IF YOU CAN’T DISPUTE THE MESSAGE,

THEN IMPUGN THE MESSENGER

            I know … the title is one of those worn-out clichés, but I just couldn’t think of a more appropriate title.  Of course I’m referring to the AUB defense tactics in Hill vs. Allred, Jenson, AUB, and others.

            My friendly antagonist (Carmine) who I appreciate for his temerity has referred to Virginia’s stolen money as “mafia money.”  I suspect what Carmine is doing is echoing the propaganda dispensed by the AUB, priesthood oligarchy.  They are infallible you know.  As God’s anointed, whatever they avow is automatically above reproach.  The prophet’s words are cloaked with the power of God.  The promptings of the spirit takes precedence over facts.  If God’s laws conflict with the laws of man, the righteous path is God’s path. Therefore, trust in the spirit!  If the spirit says Virginia Hill and her investigators are bad people, then they must be bad people.

            What is the mafia?  It is an “organized criminal society.”  In order to combat “organized crime” government enacted the RICO Act.  RICO stands for Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act.  In Virginia Hill’s original complaint she accused the defendants of “racketeering.”  In order to prove racketeering there must be at least three criminal “episodes.”  If proven, the Plaintiff is entitled to double damages.

            The Fourth District trial judge ruled that the Defendants did in fact steal Hill’s money but declined to rule that they engaged in “racketeering,” claiming that Hill came to court with “unclean hands.”  The judge’s official reason for the “unclean hands” ruling was because Hill could not produce copies of her income tax returns filed ten years back.  Can you?

            During the trial the Defense, lead by John Putvin, pro se, pro se means acting in his own defense, hammered away at Hill’s character, impugning it by innuendo rather than evidence. 

            In the appeal, the Utah Supreme Court reversed the Fourth District Court ruling by concluding that the Defendants acted individually and together in a “pattern of criminal activity.”  In other words, the defendants – Allred, Jenson, Putvin, Matthews, Sandmire and Norman, under the flag of, or the auspices of, Apostolic United Brethren – comprised a “criminal society” as defined under the RICO Act.

            The Utah Supreme Court ruled that the “unclean hands” doctrine did not apply, and even if Hill’s hands had been “unclean” it did not mitigate the criminal acts of the defendants. 

            The Defendants could not dispute the facts.  In my opinion, the evidence was strong enough that in a criminal court they would have been found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.  In fact, that is what I wanted to do, turn the evidence over to law enforcement, but Don Redd and his paralegal, Tom Green, said no because if the Defendants were in jail it would be more difficult to recover Virginia money, plus damages.

            The Utah Supreme Court made it perfectly, unimpeachably clear that the defendants engaged in a “pattern of criminal activity.”  In other words, their criminal acts were consistent with an “organized criminal society” as defined by the RICO Act.

            Now, to their credit, the AUB defendants, except for John Putvin, were not as smart or experienced as the Mafia.  Their weaknesses were greed and hatred for each other.  But they are very good at assailing a person’s character. 

            Exploiting and falsifying Virginia’s character didn’t work with the Utah Supreme Court.  And even though the high court used language that labels them an “organized criminal society,” they still attempt to defame Virginia with rumors that suggest she is what they were, a “criminal enterprise.”  Don’t you find that ironic?  They accuse Virginia of being what the Supreme Court ruled they were – in essence, an “organized criminal society.”

            Allow me to use one more oft used cliché:  “People who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw rocks.”

            The inference has been made that to be paid for services that expose a “pattern of criminal activity” is for some reason bad form.  If and when I and my partner, Rod Williams, are paid for our services, why should we feel guilty?  Because AUB presents itself as a nonprofit, religious organization?  Because we were once members of AUB?  Because J. LaMoine Jenson is revered as a prophet and sole representative for Jesus Christ?  Because the AUB priesthood holds the keys to the heavens?  I don’t think so. 

            Slandering Virginia is designed to shift blame away from the AUB defendants. The calumny implies that it is no sin to plunder a wicked person.  If you have had your “Calling and Election Made Sure,” whatever you do in the Lord’s name is righteous; you can’t sin, except against the Holy Ghost.  To deny the Holy Ghost is tantamount to denying AUB has divine authority.  

            This sleazy slandering is still going on while the defendants attempt to portray the façade of being cooperative.  They would really like to make good on their legal responsibilities, even though Allred and Jenson were duped by Putvin; but they are just poor religious folks with very little assets.

            The latest story is that the master manipulator, the deceased John C. Putvin, exploited the “prophets” Allred and Jenson.  Actually, they were innocent of any criminal intent but by the time they discovered that Putvin was manipulating them, it was too late.  It’s a great story but patently inconsistent with the facts. 

            “Lying for the Lord” is a historically documented Mormon euphemism like “blood atonement,” “bleeding the beast,” and “milking the gentiles.” These euphemisms are mild expressions for saying because we are God’s chosen it is okay to lie, cheat, steal and kill, whatever it takes to build God’s kingdom.  No, I’m not accusing AUB of murder, but murder is no stranger to Mormon fundamentalism (Ervil LeBaron and the Lafferty Brothers).

            The AUB defendants are deceiving the members about their involvement in the theft of Virginia Hill’s money.  If they are deceiving you about their criminal involvement, where else might they be deceiving?  Do they really have authority to collect tithing, to seal plural marriages, to perform rituals like the endowment? 

            The human condition is such that actual authority really isn’t important.  What is important is the illusion, in other words, what the individual believes.  We human creatures tend to behave in accordance to what we believe, or want to believe, or what is safe to believe, seldom what is real.