HELP REQUESTED: Mike Rinder Seeking Information On Scientology Donations Scam

[renegade]

As a reg, this was a problem. We used to use Big League Sales to overcome this objection when public used it reg cycles. However, there we not many public who knew about this policy, nor were they shown this ref. We told public that policies were meant to be used to run orgs. Typical make it go right type of excuses to get the stats up and rent paid.

 

[CommunicatorIC]

The other thing I recall was the undisclosed, cross-guarantee scam.

A wants to borrow $X from Smith bank or loan company. While A generally has good credit, it is not good enough to borrow $X. A gets B, who also generally has good credit. to sign on as a guarantor. Loan to A approved for $X.

B wants to borrow $Y from Jones bank or loan company. While, as noted above, B generally has good credit, it is not good enough to borrow $Y. B gets A, who, as noted above, also generally has good credit. to sign on as a guarantor. Loan to B approved for $Y.

The key is that while the loan applications ask about existing debts, they did not specifically ask about contingent liabilities, such a guarantees of other loans

That is, on the loan application signed by B, his potential, contingent liability as a guarantor of the loan to A is not disclosed because the specific question is not asked.

On the loan application signed by A, his potential, contingent liability as a guarantor of the loan to B is not disclosed because the specific question is not asked.

 

[Helena Handbasket]

That's exactly what I thought when I read this post.

Reminds me an awful lot of the "borrowing" other people's credit cards scam that the regges and FSMs were running at the SO service orgs, like Flag and AOLA, in the 80s.

I, for one, NEVER gave the C of S a credit card number. They got me on other scams, but not the "unauthorized charge" scam (for my services or for others').

Helena

 

[Enthetan]

While I am NOT putting in a plug for hubbard,

he did say do not use credit, but to use credit as a second cushion. Which is sound advice.

From what I have figured out, one should use credit to expand one's business, and not for consumption, as a consumer. Minus the major expense's such as a mortgage to buy a house or even a car, provided interest rates are low.

Interestingly enough, when did mainstream credit card use, get introduced to the mainstream public?

1987

http://www.creditcards.com/credit-card-news/credit-cards-history-1264.php



The whole use of orgs and missions, using consumer credit cards to pay for scientology services was actually against Hubbard's policy of such use.

This was always a concern of mine back in the late 1980's when I joined staff.

For the contradictory datum in my mind was,

if a person progresses up the bridge, then one will make more money to afford more bridge services, thus no need to borrow money via credit cards. (remember, there were no credit cards back in the 1950'S)

When did DM take over the COS? 1986/7

How come the LRH policy of no borrow money, credit cards, is not enforced by DM/RTC?

What's going on here?

No, credit cards existed well before 1987, but you're right in that the 1980's was when we saw much more widespread use of them, due to computers and communications getting much cheaper, thus lowering the cost of processing credit transactions. From wiki:

Until 1958, no one had a stable revolving credit financial system by a third-party bank; that was generally accepted by a large number of merchants, as opposed to merchant-issued revolving cards accepted by only a few merchants. A dozen attempts by small American banks had been started, but didn't last long. In September 1958, Bank of America launched the BankAmericard in Fresno, California. BankAmericard became the first successful recognizably modern credit card and with its overseas affiliates, in 1977 changed its name to Visa. In 1966, the ancestor of MasterCard was born when a group of banks established Master Charge to compete with BankAmericard; it received a significant boost when Citibank merged its own Everything Card (launched in 1967) into Master Charge in 1969.

Early credit cards in the U.S., of which BankAmericard was the most prominent example, were mass-produced and mass mailed unsolicited to bank customers who were thought to be good credit risks. But, "They have been mailed off to unemployables, drunks, narcotics addicts and to compulsive debtors, a process President Johnson's Special Assistant Betty Furness found very like 'giving sugar to diabetics'."[13] These mass mailings were known as "drops" in banking terminology, and were outlawed in 1970 due to the financial chaos they caused. However, by the time the law came into effect, 100 million credit cards had been dropped into the U.S. population. After 1970, only credit card applications could be sent unsolicited in mass mailings.
​

 

[Leland]

All true....but Credit was available none the less....for anyone that had income, assets or a business.

I recall very well, some Reg or perhaps it was an FSM that declared "Don't you think LRH stretched his credit to buy Saint Hill!!" Inferring that using credit was OK....AND that LRH had done so.

Usually credit could be gotten for a specific reason....or thing. A house....a car....a washing machine.

It wasn't until Diner's Club came out ( the first credit card) that people starting using them for day to day living....like restaurants.

Then along came Amex....more oriented to the well heeled business man...

Then MasterCard and Visa....for the masses....and credit at one's own discretion.....and could be used to buy anything one wanted.....ie....a "service."

 

[Gib]

No, credit cards existed well before 1987, but you're right in that the 1980's was when we saw much more widespread use of them, due to computers and communications getting much cheaper, thus lowering the cost of processing credit transactions. From wiki:

Until 1958, no one had a stable revolving credit financial system by a third-party bank; that was generally accepted by a large number of merchants, as opposed to merchant-issued revolving cards accepted by only a few merchants. A dozen attempts by small American banks had been started, but didn't last long. In September 1958, Bank of America launched the BankAmericard in Fresno, California. BankAmericard became the first successful recognizably modern credit card and with its overseas affiliates, in 1977 changed its name to Visa. In 1966, the ancestor of MasterCard was born when a group of banks established Master Charge to compete with BankAmericard; it received a significant boost when Citibank merged its own Everything Card (launched in 1967) into Master Charge in 1969.

Early credit cards in the U.S., of which BankAmericard was the most prominent example, were mass-produced and mass mailed unsolicited to bank customers who were thought to be good credit risks. But, "They have been mailed off to unemployables, drunks, narcotics addicts and to compulsive debtors, a process President Johnson's Special Assistant Betty Furness found very like 'giving sugar to diabetics'."[13] These mass mailings were known as "drops" in banking terminology, and were outlawed in 1970 due to the financial chaos they caused. However, by the time the law came into effect, 100 million credit cards had been dropped into the U.S. population. After 1970, only credit card applications could be sent unsolicited in mass mailings.
​

You are missing the point of my post, which is this:

The whole use of orgs and missions, using consumer credit cards to pay for scientology services was actually against Hubbard's policy of such use.

This was always a concern of mine back in the late 1980's when I joined staff.

For the contradictory datum in my mind was,

if a person progresses up the bridge, then one will make more money to afford more bridge services, thus no need to borrow money via credit cards. (remember, there were no credit cards back in the 1950'S)

When did DM take over the COS? 1986/7

How come the LRH policy of no borrow money, credit cards, is not enforced by DM/RTC?

What's going on here?

In a nutshell, Hubbard said do not use credit to buy Scientology auditing or training,

yet the present time COS since DM took over allows people to use credit. And Hubbard said not to do this.

I am just stating the difference between LRH policy and what DM has allowed to happen. In other other words there is no LRH policy to allow the use of credit to buy auditing or training in the COS.

 

[renegade]

The Finance Hat policy that I recall stated "Do not borrow money to pay your bills." It wasn't specifically saying don't use credit cards at all. It was also ok to use loans to buy property, per the Building Fund policy.

There were public that refused to borrow on the basis of the Be-Do-Have policy, which would fit the do not use credit cards to pay for your bridge.

DM doesn't follow policy. There is not one single policy on the public paying for ideal orgs that is written by lrh.

 

[Helena Handbasket]

You are missing the point of my post, which is this:



In a nutshell, Hubbard said do not use credit to buy Scientology auditing or training,

yet the present time COS since DM took over allows people to use credit. And Hubbard said not to do this.

I am just stating the difference between LRH policy and what DM has allowed to happen. In other other words there is no LRH policy to allow the use of credit to buy auditing or training in the COS.

It's an obvious case of do as I say, not as I do.

Not using credit is the policy for orgs; for the poor schlubs who donate TO the orgs, credit is okay, and preferably before the available credit is used for something else, like furniture.

And I WAS encouraged to use credit; even in the days before DM took over.

And as far as earning more money as you get up the bridge -- in my case, I'm sure that any increase in income was more due to having more knowledge and experience in my field than having less case.

Helena

 

[AnonyMary]

I was reminded of these 2 policy letters when reading this thread... perhaps they can straighten out what Hubbard said and meant about using credit.

Here in the whole of OEC Vol 2... is where the source of the quote that regs always thrown in members faces, about Hubbard making his 'credit creak"
www.tep-online.info/laku/usa/reli/scien/SECRETDOX/OEC2.pdf

Pg 20 ( PDF pg 31 )

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
37 Fitzroy Street, London W. I
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 27 APRIL 1959

WHY NEW BOOKS ARE FEW

We are in for a boom. You may not see it in your area yet but HAS Co-audit well run has begun
the project "Clear Earth". HGCs have already begun Theta Clearing. And hotter stuff is to come. But unless I can up my income for writing, research and living, we are somewhat slowed down. My program has gone as far as this: I have bought, with my own money and whatever I could gather, a place in Sussex that's quiet enough and remote enough for research and in which I can get lost enough to write. I emptied out all my loose cash, sold my boats and made my credit creak but we have a writing and research centre for the U.K.

The place belonged to an important person and is itself more or less self supporting as to upkeep.

I want to get a research centre for the U.S., equally remote and later on for each continent. In such places research records can be safe and the kind of research which now has to be done can be done.
This will take several years. I am perfectly willing to do and finance any and all of this out of
my 10% royalties from Central Orgs.

I can't believe I found what apparently is the whole of OEC Vol 3 on the internet from a Netherlands website, while looking for this other policy regarding credit that came to mind while reading this thread.

Here, from Pg 39 ( PDF page 75 ) of OEC Vol 3 is
HOW TO MAINTAIN CREDIT STANDING & SOLVENCY

as written on this foreign country web page ( making me and the forum third / fourth party relayers exempt from copyright infringement lol)

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
Remimeo HCO POLICY LETTER OF 28 JANUARY 1965
Int Bel Members
Cent Dirs
HCO Cent Sees A CCOUNTS HATS
OrglAssn Sees
HCO Secs FINANCE
Accts Units

HOW TO MAINTAIN CREDIT STANDING & SOLVENCY

(Hat cheek on Org/Assn Sees and Accts Assistants)

Credit does not entirely deal with money. It has everything to do with confidence and reliability.
When the world saw a recently elected government act foolishly with customs dues, etc, it had no confidence in that government and the currency of that government went to pieces on the world market.
Money is basically a matter of confidence. So is credit.

An accounts unit that handles money poorly wrecks the org's credit rating. Insolvency is much less often the source of poor credit than just poor money handling.

Almost all our orgs have good credit. But where they don't it is money handling, not the amount of money
available, that wrecks credit.

An Assn/Org Sec who handles bills in a certain way has gopd erg credit. One who doesn't has bad credit.
To try to assign credit to the amount of money available is completely false.

You can have lots of money and horrible credit. You can have little money and excellent credit. So saying "our income has been poor so our credit is bad" is a lie.

The business world judges Scientology not on its scientific validity but on its financial credit rating. If the org's credit is good, then "Scientology is okay". If your credit is bad, "Scientology is a racket", in business general opinion.

Melbourne's financial credit went bad before its general repute earned it an Enquiry.
Good credit is a primary dissemination line. It breeds confidence. You can't have bad credit and still be thought of as a valid science.

So financial management must help general disserninatAon by maintaining good credit. A bad credit rating comes from negligence in Accounts, not from the lack of industry of the Registrar.

To begin with, an erg has no business spending more than it makes. To do so shows stupidity in management and accounts, lack of a purchase order system and a general beatnik state of organization.
Make all the money you can. Spend less than that. That's the simple ABC of financial control.
Make sure all the income is accounted for and banked.

Make sure no unauthorized purchases can be made by executives or staff by requiring an authority to purchase or contract from the head of the org before any purchase can be made or contract signed. Sure that's slow. Who wants it fast? The slower it is, the less you spend.

You want speed on the income line. The disbursement line is something else.

So never listen to somebody saying "But it takes so long to get a purchase order that I just bought it Yawn and say, "You bought it without authorization. You can pay for it personally." Never let your Purchase Order system break down. If you do you will soon be spending more than you make. Fact. No exceptions.

39

Say one thing, do another. Make others do one thing, despite the policy. Everyone involved during the reg cycle thinks they are winning, while they are actually crashing their finances.

It's gone on for years, all the financial shenanigans, credit borrowing like that, bankruptcy after borrowing to pay IAS, Super Power Bldg or Flag and orgs the monies.

Here are some files I collected years ago from scientologist's bankruptcy court cases, where the church entities were convinced to settle by federal court trustee to repay monies so the creditors could get something back or face being forced by Adversarial petitions by the court to repay.
http://www.lermanet.com/fraud

(Some scientologists did get forced by the court to repay from the Slatkin fund proceeds received while other were losing their money and were not paid by Slatkin. These bankruptcy court papers are there too. That's a subject for another time )

Anyway, history keeps repeating itself...and to my knowledge, Ideal Org staff never get sent to the RPF

Sounds like Mike is a wee bit out of touch with the differences between SO orgs and Classed Orgs.
I am glad he's looking for people to come forward.

 

[dchoiceisalwaysrs]

While I am NOT putting in a plug for hubbard,

he did say do not use credit, but to use credit as a second cushion. Which is sound advice.

From what I have figured out, one should use credit to expand one's business, and not for consumption, as a consumer. Minus the major expense's such as a mortgage to buy a house or even a car, provided interest rates are low.

Interestingly enough, when did mainstream credit card use, get introduced to the mainstream public?

1987

http://www.creditcards.com/credit-card-news/credit-cards-history-1264.php



The whole use of orgs and missions, using consumer credit cards to pay for scientology services was actually against Hubbard's policy of such use.

This was always a concern of mine back in the late 1980's when I joined staff.

For the contradictory datum in my mind was,

if a person progresses up the bridge, then one will make more money to afford more bridge services, thus no need to borrow money via credit cards. (remember, there were no credit cards back in the 1950'S)

When did DM take over the COS? 1986/7

How come the LRH policy of no borrow money, credit cards, is not enforced by DM/RTC?

What's going on here?

PURPOSE is above Policy on the Vampire life-blood money sucking Admin scale. Moving on up the admin scale The Goal is slaves and the blood thereof.

 

[dchoiceisalwaysrs]

You are missing the point of my post, which is this:



In a nutshell, Hubbard said do not use credit to buy Scientology auditing or training,

yet the present time COS since DM took over allows people to use credit. And Hubbard said not to do this.

I am just stating the difference between LRH policy and what DM has allowed to happen. In other other words there is no LRH policy to allow the use of credit to buy auditing or training in the COS.

Yet in 1974 yes 1974 I was regged to fraudulently apply for a bank loan = credit to obtain services. I suspect DM did not have his [STRIKE]finger[/STRIKE] fist in that one.

 

[programmer_guy]

Yet in 1974 yes 1974 I was regged to fraudulently apply for a bank loan = credit to obtain services. I suspect DM did not have his [STRIKE]finger[/STRIKE] fist in that one.

Yep! Me, too.
Interesting that it was about that same year.
However, in my case, the mission reg co-signed for the loan.

 

[Veda]

Yet in 1974 yes 1974 I was regged to fraudulently apply for a bank loan = credit to obtain services. I suspect DM did not have his [STRIKE]finger[/STRIKE] fist in that one.

That's because there's (usually confidential) POLICY/instructions - of which the Scientological rank and file are not aware, except that they gradually become privy that there is something above that can override Policy; and there is Policy, found in the Green Volumes, which the rank and file believe, wrongly, is all Policy; and then there is policy, which is mostly or entirely for PR display purposes - such as the faux 1968 "Reform Code" HCOPL, etc.

Then there is the Policy that states that Policy can be ignored if it forwards Scientology.

And then there is - at the back of a long rambling Policy, from 1967, known informally as the Bolivar ("pink legs") Policy, a little bit of information as to Scientology's inner workings - information that would normally have been confidential but, for some reason (perhaps because he was feeling especially confident after deciding to make himself a "Commodore") Hubbard decided the rank and file should know, and that is that Scientology succeeds best when operated as a "tight conspiracy," essentially on the same model as used by organized crime.

So there are layers of "Policy."

And any policy can be overridden if it's advantageous to Scientology to do so. Usually, it was Hubbard who would decide to override his own Policy - which sometimes caused confusion and bewilderment amongst the rank and file and, also, sometimes, a lot of shouting.

Of course, those (usually confidentially) ordered to override Policy by Hubbard, or by someone (usually confidentially) ordered by Hubbard to order others to order others to override Policy, was in extreme potential danger, since, later, if a problem were to arise, either legal or public relations - then that person would be thrown to the dogs for having "violated Policy."

Now Hubbard is gone and Miscavige is the Boss but he's still operating on Hubbard's basic model.

"Pink legs" folks. That's the model, not some silly notion of "Policy."

 

[dchoiceisalwaysrs]

Yep! Me, too.
Interesting that it was about that same year.
However, in my case, the mission reg co-signed for the loan.

Maybe it was the two same female registrars, Both apparently OT, traveling up the coast from LA. And a few months later, and I don't remember who sent me, but I was sent on a multi-stop tour to acquire money from aunts,uncles, grandparents, friends and I got so fed up I just never returned. Well, to that org anyhow.

 

[dchoiceisalwaysrs]

That's because there's (usually confidential) POLICY/instructions - of which the Scientological rank and file are not aware, except that they gradually become privy that there is something above that can override Policy; and there is Policy, found in the Green Volumes, which the rank and file believe, wrongly, is all Policy; and then there is policy, which is mostly or entirely for PR display purposes - such as the faux 1968 "Reform Code" HCOPL, etc.

Then there is the Policy that states that Policy can be ignored if it forwards Scientology.

And then there is - at the back of a long rambling Policy, from 1967, known informally as the Bolivar ("pink legs") Policy, a little bit of information as to Scientology's inner workings - information that would normally have been confidential but, for some reason (perhaps because he was feeling especially confident after deciding to make himself a "Commodore") Hubbard decided the rank and file should know, and that is that Scientology succeeds best when operated as a "tight conspiracy," essentially on the same model as used by organized crime.

So there are layers of "Policy."

And any policy can be overridden if it's advantageous to Scientology to do so. Usually, it was Hubbard who would decide to override his own Policy - which sometimes caused confusion and bewilderment amongst the rank and file and, also, sometimes, a lot of shouting.



Of course, those (usually confidentially) ordered to override Policy by Hubbard, or by someone (usually confidentially) ordered by Hubbard to order others to order others to override Policy, was in extreme potential danger, since, later, if a problem were to arise, either legal or public relations - then that person would be thrown to the dogs for having "violated Policy."

Now Hubbard is gone and Miscavige is the Boss but he's still operating on Hubbard's basic model.

"Pink legs" folks. That's the model, not some silly notion of "Policy."

Yep, Lure, Con and Hide...someone had a nic something like that.. it is so revealing or the operating methods of a confidence man and the mutlifaceted harmful organization to which I sadly believed in for decades.

 

[Mick Wenlock]

You are missing the point of my post, which is this:



In a nutshell, Hubbard said do not use credit to buy Scientology auditing or training,

yet the present time COS since DM took over allows people to use credit. And Hubbard said not to do this.

I am just stating the difference between LRH policy and what DM has allowed to happen. In other other words there is no LRH policy to allow the use of credit to buy auditing or training in the COS.

well he said lots of things. what forced Scientologists and regges into seeking unusual solutions to arranging finances was Hubbards LRH ED 284 and the "solution to inflation". The price rises every month forced many people into unusual arrangements and Hubbard knew all about it. He even mentioned it in the "Advices" that came out of the 1982 Stat Analysis - something that guided int strategies for the next few years and it came from Hubbard, not DM.

And before that even - the whole 5X the stats crap that had gone on in the early 70's...

Hubbard's insistence on Scientology regges being trained on BLS - another "system" that encourages using financing to get the "close"

It was not DM that "allowed" it to happen. it was Hubbard.

 

[Enthetan]

Yet in 1974 yes 1974 I was regged to fraudulently apply for a bank loan = credit to obtain services. I suspect DM did not have his [STRIKE]finger[/STRIKE] fist in that one.

I had reg cycles where they wanted me to use credit, before the DM era as well.

 

[Gizmo]

When pestered to "loan" money for services I flatly refused on several grounds :


First, I'd claim I was raised " neither a borrower or a lender be ".

Second, I'd say they need to go to a bank & borrow & if the bank - whose business it is to loan - doesn't see them as a good risk then why should I ?

Then I'd quote : " Free service equal fee fall " & claim lending money, per policy, was an overt.

I always knew I would have no recourse if the person defaulted ( and most I'd heard of did ) because I couldn't take the debtor to court per policy.

What amazes me most of all is how long I stayed in that group.

 

[Leland]

When pestered to "loan" money for services I flatly refused on several grounds :


First, I'd claim I was raised " neither a borrower or a lender be ".

Second, I'd say they need to go to a bank & borrow & if the bank - whose business it is to loan - doesn't see them as a good risk then why should I ?

Then I'd quote : " Free service equal fee fall " & claim lending money, per policy, was an overt.

I always knew I would have no recourse if the person defaulted ( and most I'd heard of did ) because I couldn't take the debtor to court per policy.

What amazes me most of all is how long I stayed in that group.

It just amazes me now....how far into my personal life....ie...finances .....the regs got.

And Gizmo points out above .....how things got so twisted around that one would have to "make excuses" to get out from under the reg pressure.....regarding anything to do with money.

 

[Gib]

well he said lots of things. what forced Scientologists and regges into seeking unusual solutions to arranging finances was Hubbards LRH ED 284 and the "solution to inflation". The price rises every month forced many people into unusual arrangements and Hubbard knew all about it. He even mentioned it in the "Advices" that came out of the 1982 Stat Analysis - something that guided int strategies for the next few years and it came from Hubbard, not DM.

And before that even - the whole 5X the stats crap that had gone on in the early 70's...

Hubbard's insistence on Scientology regges being trained on BLS - another "system" that encourages using financing to get the "close"

It was not DM that "allowed" it to happen. it was Hubbard.

OK, thanks Mick.

and thanks to other posters who replied.

I got in, in 1987, and within a year I had read the full LRH books & lectures, and read a bunch of PL's on Finance, as I was just a working man, a Problems of Work man, who wanted to then make a lot of money so as to go up the bridge. I was very gung ho at the time having just discovered the secrets of the universe & life & livingness.

so I'm basing my story here from that viewpoint. As I suspected folks were regged to borrow money to do services b/4 DM, but NOT thru credit cards as none existed b/4 1987.

The link I provided, which nobody read I suspect, http://www.creditcards.com/credit-card-news/credit-cards-history-1264.php

"Although American Express was among the first companies to issue a charge card, it wasn't until 1987 that it issued a credit card allowing customers to pay over time rather than at the end of every month. Its original business model focused on the travel and entertainment charges made by business people, which involved significant revenue from merchants and annual membership fees from customers."

If one reads the link, there were cards before 1987, but they actually were CHARGE cards, not CREDIT cards. Charge cards had to be paid back at the end of the month, there were no revolving credit cards. Thus prior to 1987, people were regged for bank loans, or family/friends loans.

The above is just a point of history, which I find fascinating.

-----------------------------

But, more to the point,

I am a perfect example of Cognitive Dissonance, or as Hellvahoax says "The Hubbard Law of Commotion".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

"In psychology, cognitive dissonance is the mental stress or discomfort experienced by an individual who holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values at the same time"

Since I had read Finance PL's and BLS/Hard Sell, why I held those beliefs, ideas & values in my mind.

Namely, Hubbard said do not ever borrow money. He says it in HCO PL 9 Mar 72RA, Income Flows & Pools, Principles of Money Management. And he says somewhere else as "do not borrow money, make money as it is easier, and keep credit as a second cushion".

So, I holding those stable data in my mind, and yet I'm being regged by people who were "clear" and "OT" (figuring they know, as I am not clear but a walking reactive mind which doubts everything).

So, everytime I would get regged to do another service, and I would say I don't have the money,
I'm also holding in my mind don't borrow, but yet Hard Sell means the person regging me knows that if I borrow the money to do the next service, I will get more able, which is what Hubbard said and I knew as well.

I can't tell you how many times I would be in a confusion in my mind, the cognitive dissonance, over the constant regging when I did not have the money at the time. I had to earn it, Hubbard said to earn it, not borrow.

It was a constant and :run: away. But yet how could I run away when I held the belief in my mind that Clear & OT were possible?