Leah Remini and her Troublemakers, Part 25

 

18 responses to “Leah Remini and her Troublemakers, Part 25

  1. Well, here you go. Why would such a vaunted OT unleash such a barrage of BPC? Well duh, because they still have ‘charge’. So their attestations to themselves are false, and they can’t gain enough separation to cop to that simple truth. So as a valuable advertisement to where that organizations ‘product line is at’….by passed cases witholding bypassed charge. Until they are ‘triggered’……and that is the mystery…what triggers one is not the same as what triggers another (given the degrees of relative truth) other than being exposed for the frauds they are.

    • Tom: “So as a valuable advertisement to where that organizations ‘product line is at’….by passed cases witholding bypassed charge.”

      This can be seen on a daily basis, over and over, in the posts on ASC sites – as well as in the “Going Clear” film and the episodes of the “Aftermath” series, where the “victims” of the CoS are basically the “victims” of bypassed charge. It’s so ironic that Scientology itself (the core subject) could handle their BPC (unwanted painful emotions).

  2. The references to the Catholic faith in this video are key parts to the entire subject of Scientology. Tom Cruise was in a monastery before Scientology. Miscavige and his Dad were Catholic. Remini is a former Catholic. I am a former devout Catholic.
    I pulled out my memories of the sixth grade in which we studied St Dominic. He was famous for his exorcism. You can find OT V in St Dominic. Hubbard’s version with the e-meter is cumbersome. This whole subject of Scientology filled a void in the United States created by a lapse in faith. You can find the OT levels in the lives of the Saints. You can find references to Scientology in St Augustine but with different terminology.

    • Stunning headline: Remini says Cruise is not a nice person. Wow.
      Is this hidden religion? Doesn’t she know about the anti-Christ?

    • George, you don’t seem to be as critical of St. Dominic and other saints for their involvement with exorcism, as you are of Hubbard’s OT levels – which I believe goes beyond the use of an e-meter. I’m also curious why you say the e-meter is “cumbersome.”

      • Saint Dominic was a holy man much like Jesus. He did not seek money. “Cumbersome” was meant to denote the fact that the e-meter evolved into a security tool.

        • Okay, thanks. I may have misunderstood you earlier. Was that the only thing you were critical of about the OT levels – the fact that they cost money?

          • If I had to start again, I would never have chosen the Scientology route. My wife and I agree on this one and see it clearly. We should have been in Thailand in early 1970’s. The structure was there. We missed it.

            • Got it. You were taken off your true path.

              Perhaps there was a reason for Scientology to have been on your path. What would the Buddha say?. 🙂

              • I don’t know what he would say to us. That is part of Buddhahood. But the traditional interpretation would be that Scientology was a necessary condition.

                • I was hoping the answer was something like that – and that, for your sake, you felt the overall experience was somehow beneficial, at least in the longer run. Thanks for the open response! I really appreciate that quality.

  3. Arthur Clamderhoven

    Your old buddy Chris Shelton, who is Tony Ortega’s Science Officer, is now, apparently, his legal expert on taxing Scientology churches, as well.

    Here’s Chris’ latest legal advice on the history of Scientology taxation and how the IRS handles it.

    “I came out shooting because I hoped you would say this and were not being just openly defeatist. I agree with you on some of these points. There is firm case law already established re the selling of materials and services for fixed donations and overturning that would be extremely difficult, much more so than getting an IRS review done. The same with getting g criminal charges brought by former members, who for a variety of reasons have difficulties overcoming statutes of limitations and financial issues in bringing a court case against the Church of Scientology’s principals.’

    “While you’re right that judges are reluctant to tackle First Amendment issues, I would like to point out two things that counter that position: (1) this is not actually a First Amendment issue as such and (2) in all the years when Scientology had its tax exemption revoked (1967-1993), this point of tax exemption to my knowledge never came before a federal judge to rule upon. It was the IRS who revoked tax exemption and it was the IRS who regranted it. No judgement overturned the IRS ruling, nor could it have been sent it’s not a matter of appealing it to a federal judge (as I understand the system). If the Church of Scientology could have gotten a federal judge to overturn the IRS decision of 1967, wouldn’t they have tried to do so? I don’t recall that happening. There were many other court cases that we’re argued by Scn over the years, in which First Amendment protections did come up, most notably the Headley case in 2005 or 2006. Now this has also been a thing in the Decresenzo case. But tax exemption is not for the courts to decide, religiosity is.’

    “If the IRS investigates an organization, religious or not, and says they are not granted 501(c)3 exemption, that is it. Case closed. If I am wrong about this, please set me straight by linking me to the applicable information. I’m happy to shut up about this if I am wrong.’

    “One last point I will make though, is that if I’m wrong and this could be appealed to a federal court, it’s my position that any judge would tend to side with the IRS almost as a matter of course because tax exemption is the IRS’ responsibility. In such a case, a judge would not be being asked to decide on the religiosity of Scientology. They would be asked to decide based in the tax code. Thus again, not a First Amendment issue”.

    I know you have a little experience in this area.

    I was wondering what your views were.

    • Chris Shelton knows less about tax-exempt organizations than he does about Scientology, but the ASC looks for agreement from their experts rather than actual expertise and results in a particular field. Given that standard, Shelton qualifies; he is a card carrying member of the ASC.

      Tax exemption under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code requires an organization to be organized and operated exclusively for exempt purposes – religious is an exempt purpose – and that none of its earnings inure to any private individual. The Exempt Organizations section of the IRS decides whether to grant status based on an application filed for it.

      Once granted, tax-exempt status can be revoked for violation of the same guidelines that qualified an organization for tax exemption. Since the church is still being operated as a religious organization, the grounds for revocation pretty much boil down to inurement, i.e., private benefit of church earnings.

      The church previously had its exemption revoked (1967 as I recall). The IRS was unable to prove actual inurement to LRH but determined that LRH and church as it was then organized, with ultimate control in LRH and Mary Sue, his wife, was “one big ball of wax.”

      Then the Church of Scientology of California was the “mother church” of Scientology. In the early 1980s Scientology was re-organized into three separate California nonprofit religious corporations (CSI, RTC and CST), with cross checks and balances among them as well as separate boards of trustees and general directors. LRH died in 1986, or course. Mary Sue resigned in 1981. The one big ball of was gone. At least on paper.

      After a rigorous examination into tremendous detail of all aspects of management and operations – including the examination of articles and bylaws and minutes of board (trustees and directors) meetings, the IRS granted tax exempt status (on a 5-year probation at first). A confidential Closing Statement finalized the deal.

      Without proof of inurement or private benefit, the chances of the IRS going against its prior determination are between nil and none. Even with recent evidence of private gain by, say, Miscavige (who else? – I could name a few: Monique Yingling and the Special Directors of CST), the odds are very long. Two paramount reasons:

      1. Intermediate Sanctions. The IRS rarely seeks the “death penalty” of revocation which punishes the entire congregation in the case of a religious organization when only one or a few people benefitted improperly. Instead, it seeks repayment from those who violated their trust – and perhaps settles on additional remedial measures to ensure it doesn’t happen again.

      2. Lack of authority to green light a revocation proceeding. Because the IRS reorganized itself and eliminated Regional Commissioners who have the authority by law to seek revocation, no official currently has the power to initiate a revocation proceeding except the Commissioner. Because the Commissioner is a political appointment, any action by him will be viewed as political, so they tend to refrain from exercising their authority. The political situation is more complicated, and less likely to result in revocation actions against churches, because of the policies of the Trump Administration.

      Certainly, the approach of the ASC is flawed. By attacking the religious status of the church and by spreading a (mainly) false narrative of hate, which can be easily documented, as Marty is demonstrating with his videos, the ASC is actually building a defense against revocation. The false and inflammatory narrative of the ASC invites action based not on legal guidelines but on an emotional appeal to discriminate against a particular group.

      There is, however, a narrow opening for action by the IRS against the church and I identify it in my book Arrows in the Dark (www.arrowsinthedark.com). Ironically, the ASC has shunned my book because Backpage Tony declared it unfit for reading. From his hate perspective it was pro-LRH, pro-tech, and pro-GO. Which only means it did not forward the ASC narrative.

      In that book I reveal fraud in the application for tax-exemption process. Terri Gamboa was listed as a CST trustee (and CST has the legal power to eliminate RTC) at a time when she was no longer in the church and, in fact, had been lured out of the country by the church during the application process. She could and would have revealed that the boards of CST were not truly independent and that she didn’t even know she had been appointed trustee for life by LRH and had legal power (as part of the board) over Miscavige and RTC. There is one big ball of wax once more, only better hidden. So the evidence of cross checks and balances was a sham, and deception during the application process can undermine the decision.

      • What an amazing comment. Thanks.

      • The IRS couldn’t prove inurement but merely suspected it since Ron and Mary Sue were both signatories on various accounts.

        But since the IRS doesn’t have to prove anyone’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt they revoked the Church’s 501ciii status in 1967 and set the course for probably one of the longest Tax Appeals in history.

        My suspicion was that they were used as a stalking horse by our friends on the dark side.

        Anyhoo, personally I don’t think mattered much to the IRS when they eventually granted the Church tax exempt status in ’93 who was on the Board of Directors or Trustees for the various Religious Corporations.

        In other words they could have replaced Gamboa with Mini Mouse and it wouldn’t have changed the outcome.

        If one reads the turgid “Secret Closing Agreement” it seems their only concern was that David Miscavige be remain the Chairman of the CTCC (Church Tax Compliance Committee) for life and that the Organization not mention any past, present, or future conspiracies

    • Chris Shelton complaining about other’s tax exemption while he begs for donations on youtube and awards patron status to followers?

  4. better to light one candle, than curse the darkness..

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s