Alex Gibney

In an April 26, 2015 letter to the editor in the Los Angeles Times ¹, in response to Alex Gibney’s April 11 op-ed article ², Scientology attorney Monique E. Yingling accuses him of appearing “trapped in his own prison of bias when he wrongly asserts that the Church of Scientology did not deserve IRS recognition of its tax-exempt status in 1993.” No one, of course, would accuse Yingling of being trapped in any prison of anything. She freely lies, tells more lies, and gets others to lie, for money. She might do it because it gives her delight, but she also gets paid, richly, and that has to also delight her. She would not argue that she is not free to tell the truth; in fact she would doubtlessly claim she is telling the truth even when lying; so she is not trapped.

She lies when she says Gibney asserts in his article that Scientology did not deserve IRS recognition of its tax-exempt status in 1993. He does not assert that. He asserts that Scientology does not deserve its tax exempt status in 2015. He does not assert that the cult, or the religion or whatever, did not deserve recognition as a tax exempt religious entity in 1993. I do, however. The Scientologists obtained their undeserved tax exemption by committing crimes against citizens, which is against public policy, and lying in their submissions to the IRS, which must also be against public policy. Because of these facts, the Scientologists have at no time before or ever since deserved their tax exempt status.

Gibney writes that his documentary film Going Clear “shows that the church’s method of “convincing” the IRS featured lawsuits and vilification of its agents.” He says that critics of Scientology “have called for its tax exemption to be revoked because it is not a “real religion.” I don’t. Scientology is as real a religion as Militant Islam or Aum Shinrikyo. Gibney goes on to say that “to maintain the right to be tax-exempt, however, religions must fulfill certain requirements for charitable organizations.” Quoting from the IRS website, he writes that such organizations may not “serve the private interests of any individual” and/or their “purposes and activities may not be illegal or violate fundamental public policy.”

Suing the IRS is every person or organization’s right and not illegal. Even filing 2400 lawsuits, as is stated in Going Clear, is not illegal. Investigating the IRS for their sins or crimes, and having PIs investigate individual agents is not illegal. Even vilifying or black PRing the IRS, its agents, or the whole US Government is not illegal. And these actions did not bring the IRS to its knees. That’s ridiculous. Framing individuals, however, as the Scientologists did to my attorney Michael Flynn and me prior to obtaining tax exemption, is illegal. Using such false incriminations to obtain tax exemption is illegal. Lying in submissions to the IRS, which the Scientologists and their attorneys did, was illegal. The IRS’s requiring these lies, which IRS and DOJ officials knew were lies, in these submissions to justify granting tax exemption in order to have the lawsuits end and to have the Scientologists’ investigating and vilifying of IRS officials end, was illegal. These illegalities, all in violation of public policy, made tax exemption for the Scientologists undeserved, and its grant by the IRS illegal.

Yingling says in her April 26 letter that Scientology “underwent the most exhaustive IRS scrutiny of any applicant in history.”³ That could be.  The scrutiny was certainly exhaustive enough for the relevant IRS and DOJ officials to conclude that the Scientologists did not deserve tax exemption, and, for more than twenty years, to oppose the Scientologists’ legal and extralegal efforts to obtain the tax exemption they didn’t deserve. The Scientologists, however, abetted by attorneys, including Yingling, kept right on charging, kept right on attacking and committing crimes, and finally got the relevant IRS and DOJ officials to stop opposing them, and, in terrible truth and in violation of public policy, to collude with them in a cowardly crime against private citizens.

Yingling states she is the Scientologists’ “longtime outside tax counsel.” That’s true. She says she is “familiar with everything that transpired during the administrative proceedings that led to the 1993 IRS settlement.” She professes this seemingly impossible knowledge (the proceedings started in 1967, and she obtained her law degree in 1977) to help build a defense for her Scientologist clients, and herself, against Gibney’s charges relating to the Scientologists’ tax exemption. Her avowed familiarity with everything is, however, a useful admission regarding what did transpire during the period between the IRS ending its opposition to Scientologists and its grant of tax exemption in 1993. What transpired was a whole lot of lying and a criminal conspiracy that included US officials, which made the tax exemption completely undeserved.

The Scientology-US-Yingling, et al. pack conspired against the rights of the Scientologists’ direct victims, who are in large part US citizens. The conspirators also indirectly victimized and still victimize US tax payers. In that the Scientologists brandish their undeserved IRS tax exemption around the world to obtain even more undeserved advantages, the conspirators victimize every citizen of every country where the Scientologists operate. The cult’s leaders have used their undeserved tax exemption as a license to victimize both their cult underlings and innocent wogs they want destroyed.

“Wogs” are what Scientologists call us Homo saps. The wogs the Scientologists particularly hate and work to destroy they call “Suppressive Persons” or “SPs.” Yingling is familiar with the Scientologists’ Suppressive Person doctrine. It is an evil, indefensible doctrine that is sufficient on its face and in its application over the last fifty years to make this cults’ tax exemption undeserved. It is like giving the Nazis a license and tax exemption to carry out their Jewish doctrine.

I already knew that Yingling is an operator in the Scientologists’ “Armstrong Operation.” ⁴

She writes that Gibney has no clue. This is false. He has a clue. In fact, I wrote him before release of Going Clear to clue him in about the Scientologists’ public policy violations and undeserved tax exemption even more than he gave the appearance of being clued in when he made the film.⁵

Yingling writes that “not only does the church reject Gibney’s revisionist history, but so did the IRS officials involved in the proceedings.” She does not, however, explain what she is talking about when she calls something Gibney wrote his “revisionist history.” The church or cult of Scientologists rejecting whatever Gibney wrote that she calls “revisionist history,” is unremarkable, because such rejections are what the Scientologists call “command intention.” They reject what the person in command wants rejected, and accept what he wants them to accept. But, how does Yingling know, or how could she possibly know, that the IRS officials involved in the administrative proceedings that ended in 1993 also have rejected whatever it is that Gibney wrote in 2015 that she calls revisionist history?

It is highly unlikely that after the LA Times published whatever Yingling calls Gibney’s revisionist history on April 12 someone submitted it to the IRS officials involved in the administrative proceedings, and these officials rejected it by April 26 when Yingling’s letter was published. The IRS would have had to organize dozens of its personnel, many of whom have retired, and gotten them all to join in this rejection. There would have been a submission to the IRS of what she calls Gibney’s revisionist history, and no such submission has been produced that I am aware of. The IRS would have had to issue an official rejection, and there is no record of such a rejection that has been made public that, again, I know of. If such a rejection actually existed, I am certain that Yingling or her Scientologists clients would have published it to invalidate Gibney, rather than depend on her lame claim.

The other scenario, which Yingling is probably proffering, is that in 1993, or even earlier, the IRS officials involved in the administrative proceedings rejected what Gibney would write in 2015. This would work well in L. Ron Hubbard’s time-traveling science fiction scriptures, but does not meet wog standards for evidence, facts or reason. The reasonable conclusion is that one more time Yingling is simply lying.

It would be completely unsurprising, however, if the IRS does reject every call to revoke Scientology’s undeserved tax-exempt status, and rejects the mountain of excellent evidence supporting these calls. This is because the relevant IRS and DOJ officials conspired with the Scientologists, Yingling and the Scientologists’ other attorneys to produce the tax exemption that all of them knew was undeserved. These officials required that the Scientologists lie in their submissions on which the tax exemption is based. These officials negotiated what lies the Scientologists would include in order to give the IRS the appearance of a justification to grant the undeserved tax exemption. The US has an almost insurmountable motivation to reject every effort to acknowledge and remedy the crime its officials committed in granting the Scientologists tax exemption just because what these officials did was criminal. The US has an abysmal history of owning up to antisocial, anti-human rights or criminal actions its officials have taken.

If the Scientologists and their attorneys had told the truth in their submissions, the IRS could never have granted the tax exemption. That is because, prior to obtaining tax exemption and US Government backing, the Scientologists were committing crimes against the government and citizens, which the relevant officials were well aware of. The Scientologists criminally framed individuals, including my attorney Michael Flynn and me, and most egregiously conspired against the rights of many people, also including Flynn and me. The Scientologists ordering and committing these crimes were in Scientology’s Sea Organization hierarchy that took over from the Guardian’s Office hierarchy, key members of which the US had prosecuted and imprisoned for crimes against the Government, most notoriously against the IRS.

In their answers to the IRS’s Form 1023 questions about the GO and its personnel who were involved in these federal crimes, the Scientologists asserted that the Sea Org under David Miscavige disbanded the GO in 1981 and shifted some of its activities to SO units, and that “none of these activities operate in a manner similar to the old Guardian’s Office.” The Scientologists, their attorneys and the relevant IRS and DOJ personnel all knew that the “GO disbanding” was actually scapegoating, that the SO personnel who took over the GO’s activities operated on identical “scriptures,” and the criminal targeting of officials, media and private individuals like me continued seamlessly.

Yingling says that Gibney omits any mention of the IRS issuing a statement reaffirming its recognition of the Scientology cult when “this myth” had first arisen. She does not say what myth she has in mind. She is almost certainly lying, and the only myths submitted to the IRS were by her clients and their attorneys, herself included, in the form of lies, which bagged the undeserved tax exemption. That the tax exemption is undeserved is not a myth, but the gospel truth.

Certainly Scientology is a religion, and Gibney acknowledges that. It is religious because of the US Government’s stated position that any organization can determine it is religious, and, poof, it’s religious. As I wrote in 2009 about the cult’s religiousness, Scientology is: “an economic enterprise, a bait-and-switch scam, an intelligence organization waging war on good citizens, a hate group with the superhubris to call itself a human rights group, a criminal conspiracy, a totalitarian cult with a sociopathic philosophy, and consequently a threat to democratic order.”⁶ And it is a religion. It is a religion that, because of its public policy violations, does not deserve tax exemption.

Theologically speaking, Scientology is a form of Luciferianism, which comes in many forms. As early as 1952, Hubbard called himself the “Prince of Darkness,” and the religion is clearly rooted in “Thelema,” Aleister Crowley’s hermetic magick. Overtly, the cult calls its courses “self-improvement,” its teachings an “applied religious philosophy,” and founder Hubbard, “mankind’s greatest friend,” a “genius,” an “educator,” a “professional in twenty-nine fields,” a “power.” The Scientologists claim that among his many other firsts, prodigious discoveries, and superhuman accomplishments, he “became the first to scientifically isolate, measure and describe the human spirit, while objectively demonstrating spiritual potentials well in advance of scientific thought.” All these things are aspects of Luciferianism.

The Scientologists claim that by application of their “spiritual technology” they have become superior beings, and can give their subjects wildly increased intelligence, phenomenal knowledge and understanding, superhuman abilities, secular and psychic power, the never-before achieved states of “Clear” and “Operating Thetan” or “OT,” exemplary characters, success, the way to wealth and happiness, and “total freedom.” The Scientologists profess sincere concern for the welfare of mankind, and state their aims as “a civilization without insanity, without criminals and without war, where the able can prosper and honest beings can have rights, and where Man is free to rise to greater heights.” The Scientologists preach ethics, honesty and human rights. All these claims are also common characteristics or promises of Luciferianism.

Any doubt about Hubbard and his religion’s Luciferian nature was dispelled after his death when the Scientologists published his scriptural “technical bulletin” he called “OT VIII Confidential Student Briefing,” in which he as much as confessed he was the “Antichrist,” representing “the forces of Lucifer.” Aleister Crowley claimed that Aiwass, whom he also identified as Lucifer, was his “Holy Guardian Angel,” who had dictated to Crowley his most famous writing The Book of the Law. Hubbard wrote in “OT VIII:”

No doubt you are familiar with the Revelations section of the Bible where various events are predicted. Also mentioned is a brief period of time in which an archenemy of Christ, referred to as the Antichrist, will reign and his opinions will have sway. All this makes for very fantastic, entertaining reading but there is truth in it. This Antichrist represents the forces of Lucifer (literally, the “light bearer” or “light bring”), Lucifer being a mythical representation of the forces of enlightenment, the Galactic Confederacy. My mission could be said to fulfill the Biblical promise represented by this brief Antichrist period.

Hubbard dated the bulletin May 5, 1980, a time when he was on the lam in southern California, postulating his own death, and evading government and private parties who were suing him or seeking his testimony in ongoing legal cases. In this scripture, based on what he implied was impeccable evidence, he blasphemed Jesus of the Christian Bible as an unsaintly, raging pederast. The ideal of Christ, Hubbard claimed, is part of an “ongoing implant” the Marcabians laid in on humans seventy-five million years ago “by carefully controlled genetic mutation.” He wrote that this race of entities, who were outside the physical universe, periodically reinforced the implant “by controlled historic events,” to make it impossible for humans to become free, except by his great work and divination.

Hubbard wrote that all religions of any consequence but original Buddhism, “have been instruments to… bring about the eventual enslavement of mankind.” In addition to claiming to be antichrist, Lucifer, the Prince of Darkness, or an associated being of that occult ilk, Hubbard, of course, had been claiming since the 1950s to have been the original Buddha. In “OT VIII” he wrote that his mission was to derail an imminent mass landing by the Marcabians, which is falsely portrayed as the biblical “Second Coming.” He said that with constant effort by the Scientologists who would be doing his OT VIII program he would postpone and then halt a series of events the Marcabians designed to make slaves of us all.

As megalomanical and deluded as Hubbard sounds in his OT VIII bulletin, there is no doubt it is religious scripture. As demented as Scientology’s theology or technology are, it is a religion. As has been shown, it is a form of Luciferianism. Because of its debased, wicked or criminal sacraments, it is properly categorized as Black Luciferianism. Crowley, analogously, wrote that debased or wicked magick is properly classified as black magick. Black Luciferianism is perfectly compatible with Scientology’s rapacious commercialism, deceit, fraud, hate, human rights abuses, sociopathy, and criminality. Scientology is an evil, criminal religion, but still a religion because the Scientologists determined that it is religious, organized for purely religious purposes. Their denial of their organization’s Luciferianism and their attacks on people who expose its occult roots are indicators of its blackness.

In Scientology, crass merchandising, hard sell, deceit, fraud, hate, incarcerations, slavery, the destruction of human rights and persons, financial ruination, using the law to harass, black propaganda, and many other antisocial or criminal activities are religious exercise, or sacraments. The Scientologists lure good wogs into their cult with the wonderful promises of White Luciferianism, and then handle and hold them with Hubbard’s Black Luciferian “tech,” and do their damnedest to turn them into tough, dedicated, glaring Black Luciferians. While telling people their objective is to get everyone to “think for yourself,” the Scientologists compel cult personalities that must think as the cult head commands. Thinking for oneself or “other-intentionedness” is restrained and punished. While insisting that they are engendering virtuous or moral characters and behaviors in their members, the Scientologists actually instill the “valuable final products,” as they call them, of vanity, dishonesty, hypocrisy, perfidy, envy, pugnacity, malignity and pusillanimity.

The Scientologists hire bad or corrupt wogs, like Yingling, who are well aware of the cult’s blackness and criminality, to do evil, often under color of law, to the people the cult’s leaders want hated, suppressed and destroyed. These human targets are the decent, courageous people who stand up to the Scientologists and their wog collaborators and tell the truth about Hubbard, Scientology, Scientologists, their collaborators like Yingling, and their Black Luciferian tech and activities. The Scientologists’ undeserved IRS tax exemption inspirits and privileges the cult’s hierarchy to commit and make others commit evils and crimes, and gives them vast wealth to do so. This was the intended, achieved and unlawful goal of the Scientology-US-Yingling, et al. conspiracy.

Exposing and opposing these evils and crimes, and even perpetrating the same against the Scientologists and their collaborators such as Yingling, of course, are no less religious than the Scientologists’ evil and criminal sacraments. Most wogs, fortunately or unfortunately, including those the Scientologists have horribly victimized, will not degrade themselves to the condition or level necessary to commit the sort of evils or crimes the Scientologists commit. Nevertheless, to even the playing field, or the battle field, and be able to effectively defend against the Scientologists’ predations, wogs must possess and assert the same religious rights as the Scientology predators.

The US Federal Government has created the present uneven battle field by conspiring with the Scientologists and granting them tax exemption and endorsing their victimizing of citizens government officials knew the Scientologists had victimized and would victimize in the future. Therefore, it has to be a religious right to expose, oppose and commit the sort of evils and crimes to government officials that the Scientologists commit to citizens. This would, of course, include at a minimum lying religiously to the IRS and other US agencies, and dealing with them as enemies.

The US Government’s logical and humane remedy is to revoke the Scientologists’ tax exemption, prosecute the conspirators, including the complicit US officials, and acknowledge and compensate the people harmed by the grant of the undeserved exemption. Tragically, the US has a dreadful and growing history of alliances with unsavory persons or groups, and inhumanity toward the US’s nasty allies’ victims. Because of the known consequences to character, even a national character, that flow from absolute secular power, which the US has essentially achieved, prevailing upon its officials to do the right or uncorrupt thing regarding the Scientologists, the IRS and their victims may be absolutely impossible.

Yingling says that Gibney was provided “all this information” and he ignored it. She does not identify what all this information is, and again, as typical of her, it is safe to say she is lying. Unless Gibney is lying, she did not provide him with her actual knowledge of everything that transpired during the administrative proceedings that led to the 1993 IRS settlement. If she had, he would have known that the Scientologists, Yingling and their other lawyers violated public policy, and IRS and DOJ officials conspired unlawfully with them in violation of public policy, and presumably he would have included these facts in his documentary.

She writes that “Gibney pretends ignorance of the unprecedented public record, comprising 14 feet, in which the IRS recognized the church as exempt.” I doubt that Gibney pretended ignorance of the Scientologists having submitted many pages to the IRS, and having created a record on which the cult’s tax exemption is based. Again what is most likely is that Yingling is lying. On October 22, 1993, three weeks after the IRS granted the Scientologists tax exemption, the New York Times published an article by Robert D. Hershey, Jr., which stated:

The financial disclosures are in documents the church was required to file with the I.R.S. in applying for tax-exempt status, conferred on 30 or more entities of the church on Oct. 10. The documents, 12 linear feet of them in eight cardboard boxes, formed the basis for the I.R.S.’s decision and became a matter of public record when tax exemption was granted.

Sometime after this, Scientology propaganda organ Freedom published an undated anti-Germany edition containing an article by editor and black propagandist Andrew Milne, which stated:

The IRS asked hundreds of specific questions for detailed factual information with respect to the areas of its concerns. The Church provided complete responses to every question asked. These responses amounted to more than 11,000 pages of information constituting 12 linear feet of stacked paper.⁷

It is almost certainly true that one of Going Clear’s sources Mark Rathbun kept Gibney ignorant of the critical content of all those linear feet of files. It is the content of the Scientologists’ submissions to the IRS that is important, of course, not the submissions’ volume or loftiness. Rathbun has stated that he personally participated in preparing the submissions that formed the basis for the IRS’s decision, and personally couriered them from Los Angeles to the IRS in Washington, DC, on virtually a weekly basis for two years. Yingling wrote about Rathbun’s role in a letter dated February 27, 2015 letter to HBO’s attorney Jay Ward Brown:

Gibney’s crediting his sleazy source, Marty Rathbun, with a major role in the negotiations with the IRS is misplaced: I personally attended every one of the dozens of meetings; Rathbun was little more than a bag carrier, and a poor one at that.⁸

I wrote Rathbun recently about Yingling’s charge that during the Scientologists’ negotiations with the IRS and his virtually weekly trips to DC with the negotiated submissions he was but a bumbling bag schlepper.⁹ It really does not matter, however, who — Rathbun, Yingling, Miscavige, President Bush, President Clinton, Robert Gates, or the devil — had the most major role in the negotiations that led to the grant of tax exemption. This was a criminal conspiracy, what was negotiated was against public policy, and the Scientologists tax exemption was and is undeserved.

Yingling says that the Scientologists answered every question the IRS put to it. Of course they did. She omits to say, however, that the Scientologists and their attorneys, she included, lied in their answers. Even more important, the lying answers were what the relevant US officials required. Lies were what these officials negotiated for, and the lying Scientologists and their lying attorneys were happy as clams to deliver what the government officials required.

Yingling says that during the negotiations IRS officials “made on-site inspections” of Scientology’s “records and facilities.” This is actually further evidence that these officials conspired unlawfully with the Scientologists. If these officials actually inspected the cult’s actual records, they would confirm what they already knew: the Scientologists were engaged in criminal activity in violation of public policy, and therefore did not deserve tax exemption. If these officials, who already knew the Scientologists were engaged in criminal activity, inspected records they were shown that did not confirm what they already knew, then these officials also knew that the Scientologists were lying to them.

Yingling says she “offered to walk Gibney through these materials,” the records that she says the IRS officials inspected, but he “stonewalled” her. Again, if Gibney is not lying, Yingling is. If she had shown him the Scientologists’ actual, relevant records, he would have known that the cult is much worse than he thought, much more antisocial and criminal than what he showed in Going Clear. I would hope that Gibney, knowing what he now knows, does take Yingling up on her offer and does inspect the cult’s records. And I would hope he would take me along with him, to help keep him from being duped by Yingling and her clients’ duplicities. I don’t think he’s lying. I know Yingling is.

Yingling writes that Gibney is wrong about Scientology finances, and that its “funds are dedicated to promulgation of the faith and supporting global humanitarian initiatives for the benefit of people of all faiths.” She implies that all of the cult’s funds are dedicated to faith promulgation and humanitarian initiatives, not that a fraction of its funds, say a penny on the dollar, are used for these purposes. Gibney observed in his article that Scientology “maintains that its activities are protected by the 1st Amendment as religious practices.” That is true. He also listed a number of the cult’s activities that he said “may have been either illegal or in violation of public policy:”

–  propaganda campaigns with expensive graphics, full-page ads and videos
–  ruthlessly intimidating reporters and waging lawfare against journals and networks
–  hiring private investigators to spy on citizens
–  false imprisonment
–  human trafficking
–  wiretaps
–  assault
–  harassment
–  invasion of privacy
–  documented civil rights abuses.

Yingling writes that “not one iota of the church’s actual activities is reflected in Gibney’s one-sided piece.” That is a lie! Except that I was not a reporter, a journal or a TV network, the Scientologists committed all the crimes or torts he identified against me personally. And the Scientologists ruthlessly intimidated numerous reporters, journals and networks that told or considered telling my story.

Yingling is, however, telling the truth about Scientology spending its funds on promulgating the faith and humanitarian activities. That is because these seemingly beneficent or philanthropic endeavors include all the antisocial or criminal activities Gibney identified. Evils such as black PRing, cheating, robbing, suing, raiding, harassing, ruining, destroying and obliterating good people are not just Scientology activities, they are commanded in the religion’s scripture. These evils are doctrinally motivated and completely religious. The rack, the strapado, the auto-da-fé were all religious activities, motivated by doctrine. The Nazis’ murder of millions of Jews was clearly doctrinally motivated. No matter how religious these activities are, or how motivated they are by doctrine, the organizations or religions practicing them do not deserve IRS tax exemption to do so.

Yingling says that “it is unfortunate that the church has to defend itself from scurrilous attacks like Gibney’s.” His attacks, of course, are not scurrilous at all, as everyone can see. His criticisms of the cult, the cultists, their leaders and activities are accurate and measured. In fact, as already mentioned, Scientology and its members and agents’ activities are worse than he apparently thought when he made his documentary or wrote about them. It is the Scientologists’ responses to legitimate, factual criticism that is unfortunate or deplorable. Their religious cloaking of their antisocial and criminal activities is unfortunate, and these activities are unfortunate. Yingling’s lying and cheating, for money, or just for evil, is unfortunate.

Yingling says that the cult “has a right to respond through public discourse and has done so with a website and videos.” Nobody has said the Scientology cult or the cultists did not have that right, and nobody has tried to take away that right. On the other hand, the Scientologists and their attorneys like Yingling really do seek to destroy their victims’ right to respond to the Scientologists’ scurrilous, religiously motivated attacks. The Scientology v. Armstrong cases prove this beyond any doubt, in fact prove that Scientology is organized for the very purpose of suppressing and destroying basic human rights, most egregiously the right to freedom of religion. Virtually every Scientologist, all of their organizations, and all their lawyers, including Yingling, are contracted beneficiaries in the suppression and destruction of basic human rights of good people. The only “crime” these good people have committed, is standing up and telling the truth about L. Ron Hubbard, Scientology and Scientologists.

Yingling writes that “Gibney’s complaint that the church has the audacity to defend itself against his attacks by exercising its own rights to freedom of speech and religion is decidedly un-American.” Again, Yingling is undoubtedly lying. Nowhere does Gibney make such a complaint that I have been able to find, and Yingling has not identified such a complaint. Calling what he did not do “un-American” is a strawman. Gibney did illustrate the perverse way in which Scientology “defends itself” with a few examples, but treated these matter-of-factly, writing that he “assumed that the response …would be vitriolic,” and that he was right.

Gibney’s actually articulated, and completely justified, complaint is that because of the public policy violating activities the Scientologists are using their funds for, including the black propaganda attacks on him and his sources, Scientology does not deserve to keep its IRS tax exemption. I add to this that the Scientologists and their attorneys, including Yingling, violated public policy in order to obtain the tax exemption, and have never deserved it.

The complicity of US officials in the conspiracy to violate public policy to grant the Scientologists tax exemption that all of them knew was lawfully undeserved, calls into question what “un-American” now really means. If the morals, standards and activities of the Scientologists, their attorneys like Yingling, and US Government officials like those who granted the tax exemption, are American, then everyone should do their best to be un-American. Truth, honor and humanity are becoming un-American, and lying, dishonor and inhumanity are becoming American. The proof of the apple pie is in the eating.

 Notes