Alt.religion.scientology Week in Review

Volume 10, Issue 4 - January 28 2006

Minton victim of poor judgment

Lermanet published another account depicting Robert Minton as a victim of his own poor judgment in financing anti-Scientology efforts.

"The Betrayal of Bob Minton" was posted January 21, 2006 from

In Fall 2001, Deanna Holmes and several other people were busy annoying Bob Minton by publicly deriding him on the alt.religion.scientology news group. This annoyed Minton, and he complained about it to several people. One of those he complained to was Ken Dandar, lawyer for the Lisa McPherson estate in a wrongful death lawsuit against Scientology. Dandar, in turn, told the news group posters that they were annoying Minton, and the negative postings subsequently stopped. This was adequate proof for the Mintons that Dandar had control over the annoying postings. Mintons, as in two of them. Another person Minton told about this was a woman by the name of Therese Minton, his wife.

Years ago, Minton gave Scientology what it needed to stop him from funding anti-Scientology litigation. As long as his wife continued to give him her support, he would continue. Despite many difficulties, Therese stuck with Bob, just so long as he remained a man of principle.

The principles fell apart in February 2002. Dandar told Minton the McPherson case needed more money if it was to continue. Minton hesitated, but finally relented with a check for $300,000. As it turned out, that was the straw that broke the camel's back. The Mintons, and others by now, suspected that Dandar both had control over those who were disparaging the McPherson estate's benefactor, and that Dandar was mismanaging the McPherson case.

In short, by giving people who publicly reviled him that much money, Minton was both supporting unprincipled behavior and exercising poor judgment in handling the Mintons' money. Therese gave the ultimatum: get the money back or stop the fight. Minton argued but lost. He asked Dandar to return the money, but the lawyer said it had already been spent. That left Bob one path to saving his married life. Seek settlement. He approached Scientology leader Mike Rinder with a heavy heart but was fully resigned to the task at hand.

As a matter of fact, Rinder already had a precondition. Minton would have to make a clean breast of the Lisa McPherson case. Minton was shocked that Rinder knew enough to make this allusion. It turned out Minton had falsified a statement he made for the McPherson case. Minton was to later assert that not only was Ken Dandar privy to his misconduct, but had encouraged him. Rinder, Minton was convinced, had to have had an inside informant and who else, Minton wandered out loud in his testimony, but Patricia Greenway would have means, motive and opportunity to do so.

This brought the millionaire to a realization. If he had not approached Rinder to settle his differences with Scientology, then Scientology would have had the equivalent of blackmail material on him. This would have been especially significant after Scientology settled the McPherson case. Besides the millions he had already given Dandar, the anti-Scientology crusader would have been liable to the cult for millions more. In reality, whatever the McPherson case was settled for would likely have come from Minton's own pocket via Scientology.

Minton breathed a heavy sigh of relief and let Dandar know that he was going to testify against him for Scientology. The suspicions that Dandar was an unprincipled man were soon confirmed. The slanderous campaign against Minton was renewed within days. It started with malicious speculation, and eventually transcended the bounds of common sense almost completely into the realm of the fantastic. When the legal situation demanded the fantastic accusations against Minton come to an end in the United States, responsibility for the false accusations was merely shifted overseas. Within weeks Martin Ottmann came up with an unbelievably distorted list of wrongoing that easily competed with Scientology's earlier allegations against Minton of moneylaundering.

Background on "The Betrayal of Bob Minton"

Every single detail of "The Betrayal of Bob Minton" is not guaranteed fact. It is the best reconstruction that can be made with the facts at hand concerning events surrounding Bob Minton's attempt to settle with Scientology.

The reason this was not published sooner is that there was some doubt as to whether Minton was actually sympathetic with Scientology. Time has shown this doubt to be unfounded. Minton has not endorsed Scientology in any way. Nor did Minton betray critics en masse to the cult. Although Minton betrayed Ken Dandar, he was no harsher on Dandar than he was on himself.

Minton was not blackmailed. More than one person was very interested in nailing the cult on this. As a result several people who were very close to Minton went to extraordinary lengths to find out if foul play was involved. The result was unanimous that Minton was not the victim of blackmail.

Certain people who Minton had aided financially betrayed him. This was done to their own advantage, so that Minton ended up paying twice, once in cash and again in repute.

Minton was not in danger of being convicted for perjury or money laundering; one of his betrayers was in danger of being convicted for corruption. Minton was not publicly aiding Scientology's propaganda war against critics; his betrayers were. Minton did not throw news group alt.religion.scientology into such an uproar that Scientology's anti-psych-bots could take a vacation, again it was his betrayers. Minton did not post unauthorized documents that had not been released by the court to the Internet; that was his betrayers. Most importantly, Minton did not run to the press to betray his betrayers, but did what any civic-minded citizen should do; he went to court. Whether we agree with him or not, in this respect at least, he did the right thing.


Your friends at Lermanet

Responses included:


Tell your "friend" Lerma, to quit hiding behind "Friends of Lermanet" and sign his name to his bullshit or else someone might decide you are the "friends" and sue you.


and 2)

Can't the guy defend himself? He made some bad money deals with the Caberta woman in Germany and so on. Do you find that GOOD? Does he pay you to defend himself and post for him? How much do you get? [...]

Message-ID: ixsAf.18154$

Scientology Related Photos and Video

On January 21, 2006, "banchukita" (maggie) posted:

In today's Tampa Tribune, there is a comic called, I think, Non Sequiter [someone has absconded with the funny pages this morning and I can't check...]. In it, there is a character called Mr Obviousness or something similar. Today's strip was devoted to Mr. Obviousness, at first tellilng the reader if they weren't a Hollywood director, to find another strip. Shoo. Then pleading with Hollywood directors, specifically Spielberg, to not ruin what might be a great movie by casting Tom Cruise in the lead. The last panel shows a clerk carrying a phone, telling Mr. O. he has a call from a "pitchfork-wielding cult on line one, sir".

Kudos to Wiley.

-maggie, human being

"Android Cat" posted:

And as of tomorrow, the link will be


On January 23, 2006, "Jeff Jacobsen" posted:

[short clip from anti-psych museum]

I guess this is supposed to show what happens to a brain on electroshock

Message ID:
Message ID: 9020b$43d3f4d3$cf700d92$630@PRIMUS.CA
Message ID:

Scientology Cult Suicides Listed in Wikipedia

On January 22, 2006, "wbarwell" (Cheerful Charlie) posted:

Somebody been busy....

Message ID:

Scientology & The Truman Show

On January 22, 2006, "Magoo" (Tory Christman) posted:

Why Do I Say Scientology is Like "The Truman Show"

Recently someone asked me if I'd written up my analogy of Scientology And "The Truman Show". I don't think I have explained it fully, so here it is:

Basically, "The Truman Show" is a movie about a man named "Truman". Although the movie is about a TV show that Truman is the star in, he's the only person who doesn't know it's a TV show. He believes it IS real life, and for him, it is.

People watch the TV show daily, to find out what is happening with Truman.

As the show progresses, one notices the same people always in the same Spots: "Good morning! Goooood Afternoon! Goooooooooooood Evening!"


Message ID: 43d42bd1$

NOTS34: Criminality Successfully Protected by Copyright Law

On January 23, 2006, "Povmec" posted:

Interesting article by Tilman Hausherr:

NOTS34: criminality successfully protected by copyright law

By Tilman Hausherr

(C) 1998, 2001 Tilman Hausherr

based on a work written by David Mayo for L. Ron Hubbard, (C) 1978 CSC

reproduction except in usenet and WWW is *verboten* cancellation is a crime (wire fraud / "computer-betrug") both in Germany and the US.

NOTS34 is interesting to analyse because it touches two fields of science: criminology and law. Criminology because NOTS34 illegally promotes an electronic device, the scientology "e-meter" for healing, and Law because of the measures the criminal cult of scientology uses to keep the discussion of its criminality off the public: lawsuits and illegal cancellation. A netizen, Keith Henson, was recently fined $75000 for posting it to the internet. (not final)

Indirectly, similar questions could arise in Germany. Luckily, there is legal precedent about practicing medicine without a license. A "miracle healer" litigated the right to practice his healings, and lost in two courts. The reason for this is that only qualified people should "heal"; the idea is to make sure that even a healer in alternative medicine is able to notice when someone is really ill, to refer him to real doctor. The court case is: OLG MŁnster, Az: 13 A 4973/94, mentioned in Berliner Dialog 4/97, page 31.


Message ID:

Russian NGO rejects Spy Smear - Scientology Involved?

On January 23, 2006 BBC News UK reported:


Russian NGO rejects spy 'smear'

One of the non-government groups named in Russian allegations of a UK spy network has dismissed the reports as a smear aimed at undermining its work.

Lyudmila Alexeyeva, head of the Moscow Helsinki Group, said the government was trying to turn public opinion against NGOs it wanted to shut down.

Russia said spies posing as diplomats funded NGOs and used a hi-tech "letterbox" disguised as a rock.


[End Quote]


Gerry Armstrong posted:

Also see:



"Aug. 16 2005 several organizations have gathered near the monument to the Anti-Hitler coalition in Moscow in order to conduct an opening ceremony of 'Multatlon 2005 for Peace and Human Rights'. The most prominent participants and organizers of this event were Moscow Helsinki group and the Scientological Church of Moscow." The first speaker at this much publicized event was Mrs Lyudmila Alexeyeva - the President of Moscow Helsinki Group and the International Helsinki Federation.

So, we can say now that not only Moscow Helsinki group but also the International Helsinki Federation is no more than Scientology PR agency. What a shameless end for the organization that was created to defend the rights of victims of totalitarian regimes!

Center of Religious Studies, Moscow
Center of Religious Studies
[address, Moscow number, Russia]
[phone number]

[End Quote]

Because Scientology is an intelligence organization, a country like Russia is being responsible in treating it as an intelligence agency. Because Scientology is headquartered in and operated from the U.S., the flow of intelligence on Russian companies and citizens is to the U.S., and orders to execute intelligence operations in Russia come rrom the U.S., it is sensible to treat the Scientologists as U.S.intelligence agents.

The Armstrong case proves beyond any argument that Scientology is *not* a human rights organization. Scientologists, including all the personnel running its human rights front groups, are *contracted* to destroy human rights.

Unless NGO's operating as human rights groups police their own numbers, which would necessarily include the unqualified rejection of Scientology as a human rights group, countries like Russia are completely justified in treating NGO's claiming to be human rights organizations as human rights-destroying intelligence organizations.

The U.S. is largely responsible for the destruction of human rights by supporting and promoting Scientology as a human rights organization, indeed a "religion."

Thus it can be seen that Scientology by operating as a human rights organization when it is a human rights destroyer, destroys even the work of legitimate human rights NGO's.

So, all you human rights defenders out there, and all you human rights NGO's, and you responsible U.S. Government, isn't it about time to do something about the Scientology organization, before the backlash against human rights NGO's destroys human rights for even more people?

It's your hen house, and you let Scientology in. Better move quick efore you're completely plucked.


Russian Officials Accuse British Diplomats of Spying

Message ID:
Message ID:

News on Marty Rathbun

On January 24, 2006 "Chuck Beatty" posted: Rumor line is that Marty is gone (blown). Someone told me they ad gotten a first hand report that Marty was at the Flag mill for about a year up to end 2004. Then, it seems, he blew. And now he is laying very low. Message ID:

The brighter side of Scientology

Tory/Magoo posted a couple of articles to help people understand the good side of Scientology.

"The Brighter Side of Scientology" was posted January 25, 2006

Many times people ask me, 'What were the brighter sides of Scientology?"

Ok, so let me see if I can count them:

  1. Scientology---it is a new name.
  2. Scientology---Hubbard said it means:"Knowing how to know" ((Thinking back, what kind of idiots don't know how to know? See how he created that right there, and guess who had the fixins?!))
  3. Dianetics--a good story, plausible, seemed possible
  4. Clear---although no one acted like they were "Clear", all claimed they were just needing their next level, and that seemed Ok at the time. Again...looking back: DUH!
  5. Some of the OT's had great stories, which although none actually could DO anything OT, the concept that ~maybe~ they could made it worth the ride.
  6. Hope::::: Hubbard said "Sell Hope" and that is an interesting concept.
  7. "The Tech" and ALL that this entails: It takes Y E A R S to learn what utter BS it really is. (Sorry to the Freezoners, I really am)
  8. "wins" ----always advancing, but never really going anywhere. It takes a long time in a cult to get this.
  9. Of course the people were the glue that kept it all together, and what a shock to find out they not only totally ditched me without EVER asking, now they're out spreading OSA's lies about me!
  10. The best part about joining, is leaving....and having the freedom to finally do so, and ALL that comes with that! :)


"Scientology Interviewer and Magoo: His in put" was posted January 22, 2006

Last week someone from a very high up place called me, and interviewed me for an hour (I'm not mentioning it to protect the innocent).

At the end he said, "I can't thank you enough: You've helped me greatly". I said, " Really? How?"

Guess what his answer was.

I wish OSA could hear this one!

"You helped me understand the good side of Scientology".

He went on to say he'd interviewed quite a few people, all who only told him how bad Scientology is. I was able to tell him the good, and the bad, and how it fits, and that helped him greatly.

Interesting, eh? I thought, "God...if I could just have this man saying that piped into OSA"what a riot that would be! You kind of had to hear the passion in his voice, but it was really quite amazing for us both.

Anyways, please don't lecture me about "Who cares about OSA". I mainly do as they've written 5 years of lies about me, and are actively pumping these lies to Scios "in" some have told me, privately. I just think it'd be a riot for them to HEAR what a top person had to say about one of their supposed SP's!

Message-ID: 43d3f086$

Sklar tax decision

"The Sklars' appeal trial against the IRS -- complete ruling" was posted January 28, 2006

125 T.C. No. 14
Docket No. 395-01. Filed December 21, 2005.

P[etitioner]s paid tuition and fees of $27,283 to two Jewish day schools for the religious and secular education of their five children in 1995. That amount includes $175 that Ps paid separately for an after-school Orthodox Jewish education class (Mishna) for one of their children.

Ps contend that they may deduct $15,000 of those payments as a charitable contribution under sec. 170, I.R.C., and that they are not liable for the accuracyrelated penalty under sec. 6662, I.R.C.

Held: None of Psí payments for tuition, fees, and Mishna classes in 1995 are deductible as charitable contributions.

Held, further, Ps are not liable for the accuracyrelated penalty under sec. 6662, I.R.C.

- 2 -

1 Unless otherwise specified, section references are to the Internal Revenue Code as amended, and Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.


Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found.

A. Petitioners
1. Petitionersí Family and Religion

Petitioners lived in North Hollywood, California, when they filed the petition in this case. During 1995, Michael Sklar (petitioner) was a self-employed certified public accountant. Petitioner Marla Sklar (Mrs. Sklar) was a teacher. Petitioners are Orthodox Jews.

During 1995, petitioners had five children of school age. We refer to them by their initials: H.S., T.S., M.S., A.S., and another T.S. It is important to petitioners to pass to their children a devotion to their Jewish faith.


D. Petitionersí Tax Returns
1. 1991

Petitioners filed an amended tax return for 1991 in December 1993, in which they deducted as a charitable contribution a

- 12 -

portion of the tuition payments they made in 1991 to their childrenís schools. Respondent apparently believed that petitioners were Scientologists, because in February 1994 respondent wrote to petitioners to request verification of their payments to the Church of Scientology. By letter to respondent in May 1994, petitioner stated that the deductions were based on tuition he had paid for religious education for his children. In August 1994, respondent sent a letter to petitioners, again erroneously stating that petitionersí payments were to the Church of Scientology. Petitioner telephoned the author of that letter to say that he was not a Scientologist. By letter dated November 7, 1994, respondent told petitioners that respondent allowed in full their claim for a refund for 1991.

2. 1992-94

Petitioners filed an amended 1992 return and a 1993 return in which they deducted part of their childrenís tuition as a charitable contribution. Petitioners received a refund based on the amended 1993 return, and respondent did not disallow the deduction claimed on their 1993 return.

Petitioners deducted 55 percent of their payments to Emek and Yeshiva Rav Isacsohn as a charitable contribution deduction for 1994. Petitioners described the deduction on a Form 8275, Disclosure Statement, attached to their 1994 return. Respondent examined petitionersí 1994 tax return and disallowed the

- 13 -

charitable contribution deduction. Litigation relating to petitionersí 1994 return is discussed below at paragraph E.

3. 1995

Petitioners timely filed their 1995 Federal income tax return on October 15, 1996. Petitioners deducted $24,421 as a charitable contribution for 1995, including $15,000 which petitioners attributed to the cost of their childrenís religious education at Emek and Yeshiva Rav Isacsohn during 1995. That amount ($15,000) is 54.97 percent (referred to here as 55 percent) of the total amount of tuition and fees that petitioners paid to Emek and Yeshiva Rav Isacsohn during 1995. Petitioners did not file a Form 8275 or otherwise describe their payment on their 1995 return. Respondent had petitionersí 1994 return under examination when petitioners filed their 1995 return.

Pursuant to petitionerís request, Emek and Yeshiva Rav Isacsohn issued letters to petitioner dated November 5 and November 10, 1997, respectively, in which each school estimated that 45 percent of the education provided to petitionersíchildren was secular and 55 percent was religious.

E. Litigation Relating to Petitionersí 1994 Return

Petitioners filed a petition with the Court challenging respondentís notice of deficiency for 1994. In Sklar v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-118 (Sklar I), this Court held that petitioners could not deduct as charitable contributions amounts


- 14 -

5 We separately discuss whether petitioners may deduct $175 of this amount they paid for Mishna classes. See Opinion par. A- 5, below. for tuition and fees that they paid for their childrenís religious education that year. Our decision was affirmed on appeal by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Sklar v. Commissioner, 282 F.3d 610 (9th Cir. 2002), amending and superseding 279 F.3d 697 (9th Cir. 2002).


A. Whether Petitioners May Deduct Tuition and Fees They Paid to Orthodox Jewish Day Schools During 1995

1. Petitionersí Contentions

Petitioners contend that they may deduct as a charitable contribution $15,000 of the $27,283 they paid to Emek and Yeshiva Rav Isacsohn in 1995.5 They deducted about 55 percent of those payments because that was the portion of the school day that each school estimated was devoted to religious studies.

Petitioners contend that: (a) The religious education that Emek and Yeshiva Rav Isacsohn provided their children is an "intangible religious benefit" as defined in sections 170(f)(8) and 6115, and payments for intangible religious benefits are made deductible by those sections; and (b) respondentís disallowance of their charitable contribution deduction for tuition and fees violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution because the Commissioner allows members of the

- 15 -

6 Petitioners contend that sec. 7491(a) requires respondent to bear the burden of proof on all factual issues in the case. We need not decide the point because our findings and analysis in this case do not depend on which party bears the burden of proof. Church of Scientology to deduct as charitable contributions "auditing" and "training" payments.6


- 29 -

15 Petitioners point out that the 1993 legislative history states that the exception in secs. 170(f)(8) and 6115 for intangible religious benefits does not apply to education leading to a recognized degree. Petitioners contend that the secular education provided by Emek and Yeshiva Rav Isacsohn does not lead to a recognized degree. In light of our conclusion that secs. 170(f)(8) and 6115 are substantiation and disclosure provisions, we need not consider this contention further.

Emek and Yeshiva Rav Isacsohn provided a religious and secular education for their students. Regardless of petitionersí reasons for choosing to educate their children at Emek and Yeshiva Rav Isacsohn, those schools did not provide exclusively religious services.15

4. Whether the Agreement Reached Between the Internal Revenue Service and the Church of Scientology in 1993

Affects the Result in This Case

In Hernandez v. Commissioner, 490 U.S. 680, 702 (1989), the U.S. Supreme Court held that the record did not support the taxpayerís claim of entitlement to deduct as charitable contributions payments to the Church of Scientology for what the Church of Scientology calls auditing and training. However, the parties stipulated that, pursuant to a closing agreement between the Commissioner and the Church of Scientology and certain of its constituent entities dated October 1, 1993, the Commissioner permitted members of the Church of Scientology to deduct those payments as charitable contributions.

Petitioners contend that, because of that closing agreement, the Commissioner is constitutionally required to allow a [...]

- 30 -

16 In Sklar v. Commissioner, 282 F.3d 610, 612 n.3 (9th Cir. 2002), affg. T.C. Memo. 2000-118, the U.S. Court of Appeals said it is strongly inclined to the view that sec. 170 was not amended in 1993 to permit deductions for which the consideration is intangible religious benefits, and that Hernandez v.Commissioner, 490 U.S. 680, 702 (1989), is still controlling. That court also said that it need not rule definitively on this point because petitionersí claims did not meet the requirements for partial deductibility of dual payments established by United States v. Am. Bar Endowment, 477 U.S. 105 (1986). Similarly, we have decided this case by applying United States v. Am. Bar Endowment, supra. deduction for tuition paid to schools that provide religious and secular education to the extent that the tuition paid exceeds the value of the secular education. Petitioners contend that the religious education that the Jewish day schools provide in exchange for tuition is jurisprudentially indistinguishable from the auditing and training that the Church of Scientology provides to its members in exchange for a fixed fee.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit previously rejected petitionersí arguments about the Church of Scientology in Sklar v. Commissioner, 282 F.3d at 619-620. Petitionersí tuition payments were made to schools that in part provide secular educational services, not to exclusively religious organizations. Thus, the analysis in United States v. Am. Bar Endowment, 477 U.S. 105 (1986), controls here. We conclude that the agreement reached between the Internal Revenue Service and the Church of Scientology in 1993 does not affect the result in this case.16

- 31 -

17 Emek is an educational organization, not a religious organization. We need not consider under what circumstances payments to a religious organization for religious instruction are deductible.

18 In light of our conclusion, we need not decide whether petitioners complied with substantiation requirements imposed by sec. 170(f)(8).

5. Whether Petitioners May Deduct Their Payment for Mishna Classes

Petitioners contend that they may deduct as a charitable contribution the $175 that they paid for Mishna classes that Emek provided separately from its regular classes and charged separately from its regular tuition and fees. We disagree. Petitionersí payment for Mishna classes at Emek is not made deductible merely because Emek offers those classes separately from their regular educational programs, and Emek charges, and petitioners pay, separately from Emekís other charges.

Petitioners did not intend those payments to be a contribution or gift to Emek within the meaning of section 170(c).17


6. Conclusion

We conclude that petitioners are not entitled to a charitable contribution deduction under section 170 for any part of the tuition, including the fee for Mishna classes, they paid to Emek or Yeshiva Rav Isacsohn in 1995.18

- 32 -

B. Whether Petitioners Are Liable for the Accuracy-Related


Respondent contends that petitioners are liable for the accuracy-related penalty under section 6662 for deducting $15,000 of their tuition. We disagree.

Taking into account respondentís concession, petitionersí tax understatement is $3,209. That amount is not substantial for purposes of section 6662 because it does not exceed the greater of 10 percent of the amount required to be shown or $5,000. See sec. 6662(d)(1)(A).

Respondent contends that petitioners knew that they lacked a reasonable basis for claiming the disallowed deductions because, unlike the return they filed for 1994, petitioners did not file a Form 8275 or otherwise call attention to the deduction. We disagree. Respondent permitted similar deductions for petitionersí 1991, 1992, and 1993 tax returns.

Petitioners timely filed their 1995 return on October 15, 1996. Petitionersí 1994 return was being audited when they filed their 1995 return pursuant to an extension on October 15, 1996. Petitioners filed their petition in Sklar I on January 27, 1997. Decision was entered in that case on April 5, 2000, and affirmed early in 2002. Thus, when they filed their 1995 return, petitioners knew that respondent had allowed them to claim similar deductions for 1991-93, and they knew their 1994 return was being audited; but they did not know they would not prevail

- 33 -

on this issue for 1994. Under these circumstances, we conclude that petitioners had a reasonable basis for claiming the deductions that respondent disallowed, and that petitioners believed in good faith that they could deduct the $15,000 for tuition and Mishna payments on their 1995 return.

To reflect concessions and the foregoing, Decision will be entered under Rule 155.

Message-ID: 43daffdd$0$8611$

Back to A.R.S. Week in Review

A.r.s. Week in Review is compiled by anonymous critics of CoS for your benefit. This collection is organised for WWW by Andreas Heldal-Lund.

Brought to you by:
Operation Clambake