Michael Fairman Lawsuit Against Chiropractor

You know, this is interesting in that they said they were denying service in writing. It would be an interesting ploy in the future for the rest of us to ask for these denials in writing when told to take our business elsewhere. Or call the cops so it becomes a matter of record. Otherwise it is a he said, she said proposition. Then you have leverage if you decide to pursue the matter.

Good ole' paper trail!

Mimsey
 

dianaclass8

Silver Meritorious Patron
Hi Veda:

Who in the independent field want tax exemption? I haven't heard of anything like that from anybody out there.

Curious in LA.

Diana

"No longer have any significance for me," as in "don't exist for me" ?

Disconnection?

Oh vey. :melodramatic:

Oh well, the main thing is that the Independent Scientologists now want the same shadily obtained tax exemption as their Scientology cousins, and we're all supposed to be excited about that, having had Hubbard's Propaganda&Public Opinion Manipulation Tech applied to us, with Independent Scientology "attacking popularly considered evils [anti-Scientologist Miscavige, etc.]," thus "declassifying" Independent Scientology "from former labels."
 

tikk

Patron with Honors
Oh well, the main thing is that the Independent Scientologists now want the same shadily obtained tax exemption as their Scientology cousins, and we're all supposed to be excited about that, having had Hubbard's Propaganda&Public Opinion Manipulation Tech applied to us, with Independent Scientology "attacking popularly considered evils [anti-Scientologist Miscavige, etc.]," thus "declassifying" Independent Scientology "from former labels."

While I understand the trepidation in endorsing the legitimization of any flavor of Scientology, I think that Independent Scientologists legally seeking the same benefits as CoS Scientologists (or pitting them in any legal war where Independents have a legitimate chance to win) may be the best, possibly only, way to push the IRS-CoS Agreement into the open for judicial scrutiny.
 

Veda

Sponsor
While I understand the trepidation in endorsing the legitimization of any flavor of Scientology, I think that Independent Scientologists legally seeking the same benefits as CoS Scientologists (or pitting them in any legal war where Independents have a legitimate chance to win) may be the best, possibly only, way to push the IRS-CoS Agreement into the open for judicial scrutiny.

By the way, my comments are not meant be a reflection on Michael Fairman, who has only been out of the "Church" for a short time, and seems to be yo yoing back and forth between being an Ex-Scientologist and being reeled back into Scientology by Marty Rathbun&his Hubbard Philosophy&Tech-applying Friends.

It is undeniable that L. Ron Hubbard and L. Ron Hubbard's Scientology are being defended, and promoted, by those who - very late in the game - have joined in to expose Miscavige's abuses. These same folks are busy using Hubbard's Public Opinion-Manipulation Tech to forward their objectives, and they've finally found a "button" that seems to be "working": "The Church of Scientology," which is extremely unpopular.

At the same time, these folks dislike the idea of Hubbard's teachings being thoroughly examined by outsiders, Exes, or "Wogs," insisting that it's only Miscavige's crimes, not Hubbard's criminal doctrine, that should be examined.

When the suggestion is made that BOTH should be examined, silence ensues. [Insert cricket sounds :)].

Marty Rathbun was a major player in the "handling" of the IRS - a "handling" that consisted of harassment, plus the possible blackmailing of its Commissioner. It was he and Miscavige who strode into IRS Commissioner Fred Goldberg's office in the early 1990s.

If Marty Rathbun ever decides to reveal what he knows about the IRS "settlement," and the events leading up to that "settlement," it could be of great assistance. So far, he has said very little.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4D1PkZ81gn4

Is Independent Scientology going to push the IRS-CofS deal into the open for judicial scrutiny?
 

tikk

Patron with Honors
Is Independent Scientology going to push the IRS-CofS deal into the open for judicial scrutiny?

Assuming you meant to write "How is...", the idea is to replicate the lawsuit that the Sklars twice filed against the IRS to remedy the fact that their attempted deductions of their children's Jewish school tuition was rejected yet Scientologists can deduct their auditing payments. The Sklars ultimately lost at the Ninth Circuit because, in part, they were not similarly situated--auditing payments are unlike school tuition, the court said (the other reason was because their deduction was unconstitutional per, ironically enough, Hernandez v. Commissioner). But Independent Scn auditing payments are like CoS auditing payments, so if the IRS denied an Independent Scientologist's attempted deduction for auditing payments (or donations, or whatever Marty wants to call it), they'd be favoring one religious group over another quite clearly.

One of the phases of the Sklars trial the Sklars unfortunately weren't able to get to was to enter the IRS-Scientology agreement as evidence of disparate treatment. The Ninth Circuit even agreed at oral argument that examining the Agreement would be necessary to answer the disparate treatment question, but ultimately ruled that there was no need to answer the disparate treatment question because the Sklars were not similarly situated; i.e., even if disparate treatment were found, the Sklars still lose because their sought-after deduction was unconstitutional; the remedy could not be to give them the same unconstitutional deduction enjoyed by Scientology.

An Independent Scientologist bringing a "Sklars-like" lawsuit cures the fatal problems inherent in the Sklars suits (problems I pointed out long before the Ninth Circuit twice ruled on them, fwiw) by creating a scenario where the court cannot dispose of a problem as being apples vs. oranges by matching an apple with an apple.
 

Voltaire's Child

Fool on the Hill
Interesting, T1kk. When I was an Indie, I didn't really have the nerve to try to deduct auditing fees from my taxes, figuring that there was no "church" (Since CofS is recognized as one by the IRS whereas the heretics are not. Yet.)...

Hmmm....

Meditation's cheaper. So's medication, now that I think about it.
 

Veda

Sponsor
Assuming you meant to write "How is..."

-snip-

I meant "Is." Already am familiar with the details of "how," thanks.

First a lawsuit must be filed. Should be interesting if it happens.

Time will tell. :)
 

tikk

Patron with Honors
I meant "Is." Already am familiar with the details of "how," thanks.

First a lawsuit must be filed. Should be interesting if it happens.

Time will tell. :)

First an Indy needs to deduct auditing payments. Then the IRS has to deny the deduction. Then an administrative filing must challenge the denial. Then, assuming that's denied, a lawsuit can be filed. But I suppose you knew all that too.
 

freethinker

Sponsor
I think an independant ought to try it and then hire you for the resultant case. It could bring the church's agreement under better scrutiny that it hasn' enjoyed before.:biggrin:
Assuming you meant to write "How is...", the idea is to replicate the lawsuit that the Sklars twice filed against the IRS to remedy the fact that their attempted deductions of their children's Jewish school tuition was rejected yet Scientologists can deduct their auditing payments. The Sklars ultimately lost at the Ninth Circuit because, in part, they were not similarly situated--auditing payments are unlike school tuition, the court said (the other reason was because their deduction was unconstitutional per, ironically enough, Hernandez v. Commissioner). But Independent Scn auditing payments are like CoS auditing payments, so if the IRS denied an Independent Scientologist's attempted deduction for auditing payments (or donations, or whatever Marty wants to call it), they'd be favoring one religious group over another quite clearly.

One of the phases of the Sklars trial the Sklars unfortunately weren't able to get to was to enter the IRS-Scientology agreement as evidence of disparate treatment. The Ninth Circuit even agreed at oral argument that examining the Agreement would be necessary to answer the disparate treatment question, but ultimately ruled that there was no need to answer the disparate treatment question because the Sklars were not similarly situated; i.e., even if disparate treatment were found, the Sklars still lose because their sought-after deduction was unconstitutional; the remedy could not be to give them the same unconstitutional deduction enjoyed by Scientology.

An Independent Scientologist bringing a "Sklars-like" lawsuit cures the fatal problems inherent in the Sklars suits (problems I pointed out long before the Ninth Circuit twice ruled on them, fwiw) by creating a scenario where the court cannot dispose of a problem as being apples vs. oranges by matching an apple with an apple.
 

Veda

Sponsor
First an Indy needs to deduct auditing payments. Then the IRS has to deny the deduction. Then an administrative filing must challenge the denial. Then, assuming that's denied, a lawsuit can be filed. But I suppose you knew all that too.

You omitted that the Indy needs to turn on his computer before e-filing his tax form. :)
 

Royal Prince Xenu

Trust the Psi Corps.
Synthia, Magoo, Challenge, I hear you.

CalDoctorsLaw.png


READ MORE:

http://richardofravenhurst.blogspot.com/2008/08/california-doctors-cannot-discriminate.html

We had a really bad maternity case in Australia.

The mother had Placenta Previa---the Placenta had formed across the top of the Cervix meaning that it would tear as the mother went into labor. This can kill both mother and baby--early loss of the Placenta cuases the baby to suffocate and or bleed, and the mother can quickly bleed to death. The elected procedure was to abort the baby and save the mother. Mid-theatre one of the nurses of known anti-abortion stance promptly walked out. It didn't matter that she was now risking two lives, just as long as there was no abortion.

Now I know that if I were the Father in this situation, it would be a difficult decision but, assuming no other health issues with the Mother, I would elect to lose the baby because we could always try for another one.

I am aware of a completely reverse case where the Mother was dying of Cancer but the Baby was otherwise OK, and it was her wish that after she died she be kept on life-support until the baby was full term. I believe this was completed to fruition.
 
Top