First Independent Church of Scientology

Discussion in 'Independent Scientology' started by CommunicatorIC, Jan 21, 2016.

  1. DeathHamster Member

    FICoS is finally showing as charity, deductible.
  2. First Independent Church of Scientology requests a copyright and trademark license from the Church of Scientology (more precisely, RTC and CST), and has an alternative plan if rejected.

    Religious Liberty League: A Path To Victory

    * * * * * BEGIN EXCERPT * * * * *


    FICofS Request For License To Use Scientology Materials

    The plan we developed involves a two-step process.

    Courts have upheld copyrights and trademarks of religious materials and marks against use by independent factions. A constitutional issue is created, however, when the copyright and trademark laws cause a substantial burden in the exercise of religion. This entails proving that (1) use of the questioned materials are essential to the practice of the religion and (2) a reasonable effort has been made to obtain permission to use the materials.

    Proof 1 can be established: FICofS is a nonprofit religious corporation with tax-exempt status.

    Proof 2 was just set in motion. Lawyers on behalf of FICofS requested a license from the church to use all copyrighted materials and incidental trademarks needed to practice the religion of Scientology in letters sent to the respective corporate owners, Religious Technology Center (RTC, owner of trademarks) and Church of Spiritual Technology (CST, copyrights).

    To view the letters, click here: Letter to RTCLetter to CST

    We are not dependent upon the church granting the license. If it ignores the request or tells us to pound sand, we have our proof that a reasonable effort was made to obtain licenses. If it accedes to the request but makes an unreasonable demand for an exchange, we also have our proof.

    Of course, in the off chance that it grants a license for agreeable terms, we will have achieved our aims.

    The bottom line is that Religious Liberty League can create a safe space for the free practice of Scientology outside the church.

    False Data Correction

    Some false data exist in the independent field that should be addressed.

    Copyrights In The Public Domain

    One is the idea that the church lost its copyrights. Perhaps it lost some to the public domain, certainly not all of them.

    Copyright laws have changed over the years. Those created before 1978 were covered by the 1909 Act which required a registration that could be renewed for two consecutive 28-year terms. In 1992, Congress made renewal automatic for works published between 1964 and 1978. The 1978 Act also extended the period to 75 years, and it was later extended an additional 20 years.

    Some materials not covered by federal law are covered by state law, such as California’s Civil Code Section 980, which, for example, extends common law copyright law to audio recordings. (The 1909 federal law did not cover lectures.)

    The point being, LRH materials must be examined individually to determine whether they have copyright protection. Pre-1964 works may be in the public domain either because a copyright was not registered or, if it was registered, was not timely renewed. Works between 1964 and 1978 are also questionable, and materials after 1978 are very likely copyrighted.

    Lack of Church Enforcement

    Another significant false datum in the field is the idea that LRH materials are now part of the public domain because it has all been published on the Internet and/or has been used by persons in the field who were not sued for copyright infringement.

    The church, as with any other copyright holder, may engage in selective enforcement. The fact that it has not sued someone or has not been able to shut down every unauthorized use on the Internet does not prevent it from bringing an infringement lawsuit against anyone who delivers Scientology services in the field. If it hasn’t gone after field practices it is probably because they are small fries and not a threat in the larger scheme.

    The music industry has the same problem. It cannot go after every Tom, Dick and Harry who shares music files on the Internet, and failure to do so has not resulted in loss of copyrights. Notice that the industry sure went after Napster (a music sharing web site) with a vengeance.

    A similar false datum is that persons who are currently practicing in the field for longer than three years are safe from legal actions by the church. A similar response applies. If independent Scientologists are practicing Scientology in the field the chances are great that they are exposed to legal liability and are simply regarded as too small or ineffective to deal with.

    FICofS is set up to become a central organization, to expand and last beyond the lifetimes of those persons trained inside the church, and to train a new generation of Scientologists in the correct application of the technology as developed by L. Ron Hubbard.


    The First Independent Church of Scientology belongs to those who take responsibility for it and make it happen. Our work is voluntary. No one has been compensated out of funds donated to either Religious Liberty League or to before it.


    100% of all donations have been used solely to defer expenses.

    We have paved the way. We will continue our efforts as long as there remains support for it. Much more in the way of donations will be required to make FICofS a reality.

    The plan is to not open the doors until we have:

    * The technology in place, which means having a grade chart, courses and check sheets approved by the Technical Standards Committee (TSC). This is well in progress. The TSC is in the final stages of approving a grade chart which will then be published for feedback and comments.

    * The management style and policies in place. We plan to create a committee of highly trained and experienced persons in both Scientology administration and non-Scientology enterprises to help on this.

    Note: We will write an article or series of articles debunking the false notion that Green-on-White policy for the management of Scientology organizations is set in stone and subject to Keeping Scientology Working (KSW).

    * Key personnel recruited.

    * A war chest sufficient to defend anticipated legal attacks from the church.

    * At least six-months’ operating expenses, including staff pay, until the organization is viable.

    So please contribute as much as you can, in any way you can.

    Two Frequently Asked Questions

    1. Whose church is this? Answer: no one’s, it belongs to those who step up and take responsibility for it. Who owns it? No one. It is a non-profit religious corporation.

    Jim Fonda and I (the proprietor of Religious Liberty League) established it. I agreed to be a trustee along with him. We are acting also as a board of directors but we intend to appoint others. We are filling corporate officer positions temporarily until the board of directors appoints officers. The board will select an Executive Director at some point.

    2. Are there plans to police the field? No. As long as Jim Fonda and I are trustees you can be assured that FICofS will strictly adhere to LRH’s admonition: “A militant org attitude to keep the field straight is silly.”[1]

    No doubt other FAQs exist. We will either address them in the Comments section below or update this article.
    [1] HCO PL 29 April 1965, Issue III, Ethics Review

    * * * * * END EXCERPT * * * * *

    License request letters to CST and RTC.

    NOTE: The PDF versions linked above and immediately below are much more legible than the PNG conversions embedded below.


    • Like Like x 1
  3. A jpg is fine, too?


  4. Question posted on Religious Liberty League article, moderated, approved and answered:

    * * * * * BEGIN EXCERPT * * * * *

    In each license request letter the First Independent Church of Scientology (FICS) states it "is willing and able to... be subjected to any reasonable restrictions that the licensor may impose on the license."

    What restrictions would FICS find reasonable? What restrictions would FICS find unreasonably and presumably unacceptable?

    Does FICS have any concern that it will wind up being a Church of Scientology Mission, or otherwise under the full supervision and control of CST, RTC, CSI or the corporate Church of Scientology generally, through IHelp or otherwise?


    Merrell Vannier January 17, 2017 at 4:17 pm Reply

    Reasonable versus Unreasonable. We can’t define it, but will know it when we see it.

    Zero concern that FICofS will wind up being under the full supervision and control of CofS. Won’t happen.

    * * * * * END EXCERPT * * * * *
  5. Another question posted on the Religious Liberty League article awaiting moderation.

    * * * * * BEGIN EXCERPT * * * * *

    Thank you very much for replying. Another question, if I may. Will the license agreement(s) and any "reasonable restrictions" be made available to: (a) the public generally; (b) prospective parishioners of FICS; or (c) actual parishioners of FICS?

    * * * * * END EXCERPT * * * * *
  6. DeathHamster Member

    I hope asking CoS for a license is just a checkbox on some legal strategy rather than a serious request.
    • Like Like x 1
  7. thesneakster Member

    Well, FICoS has to show they tried to cooperate with the official copyright/trademark licensor and were denied before they would have any sort of case that the 1st Amendment Establishment clause should be used to invalidate them, I reckon.

    Michael A. Hobson
    Independent Scientologist
    Caveat: I am *not* a lawyer.
  8. RightOn Member

    If this is in the wrong thread, mods feel free to move it

    The Indie 500 List never reached 500. :rolleyes:
    Furthermore, there are people on that list that NEED TO BE REMOVED.
    Just off the top?
    Mike Rinder and his wife, Tizziano Lugli and his wife and Marty Rathbun just to name a few.
    These people are NOT independent scientologists.
    And Monique Rathbun is on that last even though she was never in the freakin' COS
    I wonder just how many names can be removed and what the actual number really is.
    I don't have time, but if anyone wants a whack at it for shits and giggles, it would be entertaining to know the actual number.
  9. Re:Monique

    If she uses any piece of the tech, she's A-OK. I can think of a tiny handful of other non-exes in the same boat, but I believe they're all married to still-practicing exes.

    It's worth remembering that the "Big List" is a wiki anyone can edit. Its rules and policies are made/enforced through consensus, maintained through common effort. The "Indy 500" is a blog run by one LRH fan, and governed by LRH Technology.

    btw, when did Marty stop being an Independent Scientologist?
  10. RightOn Member

    none of those people I named are Indies any more or using the tech
    Paul Haggis too. Trust me he isn't using any part of the tech
    I know what the fucking difference is between the two lists.
    Hall stole the idea from ME.
    Sorry, but I find you kinda of unpleasant at times and seem to talk down to people like they are dumb asses
    • Like Like x 1
  11. thesneakster Member

    I could say the same about you, I think.

    Steve Hall doesn't seem to be maintaining that "Indie 500" page and he managed to piss off enough people with his early rants that I'm sure more than a few wanted nothing to do with it.

    Michael A. Hobson
    Independent Scientologist
  12. RightOn Member

    oh I am so insulted Sneaks. :rolleyes:
    I know he sn't maintaining the list. Duh
    • Like Like x 1
  13. Trust me, I am even sorrier. :(
    I am kinda unpleasant at all times, and always a self-important jerk. Thank you for reminding me I need to work on that.

    I agree that Paul Haggis, Mike Rinder and others have long since woken up and abandoned even the pretense of Scientology. I didn't know that Marty had too. Maybe I need to get out more.

    (sorry for being a nuisance)
    • Like Like x 1
  14. First Independent Church of Scientology Grade Chart and more.

    Religious Liberty League: FICofS Grade Chart & Etc.

    PDF for better resolution:

    PDF also attached below.

    Excerpt of Religious Liberty League post below the chart.


    * * * * * BEGIN EXCERPT * * * * *

    At long last, the Classification & Gradation Chart has been approved by the Technical Standards Committee (TSC) for the First Independent Church of Scientology (FICofS).

    To see the full sized pdf, Click here.

    Feel free to give your thoughts, criticism and praise in the comments below.

    And now to catch up.

    Breaking the Church Monopoly

    The church did not respond to the FICofS request for a license to use Scientology copyrights and incidental trademarks. This means that FICofS has perfected its legal rights to use LRH materials and incidental trademarks and its defenses against a potential infringement lawsuit brought by the church after FICofS openly uses and practices the religion of Scientology.

    Simply stated, FICofS, and any of its missions, churches or affiliated practitioners can safely exercise their First Amendment right to practice the religion. This does not mean that the church will not sue, but FICofS is locked and loaded, and fully prepared to defend and counter any such action.

    FICofS – RLL Distinction

    Religious Liberty League (RLL) is apart and separate from FICofS, and always has been. The line between the two was blurred when RLL assisted in the establishment of FICofS as part of RLL’s project to break the church’s monopoly over the copyrights and trademarks of Scientology. And more so when RLL’s proprietor became a trustee and officer of FICofS.

    Those positions were taken on by request and out of necessity since a legal entity had to be formed and legally constituted in order to retain the law firms and request a license to use Scientology materials. Having satisfied that need, and accomplished that stop-gap purpose those positions have been relinquished, giving a clear break between these two organizations.

    FICofS Website

    FICofS is in the process of building its own website. It owns two domains, one with the name spelled out and the other abbreviated. .org and .com for both.

    For future news about FICofS please visit those web sites.

    CNN Series Believer Scientology Episode


    * * * * * END EXCERPT * * * * *

    Attached Files:

  15. Notice Original OT VII is near the top. Jonathan Burke of the Advanced Organization of the Great Plains has a technical observation.

    * * * * * BEGIN EXCERPT * * * * *

    Jonathan burke April 16, 2017 at 7:31 pm Reply

    Nice work!

    If one is going to add the original OT VII at the top, the earlier original OT IV, V, and VI were meant to come prior to that level, as one builds upon another gradiently. The original OT VII perfects a beings intention and was originally used (per reports) to be done prior to NOTS for those who were having trouble doing NOTS in it’s earlier form as a corrective rundown, prior to it’s inception as an actual OT level later to replace the original OT VII. With that in mind, it would make more sense to have this done as an audited action prior to doing the NOTS OT VII level and not after, along with the original OT levels of IV-VI, which are quite literally the only positive gain levels in the OT band created by LRH. The wins are phenomenal and in my opinion would be a glaring omission to the public at large. If they haven’t been done by all, they are truly missing out, IMHO.

    * * * * * END EXCERPT * * * * *
  16. Important clarification about the new First Independent Church of Scientology Grade Chart.

    From Chris Black on the RLL website:

    * * * * * BEGIN EXCERPT * * * * *

    Chris Black April 17, 2017 at 3:10 pm Reply

    Jonathan (and any others reading this), the FICofS Grade Chart does include the earlier original OT IV, V, and VI levels on the Grade Chart. The levels on this Grade Chart are NOT the “New OT Levels” of the CoS, but the original LRH OT Levels. Possibly you’ve mis-read it. As to the the progression of OT Levels, they follow LRH’s intention as outlined in LRH 301 Int, 17 December 1978, and the 1974, 1978 & 1983 grade charts, as indicated at the bottom of the FICoS Grade Chart. One can read those issues for further reference and understanding.

    * * * * * END EXCERPT * * * * *
  17. Technical Update: The First Independent Church of Scientology Grade Chart deliberately omits the Scientology Drug Rundown.

    TSC = Technical Standards Committee

    * * * * * BEGIN EXCERPT * * * * *

    because April 19, 2017 at 2:53 am Reply
    I appreciate and admire the work you are doing.

    Please disregard if this has already been addressed I didn’t see the Scn. Drug RD listed under Processing and in the Awareness Characteristics column there is a typo just above #21. “Power on All & Dynamics” should be “Power on All Dynamics” .

    Thanks you

    Merrell Vannier April 19, 2017 at 3:39 am Reply
    Thanks for pointing out the typo. On Scn Drug RD, I don’t recall the TSC deliberations on this except generally that the issue was addressed.

    * * * * * END EXCERPT * * * * *
  18. "RemoteViewed" at My Scientology Blog has responded to the release of the First Independent Church of Scientology Grade Chart.

    * * * * * BEGIN EXCERPT * * * * *

    You can read about it here folks!

    So far it seems the move to form an Independent Church of Scientology is moving along with the release of their Bridge to Total Freedom AKA the Scientology Grade Chart.

    The Chart actually corrects the technical degrade instigated or more accurately perpetrated in the early eighties by the former Senior Case Supervisor International, Scientology’s Technical Tzar at the time, David Mayo.

    Anyone who wonders why OTs like the ones that dazzled the Intelligence Community back in the early seventies were no longer being made can thank David Mayo.

    I can understand why Ron may have overlooked this. First he was somewhat distracted at the time by efforts of our Government to indict as a coconspirator in the so called “Conspiracy” carried out by the Guardian’s office. Not only that there were a number of civil suits directed him by a shyster named Flynn and the pit of snakes he called his “associates” naming MkUltra poster child Ron DeWolf FKA L Ron Hubbard jr AKA Nibs as plaintiff.

    Little Ron as I call him would pop up like a evil little Jack in the Box through out the sixties and the early seventies presenting his case against the Old Man in reputable journals like Penthouse and Hustler then when confronted by dad’s counsel would retract what he said which makes for fun reading in Big Ron’s since released FBI files.

    But I digress.

    The man who was assigned to take over for Dave who was personally “shot from guns” by the Old Man himself when he found out that he was messing around with the tech was Ray Mithoff who seems to have fallen down some memory hole or is in the “hole” according to rumors but who did absolutely nothing about the blatant technical degrade noted earlier.

    In fact he would later conspire with David Miscavige nominal “Chairman of the Board RTC” AKA COB as in corn cob in the late nineties and “developed” using their own words a squirrel “technology” known as the “Golden Age of Tech” which would have made David Mayo squirrel extraordinare up until then green with envy.

    Mayo would merely slip his “new tech” in covertly while RTC would ram it down everybody’s throats using ethics to drive the tech out instead of in.

    I mean with all these alterations being generated by his rodent team members in RTRC under the guise of “assisting” Ron long after he had gone to some other planet in some far off galaxy or moved on to target two or had dropped the body or to put it bluntly deceased.
    I’m sure poor little Ray didn’t have the time required to pull the original OT Levels out of mothballs somewhere and put them back on the Grade Chart where they belonged.

    Or it could have been that he have suffered from flash backs caused by all the Acid he dropped when he was a freshman at Berserkly.


    So here we are over thirty years later with the original technology to make real operating thetans and it’s a good thing.

    To Merrel and everybody else at the First Independent Church of Scientology. I wish you all the best.

    * * * * * END EXCERPT * * * *
  19. The Internet Member

    Does this mean these indies can skip the liver damaging purif?
  20. No, the Purification Rundown is second from the bottom on the right, Processing, side of the First Independent Church of Scientology Grade Chart. The Scientology Drug Rundown is something different.
  21. It's funny how the current crop of indies seem to hate David Mayo. With Marty it seemed like it was because he left when Hubbard was still in charge and therefore was bad. Is that the case for the rest of them?
  22. thesneakster Member

    That's an interesting assertion. What do you base that on, please ?

    [edit added]
    RemoteViewed is just one person whom has not been appointed any sort of official spokeperson for Indie Scientologists or any subset of Indie Scientologists. Furthermore, he has been auditing in the Independent Field since maybe 2008, so he certainly is not associated with any "current crop".

    Bear in mind that the "indies" are about as inhomogenous as Anonymous. I don't doubt that there is some "indies" who are anti-Dave Mayo, of course.

    Michael A. Hobson
    Independent Scientologist

  23. DeathHamster Member

    Marty seemed to be frozen on the state of things when he left. Anyone who left before he did was still an enemy. Anyone who left after he did was only confirming that Marty was right. (There may be exceptions to that.)

    Deconstructing the Mayo Myth April 12, 2011, Marty Rathbun, Moving On Up a Little Higher
  24. Marty's views on David Mayo are well established. Moreover, at the point he was talking about Mayo on his blog his commenters seemed to be largely in agreement with his viewpoint. Clearly Marty is no longer a "thought leader" in this area but at the time I'd say he was broadly reflective of the views of a large number of independent Scientologists on the whole.

    The only other time I have seen any discussion on Mayo is the above blog post which continues in the same vein as Marty did.

    If you have more data points I would happily consider them.

    What are your views on David Mayo?
  25. The website of the First Independent Church of Scientology is live.

    I recently created a thread for the entirely separate organization known as the Independent Reformed Church of Scientology. That caused me to check on the status of the First Independent Church of Scientology.

    To my surprise, I found the website of the First Independent Church of Scientology is live. It does not appear they are providing services yet.

    First Independent Church of Scientology.



    As discussed at length in previous posts and only excerpted below, it appear the First Independent Church of Scientology has until January 23, 2019 to respond to the proposed denial of their trademark application.

  26. DeathHamster Member

    Previously they were using which now redirects to the new domain.
  27. The First Independent Church of Scientology (FICS) is continuing to litigate it's trademark application. The FICS has filed a response to the proposed USPTO decision to deny it's application for a trademark.

    The case was greatly delayed because the USPTO insisted on first processing (and eventually granted) Scientology trademark applications for Scientology Media Productions, not that they added anything new to the discussion.



    NOTE: The FICS is not to be confused with the recently incorporated Independent Reformed Church of Scientology (IRCS).
  28. First Independent Church of Scientology (FICS) Grade Chart: "Date Released 8 February 2019."

    In addition to having the file name GradeChart7Feb2019R.pdf and the "R" designation, the Grade Chart on the FICS website states in lower left-hand corner: "Date Released 8 February 2019."

    FICS Grade Chart 7 Feb 2019R '



    The FICS explains:

    * * * * * * BEGIN EXCERPT * * * * *

    The Grade Chart and Standard Technology

    A visitor to our church asked the following:

    What’s with the squirrel grade chart?

    I saw LRH’s written instructions to REMOVE original OT IV-VII from the Grade chart and to remove them from PC programming.

    Why squirrel his instruction?

    The answer is that L Ron Hubbard did not write instructions to remove these levels.

    The change to remove original OT IV-VII was made by HCOB 19 Jan 1982 “NEW – STREAMLINED CLASSIFICATION AND GRADATION CHART.”

    That HCOB was not written by LRH, and was later cancelled.

    * * * * * END EXCERPT * * * * *

    Attached Files:

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors


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

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins