Doug's Response to David Lane #1
KMerrymoon
misrepresentations:
ERRORS:
DAVID WROTE:
Bill Popham contacted me in El Cerrito (just north of Berkeley) several months
BEFORE the SCP Journal was published.
Eventually a meeting with him and other Eckankar officials was arranged at
Menlo Park, California.
DOUG RESPONDS:
David, this appears to be in contradiction with comments you made via the
Internet last year. There you said that your meeting with Bill Popham was in
regard to your book AND the SCP Journal. It was only due to your comment that I
ammended my book to make that addition. According to your statement last year
the meeting with Bill Popham in Menlo Park concerned both your book and the SCP
Journal, and therefore it was after they were both published.
There seems to be a contradiction here. Do you mean that the meeting in Menlo
Park did take place after they had received a copy of the SCP Journal?
Also, I'm not clear if you are suggesting that when Bill Popham first contacted
you before that meeting, if he did so on his own, or was he then being paid by
ECKANKAR to contact you? Your words here suggest that he was officially
representing ECKANKAR when he first contacted you, but do you really know that
was true? Did he tell you that he was being paid by ECKANKAR at that time, or
is it possible that he called you out of his own interest? Perhaps it was Bill
Popham who was concerned and talked Darwin into hiring him to make a more
thorough study?
DAVID WROTE:
Well, let's analyze this ad closely.
First, did a Baptist College distribute material against Eckankar?
Not precisely.
What did happen was that ONE Professor at an L.A. Baptist College made a
photocopy of a term paper from a student at CSUN - a paper the Professor claims
to have never read.
DOUG RESPONDS:
This is inaccurate, based on what we have all heard took place. Peebles' term
paper passed through the hands of at least two Professors. It was handed out to
at least one family of parishoners who had a daughter who was looking into
ECKANKAR. It was this daughter who alerted ECKANKAR that a paper was being
handed out against ECKANKAR. After that a photocopy of the paper was handed to
Mike Noe, when Mike asked if he could get a copy. We don't know if other copies
had been handed out by the earlier Professors. We do know that Ed Gruss was
handing it out, and did so at least twice.
DAVID WROTE:
I never stated or implied that Darwin was trying to cover-up Peebles'
allegations. I argued that he was trying to cover-up Twitchell's association
with Kirpal Singh and certain vital biographical details. Gruss would have
stopped distributing the term paper if Eckankar asked him. The advertisement
implies that Eckankar asked for a meeting and that such a meeting was denied by
the various parties.
DOUG RESPONDS:
The ad makes no implication that ECKANKAR asked for a meeting with Ed Gruss or
the LA Baptist College. It does not even mention Ed Gruss. It mentions a
Baptist college once in the second paragraph of the ad, but it doesn't even
identify which Baptist college. It was in the 22nd and last paragraph that it
says ECKANKAR requested "these" groups to delete ECKANKAR from their material,
and that meetings had been ignored. But which groups is this referring to?
In the 13th, 14th and 15th paragraphs the article addresses three different
groups and the false information they were spreading about ECKANKAR. It
explains their misinformation in detail, and that is the only place where the
false information was explained in detail. None of these were related to Ed
Gruss or the LA Baptist College.
To say that the ad implied that ECKANKAR asked for a meeting with Gruss or the
Baptist church is obviously not true. Perhaps David feels that he can interpret
the article that way, but that is altogether another matter. David almost seems
to be implying that ECKANKAR was lying about asking groups to retract their
false information, and trying to meet with them, based on the fact that
ECKANKAR did not do so with Ed Gruss. This would be a false implication.
David also states that he never stated or implied that Darwin was trying to
cover-up the defamatory information in Peebles' term paper, but that David had
been arguing that this term paper showed that Darwin was trying to cover-up
Paul's association with Kirpal Singh and other biographical details.
Here is what David actually did claim and is still claiming in his book:
<<Prompted by a letter to their office, Eckankar sent one of their own
officials, Mike Noe, down to southern California to secure a copy of the twelve
page report, which claimed, among other things, that Eckankar was skirting tax
laws and that Darwin Gross had fathered an illegitimate child...Though the
lawsuit never did come to trial, Eckankar used it as the basis for several
half-page advertisements in which they claimed that their group and its
teachings were being attacked by conservative Christians.>>
This quote clearly identifies the defamatory remarks in Peebles' paper, and it
also clearly accuses ECKANKAR of basing their ads on the incident. David later
called the lawsuit a ploy by ECKANKAR. We can see, from the actual ad, however,
that a Baptist church is only one of many references, and in fact is hardly the
basis for the ad.
There is no mention of Paul's association with Kirpal Singh or Paul's
biographic details in David's book when he writes about the Peebles' incident,
because after all there has been no mention of these things being in Peebles'
term paper. Therefore this was not David's argument in the past. He might be
trying to make that his argument today, but it hardly makes sense, since there
has been no mention that Peebles even talks about Kirpal Singh, and David has
already told us that the two defamatory remarks he refers to were the main hot
buttons in the lawsuit.
DAVID WROTE:
As for your claim that <<the information in the term paper was clearly false
and defamatory,>> this is not so "clear" as you make it.
First, Peebles' claim about Eckankar's tax status is not his "opinion" but
comes from a letter from the Treasury Department which states that Eckankar
doesn't have tax exempt status.
Given that official letter it does indeed seem like Eckankar is skirting tax
laws to Peebles.
As for defamation, it is clear from reading the term paper that Peebles' didn't
consciously make false statements at all, since the tax issue was based on a
letter from the Treasury Department and the allegation about an illegitimate
child was attributed (as an allegation) to one of his Eckankar mentors.
DOUG RESPONDS:
The word defamation means to accuse, to disgrace, to damage the reputation. By
claiming these two things here - that Darwin had fathered an illegitimate child
and that ECKANKAR did not have the tax exempt status that it claimed it had -
both of these two things clearly go toward defaming ECKANKAR and Darwin.
Peebles had a losing case, unless he could prove they were true.
In the matter of the tax exempt status, the information Peebles had received,
no matter how well intentioned or how official he thought it was, was false.
The IRS, not the Treasury Department, is the proper source for that
information. This does help show that Peebles thought he had something to back
up his claim, but unfortunately for Peebles the information was still false.
Thus the statement that information in Peebles' term paper was clearly false
and defamatory is correct, and nothing David has said here changes this. It is
wrong to imply otherwise. It would have been a better argument for David to
simply point out that Peebles thought his information was accurate, and was not
intentionally spreading false information.
However, Peebles is responsible for the truth when making such potentially
damaging statements. And David knows very well that saying an illegitimate
birth was alleged does not prevent the defamation. Peebles needs to have
evidence to support such a statement. Calling it hearsay doesn't stop the
damage to reputation that such a suggestion creates. No newspaper would make
such a statement unless they could back it up.
DAVID WROTE:
Darwin Gross doesn't mention the subliminal images in his worldwide memo.
DOUG RESPONDS:
The August 1979 Mystic World article called, A Letter To The Membership, does
indeed mention that subliminal images were used. A quote from this article was
even reproduced by me only a few pages later in my book. Although written by
Burnadine Burlin, it is obviously a message from Darwin as well, just as other
previous letters written by BB have been attributed to Darwin (such as the
forgery claims). The article says, "with subliminal techniques that are
dangerous to the spiritual insights of readers and participants."
DAVID WROTE:
Instead of explaining the situation upfront and clearly to a naive 20 year old,
Eckankar claimed (rather outrageously) that Kirpal Singh and others forged Paul
Twitchell's name on many papers to claim him for their own purposes. A charge
that has proven to be empty.
DOUG REPONDS:
The charge has never been proven to be empty. In fact, we still to this date do
not know what was behind those claims by Darwin (actually written by BB). I
agree that the claim has never been supported, and therefore such a claim
should not be made unless it can be supported or at least explained, which is
the same thing I've been saying about David's many claims. But to say that the
charge was proven empty is simply wrong. In fact, it sounds as if Darwin is
referring to something specific, but no one has uncovered what it was he was
referring to. It is possible, however, that this claim of forgery was simply an
imagined explanation, just as many of David's claims have been, which is why we
should disregard them until they have something more to back them up.
Also, I believe David is not properly representing the letter that he received
from ECKANKAR. It reads very clearly as a polite, upfront and clear
explanation. The issue is simply that David found the explanation outrageous.
However there is nothing to suggest that ECKANKAR thought the information was
inaccurate or outrageous in any way, which is what David seems to be implying.
Continued in Part 2.
Paulji's Pal
says...
>
>David, you might want to correct or explain the following errors, and apparent
>misrepresentations:
>
>ERRORS:
>
>DAVID WROTE:
>Bill Popham contacted me in El Cerrito (just north of Berkeley) several months
>BEFORE the SCP Journal was published.
>
>Eventually a meeting with him and other Eckankar officials was arranged at
>Menlo Park, California.
>
>DOUG RESPONDS:
>David, this appears to be in contradiction with comments you made via the
>Internet last year. There you said that your meeting with Bill Popham was in
>regard to your book AND the SCP Journal. It was only due to your comment that I
>ammended my book to make that addition. According to your statement last year
>the meeting with Bill Popham in Menlo Park concerned both your book and the SCP
>Journal, and therefore it was after they were both published.
"Therefore"? Are you implying that Eckankar had no forknowledge that SCP was
doing an issue on Eckankar, months before that issue was published?
>
>There seems to be a contradiction here. Do you mean that the meeting in Menlo
>Park did take place after they had received a copy of the SCP Journal?
>
>Also, I'm not clear if you are suggesting that when Bill Popham first contacted
>you before that meeting, if he did so on his own, or was he then being paid by
>ECKANKAR to contact you? Your words here suggest that he was officially
>representing ECKANKAR when he first contacted you, but do you really know that
>was true? Did he tell you that he was being paid by ECKANKAR at that time, or
>is it possible that he called you out of his own interest? Perhaps it was Bill
>Popham who was concerned and talked Darwin into hiring him to make a more
>thorough study?
Doug, when you interviewed Bill Popham, what did he say about this issue?
You did interview him, right? Like you inteviewed Mike Noe, Darwin Gross, Ed
Gruss, Harold Klemp, Eckankar's legal office, etc?
Lane has presented his version of his meeting with Popham here several times.
Now tell us about your conversation with Popham.
I think this would be way more fruitful than asking a dozen "what if?" questions
for the purpose of raising doubt.
>
>
>DAVID WROTE:
>Well, let's analyze this ad closely.
>
>First, did a Baptist College distribute material against Eckankar?
>
>Not precisely.
>
>What did happen was that ONE Professor at an L.A. Baptist College made a
>photocopy of a term paper from a student at CSUN - a paper the Professor claims
>to have never read.
>
>DOUG RESPONDS:
>This is inaccurate, based on what we have all heard took place. Peebles' term
>paper passed through the hands of at least two Professors. It was handed out to
>at least one family of parishoners who had a daughter who was looking into
>ECKANKAR. It was this daughter who alerted ECKANKAR that a paper was being
>handed out against ECKANKAR. After that a photocopy of the paper was handed to
>Mike Noe, when Mike asked if he could get a copy. We don't know if other copies
>had been handed out by the earlier Professors. We do know that Ed Gruss was
>handing it out, and did so at least twice.
Of people who saw the dreaded paper, what's the grand total here, by this count?
Hint: you'll only need to use the fingers of one hand in making the tally, even
if you count in the Eck HI admitted liar who obtained the paper under false
pretenses.
Forest for trees perspective time: Eckankar reacted in a ridiculously severe
manner to a few people seeing "the paper." All the apologists in the world
can't change that fact.
Doug, when you contacted the Eck legal office, WHICH Baptist college did they
say they were referring to in the ad?
Did they say it WASN'T LA Baptist College, the college where Gruss was employed?
I realize you're trying very hard to get Eck org off the hook for this shameful
chapter of Eck history, and no doubt the Vairagi Masters really appreciate your
efforts.
But instead of offering these incredibly lame arguments from ignorance, let's
admit the truth here about something:
You, Doug Marman, Eckankar High Initiate, have so far DECLINED to cite any info
from the Eck org legal office on this and other topics.
Did you approach the Eck org legal office to ask about WHICH Baptist college
they were referring to?
Yes? What did they tell you Doug? Which Baptist college was it?
>
>
>DAVID WROTE:
>As for your claim that <<the information in the term paper was clearly false
>and defamatory,>> this is not so "clear" as you make it.
>
>First, Peebles' claim about Eckankar's tax status is not his "opinion" but
>comes from a letter from the Treasury Department which states that Eckankar
>doesn't have tax exempt status.
>
>Given that official letter it does indeed seem like Eckankar is skirting tax
>laws to Peebles.
>
>As for defamation, it is clear from reading the term paper that Peebles' didn't
>consciously make false statements at all, since the tax issue was based on a
>letter from the Treasury Department and the allegation about an illegitimate
>child was attributed (as an allegation) to one of his Eckankar mentors.
>
>DOUG RESPONDS:
>The word defamation means to accuse, to disgrace, to damage the reputation. By
>claiming these two things here - that Darwin had fathered an illegitimate child
>and that ECKANKAR did not have the tax exempt status that it claimed it had -
>both of these two things clearly go toward defaming ECKANKAR and Darwin.
>Peebles had a losing case, unless he could prove they were true.
>
>In the matter of the tax exempt status, the information Peebles had received,
>no matter how well intentioned or how official he thought it was, was false.
>The IRS, not the Treasury Department, is the proper source for that
>information.
You do know that the IRS is part of the Treasury Department, right? The IRS
homepage says "Treasury Department" right at the top.
This does help show that Peebles thought he had something to back
>up his claim, but unfortunately for Peebles the information was still false.
So assuming that Eck org did know the Treasury Department had stated Eck org was
in some way outside tax-exempt status, Eck org chose to do the honorable thing:
sue young Jim Peebles for a million dollars, rather than take up the issue with
the U.S. Government.
You can really see the hand of the Vairagi in guiding the affairs of our nation!
>
>Thus the statement that information in Peebles' term paper was clearly false
>and defamatory is correct, and nothing David has said here changes this. It is
>wrong to imply otherwise. It would have been a better argument for David to
>simply point out that Peebles thought his information was accurate, and was not
>intentionally spreading false information.
>
>However, Peebles is responsible for the truth when making such potentially
>damaging statements. And David knows very well that saying an illegitimate
>birth was alleged does not prevent the defamation. Peebles needs to have
>evidence to support such a statement. Calling it hearsay doesn't stop the
>damage to reputation that such a suggestion creates. No newspaper would make
>such a statement unless they could back it up.
No honorable religion would sue people for millions in the specific context of
what actually went down. Just my opinion.
Did Eckankar contact Peebles and Gruss and say, please, let's straighten this
out?
No, they did not. That's the real issue here, the key issue, which you so
strenuously ignore in all your arguments.
>
>
>
>DAVID WROTE:
>Instead of explaining the situation upfront and clearly to a naive 20 year old,
>Eckankar claimed (rather outrageously) that Kirpal Singh and others forged Paul
>Twitchell's name on many papers to claim him for their own purposes. A charge
>that has proven to be empty.
>
>DOUG REPONDS:
>The charge has never been proven to be empty. In fact, we still to this date do
>not know what was behind those claims by Darwin (actually written by BB). I
>agree that the claim has never been supported, and therefore such a claim
>should not be made unless it can be supported or at least explained, which is
>the same thing I've been saying about David's many claims. But to say that the
>charge was proven empty is simply wrong. In fact, it sounds as if Darwin is
>referring to something specific, but no one has uncovered what it was he was
>referring to. It is possible, however, that this claim of forgery was simply an
>imagined explanation, just as many of David's claims have been, which is why we
>should disregard them until they have something more to back them up.
!
By the way Doug, when you interviewed Darwin on the forgery issue, what did he
say? What did he tell you he was referring to, exactly, re the forgery issue?
And by the way again, what did Harold say when you asked him about this issue?
Isn't there something in the Eck discourses where Harold refers to Ruhani
forgery?
If there is, as has been reported here, are you by the same token saying you
"agree that the claim has never been supported, and therefore such a claim
should not be made unless it can be supported or at least explained"?
In respect to Harold's statments re forgery, that is?