Customize

Scientology-Narconon vs. Catholic Church

Discussion in 'Narconon' started by Intelligence, Dec 4, 2011.

  1. Intelligence Member

    It's quite clear WHY NN TR executives and the Montreal COS vehemently denies that
    Narconon is tied to the COS.

    1 - this Property Sale and Lease document.
    2 - Revenue Canada charitable status for Narconon.
    3 - the Ministry of Health certification process for NN TR.

    All 3 are huge. Revenue Canada Charities policies even mentions "scientology", Quote: "that there was public concern about Scientology generally; and, that there was expressed judicial concern about some of its practices both in the U.K. and abroad." http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/chrts-gvng/chrts/plcy/cps/cps-024-eng.html

    With the Ministry of Health still investigating, the College of Physicians, the Quebec Human Rights Commission moving forward with Exploitation charges, and now a Revenue Canada charities commission
    request for forensic audit and revoking charitable status, I dare say there are numerous wheels of justice turning at present.

    I'd say they have good reason to deny any scientology connection.

    Tick-Tock.

    .
    • Like Like x 6
  2. DeathHamster Member

    Damn! That's the first time I've ever seen Revenue Canada come out and say that they denied charity .. HEY! They're just referring to the UK Charity Commission report. They don't actually say anything about the Revenue Canada decision! Grumble...

    CoS got away with shit for years because non-federal governments didn't know that they'd been turned down. (Critics only knew because one OG was an intervenor in their application. And they only told him indirectly: "If they apply again, you'll be notified." "Again..? You mean they've been turned down?" "I can't tell you that. <wink><wink>")
  3. Intelligence Member

    Mmmmm,..., you could be right - - I'm not sure in the context they use?
    However, Scientology is NOT a registered charity in Canada:


    • Like Like x 2
  4. DeathHamster Member

    Yes, and quite a Wiki-fight that was too! JN466 wanted to say that they had religious recognition based on a 90s idiot apologist book or paper. Luckily I had the Revenue Canada page for looking up recognized religious charities, which definitely didn't list Scientology.
    • Like Like x 4
  5. Intelligence Member

    Ok, now I'm understanding more about the Revenue Canada Charities Acts/Regulations. Only took me
    five hours,..., LOL. (Income Tax Act)

    The KEY is and why they refer so much to the UK, is:

    Under current law, an organization is only charitable if it meets the definition of charity at common law, which is based and derived from and inherited from being a former colony of the United Kingdom and later a member of the Commonwealth of Nations.

    Or within the spirit and intendment of the preamble to the Statute of Elizabeth (the Preamble). - - Queen Elizabeth, I guess,..., LOL.

    So, it looks like this complaint/request for inquiry, may fall into the Courts Jurisdiction?

    Although a similar presumption arises for some purposes that fall within the fourth category (primarily those that are well-established and the benefit is clear, for example, the provision of healthcare services or services that provide relief for the aged)[Footnote 22], it is otherwise generally understood that the benefit aspect of the test must be proved in applications concerning purposes proposed under the fourth category.

    To sum up, proving benefit under the public benefit test, is effectively only required in the following instances:


    • when a presumption of benefit under the fourth category would be considered charitable but for the concerns raised (e.g., a health clinic specializing in controversial alternative therapies).

    In such cases, applicants must establish the following:[Footnote 26]
    • The benefit must be generally shown to be tangible. If it is intangible, it must be demonstrated that the benefit is regarded as valuable by "the common understanding of enlightened opinion."[Footnote 27]

      Now here we go back to England again,..., LOL:
    [Footnote 30]National Anti-Vivisection Society at 49. The Charity Commission has interpreted this test to mean, "a common consensus of opinion amongst people who are fair-minded and free from prejudice or bias." See U.K., Decision of the Charity Commissioners for England and Wales (17 November 1999). Application for Registration as a Charity by the Church of Scientology (England and Wales) at 45. Courts in Canada have taken a more cautious approach to such evidence, believing that a consideration of evidence of public opinion would be injudicious, courts being ill-equipped to "assess public consensus, which is a fragile and volatile concept". See Everywoman's Health Centre at 68-69..

    • Like Like x 1
  6. Intelligence Member

    So, now I'll simply compile all the dox, attach to a Cover Letter, and file with Revenue Canada,
    Revenue Quebec,....., AND some influential entities:



    I think the dox we have from NN TR and the Montreal COS; as well as Intel from ex-staff, we have
    a convincing case:)

    .
    • Like Like x 3
  7. Intelligence Member

    Well, haven't heard of any litigation or proceedings by the Oblates? WHY???

    Whilr reviewing dox last night, I came accross additional evidence that Heenan and Blaikie
    are in a "Conflict of Interest" position, representing arconon against me. Yves Rocheleau
    was in communication with me concerning personal legal issues of he afvised. Narconon
    was also involved. I did file a complaint with the Quebec Bar, but at that time not sufficient
    evidence. Now I do and will appeal (no time limit on appeal to Bar).

    Also, Rocheleau was the lawyer who sealed the Oblate deal and I think the Bar should investigate.
    So, I will send ALL the particulars and evidence to the Bar concerning this case/deal.

    Once the QHRC finds COS and NN being one of the same (College already has noted on this),
    H & B could be facing sanctions/discipline hearing??? We'll see.

    My main goal is to have them Recuse from representing Narconon/COS against me for conflict
    of interest.

    • Like Like x 4
  8. Intelligence Member



    • Like Like x 1

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