Interesting Co$ related land deals in UK.

[Dulloldfart]

I didn't read the original post properly, and somehow ended up with the idea that Gaiman (or his company) still owned the property. Wrong.

That original post clearly states that the CofS owns the building and has done since September 2007. And the CofS is still collecting money from parishioners? The renovations will cost money, but I wonder if the CofS in Birmingham is broadcasting the fact that the CofS has owned the property for over a year.

I've seen various posts about ideal morgue buildings worldwide, how a few have been renovated and inhabited but are largely empty of public; how many have been purchased but lie fallow and unrenovated; and how the general idea is that Scn public pay for the building and renos cost, then the org is charged rent by the CofS who have acquired the asset gratis. Has anyone compiled all this data together and webbed it somewhere? Like at www.idealorgscam.com - it's available, $9.99 a year or less. . I haven't seen such a compilation. It would be good if someone wanted to do it, with sections devoted to the individual orgs covered on the site, then the base URL could simply be given as a link to people who need to know.

Oh, I just thought of something. If they neglected to tell people they were soliciting for donations that they already owned the building, wouldn't that be fraud? Guess it depends on EXACTLY what was said....

Paul

[anonymous1312]

Originally Posted by Dulloldfart

I didn't read the original post properly, and somehow ended up with the idea that Gaiman (or his company) still owned the property. Wrong.

That original post clearly states that the CofS owns the building and has done since September 2007. And the CofS is still collecting money from parishioners? The renovations will cost money, but I wonder if the CofS in Birmingham is broadcasting the fact that the CofS has owned the property for over a year.


Oh, I just thought of something. If they neglected to tell people they were soliciting for donations that they already owned the building, wouldn't that be fraud? Guess it depends on EXACTLY what was said....

Paul

This is what has been published in Birmingham Mail over the last year.

(Oh noes, we can't get the cash - but the generous current owners let us use it anyway)
http://www.birminghammail.net/2008/0...7319-21154394/

(Oh phew, a last minute rescue!)
http://www.birminghammail.net/2008/1...7319-21974116/

This is what they have being telling the public, both real and scientologist.

I was interested in the comment earlier that this is "normal" because the church has bad PR so no one will sell to them directly so they have to buy by proxy. OPEN YOUR EYES. Mr Gaiman bought and sold it on Sept 7th 2007, for a profit just over £0.75 million. He sold 2 parts to two companies in IoM for £5 and 2 other bits to what appears to be a 3rd party. The two companies in IoM changed directors in Sept 2008 to scientology directors with no obvious money transaction.

Using Co$ "acceptable truth" logic they didn't own the building until they installed their directors into the companies that owned it. The fact the companies were off the shelf companies in IoM with off the shelf directors, no doubt with undated resignations on Co$ file, doesn't matter.

Probably couldn't prove any wrong doing in a court of law BUT answer this, if Co$ was buying by proxy just to get around their bad image why not just buy it with the proxy company and say "sucks boo we own it now"? Even if they wanted to parcel off the land they could have still said "sucks boo we own it now" after that. Instead they had to play clever with smoke and mirrors. Heck Mr Gaiman even generously donated £0.25m no doubt to get the ball rolling with the donations. That I expect is the real "norm". Oh and if they have such a bad image why all the publicity about buying it after they already own it?

[Terril park]

Originally Posted by Dulloldfart

I didn't read the original post properly, and somehow ended up with the idea that Gaiman (or his company) still owned the property. Wrong.

That original post clearly states that the CofS owns the building and has done since September 2007. And the CofS is still collecting money from parishioners? The renovations will cost money, but I wonder if the CofS in Birmingham is broadcasting the fact that the CofS has owned the property for over a year.

I've seen various posts about ideal morgue buildings worldwide, how a few have been renovated and inhabited but are largely empty of public; how many have been purchased but lie fallow and unrenovated; and how the general idea is that Scn public pay for the building and renos cost, then the org is charged rent by the CofS who have acquired the asset gratis. Has anyone compiled all this data together and webbed it somewhere? Like at www.idealorgscam.com - it's available, $9.99 a year or less. . I haven't seen such a compilation. It would be good if someone wanted to do it, with sections devoted to the individual orgs covered on the site, then the base URL could simply be given as a link to people who need to know.

Oh, I just thought of something. If they neglected to tell people they were soliciting for donations that they already owned the building, wouldn't that be fraud? Guess it depends on EXACTLY what was said....

Paul

Go Paul you batshit squirrel extrordinaire.

[EnturbTheDragon]

Deleted at members request.

[Axiom142]

I have a copy of the ‘Birmingham Ideal Org Newsletter’ Issue 6 in front of me, which I received a few months ago. To quote,

“THE DEADLINE HAS BEEN SET”

“We are completing the purchase of our Ideal Org Building by the IAS Event 24 October 2008!”

This obviously gives the impression that money was still required to actually purchase the building, which as we have seen is misleading since Scientology-controlled companies already owned the building.

Also, in a previous edition of this newsletter, dating from earlier this year (and well after the purchase of the building):

“Birmingham Org has sold more LRH Basics packages than any other Class V Org of its size in the whole of the UK, Europe and Russia!”

“Birmingham Org has started 117 public on the Basics Book Courses, 149 public on Basics Book Extension Course (sic) and so far has completed 148 public on these courses. Smokin’!”

149 Completions for courses that all public have to do! And this is supposed to be the most successful Org in the UK outside of London!

Doesn’t sound like they are going to “Clear the UK” very fast like that, does it?

Then, the newsletter goes on to say:

“So, Birmingham Org is fast becoming an Ideal Org and we really need your help with raising the funds to finish paying for the building and to get it renovated.

“We need ideal Orgs in the UK and we need them now!!! Planet Earth needs OT IX and X and you can help us achieve that. Send in your donations now and back a winning team that is heading for massive expansion.”

Sounds like they were asking for money for something that had already been done. Is that fraud?


Axiom142

[anonymous1312]

Originally Posted by Axiom142

I have a copy of the ‘Birmingham Ideal Org Newsletter’ Issue 6 in front of me, which I received a few months ago. To quote,

“THE DEADLINE HAS BEEN SET”

“We are completing the purchase of our Ideal Org Building by the IAS Event 24 October 2008!”

This obviously gives the impression that money was still required to actually purchase the building, which as we have seen is misleading since Scientology-controlled companies already owned the building.

Also, in a previous edition of this newsletter, dating from earlier this year (and well after the purchase of the building):

“Birmingham Org has sold more LRH Basics packages than any other Class V Org of its size in the whole of the UK, Europe and Russia!”

“Birmingham Org has started 117 public on the Basics Book Courses, 149 public on Basics Book Extension Course (sic) and so far has completed 148 public on these courses. Smokin’!”

149 Completions for courses that all public have to do! And this is supposed to be the most successful Org in the UK outside of London!

Doesn’t sound like they are going to “Clear the UK” very fast like that, does it?

Then, the newsletter goes on to say:

“So, Birmingham Org is fast becoming an Ideal Org and we really need your help with raising the funds to finish paying for the building and to get it renovated.

“We need ideal Orgs in the UK and we need them now!!! Planet Earth needs OT IX and X and you can help us achieve that. Send in your donations now and back a winning team that is heading for massive expansion.”

Sounds like they were asking for money for something that had already been done. Is that fraud?


Axiom142

It certainly smells like fraud, not sure on how it would go down legally as far as proving it. From the scilon point of view it was an acceptable truth that they did not own the org until September 22nd, where upon scilon directors were magically appointed to the holding companies in Isle of Man. I suppose they were caught out by doing that on September 22nd and subsequently announcing "completion" of purchase for Oct 24th. Lawyer fags needed. Meh, give the police the info and see what happens.

[Dulloldfart]

Originally Posted by Axiom142

“So, Birmingham Org is fast becoming an Ideal Org and we really need your help with raising the funds to finish paying for the building and to get it renovated...."

Sounds like they were asking for money for something that had already been done. Is that fraud?

Were the italics [bolded here] in the CofS original or was the emphasis yours?

In a criminal court they would probably get away with it. In a civil court case, if anyone were to bring one, where the case is settled on the preponderance of evidence rather than beyond a shadow of a doubt, that would be another matter.

If one of the donors were to sue if they refused to return his money on request, on the basis of misrepresentation, I would guess that he would win, assuming he gave the money after the purchase. However, I would also guess that the CofS would settle out of court.

Paul

[Axiom142]

Originally Posted by Dulloldfart

Were the italics [bolded here] in the CofS original or was the emphasis yours?

In a criminal court they would probably get away with it. In a civil court case, if anyone were to bring one, where the case is settled on the preponderance of evidence rather than beyond a shadow of a doubt, that would be another matter.

If one of the donors were to sue if they refused to return his money on request, on the basis of misrepresentation, I would guess that he would win, assuming he gave the money after the purchase. However, I would also guess that the CofS would settle out of court.

Paul

Paul,

The original text had the 'and' in italics. Don't suppose it makes a lot of difference though. They would probably argue that the building hadn't been formally turned over the CoS at that stage. You know how they like to save up 'good news' for the major events. And there is always the "we need the money right NOW!" factor where everything is vitally urgent, right now, in order to save the planet, no time to spare, do it or the puppy dies, sort of thing (I made the last one up ).

But to an outsider, all the property transfer shenanigans look rather fishy. And I just thought of something. Did they have to pay stamp duty each time the property was bought? If so, how could they justify wasting all those thousands of pounds of ‘parishioners’ money by needless transfers?

Don’t know if a case for soliciting fraudulent donations would stand up in court, and besides I cannot imagine any of those guys who donating taking action anyway.

I don’t have a scanner, but will try and take some photos and post them.

Axiom142

[Dulloldfart]

Thanks, Ax.

Probably the most useful thing to do would be to make the truth known in the field and let the donors/potential donors have all the data, or at least, as much as they are willing to assimilate.

Paul

[EnturbTheDragon]

Originally Posted by johnAnchovie

The Isle of Man company was set up by two OT 8 Scientologists, brothers, both big time property developers.
The cult is using fake or temporary corporate entities to disguise their activities, tax dodge?

It's fair to say that the central claims about what was purchased and when have been substantiated by an independent third party.

As I understand it, when the two Isle of Man companies were incorporated in 2007, the named directors were appointees of another IOM company called Colaw International Limited, which offers these kinds of offshore, 'front' services. The names of the actual owners or major shareholders are therefore not on public record.

From comments posted by you elsewhere quite a while ago I could take a guess at who they are, but I may be way off (was there a car accident involving a relative who subsequently got a payout?) Can you or anybody else confirm who they are, publicly or by PM, or point to a way to substantiate their identity?

Really, anything in addition to the evidence already posted that would help confirm that the CoS or members of it owned or controlled the site from 2007, or arranged the setup of the Isle of Man companies, would be very useful.