|
|
|
One point that hasn't been made is that premies made a big thing about me only being a front man for EPO (not true) due to my location in darkest Latvia ("beyond the reach of law" as EV used to describe this EU country). It occurs to me that Staker may be playing a similar role with one-reality.org due to his residence in darkest Japan, and that the real authors are old friends of ours from Australia and New York. Certainly, it is amazing that his lawyer in the Marianne case is the same lawyer EV used in their pathetic, failed, copyright claim against EPO - Deborah Drooz from Stroock, Stroock and Lavan, who were recommended to EV, according to Charles Glasser, by Charles Glasser. So how did a premie with a patchy career in Australia who moved to Japan to teach English, get involved with EV's law firm in California?A deposition of EV's First Class email system would make very interesting reading. John
Modified by JHB at Sun, Apr 23, 2006, 17:58:54
|
|
|
|
... should we also throw 'stupidity' into the mix? Whether an ex or a premie, you will never gain a shred of respect from attacking named individuals from a position of anonymity. Then, the supposedly damning evidence of a 'hate' culture amongst exes is so slight (ie., the sort of letting off steam that happens routinely on web-boards everywhere) it is almost laughable. It seems Staker could only dredge up half-a-dozen dozen old forum posts in about seven years. Some these were obviously joking, others very mild indeed. And to make no links to the web-sites he is criticising is both arrogant and insulting to the premies and 'neutrals' he is presumably hoping to persuade. It is as if he daren't allow his readers to make up their own minds, and has to spoon-feed them only that content which will prevent them being tempted onto EPO, and thereby risk hate-group corruption and smashing into into a million pieces. And the page design - colour, layout etc., is pretty-well the most hideous I have seen. It makes you want to click out of there immediately before you vomit. Or should I say 'chunder'? I wondered too about the Australian connection. I know nothing about Catweasel, but it appears below that our friend Mr Roupell is making a name for himself in digital artwork (now is that a coincidence, or what?) In which case, I would imagine him to have at least a little more taste than who ever created the one-reality monstrosity. http://66.249.93.104/search?q=cache:uMitfKE_c28J:www.echo.net.au/archives/20_28/pdf/p06.pdf+David+Roupell&hl=en&gl=uk&ct=clnk&cd=3
Modified by Nigel at Mon, Apr 24, 2006, 12:16:56
|
|
|
|
Roupell would have been the centre of attention, for sure. Was it embarrassment or cowardice on his part, or did our cosy little hate group refuse him a ticket?
|
|
|
|
Actually, Nige, there were a couple of people who hadn't come out openly as exes at the party so obviously Roupell couldn't come. Personally, I'd have loved it.
|
|
|
|
What actually happened was that, in an act of benevolence, I asked if David could come to the party.For some months previously I had been emailing with him and having very enjoyable conversations about art, music, lit, just about anything but premie/ex premie stuff. He told me he would be in London, and, believing with the demise of Cat's Whisker and so on, that forum wars were dissolving, I thought, benignly, but evidently utopianly, that we might all meet together. In the event, I myself was asked to stay away, which I accepted without problem, as it may have caused problems. Subsequently, however, Dave came up and stayed with me for a weekend. We had a previously established agreement that if he were around he was welcome up. I was amusedly awaiting to see who the great demon was, but found him to be a very affable and likeable man - quite unlike his online persona. I took him up to Northumberland, to Bamburgh, Craster, Dunstanburgh and so on, and we had a great day. That evening we had a showing of his artistic stuff, with a few neighbours in, which everyone enjoyed. We covered a lot of material during the weekend, but nothing which might be considered of a confidential nature. We were both totally aware of limitations, so naturally never crossed the same. Yes - it was greatly enjoyable. We've had the odd email since, about his artwork and general chat. Maybe having had such contact with Dave may make me again unwelcome in ex-premie dos, but in reality, people have to make their own minds up on this.
|
|
|
|
Anthony,
There are lots of good reasons to believe that Roupell is/was involved in sites like Staker's or the one they've dedicated to me alone (www.[myname].info). There are lots of good reasons to believe that he was involved in the fight that broke John MacGregor. So yes, please, by all means make up your own mind about this. I have.
|
|
|
|
I know nothing really about other websites, and refer you to my previous post.I came on this scene after you. However, in regard to John Macegregor, I should maybe tell you he is is now in Thailand and doing very well. Quite honestly, I should tell you that if you wish, from my contact with David, to see me in some negative light, well do so. For the last four years I've had great contacts with many great ex-premies, and expect to continue to do so.
|
|
|
|
For the last four years I've had great contacts with many great ex-premies, and expect to continue to do so.Just being nosey, Anthony, and I know that I number among those you have had contact with (in spite of the odd difference in opinion, I have enjoyed our email correspondence), but I would be interested (again out of nosiness) in getting first hand impressions of you from someone I know who has met you, just as you have given your first hand impressions of Roupell. As I say, I'm just being nosey!  John.
|
|
|
|
....you really are a fabulous story-teller and when you have such a talent coupled with a lively imagination ,it's easy to get carried away and give a false impression. As premies we were sometimes encouraged to throw caution to the wind and sacrifice our natural discrimination.I would advise you to reclaim some of yours. I'm meeting up with cq this weekend and going with another lifelong, never-a-premie friend to see Morrissey at the Sage.
|
|
|
|
'....you really are a fabulous story-teller and when you have such a talent coupled with a lively imagination ,it's easy to get carried away and give a false impression.'Thank you for the compliment. 'As premies we were sometimes encouraged to throw caution to the wind and sacrifice our natural discrimination.I would advise you to reclaim some of yours.' Not sure what you mean by discrimination here. 'I'm meeting up with cq this weekend and going with another lifelong, never-a-premie friend to see Morrissey at the Sage.' Male or female? Are you positing some possible blind date? If you're around pre the Sage and want to meet up beforehand with Chris, let me know. You can always get me at the usual email address. Cheers.
|
|
|
|
She's decided not to come (and it wasn't one anyway). Know anyone who wants a ticket? I'll email when I get there.
Modified by Lexy at Thu, Apr 27, 2006, 17:02:51
|
|
|
|
Yeah, sure Dave Roupell's nice. He's a premie and premies are always nice (as we all are/were), until you rub their fur the wrong way or mention GMJ in less than glowing terms. You say you talked about 'just about anything but premie/ex premie stuff.' You never mentioned all that when you met him? Really- not once? I have heard of fence-sitting but your arse must be sore by now... I don't know if it was before your time, but I took a turn at the wheel with AJW, and later JHB as forum admin from 2000-2001. Throughout that period, Roupell was posting under a series of troll aliases (remember 'Cerise'?) and writing some very offensive stuff to vulnerable ex-premies on the forum, one of whom had been sexually abused by Jagdeo as a child. I won't go into detail, but others will remember. I bet Geoff Staker and Jossi Fresco are lovely guys too. Probably touchy-feely, even. But in my book, people should be accountable for their words and actions, not whether they put on a decent art display in your own home. >We were both totally aware of limitations, so naturally never crossed the same. Yes - it was greatly enjoyable. It is beyond me how crossing the lines of unnecessary boundaries around reasonable discussion (and surely your common reference point) might somehow spoil the enjoyment. Personally, unless a repentant or unrepentant forum premie troll was willing to explain himself, I wouldn't let him through the front door, let alone crack open the Laphraiog or Theakston's Old Peculier.
Modified by Nigel at Tue, Apr 25, 2006, 21:34:53
|
|
|
|
...the 'teensy little thought' thread you started on Friday?
|
|
|
|
No - it's because I've been beaten into submission by greater intellects.The interesting thing about the Non-Rawat is how discussions usually end up as blood on the carpet. There is such vested interest in the outcome that it isn't really just a place of brotherly discussion. Now, when it comes to Darwinism, I'm a fairly rank beginner. But rather than spend my whole life on investigating links, I would rather sometimes just state my conclusions or impressions as they come. Sure, it is apparent to me after miniscule thought that gene modification occurs once only - at the point of fertilization. However, I'm not at all sure how this can account for the inheritance of learned experience. If there were to be a gene for female infedility, for example, how could this happen through random mutation? And similarly for anything regarding cognitive experience. Sure - when it comes to physical adaption this is probably true, but as for the inheritance of anything behavioural? Your point - that learning from experience would have to affect every gene in the body is cogent. However - the point here may be that such learning is not to do with mutation - that it is to do with some type of ongoing feedback and memorizing of experience by all of the existing bodily genes. Human embryonic evolution is from the division of one initial cell. Now, all these subsequent changes are between cells which are virtually identical and interconnected, so that it is impossible not to understand some incredible ongoing relationship and communication between the same.
Put simply - every gene in each bodily cell is bound together by a totally intricate and intrinsic family arrangement of communication. Thus, within a human, the idea of some feedback of experience which affects all genes to the extent of recording data, without any type of modification occurring, is not inconceivable. Their communication is presumably billions of times closer than that of physical human twins. OK - this may be naive. But how is human cognitive experience transferred otherwise?
|
|
|
|
I'm not a scientist, more a thinker, and this makes perfect sense from a probability or possibility standpoint. in some lines you have got your tongue around some sentences i was still trying to my head around previously, but .... still ... Pretzelizing .. I guess..
|
|
|
|
'Yeah, sure Dave Roupell's nice. He's a premie and premies are always nice (as we all are/were), until you rub their fur the wrong way or mention GMJ in less than glowing terms.'So, how do you know he's nice or otherwise?
This paragraph seems to me to display a generalized view of premies which is extremely simplistic.
Premies are a disparate bunch, some of whom may be indoctrinated to the point of non-rationalization. Others, however, and particularly those I counted or still have as friends, are quite different, and pretty open-minded.
Why are you lumping everyone into the same bag? 'You say you talked about 'just about anything but premie/ex premie stuff. You never mentioned all that when you met him? Really- not once? I have heard of fence-sitting but your arse must be sore by now...' No, what I said was that in emailing we just talked art and other interesting stuff. When I met him, we didn't talk anything confidential (check my posts). We did, however, quite naturally talk forum stuff to some extent, but without crossing certain boundaries. 'I don't know if it was before your time, but I took a turn at the wheel with AJW, and later JHB as forum admin from 2000-2001. Throughout that period, Roupell was posting under a series of troll aliases (remember 'Cerise'?) and writing some very offensive stuff to vulnerable ex-premies on the forum, one of whom had been sexually abused by Jagdeo as a child. I won't go into detail, but others will remember.' These episodes were before my time, and I don't want to, or can't comment on them. 'I bet Geoff Staker and Jossi Fresco are lovely guys too. Probably touchy-feely, even. But in my book, people should be accountable for their words and actions, not whether they put on a decent art display in your own home. It is beyond me how crossing the lines of unnecessary boundaries around reasonable discussion (and surely your common reference point) might somehow spoil the enjoyment. Personally, unless a repentant or unrepentant forum premie troll was willing to explain himself, I wouldn't let him through the front door, let alone crack open the Laphraiog or Theakston's Old Peculier.' My period of major posting - 2002 to 2004 was actually after these events. Who you let through your own front door is a question for yourself.
|
|
|
|
Hey Nigel, you do know that the editor and majority owner of the Byron Bay Echo is David Lovejoy, ex-grand high poobah of Divine Light Mission, UK, don't you? The author of Between Dark and Dark, memoirs of a life touched by Maharaji and booze or is that booze and guru in that order. Well at least he chose the right guru for a boozy, alternative newspaper life.
And that, last I heard, Roupell's paramour and live-in graphics designer was none other than Wendy Lovejoy, ex-wife of David Lovejoy and that nothing you read about Roupell in the Echo would bear any relationship to the truth unless he was being mentioned in the Magistrates' Court report.
So trust me on this Roupell has exactly the right amount of talent to have inspired the design work on one-reality. Or even less.
On the other hand, and bearing in mind I am talking about someone I haven't seen since 1982 and who I never knew all that well, Geoff Staker was a decent guy who drove the Brisbane Co-op truck I think and his nickname of Geoff Mistaker was just a play on words. If, as the court documents say, he lives in Japan then I assume he is just playing the front man so Roupell and Co. (I've been told that includes another Australian ex-grand high poobah whose name I forget at the moment) can avoid taking any legal hits.
|
|
|
|
It sure seems that way to me. The cult members seem to be particularly fanatical there, and it seems lack of taste and humorlessness, at least among the male of the species, are also characteristics. Do you think it's in the water, or the isolation, or maybe that hole in the ozone layer? I mean there are wacko premies everywhere, but, I dunno, it seems especially widespread there, but, again, it seems the women have been spared the virus.
Modified by Joe at Mon, Apr 24, 2006, 20:25:45
|
|
|
|
Yes I can understand why you'd think that way because your sample group of Australian male premies is those weird weasel types who are overall a tiny minority. Most of the male premies in Oz are far too laid back and lazy and that is at least one of the reasons EV Oz isn't exactly setting the world alight. Too much good living here.
For example my sample group of ex-premies is 3 Aussie women, one Aussie man and the ex-premie Forum. I mean there are wacko ex-premies everywhere, but, I dunno ...
And Joe, today is Australia's most sacred day, Anzac Day. I've just come back from the local ceremony where we cheered the few remaining local WWII ex-servicemen as they paraded down the local main street into the park for the service. This is especially not the day for tarring all 500 or so Aussie male premies as fanatics and wackos or I'll get Nicole Kidman to go over and break your balls.
|
|
|
|
Thanks, Oker. My point was that from such a small population, most of the the real wackos, the ones who seem to have a jhad going against ex-premies or people who criticize Rawat, seem to come from that group, and so I wondered why that was. This is just from my personal on and off observations over the past 6 years or so. It just seems to be disproportionate. Premies in the rest of the world, while perhaps unhappy with what ex-premies have to say, seem less exercised about it, and seemingly less willing to engage in vendettas. I'm sure there are plenty of Aussie premies who are not wackos -- but the trend still seems to be there, and I know quite a few others besides me have commented on it. It seems also to extend to the hierarchy of the cult in Australia. The Aussie EV website has always been a lot more vicious than those in other countries, for example, and the whole John McGregor thing seems to have sent them to the highest hysteria. So, there is some kind of a trend there.
Modified by Joe at Tue, Apr 25, 2006, 12:42:32
|
|
|
|
Maybe when the arch-cultist David Lovejoy moved to the Lucky Country from England, he brought a bunch of likeminded people with him, over time. Nick Seymour-Jones died there, & he was certainly someone who had dedicated his life to the LOTU. Difficult to imagine he would've gone there just to drink tinnies & surf all day.
How many more of those were there?
I wonder whether this had anything to do with the Lord's interest in the Amaroo project.
I'm just guessing here, maybe Ocker knows.
|
|
|
|
PatD
This is sad news to me, as a recent poster, I hadn't heard. I knew Nick well, over several years. I'd always found him a likeable person and he seemed to really enjoy trying to be helpful, given, that during the years I knew him, he was as deluded as the rest of us, in terms of our pet subject.
I'd be interested to know anything about the rest of his life: since the early seventies; if you feel like telling any more of N.S.J.
Modified by LP at Tue, Apr 25, 2006, 19:54:03
|
|
|
|
The man who didn't jump Posted by: Anthony ®
02/07/2004, 16:46:07
________________________________________ I was rung a couple of weeks ago by a very old premie friend, who I hadn’t seen since Nottingham 2001. He was fleeting through, so I joined him in a pub.
He asked me what I had been doing meanwhiles, so I told him about EPO. I gave him chapter and verse, and his jaw dropped by inches over a couple of hours. Towards chucking out time, he studied me and said: ‘Right, so we’ve got drink, fags and drugs; a 7 million dollar yacht; shagging his devotees; alleged homicide; a long-time mistress. Is that the lot, or is there something else you think I should know?’ I thought about it and answered: ‘Well, his wife was allegedy shagging the chauffeur.’ At that point he put his hand over his eyes, shook his head slowly from side to side, and started to roar with convulsive laughter. I couldn’t help joining in, and we decided it was time to leave the pub. Last week he had a 48 hour furlough from the job, so he stayed over chez moi.
He had been unable to sleep after the last bash, and was keen to know more.
I gave him a conducted tour of EPO, therefore, halting ad hoc at various pages as he wished, and introduced him to Forum 7. I told him I greatly admired and liked most, if not all of the posters, and emailed with some. That they were fantastic guys, very human, and totally committed to the truth, as well as they could ascertain it. He agreed, that, while confronting, it was extremely useful, if not essential, to have a forum on which people could with all good will explore our mutual and highly intriguing past.
I showed him the Whisker too, explaining that, while they were the ideological adversary, there were various people who I liked, and had considerable amounts of respect for. We spent a really joyous 48 hours, with endless chat and great food (no drink this time). We’ve always been people of the truth, and non-org oriented, so we chatted and yarned like great old good buddies, with fantastic respect and total trust, telling it all as completely honestly as we knew it, and realising this was all part of the ongoing journey.
He’s an excellent raconteur, so I was pleased to hear and share again all the great chestnuts concerning the Happening, one of these being the story of the man who didn’t jump.
I’m changing now to the first person, as he told it, but this isn’t really to be arty-farty. I couldn’t do it justice anyway. It goes like this, anyway, and may be slightly interesting:
‘As you know, I was a student at Newcastle university in the late 60s. I was on my way to lectures one day, but the C... Building was cordoned off, and people were all asking why. I was told there had been a death, someone having jumped from the top floor. It was apparently a suicide, but another student had been detained by the police. No one really knew the details, and it was hushed up as much as possible over the following days, but the story emerged in fragments. Two guys were in fact involved. They had shared a flat together and been very interested in Buddhism. They were both pretty disenchanted by the world around, and had formed this suicide pact, deciding to leave it, by jumping from the C... and merging into the Void.
One had gone ahead, while the other, looking down on his friend below, had experienced a total and sudden change of heart. He had now vanished from sight, but I always wanted to meet him, to know what had led him to this.
I was doing a lot of acid at the time, and felt I knew instinctually where he was at, however I would have dearly liked to discuss it all with him. I came to think of him as the man who didn’t jump. I doubted whether we would actually ever meet, however I couldn’t shake off the feeling we had a certain connection. Over all that intervening period, the man who didn’t jump was never far from my thoughts. I left university in the early 70’s, and basically just hung around, not having any particular direction. I heard about Maharaji in 1972, when Guru Charanand came to town. I went to see him at the ashram, and received Knowledge, though I didn’t have much idea what it was all about. I continued to drop acid, therefore, until one day in our flat my girlfriend and I took this mega-trip. I was just peaking, with the walls trembling and moving in and out, when the door opened, this guy entered, sat down on the floor, and started giving me satsang. He was this amazing looking guy, very sensitive, maybe a bit feminine looking too, and very humble.
He was talking about his own time at the university, and the penny dropped. I just pointed at him and said: You’re the man who didn’t jump!
He nodded, and told me the whole story: How he had been arrested, and very nearly charged with murder. They couldn’t make this stick, however, and he had spent time in a psychiatric home. After other stuff, he had travelled to India, seeking truth, and eventually landed with others at Prem Nagar, where he met Maharaji and received Knowledge. He had been one of that first inner circle of journeyers from the West, who had returned to invite Maharaji over. I just totally loved the guy’s sincerity, he was really beautiful.
After that, I gave up on acid, apart from another couple of trips, and followed Knowledge diligently. The guy was Nick Seymour-Jones (known fondly to many as Nick See More Light), and he was the local ashram secretary. Subsequently he became side-kick to Glen Whittaker, and succeeded him as Secretary of DLM in the UK for some time.
He was one of the most beautiful and sincere premies I ever knew. I really feel that it was due to him that I entered seriously on Knowledge, and will always remember him with great affection, for that humility and humanity.
But we were all inter-linked in those days, weren’t we?
It was difficult in those early days not to feel a kinship with one another, as we were all parts of deeply interconnecting circles, all people with the most extraordinary understanding, it seems to me, of the times we were living in, and destined to change things really tangibly through our own lives and actions.’ Narrating this now, I too find it difficult to think that this wasn’t so. Whatever we think now, we were all touched by history in those days, and this gives our memories that greatly strong flavour. We see things through our involvement with Maharaji, but there are many others who probably experienced similar things via other masters of the time, such as Osho (mama mia), Sri Chinmoy, the Children of God, Muktanand, Krishnamurti, the Maharishi and so on. As a student of history, I feel we were living in a period when the pendulum was swinging away from deepest and furthest materialism towards a re-appreciation of the spiritual. However this may have turned out in the interim, and however much disillusionment has intervened, I believe this to have been so.
However much the icons of the time dissolved into materialism themselves, I believe this to have been true. Whether we reject those days out of hand as a delusion, or hold to something valid spiritually we feel we have experienced, remains our own personal choice. Incidentally, and as a postscript, my friend also participated in a similar later event, when Ian Rutherford crashed his van through the wall at Woodside Gardens, in an attempt either to test Grace or merge in one fell swoop with Knowledge.
Maharaji continues to tell of this, though without the follow-on details. The sole casualty of the event being the flag-pole, which did full pranam onto the lawn. My friend was issued with a spade and ordered single-handedly to make good.
How he accomplished this is a story in itself.
best wishes to everyone,
Anthony
|
|
|
|
......around the time he was living in an Ashram in Stockwell,South London. He was already ill at that time.Late 70s /very early '80s as far as I remember. He left England to live in New Zealand with a very sweet but sharp premie called Kate ( slim ,freckles and drove a white and green van around central London as a courier although really she was a nurse....as an Ashram premie and a service freak all her money went to the LOTU ). I thought Nick was a gentleman. Katie was kind ,100 per cent sincere and my friend in those distant days....can anyone remember her surname? and does anybody know what happened to her ? P.S. Thanks for the link cq.That post of Anthony's was beautifully written and somehow very sad.It would be nice if Anthony's friend, with whom he spent that weekend,posted here.
Modified by Lexy at Wed, Apr 26, 2006, 08:19:32
|
|
|
|
Thanks Anthony and Lexy. Nick was a real nice guy. He told me the man who didn't jump story, when he was still quite upset about it, quite early 70s. It had a ring of the confessional about it. We went somewhere quiet. He asked me never to tell anyone, and I've never mentioned it to anyone until now.
I remember Ian and the white divine sales van incident too!, That's what he said.. "suddenly thought I 'll test the grace!..and drove thro' the res' wall." I remember hearing the crash and running out. I found it quite amusing behind my hand, once I saw no-one was hurt.
Katie was one of two mid wives wasn't she?, the other was called Judy I think, they delivered one or more of the Rawat babies.
Modified by LP at Wed, Apr 26, 2006, 09:06:32
|
|
|
|
Yes. Nick Seymour Jones. I used to see him around the PoP a lot as I was usually there doing “ service” of some description or other until I was posted to Preston Ashram as a full time cultie.A strange ( very strange) posting that was, too. Highs and lows of epic proportions really. Anyway, that little escapade ended in me going on strike and staying in bed for a few days with the Liverpool Ashram Secretary having to be sent to inspire me back into the fold. A complete farce as the poor guy knocked his head on something and his specs fell off as he was pranaming, prior to blasting me with Holy Satsang. In the end, I decided to scarper back to non-Premie land in Barrow-in-Furness making sure I smashed a little ashram hallway pic of Maharaji before doing so. Not just a blasphemer but a vandal too. I only spent 10 days in Barrow….walking along the beach in between fitting in about 8 or so hours a day “ meditation”. Fully recharged I returned to the PoP. After a while there it was Nick Seymour Jones who ( seemingly on a whim after considering various other alternatives) sent me packing to Leicester Ashram. The rest is history. Colourful history. Yeah, he was a curious bloke really. Nice for sure. Definitely didn’t seem to be playing the honcho game for personal prestige or flattery and all that sort of stuff. However, before we get too carried away in speaking well of the dead I did find his watertight fanaticism a little bit spooky at times. I could never work out if the guy was in a totally other dimension to me or whether he was suppressing something or other. Whereas I was constantly plagued with doubts about this or that, Nick seemed so absolutely certain about the whole trip. Softly spoken, harmless, an unassuming smile of bliss… all that sort of stuff, and a dedication beyond the call of duty. And his occasionally expressed slavish love for Prem Rawat was something else. I often thought to myself, we are both doing the same med, both seeing the same Guru, both hearing the same “ rationale” so I really must be missing something pretty fundamental. That’s not to say I didn’t display my own brand of fanaticism or swoon in my own bliss bubble quite often….after all, dedication, devotion, festival/events, service, music etc made sure of that but it was never so seemingly constant as Nick’s appeared to be. Now whether that watertight fanaticism stayed with him till his dying day, I guess we’ll never know. I guess we’ll never know how watertight it actually was, either. Didn’t everyone experience the drip, drip , drip of questioning doubt? Maybe not. On the whole, though, I guess Nick Seymour Jones deserves more good words said about him than bad. Yep, I’d go along with that. Whether or not he’d be a lying, fanatical revisionist today if he were still around is another matter. We’ll never know. “ Devotion", after all, does funny things to people.
|
|
|
|
I just pulled his name out of the hat.
Seems as though my theory that the fanaticism of the Aussies has something to do with diehards from all over going there on das Lordy's business, won't hold water.
|
|
|
|
I've just read Will's post.
I take it back, maybe I was right after all.
|
|
|
|
because when he came back from the UK he was years ahead of the Austalian premies who were then in the super-devotional, super-practising, super-surrender mode and he had evolved way past that. He started a business, played chess, didn't go to satsang 7 days and nights a week and ended up relocating to the Byron bay area where he ended up with the Echo.
His recent memoir talks of his early years in DLM and the young Lord of the universe and then from the 80's he spends his time working and binge drinking. I think meditation gets half a page in 30 years of his life and basically it's a pathetic half a page at that.
Right, he hasn't spent that time drinking tinnies and surfing all day but then he's a Brit and probably afraid there'll be snakes at the beach. But he has spent the time as a typical Australian premie, slack at meditation and service and paying lip service to satsang.
I recommend Between Dark and Dark for a picture of a "true premie." http://www.echo.net.au/publications/index.html
|
|
|
|
I know a few Ozzies from real-life visits and others via email etc. Lovely people and normal. (Today was Anzac Day, so they are probably all having more fun right now than the rest of us.) Being in the cult is the problem. Blame that or the 40 degree sunshine - or a mix of both, maybe?
Modified by Nigel at Tue, Apr 25, 2006, 20:24:30
|
|
|
|
Is the mission younger there? i.e. average premie time less there than in the Americas. Europe... etc. generally? Is there an element of new brushes sweeping clean?
Modified by LP at Tue, Apr 25, 2006, 19:59:07
|
|
|
|
It's still a young country, and from the time I spent there, partly down to the climate, maybe, no-one takes anything *too* seriously, or commits to too much of anything. Fabulous food and outdoor sort of culture you just don't see in these dour grey isles... re. the Rawat cult - from my expeience Oz seems pretty much the same as anywhere else. The handful of trolls we've had on the forum could just as well have come from anywhere.
Modified by Nigel at Tue, Apr 25, 2006, 20:25:54
|
|
|
|
I've always thought Australia sounds great. When I was a young child, my parents often talked about emigrating, you could do that easily then with a small amount of money..
I used to get quite excited at the thought, and stared for hours at the maps in my Atlas. I have often felt disappointed they didn't. I feel more at home outdoors than in sometimes, but as you say .. the weather...
Modified by LP at Tue, Apr 25, 2006, 20:49:06
|
|
|
|
The rawat crazies are everywhere. Heck, it appears they have a transplanted crazy in Japan, even. FUnny thing is, I wonder if the Japanese government knows about said crazy cult member. They don't take too kindly to "cults" in Japan after those other aum crazies tried to poison folks on the subway..... anyway, I digress........
I can tell you that everytime I've had the opportunity to visit Australia, it has been a highlight! What a nice country populated by great, down-to-earth folks. I'm not talking Crocodile Dundee'isms, either. Just really nice people who know how to treat a visitor and make them feel welcome. Anyone who likes vegemite on toast is ok in my book, mate!
|
|
|
|
Domains By Proxy - Legal Agreement
Prohibitions:
Domains By Proxy will not do business with you,
nor protect your identity, if you:
... engage in morally objectionable activities, including ... those which are ... defamatory ...
Modified by G at Sun, Apr 23, 2006, 20:58:51
|
|
|
|
Like I said, with premies, black is white and white is black, if Prem Rawat says it so, it's so. Staker even misspelled "misstatement" in the statement.
|
|
|
|
I've now had a chance to review some of the pleadings. One of the things Marianne complained of was Staker's claim on his www.one-reality.net (or .org) page about me that: Even more extraordinary was Heller's admission on an early internet forum (F3) that in 1980 he had embezzled $18,000 from an EV affiliated organization. He later claimed that his admission was a joke.
In his Notice of Motion to strike Marianne's action as a SLAPP suit (which failed, by the way), Staker argues various defences (figure of speech, joking, free speech / hyperbole, etc.) but about this he only offers the following defence: VII. STATEMENT ALLEGEDLY ACCUSING BACHERS OF "EMBEZZLEMENT" IS NOT "OF AND CONCERNING" PLAINTIFF One of the fundamental axioms of defamation law is that, in order to be actionable, the statements in question must refer to the plaintiff. Only individuals directly impliated by a defamatory statements [sic] may sue. New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 279-80, 292 (1964); Mullins v. Brando, 13 Cal. App. 3d 409 (1970). In this case, the statement that alleged accuses [sic] Bachers of "embezzlement" is not "of and concerning" plaintiff, and therefore is not actionable by Bachers. At paragraph 21, the Complaint states that Bachers' name appears on a list of individuals who are accused of embezzlement. That list allegedly appears at http://user.netmia.com. However, this website does not contain such a list or such an accusation. However, reference to embezzlement can be found on another website identified by Bachers, to wit: http://www.one-reality.net. But the embezzlement [new sentence starting with "But" in a formal document?] accusation is not directed at Bachers. Rather, it refers to a Canadian lawyer named Jim Heller ("Heller" , who admitted on the Internet to having embezzled money from Elan Vital. 28 Bachers is not mentioned anywhere in the post. Because the statement is not "of and concerning" Bachers, it fails as a matter of law. 30 See Blatty v.New York Times, Inc. 42 Cal. 3d 1033, 1044 (1986) ("To allow a plaintiff who is not jutsified, either expressly or by clear implication to institute an action ... poses an unjustifiable threat to society." 28 The statement reads: "Even more extraordinary was Heller's admission on an early Internet forum (F3) that in 1980 he had embezzled $18,000 from an EV affiliated organization. He alter claimed that his admission was a joke." Drooz Decl. Par. 40, Ex. 32
Am I not right in concluding that this defence against Marianne is, in fact, an admission that he is accusing me of embezzlement, especially given the one sentence I've highlighted? Now here's where it gets even more interesting. Although they've since watered down their allegations (probably because we began btiching about in online), EV used to repeat this very defamation in one of their Frequently Asked Questions: |
Are the people in this hate group credible? Of the 15-20 people posting as various anonymous personae on the hate site, it has been documented that: - One has been hospitalised for hallucinatory paranoia.
- One has acknowledged suffering from multiple personality disorder.
- One became a member of the hate group after surgery to remove a brain tumour that affected his cognitive abilities.
- One receives a pension for permanent mental disability.
- One runs a pornographic film production business.
- One, a lawyer, acknowledged in writing having embezzled $18,000 from an organisation supporting Maharaji's work.
- Another, also a lawyer, has acknowledged having been arrested three times. Although this same person insists that Maharaji "must" be guilty of some tax fraud, she herself has been levied by the U.S. Internal Revenue Service for tax arrears of more than US$200,000.
- One, Neville Ackland from Australia, is in prison after being convicted for illegal weapons possession as well as possession of 150 lbs. of marijuana.
- One, a notorious cyber-hacker, was subjected to a restraining order after being investigated for domestic violence.
- Journalist John Macgregor from Byron Bay was recently held liable by the Supreme Court of Queensland for theft of private financial and credit data and convicted for contempt of court.
This is not exactly a cross-section of normal, ordinary, functional, law-abiding citizens. |
|
Modified by Jim at Mon, Apr 24, 2006, 12:36:26
|
|
|
|
- I've now had a chance to review some of the pleadings and find that that Staker defends his outrageous website claim that I admitted embezzling $18,000 from EV by asserting, amongst other things, that I really did make that admission. In fact, as I clearly stated at the time and as was abundantly obvious by the context alone (not to mention the fact that no money was ever missing as Jack Tuff, the head of the local office of EV at the time and still an ardent follower, confirmed) my comment was undeniably a joke. Nonetheless, Staker anonymously put up and still maintains to this day a website accusing me of embezzlement. Even more alarming, Rawat's own organization repeated this defamation in one of their Frequently Asked Questions on one of their websites where they stated (without even mentioning my saying it was a joke) that "One [critic], a lawyer, acknowledged in writing having embezzled $18,000 from an organisation supporting Maharaji's work."
- This is clear harrassment and defamation by both Rawat's organization and Staker who appear to have been acting in concert. Perhaps someone other than me (or Fresco who's also involved in the litigation) might suggest how the article could be appropriately edited. --Jim Heller 17:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Related link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Prem_Rawat
Modified by Jim at Mon, Apr 24, 2006, 13:01:59
|
|
|
|
Hate Group’s Cyber-SLAPP Settled
by Collins MacArthur Sunday, Apr. 23, 2006 at 2:40 PM
CollinsMacarthur@yahoo.com">CollinsMacarthur@yahoo.com A case fraught with profound impact on free speech rights in cyberspace was settled in San Francisco by the litigants on April 21, 2006, after the plaintiff in a Cyber-SLAPP case agreed to withdraw her complaint in return for a webmaster’s clarification Hate Group’s Cyber-SLAPP Settled
Plaintiff Withdraws Libel Case After Appellate Mediation
By Collins MacArthur
APRIL 24, 2006 (San Francisco) --- A case fraught with profound impact on free speech rights in cyberspace was settled by the litigants on April 21, 2006, after the plaintiff in a Cyber-SLAPP case agreed to withdraw her complaint in return for a webmaster’s clarification. No binding precedent was established in the case. The case, Marianne Bachers v. Does 1 to 20, (Case No. CGC-04-428487, S.F. Sup. Ct., filed February 2004) was the paradigm of how libel plaintiffs can use defamation complaints to not only unmask anonymous critics, but also how they often use the discovery process to harass and intimidate those with a conflicting point of view.
The plaintiff, Marianne Bachers, is an employee of the State of California Public Defender’s Office and according to sworn court papers in other non-libel cases is one of the central organizers of a hate group called “the Ex-Premie Association.” The group is a handful of self-styled “cult-busters” who attack and harass students of Prem Rawat, a spiritual teacher known to many as “Maharaji.” The group has also made statements offensive to Jews, Catholics, Muslims and others.
Ironically, Marianne Bachers, one of Prem Rawat's most vocal critics, had herself often used the Internet to criticize him and his students. Court papers show that she posted vitriolic criticism – called “hate speech” by some – more than 400 times to a chat room run by the hate group. Because she took center stage in the controversy, Marianne Bachers herself and her activities became part of the subject of criticism. An anti-hate speech website called http://www.one-reality.net alleged that Marianne Bachers was actively harassing and “cyberstalking” Prem Rawat's students, and questioned Marianne Bachers’ credibility and motives. The website also published official documents showing that Marianne Bachers, an attorney, had failed to properly pay taxes and was the subject of liens for tens of thousands of dollars by the U.S. Government.
According to court papers, Marianne Bachers never requested that the anonymous webmaster remove the statements. Instead, in February 2004 Marianne Bachers filed a SLAPP suit in California State Court and instituted issued subpoenas to various ISP’s and proceeded to depose Rawat’s students. One deponent, Carlos Harden, sought and was granted a Protective Order by the Court from Bachers in terms of being questioned about his spiritual or religious beliefs. Despite that Protective Order, Marianne Bachers’ lawyers interrogated Harden for six hours in the face of more than 30 objections. After the community of Rawat’s students learned about Harden’s ordeal, in May of 2005, Geoff Staker, a resident of Japan and the webmaster of http://www.one-reality.net came forward and told the Court that he was the webmaster of http://www.one-reality.net and was solely responsible for the material at issue. Staker also filed a Notice to Strike under California’s Anti-SLAPP Law. Staker’s legal papers argued that Marianne Bacher’s libel complaint was designed to use the discovery process as a method of harassment, one of the methods of attacking First Amendment rights raised by experts. Although Marianne Bachers no longer needed to pursue discovery against unknown John Does, Bachers insisted that she had the right to continue to attempt to depose Prem Rawat's students. In May 2005, Judge Warren of the Superior Court expressly denied Marianne Bachers’ request to continue to use discovery as a means of harassment, and refused to allow Marianne Bachers to pursue any discovery pending the substantive outcome of Staker’s SLAPP motion.
In October 2005, the lower court denied Staker’s motion Without Opinion, automatically rendering the matter ripe for adjudication by the appellate court, under California’s First Amendment case law. According to Staker’s Special Notice To Strike under California’s Anti-SLAPP law, Staker was prepared to prove at trial if needed that the statements about Marianne Bachers were true; that her Complaint was invalid for statute of limitation reasons (having been filed more than three years after the sued-upon statements were posted); that Staker’s statements were constitutionally-protected opinion; and that as a limited-purpose public figure, Marianne Bachers could not prove “actual malice” as required by the First Amendment. A coalition of National and California news media outlets, including television broadcasters, wire services and daily newspapers were prepared to file a brief amicus curie to ask the court to recognize that the First Amendment must provide webmasters the freedom to repeat comments made in internet chat rooms on a matter of public concern free from threat of libel complaints and harassing discovery.
Instead of pressing her case, Marianne Bachers asked for the matter to be mediated, and the two parties reached an agreement . On April 20, 2006, Maranne Bachers withdrew the Complaint and Staker withdrew his appeal. The two are barred from discussing each other further.
Related link: http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2006/04/1727153.php
|
|
|
|
Fresco said: I am not quibbling, I am stating a fact: Her attempt to interrogate me and other students of Maharaji (and I will not comment on what I think of her action, as it is not relevant to this aricle) obviously failed. As for additions to this article, you are welcome to do so, with the usual caveats as described in our content policies. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC) To which I replied: - That's funny. I have a copy of the Declaration of Deborah Drooz in Support of Non-Party Joseph Fresco's Motion for Protective Order which includes her letter of March 24, 2005, wherein Drooz wrote Marianne Bacher's lawyer suggesting the terms of your deposition. It reads in part:
-
- Here is the "scope" proposal we discussed during our telephone conversation yesterday. Naturally, we are willing to entertain any counterproposals you may have.
-
- [Fresco] will answer questions that seek to elicit information on the following subjects:
- 1.[Fresco]'s personal involvement and/or responsiblity for the publication of the statements challenged in the complaint.
- 2.As to each statement challenged in the complaint, [Fresco]'s knowledge of the identities of individuals or entities who were involved in and/or responsible for its publication.
-
- On March 31, 2005 Marianne's lawyer wrote back confirming that continuing discussions between the lawyers had failed to reach an agreement about just what you were going to testify about at which point Drooz scheduled this application for a protective order. It wasn't to keep you from having to testify but rather to limit the scope of your deposition. You know that. Anyway, your motion was filed April 18, 2005 but taken "off calendar" May 10, 2005 pending the determination of Staker's SLAPP suit appeal. (He lost but filed a notice of appeal).
- Bottom line is that it's completely untrue to say that Marianne's effort to interrogate you failed.--Jim Heller 23:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
|
|
|
|
Am I not right in concluding
that this defence against Marianne is, in fact, an admission that he is
accusing me of embezzlement......
It looks that way to me: there aren't any ambiguous words in that sentence, it's just a bald statement, though who knows what one of the more slippery members of your profession could do with the emoticon lol.
I suppose the way I look at it it's just them pissing in the wind, & if it blows back all over someone's trousers, then all to the good. For my own part, even though my not very funny response, written whilst pissed after a good night out, to one of those braindead anonymous premies who used to clog up the airwaves back then is included, I'm not much bothered.
Having said that, if Staker & co had given my name in full, whilst implying that I'm a latent psychopath, then I certainly would be a great deal more excercised. If I remember rightly, those were the days before the whole world could find stuff like that, just by typing your name into google.
There must be a good case for that site to be closed down & if you know how to go about it, please do. Also, given the way the cult ruthlessly destroyed John Macgregor, I, for one, give you moral carte blanche to seek punitive damages.
|
|
|
) NT
