Auckland Org / charity status / nosey about their money

Alanzo

Bardo Tulpa
Forensic accounting of the Church of Scientology makes me feel so good.

And it will make you feel good, too.

Governments around the world: Apply some forensic accounting to your local networks of Scientology today!
 

Nurse Pinch

Patron with Honors
My initial guestimates on this statement are as follows:

Rental Income- No idea- I guess they are renting something out- what and to whom?

INvestment income- this would be mainly interest received on monies held in the org Building Fund and Genereal Liability Fund accounts and other accounts. The local org is not going to be playing the stock market.

Contributions from other orgs- This sounds like bailout money to pay the orgs rent etc. For certain types of Sea Org mission, the CLO or Flag may send the org money to give to the missionaires to keep them alive etc as well.

Donations- This one is a big WTF? Normally this would be stuff like a public donating the org $50 to fix up the film room or something. But $180K is a lot of dono's for no specific purpose- would definately want to see the details on this one if I were a charities commision.

Booksales surplace- This one is the surplas on booksales :)

Sales of courses and Auditing- Interesting thing about this is that it is lower than the booksales SURPLAS. ie the booksales surplas is usually about 40% of the gross booksales. This suggests that staff were selling a LOT of books- ok just realised this is prolly the basics evolution.

Comparing the 2008 sales to 2007, you can see how the basics evolution really boomed the org :no:

Other interesting thing is the staff were payed more than they sold in courses, and auditing as well as the books surplas. How is it so? Unless the donos are going into the general income and being divied up as staff pay. Normally a dono for something would be removed from income the org has to spend so that it could be applied to the purpose it was donated for. Obvioulsy this was not done. Also, they sent more money to 'affiliated orgs' than they made through course sales, which is another WTF? Although this figure could include amounts sent to New Era Pubs for more books.

Loss on disposal of an asset $60K- a nice round figure- sounds like someone just pulled it out of their ass. What asset?



Pinchy.
 

Daedle

Patron
Think I've hit goldmine.

Supporting document - Application- IRD withheld.pdf on this page: http://www.register.charities.govt.....aspx?id=5aa34fb9-cc91-dc11-98a0-0015c5f3da29

Section 22: Identify the percentage of New Zealand-sourced funds that were spent overseas in the last financial year (or if the entity has not been operating for a year, the percentage of New Zealand-sourced funds that the entity intends to spend overseas in the upcoming year.

i.e. How much does the COS intend to spend or ship overseas. They answered N/A.

So I'm sorry COS, you received a loan of $1,686,682 and then sent $3,164,889 overseas in what you claim was a loan repayment. So that includes interest of $1,478,207 (88% interest rate) which was sourced FROM NEW ZEALAND FUNDS.

Edit;
Now reading through their internal charity rules. Section 6.2:
6.2 No membership may be terminated for any such cause unless:
6.2.1 The committee first shall have given to the member full and reasonable notice of the cause.
6.2.2 The member is given reasonable opportunity to prepare a response, and to put that response to a hearing panel.
6.2.3 That panel is unbiased and otherwise acts in good faith and observes fully the requirements of natural justice.
Do we have any examples of NZ ex's who were kicked out and/or declared SP without being able to put their case before a panel?

9.1 In and for each year, the members of the Church shall elect - in accordance with any relevant by-laws that may have been promulgated by the Church of Scientology International - a Committee which shall comprise at least three and not more than five ordained members in good standing with the Church of Scientology International.
How many ex's voted at least once per year for this committee?

Section 18 is a lot of jargon about the use of funds solely for the promotion of the COS. What were those legal fees for in 2008? Did any anons get outed or receive Cease and desist letters?
 
Last edited:

Once bitten

Patron Meritorious
NZ CofS

Think I've hit goldmine.

Supporting document - Application- IRD withheld.pdf on this page: http://www.register.charities.govt.....aspx?id=5aa34fb9-cc91-dc11-98a0-0015c5f3da29

Section 22: Identify the percentage of New Zealand-sourced funds that were spent overseas in the last financial year (or if the entity has not been operating for a year, the percentage of New Zealand-sourced funds that the entity intends to spend overseas in the upcoming year.

i.e. How much does the COS intend to spend or ship overseas. They answered N/A.

So I'm sorry COS, you received a loan of $1,686,682 and then sent $3,164,889 overseas in what you claim was a loan repayment. So that includes interest of $1,478,207 (88% interest rate) which was sourced FROM NEW ZEALAND FUNDS.


Now reading through their internal charity rules. Section 6.2:

Do we have any examples of NZ ex's who were kicked out and/or declared SP without being able to put their case before a panel?
According to a letter Mike Ferriss sent to my husband's school about us, which included a lot of slander and lies as you can expect, he also noted at the closing of the letter that I was 'expelled for gross unethical conduct'. I was on staff for five years in Sydney and left because they would not allow me to care for my baby and ordered me back to post. (I was a C/S). I am a declared SP and the fact that I was expelled was news to me.

I would one day like to ask Mike on camera, what I did and have him say all that he has so obviously read about me in my pc/ethics folder. I know he has because he quoted stuff out of it to me at a protest, and then claimed that I had put it on the boards. He knew just a little bit too much, though, and it made me wonder again, is this the expected behaviour of a charity?


How many ex's voted at least once per year for this committee?

Section 18 is a lot of jargon about the use of funds solely for the promotion of the COS. What were those legal fees for in 2008? Did any anons get outed or receive Cease and desist letters?

Yes, a number did. Mike Ferriss was VERY active out and about during the times of the protests and spent a lot of time finding out names and addresses of the young anons at the protests. His biggest thrill was to ring these people out of the blue at their homes and tell them who he was and that he knew who they were. They would then receive a letter from the solicitor. It was a big win for him in those days but now, as we all know, no one really cares! Is this expected behaviour from a charitable organisation?

But there will be more lawyers fees from last year as while the documentary was being filmed one of the people on it was threatened with a law suit as was the film director, and Mike went to all of the other 'fringe' religions and tried to get them on board as well. This must have cost them a bomb but the doco went ahead anyway.
 

Dulloldfart

Squirrel Extraordinaire
Think I've hit goldmine.

Supporting document - Application- IRD withheld.pdf on this page: http://www.register.charities.govt.....aspx?id=5aa34fb9-cc91-dc11-98a0-0015c5f3da29

The info they supplied is also false. For example, Sources of Funds, item 20, asks: From which of the following sources does the entity get or intend to get funds? The choices are:

government grants/contracts
income from service provision
income from trading operations
donations/koha
New Zealand dividends
other (please state)
other investment income
any other grants and sponsorship
membership fees
bequests.

Now I assume this application was approved by OSA Legal on professional advice, and it wasn't just some expeditor filling out a form as part of a quota of forms to get done while the other staff write letters at 2 a.m. to CF.

I would think that a Scn org would get income from service provision (training and auditing); income from trading operations (selling bookstore items — tangible goods rather than services); some donations for toilet paper etc. from public taking pity on the staff etc.; and that's about it.

But let's see what *they* state:

income from service provision — not checked!
income from trading operations — not checked!
donations/koha — checked
membership fees — checked
bequests — checked.

*What* membership fees do they get? Doesn't the IAS, a separate corporation, rake in all the membership money?

Do they really not understand that monies paid for books and services are not donations in the accounting sense of the word?

Paul
 

randomx

Patron with Honors
Legal threats.

Yes many anons in Auckland received legal threats
from Scientology`s lawyer Evgeny Orlov .
I have in my possession, not only mine but
legal threats served on five other anons.

http://www.equitylaw.co.nz/?page_id=10

One of Evgeny`s cases of note

"The investigation followed a meeting at which Deliu and another lawyer, Evgeny Orlov, were accused of behaving in a threatening manner.

They had turned up at the Auckland offices for a hearing on a separate complaint against Orlov. Police were called and a fresh investigation launched.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz-law-society/news/article.cfm?o_id=500483&objectid=10627486
 

Jimmymac

Patron
In light of the inquiry so far, and the failure of CCHR to get tax exempt status in NZ I would like to ask some questions about the records of AK ORG -that were submitted to the tax dept and/or the Charities Commission. Refer to attached doc at bottom of page.


Fantastic.

It must kill them that us evil sp's can see exactly what is going on courtesy of a financial statement. :thumbsup:
 

mate

Patron Meritorious
NZ Dept of Labour

These are fantastic revelations. I would suggest that each Kiwi ex-scientologist, write up these findings independently and submit their reports to the Charities Commission and send a copy to the IRD. In addition to this, I would suggest each contact the NZ Dept of Labour and have a chat with a Labour Inspector.

The website of New Zealand’s Department of Labour, has the following information.

Every employer has to pay at least the minimum wage unless an employee has a minimum wage exemption permit.

Your employer can apply to a Labour Inspector for an exemption permit if you both agree there is a good reason why you should be paid less than the minimum wage.
Labour Inspectors will issue a minimum wage exemption only if they think it is reasonable and appropriate to do so. They can refuse to issue one if they think you should be paid the minimum wage, or if the wage offered is unfair.

Before a Labour Inspector will issue a minimum wage exemption permit, they will make sure that:
· your disability really stops you from earning the minimum wage
· you have been given the opportunity to have an independent support person or advocate with you when you are talking about your wages with your employer
· the work is suitable for you and you get appropriate supervision and training
· you are offered a written employment agreement that meets all employment rights, such as paid holidays and sick leave, and adequate health and safety conditions (except minimum wage)
· the wage rate relates to your ability to do the work
· the wage is consistent with the wages paid to other people whose circumstances are similar to yours, and who have exemptions
· your employer has done everything they can reasonably be expected to do to help you do the job well.
Labour Inspectors will not issue a minimum wage exemption permit unless they are sure that the wage rate is fair and that you agree with it.
http://ers.govt.nz/pay/disabled.html
 

sallydannce

Gold Meritorious Patron
Here is a decision that NZ Broadcasting Standards Authority (BSA) gave on 01 June 2010 in response to a complaint from scientologist Yure Radojkovich. Yure complained about a morning TV3 item referring to the upcoming “How to Spot a Cult” documentary (which screened on NZ TV last week of Nov. 2009).

The BSA did not uphold his complaint.

http://www.bsa.govt.nz/decisions/2010/2010-039.htm

I thought it might be nice to share on this thread. Because I can. Freedom of speech and all that.

I have seen the land transfer title (I forget its correct name) on the owner of the Grafton Rd idle org. It lists the CofS NZ Inc as the owner.

If anyone wants to see NZ CofS financial statements going back to 1996 you can do so here:

http://www.business.govt.nz/companies

  1. “online services – do it now”
  2. "search other registers” (under "dashboard" on left)
  3. “select all” for various entities listed

Search term “scientology” and NZ CofS is easily found. The financial statements back to 1996 are all there in pdf. You will notice that the CofS is always very late in filing these statements. Legally they are meant to be filed annually - not sporadically or "when ya get around to it..."

If one spreadsheets certain key figures for the ten+ year period financial statements are available for, they paint a very very fascinating picture. Not a healthy picture either.
 
Here is a decision that NZ Broadcasting Standards Authority (BSA) gave on 01 June 2010 in response to a complaint from scientologist Yure Radojkovich. Yure complained about a morning TV3 item referring to the upcoming “How to Spot a Cult” documentary (which screened on NZ TV last week of Nov. 2009).

The BSA did not uphold his complaint.

http://www.bsa.govt.nz/decisions/2010/2010-039.htm

I thought it might be nice to share on this thread. Because I can. Freedom of speech and all that.

I have seen the land transfer title (I forget its correct name) on the owner of the Grafton Rd idle org. It lists the CofS NZ Inc as the owner.

If anyone wants to see NZ CofS financial statements going back to 1996 you can do so here:

http://www.business.govt.nz/companies

  1. “online services – do it now”
  2. "search other registers” (under "dashboard" on left)
  3. “select all” for various entities listed

Search term “scientology” and NZ CofS is easily found. The financial statements back to 1996 are all there in pdf. You will notice that the CofS is always very late in filing these statements. Legally they are meant to be filed annually - not sporadically or "when ya get around to it..."

If one spreadsheets certain key figures for the ten+ year period financial statements are available for, they paint a very very fascinating picture. Not a healthy picture either.

Thanks for the info. i have been trying to find out who *exactly* owns the Grafton Road building.
 
i have just started looking at the register, but so far found this about the (now defunct?) Christchurch mission.


Number Name Register Status
221283 CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY MISSION OF CHRIST-CHURCH INCORPORATED INCSOC Struck Off

I'm wondering why they were *struck off*.

I would think that term would only be used for some dodgy behaviour. Surely the term *removed* would be used if it was simply a matter of closing/ceasing the entity?
 

Once bitten

Patron Meritorious
i have just started looking at the register, but so far found this about the (now defunct?) Christchurch mission.


Number Name Register Status
221283 CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY MISSION OF CHRIST-CHURCH INCORPORATED INCSOC Struck Off

I'm wondering why they were *struck off*.

I would think that term would only be used for some dodgy behaviour. Surely the term *removed* would be used if it was simply a matter of closing/ceasing the entity?

There is no mission here in Christchurch now. It was a Dianetics mission run by Mike Mc Auliffe and his wife Marg. I had the pleasure of meeting them at a 'protest' we had in the Square where they SHOUTED at me telling me I was not threatened with an abortion after I got pregnant with my son. Were they there for god's sake???

I got so ANGRY with them I rang the police. They worked for Mike Ferriss, who ordered them to come and hassle us during our pamphlet-handing out sessions in the Square. He didn't like having his photo taken and put up on the web, so he stopped coming. He used to run the mission from his house which funnily enough was around the corner from where we live. We used to get his mail as we had the same street number and before I knew they were scis I felt sorry for them getting all the sci mail that they got that I mistakenly got and I threw it out!! Funny. Then I started getting their bank statements etc but being the good person that I am I hand delivered them to their letter box, even though I knew they were scis.

They used to run a stress test booth at a Sunday market but it was pretty fail.

They have left Christchurch and now are in Adelaide.

My ex's family used to run the Dianetics mission here and that's where I got involved in 1975. A number of people still in were started off at that mission. After that the notorious Nigel Gray tried to get it running again after a bit of a lull. You can check out his website here: http://www.rehabnz.co.nz/pages/drug-lecture-nz.html

This is from a reliable source, (his brother).

Instead of saying on his website, "while in Russia Nigel lectured blah blah blah' it should say, while in Russia Nigel assaulted his wife and had an affair with his Russian translator Luba, with whom he he was subsequently expelled from the cofs in Russia for his unethical behaviour. He returned to the US with Luba, but was not welcomed by the church there, and became very ill, owing much money in doctors fees.

When the US authorities became interested in why he was leaving his young daughter unattended in the house all day with only the television for company, he fled the US. He returned to NZ with his daughter and Luba, and was quickly taken under the wing of Mike Ferriss who sheltered him from the US authorities in exchange for being Mike's lackey. His daughter has been working for the cofs in Auckland since the age of 14. Luba has been quoted as saying that everyone who isn't a scientologist should be killed. Mike excused this as her having trouble with translating what she actually meant.

You can see from his web site here: http://www.rehabnz.co.nz/pages/instant-calmag.html

that he advocates giving cal-mag to babies. This is a poison, and I really don't know why he thinks he has the right to suggest that he has the authority OR the knowledge to advocate the treatment of stress with this poison.

Oh god.

I could go on but I think that's enough for now.

We can safely say that there is no effective mission here in Christchurch.
 

sallydannce

Gold Meritorious Patron
i have just started looking at the register, but so far found this about the (now defunct?) Christchurch mission.


Number Name Register Status
221283 CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY MISSION OF CHRIST-CHURCH INCORPORATED INCSOC Struck Off

I'm wondering why they were *struck off*.

I would think that term would only be used for some dodgy behaviour. Surely the term *removed* would be used if it was simply a matter of closing/ceasing the entity?

Here's some history and clarification:

The Ch.Ch. Mission you mention above (#221283) is the mission that was operated by folk like Bloomburg (sp? I apologise), the Grays, etc.

By the time I came into scientology in 1987, in Ch.Ch., this mission no longer was functioning. Myself and another woman were recruited to start another mission. Ron Pollard (Aust.) had purchased a mission package and training. Myself and friend, did the training at Auckland org in 1987.

When we returned to Ch.Ch. we formed a new incorporated society and called it Christchurch Dianetics Centre Inc. Per the agreement with SMI ANZO and Int, we were a registered scientology mission.

The term "struck off" is used by the Companies Office (incorporated societies section) as that is what they do. The process when a group no longer furbishes annual financial statements, is for the Companies Office to send out notice to the last known address. If there is no response, then they advertise in public newspaper the proposed register removal - if still no response the group is struck off the register. This is probably the case for the Ch.Ch. Mission you mention above. It is merely "house-keeping".

Another way for a group to be struck off is for the group itself to request to be removed from the register in the instance of a group winding up.

"Struck off" can also be for dodgy behaviour but most often it is simply used when the register has been given a tidy up.

You will find several former scientology entities on the register which have been "struck off". As far as I am aware, in all cases this has been because of a total lack of functioning or response to requests from officials.
 
Top