ias, c of s, trademarks for drugs

[RogerB]

Here is the Yum Yum in All This

SallyD, Mate and I were PMing on this over the last couple of days. Then the decision was made to put it in the hands of the guys working with Xeno.

Let's re-read the Charter of the College . . . this commercial activity of owning business Trademarks, even if for the purpose and activity of making the "rightful" international commercial corporation purchase it back, is in violation of the College Charter . . . look at what its stated purpose and activities are said to be and limited to.

Dox available on line show a simple sequence of ownership of these commercial trademarks . . . I've done these kinds of searches on paper records in London (in my former career) and the paper records do show a lot more info.

But that is not terribly important here . . . . what is shown is an engagement in activity in violation of the College Charter.

As I mentioned in PM's it is very likely this caper was engaged in in other territories as well . . . Oz and Sth. Africa would be strong candidates. It is not an uncommon practice for unscrupulous characters to seek to register the trademarks of major corporations (international or otherwise) ahead of the major in smaller territories and to hold out for a profit when the "rightful" owner wants the mark back . . . . indications of this is in the record we have as shown by the fact that the CofS once owned the mark and ceded it back to Sandoz/NOVARTIS (used to be a client of mine in the old days, along with Ciba-Geigy).

Apart from any shore story the CofS might dream up to explain the "why" of the activity, it is a violation of Charter. And note, this Charter is the basis of its seeking and being granted charitable status.

Refer to our thread on "UK Scientology's Tax Evasion and Money Laundering."

Rog

 

[Dulloldfart]

SallyD, Mate and I were PMing on this over the last couple of days. Then the decision was made to put it in the hands of the guys working with Xeno.

Let's re-read the Charter of the College . . . this commercial activity of owning business Trademarks, even if for the purpose and activity of making the "rightful" international commercial corporation purchase it back, is in violation of the College Charter . . . look at what its stated purpose and activities are said to be and limited to.

But Rog, these TMs were filed around 1969 by the CofS. COSRECI wasn't formed until 1976/7. The TM ownership wasn't transferred to COSRECI, was it?

But the TM ownership by CofS (whatever corp it was) couldn't help too much with whatever status they were pretending to have at the time. I bet it wasn't as a commercial company.

Paul

 

[RogerB]

But Rog, these TMs were filed around 1969 by the CofS. COSRECI wasn't formed until 1976/7. The TM ownership wasn't transferred to COSRECI, was it?

But the TM ownership by CofS (whatever corp it was) couldn't help too much with whatever status they were pretending to have at the time. I bet it wasn't as a commercial company.

Paul

Hey you trying to make my life difficult? Here I am trying to be brilliant and what do I get ??

These TMs listed below were acquired or held after COSRECI was officially registered by the government in Adelaide on 19 October 1976, but note formation of COSRECI occurred earlier by some weeks or more.

What of the earlier TMs the church continued to hold in possession of its members . . . would be revealed with a little bit of further on-line investigation. But the facts as available demonstrate the violations I am stating.

Viskaldix: 09 Nov 1976. 117505
Caterpillar Symbol: 08 Oct 1976. 117201
Miacalcic: 08 Oct 1976. 117202
Tiotilin: 06 Dec 1977. 121924
Noveril: 06 April 1978. 123101
Blowex: 30 Jan 1979. 126729
Safrotin: 30 Jan 1979. 126730
Sandoz-Vac: 29 June 1979. 128620
Sirdalud: 09 March 1981. 136289

Rog

 

[Dulloldfart]

Hey you trying to make my life difficult? Here I am trying to be brilliant and what do I get ??

These TMs listed below were acquired or held after COSRECI was officially registered by the government in Adelaide on 19 October 1976, but note formation of COSRECI occurred earlier by some weeks or more.

What of the earlier TMs the church continued to hold in possession of its members . . . would be revealed with a little bit of further on-line investigation. But the facts as available demonstrate the violations I am stating.

Viskaldix: 09 Nov 1976. 117505
Caterpillar Symbol: 08 Oct 1976. 117201
Miacalcic: 08 Oct 1976. 117202
Tiotilin: 06 Dec 1977. 121924
Noveril: 06 April 1978. 123101
Blowex: 30 Jan 1979. 126729
Safrotin: 30 Jan 1979. 126730
Sandoz-Vac: 29 June 1979. 128620
Sirdalud: 09 March 1981. 136289

Rog

But that was at the end of the bulletin!

Sorry. I didn't check more than the first two. But one of the above I just looked at. Blowex. (Great name!). Agreed it's after COSRECI was established. But the proprietor is still "Church of Scientology Incorporated", not COSRECI.

Do you think that is an abbreviation for COSRECI?

Paul

 

[slimjim]

Church of Scientology Religious Education College, Inc. = Cosreci

 

[mate]

These may answer Paul's speculation.


Name THE CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INCORPORATED
State SA
RegN A3376
Type Associations
Registration Date Unknown
Next Review Date Unknown
Status Registered


Name THE CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INCORPORATED
ARBN 008 387 531
Type Registered Australian Body
Registration Date 25/05/1984
Next Review Date Unknown
Status Deregistered
Date Deregistered 26/08/2008
Jurisdiction Australian Securities & Investments Commission
Previous State ACT
Previous Number CF00009022

These are the documents that ASIC has most recently received from or in relation to this organisation. Page numbers are shown if processing is complete and the document is available for purchase.

Date ........... Number..........Pages..........Description
16/01/2006....021466915.....34...............9201 Pr3e 1991 Company Doc.s
08/01/1998....013217423......2................304 Notification Of
..........................................................304A Change to Officeholders of
...........................................................Australian Company
...........................................................304C Change of Name or Address of
...........................................................Officeholder
22/12/1997.....013306233......1.................203C Notification of Change of
............................................................Address in Australia

David

 

[RogerB]

But that was at the end of the bulletin!

Sorry. I didn't check more than the first two. But one of the above I just looked at. Blowex. (Great name!). Agreed it's after COSRECI was established. But the proprietor is still "Church of Scientology Incorporated", not COSRECI.

Do you think that is an abbreviation for COSRECI?

Paul

Jesus, mate, you trying to wear me thin?

Read the fuggen incorporation document of COSRECI . . . "Church of Scientology Incorporated (Australia)" is a member of COSRECI . . . the first member listed and from which, and from whose address, all this emanated.

R

 

[scooter]

I do hope that a certain South Australian Senator's office has been alerted to this - something else for him to bring up in his arguments to push for a Senate enquiry.

Nice bit of detective work from those involved.

OSAspawn - blow now and bring doc.s - it'll give you better protection from prosecution.

 

[Dulloldfart]

Jesus, mate, you trying to wear me thin?

Read the fuggen incorporation document of COSRECI . . . "Church of Scientology Incorporated (Australia)" is a member of COSRECI . . . the first member listed and from which, and from whose address, all this emanated.

You can't get rid of me that easily, Rog.

I don't understand it. These seem like different corporate entities.

Earliest TM, THURICIDE, filed 1959 by: CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INCORPORATED. 24-28 Waymouth Street, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia

Latest TM, SIRDALUD, filed 1981, same proprietor name and address.

-----

David's answers a couple of posts back I don't get the significance of. Is the 1959 entity the same one that was registered in 1984?

-----

The Church of Scientology [CofS] Incorporated (Australia) is indeed a member of COSRECI. But STF what? So also is:

CofS AOSH (Denmark)
CofS Belgium
CofS British Columbia
CofS Copenhagen
CofS Denmark
CofS France
...
CofS Scotland.

That list of "members" is flim-flam of the highest order.

Paul

 

[RogerB]

Mate, this info I quote from your post above is at variance with historical record . . . there is something amiss . . . and to unravel it one has to very diligent at looking at EVERY word . . . .

YOur report above states:

Name THE CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INCORPORATED
ARBN 008 387 531
Type Registered Australian Body
Registration Date 25/05/1984
Next Review Date Unknown
Status Deregistered
Date Deregistered 26/08/2008

Note, the name stated above is "The Church of Scientology Incorporated.

But the founding member of COSRECI is stated to be "Church of Scientology Incorporated (Australia)"

Note the difference . . no "The" and absence of "(Australia)" . . . . these variables make a difference as to which actual entity . . . i.e. corporation or operating body is being referenced.

Note the Registration and Deregistration dates of the entity you cite . . . . based on this info it is certainly not the COSRECI founding member.

Rog

 

[RogerB]

I do hope that a certain South Australian Senator's office has been alerted to this - something else for him to bring up in his arguments to push for a Senate enquiry.

Nice bit of detective work from those involved.

OSAspawn - blow now and bring doc.s - it'll give you better protection from prosecution.

Hey Scoots, you're up early and on the ball as usual:wink2:

This stuff is live and being developed as we speak. . . and yes is has been brought to the attention of those who can make best use of it

It's nice to feel that all those dreary years of doing investigation analysis is now bringing some "joy" to a higher cause

PS: edit; did you see the other stuff on the UK Scientology's Tax Evasion and Money Laundering thread?

Rog

 

[RSG]

Has this been cross-posted to WhyWeProtest yet? If not, I'm doing it right now. The hive will have plenty of members willing and knowledgeable to sift through patent/trademark websites to find more dox on these...


Edit: Never mind, I've been beaten to it:
http://forums.whyweprotest.net/291-scientology-discussion/cos-owns-psych-drug-patents-60163/

Keep an eye on that thread, too...

 

[sallydannce]

Has this been cross-posted to WhyWeProtest yet? If not, I'm doing it right now. The hive will have plenty of members willing and knowledgeable to sift through patent/trademark websites to find more dox on these...

Yes.

http://forums.whyweprotest.net/291-scientology-discussion/cos-owns-psych-drug-patents-60163

 

[mate]

Hi Rog, here is the link to the Australian National Names Index.

http://www.search.asic.gov.au/gns001.html

and simply type in "Church of Scientology" and it will list every name which includes these words.

Rog, I list two entities, the first is the original registered association, which is still registered, and the second is a corporate PTY LTD which has been deregistered

Regards, David.

Mate, this info I quote from your post above is at variance with historical record . . . there is something amiss . . . and to unravel it one has to very diligent at looking at EVERY word . . . .

YOur report above states:


Note, the name stated above is "The Church of Scientology Incorporated.

But the founding member of COSRECI is stated to be "Church of Scientology Incorporated (Australia)"

Note the difference . . no "The" and absence of "(Australia)" . . . . these variables make a difference as to which actual entity . . . i.e. corporation or operating body is being referenced.

Note the Registration and Deregistration dates of the entity you cite . . . . based on this info it is certainly not the COSRECI founding member.

Rog

 

[Dulloldfart]

Hi Rog, here is the link to the Australian National Names Index.

http://www.search.asic.gov.au/gns001.html

and simply type in "Church of Scientology" and it will list every name which includes these words.

Great, thanks.

Type in just "scientology" and select "all names" and it brings up 17 different entities to play with.

Paul

 

[mate]

Hi Rog,
So as you have discovered, there was never that exact name registered here in Australia, it may well be that that name was registered in the UK. Or there is perhaps another possibility, in the it may be intentional, so that there would be no "actual" members. And if this is challenged, they could say that it was a typographical error.

Just a thought.

Regards, David.

Mate, this info I quote from your post above is at variance with historical record . . . there is something amiss . . . and to unravel it one has to very diligent at looking at EVERY word . . . .
...

 

[aaron saxton]

the IAS IS Important

I put the IAS into the title because look when the trademark ends... 1981...

If Scientology wanted to avoid connections, they would register any new patents and trademarks under companies that could not be traced to C of S probably.

The IAS could establish these businesses anywhere in the world. Look beyond the fact that a "Church of Scientology" held these.

In 1981-1983 we saw the creation of a vast number of organizations corporately. Any number of these (known about and UNKNOWN about) could hold trademarks or patents.

Time to look outside the square, way outside the square to find these hidden corporations and business entites we do not know about and what they hold and who they pay money to for royalties etc.

Part of successful data analysis is to discover what you do not know. And we have not uncovered all the Church's legal owned entites. Until we do and investigate their assets and income streams, we really do not know the extent of their operations or income worldwide.

The IAS has been busy in Europe. Lets find out what they have been up to...

 

[RogerB]

This can be Complex Shit . . . .

Fellas,

This can be complex shit. I'm out of date on the Oz scene . . . I took off to the UK in 1965, and now when I make occasional visits I feel like a bloody tourist! The place has changed! Ditto for my current knowledge of the UK scene . . . I last lived there in 1979-80.

Here's the drill on Oz as it was at the critical period of time between 1960 and 1980.

Each State in Oz had its own business name, corporations registery. This is the same scene in the USA. In the UK there is and has only been one "Companies Registery office" . . . but note that word "companies" . . . . there may well have been local county business name registeries in the UK . . . as in one for London and one for major centers like Birmingham, Manchester, etc. This is the actual scene in the US and the state of NY . . . . in NY there is one state company register, but New York City and each of its Burroughs and each major city in the state has its own local Business Name Register.

Note I am using two different title disignations for these business or operation entity styles or names: that of a) a business name (unincorported in England and the US) . . . this is what you as an individual or partnership had to register if you chose to do business in other than your real name and b) limited liability joint stock companies . . . these by legal definition are not "real persons" but "legal persons".

The names used by the various registeries get confusing and tricky. The word company, in all of this does not mean incorporated with limited liability . . . . that is and can only be designated by the appendage or use of the words such as (and it varies between the countries I am referring to here) Corporation, Incorporated, Inc. Limited, Ltd; Pty. Ltd. Meaning private limited liability company, and in England PLC which I know you are familiar with.

The word "company" by the way, even in this business context, only means a group of people. It can, additionally, be used to refer to a corporate limited liability entity.

The word "Incorporated" as used in Adelaide appears not to mean the same as it does in the USA . . . . it appears to mean (you locals should check it up) that it is not a limited liability entity but one merely incorporated in the sense that the "company" (with and in the meaning here as that of a group of people) have come together to bring into being (incorporated) an association to operate as a single entity rather than as a bunch of individuals..

This is the tricky part in all this . . . . you have to get the local legal definition of the use of these words

So, back to Oz. While there may be a "National Names Index" that will be helpful to search, one has to search each of the Business Name/Company registery offices in each State. I know this as I have had Business names registered in both Melbourne and Sydney in my old days.

Be alert to these variations on a basic theme of a name, and also as to whether the entity is merely a business name, association, or "legal person" corporation incorporated with limited liability.

My reading of the Charter of COSRECI indicates it is NOT a corporate entity incorporated with limited liability with membership by way of shareholdings as is the case with your typical joint stock "company" you are familiar with. And this appears to be the case with each of its member churches with the exception of the Sth. African member which is designated as a Pty Limited liability corporation.

The original HASI (in Melbourne) was a Pty Ltd (a corporation incorporated with limited liability and, as such, a "legal person" whose membership was by way of shareholdings . . . I was a shareholder in the Melbourne "Hubbard Association of Scientologists International, Pty Ltd" from April, 1960.

Sorry to be pedantic about all this, but this shit is nuanced, and one has to get into the very nitty-gritty little bits of it particularly when one is crossing legal jurisdictions with their particular different ways of word and concept usage.

PS: final edit thought. Remember each state in Oz is a sovereign state with its own government and parliament, and own laws .. . . . hence the need to check the registries of each state. Oz is a "Commonwealth" of the sovereign states, just as the USA is which has the same independent statehood scene that Oz has. The UK was and may still be different. It was one sovereign entity, though recently changed and we might now even have a company registrar for Scotland, Wales, N. Ireland as well as the original "Companies House."

Rog

 

[mate]

Hi Rog.
Things did change, since the '60s and '70s. The States' data bases were combined into a national data base (see Note). There is still continuing conversion of the states' non-electronic data bases of filed documents. All names have been transferred, so that when going to a state government website to check out the availability of a"name", you are linked to the national, or ASIC, site. Does this make sense?

ASIC was originally formed as the Australian Securities Commission (ASC), which came into being on 1 January 1991 in accordance with the ASIC Act 1989. The purpose of ASC was to unify corporate regulators around Australia by replacing the National Companies and Securities Commission and the Corporate Affairs offices of the states and territories.

The corporate regulator became the Australian Securities & Investments Commission (ASIC) on 1 July 1998, when it also became responsible for consumer protection in superannuation, insurance, deposit taking and, from 2002, credit.

Rog. ever time I see you sig line, "Life is supposed to be enjoyed, Mate!", I wonder whether I am enjoying life!!!!!

Regards, David.

 

[aaron saxton]

Hello Researchers

Please try and remember Golden Era Productions buys super huge amounts of GOLD, and diamonds.

When do they buy? When do they sell? If they say it is 24 ct. gold, is it?

Throw this thought out very wide to all Scn entities across the globe. We may be very surprised how large their finanicial empire is.

Titanium plates ofr Archives... gold plates for archives...gold e-meters etc. etc.

Remember, a billion in reserves is enough to cover options on shares for over 10 billion...