If we can get names cross referenced, then we can get an idea as to who the major cult connections are. That would be extremely helpful for understanding cash flows. It would also be useful for fraud investigations which at the moment is what we are looking at. Chances are, none of them have any medical qualifications for opening up a rehab, and because people have died at the rehabs, this lack of qualification has cost people their lives. Fraud investigations tend to get nasty when loss of life is involved. The UBI wont just be icing on the caek(is that how you guys spell it?) It would also be a direct connection to CO$, and would cause them to become more heavily scrutinized.
http://www.irs.gov/irm/part7/irm_07-025-003.html 7.25.3.6.6 (02-23-1999) Actions Distinguished from Beliefs The constitutional protections afforded religious beliefs do not prevent government from regulating conduct or actions when it has a compelling interest to do so. Thus, the First Amendment does not prevent the government from requiring compliance with general laws designed to effectuate an important governmental policy or objective even though compliance may be contrary to an individual’s sincerely-held religious beliefs. In Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1878), the Court upheld a law passed by Congress that made the practice of polygamy by persons residing in United States territories a crime. The Court interpreted the constitutional prohibition in this way: "Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order." Finding that polygamy had long been considered an offense against society in all the states of the union, the Court held that the statute under consideration was constitutional and valid as prescribing a rule of action for all those residing in the territories. In holding that religious belief did not except persons from operation of the statute, the Court said: "While they [laws] cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices." In Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1940), the Court endorsed Reynolds, stating that "the [First] Amendment embraces two concepts, freedom to believe and freedom to act. The first is absolute but, in the nature of things, the second cannot be." See also Davis v. Beason, 133 U.S. 33 (1890), and Mormon Church v. United States, 136 U.S. 1 (1890), where the Court grappled with the same issue. While continuing to affirm the right of freedom of religious belief, the Court nevertheless held that legislation for the punishment of actions "inimical to the peace, good order and morals of society" did not violate the First Amendment. A notable recent application of this doctrine is Bob Jones University v. United States, and Goldsboro Christian Schools v. United States, 461 U.S. 574 (1983), in which the Supreme Court upheld revocation of the exemption under IRC 501(c)(3) of religious and educational institutions on the grounds that its religiously motivated policy forbidding interracial dating violated a fundamental public policy against racial discrimination. The Court concluded that educational institutions that practice racial discrimination based on religious beliefs are not charitable in the generally accepted legal sense and thus do not qualify for federal tax exemption. From what i understand, if we can prove that the $cientology based rehabs do not rehabilitate people, then they would not only lose their exempt status, but would probably be closed down. I am not a lawyer however, And this is getting into legal theroy. but from the dox, it appears that we have a good chance. Furthermore, people have died, and insurance companies have been the victims for fraud(as in the case with narconon Georgia), so the odds are in our favor.
Correction - I've come across documents that have some of the attachments scanned flat. Attachments are sometimes where the listing of officers are located. A question arises - officer lists can be screen caps from a PDF or typed out text. Are both acceptable, or just typed text?
One example of the Service’s application of the common law definition of charitable is Rev. Rul. 67–325, 1967–2 C.B. 113. In that case the Service considered whether an organization providing recreational facilities for a community that restricted access to its facilities on the basis of race was charitable within the meaning of IRC 501(c)(3). The Service applied the general law of charity, which holds that providing a community recreational facility is a charitable activity only if all members of the community are eligible for direct benefits, by organizations designed to accomplish any of the above purposes, or lessening neighborhood tensions; eliminating prejudice and discrimination; defending human and civil rights secured by law; or combating community deterioration and juvenile delinquency. Translation, i think this means that the celebrity center can not be tax exempt, because it is not available to the general public.
OK another point of research. If Narconon is tax exempt, and its sending money to Co$, is co$ counting it as a donation? That is a very sneaky tax loophole, and i do not believe it is legal at all. some useful sources that i am reading http://www.idealist.org/info/Nonprofits/Mgmt4 http://www.ptotoday.com/boards/11-r...62-can-one-501c3-donate-to-another-non-profit http://www.501c3.org/blog/misappropriating-nonprofit-funds/
FTR, I'm chopping my way through that cluster of 18 Narconon 990s, creating lists of officers and highly paid employees for each NN operation. If other information is needed from these documents, please let me know and I'll put time in on that. Although machine readable, making for easy searches, the PDFs often make copypasta of text seem like trying to chop turnips with a fly-swatter. I'm resorting to screen caps when the text is too recalcitrant to copypasta. I should have a completed report document available later in the week.
Ok here is our plan of action for dealing with Narconon. Remember, we do not have to force a shut down, we only have to force tax/fraud investigations, I believe we are close to achieving this. Based on the IRS documents provided we need to prove the following: 1)Narconon is sending money to CO$ 2) Narconon is lying about its success rate. 3) That the goal of Narconon is not to provide treatment, but to raise money for co$ step 3 is easier to prove then you would think. Once we get evidence that narconon does not have the success rate that they are claiming, and that they are sending substantial sums of money outside of narconon, we can argue that it does not meet the criteria for being a non-profit, and have its tax exempt status revoked. One thing that helps us, is the lack of professionals in the narconons. Combine this with the fraud allegations and the death toll, and it should not be too hard. So, what is the best way to prove that narconon is not properly treating people? how do we go about this? There are plenty of dox here and everywhere, so where do we begin? We should get a list as to how all the facilities are similar, that would make it easier for the feds to revoke tax exempt status, and shut them down.
You are awesome!!!!! Thank you!! Having a list of names allows us to see who is connecting narconon with CO$, as well as get an idea about their qualifications, schooling, and criminal record/questionable dealings. Its a big step, and will be very helpful for all investigations in the future. From what we know about Co$, they are slow to change, once the feds get an idea as to how they operate, and who the people in charge are, they will have an easier time investigating other CO$ fronts. Remember, the goal of the operation is to force a fed investigation/ legal battle. We are using Co$ tactics against them.
You're welcome! Yes, following the money inevitably leads to following the people. While taking all the names by searching "officers" I came across something in a PDF involving a loan to someone notorious, someone whose name you'd immediately recognize if you're a Narconon watcher. I'll not mention it for now because this has led to searching "loan" in all the PDFs and finding more names to take. Searching "loan" led to "business transactions" which has led to even more names to take. The short of it is, I'm re-examining all of the 18 PDFs with a "loan" and "transaction" search and finding more names to take. Therefore, I'll need more time to finish off with all this stuff. I need an extra day or so. I'm almost done with the "officers" search but now need to proofread and double check every entry for errors and/or omissions.
I will have to scrutinize the pdfs now. You guys with you machine readable skills have made this go a lot faster.I can see how the IRS has missed this, because its an awful lot of research to do, and if it is a "charity" that appears to be doing good things, then there would be internal pressures to leave it alone. I can not believe that you are having to double check for errors. That is yet another red flag. Errors alone are enough to get someone into legal trouble(mild), but they do start investigations. I think that on paper, the IRS thinks narconon is legitimate, so they have yet to be scrutinized.Once we show them that they are far from legitimate, the implosion... i think will be very quick. From what i have seen, one of the narconons is the "parent" of the UK narconons, and has been writing them off on their taxes in the US. So if we verify that the narconons are cheating on their taxes, then those narconons in the UK will become a huge liability, and will probably be shut down. Amazing the repercussions this has on everyone. Also, does it give a reason for what the loans were for, and did every narconon take out a loan at once? I would not be surprised if they are writing things off that they are not supposed to.,
I'm checking for my errors, with copy, cut and paste, and my typing errors. I gotta check my work for precise matches with the content of a PDF. I'm not a machine. I make mistakes. I'm having nothing to do with the numbers. When it comes to numbers and arithmetic, I'm borderline retarded, so I leave that stuff well enough alone. This is extremely interesting to me. In the cases I've discovered, yes, the purpose of the loan is disclosed. It would be premature to comment further here on what I've turned up about loans in the PDFs. There are only a few instances of loans, but they are very interesting and it somehow involves individuals, working with the narconon bank accounts and other financial instruments.
There are only a few instances of loans, but they are very interesting and it somehow involves individuals, working with the narconon bank accounts and other financial instruments.[/quote] that is very suspicious. I cant wait to see what you have found.
I'll work on not disappointing you. I'm about a third of the way through a final proof-read of reports on all 18 of the 990s for US narconon. This involves going through each and every 990 PDF, section by section, part by part, line by line, checking to make certain I didn't overlook an opportunity to take names and addresses, or find anomalies like loans and/or other business transactions and side deals. The process is about as much fun as having holes drilled in your head. I'm good for about three hours of it before needing to completely disengage from the process for a period of time. I'll get it done asap but I insist on being thorough and that takes time. P. S. I found some cool camouflage:
I have been noticing that on some of the 990's narconon is writing off revenue from sales. What are they selling? I am reading these, so it takes me a lot longer to find the interesting points. Today i will talk about some of the discrepancies/ oddities from Narconon arrowhead, one of our "favorite" narconons One thing to look out for, is under part VII, the "independent contractors" cross reference those business to see who is connected to wise and other scilon fronts. That's one method that they appear to be funneling money into CO$. I will have to review the laws concerning "independent" contractors, to see if scilon fronts count as independent. This is a great source for finding "wise" companies that are not advertised as such. I am pretty sure that the cult is sneaky about that. On the 990's under part I, where they describe their mission statement, they openly say they are doing rehab based on "technologies" "discovered" by hubtard. Has any doctor officially debunked the hubbard "method"? I am talking about full fledged, peer reviewed debunking. I am almost certain that if the feds catch wind that their whole reason for tax exempt status and for charging millions of dollars is so that they can run people around a track while giving them dangerous doses of niacin, that the feds would pull the tax exempt status immediately. I also want to know what the hell the "other expenses are" under the part I for narconon arrowhead. 11 million in revenue(all numbers are for the "current year category"), but 10 million in total expenses? where the fuck is that money going? 4 million in "salaries, compensation, and employee benefits"? Just how many people are they employing? according to the cult's website for the place they are employing 160 people. That comes out as 25000 per person per year average, yet i doubt that anyone outside the directors is making above the poverty level. That doesn't make sense. yet outside payroll, that leaves another 6 million in unaccounted expenses. How have they not been investigated for fraud? They have very few doctors working for them( the only one i saw was a "DO", still looking over Arrowheads 990 though), they employ a small number of people, and they do a rehab technique that should be very cheap because its only vitamins and saunas. So why is it 10 million in service revenues, and they somehow have 10 million in expenses? Why is this so damn expensive? Where has the money gone? I am going to spend a few more days on the arrowhead 990, to make sure i am reading it properly, and to give it the time it needs to make some sense out of it.
I think i will also try to find the tax records of other rehabs, to see if their expenses are similar. This should help us see how the scilons are defrauding the government.
I've called Intelligence on the White Courtesy Phone about peer-reviewed scientific debunking of the narconon scam. Intelligence may have put together a dossier of that kind of material. I'll return tomorrow and take up the other issues raised in your post. The 990 that startled me today is Narconon International. There are blizzards of money being moved around internationally! Over a million dollars! Excellent idea! Bravo!
Could be books, DVDs and such. Remember, it's a scientology front and once the client is on-board, they are made to take cult courses, which involves yelling at ashtrays and purchasing cult books. Well spotted! A little treasure trove in the Arrowhead 990! I hadn't searched on 'contractors' until you pointed it out. I'll add those four names and businesses to the document I am preparing and I'll search 'contractors' on all the other PDFs. I believe that there are published debunkings that are certifiably scientific. There may be threads and links at WWP but I am too busy to look for them, ATM. I contacted Intelligence but he is slammed in the moment with numerous projects on many fronts. It is possible that DeathHamster has a searchable archive of articles and reports on the NN quackery. There is a current case in Georgia, (Mary Reiser) that involves Insurance Fraud. There may be details in the Narconon Threads in the Narconon Situation Room. I'll leave it to your expertise with financial figures to sort that kind of stuff out. I am left with numerous WTFs if I examine the ebb and flow of any of the finances. One thing I'll mention, given the exposure I've had via all the eighteen 990s I've examined for different NNs in different States, there may be State differences in terms of filing rules. I speculate large here because again, I'll mention that I'm not a USAfag, so the bureaucratese often boggles my mind. And I'll run searches on "contractors" for all of the PDFs. Thank you for the close reading of the Arrowhead PDF!
Here is a link to one of DeathHamster's many archives: http://home.primus.ca/~ronsharp/frontcite.html Search on "Narconon" and you'll get a very large number of hits!
that is one hard to navigate archive. I am going to spend some time with the numbers on these pdfs. I think i will also take a look at more legitimate organizations, like the Betty ford center, or other non-profit rehabs, to get a sense of operating costs. I find it very hard to believe that they have 10 million dollars of expenses in such a low cost area of the country. finally making some progress here. Also, what is up with the loans in the rather odd amounts?
http://atheism.about.com/library/decisions/tax/bldec_HernandezIRS.htm Not too related to current goals, but a useful source of info.
http://www.journalofaccountancy.com/Issues/2000/Dec/DeductionForReligiousEducationDisallowed.htm nice tid bit here: "In Hernandez v. Commissioner (490 U.S. 680) the U.S. Supreme Court examined the deduction of fees paid to the Church of Scientology for “auditing”—a type of individualized spiritual counseling and training. These payments—the primary source of income for the Church of Scientology—are required of those being trained and, are, therefore, similar to tuition. The Court held the payments were nondeductible because they represented an exchange of money for an economic benefit. The Sklars argued that the dissenting opinion of Justice O’Connor allowed for the deductibility of payments similar to those made for auditing in Hernandez. The Tax Court, however, stated that the current case had few parallels to the 1989 case and relied, in its opinion, on several other cases that disallowed the deduction of tuition to both parochial and secular entities. Courts have previously determined that tuition payments to a school in exchange for a child’s education are personal and not deductible. Additionally, tax law and the courts recognize that charitable contributions must be made from a “detached and disinterested generosity” or “out of affection, admiration, charity or like impulses.” The required intent is missing when the individual receives something of value, such as tuition, in return for his or her contribution. In Sklar the court also reviewed an item that all tax professionals should consider. The husband in the case, who was a CPA, had failed to file a timely return, stating that his work load prevented him from filing by the due date. The IRS assessed a penalty. The Tax Court retained the penalty due to the taxpayer’s willful neglect and noted that the reasonable cause requirement was not met. Observation. Contributions made to qualifying organizations are not always deductible under IRC section 170. Fees required by a charitable organization in return for an economic benefit, including religious services, are disallowed. This includes any donation made in anticipation of a benefit other than the gratification of benevolence. Payments such as those for tuition are always considered personal expenses and are nondeductible. Quid-pro-quo contributions received by charities in excess of $75 must be properly reported to the donor to eliminate possible confusion about deductibility. —Cynthia Bolt Lee, CPA, assistant professor of business administration, the Citadel, Charleston, South Carolina." This is very very interesting.
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p529.pdf Ahhh, i have found it again, in easy to read pdf. enjoy. Amerifags need to read it any way, because it WILL help you with your taxes.
Page 14 of 24 Fileid: ... tions/P529/2012/A/XML/Cycle08/source 12:04 - 8-Jan-2013 The type and rule above prints on all proofs including departmental reproduction proofs. MUST be removed before printing. Losses From Ponzi-type Investment Schemes These losses are deductible as theft losses of in- come-producing property on your tax return for the year the loss was discovered. You figure the deductible loss in Section B of Form 4684. If you qualify to use Revenue Procedure 2009-20 and you choose to follow the proce- dures in Revenue Procedure 2009-20, you also must complete Appendix A of that procedure and write “Reve- nue Procedure 2009-20” across the top of Form 4684. See Publication 547, Casualties, Disasters, and Thefts, for more information. Man, what would happen if some ex-scilons got together with a good lawyer, and started a class action lawsuit based on this...
Lobbying Expenses You generally cannot deduct amounts paid or incurred for lobbying expenses. These include expenses to: 1. Influence legislation, 2. Participate, or intervene, in any political campaign for, or against, any candidate for public office, 3. Attempt to influence the general public, or segments of the public, about elections, legislative matters, or referendums, or 4. Communicate directly with covered executive branch officials in any attempt to influence the official actions or positions of those officials. Lobbying expenses also include any amounts paid or incurred for research, preparation, planning, or coordina- tion of any of these activities hmmmm.................. How is CCHR writing off its lobbying again? any way, back to narconon.
This popped up on the Flag Super Powers Opening Thread: https://whyweprotest.net/community/...ovember-17th-2013.113081/page-60#post-2387842 And this, from the same thread: https://whyweprotest.net/community/...ovember-17th-2013.113081/page-60#post-2387858
I have to look into that now. If we can get some scientific evidence disproving narconon's techniques, we can report tax fraud/fraud in general. I do not see CO$ winning that fight and we may get some nice rehab regulation laws passed as a result.
I am looking for a very good list of exscilons that have testimonials about how they feel they were defrauded. I know its a little early, but i want to make a case file against CO$, with names of people the IRS can subpoena for testimony, so we can start pushing more allegations after we are done with narconon.
WARNING: MASSIVE DOX Attached is the pdf 990 of the betty ford center, a legitimate rehab. it is over 80 pages. To give you a very clear idea as to how different to narconon they are, look at the mission statement. Once we can get some scientific de-bunkings of the hubbard purif, and with a few more rehab 990's we will have enough evidence to make a fraud allegation, and to royally embarrass the IRS. This information can be used overseas as well, to shut down narconon operations across the world. Remember, the goal is not to remove tax exemption outright, but to start massive legal investigations into scientology fronts.
the betty ford PDf is very damning when compared with the CON!!!!!on pdfs. Part 7: contractors hired include: 2 medical services and a PSYCHIATRIST!!!! Already we have examples of professionals, with REAL Credentials, working at a REAL rehab. Section 3 part 4: 4a: explains what they do, and mentions that they provided FINANCIAL AID. 4b: explains that, for that program, 90% of participants received FINANCIAL AID. 4c: explains that they trained doctors. Now after just a brief glance of two rehabs, if you were to compare narconon(henceforth to be refereed to as CON!!!!!!!!!) with this rehab, which one of the two looks shady? and which one of the two claims to have a 70-77% success rate, that CAN NOT BE VERIFIED?
WARNING MASSIVE DOX: This is a over 500 page report stating that addicts are not getting proper treatment. I have not finished reading it. However, it is something very relevant to have here, and it helps prove our argument that CON!!!!!!!! ins nothing more then a scam.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/23/health/23reha.html?pagewanted=all this is a very good article. it mentions an Oregon based law demanding that "organizations receiving state funds use evidence based practices." This bring up something very interesting in the tax code. The constitutional protections afforded religious beliefs do not prevent government from regulating conduct or actions when it has a compelling interest to do so. Thus, the First Amendment does not prevent the government from requiring compliance with general laws designed to effectuate an important governmental policy or objective even though compliance may be contrary to an individual’s sincerely-held religious beliefs. From something mentioned before, what this means is that CON!!!!!!!! can not claim to be a rehab, and can not get tax status for being a non-profit rehab, based on "religion" alone. they have to prove they are effective, because lives, social interest, and government money are at stake. Once proof is verified that the "hubbard" tech fails, the IRS will have to mandate that CON!!!! change over to a "proven" method, or one with evidence behind it, or lose its non-profit status. This has far reaching consequences besides affecting CON!!!!!!.
This may be of interest: https://whyweprotest.net/community/...n-staff-at-the-ideal-org.111243/#post-2388640
hmmmmmm. That is a tough one. Money made from property that you had to get a mortgage for does count as ubi, if i remember correctly. Crap, this means that a lot of foreign properties probably generate UBI for CO$. That's the problem with this project, derails tend to have some relevance, so it just gets bigger and bigger. The good news, is that gives us tons of opportunities to increase CO$ tax liability.
Is razzline run by CO$ or by some scilon? If it is run by CO$, then are they charging for the service? That seems like yet another source of UBI.
Razzline is privately registered---the domain...it appears to be obviously CO$ based....if y'all haven't seen these posts before here are a couple pertinent razzline postings from a thread here.....razzline, even if privately owned, seems that it might have some additional 'material' to further research.... death hampster has screen caps...https://whyweprotest.net/community/threads/razz-line-job-market-is-collapsing.99249/#post-2153278 someone was looking for a large man to do muzzled destim on a 21 yr old male! and the same post has one for VMs needed at VA Tech. another one from that thread is a post from razzline where they were calling for basically donations for ron paul---prior to his announcement to run for president----via CSR.....https://whyweprotest.net/community/threads/razz-line-job-market-is-collapsing.99249/#post-2153287
Well, i was skimming through the pdfs of narcon looking for any instance of them mentioning finiacial aid, when i saw this: Narconon Fresh Start conducts broad public campaigns to raise public awareness to the extent and effects of substance abuse and the need for prevention and rehabilitation. During the year over 900,000 informational brochures and promotional fliers were sent to the general public. Extensive internet sites describing the problems of and solutions for drug and alcohol abuse are maintained and these received approximately 18,000,000 visits during the year 18,000,000 Is this verifiable? did they really recieve 18 million hits? Where is deathhamster or wrong guy when you need them. But yeah, if you compare the mission statements between CON!!!!! and betty ford, the level of intelligence between the two is staggering. Its as if the people filling out the CON!!!!!! paperwork are brainless cultists. Furthermore, if they even list a mission statement, its always a vague reverence to the hubbard purif, as if they are afraid of telling the IRS outright that they are "treating" addicts with vitamins and running around a track. I am glad we have that one pdf that openly mentions the "hubbard tech".If they ever catch on about our operation, we have evidence that shows that they told the IRS exactly what they did. Its really sad that we have looked at these pdfs for only 2 weeks, and are already finding subtle evidence of fraud. Now all thats left to do is to compile legitimate rehab 990's, and compare the two. Then look at the claims CON!!! makes regarding its treatment success, and its methods, as well as the money it spends, and we may have enough to push for a worthwhile investigation. The fact that CON!!! does not offer financial aid is very damning. Because they do not have any sort of financial aid undermines their claim that they are in it for treating addicts. Look at bettyford, they had 5 times the income, yet offered much more aid to people for treatments. CON!! has had their exempt status since 1973, and it appears that its never once been questioned. Granted, addiction treatment was still experimental back then, but its been 40 years, and science has come a long way, unlike hubbards "sci fiction".
