in Michigan, and two Mormon temples and one Knights of Columbus headquarters received envelopes containing white powder. ProtectMarriage.com v. Bowen, 599 F.Supp.2d 1197, 2009 WL 440211 (E.D.Cal.  January 30, 2009). In a First Amendment case case, a court in New York wrote:

Like all Americans, clergy members have First Amendment rights. … Thus, the Rev. Martin Luther King could rally against segregation without rendering integration unconstitutional. Catholic Priests can endorse restrictions on abortion. Mormon-affiliated organizations can campaign against gay marriage. And Reform Judaism’s Religious Action Center can advocate for health care reform. Simply put: mere advocacy from a religious figure cannot transform an otherwise constitutionally acceptable government policy into a First Amendment violation.

Incantalupo v. Lawrence Union Free School Dist. No. 15, 2009 WL 2766705 (E.D.N.Y. August 24, 2009)(emphasis added). A Mormon judge in Hawaii was challenged for disqualification because of his vocal stand against gay marriage. Bayley v. Bayley, 121 Hawai’i 201, 216 P.3d 127, 2009 WL 2778315 (Hawai’i App. August 31, 2009).

Some additional interesting tidbits from the 2009 cases: the LDS Church is involved in litigation with the architects it hired to plan its center in Nauvoo (3 North, PLLC v. Corporation of the Presiding Bishops of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, 2009 WL 4884394 (E.D.Va. December 10, 2009)), and the Reorganized LDS Church is suing to protect its trademark. Community of Christ Copyright Corp. v. Devon Park Restoration Branch of Jesus Christ’s Church, 613 F.Supp.2d 1140 (W.D.Mo., April 23, 2009).

This interesting anecdote raises the question: Who are the LDS Church’s chosen litigators?

The Starr experience seems to be part of a larger reality The Church tends to rely on Kirton & McConkie to protect its commercial interests, though it is not averse to going national to get the best (or more local) representation in certain matters. We know this by surveying written judicial opinions, which give the name of lawyers of record in the litigation.

Kirton & McConkie, the law firm formerly known as Kirton, McConkie, Boyer & Boyle, apparently became the Church’s chosen litigators in the early 1970s, at least judging by when its attorneys started being mentioned in Church-related cases. Before then, the Church’s litigation was handled by the law firm of Ray, Quinney and Nebeker. The names Paul Ray, Albert Bowen, Paul H. Rudd, S.J. Quinney, A.H. Nebeker, Marvin Bertoch, John Snow, and Jay Jensen come up in older cases. Bowen seemed to mainly handle medical malpractice actions against LDS Hospital [2]. The Salt Lake City law firm of Irvine, Skeen, Thurman & Miner also handled some Church work in the 1940s [4]. Cases outside of Utah were handled by the Idaho law firm of Merrill & Merrill [5].

The old mainstays at K & M – Raymond Gee, Douglas Mitchell, Joseph Rust, Oscar McConkie, Richard Boyle, Wilford Kirton, Dan Bushnell, Richard R. Neslen, David Ericksen, B. Lloyd Poelman, Karlynn Himman, Allen Swan, David P. Farnsworth, and Norman Younker – mainly handled corporate litigation and real estate matters [6].
.
This group has given way in more recent years to a new group of younger litigators who have thrown themselves into social issues like discrimination and same-sex marriage as well has tort cases in which the LDS Church is increasingly sued.

The aforementioned Alexander Dushku shows up the most. In addition to the gay marriage controversy, Dushku has been involved in zoning, discrimination, property, First Amendment, water, intentional tort, sex abuse and clergy malpractice controversies.

After Dushku, the most active Church litigators are Von Keetch, Randy Austin, Matthew K. Richards, Eric Olson,Thomas Walk and Dan McConkie. Other modern K & M litigators who have made appearances on behalf of the LDS Church are Jason Beulter, R. Willis Orton, Merrill Nelson, David McConkie, Paul Matthews, David Walquist, Charles Dahlquist, Robert Wallace, and Christian Collins[7].

As noted, the Church often reaches out to local or national lawyers who are not employed by K & M, when it feels it is in its interest.

The late Rex Lee was a legendary advocate who was both President of BYU and U.S. Solicitor General, and he was never part of K & M He argued some of the most seminal matters involving the Mormon Church [8].

Rex Lee

When the Church needs litigators outside of Utah, they have some old stand-bys. Ralph Hunsaker of Phoenix is one [11]. Mark Costello, Mark Chopko and Jeffrey Hunter Moon of Washington D.C. have submitted amicus curae briefs on behalf of the LDS Church [12]. The big firms that have been associated with LDS Church legal affairs in, addition to or in lieu of K & M, are Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, Holland & Knight, Latham & Watkins, and Sidley Austin Brown & Wood [13].

For matters in Oregon, the Church has relied on Frankin Hunsaker, David Ernst and Steven English of Bullivant Houser Bailey and James Bean of Lindsay Hart Neil & Weigler LLP, Portland [14]. In Washington State, where the Church has been sued repeatedly for negligence in sexual abuse cases, it has relied on Thomas D. Frey and Marcus B. Nash (before he became a General Authority) of Seattle’s Stafford Frey Cooper [15]. Other Seattle lawyers who have gotten some LDS Church business (including sex abuse cases) are in the law firm of Gordon Thomas Honeywell Malanca Peterson & Daheim [16]. For Montana matters, the Church relies on Hash, O’Brien & Bartlett [17]. In Boise, it is Moffatt, Thomas, Barrett, Rock & Fields [18]. Personal injury lawsuits against the Church are generally defended by local counsel wherever the case is brought, rather than by Kirton & McConkie, and there are a number of local lawyers who have handled single pieces of Mormon litigation [19]. For these firms, the representation seems to be one-off arrangement.

The interesting thing about K & M involves the growing field of sexual abuse, which I have written about elsewhere, most of which are brought out of Utah. All but one of these cases are handled by someone other than K & M, though the Church’s Salt Lake City law firm is undoubtedly involved in key strategic decisions even if they are not on the pleadings.
________________

[1] In re Marriage Cases, 49 Cal.Rptr.3d 675 (Cal.App. 1 Dist. 2006); In re Marriage Cases, 43 Cal.4th 757, 183 P.3d 384 (Cal. 2008).

[2] Brigham Young University v. Lillywhite, 118 F.2d 836 (10th Cir. 1941); Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints v. Scarborough, 189 F.2d 800 (10th Cir. 1951); Joseph v. W.H. Groves Latter Day Saints Hospital, 7 Utah 2d 39, 318 P.2d 330 (Utah 1957); Joseph v. W.H. Groves Latter-Day Saints Hospital, 10 Utah 2d 94, 348 P.2d 935 (Utah 1960); Dibblee v. Dr. W.H. Groves Latter-Day Saints Hospital, 12 Utah 2d 241, 364 P.2d 1085 (Utah 1961); Talbot v. Dr. W. H. Groves’ Latter-Day Saints Hospital, Inc., 21 Utah 2d 73, 440 P.2d 872 (Utah 1968); Weeks v. Latter-Day Saints Hospital, 418 F.2d 1035 (10th Cir. 1969).

[4] Potter v. Dr. W.H. Groves Latter-Day Saints Hospital, 99 Utah 71, 103 P.2d 280 (Utah 1940).

[5] Wheat v. Idaho Falls Latter Day Saints Hospital, 78 Idaho 60, 297 P.2d 1041 (Idaho 1956); Schofield v. Idaho Falls Latter Day Saints Hospital, 90 Idaho 186, 409 P.2d 107 (Idaho 1965).

[6] Corporation of President of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. Jolley, 24 Utah 2d 187, 467 P.2d 984 (Utah 1970); Manning v. Sevier County, 30 Utah 2d 305, 517 P.2d 549 (Utah 1973); McKinnon v. Corporation of President of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, 529 P.2d 434 (Utah 1974); Bank of Salt Lake v. Corporation of President of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, 534 P.2d 887 (Utah 1975); Jensen v. Manila Corp. of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, 565 P.2d 63 (Utah 1977); Corporation of Presiding Bishop of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. Hodel, 830 F.2d 374 (D.C. Cir. 1987);Corporation of President of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. Wallace, 590 P.2d 343 (Utah 1979); Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. Industrial Commission, 590 P.2d 328 (Utah, 1979); Corporation of Presiding Bishop of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. Hodel, 637 F.Supp. 1398 (D.D.C. 1986); Robinson v. Intermountain Health Care, Inc., 740 P.2d 262 (Utah App. 1987); Robinson v. Intermountain Health Care, Inc., 740 P.2d 262 (Utah App. 1987); Corporation of Presiding Bishop of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints v. Amos, 483 U.S. 327, 107 S.Ct. 2862 (1987); Chapman By and Through Chapman v. Primary Children’s Hosp., 784 P.2d 1181 (Utah 1989); Hornsby v. Corporation of Presiding Bishop of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, 758 P.2d 929 (Utah App. 1988).

[6] Franco v. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 21 P.3d 198 (Utah 2001); Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc. v. Village of Stratton, 534 U.S. 1111, 122 S.Ct. 915 (2002); Davis v. Studdert, Slip Copy, 2003 WL 464067 (10th Cir. 2003); Washington County Water Conservancy Dist. v. Morgan,
82 P.3d 1125 (Utah 2003); Westchester Day School v. Village of Mamaroneck, 386 F.3d 183 (2nd Cir. 2004); Doe v. Corp. of President of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 98 P.3d 429 (Utah App. 2004); Utah Gospel Mission v. Salt Lake City Corp., 425 F.3d 1249 (10th Cir. 2005); Evans v. City of Berkeley, 38 Cal.4th 1, 129 P.3d 394 (Cal. 2006); 2151 Michelson v. Corporation of Presiding Bishop of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, 2006 WL 1359664 (Cal.App. 4 Dist. 2006); 2151 Michelson, L.P. v. Corporation of Presiding Bishop of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, 2008 WL 5196437 (Cal.App. 4 Dist. 2008).

[7] Hadnot v. Shaw, 826 P.2d 978 (Okl. 1992); Corporation of Presiding Bishop of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. Ada County, 123 Idaho 410, 849 P.2d 83 (Idaho1993); Draper City v. Estate of Bernardo, 888 P.2d 1097 (Utah 1995);Safsten v. LDS Social Services, Inc., 942 P.2d 949 (Utah App. 1997); Nelson on Behalf of Hirschfeld v. Corporation of Presiding Bishop of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, 935 P.2d 512 (Utah 1997); Chittenden v. Waterbury Center Community Church, Inc.,168 Vt. 478, 726 A.2d 20 (Vt. 1998); Corporation of Presiding Bishop of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. Queen Carpet, 5 F.Supp.2d 1246 (D. Utah 1998); Corporation of President of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. Farm Bureau, 15 Fed.Appx. 544 (9th Cir. 2001); Corporation of Presiding Bishop of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. City of West Lin, 192 Or.App. 567, 86 P.3d 1140 (Or.App. 2004); Corporation of Presiding Bishop of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. City of West Lin, 338 Or. 453, 111 P.3d 1123 (Or.,2005; Riordan v. Corporation of Presiding Bishop of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, 416 F.3d 825 (8th Cir. 2005); Smith v. Hales & Warner Const., Inc., 107 P.3d 701 (Utah App. 2005); Lowery v. Cook, 2007 WL 772782 (Utah App. 2007); Gulbraa v. Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 159 P.3d 392 (Utah App.,2007); MediaNews Group, Inc. v. McCarthey, 494 F.3d 1254 (10th Cir. 2007); Whited v. Corporatoin of Presiding Bishop of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, 2007 WL 1441203 (Utah App. 2007); Huyot-Renoir v. Corporation of President of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 2007 WL 2058683 (Utah App. 2007); U.S. v. Great Salt Lake Council, Inc., 2007 WL 189470 ((D.Utah 2007); Buck v. Myers, 244 Fed.Appx. 193 (10th Cir. 2007).

[8] Corporation of Presiding Bishop of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints v. Amos, 483 U.S. 327, 107 S.Ct. 2862 (1987); Corporation of Presiding Bishop of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. Hodel, 830 F.2d 374 (D.C. Cir. 1987).

[9] Jane L. v. Bangerter, 794 F.Supp. 1537 (D.Utah 1992); Jane L. v. Bangerter, 828 F.Supp. 1544 (D.Utah,1993); Jane L. v. Bangerter, 61 F.3d 1505 (10th Cir. 1995).

[10] Jacobsen v. Deseret Book Co., 287 F.3d 936 (10th Cir. 2002)

[11] In re General Adjudication of All Rights to Use Water in Gila River System and Source, 198 Ariz. 330, 9 P.3d 1069 (Ariz. 2000); In re General Adjudication of All Rights to Use Water in Gila River System and Source, 198 Ariz. 330, 9 P.3d 1069 (Ariz. 2000.)

[12] Mockaitis v. Harcleroad, 104 F.3d 1522 (9th Cir. 1997); Martinelli v. Bridgeport Roman Catholic Diocesan Corp., 196 F.3d 409 (2nd Cir. 1999); Rweyemamu v. Cote, 520 F.3d 198 (2nd Cir 2008).

[13] People ex rel. Dept. Pub. Wks. v. Corporation etc. of Latter-Day Saints, 13 Cal.App.3d 371, 91 Cal.Rptr. 532 (Cal.App.2.Dist. 1970); Silo v. CHW Medical Foundation, 27 Cal.4th 1097, 45 P.3d 1162 (Cal. 2002); Boyajian v. Gatzunis, 212 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2000); Martin v. Corporation of Presiding Bishop of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, 434 Mass. 141, 747 N.E.2d 131 (Mass. 2001); 2151 Michelson v. Corporation of Presiding Bishop of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, 2006 WL 1359664 (Cal.App. 4 Dist. 2006); 2151 Michelson, L.P. v. Corporation of Presiding Bishop of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 2008 WL 5196437(Cal.App. 4 Dist. 2008).

[14] Jack Doe 1 v. Corporation of Presiding Bishop of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, 2008 WL 4549075 (D.Or. 2008); Doe v. Corporation of The Ass’n of the Presiding Bishop of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, Slip Copy, 2009 WL 2132722 (D.Or. 2009); Corporation of Presiding Bishop of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. City of West Lin, 192 Or.App. 567, 86 P.3d 1140
Or.App. 2004); Corporation of Presiding Bishop of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. City of West Lin , 338 Or. 453, 111 P.3d 1123 (Or. 2005); Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. Dept of Revenue, 1975 WL 1126 (Or.Tax. 1975); Corporation of Presiding Bishop of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. Dept of Revenue, 276 Or. 775, 556 P.2d 685 (Or.Tax 1976)

[15] Neilson v. Corporation of Presiding Bishop of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, 113 Wash.App. 1050, 2002 WL 31188444 (Wash.App. Div. 1 2002); Flanigan v. McCrea, 93 Wash.App. 1085, Not Reported in P.2d, 1999 WL 58767 (Wash.App. Div. 1,1999); “Jane Doe” v. Corporation of President of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, 122 Wash.App. 556, 90 P.3d 1147 (Wash.App. Div. 1 2004).

[16] R.K. v. Corporation of President of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, 2006 WL 2506413 (W.D.Wash. 2006); R.K. v. Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, 2006 WL 2661055 (W.D.Wash. 2006); R.K. v. Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, 2006 WL 2661059 (W.D.Wash. 2006).

[17] Davis v. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, 244 Mont. 61, 796 P.2d 181 (Mont. 1990); Davis v. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, 258 Mont. 286, 852 P.2d 640 (Mont. 1993).

[18] Aldrich v. Bowen, 130 F.3d 1364 (9th Cir. 1997); Corporation of Presiding Bishop of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. Ada County, 123 Idaho 410, 849 P.2d 83
(Idaho 1993); Doe v. Corporation of The Ass’n of the Presiding Bishop of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Slip Copy, 2009 WL 2132722 (D.Or. 2009).

[19] McKinney v. Public Service Co. of Indiana, Inc., 597 N.E.2d 1001 (Ind.App. 1 Dist.,1992); Stotts v. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, 882 P.2d 1106 (Okl.App. 1994); Essick v. Barksdale, 882 F.Supp. 365 (D.Del. 1995); Turner v. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, 18 S.W.3d 877 (Tex.App.-Dallas,2000); Sy v. Board of Trustees of California State University, 2005 WL 950006 (Cal.App. 2 Dist. 2005); Waite v. Church of Jesus Christ, Latter-Day Saints,, 2007 WL 951710 (E.D.Wash. 2007).

The Muslims, we might understand. The Jehovah’s Witnesses? They don’t serve in the military, salute the flag, or vote, and there is a rumor they are not supposed to serve as jurors. But the Mormons? They pride themselves on being good American citizens. Why would they be excluded from civic functions like this?

Perhaps there is an impression that Mormons do not serve effectively in secular governmental functions. Is this reasonable? Can the LDS be trusted, for example, to be fair-minded judges and jurors in secular American legal disputes?

I believe this is a legitimate question, based on the proliferation of written opinions where concerns over Mormon religious bias are raised. There seem to be an unusually large number of cases – I counted 35 cases in which it was alleged that Mormon participants as neutral observers in the legal system could not be fair. This number consisted of 19 claims that Mormon judges should be disqualified and 16 cases involving LDS prospective jurors.

The judge cases go back over 50 years and involve allegations that LDS judges could not be fair in disputes involving Fundamentalist Mormons, the Howard Hughes will, the Equal Rights Amendment, corporate disputes involving the Mormon Church, cases involving Mormon victims, and criminal prosecutions involving black people, non-Mormons, drinking and rape [2]. Most of these cases were in Utah, Idaho and Nevada.

Mormon juror cases go back to 1970, and involve concerns that Mormons are more likely to apply the death penalty and that they would biased in sex, obscenity, and Mormon-victim cases and in matters with Mormon witnesses [3].

How about religions that are commonly confused with Mormons? I did not find a single case involving the Christian Scientists. I found one case involving a Seventh-Day Adventist prospective juror, going back over 50 years ago [4].

For the Jehovah’s Witnesses, I found 32 cases, all involving prospective jurors [5]. This could be expected because, as noted above, there are some who view Jehovah’s Witnesses as having a religious obligation not to serve as jurors [6]. Perhaps there are not enough Jehovah’s Witnesses who become judges for their disqualification to be sought.

Most Mormons would be chagrined at the accusation that they cannot effectively serve as judges or jurors, yet there are far more challenges to their fairness than with these other American minority religions, even the Jehovah’s Witnesses.

My strong sense is that parties seek to disqualify Mormon judges on religious grounds more than they do judges from other religions, even the big ones like the Catholics.

Why do I think this? It is because those few other cases I stumbled on – involving the attempted disqualification of Jewish, Catholic and Episcopalian judges – generally cite cases in which recusal is sought of Mormons [7]. If there were other cases involving the religion in question, they presumably would have found and cited them, since it would have been more persuasive authority. The paucity of these cases forced them instead to cite the Mormon cases.

I anticipated that this inferential reasoning would not be good enough for some people, so I set out to look for the actual number cases in which parties sought to remove Catholic judges. The Catholic Church is several times larger than the LDS Church. You would expect that they had far more attempted judge disqualifications.

Guess what? After searching high and low, I could only find 12 Catholic judge disqualification cases, with the first one coming in 1990 [8]. The Mormons, it seems, have even the Catholics beat on this score.
_______________

[1] Bats v. Cobb County, GA, 495 F.Supp.2d 1311 (N.D.Ga. 2007).

[2] Musser v. Third Judicial Dist. Court of Salt Lake County, 106 Utah 373, 148 P.2d 802 (Utah 1944); Hayes v. Forman, 93 Nev. 490, 568 P.2d 579 (Nev. 1977); State of Idaho v. Freeman, 478 F.Supp. 33 (D. Id. 1979); State of Idaho v. Freeman, 507 F.Supp. 706 (D. Id. 1981); Singer v. Wadman, 745 F.2d 606 (10th Cir. 1984); Orr v. Orr,108 Idaho 874, 702 P.2d 912 (Idaho App.,1985); Winslow v. Lehr, 641 F.Supp. 1237 (D.Colo. 1986); Fuller v. Harding, 699 F.Supp. 64 (E.D.Pa. 1988); Schmidt v. Medley,935 F.2d 278 (10th Cir. 1991); Snyder v. Viani,112 Nev. 568, 916 P.2d 170 (Nev.,1996); Bakalov v. State of Utah, 4 Fed.Appx. 654 (10th Cir. 2001); In re McCarthey, 368 F.3d 1266 (10th Cir. 2004); Salt Lake Tribune Pub. Co., LLC v. AT & T Corp., 353 F.Supp.2d 1160 (D.Utah,2005);. U.S. v. Maness, 2006 WL 1663843 (D.Alaska 2006); U.S. v. Kahre, , 2007 WL 2110500 (D.Nev. 2007); Sherratt v. Friel, 2007 WL 2815314 (D.Utah,2007); Ventress v. Japan Airlines, 2008 WL 763185 (D.Hawai‘I 2008); Sherratt v. Friel, 275 Fed.Appx. 763 (10th Cir. 2008); U.S. v. Kahre, 2008 WL 5246034 (D.Nev. 2008)

[3] State v. Kay, 25 Utah 2d 43, 475 P.2d 541 (Utah 1970); Robinson v. Wolff,349 F.Supp. 514 (D.Neb.) 1972; U. S. v. Credit, 2 M.J. 631 (AFCMR 1976); State v. Lamb, 116 Ariz. 134, 568 P.2d 1032 (Ariz. 1977); Piepenburg v. Cutler, 649 F.2d 783 (10th Cir. 1981); U.S. v. Wolters, 656 F.2d 523 (9th Cir. 1981); U.S. v. Affleck, 776 F.2d 1451 (10th Cir. 1985); Paradis v. Arave, 667 F.Supp. 1361 (D.Id. 1987); Hornsby v. Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, 758 P.2d 929 (Utah Ct.App.1988), Seagrave v. Gomez, 974 F.2d 1343 (9th Cir. 1992); State v. Wood, 868 P.2d 70 (Utah 1993); State v. Bowman, 124 Idaho 936, 866 P.2d 193 (Idaho App. 1993); State v. Fuller, 182 N.J. 174, 862 A.2d 1130 (N.J. 2004); People v. Proffitt, 2003 WL 21711374 (Cal.App. 4 Dist. 2003); State v. Wood, 868 P.2d 70 (Utah 1993); People v. Mays, 2007 WL 2774702 (Cal.App. 6 Dist. 2007).

[4] People v. Weitz, 255 P.2d 40 (Cal.App. 3 Dist. 1953)

[5] Mathis v. State, 167 Tex.Crim. 627, 322 S.W.2d 629 (Tex.Cr.App. 1959); U.S. v. Dangler, 422 F.2d 344 (5th Cir. 1970); State v. Jackson, 317 N.C. 1, 343 S.E.2d 814 (N.C. 1986); Chambers v. State, 724 S.W.2d 440 (Tex.App.-Hous. [14 Dist.] 1987); Powell v. Bowersox, 895 F.Supp. 1298 (E.D.Mo. 1995); State v. Watkins, 114 N.J. 259, 553 A.2d 1344 (N.J. 1989); People v. Sanchez, 208 Cal.App.3d 721, 256 Cal.Rptr. 446 (Cal.App.4.Dist. 1989); People v. Tyburski, 196 Mich.App. 576, 494 N.W.2d 20 (Mich.App. 1992); People v. Hill, 3 Cal.4th 959, 13 Cal.Rptr.2d 475 (Cal. 1992); State v. Davis, 1993 WL 593 (Minn.App. 1993); State v. Davis, 504 N.W.2d 767 (Minn. 1993); Davis v. Minnesota, 511 U.S. 1115, 114 S.Ct. 2120 (1994); State v. Eason, 336 N.C. 730, 445 S.E.2d 917 (N.C. 1994); People v. Woods, 643 N.E.2d 1331 (Ill.App. 1 Dist. 1994); People v. Brown, 1996 WL 33357148 (Mich.App. 1996); Sudul v. City of Hamtramck, 221 Mich.App. 455, 562 N.W.2d 478 (Mich.App.,1997); People v. Martin, 64 Cal.App.4th 378, 75 Cal.Rptr.2d 147 (Cal.App.1.Dist.1998); State v. Tucker, 334 S.C. 1, 512 S.E.2d 99 (S.C. 1999); Hodges v. State, 856 So.2d 875 (Ala.Crim.App.,2001); People v. Cash, 28 Cal.4th 703, 122 Cal.Rptr.2d 545 (Cal. 2002); State v. Dehaney, 261 Conn. 336, 803 A.2d 267 (Conn. 2002); U.S. v. Kincade, 345 F.3d 1095 (9th Cir. 2003); State v. Wise, 359 S.C. 14, 596 S.E.2d 475 (S.C.,2004); Hodges v. State, — So.2d —-, 2007 WL 866658 (Ala.Crim.App. 2007); People v. Juarez, 2007 WL 1140468 (Cal.App. 4 Dist. 2007); Castro v. State, 233 S.W.3d 46 (Tex.App.-Houston [1 Dist.] 2007); Hyde v. Branker, 2007 WL 2827411 (E.D.N.C. 2007); Persad v. Conway, 2008 WL 268812 (E.D.N.Y. 2008); People v. Schreiber, 2008 WL 1810305 (Cal.App. 3 Dist. 2008); Com. v. Dennis, 597 Pa. 159, 950 A.2d 945 (Pa. 2008); In re Pilshaw, 286 Kan. 574, 186 P.3d 708 (Kan 2008); People v. Avila, 46 Cal.4th 680, 208 P.3d 634 (Cal. 2009); Ali v. Hickman, 571 F.3d 902 (9th Cir. 2009).

[6] In re Jenison, 265 Minn. 96, 120 N.W.2d 515 (Minn.1963); State v. Everly, 150 W.Va. 423, 146 S.E.2d 705 (W.Va. 1966); Petition of Williams, 474 F.Supp. 384 (D.Ariz. 1979); U.S. v. Maskeny, 609 F.2d 183 (5th Cir. 1980); Wilson v. Georgetown County, 316 S.C. 92, 447 S.E.2d 841 (S.C. 1994)

[7] U.S. v. Fiat Motors of North America, Inc., 512 F.Supp. 247 (D.D.C. 1981); Menora v. Illinois High School Ass’n, 527 F.Supp. 632 (N.D. Ill. 1981); U.S. v. El-Gabrowny, 844 F.Supp. 955 (S.D.N.Y. 1994); Petruska v. Gannon University, 2007 WL 3072237 (W.D.Pa. 2007).

[8] Sabatier v. Suntrust Bank, Slip Copy, 2009 WL 2430892 (S.D.Fla. 2009); Paul v. D & B Tile of Hialeah, Inc., Slip Copy, 2009 WL 2430901 (S.D.Fla. 2009); Bettis v. Toys R Us, — F.Supp.2d —-, 2009 WL 2423752 (S.D.Fla. 2009); Hoatson v. New York Archdiocese, 280 Fed.Appx. 88, 2008 WL 2235607 (2nd Cir. 2008); Petruska v. Gannon University, 2007 WL 3072237 (W.D.Pa 2007); Hoatson v. New York Archdiocese, 2006 WL 3500633 (S.D.N.Y. 2006); In re Disqualification of McDonnell, 101 Ohio St.3d 1223, 803 N.E.2d 822, 2003 WL 23209396, 2003 -Ohio- 7357 (Ohio 2003); U.S. v. Arena, 180 F.3d 380, 1999 WL 365271, 52 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 908 (2nd Cir. 1999); In re Disqualification of Fuerst, 77 Ohio St.3d 1253, 674 N.E.2d 361, 1996 WL 734380 (Ohio 1996); Rizzuto v. Rematt, 273 Ill.App.3d 447, 653 N.E.2d 34, 210 Ill.Dec. 447, 1995 WL 383314 (Ill.App. 1 Dist. 1995); Feminist Women’s Health Center v. Codispoti, 69 F.3d 399, 1995 WL 649927, 95 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8594, 95 Daily Journal D.A.R. 14,830 (9th Cir. 1995); Savage v. Trammell Crow Co., 223 Cal.App.3d 1562, 273 Cal.Rptr. 302, 1990 WL 137572 (Cal.App. 4 Dist. 1990).

To show how daft the notion of property is to matters of religion, consider a case I stumbled on recently. In it, the court said:

Plaintiff, God, claims that Defendant [Arizona State] university is infringing his copyright by using his “autobiography,” namely, “Bible,” without paying him royalties. Complaint at 2. Plaintiff seeks 9.3 million dollars in damages…The Court finds these allegations to rise to the level of being both fanciful and factually frivolous; accordingly, the Court will dismiss the Complaint without using the Marshals for service, nor putting Defendant to the task of responding to the Complaint [1].

However, Mormons, as well as the LDS Church itself, are decidedly capitalist. This means private property is a big deal. Moreover, these days, at least within the U.S., property rights extend to intellectual endeavors.

Doubt that? Consider that the University of Utah, with a Board of Regents filled with Mormons, threatened to sue HBO over its use of the U’s logo in the television series “Big Love.” Why the outrage, when most schools would appreciate all the attention? It seems that HBO had the audacity to depict (accurately, according to knowledgeable sources) the LDS Temple ceremony. Is that sacred rite protected by intellectual property laws? That is a question that has been kicked around the Mormon blogosphere. In any event, some payback was in order, and the U. saw itself as a good vehicle.

What is the history of intellectual property rights, Mormon-style? I found some interesting cases, dating all the way back to 1940s Hollywood.

The first one involved the Twentieth Century Fox film “Brigham Young – Frontiersman,” and the claim by a writer – Eleanor Harris – that she did not get proper credit for coming up with the idea and the script for the studio. Her request for an injunction and for damages were denied [2]. Around that time, another writer, Clara Dellar, brought an action against Samuel Goldwyn Inc. for copyright infringement, based on what she said was the adaptation of her Mormon-themed play “Oh, Shah” into the film “Roman Scandals” [3].

The next published Mormon-related intellectual property cases did not arise for another 40 years, when a scholar named Andrew F. Ehat sued Jerald and Sandra Tanner for their sale of notes in which he claimed to have a proprietary interest. Ehat took notes from a 350-page transcript of the William Clayton Journals at the LDS Church Archives. He gave to his colleague, Lyndon Cook, material consisting of quotations he and another researcher had taken from the Journals as well as his own notes and comments. This material was surreptitiously taken from Cook’s office, copied, and replaced. One of these unauthorized copies found its way to the Tanners, who had no part in the original removal from Cook’s office. They blacked out the material added by Ehat, printed the original extracts, and sold them to the public. Although Ehat won the case in state court, it was eventually thrown out on the grounds that his exclusive remedy was copyright, a federal cause of action [4].

The LDS Church was sued for copyright infringement in the 1990s. Donna Hotaling, William Hotaling, Jr., James Maher, and Dorothy Sherwood compiled and copyrighted a number of genealogical research materials, which were published in microfiche form and marketed by All-Ireland Heritage, Inc. In the late 1980s, the LDS Church, acquired a single legitimate copy of the microfiche and added it to its main library’s collection in Salt Lake City, Utah. The Church made microfiche copies of the works without the Hotalings’ permission and sent the copies to several of its branch libraries, located throughout the country.

In July, 1991, Donna Hotaling learned that the Church was making copies and placing them in its branch libraries. She contacted the Church and demanded that it stop this activity. After receiving her complaint, the Church recalled and destroyed many of the copies that it had made.

All-Ireland Heritage, Inc., sued the Church in 1992 for copyright infringement. The district court dismissed the action because All-Ireland Heritage, Inc., did not own the copyright. As a result of the lawsuit, however, the Church became concerned that nine of its branch libraries might still possess copies of the Hotaling works. In October, 1993, it sent a memorandum to those branch libraries asking them to search their microfiche inventories for copies of the works. Six libraries found and returned one microfiche copy each. Upon receipt, the main library destroyed these copies.

A few years later, Donna Hotaling visited a branch library in Rhode Island discovered a paper copy of one of the Hotaling works. In 1995, Donna Hotaling went to the Church’s main library in Salt Lake City, where she observed that the library maintained a microfiche copy of the Hotaling works in its collection. The Church acknowledged that the single copy it kept in its collection was one that it made. The library retained this copy, the Church explained, because the copy it originally acquired was destroyed inadvertently.

In August, 1995, the Hotalings filed another lawsuit. Following discovery, the Church moved for summary judgment, arguing that the record did not include any evidence of an infringing act within the three year statute of limitations. The district court granted the motion, and the Hotalings appealed, winning a reversal of the dismissal [5]. Presumably there was some sort of settlement from there.

More recently, LDS Church-owned Deseret Book was sued for plagiarism. Gene S. Jacobsen, alleged that Dean Hughes unlawfully copied Jacobsen’s memoir, Who Refused to Die, in the writing of his successful five volume Children of the Promise series which is published by Deseret Book. Jacobsen wrote his memoir Who Refused to Die shortly following his release as a war prisoner in 1945. The memoir is a personal account of Jacobsen’s experiences in the Bataan Death March and as a prisoner of war in the Philippines and in Japan, and he made about 180 copies of it.

Dean Hughes entered into an agreement with Deseret Book in early 1994 to author his Children of the Promise series. At about this time he became acquainted with Jacobsen’s memoir through his wife who worked with Jacobsen’s son. Hughes requested a meeting with Jacobsen in order to discuss his work and experiences. The two met at length at least once. Hughes claimed he at least had implied permission to use Jacobsen’s material. He stated that he was not aware of Jacobsen’s objections until sometime after Volume III had been published.

Jacobsen sued, and Hughes and Deseret Book succeeded in getting a dismissal [6]. Jacobsen, however, won a reversal, at which point there was probably an out-of-court settlement [7].

The Tanners were in court again more recently, objecting to the registration of their names as Internet domain names and their use in anti-Tanner, pro-Mormon parody website affiliated with the Foundation for Apologetic Information & Research (Fair)[8].

The most recent Mormon-related intellectual property case involved John Raymond Design, which sells framed pictures and drawing of the LDS temples, and its former distributor. The lawsuit involved the claim that the distributor was producing framed products that were intentionally designed to look like the Raymond Design pieces. The request for a preliminary injunction was rejected [9].

How does this history compare with religions which the LDS Church is commonly confused?

The Seventh-Day Adventists have litigated a number of intellectual property controversies, from the 1960s and a trademark dispute involving one of its food companies [10] to more recent times when they have sued over other churches and organizations using the “Seventh-Day Adventist” name or logo in way they claimed created confusion [11]. I found only one modern case where the Adventist Church was a defendant, involving a claim that an official Adventist magazine plagiarized a book [12].

The Christian Scientist Church has similarly been involved in trying through trademark litigation to prevent confusion between itself and its dissident organizations [13]. Like the Mormons, there have been Christian Science legal controversies over ownership and use of historical papers [14]. In one seminal case, the Christian Science Church was found to not have the ability to control dissemination of its standard work, Science and Health, by Mary Baker Eddy [15].

The Jehovah’s Witnesses? I could not find a single intellectual property case dealing with them, which is strange, given that they tend to lead the pack in court references among the Mormon/Adventist/Scientist/Witnesses. I should note that the weird case that started this article was brought by …. a Jehovah’s Witness.
_________________

[1] God v. Arizona State University, 2007 WL 1539324 (D.Ariz. 2007).

[2] Harris v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, 35 F.Supp. 153 (S.D.N.Y. 1940); Harris v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 43 F.Supp. 119 (S.D.N.Y. 1942).

[3] Dellar v. Samuel Goldwyn, Inc., 40 F.Supp. 534 (S.D.N.Y. 1942).

[4] Ehat v. Tanner, 780 F.2d 876 (10th Cir. 1985).

[5] Hotaling v. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, 118 F.3d 199 (4th Cir. 1997).

[6] Jacobsen v. Deseret Book Co., 2001 WL 1806858 (D.Utah 2001).

[7| Jacobsen v. Deseret Book Co., 287 F.3d 936 (10th Cir. 2002).

[8] Utah Lighthouse Ministry, Inc. v. Discovery Computing, Inc., 2005 WL 3263157(D.Utah 2005); Utah Lighthouse Ministry, Inc. v. Discovery Computing, Inc., 506 F.Supp.2d 889 (D. Utah); Utah Lighthouse Ministry v. Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research, 527 F.3d 1045 (10th Cir. 2008).

[9] Framed Wall Art, LLC v. PME Holdings, LLC, 2008 WL 5205822 (D.Utah 2008).

[10] Loma Linda Food Co. v. Thomson & Taylor Spice Co., 47 C.C.P.A. 1071, 279 F.2d 522 (Cust. & Pat.App. 1960).

[11] General Conference Corp. of Seventh-Day Adventists v. Seventh-Day Adventist, 887 F.2d 228 (9th Cir. 1989); General Conference Corporation of Seventh-Day Adventist v. Seventh-Day Adventist Kinship,1991 WL 11000345 (C.D.Cal. 1991); General Conference Corp. of Seventh-Day Adventists v. Perez,97 F.Supp.2d 1154 (S.D.Fla. 2000); General Conference Corp. of Seventh-Day Adventists v. McGill, 624 F.Supp.2d 883 (W.D.Tenn. 2008); ); General Conference Corp. of Seventh-Day Adventists v. McGill, Slip Copy, 2009 WL 1505710 (W.D.Tenn. 2009); General Conference Corp. of Seventh-Day Adventists v. McGill, Slip Copy, 2009 WL 1505738 (W.D.Tenn. 2009).

[12] Robles Aponte v. Seventh Day Adventist Church Interamerican Division, 443 F.Supp.2d 228 (D.P.R. 2006).

[13] Jandron v. Zuendel, 139 F.Supp. 887 (N.D. Ohio 1955); Christian Science Bd. of Directors of First Church of Christ, Scientist v. Evans, 191 N.J.Super. 411, 467 A.2d 268 (N.J.Super.Ch. 1983); . Christian Science Bd. of Directors of First Church of Christ, Scientist, in Boston, Mass., 199 N.J.Super. 160, 488 A.2d 1054 (N.J.Super.A.D. 1985); Christian Science Bd. of Directors of First Church of Christ, Scientist v. Evans, 105 N.J. 297, 520 A.2d 1347 (N.J. 1987); Christian Science Bd. of Directors of First Church of Christ, Scientist v. Robinson, 2000 WL 33422737 (W.D.N.C. 2000); Christian Science Bd. of Directors of First Church of Christ v. Robinson, 115 F.Supp.2d 607 (W.D.N.C. 2000); Christian Science Bd. of Directors of First Church of Christ, Scientist v. Robinson, 123 F.Supp.2d 965 (W.D.N.C. 2000); Christian Science Bd. of Directors of First Church of Christ v. Robinson, 115 F.Supp.2d 607 (W.D.N.C. 2000); Christian Science Bd. of Directors of First Church of Christ, Scientist v. Robinson, 2000 WL 33422739 (W.D.N.C. 2000); Christian Science Bd. of Directors of First Church of Christ v. Robinson, 1 Fed.Appx. 157 (4th Cir. 2001); Christian Science Bd. of Directors of First Church of Christ, Scientist v. Nolan, 259 F.3d 209 (4th Cir. 2001); Christian Science Bd. of Directors of the First Church of Christ, Scientist v. Robinson, Slip Copy, 2001 WL 1301343 (4th Cir. 2001).

[14] Carpenter Foundation v. Oakes, 26 Cal.App.3d 784, 103 Cal.Rptr. 368 (Cal.App. 1972).

[15] United Christian Scientists v. Christian Science Bd. of Directors of First Church of Christ, Scientists, 616 F.Supp. 476 (D..D.C. 1985); United Christian Scientists v. Christian Science Bd. of Directors, First Church of Christ, Scientists, 829 F.2d 1152 (D.C. Cir. 1987).

Well which church? There seems to be a lock on the Mormon Church in this case … which we all know has a lock on family values in the entire world.

Bias was a false charge, according to the court that later reviewed the transcript. What Judge Clapp was reacting to were parents who were attempting to deceive him by pretending to be devout Mormons, and attributing the abuse they inflicted on their children as mandated by their religion. The father had pulled his stepson’s hair out in anger; withheld food; forced fed him; dumped snow on the naked child; regularly kicked the child’s legs out from under him; rubbed a mixture of adult shampoo and salt into his eyes; and intentionally dropped the child on his head. One child had already been taken out of the family home. Judge Clapp was trying to decide whether the state should be permitted to step in and take custody of the second one.

What helped explain Judge Clapp’s frustration was a statement he made at another hearing a week later:

The assertion has been made by the [parents] throughout these cases that they are devout Mormons and follow the dictates of the church regarding family values. The court’s orders after C-1 hearings and psychological evaluations even recognize this factor. This has been and is a sham and was part of the entire “fake-good” cover-up of the abuse in the home. That religion neither teaches nor condones their behavior. No civilized religion would, and the [parents] know that.

Judge Clapp was merely stating a truism. Of course, Mormonism does not condone such treatment. In the end, the parents’ efforts to disqualify the judge failed [1].

Was this case an aberration? How have Mormons been treated in the various family courts around the country? How have they behaved to get there?

If you look at all instances in which the LDS Church has been mentioned in family court opinions, you see cases spanning across the spectrum.

On the one hand, even beyond traditional LDS enclaves, the Mormon Church is characterized in family court opinions as a stabilizing force in broken families [2]. This is a narrative that conforms with the beliefs of most active Mormons, which is to say it is not much of a story.

On the other hand, there are some cases where the LDS Church – which purports to disapprove of divorce – has seemed to drive a wedge in a marriage.

An extreme case might have been that of New Yorker David Edward Hughes. He married his wife over the objections of the Mormon family with whom she lived, and they had two children. After the marriage, Mormon church officials constantly pressed their influence on the couple and in various ways attempted to induce Hughes and his wife to follow LDS ways and to become members of the Church. In spite of the Hughes’ disinterest in Mormonism, which he made plain to Church leaders, they would frequently visit at the Hughes home where they would show movies and slides on Mormonism for the purpose of proselytizing Hughes and his family. Finally, the persistent efforts became so offensive that Hughes he forbade the Mormons from visiting his home.

Shortly afterward, on May 7, 1960, Hughes went to work as usual, but when he returned home that evening, he found that his home had been emptied of all its furniture and furnishings, and his wife and children were gone. He made diligent efforts to locate his wife and children through the police, various state and local officials and his own attorneys, to no avail. Only after many months of diligent inquiry and investigation did Hughes learn that his wife and children, in company with several Mormons, had moved to San Jose, California [3].

Another examples involved the Oliphants of the Pacific Northwest. Helen and Edwin Oliphant were married in 1949, and they had three children. Helen sued for divorce in 1960, though she did not follow through. Instead, they were sealed in the Temple in 1963, in hopes of saving their marriage. Two years later, Edwin was committed to a State Hospital, and Helen re-filed for divorce. She claimed that Edwin’s attachment to the Mormon Church became that of a religious zealot, that he frequently accused her of lying and being deceitful, that he physically abused her while enraged, that on one occasion he made her sit on a stool all night so that she would learn to understand him. He also had sex with his oldest daughter to teach her a lesson [4].

There seems to have been a number of Catholic-Mormon marriages that failed, and how to then raise the kids becomes the subject of litigation. In New York, Eleanor and Clifford Morris were married in 1942. Cliff, a Mormon. promised her that if they got married in a non-Catholic wedding, they would eventually have a Catholic ceremony, and raise their kids Catholic. When he reneged, she sued for an annulment based on fraud [5]. More recently, Catholic and Mormon ex-spouses have objected to custody arrangements in which their kids would be involved in the other religion. In a Ohio case, Catherine Stafford was Catholic and her ex-husband, John Stafford, was Mormon. She complained that he was frightening the children with stories of the apocalypse and neglecting the children’s education by forsaking remedial reading workbooks in favor of bible stories and comic books [6]. In Wisconsin, Philip DeHahn, a Mormon, unsuccessfully objected to his ex-wife’s taking their children to Catholic service on holidays three times a year [7]. A similar dispute involved a divorced couple in Minnesota who argued over whether their children should be raised Mormon or Catholic [8]. Other courts have had less trouble finding an appropriate solution to this situation, splitting the baby as it were [9]. So committed are Mormon parents to raising their kids LDS that some have sued when kids they gave up for adoption were not placed with Mormon families [10].

Is there any residual anti-Mormon animus in family courts? Very little. I found two cases where this seemed to be present, but these were back in the 1960s. A California court denied a deaf mute Mormon couple the right to adopt a baby, but this was quickly reversed [11]. A Utah court considered whether a Mormon couple was fit to adopt a baby, ultimately deciding that they were. The objections?

[T]hat they are so old (in their early 40′s) that according to the social agencies they are marginal as to age for adoptive parents; that they may have had some health problems; that they are “Mormons” and therefore objector alleges have some ‘odd beliefs’; that Mr. Wilson seems to be on the roughhewn side and at times embellishes his language with some colorful, if not socially delicate, adjectives known as ‘swear words’; and has been known to tell ribald stories [12].

Any anti-Mormon feelings by family courts seemed to be reserved for polygamists and Fundamentalists, who still do not fare well in that setting [13].

Of course, if we are talking about adoption, there will be cases involving LDS Social Services. There were several cases in which the Church objected to the return of children given up for adoption to their family members, which might seem a little heavy-handed to some [14].

How do the Mormon family court cases compare to those of similar religions?

Like the Mormons, the Adventists have tangled with Catholics in custody matters [15]. There were a couple of cases in which Adventism is depicted in a positive light [16], and a couple in the negative light [17]. All in all, there is not much there.

We know that Christian Scientists do not believe in traditional medical care, so custody and adoption disputes involving Christian Scientist parents are bound to get thornier for courts than, say, Mormon vs. non-Mormon disputes. There are plenty of cases in which the Christian Science faith is depicted negatively, and was a major source of marital discord [18]. When it comes to adoption, Christian Scientists have come under some lingering suspicion, and courts have scrubbed hard of what was best for the children [19]. There are some family disputes in which the Christian Science faith is depicted as a stabilizing force, but far fewer than Mormonism [20]. The Scientists and their advocates have pushed back in recent decade, engaging in affirmative litigation to protect their family rights [21].

The Jehovah’s Witnesses are another story altogether. Like the Christian Scientists, they do not believe in blood transfusion, which makes custody and adoption matters very difficult for them. I counted more family law matters in which the Jehovah’s Witnesses were portrayed in a negative light than I could quantify for this article. This is a rather sad state of affairs. As one particularly thoughtful court, ruling on a custody issue, put it:

I can think of nothing more unmanageable than an inquiry into a man’s religious, spiritual and ethical creed. There is no catalogue of tolerable beliefs. Nor would the nature of man permit one, for man is inherently intolerant as to matters unknowable, and the intensity of his intolerance is twin with the intensity of his views. I assume the majority would never deny adoption ‘solely’ because of a belief in that area, but if the belief may be considered as the majority say it may, then how much may be charged against an applicant who is a Jehovah’s Witness and therefore opposed to blood transfusions, or a Christian Scientist, who, as I understand his faith, would turn to medical aid only as a last resort? And since a man’s religious, spiritual and ethical views may be more evident in his position on specific subjects than in his abstract statement of his faith, will it be all right to inquire of his attitude toward the war in Vietnam, or capital punishment, or divorce, or abortion, or perhaps even public welfare, or income taxation, or caveat emptor, in all of which some people find evidence of moral fiber or lack of it? [22]

________________

[1] In re William S., 745 A.2d 991 (Me. 2000).

[2] Ashwell v. Ashwell, 135 Cal.App.2d 211, 286 P.2d 983 (Cal.App. 1955); O’Brien v. O’Brien, 259 Cal.App.2d 418, 66 Cal.Rptr. 424(Cal.App. 1968); State ex rel. Firecrow’s Adoption v. District Court of Sixteenth Judicial Dist., 167 Mont. 139, 536 P.2d 190 (Mont. 1975); Groves v. Groves, 173 Mont. 291, 567 P.2d 459 (Mont. 1977); Nielsen v. Nielsen, 620 P.2d 511 (Utah 1980); Robertson v. Robertson, 415 So.2d 1085 (Ala.Civ.App. 1982); Ferry v. Powers, 13 Mass.App.Ct. 1039, 433 N.E.2d 1250 (Mass.App. 1982); In re Glass Applying for Adoption, 424 So.2d 383 (La.App. 2 Cir.,1982); In Interest of J.S., 351 N.W.2d 440 (N.D. 1984); State in Interest of C.G., 609 So.2d 1049 (La.App. 2 Cir. 1992); Hudema v. Carpenter, 989 P.2d 491 (Utah App. 1999); In re Marriage of Ludwinski, 312 Ill.App.3d 495, 727 N.E.2d 419 (Ill.App. 4 Dist. 2000); Brisbois v. Brisbois, 767 So.2d 887 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2000); In re Marriage of Cerven, 317 Ill.App.3d 895, 742 N.E.2d 343 (Ill.App. 2 Dist. 2000); In re Marriage of Letey,2005 WL 3445997 (Cal.App. 4 Dist. 2005); In re Darci B., 2006 WL 1075005
(Cal.App. 2 Dist. 2006); In re Kara C., 2006 WL 1229748 (Cal.App. 2 Dist. 2006); Danielle A. v. Superior Court, 2007 WL 264024 (Cal.App. 4 Dist.,2007); A.C. v. B.C.
2008 WL 6085678 (Del.Fam.Ct. 2008).

[3] Santa Clara County, Cal. v. Hughes, 43 Misc.2d 559, 251 N.Y.S.2d 579 (N.Y.Fam.Ct. 1964)

[4] Oliphant v. Oliphant, 72 Wash.2d 666, 435 P.2d 29 (Wash. 1968).

[5] Morris v. Morris, 67 N.Y.S.2d 760 (N.Y. Sup. 1947).

[6] Stafford v. Stafford, 1994 WL 30515 (Ohio App. 6 Dist. 1994).

[7] Wood v. DeHahn, 214 Wis.2d 221, 571 N.W.2d 186 (Wis.App. 1997).

[8] Johnson-Smolak v. Fink, 703 N.W.2d 588 (Minn.App. 2005).

[9] In re Adoption of Child, 37 A.D.2d 78, 322 N.Y.S.2d 532 (N.Y.A.D. 1971); Munoz v. Munoz, 79 Wash.2d 810, 489 P.2d 1133 (Wash. 1971); Hein v. Hein, 1999 WL 33548932 (Neb.Dist.Ct. 1999); Spilski v. Novak, 2003 WL 1439819 (Mich.App. 2003).

[10] In Interest of C.B., 221 Ill.App.3d 686, 583 N.E.2d 107 (Ill.App. 4 Dist. 1991); Hutchinson on Behalf of Baker v. Spink, 126 F.3d 895 97th Cir. 1997); Olison v. Governor Ryan, 2000 WL 1263597 (N.D.Ill. 2000).

[11] In re Adoption of Richardson, 251 Cal.App.2d 222, 59 Cal.Rptr. 323 (Cal.App. 1967).

[12] Wilson v. Pierce, 14 Utah 2d 317, 383 P.2d 925(Utah 1963).

[13] Matter of Adoption of W.A.T., 808 P.2d 1083 (Utah 1991); Department of Children and Families v. B.B., 824 So.2d 1000 (Fla.App. 5 Dist. 2002); Shepp v. Shepp, 821 A.2d 635 (Pa.Super.,2003); Shepp v. Shepp, 588 Pa. 691, 906 A.2d 1165 (Pa. 2006).

[14] D– P– v. Social Service and Child Welfare Dept. of Relief Soc. General Bd. , 19 Utah 2d 311, 431 P.2d 547 (Utah 1967); Ellis v. Social Services Dept. of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, 615 P.2d 1250 (Utah 1980); Swayne v. L.D.S. Social Services, 670 F.Supp. 1537 (D.Utah 1987); Swayne v. L.D.S. Social Services, 761 P.2d 932 (Utah App. 1988); Swayne v. L.D.S. Social Services, 761 P.2d 932 (Utah App. 1988); Beltran v. Allan, 926 P.2d 892 (Utah App. 1996); In Interest of J.B., 1998 WL 178648 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1998); Interest of D.B., 1998 WL 297360 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1998); In re Jordan N., 2007 WL 708581 (Cal.App. 4 Dist. 2007).

[15] Ex parte De Castro, 238 Mo.App. 1011, 190 S.W.2d 949 (Mo.App. 1945); Petition of Duarte, 331 Mass. 747, 122 N.E.2d 890 (Mass. 1954).

[16] H.S.C. v. C.E.C., 944 So.2d 738 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2006); In re K.B., 20 Misc.3d 1130(A), 872 N.Y.S.2d 691 (N.Y.Sur. 2008); V.O. v. B.R., 2009 WL 2424639 (Del.Fam.Ct. 2009).

[17] Spradling v. Harris, 13 Kan.App.2d 595, 778 P.2d 365 (Kan.App. 1989); Adams v. Oregon State Children’s Services Div., 131 Or.App. 396, 886 P.2d 19 (Or.App. 1994); In re Marriage of Kavanaugh, 2000 WL 378270 (Iowa App. 2000); Roberts v. Roberts,2000 WL 1473869 (Tenn.Ct.App.,2000).

[18] Gugle v. Gugle, 57 N.E.2d 156 (Ohio App. 1943); Curtis v. Curtis, 82 Cal.App.2d 965, 187 P.2d 921 (Cal.App.1. Dist. 1947); Martin v. Martin, 283 A.D. 721, 127 N.Y.S.2d 851 (N.Y.A.D. 2 Dept. 1954); Gluckstern v. Gluckstern, 148 N.Y.S.2d 391 (N.Y. Sup. 1955); Boyer v. Boyer, 183 Pa.Super. 260, 130 A.2d 265 (Pa.Super 1957); Wisely v. Wisely,178 Cal.App.2d 181, 2 Cal.Rptr. 886 (Cal.App.1.Dist. 1960); Gluckstern v. Gluckstern, 31 Misc.2d 58, 220 N.Y.S.2d 623 (N.Y.Sup. 1961); Carneal v. Carneal,211 Va. 162, 176 S.E.2d 305 (Va. 1970).

[19] Donahue v. Donahue,41 Backes 701, 61 A.2d 243 (N.J.Err. & App. 1948); Eggleston v. Landrum, 210 Miss. 645, 50 So.2d 364 (Miss. 1951); Gluckstern v. Gluckstern, 17 Misc.2d 83, 158 N.Y.S.2d 504 (N.Y.Sup. 1956); Wheeler v. Wheeler, 147 A.D.2d 939, 537 N.Y.S.2d 387 (N.Y.A.D. 4 Dept. 1989); In re Marriage of Jaeger, 883 P.2d 577 (Colo.App. 1994).

[20] In re Cole, 274 S.W.2d 601 (Mo.App. 1955); Lake v. Lake, 756 A.2d 917 (D.C. 2000); Anonymous v. Anonymous, 123 N.Y.S.2d 286 (N.Y. Sup. 1953); In re Marriage of Ruble, 2004 WL 736924 (Cal.App. 4 Dist. 2004).

[21] Children’s Healthcare is a Legal Duty, Inc. v. Deters, 92 F.3d 1412 (6th Cir. 1996); Nolan v. State of Hawaii, 841 F.2d 1129 (9th Cir. 1988).

[22] In re Adoption of E, 59 N.J. 36, 279 A.2d 785 (N.J. 1971).

This means that if you do not answer me lawfully and take my money or property or in any way continue to harass me or fail to assure me of my being secure in my persons, houses, papers and effects, that I’m justified in acts of war to balance your terrorism. Do you get it? I will kill any of your agents I can find. I will blow up your buildings. This is war.

Barlow is a Mormon. Well, sort of. He was part of the Fundamentalist LDS Church, at least before he got kicked out. Was his letter not a little over the top? The jury thought so. He received a 21-month prison sentence [1].

Was this type of conduct typical of Mormons? Sure, the LDS agree to be subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, and to obey, honor, and sustain the law. It is taught in Primary, and part of what it means to be a good Mormon and American. The trouble comes when we get into the details. Yes, the Tax Code – Title 26 of the U.S. Code – is very detailed. Does the 12th Article of Faith include the agreement not to tangle with the Executive Branch tax collectors?

Fighting the IRS is, in some ways, part of Mormon lore. Individual Mormons (typically the well-heeled) have taken some very aggressive tax positions and have gone to court to defend them.

Consider the first Mormon-related tax case in modern times. Ernest Wilkinson – yes, the Ernest Wilkinson, successful lawyer and BYU President – engaged in some creative accounting to minimize his tax exposure for a whopping (by 1960s standards) $ 1.4 million in legal fees he had received from the Ute Indian tribe. President Wilkinson took the IRS to court, and he won [2]. Over the next 50 years, other Mormons have taken some fairly aggressive tax positions which led them to Tax Court [3].

What is not particularly aggressive to go to court to challenge tithing deductions that were disallowed because of inadequate documentation [4]. By the same token, it was only mildly aggressive to defend the deductibility of payments made to sons while on their LDS missions, at least before the U.S. Supreme Court ruled those deductions improper [5].

Where the Church itself is a party in litigation with the tax authorities, the subject seems to be its seemingly-never ending quest to be exempt from property taxes [6]. The Church has also litigated whether it is tax-exempt in all of its far-flung economic activities [7].

These cases, mainly good faith disputes, do not say much about whether Mormons are prone to be tax scofflaws. More probative on this question are the many Mormons who have engaged in tax rebellion.

The first published opinion in this category involved James and Jean Smith, who argued that had been singled out and selectively prosecuted by the IRS because they were Mormons, based on the false belief that members of the Church constitute what Federal officials call the “Tax Rebellion Movement.” The Smiths left no doubt about what they were. They claimed that the 16th Amendment was never properly ratified, and they attacked the legality of the United States’ monetary system, arguing that they never received any “constitutional dollars” which would be subject to Federal income taxation [8].

The notion that the IRS was picking on Mormons during this era was apparently getting some circulation among tax protestors. A few years earlier, George Markovsky felt compelled to write a letter to the IRS, which stated:

[The revenue agent’s] pocket ‘Summons‘ specifically requests above-named Associates (i.e., petitioner and his wife) to abjure their First and Fifth Amendment Immunities by meeting with her on September 9, 1976 for the purpose of answering questions and providing information and documentary evidence for Holy Office types to use against them.

Mr. and Mrs. Markovsky are NOT members of the Mormon Church. Hence they are under no threat of being excommunicated from the Celestial jurisdiction by the Hierarchy of that or any other church for exercising their First Amendment Religio/Political Freedoms to be (Tax) Protesters (or ‘Protestants‘ if you will, the terms are interchangeable because they mean the same things).

And, of course, the statute of limitations expired 200 years ago on the sorry idea that secular servants had “authority” to undress (excommunicate) individuals of their Civil Rights and Liberties and thereafter imprison them for the Heresy of being protesters or dissenters to the status quo. First Amendment Injunction took care of such arrogances.

The Markovsky’s take the position that because 1040′s, W-4E’s, W-4′s, and other Income Tax forms are Confessions, which are enforced by Inquisitorial procedures that you and yours are engaged in the UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF (Catholic) CHURCH LAW. You and yours seem to have forgotten – or never knew – that formal Confession to an entrenched priestly class has, from time immemorial, been the controlling Sacrament of Catholic Religions; that it was the compulsions surrounding the Liturgy of Confession which Martin Luther rejected, ab initio, over 400 years ago by his Priesthood of all Believers principle, thereby precipitating the PROTESTANT (Protester) Reformation; and that this same Self-Priesthood principle is the precedent underlying Separation of Church and State and other First Amendment Injunctions.

The Markovsky’s have no objection to Priests and other Clergymen practicing the liturgy of Confession within the privacy of their religious associations. That’s known as Freedom of Religion!

But they REFUSE to permit persons living off public payrolls TO PRACTICE THEIR IGNORANCE OF FIRST AMENDMENT INJUNCTIONS ON THEM, as if they were subjects of a Church/State Theocracy, instead of Sovereign citizens of a Republic founded on the individual’s Self-Priesthood. Moreover they reject the pretension that when the First Amendment demoted Priests and other Clergymen to private citizens thereby enjoining Official use of the implements of religious psychology to promote Political Orthodoxy on this side of the Atlantic – that it somehow transferred their erstwhile sacerdotal License, intact, to Secular Servants of these United States [9].

Around this time, the conviction of Sheryl Brown for willful failure to file an income tax return was affirmed, over his objection that the prosecution violated the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment by obtaining records from the Mormon Church [10].

Over the next two decades, Mormons have tried to conceal their income by starting their own church and claiming to be tax-exempt [11] and by arguing, like Sheryl Brown, that the IRS had no power to compel records from the LDS Church [12]. Perhaps the granddaddy of all Mormon tax protestors is Philip Marsh, who was successfully prosecuted for marketing un-taxing kits to help people drop off the IRS’ radar screen [13].

In the last ten years, Mormons have argued that they are discriminated against in the Tax Court [14]. They have also repeated claim that the LDS Church is immune for IRS summons process [15]. One can see why Mormon tax evaders would find the Church cooperation harrowing. After all, if the IRS wanted to know how much gross income someone earned during a year, they merely need to access the person’s tithing records and multiply by ten.

While these cases were going on, there can be no question what the official LDS position is on income taxes: it encourages people to come clean with the IRS. For example, a Mormon bishop recommended that a congregant write a letter to the IRS confessing that he filed a tax return, in order to relieve his ex-wife of joint and several liability she might otherwise suffer [16].

This ethos – respecting the IRS and its authority – sometimes makes the Church conform when it would not otherwise want to. For example, I am one of those cynical people who think that Spencer W. Kimball’s “revelation” about blacks and the priesthood was not a message from God. Instead, it was an example of political expediency and tax planning. I do not believe that it had to do with BYU major sports aspirations. Rather, it was the very real concern that the LDS Church and BYU would lose its tax exemption, combined with a lawsuit involving the Boy Scouts of America.

As a religious institution, the Mormon Church and BYU are charitable entities recognized as tax-exempt by the IRS. This means that persons who donate to them can claim the donations as tax deductions. The Church’s budget comes largely from charitable contributions. The ability of donors to claim tax deductions is, in some minds, a form of government subsidy.

A group of black taxpayers and their minor children attending public schools in Mississippi brought a class action on May 21, 1969 against the United States, seeking to enjoin the Secretary of the Treasury and the IRS from according tax exempt status to private schools in Mississippi which excluded African-American students on the basis of race or color.

In July 1970, while the lawsuit was pending, the IRS issued two Releases, announcing that “it can no longer legally justify allowing tax-exempt status to private schools which practice racial discrimination nor can it treat gifts to such schools as charitable deductions for income tax purposes.”

Meanwhile, a group of white citizens entered the lawsuit, claiming that they had a First Amendment right not to associate with persons of other races, which would be infringed by the IRS’ revocation of the white private schools’s tax-exempt status.

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the black plaintiffs, concluding that the IRS actions of denying tax -exemption to discriminatory schools was constitutional, and that it could disallow deductions for persons making gifts to such schools. Regarding the interests of the white families, the court noted that its decision did not prevent them from sending their children to segregated private schools at their own expense, paying the full cost of education at such schools. Such schools, however, were not entitled to public support, as which tax-exemption qualified. It reasoned that the Federal Government could not under the Constitution give direct financial aid to schools practicing racial discrimination, but that tax exemptions and deductions certainly constitute a Federal Government benefit and support. “While that support is indirect, and is in the nature of a matching grant rather than an unconditional grant, it would be difficult indeed to establish that such support can be provided consistently with the Constitution” [17].

Of course, the schools at issue in Green v. Connally were truly segregated, in that blacks were not allowed admission into them. This was a distinction that had been used by Mormon leaders. During a Devotional address on November 25, 1969, President Wilkinson addressed students and faculty on these recent accusations of racism at BYU, citing the BYU admission policy that stated students are admitted regardless of their race as long as they maintain the ideals and standards of the Church.

In the 1970s, the IRS turned its sights on a southern college known as Bob Jones University. Like BYU, Bob Jones University permitted black to enroll, and claimed not to be segregated. However, it treated black and white differently. The sponsors of the Bob Jones University, a fundamentalist Christian institution in Greenvile, South Carolina, believed that the Bible forbade interracial dating and marriage.

To effectuate these views, blacks were completely excluded from the school until 1971. From 1971 to May 1975, the University accepted no applications from unmarried blacks, but did accept applications from blacks married within their race.

Beginning in May 1975, the University permitted unmarried African-Americans to enroll, but a disciplinary rule prohibits interracial dating and marriage. That rule read:

There is to be no interracial dating
1. Students who are partners in an interracial marriage will be expelled.
2. Students who are members of or affiliated with any group or organization which holds as one of its goals or advocates interracial marriage will be expelled.
3. Students who date outside their own race will be expelled.
4. Students who espouse, promote, or encourage others to violate the University’s dating rules and regulations will be expelled.

The University continued to deny admission to applicants engaged in an interracial marriage or known to advocate interracial marriage or dating.

On April 16, 1975, the IRS notified the Bob Jones University of the proposed revocation of its tax-exempt status because of its discriminatory policies.

The IRS officially revoked the University’s tax-exempt status in January, 1976. Bob Jones University challenged the revocation. The case would ultimately reach the U.S. Supreme Court. The government took the position that Bob Jones University’s racial policies made it ineligible for tax-exempt status.

If the IRS’ decision in Bob Jones University was affirmed by the Supreme Court, it would close BYU’s argument that its racial policies were not discriminatory. The Church now was looking at the very real prospect that BYU would lose its tax-exempt status. That would be bad news indeed.

Other things were happening. In 1977, President Kimball was distressed when he was served with a subpoena to give a deposition in a case brought by the NAACP against the Boy Scouts of America and Troop 58, organized in one of the wards of the Liberty Stake in Salt Lake City. There were two black Scouts in the troop. One of them complained to the black ombudsman for Utah because he was deprived of the chance to become the senior patrol leader of his troop because of the Church procedure that the senior patrol leader had to be the deacons quorum president. It was contended that this violated the young man’s civil rights.

While the Church was not a party to the suit, the Church’s practice was a key issue in the litigation. It was for this reason the subpoena was issued to President Kimball. And because it was a subpoena duces tecum, he was directed to bring to the deposition every document relating to the Church’s policy withholding the priesthood from blacks.

Because he had had little to do with litigation during his life and was uncertain about what faced him, President Kimball was distraught. He could not sleep. He reportedly could talk of little else in the meetings with his counselors.

As we know, the change finally came in June 1978, as the Bob Jones University tax case was winding its way through the courts. Coincidence? I doubt it.
________________

[1] U.S. v. Barlow, Slip Copy, 2009 WL 2516843 (10th Cir. 2009).

[2] Wilkinson v. United States, 304 F.2d 469 (Ct Cl. 1962).

[3] Paxman v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 50 T.C. 567 (Tax 1969); Thatcher v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 61 T.C. 28 (Tax 1974); Buehner v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 65 T.C. 723 (Tax 1976); Kleinman v. C.I.R., T.C. Memo. 1984-347, 1984 WL 14996 (Tax 1984); Reile v. C.I.R., T.C. Memo. 1992-488, 1992 WL 206149 (Tax 1992); Torney v. C.I.R., T.C. Memo. 1993-385, 1993 WL 325063 (Tax 1993); Ferguson v. C.I.R., 108 T.C. No. 14, 108 T.C. 244 (Tax 1997); Ferguson v. C.I.R., 174 F.3d 997 (9th Cir 1999); Talmage v. C.I.R., T.C. Memo. 2008-34, 2008 WL 440831 (Tax 2008).

[4] Coultas v. C. I. R., T.C. Memo. 1972-1, 1972 WL 2135 (Tax 1972); Watkins v. C. I. R., T.C. Memo. 1973-267, 1973 WL 2445 (Tax 1973); Jeppsen v. C.I.R., T.C. Memo. 1977-274, 1977 WL 3565 (Tax 1977); Jeppsen v. C.I.R., T.C. Memo. 1978-343, 1978 WL 3021 (Tax 1978); Gifford v. C.I.R., T.C. Memo. 1980-351, 1980 WL 4188 (Tax 1989); Lyman v. C.I.R., T.C. Memo. 1984-115, 1984 WL 15437 (Tax 1984); Castleton v. C.I.R., T.C. Memo. 2005-58, 2005 WL 697961 (Tax 2005).

[5] White v. U.S., 514 F.Supp. 1057 (D.Utah 1981); Brinley v. C.I.R., T.C. Memo. 1983-408, 1983 WL 14392 (Tax 1983); White v. U.S., 725 F.2d 1269 (10th Cir. 1984); Brinley v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 82 T.C. No. 70, 82 T.C. 932 (Tax 1984); Brinley v. C.I.R., 782 F.2d 1326 (5th Cir. 1986); Davis v. U.S., 664 F.Supp. 468 (D.Id. 1987); Davis v. U.S., 861 F.2d 558 (9th Cir. 1988); Hernandez v. C.I.R., 490 U.S. 680, 109 S.Ct. 2136 (1989); Davis v. U.S., 495 U.S. 472, 110 S.Ct. 2014 (1990).

[6] Malad Second Ward of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. State Tax Commission, 75 Idaho 162, 269 P.2d 1077 (Idaho 1954); Kunes v. Mesa Stake of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints,17 Ariz.App. 451, 498 P.2d 525 (Ariz.App. 1972); Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter- Saints v. Department of Revenue, 1975 WL 1126 (Or.Tax, 1975); Corporation of Presiding Bishop of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. Department of Revenue, 276 Or. 775, 556 P.2d 685 (Or. 1976); New Jersey Stake of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints v. Morris Township, 3 N.J.Tax 572 (N.J.Tax, 1981); Utah County, By and Through County Bd. of Equalization of Utah County v. Intermountain Healthcare, 709 P.2d 265 (Utah 1985); Corporation of Presiding Bishop of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day v. Ada County,123 Idaho 410, 849 P.2d 83daho 1993); Maricopa County v. State, 187 Ariz. 275, 928 P.2d 699 (Ariz.App. Div. 1. 1996); Corporation of Presiding Bishop of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. Department of Revenue, 1997 WL 734056 (Or.Tax 1997).

[7] IHC Health Plans, Inc. v. C.I.R., T.C. Memo. 2001-246, 2001 WL 1103284 (Tax 2001); IHC Group, Inc. v. C.I.R., T.C. Memo. 2001-247, 2001 WL 1103286 (Tax 2001); IHC Care, Inc. v. C.I.R., T.C. Memo. 2001-248, 2001 WL 1103289 (Tax 2001);IHC Health Plans, Inc. v. C.I.R., 325 F.3d 1188 (10th Cir. 2003)

[8] Smith v. C.I.R., T.C. Memo. 1979-51, 1979 WL 3147 (Tax 1979).

[9 Markovsky v. C.I.R., T.C. Memo. 1985-283, 1985 WL 14910 (Tax 1985).

[10U.S. v. Brown, 600 F.2d 248 (10th Cir. 1979).

[11 Tschudy v. C.I.R., T.C. Memo. 1993-567, 1993 WL 491379 (Tax 1993)

[12 Codner v. U.S., 17 F.3d 1331 (10th Cir. 1994).

[13 U.S. v. Marsh, 144 F.3d 1229 (9th Cir. 1998).

[14] Hawkins v. C.I.R., T.C. Memo. 2003-181, 2003 WL 21436740 (Tax 2003).

[15]Thomas v. U.S., 2004 WL 1571968 (D.Me. 2004);Taylor v. U.S., 292 Fed.Appx. 383 (5th Cir. 2008).

[16]Smith v. C.I.R., T.C. Summ.Op. 2007-57, 2007 WL 1120287 (Tax 2007).

[17] Green v. Connally, 330 F.Supp. 1150, (D.D.C. 1971), aff’d, 404 U.S. 997, 92 S. Ct 564 (1971).

Let’s start outside of the Mormon enclaves of Utah and other parts of the west, where there is less basis to be paranoid about the power of the LDS Church.

First, let’s go to Minnesota. A man named John Anderson became obsessed with the Mormon Church and Marie Osmond. He claimed to be Jesus, and that the public library was bugged. His sister successfully commissioned for his mental commitment [1]. A man named Ted Zimba experienced a similar fate. He claimed at his commitment hearing that he was a Mormon and had three wives, though he alternatively claimed to be an African-American woman [2]. A man named Neng Por Yang filed a rambling complaint which alleged a conspiracy between the Mormon Church and the federal government, with the Mormons falsifying “information against Plaintiff with the US Federal Government by means of corrupted, dirty undercover work … without an end to the falseness of the conspiracies”[3].

Now let’s move eastward to Philadelphia. Leslie Ann Kelly alleged a conspiracy to steal her property involving the Catholic and Mormon Churches [4]. Darlene Schmidt brought a lawsuit which alleged that members of the LDS Church were minions of the devil and in cahoots with the State of Utah to violate the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution. She sought one billion dollars in damages from the Church, and a requirement that all Mormons be branded on their foreheads and hands [5]. A few years later, she filed another similar lawsuit in South Carolina [6].

Moving back to the Midwest, Mark Sato filed a lawsuit in Chicago which alleged treason by Presidents Bush and Clinton and a conspiracy involving the Mossad, Fidel Castro, the British Masons and high officials in the Mormon Church [7].

Ready to move back to the western enclaves of Mormondom? After all, we are just getting started.

In Idaho, Detsel J. Parkinson filed a lawsuit in which he claimed that the IRS was involved in a grand Mormon conspiracy [8]. John Bach sued a number of people for defamation and conspiracy, prominently mentioning their Mormon membership [9]. From Arizona, a woman named Leda O’Brien sued the Department of Justice and the LDS Mormon Church along with several well-known celebrities – Barbara Bush, Ted Kennedy, Andy Williams, Neil Diamond, Johnny Mathis, and others – alleging harassment by them [10]. Next door in New Mexico, a man named Alexander Shapolia alleged that the Mormon Church and the federal government were conspiring to allow the Mormons to take over Los Alamos National Laboratory [11].

Now back to Utah. In 1980, an IRS employee in Ogden alleged a conspiracy between the Mormon Church and the City of Roy to confiscate her property [12]. There were several other lawsuits in Utah (and one in Nevada) like this against the Church and its officials which were dismissed without much elaboration [13].

The Utah courts have handled some real pros when it comes to vexatious litigation in the last few years. Aaron Raiser filed a lawsuit against the LDS Church and BYU, claiming they had illegally leaked his psychiatric history [14]. He went so far as to seek recusal of the judge who dismissed his action [15]. He was eventually placed on the list of restricted filers, meaning the courts got fed up with him [16]. Lester Jon Ruston of Massachusetts claimed in his action that the Mormon Church was trying to torture and murder him, destroy his small business, and brainwash him [17]. Stephen Shane Vance filed a lawsuit asking for control over the Mormon Church “so that me, Jesus Christ” could establish world peace [18]. Frank G. Fox, a Louisiana resident, filed a lawsuit in Utah claiming that the citizens of Texas and the Mormon Church were threatening him. His lawsuit alleged that Henry B. Eyring was communicating with him by phone and computer, and asked the Mormon Church to intercede [19]. A Utah convict named Bojidar George Bakalov filed a habeas corpus petition which claimed that the Utah state judges entered into a Mormon conspiracy with the Utah Governor, United States Senators, the state prosecutor, and a University of Utah professor to convict him [20]. Are these cases slowing down? Just last month, a court issued an opinion in a case involving Roland Cooke, who filed a lawsuit claiming that the Mormon Church and the FBI conspired to steal his house [21].

This phenomenon seems unique to Mormonism, when compared with similar faiths, though it’s not a complete monopoly. It is more a matter of extent. The Adventist have had a few of these [21], as have the Jehovah’s Witnesses [23]. Neither, however, seems to bring paranoia out of the woodwork as much as the LDS Church. Then again, neither have geographic enclaves they seem to control (though I bet it is fairly hard to get a pork sandwich in Loma Linda, California on a Saturday).

Overall, these are sad cases, indeed. Why do they happen? Is there anything the LDS Church can do to avoid engendering such animosity? Doubtful. As I have written elsewhere, the Mormons have, for better or worse, become The Man. Burdens come with benefits.

(Yes, it did occur to me that merely writing this article would open me up to some vindictive lawsuits. After some reflection, I decided that if someone gets sued for shining light on this problem, it might as well be someone who can represent himself. Besides, I have no assets ….).
_______________

[1] Matter of Anderson, 367 N.W.2d 107 (Minn.App. 1985).

[2] Zimba v. Goodno, 2004 WL 2340219 (Minn.App. 2004).

[3] Neng Por Yang v. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, 2007 WL 465390 (D.Minn. 2007).

[4] Kelly v. Walker, 2003 WL 22797332 (E.D.Pa. 2003).

[5] Schmidt v. State of Utah, 1990 WL 74255 (E.D.Pa. 1990)

[6] Schmidt v. State of Utah, 960 F.2d 146 (4th Cir. 1992).

[7] Sato v. Plunkett, 154 F.R.D. 189 (N.D.Ill. 1994)

[8] Parkinson v. U.S., 175 F.Supp.2d 1233 (D.Id. 2001)

[9] Bach v. Teton County, 2002 WL 1987317 (D.Id. 2002).

[10] O’Brien v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, 76 F.3d 387 (9th Cir. 1996).

[11] Shapolia v. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, 13 F.3d 406 (10th Cir. 1993)

[12] Jacobs v. C.I.R., T.C. Memo. 1977-1, 1977 WL 3309 (Tax 1977); Jacobs v. C.I.R., T.C. Memo. 1980-308, 1980 WL 4147 (Tax 1980).

[13] Contreras v. Hunter, 70 F.3d 1282 (10th Cir. 1995); Thamer v. Campbell, 153 F.3d 728 (10th Cir. 1998); Campanella v. Utah County Jail, 78 Fed.Appx. 72 (10th Cir. 2003); Parker v. Neilson, Slip Copy, 2009 WL 64471 (D.Utah 2009); Simmons v. Sumner,923 F.2d 863 (9th Cir. 1991)

[14] Raiser v. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, 2006 WL 288442 (D.Utah 2006); Raiser v. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, 182 Fed.Appx. 810 (10th Cir. 2006); In re Raiser, 243 Fed.Appx. 376 (10th Cir. 2007). In re Raiser, 2008 WL 161307 (D.Utah 2008).

[15] Raiser v. Brigham Young University, 2008 WL 161305 (D.Utah 2008).

[16] In re Raiser, 293 Fed.Appx. 619 (10th Cir. 2008).

[17] Ruston v. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, 2007 WL 2332393 (D.Utah 2007), Ruston v. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, 2008 WL 1008387, D.Utah,2008., Ruston v. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, 304 Fed.Appx. 666 (10th Cir. 2008).

[18] Vance v. Hinckley, 2007 WL 1153795 (Utah App. 2007).

[19] Fox v. Hawk, 2008 WL 877393 (D.Utah 2008);, Fox v. Hawk, 2008 WL 2018196 (D.Utah 2008); Fox v. Eyring, Slip Copy, 2009 WL 675355 (D.Utah 2009).

[20] Bakalov v. State of Utah, 4 Fed.Appx. 654 (10th Cir. 2001).

[21] Cooke v. Corporation of President of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, Slip Copy, 2009 WL 2450478 (D.Ariz. 2009).

[22] Wardle v. City of Dallas, 2004 WL 307438(N.D.Tex. 2004; U.S. v. Crawford, 2008 WL 858902 (S.D.Ga. 2008); U.S. v. Riley, 2008 WL 974839 (D.Minn. 2008).

[23] Garcia v. Chernetsky, 983 F.2d 1076 (9th Cir. 1993); Platsky v. Armand, 1994 WL 681415 (E.D.N.Y. 1994)

I counted about 25 Mormon prisoner cases, dating back to the 1960s. The Seventh-Day Adventists and the Jehovah’s Witnesses had slightly more (34 cases each). The Christian Scientists had fewer – four cases.

It is interesting to see how spread out the LDS prison population is from these cases. In the late 1960s, a Mormon named, Kenneth Taylor, an inmate at Eastern State Penitentiary in Philadelphia, sued because prison regulation forbade his receipt of the Deseret News [1]. A few years later, Edward Fallis, incarcerated within the federal penitentiary in Atlanta, objected to the refusal by prison authorities to allow Mormon Family Home Evenings whereby a Mormon elder and his family would “adopt” a convict and visit him in prison for counseling [2]. On behalf of himself and 101 other prisoners, Jack David Stovall, an inmate at Fountain Correctional Center in Atmore, Alabama, sought LDS religious services in the prison [3].

Over the next 20 years, Melvin A. McCabe and Mark Madsen, inmates of the Idaho State Correctional Institution, filed a lawsuit seeking to conduct LDS worship services in the prison chapel, to hold LDS group study classes; to hold banquets on religious holidays; to distribute literature of the Church, to confer with LDS ministers on a personal and group basis; to grow facial hair, to have special dietary considerations, and to receive and keep in their possession all Church books and pamphlets [4]. Similarly, James Allen Boyd, an Arizona state prisoner, claimed that the Mormon Church mandated that he study scriptures with his wife daily, hold family prayer with his wife daily, hold family home evenings with his wife weekly, and “render physical affection to his wife while he is in prison” [5]. Andre Brigham Young, a civilly committed patient at the Special Commitment Center at Monroe, Washington, a resident treatment facility for persons civilly committed pursuant to Washington’s Sexually Violent Predators Act, claimed he was denied the assistance of a Mormon religious volunteer [6]. Paul D. Gibbs, a Michigan state prisoner alleged that as a Mormon, he was a target of assaults by black gangs at his institution [7]. The most recent lawsuit involved an Arkansas inmate who challenged the prison limitation on one religious book, claiming that, as a Mormon, he needed both a Bible and a Book of Mormon to worship properly [8].

The Adventists prison lawsuits have mainly involved food – pork-free of vegetarian [9] – or relief from having to work on Saturday [10]. A few went further and requested access to books and religious publications [11], music cassettes [12], Adventist religious services [13], communion and foot washing [14], the right to view the Adventist “Three Angels” television network [15], and to be free from unwanted sexual contact [16]. The Jehovah’s Witnesses lawsuits sought meetings [17], religious materials [17], photocopying privileges [18], relief from certain medical procedures [19], and relief from the rules that forbade talking about religion with fellow inmates [20]. Like one of the Adventist prisoners, a Jehovah’s inmate sought relief from unwanted sexual contact [21]. Another wanted to practice Tai Chi [22]. One Witness prisoner claimed that he could not practice his faith sufficiently unless he was allowed out of prison on weekends to knock on doors [23]. The Christian Scientist inmates alleged improper transfer based on their religion [24], and forced medical procedures [25].

Are there currently enough Mormon outlets in prison? While Mormon prisoners in Utah have sued over the lack of LDS chapel and educational activities [26], several have claimed there was too much, suing based on the claim that Mormon prisoners enjoyed preferential treatment [27]. A Hawaii prisoner sought to join the club without officially joining, falsely claiming to be a Mormon because it would have entitled him to certain types of activities and benefits [28].

To be sure, prison can be a spiritual life-changing event of some Mormons. Remember my earlier statement about how most Mormons do not give up their religious affiliation when they go to prison? Some do. A few became Muslims after they were in for a few years [29].

A Connecticut prisoner went through what was arguably a more significant transformation. Originally an enthusiastic Mormon, Michael Scatena in 2000 brought a lawsuit over the prison’s failure to provide him access to certain materials in the practice of his LDS faith. He claimed that he has requested a self-help Mormon Religious Instruction book and a Mormon religious cassettes both of which are available at no cost through the use of an 800 number, along with a tape player, without success [30]. A year later, after several disciplinary infractions and a transfer to another prison, he sued again, this time with a complaint filled with anti-Semitism. He sought non-rabbinical food and liquid staples that are free of the Jewish religious kosher food symbols known as “(U)” and “K” and, second, to provide him with a raw fruitarian diet (in the form of a vegetarian diet) as prescribed by the World Church of the Creator, a white supremacist organization. He argued he was neither Jewish, nor did he wish to participate in any Jewish religious customs, such as being forced to consume food and liquid staples “along with the common fare or regular diet the Department of Corrections [department] serves because they violate his religious beliefs as a member of the [World Church] and as a former Mormon” [31].

Prisoner lawsuits rarely get attention. Most are brought in federal court, and they make for some of the most banal controversies for U.S. District Court judges (much like asylum cases for the U.S. Courts of Appeal). Still, they are interesting for what they say about one aspect of overlooked Mormon culture. My sense is that if simple requests like free Mormon tapes will prevent prisoners from becoming white supremacists, it seems a small price to pay.
_______________

[1] U. S. ex rel. Oakes v. Taylor, 274 F.Supp. 42 (E.D. Pa. 1967).

[2] Fallis v. U.S., 476 F.2d 619 (5th Cir. 1973).

[3] Stovall v. Bennett, 471 F.Supp. 1286 (S.D. Ala. 1979).

[4] McCabe v. Arave, 626 F.Supp. 1199 (D.Idaho 1986).

[5] Boyd v. State of Ariz., 87 F.3d 1317 (9th Cir. 1996).

[6] Young v. Thompson, 992 F.2d 1221 (9th Cir. 1993).

[7] Gibbs v. Trippett, 944 F.2d 904 (6th Cir. 1991).

[8] Blount v. Vinetta, 2008 WL 647487 (W.D.Ark. 2008); Blount v. Echols, 2008 WL 4368936 (W.D.Ark. 2008); Blount v. Echols, Slip Copy, 2009 WL 1110815 (W.D.Ark. 2009).

[9] Ruff v. Long, 851 F.2d 1501 (D.C. Cir. 1988); Rayes v. Eggars, 838 F.Supp. 1372 (D.Neb. 1993); Frazier v. Ferguson, 2006 WL 2052421 (W.D.Ark. 2006); Hamlett v. Srivastava, 496 F.Supp.2d 325 (S.D.N.Y. 2007); Oram v. Hulin, 2007 WL 2363376 (D.Idaho 2007); Smith v. Pleskovich, 2008 WL 660418 (N.D.Fla. 2008); France v. Grant, WL 693801 (W.D.Ark. 2008); Thorpe v. Ragozzine, 2008 WL 1859878 (E.D.Tenn. 2008); Davis v. Miser, 2008 WL 2782866 (D.Ariz. 2008); Wofford v. Williams, 2008 WL 3871756 (D.Or. 2008); Linehan v. Crosby, 2008 WL 3889604 (N.D.Fla. 2008); France v. Petray, 2008 WL 4079282 (W.D.Ark. 2008); Davis v. Miser, 2008 WL 5111102 (D.Ariz. 2008); Niederberger v. Petray, Slip Copy, 2009 WL 331347 (W.D.Ark. 2009); Mitchell v. McNeil, Slip Copy, 2009 WL 903613 (N.D.Fla. 2009); Davis v. Ryan, Slip Copy, 2009 WL 1346846 (D.Ariz. 2009).

[10] Beierle v. Zavares, 215 F.3d 1336 (10th Cir. 2000); Snyder v. Trudell, Slip Copy, 2009 WL 37183 (E.D.Mich. 2009).

[11] Hightower v. Schwarzenegger, 2007 WL 715529 (E.D.Cal. 2007); Hightower v. Schwarzenegger, 2008 WL 752555 (E.D.Cal. 2008).

[12] Wakefield v. Terhune, 2000 WL 288392 (N.D.Cal. 2000).

[13] Anderson v. Roberts, 2008 WL 2098093 (D.Kan. 2008).

[14] Wakefield v. Indermill, Slip Copy, 2009 WL 937739 (E.D.Cal. 2009).

[15] Hunt v. Hopkins , 2006 WL 1877107 (D.Neb. 2006); Burchett v. Bromps, 2008 WL 5000242 (E.D.Wash. 2008).

[16] Metcalf v. Ogilvie, 436 F.2d 361 (7th Cir. 1970); Cook v. Mohr 897 F.2d 529 (6th Cir. 1990); Sasnett v. Department of Corrections, 891 F.Supp. 1305 (W.D.Wis. 1995); Williams v. Roberts, 1997 WL 136268 (N.D.Ill. 1997); Williams v. Muhammad, 1997 WL 136270 (N.D.Ill. 1997).

[17] Gill v. Pact Organization, 1997 WL 539948 (S.D.N.Y. 1997).

[18] Schuenke v. Wisconsin Dept. of Corrections, 2000 WL 34236738 (W.D.Wis. 2000); Schreiber v. Connolly, 2001 WL 34155027 (N.D.Iowa 2001).

[19] Johnson v. Rees, 2006 WL 2051609 (E.D.Ky. 200); West v. Denver County Jail Warden, 2007 WL 1430221 (D.Colo. 2007).

[20] Johnson v. Shawnego, 2007 WL 509226 (E.D. Cal. 2007); Starr v. Cox, 2008 WL 1914286 (D.N.H. 2008).

[21] State v. Richardson, 130 N.J.Super. 63, 324 A.2d 914 (N.J.Super.L. 1974).

[22] Fajeriak v. McGinnis, 493 F.2d 468 (9th Cir. 1974); Jerry v. Williamson, 2006 WL 305449 (E.D.Pa. 2006).

[23] Karolis v. New Jersey Dept. of Corrections, 935 F.Supp. 523 (D.N.J. 1996).

[24] Scott v. Johnson, 1986 WL 20797 (D.Utah 1986).

[25]Treff v. Bartell, 38 F.3d 1221 (10th Cir. 1994); Werner v. McCotter, 106 F.3d 414 (10th Cir. 1997). Longyear v. Utah Bd. of Pardons & Parole, 68 Fed.Appx. 878 (10th Cir. 2003); Longyear v. Utah Bd. of Pardons & Parole, 74 Fed.Appx. 858 (10th Cir. 2003); Granguillhome v. Utah Bd. of Pardons, 2006 WL 3672901 (D. Utah 2006); Kay v. Friel, 2007 WL 295556 (D.Utah 2007).

[26] Coronel v. State of Hawaii,9 F.3d 1551 (9th Cir. 1993); Coronel v. Walker, 2006 WL 2923152 (N.D.Miss. 2006).

[27] Ghashiyah v. Wisconsin Dept. of Corrections, 2006 WL 2845701 (E.D.Wis. 2006); Ghashiyah v. Litscher, 278 Fed.Appx. 654 (7th Cir. 2008); El-Tabech v. Clarke, 2007 WL 1487148 (D.Neb. 2007); El-Tabech v. Clarke, 2007 WL 2066510 (D.Neb. 2007).

[28] Scatena v. Rowland, 2000 WL 38795 (Conn.Super. 2000), Scatena v. Rowland, 47 Conn.Supp. 251, 785 A.2d 1232 (Conn.Super. 2001)

Of course, we know about the persecution of Mormons in the 19th Century and the Jehovah’s Witnesses in the 1930s and ’40s.  We also know that the Seventh-Day Adventists honor the Sabbath on Saturday, which sometimes causes employment problems for them.  Given this history, we could expect that these religions would be the natural beneficiaries of the federal workplace discrimination remedies.

Guess again.

I counted 257 written employment discrimination opinions involving the Mormons, the Seventh-Day Adventists, and the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Here is a chart showing how this numbers break down among them.

I counted 104 opinions involving Adventists [1], 90 involving Jehovah’s Witnesses [2], and 63 involving Mormons [3].   So far, so good.   No real surprises here.

However, what the chart above does not tell you is the direction of these cases.   By “direction,” I mean who is the plaintiff and who is the defendant. Huh?  In employment discrimination cases, is there any doubt that Mormons, Jehovah’s Witness, Seventh-Day Adventists would generally be plaintiffs rather than defendants? After all, they are minority religions in America. One would think …

As I said, guess again.

Here is another chart, which shows the number of written opinions in employment discrimination, dividing between whether the particular religion is represented by the plaintiff or the defendant.

The Mormons, it seems, have crossed over. Far from being a persecuted minority, they are now more likely to be defendants in employment discrimination controversies, at least judging by those complaints that have resulted in written opinions (and there is no reason to think these opinions are not representative of all cases.)  In these matters, Mormons are not the aggrieved. They have become … The Man.

Of the 63 cases involving Mormons, 41 of them involved Mormons who were defendants, which is far more than those in which they were plaintiffs [4]. This is not yet true of the Adventists, despite their being an increasingly large employer with all their hospitals and schools.   The Adventists were defendants in 29 opinions out of their 104 [5].   It is even less true with the Jehovah’s Witnesses – only seven cases out of 90 [6].

When did this first start to happen?  Rather than engage in some elaborate changepoint analysis, let’s settle for an estimate. Here is a breakdown of the Mormon employment discrimination cases by decade:

It appears that the disparity between Mormon plaintiffs and Mormon defendants in the employment discrimination grew in the 1990s (and shrunk somewhat in the 2000s).   In some ways this is not surprising, given that the Mormon Church was responsible for the Supreme Court decision in the late 1980s which established that churches are immune from Title VII liability.  The case involved a non-Mormon custodian at the Deseret Gym, who chafed under the new requirement that all employees maintain a Temple recommend.  He sued for discrimination and won at the trial level [7], only to have the Supreme Court reverse, concluding that even the profit-making arms of religious institutions are not prohibited from discriminating against non-members [8].

Given that churches are now generally not sued themselves for employment discrimination, the “Mormon defendant” employment cases typically involve individual Mormons who are so concentrated in particular non-religious workplaces that they are allegedly able to practice discrimination against non-Mormons.   The cases in this category involve both private employers and government offices.   These cases are not limited to Utah.   They include the FBI [9], Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico [10], a county government in California [11], and private workplaces in Washington, Colorado, Idaho, Oregon, Michigan, Texas and Pennsylvania [12].

Even anecdotally, there are signs that the Mormons can be quite harsh towards non-members in the workplace, assuming the workplace in question is sufficiently filled with fellow Mormons or the individual Mormon supervisor is adequately powerful.   Interesting, there are a few cases in which active Mormons discriminated against fellow Mormons they felt were not keeping the standards (which I treated as Mormon defendant cases).   A Mormon woman in Wyoming argued that her teaching contract was not renewed because she lived as a single mother in a trailer home and played cards [13].   A Mormon physician’s assistant in Idaho claimed she was punished because her addiction to prescription drugs was un-Mormon-like [14].   An LDS man started getting bad evaluations when he got divorced and started dating a Seventh-Day Adventist [15].   Gentile employees have complained about the overly LDS atmosphere at Franklin-Covey [16].

There is also the less-harsh conduct that, even if less shocking, is just plain annoying.  The following excerpt summarizing allegations from one such case might be familiar to non-Mormons who live in Utah:

The “religiously hostile environment” alleged by Carmody involved incidents of “bickering and division” among employees that divided along religious lines, those who were LDS and those who were not. … According to Carmody’s testimony, employees would have discussions about “lifestyles,” moral versus immoral, the desire by a Mormon employee’s brother to only rent an apartment to a member of the Church, the desire by a Mormon employee to not have to work on Sundays, the feeling by non-LDS employees that they were being “judged” by the Mormon employees, “the LDS factor” was continually brought up in conversation and comments would be made by various LDS members in the Store such as “I can’t believe you were drinking.” [17]

These findings raise the inevitable question, which I cannot answer: given the growth in Mormon defendant employment discrimination cases, why is this not happening to the same extent with the Adventists and the Jehovah’s Witnesses?
_______________

[1] The 104 Adventist employment discrimination case, in chronological order, are Gray v. Gulf, M. & O. R. Co., 429 F.2d 1064 (5th Cir. 1970); Greater New York Corp of Seventh Day Adventists v. Comn on Human, 27 N.Y.2d 898, 317 N.Y.S.2d 368 (N.Y. 1970); Corey v. Avco-Lycoming Division, Avco Corp., 163 Conn. 309, 307 A.2d 155 (Conn. 1972); Scott v. Southern California Gas Co., 1973 WL 328 (C.D. Cal. 1973); U.S. v. City of Albuquerque, 423 F.Supp. 591 (D.N.M. 1975); E.E.O.C. v. Pacific Press Pub. Ass’n,1975 WL 198 (N.D. Cal. 1975); Reid v. Memphis Pub. Co., 521 F.2d 512 (6th Cir. 1975); Whitney v. Greater New York Corp. of Seventh-Day Adventists, 401 F.Supp. 1363 (S.D.N.Y. 1975); Wondzell v. Alaska Wood Products, Inc., 1975 WL 3217 (Alaska Super. 1975); E.E.O.C. v. Pacific Press Pub. Ass’n, 535 F.2d 1182 (9th Cir. 1976); U.S. v. City of Albuquerque, 545 F.2d 110 (10th Cir. 1976); E.E.O.C. v. Howard Johnson Co., 1977 WL 60 (S.D. Ala. 1977); Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Bailey Co., Inc., 563 F.2d 439 (6th Cir. 1977); Bald v. RCA Alascom,569 P.2d 1328 (Alaska 1977); Burns v. Southern Pac. Transp. Co.
589 F.2d 403 (9th Cir. 1978); Padon v. White, 465 F.Supp. 602 (S.D. Tex. 1979); U.S. v. Hawaii County, 473 F.Supp. 261 (D. Haw. 1979; Tooley v. Martin-Marietta Corp., 476 F.Supp. 1027 (D. Or. 1979); E.E.O.C. (U.S.A.) v. Pacific Press Pub. Ass’n, 482 F.Supp. 1291 (N.D. Cal. 1979); McDaniel v. Essex Intern., Inc., 509 F.Supp. 1055 (W.D..Mich. 1981); Tooley v. Martin-Marietta Corp., 648 F.2d 1239 (9th Cir. 1981); .E.E.O.C. v. Pacific Press Pub. Ass’n,676 F.2d 1272 (9th Cir. 1982); Mann v. Milgram Food Stores, Inc.,730 F.2d 1186 (8th Cir. 1984); Anderson v. Phelps, 655 F.Supp. 560 (M.D.La. 1985); Rayburn v. General Conference of Seventh-Day Adventists, 772 F.2d 1164 (4th Cir. 1985); E.E.O.C. v. Chrysler Corp.,652 F.Supp. 1523 (N.D.Ohio 1987); Howard v. Pine Forge Academy, Pine Forge, Pa., 678 F.Supp. 1120 (E.D.Pa. 1987); Mathewson v. Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Com’n,693 F.Supp. 1044 (M.D.Fla. 1988); Lewis v. Lake Region Conference of Seventh Day Adventists, 779 F.Supp. 72 (E.D.Mich. 1991);.Wright v. Frank,1992 WL 521773 (E.D.Wis. 1992);
Moreman v. Georgia Power Co.,1992 WL 512351 (N.D.Ga. 1992); Wright v. Runyon, 2 F.3d 214 (7th Cir. 1993); Felt v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co., 831 F.Supp. 780 (C.D.Cal. 1993); Beadle v. City of Tampa, Fla, 1993 WL 771045 (M.D.Fla. 1993); Burns-Toole v. Byrne,11 F.3d 1270 (5th Cir. 1994); New York City Transit Authority v. State, Executive Dept., Div.,211 A.D.2d 220, 627 N.Y.S.2d 360 (N.Y.A.D. 1995); Pierce v. Iowa-Missouri Conference of Seventh-Day Adventists, 534 N.W.2d 425 (Iowa 1995); Opuku-Boateng v. State of Cal., 95 F.3d 1461 (9th Cir. 1996); Tincher v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 118 F.3d 1125 (7th Cir. 1997); Sanders v. Women’s Treatment Center, 9 F.Supp.2d 929 (N.D.Ill. 1998); Turner v. Chicago S.D.A. Academy, 1998 WL 808993 (N.D.Ill. 1998); E.E.O.C. v. Union Independiente de la Autoridad de Acueductos, 30 F.Supp.2d 217 (D.P.R. 1998); Clapper v. Chesapeake Conference of Seventh-Day Adventists, 166 F.3d 1208 (4th Cir. 1998); Van Cleve v. Nordstrom, Inc., 64 F.Supp.2d 459 (E.D.Pa. 1999); Franks v. Natl. Lime & Stone Co., 138 Ohio App.3d 124, 740 N.E.2d 694 (Ohio App. 3 Dist. 2000); Durant v. Nynex, 101 F.Supp.2d 227 (S.D.N.Y. 2000); Rochester v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield, 2000 WL 1052064 (E.D.N.Y. 2000); E.E.O.C. v. Union Independiente de la Autoridad de Acueductos, 103 F.Supp.2d 480 (D.P.R. 2000); Singla v. Adventist Health Partners, Inc., 2001 WL 138905 (N.D.Ill. 2001); McCandless v. Health Care at Home Plus, 2001 WL 62862 (N.D.Ill. 2001); Allen v. U.S. Postal Service, 4 Fed.Appx. 894 (Fed. Cir. 2001); Mayers v. Washington Adventist Hosp., 131 F.Supp.2d 743 (D.Md. 2001); Stone v. West, 133 F.Supp.2d 972 (E.D.Mich. 2001); E.E.O.C. v. Union Independiente de la Autoridad de Acueductos, 279 F.3d 49 (1st Cir. 2002); E.E.O.C. v. Dalfort Aerospace, L.P.2002 WL 255486(N.D.Tex. 2002); Bryce v. Episcopal Church in the Diocese of Colorado,289 F.3d 648 (10th Cir. 2002); Griffin-Baez v. The Institute for Responsible Fatherhood, 2002 WL 1143738 (S.D.N.Y. 2002); E.E.O.C. v. Delta Airlines, Inc., 2002 WL 1447582 (E.D.N.Y. 2002); Gilpin v. Phillip Morris Intern., Inc., 2002 WL 1461433 (S.D.N.Y. 2002); Rose v. Potter, , 2002 WL 31738799 (N.D.Ill. 2002); Cardone v. Pereze, 57 Mass.App.Ct. 1103, 781 N.E.2d 70 (Mass.App.Ct. 2003).Martin v. Enterprise Rent-a-Car, 2003 WL 187432 (E.D.Pa. 2003); Vaughn v. Waffle House, Inc., 263 F.Supp.2d 1075 ((N.D.Tex. 2003); Jensen v. Walla Walla College, 117 Wash.App. 1033, 2003 WL 21404553 (Wash.App. Div. 3 2003); Reyes v. New York State Office of Children and Family Services, 2003 WL 21709407 (S.D.N.Y. 2003); O’Brien v. City of Springfield, 319 F.Supp.2d 90 (D.Mass. 2003); Rose v. Potter, 90 Fed.Appx. 951 (7th Cir. 2004); Cuellar v. House of Doolittle, Ltd., 2004 WL 1718417 (N.D.Ill 2004); Kidd v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., 2005 WL 3988832 (E.D.Va. 2005); Douglas v. Eastman Kodak Co, 373 F.Supp.2d 218 (W.D.N.Y. 2005); Rice v. U.S.F. Holland, Inc., 410 F.Supp.2d 1301 (N.D.Ga. 2005); Filinovich v. Claar, 2005 WL 2709284 (N.D.Ill. 2005); Gent v. Pride Ambulance Co., 2006 WL 66420 (Mich.App. 2006); Molina Viera v. Yacoub, 425 F.Supp.2d 202 (D.P.R.  006); Stephens v. Kettering Adventist Healthcare, 182 Fed.Appx. 418 (6th Cir. 2006); Richardson v. Dougherty County, Ga, 185 Fed.Appx. 785 (11th Cir. 2006); Filinovich v. Claar, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2006 WL 1994580 (N.D.Ill. 2006); Jones v. Bellsouth, 2006 WL 1994881 (S.D.Miss. 2006); Morrissette-Brown v. Mobile Infirmary Medical Center, 2006 WL 1999133 (S.D.Ala. 2006); Pressley v. Northeastern Conference of Seventh-Day Adventists, 2006 WL 2482435 (E.D.N.Y. 2006);  Sturgill v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 2006 WL 2596080 (W.D.Ark. 2006);  Smith v. Forster and Garbus, 2006 WL 2711602 (E.D.N.Y. 2006); Redhead v. Conference of Seventh-Day Adventists, 2006 WL 2729035 (E.D.N.Y. 2006); Sturgill v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 2006 WL 3147665(W.D.Ark. 2006); Madson v. Western Oregon Conference Ass’n of Seventh-Day Adventists, 209 Or.App. 380, 149 P.3d 217 (Or.App. 2006); Ludwig v. IPC Print Services, Inc., Not Reported in N.W.2d, 2007 WL 466133 (Mich.App. 2007); Newton v. Potter, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2007 WL 1035002 (D.S.C. 2007); Walker v. H. Councill Trenholm State Technical College, 2007 WL 1140423 (M.D.Ala. 2007); Davis v. AltaCare Corp., 2007 WL 2026438 (S.D.Miss. 2007); 90 Ford v. City of Dallas, Tex., 2007 WL 2051016 (N.D.Tex. 2007); Wilburn v. Y.M.C.A. of Greater Indianapolis (Ransburg Branch), 2007 WL 2752391 (S.D.Ind. 2007); Howard v. Life Care Centers of America, of Tennessee, 2007 WL 5023585 (M.D.Fla. 2007);  Morrissette-Brown v. Mobile Infirmary Medical Center, 506 F.3d 1317 (11th Cir. 2007); Robinson v. Adventist Health System, 259 Fed.Appx. 245 (11th Cir. 2007); Leonce v. Callahan, 2008 WL 58892 (N.D.Tex. 2008); Sturgill v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 512 F.3d 1024 (8th Cir. 2008); Pipkins v. Service Corp. Intern.; Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2008 WL 1869737 (E.D.Tenn. 2008); Ellington v. Murray Energy Corp., 2008 WL 2019549 (D.Utah 2008); Redhead v. Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, 566 F.Supp.2d 125 (E.D.N.Y.,2008); Jones v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 2008 WL 2627675 (N.D.Tex. 2008); and Jones v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 307 Fed.Appx. 864 (5th Cir. 2009).

[2] The 90 Jehovah’s Witnesses employment discrimination cases, in chronological order, are Bacher v. City of North Ridgeville, 47 Ohio App.2d 164, 352 N.E.2d 627 (Ohio App. 1975); Redmond v. GAF Corp., 574 F.2d 897 (7th Cir. 1978); Gavin v. Peoples Natural Gas Co., 464 F.Supp. 622 (W.D. Pa. 1979); Palmer v. Board of Ed. of City of Chicago, 466 F.Supp. 600 (N.D. Ill. 1979); Palmer v. Board of Ed. of City of Chicago, 603 F.2d 1271 (7th Cir. 1979); Gavin v. Peoples Natural Gas Co., 613 F.2d 482 (3rd Cir. 1980); .Kinniburgh v. Burlington Northern R. Co., 568 F.Supp. 655 (D. Mont. 1983); Bottini v. Sadore Management Corp., 764 F.2d 116 (2nd Cir. 1985); New Hanover Human Relations Com’n v. Pilot Freight Carriers, Inc., 83 N.C.App. 662, 351 S.E.2d 560 (N.C.App.1987); E.E.O.C. v. Chrysler Corp., 652 F.Supp. 1523 (N.D.Ohio 1987); Bottini v. Sadore Management Corp., 1987 WL 16147 (S.D.N.Y. 1987); Kentucky Com’n on Human Rights v. Lesco Mfg. & Design Co., Inc., 736 S.W.2d 361 (Ky.App. 1987); Diffay v. American Tel. and Tel. Co. 1988 WL 53209 (N.D.Ill. 1988); Darden v. Dandridge, 1988 WL 126527 ((D.D.C. 1988); Bottini v. Sadore Management, Corp., 1988 WL 78377 (S.D.N.Y. 1988); Bielert v. Northern Ohio Properties, 863 F.2d 47 (6th Cir. 1988); Jones v. Jones Bros. Const. Co., Not Reported in F.Supp., 1988 WL 142242 (N.D.Ill. 1988); Jones v. Jones Bros. Const. Corp.,879 F.2d 295 (7th Cir. 1989); E.E.O.C. v. Hacienda Hotel, 881 F.2d 1504 (9th Cir. 1989); 20 White v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 1990 WL 114478 (N.D.Ill. 1990); Bowdish v. Continental Accessories, Inc., 1991 WL 519742 (W.D.Mich. 1991); Sullivan v. Continental Accessories, Inc., 1991 WL 420042 (W.D.Mich. 1991); Darden v. Dandridge, 1991 WL 111439 (D.D.C. 1991); Bowdish v. Continental Accessories, Inc., 966 F.2d 1451 (6th Cir. 1992); Jones v. Memorial Medical Center, Inc., 1992 WL 370803 (S.D.Ga. 1992); Miner v. City of Glens Falls, 999 F.2d 655 (2nd Cir. 1993); Powell v. Rice, 5 F.3d 1494 (5th Cir. 1993); Currie v. Kowalewski, 842 F.Supp. 57 (N.D.N.Y. 1994); Kelly v. Municipal Court of Marion County 852 F.Supp. 724 (S.D.Ind. 1994); Russell v. Acme-Evans Co., 881 F.Supp. 378 (S.D.Ind. 1994); Featherstone v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 1994 WL 504804 (D.Md. 1994); Johnson v. Office of Senate Fair Employment Practices, 35 F.3d 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1994); Lane v. Hughes Aircraft Co., Inc., 40 Cal.Rptr.2d 97 (Cal.Super. 1994); Brewer v. J.A. Peterson Realty Co. of Kansas, Inc., 1994 WL 731520 (D.Kan. 1994); Featherstone v. U.P. Services, Inc., 56 F.3d 61 (4th Cir. 1995);Kelly v. Municipal Courts of Marion County, Ind., 97 F.3d 902 (7th Cir. 1996); Engstrom v. Kinney System, Inc., 241 A.D.2d 420, 661 N.Y.S.2d 610 (N.Y.A.D. 1997); Soto v. Bronx Lebanon Hosp., 1997 WL 452028 (S.D.N.Y. 1997);Banks v. Babbitt, 163 F.3d 605 (9th Cir. 1998); 40 Silas-Blumenberg v. J.C. Penney, 1999 WL 1046411 (N.D.Ill. 1999); Weber v. Roadway Exp., Inc., 199 F.3d 270 (5th Cir. 2000); Bremiller v. Cleveland Psychiatric Institute, 195 F.R.D. 1 (N.D.Ohio 2000); Prunella v. Carlshire Tenants, Inc., 94 F.Supp.2d 512 (S.D.N.Y. 2000); Stephen v. Maximum Sec. & Investigations, Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2000 WL 1774849 (S.D.N.Y. 2000); Parmlee v. State of Connecticut Dept. of Revenue Services, 160 F.Supp.2d 294 (D.Conn. 2001); Brantley v. Bassfield, 2001 WL 1175085 (D.Kan. 2001); Bushouse v. Local Union 2209, United Auto., Aerospace, 164 F.Supp.2d 1066 (N.D.Ind.,2001); King v. U.S. Postal Service, 2002 WL 1067825 (S.D.N.Y. 2002); Mason v. Bio-Rad Laboratories, 2002 WL 1419930 (Cal.App. 1 Dist 2002); Lawson v. Washington, 296 F.3d 799 (9th Cir. 2002); Thompson v. Jasas Corp., 212 F.Supp.2d 21 (D.D.C. 2002); Rossi v. Troy State University 330 F.Supp.2d 1240 (M.D.Ala. 2002); Murray v. Kaiser Permanente, 52 Fed.Appx. 725 (6th Cir. 2002); Pedroza v. Cintas Corp., 2003 WL 828237 (W.D.Mo. 2003); Watson v. Adecco Employment Services, Inc., 252 F.Supp.2d 1347 (M.D.Fla. 2003); Velez-Sotomayor v. Progreso Cash and Carry, Inc., 279 F.Supp.2d 65 (D.P.R. 2003); Limon v. City of Liberal, Kansas, 2003 WL 21659655 (D.Kan. 2003); Richardson v. Metropolitan Dist. Com’n, 2003 WL 21727781 (D.Conn. 2003); Scott v. Falcon Transport Co., 2003 WL 22939464 (Ohio App. 7 Dist. 2003); 60 Diaz v. Weill Medical Center of Cornell University, 2004 WL 285947 (S.D.N.Y. 2004); Nichols v. Caroline County Bd. of Educ., 2004 WL 350337 (D.Md. 2004); Meraz v. Jo-Ann Stores, Inc., 2004 WL 882458 (C.D.Cal. 2004); Johnson v. Spencer Press of Maine, Inc., 364 F.3d 368 (1st Cir. 2004); California Fair Employment and Housing Com’n v. Gemini Aluminum, 122 Cal.App.4th 1004, 18 Cal.Rptr.3d 906 (Cal.App. 2 Dist. 2004); Chan v. Sprint Corp., 351 F.Supp.2d 1197 (D.Kan 2005); Pedroza v. Cintas Corp. No. 2, 397 F.3d 1063 (8th Cir. 2005); Wheeler v. Voicestream Wireless Services, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2005 WL 1240797 (M.D.Pa. 2005); Derusha v. Detroit Jewish News & Style Magazine, 132 Fed.Appx. 629 (6th Cir. 2005); Reddicks v. Pacific Maritime Ass’n, 2005 WL 1838632 (W.D.Wash. 2005); Aportela v. Barnhart 2005 WL 1958963 (W.D.Tex. 2005); Matos v. PNC Financial Services Group, 2005 WL 2656675 (D.N.J. 2005); Carter v. Diamondback Golf Club, Inc., 2006 WL 229304 (M.D.Fla. 2006); E.E.O.C. v. Dresser-Rand Co., 2006 WL 1994792 (W.D.N.Y. 2006); Crawford v. New York Life Ins. Co., 2006 WL 2792779 (E.D.N.Y. 2006); Jackson v. Light of Life Ministries, Inc., 2006 WL 2974162 (W.D.Pa. 2006); Wright v. Lowe’s Home Centers, Inc., 2006 WL 3694607 (E.D.Mich. 2006); Edwards v. Creoks Mental Health Services, Inc. 505 F.Supp.2d 1080 (N.D.Okla. 2007); Barnes v. Federal Exp. Corp., 2007 WL 405686 (E.D. Mich. 1997); Richardson v. JM Smith Corp., 473 F.Supp.2d 1317 (M.D.Ga. 2007); 80 Smoke v. National Elec. Carbon Products, Inc., 2007 WL 465574 (M.D.Pa. 2007); Griffin v. Scottsdale Unified School Dist. No. 48, 2007 WL 552216 (D.Ariz. 2007); DeRusha v. Detroit Jewish News and Style Magazine, 2007 WL 778488 (E.D.Mich. 2007); Jones v. General Motors Corp., 2007 WL 1023859 (S.D.Ohio 2007); Jackson v. Potter, 240 Fed.Appx. 136 (7th Cir. 2007); Marchant v. Tsickritzis, 506 F.Supp.2d 63 (D.Mass. 2007); Bush v. Regis Corp., 257 Fed.Appx. 219 (11th Cir. 2007); Drewery v. Mervyns Dept. Store, 2007 WL 4561099 (W.D.Wash. 2007); E.E.O.C. v. Southwestern Bell Telephone, L.P.,550 F.3d 704 (8th Cir. 2008); Faison v. Leonard St., LLC, Slip Copy, 2009 WL 636724 (S.D.N.Y. 2009); and Pledger v. Mayview Convalescent Home, Inc., Slip Copy, 2009 WL 1010428 (E.D.N.C. 2009).

[3] The Mormon employment discrimination cases are Stoddard v. School Dist. No. 1, Lincoln County, Wyo., 590 F.2d 829 (10th Cir. 1979); Larsen v. Kirkham, 499 F.Supp. 960 (D. Utah 1980); Manale v. City of New Orleans, Dept. of Police, 673 F.2d 122 (5th Cir. 1982); Lanyon v. University of Delaware, 544 F.Supp. 1262 (D. Del. 1982); Amos v. Corporation of Presiding Bishop of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, 594 F.Supp. 791 (D. Utah 1984); Potter v. Murray City, 585 F.Supp. 1126 (D. Utah 1984); Garfield v. U.S. 6 Cl.Ct. 54 (Cl Ct. 1984); Potter v. Murray City, 760 F.2d 1065 (10th Cir. 1985); Amos v. Corporation of Presiding Bishop of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, 618 F.Supp. 1013 (D. Utah 1985); Ninth & O Street Baptist Church v. E.E.O.C., 633 F.Supp. 229 (W.D.Ky. 1986); Corporation of Presiding Bishop of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, v. Amos, 483 U.S. 327, 107 S.Ct. 2862 (1987); Mitchell v. Frank R. Howard Memorial Hosp., 853 F.2d 762 (9th Cir 1988); Perez v. F.B.I., 707 F.Supp. 891 (W.D.Tex. 1988); Summers v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co, 864 F.2d 700 (10th Cir. 1988); Barlow v. Blackburn, 165 Ariz. 351, 798 P.2d 1360 (Ariz.App. 1990); Shapolia v. Los Alamos Nat. Laboratory, 773 F.Supp. 304 (D.N.M. 1991); Shapolia v. Los Alamos Nat. Laboratory, 992 F.2d 1033 (10th Cir. 1993); Shapolia v. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, 13 F.3d 406 (10th Cir. 1993); Sudtelgte v. Reno, 1994 WL 3406 (W.D.Mo. 1994); 20 Barlow v. Blackburn, 38 F.3d 1218 (9th Cir. 1994); DeVore v. IHC Hospitals, Inc., 884 P.2d 1246 (Utah 1994); Luce v. Dalton,166 F.R.D. 457 (S.D.Cal. 1996); Scott v. County of Lake 1996 WL 479043 (N.D.Cal. 1996); Peterson v. Minidoka County School Dist. No. 331, 118 F.3d 1351 (9th Cir. 1997); Horvath v. Savage Mfg., Inc., 18 F.Supp.2d 1296 (D. Utah 1998); Nielson v. AgriNorthwest, 95 Wash.App. 571, 977 P.2d 613 (Wash.App. Div. 3 1999); Soto v. Corporation of Presiding Bishop of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, 73 F.Supp.2d 116 (D.P.R.1999); King v. Healthrider, Inc., 194 F.3d 1312 (6th Cir. 1999); Garfield v. Department of Health and Human Services, 230 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Johnson v. Express Rent & Own, Inc., 98 Wash.App. 1066, 2000 WL 48534 (Wash.App. Div. 2 2000); Galloway v. Alltel Communications, Inc., 2001 WL 34149071 (N.D.Iowa 2001); Erdmann v. Tranquility Inc., 155 F.Supp.2d 1152 (N.D.Cal. 2001); Thompson v. St. Johns Unified School Dist., 26 Fed.Appx. 712 (9th Cir. 2002); Bryce v. Episcopal Church in the Diocese of Colorado, 289 F.3d 648 (10th Cir. 2002); Black v. Premier Co., 2002 WL 1471717 (E.D.Pa. 2002); Black v. Premier Co., 2002 WL 31045854 (E.D.Pa. 2002); Black v. Premier Co., 2002 WL 32122658 (E.D.Pa. 2002); Gee v. Dallas, 2002 WL 31627253 (N.D.Tex. 2002); Olsen v. Idaho State Bd. of Medicine, 363 F.3d 916 (9th Cir. 2004); Korslund v. Dyncorp Tri-Cities Services, Inc., 121 Wash.App. 295, 88 P.3d 966 (Wash.App. Div. 3 2004); Cook v. Corporation of President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, 121 Fed.Appx. 326 (10th Cir. 2005); Griffith v. Schnitzer Steel Industries, Inc., 128 Wash.App. 438, 115 P.3d 1065 (Wash.App. Div. 2 2005); Knudsen ex rel. Estate of Knudsen v. City of Tacoma, 2005 WL 3418413 (W.D.Wash. 2005); Ashford v. City of Lake Ozark, Mo., 2006 WL 222124 (W.D.Mo. 2006); Norton v. FirstEnergy Corp., Not Reported in N.E.2d, 2006 WL 459266 (Ohio App. 7 Dist. 2006); Barcikowski v. Sun Microsystems, Inc., 420 F.Supp.2d 1163 (D.Colo. 2006); Carmody v. Bed Bath & Beyond, 2006 WL 1128216 (D.Idaho 2006); Hinds v. Sprint/United Management Co., 2006 WL 3715905 (D.Kan. 2006); Gee v. Kempthorne, , 2007 WL 317051 (D.Idaho 2007); Eberhardt v. First Centrum, LLC, 2007 WL 518896 (E.D.Mich. 2007); Pangerl v. Ehrlich, 2007 WL 686703 (D.Ariz. 2007); Tipnis v. Emery Telephone, 2007 WL 1306495 (D.Colo. 2007); Moore v. Avon Products, Inc., 2007 WL 2900204 (N.D.Cal. 2007); Jordan v. County of Clark, 253 Fed.Appx. 694 (9th Cir. 2007); Tudor Delcey v. A-Dec, Inc., 2008 WL 123855 (D.Or. 2008); Cutter v. RailAmerica, Inc., 2008 WL 163016 (D.Colo. 2008); DeFrietas v. Horizon Inv. & Management Corp.,  2008 WL 204473 (D.Utah 2008); Alawi v. Sprint Nextel Corp., 544 F.Supp.2d 1171 (W.D.Wash. 2008); Ford v. Flannery, 2008 WL 821686 (N.D.Ind. 2008); Dolgaleva v. Virginia Beach City Public Schools, 541 F.Supp.2d 817 (E.D.Va. 2008); Stewart v. Arizona, 2007 WL 1876381 (D.Ariz. 2007); Webb v. ATK Thiokol Inc., Slip Copy, 2009 WL 2043853 (D.Utah 2009); and DeFreitas v. Horizon Inv. Management Corp., — F.3d —-, 2009 WL 2482030 (10th Cir. 2009).

[4] The “Mormon defendant” employment discrimination cases are Stoddard v. School Dist. No. 1, Lincoln County, Wyo., 590 F.2d 829 (10th Cir. 1979); Larsen v. Kirkham, 499 F.Supp. 960 (D. Utah 1980); Lanyon v. University of Delaware, 544 F.Supp. 1262 (D. Del. 1982); Amos v. Corporation of Presiding Bishop of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, 594 F.Supp. 791 (D. Utah 1984); Amos v. Corporation of Presiding Bishop of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, 618 F.Supp. 1013 (D. Utah 1985); Corporation of Presiding Bishop of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints v. Amos, 483 U.S. 327, 107 S.Ct. 2862 (1987); Perez v. F.B.I., 707 F.Supp. 891 (W.D.Tex. 1988); Shapolia v. Los Alamos Nat. Laboratory, 773 F.Supp. 304 (D.N.M. 1991); Shapolia v. Los Alamos Nat. Laboratory, 992 F.2d 1033 (10th Cir. 1993); Shapolia v. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, 13 F.3d 406 (10th Cir. 1993); Sudtelgte v. Reno, 1994 WL 3406 (W.D.Mo.,1994); DeVore v. IHC Hospitals, Inc., 884 P.2d 1246 (Utah 1994); Luce v. Dalton, 166 F.R.D. 457 (S.D.Cal. 1996); Scott v. County of Lake, 1996 WL 479043 (N.D.Cal. 1996); Horvath v. Savage Mfg., Inc., 18 F.Supp.2d 1296 (D.Utah 1998); Nielson v. AgriNorthwest, 95 Wash.App. 571, 977 P.2d 613 (Wash.App. Div. 3 1999); Soto v. Corporation of Presiding Bishop of Church of Jesus Christ, 73 F.Supp.2d 116 (D.P.R. 1999); King v. Healthrider, Inc., 194 F.3d 1312 (6th Cir. 1999); Erdmann v. Tranquility Inc., 155 F.Supp.2d 1152 (N.D.Cal. 2001); Thompson v. St. Johns Unified School Dist., 26 Fed.Appx. 712 (9th Cir. 2002); Bryce v. Episcopal Church in the Diocese of Colorado, 289 F.3d 648 (10th Cir. 2002); Black v. Premier Co., 2002 WL 1471717 (E.D.Pa. 2002); Black v. Premier Co., 2002 WL 31045854 (E.D.Pa.,2002);
Black v. Premier Co., 2002 WL 32122658 (E.D.Pa. 2002); Gee v. Dallas, 2002 WL 31627253 (N.D.Tex. 2002); Olsen v. Idaho State Bd. of Medicine, 363 F.3d 916 (9th Cir. 2004); Korslund v. Dyncorp Tri-Cities Services, Inc., 121 Wash.App. 295, 88 P.3d 966 (Wash.App. Div. 3 2004); Cook v. Corporation of President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, 121 Fed.Appx. 326 (10th Cir. 2005); Knudsen ex rel. Estate of Knudsen v. City of Tacoma, 2005 WL 3418413 (W.D.Wash. 2005); Barcikowski v. Sun Microsystems, Inc., 420 F.Supp.2d 1163 (D.Colo. 2006); Carmody v. Bed Bath & Beyond, 2006 WL 1128216 (D.Idaho 2006); Eberhardt v. First Centrum, LLC, 2007 WL 518896 ((E.D.Mich. 2007); Tipnis v. Emery Telephone, 2007 WL 1306495 (D.Colo. 2007); Moore v. Avon Products, Inc., 2007 WL 2900204 (N.D.Cal. 2007);. Tudor Delcey v. A-Dec, Inc., 2008 WL 123855 (D.Or. 2008);. DeFrietas v. Horizon Inv. & Management Corp., 2008 WL 204473 (D.Utah 2008);.Alawi v. Sprint Nextel Corp., 544 F.Supp.2d 1171 (W.D.Wash. 2008); Stewart v. Arizona, 2007 WL 1876381 (D.Ariz. 2007); Webb v. ATK Thiokol Inc., Slip Copy, 2009 WL 2043853 (D.Utah 2009); and DeFreitas v. Horizon Inv. Management Corp., — F.3d —-, 2009 WL 2482030 (10th Cir. 2009).

[5] The “Adventist defendant” employment discrimination cases are Greater New York Corp of Seventh Day Adventists v. Comn on Human, 27 N.Y.2d 898, 317 N.Y.S.2d 368 (N.Y. 1970); E.E.O.C. v. Pacific Press Pub. Ass’n,1975 WL 198 (C.D. Cal. 1975); Whitney v. Greater New York Corp. of Seventh-Day Adventists, 401 F.Supp. 1363 (S.D.N.Y. 1975); E.E.O.C. v. Pacific Press Pub. Ass’n, 535 F.2d 1182 (9th Cir. 1976); E.E.O.C. (U.S.A.) v. Pacific Press Pub. Ass’n, 482 F.Supp. 1291 (C.D.Cal. 1979); E.E.O.C. v. Pacific Press Pub. Ass’n, 676 F.2d 1272 (9th Cir. 1982); Rayburn v. General Conference of Seventh-Day Adventists, 772 F.2d 1164 (4th Cir. 1985);;Howard v. Pine Forge Academy, Pine Forge, Pa., 678 F.Supp. 1120 (E.D.Pa. 1987); Lewis v. Lake Region Conference of Seventh Day Adventists, 779 F.Supp. 72 (E.D.Mich. 1991); Pierce v. Iowa-Missouri Conference of Seventh-Day Adventists, 534 N.W.2d 425 (Iowa 1995); Turner v. Chicago S.D.A. Academy, 1998 WL 808993 (N.D.Ill. 1998); Clapper v. Chesapeake Conference of Seventh-Day Adventists, 166 F.3d 1208 (4th Cir. 1998); Singla v. Adventist Health Partners, Inc., 2001 WL 138905 (N.D.Ill. 2001); McCandless v. Health Care at Home Plus, 2001 WL 62862, (N.D.Ill.,2001); Mayers v. Washington Adventist Hosp., 131 F.Supp.2d 743 (D.Md. 2001); Bryce v. Episcopal Church in the Diocese of Colorado, 289 F.3d 648 (10th Cir. 2002); Griffin-Baez v. The Institute for Responsible Fatherhood, 2002 WL 1143738 (S.D.N.Y. 2002); Cardone v. Pereze, 57 Mass.App.Ct. 1103, 781 N.E.2d 70 (Mass.App.Ct. 2003); Jensen v. Walla Walla College 117 Wash.App. 1033, 2003 WL 21404553 (Wash.App. Div. 3 2003); Reyes v. New York State Office of Children and Family Services 2003 WL 21709407 (S.D.N.Y. 2003); O’Brien v. City of Springfield, 319 F.Supp.2d 90 (D.Mass. 2003); Stephens v. Kettering Adventist Healthcare,182 Fed.Appx. 418 (6th Cir. 2006); Pressley v. Northeastern Conference of Seventh-Day Adventists, 2006 WL 2482435(E.D.N.Y. 2006); Redhead v. Conference of Seventh-Day Adventists, 2006 WL 2729035 (E.D.N.Y 2006); Madson v. Western Oregon Conference Ass’n of Seventh-Day Adventists, 209 Or.App. 380, 149 P.3d 217 (Or.App. 2006); Davis v. AltaCare Corp., 2007 WL 2026438 (S.D.Miss. 2007); Robinson v. Adventist Health System, 259 Fed.Appx. 245 (11th Cir. 2007); Redhead v. Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, 566 F.Supp.2d 125 (E.D.N.Y. 2008); and Williamson v. Adventist Health System/Sunbelt, Inc., Slip Copy, 2009 WL 1393471 (M.D.Fla 2009).

[6] The Jehovah’s defendant employment discrimination cases are Bielert v. Northern Ohio Properties, 863 F.2d 47 (6th Cir. 1988); Jones v. Jones Bros. Const. Co., 1988 WL 142242 (N.D.Ill. 1988); Jones v. Jones Bros. Const. Corp., 879 F.2d 295 (7th Cir. 1989); Bowdish v. Continental Accessories, Inc., 1991 WL 519742 (W.D.Mich.,1991); Sullivan v. Continental Accessories, Inc., 1991 WL 420042 (W.D.Mich. 1991); Bowdish v. Continental Accessories, Inc., 966 F.2d 1451 (6th Cir. 1992); and Johnson v. Office of Senate Fair Employment Practices, 35 F.3d 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1994).

[7] Amos v. Corporation of Presiding Bishop of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, 594 F.Supp. 791 (D. Utah 1984); Amos v. Corporation of Presiding Bishop of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, 618 F.Supp. 1013 (D. Utah 1985).

[8] Corporation of Presiding Bishop of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints v. Amos, 483 U.S. 327, 107 S.Ct. 2862 (1987).

[9] Perez v. F.B.I., 707 F.Supp. 891 (W.D.Tex. 1988); Sudtelgte v. Reno, 1994 WL 3406 (W.D.Mo.,1994).

[10] Shapolia v. Los Alamos Nat. Laboratory, 773 F.Supp. 304 (D.N.M. 1991); Shapolia v. Los Alamos Nat. Laboratory, 992 F.2d 1033 (10th Cir. 1993).

[11] Scott v. County of Lake, 1996 WL 479043 (N.D.Cal. 1996).

[12] Nielson v. AgriNorthwest, 95 Wash.App. 571, 977 P.2d 613 (Wash.App. Div. 3 1999); King v. Healthrider, Inc., 194 F.3d 1312 (6th Cir. 1999); Gee v. Dallas, 2002 WL 31627253 (N.D.Tex. 2002); Korslund v. Dyncorp Tri-Cities Services, Inc., 121 Wash.App. 295, 88 P.3d 966 (Wash.App. Div. 3 2004); Barcikowski v. Sun Microsystems, Inc., 420 F.Supp.2d 1163 (D.Colo. 2006); Carmody v. Bed Bath & Beyond, 2006 WL 1128216 (D.Idaho 2006); Eberhardt v. First Centrum, LLC, 2007 WL 518896 ((E.D.Mich. 2007); Tipnis v. Emery Telephone, 2007 WL 1306495 (D.Colo. 2007); and Alawi v. Sprint Nextel Corp., 544 F.Supp.2d 1171 (W.D.Wash. 2008).

[13] Stoddard v. School Dist. No. 1, Lincoln County, Wyo., 590 F.2d 829 (10th Cir. 1979).

[14] Olsen v. Idaho State Bd. of Medicine, 363 F.3d 916 (9th Cir. 2004).

[15] Nielson v. AgriNorthwest, 95 Wash.App. 571, 977 P.2d 613 (Wash.App. Div. 3 1999).

[16] Black v. Premier Co., 2002 WL 1471717 (E.D.Pa. 2002); Black v. Premier Co., 2002 WL 31045854 (E.D.Pa. 2002); and Black v. Premier Co., 2002 WL 32122658 (E.D.Pa. 2002).

[17] Carmody v. Bed Bath & Beyond, 2006 WL 1128216 (D.Idaho 2006).

The U.S. Asylum System

Prior to 1980, the Attorney General had authority to authorize the withholding of deportation for an alien who feared physical persecution in the home country, and there was little right to appeal adverse decision in court. The legal concept of asylum was based on a 1951 U.N. Convention, which led the U.S. to amend its immigration laws to protect refugees. Starting in 1965, the U.S. recognized refugees only from communist countries or countries “in the general area of the Middle East,” and these claims were the subject of strict numerical limitations. The 1980 Refugee Act adopted the definition of refugees from a 1967 U.N. Protocol, removed the ideological considerations and numerical limitations, and provided appeal of adverse decision to the U.S. Courts of Appeal. As a result, asylum was no longer an ad hoc immigration procedure subject to the whims of policy, and Executive Branch asylum discretion was overseen by the judiciary.

Under current U.S. immigration law, asylum claims are first considered by an immigration judge. If the claim is rejected the alien ordered deported, the alien may appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). If the BIA denies the claim, the alien may appeal directly to the federal circuit courts of appeal. It has been this way since 1980.

How did these changes in immigration law impact the cases that we heard by the U.S. courts? The following graph shows the number of asylum decisions issued by the U.S. Courts of Appeal between 1969 and 1980, when the Refugee Act was enacted. (These figures were obtained through a computer search I did of all federal opinions containing the keyword “asylum” within two words of “refugee”).

This next graph shows the number of asylum opinions issued between 1981 and 2000:

The second of these graphs undoubtedly shows the impact of the Refugee Act – asylum claimants began to seek review of the BIA’s denial before the U.S. appellate courts. This does not mean that the number of asylum claims necessarily increased. Rather, it reflects that the circuit courts heard the claims, because the law provided for judicial review that did not exist before 1980. The growth of opinions issued in the late-1990s probably reflected additional resources that were given to the asylum process to address the backlog of cases.

This third graphs shows something that is no so easily explainable – the stunning growth of asylum court rulings in the first six years of the 20th Century.

It is important to note how large of a jump there was between 2000 (71 judicial opinions) and 2001 (218), and the continuing exponential growth thereafter. To put this in perspective, the sum of the number of asylum decisions issued in 2005 (1965 opinions) and 2006 (2701) exceed the total number of asylum cases for all prior years in history combined. The following graph illustrates this. It depicts of the number of asylum decisions issued by the U.S. Courts of Appeal between 1969 and 2006, drawn to scale:

Clearly, something is going on here. Asylum has become a growth industry, mainly since 2000.

Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Seventh-Day Adventists

I counted a total of 160 opinions involving asylum claims by foreign Mormons, Seventh-Day Adventists, Christian Scientists, and Jehovah’s Witnesses, dating back to the first two in 1990. From that year to the present (September 2009), the following chart depicts the growth in these cases, by year, and how they follow the increased trend in asylum cases generally:

Amazingly, the Christian Scientists quickly dropped out of the deeper analysis, since there was only one case involving an asylum claimant from that faith, with the court affirming the BIA’s denial.[1] This left 159 asylum cases involving Mormons (26 opinions),[2] Seventh-Day Adventists (34 opinions),[3] and Jehovah’s Witnesses (98 opinions).[4]

Overall, across these three religions, the success rate for asylum claims reaching the U.S. Courts of Appeal is 21 percent (33 wins out of 160 cases). Mormon claimants won five (5) times, for a success rate of 19 percent.[5] For Adventists, the success rate was eight (8) percent (three for 34).[6] Meanwhile, the Jehovah’s Witnesses prevailed 25 times out of 98 opinions, for a success rate of roughly 26 percent. [7]

What accounts for the higher frequency of Jehovah’s Witnesses seeking and winning asylum? Part of it has to do with its faithful’s refusal to be part of any organized military, which makes mandatory conscription in any country a form of actionable persecution. Another factor might be where these cases are brought. Of the various circuit courts of appeal, the Tenth Circuit (where Utah is located) granted relief to only five percent of claimants from these four faiths. In contrast, the Seventh Circuit (Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin) granted relief in 33 percent, the Second Circuit (New York, Connecticut) granted 29 percent, and the Ninth Circuit (California, Arizona, Idaho and other Pacific states) also granted in 29 percent of the cases. The lesson here might be simple: Mormon aliens should file asylum claims in Idaho, California or Arizona or anywhere else in the 9th Circuit, rather than in Utah.

What are the worst places to be a member of these religions? In terms of asylum claims, the most common countries members of these faiths feared being sent home to were Armenia (27 opinions, most involving Jehovah’s Witnesses)[8] and Indonesia (24 opinions, most involving Adventists),[9] followed by Eritrea (15), Russia (12), Romania (9) and China (8). In terms of highest percentage of claimants winning in the courts, war-torn Eritrea had the highest percentage (six of the 15 claims), all of whom were Jehovah’s Witnesses.[10]

What about the Mormons? China [11] and Russia [12] (three cases each) appear to be the places from which the most fearful Mormons hail, although asylum petitions were granted to alien LDS members from Colombia,[13] Iran,[14] Ethiopia,[15] Russia [16] and Ukraine.[17]

What is the take-away of this analysis? For one, it cannot be said that Mormons are more persecuted overseas than other American religions like the Jehovah’s Witnesses (ironic, given that the Witnesses’ missionary efforts are rarely touted).  Mormons seem about as persecuted overseas as Adventists, though they are more successful at proving their case in court. Compared with Jehovah’ Witnesses, Mormons living in foreign countries are not persecuted nearly as much.

Still, reading these cases – even those where asylum is ultimately not granted – can be a heartbreaking experience, no matter the minority religion and no matter the country. Man-made tragedy abounds.

Maybe there is hope that these cases will slow to a trickle, after all the growth we have seen since the start of the 20th Century. As of this writing (three quarters of the way through 2009), the total number of asylum decisions involving these American religions totaled only six, compared with four times that many in 2008. Here is a chart showing the trajectory of Mormon asylum opinions over time:

There has not yet been a single asylum case involving a Mormon issued this year. Perhaps if fewer foreign Mormons are feeling persecuted, it might be the start of a trend, and mean that the spike between 2004 and 2007 might have been a storm that has passed. We can only hope.

________________

[1] Ngure v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 975 (8th Cir. 2004)(feared persecution in Kenya)

[2] The Mormon asylum cases, in chronological order, are: Shirazi-Parsa v. I.N.S., 14 F.3d 1424 (9th Cir. 1994); Refahiyat v. U.S. Dept. of Justice I.N.S., 29 F.3d 553 (10th Cir. 1994); Oloson v. I.N.S., 51 F.3d 1045 (5th Cir. 1995); Narvaez-Diaz v. I.N.S., 97 F.3d 1460 (9th Cir. 1996); Vorobieva v. I.N.S., 172 F.3d 64 (10th Cir. 1999); Yunus v. I.N.S., 176 F.3d 490 (10th Cir. 1999); Avetova-Elisseva v. I.N.S., 213 F.3d 1192 (9th Cir. 2000); Mendoza v. I.N.S., 28 Fed.Appx. 586 (8th Cir. 2002); Davila v. Ashcroft, 33 Fed.Appx. 703 (5th Cir. 2002); Igoshin v. I.N.S., 50 Fed.Appx. 905 (10th Cir. 2002); Villeda v. Ashcroft, 89 Fed.Appx. 636 (9th Cir. 2004); Rodriguez-Pozos v. Ashcroft, 109 Fed.Appx. 906 (9th Cir. 2004); Ashmawy v. Gonzales, 130 Fed.Appx. 71 (8th Cir. 2005); Koval v. Gonzales, 418 F.3d 798 (7th Cir. 2005); Pogai v. Gonzales, 160 Fed.Appx. 564 (9th Cir. 2005); De Maerschalck v. Gonzales, 159 Fed.Appx. 29 (10th Cir. 2005); Otero v. Gonzales,164 Fed.Appx. 732 (10th Cir. 2006); Yan v. Gonzales, 438 F.3d 1249 (10th Cir. 2006); Brown v. Gonzales, 174 Fed.Appx. 710 (3rd Cir. 2006); Gomez v. Gonzales, 179 Fed.Appx. 220 (5th Cir. 2006); Morales v. Gonzales, 188 Fed.Appx. 780 (10th Cir. 2006); Wang v. Gonzales, 207 Fed.Appx. 130 (2nd Cir. 2006); Liang Wen v. Gonzales, 223 Fed.Appx. 674 (9th Cir. 2007); Hadera v. Gonzales, 494 F.3d 1154(9th Cir. 2007); Simonchyk v. Keisler, 251 Fed.Appx. 730 (2nd Cir. 2007); Dan Zhu Wong v. U.S. Dept. of Homeland Sec., 271 Fed.Appx. 77 (2nd Cir. 2008); and Malkandi v. Mukasey, 544 F.3d 1029 (9th Cir. 2008).

[3] The Adventist asylum cases, in chronological order, are: Gebremichael v. I.N.S.,10 F.3d 28 (1st Cir. 1993); Magdici v. I.N.S.,29 F.3d 119 (7th Cir. 1997); Sahensolar v. I.N.S., 168 F.3d 501 (9th Cir. 1998); Sofinet v. I.N.S., 196 F.3d 742 (7th Cir. 1999); Tsoy v. Ashcroft, 83 Fed.Appx. 982 (9th Cir. 2003); Asatryan v. Ashcroft, 99 Fed.Appx. 768 (9th Cir. 2004); Khup v. Ashcroft, 376 F.3d 898 (9th Cir. 2004); Kondakova v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 792 (8th Cir. 2004); Setyawan v. Ashcroft, 111 Fed.Appx. 579 (10th Cir. 2004); Silitonga v. Gonzales, 160 Fed.Appx. 782 (10th Cir. 2005); Fantaye v. Gonzales, 161 Fed.Appx. 681 (9th Cir. 2006); Nazarian v. Gonzales, 171 Fed.Appx. 78 (9th Cir. 2006); Peter v. Gonzales, 183 Fed.Appx. 805 (10th Cir. 2006); Poerwantini v. Gonzales, 217 Fed.Appx. 592 (8th Cir. 2007); Tretiakova v. Gonzales, 221 Fed.Appx. 639 (9th Cir. 2007); Floroiu v. Gonzales, 481 F.3d 970 (7th Cir. 2007); Panjaitan v. Gonzales, 224 Fed.Appx. 853 (10th Cir. 2007); Lumbangaol v. Keisler, 258 Fed.Appx. 167 (10th Cir. 2007); Gill v. Attorney General of U.S., 258 Fed.Appx. 460 (3rd Cir. 2007); Sibuea v. Mukasey, 260 Fed.Appx. 43 (10th Cir. 2007); Rotinsulu v. Mukasey, 515 F.3d 68 (1st Cir. 2008); Sitompul v. Mukasey, 272 Fed.Appx. 696 (10th Cir. 2008); Harahap v. Attorney General of U.S., 275 Fed.Appx. 95 (3rd Cir. 2008); Esfandiary v. Mukasey, 277 Fed.Appx. 816 (10th Cir. 2008); Liem v. Attorney General of U.S., 280 Fed.Appx. 206 (3rd Cir. 2008); Zakarias v. Attorney General of U.S., 280 Fed.Appx. 197 (3rd Cir. 2008); Kamuh v. Mukasey, 280 Fed.Appx. 7 (1st Cir. 2008); Wontas v. Mukasey, 286 Fed.Appx. 510 (9th Cir. 2008); Manullang v. Mukasey, 291 Fed.Appx. 892 (10th Cir. 2008); Tendean v. Mukasey, 292 Fed.Appx. 633 (9th Cir. 2008); Umar v. Mukasey, 294 Fed.Appx. 353 (9th Cir. 2008); Siahaan v. Mukasey, 301 Fed.Appx. 768 (10th Cir. 2008); Quinteros-Mendoza v. Holder, 556 F.3d 159 (4th Cir. 2009); and Kojo v. Holder, Slip Copy, 2009 WL 1396836 (9th Cir. 2009)

[4]The 98 Jehovah’s Witnesses asylum cases to reach the courts of appeal, in chronological order, are: Canas-Segovia v. I.N.S., 902 F.2d 717 (9th Cir. 1990); Olmedo-Carrillo v. I.N.S., 908 F.2d 977 (9th Cir. 1990); Ohaya v. I.N.S., 9 F.3d 117 (10th Cir. 1993); Gebregiorgis v. I.N.S., 15 F.3d 1085 (9th Cir. 1994); Romero v. I.N.S., 54 F.3d 786 (9th Cir. 1995); Molina-Salinas v. I.N.S., 66 F.3d 335 (9th Cir. 1995); Dobrican v. I.N.S., 77 F.3d 164 (7th Cir. 1996); Vega-Gonzalez v. I.N.S., 85 F.3d 639 (9th Cir. 1996); Del Carmen Aviles v. I.N.S., 82 F.3d 422 (9th Cir. 1996); Gonzalez v. I.N.S., 82 F.3d 903 (9th Cir. 1996); Duarte-Perla v. I.N.S., 107 F.3d 15 (9th Cir. 1997); Zambrana-Cuadra v. I.N.S., 108 F.3d 340 (9th Cir. 1997); Bucur v. I.N.S., 109 F.3d 399 (7th Cir. 1997); Mejia-Paiz v. I.N.S., 111 F.3d 720 (9th Cir. 1997); Adriano v. I.N.S., 168 F.3d 497 (9th Cir. 1999); Foroglou v. I.N.S., 170 F.3d 68 (1st Cir. 1999); Essome v. U.S. I.N.S., 173 F.3d 850 (4th Cir. 1999); Adhanom v. I.N.S., 173 F.3d 859 (9th Cir. 1999); Castellanos-Castillo v. I.N.S., 191 F.3d 459 (9th Cir. 1999); Sidhu v. I.N.S., 220 F.3d 1085 (9th Cir. 2000); Pop v. I.N.S., 270 F.3d 527 (7th Cir. 2001); Pop v. I.N.S., 279 F.3d 457 (7th Cir. 2002); Pop v. I.N.S., 55 Fed.Appx. 375 (7th Cir. 2003); Tesfu v. Ashcroft, 322 F.3d 477 (7th Cir. 2003); Reyes-Melendez v. I.N.S., 342 F.3d 1001 (9th Cir. 2003); Berhane v. Ashcroft, 78 Fed.Appx. 339 (5th Cir. 2003); Karacsony v. Ashcroft, 83 Fed.Appx. 167 (9th Cir. 2003); Medhin v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 685 (7th Cir. 2003); Chen v. Ashcroft, 85 Fed.Appx. 44 (9th Cir. 2003); Izazaga v. Ashcroft, 85 Fed.Appx. 635 (9th Cir. 2004); Muhur v. Ashcroft, 355 F.3d 958 (7th Cir. 2004); Tsaturyan v. Ashcroft, 89 Fed.Appx. 37 (9th Cir. 2004); Xue v. Ashcroft, 93 Fed.Appx. 380 (3rd Cir. 2004); Margaryan v. Ashcroft, 92 Fed.Appx. 525 (9th Cir. 2004); Woldemariam v. Ashcroft, 92 Fed.Appx. 537 (9th Cir. 2004); Gevorgyan v. Ashcroft, 92 Fed.Appx. 554 (9th Cir. 2004); Manukyan v. U.S., 96 Fed.Appx. 77 (3rd Cir. 2004); Hayrapetyan v. Ashcroft, 98 Fed.Appx. 625 (9th Cir. 2004); Suzdaltseva v. Ashcroft, 102 Fed.Appx. 565 (9th Cir. 2004); Saldivar-Dominguez v. Ashcroft, 107 Fed.Appx. 68 (9th Cir. 2004); Martirosyan v. Ashcroft, 107 Fed.Appx. 125 (9th Cir. 2004); Nigussie v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 531 (7th Cir. 2004); Babayan v. Ashcroft, 110 Fed.Appx. 43 (9th Cir. 2004); Pananyan v. Ashcroft, 110 Fed.Appx. 787 (9th Cir. 2004); Sargsyan v. Ashcroft, 109 Fed.Appx. 989 (9th Cir. 2004); Ghebremedhin v. Ashcroft, 385 F.3d 1116 (7th Cir. 2004); Tsegay v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 1347 (10th Cir. 2004); Tewelde v. Ashcroft, 114 Fed.Appx. 91 (4th Cir. 2004); Levit v. Ashcroft, 116 Fed.Appx. 394 (3rd Cir. 2004); Ghebremedhin v. Ashcroft, 392 F.3d 241 (7th Cir. 2004); Mogos v. Ashcroft, 117 Fed.Appx. 553 (9th Cir. 2004); Vaskanyan v. Ashcroft, 118 Fed.Appx. 200 (9th Cir. 2004); Mirzoyan v. Ashcroft, 120 Fed.Appx. 193 (9th Cir. 2005); Badalyan v. Gonzales, 121 Fed.Appx. 268 (9th Cir. 2005); Sun v. Gonzales, 126 Fed.Appx. 799 (9th Cir. 2005); Markosyan v. Gonzales, 127 Fed.Appx. 954 (9th Cir. 2005); Barsegian v. Gonzales,128 Fed.Appx. 633 (9th Cir. 2005); Patatanyan v. Gonzales, 132 Fed.Appx. 124 (9th Cir. 2005); Nikoghosyan v. Gonzales, 133 Fed.Appx. 450 (9th Cir. 2005); Bangsawa v. U.S. Attorney General, 136 Fed.Appx. 240 (11th Cir. 2005); Petrov v. U.S. Atty. Gen.,135 Fed.Appx. 377 (11th Cir. 2005); Tjen v. Gonzales, 143 Fed.Appx. 405 (3rd Cir. 2005); Fessehaye v. Gonzales, 414 F.3d 746 (7th Cir. 2005); Koulian v. Gonzales, 154 Fed.Appx. 642 (9th Cir. 2005); Ivanishvili v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, 433 F.3d 332 (2nd Cir. 2006); Mikhaleva v. Gonzales, 167 Fed.Appx. 633 99th Cir. 2006); Israelyan v. Gonzales, 171 Fed.Appx. 85 (9th Cir. 2006); Woldemichael v. Ashcroft, 448 F.3d 1000 (8h Cir. 2006); Azimov v. Gonzales, 181 Fed.Appx. 601 (7th Cir. 2006); Henrys v. U.S. Atty. Gen., 184 Fed.Appx. 822 (11th Cir. 2006); Nwokeafor v. U.S. Atty. Gen., Slip Copy, 2006 WL 1594189 (11th Cir. 2006); Teclezghi v. Gonzales, 187 Fed.Appx. 749 (9th Cir. 2006); Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182 (9th Cir. 2006); Berhe v. Gonzales, 464 F.3d 74 (1st Cir. 2006); Mezvrishvili v. U.S. Atty. Gen., 467 F.3d 1292 (11th Cir. 2006); Gabriel-Perez v. Gonzales, 210 Fed.Appx. 723 (9th Cir. 2006); Mkrtchyan v. Gonzales, 215 Fed.Appx. 624 (9th Cir. 2006); Kutchaidze v. Gonzales, 218 Fed.Appx. 553 (8th Cir. 2007); Anjelia v. Gonzales, 226 Fed.Appx. 662 (9th Cir. 2007); Sarkisian v. Gonzales, 228 Fed.Appx. 654 (9th Cir. 2007); Feng Chen v. Gonzales, 224 Fed.Appx. 101 (2nd Cir. 2007); Osepashvili v. Gonzales, 235 Fed.Appx. 806 (2nd Cir. 2007); Mironova v. Attorney General of the U.S., 259 Fed.Appx. 503 (3rd Cir. 2008); Kantourian v. Michael Mukasey, 265 Fed.Appx. 657 (9th Cir. 2008); Chelle v. Attorney General of U.S., 264 Fed.Appx. 199 (3rd Cir. 2008); Shakhijanyan v. Mukasey, 268 Fed.Appx. 511 (9th Cir. 2008); Khudaverdyan v. Mukasey, 273 Fed.Appx. 618 (9th Cir. 2008); Kupczyk v. Attorney General of U.S., 283 Fed.Appx. 44 (3rd Cir. 2008); Paomey v. Mukasey, 282 Fed.Appx. 691 (10th Cir. 2008);Zodelava v. Attorney General of U.S., 290 Fed.Appx. 504 (3rd Cir. 2008); Avagyan v. Mukasey, 291 Fed.Appx. 825 (9th Cir. 2008);Aytayan v. Mukasey, 294 Fed.Appx. 360 (9th Cir. 2008); Ghukasyan v. Mukasey, 306 Fed.Appx. 369 (9th Cir. 2008); Vardanyan v. Mukasey, 305 Fed.Appx. 474 (9th Cir. 2008); Gordeziani v. Attorney General of U.S., 321 Fed.Appx. 139 (3rd Cir. 2009); Yan Lan Hong v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, 320 Fed.Appx. 98 (2nd Cir. 2009); Shvetsov v. Holder, 324 Fed.Appx. 678 (9th Cir. 2009); and Kauspadas v. Holder, Slip Copy, 2009 WL 1427106 (7th Cir. 2009).

[5] The five successful Mormon asylum claims were in Shirazi-Parsa v. I.N.S., 14 F.3d 1424 (9th Cir. 1994); Avetova-Elisseva v. I.N.S., 213 F.3d 1192 (9th Cir. 2000); Mendoza v. I.N.S., 28 Fed.Appx. 586 (8th Cir. 2002); Koval v. Gonzales, 418 F.3d 798 (7th Cir. 2005); Morales v. Gonzales, 188 Fed.Appx. 780 (10th Cir. 2006); Hadera v. Gonzales, 494 F.3d 1154(9th Cir. 2007).

[6] The three successful Adventist asylum claims were in Khup v. Ashcroft, 376 F.3d 898 (9th Cir. 2004)(Burma); Tretiakova v. Gonzales, 221 Fed.Appx. 639 (9th Cir. 2007)(Russia); and Floroiu v. Gonzales, 481 F.3d 970 (7th Cir. 2007)(Romania).

[7] The 25 claims by Jehovah’s Witnesses that were successful were in Canas-Segovia v. I.N.S., 902 F.2d 717 (9th Cir. 1990); Gonzalez v. I.N.S., 82 F.3d 903 (9th Cir. 1996); Adriano v. I.N.S., 168 F.3d 497 (9th Cir. 1999); Adhanom v. I.N.S., 173 F.3d 859 (9th Cir. 1999); Castellanos-Castillo v. I.N.S.,191 F.3d 459 (9th Cir. 1999); Sidhu v. I.N.S., 220 F.3d 1085 (9th Cir. 2000); Reyes-Melendez v. I.N.S., 342 F.3d 1001 (9th Cir. 2003); Chen v. Ashcroft, 85 Fed.Appx. 44 (9th Cir. 2003); Muhur v. Ashcroft, 355 F.3d 958 (7th Cir. 2004); Tsaturyan v. Ashcroft, 89 Fed.Appx. 37 (9th Cir. 2004); Margaryan v. Ashcroft, 92 Fed.Appx. 525 (9th Cir. 2004); Gevorgyan v. Ashcroft, 92 Fed.Appx. 554 (9th Cir. 2004); Ghebremedhin v. Ashcroft, 385 F.3d 1116 (7th Cir. 2004); Ghebremedhin v. Ashcroft, 392 F.3d 241 (7th Cir. 2004); Mogos v. Ashcroft, 117 Fed.Appx. 553 (9th Cir. 2004); Badalyan v. Gonzales, 121 Fed.Appx. 268 (9th Cir. 2005); Sun v. Gonzales, 126 Fed.Appx. 799 (9th Cir. 2005); Nikoghosyan v. Gonzales, 133 Fed.Appx. 450 (9th Cir. 2005); Fessehaye v. Gonzales, 414 F.3d 746 (7th Cir. 2005); Ivanishvili v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, 433 F.3d 332 (2nd Cir. 2006); Berhe v. Gonzales, 464 F.3d 74 (1st Cir. 2006); Mezvrishvili v. U.S. Atty. Gen., 467 F.3d 1292 (11th Cir. 2006); Mkrtchyan v. Gonzales, 215 Fed.Appx. 624 (9th Cir. 2006); Anjelia v. Gonzales, 226 Fed.Appx. 662 (9th Cir. 2007); and Osepashvili v. Gonzales, 235 Fed.Appx. 806 (2nd Cir. 2007).

[8] The 25 Jehovah’s Witness asylum claims involving Armenia were in Tsaturyan v. Ashcroft, 89 Fed.Appx. 37 (9th Cir. 2004); Margaryan v. Ashcroft, 92 Fed.Appx. 525 (9th Cir. 2004); Gevorgyan v. Ashcroft, 92 Fed.Appx. 554 (9th Cir. 2004); Manukyan v. U.S., 96 Fed.Appx. 77 (3rd Cir. 2004); Hayrapetyan v. Ashcroft, 98 Fed.Appx. 625 (9th Cir. 2004); Martirosyan v. Ashcroft, 107 Fed.Appx. 125 (9th Cir. 2004); Babayan v. Ashcroft, 110 Fed.Appx. 43 (9th Cir. 2004); Pananyan v. Ashcroft, 110 Fed.Appx. 787 (9th Cir. 2004); Sargsyan v. Ashcroft, 109 Fed.Appx. 989 (9th Cir. 2004); Vaskanyan v. Ashcroft, 118 Fed.Appx. 200 (9th Cir. 2004); Mirzoyan v. Ashcroft, 120 Fed.Appx. 193 (9th Cir. 2005); Badalyan v. Gonzales, 121 Fed.Appx. 268 (9th Cir. 2005); Markosyan v. Gonzales, 127 Fed.Appx. 954 (9th Cir. 2005); Barsegian v. Gonzales, 128 Fed.Appx. 633 (9th Cir. 2005); Patatanyan v. Gonzales, 132 Fed.Appx. 124 (9th Cir. 2005); Nikoghosyan v. Gonzales, 133 Fed.Appx. 450 (9th Cir. 2005); Israelyan v. Gonzales, 171 Fed.Appx. 85 (9th Cir. 2006); Mkrtchyan v. Gonzales, 215 Fed.Appx. 624 (9th Cir. 2006); Sarkisian v. Gonzales, 228 Fed.Appx. 654 (9th Cir. 2007); Kantourian v. Michael Mukasey, 265 Fed.Appx. 657 (9th Cir. 2008); Shakhijanyan v. Mukasey, 268 Fed.Appx. 511 (9th Cir. 2008); Khudaverdyan v. Mukasey, 273 Fed.Appx. 618 (9th Cir. 2008); Avagyan v. Mukasey, 291 Fed.Appx. 825 (9th Cir. 2008); Vardanyan v. Mukasey, 305 Fed.Appx. 474 (9th Cir. 2008); and Ghukasyan v. Mukasey, 306 Fed.Appx. 369 (9th Cir. 2008).

[9] The 21 Adventist claims involving Indonesia are in Sahensolar v. I.N.S., 168 F.3d 501 (9th Cir. 1998); Setyawan v. Ashcroft, 111 Fed.Appx. 579 (10th Cir. 2004); Silitonga v. Gonzales, 160 Fed.Appx. 782 (10th Cir. 2005); Peter v. Gonzales, 183 Fed.Appx. 805 (10th Cir. 2006); Poerwantini v. Gonzales, 217 Fed.Appx. 592 (8th Cir. 2007); Panjaitan v. Gonzales, 224 Fed.Appx. 853 (10th Cir. 2007); Lumbangaol v. Keisler, 258 Fed.Appx. 167 (10th Cir. 2007); Sibuea v. Mukasey, 260 Fed.Appx. 43 (10th Cir. 2007); Rotinsulu v. Mukasey, 515 F.3d 68 (1st Cir. 2008); Sitompul v. Mukasey, 272 Fed.Appx. 696 (10th Cir. 2008); Harahap v. Attorney General of U.S., 275 Fed.Appx. 95 (3rd Cir. 2008); Esfandiary v. Mukasey, 277 Fed.Appx. 816 (10th Cir. 2008); Liem v. Attorney General of U.S., 280 Fed.Appx. 206 (3rd Cir. 2008); Zakarias v. Attorney General of U.S., 280 Fed.Appx. 197 (3rd Cir. 2008); Kamuh v. Mukasey, 280 Fed.Appx. 7 (1st Cir. 2008); Wontas v. Mukasey, 286 Fed.Appx. 510 (9th Cir. 2008); Manullang v. Mukasey, 291 Fed.Appx. 892 (10th Cir. 2008); Tendean v. Mukasey, 292 Fed.Appx. 633 (9th Cir. 2008); Umar v. Mukasey, 294 Fed.Appx. 353 (9th Cir. 2008); Siahaan v. Mukasey, 301 Fed.Appx. 768 (10th Cir. 2008); and Kojo v. Holder, Slip Copy, 2009 WL 1396836 (9th Cir. 2009).

[10] The six successful Jehovah’s Witness claims involving Eritrea were in Adhanom v. I.N.S., 173 F.3d 859 (9th Cir. 1999); Muhur v. Ashcroft, 355 F.3d 958 (7th Cir. 2004); Ghebremedhin v. Ashcroft, 385 F.3d 1116 (7th Cir. 2004); Ghebremedhin v. Ashcroft, 392 F.3d 241 (7th Cir. 2004);Mogos v. Ashcroft, 117 Fed.Appx. 553 (9th Cir. 2004); and Fessehaye v. Gonzales, 414 F.3d 746 (7th Cir. 2005).

[11] Wang v. Gonzales, 207 Fed.Appx. 130 (2nd Cir. 2006); Liang Wen v. Gonzales, 223 Fed.Appx. 674 (9th Cir. 2007); Dan Zhu Wong v. U.S. Dept. of Homeland Sec., 271 Fed.Appx. 77 (2nd Cir. 2008).

[12] Vorobieva v. I.N.S., 172 F.3d 64 (10th Cir. 1999); Yunus v. I.N.S., 176 F.3d 490 (10th Cir. 1999); Avetova-Elisseva v. I.N.S., 213 F.3d 1192 (9th Cir. 2000); Igoshin v. I.N.S., 50 Fed.Appx. 905 (10th Cir. 2002).

[13] Morales v. Gonzales, 188 Fed.Appx. 780 (10th Cir. 2006);

[14] Shirazi-Parsa v. I.N.S., 14 F.3d 1424 (9th Cir. 1994);

[15] Hadera v. Gonzales, 494 F.3d 1154(9th Cir. 2007)

[16] Avetova-Elisseva v. I.N.S., 213 F.3d 1192 (9th Cir. 2000)

[17] Koval v. Gonzales, 418 F.3d 798 (7th Cir. 2005)

An article in Newsweek this week poses these questions.  What is the real age of accountability?  Are age limits arbitrary?  The article compares two recent cases:  YFZ Ranch raid and Omar Khadr.

• Adults treated as children.  The article states that the actions of the Texas CPS were based on assumptions that didn’t hold up in court:  1) the original complaint call was a hoax, 2) the assumption of the TCPS was that the beliefs of the FLDS were inherently dangerous (the court failed to uphold this), and 3) the belief that the polygamous women were too young to consent (15 of 31 were legal adults, one as old as 27).  The court found that being ”sober, conservative, religious and married . . . doesn’t necessarily make them victims of abuse.”  A case of treating adults like children.
• Children treated like adults.  The article contrasts this with the case of Omar Khadr, a 21-year old Canadian facing a life sentence who has been held at Guantanamo Bay for six years.  At age 15, he was charged with throwing a grenade in a fire fight in Afghanistan, killing one U.S. Soldier.  His lawyers state that, as a child soldier, he should be protected and rehabilitated as a victim.  The judge in the case has overruled that argument and stated that he will be tried as an adult.

In this example, both cases have completely different outcomes.  Is this evidence that the courts are lenient on pacifists but harsh on warmongers (make love, not war)?  Or is this evidence of protecting our own (fanatical Americans) but not protecting others (fanatical Canadian citizen/Islamic terrorist)?

Both cases are examples of what average Americans might call adults brainwashing teens to accomplish their own religious ends.  Or you could argue they are both cases of young adults with fanatical devotion for a religious cause.

The term “brainwashing” is liberally applied these days and experts question whether religious brainwashing is even a reality.  The term originated in 1950 to explain why so many GIs defected in the Korean war after being POWs.  They were subjected to psychological torture such as sleep deprivation to systematically break down their feelings of autonomy and individuality.  Efforts to prove religious groups, cults or NRMs have conducted “brainwashing” or persuasive coersion have been largely fruitless at explaining the shift in fundamental beliefs for converts.  With children, there is no actual shift in belief since they are raised to believe this way.  So, beliefs we don’t like (Jihad and polygamy) are brainwashing, but beliefs we like “being a [insert political party of choice]” or “the American dream” are not brainwashing.

The term adult is also difficult to define.  Various societies consider the age of adulthood to be as low as 13 or as high as 21.  The majority would put that age between 15 and 18.  What are the characteristics of adults?  A list proposed on Wikipedia includes the following characteristics: 

Based on this list, I’m not sure I know any adults.  Maybe Ray.  In any case, each item on this list is more of a subjective continuum than a yes/no.

So, what do you think?  What is an adult and what is brainwashing?  Are polygamist teens and terrorist teens unable to make their own choices?  Are they 1) victims or 2) perpetrators or 3) adults responsible for their choices?  Were they brainwashed by their religions or have they made a choice?  How can we legitimately tell the difference?  At what age should people be held accountable and considered adults?  Do we overprotect those we see as victims while we underprotect those we see as victimizers?  Discuss.

The underlying assumption in taking 400 children out of their homes is that the lifestyle itself is harmful; invading the temple is a direct challenge to the FLDS religion’s legitimacy.  The total absence of ACLU intervention further indicates that there is no legal basis for protection and that national sympathy is lacking due to illegal polygamous behavior.  If the FLDS women are viewed as victims, it is as complicit victims.  As Alice Walker put it Possessing the Secret of Joy (her book about female genital mutilation), “One tree said to another:  I have seen the axe, and the handle is one of us.”

The responses to the raid have varied greatly.  There are articles praising TX for its bold action to safeguard women and children from a dangerous patriarchal and insular cult.  There are sympathetic posts by LDS who view this action as the Extermination Order II.  There are critics of the LDS who condemn any lack of sympathy on our part as being hypocritical.  There are women of the FLDS baffled as to why they are being persecuted for their religious beliefs, their children taken from them, and their rights stripped.  I would like to explore the shift in approach TX has made, the legal and pragmatic implications of that, and the possible outcomes.

Growing up in the northeast (raised LDS), I had no idea that polygamy was still being practiced by anyone in the US.  I had assured my inquisitive high school friends that it had been done away with almost a hundred years ago.  I was truly shocked to find otherwise when I attended BYU.  My parents are converts, so we have no polygamous ancestry.  The first time I heard the term “polyg,” I thought it was an architectural style (“polyg houses”).  During my first temple recommend interview I had to ask what a “splinter group” was because I had no idea that (aside from the RLDS) there were other groups that had split from LDS.  The idea that anyone would voluntarily practice polygamy if there was any way out of it (e.g. the Official Declaration and it being made illegal) was beyond my comprehension.  My own teenage contemplation of polygamy really went no farther than to wonder whether it was something I could have lived if asked like some of those early church women, a safe enough exercise at a distance of a hundred years.  It was unpalatable, but as theoretical as other unpalatable things like eating a live cockroach or breast feeding.

Although I was initially outraged and chagrined that UT did not more actively prosecute polygamists who are clearly flouting the law, I gained a lot of respect over time for the pragmatic approach UT and AZ have taken.  Texas’ action, while bold, seems excessive; taking over 400 children from their mothers over one anonymous complaint of abuse is overreaching. As a contrast, there are recurring complaints of domestic abuse in some urban low income communities, but they don’t come in and take away all the children in all the neighboring apartments. And they would probably find a lot more abuse if they did.  It seems that people’s rights have been trampled and the innocent are being treated without much concern in a “guilty until proven innocent” approach.  The incident in Texas has been handled differently for several reasons:

1. Texas’ experience with polygamous sects is limited and recent whereas AZ and UT have had long-standing experience with polygamous sects.
2. One word:  Waco.
3. Everything’s bigger in Texas.
4. Some have suggested that Baptist sentiment is a force in this raid (at least at whipping everyone into a frenzy).
5. Some have suggested that an evangelical political plot is at play by casting the FLDS into the media at critical points in Mitt Romney’s political bid (either for POTUS or VP) to discredit him by a continual reminder that he descends from polygamists and is therefore too weird to hold such high office.

Having said all that, I would not shed a single tear if the end of polygamy is the outcome of this action.  I am thrilled polygamy was ended by the LDS in 1890.  And a religion (like FLDS) that encourages illegal behavior is inherently harmful if for no other reason than it creates a society of isolation and secrecy.  This type of secrecy can be directly harmful (creating an environment in which lying supersedes the truth), but secrecy is also indirectly harmful in that abuse can flourish in an isolated environment.

I acknowledge that there are issues wih prosecuting polygamy that make it difficult because consensual polygamous marriages are not legal; therefore, being in a polygamous marriage is not illegal because you’re only married to one person legally. It’s not illegal in this country to have consensual unmarried sex and children with many partners.  It’s called “hooking up,” and it’s quite popular (throw in a tramp stamp and a hairdo, and these women would not be getting hauled off in Baptist school buses).  So, prosecution usually focuses on:
1 - statutory rape
2 - abuse
3 - welfare fraud

Obviously, statutory rape and abuse usually require a complainant, difficult to obtain in most cases, but even moreso in a secretive group already wary of outsiders where patriarchal authority is unquestioned.  Welfare fraud feels a bit like nabbing Al Capone for postal fraud.  And it may fall into the “bigger fish to fry” category for pragmatic reasons.

So, what can be done?  If I were running the world, here are a few radical changes I would suggest (speaking of overreaching):
1 – raise the legal marriage age to 18 nationally, no exceptions. 18 is still too young if you ask me.  If I had to live with choices I made at 18 . . . well, I’m just glad I do not.
2 – eliminate home schooling or severely restrict it (e.g. limit to one consecutive year and insist on some additional oversight and socialization).

And lastly, if this does mean the end of polygamy (because it is being attacked directly for the first time), take the following steps:
1 – grant the mothers custody on condition they agree not to return to or enter into any more polygamous relationships. This requires ongoing monitoring, but if you’re going to take down polygamy, it’s the only way.  Otherwise, TX has to follow the AZ and UT lead and only prosecute what can be prosecuted directly.  Placing all the children into foster care seems unduly harsh; if the mothers were given a way to retain their children, even if it meant giving up their (sort of) illegal religious practice, many would comply.
2 – research and prosecute for every instance of abuse, statutory rape, and welfare fraud.  Go after these things with a vengeance until they are completely eliminated.

So, do you believe Texas has overreached?  And will Texas take it to the mattresses or not?  Does this mean the end of polygamy (again, once and for all)?  Or will TX back off and follow the lead of AZ & UT, only prosecuting what is feasible?  Will the ACLU ever intervene?  And if the end of polygamy occurs, can we “re-patriate” this splinter group into mainstream America?  Will they ultimately renounce Jeffs as a false prophet, leave the FLDS, and join the LDS?  Would they choose their children over their lifestyle if presented with that alternative?