ESMB has entered archive mode. All posts and threads that were available to the general public are still readable. The board is still searchable. 

Thank you all for your participation and readership over the last 12 years.

If you want to join in the conversation, please join the new ESMB Redux at www.exscn2.net.



Did Everyone Know But Me That

Discussion in 'General Scientology Discussion' started by phenomanon, Jul 18, 2014.

View Users: View Users
  1. phenomanon

    phenomanon Canyon

    BTW, I am not "pseudoanonymous" as you said.
    My name is Jana Moreillon. I posted on ARS and OCMB as Ladayla. I have posted here as Challenge and Phenomanon.
    My true name is Jana Moreillon. I
    started using 'nicks' originally because I was on their Net Nanny list as an enemy, and I wanted to be read by scn'ists who were surfing these sites.
     
  2. NoName

    NoName A Girl Has No Name

    So are the die-hard corporate Scn'ists still drinking Calm? Just wondering, as most of the out-under-the-radar crowd I know still uses it. But most of my friends still believe in the Tekk to some degree or other.
     
  3. RogerB

    RogerB Crusader

    Yes, and it is in fact another of Hubb's errors in that Magnesium oxide is very poorly absorbed in the body . . . the smart move is to get chelated calcium and magnesium . . . although I avoid calcium as a supplement like the plague and just go for the Mg.

    Hubbs went on about cal-mag calming the nerves and all that tripe . . . in actuality Mg is required as part of several hundred (I've seen different figures going as high as 700) enzyme actions/reactions in the body. Without it you are in deep strife and the last figure I saw stated 80% of the US population are deficient.

    R
     
  4. RogerB

    RogerB Crusader

    Thanks Jana,

    Yes, knowing Peter, I can understand he is still a believer . . . maybe because he hasn't been abused enough yet.

    Give them time, even he will get pissed at them.

    We don't have the why of the declare and what the alleged high crimes are, but suing a Scn in a wog outside of Scn (choke) jurisprudence is stated as a violation of all "things right and proper."

    One of his daughters posts/visits here sometimes (infrequently).

    But, I am surprised that he hasn't come to the conclusion that "the Bridge" is a bridge to nowhere . . . he must have done it all by now: he certainly had the wealth needed to do it all . . . and he's older than even you and me! What has he been doing for his last 80+ years?!?:biggrin:

    Rog
     
  5. Infinite

    Infinite Troublesome Internet Fringe Dweller

    Yes! I have only just recently become aware of the role of magnesium upon the physical body. I doubt very much that 80% of the US population is "magnesium defficient". The only place where I have seen this figure presented is on internet sites selling magnesium as a supplement. What you won't find on those sites is details of how to enhance magnesium intake naturally. For example:

    Just like Narconon's "76% percent success rate", I suspect the "80% of the population claim" is about generating cash by misleading people. In this case, the idea is to lead people into thinking they should "supplement" their diet rather than change it a little bit.

    Mind you, I'm a cynic.
     
  6. i left fcdc and went to driving cab in new york which i found to be quite relaxing...
     
  7. Smurf

    Smurf Gold Meritorious SP

    "What about Bradford Bernstein, CPA? He was on the IRS Defensible Records Project run by the Guardian Office. Now he works at Greenberg & Jackson, an accountancy firm started by Marty Greenberg (long-time crony of Hubbard) and James ("Jim") J. Jackson, another loyal Scieno [and one-time "minute man" for the cult's department 20]."

    http://www.lermanet.com/reference/corporatesham.htm
     
  8. AnonyMary

    AnonyMary Formerly Fooled - Finally Free

    Yeah, Brad left the GO and went to work for G&J back in the late 70s early 80s as a tax preparer and then accountant. Got his CPA license. Marty Greenberg was at one time LRH's personal accountant for up until 81' or 82', when he retired. Jim ran the business part. Brad was just an employee until Jim started moving on out of the office...AFAIK, Jim's only work for Dept 20 was accounting and later when he became an attorney ( in 90' or 91' ) he worked some CCHR / anti pharma lawsuits. He represented Hernandez as his tax accountant and later as one of the attorneys in the Hernandez vs IRS precedent making case. After that I believe he steered clear of church related stuff, working in private practice.

    Brad was a solid citizen type of guy compared to most GO types. Marty was part of the GO too at one time, as part of the tax team. These guys were not one for digging n trash cans for dirt. More like professionals who allowed their services to be used for the 'greater good' thing.
     
  9. CommunicatorIC

    CommunicatorIC @IndieScieNews on Twitter

    If it is true that Jim Jackson has been Declared, it is going to be a HUGE mess.

    Applying the disconnection rules, will the partnership (or professional corporation, of whatever) have to be dissolved?

    Also, as I recall, this accounting firm is the "go to" firm for Scientologists and Scientology businesses. Will they all have to stop doing business with Jackson?

    If it is true that Jim Jackson has been Declared, it IMHO would have a greater impact that Peter being declared.

    If true, this is HUGE.

    EDITED TO ADD:

    Interestingly, James Jackson has his own, separate tax firm separate from Grreenberg and Jackson:

    James J. Jackson
    http://jacksontaxatty.com/
    The thing I find interesting and, to be honest, confusing, is that the domain was registered on 1/28/11, which indicates the domain was not registered, nor the separate, individual tax business created, in response to being recently Declared.
    Then again, it was updated 12/30/13, so who knows?
     
  10. degraded being

    degraded being Sponsor

    He might have known it would come someday......
     
  11. CommunicatorIC

    CommunicatorIC @IndieScieNews on Twitter

    Looking into this further, it appears that either: (a) James Jackson is still an owner of Greenberg and Jackson; or (b) Greenberg and Jackson is arguably continuing to use Jackson's name in violation of the law. My reasoning is as follows.

    First, Greenberg and Jackson is a professional accountancy corporation:

    http://www2.dca.ca.gov/pls/wllpub/WLLQRYNA$LCEV2.QueryView?P_LICENSE_NUMBER=1162&P_LTE_ID=781
    Secondly, the California Board of Accountancy explains:

    http://www.dca.ca.gov/cba/firm_info/cor.shtml#firmname

    http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=BPC&sectionNum=5060.
    It appears that IF Jackson is no longer a co-owner of Greenberg and Jackson, then the practice by that firm of public accountancy under the firm name "Greenberg and Jackson" would arguably be "false or misleading." That is particularly true where, as here, Jackson is not deceased, but instead is (hypothetically) practicing public accountancy with his own, separate firm.

    As noted above, an "accountancy corporation must renew its license every two years to retain practice rights." It might be interesting to see if Greenberg and Jackson changes its name in the next two years.
     
  12. Karen#1

    Karen#1 Gold Meritorious Patron

    As I understood it, while talking with Jim (in years gone by) about this very issue, Brad Bernstein bought out Jim Jackson's partnership.
    However, Greenberg and Jackson is a "Brand" name in the Scientology public's mind for tax returns and all tax matters.
    Part of the closing agreement was the name could stand as is, even with Jim gone.
    There was no animosity at the dissolution of the partnership.
     
  13. Gib

    Gib Crusader

    Would that be the same as with Mace-Kingsly or whatever those woman started but are not involved anymore?

    I don't know, maybe you do.
     
  14. AnonyMary

    AnonyMary Formerly Fooled - Finally Free

    Communicator I/C, you seem to not be getting the point that Jim is not a working partner in G&J and has not been so for many many years. He's probably an officer of the corp, and by name only. Brads has been running things alone for over 20 years. Everyone in Los Angeles who uses that company knows this. I bet most don't even know who Jim and Marty Greenberg even are, as they both have been long gone from the day to day scene in CA for many years.

    Greenberg & Jackson is a firm. Even after an founding attorney retires, many a law firm will keep the founder's name in the firm title because of the goodwill and reputation the name has retained over the years.

    So I am not sure where you got the idea that G&J customers would be effected. Jim has had nothing to do with the operations of that business. He has been in business in DC and FL since the early 90s. Mainly as an attorney specializing in taxes. Most long timer scientologists know of them, or have Jim as their CPA in FL or tax attorney in either state. But how many scientologists need a tax attorney? He probably kept a few select CA clients of his own out or they came to him in FL.

    In FL he's been working under an incorporated as a business for the CPA work since 2003 ( James Jackson, Inc ) and in 2006 converted that to a professional corp for the practice of law ( James Jackson, PA ) JAMES JACKSON, P.A.
    http://search.sunbiz.org/Inquiry/Co...c0-4a1e-ae41-9ca194c6c1ab/James Jackson/Page1

    He's been an active member of the DC Bar Association since 1993
    James J Jackson
    Attorney at Law
    411 Cleveland Street
    #182
    Clearwater FL 33755
    Email: Email
    Phone: 727-446-6848
    Fax:
    Membership Status: Active
    Disciplinary history: No
    Date of admission: December 6, 1993

    There is nothing nefarious about his website. I gather he just finally decided to create one to keep up with things. If anyone was effected by his being declared ( if indeed he is declared ) it would be scientologist friends and clients in FL and DC.
     
  15. phenomanon

    phenomanon Canyon

    The majority of those foods cannot be digested by those of us with Diverticulitis. The only things I see on there that I can eat are Spinach and some of the Herbs. Maybe Cereal. No seeds. No nuts.
     
  16. phenomanon

    phenomanon Canyon

    Debbie and Carol are no longer involved with Mace-Kingsly?
     
  17. CommunicatorIC

    CommunicatorIC @IndieScieNews on Twitter

    No, I do get that, and always did. It also is irrelevant to my analysis.
    Being an officer, and also likely a co-owner, even if in "name only," would make all the difference under California Business and Professions Code section 5060. Being an officer, and also likely co-owner, even if "in name only" (which limitation would not be binding on third parties) would make him legally responsible for the firm, and consumers would arguably not be misled.

    The point I was trying to raise is whether it would be proper to continue to use his Jackson's name in the firm name if (or after) he was no longer an officer and/or owner "in name only" because he had been declared and the firm had to disconnect.
    That is true when an attorney dies, or retires. That is not true when an attorney leaves a firm but continues to actively practice law.

    While I couldn't find any clearly controlling legal authority, one leading California legal treatise explains that:
    See P. Vapnek, M. Tuft, E. Peck & H. Wiener, California Practice Guide: Professional Responsibility, sec. 2:133 (Rutter Group 2013) (citing Matter of Miller (Rev.Dept. 1993) 2 Cal. State Bar Ct.Rptr. 423, 435–436; see ABA Model Rule 7.5, Comment (1)). [Sorry, the Rutter treatise is proprietary and I don't have a web link.]

    A bit more generally with respect to attorneys, California Rule of Professional Conduct Rule 1-400, Standard 7, prohibits as misleading:
    Obviusly the above concerns that standards applicable to attorneys. By analogy, however, I don't think it is unreasonable to suspect that a name of a publicly accuntancy firm that includes an active (not deceased, not retired) public accountant who has no ownership, employment or professional relationship with the firm, and is in fact practicing on his own, is likewise misleading under California Business and Professions Code section 5060. Could I be wrong? Of course. But given the above I really don't think my analysis is unreasonable.

    To summarize and in short, the firm name of Greenberg and Jackson necessarily implies that Jackson, a public accountant who is active and is currently practicing, has an interest in the firm. The argument (analogizing to the above discussion re: attorneys) is that such necessary implication is misleading under California Business and Professions Code section 5060 if, in fact, Jackson has no interest in the firm.
    I never suggested that either Jackson or any of his websites were "nefarious," or that Jackson is doing anything wrong or in violation of any statute. I only suggested the possibility that the accountant owners of the Greenberg and Jackson firm were using a misleading firm name in violation of California Business and Professions Code section 5060 by continuing to use Jackson's name in the firm name if, in fact, Jackson no longer has any interest in the business.
     
    Last edited: Jul 20, 2014
  18. bitse

    bitse New Member

    I heard Jackson might be announcing his candidacy. That could really be interesting.
     
  19. CommunicatorIC

    CommunicatorIC @IndieScieNews on Twitter

    James Jackson, formerly of Greenberg and Jackson, has left the Church of Scientology

    James Jackson, formerly of Greenberg and Jackson, has left the Church of Scientology.

    Today's post by Tony Ortega makes it clear that James Jackson is out of the Church of Scientology.

    Longtime Scientologist Jim Jackson remembers Lyman Spurlock, 1945-2014
    http://tonyortega.org/2014/09/09/lo...m-jackson-remembers-lyman-spurlock-1945-2014/

    In addition to the fact that James's letter was sent to Tony and posted on his site, the letter concludes:
     
    Last edited: Sep 9, 2014
  20. Leland

    Leland Crusader

    Re: James Jackson is out of the corporate Church of Scientology


    This is pretty big news IMO. Deserves its own thread IMO.

    I was under the impression that Greenberg and Jackson were pretty big...."scientology" Wheels in Los Angeles.

    If Jackson is giving that up......that says several things to me.

    #1....Old timer leaving.
    #2... Will have to be disconnected from
    #3...If this company had a lot of other "scientology businesses and WISE businesses".....then all those will have to disconnect from G&J.

    I could speculate from this that WISE businesses are on the down slope.....and might not be as good a revenue source as they once were.

    Of course...maybe he just got fed up.....

    EDIT....foot in mouth again....geeze....I will read posts above....