Clinton helped Scientology? I'm still watching Travolta's Inside the Actor's Studio, and I had to post this because I had never heard of this before! Start at 2:00 Now this could either be true OR be more along the lines of the "Miscavige walking into the IRS building unannounced and getting tax-exemption" BS!
Re: Clinton helped Scientology? those remarks are atleast part spin Scientology's Government Sting but there was definitely clinton cox sucking done by Cruise & Travolta in tag-team style before travolta did the clinton flick. i was following the media on it bak then and already knew a good bit about the cult's bs and couldnt believe US was given them support like "oh nothing wrong here" despite everything done to the IRS and all the court case settlements. it was unfcking believable. and i suscribe religiously to the newsletter that monica & the blue dress blow job fiasco was clinton getting his just rewards for letting the scilons lick his balls. AND... this is why it was NOT a good thing that hilary got the secretary of state role, way too much past collusion imo, and my letter sent to obama yesterday pointed it out.
Re: Clinton helped Scientology? Hmmmm...Think it's time for Anonymous to do a giant letter writing to our new President?
Re: Clinton helped Scientology? Related academic article for those who haven't yet seen it...Dr Stephen Kent of the University of Alberta: topwhite1.gif check out more of Kent's anti-cult, anti-sci work on his U of A web-site Stephen Kent, Ph.D. - Scientology
Re: Clinton helped Scientology? Let's see... "Primary Colors" was released in 1998, so JT would have been "in prep" something like 1996-1997; so let's use that as the time frame for the meeting with Clinton. News archive searches show that Clinton did a fundraiser in Philadelphia in April 1996, an election fundraiser, and that would be a sufficiently important function to bring out JT (not only to donate to the Dems, but also for researching how a president behaves in an election). Around this time, Chick Corea was making a flap about the German government's stance on Scientology. Then in July 1996, which would be a "few months" after what we're assuming would be the April meeting, Congressman Gilman, then-Chairman of the International Relations Committee, wrote a letter to the Secretary of State to intervene on Corea's behalf. Come the next Congress, there is introduced a resolution condemning Germany for religious intolerance: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=105_cong_bills&docid=f:hc22ih.txt.pdf It fails (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1997/roll625.xml) so they try again next Congress: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=106_cong_bills&docid=f:hr388ih.txt.pdf It also fails, so they stop trying.
Re: Clinton helped Scientology? This paper provides a good history of Scientology's use of celebrities to influence American politics and other related information. (also mentions the backlash regarding the Nazi uniform fiasco) Thanks for posting it. Kent is one of the few academics who specializes in Scientology research.
Re: Clinton helped Scientology? cults: scientology: TRAVOLTA ADMITS BILL (Clinton) USED SECTS APPEAL TO WOO HIM
Re: Clinton helped Scientology? Yes, Clinton used the State Department to help Scientology. Cultgate Updates And now a new Clinton will be able to use the State Department at will. It is reported that Berger briefed Travolta like he was a Senior Senator. Berger, known for stuffing his pants with classified documents, is no doubt still helping the Clintons. He?s back: Sandy Berger now advising Hillary Clinton - Examiner.com
Re: Clinton helped Scientology? It also seemed to be focused on Travolta's role in this one film. Considering we know how Clinton traded jobs for favors (Revlon anyone?) I don't see this as any reflection on our soon-to-be Secretary of State.
Re: Clinton helped Scientology? Clinton did help Scientology. Travolta actually got a senatorial level security briefing from National Security Advisor Sandy Burger, concerning Germany. Clinton refused to respond to a newspaper's request asking who his Scientologist roomate was in college. In the following legal case, a White House representative refused to respond to deposition questions that the White House had input to the IRS exemption decision, citing "National Security." [EXCERPT] Schoenfeld did admit to signing off on the ruling letters, along with the entire negotiating committee. He admitted that the major decisions were made by the negotiating committee: "I just want to reiterate that the decisions, or the substantive decisions, were by the negotiating committee, including me -- myself -- as to all matters of substance in the handling of the exemption applications." But Schoenfeld would not respond to queries whether there was any White House or Treasury Department contact or correspondence regarding the applications. 95 TNT 123-8 (JUNE 26, 1995) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * News Stories (NEW) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * DETAILS OF SCIENTOLOGY CLOSING AGREEMENT SLOWLY COMING OUT. HIGHLIGHT: Following the recognition by the IRS of the tax-exempt status of numerous Scientology organizations on October 1, 1993, Tax Analysts, in a Freedom of Information Act request dated November 10, 1993, sought the underlying closing agreement, contending that it was part of the administrative record in these cases and hence subject to disclosure under section 6104. The IRS denied the request, contending that the closing agreement contained return information not subject to disclosure under section 6103. Tax Analysts then filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, seeking release of the closing agreement and all other closing agreements pertaining to exempt organizations since December 31, 1992. In response to interrogatories, Jonathan Jackel, who is the trial attorney with the Tax Division of the Department of Justice assigned to the case, did lay out what appears to be the government's main defense to release of the closing agreements: "All information described by plaintiff that is not available to the public by virtue of I.R.C. sections 6104 or 6110 is confidential return information under section 6103|." Section 6103 provides that "returns and return information shall be confidential." Section 6104, however, provides for the public disclosure of information submitted to the IRS by tax-exempt organizations. Hence, one of Tax Analysts's arguments is: If the IRS agreed to recognize Scientology organizations as tax-exempt under a closing agreement, should that agreement not be subject to public disclosure under section 6104? The Service, perhaps recognizing the logic of that argument, has forcefully asserted that even though the exemption rulings followed the closing agreement, the agreement did not serve as the basis for the rulings. However, the off-track processing by the Service in advance of, and after, the final "formal" exemption applications were filed leaves that assertion unsupported. AUTHOR(s): Streckfus, Paul CORPORATE SOURCE: Tax Analysts TEXT: Following the recognition by the IRS of the tax-exempt status of numerous Scientology organizations on October 1, 1993, Tax Analysts, in a Freedom of Information Act request dated November 10, 1993, sought the underlying closing agreement, contending that it was part of the administrative record in these cases and hence subject to disclosure under section 6104. The IRS denied the request, contending that the closing agreement contained return information not subject to disclosure under section 6103. Tax Analysts then filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, seeking release of the closing agreement and all other closing agreements pertaining to exempt organizations since December 31, 1992. In response to interrogatories, Jonathan Jackel, who is the trial attorney with the Tax Division of the Department of Justice assigned to the case, did lay out what appears to be the government's main defense to release of the closing agreements: "All information described by plaintiff that is not available to the public by virtue of I.R.C. sections 6104 or 6110 is confidential return information under section 6103|." Section 6103 provides that "returns and return information shall be confidential." Section 6104, however, provides for the public disclosure of information submitted to the IRS by tax-exempt organizations. Hence, one of Tax Analysts's arguments is: If the IRS agreed to recognize Scientology organizations as tax-exempt under a closing agreement, should that agreement not be subject to public disclosure under section 6104? The Service, perhaps recognizing the logic of that argument, has forcefully asserted that even though the exemption rulings followed the closing agreement, the agreement did not serve as the basis for the rulings. However, the off-track processing by the Service in advance of, and after, the final "formal" exemption applications were filed leaves that assertion unsupported. Depositions Start Telling Story Following the interrogatories, Tax Analysts deposed five senior IRS officials involved in some way with the Scientology closing agreement. "I'm not aware of any direction ever being given that told a tax law specialist not to review an administrative file in preparing their recommendation on a case," according to Jeanne S. Gessay, chief of the IRS ruling branch to which the Scientology exemption applications were assigned. Yet that was what was happening in her branch involving tax law specialists under her supervision. The limited scope of branch review was outlined in a file memo prepared by tax law specialist Terrill Berkovsky in the case of the Church of Scientology, Western United States: "The issues regarding inurement, private benefit, public policy, and whether the organization is involved in commercial activities have| not been addressed in this file memorandum as the negotiation committee involved in the closing agreement| made the determination that there was no inurement, private benefit, or commercial activities that would prohibit recognition of exempt status. This request to affirm organization's exempt status was processed as part of settlement negotiations and in accordance with special instructions from the negotiations committee. The committee was chaired by Howard Schoenfeld." Yet, according to Jay Rotz, executive assistant to the director of the IRS Exempt Organizations Division, who did review the applications, the tax law specialists were not under instructions to ignore issues of inurement, private benefit, and commerciality. But he did say that "by the time the applications were submitted, it's my understanding that those issues had been resolved at that point." Later, Howard Schoenfeld, special assistant in the IRS Office of Assistant Commissioner (Employee Plans and Exempt Organizations), did confirm that directions had been given to tax law specialists in Gessay's branch. Schoenfeld was asked: "Have you ever directed a tax law specialist not to examine an application for such technical issues?" referring to "inurement, private benefit and commerciality"|. He responded in his deposition: "There came a time when I did ask that the tax law specialist not make or consider any substantive matters relating to an application." At Jackel's behest, Schoenfeld did offer the following clarification: "In the particular situation, the responsibility, the substantive responsibility, did not belong to the tax law specialist for making substantive decisions in the case. They were only responsible for the procedural aspects of the case. So that's why the request was made as it was. The responsibility for all the decisions in the case was not the responsibilities of the persons who actually handled and processed the case for procedural purposes." James J. McGovern, the current assistant commissioner (EP/EO), testified in the same vein. He was asked: "Did the negotiations committee issue special instructions regarding the processing of the Scientology exemption| applications which ultimately led to the issuance of the favorable exemption| ruling letters?" McGovern responded: "They the people who normally process ruling letters| were advised that those matters technical issues| had been reviewed and a decision has been made with respect to them." He was then asked: "Prior to those applications being received by the tax law specialists?" In what appears to be a significant admission, McGovern answered affirmatively. Who Signed for Whom? Gessay admitted that the exemption rulings to the Church of Scientology had her signature on them, but she said she had no responsibility for their review and took no part in the review process. Instead, responsibility rested with Rotz. Rotz confirmed that he had signed for Gessay, but could not recall if the assistant commissioner (EP/EO) signed off on those ruling letters. Nor was Rotz familiar with the closing agreement with the Scientologists. He explained that his role was strictly procedural, that the applications had been "physically handed" to him by Schoenfeld, and that he had received special instructions. Asked if the Scientology applications had been "considered and reviewed in accordance with these typical procedures," Rotz said no. Instead, he admitted that special procedures were adopted for the handling of the Scientology applications. Interestingly, the EO Division director, Marc Owens, who is Rotz's immediate superior, was recused from the processing of the Scientology applications. When asked if he was "aware of how your division handled and processed the applications submitted by the Scientology applicants," he answered no. Schoenfeld did admit to signing off on the ruling letters, along with the entire negotiating committee. He admitted that the major decisions were made by the negotiating committee: "I just want to reiterate that the decisions, or the substantive decisions, were by the negotiating committee, including me -- myself -- as to all matters of substance in the handling of the exemption applications." But Schoenfeld would not respond to queries whether there was any White House or Treasury Department contact or correspondence regarding the applications. Schoenfeld conceded that the processing that occurred in the exempt organizations division was strictly procedural, not substantive: " The tax law specialists were| to prepare the ruling letters to insure that they would satisfy all the procedural requirements that were necessary and outstanding at that time." The tax law specialists were not to evaluate the Scientology applications for issues of inurement or "any other substantive issues," including issues of private benefit and commerciality. They were so advised on his authority, he admitted. Decision Time at Issue The IRS contends that the decision to grant exemption to the Scientologists was made after August 30, 1993, when it appears that the actual decision to grant exemption must have been made before that date -- as part of the closing agreement with the Scientologists. When asked about the IRS review of the Scientology applications, Schoenfeld at least admitted there was some pre-August 30, 1993, information on which the IRS relied: "That review took place at the time of the receipt of the exemption applications and including times prior to the receipt of those exemption applications when matters relating to tax-exempt status and other issues were under consideration by the Internal Revenue Service." McGovern said the technical review was a two-year process, which obviously exceeded the six weeks from receipt of the final exemption applications (August 18, 1993) to issuance of the favorable exemption rulings (October 1, 1993). Two years, on the other hand, does match the time the negotiating committee was in existence. But Schoenfeld would not, on advice of counsel, answer whether any of the Scientology applicants were asked to enter into a closing agreement as a condition precedent to the issuance of a favorable letter ruling. Such an admission would strongly suggest that the decision to grant exempt status had been made before August 30, 1993 -- that is, two weeks after receipt of exemption applications -- and support release of the closing agreement under section 6104. The government's defense is to refuse to answer questions pertaining to the closing agreement on the basis that section 6103 compels IRS silence. "I'm going to object and instruct the witness not to answer questions about negotiations between Scientology and the Internal Revenue Service," was a familiar objection voiced by Jackel. Section 6103 The government is also taking an expansive view of section 6103, which pertains to "returns and return information," defined in section 6103(b)(2). IRS counsel Margo Stevens seems especially liberal in her interpretation of section 6103: "Return information is not just having to do with a return." She was challenged by Bill Lehrfeld, counsel for Tax Analysts: "It section 6103| has to protect return information. If there's no return, are you| telling me that there is return information if there is no return?" Undeterred, Stevens replied: "Yes, that may be so." The government is even claiming that some information in the administrative file is covered by section 6103. In particular, the Justice Department was surprised by the discovery in the administrative file of a letter from then Assistant Commissioner (EP/EO) John E. Burke to the Scientologists. In that January 1992 letter, Burke states: "You the Scientologists| indicated that you do not want the materials submitted in the ongoing discussions to be placed into the administrative record of any of the exemption| applicants. While I have some concerns about that, I do not want this procedural issue to become a stumbling block to progress in our discussions." Burke then goes on to make a statement that was the subject of heated exchanges during the depositions of Schoenfeld and McGovern. McGovern had been on the negotiating committee with Schoenfeld when he was associate chief counsel (EB/EO). According to Burke in his letter, "If the materials you provide sufficiently address our questions and concerns so that we are able to issue favorable determination letters, we will need to put at least some of that information into an administrative record. As part of our dialogue, we can discuss the content of the administrative records." The statements by Burke in his letter to the Scientologists should be contrasted with the deposition statements of Owens, director of the EO Division -- the division with primary responsibility for issuing exemption rulings. When asked about the administrative record that must be made available to the public under section 6104, Owens said under oath: "My division procedures would require that any documents submitted by the taxpayer or their representative, or sent by the Service to the taxpayer or their representative, as part of the processing of the application for exemption, would be part of the administrative file and part of the administrative record, the public record in the case." In particular, Owens was asked whether the following statement in the Burke letter is consistent with his division's policies: "If the materials you provide sufficiently address our questions and concerns so that we're able to issue you favorable determination letters, we will need to put at least some of that information into an administrative record. As part of our dialogue, we can discuss the content of the administrative records." Owens said no. But Schoenfeld, in his deposition, said the above statement is consistent with IRS policy. Pressed on this point, Schoenfeld, one of the drafters of the statement, said: "Your statement contains an absolutely erroneous premise . . . that the information requested related only to the exemption application." Jackel, recognizing the corner his clients were being painted into, interjected: "I realize that temporally we have a lot of complications here. We're talking about a letter that was written in January of 1992, and we're talking about organizations whose successful application for exempt status wasn't filed until after that date." The Key Question Plaintiff's counsel Bruce Stern then asked Schoenfeld the $64,000 question: "Is it your understanding that by the terms of this letter the Internal Revenue Service would not place all materials submitted in support of these exemption applications in their administrative records?" Schoenfeld answered no. That may be his good faith understanding, but it does not answer the question whether materials were submitted in support of unsuccessful applications that were not, but should have been, in the administrative record of the "final" applications. In response to a follow-up question, Schoenfeld explained, "The Internal Revenue Service was receiving materials that, in part, related to an exemption application matter, but also was requesting and receiving information that related to other pending matters before the Internal Revenue Service." Later, after having admitted that a review of all information before the IRS was made to determine what information needed to go in the administrative record, Schoenfeld was asked, "Did counsel for the Scientologists or any representatives of the Scientologists take part in the determination as to what materials would be placed in the administrative record subject to public review?" He responded, "The determination was made by the Internal Revenue Service." Unaddressed was whether such a determination was or was not in accord with the Burke letter's statement that "As part of our dialogue, we can discuss the content of the administrative records." When Schoenfeld was asked about the Burke letter in this context, Jackel cut off any response: "Well, then, you're asking him to interpret what the law is, and that's beyond the scope of his testimony. The question of what should have been done in a particular case is the kind of opinion evidence that he is not authorized to testify on. If you ask him what the procedures are, generally, that's fine. How they apply in a particular case is, in essence, expert testimony." The Unanswered Question The question of who made the final decision to recognize the Scientologists as tax-exempt remains unanswered. When Owens was asked, he said, "I don't know." When Schoenfeld was asked if it was the commissioner or assistant commissioner (EP/EO), he said, "I decline to answer." As for the processing of the Scientology applications, it was unusual. Asked if he was aware of any situation in which a tax law specialist has been directed not to examine an application for issues of inurement, private benefit, commerciality, and public purpose, Owens said, "I'm not aware of such an instruction having been given." (That is what happened in the Scientology cases.) Asked if it would be unusual for a tax law specialist to receive such instructions from his superiors, he said, "I would find that to be unusual." Rather than defend its conduct in this controversial case, the IRS appears to be relying on section 6103 to shield its "unusual" actions from public scrutiny. The government's argument is a simple one. If it disclosed information regarding the Scientology exemption rulings in the sanitized administrative file, it is ipso facto section 6104 information; if it did not, then it is ipso facto section 6103 information. A Novel Defense Basically, the government's position appears to be that any information not required to be made available under section 6104 is covered by section 6103 (which, by its terms, is supposedly limited to returns and return information). "Any information that's not required to be disclosed under 6104 is privileged|," is the way Jackel put it. Nevertheless, IRS officials said that IRS Form 1023 is not a return. The argument seems to be that the government has unfettered discretion to decide what is privileged information (section 6103) and what is not (section 6104). When pressed on this interpretation, Stevens replied: "I'm not going to accept, for this discussion here -- which I think is totally inappropriate in any event -- to battle on the legal issues that are . . . for the court to decide." Lehrfeld's response was, "Well, I don't know that counsel's byplay is ever immaterial for a court's consideration. . . . The theory of our case is that a document that is required to be submitted during the application process, and which is required by the National Office in advance of the issuance of a favorable ruling, supports the exemption application and therefore is disclosable under 6104, because the ruling would not have been issued, but for the filing of that document." Faced with that postulation of plaintiff's position, Jackel confirmed the government's ipso facto posture in this case: "If the Service has not determined under the procedures of 6104 that the document must be placed in a public file, then it is our position that it is 6103 information." The only problem with this position, if accepted by a court, is that it will give the IRS complete freedom to decide what information is subject to public scrutiny and what information is not. One would assume that the government will always opt for the least possible amount of disclosure in every case. The Mysterious Negotiations Committee As for the negotiations committee, which appears to have done the heavy lifting in the Scientology cases, the government did not initially want to even concede its existence, until Schoenfeld, in his deposition, faced with evidence of its existence, admitted he served on the negotiating committee. But Jackel would not allow Schoenfeld to explain the role of this onetime negotiating committee: "The guidelines for the negotiating committee| are whatever the situation dictates," was Jackel's terse explanation. But later, McGovern, without Jackel's objection, responded to this question: "Was the goal of the negotiating| committee to negotiate a resolution to issues involving the exempt status of the Church of Scientology or its affiliated organizations?" According to McGovern, "The goal of the committee was to address a myriad of issues of outstanding disputes between the church and the Service, one of which was exempt status." From a document in the administrative record, it appears that the members of the negotiating committee were (in addition to McGovern and Schoenfeld): Bob Gardiner (then senior projects analyst in the office of EP/EO field compliance); Beth Purcell (assistant branch chief in the office of the associate chief counsel (EB/EO)); and Steve Miller (then special counsel to the associate chief counsel (EB/EO)). The problem here for the IRS, which the agency does not want to admit, is that it appears that the negotiating committee made a decision to recognize the exemption of approximately 25 Scientology applicants who then submitted the "final" exemption applications, which were then reviewed only for procedural correctness by the exempt organizations division. The most germane testimony on this issue was by McGovern in response to questions asked by Stern. Stern: "Mr. McGovern, is it typical for the IRS to make a determination with respect to an organization's exempt status prior to the date the organization's exemption application is filed?" McGovern: "No." Stern: "Are you aware of any circumstances under which the IRS has made a determination with respect to an organization's exempt status prior to the date its exemption application was filed?" McGovern: "No." Stern: "Are you aware of any situation in which the National Office has determined that it will recognize an organization as exempt under section 501(c)(3) prior to the date the organization's approved exemption application (an exemption application to which a favorable ruling was issued in response to) was filed?" McGovern: "No." Stern: "Just so we're clear, the IRS has never made a determination to recognize an organization as exempt under section 501(c)(3) prior to the date the organization's approved exemption application was filed?" McGovern: "Not to the best of my knowledge." What is not being differentiated is the actual decision to recognize exemption and the pro forma decision to issue a ruling to recognize exempt status. As noted above, the depositions strongly support the proposition that the only review conducted in the exempt organizations division was procedural, and that all substantive decisions were made by the negotiating committee. Jackel would not let Schoenfeld say who directed that the negotiating committee be formed, although there are reports that then Commissioner Fred Goldberg directed its formation after meeting with Scientology representatives. Nor would Jackel let McGovern address the question whether Goldberg directed its formation. When Was the Decision Made? As noted above, at issue is whether the IRS promised exemption to Scientology organizations before the submission of the Form 1023 applications that appear in the administrative record. Schoenfeld said no, but later he refused to answer, at the direction of counsel, the following question: "Since 1991, has the IRS conditioned its issuance of a 501(c)(3) ruling letter to an organization on the organization's agreement to be bound by the terms of a previously executed closing agreement?" Owens responded to this question by saying, "In the cases in which I'm familiar . . ., my recollection is that the closing agreements were necessary for purposes of arriving at the ultimate decision in the case." His answer, however, was not directed to the Scientology cases because Owens was not involved in them. McGovern would not answer, on advice of counsel, this question: "Did the closing agreement provide that the IRS would recognize the Scientology applicants, or any of them, as exempt under section 501(c)(3)?" But McGovern did answer affirmatively this question: "Through this agreement, did the IRS resolve the outstanding issues regarding Scientology applicants' exemption applications?" And Jackel did let Schoenfeld answer this question: "Was the working group charged with the responsibility of determining whether the Scientology applicants would be recognized as exempt under section 501(c)(3)?" Schoenfeld said, "That was part of the charge." Interestingly, McGovern's response to the same question was the same: "That was part of the charge." Somewhat surprisingly, in light of his previous testimony, McGovern did answer affirmatively this question: "Since 1991, has the IRS more than once used a closing agreement to resolve outstanding issues regarding an organization's future exempt status?" McGovern: "I believe so." This question is significant because an affirmative response indicates that at least part of the closing agreement should have been part of the administrative record in any such case. The testimony of Schoenfeld indicates that the Scientology cases were such cases. The parties are preparing motions for summary judgment, due June 30. 95 TNT 136-70 (JULY 13, 1995) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Other Court Documents (CTO) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * PLAINTIFF'S STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. SHORT NAME: Tax Analysts v. IRS JUDGE(s): Hogan, Thomas TAX ANALYSTS, Plaintiff, v. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, Defendant. United States District Court for the District of Dist. of Columbia 94-CV-00220 (TFH) SUMMARY: Plaintiff filed its statement of undisputed material facts in support of its motion for summary judgment in the case of Tax Analysts v. IRS, a suit seeking release of all exempt organization closing agreements entered into by the IRS after Dec. 31, 1992. TEXT: PLAINTIFF'S STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Pursuant to Local Rule 108(h), plaintiff TAX ANALYSTS hereby submits its Statement of Undisputed Material Facts in support of its Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff submits there is no genuine issue regarding the following facts: A. Undisputed Facts Relating to the Parties 1. Plaintiff, TAX ANALYSTS, is a corporation organized and operating under the District of Columbia Nonprofit Corporations Act. Plaintiff is recognized by defendant INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE as exempt from federal taxes under Internal Revenue Code section ("IRC") 501(a) as an educational organization described in IRC 501(c)(3). (Complaint paragraph 3, Declaration of Thomas F. Field (hereinafter "Field Declaration"), paragraph 3.) 2. In furtherance of its exempt purposes, plaintiff publishes and disseminates information concerning the enactment and administration of federal and state laws, with primary emphasis on matters relating to taxation. Plaintiff publishes a variety of tax publications, including, Tax Notes, Daily TaxFax, International Tax Notes, The Exempt Organization Tax Review, The Insurance Tax Review and, State Tax Notes. Plaintiff also makes available a wide variety of tax information to the public, including full text IRS, Treasury and Congressional documents and hearing transcripts, the IRS Master File of Exempt Organizations and directories of government tax officials and private tax practitioners. (Complaint, paragraph 3; Field Declaration, paragraph 4.) 3. Defendant INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, is an agency of the United States within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(2), (3) and (4)(B). (Complaint paragraph 4; IRS Ans. paragraph 1.) B. Undisputed Facts Relating to Plaintiff's FOIA Request 4. On or about November 10, 1993, plaintiff filed a Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") request with defendant INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE. By its FOIA request, plaintiff sought to obtain copies of closing agreements the IRS entered into with exempt organizations on or after December 31, 1992. (Complaint, paragraph 5; IRS Answer, paragraph 1; Declaration of William A. Dobrovir (hereinafter "Dobrovir Declaration"), paragraph 3.) 5. Plaintiff's FOIA request complied with all applicable IRS regulations. (Dobrovir Declaration, paragraph 3.) 6. The IRS failed to timely respond to plaintiff's November 10, 1993 FOIA request, and, on January 10, 1994, plaintiff appealed the Service's de facto denial of its request to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. (Complaint, paragraph 6; Answer, paragraph 1; Dobrovir Declaration, paragraphs 4, 5.) 7. On February 7, 1994, the IRS advised TAX ANALYSTS that it would not produce any documents responsive to its November 10, 1993 FOIA request. The IRS asserted that the requested closing agreements were "return information" and, pursuant to Internal Revenue Code section 6103 and 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(3), were exempt from disclosure under FOIA. (Complaint, paragraph 7; Answer, paragraph 1; Dobrovir Declaration, paragraph 6.) C. Undisputed Facts Relating to the Exemption Application Process 8. IRS Form 1023, "Application for Recognition of Exemption Under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code", requires exemption applicants to provide the IRS with substantial information about their prior operations and proposed activities. Information required by Form 1023 includes: prior tax returns filed by the organization; a list of officers and directors and compensation paid to them; copies of leases and relevant contracts; likely sources of revenue; projected expenditures; proposed budgets; and, balance sheets. (Stern Declaration, paragraph 3, Exhibit "A" thereto.) 9. Exemption applications are typically filed with the IRS Key District Office in which the applicant's principal place of business is located. (Deposition of Jay Rotz ("Rotz Deposition"), p. 15, ll. 15 - 23; Deposition of Jeanne Gessay ("Gessay Deposition"), pp. 20 - 21, ll. 24 - 3.) 10. The Key District Office will review the application and, generally, will issue the applicant either a favorable determination letter or an initial adverse determination letter. (Deposition of Howard Schoenfeld ("Schoenfeld Deposition"), p. 18, ll. 3 - 9.) 11. Under certain circumstances, exemption applications will be forwarded by a Key District Office to the IRS National Office for consideration and issuance of a ruling letter. Applications will be forwarded to the National Office for ruling if the application presents an issue for which there is no published precedent or where the District Office believes National Office review is warranted. (Rotz Deposition, p. 16, ll. 4 - 9.) 12. If an application is forwarded to the National Office, the National Office's Exempt Organizations Division will determine whether the organization will be recognized as exempt. (Rotz Deposition, pp. 16 - 17, ll. 15 - 10.) 13. During its processing of an exemption application, the IRS maintains what is known as an "administrative file". This file contains all documents and papers relating to the exemption application which are either received or generated by the Service during its consideration and review of the application. (Rotz Deposition, p. 14, ll. 6 - 13.) 14. If the exemption application of a new organization is approved by the issuance of a private ruling letter, the IRS creates an "administrative record" which consists solely of the documents from the administrative file which it believes are subject to disclosure. (Rotz Deposition, pp. 14 - 15, ll. 14 - 13.) D. Undisputed Facts Regarding IRS Use of Closing Agreements 15. The IRS has predicated its recognition of exempt status on at least one organization's agreement to be bound by the terms of a closing agreement. (Deposition of Marcus Owens ("Owens Deposition"), pp. 115-116, ll. 19 - 17; Deposition of James McGovern ("McGovern Deposition"), p. 42, ll. 6 - 10.) 16. The IRS has agreed in a closing agreement to grant exempt status to a taxpayer. (Schoenfeld Deposition, p. 115, ll. 7 - 11.) 17. In 1991, the IRS entered into a closing agreement with Jimmy Swaggart Ministries, an organization recognized as exempt from tax under IRC 501(c)(3), under which the Ministries was required to disclose that it had agreed to pay in excess of $171,000 in back taxes and interest as a result of its failure to adhere to IRC 501(c)(3)'s proscription against involvement in political activities. (McGovern Deposition, pp. 18 - 19, ll. 24 - 4; Stern Declaration, paragraph 4, Exhibit "B" thereto.) 18. In 1993, the IRS entered into a closing agreement with the Old Time Gospel Hour ("OTGH"), an organization recognized as exempt from tax under IRC 501(c)(3), under which OTGH was required to disclose that its exemption under IRC 501(c)(3) had been revoked for 1986 and 1987 and, as a condition of the reinstatement of its exempt status, it paid the IRS $50,000 in taxes. (McGovern Deposition, pp. 22 - 23, ll. 24 - 4; Stern Declaration, paragraph 5, Exhibit "C" thereto.) 19. In 1994, the IRS entered into a closing agreement with Hermann Hospital, an organization recognized as exempt from federal taxes under IRC 501(c)(3), under which the hospital was required to distribute to the national tax and local Houston media, a copy of its closing agreement. This agreement provided that the hospital had agreed to pay the IRS $993,500 in back taxes. (McGovern Deposition, p. 30, ll. 3 - 5, p. 31, ll. 4 - 6; Stern Declaration, paragraph 6, Exhibit "D" thereto.) 20. The IRS has not adopted any procedures as to when it will require an exempt organization to consent to disclosure of a closing agreement or the terms thereof. (Schoenfeld Deposition, p. 54, ll. 4 - 10.) E. Undisputed Facts Regarding the Church of Scientology Closing Agreement 21. The IRS executed a closing agreement with the Church of Scientology and its affiliated organizations that resolved issues surrounding the exempt status of the church and its affiliates. (Schoenfeld Deposition, p. 106, ll. 9 - 22; McGovern Deposition, p. 65, ll. 6 - 24.) 22. The exemption applications filed by the Church of Scientology and its affiliates were not processed pursuant to the IRS' standard procedures. (Rotz Deposition, pp. 73 - 74, ll. 21 - 6.) 23. The IRS adopted special procedures for the handling of the exemption applications filed by the Church of Scientology and its affiliates. (Rotz Deposition, p. 74, ll. 3 - 6.) 24. The IRS formed a special "negotiations committee" to negotiate a resolution to the outstanding issues involving the Church of Scientology and its affiliates, including their pending exemption applications. (Schoenfeld Deposition, pp. 68 - 69, ll. 24 - 5.) 25. The "negotiations committee" was charged with the responsibility of determining whether the Church of Scientology and its affiliates would be recognized as exempt. (McGovern Deposition, p. 62, ll. 11 - 17.) 26. The "negotiations committee" made the determination that the Church of Scientology and its affiliates would be recognized as exempt. (Schoenfeld Deposition, pp. 100 - 101, ll. 6 - 13; McGovern Deposition, p. 83, ll. 7 - 9.) 27. The negotiations committee issued "special instructions" to the Exempt Organization Technical Division regarding the handling of the exemption applications filed by the Church of Scientology and its affiliates. (Schoenfeld Deposition, pp. 100 - 101, ll. 12 - 13.) 28. The Exempt Organizations Technical Division was instructed not to review the exemption applications filed by the Church of Scientology and its affiliates for compliance with IRC 501(c)(3). (Schoenfeld Deposition, pp. 100 - 101, ll. 12 - 13.) 29. On October 1, 1993, the IRS issued favorable ruling letters to the Church of Scientology and 24 of its affiliates recognizing them as exempt from federal tax under IRC 501(a). (Rotz Deposition, pp. 69, ll. 16 - 19.) F. Undisputed Facts Regarding the Requested Closing Agreements 30. At the time of plaintiff's FOIA request, the IRS had possession of closing agreements responsive to plaintiff's disclosure request. (Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents, Response to Interrogatory Number No. 1.) Respectfully submitted, June 29, 1995 William J. Lehrfeld D.C. Bar No. 51292 Bruce L. Stern D.C. Bar No. 436231 WILLIAM J. LEHRFELD, P.C. 1250 H Street, N.W., Suite 740 Washington, D.C. 20005 Telephone: (202) 659-4772 Facsimile: (202) 659-8876 William A. Dobrovir D.C. Bar No. William A. Dobrovir, P.C. 65 Culpeper Street Warrenton, Virginia 22186 Telephone: (703) 341-2183 Facsimile: (703) 341-4329 Attorneys for Plaintiff TAX ANALYSTS
Re: Clinton helped Scientology? i fully admit partial tinfoil. but in defense of my subscription to this particular conspiracy theory of days gone by... sometimes tinfoil is temporarily justified when excess number of "things that dont add up" is reached. altho i personally dont think clintons knew who they were crawling into bed with, they are after one of the greatest fund raising war chest building machines of all time. scilons were just another deep bankroll among many. but still - enough things dont add up sans tinfoil, doesnt bode well w/ hilary stepping up to secr of state imo.
Re: Clinton helped Scientology? You are wrong. Clinton's Adminstration threatened Sweden with trade sanctions if they didn't.... Guess.... Come on.... You can come up with it... Or ask the OT8 who posts here.
Re: Clinton helped Scientology? This ain't no fantasy... I traced the NCLB stuff awhile ago and it's pretty fuckin scary how embedded Co$ has been in the political process since through the Clinton and Bush Administration in terms of social policy decisions made to favor the Co$. Came across all the international policy implications under Clinton re these "chats" the $cilons got, and I too am worried that a Clinton in a powerful policy making / back room chatting capacity will continue to "have chats on behalf of the Co$" with foreign governments. This shit is "Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy" sort of games, and ALWAYS seems tinfoil even when you have done the research and say "HOLY FUCK!" I am NOT konspiracy theorist type at all, just aware of how legislative / executive policy choices get made and the power of the $ in the political process. tl/dr - My opinion, very much not tinfoil and of great concern for watching.
Re: Clinton helped Scientology? ...comply with the Clinton Administration's demand that it remove Scientology's "religious scriptures" from public availability through the Swedish Parliament and government. Fraud Case Charges Cult, Clinton, Travolta
Re: Clinton helped Scientology? Well no matter what may or may not have happened in the past, I'm sure everything will be just fine from here on out. pic related
Re: Clinton helped Scientology? I've read that the USA allegedly threatened Sweden with sueing them before the World Trade Organization unless they removed the Scientology documents from public access. Sweden caved in, but the decision was later removed by a swedish court who stated that while damage to international relations may be a reason to remove documents from public access this reason has to be found within the documents themselves. Is this true? Did the US actually threaten a friendly country with a lawsuit to do Scientology's bidding?
Over Scientology: Criticism of the Charlemagne Award for U.S. President Clinton Hamm, Germany June 1, 2000 neue bildpost, Nr. 23, pg. 1 by Bernd Evers Contention over the presentation of the Aachen Charlemagne Award: this year the valued distinction will go to the President of the United States, Bill Clinton. "It's OK to have a different opinion in regards to Clinton's political accomplishments or his personal conduct," said Reverend Thomas Gandow, Sect Commissioner of the Evangelical Church for Berlin-Brandenburg. As concerns his attitude towards Scientology, however, there is no doubt: "Never before has a government done so much lobbying for Scientology," stressed Gandow. It is not just that the organization received tax exemption in the first year of Clinton's term; Clinton's State Department continually blames Germany and other European states for dealing with Scientology in a critical manner. As a reaction to the presentation of the Charlemagne Award, the European-American Citizens Committee for Human Rights and Religious Freedom will be giving out an Alternative Charlemagne Award: banker Robert Minton, who supports Scientology victims in legal proceedings against the organization, will receive it. http://www.lermanet.com/cisar/survey/ga.htm
http://www.usask.ca/relst/jrpc/article-scientology.html Here's is a summation of some of the points in the article - Scientology managed to infiltrate the US government much more recently than its IRS infiltration, and it was Bill Clinton who made it possible. Clinton appeared to advocate for the cult internationally, largely unknown to US citizens. An incident between the US State Department and our ally Germany was sparked over Germany's refusal to allow the United States to pressure it into allowing Scientology to operate freely within their country. This was the US Government that was advocating on Scientology's behalf to an international ally. Germany in no uncertain terms rebuffed the effort. You've got to give the Germans credit - from experience they know a crazy, nihilistic, sadistic and dangerous mind control cult when they see one. The story below is told in excerpts from the original report from Canadian Sociologist Dr. Kent. The full document may be found here. It is well known that John P. Coale and his wife, were strong supporters of Democrats, specifically Bill Clinton and later, Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi. It was just a year after Clinton took office that the IRS did its famous switcheroo and handed Scientology its tax free status, after battling against exactly this outcome for years. The details of the meeting in which this happened have always seemed strange. Definitely some back room politicking went on. Questions can be raised about whether those who control the copyrights on Hubbard's books at the highest levels are even Scientologists, but instead are highly placed former IRS officials and attorneys. Germany became wary of Scientology because of its experience with forced labor camps during the Second World War. German officials were particularly concerned to learn about Scientology's operation of its own version of such camps in Europe and America, and forced labor is specifically banned in modern Germany by Article 12 of its constitution. "In 1997, a German state official raised the issue of the RPF programs on American soil in response to a harsh "open" letter to Chancellor Helmut Kohl that equated the German government's handling of Scientology with Nazis' persecution of Jews prior to World War II. Published as a full page ad in the International Herald Tribune, thirty-four Hollywood personalities signed it, including actors Dustin Hoffman, Goldie Hawn, director Oliver Stone, writer Mario Puzo, and CNN talk show host, Larry King (Boyes 1997). (Afterwards, the film director Constantin Costa-Gavras expressed regret at having given the letter his signature [Reuters 1997]). It turned out that many of the signatories had close ties to prominent Scientology actors Tom Cruise and John Travolta (Whittell 1997). The analogy between the current plight of Scientology in Germany and the fate of Jews during the early days of Hitler proved so offensive that the U.S. State Department immediately denounced it, saying "This is an outrageous charge against the German government by an American group. It bears no resemblance to the facts of what is going on [t]here" (quoted in Boyes 1997)." "...the incident reveals some of the pitfalls involved with entertainment elites trying to gain entry into an important public debate. They had enough money to purchase exposure in the media, but they did not have sufficient grasp of the issues nor the political wisdom to select appropriate symbols that might have won them support. Indeed, the ill-chosen symbol of Naziism angered German officials (including Kohl himself), and it provided an opening for another German official to respond with a press release that advised, "Instead of sending open letters' to Germany, Hollywood VIPS should express their outrage at Scientology's punitive camps." "The Bavarian State Minister of the Interior, Dr. Gonther Beckstein, went on to refer to the RPF facilities as "penal colonies" that subjected their inmates to "extreme processes of brainwashing and punishment." Using information that came directly out of an American affidavit by former Scientologist, Andre Tabayoyon, Beckstein mentioned one of the harsh physical punishments that a female inmate supposedly suffered, and described the security system around one California facility that involved a "fence, barriers, floodlights, electronic monitors, hidden microphones, ground sensors, and electronic eyes...." He also mentioned information about "semi-automatic rifles and unregistered weapons" in the Southern California RPF facility. Mockingly, Beckstein mused, "Wouldn't it be great if Mario Puzo wrote a script to a film directed by Oliver Stone, in which Dustin Hoffman and Goldie Hawn starred as two inmates in a Scientology penal colony attempting [t]o escape from their heavily-armed keepers?" (Beckstein 1997; see Tabayoyon 1994). Even though Beckstein gave explicit directions about the location of an RPF facility only about 100 kilometers from Hollywood itself, no indication exists that any American officials took his remarks seriously."
And: "Evidence of Scientology's high level State Department contacts came to light in a widely-discussed article about Travolta in "George" magazine....Clinton informed Travolta that "he had a roommate years ago who was a Scientologist and had really liked him, and respected his views on it. He said he felt we were given an unfair hand in [Germany] and that he wanted to fix it" (Ressner 1997). Clinton followed up on this conversation by going "to the extraordinary length of assigning his national security advisor, Sandy Berger, to be the administration's Scientology point person" (J. Young 1998, 138)." "...the Clinton-arranged meeting [happened] in the context of other actions the American president had taken on behalf of Scientology. For example, the section of the State Department's 1996 human rights report that was harshly critical of Germany's actions towards Scientology "was written by the White House...." Its condemnation was so strong that Secretary of State Madeleine Albright apologized to the German government because of it (American Spectator 1997). French and German authorities also were aware that the December 1996 issue of Scientology's French language publication, éthique & Libertê, published what it called an "Interview exclusive" against drug-use, written by Clinton himself (Clinton 1996). They also took note when Clinton sent Scientology congratulatory greetings on its 50th anniversary (on December 28, 1999), in which he "thanked the church for its work to promote religious tolerance and to build just communities'" (Gerstein 2000). In short, it appears to the Europeans that Clinton was working actively on behalf of the Scientology organization, and that his assistance to the Hollywood Scientology lobbyists was indicative of his general support for the group." "While in Washington meeting with Berger and presenting before the CSCE, Travolta also spent time lobbying on behalf of a House of Representatives motion that (had it passed) would have put on record its "concern that performers, entertainers, and other artists from the United States who are members of minority religious groups such as Scientology continue to experience discrimination by the German Government" (House of Representatives 1997). Almost certainly introduced after lobbying efforts by Scientology's paid lobbyist, David H. Miller, the resolution gained "support from leaders of House caucuses who advocate on behalf of arts, Hispanics[,] and African Americans" (Dahl 1998a, 14A)." "Although the resolution cleared the House International Relations Committee, it failed to pass the full House when it went to vote in November. One Representative (Doug Bereuter, R-Neb.) complained, "I think it is important we not have Tom Cruise or John Travolta setting foreign policy in this country and think that is a driving factor behind this legislation" (Dahl 1998a, 14A). The bill suffered defeat at 101 in favor and 318 against (Anonymous 1997), with Amo Houghtin (R-N.Y.) apparently expressing the majority's opinion by concluding, "the issue was whether we do not look just a bit pompous sitting back here with all our many moral problems in this country, to pass judgment on a nation, our friend, which is wrestling with something which we ourselves and other nations are wrestling with'" (quoted in The Virginian-Pilot 1997)." "The Washington Post carried a small article with a picture of Travolta, stating: In case you needed reminding that congressmen are shameless groupies, consider the small mob of House members that formed around John Travolta yesterday in the Rayburn Room of the Capitol, just off the House floor. There was jostling, There was staring. There was lining up for photos with the movie star who was on the Hill to meet with lawmakers, including House Speaker Newt Gingrich, on behalf of the Church of Scientology, of which he is a member (Gerhart and Groer 1998, B3)." "The following year, 1999, Scientology continued its lobbying efforts. When Salmon, along with Representatives Benjamin A. Gilman (R-NY), Mark Foley (R-FL), and Senator Mike Enzi (R-WY), (and others) introduced House and Senate bills calling for the German government "to enter into constructive dialogue with minority groups subject to government discrimination based upon religion or belief," Scientologist Anne Archer was at the press conference (News From the House International Relations Committee 1999, 2)." Just in case it isn't crystal clear, the above information reveals that largely unbeknownst to the American public, 101 American Congressmen supported a bill that advocated Scientology on German soil, and the use of United States resources to lobby for this end. Apologies to the tl:dr crowd but supporting evidence is how vague notions of "tin-foily" get crumpled.
Marty Rathbun said on his blog some university bunk mate Clinton got to like personnaly back in his partying days was send in to pursueade Bill in favor of Scientology. This is from memory, don't ask me to go trough his blog to find it, It gives me headaches and it takes a billion years to find specific stuff on there.
From: http://www.usask.ca/relst/jrpc/article-scientology.html Journal of Religion and Popular Culture Volume I: Spring 2002 Hollywood's Celebrity-Lobbyists and the Clinton Administration's American Foreign Policy Toward German Scientology* Stephen A. Kent, Department of Sociology University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada John Travolta and President Clinton [22] Evidence of Scientology’s high level State Department contacts came to light in a widely-discussed article about Travolta in George magazine. Travolta attended an April 1997 summit on volunteerism in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania in order "to present educational materials created by Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard." The next day, Travolta met President Clinton who told him, "Your program sounds great.... More than that..., I’d really love to help you with your issue over in Germany with Scientology" (Travolta quoting Clinton in J. Young 1998, 106). Clinton informed Travolta that "he had a roommate years ago who was a Scientologist and had really liked him, and respected his views on it. He said he felt we were given an unfair hand in [Germany] and that he wanted to fix it" (Ressner 1997). Clinton followed up on this conversation by going "to the extraordinary length of assigning his national security advisor, Sandy Berger, to be the administration’s Scientology point person" (J. Young 1998, 138). In September 1997, when Travolta and Chick Corea were in Washington (presumably for their testimony before the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe), Clinton "had White House political affairs director, Craig Smith, arrange a meeting between Berger, Travolta, and jazzman Chick Corea, also an avid Scientologist. According to a senior administration official, the straight-shooting Berger briefed Travolta on the administration’s efforts in the same manner he would a senior senator. ‘Sandy was just great to us,’ Travolta notes" (J. Young 1998, 138). http://www.artsrn.ualberta.ca/skent...-Lobbyists and the Clinton Administration.htm
Sorry, but that is the kind of shoulder shrugging unsupported assertion that particularly gets on my nerves. I'll stop short of calling it outright stupid, and just go with lazy thinking instead. There is no way to completely determine what impact Clinton being friendly towards Scientology ultimately had. Creating a supportive environment for a religious cult in Washington DC obviously allows the cult to thrive in a place where money buys political influence, which is impact enough on a general level. However, as just one example of specific possible impact, during Clinton's "friendly" period a group of Hollywood actors published a full page plea in a German newspaper for "religious freedom" on behalf of Scientology which pissed off the German government as they had banned Scientology. Gee, looks like the German government, unlike the USA, is able to identify a mind control cult when they see one. Anyway, the State Department at first backed this idiotic document, and due to Clinton's influence started to pressure Germany to accept it. (several comments above touch on this in more detail.) A diplomatic softening had to be arranged for the bad feelings generated by the developing international incident with our close ally, which was chalked up to the US as usual meddling in the internal policies of sovereign nations whether friend or foe. Scientology working in any way at this level in US politics is in my opinion highly damaging, embarrassing and dangerously careless.
Hi KKS - if you look upwards a couple of comments from this one of yours there's some source material and specifics on that, for future reference.
You mean, "Spank you Evil Queen" of course : ) I hate it when large instances of Scientology+US Government Fuckery begin to wane in the collective memory. Uber Scilon John P. Coale, the prominent lawyer and millionaire lobbyist married to Greta Van Sucktren of Fox was a big Hillary Clinton supporter and donator in 2008 before Obama got the nomination. Also donated heavily to Nancy Pelosi and for awhile he was actually an adviser to Sarah Palin. John P. Coal and Sucktren employed David Miscavidge's mother as the accountant/money manager for their law firm for years, probably decades right up until she died of lung cancer. That's how tight some people are in both Scientology and DC. Politics is a magnet for Scientology, we just don't hear about it that often unfortunately.
So do lots of countries, including the US until 1993. They also have various restrictions on Scientologists. Some politicians have talked about banning it, but dropped it when it was pointed out as impractical. But "Germany banned Scientology" keeps popping up for some reason.
Nope, not quite. Had a good think about it, didn't go through with it (in spite of the German public being behind it - good for them). What the German state has done is to make victims of the mind-fuck perpetrated by the criminal organisation known as the "church" of $cientology not eligible for employment (in public jobs). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology_in_Germany#.22Sect_filters.22
I just re-read the thread, and it reminds me that the "Travolt's basically a good guy" is false. I don't care how homo he is, he's still an asshole selling out his soul for an abusive cult.
