Self Explanatory

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Thomas H. Purvis,

Debra Conway has sent you this email from http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php.

Tom,

You wrote:

"In addition, Lancer was long ago provided with that information relative to CE399. (posted publically on that site) Just that I retained the rights and would not allow them to publish it for free (to me), while they made money off of it."

I'd like to know what you mean by "they made money off it"???

Debra Conway

==================================================================

In event that you sent me a check for being allowed to publish, in your magazine, that information relative to the alteration to the survey data as well as the Vehicle Speed Analysis, it was never received.

Exactly how much is it that you charge for one to receive the Lancer Publication?

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/en/doc/2003-1...tent_283949.htm

The sound stage was set up by JFK Lancer, a group that promotes research into conspiracy theories of the assassination.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

One has a moral obligation to take advantage of all suckers!

Attributed to WC Fields.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://culturatti.com/2008/02/16/wanna-kno...lled-jfk-honey/

I would like to add that the book being advertised on that site is being published by J.F.K. Lancer, one step away from self-publishing. The kind of editorial standards at the Lancer, as far as sourcing and establishing facts, will be interested in proving conspiracy.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sh.../etc/links.html

The JFK Lancer

A web site which is a resource for those who want to order assassination related documents and materials. It is a prominent publisher of assassination researcher's work.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Still upset that some of us are smart enough to insure that you are limited to a single/"one-time only" publishing of information, without any additional rights to reproduce and sell it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/501©

Lastly!

In event one is a true 501© Corporation/aka Non-Profit, it merely means that the Corporation is a "not for profit" organization.

Which by the way has no bearing on how much of it's received funds it can pay to the owners/founders of the Corporation and/or it's Officers and or employees. In either dividends and/or salaries, or loan repayments.

Exactly why is it that you think that owning a "Church" is such a good investment?

[Mike Williams]

Thomas H. Purvis,

Debra Conway has sent you this email from http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php.

Tom,

You wrote:

"In addition, Lancer was long ago provided with that information relative to CE399. (posted publically on that site) Just that I retained the rights and would not allow them to publish it for free (to me), while they made money off of it."

I'd like to know what you mean by "they made money off it"???

Debra Conway

==================================================================

In event that you sent me a check for being allowed to publish, in your magazine, that information relative to the alteration to the survey data as well as the Vehicle Speed Analysis, it was never received.

Exactly how much is it that you charge for one to receive the Lancer Publication?

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/en/doc/2003-1...tent_283949.htm

The sound stage was set up by JFK Lancer, a group that promotes research into conspiracy theories of the assassination.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

One has a moral obligation to take advantage of all suckers!

Attributed to WC Fields.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://culturatti.com/2008/02/16/wanna-kno...lled-jfk-honey/

I would like to add that the book being advertised on that site is being published by J.F.K. Lancer, one step away from self-publishing. The kind of editorial standards at the Lancer, as far as sourcing and establishing facts, will be interested in proving conspiracy.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sh.../etc/links.html

The JFK Lancer

A web site which is a resource for those who want to order assassination related documents and materials. It is a prominent publisher of assassination researcher's work.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Still upset that some of us are smart enough to insure that you are limited to a single/"one-time only" publishing of information, without any additional rights to reproduce and sell it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/501©

Lastly!

In event one is a true 501© Corporation/aka Non-Profit, it merely means that the Corporation is a "not for profit" organization.

Which by the way has no bearing on how much of it's received funds it can pay to the owners/founders of the Corporation and/or it's Officers and or employees. In either dividends and/or salaries, or loan repayments.

Exactly why is it that you think that owning a "Church" is such a good investment?

But what if one proclaimed to be a 501c , non-profit, and was found out to be otherwise? Now I bet that would be interesting to contributors and donors wouldn't ya think Tom?

How very interesting indeed that would be!

I can almost hear it now "Oh were not in it for the profit...were in it for the resources to provide material for researchers....."

Something like that??

[Pamela Brown]

It is my understanding that Lancer is a for-profit company.

[Duke Lane]

It really doesn't matter one way or the other. "Non-profit" does not mean that a company can't make a "profit," only that the money has to be spent in furtherance of the organization's goals or, what's not spent, is allocated for some future use, which use can be changed in the future. While it is true that a "surplus" - the term used by non-profit corporations for "profit" - can be used to pay officers' and directors' salaries, it can likewise be used to hire additional workers, etc., as long as it's "in furtherance of" the organization's goals. Salaries are reported in exactly the same way with exactly the same taxes, etc., accruing against them as a for-profit organization. Non-profits typically do not have shareholders, or if they do, the shares have no par value and in either case, nobody receives dividends arising from a surplus.

There are several types of 501.c non-profit organizations; not all are charities (specifically 501.c.3) or churches (501.c.1), and not all are tax-exempt and contributions to many of them (e.g., 501.c.8 fraternal organizations) are not tax-deductible, and in many cases are not fully tax-deductible (e.g., you pay to attend a concert at a church-sponsored function; the value of what you receive - entertainment - is not deductible).

So, whether Lancer is non-profit or for-profit matters little as long as /a/ their operation is legal under the tax code, and /b/ they are not claiming that money sent to them is (or even may be) tax-deductible. Es machts nichts.

[Pat Speer]

The idea that Deborah is making money off Lancer is probably a false one. I would suspect that, until the re-issue of Larry Hancock's book, Someone Would Have Talked, which sold fairly well, Lancer was in the red. Maybe it still is.

[David G. Healy]

The idea that Deborah is making money off Lancer is probably a false one. I would suspect that, until the re-issue of Larry Hancock's book, Someone Would Have Talked, which sold fairly well, Lancer was in the red. Maybe it still is.

THUD

[Pamela Brown]

So, whether Lancer is non-profit or for-profit matters little as long as /a/ their operation is legal under the tax code, and /b/ they are not claiming that money sent to them is (or even may be) tax-deductible. Es machts nichts.

The point that seemed to be being made was that Lancer shouldn't be making a profit. I think it is a for-profit corporation, which makes making a profit essential to what they do.

[Duke Lane]

So, whether Lancer is non-profit or for-profit matters little as long as /a/ their operation is legal under the tax code, and /b/ they are not claiming that money sent to them is (or even may be) tax-deductible. Es machts nichts.

The point that seemed to be being made was that Lancer shouldn't be making a profit. I think it is a for-profit corporation, which makes making a profit essential to what they do.

Are we destined to be at odds? I can think of no good reason why. You can apprise me otherwise privately if you wish.

Some people think that anything to do with this topic should be done purely from the goodness of their hearts. Authors, I suppose, should donate the proceeds from sales to ... somewhere, doesn't matter, so long as they don't keep it, I guess. If they can do this full-time and not take a penny for it, so much the better.

Making a profit is essential for any business, even a "non-profit" business which, when it spends more than it takes in, goes out of business. A non-profit cannot expand its services if it does not make more than it expends.

The term "profit" as relates to IRS regulations concerning for-profit and non-profit corporations deals strictly with how the money is accounted for after it's been made. I'm a director of three NPOs and I will tell you for a fact, all strive to make a "profit."

I personally hope that Debra and company are at least breaking even, and if they're making a living off of it, more power to them. Groceries aren't getting any cheaper, and last I knew, we all eat them.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

http://ecpa.cpa.state.tx.us/coa/servlet/cp...JFK%20Lancer%20

Taxable Entity Search Results--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 match found for the search string - "JFK Lancer"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Name: Taxpayer ID#: Zip:

JFK LANCER PRODUCTIONS & PUBLICATIONS, INC 17529066130 76092

=====================================================

http://ecpa.cpa.state.tx.us/coa/servlet/cp..._ID=17529066130

Franchise Tax Certification of Account Status

Entity Information: JFK LANCER PRODUCTIONS & PUBLICATIONS, INC

100 STONEWOOD CT

SOUTHLAKE, TX 76092-8588

Status: TEMPORARY GOOD STANDING through October 15, 2008

Registered Agent: DEBRA J CONWAY

100 STONEWOOD COURT

SOUTHLAKE, TX 76092

Registered Agent Resignation Date:

State of Formation:

File Number: 0159757300

SOS Registration Date: September 18, 2000

Taxpayer Number: 17529066130

=========================================================================

http://www.washingtondecoded.com/site/2008/06/simkin.html

It should also be noted that Hancock runs JFK Lancer, a profitable private organization/publisher focused on the JFK assassination. It published the Hancock book which Simkin cites and hosts an annual conference in Dallas on the Kennedy assassination, complete with tours, et al.

==========================================================================

[Thomas H. Purvis]

http://coverthistory.blogspot.com/2005_11_01_archive.html

The Louisiana Psychoanalytic Association

Thomas H. Purvis today posted this document along with this commentary:

The "Intelligence Agency" was nothing more than a "Front" which has at time becomes known in NO, among those aware of it, as the "Garrison Detective Agency".

As you can see, Garrison was smart enough to file the Corporation as a "Non-Profit" entity. Which thereafter eliminated the need for various State & Federal document submission.

As a separate "Corporation", Garrison was thereby personally protected by the laws which separate the Corporate entity from the personal entity.

And, although the Corporation may have received funds which derived from it's activities, Garrison was responsible only for filing documentation relative to salaries paid to it's employees.

Therefore, good ole Mr. Jack Martin/aka Suggs, could be paid a salary from the "Detective Agency" /Intelligence Agency activities, and all other funds received expended as "expenses" related to the "Non-Profit" status of the corportion.

In that regard, one might want to look at how much of the New Orleans Taxpayers monies/DA budget was expended into "Investigation". Also, this kept Martin/Suggs happily employed with more than adequate funds to keep him on the "happy" sideline, out out of the line of fire and away from "inquiring minds".

In that regard, it is also no coincidence, (some would obviously call it irrelevant) that prior to his employment with the "Garrison-Intelligence-Agency", Mr. Martin/aka Suggs was a part of the phony front organization "Louisiana-Psychoanalytic-Association".

It is also "possibly" irrelevant that the co-founder/registered agent with Martin in this venture was none other than Thomas Juse Baumler, father to the "Hon" Thomas J. Baumler, Jr of the Garrison-Intelligence-Agency.

================================================================================

And, one should not forget those "Dividends" to Stockholders.

As an "Inc.", somebody owns some stock!

[Duke Lane]

... And, one should not forget those "Dividends" to Stockholders. As an "Inc.", somebody owns some stock!

You are clearly out of your depth on this issue. It is not a fact there is stock owned by anybody simply by dint of incorporation. I have personally incorporated more than a dozen non-profit corporations, the articles thereof specifically stating that "there shall be no capital stock" in the corporation, ergo there cannot be stockholders. All but two are or were chapters of national non-profit organizations, and the form of the articles is that promulgated by the national body for use throughout the United States. It meets the approval of all 50 secretaries of state, and has for nearly 100 years.

A non-profit cannot, by definition, distribute dividends because dividends are a result of profit. It is perfectly legal for it to have greater income than expense - what is generally called "profit" - but it must provide for its use in some other manner than a distribution to any it may consider stockholders.

There is nothing illegal or even sinister about incorporating even a minor enterprise for any reason, and nothing underhanded about filing as a non-profit entity. "Non-profit" does not mean "charitable" as I have already noted - most trade associations are non-profit corporations - and creating a surplus ("profit") is necessary for both the survival and growth of the entity and the services it provides.

In Lancer's case, where it sponsors symposia at which someone might easily be injured, incorporation is an absolute for limiting one's personal liability. If one of us went to a "November in Dallas" convention, tripped and broke our neck (ending our ability to produce an income for our family for the next many years), I for one would not want to be worried about whether I'll get to continue to live in my home - or any home - due to any liability that may be adjudged my symposium might have. (Just because it happened at hotel doesn't mean only the hotel will be sued.)

All incorporation does is to establish a "legal being" - a corpus, or body - with the same standing as an individual. Only it can be sued to the limit of its ability to pay, the directors not being personally liable unless through a direct act in their official capacities as directors (e.g., company truck runs over someone crossing the street and kills them; directors aren't personally liable for damages unless they'd formulated a company policy that stated that company trucks shall not stop for pedestrians).

You're creating a tempest in a teapot.

Edited August 23, 2008 by Duke Lane

[Thomas H. Purvis]

... And, one should not forget those "Dividends" to Stockholders. As an "Inc.", somebody owns some stock!

You are clearly out of your depth on this issue. It is not a fact there is stock owned by anybody simply by dint of incorporation. I have personally incorporated more than a dozen non-profit corporations, the articles thereof specifically stating that "there shall be no capital stock" in the corporation, ergo there cannot be stockholders. All but two are or were chapters of national non-profit organizations, and the form of the articles is that promulgated by the national body for use throughout the United States. It meets the approval of all 50 secretaries of state, and has for nearly 100 years.

A non-profit cannot, by definition, distribute dividends because dividends are a result of profit. It is perfectly legal for it to have greater income than expense - what is generally called "profit" - but it must provide for its use in some other manner than a distribution to any it may consider stockholders.

There is nothing illegal or even sinister about incorporating even a minor enterprise for any reason, and nothing underhanded about filing as a non-profit entity. "Non-profit" does not mean "charitable" as I have already noted - most trade associations are non-profit corporations - and creating a surplus ("profit") is necessary for both the survival and growth of the entity and the services it provides.

In Lancer's case, where it sponsors symposia at which someone might easily be injured, incorporation is an absolute for limiting one's personal liability. If one of us went to a "November in Dallas" convention, tripped and broke our neck (ending our ability to produce an income for our family for the next many years), I for one would not want to be worried about whether I'll get to continue to live in my home - or any home - due to any liability that may be adjudged my symposium might have. (Just because it happened at hotel doesn't mean only the hotel will be sued.)

All incorporation does is to establish a "legal being" - a corpus, or body - with the same standing as an individual. Only it can be sued to the limit of its ability to pay, the directors not being personally liable unless through a direct act in their official capacities as directors (e.g., company truck runs over someone crossing the street and kills them; directors aren't personally liable for damages unless they'd formulated a company policy that stated that company trucks shall not stop for pedestrians).

You're creating a tempest in a teapot.

You're creating a tempest in a teapot.

No Duke!

Pointing out a few of the simple facts related to when someone "Incorporates", which by law is entirely different in each state.

Ever heard the expression "Deleware Corporation"?

In event that Lancer is a true "Not-for-Profit" organization then their Articles of Incorporation will so state, and they must be so recognized by the IRS.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/501©

Otherwise, they are merely another form of Corporation such as a "C" Corporation or an "S" Corporation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C_corporation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S_corporation

And, since "family" members appear to be involved, the liklihood is that Lancer is some form of "S" Corporation.

Must have only one class of stock.

Which can have either "ownership" stock or "dividend" stock.

Either way, the Corporation can continue to show a "paperwork" loss while passing income on down to the founders of the corporation.

In event that the Corporation wants to actually pay a salary to it's employee's (family members engaged in the business), then it may do so but it must comply with all IRS and other Federal laws in regards to withholdings from salary.

In event that the "S" corporation decides to reimburse it's founders in other means, this can be done through the payment of dividends on the Corporations stocks, or quite frequently it is made merely in the form of "Loan Repayment" to Stockholders in event that the Corporation was formed through the process of Loan repayment as relates to ownership stock as opposed to Dividend Stock.

Repayment of loans to the founders of the Corporation happens to be a primary means of writing off any "profits" which the Corporation may truly make.

In event that those who founded the corporation do not provide sufficient capital to actually place it into business, then they can "Loan" the corporation additional funds with the agreement that the Corporation repay the loan (with interest I might add) from any earnings which the Corporation may generate.

Therefore, as the founder of such an entity, the Corporation can pay it's founders a "loan repayment + loan interest" from it's earnings and still qualify for various advantages of tax law.

The Person in receipt of the repayment IS NOT receiving a salary on which taxes, etc; must be witheld by the Corporation and the reporting of any "dividends" paid is also avoided along with Corporate Meeting Records in which the recording of Dividend Payment must be voted on and fully approved.

The Corporation must however report to the IRS the loan "interest" which it paid to the individual.

These are merely a part of the reasons that so many of the "Farm" families throughout the US chose the "S" Corporation status.

As well as many others.

And yes, I concur with virtually all that you have to say in regards to the "Corporation Issue", and it would be foolish for Lancer to operate without the protection to the individual that this form of business enterprise offers.

Of course, the "LLC", which is a much newer form of enterprise, now offers much the same as did the "S" Corporation with it's own distinct advantages.

With all that stated!

Shall I now go into a long-winded explanation as to exactly why the small independent "Church Business" happens to be one of the biggest "Not-for-Profit" scams in the rural South?

[Duke Lane]

So your point is that while what they're doing is legal and above-board, you just don't like it? Or that it's incumbent upon people to do whatever generates the most paperwork, fees and taxes, and the least revenue?

I understand your point about "rural southern churches," but because some people take extraordinary advantage of the tax code does not mean that everyone who does what makes the most fiscal sense for themselves is a scam artist.

It matters not to me whether Lancer is a non-profit or for-profit corporation or of what stripe of the latter they may be. I can't imagine why it's important to anybody else unless they've been getting pressured for "tax-deductible donations," which I've never known Lancer to do (tho' any company or person can take donations!). Beyond that, who cares?

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Nope!

As with much of the boat on the facts of the assassination, you missed the boat on that one as well.

JFK Lancer was given a release to publish the information which was virtually identical to that given to Jerry Rose.

(The Lancer Release is in some box in the shed as it was given while I was in Salt Lake City, UT, and is thusly in some box in the shed).

To my knowledge, The Fourth Decade has fully honored this "One-Time" release for publication.

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...ancedResults.do

Kennedy Assassination Chronicles, Volume 7, Issue 3 pg 1

Found in: Kennedy Assassination Chronicles

multiple hits in this document

The Fourth Decade, Volume 3, Issue 1 pg 17

Found in: The Fourth Decade

Purvis, who has been corre- sponding with Robert West since 1991, the level of government deceit can now be understood. This is not the first time Mr. West and surveyor, Chester Breneman, have raised

Whereas:

As we still sell this magazine as a pdf file.

(Debra Conway)

Personally, I could care less as to exactly how much money Lancer does or does not make.

Merely that they do not have the legal right to continue to sell my "intellectual property" when it is protected under the Copyright Laws of the United States and they are in violation of the Agreement Release with which they were provided.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property

And one can rest assured that they are aware of this fact.

the pages containing Purvis' article will be deleted and no longer available.

Point of Law sufficiently made????

[Duke Lane]

So? Problem solved, nicht wahr?

Personally, I'm of a mind that - until and unless I publish something significant - whatever I write simply must carry copyright notice and be reprinted in its entirety. You can Google my name plus "Cowtown Connection" and you'll get about 10 hits in different locations for that one article. If Jerry Rose continued to sell back issues of The Third Decade, I'd have no problem with it. Since there's no financial loss to me due to its additional publication elsewhere in print, I likewise don't think I'd have a difficulty in it appearing in, say, Deep Politics Quarterly even without my advance permission (I might go nuts, however, if someone published my writings in a volume that they sold en masse, say like $5.00 apiece for Freeway Man on the grassy knoll ... like that's gonna happen!).

"Cowtown" was reproduced by someone and placed here on the forum before I was even a member. Now, a few more people have read it than had before. No problemo.

While I take your point (and I think the idea of charging for a PDF is more than a little ridiculous), I don't think it's anything worth fretting over much. As I said, you've accomplished your objective, end of story. Their corporate structure is of even less concern (and I have a copy of their articles of incorporation and annual filings right here in front of me), es machts nichts.

Such fights need not be publicly aired. They're nobody's business and most people don't care anyway.

Edited August 23, 2008 by Duke Lane