|||||
From: martinottmann@yahoo.com (Martin Ottmann)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Federal Complaint II - Conclusion
Date: 1 Jan 2003 15:12:16 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
Lines: 83
Message-ID: <71d327bb.0301011512.52cba468@posting.google.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 212.198.0.96
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1041462736 24268 127.0.0.1 (1 Jan 2003 23:12:16 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: 1 Jan 2003 23:12:16 GMT
Path: news2.lightlink.com!news.lightlink.com!quark.scn.rain.com!chilly.oregonvos.net!canoe.uoregon.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail
Xref: news2.lightlink.com alt.religion.scientology:1583440

VI) Conclusion

The settlement negotiations between Robert Minton and the Church of
Scientology mark the end of a confrontation between an individual and
an organization in which both parties have committed different crimes
at different times.

While the Church of Scientology with the use of its "Office of Special
Affairs" and its private investigators violated the civil rights of
Robert Minton and several innocent bystanders, including his wife and
his children, Minton himself committed perjury in connection with his
dubious financial transactions in order to hide his secret overseas
funds from the Church of Scientology and the courts.

In its efforts to silence Robert Minton and to discourage him from
further financially supporting its critics, the Church of Scientology
harassed him over a period of almost four years. It engaged in
extensive surveillance and investigation operations of Minton and his
immediate family members. It held countless pickets in front of
Minton's home and in front of the home of his wife and his children.
It distributed leaflets with scurrilous contents in the residential
areas of Minton's and his wife's homes.

The Church of Scientology claims to be a "charitable organization." By
no means can the above-mentioned activities be called "charitable."
Robert Minton is an individual and he pursued his self-proclaimed
"crusade" against the Church of Scientology as a private citizen.
Scientology cannot justify that it had to defend itself through the
execution of such a harassment campaign against one private citizen
and his social environment because Minton was allegedly about "to
destroy its religion."

Robert Minton's "crusade" was at various points ill founded. He often
picketed in a highly provocative manner. On the Internet he ridiculed
the beliefs of Scientologists. Nevertheless these questionable
activities do not deprive him of his civil rights of free speech and
free association. And they do not deprive Minton's wife and his
daughters of their respective rights either.

During one of the settlement meetings in Samuel Rosen's office, the
Church of Scientology representatives revealed that they had spent $
3,500,000 in "security" measures for which they ultimately made Minton
responsible. An expenditure of millions of dollars to hire private
investigators and to keep an individual and a few others under
constant surveillance for a period of more than four years can hardly
be justified as appropriate "security measures" or, even less, as a
"charitable activity" of a "charitable" tax-exempt organization.

Minton himself had millions of dollars at his disposal to finance
civil cases and to support individuals who had been victimized by the
Church of Scientology. Had he just done that, he would not be in the
highly awkward situation he finds himself now in. But Minton wanted to
become a hero, and to a certain extent and for a certain period of
time he enjoyed the attention he received by becoming a nationally
known "crusader." At the end he was desperate and he consequently
engaged in desperate acts, which eventually were criminal.

Minton's "crusade" was based on lies. While he openly criticized the
tax-exempt status of the Church of Scientology, he himself had
evidently hidden away from millions of dollars in overseas bank
accounts, which he had not disclosed to the Internal Revenue Service.
When he finally decided to use that money directly for his cause and
for himself as well he engaged in obscure, criminal schemes that would
finally seal his legal fate.

It is ironic that in the moment when Minton's illegalities became a
public record the former fierce opponent of Scientology joined sides
with the organization. It is also very remarkable how the tax-exempt
and self-proclaimed "charitable" religious organization, the Church of
Scientology, almost immediately tried to capitalize on Minton's legal
situation and on his finances, which, I believe, were at least
partially created through a tax evasion scheme.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the aforementioned facts set
forth are true and correct.

Respectfully Submitted,


_____________________
Martin Ottmann

Paris, France on July 22nd, 2002

|||||
From: hkhenson@rogers.com (Keith Henson)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Federal Complaint II - Conclusion
Date: Wed, 01 Jan 2003 23:37:15 GMT
Organization: Temple of At'L'An
Message-ID: <3e1477b8.5156502@news2.lightlink.com>
References: <71d327bb.0301011512.52cba468@posting.google.com>
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.112.100.99
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.112.100.99
X-Trace: 1 Jan 2003 18:38:35 -0500, 24.112.100.99
X-Original-Trace: 1 Jan 2003 18:38:35 -0500, 24.112.100.99
Lines: 37
Path: news2.lightlink.com
Xref: news2.lightlink.com alt.religion.scientology:1583448

On 1 Jan 2003 15:12:16 -0800, martinottmann@yahoo.com (Martin Ottmann)
wrote:

>Minton's "crusade" was based on lies. While he openly criticized the
>tax-exempt status of the Church of Scientology, he himself had
>evidently hidden away from millions of dollars in overseas bank
>accounts, which he had not disclosed to the Internal Revenue Service.
>When he finally decided to use that money directly for his cause and
>for himself as well he engaged in obscure, criminal schemes that would
>finally seal his legal fate.

Though I don't claim inside knowledge, I kind of doubt this is the
case.  The reason is that there are many entirely legal ways Bob could
have held money overseas and it would be amazing to me to find he had
done anything illegal when there are so many legal ways to accomplish
the same thing.

Just as an example, money paid into an overseas corporation you
control does not have to be reported as income.  In fact, it *can't*
be since the corporation is a separate legal entity.

Now, if the corporation makes a distribution of money to the people
who control it, *that* has to be reported as income.  But if the
corporation *loans* money to a third party it not reported as income.
In fact, corporations can loan money to those who control them, and
though it is a bit more questionable, chances are low that anyone will
ever even ask about it (unless the corporation is Enron).

Control of a corporation with money is different from money you can
use to buy groceries.  

In any case, friend or foe of scientology, nobody is going to
investigate a citizen complaint close to this mess.  

Nice job though.

Keith Henson