New US Government Petition re: Cults and Tax Exemptions

by mind blown 58 Replies latest watchtower scandals

mind blown

I would think just as the case with Steven Unthank, though charges were not brough against the WTS, us emailing many of those officials as well as anythings else that was done, without question brought even more attention to religion and sexual abuse within. Because of this the UK is in the begining stages of reform.
Band on the Run

What is the goal of the petition? Personal letters are more effective. Signing a petition is too easy. It shows minimal effort and interest. Unconst'l is unconst'l.
ABibleStudent

Tha nks a million to the 84 people , who have signed the White House petition at http://wh.gov/Er4 !!

Unfortunately there are only 13 days left for 24,916 Americans to sign the petition before it will expire. Does anyone have ideas about how to inspire Americans to sign this petition?

I realize that this petition does not have the same emotional and political appeal to politicians as same-sex marriage. I do feel that protecting Americans from dangerous cults is a more important issue than same-sex marriage, because same-sex marriages do not victimize anyone but dangerous cults do!!

Currently, I am working on a Facebook page to promote the current White House petition as well as any follow on petition. Please visit http://www.facebook.com/pages/Protecting-Americans-from-Dangerous-Cults/264002310365016 . Does anyone have comments to improve this Facebook page, as well as, Facebook members liking it?

Peace be with you and everyone, who you love,
Robert
ABibleStudent
Band on the Run - What is the goal of the petition? Personal letters are more effective. Signing a petition is too easy. It shows minimal effort and interest. Unconst'l is unconst'l.
Hi Band on the Run, Have you read all my posts in the following threads, which you have posted on:
Because of your last sentence in your last post (see bolded words in quote box), I feel that you do not really want to know my goal for this petition, nor how many politicians and government officials that I have already mailed letters to and sent emails to, also. The answers are in the aforementioned threads.
In the three threads that promote the White House petition, you have not substantiated you opinion by quoting, citing, and providing links from/to any Supreme Court cases or quoting, citing, and providing links from/to any respected legal journals. I have cited and provided links to Supreme Court cases and IRS publications to prove my point to which you express your opinion that the cases do not prove that any law(s) inspired by this petition would be held Constitutional. You and I are not Supreme Court Justices nor high ranking government officials, so your opinion on this subject has the same weight as mine. Even Supreme Court Justices disagree about what is constitutional or not: just read the cases that I have cited by clicking on the provided links.
Peace be with you and everyone, who you love,
Robert
Band on the Run

Robert lives in a fantasy land. The WT coerces no one in the legal sense of the word. Coercion would be force. There are countries in this world where freedom of religion does NOT exist. This petition is a travesty for all the activits in prison or otherwise persecuted for religous beliefs.
This is some world where one pulls legal precedent out of one's hat. Stick your hand out and see which way the wind blows.
Targeting any religion is unconst'l! If the Witnesses break criminal laws and do coerce, there are criminal statutes in every state and territory to deal with the criminality.
Band on the Run

Robert lives in a fantasy land. The WT coerces no one in the legal sense of the word. Coercion would be force. There are countries in this world where freedom of religion does NOT exist. This petition is a travesty for all the activits in prison or otherwise persecuted for religous beliefs.
This is some world where one pulls legal precedent out of one's hat. Stick your hand out and see which way the wind blows.
Targeting any religion is unconst'l! If the Witnesses break criminal laws and do coerce, there are criminal statutes in every state and territory to deal with the criminality.
ABibleStudent

Band on the Run - Robert lives in a fantasy land. The WT coerces no one in the legal sense of the word. Coercion would be force. There are countries in this world where freedom of religion does NOT exist. This petition is a travesty for all the activits in prison or otherwise persecuted for religous beliefs.
This is some world where one pulls legal precedent out of one's hat. Stick your hand out and see which way the wind blows.
Targeting any religion is unconst'l! If the Witnesses break criminal laws and do coerce, there are criminal statutes in every state and territory to deal with the criminality.
Hi Band on the Run, Are you feeling ok? I don't want you to feel any more hurt, but I don't like you misleading readers about the merits of the White House petition either. My latter feelings trump my feelings about you feeling hurt.
Please read a definition of coercion below from a website that promotes itself as a legal definition website. The WTBTS promotes coercion by promoting to JWs that they must shun unrepentant, rebellious JWs or former JWs, as if they are dead, in their publications and that any JW who publically disagrees with the WTBTS’s doctrines and leaders is behaving rebelliously. I may not be using coercion as a lawyer would in court, but it is so close I wonder why you disagree with me that the WTBTS promotes coercion of JWs. I bolded the words in the definition that seemed most relevant.
http://definitions.uslegal.com/c/coercion/
Coercion - Coercion generally means to impose one's will on another by means of force or threats. Coercion may be accomplished through physical or psychological means. It may occur in a variety of contexts, such as unfair trade practices, which prohibits coercion to sell insurance in most states.
Definitions vary by state and federal laws. For example, one state defines coercion as a crime when a person compels or induces a person to engage in conduct which the latter has a legal right to abstain from engaging in, or to abstain from engaging in conduct in which he has a legal right to engage, by means of instilling in him a fear that, if the demand is not complied with, the actor or another will cause physical injury to a person or cause damage to property.
Peace be with you and everyone, who you love,
Robert
Dogpatch

All non-profits, with the exception of churches and religions, must spend hundreds if not thousands of dollars a year accounting the the government (U.S.). Believe me, I took my first class on forms 990-199 for Calif. years ago because my tax man (who is supposed to know non-profits) messed it up. And chanrged me $500. After the class, I did all my own returns and never got any notices from the IRS. For the next few years I did my own, but the formd got more complicate as time went on, and I hired a CPA to do them. Even HE made mistakes! The codes are changing every year, but not for religions.
Few religions, except for the Catholic Church, reach out to non-members like Jesus did. They become corporations, and corporations will fight and claw and lie to survive. But, at least in Calif., they are weeding out phony non-profits. It is harder than ever to navigate the forms and account for every last dollar you spend. Much harder than a for-profit organization in most cases.
Churches? Just look at what Scientology gets away with. Why? Some consider it blackmail.
But why are RELIGIONS exempt from form 990s? Because of the non-willingness of the govt. to touch them (political reasons, mostly). All you have to do is petition that religions/churches have to abide by the same law as other non-profits. Believe me, it would shut down most of them!
I have, in the last 30 years, seen millions of dollars bilked out of churches because the tax/accounting person was crooked and took MILLIONS over a period of years on the side. They get mentioned in the newspapers. But often the churches are reluctant to prosecute them. (A load of reasons why.)
Believe me, it's not educational non-profits, especially in Cali, but the churches, who can do damn well anything they please.
"Yes, I think I want a new yacht so I can visit Tuvalu and start a new church." RIGHT.
I come from a background of a seed/church planting megachurch (3000 members) that is legit (Hope Chapel... technically a Foursquare Church). They have started dozens of churches. Years ago a female accountant had been caught bilking them out of like a million bucks, maybe a little less. NO ONE KNEW.
Why?
No accountability to others. That's why I post my 990s on my site and on GreatNonProfits.org as well (actually THEY get them from the govt. and then make YOU upload them, too!) It's unfair, but a necessary evil. You miss reporting for three years in a row, you lost your exemption and must refile.
ALWAYS, before you donate to a non-profit, EVEN ONE YOU KNOW WELL, check out their status with the IRS. Many have been removed recently, some whom you are familiar with, and they are doing great harm to their own selves, let alone others. If they lose their tax status, and you have donated $10,000 to them over 2-3 years, you will have to pay taxes on that donation. You have just been RIPPED OFF.
It has to stop... but I doubt it will happen soon. We are not Europe, who is a little more jaded towards phony religions.
Randy
Band on the Run

I cited a slew of U S Supreme Court cases, provided historical analysis, philosophical overtones from the European experience, and current trends by the Supreme Court. My recitation of cases, such as Lemon/Agostini, Hein v. Freedom From Religion, McCreary and Van Orden were scoffed at by you. I was severely ridiculed for listing them b/c you cannot refute my points. To be accurate, they are not points but well-estabished law.
See any American lawyer for a consultation and you will hear what I wrote. I dare you.
My expertise was mocked. YOu have no legal training and misread cases. I have repeated that my perception of the contours of the Establishment Clause was mistaken. I only learned what I did by using it as subject for a writing sample. I chose E C law b/c it is so complicated at the fringes. The core is easy. You are very mistaken factually. Rather than address my concerns for a single second, you chose to attack me b/c I am a lawyer. Shades of the Wt and dumbing down.
I can understand why you believe the way you do. Civics instruction in this country is very bad. Reread the threads and attack my content. You would rather attack me. I studied accounting in law school for one course. The accounting dimensions and an overreaching government governed by mob rule would ruin the United States of America. You persist in your wrong views. I don't know how you passed a single history course in school. Every Supreme Court justices agrees with my statements. Even Scalia and Thomas. Can't you admit that you have zero expertise in law or accounting? People share your sentiments that the JWs are a cult. You have no power to ban them on behalf of all Americans.
Again, for the n th time, any religion that breaks a criminal law of universal applicability with no legislative intent to target a particular religion, can be prosecuted. I even reported cases to back up this assertion.
I have vast cases, law review articles, Supreme Court justices, the very latest EC cases to back up my argument. The law is different from what you thought. This is no evil or even a judgment on you. I cannot do accounting, brain surgery, mountain climbing, the list is endless. No one can know everything today.
ABibleStudent

Band on the Run - I cited a slew of U S Supreme Court cases, provided historical analysis, philosophical overtones from the European experience, and current trends by the Supreme Court. My recitation of cases, such as Lemon/Agostini, Hein v. Freedom From Religion, McCreary and Van Orden were scoffed at by you. I was severely ridiculed for listing them b/c you cannot refute my points. To be accurate, they are not points but well-estabished law.
See any American lawyer for a consultation and you will hear what I wrote. I dare you.
Hi Band on the Run, I am sorry that you are not feeling well in the thread that you started: http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/jw/friends/225721/1/Horrid-Time-for-Me. I will try to be more tolerant of your posts, but I still disagree with your opinion.
Please provide additional information about the cases that you cited. I searched for the cases that are bolded in the above quote on http://lp.findlaw.com/ . I could only find information for Hein v. Freedom From Religion. Is HEIN, DIRECTOR, WHITE HOUSE OFFICE OF FAITH-BASED AND COMMUNITY INITIATIVES, et al. v. FREEDOM FROM RELIGION FOUNDATION, INC., et al. the case that you are refering to?
Since Justice Souter, Justice Stevens, Justice Ginsburg, and Justice Breyer dissented against the majority of the Supreme Court Justices in Hein et al versus Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc., et al., doesn’t that prove that “any American lawyer” will not agree with your opinion about the Constitutionality of a law inspired by the White House petition that I am promoting? Also, I do not see the connection that you see with Hein versus Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc., et al and the White House petition that I am promoting.
The White House petition asks the President to support revising the USC Title 26 § 501 by adding requirements for all tax exempt organizations. The President can ask Congress to revise USC Title 26 § 501. Congress will need to create bills to modify USC Title 26 § 501 and pass legislation before the President can sign the passed legislation to create a law. Since the Supreme Court narrowly construes interpretation of the 1 st Amendment, how is the White House petition related to Hein versus Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc.?
In Hein versus Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc., the President, by executive orders, created a White House office and several centers within federal agencies to ensure that faith-based community groups are eligible to compete for federal financial support. Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc. represented some taxpayers that felt that funding through general Executive Branch appropriations was a violation of the Establishment Clause of the 1 st Amendment. Please read the Supreme Court Opinion in the provided link to understand the thinking of the Justices.
Peace be with you and everyone, who you love,
Robert

New US Government Petition re: Cults and Tax Exemptions

Share this