Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.

Dismiss

President & Trustees Determined Employment Contracts - GROSS v ECKANKAR

46 views

Skip to first unread message

Peetee Aitchei

unread,

Oct 5, 2014, 11:33:30 PM10/5/14

President & Trustees Determined Employment Contracts - GROSS v ECKANKAR

US District Court - District of Oregon - Civil No. 84-228

EXHIBIT 2 - Sri Darwin Gross Lifetime Employment Agreement
- Changes, Duties, Salary & Increases 1981-1982
- Terms Set by the Board of Trustees
- Contract prepared by ECKANKAR Trustee's Lawyer; Not by Gross

Extracts from:
1984-09-19 Telephone Deposition of ALAN NICHOLS - GROSS v ECKANKAR
pp 12-25; 33-35; 38-42; 44-45; 47-57; of 116 pages

and Extracts from:
1983-10-22 Harold Klemp Speech Q&A HI Meeting
The higher initiates meeting, Saturday, October 22,
1983 at the World Wide Seminar held in Los Angeles, CA.
EXHIBIT B - PLAINTIFF'S SUR REPLY in Gross v Eckankar

--- ---

- Background Information: GROSS v ECKANKAR 1983-1984-1985 -

Darwin's known plans to relocate to Salem, OR - GROSS v ECKANKAR
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.religion.eckankar/UgZbnEsXHCw/jlW1P0UCTDoJ

Handling Hostile Attacks - Denials by Liars - Dead Agenting
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.religion.eckankar/7rFV6QBwkT8/n3Fdg0WiDCkJ

TELLING LIES: Clues to Deceit by an EK Man
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.religion.eckankar/lsDSOBYw8qE/ZWuWC8nd7HMJ

1983-08-07 FALSE ACCUSATIONS MADE AGAINST DARWIN GROSS
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.religion.eckankar/ihCJto3V_Mc/XE5p6-n3lfoJ

KLEMP ~ ECKANKAR versus Sri DARWIN GROSS 1983 to Eternity
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.religion.eckankar/mPJuV0Up3MI/e7uTfPSxGKAJ

1984-09-12 Deposition of Peter Skelskey - GROSS v ECKANKAR
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.religion.eckankar/MoYGeOXkZFI/dsqzPMN7RIUJ

1983-06-12 Board of Trustees Minutes - GROSS v ECKANKAR
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.religion.eckankar/aFyKyNB9SdQ/uj7BKd8Ljy4J

Necessity of a Strong Mind ~ Letters to Gail Vol 2 - Redux
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.religion.eckankar/mObK_NvpihQ/96GEYJGS6hoJ

SELF AS THE AXIS OF CAUSE AND EFFECT
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.religion.eckankar/NMzp8RpEBP4/KsiKmolmbt4J

Unethical Decision Making in Organizations - Online Course
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.religion.eckankar/mxZiE5uS4is/FoficVhWr9AJ

ECKANKAR: Follow the Money
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.religion.eckankar/uSS7h2citAY/l8mKmT9TAzEJ

ECKANKAR: Follow the Money - Part 2 Publishing Royalties
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.religion.eckankar/6McQ-6lCfqU/b-LB0Vpt-a0J

CULT OF HORRORS -- CODE OF SILENCE
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.religion.eckankar/WgnZElyh8jI/Al-mnac3A2cJ

MARMAN - The World Champion at Getting Things WRONG - Exhibit #692 Gross = Mahanta
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.religion.eckankar/BdLTTItzUOk/TTjrkTWdqO4J

2009 Doug Marman opines on Myths vs Truth
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.religion.eckankar/1mdsOwVoAHc/T-n_W5DzObEJ

2009 Doug Marman opines on Blaming or Criticizing
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.religion.eckankar/Cq88pDZA0bc/4mM-k2Q2SwMJ

Traits of Malignant Narcissism
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.religion.eckankar/BT6jbYbz3LY/JRcU8M2bA-wJ

THE VOICE OF THE SILENCE by H. P. Blavatsky
Instructions for the ignorant to the dangers of the Lower IDDHI
The Mind is the great Slayer of the Real. Let the Disciple slay the Slayer.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.religion.eckankar/opz-8tjQ7hs/NZI76KM3m54J

--- ---

President & Trustees Determined Employment Contracts - GROSS v ECKANKAR

PART ONE

[My comments are bracketed thus - CAPS for emphasis]

QUOTING extracts from:
1983-10-22 Harold Klemp Speech Q&A HI Meeting

HK: [...]
You've had questions about some of the rumors and rumors mixed with fact about
the situation with Darwin and myself and we'd like to go ahead and address them
this morning as well as we can, so that you have answers for the ECKists that
come to you.

[...]
and uh the other question was about Darwin being cut off and being penniless and
this is not true. The man has more money than you and I put together. He earns
four times more than I do and I don't care. I've come up the hard way. At this
time the ECKANKAR organization pays me a salary, Darwin's is four times more
than mine. These were salaries he set himself.

[...]
Ah, what else could I answer here. Oh, the mail, the salary. His paycheck is
being sent to him twice a month and the paycheck is every month is $6,666. I
don't know if it's and 66 cents, I don't know. But multiply it by twelve months
and you get an idea of what the man makes and we're STILL SENDING it to him.

[...]
and they [new lawyers] advised as we were bringing all this property back to
ECKANKAR, that we not pay his salary. But we said, we'll, the board, we just
consider loyal, lawyers as counsel, means counsel. You give us your best idea and
then we're going to do what we want anyway. And we said we'll pay him anyway.
One thing I balked at and this is why he became very upset, it was the $30,000
president's discretionary fund. It is something he put in the bylaws in 1978,
which means on top of his salary, he allowed himself $3O,OOO a year, with no
accountability to the board.

[...]
But AT THIS TIME he's still getting his money at the rate of $80,000 a year.
I make a quarter of that, so, you know about where I am. I haven't said anything
before. How can you say it, I've spent hours explaining to individuals and the
next morning they flip flop and they say oh, but he's just a nice guy who is
slightly off balance.

[...]
How far can we protecting the people who are trying to establish themselves
spiritually. I don't know, it's up to you. It's YOUR RESPONSIBILITY NOW.

[end quotes]

--- --- ---

NOTE: Delegation vs. Abdication
There is a critical distinction however, between delegating and abdicating,
and it's one that many business owners struggle with.

The dictionary defines delegate as:
"To give a task to somebody else with responsibility to act on your behalf.
To give somebody else the power to act, make decisions or allocate resources
on your behalf."

Sounds good, right? To abdicate, on the other hand, is simply this:
"To fail to fulfill a duty or responsibility." Not so good, is it?
[...]

In Chapter Four of The E-Myth Revisited, Michael Gerber provides an example
of a typical business entering its adolescence and abdicating
responsibilities to its first employee:

Quoting: "There's a critical moment in every business when the owner hires
his very first employee to do the work he doesn't know how to do himself,
or DOESN'T WANT TO DO... And in a single stroke, you suddenly understand what
it means to be in business in a way you never understood before.

'I don't have to do that anymore!' At last you're free. The Manager in you
wakes up and the Technician temporarily goes to sleep. Your worries are over.
Someone else is going to do that now.

But at the same time -- unaccustomed as you are to being The Manager -- your new
found freedom takes on an all too common form. It's called Management by
Abdication, rather than by Delegation.

In short, like every small business owner has done before you, you hand the
books over to Harry...and run.

Abdication can lead to disastrous results. Tasks aren't completed properly or
at all, you have unhappy customers, missed deadlines, financial problems --
all of which you discover well after the fact BECAUSE YOU ABDICATED THOSE TASKS
... AND RAN!
http://www.e-myth.com/cs/user/print/post/delegation-vs-abdication

The Oxford Dictionary defines to abdicate as "fail to fulfill or undertake
(a responsibility or duty)".

When people say "abdicate his responsibilities" they mean that a person has
failed to perform SOME DUTY that HE SHOULD HAVE PERFORMED.

"Abdicate (your) responsibility" - to stop accepting a particular
responsibility or obligation.

The government cannot abdicate responsibility for national security.

REMEMBERING THAT not only did Klemp Abdicate his Duty by resigning as President
CEO of ECKANKAR in April 1982 ....
Abdicate - to renounce (a throne, power, responsibility, rights) esp. Formally

...on the 22nd October 1983, he went further by ABDICATING his Responsibility,
as the HEAD OF ECKANKAR TO PERSONALLY HANDLE THE COMMUNICATIONS WITH -ALL-
ECKANKAR MEMBERS...
Klemp handed over his DUTY of CARE to ONLY those High Initiates who were
actually present at this meeting, and then Klemp knowingly and intentionally
left it to the GLOBAL ECKANKAR GOSSIP MILL to do the rest.

--- --- ---

Special Comments:

WITHIN ONE WEEK OF THIS MEETING, AND KLEMP'S PUBLIC STATEMENTS ABOVE,
THE DECISION WAS MADE BY KLEMP TO CANCEL DARWIN GROSS' SALARY/PAYCHECK & TO
EVICT GROSS FROM HIS ECKANKAR RESIDENCE IN SALEM OREGON WITH ONLY 7 DAYS
NOTICE. ALL EMPLOYMENT BENEFITS WERE CANCELLED; STOPPED WITHOUT ANY PRIOR
NOTICE. GROSS NEVER RECEIVED ANOTHER PENNY FROM KLEMP OR ECKANKAR.

THIS IS AFTER 15 YEARS OF DEDICATED SERVICE TO ECKANKAR, 12 YEARS OF THAT
FULL TIME 24/7, 365 DAYS PER YEAR. GROSS' EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT WITH THE BOARD
OF TRUSTEES WAS DISHONORED. IT INCLUDED SPECIFIC TERMS OF 'DEFERRED INCOME'
TO LATER BECOME A RETIREMENT INCOME AND ASSOCIATED BENEFITS FOR LIFE.

THE QUESTION ARISES, HOW WOULD KLEMP FEEL AND REACT, HOW WOULD KLEMP'S LOVING
FOLLOWERS FEEL AND REACT, IF TODAY THE ECKANKAR BOARD OF TRUSTEES RIPPED UP
KLEMP'S LIFETIME EMPLOYEE AGREEMENT, AND PUT HIM AND JOAN OUT ON THE STREETS?

TO ANSWER THIS QUESTION, HONESTLY AND FULLY, EACH PERSON MUST BE ABLE TO
ACCESS THEIR EMPATHY QUOTIENT (EQ). THOSE LACKING SUCH EMPATHY FOR OTHERS ARE
INCAPABLE OF ANSWERING THIS QUESTION ADEQUATELY, RATIONALLY, OR WITH INTEGRITY.

Why would this be so? It relates back to Vanity, the most difficult of the
five passions of the Mind to overcome.

SEE:

Lack of Empathy: The Most Telling Narcissistic Trait
Don't expect them to listen, validate, or support you.
http://www.psychologytoday.com - Page http://goo.gl/59Y8QR

and:

Narcissistic Personality Disorder is characterized by a long-standing pattern
of grandiosity (either in fantasy or actual behavior), an overwhelming need
for admiration, and USUALLY A COMPLETE LACK OF EMPATHY TOWARD OTHERS.

People with this disorder often believe they are of primary importance in
EVERYBODY'S LIFE or to ANYONE THEY MEET.

While this pattern of behavior may be appropriate for a king in 16th Century
England, it is generally considered inappropriate for most ordinary people
today.
http://psychcentral.com/disorders/narcissistic-personality-disorder-symptoms/

--- --- ---

QUOTING Extracts from:
1984-09-19 Telephone Deposition of ALAN NICHOLS - GROSS v ECKANKAR

Appearances of Counsel:
David W. Axelrod for Plaintiff Sri Darwin Gross
Michael Esler for Defendant ECKANKAR
Dan Rapaport for Alan Nichols
Gary Hardiman (in San Francisco) for THE NICHOLS LAW CORPORATION (TNLC)
(previously Corporate Lawyers for ECKANKAR terminated August 1983)

PART TWO:

Darwin Gross employment contract pp 12-25

To be continued ...

Peetee Aitchei

unread,

Oct 6, 2014, 2:55:53 AM10/6/14

PART TWO - President & Trustees Determined Employment Contracts - GROSS v ECKANKAR

Appearances of Counsel:
David W. Axelrod for Plaintiff Sri Darwin Gross
Michael Esler for Defendant ECKANKAR
Dan Rapaport for Alan Nichols
Gary Hardiman (in San Francisco) for THE NICHOLS LAW CORPORATION (TNLC)
(previously Corporate Lawyers for ECKANKAR terminated August 1983)

PART TWO

Establishing the existence of an Employee Agreement for
Darwin Gross and HAROLD KLEMP. And related subjects.

[My comments are bracketed thus - CAPS for emphasis]

QUOTING Extracts from pp 12-38:
1984-09-19 Telephone Deposition of ALAN NICHOLS - GROSS v ECKANKAR

[pg 12]

Q. [Mr Axelrod] Referring you to Exhibit 2, have you
seen this document before?
[Sri Darwin Gross Employment Agreement of October 1st, 1981]

A. [Mr Nichols] Yes.

Q. Did you prepare this agreement?

A. My office did, yes.

Q. When you say your office, do you mean that you
did not but someone else employed by you did?

A. Other than clerical and other staff who obviously
participated in it, I would say I prepared it.

Q. In connection with the preparation of that
agreement, can you tell me whether you represented
either Eckankar or Darwin Gross as their attorney?

A. Yes.

Q. Who did you represent?

A. Eckankar.

Q. In connection with and prior to the preparation
of that agreement, did you have any meetings with
representatives of Eckankar, whether officers or
members of the board of trustees, in...

[pg 13]

... which Darwin Gross also participated?

[...
Q. With representatives of Eckankar, either
officers or members of the board of trustees, in
which meetings Darwin Gross participated?

MR. RAPAPORT : For point of clarification,
Mr . Axelrod, do you mean in addition to Mr.
Gross who was at that time an officer and a
trustee of Eckankar?

MR. AXELROD: Yes.

MR. RAPAPORT: So that I understand it,
then -- this is Dan Rapaport -- you're saying
that did Alan meet with Darwin AND any other
person associated with Eckankar in connection
with this agreement?

Q. MR . AXELROD: Yes.

THE WITNESS: Prior to its drafting?

(By Mr . Axelrod) Is that a request for a
clarification or is that an answer?

A. Oh, no, I'm just that's a clarification. I
assume that still applies . In other words,...

[pg 14]

... prior to its drafting?

Q. Yes.

[...]

A. Yes. I would have to say I cannot remember at
this point.

Q. Do you recall whether you participated in any
meetings with Darwin Gross and another
representative of Eckankar at the time that this
was prepared or thereafter in which the subject
matter of this agreement was discussed or
reviewed?

A. Thereafter, yes.

Q. Can you tell me how many meetings there were?

A. Where the subject matter of this agreement was
discussed?

Q. Yes.

A. I think at least two, maybe three, but I'm
unclear. Again, I would have to review minutes
of board meetings and documents to be sure of
that.

Q. What documents would you want to review?

[pg 15]

A. Any correspondence that I might have sent to
Eckankar in connection with this agreement,
minute book of Eckankar.

Q. Now, I provided to Mr. Rapaport a letter dated
October 14, 1981, I believe.

MR. RAPAPORT: Yes, This is Dan Rapaport.
Mr. Axelrod did provide us some documents and
I'm looking for the one you referred to right
now, although in our review of these documents I
noted that they're INCOMPLETE and they contain
numerous GAPS in EACH DOCUMENT, and this makes
it difficult to provide a complete answer to
these questions, but I do have the October 14th,
1981 LETTER that you Have referred to which you
have marked as 11224 and 11225. Showing that to
the witness.

Q. (By Hr. Axelrod) Do you have that October 14
letter, Mr. Nichols?

A. Yes. I don't know if there's any question, though.

Q. Did you prepare that letter?

A. I'm looking at it right now.

MR. RAPAPORT: And then is there a question
pending, David?

Q. (By Mr. Axelrod) Did you answer whether you...

[pg 16]

... prepared it?

A. Oh, I didn't -- I didn't know I was asked. Did
I prepare it? YES.

Q. Does that refresh your recollection as to
whether or not you had any meetings with Darwin
Gross and a representative of Eckankar in
connection with the preparation or drafting of
that agreement?

A. There's a reference to -- it says, *so I can
answer any questions when I am there on
Thursday*, and included in that is [Board] minutes.
There's a reference to California minutes to be
signed. This is October 14, 1981, and October
31, I think there was another meeting of the
board also, and then it says to Darwin, "this
employment agreement", and I presume that's the
one we're talking about of October 1st, 1981.

Q. The one that's marked as Exhibit 2?

A. Exhibit 2, yes.

Q. Do you know whether it is in fact?

A. Yes, I'm sure it is. I'm not sure -- well,
Exhibit 2 says October 1, 1981.

Q. Now, my question is whether that refreshes your
recollection as to whether you had any meetings,
whether by telephone conference or in the...

[pg 17]

...office, in which Darwin Gross and another
representative of Eckankar participated
concerning the subject of Exhibit 2.

A. Yes, to that extent, it ties down the time for
me in terms of my own memory as to when the
employment agreement was forwarded from OUR
OFFICE to Eckankar. It also refers to a meeting
on Thursday which I can't specifically remember
as to exact Thursday meeting but I also know
there was a meeting on the 31st of October [1981],
or maybe like 30th or somewhere towards the end of
October, at the time of the Anaheim [CA, Annual
Board] meeting.

Q. Was that agreement marked Exhibit 2 discussed or
reviewed at the October 30 or October 31 meeting
in Anaheim?

MR. ESLER; Well, before the witness answers
the question, I think that you'd better lay a
foundation as to who was there, Mr. Axelrod,
because I may have an objection .

MR. AXELROD: Before we get to that meeting,
Mr. Rapaport, I believe I also left with you
minutes of meetings bearing production
numbers --

MR. RAPAPORT: Yes, you did. What number
do you want me to look at?

[pg 18]

[...]

MR. RAPAPORT: Here we go. Here's 11208.
I don't yet see 11209.

MR . AXELROD: Okay. I may not have given
that to you.

THE WITNESS: 11208 is an annual meeting of
members of October 30, 1981, at Anaheim.

MR. AXELROD: Do you also have 11244,
11245, and 11209?

MR. RAPAPORT: As I said, I don't find 11209.
Here's 11244, 11245 and 11209. YES, they are
stapled together.

MR. AXELROD: And those should be minutes
of the board of trustees of Eckankar for October
30, 1981.

MR. RAPAPORT: Annual meeting.

THE WITNESS: Annual meeting of the board...

[pg 19]

... of trustees, YES.

MR. AXELROD: And do you also have 11210 and
11211, which are CONSENT MINUTES of the
FIFTH day of OCTOBER, 1981?

MR , RAPAPORT: Give me those numbers again, please.

THE WITNESS: 210, 211.

MR. RAPAPORT: 210 and 211. Anything else?

MR. AXELROD: No.

(By Mr. Axelrod) Mr. Nichols, would you review
those documents?

A. I have all of them in front of me.

MR. RAPAPORT: Is there a question pending?

Q. (By Mr. Axelrod) Mr. Nichols, did you prepare
those minutes?

A. I don't believe I prepared -- I don't think --
I'm pretty sure I did not prepare the October 31
[1981] -- I didn't prepare 11208, 11210, 11244.
Here's 209. I don't think I did 209 either, or 11211,
but I RECOGNIZE THE FORMAT. I mean, it's MY FORMAT
on the annual meeting of board of trustees.

Q. With respect to the minutes that are CONSENT
MINUTES as of the fifth [5th] day of October, 1981...

[pg 20]

...did you have any participation in the
preparation of those minutes?

MR. RAPAPORT: Let the record show the
minutes are incomplete.

THE WITNESS: Yes. Based on what I see, I
would say NO, although they refer to a
CERTIFICATE AMENDING THE ARTICLES OF
INCORPORATION, and I may have had something to
do with that, but it's not attached here.

There's a CONSENT here that looks like a FORM,
and I may have prepared THE FORM but didn't
actually prepare it.

Q. (By Mr . Axelrod) Do you know when those consent
minutes were EXECUTED?

A. No, I don't. The ones dated October 5, 1981?

Q. Yes.

MR. RAPAPORT: The record should reflect the witness
is now looking at the letter of 19 October 14th, 1981.

THE WITNESS: Yes, I see here that there's a
reference here, item three, to DON GINN,
Eckankar, California minutes, to be SIGNED BY
Harold [WARE], Darwin [GROSS], Peter [SKELSKEY]
and Don [GINN], and a copy to be returned to TNLC.
[The Nichols Law Corporation] I guess maybe that's --
maybe that must have -- that could have been some...

[pg 21]

... earlier minutes because Harold didn't --
there was no place for Harold [WARE]to sign these.
Anyway, I didn't. This is not -- I just don't think
this is our typewriter from our office. That's
the basis of my answer that we didn't prepare
them.

[NOTE: Harold WARE had resigned from the Board & Office,
at that Oct 81 Board Meeting (I believe). Don Ginn left
in late '81 too. Post Oct 81 the 5 x Trustees were
Gross, Nichols, Ginn(?), Skelsky, Champion OR Engel
- In Jan 82 was added Klemp and Morris + Gross,
Nichols, Skelsky, Champion and Engel.
Many changes occurred in Trustees and Management
during 1981 and Jan 1982. This likely why Nichols
is having trouble recalling who was who, and when.
I will detail this accurately another time. ]

Q. (By Mr. Axelrod) Referring you to the minutes of
the meeting of the board of trustees dated
October 30, 1981, which are production numbers
11244, 11245, and I believe 11209 --

A. Yes, I have those.

Q. -- can you tell me whether 11209 is part of the
minutes of that meeting?

A. I couldn't tell you. There's a big blank. here
and that wouldn't be usual. I know this isn't
our typewriter or our office in the actual
preparation, so I couldn't tell you whether --
it has a number FOUR on it, while the other --
then there's no numbers at all. I couldn't tell
you about whether those meetings -- they're
OBVIOUSLY INCOMPLETE and I don't know whether
those papers go together or not.

Q. Is this the Anaheim meeting that you referred to
previously?

MR. ESLER: Is what the Anaheim meeting?

[skip pg 22 - pg 23]

[...]

Q. (By Mr. Axelrod) Mr. Nichols, were there any
meetings in which Darwin Gross and yourself
participated with other representatives of
Eckankar in which the subject matter of Exhibit
2 was discussed?

A. Yes.

Q. Can you tell me where and when those meetings...

[pg 24]

...took place?

A. Now, to the best of my memory, at least one of
those meetings at which the fact of the
agreement was brought up was the October meeting
of the Board of trustees in Anaheim, which,
according to this, was October 30, and seems to
me the date is October 30 [1981].

[KLEMP WAS PRESENT AT THAT MEETING] I don't have
independent recollection whether it would be 29,
30 or 31, but during the time of the meeting of
the board of trustees, there was discussion of
employment contract[s] including the one -- the
subject matter of employment agreement, Exhibit 2.

Q. Was the agreement itself reviewed?

A. I don't remember -- I don't remember reviewing
the agreement itself. I don't think so. If you
mean the TERMS of the agreement clause by clause.

MR. RAPAPORT: Do you mean, Mr. Axelrod, the
finished product here, Exhibit 2?

MR, AXELROD: Yes, yes.

THE WITNESS: No, I don't believe so, but I
couldn't -- I'M NOT SURE.

Q. (By Mr. Axelrod) I would like you to tell me, to
the best of your recollection, who was present...

[pg 25]

...at the meeting at the time that the subject of
Exhibit 2 was discussed.

A. Would be the board members , which would be Don
and -- Don Ginn and Darwin. I don't think HAROLD WARE
was there. I may be mistaken about that, but I don't
believe so. And I don't know whether Harold [Klemp]
was there or not. I don't think so, and I'm not sure
about Peter Skelskey, but I think maybe Chris Morris
may have been there. I'm not positive about that.

Q. Did it take place during the course of the board
meeting in Anaheim?

A. The reference to this employment agreement?

Q. Yes.

A. Yes.

Q. I'd like you to tell me, to the best of your
recollection, everything that was discussed at
that meeting with respect to the subject of
Exhibit 2.

A. Well --

MR. ESLER: Well, I don't know that I can
not object to a question that's that broadly
phrased, Mr. Axelrod. It seems to me that some
of those communications could include
attorney-client communications, ...

[Discussion ensued about attorney-client privilege,
which repeatedly interrupted this Deposition, at
times precluding Nichols from fully answering the
questions put to him.]

[pg 26]

[...]

Q. (By Mr. Axelrod) Mr. Nichols, was Darwin Gross
present throughout the meeting and specifically
the discussion of the subject of Exhibit 2?

A. Yes.

[pg 27]

Q. Did Mr. Gross say anything during the course of
that meeting concerning the subject of Exhibit 2?

A. Yes.

Q. Would you tell me what he said?

MR. ESLER: Well, again, Mr. Axelrod, if
the statement was made in the context of
obtaining legal advice or legal services from
Mr. Nichols for Eckankar, [...]

[pg 30-31]

Q. (By Mr . Axelrod) Mr. Nichols, in connection with
the October 30 [1981] meeting, were you requested by
any trustee present at that meeting to provide
legal advice concerning employment contracts
between Eckankar and any employee?

A. I'm unsure of that myself. l would tend -- you
said "and any employee"?

Q. Right.

A. I would tend to say I may have.

Q. Would that have been in connection with the
discussion of the TERMS OF EMPLOYMENT and
COMPENSATION of HAROLD KLEMP?

A. Yes.

Q. Would it have related to matters not set forth
in the minutes as you have them of the October
30 meeting?

A. Matters not set forth? No, it would be --

MR. ESLER: Before Mr. Nichols answers this
question, Mr. Axelrod, I think that invades the
attorney-client privilege, and so I'm going to
instruct the witness not to answer based on his
foregoing answer. [...]

[pg 32]

[...]

Q. (By Mr. Axelrod) Was the reference that you
described earlier to the subject matter of
Exhibit 2 a part of the legal advice which you
may have been requested to give concerning the
employment contract between Eckankar and Harold
Klemp?

A. "Part of"? I have difficulty with "a part of".
I would probably SAY NO.

Q. Well, again, I'll repeat my question then that
you tell us what was said by the participants of
that meeting including Darwin Gross concerning
the subject matter of Exhibit 2.

MR. ESLER: I've still got the same problem,
Mr. Axelrod. [...]

[pg 33]

MR. RAPAPORT: I think there's some confusion here.
Mr. Nichols has testified in connection with Exhibit
2, the statements made at this meeting HAD NOTHING
to do with LEGAL ADVICE vis a vis Darwin Gross, and
then you've also injected Harold Klemp in there and
that gave -- then he said, "Maybe, I think no, but
maybe".

Q. (By Mr. Axelrod) Let me ask it this way. Can
you tell us what was said concerning the subject
matter of Exhibit 2 without disclosing any of
the communications if any were made to you
requesting legal advice or your answers?

A. YES

Q. Then I'll again repeat my question and ask you
tell us what was said at that meeting concerning
the subject matter of Exhibit 2.

A. What was said by anyone?

Q. Yes.

A. The subject matter of the -- that is, THE BOARD
did discuss employment agreements , and I --
although I don't remember the exact words, I do
remember Darwin saying that there were...

[pg 34]

...employment agreements, that it was a good idea
to have employment agreements for major
management people, and that he himself had an
employment agreement, and I believe there was
discussion also about Chris Morris and his
having an employment, either having one or to
have one as well as is INDICATED BY THESE
MINUTES, the discussion of THE TERMS OF
EMPLOYMENT OF HAROLD KLEMP.

Q. Was there any discussion of the terms of
employment set forth in Exhibit 2?

MR. ESLER: Are you going to put in the
same proviso?

MR. AXELROD: Yes.

MR. ESLER: Are you able to answer that
question without disclosing any communications
with any attorney-client, with any
attorney-client communications?

MR . AXELROD: Are you asking me whether that
qualification pertains to that question?

MR. ESLER: Yes.

MR. AXELROD: Yes, it does.

MR. ESLER: With that understanding, then,
I have NO OBJECTION.

THE WITNESS: The question is whether...

[pg 35]

...specific terms of the employment agreement
referred to in the conversation of -- I'm
looking at the agreement itself. I believe there
WAS A DISCUSSION about having DEFERRED
COMPENSATION, that IS RETIREMENT KIND OF
COMPENSATION, but I do not remember any
discussion as to the EXACT AMOUNT. There was
discussion about GENERAL POLICY in connection
with EXPENSES and MEDICAL. I think there was
also a discussion about other LIKE BENEFITS,
like USE of AUTOMOBILES.

Q. (By Mr. Axelrod) Do you recall any of the
specific discussion concerning any of those
subjects?

A. I think any discussion really about any of those
would apply to the subject matter of DARWIN'S
AGREEMENT AS WELL AS HAROLD [KLEMP'S] and maybe even
Chris [MORRIS'], but I'm not sure about the latter.

Q. So apart from what you've stated, was there any
discussion of specific terms of Exhibit 2?

MR. ESLER: With the same limitation on the question?

MR. AXELROD: Yes.

[...]

[pg 36]

[more attorney-client discussions]

[...]

Q. (By Mr . Axelrod) Well, let me ask this. Have
we exhausted your recollection of what was said
during the board of trustees meeting concerning
the subject matter of Exhibit 2?

[pg 37]

A. Well, only to this extent, that in the
discussion of -- you're talking about the terms,
and, as I mentioned, that the discussion of
TERMS WAS IN THE CONTEXT OF TWO OR MAYBE THREE
CONTRACTS, and so in terms of my being able to
pinpoint, you've exhausted my memory so far as
being able to pinpoint discussions that relate
ONLY TO Exhibit 2, remembering that Exhibit 2
has, you know, things ABOUT BENEFITS, USE OF
AUTOMOBILE, MEDICAL AND DENTAL COVERAGE AND SO
DOES Exhibit 11245 APPLYING TO HAROLD [KLEMP's]
CONTRACT.

Q. Without disclosing the content of any
communication, PRIOR to the preparation of
Exhibit 2, had you met with any representative's
of Eckankar concerning the subject of that
exhibit?

MR. ESLER: Is this including Mr. Gross or in
addition to Mr. Gross?

MR. AXELROD: In addition to Mr. Gross, or
excluding Mr. Gross for that question.

THE WITNESS: I'm unsure but I think I might say
-- I think it would PROBABLY BE YES.

Q. (By Mr. Axelrod) Who did you meet with?

A. Or discuss would be Harold WARE. I'm just...

[pg 38]

...assuming that Harold WARE -- I don't know
whether my memory is correct or not on -- I
believe Harold Ware [TRUSTEE] was either operations
manager or PRESIDENT prior to October of 1981 .

Do you have a specific recollection of meeting
with Mr . Ware concerning the subject matter of
Exhibit 2?

A. Only -- only very dimly, and it would only be
a telephone call in connection with this
assignment. It was the general OPERATIONAL
PROCEDURE, if this is the period we're talking
about where Harold Ware was the manager, that
Harold WARE WAS COMMUNICATING A LOT WITH ME
ABOUT MOST SUBJECTS.

Q. How frequently would you communicate with him
generally during this period of time, the summer
and -- [1981]

A. Well, subject again to my memory being correct
that he was the operations manager or whatever
His title was at that time -- I think he was
actually PRESIDENT [CEO] at least some of this
time before this -- assuming that is this period
of time and I think it was, then I would say
anywhere from TWO TO FOUR TIMES A MONTH.

[end quotes]

--- --- ---

Repeat QUOTING of an extract from:

1983-10-22 Harold Klemp Speech Q&A HI Meeting

"At this time the ECKANKAR organization pays me a salary,
Darwin's is four times more than mine. These were

salaries HE SET HIMSELF."

[end quote]

NOTE:
Not True! At best it is Spin.
At worst an intentional Lie.
At the very worst, incompetent and/or self-deluded.

More later...

Peetee Aitchei

unread,

Oct 6, 2014, 9:15:00 PM10/6/14

> On Monday, 6 October 2014 17:55:53 UTC+11, Peetee Aitchei wrote:
> PART TWO - President & Trustees Determined Employment Contracts - GROSS v ECKANKAR

PART THREE - President & Trustees Determined Employment Contracts - GROSS v ECKANKAR

US District Court - District of Oregon - Civil No. 84-228

EXHIBIT 2 - Sri Darwin Gross Lifetime Employment Agreement
- Changes, Duties, Salary & Increases 1981-1982
- Terms Set by the Board of Trustees
- Contract prepared by ECKANKAR Trustee's Lawyer; Not by Gross

Appearances of Counsel:
David W. Axelrod for Plaintiff Sri Darwin Gross
Michael Esler for Defendant ECKANKAR
Dan Rapaport for Alan Nichols
Gary Hardiman (in San Francisco) for THE NICHOLS LAW CORPORATION (TNLC)
(previously Corporate Lawyers for ECKANKAR terminated August 1983)

PART THREE
- ESLER blocking full, complete, and truthful answer by Witness.
- ECKANKAR makes THREATS of Litigation against Gross via Epstein Lawyers
- GROSS' Salary & other TERMS determined by Harold Ware, then President
& Trustee of ECKANKAR, plus by Standard Employee Agreement proceedures
followed by ECKANKAR for about two decades.
- Basic Contract TERMS set for Darwin Gross were the same used for
Paul Twitchell, Harold Klemp, Harold Ware, Chris Morris, Bob Brant, etc..

[My comments are bracketed thus - CAPS for emphasis]

QUOTING Extracts from pp 39-45:
1984-09-19 Telephone Deposition of ALAN NICHOLS - GROSS v ECKANKAR

[pg 39]

Q. [Mr Axelrod]
During this period of time prior to October 14,
1981, did you have meetings with Darwin Gross
concerning the subject matter of Exhibit 2?

A. [Mr Nichols] Concerning his employment contract,
I would say yes.

Q. Would you also have bad --

A. But not -- you know, not this particular piece
of paper, because it was apparently created
sometime in early October, so I don't know that
there were any drafts going back and forth. I
don't remember that.

Q. In the development of the terms of that
agreement, did you have discussion with Darwin
Gross?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you also have discussions with Harold Ware?
[President & Trustee of ECKANKAR in 1981]

A. Yes.

[...]

[pg 41]

[...]

MR. RAPAPORT: Mr. Axelrod, you are simply
asking did Mr. Nichols speak with Mr. Ginn or
Mr. Ware about Darwin's contract?

MR. AXELROD: Yes, during the period of
time that it was being developed.

THE WITNESS: The terms of the contract --

MR. ESLER: Well, I think we're drawing a
distinction here between the terms of the
contract which I believe are found in Mr.
[Harold] Ware's contract and in Mr. [Chris]
Morris' contract as well as some of the terms
are found IN ALL THREE OF THE CONTRACTS.

[Meaning it was a standard operating procedure]

MR . AXELROD: I was UNAWARE that Mr. Ware
had a written agreement.

MR. RAPAPORT: Is there a question?

MR. AXELROD: I guess that question is to Mr. Esler.

MR. ESLER: You're asking me if Mr. Ware --

[pg 42]

...I don't think he ever signed a written contract,
but I think in the fall of 1981 contracts were
being prepared for Mr. Ware and Mr. [Morris].

Q. (By Mr, Axelrod) Mr. Nichols, did you have
discussions with Mr. Ware concerning the level
of compensation or the duration of the
employment agreement between Darwin Gross and
Eckankar?

MR ESLER: Okay, Now, if that can be -- if the
answer to that question requires you to divulge
a confidential communication that you
received as the attorney acting for Eckankar
performing legal services for Eckankar, until I
KNOW WHAT THE ANSWER IS OFF THE RECORD, I am
going to INSTRUCT THE WITNESS not to answer the
question.

MR. RAPAPORT: Well, I want to say that I
have told Mr . Esler that we would be happy to
meet with him OFF THE RECORD and since be seems
to be SO DESIROUS OF SUCH A MEETING BUT ONLY
after his client, Eckankar, HAS RETRACTED THE
THREAT OF LITIGATION COMMUNICATED TO ME BY
another ATTORNEY for Eckankar, Mr. Epstein
(phonetic), and UNTIL that time, I feel that
any such informal meeting would be highly...

[pg 43]

...inappropriate and is UNACCEPTABLE.
If you remember, I am an attorney as well
and I personally DON'T THINK it's privileged,
but if Mr. Esler as attorney for Eckankar
instructs Mr. Nichols NOT TO ANSWER he will
follow that directive. ABSENT a specific
instruction, HE WILL ANSWER THE QUESTION.

MR. ESLER: I have NO AUTHORITY at this
time to do anything on THE OFFER that Mr.
Rapaport just outlined. I didn't hear about it
until shortly before the depositions began.

MR. RAPAPORT: In that case, if Mr. Esler
is giving Mr. Nichols an instruction NOT TO
RESPOND to the question, he will follow that.
Absent that, we will answer the question. Is
there an instruction?

MR. ESLER: Well, my instruction is not to
answer the question IF IT REQUIRES you to
divulge a confidential communication you
received or which you made to an employee of
Eckankar in connection with rendering legal
service and providing legal counsel to Eckankar.

MR. RAPAPORT: I DON'T DEEM THAT the instruction
that we are requiring from Eckankar and
therefore I have -- I'm NOT INSTRUCTING Mr...

[pg 44]

...Nichols not to answer the question, and perhaps
you can just repose the question, Mr. Axelrod.

THE WITNESS: I'd forgotten what the question is.

Q. (By Mr . Axelrod) The question was whether or
not you had any discussions with Harold Ware
concerning the TERMS of compensation or the
DURATION of the agreement.

A. I believe so.

Q. Can you tell me on how many occasions?

A. No, I can't tell you on how many. I would think
probably one.

Q. Can you tell me what was discussed during that
meeting?

MR. ESLER: I've got the same instruction to
the witness. If that is going to require him to
divulge a confidential communication that he had
between an employee of Eckankar and himself in
connection with rendering legal services, then
he should not answer the question.

MR. RAPAPORT: We heard this all before and
my speech goes on the record here too, and since
there's NO INSTRUCTION by Mr. Esler to Mr. Nichols
not to answer the question, Mr. Nichols can go
ahead and answer the question.

[pg 45]

THE WITNESS: Then the discussion that Harold Ware
[President & Trustee] and I have, I don't
remember any discussion as to duration, but I
do remember that there was talk about what the
BASIC TERMS would be on Darwin's contract as
well as his, and although I don't remember the
exact amount, and the AGREEMENT PROVIDES $65,000,
I don't remember whether that specific sum was
more or less than that in any discussion, but
the very basic terms of Darwin's CONTRACT with
Eckankar WERE TALKED ABOUT.

[NOTE: Prior to it's final drafting and SIGNING in
October 1981]

Q. (By Mr. Axelrod) When you say " the basic terms " ,
can you tell me what you refer to if it is other
than the level of compensation and the duration
of the agreement?

A. Well, I think -- I suppose duration or
agreement, there was the question in not only as
to the amount of the dollars but I believe there
was a difference as to the various employee
benefits. I don't have IN FRONT OF ME Harold [Ware's]
or Chris [Morris'] contract or any other contract
if there were any for Don Ginn -- I don't think
there was one - - but I think there was a
difference in the provisions as to business
expenses, for example, ENTERTAINMENT EXPENSES, so
forth. As to the....duration --

[pg 46]

[more of the same discussions on attorney-client privilege]

Mr ESLER: [...] Mr. Axelrod, going to instruct
Mr. Nichols NOT TO ANSWER the question.

Q. (By Mr . Axelrod) Mr. Nichols, were you ever
asked by Harold Ware to communicate to Darwin
Gross any specific employment or contract terms
with reference to the preparation of Exhibit 2?
[ie Gross' Employment Agreement of October 1981]

MR. RAPAPORT: Would you ask that one, again,
Mr. Axelrod? I didn't hear it at all.

Q. (By Mr . Axelrod) Mr. Nichols, were you ever
ASKED by Harold Ware to communicate to Darwin
Gross any specific employment terms in connection
with YOUR preparation of Exhibit 2?

A. Communication -- any specific terms?

Q. Yes.

A. Well, I suppose YES in the sense it was...

[pg 48]

...understood the agreement would be submitted to
him [Gross]. That's ALL the specific terms, if that's
what you mean.

Q. Did Mr. Ware REVIEW that agreement or the
substance of that agreement BEFORE IT was
submitted to Darwin Gross?

A. I don't know the answer to that.

Q. Were you ever ASKED BY Darwin Gross to
communicate specific TERMS of THAT agreement or
to INCLUDE SPECIFIC TERMS OF THAT AGREEMENT and
present those to HAROLD WARE?

A. NO, I don't remember any such thing. Obviously,
if there were letters or anything to that effect,
I would recollect by memory, but I don't remember
ANY SUCH THING.

Q. In connection with the preparation of Exhibit 2,
WHO PROVIDED THE SUBSTANCE OF THE TERMS with
respect to the duration of the agreement and the
level of compensation?

A. As to duration, I am not sure, I think the level
of compensation came FROM HAROLD WARE [TRUSTEE], and
presuming he was the operations manager at that
time. I'm quite SURE HE WAS.

Q. And you're unsure about the source of the duration?

[pg 49]

A. Yes. Of course when you asked, I wonder where I
you know, where I could have gotten it. If it didn't
come from there, it would have to come from either
the manager or Darwin.

Q. Did Eckankar have a policy of having agreements
of any specific duration with any Living Eck Masters
or FORMER LIVING ECK MASTERS?

A. Does the Eckankar have a policy as to duration
for Living Eck Masters .

Q. Yes.

A. The duration of employment agreements between
itself and Living Eck Masters?

MR. ESLER: Before the witness answers that
question, if, in answering that question, Mr .
Nichols, you are going to divulge a communication
which you obtained while providing legal services
for Eckankar, or as part of providing legal
services for Eckankar, I'm instructing you NOT TO
ANSWER the question, and if as counsel told you,
you don't have the knowledge to make that
determination under Oregon law and if you continue
to refuse to tell me what it is that your answer
consists of, [0FF the record beforehand] I'm
going to instruct you not to answer regardless
of whether it is --

[pg 50]

MR RAPAPORT: Instruction not to answer, Mr. Axelrod,
although we're quite familiar with general
principals of attorney-client privilege and knowing
that Oregon is probably relatively similar, we have
to follow our ex-client's instructions not to
respond to these questions whether or not we believe
they're outside the scope of privilege.

MR. AXELROD: Silence is NOT MY acquiescence that
Oregon law will determine that matter.

Could the witness be banded Exhibit Number 3?

[end quote]

END OF PART THREE

Part 1 - https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.religion.eckankar/KLUpDZYbO7w/3jVpCRM2jN4J

Part 2 - https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.religion.eckankar/KLUpDZYbO7w/MlDonIvw6VgJ

More later ....

Peetee Aitchei

unread,

Oct 7, 2014, 2:57:32 AM10/7/14

> On Tuesday, 7 October 2014 12:15:00 UTC+11, Peetee Aitchei wrote:
> PART THREE - President & Trustees Determined Employment Contracts - GROSS v ECKANKAR

PART FOUR - President & Trustees Determined Employment Contracts - GROSS v ECKANKAR

PART FOUR

- ESLER blocking full, complete, and truthful answer by Witness.

- Board meetings '81, April 82 discuss Gross Employment
- Klemp voted in as Trustee & President, then resigns April '82
- Board discusses and approves Salary increase for Gross due to role changes
- Nichols explains Terms and various discussions of Gross Employment
- Several changes in the Board of Trustees 1981-1983
- Discussion of deferred compensation as a form of retirement for the
Living Eck Master and his predecessor Darwin Gross.
- LIFETIME Employment Agreement and ongoing Service to Eckankar FOR LIFE
by Darwin Gross was confirmed, asserted and agreed to in at least THREE
BOARD OF TRUSTEES MEETINGS 81-82 WITH NO OBJECTIONS or Disagreements.

[My comments are bracketed thus - CAPS for emphasis]

QUOTING Extracts from pp 50-75:
1984-09-19 Telephone Deposition of ALAN NICHOLS - GROSS v ECKANKAR

[pg 50]

MR RAPAPORT: Instruction not to answer, Mr. Axelrod,
although we're quite familiar with general
principals of attorney-client privilege and knowing
that Oregon is probably relatively similar, we have
to follow our ex-client's instructions not to
respond to these questions whether or not we believe
they're outside the scope of privilege.

MR. AXELROD: Silence is NOT MY acquiescence that
Oregon law will determine that matter.

Could the witness be handed Exhibit Number 3?

MR. RAPAPORT: Yes, he has been handed Exhibit Number 3.

THE WITNESS: Yes?

Q. (By Mr . Axelrod) Have you ever seen this
document before, Mr. Nichols?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you have it available to you in connection
with the preparation of Exhibit 2?

A. I don't remember that.

Q. Do you recall whether you had any discussions
with any representatives of Eckankar IN THE YEAR 1981
concerning the substance of this agreement...

[pg 51]

...or proposed changes in it?

[...]

Q. (By Mr. Axelrod) Mr. Nichols, you indicated that
there were two or three meetings in which the
subject of Exhibit 2 [Gross Contract] was discussed,
and we've identified one as the October 30 [1981] annual
[Board] meeting in Anaheim.

Do you recall at what other meetings in which Darwin
Gross and another representative or representatives
of Eckankar the subject matter of Exhibit 2 was discussed?

A. [Mr Nichols] Yes.

Q. When were those other meetings?

A. I believe in -- let's see -- 1981, in early -- 1982.

Q. Now, was there a 1981 meeting apart from the annual
meeting in Anaheim?

A. Not that I remember, although dates are --

[pg 52]

Q. A little fuzzy?

A. Don't have anything in front of me to pinpoint
dates.

Q. Can you tell me when or identify in any way the
1982 meeting or meetings that you refer to?

A. One such meeting in '82 I remember was a DISCUSSION
in connection WITH INCREASING Darwin's SALARY.

Q. Did I give you purged minutes of a meeting
apparently held by telephone conference call on
April 14, 1982?

A. Dan [Rapaport] just handed me 11202 and 111203.

Q. You should also have 11201 as part of that. I
may have omitted that, but let me tell you that
11201 indicates that 11202 and 203 are portions
of minutes of A SPECIAL MEETING held by telephone
conference on April 14, 1982, at 11:30 am.

Page 11201 further states that "Present were Sri Darwin
Gross, Sri Harold Klemp, Chris Morris, Alan B. Nichols,
Don Ginn and by telephone Peter Skelskey."

Do you have a recollection of that meeting?

A. YES.

MR. RAPAPORT: Where was that meeting? If it's the one
I'm thinking about, was it in Menlo Park?

[Note: Yes it was in Menlo Park office]

[pg53]

MR. AXELROD: The page that I have does not
identify that. What it states is that there was
a special meeting held by telephone conference
but it states that present were Sri Darwin
Gross, Sri Harold Klemp, Chris Morris, Alan H.
Nichols, Don Ginn, and by telephone, Peter
Skelskey . Absent was Bob Engel.

[NOTE: This means GORDON CHAMPION joined the ECKANKAR
Board as Trustee post April 1982, replacing Don Ginn.
And that it is likely Bob Engel joined the Board in
October 1981 to replace Harold Ware who resigned both
his Office as President and Management roles for
ECKANKAR.

This is why Harold WARE had no "place to sign" the
Consent form for the early Oct 1981 meeting, that was
discussed earlier. Are you following along here? Not
for the slow or the weary nor disinterested observer.]

THE WITNESS: Okay.

Q. (By Mr . Axelrod) Do you have a recollection of
whether or not that was a physical meeting where
Mr. Skelskey participated by telephone or
whether everyone was on by telephone?

A. No, I think just -- I don't remember Mr. Skelskey.
Maybe there was one other person by telephone but it
was a physical meeting.

Q. Now, document 11202 indicates that Mr. Klemp
RESIGNED as the PRESIDENT at that meeting.
Do you recall that resignation?

[#11202 is Part Minutes of the April 14, 1982 Board of Trustees meeting.]

A. Yes.

Q. Had he been the president for a period of time
of time prior thereto?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you know when be became president?

A. Not exactly, but I would guess in the end of --

[pg 54]

...it wasn't in October of '83, [error, meant "OCT 1981"]
I don't believe. I think it was in early 1982 , maybe
like January.

[Correct - 1982-01-09 Board Meeting HK to President and
shows a functioning Board in October 1981 as well.]

Q. Did you participate in the preparation of these
minutes?

A. We did not -- this was not our timing. I may
have reviewed them but I didn't prepare them.

Q. Can you tell me whether the first paragraph on
page 11202 accurately reflects what occurred at
that meeting?

MR. RAPAPORT: Let the record show that the
first paragraph appears to be deleted and first
writing on that page starts with the word "after".

MR. AXELROD : That's the paragraph I'm referring to.

THE WITNESS: What I'm looking at is an obviously
incomplete set of minutes, but, yes, I'd say
THAT'S ACCURATE.

[NOTE: GROSS is asked by the Board to become the President,
he agrees, and by UNANIMOUS VOTE by all Trustees present
duly elects Gross as such. This is WITH KLEMP's Agreement.]

Q. (By Mr . Axelrod) Now, down below there is a
reference to INCREASING THE SALARY of the PRESIDENT.

A. Yes.

Q. Can you tell me to the best of your recollection
what was discussed in the board meeting concerning
that subject?

[pg 55]

MR. ESLER: [Yet again] Well, before he answers
that question, Mr. Axelrod, I would like you to
exclude , or else I will, if you want, exclude
the possibility that any communications that
were made at that board meeting were
attorney-client privilege communications.

Q. (By Mr . Axelrod) Mr. Nichols, in connection with
a discussion of the subject matter of Exhibit 2,
or in connection with the discussion as set
forth in the minutes following in light of the
assignment of all copyrights and so on, were
you requested to or did you give any confidential
legal advice?

A. At the April 14 meeting?

Q. In connection with those subjects.

MR. RAPAPORT: In other words, did he give
legal advice about increasing Darwin's salary 15 grand?

MR. AXELROD: Yes . Well --

MR. RAPAPORT: Is that the question?

MR. AXELROD: The subject matter that I want to review
is whatever discussion took place 23 at that meeting in
connection with the subject of Exhibit 2, Darwin's
employment agreement, or any of the material that's set
forth in the...

[pg 56]

...minutes following the THIRD paragraph on page
11202 , and my question is can you tell us what
was discussed at the board of trustees meeting
concerning those subjects without disclosing a
request for or advice given by you --

THE WITNESS: I'm not going to answer that. We've
been taking the position all day that we're not
going to make the decision what is privileged or
not. I'm not going to make the decision for you
as well as for Mr. Esler. You ask me the questions
and let him object or not. I'm not going to decide
what's privileged or not.

Q. (By Mr . Axelrod) Was Darwin Gross present
throughout that meeting?

A. Yes.

Q. Was there any discussion concerning the
existence of Exhibit 2, its subject matter, or
specific terms of that agreement during this
board meeting?

A. YES.

Q. Can you tell me what was said and by whom?

MR. ESLER: Well, let's break that down into the
three parts because I may not have any objection as
to the existence of Exhibit 2 or...

[pg 57]

...the subject matter of Exhibit 2, but the
specific terms, I may have some objection to
that . So why don't you ask him the question in
three parts, Mr. Axelrod.

Q. (By Mr . Axelrod) Was there a discussion of the
specific terms or any specific term of Exhibit 2?

A. YES.

[...]

[pg 58]

THE WITNESS: I'm only wondering in terms
of the word "negotiations". You mean a
discussion as to that specific term?

MR. ESLER: No. I mean Mr. Gross proposing as an
adversarial party that he be given X, Y, or Z,
and any person in behalf of Eckankar saying yes or no.

THE WITNESS: Answer is yes.

MR. ESLER: Okay. What term was that?

THE WITNESS: Salary.

[...]

Q. (By Mr. Axelrod) Were there other specific terms of
Exhibit 2 that were discussed during that board meeting?

[pg 59]

A. Yes.

Q. Can you tell me what those terms were were?

[...]

THE WITNESS: Well, I don't know what you mean by
"adversarial", but the answer -- if you're defining
negotiations as you did before I would say YES,
OTHER MEMBERS DID COMMENT ABOUT THAT.

MR, ESLER: Well, commenting is not the same as
negotiating. I want you to understand the distinction.

THE WITNESS: I think we understand the distinction.
The answer then is YES, we don't know what the term is.
Maybe we can find out what the term is.

MR. ESLER: What was the term?

THE WITNESS: The term that was discussed...

[pg 60]

...besides SALARY, would be the LIFETIME OBLIGATION
and DUTIES, or the LACK thereof as well as the presence,
and by "presence", the obligations of duties on this point.

MR. ESLER: Any other terms that were similarly negotiated
between Eckankar and Mr. Gross at this meeting?

THE WITNESS: I don't remember. There may have been but I
don't remember as to whether they only had to do with
employee benefits, whether there was any discussion of
that, I'm not sure. I don't remember.

MR. ESLER: Okay.

MR . RAPAPORT: Your turn, Mr. Axelrod.

Q. (By Mr. Axelrod) Was there any discussion about
the fact or existence of Exhibit 2?

A. Yes.

Q. Can you tell me what was said at the board
meeting in connection with that? That portion
of the minutes reflects that Mr. KLEMP RESIGNED,
Mr. Gross took HIS place and Mr. Gross' SALARY
WAS INCREASED?

A. The subject matter of those resolutions, you
mean?

Q. Yes.

[pg 61]

A. I believe Mr. Klemp had said that he had been
president for several months [January 9, 1982] and
that be was going to resign from that position pretty
much as stated in those minutes. Darwin said that he
was willing to take over again as the president.

I believe, although there's nothing --

Q. Was it at that point that there was a discussion
about the things that you've indicated were discussed
concerning Exhibit 2, its existence, the compensation --

A. Well, I think it was after that. The first
discussion was all about PRESENT -- you see, I'm
not sure, but I think those BYLAWS, Article 4,
Section 7, the requirement that the president
being the Living Eck Master, I think that was
inserted, was either in the October [1981] minutes,
I don't remember whether it was October or -- no,
couldn't have been, I guess, but it was sometime
between October of 1981 and this point [April 1982]
the bylaws were amended to say that the president
would be the -- the Living Eck Master would be
the president of the organization, and that was
apparently not working out, and so therefore
those bylaws were deleted.

--- ---

[NOTE: Discussions to change the ByLaws mentioned
above occurred at Board level meetings in or before
October 1981. A partial trigger for that was the
resignation of Harold Ware, the then President of
ECKANKAR.

Obviously, Gross was completely aware that Klemp was
about to become the new Living ECK Master at the WW
seminar that October. This had been coming for some
time [see Klemp's Bio books, and Gross' own comments
in this regard post-1983].

KNOWING this, Gross intentionally set the wheels in
motion for the Living ECK Master to also be
President/CEO of ECKANKAR.

Initially himself, but knowing after Oct 1981 it
would be Klemp. So any beliefs out there that Gross
had "planned ahead" to keep total control of Eckankar
by acting as the President himself, is unfounded and
unsustainable in any way.

This change was set in train by early October 1981,
and was discussed and finally approved at the Oct 30th
1981 Annual Board meeting of ALL Trustees, plus KLEMP
himself was present at this very meeting.

Time was needed for Lawyers to do the administrative
paperwork for this LEGAL change to the ByLaws, and
these were then presented and the Resolution was Voted
on UNANIMOUSLY in the January 9th 1982 Board Meeting.
Klemp was Voted in as first a new Trustee, Gross'
resignation as President was Voted on, and then Klemp
was Voted in as the new President.

Gross had been acting as President of ECKANKAR only
from the departure of Harold Ware until Klemp accepted
that LEGAL TITLE and the DUTIES and RESPONSIBILITIES
that came with that special position as an Officer of
ECKANKAR Corporation: President & Chief Executive Officer.

It DEFIES BELIEF that Gross at any time planned to
EXCLUDE KLEMP from the Management Control of ECKANKAR.

At least not until Gross realized that Klemp was very
incompetent in his role, and therefore he came to the
conclusion that Klemp was totally incapable of
fulfilling his duties as planned by Gross during the
prior 3 years of working as The ECK Master with Klemp.

Gross did realize that he himself had made a serious
mistake. And he acted, in good faith to both manage and
correct that lapse in judgment as best he could. Klemp
didn't help the situation in any way, in fact acted
against the BEST INTEREST OF ECKANKAR AND THE MEMBERSHIP.

His dysfunctional personality and multiple character
disorders [going back before he jumped off a bridge
and was hospitalized in 1971] culminated in extremely
unbalanced behavior, paranoid delusions, listening to
office gossip, distrusting Gross' good intentions, and
then REFUSING TO SPEAK WITH GROSS ONE-ON-ONE, MAN TO
MAN, FOR OVER A YEAR!

Empathy? Put yourself in Gross' shoes - you finally
realize you have made a very serious mistake - what
would you have done differently than he, assuming your
overwhelming motivation was both protecting ECKANKAR
as a movement under attack from external forces and
yet also SERVING the best interests of ALL Initiates
worldwide?

Remembering that in the lead up October 1981 it was the
long term HEALTH REASONS that led to your decision to
appoint Klemp in the first place! To lighten the load!

When in fact the complete OPPOSITE as the reality. Klemp
could not even walk through the front door of the Menlo
Park office like a normal person, such was his ongoing
dysfunctional mental state and incompetence in the role.

Klemp himself acknowledges this on numerous occasions,
even the 2012 talk after his broken hip. He would enter
via the back loading dock, via the storage area, and
then through the ladies restroom to sneak into his
office, so that he wouldn't have to face or speak with
people in the Office! That's simply pathetic.

It isn't simple "shyness"; it is NOT HUMILITY; it's the
extreme vanity of a disturbed individual unable to cope
with the basics of life, or his work commitments or
his critically important responsibilities to ECKANKAR.

Are you so certain that it was Gross who was the
problem and "unbalanced" beyond help? Sure he wasn't
perfect, but who is? I am not. Are you? Did he need to
be 'perfect' every day during those 2 years dealing
with someone like Klemp?

Of course, in the end he verbalized his frustrations
to others, who wouldn't have? He made unilateral
decisions at times, and asserted his own judgement
after over a decade in the role as head of ECKANKAR.
He was always a mover and a shaker type of leader,
and at times probably even ridiculed Klemp, when it
would have been preferred he kept his mouth shut
publicly. So what?

Was Klemp any better at the Oct 1983 HI meeting? With
the "black magician" accusations? Disclosing private
and confidential information to the world? Don't think
so, I know so. But each to their own opinions.]

See refs on Behavioral Pathology, BPD & NPD
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.religion.eckankar/BT6jbYbz3LY/JRcU8M2bA-wJ

--- ---

Continuing on ...
The Witness, Mr Nichols, was answering Mr Axelrod:

"Was it at that point that there was a discussion
about the things that you've indicated were
discussed concerning Exhibit 2, its existence,
the compensation --"

[pg 62]

... A. They aren't attached here, but I believe
that requirement [LEM = President] had been put in
recently and was now taken out, and so that was
discussion now, again, these minutes are incomplete,
and I don't know whether it was the FIVE at this
meeting or at some prior meeting when Darwin bad
resigned as president, I believe, in which there
was a discussion of Darwin and HIS ACTIVITIES
with Eckankar.

[IT WAS BACK IN OCT 1981 - Klemp present as new LEM.]

I can't tell from these minutes because they're
only a part of it. So either -- I'm not sure whether
it was in that meeting or not.

Q. Now, I want to make sure we're communicating.
Was the discussion with respect to Exhibit 2 --
are you there?

A. Yes.

Q. -- its fact and its existence as well as the
specific TERMS that you mention being
compensation and lifetime obligations and duties
or the lack thereof discussed at the [Jan 82] board
meeting in which Darwin resigned as president or
was it discussed in the April 14, 1982 meeting
or at both?

A. We're talking about the April meeting and I know
it was discussed then and I believe it was also...

[pg 63]

-- by "discussed" it was referred to and
understood of its existence, but it may have
also been when he resigned as president. There
were two meetings in there, but -- and I think
they were fairly close together.

[NOTE: Mr Nichols, has an excellent memory, and never
stumbles in answering questions. No Ums, aaahs, nothing.
Straight to the point. says when he is sure, says when
he is unsure, and says when he cannot remember.
He never uses the pat answer: "I don't recall".
He is lucid and fluid.

Please refer to this recent Ref:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.religion.eckankar/lsDSOBYw8qE/ZWuWC8nd7HMJ

Also compare Nichols' responses with the other "sworn
depositions" of Klemp, Skelskey, Morris, and the approach
of Mr Esler here, he and Epstein in Court in front of
the Federal Court Judge.

Yes, Gross did lose the case in the end, that's true.]

Q. Can you tell us to the best of your recollection
what was said at the April 1982 meeting
concerning either increasing the salary by
$15,000 or the various subjects that you
mentioned in connection with Exhibit 2?
[Klemp was present at this meeting too!]

A. Yes, I think the -- this in connection with the
increasing of salary, they -- Darwin or even
Harold Ware back prior to October of 1981 had
talked about -- I think somewhere or other there
was SOME KIND OF AUTOMATIC SALARY INCREASE provision.

I'm looking at Exhibit 3 and I don't see it
in there, and it's not in the October 1, 1981
contract either, but I do remember some discussion
at some point based on increases of salary so far
as Darwin was concerned. In this instance, Darwin
was saying that be would take over as president.

The minutes indicate that the chairman *suggested*
that the salary of the president be increased.
If I'm not mistaken...

[pg 64]

...that was myself and that would be consistent. I
at least at that point was thinking both of the
-- of an increase in salary which doesn't show
in any of THIS DOCUMENTATION but also with an
INCREASE IN DUTIES, Darwin had said obviously
NOT at this meeting but at the OTHER meeting and
I'm maybe getting the two meetings -- I could be
confusing one from the other in terms of my
memory, but Darwin had indicated that so far as
HIS BEING PRESIDENT, that HE WAS GLAD TO BE
RELIEVED OF THAT when he was relieved [BY KLEMP]
so that when be was coming back at this meeting
and saying he was going to take it, he suggested
that that would BE A LOT OF ADDITIONAL EFFORT so
far as HE WAS CONCERNED. That was certainly behind
my suggestion the salary be increased.

As to the -- I guess I am now -- I'm talking
about the $15,000 increase and the question as
to the NEGOTIATION OF THAT. If I remember correctly,
there was discussion by BOARD MEMBERS that IT
SHOULD HAVE BEEN MORE THAN THAT.

In fact, I think I remember a reference to $20,000,
and there was also some reference that the -- again
this reference as to increase -- maybe it wasn't
automatic increase, but COST...

[pg 65]

...OF LIVING INCREASE or something like that, was
ALSO TALKED ABOUT.

[Again note that KLEMP was Present at this meeting.]

Q. Was there a discussion about the fact that
Darwin had a WRITTEN employment agreement
setting forth some of these terms at this time?

A. Well, there was a reference to the fact that he
had an agreement . I don't remember an employment
agreement. I'm almost sure that there was no
discussion paragraph by paragraph of the employment
agreement.

Q. Do you recall what the discussion was that
referenced an agreement?

A. Yes.

Q. What was that discussion?

A. The reference was that HE HAD an employment
agreement and that it was -- I think I remember
there being a question of whether it was 60 or
65,000, and the question of -- and that was also
part of his question whether it should be 15,000
more or 20,000 more.

[Again note that KLEMP was Present at this meeting.
AND that MINUTES were made and distributed to ALL!]

Q. In connection with the discussion concerning
increasing his salary, was there then a discussion
of the absolute level of that salary?

A. No. It was a discussion of the increase.

Q. I thought you indicated from your prior answer...

[pg 66]

... that there was discussion about whether his
CONTRACT called for 60 or 65,000.

A. YES. BUT, in other words, the total of that is
$80,000. I don't remember any discussion as to
PRO OR CON, $80,000. I remember a discussion as
to THE INCREASE AS BEING 15,000 or 20, MAYBE MORE,
but at least I REMEMBER THE 20.

Q. And you do recall a discussion about what he was
then being made?

A. YES. In terms of the 60 or 65. I don't remember
as to whether they're -- I don't believe the
contract itself was there.

Q. Can you tell me what was discussed with
reference to what you referred to as LIFETIME
OBLIGATIONS and DUTIES or the lack thereof?

A. Well, I do remember discussion that -- from
Darwin saying that it was -- that HE ALWAYS
INTENDED TO WORK FULL TIME FOR ECKANKAR in
whatever capacity -- now, that may be relating
back to this president business, that is,
whether he was president or not, it was his
intention to be full time for Eckankar, and
therefore, you know, that was all be would be
doing in any event, and HE WAS IMPLYING HAVING
NOTHING TO DO WITH AGE, but only with ABILITY TO...

[pg 67]

...CARRY OUT THE SERVICES.

Q. Was there a discussion of the lifetime
provisions in any of the agreements at this
meeting?

A. Other than what I've mentioned, no. The general
idea was that Darwin was to -- AS HE THOUGHT
DEDICATED HIS ENTIRE LIFE TO ECKANKAR and
therefore WOULD BE EMPLOYED by Eckankar in one
capacity or another. In fact, I think -- well,
I don't know whether it was this time. Once
there was a talk about consultant kind of role.

In fact, if you look back at the minutes WHEN HE
RESIGNED AS PRESIDENT [JAN 1982], there might be
something in there.

Q. He resigned as president in January of 1982.
Did that resignation take place at a board meeting?

A. well, I think so. If that was the same one that
amended the bylaws to require that the president
be the Living Eck Master. I don't remember exactly.

Q. I believe your recollection is correct although
I recognize you don't have the January 1982 minutes.
I will represent to you for the purpose of
refreshing your recollection that the...

[See: 1982-01-09 Board Meeting - GROSS resigns as
President - KLEMP elected as Trustee and President]

[pg 68]

...minutes of the January 1982 board session make
reference to A DISCUSSION OF DEFERRED COMPENSATION
as a FORM OF RETIREMENT for the Living Eck Master
and his predecessor [DARWIN GROSS].

Does that r e fresh your recollection as to
whether there was any discussion in the January
1982 meeting, recognizing you don't have those
minutes --

MR. ESLER: I DON'T HAVE THOSE MINUTES EITHER,
Mr. Axelrod, but I also DON'T RECALL THAT reference.

Q. (By Mr . Axelrod) Mr. Nichols, do you recall such
a discussion at the January 1982 meeting?

A. Discussion concerning what, the lifetime say
that over, discussion concerning what?

Q. Deferred compensation as a means of retirement
or securing --

MR. ESLER: Mr. Axelrod, this is invading attorney-
-client privilege. There's no question about it.
I'm going to move -- actually I guess he hasn't
answered the question. So what I'm going to do is
OBJECT to the question and INSTRUCT the witness
NOT TO ANSWER IT.
I think your question is improper and it's misleading.
It was a discussion that did not deal with Mr....

[pg 69]

...Gross' contract and you're aware of that, but it
certainly would have dealt with an attorney-client
privileged area and you're also aware of that.

Q. (By Mr. Axelrod) Well, let me state the
question so we have it clear.

Mr. Nichols, it is my representation to you
that the minutes of the January 1982 meeting
refer to a discussion concerning deferred
compensation as a vehicle for retirement for the
Living Eck Master and his predecessor.

Does that refresh your recollection as to

whether there was such a discussion at that
meeting?

MR. ESLER: Okay. I am going to instruct the witness
not to answer since the question clearly calls for
the witness to divulge confidential communications
between the attorney and his client.

Q. (By Mr . Axelrod) Does that refresh your
recollection whether there was any discussion at
the January 1982 meeting --

MR. RAPAPORT: Mr. Axelrod, we feel we can't answer
that question based on Mr. Esler's objection.

[pg 70]

MR. AXELROD: I understand. This is a different
question.

MR. RAPAPORT: Sorry. Sounded the same to me.
Let's go on.

Q. (By Mr. Axelrod) Does that refresh your
recollection as to whether there was any
discussion at the January 1982 meeting
concerning the fact or existence of the
employment agreement marked as Exhibit 2?

A. Assuming you are actually reading from the
minutes and assuming that January is that
meeting WHERE HAROLD BECAME PRESIDENT, [IT IS]
if that's all the same meeting, I would say that
that would refresh my recollection.

Q. As refreshed, do you have a recollection of
whether or not the fact or existence of Exhibit
2 was discussed at that meeting?

A. YES.

Q. Can you tell me what was discussed concerning
that exhibit or its subject matter?

[...]

[pg 71]

[...]

Q. (By Mr, Axelrod) Mr. Nichols, was there any
discussion of the fact or existence of a written
employment agreement between Eckankar and Darwin
Gross and the January 1982 meeting?

A. Existence, yes.

Q. Was that discussion in connection with the
request to you or communication by you of legal
advice?

MR. RAPAPORT: Was the discussion about this
exhibit in connection with a request of Eckankar
to you for legal advice or something else? Was
it related to legal advice, this discussion?

THE WITNESS: This discussion? Who said --
Mr. Axelrod, are you asking about the existence
of discussion or are you saying was this related
to a question put to me at the meeting in
connection with legal advice?

Q. (By Mr. Axelrod) I'm saying was the discussion
in which there was communication about the
existence of Exhibit 2 made IN CONNECTION WITH a
request for the rendering of legal advice?

A. No.

[pg 72]

Q. Can you tell me what was discussed about the
existence or fact of Exhibit 2 or the written
employment agreement?

A. Particularly referring to the words that you
were talking about in terms of DEFERRED
COMPENSATION, this idea has been a SUBJECT OF
MANY DISCUSSIONS AND THE BOARD WAS PICKING UP
WITH THOSE PRIOR DISCUSSIONS as to DEFERRED
COMPENSATION for the Living Eck Master and, as
you say, THE PREDECESSOR, which at that time
would be DARWIN [GROSS].

I mean, that concept of having a LIFETIME BOTH
DUTY AS WELL AS BASIS OF SUPPORT for the RETIRED
Living Eck caster was something that WAS DISCUSSED
THERE, since Darwin WAS TERMINATING as PRESIDENT
and HIS AGREEMENT, that is, the 1981 agreement was
EMPLOYING HIM AS PRESIDENT.

Now, I'm not positive about this, but I think that
previous to that, HAROLD WARE was the --

Q. Can you tell me what was discussed at the meeting

A. In January of --

Q. -- that specifically referred to an employment
agreement between Darwin Gross and Eckankar,
whether in connection with the --

[pg 73]

A. I think only in recognizing that there was
such an agreement, and recognizing if this is the
meeting where he resigned as president that he
was no longer president, and THAT THEREFORE this
same comment I was talking about about HIS
CONTINUING TO SERVE ECKANKAR, and I don't have
those minutes again, but I thought there WAS
SOME REFERENCE either orally or actually in the
MINUTES as to HIS AGREEING TO PLAY A CONSULTING
ROLE so far as Eckankar is concerned, and IN THAT
CONNECTION HE was talking about his, that is
Darwin was talking about his, PLANS AND WHAT HE
would do so far as HELPING Eckankar with HAROLD
TAKING OVER AS PRESIDENT, and I think that
[CHRIS] Morris was either -- I guess he was --
I think Chris Morris was the OPERATIONAL MANAGER
or was planning to be. No, I'm sure he was
already, I think, the operational manager.

Q. Was this discussed in the context of whether or
not Darwin WOULD CONTINUE TO WORK WITH ECKANKAR
UNDER THE TERMS OF THE WRITTEN EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT?

A. YES [YES!!!!]. It's kind of reversed. It's in the
CONTEXT OF WHAT DARWIN was going to do FOR Eckankar,
in other words, whereas the substance...

[pg 74]

...of HIS AGREEMENT and OBLIGATIONS in TERMS of HIS
ANNOUNCED IDEA OF HIS FUTURE SERVICE TO Eckankar.

Q. Was there a discussion of the lifetime employment
aspects of THE WRITTEN AGREEMENT at that meeting?

A. There CERTAINLY WAS THE IDEA OF LIFETIME SERVICE
and EMPLOYMENT and THE FACT that HE WAS NOT GOING
TO BE PRESIDENT, still going to CONTINUE TO SERVE,
and would SERVE FOR HIS ENTIRE LIFE.

Q. Do you have a recollection of what the
discussion was concerning the services that
Darwin Gross would continue to perform for
Eckankar?

A. This is in January of '82?

Q. I'll withdraw that question. Apart from these
meetings which are THREE BOARD OF TRUSTEES MEETINGS,
were there ANY OTHER MEETINGS in which you recall
there BEING SPECIFIC REFERENCE to the existence or
subject matter of EXHIBIT 2?

A. Well, you gave me some papers with a letter to
Joan Jenkins -- what year are you talking about,
any year?

Q. Well, it would have to be after the preparation
of Exhibit 2.

[pg 75]

A. Well, you gave me some papers indicating a
letter which reminded me that I HAD SENT THAT
AGREEMENT TO JOAN JENKINS, and I may have talked
to her in connection with THE DISTRIBUTION OF
ALL THESE THINGS and getting the paperwork done.

Q. Apart from that, were there any other whether
meetings of the board of trustees or other
meetings at which the subject matter of Exhibit
2 came up that you recall at this time?

A. Well, THERE MUST -- SURELY, YES.

Q. Do you recall them specifically at this time
or --

A. I would again HAVE TO REVIEW THE MINUTES and,
you know, CORRESPONDENCE THAT might refer to it that
I just do not remember.

BUT THERE WAS ALSO DISCUSSION OF THE EXISTENCE
OF THE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT IN THE SUMMER OF 1983.

MR. AXELROD: Okay. I'm about to switch to
some of the board meetings in the year 1983.

Is this a good time to take a break down there?
The court reporter's fingers are getting a little
rubbery.

MR. RAPAPORT: Okay.

MR. AXELROD: How about if I call you back in
five to ten minutes?

[end quote]

--- ---

NOTE: The final response by Nichols is a VERY
IMPORTANT and CRITICAL point.

Because in July 1984 ECKANKAR through it's lawyers
had vigorously argued SUCCESSFULLY to the Court
AGAINST providing the Plaintiff the opportunity to
access and view the MINUTES of ALL BOARD MEETINGS
from 1981 through to 1983; and other factual
documents and communications held by ECKANKAR.

In legal terms it is called to "COMPEL DISCOVERY"
by Court Order, where one PARTY is provided with
MATERIAL EVIDENCE in possession and control of
the OTHER PARTY.

SEE REF:
1984-07-05 Esler for Defendant Eckankar in Opposition to Motion to Compel Discovery

END OF PART FOUR

Part 1 - https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.religion.eckankar/KLUpDZYbO7w/3jVpCRM2jN4J

Part 2 - https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.religion.eckankar/KLUpDZYbO7w/MlDonIvw6VgJ

Part 3 - https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.religion.eckankar/KLUpDZYbO7w/xYEEIjTchKwJ

More later ....

Peetee Aitchei

unread,

Oct 8, 2014, 3:21:48 AM10/8/14

> On Tuesday, 7 October 2014 17:57:32 UTC+11, Peetee Aitchei wrote:
> PART FOUR - President & Trustees Determined Employment Contracts - GROSS v ECKANKAR

PART FIVE - President & Trustees Determined Employment Contracts - GROSS v ECKANKAR

EXHIBIT C - MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S FIRST MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
- 1982-01-09 Meeting Minutes Board of Trustees Eckankar

PART FIVE
- January 1982 By-laws Amended & Board increased to 7 Trustees
- January 1982 Chris MORRIS Voted in as Trustee, Treasurer & CFO
- January 1982 KLEMP Voted in as Trustee & President

- Discussion of deferred compensation as a form of retirement for the

Living Eck Master (President) and his predecessor Darwin Gross.

- LIFETIME Employment Agreement and ongoing Service to Eckankar FOR LIFE
by Darwin Gross was confirmed, asserted and agreed to in at least THREE
BOARD OF TRUSTEES MEETINGS 81-82 WITH NO OBJECTIONS or Disagreements.

- Darwin's known plans to relocate to Salem, OR - GROSS v ECKANKAR

1984-09-19 Telephone Deposition of ALAN NICHOLS - pp 76-94
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.religion.eckankar/UgZbnEsXHCw/AKbMga_EO_0J

[My comments are bracketed thus - CAPS for emphasis]

QUOTING Extracts from pp 97-116:
1984-09-19 Telephone Deposition of ALAN NICHOLS - GROSS v ECKANKAR

and

QUOTING Extracts from:
1983-06-12 Meeting Minutes Board of Trustees Eckankar & Sept. Agenda Plans

QUOTING Extracts from:
1982-01-09 Meeting Minutes Board of Trustees Eckankar, Agenda & Attachments

Present 5 x Trustees: Sri Darwin Gross (E.M., President), Alan H Nichols
(Chairman), Peter Skelskey, Bob Engel, Don Ginn (Secretary).
Plus: Sri Harold Klemp (LEM), and Chris Morris (new Office/Business Manager)

[NOTE Updated info on Board of Trustees changes:

- Peter Skelskey joined the Board as Trustee in October 1981 to replace
Harold Ware. BUT in Skelskey's sworn deposition of 1984-09-12 he stated
he didn't become Trustee until January 1981. His evidence was very
inattentive to giving thoughtful, complete, accurate or relevant answers
to the specific questions put to him by Counsel.

- By October 1982, Mr Don Ginn had resigned his Employment and Board seat
and was replaced by Gordon Champion as Trustee.

- In the June 1983 Board Meeting Chris Morris, who had already resigned
without notice, his Employment and Board seat, was replaced by Mr. Jan
Davidson as Trustee and Treasurer; and by Bob Brant as 'Office Manager'.

- Chris Morris would later accept a Paid Consultancy for Klemp in August
1983; plus he gave evidence in support of the Defendant against Gross.]

--- ---

Quoting from:
1982-01-09 Meeting Minutes Board of Trustees Eckankar, Agenda & Attachments

[...]

It was then moved by Skelskey, seconded by Sri Darwin
Gross and unanimously passed that Chris Morris be elected as
Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer. The individual involved
not voting for himself:

RESOLVED: That Chris Morris is elected as Treasurer
and Chief Financial Officer of this corporation.

Chris Morris was present and accepted his election and
DUTIES as provided in the BY-LAWS of this corporation.

After discussion of the RESPONSIBILITIES of the
Living ECK Master and of the OFFICE AS PRESIDENT
of the corporation, it was moved by SKELSKEY,
seconded by Morris and unanimously passed:

RESOLVED: That Section VII of the By-laws be amended
to provide that the Living ECK Master will be the
President of ECKANKAR.

RESOLVED FURTHER: That the number of Board Members
be increased to SEVEN.

RESOLVED FURTHER: That Sri Harold Klemp is elected
Trustee Member of the Board.

RESOLVED FURTHER: That the resignation of Sri Darwin
Gross as President of the corporation be accepted.

RESOLVED FURTHER: That Sri Harold Klemp is elected
PRESIDENT OF THE CORPORATION.

Sri Harold Klemp was present and accepted his election
and DUTIES as provided in the BY-LAWS of this corporation.

Page 1

[...]

LEAR JET TO BE SOLD

The preliminary report on the Lear 35-A was discussed.
It was moved by Sri Darwin Gross, seconded by Skelskey
and unanimously passed:

RESOLVED: That the staff is directed to cancel the
agreement with Dharma Aircraft, Ltd. upon sale of the
aircraft and to CALL the NOTE of Dharma upon sale by
Dharma of the Lear 35-A aircraft at the best available
price, but at a price not less than to recover
ECKANKAR's cost.

[Note: So much for claims that Gross was insistent
on having his own Lear Jet for personal use.]

Page 2

[...]

DEFERRED INCOME CONSIDERATIONS

Deferred Income was next discussed as RETIREMENT
considerations for the Living ECK Master, current and
predecessor [ie GROSS].

It was recommended this be handled on an individual basis
and be presented to the Board as necessary.

The copyright donation COMPENSATION for works donated
by the ECK Masters was also discussed, and it was
recommended to be handled when it comes up as LEGISLATION
is currently pending on the matter.

Respectfully submitted,
DON GINN, SECRETARY

Page 3

Examples of other matters
CONSIDERED AND APPROVED BY THE BOARD

ECKANKAR Financial Report
Approval of payments in excess of $3,000
Resolution for:
a. Operations Checking Account
b. Approval of Payments in Excess of $l,000

Video Department Expense & Income Report

Status of Charters
To: ECKANKAR Board of Trustees
From: Gary Hardiman [Lawyer @ TNLC]
Date: December 18, 1981
Subj: Back-up Details re Status of Domestic Charters

Quoting: "I did not plan to burden the Board with all the details,
but after seeing this felt the Board should fully understand
the situation: this further research has revealed that only 3 of
the 17 chartered areas [LOCAL SATSANGS] are current with required
fees and filings -- Connecticut, New Mexico, and North Carolina.
Serious Board consideration should be given to DISSOLVING
Washington D.C., Indiana, Louisiana, Michigan and Missouri, at least."

Equipment Proposals
TO: ECKANKAR Board of Trustees
FROM: Steve Fandel
DATE: December 20, 1981
SUBJECT: Justification for a Larger Computer

Operations Manager's Presentations
a. Preliminary Report on Lear 35-A
b. Proposals for Relocation and/or Expansion of EIO Facility
c. EIO Status Report--from Management Team
[EIO - Eckankar International Office]

IWP ROYALTY SPLIT FOR ECK ARTISTS

TO: DARWIN
FROM JOAN [CROSS aka KLEMP]
RE: IWP RECORD/TAPE % POLICY
DATE: Nov. 2, 1981
Quoting: "After reviewing Harold WARE's and Mark's proposals,
I'd go along with a graduated royalty but with the following
modification in percent distribution:
First 1000-1200 sold: To Artist 30% - To IWP 70%

TO: DARWIN (comments you requested)
FROM: MARK
RE: RECORD ALBUM PERCENTAGES FOR IWP
DATE: 11-2-81
Quoting: "HINDU KUSH MOUNTAIN BOYS PLUS ONE
Rec sold = 1195 Royalty paid $5,343
Tapes sold = 1044 Royalty paid $4,676
Release is approximately 22 months old .
Therefore the following proposal:
First 1,000-1,200 sold: To Artist 50% - To IWP 50%

TO: Sri Darwin
FROM: Harold
DATE: 10-15- 81
RE: Proposal for Record Album Percentages
Quoting: "I feel this is a viable proposal which would sustain an
avenue for the ECK culture to reach the ECKist and the world without
creating an underground ECK mailorder business and mailing lists."

[end quotes]

[NOTE: This has all the appearances of a well run Board of Trustees,
doing a lot of business in a profession manner in 1981. This seemed
to be the case in June 1983 as well. Much water went under the bridge,
and Eckankar was doing fine. It was Solvent and being managed well.
Mr Nichols ran a highly regarded CA Law firm that specialized in
Non-Profit Organizations. TNLC had been Eckankar's Corporate lawyers
since 1977 without any complaints as to their INTEGRITY or work
performance. Until Klemp personally judged otherwise, despite his lack
of knowledge and experience in this area of operating a Corporate Board
effectively.

--- --- ---

Quoting from:
1984-09-19 Telephone Deposition of ALAN NICHOLS - GROSS v ECKANKAR

[pg 97]

[...]

Q. (By Mr. Axelrod) Mr. Nichols, was there a
discussion between members of the board of
trustees concerning Mr. Gross' relocation or
proposed relocation to Oregon?

[pg 98]

A. Yes.

Q. Can you tell me what was discussed by the
members of the board of trustees concerning the
proposed scope of the activities which he would
do in Oregon?

A. The idea that was discussed was a continuation
of previous discussions and comments about
operations in Oregon and more particularly about
what Darwin's FUTURE was to be in terms of his
support in carrying on his activities for
Eckankar, and he sought, as was discussed, his
activities were to continue with his music and
getting out to talk to people and provide
programs to people and to do publishing for
people who were not presently members of
Eckankar but might be interested in finding out
about that path, and in that connection, it was
-- the idea would be that Darwin was -- that was
presented was that Darwin would operate there.

He also had a number of ideas in connection
with THE WORK of Paul Twitchell, and it was
pointed out that his -- that in connection with
the UNPUBLISHED WORKS of Paul Twitchell that
perhaps some OTHER works should be published and
that he should undertake that in terms of...

[pg 99]

...reviewing them and getting them in shape and
so forth to do that.

It was also referred to as a -- that he could
manage and operate with an OREGON CORPORATION
the surplus funds that Eckankar did not --

MR. RAPAPORT: We have an objection pending.

MR. ESLER: I'm considering where this answer is
going. Mr. Nichols, if you're going to answer,
continue your answer, into an area where you're
going to testify about legal advice which you
gave to Eckankar or Eckankar sought from you in
connection with your services to Eckankar as its
lawyer, instruct you not to answer.

MR. RAPAPORT: Did the court reporter catch that?

MR. AXELROD: Yes, she did.

MR. RAPAPORT: Okay. Bearing that in mind, Mr.
Nichols, could you continue your answer?

THE WITNESS: Well, I am attempting to describe
discussion around the table, and as to whether
any of the facts or the discussion would relate
to legal advice, I'm -- at least at the...

[pg 100]

...board meeting I'm just talking about what was
said, not by me, by other members of the board
and the description in general of what this
discussion was about Darwin moving to Oregon,
legal implications -- there's legal implications
in everything, all of it, as I see. In other
words, anything that happens in terms of being
A FACT has some legal implication.

MR. ESLER: Let me explain what my specific
concerns are, Mr. Nichols, and then maybe you'll
understand them.

In the months of June and July, 1983, BILLING
statements from the Nichols Law Corporation [TNLC]
to Eckankar indicate that legal research was done
and legal analysis was prepared regarding AN
OREGON CORPORATION, organizing an Oregon corporation
or CHANGING an existing corporation.

In addition, correspondence between yourself and
Eckankar indicates that you during that period of
time rendered to Mr. Gross acting as the president
of Eckankar, I assume, legal advice regarding
MINUTES to be drafted for Eckankar relating to
an Oregon corporation, and we believe that if
that work was actually undertaken by you as a
result of direction given...

[pg 101]

...to you by an employee of Eckankar, even though
it may be Darwin Gross himself, that that would
be confidential and privileged information.

Now, the problem that I have is that I don't know
what your answers are going to be and I have not
had an opportunity to discuss them with you, and
absent that we're going to instruct you to not
answer the question.

I would point out that your STATEMENT for
the month of June 1983 was paid by Eckankar.

MR. RAPAPORT: I don't know what that has to do
with it other than THE FACT THAT MANY OF THE
LATER ONES WEREN'T.

MR. ESLER: Only ones that weren't paid were
JULY and early August [1983].

MR . RAPAPORT: Are you claiming that there's a
significance, though, in connection with July,
that there's no attorney-client privilege,
Mr. Esler, for JULY?

MR. ESLER: No, I don't think the question of
payment has anything to do with privilege but
I thought I'd THROW THAT IN for the record.

MR. RAPAPORT: Oh, okay. I have another question.
Based on that, then, I guess that's about all
you're going to get as an answer based...

[pg 102]

...on the instruction at this point. Perhaps you
can ask another question? Let the record show
that I mean, we're stopping mid-answer here.

MR. AXELROD: Let me ask Mr. Esler a question.
The materials that you refer to as --

MR. ESLER: Pardon?

MR. AXELROD: The materials that you refer
to as relating to the performance of legal
services have, it is my recollection, been
produced TO Eckankar BY US. I'm referring to
the communications regarding the preparation of
minutes and the actual minutes and changes that
were made in the name of DHARMA AIRCRAFT,

MR. ESLER: Well, the changes that were made in
the name of Dharma Aircraft are public record.

What I'm referring to are records which, as far
as I know, are not published and those are the
billing statements from the Nichols Law
Corporation to Eckankar and I'm stating on the
record that it is our position today at least
without knowing what the answers to those
questions are going to be that we won't waive
the attorney-client privilege and we will
instruct this witness not to answer the question
that you pose to it insofar as I believe based...

[pg 103]

...on the little information that I have that
it would invade the attorney-client privilege.

MR. RAPAPORT: I'm a little unclear now. This is
Mr. Rapaport speaking again. Because, Mr.
Nichols, I don't think his answer was going
to discuss any billing statements. I think his
answer was simply discussing things that occurred
during this meeting ABSENT instructions to
him as to future legal work.

MR. ESLER: Well, I disagree with that.

MR. RAPAPORT: Well, we'll follow your instructions,
Mr. Esler, and not answer, but I think you might
want to establish what Mr. Nichols' feeling is
on that point, Mr. Axelrod.

MR. RAPAPORT: That's a suggestion, Mr. Axelrod.

Q. (By Mr. Axelrod) Mr. Nichols, were you requested
to make any recommendation as to the mechanics
by which such a --

MR. RAPAPORT: That didn't come through.

Q. (By Mr . Axelrod) Mr. Nichols, were you requested
to give any advice or make any recommendation to
the members of the board as their legal counsel
concerning the mechanics by which a RELOCATION
to Oregon by Darwin Gross and the performances...

[pg 104]

...of services for Eckankar from Oregon might have
been accomplished at that board meeting?

A. No.

Q. Did you make any such recommendations concerning
that subject --

A. At the board meeting?

Q. Yes.

A. No.

Q. Were you a passive observer to the discussion
which took place concerning the relocation and
what activities might take place there?

A. Well, I wouldn't say completely passive.

Q. Okay. Can you tell me what other members of the
board discussed concerning that subject at the
board meeting?

A. Well--

MR. ESLER: Well, again, if you're going to go into
an area that involves -- [...]

[pg 105]

[...]

MR. AXELROD: I believe he testified that he was
not asked to make any recommendations by any
person or to consider any recommendations by
any person at that board meeting. Is that
correct, Mr. Nichols?

THE WITNESS: You mean -- the exact word of
your question were as to the procedures or how
to carry out the recommendation or the
directions of the board. I think that's what
your question was and I SAID NO.

MR. ESLER: That's a far different question
than being asked to render any legal advice, Mr.
Axelrod, and it also doesn't get around the
problem of Mr. Nichols being asked to render
legal advice which I believe the evidence
supports and would support at a later time based
upon the information given to him at the board
meeting.

Q. (By Mr . Axelrod) Mr. Nichols, let me refer you
to that part of Exhibit 7 which contains the
minutes of the June 12 and June 13 meeting and I
will refer you to the bottom of page six.

[pg 106]

[...]

THE WITNESS: Yes, I have them.

Q. (By Mr . Axelrod) And I refer you to the bottom
of that page commencing with the paragraph that
states, "Next Dharma Aircraft, Ltd. was discussed".

A. Yes.

MR. RAPAPORT: Question?

Q. (By Mr . Axelrod) The exhibit sets forth that
there was a resolution adopted that Dharma Aircraft
be renamed to work with other income producing
sources for Eckankar and to hold the copyrights
on Eckankar books and discourses.
Was such a resolution passed and voted upon
by the board at that meeting?

A. YES.

MR. ESLER: Wait a minute. I'm going to move that
that answer be stricken before I go any further.
[...]

[skips - pg 107 - more discussions about privilege]

[pg 108]

A. YES.

Q. At the top of the page there is an addition --

MR. RAPAPORT: Before you ask the question, Mr. Axelrod --

MR. ESLER: Wait a minute

MR. RAPAPORT: He won't answer it until the question is
posed, Mr. Esler.

Q. (By Mr. Axelrod) There is a resolution set forth
in these minutes or purported minutes referring
to Eckankar certificates of deposit not required
for current operations of Eckankar, and as
convenient be transferred to the new Dharma
Corporation for its operations and safekeeping.

A. We see that.

MR. RAPAPORT: Is there a question?

Q. (By Mr. Axelrod) My question was was that
resolution adopted and voted upon by the
trustees at that board meeting?

MR. ESLER: I have the same objection as to
the previous question and the same instruction
to the witness NOT TO ANSWER the question
because it's the subject of attorney-client
communication and advice given to Eckankar. Mr.
Gross was the person at Eckankar who gave that
advice, by Mr. Nichols.

[pg 109]

MR. AXELROD: So you're instructing him NOT to
answer that question?

MR. ESLER: Yes.

MR. AXELROD: Is that correct?

MR. ESLER: That's right.

MR. AXELROD: How much longer do you want
to go or do you want to break here?

MR. RAPAPORT: Since it's a quarter to, now
is a good time, since we don't seem to be
making ENOUGH PROGRESS.

(Deposition adjourned.)

--- --- ---

[pg 111]

Quoting the Board Minutes:

[...]

A meeting of the Board of Trustees of ECKANKAR was held by
unanimous consent as of the 12th day of June, 1983.

Trustees Sri Darwin Gross, Sri HAROLD KLEMP, Alan Nichols,
PETER SKELSKEY, Bob Engel, Gordon Champion, were present.
Also present were Bob Brant, Secretary, and Jan Davidson.

[...]

The Board then discussed the signatories on bank accounts.
It was moved by Skelskey, seconded by Champion and
unanimously passed:
RESOLVED: That staff should continue to clean up the
signature cards on the bank accounts, adding Bob Brant
as signatory and removing DON GINN and/or CHRIS MORRIS
as required.

[...]

After further discussion it was moved by Skelskey,
seconded by Engel and unanimously passed:
RESOLVED: That the salary ranges of the ECKANKAR
International Office staff be increased as follows:
Staff - Supervisors - Managers
$750 - $1,000 per month
$850 - $1,300 per month
$1,000 - $1,800 per month
RESOLVED FURTHER: That the above increases would be
gradually implemented and individual staff members
would be given increases on a merit basis.

[NOTE: $1,800 = $21,600 per year for an Office Manager.
KLEMP, at the Oct 22, 1983 HI meeting, said he was ONLY
on $20,000 per year. That he "doesn't care" and yet he
speaks about it on 3 separate occasions in that speech.

He also claims that he had NO knowledge of what others
were being paid, including GROSS. Did he ever ask him
directly: "Show me your Employment Contract Darwin?"

Could KLEMP not read the payroll office records? The
Payroll slips being printed, or go back and get himself
up to date on BOARD matters in the previous two years?

Could KLEMP not ever HEAR what was said in these Board
Meetings, especially JUNE 1983, and RECALL what was
voted on and passed by the whole Board?

Could he not read the Minutes of this June 30th Board
Meeting before he unilaterally demanded from Trustees
Gross' Termination but without once speaking to him
about the FACTS of what happened and why, and listening
to Gross' responses?

Who is the "mug" here, and who was really telling the
truth back in 1983, and during the Court case which
followed and the evidence given under Oath? ]

Board Minutes extracts continued:
[...]

RESOLVED: That the ECKANKAR International Office be
relocated to Las Vegas.
RESOLVED FURTHER: That Management proceed with
negotiations on the Green Valley property in Las
Vegas with Alan Nichols' legal review of the proposals.

[...]

The meeting began with discussion on membership fees.
A special report by Sri Harold Klemp was reviewed.
ECKANKAR International Office Management was asked to
make a report to the Board at the next Board meeting as
to how the present membership fee structure is working.

[NOTE 1: Yet Klemp presents an incorrect notion at the
Oct '83 HI meeting that somehow this issue was
completely out of hand. Yet right here it shows Klemp
making HIS representations to the Board, and the Board
deciding to WAIT until September before making any
decisions on increasing membership Fees.
NOTE 2: Even Twitchell was at times out voted by the
Board. He didn't "spit the dummy" nor terminate the
Employment of the then President Dr. Louis Bluth when
Paul failed to get his own way or win the argument.
Twitchell instead, despite any perceived faults,
acted like a mature rational adult. ]

Next the Audit Committee and its function were reviewed.

After discussion it was moved by SKELSKEY, seconded by
Engel and UNANIMOUSLY passed:
RESOLVED: That Jan Davidson , as the new Treasurer, would
be added to the Audit Committee replacing Chris Morris.

Next Dharma Aircraft Ltd was discussed.

After discussion it was moved by SKELSKEY, seconded
by Davidson and UNANIMOUSLY passed:

RESOLVED: That Dharma Aircraft Ltd be renamed to work
with other income producing sources for ECKANKAR, and to
hold the copyrights on ECKANKAR books and discourses.

RESOLVED FURTHER: That ECKANKAR Certificates of Deposit
not required for current operations of ECKANKAR, and as
convenient, be transferred to the new Dharma corporation
for its operations and safekeeping.

It was decided to schedule the next Board meeting during
the weekend of September 17-18, 1983, in Las Vegas.

The Audit Committee meeting is to be scheduled for late
August, 1983, so that results could be available prior
to the Board Meeting.

The meeting was adjourned at 9:55 A.M. on June 13, 1983.

[end quotes]

[NOTE: A perfect opportunity for KLEMP to investigate
the finances and accounting practices of ECKANKAR.
Even bringing in the help of an external Accounting
Audit firm to work with the Audit Committee.

Only after August '83 Klemp claims that he had
multiple concerns during 1983 and before about how
ECKANKAR funds were being used.

Yet in June 1983, and for two years before this, Klemp
never says a single word to anyone who actually had
the ONLY power and authority to investigate any
improprieties properly and judiciously - the Board of
Trustees.

In fact it was their LEGAL DUTY as TRUSTEES to ACT
immediately if any ONE of them had any such doubts or
concerns. It was their RESPONSIBILITY jointly and
individually under U.S. Law.

That was the WORK they and KLEMP were PAID TO DO as
Trustees FOR ECKANKAR. "Spiritual reasons" based on
hearsay, gossip, and reports of someone being rude or
disrespectful, does not cut it. It's just another
Abdication of one's DUTY as a Trustee of a Non-Profit
Corporation in the U.S. in the 1980s to ignore such
matters for over a year or more, if that is what one
truly believed was the case. ]

--- --- ---

SPECIAL NOTE:
[The final response by Nichols in PART 4 earlier,
pg 75, is a VERY IMPORTANT and CRITICAL point.

Because in July 1984 ECKANKAR through it's lawyers
had vigorously argued SUCCESSFULLY to the Court
AGAINST providing the Plaintiff the opportunity to
access and view the MINUTES of ALL BOARD MEETINGS
from 1981 through to 1983; and other factual
documents and communications held by ECKANKAR.

In legal terms it is called to "COMPEL DISCOVERY"
by Court Order, where one PARTY is provided with
MATERIAL EVIDENCE in possession and control of

the OTHER PARTY prior to Interrogations of
Witnesses and presentations by Counsel in Court.]

QUOTING Extracts from:
1984-07-05 Esler for Defendant Eckankar in Opposition to Motion to Compel Discovery

Michael J. Esler
Alan L. Schneider
ESLER & SCHNEIDER
Attorneys for Defendant

Civil No. 84-228
DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S
[GROSS'] FIRST MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY

Plaintiff's First Motion to Compel Discovery raises two
levels of issues. The first, of constitutional stature,
involves the JUSTICIABILITY of a RELIGIOUS and
ecclesiastical decision made by the highest authority
in the religion of Eckankar.

The second, involving individual questions of relevance,
burdensomeness, privilege and confidentiality need only
be considered if plaintiff overcomes the first hurdle.

[...]

[Plaintiff is seeking COPIES...] defendant's Board of Trustees
or any subcommittee thereof since July 1, 1981 to the present,
and COPIES of all resolutions, notes, memoranda, correspondence,
or other documents relating to any action taken by defendant's
and related corporation's Board of Trustees or any subcommittee
thereof since April 1 , 1983 to the present.

In response, defendant produced all items not privileged by
reason of attorney/client or work-product or CLERGYMAN
PRIVILEGES [read GOSSIP & by Disgruntled ex-employees]
relating to plaintiff's employment by defendant and to its
affirmative defenses (except for the ecclesiastical discharge
issue). See Hardiman [TNLC] Affidavit July 2, 1984.

As to other items, defendant objects to production on the
grounds of (i) confidentiality; (ii) that the deliberations of
its Board are protected from CIVIL INQUIRY under the First
Amendment; and (iii) lack of RELEVANCY to plaintiff's claim
seeking a declaration of non-infringement or cancellation of
defendant's trademarks for the terms "Eckankar", "Eck" and "Ek".

ARGUMENT
Although plaintiff would like to pretend otherwise, this is
not a routine piece of business litigation that can be resolved
on the narrow basis of RELEVANCY and other RULES of evidence.

This case involves a RENEGADE [POST HOC] religious
leader who is seeking to obtain a lifetime salary of $65,000
a year while preaching [POST HOC] his own schismatic variation
of religious doctrine. At issue in plaintiff's breach of contract
claim -- it is this claim to which the discovery matters in
dispute here chiefly relate -- is the RIGHT of a head of a
hierarchical religious organization to make ecclesiastical
decisions [...]

The lessons to be learned from this [Plaintiff's] testimony,
if not from the multitude of Supreme Court decisions refusing
to intervene this area, is that a fuller and more complete answer
than "I discharged Darwin Gross for spiritual or religious reasons"
IS NOT OBTAINABLE. When acting under the guidance of Divine
inspiration, no objective conversation or memorandum between God
and the actor may exist -- the ACTOR JUST "KNOWS" the answer
but may not be able to describe HOW.

The subject matter of plaintiff's own spirituality -- which
is the essence of his suspension and removal -- is a matter which
plaintiff claims is privileged and secret and which he would not
answer, when he was asked about his own initiations or the
initiations of others he considered for advancement, reinstatement
or loss.

IRONICALLY, plaintiff once exercised the very rights and
prerogatives he now seeks to challenge. As a former Living Eck
Master of the Eckankar religion, he did not hesitate to exercise
the supreme and nonreviewable authority to pass on the
qualifications, suspension and expulsion of members.

Now that he is no longer the Living Eck Master, he is subject to
the same RULE of OBEDIENCE as is everyone else in Eckankar.

Watson v. Jones, supra, 80 U. S . at 729 ("All who write
themselves to such a body do so with an IMPLIED CONSENT ..."
to SUBMIT to ecclesiastical COURTS and NOT civil courts.).

[end quotes]

[NOTE: GROSS and his lawyers were never given access to what
they required "to prove beyond doubt in Court" that the many
accusations made against Darwin Gross were groundless.

That his genuine Employment Contract should have been honored,
and that his Termination in August 7th 1983 was an injustice.

That subsequent to that his name and reputation had been
IRREVOCABLY DAMAGED BY KLEMP AND ECKANKAR through the
intentional publishing and public dissemination of untrue,
baseless, libel and slanderous comments to the Membership of
ECKANKAR worldwide.

From which, the next 25 years of his life, he never fully recovered.]

--- ---

SPECIAL NOTE:

Regarding: "All who write themselves to such a body do so
with an IMPLIED CONSENT ..." to SUBMIT to Ecclesiastical
COURTS and NOT civil courts.

That indeed has been the case for some time in western democracies.

However, it is no longer the Middle Ages!

It is in fact 2014 in the 21st Century.

Knowing what one knows now, regarding the COVERT & SECRETIVE DELIBERATIONS
and unlawful interference by CLERGY and BISHOPS and others regarding their
KNOWLEDGE of, plus their own unethical, immoral, DUPLICITOUS and ILLEGAL
ACTIONS relating to matters as CHILD sexual abuse, rape and murder etc.,
by these very heads of and WORLDWIDE REPRESENTATIVES of HIERARCHICAL
RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS to make such *ecclesiastical decisions* or their
*RIGHT to exercise SUPREME and nonreviewable AUTHORITY* has been all but
OVERTURNED AND OVER TAKEN BY THE REALITY AND BY TRUTH.

As a hierarchical religious organization ECKANKAR IS NO DIFFERENT!

ECKANKAR HAS THE EXACT SAME SYSTEMIC ISSUES OF UNETHICAL, IMMORAL,
UNJUSTIFIED, and/or UNLAWFUL ACTIONS BY IT'S LEADER[s], THE BOARD
OF TRUSTEES, IT'S GLOBAL CHARTER ORGANIZATIONS, RESAs, ESAs, and
CLERGY.

This Barrel of Apples is Rotten to the Core.

And the 'baddest apple' in the barrel is KLEMP?

The "buck stops" at his desk, no one else.

It starts at the very top and goes all the way down to your own ECK Center!

Klemp as the living ECK master has known he was a Fraud since late 1983
when he looked inside Paul Twitchell's Personal Archive of Manuscripts,
Private Mail and historical Documents about his life.

Klemp was lying and spreading disinformation in the October 1983 HI
meeting about Darwin Gross. He was lying and spreading disinformation
in all his talks about Paul Twitchell since early 1984. He has been
doing the same thing ever since.

START HERE, do the Research and Educate yourself better:

Unethical Decision Making in Organizations - Online Course
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.religion.eckankar/mxZiE5uS4is/FoficVhWr9AJ

ECKANKAR: Follow the Money
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.religion.eckankar/uSS7h2citAY/l8mKmT9TAzEJ

ECKANKAR: Follow the Money - Part 2 Publishing Royalties
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.religion.eckankar/6McQ-6lCfqU/b-LB0Vpt-a0J

CULT OF HORRORS -- CODE OF SILENCE
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.religion.eckankar/WgnZElyh8jI/Al-mnac3A2cJ

Traits of Malignant Narcissism
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.religion.eckankar/BT6jbYbz3LY/JRcU8M2bA-wJ

TELLING LIES: Clues to Deceit by an EK Man
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.religion.eckankar/lsDSOBYw8qE/ZWuWC8nd7HMJ

OPEN LETTER to Mr DOUGLAS MARMAN
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.religion.eckankar/N-25uVxnFIg/js3c6NzwRT4J

Quoc Quy Hoang 1997/01/12
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.religion.eckankar/T0H6wADp-Ww/HEzk2LVsq8gJ

Quoc Quy Hoang 2005/01/03
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.religion.eckankar/EzdqX--SU5E/UmPGhcQCu6MJ
Protection Failure from the MAHANTA in ECKANKAR (by Quoc Quy Hoang)
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/alt.religion.eckankar/CRCwR2NcAyA/Jql7z2tiVwIJ

Quoc Quy Hoang by Easter 2005
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.religion.eckankar/FDJr5nWEa5A

--- --- ---

Background Briefing how such Organizations avoid Accountability and Responsibility

The issue is not child abuse per se, but the HUMAN SYSTEMS that allow such Abuses
of Power of all kinds to occur, and then be covered up for decades to centuries.

Institutional child sexual abuse inquiries 2002-2013
Ireland, UK, Canada, New Zealand, Australia
http://www.aifs.gov.au/institute/pubs/carc/4.html

[Quoting one expert article]

The Irish government completely underestimated the number of victims of child
sexual abuse. Due to public pressure, the Catholic Church was obliged to
significantly increase its financial contribution to the Irish compensation
scheme.

The Catholic Church [a hierarchical religious organization] was found to be the
main perpetrator.

After initially contributing A$167 million in cash assets in 2002 in return for
an indemnity deal from the Irish Government, the Church later increased its
compensation. This was because the initial contribution covered only 10% of the
total payouts.

When the Government realised that it had made a gross underestimation of the total
costs, it negotiated an increase from the Church. However, the Church's additional
contributions are dependent on its ability to sell property in the financial
crisis that is still going on in Ireland.

There are lessons to be learned from Ireland and the Australian Royal Commission
will hopefully be looking at these.

I expect public pressure in Australia will force the Catholic Church to liquidate
a large slice of ITS SUBSTANTIAL REAL ESTATE HOLDINGS.

The Australian Government has a number of options to pressure the Church to
compensate for the WRONGDOING OF ITS PRIESTS AND ITS BETRAYAL OF TRUST.

http://royalcommission.com.au/lessons-from-the-irish-commission-to-inquire-into-child-abuse/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_abuse_cases

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_sex_abuse_cases_in_the_United_States

http://theconversation.com/search?q=Royal+Commission+child+abuse

--- ---

It has been well researched and reported in recent years that ~6% of the
approx. 160,000 Catholic Priests/Clergy worldwide could be labelled abusive
Pedophiles.

It has been proven beyond doubt that many of those intentionally joined the
Church Clergy knowing they had such a disposition for the explicit purpose of
gaining access to children and other vulnerable people using their perceived
position of Trust and Authority.

Religion, a desire to do good, and a belief in God was irrelevant and
inconsequential to these perpetrators.

This issue extends far beyond the Catholic Church, Religion and the U.S.
First Amendment.

It is an issue about Unethical Decision Making in ALL LIKE Organizations
with the ever present opportunity and ability of INDIVIDUALS to
Abuse their Power and to ACT ABSENT INTEGRITY and Human Decency.

It is my anecdotal view that a similar number, ~6% of all Eckankar Membership,
could be accurately labelled Pathological Narcissists and/or classified with
Borderline Personality Disorder.

Of those, I estimate that approximately +90% of those hold Official Leadership
and Authority roles in the ECKANKAR Corporation and in it's global Chartered
Organizations (aka Satsangs), from the USA to Africa and beyond.

Recalling Klemp's early 1990s statement when he specifically acted to change
Eckankar's status beyond a Non-profit Organization into a fully fledged and
Government Approved RELIGION & CHURCH:

"If it looks like a duck.
If it walks like a duck.
If it sounds like a duck.
Then it IS A DUCK!"

--- --- ---

END OF PART FIVE

Part 1 - https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.religion.eckankar/KLUpDZYbO7w/3jVpCRM2jN4J

Part 2 - https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.religion.eckankar/KLUpDZYbO7w/MlDonIvw6VgJ

Part 3 - https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.religion.eckankar/KLUpDZYbO7w/xYEEIjTchKwJ

Part 4 - https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.religion.eckankar/KLUpDZYbO7w/Ietl631Y2L8J

More later ....

Yes, even more still to come!

0 new messages