UK's Scientology's Tax Evasion and Money Laundering

[Dulloldfart]

Judy Tampion was back on staff at AOSH ANZO as of a few years ago. Maybe she could be asked during the next protest?

From memory she was Deputy Guardian UK in 1977.

Paul

[Dulloldfart]

Err, umm, not allowed to engage in, what's that wording again? " . . . no substantial part of the activity of the College shall be designed to influence the legislation of any territory in which it has a direct or indirect presence or influence a political campaign in such territory or to promote propaganda in any such territory."

Hmmmm, now where have we seen that violated by them and on how many occasions?!

I don't think they do violate that point. Political stuff isn't a substantial part of the CofS's activities. A small part, yes.

Paul

[RogerB]

I don't think they do violate that point. Political stuff isn't a substantial part of the CofS's activities. A small part, yes.

Paul

Well, during the 1970's Marcus Allan went weekly with a team of Scios to lobby the Houses of Parliament (in London). This went on for years. What the specificity of the lobby was for and in what way the group that Marcus eventually became the leader of sought to influence the Parliamentary Members I don't have the details, but lobby and attempt to influence our law makers they did.

I could check with Marcus for details . . . there was a team of GAS types, sometimes staff, and if my memory is correct I believe even our Dart S. lent his weight :D to the venture on occasion.

And I would say that having Scn types infiltrating into government advisory and rule making bodies for the express purpose to influence outcomes of policy or governmental conduct in favor of the CofS . . . and this Charter would prohibit such vis a vis local government as well . . . would qualify as a violation, no?

I did not pay much attention to the proceedings in Riverside CA, but didn't the CofS have someone pulling a stunt down there.

Reading the Charter, there are two classes of members: full members, and student members. Marcus would have qualified as a student member, I expect. But even so the Charter prohibits "indirect" action to influence politics.

And while you acknowledge the "political stuff is a small part, but not a substantial part" . . . . the Charter prohibits any as substantial does not mean large or a big part; it is defined as: 1. Of, relating to, or having substance; material.
2. True or real; not imaginary. 3. Solidly built; strong. 4. Ample; sustaining: a substantial breakfast. 5. Considerable in importance, value, degree, amount, or extent: won by a substantial margin. 6. Possessing wealth or property; well-to-do.

Violation of such could be grounds for a revocation of charitable status . . . certainly in the USA.

The CofS activity in this area is not an insignificant activity, it is substantial and important to them, if small in comparison to all else it engages in . . . as was Marcus Allan and his team's operation on the UK . . . it was a weekly lobbying event that ran for years.

And in any event, an area of foot bullet embarrassment for them if they are proven to be in such violation. It blows them out of the water on their claimed position of being benign and solely religious.

Rog

[DartSmohen]

Well, during the 1970's Marcus Allan went weekly with a team of Scios to lobby the Houses of Parliament (in London). This went on for years. What the specificity of the lobby was for and in what way the group that Marcus eventually became the leader of sought to influence the Parliamentary Members I don't have the details, but lobby and attempt to influence our law makers they did.

I could check with Marcus for details . . . there was a team of GAS types, sometimes staff, and if my memory is correct I believe even our Dart S. lent his weight :D to the venture on occasion.

And I would say that having Scn types infiltrating into government advisory and rule making bodies for the express purpose to influence outcomes of policy or governmental conduct in favor of the CofS . . . and this Charter would prohibit such vis a vis local government as well . . . would qualify as a violation, no?

I did not pay much attention to the proceedings in Riverside CA, but didn't the CofS have someone pulling a stunt down there.

Reading the Charter, there are two classes of members: full members, and student members. Marcus would have qualified as a student member, I expect. But even so the Charter prohibits "indirect" action to influence politics.

And while you acknowledge the "political stuff is a small part, but not a substantial part" . . . . the Charter prohibits any as substantial does not mean large or a big part; it is defined as: 1. Of, relating to, or having substance; material.
2. True or real; not imaginary. 3. Solidly built; strong. 4. Ample; sustaining: a substantial breakfast. 5. Considerable in importance, value, degree, amount, or extent: won by a substantial margin. 6. Possessing wealth or property; well-to-do.

Violation of such could be grounds for a revocation of charitable status . . . certainly in the USA.

The CofS activity in this area is not an insignificant activity, it is substantial and important to them, if small in comparison to all else it engages in . . . as was Marcus Allan and his team's operation on the UK . . . it was a weekly lobbying event that ran for years.

And in any event, an area of foot bullet embarrassment for them if they are proven to be in such violation. It blows them out of the water on their claimed position of being benign and solely religious.

Rog

It was more than weekly, someone was there EVERY day Parliament sat. I attended about a dozen times, a couple of those I was the sole lobbyist. We got some stellar names to come out and talk with us, even though we were not one of their constituents. They didn't have to come out, but they did and we were able to put our message across.

It was always fun when the Division Bell sounded. MP's scurrying from all quarters to get into the lobby vote room.

On another side of this discussion, following the successful break in at the WHO in Switzerland in 1968, Hubbard assigned Fred Hare to go to the USA and train as a psychiatrist. However, this plan did not materialise.

Even then he had plans to infiltrate "sleepers" into any opposing body so that info could be fed back as to any possible attacks. This practice clearly goes on in present time, as evidenced by the "mole" the cult planted in the SP Times.

Dart

[RogerB]

It was more than weekly, someone was there EVERY day Parliament sat. I attended about a dozen times, a couple of those I was the sole lobbyist. We got some stellar names to come out and talk with us, even though we were not one of their constituents. They didn't have to come out, but they did and we were able to put our message across.

It was always fun when the Division Bell sounded. MP's scurrying from all quarters to get into the lobby vote room.

On another side of this discussion, following the successful break in at the WHO in Switzerland in 1968, Hubbard assigned Fred Hare to go to the USA and train as a psychiatrist. However, this plan did not materialise.

Even then he had plans to infiltrate "sleepers" into any opposing body so that info could be fed back as to any possible attacks. This practice clearly goes on in present time, as evidenced by the "mole" the cult planted in the SP Times.

Dart

Yep. This strikes me as "substantial," thoroughly planned and deliberately executed. And I know for a fact these political activities were conducted in the UK after COSRECI was registered to operate and began its operations in the UK.

The next thing to gather fact on is the precise nature of the political and lobbying endeavours as to actions and intended outcomes.

Any others involved in this sort of political stuff on behalf of the CofS?

Rog

[Dulloldfart]

Yep. This strikes me as "substantial," thoroughly planned and deliberately executed.

Fair enough. I'd agree with that.

Paul

EDIT: On third thoughts, I don't know. WTF does "substantial part" mean? Does it mean greater than 50% in terms of time or money spent? Does it mean even as small as 0.1% of time or money spent provided it makes a noticeable impact? Is it one of those "I know it when I see it" things?

[dchoiceisalwaysrs]

The way I see it is many Scientology Celebrities are used for Political purposes.

Ones that come to mind are Tom Cruise, Chick Corea, and John Travolta, the last two are in photo's in scientology publications showing their meeting with presidents of the USA if IRC.

Andrew Morton in an interview about his Tom Cruise; an unauthorized biography, discusses the political influence of such celebrities. I am trying to find that interview to link here. OH here, specifically starting around 7:25 till the end

Any DSA of the CoS would have been involved in such activities, and or certainly know of such.

In regards propaganda I am quite certain that many Mayors of cities have been duped into giving Keys to cities due to the positioning, safepointing and PR handling by DSAs.

Germany and Ursula Carberta are very aware of the political motives of the CoS and it's attempt to manipulate the government.

There is no derth of evidence of their political. Clearwater would be home to much of this evidence.

[DartSmohen]

Yep. This strikes me as "substantial," thoroughly planned and deliberately executed. And I know for a fact these political activities were conducted in the UK after COSRECI was registered to operate and began its operations in the UK.

The next thing to gather fact on is the precise nature of the political and lobbying endeavours as to actions and intended outcomes.

Any others involved in this sort of political stuff on behalf of the CofS?

Rog

Marcus & Robin used to lobby, so did Peter & Jenny Wakley. David Gaiman was a regular lobbyist, along with several other members of the GO. Also I think Kathy & Jim Sprule as well.

Dart

[RogerB]

Fair enough. I'd agree with that.

Paul

EDIT: On third thoughts, I don't know. WTF does "substantial part" mean? Does it mean greater than 50% in terms of time or money spent? Does it mean even as small as 0.1% of time or money spent provided it makes a noticeable impact? Is it one of those "I know it when I see it" things?

Paul, my old Brit Buddy . . . . it is one of those legal-terms-things that depends on the understandings and interpretations in precedent . . . . like that wonderful thing in well established British law that says: "What is 'reasonable'? . . . reasonable is what an ordinary man riding in the top of a British double-decker bus to Battersea considers is 'reasonable'!" And that ruling from one of the most eminent Law Court Judges of his day (whoever it was).

I love it! I think it sums it up totally . . . so as a reasonable, though not ordinary, man who might be he riding on that bus to Battersea, do you think having a gang of people daily going to Parliament to influence the political thoughts and actions of your elected leaders sent to serve your wishes in a way that only suits their wishes is a substantial effort and endeavour, or not?

Note, the concept of "substantial" is not comparative to anything . . . it simply has to be real, of substance and of considerable quantity and quality of effort, undertaking or effect.

R

[Dulloldfart]

Humph. OK.

Paul