text: b' U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development\n Office of Inspector General\n New York/New Jersey Office\n 26 Federal Plaza \xe2\x80\x93 Room 3430\n New York, NY 10278-0068\n\n\n\n MEMORANDUM NO. 2009-NY-1801\n\nSeptember 8, 2009\n\nMEMORANDUM FOR: Vincent Hom, Director, Community Planning and Development,\n 2ADM1\n\n\n\nFROM: Edgar Moore, Regional Inspector General for Audit, 2AGA\n\nSUBJECT: The City of Little Falls, New York, Urban Renewal Agency, Small Cities Community\n Development Block Grant and HOME Programs, Complaint No. HL-09-0090\n\n INTRODUCTION\n\nWe completed a review of the City of Little Falls, New York\xe2\x80\x99s (the City) Small Cities\nCommunity Development Block Grant (CDBG), and HOME Programs administered by its\nUrban Renewal Agency (URA). We selected the City for review based on a hotline complaint\nreferral from the Office of Inspector General (OIG) Program Integrity (Hotline) Division. The\ncomplaint alleges mismanagement of HUD funding for the CDBG and HOME programs\nadministered by the City and its Urban Renewal Agency. The objectives of our review were to\ndetermine the merits of the hotline complaint, specifically whether the City of Little Falls and its\nUrban Renewal Agency complied with HUD requirements while administering its CDBG and\nHOME programs.\n\nIn accordance with HUD Handbook 2000.06, REV-3, within 60 days, please provide us, for each\nrecommendation in this memorandum, a status report on (1) the corrective action taken, (2) the\nproposed corrective action and the date to be completed, or (3) why action is considered\nunnecessary. Additional status reports are required 90 days and 120 days after this memorandum\nis issued for any recommendation without a management decision. Also, please furnish us\ncopies of any correspondence or directives issued because of this review.\n\nShould you or your staff have any questions, please contact Karen A. Campbell, Assistant\nRegional Inspector General for Audit, at (212) 542-7977.\n\n METHODOLOGY AND SCOPE\n\nThe review covered the period of January 1, 2007, through March 2009, and was extended as\nnecessary. We performed our review work from February 2009 through May 2009 at the City of\nLittle Falls and its URA offices, located at 659 East Main Street, Little Falls, New York. Our\n\n Visit the Office of Inspector General on the World Wide Web at http://www.hud.gov/oig/oigindex.html\n\x0creview included obtaining background information from applicable HUD and State regulations\nand program records, interviewing City and URA staff, reviewing prior Independent Public\nAccountants (IPA) audits, reviewing correspondence from HUD and the State of New York, and\nselecting and testing limited nonstatistical samples of transactions relating to the allegations.\nThe results of the sample testing only apply to the items tested and are not to be projected.\n\n BACKGROUND\n\nOn October 15, 2008, a complainant filed a Hotline complaint with HUD OIG\xe2\x80\x99s Program\nIntegrity (Hotline) Division. On October 27, 2008, the case was referred to the OIG Assistant\nInspector General for Audit. Subsequently, on February 10, 2009 we commenced a review to\ndetermine the merits of the complaint allegations. In general, the complaint alleged\nmismanagement of HUD funding by the City of Little Falls, New York, and its Urban Renewal\nAgency. Specifically, the complaint included 13 allegations that were reviewed as discussed in\nthe Results of Review subsection that follows.\n\nFor many years, the City of Little Falls has been the recipient of HUD funded Small Cities grants\nawarded by the State of New York\xe2\x80\x99s Office of Community Renewal. The Office of Community\nRenewal was created under state law within the New York State Housing Trust Fund\nCorporation, a public benefit corporation, to administer and monitor the CDBG Program for the\nState of New York. The New York State program provides financial assistance to eligible cities,\ntowns, and villages with populations fewer than 50,000 and counties with an area population\nunder 200,000, in order to develop viable communities by providing decent, affordable housing,\nand suitable living environments, as well as expanding economic opportunities, principally for\npersons of low and moderate income.\n\nRecent HUD-funded grants awarded to the City during the years from 2000 through 2008\ninclude:\n Year Amount Award Type\n 2000 $ 400,000 Economic Development\n 2002 750,000 Comprehensive\n 2003 300,000 Economic Development\n 2004 700,000 Economic Development\n 2004 350,000 Comprehensive\n 2005 400,000 HOME\n 2006 400,000 Housing Rehabilitation\n 2008 650,000 Comprehensive\n Total $3,950,000\n\nTo locally administer its HUD-funded grants the City has opted to use its Urban Renewal\nAgency (URA). The Little Falls URA was established in 1963 under New York State Law \xc2\xa7575.\nThe municipal urban renewal agency constitutes a corporate and political body that is perpetual\nin duration and consists of not less than three and not more than five members including\nthe mayor. Four members of the board are appointed by the mayor, and the mayor acts as the\nfifth member. Additional members of the URA are also appointed by the mayor with the\n\n\n 2\n\x0cconcurring approval of the city council. Currently, the URA employs one full-time employee,\nholding the position of program coordinator.\n\n\n RESULTS OF REVIEW\n\nEach of the thirteen specific allegations raised in the complaint have merit, as described in the\nbelow analysis of each allegation:\n\nAllegation # 1\n\nFunding for each of the URA\xe2\x80\x99s seven bank accounts were not adequately controlled.\n\nThe complaint alleges that City funds were comingled between the various URA accounts and\nbills were being paid from comingled accounts with the highest available balances and/or\nwithout regard to the proper funding source or program responsible for the costs, draw downs\nwere not current, and the first electronic transfer (drawdown) of CDBG funds for the Housing\nRehabilitation Program was never credited to the CDBG cash account.\n\nThe review disclosed that the URA had routinely commingled funds between its various cash\naccounts and expended funds without regard to the proper funding source or program responsible\nfor the costs. To date, none of the URA cash accounts have been reconciled to determine the\naccurate sources and uses of funds as they relate to specific grant awards. Moreover, draw\ndowns for the City\xe2\x80\x99s 2006 Housing Rehabilitation grant were not always made timely, and the\nfirst draw down in December 2006 was deposited in a URA program income cash account rather\nthan the CDBG cash account. During the review in February 2009, the URA Program\nCoordinator confirmed that the funds from the first draw down remain in the program income\naccount and have not been transferred to the CDBG cash account.\n\nThe New York State Office of Community Renewal\xe2\x80\x99s Community Development Block Grant\nProgram Grant Administration Manual (NYS CDBG Grant Manual) Chapter 3, Section C. 2,\nprovides that separate accounting records must be maintained for each NYS CDBG project so\nthat revenues and expenditures can be readily identified. Moreover, Chapter 3, Section C.2.,\nrefers to regulations at 24 CFR 85.20 (b) (2), which provides that recipients and sub recipients\nmust maintain accounting records, which adequately identify the source and application of funds\nprovided for financially assisted activities. Accordingly, this allegation has merit.\n\nAllegation # 2\n\nThe URA\xe2\x80\x99s HOME Program funding was frozen because required forms were not submitted to\nthe State.\n\nThe initial review determined that the City\xe2\x80\x99s HOME program funding had been frozen by the\nState due to discrepancies on a HOME funded disbursement request submitted by the URA.\nAccording to documentation from the State, the funding would be frozen until such time that the\nURA provided additional documentation to explain/address the discrepancies. Thus, the\n\n 3\n\x0callegation has merit. However, during the course of the onsite review, the URA was able to\nprovide satisfactory documentation to the State regarding the discrepancies, resulting in a return\nof the City\xe2\x80\x99s HOME program funds.\n\nAllegation # 3\n\nCode Enforcement inspection and completion forms for both the CDBG program and the HOME\nprogram have not been prepared or submitted to the State.\n\nThe City did not always maintain adequate documentation showing that final inspections and\ncompletion reports were prepared on housing projects that were determined to be completed.\nThe allegation that the forms were not prepared has merit, however although the forms were not\nsubmitted to the State, this does not appear to be a requirement. According to New York State\xe2\x80\x99s\nGrant Administration Manual, applicable to the CDBG program, and the HOME Disbursement\nand Reporting Instructions, applicable to the HOME program, the City is responsible for\nmaintaining complete project files, including inspection reports and completion forms for each\nunit funded under their housing rehabilitation program(s).\n\nAllegation # 4\n\nThe URA has not been able to provide evidence to show that it is adhering to the guidelines in\nthe New York State Public Authorities Act, as amended in 2005.\n\nThe City\xe2\x80\x99s URA was not able to provide evidence that it complied with the New York State\nPublic Authorities Act, as amended in 2005. A primary purpose of the Act is to codify in statute\ncertain basic principles of effective corporate governance and to promote the understanding and\nadoption of these principles by State and local public authorities. For example, there was no\nevidence that the URA had adopted a code of ethics and mission statement, established written\noperating procedures and personnel policies or internal control procedures, as required by the\nAct. Accordingly, the allegation has merit.\n\nAllegation # 5\n\nLead Base Paint issues within case files.\n\nThe complaint alleges that there was no evidence of clearance exam reports in the files, summary\nnotices issued within 15 days of lead inspection activities, and risk assessments being sent to the\nproperty owners. Our review found that the City appeared to be aware of their responsibilities\nregarding lead compliance with homes receiving HUD funds, including the use of contractors\nwho have been trained and certified as having completed a lead based paint training course\npursuant to 24 CFR Part 35. Nevertheless, the files did not reflect that all homes provided\nrehabilitation under HUD funded programs were currently in compliance with the Lead Safety\nRule. Specifically, we found instances where the documents referred to in the complaint were\nnot included in the project files, as required. Accordingly, the allegation has merit.\n\n\n\n\n 4\n\x0cThe NYS CDBG Grant Manual, Chapter 6, Section III, paragraph G provides that recipients\nmust maintain files containing evidence of notifications, evaluation, disclosure, inspections,\ntesting and abatements, work practices, and clearance for at least three years. In addition,\nparagraph 9 of the HOME Disbursement and Reporting Instructions requires recipients to\nmaintain complete project files to include all lead paint hazard documentation.\n\nAllegation # 6\n\nOther rehabilitation project deficiencies.\n\nThe complaint alleges that, for the City\xe2\x80\x99s 2006 Small Cities CDBG program, inspection reports\nand building permits were missing, certain projects were deleted initially and then added on as\nchange orders to certain contracts rather than given to the original low bidder, contracted\namounts could not always be determined because contracts were unclear due to deletions and\nchange orders, case files were missing deferred loan agreements, there was unclear separation\nbetween single and multiple unit houses, construction on all projects was not complete as of\nAugust 29, 2008, and construction for two properties had not yet begun.\n\nThe review concluded that the URA had not always maintained adequate documentation in the\nproject files for the homes funded under the City\xe2\x80\x99s 2006 Small Cities Program. Specifically, the\nURA had not maintained adequate records to ensure compliance with all applicable CDBG\nprogram and New York State grant administration requirements. Accordingly, this allegation\nhas merit.\n\nAllegation # 7\n\nURA is a separate entity and should not handle monies disbursed by the CDBG or HOME\nprograms.\n\nThe complaint alleges that the URA is a separate entity and that there is no clear documentation\ndetailing the roles of the URA. We verified that the URA is a separate organization as created\nunder New York State law. Moreover, the agency was unable to provide us with any agreement\nbetween the URA and the City regarding its roles and responsibilities relating to the\nadministration of HUD grant funds awarded to the City. Further, the URA staff consists of only\none employee who has sole control over the administration, receipt, and disbursement of grant\nfunds. Consequently, since the City, and not the URA, is the recipient of HUD-funded grants\nawarded by the State of New York, the review concluded that this allegation has merit and that\nCDBG and HOME grant funding should not be directly controlled by the URA as currently\nexists.\n\nThe NYS CDBG Grant Manual, Chapter 1 Section II provides that if a recipient chooses not to\ndirectly administer the CDBG project, they must enter into a contract for services that describes\nthe division of grant management responsibilities. Moreover, Chapter 3 Section II C of the NYS\nCDBG Grant Manual provides that the recipient is responsible for establishing and maintaining a\nsystem of internal controls to protect the integrity of grant funds. To the greatest extent possible,\n\n\n\n 5\n\x0cthe system should provide for adequate separation of duties so that no one individual has\nauthority over all fiscal functions.\n\n\nAllegation # 8\n\nThe State Program Income Plan (PIP) account is supposed to be a CDBG program income\naccount, but it has not been recorded properly or reported to the State correctly.\n\nOur review disclosed that the URA had been utilizing the State PIP cash account as a general\nfund, and that the URA had failed to establish adequate accounting records to record and report\non program income earned on a grant specific basis. In addition to the fact that the cash balance\nin the State PIP account was commingled, reconciled amounts for program income have not yet\nbeen determined by the URA or reported to the State. Consequently, we have concluded that\nwhile the State PIP account is supposed to be a program income account, it was in fact being\nutilized as a general fund, and to date, the account\xe2\x80\x99s sources and uses of funds has not been\nreconciled. Also, a 2008 State request that the URA provide them with program income data\nrelating to various grants awarded to the URA by the State since 2000 has not yet been\ndetermined by the URA nor provided to the State. Thus, the allegation has merit.\n\nChapter 3 Section II C of the NYS CDBG Grant Manual provides that separate accounting\nrecords must be maintained for each NYS CDBG project so that NYS CDBG revenues and\nexpenditures can be readily identified. Regulations at 24 CFR 85.20 (b) (2) provide that\nrecipients and sub recipients must maintain accounting records, which adequately identify the\nsource and application of funds provided for financially assisted activities.\n\n\nAllegation # 9\n\nProgram income has not been disbursed prior to draw down of grant funds.\n\nOur review concluded that program income was not always disbursed prior to the drawdown of\nadditional grant funds. For instance, we verified that $91,685 was drawn down from the City\xe2\x80\x99s\n2006 CDBG Housing Rehabilitation Grant in December 2007. Subsequently, in January 2008,\n$69,560 of the $91,685 was transferred to the URA\xe2\x80\x99s State Program Income Plan cash account,\nand the remaining $22,125 was transferred to the URA\xe2\x80\x99s Revolving Loan Fund cash account\n(also called the HUD Program Income Plan cash account). At the time of the drawdowns, the\nState Program Income Plan cash account had a balance of $50,000 and the revolving Loan Fund\ncash account had a balance of $7,000. Consequently, it appears that program income was not\nalways disbursed prior to the drawdown of additional grant funding. Thus, the allegation has\nmerit.\n\nChapter 3 Section IV A of the NYS CDBG Grant Manual provides that the Office of Community\nRenewal shall require recipients to the maximum extent feasible, to disburse program income that is\nsubject to the requirements of 24 CFR 570.489 before requesting additional funds from the Office of\nCommunity Renewal for activities.\n\n\n 6\n\x0cAllegation # 10\n\nA separate ledger for the CDBG program has not been maintained.\n\nOur review disclosed that the URA did not maintain a general ledger to account for activity by\ngrants received. Rather, the URA\'s automated accounting records consist of "Quick Books"\naccounting software that is only being used to track disbursements and receipts by bank account.\nNotwithstanding, we verified that the "Quick Books" software used has the ability to produce a\nGeneral Ledger. However, the URA did not established General Ledger accounts to properly\naccount for transactions by specific grants received. We informed the URA that since their\naccounting software has the capabilities to establish proper General Ledger accounts; they should\nseek advice from their contracted consultants and establish general ledger accounts that can\nproperly account for activities on a grant specific basis. Nonetheless, since the URA bank\naccounts are currently commingled and since a functioning general ledger had not been\nestablished, there is no assurance that grant funds are being adequately controlled or accounted\nfor, or that grant expenditures are eligible when paid. Accordingly, this allegation has merit.\n\nChapter 3 Section II C of the NYS CDBG Grant Manual provides that separate accounting\nrecords must be maintained for each NYS CDBG project so that revenues and expenditures can\nbe readily identified. Regulations at 24 CFR 85.20 (b) (2) provides that recipients and sub\nrecipients must maintain accounting records, which adequately identify the source and\napplication of funds provided for financially assisted activities.\n\nAllegation # 11\n\nBudget modifications have not been prepared that may have been needed.\n\nOur review determined that budget modifications have not always been prepared that may have\nbeen needed. Specifically, we reviewed the URA\xe2\x80\x99s available budget files and noted three\ninstances where budgets were modified internally by the URA, but formal modifications were\nnot prepared and/or approved by the State or HUD. For example, the URA established and\nsubmitted to HUD a program income budget for 2007 activities amounting to $105,000. Of that,\n$60,000 was budgeted for a Veteran\xe2\x80\x99s Memorial Park Improvements activity as a match for a\nState-funded Canal Harbor grant. Subsequently, on March 19, 2009, the Mayor directed that\nCity funds will be provided for the $60,000 match. As such, the URA should modify its 2007\nProgram Income Budget by re-allocating the funding for other eligible activities and submit it to\nHUD for approval. However, it should be noted that until we brought this issue to the attention\nof the URA, they were unaware that they would need to modify their budget. At the time of our\nreview, the budget had not been modified, nor had HUD been notified that the budget will need\nto be modified, thus, this allegation has merit.\n\nRegulations at 24 CFR 570.427 requires that grantees shall request prior HUD approval for all\nprogram amendments involving new activities or alteration of existing activities that will\nsignificantly change the scope, location, or objectives of the approved activities or beneficiaries.\nThus, since the URA decided to eliminate the $60,000 activity from the total budget of $105,000,\nthis would constitute a significant change in scope.\n\n 7\n\x0cFurther, Chapter 7 Section I of the NYS CDBG Grant Manual provides that during the\nadministration of a grant, recipients may need to modify the Office of Community Renewal\xe2\x80\x99s\napproved program budget in order to more effectively administer the grant and to meet the needs of\nthe community and project. A formal request is required when a change in the funding of an activity\nexceeds $5,000. If the budget modification represents more than 25%, a program amendment is\nrequired. Formal budget modifications require recipients to submit a written request from the Chief\nElected Official explaining the reason and the impact of the modification to the project and its\nproposed accomplishments.\n\n\nAllegation # 12\n\nAdministrative funds may have been drawn down prematurely.\n\nOur review disclosed that administrative funds had, at times, been drawn down prematurely. For\nexample, we noted correspondence from the State regarding the City\xe2\x80\x99s 2004 Small Cities\nComprehensive grant stating that recent draws had been questioned as to the proportion of funds\nbeing drawn, and that administrative and program delivery costs should be drawn roughly\nproportionate to the main activities. Moreover, we reviewed the draw downs associated with the\nCity\xe2\x80\x99s 2006 Housing Rehabilitation Grant and found that for the first 12 of 13 draw downs made\non the grant, the City drew down administrative funding in disproportion to the main grant\nactivity (Housing Rehabilitation). For instance, the cumulative amounts budgeted for\nadministration was 5.5 percent of the total grant amount, however draw downs through draw\nnumber 12 exceeded the 5.5 percent limit for these items. As such, from the time of draw\nnumber 1, dated December 13, 2006, through the time of draw number 12, dated September 10,\n2008, or for approximately 21 months, the City drew down funding for administration at a rate\nthat exceeded the 5.5 percent budgetary limit for these items of cost. It was not until the final\n13th draw that the total amounts drawn for administration was equal to the budgeted limit of 5.5\npercent for administrative costs. Nonetheless, the history of the drawdowns for this grant does\nconfirm that throughout the time that the grant was active, the City drew down funds for\nadministrative costs prematurely, and at a rate that exceeded budgetary limits. Thus, this\nallegation has merit.\n\nApart from the above, our analysis of the City\xe2\x80\x99s 2006 Housing Rehabilitation Grant showed that\nfor the first seven draw downs, the amount drawn for administration and program delivery\nexceeded the 20% threshold identified in Chapter 1 of the NYS Small Cities Grant\nAdministration Manual.\n\nChapter 1 Section IV of the NYS CDBG Grant Manual provides that Office of Community\nRenewal will process funds in accordance with recipients\xe2\x80\x99 program schedule. Requests for\nadministration and program delivery expenditures that exceed the budgeted amount accumulated\nfor that quarter or exceed 20% of the program activity expended will not be processed for\npayment.\n\n\n\n\n 8\n\x0cAllegation # 13\n\nAn agreement between the URA and the City regarding a $60,000 State-funded Canal Grant\ncould not be located or provided.\n\nThe complaint alleges that an agreement between the URA and the City regarding a $60,000\nState-funded Canal grant could not be located or provided, thus, the grant was apparently made\nto the City and not the URA; therefore, the City would be responsible for the $60,000 match.\nThe review concluded that the allegation did have merit since the agreement between the URA\nand the City was not located. However, based on actions undertaken by the City, the matter of\nwhat entity would provide the matching funds for the State grant appears to have been resolved.\nOn May 19, 2009, the Mayor informed the URA that the City of Little Falls would provide the\n$60,000 in matching funds for the State grant.\n\n CONCLUSION\n\nEach of the allegations reviewed were substantiated and determined to have merit. The City and\nits URA have begun to address the allegations and are attempting to correct deficiencies that\nexist within their HUD funded programs. For example, the City has recently contracted with a\nconsultant to provide technical assistance, the URA program coordinator and board members\nhave attended training, and the URA is in the process of upgrading their accounting software so\nthat proper fund accounting procedures can be implemented. Nonetheless, our review of the\nURA\xe2\x80\x99s operations determined that the agency\xe2\x80\x99s books and records could not be relied upon to\nprovide current or accurate data, and are considered not auditable at this time. Thus, the\nsubstantiated allegations have generated recommended corrective or administrative actions to\nensure that the City and its URA are adequately administering its Small Cities CDBG and\nHOME program grants in compliance with applicable requirements.\n\n RECOMMENDATIONS\n\nWe recommend that the Director of HUD\xe2\x80\x99s New York City Office of Community Planning and\nDevelopment instruct the State of New York\xe2\x80\x99s Office of Community Renewal and Housing Trust\nCorporation to coordinate their efforts to\n\n1A. Conduct a comprehensive monitoring of the City of Little Falls and its URA to ensure\n that it is adequately administering its HUD-funded Small Cities CDBG grants in\n compliance with applicable HUD and State of New York requirements.\n\nWe also recommend that HUD instruct the State of New York\xe2\x80\x99s Office of Community Renewal\nand Housing Trust Corporation to coordinate their efforts to require the City and its URA to\n\n1B. Fully reconcile the sources and uses of all grant funds for each CDBG project and cash\n account that it administers, and develop procedures to ensure that the appropriate cash\n accounts are used for grant income and expense transactions.\n\n\n\n\n 9\n\x0c1C. Implement procedures to ensure that grant funds are drawn down in a timely manner and\n are credited to the appropriate cash account, so that the proper cash accounts are used for\n grant expenses in accordance with the grant agreement.\n\n1D. Develop administrative control procedures to ensure compliance with all HOME program\n disbursement and reporting requirements.\n\n1E. Establish procedures to ensure the proper monitoring and maintenance of CDBG and\n HOME program activity files to ensure compliance with all applicable CDBG and\n HOME program and New York State grant administration requirements\n\n1F. Implement procedures to ensure the requirements of the New York State Public\n Authorities Act are adopted and adhered to.\n\n1G. Implement procedures to ensure that all properties funded under the City\xe2\x80\x99s housing\n rehabilitation program(s) are brought into compliance with the Lead Safe Housing Rule\n at 24 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) Part 35.\n\n1H. Establish program guidelines to ensure that the requirements of the Lead Safe Housing\n Rule are consistently implemented.\n\n1I. Execute a contract between the City and its URA for services that describes the division\n of grant management\xe2\x80\x99s responsibilities.\n\n1J. Establish internal controls that provide for adequate separation of duties so that no one\n individual has authority over all fiscal functions.\n\n1K. Establish procedures to ensure the accuracy and reliability of accounting data and to\n ensure that assets are adequately safeguarded.\n\n1L. Account for, reconcile, and report on all program income earned on grants awarded to the\n URA by the State since 2000 as previously requested by the State.\n\n1M. Implement procedures to ensure that program income is disbursed before requesting\n additional funds from the New York State Office of Community Renewal for activities.\n\n1N Establish a functioning general ledger for recording resources, liabilities, and equity for all\n HUD funded grants and program income transactions.\n\n1O. Establish procedures to ensure that budgets are modified timely as needed and are\n approved by the funding agency when required.\n\n1P. Establish procedures to ensure that draw downs for administrative costs are within\n program limits and are in proportion to the main activities.\n\n\n\n\n 10\n\x0c AUDITEE COMMENTS AND OIG\xe2\x80\x99S EVALUATION\n\n\n\nRef to OIG Evaluation Auditee Comments\n\n\n\n\nComment 1\n\n\n\n\n 11\n\x0c AUDITEE COMMENTS AND OIG\xe2\x80\x99S EVALUATION\n\n\n\nRef to OIG Evaluation Auditee Comments\n\n\n\n\nComment 1\n\n\n\n\n 12\n\x0c OIG Evaluation of Auditee Comments\n\nComment 1 Officials for the City have no significant disagreements on the allegations, details,\n and recommendations presented in the audit memorandum. The corrective\n actions taken by the officials are responsive to our review.\n\n\n\n\n 13\n\x0c'


type: contracts

jurisdiction: EU

text:
 20.7.2017
 HU
 Az Európai Unió Hivatalos Lapja
 L 189/48
 AZ EGT VEGYES BIZOTTSÁG 30/2016 HATÁROZATA
 (2016. február 5.)
 az Európai Gazdasági Térségről szóló megállapodás XX. mellékletének (Környezet) módosításáról [2017/1313]
 AZ EGT VEGYES BIZOTTSÁG,
 tekintettel az Európai Gazdasági Térségről szóló megállapodásra (a továbbiakban: az EGT-megállapodás) és különösen annak 98. cikkére,
 mivel:
 (1)
 A 976/2009/EK rendeletnek az INSPIRE metaadatelem fogalommeghatározása tekintetében történő módosításáról szóló, 2014. december 10-i 1311/2014/EU bizottsági rendeletet (1) bele kell foglalni az EGT-megállapodásba.
 (2)
 A 2007/2/EK európai parlamenti és tanácsi irányelv végrehajtásáról szóló 1089/2010/EU rendeletnek a téradat-szolgáltatások interoperabilitása tekintetében történő módosításáról szóló, 2014. december 10-i 1312/2014/EU bizottsági rendeletet (2) bele kell foglalni az EGT-megállapodásba.
 (3)
 Az EGT-megállapodás XX. mellékletét ezért ennek megfelelően módosítani kell,
 ELFOGADTA EZT A HATÁROZATOT:
 1. cikk
 Az EGT-megállapodás XX. melléklete a következőképpen módosul:
 1.
 Az 1jc. pont (976/2009/EK bizottsági rendelet) a következő francia bekezdéssel egészül ki 2017. december 31-i hatállyal:
 „—
 32014 R 1311: a Bizottság 2014. december 10-i 1311/2014/EU rendelete (HL L 354., 2014.12.11., 6. o.)”.
 2.
 Az 1je. pont (1089/2010/EU bizottsági rendelet) a következő szöveggel egészül ki:
 „—
 32014 R 1312: a Bizottság 2014. december 10-i 1312/2014/EU rendelete (HL L 354., 2014.12.11., 8. o.).
 A rendelet rendelkezéseit e megállapodás alkalmazásában a következő kiigazítással kell értelmezni:
 Az EFTA-államok tekintetében a 14a. cikkben említett dátum úgy értendő, hogy további hároméves időszakot foglal magában.”
 2. cikk
 Az 1311/2014/EU és az 1312/2014/EU rendeletnek az Európai Unió Hivatalos Lapja EGT-kiegészítésében közzéteendő izlandi és norvég nyelvű szövege hiteles.
 3. cikk
 Ez a határozat 2016. február 6-án lép hatályba, feltéve, hogy az EGT-megállapodás 103. cikkének (1) bekezdésében előírt összes bejelentést megtették (*1).
 4. cikk
 Ezt a határozatot az Európai Unió Hivatalos Lapjának EGT-re vonatkozó részében és EGT-kiegészítésében ki kell hirdetni.
 Kelt Brüsszelben, 2016. február 5-én.
 az EGT Vegyes Bizottság részéről
 az elnök
 Claude MAERTEN
 (1) HL L 354., 2014.12.11., 6. o.
 (2) HL L 354., 2014.12.11., 8. o.
 (*1) Alkotmányos követelmények fennállását nem jelezték.


type: other

text:
Skutki wniesienia wierzytelności aportem
 Na podstawie art. 14b § 1 i § 6 ustawy z dnia 29 sierpnia 1997 r. Ordynacja podatkowa (t. j. Dz. U. z 2012 r., poz. 749) oraz § 2 i § 5a rozporządzenia Ministra Finansów z dnia 20 czerwca 2007 r. w sprawie upoważnienia do wydawania interpretacji przepisów prawa podatkowego (Dz. U. Nr 112, poz. 770 ze zm.) Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Łodzi działając w imieniu Ministra Finansów stwierdza, że stanowisko Wnioskodawcy, przedstawione we wniosku z dnia 23 maja 2012 r. (data wpływu 28 maja 2012 r.) o udzielenie pisemnej interpretacji indywidualnej przepisów prawa podatkowego dotyczącej podatku od towarów i usług w zakresie opodatkowania transakcji wniesienia wierzytelności aportem, zwolnienia z podatku VAT tej transakcji oraz podstawy opodatkowania – jest nieprawidłowe.
 W dniu 28 maja 2012 r. został złożony ww. wniosek o udzielenie pisemnej interpretacji przepisów prawa podatkowego w indywidualnej sprawie dotyczącej podatku od towarów i usług w zakresie opodatkowania transakcji wniesienia wierzytelności aportem, zwolnienia z podatku VAT tej transakcji oraz podstawy opodatkowania.
 Wnioskodawca (dalej: Spółka) jest zarejestrowanym, czynnym podatnikiem VAT, utworzonym z zamiarem prowadzenia działalności w zakresie świadczenia usług pośrednictwa finansowego. Spółka została zasadniczo utworzona w celu przejęcia określonej wierzytelności od banku na własny rachunek i za własne środki finansowe, a następnie obsługi tej wierzytelności we własnym zakresie.
 Czy wniesienie przez Wnioskodawcę aportem wierzytelności w opisanych okolicznościach stanowi transakcję mieszczącą się w zakresie opodatkowania VAT...
 W przypadku odpowiedzi twierdzącej na pytanie nr 1, czy przedmiotowa transakcja stanowi usługę, która podlega zwolnieniu z VAT na podstawie art. 43 ust. 1 pkt 40 ustawy o VAT...
 W przypadku odpowiedzi twierdzącej na pytanie nr 2, jak ustalić podstawę opodatkowania VAT transakcji aportu wierzytelności w opisanych okolicznościach...
 Zgodnie z art. 5 ust. 1 pkt 1 ustawy o VAT, opodatkowaniu VAT podlega m.in. odpłatna dostawa towarów i odpłatne świadczenie usług na terytorium kraju. Zgodnie z art. 7 ust. 1 ustawy o VAT, przez dostawę towarów, rozumie się przeniesienie prawa do rozporządzania towarami jak właściciel.
 Świadczenie usług natomiast zostało zdefiniowane jako każde świadczenie na rzecz osoby fizycznej, osoby prawnej lub jednostki organizacyjnej niemającej osobowości prawnej, które nie stanowi dostawy towarów, w tym również:
 Powyższe przepisy implementują jednocześnie do krajowego porządku prawnego regulacje Dyrektywy 2006/112/WE z dnia 28 listopada 2006 r. w sprawie wspólnego systemu podatku od wartości dodanej (Dz. U. UE. L. 2006.347.1; dalej: Dyrektywa VAT).
 Z przepisów Dyrektywy VAT, jak również bogatego orzecznictwa Trybunału Sprawiedliwości Unii Europejskiej (dalej: TSUE) wynika, że analizując kwestię świadczenia usług, konieczna jest weryfikacja warunków, których łączne spełnienie umożliwia uznanie określonej czynności za odpłatne świadczenie usług:
 w ramach danego stosunku prawnego muszą istnieć co najmniej dwa podmioty, z których jeden będzie świadczył usługi, drugi zaś będzie ich konsumentem (przykładowo, wyrok ETS z dnia 29 lutego 1996 r. w sprawie C-215/94 - Jurgen Mohr przeciwko Finanzamt Bad Segeberg),
 stosunek prawny łączący usługodawcę i usługobiorcę opiera się na zasadzie wzajemności (przykładowo, wyrok ETS z dnia 3 marca 1994 r. w sprawie C-16/93 - R. J. Tolsma przeciwko Inspecteur der Omzetbelasting Leeuwarden),
 pomiędzy daną usługą a otrzymanym w zamian za jej wykonanie wynagrodzeniem istnieje bezpośredni i czytelny związek (przykładowo, wyrok z dnia 5 lutego 1981 r. w sprawie C-154/80 - Staatssecretaris van Financien przeciwko Association coopérative „Coöperatieve Aardappelenbewaarplaats GA”).
 W świetle powyższych argumentów, w ocenie Spółki aport wierzytelności stanowi usługę w rozumieniu przepisów o VAT. Transakcja taka spełnia bowiem wszystkie wskazane wyżej przesłanki dla uznania jej za odpłatne świadczenie usług. W ramach opisanego we wniosku aportu, Wnioskodawca przeniesie określone prawa (wierzytelności) na drugi podmiot w ramach zawartej umowy w zamian za wynagrodzenie w postaci akcji obejmowanych w drugim podmiocie (do którego wniesiono aport). W związku z powyższym, zdaniem Spółki, przedmiotowa transakcja spełnia przesłanki dla uznania jej za usługę, która mieści się w zakresie opodatkowania VAT. Przeniesienie praw stanowi świadczenie usług w rozumieniu ustawy o VAT. Opisana wierzytelność stanowi zaś właśnie prawo, które jest przedmiotem transferu w ramach aportu.
 Jednocześnie, aby konkretna transakcja podlegała opodatkowaniu VAT konieczne jest aby dokonana została przez podatnika VAT działającego takim charakterze - na co wskazuje art. 2 ust. 1 lit. A Dyrektywy VAT oraz art. 8 ust. 1 w zw. z art. 15 ust. 1 ustawy o VAT. Z tej perspektywy, w ocenie Spółki nie ulega wątpliwości, że planowana przez nią transakcja wniesienia aportem wierzytelności dokonana zostanie przez podatnika (Wnioskodawcę) działającego w takim właśnie charakterze. Zainteresowany jest bowiem podmiotem świadczącym zasadniczo usługi obrotu wierzytelnościami, zatem zarówno pobieranie odsetek od nabytych wierzytelności, jak i planowany transfer tej wierzytelności (w postaci aportu) dokonywane są w ramach prowadzonej działalności gospodarczej, czyli realizowane są przez Spółkę jako podatnika VAT.
 W tym miejscu Wnioskodawca dodatkowo zwrócił uwagę na prezentowane w praktyce stanowisko w odniesieniu do traktowania na gruncie VAT zbycia wierzytelności własnych (rozumian...


type: wikipedia

text:
 Události
 Markomanský král Marobud vytvořil v oblasti dnešních Čech konfederaci germánských kmenů s Hermundury, Langobardy, Vandaly a členy kmene Semoni.
 Fraatés V. se stává králem Parthské říše.
 Narození
 24. prosinec – Galba, římský císař († 15. ledna 69)
 V tomto roce se pravděpodobně narodil římský filozof, dramatik, básník a politik Seneca.
 Hlavy států
 Římské impérium – Augustus (27 př. n. l. – 14)
 Parthská říše – Fraatés IV. (38 – 2 př. n. l.)
 Čína – Aj-ti (dynastie Západní Chan)
 Externí odkazy
 03


type: caselaw

text:
N. C 208/36 IT Gazzetta ufficiale delle Comunità europee 12 . 8 . 95
 grado delle Comunità europee, un ricorso contro la Com delle Comunità europee un ricorso contro la Commissione
 missione delle Comunità europee . delle Comunità europee.
 Il ricorrente conclude che il Tribunale voglia : Il ricorrente conclude che il Tribunale voglia :
 — annullare la decisione della Commissione di non pro — annullare la decisione della Commissione che stabilisce il
 muoverlo al grado A4 in occasione delle promozioni del luogo di assunzione del ricorrente a Bruxelles , nonché
 1992 e , per quanto necessario , la decisione di rigetto tutte le decisioni da questa derivanti;
 emanata il 3 marzo 1995 dalla Commissione in risposta
 al suo reclamo nonché la decisione della Commissione di — condannare la convenuta alle spese.
 promuovere al grado A4 i dipendenti iscritti nell'elenco
 pubblicato nel Bollettino « Informazioni amministra
 tive » n. 859 dell' 8 . 9 . 1994; Motivi e principali argomenti:
 — condannare la Commissione al risarcimento dei danni I motivi e gli argomenti principali corrispondono a quelli
 materiali e morali subiti che egli si riserva di meglio della causa T-33 /95 .
 precisare nel corso del giudizio ;
 — condannare la convenuta alle spese .
 Motivi e principali argomenti:
 Ricorso del signor Friedrich Engelking contro il Consiglio
 A sostegno del ricorso, il ricorrente deduce la violazione dell'Unione europea e la Commissione delle Comunità
 dell'art. 45 , n. 1 , dello Statuto del personale . europee, presentato il 3 luglio 1995
 ( Causa T-138/95 )
 Egli sostiene in proposito che la convenuta non ha potuto
 ( 95/C 208/76 )
 prendere in considerazione i suoi meriti , in quanto dipen
 dente A5 , a causa della mancanza del suo rapporto
 informativo per il periodo 1991-1993 . (Lingua processuale: il tedesco)
 Egli rileva, in secondo luogo , che la convenuta ha limitato il
 proprio scrutinio per merito comparativo del ricorrente solo Il 3 luglio 1995 , il signor Friedrich Engelking, residente in
 ai dipendenti della DG V senza estenderlo a tutti i dipendenti Raddestorf ( Repubblica federale di Germania ), con gli avv.ti
 di grado A5 dell' istituzione che hanno i requisiti per essere Bernd Meisterernst, Mechtild Düsing, Dietrich Manstetten,
 promossi . dr . Frank Schulze e dr . Winfried Haneklaus, del foro di
 Münster, con domicilio eletto in Lussemburgo presso lo
 studio legale Dupong & Associés, 14a, rue des Bains, ha
 Egli assume infine che alle promozioni al grado A4 non si proposto dinanzi al Tribunale di primo grado delle Comu
 procede previo esame comparativo dei meriti dei dipendenti nità europee un ricorso contro il Consiglio dell'Unione
 che hanno i requisiti per essere promossi bensì in base ai europea e la Commissione delle Comunità europee .
 criteri di priorità di cui ciascuna direzione generale dispone
 secondo il numero dei promuovibili e che essa può attribuire
 a suo piacimento . Il ricorrente chiede che il Tribunale voglia :
 1 ) condannare i convenuti a pagargli una indennità SLOM
 II per il periodo 2 . 4 . 1984-13 . 6 . 1991 in ragione di
 110 021,93 DM più gli interessi nella misura dell' 8 % a
 decorrere dal 19 . 5 . 1992 , nonché condannare i conve
 nuti a pagare le spese di causa;
 Ricorso proposto il 19 giugno 1995 da Peter Gammeltoft
 contro la Commissione delle Comunità europee 2 ) riunire il presente ricorso col ricorso già pendente nella
 ( Causa T-132/95 ) causa T-77/93 , Hülseberg e a . contro Consiglio e
 Commissione delle Comunità europee, e sospendere
 ( 95/C 208/75 )
 altresì il procedimento .
 (Lingua processuale: il francese)
 Motivi e principali argomenti:
 Il 19 giugno 1995 , il signor Peter Gammeltoft, residente in I motivi e ì principali argomenti sono analoghi a quelli della
 Bruxelles, con gli avv.ti Jean-Noël Louis, Thierry Dema causa T-20/94 .
 seure e Ariane Tornei , del foro di Bruxelles, con domicilio
 eletto in Lussemburgo presso la fiduciaria Myson, 1 , rue
 Glesener, ha proposto dinanzi al Tribunale di primo grado


text:
ELSO SERVICE PRAHA,spol. s r.o. Praha 6 IČO 61854697 kontakty (29.03.2020) | Finance.cz
 ELSO SERVICE PRAHA,spol. s r.o. Praha 6 IČO: 61854697
 Tato stránka obsahuje výpis dat z různých rejstříků pro firmu ELSO SERVICE PRAHA,spol. s r.o., která sídlí v obci Praha 6 a bylo jí přiděleno IČO 61854697.
 Firma s názvem ELSO SERVICE PRAHA,spol. s r.o. se sídlem v obci Praha 6 byla založena v roce 1994. Společnost je stále aktivní. V jejím vedení se dosud vystřídalo 1 osob. Společnost podniká v oboru Výroba, instalace, opravy elektrických strojů a přístrojů, elektronických a telekomunikačních zařízení , Výroba, instalace a opravy elektrických strojů a přístrojů a Výroba, instalace a opravy elektronických zařízení .
 Základní údaje o ELSO SERVICE PRAHA,spol. s r.o. IČO: 61854697
 C 31435
 61854697
 ELSO SERVICE PRAHA,spol. s r.o.
 Aktuální kontaktní údaje ELSO SERVICE PRAHA,spol. s r.o.
 ELSO SERVICE PRAHA spol. s r.o.
 Kontakty na ELSO SERVICE PRAHA,spol. s r.o. IČO: 61854697
 Praha 6, Kladenská 1879/3, PSČ 16000 28.1.2004
 Praha 6, Na Beránce 2 12.9.1994 - 28.1.2004
 Obory činností ELSO SERVICE PRAHA,spol. s r.o. IČO: 61854697
 výroba,instalace aopravy elektronických zařízení 28.1.2004
 výroba,instalace a opravy elektrických strojů a přístrojů 12.9.1994
 montáž a opravy kancelářské a reprodukční elektroniky 12.9.1994 - 28.1.2004
 výroba,montáž a opravy výrobků a zařízení spotřebnmí elektro-niky 12.9.1994 - 28.1.2004
 Vedení firmy ELSO SERVICE PRAHA,spol. s r.o. IČO: 61854697
 Vlastníci firmy ELSO SERVICE PRAHA,spol. s r.o. IČO: 61854697
 Sbírka Listin ELSO SERVICE PRAHA,spol. s r.o. IČO: 61854697
 C 31435/SL 18 účetní závěrka [2014] Městský soud v Praze 31.12.2014 13.5.2015 22.5.2015 6
 C 31435/SL 17 účetní závěrka [2013] Městský soud v Praze 31.12.2013 14.8.2014 29.10.2014 6
 C 31435/SL 16 účetní závěrka [2013] Městský soud v Praze 31.12.2013 14.8.2014 29.10.2014 6
 C 31435/SL 15 zakladatelské dokumenty, notářský zápis NZ 1453/2014 Městský soud v Praze 30.6.2014 1.8.2014 13.8.2014 12
 C 31435/SL 14 účetní závěrka [2012] Městský soud v Praze 31.12.2012 30.7.2013 22.8.2013 6
 C 31435/SL 13 účetní závěrka -2011 Městský soud v Praze 31.12.2011 17.9.2012 1.10.2012 6
 C 31435/SL 12 účetní závěrka 2010 Městský soud v Praze 31.12.2010 18.10.2011 20.10.2011 6
 C 31435/SL 11 účetní závěrka r.2006 Městský soud v Praze 31.12.2006 24.8.2010 29.8.2010 5
 C 31435/SL 10 účetní závěrka r.2007 Městský soud v Praze 31.12.2007 24.8.2010 29.8.2010 5
 C 31435/SL 9 účetní závěrka r.2009 Městský soud v Praze 31.12.2009 16.8.2010 19.8.2010 6
 C 31435/SL 8 účetní závěrka 2008 Městský soud v Praze 31.12.2008 26.8.2009 27.8.2009 6
 C 31435/SL 7 účetní závěrka 2005 Městský soud v Praze 31.12.2005 27.4.2006 28.4.2006 5
 C 31435/SL 6 účetní závěrka 2004 Městský soud v Praze 31.12.2004 19.5.2005 26.5.2005 6
 C 31435/SL 5 smlouvy o převodu obchod. podílu Městský soud v Praze 17.12.2002 17.2.2004 0
 C 31435/SL 4 zakladatelské dokumenty, notářský zápis NZ 548/2002 Městský soud v Praze 17.12.2002 17.2.2004 0
 C 31435/SL 3 účetní závěrka r.2002 Městský soud v Praze 31.12.2002 27.10.2003 10.11.2003 0
 C 31435/SL 2 účetní závěrka za r. 2001+příloha Městský soud v Praze 31.3.2002 19.9.2002 24.9.2002 0
 C 31435/SL 1 účetní závěrka za r.1996,1997,1998,1999,2000 Městský soud v Praze 14.8.2001 26.9.2001 0
 Hodnocení ELSO SERVICE PRAHA,spol. s r.o.
 Výpis dat pro firmu ELSO SERVICE PRAHA,spol. s r.o. obsahuje pouze taková data, která lze dle zákona č. 101/2000 Sb., o ochraně osobních údajů, zveřejňovat i bez souhlasu subjektu těchto údajů.
 výpis firmy ELSO SERVICE PRAHA,spol. s r.o., 61854697 na obchodním rejstříku
 výpis firmy ELSO SERVICE PRAHA spol. s r.o., 61854697 na živnostenském rejstříku


text:
 30.6.2022
 RO
 Jurnalul Oficial al Uniunii Europene
 L 175/3
 DECIZIA nr. 2/2022 A COMITETULUI MIXT AL SEE
 din 4 februarie 2022
 de modificare a anexei I (Chestiuni veterinare și fitosanitare) la Acordul privind SEE [2022/1050]
 COMITETUL MIXT AL SEE,
 având în vedere Acordul privind Spațiul Economic European (denumit în continuare „Acordul privind SEE”), în special articolul 98,
 întrucât:
 (1)
 Regulamentul delegat (UE) 2020/2192 al Comisiei din 7 decembrie 2020 de modificare a anexei II la Regulamentul (CE) nr. 853/2004 al Parlamentului European și al Consiliului în ceea ce privește marca de identificare care trebuie utilizată pentru anumite produse de origine animală în Regatul Unit în ceea ce privește Irlanda de Nord (1) trebuie încorporat în Acordul privind SEE.
 (2)
 Prezenta decizie se referă la legislația privind chestiunile veterinare. Legislația privind chestiunile veterinare nu se aplică Principatului Liechtenstein atât timp cât aplicarea Acordului între Comunitatea Europeană și Confederația Elvețiană privind schimburile comerciale cu produse agricole se extinde la Principatul Liechtenstein, astfel cum se specifică în adaptările sectoriale ale anexei I la Acordul privind SEE. În consecință, prezenta decizie nu se aplică Principatului Liechtenstein.
 (3)
 Prin urmare, anexa I la Acordul privind SEE ar trebui modificată în consecință,
 ADOPTĂ PREZENTA DECIZIE:
 Articolul 1
 În anexa I la Acordul privind SEE, în capitolul I partea 6.1, la punctul 17 [Regulamentul (CE) nr. 853/2004 al Parlamentului European și al Consiliului] se adaugă următoarea liniuță:
 „—
 32020 R 2192: Regulamentul delegat (UE) 2020/2192 al Comisiei din 7 decembrie 2020 (JO L 434, 23.12.2020, p. 10).”
 Articolul 2
 Textele Regulamentului delegat (UE) 2020/2192 în limbile islandeză și norvegiană, care urmează să fie publicate în suplimentul SEE la Jurnalul Oficial al Uniunii Europene, sunt autentice.
 Articolul 3
 Prezenta decizie intră în vigoare la 5 februarie 2022, cu condiția să se fi efectuat toate notificările prevăzute la articolul 103 alineatul (1) din Acordul privind SEE (*).
 Articolul 4
 Prezenta decizie se publică în secțiunea SEE și în suplimentul SEE ale Jurnalului Oficial al Uniunii Europene.
 Adoptată la Bruxelles, 4 februarie 2022.
 Pentru Comitetul mixt al SEE
 Președintele
 Nicolas VON LINGEN
 (1) JO L 434, 23.12.2020, p. 10.
 (*) Nu au fost semnalate obligații constituționale.


text:
Is í an Eoleolaíocht (Béarla: Scientology) an creideamh a chum agus a cheap an scríbhneoir ficsin eolaíochta L. Ron Hubbard sa bhliain 1952. Creideamh é a bhí go minic ina chúis achrainn ó thús a staire, agus is minic nach mbíonn sé soiléir cé acu creideamh nó córas teiripe agus comhairleoireachta atá ann. Cuirtear ina leith fosta go bhfuil blas áirithe den cheoldráma spáis ar thuiscint na hEoleolaíochta ar réamhstair an chine dhaonna.
 Tugtar Eaglais na hEoleolaíochta ar an eagraíocht a choinníonn súil ar chleachtais agus chreideamh cheart na hEoleolaíochta agus a chraobhscaoileann ar fud an domhain í. Cuireadh tús leis an eaglais mar eagraíocht reiligiúnach sa bhliain 1953, ach roimhe sin, bhí córas féinchabhrach dá dhéantús féin ag Hubbard, an diainéitic nó Dianetics. Dúirt sé féin gur "fealsúnacht reiligiúnach fheidhmitheach" a bhí san Eoleolaíocht, nó dúshraith a bhféadfaí reiligiún nua a thógáil uirthi.
 Nuair a fuair Hubbard féin bás, tháinig David Miscavige i gcomharbacht air mar phríomhcheannasaí eaglasta. Go bunúsach, tá Miscavige ina chathaoirleach boird ar an Religious Technology Center, nó "Lárionad na Teicneolaíochta Reiligiúnaí". Is é an Lárionad seo úinéir na dtrádmharc a bhaineann leis an Eoleolaíocht, cosúil leis na hainmneacha Scientology agus Dianetics féin.
 Teagascann an Eoleolaíocht gur neacha neamhbhásmhara iad na daoine a rinne dearmad dá ndúchas. An duine a dteastaíonn uaidh biseach a fháil agus teacht i dteagmháil lena fhíor-nádúr arís, caithfidh sé dul faoi iniúchadh (auditing). Is éard is ciall leis an "iniúchadh" ná cineál comhairleoireacht spioradálta a chuireann ar chumas an othair gabháil trína chuid trámaí síceacha in athuair leis na srianta a bhaint dá intinn a d'fhág na trámaí seo uirthi.
 Ón lá ar tháinig sí chun saoil, tá an Eoleolaíocht ina hábhar conspóide agus achrann, idir chreideamh agus eagraíocht. Tá sé ráite ag go leor iriseoirí, cúirteanna agus ranna rialtais i dtíortha éagsúla, gur cultas mífholláin dainséarach í Eaglais na hEoleolaíochta. Thairis sin, dúirt a lán acu go mbíonn lucht stiúrtha an chultais ag glacadh buntáiste ar ghnáthbhaill na heaglaise agus ag saothrú an airgid mhóir orthu - is é sin, gur fiontar neamhscrupallach camghnó í an Eoleolaíocht. Is é an freagra is nós leis na hEoleolaithe féin a thabhairt ar na líomhaintí seo gur bolscaireacht de chuid grúpaí sainleasa atá ann agus go bhfuiltear ag baint fola as seanchoilm chneasaithe. Sna Stáit Aontaithe, tá stádas an reiligiúin ag an Eoleolaíocht, agus an eaglais díolmhaithe ó na cánacha, mar a bhíonn na heagraíochtaí reiligiúnacha sa tír sin.
 Tá cuid mhaith eagraíochtaí carthanais agus gnólachtaí dá gcuid féin ag na hEoleolaithe, cosúil le Narconon, atá dírithe ar lucht mí-úsáidte na ndrugaí a athshlánú is a athinmhiú; Criminon, leis na coirpigh a leigheas agus a chur i mbealach a leasa; Volunteer Ministers, agus iad ag tabhairt sóláis do dhaoine atá in ísle brí nó i gcruachás; agus an World Institute of Scientology Enterprises, foras a sholáthraíonn oiliúint do lucht gnó de réir mhodh oibre na diainéitice. Is é an locht is minicí a fhaigheann criticeoirí na hEoleolaíochta ar na heagraíochtaí seo ná nach bhfuil iontu go bunúsach ach cleas earcaíochta.
 Cuid acu siúd a thréig eaglais na hEoleolaíochta, tá siad ag iarraidh an diainéitic agus fealsúnacht na hEoleolaíochta a fhorbairt, a fheabhsú agus a chraobhscaoileadh beag beann ar an eaglais. Tugann siad "Crioslach na Saoirse", nó an Free Zone, orthu féin. Tá fuath na ndaol ag lucht na heaglaise ar na heoleolaithe neamhspleácha seo, agus is é an t-ainm atá acu orthu ná "na hioraí rua" (the squirrels).
 Sa bhliain 1966, bhunaigh Hubbard cabhlach d'Eaglais na hEoleolaíochta, an Sea Org nó an Eagraíocht Farraige. I dtús a staire, bhí lucht na hEagraíochta Farraige ag caitheamh cultacha catha a chuirfeadh sainéide Chabhlach na Stát Aontaithe i gcuimhne duit, agus longa acu le haghaidh seoltóireachta. Inniu féin, tá stádas na scothaicme ag lucht an Sea Org san eaglais, cé nach mbíonn na hEoleolaithe chomh tugtha don tseoltóireacht agus don loingseoireacht agus a bhí tráth. Chaith Hubbard seal gairid ina oifigeach cabhlaigh nuair a bhí sé óg, agus cineál cumha air i ndiaidh na laethanta sin nuair a bhunaigh sé an Sea Org, is dócha.
 Stair
 An Diainéitic
 Tá an Eoleolaíocht bunaithe ar an gcóras féinchabhrach a d'fhorbair L. Ron Hubbard sna daichidí, an diainéitic mar a thugann sé air. Tá an diainéitic bunaithe ar theicníocht comhairleoireachta a dtugann Hubbard iniúchóireacht (Béarla: auditing) uirthi, agus is é is cuspóir leis ná cuimhní an duine ar na heachtraí míthaitneamhacha ina shaol a mhúscailt agus a athbheochan. Ar dtús, bhí an diainéitic ceaptha mar chineál nua síciteiripe, seachas mar dhúshraith do reiligiún nua.
 Thosaigh Hubbard a ghairmréim mar scríbhneoir garrfhicsin agus ficsin eolaíochta. Scríobh sé, fiú, úrscéal aorach faoi shaol an gharrscríbhneora, Typewriter in the Sky, a chuaigh i dtáin an fhicsin eolaíochta agus a bhfuil clú agus cáil air i gcónaí mar scéal maith greannmhar. Maidir leis an diainéitic, bhreac Hubbard síos an chéad leabhar fúithi sa bhliain 1948. Tugtar The Original Thesis, An Tráchtas Bunaidh, ar an leabhar seo. Leabhar féinfhoilsithe príobháideach a bhí ann. Cibé scéal é, áfach, tharraing an tráchtas seo a lán airde ar Hubbard, ionas go bhfuair sé caoi ar chúpla alt faoin diainéitic a fhoilsiú ar irisí cosúil leis an Explorers Club Journal agus an Astounding Science Fiction. Bhí suim ag John W. Campbell Jr., eagarthóir an Astounding, sa diainéitic, agus fuair sé tacaíocht ón Dochtúir Joseph A. Winter fosta. Síciatraí oilte a bhí i Winter a d'fhéach le hailt faoin diainéitic a fhoilsiú ar irisí eolaíocha síciatrachta, ach ní raibh fáilte rompu ansin. Go gairid ina dhiaidh sin, d'éirigh ina chogadh dearg idir Hubbard agus Winter, agus sa bhliain 1951, d'fhoilsigh Winter an chéad leabhar criticiúil, acadúil riamh faoin diainéitic: A Doctor's Report on Dianetics,
 Roimhe sin, áfach, scríobh Winter an réamhrá don leabhar faoin diainéitic a d'fhoilsigh Hubbard sa bhliain 1950: Dianetics: The Modern Sense of Mental Health. Bhí an ceann seo ar liosta na leabhar ab fhearr díol ar an New York Times go deireadh na bliana, agus d'fhoghlaim na mílte daoine modhanna oibre na diainéitice go paiteanta. Tháinig gluaiseacht iomlán diainéitice ar an bhfód, agus Hubbard á adhradh ag lucht na gluaiseachta. Thuig Hubbard go raibh airgead le saothrú ar an diainéitic, agus chuaigh sé le léachtóireacht mar shlí bheatha. Bhunaigh sé an chéad fhondúireacht diainéitice in Elizabeth in aice le Newark, áit a ndeachaigh na chéad chleachtóirí diainéitice, nó iniúchóirí, ar scoil.
 Ní mó ná sásta a bhí na síciatraithe gairmiúla. Bhí Morris Fishbein, eagarthóir an Journal of the American Medical Association agus fear mór réasúnaíochta agus sceipteachais a raibh clú agus cáil air san am agus an dóigh a mbíodh sé ag ionsaí is ag lochtú gach sórt dochtúirí bréige agus leighis mhaide, - bhí Fishbein den tuairim nach raibh sa diainéitic ach síocanailís an bhacaigh bhoicht, agus nach raibh baint ag coincheap na diainéitice le haon chineál eolaíochta. Sa bhliain 1951, chuir na húdaráis sláinte i New Jersey an dlí ar fhondúireacht diainéitice Hubbard toisc go raibh sí ag teagasc míochaine gan cheadúnas oifigiúil. Ba é deireadh an scéil sin go ndeachaigh an fhondúireacht i mbá.
 Bhí cleachtóirí áirithe den bharúil go raibh siad tar éis radharc a fháil ar an saol a bhí acu roimh an saol seo le cúnamh na diainéitice, agus thosaigh lucht leanúna na diainéitice ag cardáil cheist an ath-ionchollaithe eatarthu féin go díograiseach. Níor thaitin an casadh seo i leith an reiligiúnachais le Campbell ná le Winter, ó bhí siad dóchasach i gcónaí as an diainéitic a thabhairt isteach i bpríomhshruth na heolaíochta is na míochaine. Bhí Hubbard breá sásta leis an smaoineamh, áfach, agus thosaigh sé ag iompú na diainéitice ina reiligiún. D'fhorbair sé coincheap an téiteáin (Béarla: thetan), arb ionann é go bunúsach agus an t-anam sna reiligiúin eile.
 Sa bhliain 1951, freisin, cheap Hubbard an t-E-mhéadar nó an "leictrishícimhéadar", gléas teicneolaíochta a bhíonn in úsáid ag na hiniúchóirí inniu féin le riocht intinne an duine a aithint atá faoi iniúchadh acu. Deir criticeoirí na hEoleolaíochta nach bhfuil ann go bunúsach ach ionstraim a thomhaiseann friotaíocht leictreach na colainne.
 Eaglais na hEoleolaíochta
 Ón Diainéitic i dtreo na hEoleolaíochta
 Sa bhliain 1952, d'fhoilsigh Hubbard Scientology, a Religious Philosophy. Ba é an leabhar seo an chéad chéim a ghlac Hubbard leis an "eolaíocht", an diainéitic, a iompú ina reiligiún i gceart. Faoi dheireadh na bliana 1953, bhunaigh sé an chéad trí eaglais eoleolaíochta, mar atá, "Eaglais na hEolaíochta Meiriceánaí" (Church of American Science), "Eaglais na hEoleolaíochta" (Church of Scientology), agus "Eaglais na hInnealtóireachta Spioradálta" (Church of Spiritual Engineering). Ar an 18 Feabhra 1954, chuir dornán de lucht leanúna Hubbard an chéad chraobh dá gcuid féin ar bun i gCalifornia le caoinchead óna bhfáidh, Eaglais Eoleolaíochta Chalifornia. Sna blianta ina dhiaidh sin, chuaigh an Eoleolaíocht i bhfairsinge i dtíortha an Bhéarla: i Sasana, in Éirinn, san Afraic Theas agus san Astráil. Déanta na fírinne, i ndiaidh bhunú na craoibhe i gCalifornia, tháinig an chéad chraobh áitiúil ar an bhfód taobh amuigh de na Stáit Aontaithe cheana féin, in Auckland, príomhchathair na Nua-Shéalainne.
 Bunú agus Fódú na hEaglaise
 Sa bhliain 1955, bhunaigh Hubbard Eaglais Bhunaidh na hEoleolaíochta (Founding Church of Scientology) i Washington D.C. Mar a fheicimid, niorbh í an eaglais seo an chraobh bhunaidh, cibé faoin ainm. Inniu, tá músaem na hEoleolaíochta á reáchtáil in áras na heaglaise seo. Bhí cónaí ar Hubbard san áras sna blianta 1955-1959.
 Sa bhliain 1957, d'éirigh le Hubbard aitheantas áirithe oifigiúil a bhaint amach don Eoleolaíocht mar reiligiún, nó bhronn an tSeirbhís Ioncaim Intíre (Internal Revenue Service, IRS, nó údarás cánachais na Stát Aontaithe) díolúine ón gcánachas ar Eaglais na hEoleolaíochta i gCalifornia. Fuair na craobhacha áitiúla eile sna Stáit Aontaithe an stádas seo chomh maith, ar feadh tamaill, ach sa bhliain 1958, thosaigh an tSeirbhís Ioncaim Intíre na fiosruithe le fáil amach, an raibh an stádas seo dlite don Eoleolaíocht i ndiaidh an iomláin. Mar ba mhinic ina dhiaidh sin, bhí an cheist á cur, cé acu reiligiún bona fide nó fiontar gnó a bhí ann. Sa bhliain 1959, d'aistrigh Hubbard go Sasana, áit ar chónaigh sé go lár na seascaidí.
 Trioblóidí leis na hÚdaráis
 Bhí trioblóidí eile ag an ngluaiseacht san am seachas ceist na díolúine ó cháin. Tháinig drochamhras ag an Údarás Bia agus Drugaí (Food and Drug Administration, FDA) ar an E-mhéadar, nó bhí lucht an údaráis den tuairim gur gléas neamhdhlíthiúil leighis a bhí ann. Ar an 4 Eanáir 1963, rinne na húdaráis ruathar ar oifigí na hEoleolaíochta, agus ghlac siad seilbh ar na céadta E-mhéadar. Ón lá sin i leith, greamaítear lipéad de gach E-mhéadar a bhfuil an rabhadh le léamh air nach gléas leighis atá ann ach gléas reiligiúnach.
 I lár na seascaidí, thosaigh na húdaráis san Astráil ag cur in aghaidh na hEoleolaíochta. Chuir stát Victoria cosc leis an Eoleolaíocht sa bhliain 1965, agus stáit eile ag déanamh aithrise air ina dhiaidh sin. Bhí an cosc seo bunaithe ar Thuairisc Anderson, fiosrú oifigiúil ar mhodhanna oibre na hEoleolaíochta, agus é ainmnithe as an dlíodóir Kevin Victor Anderson a bhreac síos an tuairisc. Bhí an tuairisc an-chriticiúil i leith na hEoleolaíochta, agus í ag tabhairt le fios nach raibh inti ach cur i gcéill agus seafóid. Na saineolaithe a thug a dtuairimí d'Anderson, bhí siad barúlach nár chéadcheap Hubbard aon rud nua riamh: na cleachtais Eoleolaíochta a raibh éifeacht éigin iontu, ar siadsan, ní raibh iontu ach hiopnóis den chineál a bhí in úsáid roimh lá na hEoleolaíochta.
 Chaith na hEoleolaithe na blianta ag iarraidh an cosc a chur ar ceal, agus idir an dá linn, bhaist siad an t-ainm cleite Church of the New Faith (Eaglais an Chreidimh Nua) ar an eaglais le teacht slán ón gcosc.
 An Eagraíocht Farraige - Scothaicme na hEoleolaíochta
 Agus é ag iarraidh foirceadal na hEoleolaíochta a fhorbairt agus a thabhairt chun foirfeachta, ba mhinic a bhí Hubbard á bhréagnú féin agus ag teacht salach ar a raibh ráite aige ní ba mhoiche. Mar sin, an duine ar theastaigh uaidh fanacht dílis do theagasc an fháidh, chaithfeadh sé glacadh le gach spadhar de chuid Hubbard mar a bheadh foilsiú fírinne ó Dhia ann. Sa bhliain 1966, d'éirigh Hubbard as ceannasaíocht na heaglaise le dul le scríbhneoireacht. Go gairid ina dhiaidh sin, áfach, bhunaigh sé an Sea Org, an Eagraíocht Farraige, le haghaidh a chuid caidrí scothaicme. Bhí trí long ag an Eagraíocht Farraige, mar atá, an Diana, an Athena, agus an Apollo, arbh í an bhratlong í. Mí i ndiaidh bunú na hEagraíochta Farraige, d'fhógair Hubbard go raibh fionnachtain nua thábhachtach déanta aige, agus ba é ba toradh don "fhionnachtain" seo ná an pacáiste nua foghlama a chuirfeadh ar cumas an dalta an chéim i gcóras na hEoleolaíochta a bhaint amach ar ar tugadh "OT III", nó Tríú Céim an Téiteáin Oibríoch. Ar dtús, ní raibh Tríú Céim an Téiteáin Oibríoch ar fáil ach amháin don Sea Org, agus ní raibh an cúrsa á theagasc ach amháin ar bhord na long. Dúirt Hubbard gurbh é cuspóir an chúrsa seo ná na constaicí a bhaint d'intinn an duine a bhí ag cur isteach ar an dul chun cinn spioradálta.
 Sa bhliain 1967, bhain an tSeirbhís Ioncaim Intíre an díolúine ón gcánachas den Eoleolaíocht. Is é an breithiúnas a thug siad ar stádas na hEoleolaíochta ná gur fiontar gnó a bhí ann agus é ag saothrú airgid do Hubbard, seachas eagraíocht reiligiúnach nó charthanach. Chaith na hEoleolaithe breis is fiche bliain ag iarraidh an bhreith seo a chur ar ceal sna cúirteanna, rud a d'éirigh leo i ndeireadh na dála.
 Sna 1970idí, chrom Eaglais na hEoleolaíochta ar fheachtas ar ar thug siad Operation Snow White - mar is léir ón ainm, bhí an oibríocht seo dírithe ar an míchlú a bhaint den Eoleolaíocht. Is é an cur chuige a bhí ag lucht an fheachtais ná buirgléireacht a dhéanamh in oifigí na n-údarás Stáit leis na cáipéisí a ghoid nó a scrios nach raibh fabhrach don Eoleolaíocht. Sa bhliain 1979, gearradh pionós dá lán ardfheidhmeannach i gcóras maorlathais na hEaglaise as na coireanna a rinne siad le linn Oibríocht Snow White, Mary Sue Hubbard (bean chéile L. Ron Hubbard) ina measc. Le linn na próise dlí, tháinig sé chun solais freisin go raibh feachtas - Operation Freakout - idir lámhaibh acu leis an scríbhneoir Paulette Cooper a chiapáil, ionas go rachadh sí as a meabhair: ba é cuspóir na nEoleolaithe go gcaithfí í a chur i dteach na ngealt. Bhí Cooper tar éis an Eoleolaíocht a cháineadh go trom i leabhar a d'fhoilsigh sí sa bhliain 1971, The Scandal of Scientology. Sa bhliain 1985, i ndiaidh blianta fada dlíthíochta, shocraigh an Eoleolaíocht agus Cooper eatarthu beag beann ar aon chúirt dlí nach mbeadh sí ag scríobh faoin Eoleolaíocht agus nach mbeadh na hEoleolaithe á ciapadh feasta.
 Na hÍoraí Rua - na hEoleolaithe Neamhspleácha
 Sa bhliain 1982, bunaíodh Lárionad na Teicneolaíochta Reiligiúnaí (Religious Technology Center) chun súil a choinneáil ar thrádmharcanna na nEoleolaíochta agus ar chóipcheart scríbhinní Hubbard. Faoin am céanna, tháinig Crioslach na Saoirse - fochultúr na nEoleolaithe neamhspleácha - ar an bhfód. Ní féidir a rá gur aon eagraíocht amháin iad na hEoleolaithe neamhspleácha, áfach. Tá cuid acu ag iarraidh a gcasadh féin a bhaint as teagasc Hubbard, agus cuid eile den tuairim gurb iad féin na hEoleolaithe "ceartchreidmheacha", agus gach sórt daoine idir eatarthu ann freisin.
 An eagraíocht is tábhachtaí atá ann, ar a dtugtar "Ron's Org" (agus an t-ainm ag tabhairt le fios gurb iad lucht na heagraíochta seo atá ag cloí le fíortheagasc L. Ron Hubbard), is é Bill Robertson a bhunaigh sa bhliain 1982 í. Chaith Bill Robertson seal san Eagraíocht Farraige ina Chaptaen ar bhratlong na heagraíochta. Is é an tuiscint a bhí ag Robertson ná gur theastaigh ó Hubbard gan a chuid smaointí a choinneáil ón saol mór, agus nuair a chonaic sé go raibh an tsaor-rochtain seo ar idéanna an fháidh á srianadh le cóipchearta agus le paitinní ag Lárionad na Teicneolaíochta Reiligiúnaí, thréig sé an Eaglais. Bunaíodh an Lárionad sa Ghearmáin, tír atá thar a bheith naimhdeach ar an Eaglais oifigiúil Eoleolaíochta, toisc go bhfuil údaráis na tíre sin den tuairim gur seict mhífholláin í an Eoleolaíocht agus í ag iarraidh a saoirse a bhaint de dhaoine ar dhóigh nach bhfuil comhoiriúnach le Bunreacht na Gearmáine. Ón taobh eile de, tá siad den tuairim nach bhfuil "Ron's Org" ag ionsaí saoirse na saoránach. Is é an breithiúnas a thug Ursula Caberta, polaiteoir Gearmánach agus saineolaí ar an Eoleolaíocht, gur cineál "meatadón ionadach" atá san Eoleolaíocht Neamhspleách dóibh siúd atá ag iarraidh biseach a fháil i ndiaidh na tréimhse a chaith siad san eaglais oifigiúil.
 Is é an t-ainm a thugann na hEoleolaithe Oifigiúla ar na hEoleolaithe Neamhspleácha ná squirrels - na hÍoraí Rua, agus is iomaí iarracht a rinne siad leis na híoraí rua a chur faoi chois. Is le Lárionad na Teicneolaíochta Reiligiúnaí paitinní an ghléasra a úsáideann na hiniúchóirí Eoleolaíocha (an tE-mhéadar, cuir i gcás), rud a chiallaíonn go mbíonn na hEoleolaithe oifigiúla den tuairim go bhfuil na h-"íoraí rua" ag baint mí-úsáide as téarmaí agus teicníochtaí na hEoleolaíochta. Ón taobh eile de, ní féidir reiligiún a chur faoi chóipcheart, ó bheadh sin ag teacht salach ar shaoirse an chreidimh.
 Bás Hubbard agus Próis Dlí an Cult Awareness Network
 Sa bhliain 1983, bhronn Ard-Chúirt na hAstráile stádas an reiligiúin ar an Eoleolaíocht in athuair, beag beann ar na srianta a chuir údaráis na stát Astrálach léi roimhe sin. Trí bliana ina dhiaidh sin, ar an 24 Eanáir 1986, fuair Hubbard bás in aice le San Luis Obispo i gCalifornia, agus tháinig David Miscavige i gcomharbas air.
 Ón mbliain 1991 ar aghaidh, thosaigh an Eoleolaíocht, nó daoine aonair a raibh baint éigin acu leis an Eoleolaíocht ag tabhairt próiseanna dlí dóibh siúd a bhí ag fáil lochta ar an gcreideamh, go háirithe an Cult Awareness Network, eagraíocht a tháinig ar an bhfód i ndeireadh na seachtóidí i ndiaidh mhórthubaiste na seicte úd Peoples Temple a rinne slua-fhéinmharú i Jonestown sa Ghuáin sa bhliain 1978. Sa bhliain 1991, d'fhoilsigh an iris úd TIME alt cuimsitheach faoin Eoleolaíocht, Scientology - The Thriving Cult of Greed and Power, agus ó bhí stiúrthóir an Cult Awareness Network, Cynthia Kisser, faoi agallamh san alt seo, dhírigh na hEoleolaithe a bhfuath ar an eagraíocht. D'éirigh le ceann de na cúiseanna dlí dochar mór a dhéanamh don CAN ó thaobh an airgid de, nó fágadh an eagraíocht báite i bhfiacha, agus sa deireadh, breithníodh an eagraíocht ina féimheach. Cheannaigh na hEoleolaithe iarsmaí na heagraíochta bancbhriste agus rinne siad a gcuid féin den CAN. Inniu, is leis na hEoleolaithe lógó agus ainm an Cult Awareness Network.
 Próis Dlí Steven Fishman
 Sa bhliain 1993, chuir na hEoleolaithe an dlí ar Steven Fishman, iarbhall den eaglais. Le linn na próise, tháinig cúpla dosaen leathanach d'ábhar rúnda na nEoleolaithe chun solais, ina measc sin an scéal faoi réamhstair an chine dhaonna, a bhfuil blas an droch-cheoldráma spáis air, go háirithe an scéal faoi Xenu, an deachtóir réaltrach a chuir tús le sibhialtacht an Domhain, de réir na hEoleolaíochta. De ghnáth, ní bhfaigheadh ach téiteáin oibríocha an ardleibhéil amach faoin taobh seo den Eoleolaíocht. Chuaigh na scéalta seo ar fud an Idirlín, agus sa deireadh, ní raibh an dara rogha ag an Eaglais ach a admháil go raibh na scéalta seo ann agus gur cuid de theagasc rúnda na hEaglaise a bhí iontu.
 Aitheantas don Eoleolaíocht mar Reiligiún
 Sa bhliain 1993, d'éirigh leis an Eaglais aitheantas oifigiúil a bhaint amach sna Stáit. Dhíolmhaigh na húdaráis chánach an Eaglais agus na heagraíochtaí bainteacha ón gcánachas. Dá thoradh sin, thosaigh Roinn Gnóthaí Eachtracha na Stát Aontaithe ag lochtú na Gearmáine faoin gcúngú seo ar shaoirse chreidimh na nEoleolaithe agus ag glacadh gearáin na nEoleolaithe faoi shárú na gceart daonna sa Ghearmáin i ndáiríre. Sa bhliain 1997, d'fhoilsigh na hEoleolaithe fógra leathanaigh ar an International Herald Tribune, a bhí leagtha amach mar litir oscailte chuig Helmut Kohl, Seansailéir na Gearmáine san am, agus iad ag cur "géarleanúint na nEoleolaithe" i gcomparáid le géarleanúint na nGiúdach sna 1930idí. Shínigh cuid mhaith aisteoirí agus boic mhóra eile ó Hollywood an litir sin, ina measc Goldie Hawn agus Dustin Hoffman. Is é an freagra a thug Roinn Gnóthaí Eachtracha na Stát Aontaithe agus tuarascálaí na Náisiún Aontaithe ar an litir oscailte seo go raibh leatrom agus leithcheal á dhéanamh ar na hEoleolaithe sa Ghearmáin, ach go raibh sé as compás cás na nEoleolaithe a shamhlú leis an Uileloscadh.
 Sa bhliain 2000, bhronn an Iodáil aitheantas dlíthiúil ar an Eoleolaíocht mar reiligiún, agus ó shin i leith, fuair an eaglais an t-aitheantas céanna sa tSualainn, sa Spáinn, sa Phortaingéil, sa tSlóivéin, sa Chróit, san Ungáir, sa Chirgeastáin agus sa Téaváin.
 Daoine Cáiliúla
 Ghlac Hubbard leis ó thús go mbeadh sé tábhachtach boic mhóra agus daoine cáiliúla a earcú don Eoleolaíocht. Sa bhliain 1955, chuir sé tús le feachtas ar leith - Project Celebrity - le daoine cáiliúla a tharraingt chun Eoleolaíochta. Rinne sé liosta de na daoine cáiliúla a theastaigh uaidh le haghaidh Eaglais na hEoleolaíochta. Bhí iar-aisteoir mná na scannán gan fhuaim Gloria Swanson agus an pianódóir snagcheoil Dave Brubeck ar na daoine cáiliúla ba luaithe a chuaigh sna hEoleolaithe.
 Inniu, tá aithne ar go leor aisteoirí i Hollywood agus ealaíontóirí siamsaíochta eile i Meiriceá mar Eoleolaithe. Orthu siúd tá Tom Cruise, Kirsty Alley, John Travolta, Lisa Marie Presley (iníon Elvis Presley) agus Isaac Hayes. Tá cuid mhór oibre déanta ag Tom Cruise ach go háirithe ag craobhscaoileadh an chreidimh i measc na ndaoine.
 Deir na criticeoirí go dtugtar a lán pribhléidí do na daoine cáiliúla i saol na hEoleolaíochta. Is é an locht is mó a fhaightear ar an Eoleolaíocht go gcaithfidh na gnáthbhaill praghsanna as compás a íoc as cúrsaí spioradálta na heaglaise, agus is minic a chloistear an líomhain go bhfuil na daoine cáiliúla díolmhaithe ó na praghsanna seo.
 Tagairtí
 Naisc Sheachtracha
 Leathanach baile Eaglais na hEoleolaíochta
 Suíomh d'fhoinsí faoin Eoleolaíocht, a dhéanann cáineadh ar an Eaglais ar an mórchuid
 Físeán Idirlín a léiríonn an t-aisteoir mór le rá, Tom Cruise, agus é ag caint faoina chreideamh mar eoleolaí
 A Piece of Blue Sky, leabhar le Jon Atack. Chaith Atack tréimhse fhada i measc lucht na hEoleolaíochta. Seo an tuairisc a thug sé ar an saol ansin. Tá scéal beatha Hubbard féin le léamh ansin chomh maith.
 The Scandal of Scientology, an leabhar criticiúil faoin Eoleolaíocht a d'fhoilsigh Paulette Cooper sa bhliain 1971.
 Creideamh


text:
Eesti Vabariigi põhiseadus / paragrahv 55
 Eestis viibivad teiste riikide kodanikud ja kodakondsuseta isikud on kohustatud järgima Eesti põhiseaduslikku korda.
 Sellist sätet ei olnud varasemates Eesti PS-des. See sõnastati nii J. Raidla töörühma esitatud PS eelnõus kui ka J. Adamsi juhitud töörühma eelnõus. Ka teiste riikide põhiseadustes esineb selline säte expressis verbis äärmiselt harva. Põhiseaduse Assamblee kaalus sätte väljajätmist PS-st põhjendusel, et selline kohustus on niigi selge. Kuid arvestades assamblee tegevuse ajal valitsenud olukorda, kus Eesti kodakondsuseta isikute toetus Eesti iseseisvusele oli vähene, piirduti siiski vaid sellega, et sõna “austama” asendati sõnaga “järgima” ning välja jäeti seaduste järgimise sõnaselge kohustus (see sisaldub juba PS § 19 lg-s 2).
 Säte kohustab kõiki Eestis viibivaid Eesti kodakondsuseta isikuid, sõltumata nende Eestis viibimise õiguslikust alusest ja selle olemasolust.
 Vaieldav on kohustuse sisuline eristamine § 54 lg 1 esimeses lausepooles sisalduvast kohustusest olla ustav põhiseaduslikule korrale. Kui ustavus tähendab tavaliselt toetuse väljendamist ka aktiivselt, siis § 54 lg-s 1 on kodaniku kohustus tegutseda Eesti iseseisvuse kaitseks juba väljendatud ja põhiseaduslikule korrale ustavuse nõue muud peale selle järgimise ei tähenda. KarS §-s 2341 sätestatud tegu (Eesti Vabariigi vastase sõja või okupatsiooni toetamine) loetakse kuriteoks vaid juhul, kui selle paneb toime Eesti kodanik.
 Põhiseadusliku korra mõiste ja erinevuse kohta § 19 lg-st 2 vt § 54 lg 1 komm.
 Mitmes seaduses on sama põhimõtet väljendatud, ent lisatud põhiseadusliku korra järgimise kohustusele ka kohustus järgida Eesti õigusakte, austada põhiseaduslikke väärtusi ja printsiipe, vabadusel, õiglusel ja õigusel tuginevat riiki ning Eesti ühiskonna korraldust, eesti keelt ja kultuuri (VMS § 11, VRKS § 11 lg 1 ja § 741). Põhiseaduslik kord hõlmab neid vähemalt põhilises ning need sätted pigem kirjeldavad põhiseadusliku korra tähendust.
 Paragrahv 55 õigustab Eestis viibivate teiste riikide kodanike ja kodakondsuseta isikute põhiõiguste kitsendamist riigi julgeoleku huvides, sh neile elamisloa andmisest keeldumist süütegude toimepanemise korral ja väljasaatmist õigusliku aluseta Eestis viibimise korral. Seejuures tuleb arvesse võtta ka välismaalase põhiõigusi, mida seeläbi piiratakse. Nii ei ole mis tahes õigusvastase teo toimepanemise korral õigustatud välismaalase Eestist väljasaatmine (vt nt EK otsus 11.07.2002, C-60/00: Carpenter vs.Secretary of State for the Home Department; § 26 ja § 27 komm-d) ega kinnipidamine alati, kui välismaalane viibib riigis ebaseaduslikult (vt nt EIKo Üner vs.Madalmaad, 18.10.2006, Saadi vs.Ühendkuningriik, 29.01.2008; PS § 20 komm 7). Piirangute seadmist ei õigusta aga § 55 üksinda, vaid koos teiste PS sätetega, eriti § 19 lg-ga 2. KarS 15. peatüki esimeses jaos on sätestatud ka karistused nimetatud kohustuse rikkumise eest.


text:
Is é an 5 Eanáir an cúigiú lá den bhliain de réir fhéilire Ghréagóra. Tá 360 lá fágtha sa bhliain nó 361 i mbliain bhisigh.
 Féilte
 Daoine a rugadh ar an lá seo
 1838 — Marie-Ennemond Camille Jordan, matamaiticeoir Francach
 1846 — Rudolf Christoph Eucken, fealsamh Gearmánach
 1855 — King Camp Gillette, ceapadóir Meiriceánach
 1876 — Konrad Adenauer, polaiteoir Gearmánach
 1902 — Stella Gibbons, scríbhneoir Briotanach
 1905 — Vladimir Pozner, scríbhneoir agus aistritheoir Francach
 1917 — Jane Wyman, ban-aisteoir Meiriceánach
 1928 — Walter Mondale, Leasuachtarán na Stát Aontaithe ó 1977 go 1981
 1928 — Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, polaiteoir Pacastánach
 1930 — Buzz Aldrin, spásaire Meiriceánach
 1931 — Robert Duvall, aisteoir agus stiúrthóir Meiriceánach
 1932 — Umberto Eco, scríbhneoir Iodálach
 1938 — Juan Carlos, rí na Spáinne
 1938 — Ngũgĩ wa Thiong'o, scríbhneoir Céiniach
 1946 — Diane Keaton, ban-aisteoir Meiriceánach
 1953 — Dwight Muhammad Qawi, dornálaí Meiriceánach
 1955 — Douglas Chapman, polaiteoir Albanach
 1956 — Frank-Walter Steinmeier, polaiteoir Gearmánach
 1968 — Jim O'Callaghan, polaiteoir Éireannach
 1975 — Bradley Cooper, aisteoir Meiriceánach
 1989 — Brendan Maher, iománaí Éireannach
 Daoine a fuair bás ar an lá seo
 1171 — Thomas Becket, Ardeaspag Canterbury, naomh Caitliceach
 1203 — Alain de Lille, diagaire agus file Francach
 1762 — Éilís na Rúise, Banimpire na Rúise
 1922 — Ernest Shackleton, taiscéalaí (r.1874)
 1933 — Calvin Coolidge, 30ú uachtarán na Stát Aontaithe (r.1872)
 1936 — Ramón del Valle-Inclán, scríbhneoir Gailíseach
 1941 — Amy Johnson, eitleoir Sasanach
 1941 — Jennie Wyse Power, polaiteoir, gníomhaí, feimineach, agus bean ghnó Éireannach
 1954 — James Kilroy, polaiteoir Éireannach
 1960 — Ruaraidh Arascain is Mhàirr, Polaiteoir Albanach
 1973 — Gearroid Ua Beolláin, polaiteoir Éireannach
 1975 — Johnny Geoghegan, polaiteoir Éireannach
 1976 — Seán A Mac Coisdealbha, polaiteoir Éireannach, an dara Taoiseach (r.1891)
 1977 — Patrick Cogan, polaiteoir Éireannach
 1979 — Billy Bletcher, aisteoir
 1981 — Harold Clayton Urey, ceimiceoir fisiceach Meiriceánach
 2018 — John Young, spásaire Meiriceánach
 Imeachtaí Eile
 1907 - D'oscail Cumann Ríoga Gluaisteán na hÉireann an chéad taispeántas gluaisteán riamh in Éirinn san RDS. Thosaigh seirbhís tacsaí i mBÁC ag an am céanna.
 1911 - Tháinig agóideoirí Protastúnacha le chéile i Halla Tionóil Bhéal Feirste le cur in aghaidh Ne Temere, riail na hEaglaise Caitlicigh sa bhliain 1907.
 1953 - Thuairteáil eitleán (Vickers Viscount) de chuid na haerlíne British European Airways in aerfort Choirnéal Nutt, Béal Feirste. Fuair seachtar daoine fichead bás sa timpiste. Tháinig ochtar eile slán. Ba í seo an tuairt eitleáin ba mheasa riamh i stair Thuaisceart Éireann. D'imigh an píolóta thar an rúidbhealach srl. Iomrall tromchúiseach breithiúnais a rinne an píolóta.
 1976 - Tharla Sléacht Kingsmill; maraíodh deichniúr oibrí Protastúnacha .ag Muilte Ching i gContae Ard Mhacha.
 1981 - In ainneoin na n-agóidí, d'fhógair Aontas Rugbaí na hÉireann go raibh siad le dul go dtí an Afraic Theas le cluiche a imirt in aghaidh na foirne náisiúnta ansin, na Springboks, cé go raibh an apairtéid i réim sa tír sin i gcónaí.
 Tagairtí
 0106
 Eanáir, 06