Whatever. They are not now a 501(c)(3), according to the IRS. But
remember, I didn't object to their joining — ever. I just asked what
the standards were.
Cheryl B. Preston
Edwin M. Thomas
Professor of Law
J. Reuben Clark Law School
Brigham Young University
434 JRCB
Provo, UT 84602
(801) 422-2312
[log in to unmask]
>>> Robin Gross <[log in to unmask]> 10/14/2008 3:28 pm >>>
Cheryl,
Before you continue in your witch hunt against religions you don't
like as members of NCUC, please familiarize yourself with IRS non-
profit organization law.
EVERY 501(c)(3) public charity must fit under one of the categories
of section 509(a) and 170(b) by definition and it listed on the
organization's award letter because it is integral to the 501(c)(3)
status as a public charity. And "advance" rulings are for
organizations in their first 5 years of existence who have met the
test as a public charity.
I continue to be amazed at how you consistently demonstrate that you
have no idea what you are talking about as you attack attack attack.
Robin
On Oct 14, 2008, at 12:52 PM, Cheryl Preston wrote:
> And if you read the online IRS letter carefully, you would notice
> on the right hand that the entity was listed as a 509(a)(1) and a
> 170(b)(1)(A(vi) organization ONLY. The body, that does refer to 501
> (c)(3), was hooked to a top half that was part of an advanced
> ruling letter only, AND even that ruling expired in Dec. 2007.
> When I looked this up after the organization was admitted, I just
> had to chuckle at all the "perfectly obvious" errors. I would be
> more careful about what you are calling a scam.
>
> Cheryl B. Preston
> Edwin M. Thomas
> Professor of Law
> J. Reuben Clark Law School
> Brigham Young University
> 434 JRCB
> Provo, UT 84602
> (801) 422-2312
> [log in to unmask]
>
>>>> Robin Gross <[log in to unmask]> 10/14/2008 10:16 am >>>
> Cheryl,
>
> You need to get a grip. Your pal's "coming-soon" blog owned by a
> for-profit company is not an organization. Trying to complain
about
> others who are recognized 501(c)(3) organizations does not get you
> where you want to go.
>
> NCUC has lots of members who are not 501(c)(3) organizations - it is
> not the only way to be an non-commercial organization. But when the
> federal government has determined that an organization is non-
> commercial, that is pretty good evidence. Or, if any state has
> awarded an organization a nonprofit status, that is good evidence
> that the organization is indeed non-commercial.
>
> Neither is required, but either would be evidence that a neutral
body
> (the govt) has made a determination based on filings (financial
> disclosures, a board of directors, or an agent for service of
> process, etc.) that this isn't just a single person trying to scam
> the constituency.
>
> This isn't rock science and the bar is not high: you just have to
> actually be a non-commercial organization. Your friend was
unwilling
> to submit an iota of evidence that he was a noncommercial
> organization. So he can join as an individual. Or he can go to
the
> trouble of creating an organization and re-apply as an organization.
> A non-profit corporation can be created in a day in California by
> filing a $30 fee. Not rocket science - just a trail of
> accountability.
>
> The church whose membership you question has their 501(c)(3) award
> letter posted to the website. I'll leave your
Lois-Lerner-conspiracy-
> theory issues to you to solve.
>
> Robin
>
>
>
> On Oct 13, 2008, at 6:39 PM, Cheryl Preston wrote:
>
>> I might also note that, when I searched the IRS list of qualified
>> non-profits, Church of Reality (the addressee of the IRS letter on
>> the webpage), Church of the Real, and any other derivative of the
>> name (other than 3 other churches that are unrelated) does not show
>> up as a 501(c)(3) organization or any other kind of tax-exempt
>> organization. Further the employer identification number in the
>> letter pictured on the church webpage does not show up as belonging
>> to any kind of IRS qualified organization. (And as a side note, I
>> understand Lois Lerner wasn't made director of the IRS exempt
>> organizations division until Dec. 22, 2005, and the letter on the
>> webpage, signed "for" her in that capacity is stamped Oct. 20,
>> 2005.) Moreover, I couldn't find the Church of Reality on the
>> lists of California non-profits that I accessed. I didn't have
>> time for further tracing. But are you sure it is a 501(c)(3) or
>> current California nonprofit?
>>
>> Are IRS qualification and state registered non-profit the criteria
>> or is it non-religious right?
>>
>> Could you also clarify how you determine legitimacy for a non-US
>> non-profit?
>>
>>
>> Cheryl B. Preston
>> Edwin M. Thomas
>> Professor of Law
>> J. Reuben Clark Law School
>> Brigham Young University
>> 434 JRCB
>> Provo, UT 84602
>> (801) 422-2312
>> [log in to unmask]
>>
>>>>> Robin Gross <[log in to unmask]> 10/13/2008 4:01 pm >>>
>> Cheryl,
>>
>> Anyone who wants to join the constituency can do it as an
individual,
>> but you have to be a legitimate organization for membership as an
>> "organization".
>>
>> As I recall, there were a few basic things about your friend's blog
>> that made it obvious he was not a legitimate non-commercial
>> organization. These factors are not alone determinative: He never
>> set-up any non-profit corporation (or other legal entity) organized
>> by the laws of any state. There was no board of directors. The
>> website was registered to a for-profit corporation.
>>
>> On the other hand, the church (who's membership you disapprove of)
is
>> a recognized non-profit corporation recognized (for at least 5
years)
>> by the state of California and is an IRS-approved 501(c)(3)
not-for-
>> profit charity with a board of directors. It is an established
legal
>> entity that has been awarded federal tax-exempt status.
>>
>> Your pal's "coming soon-ish" blog did not meet objective criteria
>> that it was in fact an organization.
>>
>> No matter how you cut the mustard, you are going to have to
convince
>> the entire group to go along with your ideas if you wish them
adopted
>> as a group position.
>>
>> Robin
>>
>>
>>
>> On Oct 13, 2008, at 2:27 PM, Cheryl Preston wrote:
>>
>>> You said:
>>>
>>> "Some guy who runs a business and funds
>>> religious right groups threw up a web site on some free blog area,
>>> called it a "foundation" and claimed that it was a noncommercial
>>> org.
>>> There was no evidence that anyone but him was involved, there was
no
>>> evidence that this organization existed. We told him he could join
>>> as an
>>> individual, though, which he didn't bother to do. Rather
>>> obviously an
>>> attempt to stack the deck. That's why we need some kind of review
of
>>> membership eligibility."
>>>
>>> Please respond:
>>>
>>> Does being a CEO of a business preclude an organization of which
>>> one is director from eligibility?
>>> Exactly which "religious right groups" do you believe he "funds"?
>>> How do you define "religious right groups" anyway? Does that
>>> include BYU?
>>> Are "religious left groups" disapproved of as well?
>>> I asked earlier how you distinguished the Church that you admitted
>>> this summer, for whom the Internet is a sacred shrine. I received
>>> no answer. As I asked then, How many members does it have? Is it
>>> involved in any other activities?
>>> If Ralph "funds" varrious "religious right groups," would those
all
>>> be disqualified as well? If not, why is a foundation to which he
>>> contributes funds for support of families on the Internet
>>> disqualified?
>>> The director of this foundation could certainly have joined as an
>>> individual, but your response made it clear that your constituency
>>> was not unbiased. Rather than pay the $50 to join NCUC, I suppose
>>> he is waiting for the new structure and a new constituency.
>>> If what you want is evidence of how many or who all is involved in
>>> the foundation, why didn't you say so? He could send you a list.
>>> Or do you want a list of activities the foundation has sponsored?
>>> What makes something "rather obvious" to you is not set forth in
>>> the existing rules. As these questions illustrate, it is unclear,
>>> even from the above statement, what is the criteria after all.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Cheryl B. Preston
>>> Edwin M. Thomas
>>> Professor of Law
>>> J. Reuben Clark Law School
>>> Brigham Young University
>>> 424 JRCB
>>> Provo, UT 84602
>>> (801) 422-2312
>>> [log in to unmask]
>>>>>> Milton L Mueller <[log in to unmask]> 10/13/08 3:02 PM >>>
>>> Cheryl:
>>>
>>>> Do you presume that all members of the new constituencies must
also
>>> join
>>>> another organization, the NCSG or something else? The proposal
>>> states:
>>>> "Individuals and representatives of organizations join NCSG
>>>> directly."
>>>
>>> You join the NCSG first, directly, and form a constituency second.
>>> You
>>> cannot form a NCSG constituency without being a member of NCSG.
>>> That is
>>> clear I think from the proposal.
>>>
>>>> Who decides on elibility?
>>>
>>> The basic eligibility criteria for organizations are stated in the
>>> NCUC
>>> charter; the criteria for individuals are stated in the
application
>>> form
>>> for individuals on the www.ncdnhc.org web site. Currently those
>>> criteria
>>> are applied by the Executive Committee (not by me individually, as
>>> you
>>> wrongly supposed). This has been a somewhat slow process even with
>>> only
>>> 5 EC members, and Kim Heitman's concerns about scalability as we
>>> add new
>>> constituencies become even more pertinent here. I would suggest
>>> that the
>>> Chair make a decision, communicate it to the EC and if X number
>>> of EC
>>> members objects it can go to a vote, or an appeal to the whole
>>> membership, whatever.
>>>
>>>> Milton has turned down an organization
>>>> application to NCUC because the .org domain name was purchased by
a
>>>> corporation and, thus -- supposedly -- commercial, even though
the
>>>
>>> Whoa. The Executive Committee turned it down, not me. To be more
>>> precise, this application received NOT ONE vote from among the 6
>>> people
>>> involved. The reason is simple. Some guy who runs a business and
>>> funds
>>> religious right groups threw up a web site on some free blog area,
>>> called it a "foundation" and claimed that it was a noncommercial
>>> org.
>>> There was no evidence that anyone but him was involved, there was
no
>>> evidence that this organization existed. We told him he could join
>>> as an
>>> individual, though, which he didn't bother to do. Rather
>>> obviously an
>>> attempt to stack the deck. That's why we need some kind of review
of
>>> membership eligibility.
>>>
>>>> constituency itself, must be totally transparent, with clear
stated
>>>> rules, and then full discussion/explanation about the basis of
the
>>>> decision, and finally a method for appeal. The existing
>>>> criteria is
>>> not
>>>> sufficient.
>>>
>>> All of these things exist now. In any rational review and appeal
>>> process, that application will fail. It was a fake, pure and
simple.
>>>
>>>> Were you thinking that all membership voting would be NCSG-wide,
>>>> like
>>>> the current NCUC is?
>>>
>>> Yes.
>>>
>>>> If so, then the existing NCUC control group would
>>>> still control as NCUC as a constituency would claim more
membership
>>> and
>>>> more "large" organizations than new constituencies.
>>>
>>> NCUC dissolves as a constituency as this plan is implemented.
>>> There is
>>> no "control group."
>>>
>>> Here is the another way of stating what you seem to be complaining
>>> about: if you want to influence NCSG policy positions and elect
>>> officers, then you will have to be able to persuade more than 5
>>> people.
>>> Yep.
>>>
>>>> Can you tell me the
>>>> criteria for "large" and "small" organizations?
>>>
>>> It is in the current NCUC charter.
>>>
>>>> I assume for a new
>>>> constituency to make any difference in the existing stakeholder
>>>> representation, it would need to out-vote the NCUC constituency
>>>> (whatever the new version is called).
>>>
>>> There will be no NCUC constituency once this plan is enacted. But
>>> if you
>>> mean, again, that a new constituency will have to persuade other
>>> constituencies/ NCSG members to win elections, then yes,
absolutely.
>>> That is the way it should be. The mere act of forming a
constituency
>>> does not guarantee 5 people absolute power over a group of 50-100
>>> people, nor should it.
>>>
>>>> Thus, the way it reads to me, a constituency whose interest were
>>>> Internet safety, for instance, could have 5 very legitimate
>>>> members,
>>> but
>>>> unless all 5 are large organizations by the criteria, they will
be
>>>> out-voted every time -- in fact even if all 5 are large
>>>> organizations
>>>> they will be outvoted.
>>>
>>> They will be outvoted only if they cannot convince other people
>>> to go
>>> along with their views.
>>>
>>>> So, with cumulative voting (if that what you mean), it would take
>>>> perhaps 8 new constituencies of 5 members each (with
approximately
>>>> the
>>>> same mix of large and small organizations and individuals as in
the
>>>> existing NCUC group), to outvote the NCUC group.
>>>
>>> Again, there is no "NCUC group" in the new plan. Second, voting
>>> occurs
>>> only for NCSG officers and GNSO Council members. Whoever expects
>>> to be
>>> elected for those positions had better be supported by most of the
>>> NCSG
>>> people. Third, constituencies, no matter how small, can put
>>> people on
>>> Working Groups, which is where the policy "action" is in the new
>>> GNSO.
>>> And they can file their position papers along with all the others.
>>>
>>>> The proposal does say that each constituency does get a
>>>> representative
>>>> on the EC. Are you presuming that the EC of the NCSG would
>>>> function
>>> as
>>>> has the EC of the current NCUC, where they basically make all the
>>>> decisions without input from constituency membership by votes or
>>> review?
>>>
>>> The EC will have mostly administrative, not policy making powers.
>>> Whether it is administration or policy, however, it is not
>>> feasible to
>>> have every minor decision require a membership vote. We elect
>>> people to
>>> make these decisions, and if we don't like the decisions they
>>> make we
>>> throw them out of office next time. No one wants to be involved in
>>> every
>>> single act of the NCSG, and anyone insane enough to attempt it
will
>>> discover that no one participates in those votes and that they
will
>>> spend all of their time running such votes rather than doing the
>>> real
>>> work.
>>>
>>>> the votes of the EC would be balanced, one for each
>>>> constituency. Right?
>>>
>>> Right.
>>>
>>>> In which case, what is the point of the vote
>>>> differential for size of organization other than to elect the EC
>>>> representative within each constituency?
>>>
>>> The vote differential applies when we have NCSG-wide elections for
>>> Chair, and GNSO Council.
>>>
>>>> Why couldn't each constituency
>>>> decide how to allocate the votes within their own constituency,
in
>>> terms
>>>> of individuals and organizations?
>>>
>>> They can do that, when it comes to picking their own
>>> representative to
>>> the EC
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> IP JUSTICE
>> Robin Gross, Executive Director
>> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA
>> p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451
>> w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: [log in to unmask]
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> IP JUSTICE
> Robin Gross, Executive Director
> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA
> p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451
> w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: [log in to unmask]
>
>
>
IP JUSTICE
Robin Gross, Executive Director
1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA
p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451
w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: [log in to unmask]
|
