Discussion in 'Scientology Property Tax' started by Bluebell, Aug 31, 2010.
If they are, then you have done a very naughty thing.
I am wondering with the whole CoLCorp situation whether there is a "conspiracy to subvert public duty" charge that can be laid upon them. And I hope there are those among us cruel enough to lay that on them when the situation gets reversed and it is seen that they have been intentionally breaking the law.
When you think of all the money they have given the cult and the lives it could have saved if the government had had the money to spend then I think those vunts deserve a bloody nose if fortune goes against them.
I'll keep an eye on the situation and I hope you will all allow me to make the initial criminal complaint (I think I am allowed to do that as a German resident as a British citizen).
Is there somebody here who can look into the "conspiracy" angle on this? Maybe "conspiracy" and "public duty"? "DPP v. Welham" perhaps? "Conspiracy to subvert legislation"? Maybe "collusion" and "anti-competition"? Anything that can stick.
I might have found something. This could be along the lines of "conspiracy to cheat the revenue" and might even pull in some members of central government as well".
See "public purse" below:
"The common-law offence of ‘cheat’ was abolished by section 32 of the Theft Act 1968 – but it was expressly preserved in relation to offences against the public revenue – i.e. State revenue collecting bodies such as HMRC etc. It remains a common-law conspiracy offence (not a statutory one), the principle offence being the only ‘cheat’ offence left – thus ‘conspiracy to cheat the revenue’. Once again this quite archaic offence was expressly preserved not just by the 1968 Act but also the Fraud Act 2006. There is only one reason for this – Parliament simply did not want to take the risk of abolishing and replacing an offence aimed at tax evaders in case the new law presented problems. The new law has not proven problematic and, now, as in 1968 and 1977 the law-makers have left the old law in place to give prosecutors a degree of flexibility in cases where the public purse was the victim or intended victim."
I'll wait and see what happens to the anti-competition complaint I sent in to the European Commission and if I have luck with that then send in a criminal complaint.
I am not holding my breath over this. I have already given it to the press:
2012/038216 - SA.34653(2012/CP) - Possible complaint of Mr. RASHLEIGH-BERRY-Roland concerning presumed illegal state aid to a self help group operating in the United Kingdom.
Acknowledgement of receipt
SA.34653(2012/CP) - COSRECI (UK)
Subject : COSRECI (UK)
The Directorate-General for Competition has received your correspondence dated 2012-04-12 (Registration: 2012/038216), concerning the subject referred to above.
It will carry out the necessary investigations in connection with the information you provided.It will inform you of the outcome as soon as possible.
DG COMP Registry
Can our Bogus Charity get 80% Mandatory Rates Relief?
Q: Can our bogus charity get 80% Mandatory Rates Relief?
A: It depends on where you are located. Certainly, in the City of London, this is possible.
Q: What if we are not really a charity?
A: No problem. Just make sure it says so on your Articles of Association and that the solicitor representing you says you are one.
Q: What if they ask you if you have ever been refused rates relief before like on your headquarters like has happened to us already?
A: No problem again - just lie about it.
Q: What if we are not registered as a charity anywhere in the world?
A: That's not a problem. Just say you are a charity and that will be enough.
Q: What if our charity has a criminal conviction for organised fraud and illegal pharmacy?
A: This will not be an issue. The City of London Corporation already gives 270 thousand pounds per year of UK tax payers money to such an organisation.
The representatives of the Church of Scientology are none other than OSA - the Office of Special Affairs - the cult's dirty tricks department, among other functions. I wonder what City of London Corporation Alderman Ian Luder and OSA were up to when he had the pleasure of working with them over the past several months prior to giving his speech praising them.
I wonder if this is something to do with the 270K GBP per year in business rates relief they get from the British taxpayer.
38 seconds in he says "The representatives of the Church, with whom I've had the pleasure of working with over the past several months, ...".
My money is on no amount of FOI requests finding out what went on there because the City of London Corporation does not hold that information.
Alderman Ian Luder (who just missed out on a knighthood by the skin of his dick) - the man who 38 seconds into the video says "The representatives of the Church, with whom I've had the pleasure of working with over the past several months" has said this in response to a FOI request directed at him:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/29267/response/300151/attach/3/Letter to Thackeray EA 2011 0082.pdf
"I can confirm that I have had no meetings with any representatives of the Church of Scientology or the various organisations referred to, most of which I have never heard of, the only exception of course being the meeting to which the correspondence in September referred".
I have to take my hat off to these fine local government civil servants who keep the wheels of industry oiled in the heart of the great Capital City of London. They are the best people that money can buy.
^^ wot r peeples interpretation on the above because I can not reconcile the two statements?
Alderman Ian Luder is an unrepentant liar.
But he went on to become the Lord Mayor of the City of London
Where does the idea that politicians are not lying, scheming weasels come from?
Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhh... OH! OH! I know this one... from politicians?
4:53 - 5:05
This has gotten nowhere and the City of London Corporation are still happily giving away 280K GBP per year in rates relief to the Church of Scientology premises at 146 Queen Victoria Street.
Can somebody with good legal knowledge take over this quest to get that rates relief removed?
They are not a registered charity anywhere in the world and yet the CoLCorp is giving them mandatory rates relief which is only there to benefit charities.
The Charities Act 2006 says that charities must establish that they are for the public benefit and account for it, yet the CoS in England has not done that and nor have the CoLCorp established that themselves.
The Charities Commission for England and Wales is the body charged with giving statutory guidance on what constitutes a charity and they have said that the Church of Scientology is not of public benefit so why is the CoLCorp going against the body whose job it is to give statutory guidance?
I admit defeat in this project. It needs to be taken up by a person with legal knowledge who can write in and challenge the CoLCorp decision in a convincing manner.
Below is a link to a document I wrote about this.
Here it is. 2nd page. CC E+W says they hold the same view over COSRECI:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/reque...101216 FOI Response Information Disclosed.pdf
On 2nd page, the Charity Commission for England and Wales gives its opinion on the charitable status of COSRECI:
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
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 wonder if the CoLCorp has been diligent in applying the law and asked for proof of "public benefit" before giving mandatory non-domestic rates relief and that they stay up to date with this status.
I wonder what will become of my latest FOI request.
Chances are the CoLCorp have no documentation of this and have no intention of asking COSRECI for it. But then with mandatory rates relief, which is only given to charities and other qualifying groups, then it makes COSRECI doubly outside this definition both jurisdictionally and through failing to prove the "public benefit test" that was added as a requirement in the Charities Act 2006. Of course, all they need do to be compliant is to say that they have understood the requirements for public benefit as provided by the Charity Commission for England and Wales and that they apply those guidelines. But we know that CC E+W say they are not a charity and also state directly that COSRECI does not qualify as a charity.
(see page 2)
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/reque...101216 FOI Response Information Disclosed.pdf
So what happens next? Do CoLCorp carry on giving mandatory rates relief even if they know that legally they are clearly outside being qualified as a charity in the UK? (most likely). Does COSRECI put this "public benefit test" statement in their annual unaudited accounts saying they comply with the CC E+W guideliness? (less likely). If they did the latter then they still would not be compliant but instead would have to have their accounts independently audited (extremely unlikely). Or might CoLCorp change their status to discretionary non-domestic rates relief and shift some of the burden of costs onto their residents to avoid getting sued? (unlikely). Or is the CoLCorp finally going to wake up to the fools they have been and withdraw non-domestic rates relief of either sort? (unlikely).
So they will carry on as normal and say they did their duty by seeking legal advice (though for some reason not from a barrister who knows anything about Trust law) so nothing is likely to happen. But if I can get that lawyer involved from the WWP "Leaks & Legal" section then things might hot up a little.
I got the reply from CoLCorp I was expecting that they hold no documentation on whether the Church of Scientology is legally compliant with the "public benefit test" introduced in the Charities Act 2006. So they are out on two points of the law in this case, both for jurisdiction and the public benefit test.
I can take this no further but perhaps a lawyer could.
There have been some interesting developments re the CoLCorp rates relief. There is a new man in charge (comptroller), who from his career history looks to be a high flyer, and it has transpired that the CoLCorp has not been following its own stated procedures.
If you have ever worked for British central government then you will know that the whole of government works to help these government high flyers by giving them correct information in a timely fashion so they can make their decisions which will hopefully be correct and through it help them rise to higher positions. I think this is the best initial approach. So what is needed is for somebody to write a nice letter to the comptroller or comptrollers department pointing out this anomaly and pointing them to all the correct and relevant information and asking them to review the situation.
The person needed to write this letter must know how to write an official friendly letter couched in all the right legal or government language. I don't know how to do this and besides, they know me as the person who threatened them with judicial review and so would be hostile to any letter I wrote them.
If you work for central or local government or perhaps a legal department and have experience of wording such letters then please come forward.
For these latest developments, see the post below and the one that follows it:
Monsieur Le Bump.
Somebody needs to come forward to help me on this. A communication needs to be sent into the ColCorp Comptroller's office (or whatever) to ask them to review their rates relief and to point out weaknesses in their decision plus their obligation to collect rates on behalf of central government. This is going to be a tricky letter to write and not only do I lack any direction on how the letter to be structured, I completely lack any style of politeness. It's just the way I am, having been a technical computer programmer for a very long time. Any communication from me is going to be as subtle as a shotgun in the face. Plus the CoLCorp knows me as the person threatening to take their decision to judicial review. I am sure they hate my guts, and I cannot blame them, but somehow somebody needs to get the message to them that they need to review the situation and to word it in the correct way so they can approach it.
I am thinking how the money the CoLCorp gives them of British taxpayers money helps keep Sea Org children trapped in the cult and when they finally leave with regret, look back at how all the adults in the UK helped them to remain trapped in the cult by willingly donating their tax money to the cult through the good offices of the CoLCorp. This fills me with guilt, shame and disgust and makes me a child molester in their eyes and mine. I need the expert services of another person to help me remedy this situation. I can not do this by myself.
I quite literally feel sick at the thought that this opportunity will pass by untaken. Me offering up my services in this endeavour may truly be scraping the bottom of the barrel. I have at times written very effective letters to people to get done that which I need to get done. That being said, The thought of composing something of this magnitude to this bunch of truculent pricks, intimidates me no end.
I watched the composition of a press release,regarding the big list 2000 exes milestone, form up as a joint venture, with contributions made by several members on the relevant thread. I believe this approach might work in this case. I think it probably goes without saying that a contact person/signatory to the proposed missive needs to be found, residing preferably within the City of London itself.
Perhaps if the missive springs to life, with help from interested members on this thread, then we may just find our volunteer signatory/contact point will come forward.
To give this thing a chance, would you mind bulletpointing the facts we need to convey to CoLcorp and any other pertinent details. This may wind up an utter failure of an exercise, but it would be a tragic wasted opportunity if nobody even attempts it.
I can bulletpoint a lot of things but I don't know if the overall approach is valid. These things have to be done in a certain way for local government to sit up and take notice and I do not know the way to do it.
You are right, alas that rules out my futile attempt to get something happening. For someone in the know this would be a walk in the park, albeit a very long one.
Yes, a long walk in the park. I will do most of the work but the person helping me should count on themselves doing about ten hours work to complete this so that it is up to a standard for sending in to local government. We will only get the one chance to succeed so it has got to be done right. For me, I estimate 50 hours work; for my helper, 10 hours work.
Living in the borough would be nice but I don't expect it. You will have to give a name and address to be taken seriously so you will be name fagged and the cult may punish you. This is not to be underestimated. They have leafleted schools before of critics with the leaflet saying that the person associates themselves with pedophiles. This is not a "turn the other cheek" charity!
I assume that this new Comptroller Michael Cogher is a good egg. He seems like a local government high-flyer to me and from my central government exposure then these people are there to be helped. I assume that if the guy were given the right information then he will make the right choice. That may not turn out to be the case so when the weather turns better in 2013 then perhaps we can pay them a picket or two.
Another way of looking at this is that if they get 80% rates relief and that relief amounts to 280K per year then they are still paying 70K per year. That's an awful lot of money for clams who have already been regged to the bone marrow.
Just to assure the British rates and tax-payers that their money is being put to work in a way the Church of Scientology knows best.
I think this is a very sensible attitude to take.
I'm sure we can get something written even if it takes a while.
"Most Scientology services are free". I think I got the quote right or at least close enough. This claim from a Scientology solicitor helped them get mandatory and discretionary rates relief from a few local authorities in the UK. So here is a quiz question for all you critics out there - which steps on the following Bridge to Total Freedom(tm) are free?
From ARS, I remember that Scientology will claim that orgs can, at their discretion, hand out free courses and training. Of course, when pressed for specific examples, it was last done sometime in the reign of Queen Dick.
you have not been very generous this year 2012 in the UK. Remember that the City of London Corporation, through their own discretion, give you 80% mandatory rates relief on your property at 146 Queen Victoria Street. That amounts to £280K per year of British taxpayers' money. That's a penny per year for every British taxpayer in the country. That £280K is an awful lot of money!!! So I am wondering why you don't throw a Tom Cruise Gala Dinner each year and reward these officials who are your main financial backers in the UK (actually the British taxpayer but let's not split hairs). Isn't £280K per year enough to pay for the food and a bit of entertainment (or failing that you've got the Jive Aces). Yes, I know it is a lot of work to get the place ready and the grounds looking nice but you have plenty of child slave labour there in East Grinstead. Just change the Walsh Manor School schedule a little to get that done. A couple of weeks of children working to midnight should get the place straightened out. And don't worry about the Child Protection agencies there - they will do nothing the same as they have done nothing for decades. Send them an invite if one of the CoLCorp guests or CoLPolice guests drops out.
The City of London Corporation might have given the "Church" British taypayers' money to have Sweeney followed. Well done, Sirs!
Need to post myself a reminder:
"In summary, it is unlawful for a 'public authority', such as a court, tribunal or local planning authority, to act in breach of a convention unless it is necessary to do so to give effect to legislation. "
This is to counter the argument given by legal counsel that they need to take into account European Human Rights for giving the clams rates relief. They have to follow the law as it stands with the rates relief thing and COSRECI are not entitled to it according to how the law currently stands.
The CoLCorp were afraid of being sued if they followed the law. They still are. This is an absurdity. The law is as it is and they are obliged to apply it. They are not doing so.
If it's any consolation then UK central government has cut the funding to local authorities so that the UK taxpayer can get back some of the money these local authorities are wasting. That the City of London Corporation plus Westminster and Sunderland are giving this cult British taxpayers' money has sent out a clear message to central government that local authorities are wasting public money so it is right that their funding from central government should be set at a lower level. I hope this will result in job losses in those local authorities who give the cult British taxpayers' money. Serve them bloody right!
I think there is an interesting contrast to be drawn...
cuts to public libraries vs. funding to CoS
cuts to social services for the elderly vs. funding to CoS
cuts to education vs funding to CoS
What's needed is a punchy message that can be stuck on a sign or flier. Something like:
Council cut elderly care by £100,000
Council gives Scientology £200,000
Cash given to cult would fund two libraries.
We'd need exact figures, but this is the right time to do it because everyone's moaning about the cuts. There's a section of British society which couldn't give a damn about Scientology's abuses but they sure as hell would get worked up about their income tax being handed out to fund it.
I've accidentally posted some other stuff to another thread, that is relevant to a UK Narconon case:
Wasn't sure where best to post.
The CoLCorp give them £280K per year in business rates relief even though they are fully aware that there is no legal justification for doing so. They continue to grant this tax rebate because they are afraid of getting sued if they remove it.
They need to get some spine!
It costs them nothing to give this money to the cult although I think it has pissed Eric Pickles and he has cut the funding of local authorities throughout Britain. In a sense, the taxpayer has got their money back plus some more.
This new comptroller of the City of London Corporation must be aware of the situation now that Eric Pickles has come out a second time to speak his mind. And with all the publicity coming up with the release of three books in January and the coming Belgium trial in March then it would be impossible not to know about it. So if they leave the rates relief intact it is a knowing and deliberate act and that they choose to support the cult and give them their backing for all they do, including the child abuse.
Maybe some people would like to include them in their picketing actions as sponsors of the cult.
Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!