>In seeking possession of the MCCS tapes, which had been held by the
>Clerk of the Los Angeles Superior Court following the 1984 trial in
>the Scientology v. Armstrong case, the IRS had submitted a partial
>transcript to the U.S. District Court to demonstrate a crime-fraud
>exception to the attorney-client privilege. The MCCS meeting that was
>recorded involved of course a number of attorneys for Hubbard and
>Scientology, as well as Sea Org and GO staff members working on MCCS.
>Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard ordered MCCS, and current cult head
>David Miscavige operated the mission.

>I have never seen what transcript the IRS used, and I did not give the
>IRS any transcript at any time. I wrote the note that precedes the
>transcript in 1982 and my ex-wife Jocelyn transcribed the tape. If the
>IRS used it, the Service did not get it from me, and I do not recall
>to whom I may have given it besides my attorneys, but I obviously gave
>it to someone because it has now come back to me.

>Because of the ongoing investigation of Scientology cult fraud, I am
>posting this now, and I am grateful to whoever sent it to me. If
>anyone knows if this is the partial transcript that was central to the
>U.S. v. Zolin cases I would like know. The published opinions and a
>number of other documents relating to MCCS are webbed on my site at:
>http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/legal/other-scientology-litigat...

>The U.S. Supreme Court stated in its ruling:

>[Quote]

>The IRS denied that the transcripts were made using tapes obtained
>from the Superior Court or from any other illicit source. Agent
>Petersell declared: "The partial transcripts were not prepared by the
>United States from the tapes in the custody of the Superior Court for
>Los Angeles County, California, nor from copies of the tape now in the
>custody of the Clerk of this Court. The transcripts were obtained from
>a confidential source by another Special Agent prior to the issuance
>of this summons. The source was not a party to Church of Scientology
>v. Armstrong, No. 410153, nor an attorney for any party in that
>proceeding." See Declaration of Agent Petersell in No. CV85-0440-HLH
>(Tx) (March 21, 1985). As the District Court made no finding of
>illegality, we assume for present purposes that the transcripts were
>legally obtained.

>[End Quote]
>http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/legal/us-v-zolin-us-sup-1989-06...

>My note:

>[Quote]

>Transcript of tape recording made 29 September 1980 at a meeting of
>Scientology legal personnel, MCCS Mission personnel and attorney's of
>Scn, LRH and Gold or New Era Pictures the film crew co.).

>When I have been able to identify the speaker I have noted his or her
>initials beside the statement. When I have not been able to identify
>the speaker there are no initials.

>The following people attended the meeting:

>CP: Charles Parselle, then DGL WW.

>AW: Alan Wertheimer, attorney for LRH who worked closely with Laurel
>Sullivan and the MCCS mission, attempting to have LRH retain control
>without liability or responsibility.

>LS: Laurel Sullivan, LRH Personnel PR, and I/C of the Legal mission,
>MCCS, which was attempting to shield LRH.

>LB: Lisa Britowich, Laurel's junior on MCCS.  Now kicked out,off
>staff.  Was in the GO at the time.

>JM:James Murphy, LRH's tax attorney.  He worked in the same firm as
>Alan Wertheimer, - Rosenfeld, Meyer & Sussman in Beverly Hills.  I
>believe Rosenfeld, Meyer & Sussman have been dropped by the
>organization. Wertheimer I know for sure has been dropped, Murphy I'm
>not sure of.

>DS: Dick Sullivan, Laurel's husband,and junior on the MCCS mission.

>MC: Melanie Cook, attorney at Rosenfeld, Meyer & Sussman, who did a
>lot of work on trademarks, etc.

>Ron Fujikawa, worked on the film deals.  Part of MCCS's actions was to
>work out the legal arrangements for LRH to get paid for the films, and
>I believe retain copyrights for them, plus work out distribution lines
>with Pubs DK, and other related matters.  Fujikawa is an attorney in
>Century City.

>I was given this tape by Barbara DeCelle, secretary on the MCCS
>mission, in late 1981.  Barbara had transcribed the various tapes and
>gave me the cassettes for my use.

>Some of the statements, particularly regarding RRF, eg. see p. 8 and
>9,  are very interesting.

>GA

>[End Quote]

>The transcript:

>[Quote]

>I have gathered a fair amount of information on this and I have been
>quoted by people who actually do documentary work of $22,750.00 for a
>script for a half hour educational film.

>It's low.

>The numbers are low.

>In part because documentaries and educational films are methods for
>writers, directors and other talent to break into the business and
>therefore (inaudible). So, I guess one of the problems then is that
>anything you pick that is even reasonably on the high side is subject
>to challenge because they will definitely be able to go and find other
>people to work for < inaudible >.

>CP:  Right.  So it could be as low as three.

>It could be as low as three. There are other services that are
>involved here in addition just to writing the script.

>AW: And L. Ron Hubbard is not an unknown quantity. He's not somebody
>trying to break into the business.

>Admittedly.

>CP:  That's right.
>Just the economics of making a half hour or an hour of educational
>film is such that they can't afford to pay someone a great deal of
>money. Certainly not the amounts that were originally contemplated or
>have actually been paid in this particular arrangement.

>CP: Right. That's right. Thereof one has to look at the fact that he
>trained an entire crew for the Church. All those people are now
>available to continue film-making for the Church if the Church wishes.
>Plus the scores. All on their account. As far as we were concerned, he
>trained them up. They are Church employees, they're Scientologists and
>they are probably going to go on making films for Church purposes. But
>even so, if we look in - I mean, I just did my little calculation and
>it came out to just 1/2 a million. That's 33 times 15,000 and if you
>add on bits for film scores and bits for the work for training and
>something for the fact that he's not a newcomer trying to break into
>the field as far as we are concerned.

>LS: He also is the only person in the world who could ever write these
>... the way they were written.

>-1-

>LB:  Yeah.

>LS:  There's that.

>CP: That's right. It's the score. I mean, it would have been really
>impossible for CSC (Church of Scientology of California) to have gone
>to another author for those films because they are entirely technical
>films. He's the only chap who could have done it.  But...

>LB: He's also I think a ... there's more significance on the fact that
>he was the author and what would the Catholic Church pay the Pope, for
>instance to do that; or if Jesus Christ was alive today, what would
>they pay for a lecture? You know.

>LS: We're talking about a non-unknown quantity ... in the field.

>LB: Yeah. There's a significance that's attached that makes his words
>extremely valuable - priceless - to the Church that is different than
>you are talking about you are just going to pay somebody to direct an
>educational film. Well, you're going to pay Professor Joe Schmoe in a
>University to be the lecturer for that film or if you are going to
>hire, you know, a <inaudible> person to do it. There's going to be a
>difference...

>AW: You have two problems and you raise an interesting point in what
>Jesus Christ would charge or what he would get paid. But ah, the two
>things that are going on is that LRH does not want to be accountable
>for all of the acts of the Church of Scientology since some of those
>could be slightly out of bounds and he doesn't want to be in a
>position where he is held accountable, on one hand. On the other hand,
>the Church is attempting to maintain a certain tax exempt status and
>they are worried that the status of the Church can be characterized as
>nothing other than an alter ego for L. Ron Hubbard whereby certain
>profit-making things are done in the name of the Church. So, with
>those two things going on, what we're trying to do is have some sort
>of structure whereby as much of those two things will continue as long
>as possible. And I am not trying to say that what he has done is not
>worth 2.1 million dollars <inaudible>... but you are talking about a
>jury of 12 people who may have to decide whether L. Ron Hubbard is
>sufficiently interwoven in the affairs of the Church to be held
>accountable for some astrocity that should happen in the future.

>LB: I understand. I just want to make sure that in a deal -if we're
>going to have to deal with LRH - that it's due; I think Charles
><inaudible>  are attaching a significance to

>-2-

>that. Well as long as we are going to attach a significance to his
>contribution to the film-making, it should be, you know, <inaudible>.
>male - Well, at some point you draw the line, I don't know if it's
>worth 5 million dollars and I don't know if it's...

>LS: Well, lets just look at his idea of it. His idea was that he
>didn't want it... (someone entered the room)... The other point was
>that LRH did not want any significance put on any services that he
>provided the Church unless it was absolutely necessary... and this was
>his instruction. He didn't want to be paid for anything other

> > I have received an MCCS meeting tape transcript recently and a query
> > as to whether it is the partial tape transcript referred to in the
> > reported U.S. Supreme Court case U.S. v. Zolin, 491 U.S. 554 (1989).http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/legal/us-v-zolin-us-sup-1989-06...
> > © Gerry Armstronghttp://www.gerryarmstrong.org<

> I am reading this  thinking........"I cannot believe they actually
> tape recorded that meeting. "
> I am still reading it.
> I hope someone answers your question.

>>> I have received an MCCS meeting tape transcript recently and a query
>>> as to whether it is the partial tape transcript referred to in the
>>> reported U.S. Supreme Court case U.S. v. Zolin, 491 U.S. 554
>>> (1989).http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/legal/us-v-zolin-us-sup-1989-06...
>>> © Gerry Armstronghttp://www.gerryarmstrong.org<

>> I am reading this  thinking........"I cannot believe they actually
>> tape recorded that meeting. "
>> I am still reading it.
>> I hope someone answers your question.

> Now you know why we did not record meetings when doing the corporate
> sortout after MCCS! lol

> Gerry's post here is a very important one.

> Here we have various church staff from the Church of Scientology of
> California on that MCCS mission (run by DM), the DG Legal WW and
> various attorneys trying to work out some legal signifance for $2.1
> million that was funneled to Hubbard from a paper corporation (RRF) so
> as to protect Hubbard legally and try not to show that revenues from
> the church were in fact inureing to Hubbard's benefit and thus risk
> tax exempt status for the church.

> As you can see just from this transcript: 1) the money was already
> given to Hubbard; 2) it was given by a phony corporation (RRF) that
> was banking all the monies paid by public from outside of the USA for
> flag services; 3) they now needed to legally justify the money already
> sent to Hubbard; 4) they were worried that this might show Hubbard was
> controlling the church (which he was); 5) they were also worried about
> the IRS auditing the church and were trying to back track and say flag
> would be part of CSC (Church of Scientology of California); and 6)
> they were worried of losing a chance at tax exempt status if they
> could not come up with the signifance to legally justify the amount of
> money to Hubbard as reasonable.

> This transcript very accurately shows the kind of discussions that
> went on all the time as part of the corporate sortout after MCCS as
> well. If you can imagine this and maybe 50 or more other
> considerations as big or even bigger than this, you can get some idea
> of the magnitude of things covered on that corporate sortout.
> Sometimes we had meetings with 15 or more attorneys and CPA types to
> go over different "problem areas". There would be some of the top
> attorneys in the world addressing such issues as the above (tax exempt
> status, gutting CSC of assets, dealing with the fact that Hubbard was
> controlling things and matters involving other potential real problems
> with the IRS and damages claimants). So much was woven into that
> "corporate sortout" that had to do with corporate, taxes, intellectual
> property rights, contracts, trusts, controls, etc.

> Basically there were real problems because Hubbard really was the one
> controlling organized scientology and there was a great deal of money
> funneled to him for his private benefit for which there was no really
> defensible legal signifance. Additionally, a large part of the
> church's "eggs" were in fact in the CSC corporate basket (flag, AOLA,
> ASHO, LA Org, San Francisco Org, USGO and really all of top
> management, including CMO). On top of all that, there was no real
> corporate integrity throughout organized scientology, the GO had
> undated resignations of all corporate officers and board members of
> all church corporations throughout the world and, frankly, most local
> staffs who were legally in such positions didn't even know it .Couple
> this with the facts that the IRS was breathing down CSC's corporate
> neck and there were many damages cases looming and you have a legal
> mess.

> I state the above to point just how real those issues were in the
> transcript Gerry just posted.

> Now, without going into details, here's the real kicker:

> The "corporate sortout" was done in late 81 through 82, with various
> other pieces following. Millions was spent to cover all legal issues
> and get it right and "defensible". The net result included the
> following:

> 1) CSI comes out as the new "mother church" and all churches of
> scientology signing agreements acknowledging same. What is supposed to
> be "top management" is put in CSI. This ends up including CMO Int/WDC,
> the ED Int's Office and OSA;

> 2) The orgs that were once the big revenue-producing arms of CSC
> (flag, AOLA, ASHO, LA Org and San Francisco org) become separate
> corporations. They, like other orgs, are managed by CSI;

> 3) SMI exists and licenses missions and SMI is managed out of CSI;

> 4) WISE exists and gets involved with "putting ethics" in various
> businesses run by scientologists and WISE is managed out of CSI;

> 5) RTC is created as a "non management body" to see to the proper
> usage of all the trademarks and service marks. It hold various rights
> to the usage of the trade/service marks and, through it, all orgs
> (including CSI) are licensed to use them;

> 6) CST gets created to eventually receive most of Hubbard's fortune,
> the rights to his copyrights, etc and will work on the "preservation"
> of the tech. Very important is that CST, for $100, can take all rights
> to the trademarks and service marks from RTC should they ever be at
> risk in RTC. If needed, CST could then license the churches itself or
> create and license another body like RTC;

> 7) ASI (Author Services) is setup to manage Hubbard fiction works and
> otherwise his copyrighted works as a for profit corporation. It is to
> take all that out of the church corporately. It is to have nothing to
> do with the management of the church. Later, Author Services is to
> become owned by CST;

> 8) The Publications organizations (Bridge in the USA and New Era in
> Denmark) then deal mostly with the manufacture and distribution of
> Hubbard's works related to dianetics and scientology. They have
> royalty contracts with Hubbard. Later, both organizations are owned by
> a non profit "trust";

> 9) many trusts are established, more come later, to receive monies
> from various churches. They are set up as non profit. (For example, a
> films trust is set up to receive a portion of each church's revenues
> weekly "in exchange for" the churches being allowed to show the films
> to their staffs and public);

> 10) old "problem" entities are eventually gotten rid of (RRF, OTC,
> CSC, etc.). For example, the last of the monies in OTC that did not
> end up inuring to Hubbard's benefit were transferred to a "non profit"
> trust, CSC is let to die a financial death as all its assets were
> stripped out of it;

> 11) IAS gets setup to get millions directly from any scientology
> public that hope to be able to do services again in churches;

> 12) additional little fancy legal steps are taken later to further
> spread out the money into various trusts and a company is setup in the
> UK that is staffed by Sea Org members to help "manage" the reserves of
> individual churches.

> Whew! lol My point is that what was once basically CSC with all the
> legal problems mentioned above is now most of those things above. What
> were both CSC's and hidden funds before are now neatly spread out
> around the world in various trusts and such. What was legally
> confusing before (the legal status and control of the publications
> orgs, non US public monies to flag, the licensing of trademarks, the
> legal "distinctions" between Hubbard's and the church's interests,
> etc.) are now more clarified and "defensible".

> So this sounds kind of neat huh? Quite a sophisticated legal setup
> compared to the old CSC days!!

> For some people, this evolution was supposed to be a new legal
> beginning where things could be legally clear, Hubbard's and the
> church's interests separated and legally defensible and the church
> itself having a legal structure that no one could topple. And it would
> be a "new era" in that management would go in to actually mirror the
> corporate structure. By that I mean, things like the following would
> really happen:

> 1) CSI, through the likes of CMO Int and the ED Int's office would
> manage scientology orgs, missions and the like;

> 2) a body would exist that is truly not management called "RTC" and it
> would simply focus on the "pureness" of the technology covered by the
> trademarks;

> 3) money could go to Hubbard, not by cover up and lies, but actually
> via legally defensible channels, such as market-based royalties, that
> could be shown to the likes of the IRS;

> 4) ASI would truly be an organization that does what it says it does,
> which is make money on his fiction works, etc. It would be separate
> from the church and not in any way be involved in the management of
> the church.

> So, did this happen? Were lessons like those covered in the transcript
> finally learned and would this now be a corporate structure that
> reflects the actual operating reality of the church? Could the church
> now legally take responsibility for its past tax and other financial
> frauds, pay what it must to the IRS, etc. and start a new, honest
> life? Now that the GO is disbanded, is it truly a new era without
> dirty tricks, illegal actions and the like? Was this the beginning of
> real and honest "church" expansion, in effect a new era for growth?

> Not even close!

> 1.Remember the $2.1 million sent to Hubbard they were trying to deal
> with as covered in that transcript? Quite a huge problem right? Guess
> what? In 1982 alone, with the GO now out of the way, DM sees that over
> $40 million is funneled to Hubbard from his position in ASI. Not $2,1
> million, $40+++ million! There is no longer any kind of "check and
> balance" to any degree within organized scientology. The GO is gone
> and DM can do whatever he wants. The $40 million is gotten in part
> using

> Excellent summary! Now can you clue me on what happened to matters
> that no one got prosecuted and what significance and time line of
> Meade Emory getting posted to CST has to all this.  And how did DM get
> so much control when LRH seemed to be running everything throuh his
> laweyers and accountants as I was always under the impression was the
> case?  Others seem to disagree  in the past with this picture of
> Emory?  Do you think DM had enough or equal dirt on the IRS by the
> time the IRS had this dirt on Hubbard and CSC, that with Hubbard dead,
> some deals could be made financially and contractually to keep the
> church from meing fined and taxed into non existence?

> I was glad to see Marty's name pop up it the transcripts because  I'd
> never seen that before but know he was involved. I know Larry Heller
> did work for LRH & CSC in the 70's and he and Marty were friends, too.
> I used to work for Marty back before he retired to help LRH & corp
> sortout full time.

> I see you are from NH, Marty's stomping grounds. Any idea how he is
> doing? Is he still alive?

> Thanks so much for the summary.

> Mary  Out_Of_The Dark <

> Excellent summary! Now can you clue me on what happened to matters
> that no one got prosecuted and what significance and time line of
> Meade Emory getting posted to CST has to all this.

> I was glad to see Marty's name pop up it the transcripts because  I'd
> never seen that before but know he was involved. I know Larry Heller
> did work for LRH & CSC in the 70's and he and Marty were friends, too.
> I used to work for Marty back before he retired to help LRH & corp
> sortout full time.

> I see you are from NH, Marty's stomping grounds. Any idea how he is
> doing? Is he still alive?

> > I have received an MCCS meeting tape transcript recently and a query
> > as to whether it is the partial tape transcript

> snip

> Larry and Gerry, dynamic duo....

> a < <

>> > I have received an MCCS meeting tape transcript recently and a query
>> > as to whether it is the partial tape transcript referred to in the
>> > reported U.S. Supreme Court case U.S. v. Zolin, 491 U.S. 554 (1989).http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/legal/us-v-zolin-us-sup-1989-06...
>> > © Gerry Armstronghttp://www.gerryarmstrong.org<

>> I am reading this  thinking........"I cannot believe they actually
>> tape recorded that meeting. "
>> I am still reading it.
>> I hope someone answers your question.

>Now you know why we did not record meetings when doing the corporate
>sortout after MCCS! lol

>Gerry's post here is a very important one.

>Here we have various church staff from the Church of Scientology of
>California on that MCCS mission (run by DM), the DG Legal WW and
>various attorneys trying to work out some legal signifance for $2.1
>million that was funneled to Hubbard from a paper corporation (RRF) so
>as to protect Hubbard legally and try not to show that revenues from
>the church were in fact inureing to Hubbard's benefit and thus risk
>tax exempt status for the church.

>As you can see just from this transcript: 1) the money was already
>given to Hubbard; 2) it was given by a phony corporation (RRF) that
>was banking all the monies paid by public from outside of the USA for
>flag services; 3) they now needed to legally justify the money already
>sent to Hubbard; 4) they were worried that this might show Hubbard was
>controlling the church (which he was); 5) they were also worried about
>the IRS auditing the church and were trying to back track and say flag
>would be part of CSC (Church of Scientology of California); and 6)
>they were worried of losing a chance at tax exempt status if they
>could not come up with the signifance to legally justify the amount of
>money to Hubbard as reasonable.

>This transcript very accurately shows the kind of discussions that
>went on all the time as part of the corporate sortout after MCCS as
>well. If you can imagine this and maybe 50 or more other
>considerations as big or even bigger than this, you can get some idea
>of the magnitude of things covered on that corporate sortout.
>Sometimes we had meetings with 15 or more attorneys and CPA types to
>go over different "problem areas". There would be some of the top
>attorneys in the world addressing such issues as the above (tax exempt
>status, gutting CSC of assets, dealing with the fact that Hubbard was
>controlling things and matters involving other potential real problems
>with the IRS and damages claimants). So much was woven into that
>"corporate sortout" that had to do with corporate, taxes, intellectual
>property rights, contracts, trusts, controls, etc.

>Basically there were real problems because Hubbard really was the one
>controlling organized scientology and there was a great deal of money
>funneled to him for his private benefit for which there was no really
>defensible legal signifance. Additionally, a large part of the
>church's "eggs" were in fact in the CSC corporate basket (flag, AOLA,
>ASHO, LA Org, San Francisco Org, USGO and really all of top
>management, including CMO). On top of all that, there was no real
>corporate integrity throughout organized scientology, the GO had
>undated resignations of all corporate officers and board members of
>all church corporations throughout the world and, frankly, most local
>staffs who were legally in such positions didn't even know it .Couple
>this with the facts that the IRS was breathing down CSC's corporate
>neck and there were many damages cases looming and you have a legal
>mess.

>I state the above to point just how real those issues were in the
>transcript Gerry just posted.

>Now, without going into details, here's the real kicker:

>The "corporate sortout" was done in late 81 through 82, with various
>other pieces following. Millions was spent to cover all legal issues
>and get it right and "defensible". The net result included the
>following:

>1) CSI comes out as the new "mother church" and all churches of
>scientology signing agreements acknowledging same. What is supposed to
>be "top management" is put in CSI. This ends up including CMO Int/WDC,
>the ED Int's Office and OSA;

>2) The orgs that were once the big revenue-producing arms of CSC
>(flag, AOLA, ASHO, LA Org and San Francisco org) become separate
>corporations. They, like other orgs, are managed by CSI;

>3) SMI exists and licenses missions and SMI is managed out of CSI;

>4) WISE exists and gets involved with "putting ethics" in various
>businesses run by scientologists and WISE is managed out of CSI;

>5) RTC is created as a "non management body" to see to the proper
>usage of all the trademarks and service marks. It hold various rights
>to the usage of the trade/service marks and, through it, all orgs
>(including CSI) are licensed to use them;

>6) CST gets created to eventually receive most of Hubbard's fortune,
>the rights to his copyrights, etc and will work on the "preservation"
>of the tech. Very important is that CST, for $100, can take all rights
>to the trademarks and service marks from RTC should they ever be at
>risk in RTC. If needed, CST could then license the churches itself or
>create and license another body like RTC;

>7) ASI (Author Services) is setup to manage Hubbard fiction works and
>otherwise his copyrighted works as a for profit corporation. It is to
>take all that out of the church corporately. It is to have nothing to
>do with the management of the church. Later, Author Services is to
>become owned by CST;

>8) The Publications organizations (Bridge in the USA and New Era in
>Denmark) then deal mostly with the manufacture and distribution of
>Hubbard's works related to dianetics and scientology. They have
>royalty contracts with Hubbard. Later, both organizations are owned by
>a non profit "trust";

>9) many trusts are established, more come later, to receive monies
>from various churches. They are set up as non profit. (For example, a
>films trust is set up to receive a portion of each church's revenues
>weekly "in exchange for" the churches being allowed to show the films
>to their staffs and public);

>10) old "problem" entities are eventually gotten rid of (RRF, OTC,
>CSC, etc.). For example, the last of the monies in OTC that did not
>end up inuring to Hubbard's benefit were transferred to a "non profit"
>trust, CSC is let to die a financial death as all its assets were
>stripped out of it;

>11) IAS gets setup to get millions directly from any scientology
>public that hope to be able to do services again in churches;

>12) additional little fancy legal steps are taken later to further
>spread out the money into various trusts and a company is setup in the
>UK that is staffed by Sea Org members to help "manage" the reserves of
>individual churches.

>Whew! lol My point is that what was once basically CSC with all the
>legal problems mentioned above is now most of those things above. What
>were both CSC's and hidden funds before are now neatly spread out
>around the world in various trusts and such. What was legally
>confusing before (the legal status and control of the publications
>orgs, non US public monies to flag, the licensing of trademarks, the
>legal "distinctions" between Hubbard's and the church's interests,
>etc.) are now more clarified and "defensible".

>So this sounds kind of neat huh? Quite

> >Anyway folks, I hope this gives more meaning to just what is behind
> >those transcripts.

> >SME

> © Gerry Armstronghttp://www.gerryarmstrong.org < <

>It was also significant in the trial in Scientology v. Armstrong in
>1984, and significant, I believe, to Judge Breckenridge who stated in
>his judgment:

>[Quote]

>The organization clearly is schizophrenic and paranoid, and this
>bizarre combination seems to be a reflection of its founder LRH. The
>evidence portrays a man who has been virtually a pathological liar
>when it comes to his history, background, and achievements. The
>writings and documents in evidence additionally reflect his egoism,
>greed, avarice, lust for power, and vindictiveness and aggressiveness
>against persons perceived by him to be disloyal or hostile.

>[End Quote]
>http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/legal/a1/breckenridge-decision....

> In December 1981, as part of the restructuring, SO staff were required
> to sign new "contracts," entitled "Declaration of Religious Commitment
> and Application for Active Participation on Church Staff." I was
> ordered to sign one for CSI, but I didn't and instead blew the cult.

> The contract contained this "condition," which was very significant to
> me and hastened my exit:

> [Quote]

> I recognize and understand that neither Ron nor Mary Sue Hubbard
> receive any compensation or remuneration from training or processing
> by the Church, that that neither Ron nor Mary Sue Hubbard are officers
> or directors of the Church and that neither of them are in any manner
> responsible for actions of the Church.

> [End Quote]

> It was also significant in the trial in Scientology v. Armstrong in
> 1984, and significant, I believe, to Judge Breckenridge who stated in
> his judgment:

> [Quote]

> The organization clearly is schizophrenic and paranoid, and this
> bizarre combination seems to be a reflection of its founder LRH. The
> evidence portrays a man who has been virtually a pathological liar
> when it comes to his history, background, and achievements. The
> writings and documents in evidence additionally reflect his egoism,
> greed, avarice, lust for power, and vindictiveness and aggressiveness
> against persons perceived by him to be disloyal or hostile.

> [End Quote]http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/legal/a1/breckenridge-decision....

> There is some discussion of the new CSI staff contract and this
> particular condition about Hubbard receiving no compensation or
> remuneration in this trial transcript:http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/legal/a1/rt-1984-05-14.html

> Were you involved in the creation of these staff contracts? And if so,
> what can you recall about the project?

> I'm assembling some material relating to the fraud of "What your fees
> buy," and this condition in the staff contracts is part of the
> picture. Clearly, Hubbard for years had taken huge sums in
> compensation or remuneration from the organization, and I believe that
> all staff or former staff who believed what he stated in "What your
> fees buy" and believed what was stated in their staff contracts have a
> real fraud claim now that the admissions of inurement in the MCCS
> meeting transcript and your knowledge of the other millions paid to
> Hubbard are becoming public.

> >The transcript gives a tiny piece of the truth. It

>> On Mar 13, 4:42 pm, Gerry Armstrong <g...@gerryarmstrong.org> wrote:

>> > In December 1981, as part of the restructuring, SO staff were required
>> > to sign new "contracts," entitled "Declaration of Religious Commitment
>> > and Application for Active Participation on Church Staff." I was
>> > ordered to sign one for CSI, but I didn't and instead blew the cult.

>> > The contract contained this "condition," which was very significant to
>> > me and hastened my exit:

>> > [Quote]

>> > I recognize and understand that neither Ron nor Mary Sue Hubbard
>> > receive any compensation or remuneration from training or processing
>> > by the Church, that that neither Ron nor Mary Sue Hubbard are officers
>> > or directors of the Church and that neither of them are in any manner
>> > responsible for actions of the Church.

>> > [End Quote]

>> > It was also significant in the trial in Scientology v. Armstrong in
>> > 1984, and significant, I believe, to Judge Breckenridge who stated in
>> > his judgment:

>> > [Quote]

>> > The organization clearly is schizophrenic and paranoid, and this
>> > bizarre combination seems to be a reflection of its founder LRH. The
>> > evidence portrays a man who has been virtually a pathological liar
>> > when it comes to his history, background, and achievements. The
>> > writings and documents in evidence additionally reflect his egoism,
>> > greed, avarice, lust for power, and vindictiveness and aggressiveness
>> > against persons perceived by him to be disloyal or hostile.

>> > [End
>> > Quote]http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/legal/a1/breckenridge-decision..
>> > ..

>> > There is some discussion of the new CSI staff contract and this
>> > particular condition about Hubbard receiving no compensation or
>> > remuneration in this trial
>> > transcript:http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/legal/a1/rt-1984-05-14.html

>> > Were you involved in the creation of these staff contracts? And if so,
>> > what can you recall about the project?

>> The new staff contracts were part of the corporate sortout that we
>> did. The dating in early Dec 81 was to coincide with the date that we
>> picked for CSI to start as the new mother church. It was a tiny piece
>> of a bigger puzzle to put in the new structure.

>> As of that date we took all who were in CSC and determined which staff
>> would go to which of the new corporations (CSI, FSO, LAO, ASHO, AOLA,
>> etc.) and who would stay in CSC.

>> You were obviously chosen to be a CSI staff member so got that CSI
>> contract.

>> All I can say about the lies about LRH not getting any such
>> compensation was that those of us who really designed the corporate
>> structure with the attorneys and accountants for DM and LRH thought
>> that was to be the case from that point on. It turned out to be far
>> from the truth. DM grilled me on points of control and LRH's ability
>> to run things in approving the corporate plans but by the end of my
>> meeting him, I really thought things would in fact change for the
>> better and corporate integrity would truly go in. Looking back on that
>> meeting now, I should have seen what was coming.

>> I, with another, had done an evaluation in Aug 81 showing how the
>> ecclesiastical and corporate structures were so unaligned and sent it
>> up through DM to Hubbard for approval. We were hoping to "educate" on
>> the need for changes with that eval.  I was then picked for corporate
>> sortout. For what it is worth, there truly was an intention on the
>> part of a number of us to get it right this time but, unfortunately DM
>> had other plans.

>> Once the structure was implemented, DM started demanding money to
>> Hubbard weekly. In courts DM later positioned himself for that time
>> period as having been in ASI representing Hubbard with no control
>> whatsoever over the church corporations such as CSI and RTC. If you
>> follow what DM said in courts you would think that the next two years
>> after the corporate sortout he was somehow "negotiating" with us in
>> CSI on matters that might have to do with funds to Hubbard or anything
>> else. Also he says that those in ASI, as they represented Hubbard,
>> were doing some "coordination" with us in CSI with regard suits that
>> might also include Hubbard.

>> Nothing could be further from the truth. As regards the suits, he and
>> Norman Starkey fully took over running the CSI area dealing with the
>> suits. This was a CSI department heading by Marty Rathbun who was then
>> "Special Unit Litigation Execution". ASI gave all the orders on how to
>> handle the suits and what CSI or any other church corporations would
>> file or otherwise do with the suits.

>> As far as the money to Hubbard goes, DM also lied in courts when he
>> said the above. The facts are throughout 82 and into 83 DM was
>> ordering us to "legally justify" money to Hubbard regularly. Instead
>> of negotiating on behalf of Hubbard from his position in ASI, DM was
>> ordering the funds be paid regularly and often. Lyman Spurlock in ASI
>> and I in CSI desperately tried weekly to come up with legal
>> significances that were justifiable to cover the monies that DM
>> ordered be sent to Hubbard. We tried to query the orders but DM
>> responded that they had to be "made legal" and that the funds were
>> going whether we made them legal or not and threatened non compliance
>> with strangulation and worse. Many details of this will be disclosed
>> shortly.

>> There were times that Lyman was over with me in the Special Unit
>> conference room totally exasperated as we laid on the floor exhausted
>> listening on the conference phone to this week's ASI demands for money
>> to Hubbard and how we had to come up with legal justifications. Lyman
>> and I both knew that DM was just killing all the legal defenses that
>> we had just spent millions working out to put in a real, defensible
>> corporate structure and to keep Hubbard and Church interests
>> separated. We tried every trick in the book to legally justify things
>> and tried to get DM to stop with the insane money demands to Hubbard
>> but he would just not listen.

>> I figured that through 1982 several million dollars for Hubbard was
>> taken by DM and perhaps there was some chance we could defend much of
>> it legally and still consider the church corporations tax exempt.
>> Imagine my shock when years later I find in 1982 alone, DM took over
>> $40 million of it. Jeeze he just took much of it and did not even TRY
>> to go through us anymore. He just took it! And he was in ASI when he
>> took it.

>> So the truth is Gerry that DM's actions as above made a total mockery
>> of that part of the staff "contract". It ended up being a fraud..

>> DM even spit on, beat and /or otherwise abused his own ASI people (see
>> Homer Shomer docs for an example) if he considered they were not
>> getting Hubbard enough money or losing money that could be Hubbard's.
>> Every time we put in a corporate structure, DM would violate it. He
>> ran a reign of terror from ASI. His alleged "non involvement" in
>> church management when he was in ASI and just "coordinating" and
>> "negotiating" with the church included such things as ordering who
>> would run RTC, who would run the key parts of CSI (WDC/CMO Int for
>> example) and then running those people himself and deciding who of
>> them got busted. This included things like him going to Int and
>> spitting on top church WDC/CMO Int executives, punching in the mouth
>> hard, slapping across the face hard and choking hard.  And, again,
>> this was in the time period he says in court he was in ASI and not
>> involved in running the church.

>> And all this information is just the very tip of the iceberg.

>> All our corporate work went for naught and the man that destroyed it
>> all, DM, was the one to testify later about how separate the
>> corporations were and how he did not in fact run corporations other
>> than the one he was in.

>> Most people would be shocked to find out how much they have gotten
>> away with in theirs lies in many forums outside of the courts. I have
>> been being interviewed by a number of people recently and another is
>> flying in to spend two days with me shortly just to understand some
>> things that happened. None of them have any real grasp of what
>> happened in 81/82 nor about the corporate scene there, even though
>> some have written about them and are doing articles, shows or books
>> now. One told me that he/she was told by a very top person in OSA (who
>> I am not naming now) that the following "proved" scientology was
>> "religious":

>> 1) "scientology" is incorporated as a "religious corporation"; and
>> 2)  the Mormon church is incorporated as a "religious corporation";
>> and
>> 3)  both "scientology" and the Mormons have been persecuted; and
>> 4) the Mormons are religious; and  therefore
>> 5) "scientology" is religious.

>> Aside from the fact that "scientology" is not incorporated, nor is
>> there a category for "religious corporations", OMG where does one even
>> start with that one!? lol  I had a ball debunking that with him/her.
>> So when even something as ridiculously simple as this is confusing to
>> some writers, just imagine what confusions their big, complex
>> corporate structure is doing to back off other writers from looking at
>> it. Even many people with a more than average legal background often
>> buy into their lies as they just cannot understand it.

>> > I'm assembling some material relating to the fraud of "What your fees
>> > buy," and this condition in the staff contracts is part of the
>> > picture. Clearly, Hubbard for years had taken huge sums in

> Excellent summary! Now can you clue me on what happened to matters
> that no one got prosecuted and what significance and time line of
> Meade Emory getting posted to CST has to all this.  And how did DM get
> so much control when LRH seemed to be running everything throuh his
> laweyers and accountants as I was always under the impression was the
> case?  Others seem to disagree  in the past with this picture of
> Emory?  Do you think DM had enough or equal dirt on the IRS by the
> time the IRS had this dirt on Hubbard and CSC, that with Hubbard dead,
> some deals could be made financially and contractually to keep the
> church from meing fined and taxed into non existence?

> I was glad to see Marty's name pop up it the transcripts because  I'd
> never seen that before but know he was involved. I know Larry Heller
> did work for LRH & CSC in the 70's and he and Marty were friends, too.
> I used to work for Marty back before he retired to help LRH & corp
> sortout full time.

> I see you are from NH, Marty's stomping grounds. Any idea how he is
> doing? Is he still alive?

> Thanks so much for the summary.

> Mary  Out_Of_The Dark

> a

> > In article <alexrsingh-D77EBB.15442014032007
> > @news.west.earthlink.net>, alexrsi...@notmail.comdamnspam
> > says...

> > <snip>

> > > So, millions to hubbard, he's dead. Did that money come back in, in the
> > > trusts?

> > > a

> > You mean *visibly*?

> > Doubtful.

> > That'd be like washing clean socks :)

> > Zinj

> Well kinda my point. Follow the money. Pull the string. Dont be stuck in
> 1982.

> Hubbards dead.

> Just what is the larger picture here?

> We know the cia didnt take over the church......

> Fresh clean money.....???

> a

> Here's a funny....

> http://home.scientology.org/cntinent/Namerica/USA/newHampshire/index.htm

> 2nd name down, links dead though....

> a- Hide quoted text -

> - Show quoted text -

> > In article <alexrsingh-C386B6.06473215032007
> > @news.west.earthlink.net>, alexrsi...@notmail.comdamnspam
> > says...
> > > In article <MPG.2063236e8fdb77b0989...@news2.lightlink.com>,
> > >  Zinj <zinji...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > > > In article <alexrsingh-D77EBB.15442014032007
> > > > @news.west.earthlink.net>, alexrsi...@notmail.comdamnspam
> > > > says...

> > > > <snip>

> > > > > So, millions to hubbard, he's dead. Did that money come back in, in the
> > > > > trusts?

> > > > > a

> > > > You mean *visibly*?

> > > > Doubtful.

> > > > That'd be like washing clean socks :)

> > > > Zinj

> > > Well kinda my point. Follow the money. Pull the string. Dont be stuck in
> > > 1982.

> > > Hubbards dead.

> > > Just what is the larger picture here?

> > > We know the cia didnt take over the church......

> > > Fresh clean money.....???

> > > a

> > Well, 'follow the money', while a laudable aim is somewhat akin
> > to 'just jump in the black hole; it's that simple!' for Joe
> > Private Citizen.

> > The public at large does not have subpoena, arrest or
> > prosecutorial powers such as 'search warrants'; nor the ability
> > to order wire-taps, raids or cut deals with 'informers' except
> > through their lawful representatives in police and other
> > investigatorial agencies.

> > Unfortunately, those agencies have tended to be lax in the
> > enforcement of already existing legal machinery with regards to
> > the 'Church' of Scientology, whether out of actual corruption
> > (through the 'Church') or merely fear of extortion (kind of
> > 'meta-extortion' :) or fear of budget-busting-can-of-wormism.

> > Still; with enough public awareness and pressure they may begin
> > to do their jobs, and, that's the point.

> > Nothing says 'RICO' like Scientology.

> > Zinj

> Here's a funny....

> http://home.scientology.org/cntinent/Namerica/USA/newHampshire/index.htm

> 2nd name down, links dead though....

> a

> If your point in that posting was humor, well fair enough, I suspose
> it is funny that I am listed on that site as a scientologist from NH
> who had one of those boilerplate scientologist's sites. I sure did.

> I wonder how many others are listed on there whose links also haven't
> worked for years and who are no longer scientologists.

> In this same line of humor, want to see something else funny? Look in
> the current version of IMPACT (#115). I am listed there as a patron. I
> wonder how many others that are no longer involved with scientology
> practices are also listed as IAS members?

> Makes one think the numbers are somewhat inflated huh?

> It's  kind of cool being able to operate freely and openly on here and
> elsewhere and just be honest about who you are. That's why I use my
> email of larrybren12...@aol.com on here.

> Are you listed in any such publications? Care to share who you are as
> well?

> It's really quite liberating to be out in the open Alex. You should
> try it:)

> Take care,
> SME

> > On Mar 11, 9:13 pm, Gerry Armstrong <g...@gerryarmstrong.org> wrote:

> > > I have received an MCCS meeting tape transcript recently and a query
> > > as to whether it is the partial tape transcript referred to in the
> > > reported U.S. Supreme Court case U.S. v. Zolin, 491 U.S. 554 (1989).http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/legal/us-v-zolin-us-sup-1989-06...
> > > © Gerry Armstronghttp://www.gerryarmstrong.org<

> > I am reading this  thinking........"I cannot believe they actually
> > tape recorded that meeting. "
> > I am still reading it.
> > I hope someone answers your question.

> Now you know why we did not record meetings when doing the corporate
> sortout after MCCS! lol

> Gerry's post here is a very important one.

> Here we have various church staff from the Church of Scientology of
> California on that MCCS mission (run by DM), the DG Legal WW and
> various attorneys trying to work out some legal signifance for $2.1
> million that was funneled to Hubbard from a paper corporation (RRF) so
> as to protect Hubbard legally and try not to show that revenues from
> the church were in fact inureing to Hubbard's benefit and thus risk
> tax exempt status for the church.

> As you can see just from this transcript: 1) the money was already
> given to Hubbard; 2) it was given by a phony corporation (RRF) that
> was banking all the monies paid by public from outside of the USA for
> flag services; 3) they now needed to legally justify the money already
> sent to Hubbard; 4) they were worried that this might show Hubbard was
> controlling the church (which he was); 5) they were also worried about
> the IRS auditing the church and were trying to back track and say flag
> would be part of CSC (Church of Scientology of California); and 6)
> they were worried of losing a chance at tax exempt status if they
> could not come up with the signifance to legally justify the amount of
> money to Hubbard as reasonable.

> This transcript very accurately shows the kind of discussions that
> went on all the time as part of the corporate sortout after MCCS as
> well. If you can imagine this and maybe 50 or more other
> considerations as big or even bigger than this, you can get some idea
> of the magnitude of things covered on that corporate sortout.
> Sometimes we had meetings with 15 or more attorneys and CPA types to
> go over different "problem areas". There would be some of the top
> attorneys in the world addressing such issues as the above (tax exempt
> status, gutting CSC of assets, dealing with the fact that Hubbard was
> controlling things and matters involving other potential real problems
> with the IRS and damages claimants). So much was woven into that
> "corporate sortout" that had to do with corporate, taxes, intellectual
> property rights, contracts, trusts, controls, etc.

> Basically there were real problems because Hubbard really was the one
> controlling organized scientology and there was a great deal of money
> funneled to him for his private benefit for which there was no really
> defensible legal signifance. Additionally, a large part of the
> church's "eggs" were in fact in the CSC corporate basket (flag, AOLA,
> ASHO, LA Org, San Francisco Org, USGO and really all of top
> management, including CMO). On top of all that, there was no real
> corporate integrity throughout organized scientology, the GO had
> undated resignations of all corporate officers and board members of
> all church corporations throughout the world and, frankly, most local
> staffs who were legally in such positions didn't even know it .Couple
> this with the facts that the IRS was breathing down CSC's corporate
> neck and there were many damages cases looming and you have a legal
> mess.

> I state the above to point just how real those issues were in the
> transcript Gerry just posted.

> Now, without going into details, here's the real kicker:

> The "corporate sortout" was done in late 81 through 82, with various
> other pieces following. Millions was spent to cover all legal issues
> and get it right and "defensible". The net result included the
> following:

> 1) CSI comes out as the new "mother church" and all churches of
> scientology signing agreements acknowledging same. What is supposed to
> be "top management" is put in CSI. This ends up including CMO Int/WDC,
> the ED Int's Office and OSA;

> 2) The orgs that were once the big revenue-producing arms of CSC
> (flag, AOLA, ASHO, LA Org and San Francisco org) become separate
> corporations. They, like other orgs, are managed by CSI;

> 3) SMI exists and licenses missions and SMI is managed out of CSI;

> 4) WISE exists and gets involved with "putting ethics" in various
> businesses run by scientologists and WISE is managed out of CSI;

> 5) RTC is created as a "non management body" to see to the proper
> usage of all the trademarks and service marks. It hold various rights
> to the usage of the trade/service marks and, through it, all orgs
> (including CSI) are licensed to use them;

> 6) CST gets created to eventually receive most of Hubbard's fortune,
> the rights to his copyrights, etc and will work on the "preservation"
> of the tech. Very important is that CST, for $100, can take all rights
> to the trademarks and service marks from RTC should they ever be at
> risk in RTC. If needed, CST could then license the churches itself or
> create and license another body like RTC;

> 7) ASI (Author Services) is setup to manage Hubbard fiction works and
> otherwise his copyrighted works as a for profit corporation. It is to
> take all that out of the church corporately. It is to have nothing to
> do with the management of the church. Later, Author Services is to
> become owned by CST;

> 8) The Publications organizations (Bridge in the USA and New Era in
> Denmark) then deal mostly with the manufacture and distribution of
> Hubbard's works related to dianetics and scientology. They have
> royalty contracts with Hubbard. Later, both organizations are owned by
> a non profit "trust";

> 9) many trusts are established, more come later, to receive monies
> from various churches. They are set up as non profit. (For example, a
> films trust is set up to receive a portion of each church's revenues
> weekly "in exchange for" the churches being allowed to show the films
> to their staffs and public);

> 10) old "problem" entities are eventually gotten rid of (RRF, OTC,
> CSC, etc.). For example, the last of the monies in OTC that did not
> end up inuring to Hubbard's benefit were transferred to a "non profit"
> trust, CSC is let to die a financial death as all its assets were
> stripped out of it;

> 11) IAS gets setup to get millions directly from any scientology
> public that hope to be able to do services again in churches;

> 12) additional little fancy legal steps are taken later to further
> spread out the money into various trusts and a company is setup in the
> UK that is staffed by Sea Org members to help "manage" the reserves of
> individual churches.

> Whew! lol My point is that what was once basically CSC with all the
> legal problems mentioned above is now most of those things above. What
> were both CSC's and hidden funds before are now neatly spread out
> around the world in various trusts and such. What was legally
> confusing before (the legal status and control of the publications
> orgs, non US public monies to flag, the licensing of trademarks, the
> legal "distinctions" between Hubbard's and the church's interests,
> etc.) are now more clarified and "defensible".

> So this sounds kind of neat huh? Quite a sophisticated legal setup
> compared to the old CSC days!!

> For some people, this evolution was supposed to be a new legal
> beginning where things could be legally clear, Hubbard's and the
> church's interests separated and legally defensible and the church
> itself having a legal structure that no one could topple. And it would
> be a "new era" in that management would go in to actually mirror the
> corporate structure. By that I mean, things like the following would
> really happen:

> 1) CSI, through the likes of CMO Int and the ED Int's office would
> manage scientology orgs, missions and the like;

> 2) a body would exist that is truly not management called "RTC" and it
> would simply focus on the "pureness" of the technology covered by the
> trademarks;

> 3) money could go to Hubbard, not by cover up and lies, but actually
> via legally defensible channels, such as market-based royalties, that
> could be shown to the likes of the IRS;

> 4) ASI would truly be an organization that does what it says it does,
> which is make money on his fiction works, etc. It would be separate
> from the church and not in any way be involved in the management of
> the church.

> So, did this happen? Were lessons like those covered in the transcript
> finally learned and would this now be a corporate structure that
> reflects the actual operating reality of the church? Could the church
> now legally take responsibility for its past tax and other financial
> frauds, pay what it must to the IRS, etc. and start a new, honest
> life? Now that the GO is disbanded, is it truly a new era without
> dirty tricks, illegal actions and the like? Was this the beginning of
> real and honest "church" expansion, in effect a new era for growth?

> Not even close!

> 1.Remember the $2.1 million sent to Hubbard they were trying to deal
> with as covered in that transcript? Quite a huge problem right? Guess
> what? In 1982 alone, with the GO now out of the way, DM sees that over
> $40 million is funneled to Hubbard from his position in ASI. Not $2,1
> million, $40+++ million! There is no longer any kind of "check and
> balance" to any degree within organized scientology. The GO is gone
> and DM can do

> > On Mar 15, 2:53 pm, alex <alexrsi...@notmail.comdamnspam> wrote:

> > Take care,
> > SME

> Yes, I did find it a bit ironic that you are plotting the downfall of
> the pope of scientology, while the entrenched bureaucracy under him
> still uses what they have left of you for their own aims.

> So.....did the $40 milliion come back via the trusts.....

> :)

> a

>> On Mar 15, 2:53 pm, alex <alexrsi...@notmail.comdamnspam> wrote:

>> > Here's a funny....

>> > http://home.scientology.org/cntinent/Namerica/USA/newHampshire/index.htm

>> > 2nd name down, links dead though....

>> > a- Hide quoted text -

>> > - Show quoted text -

>> Hey Alex

>> If your point in that posting was humor, well fair enough, I suspose
>> it is funny that I am listed on that site as a scientologist from NH
>> who had one of those boilerplate scientologist's sites. I sure did.

>> I wonder how many others are listed on there whose links also haven't
>> worked for years and who are no longer scientologists.

>> In this same line of humor, want to see something else funny? Look in
>> the current version of IMPACT (#115). I am listed there as a patron. I
>> wonder how many others that are no longer involved with scientology
>> practices are also listed as IAS members?

>> Makes one think the numbers are somewhat inflated huh?

>> It's  kind of cool being able to operate freely and openly on here and
>> elsewhere and just be honest about who you are. That's why I use my
>> email of larrybren12...@aol.com on here.

>> Are you listed in any such publications? Care to share who you are as
>> well?

>> It's really quite liberating to be out in the open Alex. You should
>> try it:)

>> Take care,
>> SME

>Yes, I did find it a bit ironic that you are plotting the downfall of
>the pope of scientology, while the entrenched bureaucracy under him
>still uses what they have left of you for their own aims.

>So.....did the $40 milliion come back via the trusts.....

>:)

>a