When last we left the Boards of Directors of the Church of Spiritual Technology and various other individuals such as janitors, window-washers, clerks, gofers and less important individuals like Presidents, they were subject to a peculiar "doomsday clause" in the Bylaws, which by its very language indicates how extraordinarily unlikely it is ever to be used.

"b. In the event the Board of Trustees is unable to fill vacancies because of the death or disqualification of the entire Board of Trustees or sole remaining Trustee, then that person holding the senior ecclesiastical post in this Church shall (and only in this unlikely event and only s a singular circumstance) appoint individuals to fill all vacancies on the Board of Trustees, who must themselves meet the qualifications of a Trustee as provided in Section 3."

We, of course, trust the non-existent (and indeed explicitly enjoined from existence with the phrase "shall have no members") members of the Church of Spiritual Technology implicitly, and certainly believe with all our hearts that anything like this happening in a Scientology corporation is "unlikely" and would be a "singular circumstance." However, suppose it did. Suppose the entire Board of Trustees and the Board of General Directors woke up one morning, and fatally injured their qualifications for their posts while tripping over an SP Declare.

For example, suppose the General Directors all suffered a compound fracture of their "good standing." A General Director must be, and must continue to be "iv.

A duly ordained minister of Scientology in good standing with the Mother Church"

Otherwise he or she may be removed upon "an affirmative vote of a majority of the Trustees."

Now suppose in this interregnum the entire Board of Trustees meet with a similar fate, having been found by a Committee of Evidence, or at least a geek with a stamp pad and some goldenrod, to have committed unethical, disloyal acts! (The horror!) The poor Trustee would fail to qualify as "a. A person who has a good uninterrupted track record of at least eight (8) years as an ethical and loyal Scientologist;" and the post of such an errant individual "shall automatically terminate."

In this circumstance, and only in this circumstance, suddenly up pops a "senior ecclesiastical post" like a clown from a jack-in-the-box. Who holds the "senior ecclesiastical post?" And what is it? It is also not the "senior ecclesiastical post" in ANY old Church. It is the "senior ecclesiastical post in THIS Church." What Church? Why, the "Church of Spiritual Technology" of course!

"The corporation shall accomplish its purposes through and by means of the operations and activities of a church known as the 'Church of Spiritual Technology' and hereinafter referred to as 'the Church'." Isn't that delightful? The corporation called "The Church of Spiritual Technology" shall accomplish its purposes through and by means of the operations and activities of a church called "The Church of Spiritual Technology." Has anyone ever attended such a Church?

The IRS didn't seem to think so. More importantly, the United States Claim Court didn't seem to think so, either, on June 29, 1992, stating unequivocally:

"CST is not a church," explaining this reasoning in a footnote:

FN36. CST represents that it is a religious corporation organized to accomplish the activities of a church. Despite its name, CST is not itself a church as defined in the tax laws. It is not "a coherent group of individuals and families that join together to accomplish the religious purposes of mutually held beliefs," which the Tax Court has identified as a defining characteristic of a church. Church of Eternal Life v.

Commissioner, 86 T.C. 916, 924 (1986). Nor does it have a sufficient amount of the characteristics of a church specified by this court in Church of the Visible Intelligence that Governs the Universe v. United States, 4 Cl.Ct. 55, 64 (1983). The only characteristic of a church that CST does have is independent legal existence. That alone does not suffice for CST to qualify as a church under the tax code. As an archiving body, CST does not assemble parishioners regularly to worship. See American Guidance Found., Inc. v. United States, 490 F.Supp. 304, 306 (D.D.C.1980).

It provides Scientology services to its staff members, but this is incidental to its chief stated function of making an archive. The incidental provision of religious services is not sufficient to qualify an organization as a church. Foundation of Human Understanding v.

Commissioner, 88 T.C. 1341, 1357 (1987) (citing De La Salle Inst. v.

United States, 195 F.Supp. 891, 901 (N.D.Cal.1961)).

Ron Hubbard's works as well as considerable sums of money into said holes.

Even the secret IRS agreement does not anywhere state that CST is actually a Church. Frankly, it isn't and has been found not to be in a court of law, in a ruling which has never been overturned.

So, in a conundrum sure to perplex any lawyer deposing anyone accused of holding the "senior ecclesiastical post of this Church," the hapless victim can outdo Clinton and ask "What do you mean by 'THIS'?"

"But wait!" you may say. David Miscavige is the ecclesiastical leader of Scientology? How do we know this? Why, because he SAYS SO HIMSELF!

Doesn't he say that he is the "ecclesiastical leader of the Church?" I seem to remember him saying SOMETHING like that. Do you?

Well, in a well-distributed affidavit, he says SOMETHING like that. First, I find it difficult to believe a Scientologist of any kind wrote this affidavit.

Look at how it opens:

"Copyright (C) 1994 David Miscavige Redistribution rights granted for non commercial purposes."

WHAT? Redistribution rights GRANTED? From the Church of the Holy Lawsuit?

Here is the "ecclesiastical leader" of Scientology, which does not these days distribute so much as a tri-fold pamphlet without covering half of it in phrases like "All rights reserved" and "Grateful acknowledgment is made to L. Ron Hubbard Library for permission to reproduce selections from the copyrighted works of L. Ron Hubbard" and paragraphs and paragraphs of registered trademarks and "No part of this booklet may be reproduced without the permission of the copyright owner" and dire warnings of calamitous events which will occur to you should you disregard said warnings. In any case, though, this is the affidavit where Mr. David Miscavige states that he is "ecclesiastical leader." Here is what he says.

"21. False allegations leveled against me in the context of litigation or in the media are nothing new. I raise this point only so that the Court will understand that the sort of scurrilous personal attack on me launched by Geertz's counsel and Vaughn Young is the latest in a pattern of such attacks in litigation over the years. I recognize that it is not uncommon for leaders of organizations and movements to be subjected to such attacks. I can only assume that I am attacked because I am visible as the ecclesiastical leader of the Scientology religion."

That sounds sneaky for a moment. He only states that he is "visible" as the ecclesiastical leader of the Scientology RELIGION. (Note that word, NOT "Church.") However, he is not coy, he continues, in case you misheard him:

"I note that I am the ecclesiastical leader of the religion, not the Church."

Well, surely, you must think, he has to be mistaken. He must have actually said he was ecclesiastical leader of the Church somewhere. Right?

No, he doesn't. Numerous newspaper articles, TV shows, court filings by adversaries, and other sources have repeatedly (one might say incessantly) trumpeted David Miscavige as the "ecclesiastical leader of the Church of Scientology," but the only time he has mentioned it under oath is to disclaim explicitly that he is the "ecclesiastical leader of the Church" and to emphasize instead that he is the "ecclesiastical leader of the religion of Scientology."

What's the "Scientology religion?"

Why, it's that thing the Church of Spiritual Technology was set up to own, by determining what its "Scriptures" are. CST sells the "Scientology religion."

Is this the same as the "Scientology" that is an "applied religious philosophy?"

It appears a great deal of work has been done to create some kind of legal severability between the two, and between the "management" and "ecclesiastical"

side of things.

In fact, that very distinction is emphasized in the "Addendum to Hat Writeups"

of 27 Jan 1982, signed "DD/GUS," whoever that post was at the time.

"Since every Scientology witness must be prepared for cross on a multitude of areas, we used a checklist as a tool for this. It was rather like assessing a list with a PC. We had an overall list of areas To cover. These are some examples:

Corporate vs ecclesiastical
Nature of Policy
Is DEC Religious?
Relationship of Flag to SO
What was OTC?
Ever asked to backdate a document?
Flag's relationship to CSC
Fair Game"
"Corporate vs ecclesiastical" is the first, and this sort of deliberate manufacture of (bogus) severability between the two can't fail to be deliberate.

The conclusion is that if the holder of the "senior ecclesiastical post of this Church," whoever that is, is ambiguous, and if David Miscavige swears under oath that he is not the "ecclesiastical leader of the Church" but of the "Scientology religion," there obviously must be a reason for this ambiguity, and it is almost certainly an aspect of the Scientology cult's ongoing efforts to conceal criminal conduct behind the protections given to "religions."

ptsc

Go Back