Connect with us

IRS Complaint Filed Against NOM And Witherspoon In Regnerus Anti-Gay Study Scandal



We have been reporting on an invalid sociological study on gay parenting carried out by researcher Mark Regnerus of the University of Texas, Austin.

Regnerus’s known total of $785,000 for the study was arranged by The Witherspoon Institute and The Bradley Foundation, where Robert P. George — head of the anti-gay-rights, scientifically disreputable National Organization for Marriage (NOM) — holds positions of authority. Witherspoon president Luis Tellez is a NOM board member.

Bradley and Witherspoon are organized as 501(c)3 tax exempt entities.

One arm of NOM, by contrast, is a 501(c)4 organization. NOM apparently would not have been legally able to fund the Regnerus study and to use it subsequently as a political weapon in the 2012 elections. Likewise, Bradley and Witherspoon as 501(c)3s charities are limited in the  extent of political involvement legally allowed them.

There thus is some appearance that the Regnerus study money could have been political money, laundered for NOM through Bradley and Witherspoon — (with the money perhaps laundered coming from as-yet-unidentified donors) — even though the Regnerus study was schemed up above all for NOM and Republican Party uses as a political weapon in the 2012 elections.

The appearance is that as a NOM proxy — and as a loophole in the differences between what is legally allowed to 501(c)3s and to 501(c)4s — Bradley/Witherspoon funded the Regnerus study for NOM — with laundered money — for a known minimum of $785,000.

Accordingly, a 501(c)3 tax exempt laws violations COMPLAINT has been filed with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), against Bradley, Witherspoon and NOM.

The IRS handles such complaints, firstly, by sending the complainant a letter acknowledging receipt of the COMPLAINT.

The body of the COMPLAINT text appears below. The actual communication sent to the IRS included such information as NOM’s and Witherspoon’s addresses. The COMPLAINT noted that NOM and Witherspoon formerly shared the address of 20 Nassau Street, Suite 242, Princeton, New Jersey 08542.  The COMPLAINT text below is identical to the actual COMPLAINT text sent to the IRS, though hyperlinks have been inserted for online readers’ ease of reference.


1)       Organization is involved in a political campaign
2)      Organization is engaged in excessive lobbying activities
3)      Organization engaged in deceptive or improper fundraising practices
4)      Income/assets are being used to support illegal or terrorist activities

The central allegation is that The Bradley Foundation (“Bradley”)  and The Witherspoon Institute (“Witherspoon”), both 501(c)(3) tax exempt organizations, laundered money for political projects for — and/or of — The National Organization for Marriage, which is a 501(c)4 political advocacy organization subject to tax laws different from those pertaining for 501(c)3 organizations.

The central alleged tax law violation involves The Bradley Foundation’s and the Witherspoon Institute’s financing of the “New Family Structures Study” (“the Study”), a sociological study carried out by the University of Texas at Austin’s Mark Regnerus, who made use of  publicly-funded UT facilities in carrying out his study.

The Study could apparently not legally have been funded by NOM, and then later used by NOM as a political weapon in the 2012 elections. Furthermore, Bradley and Witherspoon apparently could not legally have funded such a study and then subsequently have promoted it as heavily as NOM is doing, in political contexts in the 2012 elections.

There is an appearance that NOM officials who also have official positions with Bradley and Witherspoon knowingly subverted the letter and spirit of tax laws applying to 501(c)3 organizations compared to 501(c)4 organizations, in order to further political goals shared by those same NOM, Bradley and Witherspoon officials and their corresponding, common organizations. The appearance is that as a NOM proxy — and as a loophole in the differences between what is legally allowed to 501(c)3s and to 501(c)4s — Bradley/Witherspoon funded the Regnerus study for NOM — with laundered money — for a known minimum of $785,000.

The Study, as happens, has been very heavily, politically weaponized and promoted by both the Study funder Witherspoon and NOM jointly, and in political contexts. Witherspoon created a stand-alone website for the Study. Most all propagandistic and weaponized political articles involving the Study and published on one of Witherspoon’s various websites are rapidly cross-posted to NOM’s blog. NOM and Witherspoon officials have been using various media venues to promote the weaponized Study. The National Review is one example of a venue being used that way by NOM and/or Witherspoon officials as well as by Regnerus himself. An article about Regnerus in The Weekly Standard described Witherspoon as having orchestrated a “careful rollout” of the study. Whereas the study was not made available to the public pre-publication — (though it had for months already been approved for publication) – articles and editorials supporting it notably appeared early in print in The Deseret News, where Witherspoon/Bradley/NOM’s Robert George is on the editorial advisory board.

The Bradley Foundation is known to have provided general financial support to The Witherspoon Institute in the past. Robert George, a NOM founder and its current mastermind, is a Bradley Foundation board member. Robert George also is a senior fellow of the Witherspoon Institute. Witherspoon president Luis Tellez is a NOM board member.

The Bradley Foundation gave a known minimum grant of $90,000 for the Regnerus study. The Witherspoon Institute gave a known minimum $55,000 “planning grant” for the Regnerus study. It is presumed that Witherspoon had an option not to fund the full Study upon consideration of Regnerus’s presented study plan. Total known minimum funding for the Regnerus study is $785,000.

NOM is very heavily invested, and involved in the 2012 elections nationwide. NOM and/or its various state affiliates are involved in 1) the 2012 presidential campaign; 2) congressional and senatorial campaigns on both the national and state levels; 3) campaigns involving candidates for other elected offices and; 4) campaigns involving state ballot initiatives.

Most of NOM’s political campaigns rely to no small extent on demonizing homosexuals based on known falsifications of scientific records. NOM, for example, demonizes homosexuals by quoting works by Paul Cameron, who in the 1980s was expelled from multiple professional organizations because of his documented falsifications of scientific records.

The Regnerus study is widely considered a falsified scientific record. Though the Study has the form of a test-group, control-group comparison study, it makes no apparently valid comparison between its test-group/control-group, yet is said by Regnerus and its funders to have “proved” that gay parents have worse child outcomes than do heterosexual parents.

The study was published by Elsevier’s journal Social Science Research, through an apparently corrupt peer review process, in which none of the peer reviewers were topic experts. Some of the peer reviewers had conflicts of interest, including that some were paid Regnerus study consultants, while others had long-standing personal associations with Regnerus.

A group of over 200 Ph.D.s and M.D.s sent a letter to Social Science Research, complaining of the Study’s lack of intellectual integrity and expressing concerns about the suspicious circumstances of the Study’s publication. The signers of that letter noted: “there are substantial concerns about the merits of this paper, and these concerns should have been identified through a thorough and rigorous peer review process.”

Additionally, a group of eight major professional associations including the American Medical Association filed an amicus brief in the Golinski-DOMA case, analyzing the Regnerus study as scientifically invalid.

Moreover, Witherspoon officials with conflicts of interest in commenting publicly about the Regnerus study have been making attempted defenses of the Study without disclosing their conflicts of interest. For example, Witherspoon senior fellow Byron Johnson is Director of the Baylor Institute for Religious Studies. Johnson organized a group of 18 to sign an attempted public defense of the Regnerus study. The attempted defense, however, does not even attempt to rebut the coherent and decisive scientific criticisms of the Study. And, Johnson does not disclose that he is senior fellow of Witherspoon, which funded the Regnerus study and is busy heavily promoting it politically, jointly with NOM.  Johnson furthermore did not disclose that Regnerus himself has a Baylor affiliation.

NOM’s main — (but hardly sole) — purposes are to bar LGBT Americans from being treated as legal equals, and not only in marriage law, despite NOM’s name. NOM’s Maggie Gallagher, for example, has published articles saying that she is “unwilling” to live in a country that grants anti-discrimination protections of any sort to homosexuals. NOM issued a “pledge” signed by all major Republican presidential candidates including Mitt Romney. Romney made a secret $10,000 donation to NOM through an Alabama PAC; that secret donation now is the subject of an ethics investigation being undertaken by the State of California.

In March, 2012, NOM earned public condemnation and revulsion when some of its internal strategy documents were released through court order. Those documents described plots to get children raised by gay parents to denounce their parents on camera, as well as plots to “drive a wedge” and to “fan hostility” between various minority groups, including between African-Americans and gays. NOM also is known to fan hostility against Muslims and Jews; the Bradley Foundation has a reputation for funding extremist anti-Muslim bigots. NOM sponsors hate rallies where NOM-approved speakers yell at crowds through megaphones that homosexuals are “worthy to death.” NOM’s William Duncan leads hateful seminars with titles such as “Homosexuals or Homo Sapiens: Who Deserves Protected Class Status?”

Witherspoon and NOM have been using the Regnerus study in association with their fund raising, and political fund raising campaigns. They appear to be using at least some of the money thus raised for terroristic activities.

NOM, for example, launched a boycott of Starbucks because of that company’s support for gay rights. NOM had its Starbucks boycott materials with anti-gay hate speech translated into foreign languages including Arabic, and languages of other countries where gay people face overt hostility and even death, merely for being found out as homosexual. With depraved indifference to the plight of homosexual people in such countries, NOM published its anti-gay hate speech and Starbucks boycott materials, along with detailed Starbucks location maps for such countries as Saudi Arabia. Additionally, in its Starbucks boycott materials, NOM overtly highlights that the Starbucks CEO has a conspicuously and readily identifiably Jewish surname; Howard Schultz. There is some appearance that NOM is attempting to associate Jews, gay rights and Starbucks in the minds of people in Saudi Arabia, to build resentment. The resulting heightened danger to both gay people in Saudi Arabia, and Starbucks physical plants as well as employees there should be obvious. In this connection, it should be noted that the Regnerus study has been translated into many foreign languages and published online. The scientifically invalid Regnerus study’s bottom line – that homosexuals are dangerous to children – echoes other falsified scientific records that Witherspoon/NOM previously have used to demonize homosexuals in political contexts. Note that the SPLC’s 2012 Intelligence Report on NOM is titled National Organization for Marriage Continues to Spread Lies About Gays.

Moreover, Witherspoon and NOM officials have known connections to American evangelicals and others who travel abroad, including to Africa, to hate-monger against homosexuals. One place where such NOM-linked anti-homosexual hate mongering is connected to terrorism is Uganda, whose government proposed a “Kill the gays” law in reaction to the American evangelical-led anti-gay hate mongering. Ugandan tabloids began publishing names and addresses of known homosexuals and calling for their executions. Executions of homosexuals were carried out. Alarmed by that situation, California Congressman Brad Sherman proposed a congressional resolution against Uganda’s violation of its homosexual citizens’ human rights.

Bradley/Witherspoon/NOM’s Robert George was involved with an attempt to block Congressman Sherman’s proposed humane congressional resolution. Here is how:

George is a board member of the Family Research Council, a Southern Poverty Law Center-certified anti-gay hate group. The SPLC classifies a group as a hate group when it repeatedly disseminates known falsehoods against a minority.

Bradley/Witherspoon/NOM’s Robert George’s Family Research Council spent a known minimum of $35,000 lobbying against the proposed congressional resolution against Uganda’s inhumane treatment of its homosexual citizens, on grounds that the congressional resolution constituted “pro-homosexual promotions.” Thus it is clear that these hate groups would rather see innocent gay people killed than to speak up in the gay victims’ defense. That demonstrated, depraved attitude should be kept in mind by those evaluating NOM’s intent in translating its Starbucks boycott materials into such languages as Arabic and publishing them together with detailed online maps of every Starbucks location in Saudi Arabia.

In various states, NOM is in the courts fighting charges of campaign finance law violations. In California, where NOM has connections to —  among other political entities — “” and “Yes on 8” — campaign finance law violation complaints were filed by Republican presidential candidate Fred Karger, with California’s Fair Political Practices Commission. The aforementioned NOM-linked entities admitted to 18 counts of violating campaign finance laws, and want to settle by paying $49,000 in fines. The Fair Political Practices Commission has not yet decided whether to accept a settlement.

The central allegation of this 501(c)3 tax exempt organization tax laws violation is now reiterated:

1)       The Bradley Foundation and the Witherspoon Institute are both 501(c)3s;
2)      The National Organization for Marriage is a 501(c)4;
3)      Robert George is; i) a Bradley board member; ii) a Witherspoon senior fellow; and iii) founder and mastermind of NOM;
4)      NOM had demonstrated 2012 election year political uses for a study that demonizes homosexuals;
5)      NOM as a 501(c)4 would not legally have been able to fund a study demonizing homosexuals and thereafter to use it as a political weapon in the 2012 elections;
6)      Bradley and NOM as 501(c)3s would not legally be able to fund a study demonizing homosexuals and thereafter to use it as a political weapon in the 2012 elections;
6)      As a NOM proxy — and as a loophole in the differences between what is legally allowed to 501(c)3s and to 501(c)4s — Bradley/Witherspoon funded the Regnerus study with laundered money for a known minimum of $785,000;
7)      Witherspoon/NOM and Regnerus himself are busily promoting the weaponized Study in political terms, and in political and election year contexts

Various journalists have made Freedom of Information Act requests for documentation pertaining to the funding of the Regnerus study. All involved entities have refused to comply with those FOIA requests.


New York City-based novelist and freelance writer Scott Rose’s LGBT-interest by-line has appeared on,, The New York Blade,, Girlfriends and in numerous additional venues. Among his other interests are the arts, boating and yachting, wine and food, travel, poker and dogs. His “Mr. David Cooper’s Happy Suicide” is about a New York City advertising executive assigned to a condom account.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.


Double Bombshell: Mark Meadows and Trump’s Secret Service Agents Have Testified, NYT Reports



The New York Times late Tuesday afternoon published two separate reports revealing previously unknown details from Special Counsel Jack Smith’s double-pronged investigation into Donald Trump’s likely unlawful actions, including that investigators have interviewed or subpoenaed approximately two dozen people who are among those who know the ex-president best: Mark Meadows, Trump’s final White House Chief of Staff, and “more than 20” of the ex-president’s Secret Service agents.

The Times, pointing to the “surprise revelation” that a federal grand jury has been convened in Florida, reports Meadows has testified before the grand jury, presumably in Washington, D.C. The 20 or more members of the ex-president’s Secret Service detail have either testified before the D.C. grand jury or been subpoenaed to do so.

Meadows is a “key witness” who allegedly was intimately aware or involved in Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election, and he is believed to also have knowledge of the ex-president’s likely unlawful handling of classified and top secret documents.

Suggesting there could be “unknown complexities” with the revelation of a Florida grand jury, The Times reports Special Counsel Jack Smith’s D.C. grand jury appears to have stopped hearing testimony recently from witnesses, while the one in the Sunshine State “began hearing evidence last month,” but has seen “only a handful of witnesses.”

READ MORE: Jim Jordan Demands Merrick Garland Hand Over Documents Authorizing Special Counsel’s Trump Investigation

Based on “people familiar with the matter,” The Times explains, “if both grand juries are in operation, it suggests that prosecutors are considering bringing charges in both Washington and Florida. It is possible that Mr. Trump could be charged in one jurisdiction while other people involved in the case are charged in the other.”

“But if only the Florida grand jury is currently hearing testimony, it suggests two possibilities,” The Times explains. “One is that the investigation in Washington is largely complete and that prosecutors are now poised to make a decision about bringing charges there while still weighing other potential indictments in Florida.”

Other possibilities are that the Special Counsel believes Florida is the proper venue to file charges against Trump, in the documents probe, or even that the Florida grand jury was convened to accommodate “local witnesses.”

But former Deputy Asst. Attorney General Harry Litman told MSNBC’s Nicole Wallace Tuesday that if the Special Counsel files charges in the wrong venue, the entire case “can go away” and cannot be retried.

READ MORE: Buttigieg: Republicans Are Targeting LGBTQ People Because They ‘Don’t Want to Talk About’ Their Own ‘Radical Positions’

“I think Smith has made all his decisions,” Litman added. “The fact that there was this meeting yesterday, only happens when everything’s final. I think there’s a draft indictment and everything, but a very important strategic decision is venue, and I think that they’re pursuing something separate in the Southern District of Florida.”

Meanwhile, The Times notes that “Mr. Meadows has kept largely out of sight, and some of Mr. Trump’s advisers believe he could be a significant witness in the inquiries.” Apparently, even Trump has “at times asked aides questions about how Mr. Meadows is doing, according to a person familiar with the remarks.”

Meadows’ attorney, George Terwilliger, played coy when asked about his client’s possible grand jury testimony. Terwilliger told The Times, “Without commenting on whether or not Mr. Meadows has testified before the grand jury or in any other proceeding, Mr. Meadows has maintained a commitment to tell the truth where he has a legal obligation to do so.”

In addition to his knowledge, if not participation in efforts to overturn the election, and his knowledge of Trump’s mishandling and possible attempts to obstruct the Dept. of Justice’s investigation into the classified documents, Meadows “tangentially” is involved in a meeting that Special Counsel Smith now has recorded audio of. Although he was not present, that meeting was about Meadows’ book. In the audio, Trump allegedly made clear he knew the highly-classified Pentagon document had not been declassified, shattering his stated defense, and he allegedly said he wanted to share it, which could lead to more legal troubles for him.

Andrew Weissmann, a former top DOJ official, tweeted in response to the Times’ story on Meadows, “Did he plead or was he given immunity?”

Professor of law at NYU Law, Ryan Goodman, a former Special Counsel for the Dept. of Defense, served up this equation:

“Put these 2 things together and what do you have? 1) Meadows ‘has testified before a federal grand jury…in the investigations being led by the special counsel’s office’! 2) Meadow’s actions seem to be kept secret from Trump team! Answer: A cooperator?”


Continue Reading


Buttigieg: Republicans Are Targeting LGBTQ People Because They ‘Don’t Want to Talk About’ Their Own ‘Radical Positions’



U.S. Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg blasted Republicans attacking the LGBTQ community on Tuesday, saying the reason right-wing lawmakers have decided to target them is they don’t want to talk about their “radical positions,” including opposing President Joe Biden’s massive infrastructure law and other accomplishments, like $35 insulin.

Appearing on MSNBC, Secretary Buttigieg was asked to weigh in on the Human Rights Campaign’s declaration earlier in the day, of a national emergency in the U.S. for LGBTQ people.

“We have officially declared a state of emergency for LGBTQ+ people in the United States for the first time following an unprecedented and dangerous spike in anti-LGBTQ+ legislative assaults sweeping state houses this year,” the organizations says on its website. “More than 75 anti-LGBTQ+ bills have been signed into law this year alone, more than doubling last year’s number, which was previously the worst year on record.”

HRC also published a detailed chart by state on various issues, including bans on gender-affirming care, sports participation, drag, or support for forced student outing.

And while HRC points to the more than 75 bills that have been signed into law this year, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) says it’s currently tracking 491 anti-LGBTQ bills across the country.

READ MORE: Bill Barr Slams Trump: DOJ Not ‘Conducting a Witch Hunt’ – ‘He Jerked Them Around’ – ‘No Excuse for What He Did’

“Our country is at a very real risk of backsliding on freedom and equality but that is exactly why we continue to push. There has been extraordinary work that’s been done just in this presidency,” Buttigieg said, responding to HRC’s national emergency declaration. He specifically pointed to “the President being able to sign the Respect for Marriage Act.”

“And if you zoom out to the progress that’s been made in the last 10 or 15 years, including the ability of somebody like me to be standing here doing this job, it’s extraordinary, and yet, now you see the attacks on the LGBTQ community, especially on the trans community and what they’re going through,” Buttigieg, who is the first out gay U.S. Cabinet Secretary, told MSNBC’s Chris Jansing.

“And I think it’s being done out of the perception that it is politically convenient to target vulnerable groups. And honestly, I think where it largely comes from is folks who don’t want to talk about why they were against the infrastructure loans, building roads and bridges. They don’t want to talk about why they were against $35 insulin that the President delivered for Medicare recipients. They don’t want to explain why they were for these radical positions that speak to what those people are worried about their everyday lives.”

RELATED: ‘Can’t Take a Joke’: Mike Pence Doubles Down on His Homophobic Attack Against Pete Buttigieg (Video)

“So they’re focused on targeting some of the people who already do not have a very easy time going about everyday life,” he said.

“Think about how hard it is to be a teenager to begin with. But think about how hard it is to be a teenager when you realize that you are different when you’re coming to terms with your gender identity or you’re coming to terms with realizing that you’re gay or lesbian.”

“The last thing you need in your life are politicians trying to score political points by making things worse for you. We’re gonna stand together, whether it’s pride or just on any given day and say no, we’re going to expand, not withdraw, the freedoms and equalities we won in this country, and we’re going to build on them.”

Continue Reading


Bill Barr Slams Trump: DOJ Not ‘Conducting a Witch Hunt’ – ‘He Jerked Them Around’ – ‘No Excuse for What He Did’



Bill Barr, once Donald Trump‘s favorite attorney general and the one who was seen as his “faithful protector and personal henchman” for his “willingness to enable Trump’s darkest impulses,” came out swinging against his former boss Tuesday, refuting his “witch hunt” claims, and saying the ex-president “jerked” DOJ around over hundreds of classified and top secret documents he refused to return.

“I think if based on the facts, as the facts come out, I think over time, people will say that this is not a case of the Department of Justice, you know, conducting a ‘witch hunt,'” Barr told CBS News Tuesday, ahead of what many believe is an impending indictment on what experts say could include charges of obstruction of justice and charges under the Espionage Act.

“In fact,” Barr continued, praising his former agency, “they approached this very delicately, with deference to the President, and this would have gotten nowhere had the President just returned the documents.”

Instead, Barr said, Trump “jerked them around for a year and a half. And the question is, did he deceive them? And if there’s evidence of that, I think people will start to see that this says more about Trump than it does the Department of Justice.”

The ex-president who is once again running to retake the Oval Office, Barr says, is “so egotistical that he has this penchant for conducting risky, reckless acts to show that he can sort of get away with it.”

READ MORE: Will Santos Choose Jail? Judge Rules Names of Persons Who Provided His Half-Million Dollar Bond Must Be Made Public

“It’s part of asserting his his, his ego, and he’s done this repeatedly at the expense of all the people who depend on him to conduct the public’s business in an honorable way. And, you know, we saw that with both impeachments, and there’s no excuse for what he did here.”

Referring to what many believe is an impending indictment over the classified documents he removed from the White House and refused to return, Barr added, “I’ve said for a while that I think this is the most dangerous legal risk facing the former president. And if I had to bet I would bet that it’s near.”

He said DOJ would not try to indict “if there’s not enough evidence, but from what I’ve seen, there’s substantial evidence there.”

But true to form, Barr also defended his former boss.

Whether what Trump’s done is “a crime or not remains to be seen,” he said, while refusing to weigh in on whether or not he thinks Trump “deceived” DOJ.

Later in the interview, Barr went full-force on supporting Trump’s claims that the Russia investigation was a hoax.

“I went into the administration halfway through, and I did it at a time where I felt he was being treated unfairly on the Russia gate thing. I thought that was, you know, turned out to be I think a big lie,” Barr said.

“And I felt that he was the duly elected president and he deserved a chance to conduct his administration. And I went in because I thought I could help stabilize things and also have the administration conducted in an appropriate way. And as I felt the idea that the election was stolen was a big lie.”

READ MORE: ‘Isn’t There a Beach in Mexico Waiting for You?’: Cruz Mocked for Claiming Garland Will Indict Trump Over SCOTUS Seat Loss

And despite it all, despite everything that has come out about Trump’s actions and alleged actions, despite the looming indictment – on top of a current indictment – Barr says if Trump is the Republican party’s nominee for president he will still support him.

“I don’t see myself not supporting the Republican candidate,” Barr said.

Taking a swing at President Joe Biden, Barr said neither the current nor the former president are “fit for the office.”

“But if I’m confronted with that choice, I have to go with policy, who’s closest to me on policy, regardless of who might be convicted of breaking the law, including on our national secrets.”

Watch a clip from the interview below or at this link.


Continue Reading


Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.