Customize

Tax Exempt Independent Scientology: Religious Liberty League

Discussion in 'Independent Scientology' started by CommunicatorIC, Oct 13, 2015.

  1. Tax Exempt Independent Scientology: Religious Liberty League.

    Introduced in a Save Scientology blog post:

    Introducing Religious Liberty League

    http://blog.savescientology.com/2015/10/introducing-religious-liberty-league/

    * * * * * BEGIN QUOTATION * * * * *

    Religious-Liberty-League-01-300-x-179-300x179.jpg

    Religious Liberty League is a nonprofit, tax-exempt organization. It’s original purpose was to fund the activities SaveScientology.com. That purpose was later expanded to engage in its own activities and have its own identity and presence on the Internet.

    SaveScientology.com will remain in place as a source of information regarding LRH Intent for the governance of Scientology organizations. It will no longer publish articles on this blog or engage in action plans to bring the churches of Scientology into alignment with the religion of Scientology, however.

    Please visit Religious Liberty League’s new website, bookmark it and sign up for its newsletter. Join its Facebook page, too.

    We have some exciting plans and information you won’t want to miss if you have any interest in salvaging the materials and religion of Scientology!

    We welcome your support!

    * * * * * END QUOTATION * * * * *


    Religious Liberty League

    http://religiouslibertyleague.org/


    ************************************************************************

    Religious Liberty League - About Us

    http://religiouslibertyleague.org/about-us/

    * * * * * BEGIN QUOTATION * * * * *


    Religious Liberty League is a California nonprofit corporation with federal 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status. It is the first truly independent (of the church) Scientology civil rights organization. Founded by Merrell Vannier, Religious Liberty League defends the religion of Scientology and rights of Scientologists to freely practice the religion without defamation or discrimination.

    Religious Liberty League is an outgrowth of the website, SaveScientology.Com, which was created to notify Scientologists of betrayal of LRH Intent for the governance of Scientology after his departure by David Miscavige who usurped the multiple checks and balances created by L. Ron Hubbard and turned Scientology into a dictatorship. See Existing Scene, on which web page is featured LRH’s view toward one-man rule:
    Is the Religious Liberty League necessary?

    Absolutely! Just venture onto the Internet or open a newspaper or watch television. Never has Scientology’s repute and image – and that of L. Ron Hubbard – been so low.

    Yet the church today, which is really the alter ego of David Miscavige, having been hijacked by him, is powerless to effectively to defend Scientology and L. Ron Hubbard: it is too busy trying and failing to defend the repute and empire of David Miscavige from allegations leveled against him by dozens of former high-ranking executives of inhumane treatment, corruption and criminality.

    Prior to the creation of SaveScientology.com, long-time Scientologist lawyers wrote letters to David Miscavige, church attorneys, and the special directors of Church of Spiritual Technology, which – under LRH’s corporate structure – has oversight of Miscavige and Religious Technology Center and the power to eliminate both, urging them to conduct internal investigations into the chargers independent of Miscavige rather than attacking the whistleblowers. Our pleas were ignored. The situation only worsened. Now members are being declared even for reading the allegations of former members, triggering other members to disconnect from them, even if they are family. And so it goes, like dominoes falling against another. Thus creating an indelible image that is a diametrically opposed to the aims of Scientology.
    Unless and until the charges leveled against Miscavige are independently investigated and dealt with in a credible manner, and checks and balances as intended by LRH are implemented, the repute of Scientology will only worsen, and a false message sent to the world.

    Haters will continue to jump on board to take full advantage of the situation, spewing intolerance and blaming the philosophy of Scientology, itself, when the real target of abuses, inhumane treatment, disenchantment, failed technical results, and declining membership is David Miscavige.

    Office of Special Affairs and the trustees and directors of CST, RTC and CSI, weakened and under the iron grip of Miscavige, have abandoned their duties.

    Religious Liberty League have bypassed them – out of necessity.

    What sort of activities is Religious Liberty League involved in?

    In the legal arena, Religious Liberty League is involved in: (1) Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests; (2) plans to assist trustees, directors and officers of the governing corporate bodies of Scientology (CST, RTC & CSI) to understand the powers and duties bestowed upon them by LRH and to enforce them; (3) steps to eliminate the oppressive policy of disconnection; and (4) plans to uphold and safeguard the religious freedom and free speech rights of Scientologists whenever and whereever they are threatened.

    Religious Liberty League will also act as a voice for responsible Scientologists to set the record straight on a myriad of urban myths (false data/propaganda) about Scientology and L. Ron Hubbard by publishing the hidden story of Scientology in print and video.

    Can I help?

    Your contribution in the form of donations, feedback and assistance is welcomed. Indeed, it is vital.

    Please visit out Contribute pages


    * * * * * END QUOTATION * * * * *

    Religous Liberty League is, in fact, listed as a Tax Exempt Organization by IRS Exempt Organizations Select Check:

    https://apps.irs.gov/app/eos/pub78Search.do?indexOfFirstRow=0&sortColumn=deductCodeDesc&isDescending=false&exemptTypeCode=&isDescending=false&totalResults=1&postDateTo=&ein1=&state=All...&dispatchMethod=searchCharities&postDateFrom=&country=US&city=&searchChoice=pub78&indexOfFirstRow=0&sortColumn=ein&resultsPerPage=25&names="Religious Liberty League"&zipCode=&deductibility=all

    EIN sortAsc.gif Legal Name (Doing Business As) sortAsc.gif City sortAsc.gif State sortAsc.gif Country sortAsc.gif Deductibility Status sortAsc.gif

    47-3370339 Religious Liberty League La Crescenta CA United States PC

    Deductibility Status

    In general, an individual who itemizes deductions may deduct contributions to most charitable organizations up to 50% of his or her adjusted gross income computed without regard to net operating loss carrybacks. Individuals generally may deduct charitable contributions to other organizations up to 30% of their adjusted gross income (computed without regard to net operating loss carrybacks). These limitations (and organizational status) are indicated as follows:
    Code
    Type of organization and use of contribution.
    Deductibility Limitation
    PC A public charity. 50%




    ************************************************************************************************

    I cannot find the Religious Liberty League on the State of California Exempt Organizations List, but the list was last updated on September 14, 2015:

    https://www.ftb.ca.gov/businesses/Exempt_organizations/Entity_list.shtml

    ************************************************************************************************

    The Religious Liberty League is a registered, active corporation in the State of California:

    http://kepler.sos.ca.gov/

    Entity Name: RELIGIOUS LIBERTY LEAGUE

    Entity Number: C3765275
    Date Filed: 03/10/2015
    Status: ACTIVE
    Jurisdiction: CALIFORNIA
    Entity Address: 2446 OLIVE AVENUE
    Entity City, State, Zip: LA CRESCENTA CA 91214
    Agent for Service of Process: MERRELL VANNIER
    Agent Address: 2446 OLIVE AVENUE
    Agent City, State, Zip: LA CRESCENTA CA 91214
  2. BLiP Member

    The outsourcing of OSA's work to the Indie Dependents continues.
    • Like Like x 1
  3. I very much doubt that is true in this case. Vannier is a fundamentalist Indie who has attacked and smeared DM all over the place and wants to see him replaced.

    Nonetheless, I think this is very significant. To my knowledge, this is the first Independent Scientology tax exempt organization in the U.S.

    The first Independent Scientology tax exempt organization worldwide was Milestone Two, but as noted in another thread it is dropping that status. Thus, the Religious Liberty League will soon be the only Independent Scientology tax exempt organization in the world, if it isn't already.
    • Like Like x 1
  4. Random guy Member

    Interesting development!
  5. RightOn Member

  6. DeathHamster Member

    I can't wait until they try to claim something granted to CoS under the IRS agreement. The IRS will probably send it to the basement for their top men to review it.

    warehouse13.jpg
  7. RightOn Member

    how are they a charitable organization again?
    and where do their "donations" go?
    To auduting?
    the Puriff?
    Used books and materials?

    Someone please explain?
    because what they say below, isn't cutting it, And if it is in the eyes of the government, than WWP should also be tax exempt?:p

    What sort of activities is Religious Liberty League involved in?

    In the legal arena, Religious Liberty League is involved in: (1) Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests; (2) plans to assist trustees, directors and officers of the governing corporate bodies of Scientology (CST, RTC & CSI) to understand the powers and duties bestowed upon them by LRH and to enforce them; (3) steps to eliminate the oppressive policy of disconnection; and (4) plans to uphold and safeguard the religious freedom and free speech rights of Scientologists whenever and whereever they are threatened.

    Religious Liberty League will also act as a voice for responsible Scientologists to set the record straight on a myriad of urban myths (false data/propaganda) about Scientology and L. Ron Hubbard by publishing the hid..."
    • Like Like x 3
  8. DeathHamster Member

    I've wondered if he was behind the Veritas site in the late 90s. It had good information for its day, but laced with poisonous amounts of moonbattery. I don't think anyone has ever admitted being behind that site.

    It was before he blew/was kicked out, but he's just that kind of weasel.
    • Like Like x 1
  9. anon8109 Member

    Why are they using a misleading name, the way that the Scientology corporation does for it's deceptive front groups?

    They are not a group defending religious liberty, but a group that practices Hubbard's scientology without paying the Scientology corporation for the privilege.

    The Scientology corporation uses copyright laws to prevent people from using Hubbard's writings without paying exorbitant sums to the them, which is clearly a violation of people's religious freedom if they consider Hubbard's works a religion, not to mention the company's harassment and "fair gaming" of such people. So anyone wanting to have Hubbard's scientology is fighting against the Scientology corporation for their religious freedom.
    This doesn't mean that the organization's main purpose is to fight for religious freedom, which makes the name quite misleading.
  10. DeathHamster Member

    https://dockets.justia.com/docket/district-of-columbia/dcdce/1:2015cv01550/173969
    What's an 05:552? And is this the same Religious Liberty League?

    https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/9426406/RELIGIOUS_LIBERTY_LEAGUE_v_US_DEPARTMENT_OF_JUSTICE $$$
    • Like Like x 2
  11. DeathHamster Member

    Ah, here we go! Yup, it's Merrell. Two actions:

    http://foiaproject.org/2015/10/01/c...her-new-foia-lawsuits-plus-case-descriptions/
    Hmm. Dis guy?
    Category:Jimmy Mulligan
    • Like Like x 3
  12. DeathHamster Member

    *sigh* Yup, Schwarz-level barking moonbattery FOIA requests.
    • Like Like x 2
  13. AnonLover Member

    Ha ha. After reading Ortega's review of Vannier's book, I immediately filed a FOIA request on Mayor Gabe's FBI file, and got a timely response that there was a size-able stack of pages to be had, but it had to be referred to the National Archives (NARA) because it had been archived:

    https://www.muckrock.com/foi/united...zares-victim-of-scientology-harassment-16590/

    This is mostly a good thing in regards to the fact you get better quality scans from NARA, less redacting and more DOJ stuff the FBI would normally defer on releasing because it didn't originate with them.

    The downside of NARA releases- there is no fee waiver, ever. Also, if it's a small disclosure but more than a few pages, you got 6-9months lag time. 100+ pages and you're a fool to expect anybody to even look at for at least a year. 250+ pages? 2.5-3yrs would be considered extremely lucky you got it so dang fast.

    File a lawsuit and those clocks stop dead in their tracks. So I would like to thank Merrell, for making sure I get the Gabe dox first!
    • Like Like x 6
  14. AnonLover Member

    Oh my goodyness, the Jimmy Mulligan related lawsuit is a superfest of lulz!

    https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2429526/dc-1-2015cv01550-complaint.pdf

    Vannier apparently filed on those records completely oblivious to the series of major overhauls that have taken place in the past 35 years in regards to government record storage in the digital age. The invention of computers tends to do that to paper-based systems. His wording of what he wanted searched is so damn archaic, I doubt anybody working in the FOIA department will even know WTF he's talking about on most of that shit.

    In this day-n-age there are 3 things you ask the FBI to search: Central Files index, Cross-reference indices and ELSUR records. The second one is the key thing to mention if you want to make sure you are getting ALL documents, and it's the modern replacement (as of the early 1990s) for all the miscellaneous locations Vannier requested be searched. So he stated he wanted them to check a list of non-existent shit, and failed to mention the one thing that would net him anything and everything beyond a simple Central Files check. Kinda hard to do a search, let alone an adequate search, on non-existent shit that was done away with 20+ years ago.

    Dumb shit is dumb. If he would have done some basic homework on how FOIA requests work in the digital age, he might have gotten some stray tidbits on Mulligan. But now he's going to slog thru the DC federal court just to find out he didn't submit a workable request.

    Sidenote - I too wanted to file on those Jimmy Mulligan dox. but I was unable to track down a death record on Mulligan. In this day and age, for records that old you absolutely MUST HAVE date of birth, date of death and social security number (IOW, a full social security death record or death certificate) to have any hope whatsoever of the FBI finding something to disclose.

    Based on the half-assed list of things Vannier wanted searched, I doubt he knew that since it appears he hasn't done any FOIA related work since the early 1980s. But just in case he did get those essential death certificate details, I filed a request for a copy of his request letter thinking I might be able to refile a properly worded FOIA request on Mulligan's dox and get them released long before he gets his day in court.

    https://www.muckrock.com/foi/united...on-scientology-guardian-jimmy-mulligan-21788/
    • Like Like x 4
  15. DeathHamster Member

    I wonder if his request is full of extraneous kook-rants, and the D of J took so long because they are still laughing?
    • Like Like x 3
  16. Anonymous Member

    Merrell_Vannier-USED CULT.jpg


    • Like Like x 3
  17. AnonLover Member

    You're looking at that wrong. Most FOIA lawsuits are derived from a request that is at least a year old, and even 12-14 months is pretty quick turn around to hit the courts.

    It's a very slow process nowadays and you have to give a request months to languish in a no-response state before you have solid grounds to file a case. Vannier's shit is only a few months old. Almost like he prematurely ejaculated his premature ejaculation before he even got a chance to get his pants off.
    • Like Like x 2
  18. The new Independent Scientology Religious Liberty League Blog is (at least to start) very active, posting three articles on October 13, 2015.

    No, I won't cross-post everything going forward (you may now respectfully thank Xenu), but thought people in the U.S., at least, might want to see what they are effectively subsidizing with their tax dollars. I also believe some of you will find some of the following information interesting.

    *****************************************************

    Bypass

    http://religiouslibertyleague.org/bypass/

    “Scientology will decline, and become useless to man, on the day when it becomes the master of thinking. Don’t think it won’t do that. It has every capability in it of doing that.

    “… So anybody that knows the remedy of this subject, anybody that knows these techniques, is himself actually under a certain responsibility – that’s to make sure that he doesn’t remain a sole proprietor. That’s all it takes, just don’t remain a sole proprietor. Don’t ever think that a monopoly of this subject is a safe thing to have. It’s not safe. It’s not safe for man; it’s not safe for this universe.” [1]

    Hasn’t Scientology become the master of thinking? Members of the church are told who they can associate with, what is good and bad behavior, how the technology should be interpreted and applied, what they can read, and so on. Hasn’t Scientology declined because of it? Could it be that the Old Man was right, that the key to preventing this situation is to make sure no one becomes a sole proprietor?

    Yet, within years of his departure this is exactly what happened.

    So now what? We hear from many Scientologists who at least roughly agree with our assessment but are hopeful something might change. Some await “a leader;” some are in apathy, some in fear.

    LRH states our view of it:

    “The best way to know any future is to cause one. And that’s why, you see, when you start consulting the oracle at Delphi, you’ve taken a step downhill. You have assigned cause for the future elsewhere…

    “So one predicts the future as much as one is cause. The future isn’t a pattern laid out to abuse and bully you. The future is a beautiful playground that nobody happens to be combining. You talk about virgin territory – the most virgin territory there is, is the future. You can do anything you want with it.”
    Our History – a Summary

    We started many years ago following policy and writing reports, and discovered it wasn’t wanted, we had counter-intention, were engaged in “reverse management,” and were not in alignment with “command intention,” which we figured out was the intention of upper management, not that of LRH as expressed in the scriptures of Scientology. We set about isolating the source of this out-tech, off-policy point of view. We had more than our share of security checks and Office of Special Affairs ethics handlings in the process – it was not safe to take responsibility and speak up, another bad sign.

    The revelations of former high-ranking Sea Org international executives reported in the Truth Rundown explained all of the outpoints we had seen and reported, and pointed to one person: David Miscavige. He had assumed total dictatorial control and ruled like a mad tyrant, even bullying and physically beating staffers, degrading them.

    We watched events play out. Rather than confront and handle the accusations, the church – which we now knew was really just Miscavige, a sole proprietor – vehemently denied the accusations and attacked back, calling them liars, apostates, and sundry names. The general public wasn’t buying it. Predictably, the bad media escalated.

    We put our heads together. We were lawyers, professionals who knew how to defuse the situation: conduct an internal investigation into the allegations, independent of those accused of wrongdoing.

    We decided to write a letter to selected church leaders and lawyers. One of the three lawyers, Jim Jackson, heroically agreed to use his letterhead. The letter was ignored. We did our own policy research and determined that Executive Director International (ED Int) was the convening authority for worldwide matters, so we asked that he call for a Committee of Evidence. Again, no reply. Then we learned that ED Int was in “the Hole,” a prison-like facility at the International Base with iron bars on the door and windows. He had been banished there by David Miscavige. The ethics and justice codes of Scientology had been subverted. We had reached an ecclesiastical dead end.

    Our attention turned to secular law. By law, the boards of directors of religious corporations must control them, not one person. Also, tax-exempt status requires some form of checks and balances. As we researched into LRH’s estate plan and corporate plan for the control of Scientology, we wrote more letters.

    As mentioned in our first article, “An Important Distinction,” the trustees and directors of CST are empowered with the ultimate safeguard of the religion of Scientology. We directed all future letters to the special directors of CST, the only addresses we had for the trustees and directors.

    All our letters were ignored.

    We then publicized our findings through SaveScientology.com, an anonymous site. Each one of the original three lawyers was eventually summarily declared. No written reports. We were not confronted with specific charges. There were no Committees of Evidence, though two of the three requested one. We were not even given copies of the declare orders. Other Scientologists, including family, friends and business associates and clients were notified by the church and told to disconnect from us.

    As we had learned earlier, the church was no longer practicing Scientology; it was rule by fiat, using rumor, whispering campaigns, hidden data lines and unwritten policy.

    The Next Gradient

    In order to advance our efforts it was necessary for us to remove the veil of anonymity. Two of the three original lawyers have gone public. Merrell Vannier wrote his autobiographical book, Arrows in the Dark, and created Religious Liberty League, a non-profit, tax-exempt organization.

    Jim Jackson told his story to the Tampa Bay Times, which can be viewed here. And he has published the letters. View them here.
    How to Write Your Own Letters

    Scientologist readers who feel that the “church” of Scientology is no longer coterminous with the “religion” of Scientology, and who want the trustees and directors of CST to wear their hats and conduct an inquiry into the situations we identify in our letters – or to determine whether the church is “co-terminal” with the religion of Scientology – can also write to them and register your concerns. In fact, your letters may later become evidence and provide a significant boost toward reform.

    Address them to:
    Sherman Lenske
    CST Special Director
    c/o, Lenske, Lenske & Abramson
    6400 Canoga Ave.
    Woodland Hills, CA 91367.

    Monique Yingling
    CST Special Director
    c/o Zuckert Scoutt Rasenberger
    888 Seventeenth St. N.W., Suite 700,
    Washington, D.C. 20006

    The original life-appointed special directors were Sherman Lenske, Stephen Lenske & Lawrence Heller. We don’t know which of the latter two Monique Yingling replaced or who the current third special director is, so until we find out, address your letters to Stephen Lenske and Lawrence Heller and ask them to forward their copies to their successors as special directors of CST, as we did in our letters:

    Stephen Lenkse
    c/o, Lenske, Lenske & Abramson
    6400 Canoga Ave
    Woodland Hills, CA 91367

    Lawrence E. Heller
    Heller & Edwards
    9454 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 500Beverly Hills, CA 90212
    Bypass of David Miscavige/CST

    Essentially, we are on a bypass of David Miscavige and the trustees and directors of CST, doing our part to create a safe environment for the religion of Scientology and change the message of Scientology from one of control, enforced reality, oppression to families and hate to the true one of Affinity-Reality-Communication, understanding and self-determinism.

    We do this because we know the technology and are under “a certain responsibility… to make sure that David Miscavige “doesn’t remain a sole proprietor” of it.

    We could use your help.

    End Notes:
    [1] LRH, 1952 lecture, Formative State of Scientology: Definition of Logic

    *****************************************************

    CST Failure to Safeguard Scientology

    http://religiouslibertyleague.org/cst-failure-to-safeguard-scientology/

    In our estimation, CST has failed in its mission to safeguard the “religion” of Scientology and ensure that the “churches” of Scientology continue “to espouse, propagate and practice the religion of Scientology.”

    Based on our investigation, the trustees and general directors have been subverted. The trustee we interviewed didn’t even know she had been appointed for life. None of the trustees or general directors know the powers entrusted to them by LRH.[1]

    David Miscavige orchestrated this usurpation of powers. He couldn’t have done it without the active complicity of the special directors of CST who helped Miscavige convince CST trustees and general directors – as well as Office of Special Affairs legal staff members – that Miscavige, as Captain of the Sea Org, is the ecclesiastical leader of Scientology over all matters, including the decisions of the three governing corporations.

    And with this false and unlawful dictate, out the window went LRH’s grand plan of checks and balances and the safeguard he created for the religion of Scientology.

    Miscavige is Not the Ecclesiastical Leader of Scientology

    While it may be true that Miscavige is the Captain, and therefore leader, of the Sea Org, he is not the ecclesiastical leader of Scientology he claims to be. Nor would the IRS have granted tax-exempt status had it known of his intentions. (The reason the IRS previously revoked Scientology’s tax exemption was because of what it viewed was “one big ball of wax:” all powers emanated from one person.)

    One need not look any further than the CST bylaws and to LRH’s estate plan, in which he bequeathed to CST options to purchase the Scientology trademarks and trade secrets he had bequeathed to Religious Technology Center (RTC), to see that the trustees and directors of CST – none of whom were Miscavige – were entrusted to safeguard the religion of Scientology, and have the power to eliminate RTC.

    Note well: these are the only written expressions of LRH intent for the governance of Scientology after his death, and they contradict Miscavige’s claims for authority.

    The opinion whether the “church” of Scientology continues “to espouse, propagate and practice the religion of Scientology” is an ecclesiastical decision. It is to be made, not by David Miscavige or Captain of the Sea Org, but rather by the trustees and directors of CST.

    Obviously if Miscavige were allowed to make their decision for them, or to keep them from investigating or making an independent decision, the entire purpose of LRH’s attempt to safeguard the religion of Scientology would be defeated.

    So, the answer to the question who LRH appointed Scientology’s ecclesiastical leader is: no one person. He intended checks and balances among three governing corporations and seven boards of trustees and directors. LRH entrusted the ultimate power and duty, i.e., the safeguard of the religion of Scientology over all churches of Scientology, to the trustees and directors of CST.

    The Situation Can be Handled

    It only takes one trustee or one general director to call a meeting of either board, and it only takes two to pass a resolution.

    Religious Liberty League is standing by to help ensure an independent meeting occurs. We have lawyers available on retainer.

    If you are a CST trustee or general director, please contact us. Or if you know one, please notify and refer them to us.

    End Notes:
    [1] See, e.g., Existing Scene; Arrows in the Dark, chs. 33 & 34.
    [2] See here.

    *****************************************************

    An Important Distinction

    http://religiouslibertyleague.org/an-important-distinction/

    There is a difference between the “religion” of Scientology and the “church” of Scientology.

    LRH highlighted this distinction in his estate plan and created a safeguard in Church of Spiritual Technology (CST) in case the church drifted out of alignment with the religion of Scientology. Here is how he defined the terms:

    “’Church of Scientology’ shall mean both those organizations and that group of organizations throughout the world which have as their primary and exclusive purpose the propagation, espousal and practice of the doctrines, beliefs, tenets, practices, applied religious philosophy and technology of the religion of Scientology, as the same has been developed and may be developed by L. Ron Hubbard, and to the accomplishment of its goals;” [1] and,

    “‘Religion of Scientology’ and ‘Church of Scientology’ shall not necessarily be co-terminal. That is to say, the terms “religion of Scientology” and “Church of Scientology” shall be co-terminal only so long as churches of Scientology continue, in the opinion of L. Ron Hubbard during his lifetime, and in the opinion of all of the Directors and Trustees following the death of L. Ron Hubbard, to espouse, propagate and practice the religion of Scientology.”[2]

    The word co-terminal means: having a common boundary. [3]

    Do you think the Church of Scientology today is co-terminal with the religion of Scientology, as the same has been developed by L. Ron Hubbard, and is accomplishing its goals?

    If not, feel free to express your opinion to the Trustees and Directors of CST.

    The original trustees, all of whom were given lifetime appointments, are: Marion (Meissler) Pouw, Greg Wilhere, and Terri Gamboa. We know that Terri was replaced by Russ Bellin.

    (Terri Gamboa did not resign and was still listed as a trustee in CST’s application for tax-exempt status 3 years after she blew[4] Int Base[5] over Miscavige’s abuses, unaware of her trustee powers over him.)

    The general directors are appointed by the trustees for one-year terms, according to the CST bylaws, but in reality, according to our investigation, are appointed by Miscavige. We do not know the current general directors.

    The “Special Directors”[6] were also appointed for life, and are California licensed attorneys. The original ones were: Sherman Lenske, Stephen Lenske, and Lawrence Heller, none of whom are Scientologists. The latter two have indicated to us that they are no longer special directors but Sherman Lenske still is. His mailing address is: Sherman Lenske, Lenske, Lenske & Abramson, 6400 Canoga Ave, Woodland Hills, CA 91367. His office phone number is: (818) 716-1444.

    Monique Yingling replaced one of the original special directors. She can be reached at: 888 Seventeenth St. N.W., Suite 700, Washington, D.C. 20006, phone: (202) 298-8660.


    Based on our investigation, none of the trustees or general directors of CST have ever read the CST Bylaws and do not know their legal and LRH-appointed ecclesiastical duties. They have all been keep in the dark by and falsely convinced by both Miscavige and the special directors that Miscavige is the supreme ecclesiastical leader on all matters. This is another way of saying that LRH’s last wishes don’t matter and that secular law does not apply to them.

    If you are a CST trustee or general director and want assistance in carrying out your LRH-appointed legal and ecclesiastical duties independently of Miscavige and the CST special directors, please contact us. We have top lawyers who specialize in religious corporation law on retainer who will assist you.

    For more information on this subject, please visit Save Scientology’s website.

    End Notes:
    [1] CST Bylaws, Article II (Definition of Terms), section g.
    [2] Ibid., section f.
    [3] Dictionary reference
    [4] “Blow” is Scientology term that means an unauthorized departure.
    [5] “Int Base” is slang for Scientology’s Sea Orgnization facility, “International Base,” outside Hemet, California.
    [6] A board of “Special Directors” is one of two unique features that were added “based on Mr. Hubbard’s review” of his estate plan, according to a sworn declaration of his estate lawyer, Sherman Lenske. (Declaration, page 4, paragraph 10.) The other one is the safeguard invested in CST, the options to purchase from RTC the trade secrets (i.e., confidential materials) and trademarks of Scientology. (Ibid.)
  19. DeathHamster Member

  20. From Melissa Data.

    http://www.melissadata.com/lookups/np.asp?mp=p&ein=473370339

    Religious Liberty League

    In Care of Name Merrell Vannier

    Address 2446 Olive Ave La Crescenta, CA 91214-2210

    IRS Subsection 501(c)(3) - A religious, educational, charitable, scientific or literary organization.

    Type of Foundation Organization that normally receives no more than one-third of its support from gross investment income and unrelated business income and at the same time more than one-third of its support from contributions, fees, and gross receipts related to exempt purposes.

    Type of Organization Corporation

    Deductibility Contributions are deductible

    Tax I.D. Number 473370339

    Exempt Since 05-2015

    Form 990 Requirement Not required to file (income less than $25,000)

    Classification Alliance/Advocacy Organizations
  21. Charity Navigator has a bit more information. Interestingly, according to Charity Navigator is appears the Religious Liberty League will have to file Form 990-Ns.

    http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.profile&ein=473370339#.Vh9TpOx3nIU

    EIN 47-3370339

    Name in IRS Master File RELIGIOUS LIBERTY LEAGUE

    Street Address 2446 OLIVE AVE

    City, State, Zip LA CRESCENTA, CA 91214-2210

    NTEE Code X01

    NTEE Classification Alliance/Advocacy Organizations

    NTEE Type Religion-Related, Spiritual Development

    Classification Charitable Organization

    Subsection 501(c)(3) (View the list of codes)

    Activities

    Foundation Status Organization that normally receives no more than one-third of its support from gross investment income and unrelated business income and at the same time more than one-third of its support from contributions, fees, and gross receipts related to exempt purposes. 509(a)(2)

    Deductibility Contributions are deductible

    Affiliation Independent - the organization is an independent organization or an independent auxiliary (i.e., not affiliated with a National, Regional, or Geographic grouping of organizations).

    Group Name [Not Applicable]

    Ruling Date May, 2015

    Asset Amount $0

    Income Amount $0

    Form 990 Revenue Amount $0

    Latest Form 990 Return

    Filing Requirement 990 - Required to file Form 990-N - Income less than $50,000 per year

    Fiscal Year End December

    The data displayed in this profile is provided by the IRS for free in the form of Publication 78 and the Business Master File (BMF).
  22. DeathHamster Member

    Created in March, okayed in May.

    I don't know what the standard time is, but that seems quick. (Clerks told to expedite anything involving Scientology, and they didn't read closely enough?)
  23. Well, the title of the entity does not mention Scientology, but my guess is the underlying paperwork did mention the purpose of promoting the religion of Scientology, etc.

    Could somebody at the IRS possibly believe that this is somehow covered by the corporate Church of Scientology's settlement with the IRS years ago?

    Or, if not, that equal protection and First Amendment principles require equal treatment of an Independent Scientology entity?
  24. Anonymous Member

    I think Mr. Vannier is going to find his ass in big trouble with the corporate cult over copyright/trademark issues.
    • Like Like x 1
  25. DeathHamster Member

    I suspect that the IRS is quietly pretending that they haven't noticed that it's an indy Scientology organization, and not covered by the agreement.

    If the IRS denies RLL anything that they grant to CoS Inc under the agreement, they could face a court challenge by someone who actually has standing to drag the agreement out into the open. The IRS managed to dodge that bullet in the Sklar cases, but I doubt they could if both sides offer the same things.

    It'd be a fun circus. The judges would hate it because they'd rather see the agreement challenged constitutionally than someone else trying to get the same thing. Hopefully they'd roast the IRS alive and make them cough up the agreement, as well as other secret details.

    CoS would be torn between jumping in or staying well clear.

    Lots of people and groups would be watching the case carefully.

    So, for now, the IRS is probably ignoring it and hoping that RLL shrivels up and dies.
    • Like Like x 1
  26. DeathHamster Member

    Trademark, yes.

    I don't know if RTC/CST wants the copyrights examined too carefully. When that was going to be opened up in the Netcom/Dennis Erlich case, CoS settled out. I suspect Vannier has been lurking for a long time and knows that. As well, it might give him another avenue to shine a light on CST.

    It'll all depend on what kind of legal fight he can bring: solid cases or Peter Letterese-style kook suits.
    • Like Like x 1
  27. Just in case anyone wants to get into contact with the League by means other than Facebook. As of this writing, the League does not have a Twitter account, a Google Plus page, or a Linkedin page. I'll try to let everyone know if that changes.

    http://religiouslibertyleague.org/contact/

    ReligiousLibertyLeagueContact.PNG
    • Like Like x 1
  28. I suspect many here will object to the Religious Liberty League Mission Statement. My understanding of the portion highlighted below is that it: (1) is inconsistent with the First Amendment; (2) calls for unprecedented in the US freedom from "unwarranted" criticism (who determines what criticism is "warranted"?); and, (3) indeed calls for the passage of (perhaps qualified) blasphemy laws, or enforcement and interpretatioln of existing anti-discrimination laws that would have the same legal effect.

    In short, the RLL appears to be pushing the Church of Scientology's argument that criticism (or at least "unwarranted" criticism) somehow equals "infringement.

    Religious Liberty League Mission Statement

    http://religiouslibertyleague.org/mission-statement/

    RLLMissionStatement-001.PNG
    RLLMissionStatement-002.PNG
  29. Anonymous Member

    It appears that the only violation of the American Constitution and many human rights and legal codes Mr. Vannier hasn't covered is pedophilia. This may make Jan Eastgate cranky.
    • Like Like x 2
  30. I also find point 8 interesting:

    * * * * * BEGIN QUOTATION * * * * *

    To obtain and maintain the tax-exempt status of Scientology organizations that practice the religion of Scientology in the United States, and, if the IRS initiates a revocation proceeding against the churches of Scientology in response to current public calls for revocation, to urge the imposition of intermediate sanctions against David Miscavige and require the implementation of checks and balances called for in the original bylaws of the governing corporation – and/or require the reconstitution of those boards by Scientologists untainted by the corruption of the Miscavige regime.

    * * * * END QUOTATION * * * * *

    The phrase "religion of Scientology" is significant. As noted elsewhere, RLL (like other Indies) stresses the distinction between the religion of Scientology, and the corporate Church of Scientology. Basically, the above is a call for Indie Orgs to get tax exempt status.
    • Like Like x 1
  31. religiouslibertyleaguefacebookpage-png.252742.png

    Dear God,
    Please save us all from this alleged, self-declared 'safe' environment for the very abusive phony Science/ fake Religion of Scientology by this recently created non-profit League that offers no real demonstrated benefit to anyone but themselves from future deceived clients purchasing L. Ron Hubbard lies for cash.

    Thanks a lot, Planet Earth.
  32. Anonymous Member

    • Like Like x 4
  33. I suspect you may not have e-mailed for Facebooked the RLL to let them know about their error....
    • Like Like x 1
  34. Lol, These Indies must be scholars from the Hubbard School of applied scholastics.
    I'm sure they can find someone with an engioneering degree to clean up their literary safe enviornment for the alleged Religion of Scientology.
    • Like Like x 1
  35. thesneakster Member


    What copyright violations might those be, please? Can you say "Fair Use" ? I know you can. :)

    As for CST registered trademarks, Mark "Mark" Rathbun informed us long ago on his blog that the trademarks were legally indefensible when they were registered in 1982 and that David "Darth Midget" Miscavige was so informed at the time. To the best of my knowledge, the Scientology trademarks have never been tested in any U.S. Court and for very good reason: the First Amendment Establishment Clause trumps any trademarks. The risk of having those marks invalidated in a Court Finding and thus removing the (sham) threat of lawsuits against Freezone and Independent Scientologists is far too great for him to allow that.

    Mr. Vannier knows exactly what he is doing. Perhaps D.M. is stupid enough to get those trademarks invalidated in a U.S. Court, now that he no longer has Mark Rathbun and Mike Rinder around managing the legal affairs.

    Michael A. Hobson
    Independent Scientologist
    I am *not* a lawyer
    • Like Like x 1
  36. DeathHamster Member

    • Fair Use only covers limited and specific use of copyright material.
    • RTC has the trademarks, not CST. (CST can yank them from RTC for pocket change, but when would that happen?)
    • DM was told it was the copyright renewals on stuff that had already fallen into the public domain that were indefensible. (Jesse Prince affidavit, United States District Court for the District of Colorado, Bridge Publications Inc v. Factnet Inc; Lawrence Wollersheim; Robert Penny, Civil Action No. 95-K-2143, 1998) Unless you have dox otherwise?
    • Lots of churches have trademarks. No "First Amendment Establishment Clause" involved. Some of RTC's are lame, and might be smacked if challenged. I suspect their "Scientologist" membership mark is weak. (Like the JW's "JW.ORG" in a grey box logo.)
    • Mark Rathbun and Mike Rinder never managed the legal affairs! They might have hired lawyers, and nodded like bobbing birds when the lawyers spoke, but I wouldn't let either of them manage trying to beat a parking ticket for me. Miscavige has a number of high-power law firms on call, at least one of which has a trademark section. Pay them and turn them loose and they'll handle it. There's no reason to get into doctrine or RCS vs Indy and if the other side brings it in, it'll turn into a kook suit.
    God I hope so, because his Freedom of Information Act lawsuits are total kook suits.
    • Like Like x 3
    • Dislike Dislike x 1
  37. BLiP Member

    Well, that's a surprise.
  38. How does the first amendment mean that religious works can't be copyrighted?

    Some specific translations of the Bible are copyrighted. Likewise, my right to practice a religion doesn't entitle me to steal religious texts from other 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