It would appear that the statements made in the wake of Going Clear by Alex Gibney have struck a nerve, especially his OpEd piece in the LA Times.
David Miscavige has trotted out his second favorite scientology spokespuppet (after Karin Pouw), non-scientologist lawyer Monique Yingling. She strangely appeared to defend the non-practice of “disconnection” on Anderson Cooper, and also came to visit me one time to discuss whether I wanted to speak to my children and other family members. She is sort of a Girl Friday who fills in as an Ethics Officer/IJC and spokesperson when needed.
She is however, more qualified to speak on the subject of tax exemption than on disconnection, but it does beg the question, “Where IS David Miscavige?” After all, he is featured in the film positively giddy about “his” accomplishment of getting IRS tax exemption. Who can forget his salute? “Done Sir” he says to LRH. HE pulled it off and HE “reported the done.”
But now when someone is calling the tax exempt status of the church into question, why isn’t HE responding?
It’s not his style. He likes to hide behind others. And as Karin Pouw has zero credibility, his lame response is sent to the LA Times under Yingling’s name. It purports to address the LA Times OpEd under Alex Gibney’s byline on 11 April 2015.
First, here is what the OpEd said:
When I made the film “Going Clear: Scientology and the Prison of Belief,” which aired on HBO on March 29, I assumed that the response from the Church of Scientology would be vitriolic. I was right; but I hold out hope that this reaction may lead to the reform of an organization that has harassed its critics and, in my view, abused its tax-exempt status.
Scientology’s founder, L. Ron Hubbard, believed that critics of the church were so fundamentally evil that any kind of counterattack was, according to doctrine, “fair game.” He wrote in a 1967 “Policy Letter” that critics “may be deprived of property or injured by any means … may be tricked, sued, lied to or destroyed.”
In keeping with this doctrine, the church has waged a crusade against the film starting months before its release. The ex-Scientologists who testify in “Going Clear” have been on the receiving end of threats, surveillance and a smear campaign on the Scientology website Freedommag.org. In one of the attack videos, titled “Crocodile Liar,” a bull’s-eye frames a picture of Sara Goldberg, a grandmother who left the church in 2013. Rather than engage in informed debate, the videos accuse all the critical ex-members of various misdeeds, including theft and perjury, without mentioning that some appear to have been committed on behalf of the church.
Lawrence Wright, the New Yorker staff writer and author of the book on which the film is based, has not been immune. Nor have I. The church spent a great deal of its followers’ money publishing a parody of the New Yorker; it contained expensive graphics that were the envy of David Remnick, the actual editor of the New Yorker, which published Wright’s first investigation into Scientology. Because I am a filmmaker, the church produced a video going after me and my father, who has very little to say on the matter since he died in 2006. Wright and I have received countless letters from the church and its attorneys. My face appeared on full-page ads in the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times attacking the film.
These tactics, however, don’t seem to have damaged the film’s popularity. On the contrary, according to the Hollywood Reporter, “Going Clear” attracted over 1.75 million viewers on its first broadcast, the best showing for a documentary on HBO in 10 years.
Scientology has a distinct belief system which, despite its somewhat strange cosmology … is not essentially more strange than, say, the idea of a virgin birth.
Only one group is averting their eyes: active Scientologists, who are encouraged, by doctrine, to avoid any criticism of the church. As “Going Clear” shows, the church will sanction its members for reading or viewing critical material. It may be that many of the church’s attacks on the film are not designed for the general public, but rather serve as a signal of possible danger for the flock. Recently, longtime Scientologist John Travolta criticized the film — even as he said he had no intention of ever watching it — because it would be a “crime” to “approach a negative perspective.”
Judging by online feedback, the most fervent viewers have been ex-Scientologists who seem to be delighted by the fact that their experience has been given voice in a national broadcast. As one long-suffering former member of the Sea Org (the church’s clergy) told me, “We were afraid our story would never be told.”
The reason for that fear — and the apparent pent-up demand for this story among the general public — may be that, historically, Scientology has been effective at limiting or even preventing open debate about its practices. Over the years, reporters on this beat have been ruthlessly intimidated and their journals and networks subject to war by litigation.
Roughly 20 years ago, according to investigative reporter Richard Behar, the Church of Scientology spent millions attacking him and his employer, Time magazine, in court and through the aggressive use of private investigators. Although the church lost at every level, right up to the Supreme Court, it regarded the litigation battle as a victory because it succeeded in putting the “fear of God” into most media organizations.
In the wake of Wright’s book and the film, many reporters, critics and ex-Scientologists seem to be more confident about speaking out and investigating ongoing charges of abuse. Only a few days ago, this newspaper published a story about a private investigator armed with a cache of weapons and 2,000 rounds of ammunition, who was allegedly paid by Scientology to spy on the father of the church’s “Chairman of the Board,” David Miscavige. A number of articles have even raised the question of whether the church should be permitted to maintain its tax-exempt status in the face of so many alleged or documented civil rights abuses, such as the videotaped harassment of ex-Scientologist Marty Rathbun and his wife, Monique. It’s an important question, since it implicates all of us.
The church maintains that its activities are protected by the 1st Amendment as religious practices. Partially on that basis, the church convinced the Internal Revenue Service in 1993 that Scientology should be tax-exempt and that all donations to the church should be tax-deductible. (The film shows that the church’s method of “convincing” the IRS featured lawsuits and vilification of its agents.)
In the past, critics of the church have called for its tax exemption to be revoked because it is not a “real religion.” I agree that tax-exemption isn’t merited, but not for that reason. The Church of Scientology has a distinct belief system which, despite its somewhat strange cosmology — mocked by the TV show “South Park” and many others — is not essentially more strange than, say, the idea of a virgin birth. Scientologists are entitled to believe what they want to believe. And the IRS website makes it clear that anyone is entitled to start a religion at any time without seeking IRS permission. To maintain the right to be tax-exempt, however, religions must fulfill certain requirements for charitable organizations. For example, they may not “serve the private interests of any individual” and/or “the organization’s purposes and activities may not be illegal or violate fundamental public policy.”
On these points alone, it is hard to see why Americans should subsidize Scientology through its tax-exemption.
Regarding “private interests,” it seems clear that Scientology is ruled by only one man, David Miscavige. Further, powerful celebrities within the church, particularly Tom Cruise, receive private benefits through the exploitation of low-wage labor (clergy members belonging to the Sea Org make roughly 40 cents an hour) and other use of church assets for his personal gain.
It appears that many church activities may have been either illegal or in violation of public policy. Numerous lawsuits, my film, other media accounts and an abandoned FBI investigation have turned up allegations of false imprisonment, human trafficking, wiretaps, assault, harassment and invasion of privacy. And the church doctrine of “disconnection,” in which members are forced to “disconnect” from anyone critical of the church, seems cruelly at odds with any reasonable definition of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”
A proper criminal investigation that followed the money — a virtual river of cash from tax-exempt donations and fees — could sort out some of these issues. Or a congressional subcommittee investigation could force Miscavige — who was unwilling to answer questions for Wright’s book or the film — to testify under oath about allegations of abuse.
There is ample precedent for the revocation of tax-exempt status: It happens more than 100 times per year. There is also an important Supreme Court ruling that addresses the religious issue. In 1983, the court upheld a decision revoking the charitable status of a religious college, Bob Jones University, because it forbade interracial dating. The court stated in Bob Jones University vs. the United States that the “government has a fundamental, overriding interest in eradicating racial discrimination in education … which substantially outweighs whatever burden denial of tax benefits places on [the university’s] exercise of their religious beliefs.”
It seems to me that our government has a “fundamental, overriding interest” in protecting individual liberty by not subsidizing harassment or surveillance by gun-toting private eyes. The 1st Amendment should not be a smokescreen to hide human rights abuses and possible criminal activities.
Alex Gibney is an Academy Award-winning documentary filmmaker.
Twitter: @alexgibneyfilm
And here is the Miscavige/Yingling response which appeared on 26 April:
Alex Gibney appears 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. The truth is the Church underwent the most exhaustive IRS scrutiny of any applicant in history to be recognized. (“‘Going Clear’ filmmaker: Scientology abuses its tax-exempt status,” op-ed, April 11)
As the church’s longtime outside tax counsel, I am familiar with everything that transpired during the administrative proceedings that led to the 1993 IRS settlement; Gibney has no clue. Not only does the church reject Gibney’s revisionist history, but so did the IRS officials involved in the proceedings. Gibney conveniently omits that the IRS issued a statement reaffirming church recognition when this myth first arose. All this information was provided to and ignored by Gibney.
Gibney pretends ignorance of the unprecedented public record, comprising 14 feet, in which the IRS recognized the church as exempt. The church not only answered every question the IRS put to it, but IRS officials also made on-site inspections of its records and facilities. I offered to walk Gibney through these materials, but he stonewalled me.
Gibney’s commentary regarding church finances is just plain false. Church funds are dedicated to promulgation of the faith and supporting global humanitarian initiatives for the benefit of people of all faiths. Not one iota of the church’s actual activities is reflected in Gibney’s one-sided piece.
It is unfortunate that the church has to defend itself from scurrilous attacks like Gibney’s. Like any other nonprofit, however, it has a right to respond through public discourse and has done so with a website and videos. 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.
Monique E. Yingling, Washington
As is typical, the response establishes a “fact” (scientology did not deserve tax exemption in 1993) and then seeks to disprove it, completely omitting the substance of what Alex Gibney said.
What he argues is that TODAY scientology has demonstrated once again in its RESPONSE to the film an inherent organizational pattern of abusive tactics and violations of public policy and the American public should not be subsidizing these activities through their taxes.
Miscavige/Yingling try lamely to shift the argument to make people believe Gibney is criticising the IRS for its actions in 1993. And scientology, those champions of the IRS, will not tolerate such blasphemy against the good name of the United States government. The IRS did a wonderful and thorough job, and there can be no second guessing it. Once the IRS has decreed it to be so, anyone so foolish as to question the exempt status of an organization should be ashamed of themselves.
The idiocy of this argument is demonstrated if one were to apply it to Jim Baker or any of the other crooked con-men who have defrauded huge amounts of money from their followers in the name of religion. Ms. Yingling would apparently have you believe that anyone who complained about Jim Baker was “un-American.”
The proof that scientology does not abuse its critics, the media, pay millions of dollars to private investigators to follow and harass people, run smear campaigns, create hate websites or anything else is NOT contained in the 14 foot long “unprecedented public record” in the IRS files. To put this forth as the most compelling argument that public policy is not being violated on a daily basis TODAY is tantamount to an admission that everything that Alex Gibney said is true. And they have no response other than to point to an IRS filing cabinet and say “see, THEY told you it isn’t true.” But “they” did no such thing. The IRS “record” contains what the church provided the IRS, nothing more.
And on top of that, Miscavige still doesn’t seem to understand that having proxies “deny, deny, deny” (and lamely in this case at that) is NOT changing public opinion.
I would be willing to bet all the money that Monique Yingling makes in a year that if you surveyed the general public this letter did NOTHING to improve their opinion of scientology. In fact, for some it probably confirmed what Alex Gibney said, because here is a PAID LAWYER speaking on behalf of the church offering a lame “explanation.” The ONLY people that have their lawyers speak for them are those that are afraid of the criminal consequences should they speak themselves.
And that about sums up where Miscavige is today.
What amazes me is that the CoS criticizes Gibney for presenting a biased view. People are certainly not required to watch his film! I suspect most people who do watch it expect and anticipate bias. If they don’t like it, they can reach out to the church for a different point of view.
In every single rebuttal the CoS has made in response to negative reporting, they claim the church provided the reporter with documents / “parishioners” that were unused or ignored. David Miscavije claimed this in Ted Koppel’s interview on Nightline, apparently missing the irony that he was the guest being interviewed. At least Yingling refrained from using “liar”, “bigot”, and “bitter”, making me think she’s the first defender of scientology with a thesaurus.
NY, LA Times OpEd:
Whatever happen to addressing & negating allegations point by point?
MY main concern is for these women, these spokespersons.
Are they gonna end up in RPF?
Ying ling did a decent job of side stepping the issues. But when push comes to shove,.. when there’s an other actual inquiry/hearing, Ms. Yimgling won’t be on board. Mighty Mouse I’m sure has already shown her the door.
Love, just love thinking about him squirming
I truly do hope and pray, that ALL beings whom use, or even attempt to use, knowledge, freedom or power to suppress or manipulate others, are ETERNALLY EXPOSED AND DISEMPOWERED. So Be It.
I wonder if Monique Yingling woke up one day when she was a little girl and said, “When I grow up I’m going to serve a Cult Leader.”
She’s doing a good job of it so far.
Wasn’t that the statement composed by RCS and Yingaling?
Even with the 1993 distraction, she’s playing pretty fast with the truth.
Hi Brian, Thank you so much for your kind thoughts.There was no reply button after your post,so hope you read this.I enjoy your posts because you always have excellent insight. Yes as I wander along in my “golden years ” life is sweet.Notwithstanding the shake & baking I received the last yr in the SO & the 2 cancers I still fight every day some rogue gene got turned on with stuff I scraped off buildings & ships in the SO,even with all that I found Mike & this blog,& I’ve been married 34 yrs July,with dog & cat kids.But the best thing is going outside to see the sunrises & sunsets without looking through bars on the windows.All the best to you & yours.A forever friend Ann B Watson.
Excellent post! Mike I just love your blog. Thank you so much.
Alex Gibney says:
“A proper criminal investigation that followed the money — a virtual river of cash from tax-exempt donations and fees — could sort out some of these issues. Or a congressional subcommittee investigation could force Miscavige — who was unwilling to answer questions for Wright’s book or the film — to testify under oath about allegations of abuse.”
Let’s keep the pressure on. Seeing Miscavige before a congressional subcommittee would cause me great joy.
What is happening with Monique Rathbun’s lawsuit against David Miscavage, “let him die” DM?
David Miscavige is walking a thin line. His Church is now totally unable to finance itself from The Tech he ruined with the two GAT phases so he has to rely on donations that are mostly IAS donations. This is the new income that keeps his Church running but in order to get those donations he has to give the impression that the money if being spent on promoting Scientology and helping people. Without creating that as a strong illusion, the donations dry up and his Church has to cease operations. Now if you look at the membership clause of the IAS, it says about “protecting” Scientology. But “protecting” might just mean paying its bills so it can keep functioning. So there is a fraud going on that is actually not a fraud if you look at what people have signed. But if people knew how their donations were being spent then they would stop donating by a significant amount. So Miscavige can’t stay in one place too long or some of the more important whales will pin him down and ask how their money is being spent. He also has to be careful about being served with legal papers so he has to stay on the move the whole time. So he says nothing, relying on lawyers to do the talking for him and of course they get it wrong but it is not his fault. At some point the pressure will get too much and he will have to get out of the country quickly and move to his bolt hole which I guess is already set up in Columbia.
Your idea that David Miscavige is creating a big success fiction with high-stats promos for the benefit of keeping the whales in blissful ignorance so they will continue to supply the only significant revenue coming into the church, is a valid entry in David Miscavige Theory. It explains some of the method behind the apparent madness. According to you it isn’t the madness of David Miscavige we’re seeing in all this spinning of fantasy but instead we’re seeing the madness of the remaining Kool Aid drinkers with the big bucks being exploited by David Miscavige. Your scenario requires a David Miscavige who is alert and oriented and has an escape plan because he knows this set-up can’t last. This is a stark contrast to the David Miscavige Theory that has him living in La La Land really trying to believe his own lies and ending up going down with the church.
This is a good time to start placing bets. I would add that however it plays out, I think David Miscavige is going to play the martyr and blame the forces of world evil and the treachery of those he trusted most. I believe that will be his story whether he tells it from his new home in South America, from a jail cell or from the grave.
David Miscavige is going to play the martyr and blame the forces of world evil and the treachery of those he trusted most.
Agree with you 100%
He plays the BEST victim, always railing about how everyone is “doing him in” and “trying to destroy him” and “enturbulate him.”
I have long predicted he will eventually “do what LRH did” and “remove himself from the lines” to “complete the compilation of the materials because there is nobody else that can do it and he must be uninterrupted and this is far more important to the eternity of mankind than the day to day activities of the church.” And he will also “explain” that THIS is the reason there is no OT IX and X as “SP’s have messed it up” and now he has to have the time to sort out the disaster they created. He will disappear and never have to face the music of having lied so often about where OT IX and X are. He will eventually die, hiding out somewhere like a fugitive.
“The most fundamental aggression to ourselves, the most fundamental harm we can do to ourselves, is to remain ignorant by not having the courage and the respect to look at ourselves honestly.” –Pema Chodron
Off topic but has anyone seen the May 2nd National Inquirer yet? Go get some groceries and give yourself a treat. Right there on the front page. Nobody does lurid better than this rag. There may be millions of Americans who don’t have HBO but not millions who don’t go to the supermarket. Apocalypse Cult.
The C of $ had 2,400 incidents of Dirt on IRS agents
to make that go away just give tax exemption to the C of $…..DONE!!!!!!
The IRS will never let this zombie out of the box
The C of $ never should have tax exemption it was extortion.
The NFL just lost its tax exempt status. So why does Davey get to keep his?
They NFL’s head office was tax exempt and they willingly gave up the status.
Now the salaries of people like Roger Goodell and others do not have to be legally reported
It is unknown how much in taxes will be collecting, but the 10 million in annual dues that each tem pay will not longer be tax exempt.
THE ONLY team in any major league that has ALWAYS opened in books is the only publicly owned major league sports team, The Gran Bay Packer
Lingling should not be the one responding, but there are so many ticking time bombs surrounding Miscavige, he has to have lawyers speak for him.
Using tax exempt money to live a sultan’s lifestyle, or to win the goodwill of Tom Cruise, or to harm ex-members are violations of the IRS Code. Lingling can’t state that Miscavige never took these actions because it is in the public record that he has. If she admits he has taken these actions, she can’t defend them without admitting that Miscavige broke the law and that she conspired with Miscavige to keep this from the IRS. In addition, she can’t claim that the church spends its money on the public good because there is no record of that. So, she punted and deliberately misunderstood the allegations. That kind of fake misunderstanding only goes so far. It doesn’t stand up to scrutiny and it does not protect Miscavige or the church. If anything, it makes Miscavige look like someone already under investigation or indictment.
The Scientology Money Project responded to Monique Yingling: http://scientologymoneyproject.com/2015/03/18/scientology-monique-yingling-and-hbo/
I am now writing a second response to Yingling for the SMP.
In her reply to Gibney’s Op-Ed, Yingling affirms certain things but she omits what was negated. Example: CSC was found to have inured to the benefit of LRH. Therefore, CSC was disposed of quietly and without sorrow when it was disincorporated years after CSI achieved tax exemption. Yingling fails to mention that LRH’s inurement was why CSC lost tax exemption in 1967. Hubbard had to pay personal income tax on monies he could not otherwise conceal or launder through scams such as RRF.
Some large part of the billion dollars the Church owed the IRS had to do with penalties and back taxes created by Hubbard’s corporate income tax evasion. Can’t be more blunt than this: Hubbard was a tax criminal.
Miscavige spun it at “The War is Over” by saying there was a conspiracy by the IRS to destroy Scientology. Nice try Dave, But how about the truth: The Church had to give the IRS the head of CSC and Hubbard on a silver platter in exchange for CSI gaining tax exemption.
Yingling also fails to mention that Miscavige was the subject of an IRS CID investigation in 1984 along with Hubbard. Looks like the apple did not fall far from the tree.
There is a bigger story here of Church lies. My allegation is that Church responses to the IRS were falsified and therefore fraudulent. Example: CSI docs submitted in support of its 1023 application lied about David Miscavige’s dictatorial control of the Church. The legal fictions submitted painted a deceptive picture of Boards of Directors and Trustees.
More to come….
Note. DM, as the Commander of the Sea Organization, authorizes the gifts to be paid out to Chairman of the Board of RTC.
If it’s not scammy it’s not the Church of Scientology.
BTW, COB’s birthday is in two days. Have you donated a week’s pay towards his gift?
Ask Monique why Section 8(C)(4) of that 1993 IRS agreement lists Narconon as a Scientology controlled entity when, in 45 lawsuits, they deny that connection. Also ask her why Section 8(C)(2) says that RTC and CSI are the same, when Miscavige says that he has nothing to do with the running of the church.
” In the past, critics of the church have called for its tax exemption to be revoked because it is not a “real religion.” I agree that tax-exemption isn’t merited, but not for that ” Alex Gibney
Absolutely agree..
Ying Yang.. When I read your words all I hear is Charlie Brown’s teacher in my head.. ” Wah, Wah..Wah .”
Good post Mike, very good! The truth shines a bit brighter from within this one.
A lawyer in the performance of their duty does nothing more than protect the interests of their employer, the truth has got nothing to do with it. The ability to be a competent wordsmith and excel in ‘spin’ when needed is all part of their employment. That sort of scenario is the way things work particularly where large amounts of money are concerned. But nearly always the CEO makes public statements or gives interviews at some point when the pressure is on.
The point is that the accusations made against the RCS are broad and damning and are levelled against fundamental human rights abuses and are now being defended in the public arena by a lawyer – a non-Scientologist!
It is indeed time for miscavige to front up and answer his critics personally, let’s hear from a Scientologist concerning Scientology and the top Scientologist at that. That is so basic and unbelievably fundamental it defies belief that we have never heard from the CEO of Scientology. If he is so ethical as his group supposes he is, why doesn’t he take the heat off them and protect them from all this negative attention. What sort of religious leader would sit back and let the members of his flock be publically vilified and tormented and say nothing to defend them personally? And indeed the pressure is felt within his group, every last one of them is afraid of looking at what the media is reporting about them and particularly their boss – it’s against dm’s policy for them to look or listen.
Yes indeed, a Congressional Sub-committee would do the US proud to put the matter of Scientology, its abuses, questionable tax exemption status to rest once and for all.
It’s time.
Where are the millions (thousands, hundreds… OT committees…) of volunteers from scientology today? What are they ACTUALLY doing?
We’ve got riots (and the clean up after) happening in Baltimore.
Oh, and there’s that horrific earthquake in Nepal.
MISSING. MISSING. MISSING.
These empty buildings actually could be used to help house homeless during the night, like about 8 churches do here in my town. We also have feeding the elderly. Helping the victims of domestic abuse.
WHERE ARE ALL OF THE SCIENTOLOGISTS?
When i visited the local org and asked where everybody was and why the place wasn’t crowded like it was in the 70s. I was told that just because there are no people in the lobby doesn’t mean there aren’t lots of people on courses in the building. When I asked “well are there hundreds of people on courses right now?” she did a palpable silence and said they come in at the end of the day for those. Yeh right!
I asked the next person the same where is everyone question and she said people are afraid to come in as there are so many drug addicts on the street (not true by the way) and that has cut down drop-in traffic. She also said they [the drug addicts or homeless people] don’t realise that we are the only ones that can help them. “So why are you not out there helping them like the convent of old nuns down the street (where there are poor people on the street) that are out handing out sandwiches to these people?” Another palpable silence. Of course the answer is there would be nothing to be gained by this so called church helping such people — they have no money to fleece.
Some religion.
Excellent piece!
‘..the unprecidented public record, which comprises 14 feet..’ She clearly edited her remarks to leave off the part where ‘she’ asserts that, when laid out these pages would reach to the moon and back. I know I heard that in one of those New Years events..
Interesting that his “lawyer” made that statement. Uncle google reveals that as of April 10, 2014, she is an inactive member of the California State Bar and as thus not licensed to practice law.
http://members.calbar.ca.gov/fal/Member/Detail/78669
She may again reactivate as she was inactive from 1984-1995, 1996-1997 and 2002-2003, but she is currently not licensed to practice law.
However, I am reviewing the California Rules of Professional Conduct
http://rules.calbar.ca.gov/portals/10/documents/2013_californiarulesofprofessionalconduct.pdf
right now because, although i may be mistaken, I do know that in our State, an person is not allowed to make a representation on behalf of a client, claiming they are they are their attorney, if they are not currently active with the Bar Association. If so, they open themselves up for, at a minimum, censure and at a maximum, depending on the representation, disbarment.
Hmmm. . .
Her office is in Washington DC. She got licensed in California for specific cases. She is a member of the DC bar.
You are correct. My bad. Sorry.
Unfortunately the “church” proper takes in so little money nowadays stripping tax exemption won’t be the blow it would have been 20 years ago. Almost no services are being sold in orgs. Just donations for IAS & buildings. The total “church” income must be a small fraction of what it used to be.
But on the bright side, the whole thing is falling apart!! 🙂
On the edge of my seat waiting for the reports of how David Miscavige and the Volunteer Minsters bought peace hope and order to the city of Baltimore with Way to Happiness.
Just noticed there isn’t a Church of Scientology in Baltimore,or Maryland. I have arranged for the VM’s to stay at the Basilica of the Assumption Catholic Church 409 Cathedral St, Baltimore, MD 21201, When they arrive in the City. Dave will need to bring his own tanning bed, chef,wardrobe consultant and make up artist.
CMO in already on the scene putting ethics in!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5V0YpGn6wo
Well, the Founding Church of DC is within driving distance of Baltimore, so the VM Van has no excuse to not take a trip and pass out The Way To Slappiness (unless it’s broken down like most of the VM Vans are).
I’d pay good money to see that hogette Sylvia Stanard out there in a canary yellow windbreaker facing down rioters to pass out flyers. She deserves anything that would happen to her.
LAUGHTER! Stats from the Church web sites on VM:
“The final word, as regards our front-line work bringing our help wherever and whenever needed is our corps of 30-thousand Scientology Volunteer Ministers — on call, 24 hours a day in scores of nations.
100,000 members strong.
The largest Independent relief force on Earth.
Over 1.6 million people of Earth personally helped last year.
Whenever and where needed is Baltimore. I can just see it now.
“What! Feel your finger? SMACK!”
On their OWN web site they contradict themselves.
30-thousand Scientology Volunteer Ministers 100,000 members strong.
Laughter!
http://legacy.volunteerministers.org/davidmiscavige.htm
On this web site, it reports 200,000 VM’s:
“Inspiring the Volunteer Ministers Program, the world’s largest independent relief force, with more than 200,000 volunteers.”
http://www.scientology.org/david-miscavige.html
So according to the Church they definitely have 30,000, 100.000, and 200,000 VM’s. Just depends on which web site you visit. I mean,no wonder nobody can believe them!
So, would it be wrong to ponder upon the idea that David Miscavige possibly lied to obtain tax exemption for the Church? Giving false reports to U.S. Gov is a crime in itself. Perhaps Monique Yin ling aided DM. Also, she and many other non Scientology attorneys are entrusted with Church’s most sacred duties and secrets,and they charge millions each year for that trust. Not one ever sec checked.
Meanwhile the OT’s that GIVE millions and spend years involved get yanked to the Sandcastle every six months for interrogation. Clearly David is willing to trust people, especially non Scientologists. So I am thinking these sec checks for the OTs are more of a $ tax.
What’s with those VM vans? Is every friggin’ Ideal Morgue supposed to buy one or something? I see them sitting derelict in Org parking lots, and sometimes even offsite in other parking lots (like they’re storing it there or something). I wonder if half of them would even start if they put the key in the ignition right now.
Alex Gibney: “Or a Congressional subcommittee investigation could force (David) Miscavige – who was unwilling to answer questions for Wright’s book or the film – to testify under oath about allegations of abuse.”
(Eyes shut tight, hands clasped in prayer), “Please please please please please…”
Aqua, Gibney either forgot or doesn’t know that if Congress FORCES testimony, the person (DM) gets immunity. See 5th Amendment in U.S. Constitution for more details…
I didn’t know that either! Ok, well, he’ll just have to be jockeyed into a position where he’ll offer to testify, then. Mafia people have in the past agreed to testify before Congressional committees…why they agreed I have no idea…what can I tell you, I’m an optimist.
Mike, your statements are logical and well articulated and worthy of sharing as a rebuttal to Yingling.
Consider sending to LA Times OpEd including Jeff’s link to contacting the IRS.
Miscavige is very good at implementing and embellishing the policies Hubbard should never have written,
but when it comes to handling as simple a thing as a present time problem he flunks miserably. It’s all about him and he has no concern whatsoever how these things affect the general welfare of “his” staff and public.
All this stuff he puts out in response to what he considers to be attacks on him, reminds me of a small child
crying and throwing a fit because some needed correction was applied. All the child knows is he/she wanted to do something and was not yet at the point of considering the consequences for others. Funny, a guy running a multi-billion dollar corporation is nothing more than a spoiled brat doing whatever he wants, whenever he wants with no consideration for others, using unusable tech/policy written by Hubbard to control bodies for his own personal gain. I think he has put himself on a much bigger stage than he really wants. As I’m sure he thinks he is “safe” by staying out of the public view, keeping former executives in the hole, and attacking with pseudonyms, he had better keep a closer eye from within. I think there is a much more dangerous storm brewing from within his ranks.
Potpie, your description of DM is very close to what El Con was. Anyone who worked around El Con for a time came to know this. Throwing fits over insane things, lack of concern for S.O. members who were virtual slaves. Hiding from people and law because of felonies.
Dm learned well from El Con.
“She strangely appeared to defend the non-practice of “disconnection” on Anderson Cooper, and also came to visit me one time to discuss whether I wanted to speak to my children and other family members.” (Mike Rinder.)
“Church funds are dedicated to promulgation of the faith and supporting global humanitarian initiatives for the benefit of people of all faiths. Not one iota of the church’s actual activities is reflected in Gibney’s one-sided piece.” (Yingling.)
I’ve just read everything above and immediately spotted that Yingling’s defense was specious with a huge outpoint, Dropped Time.
Earth to Church:
The argument that the Church of Scientology deservED tax exempt status back in 1993 is NOT the argument.
The argument IS that it is undeserving of tax exempt status NOW.
Nice try, though, David Miscavige and Monique Yingling. You gave it a shot.
It won’t fly, but nice try.
Yingling letters speaks by itself. No need of all other explanations… It just confirms Gibney letter.
IRS: is anibody in there?
No. And if there are they are not going to touch this one.
It has been less than 1 month since Going Clear premiered on HBO, and in that time a compelling case for an honest review of Scientology’s sweetheart deal has been presented and is overwhelmingly supported by the public at large. There is a groundswell of public support to end Scientology abuses of both individuals, and it’s cynical manipulation of public policy issues and safeguards.
I believe that both Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton are both guilty of ethical lapses with regard to Scientology.
I further believe that whomever, of either party, raises, in the context of public policy, question of the deeply troubling adverse social impacts of coercive thought groups like Scientology, and how to counter the destructive effects these groups pose, will enjoy huge public and political support.
The favorable tax treatment that Scientology continues to enjoy, amounts to a government subsidy of a seriously abusive commercial enterprise raking in millions of tax-free dollars. It is, and has been, a huge mistake; long overdue for correction.
Gibney’s call for Congress to examine the issues raised in Going Clear is reasonable, and, for legions of Scientology critics, urgently needed.
I am going to write my congresspeople with a link to this op-ed piece on this site, Well done Mike on the deconstruction and Alex Gibney is so articulate compared to Ms. Yingling (dictated by DM). I am wondering, for those who have met her, what is she like?
YINGLING: IF YOU LAY WITH DOGS… You’re gonna get fleas.
Oh I’m sure she came highly recommended. But getting out of that tangled web, even for her, might be tricky. Guessing she’s old school Asian and would never have been a victim. Probably saw this as a challenging professional task. One for the history books.
Sure, she’s sharp as a tac. Kind of want to believe she’s not associated with a big firm… Because after all, she representing a billion $ company. What firm in their right mind would back her knowing the recent fallout
. Gonna be interesting.
It would be so, so simple for the CofS to make all this go away; just acknowledge the ‘errors’ and ‘misjudgments’ and show evidence of contrition and reform, and bingo, they’d have a second chance,
Simply acknowledge, handle, and return to your course is all it takes.
Looking forward to the day when their ethics is put in hard.
So simple..
b
Oh Monique, you crack me up.
It’s my understanding that paid whores (thank you Espi, still laughing at this) aren’t really paid to talk. You, as the attorney of LET HIM DIE DAVID MISCAVIGE, can always say you were just doing what was best for your client. Lucky you.
But honey, you better hope and pray that when some government agency comes down on Miscavige, that they can’t prove you were complicit in any of it or you’re going down with him.
Enjoy the lifestyle while it lasts, and keep burning that candle of hope that no one ever finds out how much “help” you’ve given your client.
She’s a paid lawyer. In the end, she’s made her fortune and that’s that. I assume she is not a contracted staff member.
Scaredy-Cat Miscavige has to pay her handsomely, to not just protect him, but so that she does not turn on him.
He’s in a pond of guilt, where the ripples he creates are flowing in on himself. He is drowning by his own “ser-fac” force.
He can’t drown soon enough.
Monica Y, OSA, and David Miscavige pay attention! You are not paying attention. As a Scnist might say, “COME UP TO PRESENT TIME” .
You are not being attacked by religious bigots, you are not being attacked on your beliefs, you are not being attacked on the 1993 IRS decision! You are being attacked on your actions.
Your stats might be vertical but they are going in the wrong direction! You are going straight down and vertical. I know it kinda looks the same but turn your graph over.
Instead of saying it’s the howling of SPs, bitter apostates and bigots, try applying some of your own tech and see WHAT YOU ARE DOING TO CAUSE THE ANTAGONISM! And don’t come back to your usual canard of it’s because we winning! That is not working! Try something else!
Try to actually CONFRONT what is going on! I don’t mean scream at it. Look at it! Remember your definition of confront means to be there comfortably and perceive. Quit flinching and avoiding! Quit running! Quit shooting at it. Flunk! Flunk! Flunk!
If you can’t confront it, at least try a new approach.
“Not one iota of the church’s actual activities is reflected in Gibney’s one-sided piece.”
No, Gibney didn’t go into the Volunteer Minister scam, The Way to Happiness’ scam, the ABLE or the NarCONon scam. These are the real ‘social betterment’ faces that clamatology shows to the world. Yingling’s op ed piece was intended to protect the IRS agreement, but instead, just called attention to it.
If the IRS were really the ‘blood from a stone’ agency it would have voided the 93 agreement long ago. That agreement calls for real checks and balances in the corporate shells of $cientology. That alone is reason to take the tax exemption away.
Loved the ‘Dingaling’ moniker. There is a terrible song from the 70’s called ‘my dingaling’. It does so apply to the current state of $cientology.
Oh noooo! Now that song is looping in my brain! Thanks so much, ze! And OK – it was funny..
Sorry for the off topic, but can anyone tell me what is happening with the Mosey Rathbun lawsuit? It’s been so long I wondered if it settled or ended?
Great article! It is worth to send this to investigative journalists to deepen it further.
And I love to see that you don’t write the cults name with a capital letter!
I know this was linked to on the day that Tony Ortega wrote this piece.
It deserves mention today.
Jeffrey Augustine has written advice on how to complain to the IRS so that it makes an impact.
http://tonyortega.org/2015/04/13/if-you-want-the-irs-to-reexamine-scientologys-tax-exempt-status-its-time-to-get-real/#more-21822
Good reminder EG – this needs to be brought up regularly…this is a long term campaign
DAVID MISCAVIGE has to say SOMETHING in response to that editorial in an effort to keep it from sticking to him like fly paper. Again we see a rebuttal that is not a rebuttal but is instead a bunch of bellyaching and denunciations with the occasional references to unrelated high-minded principles. Yes, the church has “defended” itself publicly as is it’s pro-AMERICAN right, with videos (LOL!). Ms Yingling in her haste to get the statement out forgot to mention some of the more intriguing ways the church has “defended” itself as is its pro-AMERICAN right. Like for instance, sending staff across the country to childishly heckle and torment former members at their homes and work places for periods of time measured by years!
We longtime observers and (not in my case, but in many others’ here) victims of the con can recognize immediately that Dingaling is yet again acting as the sockpuppet and ventrioquist dummy of LET HIM DIE DAVID MISCAVIGE, just from one simple word: “stonewall”. That’s one of LET HIM DIE DAVID MISCAVIGE’s favorite terms, and a clear indication of the author of the statement.
Don’t you have any self-respect at all, Dingaling? Toxin and Soter Pop, we expect to have none. They’re cult members and long ago turned in their testicles to LET HIM DIE DAVID MISCAVIGE, but you’ve avoided that trap. Oh, well, money makes you do things you don’t necessarily want to do, and at least you’re a high-priced whore.
If you compare LET HIM DIE DAVID MISCAVIGE’s inner circle to Charles II’s (not a good analogy, since The Merry Monarch was six foot three, not four foot thirteen), then Dingaling is Barbara, Lady Castelmaine, the courtesan of courtesans. Well, just like Lady Castlemaine, Dingaling, you just showed us your knickers, and we, like Samuel Pepys, are made glad to have seen them and comment on the fact.
Good catch, as that word caught my eye. “offered to walk Gibney through these materials, but he stonewalled me.” Not quite in line with lawyer speak, imo.
One suspects that Gibney was not seeking to have a lawyer for the czerch walk him through anything. He requested that the right people (Micavige and others) present themselves for interviews. None responded. Fear and cowardice reign supreme at the highest levels of this non religious abortion. And on those two subjects, Little Hitler reigns supreme.
And Alex “has no clue”. I just can’t imagine a lawyer acting professionally writing a letter to a large newspaper and saying someone “has no clue”.
Excellent comment, Espiando. Great analogy. And yes, David Miscavige, “Let Him Die” of his father man, uses the word, “stonewall” very often. It is proof that he, and not Linling wrote it. But is she willing to let him write anything under her own “good” name? Aren’t lawyers very protective of their reputation? Of has she so completely sold out to David Miscavige that she lets him do whatever he wants with her name and reputation? You’re right that although she is a whore for David “let him die” Miscavige, at least she is a HIGH PRICED whore.
Shorter Yingling: Alex Gibney would have you believe that acting in a non-evil manner is a continuing obligation, but I’m a lawyer and once Scientology demonstrated its religiosity in 1993 (by any means necessary), it was thereafter exempt from all questions as to its abhorrent conduct, past or present. Thank you and go screw yourself.
Yep. Only problem is these pesky folks who just won’t shrivel up and stop asking those pesky questions or revealing more of miscavige’s nasty deeds.
David Miscavige is hiding behind another woman. He hides behind Lou, his “via”, hides behind Karen Pouw, his penname, and hides behind Ms Yingling, his lawyer. And he hides behind Danny Sherman when addressing the faithful. When will he have the balls to face the world?
Ummmmm…never?
Never?
Yes …. never! He is a sociopath. They don’t do facing anything, much less the world.
Yingling has to know that Miscavige beat his staff. She has to be aware of how much money he’s spending on his own personal lifestyle. She has to know about the inurement issues with Cruise. She has to be aware that Miscavige is on very thin ice regarding the money coming in vs how much is spent on actual non-profit activities.
She is also probably aware of how devastating it would be if Miscavige were ever forced to disclose ALL of the books for review.
She’s under no obligation to do anything other than provide the best possible legal advice for her client. She is not obliged to be candid. She’s not compelled to be honest. She’s not at all interested in justice or humanity or civil rights or anything other than protecting her own income and keeping Dave’s business private and away from scrutiny.
It’s apparent that Yingling has no conscience. Like Miscavige, she obfuscates, lies, attacks and invalidates in order to win.
Miscavige could go to prison for ten years and Monique would just keep getting paychecks if she plays her cards right. “Justice” is not part of the equation. To sociopaths, justice is just a concept used to keep the rubes introverted.
Do you think Yingling is a scientologist?
She sure acts like one. Could be one of those unique experimental crosses. What do you get if you cross a Cee Oh Bee with an attorney?
A: A fake with a very short Ding A Ling!
No, she is not. Raised a catholic and still considers herself one.
You articulated my thoughts perfectly, LDW.
I also love Matt’s reference to Yingling and ying yang. 🙂
Mike do you think she knows the data in the original OT8? I cannot imagine a practicing Catholic knowing this and still protecting Scientology.
If she heard it is she is told what everyone is told. That was a forgery. I was certain that was true when I was in the church.
Yo Dave Miscavige, AKA Dave Let Em Die, AKA (all sorts of other fun names)
You had better check your bilge buddy ………….. you’ve taken a leak, your sump pump is obviously broken and as they say when a good roasting is underway …. you’re stewing in your own juices! Step out Dave and take the box, I mean podium, and talk to us. Set us all straight on the truth good buddy. We are waiting with baited breath for your word from on high…………………
I recommend Plan B. BAIL OUT, HIT THE ROAD, SCRAM, MOVE ON TO GREENER PASTURES. This won’t end well for you. There are way too many folks that have nothing to lose that are not particularly friendly to your type of person. And for you OSA goons reading this stuff ………………like rats on a ship, you had better find some high ground and do something honorable before you drown in the same juice as your dear leader. For gawds sake grow a pair and take a winter walk if nothing else!
Aye, Aye!
Even innocent people need a lawyer but only the truly guilty can afford a great one to get them off anyway. How many years in advance is Yingling paid so you think? How much is her retainer fee just to be on standby for statements such as these? I guarantee that her retainer ALONE is more money than every Sea Org and staff member makes in one year COMBINED. And she is just ONE of the hundreds of lawyers on retainer.
“Being in a bubble” so describes this response. While seemingless countless people are revealing abuses by the church, they only enforce public perception by being absolutists in their rightness.
The church of Scientology is like the abusive spouse who beats the wife and says they deserved it.
There is zero accountability and absolute blame.
The question really is: why is the church of Scientology “pulling in” this tsunami of criticism?
The church that claims mastery of life and communication has only proved itself to being a coward with only lying as a skill.
I’m waiting for an SNL skit that plays up the obvious and relentless, rediculous denial responses. There is an SNL skit begging to be written about Scientology’s bone headed denial.
How could every criticism be wrong? Every single one! And all critics are bad an evil! How could that be?????????
Oh damn……………. of course………… How could I forget………… they are Scientologists………students of Ron
“all critics are criminals” L Ron Hubbard
Mystery solved
Hi Brian,As usual I think your post is spot on!! I keep on this viewpoint because it really resonates with me.Ron was the Founder of COS etc.He wrote the Policy.He caused his policies to be put into action & used as written.I know what he would think of me now after all the years, tears & fears I went through for him & the SO & his dream/nightmare.He would absolutely consider me the Enemy for all Eternity & Ron, that suits me just fine.All of us are not lying about COS.I could not make up what happened to me.Thank you & take care Ann B Watson.
Thank you Ann for sharing your thoughts 🙂 Yes, that is what my “basic Brian argument” is: His written words, those things that we studied, word cleared, demoed and checked out:
are now informing their actions, in this present, to behave in the way they were trained. Thus Ron is alive in the behavior of his students.
The take away easy idea of this is smoking. All my “never in” friends frequently ask me,”why do all Scientologists smoke?”
My only reply ever is,”Ron smoked many packs a day of Kools non filter.”
Also there is some writing of being able to be cause over cancer so Scientologists consider not being able to smoke an infringement on their OT powers and power of the auditing session.
Thus Scientologists smoke because Ron smoked. And the part about don’t be afraid of smoking? I’m afraid that smoke went up some of our arses.
I hope all is good in life for you Ann <3
The general public isn’t confused about what the “church” of scientology is. That some paid ying yang lawyer publicly states that scientology is actually a good thing just pisses people off. The general public opinion is: A) Scientology is a dangerous, criminal, lying, money grabbing con. B). It uses its money and lawyers to maintain “A”.
Precisely! No confusion on the public’s part at all! How ironic that the average Joe knows more about the “Church” these days than most Sea Org members!
Great article btw, Mike – spot on as always. I had another go at the logical conundrum today of whether, if the Church had done away with all the abusive practices and somehow dragged itself into the 21st Century, would it be in any better shape? And I concluded that it probably wouldn’t – and it wouldn’t be possible anyway, given that so many, if not all, of the abusive practices originate from the pen of the Founder himself. And when, as I will be able to detail with a clear example very soon, a cult interface practice does try and interface with the real world, the real world just laughs back and says “you must be joking”.
” Joe knows more about the “Church” these days than most Sea Org members! ”
Most……. Martin?????? Surely you jest! 🙂 I’m thinkin of the ALL word here!
very well put Martin!
Re: NY, LA OpEd.
The COS has been doing it, and getting away with it far too long: Twisting and manipulating the real issue s at hand.
However, thanks 2 remarkedly brave crews like Alex Gibney and company that have managed to do the unthinkable; thanks to the incredibly brave men and women who have subjugated their fear s of retaliation and disconnection…. and told their stories in support.
The Tony Ortega’s and the Mayhem…disseminators’…
You men and women rock. On behalf of all those who cannot speak, thank you
Bullseye!!
Just started understanding Co$ after the documentary. It has been a wild ride learning about this evil cult. I may not know all the acronyms as much as a church member, and I certainly haven’t lived their lives in the cult, but no question I know more about LRH, its history and overall total bullshit that the cult is.
As far as this lawyer is concerned, Monique Yingling, congrats to her being paid big bucks running cover for Co$. Yingling appears to be a Chinese origin. Different time, different place, I see her writing the laws for Chairman Mao that led to the death of millions of Chinese. “Mom and dad, when I grow up, I want to be a lawyer so I can run cover for people who are responsible for ruining thousands of lives.”
Mike (not Rinder)–comment of 2:50 pm said: “Yingling appears to be a Chinese origin. Different time, different place, I see her writing the laws for Chairman Mao that led to the death of millions of Chinese. ”
nope…very white and blonde….though based on her undergrad college grad date she should be almost 65 years old so the picture on her work website is wicked old http://www.zsrlaw.com/attorneys-government-affairs-staff/monique-yingling
Her resume includes her having been an attorney with the tax division of the Dept of Justice so fair to say she knows her way around the rules to find weaselly loopholes 🙁
Yingling is French.
And, Yuengling (probably the original form of Monique’s surname and pronounced the same) brews a Lager that’s quite popular in the southeast PA and south NJ area. I’ll bet HWMNBN COB RTC Mr. David Miscavige is having kegs of it trucked to Gold Base to chase all the expensive Scotch he’s been having to swill lately.
Well said Mike! I envy your ability to expose the truth with sound logic and precision treatise.
“…Here is a PAID LAWYER speaking on behalf of the church offering a lame “explanation.” The ONLY people that have their lawyers speak for them are those that are afraid of the criminal consequences should they speak themselves.” Excellent article today Mike and that is so true… the only ones who have their lawyer speak for them are the guilty.
Yes, me too. Brilliant analysis.
Thank you for posting about this. I just skimmed the letter and didn’t pay attention because, you know, Yingling, but it’s nice to see that they’re still setting up fake arguments to counter real accusations.
She may be treading a thin ethical line depending on what she does in her capacity as ‘ad hoc ethics officer’. Care to expand on her visit with you? If not, it is understandable.
But keep in mind, these attorneys they hire……..they are all bound by professional codes of conduct. Maybe the state bar would be interested in her extracurricular activities as an attack dog for David Miscavige.
She’s smart, but even smart lawyers cross the line thinking they’ll never get caught. The day you (as an attorney) allow your client to drive the bus is the day before you should look for a retirement community
As I was reading this I kept thinking… is she, as an attorney, stepping into a swamp that could get her disbarred? What is her financial remuneration per year for all of this? Why is she such a passionate supporter of DM and Co$. Does she get a percentage of everything Co$ makes right off the top? Follow the money, follow the money, follow the money.
There is nothing wrong with being a tireless advocate for one’s client. But we all know how David LHD Miscavige operates.
I wonder what Counselor Yingling offered Mike (in addition to seeing his family) and what she wanted in exchange. And what other homes she has visited……..
Sometimes lawyers forget the boundaries when their primary source of income is threatened. She would not be the first attorney to commit a crime/overstep ethical boundaries for a client.
Good thing her clients are the most ethical people on the planet……. Bwahahahhaha
This is a valid point that should not be taken lightly. Though I appreciate your artistic license, don’t let her off the hook too easily. She isn’t a “gal Friday”. She’s a bona fide professional; an attorney who is bound by the Rules of Professional Conduct, (regardless of her gender!) and it isn’t unfair to suggest that a veiled threat about you being “re-connected”–OR NOT, depending on whether you bend to her client’s wishes– is arguably a breach of the Rules of Professional Conduct. More specifically, I refer to this D.C. Rule (but if she is licensed in a different jurisdiction, there are corresponding rules: Rules of Professional Conduct:) (*i would pay attention to 8.4 (a), (c) and (d)).
Rule 8.4–Misconduct
It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:
(a) Violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of another;
(b) Commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects;
(c) Engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation;
(d) Engage in conduct that seriously interferes with the administration of justice;
(e) State or imply an ability to influence improperly a government agency or official;
(f) Knowingly assist a judge or judicial officer in conduct that is a violation of applicable rules of judicial conduct or other law; or
(g) Seek or threaten to seek criminal charges or disciplinary charges solely to obtain an advantage in a civil matter.
Comment
[1] Many kinds of illegal conduct reflect adversely on fitness to practice law, such as offenses involving fraud and the offense of willful failure to file an income tax return. However, some kinds of offenses carry no such implication. Traditionally, the distinction was drawn in terms of offenses involving “moral turpitude.” That concept can be construed to include offenses concerning some matters of personal morality, such as adultery and comparable offenses, that have no specific connection to fitness for the practice of law. Although a lawyer is personally answerable to the entire criminal law, a lawyer should be professionally answerable only for offenses that indicate lack of those characteristics relevant to law practice. Offenses involving violence, dishonesty, breach of trust, or serious interference with the administration of justice are in that category. A pattern of repeated offenses, even ones of minor significance when considered separately, can indicate indifference to legal obligation.
[2] Paragraph (d)’s prohibition of conduct that “seriously interferes with the administration of justice” includes conduct proscribed by the previous Code of Professional Responsibility under DR 1-102(A)(5) as “prejudicial to the administration of justice.” The cases under paragraph (d) include acts by a lawyer such as: failure to cooperate with Bar Counsel; failure to respond to Bar Counsel’s inquiries or subpoenas; failure to abide by agreements made with Bar Counsel; failure to appear in court for a scheduled hearing; failure to obey court orders; failure to turn over the assets of a conservatorship to the court or to the successor conservator; failure to keep the Bar advised of respondent’s changes of address, after being warned to do so; and tendering a check known to be worthless in settlement of a claim against the lawyer or against the lawyer’s client. Paragraph (d) is to be interpreted flexibly and includes any improper behavior of an analogous nature to these examples.
[3] A lawyer violates paragraph (d) by offensive, abusive, or harassing conduct that seriously interferes with the administration of justice. Such conduct may include words or actions that manifest bias or prejudice based upon race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, or socioeconomic status.
http://www.dcbar.org/bar-resources/legal-ethics/amended-rules/rule8-04.cfm
YES, of course it is a long shot, –and YES, of course YOU understand that, and YES, you are a heck of a busy guy, but all of that added up does not make it unworthy of a formal complaint if there was what appears to be fairly characterized as conduct involving any number of the proscribed behaviors. And yes, unless the misuse of client FUNDS can easily be established, it is an uphill battle to get anywhere, and particularly with a lawyer who has –shall we say– substantial “political” connections. But, on the other hand. it isn’t particularly good for her professional reputation if ANY complaint is logged, and particularly if similar complaints start to pile up. And for all you know (in this community, which is a LOT, perhaps– just perhaps– she has paid similar unethical visits to others who also remain silent, vis-a-vis each other and/or the bar.)
I, for one, would NEVER consider engaging in the vein of conduct alluded to here (concerning the apparent attempt to blackmail you into silence in order to MAYBE get some sort of “special treatment”/circumvention of the allegedly non-existent DISCONNECTION POLICY ENFORCEMENT which has served to alienate you from your entire family for so many years.)
I know. I know.
Why waste your time on something that is likely to get nowhere.
But if anyone else has been paid such a visit, perhaps it becomes less of a write-off and more of an actionable offense.
In the end– her worship of money will only serve to DISCONNECT HER –perhaps permanently–from being able to reconcile her with a joyful loving and kind innocence she has thrown without caution to the will of Miscavige.
The Flying Monkeys live in their own gilded cages.
Luxury, without true freedom, is still a prison sentence.
This woman lives like a zoo panther, pacing, pacing, pacing… waiting for another piece of flesh to devour.. but only to ever pace and pace until the next “kill” is thrown her way.
Great comment WIS
BUT she is a ‘ GIRL FRIDAY!.’
I don’t care how clever she’s is. Don’t care if she got her JP in 2 years.. Or has an IQ 20 points higher than the rest of us….
SHE has traveled into the ‘ Twilight Zone.’
Good luck unraveling out of this mess. Yikes!!
Yes, by all means… Enquiring Minds what to know. What specifically was on Ms.YLing’s mind? Do share
Great article, Mike. Yingling’s quote here:
“Gibney’s commentary regarding church finances is just plain false. Church funds are dedicated to promulgation of the faith and supporting global humanitarian initiatives for the benefit of people of all faiths. Not one iota of the church’s actual activities is reflected in Gibney’s one-sided piece.”
is patently untrue and she knows it.
A simple recent example was the revelation of the cherch paying PIs 10K/week to stalk his Dad.
Having your lawyer speak for you is always a bad sign.
“Gibney’s commentary regarding church finances is just plain false. Church funds are dedicated to promulgation of the faith and supporting global humanitarian initiatives for the benefit of people of all faiths. Not one iota of the church’s actual activities is reflected in Gibney’s one-sided piece.”
Riiiight Mrs. Ding A Ling!
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!! Now that’s some funny shit, Coop! Wait…what??? She was serious??? Bwahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!! That’s even funnier!
Stupid cult of David “Let Him Die” Miscavige.
OSD you would be “serious” if you were paid the big bucks to manhandle DM’s image and business. Of course he would rather hide.