Talk:National Council Against Health Fraud/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Massachusetts listing again

We came to a consensus on this issue back in October. No one has found any new verifiable, reliable information since. Summarizing what I think we agreed upon: The fact that NCAHF's business license is suspended in California is not notable. The fact that we do not know how NCAHF is currently operating as a corportation is not notable. Any statements assuming the contrary added to the article not only go against our concensus, but most likely violate WP:OR, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOT, and possibly WP:NPOV as well. --Ronz 00:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

It is indeed notable if NCAHF is operating and collecting donation and advertising with no legal corporate status. This is a mockery of an "encyclopedia."

Consensus??? The Attorney General and Secretary of State of Massachusetts were not in agreement with your "consensus." They reiterated that no corporate status was awarded NCAHF and had it been, it would have been on their website. You fool only the other fools.Ilena 01:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)Ilena

Please stop with the personal attacks. --Ronz 01:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Concerning your confirmation with the Attorney General and Secretary of State of Massachusetts: Please provide us with copies of the communications from them and we can move on. --Ronz 01:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure, post your home address "ronz" and I'll send you the recording of the telephone conversations. You are attacking facts. Fact is that NCAHF was suspended, not dissolved. Fact is, they are not a legal entity in Massachusetts. Ilena 02:04, 13 IlenaDecember 2006 (UTC)Ilena

Phone recordings will not suffice as evidence. Can you get something written? That's quite a feat though, getting them both on the phone personally. --Ronz 02:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Please post the transcript and recording on your web site, and we'll consider it. (I don't always agree with Ronz.) I believe that for a cost of less than $100, one can obtain an official transcript of the suspension notice from California. I'll cover the cost (send an E-mail) if it shows the reason for suspension as other than corporate officers (including the agent of process) resigned or left the state. I think I'm safe, but I'm willing to place a small side-bet on the issue. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 02:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

(reposted from User talk:Ilena) [1] There are a number of large corporations doing business in Massachusetts which I cannot find in the directory. This may be a defect in my search proceedures, but it does indicate the possiblility that NCAHF may be registered in another state. Also, non-profits do not necessarily have to register as a foreign corporation in all states in which they solicit donations, even states they are physically located in, but only in those states to which they direct donation requests. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I reviewed the 990 form filed by NCAHF with the IRS for 2005. It specifies that they have also filed in California ... where their corporation was suspended in 2003. [2]

Ilena 17:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)Ilena

So, when Arthur says "foreign corporation", you mean "not incorporated in Massachuesetts", not a corporation outside the US. I think many states give some kind of (semi) offcial status to their websites. So NCAHF's "true status" might be "originally CA incorporated, CA suspended (post BioKing legal meltdown), and *thinking* about being registered in MA to do business as a 'foreign corporation', operating out of MA[3]"??? Sounds like a complex tax exempt & registration status claim/situation to me. The current NCAHF article has it written as the observable states' registration information allows, improvements are welcome.--I'clast 18:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I hope we can all now see why Wikipedia wisely forbids original research. All this speculation based on ill-will and conspiracy theories turns out to be just that. The NCAHF is still registered in California. Can we get back to serious editing, instead of chasing OR theories? -- Fyslee 18:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Fyslee: NCAHF's corporate registration is suspended in California. If it's not a valid corporation anywhere, that would be relevant

I'clast is correct as to what I mean by "foreign corporation".

Ilena: It should also be pointed out that the guidestar.org link above may be provided in violation of their terms of service, and appears to be a 990-EZ extension request for tax year 2004. One wonders where the actual return might be. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Paul Lee's claim: "The NCAHF is still registered in California" is based on what? Please provide link. Although suspended in 2003 in California, they are still claiming on their 990 form that they are filing in California where they have no legal status. Ilena 19:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)Ilena

How are those recordings of your conversations with Attorney General and Secretary of State of Massachusetts coming along? --Ronz 19:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Ronz, your antagonizing isn't helping here. Ilena is doing a good job providing new information to shed some light on this issue. Your reversion of this last edit is unwarranted at this point as it was carefully worded to be a statement of fact without any POV. I don't want to start another edit war over it. Levine2112 20:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

But we already agreed it was not notable. WP:AGF --Ronz 20:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I may be changing my mind about that given the new information Ilena is presenting here. Give her time. Levine2112 20:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

---

Repeating:

I reviewed the 990 form filed by NCAHF with the IRS for 2005. It specifies that they have also filed in California ... where their corporation was suspended in 2003 (990 form, not just the extension at this site) [4]

Also waiting on Mr. Lee's proof evidence that: "The NCAHF is still registered in California" Ilena 23:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC) Ilena

No Ronz, I don't see previous consenus on notability per se, rather perhaps notability in certain suggested hypothetical instances, not even OR. The awareness of facts has changed slightly, and clearly there isn't your consensus. What I see is that you and Fys took advantage of the confusion about the most current status of NCAHF to argue and to lead NATTO & Levine away from concluding anything substantial about the status of NCAHF. This included a simulated threat or feint at NATTO's privacy (Fys' feint,Natto's reply) and...

"Placing the two statements together, about the CA license and the MA search, gives the impression that the company is unlicensed or otherwise operating illegally. --Ronz 00:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC) "

Yes, the facts, as far as known, do raise that possibility, and such a possibility is notable in & of itself to present the bare facts, especially since NCAHF and its interlocking directorate QW, seem to have been posted on Wikipedia for not-so-subtle "examples" of solicitations, some less indirectly than others1st addition of page linked with NCAHF membership & donations formmy previous criticism.As so frequent with the QW orgs' related assertions, after all the sound and fury, the actual facts can be quite different than the superficial presentations or appearance. Encyclopedic data on even "the dot"s becomes significant - what are these organizations is very encyclopedic even if not *all* facts about a mystery cult or questioned organization are known.

Before you even start on me, I'll say an org that claims that it is an MA org, wait it's a CA org, no it *was* a CA org, has no publicly verifiable registered/active status, call me in PA, sent your checks to MA, apparently ignores requests from even its ardent supporters, legitmately seems to me notable as the appearance of the movement of the pea in a (possible) shell game (it's here, it there...). The OR & POV is from the folks that reject the latest data from the state registeries.

Besides, in these situations, there's nothing like partial information to attract more complete information. The facts are stated w/o embellishment, let those who know more, Improve the text.

As for WP:OR, WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:RS, read 'em yourself Ronz. WP:NOT? Wikipedia is NOT a shill.--I'clast 00:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

No new evidence exists. So we're back to arguing everything over again? Why's it notable that we don't know the current legal status of the corporation? --Ronz 01:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Methinks it is just possible that the NCAHF is registered outside of MA. Regardless, it is not notable, other organisations are not picked to pieces over whether or not they are (or aren't) registered. Pushing it is pushing POV and wiki isn't the place for that. I am removing and will continue to remove all references to "registration" for NCAHF until WP:V and WP:N are met. Shot info 02:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Idle speculation used to justify ignoring current, verifiable information in concordance with the published, public registration claims & tax filings of the article's entity, so Shot_info flunks WP:V. Substantial inconsistencies between such published statements that are WP:RS, WP:V such as for public fund raising, tax exempt orgs are intrinsically WP:N, we simply are limited on commentary as far as publishing a conclusion, we only publish the verifiable facts.

Actually Ilena offers new information, the tax forms if nothing else (I am not sure of all the previous registeries and corp status discussions) as well as months of time for any other speculated exceptional possiblities to float to surface. Prior discussions simply did not press the verified information home because of the distracting smoke.--I'clast 11:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

We have no new notable evidence. Ignorance of why NCAHF has filed tax forms as they have is not notable. --Ronz 16:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

---

"Methinks" is evidence of what?Ilena 02:51, 14 Dec 2006 (UTC)

Methinks you have no info per WP:V and that makes it not notable per WP:N regardless of your POV on wiki, wiki is what wiki is. Shot info 02:55, 14 Dec 2006 (UTC)

Wrong, see above. Wiki is not your personal forum, deleting verifiable content AND a whole section especially when specifically requested to improve it *after* adopting previously used formats for the same material, such as at QW:About_the_site , is frowned upon as provocative and uncooperative.--I'clast 11:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Wiki is not anyone's personal forum. I suggest all editors read WP:NOT#SOAP. I find this edit war and much of the discussion surrounding it in blatant violation of this. --Ronz 16:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Fact is Barrett and NCAHF pick apart other organizations they attempt to destroy.Ilena 02:51, 14 Dec 2006 (UTC)

This is not a fact. I feel that it is the root of the WP:NPOV and WP:NOT problems though. --Ronz 16:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

So what, we are talking about wiki here, not your POV. Shot info 02:55, 14 Dec 2006 (UTC)

More like other editors' intransigient POV over a blown smoke cover of idle speculation (i.e. speculated unaforementioned registrations in other states and grace periods but would still seriously conflict internally with now multiple sworn, public documents).--I'clast 11:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, just POV. Our ignorance of what these documents mean is not notable. Speculation on what they might mean is not notable either. --Ronz 16:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Fact: On 2004 and 2005 tax return, they said they were filing in California.Ilena 02:51, 14 Dec 2006 (UTC)

So what. Shot info 02:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Notable inconsistency previously noted.--I'clast 11:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, our ignorance and speculation are not notable. --Ronz 16:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Fact is any legal corporation can prove it in a nanosecond.Ilena 02:51, 14 Dec 2006 (UTC)

This is not a fact. Again, this is the root of NPOV and NOT problems. A non-profit corp with extremely low income has many ways to exist as a legal business entity. Just because we do not know how NCAHF exists as a business entity does not mean it exists illegally. --Ronz 16:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, not notable. You seem to having problems with wikipedia here. Shot info 02:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

What is notable here is the continuing resistance to a clue stick. She definitely is having problems with some editors that have shown little or no sign of cooperation, fairness or inclination to stop heckling in their edits in order to frustrate her contributions. What I see is self congratulatory wikilawyering and shoving it in our faces rather than a serious atttempt to address issues.--I'clast 11:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

We have a problem here. As Ilena is clearly an interested party, her statements that the actual 2004 and 2005 Federal tax returns stated they were filed with California. is not "admissible", unless she can legally scan and upload them. But even the 2004 extension, clearly filed after their California charter was suspended, shows an anomaly — that they planned to file in California after their corporate suspension. If someone from the organization could come here and tell us where the organization is now chartered, we could verify that fact. (The information doesn't appear on their web site.) No, I'm afraid there's enough verifiable information to be of interest. The question still remains whether it violates some other Wikipedia guideline, such as WP:BLP#Public Figures

Material from primary sources should be used with care. For example, public records that include personal details such as home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations and home or business addresses should not generally be used. Where a fact has first been presented by a verifiable secondary source, it is acceptable to turn to open records as primary sources to augment the secondary source. Material that is related to their notability, such as court filings of someone notable in part for being involved in legal disputes, are allowable, as are public records such as graduation dates, dates of marriage licenses and the like, where they are publicly available and where that information has first been reported by a verifiable secondary source. See also WP:V.

Corporate registration information and tax returns are certaintly "public records", and Ilena is not a "verifiable secondary source". But, as an anti-fraud web site, inconsistent tax filing goes to their credibility. It's a close question. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing close about it. Our ignorance of how NCAHF exists as a business entity is not notable. Much of the discussion around this issue demonstrates what I think is blatant disregard for NPOV, NOT, OR, V, and N. --Ronz 16:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

What Mr Rubin is calling 'ignorance' is blindness. The State of California's suspension notice is public and the link has been provided several times. This is a clear and obvious attempt to censor appropriate and factual criticism of NCAHF, including by those with ties to this operation.

This is not POV ... this is clear and utter censorship and attempts to conceal evidence by Ronz (who could be Stephen Barrett himself).

What is being ignored here is any legal entity can prove it's legality in a heartbeat. The rest is pure and utter censorship.

Ilena 17:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

It was Ronz who called it ignorance, not me. If it were established that their 2004 tax returns were to be filed with California, then the only question would be "can a suspended California non-profit corporation still legally operate as a California entity?" (Whether it can legally operate as a Massachusetts entity is irrelevant, because their tax filings would state that they are operating as a California entity.) I think what Ilena has uncovered from public records can be stated in the article without comment, if it meets WP:BLP. The close question is whether it does meet WP:BLP. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

"then the only question would be "can a suspended California non-profit corporation still legally operate as a California entity?"" which is a largely irrelevant question if the corporation does not need to operate as a Californai corporation (or any corporation registered in any state or territory of the United States) in order to qualify under the US IRS 501(c)(3) regulations. Shot info 06:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

---

My apologies Mr. Rubin. Indeed, it is "Ronz" who is hiding behind anonymity and claiming "ignorance" for facts in evidence that he chooses to ignore. Thank you for your support of providing this information to the public. Barrett has a history of using what he called "guerrillas" and anonymity for his campaigns. See quote from an article he wrote in AMA Journal here.[5] Ilena 17:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm neither hiding nor ignoring anything. I'm certainly no "guerrilla" and I don't appreciate any of your accusations and insuations. Please stop it with the personal attacks. --Ronz 18:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

---

Ronz is hiding his identity. If he believes that quoting Stephen Barrett's published article in the AMA news is an attack, that is his opinion. Quoth Stephen J. Barrett, writing in AMA News on August 25, 1975, describing the Lehigh Valley Committee Against Health Fraud:

"By working "undercover" using assumed names and box numbers, we've gotten all sorts of information and publications other groups, like the medical societies, haven't been able to lay their hands on.

...Really, we're a bunch of guerrillas - we're not a large group, there are about 40 members, but we're the only such group in the country."

Stop removing the evidence about NCAHF. This is not POV, this is facts and you are censoring the truth. For someone who screams that you are being "attacked" so often, perhaps you should come out of your anonymity and admit who you are. You are now complaining that the facts on NCAHF's suspension shouldn't be under criticism. You are attempting to censor facts. Ilena 18:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Stop with the personal attacks. --Ronz 22:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit conflict]Ronz, as I first asked, please try to improve the article, there are number of positive possibilities. If we have tenatively agreed that the bare CA suspension, MA absent status statement stays, I think we can defuse some tension. Ilena, I agree with Ronz' deletion of the telephone segment as basic WP:RS until more documentation is available. Also, although several editors here operate in their true name or are known, we don't insist on true names from other editors as a matter of privacy and etiquette although sometimes it might be helpful. And Arthur, thanks for some patient analysis.--I'clast 22:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Stays? I strongly disagree. It appears others do as well. Where is that discussion so we can all weigh in further? I think it's POV and not notable. If it's not notable, there's no reason to keep it in. If it's POV, it should be removed. I'm trying to improve the article by preventing information from being added to the article that is in violation of multiple wiki guidelines and policies. I don't appreciate your suggesting I'm doing otherwise. --Ronz 22:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm asking for your positive, additive contribution. I think if you discussed other things about NCAHF's history or such, it wouldn't feel like such a stick in the eye to mention something that isn't so positive. A lot of editors have felt the status anomaly was notable, you have pushed your point of view very hard here, let it go.--I'clast 22:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Along with your accusations of POV, I don't appreciate your demands either. --Ronz 22:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Ronz, perhaps you are being a tad over-sensitive. I'clast is not demanding... I'clast is asking. Specifically, asking for coorperation. Levine2112 22:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Obviously I disagree. I feel I'm cooperating without compromising wiki guidelines and policy. --Ronz 23:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Edits Wars are against Wiki guidelines and policy and yet the recent history of this article is riddle with your reverts. I'clast and Ilena have both presented verifiable facts and have shown great care in wording without POV. I am just asking (not demanding) that instead of accusing people of this-and-that, why not edit more cooperatively and be more civil with each other? If someone is being uncivil, don't call them out on it here. Instead, write them a nice message on their talk page explaining why you feel they are being uncivil and suggest ways they can improve. Sound good? Levine2112 23:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Obviously, I disagree. Most of the "facts" aren't, and none are notable. As for the rest, I already have. Buy why is it that you didn't you follow your own advise and post on my Talk page? --Ronz 00:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm talking to you now. Levine2112 00:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Why is Massachusetts notable? That's where they collect their donations and that is the address they list on their homepage. Ilena 22:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Now we are getting somewhere. Fact is, we don't know what state they are registered in or even if they are registered in the US. The address on their website is just that....an address, probably just their postal address. Not to dissimilar to the approach that businesses around the world use, I might note. Hence, since we don't know, we don't know and wiki is not the place to put allegations. I fail to what "where they collect their donations" means or how it affects corporation registration location. Shot info 23:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I highly recommend you upgrade your understanding of non profit foundations. Unlike you, the Attorney General of the State of Massachusetts reviewed the same website and found it quite notable that they collected funds in Massachusetts with no state corporate license. Further, Barrett and Paul Lee could prove a legal corporate status in a heartbeat were it available. Further, their IRS form lists California ... even years after they were suspended there. No other state was mentioned. Ilena 23:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

And I highly recommend that you have a look at WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Also, I would suggest that you have Tom Reilly back you up. Also, why isn't the IRS onto them if they lodged in CA and yet CA had suspended them. Prehaps CA's database is screwed up? FACT is we don't know and hence, we don't know, which is what the article was amended to. Shot info 23:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The California database is up-to-date.[6] The information displayed here is current as of "DEC 08, 2006" and is updated weekly. As far as the IRS, they probably have not been notified of the suspension yet. Ilena 01:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

And so we're back to speculation, still blatantly in violation of WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:NOT, WP:N. More importantly, we're wasting huge amounts of time on these speculations. --Ronz 15:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

What speculation? This is a government site. How much more verifiability do you need? God? There's no OR. It's right there in black-and-white on the site. No NPOV violation and I don't know which NOT violation you are referring to. And WP:N? Come on. This is so notable! This concerns the corporate status of this organization. I'm sure sure there's more to this story and hopefully leaving this up on the article (which we will), will prompt more of the NCAHF story to be revealed. Any other WP: letter violations you want to throw around? Or can we just move on and stop wasting time on this obvious attempt to white wash this article? Levine2112 03:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

We disagree. Completely it seems. --Ronz 03:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

It would be great if you actually enumerated specific violations instead of Wikipedia letter codes, then we could actually know what we are disagreeing about specifically. Levine2112 08:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe I already have, repeatedly. I'm unaware of any definition or policy of "white washing" on wikipedia. Please explain or stop using. --Ronz 15:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Please provide again then, or point me to a place where I can read it. FYI, Whitewash is a form of censorship via omission in which errors or misdemeanors are deliberately concealed or downplayed. Levine2112 18:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

And why is it that accusations of "whitewash" are acceptable per WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, WP:NPA? --Ronz 19:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Please stop evading my simple request and provide your explanation of how the Sahelian quote make each and every violation which you have cited. Otherwise it shows that you are deliberately concealing information for no good cause... hence whitewash. Levine2112 03:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but there is absolutely no reason for me to meet any request of yours, especially when you are repeatedly uncivil towards me. --Ronz 05:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Please edit cooperatively. I apologize for any perceived uncivility. Now let's have your explanations. Levine2112 07:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

There at 49 other states and several other territories that this organisation could potentially be incorporated in. Since we don't know, it is not notable to say "They are not registered in MA and suspended in CA and by the way, wiki editors haven't bothered to look elsewhere". In my opinion, this is why it is not notable, as it is largely irrelevant. The only fact that we have is we do not know. And if we don't know, it is speculation. Shot info 08:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

We know from their site that they say they are located in Massachusetts and are a non-profit.

Their website has an address on it. The pertinent laws (Non-profit organization has some basic info) do not require an organisation to be in the state they do business in. It is preferably but not compulsory. Nor it is compulsory to be a corporation (IIRC) to claim 501(c)(3) status in the US. There are sections relating to unincorporated organisations (ie/ partnerships and the like). So we are back at

1. The address is no bearing on their location for corporation status.

2. We don't know if they are incorporated.

3. It is in fact possible that they are not incorporated.

4. It is likely that tax exception status (in the US) is unaffected by this lack of corporation status.

5. They lodge their tax forms in CA, from an address in MA.

Hence we are back at speculation. Shot info 08:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

We know that Massachusetts has no business listing for them. We know - from the California business portal site

And in all honesty, these are the only two "facts" that we have. All else is truely speculation. Shot info 08:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

- that they once had a license in California but that license has been suspended for quite some time now. Despite this, we know that they filed tax docs in California after the time of the suspension.

It isn't a "license", corporation. What you will find is that the original corporation chartered in CA has been suspended for various reasons (which all have been discussed in the archive). So potentially the NCAHF is not operating as a corporation. What does this mean? It means that it can be operating like a lot of small business, sole operators, contractors, self-employed people, partnerships etc. etc. etc. But this is just speculation. As I keep saying we don't know. If we don't know, then it is WP:OR to say otherwise. Shot info 08:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

It is all very curious and we could all speculate wildly on the "whys" and "whos" and "whats" and "wheres" and "hows" of this curious behavior... but we won't do that in the article because that is a violation of WP:OR. However, we can and should put in what we do know - what I state above. I guarantee that the rest of the story will come if we don't sweep these facts under the rug now. Sometimes you have to hang a lure - a verifiable lure - out there for others to come around and bite and share resources and information which they are privy to.

This is NOT the reason wikipedia exists and in fact it is exactly why this information should not be here. Shot info 08:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Truly, there is no legitimate reason not to include this entirely verifiable information in the article... and as I said, the advantage is that it will lead to a more complete article. Time and patience, dear editors. Levine2112 08:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:NOT anybody? When it becomes notable, then by it's own definition, it becomes notable. Shot info 08:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

If I were making a donation for $100 to NCAHF (in MA), I would be very much interested that it is duly registered. That it is not actively registered either in MA or CA is an anomalous fact, I *definitely* would want to know that about in and of itself. For people so concerned about fraud and scams this point seems elementary. IT'S NOTABLE and anomalous, even Arthur agreed here.--I'clast 11:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Duly registered as what. Registered as a non-profit organisation. Well the IRS (who by the way are probably just a little bit more informed on the subject than everybody here) believe they qualify. But as a corporate body, well, this is what we are trying to find out. So to answer your quite obvious strawman, yes, you can make a donation to the 501(c)(3) organisation. In the US, you don't need to be a corporation to be an "organisation". Something I note you have and keep ignoring in your efforts to WP:PUSHPOV. Since you don't seem to know about corporations or charities or not for profit organisations in the United States, I suggest that you check what WP:OR states about drawing conclusions from "facts" in wikipedia. Shot info 22:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

King Bio

Hired as or for would be nice, reference.--I'clast 22:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I think we've done a good job recently of improving the King Bio section. I dont understand the purpose or see value in adding, "NCAHF then hired it's own Vice President and former Chair Stephen Barrett and Wallace Sampson." --Ronz 22:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Because they were paying themselves to be their own witnesses. Read the case. The judge goes into this in great length and why it seems like suspicious behavior. Levine2112 23:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Incorporation Status/Massachusetts listing yet again

Summarizing where I think we are so far:

We have no source that shows it's notability (so it should be removed per WP:V and WP:N). --Ronz 16:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• It is completely verifiable from the sources given that NCAHF's business license was suspended in CA; that they claim to now operate out of Massachusetts; that Massachusetts has no listing for them; and that they still filed for taxes in CA after moving to Massachusetts.Levine2112 17:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

But we have no source saying this is notable. I'm not saying the information is not verifiable, only that the notabiliby is unsourced. --Ronz 18:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

We have lots of original research here speculating why it may or may not be notable. This research is the only rationale for supporting the inclusion of the information (so it should be removed per WP:OR). --Ronz 16:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• I agree. We do have a lot of OR going on here speculating about the irregularities I just enumerated above. However, none of this speculation was in the version you just deleted. It was just the cold hard facts. Levine2112 17:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

As long as the speculation on this discussion page (and archives) are the only rationale, then it's OR. --Ronz 18:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia is for documenting what is verifiably known (so the information should be removed per WP:NOT). --Ronz 16:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• As I state above, all of the information is verfiable from extremely notable sources: California State government, Massachusetts state government, and IRS tax records. Levine2112 17:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

"and its current status is unknown" is not verifiable. It's an admission of OR, and is completly unencyclopedic. --Ronz 18:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

This information is repeatedly presented within this discussion as criticism of Barrett (so it should be removed per WP:NPOV). --Ronz 16:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• This article isn't about Barrett. So I don't know why you mention him now. This is about NCAHF. And the last version which you deleted was not presented as a criticism nor in the criticism section. Levine2112 17:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I mention him because other editors have. The fact that it's currently not presented as criticism doesn't change the past discussion here. --Ronz 18:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

We have no consensus on the information at this time (so it should be removed per WP:NPOV and WP:CONSENSUS). --Ronz 16:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• We have no consensus that it should be removed either. Levine2112 17:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Correct. Thanks for agreeing we have no consensus. But of course articles aren't filled with what hasn't achieved consensus, but what has. I guess that this is a NOT issue as well. --Ronz 18:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• • Ronz, please stop. We know you don't want people to know about the suspension of NCAHF, but there is a new consensus that this is relevant for an entity claiming to be incorporated. It's been over 6 months since NCAHF has been questioned and provided no evidence of any legal corporate status. Paul Lee said in October he would find out, then made claims of it being legal again with absolutely no evidence. Either provide the link to a legal corporate entity, please, or let the facts stand. Thank you. Ilena 18:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

No. I disagree, so by definition there is no consensus. Levine2112 also says there is no consensus. Perhaps you should consider stopping instead. Thanks for providing more information that this is an issue of OR and NPOV though. --Ronz 19:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

"relevant for an entity claiming to be incorporated" the entity in question do not make this claim. This is the point that you have been ignoring inasmuch as you ignore the fact that you don't need to be incorporated to claim non-profit status. You are trying to make the claim that they are not incorporated to push your POV that it means something nefarious. What I suggest and keep pointing out and you all keep ignoring because you are not looking at this outside of your POV. Shot info 22:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

From Ilena's comment earlier "It is indeed notable if NCAHF is operating and collecting donation and advertising with no legal corporate status. This is a mockery of an "encyclopedia." ". Since NCAHF can legally operate and collect donations and advertising without a "legal corporate status", this implies that in fact it is no longer notable. Unless of course, there is a new legal fiction invented to make it notable. Shot info 23:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

So sorry to have to point out your error, but indeed, NCAHF does claim to be a corporation and does indeed collect donations.It further, claimed to be filing with California after their license was suspended (not dissolved) in California. Whoever chooses to deny these facts, seems to be acting in a disrespectful manner. Any legal entity can prove itself in the heartbeat of a hummingbird. Ilena 23:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with being in error, which is why I am pointing these things out. I don't see anywhere in NCAHF literature (ie/ their website) where they make the claim to be incorporated, the only location I can find is on their tax return where they have "INC." after their name. This is probably the fault of the accountant preparing the paperwork as I know that simple errors like this often crop up in my own experience and since the IRS hasn't stopped it, it would appear that the IRS does not mind. It is not "proof" that the NCAHF is holding itself out to be incorporated. As "any legal entity can prove itself in a hearbeat..." I will point out that partnerships and sole operators are next to impossible to "prove themselves" using information that Wikipedia finds verifiable. This comment is a strawman and largely irrelevant to the topic at hand. Shot info 00:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

There are dated verifiable statements as to NCAHF status. (1) NCAHF, Inc. tax ext filings with MA address, (2) CA suspension 1993, (3) NCAHF, Inc. currently solicits membership & donation with MA address, (4) there is no MA registration on file is also a fact, whether or not there is some "intent to file" provision or not (these things are usually for 1-2 yrs of passive or inactive status, INAL, don't really care). These facts, changes and discrepancies, are notable and somewhat anomalous in and of themselves. Any changes in status ARE notable, you are free to add them. Whether or not the article is absolutely most current is not required - as long as the facts that are known are also dated, they remain accurate, verifiable stmts of fact. Again, you or the NCAHF principals are free to update them with fresher, verifiable facts as available. As I said earlier this ISnotable to ordinary individual readers for ordinary reasons, whether or not NCAHF is "legal".--I'clast 00:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

---

(1) This is the only document that has been discovered to date since NCAHF was suspended in CA. It's relevance can be dismissed if you have had involvment with tax returns for corporations. As I pointed out above, the IRS has no problems with this and I believe it is the accountant who has "XXXXX Inc" on their books and the typist just typed it in.

(2) Agree

(3) Does NCAHF, Inc. or NCAHF (no Inc) make these claims. From my reading only NCAHF exists. No "Inc."

(4) Agree.

So the notable facts are, they were incorporated in CA, they aren't now. And their current status is unknown. Thats it. Now if this is notable, then so be it, but since there are various editors (Ilena for example) who make the link between "illegal" and "I cannot find their incorporation status" who make the claim that this is notable, I am suspicious of their motives (WP:OR). You will note though that I have left the status in there. Shot info 00:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I find it extremely amusing that you are suspicious of my motives, and not a suspended California Corporation who still collects money in Massachusetts while claming the State of California is lying about their corporate status. This has been going on for over 41 months. Because of this, people who want to sue NCAHF have no legal way to do so. User:Ilena|Ilena]] 03:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Bullocks, you are showing your ignorance on the matter if you think that a natural person or a corporation cannot be sued. You have your own person as an example. BTW "while claming the State of California is lying about their corporate status" proof anybody?????? Shot info 05:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. Baratz and Paul Lee claim that NCAHF is a legal California corporation while the State of California claims they are not. For Baratz and Lee to be correct, the State of California would have to be lying on their website for 3 1/2 years about their status. Ilena 15:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Rag-tag Posse of Snake-Oil Vigilantes

I have been mocked for mentioning this posse ... seen it called a "satire page" ... when in fact, it is a group, which includes Barrett and Paul Lee and several others, who proclaim that they go after "net quacks" and that their official sites are ncahf.org an quackwatch.com. Here is an archived page: [7]. I just checked, and within the last few weeks, they have removed the current site showing the Posse together. Here is an archived listing of their websites: Our web sites: www.quackwatch.com www.healthwatcher.net www.ratbags.com www.ncahf.org [8]. This Posse was formed the same year as Barrett and Team launched several SLAPP suits against critics and those who practiced modalities which they disagreed with. These members are seen on blogs, usenet and various chatgroups in various disguises advertising NCAHF/QW and attacking the same people as the plaintiffs are suing. Anyone, like Barrett, who calls himself "the media" (isn't he humble) will use the various mediums to push their viewpoints and minimize their opposition. Have a lovely day and thank you. Ilena 16:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

What does this have to do with the article? Why are you disrupting the talk page? I propose this section be immediately moved to the archive. --Ronz 16:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Disruption is in the eyes of the beholder. Many believe you were disruptive when you kept 'editing out' the evidence of NCAHF's non Corporate status. Thank you and Have a lovely Holiday. Ilena 18:10, 26 December 2006 (UTC)