Taps = Fraud?!

[Miss Whiplash]

He has rallied the TAPS hags into action, that's for sure.

When I posted the link to Remie's story all the info had been blacked out. I can see where someone would be upset, but she did correct the error. Somehow, Jason's retaliatory strategy is very childish. Messages on the TAPS boards are calling for people to hack Remie's site and post obscene Photoshopped pictures. That's not very adult.

 

[CLD]

The aspect of this that I find utterly ridiculous is that Remie's article was published on her own site, SAPS, a low-traffic website with comparatively small visibility. TAPS could have simply clarified that their claims of being a non-profit organization were in error (which they did), taken steps to correct any website text that said "non-profit" (which they did), and left the issue to die an obscure death. Instead, TAPS head honcho Jason Hawes immediately posted a histrionic public rant entitled "The Attack On TAPS!!!" in which he played the weeping, hand-wringing victim, blaming Remie for (somehow) endagering the lives of his young children and hinting that TAPS numerous (undocumented) charitable activities would suffer untold damage. And for good measure, he posted RemieV's email addresses and urged fans to vent their anger on her. (The fans promptly obeyed)

 

[Jon the Geek]

Boy, Jason wasted no time putting htat scathing letter on his myspace page. He is sure painting himself and TAPS as victims here. And of course all the faithful are flocking to his defense.
The stalker thing is disturbing, tho. I can see why he is upset about his address being shown.

The screenshots of his public WHOIS info were up for less than 24 hours, and removed as soon as Remie woke up and read the email pointing out that his WHOIS contained a private address, not the logical business address that she expected. But, of course, that's the thing she seems to be attacked about.

Sorry, that whole WHOIS thing is driving me nuts. There was no malice, and it was public information... and THAT'S what people are calling her a rule 8 for??

 

[Miss Whiplash]

Jason seems to be playing on the ignorance of his fans. And that's not really hard to do. He has succeeded in misdirecting people from the point of the article.

It has not been too long ago that Jason himself asked fans to post the private info of an individual to his boards solely for harassment - or so the story goes.

 

[tkingdoll]

This is the US though.

Forming NPs must be done at the state level. I'm sure that's a bit different than in the UK.

And, yes, in the US, States will go after improperly formed Non Profits. Every state's Secretary of State office governs the formation on Corporations, Non Profits, LLCs, LLPs, and so on. Taxation is levied at both the state and federal level. That's what I've been saying in all my posts. This information is public record. People are free to question the Secretary of State's office to see if a NP is legitimate before donating. Calling yourself a NP and not filing this paper work is illegal. People who find companies will questionable NP status can most certainly call the state's Secretary of State office to verify the information. If they are not registered, a complaint may be filed.

As for libel, TAPS has already admitted they did not register as a Non-Profit.

Non-profit and not-for-profit are two different things in the UK, too. Almost identical to the US model, in fact, but on a national level.

Regarding the libel, I meant your implication that TAPS have stolen money (by comparing it to purse-snatching).

However, they are showing themselves up with their current activity. Whilst it's true that anyone who is attacked will likely respond in kind, the malicious nature of their campaign against Remie shows their true colours.

Sadly, that is the price of campaigning against believer groups. Randi gets hate mail and death threats up the wazoo. There's little that can be done unfortunately.

Presumably, however, these fans who are defending Jason and attacking Remie are the same fanbase who donated in the first place...? Which brings us back to my point about not representing people who don't want to be represented.

Unless there's another motive for the expose?

 

[Miss Whiplash]

Non-profit and not-for-profit are two different things in the UK, too. Almost identical to the US model, in fact, but on a national level.

Regarding the libel, I meant your implication that TAPS have stolen money (by comparing it to purse-snatching).

However, they are showing themselves up with their current activity. Whilst it's true that anyone who is attacked will likely respond in kind, the malicious nature of their campaign against Remie shows their true colours.

Sadly, that is the price of campaigning against believer groups. Randi gets hate mail and death threats up the wazoo. There's little that can be done unfortunately.

Presumably, however, these fans who are defending Jason and attacking Remie are the same fanbase who donated in the first place...? Which brings us back to my point about not representing people who don't want to be represented.

Unless there's another motive for the expose?

I wasn't making a comparison to purse snatching and TAPS. I was making a comparison of turning a blind eye to illegal activity. You are jumping to conclusions just a tad here.

Though similar, you cannot judge all corporate statutes in the US by those in the UK. They vary greatly. Again I will state, I worked for the Corporations Division of the Secretary of State. I do still know the statues by heart. You cannot do business as a NP without first organizing as an NP. Where did you get the Not-For-Profit from? TAPS didn't organized under that either.

Sorry, but I'm not that suspicious of Remie's motives as you are. Not to drag RS into this, but do you feel the same way about stopping Sylvia Browne? People are not asking for representation by skeptics either and many do not want representation - they still believe in her.

 

[tkingdoll]

I wasn't making a comparison to purse snatching and TAPS. I was making a comparison of turning a blind eye to illegal activity. You are jumping to conclusions just a tad here.

Though similar, you cannot judge all corporate statutes in the US by those in the UK. They vary greatly. Again I will state, I worked for the Corporations Division of the Secretary of State. I do still know the statues by heart. You cannot do business as a NP without first organizing as an NP. Where did you get the Not-For-Profit from? TAPS didn't organized under that either.

Sorry, but I'm not that suspicious of Remie's motives as you are. Not to drag RS into this, but do you feel the same way about stopping Sylvia Browne? People are not asking for representation by skeptics either and many do not want representation - they still believe in her.

The not-for-profit thing was brought up several posts ago, several times, as it seems that that is what TAPS actually meant when they used 'non-profit'. And I'm not judging any corporate statutes by any UK standard, I'm simply pointing out that TAPS would be in the same trouble in the UK if they made the same claim there.

It read to me like you compared TAPS' activities to purse-snatching, and I was kind enough to point out that that could be misconstrued as libelous.

I have no idea what Remie's motives are, as they aren't stated in the article, but as this has not ended at "they made a mistake, I pointed it out, they've taken action to remedy it so that's victory for SAPS" then I think it's perfectly fair to ask what the actual objective for continuing with this is. That's in no way being "suspicious" of Remie's motives, rather it's an attempt to find out what the desired end result is. The closure of TAPS? Their prosecution? Arrest? Refunds for all donors? What, exactly, is the desired outcome of the campaign?

I cannot, as a skeptic, in all conscience sit back and not appraise things with a critical thinking mindset, regardless of who the author is. And (along with Beady, it appears), I just don't find much substance here. I'm sorry that's the case but I'm not going to let my acquaintance with Remie bias my opinions about the article or the information within it. I'm sure she wouldn't want that anyway. I would do no less with anyone else, including Randi (and in fact did exactly that in a recent thread about plagiarism). It looks to me like TAPS got caught in an error, have taken steps to amend it, and that's the end of it.

I don't see what RL has to do with this, but I will answer your question anyway. I find Robert's evidence very compelling and, more importantly, the scale of the project he is taking. He has many testimonies from people whose lives have been damaged by Sylvia, for example.

ETA: I should add that if Rob's efforts resulted in Sylvia ceasing to do what she is doing (as objected to by him) then I'm sure he'd be the first to call that a success. TAPS has ceased to do what SAPS brought to our attention, and that is a real victory for Remie. Rob would say "Sylvia is taking money people for psychic readings, and she should stop". Remie has said "TAPS is claiming NPO, and they should stop"...and they have. So I guess what I'd really like clarification on is why the campaign continues, unless there is a wider objective? Is Remie trying to get TAPS closed down like Rob is trying to get Sylvia closed down? It's not a trick question, it's a perfectly fair objective if TAPS is causing harm (like I say, I only know what I read in the article so have no idea if they're causing harm or not).

 

[Miss Whiplash]

I'm not letting my acquaintances with Remie bias my opinion. If anything my past job in Corporations is what I'm basing my conclusion.

I'll say it again:

A business entity cannot conduct business as a Non-Profit unless they organize as a Non-Profit.

A business entity who does is breaking the law.

- or look at it this way

Many people say they are Non-Profit, have not organized as a Non-Profit, take donations and some of the pocket the money.

Many people say they are Non-Profit, have not organized as a Non-Profit, take donations and give all the money to charity.

Both have still broken the law. They did not organize as a Non-Profit.


It doesn't matter if it is TAPS, or Grandmothers for Peace or the Irish Travelers. It still illegal to operate as a Non-Profit without organizing as such. And as for the Not-for-Profit, TAPS has removed that from the website. A Not-For-Profit must still organize as a charitable organization. They must check with the Federal IRS offices to file the necessary forms. They must file a 501c3, tax exempt organization, organized for charitable purposes with their Federal income tax.

 

[Miss Whiplash]

For further information, please check IRS Guide to Charities

And TAPS is now listed as:

We have since changed non-profit to "free volunteer organization" to clear up any misconceptions. We have been working on filing for the appropriate status but it is very difficult for a paranormal group to do in Rhode Island, and it takes time.

The difficult form is Artlicles of Incorporation As A Domestic Non-Profit. The difficult filing fee is $35.

 

[Beady]

If this came across my desk, it would go directly to the Charitable Solicitations' legal department.

But it didn't cross your desk. If it has crossed anybody's desk, they apparently have deemed it inconsequential.

In an attempt to condense things a little, this is from one of your replies to TEEK:

I was making a comparison of turning a blind eye to illegal activity.

One point I've been trying to make is that there is illegal activity, and then there is (what's the word?) "prosecutable" illegal activity. So far, by all accounts (or at least by lack of evidence otherwise), TAPS appears to have handled its donations properly, functioning as if it were what it mistakenly(?) said it was. It's entire legal offense appears to have been its use of terminology. It has shown evident good faith in correcting the problem, and there are apparently no complaints upon which the state can act. What would be the justification for the state to allocate a portion of its limited resources to this case?

Question 1: Is this battle worth winning? Even if the state does levy some sort of fine, it looks like all TAPS needs to do is pay it, continue its efforts to become an actual 50c3, then continue as before.

Question 2: Is this battle worth losing? What will be the consequences for Remie if TAPS wins this one? And, BTW, it's beginning to appear that Remie's own actions are starting to get uncomfortably close to the edge. That's not helping.

I don't see the Up-side for Remie in any of this. But then, my definition of Moral Victory is "defeat."

PS: Teek and I are five time zones apart, but you seem to be replying to us in almost real-time. When do you sleep? Or is that a stupid question, considering...?

 

[tkingdoll]

I'm not letting my acquaintances with Remie bias my opinion.

I never said you were, I was responding to your assertion that I was "suspicious" of her. Which seemed a little personal, so I wanted to set the record straight, not least because I don't want Remie to think this is in any way personal.

In fact, that's the whole point:

No skeptical work is above criticism, regardless of who the author is.

We simply cannot allow ourselves to not offer constructive feedback, or call it like we see it in cases where there is, or could be, more (or less, in this case) than what is being presented on face value. That's the very cornerstone of skepticism, and it doesn't just apply to those statements presented by woos, it applies to our friends too. It's not always easy to accept, but it's very important to divorce the content from the poster and appraise everything with the same eyes.

Imagine that this situation is reversed. Imagine that SAPS used the phrase "NOP" by accident and TAPS called them on it, then Remie took steps to amend it. Would you then still bay for blood, and demand TAPS pursue it? Or would you think "stop attacking this skeptic!" and leap to her defense, pointing out that it's a common mistake and little or no actual harm has been done? I suspect that many here would do exactly that, as in the recent case of the Randi plagiarism post I mentioned earlier.

We should never get into the mindset of "why are you criticising this? the writer is on our side!". That's a dangerous trap and one of the things skeptics are criticised for by non-skeptics. Skeptics spend a lot of time pointing out where others are short of evidence. Let's not hold ourselves to any less of a standard.

It's OK to objectively appraise skeptical writings in the same way we appraise woo writings. Otherwise, no-one will ever learn anything.

I'll say it again:

A business entity cannot conduct business as a Non-Profit unless they organize as a Non-Profit.

A business entity who does is breaking the law.

- or look at it this way

Many people say they are Non-Profit, have not organized as a Non-Profit, take donations and some of the pocket the money.

Many people say they are Non-Profit, have not organized as a Non-Profit, take donations and give all the money to charity.

Both have still broken the law. They did not organize as a Non-Profit.


It doesn't matter if it is TAPS, or Grandmothers for Peace or the Irish Travelers. It still illegal to operate as a Non-Profit without organizing as such. And as for the Not-for-Profit, TAPS has removed that from the website. A Not-For-Profit must still organize as a charitable organization. They must check with the Federal IRS offices to file the necessary forms. They must file a 501c3, tax exempt organization, organized for charitable purposes with their Federal income tax.

None of this matters other than, as you said earlier, on a matter of principle, and it seems to me it's just a minor semantic one. The amounts of money concerned were tiny, and I really doubt it's worth pursuing retrospectively as a legal case because there is, as far as I can see from what's been presented, no evidence that TAPS pocketed the money or otherwise misused it, and the cost of prosecuting would outweigh the benefit.

 

[Beady]

...and it doesn't just apply to those statements presented by woos, it applies to our friends too.

I would go further and say that we should apply skepticism even more vigorously to ourselves than to the woos. We are, after all, human beings, and humans are emotional animals; we all know how difficult it is to keep our emotions out of positions we have taken, even though emotions usually turn out to be impediments to objectivity and cloud our perceptions and judgement.

...and I really doubt it's worth pursuing retrospectively as a legal case because...the cost of prosecuting would outweigh the benefit.

Precisely!

 

[Miss Whiplash]

I never said you were, I was responding to your assertion that I was "suspicious" of her. Which seemed a little personal, so I wanted to set the record straight, not least because I don't want Remie to think this is in any way personal.

In fact, that's the whole point:

No skeptical work is above criticism, regardless of who the author is.

We simply cannot allow ourselves to not offer constructive feedback, or call it like we see it in cases where there is, or could be, more (or less, in this case) than what is being presented on face value. That's the very cornerstone of skepticism, and it doesn't just apply to those statements presented by woos, it applies to our friends too. It's not always easy to accept, but it's very important to divorce the content from the poster and appraise everything with the same eyes.

Imagine that this situation is reversed. Imagine that SAPS used the phrase "NOP" by accident and TAPS called them on it, then Remie took steps to amend it. Would you then still bay for blood, and demand TAPS pursue it? Or would you think "stop attacking this skeptic!" and leap to her defense, pointing out that it's a common mistake and little or no actual harm has been done? I suspect that many here would do exactly that, as in the recent case of the Randi plagiarism post I mentioned earlier.

We should never get into the mindset of "why are you criticising this? the writer is on our side!". That's a dangerous trap and one of the things skeptics are criticised for by non-skeptics. Skeptics spend a lot of time pointing out where others are short of evidence. Let's not hold ourselves to any less of a standard.

It's OK to objectively appraise skeptical writings in the same way we appraise woo writings. Otherwise, no-one will ever learn anything.



None of this matters other than, as you said earlier, on a matter of principle, and it seems to me it's just a minor semantic one. The amounts of money concerned were tiny, and I really doubt it's worth pursuing retrospectively as a legal case because there is, as far as I can see from what's been presented, no evidence that TAPS pocketed the money or otherwise misused it, and the cost of prosecuting would outweigh the benefit.

That's up for the state to decide. Omissions due to minor oversights are still subject to fines. I don't know if you understand how individual state departments work, but all do not go to court. Fines are levied by the department. Illegal is still illegal, whether it's minor in your eyes or not. You are not making the laws. You still don't seem to grasp that people cannot up and call themselves a NP without forming a NP in accordance to state laws. Disregarding the law because one it doesn't fit a person's comfort level is anarchy.

BTW-Once you conduct business as NP, you must expect to be asked to open your books to those wanting to see where the money was donated. That's part of being a NP. And that's why people go through the pains of forming NP, so they will have their books in order when this request comes.

You an I will never agree on this. It's obvious you think TAPs was operating legally and Remie was wrong to bring their lack of NP status to light. I do not.

Beady said

One point I've been trying to make is that there is illegal activity, and then there is (what's the word?) "prosecutable" illegal activity. So far, by all accounts (or at least by lack of evidence otherwise), TAPS appears to have handled its donations properly, functioning as if it were what it mistakenly(?) said it was. It's entire legal offense appears to have been its use of terminology. It has shown evident good faith in correcting the problem, and there are apparently no complaints upon which the state can act. What would be the justification for the state to allocate a portion of its limited resources to this case?

Again you misunderstand how State agencies work. Not all cases go to court. Fines are levied by the department. Fines are set in the GS, ratified by the General Assembly.

PS: Teek and I are five time zones apart, but you seem to be replying to us in almost real-time. When do you sleep? Or is that a stupid question, considering...?

I still like you, but for personal reasons, it's really none of you business why I was up so late.

 

[Beady]

Not all cases go to court. Fines are levied by the department. Fines are set in the GS, ratified by the General Assembly.

I know. As I said earlier, though, "If it has crossed anybody's desk, they apparently have deemed it inconsequential." Something may be illegal, but that doesn't necessarily mean it is worth doing something about. And, in this case, from the administrative point of view, the problem corrected itself.

I still like you...

...but for personal reasons, it's really none of you business why I was up so late.

In the same sentence you raise my hopes, then destroy them. Damn you!

 

[Miss Whiplash]

I'll be in a better mood tomorrow. Right now my car is sitting in a pool of antifreeze. Or I may just have a day long tantrum after I get the repair bill.

 

[tkingdoll]

It's obvious you think TAPs was operating legally and Remie was wrong to bring their lack of NP status to light.

Have you actually read any of my posts? I have stated quite clearly, several times, that in my opinion SAPS scored a small victory in bringing this to light and that TAPS have clearly done all they can to remedy it. It is clear that SAPS were acting illegally, but it is not clear that they were acting maliciously or are guilty of intentional fraud.

The question I have is why it is not being dropped now that they've taken steps to fix the problem.

ETA: I should also reiterate that I have no interest in how State agencies work and I really don't think it's relevant to whether or not SAPS should continue its investigation. This is not an exercise in you demonstrating your superior knowledge of US tax laws, it's about whether or not there's any point to what could be construed as a witch hunt.

 

[Miss Whiplash]

Have you actually read any of my posts? I have stated quite clearly, several times, that in my opinion SAPS scored a small victory in bringing this to light and that TAPS have clearly done all they can to remedy it. It is clear that SAPS were acting illegally, but it is not clear that they were acting maliciously or are guilty of intentional fraud.

The question I have is why it is not being dropped now that they've taken steps to fix the problem.

What exactly would make you happy in this respect? Remie has not posted anything else concerning TAPS. Do you want her to remove the webpage? Remove the one line about further complaints? Throw her to the TAPS fans? Beat her up? Should the bloggers who linked and commented on her story make the entries disappear?

ETA: I should also reiterate that I have no interest in how State agencies work and I really don't think it's relevant to whether or not SAPS should continue its investigation. This is not an exercise in you demonstrating your superior knowledge of US tax laws, it's about whether or not there's any point to what could be construed as a witch hunt.

Excuse me? Did you not say that "resources would not be wasted on such a small matter as TAPS." You were assuming wrongly that resources in this case involved the courts, the police and SWAT teams. It's wise to understand how agencies work before making sweeping generalizations. I am only trying to give you some idea how the State process works in a case like this. Fines happen, sweetie. People can be fined for just being $20 in arrears. The actual $$ amount has nothing to do with anything as far as the GS goes.

 

[tkingdoll]

What exactly would make you happy in this respect? Remie has not posted anything else concerning TAPS. Do you want her to remove the webpage? Remove the one line about further complaints? Throw her to the TAPS fans? Beat her up? Should the bloggers who linked and commented on her story make the entries disappear?



Excuse me? Did you not say that "resources would not be wasted on such a small matter as TAPS." You were assuming wrongly that resources in this case involved the courts, the police and SWAT teams. It's wise to understand how agencies work before making sweeping generalizations. I am only trying to give you some idea how the State process works in a case like this. Fines happen, sweetie. People can be fined for just being $20 in arrears. The actual $$ amount has nothing to do with anything as far as the GS goes.

I daresay if Remie didn't want or appreciate feedback, she wouldn't have started this thread. No journalist or researcher in the world gets 100% approval and agreement for their work, that's the nature of the beast.

Given that you've admitted you're posting in a bad mood, is there any point in continuing this debate? We haven't had an update from SAPS since the last one (which was a continued call for emails from TAPS donors) so I don't really think there's anything to add. I won't be responding to any more of your posts because we're going round in circles.

However, if and when TAPS are fined or prosecuted, do let us know.

 

[Minarvia]

I have to just wonder here why TAPS didn't hire an attorney as soon as they got the deal with Sci-Fi and became nationally known, just to make sure that things are all legal and in order. Maybe I'm just being a bit ignorant here, but as soon as one starts getting contracts and money for one thing, wouldn't making sure that everything else was covered legally make sense? If they DO have an attorney, then why not let him/her handle things instead of going ballistic and having such tantrums?
All in all, TAPS has become famous. That in itself brings you to public attention. After several years this should not come as a surprise to them. Famous figures are scrutinized. Live with it or step down.

 

[Jon the Geek]

The question I have is why it is not being dropped now that they've taken steps to fix the problem.

Remie's out of town without frequent computer access. I expect there will be more updates when she can make them.