DISCUSSION THREAD: List of everything CO$ charges money for

Discussion in 'Projects' started by Anonymous, Oct 17, 2013.

  1. Anonymous Member

    I think this project just started snowballing, in a good way!!!
    • Like Like x 1
  2. Anonymous Member

    I am not sure if i am going crazy or not, but when i was gathering dox for another thread, i found that there is more information attached to these pdfs then before. I believe that these have a list of their lobbying expenses. Take a look when you guys get a chance.

    Attached Files:

    • Like Like x 1
  3. Anonymous Member

    • Like Like x 1
  4. Anonymous Member

    One is from 2011 and the other is 2009.

    The 2011 item is duplicated in the above post.

    These 990s are interesting when "lobby" or "lobbying" is searched.

    The screencaps below follow "lobby" in the Return of Organization Exempt From Income Tax Under section 501(c),527, or 4947(a)(1) of 4te Internal Revenue Code (except black lung benefit trust or prviate foundation) for 2011:

    CCHR Lobbying 1.png

    CCHR Lobbying 2.png

    CCHR Lobbying 3.png

    CCHR Lobbying 4.png

    CCHR Lobbying 5.png

    CCHR Lobbying 6.png

    CCHR Lobbying 7.png

    CCHR Lobbying 8.png

    The item from 2009 follows an identical pattern with different $$$ amounts.
    • Like Like x 1
  5. Anonymous Member


    I have been looking at these for a while now. To me, they are raising some concerning questions. First off, Who are they talking to for the direct lobbying? Are they talking to politicians, or are they funneling money into CO$? Based on CCHR's track record, i feel that they are funneling money into CO$ in the guise of "lobbying". I do not know how the FFI people would feel about this.
  6. Anonymous Member

    My read, though not a USA fag, is that the entries on page 2 of the 2011 filing refer to direct legislative/political lobbying, 1b in particular.

    Your theory about "funneling" is interesting but I don't know where to begin looking for evidence of that at this point.

    I speculate that 1a - Total lobbying expenditures to influence public opinion (grassroots lobbying) concerns the industry of death exhibitions and related print and digital publications (which are voluminous).

    The 1d - other exempt purpose expenditures + very large expenditure numbers just give me a WTF???

    Also, is Serenity MacDonald a tax accountant, or what?

    • Like Like x 1
  7. Anonymous Member

    • Like Like x 1
  8. Anonymous Member

    I did a quick search, and CPA did not show up next to her name. So chances are good that she is NOT a trained accountant. She also looks like she is too steeped into Scientology(Spelled correctly to make IRS searches easier) to have the money to spend on accounting classes.
    • Like Like x 1
  9. Anonymous Member

    What is her real name, is it Jones or is it MacDonald? If her name changed, when? Because if she signed that paperwork under a wrong last name, then that is fucking documented evidence of a felony, and their taxes have to be audited and inspected RIGHT THE FUCK NOW.

    something to look over:

    I have a horrible suspicion that they are having unqualified people do their taxes. I do not want to believe that they are that stupid. IF that is the case, then shame on us for not catching this sooner.
    • Like Like x 2
  10. Anonymous Member

    • Like Like x 1
  11. Anonymous Member

    Then why did she sign as MacDonald? Is Jones her legal last name? That is a surprisingly serious offense if she signed under another name then what is listed on her drivers license at the time(key phrase is "at the time"). It can be a big deal if its just YOUR return, but for someone else, and with such a large sum of money at stake, its a very serious red flag. Its as if they have something to hide. this whole thing is absurdly screwy. Normally a respected firm(local small one with this amount) will be hired for amounts over a million.The only reason why anyone would not want an outside firm to do amounts this big, is if they have something serious to hide. She is not even a CPA. This is a stupidly ridiculous red flag here.

    Her facebook, and every other source i saw, did not list her as graduating college. Can someone verify if she is a college grad, or some cultie they dragged off of the street.

    This is the type of thing tax lawyers make lots of money to investigate. On the surface, you have a 501c used for lobbying, when you dig deeper, you have the possibility of an organized religion lobbying for political purposes, then to top the whole damn thing off, Its done by someone with questionable criteria, give this to a reporter with a grudge and connections, and you have shitstorm/"lulz"(is that what you call it?).
    • Like Like x 1
  12. Anonymous Member

    Her Scientology website profile says she 'completed school' at age 13 with a 4.0. I'm going to interpret that to mean she is not a college grad, but rather an indoctrinated cultie. She's enrolled in Academy and has apparently trained as an auditor.

    You might be on to something with this one. Every source I could find had CCHR and her anti-psych babble written all over it. She does not come across as having a college level education.
  13. Anonymous Member

    AS everyone has seen, the tax code is too complicated for just any one person to properly understand. Let alone someone without basic accounting training. This needs to be properly investigated. I find it too hard to believe that the cultists have been doing their taxes properly.

    We should see if any exscilons have done cult taxes before too. The might let us in on some of the stuff they have been lying about.
  14. Anonymous Member

    The twitter feed has some noteworthy content, worthy of some exploration, but I'm still focused on those tax filing documents.

    The 2009 document is a different kind of filing form:

    2009 short form.png

    The 2009 document has this list:

    Serenity McDDonald.png

    Note the spelling of the "McDDonald" here compared to the 2011 document.

    (I wonder if the name underlined in green is any relation.)

    Here is some of the Lobbying and Politics parts of the form:

    2009 lobbying poltical.png

    The above appears to be a denial of any political campaign activities.

    2009 lobbying poltical2.png

    However the political side, the lobbying entries seem worthy of scrutiny.

    This is all I've had time for today.
    • Like Like x 2
  15. Anonymous Member

    Night Owl, your posts are appreciated.

    < Yoda voice > A good heart, one you have.
    • Like Like x 3
  16. Anonymous Member

    What sort of information do we have on applied scholastics? I believe that this is a very strong source of potential ubi.

    Also, do you guys want any more of the form 990's from CCHR? If you want, i can get all the ones from the scilon fronts. If we go this route, we should also compile a list of the people filling them out, who they are, their connections, and if they are accountants.

    I have hit a wall with the trademark stuff. I am putting it on the back burner for now.
    • Like Like x 1
  17. Anonymous Member

    • Like Like x 1
  18. Anonymous Member

    "In general, no organization, including a church, may
    qualify for IRC section 501(c)(3) status if a substantial
    part of its activities is attempting to influence legislation
    (commonly known as lobbying)
    An IRC section 501(c)
    (3) organization may engage in some lobbying, but too
    much lobbying activity risks loss of tax-exempt status"
    From the goddamn IRS. So, What qualifies as too much lobbying?
    then there is this:
    "whether the good, service, or facility is available only
    to candidates and not to the general public"
    Celebrity center anyone?
    • Like Like x 1
  19. Anonymous Member

    "Congress has imposed special limitations, found in IRC
    section 7611, on how and when the IRS may conduct
    civil tax inquiries and examinations of churches
    The IRS
    may only initiate a
    church tax inquiry
    if an appropri-
    ate high-level Treasury Department official reasonably
    believes, based on a written statement of the facts and
    circumstances, that the organization: (a) may not qualify
    for the exemption; or (b) may not be paying tax on an
    unrelated business or other taxable activity"
    "Restrictions on church inquiries and examinations apply
    only to churches (including organizations claiming to
    be churches if such status has not been recognized by
    the IRS) and conventions or associations of churches
    They do not apply to related persons or organizations
    Thus, for example, the rules do not apply to schools that,
    although operated by a church, are organized as separate
    legal entities
    Similarly, the rules do not apply to inte-
    grated auxiliaries of a church"

    this lines right here indicate that the best way to revoke their tax exempt status, is to find the evidence of tax evasion inside the front organizations.
    • Like Like x 1
  20. Anonymous Member (warning: ITS A FUCKING BIG DOX)

    The fasab handbook is the best way to figure out how they are breaking the law. When ever we see any of their financial dox, we should consult the fasab handbook to see what they are doing wrong. This way, when we make reports to the IRS, they will have a better understanding of what is going on, and be able to outmaneuver the cult.
    • Like Like x 1
  21. Anonymous Member

    I just thought of something to add to the questions about trademarks. I know it's going down a rabbit hole that's been put on the back burner for now, but it just struck me. We've been told that Craigslist ads which use the trademarked names "Scientology", "L. Ron Hubbard", "Dianetics", etc. must be approved uplines through 'issue authority' which OKs the use of said trademarks in advertisements of services. Some missions and orgs have recently been discovered to not be requesting issue authority before posting with these terms on Craigslist and have gotten themselves in hot water with CSI/OSA thanks to scrutiny after Anonymous began wreaking havoc on Craigslist against them. Basically, my understanding is that these terms must be licensed by individual missions/orgs from CSI if they want to use them.Using such terms without CSI's approval is a violation of their trademarks.

    Questions this brings up are: What sort of licensing fees do missions and orgs have to pay to CSI in order to use these terms? Would the use of these licensed terms automatically make all of these services taxable?

    Pardon my ignorance if these are questions that have been already asked. Just seemed like another possibly valid angle to explore with regard to tax liability.
    • Like Like x 2
  22. Anonymous Member

    These are very good questions, and I can not get any straight answers for them, hence the project is on the back burner.

    For some idea on the confusion, please check out the dox on post 97. Keep in mind post 97 talks about patents(i did not see trademark listed, but dox like that NEED to be re-read often). Trademarks are NOT the same patents, they do not get most of the breaks.

    As for the licensing questions, I do not know if they got permission or not.

    Snowballing project is snowballing.
    • Like Like x 1
  23. RightOn Member

    if the orgs or missions did not get permission, my bet is that they are desperately trying to get their stats up by any means possible, and fresh meat is not coming in off the street, nor is their other disseminating methods working well enough to keep their stats up. Just a hunch.
  24. Anonymous Member

    Yes, please, to the question about 990s from CCHR.

    I continue to unearth interesting material from the PDFs posted here... ... and if more appeared I can address that listing of people filling them out and filing them.

    To date, I've not had time to research applied scholastics. There is a WWP thread somewhere about ABC Mouse and the scilon connections to its 'managers.'
  25. Anonymous Member

    I'm about done with those 2009/2011 CCHR filings. Just some trivial observations to share about the "officers."

    This screen shot below is from the 2009 filing.

    List of officers etc 2009..png
    Megan Flieschl AKA Megan Shields?

    It's spelled differently in scientology completions:

    Another spelling - Fleisch -

    Screen Shot 2013-11-14 at 1.16.33 PM.png
    And another spelling - Fleischl -

    Screen Shot 2013-11-14 at 1.20.32 PM.png
    Screen Shot 2013-11-14 at 1.20.54 PM.png

    And another entry for Megan Fleischl in completions -

    Screen Shot 2013-11-14 at 1.24.41 PM.png
    And Megan Sheild's completions -

    Screen Shot 2013-11-14 at 1.27.18 PM.png

    Finally, the listing of "officers" from the 2011 filing showing Megan Shields and Jan Eastgate -

    List of officers etc 2011..png I find the Eastgate entry interesting because 2011 was during the arrest rumpus.

    I look forward to more of these 990s. They're interesting to dig into.

    Attached Files:

  26. Anonymous Member

    Here are the 990's for CCHr from this particular source. My recommendation is that we check out all the people filing the taxes on these forms. If none of them are accountants, then that should set up some red flags for everyone.

    Let me know if anyone is interested in the 990's from any other scilon front organization.

    also, if i understand the IRS document on lobbying correctly, then they are limited to only 1 million dollars. I am not sure what is going on here. Regardless of whats going on, this is clear evidence of a church donating money for politics.

    Attached Files:

  27. Anonymous Member

    I found a collection of 990s for Applied Scholastics (PDFs) but none of them are machine readable, making searching for stuff quite time consuming.

    I'll post them all here if the hive wants to take a look at them.

    If machine readable 990 Applied Scholastics PDFs can be located, I'll be very grateful.

    I think that any and all 990s from any of the cult front organizations will be worth examining.

    Thank you for the latest batch of 990s for CCHR.
    • Like Like x 1
  28. Anonymous Member

    What makes a document machine readable? I was under the assumption that all us federal documents were already.
  29. Anonymous Member

    By machine readable, I mean a text/PDF document that has been scanned using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) so that the document can be searched with document readers of various kinds - Adobe Reader, Apple's Preview utility and such.

    Some text documents are scanned as if they were photographs and therefore come out flat like a photo and not machine readable while the text remains human readable.

    I found a utility that will convert flat PDFs to text documents (MS Word .docx) but the crunching is very CPU and RAM intensive. Imma gonna feed the converter a ton of documents later tonight and let it crunch out the OCR versions while I snooze.
  30. Anonymous Member

    ok, here is another document, it appears to be an "unfinished draft" that is something new to me. this is for applied scholastics LA.

    When i find any useful tax law documents i will post them here. So far, the big thing we found looks like CO$ fronts are using church money for lobbying.

    Attached Files:

  31. Anonymous Member

    The PDF you posted is machine readable!

    I discovered something creepy today. I was exploring the possibility of 990s for the 'volunteer ministers' on a site that tracks and reports on non-profit/charitable organizations.

    The site is - - and at Guidestar, 'volunteer ministers' seems to be a category that is fully in use by legitimate churches. It was impossible to sort out any potential cult entries from all the legitimate entries. I'm going to look elsewhere for the VM connections.
  32. Anonymous Member

    This is interesting. I have given this question some more thought, and i believe that the reason why they are getting into trouble, is because they are not paying the licensing fees. Not sure of the legality/tax burden of this however. It would be something that a lot of people would find suspicious. Its like a church denomination(i will use Methodists as an example) charging for the use of the Methodist cross. I don't think any other religion does this, but i am not sure, and its one of those obscure things that will take a while to research on the internet.

    This does give you guys a great advantage in the craigs list project. Because not only can you flag the advertisements as spam, but you can now also flag them as "copy write infringement" too. Use Co$ own stupidity to take their money away.
    • Like Like x 1
  33. Anonymous Member

    Damn it!! Now i have to go look up the tax regulations for "volunteer ministers" now.

    Here is what i do know so far:
    If they get a discount as part of their "volunteering" and that discount is over 20%(i have to re-verify this via dox), then a tax has to be paid.(this rule applies to ALL church "staff")
    Some of their "fringe benefits" would also become taxable.

    Keep in mind to the layman that "volunteer" is just someone who does not get paid. However, to the evil taxmen, it means brand new rules that have to be strictly followed or else penalties + jail time have to be given out.

    In fact i think that even the free t-shirts might be taxable. this requires more dox research now. I will post any findings here.

    this offers several wonderful opportunities to get scilons thrown into jail. Do they write off their "touch assist" booths on their taxes? I have seen pics of those after the tornadoes in Oklahoma on black robs thread. I do not think the government would take kindly to these being written off, because there is no visible, proven benefit. Now i have to read the regulations on this too.

    The rate that this project is going, we will probably find enough evidence for the government to send a few scilons to jail, pretty soon in fact.
    • Like Like x 1
  34. Anonymous Member

    this is one of those correlations we have been seeing. The article lists the "rehab" sending bi-monthly checks to the "church of $cientology". Chances are, other scilon "rehabs" are doing the same as well. This falls under two jurisdictions in the American Tax code, one for rehabs, and the other for religion. Furthermore, i do believe that the rehab failed to inform people that it was associated with $cientology before they signed up.

    This type of article and information, by itself is not too damning, however when combined with tax records, other articles, as well as scrutiny into the law, this quickly becomes not only a Tax audit, but a fraud investigation as well.Also it hints that $cientology has other rehab fronts besides narCOnon. I will supply 990's a little later.

    Thank you everyone for your continued support.
    • Like Like x 4
  35. Anonymous Member

    I did not see the above rehab listed in the non-profit archives site i go to. I am not sure if this is because the above is a for profit, or if it is too new to be listed. I will dig for that later.

    here are the 990's for narconon. i have named them by location. The names are misspelled because i rename all my dox on my computer, because i am paranoid.

    Attached Files:

    • Like Like x 1
  36. Anonymous Member

    Here are the rest of the 990's

    I have no idea if any of these are machine readable. Some of these appear to have been prepared by REAL accountants. So we have more names to investigate.

    Attached Files:

    • Like Like x 2
  37. Anonymous Member

    Upon assessment of the narCOn 990's and the lack of an entry for "best drug rehabilitation" i think that instead of falling under drug rehab, it would fall under a business. This is something that needs a lot more scrutiny.

    We are starting to get enough information to come up with a plan of action. the question is, what should we focus on first, the cchr lobbying, or the ubi from rehabs?
    • Like Like x 1
  38. Anonymous Member

    I support going after the rehab UBI, because the cash flows are so large.
  39. Anonymous Member

    agreed, not just for the money, but because the rehabs are also killing people. This also falls under several jurisdictions, so it becomes a bigger legal nightmare. time to start the research.
  40. Anonymous Member

    All of these 990 PDFs are machine readable.

    If background checks and the like are desirable on the names of the officers and accountants found in these documents, a source has informed me that such are feasible.
    • Like Like x 1

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors


Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins