The case for Inurement

Discussion in 'Leaks & Legal' started by tikk, Feb 14, 2011.

  1. Anonymous Member

    i believe the bolded parts may not be true (in some/all cases of JB's pdf) related to tom cruise, it was stated a few times by JB that the materials were paid for by tom "death grip to the wrist to his 'wife' (not gay)" cruise or one of his companies
  2. Anonymous Member

    It's even better than that, they sent 971 fact checking questions to scientology, while the article is about scientology, the article involved other people places and facts that required checking as well. A team of 5 (five) fact-checkers (New Yorker staff fact-checkers) were assigned to Lawrence Wright's article. I'm not sure about this next bit but going off memory of one of Mr. Wright's interviews he had stated it was one of or the most fact-checked article that the New Yorker has published. I cannot find dox quickly to back that up so, there.
    • Like Like x 1
  3. Anonymous Member

    Here's the stickler to your plan: the IRS is in full control of the secret agreement and has not officially revealed the contents, so this part of the plan is a chicken/egg scenario, you need the evidence from the IRS to convince a/many senator(s) to go after the IRS to reveal the evidence needed to convince the senators etc etc.

    I'm not trying to be a downer, but this is a more realistic potential dead-end, and it's shitty as hell.
    • Like Like x 1
  4. Mark Cabian Member

    The IRS collects money. We all know that, and many have seen their tenacity in the enforcement of timely payments, fees assessed and collected, etc. Illuminate it for me if I'm wrong, but I think their motivation is built-in. Millions of tax dollars could - and should - be collected from the cult this year. If the IRS has the tools in hand to make reasonably quick work of identifying the status issues, then it would be very worth their while. And that view presupposes that they are only prone to taking action when money is involved.
  5. OTBT Member

    Dox on this would be very nice.
  6. andonanon Member

    This article talks about the intermediate sanctions whereby the IRS can (and usually does) choose to impose sanctions on the guilty individuals without revoking tax exempt status of the organization.

    This following link is a great discussion of inurement with a lot of relevant court cases cited. Scientology is mentioned several times.

    Keep in mind that intermediate sanctions did not go into effect until 1996 so some of the revocation cases in the above would be punished less harshly if they happened today.
  7. Anonymous Member

    I posted that anon post, and I have looked at various articles I had read, then re-watched the today show interview and so far haven't found dox so I must have been mistaken.

    If anyone does find/remember him stating that or another publication maybe stating that when linking to/talking about the new yorker article, please post a link.
  8. hushpuppy Member

    Wright being interviewed by Terry Gross on nrp:
  9. AnonLover Member

    Unfortunately, ^^This. However, I've hatched a plan to tackle that chicken vs. egg pissing match by plotting the IRS vs. Senator Grassley and using the upcoming Sunshine Week (FTW!) as a platform for calling more attention to it. see sidebar idea inspired by this thread starting here:
    • Like Like x 1
  10. Anonymous Member

    Yes to the OP. I give you a Goldenrod Star. This is most excellent, IMHO.
  11. deirdre Member

    Awesome, Tikk. Another point: given that these are not even arguably religious duties, I can't wait for the ruling that his wages weren't subject to exemption from federal minimum wage law and they need to pay him back pay. (Probably won't happen, but one can hope.)
  12. OTBT Member

    Scientology claims Sea Org are volunteers in a religious order, and do not receive pay as such, but a weekly stipend of $50 for personal expenses such as cigarettes.
  13. DeathHamster Member

    They don't get their "stipend" if their production is low, or otherwise suffering in the stats dept.

    There was a Jesuit astronomer on a radio program recently, and he was talking about how they do take a vow of poverty, but on the other hand, the Church takes care of all the details and he never has to worry about rent or mortgages or other distractions. It didn't sound like he has to worry about being penalized if his astronomical science stat is low that week. (They ordered him to the Vatican observatory and told him to do what he liked as long as it was good science. So, no invented stars to keep those stats up either!)
    • Like Like x 1
  14. OTBT Member

  15. xenubarb Member

    • Like Like x 1
  16. Anonymous Member

    Perhaps the senate can pass a bill or launch a probe that requires the IRS to reveal the dox and details of their agreement with Co$. Thanks to the Sklars case, it was revealed such documentation exists, and is not available due to "national security reasons." This makes it now on public record.

    I think I recall in another thread ex-Scientologists like Mark Fisher submitting dox to the FBI in regards to Scientology and the IRS's agreement. That would be a better source of harder evidence if such exists.

    Its a start. If one senator can convince others, that is.
  17. DeathHamster Member

    It isn't required to convince all senators/representatives. Enough of the ones on the right Senate and House committees and subcommittees would do, especially ones with oversight of the IRS. (Need USGovFag to point those out.)
  18. OTBT Member

    BigBeard already pointed out the relevant people, earlier in this thread.

  19. Anonymous Member

  20. Anonymous Member

    "The IRS failed to explain why it was now granting exemption "in cases where numerous courts have found evidence of inurement and private benefit in the operations of Scientology organizations." Four former IRS commissioners, who apparently don't share Goldberg's expansive view of the power of IRS commissioners to overturn Supreme Court decisions, expressed misgivings about this action. The evidence released to date, and the lack of information available to the public from the IRS, bring into question the process of recognizing tax exemption and taxpayer confidence in that system."
    • Like Like x 1
  21. Anonymous Member

    "Yet, according to Jay Rotz, executive assistant to the director of the IRS Exempt Organizations Division, who did review the applications, the tax law specialists were not under instructions to ignore issues of inurement, private benefit, and commerciality. But he did say that "by the time the applications were submitted, it's my understanding that those issues had been resolved at that point."
  22. DeathHamster Member

    That's one committee, there might be others. Back when Scientology was attacking the IRS, there was a House Government Operations subcommittee looking into the IRS:
  23. tikk Member

    To the extent "those issues" had been resolved, it was never so determined in the light of day. The corporate restructuring of Scientology gave the IRS ostensible oversight (and only up to the year 2000), but it's pretty clear that oversight in any meaningful sense never took place.
  24. tikk Member

  25. DeathHamster Member

    I'm not seeing a reference that he cited "National Security" in the 95 TNT 123-8 (JUNE 26, 1995) excerpt, nor in the other files.

    The New York Post story, referencing George magazine (March 1998), does say:
    But still nothing that Howard Schoenfeld's refusal to answer the question was due to National Security.
  26. AnonLover Member

    fwiw - i came to the same conclusion yesterday in my research on stuff for my IRS FOIA Letter and all i could find on the "National Security" excuse was 3rd party commentary (critics bitching & minor media repeating it)
  27. DeathHamster Member

    Hey, I would love to have such a reference, so it's not that I'm biased against finding it. It's just that things that can be cited in neutral verifiable sources need to be kept carefully separate from critic speculations, educated guesses, hunches and conclusions. (There's nothing wrong with a good educated guess, but "I just know it" won't work when trying to convince a third party. The Scientologists "just know it" too.)
    • Like Like x 1
  28. AnonLover Member

    i hear ya brother... i had heard the "national security reasons" natter for so many years i had a small chunk of my earliest draft letter using it as a spring board. till i went to cite it.
    • Like Like x 1
  29. Anonymous Member

    Agreed! Thanks for the links to this disinformationalist info. Will be interesting reading, but I gotta get some heavy duty tinfoil first :p
  30. Anonymous Member

    I'm not aware of any "national security" claim. However, I do believe that some refusal letters have cited 5 U.S.C. ยง 552(b)(7). This lists a number of categories which fall under "Exemption 7" to the FOIA disclosure requirements. These include:

    Since one of those (b)(7)(D) has the language "national security" in it, it's possible someone just ran with it. It refers to "criminal investigation" or "national security." Unless the language "national security" actually appeared in the refusal, and I might have missed it, there's no reason to think that national security was the reason, unless it was directly cited.

    This case cites that section, but isn't about "national security."
  31. Anonymous Member

    We should feel honored that such a paid attorney as Tikk would show up here on WPP, and without remuneration, legally analyze for us throughout this day, and all these years, why Scientology is never charged with crimes, or never loses a lawsuit. I for one appreciate him and his friends at the "Buttersquash Cabal" telling us where to look, and what things we should ignore concerning Scientology.
    • Like Like x 3
  32. Anonymous Member

    Love tikk. <3!
  33. Anonymous Member

    Alcohol by volume then?
  34. Anonymous Member

    Oh, bump, cuz I just feel like it.
  35. anonhuff Member

    Just gonna break up the anonymous posting fest and say that I would give tikk's posts the same merit if he posted anonymously because he backs his shit up and he tends to stay on topic of the thread.

    Start a fresh new thread all about bad naughty tikk boo hoo he's providing facts, precedents and presumably (but not officially) relevant comments on the topic at hand from a legal perspective.

    INTERESTING FACTOID (what a stupid phrase you should be ashamed that you used it, only tiny puny 8th grade educated jerks would use a phrase like that): Nobody gives a shit where he used to live another "interesting factoid": David Miscavige appears to be directing the use of church-paid (very little-paid at that) labor to personal friends (you might say insiders of the organization). Not just free labor, but free labor that has nothing at all to do with what is presently called a religion by those who benefit from the tax-exempt, victim-status claim-allowing, labor law avoiding unfortunate consequences of assuming those claiming religious status are actually out for the good of the community around them, instead of the high echelon of the insular community within the organization only.
    • Like Like x 1
  36. Orson Member

    Miranda - thank you very much for cleaning up this thread. I was pretty much in full on raeg mode last night over the bullshit.

    Tikk - any new thoughts on all of this? I'm disappointed that we have not heard back from Hassan. Or perhaps he's lurking and thinking. Who knows? I'm off to drop him one more email. After that, we should move onto other publicity options, imo.
    • Like Like x 2
  37. Anonymous Member

    There is one area where any person would have standing regarding the IRS and Scientology, and that is the informational standing provided by the Freedom of Information Act. This would not entitle the person to challenge the tax exemption directly, but could potentially allow them to collect information which could be used to make the case to the public that this tax-exemption is a bad thing.

    The problem is that the IRS has basically been almost Glomarizing (from the Glomar case), that is, simply stonewalling any request at all based on their FOIA regulations, which they interpret as virtually prohibiting any revelation of any taxpayer or investigative information, no matter how old and no matter what level of public interest is involved. There are strong public policy arguments that 501(c)(3) and other tax-exempt organizations, which enjoy government services the rest of us pay for, should enjoy a lesser degree of privacy in their financials, since the public is basically subsidizing them, and the reason we're subsidizing them is that they are allegedly doing things for the public good.

    If an out-and-out criminal organization enjoys tax exemption, we are all being robbed. The problem is, the case law is very bad (while mixed it is against us in the D.C. Circuit which most circuit courts defer to when deciding FOIA cases because they decide the bulk of them), the language of the regulations are against this interpretation, the courts generally defer to an agency's regulatory interpretations of statutes (Chevron deference).

    In any case, I have long contemplated such a FOIA, but it would take a very compelling case, and would probably require going all the way from exhausting administrative remedies within the IRS itself, then moving on to District Court, then appealing the inevitable loss, and hoping a circuit not the D.C. Circuit would be willing to create a circuit split. Any success there would probably result in the IRS appealing to SCOTUS, but that's a problem you'd hope to have in that case, since the odds of success are very, very slim.

    Sorry for the legal shorthand, but I don't have time to explain all this. Any arcane phrases or concepts I threw into parentheticals can probably be Googled.
    • Like Like x 3
  38. andonanon Member

    • Like Like x 1
  39. Anonymous Member

    Agreed about the Tax Analysts cases. I love those guys, but I hate those cases, because the rulings are hypertechnical and virtually unintelligible. I'd really prefer to have some more clear cases with ringing "Star-Spangled Banner" language in them clearly indicating a right to access to certain kinds of information. Remember that Tax Analysts, while a nonprofit, exists to serve the highest echelons of specialist taxation attorneys, and has a very high budget for litigation, as well as representation by their own staff attorneys, who are themselves the highest echelon. I have a great deal of respect for the organization, but for us, we're talking about something where you have one plaintiff with no money and an attorney or two with nothing but their own free time and recreation budget.

    I'm not saying these cases aren't important and relevant, but they're very difficult for even people with a legal education to understand, and very difficult to explain even to a judge. Your average judge will just look at exemption 7 to FOIA (and the relevant CFRs) and turn you down on a request to get the IRS internal investigation into how the cult got its tax exemption.
  40. andonanon Member

    Well, unfortunately, I just found something not so technical that explicitly says closing agreements are confidential so any suit to release the Scientology agreement is unlikely to succeed, anyway.

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors


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

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins