This is a message I posted to Ford's bulletin board yesterday, in response to
numerous messages replying to my last post:
_____________________________________

I've received a number of comments to my last post.

I will respond to some of the questions and comments.

To Degar:

I agree with you that no church, book or religion can replace the part of us
that knows. We also both agree on the importance of fearlessness in seeing
truth, and the importance of teachings with heart.

My lights are fine, as are yours.

To Joey Ward:

I don't do yes or no questions, but I will try to keep my answers short:

1.  Did Paul Twitchell have the highest state of consciousness as the Godman as
he told the world through his writings?  

I don't know how anyone could say who was highest or who is even higher than
another. So, I would never say such a thing, myself. I don't even think having
the highest state of consciousness should be anyone's goal. A person can gain a
high state of consciousness and be unable to make a living here in the
physical. That's not very useful.

2.  Does Harold Klemp have the highest state of consciousness as the Godman as
he is telling the world throught his writings?

Same as above, however, I will add this. I agree with the Sufis who say that
there is what they call The Pole of The World. The Sufi teacher Ibn al' Arabi
points out that this same principle applies at every level of human affairs.
Another Sufi put it this way: "Just as there is someone who acts as the pole
for the whole of humanity, so there are poles for every faith, community,
occupation - even down to the level of towns."

We sense when we are near such people since they seem to represent and carry
the whole of the town or company or faith that they are a part of. Every age
has those who carry the whole of things for the world at every level. We
connect to that whole through their vision.

However, I don't believe in saying who the Pole of the World is, since everyone
needs to find this out for themselves. In fact, in most times through history
the Pole of The World was hidden. The Sufis say this as well.

3.  Did Paul Twitchell copy other writers works?

Yes. Well, I guess I can give yes or no answers sometimes.

4.  Did Paul Twitchell use other writers words and put his Eck masters names on
them as if the Eck Master were saying them?

Yes.

 5.  Who do you Trust to tell the truth about Spiritual truths?  Pick one only.
[Names omitted]

I see all teachings as mines. The good ones are gold mines, but they all need
to be sorted through to find the pure gold. I have found no outer teachings
that are pure gold.

The only place to test the gold is within ourselves, when we try to use it in
our lives.

You might point to an outer person. I would rather point to our inner
knowingness to recognize truth. We often do pick it up from others, however.

To Journey:

You asked: "If you are not trying to undermine Ford and his book "Confessions
of a God Seeker," why did you give such a negative opinion about the book in
The Chanhassen Villager last November?"

If you read my comments to the Chanhassen Villager, just like in my last post,
it is focused on the errors in what David Lane has reported and the unfortunate
fact that Ford repeated these as if they were facts as David did. I am
absolutely amazed at how far the distortion of truths from David Lane has
spread. I was disappointed that the newspaper had not done better research, and
that Ford had not as well, especially since David Lane himself suggested to
Ford that he study my book more thoroughly to see what had been discussed via
the Internet.

I am just as amazed at how quickly and completely people assume that I am some
kind of pawn in a battle or fighting some kind of war against Ford for pointing
out the errors. I guess this goes to show how far off perceptions of someone
else's motivations can be. People will imagine what my motivations are, but
they are a million miles from the mark.

I do agree that some people like to win their arguments no matter what, and
since I have no interest in that, this is exactly why I have said I would say
no more about such things unless folks here were interested. From the responses
I've seen, there doesn't seem to be much interest in what I was writing about.

I think you are right that we should all look at our motivations. I have
certainly done so and have tried only to offer help in clearing up some of the
confusions that have been going on for a while by getting to the facts. I have
tried to stay far from criticizing anyone else's beliefs, although I do think
some friendly dialogue in this area is good.

I think it is just as important to look at the motivations for bringing up my
personal motivations. I have not questioned Ford's motivations, nor would I. I
think his intentions are sincere. Getting stuck over another person's so-called
intentions is often the way our Censor stops us from seeing another person's
point of view fairly.

When we get so attached to our cause, anyone who says anything that appears to
interfere with our cause becomes or enemy. The motivations of our enemies are
always wrong in our minds. Ask them and they would say the same about their
enemies.

It is a sad fact that public dialogue over religious matters is almost
impossible these days. This was not true in America during its early days.
Public dialogue was often lively and contentious, but never came to people
disowning their neighbors or rejecting their families and friends like it does
today.

As far as I am concerned, we are all friends here with a common interest in
Spiritual Truth. That is how I see it. And we will each decide for ourselves
what is true, as we should.

To DD:

argument, finding miniscule points of contention (a minor date discrepancy
here, a location there) but not once do you address the underlying core truth
that is being and has been expressed here from the very beginning."

Exactly right. So why is everyone getting so worked up about it? Why is no one
simply acknowledging the minor points and letting it go? These are not core
truths, just a matter of correcting errors in fact.

No, I don't agree that my "can't we all get along" message doesn't help us get
at the truth. In fact, let me say it this way: If we can not listen to those
who see things differently than we do, then we will never see Truth. This
doesn't mean we should all agree, but it certainly does mean that we should be
able to hold respectful and friendly conversations with those who have a
different way of seeing things. We should be open to learning from others.

as an attempt to discredit the entire revelation of overall truth discovered."

This is incorrect. I am only trying to point out the errors. I am not trying to
discredit the entire message. But clearly, after we have seen the facts for
what they are, the overall picture does change somewhat. That's natural.

Since so many of David Lane's claims are in fact not based on facts at all, but
merely on imagined intentions and speculations, I have also offered other
possible interpretations. My point is not that David's guesses are wrong and
mine are right, but simply to show how widely interpretations can vary when
there are no facts.

You are the one who is painting a picture of black and white, not I. I don't
see David or Ford as all wrong, nor as all right. I say let's find the gold
wherever we look. Why blame anyone for the fact that everything they offer is
not pure gold?

Lastly, you suggest that I am defending a teaching and that I am an apologist.
Okay, perhaps I am. I don't feel that is what I am doing, but I can see it
would look that way to you. But surely you see that your comments are the same.
You are also defending your beliefs. In fact, everyone who has responded to my
post on this bulletin board has picked at what I would call minor, technical
details and completely avoided my points. This doesn't mean you or anyone else
here is any less sincere, does it?

To Nacal:

You asked: "Where do you ever give a reference or a quote from your sources?"

They are in my book, and have been thoroughly discussed on
alt.religion.eckankar and can be found in the records there. I would be glad to
present them here as well, if anyone was interested.

You asked: "Why have you returned without answering the questions posed to you
by site members in previous postings? When did Twitchell first write about the
mahanta? Was it 1969 as one site member has stated?"

I answered last time that I had just moved to a new home and my files were
still packed in boxes. They are still packed in boxes, but a few are handy so I
pulled out Paul's old Wisdom Notes and Illuminated Way Letters.

You seem to be right. Paul didn't use the word, Mahanta, until the January 1969
Illuminated Way Letter and the February 1969 Wisdom Note. Before then he mainly
used, The Master, Spiritual Traveler, Teacher, etc. Not even the mention of
Living ECK Master very often, although Outer Master and living Master were
mentioned often.

This is interesting. Thanks for pointing it out.

desire to interfere with the beliefs of anyone.”

And how would you know that? You seem to know my own desires and intentions
better than I do. Clearly I will need to ask you next time what my intentions
and desires are.

This is foolishness. Do you realize how hard it is to know the desires of your
own children? How often do parents misunderstand what their children are trying
to do? Have you never had this happen to you when you were a child? Yet you
think you can actually guess my desires, when you don't even know me? Have we
even met?

Why do people spend so much time imagining they ...

read more »

Here is the exact judgement.

If you read IN CONTEXT, you will see that the Judge didn't find
McWilliams's testimony or mine "credible" in terms of whether I was
given a considered license to have LIfe 102 published on my website
AFTER Peter had sold his copyright back to MSIA.

Peter and I argued in court that, yes, he had indeed given me this
permission and that I still had a right to have the book on my website
even after he sold his book back to MSIA.

The judge didn't find this credible and ruled against me.

The book was taken off my website and is no longer available
worldwide, except in used bookstores and off the net from Amazon.com,
etc.

Peter died of Aids a couple of years ago.

However, I found his entire deposition and thought it would be
interesting to post in its entirety which I will do shortly.

Life 102 was a wonderful read.

It is too bad that it is no longer available.

thanks

dave

Here's the judgement.

Please keep in mind Peter's note to me at the time of writing the
book.

MSIA v David Christopher Lane - Opinion of August 19, 1998 and
Judgment of September 1, 1998

1. Opinion

CHURCH OF THE MOVEMENT OF SPIRITUAL INNER AWARENESS, Plaintiff,

vs.

DAVID C. LANE, Defendant,

---------------------------------

CASE NO. CV 97-6685 CAS (VAPx)

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

This case came on regularly for trial to the Court on July 28, 1998,
at 9:30 a.m. Vincent Cox of Leopold, Petrich Smith appeared for
plaintiff and Mitchell L. Lathrop and Bridget K. Moorhead of Luce
Forward Hamilton & Scripps appeared for defendant. The Court has
considered the evidence and arguments offered at trial by the parties
and, now being fully advised in the premises, hereby makes he
following findings of fact and conclusions of law:

1. Plaintiff Church of the Movement of Spiritual Inner Awareness
("MSIA") is a religious corporation, organized under the laws of the
State of California.

2. Defendant Dr. David C. Lane ("Lane" or "defendant") is a professor
of philosophy and sociology at Mount San Antonio College, located in
Walnut, California.

3. Between March 1994, and November 1996, MSIA and Peter McWilliams
("McWilliams") engaged in disputes and litigation regarding the rights
and wrongs of the relationship between MSIA and McWilliams.

4. In August 1994, McWilliams caused to be published through his
company,Prelude Press, a book that he had authored entitled Life 102:
What To Do When Your Guru Sues You ("Life 102"). The book was critical
of MSIA and its founder, John-Roger Hinkins, ("John-Roger").

5. In the Summer or Fall of 1994, McWilliams contacted defendant to
obtain research material concerning MSIA and John-Roger that he could
use in writing Life 102.

6. Dr. Lane provided McWilliams with research materials, books written
by Dr. Lane on various religions, his dissertation thesis, and various
other documents and tape recordings Dr. Lane had collected regarding
MSIA and John-Roger.

7. McWilliams testified that, at his first meeting with defendant
which he stated took place in July 1994, he orally gave defendant
permission to use the book for non-commercial purposes. At trial,
McWilliams was asked whether defendant had told him that defendant
would only cooperate with McWilliams if McWilliams gave defendant
permission to place the book on defendant's Internet webpage.
McWilliams responded that he gave defendant permission to use the book
to "gain David Lane's trust" (R.T. at 112). However, in his
deposition, McWilliams testified in response to essentially the same
question stating that "there was no direct quid pro quo, so the answer
to that absolute direct question is no" (McWilliams depo. tr., April.
20, 1998, at 44).

8. Defendant testified at trial that at the first meeting with
McWilliams, he made clear to McWilliams that he would not provide him
with any documents to assist him in his work, unless McWilliams gave
him full access to "use the information in the book" that McWilliams
was writing (R.T. at 72-73). According to testimony at trial,
defendant told McWilliams based on his prior experiences with
purported defecters from MSIA in the 1980's that he would not assist
McWilliams in the writing of McWilliams' book unless McWilliams
granted Lane an unrestricted right to use the book (R.T. at 25)
However, in his deposition, Lane testified as follows:

Q. Did you specifically tell Mr. McWilliams that you wouldn't
cooperate with him unless he gave you permission to use the resulting
book in any way you chose?

A. Actually, if I remember correctly, it was Peter McWilliams who
volunteered that. It wasn't one of my conditions, but he was very
thankful for the research I had done, and because of that he wanted to
-- it was like a material consideration. I had done something for him,
and he was paying me back. Lane depo. tr., Feb. 18, 1998, at 44.

9. In Exhibit 22, which was posted on the Internet in September 1997,
Lane claimed that McWilliams had given him unrestricted access to Life
102 when McWilliams posted the book on the Internet, an event that
occurred in September 1995, more than one year after the 1994 initial
meeting. It is undisputed that Lane never asked McWilliams to reduce
this agreement to writing (R.T. at 69).

10. Thereafter, in September 1994, McWilliams sent numerous copies of
the book to defendant accompanied by a handwritten note. The note,
Exhibit 202, reads in part as follows:

David-

Tada!
Here it is in print form -- Life 102! Let me know if you need more.
Thank you for all your help. I couldn't have done it without you. Yes,
of course, put it on your web page, give copies to your class.
Whatever you want - just don't sell it. Again, thanks I owe you
several!
Enjoy-
Peter McWilliams
9/94

11. Beginning in or about the Fall of 1995, McWilliams placed the
books that his company, Prelude Press, had published (all of which
were authored or co-authored by McWilliams) on his website at
http://www.mcwilliams.com. All of the foregoing books contained
copyright notices, and the introductory page of the website stated, in
relevant part:

Hello.

Welcome to my home page.

Here you will find the complete text of all my books currently in
print, plus works 'in progress.' You are welcome to read, search,
download, copy, print, or give away any of it. Just don't try to sell
large chunks of it, or I'll call the FBI. (See the first 30 seconds of
any rental videotape). You are certainly free to incorporate portions
of these books in what you create, and sell that. That's the nature of
the creative process. There is no need to ask me to 'grant
permission.' Who the hell am I to 'grant permission?'

12. Sometime after September 1995, Lane first placed the entire text
of Life 102 on his Internet website in downloadable form.

13. On November 1, 1996, a settlement of the disputes between
plaintiff and Mc Williams was reached. As part of the written
sentiment agreement, McWilliams assigned his copyright interest in
Life 102 to plaintiff and agreed to remove the text from his internet
website within six hours of the execution of the agreement (See Ex.
1). McWilliams further represented and warranted that no licenses for
consideration had been granted to anyone with respect to the work, and
he formally revoked all prior licenses he had granted with respect to
the work. Id.

14. Despite his representation and warranty that he has not assigned
or granted any license in Life 102 for consideration, McWilliams
testified at trial that he advised representatives of MSIA at the time
of the settlement that he had previously granted a license for
consideration to use Life 102 to Lane (R.T at 127). However,
McWilliams' attorney in the litigation between McWilliams and MSIA,
Ralph 0. Williams, III, testified that when negotiating the settlement
between MSIA and McWilliams," [Williams) was concerned about what the
words 'assignment for consideration,' mean [sic]. So as [he recalled]
Vincent Cox asked (him] and/or Peter [McWilliams), was there anything
in writing, and the answer to that was in the negative. No, there was
nothing in writing. Was there any consideration or money paid, and
(Williams) answered no, because (he] didn't know of any, and Peter
[McWilliams] answered no." (R. T. at 96)

15. On November 6, 1996, plaintiff registered Life 102 with the
Register of Copyrights, which issued a Registration Certificate No.
TX4-406-489.

16. On February 9, 1997, plaintiff recorded in the Copyright Office
the Assignment of Copyright in Life 102 from McWilliams to plaintiff.

17. Several months after McWilliams took the text of the book off of
his Internet website in accordance with the settlement ageement with
MSIA, and discontinued the link to Lane's website, Lane placed the
entire text of the book on his own website, apparently sometime in or
about March 1997. Counsel for MSIA wrote to Lane on March 13, April 2,
and May 5, 1997, enclosed a copy of the written, notarized Assignment
of ...

read more »

Hi David,

thanks for the exact info.

I must say you seem to be getting more responsive in your old age. <G>

please below

news:d975b1d5.0402091247.775eca0d@posting.google.com...
<news:DpOdndCr-O-E0LrdRVn_iw@inspired.net.au>...

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=5OqF5.4%248A4.434305%40news.inte...

Yes. that's right from what I see.

My point to Doug was that doesn't automatically mean you were
"untrustworthy"

I think I mentioned at the time we were discussing this "live on a.r.e."
that you were ill-advised by your lawyers about this argument, as it was
pretty weak.

Yes. Not surprising.

It always seemed to me that your reliance on McWilliams [from a legal
perspective] was where the matter was doomed from the start. He wasn't one
for dotting the i's and crossing the t's now was he?

To me it seems your reliance on him that you had some sort of "legal right"
above and beyond McWilliams VERY legal arrangement with MSIA per the
Copyright transfer was ill advised.

Some would say it beggars belief, but then we all have our opinions about
things that often don't pan out in a legal sense.

I can well accept that you may have "believed" you had been given a legal
right by McWilliams to publish his material, however, at the time he
transfered the copyright even McWilliams didn't appear to think that. And
you didn't take any formal/legal steps to commit such agreements into
writing or legalese ............ that's what left you out in the cold with
only McWilliams "word".

Trouble is, people's "word" isn't good enough in a federal court.

Doomed from the start. I am still amazed you took the matter so far and
didn't simply settle with the MSIA out of court. However, I note your many
comments that it was a matter of keeping the material out there in the
public domain because MSIA were infact trying to "kill" the book. That was
par tof your decision making process, fine.

Still the funniest thing about this is that yes you were found to be in
breach of copyright by a federal court judge, and that your testimony was
not "credible."

I do love irony <VBG>

Anyway, Doug's main point I still agree with. Your story changed, and
McWilliams story changed form depositions to court. Any third party trying
to work out what REALLY happened, what was REALLY said, and what was REALLY
intended is going to have a hard time working that out.

The trained judge seemed to think something was not 100% kosher, for her
make the comments she did.

One way of looking it is that she found your belief that you had a right to
publish the works based upon your "evidence" is simply too ludicrous to be
credible ..... where's the legal documentation is the obvious question.

For an intelligent man to defend himself in court and argue such things may
be what she found too incredible to believe.

IF you believed the note form McWilliams was sufficient AFTER he transferred
the copyright the way HE did it, well , again it beggars belief.

When he did that EVERYTHING CHANGED ........... it moved from a "gentlemans
agreement" to something legal.

That you chose to ignore that FACT, is again part of the irony of this
event.

It again proves that what we personally believe doesn't always fit the facts
of the matter from a greater perspective.

You aren't the first or the last to get this wrong. It's called being human.

The old adage fits well here: "don't believe everything you are told or
read" <VBG>

Ford Johnson appears to have the same problem in this area, for example,
David Parkers comments about what Gail said, and what he reported about Brad
Steiger which Doug reports Brad TOTALLY DENIED.

The lesson here is that people's memories and personal beliefs about events
from what they have been told can often be found to be not credible in the
true light of ALL the facts.

A heads up for everyone perhaps? ;-))

No, thankyou. <G>

Take it easy David.

snipped the judgement etc.>>

Love Sean

It seems to me that you deserve the benefit of the doubt as far as
*your* credibility is concerned.  I can see how you thought you had a
right to the text as long as you didn't try to sell it, but that the
judge did not feel like an implied "in consideration of" exchange
between you and Peter, was credible enough evidence in a court of law
to overturn an actual explicit contract between Peter and MSIA where
money exchanged hands.

The Q and A at point 8 seems to be the crux of the biscuit where the
judgement was concerned.

Thinking about benefit of the doubt makes me wonder about your
assessment of how "evil" you think Paul Twitchell was with respect to
his making a spiritual movement.

Reading Ford's site, you'd think he was one of the more evil men of
the century, if not the millenium.  I'd like to get your current take
if whatever form you you care to give it.

Ok then, Geoff

P.S. I read your book all the way through about three times back in
1982 when it first came to my attention.  While I was definitely
shocked, I noticed even the first time through that you never attacked
any of the actual messages, just the messenger.  And to be honest,
since I never knew Paul except through his books, I just took it as
another good reason not to get too caught up in the personality of a
Master.  It made it easier for me to follow Paul's advice in the intro
to the Tiger's Fang to simply weigh and judge for myself what is being
said, because the "linear" story itself was likely made up to make
sense out of a very non-linear experience.

I also read the Path of the Masters cover to cover, and was glad that
Paul culled out a lot of what I considered unnecessary trappings that
came from the context of turn of the century India, etc.

So in a back-handed way, I thank you for writing the TMOASM.  You
caused me to focus on the assessing truth for myself.

thanks for your note.

Actually, I have never felt ill-will towards Paul Twitchell.

I think he is a fascinating character and lived an interesting life.

I certainly don't think of him as evil or any such thing.

Indeed, I have great deal of affection for him.

He was a human being, like the rest of us.

Obviously, I just don't buy the guru gig thing...... but those who
knew him (including his first wife who I spoke with on the phone and
his close confidantes) liked him.

He seemed like a likeable guy.

Dear Cher:

I have never blamed the judge. She made her decision and I accepted
it.

As for Peter being a bitter gay man, it is obvious you never met him
or knew him personally.

I did.

He was a wonderful man and very very funny.

He was not bitter, but clearly wanted to correct a wrong.

In any case, it was sad to see him at trial that day, in shackles, as
he had been arrested several days before my trial due to the FEDS
charging him for producing medical pot.

I miss him.

Along with a great deal of whining on this very ng about the incident!
<smile> Oh yes, david... it's in the archives.

I read a few of his books.... but you're right... he didn't give me
dope, so I guess I don't qualify as an expert or friend. I do have an
opinion. You know what opinions are, right david? Those thoughts we hold
about people we've never met, and share with others? Sound familiar?

Most bitter men are funny. Or don't you get comedy central?

<shudder> Obviously. Norma Rae all over again. Whoopie..... :-\

Yeah.... poor baby. He knew he was dealing with with all those factions
and still chose to break the law. Not a rocket scientist, hey? He broke
the law, just as you did. Get over it. The laws are there to keep
society in check, not spotlight the narcissist!

Yeah... how's that working out for you?

Enjoy this moment to say what you were too frightened to say under true
identity. Pissy little coward! chuckle........

If you are dying of AIDS, I think it would be perfectly appropriate
for you to take any drugs you wish to get your medicine down.

Not in my experience. Most bitter men are just that..... bitter.

Or women, for that matter.

David Lane replies:

Peter is now a narcissist because when he was dying of AIDS smoking
pot helped him get the cocktail of medicines down?

I personally think that drugs should be legalized, even if the
heaviest drugs I take are coca cola and excederin.

I personally see no reason why the federal government should restrict
AIDS patients their ability to get through the day by smoking pot.

You don't care, so what's your point, Cher?

Well that's the idea that being floated by you, hey? Or maybe one just
feels that because he's dying from aids, the world owes him the right to
do whatever the hell he choses to do? Same outcome, but not as
emotionally sentimental, right? Frankly a druggie is the same, alive or
dying.... any excuse in the book. Not politically correct, I'm sure....
but probably just as true as the Oprah version you keep passing off for
the sake of sentimentality.

I guess Shelly Berman wasn't your cup of tea then? <smile> Or Lenny
Bruce? Red Foxx? <grin>

No, but this is a great example of how you process what you read!!!! I
should hang onto this one for future use. But if this is all you see of
peter's narcissistic personality, then whatever.... I guess in your
book, he rose above the human condition because he was sick? Burst your
bubble time here.... a jerk is a jerk, sick or well. At least that's the
way the real world works, and not that disneyland you live in.

YAWN....... and I think that they are illegal for a reason.... and that
reason is that people in general don't want to pay for the cost of what
goes along with drug abuse. Seems rational to me.

Well they do. Now figure out how to live with it! Let me know how that
works out for you.

My point? That peter made it all that much more complicated for himself.
His choice. No parades! If you want to make him a martyr, go for it. But
not everyone sees this the way that you do. Your strange loyalty and
sentimentality is a keynote of your personality, david. It blinds you to
what the rest of the world around you sees clearly. Oddly enough, as a
woman I shouldn't have to explain to you how you manage to romanticize
your life over and over again. For someone who is so deathly afraid of
spiritual leaders deluding him, you sure are oblivious to the head trip
you play on yourself.

Where's Harold Klemp when we need him? Hahahahahahahahahahhahahaha!