A letter to Mike Rinder: Your victim speaks up (Part 7) February 27, 2018

Hubbard advertised and made others advertise that he was “mankind’s greatest friend.” He published and made others publish what they all said was an authentic, heroic, supermanic biography. He promised and made others promise fabulous results for his technology and religion. Should we have believed and trusted him, or any of his agents or spokespersons, at any time? Emphatically no! We should have challenged him and his people, and we should have observed and challenged how they reacted to challenge and handled or treated their challengers. And we should challenge them now, and continue to challenge them.

Even before he announced Scientology to the world, Hubbard lied about his benevolence, his intentions, his history, his research, his abilities, his products, his statistics. You, Mike, were Hubbard and Scientology’s spokesperson for many years, and you knew from incontrovertible evidence no later than 1984 that Hubbard and his spokespersons were lying about these things. That is when these facts were litigated in your first lawsuit against me, and Hubbard was judicially declared a pathological liar. It is reported that you became a director of CSI in 1982, so you actually had access to this evidence, and were legally responsible for actions against me and other SP targets, from that date. Since then, you have been willfully lying in service of this man you knew to be a pathological liar, and you have never owned up to it. You happily victimized the people Hubbard or his pathologically lying successor David Miscavige wanted victimized.

Hubbard’s credibility, his claims about himself, his truthfulness, his history, his qualifications, and his claims for his technology are fundamental to why people were suckered into his cult, why they got fleeced, and why they remained there, abused and enslaved. You are significantly responsible for keeping the lying, fleecing, abuse and slavery working. You have treated or handled well-founded challenges and bona fide challengers just as Hubbard did, and Miscavige does, and Rathbun does – as the cowardly do. “Double curve,” “attack the attacker,” “black PR,” “fair game,” “silence or destroy,” and even “ignore tech” are all cowardly reactions to warranted challenge.

The ignore tech you, Rathbun, Miscavige, et al. practice in response to legitimate challenges does not show, as you would have people believe, that you are “above it all,” that you are morally superior to your challengers, and we are inconsequential “naysayers,” who aren’t worth you ignorers’ time, and only deserve ignoring. The Scientologists and their collaborators’ ignore tech is contemptuous and cowardly. It is proof of cowardice. You should be challenged, again and again. So should Leah Remini and A&E executives, who must have known you still serve the Scientologists’ malign purposes toward your victims, yet reward you richly, provide you cover for your criminality, and promote you as courageous when you know you’re being cowardly.

Years ago I recognized cowardice as the Scientologists’ Why for their continuing aggressive, antisocial actions toward their victims. For example:

[Jeffrey Augustine:] Why can’t Gerry make peace with the Indies?

[me] Because their terms are destructive. The Scientologists have to make peace with their victims.

The question is, why don’t the Scientologists make peace with their victims? LF

Cowardice. LFBD F/N This is really Scientology’s VFP.1

As I noted, cowardice is one of the Scientologists’ essential valuable final products, if not their most essential VFP, that they produce and enforce in their members and collaborators’ characters. Wikipedia says:

Moral character or character is an evaluation of an individual’s stable moral qualities. The concept of character can imply a variety of attributes including the existence or lack of virtues such as empathy, courage, fortitude, honesty, and loyalty, or of good behaviors or habits. Moral character primarily refers to the assemblage of qualities that distinguish one individual from another—although on a cultural level, the set of moral behaviors to which a social group adheres can be said to unite and define it culturally as distinct from others.2

For phonetic and syntactic parallelism, when listing the Scientologists’ eight character VFPs I’ve identified, I use “pusillanimity,” which is just a fancy synonym for common cowardice. This is from a 2015 response of mine to a letter to the Los Angeles Times from attorney and one of your coconspirators Monique Yingling:

In Scientology, crass merchandising, hard sell, deceit, fraud, hate, incarcerations, slavery, the destruction of human rights and persons, financial ruination, using the law to harass, black propaganda, and many other antisocial or criminal activities are religious exercise, or sacraments. The Scientologists lure good wogs into their cult with the wonderful promises of White Luciferianism, and then handle and hold them with Hubbard’s Black Luciferian “tech,” and do their damnedest to turn them into tough, dedicated, glaring Black Luciferians. While telling people their objective is to get everyone to “think for yourself,” the Scientologists compel cult personalities that must think as the cult head commands. Thinking for oneself or “other-intentionedness” is restrained and punished. While insisting that they are engendering virtuous or moral characters and behaviors in their members, the Scientologists actually instill the “valuable final products,” as they call them, of vanity, dishonesty, hypocrisy, perfidy, envy, pugnacity, malignity and pusillanimity.3

In his 2015 book Wages of Rebellion: The Moral Imperative of Revolt, which I highly recommend, writer, Presbyterian minister and activist Chris Hedges distinguishes between physical courage and moral courage.

To rebel requires that elusive virtue that Snowden exemplifies and that Melville’s Starbuck lacks — moral courage. I have been to war. I have seen physical courage. But this kind of courage is not moral courage. Very few of even the bravest warriors have moral courage. The person with moral courage defies the crowd, stands up as a solitary individual, shuns the intoxicating embrace of comradeship, and is disobedient to authority, even at the risk of his or her life, for a higher principle. And with moral courage comes persecution.

The US Army pilot Hugh Thompson had moral courage. He landed his helicopter between a platoon of US soldiers and ten terrified Vietnamese civilians during the My Lai massacre in 1968. He ordered his gunner to fire his M60 machine gun on the advancing US soldiers if they began to shoot the villagers. And for this act of moral courage, Thompson was hounded and reviled. Moral courage always looks like this. It is always defined by the state as treason— the Army attempted to cover up the massacre and threatened to court-martial Thompson. Moral courage is the courage to act and to speak the truth. Thompson had it. Daniel Ellsberg had it. Martin Luther King Jr. had it. What those in authority once said about them, they say today about Snowden. 4

The Scientology conspirators permit and even demand physical courage from Scientologists in many situations – hard labor, sleep deprivation, life-risking assignments, beatings, imprisonment, impoverishment, disaster site appearances, punishable criminality, etc. The conspirators, however, prohibit and suppress moral courage in Scientology in virtually every situation, and punish it as a high crime. Because I once defied Hubbard and his crowd, stood up as an individual, disobeyed his authority, and told the truth, he had his coconspiring juniors — you, Rathbun, Miscavige, et al. — persecute me, and you have been persecuting me ever since.

Notes

Mike Rinder: Keeping the IRS tax exemption working (Part 2) (February 16, 2018)

Rinder quotes Yingling’s February 1 letter and continues:

Now, let’s consider a few of her statements and some of the glaring omissions.

The unaddressed elephant in the room and the big thing missing from the IRS review: no mention of the enormous amount of money spent by scientology to spy on and try to destroy whistleblowers and critics. 1

Wikipedia says:

“Elephant in the room” is an English-language metaphorical idiom for an obvious problem or risk that no one wants to discuss, or a condition of groupthink that no one wants to challenge.2

The elephant in the room is always unaddressed. Once it’s actually addressed, it no longer is the elephant in the room. Addressing can be lied about or faked, in which case the elephant remains the elephant in the room.

What Rinder is floating is the dumbo in the room, an overblown fake elephant in the room.

I am a real, unmetaphorical whistleblower and critic, and victim, and wog. The real metaphorical elephant in the room is Rinder and his coconspirators’ conspiracy to spy on and try to destroy me — or silence me, or imprison me, or ruin me, or obliterate me. The same elephant – also called “Scientology v. Armstrong, the thirty-six year war,” or “the Armstrong Op” – occupies many rooms.

I can’t help that. I have never tried to be the elephant in any room. I have sought, as sensibly as possible, to not be the elephant in anyone’s room. I’m trying right now to end my endless elephant in the room beingness. It’s threatening and can be torture to be the elephant in anyone’s room, let alone the rooms of so many people who hate me so much.

No one in those rooms wants to discuss what the Scientologist conspirators – Hubbard, Miscavige, Rathbun, Rinder, Yingling, et al., the operators3— have done and are doing to me to silence or destroy me. Yet that elephant of a criminal campaign against my rights and my person is key to overturning the IRS tax exemption. I am going to be a problem and a risk to the conspirators until I’m dead, a condition that the conspirators doubtlessly desire. Even then, my record will be a problem and a risk, and an elephant in their rooms.

Funny, in 2012, Rathbun wrote an article to celebrate, he said, “the thirtieth anniversary of [his] introduction to the strange case of Gerry Armstrong,” and I used the “elephant in the room” idiom in a reply.

Seriously, Marty, is the Scientology v. Armstrong case conceivably strange? Is the elephant in the room ever really strange?

Or are there multiple elephants in the room, and my case is the strange one? 4

The enormous amount of money spent by the conspirators to violate public policy by spying on and trying to destroy whistleblowers and critics, etc. would be nice to know, but not at all necessary to know, probably irrelevant for rescission of the IRS tax exemption, virtually impossible to obtain, and not an elephant in any room.

That enormous amount of money can be adequately estimated from identifying and detailing the actions taken against persons. If the conspiracy spent, let’s say, fifteen million to silence or destroy me over thirty-six years, and there are, let’s say, five hundred whistleblowers or critics; then, let’s say, seven and a half billion. As Rinder observes, this “money is disguised and difficult to trace.” It is not the elephant in the room.

What Rinder did to me and to other human beings in violation of public policy, however, is easy to trace. Rinder possesses detailed high-level knowledge of it. So far, he has lied and refused to tell the truth about what exactly he did and made others do to us. It is obvious to me that, whatever he has said or claimed to be doing since saying he had left his conspiracy, he is keeping the unlawful IRS tax exemption working. He is keeping the unlawful injunction he obtained against me working, and he is keeping his black PR of me and others working.

I am glad Rinder is finally talking about public policy. I zeroed in on public policy years ago as the route in which to get the unlawfully obtained and unlawfully used IRS tax exemption pulled.5

From my introduction to the Armstrong op:

The “type of allegations that were being made” against the Scientologists, for which they sought and obtained the “First Amendment immunity” that came with IRS tax exemption, were the type of allegations made by the class of people who sued the Scientology entities, and whose cases the Scientologists identify in their submissions to the IRS. These types of allegations were what the [Fred T.] Goldberg IRS team had to have asked about in relation to the issue of the Scientologists’ violations of public policy in the service of their Scientology seniors.

Obviously the IRS accepted the negotiated statements that justify its grant of tax exemption. Obviously too, the IRS would not have granted the tax exemption without the negotiated statements. There are many pages I’ve now found of black PR on [my attorney Michael] Flynn and me that the IRS solicited, and knew to be false. The IRS did not contact me at any time to verify, refute, clarify or contextualize the Scientologists’ claims about me. Hubbard’s death took care of the inurement problem the Scientologists had with the IRS. But a criminal conspiracy does not take care of their public policy problem. It confirms that the tax exemption is unmerited and unlawful. 6

Notes

Mike Rinder: Keeping the IRS tax exemption working (Part 1) (February 14, 2018)

https://youtu.be/tN4P8xlfBIs

I’m responding here to Mike Rinder’s February 5, 2018 blog1 about the IRS grant of tax exemption in 1993 to all of the entities in the David Miscavige Scientology sect.

Rinder is seemingly panning a February 1, 2018 letter-to-the-editor from Monique Yingling that the Los Angeles Times published online. Yingling is seemingly panning a November 16, 2017 op-ed by journalist James Kirchick, who seemingly pans the tax exemption.

I thought of responding to the Yingling letter, and then Rinder blogged his response. So I will respond to him. He could use a good panning.

Yingling is an important attorney, a tax attorney, in the Scientology planet-wide conspiracy against rights and persons. She and I go way back.

In 2015, the LA Times had published a similar letter from her attacking an op-ed, that time by filmmaker Alex Gibney, which had disputed the Miscavige entities exemption. I posted a response and informed Yingling and Gibney.2

The Armstrong Op site has a lot of information and documents concerning the Miscavigeite Scientologists’ criminal conspiracy against rights and persons, and the intertwined conspiracy that secured the Miscavigeites tax exemption and other undeserved benefits.3

I have identified Yingling as an “operator” — a coconspirator – in the very long “Armstrong operation,” which is the criminal conspiracy against my rights and person. Mike Rinder has been a very important coconspirator in the op almost from the beginning.

Rinder writes:

To be fair, [Yingling] WAS intimately involved in the ultimately successful effort to get the IRS to reverse itself and the Supreme Court and grant religious tax exempt status to scientology. So at least she knows something about the subject (as opposed to her claiming disconnection is a “personal choice” and “Fair Game was canceled.”) Then again, I was also intimately involved. Though scientology likes to pretend I held no senior positions and know nothing, I attended numerous meetings at the IRS during the exemption process and I oversaw the collection and preparation of all the documents presented to the IRS. So, I have a few opinions I would like to express in response to [Yingling].

I was also intimately involved. I am the person Rinder most egregiously victimized, or fair gamed, prior to tax exemption, and after tax exemption. I am the person he most seriously and cruelly lied about in the documents he collected, prepared and presented to the IRS. I am a person he conspired with others, including Yingling, to silence or destroy, or fair game, in violation of US criminal statutes, civil rights laws and international human rights charters. I am a person Rinder has continued to black PR since claiming to have left his conspiracy and to be helping his victims. I am his victim that he has treated only contemptuously since he started claiming he’d left his conspiracy. So I also have opinions to express — and facts in support.4

Rinder’s assertion that he oversaw the collection and preparation of all the documents presented to the IRS could be an important admission. It could also be a lie. Rinder has lied professionally for decades. He was paid to lie. He lied about me around the world. He lied under oath. He lied to criminally frame me. He lied to media, clergy, law enforcement, and governments. He lied to Scientologists and wogs. He has never corrected the lies he told to defame, drive insane, silence and destroy people who tell the truth about L. Ron Hubbard, Scientology and Scientologists. Rinder is not to be trusted until he tells the truth about victimizing wogs, which he has never done. In this context,  he and I share an acceptable definition: “the exact time, place, form and event.”

As I have shown many times, Rinder has continued to serve the Scientologist conspirators’ malignant purposes toward their wog victims, like me. It is easy to see that if Rinder is lying about overseeing the collection and preparation of all the documents presented to the IRS, this lie could serve the conspirators’ criminal purposes.

Accepting for now that he did in fact oversee the collection and preparation of all the documents presented to the IRS, this would mean that he oversaw the preparation and inclusion of all the half-truths, lies or black propaganda in all the submissions to the IRS on which the tax exemption is based, or is supposed to be based. I had not seen that Rinder had made that specific claim or admission since he has been claiming or pretending he’s speaking up, telling the truth, correcting his lies, correcting injustices, helping his victims, or otherwise doing the right thing.

If he is being truthful, for whatever reason, this means that Rinder is uniquely positioned – has unassailable standing — to refute and correct the lies, and eliminate the unlawfully obtained and unlawfully used IRS tax exemption. To do so, he would, of course, have to tell the truth.

He has had that unique position ever since he accepted the post and responsibility of overseeing the collection and preparation of all the documents presented to the IRS. As soon as he told one lie, he gained the unique position – the standing — to refute and correct it. He told many lies, many hateful and destructive lies, in the Scientologists’ submissions to the IRS to get their tax exemption. Despite gaining the unique position to refute and correct his false statements to the IRS as soon as he submitted them, and even assuming a duty to refute and correct his false statements, he has not done so.

He told those lies and obtained tax exemption for a criminal purpose – to create the color of law to shield his conspiracy against his victims’ rights and persons and award the conspirators untold millions more dollars to destroy more rights and more persons more thoroughly. He personally had the job and purpose to silence or destroy wogs who told the truth about Hubbard, Scientology and Scientologists. So he knew that he was lying, submitting false statements to the IRS and other US Federal departments, and fair gaming and black PRing truth-tellers for that unlawful purpose.

Rinder’s claim or admission that he oversaw the collection and preparation of all the documents presented to the IRS also means that my efforts over several years to get him to tell the truth have been vindicated. I am more justified in my determined and patient efforts than I even knew.

See, e.g., 26 U.S. Code § 7206 – Fraud and false statements

(1) Declaration under penalties of perjury

Willfully makes and subscribes any return, statement, or other document, which contains or is verified by a written declaration that it is made under the penalties of perjury, and which he does not believe to be true and correct as to every material matter; or

(2) Aid or assistance

Willfully aids or assists in, or procures, counsels, or advises the preparation or presentation under, or in connection with any matter arising under, the internal revenue laws, of a return, affidavit, claim, or other document, which is fraudulent or is false as to any material matter, whether or not such falsity or fraud is with the knowledge or consent of the person authorized or required to present such return, affidavit, claim, or document;

[…]

shall be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $100,000 ($500,000 in the case of a corporation), or imprisoned not more than 3 years, or both, together with the costs of prosecution.5

Rinder cannot be trusted to refute or correct his lies in some secret setting with government agents. Just see what he and they negotiated last time they had their secret chums negotiation party. He has to refute and correct the lies he told about me to me in a form that is usable for public and legal purposes. He has to come clean to his victims. Mike Rinder’s victims’ lives matter.6

Notes

Scientology Tax Exemption — Muffins Strikes Back (February 5, 2018)

Posted by Mike Rinder1
February 5, 2018

Clearly, David Miscavige is feeling the mounting pressure on his most cherished treasure: tax exempt status bestowed on scientology by the IRS in 1993.

It takes considerable effort to get a letter published about a relatively obscure subject in a major paper like the LA Times. It is apparently a response to an op-ed piece that ran last November. 3 months of work to get this miserable piece of misleading propaganda to run…

Monique “Muffins” Yingling makes a rare appearance to argue on behalf of Miscavige.  She has been as out of sight as the COB himself since her fateful appearance on 20/20 bearing a basket of slave labor baked muffins while appearing to be trying to send morse code “Help Me” messages with her constant blinking. For some years she was the most prominent spokesperson for scientology, after Miscavige got rid of any actual scientologist to speak on behalf of his organization (can you imagine a non-Catholic being the public spokesperson for the Catholic church?). She was the only one he trusted other than himself, and he has made clear it is beneath him to trifle with the lowlife “Chaos Merchants.” So he sent his non-scientologist consigliere instead to defend the faith and practices of scientology — of which she has no personal experience.

But now, like all other scientology “spokes”people, she makes no public appearances but delivers exclusively written missives. No more “blinky.” No more off-the-cuff boo-boos.

To be fair, she WAS intimately involved in the ultimately successful effort to get the IRS to reverse itself and the Supreme Court and grant religious tax exempt status to scientology. So at least she knows something about the subject (as opposed to her claiming disconnection is a “personal choice” and “Fair Game was canceled.”) Then again, I was also intimately involved. Though scientology likes to pretend I held no senior positions and know nothing, I attended numerous meetings at the IRS during the exemption process and I oversaw the collection and preparation of all the documents presented to the IRS. So, I have a few opinions I would like to express in response to Muffins.

Here is her op-ed in its entirety:

In a Nov. 16 Los Angeles Times op-ed article, Daily Beast correspondent James Kirchick asks, “In the world of religious tax exemptions, does Scientology measure up?” The answer to that question is a resounding yes.

I was the Church of Scientology’s primary tax counsel in its successful efforts to obtain federal tax exemption, a status it fully and fairly earned and continues to merit. Unlike Kirchick, I know exactly whereof I speak.

The Church of Scientology is recognized by the Internal Revenue Service as tax exempt because it established to the agency’s satisfaction that it is organized and operates as a charitable religious organization. The church did not engage in a “ruthless battle to win a religious tax exemption”; rather, it simply worked continuously to demonstrate that it should be treated the same as other religious denominations.

The examination process resulting in exemption in 1993 was fully documented through an extensive administrative record that was then and is still available for the public to review; at 14 feet tall if the papers are stacked, the IRS’ record on the church is the largest in the history of exempt organizations. The IRS determined that the church’s operations fully qualified as tax exempt then, and its operations continue to warrant that determination today.

Scientology’s acceptance as a world religion has come quickly by historical measures.

Kirchick’s claim that “America’s recognition of Scientology as a religion stands as an anomaly in the Western world” is not true. There are judicial decisions from the highest courts in Australia, the United Kingdom and Italy, in addition to numerous decisions from lower courts in dozens of other countries, including Spain, France and Germany, all holding that Scientology is a religion. Indeed, many of these decisions have provided the modern definition of religion in their respective jurisdictions.

The Australian High Court’s unanimous decision in 1983 stands as the leading precedent throughout the British Commonwealth for the definition of religion and charity status. In another unanimous decision, the United Kingdom’s Supreme Court in 2013 not only recognized Scientology as a religion but also replaced that country’s Victorian-era definition of religion with a modern one that fully embraces Scientology. In 1997, the Supreme Court of Italy not only recognized the religiosity of Scientology, but also found the church’s fundraising practices to be fairer than those of the Roman Catholic Church. Scientology has been recognized as a religion by courts and governments across the globe, including most recently in Colombia last May and Mexico in November.

Kirchick did get one thing right in observing that Mormonism “was long considered a cult (its adherents the targets of episodic violence) but is now increasingly accepted by mainstream society as just another branch of Christianity.” This experience, however, is not unique to Mormons: History shows that virtually every new religious faith has been defamed, persecuted and suppressed by the society from which it emerged.

Before Constantine, the Roman Empire considered Christianity an obscure Jewish sect and a dangerous one at that. Genuine religions weather these storms and emerge even stronger because their adherents find sufficient value in the religious teachings to endure the attacks of religious bigots and the prejudice and discrimination they produce. This has proven true of Christianity and Mormonism and is continuing to prove true of Scientology.

Indeed, Scientology’s acceptance as a world religion has come quickly by historical measures. The church increasingly enjoys cooperative relations with numerous governments worldwide as well as with like-minded religious, social and humanitarian institutions in the communities it serves. Lost in a tabloid obsessed, click-bait culture is the real story of Scientology.

Monique Yingling is the Church of Scientology’s tax counsel.

Now, let’s consider a few of her statements and some of the glaring omissions.

The unaddressed elephant in the room and the big thing missing from the IRS review: no mention of the enormous amount of money spent by scientology to spy on and try to destroy whistleblowers and critics.

The money is disguised and difficult to trace because it is paid through law firms and scientology spends a LOT of money on lawyers. Hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars a month. This is NOT a valid use of tax exempt funds (if it was just an isolated and occasional incident that is part of a lawsuit it might be acceptable but not a repeating, consistent pattern). It IS enough for the exempt status of scientology to be terminated.

The IRS did ask in general terms about scientology’s violations of “public policy” and the allegations of abusing critics — it was all sloughed off as “that was just the renegade activities of the Guardian’s Office which we disbanded.” There was no mention of the fact that the policy written by Hubbard has not changed and remains in force and followed today. The IRS did not review the policy. They did not delve into the activities or how much money was thrown at PI’s and covert operations.

Second thing the IRS did NOT know is how scientology is accumulating empty buildings. The basic concept of tax exemption is that the money you bring in is spent on things which benefit society. You cannot start up a tax exempt entity and simply accumulate billions of dollars. One valid expense is providing facilities for the membership and the community at large. Normally a religious organization (or any organization for that matter), acquires or builds facilities that it needs. The IRS doesn’t contemplate that if an organization is opening facilities “to serve its congregation” that these are not needed and that the tax exempt entity has simply converted itself into a real estate holding company.

In fact, the accumulation of empty buildings, if they are NOT used, is really no different than accumulating money in a bank account.

Scientology would prefer to buy buildings than spend money on normal “charitable” activities because they money STAYS on their balance sheet. The IRS is blind to this scam — there is an inherent fear within government agencies of being accused of intrusion into religious affairs in violation of the First Amendment. So they tend to ignore this.

But let’s look a bit broader. The entire basis of Muffins piece is this: Where bad arguments against scientology’s tax exemption go to die: courts of law

Yet nobody has challenged scientology’s exemption in a US Court. The US SUPREME court determined that payments to scientology should NOT be tax deductible because they are a quid pro quo transaction and not a donation (See Hernandez v. Commissioner). With this as the law of the land it would be interesting to see how a court would rule on a challenge to the IRS determination that such donations ARE deductible and scientology entities are tax exempt. I suspect the bad arguments of scientology would go to die in a US court, just as they did in the Hernandez case.

Ms. Yingling conflates two things that she KNOWS are not the same. Determination that scientology is or is not a religion is NOT the same as a determination whether it qualifies for tax exempt status under the religious exemption contained in the Internal Revenue Code. Muffins proclaims “it should be treated the same as other religious denominations” — not so fast Muffy. You can be a religion and NOT qualify for tax exempt status. All religions are NOT the same. Your religion might well be recognized by scholars, but if your activities are violating public policy (for example, ingesting cocaine as a religious sacrament while claiming God is manifested in the leaf of the coca plant) then you are NOT entitled to tax exempt status. Let’s not forget, Scientology is NOT like other religions — they don’t have written policies to destroy critics, harass them with PI’s and operate a dirty tricks department.

The examination process resulting in exemption in 1993 was fully documented through an extensive administrative record that was then and is still available for the public to review; and you will find no mention of how much money is spent on harassing/intimidating/threatening whistleblowers or critics. Nor copies of the Hubbard writings about this. Nor information on how much money is spent annually on these activities. The “largest record in the history of the IRS” is missing some extremely important information. Scientology overwhelmed the IRS with information — they lost sight of important factors in the deluge of paper.

The IRS determined that the church’s operations fully qualified as tax exempt then, and its operations continue to warrant that determination today. How about the lies that were told the IRS in the course of the proceedings? Even beyond the omissions. Like this one:

It has been a long-standing policy of the Church that if someone is dissatisfied with their Scientology services and asks to have their contributions returned within a three month period, these amounts will be returned. Likewise, if the person asks for return of contributions for which no services were received (i.e. an advance payment), there is no three month limitation period. Anyone newly enrolling in services at a Church of Scientology is informed of the policies and signs an agreement to abide by them. As a further condition of receiving a refund or repayment, the person understands that they may not again receive services from the Church.

Within the Church, there are two separate terms: A “refund” refers to a return of contributions to a parishioner within 90 days of participating in religious services while a “repayment” refers to a return of a parishioner’s advance payment before he or she has participated in religious services. For simplicity, the following discussion will use the term “refund” to describe both types of transactions, because both involve a return of parishioner contributions.

The Church’s refund policy is exceedingly fair. If someone isn’t happy with Scientology — which is a very small minority of people — he simply has to make a proper request for his donations back, agree to forego further services and his donations will be returned. For the Church, in addition to the fact that this policy aligns with Scientology principles of exchange, it also serves the purpose of allowing our churches and the parishioners who are very happy with Scientology, to carry on without the unhappy few in their midst.

Clearly, this is NOT what scientology actually does. There are plenty of other things the IRS was NOT aware of and didn’t ask about like the relationship of the IAS to participation in scientology. Another key issue the IRS was hoodwinked about.

There are judicial decisions from the highest courts in Australia, the United Kingdom and Italy, in addition to numerous decisions from lower courts in dozens of other countries, including Spain, France and Germany, all holding that Scientology is a religion. Indeed, many of these decisions have provided the modern definition of religion in their respective jurisdictions. Here she goes again, conflating two things that are NOT the same, pretending they are (and of course NOT mentioning the highest court in the United States).

Scientology is specifically NOT exempt from taxation in the UK and other countries, even though for other purposes it may be recognized as a religion. Why? Because tax exempt status does not automatically flow from religious status. In fact, there is a public benefit test to qualify for tax exemption conducted by the “Charity Commission” in the UK. If you cannot demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Charity Commission that your religious organization benefits society beyond whatever claimed benefit it provides its members, you are not exempt. This is the fundamental theory of tax exemption. Governments do not tax activities that are providing a public benefit because were they NOT being provided by that entity, the government would have to provide those services. Such a test is not part of the law in the US — though it should be. The principle is similar and some of the rules are similar in the US — as in you cannot be engaged in activities that are in violation of “public policy” and you cannot accumulate too much money instead of using it for the public good — there is no public benefit test.

The Australian High Court’s unanimous decision in 1983 stands as the leading precedent throughout the British Commonwealth for the definition of religion and charity status. More of the straw man argument. This decision does NOT bestow tax exempt (charitable) status on scientology organizations in the vast majority of the British Commonwealth, including the seat of the Commonwealth in the United Kingdom.

Genuine religions weather these storms and emerge even stronger because their adherents find sufficient value in the religious teachings to endure the attacks of religious bigots and the prejudice and discrimination they produce. This has proven true of Christianity and Mormonism and is continuing to prove true of Scientology. Well, no it is not. Scientology is smaller today than it was 10 years ago, and 10 years ago it was smaller than it was 20 years ago. Scientology has been shrinking since the 1980’s. It is not emerging stronger. It is fading away. While accumulating more and more money.

The church increasingly enjoys cooperative relations with numerous governments worldwide as well as with like-minded religious, social and humanitarian institutions in the communities it serves. And once again, this has NOTHING to do with whether it should or should not have tax exempt status. As an aside, it also not true.

For 25 years, scientology has rested its legitimacy (and a lot of its income) on its tax exempts status. Clearly, this is a huge vulnerability — lose it and the pretense of being legitimate dies. And it will happen — eventually scientology’s Fair Game chickens are coming home to roost. Miscavige knows his house of cards is built on quicksand and it’s toppling and he is desperate to avoid this at all costs. Watch the madness and lies escalate as the inevitable draws closer.

The only question is what will be the final catalyst: a lawsuit? A criminal investigation? Congressional action? Or the IRS awakening from its quarter century slumber?

Notes

LA Times Opinion: Where bad arguments against Scientology’s tax exemption go to die: courts of law (February 8, 2018)

By Monique Yingling
Posted 8 February 20181

In a Nov. 16 Los Angeles Times op-ed article, Daily Beast correspondent James Kirchick asks, “In the world of religious tax exemptions, does Scientology measure up?” The answer to that question is a resounding yes.

I was the Church of Scientology’s primary tax counsel in its successful efforts to obtain federal tax exemption, a status it fully and fairly earned and continues to merit. Unlike Kirchick, I know exactly whereof I speak.

The Church of Scientology is recognized by the Internal Revenue Service as tax exempt because it established to the agency’s satisfaction that it is organized and operates as a charitable religious organization. The church did not engage in a “ruthless battle to win a religious tax exemption”; rather, it simply worked continuously to demonstrate that it should be treated the same as other religious denominations.

The examination process resulting in exemption in 1993 was fully documented through an extensive administrative record that was then and is still available for the public to review; at 14 feet tall if the papers are stacked, the IRS’ record on the church is the largest in the history of exempt organizations. The IRS determined that the church’s operations fully qualified as tax exempt then, and its operations continue to warrant that determination today.

Kirchick’s claim that “America’s recognition of Scientology as a religion stands as an anomaly in the Western world” is not true. There are judicial decisions from the highest courts in Australia, the United Kingdom and Italy, in addition to numerous decisions from lower courts in dozens of other countries, including Spain, France and Germany, all holding that Scientology is a religion. Indeed, many of these decisions have provided the modern definition of religion in their respective jurisdictions.

The Australian High Court’s unanimous decision in 1983 stands as the leading precedent throughout the British Commonwealth for the definition of religion and charity status. In another unanimous decision, the United Kingdom’s Supreme Court in 2013 not only recognized Scientology as a religion but also replaced that country’s Victorian-era definition of religion with a modern one that fully embraces Scientology. In 1997, the Supreme Court of Italy not only recognized the religiosity of Scientology, but also found the church’s fundraising practices to be fairer than those of the Roman Catholic Church. Scientology has been recognized as a religion by courts and governments across the globe, including most recently in Colombia last May and Mexico in November.

Kirchick did get one thing right in observing that Mormonism “was long considered a cult (its adherents the targets of episodic violence) but is now increasingly accepted by mainstream society as just another branch of Christianity.” This experience, however, is not unique to Mormons: History shows that virtually every new religious faith has been defamed, persecuted and suppressed by the society from which it emerged.

Before Constantine, the Roman Empire considered Christianity an obscure Jewish sect and a dangerous one at that. Genuine religions weather these storms and emerge even stronger because their adherents find sufficient value in the religious teachings to endure the attacks of religious bigots and the prejudice and discrimination they produce. This has proven true of Christianity and Mormonism and is continuing to prove true of Scientology.

Indeed, Scientology’s acceptance as a world religion has come quickly by historical measures. The church increasingly enjoys cooperative relations with numerous governments worldwide as well as with like-minded religious, social and humanitarian institutions in the communities it serves. Lost in a tabloid obsessed, click-bait culture is the real story of Scientology.

Monique Yingling is the Church of Scientology’s tax counsel.

Notes

On Monique Yingling, Alex Gibney, Scientology and the IRS deal (20 June, 2015)

by Gerry Armstrong
20 June 2015

In an April 26, 2015 letter to the editor in the Los Angeles Times 1, in response to Alex Gibney’s April 11 op-ed article 2, Scientology attorney Monique E. Yingling accuses him of appearing “trapped in his own prison of bias when he wrongly asserts that the Church of Scientology did not deserve IRS recognition of its tax-exempt status in 1993.” No one, of course, would accuse Yingling of being trapped in any prison of anything. She freely lies, tells more lies, and gets others to lie, for money. She might do it because it gives her delight, but she also gets paid, richly, and that has to also delight her. She would not argue that she is not free to tell the truth; in fact she would doubtlessly claim she is telling the truth even when lying; so she is not trapped.

She lies when she says Gibney asserts in his article that Scientology did not deserve IRS recognition of its tax-exempt status in 1993. He does not assert that. He asserts that Scientology does not deserve its tax exempt status in 2015. He does not assert that the cult, or the religion or whatever, did not deserve recognition as a tax exempt religious entity in 1993. I do, however. The Scientologists obtained their undeserved tax exemption by committing crimes against citizens, which is against public policy, and lying in their submissions to the IRS, which must also be against public policy. Because of these facts, the Scientologists have at no time before or ever since deserved their tax exempt status.

Gibney writes that his documentary film Going Clear “shows that the church’s method of “convincing” the IRS featured lawsuits and vilification of its agents.” He says that critics of Scientology “have called for its tax exemption to be revoked because it is not a “real religion.” I don’t. Scientology is as real a religion as Militant Islam or Aum Shinrikyo. Gibney goes on to say that “to maintain the right to be tax-exempt, however, religions must fulfill certain requirements for charitable organizations.” Quoting from the IRS website, he writes that such organizations may not “serve the private interests of any individual” and/or their “purposes and activities may not be illegal or violate fundamental public policy.”

Suing the IRS is every person or organization’s right and not illegal. Even filing 2400 lawsuits, as is stated in Going Clear, is not illegal. Investigating the IRS for their sins or crimes, and having PIs investigate individual agents is not illegal. Even vilifying or black PRing the IRS, its agents, or the whole US Government is not illegal. And these actions did not bring the IRS to its knees. That’s ridiculous. Framing individuals, however, as the Scientologists did to my attorney Michael Flynn and me prior to obtaining tax exemption, is illegal. Using such false incriminations to obtain tax exemption is illegal. Lying in submissions to the IRS, which the Scientologists and their attorneys did, was illegal. The IRS’s requiring these lies, which IRS and DOJ officials knew were lies, in these submissions to justify granting tax exemption in order to have the lawsuits end and to have the Scientologists’ investigating and vilifying of IRS officials end, was illegal. These illegalities, all in violation of public policy, made tax exemption for the Scientologists undeserved, and its grant by the IRS illegal.

Yingling says in her April 26 letter that Scientology “underwent the most exhaustive IRS scrutiny of any applicant in history.”3 That could be.  The scrutiny was certainly exhaustive enough for the relevant IRS and DOJ officials to conclude that the Scientologists did not deserve tax exemption, and, for more than twenty years, to oppose the Scientologists’ legal and extralegal efforts to obtain the tax exemption they didn’t deserve. The Scientologists, however, abetted by attorneys, including Yingling, kept right on charging, kept right on attacking and committing crimes, and finally got the relevant IRS and DOJ officials to stop opposing them, and, in terrible truth and in violation of public policy, to collude with them in a cowardly crime against private citizens.

Yingling states she is the Scientologists’ “longtime outside tax counsel.” That’s true. She says she is “familiar with everything that transpired during the administrative proceedings that led to the 1993 IRS settlement.” She professes this seemingly impossible knowledge (the proceedings started in 1967, and she obtained her law degree in 1977) to help build a defense for her Scientologist clients, and herself, against Gibney’s charges relating to the Scientologists’ tax exemption. Her avowed familiarity with everything is, however, a useful admission regarding what did transpire during the period between the IRS ending its opposition to Scientologists and its grant of tax exemption in 1993. What transpired was a whole lot of lying and a criminal conspiracy that included US officials, which made the tax exemption completely undeserved.

The Scientology-US-Yingling, et al. pack conspired against the rights of the Scientologists’ direct victims, who are in large part US citizens. The conspirators also indirectly victimized and still victimize US tax payers. In that the Scientologists brandish their undeserved IRS tax exemption around the world to obtain even more undeserved advantages, the conspirators victimize every citizen of every country where the Scientologists operate. The cult’s leaders have used their undeserved tax exemption as a license to victimize both their cult underlings and innocent wogs they want destroyed.

“Wogs” are what Scientologists call us Homo saps. The wogs the Scientologists particularly hate and work to destroy they call “Suppressive Persons” or “SPs.” Yingling is familiar with the Scientologists’ Suppressive Person doctrine. It is an evil, indefensible doctrine that is sufficient on its face and in its application over the last fifty years to make this cults’ tax exemption undeserved. It is like giving the Nazis a license and tax exemption to carry out their Jewish doctrine.

I already knew that Yingling is an operator in the Scientologists’ “Armstrong Operation.” 4

She writes that Gibney has no clue. This is false. He has a clue. In fact, I wrote him before release of Going Clear to clue him in about the Scientologists’ public policy violations and undeserved tax exemption even more than he gave the appearance of being clued in when he made the film.5

Yingling writes that “not only does the church reject Gibney’s revisionist history, but so did the IRS officials involved in the proceedings.” She does not, however, explain what she is talking about when she calls something Gibney wrote his “revisionist history.” The church or cult of Scientologists rejecting whatever Gibney wrote that she calls “revisionist history,” is unremarkable, because such rejections are what the Scientologists call “command intention.” They reject what the person in command wants rejected, and accept what he wants them to accept. But, how does Yingling know, or how could she possibly know, that the IRS officials involved in the administrative proceedings that ended in 1993 also have rejected whatever it is that Gibney wrote in 2015 that she calls revisionist history?

It is highly unlikely that after the LA Times published whatever Yingling calls Gibney’s revisionist history on April 12 someone submitted it to the IRS officials involved in the administrative proceedings, and these officials rejected it by April 26 when Yingling’s letter was published. The IRS would have had to organize dozens of its personnel, many of whom have retired, and gotten them all to join in this rejection. There would have been a submission to the IRS of what she calls Gibney’s revisionist history, and no such submission has been produced that I am aware of. The IRS would have had to issue an official rejection, and there is no record of such a rejection that has been made public that, again, I know of. If such a rejection actually existed, I am certain that Yingling or her Scientologists clients would have published it to invalidate Gibney, rather than depend on her lame claim.

The other scenario, which Yingling is probably proffering, is that in 1993, or even earlier, the IRS officials involved in the administrative proceedings rejected what Gibney would write in 2015. This would work well in L. Ron Hubbard’s time-traveling science fiction scriptures, but does not meet wog standards for evidence, facts or reason. The reasonable conclusion is that one more time Yingling is simply lying.

It would be completely unsurprising, however, if the IRS does reject every call to revoke Scientology’s undeserved tax-exempt status, and rejects the mountain of excellent evidence supporting these calls. This is because the relevant IRS and DOJ officials conspired with the Scientologists, Yingling and the Scientologists’ other attorneys to produce the tax exemption that all of them knew was undeserved. These officials required that the Scientologists lie in their submissions on which the tax exemption is based. These officials negotiated what lies the Scientologists would include in order to give the IRS the appearance of a justification to grant the undeserved tax exemption. The US has an almost insurmountable motivation to reject every effort to acknowledge and remedy the crime its officials committed in granting the Scientologists tax exemption just because what these officials did was criminal. The US has an abysmal history of owning up to antisocial, anti-human rights or criminal actions its officials have taken.

If the Scientologists and their attorneys had told the truth in their submissions, the IRS could never have granted the tax exemption. That is because, prior to obtaining tax exemption and US Government backing, the Scientologists were committing crimes against the government and citizens, which the relevant officials were well aware of. The Scientologists criminally framed individuals, including my attorney Michael Flynn and me, and most egregiously conspired against the rights of many people, also including Flynn and me. The Scientologists ordering and committing these crimes were in Scientology’s Sea Organization hierarchy that took over from the Guardian’s Office hierarchy, key members of which the US had prosecuted and imprisoned for crimes against the Government, most notoriously against the IRS.

In their answers to the IRS’s Form 1023 questions about the GO and its personnel who were involved in these federal crimes, the Scientologists asserted that the Sea Org under David Miscavige disbanded the GO in 1981 and shifted some of its activities to SO units, and that “none of these activities operate in a manner similar to the old Guardian’s Office.” The Scientologists, their attorneys and the relevant IRS and DOJ personnel all knew that the “GO disbanding” was actually scapegoating, that the SO personnel who took over the GO’s activities operated on identical “scriptures,” and the criminal targeting of officials, media and private individuals like me continued seamlessly.

Yingling says that Gibney omits any mention of the IRS issuing a statement reaffirming its recognition of the Scientology cult when “this myth” had first arisen. She does not say what myth she has in mind. She is almost certainly lying, and the only myths submitted to the IRS were by her clients and their attorneys, herself included, in the form of lies, which bagged the undeserved tax exemption. That the tax exemption is undeserved is not a myth, but the gospel truth.

Certainly Scientology is a religion, and Gibney acknowledges that. It is religious because of the US Government’s stated position that any organization can determine it is religious, and, poof, it’s religious. As I wrote in 2009 about the cult’s religiousness, Scientology is: “an economic enterprise, a bait-and-switch scam, an intelligence organization waging war on good citizens, a hate group with the superhubris to call itself a human rights group, a criminal conspiracy, a totalitarian cult with a sociopathic philosophy, and consequently a threat to democratic order.”6 And it is a religion. It is a religion that, because of its public policy violations, does not deserve tax exemption.

Theologically speaking, Scientology is a form of Luciferianism, which comes in many forms. As early as 1952, Hubbard called himself the “Prince of Darkness,” and the religion is clearly rooted in “Thelema,” Aleister Crowley’s hermetic magick. Overtly, the cult calls its courses “self-improvement,” its teachings an “applied religious philosophy,” and founder Hubbard, “mankind’s greatest friend,” a “genius,” an “educator,” a “professional in twenty-nine fields,” a “power.” The Scientologists claim that among his many other firsts, prodigious discoveries, and superhuman accomplishments, he “became the first to scientifically isolate, measure and describe the human spirit, while objectively demonstrating spiritual potentials well in advance of scientific thought.” All these things are aspects of Luciferianism.

The Scientologists claim that by application of their “spiritual technology” they have become superior beings, and can give their subjects wildly increased intelligence, phenomenal knowledge and understanding, superhuman abilities, secular and psychic power, the never-before achieved states of “Clear” and “Operating Thetan” or “OT,” exemplary characters, success, the way to wealth and happiness, and “total freedom.” The Scientologists profess sincere concern for the welfare of mankind, and state their aims as “a civilization without insanity, without criminals and without war, where the able can prosper and honest beings can have rights, and where Man is free to rise to greater heights.” The Scientologists preach ethics, honesty and human rights. All these claims are also common characteristics or promises of Luciferianism.

Any doubt about Hubbard and his religion’s Luciferian nature was dispelled after his death when the Scientologists published his scriptural “technical bulletin” he called “OT VIII Confidential Student Briefing,” in which he as much as confessed he was the “Antichrist,” representing “the forces of Lucifer.” Aleister Crowley claimed that Aiwass, whom he also identified as Lucifer, was his “Holy Guardian Angel,” who had dictated to Crowley his most famous writing The Book of the Law. Hubbard wrote in “OT VIII:”

No doubt you are familiar with the Revelations section of the Bible where various events are predicted. Also mentioned is a brief period of time in which an archenemy of Christ, referred to as the Antichrist, will reign and his opinions will have sway. All this makes for very fantastic, entertaining reading but there is truth in it. This Antichrist represents the forces of Lucifer (literally, the “light bearer” or “light bring”), Lucifer being a mythical representation of the forces of enlightenment, the Galactic Confederacy. My mission could be said to fulfill the Biblical promise represented by this brief Antichrist period.

Hubbard dated the bulletin May 5, 1980, a time when he was on the lam in southern California, postulating his own death, and evading government and private parties who were suing him or seeking his testimony in ongoing legal cases. In this scripture, based on what he implied was impeccable evidence, he blasphemed Jesus of the Christian Bible as an unsaintly, raging pederast. The ideal of Christ, Hubbard claimed, is part of an “ongoing implant” the Marcabians laid in on humans seventy-five million years ago “by carefully controlled genetic mutation.” He wrote that this race of entities, who were outside the physical universe, periodically reinforced the implant “by controlled historic events,” to make it impossible for humans to become free, except by his great work and divination.

Hubbard wrote that all religions of any consequence but original Buddhism, “have been instruments to… bring about the eventual enslavement of mankind.” In addition to claiming to be antichrist, Lucifer, the Prince of Darkness, or an associated being of that occult ilk, Hubbard, of course, had been claiming since the 1950s to have been the original Buddha. In “OT VIII” he wrote that his mission was to derail an imminent mass landing by the Marcabians, which is falsely portrayed as the biblical “Second Coming.” He said that with constant effort by the Scientologists who would be doing his OT VIII program he would postpone and then halt a series of events the Marcabians designed to make slaves of us all.

As megalomanical and deluded as Hubbard sounds in his OT VIII bulletin, there is no doubt it is religious scripture. As demented as Scientology’s theology or technology are, it is a religion. As has been shown, it is a form of Luciferianism. Because of its debased, wicked or criminal sacraments, it is properly categorized as Black Luciferianism. Crowley, analogously, wrote that debased or wicked magick is properly classified as black magick. Black Luciferianism is perfectly compatible with Scientology’s rapacious commercialism, deceit, fraud, hate, human rights abuses, sociopathy, and criminality. Scientology is an evil, criminal religion, but still a religion because the Scientologists determined that it is religious, organized for purely religious purposes. Their denial of their organization’s Luciferianism and their attacks on people who expose its occult roots are indicators of its blackness.

In Scientology, crass merchandising, hard sell, deceit, fraud, hate, incarcerations, slavery, the destruction of human rights and persons, financial ruination, using the law to harass, black propaganda, and many other antisocial or criminal activities are religious exercise, or sacraments. The Scientologists lure good wogs into their cult with the wonderful promises of White Luciferianism, and then handle and hold them with Hubbard’s Black Luciferian “tech,” and do their damnedest to turn them into tough, dedicated, glaring Black Luciferians. While telling people their objective is to get everyone to “think for yourself,” the Scientologists compel cult personalities that must think as the cult head commands. Thinking for oneself or “other-intentionedness” is restrained and punished. While insisting that they are engendering virtuous or moral characters and behaviors in their members, the Scientologists actually instill the “valuable final products,” as they call them, of vanity, dishonesty, hypocrisy, perfidy, envy, pugnacity, malignity and pusillanimity.

The Scientologists hire bad or corrupt wogs, like Yingling, who are well aware of the cult’s blackness and criminality, to do evil, often under color of law, to the people the cult’s leaders want hated, suppressed and destroyed. These human targets are the decent, courageous people who stand up to the Scientologists and their wog collaborators and tell the truth about Hubbard, Scientology, Scientologists, their collaborators like Yingling, and their Black Luciferian tech and activities. The Scientologists’ undeserved IRS tax exemption inspirits and privileges the cult’s hierarchy to commit and make others commit evils and crimes, and gives them vast wealth to do so. This was the intended, achieved and unlawful goal of the Scientology-US-Yingling, et al. conspiracy.

Exposing and opposing these evils and crimes, and even perpetrating the same against the Scientologists and their collaborators such as Yingling, of course, are no less religious than the Scientologists’ evil and criminal sacraments. Most wogs, fortunately or unfortunately, including those the Scientologists have horribly victimized, will not degrade themselves to the condition or level necessary to commit the sort of evils or crimes the Scientologists commit. Nevertheless, to even the playing field, or the battle field, and be able to effectively defend against the Scientologists’ predations, wogs must possess and assert the same religious rights as the Scientology predators.

The US Federal Government has created the present uneven battle field by conspiring with the Scientologists and granting them tax exemption and endorsing their victimizing of citizens government officials knew the Scientologists had victimized and would victimize in the future. Therefore, it has to be a religious right to expose, oppose and commit the sort of evils and crimes to government officials that the Scientologists commit to citizens. This would, of course, include at a minimum lying religiously to the IRS and other US agencies, and dealing with them as enemies.

The US Government’s logical and humane remedy is to revoke the Scientologists’ tax exemption, prosecute the conspirators, including the complicit US officials, and acknowledge and compensate the people harmed by the grant of the undeserved exemption. Tragically, the US has a dreadful and growing history of alliances with unsavory persons or groups, and inhumanity toward the US’s nasty allies’ victims. Because of the known consequences to character, even a national character, that flow from absolute secular power, which the US has essentially achieved, prevailing upon its officials to do the right or uncorrupt thing regarding the Scientologists, the IRS and their victims may be absolutely impossible.

Yingling says that Gibney was provided “all this information” and he ignored it. She does not identify what all this information is, and again, as typical of her, it is safe to say she is lying. Unless Gibney is lying, she did not provide him with her actual knowledge of everything that transpired during the administrative proceedings that led to the 1993 IRS settlement. If she had, he would have known that the Scientologists, Yingling and their other lawyers violated public policy, and IRS and DOJ officials conspired unlawfully with them in violation of public policy, and presumably he would have included these facts in his documentary.

She writes that “Gibney pretends ignorance of the unprecedented public record, comprising 14 feet, in which the IRS recognized the church as exempt.” I doubt that Gibney pretended ignorance of the Scientologists having submitted many pages to the IRS, and having created a record on which the cult’s tax exemption is based. Again what is most likely is that Yingling is lying. On October 22, 1993, three weeks after the IRS granted the Scientologists tax exemption, the New York Times published an article by Robert D. Hershey, Jr., which stated:

The financial disclosures are in documents the church was required to file with the I.R.S. in applying for tax-exempt status, conferred on 30 or more entities of the church on Oct. 10. The documents, 12 linear feet of them in eight cardboard boxes, formed the basis for the I.R.S.’s decision and became a matter of public record when tax exemption was granted.

Sometime after this, Scientology propaganda organ Freedom published an undated anti-Germany edition containing an article by editor and black propagandist Andrew Milne, which stated:

The IRS asked hundreds of specific questions for detailed factual information with respect to the areas of its concerns. The Church provided complete responses to every question asked. These responses amounted to more than 11,000 pages of information constituting 12 linear feet of stacked paper.7

It is almost certainly true that one of Going Clear’s sources Mark Rathbun kept Gibney ignorant of the critical content of all those linear feet of files. It is the content of the Scientologists’ submissions to the IRS that is important, of course, not the submissions’ volume or loftiness. Rathbun has stated that he personally participated in preparing the submissions that formed the basis for the IRS’s decision, and personally couriered them from Los Angeles to the IRS in Washington, DC, on virtually a weekly basis for two years. Yingling wrote about Rathbun’s role in a letter dated February 27, 2015 letter to HBO’s attorney Jay Ward Brown:

Gibney’s crediting his sleazy source, Marty Rathbun, with a major role in the negotiations with the IRS is misplaced: I personally attended every one of the dozens of meetings; Rathbun was little more than a bag carrier, and a poor one at that.8

I wrote Rathbun recently about Yingling’s charge that during the Scientologists’ negotiations with the IRS and his virtually weekly trips to DC with the negotiated submissions he was but a bumbling bag schlepper.9 It really does not matter, however, who — Rathbun, Yingling, Miscavige, President Bush, President Clinton, Robert Gates, or the devil — had the most major role in the negotiations that led to the grant of tax exemption. This was a criminal conspiracy, what was negotiated was against public policy, and the Scientologists tax exemption was and is undeserved.

Yingling says that the Scientologists answered every question the IRS put to it. Of course they did. She omits to say, however, that the Scientologists and their attorneys, she included, lied in their answers. Even more important, the lying answers were what the relevant US officials required. Lies were what these officials negotiated for, and the lying Scientologists and their lying attorneys were happy as clams to deliver what the government officials required.

Yingling says that during the negotiations IRS officials “made on-site inspections” of Scientology’s “records and facilities.” This is actually further evidence that these officials conspired unlawfully with the Scientologists. If these officials actually inspected the cult’s actual records, they would confirm what they already knew: the Scientologists were engaged in criminal activity in violation of public policy, and therefore did not deserve tax exemption. If these officials, who already knew the Scientologists were engaged in criminal activity, inspected records they were shown that did not confirm what they already knew, then these officials also knew that the Scientologists were lying to them.

Yingling says she “offered to walk Gibney through these materials,” the records that she says the IRS officials inspected, but he “stonewalled” her. Again, if Gibney is not lying, Yingling is. If she had shown him the Scientologists’ actual, relevant records, he would have known that the cult is much worse than he thought, much more antisocial and criminal than what he showed in Going Clear. I would hope that Gibney, knowing what he now knows, does take Yingling up on her offer and does inspect the cult’s records. And I would hope he would take me along with him, to help keep him from being duped by Yingling and her clients’ duplicities. I don’t think he’s lying. I know Yingling is.

Yingling writes that Gibney is wrong about Scientology finances, and that its “funds are dedicated to promulgation of the faith and supporting global humanitarian initiatives for the benefit of people of all faiths.” She implies that all of the cult’s funds are dedicated to faith promulgation and humanitarian initiatives, not that a fraction of its funds, say a penny on the dollar, are used for these purposes. Gibney observed in his article that Scientology “maintains that its activities are protected by the 1st Amendment as religious practices.” That is true. He also listed a number of the cult’s activities that he said “may have been either illegal or in violation of public policy:”

–  propaganda campaigns with expensive graphics, full-page ads and videos
–  ruthlessly intimidating reporters and waging lawfare against journals and networks
–  hiring private investigators to spy on citizens
–  false imprisonment
–  human trafficking
–  wiretaps
–  assault
–  harassment
–  invasion of privacy
–  documented civil rights abuses.

Yingling writes that “not one iota of the church’s actual activities is reflected in Gibney’s one-sided piece.” That is a lie! Except that I was not a reporter, a journal or a TV network, the Scientologists committed all the crimes or torts he identified against me personally. And the Scientologists ruthlessly intimidated numerous reporters, journals and networks that told or considered telling my story.

Yingling is, however, telling the truth about Scientology spending its funds on promulgating the faith and humanitarian activities. That is because these seemingly beneficent or philanthropic endeavors include all the antisocial or criminal activities Gibney identified. Evils such as black PRing, cheating, robbing, suing, raiding, harassing, ruining, destroying and obliterating good people are not just Scientology activities, they are commanded in the religion’s scripture. These evils are doctrinally motivated and completely religious. The rack, the strapado, the auto-da-fé were all religious activities, motivated by doctrine. The Nazis’ murder of millions of Jews was clearly doctrinally motivated. No matter how religious these activities are, or how motivated they are by doctrine, the organizations or religions practicing them do not deserve IRS tax exemption to do so.

Yingling says that “it is unfortunate that the church has to defend itself from scurrilous attacks like Gibney’s.” His attacks, of course, are not scurrilous at all, as everyone can see. His criticisms of the cult, the cultists, their leaders and activities are accurate and measured. In fact, as already mentioned, Scientology and its members and agents’ activities are worse than he apparently thought when he made his documentary or wrote about them. It is the Scientologists’ responses to legitimate, factual criticism that is unfortunate or deplorable. Their religious cloaking of their antisocial and criminal activities is unfortunate, and these activities are unfortunate. Yingling’s lying and cheating, for money, or just for evil, is unfortunate.

Yingling says that the cult “has a right to respond through public discourse and has done so with a website and videos.” Nobody has said the Scientology cult or the cultists did not have that right, and nobody has tried to take away that right. On the other hand, the Scientologists and their attorneys like Yingling really do seek to destroy their victims’ right to respond to the Scientologists’ scurrilous, religiously motivated attacks. The Scientology v. Armstrong cases prove this beyond any doubt, in fact prove that Scientology is organized for the very purpose of suppressing and destroying basic human rights, most egregiously the right to freedom of religion. Virtually every Scientologist, all of their organizations, and all their lawyers, including Yingling, are contracted beneficiaries in the suppression and destruction of basic human rights of good people. The only “crime” these good people have committed, is standing up and telling the truth about L. Ron Hubbard, Scientology and Scientologists.

Yingling writes that “Gibney’s complaint that the church has the audacity to defend itself against his attacks by exercising its own rights to freedom of speech and religion is decidedly un-American.” Again, Yingling is undoubtedly lying. Nowhere does Gibney make such a complaint that I have been able to find, and Yingling has not identified such a complaint. Calling what he did not do “un-American” is a strawman. Gibney did illustrate the perverse way in which Scientology “defends itself” with a few examples, but treated these matter-of-factly, writing that he “assumed that the response …would be vitriolic,” and that he was right.

Gibney’s actually articulated, and completely justified, complaint is that because of the public policy violating activities the Scientologists are using their funds for, including the black propaganda attacks on him and his sources, Scientology does not deserve to keep its IRS tax exemption. I add to this that the Scientologists and their attorneys, including Yingling, violated public policy in order to obtain the tax exemption, and have never deserved it.

The complicity of US officials in the conspiracy to violate public policy to grant the Scientologists tax exemption that all of them knew was lawfully undeserved, calls into question what “un-American” now really means. If the morals, standards and activities of the Scientologists, their attorneys like Yingling, and US Government officials like those who granted the tax exemption, are American, then everyone should do their best to be un-American. Truth, honor and humanity are becoming un-American, and lying, dishonor and inhumanity are becoming American. The proof of the apple pie is in the eating.

 Notes

GA Letter to Mark Rathbun (June 8, 2015)

Dear Mark:

As you well know, I have beseeched you fairly determinedly for several years to step up and tell what you know from your time in the Sea Org about fair gaming me, and people close to me, particularly Michael Flynn. Where your actions and information are extremely important is in the matter of what was done that violated public policy to obtain Scientology’s IRS tax exemption. This undeserved exemption has allowed the Scientologists to further violate public policy, and good people’s rights, with virtual impunity.

As you know, I have shown over and over that your failure to tell the truth about fair game actions against me and others and the false statements in the submissions to the IRS serves David Miscavige’s antisocial purposes, to the detriment of good people everywhere. If you are for real, and not a covert agent for Miscavige, which is not beyond the Scientologists’ desires or capability, then your failure to tell the truth about fair gaming me and others and about the IRS deal is also to your detriment, and your wife’s detriment.

Alex Gibney has taken up the call to get the IRS to revoke the Scientologists’ undeserved tax exemption, and I am grateful for what he is doing. He did not, however, really address the public policy violations, in which you participated to get the tax exemption, and I wrote to him, as you also know, to urge you to address and tell the truth about this issue. I have now posted that letter: http://gerryarmstrong.ca/archives/1488

I have read the attacks on Gibney, on his Going Clear documentary, and on his sources, by the Scientologists and Scientology’s lawyers — Monique Yingling, Eric Lieberman and William Walsh – all of whom participated in the public policy violations that netted the undeserved 1993 tax exemption.

Eerily reminiscent of your years of black PR on me, that in the SO I was but a clerk and drove a car, Yingling writes about you in her February 27, 2015 letter to HBO’s attorney Jay Ward Brown:

Gibney’s crediting his sleazy source, Marty Rathbun, with a major role in the negotiations with the IRS is misplaced: I personally attended every one of the dozens of meetings; Rathbun was little more than a bag carrier, and a poor one at that.

In your interview in 2009 with the Tampa Bay Times, you said that you were tasked with implementing strategies to try to overwhelm the IRS and “very much involved in coordinating and coming up with strategies and then executing a lot of that between the late ’80s and the early ’90s” to obtain tax exemption. You said that you and primarily Miscavige “were literally commuting to Washington D.C. almost every week,” you would “see the IRS, present the answers to [the IRS’s] set of questions, get another set of questions, go back to L.A., get the information together [ ] for two years.” http://armstrong-op.gerryarmstrong.ca/about

In Going Clear, you say about the actions to obtain the tax exemption:

Being Miscavige’s right hand man, I was in charge of all those efforts. We were not only suing them in every possible jurisdiction there was. We were investigating the IRS for crimes generally, or things that would offend the public.

I am accepting that your duties and actions were not just being Yingling or Miscavige’s bag carrier, and that she is lying. I know she lies about other things concerning the 1993 IRS, and I assume that, although she does not use my name, she is lying about me when she writes in the same February 27 letter:

An IRS criminal agent was caught on tape conspiring with apostate Scientologists to use the powers of the IRS to help them plant false documents in the Church to overthrow legitimate Church management.

You are very familiar with such lies and black PR about me, because for years you manufactured and disseminated them and made others disseminate them. You included similar or slightly differently twisted black PR and lies about me in the answers to the IRS’s questions that you carried to Washington on your weekly trips from LA.

For more than twenty years while inside the cult, you hated me and sought to destroy me. You made others hate and seek to destroy me, and spent millions of dollars of Scientologists’ money on attorneys, PIs and programs to destroy me. You did all this evil for no legitimate reason. You invented reasons, and made others accept your reasons. Clearly you carried that hatred and desire to destroy me with you when you supposedly left the cult. You carried that hatred and evil purpose into your Memoirs of a Scientology Warrior, and past the point when you claimed you had jettisoned your allegiance to L. Ron Hubbard and Scientology.

You can go right on hating me as irrationally and baselessly as you want, and I can do nothing about it. Obviously you hate my appeals to your reason, humanity or conscience. But your refusal to tell the truth about fair gaming me and others, and your refusal to tell the truth about the crimes you committed and the lies you told to obtain undeserved tax exemption for the Scientology cult prejudices and hurts many people beyond me. A reading of the attacks on Gibney by the Scientologists and their attorneys shows that you are prejudicing and hurting him as well, if he is for real.

Suing the IRS, even 2400 lawsuits, is not unlawful. Investigating the IRS for their crimes is not unlawful. Even vilifying or black PRing IRS agents is not unlawful. But framing Michael Flynn was unlawful, and framing me was unlawful. Lying in your submissions to the IRS was unlawful. The IRS’s requiring these lies, which IRS and DOJ officials knew were lies, in your submissions to justify granting tax exemption to have the lawsuits end and to have the Scientologists’ investigating and vilifying of US officials end, was unlawful. It was also cowardly and disgraceful. Actual crimes against wogs and against society are what you have not talked about, which is also cowardly and disgraceful.

Accepting the possibility that you are not simply executing Miscavige’s orders or command intention, and it is a psychological issue that prevents you from correcting the evils you perpetrated against me and others, which you could correct by communicating with me and telling the truth, consider taking to heart this message about true contrition by George Simon, PhD.
http://counsellingresource.com/features/2009/08/10/regret-sorrow-and-true-contrition/

As you know, I have defended myself over the years by telling the truth, including telling it publicly. In fact, my telling the truth is the real reason you and your fellow Scientologists have hated me and sought to destroy me for decades. People telling the truth, of course, is an illegitimate reason for hating and destroying them. People telling the truth motivates criminals to hate and seek to destroy them. Telling the truth is what defines a Suppressive Person to Scientologists.

I will hold off on posting this publicly for the moment to give you another golden opportunity — to do what Simon says, not shed a tear, not mouth words, but make amends, repair the damage inflicted on the lives of others, initiate a plan of action to accomplish these ends, start to do things differently.1 Maybe your prideful ego will be literally crushed and torn asunder by the weight of your guilt and shame. So be it. That’s a blessing from God that not every irresponsible person accepts, or even understands. You owe it to everyone, including yourself.

Sincerely,

Gerry Armstrong

Notes

  1. Letter sent to Mark Rathbun by e-mail on June 8, 2015; posted to gerryarmstrong.ca on 18 June 2015.

LA Times Opinion: Scientology deserves its tax exemption (April 26, 2015)

By Monique Yingling
Posted April 26, 20151

To the editor: Alex Gibney appears trapped in his own prison of bias when he wrongly asserts that the Church of Scientology did not deserve IRS recognition of its tax-exempt status in 1993. The truth is the Church underwent the most exhaustive IRS scrutiny of any applicant in history to be recognized. (“‘Going Clear’ filmmaker: Scientology abuses its tax-exempt status,” op-ed, April 11)

As the church’s longtime outside tax counsel, I am familiar with everything that transpired during the administrative proceedings that led to the 1993 IRS settlement; Gibney has no clue. Not only does the church reject Gibney’s revisionist history, but so did the IRS officials involved in the proceedings. Gibney conveniently omits that the IRS issued a statement reaffirming church recognition when this myth first arose. All this information was provided to and ignored by Gibney.

Gibney pretends ignorance of the unprecedented public record, comprising 14 feet, in which the IRS recognized the church as exempt. The church not only answered every question the IRS put to it, but IRS officials also made on-site inspections of its records and facilities. I offered to walk Gibney through these materials, but he stonewalled me.

Gibney’s commentary regarding church finances is just plain false. Church funds are dedicated to promulgation of the faith and supporting global humanitarian initiatives for the benefit of people of all faiths. Not one iota of the church’s actual activities is reflected in Gibney’s one-sided piece.

It is unfortunate that the church has to defend itself from scurrilous attacks like Gibney’s. Like any other nonprofit, however, it has a right to respond through public discourse and has done so with a website and videos. Gibney’s complaint that the church has the audacity to defend itself against his attacks by exercising its own rights to freedom of speech and religion is decidedly un-American.

Monique E. Yingling, Washington

Notes

Letter to Alex Gibney on the IRS deal, public policy, and calling out Rathbun and Rinder (March 6, 2015)

Alex Gibney
Chelsea Pictures
33 Bond Street
Unit 1
New York, NY 10012

By e-mail:

Re: Going Clear: Scientology and the Prison of Belief

Dear Mr. Gibney:
In the recent televised interviews or discussions about Going Clear, you and Lawrence Wright called out Scientologist celebrities Tom Cruise and John Travolta to get Scientology head David Miscavige to answer his accusers for his actions. From the TimesTalks discussion:

LW: And the reason we’re calling out Cruise and Travolta is that they have the capacity–

AG: –they have the power

LW: — to change it. You know, there are only two ways that you can address the abuses that are going on inside Scientology:

One is to re-examine the tax exemption. And the IRS was so thoroughly whipped in 1993 by the Church of Scientology that it may not have the nerve to go back and do that again.

But ah, some of those celebrity megaphones, if they were turned around in the other direction, they can make a difference. And they should make a difference.

Logan Hill: What do you think that they could do? What would you like to specifically hear them say?

LW: I’d like to hear Tom Cruise stand up and say it’s time for David Miscavige to answer his accusers.

Calling out Cruise and Travolta to stand up and say it’s time for Miscavige to answer his accusers is logical because Cruise and Travolta are celebs, and they have contact and influence with him. Now I am urging you, and Wright and Paul Haggis, to call out Mark Rathbun and Mike Rinder to answer their accuser, me. What I am accusing them of includes, most crucially, crimes and torts they committed against me personally to unlawfully obtain the IRS tax exemption, which is clearly a focus of your film.

Rathbun and Rinder, under L. Ron Hubbard and Miscavige, fair gamed me more than they fair gamed any other person during their time as fair gamers for Scientology. If they fair gamed someone else more than me, they have never said, and I have never heard of that person. The one person they fair gamed somewhat equivalently was my attorney Michael Flynn. See, e.g., http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/cult/

Since Rathbun and Rinder have apparently left the Scientology cult, and portray themselves as exposers of the Scientologists’ abuses and crimes, I have many times asked them to come forward and tell the truth about fair gaming me. I have asked them many times to come forward and tell the truth about what they did to me to obtain their cult’s unmerited tax exemption. 1. See, e.g., this 2009 letter to Rathbun regarding black propaganda to the IRS. http://gerryarmstrong.ca/archives/304

Yet neither of them has answered me, their accuser, other than with contempt and further fair gaming.

You, Wright and Haggis are celebrities. You used Rathbun and Rinder for your film. You three celebs have contact and influence with them. You have the power and the capacity to make a difference, and you should, and not just to make these victimizers media stars. I would like to hear you, Wright and Haggis stand up and say it’s time for Rathbun and Rinder to answer their accuser, the person they most victimized, Gerry Armstrong.

My wife Caroline and I have assembled a lot material about the Scientologists’ deal with the IRS on our site called the “The Armstrong Op.” The op is a decades-long covert campaign against me, which reached to the top of the US Government and foreign governments, and underlies the IRS’s grant of tax exemption in 1993. http://armstrong-op.gerryarmstrong.ca/documents/irs 

The op continues to this day, and Rathbun and Rinder have been operating to keep it working. They black PRed me in Rathbun’s book Memoirs of a Scientology Warrior, which Rinder edited, and continued the criminal frame-ups of Flynn and me, which are key to the “negotiations” with the IRS.

Please read my introduction to the Armstrong op, which goes into these negotiations, and touches on the “public policy” issue, which is essential to understanding the IRS deal, and remedying it. http://armstrong-op.gerryarmstrong.ca/about

Also please read this article I wrote recently on public policy as it applies in the Scientologists’ obtaining of tax exemption. http://gerryarmstrong.ca/archives/1298

From what you and others have said about your film being based on Wright’s book, and from what is in the book about the IRS deal, I assume that you do not address the public policy issue in the film. (I have not seen it, and because of the Scientologists’ actions I cannot safely enter the US at this time.) Wright does not address the issue in the book. He writes that “Rathbun and Miscavige commuted to Washington nearly every week, toting banker’s boxes stuffed with responses to the government’s queries.” (p. 231) Wright does not, however, say anything about what the responses were. He does not mention Flynn in the book, or anything about the Scientologists ever fair gaming me, or the connection between the Scientology v. Armstrong litigations and the IRS deal.

Public policy violations comprised one of two principal reasons for the IRS’s refusal of tax exemption until the 1993 deal, the other reason being inurement. The Scientologists “cured” their public policy problem with the IRS by, among other things, framing me and then lying about me, and other similarly placed Scientology victims. Lying to the US has to be against public policy, but it is what the IRS negotiated with the Scientologists. The IRS never gave me an opportunity to answer my Scientologist accusers, or victimizers. Tax exemption, religion status, and the new ally relationship with the US Government then enabled the Scientologists to commit public policy violations against more citizens with relative immunity.

Wright had to have known about the public policy issue and the content of the Scientologists responses to the IRS. In 2010, while he was working on his New Yorker article, I sent him an email, which stated:

When we talked yesterday, I mentioned the black PR on me in Scientology’s submissions to the IRS on which its 1993 tax exemption was granted. http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/cult/irs/index.html

This email is pasted below for your reference.

During his researching and writing the article, I sent Wright a great amount of information and documents and spoke to him and New Yorker fact checkers several times. I made myself and my information available, and withheld nothing in any areas they asked about. Despite this, he treated me dishonestly in the article, and forwarded the Scientologists’ black PR and lies on me. He and The New Yorker would not correct the published untrue statements about me, but handed me and my request for correction off to the magazine’s attorney, who also dealt with me dishonestly. Obviously I do not have the resources to take on Condé Nast legally, and they knew it. It was heart-breaking. I have no doubt that his unfriendly attitude toward me continued through his book, and into his participation in your film.

More than a year ago, Spanky Taylor told me that you would be contacting me about the film. This made sense because of my long, intense relationship with Hubbard and the Scientologists, all their litigation with me, their fair gaming, the way my situation and legal cases fit in the Scientologists’ human rights issues, my victimization and present standing in the IRS deal, and the quantity of my material Wright used in his book. I expect that you too have been influenced against me by black propaganda, not because I wasn’t contacted about the film, but because of the apparent omission of the public policy violations issue in your treatment of the IRS deal, which, of course concerns my victimization. I have never seen the black PR on me that the Scientologists provided to Wright, which I am sure he provided to you. You are also obviously close to Rathbun and Rinder who had a hand in this black PR, and who still hate me and are protecting the IRS deal by not telling the truth about the public policy issue and their victimizing me.

If you, Wright and Haggis really want to get the US Government to re-examine the Scientologists’ tax exemption, get Rathbun and Rinder to tell the truth. I will know when they tell it because they have to tell it about me. The Scientologists did not make the IRS’s knees buckle. The IRS was not thoroughly whipped in 1993. The IRS and the involved Justice Department officials collaborated with the Scientologists, and they did so with full knowledge that they were victimizing the Scientologists’ victims, which cannot but be a grotesque violation of public policy.

Paul Haggis has stated in a number of places that he fights for the underdog, doesn’t like bullies, “The bigger the bully, the more I want to take them down.” The bullies here are the Scientologists, their lawyers, PIs, etc., and the US Government, and Rathbun and Rinder and their supporters. That is about as big a bunch of bullies as you can find. Against them, my wife and I are virtually alone, the most marginalized underdogs imaginable.

I hope he will take this to heart, and you, Wright and he will stand up to these bullies. Please study the materials relating to the IRS deal and the public policy issues that I have made available, and use your power, capacity and megaphones so Rathbun and Rinder know it’s time to answer their accusers, including, most immediately, me.

Sincerely,

Gerry Armstrong

[address and phone number]

cc: Lawrence Wright
cc: Paul Haggis
cc: Mark Rathbun
cc: Mike Rinder

*****

From: Gerry Armstrong
Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2010 10:58 AM
To: ‘Lawrence Wright’
Cc: ‘Jennifer Stahl’
Subject: A few other things

When we talked yesterday, I mentioned the black PR on me in Scientology’s submissions to the IRS on which its 1993 tax exemption was granted.
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/cult/irs/index.html

Also, if you have questions about my legal cases and status, here’s my archive: http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/archives/category/legal

I mentioned this injunction: http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50k/legal/a4/2623.php
and the Breckenridge decision: http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50k/legal/a1/283.php
which was affirmed on appeal: http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50k/legal/a1/3112.php

A sample communication to Scientologists providing my position regarding their contract and injunction against me: http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/archives/14
*****
And this is interesting. An “independent,” who appears to copy posts and party line from Rathbun’s blog, just quoted a 1996 post to that contained Prouty’s 1987 letter to Michael Joseph, publishers of Bare-Faced Messiah. http://mylrh.wordpress.com/2010/11/06/lrh-military-info/

I mentioned that Prouty hadn’t been used in some years. But Tommy Davis I guess brings him up with you, and a Scientologist posts this on his blog.

Curiously, I had the same post on my site in the black PR section: http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/cult/usenet/ars-milne-1996-03-19.html

This 1999 post to a.r.s. is a Prouty oddity: http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/legal/a7/breaches-exhibit30.html That is one of 201 “breaches” of Scientology’s contract for which the cult sought $50,000 each in a 2002 lawsuit.

And a Freedom article from Fletch on me: http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/cult/freedom-1985-04-2.html

I hope all of this is making sense to you. I’m assuming that you know a lot about what’s happening in Scientologyland.

Gerry

Monique Yingling

Monique Yingling

Monique Yingling