When a Scientologist is declared a “Suppressive Person” or “SP” they are expelled from the Church of Scientology. When expelled, they are issued a document called a “Suppressive Person Declare.” This document is called an “SP Declare” for short.
Because SP Declares must be issued on goldenrod-colored paper, SP Declares are also called goldenrod as in, “Hey, I just got my goldenrod from the Church.”
When former Scientologists began posting their SP Declares online, the Church of Scientology stopped giving copies to declared Scientologists as required by policy. This bit of cowardice is practiced to prevent a flood of SP Declares from being posted online. Scientology began to tell people they were declared. These “verbal declares” violate Founder Hubbard’s Church law which states, “If it’s not in writing it’s not true.”
While researching Scientology Suppressive Person declares (SP Declares), we noticed a certain recurring statement on many of these documents. The statement in which we are interested appears in many SP Declares. For example, the SP Declare of Dave Soroka and Nora Curiston states in part (emphasis ours):
Any certificates or awards Dave or Nora may have been issued are hereby cancelled. Any licenses or agreements that they may have acquired to use any of the trademarks or service marks of Dianetics or Scientology are also cancelled and any membership agreements that Dave and/or Nora may have signed with any Church of Scientology are also cancelled.
This clause “any membership agreements that Dave and/or Nora may have signed with any Church of Scientology are also cancelled” would seem to mean that any agreement Dave and Nora made to enter into binding arbitration with the Church for any disputes would be cancelled as stated in their SP Declare.
The SP Declare of Brian Mandingo a/k/a AnonSparrow contains the same basic statement :
Scientology’s Stand League website informs us that Scientology’s ethics and justice system is a privilege and a benefit:
Declared Scientologist Brian Mandingo had this benefit cancelled — which would mean that he, as an SP, cannot participate in the benefit of Scientology ethics and justice as this privilege was cancelled when he was declared.
The SP Declare of Mike and Betsy Reppen states in part:
Any certificates and awards they have been awarded by any Scientology Church are cancelled. Any licenses or agreements either of them may have acquired to use any of the trademarks or service marks of Dianetics or Scientology are cancelled. Any membership agreements either of them may have signed with any Church of Scientology of any affiliated organization are also cancelled.
The SP Declare of Robert and Patty (Moher) Pieniadz states in part:
The SP Declare of Mike Roiger states in part:
If you were declared, read over your SP Declare to see if it contains this statement. We are also requesting our readers to please e-mail us a copy of their SP declares for a research project we are working on. E-mail to: firstname.lastname@example.org
As we have covered in past articles, the “Church of Scientology” does not exist. Rather, the term “Church of Scientology” is a term of convenience used to refer to all of the legally separate Scientology Orgs, missions, and other religious corporations which collectively comprise the Church of Scientology. This is what Scientology’s lawyers told the IRS in its 1992 1023 application for tax-exemption:
Although Ron Hubbard railed against individuation, David Miscavige reconfigured all the parts of Scientology to be as legally individuated as possible. Each Org in Scientology is only itself in legal terms. Each separate Org operates based upon a license issued by the mother church, the Church of Scientology International (CSI).
CSI is a non-membership religious corporation. As such, it can have no members. This is true of all Church of Scientology corporations. CSI operates based upon a license issued by the Religious Technology Center. RTC owns and licenses all of the intellectual property, copyrights, and service marks of what is called the “Scientology religion.”
Because the legally separate churches of Scientology can have no members, the idea of “membership agreements” is itself a legal fiction. Indeed, the official membership organization of the Scientology religion is itself a legally separate corporation called the International Association of Scientologists (IAS). The IAS is not licensed by CSI or RTC and has no legal relationship whatsoever to these entities.
The IAS is an unincorporated membership organization that can do nothing in an of itself. This is why it must have an operating arm called the International Association if Scientology Administrations (IASA). The IASA is staffed by Sea Org members. As the Church of Scientology can have no members, it too must be staffed by Sea Org members.
However, the Sea Org has no actual legal or cognizable form of existence, this as Scientology attorneys admitted in the Rathbun v. Miscavige case:
“Plaintiff asserts that Mr. Miscavige exercised control because he leads the Sea Organization, a religious order within Scientology. But the ‘Sea Org’ is not a corporate entity; it has no physical or legal existence. It is not incorporated or established pursuant to legal formalities. It has no constitution, charter or bylaws, and no formal or informal ecclesiastical, corporate, or other management structure. It has no directors, officers, managing agents, or other executives; no employees, staff members, or volunteers; no income; no disbursements, no bank accounts or other assets; no liabilities; no stationery; no office, home, address, or telephone number. It does not create or maintain any financial, personnel, or other records. It can neither give nor receive orders because it has no one to either give or receive them or to carry them out. It cannot sue or be sued. (MR1810-12 at ¶13.) The evidence Mrs. Rathbun has submitted fails to establish a prima facie basis for an alter ego finding, because none of it involves the defendants’ purported contacts relating to this suit, nor does any of it speak to the organizations’ current practices.”
We ask why the many lawsuits against the Church, with one notable exception in the Rathbun v. Miscavige case, have never pointed out to the courts that the Sea Org has no actual legal form of existence. A Sea Org member therefore has no legal standing to administer “membership agreements” on behalf of the non-membership corporations that collectively form the Church of Scientology.
Scientologists must be members of the IAS in order to receive services and take courses in the legally separate churches of Scientology. Any reference in SP Declares to “membership agreements” makes no sense as the Orgs are all non-membership corporations.
We have also wondered why legal teams suing the Church of Scientology on behalf of former Scientologists have never explained the deceptive and misleading legal architecture of Scientology to attack the idea of membership agreements. Nothing is at it is seems in Scientology. It is a misleading and deceptive criminal organization intent on the financial predation of its members and the destruction of its enemies.
Lawsuits against Scientology fail to explain how IAS members — who are not members of the Church of Scientology — can sign “membership agreements” with non-membership churches of Scientology. If these membership agreements are cancelled by an SP Declare, then any contract calling for forced arbitration would seem to be legally voided. Attorneys should carefully review SP Declares to see if such clauses as “any membership agreements they may have signed are cancelled.”
Below is an SP Declare for new Scientology watchers that may have never seen one. This is the SP Declare of Mike Roiger and it was issued on 15 January 2011
Categories: The Scientology Money Project
Having been declared a SP in 2007; i find this so lovely! The “Wasband” denied that I was given a hard copy. Oh, yes indeed, i have it.
Interesting. So who is the IJC or D/IJC employed by? The declare suggests s/he has the administrative authority to approve the termination of agreements – not just between CSI and its licensees but arguably any and all legal entities under the “CoS” umbrella. The copyright notice also implies approval from RTC, the ultimate license holder.
Wondering how a strategy of suing the RTC might be effective. Maybe bankrupting it, taking it over, and revoking all licensing agreements.
Just a pipe-dream.
@Mr. Augustine: Can you post an email address?
So having pharmaceutical drug companies in your portfolio is grounds for a SP declare. What do you know??????