DM - Being Basted for the Spit
Anonymous
OPINIONS:
1. David Miscavige is, and has always been, the pre-ordained fall-guy.
2. He has been groomed and established for the role.
3. He has no idea. He is far out of his league. He was given the limelight and
grabbed it greedily. He was given cardboard cut-out roles of seeming
authority.
DOCUMENTED FACTS:
A. The entirety of David Miscavige's authority is at the
sole discretion of CST, and can be gone in a twinkle.
(Delightfully proven by our vivacious and bright ARSCC
Librarian - who does not exist.)
B. His role as head of CTCC has no authority but the
secret IRS agreement itself, and is similarly tenuous.
But that role is also one where culpability can be placed.
B. See article: "The Wit and Wisdom of David Miscavige."
OPINIONS:
1. There are two intelligence professionals who post to this newsgroup. They
keep insisting that DM is in charge, despite copious documentation to the
contrary. Theirs is a cant that yields to no reason, to no amount of evidence.
It is stated in many ways. If pressed by address to the facts stated above,
they ignore, and try to turn the attention on whoever is challenging their
relentless propaganda. But still it flows on, unabated - the insistence that
DM is the one to focus on.
2. These two intelligence professionals pose as dear friends to a.r.s. They
also posed as dear friends to L. Ron Hubbard, when that suited their agenda,
and both worked their way into highly sensitive positions within the church.
3. These two intelligence professionals, having worked relentlessly to
completely discredit Hubbard, now have the job of putting, and keeping, all
eyes on DM. Their efforts are directed toward that, and against anyone who
challenges it.
4. They work for the same people who now control the technology that L. Ron
Hubbard developed, and they helped those people gain control over that
technology. These are the same people who put DM "in power," and upon whom
Miscavige is entirely dependent for what power he has, and whom he trusts
implicitly. But Miscavige is there to take the fall.
5. One of these intelligence professionals, after doing his job in his
sensitive position inside the church, then went outside, and took sensitive
positions next to attorneys who were waging successful suits against the
church, so that those who are actually in control could play both sides of the game.
DOCUMENTED FACTS:
A. On or about the 29th of November 1997, a research
foundation issued a press release disclosing a formerly
unknown connection between the Church and the IRS. That
connection was Meade Emory.
B. In subsequent weeks, the facts of that press release
were fully verified here on this newsgroup.
OPINION:
1. On or around December 19th, one of these intelligence professionals
traveled to the state where that research foundation was located and attempted
to get in touch with someone at the foundation. Purpose: "volunteer" in order
to infiltrate.
DOCUMENTED FACTS:
A. On or about the 24th of December 1997, that same
research foundation issued a second press release,
documenting the existence of a "Tax Compliance Officer"
in the church, and documenting the fact that Lyman
Spurlock, co-founder of CST with Meade Emory, was
using IRS regulations against parishioners.
B. A little more than one week later, the secret closing
agreement was "leaked" to the press.
OPINION:
1. The people in charge of the technology and playing both sides of the game
then sent a flood of posts to this newsgroup pointing fingers EVERYWHERE but
at themselves in order to disperse attention and smear with a broad brush.
2. The game had been blown unexpectedly, and leaking the agreement was damage
control; it showed DM in the role of "Chairman" of the CTCC, and gave them a
way to rapidly get him set back up as the fall guy.
3. Within about another week, after the first rush of posts regarding the
agreement, the other intelligence professional sidled back in on cue to start
the spin: See? DM really is in charge. See? DM has a big target painted on
him. See? See?
4. It should have all gone smoothly, but suddenly this intelligence
professional found himself confronted by an unexpected anonymous challenger.
5. The "official" church posters, (a-la wgert), were in a pickle: they
couldn't seem to be taking the side of the intelligence professional (their
own double agent - an acclaimed "critic" of their church), but they had to
help him stop this attack. So they had to attack the anonymous attacker.
6. Still trying to handle this challenger, the intelligence professional is
having trouble. So the other intelligence professional has now started chiming
in again (being back from his trip) to sweetly explain how DM really is in
charge and always has been.
7. This will continue until DM takes the fall.
Gregg Hagglund
In article <57b1ef0d16a413a2...@anonymous.poster>, Anonymous
<Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
>OPINIONS:
Hey Ace, are you this way naturally or did you work at it?
Like we would believe RVY is a double Agent based on your
little hints and stabs? ROTFL!
Are you one of Ingrams crowd?
I mean it would be the next logical step by the Co$, hiring
out posting to ARS given the attrition rate of the the Sceintologist
who Shill here.
So I take it your function is to rag on RVY 'effectively neutralizing him'.
<Flunk!>
HATD
<<<oo{ At Constant Cause Over the toronto org.}oo>>>
oo>>>{ And sentenced to Death for this SP Act. }<<<oo
["You know, people die if they criticize scientology -
I should take care if I were you."
-Marcus Nyman, OSA (former GO), $cio-org, Stockholm, Sweden.]
Gregg Hagglund SP4
http://www.cgocable.net/~elrond
--
" I'm sure it's obvious to all who read my stuff, that I have
serious problems when it comes to being able to communicate."
- -RonsAmigo, Official OSA Shill on ARS
Download the latest Xemu Flyer:
http://www.cgocable.net/~elrond/2-1ZipArch.html
Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine
In article <57b1ef0d16a413a2...@anonymous.poster>,
>OPINIONS:
>1. David Miscavige is, and has always been, the pre-ordained fall-guy.
>2. He has been groomed and established for the role.
>3. He has no idea. He is far out of his league. He was given the limelight and
>grabbed it greedily. He was given cardboard cut-out roles of seeming
>authority.
ARS is a pretty paranoid place, so you have to be pretty far out to give
the appearance of being a complte paranoid nut; but you have succeeded.
Certainly the public appearance is that Poodleboy is in charge, although
he *could* theoretically be a frontman for eomw hidden conspiracy (Koos
thinks something like this -- he thinks he removed Poodleboy for raiding
Koos's fridge eighty million years ago too). But somehow I doubt it.
Who are these mysterious "two intelligence officiers" you keep on about?
Just spit out the fucking names and be done with it.
|~/ |~/
~~|;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;||';-._.-;'^';||_.-;'^'0-|~~
P | Woof Woof, Glug Glug ||____________|| 0 | P
O | Who Drowned the Judge's Dog? | . . . . . . . '----. 0 | O
O | answers on *---|_______________ @__o0 | O
L |{a href="news:alt.religion.scientology"}{/a}_____________|/_______| L
and{a href="http://www.xemu.demon.co.uk/clam/lynx/q0.html"}{/a}XemuSP4(:)
Chris Owen
On Sat, 17 Jan 1998 16:00:35 -0500, Anonymous
<Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
[snip]
> DOCUMENTED FACTS:
>
> A. On or about the 29th of November 1997, a research
> foundation issued a press release disclosing a formerly
> unknown connection between the Church and the IRS. That
> connection was Meade Emory.
>
> B. In subsequent weeks, the facts of that press release
> were fully verified here on this newsgroup.
[snip]
> DOCUMENTED FACTS:
>
> A. On or about the 24th of December 1997, that same
> research foundation issued a second press release,
> documenting the existence of a "Tax Compliance Officer"
> in the church, and documenting the fact that Lyman
> Spurlock, co-founder of CST with Meade Emory, was
> using IRS regulations against parishioners.
>
> B. A little more than one week later, the secret closing
> agreement was "leaked" to the press.
Interesting analysis. But which research foundation was this, and
where can I get these press releases?
- Chris
Inducto
> A. The entirety of David Miscavige's authority is at the
> sole discretion of CST, and can be gone in a twinkle.
> (Delightfully proven by our vivacious and bright ARSCC
> Librarian - who does not exist.)
That all depends on whether or not he made sure that CST was set up the way LRH
always had boards set up, with undated resignations and preferably also good
blackmail material on all the directors. Outside lawyers might also be
genuinely guided by a sense of fiduciary duty not to meddle in the CoS, or at
least intimidated by the prospect of CoS harassment if they did and well enough
paid to be kept satisfied. I also believe it's possible that DM is being set
up, but there's simply no evidence to show for sure whether CST has real power
or is a sham -- and so far they don't seem to have exercised any real power.
The claims about unnamed people being intelligence agents would require some
backup to be even vaguely credible.
I.
SIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIG
Induct YourSELF into new realities
Avoid highwaymen on the road to personal and spiritual betterment -- beware
dead ends and unlit paths
ExScio
Whoa dude!! Better up your Prozac dosage, I think the
Xenu stuff has fried your mind. You're starting to sound
like L. Ron Hubbard.
My opinion - DM is just a greedy power grabbing weasel
who took advantage of LRH being incapacitated and on the
run and MSH being discredited and going to jail.
I haven't seen anything to convince that Mead Emory is
anything other than a paid Tax Consultant brought in to
help set up the secret Scientology-IRS deal.
Next thing you're going to be telling us is that there is a
group of 12 lawyers who run the world and staged a
takeover of the IRS by Scientology which it had already
infiltrated as part of a SMERSH operation!
One thing we can agree on. When the toilet flushes it
will be DM swirling around the bowl.
<<<<< ExScio (with the emphasis on EX) - St. Louis area SP >>>>>
geo...@exit109.com
There's been quite a lot of this "DM is cardboard" stuff lately.
Anonymous <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
>....
>OPINIONS:
>
>1. There are two intelligence professionals who post to this newsgroup. They
>keep insisting that DM is in charge, ...
>4. They work for the same people who now control the technology that L. Ron
>Hubbard developed, and they helped those people gain control over that
>technology. These are the same people who put DM "in power," and upon whom
>Miscavige is entirely dependent for what power he has, and whom he trusts
>implicitly. ...
Is it just me, or was that totally inane ? DM is totally dependent on them
[the secret cabal] and he trusts them implicitly !?
>... OPINION:
>
>1. On or around December 19th, one of these intelligence professionals
>traveled to the state where that research foundation was located and attempted
>to get in touch with someone at the foundation. Purpose: "volunteer" in order
>to infiltrate.
"OPINION" ??!! At least the COS lawyers have the grace to blush and
say "to our knowledge and belief" when they're lying to the judge.
>... OPINION:
>
>1. The people in charge of the technology and playing both sides of the game
>then sent a flood of posts to this newsgroup pointing fingers EVERYWHERE but
>at themselves in order to disperse attention and smear with a broad brush.
Now that's an opinion I can agree with - it certainly is exactly what
you're doing with this post. Like Ace's posts. So then, tell us, who
are these 'people in charge' you two are working for? (Sorry if you
take offense at the question, but I'm trying to facilitate communication
by matching your paranoid tone level.)
>... 7. This will continue until DM takes the fall.
S'ok, I can live with that. Thanks for the sentiment.
ARS Readers Quiz - What was the purpose of Anonymous' post?
(pick one from menu A and two from menu B)
Menu A
........
1. Get MoFo/Keith/Grady et al to attempt to depose
DM again, on the subject of the secret rulers of COS.
2. Send Graham Berry off on a wild goose chase.
9. Other?
Menu B
........
1. DA RVY.
2. DA the Librarian.
3. DA Graham Berry.
4. DA Garry Scarff (joke).
9. Other?
Sauces (Optional)
.................
1. Sucking up to DM by taking some heat off him.
2. Giving Ace of Clubs a character reference, so
Ace can get a job as a professional witness.
3. For the sheer joy of exercising his skills at
repeating paranoid rants until they sound true.
4. It's a coded message from Diane Richardson to
Garry Scarff, telling him that it's time for
him to go to LA and give DM this year's
'marching orders'. (also joke)
9. Other?
Tom Klemesrud
Anonymous wrote:
> 7. This will continue until DM takes the fall.
I can say that in looking at Meade Emory, he is a highly
respected member of the U.S. power elite; is a repected
and sought-after visiting professor. He held a high
position in the Ford Administration's IRS.
The Ford Administration has done a lot to put Scientology
in its proper perspective--especially as it relates to
non-productive SRI research that certain Scientologists
were involved in.
It is quite possible that DM and his associates are way
over their heads in a game they thought they were the
masters off.
Tom Klemesrud SP6
KoX
(In memory of Pat Price.)
Zed
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Anonymous <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
>OPINIONS:
>1. David Miscavige is, and has always been, the pre-ordained fall-guy.
>2. He has been groomed and established for the role.
>3. He has no idea. He is far out of his league. He was given the limelight and
>grabbed it greedily. He was given cardboard cut-out roles of seeming
>authority.
This grows tiresome. But I guess I'll try and address the issues.
> DOCUMENTED FACTS:
> A. The entirety of David Miscavige's authority is at the
> sole discretion of CST, and can be gone in a twinkle.
> (Delightfully proven by our vivacious and bright ARSCC
> Librarian - who does not exist.)
The entirety of _RTC's_ authority is at the sole discretion of CST.
David Miscavige has more titles than "Chairman of the Board of RTC",
though. I'm not convinced that ultimate authority resides in CST. I
would _really_ like to know two things:
1) What does a trustee of CST do?
and
2) Who are the current trustees of CST?
According to Zegel tape #3, David Miscavige was a trustee of CST, RTC
and ASI in 1982. Is he still a trustee of CST?
> B. His role as head of CTCC has no authority but the
> secret IRS agreement itself, and is similarly tenuous.
> But that role is also one where culpability can be placed.
Er...culpability for what, exactly?
> B. See article: "The Wit and Wisdom of David Miscavige."
I read it. Miscavige is either very clever or a complete moron.
>OPINIONS:
>1. There are two intelligence professionals who post to this newsgroup. They
>keep insisting that DM is in charge, despite copious documentation to the
>contrary. Theirs is a cant that yields to no reason, to no amount of evidence.
>It is stated in many ways. If pressed by address to the facts stated above,
>they ignore, and try to turn the attention on whoever is challenging their
>relentless propaganda. But still it flows on, unabated - the insistence that
>DM is the one to focus on.
In case anyone's wondering, the two "intelligence professionals" are
most likely Robert Vaughn Young and Gerry Armstrong.
As others have stated, there is the possibility that Miscavige can
exercise control of CST in overt and covert ways. Have you considered
the possibility that RVY and Gerry Armstrong claim that Miscavige is
in charge because that's what they honestly believe?
>2. These two intelligence professionals pose as dear friends to a.r.s. They
>also posed as dear friends to L. Ron Hubbard, when that suited their agenda,
>and both worked their way into highly sensitive positions within the church.
What evidence do you have to support this opinion?
>[snipped further statements of opinion in the same vein]
> DOCUMENTED FACTS:
> A. On or about the 29th of November 1997, a research
> foundation issued a press release disclosing a formerly
> unknown connection between the Church and the IRS. That
> connection was Meade Emory.
> B. In subsequent weeks, the facts of that press release
> were fully verified here on this newsgroup.
>OPINION:
>1. On or around December 19th, one of these intelligence professionals
>traveled to the state where that research foundation was located and attempted
>to get in touch with someone at the foundation. Purpose: "volunteer" in order
>to infiltrate.
I have to ask: why do you distrust Gerry Armstrong so much that you
believe the only reason he would contact the Public Research
Foundation would be to try and infiltrate it?
I've read enough. Come back when you have more than paranoia to back
up your opinions.
Zed
Xenu Remailer: http://www.magna.com.au/~zed/remailer.html
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3ia
Charset: cp850
iQEVAwUBNMK4DSsxIzhyTOOxAQEG7Af/Z6yUFMOOf/hsHbUE+DL8LbQy8v8mKL0J
zMWQNPfQdio9sP5nHIEmhHQ9Uw59WIo1QwDZj+rPvRpVGdLFypn82KeEICkuWA8C
Tfzem7BraExeD1ADRkuhJpDeVvpKUi0pGsfTIVsTNK31vBzE6pqutdCd5NbgTADk
UnG4DhCBf9v2uxO8vBdooY7uLdCtH7Zsf7e2EvCVkmaIXpuyUBPWYDE2dV0M4d1K
auYe9AwMrzip05IfinYk2xHZfHgogJH87qWngGeoEwnUIb4cv0FES3E3LAuinUiV
JrALIdL65S2FX4LfjrK6Q4UCifm3pV/pMwVyLEr7FzOHBIzHwVaPzw==
=lYLc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
sca...@iag.net
In article <69sf6t$9...@hiway1.exit109.com>,
geo...@exit109.com wrote:
> Sauces (Optional)
<snip>
> 4. It's a coded message from Diane Richardson to
> Garry Scarff, telling him that it's time for
> him to go to LA and give DM this year's
> 'marching orders'. (also joke)
No thanks. I already received my marching orders to go to LA, kidnap
Mike Rinder, fly to Las Vegas, marry him and have one night of wild,
uninhibited sex!
Garry
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Anonymous
In article <elrond-ya02408000...@news.cgocable.net>,
elr...@cgo.wave.ca (Gregg Hagglund) wrote:
> Hey Ace, are you this way naturally or did you work at it?
1. I originated the post you are responding to. If by "Ace" you are intimating
that I am "ace of clubs," I'm not sure whether to take that as an insult or a
compliment <g>. He is quite abrasive, to be sure. He is also, apparently,
well-educated, and, apparently, knows something about the person who is the
object of his greatest fervor, which we have yet to have revealed. I find this
quite intriguing. This is the first exchange I have observed on htis newsgroup
that has prompted me to post, although I hve studied it for several years.
2. I work at it. Or worked at it. I am retired now, and partially disabled. My
hobby is newsgroups, and a.r.s. has become one of hte most interesting. My
background is what led to the opinions I posted. It is a rather informed
background. It is not something that most people can or ever will come by naturally.
> Like we would believe RVY is a double Agent based on your
>little hints and stabs? ROTFL!
1. I didn not invite anyone to believe anything. I posted my opinions, along
with some rather unchallegeable factual information. You are free to draw your
own conclusions and post them, as I am free to draw and post mine.
2. I'm very happy to hve entertained you. I love laughter.
> Are you one of Ingrams crowd?
RIMC (in my chair - can;t roll on floor) LMAO! Thanks. You entertained me in return.
> I mean it would be the next logical step by the Co$, hiring
>out posting to ARS given the attrition rate of the the
>Sceintologist
>who Shill here.
1. If they decide to take that step, I assure you that hte last person in the
world they would want is me.
2. Another informed opinion (which you can, and, I'm sure, will, also scoff
at): i hve never seen, anywhere in my life, such rank stupidity as is
manifested by the so-called "shills" for Scientology in this newsgroup. I am
left only to conclude that it is a planned and executed campaign. As Sherlock
Holmes said, "Once you hve eliminated the impossible, what remains, however
implausible, is the answer " (liberably paraphrased - <g>)
> So I take it your function is to rag on RVY 'effectively
>neutralizing him'.
1. I think, personally, that RVY is doing an excellent job by himself. He is
very good at what he does, but unfortunately, sadly, left himself wide open,
and it looks to me that he now has an uncloseable wound. But that is my
opinion only. Maybe he can recover. He ingratiated himself so smoothly into
this newsgoup with "requests for infomration," right by the book, and was
doing very well. But the bane of any spook is an old, unhandled enemy who knew
his work. Maybe aoc is just a hot-headed boy who is a blow-hard, and doesn't
really have any inside informaton. But this is still a very intriguing
exchange that I watch with great interest, particularly seeing that RVY has
tried unsuccessfully to deflect off of the issue. He is in a very bad position
at the moment, IMHO.
2. My function? To keep myself occupied and entertained in a lonely existence.
Do you object to me posting my opionion here? I had believed that this was the
purpose of such a newsgroup.
><Flunk!>
1. Bless you!
>HATD
2. Bless you, again! Better get that checked.
Anonymous
In article <oHcePDAW...@xemu.demon.co.uk>, Dave Bird---St Hippo of
Augustine <ne...@xemu.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>ARS is a pretty paranoid place, so you have to be pretty far out
>to give the appearance of being a complte paranoid nut; but you
>have succeeded.
1. Thank you for your diagnosis. Practicing psychiatry without a license, I
see. You know, based on my rather extensive before-retirement background, I
can tell you that "paranoid" is the official label to be used constantly,
repeatdely, relentlessly, against any person or group that approaches truth on
any confidential agency operation or campaign. It has been in use for decades,
and is the single most successful campaign of discrediting people that has
ever been devised, because it is indefensible. The more one tries to defend
himself against it, the more it can be made to stick. What is largely ignored
by the populace, who innocently pick up the cant and carry it forward even
against their friends, is that paranoia, to have any validity at all as a
diagnosis, would require that the person being so lableled believes that
non-existent threats TO THE PERSON SO LABELED exist. You have obviously
overlooked that, too, and so resort to this rather disgraceful and
insubstantial charge, which is so easy to hurl at anyone with whom you
disagree. I really don't mind, though - I have been forced to use it against
others, and will no doubt pay for it. It's just that, given my current
condition in life, I really don't care and don't have a lot to lose. you're
welcome to hurl your epithets at me if it makes you feel safer in the face of
new ideas and opinions.
>Certainly the public appearance is that Poodleboy is in charge,
>although he *could* theoretically be a frontman for eomw hidden
>conspiracy (Koos thinks something like this -- he thinks he
>removed Poodleboy for raiding Koos's fridge eighty million years
>ago too). But somehow I doubt it.
1. I suppose your comparison to Koos is another effort to discredit by association.
2. I notice also the "conspiracy" word in your sentence. This is the second
most successful discrediting campaign. AS soon as any individual or group can
be labelled as "conspiracy nuts," they are then dismissed. You may or may not
note that I said nothing about a conspiracy. SDo you call anything that
requires more than one person to be involved a "conspiracy?" Are you just a
conspiracy nut? Are you just paranoid, like Koos might be, and see a
conspiracy everywhere? (<g> See how easily this can be used?)
3. If the only response from you, to my opinions, will be the likes of hte
above, we don't really have anything to talk about. But I wish you well.
>Who are these mysterious "two intelligence officiers" you keep
>on about? Just spit out the fucking names and be done with it.
1. Oh, don't be bothered by that - I'm sure they are just figments of my
paranoid conspiracy fears against me, and I think they might be in my closet
right now, being audited by Koos. Or maybe under my chair. Shudder. You have
other things to worry about, like:
> Woof Woof, Glug Glug
> Who Drowned the Judge's Dog?
1. Undoubtedly the act of a conspiracy of desperate intelligence officers. <g>
>
>answers on href="news:alt.religion.scientology"
James J. Lippard
In article <34C1DAAA...@ix.netcom.com>,
Tom Klemesrud <tom...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Anonymous wrote:
>
>> 7. This will continue until DM takes the fall.
>
>I can say that in looking at Meade Emory, he is a highly
>respected member of the U.S. power elite; is a repected
>and sought-after visiting professor. He held a high
>position in the Ford Administration's IRS.
>
>The Ford Administration has done a lot to put Scientology
>in its proper perspective--especially as it relates to
>non-productive SRI research that certain Scientologists
>were involved in.
For more info, see Jim Schnabel's book, _Remote Viewers_, though it
says only a very small amount about the Scientology connections.
(Pat Price, Ingo Swann, and Harold Puthoff were all involved with
Scientology at one time or another.)
>It is quite possible that DM and his associates are way
>over their heads in a game they thought they were the
>masters off.
>
>Tom Klemesrud SP6
>KoX
>
>(In memory of Pat Price.)
--
Jim Lippard lippard@(primenet.com ediacara.org skeptic.com)
Phoenix, Arizona http://www.primenet.com/~lippard/
PGP Fingerprint: B130 7BE1 18C1 AA4C 4D51 388F 6E6D 2C7A 36D3 CB4F
aaspa...@primenet.com
Ron Newman
In article <34c18e91...@news.ox.ac.uk>,
Chris Owen <chr...@lutefisk.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On Sat, 17 Jan 1998 16:00:35 -0500, Anonymous
><Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
>> A. On or about the 29th of November 1997, a research
>> foundation issued a press release disclosing a formerly
>> unknown connection between the Church and the IRS. That
>> connection was Meade Emory.
>>
>> B. In subsequent weeks, the facts of that press release
>> were fully verified here on this newsgroup.
>
>[snip]
>
>> DOCUMENTED FACTS:
>>
>> A. On or about the 24th of December 1997, that same
>> research foundation issued a second press release,
>> documenting the existence of a "Tax Compliance Officer"
>> in the church, and documenting the fact that Lyman
>> Spurlock, co-founder of CST with Meade Emory, was
>> using IRS regulations against parishioners.
>>
>> B. A little more than one week later, the secret closing
>> agreement was "leaked" to the press.
>
>Interesting analysis. But which research foundation was this, and
>where can I get these press releases?
A hithereto unknown organization claiming the name "PUBLIC RESEARCH
FOUNDATION" in Nevada. I have no idea if it actually exists or who
is behind it, but most of the facts (as opposed to opinion and
speculation) in these press releases seems to have been independently
verified.
Here they are again:
---------- Forwarded message ----------
PUBLIC RESEARCH FOUNDATION
HCR 38, BOX 66
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89124
PHONE: 702-873-2343 (Effective 9 December 1997)
FAX: 702-873-2115 (Effective 9 December 1997)
E-MAIL: p...@mailcity.com
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
HIDDEN TIES BETWEEN IRS AND SCIENTOLOGY REVEALED
Meade Emory, former Assistant to the Commissioner of the
Internal Revenue Service, co-founded Scientology's most senior
organization--Church of Spiritual Technology--according to
recently uncovered records of the United States Claims Court.
Emory is currently Director of the Washington State University
Law School's Graduate Program in Taxation in Seattle.
[Note: This is wrong, he actually holds that position at the
*University of Washington*, in Seattle. -- RN]
The Emory-co-founded Church of Spiritual Technology (CST),
doing business as the "L. Ron Hubbard Library," now controls
the copyrights for all of L. Ron Hubbard's intellectual
properties--once valued at close to $100 million. CST also
enjoys ultimate authority over all Scientology-related
trademarks, including the name "L. Ron Hubbard."
Emory was Assistant to the Commissioner of the IRS from
1975 through 1977. Strangely, those were the same years in
which an IRS employee, Gerald Wolfe, was covertly passing IRS
documents to Scientology's Guardian's Office. In 1976, Wolfe
even provided forged federal I.D. to a Scientology staff
member, Michael Meisner, and together they used the forged
credentials to pilfer copies of documents from the IRS and
other federal agencies. Wolfe and Meisner's activities
ultimately resulted in federal criminal convictions against
high-level Scientology executives. Most notable among those was
L. Ron Hubbard's wife, Mary Sue Hubbard.
The fact that she was Hubbard's wife tended to overshadow
more important facts: Hubbard himself had disappeared in
February of 1980 under mysterious circumstances still not
satisfactorily explained, and Mary Sue Hubbard--with the aid of
the Guardian's Office--had been left with the duty and the
power to safeguard his copyrights and trademarks.
But in July of 1981, Mary Sue Hubbard was overthrown,
losing her long-held control over Scientology's copyrights and
trademarks. Soon after, the Guardian's Office was disbanded.
Then by May of 1982--less than a year later--Emory had helped
to set up CST, the corporation that eventually assumed control
of all rights to L. Ron Hubbard's works.
According to the June 29, 1992 ruling in U.S. Claims Court
case No. 581-88T, CHURCH OF SPIRITUAL TECHNOLOGY v. THE UNITED
STATES, "CST was founded in 1982 by Lyman Spurlock, Meade
Emory, Esq., Leon Misterek, Esq., and Sherman Lenske, Esq.
CST..subsequently sought tax-exempt status under the Internal
Revenue Code."
That tax-exempt status was granted on October 1, 1993, in
a sealed, secret, 4"-thick agreement with IRS. None of the
terms of the agreement have ever been made known, either by CST
or IRS. The only clue to any of the terms came at the event
celebrating the exemptions, when David Miscavige, head of
Religious Technology Center (RTC) and Scientology's
highest-ranking spokesperson, said, "There will be no
billion-dollar tax bill that we cannot pay!" Oddly, while
proclaiming the long list of Scientology entities that had
received exempt status, Miscavige made no mention of CST's
inclusion--even though that is the senior-most corporation of
all, and the one that benefitted most from the sudden IRS
change of heart.
Other oddities have also surfaced:
1. According to the U.S. Claims Court ruling, "None of the
founders of CST, with the exception of Mr. Spurlock, has any
stated religious connection with Scientology."
2. The October 1993 IRS tax-exempt blessing on CST was
granted just months after Norman F. Starkey, executor of the
estate of L. Ron Hubbard, had finally secured control of every
intellectual property ever produced by L. Ron Hubbard.
3. On November 29, 1993, scarcely two months after CST had
been granted tax exemption, Starkey transferred the rights for
all 7,730 of L. Ron Hubbard's intellectual properties to CST.
Many questions remain regarding Meade Emory's possible
role in bringing about the tax exemption for CST, but questions
also surround Emory's fellow CST co-founder, attorney Sherman
Lenske.
According to court records, "Lenske and two other
non-Scientologists have the status of Special Directors of
CST." The two others are Lenske's brother, attorney Stephen
Lenske, and another attorney, Lawrence Heller.
But Sherman Lenske's involvement goes all the way back to
1981. In a sworn declaration, Lenske says he was hired in April
1981 to be attorney "in all aspects of estate planning" for L.
Ron Hubbard.
Therein lies another strange coincidence: Lenske appeared
on the scene only after Hubbard had disappeared, and only three
months before Mary Sue Hubbard was overthrown, then became a
key figure in every step that led to CST's take-over of the
multi-million-dollar intellectual properties she had previously
controlled, and to which she was rightful heir:
1. Lenske drafted all wills and trusts having anything to
do with final distribution of Hubbard's assets and intellectual
properties.
2. Lenske was a consultant in the corporate restructuring
that created CST.
3. Lenske represented Norman F. Starkey, the executor of
Hubbard's estate, right up through the point when Starkey
transferred the intellectual property rights to CST.
4. In addition to his role as a Special Director of CST,
Lenske is its Registered Agent, is Registered Agent for
Religious Technology Center (which currently licenses the
trademarks under CST's aegis), and is Registered Agent for
Author Services, Inc., which represents Hubbard's fiction
works.
5. Lenske created the fictitious business name, "L. Ron
Hubbard Library," filing it first for Norman F. Starkey's use
as executor, then filing it again in 1993 for CST, right after
CST received all the intellectual property rights from Starkey.
How did an attorney who does not even subscribe to the
religious philosophy of Scientology become its most influential
figure, with ultimate authority over the entire body of work?
What role did Meade Emory's inside-the-Beltway connections
have on the sudden, secret turn-around by IRS?
Is it possible, as one observer has speculated, that all
of Scientology went into receivership to IRS, and is now being
run--as a corporation--by the federal government?
Is that why the agreement is such a closely-held secret?
All these questions still wait for answers. But the
previously-suppressed connection to IRS may provide a new place
to look for them.
END OF RELEASE
-----------------------------------------
PUBLIC RESEARCH FOUNDATION
HCR 38, BOX 66
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89124
PHONE: 702-873-2343
FAX: 702-873-2115
E-MAIL: p...@mailcity.com
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CHURCH STAFF AND MINISTERS USED TO ENFORCE IRS COMPLIANCE
An official Scientology document--recently uncovered by the Public Research
Foundation--requires ministers and staff of every Scientology church and
mission to enforce compliance to IRS regulations on individual parishoners.
The document, a "Scientology Policy Directive" entitled "PERSONAL
INCOME TAXES," is written by an unidentified "Tax Compliance Officer" for
the Church of Scientology. In part, it says that a Scientologist who fails
to comply with all IRS regulations "will be ineligible for Church services
until the matter is rectified."
To put teeth into the enforcement, the church Tax Directive goes so
far as to threaten non-compliers with the loss of their religion. Ordering
parishoners to abide by IRS edicts, the church Tax Directive concludes:
"Who would want to risk his eternity for any amount of money?"
A highly-placed church official named Lyman Spurlock confirmed that
threat when he wrote to one parishoner who had challenged the
constitutionality of the unholy church/state union:
"Were I you I would weigh...the IRS versus your future for
eternity. If you insist on your current course you will not
ever be eligible for training and processing (Scientology
church services) and that is very unfortunate for you."
And unfortunate it was: the parishoner that letter was addressed to
was later expelled from the church when he wouldn't knuckle under.
Lyman Spurlock, the author of the letter, is co-founder of
Scientology's most powerful organization, a secretive corporation called
the "Church of Spiritual Technology" (CST). But it was recently disclosed
by the Public Research Foundation (Press Release: "HIDDEN TIES BETWEEN IRS
AND SCIENTOLOGY REVEALED") that Spurlock's fellow co-founder of CST is
former Assistant to the Commissioner of IRS, Meade Emory. Serious questions
are being raised by many about what influence Emory might have had in the
super-secret 1993 IRS tax exemption for CST and the lesser Scientology
corporations. Aside from Spurlock--who is a CPA--Emory and the other
co-founders and Special Directors of CST are not, themselves,
Scientologists, but are tax and probate attorneys.
Meade Emory was Assistant to IRS Commissioner Donald C. Alexander,
whose reign began during Nixon's catastrophic last term. Before that, Emory
was Legislation Counsel of the Joint Committee on Taxation of the U.S.
Congress.
CST--the all-powerful Scientology corporation that Emory helped to
set up--operates almost invisibly behind the panoply of church corporations
it controls, but exercises final authority over every copyright and
trademark that has any connection with Scientology. Without CST's blessing,
none of the junior corporations could operate at all.
It is CST's corporate leverage over all of Scientology and over all
Scientologists that makes the unprecedented church Tax Directives possible.
Another Scientologist who was expelled on the strength of those
church Tax Directives said, "This is the greatest outrage against religious
freedoms since the American Revolution. If a church can use a parishoner's
hope of salvation to make him kneel down before a vicious government
agency, then the IRS can use ANY church to hound and threaten. Who's next
for a 'Tax Compliance Officer?' The Baptists? The Catholics? Church and
state are one now. My church IS the IRS."
Said one tax-watcher, "This makes all Scientology organizations
'branch offices' of IRS, and every Scientology minister an agent of
IRS--there to enforce compliance under the threat of eternal damnation. Why
else would a church have a Tax Compliance Enforcement Officer? And what
happens if a Scientology penitent needs to confess to his minister that he
fudged somewhere on his taxes?"
Others are asking why no one in any branch of government has done
anything to force open the sealed, secret tax-exemption agreement between
IRS and Scientology. On March 15, 1996, U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler,
in the case of TAX ANALYSTS v. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE in the United
States District Court for the District of Columbia (case No. 94-CV-00220
[TFH]), did order the IRS to release certain documents regarding the
Scientology "closing agreement," but so far IRS has not even complied with
the court order.
In that case, Tax Analysts exposed several disturbing facts about
the IRS/Scientology arrangement. Submissions to the court revealed, among
other things, that the IRS's Exempt Organizations Technical Division had
been "instructed not to review the exemption applications filed by the
Church of Scientology and its affiliates for compliance with IRC 501(c)(3)."
Who issued that strange order, and whether Meade Emory had any
influence on that decision, is unknown. It is likely to remain unknown
until sufficient public pressure is brought to bear on federal officials
that the IRS/Scientology agreement is unsealed.
Until then, for the first time in American history, adherents of a
religion are being forced by their church to know and abide by the
6,000-page scripture of IRS, or be denied the right to the free exercise of
their chosen religion.
--
--
Ron Newman rne...@thecia.net
URL: http://www2.thecia.net/users/rnewman/
Rob Clark
On Sun, 18 Jan 1998 18:30:50 -0500, Anonymous
<Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
[more RVY stuff]
flunk for blinking. can you figure out where?
rob
GrahamEB
>2. Send Graham Berry off on a wild goose chase.
You have not been reading their DA paks I see. If you had you would have me
going off on a wild "chicken" chase!
Yours in jest
Graham
Inducto
Zed wrote:
>I read it. Miscavige is either very clever or a complete moron.
I suspect the answer is a bit more complex than black-and-white. Like other
great scheming autocrats such as Hitler, Stalin and Hussein, he must clearly
excel at the sort of power games that get one ahead in a totalitarian system.
But like those, and Hubbard himself, Miscavige appears to have made the
seemingly stupid mistakes that such power-wise despots often do, like having
shot so many messengers that he no longer necessarily gets the truth from his
subordinates. He's apparently over his head when it comes to dealing with
legal issues and the "wog" world, but has hired (or had hired for him) some
good help to cover his weakness in this area.
Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine
In a<997968a5a47049f6...@anonymous.poster>, writes:
>In article <oHcePDAW...@xemu.demon.co.uk>, Dave Bird wrote:
>>
>>ARS is a pretty paranoid place, so you have to be pretty far out
>>to give the appearance of being a complte paranoid nut; but you
>>have succeeded.
>
>1. Thank you for your diagnosis. Practicing psychiatry without a license, I
>see. You know, based on my rather extensive before-retirement background, I
>can tell you that "paranoid" is the official label to be used constantly,
>repeatdely, relentlessly, against any person or group that approaches truth on
>any confidential agency operation or campaign. It has been in use for decades,
>and is the single most successful campaign of discrediting people that has
>ever been devised, because it is indefensible.
You can defend yourself very easily. Don't sound such a nut:
substantiate what you say, name the "two intelligence agents", etc.
As it is you are waffling on ten to the dozen without providing
the slighest rational grounds for what you allege.
|~/ |~/
~~|;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;||';-._.-;'^';||_.-;'^'0-|~~
P | Woof Woof, Glug Glug ||____________|| 0 | P
O | Who Drowned the Judge's Dog? | . . . . . . . '----. 0 | O
O | answers on *---|_______________ @__o0 | O
L |{a href="news:alt.religion.scientology"}{/a}_____________|/_______| L
ace of clubs
))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))-o-((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
In message <69t600$9t4$2...@s3000-01.magna.com.au>, Zed sed:
>
>I would _really_ like to know two things:
>
>1) What does a trustee of CST do?
>
Here you go, right from "model Bylaws" in Scientology's "Tax Compliance
Manual."
"ARTICLE VI
"Trustees
"Section 1. Purpose. The sole purpose of the Board of
Trustees shall be to elect Directors of the corporation. In
furtherance of this purpose the Trustees may remove a
Director... . In addition, the Trustees shall have
the power to change the number of Trustees, as provided in
Section 2 below.
"Section 2. Number of Trustees. The authorized number of
Trustees shall be three (3) until changed by a bylaw amending
this Section 2 duly adopted by the unanimous vote of the
Trustees; provided however that the Trustees shall not have
the power to reduce the number of Trustees below three
(3) or increase the number above seven (7)."
AND:
"CORPORATE POSITIONS
"There are three major positions defined in the Bylaws of each
church. The first, the Trustees...have the function of
electing the Board of Directors... . The Trustees also
approve any amendments to the Articles of Incorporation....
"The next echelon is the Board of Directors. This is the
group which manages and controls the affairs of the
corporation.
"The third echelon of corporate personnel consists of the
officers of the corporation. ...The officers are elected by
the Board of Directors. The officers have supervisory
authority over the day-to-day affairs of the corporation and
carry out the direction of the Board of Directors. Their
specific duties are covered in the Bylaws.
So the Trustees of the corporations are da' head dawgs in da' pound. Arf!
'Course, that would make ANYBODY want to know egg-zactly the same thing you
want to know:
>
>2) Who are the current trustees of CST?
>
Psst! Now, I'm going to let you in on a little secret. See, I know where
that information is. I do. I swear. Trustees, Directors, Special Directors,
Officers--the fucking WORKS. EVERYTHING you and I and everybody would like
to know about CST, because THOSE are the boys who are running the show,
THOSE are the boys who own all the fucking copyrights now, THOSE are the
boys who have ultimate legal control over the trademarks. There ain't a
fucking THING that can go on an ANY Scientology organization of ANY
description without their express or tacit consent, because they could pull
the fucking plug on ANYBODY who is using the copyrighted materials OR the
trademarks--if they wanted to. So we ALL need to know who they are, and I
KNOW WHERE THE INFORMATION IS. And I'm just about to tell you. Ready?
Peek at this little section of the "Tax Compliance Manual:"
"The Bylaws state the internal rules by which a corporation
is governed. They also state the purposes of the
corporation in detail and the procedures by which the
affairs of the corporation are governed. In addition, they
define the various positions which are held in a corporation
(i.e., trustees, directors and officers) and state
specifically the duties of these positions, the procedures
of electing them and their required qualifications."
Oh, boy, we are ON TO something here. And look at this, also from the "Tax
Compliance Manual:"
"The Bylaws require that annual meetings be held by the
Trustees and Directors. These are normally done on 1 June
for the Trustees and between I June and 30 June for the
Directors. The Trustees meeting is to elect Directors for
the coming year. The Directors meeting elects officers and
takes up any other necessary business."
Can you feel the fucking PULSE? Well, here's more...
"Actions formally taken by the Board of Directors or Board of
Trustees are recorded in written board minutes, which are an
official record of meetings actually held or a consent that
is agreed to and signed by all board members."
Can you FEEL IT! And check THIS out; I mean, this is IT!:
"The board book is a large ring binder which holds the
originals of the minutes and consents in chronological order
along with the originals of the Articles of Incorporation
and Bylaws."
There you go, man! That's where the information is--(1) the Bylaws, and (2)
the minutes of the annual meetings of the Trusteees and Directors. Bylaws
and Minutes. Bylaws and Minutes. Tha's all yo' ass needs. NOW all you got
to know is how to go about getting a look at that stuff!
And there, I'm afraid you might just hit a little fucking snag.
Why? Because of IRS code Five-fucking-Zero-One, C, three.
California law regarding 501(C)(3) CORPORATIONS, ORGANIZED FOR RELIGIOUS
PURPOSES, sez:
"CORPORATIONS CODE
"PART 4. NONPROFIT RELIGIOUS CORPORATIONS
"ARTICLE 6. Location and Inspection of Articles and Bylaws
"SECTION 9160
"9160. Every corporation shall keep at its principal office
in this state the original or a copy of its articles and
bylaws as amended to date, which shall be open to inspection
by the members at all reasonable times during office hours.
**************
If the corporation has no office in this state, it shall upon
the written request of any member furnish to such member a
************* **************
copy of the articles or bylaws as amended to date."
(Pay real close attention to that "members" business, 'cause in a minute,
I'm going to drop a fucking bowling ball on yer foot.)
THAT section, quoted above, is from the codes relating SPECIFICALLY to
501(C)(3) CORPORATIONS, ORGANIZED FOR RELIGIOUS PURPOSES. Other
corporations have to file THEIR information annually with the Secretary of
State, including the NAMES AND ADDRESSES of their directors and
officers--which makes it a PUBLIC RECORD.
But not 501(C)(3) religious corporations. Uh-uh. For RELIGIOUS
CORPORATIONS, the names of the people running things is privileged
information, available to MEMBERS ONLY.
Okay, you might aks (are you a-aksin'?). What about the MINUTES?
Well, here's some more Cal-ee-for-ni-ay code for you, SPECIFICALLY RELATING
TO 501(C)(3) RELIGIOUS CORPORATIONS:
"CORPORATIONS CODE
"PART 4. NONPROFIT RELIGIOUS CORPORATIONS
"CHAPTER 5. RECORDS, REPORTS AND RIGHTS OF INSPECTION
"SECTION 9512
"9512. Except as otherwise provided in the articles or
bylaws, the accounting books and records and minutes of
*******************
proceedings of the members and the board and committees of
the board shall be open to inspection upon the written
demand on the corporation of any member at any reasonable
*************
time, for a purpose reasonably related to such person's
interests as a member."
Well, there's that MEMBER shit again.
Now, watch yer foot, 'cause here comes the bowling ball.
(Can we have a drum roll?)
From the Church of Spiritual Technology's ACTUAL, BONA FIDE Articles of
Incorporation:
"ARTICLE SIX
"No Members of the Corporation
-----------------------------
"This corporation shall have no members."
(Cymbal CRA-A-A-SH!)
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH! BWWWWWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
And NOW you know WHY they HAD to get tax exemption!
And NOW you know WHY the Hubbard Association of Scientologists,
International (HASI) was nuked.
And NOW you know WHY the "memberships" were shifted to a foreign
corporation that has no visible connection to the other corporations.
And NOW you know WHY our "ReZiDeNt EcKsPerT" ducks the hard questions about
Meade Emory.
Now you know WHY Mary Sue Hubbard and the G.O. were framed and annihilated.
Now you know WHY there are the Lenskes and the Hellers and the Emorys and
the Yinglings and other non-Scientologist lawyers and crud slithering and
licking around CST.
<SNIP>
>Have you considered the possibility that RVY and Gerry Armstrong
>claim that Miscavige is in charge because that's what they
>honestly believe?
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAH!
<SNIP>
))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))-o-((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
As the lean leech, its victim found, is pleased
To fix itself upon a part diseased
Till, its black hide distended with bad blood,
It drops to die of surfeit in the mud,
So the base sycophant with joy descries
His neighbor's weak spot and his mouth applies,
Gorges and prospers like the leech, although,
Unlike that reptile, he will not let go.
--Ambrose Bierce
The Devil's Dictionary
))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))-o-((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
ace of clubs
Zed
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>AND:
> "CORPORATE POSITIONS
Ah. That's what I thought. That tax compliance manual sounds like
fascinating reading material.
> "ARTICLE SIX
>(Cymbal CRA-A-A-SH!)
>BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH! BWWWWWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
I'm impressed, ace (may I call you ace?). I'm not snipping any of the
above because I want to preserve it in all its glory. Your research is
impeccable, which makes it all the more disappointing that you think
it proves that the IRS runs the Church. All it says to me is that the
ultimate authority - the trustees of CST - is unidentified.
>And NOW you know WHY they HAD to get tax exemption!
To hide the identities of the people controlling CST from everyone?
>And NOW you know WHY the Hubbard Association of Scientologists,
>International (HASI) was nuked.
I'm not sure about this. Cursory reading of some LOCIS records would
suggest that HASI previously filled CST's role as official owner of
most of the tech. I could be wrong.
>And NOW you know WHY the "memberships" were shifted to a foreign
>corporation that has no visible connection to the other corporations.
That would be the International Association of Scientologists (IAS),
correct? Isolating them from other corporations prevents them from
finding out stuff about the "management" organisations which they're
not intended to know, right?
>And NOW you know WHY our "ReZiDeNt EcKsPerT" ducks the hard questions about
>Meade Emory.
And you were going so well. What is the reason for Meade Emory helping
to create CST? The speculation I've seen about it all rests on the
assumption that Meade did it on behalf of the IRS, or was at least
antagonistic to Scientology because of her involvement with the IRS
I _might_ be able to accept the latter, but some actual evidence would
help. Did she help create the _structure_ of CST, or did she just sign
on the dotted line?
>Now you know WHY Mary Sue Hubbard and the G.O. were framed and annihilated.
<*choke* *wheeze* *hack*>
Excuse me? The GO _framed_???
Let's take this one _real_ slow. You explain how this "frame-up" was
performed, and I'll explain the inaccuracies in the information you
present. I can't wait to hear this.
>Now you know WHY there are the Lenskes and the Hellers and the Emorys and
>the Yinglings and other non-Scientologist lawyers and crud slithering and
>licking around CST.
I'm very happy with the information you've provided, but I'm afraid I
think your interpretation is way off. Maybe I'll provide my own
interpretation in another post if I have the time.
Zed
Xenu Remailer: http://www.magna.com.au/~zed/remailer.html
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3ia
Charset: cp850
iQEVAwUBNM5nbisxIzhyTOOxAQEhEQf/WIVi5jygwWe6gVRc+ah3MsLnL7Pz/2Pb
7CbKSvnKpVFCUuvgM1B87m/zgL9bRyAZom6ySLfNLNeX/d4oKizS3I0AyvE6Sx/9
QXqHddynrcEvhDbywue1Mt2YzWBBlGH8xJx476kAZDA8q+guJQL7VzWaOJs923CX
t1AEcZKTsuXiQbduzzipVbAtcKluNQna3U7KUJefRBWPasHysP7Z2mk9pfMW3Ite
WCEy3aUuuTuCgoVD5N8J7osE1f4UleUoC5IYJjUHaDmfFDTqh0lWGb1uIa3ZtpTs
8czyYBnn7D/k5IYvGJtcHyudGfwhUmNwRyN63mlw14zuE/UFdg7Q9w==
=iG5i
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
tall...@mail.storm.ca
In article <6akn88$4gm$2...@s3000-01.magna.com.au>, z...@magna.com.au wrote:
<snip very interesting excerpts from the Tax Compliance Manual - I wanted to
get to the discussion, but go read it if you haven't already)
>>Now, watch yer foot, 'cause here comes the bowling ball.
>
>>(Can we have a drum roll?)
>
>>From the Church of Spiritual Technology's ACTUAL, BONA FIDE Articles of
>>Incorporation:
>
>
>> "ARTICLE SIX
>
>> "No Members of the Corporation
>> -----------------------------
>> "This corporation shall have no members."
>
>
>>(Cymbal CRA-A-A-SH!)
>
>
>>BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH! BWWWWWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
>
>I'm impressed, ace (may I call you ace?). I'm not snipping any of the
>above because I want to preserve it in all its glory. Your research is
>impeccable, which makes it all the more disappointing that you think
>it proves that the IRS runs the Church. All it says to me is that the
>ultimate authority - the trustees of CST - is unidentified.
This, to me, is The Big Question. Who *are* the trustees of CST?
As far as I know (and I am by no means sure about this), the Chairman of the
Board of CST is David Miscavige. The other board members - if any -- are
uknown.
I pulled this from a critical site at
http://www.cis.upenn.edu/~achorn/cos/trace. Unfortunately, I have no idea
whether this information was up-to-date as of the time of the search (1995, I
believe) or was filed when CST was initially incorporated, and has not been
updated since.
NAME: CHURCH OF SPIRITUAL TECHNOLOGY
TYPE OF CORPORATION: ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION (DOMESTIC)
CORPORATE CLASSIFICATION: RELIGIOUS
CORPORATE STATUS: ACTIVE
DATE OF INCORPORATION/QUALIFICATION: 05/28/1982
MAILING ADDRESS: 419 N. LARCHMONT, #86
LOS ANGELES,, CA 90004
REGISTERED AGENT: SHERMAN D. LENSKE
REGISTERED OFFICE: 6400 CANOGA AVENUE, #315
WOODLAND HILLS,, CA 91367
PRESIDENT: RUSSELL BELLIN
419 N. LARCHMONT, #86
LOS ANGELES,, CA 90004
Russell Bellin, BTW, also appears in an article published on January 23,
1994 in the Albuquerque Journal. The story is about the famous vaults project,
which is CST's attempt to make sure that Da Mighty Tech will be available to
future generations by storing indestructible archives far beneath the surface
of the earth. What's interesting for the purposes of *this* discussion is
that, as of that time, Bellin was reported as being "ranch manager" for CST,
not president.
So my questions, which I throw open to the floor:
Who is the current president of CST?
Who is on the current board of directors of CST?
Who is Chairman of the Board?
<snippy-doo-dah stuff about HASI vs. IAS - there are some acronyms around
which even I fear to tread>
>>And NOW you know WHY our "ReZiDeNt EcKsPerT" ducks the hard questions about
>>Meade Emory.
>
>And you were going so well. What is the reason for Meade Emory helping
>to create CST? The speculation I've seen about it all rests on the
>assumption that Meade did it on behalf of the IRS, or was at least
>antagonistic to Scientology because of her involvement with the IRS
>I _might_ be able to accept the latter, but some actual evidence would
>help. Did she help create the _structure_ of CST, or did she just sign
>on the dotted line?
Excellent question, Zed. From my cursory investigation of Mr. Emory, it seems
that, as the former assistant IRS Commissioner, he was probably one of the
more sought-after tax attorneys in the country at the time CST was created. Is
it possible that, given the delicate nature of the issues at hand vis a vis
the tax exemption and other corporate matters, the CoS simply wanted to bring
in the best hired gun they could find? I can't think of anyone more able to
navigate the shoals of tax law than Emory.
I don't mean to be snippy, but I'd also like to see *some* evidence that his
participation in CST is anything more than a fairly clever tactical move by DM
and co. to make sure this new corporate entity stayed well on the right side
of tax law. Does anyone (Zed, Ace, Librarian?) have more detailed information
on the incorporation of CST? Exactly what role did Emory play in it? And what
role, if any, does he play in its current management?
>
>>Now you know WHY Mary Sue Hubbard and the G.O. were framed and annihilated.
>
><*choke* *wheeze* *hack*>
>
>Excuse me? The GO _framed_???
>
>Let's take this one _real_ slow. You explain how this "frame-up" was
>performed, and I'll explain the inaccuracies in the information you
>present. I can't wait to hear this.
As unofficial, unauthorized head wrangler of the GO Roundup, can I just add an
enthusiastic "me too"?
C'mon Ace. I think most of us that have been reading your posts have enough
background information. I, for one, would like to see the smoking gun(s) that
prove that the IRS is controlling the tech through the CST.
K
Oldtimer
At 06:37 AM 1/26/98 GMT, you wrote:
>On 26 Jan 1998 05:20:27 +0100, in alt.religion.scientology Ace of Clubs
wrote:
[Much good stuff snipped]
>>Now you know WHY Mary Sue Hubbard and the G.O. were framed and annihilated.
Okay, got the popcorn and have eased into a comfortable chair. Framed and
annihilated how? Time, place, form and event please. Who knew and contributed?
Old Timer
http://freezone.org
http://scientologie.de
Zed
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
tall...@mail.storm.ca (tall...@storm.ca) wrote:
>In article <6akn88$4gm$2...@s3000-01.magna.com.au>, z...@magna.com.au wrote:
><snip very interesting excerpts from the Tax Compliance Manual - I wanted to
>get to the discussion, but go read it if you haven't already)
>>>Now, watch yer foot, 'cause here comes the bowling ball.
>>
>>>(Can we have a drum roll?)
>>
>>>From the Church of Spiritual Technology's ACTUAL, BONA FIDE Articles of
>>>Incorporation:
>>
>>
>>> "ARTICLE SIX
>>
>>> "No Members of the Corporation
>>> -----------------------------
>>> "This corporation shall have no members."
>>
>>
>>>(Cymbal CRA-A-A-SH!)
>>
>>
>>>BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH! BWWWWWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
>>
>>I'm impressed, ace (may I call you ace?). I'm not snipping any of the
>>above because I want to preserve it in all its glory. Your research is
>>impeccable, which makes it all the more disappointing that you think
>>it proves that the IRS runs the Church. All it says to me is that the
>>ultimate authority - the trustees of CST - is unidentified.
>This, to me, is The Big Question. Who *are* the trustees of CST?
>As far as I know (and I am by no means sure about this), the Chairman of the
>Board of CST is David Miscavige. The other board members - if any -- are
>uknown.
David Miscavige is Chairman of the Board of RTC, which is a separate
Co$ shell. I don't know what position he holds in CST, if any. I'll
try to explain the relationship between CST and RTC, but I make no
guarantees that you won't end up more confused than when you started.
The Religious Technology Center(RTC) is headed by David Miscavige. It
is RTC which is presented to the world as the highest authority within
the Church, maintaining and enforcing the purity of Hubbard's tech.
They own the Church's trademarks, of which there are an awful lot. RTC
also owns the copyrights to the Advanced Technology(the Sekret
Skriptures). RTC decides who can use the trademarks and the Sekret
Skriptures, ensuring that the various orgs and missions are practising
only orthodox Scientology(tm).
The Church of Spiritual Technology (CST) owns the copyrights to
Hubbard's published Scientology works. They license the publishing
rights to Bridge Publications Inc (BPI) and to New Era Publishing
(NEP). CST can take control of the trademarks - and possibly the
Sekret Skriptures as well (the documentation is a little confusing) -
from RTC at their sole discretion if they believe RTC is allowing
their use in an "unorthodox manner". This isn't generally known within
the Co$, and Miscavige's failure to mention CST at all in the 1993
announcement of the Church's tax exemption suggests to me that not
many Scientologists know just how much power CST has. CST appears to
be _above_ RTC in the Church hierarchy, despite RTC's description as
"the highest authority in the Church".
Looking through the CST vs IRS claims court document (which is IMHO
the best resource available for anyone trying to make sense of the
Church's corporate structure - I just wish I could remember the URL),
trustees of CST are listed. As of 1992, there were four trustees. They
were: Terri Gamboa, Gregory Wilhere, Marion Meisler and Lyman
Spurlock. This could very easily have changed in the past few years,
and there doesn't appear to be any way of finding out about those
changes.
Regardless of who the current trustees are, there are some serious
restrictions on who's eligible to be a trustee: they have to have been
a Scientologist for at least eight years, they must be highly trained
in Scientology's teachings, they have to be actively involved in
giving and receiving Scientology services, and have to participate in
at least 12 and a half hours of training a week.
Hm.....the 1992 claims court document lists the president of CST as
Lyman Spurlock. Depending on the date of the info above, that would
mean Spurlock either replaced Bellin, or Bellin replaced Spurlock.
Maybe Martin Ottman has something listed in his magazine collection
that would describe the current situation.
>So my questions, which I throw open to the floor:
I don't know the current situation, but I know what it was in 1992.
>Who is the current president of CST?
In 1992: Lyman Spurlock.
>Who is on the current board of directors of CST?
In 1992, there were 3 Special Directors who were lawyers but not
Scientologists: Sherman Lenske, Stephen Lenske, and Lawrence Heller
(Heller's name has been incorrectly scanned in as "Keller" in the
claims court document). The General Directors are described as "the
governing body" by the claims court. They have to be Scientologists in
good standing, but no names were listed.
>Who is Chairman of the Board?
There is no mention of any Chairman of CST in the claims court
document.
><snippy-doo-dah stuff about HASI vs. IAS - there are some acronyms around
>which even I fear to tread>
Heh. We haven't even started on ASI, WDC, CMO, or the lesser-known
shells like IGN yet. I get the impression that whoever set up the
Church's corporate structure actually _wanted_ it to be confusing.
>[..]
>From my cursory investigation of Mr. Emory, it seems
>that, as the former assistant IRS Commissioner, he was probably one of the
>more sought-after tax attorneys in the country at the time CST was created. Is
>it possible that, given the delicate nature of the issues at hand vis a vis
>the tax exemption and other corporate matters, the CoS simply wanted to bring
>in the best hired gun they could find? I can't think of anyone more able to
>navigate the shoals of tax law than Emory.
Possible, certainly. Doesn't say much about Meade's ethical
sensibilities, though. This is the group that had been stealing
documents from Meade's former employer. Come to think of it, L Ron
Hubbard wouldn't think much of involving Meade either. One of the
recurring themes in his writings about tax and taxmen is that both are
eeeeevil. I'd expect a lot of Scientologists would get mighty upset if
they learned who'd helped set up their new Church structure.
Still, the most obvious explanation is that Meade's expertise in tax
law was for hire, and the Church snapped him up.
>I don't mean to be snippy, but I'd also like to see *some* evidence that his
>participation in CST is anything more than a fairly clever tactical move by DM
>and co. to make sure this new corporate entity stayed well on the right side
>of tax law. Does anyone (Zed, Ace, Librarian?) have more detailed information
>on the incorporation of CST? Exactly what role did Emory play in it? And what
>role, if any, does he play in its current management?
According to the claims court document "CST was founded in 1982 by
Lyman Spurlock, Meade Emory, Esq., Leon Misterek, Esq., and Sherman
Lenske, Esq." Lenske was a Special Director in 1992. Spurlock was the
president and one of the trustees. I don't know about Emory. And who
the hell's Leon Misterek?
>[..]
Zed
Xenu Remailer: http://www.magna.com.au/~zed/remailer.html
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3ia
Charset: cp850
iQEVAwUBNM7iXSsxIzhyTOOxAQE7+gf+L8mO7WbeqKnF2a2NcpAx2FCVNXdDu8XJ
zN72Cwdv/LLtUOw+30g6zsvFEfNdvg3BwYfHh17v2k74fJS48qvUgnqB9m+XXDaZ
EB9hMZTBYSiktarfEjokN2qdb/IIj7TybYZ6qbMk6TPDLkIIWST1t9R7lKaZfwMA
JbFfNELs0mThd93JsjZ3y2GiloskCGyPQK2YIXrwg6p94E6IYkPhhA39rRqT/FDE
pzxi0FzJyoohe0k9ALQARp6+HqzZBEUJJyCswkk9YXykwP6h1M/23LTVc/SPHghm
W4vmxHHHOXhMzOHrioYslRVsvIbgrPRkBOCham+3LDrocakFd+nY9g==
=mDGV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
tall...@mail.storm.ca
>>This, to me, is The Big Question. Who *are* the trustees of CST?
>>As far as I know (and I am by no means sure about this), the Chairman of the
>>Board of CST is David Miscavige. The other board members - if any -- are
>>uknown.
>
>David Miscavige is Chairman of the Board of RTC, which is a separate
>Co$ shell. I don't know what position he holds in CST, if any. I'll
>try to explain the relationship between CST and RTC, but I make no
>guarantees that you won't end up more confused than when you started.
When venturing into the labyrinth that is the CoS corporate structure, it's
wise to leave a trail of breadcrumbs.
>The Religious Technology Center(RTC) is headed by David Miscavige. It
>is RTC which is presented to the world as the highest authority within
>the Church, maintaining and enforcing the purity of Hubbard's tech.
>They own the Church's trademarks, of which there are an awful lot. RTC
>also owns the copyrights to the Advanced Technology(the Sekret
>Skriptures). RTC decides who can use the trademarks and the Sekret
>Skriptures, ensuring that the various orgs and missions are practising
>only orthodox Scientology(tm).
>The Church of Spiritual Technology (CST) owns the copyrights to
>Hubbard's published Scientology works. They license the publishing
>rights to Bridge Publications Inc (BPI) and to New Era Publishing
>(NEP). CST can take control of the trademarks - and possibly the
>Sekret Skriptures as well (the documentation is a little confusing) -
>from RTC at their sole discretion if they believe RTC is allowing
>their use in an "unorthodox manner". This isn't generally known within
>the Co$, and Miscavige's failure to mention CST at all in the 1993
>announcement of the Church's tax exemption suggests to me that not
>many Scientologists know just how much power CST has. CST appears to
>be _above_ RTC in the Church hierarchy, despite RTC's description as
>"the highest authority in the Church".
Okay, here's a hypothetical. What if RTC *does* -- for whatever reason --
allow the use of the trademarks in an "unorthodox fashion". How does CST go
about revoking its licence to use them? Who makes that decision, and under
what authority? How often does CST renew RTC, BPI and NEP's respective
licences? Every five or ten years, or is it a long-term "hundred year" lease?
Would any revocation be automatic, or would CST have to take RTC to court to
get back full control over the administration of the copyrights?
Sometimes it seems as though very few people inside *or* outside of the CoS
are aware of CST as anything more than the occasonal plaintiff in a civil
case. I can only assume that is deliberate. It's got to be more than just DM's
ego-driven desire to claim the top dog position for RTC. Hmmm - how much does
CST control in assets, do you think? Do RTC, BPI, NEP et al pay a licence fee
or royalties? CST also owns all those vaults, which as I recall were estimated
in the tens of millions of dollars. I wonder who has direct access to this
little nest egg?
>Looking through the CST vs IRS claims court document (which is IMHO
>the best resource available for anyone trying to make sense of the
>Church's corporate structure - I just wish I could remember the URL),
>trustees of CST are listed. As of 1992, there were four trustees. They
>were: Terri Gamboa, Gregory Wilhere, Marion Meisler and Lyman
>Spurlock. This could very easily have changed in the past few years,
>and there doesn't appear to be any way of finding out about those
>changes.
>
>Regardless of who the current trustees are, there are some serious
>restrictions on who's eligible to be a trustee: they have to have been
>a Scientologist for at least eight years, they must be highly trained
>in Scientology's teachings, they have to be actively involved in
>giving and receiving Scientology services, and have to participate in
>at least 12 and a half hours of training a week.
I think it's definitely a worthwhile endeavor to find out what these four
highly trained, actively involved scientologists are doing at the moment. Do
any of these names ring a bell for any exes out there? Other than, of course,
Lyman Spurlock. (Do any senior scientologists have ordinary names like "John
Smith"?)
So Spurlock was president *and* trustee? Hmm. I wonder if that means that
Bellin is or was a trustee as well - indicating some change, at least, amongst
the power players at the helm of CST. "Ranch manager" doesn't sound very
senior to me, but then again, perhaps he was deliberately downplaying his
position.
>
>>So my questions, which I throw open to the floor:
>
>I don't know the current situation, but I know what it was in 1992.
>
>>Who is the current president of CST?
>
>In 1992: Lyman Spurlock.
I'd love to know whether he is still the president. Has CST not listed its
president in any court filings since 1992?
>>Who is on the current board of directors of CST?
>
>In 1992, there were 3 Special Directors who were lawyers but not
>Scientologists: Sherman Lenske, Stephen Lenske, and Lawrence Heller
>(Heller's name has been incorrectly scanned in as "Keller" in the
>claims court document). The General Directors are described as "the
>governing body" by the claims court. They have to be Scientologists in
>good standing, but no names were listed.
Well, thank goodness we don't have *yet another Keller* to add to the
confusion on a.r.s. So the Lenskes and Keller were "special directors," ie
hired gun lawyers, and there are also an unknown number of "general
directors," who are unidentified scientologists. Does "the governing body"
have a veto over the Special Directors, if it were to come to a vote?
>>Who is Chairman of the Board?
>
>There is no mention of any Chairman of CST in the claims court
>document.
I had heard somewhere that DM was chairman of the board, although in
retrospect, I don't see how that's possible, given that CST is supposed to act
as authority over RTC when it comes to administration of the copyrights.
Wouldn't this be a conflict of interest, if he was in charge of both
organizations?
>><snippy-doo-dah stuff about HASI vs. IAS - there are some acronyms around
>>which even I fear to tread>
>
>Heh. We haven't even started on ASI, WDC, CMO, or the lesser-known
>shells like IGN yet. I get the impression that whoever set up the
>Church's corporate structure actually _wanted_ it to be confusing.
Well, if that was the goal, they were certainly successful. (Author Services
Inc, Watchdog Committee, Commodore Message Office and Inspector General
Network. How'd I do?)
>>[..]
>
>>From my cursory investigation of Mr. Emory, it seems
>>that, as the former assistant IRS Commissioner, he was probably one of the
>>more sought-after tax attorneys in the country at the time CST was created. Is
>
>>it possible that, given the delicate nature of the issues at hand vis a vis
>>the tax exemption and other corporate matters, the CoS simply wanted to bring
>>in the best hired gun they could find? I can't think of anyone more able to
>>navigate the shoals of tax law than Emory.
>
>Possible, certainly. Doesn't say much about Meade's ethical
>sensibilities, though. This is the group that had been stealing
>documents from Meade's former employer. Come to think of it, L Ron
>Hubbard wouldn't think much of involving Meade either. One of the
>recurring themes in his writings about tax and taxmen is that both are
>eeeeevil. I'd expect a lot of Scientologists would get mighty upset if
>they learned who'd helped set up their new Church structure.
It *is* deeply bizarre, any way you slice it. One would think Mr. Emory would
be wary about getting involved with the same gang of thugs that inflitrated
his employer in order to gain damaging information on IRS employees. (Then
again, if I were a conspiratorial-minded soul, I'd wonder if that wouldn't be
a prime motivating factor - blackmail.) As for LRH, I tend to consider him to
be, for all intents and purposes, dead from 1981 on, simply because I've seen
nothing to indicate that he was actively running the CoS at this point. It's
possible he didn't even know Emory was involved.
>Still, the most obvious explanation is that Meade's expertise in tax
>law was for hire, and the Church snapped him up.
Until I see something - anything - to suggest that there was more to this
union than meets the eye, that's my operating theory.
>According to the claims court document "CST was founded in 1982 by
>Lyman Spurlock, Meade Emory, Esq., Leon Misterek, Esq., and Sherman
>Lenske, Esq." Lenske was a Special Director in 1992. Spurlock was the
>president and one of the trustees. I don't know about Emory. And who
>the hell's Leon Misterek?
Lenske turns up as agent for at least one other CoS incorporation. I don't
know exactly what an "agent" does, but I'm assuming he prepares the articles
of incorporation, vouches that the information provided is true, sacrifices a
chicken to the state authority and that kind of thing. Perhaps it's normal for
an agent to also become a director? I'm really not sure. Mistarek definitely
sticks out in the crowd, though. Probably time to do a little searching.
K
Zed
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
tall...@mail.storm.ca (tall...@storm.ca) wrote:
>In article <6algk2$h9c$1...@s3000-01.magna.com.au>, z...@magna.com.au wrote:
>[..]
>> CST appears to
>>be _above_ RTC in the Church hierarchy, despite RTC's description as
>>"the highest authority in the Church".
>Okay, here's a hypothetical. What if RTC *does* -- for whatever reason --
>allow the use of the trademarks in an "unorthodox fashion". How does CST go
>about revoking its licence to use them? Who makes that decision, and under
>what authority?
RTC's use of the trademarks doesn't come from a licensing agreement
with CST. RTC was given the right to use the marks and Sekret
Skriptures, and to delegate who else can use the trademarks and Sekret
Skriptures, by L. Ron Hubbard in 1982. Hubbard also gave CST the power
to take control of the use of the trademarks if RTC allowed their
misuse. The decision is made by CST, and their authority to make it
comes from the terms laid out by L Ron Hubbard.
Hubbard also retained certain rights over the trademarks and Advanced
Technology at the time of his gift to RTC. His will donated those
rights to CST. One of those rights is apparently a "limited power of
appointment", allowing CST to decide who RTC can transfer the right to
use the trademarks to.
This is getting rocky. But let's press on.
>How often does CST renew RTC, BPI and NEP's respective
>licences? Every five or ten years, or is it a long-term "hundred year" lease?
>Would any revocation be automatic, or would CST have to take RTC to court to
>get back full control over the administration of the copyrights?
Careful. RTC has _no_ ability to control the administration of the
copyrights of anything but the Sekret Skriptures.
As owner of the bulk of the copyrights, CST gets certain exclusive
rights over the works. One of those rights is the right to publish the
works. CST can license this exclusive right to someone else (I don't
know how long the license lasts). CST licenses the publication rights
to NEP. NEP in turn licenses the publication rights to BPI.
RTC only decides who can use the trademarks. Presumably BPI and NEP
are authorised to use them. As only material that bears the
Scientology trademarks is considered "orthodox", that effectively
allows RTC to prevent any Scientology org or mission from selling
orthodox Scientology courses by denying them permission to use the
trademarks, even if that org has a complete collection of Scientology
books, tapes, etc.
CST can take control of the use of the trademarks at their "sole
discretion". That would imply that it's an automatic transfer.
>[..]
>Hmmm - how much does
>CST control in assets, do you think? Do RTC, BPI, NEP et al pay a licence fee
>or royalties? CST also owns all those vaults, which as I recall were estimated
>in the tens of millions of dollars.
CST had assets of $503 million, according to documents released in
litigation with the IRS. (I'm cribbing from Chris Owen here)
>I wonder who has direct access to this
>little nest egg?
Tracing the finances makes tracing the intellectual property rights
look like a walk in the park. It'll take some time to untangle.
>>Looking through the CST vs IRS claims court document (which is IMHO
>>the best resource available for anyone trying to make sense of the
>>Church's corporate structure - I just wish I could remember the URL),
>>trustees of CST are listed. As of 1992, there were four trustees. They
>>were: Terri Gamboa, Gregory Wilhere, Marion Meisler and Lyman
>>Spurlock. This could very easily have changed in the past few years,
>>and there doesn't appear to be any way of finding out about those
>>changes.
>>
>[..]
>I think it's definitely a worthwhile endeavor to find out what these four
>highly trained, actively involved scientologists are doing at the moment. Do
>any of these names ring a bell for any exes out there? Other than, of course,
>Lyman Spurlock. (Do any senior scientologists have ordinary names like "John
>Smith"?)
As you pointed out to me elsewhere, Terri Gamboa left the Church of
Scientology in 1990. That would imply that the information that the
claims court described in 1992 is either out of date, or inaccurate.
Curious...
>[..]
>>>Russell Bellin, BTW, also appears in an article published on January 23,
>>>1994 in the Albuquerque Journal. The story is about the famous vaults project,
>>
>>>which is CST's attempt to make sure that Da Mighty Tech will be available to
>>>future generations by storing indestructible archives far beneath the surface
>>>of the earth. What's interesting for the purposes of *this* discussion is
>>>that, as of that time, Bellin was reported as being "ranch manager" for CST,
>>>not president.
>>
>>Hm.....the 1992 claims court document lists the president of CST as
>>Lyman Spurlock. Depending on the date of the info above, that would
>>mean Spurlock either replaced Bellin, or Bellin replaced Spurlock.
>>Maybe Martin Ottman has something listed in his magazine collection
>>that would describe the current situation.
>So Spurlock was president *and* trustee? Hmm. I wonder if that means that
>Bellin is or was a trustee as well - indicating some change, at least, amongst
>the power players at the helm of CST. "Ranch manager" doesn't sound very
>senior to me, but then again, perhaps he was deliberately downplaying his
>position.
It's possible that he was president _and_ "ranch manager".
>>>So my questions, which I throw open to the floor:
>>
>>I don't know the current situation, but I know what it was in 1992.
>>
>>>Who is the current president of CST?
>>
>>In 1992: Lyman Spurlock.
>I'd love to know whether he is still the president. Has CST not listed its
>president in any court filings since 1992?
At the time of Lyman Spurlock's testimony in the Armstrong case (1983?
1984?), he was President and also Chairman of the Board of CST. I'd
say the info from Brett Achorn's page was current in 1995, and the
presidency changed between 1992 and 1995.
>>>Who is on the current board of directors of CST?
>>
>>In 1992, there were 3 Special Directors who were lawyers but not
>>Scientologists: Sherman Lenske, Stephen Lenske, and Lawrence Heller
>>(Heller's name has been incorrectly scanned in as "Keller" in the
>>claims court document). The General Directors are described as "the
>>governing body" by the claims court. They have to be Scientologists in
>>good standing, but no names were listed.
>Well, thank goodness we don't have *yet another Keller* to add to the
>confusion on a.r.s. So the Lenskes and Keller
Heller, not Keller.
>were "special directors," ie
>hired gun lawyers, and there are also an unknown number of "general
>directors," who are unidentified scientologists. Does "the governing body"
>have a veto over the Special Directors, if it were to come to a vote?
I'm not sure. I'm not even sure what a "Special Director" actually
does, except get blamed for what goes wrong in the Co$.
>>>Who is Chairman of the Board?
>>
>>There is no mention of any Chairman of CST in the claims court
>>document.
>I had heard somewhere that DM was chairman of the board, although in
>retrospect, I don't see how that's possible, given that CST is supposed to act
>as authority over RTC when it comes to administration of the copyrights.
Apparently there is a Chairman of the Board, and it was Lyman Spurlock
who held the position in at least the early 1980s.
>Wouldn't this be a conflict of interest, if he was in charge of both
>organizations?
Probably, but I doubt it'd faze the Church.
>>><snippy-doo-dah stuff about HASI vs. IAS - there are some acronyms around
>>>which even I fear to tread>
>>
>>Heh. We haven't even started on ASI, WDC, CMO, or the lesser-known
>>shells like IGN yet. I get the impression that whoever set up the
>>Church's corporate structure actually _wanted_ it to be confusing.
>Well, if that was the goal, they were certainly successful. (Author Services
>Inc, Watchdog Committee, Commodore Message Office and Inspector General
>Network. How'd I do?)
Right on all counts.
Zed
Xenu Remailer: http://www.magna.com.au/~zed/remailer.html
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3ia
Charset: cp850
iQEVAwUBNNKL4SsxIzhyTOOxAQHMUgf+JV0rM06hzVpa0n904KUl0B5HdoUooP4y
ZhDJR+EiYwivAxIRFKi3BXG+3EMvoRVgbCdIeZfk0RSL/3FQEWS4EH/RqsFvtl45
9zBIj1oWygLA2xMVf3+8LGlloauh7E2HgUGGCf2h1lx/U3V+Ovj6YW5sxK95V2XU
968bhhdwKP6n/EGv7dM7rjdAul8AY1q3eYPbfmwPL58zEgxebN02N5ZsaAEUATtk
qX/Pwq6ya8kXFH8UFlmc0iDeYG4FMUK1B32P9gN22Zxje4HQFlNoqcSVP6J8GRT9
SWaiOM+7TtoDWPj3lVEQeM2O48X82SNv90irrQW7l+3nVJMD+k4tDw==
=Efuz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
tall...@mail.storm.ca
>>Okay, here's a hypothetical. What if RTC *does* -- for whatever reason --
>>allow the use of the trademarks in an "unorthodox fashion". How does CST go
>>about revoking its licence to use them? Who makes that decision, and under
>>what authority?
>
>RTC's use of the trademarks doesn't come from a licensing agreement
>with CST. RTC was given the right to use the marks and Sekret
>Skriptures, and to delegate who else can use the trademarks and Sekret
>Skriptures, by L. Ron Hubbard in 1982. Hubbard also gave CST the power
>to take control of the use of the trademarks if RTC allowed their
>misuse. The decision is made by CST, and their authority to make it
>comes from the terms laid out by L Ron Hubbard.
Alright, so RTC is the trademark and sekret skripture police. But if it
doesn't do its job to the satisfaction of the somewhat mysterious powers that
be at CST, RTC loses its control over the trademarks, and they revert to CST.
Would this be the end of the road, as far as RTC was concerned? Or does CST
return the right to use and police the use of the marks etc. to RTC when it is
satisfied that whatever foul miscreant within RTC was permitting misuse has
been suitably 'handled'? (I'm guessing the situation hasn't come up, but I'm
curious.)
>Hubbard also retained certain rights over the trademarks and Advanced
>Technology at the time of his gift to RTC. His will donated those
>rights to CST. One of those rights is apparently a "limited power of
>appointment", allowing CST to decide who RTC can transfer the right to
>use the trademarks to.
Under which corporate entity are the trademarks and other works listed as
assets? I'm assuming that, for auditing purposes (not the kind with cans),
they come under the helm of CST.
>This is getting rocky. But let's press on.
>
>>How often does CST renew RTC, BPI and NEP's respective
>>licences? Every five or ten years, or is it a long-term "hundred year" lease?
>>Would any revocation be automatic, or would CST have to take RTC to court to
>>get back full control over the administration of the copyrights?
>
>Careful. RTC has _no_ ability to control the administration of the
>copyrights of anything but the Sekret Skriptures.
>
>As owner of the bulk of the copyrights, CST gets certain exclusive
>rights over the works. One of those rights is the right to publish the
>works. CST can license this exclusive right to someone else (I don't
>know how long the license lasts). CST licenses the publication rights
>to NEP. NEP in turn licenses the publication rights to BPI.
This raises an interesting question. Why does scientology run *two* publishing
houses? What would be the point in separating the owner - CST - from the
actual publisher - BPI - with this third entity, NEP? Does NEP publish some
works itself? Is this a fiction/non-fiction split?
>RTC only decides who can use the trademarks. Presumably BPI and NEP
>are authorised to use them. As only material that bears the
>Scientology trademarks is considered "orthodox", that effectively
>allows RTC to prevent any Scientology org or mission from selling
>orthodox Scientology courses by denying them permission to use the
>trademarks, even if that org has a complete collection of Scientology
>books, tapes, etc.
Trademarks, trademarks. Why is this reminding me of the once-secret IRS deal?
Oh, I remember - the WISE dissolution was to include all assets of WISE Inc.,
including use of the scientology religion mark, transferred to the Inspector
General Network. Of course, this doesn't seem to have happened. But if it had,
why would it have been transferred to IGN, and not RTC or CST?
>CST can take control of the use of the trademarks at their "sole
>discretion". That would imply that it's an automatic transfer.
So presumably, the president of CST (whoever he or she might be) can, if
motivated, simply pick up the phone, call Warren McShane at RTC, and tell him
the jig is up? What power does RTC have *outside* of the powers that it takes
directly from the use of CST property?
>>[..]
>
>>Hmmm - how much does
>>CST control in assets, do you think? Do RTC, BPI, NEP et al pay a licence fee
>>or royalties? CST also owns all those vaults, which as I recall were estimated
>
>>in the tens of millions of dollars.
>
>CST had assets of $503 million, according to documents released in
>litigation with the IRS. (I'm cribbing from Chris Owen here)
Wow. That's a heck of a lot of money. You know what would be neat? A pie chart
of the assets of all scientology entities, to get an idea of how the cash is
spread throughout the organization. I've got to think that, at $503 million,
CST has a good-sized slice.
Next question - on what does it spend this windfall, other than the vaults?
Does CST have any other recorded expenses or duties?
>>I wonder who has direct access to this
>>little nest egg?
>
>Tracing the finances makes tracing the intellectual property rights
>look like a walk in the park. It'll take some time to untangle.
Maybe it's best to detangle it one thread at a time. Finding the current
president, special directors and trustees would be a nice start. I wonder if
Ace, who spawned this thread before vanishing into the distance, would be kind
enough to provide that information?
>>I think it's definitely a worthwhile endeavor to find out what these four
>>highly trained, actively involved scientologists are doing at the moment. Do
>>any of these names ring a bell for any exes out there? Other than, of course,
>>Lyman Spurlock. (Do any senior scientologists have ordinary names like "John
>>Smith"?)
>
>As you pointed out to me elsewhere, Terri Gamboa left the Church of
>Scientology in 1990. That would imply that the information that the
>claims court described in 1992 is either out of date, or inaccurate.
>Curious...
Either that, or she didn't leave. I'm working on confirming that claim, to
eliminate at least one potential wrong turn on the road to total CST
understanding.
Ms. Gamboa (nee Gilham, and one time spouse of Gerry Armstrong) had an
interesting career inside scientology. She was an original incorporator of
RTC, and is mentioned in several other court documents and affadavits. A
former CMO girl, she followed the same path as many other DM cronies,
including a stint at ASI. I'm going to try to compile a Gamboa resume, much
akin to the Rathbun file, to get a better idea of her movements within the
corporate structure.
The other two trustees, Meisler and Wilhere, appear in no other online
literature, other than CST vs. IRS (available from Operation Clambake, btw).
However, an inquisitive soul on IRC pointed me to a Hugh Wilhere, who is
listed as a user of the scientology.org domain, and works at one of the
nebulous and forgettable film production companies.
>>>>Russell Bellin, BTW, also appears in an article published on January 23,
>>>>1994 in the Albuquerque Journal.
[...]
>>>Hm.....the 1992 claims court document lists the president of CST as
>>>Lyman Spurlock. Depending on the date of the info above, that would
>>>mean Spurlock either replaced Bellin, or Bellin replaced Spurlock.
>>>Maybe Martin Ottman has something listed in his magazine collection
>>>that would describe the current situation.
>
>>So Spurlock was president *and* trustee? Hmm. I wonder if that means that
>>Bellin is or was a trustee as well - indicating some change, at least, amongst
> >>the power players at the helm of CST. "Ranch manager" doesn't sound very
>>senior to me, but then again, perhaps he was deliberately downplaying his
>>position.
>
>It's possible that he was president _and_ "ranch manager".
True, but I would have thought the newspaper would have listed his official
title. Then again, when it comes to CST, it can be difficult to ascertain
anyone's position. I can't blame the Albequerque Journal if they went with
whatever the CST receptionist told them.
Another name that seems to turn up an awful lot is Nancy O'Meara. I believe
she was Chief Financial Officer for CST at one point. No idea as to who she
is, or where she might be today.
>>>>So my questions, which I throw open to the floor:
>>>
>>>I don't know the current situation, but I know what it was in 1992.
>>>
>>>>Who is the current president of CST?
>>>
>>>In 1992: Lyman Spurlock.
>
>>I'd love to know whether he is still the president. Has CST not listed its
>>president in any court filings since 1992?
>
>At the time of Lyman Spurlock's testimony in the Armstrong case (1983?
>1984?), he was President and also Chairman of the Board of CST. I'd
>say the info from Brett Achorn's page was current in 1995, and the
>presidency changed between 1992 and 1995.
So Spurlock gave up the presidency sometime between 1992 and 1995 -
coincidentally, in the same time period that Marty/Mark Rathbun was removed as
president of RTC. It would be interesting to know if Spurlock is still a
director of CST - or would he be a trustee, since the special directors are
non-scientologists, as I recall?
>>>>Who is on the current board of directors of CST?
>>>
>>>In 1992, there were 3 Special Directors who were lawyers but not
>>>Scientologists: Sherman Lenske, Stephen Lenske, and Lawrence Heller
>>>(Heller's name has been incorrectly scanned in as "Keller" in the
>>>claims court document). The General Directors are described as "the
>>>governing body" by the claims court. They have to be Scientologists in
>>>good standing, but no names were listed.
>
>>Well, thank goodness we don't have *yet another Keller* to add to the
>>confusion on a.r.s. So the Lenskes and Keller
>
>Heller, not Keller.
I obviously have an engram on the name Keller.
>>were "special directors," ie
>>hired gun lawyers, and there are also an unknown number of "general
>>directors," who are unidentified scientologists. Does "the governing body"
>>have a veto over the Special Directors, if it were to come to a vote?
>
>I'm not sure. I'm not even sure what a "Special Director" actually
>does, except get blamed for what goes wrong in the Co$.
If the special directors are lawyers and accountants, perhaps this is a
requirement under California corporate law. I'd sell my teeth to the fairies
for a list of current General Directors, though. And where do the trustees
come into the picture?
>>>>Who is Chairman of the Board?
>>>
>>>There is no mention of any Chairman of CST in the claims court
>>>document.
>
>>I had heard somewhere that DM was chairman of the board, although in
>>retrospect, I don't see how that's possible, given that CST is supposed to act
>
>>as authority over RTC when it comes to administration of the copyrights.
>
>Apparently there is a Chairman of the Board, and it was Lyman Spurlock
>who held the position in at least the early 1980s.
If it goes with the position of president, that would have made Russell Bellin
CoB in 1995. Of course, we have no way of knowing whether Bellin is still
president, but it's at least a possibility.
>>Wouldn't this be a conflict of interest, if he was in charge of both
>>organizations?
>
>Probably, but I doubt it'd faze the Church.
You'd think it would have raised the eyebrows of one of those hired gun
lawyers acting as Special Directors, though. Unless their job is to merely
sign the required documents, act in official capacity as holder of position of
trust in any official business undertaken by the CST, and go home with a nice,
fat honourarium cheque for their troubles.
>>>Heh. We haven't even started on ASI, WDC, CMO, or the lesser-known
>>>shells like IGN yet. I get the impression that whoever set up the
>>>Church's corporate structure actually _wanted_ it to be confusing.
>
>>Well, if that was the goal, they were certainly successful. (Author Services
>>Inc, Watchdog Committee, Commodore Message Office and Inspector General
>>Network. How'd I do?)
>
>Right on all counts.
The fact that I knew those acronyms without thinking twice is indeed
disturbing. Oh well, off to use my powers for good, not evil.
K
Zed
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Let's try this again....
tall...@storm.ca wrote:
>
> In article <6asr6h$k5v$1...@s3000-01.magna.com.au>, z...@magna.com.au wrote:
> >RTC's use of the trademarks doesn't come from a licensing agreement
> >with CST. RTC was given the right to use the marks and Sekret
> >Skriptures, and to delegate who else can use the trademarks and Sekret
> >Skriptures, by L. Ron Hubbard in 1982. Hubbard also gave CST the power
> >to take control of the use of the trademarks if RTC allowed their
> >misuse. The decision is made by CST, and their authority to make it
> >comes from the terms laid out by L Ron Hubbard.
>
> Alright, so RTC is the trademark and sekret skripture police. But if it
> doesn't do its job to the satisfaction of the somewhat mysterious powers that
> be at CST, RTC loses its control over the trademarks, and they revert to CST.
That's about right.
> Would this be the end of the road, as far as RTC was concerned? Or does CST
> return the right to use and police the use of the marks etc. to RTC when it is
> satisfied that whatever foul miscreant within RTC was permitting misuse has
> been suitably 'handled'? (I'm guessing the situation hasn't come up, but I'm
> curious.)
Once CST has acquired the trademarks, they can pretty much do what
they want with them. That would include giving them back to RTC,
keeping them or turning them over to a completely different shell.
> >Hubbard also retained certain rights over the trademarks and Advanced
> >Technology at the time of his gift to RTC. His will donated those
> >rights to CST. One of those rights is apparently a "limited power of
> >appointment", allowing CST to decide who RTC can transfer the right to
> >use the trademarks to.
>
> Under which corporate entity are the trademarks and other works listed as
> assets? I'm assuming that, for auditing purposes (not the kind with cans),
> they come under the helm of CST.
They're represented as owned by RTC, and the Co$ takes great pains to
obscure CST's connection. Lamont's book "Religion Inc" says that the
Articles of Incorporation of RTC had a section saying that CST could
purchase all the rights to the trademarks and Sekret Skriptures for
$100 at CST's sole discretion. RTC apparently neglected to present
this part of their articles in a lawsuit in Omaha.
> >As owner of the bulk of the copyrights, CST gets certain exclusive
> >rights over the works. One of those rights is the right to publish the
> >works. CST can license this exclusive right to someone else (I don't
> >know how long the license lasts). CST licenses the publication rights
> >to NEP. NEP in turn licenses the publication rights to BPI.
>
> This raises an interesting question. Why does scientology run *two* publishing
> houses? What would be the point in separating the owner - CST - from the
> actual publisher - BPI - with this third entity, NEP? Does NEP publish some
> works itself? Is this a fiction/non-fiction split?
It's a US - rest of the world split. NEP publishes works outside the
US, and BPI does it inside the US. What's really odd is that there is
no direct link between CST and BPI - at least according to the US
claims court. From the Claims Court ruling:
"BPI pays royalties to NEP with respect to the copyrighted and
patented articles, and NEP in turn pays royalties to Mr. Hubbard and
his successors in interest, with respect to royalties received from
BPI and with respect to items published directly by NEP."
"Mr Hubbard's successors" refers to CST and RTC. The ruling goes on to
explain that CST will be the one who stands to receive all these
royalties once it owns the copyrights. CST got the copyrights from
Norman Starkey one year later.
NEP is incorporated in Denmark, BTW.
> Trademarks, trademarks. Why is this reminding me of the once-secret IRS deal?
> Oh, I remember - the WISE dissolution was to include all assets of WISE Inc.,
> including use of the scientology religion mark, transferred to the Inspector
> General Network. Of course, this doesn't seem to have happened. But if it had,
> why would it have been transferred to IGN, and not RTC or CST?
I'm not sure what IGN actually is. I _think_ it's some kind of RTC
subsidiary. RTC apparently has various "Inspector General" positions
within it. I'm not sure how IGN fits in though.
> >CST can take control of the use of the trademarks at their "sole
> >discretion". That would imply that it's an automatic transfer.
>
> So presumably, the president of CST (whoever he or she might be) can, if
> motivated, simply pick up the phone, call Warren McShane at RTC, and tell him
> the jig is up? What power does RTC have *outside* of the powers that it takes
> directly from the use of CST property?
RTC _owns_ the marks and Sekret Skriptures. It's just that Hubbard
supposedly gave RTC the marks and Sekret Skriptures on the condition
that CST could buy it all for a pittance whenever CST felt like it.
RTC's legal control over Scientology can be completely removed at any
time.
> >CST had assets of $503 million, according to documents released in
> >litigation with the IRS. (I'm cribbing from Chris Owen here)
>
> Wow. That's a heck of a lot of money. You know what would be neat? A pie chart
> of the assets of all scientology entities, to get an idea of how the cash is
> spread throughout the organization. I've got to think that, at $503 million,
> CST has a good-sized slice.
I think it'd be difficult to get that information, but it'd definitely
be worth giving it a shot.
> Next question - on what does it spend this windfall, other than the vaults?
> Does CST have any other recorded expenses or duties?
Besides routine administrative things, none that I know of. Preserving
the tech is all that it spends its massive income on, supposedly.
> >>I wonder who has direct access to this
> >>little nest egg?
> >
> >Tracing the finances makes tracing the intellectual property rights
> >look like a walk in the park. It'll take some time to untangle.
>
> Maybe it's best to detangle it one thread at a time. Finding the current
> president, special directors and trustees would be a nice start. I wonder if
> Ace, who spawned this thread before vanishing into the distance, would be kind
> enough to provide that information?
Ace is pushing his own agenda, IMHO. Maybe he'll cough it up, or maybe
not. It's possible that Ace doesn't know either.
> >As you pointed out to me elsewhere, Terri Gamboa left the Church of
> >Scientology in 1990. That would imply that the information that the
> >claims court described in 1992 is either out of date, or inaccurate.
> >Curious...
>
> Either that, or she didn't leave. I'm working on confirming that claim, to
> eliminate at least one potential wrong turn on the road to total CST
> understanding.
Terri Gamboa's name is on the Church's 1992 enemies list.
> Ms. Gamboa (nee Gilham, and one time spouse of Gerry Armstrong) had an
> interesting career inside scientology. She was an original incorporator of
> RTC, and is mentioned in several other court documents and affadavits. A
> former CMO girl, she followed the same path as many other DM cronies,
> including a stint at ASI. I'm going to try to compile a Gamboa resume, much
> akin to the Rathbun file, to get a better idea of her movements within the
> corporate structure.
She was also a member of the 1981 "All Clear Unit".
> The other two trustees, Meisler and Wilhere, appear in no other online
> literature, other than CST vs. IRS (available from Operation Clambake, btw).
Zip for me on Meisler, a few mentions of Greg Wilhere here and there.
He was part of ASI apparently.
> However, an inquisitive soul on IRC pointed me to a Hugh Wilhere, who is
> listed as a user of the scientology.org domain, and works at one of the
> nebulous and forgettable film production companies.
Hugh Wilhere was an official of the Public Relations Bureau of the
District of Columbia GO in 1975. He's listed as meeting with Michael
Meisner in the Stipulation of Evidence from the Snow White trial.
> Another name that seems to turn up an awful lot is Nancy O'Meara. I believe
> she was Chief Financial Officer for CST at one point. No idea as to who she
> is, or where she might be today.
Finance? Hm, sounds like a key position.
> >At the time of Lyman Spurlock's testimony in the Armstrong case (1983?
> >1984?), he was President and also Chairman of the Board of CST. I'd
> >say the info from Brett Achorn's page was current in 1995, and the
> >presidency changed between 1992 and 1995.
>
> So Spurlock gave up the presidency sometime between 1992 and 1995 -
> coincidentally, in the same time period that Marty/Mark Rathbun was removed as
> president of RTC. It would be interesting to know if Spurlock is still a
> director of CST - or would he be a trustee, since the special directors are
> non-scientologists, as I recall?
I don't know. I don't think anybody does outside of CST. The special
directors don't specifically have to be non-scientologists, but they
do have to be lawyers.
> If the special directors are lawyers and accountants, perhaps this is a
> requirement under California corporate law. I'd sell my teeth to the fairies
> for a list of current General Directors, though. And where do the trustees
> come into the picture?
A word about figuring out who gives the orders: in terms of who
decides the day to day running of the Church, the entire corporate
structure is a sham. The _real_ power of command stems from the
ability to lock someone up in the RPF. As the holder of the highest
rank in the Sea Org, David Miscavige can order any of the others
placed in the RPF if he even suspects disobedience, be they trustee,
chairman, director or president of any organisation.
The dizzying corporate shellgame is there simply to provide a public
face for the wog world. It provides a legal means of enforcing the
Church's iron grip on the tech through IP law, and makes it as hard as
possible for any Church enemy to sue the "Church of Scientology"
(which legally independant entity are you talking about when you say
that?) or trace the all-important moneyflow. This may have changed
with the IRS agreement. Some recently-former Scientologists certainly
seem to think so.
> >>Wouldn't this be a conflict of interest, if he was in charge of both
> >>organizations?
> >
> >Probably, but I doubt it'd faze the Church.
>
> You'd think it would have raised the eyebrows of one of those hired gun
> lawyers acting as Special Directors, though. Unless their job is to merely
> sign the required documents, act in official capacity as holder of position of
> trust in any official business undertaken by the CST, and go home with a nice,
> fat honourarium cheque for their troubles.
Sounds about right. Even the non-Scientologist attorneys like Larry
Heller come off as assholes from what I've seen of them.
Zed
Xenu Remailer: http://www.magna.com.au/~zed/remailer.html
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3ia
Charset: cp850
iQEVAwUBNNWNOCsxIzhyTOOxAQHYSgf/Q+BBZp/k2n7wAKrzfbMLrpYWbJ2+LmaR
Jjhl/BaDP8HL6XI7Gs2b1/5QhAVksQ3Q7qcrpkSgGOv+A1BEcF6R0bxLIxNK7TTy
qTB/9+AZLIkG2pVgsRJZ9/krSBssna2/cxg0ypaPONbSnXd7ye0vrzrG03WTdFM0
vie02VlW/10ftSziZ1Mui3S3UVvjfoA8uuGarznK7Lf9RKTXhink0n8jEDgS8TaD
TRudnanSmRUwOnjUllA6mpYzx57KkoN4JkyxfNHbNBEDqB92KLTHvwPdKdKC81dW
iNKJhtbEmWkYicWxdI2aRb0DnC/YKhkLq1kahw7SmPDRJau1turspA==
=Z113
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
them
In article <34D4EF64...@magna.com.au>, z...@magna.com.au wrote...
>
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
>tall...@storm.ca wrote:
>>
>> The other two trustees, Meisler and Wilhere, appear in no other online
>> literature, other than CST vs. IRS (available from Operation Clambake, btw).
>
>Zip for me on Meisler, a few mentions of Greg Wilhere here and there. He
>was
>part of ASI apparently.
>
>> However, an inquisitive soul on IRC pointed me to a Hugh Wilhere, who is
>> listed as a user of the scientology.org domain, and works at one of the
>> nebulous and forgettable film production companies.
>
>Hugh Wilhere was an official of the Public Relations Bureau of the
>District of
>Columbia GO in 1975. He's listed as meeting with Michael Meisner in the
>Stipulation of Evidence from the Snow White trial.
Hugh Wilhere and Brent McDaniel represented the "Friends of L. Ron Hubbard"
in trying to get a park in Tilden named after ol' Ron rather recently.
see http://net.unl.edu/~swi/pers/tilden.html.
>
>> Another name that seems to turn up an awful lot is Nancy O'Meara. I believe
>> she was Chief Financial Officer for CST at one point. No idea as to who she
>> is, or where she might be today.
>
>Finance? Hm, sounds like a key position.
>
Presently "treasurer" and "spokesperson" for Scientology's CAN scam.
them
In article <6b2reg$bqd$1...@s3000-01.magna.com.au>, z...@magna.com.au wrote...
>Zip for me on Meisler, a few mentions of Greg Wilhere here and there.
>He was part of ASI apparently.
"Captain" Greg Wilhere:
Was on the board of CST, later Inspector General of RTC.
Formerly an employee of the Founding Church of Scientology, CSC, the Church of
Scientology Flag ServiceOrganization and an Australian Scientology
organization.
Perhaps a signee to the corperate resolution of TAIM also ??
Don't even confuse me by asking about Sandi Wilhere :-)
Zed
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
tall...@storm.ca wrote:
>
> In article <6asr6h$k5v$1...@s3000-01.magna.com.au>, z...@magna.com.au wrote:
> >RTC's use of the trademarks doesn't come from a licensing agreement
> >with CST. RTC was given the right to use the marks and Sekret
> >Skriptures, and to delegate who else can use the trademarks and Sekret
> >Skriptures, by L. Ron Hubbard in 1982. Hubbard also gave CST the power
> >to take control of the use of the trademarks if RTC allowed their
> >misuse. The decision is made by CST, and their authority to make it
> >comes from the terms laid out by L Ron Hubbard.
>
> Alright, so RTC is the trademark and sekret skripture police. But if it
> doesn't do its job to the satisfaction of the somewhat mysterious powers that
> be at CST, RTC loses its control over the trademarks, and they revert to CST.
That's about right.
> Would this be the end of the road, as far as RTC was concerned? Or does CST
> return the right to use and police the use of the marks etc. to RTC when it is
> satisfied that whatever foul miscreant within RTC was permitting misuse has
> been suitably 'handled'? (I'm guessing the situation hasn't come up, but I'm
> curious.)
Once CST has acquired the trademarks, they can pretty much do what they
want
with them. That would include giving them back to RTC, keeping them or
turning
them over to a completely different shell.
> >Hubbard also retained certain rights over the trademarks and Advanced
> >Technology at the time of his gift to RTC. His will donated those
> >rights to CST. One of those rights is apparently a "limited power of
> >appointment", allowing CST to decide who RTC can transfer the right to
> >use the trademarks to.
>
> Under which corporate entity are the trademarks and other works listed as
> assets? I'm assuming that, for auditing purposes (not the kind with cans),
> they come under the helm of CST.
They're represented as owned by RTC, and the Co$ takes great pains to
obscure
CST's connection. Lamont's book "Religion Inc" says that the Articles of
Incorporation of RTC had a section saying that CST could purchase all
the
rights to the trademarks and Sekret Skriptures for $100 at CST's sole
discretion. RTC apparently neglected to present this part of their
articles in
a lawsuit in Omaha.
> >As owner of the bulk of the copyrights, CST gets certain exclusive
> >rights over the works. One of those rights is the right to publish the
> >works. CST can license this exclusive right to someone else (I don't
> >know how long the license lasts). CST licenses the publication rights
> >to NEP. NEP in turn licenses the publication rights to BPI.
>
> This raises an interesting question. Why does scientology run *two* publishing
> houses? What would be the point in separating the owner - CST - from the
> actual publisher - BPI - with this third entity, NEP? Does NEP publish some
> works itself? Is this a fiction/non-fiction split?
It's a US - rest of the world split. NEP publishes works outside the US,
and
BPI does it inside the US. What's really odd is that there is no direct
link
between CST and BPI - at least according to the US claims court. From
the
Claims Court ruling:
"BPI pays royalties to NEP with respect to the copyrighted and patented
articles, and NEP in turn pays royalties to Mr. Hubbard and his
successors in
interest, with respect to royalties received from BPI and with respect
to items
published directly by NEP."
"Mr Hubbard's successors" refers to CST and RTC. The ruling goes on to
explain
that CST will be the one who stands to receive all these royalties once
it owns
the copyrights. CST got the copyrights from Norman Starkey one year
later.
NEP is incorporated in Denmark, BTW.
> Trademarks, trademarks. Why is this reminding me of the once-secret IRS deal?
> Oh, I remember - the WISE dissolution was to include all assets of WISE Inc.,
> including use of the scientology religion mark, transferred to the Inspector
> General Network. Of course, this doesn't seem to have happened. But if it had,
> why would it have been transferred to IGN, and not RTC or CST?
I'm not sure what IGN actually is. I _think_ it's some kind of RTC
subsidiary.
RTC apparently has various "Inspector General" positions within it. I'm
not
sure how IGN fits in though.
> >CST can take control of the use of the trademarks at their "sole
> >discretion". That would imply that it's an automatic transfer.
>
> So presumably, the president of CST (whoever he or she might be) can, if
> motivated, simply pick up the phone, call Warren McShane at RTC, and tell him
> the jig is up? What power does RTC have *outside* of the powers that it takes
> directly from the use of CST property?
RTC _owns_ the marks and Sekret Skriptures. It's just that Hubbard
supposedly
gave RTC the marks and Sekret Skriptures on the condition that CST could
buy it
all for a pittance whenever CST felt like it. RTC's legal control over
Scientology can be completely removed at any time.
> >CST had assets of $503 million, according to documents released in
> >litigation with the IRS. (I'm cribbing from Chris Owen here)
>
> Wow. That's a heck of a lot of money. You know what would be neat? A pie chart
> of the assets of all scientology entities, to get an idea of how the cash is
> spread throughout the organization. I've got to think that, at $503 million,
> CST has a good-sized slice.
I think it'd be difficult to get that information, but it'd definitely
be worth
giving it a shot.
> Next question - on what does it spend this windfall, other than the vaults?
> Does CST have any other recorded expenses or duties?
Besides routine administrative things, none that I know of. Preserving
the tech
is all that it spends its massive income on, supposedly.
> >>I wonder who has direct access to this
> >>little nest egg?
> >
> >Tracing the finances makes tracing the intellectual property rights
> >look like a walk in the park. It'll take some time to untangle.
>
> Maybe it's best to detangle it one thread at a time. Finding the current
> president, special directors and trustees would be a nice start. I wonder if
> Ace, who spawned this thread before vanishing into the distance, would be kind
> enough to provide that information?
Ace is pushing his own agenda, IMHO. Maybe he'll cough it up, or maybe
not.
It's possible that Ace doesn't know either.
> >As you pointed out to me elsewhere, Terri Gamboa left the Church of
> >Scientology in 1990. That would imply that the information that the
> >claims court described in 1992 is either out of date, or inaccurate.
> >Curious...
>
> Either that, or she didn't leave. I'm working on confirming that claim, to
> eliminate at least one potential wrong turn on the road to total CST
> understanding.
Terri Gamboa's name is on the Church's 1992 enemies list.
> Ms. Gamboa (nee Gilham, and one time spouse of Gerry Armstrong) had an
> interesting career inside scientology. She was an original incorporator of
> RTC, and is mentioned in several other court documents and affadavits. A
> former CMO girl, she followed the same path as many other DM cronies,
> including a stint at ASI. I'm going to try to compile a Gamboa resume, much
> akin to the Rathbun file, to get a better idea of her movements within the
> corporate structure.
She was also a member of the 1981 "All Clear Unit".
> The other two trustees, Meisler and Wilhere, appear in no other online
> literature, other than CST vs. IRS (available from Operation Clambake, btw).
Zip for me on Meisler, a few mentions of Greg Wilhere here and there. He
was
part of ASI apparently.
> However, an inquisitive soul on IRC pointed me to a Hugh Wilhere, who is
> listed as a user of the scientology.org domain, and works at one of the
> nebulous and forgettable film production companies.
Hugh Wilhere was an official of the Public Relations Bureau of the
District of
Columbia GO in 1975. He's listed as meeting with Michael Meisner in the
Stipulation of Evidence from the Snow White trial.
> Another name that seems to turn up an awful lot is Nancy O'Meara. I believe
> she was Chief Financial Officer for CST at one point. No idea as to who she
> is, or where she might be today.
Finance? Hm, sounds like a key position.
> >At the time of Lyman Spurlock's testimony in the Armstrong case (1983?
> >1984?), he was President and also Chairman of the Board of CST. I'd
> >say the info from Brett Achorn's page was current in 1995, and the
> >presidency changed between 1992 and 1995.
>
> So Spurlock gave up the presidency sometime between 1992 and 1995 -
> coincidentally, in the same time period that Marty/Mark Rathbun was removed as
> president of RTC. It would be interesting to know if Spurlock is still a
> director of CST - or would he be a trustee, since the special directors are
> non-scientologists, as I recall?
I don't know. I don't think anybody does outside of CST. The special
directors
don't specifically have to be non-scientologists, but they do have to be
lawyers.
> If the special directors are lawyers and accountants, perhaps this is a
> requirement under California corporate law. I'd sell my teeth to the fairies
> for a list of current General Directors, though. And where do the trustees
> come into the picture?
A word about figuring out who gives the orders: in terms of who decides
the day
to day running of the Church, the entire corporate structure is a sham.
The
_real_ power of command stems from the ability to lock someone up in the
RPF.
As the holder of the highest rank in the Sea Org, David Miscavige can
order any
of the others placed in the RPF if he even suspects disobedience, be
they
trustee, chairman, director or president of any organisation.
The dizzying corporate shellgame is there simply to provide a public
face for
the wog world. It provides a legal means of enforcing the Church's iron
grip on
the tech through IP law, and makes it as hard as possible for any Church
enemy
to sue the "Church of Scientology" (which legally independant entity are
you
talking about when you say that?) or trace the all-important moneyflow.
This
may have changed with the IRS agreement. Some recently-former
Scientologists
certainly seem to think so.
> >>Wouldn't this be a conflict of interest, if he was in charge of both
> >>organizations?
> >
> >Probably, but I doubt it'd faze the Church.
>
> You'd think it would have raised the eyebrows of one of those hired gun
> lawyers acting as Special Directors, though. Unless their job is to merely
> sign the required documents, act in official capacity as holder of position of
> trust in any official business undertaken by the CST, and go home with a nice,
> fat honourarium cheque for their troubles.
Sounds about right. Even the non-Scientologist attorneys like Larry
Heller come
off as assholes from what I've seen of them.
Zed
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3ia
Charset: noconv
iQEVAgUBNNTtwysxIzhyTOOxAQFm1Qf8DmsxBsR+aFv5wCw0G1udI0a3tzwFsRHs
PWcMb4sdNgibEzC801OEq4RQM144vwXMtHOH4ItJj1IcHbaX7H0urmBrUOwxEfeT
VPHcIsTDadvQB7czad3qUES+W881wL9VxnzXWKnARlWmFn1E9ZLUIBUA/K7TjfIW
sgKS1Ya3gHmbI9a1nAHHJVycTqKhG04Tbk2XzrFATW+CjZkVhq8CBJXLOoBERrDl
uFfUvOwgxxujrw5CmliUF2WT6p135RtcdNpq6fb/zhrQzyItP/6776iUz2BG99WG
r0ZOzHNEEK++9Lj4mUAyiG8JVg20gGVPFi3jseNFafzkNG+Re5gTrg==
=Ia0w
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
geo...@exit109.com
tall...@storm.ca <tall...@mail.storm.ca> wrote:
>z...@magna.com.au wrote:
>>>...
>>RTC's use of the trademarks doesn't come from a licensing agreement
>>with CST. RTC was given the right to use the marks and Sekret
>>Skriptures, and to delegate who else can use the trademarks and Sekret
>>Skriptures, by L. Ron Hubbard in 1982. Hubbard also gave CST the power
>>to take control of the use of the trademarks if RTC allowed their
>>misuse. The decision is made by CST, and their authority to make it
>>comes from the terms laid out by L Ron Hubbard.
>
>Alright, so RTC is the trademark and sekret skripture police. But if it
>doesn't do its job to the satisfaction of the somewhat mysterious powers that
>be at CST, RTC loses its control over the trademarks, and they revert to CST.
Looks to me as though this arrangement protects the trademarks and
tech from any legal action. For example, a civil damages judgement
or religious rights injunction against RTC, could not effectively
seize the tech or RTC's rights to the tech, because CST would just
yank the tech back from RTC, who 'failed to protect' the tech, and
create a new RTC clone the next week (like GO-->OSA).
And bringing any action against CST directly would be difficult,
as they don't 'do' much of anything to be sued for, and
they don't decide who gets to use the tech.
Chris Owen
Here's some background info for you on CST, extracted from "Piercing the
corporate veil: the true structure of Scientology" (an essay which is at
http://wpxx02.toxi.uni-wuerzburg.de/~cowen/essays/corporate.html):
------------------------------------
CHURCH OF SPIRITUAL TECHNOLOGY (CST)
Incorporated 28 May 1982 by Sherman Lenske. Lenske was a partner in the
law firm Lenske, Lenske and Heller. Officers Lyman Spurlock, Maria
Starkey and Rebecca Hay (an ASI staff member, Schomer in GA25, p.4493).
According to CoST staff member Tom Vorm, CST received orders from ASI
via Dan Prybilski, Commanding Officer LRH Archives, at the time of
Vorm's testimony in the Armstrong case (in GA5, p.639-43).
At the time of his testimony in the Armstrong case, Lyman Spurlock was
on the Board of CST (in GA20, p.3431). Spurlock was President and
Chairman of the Board CST (ibid p.3490). Greg Wilhere was also on the
Board (ibid p.3431). Wilhere subsequently became Inspector General of
RTC (KSW News issue 21, 1987, p.3).
Documents released in CST's litigation against the IRS showed that the
corporation held some $503 million in its accounts. It claims ownership
of the copyrights of Dianetics and Scientology and holds the Hubbard
archives. Registrations show Norman Starkey as the copyright holder,
however. Books published by the cult in the 1990s give "L. Ron Hubbard
Library" as the copyright holder (a registered dba - "doing business as"
- of Norman Starkey).
["GA" refers to Gerry Armstrong trial transcript - C.O.]
--
| Chris Owen - chr...@lutefisk.demon.co.uk |
|--------------------------------------------------|
| WORLD'S BIGGEST SINCLAIR ARCHIVE - |
| http://www.nvg.unit.no/sinclair/planet/index.htm |
David Gerard
Just thought I'd repost these to emphasise them.
Who cares who controls the Tech? DM controls the RPF.
(Anyway, it's well known that the ARSCC controls the tech ;-)
On Sun, 01 Feb 1998 23:12:30 GMT, z...@magna.com.au (Zed) wrote:
:A word about figuring out who gives the orders: in terms of who
:decides the day to day running of the Church, the entire corporate
:structure is a sham. The _real_ power of command stems from the
:ability to lock someone up in the RPF. As the holder of the highest
:rank in the Sea Org, David Miscavige can order any of the others
:placed in the RPF if he even suspects disobedience, be they trustee,
:chairman, director or president of any organisation.
:The dizzying corporate shellgame is there simply to provide a public
:face for the wog world. It provides a legal means of enforcing the
:Church's iron grip on the tech through IP law, and makes it as hard as
:possible for any Church enemy to sue the "Church of Scientology"
:(which legally independant entity are you talking about when you say
:that?) or trace the all-important moneyflow.
--
http://thingy.apana.org.au/~fun/ http://www.suburbia.net/~fun/
Stop JUNK EMAIL Boycott AMAZON.COM http://mickc.home.mindspring.com/index1.htm
"You make your own dinner nauseous" - Handbag Deb's beasties
David Gerard
On 2 Feb 1998 12:17:42 -0500, geo...@exit109.com wrote:
:Looks to me as though this arrangement protects the trademarks and
:tech from any legal action. For example, a civil damages judgement
:or religious rights injunction against RTC, could not effectively
:seize the tech or RTC's rights to the tech, because CST would just
:yank the tech back from RTC, who 'failed to protect' the tech, and
:create a new RTC clone the next week (like GO-->OSA).
:And bringing any action against CST directly would be difficult,
:as they don't 'do' much of anything to be sued for, and
:they don't decide who gets to use the tech.
The shell game can't be THAT easy for them, surely. There must be some law
that can be applied against them for this. Naming both at once?