http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/scientology_application_for_char#incoming-201536 in response to
I started on a table of contents earlier but have had to leave it for the time being. Will post something later on.
cheers - much appreciated. even an draft, unfinished, partial table of contents would be useful at this point.
Email 1 seems to consist of supporting letters from scientology members. I have only looked over the first few, but there appear to be some people in prominent positions writing these. Maybe worth looking into.
Basic summary of the mails: Email 1: Description of "secular benefits" by Scientologists, a cheque to the British Heart Foundation by VMs Email 2: Thank you letter from a teacher apparently to some Scientology organization. Hubbard College of Administration helps someone at G&G Food supplies. Description of "secular benefits" by Scientologists. Email 3: up to and including p.56 more description of "secular benefits" by scientologists. from p.57 several court cases. p.73: apparently collection of german court cases supporting scientology's status as a religion. Email 4: Letter apparently by Scientology re questions about two german court cases that Scientology was no religion. p.5: more defense, reasons for attacks are misconceptions, false accusations or desire to protect "state religions". p.9: court case in Austria, many expert witnesses supporting scientology as a religion. p.38: "Judicial and Administrative Decisions Recognizing Scientology as a Religion", p.40 lists a number of cases in the US "recognized Scientology as a religion", handwritten remarks on the side re the cases. p.46: court case Flag Service Org vs City of Clearwater 1993, p.49: Christofferson vs COS Portland et al 1982, p.73: Hernandez vs Commissioner of IRS 1989 (Supreme Court) Email 5: continuation. p.17: RTC vs Robin Scott et al and Larry Wollersheim et al 1987, p.22: RTC and COS International vs Larry Wollersheim et al and Church of the New Civilization, Harvey Haber, Dede Reisdorf, Jon Zegel and David Mayo 1986, p.35: RTC et al vs Scott et al, Wollersheim et al 1987, p.40: United States Tax court 1974, p.45: COS of Claifornia and Founding Church of Scientology of Washington DC vs James siegelman, Flo Conway, J.B. Lippincott Company and Morris Deutsch 1979, p.52: Petition of Aaron Barr for a Writ of Habeas Corpus vs Robert W. Weise, Adjutant General, Department of Army, Stanley R. Resor, Secretary of the Army; Marcon A. Hipp, commanding Officer, Fort McClellen, 1969, p.55: COS Hawaii vs United States 1973,p.60: US District Court for the Middle District of Florida "This cause came for hearing on January 7, 1982 upon the motion of defendants L. Ron Hubbard and Mary Sue Hubbard to quash or dismiss the effect of constructive [**2] service upon them." Motion denied. "a diversity suit for malicious prosecution, abuse of prosecution, and invasion of privacy." p.64: another court case, apparently about bias of a judge 1980, p.71: another case US Court for District of Massachusetts 1982 (March 26), many lawyers involved, including Michael Flynn among others for plaintiffs. Looks like a RICO case, also "Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress" and "Contract and Fair Labor Standards Act". Document is continued in email 8. email 6: Lewes Crown Court, Regina vs Stephen Paul Cooper 1995, kidnapping case against Non-Scientologist, newspaper clips added, apparently he was acquitted. email 7: p.1 Van Duyn v The Home Office 1974 from "All England Law Reports", p.6: second case Van Duyn v The Home Office 1975 email 8: clearly appears to be a continuation of email 5, p.9: Apparently some situation with Margery Wakefield, the Church of Scientology and the New York Times. Case dismissed. 1991, p.13: Tonja Burden vs COS of California 1981, p.15: another court case Massachusetts 1982 involving Flynn and Greene for plaintiff, p.18: civil action against Hubbard, Court of Appeals Oregon 1984, p.23: COS of California vs Miller & Another 1987 "Bare Faced Messiah", p.31: RE B AND G (MINORS) (CUSTODY) 1984, looks like an appeal to the famous Judge Latey Ruling, p.47: Appeal by Stephanie Jane Findley 1991, p.55: Republic of Austria, Supreme Court, custody case, 1990, p.65: "Scientology vs the IRS: Legal Archive", Chris Owen, p.71: Foster Report, "Page maintained by Martin Poulter",p.73 "Scientology questioned in the house of lords", december 1996, Lord McNair. email 9: COS seeking injuction against Miller and Penguin Books 1987, p.9: R v Immigration Appeal Tribunal, Ex parte L. Ron Hubbard, 1985, p.24: R v Governor of Pentonville Prison, ex parte Budlong and another 1979, p.41 looks like analysis and summary of the two cases, hadwritten remark also about another case from 1974. p.42: "The Shadowy Story Behind Scientology's Tax-Exempt Status, New York Times 9 March 1997", Chris Owen webpage, p.53: letter from october 1996 about court decision in Austria and ECHR re article 14, apparently regarding custody case in favor of scientology. letter apparently from Scientology, as well as another letter beginning p.57: "Clearly, the Charity Commissioners' obligation under international law is to treat the Scientology religion with strict neutrality and not differentiate between it and any other religion on the ground that it may or may not hold a particular religious belief held by some other religion. Clearly, the Commissioners would violate their obligation were they to adopt the rulings proposed in your letter of 1 March 1996. Clearly, this action would isolate the Commissioners from the international commuinty of nations and its fundamental standard of human rights." "Surely, if the Royal Navy recognizes and respects the sincerely-held religious beliefs of Scientologists who jeopardise their lives to defend our country, those back at home whom they defend also can recognize and respect those beliefs. Yours sincerely,", p.61: X and Church of Scientology v Sweden email 10: continuation of summary and documents, discrimination case, ECHR p.18 appears to be an answer by Scientology to a request by the charities commission regarding questions about the IRS tax exemption "including the questions asked by the IRS, and confirmation that there would be no objection if we were to forward this to the IRS for verification". "For the sake of completeness, additional copies of these memoranda are included with this submission as follows: "Church of Scientology organizational Structure" (Exhibit I-H) "Tax Exemption Issues" -- Church and Religious Status (Exhibit I-I) "Inurement" (Exhibit I-J) "Operation for a Commercial Purpose" (Exhibit I-K) "Public Policy" (Exhibit I-K) "Financial Integrity" (Exhibit I-M) "Tax Exemption -- The Procedural Background" (Exhibit I-N) Also attached as Exhibit I-O is a lost of the specific questions the IRS raised during the extensive proceedings. Finally, we understand that the Charities Commission has asked for verification directly fromthe IRS and that the IRS will provide whatever information the Commission seeks." In short, this is an extensive presentation by Scientology or rather by Zuckert, Scott & Rasenberger about the questions asked by the IRS and the procedure leading to the tax exemption to the commission. p.19: Church of Scientology Organizational structure, p.39: Tax Exemption Issues, p.53: Inurement, p.57: Operation for a Commercial Purpose, p.75: Public Policy email 11: continuation. p.4: Financial Integrity. p.9: Tax Exemption -- The Procedural Background, p.19: First Series of Questions (March 1991) p.21 Second Series of Questions (May 1992), p.32 Third Series of Questions (October 1992), p.42: Final Series of Questions (January 1993), p.43 "Summary of informanation provided to the IRS", p.44 First Series of Questions, p.46: Second Series of Questions, p.57: Third Series of Questions (October 1992), on p.59 a handwritten remark at 3(a), p.67: Final Series of Questions (January 1993), p.68: Memorandum 1994, looks like a summary by Scientology or its lawyers of the meaning of the 1993 IRS tax exemption and its main components. p.72: Church of Scientology Organizational Structure email 12: continuation of document. at first glance looks similar to email 10, more handwritten remarks, p.18: Tax Exemption Issues, p.32: Inurement, p.36: Operation for a commercial Purpose, p.53: Public Policy, p.57: Financial Integrity, p.62: Tax Exemption -- The Procedural Background email 13: Appeal from Queen's Bench Divisional Court: Applicants acting chaplain of East Grinstead and CoS of California, registration of chapel under places of worship registration act, 1970 email 14: p.2: High Court of Australia The Church of the New Faith vs Commissioner for Payroll Tax 1983, "The applicant has easily discharged the onus of showing that it is religious. The conclusion that it is a religious institution entitled to the tax exemption is irresistable." p.61: Centrepoint Community Growth Trust v Commissioner of Inland Revenue, New Zealand, 1983
Kind of clashes with the above but since I'd typed it anyway, this is what I have. Links seem to work or not depending on your proxy. Originally I was going to link directly to pages within the pdfs (e.g. ...blah.pdf#page=57) but the WDTK numbering seemed to change overnight so I've left it alone.
In the presentation about the organizational structure in email 10 many front groups are listed as part of Scientology: and the list then goes on to include: Narconon International Applied Scholastics, Inc. The Way to Happiness Foundation Criminon In addition to ABLE, Citizen's Commission on Human Rights National Commission on Law Enforcement and Social Justice Churches of Scientology are also listed as Social Betterment Organizations within the Church of Scientology Organizational Structure. So this means that CoS presented these groups by virtue of the structure of this document as part of itself to the commission. Not just as somehow related. With regards to the organizations within ABLE it expressedly speaks of "CSI's social betterment program". So this can be used whenever one of these groups or CoS claims that it is not part of Scientology. Don't know if that could be used by journalists. Other than that I didn't see anything that could be given to the press, it's mostly past court cases. Doesn't mean it's not there.
yes, particularly in relation to Narconon which is a UK registered charity (and is allowed to be such because it claims not to be under the control of Scientology).
Should request the submission dox for Narconon and compare as they charge for thier services as stated by a passer by in the protests from Jan 2010 (£15,000). So ignoring ALL the court cases in this the only "public benefit" element contained within? Secondly no sign of of local community benefit in respect to Council tax relief?
Only just had a chance to review these. The scanned copies of the court records are appreciated, especially the Justice Latey case involving child custody. Some observations: 1) It is actually disturbing and creepy how many of the letters of support for Scientology open with the exact same phrase, namely: “I have been asked to describe certain ‘secular’ benefits I have received from Scientology auditing and training that are not generally understood to be religious or spiritual in nature and how these have affected my community services activities.” The same turns of phrase, the same vague claims, etc., it just screams cult. 2) Chris Owens tremendous work features heavily. That his efforts to collect relevant material made it into these attachments shows the value of making detailed critical information available on the web. It is difficult to say how much of an impact on the Charity Commission’s decision Chris’ and other critic’s work may have had, but it does go to show that putting in the time to make the materials available is not wasted. Especially when the cult can (have and will) order their members to write supporting letters to try manufacturing a homely image. 3) Some of the letters (eg: The one asking Dorset police to help their drugs campaign) really illustrate the cult’s strategy of targeting opinion leaders for their PR. It only takes one slow or ill-informed person to take the bait and allow them a foot in the door. There is a lot of useful information here, and the wealth of court records.
"established for charitable purposes" is a key phrase. Who has decided that they are so "established"? Nobody, I would venture. Just themselves and that does not constitute "established". And do they have "charitable purposes"? The CC says not because the form of their religion is not consistent with existing case law. For it to be a religion it has to take a certain form (basically "theistic") which it does not have. It is supposed to change a person for the better due to the nature of the belief in a higher authority than personal life. Scientology does not have that in its belief structure. So they are not "charitable" as a religion and therefore they are not "established" for charitable purposes. They can always be given discretionary relief, though, if they can make a convincing case. But mandatory rates relief is out of the question and yet they are getting it in ColCorp and Sunderland.
