What's new

Did Everyone Know But Me That

phenomanon

Canyon
Very interesting. Thanks.

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

NoName

A Girl Has No Name
He's the developer of "Calm", a fizzy Cal-Mag drink that is sold in finer stores everywhere. Scilons of course are the biggest consumers, because that's what Source would want. Oh wait, I guess they would go PTS if they drink it now. LOL! Yeeeeeesssssssss.......

Calm-billboard-20142.png



When I was on the Freewinds a guy who worked for Peter Gillham was there too. He was a real blowhard. Every other sentence he told you about "Calm". Even some of the staffers rolled their eyes at him.

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

RogerB

Crusader
Calm is not bad stuff. It is basically a Magnesium supplement, and we don't get enough magnesium in the standard American diet, and we need it just as much as calcium. It is, however, the form of Magnesium that can make your bowels... should I say... LOOSE. So, if you need to grease the machinery, CALM is not too bad. If you are already loose enough, well, perhaps another form of magnesium would be a better choice.

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

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

R
 

RogerB

Crusader
Thanks, Karen.
That's what I was told as well. The Declare is locked up and is kept secret from Scn'ists.
We who know Peter understand why COS would not want it known. But that's why I posted it here. I think that another exodus might occur if scn'ists hear that Peter Gillham has been declared.
COS is prolly trying to steal his store(s) ( The Nutritional Centers), and they prolly think that he will toe their line.
Peter is still a Tech believer and I don't expect that any of these boards are likely to enjoy his stories or his presence.
Thanks again. Was there any reason that you did not post the info? Just curious.

jana

Thanks Jana,

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

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

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

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

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

Rog
 

Infinite

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

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

R

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

. . . Rich sources of magnesium include tofu, legumes, whole grains, green leafy vegetables, wheat bran, Brazil nuts, soybean flour, almonds, cashews, blackstrap molasses, pumpkin and squash seeds, pine nuts, and black walnuts. Other good dietary sources of this mineral include peanuts, whole wheat flour, oat flour, beet greens, spinach, pistachio nuts, shredded wheat, bran cereals, oatmeal, bananas, and baked potatoes (with skin), chocolate, and cocoa powder. Many herbs, spices, and seaweeds supply magnesium, such as agar seaweed, coriander, dill weed, celery seed, sage, dried mustard, basil, cocoa powder, fennel seed, savory, cumin seed, tarragon, marjoram, poppy seed . . .

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

Mind you, I'm a cynic.
 

Smurf

Gold Meritorious SP
Greenberg and Jackson CPAs was sold many years ago to an employee named Brad Bernstein. MArt Greenberg retired before this but held his financial interest until Jim Jackson and he decided to sell it.

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

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

AnonyMary

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

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

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

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

CommunicatorIC

@IndieScieNews on Twitter

Thank you for posting this Phenonmanon,.
I know of 2 people who have actually eyeballed the declare which is carefully locked up in an HCO cabinet and only taken out to show select people on a *need to know basis*

I also received this ~~

[email protected]>
to: Karen de la Carriere <[email protected]>

date: Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 5:37 PM
subject: Peter Gillham
mailed-by: gmail.com
signed-by: gmail.com

[snip]

Also 1 person said that Jim Jackson, the accountant, of Jackson & Greenberg has been declared
.


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

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

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

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

If true, this is HUGE.

EDITED TO ADD:

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

James J. Jackson
http://jacksontaxatty.com/
I have over 40 years experience handling IRS audits, IRS collection problems, Tax Court cases, as well as Tax Preparation.

I am one of very few who are both a Tax Attorney and a Certified Public Accountant.

While many other firms that advertise solving IRS problems charge large upfront fees, take a cookie cutter approach, and then delegate your case to a junior member of the firm, I will always handle your matter personally. Each taxpayer’s case is different. Some cases are simple and can be resolved in a few hours. Other cases may be more complex and can take much longer to handle.

I make an estimate of the amount of time that may be needed to resolve a case and charge an initial retainer fee accordingly.

I always stay in touch with my clients, returning their phone calls and emails promptly.
The thing I find interesting and, to be honest, confusing, is that the domain was registered on 1/28/11, which indicates the domain was not registered, nor the separate, individual tax business created, in response to being recently Declared.
Domain Name: JACKSONTAXATTY.COM
Registry Domain ID: 1637468498_DOMAIN_COM-VRSN
Registrar WHOIS Server: whois.godaddy.com
Registrar URL: http://www.godaddy.com
Update Date: 2013-12-30 16:45:20
Creation Date: 2011-01-28 18:58:09
Registrar Registration Expiration Date: 2015-01-28 18:58:09
Registrar: GoDaddy.com, LLC
Registrar IANA ID: 146
Registrar Abuse Contact Email: [email protected]
Registrar Abuse Contact Phone: +1.480-624-2505
Domain Status: clientTransferProhibited
Domain Status: clientUpdateProhibited
Domain Status: clientRenewProhibited
Domain Status: clientDeleteProhibited
Registry Registrant ID:
Registrant Name: James Jackson
Registrant Organization:
Registrant Street: 411 Cleveland St. #182
Registrant City: Clearwater
Registrant State/Province: Florida
Registrant Postal Code: 33755
Registrant Country: United States
Registrant Phone: +1.7274466848
Registrant Phone Ext:
Registrant Fax:
Registrant Fax Ext:
Registrant Email: [email protected]
Registry Admin ID:
Admin Name: James Jackson
Admin Organization:
Admin Street: 411 Cleveland St. #182
Admin City: Clearwater
Admin State/Province: Florida
Admin Postal Code: 33755
Admin Country: United States
Admin Phone: +1.7274466848
Admin Phone Ext:
Admin Fax:
Admin Fax Ext:
Admin Email: [email protected]
Registry Tech ID:
Tech Name: James Jackson
Tech Organization:
Tech Street: 411 Cleveland St. #182
Tech City: Clearwater
Tech State/Province: Florida
Tech Postal Code: 33755
Tech Country: United States
Tech Phone: +1.7274466848
Tech Phone Ext:
Tech Fax:
Tech Fax Ext:
Tech Email: [email protected]
Name Server: NS67.DOMAINCONTROL.COM
Name Server: NS68.DOMAINCONTROL.COM
DNSSEC: unsigned
URL of the ICANN WHOIS Data Problem Reporting System: http://wdprs.internic.net/
Last update of WHOIS database: 2014-07-19T23:00:00Z
Then again, it was updated 12/30/13, so who knows?
 
If it is true that Jim Jackson has been Declared, it is going to be a HUGE mess.

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

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

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

If true, this is HUGE.

EDITED TO ADD:

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

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

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

CommunicatorIC

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

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

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

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

If true, this is HUGE.

EDITED TO ADD:

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

James J. Jackson
http://jacksontaxatty.com/
The thing I find interesting and, to be honest, confusing, is that the domain was registered on 1/28/11, which indicates the domain was not registered, nor the separate, individual tax business created, in response to being recently Declared.
Then again, it was updated 12/30/13, so who knows?
Looking into this further, it appears that either: (a) James Jackson is still an owner of Greenberg and Jackson; or (b) Greenberg and Jackson is arguably continuing to use Jackson's name in violation of the law. My reasoning is as follows.

First, Greenberg and Jackson is a professional accountancy corporation:

http://www2.dca.ca.gov/pls/wllpub/WLLQRYNA$LCEV2.QueryView?P_LICENSE_NUMBER=1162&P_LTE_ID=781
CALIFORNIA BOARD OF ACCOUNTANCY
Licensee Name:GREENBERG & JACKSON ACC CORP
License Type:CPA - Corporation
License Number:1162
License Status:CLEAR Definition
Expiration Date:October 31, 2015
Issue Date:October 15, 1979
Address:2441 HONOLULU AVE #120
City:MONTROSE
State:CA
Zip:91020-1864
County:LOS ANGELES
Disciplinary Actions/License Restrictions:No
No records returned

This information is updated Monday through Friday - Last updated: JUL-18-2014

Secondly, the California Board of Accountancy explains:

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

The name of the firm must meet the requirements set forth in BPC section 5060 and CCR, Title 16, section 75.5. CBA staff is unable to provide guidance regarding firm structure and whether a firm name will be considered false or misleading by your clients, therefore, licensees are encouraged to contact their legal counsel for guidance.

Corporation Renewal Cycle


An accountancy corporation must renew its license every two years to retain practice rights. The expiration date is based on the month and year the application was originally approved. If approved in an even-numbered year, the license will expire each even-numbered year on the last day of the month in which it was originally approved. If approved in an odd-numbered year, the license will expire each odd-numbered year on the last day of the month in which it was originally approved.

The CBA mails renewal forms with instructions approximately two months before the firm's license expiration date. If your renewal form is not completed, mailed, and postmarked by the license expiration date, your firm's practice rights cease until all deficiencies are corrected and the license is renewed.

Failure to renew within five years of expiration will result in cancellation of a corporation's license. A cancelled license cannot be renewed, reinstated, or restored.

If a corporation's license has been cancelled, the shareholder(s) must reapply and be approved for licensure before practicing or holding out to the public as an accountancy corporation.


http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=BPC&sectionNum=5060.
(a) No person or firm may practice public accountancy under any name which is false or misleading.

(b) No person or firm may practice public accountancy under any name other than the name under which the person or firm holds a valid permit to practice issued by the board.

(c) Notwithstanding subdivision (b), a sole proprietor may practice under a name other than the name set forth on his or her permit to practice, provided the name is registered by the board, is in good standing, and complies with the requirements of subdivision (a).

(d) The board may adopt regulations to implement, interpret, and make specific the provisions of this section including, but not limited to, regulations designating particular forms of names as being false or misleading.
It appears that IF Jackson is no longer a co-owner of Greenberg and Jackson, then the practice by that firm of public accountancy under the firm name "Greenberg and Jackson" would arguably be "false or misleading." That is particularly true where, as here, Jackson is not deceased, but instead is (hypothetically) practicing public accountancy with his own, separate firm.

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

Karen#1

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

Gib

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

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

I don't know, maybe you do.
 

AnonyMary

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

First, Greenberg and Jackson is a professional accountancy corporation:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

phenomanon

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



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

Mind you, I'm a cynic.

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

CommunicatorIC

@IndieScieNews on Twitter
Communicator I/C, you seem to not be getting the point that Jim is not a working partner in G&J and has not been so for many many years.
No, I do get that, and always did. It also is irrelevant to my analysis.
He's probably an officer of the corp, and by name only.
Being an officer, and also likely a co-owner, even if in "name only," would make all the difference under California Business and Professions Code section 5060. Being an officer, and also likely co-owner, even if "in name only" (which limitation would not be binding on third parties) would make him legally responsible for the firm, and consumers would arguably not be misled.

The point I was trying to raise is whether it would be proper to continue to use his Jackson's name in the firm name if (or after) he was no longer an officer and/or owner "in name only" because he had been declared and the firm had to disconnect.
Greenberg & Jackson is a firm. Even after an founding attorney retires, many a law firm will keep the founder's name in the firm title because of the goodwill and reputation the name has retained over the years.
That is true when an attorney dies, or retires. That is not true when an attorney leaves a firm but continues to actively practice law.

While I couldn't find any clearly controlling legal authority, one leading California legal treatise explains that:
It is misleading to use the name of an active lawyer who is no longer associated with the law firm. The name of a lawyer who withdraws from a firm but continues in practice should be omitted from the law firm's name in order to avoid misleading the public.
See P. Vapnek, M. Tuft, E. Peck & H. Wiener, California Practice Guide: Professional Responsibility, sec. 2:133 (Rutter Group 2013) (citing Matter of Miller (Rev.Dept. 1993) 2 Cal. State Bar Ct.Rptr. 423, 435–436; see ABA Model Rule 7.5, Comment (1)). [Sorry, the Rutter treatise is proprietary and I don't have a web link.]

A bit more generally with respect to attorneys, California Rule of Professional Conduct Rule 1-400, Standard 7, prohibits as misleading:
A "communication" in the form of a firm name, trade name, fictitious name, or other professional designation which states or implies that a member has a relationship to any other lawyer or a law firm as a partner or associate, or officer or shareholder pursuant to Business and professions Code sections 6160-6172 unless such relationship in fact exists.

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

To summarize and in short, the firm name of Greenberg and Jackson necessarily implies that Jackson, a public accountant who is active and is currently practicing, has an interest in the firm. The argument (analogizing to the above discussion re: attorneys) is that such necessary implication is misleading under California Business and Professions Code section 5060 if, in fact, Jackson has no interest in the firm.
In FL he's been working under an incorporated as a business for the CPA work since 2003 ( James Jackson, Inc ) and in 2006 converted that to a professional corp for the practice of law ( James Jackson, PA ) JAMES JACKSON, P.A.
http://search.sunbiz.org/Inquiry/Cor...0Jackson/Page1

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

There is nothing nefarious about his website. I gather he just finally decided to create one to keep up with things. If anyone was effected by his being declared ( if indeed he is declared ) it would be scientologist friends and clients in FL and DC.
I never suggested that either Jackson or any of his websites were "nefarious," or that Jackson is doing anything wrong or in violation of any statute. I only suggested the possibility that the accountant owners of the Greenberg and Jackson firm were using a misleading firm name in violation of California Business and Professions Code section 5060 by continuing to use Jackson's name in the firm name if, in fact, Jackson no longer has any interest in the business.
 
Last edited:

bitse

New Member
Greenberg and Jackson CPAs was sold many years ago to an employee named Brad Bernstein. MArt Greenberg retired before this but held his financial interest until Jim Jackson and he decided to sell it. They probably both retain a directorship of it, corporate wise. Jim Jackson is a CPA who later became an attorney. He moved from LA to Washington DC and later the Clearwater area to work as an attorney.

As far as disconnection and Jim's work as a CPA or attorney, all scientologists would have to disconnect from him. However, he is of retirement age and from what I could see, he probably has not done much work with scientologists in recent years for it to be a big issue for him. Friends disconnecting is another matter. If he was declared you can be it was because he got fed up with all the IAS, Ideal Org fundraising and regging pressures. Seems to be more common now for long time scientologists to be waking up.

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

CommunicatorIC

@IndieScieNews on Twitter
James Jackson, formerly of Greenberg and Jackson, has left the Church of Scientology

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

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

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

In addition to the fact that James's letter was sent to Tony and posted on his site, the letter concludes:
In these final years I had a fantasy that if only I could reach Lyman that perhaps I could ally with him once again to finally reform the Church and actually follow the corporate checks and balances that Lyman helped design before LRH’s death to prevent the kind of insidious dictatorial control we have now that is so counter to LRH’s intent.

That fantasy died the other day.

I am now reminded of the scene from the 1986 Rob Reiner film Stand By Me, when Richard Dreyfuss is reading a newspaper clipping about his close childhood friend from twenty years earlier suddenly dying when the friend tried to intercede in a fight between two strangers in a fast food restaurant. The years had gone by without any contact, but Dreyfuss still felt very close.

Dreyfuss was very sad at the end of that very poignant movie. I am grieving now myself, not only for the loss of Lyman, but for the hopes and dreams that we all held so dear in those early Scientology years.

James J Jackson
Attorney at Law
Certified Public Accountant
Los Angeles, California
 
Last edited:

Leland

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

James Jackson is out of the corporate Church of Scientology.

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

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

In addition to the fact that James's letter was sent to Tony and posted on his site, the letter concludes:


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

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

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

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

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

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

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