Speculations on the IRS Takeover of the CoS

Mick Wenlock

Admin Emeritus (retired)
Once the Cos created the Tax Compliance Office whose job it is to police the COS members to adherence to paying all back taxes owed to the
Federal Reserve Banking system no I mean the "IRS" (who is incorporated in Porto Rico) and keeping current with all state and federal taxes or the person in violation will be barred from further service even though they have money on account. This policy makes the COS an IRS member organization through the Law of Agency. So it doesn't matter who is on the board or who isn't the COS is part of the IRS tax collection system as are many other religious institutions. L.R.H. wrote " keep your taxes defensible". The War is over mantra was a scam cooked up between the IRS and COS to perpetuate the illusion that the COS really won something.What they lost is their rights to privacy and the 1 and 4 amendments. DM is a government man whose job it is to control and strip it members of all the money he can and steal from its staff members of as much time as they remain ignorant to the realities of his mission


roflmao.

Incorporated in Puerto Rico?

No its not - why, instead of just looking at something presented to you do you not do the research necessary to actually arrive at the facts? The IRS is a department correctly founded within the Department of the Treasury of the US. Did you actually bother to research it?

Its why the drivelling fools at this whole conspiracy webstie ALWAYS get it wrong. they deliberately mistake correlation for causation they have no idea what a logical fallacy is and they ALWAYS argue from incredulity and ignorance (look them up, they are logcial fallacies).

I hole no brief for either Scientology or the IRS. But the ridiculous assumption that there is something in Scientology that is worth anything is ludicrous - which anyone who has done services can quite happily tell you. Do you have ANY sane argument as to WHY the IRS would take over the CofS?

I thought not.
 

Gadfly

Crusader
roflmao.

Incorporated in Puerto Rico?

No its not - why, instead of just looking at something presented to you do you not do the research necessary to actually arrive at the facts? The IRS is a department correctly founded within the Department of the Treasury of the US. Did you actually bother to research it?

Its why the drivelling fools at this whole conspiracy webstie ALWAYS get it wrong. they deliberately mistake correlation for causation they have no idea what a logical fallacy is and they ALWAYS argue from incredulity and ignorance (look them up, they are logcial fallacies).

I hole no brief for either Scientology or the IRS. But the ridiculous assumption that there is something in Scientology that is worth anything is ludicrous - which anyone who has done services can quite happily tell you. Do you have ANY sane argument as to WHY the IRS would take over the CofS?

I thought not.

Ah, well Scientology has the technology to make "super-beings", right? Wouldn't that have a useful military application? Diplomatic application? Wouldn't the government, any government, want THAT? Ah, Scientology has the methodology to "free beings", and also to "trap beings", so wouldn't a government want that? Such a "powerful" technology of control? Ah, remote-viewing, learning to leave the body at will, cause-at-a-distance through intention, as "spy" methodologies? The list goes on and on!

Ron figured it ALL OUT! Of course, the government would WANT control over THAT amazingly powerful and useful data on all life and livingness! Plus, Ron was sent here, by "them", being only one of SEVEN experiments with the "Bridge" on seven different planets. This "tech" is rare, powerful, and holds the key to EVERYTHING! Of course, the government would want part of THAT action!

(The above is a dramatic joke - but, it shows some of the logic involved with WHY "believers" in some aspect of Scientology mythology would tend to also "believe" the IRS/government conspiracy. A person must actually think there is "something to Scientology" to follow a path of logic leading to an idea that some government or government agency wants to control and own it for its own purposes.)

If there was any "take-over", the motivations probably were the simplest of all explanations - greed - Show Me The Money! Scientology has always had success at extracting endless dollars from a willing public! I could understand how somebody might want in on a piece of THAT action.

Granted, if someone in some government were led to believe that Scientology possessed "power" of some form, then it makes sense that they might try to co-opt it for their own purposes. But, I have never been very good at fathoming what other people truly believe.

Hopefully, the Church will keep faltering and will simply eventually die, and all such possible conspiracy scenarios will become moot.
 
Last edited:

AngeloV

Gold Meritorious Patron
Ah, well Scientology has the technology to make "super-beings", right? Wouldn't that have a useful military application? Diplomatic application? Wouldn't the government, any government, want THAT? Ah, Scientology has the methodology to "free beings", and also to "trap beings", so wouldn't a government want that? Such a "powerful" technology of control? Ah, remote-viewing, learning to leave the body at will, cause-at-a-distance through intention, as a "spy" methodology? The list goes on and on!

Ron figured it ALL OUT! Of course, the government would WANT control over THAT amazingly powerful and useful data on all life and livingness! Plus, Ron was sent here, by "them", being only one of SEVEN experiments with the "Bridge" on seven different planets. This "tech" is rare, powerful, and holds the key to EVERYTHING! Of course, the government would want part of THAT action!

(the above is a dramatic joke - but, it shows some of the logic involved with WHY "believers" in some aspect of Scientology would also "believe" the IRS/government conspiracy)

If there was any "take-over", the motivations probably were the simplest of all explanations - greed - Show Me The Money! Scientology has always had success at extracting endless dollars from a willing public! I could understand how somebody might want in on THAT action.

^^^That^^^

My sentiments exactly.

Set Thread=Ignore
 

Axiom142

Gold Meritorious Patron


the symbol of CST resembles clearly the two eyes of an awl. There is definitely no parallel in the two rombs and circles to any Scientology meaning whatsoever, be it the dynamics, or anything else. Just think about it, while ALL other Scientology symbols have a Hubbardian inherent explanation or meaning of some kind, are mostly in the Admin or Tech Dictionaries. All of the Scn. symbology is explained and created by Hubbard, but the symbol of CST, the main corporation where all the funds of all the Scientology pyramid end, so to say, IS NOT. Strikes to me as an important outpoint.

The logo of the CST is shown here:

200px-ChurchOfSpritualTechnologyLogo.svg.png


Does it resemble the eyes of an owl? Well maybe, but so what? This is not ‘proof’ of anything and certainly does not prove a link to the illuminati. I agree that most symbols used by Hubbard and Scn have some significance, but you will have to come up with a bit more than this.

My favourite football team has a cannon on it’s emblem, but that doesn’t mean that I am a member of ‘The Cannoneers for Christ’ cult.

I´m not departing from a premise,

I said that “You appear to be starting from an initial premise that the IRS ‘took over’”.

Wouldn’t it be more logical to say something like?

“Did the IRS take over control of the Church of Scientology?”

As an initial question, then present your evidence (with a summary of the main points – providing links is all very well, but you can’t expect everyone to read them all the way through) and finish up by drawing a conclusion and then inviting others to discuss?

You started the main body of text with
WHY and HOW did the IRS take over the management and financial structure of the Church of Scientology
as this were a proven fact rather than the conclusion.

Not a big deal really, but just a suggestion (not a criticism) on how you might better present your argument to best effect.

1. The main point made is that there is a connection betwee Meade Emory (ex-Assistant Comissioner of IRS and Legislation Attorney to the Joint Committee of Taxation, two top posts, in the IRS and most concretely it´s legal dept.), a top ex-high tax official, and Founder of CST, via Sherman Lenske, Hubbard´s attorney.

2. The steps of the transfer of LRH´s estate from himself, via Norman Starkey to a Trust, and finally to CST.

If you wanted to set up a corporation that was legally watertight and made the best of tax loopholes, wouldn’t you want someone like Emory to be involved? And if you were the CoS wouldn’t you want to keep the real owners out of the spotlight?

Having a convoluted trail of ownership and incorporation is common practice for organizations (like the CoS) that have something to hide. Hubbard even talks about this strategy in his ‘Mission Earth’ series.

In any case, I’m not really that bothered about who ‘owns’ the CoS. I’m more concerned about stopping the abuses right now.

Axiom142
 

Axiom142

Gold Meritorious Patron
Ah, well Scientology has the technology to make "super-beings", right? Wouldn't that have a useful military application? Diplomatic application? Wouldn't the government, any government, want THAT? Ah, Scientology has the methodology to "free beings", and also to "trap beings", so wouldn't a government want that? Such a "powerful" technology of control? Ah, remote-viewing, learning to leave the body at will, cause-at-a-distance through intention, as "spy" methodologies? The list goes on and on!

Ron figured it ALL OUT! Of course, the government would WANT control over THAT amazingly powerful and useful data on all life and livingness! Plus, Ron was sent here, by "them", being only one of SEVEN experiments with the "Bridge" on seven different planets. This "tech" is rare, powerful, and holds the key to EVERYTHING! Of course, the government would want part of THAT action!

...

I know you said this as a joke Gadfly, but it is really a very relevant point.

If Scientology could routinely create super-beings who could remote-view at will or who had telekinetic abilities, the government security agencies would be very concerned by this. Obviously they would know as Hubbard was fond of boasting about this sort of thing. And let’s not forget about the remote viewing program involving ex-Scientologists.

So, the NSA / CIA would want to either make use of it or control it. If Hubbard was the sort of person that he claimed to be, he would never have allowed this, so they would have had to get him out of the way first and then install a puppet who would allow them to take the technology.

But, if Scientology couldn’t produce super-beings the NSA / CIA would not have been interested.

So, either you believe completely in the ‘Tech’ and the concept of OTs and have to face the fact that the ‘church’ that Hubbard created has been hijacked or, you have to accept that the ‘tech’ does not work as advertised.


Axiom142
 

Zinjifar

Silver Meritorious Sponsor
*If* Scientology could do *anything* worthwhile and the 'gummint' had the slightest interest in co-opting Scientology Tech then the *last* thing we would be seeing is a visible 'Scientology'. The last thing that would exist is a 'scientology church' or public presence or Sea Org or OSA or lawsuits or Slappy Miscavige or Spokeslclams shrieking incoherently in public or 'Freedom Magazine' or Religiousfreedomwatch or or or.

Scientology is what it is because it's run by babbling lunatics for lunatic reasons. They run it like babbling lunatics. Because they are.

Zinj
 

Gadfly

Crusader
I know you said this as a joke Gadfly, but it is really a very relevant point.

If Scientology could routinely create super-beings who could remote-view at will or who had telekinetic abilities, the government security agencies would be very concerned by this. Obviously they would know as Hubbard was fond of boasting about this sort of thing. And let’s not forget about the remote viewing program involving ex-Scientologists.

So, the NSA / CIA would want to either make use of it or control it. If Hubbard was the sort of person that he claimed to be, he would never have allowed this, so they would have had to get him out of the way first and then install a puppet who would allow them to take the technology.

But, if Scientology couldn’t produce super-beings the NSA / CIA would not have been interested.

So, either you believe completely in the ‘Tech’ and the concept of OTs and have to face the fact that the ‘church’ that Hubbard created has been hijacked or, you have to accept that the ‘tech’ does not work as advertised.


Axiom142

I don't have to believe either. And, I don't. These are such "abstract" over-generalized concepts.

Still thinking in terms of "all or none" - so like a well indoctrinated Scientologist (or any other extremist).

In fact, there are an infinite number of alternate possibilities between the two extremes that you set. Two-valued logic has severe limitations. Absolutes don't exist - not outside of any mind that considers the notions. Reality, as an experience, instead of as an idea, is more aligned with the concept of a gradient - manifesting along the lines of infinite-valued logic (which again, although existing as a "Scientology" idea, comes directly from general semantics).
 

AnonyMary

Formerly Fooled - Finally Free
This subject is old and has been chewed tobits on ARS. SchwimmelPuckel's comment about CST is along the lines of many old time critics who exhaustedly studied all that info at veritas.

It is my understanding that CoS settled with the IRS and the conditions were that the IRS had to ensure that the new set up and transition occurred to eliminate personal gain by any one officer or member. CoS had time limits to do all this. Most likely Mead Emory was put on the board of CST to ensure this occurred to the IRS satisfaction that the obligation had been fulfilled.

The information from Xenu-Directory aka R Hill :
http://www.xenu-directory.net/documents/corporate/entity.php?ntt=455
and Gerry Armstrong and Larry Brennan on the corporate setups and the CTS court papers Arnie Lerma provided Xenu-Directory are far more important in understanding structure and operations of CST than rumor. No critic has ever taken responsibility for creating that website and it seems most certainly a site set up to keep tinfoil hats on straight.

More accurate and up-to-date information on CST can be found here:
http://www.xenu-directory.net/documents/corporate/irs/cst.php
 

Mick Wenlock

Admin Emeritus (retired)
It is a very complex operation over 2 decades.

Read through the whole material, you will get a very clear picture, on what´s going on.

Did you do any research of your own or did you just swallow the premise whole and then get led by the nose?

Hmm. You got led by the nose.

I suggest you read the material from Larry Brennan who actually KNOWS what was set up because he did most of it.

He aint guessing - unlike the conspiracy theorists of veritas.

I also thought it was hilarious that you thought CST's logo looked like some sort of Illuminati sign. you didnt look at the CST logo - did you? You read about it and just decided to parrot it.

Are you seriously trying to suggest that the "Illuminati" have a cross-eyed owl as a symbol?

:dieslaughing:
 

Ladybird

Silver Meritorious Patron
Huubard stole the CST logo from his favorite un-filtered Kool cigarettes:

kool-cig.jpg


Compare to CST logo:


scientology_bunker.jpg



:confused2::coolwink:
 

Pooks

MERCHANT OF CHAOS
The logo of the CST is shown here:

200px-ChurchOfSpritualTechnologyLogo.svg.png


Does it resemble the eyes of an owl? Well maybe, but so what? This is not ‘proof’ of anything and certainly does not prove a link to the illuminati. I agree that most symbols used by Hubbard and Scn have some significance, but you will have to come up with a bit more than this.


Hubbard used to smoke Kool cigarettes. I can't find the post now, but I remember someone saying something about how Hubbard took that basic design from his pack of cigs and added to it to make his CST symbol.

I think it's more likely that they eyes of an owl.




New_-_Advertising_-_Kool_Cigarettes.jpg
 

Axiom142

Gold Meritorious Patron
I don't have to believe either. And, I don't. These are such "abstract" over-generalized concepts.

Still thinking in terms of "all or none" - so like a well indoctrinated Scientologist (or any other extremist).

In fact, there are an infinite number of alternate possibilities between the two extremes that you set. Two-valued logic has severe limitations. Absolutes don't exist - not outside of any mind that considers the notions. Reality, as an experience, instead of as an idea, is more aligned with the concept of a gradient - manifesting along the lines of infinite-valued logic (which again, although existing as a "Scientology" idea, comes directly from general semantics).


Are you accusing me of being an extremist?

If so, please provide some evidence for your assertion. I would have thought it was perfectly clear from my previous 1,800+ ramblings, er, concise and astute observations on this forum that I do not hold extreme views on anything. Apart from football and the inherent superiority of the British people of course (before you take offence, that was a joke).

I obviously didn’t make it clear, but my conclusion was from the point of view of someone who calls themselves a Scientologist, who is used to seeing things in black and white terms. The point being that if you look at this situation from a ‘Scientological’ perspective, there is something very wrong with Scientology whatever conclusion you come to.

Yes, you could argue that there a great many more different possibilities that could be considered, but it wouldn’t be very practical (or entertaining) to list them all. What I did was give a simplistic view of things, listing the two extremes to illustrate my point.

Two-values logic may have limitations but it is often necessary in the real world. If you ordered a coffee at a coffee house and the guy serving asked you if you wanted it with milk or without and you said “Neither!” that wouldn’t be very helpful would it?

And, computer chips rely at the most fundamental level on binary logic gates. That is to say, they have two possible states – 0 or 1. This seems to work pretty well.

In the same way, either the CoS was taken over by the IRS or it wasn’t.

Either Scientology has the technology to OTs who have super powers or it doesn’t.

As for absolutes not existing, well you might argue that in a hypothetical philosophical discussion, but again I don’t think it holds much water in the real world.

For example, Arsenal FC have just played and beaten West Ham United FC in the 3rd round of the FA cup. Therefore West Ham have been knocked out of the competition and Arsenal have progressed through to the next round. Arsenal have not ‘mostly’ progressed - they have 100% progressed. I’d say that was pretty absolute. :)

PS and as a bonus Man U. got knocked out as well! :happydance:

Axiom142
 

Axiom142

Gold Meritorious Patron
Huubard stole the CST logo from his favorite un-filtered Kool cigarettes:

kool-cig.jpg


Compare to CST logo:


scientology_bunker.jpg



:confused2::coolwink:

Hubbard used to smoke Kool cigarettes. I can't find the post now, but I remember someone saying something about how Hubbard took that basic design from his pack of cigs and added to it to make his CST symbol.

I think it's more likely that they eyes of an owl.




New_-_Advertising_-_Kool_Cigarettes.jpg

Very amusing! I certainly recall hearing that Hubbard smoked this brand.

Perhaps the two rhomboids are meant to represent diamonds, i.e. symbolising that the ‘tech’ is something valuable to be protected and held safe by the rings (CST itself)?

Axiom142
 

paul.spiritualquest

Patron with Honors
Response

Did you do any research of your own or did you just swallow the premise whole and then get led by the nose?

Hmm. You got led by the nose.

I suggest you read the material from Larry Brennan who actually KNOWS what was set up because he did most of it.

He aint guessing - unlike the conspiracy theorists of veritas.

I also thought it was hilarious that you thought CST's logo looked like some sort of Illuminati sign. you didnt look at the CST logo - did you? You read about it and just decided to parrot it.

Are you seriously trying to suggest that the "Illuminati" have a cross-eyed owl as a symbol?

:dieslaughing:

Sorry to fully disagree here. First of all, I have formal education in the scientific method, having a scientific background in one top European University, which doesn´t matter which is it. Way BEFORE Scn... I´m also versed in epistemology, and philosophy of science, Kuhn, Hume, Locke, Bacon, Foucalt, and others, just to name a few, having read the SOURCES. Have you read any of those Mike??

To the scientific method, there is 2 basic ways to go about it, the inductive and the deductive method. You are confusing both here, hence your problems with my style of argumenting. You want to see it DE-ducted, while I came from and IN-ductive approach. Besides to logic, there is many ways to present an argument.

Second, I didn´t affirm 100% anything, it said clearly "Speculations on...", if for your way of thinking it doesn´t fit into your frame of mind the starting of the sentence and you had better the argument presented this or this other way with a question mark, well, I´m not gonna play into that, I have my way of expressing things, and can clarify as on the go. SAME as you do.

Third, one can also follow on intuition, or gut-feeling and THEN look for the facts. The more I live, the more I do it. It gets me the best results many times, I´m getting. When I disociated the gut from the head, many problems happened, such as not seeing the OBVIOUS in Scn. (Ignosis, it´s called in another thread). So I recomend an approach of heart-head (reciprocal feedback between these 2, if you get what I mean), and not the traditional western approach of JUST head, who has lead the western man to the monsters created by Western society, one more of them being the Scn. structure.

Fourth, your way of speaking is demeaning, and AUTHORITATIVE, not argumenting with logic either, but stating YOUR truths as THE facts.

Did you do any research of your own or did you just swallow the premise whole and then get led by the nose?

Hmm. You got led by the nose.


This in oratoria, is called a RHETORICAL QUESTION, meaning, the question is not made to get an answer, but is self-answered, leaving no space to the other party to reply. Very much in the Hubbard style, WELL DONE. Thought we were here to step down of his paradigm and way of doing things... but I see some still carry on, the same destructive ways of dealing with one´s fellow man. So for that case, fighting with the same weapons of intolerance, not listening, demeaning, for me is then the same to be a blind anon, or a blind Scngist, both authorative in their way...

So I won´t even play along with your argument here, as if it´s off-topic anyway. A typical way of argumenting by some politicians, sway the argument off the topic, demean the other party, to look more authoritative, and then make one´s point, as the other party has already been COMPARED and REDUCED, etiquetted to be less worth, then one´s argument will come over STRONGER. Sounds to me as a weak way of uncalm argumenting. Besides does it sound familiar to you from somehwere else?

I suggest you read the material from Larry Brennan who actually KNOWS what was set up because he did most of it.

You are incurring here so to say in the same "mistake" taking data from a third party by "face value". The only difference that he "KNOWS", here is the TRUTH, man. I no long believe there is just ONE TRUTH anymore. But more different truths, that can be understood from each viewpoint, trying to see if more of them allign or show one direction, more of a statistical probability that things may have been with PROBABILITY, this or this other way. More in the sense of Quantum Physics, than of Newtonian Physics, if you get what i mean... "He KNOWS" is the old Newtonian Paradigm, of close determinism, that I believe after Foucalt and others is no more acceptable in a XXIst century.

But yes, I will read this material, didn´t know about it, any good links for that?

What I´m saying here is there is a probability factor, and the arguments of that link are interesting.

I never followed the logic of the remote viewing subtle argument being made.

1. Ingo Swann apparently was remote viewing BEFORE he got into Scn.
2. I have not enough data on that, or there is no stringent logic, to make me believe that this was, and that there is a causal relationship, between remote viewing and the IRS-Scn. issue. This was NOT my argument ever, and some people are trying to INFER THIS to my argument, which is NOT the case.
3. Besides, I have no data to DENY remote viewing exists, and following my gut, it very well may be the case. But again, it´s not my point.

Somebody else asked here for a WHY a reason for this supposed takeover. Again, I´m not affirming, I´m just making an argument on a high chance possibility, following all this documents with precise dates on them, and a possible internal logic of possible causation.

This was actually the question I posed, and as happens sometimes quite often on threads of this board, people quite often sway off, or reply off-topic.

a. It could be of interest to control such a big money making operation.
b. Isn´t it ideal to have an almost "perfect" orwellian group, in which all the person´s details are filed up in folders, even many of their intimate thoughts? Wouldn´t it be appealing somehow to control such an operation?
c. I won´t enter in detail, but it´s more possible that this world is somehow controlled by an ellite clique in many subtle and not so subtle ways, that it is NOT. That Hubbard stated there existed such an operation, doesn´t make it more or less valid.

Not because some or many data in Hubbard´s paradigm were falsely induced, or simply assumed, doesn´t change the fact, that some things he hit or mentioned where true. Besides I´m not coming from his self-fullfilled paranoia on being prosecuted. I´m coming from my EXPERIENCES in the Church, the radical change regarding taxation, and the two clear ways it was treated from having an opposed group to the IRS, the period before 1993, I don´t remember it´s name, but I met people involved in that, CATS (now i remember, citizen´s for an alternative tax system) proposing to reform the tax system, and then becoming the most zealot tax collector. That´s a 180 degree change. Besides, I don´t know of any other church ENFORCING tax collection so much, do you? This is the departing point for my assumptions, nothing else. While I remember many Scngists. having off-shore accounts, and being loose in many countries about taxes, and this being FINE, nowadays in the group, it´s totally THE OPPOSITE, and a group member would be seen as a complete out-ethics cat if doing so. A lot of ethics actions in many countries are oriented at putting the "ethics in" on tax collection.

Another point is, that there is nothing wrong with WHY finding and WHY logic. It is used daily in physics, chemistry and biology departments, it´s the daily bread of a scientific investigator. The Law of Cause and Effect, keeps existing, no matter if Hubbard stated it or not. Assumptions made be made as to why things are one way or the other, further researched or disproved as on the go. Also there may be two-valued logic, or grey scales, or possibilities, both can be applicable depending on the specific situation. Two value logic is applied quadrillions of times in computers all over the planet all day long, and the fruits of that are VERY valid and workable in that realm.

So, with the arguments presented and staying IN-TOPIC, there is first some correlation, and second some cause and effect situations, and there some interesting "coincidences". This was my initial point, and wanted you guys to comment on how you saw it, or if you had any more data, or argued opinions on it.
 
Top