Did anyone else just get this email from the Whitehouse?

RogerB

Crusader
Actally, you were correct in your response to my post as I didn't know they would have to employ an outside lobbyist to represent them at the time of my post. Now I see how the game is rigged with ways to get around the spirit of the law.

Yes, what they as a not-for-profit/church are prohibited from doing, under any circumstances, is providing monetary support to any candidate or political party.

In actuality, if one reads the Charter of COSRECI, that South Australian not for profit that is the umbrella of operation for the "churches" throughout the British system (UK, Oz, NZ etc.) it's charter and by-laws actually state it is to not engage in political lobbying.

It is possible there is a subtle nuance of difference between the two legal systems cum definitions of "lobbying." I quite often find myself having to be careful which legal standard I am applying when I think/write on all sorts of subjects: not just this subject. Accounting and also Tax Law are examples where there are differences.

Dulloldfart, Mate and I and discoursed on ESMB on this COSRECI issue earlier in the year in the run up to the Oz Senate hearing.

R
 

Dulloldfart

Squirrel Extraordinaire
Yes, this is good and correct . . . .

What they have done is employ a law firm/lawyer to represent/present their interests in matters before government.

I may have misread what I was responding to . . . in my early morning reading of the posts here, I responded to two thoughts: one being a mention of "Obama not wanting to offend the Cof$/Miscavige money support" and then reading what you wrote to mean that the Cof$ was lobbying directly rather than have an Attorney represent their interest.

Paying an attorney to represent/lobby their interest is legitimate.

R

If the "they" you refer to, Rog, is the CofS, then it's not so. Greg Mitchell isn't an attorney. He is a political animal through and through, per the bio on his firm's website.

Excerpt from http://www.themitchellfirm.com/thefirm/founder.html, which goes on and on in the same vein:

Greg Mitchell has been in politics and government since 1991. He got his start as an intern during his senior year of college in the Pasadena, California, office of Congressman Carlos J. Moorhead.
Paul
 

DagwoodGum

Squirreling Dervish
If the "they" you refer to, Rog, is the CofS, then it's not so. Greg Mitchell isn't an attorney. He is a political animal through and through, per the bio on his firm's website.

Excerpt from http://www.themitchellfirm.com/thefirm/founder.html, which goes on and on in the same vein:
Greg Mitchell has been in politics and government since 1991. He got his start as an intern during his senior year of college in the Pasadena, California, office of Congressman Carlos J. Moorhead.
Paul
Nice catch Paul, easy to miss these things in the house of mirrors that is the US legal system, the politico puppets and their wealthy puppetmasters...
http://dyn.politico.com/members/forums/thread.cfm?catid=2&subcatid=29&threadid=4125276
 

RogerB

Crusader
If the "they" you refer to, Rog, is the CofS, then it's not so. Greg Mitchell isn't an attorney. He is a political animal through and through, per the bio on his firm's website.

Excerpt from http://www.themitchellfirm.com/thefirm/founder.html, which goes on and on in the same vein:

Greg Mitchell has been in politics and government since 1991. He got his start as an intern during his senior year of college in the Pasadena, California, office of Congressman Carlos J. Moorhead.
Paul

Yes, this is a good catch.

Many of the biggest for-hire lobby firms are registered lawyers . . . . if I remember correctly, outfits like this in any event have to be registered to perform as lobbyists for hire.

I know that in the case of representation for "Foreign Powers" agents on retainer to lobby our government have to be registered as such. Leonard B. Boudin was the registered agent for Cuba when he took on MSH as a client . . . but then he represented every left-wing outfit and case going on in his day :nervous:

Of course the word attorney actually means (in American English) legally appointed to act for or represent another. It has morphed to be thought of as only being practicing lawyers here in the US. English English dictionaries are closer to the original meaning of the word as: "a person appointed to act for another in business or legal matters." Or, "a person who has the power to act for another." Various derivations such as meaning agent or deputy.

:biggrin: Those that practice the Law in the British system are not called attorneys . . . they are solicitors and barristers. :biggrin: We who speak the better class of English choose to be a little more precise with our use of it :melodramatic:

So, you smart folks with some time and insight on the US scene might find it fruitful to investigate and analyze this scenario: COSRECI has it in its Charter and statement of purpose and By-Laws that it is not-for-profit and thus cannot, and states it will not, engage in political lobbying.

The question becomes, is a church and/or not-for-profit prohibited from political lobbying in the US? Does it have to state that it will not engage in such in its Charter here in the US?

This action is quite distinct from and different to their freedom to provide consultative type documents such as "friends of the Court briefs" and such.

R
 

Lermanet_com

Gold Meritorious Patron
That article ITSELF is disinformation...
I'm calling BS... Bullshit is highlighted

Roger,
It seems that the issue of lobbying religions has become another slippery slope with many grey areas:

"The Church of Scientology and the First Church of Christ, Scientist, are the only organized denominations to disclose any of their lobbying in 2010, according to the Center's research, likely because they hired outside lobbyists.


In 2010, the Church of Scientology spent $110,000, in part lobbying in favor of the National Criminal Justice Commission Act, which would create a blue-ribbon, bipartisan commission of experts tasked with reviewing the nation’s criminal justice system and offering recommendations for reform.


Since it began lobbying in 2003,
the Church of Scientology has employed Greg Mitchell as its only lobbyist. Mitchell is a former chief of staff of ex-Rep. James Rogan (R-Calif.). "

Here's the entire article:

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2011/07/gods-lobbyists.html

Rebuttals:

a lobbyist pal gave me an old copy of the (name forgotten, something like Washington Insider, who reps who - a thick index of every lawfirm and lobby firm in DC and WHOM thier clients were... from 1997. It LISTED Williams and Connolly as repping Miscavige and ASI, and listed Federal Legislative Associates (A LOBBY FIRM) as repping CST (I think it was, or maybe Author Services...but whatever its a distinction without a difference...as its all run by DM anyway...I orginally posted the facts and quoted the pages on Alt.religion.scientology newsgroup..that is reference below to the 'records made public last week'...)


further this 1997 SP Times article states: (LINK)

Scientology has used lobbyists in Washington in the past, but in the years since the IRS ruling the organization has stepped up its lobbying effort. Records made public last week show that Religious Technology Center, a Scientology affiliate in Los Angeles, paid almost $725,000 to a Washington-based firm to lobby Congress in 1997 and 1996.

David H. Miller, the managing partner of Federal Legislative Associates, said members of Congress initially were skeptical about his client and its checkered past.
the checkbook lawyer, that big tax lawyer in DC, Monique Yingling.. her firm is also a lobby firm (most big DC lawfirms take lobby clients).. and then you have Earle Cooley's firm...THEY do lobbying... all with attorney Client privilege -

By 'lobbying' I can give a metaphor...

The emails, phone calls and letters from voters in their districts or states (for senators) are like a swollen river at flood stage filled with paper and memos...going by... that is what a congressman's office is like, then there is, floating on all this, these glitzy showboats, with flashing lights, hookers (male and female or whatever floats your boat) and free junkets, someone to fix your daughters failing grades at Dartmouth and dinner at The Prime Rib... and a promise not to reveal the young girl you pooned last night in the back of the law firm's limo.. shielded by attorney client privilege...THOSE are the lobby firms...

get the picture?

it aint pretty but you have to know what you are dealing (the lay of the land) or you might as well just piss into the wind



regards
Arnie Lerma
 
Last edited:

AnonKat

Crusader
2157245b-8106-405e-ae56-9b49c06b83a3.jpg
 

FoTi

Crusader
I just got this in my inbox:



Why We Can't Comment on this Petition about the Church of Scientology


Thank you for signing the petition "EXAMINE THE GOVERNMENT'S FAILURE TO INVESTIGATE AND PROSECUTE CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY CRIME, FRAUD AND ABUSE." We appreciate your participation in the We the People platform on WhiteHouse.gov.




The We the People Terms of Participation explain that "the White House may decline to address certain procurement, law enforcement, adjudicatory, or similar matters properly within the jurisdiction of federal departments or agencies, federal courts, or state and local government." The Department of Justice is charged with investigating federal crimes and enforcing federal criminal laws. Accordingly, the White House declines to comment on the specific law enforcement matter raised in this petition.


Check out this response on We the People.

Aren't they saying that this is under the Department of Justice jurisdiction and not the White House? In other words......we don't deal with this? Or....this isn't our department?

Seems kind of like.....I don't want to be bothered with this.....Go ask your mother.
 
Last edited:

Lermanet_com

Gold Meritorious Patron
AND long before any of this, back in the 80's there was an OSA Office on Capitol Hill just for OSA Staff use while THEY were lobbying... Maybe you could ask Ladybird to tell you about it, she worked there.
 

DagwoodGum

Squirreling Dervish
That article ITSELF is disinformation...
I'm calling BS... Bullshit is highlighted



Rebuttals:

a lobbyist pal gave me an old copy of the (name forgotten, something like Washington Insider, who reps who - a thick index of every lawfirm and lobby firm in DC and WHOM thier clients were... from 1997. It LISTED Williams and Connolly as repping Miscavige and ASI, and listed Federal Legislative Associates (A LOBBY FIRM) as repping CST (I think it was, or maybe Author Services...but whatever its a distinction without a difference...as its all run by DM anyway...I orginally posted the facts and quoted the pages on Alt.religion.scientology newsgroup..thats reference below to the 'records made public last week'...)


further this 1997 SP Times article states: (LINK)

the checkbook lawyer, that big tax lawyer in DC, her firm is also a lobby firm (most big DC lawfirms take lobby clients).. and then you have Earle Cooley's firm...THEY do lobbying...

By 'lobbying' I can give a metaphor...

The emails, phone calls and letters from voters in their districts or states (for senators) are like a swollen river at flood stage filled with paper and memos... that is what a congressman's office is like, then there floating on all this, are these glitzy showboats, with flashing lights, hookers (male and female or whatever floats your boat) and free junkets, someone to fix your daughters failing grades at Dartmouth and dinner at The Prime Rib... and a promise not to reveal the young girl you pooned last night in the back of the law firm's limo.. shielded by attorney client privledge...THOSE are the lobby firms...

get the picture?

it aint pretty but you have to know what you are dealing (the lay of the lnd) or you might as well just piss into the wind



regards
Arnie Lerma
My take on the article was that it was a mere cursory look at some instances of COS lobbying activity while it's purpose was to cover the subject of religious lobbying, rather than all specific instances of it. No doubt that there is a lot more he could have uncovered had he wanted to write a longer article. We'll probably never know of every underhanded back room, out of the light of day, political manipulation DM is guilty of. What we know would only seem to be the tip of the iceberg. My purpose in passing it along was only to show that the COS does lobby politicians which would seem to lead to a conclusion that this petition will get buried by the political corporatocracy that pretends to have our interests at heart and will yield no results whatsoever, not to rain on any prematurely celebratory parades.
 

DagwoodGum

Squirreling Dervish
Aren't they saying that this is under the Department of Justice jurisdiction and not the White House? In other words......we don't deal with this? Or....this isn't our department?

Seems kind of like.....I don't want to be bothered with this.....Go ask your mother.
That would seem to be what they're saying. With the upcoming elections, the last thing this administration would want to incur is having religious zealots descend upon them because the COS would spin it that "Freedom of Religion" is under attack when nothing could be further from the truth.
 
Re: Official "Response" from our Government to the Petition

I got this e-mail



I am underwhelmed. It appears we have the best government money can buy.

It's a perfectly intelligent and reasonable public response to a public request regarding a potential criminal case. What were you expecting? Obama announcing the arrest of the midget?

Government is restricted by due process. That is a good thing.


Mark A. Baker
 

Axiom142

Gold Meritorious Patron
I got this email as well – it was obviously sent to everyone who signed this petition.

I am not really surprised by the response. A little disappointed perhaps, but not surprised.

The response from the White House said “The Department of Justice is charged with investigating federal crimes and enforcing federal criminal laws. Accordingly, the White House declines to comment on the specific law enforcement matter raised in this petition.”

This sounds reasonable I suppose, the Executive Office shouldn’t be investigating criminal activities – this should be done by the relevant law-enforcement agencies. But the fact that the FBI has apparently abandoned its investigations into the (alleged) criminal activities of the Scientology Crime Syndicate, should be of serious concern to the government of the United States of America.

Of course, it could be argued that the CoS is only one of a plethora of tin-pot cults who abuse their members both financially and mentally and that there are far more serious threats to the security of the US right now. But, if the cult of Scientology is allowed to get away with this, then how many other cults and organizations will feel free to do the same?

There is a principal at stake here – the rule of law, not to mention human rights, must be upheld. Too often, the wishes of big business have been put before the needs of the individual. The Scientology Crime Syndicate is a business, one that has no compunction about breaking the law whenever it suits them, but primarily is a business which exists to make Miscavige more powerful and wealthy.

I wonder how the Founding Fathers would react to this ‘turn a blind eye’ attitude?

Shame on you White House!

Axiom142
 

British Mom

Patron with Honors
I just got this in my inbox:



Why We Can't Comment on this Petition about the Church of Scientology


Thank you for signing the petition "EXAMINE THE GOVERNMENT'S FAILURE TO INVESTIGATE AND PROSECUTE CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY CRIME, FRAUD AND ABUSE." We appreciate your participation in the We the People platform on WhiteHouse.gov.




The We the People Terms of Participation explain that "the White House may decline to address certain procurement, law enforcement, adjudicatory, or similar matters properly within the jurisdiction of federal departments or agencies, federal courts, or state and local government." The Department of Justice is charged with investigating federal crimes and enforcing federal criminal laws. Accordingly, the White House declines to comment on the specific law enforcement matter raised in this petition.


Check out this response on We the People.

Yes I got the same reply, maybe the government is in their pockets too :yes:
 

FoTi

Crusader
I got this email as well – it was obviously sent to everyone who signed this petition.

I am not really surprised by the response. A little disappointed perhaps, but not surprised.

The response from the White House said “The Department of Justice is charged with investigating federal crimes and enforcing federal criminal laws. Accordingly, the White House declines to comment on the specific law enforcement matter raised in this petition.”

This sounds reasonable I suppose, the Executive Office shouldn’t be investigating criminal activities – this should be done by the relevant law-enforcement agencies. But the fact that the FBI has apparently abandoned its investigations into the (alleged) criminal activities of the Scientology Crime Syndicate, should be of serious concern to the government of the United States of America.

Of course, it could be argued that the CoS is only one of a plethora of tin-pot cults who abuse their members both financially and mentally and that there are far more serious threats to the security of the US right now. But, if the cult of Scientology is allowed to get away with this, then how many other cults and organizations will feel free to do the same?

There is a principal at stake here – the rule of law, not to mention human rights, must be upheld. Too often, the wishes of big business have been put before the needs of the individual. The Scientology Crime Syndicate is a business, one that has no compunction about breaking the law whenever it suits them, but primarily is a business which exists to make Miscavige more powerful and wealthy.

I wonder how the Founding Fathers would react to this ‘turn a blind eye’ attitude?

Shame on you White House!

Axiom142

In case no one has noticed, the U.S. govt just seems to be part of or another one of the "plethora of tin-pot cults who abuse their members both financially and mentally", these days.....only interested in power, control and $. They are birds of a feather.
 

TG1

Angelic Poster
Someone earlier in this thread suggested that the FBI has said it's no longer / not investigating the Church of Scientology, as was reported in The New Yorker by Larry Wright.

Has the FBI really said they're not investigating the Co$? If so, who / where / when made that pronouncement?

Anybody got any dox about this?

Thanks in advance.

TG1
 

Graham Berry

Patron with Honors
Tomorrow’s editorial in the St. Petersburg Times may be the perfect supporting vehicle for an email campaign directed at the IRS, the House Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Finance Committee. It could be accompanied by a reference sheet of other related hyper-links and demand for immediate action by the IRS and committee hearings in the House and Senate. Any thoughts?
http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/editorials/article1202497.ece

IRS fraud reporting:
http://www.irs.gov/individuals/article/0,,id=106778,00.html
House Ways & Means Oversight Subcommitee:
http://waysandmeans.house.gov/Subcommittees/Subcommittee/?IssueID=4773
Senate Finance Committee:
http://finance.senate.gov/contact/
 

NoName

A Girl Has No Name
So, has anyone shown some of those refund denial letters that have been posted on here to the IRS? I'm thinking that should be a high priority, because one of the requirements for the tax exempt thing, as I understand it, was a refund mechanism for pre-paid services. Right?

In my personal opinion, the original recipients of those letters should show them to the IRS via Graham Berry's link. I think the IRS is probably ready for round 2 with the Co$, since enough rats have fled the sinking ship that the IRS is probably much more ruthless and effective than OSA these days.
 
Top