Attach to Form 990 or Form 990-EZ.
Go to
www.irs.gov/Form990 for instructions and the latest information.
| (i) Name of supported organization | (ii) EIN | (iii) Type of organization (described on lines 1- 10 above (see instructions)) | (iv) Is the organization listed in your governing document? | (v) Amount of monetary support (see instructions) | (vi) Amount of other support (see instructions) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | No | |||||
|
Total |
||||||
Calendar year (or fiscal year beginning in) ![]() |
(a) 2015 | (b) 2016 | (c) 2017 | (d) 2018 | (e) 2019 | (f) Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Gifts, grants, contributions, and membership fees received. (Do not include any "unusual grant.") .. | 1,009,280 | 602,067 | 823,586 | 1,596,614 | 1,332,469 | 5,364,016 |
| 2 | Tax revenues levied for the organization's benefit and either paid to or expended on its behalf.... | 0 | |||||
| 3 | The value of services or facilities furnished by a governmental unit to the organization without charge.. | 0 | |||||
| 4 | Total. Add lines 1 through 3 | 1,009,280 | 602,067 | 823,586 | 1,596,614 | 1,332,469 | 5,364,016 |
| 5 | The portion of total contributions by each person (other than a governmental unit or publicly supported organization) included on line 1 that exceeds 2% of the amount shown on line 11, column (f).. | 540,820 | |||||
| 6 | Public support. Subtract line 5 from line 4. | 4,823,196 | |||||
Calendar year
(or fiscal year beginning in) ![]() |
(a) 2015 | (b) 2016 | (c) 2017 | (d) 2018 | (e) 2019 | (f) Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 7 | Amounts from line 4.. | 1,009,280 | 602,067 | 823,586 | 1,596,614 | 1,332,469 | 5,364,016 |
| 8 | Gross income from interest, dividends, payments received on securities loans, rents, royalties and income from similar sources... | 218 | 218 | ||||
| 9 | Net income from unrelated business activities, whether or not the business is regularly carried on.. | ||||||
| 10 | Other income. Do not include gain or loss from the sale of capital assets (Explain in Part VI.).. | 500 | 500 | ||||
| 11 | Total support. Add lines 7 through 10 | 5,364,734 | |||||
Calendar year (or fiscal year beginning in) ![]() |
(a) 2015 | (b) 2016 | (c) 2017 | (d) 2018 | (e) 2019 | (f) Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Gifts, grants, contributions, and membership fees received. (Do not include any "unusual grants.") . | ||||||
| 2 | Gross receipts from admissions, merchandise sold or services performed, or facilities furnished in any activity that is related to the organization's tax-exempt purpose | ||||||
| 3 | Gross receipts from activities that are not an unrelated trade or business under section 513 ..... | ||||||
| 4 | Tax revenues levied for the organization's benefit and either paid to or expended on its behalf... | ||||||
| 5 | The value of services or facilities furnished by a governmental unit to the organization without charge | ||||||
| 6 | Total. Add lines 1 through 5 | ||||||
| 7a | Amounts included on lines 1, 2, and 3 received from disqualified persons | ||||||
| b | Amounts included on lines 2 and 3 received from other than disqualified persons that exceed the greater of $5,000 or 1% of the amount on line 13 for the year. | ||||||
| c | Add lines 7a and 7b.. | ||||||
| 8 | Public support. (Subtract line 7c from line 6.) | ||||||
Calendar year (or fiscal year beginning in) ![]() |
(a) 2015 | (b) 2016 | (c) 2017 | (d) 2018 | (e) 2019 | (f) Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 9 | Amounts from line 6... | ||||||
| 10a | Gross income from interest, dividends, payments received on securities loans, rents, royalties and income from similar sources.. | ||||||
| b | Unrelated business taxable income (less section 511 taxes) from businesses acquired after June 30, 1975. | ||||||
| c | Add lines 10a and 10b. | ||||||
| 11 | Net income from unrelated business activities not included in line 10b, whether or not the business is regularly carried on. | ||||||
| 12 | Other income. Do not include gain or loss from the sale of capital assets (Explain in Part VI.) .. | ||||||
| 13 | Total support. (Add lines 9, 10c, 11, and 12.).. | ||||||
| Section A - Adjusted Net Income | (A) Prior Year |
(B) Current Year (optional) |
||||
| 1 | Net short-term capital gain | 1 | ||||
| 2 | Recoveries of prior-year distributions | 2 | ||||
| 3 | Other gross income (see instructions) | 3 | ||||
| 4 | Add lines 1 through 3 | 4 | ||||
| 5 | Depreciation and depletion | 5 | ||||
| 6 | Portion of operating expenses paid or incurred for production or collection of gross income or for management, conservation, or maintenance of property held for production of income (see instructions) | 6 | ||||
| 7 | Other expenses (see instructions) | 7 | ||||
| 8 | Adjusted Net Income (subtract lines 5, 6 and 7 from line 4) | 8 | ||||
| Section B - Minimum Asset Amount | (A) Prior Year |
(B) Current Year (optional) |
||||
| 1 | Aggregate fair market value of all non-exempt-use assets (see instructions for short tax year or assets held for part of year): | 1 | ||||
| a | Average monthly value of securities | 1a | ||||
| b | Average monthly cash balances | 1b | ||||
| c | Fair market value of other non-exempt-use assets | 1c | ||||
| d | Total (add lines 1a, 1b, and 1c) | 1d | ||||
| e |
Discount claimed for blockage or other factors (explain in detail in Part VI): |
|||||
| 2 | Acquisition indebtedness applicable to non-exempt use assets | 2 | ||||
| 3 | Subtract line 2 from line 1d | 3 | ||||
| 4 | Cash deemed held for exempt use. Enter 1-1/2% of line 3 (for greater amount, see instructions). | 4 | ||||
| 5 | Net value of non-exempt-use assets (subtract line 4 from line 3) | 5 | ||||
| 6 | Multiply line 5 by .035 | 6 | ||||
| 7 | Recoveries of prior-year distributions | 7 | ||||
| 8 | Minimum Asset Amount (add line 7 to line 6) | 8 | ||||
| Section C - Distributable Amount | Current Year | |||||
| 1 | Adjusted net income for prior year (from Section A, line 8, Column A) | 1 | ||||
| 2 | Enter 85% of line 1 | 2 | ||||
| 3 | Minimum asset amount for prior year (from Section B, line 8, Column A) | 3 | ||||
| 4 | Enter greater of line 2 or line 3 | 4 | ||||
| 5 | Income tax imposed in prior year | 5 | ||||
| 6 | Distributable Amount. Subtract line 5 from line 4, unless subject to emergency temporary reduction (see instructions) | 6 | ||||
| Section D - Distributions | Current Year | |
|---|---|---|
| 1 Amounts paid to supported organizations to accomplish exempt purposes | ||
|
2
Amounts paid to perform activity that directly furthers exempt purposes of supported organizations, in excess of income from activity |
||
| 3 Administrative expenses paid to accomplish exempt purposes of supported organizations | ||
| 4 Amounts paid to acquire exempt-use assets | ||
| 5 Qualified set-aside amounts (prior IRS approval required) | ||
| 6 Other distributions (describe in Part VI). See instructions | ||
| 7Total annual distributions. Add lines 1 through 6. | ||
|
8
Distributions to attentive supported organizations to which the organization is responsive (provide details in Part VI). See instructions |
||
| 9 Distributable amount for 2019 from Section C, line 6 | ||
| 10 Line 8 amount divided by Line 9 amount | ||
| Section E - Distribution Allocations (see instructions) |
(i) Excess Distributions |
(ii) Underdistributions Pre-2019 |
(iii) Distributable Amount for 2019 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 Distributable amount for 2019 from Section C, line 6 | ||||
|
2
Underdistributions, if any, for years prior to 2019 (reasonable cause required-- explain in Part VI). See instructions. |
||||
| 3 Excess distributions carryover, if any, to 2019: | ||||
| a From 2014....... | ||||
| b From 2015....... | ||||
| c From 2016....... | ||||
| d From 2017....... | ||||
| e From 2018....... | ||||
| fTotal of lines 3a through e | ||||
| g Applied to underdistributions of prior years | ||||
| h Applied to 2019 distributable amount | ||||
|
i
Carryover from 2014 not applied (see instructions) |
||||
| j Remainder. Subtract lines 3g, 3h, and 3i from 3f. | ||||
| 4Distributions for 2019 from Section D, line 7: | ||||
| $ | ||||
| a Applied to underdistributions of prior years | ||||
| b Applied to 2019 distributable amount | ||||
| c Remainder. Subtract lines 4a and 4b from 4. | ||||
|
5
Remaining underdistributions for years prior to 2019, if any. Subtract lines 3g and 4a from line 2. If the amount is greater than zero, explain in Part VI. See instructions. |
||||
|
6
Remaining underdistributions for 2019. Subtract lines 3h and 4b from line 1. If the amount is greater than zero, explain in Part VI. See instructions. |
||||
|
7 Excess distributions carryover to 2020. Add lines 3j and 4c. |
||||
| 8 Breakdown of line 7: | ||||
| a Excess from 2015..... | ||||
| b Excess from 2016..... | ||||
| c Excess from 2017..... | ||||
| d Excess from 2018..... | ||||
| e Excess from 2019..... | ||||
| Facts And Circumstances Test |
|---|
| Return Reference | Explanation |
|---|
| Software ID: | 19009920 |
| Software Version: | 2019v5.0 |
Attach to Form 990 or 990-EZ.
Go to www.irs.gov/Form990 for the latest information.
| Return Reference | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Form 990, Part VI, Line 11b: Form 990 Review Process | Form 990 is prepared by FCDFs CPA, reviewed by its in-house accountant and outside legal counsel, presented to the Board for questions and comments, and then filed |
| Form 990, Part VI, Line 12c: Explanation of Monitoring and Enforcement of Conflicts | OFFICERS AND DIRECTORS ARE REQUIRED TO REVIEW THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST POLICY AND SIGN IT AT LEAST YEARLY. |
| Form 990, Part VI, Line 15a: Compensation Review & Approval Process - CEO, Top Management | COMPENSATION, if applicable, IS SET BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS AFTER REVIEW OF COMPARABLE SALARIES, DUTIES, ETC. |
| Form 990, Part VI, Line 15b: Compensation Review and Approval Process for Officers and Key Employees | COMPENSATION, if applicable, IS SET BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS AFTER REVIEW OF COMPARABLE SALARIES, DUTIES, ETC. |
| Form 990, Part VI, Line 19: Other Organization Documents Publicly Available | GOVERNING DOCUMENTS, POLICIES, AND FINANCIAL STATEMENTS ARE MADE AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST. |
| Cases for the Year Ending 06-30-20- PART III LINE 4A | PART III, LINE 4AFreedom of Conscience Defense FundDefending Religious Freedom and the American ConstitutionCases for the Year Ending 06-30-20National Abortion Federation v. Center for Medical Progress, et al.In July 2015, the Center for Medical Progress began releasing the results of its 30-month investigative journalism study, the Human Capital Project, which documented abuses and illegalities in the fetal tissue procurement industry. The Human Capital Projects findings spurred numerous state and federal investigations into fetal tissue procurement companies and abortion providers. It also caused over a dozen states and the United States Congress to vote to withdraw taxpayer funding from the abortion provider Planned Parenthood. In that same month, the National Abortion Federation (NAF) filed suit against the Center for Medical Progress, David Daleiden, BioMax Procurement Services, LLC and Troy Newmana former board member. FCDF is not representing Mr. Newman who retained separate counsel and has since been dismissed from the case. NAF is a trade group for abortion providers. It successfully sought an injunction preventing the Center for Medical Progress from releasing videos regarding NAF conferences. FCDF appealed the order granting that preliminary injunction, which was upheld at the Ninth Circuit. FCDF petitioned for certiorari at the United States Supreme Court, but that petition was denied. When the mandate issued from the Ninth Circuit, FCDF began preparing to respond to the complaint. NAF requested that the District Court permit it to file an early motion for summary judgment solely with respect to its contract claim (upon which the preliminary injunction is predicated), but that request was denied. In response, NAF dismissed the majority of its claims, leaving only a few state-law tort claims. FCDF responded to the complaint by filing an anti-SLAPP motion. At the same time, FCDF filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, including for lack of diversity jurisdiction. FCDF further filed a motion to dissolve the preliminary injunction on the basis of changed facts. Those facts include that several Congressional investigations concluded that numerous NAF members were selling fetal tissue for profit, multiple tissue procurements companies have been successfully prosecuted, and the new criminal prosecution of Mr. Daleiden. Those motions were denied, and FCDF appealed the denial to the Ninth Circuit. That appeal resulted in an affirmance of the District Court, and the case was sent back down.The parties have then engaged in briefing regarding the proper scope of any discovery. The District Court has instructed NAF to file its motion for summary judgment and entry of a permanent injunction, with FCDF instructed to then file a letter outlying what discovery is needed. The public interest is being served by protecting freedom of conscience.Planned Parenthood Federation of America, et al. v. Center for Medical Progress, et al.Planned Parenthood Federation of America, its seven California affiliates, one Colorado affiliate, and two Texas affiliates, waited until January 2016 to file suit against the Center for Medical Progress, David Daleiden, BioMax Procurement Services, LLC, Gerardo Adrian Lopezan investigative journalist and actorand numerous other parties represented by separate counsel. This suit was filed soon after Congress voted to withdraw federal funding from Planned Parenthood as a result of the Human Capital Project. In response to the complaint, FCDF filed a motion to dismiss it along with an anti-SLAPP motion to strike it. Those motions were denied and appealed to the Ninth Circuit, which affirmed them. FCDF filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court, but that petition was rejected. After the case returned to the District Court, FCDF continued litigating it, and litigating numerous discovery disputes. In the first half of 2019, FCDF led a team of nearly a dozen law firms to take all of the needed depositions, and draft the summary judgment papers. The District Court adjudicated the parties cross-motions for summary judgment, granting both sides some wins. The case then proceeded to trial at the end of 2019, resulting in a jury verdict for the Plaintiffs. The parties then engaged in post-trial briefing, which the District Court adjudicated in the Plaintiffs favor. FCDF is now working on the post-judgment appeal to the Ninth Circuit. The public interest is being served by protecting freedom of conscience.California v. David Daleiden and California v. Susan Merritt.On April 5, 2016, the California Attorney General raided Mr. Daleidens home seizing all of CMPs undercover video footage related to its work on the Human Capital Project. Since that time, Mr. Daleiden and Ms. Merritt were charged by the California Attorney General with fourteen felony counts of unlawful recording in violation of Pen. Code 633, and one count of conspiracy to unlawfully record. FCDF is assisting independently retained criminal defense counsel as needed. After several delays due to petitions for writs of mandate, including a temporary stay by the California Supreme Court, a preliminary hearing occurred toward the end of 2019. The trial court threw out many of the counts, but found probably cause existed as to many of them. Daleiden has since appealed.The public interest is being served by protecting freedom of conscience.Jane Does 1-10 v. The University of Washington, Perry Tapper, and David Daleiden.In August 2016, a group of eight Jane and John Does filed a class action complaint seeking to force the University of Washington to not comply with Mr. Daleidens public records request. Mr. Daleiden sent a PRR to UW to obtain records on its fetal tissue procurement program. Plaintiffs Does 18 argue that releasing the information with their names and contact information would chill their exercise of First Amendment protected activity. The District Court granted a preliminary injunction, which FCDF appealed to the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit reversed the preliminary injunction and remanded to the District Court to engage in additional factual findings. The District Court then re-inserted the preliminary injunction, and FCDF appealed again. The Ninth Circuit then affirmed in part and reversed in part, finding that approximately 3/8 of the class could not be covered by the injunction. The District Court, however, reinstated its preliminary injunction again in full. FCDF has appealed again.The public interest is being served by protecting freedom of conscience.Center for Medical Progress and David Daleiden v. Xavier Becerra, et al.In 2018, Daleiden moved in his criminal prosecution to have it dismissed as an invidious, selective prosecution of him that was motivated by his exercise of his constitutional rights. In August 2018, in a brief filed in that prosecution, Deputy Attorney General Johnette Jauron stated that the motivation of the criminal prosecution was not invidious, but instead based on the fact that the recordings were edited to enhance their shock value, and published online. This indicated a misunderstanding by DAG Jauron of the contours of the First Amendment, the right to publish, and the right to enhance the likelihood that ones speech will be listened to. As a result, in May 2020, Daleiden filed a federal civil rights action seeking to enjoin the criminal prosecution as being motivated by his exercise of his First Amendment rights. The action is still in its preliminary stages.The public interest is being served by protecting freedom of conscience.Class Action Plaintiffs v. Planned ParenthoodIn early 2020, FCDF determined that it had obtained sufficient evidence to establish that Planned Parenthood had engaged in systemic violations of the law as part of its fetal tissue procurement and transfer programs. As a result, FCDF researched and drafted a comprehensive, class action complaint with various business claims. FCDF has since begun advertising on various platforms to find class action plaintiffs who can bring the case. No plaintiffs have yet been found.The public interest is being served by protecting freedom of conscience.Department of Fair Employment & Housing v. Catharine Miller and Tastries BakeryOn August 26, 2017, Catharine Miller welcomed Mireya and Eileen Rodriguez-Del Rio into her bakery, Tastries. She soon discovered, however, that the Rodriguez-Del Rios were seeking to commission her to create a custom-wedding cake to celebrate and promote a same-sex marriage. As a result, she informed them that she could not create the custom art, and that instead she would be referring their requested commission to another cake artist. That same day, the Rodriguez-Del Rios began publicizing the encounter on social media, and it garnered widespread media attentionincluding with the offer from other wedding professionals to provide services free of charge. As a result, the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DF |
| Cases for the Year Ending 06-30-20- PART III LINE 4A (continued) | In September 2020, the Fifth District Court of Appeal reversed the trial courts order enforcing its judgment, and affirmed the propriety of a second action. In that second action, the parties are still in the midst of discovery. Trial is set for December 2021.The public interest is being served by protecting freedom of conscience.Skyline Wesleyan Church v. California Department of Managed HealthcareIn August 2014, the California Department of Managed Healthcare (CDMH) issued a mandate requiring all group health insurance plans in California to provide coverage for all legal abortions, including voluntary and elective abortions. Previously, organizations that did not want to provide insurance coverage for voluntary abortions could simply purchase health insurance that did not provide for it. This included numerous churches, non-profits, and other organizations of conscience.Through its new mandate, however, the CDMH unilaterally changed all of the contracts between churches and health insurance providers, and inserted coverage for voluntary abortions. The CDMH even tried to prevent health insurance providers from informing churches about the new coverage. Because the Federal Affordable Care Act requires employers to provide health insurance coverage, the California mandate now forces churches to pay for insurance that includes elective abortions. FCDF is representing Skyline Wesleyan Church in La Mesa, California in litigation challenging the CDMH regulations. In February 2018, the Court granted summary judgment in favor of the CDMH on the basis that Skyline did not exhaust its administrative remedies by seeking an exemption from the regulation prior to filing suit. In May 2020, the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded, ordering the District Court to adjudicate the case on the merits, including Skyline Wesleyans First Amendment rights. The case is now proceeding on the merits.The public interest is being served by protecting freedom of conscience.Children of the Immaculate Heart v. California Department of Social ServicesChildren of the Immaculate Heart (CIH) is a San Diego nonprofit dedicated to providing services to victims of human trafficking. CIH is attempting to become licensed by the State of California to open a home for minor girls. In July 2019, CIH received a letter from Californias Department of Social Services (CDSS) indicating that licensure may be denied should CIH insufficiently explain how they will support the minor girls exploration of any LGBTQ identity. In November 2019, FCDF filed a civil rights lawsuit claiming that the CDSS was improperly stonewalling CIHs application, and refusing to rule on it, due to its disapproval of CIHs religious rights. FCDF sought a writ of mandate ordering the CDSS to rule on the application, and declaratory relief instructing the CDSS that it could not consider CIHs religious beliefs in its determination.In March 2020, the parties proceeded to mediation and reached a confidential settlement. In July 2020, the action was dismissed.The public interest is being served by protecting freedom of conscience.South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom, et al.In March 2020, the worldwide coronavirus pandemic led Governor Gavin Newsom to order a strict lockdown of the entire State of California. However, six weeks later, Californians began pushing for a reopening, leading Governor Newsom to first announce and then implement his four-stage reopening plan in early May 2020. In early May 2020, South Bay Pentecostal Church filed a lawsuit seeking the right to reopen alongside other Stage 2 industries, and not later in the four-stage reopening plan. The district court denied the FCDFs motion for a preliminary injunction, and FCDF appealed. FCDF also moved for an injunction pending appeal with the Ninth Circuit which was denied with a long dissent. FCDF then applied on an emergency basis with the Supreme Court, which also denied an injunction pending appeal on a 5-4 basis. FCDF then asked the Ninth Circuit to remand the case to the District Court so that the record could be supplemented before the Ninth Circuit addressed the appeal on the merits. This the Ninth Circuit did, FCDF supplemented the record, and the Ninth Circuit has taken up the appeal again. The public interest is being served by protecting freedom of conscience.Hill v. DePaul UniversityJason Hill is a Distinguished Professor of Philosophy at DePaul University. In 2019, Prof. Hill wrote an op-ed article regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that resulted in retribution by the University in the form of a formal censure. In April 2020, FCDF filed suit on behalf of Prof. Hill against DePaul University and other professors alleging breach of contract, defamation, a business tort, and a violation of the Illinois Human Rights Act. The defendants have moved to dismiss the complaint, and that motion is currently pending.The public interest is being served by protecting freedom of conscience. |
| Software ID: | 19009920 |
| Software Version: | 2019v5.0 |