------------------------------------------------------------------- F.A.C.T.Net, Inc. (Fight Against Coercive Tactics Network, Incorporated) a non-profit computer bulletin board and electronic library 601 16th St. #C-217 Golden, Colorado 80401 USA BBS 303 530-1942 FAX 303 530-2950 Office 303 473-0111 This document is part of an electronic lending library and preservational electronic archive. F.A.C.T.Net does not sell documents, it only lends them according to the terms of your library cardholder agreement with F.A.C.T.Net, Inc. ------------------------------------------------------------------- >> And if he/they was/were convicted, what was the sentence? > The Church was ordered to pay back the money stolen to the victim, and > also pay some compensation to the state. > > Ah, so the "crime" was asking for a fixed donation for spiritual > betterment then? No, it was not. One verdict (reported on the Norwegian NTB wire service Jan 14. 1994) states that the Church practices is in breach of a number of applicable laws, including contract law, marketing law and price law. > Although, you didn't mention it, I think that the Norwegian Org did not > give a timely refund, and that was what the whole thing was about, > right? There has been cases in the past which has pivoted around the issue of a "timely refund", but the last (which a referred to in my posting) did not. > If so, then I can say you are correct in pointing this out, because > I am fully behind the "satisfaction guaranteed" refund policy of the > Church and been on finance lines at a Church of Scientology in the > past, and am fairly familiar with Church policy regarding this. The "satisfaction guaranteed" refund policy is a bad joke. In Norway, the Church _never_ pay up until you sue them (and sometimes not even then -- frequently they think they can wear the refundees down by getting them involved in costly litigation). >> If you read the paragraph you quote in the context of the rest of my >> message, I think that you'll find that what I'm saying is simply this: >> Once you've accepted that running scams is permissible, you've lost >> your innocence. It is wrong and unethical is to run scams. Period. >> Difficult concept to grasp for someone as well-trained in Scientology >> ethics as you are, I know -- but still, your failure to understand >> this small point was very uh um... interesting. > Must you start the insults again Gisle? You do realize that this is > where our communication breaks down, don't you? Yeah, I realize. Because every time I do this you can start whining about feeling insulted, which means that you can avoid responding to the issues. But that's OK. Most readers of this group have learned to spot that trick by now, and notice that you are not responding to the issues. >>> What do you think should be done with the money that a Church of >>> Scientology gets? >> Haven't the foggiest. Do you think that is an interesting topic? > Personally, I think it is a *very* interesting topic, yes. Fine, then you should pursue this *very* interesting topic with someone else in another thread. To me, raising that issue looked suspiciously like a pretty feeble attempt to divert the focus of the discussion in _this_ thread. >> I don't. I think the interesting topic is whether it is ethical >> or not to run scams to steal money from your parishioners -- not >> how you should spend the money once you've stolen them. > And I think an interesting topic is that a few months ago you called > the "Skeptic FAQ" a work of "propaganda." Your word for it. (Of course > this was before it became clear that a large portion of the anonymous > postings in it, were from you.) > > Do you consider it ethical to intentionally turn out propaganda? Ahhh... the old "diverting the focus of discussion" ploy -- again. I I think this one is even more pathetic than the "What do you think should be done with the money that a Church of Scientology gets?". But you get an 'A' for effort. And I'll answer that piece of flame-bait properly in another message. In this thread I really want to continue to pursue the issue concerning the CoS being convicted for running a scam. So let us focus on that again, shall we: Brian, 1) Why do the RTC still authorize the Norwegian Org to use its trademarks and servicemarks after several court sentences have clearly established that this Org's business practices is not according to Norwegian law? 2) Was Bent Croydon ever convicted in a court of law for the crimes the SoC alleges he committed while running his Mission? 3) I have already stated my hypothesis for why the RTC does not clean up its operation i Norway (I.e. that within the CoS it is apparently OK to steal as long as the RTC get its cut of the loot). Have you an alternative hypothesis to offer, or is this something you prefer not no speculate about? 4) Do you think it is ethical for the CoS, Norway to do conduct business in a manner that is in violation of Norwegian law? -- - gisle hannemyr (Norsk Regnesentral) X.400: gisle.hannemyr@nr.no I-net: gisle@ifi.uio.no, gisle@oslonett.no Now, as promised, let me answer your questions: > Which Norwegian laws, specifically, are those? And why does Norway > use "business practice laws" on the Church of Scientology? Do they > use "business practice laws" on other Church's? One of the major issues in one of the recent trials has been the "Purification Rundown". The court found overwhelming evidence that this process is medically unsound, based upon bogus scientific principles and even potentially dangerous to the clients. The court found that church is misrepresenting the PR in its advertising literature and is -- in effect -- selling a faulty product without telling the customer that it is broken. This is somewhat analogous to someone selling you a car which has a gas-tank that is so badly designed that it will blow up on impact. Selling products with this type of design problems is illegal in Norway, and the court found that the law protecting the consumers apply to "spiritual" merchandise as well as "physical". Other issues: * Multi level marketing/Pyramid Schemes (aka. "field representatives") is a business practice that is illegal in Norway * Grotesque overpricing (e.g. a handful of components, a Wheatstone bridge circuit and a pretty box being sold as an E-meter for 10 000 times the cost of manufacture) is also considered fraudulent. The reason business law apply in Norway is because the courts found that the Church of Scientology is running a business. In the US, the Church apparently get away with semantic games like "Fixed donations for spiritual betterment". In Norway, it wasn't difficult to establish in court that this the "fixed donations" was a price list that read just like any other catalogue of merchandise. As to your last question: In Norway, laws governing business practice apply to anyone running a business. Whether they elect to label themselves as "a church", "a charity", "a research foundation", "a political party", "a non-profit foundation" or "an educational institution" doesn't really matter. What matters is what you do, not what you call yourself, or whether you are also involved in _other_ endeavors that might be quite legitimate. So, in Norway, there is no problem recognizing the CoS both as "a church" and "as "a business". Nobody interferes with the spiritual side of its activities, but when money changes hands -- well, that's business. This does of course apply to any other organization, including other Churches. -- - gisle hannemyr (Norsk Regnesentral) X.400: gisle.hannemyr@nr.no I-net: gisle@ifi.uio.no, gisle@oslonett.no ================================================================= If this is a copyrighted work, you are acknowledging by receipt of this document from FACTNet that on the basis of reasonable investigation, you have not been to obtain a copy elsewhere at a fair price, and that you are and will abide by the following copyright warning. WARNING CONCERNING COPYRIGHT RESTRICTIONS: The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of photo copies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Under certain conditions specified by law, libraries and archives are authorized to furnish a photocopy or other reproduction. One of these specified conditions is that the photocopy or reproduction is not to be "used for any purpose other than private study, scholarship, or research." If a user makes a request for, or later uses, a photocopy or reproduction for purposes in excess of "fair use," that user may be liable for copyright infringement. FACTNet reserves the right to refuse to accept an order for copying or other duplication, or delivery of copied or duplicated material if, in its judgment, fulfillment of the order would involve violation of copyright law. ------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------- DOS FILENAME OF TEXT FILE: norway.txt DOS FILENAME OF IMAGE FILES: ADMINISTRATIVE CODE: SECURITY CODE: DISTRIBUTION CODE: NAME FOR BBS: SORT TO: CONTRIBUTOR: Jeff Jacobsen LOC. OF ORIG: NOTES: Two articles posted on the internet regarding illegal activity by leading Scientologists in Norway. For additional verification see image files contained in the file with same name and .ZIP extension. UPDATED ON: UPDATED BY: =================================================================