§ Legal Archive || Wog Media || Cult Media || CoW ® || Writings || Fun || Disclaimer || Contact §




From: Joe Harrington <joeharr@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Church or IRS Branch Office?
Date: 1997/12/24
Message-ID: <67qhfr$t6f@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
References: <67qecc$p6b@basement.replay.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Reply-To: joeharr@worldnet.att.net
Content-Type: text/plain; charsetiso-8859-1
Organization: Holistic Learning Network of Maine
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology

Anonymous wrote:
> HCR 38, BOX 66
> PHONE: 702-873-2343
> FAX: 702-873-2115
> E-MAIL: prf@mailcity.com

> An official Scientology document--recently uncovered by the Public Research
> Foundation--requires ministers and staff of every Scientology church and
> mission to enforce compliance to IRS regulations on individual parishoners.
> The document, a "Scientology Policy Directive" entitled "PERSONAL
> INCOME TAXES," is written by an unidentified "Tax Compliance Officer" for
> the Church of Scientology. In part, it says that a Scientologist who fails
> to comply with all IRS regulations "will be ineligible for Church services
> until the matter is rectified."
> To put teeth into the enforcement, the church Tax Directive goes so
> far as to threaten non-compliers with the loss of their religion. Ordering
> parishoners to abide by IRS edicts, the church Tax Directive concludes:
> "Who would want to risk his eternity for any amount of money?"
> A highly-placed church official named Lyman Spurlock confirmed that
> threat when he wrote to one parishoner who had challenged the
> constitutionality of the unholy church/state union:
> "Were I you I would weigh...the IRS versus your future for
> eternity. If you insist on your current course you will not
> ever be eligible for training and processing (Scientology
> church services) and that is very unfortunate for you."
> And unfortunate it was: the parishoner that letter was addressed to
> was later expelled from the church when he wouldn't knuckle under.
> Lyman Spurlock, the author of the letter, is co-founder of
> Scientology's most powerful organization, a secretive corporation called
> the "Church of Spiritual Technology" (CST). But it was recently disclosed
> by the Public Research Foundation (Press Release: "HIDDEN TIES BETWEEN IRS
> AND SCIENTOLOGY REVEALED") that Spurlock's fellow co-founder of CST is
> former Assistant to the Commissioner of IRS, Meade Emory. Serious questions
> are being raised by many about what influence Emory might have had in the
> super-secret 1993 IRS tax exemption for CST and the lesser Scientology
> corporations. Aside from Spurlock--who is a CPA--Emory and the other
> co-founders and Special Directors of CST are not, themselves,
> Scientologists, but are tax and probate attorneys.
> Meade Emory was Assistant to IRS Commissioner Donald C. Alexander,
> whose reign began during Nixon's catastrophic last term. Before that, Emory
> was Legislation Counsel of the Joint Committee on Taxation of the U.S.
> Congress.
> CST--the all-powerful Scientology corporation that Emory helpedto
> set up--operates almost invisibly behind the panoply of church corporations
> it controls, but exercises final authority over every copyright and
> trademark that has any connection with Scientology. Without CST's blessing,
> none of the junior corporations could operate at all.
> It is CST's corporate leverage over all of Scientology and overall
> Scientologists that makes the unprecedented church Tax Directives possible.
> Another Scientologist who was expelled on the strength of those
> church Tax Directives said, "This is the greatest outrage against religious
> freedoms since the American Revolution. If a church can use a parishoner's
> hope of salvation to make him kneel down before a vicious government
> agency, then the IRS can use ANY church to hound and threaten. Who's next
> for a 'Tax Compliance Officer?' The Baptists? The Catholics? Church and
> state are one now. My church IS the IRS."
> Said one tax-watcher, "This makes all Scientology organizations
> 'branch offices' of IRS, and every Scientology minister an agent of
> IRS--there to enforce compliance under the threat of eternal damnation. Why
> else would a church have a Tax Compliance Enforcement Officer? And what
> happens if a Scientology penitent needs to confess to his minister that he
> fudged somewhere on his taxes?"
> Others are asking why no one in any branch of government has done
> anything to force open the sealed, secret tax-exemption agreement between
> IRS and Scientology. On March 15, 1996, U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler,
> in the case of TAX ANALYSTS v. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE in the United
> States District Court for the District of Columbia (case No. 94-CV-00220
> [TFH]), did order the IRS to release certain documents regarding the
> Scientology "closing agreement," but so far IRS has not even complied with
> the court order.
> In that case, Tax Analysts exposed several disturbing facts about
> the IRS/Scientology arrangement. Submissions to the court revealed, among
> other things, that the IRS's Exempt Organizations Technical Division had
> been "instructed not to review the exemption applications filed by the
> Church of Scientology and its affiliates for compliance with IRC 501(c)(3)."
> Who issued that strange order, and whether Meade Emory had any
> influence on that decision, is unknown. It is likely to remain unknown
> until sufficient public pressure is brought to bear on federal officials
> that the IRS/Scientology agreement is unsealed.
> Until then, for the first time in American history, adherents of a
> religion are being forced by their church to know and abide by the
> 6,000-page scripture of IRS, or be denied the right to the free exercise of
> their chosen religion.

In a matter related to this subject, I received a reply from Gerry
Armstrong. He indicated that the following was his ARS-posted response
to an earlier thread. The post never showed up on my newsreader, nor on
the newsreader of several others I checked with. So I'm taking the
liberty of reposting it here:

> Joe:
> Following is my response to a recent post. Note that this person is part of
> the Nevada "research foundation."
> On 20 Dec 1997 23:43:17 +0100, nobody@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous) wrote:
> >
> >Gerry! Buddy! Canada's cold without you!
> >
> It goes without saying I suppose that it's obvious you know a lot more about
> me than I know, or I know I know, about you. I am aware your words about
> Scientology do not necessarily make you, as it is commonly understood, my
> friend, or as you say below, buddy.

> >We haven't seen you much on the newsgroup since the IRS/Scientology
> >Connection story broke. Where ya' been?
> >
> I was in Nevada.
> I certainly read the (I believe it was) original research post and may have
> said a few words in response in a related thread. I'm sure you keep track of
> these things.
> >I wuz just wonderin' about a few thangs, Ger:
> >
> I received as you might know some days ago an email from one or another
> anonymous source, I'd say a flame, addressing me "Jer." First time anyone in
> this forum has used either.
> >1. You say in your "Appendix" that "in January of 1980 there was an
> >announcement of a possible raid to be made by the FBI or other law
> >enforcement agencies of (Gilman Hot Springs)." Gee, Ger, that "raid" never
> >materialized, did it?
> No.
> There's that "Ger"again.
> > Where was Lyman then? (Was he one of your buddies?)
> My recollection is that Lyman was at SU. He had a post like Investments
> Officer International, or similar. Although he was undoubtedly traveling
> here and there, he was, I believe, based at Gilman.

> Lyman was not a close friend, although we knew each other. He had been, I
> believe, before joining the SO at La Quinta, an accountant. He joined, I
> think, as an auditor (the meter-packing kind), and was part of Hubbard's
> auditor training corps at La Quinta. It appeared that he became trusted as
> an auditor, and then his accounting background was drawn upon and at some
> point around the time of the move to Gilman he got the investments officer post.
> >Where were you? In the "Household Unit?"
> I was DCOHU, based at Gilman.
> > Ever find out where that
> >announcement originated? Who made the announcement, Ger?
> >
> I don't know where it originated. I have a recollection of being told that
> it came from a tipoff received by the GO, but that may only be passed on
> speculation. It was clear that within the Gilman property the announcment
> was made by the CMO, and the shredding party ordered and overseen by the CMO.
> Remember, at that time raids and threats of raids were still GO country.
> There had been a GO unit at La Quinta, including MSH and her staff, before
> the 1977 FBI raid. But because of the FBI/Criminal Case, the whole GO
> presence, including MSH, had left the La Quinta property. Hubbard also,
> fearing prosecution, left La Quinta for a period of time. Nevertheless, even
> at Gilman Hubbard continued to meet occasionally with MSH. And it appeared
> that there were other channels the GO used to protect and keep track of
> Hubbard and the Gilman property.
> >2. As a result of the "announcement," you say the Commodore's Messengers
> >required everyone to "go through all the documents located on the property
> >and 'vet' or destroy anything which showed that Hubbard controlled
> >Scientology organizations, retained financial control, or was issuing
> >orders to people at Gilman Hot Springs." You know, Ger, that's just what I
> >would do if I had inside knowledge that Hubbard was about to disappear
> >forever (or had ALREADY disappeared forever) and I was going to take over
> >everything. Wasn't little Davey Miscavige in the CMO at Gilman right about
> >then, too?
> Yes, Miscavige was in the CMO at Gilman.
> Here's the way it appeared, to the best of my recollection. In early
> January, some days after or into the shredding party, I petition Hubbard to
> transfer to the Pers PRO Bureau and assemble his papers, etc. He approves
> the petition. Now I know what you're saying, "How do you know he did, Ger?"
> And I would have to say I don't; all his correspondence during this period
> was typed, and often typed for him, and communications of the nature of his
> to me were signed with a typed "R." But Barbara DeCelle, LRH Personel
> Secretary at the time, later told me, because I asked, that Hubbard had
> indeed seen my petition, and answered it. Everything else that happened
> during that period also supports the conclusion that Hubbard was still in
> close communication and had not disappeared forever. I would guess that he
> made his escape from X in Hemet perhaps two weeks later, taking with him, as
> far as I know, Pat and Annie.
> > With you?
> Yes, with me in the sense that we were both at that time based at Gilman.
> >And, let's see, where did you say Lyman was?
> >
> Asked and answered.
> >3. What were you working on at the time, Ger? Wasn't it "Mission Corporate
> >Category Sort-out?"
> It happened, as far as I was aware, like this:
> 1. Raid threat.
> 2. Brenda Black brings me box of old Hubbard papers.
> 3. I discover a bunch of such boxes.
> 4. I petition Hubbard.
> 5. He approves the petition.
> 6. I transfer to the Pers PRO Bu, and move all the Hubbard archive boxes to
> Laurel Sullivan's office (the old pro shop in the Massacre Canyon Inn).
> 7. After I'm Laurel's junior she gets me assigned as MCCS 2nd. DM is MCCS
> Mission Ops.
> 8. Because of dealing with Hubbard's lawyers in LA, and for security
> reasons, Laurel and I move to the Cedar complex and set up MCCS and the
> Hubbard Archive.
> > Seems to me that little Davey and his buddy Lyman (and
> >whoever their friends are) wound up taking that job over, to make sure that
> >Mary Sue couldn't "retain control forever."
> First MCCS, based on a number of Hubbard orders, was operating. Then there
> was, I believe, a period of time when both MCCS and the mission which hired
> Lenske, Lenske and Heller were operating simultaneously. Then MCCS was
> terminated, and the second legal mission continued. Miscavige was, I
> believe, (essentially) Mission Ops on both missions.
> > Hey, Ger, how did you get that
> >plum job? But then, I think you got an even better job, didn't you?
> >
> As you admit below, coincidences.
> Actually, there are two types of occurrences: the ones planned by men and
> the ones planned by God. The latter, unacceptable in Scientology, often are
> called, in human affairs, coincidences. Hubbard condemned these, yet was not
> really being honest about what he was intending, in HCOPL "The Why Is God."
> So, without raising coincidence to Divine Guidance, I got the MCCS job
> because I had worked with Laurel when she was decorating Hubbard's home at
> Gilman, and I was the HU purchaser. And then because someone originated the
> raid threat, Brenda Black found the box, I petitioned Hubbard, he approved
> the petition, I transfered to his PR Bureau, and around the same time (due
> to Van Schaik, IRS and other legal threats) Hubbard issues his orders about
> sorting out his corporate category, Laurel is assigned to the mission, and
> I was there and available as the second missionaire.
> I suppose it could be argued that the Archivist post was a better job, but
> it was really just different. I didn't get that post after the MCCS mission.
> I was the Archivist at the same time as working on MCCS. Laurel too
> continued to hold her Pers PRO post while on MCCS. As more people came onto
> MCCS (Dick Sullivan, Barbara DeCelle, Ms. (Lisa?) Britowich, Rick Klingler,
> Cat Morrow all worked on MCCS) I was able to work more and more on the
> archive/biography project, until I did that full time.
> >4. Right! The "raid" scare came in January, 1980, all evidence of Hubbard's
> >existence got wiped off the face of the earth, and right at the very same
> >time, in January 1980 you - you lucky boy, you - "became the L. Ron Hubbard
> >Personal Relations Officer Researcher (PPRO Res)." According to your
> >"Appendix," you were working on BOTH jobs at the same time. So, let's see -
> >you had the inside track on the corporate info, AND you had the inside
> >track on all personal information regarding Hubbard? Am I right so far?
> >Stop me if I go too fast for you, Ger, or if I get anything wrong. But, you
> >know, I'm just using your own "Appendix" for this info.
> >
> Your facts are largely correct, but even largely correct facts can be used
> to arrive at a wrong conclusion.
> In a sense I had a unique position, and came into possession, long enough to
> understand what I had and read, a unique set of documents. I also had a
> certain set of God-given attributes which gave a certain value to the
> information I learned and the experiences I had. I'm not sure what you have
> in mind when you say "inside track."
> You'll have to stop yourself if you go too fast.
> >6. And what stroke of luck came next? L. Ron Hubbard accomodates everybody
> >by suddenly DISAPPEARING FOREVER the very next month - February 1980. (With
> >luck like that, Ger, you ought to be in Las Vegas!
> I am the luckiest person I have ever encountered. Not because others are
> therefore unluckier.
> I have found thousands of four-leaf clovers, hundreds of fives, dozens of
> sixes, and one seven.
> I am extremely fortunate in all things.
> One of the things I consider great good fortune is rarely gambling. Another
> is to know the source of all great good fortune. Although the source has
> remained the same, I did not have have an awareness of great good fortune
> nor its source in 1980.
> I think, although the mathematics is not my province, that a life, and mine
> as easy as any other's, can prove God's existence. Hubbardism could be
> described as one man's [futile] effort to prove God's non-existence. But
> that discussion is for another day and maybe another newsgroup.
> >But, you already are
> >in Nevada, aren't you? Doing a little research on a certain research
> >foundation?
> Well now. I called the "research foundation's" number, which I imagine
> everyone saw and some of that everyone must have called. So you broke " the
> IRS/Scientology Connection story," but you only responded in this way to me.
> Is that because I'm so lucky?
> >For whom, Ger? For Lyman? For Meade?
> Oh, I get it, it's because we're both paranoid. If I told you who I'm
> working for you'd just think I was lying. I'm working for everyone.
> > Who's footing the bill for
> >your trip? Say, can you hear the airplanes going overhead from where you're
> >staying?)
> >
> What trip are you talking about?
> I can often hear planes that pass overhead no matter where I'm staying. I
> think my hearing depends on the planes, their altitude, air movement,
> ambient noise and other factors. If I'm very lucky, I don't hear a thing.
> >5. You wrote a letter to Mary Sue - on February 5th 1980 - advising her
> >that you had found a bunch of personal stuff on LRH. That doesn't have a
> >little ring of blackmail in it, does it? Naw, Ger, you wouldn't do that.
> >
> Naw, I didn't do that. I suppose the opportunity was there, although I never
> considered it. Again, I was and am astonishingly lucky, lucky enough to have
> avoided criminal schemes.
> >6. But, by God, Ger, it got you the job, didn't it? She responded, not
> >giving you approval to be the Biography Researcher, but "acknowledging"
> >that you would be that. What does that mean, Ger?
> >
> No, it didn't get me the job. I already had the job, from her boss, the
> Commodore.
> I don't understand your question, "What does that mean." What do you mean?
> >7. Hey! Here's a coincidence! (I'm a card-carrying member of the Church of
> >Coincidence-ology, Ger. I know everything is just a coincidence.)
> The statement "everything is just a coincidence," as you mean it, doesn't
> mean anything. Everything is, on the other hand, coincident. Perhaps that's
> helpful.
> >On
> >February 19th 1980, right after you got your "acknowledgement" from Mary
> >Sue, N. Jerold Cohen, Chief Counsel, Internal Revenue Service, filed a
> >stipulation in United States Tax Court saying "Scientology is and at all
> >relevant times was a religion within the purview of the First Amendment of
> >the Constitution of the United States. 2. Petitioners' Articles of
> >Organization satisfied the 'organizational test' prescribed by Treas. Reg.
> > 1.501(c)(3)-1(b)..." This is a very curious coincidence, Ger. Know
> >anything about it?
> That's nothing. On January 26, 1986, almost 6 years to the day later,
> Hubbard himself died (so they say). Talk about a coincidence!

> But no, if you mean did I have anything directly to do with the IRS stip, I
> didn't. There will probably be something about this in the tax court
> decision, the opinion in which I do not have with me. That stip was probably
> logically expeditious on the IRS's part, given the case in which it was
> made, if it was.
> >Boy, those guvmint lines can move fast when they need
> >to, huh? (Well, if ya' got friends like Meade, that is.)
> >
> Are you ascribing a stipulation in the 1980 CSC tax case trial to Meade
> Emory? I wouldn't do so on the evidence I've seen thus far.
> >8. By December 1981, Mary Sue had been busted, Lenske was in place, the
> >G.O. had been blown apart, all the new corporations were in place (except
> >CST - that had to wait so it would look good). So then you "blew," right,
> >Ger, taking lots of personal information on the Hubbards?
> No. I don't believe the new corps were "in place" when I left in Dec 1981.
> And no, I didn't take a lot of personal info on the Hubbards. I had been
> providing documents to Omar Garrison from about October, 1980.

> >Am I getting this right, Ger?
> Well, if whatever you're getting is leading you to a conclusion in which the
> coincidences are not coincidences, but are human schemes, then you're
> getting it wrong.
> >I know these are all coincidences, cause I'm a TRUE BELIEVER in
> >the Church of Coincidence-ology, but I just want to make sure I don't get
> >any of the coincidences out of place.
> >
> By there nature it may be that coincidences are never out of place.
> I've found that people who are pretending to be something different from
> what they are have trouble recognizing coincidences for what they are.
> >9. Then you wind up in a big "fight" with DM and Lyman and those guys,
> >right? But you came out of that pretty well set up, financially, didn't
> >you, Ger? As I recall, you did better than anyone else in that settlement.
> >Oh, I know it was a "great trauma" having to settle with - well, I'll be
> >damned! With LAWRENCE HELLER, one of the co-founders of CST. Personally,
> >Ger, I think Lyman and Heller and Lenske did okay by you.
> The monetary settlement was with Mike Flynn. For all Heller and Scientology
> knew, or were supposed to know, I got one thin dime. I settled for the
> amount I was willing to settle for. I had enough to quit the fight, and, if
> Scientology left me alone, to live in peace and do my projects.
> >Of course, I
> >think they should have paid you more, but I think you were pretty well
> >rewarded, don't you?
> I have never complained about the amount of the settlement. Neither should
> Scientology complain, because they got a good deal. They did not get a deal,
> however, in which I am their punching bag.
> >And look at all that black PR you got to spread about
> >Hubbard while you were doing it! Boy, you won both ways, didn't you, Ger?
> You will have to be more specific about "all that black PR." I'll leave a
> space here for you to fill in. Just list everything I said that you say is
> black PR.

> >'Cause you had all those "official, bona-fide" documents on the sum-bitch,
> >didn't you, Ger? Yowza, you sho' did have the goods on the guy! And, of
> >course, you didn't have any help manufactur - I'm sorry, I meant
> > collecting them all, did you?
> >
> It would be very helpful if you would provide some facts as you're into
> standard Scientology black PR here.
> >10. Ger, how cum we can't see all these boner-fide documents on that
> >sum-bitch? I sure would like to. I mean, of course your word isn't to be
> >questioned, but - well, dadgum! Did you slip up and let them all get sealed
> >or something? See, if you hadn't screwed up like that, we could all have
> >the inside skinny like you do. I mean, it does constitute the Official
> >OSA (Office of Scummy Assholes) DA Pack on Hubbard, doesn't it? All the
> >very best books on the man, smearing him, use your data, don't they? (You
> >know, the books that the very best lawyers in the world somehow couldn't do
> >anything about?)
> >
> No, the essential facts are all readily available. You are in no way
> deprived. There is not one fact about Hubbard's life which is not known
> which if known would change the conclusion anyone lucky enough to have a
> functioning soul would arrive at by studying what is widely known.
> So in that sense, I didn't screw up. I have done my part, with my not
> uncommon gifts, and perhaps not as well as many might, in bringing to light
> the dark nature of Hubbard and his organization.

> I would speculate that if the very best lawyers in the world couldn't do
> anything about the Hubbard books they contained, as understood when
> considering biographical works about modern day humans, a great deal of truth.
> >11. So, Ger? Where ya' been, buddy? Long time, no see! You can 'splain all
> >this to me, can't you?
> There are many things I can explain. And others with which I can be at least
> helpful.
> > I jezt cain't wait to hear from ya'! Ger? Do ya' got
> >a computer down there in Nevada? There's always Kinko's, you know.
> >
> >Heironymous Anonymous
> >
> >
> Well now that we know you return phone calls with a post to ars, we're all
> in a better position to help you sort out your puzzle.
> Gerry




§ Legal Archive || Wog Media || Cult Media || CoW ® || Writings || Fun || Disclaimer || Contact §