Date: Mon, Oct 30, 2000 at 22:27:19 (GMT) From: Michael Dettmers Email: dettmers@gylanix.com To: Everyone Subject: Response to Joe, Janet and Rob - Part II Message:

My response to Joe, Janet and Rob – Part II Needless to say, the mood was very somber when Maharaji came to Denver two days later. He immediately assembled the Executive Committee and told us in no uncertain terms how disappointed he was in all of us and that he was in Denver to get to the bottom of the situation. He made it clear that no one should take their positions for granted and that before he left, there would be changes. He then scheduled individual meetings with each member of the Executive Committee. We knew he meant business when he fired the first two people he met with. I was the last person to meet with him and I fully expected to be fired as well. Much to my surprise, that is not what happened. His first question to me was, in effect, what the hell is going on around here? And he wanted me to fully explain my findings regarding the audit. I responded by carefully recounting all I had done to assemble a credible set of financials and the interpretation our lawyer had made of them. He listened carefully, periodically asking questions. When I finished, he commented on how Shri Maharaj Ji (his father) had always hated DLM. He went on to explain that DLM was not the same as Maharaji - that Maharaji was the focus of knowledge and that if DLM had any role it was to be at the service of Maharaji, not visa versa. He said he realized that we had lost our focus based on the changes that were implemented during his summer tours. He explained that knowledge without devotion to Maharaji is nothing and that all of us have forgotten that. He asked me what I thought about our current dilemma. I told him that we faced a serious problem. I also acknowledged that it was absurd that he should find himself in a situation where he is considered to be the Chief Minister of a Denver-based church. I also added that, based on his views of DLM, his entire organizational structure needed re-thinking. He said he agreed and he asked me if I would like to take on that task. I must admit I was amazed that I was having this conversation with Maharaji and I readily accepted. “Good”, he said. “You’re fired from your current position in DLM but you’re hired as my personal manager.” So, in a sense, I was fired but not with the consequences I had anticipated. In my newly created position, Maharaji gave me two priorities. The first was to meet with Bob and tell him that Maharaji had no intention of moving out of the Malibu residence. As far as Maharaji was concerned, the Malibu residence had been a gift from his premies. He felt the same way about the motorhome and the cars as well. I can vouch for his claim about the motorhome, because it was a gift from the Canadian premies at the time when I was the National Organizer in Canada. He added that if Bob was so enamored with the Denver residence, he could live there himself as the President of DLM. Meeting with Bob was no easy task because I considered him a friend. When I told him what Maharaji had said, he bore no ill will towards me. He was obviously saddened that all of his efforts to serve Maharaji had come to this. Clearly, he had no interest in heading up an organization that Maharaji was now bashing at every opportunity and he decided to leave shortly thereafter. My other priority was to continue dealing with the audit. To help me with that challenge, Maharaji instructed me to fly to London and meet with a premie named Aubrey West, (Aubrey passed away a few years ago) and to tell him about our problem. He was confident that Aubrey would be very helpful in dealing with the situation. His daughter had introduced Aubrey to knowledge and Maharaji came to know him because he was the principal architect of the strategy that successfully wrested control of DLM in the UK from Maharaji’s mother. Aubrey was one of the most brilliant and interesting people I have ever met. In 1976, he was probably in his late 50’s. He was educated in the law at Cambridge and had established a very exclusive and successful investment banking practice. He was also a published and world-renowned calligrapher. I met with Aubrey over the course of several days where he interrogated me over every detail of my findings when preparing for the audit. Eventually, he latched onto a single detail that I had never given much thought to. When I first came to Denver, the person who had been handling the finances handed over to me all of his files and records. Included in the transfer was a small endorsement stamp with the facsimile signature Prem Pal Singh Rawat aka Guru Maharaj Ji. It had been the standard practice at DLM to deposit all checks into a DLM bank account including all of the checks that had been made payable to Guru Maharaji. Those particular checks were recorded on a separate deposit slip and endorsed over to DLM with the endorsement stamp bearing Maharaji’s legal signature. Aubrey made that fact the cornerstone of his strategy to deal with our problem. In Aubrey’s opinion, there was a fundamental and legal difference between gifts of love made out of devotion to one’s guru, and donations made to an organization created to spread the guru’s message. He argued that those two different and distinct sources of funds should never have been co-mingled within DLM donations. Aubrey, through me, instructed Maharaji’s lawyer and accountant to re-classify all of the checks that had been made out to Maharaji, but deposited into DLM’s bank account, as Maharaji’s personal funds that were simply being held in trust for his personal use by DLM. When the financial records were re-categorized in this manner, the records clearly showed that Maharaji had more than enough funds to personally pay for the Malibu residence, the cars, and his personal expenses with his own money. During the audit, we acknowledged to the IRS that, after consulting with our lawyers, we realized that it was not a good idea to have had DLM act as a trustee in this manner, and that we were in the process of transferring all of the assets that were rightfully Maharaji’s into a separate structure that properly reflected his beneficial interest in them. The IRS was completely satisfied with this explanation, confirmed the principle that Maharaji and DLM were two distinct entities, and that gifts to Maharaji qualified as such under IRS codes. With that issue settled, we sailed through that audit without difficulty or incident. In the meantime, Maharaji was busy consolidating his base. He moved with avengence to un-do all of our efforts to present his as a humanitarian leader by making it abundantly clear to all premies that knowledge and devotion to Maharaji were inseparable. He was determined that he would never again find himself in the position where he would be given an ultimatum by anyone. DLM in Denver was disbanded as an IHQ, with instructions from Maharaji not to re-constitute it anywhere else. As Maharaji explained to me and other organizers, he was the headquarters of his mission. Wherever he was, that was where the headquarters was. To that end, he secured residences in the UK, Australia and India to emphasize that, just because he was now an American did not mean that American premies should feel they had any special rights on his time or his person. With that, a new era of devotion, along with a reinstatement of the ashrams, was launched. Janet asked me what I have learned and what I would do differently based on the organizational experience I have gained in the past 25 years. Forgetting for the moment that we are talking about a cult, here’s what I would have done differently. First, I would not have begun the organizational changes without first ensuring that the CEO (in this case, Maharaji) was fully committed to the process. Today, I will not work with an organization unless the CEO and his/her Executive Team are fully committed to, and participate in, the process of transformation. Second, I would have taken more time to build relationships. I came to Denver as an outsider and it was foolish of me to move forward as aggressively as I did without taking the time to build bridges and establish trust. Third, I would have put more women in positions of responsibility. There were several outstanding women at IHQ at the time but I was too blind to see how much easier the process would have been if I had cultivated their trust and support and positioned them handle much of the implementation. This blindness was further reflected in an all male Executive Committee. Finally, I would not have lived in the “executive ashram” thereby lending credibility to the charges of elitism and fostering and “us and “them” mentality. Michael Dettmers

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 18:04:03 (GMT) From: Another Lurking Poster Email: None To: Michael Dettmers Subject: Interesting ... Message:

I am most interested to read your account of your history. It confirms to me that so many of the decisions in the those early days and the motions that were set up were set by various individuals, not M himself. Especially on the business side of things. Back then, how old was M? 14, 15, 16? As you pointed out DLM had, in fact, been inadvertently mixing the personal gifts with the charitable trust funds. Once this was discovered though, it was corrected and the money that had been 'held in trust' separated from the income of DLM/EV. And so it is, I believe, today. Once M realized, as he got older and more experienced in the western world, how his affairs were being mishandled and misrepresented he stepped in to change things. Something else he does, to this day as well.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 18:07:17 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: Another Lurking Poster Subject: That makes no sense, premie-ji Message:

Maharaji steps in to keep his money safe. That's the only stepping in he's ever done.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 16:23:32 (GMT) From: Scott T. Email: None To: Michael Dettmers Subject: A dynasty founded on infamy. Message:

Michael: As Maharaji explained to me and other organizers, he was the headquarters of his mission. Wherever he was, that was where the headquarters was. To that end, he secured residences in the UK, Australia and India to emphasize that, just because he was now an American did not mean that American premies should feel they had any special rights on his time or his person. With that, a new era of devotion, along with a reinstatement of the ashrams, was launched. It was during this period of upheaval and uncertainty in 1976 that I 'escaped.' As a result of your narrative it occurs to me that I really owe Bob Mishler and the IRS for that result, and had I stayed only 6 months longer I might well have been caught in the totalist clutches of the Guru for several more decades. It also challenges my unconcern about the behavior of M as the primary mover in this totalist capture of a large number of people. This is probably the very core of his crime, for a crime it must be called in all but the strict legal sense. It reminds me a little of William the Conquerer's takeover of Britain after the Norman Conquest, and the preparation of the 'Doomsday Book' that accounted every asset in Britain in order to wrest (steal) all control of resources from the Anglo-Saxons and establish a centralized Norman rule. William eventually died in Normandy, stripped and abandoned on the bare floor of a church. Before dying he is said to have 'come clean' about the atrocities he had committed in order to achieve his position, and for that reason refused to name a successor, that a dynasty founded on infamy should end with him. --Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 11:32:16 (GMT) From: Charlie Email: None To: Michael Dettmers Subject: Response to response Message:

Dear Michael, Around about September time if you were reading this page you might have seen a pile of tributes that flooded in following the announcement of the death of Nick Seymore-Jones. Perhaps you knew him, he was well respected in the UK community and certainly seemed to be a memorable character for many people who read this page including myself, although I did not care to pass any sentiment or comment at the time of the announcement. I was however transported back through my memories to an occasion early one morning (3.00 am) in 1980 when I sat on a beam in the roof of a stage being built in a field at a race-course in Lingfield, Surrey UK. On that morning all the feelings of respect I had had for Mr. Seymore-Jones faded away as he screamed at me and the assembled tradesmen to work ever harder to complete the monumental stage he had designed so that it would be ready for 'the Lord of the Universe' to come and sit on in a few hours. I had been working twelve to sixteen hour shifts each day, sleeping in a tent and eating a very poor diet for a week on that project, only to be screamed at like a galley slave for not working hard enough to realise his crazy dream. I was in the roof of the stage that morning fortifying it's beams so that they could support the weight of the sound monitors which would normally have been placed on the floor but would have obscured the audience's view of the sacred lotus feet of the Lord. While perched up there I became irate, I had the overwhelming desire to throw something heavy at Mr. Jones and curse him to his face but in the end I bit my tongue and tried to remember the holy name. My premie colleague sitting with me could see my emotion and indicated that I should 'surrender'. So why am I telling you about this Michael? Well because as I see it, you like Mr. Jones, were an officer in the army of the Lord of the Universe, whereas I was merely an enlisted man, a small man who never spoke back to those in authority and never (until now) had the chance to speak back. I regret that I was an uneducated kid from a religious background who got caught up in a spiritual scam headed up by a megalomaniac Indian, assisted by a team of clever university educated manipulators, such as yourself. While reading your posts I can see that in the early years, you, like me also believed in a hippy dream of god consciousness, but, as far as I can see, that dream ended for you sometime in the late seventies. However, for years following your wising up to Maharaji's mortality you continued to assist him in the calculated exploitation of people like myself to continue their deluded lives giving all their spare cash to your boss while knowing there was NO reward for them in either heaven or hell. You bastard! You complete fucking manipulating shit! Shame on you!!! In the 1970s all I knew was cutting wood but your more valuable skill was organising corporations. Like me you seemed to want to make your abilities available to the Lord of the Universe in the mistaken belief that you were helping humanity in some way, but you unlike me, having such a special skill, were drawn closer to the control centre, you got to see behind the curtain of the wizard whereas I did not. I believe that if I had seen what you saw, I would have been out that door faster than greased lightning, so, just what good did you think you were doing during your remaining cult years? I just can't see what the attraction was. Did you see some kind of career opportunity? What were you doing it for? Didn't the word integrity mean anything to you? There are quite a few exes here who think M is a victim of the whole show as much as any of us. Well I don't reckon so. No matter how unusual his upbringing and family life was, with even a smattering of intelligence he understands when he is taking somebody for a ride or not. He knows that he is a regular man who is able to live the life of a king by tricking people into believing his fantasy story. You must have understood that fact long ago while I was a true believer! The last couple of years have been among the most difficult of my life as I have faced up to the unfolding reality of the worthless pursuit I invested so much time and energy in since my teens. First the belief in the manifestation of God almighty in human form, come to save humanity. Then there was the slow realisation that the promise had been broken, followed by years of no explanation, just a brazen new manifesto where M was never the Lord but just a Master (whatever that is supposed to mean) while he continues to collect millions of dollars. Michael, I cannot tell you how grateful I am that you have come clean about so many issues that simple premies like me were shielded from. I, like so many here am feeling the weight easing from my mind as you put the pieces of the jigsaw together - in slabs. Your input here is without doubt, exceedingly valuable and I will continue to read what you have to say, but sadly despite my 'gratitude' to you, Michael, I don't see you as my friend. No, you were one of the architects of a machine built to hurt me, and whether or not you were unwitting in your role, I care not a hoot. The biggest beneficiary of your catharsis must be you, I hope you enjoy the feeling of relief and release in becoming an exe, that is the most positive thing I can say to you. Once I had it in my head that being bitter about my experience in DLM/EV was wrong, that it was somehow a bad thing for me to harbour such feelings, so for years I worked at burying those feelings, to forgive and forget, to progress positively in my life. Well let me tell you this, I discovered that trying to be positive and 'getting a life' after DLM doesn't work for me, it's a crock of shit! What I have learned is that I have responsibility and I must accept the accompanying consequences of all my actions but I have also learned that I have been the unwitting mark in a deception that has robbed me of some of the most valuable years of my life. I refuse to take the blame for that, as so many cultists believe I should, no. I feel entitled to my bitterness and feel justified in wanting to see Maharaji have his arse whipped. Michael, I am comfortable to say that I do not forgive you for your part in this deception (should I?) and sorry, but I would not welcome you to stay under my roof when you are in London as others here would do. You are lucky to find such sweet natured people to greet you, still, I am sure you would be able to pay for a good quality hotel room. Charlie

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Nov 01, 2000 at 21:24:18 (GMT) From: Bin Liner Email: None To: Charlie Subject: Response to response Message:

You're SO right Charlie . Thanks for reminding me. All the best.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 15:09:03 (GMT) From: gerry Email: None To: Charlie Subject: A true ****Best Of*** in my opinion Message:

Charlie, I can't thank you enough for your eloquent and moving post. You explain my own thoughts and feelings so clearly and elegantly. I have to wonder what you may have accomplished if you hadn't been so deceived by the likes of Maha, dettmers, et al. Your clarity and writing skills are truly first class. I too think dettmers has zero integrity. He's still a con man with his 'management consultancy' and his matchbook college degree. He was a fraud then and he's a fraud now. It pains me to see all the fawning over this main architect of the cult, who realised as early as 1974 that Rawat was just an ordinary bloke and it was all a scam. I also want to thank Roger Drek for forcing this low life out into the light. I doubt very much that dettmers would have ever said a word to put people here at ease if he hadn't been confronted by Roger's expose. It was beginning to hurt his bottom line and now he's accomplished his goal of getting it removed, unfortunately. And I believe Roger really did see him at a program in the late nineties Now for the crude lout in me: Fuck you, you rotten bastard dettmers !!! You're still a fucking con man and a liar. I hope you rot in hell !!! Ah I feel better now....

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Nov 01, 2000 at 03:56:05 (GMT) From: Tonette Email: None To: gerry and Charlie Subject: Ditto Message:

I was wondering if I was the only reader here who felt skeptism about MD. I guess M would have found someone else if it hadn't been Michael in order further his 'mission' and his pockets. Michael is not all clean and holy. People here are so hungry for 'the scoop' that they are embracing him with open arms. The Ex's wouldn't dare risk chasing him away. But it is apparent that Michael is unable, unwilling to give any information that might be used to bring M to his knees. Too bad. But I suppose it might make Michael breathe a little easier now that any damming infor about him is somewhat buried. Perhaps his conscious is a little better off too. Dunno about his 'character and integrity' these days. Maybe he has done a 180. I think that Michael has just about thrown us enough scraps that Michael feels fairly confidentially that we, as Ex's, will shut up and at least leave him alone. Yes, I bet his visits here are just about over

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 16:54:34 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: gerry Subject: In the court of Gerry Lyng Message:

And I believe Roger really did see him at a program in the late nineties Why do you believe that? Where's the evidence? Even Roger concedes that he may have been wrong or may have been wrong about either the person or the year. But you know nothing about weighing things carefully, do you? Your whole trip is to believe what you want to believe. Evidence? Who needs evidence? That's a really bad trait you've got, Ger. You should smarten up.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 17:20:48 (GMT) From: JohnT Email: None To: Jim Subject: But Jim ... Message:

Gerry was praising Charlie's words to MD which include ... for years following your wising up to Maharaji's mortality you continued to assist him in the calculated exploitation of people like myself to continue their deluded lives giving all their spare cash to your boss while knowing there was NO reward for them in either heaven or hell. Now, I'm not able to say much about that - I always thought the Kid was up to no good. But Gerry's clear he thinks MD spins on this - and it does looks to me as if other folk either agree with the likes of GL and Charlie; or wish to skate over this point. I accept MD is sincere now. But are you sure the point has really been dealt with? What's your take?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 17:44:04 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: JohnT Subject: 'But Jim' nothing Message:

John, I wasn't commenting at all on Charlie's post. I was commenting on the specific part of Gerry's post whee he now says that he 'believes' Dettmers was lying about being at a program much more recently than he admits. That's all. That's all I was talking about. Does Dettmers have 'blood on his hands'? I don't know. It's an interesting question. I wonder what HE thinks. Maybe he does in a way. Maybe that's a question for him -- and anyone else who cares -- to wrestle with for years. I don't know. It's a little complex this right-hand man to a cult leader shit. I think that Dettmers would be the first to agree with that. But is he actually lying about things? No, I don't think so. I think that Mike's trying his best possible to deal with the cult honorably now. He can't undo the past and he well might be at fault for al the things that Charlie describes. I have to think about it more, I think. Or maybe I would need to know more to really have an opinion. But I don't think that Michael's lying now. I sure couldn't see why he'd do so, if he was. And no, I don't for a moment buy the idea that he might be trying to some how placate us, etc. That theory's got a lot of holes in as far as I can tell.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 17:13:47 (GMT) From: gerry Email: None To: Jim Subject: OK, let's delete that part then... Message:

I agree in this instance the evidence is only Roger's ID, which we all recognize to be questionable, but not completely worthless, in my opinion. Yes, I do care about evidence, and that's why I take great pains to look into the things that interest or disturb me. And unlike you, I'm willing to entertain non-mainline views. Alternate explanations, if you will, that are not available in the monopoly press. You seem to have an especially strongly vested interest in believing and touting the establishment concensus. I believe this is a reaction on your part for having been duped and ripped off for such a long time by the 'counter culture.' You will not even consider anything that is not acceptable to the 'powers that be.' This is a shame, a blind spot and one of YOUR great weakness. IMO Jim, YOU better smarten up. You have a remarkable talent for honing in on the insignificant to ignore the obvious. Dettmers was a crook and he still is a crook. His own words condemn him. How much more evidence do you need for that? You all are tripping over yourselves to kiss his ass. And you Jim, are leading the charge. I say you are being conned--again. I feel sorry for you.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 17:30:37 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: gerry Subject: That's one way of looking at it Message:

You seem to have an especially strongly vested interest in believing and touting the establishment concensus. I think that's bullshit although I can see how you think that. Mind you, that's all part of your problem, as far as I can tell. You're the one with the bias. You might not be clinically paranoid or paranoid in your dealings with people off-line but you've bought into this paranoid kind of style of approaching issues. You're the one who assumes that there must be something wrong with the general consensus on things. Even the way you try to dismiss it by calling it the 'establishment consensus'. You're the one with the big bias, Ger. But let's talk specifics. You say that Dettmers is 'conning us or me. How? Come on, spell it out. Not in vague terms but really spell it out. What's the con? The onus is on you.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 17:53:12 (GMT) From: gerry Email: None To: Jim Subject: That's one way of looking at it Message:

Well, I prefer, 'healthy skepticism' over 'paranoid style' but that's beside the point. The con is that dettmers knew as early as 1974 that goober was a fraud yet he continued to tout him as something other than a mere mortal. That's a con job. Dettmers uses his fake degree as part of his qualifications as a 'management consultant.' That's a con job. I believe his sole motivation for doing what he's doing is purely self-interest. And that his main reason for 'coming clean' is so no further damage will be done to his professional reputation. That's a con job. He didn't give a damn about the rank and file premies when he was rawat's 'personal manager' and he could care less about ex-premies now. He's a 'confidence' man through and through, he's certainly gained your confidence. You'll never get me to change my mind on that.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 18:03:45 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: gerry Subject: That's it? That's all you got? Message:

I believe his sole motivation for doing what he's doing is purely self-interest. And that his main reason for 'coming clean' is so no further damage will be done to his professional reputation. That's a con job. Gerry, I thought you at least had a theory or something. Some way of seeing all of Dettmers' disclosure as farudulent and offered for some nefarious purpose. Look, I completely expect that Mike's got several motives for talking with us now and yes, one of them is indeed a desire to not have some angry ex-premie embarrass him to his clients, legal or not. But as I see it that's only one of Mike's motivations and a much smaller one than the desire to actually tel the truth for its own sake, to come clean and try, to some extent anyway, to right some of the wrongs of the past. They were Maharaji's wrongs but Dettmers played along. He realizes that. I think he feels bad about it as well. That's the sense I get from him. Not to say that anything could or should be done about it now other than apologize and try to give the truth soem fresh air. If that's how Detmmers is conning me, you're right, I'm all for it.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 18:31:42 (GMT) From: gerry Email: None To: Jim Subject: What more do you want? Message:

The guy was clearly lying his ass off for years. He did it for his own profit. He deliberately misled and hurt thousands of people. He's as rotten as goober is, only smarter. He can go fuck himself.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 18:40:27 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: gerry Subject: A lot more than that, I'm afraid Message:

You said that Dettmers was 'conning' us somehow so I asked you how. It looks like you simply don't have an answer. And your description of Dettmers' role is inaccurate and misleading. Where in your description of his activities do you factor in the fact that this was a cult, that Dettmers, at least initally, worshipped Mahraji exactly like the rest of us? And where do you mention the obvious confusion and cognitive disssonaance Dettmers must have felt doing what he was doing (for once, that term seems appropriate and not just a fancy way of saying 'confusion')?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 18:55:55 (GMT) From: gerry Email: None To: Jim Subject: Get over your fear Message:

I told you my answer. You just didn't like it. And show me one shred of evidence of dettmer's 'confusion' once he figured out Rawat was just another 'mere mortal.' Sounds pretty clear-headed to me.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 19:35:39 (GMT) From: Rick Email: None To: gerry Subject: my take Message:

I read Charlie's post and I've read yours and Jim's exchange. Charlie raised some really good questions and so do you, Gerry. I think Jim is giving Dettmers the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise, and I think that's okay. The biggest culprit in all of this, right from the start in the early 70's, was a lack of information. Obviously, the more information we get on maharaji, the worse he looks. But we still have so little information. I don't really care that much if Dettmers is a lying cheat. There's lots of lying cheats and he'd just be one more. If he wasn't a lying cheat, then maybe Bill Patterson was, or David Smith. I'm sure there were a few in there... there always is. But whatever Dettmers' motivation is, I think he's giving us some credible information. I don't see any particular slant on his accounts of what happened in the upper echelons of the cult. Some of the info is damning, some of it is surprising, but it's all enlightening. And I'm happy to get it. So, Gerry, you want Dettmers to admit he's a creep? I'll bet he'd do it to a certain extent, wouldn't you? I would. But any admission like that will primarily benefit the creep, to identify and change the way he/she lives. No one's completely clean and I'm sure Dettmers isn't. How unclean is he? Who cares and how much does it really matter? Not that much. Personally, I'd like to hear more from Dettmers, including more of his personal experience of maharaji as 'enlightened' and/or 'unenlightened'. It also wouldn't hurt to hear to what extent he understands he was deceived, and to what extent he himself participated in deception. I can't help but think that if Dettmers had never set foot into maharaji's organization that it wouldn't have mattered that much. Everything that transpired still would have happened, basically the same as it did. Dettmers was just a cog, like so many others. There were lots of people standing in line to do exactly what he did, and many were just as ambitious. What we don't know are a lot of the details about how we were cheated. The more details we get shed light not only on how it happened, but continue to saturate us with the knowledge that we WERE cheated. I think Dettmers information so far has been helpful, and that we'd benefit from more of it. He hasn't claimed he's done nothing wrong so it's only fair to ask him to continue, without giving him a lot of shit.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 21:21:45 (GMT) From: And On Anand Ji Email: and_on_anand@yahoo.com To: Rick Subject: * * * Exactly. Thank You Rick * * * Message:

Very nicely said. While people are framing their 'Hall of Fame' posts from this forum, let us add yours! You speak for me, in your eloquent post. I appreciate what you've said, here. And On Anand Ji aka Chris Hafey

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 20:11:20 (GMT) From: gerry Email: None To: Rick Subject: my take Message:

OK, Rick. That's legit. I'm really not trying to chase the guy away. I just get this sick feeling in my stomach reading all these fawning posts to this guy. Hell, somebody here's even taken to calling him 'MR.' dettmers. I'll back off.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 22:29:47 (GMT) From: JohnT Email: None To: gerry Subject: my take, Message:

Rick's words: It also wouldn't hurt to hear to what extent he understands he was deceived, and to what extent he himself participated in deception. Yeah. Really. And I've got a suspicion, no more, that MD never bought it, no more than I did. Could be why he didn't just GET OUT FAST once Rawat's mortality became evident. But, heh, check all of Rick's post if THAT thought makes you feel ill. Like, so what?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 23:13:52 (GMT) From: gerry Email: None To: JohnT Subject: my take, Message:

I hear ya John, I think. The 'so what if he is a liar and a cheat' does bother me on a second, more careful reading of Rick's post. Are we THAT hungry for information that we must kow-tow to another con man? I hope I'm understanding you correctly here, it was a little tough to get the gist of your post. Could you clarify it a bit if I haven't?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Nov 01, 2000 at 14:09:20 (GMT) From: JohnT Email: None To: gerry Subject: take two Message:

Hi Gerry, I'm afraid you read my meaning OK. It seems to me the worst case scenario (if one is taking an ethical viewpoint) is that MD never fell for the Kid's spiel. I think it's a possibility, and one that does not seem to do violence to the facts as we know them, and the circumstances at the time. For example, MD came along after Bob Mishler and rather stepped into his shoes. Should I believe that MD had no interest in his predecessor's thoughts and perceptions? That seems unlikely to me. MD does not come over as so arrogant! Nor has MD spoken of any epiphany or Damascene conversion. By itself that means little -- many people experienced a 'drip, drip, drip' of experiences that eventually eroded their beliefs. But MD has not spoken of any experiences like THAT either, right? So maybe he never believed in Rawat's divinity. Like I say, I'm deliberately waving the 'worst case' scenario around here. But now he's here, and he's talking frankly and reasonably about stuff. Perhaps he was a cynical and aware operative for a false messiah. Perhaps (I really don't know) he was such, but foolishly thought some general or personal good could come out of playing the role he was offered. Maybe, for whatever reason, he was blind to the harm the organisation did to its ah, clients. So, lots of questions about just what kind of guy MD was. Even so, now, the way I see it, MD's words are helping folk straighten out stuff that has bedevilled them for years. That is a Good Thing. It's a wicked world of shades of grey, Gerry. But, you've probably noticed that already. Even if we are right, MD's contribution here is of value, and it's in ex's best self-interest that we should treat him with civility.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 23:37:19 (GMT) From: Rick Email: None To: gerry Subject: my take, Message:

Gerry, I just wanna know more, as much as possible about what the guru did, what he understood, and when those things took place (the things we didn't get to see). I'm not willing to kiss anyone's ass or compromise what I think is right, to get it. On the other hand, I don't get the feeling that Dettmers is being defensive. His posts, as of late, have been pretty matter-of-fact; he calls it a cult and that automatically includes deception. Give the guy a chance. You've got nothing to lose. Everything that was stolen was spent a long time ago (meaning it's gone, you're not getting it back... even Marianne's grandmother's watch). So roughing up one of the lesser defendants won't get you much. Think of it like you're the black guy on the TV show, Homicide. You make the suspect comfortable, get him a coke, say you're a Mets fan too, and get him to tell you all about it.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Nov 01, 2000 at 01:31:30 (GMT) From: a0aji Email: None To: Rick Subject: :) nicely said -nt- Message:

nt

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 19:07:44 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: gerry Subject: Get over your fear Message:

I told you my answer. You just didn't like it. No you didn't. I asked you to specify how Dettmers was conning us. All you came up with was a possible 'motive' for him doing so ('self interest' as you put it). But you never explained the supposed con itself. Did you? And show me one shred of evidence of dettmer's 'confusion' once he figured out Rawat was just another 'mere mortal.' Sounds pretty clear-headed to me. Dettmers has talked about this a couple of times. His realization that Maharaji wasn't divine didn't happen cleanly, all at once. It didn't happen that way for anyone I know of, PAM or grunt. Did it happen for YOU that way? Well same goes for Dettmers.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 20:02:25 (GMT) From: gerry Email: None To: Jim Subject: That's fucking weak Message:

Dettmers has talked about this a couple of times. His realization that Maharaji wasn't divine didn't happen cleanly, all at once. It didn't happen that way for anyone I know of, PAM or grunt. Did it happen for YOU that way? Well same goes for Dettmers. He realized rawat was a 'mere mortal' in 1974. And he continued to misrepresent him for YEARS afterwards. What part of THAT don't you understand. So he was a con man then, but he's not now? Look at his resume again. PS I hard a real hard time ever believing the divinity thing. I thought it was all about 'realizing god' ala Yogananda. I bailed when I found out it was something else. Not that I understood it all back then, but I just wasn't getting what I signed up for.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 20:52:10 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: gerry Subject: Hardly Message:

He realized rawat was a 'mere mortal' in 1974. And he continued to misrepresent him for YEARS afterwards. What part of THAT don't you understand. He explained that process which isn't really surprising in the circumstances. You must not have noticed but he explained it. I'm sure he could explain it all further but I think the bottom line has to be that Dettmers was confused about Maharaji as were we all for years. That doesn't make him a liar. Was Dettmers uncompromising and unflinchingly brave in his pursuit of the truth no matter the consequences? No, of course not. He was in a cult. So he was a con man then, but he's not now? Look at his resume again. You're so full of shit sometimes! How you get from Dettmers relating to Maharaji as he did, worshipping him as divine at times yet treating him as some sort of vaguely 'advanced' mortal at others, a state of confusion more than anything else, to him, Dettmers, being a 'con' is beyond me. You sound as if you have no sense of proportionality. And the way you use the resume-adding is an example of that. Was Dettmers forthright and honest about his past on his resume? No. Does that make him a 'con'? Yeah, right. Tell me, Ger, have you ever fudged a resume at all? Do you think that everyone who's ever done so is a 'con'? Now you sound like Mike calling anyone who's taken an extra ketchup from McDonalds a 'criminal'. Be reasonable, please. PS I hard a real hard time ever believing the divinity thing. I thought it was all about 'realizing god' ala Yogananda. I bailed when I found out it was something else. Not that I understood it all back then, but I just wasn't getting what I signed up for. Okay, this is great. You now say that you had a hard time 'ever believing the divinity thing.' So if were to find some satsang letter you wrote when you were a premie, listen to some miraculously found tape of you giving satsang then, say one existed, would we or would we not hear you support the 'divinity thing'? And if we did, given your frank admission today that you never really bought into it, would that make you a 'con'?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 21:33:56 (GMT) From: gerry Email: None To: Jim Subject: dettmers the confidence man Message:

Sorry, I'm unshakeable about this. He knew it was a scam and continued to support it. I sensed it was a scam and bailed out. Sure, it took some time to get over it, but not that long. But then I didn't have a cushy job in the cult and I didn't get out with a golden parachute. If I had actually promoted rawat as divine when I knew he was a mere mortal, yes, I'd be a con man too. And no, I have never fudged on a resume. Look I'm not trying to set myself up as a paragon of honesty here, I've taken that extra package of ketchup myself, but we are talking about a decades long pattern of deliberate deception. OK, dettmers is smart and glib, I'll give him that. But I'd say he's demonstrated a willingness to deceive others for his own benefit and financial gain. My main point is that while he may be handing us some juicy tidbits, I don't trust him and take everything he says with a grain of salt like I would any other confidence man. Shit, it's not like he was the only one and I do give him credit for at least participating in the dialog here. But he just can't stay at my house, either.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Nov 01, 2000 at 00:38:04 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: gerry Subject: I guess you just had to be there Message:

Sorry, I'm unshakeable about this. He knew it was a scam and continued to support it. I sensed it was a scam and bailed out. Sure, it took some time to get over it, but not that long. Unshakeable? That's funny. You're normally so open-minded. But anyway, you just don't know what it was like then, Ger. I think it's fair to say that you were only involved in the cult in a much simpler time. Everything was unqualified over-the-top proclamations and promises. There were no gray zones. But things really changed in '75, '76. We started having several layers to choose from. Sure, the subtextual foundation to everything was that Maharaji was divine but we started getting fuzzier and fuzzier direction about how to think about that. And, because we were in a cult, we depended on that direction. The upshot is that we were all succumbing to some weird hypocrises and murky, mental compromises. It wasn't just the PAMs, it was all of us. What else explains the way we shrugged off so many so-called 'Hindu concepts' only to grab them right back in '77? Truth is, we didn't know what to think. Dettmers shared in that confusion just like the rest of us. Your effort to tar him with the same brush as the cult leader as exploitative doesn't ring true to me. It simply doesn't fit. What likely happened is that Dettmers, like the rest of us, saw discrepencies between Maharaji's image and the actual person behind that image. Sounds like he saw more serious and numerous ones than most premies. But he still had the same cult conditioning that prevented him from thinking it through bravely, independently and clearly. I think the real measure of the man has to take into account all that stuff which you seem to almost relish ignoring.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Nov 01, 2000 at 01:57:09 (GMT) From: gerry Email: None To: Jim Subject: OK, I'll buy that. Message:

And I do appreciate what dettmers has brought to the table and laud him for whatever courage it might have taken to do so. I'll not disparage him further. I'll be looking foward to reading any futures posts of his with the appropriate relish and hopefully, an open mind. That was a nicely stated post, btw.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Nov 01, 2000 at 02:36:39 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: gerry Subject: Sold! (nt) Message:

ddddddd

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 10:49:17 (GMT) From: EddyTheTurtle Email: None To: Michael Dettmers Subject: Aubrey West Message:

I met Aubrey West once. A remarkable man by any standards. He was the father of Julia West, the girlfriend of Charles Cameron when charles first took big K. Julia is one of the sweetest woman you could ever imagine meeting. Very inteligent, half european/asian, beautifull both physically and spiritualy (just shows how dumm Charles was in dropping her)... Last I heard of Julia she was living with a heroin addict and had a major, major heroin problem..I dont know how she is now...But I wondered if M helped her during that time..after all her Dad Aubrey really did alot for M...Did M ever call Julia to find out how she was...did he invite her to his mansion in Malibu...did he tell her he will look after her??? What a beautifull Soul, hope she is ok now....Julia..if you are reading this...Hi...

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 14:57:08 (GMT) From: Susan Email: None To: EddyTheTurtle Subject: there was a woman who looked like this Julian Message:

could you have forgotten the 'n' or are they two different people?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 15:22:14 (GMT) From: EddyTheTurtle Email: None To: Susan Subject: It is Julian Message:

nt

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 09:03:28 (GMT) From: janet Email: None To: Michael Dettmers Subject: Response to Part II Message:

thank you michael. most edifying. you know, it strikes me, here, that our outrage, at least on US soil, seems to conform to some kind of an absorbed understanding of what is considered legally decent in America, in the eyes of the public and the IRS. Reading your clarification of what the IRS had legally codified as acceptable for a minister of a church, it strikes me that a minister is expected to serve a being higher than himself(i.e., God,) and to endeavor to serve his congregation as an example of his understanding. Hence, the modest furnishings, house, more average car, etc, that the IRS, the public and the laws delineated as appropriate. But here we have an individual who clearly considers no one and nothing to be above himself. He feels himself to be the purpose and the recipient of all service, having absolute authority and total obediance. Not the image of humble dedication the public expects of a minister. One has to conclude he is no minister, and he serves no God, perhaps doesnt even cotton to the notion of there being a God. It would seem by behavior that he really moves through the world in the sense that he is the unchallenged, highest being and that all exists to serve him. I am surprised that the IRS didn't think it strange that the minister of a church would be the recipient of such 'gifts' as would allow him to own a hilltop mansion in malibu, a rolls-royce, a motorhome and all the other lavish appointments he enjoyed at the time they came in to do the audit. In light of the scandals that went through the more flamboyant ministries in America, later in the 80's--the Oral Roberts campaign to raise millions of dollars 'or God was gonna call him home'; the wretched excesses of Jim and Tammy Faye Baker, televised direct from their sumptuous living room, bought and paid for by the donations of the faithful, et al;...one has to wonder how Maharaji escaped the dragnet.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 07:22:15 (GMT) From: Rob Email: None To: Michael Dettmers Subject: Extremely interesting - thank you Michael Message:

I will have a few comments to make if, but it is late now so I'll leave that until tomorrow. I do appreciate all the work this must have taken to put together. It's like layers of mystique are being peeled away. Keep up the good work. Rob

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 05:25:09 (GMT) From: And On Anand Ji Email: and_on_anand@yahoo.com To: Michael Dettmers Subject: Response to Joe, Janet and Rob - Part II Message:

That was a great post, Mr. Dettmers. Thank you for that, and for all that it took to make that possible (well, in recent times, anyway! :) A few words about the Active Membership Program would be interesting. Also, I have questions about the details wrt the immediate next part in the narrative of these matters, where there is clearly and legally no longer any Church. What entities were there, instead? What were they, if not Churches? What was Elan Vital and/or DLM after that audit? What was Maharaji then, if not a Church Minister, under the law? What is he now, under the law? Is Elan Vital, today, essentially what it once was (in terms of status as a Church or other entity) during your time? I'm not looking for specific answers to any individual question here; just as a whole, if you can synthesize your response to the things I've inquired about into a narrative (just as you've done) that would be, I think, an interesting narrative!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 05:29:47 (GMT) From: And On Anand Ji Email: and_on_anand@yahoo.com To: Mr. Dettmers Subject: To M. Dettmers from AOA Ji Please Read Message:

Dear Mr. Dettmers - I realized after I posted the above, that it wasn't addressed to you in the title. Above, please find the same post, quoted. Thank you. -And On Anand Ji aka Chris Hafey

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 01:53:52 (GMT) From: suchabanana Email: None To: Michael Dettmers Subject: women in charge of EV now, but where did money go? Message:

Michael: Where did all the contributions go, both within DLM-EVI: proportionately, and the expenses, transfers, accounts for m. There was $100 million raised in 1982, for example, right? What about the setup of offshoot premie (or other) corps. benefitting m. and rajaji? How about monthly personal checks to m.? any royalties? The nitty gritty r.e. Malibu residence purchase by Seva (or its antecedent) in 1978? the various residences in UK and Australia? How many residences, cars, vehicles, aircraft, hi-tech stuff and value? Servants, employees? Monthly m. expenses from the non-profit org.? Actual purpose of Seva and the marine companies? Doobies and drinks? Monica Lewis? Nuts and bolts -- that concern a lot of contributors and other folks. Thanks, Peace, suchabanana PS Now, hard-ass women run EVI; same thing...

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 00:37:59 (GMT) From: Joe Email: None To: Michael Dettmers Subject: Small question Message:

Thank you Michael, that was very informative and helpful. I have a couple of additional questions, however. You said: Clever argument, and I realize that in the USA the IRS, and most of government in general, doesn't want to get near a religion and make waves because of the Constitutional protections and the controversy, but didn't the IRS note the problem that many of us, when we made checks out to 'Guru Maharaj Ji' (prior to about 1976, I know I did) deducted the donations from our taxes, because, to us, there was no, (and in fact legally there wasn't any) distinction between DLM and Maharaji, and he was, in effect a religion? If you separated the two donations, one being tax-deductible and other other not, did the IRS ever suggest that it might be owed some back taxes, in that the donators didn't pay taxes on the money and neither did Maharaji because they were 'gifts?' I also realize that donations were therafter handled this way. Donations to Elan Vital were tax deductible, but donations to Maharaji were not. Nevertheless, DLM and Elan Vital continued to SOLICIT donations from premies to Maharaji individually, using DLM and Elan Vital resources (including initiators, and ME as a coordinator for Elan Vital), using tax deductible donations for that purpose. I guess the IRS didn't have a problem with that either? On a related note, I recall that in the ashrams we were told, many of us, not to have federal income taxes withheld, because we were exempt, being that we were monastics of a religion. Of course, that was later disallowed, and we had to pay back those taxes. In the meantime, Maharaji was busy consolidating his base. He moved with avengence to un-do all of our efforts to present his as a humanitarian leader by making it abundantly clear to all premies that knowledge and devotion to Maharaji were inseparable Well, he surely did. With a vengence, for at least the next 6 years, if not longer, to the point where Maharaji actually changed his message drastically and literally, from practicing knowledge for God-realization and peace, to devotion and worship of him as the very purpose of our lives. More than being merely 'inseparable', devotion became vastly superior and more important than knowledge, according to what Maharaji preached for at least the next 6 years. I guess part of my question was: do you think Maharaji overdid all the 'devotion' business beginning in 1976, which he clearly did (to the point where he now has to try to lie about it), because he was freaked by almost being thrown out of his Malibu mansion and cutting back on his lifestyle and control? Also, Maharaji clearly cooperated with the 'toned-down' Summer tour in 1976. Did he just go along with it, and why did he if he wasn't into the 'humanitarian leader' business? Thanks again, Joe

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 11:41:45 (GMT) From: Jerry Email: None To: Joe Subject: Small question Message:

I guess part of my question was: do you think Maharaji overdid all the 'devotion' business beginning in 1976, which he clearly did (to the point where he now has to try to lie about it), because he was freaked by almost being thrown out of his Malibu mansion and cutting back on his lifestyle and control? Don't mean to butt in here, Joe, but I think that is THE question. Michael can only give a personal opinion on this, but I think it's pretty obvious that the answer is 'yes'! How could it be otherwise, given the circumstances? The fatboy just bugged when his trusted servants were threatening to take away all that he cherished and valued above all else, including those who served him most untiringly, the fat fuck. What a scumbag!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 00:44:29 (GMT) From: Susan Email: None To: Joe Subject: yes, Joe again, I would love to hear your answers Message:

to those questions. I wonder how many other people, besides Rawat, can get people to send them money, sign over trust funds, deeds, make him part owner of businesses, all for just 'being'. For example, I do not think Jim and Tammy Faye Baker at any point could have said, we want an Aston Martin, and a jet, and could you send checks to us, made out to Jim and Tammy Faye, so we can have what we want. It is so bizarre now, to even think about all these people sending him money because they think he is, the Perfect Master. Weird weird weird.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 00:25:23 (GMT) From: Susan Email: None To: Michael Dettmers Subject: really interesting Message:

and it does explain a lot of what trickled down to us peons. Michael have you read the Mishler interview posted on ex.premie.org recently? I think you find it interesting. I sense that Mishler also came to have a friendship type relationship with the guru, and a time after that when the guru backed away from this friendship. Yet, I am sure, that makes sense, because Mishler was trying to take away M's family home, the Malibu residence, and that must have been incredibly threatening to him. There is a part in the interview where Mishler describes M crying on his shoulder. I would like to know, if you ever at any instance saw M express any doubts about his 'divinity' to you. Did he ever express any remorse about anything, or hurting anyone, ever? The Mishler interview, as I recall it, makes it appear Rawat went along with the humanitarian leader routine until it threatened him financially, and actually, what you are saying fits with that. I just wonder if Rawat ever verbalized a 'conciousness of guilt'. Like Jim, I think it must have been terribly bizarre, to sing arti, kiss his feet, work out his finances, and smoke doobies with him. It is amazing all you guys didn't crash and burn. Do you recall how you coped and what you thought? How you rationalized things? Compartmentalization? Lila? maya? test of faith?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 00:41:32 (GMT) From: gerry Email: None To: Susan Subject: really interesting is right Message:

...Like Jim, I think it must have been terribly bizarre, to sing arti, kiss his feet, work out his finances, and smoke doobies with him. It is amazing all you guys didn't crash and burn. Do you recall how you coped and what you thought? How you rationalized things? Compartmentalization? Lila? maya? test of faith? How 'bout 'deliberate co-conspirator?' Or maybe con-man-in-training for a 'management consultant' business with a matchbook degree from Kennedy-Western? The gushing over this dude reminds me of a certain group of gullible hippies in the seventies...

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 00:56:33 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: gerry Subject: Gullible? Did anyone say 'gullible'? Message:

What was that you were saying about Waco, Ger?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 01:03:24 (GMT) From: gerry Email: None To: Jim Subject: Wanna debate Waco? Message:

I suppose you accept the government's whitewash, right? So tell me, what books, videos, lectures, etc have you studied, before we begin.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 01:24:43 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: gerry Subject: There's nothing to debate Message:

I haven't 'studied' anything. I followed the recent litigation that threw the anti-government conspiracy buffs' case out on its ass. That's enough for me. Should be enough for you too unless, of course, you've got evidence that the judge and jury who found for the government were pawns or dupes of the Great World-Wide Conspiracy.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 03:36:53 (GMT) From: gerry Email: None To: Jim Subject: Yeah, you're right, there all dead anyway Message:

Actually the case was initiated by relatives of the victims. Such inflammatory rhetoric, James.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 04:27:56 (GMT) From: Bad Taste Tom Email: None To: gerry Subject: Waco Message:

Q: How many Branch Davidians can you fit in a Volkswagen Beetle? A: 87 (Two in the front seat, two in the back seat and 83 in the ash tray).

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 12:30:08 (GMT) From: Jerry Email: None To: Bad Taste Tom Subject: Waco Message:

That really is bad, BT. But like lots of 'bad taste' jokes, fucking funny. Loved it.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 21:21:47 (GMT) From: Bad Taste Tom Email: None To: Jerry Subject: Thank you, it's nice to be appreciated (nt) Message:

nt

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 00:45:28 (GMT) From: Susan Email: None To: gerry Subject: Hi sweetie (nt) Message:

nt

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 30, 2000 at 23:39:40 (GMT) From: Bill Burke Email: None To: Michael Dettmers Subject: Response to Joe, Janet and Rob - Part II Message:

Thanks for that Michael, Did you come into the consulting business by meeting Jim Emerson and his business of restructureing companies that were not profitable or not as profitable as they could be. He came to DECA and made changes and bad mouthed Jim Hession and his staff, and Jim Hessions response was that the lord had personally directed him to do what he did. And also, that the lord kept wanting all the money that would come in and have it put towards his desires. So, DECA was not in good shape when Jim E arrived. Jim H. would call prem 'father' and when he would be in the deca large shop, prem would be standing at the table in the center of the room looking over papers and Jim would be kneeling beside him. Any comments you would like to make about DECA and Jim E or Jim H?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 31, 2000 at 04:30:13 (GMT) From: Comment Email: None To: Bill Burke Subject: Response to Joe, Janet and Rob - Part II Message:

Jim Hession was mentally ill. Jim Emerson was on a HUGE ego trip most of the time. DECA was a hell-hole, slave camp. Nuf said.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 30, 2000 at 23:31:50 (GMT) From: Salam Email: None To: Michael Dettmers Subject: May I say. Message:

This is all very good stuff. Would it not be a good idea if you put all this stuff together and send to FA/JMK to have a special section on the ex-premie site, instead of it being spread out on the forum? Tell us more. Oh by the by, do you still meditate. What do you think of no-lije?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 30, 2000 at 23:17:54 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: Michael Dettmers Subject: Thanks for explaining all that, Mike Message:

Mike, could you comment, please, on how Mishler, in particular, reconciled whatever residual faith he had in Maharaji's divinity with the prospect that he was 'out of control'. Did you guys ever talk about that? It sounds as if the more time people spent with Maharaji, the more that Three-O mystique (omnipresent, omnipotent and omniscient) got back-burnered. In a way, life was much simple for us troops in the field, wasn't it?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 30, 2000 at 23:50:28 (GMT) From: Rick Email: None To: Jim Subject: Thanks for explaining all that, Mike Message:

Once again some very juicy material. Based on this account, maharaji had some leadership skills and was also clever. He acted decisively when faced with apparent impending doom by not flinching, and he came up with a resource to resolve the adversity. At the same time, he was consistent with his earlier claims to being the Lord. Although informative, none of this is surprising. But it does shed light under the facade that ordinary premies were only allowed to see. The cornerstone that would be even more interesting is when maharaji shut down the Western ashrams, eliminated satsang by premies, and changed his tune about being the Lord.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index