Customize

A Lawyer Answers Your Questions!!

Discussion in 'Leaks & Legal' started by MartinJDAnon, Jul 13, 2008.

  1. moarxenu Member

    Great to see you back on WWP. Raid for great justice!
  2. MartinJDAnon Member

    Yeah....I work for a big corporation in my normal job. I just go after Scientology in the weekend and evenings.

    -MartinJDAnon
  3. Anonymous Member

    I think he was questioning your idiosyncratic spelling of the word "shill."
  4. MartinJDAnon Member

    Ahhhh.....Well, I am a bit idiosyncratic :)

    -MartinJDAnon
  5. Anonymous Member

    Is it legal for the Cult to use its in-house travel agency at Int Base to stalk people like Marty, Mike, Larry Brennan, Graham Berry and others?
    This in-house travel agency gives the Cult access to airline databases such as Saber.
    • Like Like x 1
  6. Martin. What's your take on lawsuits to the individual Narconon's that use lies and outright deception on getting someone into treatment. I have seen others lawsuits and Nar Intl seems to settle but put a gag order on them to not talk anymore. Want to get my parents back some $ but also want to get word out to others that they can sue.
    • Like Like x 1
  7. Anonymous Member

  8. Anonymous Member

  9. muldrake Member

    He's disbarred, after being found guilty of betraying his client (Gabe Cazares) on behalf of the Scientology cult.

    The whole sordid tale.

    Since that is about the most cardinal violation of legal ethics, the disbarment will probably be for the rest of his life. Apparently, at the time, in the mid-70s, he was seeking admission to the California Bar Association. I do not believe, but am not certain, that he did not become admitted and is, as far as I know, not admitted to practice anywhere.

    For all I know, he's burning in hell right now.
    • Like Like x 4
  10. telomere Member

    Lovely, lovely.
    tl;mustread

  11. Anonymous Member

    What a fucking douchebag
  12. Anonymous Member

    I found out that Vannier works for Mike Rinder.
  13. comanome Member

    I have a question. I have been trying to get a repayment from a large org in the LA area for about a year. I followed all of their policy and they eventually offered me about 80% of what was on my account stating that they had audited my account and found that this lower amount was the correct amount. Eventually they gave me a detailed listing of their calculation which I used to prove that they not only owed me more than what I originally expected to get, but actually twenty percent more! (this is in the tens of thousands of dollars). I wrote them with the corrections and they don't respond to my emails. I don't want to have to sign their "release" form. I did already for the first amount they refused to pay me (is that now invalid?) I also want interest from them from the time they should have first paid me until the time I receive the payment. Is that likely? I am paying 15% interest on my credit cards right now so that is what I would like to receive. Qustion: What is the best way to get my money back from them, without signing away my rights?
  14. AnonLover Member

    Not a lawyer, just someone who has followed so many similar tales to yours. It's like its right out of a rip-off playbook. The following link is from David St. Lawrence in the indie camp (who has sorta made helping others get their refunds his own personal crusade) has a short set of articles on the ins & outs of it that has seemingly proven itself to be fairly effective over the past year or so:

    http://possiblyhelpfuladvice.com/?cat=594

    HTH & Good Luck.
  15. Anonymous Member

    Martin, esq.,

    Can you please look at this thread and let us know if the person we are looking into has a responsibility to the public to explain their involvement in the CoS even if they are currently an independent scientologist? If it's true that this person has been fair gamed pretty heard then isn't that more of a reason to do so and avoid be blackmailed by the cult while in office?

    https://whyweprotest.net/community/...-ethics-in-jacksonville-fl-government.104328/
    • Like Like x 1
  16. RolandRB Member

    Not sure you know about Trust Law but maybe you know somebody who does.

    As I understand the Charities Act 2006, then a charity have to pass a "public benefit test" to receive the advantages of a charity such as non-domestic "mandatory" rates relief. And as for the "public benefit test" then because this is something that changes over time then the job of issuing statutory guidelines on this has been given to the Charities Commission for England and Wales and this has to be done in consultation with charities. And once these guidelines have been agreed upon then it is the legal duty of trustees of charities to pay due regard to the statutory guidelines in the way they run their charity and to report in their accounts how they have complied with these guidelines.

    That being the case (if it is) then with the Charities Commission for England and Wales, as the issuer of statutory guidelines, having stated in writing that the Church of Scientology, in the form of COSREC (Church of Scientology Religious Education Colleges Inc.), does not pass the public benefit test then how come is it legal for the City of London Corporation to grant them mandatory non-domestic rates relief as a charity for their premises at 146 Queen Victoria Street?
    • Like Like x 2
  17. Anonymous Member

    Roland's question is a good one. It's a complex issue but well worth scrutiny.

    I don't know the answer to Roland's question, but to provide more info:

    This tax exemption gets the cult hundreds of thousands of pounds a year - they get 80% relief from business rates on their City of London property.

    The way it works:

    - The UK Charity Commission has determined that Scientology does not meet the 'public benefit' test and cannot register as a charity in the UK.

    - Scientology's UK operation is a company registered in South Australia.

    - South Australia does not have a public benefit test and a charity commissioner like the UK does.

    - Scientology says to City of London Corp that it is a charity.

    - City of London Corp has chosen to take them at their word.

    - Initially CoLCorp denied them this tax break - Scientology appealed (twice) and eventually CoL granted it. Scientology may have threatened to sue - we're not sure.

    - CoL took legal advice from a barrister, who advised them that the tax relief should be granted, but the barrister gave this advice on the basis that the applicant was 'a foreign charity' (CoL didn't actually check this) - Scientology is not a registered charity in South Australia, it just says that on its own assessment it is 'for charitable purposes'. but no public body has checked or approved this in any country.

    Roland could you link to you long document about this pls?
  18. RolandRB Member

    ^^ OK....

    http://www.xenu-directory.net/opinions/20100622-rashleighberry-roland.html

    ... though I think the "public benefit" thing is what needs to be concentrated on and the statutory guidance issued by the CC E+W. Can statutory guidance be ignored or glossed over by a local authority? Can they say that "The CC E+W does not have the authority of a court so we can ignore the statutory guidance they have been empowered by law to give if the legal advice we get contradicts it?"

    I thought I would add that CoLCorp did not consult a barrister who knew anything about Trust Law (Jonathan Crow QC), which is a bit strange since they needed advice on the status of an entity claiming to be a charity.

    I think this thing has plenty of mileage left in it but I can't get anywhere with it myself because I lack the legal background so I have to pass the baton on to somebody who does and drop out of the race.

    Back to statutory guidance. How much legal weight does it have? This is not clear.

    I found this:

    http://www.education.gov.uk/aboutdf...partments-new-approach-to-advice-and-guidance

    Statutory guidance

    Guidance is produced on powers and duties arising from statute. In the case of a duty recipients must do what the statute says. The statute will tell them what their powers and duties are. Guidance is produced to tell them how those powers and duties should be exercised. Where a recipient has an obligation to ‘have regard to’ guidance they should exercise the powers and duties which are the subject of the guidance in the way it says they should, unless they have a good reason not to. This is the case for the majority of guidance.

    Very unusually, there are some forms of guidance which must be followed and which in themselves impose obligations, such as the Admissions Code. In these cases recipients must follow the guidance - with no exceptions. This distinction will be made clear.
    • Like Like x 1
  19. RolandRB Member

    • Like Like x 1
  20. YouSeeNothing Member

    Roland, how do they get away with the 100-hour work weeks in Sea Org UK, if they do? As they are not recognized as a religion, how do they get around the labor laws? Thanks.
    • Like Like x 1
  21. RolandRB Member

    Because Tom Cruise says it is OK and the people in authority who toe the line can get their wives photographed with Tom Cruise's arm around them.
    • Funny Funny x 3
    • Agree Agree x 2
  22. Anonymous Member

  23. RolandRB Member

    Correspondence between London Borough of Camden and CC E+W

    http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/50365/response/133902/attach/html/4/20101216 FOI Response Appendix A.pdf.html

    I am looking for the short email from the CC E+W dated 24th November 2009 that says that they do not consider COSRECi in its current form to be a charity but I have not found it yet (I do not mean the long decision thing).

    Here it is. 2nd page:

    http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/50365/response/133902/attach/3/20101216 FOI Response Information Disclosed.pdf

    It remains the view of the Charity Commission that the Church of Scientology is not
    established for charitable purposes or for the public benefit and is therefore ineligible for
    registration as a charity under the Charities Act 1993. The Commission maintain the same
    view about the Church of Scientology Religious Education College Inc. The Decision of
    the Commission made in 1999 remains valid. Please find enclosed a full copy of the
    decision.

    Everybody has missed the "public benefit test" thing that came into effect in the Charities Act 2006. Charities now must pass a "public benefit test", the Charity Commission for England and Wales is the body charged with deciding what is public benefit and what is not and to issue statutory guidelines on this that must be followed by charity trustees, and they say of COSRECI that it "is not established for charitable purposes or for the public benefit" so that should be the end of the story. There is no room in which to manoeuvre.

    I have failed in this venture but the case is still strong. It is far from dead. Surely some legal eagle can take up the above points and run with it and get this rates relief removed. If they can do that and the cult has to pay the extra 280K GBP per year in business rates then they are finished in the UK. You will become one of the greatest heros in the UK.

    I will try to start this up again to save time.

    http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/public_benefit_test_for_church_o
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  24. fishypants Moderator

    I'm not aware of any minimum-wage or labour-laws complaint having been made against Scientology organisations in the UK.

    Which is not to say that there hasn't been one - does anyone know of one?
  25. RolandRB Member

    A group of people tried and got nowhere. British government departments are too scared to take on the cult's lawyers.
  26. RolandRB Member

    Where's he gone?
  27. RolandRB Member

    Maybe change the title of this thread to "A Lawyer Doesn't Answer Your Questions"?
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  28. ravenanon Member

    I think we should go find a new lawyer or something
    • Agree Agree x 2
  29. Caprise Member

    Wow! ... I love your honesty. Things still suprise me. Crazy world!
  30. Hi Martin,

    I am 'above the Law' so I don't have any questions Sir.
  31. grebe Member

    Woah! I'd never heard this story before. Unbelievable, the lengths this cult will go to control people.

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors

Close

Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins