Taking a hard look at Scientology’s slush fund, the unlicensed and unregulated IAS

David_Miscavige

In our last article, we showed that the word “Scientologist” is a collective membership mark used by members of the affiliated churches and missions of Scientology:

Scist1

This statement is found in the fine print of Impact, the official magazine of the International Association of Scientologists. Curiously enough, and as documented last week, the IAS itself is not a part of the ecclesiastical hierarchy of Scientology churches and missions:
IAS3

Given the autonomy of the IAS from the Church of Scientology, we are left to ask by what right or privilege is the IAS able to use the word “Scientologist.” The Scientology weasel answer is contained in the correspondence between the Church and the IRS in 1992:
Scis2
Let’s look at the Scientological sleight of hand here:

— The IAS is the official membership organization of the Church of Scientology.

— The purpose of the IAS is quite lofty and soaring:
IasPurposeDespite the IAS’ overarching purpose and centrality to the Scientology religion itself, the Church’s trademark counsel has advised all of us that the IAS engages in only “mere references” to Scientology’s trademarks and service marks.

One of those trademarks, by the way, is the word “scientologist” itself, which is owned by the RTC.

From the US Patent and Trademark Office:
Scientologist
So, Scientology is so anal, it trademarks the very use of the word “Scientologist,” and yet it somehow leaves unlicensed its massive slush fund, IAS. What gives?

An unlicensed IAS would seem to be a breach of David Miscavige’s duty to protect the ecclesiastical purity of the Scientology trademarks. Indeed, as we read in the Command Channels of Scientology, RTC is a policing function:

RTC

Why does David Miscavige apparently abrogate his primary duty to safeguard the “proper use of the trademarks” when it comes to the IAS? This most curious omission is “hats, not wearing” in the language of Scientology. “Hats, not wearing” means that one is not performing their assigned duties or not carrying out their assigned responsibilities. This is a very serious crime in the Church. L. Ron Hubbard warned against “hats, not wearing” in this policy letter:
Hats
Likewise, the IAS is not licensed by the Church of Spiritual Technology (CST). Instead, the IAS merely offers grateful acknowledgement to the Church of Spiritual Technology dba L. Ron Hubbard Library. This acknowledgement is also contained in the fine print of Impact Magazine:
ImpactCopyThe unlicensed IAS stands in stark contrast to the RTC-licensed Church of Scientology international (CSI) and all of its sub-licensees who must at all times operate under the strict licensure of RTC. And to be clear, all Scientology operations are done under licensure, i.e. they require a license from RTC, or from CST via RTC. In this sense, RTC could be viewed as the operating arm of CST. Thus, the “hats, not wearing” policy letter is relevant as it shows David Miscavige is not doing his duty by allowing the IAS to exist as an unlicensed Scientology entity.

One of the main lessons I have learned through many years of Scientology watching is this: Scientology never does anything legally without a reason, and, this reason is almost always hidden or not obvious. Therefore, even though it violates Miscavige’s duties and the stated functions of RTC, there is a reason David Miscavige and his attorneys did not want to license the IAS.

My thinking here is that IAS-IASA-US IAS Members Trust is a cabal that embodies a gigantic pool of unrestricted cash donations exceeding one billion dollars. Miscavige himself said of the IAS in 2014 “this is the year we went stratospheric.” I personally took this as Miscavige cryptically boasting that the IAS had crossed over some enormous target for cash holdings. It is fashionable these days for corporations to have large cash holdings and so the IAS would be no different.

Thus, in m my view, the IAS must be so completely autonomous legally that it cannot be sued as a licensee of RTC or CST. In the dismissed legal case Rathbun v. Miscavige et. al., Miscavige’s lawyers worked feverishly to prevent Rathbun from piercing the CSI and RTC corporate veils by proving that Miscavige is actually the managing agent of the Church. As presently constructed, Miscavige can secretly control the IAS money while being legally untouchable in any lawsuit.

As we mentioned previously, the invisible hand of the Sea Org is at work: As Captain David Miscavige controls the Sea Org, he therefore controls the IAS, the IASA, and the big fat piggy bank known as the US IAS Members Trust.

Therefore, the IAS must have the freedom to use RTC trademarks and CST copyrights on an unrestricted and unlicensed basis under the rubric of “mere references” in order for Miscavige to remain at arm’s length legally.

Still, one of my long-held suspicions is that David Miscavige has a personal services contract with the IAS and is paid for making speeches at IAS events. Perhaps Miscavige even receives 10% commission on his fundraising activities for the IAS? I say this because Scientology’s doctrine of exchange would demand the IAS compensate Miscavige for his appearances and not expect “something for nothing” as, per LRH, “something for nothing” is criminal:

“First consider a group which takes in money but does not deliver anything in exchange. This is called rip-off. It is the ‘exchange’ condition of robbers, tax men, governments and other criminal elements.” – L. Ron Hubbard, HCO PL 10 Sep 82 – Exchange, Org Income and Staff Pay.

(In the Church Scientology the one exception to the criminal condition of out exchange, of wanting “something for nothing” is  the phony Claims Verification Board (CVB). The CVB is a scam; it is a criminal entity that is fully allowed by RTC and CSI to deny repayments of “monies on account” and thus effectively steal “Advanced Payment” money for services that were never delivered and will never be delivered. See my article: Scientology: Refunds and Repayments of Monies on Account.)

All of this Church of Scientology conduct reflects badly upon the IRS. Why the IRS allowed such contradictions from the Church of Scientology is beyond the intellectual grasp of your humble correspondent. Had I been the IRS Commissioner, I would have thrown these chattering Scientology jackdaws and their lawyers out of my office. Nevertheless, as the Proprietor of the Underground Bunker maintains, the Church caved in the IRS. This would explain why the IRS chose to ignore contradictions that should otherwise throw up red flags.

For the IRS to have allowed the IAS, an autonomous fundraising organization (and one that pays fundraising commissions no less), to exist within the Church of Scientology seems very questionable.

But then, it was the IRS that didn’t flinch at the plans of the Church of Spiritual Technology to spend tens of millions of dollars to build twelve Scientology obelisks engraved with The Way to Happiness on each of them:
Obelisk
What a shame they were never built. Instead, Miscavige built his monument out of hard, unlicensed cash.

(This article was originally published on the Underground Bunker and is reprinted here for archival purposes,)

6 comments

  1. Thank you soooo much Jeff. Forwarded to wmnf.org on 20July 2016…. peace narmin

    On Jul 29, 2016 4:25 PM, “The Scientology Money Project” wrote:

    > Scientology Money Project posted: ” In our last article, we showed that > the word “Scientologist” is a collective membership mark used by members of > the affiliated churches and missions of Scientology: This statement is > found in the fine print of Impact, the official magazine of the In” >

  2. The IRS needs to hire you as a consultant.

    You have proven through your years of criticism of Scientology’s writings that you are a genuine expert.

  3. The IRS needs to hire you as a consultant.

    You have proven through your years of criticism of Scientology’s writings that you are a genuine expert.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s