ptsc <ptsc@nowhere.com> wrote in message news:<qqc70vgv927rioc84ahean1btg4a91dend@4ax.com>...

> >I find it also interesting how the management in Los Angeles lets COS
> >RECI accumulate debts in the range of more than 10,000,000 pounds,
> >which the organization owes towards the "mother church", CSI.
>
> >All figures are British pounds.
>
> Do you have any idea what COSRECI has done with this money it
> "borrowed?" Is there some tax advantage to high levels of indebtedness?
> Considering that the US counterparts to UK Scientology entities are
> tax-exempt, while the UK versions aren't (except insofar as COSRECI
> is to some extent covered by reciprocity agreements between the
> UK and Australia), could there be some advantage to "loaning" COSRECI
> funds and then having COSRECI never pay them back?
>
> Isn't such an arrangement tantamount to a gift without consideration,
> or to be more blunt a fraudulent transfer?

This question is not easy to answer. What I know is the following:

1) The Scientology management keeps a constant pressure on the lower Sea Org service orgs (i. e. Flag, AOSH UK, etc) to make a lot of money and to transfer as much money as possible in a steady flow to Los Angeles. To "encourage", i. e. to force the lower orgs to do this, different means are used by CSI/RTC:

a) Moral pressure. Internal rallies are held in the orgs where speakers from L.A. paint a dark and gloomy picture of the future of Scientology, should the concerned org cease to financially support "Int. Management" appropriately. During those rallies you hear then phrases like "Int. Management is about to launch the biggest Dianetics campaign in the history of Scientology. We count on your support that we can reach the target to reach 250,000,000 new people and introduce them to the Road of Total Freedom" or "In order to defend Scientology and expose the crimes of psychiatry you need to support Int.

management with $ 1,000,000 by May 9th.", etc. etc.

So there exists real pressure to suck up real, big money from the lower orgs towards Los Angeles. There is always at least one major campaign going on, there is always at least one good reason, why "Int.

management" needs *this week* an extra $ 100,000 in order "to get rid of Scientology enemies once and for all.", etc. etc.

b) Bills. One major reason the lower orgs have huge debts towards "Int. management, i. e. CSI, is due to very expensive projects that CSI forces upon these orgs. Example: CSI decides that it is time for an overall renovation program at Saint Hill. The "International Landlord Office" of the "International Finance Office" drafts a program and sends out a mission to get it going. Contractors are hired (officially by COS RECI, but actually by order of the mission), renovation material is being bought and the RPF soon gets filled up with a cheap labour force, which will eventually do the actual renovation.

Who gets the bill for all this? COS RECI. And who is paying a $ 1,500,000 bill when COS RECI only makes $ 100,000 a week? For such cases "Int management" still has certain entities, trusts like the "Scientology International Reserves Trust" (SIRT), who will pay CoS RECI, who in return then pays the contractors. Of course this is only in certain cases an actual grant by SIRT. To the contrary: From then on COS RECI may be obliged to pay off these costs in full to CSI or SIRT, and in certain cases with a nice 8 - 10 % interest.

In the case this is not known here: Every time, CSI or RTC decides to send missionaires to lower orgs in order to inspect or enforce certain matters, the organization receives after the completed "mission" a bill from CSI for the working hours of the missionaires and the overall "success" of the mission. Needless to say, these missionaires are not cheap.

c) Contracts. Already during the 1980s, CSI and RTC forced the lower orgs to sign license agreements, "ecclesiastical support agreements", and numerous other contracts, which force the organizations to pay the "Int. management" a lot of money for "services by CSI/RTC" week after week.

All of these three factors have driven various orgs towards the financial state they find themselves in.

2) Another side aspect behind the financial policy of CSI towards the lower orgs might be to keep them as shallow and as empty-handed as possible, so that in the case of a raid by a hostile government and a subsequent seizure of assets there is not much "the enemy" can lay his hands upon. Everything of value would then be in Los Angeles, in San Bernadino, or wherever, while the bankaccounts of the raided org are empty and its properties are mortgaged up to the hilt. But this tactic would of course depend on the general legal and political climate towards Scientology in that country.

I am not 100 % sure about this, but f. e., I think in Germany the CoS doesn't own one single building.

From: Warrior <warrior@xenu.ca>
Subject: Re: The state of Scientology in England
Date: 21 Dec 2002 08:07:06 -0800
Message-ID: <au23ja02so1@drn.newsguy.com>

>Martin Ottmann seems to have said:
>>
>>Wages and Salaries
>>1989: 850,138
>>1996: 559,669
>>
>>Average number of employees
>>1989: 246
>>1996: 426

In article <h9m70vgjiffab5e5q70e2kqb3fnas1mca6@4ax.com>, TLH says...

>
>Interesting that in '89, this is about £3,000 per person.

The average is 3455.85 pounds per staff member.

>By '96, it had dropped to only about £1,000

The average is 1313.78 pounds per staff member.

>Twice the staff, 1/3rd the pay. :-O

38% to be exact.

One of the statistics orgs report is called "GI divided by number of staff". The abbreviation on the weekly OIC report sent to management is called "GIBY" (ref: PL 5 Nov 72RA).

Scientology management uses many statistics to evaluate an organization's performance. The two stats used to measure the overall production (or lack of) an org are the gross income (GI) and paid completions.

These two statistics are the statistics for the Executive Director/Commanding Officer, and the "ethics condition" of the org is assigned based upon these two stats.

There's absolutely no doubt that Scientology was on a "non-existence" trend between 1989 and 1996 in England.

It's no surprise to me they have been pushing Narconon harder. Scientology has such bad repute the world over, but Narconon is not yet broadly known to be a cult entity.

Warrior - Sunshine disinfects http://warrior.xenu.ca

Go Back