TY 2020 Form 990EZ

- TIN:

SCHEDULE A
(Form 990 or 990EZ)

Department of the Treasury
Internal Revenue Service

Public Charity Status and Public Support

Complete if the organization is a section 501(c)(3) organization or a section 4947(a)(1) nonexempt charitable trust.
right arrow

Attach to Form 990 or Form 990-EZ.
right arrow

Go to www.irs.gov/Form990 for instructions and the latest information.

OMB No. 1545-0047

2020

Open to Public
Inspection

Name of the organization

FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE DEFENSE FUND INC

Employer identification number

30-0741605

Part I

Reason for Public Charity Status (All organizations must complete this part.) See instructions.

The organization is not a private foundation because it is: (For lines 1 through 12, check only one box.)

A church, convention of churches, or association of churches described in section 170(b)(1)(A)(i).

A school described in section 170(b)(1)(A)(ii). (Attach Schedule E (Form 990 or 990-EZ).)

A hospital or a cooperative hospital service organization described in section 170(b)(1)(A)(iii).

A medical research organization operated in conjunction with a hospital described in section 170(b)(1)(A)(iii). Enter the hospital's name, city, and state:

An organization operated for the benefit of a college or university owned or operated by a governmental unit described in section 170(b)(1)(A)(iv). (Complete Part II.)

A federal, state, or local government or governmental unit described in section 170(b)(1)(A)(v).

An organization that normally receives a substantial part of its support from a governmental unit or from the general public described in section 170(b)(1)(A)(vi). (Complete Part II.)

A community trust described in section 170(b)(1)(A)(vi). (Complete Part II.)

An agricultural research organization described in 170(b)(1)(A)(ix) operated in conjunction with a land-grant college or university or a non-land grant college of agriculture. See instructions. Enter the name, city, and state of the college or university:

An organization that normally receives: (1) more than 331/3% of its support from contributions, membership fees, and gross receipts from activities related to its exempt functions—subject to certain exceptions, and (2) no more than 331/3% of its support from gross investment income and unrelated business taxable income (less section 511 tax) from businesses acquired by the organization after June 30, 1975. See section 509(a)(2). (Complete Part III.)

An organization organized and operated exclusively to test for public safety. See section 509(a)(4).

An organization organized and operated exclusively for the benefit of, to perform the functions of, or to carry out the purposes of one or more publicly supported organizations described in section 509(a)(1) or section 509(a)(2). See section 509(a)(3). Check the box in lines 12a through 12d that describes the type of supporting organization and complete lines 12e, 12f, and 12g.

Type I. A supporting organization operated, supervised, or controlled by its supported organization(s), typically by giving the supported organization(s) the power to regularly appoint or elect a majority of the directors or trustees of the supporting organization. You must complete Part IV, Sections A and B.

Type II. A supporting organization supervised or controlled in connection with its supported organization(s), by having control or management of the supporting organization vested in the same persons that control or manage the supported organization(s). You must complete Part IV, Sections A and C.

Type III functionally integrated. A supporting organization operated in connection with, and functionally integrated with, its supported organization(s) (see instructions). You must complete Part IV, Sections A, D, and E.

Type III non-functionally integrated. A supporting organization operated in connection with its supported organization(s) that is not functionally integrated. The organization generally must satisfy a distribution requirement and an attentiveness requirement (see instructions). You must complete Part IV, Sections A and D, and Part V.

Check this box if the organization received a written determination from the IRS that it is a Type I, Type II, Type III functionally integrated, or Type III non-functionally integrated supporting organization.

Enter the number of supported organizations ...............................

Provide the following information about the supported organization(s).

(i) Name of supported organization	(ii) EIN	(iv) Is the organization listed in your governing document?		(v) Amount of monetary support (see instructions)	(vi) Amount of other support (see instructions)
(i) Name of supported organization	(ii) EIN	Yes	No	(v) Amount of monetary support (see instructions)	(vi) Amount of other support (see instructions)


Total

For Paperwork Reduction Act Notice, see the Instructions for
Form 990 or 990-EZ.

Cat. No. 11285F

Schedule A (Form 990 or 990-EZ) 2020

Page 2

Part II

Support Schedule for Organizations Described in Sections 170(b)(1)(A)(iv) and 170(b)(1)(A)(vi)
(Complete only if you checked the box on line 5, 7, or 8 of Part I or if the organization failed to qualify under Part III. If the organization failed to qualify under the tests listed below, please complete Part III.)

Section A. Public Support

Calendar year (or fiscal year beginning in)		(a) 2016	(b) 2017	(c) 2018	(d) 2019	(e) 2020	(f) Total
1	Gifts, grants, contributions, and membership fees received. (Do not include any "unusual grant.") ..	602,067	823,586	1,596,614	1,332,469	153,166	4,507,902
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	602,067	823,586	1,596,614	1,332,469	153,166	4,507,902
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)..						490,908
6	Public support. Subtract line 5 from line 4.						4,016,994

Section B. Total Support

Calendar year (or fiscal year beginning in)		(a) 2016	(b) 2017	(c) 2018	(d) 2019	(e) 2020	(f) Total
7	Amounts from line 4..	602,067	823,586	1,596,614	1,332,469	153,166	4,507,902
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..						0
10	Other income. Do not include gain or loss from the sale of capital assets (Explain in Part VI.)..						0
11	Total support. Add lines 7 through 10						4,508,120

Gross receipts from related activities, etc. (see instructions) ..................

First 5 years. If the Form 990 is for the organization's first, second, third, fourth, or fifth tax year as a section 501(c)(3) organization, check this box and stop here........................................ right arrow

Section C. Computation of Public Support Percentage

Public support percentage for 2020 (line 6, column (f) divided by line 11, column (f)) .........

89.110 %

Public support percentage for 2019 Schedule A, Part II, line 14 ...............

89.910 %

16a

33 1/3% support test—2020. If the organization did not check the box on line 13, and line 14 is 33 1/3% or more, check this box
and stop here. The organization qualifies as a publicly supported organization ....................... right arrow

33 1/3% support test—2019. If the organization did not check a box on line 13 or 16a, and line 15 is 33 1/3% or more, check this
box and stop here. The organization qualifies as a publicly supported organization ..................... right arrow

17a

10%-facts-and-circumstances test—2020. If the organization did not check a box on line 13, 16a, or 16b, and line 14
is 10% or more, and if the organization meets the "facts-and-circumstances" test, check this box and stop here. Explain
in Part VI how the organization meets the "facts-and-circumstances" test. The organization qualifies as a publicly supported
organization ..................................................... right arrow

10%-facts-and-circumstances test—2019. If the organization did not check a box on line 13, 16a, 16b, or 17a, and line
15 is 10% or more, and if the organization meets the "facts-and-circumstances" test, check this box and stop here.
Explain in Part VI how the organization meets the "facts-and-circumstances" test. The organization qualifies as a publicly
supported organization ................................................ right arrow

Private foundation. If the organization did not check a box on line 13, 16a, 16b, 17a, or 17b, check this box and see
instructions ..................................................... right arrow

Schedule A (Form 990 or 990-EZ) 2020

Page 3

Part III

Support Schedule for Organizations Described in Section 509(a)(2)
(Complete only if you checked the box on line 10 of Part I or if the organization failed to qualify under Part II. If the organization fails to qualify under the tests listed below, please complete Part II.)

Section A. Public Support

Calendar year (or fiscal year beginning in)		(a) 2016	(b) 2017	(c) 2018	(d) 2019	(e) 2020	(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.)

Section B. Total Support

Calendar year (or fiscal year beginning in)		(a) 2016	(b) 2017	(c) 2018	(d) 2019	(e) 2020	(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.)..

First 5 years. If the Form 990 is for the organization's first, second, third, fourth, or fifth tax year as a section 501(c)(3) organization,
check this box and stop here............................................. right arrow

Section C. Computation of Public Support Percentage

Public support percentage for 2020 (line 8, column (f) divided by line 13, column (f)) .........

Public support percentage from 2019 Schedule A, Part III, line 15 ...............

Section D. Computation of Investment Income Percentage

Investment income percentage for 2020 (line 10c, column (f) divided by line 13, column (f)) ......

Investment income percentage from 2019 Schedule A, Part III, line 17 .............

19a

331/3% support tests—2020. If the organization did not check the box on line 14, and line 15 is more than 33 1/3%, and line 17 is not more than 33 1/3%, check this box and stop here. The organization qualifies as a publicly supported organization ....... right arrow

33 1/3% support tests—2019. If the organization did not check a box on line 14 or line 19a, and line 16 is more than 33 1/3% and line 18 is not more than 33 1/3%, check this box and stop here. The organization qualifies as a publicly supported organization .... right arrow

Private foundation. If the organization did not check a box on line 14, 19a, or 19b, check this box and see instructions .... right arrow

Schedule A (Form 990 or 990-EZ) 2020

Page 4

Part IV

Supporting Organizations

(Complete only if you checked a box on line 12 of Part I. If you checked box 12a, of Part I, complete Sections A and B. If you checked box 12b, of Part I, complete Sections A and C. If you checked box 12c, of Part I, complete Sections A, D, and E. If you checked box12d, of Part I, complete Sections A and D, and complete Part V.)

Section A. All Supporting Organizations

Yes

Are all of the organization’s supported organizations listed by name in the organization’s governing documents?
If "No," describe in Part VI how the supported organizations are designated. If designated by class or purpose,
describe the designation. If historic and continuing relationship, explain.

Did the organization have any supported organization that does not have an IRS determination of status under section 509(a)(1) or (2)? If "Yes," explain in Part VI how the organization determined that the supported organization was described in section 509(a)(1) or (2).

Did the organization have a supported organization described in section 501(c)(4), (5), or (6)? If "Yes," answer lines 3b and 3c below.

Did the organization confirm that each supported organization qualified under section 501(c)(4), (5), or (6) and satisfied the public support tests under section 509(a)(2)? If "Yes," describe in Part VI when and how the organization made the determination.

Did the organization ensure that all support to such organizations was used exclusively for section 170(c)(2)(B) purposes? If "Yes," explain in Part VI what controls the organization put in place to ensure such use.

Was any supported organization not organized in the United States ("foreign supported organization")? If “Yes” and if you checked box 12a or 12b in Part I, answer lines 4b and 4c below.

Did the organization have ultimate control and discretion in deciding whether to make grants to the foreign supported organization? If “Yes,” describe in Part VI how the organization had such control and discretion despite being controlled or supervised by or in connection with its supported organizations.

Did the organization support any foreign supported organization that does not have an IRS determination under sections 501(c)(3) and 509(a)(1) or (2)? If “Yes,” explain in Part VI what controls the organization used to ensure that all support to the foreign supported organization was used exclusively for section 170(c)(2)(B) purposes.

Did the organization add, substitute, or remove any supported organizations during the tax year? If “Yes,” answer lines 5b and 5c below (if applicable). Also, provide detail in Part VI, including (i) the names and EIN numbers of the supported organizations added, substituted, or removed; (ii) the reasons for each such action; (iii) the authority under the organization's organizing document authorizing such action; and (iv) how the action was accomplished (such as by amendment to the organizing document).

Type I or Type II only. Was any added or substituted supported organization part of a class already designated in the organization's organizing document?

Substitutions only. Was the substitution the result of an event beyond the organization's control?

Did the organization provide support (whether in the form of grants or the provision of services or facilities) to anyone other than (i) its supported organizations, (ii) individuals that are part of the charitable class benefited by one or more of its supported organizations, or (iii) other supporting organizations that also support or benefit one or more of the filing organization’s supported organizations? If “Yes,” provide detail in Part VI.

Did the organization provide a grant, loan, compensation, or other similar payment to a substantial contributor (defined in section 4958(c)(3)(C)), a family member of a substantial contributor, or a 35% controlled entity with regard to a substantial contributor? If “Yes,” complete Part I of Schedule L (Form 990 or 990-EZ) .

Did the organization make a loan to a disqualified person (as defined in section 4958) not described in line 7? If “Yes,” complete Part I of Schedule L (Form 990 or 990-EZ).

Was the organization controlled directly or indirectly at any time during the tax year by one or more disqualified persons, as defined in section 4946 (other than foundation managers and organizations described in section 509(a)(1) or (2))? If “Yes,” provide detail in Part VI.

Did one or more disqualified persons (as defined in line 9a) hold a controlling interest in any entity in which the supporting organization had an interest? If “Yes,” provide detail in Part VI.

Did a disqualified person (as defined in line 9a) have an ownership interest in, or derive any personal benefit from, assets in which the supporting organization also had an interest? If “Yes,” provide detail in Part VI.

10a

Was the organization subject to the excess business holdings rules of section 4943 because of section 4943(f) (regarding certain Type II supporting organizations, and all Type III non-functionally integrated supporting organizations)? If “Yes,” answer line 10b below.

10a

Did the organization have any excess business holdings in the tax year? (Use Schedule C, Form 4720, to determine whether the organization had excess business holdings).

10b

Schedule A (Form 990 or 990-EZ) 2020

Page 5

Part IV

Supporting Organizations (continued)

Yes

Has the organization accepted a gift or contribution from any of the following persons?

A person who directly or indirectly controls, either alone or together with persons described in lines 11b and 11c below, the governing body of a supported organization?

11a

A family member of a person described in 11a above?

11b

A 35% controlled entity of a person described in line 11a or 11b above? If “Yes” to 11a, 11b, or 11c, provide detail in Part VI.

11c

Section B. Type I Supporting Organizations

Yes

Did the officers, directors, trustees, or membership of one or more supported organizations have the power to regularly appoint or elect at least a majority of the organization’s directors or trustees at all times during the tax year? If “No,” describe in Part VI how the supported organization(s) effectively operated, supervised, or controlled the organization’s activities. If the organization had more than one supported organization, describe how the powers to appoint and/or remove directors or trustees were allocated among the supported organizations and what conditions or restrictions, if any, applied to such powers during the tax year.

Did the organization operate for the benefit of any supported organization other than the supported organization(s) that operated, supervised, or controlled the supporting organization? If “Yes,” explain in Part VI how providing such benefit carried out the purposes of the supported organization(s) that operated, supervised or controlled the supporting organization.

Section C. Type II Supporting Organizations

Yes

Were a majority of the organization’s directors or trustees during the tax year also a majority of the directors or trustees of each of the organization’s supported organization(s)? If “No,” describe in Part VI how control or management of the supporting organization was vested in the same persons that controlled or managed the supported organization(s).

Section D. All Type III Supporting Organizations

Yes

Did the organization provide to each of its supported organizations, by the last day of the fifth month of the organization’s tax year, (i) a written notice describing the type and amount of support provided during the prior tax year, (ii) a copy of the Form 990 that was most recently filed as of the date of notification, and (iii) copies of the organization’s governing documents in effect on the date of notification, to the extent not previously provided?

Were any of the organization’s officers, directors, or trustees either (i) appointed or elected by the supported organization(s) or (ii) serving on the governing body of a supported organization? If "No," explain in Part VI how the organization maintained a close and continuous working relationship with the supported organization(s).

By reason of the relationship described in line 2 above, did the organization’s supported organizations have a significant voice in the organization’s investment policies and in directing the use of the organization’s income or assets at all times during the tax year? If "Yes," describe in Part VI the role the organization’s supported organizations played in this regard.

Section E. Type III Functionally-Integrated Supporting Organizations

Check the box next to the method that the organization used to satisfy the Integral Part Test during the year (see instructions):

The organization satisfied the Activities Test. Complete line 2 below.

The organization is the parent of each of its supported organizations. Complete line 3 below.

The organization supported a governmental entity. Describe in Part VI how you supported a government entity (see instructions)

Activities Test. Answer lines 2a and 2b below.

Yes

Did substantially all of the organization’s activities during the tax year directly further the exempt purposes of the supported organization(s) to which the organization was responsive? If "Yes," then in Part VI identify those supported organizations and explain how these activities directly furthered their exempt purposes, how the organization was responsive to those supported organizations, and how the organization determined that these activities constituted substantially all of its activities.

Did the activities described in line 2a, above constitute activities that, but for the organization’s involvement, one or more of the organization’s supported organization(s) would have been engaged in? If "Yes," explain in Part VI the reasons for the organization’s position that its supported organization(s) would have engaged in these activities but for the organization’s involvement.

Parent of Supported Organizations. Answer lines 3a and 3b below.

Did the organization have the power to regularly appoint or elect a majority of the officers, directors, or trustees of each of the supported organizations?If "Yes" or "No", provide details in Part VI.

Did the organization exercise a substantial degree of direction over the policies, programs and activities of each of its supported organizations? If "Yes," describe in Part VI. the role played by the organization in this regard.

Schedule A (Form 990 or 990-EZ) 2020

Page 6

Part V

Type III Non-Functionally Integrated 509(a)(3) Supporting Organizations

Check here if the organization satisfied the Integral Part Test as a qualifying trust on Nov. 20, 1970 (explain in Part VI). See instructions. All other Type III non-functionally integrated supporting organizations must complete Sections A through E.

	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 0.015 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 0.035	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

Check here if the current year is the organization's first as a non-functionally-integrated Type III supporting organization (see instructions)

Schedule A (Form 990 or 990-EZ) 2020

Page 7

Part V

Type III Non-Functionally Integrated 509(a)(3) Supporting Organizations(continued)

Section D - Distributions		Current Year
1 Amounts paid to supported organizations to accomplish exempt purposes	1
2 Amounts paid to perform activity that directly furthers exempt purposes of supported organizations, in excess of income from activity	2
3 Administrative expenses paid to accomplish exempt purposes of supported organizations	3
4 Amounts paid to acquire exempt-use assets	4
5 Qualified set-aside amounts (prior IRS approval required - provide details in Part VI)	5
6 Other distributions (describe in Part VI). See instructions	6
7Total annual distributions. Add lines 1 through 6.	7
8 Distributions to attentive supported organizations to which the organization is responsive (provide details in Part VI). See instructions	8
9 Distributable amount for 2020 from Section C, line 6	9
10 Line 8 amount divided by Line 9 amount	10

Section E - Distribution Allocations (see instructions)		(i) Excess Distributions	(ii) Underdistributions Pre-2020	(iii) Distributable Amount for 2020
1 Distributable amount for 2020 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 2020:
a From 2015.......
b From 2016.......
c From 2017.......
d From 2018.......
e From 2019.......
fTotal of lines 3a through e
g Applied to underdistributions of prior years
h Applied to 2020 distributable amount
i Carryover from 2015 not applied (see instructions)
j Remainder. Subtract lines 3g, 3h, and 3i from line 3f.
4Distributions for 2020 from Section D, line 7:
$
a Applied to underdistributions of prior years
b Applied to 2020 distributable amount
c Remainder. Subtract lines 4a and 4b from line 4.
5 Remaining underdistributions for years prior to 2020, 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 2020. 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 2021. Add lines 3j and 4c.
8 Breakdown of line 7:
a Excess from 2016.....
b Excess from 2017.....
c Excess from 2018.....
d Excess from 2019.....
e Excess from 2020.....

Schedule A (Form 990 or 990-EZ) (2020)

Schedule A (Form 990 or 990-EZ) 2020

Page 8

Part VI

Supplemental Information. Provide the explanations required by Part II, line 10; Part II, line 17a or 17b; Part III, line 12; Part IV, Section A, lines 1, 2, 3b, 3c, 4b, 4c, 5a, 6, 9a, 9b, 9c, 11a, 11b, and 11c; Part IV, Section B, lines 1 and 2; Part IV, Section C, line 1; Part IV, Section D, lines 2 and 3; Part IV, Section E, lines 1c, 2a, 2b, 3a and 3b; Part V, line 1; Part V, Section B, line 1e; Part V Section D, lines 5, 6, and 8; and Part V, Section E, lines 2, 5, and 6. Also complete this part for any additional information. (See instructions).

Facts And Circumstances Test

Return Reference	Explanation

Schedule A (Form 990 or 990-EZ) 2020

Additional Data

Software ID:	20011551
Software Version:	2020v4.0

- TIN:

SCHEDULE O
(Form 990 or 990-EZ)

Department of the Treasury
Internal Revenue Service

Supplemental Information to Form 990 or 990-EZ

Complete to provide information for responses to specific questions on
Form 990 or 990-EZ or to provide any additional information.
MediumBullet

Attach to Form 990 or 990-EZ.
MediumBullet

Go to www.irs.gov/Form990 for the latest information.

OMB No. 1545-0047

2020

Open to Public
Inspection

Name of the organization

FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE DEFENSE FUND INC

Employer identification number

30-0741605

Return Reference	Explanation
Grants and Similar Amounts Paid In Excess of $5,000.1	Class of Activity: grants for legal services \| Donee's Name: Children of the Immac Heart \| Donee's Address: PO Box 13954 San Diego CA 92170 \| Relationship of Donee: N/A \| Cash Amount Given: $15000
Grants and Similar Amounts Paid In Excess of $5,000.2	Class of Activity: grants for legal services \| Donee's Name: San Diego Asian Americans \| Donee's Address: 13126 SIENNA COURT SAN DIEGO CA 92129 \| Relationship of Donee: N/A \| Cash Amount Given: $7697
Grants and Similar Amounts Paid In Excess of $5,000.3	Class of Activity: grants for legal services \| Donee's Name: CITIZENS FOR QUALITY EDUCAT. \| Donee's Address: 201 DANIEL DRIVE SANIBEL FL 33957 \| Relationship of Donee: N/A \| Cash Amount Given: $7697
Grants and Similar Amounts Paid In Excess of $5,000.4	Class of Activity: grants for legal services \| Donee's Name: legal / research services individuals \| Donee's Address: c/o fcdf PO BOX 9520 RANCHO SANTA FE CA 92067 \| Relationship of Donee: NONE \| Cash Amount Given: $51324
Grants and Similar Amounts Paid In Excess of $5,000.5	Class of Activity: grants for legal services \| Donee's Name: GRANTS BELOW THRESHOLD \| Donee's Address: c/o fcdf PO BOX 9520 RANCHO SANTA FE CA 92067 \| Relationship of Donee: N/A \| Cash Amount Given: $5200
Other Expenses.1002	Office Expenses $488
Other Expenses.1012	Insurance $9863
Other Expenses.1	FUNDRAISING COSTS $3280
Other Expenses.2	WEBSITE $510
Other Expenses.3	BANK CHARGES $291
Other Expenses.4	WORKERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE $36
Other Expenses.5	OTHER TAXES $10
Total Liabilities.1	- Beginning $0 - Ending $0
Total Liabilities.2	- Beginning $0 - Ending $0
Changes to Organizing or Governing Documents	FCDFs Bylaws were amended to reflect that effective July 15, 2020, the Directors of FCDF would be elected by Thomas More Society, whose purposes are similar to those of FCDF and that is also exempt from federal income tax under Section 501(c)(3).
Cases Year End 06-30-21- form 990EZ pg 2 prt III line 28	PART III, LINE 28Freedom of Conscience Defense FundDefending Religious Freedom and the American ConstitutionCases for the Year Ending 06-30-21National 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 a preliminary 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 then engaged in briefing regarding the proper scope of any discovery. The District Court 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. Ultimately, the District Court declined to permit FCDF to engage in any meaningful discoveryonly depositions of two declarants whose declarations NAF submitted with its motion for summary judgment. In the spring of 2021, FCDF took those declarants depositions. In April and May 2021, the District Court granted NAFs motion for summary judgment and entered a permanent injunction. FCDF has appealed the final judgment to the Ninth Circuit. FCDFs opening brief on appeal is due in September 2021.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 then appealed the final judgment to the Ninth Circuit. FCDF filed its opening brief on appeal in February 2021, and obtained numerous amicus curiae briefs filed in support of CMP. Planned Parenthoods brief is due in July 2021, after which FCDF will file its reply brief. 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 probable cause existed as to many of them. Trial is expected to occur in 2021. 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 Plaintiffs then submitted new declarations and the District Court reinstated its preliminary injunction again in full. FCDF appealed a third time, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Courts actions. The case is now back before the District Court and discovery needs to proceed.The public interest is being served by protecting freedom of conscience.Center for Medical Progress and David Daleiden v. Rob Bonta, 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 Defendants successfully moved to have the case transferred to the Northern District of California, and Judge William Orrickthe judge presiding over the NAF and Planned Parenthood cases. The Defendants then moved to dismiss and stay various of the causes of action, a motion which Judge Orrick essentially granted in full. The case is now stayed pending the criminal action and the appeal in the Planned Parenthood action. 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 establ
Cases Year End 06-30-21- form 990EZ pg 2 prt III line 28 (cont.)	PART III, LINE 28Freedom of Conscience Defense FundDefending Religious Freedom and the American ConstitutionCases for the Year Ending 06-30-21 (continued)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 (DFEH) began investigating Ms. Miller and brought an action against her on December 14, 2017.On February 5, 2018, the Court denied the DFEHs request for a preliminary injunction, and later entered a final judgment in Ms. Millers favor on May 1, 2018. The DFEH then argued that its request for a preliminary injunction was a unique special proceeding, and so it was not bound by the Courts order, and retained the ability to investigate Ms. Miller in an administrative proceeding. FCDF filed a motion to enforce the judgment by limiting the DFEHs investigation. That motion was granted, but then stayed following a petition for writ of mandate to Californias Fifth District Court of Appeal. In October 2018, the DFEH began a new action that FCDF is defending. In June 2020, the trial court ordered the DFEH to produce its communications with the Rodriguez-Del Rios after concluding that the DFEH could not serve as their legal counsel. This ruling, despite following a binding opinion from the Fourth Appellate District, was then stayed by the Fifth Appellate District.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. Depositions are scheduled for July and August 2021; 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.South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Governor Gavin Newsom, et al.In March 2020, the worldwide COVID-19 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 took up the appeal again. In November 2020, the Supreme Court issued a watershed case titled Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo regarding the application of the First Amendment during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Ninth Circuit immediately remanded the case to the District Court to consider the new law.In December 2020, the District Court declined to enjoin Governor Newsoms COVID-19 restrictions and FCDF appealed again. On December 24, 2020, the Ninth Circuit declined to grant an injunction pending appeal, but set an expedited briefing schedule with oral argument in January 2020. In late January 2020, the Ninth Circuit denied relief on the merits, and FCDF submitted an emergency application to the Supreme Court. This time, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in favor of FCDF.In April 2020, the Supreme Court declined to take up FCDFs appeal on the merits from the Ninth Circuit, but ordered vacatur of the lower court orders denying relief. On June 1, 2020, the District Court entered a permanent injunction against Governor Newsom and ended the case.The public interest is being served by protecting freedom of conscience.
Cases Year End 06-30-21- form 990EZ pg 2 prt III line 28 (cont.)	PART III, LINE 28Freedom of Conscience Defense FundDefending Religious Freedom and the American ConstitutionCases for the Year Ending 06-30-21 (continued)Grace Community Church of the Valley v. County of Los Angeles, et al.On Thursday, July 23, 2020, the Board of Elders of a famous, and very large Christian church in Los Angeles County, called Grace Community Church, voted unanimously to reopen its campus and church, and ignore Governor Newsoms and Los Angeles Countys orders to remain closed. The next Wednesday, July 29, 2020, the County of Los Angeles sent Grace Community Church a cease and desist letter, ordering it to close back down, and threatening it with legal action. That weekend, outside counsel for President Trump, Jenna Ellis, reached out to FCDF to see if we would represent the Church in bringing a lawsuit against Governor Newsom and Los Angeles County. On August 12, 2020, FCDF filed a civil rights action in the North Central District of Los Angeles County Superior Court. In response to the Churchs lawsuit, on August 14, 2020, Los Angeles County filed its own lawsuit in the Central District of Los Angeles County Superior Court. That same day, the County asked for an emergency order from the Court preventing the Church from holding worship services. The trial court (Judge Chalfant) refused to grant the County all of the relief it requested. The trial court ordered the Church to have its congregants practice social distancing and wear masks, but he refused to order the Church to not hold worship services inside the church building. But the next day, Saturday, August 15, 2020, Californias Second Appellate District overruled him. In the meantime, FCDF sought but was denied discovery to oppose the Countys OSC re: Preliminary Injunction. On August 28, the County issued a notice of eviction to Grace Community Church, providing thirty days notice that it was terminating its rental agreement for the churchs parking lot. On Thursday, September 10, 2020, the trial court (Judge Beckloff) granted the County of Los Angeles requested preliminary injunction. FCDF immediately appealed. Since the TRO Was entered on August 15, the Church had continued holding worship services. Thus, the County began attempting to have the Church held in contempt of court. On September 18, 2020, the County applied ex parte for an Order to Show Cause re: Contempt of Court and for Sanctions for violating the Courts Preliminary Injunction. That matter was initially heard by the all-purpose judge (Judge Alarcon), who ultimately referred it back to the writ judge (Judge Beckloff), who repeatedly put it off. On September 25, 2020, FCDF filed a First Amended Complaint in its action. That amended complaint maintained the claims previously asserted, but also added a claim for breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment as a result of the Countys retaliatory eviction. On December 15, 2020, in light of a new watershed case from the Supreme Court, titled Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, the County of Los Angeles and Grace Community Church entered into a stipulation whereby the County would not seek to enforce its preliminary injunction against Grace Community Church, the parties would continue the contempt hearing to a later date, and the parties would agree to a briefing schedule regarding vacatur of the preliminary injunction and the order to show cause re: contempt.On February 18, 2021, Grace Community Church filed before a motion to dissolve the preliminary injunction in light of Diocese of Brooklyn. While that motion was pending, the parties agreed to settle their lawsuits. Approval of that settlement agreement is now pending before the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors.The public interest is being served by protecting freedom of conscience.Father Trevor Burfitt v. Governor Gavin Newsom, et al.In August 2020, Attorney Chris Ferrara reached out to FCDF about his interest in filing a new lawsuit challenging Governor Newsoms COVID-19 restrictions and whether FCDF could serve as local counsel. On September 29, 2020, Mr. Ferrara and FCDF ultimately filed an action in Kern County Superior court on behalf of Fr. Trevor Burfitt, SSPX, raising only claims under the Free Exercise clause of the California Constitution.On November 4, 2020, FCDF filed a motion for a preliminary injunction on behalf of Fr. Burfitt, set to be heard on December 2, 2020. On November 10, 2020, California filed a motion to transfer the Burfitt action to Los Angeles County Superior Court, and to consolidate it with the Grace actions. That motion was set for December 4, 2020 in Los Angeles County Superior Court, and so California also applied in Kern County Superior Court to continue the preliminary injunction hearing date to after the transfer hearing date, and it was continued to December 10.The December 4 transfer hearing date was then continued to December 11after the preliminary injunction hearing date. On December 10, the Kern County court granted FCDFs requested preliminary injunction, and on December 11, the Los Angeles court denied transfer. On January 5, 2021, the Kern County court signed the final preliminary injunction order, and the Defendants appealed. On January 28, 2021, the Fifth Appellate District issued an order temporarily staying the preliminary injunction. The parties then actually briefed the merits of the stay. On April 12, 2021, California withdrew all of its capacity restrictions on worship, thereby mooting the appeal and the stay.The parties then negotiated the entry of a permanent injunction against California, which the trial court signed on June 14, 2021.The public interest is being served by protecting freedom of conscience.Shepherd Church v. Governor Gavin Newsom, et al.Shepherd Church is an evangelical Christian church in Los Angeles County. Beginning in August 2020, the County of Los Angeles began issuing weekly administrative citations to Shepherd Church because of its worship services. FCDF has been assisting the Church in appealing those citations through the administrative appeal process.The public interest is being served by protecting freedom of conscience.Dr. Jason 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 moved to dismiss the complaint, and the motion was granted with leave to amend. FCDF filed an amended complaint which the defendants again moved to dismiss. If the motion is granted, FCDF will appeal.The public interest is being served by protecting freedom of conscience.Craig Harrison v. Ryan GilliganCraig Harrison is a former Catholic monsignor with the Roman Catholic Diocese of Bakersfield. In the Spring of 2019, numerous victims came forward and accused Harrison of sexually abusing them. Harrison was ultimately laicized and stripped of his faculties as a Catholic priest. In response, Harrison sued the Diocese for defamation, and also sued one of his public accusers, Ryan Gilligan. At the time, Gilligan was a novice with a Benedictine monastery, but has since left the monastery. FCDF is defending Gilligan. After Gilligan was served with the complaint, in August 2020, FCDF filed an anti-SLAPP motion. That motion was denied, and FCDF has appealed it to the Fifth Appellate District. The appeal is currently being briefed.The public interest is being served by protecting freedom of conscience.Father Josiah Trenham v. Peter SanfilippoFather Josiah Trenham is a well-respected priest and pastor of Saint Andrew Orthodox Church, a member of the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch in Riverside, California. In this case, a disreputable blogger began publishing unfounded accusations that Orthodox Father Josiah Trenham was a sexual abuser. The case was referred to FCDF by Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone. FCDF has filed a defamation action on behalf of Father Trenham and is now attempting to have the defendants served. The defendants are evading service.The public interest is being served by protecting freedom of conscience.Dr. Joseph Nicolosi, Jr. v. Dr. Travis SalwayDr. Joseph Nicolosi, Jr., Ph.D., is a psychologist offering counseling for individuals with unwanted same-sex attraction using his trademarked therapy Reintegrative Therapy since June 2017. In January 2021, Dr. Travis Salway and Ph.D. candidate David Kinitz published a scientific journal article online detailing their plans to conduct a comprehensive study of all studies concerning conversion therapy, which they described as an extremely harmful form of therapy intended to change sexual orientation. As part of the journal article, Salway and K
Cases Year End 06-30-21- form 990EZ pg 2 prt III line 28 (cont.)	PART III, LINE 28Freedom of Conscience Defense FundDefending Religious Freedom and the American ConstitutionCases for the Year Ending 06-30-21 (continued)Charles Cox, et al., v. Erica Renfree, et al.Following widespread violent protests over the summer of 2020, which resulted in vandalism to numerous Catholic churches, shrines, and statutes, some extreme groups began calling for the removal of all references to the Apostle to California, St. Junpero Serra. In San Diego, the policies of the San Diego Unified School District provided that the names of its schools are permanent and cannot be changed. Nevertheless, sometime in the Fall of 2020 or Spring of 2021, the SDUSD Board of Trustees changed this policy, and then in March 2021, voted to change the name of Junipero Serra High School to Canyon Hills High School.In July 2021, FCDF brought suit on behalf of a group of concerned local residents, arguing that the name changewhich was rushed through with no local community inputviolated the procedural due process and establishment of religion guarantees of the federal and California constitutions. FCDF intends to immediately move for a preliminary injunction. The public interest is being served by protecting freedom of conscience.Citizens v. California Department of EducationEthnic studies are an interdisciplinary and comparative study of race and ethnicity with special focus on four historically defined racialized core groups: Native Americans, African Americans, Asian Americans, and Latina and Latino Americans. (Cal. Ed. Code, 89032 [AB 1460 (2020) legislative findings].) In March 2021, the California Department of Education promulgated a Model Curriculum on Ethnic Studies for various school districts to adopt. That model contains educational material of supposed interest to Latino Americans, including the In Lak Ech Affirmation. That affirmation is a chant requesting that traditional Aztec deities help the students grow in knowledge and self-awareness. FCDF intends to file a lawsuit challenging the inclusion of that affirmation in model materials as a violation of the prohibition on prayer in public schools. FCDF is still researching the issue.The public interest is being served by protecting freedom of conscience.

For Paperwork Reduction Act Notice, see the Instructions for Form 990 or 990-EZ.

Cat. No. 51056K

Schedule O (Form 990 or 990-EZ) 2020

Additional Data

Software ID:	20011551
Software Version:	2020v4.0

1	Contributions, gifts, grants, and similar amounts received ....................	1	153,166
2	Program service revenue including government fees and contracts ................	2
3	Membership dues and assessments .............................	3
4	Investment income ....................................	4
5a	Gross amount from sale of assets other than inventory .......	5a
b	Less: cost or other basis and sales expenses ............	5b	0
c	Gain or (loss) from sale of assets other than inventory (Subtract line 5b from line 5a) ......	5c
6	Gaming and fundraising events
a	Gross income from gaming (attach Schedule G if greater than $15,000)	6a
b	Gross income from fundraising events (not including $ of contributions from fundraising events reported on line 1) (attach Schedule G if the			sum of such gross income and contributions exceeds $15,000) ..	6b	0
c	Less: direct expenses from gaming and fundraising events ...	6c	0
d	Net income or (loss) from gaming and fundraising events (add lines 6a and 6b and subtract line 6c)	6d
7a	Gross sales of inventory, less returns and allowances ......	7a
b	Less: cost of goods sold .............	7b	0
c	Gross profit or (loss) from sales of inventory (Subtract line 7b from line 7a) .........	7c
8	Other revenue (describe in Schedule O) ....................	8
9	Total revenue. Add lines 1, 2, 3, 4, 5c, 6d, 7c, and 8 ..............	9	153,166

Part ⅢStatement of Program Service Accomplishments (see the instructions for Part III) Check if the organization used Schedule O to respond to any question in this Part III . .	Expenses (Required for section 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4) organizations; optional for others.)
What is the organization's primary exempt purpose? Provide grants for legal services to persons and organizations whose religious liberty and free speech rights have been violated
Describe the organization’s program service accomplishments for each of its three largest program services, as measured by expenses. In a clear and concise manner, describe the services provided, the number of persons benefited, and other relevant information for each program title.
28 Provide grants for legal services to persons and organizations whose religious liberty and free speech rights have been violated (Grants $ 92,049) If this amount includes foreign grants, check here ...			28a	86,918
29 (Grants $ ) If this amount includes foreign grants, check here ...			29a
30 (Grants $ ) If this amount includes foreign grants, check here ...			30a
31 Other program services (describe in Schedule O) ................ (Grants $ ) If this amount includes foreign grants, check here...	31a
32 Total program service expenses (add lines 28a through 31a)..........	32	92,049

(a) Name and title	(b) Average hours per week devoted to position	(c) Reportable compensation (Forms W-2/1099-MISC) (if not paid, enter -0-)
THOMAS BREJCHA President	1.00	0
THOMAS OLP Treasurer	1.00	0
ANDY BATH VP/Secretary	1.00	0

(a) Name and title of each employee	(b) Average hours per week devoted to position	(c) Reportable compensation (Forms W-2/1099-MISC)	(d) Health benefits, contributions to employee benefit plans, and deferred compensation	(e) Estimated amount of other compensation
NONE

(a) Name and business address of each independent contractor	(b) Type of service	(c) Compensation
NONE

10	Grants and similar amounts paid (list in Schedule O) ................	10	86,918
11	Benefits paid to or for members ......................	11
12	Salaries, other compensation, and employee benefits ................	12
13	Professional fees and other payments to independent contractors ............	13	10,256
14	Occupancy, rent, utilities, and maintenance ...................	14
15	Printing, publications, postage, and shipping ...................	15
16	Other expenses (describe in Schedule O) ...................	16	14,478
17	Total expenses. Add lines 10 through 16 .................	17	111,652

18	Excess or (deficit) for the year (Subtract line 17 from line 9) ............	18	41,514
19	Net assets or fund balances at beginning of year (from line 27, column (A)) (must agree with
	end-of-year figure reported on prior year’s return) .................	19	1,298
20	Other changes in net assets or fund balances (explain in Schedule O) ...........	20
21	Net assets or fund balances at end of year. Combine lines 18 through 20 ..........	21	42,812

Sign Here

	Signature of officer	Date

	Type or print name and title

Name of organization FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE DEFENSE FUND INC

Part I Contributors	Contributors (see instructions). Use duplicate copies of Part I if additional space is needed.
(a) No.	(b) Name, address, and ZIP + 4	(c) Total contributions	(d) Type of contribution
RESTRICTED	,	$ RESTRICTED	Person Payroll Noncash (Complete Part II for noncash contributions.)
(a) No.	(b) Name, address, and ZIP + 4	(c) Total contributions	(d) Type of contribution
		$	Person Payroll Noncash (Complete Part II for noncash contributions.)
(a) No.	(b) Name, address, and ZIP + 4	(c) Total contributions	(d) Type of contribution
		$	Person Payroll Noncash (Complete Part II for noncash contributions.)
(a) No.	(b) Name, address, and ZIP + 4	(c) Total contributions	(d) Type of contribution
		$	Person Payroll Noncash (Complete Part II for noncash contributions.)
(a) No.	(b) Name, address, and ZIP + 4	(c) Total contributions	(d) Type of contribution
		$	Person Payroll Noncash (Complete Part II for noncash contributions.)
(a) No.	(b) Name, address, and ZIP + 4	(c) Total contributions	(d) Type of contribution
		$	Person Payroll Noncash (Complete Part II for noncash contributions.)
Schedule B (Form 990, 990-EZ, or 990-PF) (2020)

Name of organization FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE DEFENSE FUND INC		Employer identification number 30-0741605

Part II	Noncash Property (see instructions). Use duplicate copies of Part II if additional space is needed.
(a) No. from Part I	(b) Description of noncash property given	(c) FMV (or estimate) (See instructions)	(d) Date received
		$
(a) No. from Part I	(b) Description of noncash property given	(c) FMV (or estimate) (See instructions)	(d) Date received
		$
(a) No. from Part I	(b) Description of noncash property given	(c) FMV (or estimate) (See instructions)	(d) Date received
		$
(a) No. from Part I	(b) Description of noncash property given	(c) FMV (or estimate) (See instructions)	(d) Date received
		$
(a) No. from Part I	(b) Description of noncash property given	(c) FMV (or estimate) (See instructions)	(d) Date received
		$
(a) No. from Part I	(b) Description of noncash property given	(c) FMV (or estimate) (See instructions)	(d) Date received
		$
Schedule B (Form 990, 990-EZ, or 990-PF) (2020)


Name of organization FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE DEFENSE FUND INC			Employer identification number 30-0741605
Part III Exclusively religious, charitable, etc., contributions to organizations described in section 501(c)(7), (8), or (10) that total more than $1,000 for the year from any one contributor. Complete columns (a) through (e) and the following line entry. For organizations completing Part III, enter the total of exclusively religious, charitable, etc., contributions of $1,000 or less for the year. (Enter this information once. See instructions.) $ Use duplicate copies of Part III if additional space is needed.