We've copped a blow - Let's not cop it on the chin!

Carmel

Crusader
In the last day or so (especially), many of us who have been waiting on notification of the status of our submissions, have received notice that our submissions have been "declined as formal submissions" on the basis of relevance.

This is not the end of world......I'm sure all of our correspondence is giving the Senators a "picture" about Scn and the CofS, which they didn't have. That should make a difference in regard to the call for a judicial inquiry, etc.

However, right now, we are looking at a "public benefit test" to determine actual eligibility for tax exempt status before the granting of it is warranted. When so many of us have given the example of the CofS to demonstrate *why* organisations shouldn't be granted tax exemption based on religious or charitable status, and how they use it to get it when they don't deserve it, then why the hell is the information we have provided being deemed as not relevant?

Also, how come the Scio Reverend Mary Anderson gets her submission accepted and published, when her entire focus was on Scientology, and when she included material which essentially slandered former scientologists and their information? (see submission #49 http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/economics_ctte/public_benefit_test_10/submissions.htm )? Some of our submissions which were declined on the basis of relevance to the amendment, had much more "relevance" than Mary's, and they didn't contain BS information. :hmm:

To me, there seems to be inconsistencies with the criteria on acceptances of submissions. Aside from that, if our submissions are about the CofS, an organisation receiving tax exemption when it doesn't deserve it and *why* it doesn't deserve it, then how can they be deemed as not relevant? :grouch:

I was pooey about the "declines" based on relevance, coz I thought it was BS, but when I saw the Rev Mary Anderson's submission accepted and published, I got pissed off enough to contact the media. Those I spoke to understood what I was on about, and are interested in asking "why?" (a couple of us are meeting with them in the morning).

We can work with the media this end, but you who have received declines based on relevance to the amendment, could write to the secretary who informed you that your submission was declined, and ask "why so?" given that your submission *was* relevant to a public benefit test (or some change of legislation) being in order for those organisations seeking and being granted tax exemption.

When I received my "decline" (when I knew my submission and attachment was very relevant to the issue at hand), I thought "fuck that!"......and I'm now doing something about it. I won't labour the point.....I just want to say that there's nothing stopping you from communicating your objection or disagreement if you have one (politely, of course :coolwink: ).

Leave it with ya!
 

Dulloldfart

Squirrel Extraordinaire
I am reminded of the scenario of a court case where the jury sees or hears something particularly juicy and the judge instructs them to "disregard" it. But you can't completely wipe from your memory what you have seen or heard and your immediate reactions to it.

If there is one person acting as a filter who is trashing the submissions deemed not relevant and the others don't even see or hear about them, that is different to having them available for view but not allowed to be officially cited.

I don't know how it works in this case. I would suggest writing another one if an earlier one got rejected, leaving off what one thinks could be considered irrelevant.

I just received an appropriate "your correspondence will not be included in the Committee's inquiry as a formal submission but it will be made available to the Committee members" ack (28 hours after I submitted it), and all I spoke about was the CofS, in the context of the public benefits test.

Paul
 

Carmel

Crusader
<snip>
I don't know how it works in this case. I would suggest writing another one if an earlier one got rejected, leaving off what one thinks could be considered irrelevant.
<snip>
I wouldn't suggest that, for two reasons:

- The submissions weren't rejected......They were declined as formal submissions, but they still exist, and should/could be used on other fronts.

- We're intent on getting the declined submissions re-instated.....If they are substituted, then valuable info won't be tabled and available to assist the argument with *this* particular bill.
 

mate

Patron Meritorious
Hi Carmel and others who have had their submissions declined,

While I haven't seen your submissions, here's what I would suggest you do to put it right on topic.

Start off by saying that you support the amendment and why, in general terms as your opening paragraph.

Then refer to sects and cults in general terms and the harm they create, in your next paragraph.

Then describe your experience and/or knowledge in scientology as a example of the kind of harm that can be found in cults, this would be your submission, which was declined. In this section, don't hesitate to refer to the amendment, but do it sensibly.

Finally, in a concluding paragraph, restate your support for the amendment and summarise your experience in a cult briefly and in general terms.

If you want to run it by me, that would be fine, but get onto it right now.

David.
 

Terril park

Sponsor
In the last day or so (especially), many of us who have been waiting on notification of the status of our submissions, have received notice that our submissions have been "declined as formal submissions" on the basis of relevance.

This is not the end of world......I'm sure all of our correspondence is giving the Senators a "picture" about Scn and the CofS, which they didn't have. That should make a difference in regard to the call for a judicial inquiry, etc.

However, right now, we are looking at a "public benefit test" to determine actual eligibility for tax exempt status before the granting of it is warranted. When so many of us have given the example of the CofS to demonstrate *why* organisations shouldn't be granted tax exemption based on religious or charitable status, and how they use it to get it when they don't deserve it, then why the hell is the information we have provided being deemed as not relevant?

Also, how come the Scio Reverend Mary Anderson gets her submission accepted and published, when her entire focus was on Scientology, and when she included material which essentially slandered former scientologists and their information? (see submission #49 http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/economics_ctte/public_benefit_test_10/submissions.htm )? Some of our submissions which were declined on the basis of relevance to the amendment, had much more "relevance" than Mary's, and they didn't contain BS information. :hmm:

To me, there seems to be inconsistencies with the criteria on acceptances of submissions. Aside from that, if our submissions are about the CofS, an organisation receiving tax exemption when it doesn't deserve it and *why* it doesn't deserve it, then how can they be deemed as not relevant? :grouch:

I was pooey about the "declines" based on relevance, coz I thought it was BS, but when I saw the Rev Mary Anderson's submission accepted and published, I got pissed off enough to contact the media. Those I spoke to understood what I was on about, and are interested in asking "why?" (a couple of us are meeting with them in the morning).

We can work with the media this end, but you who have received declines based on relevance to the amendment, could write to the secretary who informed you that your submission was declined, and ask "why so?" given that your submission *was* relevant to a public benefit test (or some change of legislation) being in order for those organisations seeking and being granted tax exemption.

When I received my "decline" (when I knew my submission and attachment was very relevant to the issue at hand), I thought "fuck that!"......and I'm now doing something about it. I won't labour the point.....I just want to say that there's nothing stopping you from communicating your objection or disagreement if you have one (politely, of course :coolwink: ).

Leave it with ya!

I presume you have good connections with the senator. Why not
phone him and ask why submissions are being rejected? Then you could
give others guidelines.

Maybe he dosn't know they are being rejected?
 

Carmel

Crusader
Hi Carmel and others who have had their submissions declined,

While I haven't seen your submissions, here's what I would suggest you do to put it right on topic.

Start off by saying that you support the amendment and why, in general terms as your opening paragraph.

Then refer to sects and cults in general terms and the harm they create, in your next paragraph.

Then describe your experience and/or knowledge in scientology as a example of the kind of harm that can be found in cults, this would be your submission, which was declined. In this section, don't hesitate to refer to the amendment, but do it sensibly.

Finally, in a concluding paragraph, restate your support for the amendment and summarise your experience in a cult briefly and in general terms.

If you want to run it by me, that would be fine, but get onto it right now.

David.
Did you see my previous post on this thread? Re-submitting is not the thing to do in this instance, IMO.

The data in our submissions *does* has relevance and is on topic as far as we are concerned, and also as far as others besides those within Scn or ex Scn circles are concerned. We wanna fight this one, as we want the info we have provided to count towards the decision on the tax bill (not be negated or pushed under the carpet due to God knows what agenda) .

FYI, many of the submissions which have been declined *have* met the criteria, and have been written *exactly* as you have suggested above. It's clear to me and others that something else is now in play here.....hence my op.
 

Carmel

Crusader
I presume you have good connections with the senator. Why not
phone him and ask why submissions are being rejected? Then you could
give others guidelines.


Maybe he dosn't know they are being rejected?
I'm providing guidelines, aren't I?
 

SchwimmelPuckel

Genuine Meatball
Is it possible.. Erh it IS! - That The Sinister Scam Cult of Scientology has, or think they have, this under 'control' by a well placed mole in the Aus adminstration who can reject submissions?

Has the cult been suspiciously calm about this?

:unsure:
 

KissMyStats

Patron with Honors
Submission from USA not wanted

I received this today. Apparently they don't want submissions from outside Australia. Bummer....... I'm sure they are being read, though. Hopefully by somebody who will forward them to the Committee.

Here is what I received:

"We write to thank you for your recent correspondence to the Senate Economics Legislation Committee's inquiry into the Tax Laws Amendment (Public Benefit Test) Bill 2010 which proposes the introduction of a 'public benefit test' for religious and charitable organisations seeking tax exempt status.
This inquiry examines the operation of the tax laws in Australia. Submissions that are accepted by the Committee attract Parliamentary Privilege. However privilege does not extend to jurisdictions outside of Australia. Given this, your correspondence will not be included in the Committee's inquiry as a formal submission but it will be made available to the Committee members.

Kind regards,

John Hawkins
Secretary"
 

Carmel

Crusader
Is it possible.. Erh it IS! - That The Sinister Scam Cult of Scientology has, or think they have, this under 'control' by a well placed mole in the Aus adminstration who can reject submissions?

Has the cult been suspiciously calm about this?

:unsure:
I don't know, schwimmy.

I think it more likely that the cult isn't too worried about a public benefit test, coz in their arrogance, they reckon that they could pass it with flying colours.

Who knows? Maybe some other cult or body with vested interest has influence with the committee, and wants to squash info on the CofS coz that info could be what tips the scales on this decision.

Whatever it is, it appears something isn't right, and we're intent on exposing that, in an effort to get a fair deal on *this* inquiry.
 

mate

Patron Meritorious
Carmel, I do understand, where you are coming from. However, mine was accepted and posted as confidential, within 12 hours.

In it, I focused on the amendment and I related each point, directly or indirectly to the amendment. It worked for me.

Now, as time is running out, I do suggest that revised ones be sent in, but by all means, raise your concerns with Rohan

Just a thought.


Did you see my previous post on this thread? Re-submitting is not the thing to do in this instance, IMO.

The data in our submissions *does* has relevance and is on topic as far as we are concerned, and also as far as others besides those within Scn or ex Scn circles are concerned. We wanna fight this one, as we want the info we have provided to count towards the decision on the tax bill (not be negated or pushed under the carpet due to God knows what agenda) .

FYI, many of the submissions which have been declined *have* met the criteria, and have been written *exactly* as you have suggested above. It's clear to me and others that something else is now in play here.....hence my op.
 

Fairplay

Patron
The church has "Friends of the Church" positioned in various places. Government, lawyers, (the lawyers like the money :happydance:)

The church established "friends in other Religions". I became aware of the scio project in 1979. I helped with children of god, hare krisnas and a couple of other more mainstream churches. I stopped helping when the church of scio betrayed the 'children of god' religion.
In 1985 there was a massive campaign from scio to establish a network of 'friends' in as many professions / churches / agencies as possible. The project went on for years and still on going of course.
But certain religions became Scientology allies when scio "helped them". It was all thought out by 'Management' many years ago. These religious leaders now help scio.

Certain 'established religions' and minority religions would fight this inquiry proposal like the devil himself. Even if it was only for themselves.
Scio surrounded itself with power leaders in these other religions.

I hope that there will be a Judicial Inquiry here in Australia. I would be there with ribbons on.
 
Last edited:

Carmel

Crusader
<snip>

Now, as time is running out, I do suggest that revised ones be sent in,
I don't know why you'd suggest that, when you haven't seen the submissions which have been declined or not yet accepted - The assumption that a submission written a certain way or relevant to the bill, will get acceptance, is an incorrect one in this instance, IMO.

but by all means, raise your concerns with Rohan
I always have, and have not ever been at all shy about doing so since September last year - Nothings changed on that score this week, and I can't see it changing in the near future either.
 

Human Again

Silver Meritorious Patron
For those who got declined.

How about you put in a submission with your reaons why you want a PBT without specifics on Scn abuse that will get accepted and then put ina supplimentary that is about the Scn specific info? That way we push for the bill no matter what and can take it from there ?
 

Mick Wenlock

Admin Emeritus (retired)
Methinks that Carm has the rights of this Mate (and others) - the committee should not have rejected those submissions and whoever made that decision needs to be made to backtrack otherwise such "behind the scenes" crap will destroy any chance of getting any forward progress.
 

Carmel

Crusader
Methinks that Carm has the rights of this Mate (and others) - the committee should not have rejected those submissions and whoever made that decision needs to be made to backtrack otherwise such "behind the scenes" crap will destroy any chance of getting any forward progress.
Exactly, Mick - Thanks
 

Zinjifar

Silver Meritorious Sponsor
Most important for now is to use this last day to get as many submissions in as possible. Yes, if you haven't already sent one, stress the public benefits test, but, even if you have received a 'rejection' due to relevance, don't resubmit (keep your own copy though.)

For today the goal is to get the submissions in, because that can't be done later. *After* everything that can get in is in and the time is up there will be plenty of time to get to the bottom of the 'whys' and 'hows' of whatever's going on in the background.

Use the time available to get in what can be got.

Zinj
 

Carmel

Crusader
Most important for now is to use this last day to get as many submissions in as possible. Yes, if you haven't already sent one, stress the public benefits test, but, even if you have received a 'rejection' due to relevance, don't resubmit (keep your own copy though.)

For today the goal is to get the submissions in, because that can't be done later. *After* everything that can get in is in and the time is up there will be plenty of time to get to the bottom of the 'whys' and 'hows' of whatever's going on in the background.

Use the time available to get in what can be got.

Zinj
True Zinj, and as I advised in my op, for those who have had "declines", ask "why" rather than re-submit.

Pressure on these guys to do the right thing would be helpful right now - Succumbing to whatever agenda is going on, and resubmitting, wouldn't be.
 
Top