Existing Assemblies

[M2]

I post this at the request of another. Please comment.

I still think that, when Christians choose to meet together to serve the Lord from an honest desire to glorify Him, He will bless and provide for His people. The attitude of the people is paramount. I do not see how an association with someone like GG can change that.

On the other hand, I begin to see how some harmfull teaching may remain after the man leaves. I understand that you (plural) believe that it is impossible to distinguish between truth and error but I am not yet convinced that we must seek outside help (beside the books, tapes, and lectures we are using now, more than before).

Marcia

I would ask this person if they think the current leadership worthy of their trust and if so, why?If this person is a leader I would ask if they consider themselves worthy of trust and why...
Verne

Verne &/or anyone else,

I am assuming that they trust their leadership.

1. Can ex-assemblyites who choose to meet together to serve the Lord from an honest desire to glorify Him, not know the Lord's blessing and provision in their gathering?

2. Why do ex-assemblyites who choose to continue to meet together with an honest desire to glorify Him need to seek outside help, beside the books, tapes, and lectures they are using now?

Lord bless,
Marcia

[Oscar]

Brent,

You wrote,
"Actually, this is illegal.  I have studied this in depth, and one of the requirements for church record keeping is in order to demonstrate that funds were not mingled.  

If I have two businesses, both philanthropic in nature, and I solicit donations for the one--breast cancer research let's say---but use the money for the other----an animal rights organization, I am in trouble.  Big trouble.

The same kind of laws apply for the church.

Brent "

Remember, the assembly was never incorporated.  It really didn't exist legally.  It was like a group of friends getting together and pooling their money to buy hot dogs.

I used to wonder what would happen if I just grabbed the box, threw it into my car and drove off.

What could they charge me with?  I was a member of the group.  They had no documents that could prove that the money belonged to the leader(s) any more than anyone else.  After all, we all contributed.

Neither did they have any documents to show what the money was donated for.  It was "for the work here and abroad".  Well, I was a worker wasn't I?

It was fun to think about it at the time.

So, I don't think the laws you refer to really apply.

But, I'm no lawyer, and even they don't know what the laws mean sometimes, unless there are precedents set.

Thomas Maddux

[editor]

Brent,

You wrote,
"Actually, this is illegal.  I have studied this in depth, and one of the requirements for church record keeping is in order to demonstrate that funds were not mingled.  

If I have two businesses, both philanthropic in nature, and I solicit donations for the one--breast cancer research let's say---but use the money for the other----an animal rights organization, I am in trouble.  Big trouble.

The same kind of laws apply for the church.

Brent "

Remember, the assembly was never incorporated.  It really didn't exist legally.  It was like a group of friends getting together and pooling their money to buy hot dogs.

I used to wonder what would happen if I just grabbed the box, threw it into my car and drove off.

What could they charge me with?  I was a member of the group.  They had no documents that could prove that the money belonged to the leader(s) any more than anyone else.  After all, we all contributed.

Neither did they have any documents to show what the money was donated for.  It was "for the work here and abroad".  Well, I was a worker wasn't I?

It was fun to think about it at the time.

So, I don't think the laws you refer to really apply.

But, I'm no lawyer, and even they don't know what the laws mean sometimes, unless there are precedents set.

Thomas Maddux

There is precedent for what I am saying.  Maurice Johnson, who George calls a cultist, has a group remarkably similar to George's.  They were not a non-profit, all tithes were considered gifts, etc.  In the late 1960's, the IRS came after them.

It was a big deal, and the IRS used section 5013C, the part that applies to religious organizations, to claim that there was plenty of back tax owed.

The Johnsonites won the case, even though they refused to file 501C3 status.  The reason they won is because they were able to demonstrate, through accurate record keeping, that all the monies were spent in a manner befitting a church.  They were faithfully performing in exactly the same manner as a 501C3, albeit without the paperwork.

George has no records, and I have proof that funds were co-mingled.  Like Verne said, it is only a matter of time.  I'll search for the link on this case I refer to above.

A church doesn't have to register with the government, but they do have to act with integrity.

Otherwise, I will turn my Chiropractic office into a church.  I'll be the Lord's Servant, my patients will be the Lord's People, and I'll provide chiropractic care, while they provide gifts, in the form of money.  I will use them for the work, here and abroad, and I won't pay any taxes.  They are gifts, afterall.

Brent

[enchilada]

Isn't there such a thing as a "gift" tax?  If George has received a few million dollars in cash over the years as "gifts", then he should have been taxed for the gifts.  So far, I see gift-tax evasion and extortion in the posts below.  On the other hand, I remember him mentioning during a seminar several years ago how he said that he pays taxes, doesn't vote, and that he doesn't have his organization registered as a church because he wants it free from government regulations.  Given his history of lying, it seems that there may be a case against him, but an investigation involving the IRS would be the only way to find out.  If tax evasion got Capone busted, it could get George too.

[brian]

There is precedent for what I am saying.  Maurice Johnson, who George calls a cultist, has a group remarkably similar to George's.

http://www.bibletruths.org/

i believe this is their main website. spooky.

[editor]

There is precedent for what I am saying.  Maurice Johnson, who George calls a cultist, has a group remarkably similar to George's.

http://www.bibletruths.org/

i believe this is their main website. spooky.

Yes, it is spooky.  A branch of this group meets up here in SLO, and we were told, in no uncertain terms, that they were a cult.  Well, that may be so.  However, this cult has financial records, business meetings, and they do accept checks.  

Here is a little piece of the judgement they won against the IRS.

It is suggested by the Government that the church does not qualify as a beneficiary for deductible contributions because no showing has been made that in the event of its dissolution its assets would by operation of law be distributed solely for religious purposes. This suggestion is prompted by Section 1.501 [c] [3]-1 of the Income Tax Regulations -- 1954 Code, 26 C.F.R. § 1.501 [c] [3]-1, which establishes certain tests which an organization must meet to be certified as exempt from income taxation -- one of such tests being that upon dissolution its assets must be distributable solely for an exempt purpose, either by the terms of its articles or by operation of law. This regulation has no governing force in respect to the determination of the deductibility of plaintiffs' contributions for two reasons. It had not yet been promulgated at the time the contributions were made or the returns filed.2 By its terms it is applicable in determining the eligibility of an organization to be certified as tax-exempt under the provisions of Internal Revenue Code Section 501, not in determining whether the organization qualifies as a beneficiary for deductible contributions under Internal Revenue Code Section 170.

The Court recognizes, however, that the two Code sections are companion provisions in the sense that they both reflect a Congressional purpose to encourage the activities of the specified organizations by special tax benefits. Thus, to the extent that a regulation promulgated under Section 501 is designed to effectuate the common Congressional purpose, it may afford some general guidance in the proper interpretation of Section 170. The regulation cited by the Government is obviously intended as a safeguard against the possibility that funds accumulated by an organization by reason of its tax-exempt status might, in the event of its dissolution, be used for purposes other than those to which it was dedicated. By analogy, it would seem a reasonable interpretation of Section 170 that an organization should be organized and operated in such a manner as to provide some assurance that contributions made to further its purposes would not, in the event of its dissolution, be used for other purposes. But, in the present case, it would be purely academic for the Court to engage in an inquiry as to whether, in the event of the dissolution of the church association in question, the laws of all the states in which it operates would assure the distribution of its assets for religious purposes only. The evidence at the trial established that the church operates in such a manner that its income is expended almost upon receipt in order to carry on its activities, and that there is no substantial accumulation either in the form of savings or physical assets. It is evident that the contributions made by the plaintiffs have long since been spent in furtherance of the religious purposes of the church, and that there is no possibility of their application to other uses.

The Government also disputes the deductibility of plaintiffs' contributions to their church because the contributions were made by checks payable to the order of four of its church's ministers. The Government cites several cases in which bequests to members of religious orders were held to be non-deductible, even though the bequests inured to the benefit of the order.3 These cases are factually distinguishable because in each the Court found that the testator intended to make the bequest to the named individual. In the present case, it is clear from the evidence that plaintiffs did not intend to make contributions to the ministers, individually, but placed the funds in their hands, as agents, for the use of the church.

The Government's final argument is that plaintiffs' contributions were not deductible because they inured to the benefit of individuals. The individuals benefited were the church's recognized ministers, who employed a portion of the contributions given for the use of the church to pay their living expenses. Such use of the contributions does not constitute a departure from the statutory requirement that no part of the net profits of the organization shall inure to the benefit of any individual, for the sums expended to meet the living expenses of the ministers were no part of the net profits of the church. They were monies expended to meet legitimate expenses of the church in implementing its religious purposes. These expenses were of the same character as the salaries paid by any religious or charitable organization to its staff. The evidence was clear that the ministers devoted the major portion of their time to the work of the church and that the amount of church funds used to pay their modest living expenses was small in comparison to the extent of their services.

The Court concludes that the church for whose use plaintiffs' contributions were made met the statutory requirements for a beneficiary of deductible contributions, and that plaintiffs were entitled to deduct such contributions from gross income in computing their net taxable income for the years 1952, 1954, and 1955. judgment will enter for plaintiffs upon findings and conclusions to be submitted to the Rules.

there is much more that I weeded through.  These people are exactly like the Assemby, except that in their "cult" (George's term, not mine) the ministers accept checks, and there are business meetings, and financial records that were used in a court of law to demonstrate that they were above board.  Furthermore, a number of people were involved in the financial dealings of the church, not just one person.

George's goose is overcooked.  Anyone who can prove what they gave over the years, like records, tax-deductions, withdrawel patterns, etc.  should call the IRS.  All they need is a little more paperwork.

I have studied this section of the IRS code,  1.501 c 3, and there is no way the Assembly fits the law.

Brent

[Arthur]

I used to wonder what would happen if I just grabbed the box, threw it into my car and drove off.

What could they charge me with?  I was a member of the group.  They had no documents that could prove that the money belonged to the leader(s) any more than anyone else.  After all, we all contributed.

Now that explains why there was a lock on it.  And why two brothers had to watch it at all times.  Oh, but maybe that was to protect the building from thugs.

[Arthur]

Remember, the assembly was never incorporated.  It really didn't exist legally.  It was like a group of friends getting together and pooling their money to buy hot dogs.

There is precedent for what I am saying...
The Johnsonites won the case, even though they refused to file 501C3 status.  The reason they won is because they were able to demonstrate, through accurate record keeping, that all the monies were spent in a manner befitting a church.  They were faithfully performing in exactly the same manner as a 501C3, albeit without the paperwork.

Let me see if I understand this.  Brent, you are saying that the fact that we all were acting like a church and that we all understood that we were not "pooling our money together" to buy something, rather we were giving our money to church ministers ("The Lord's servants")  to carry on church business, regardless of the fact that this church was not incorporated, is cause enough to prosecute George?

The IRS prosecute people for income tax evasion, right?  Could it be proved that what was given to George was income--"income" as defined by the IRS?  

Or was it, as Tom argues, just a matter of a bunch of adults using their money however they wanted to--no documents signed, no legal entity, no records, just money spent at our discretion.

I lean towards the notion that it is income because the thing is, money was not just spent for something willy nilly.  Money was given directly to George.  And that's income. Aside from direct personal gifts, let's consider the money in the box.  
We gave it to "the church" to run church business ("the work of the Lord here and abroad").  We gave it with the understanding (an oral agreement reaffirmed every week for years) that the leading brothers, and ultimately George, were using the money for church business.  If it wasn't used for church business then that is fraud, isn't it?  And if we can apply the precedent set by the Johnsonites, it can be considered fraud even if the church is not officially registered.  Also, the money that George recieved, if not properly recorded as being used for church business is income.  

I dunno, my take on it.  Who's a lawyer?  Maybe we can get Bob Anderson to wiegh in on this, what do you think?  Oh but I think he'd probably want to explain what exactly went on in David's court case.  

Arthur

[mithrandir]

Now that explains why there was a lock on it.  And why two brothers had to watch it at all times.  Oh, but maybe that was to protect the building from thugs.

No, actually the people on building watch were there to keep the building from being stolen.  

I actually have a more serious question.  When the military performs air strikes, they have a period of "battle damage assessment" afterward.  I know that a number of you have been busy sending e-mails and letters and making phone calls to expose the activities of existing assemblies.  What results have you had?  And is there any fresh news on the status of existing assemblies?

mithrandir

[Joe Sperling]

Someone taking the "Lord's Treasury"!! Now that would make a great addition to the other clips I have in my tape: "Assembly Bloopers, Blunders and Practical Jokes". I have a short clip where a brother calls out hymn #72, but everyone starts to sing hymn #71 in error!  Hilarious!!! On another clip George reaches for the water inside the podium expecting it to be luke warm as he requires, but someone has put ice in it!!! Fall on the floor funny!!

In another clip someone distracts Bob Ford while I replace all of the books on the book table with Puritan Classics. George comes walking by and the redness in his face seems to burn right through the screen as he screams to high heaven!!  It's a kneeslapper in the extreme!!!

In another clip 4 leading brothers circle another brother and rail on him in full view of several others. The brother begins to shake and cry---but here's where the real humor comes in---they are accusing and yelling at the wrong brother!! He had nothing to do with what they are angry about. When they realize their error the laughing becomes infectious, and they tell the brother to just forget about the whole thing. It's laugh out loud funny!!!

Other clips include: "Sister without head-covering told to leave"(a belly-acher), "Brother in Jeans"(watch the facial reactions of Assembly goers as they roll their eyes and make faces, and talk behind the back of a  brother who has come to worship in jeans!!!) rip-roaring funny!!!  "Rejoicing Brother!"---on this clip watch several brothers and sisters as they are asked how they are doing. They smile widely and say "Rejoicing brother!!" but as the one asking  them starts to turn away their wide smiles return to straight faces in a matter of a second or two!! It's a howler!!!
"Stewardships"---on this bit of hilarious tape see some brothers cheat on their stewardships in order to make it on time to one event or another--one brother mops the dust under a rug and looks both ways before grabbing his books and heading out to school!!! It's a guarnateed gut-buster!!!

"All Night of Prayer"---these clips are guaranteed to leave you rolling on the floor. See brothers and sisters nod off and snore. See another sister's irritation grow and grow as a brother beside her can't stop sniffling until she angrily forces a kleenex into his face!!!   ha ha ha!!!!

Need I say more?? Buy a copy today. Just $19.99 + shipping and handling. With your order receive a beautiful lace doily that says "I endured the Assembly and all I got was this lousy head-covering". Order today!!!

[M2]

I used to wonder what would happen if I just grabbed the box, threw it into my car and drove off.

What could they charge me with?  I was a member of the group.  They had no documents that could prove that the money belonged to the leader(s) any more than anyone else.  After all, we all contributed.

Now that explains why there was a lock on it.  And why two brothers had to watch it at all times.  Oh, but maybe that was to protect the building from thugs.

We did have an incident in Ottawa about 20 years ago, when someone entered the home where we met and took off with the box. Some of the brothers were alerted to it and there was a high speed foot chase down the street. The brothers triumphed, and we had something to talk and laugh about for a few weeks.
I do not know whether or not it was Tom M since I have never met him.

Marcia

[M2]

I actually have a more serious question.  When the military performs air strikes, they have a period of "battle damage assessment" afterward.  I know that a number of you have been busy sending e-mails and letters and making phone calls to expose the activities of existing assemblies.  What results have you had?  And is there any fresh news on the status of existing assemblies?

mithrandir

What's the news about the concert in the dark?

Marcia

[Oscar]

Brent,

You are making a lot of sense.

Thomas Maddux

[Uh Oh]

I actually have a more serious question.  When the military performs air strikes, they have a period of "battle damage assessment" afterward.  I know that a number of you have been busy sending e-mails and letters and making phone calls to expose the activities of existing assemblies.  What results have you had?  And is there any fresh news on the status of existing assemblies?

mithrandir

Interestingly enough, I went to a freshmen high school football game yesterday.  I had been to many games there before, but never on their new field. I was sitting there watching the game and shortly realized that across their new field was the old Omaha assembly building.

Many of you who have been to Omaha probably remember the big field behind the Omaha assembly building.  The high school apparently bought that land and have now fenced it all in.  For all I know, they could have done this any time in the last five or six years but it was the first time I saw it.

Some relatives I was watching the game with were shocked, but hardly suprised, to learn of the assemblys demise.

Anyway, from what I understand, this high school has already or is in the process of buying the old assembly building.  This is the information I recieved from my cousin who works at Creighton Prep, which is the high school I have been refering to.

[d3z]

Now that explains why there was a lock on it.  And why two brothers had to watch it at all times.  Oh, but maybe that was to protect the building from thugs.

A while back, I was talking to one of the leading brothers after the afternoon meeting.  I mentioned to him that the lock on the box was completely pointless.  I then reached down, fiddled with it for about 10 seconds, opened it, and handed it to him.

It is amazing how many different kinds of worthless locks you can buy.  Most locks for small things (like used on the boxes) can be opened by feel in a few seconds.

He told another brother that they needed to replace the lock, but it never happened.