What's new

Sec Checks Are Not Religious Services, so Not Charitable Donations

JustSheila

Crusader
It occurred to me that the Church of Scientology first started using the "I'm not Auditing You" statement before a security check after a few lawsuits going around with the IRS.

That stretched pretty far back, around '76, I think, maybe a little earlier.

It started over that raid on Big Blue by the FDA over the emeters because L Ron Hubbard had claimed that with the use of these miracle machines that only HE had patents to use, one could cure people of cancer, diseases and just about anything!

So in '77 the FBI raided Big Blue, the FDA took all the Emeters for about a month, a bunch of doors were busted down, lots of burritos ate by all with a few laughs from the roach coach at the old horseshoe entrance, and COS went to court.

That was a partial win. COS was required to mark every single emeter as "Religious Artifact For Religious Use Only" or something similar, and not use the instrument outside of church services.

Then Sec Checks came in. Somehow they didn't quite comply with the requirements for e-meter use.

Even ASI and the schools had to use some "wordclearer" sort of machine that wasn't actually an emeter, because they weren't religious instruments.

Point is, who paid taxes on all the income collected for a non-church related action? Who did (or did NOT) authorise COS to use the e-meter outside of religious services?

Maybe it never was authorised.

Maybe this is still part of that "secret" deal with the IRS and they just got slack.

Maybe the COS should have been paying taxes as a business for every single security check given anyone on an emeter when it was clearly stated to be a "religious artefact" with strict regulations for its use in accordance with the original agreement with the IRS.

Maybe the US FDA needs to backcharge COS one fine for every instance when the religious artefact emeter was used in a non-religious security check that was reported paid with a church donation.

Security checks are not religious in nature or service. That makes the charging for and delivery of security checks a non-charitable, profit-oriented business, then. COS can't have it both ways.
 
Last edited:

HelluvaHoax!

Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on
..

JustSheila that was a JustFascinating point!

I really wonder what a world class attorney like Ray Jeffries might be able to do with that in representing a client who is suing the "church" for a refund of all the (non-religious) sec checking that they paid for.

If it wasn't auditing ("I'm not auditing you") what the hell was it?

And why WASN'T it auditing? If it was for the "security" of the organization (not to help the pc) why were they charging money for it? That's like being arrested and grilled by cops--but you are first required to buy 25 hours of "counseling". Then, later the police hold an event and brag about their highest ever WDIH (Well Done Interrogation Hours).

If the IRS hadn't sucked so bad and caved in, they should have required the r-factor before every auditing and sec check session be: "I'm not helping you."
 

Terril park

Sponsor
It occurred to me that the Church of Scientology first started using the "I'm not Auditing You" statement before a security check after a few lawsuits going around with the IRS.

That stretched pretty far back, around '76, I think, maybe a little earlier.

It started over that raid on Big Blue by the FDA over the emeters because L Ron Hubbard had claimed that with the use of these miracle machines that only HE had patents to use, one could cure people of cancer, diseases and just about anything!

So in '77 the FBI raided Big Blue, the FDA took all the Emeters for about a month, a bunch of doors were busted down, lots of burritos ate by all with a few laughs from the roach coach at the old horseshoe entrance, and COS went to court.

That was a partial win. COS was required to mark every single emeter as "Religious Artifact For Religious Use Only" or something similar, and not use the instrument outside of church services.

Then Sec Checks came in. Somehow they didn't quite comply with the requirements for e-meter use.

Even ASI and the schools had to use some "wordclearer" sort of machine that wasn't actually an emeter, because they weren't religious instruments.

Point is, who paid taxes on all the income collected for a non-church related action? Who did (or did NOT) authorise COS to use the e-meter outside of religious services?

Maybe it never was authorised.

Maybe this is still part of that "secret" deal with the IRS and they just got slack.

Maybe the COS should have been paying taxes as a business for every single security check given anyone on an emeter when it was clearly stated to be a "religious artefact" with strict regulations for its use in accordance with the original agreement with the IRS.

Maybe the US FDA needs to backcharge COS one fine for every instance when the religious artefact emeter was used in a non-religious security check that was reported paid with a church donation.

Security checks are not religious in nature or service. That makes charging for and delivery security checks a non-chartiable, profit-oriented business, then. COS can't have it both ways.

Interesting.

Could the church say its a confessional and one whereby "eclesiastical
discipline" may be required?
 

hummingbird

Patron with Honors
I remember that the "I am not auditing you" statement was used to alert the, erm, victim, that anything they said could be used against them later in an ethics action.

That was back when we had the delusion that other things we said in session were confidential.

Har. Har. Har.
 

Sindy

Crusader
HCO Confessionals are the Sec Checks where "I am not auditing you" is used. Other Sec Checks, as a regular part of auditing are not actionable and considered auditing and part of the religion.

From my experience, the HCO types are used mainly with staff who don't make enough money to pay taxes anyway and possibly there's a loophole when using the meter with slaves who have devoted their lives to the cause.

Wait, yeah....the continuous Sec Checks on OT 7s are the HCO type....forgot that. I think I am just getting confused with the terminology that was used to baffle us.
 

wazn

Patron with Honors
AFAIK, they are all sec checks - not auditing - these days. Auditing confessionals (Integrity Processing) was in and out in the 70's. They still used the stuff you "confessed" but they weren't supposed to. (One of the bones I was picking when I left...)

HCO Confessionals are the Sec Checks where "I am not auditing you" is used. Other Sec Checks, as a regular part of auditing are not actionable and considered auditing and part of the religion.

From my experience, the HCO types are used mainly with staff who don't make enough money to pay taxes anyway and possibly there's a loophole when using the meter with slaves who have devoted their lives to the cause.

Wait, yeah....the continuous Sec Checks on OT 7s are the HCO type....forgot that. I think I am just getting confused with the terminology that was used to baffle us.
 

JustSheila

Crusader
..

JustSheila that was a JustFascinating point!

I really wonder what a world class attorney like Ray Jeffries might be able to do with that in representing a client who is suing the "church" for a refund of all the (non-religious) sec checking that they paid for.

If it wasn't auditing ("I'm not auditing you") what the hell was it?

And why WASN'T it auditing? If it was for the "security" of the organization (not to help the pc) why were they charging money for it? That's like being arrested and grilled by cops--but you are first required to buy 25 hours of "counseling". Then, later the police hold an event and brag about their highest ever WDIH (Well Done Interrogation Hours).

Good point, HH! It seems to me anyone who ever had a sec check who had actually donated money for church services for the Church (gag) of Scientology who had those monies used toward non-auditing security checks should be eligible for a refund. Also, the Church of Scientology mis-used the charitable donations for non-charitable purposes and did not report this, used a religious artefact to conduct the non-religious service. COS should have kept these accounts separate, received separate consent from the parishioner to use their fixed donation toward non-ecclesiastical services, and should have paid taxes as a business on each and every person's payments that were used for business purposes.

I wonder what Ray Jeffries or another sharp attorney could do with this. It seems to me anyone within the statute of limitations could sue for mis-appropriation and misuse of their donations and get a refund.
 

Leland

Crusader
Good point, HH! It seems to me anyone who ever had a sec check who had actually donated money for church services for the Church (gag) of Scientology who had those monies used toward non-auditing security checks should be eligible for a refund. Also, the Church of Scientology mis-used the charitable donations for non-charitable purposes and did not report this, used a religious artefact to conduct the non-religious service. COS should have kept these accounts separate, received separate consent from the parishioner to use their fixed donation toward non-ecclesiastical services, and should have paid taxes as a business on each and every person's payments that were used for business purposes.

I wonder what Ray Jeffries or another sharp attorney could do with this. It seems to me anyone within the statute of limitations could sue for mis-appropriation and misuse of their donations and get a refund.

All a good atorney needs is a little crack to file a lawsuit......seems more than plausible to me.
 

lotus

stubborn rebel sheep!
You gus are very smart!

This shall be submitted to Lawers.

How a police-poligrah lying detector interrogation can be cover under religious charitable donations ?????

Wow!


Neverseen that!

Is Guantanamo could be cover with charitable donations for people being police -poligraphed ????

I like how you are smart all together!
 
Last edited:

HelluvaHoax!

Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on
HCO Confessionals are the Sec Checks where "I am not auditing you" is used. Other Sec Checks, as a regular part of auditing are not actionable and considered auditing and part of the religion.

From my experience, the HCO types are used mainly with staff who don't make enough money to pay taxes anyway and possibly there's a loophole when using the meter with slaves who have devoted their lives to the cause.

Wait, yeah....the continuous Sec Checks on OT 7s are the HCO type....forgot that. I think I am just getting confused with the terminology that was used to baffle us.


Jeez! It gets very confusing when they are auditing you and when they are not auditing you.

AUDITOR
This is the session!
Hmmm, no F/N. Okay...
Do you have an ARC break?

PC
Um, no. But I had some attention
on a withhold about masturbating.

AUDITOR
Oh really? Okay, wait a second.
Is there anything you'd care to say
or ask before I end this session?

PC
Wuttt? Yeah, I'd like to ask why
are you ending this session?

AUDITOR
Thank you for that. I have noted your question
for the C/S. Okay...End Of Session!

PC
Now what?

AUDITOR
Now....
This Is The Session!
I am not auditing you.
Okay, now you can get your withhold off--
and don't try to justify betraying Ron
and mankind when you jerked off.

PC
Why did you switch to not auditing me?

AUDITOR
Because you will need to take responsibility
in Ethics after this session by doing
some kind of substantial amends project and
making up the damage.

PC
Really? I have to go to ethics and
spend days doing lower conditions?

AUDITOR
Well, yes! But you can
avoid all that DevT by just
buying a set of Basics
right now and naming me as your FSM.
 

JustSheila

Crusader
From what I remember, not only did the "Not Auditing You" mean this was not a religious or ecclesiastical session, but it also meant that reads did not have to be taken to F/N, and there was no earlier-similar or use of OT methods.

At least, that's how it was in the late 70s and early 80s when one received a security check.

Does anyone know how they are done now?
 

HelluvaHoax!

Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on
Good point, HH! It seems to me anyone who ever had a sec check who had actually donated money for church services for the Church (gag) of Scientology who had those monies used toward non-auditing security checks should be eligible for a refund. Also, the Church of Scientology mis-used the charitable donations for non-charitable purposes and did not report this, used a religious artefact to conduct the non-religious service. COS should have kept these accounts separate, received separate consent from the parishioner to use their fixed donation toward non-ecclesiastical services, and should have paid taxes as a business on each and every person's payments that were used for business purposes.

I wonder what Ray Jeffries or another sharp attorney could do with this. It seems to me anyone within the statute of limitations could sue for mis-appropriation and misuse of their donations and get a refund.


Whoa! Massive tax fraud with Scientologists taking religious "donations" for services that were not religious.

AUDITOR
Start of Session!
I have an r-factor for you...
I'm not auditing you.

PC
Really, why is that?

AUDITOR
I have another r-factor for you.
I'm not telling you.
 

lotus

stubborn rebel sheep!
From what I remember, not only did the "Not Auditing You" mean this was not a religious or ecclesiastical session, but it also meant that reads did not have to be taken to F/N, and there was no earlier-similar or use of OT methods.

At least, that's how it was in the late 70s and early 80s when one received a security check.

Does anyone know how they are done now?

Confirm here
Was the same in 90's

Seck checks for personnal sexual behavior dislike bythe CO$ , for involving a ""whale'' or major fundraiser

''I am not auditing you''
But we are taking thousands of $ in your donation account dfor auditing( religious counselling)

Hum....

So...police poligraph intelligence interrogaions of a sociopathic cult are taxes deductible??????
 
Last edited:

HelluvaHoax!

Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on
Scientology Koan: When the COS (Crimewave of Scientology) applied their fair game tech to the IRS, what was the end phenomena and cognition the IRS finally voiced?


Answer: "I'm not auditing you." (and after that, they didn't)
 

JustSheila

Crusader
Whoa! Massive tax fraud with Scientologists taking religious "donations" for services that were not religious.

Yes. That's what I'm thinking. It is not even an auditing PROCEDURE - no E/S to F/N. The person paid fixed donations to a church with the belief it would "erase" things.

I am dead certain nobody ever authorised COS to use the e-meter as a non-religious lie detector where anything said is actionable by COS.

And to CHARGE for this? :confused2: That is so incredibly ridiculous. The parishioner is not benefitting and COS keeps the files as "actionable" for blackmail?!

HOW does COS retain the RIGHT to keep hard copies or any files at all of what these people said things in a NON-RELIGIOUS SEC CHECK? How do they get around the individual's privacy rights to even demand these questions be answered?

It's not that it never occurred to me before, it's just that COS has gotten so incredibly slack about violating the FDA regs and IRS requirements for charitable donations, that now there are decades of abuses. It's a big fat tax bill alright, and tens of thousands of fines for misuse of the religious artefact as specified by the FDA requiremnts.
 

lotus

stubborn rebel sheep!
I thing the exposing of the IRS paid agent to the US tax payers can be interesting!

Is there any DOX or Marty's ''confession'' about that!

May be a re-evaluation can be done
under light of CO$ pressure on current or former IRS agents????

They are untouchable within the cult of IRS but while out - they are nothing!

Who pay for the taxes?????

You an me!
 

HelluvaHoax!

Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on
From what I remember, not only did the "Not Auditing You" mean this was not a religious or ecclesiastical session, but it also meant that reads did not have to be taken to F/N, and there was no earlier-similar or use of OT methods.

At least, that's how it was in the late 70s and early 80s when one received a security check.

Does anyone know how they are done now?

I don't know.

But, the COS could avoid all the hassle with hundreds of hours of Sec Checking by just doing a simple L&N on the pc and finding the right item. . .


WHAT HUMILIATING SECRET DO YOU HAVE
THAT WE CAN USE TO FAIR GAME YOU LATER
IF YOU BLOW OR DO ANYTHING WE DON'T LIKE?​
 

JustSheila

Crusader
It seems to me any confidential agreement COS made with an IRS Commissioner would be null and void by the time the next IRS Commissioner came into office. Back then the Commissioners lasted about two years each.

In government, if it isn't written as an official ruling, by gawd, it isn't true. If COS can't show the ruling and refuses to do so, if lawyers and judges have no access to it, then it doesn't exist. An unofficial verbal agreement for which the person did not wish to be quoted means NO AGREEMENT. That Commissioner has long since left his office.

Marty knows more. I hope he can use this.

The last official ruling was regarding use of the emeters as religious artefacts. The use of charitable donations for something other than the church services for which they were donated is a big, gaping problem of misusing church donations that I believe can really hurt COS.

I think everyone who left in the last eight years or so can sue for misuse of funds if they donated for OT levels or such and the monies were used for sec checks instead. :yes:
 
Top