Re: Lisa McPherson in Newsweek this week
[03 Aug 1997]

One way I have seen Scientologists "launder" money is by failing
to invoice CASH and by failing to bank it...


From: Warrior <warrior@electrotex.com>
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Lisa McPherson in Newsweek this week
Date: 3 Aug 1997 00:12:03 -0700
Lines: 130
Message-ID: <5s1b03$q81@drn.zippo.com>

In article <5s0j98$4ic$1@skat.usc.edu>, leny@skat.usc.edu says...
>
>In article <jensting-ya02408000R2207971025390001@snews2.zippo.com>,
>Jens Tingleff <jensting@imaginet.fr> wrote:
>>In article <5r0lfo$re6$1@skat.usc.edu>, leny@skat.usc.edu (leny) wrote:
>>
>>> In article <19970716134300.JAA21898@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
>>> DeoMorto <deomorto@aol.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >1) In order to "launder" money you have to have lots of "unaccountable
>>> >for" cash and use the scheme for turning it into legitimate money.

Right!! One way I have seen Scientologists "launder" money
is by failing to invoice CASH and by failing to bank it. This
way it never shows up on the business' books.

I knew an "OTV" who was doing this. It's one of the MANY financial
irregularities (and illegal practices) he was committing, and it
was also one of the many reasons I gave my notice of intent to
resign my position of Controller in his company.

Funny thing was, I had been hired because I was a Sea Org Finance
Specialist. He told me up front that he wanted his business run
"on Scientology finance policy". It was just lip service.

The guy was greedy. And of course, he considered it justifiable
NOT to pay the IRS (and other tax agencies) the correct amount
due, because after all, they are "tax cruds" (and "SPs") according
to L. Ron Hubbard.

And, the beauty of this (from a Scieno point of view) is that this
means LESS money for the evil "SP" IRS and MORE MONEY for the
Scientologist to spend on "The Bridge"! Kinda "neat" how this
works, eh?!?!

>>> This would eventually get tripped up though. One of the many security
>>> check questions is "Do you have any financial irregularities?". As
>>> well as "Have you committed any crimes for which you can be arrested?"

In a previous post I told how this is a lie. I reported fraud and
other financial irregularities of my former boss WHILE he was at
Flag for his "Ls". Although the correct "terminals" (Sea Org jokers)
were aware of his "overts", NOTHING was done! So much for the
"Mecca of Standard Tech"!

>>> Any kind of money laundering would indeed be covered in both of those
>>> questions. If the person is found to be in violation he/she would
>>> need to get handled in ethics before receiving any service.
>>> Additionaly the person would have to repair any damage done and handle
>>> any illegalities before getting auditing, even if it meant "facing the
>>> music".

Bullshit. This simply is NOT true in practice. It is lip-service only.

>>A $cientology couple owned/ran a small company together with a third
>>$cientologist. At some stage, the wife decided to take 250.000 FFR (50 k$)
>>from the pension fund and spend it on OT levels for her and her husband.
>>They didn't get caught - not by $cientology, that it. The court found them
>>guilty as all get-out.
>
>>These people were doing OT levels with stolen money. No problem. Maybe
>>no-one asked them? Maybe the Co$ only cares about getting the money in?
>>Maybe the sec-checking can be beat by anyone who cares to?
>
>>Whichever, you're off them mark..
>
>Actually, no, I am not off the mark. I was only refering to ethics
>and policy that have been enforced in the past. There is a CPA firm
>in LA run by scientologists

Are you referring to Greenberg & Jackson? Are you speaking about
Marty Greenberg (long-time Hubbard crony and former CPA US) and
James J. Jackson?

>and one of the partners decided to,

Do you dare to say which partner it was?

>when the other partner was out of town, take some money without
>authorization and go to flag for some auditing. When the employees
>found out what he had done, they called flag and followed up with a
>faxed report to the ethics officer. He could not get his auditing
>until the situation was handled which in this case would have been
>approval from the partner.

So, did the one partner have an "ARC Break" over the fact that
the other took money "without authorization"?

Most likely the partner agreed it was OK to take money from the
business without approval. If he said "Pay it back NOW!", he
would be viewed as "CI" (counter-intentioned) towards Scientology.

>The great thing was, his employees reported him. He was an asshole
>and I got a big kick out of it.

So, did you used to work for this CPA firm in LA?

>Your above example I have heard of before so I don't doubt what you
>say. However you say the church does not care. You are generalizing.
>The registrar or dir income does not care. That is not their job.
>
>The ethics officer and the Case Supervisor care. They don't care
>about money, they care about PCs keeping their ethics in and getting
>case gain.

What you actually mean is they care that "pcs" swear blind allegiance
and obedience to Hubbard and his followers. And as to case gain, it
amounts to being BLINDLY loyal to and unwavering in dedication to
the cause -- HIP... HIP... HOORAY!!!

>As for beating a security check, there are only two ways to beat a sec
>check; be so low on the responsibility scale that the meter does not
>read or getting an auditor who can't read a meter.

Low on the responsibility scale?!?! Speak English! What you really
mean is that the "pc" has completely accepted Hubbard's mind-warping
set of values! The "pc" has "gone into agreement with" Hubbard's
definitions of "overt", "motivator", "PTP", "withhold", etc.

I have known "OTs" who were "high on the responsibility scale" --
SO HIGH that they were "willing to be responsible for" TAX FRAUD
because the IRS is "just a bunch of 'SPs'"!! I will be glad to
quote some Hubbard policy if you like! He NEVER had a kind word
for any of the TAX "cruds" (to use a more kind term of Hubbard's).

>Leny

Hey, Leny... Do you know Leny Macaluso???

Warrior - Sunshine disinfects