SPT: The judge's impulse was improper

1 view
Skip to first unread message

Huge Cajones Remailer

unread,
Feb 15, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/15/97
to

The judge's impulse was improper

St. Petersburg Times
February 10, 1997
A Times Editorial

Pinellas County Judge Stephen Rushing made a
flagrant mistake when he directed 18 defendants
to a counseling program affiliated with the Church
of Scientology. Judges, who have the power to
control defendants' lives, have a special obligation
to protect the constitutional separation between
church and state. Rushing's intentions may have
been innocent, but his actions violated that
obligation.

The problem in this case is not with the Church of
Scientology. Rushing's alternative sentencing
would be just as improper if it had involved
counseling programs affiliated with more
mainstream religions. Any number of secular
programs are available to provide the kind of
counseling Rushing had in mind. He had no need
to seek out one associated with any religious
denomination.

Rushing's explanation is unpersuasive. He says he
knew the Impulse Control course was based on the
teachings of Church of Scientology founder L. Ron
Hubbard. But he says he was assured that the
program would be secular.

That's not good enough. Judges routinely hear all
sorts of assurances from defendants, lawyers and
other people who come before them. However,
their obligation is to follow the law and the
Constitution, not vague assurances.

Rushing has moved to a civil court post and is no
longer in a position to send defendants to the
Impulse Control course. Still, court officials should
adopt a formal policy insulating the court system
from associations with programs linked to any
religion. That is the only sure way to control the
impulse on any judge's part to ignore the
constitutional separation between church and
state.

Joe Harrington

unread,
Feb 16, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/16/97
to

Can someone find out what is covered on this "Impulse Control" course
and what Scientology front group it operates under, and if this
program is receiving ANY kind of direct or indirect govt funding?

Joe


Ted Mayett (KoX)

unread,
Feb 16, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/16/97
to

On Sat, 15 Feb 1997 16:44:32 -0800, nob...@huge.cajones.com (Huge
Cajones Remailer) wrote:

>
>The judge's impulse was improper
>

Thanks for the post.
So another great scheme by the cult fades away.
Except in the orgs. This tale will probably be told over and over at
events, this tale of a Judge sending people to Hubby.

It sure would be nice having a netter on the inside at these events.


Ted Mayett
http://home.pacific.net.sg/~marina/misc/arshtml.htm
** next Internet pickets against $cientology: March 7th-16th, 1997 **
** see http://www.primenet.com/~cultxpt/demo.htm for details **

jbwebb

unread,
Feb 16, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/16/97
to Joe Harrington

Joe Harrington wrote:

> Can someone find out what is covered on this "Impulse Control" course
> and what Scientology front group it operates under, and if this
> program is receiving ANY kind of direct or indirect govt funding?

You know, there seems to be so much that ARS could do with a little
group effort. Exposing the tax exempt fraud that seems to be committed
by COS, informing the US Government of the REAL truth about COS re
Germany. Trying to get national media exposing the lies of COS re
Germany and how we are all getting star-fucked by Travolta and gang.
Talking to the State Dept., etc., etc., and these are just current
topics. Instead, it seems like a lot of time and research is wasted by
intelligent and informed people regarding Fishman, regarding Lavenda,
regarding FactNet, regarding critics who sell out to COS, regarding
details about Paulette Cooper ad nauseum. Individual people who post on
ARS are not important. What ARS produces (stats!) as a whole are
important. What we can achieve as a group could be significant.
Personally, I have no organizational skills, but would be willingly led
to lend a hand with grunt work.
Take care.
Joni Webb
> Joe

JimDBB

unread,
Feb 18, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/18/97
to

Joni Webb says, " You know, so much could be done by the ARS with a little
group effort" This is the right thing said at the right time. A hell of
a lot could be done...and should be done.

One big thing that we all seem to forget and that we could get to work on
immediately is that all of the fraud, abuse and harassment perpetrated by
the Co$ is being done on tax exempt money. We could and should make a big
fuss over this...individually and collectively. There are tons of
lawsuits all over this country waiting to be put into action. We need a
way of connecting people who have been defrauded abused and harassed, with
good attorneys...malpractice type of attorneys who would be willing and
able to pursue lawsuits on a contingency basis.
Perhaps there are some large law firms that would be willing to help for a
good cause.

Joni Webb, you have the right idea.

A. Student

unread,
Feb 18, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/18/97
to

jim...@aol.com (JimDBB) wrote:

Additionally, if the German ruling stands that Co$ is not a religion,
but is a for-profit entity, it could have major ramifications on the
IRS ruling in the US to allow the tax-exempt status to stand.

Cornelius Krasel

unread,
Feb 18, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/18/97
to

A. Student (astu...@top.university.edu) wrote:
> Additionally, if the German ruling stands that Co$ is not a religion,
> but is a for-profit entity, it could have major ramifications on the
> IRS ruling in the US to allow the tax-exempt status to stand.

This argument (just vice versa) has been put forward by the CoS
already: just because the IRS granted tax-exempt status to the CoS,
the Germans should accept it as a religion.

It makes no sense in either way.

--Cornelius.

--
/* Cornelius Krasel, U Wuerzburg, Dept. of Pharmacology, Versbacher Str. 9 */
/* D-97078 Wuerzburg, Germany email: pha...@rzbox.uni-wuerzburg.de SP3 */
/* "Science is the game we play with God to find out what His rules are." */

Keith Henson

unread,
Feb 19, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/19/97
to

A. Student (astu...@top.university.edu) wrote:

snip

: I am saying the IRS should act independently using recent information.
: And the information should include recent intelligence from the German
: government. The IRS should undertake an in-depth review of the Co$
: tax-exempt status and consider revoking that status. There is a
: strong body of evidence accumulating to indicate that the
: Co$--although currently deemed a religion in the US according to the
: IRS--is a for-profit entity, and thus not entitled to the tax
: exemption.

I am sorry to say that this might not be the actual case. Though I am
fairly sure a lot of the money which goes into scientology gets stolen,
and thus winds up for private benefit, it may well be the case that there
is nobody who is acting in an official capacity and milking CoS for money.

CoS and other cults are a sort of social cancer which eats up the
resources and life energies of those who get sucked into one of them, and
the only thing they are really orented toward is to sucking in more people
and cleaning out their bank accounts. When you think about all the scams,
frauds and ripoffs which have been exposed here on a.r.s, and more, *many*
more, exposures which are in the pipeline, it is possible CoS is operating
on a positive cash flow to this very day.

*However* a non-profit (501c(3) entity is supposed to provide some benefit
to the community, in terms of service or increasing knowledge or
something. One which provides no such services in return for the massive
damage it does to the finantial, mental and physical damage it does to
those who get sucked into it, hardly qualifies as deserving tax exempt
status.

Keith Henson


A. Student

unread,
Feb 19, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/19/97
to

kra...@wpxx02.toxi.uni-wuerzburg.de (Cornelius Krasel) wrote:

You are right. The Co$ argument is flawed whether run forward or
reverse. My argument is not the simple reverse of the Co$ forward
argument.

I think the IRS made the wrong decision in '93. To argue that the
Germans should base their decision on a '93 IRS decision represents
flawed reasoning on at least two counts--historical extrapolation and
cultural norms.

But, I think it is correct to say that the IRS could reconsider its
'93 decision after looking at the details and facts in the '97 German
case. I am not saying that the IRS should just do what the Germans
do, just because the Germans do it, which is the reverse of the Co$
argument you mentioned.

A. Student

unread,
Feb 20, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/20/97
to

hkhe...@netcom.com (Keith Henson) wrote:

>A. Student (astu...@top.university.edu) wrote:
>
>snip
>
>: I am saying the IRS should act independently using recent information.


>: And the information should include recent intelligence from the German
>: government. The IRS should undertake an in-depth review of the Co$
>: tax-exempt status and consider revoking that status. There is a
>: strong body of evidence accumulating to indicate that the
>: Co$--although currently deemed a religion in the US according to the
>: IRS--is a for-profit entity, and thus not entitled to the tax
>: exemption.
>

>I am sorry to say that this might not be the actual case. Though I am
>fairly sure a lot of the money which goes into scientology gets stolen,
>and thus winds up for private benefit, it may well be the case that there
>is nobody who is acting in an official capacity and milking CoS for money.

Okay. Gotcha. Thank you for commenting on this. I agree with what
you are saying. What I am driving at is something along another
angle. BTW, the body of evidence I referred to above is the German
body of evidence concerning for-profit operations, plus the results of
ongoing investigations from Bavaria, Greece, France, Spain, Italy,
Norway, etc.

The angle I speak of is where the IRS could reasonably issue an NPRM
through the FR to modify 26 CFR to tighten up--say Section 504--the
conditions causing status of exemption to cease. Some examples might
be:

(1) Organization operates as for-profit in any other global context.
(2) Organization sales activity appears commercial in nature.
(3) Organization operates a ponzi scheme or other pyramidal selling
scheme.
(4) Organization gives preferential treatment to high income persons.
(5) Organization loses or is denied tax-exempt status in any country
with which the US regards as a trading partner.
(6) Organization or its officers receive conviction for criminal
activities in any country.
(7) Organization has a religious charter, but operates as a cult, or
operates as a totalistic-type religion.
(8) Organization uses tax-exempt funds for litigation above some
specified lower limit (analogy to the lobbying and political influence
rule).

>CoS and other cults are a sort of social cancer which eats up the
>resources and life energies of those who get sucked into one of them, and
>the only thing they are really orented toward is to sucking in more people
>and cleaning out their bank accounts. When you think about all the scams,
>frauds and ripoffs which have been exposed here on a.r.s, and more, *many*
>more, exposures which are in the pipeline, it is possible CoS is operating
>on a positive cash flow to this very day.

Agreed.

>*However* a non-profit (501c(3) entity is supposed to provide some benefit
>to the community, in terms of service or increasing knowledge or
>something. One which provides no such services in return for the massive
>damage it does to the finantial, mental and physical damage it does to
>those who get sucked into it, hardly qualifies as deserving tax exempt
>status.

Agreed.

>Keith Henson

Very good.

A. Student

Margareth

unread,
Feb 20, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/20/97
to

A. Student wrote:
>
> hkhe...@netcom.com (Keith Henson) wrote:
>
> >A. Student (astu...@top.university.edu) wrote:
> >
> >snip
> >

> The angle I speak of is where the IRS could reasonably issue an NPRM


> through the FR to modify 26 CFR to tighten up--say Section 504--the
> conditions causing status of exemption to cease. Some examples might
> be:
>
> (1) Organization operates as for-profit in any other global context.
> (2) Organization sales activity appears commercial in nature.
> (3) Organization operates a ponzi scheme or other pyramidal selling
> scheme.
> (4) Organization gives preferential treatment to high income persons.
> (5) Organization loses or is denied tax-exempt status in any country
> with which the US regards as a trading partner.
> (6) Organization or its officers receive conviction for criminal
> activities in any country.
> (7) Organization has a religious charter, but operates as a cult, or
> operates as a totalistic-type religion.
> (8) Organization uses tax-exempt funds for litigation above some
> specified lower limit (analogy to the lobbying and political influence
> rule).
>

How about "Organization hires criminals to harass the families of
perceived critics?" That's a particularly savory one. :-)

MH

> A. Student

Rev. Dennis L Erlich

unread,
Feb 20, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/20/97
to

hkhe...@netcom.com (Keith Henson):

A. Student (astu...@top.university.edu) wrote:
>: I am saying the IRS should act independently using recent information.
>: And the information should include recent intelligence from the German
>: government. The IRS should undertake an in-depth review of the Co$
>: tax-exempt status and consider revoking that status. There is a
>: strong body of evidence accumulating to indicate that the
>: Co$--although currently deemed a religion in the US according to the
>: IRS--is a for-profit entity, and thus not entitled to the tax
>: exemption.

Keith:


>I am sorry to say that this might not be the actual case. Though I am
>fairly sure a lot of the money which goes into scientology gets stolen,
>and thus winds up for private benefit, it may well be the case that there
>is nobody who is acting in an official capacity and milking CoS for money.

Probably only the outside ho'lawyers are making a profit from
the scam at this point.

>CoS and other cults are a sort of social cancer which eats up the
>resources and life energies of those who get sucked into one of them,

Fighting off the evil psych's and espees with government
tax-exempt subsidy.

>and
>the only thing they are really orented toward is to sucking in more people
>and cleaning out their bank accounts. When you think about all the scams,
>frauds and ripoffs which have been exposed here on a.r.s, and more, *many*
>more, exposures which are in the pipeline, it is possible CoS is operating
>on a positive cash flow to this very day.

Probably still are, Keith. Remember, their labor costs are
zilch. If the labor force wants to quit, lock them in the
basement and perhaps they'll change their minds.

>*However* a non-profit (501c(3) entity is supposed to provide some benefit
>to the community, in terms of service or increasing knowledge or
>something. One which provides no such services in return for the massive
>damage it does to the finantial, mental and physical damage it does to
>those who get sucked into it, hardly qualifies as deserving tax exempt
>status.

Face reality, Keith. It is clear that in the US, that hardly
matters.

>Keith Henson

Rev. Dennis L Erlich * * the inFormer * *
<dennis....@support.com>
<inF...@primenet.com>

Curtis R. Anderson

unread,
Feb 22, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/22/97
to

A. Student wrote:

> The angle I speak of is where the IRS could reasonably issue an NPRM
> through the FR to modify 26 CFR to tighten up--say Section 504--the
> conditions causing status of exemption to cease. Some examples might
> be:
>
> (1) Organization operates as for-profit in any other global context.

Okay.

> (2) Organization sales activity appears commercial in nature.

Definitely. This would also include collegiate athletics, I suppose.
Which is fine by me. The money floating around in collegiate athletics
irks me more about the abuse of § 501(c)(3) more than the Co$.

> (3) Organization operates a ponzi scheme or other pyramidal selling
> scheme.

If for no other reason than such schemes are subject to vigorous
investigation by states' attornies general. Take MLM type of alternative
long distance companies' calling cards, for example.

> (4) Organization gives preferential treatment to high income persons.

I question this one, but I can't think of why right now.

> (5) Organization loses or is denied tax-exempt status in any country
> with which the US regards as a trading partner.

This could easily happen to a lot of organizations simply because their
standards are different from the ones imposed by § 501(c)(3).

> (6) Organization or its officers receive conviction for criminal
> activities in any country.

Mmmm-aybe.

> (7) Organization has a religious charter, but operates as a cult, or
> operates as a totalistic-type religion.

The U.S. government can't go around defining what is a religion and what
is not. First amendment no-no. (IANAL. IMHO.)

> (8) Organization uses tax-exempt funds for litigation above some
> specified lower limit (analogy to the lobbying and political influence
> rule).

I'm worried about what this lower limit might be. It would be wrong to
deny a church the right to seek redress simply because a crooked
contractor stuck them with shoddy, unsafe church renovation, for
example. (Of course, attornies would hopefully be falling all over
themselves to represent the church pro bono. Especially those who are
members of the church.)

It might be better to say that the IRS must review each NPO on a
case-by-case basis regarding the amount of litigation involved instead,
when it goes over that specified lower limit. Having that church (or
school, college, etc.) suing a contractor for punitive damages into
eight figures for willfully malicious construction practices is one
thing. Suing individuals on very ambiguous pretenses for amounts into
six figures for the purposes of chilling free speech is quite another.

Sounds fine otherwise. Pitch it to President Clinton and see if he will
sign an Executive Order to "make it so".

ObNote: I'm still very behind in offline newsreading; almost 900 more
articles to wade through. I'll try to get to everything in due time.
--
Curtis R. Anderson, Co-creator of "Gleepy the Hen", SP 2.5?, KoX
URLs: http://www.servtech.com/public/cra/ | XENU: All that needs
ftp://ftp.servtech.com/pub/users/cra/ | to be said!
mailto:gle...@intelligencia.com |


Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine

unread,
Feb 23, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/23/97
to

In article <330FB4...@intelligencia.com>, "Curtis R. Anderson"
<gle...@intelligencia.com> writes

>A. Student wrote:
>
>> The angle I speak of is where the IRS could reasonably issue an NPRM
>> through the FR to modify 26 CFR to tighten up--say Section 504--the
>> conditions causing status of exemption to cease. Some examples might
>> be:

This is some thoughts -- points in a report -- on what
might be done with nonprofit status. It is also in
an international context.

Echoing the obvious...
<1> any registration as an incorporated or nonprofit body
requires that the finances of the body be distinct from the
personal pocket of the leadership; i.e. that all transfers
of money to their private accounts be as salaries, expenses,
etc reasonably die from the business & recorded in its accounts,
and that no expenditure of the group's money without transfer
be of largely private benefit with little reasonable benefit
to the group.

Religion.
<2> A "religious" organisation is any based on the idea
that there is a real spiritual world disctinct from
the real and measurable physical world; no organisation
should receive worse or better treatment because
is is religious.
The preferred option [America] is to make absolutely no
distinction between religious and secular bodies.
Where there is a status of "church" [Germany], it
should apply to an orgainsation which is religious AND of
a nonprofit, benevolent character.

Nonrprofit, benevolent organisations.
(3) A tax free status should apply to an organisation
which is benevolent and nonprofit in one of the following ways:
[a] its activities benefit the public interest in such sepcific
material ways as the promotion of culture, education, sports
or scientific research; and/or
[b] its activities individual benefit members of the public
by providing comfort or services to them, being open to
all members of the public on the basis of need; and/or
[c] its activities are for the mutual benefit of the members,
and go to provide services or facilties used by them.
(4) Nonprofit means that the activities of the body
are reasonable and proportionate in delivering the stated aims
of the body, as would be reasonable in a body contracted
to provide the same service; that the money is neither
inured to any owners or shareholders, nor diverted to any other
purpose irrelevant to its qualifying benevolent purposes; and
that, where it sells its services to members or to the public,
it does so at the lowest reasonable price consistent with
prudent continued operation. What it purchases, it must purchase
at a prudent market price consistent with delivering its services
at the lowest reasonable price. Where it explicitly transfers
money to a parent bady [possibly overseas], that body must
also legitimately be a benevolent, nonprofit body.



>>
>> (1) Organization operates as for-profit in any other global context.
>
>Okay.

OK.


>
>> (2) Organization sales activity appears commercial in nature.
>
>Definitely. This would also include collegiate athletics, I suppose.
>Which is fine by me. The money floating around in collegiate athletics
>irks me more about the abuse of § 501(c)(3) more than the Co$.
>

Yes, see above. Has to deliver the service at the best economical price;
cannot siphon money out by "transfer pricing".


>> (3) Organization operates a ponzi scheme or other pyramidal selling
>> scheme.
>
>If for no other reason than such schemes are subject to vigorous
>investigation by states' attornies general. Take MLM type of alternative
>long distance companies' calling cards, for example.
>

Yep. "Anything in the nature of a pyramid selling scheme is
disqualified from benevolent nonprofit status, as it is
neither for the public good nor the mutual benefit of members."


>> (4) Organization gives preferential treatment to high income persons.
>
>I question this one, but I can't think of why right now.
>

As stated it's a bit odd. But see "delivers services to the public on
the basis of need."


>> (5) Organization loses or is denied tax-exempt status in any country
>> with which the US regards as a trading partner.
>
>This could easily happen to a lot of organizations simply because their
>standards are different from the ones imposed by § 501(c)(3).
>

Me2 -- won't work.


>> (6) Organization or its officers receive conviction for criminal
>> activities in any country.
>
>Mmmm-aybe.

Felony convictions. The organisation may not continue
in nonprofit status while:
** It continues to have senior officials with felony convictions
done to benefit the organisation, relevant to the organisation,
suggesting future criminal activity by the organisation,
or that the organisation supports their felony.
** The formal policy of the organisation, resulting in at least
one conviction for such felonies, amounts to requiring the
commitment of felonies for the organisation; inciting members
to commit felonies on its behalf; or aiding or concealing
felonies committed by members. Removing a suspension of
nonprofit staus for this reason should require written evidence
of a change of policy and a list of steps taken to prevent
recurrence, and where necessary sunmitting to an injuction
not to commit/incite/abet such felonies in future.


>
>> (7) Organization has a religious charter, but operates as a cult

****
Bollocks; define it (without running into the first amendment).


>
>> (8) Organization uses tax-exempt funds for litigation above some
>> specified lower limit (analogy to the lobbying and political influence
>> rule).
>
>I'm worried about what this lower limit might be. It would be wrong to
>deny a church the right to seek redress simply because a crooked
>contractor stuck them with shoddy, unsafe church renovation, for
>example. (Of course, attornies would hopefully be falling all over
>themselves to represent the church pro bono. Especially those who are
>members of the church.)
>
>It might be better to say that the IRS must review each NPO on a
>case-by-case basis regarding the amount of litigation involved instead,
>when it goes over that specified lower limit. Having that church (or
>school, college, etc.) suing a contractor for punitive damages into
>eight figures for willfully malicious construction practices is one
>thing. Suing individuals on very ambiguous pretenses for amounts into
>six figures for the purposes of chilling free speech is quite another.
>

Covered under "everything it does should be reasonable and proportionate
to delivering the benevolent service it provides, at the lowest
attanable price consistent with continued prudent operation."
If the cheif execs salary is 1x higher than any commercial company
of comparable size, or the litigation bill, abd this does nothing
to help deliver the service, then it is "disproportionate".


>Sounds fine otherwise. Pitch it to President Clinton and see if he will
>sign an Executive Order to "make it so".
>
>ObNote: I'm still very behind in offline newsreading; almost 900 more
>articles to wade through. I'll try to get to everything in due time.

[P&M]

|~/ |~/
~~|;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;||';-._.-;'^';||_.-;'^'0-|~~
P | Woof Woof, Glug Glug ||____________|| 0 | P
O | Who Drowned the Judge's Dog? | . . . . . . . '----. 0 | O
O | answers on alt.religion.scientology *---|_______________ @__o0 | O
L |___&_http://www.xemu.demon.co.uk_________________________|/_______| L
_________/clam/faq/woofglug.html________________________________________
(Lisa McPherson Memorial Page,http://www.primenet.com/~cultxpt/lisa.htm)


Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages