April 26, 1975

 

 

Mr. Walter Cox

Stelle, IL 60919

 

 

Dear Walter:

 

I have the distinction of being the first member of The Stelle Group to have had a trial before a panel of his peers, and I believe it was conducted reasonably and fairly, and I am satisfied with it. I had no expectation of winning an acquittal; for as Merrilie commented to Tom Valentine, there’s no way to defend yourself against charges of violating Lemurian Laws. The interpretation of what constitutes a violation goes to whomever is in control at the moment. So people ask why I didn’t accept my expulsion and avoid further injury to my reputation while letting the expulsion appear to be largely a political action by the trustees. The answer is that the trustees promised that I could only be tried once on the cases they brought to trial, and the trustees were already leaking all of the charges they were bringing against me to their hand-picked “advisory panel.” Furthermore, if my summary expulsion were to have excited a political reaction which brought down the trustees and then reinstated me, the membership could well feel they had been misled when the “leaked” charges were bandied about underground.

 

That the trial was an ordeal for me is an understatement. To listen for twelve hours to a stream of antagonists making statements that were nearly true, or stating truth with grave omissions, or indulging in sarcasm and innuendo while I was not being allowed to cross-examine was a study in ulcer making. The trustees started taking depositions and gathering evidence in earnest during late Summer 1974, and Gail searched all my private papers while I lived with her this winter, whereas I was notified to appear for trial a day and a half before the trial. My preparation for rebuttal was limited by comparison nor could I know what kind of evidence would be entered so as to obtain signed statements and call witnesses who could counter them. Future trials should permit cross examination and allow time—a week if necessary—for the defendant to obtain witnesses and rebuttal materials. My trail was almost entirely hearsay evidence, and the parade of commentators who offered no evidence but rather read into the record their statements of opinion on what I might teach or how they saw my character presented a sad spectacle in that Evans, Puffers and Thornes became full members just before the trial.

 

The laws on which I was tried, namely, the Lemurian Laws, have never been voted upon by the membership to make them part of a code or of the By-Laws or of any formal document stating clearly to what extent the members of The Stelle Group shall abide by them and at what penalty for not doing so. For this reason, I have refrained from undertaking expulsions from The Stelle Group on those grounds after the first early cases. Indeed, almost every instance of dissociation of a participant from The Stelle Group has been very difficult for me, and each case has been accompanied by months of soul searching and wrestling with justifying my desire to regain every person who has come to us as opposed to evidence brought to me that  person or one of his family is not coming aboard. Being called “Judge of Israel” does not confer to me any insensitivity as to what fate I might be consigning a person to during the Depression or remove the realization of the group’s shortcoming in providing therapeutic assistance to those who are foundering.

 

The charge against me that I transgressed the Lemurian Law wherein “the sanctity of the home shall be kept inviolate,” is the one most open to interpretation. The question revolves around what constitutes a “state of marriage.” I certainly was not in that state, and my long conversations with the two married women about their dissatisfactions with their marriages, as well as other very clear-cut signs from them, told me neither of them were in a state of marriage. Jim’s instructions to those women to write down only what I said and did and to not include their feelings, actions or conversations presented a very one-sided picture which sounded pretty crass. But I still cherish the deep Ego-to-Ego communication I had finally let myself experience. That the women experienced a complementary admiration accompanied by Egoic uplift was evident, awl they verbalized and demonstrated their feelings of love. These were not sexy encounters on either side, but the desire to please the other physically naturally arose after a few months. Their intelligence, forthrightness and pursuit of what they wanted was refreshing in its open honesty. But other people later made them feel guilty and afraid for their acceptance in the group; and so it did not take much for them to accept the suggestion that I was a sexual predator who had used my high position to victimize them. They too were accused of violating the sanctity of their own homes and mine as well since the legal entities had not been dissolved by divorce. It is not possible to entice a woman who is already in love with an­other man.

 

I find it most significant in my life that I have extended my ability to love. As a young man was extremely intolerant of others who lid not live as “purely” as I did. The self-induced pressures of trying to find the true spiritual path caused me to cut off the human inter­relations that had potential to lead me astray. But I found that the self-righteousness which ‘purity” induced in me made me remote, insen­sitive, smug and judgmental of others. I had begun to believe the titles Dr. white gave me when he consecrated me. While I was arrogant in my aloof and rigid self-disciplines I felt unassailable in writing off others for their “weaknesses” or ways of life; but I was wretched in my uninvolvement with the more human and loving aspects of life. My marriage to Gail began to open me, but we eventually traveled divergent paths. I found I had to devise my own programs of personal sensitivity training. I used to live by rules of fairness in my dealing with others, but now I feel fairness. I used to be determinedly gentle toward chil­dren, now I have taught myself to love them. I used to need an upper hand over men, now I cherish free interaction between them and me. I’ve been striving for years to become fit to govern men, now I do not care to govern. For years I’ve been hassling myself at trustee’s meetings as to how I could personally continue the strong, centralized position of direction I had maintained since the church meeting inasmuch as it conflicted with my ideals of self-governing. This seemed to make me weak and irresolute in the eyes of the trustees and did not square with their understanding of my line of power and authority from the Brotherhoods. I still struggle to decide how strongly I should act when persuasive guidance doesn’t seem to be effective. And the task of discouraging partisan politics while avoiding totalitarianism is a tough tightrope to balance upon. It is difficult enough to decide what constitutes justifiable interference in the environment of others in order to teach them and lead them where they would otherwise have preferred not to grow.

 

The air has been cleared by my trial, and the membership is free of and unchafed by my direct control. Stelle is still my life, and by one means or another people can always find me whatever their purpose. But I am not at Stelle; so I ask you to look after its people. Jim can run a business, but his pretensions to become the spiritual leader are dangerous. Be wary of Jim’s tendency to systematically discredit you if he adjudges you a competitor or foe. He has carefully tended his image of astuteness, but this is a front he maintains by bluff and by having the last word.

 

My kindest regards,

 

Dick

 

 

Return