Richard Kieninger’s Perspective on His Expulsion From The Stelle Group

 

    In mid April, 1986, Leslie Olson complained to Malcolm Carnahan about a romantic/sexual relationship I had had with her off and on from November, 1984 to January, 1986. She claims I essentially lied about my relationships with other women during the period by omission and by evasion of the truth, and she has come to believe that I had led her on. She demanded of Malcolm that something be done to prevent me from ever doing that with another woman in the future. Malcolm and the other Trustees took the extreme position that I must have used my Office of Membership to sexually coerce women by inferred threats of expulsion or that I probably took advantage of women because of their alleged admiration and trust of me as a “high being.” The Trustees’ repetition that I use women out of negative intentions and sly calculation has been grievous and vexing to me. It also makes me angry and resentful.

    I fully admit that I have been seeking a mate for the past ten years, and it is confusing to others that during that time I shared my home with a woman. I clearly announced to the group that the relationship to me of first Mary Ann and then Heather was as housekeeper/secretary/cost-sharer, but many people chose to mistakenly believe these two arrangements were really marriage-type relationships. This assumption was probably supported by both Mary Ann and Heather making statements to others that they thought me to be loveable and also by their subtle territorial signals to other women, which I repeatedly warned both to stop doing since it implied a kind of relationship that indeed did not exist. I have deep admiration and love for Mary Ann and Heather, and they are like family to me; but I told each that I was unable to commit to a relationship to her because of certain stated incompatibilities. Perhaps I should have taken responsibility to end these live-in arrangements instead of taking the path of least resistance, but that seemed to me to be unkind. Economic considerations were overriding, and the conveniences, our mutual compatibility in living style, and sharing work in a pleasant atmosphere were hard to give up. My experience has been that regardless how I tried to explain my living arrangements, people still chose to believe what they wanted to. People also complain that I don’t announce publicly who I am dating, but the fact is that almost everyone would like me to be a suprahuman exemplar and is basically uncomfortable with my human needs as a healthy man; so I am forced to conceal my personal life to try to keep gossip to a minimum.

    When Heather moved in with me to take Mary Ann’s place, I thought at first that she was a possible candidate for becoming my mate; but after one year, I asked Heather to move out and seek younger men. Twice later I asked her to move out, but the conveniences of having her office in the house where she lived, plus economic considerations, apparently caused her to delay moving for three years. It was the Trustees’ demand that, as a bachelor, I live alone unless I could make a declared commitment to some woman, that finally forced her to move out in May, 1986. I must also confess that because of my experience with Gail, I am very sensitive about any woman with whom I become associated should she act as or be treated by others as first lady of TSG; and this had become an issue about Heather. There has long been a concern in TAO that it would be better not to have corporate offices in my home; but in order to conserve capital for programs rather than be used for rental expenses, I thought it was fiscally prudent to combine everything under one roof. My annual income having been under $3,500 for six years was another pressure. However, I see now that my combined housing and off icing led to confusion for my housemates and for the organization.

    Upon confronting me with Leslie’s complaints, the Trustees pointed out the risks to TSG of a disgruntled woman who might all too easily go to the newspapers with embarrassing claims about me and, more importantly, sue me and the group for sexual harassment. Machiz said that Leslie was holding TSG hostage over this matter and could do so indefinitely. In order to prevent a sexual harassment lawsuit, which the Trustees presented as a likelihood by either Leslie or those who were coaching her, the Trustees voted my post as Chairman of the Office of Membership out of existence (Malcolm thus assuming all such powers), and they demanded that I resign all my offices in TSG on the spot except that I would retain the title and one function of Chairman of the Board whereby I would continue to appoint those Trustees nominated by the Trustees biannually so that the Bylaws would not have to be changed. At the same time, the Trustees declared me to be mentally ill; and in hope of getting support for their armchair diagnosis, I was required to agree to undertake an evaluation by Dr. Arnold Mech and bind myself to his recommendations. I was not to be allowed to resume any position in TSG until after I had been cured of my alleged illness, which Malcolm at that time stated would probably take two or three years. After I tentatively agreed to these conditions in order to protect TSG from a sexual harassment lawsuit that the Trustees presented as imminent, Malcolm said he would review my concessions with Leslie and her counselors to see if the terms were satisfactory to her. I was later informed that everyone was satisfied, and so Robert drew up three letters for me to sign dated April 28, 1986. The Trustees also asked me to surrender some of my duties in TAO while allowing me to retain my titles and offices, which I agreed to in a document entitled “RK Changes and Retentions.” Later, I dis­covered on my own from a lawyer that the statute governing sexual harassment in no way could be made to apply to my situation with Leslie. It was revealed this August at a joint group meeting that Machiz had also learned from TSG’s lawyer in Kankakee that the harassment law didn’t apply. He said he first consulted his lawyer before I signed the April 28 agreements, but he didn’t get the lawyer’s opinion until after I signed them. Despite the fact that my agreements hinged upon the threatened lawsuit, I was not subsequently informed about his lawyer’s opinion. Months later Malcolm let it slip that Leslie had never threatened to sue. He tried to suggest that I must have somehow mis­understood the Trustees while they forced me to resign my offices.

    After lengthy evaluation by Dr. Mech in consultation with John Rierson, I was diagnosed as not being mentally ill, but it was recommended that I leave the Dallas area and everyone I know in TSG and TAO for a period of three years of Radix work in order to become more in touch with the feminine side of my nature. The Trustees, however, always refer to my needing “psychiatric treat­ment.” I was told by Dr. Mech and Rierson on August 18, 1986 that I needed to get away from the fierce psychological pounding of me by the Trustees. In the face of the poisonous atmosphere created by the Trustees around me, John thought it would be dangerous to loosen my armoring until after I moved away. Mech and Rierson requested that I leave town by August 31, but I asked to be given until September 30 to wind up my affairs, to which they agreed. At that time, I considered myself bound to their recommendations because of the agree­ment I signed per the April 28 letters.

    When I was asked at a subsequent joint meeting of the TSG and TAO members if I really wanted to go off by myself for three years, I stated it was counter to my personal desire to do so but that I had signed an agreement to abide by Dr. Mech’s recommendations. Some people there thought this to be cruel and unsupportive, and Karen Robertson sent a letter to Dr. Mech questioning how this kind of treatment could be considered in the best interests of any patient. Malcolm told Karen that my being sent away was tantamount to my being put away, and he claimed I am mentally ill to the point of insanity. During a joint meeting of the TSG and TAO members, Malcolm and Machiz both said they did not consider my agreement to follow Dr. Mech’s recommendations legally binding on me and that I could either follow the recommendations or not as I pleased; therefore, I declined to relocate. The Trustees had offered to continue my salary during my work with Mech and Rierson, which I declined because I didn’t feel right about taking a salary when I no longer had work to do since all my offices and responsibilities had been removed. They also offered to pay for whatever therapy costs might be involved over the years, but I declined that intention as well because I didn’t want to be on the end of their string. I felt that the Trustees, being the paying client would call the tunes, while I, the “patient,” would have to fit their criteria. A case in point is that when Karen wrote her letter to Dr. Mech, he didn’t respond to her then and never has, nor did he call me, his patient; rather, he immediate­ly contacted Malcolm. Moreover, I’m not keen on them telling people I’m away receiving psychiatric treatment which they are solicitously providing, when indeed there has been no legitimate diagnosis to justify such statements. However, I have begun work with a psychiatrist in Dallas at my own expense to get an opinion from a neutral expert. The Trustees have most recently told me that after I am given a clean bill of health, they might consider consulting me on occasion and hearing anything my Teachers might have to say.

    Since most of the Trustees claim they don’t believe anything I say and doubt what I have written because I “lied” to a woman and kept the location of Philadelphia under a smokescreen as requested by my Teachers (though I had to decide how), there is little point in my trying to communicate with any of the present Trustees in the future. My disgust with the Trustees for the lies, half truths, and twisted allegations made against me in private to other Members, and the evil motivations they have falsely accused me of in long private meetings with me (that are best likened to brain-washing sessions) has shown me that I could never again stomach any dealings with them. This is why I do not intend to return to participation with them. The situation now is far worse than two years ago when I quit in protest against Malcolm’s ridicu­lous charge that I was responsible for the simultaneous breakup of five mar­riages in Stelle and his claim that his Vivaxis scanning of me and other Members indicated to him that I had been sexually involved with the five wives. This vicious and reckless accusation was more than I could tolerate being spread around, particularly since there was no truth in it.

    On May 9, 1986, a statement was read to TSG members in Dallas and in Stelle concerning my relationship with TSG and TAO as of May 4, 1986 in which it was stated, “...we want you to know that there is no real conflict between Richard and the members of the Board. These decisions were arrived at jointly with a high degree of cooperation.” To say that there was no real conflict and to call coercion a high degree of cooperation is absurd. I most definitely felt coerced into signing the agreements by being told that a lawsuit was threatened. In that same report there was a further statement that “we do not feel that it is either necessary or appropriate to share the names of the persons involved nor the specifics of their relationships.” It was agreed by all the Trustees that the identities of women were to be protected, but at the close of that meeting Malcolm called aside one of the Resident Associates and asked her to convey the essence of the meeting to two absent RAs and then gave her the names of two of the women he wanted to be told to the absent RAs. Because of this duplicity and gossiping by him and other Trustees and some of their wives, I began to feel not constrained to conceal the realities of our disagreements. The Trustees next adopted the strategy of claiming that I was to have no part in the daily administration of TAO because they said I had so agreed. I have no recall of such an agreement, and I know I never voiced it. However, the Trustees began to hammer away at this point, but I wouldn’t give in. Then their tactics were escalated to include other reasons why I should not be allowed control over the affairs of TAO, as follows:

    A confidential memorandum dated July 22, 1986, which is the summary of a meeting from which I was barred on the 21st, outlines areas where it was perceived by the Trustees that I impede the progress of TSG, to wit: 1. Possible charges of sexual harassment (which have since been shown to have no legal foundation. The Trustees told me that their main concern was that my becoming involved with new female participants or female employees must never happen again lest there be lawsuits. I agreed to this; and upon invitation to present a solution, I proposed a policy paper in accord with legislation on sexual harassment that would be equally applied to all members. This was rejected by the Trustees as being too binding upon them), 2. Slander of other organizations and persons in print (notably the honest error of relying on my aunt’s statements about Mark Prophet since she was intimately involved in both I AM and Summit Lighthouse and knew Mr. Prophet personally. My answer to this has not been published. Their other complaint involves things I have written about Theosophy and Shamballah primarily in Spiritual Seekers’ Guidebook, but there is plenty written in the three book references I gave in the footnotes to damn these groups far more than I did. As it happens, it is my responsibil­ity to expose such harsh realities.) 3. Misrepresentation of the location of Philadelphia (the Philadelphia Fund is based on a complex prophecy which will prove to have not violated the assumptions on which the solicitation of funds is based, but in my opinion the Trustees choose to make a mock show of great concern over the possibility of claims of fraud in order to get the $60,000 out of the trust and into the general account to further their own purposes as well as to try to discredit me.) 4. That some people experience my behavior as rude. 5. That I do not use appropriate organizational channels because of my tendency to approach staff members at a level of detail normally deemed inap­propriate for a member of the Board of Trustees. (I do not take the same org­anizational approach as Malcolm and others, and I don’t care to. My approach to management is indeed less structured and less rule-bound. The Trustees have long acted to isolate me from the staff. I asked the employees in both Dallas and Stelle, but they could think of no instances of my meddling. If someone should deem me as meddling, then I prefer a direct say so from him rather than have a system where any of us are made unapproachable. People repeatedly state that I respond positively when they confront me with their problems with me. Of all the paid staff, only Machiz reportedly felt inter­fered with. Nevertheless, this point was emphasized by Dr. Mech when he told me it was probably time for me to remove myself from the activities of TSG since the founders of many organizations as they become old have been expelled by younger officers because the founder is seen as a meddler and an impediment to progress.) 6. Prophesies I have spoken of publicly, even though I labeled them whether from my Teachers or from psychics, have not eventuated and so the Trustees thought it useful to separate TSG from me and such embarrassing duds.

    Are the above cited concerns justifiable cause for my expulsion? Would it not have been possible to arrive at remedies satisfactory to all?

    Leslie accuses me of being a liar because I would not implicate other women by revealing my past and present romantic interests. Monogamy is a choice that a person arrives at when he or she has found who they are looking for after testing if the relationship works. Some important aspects of my relationship with Leslie were rewarding, but almost all our conversations cen­tered around my not hastening Heather’s removal from my home fast enough. and I found this tiresome and irritating. Yet, for several months, Leslie was sharing herself sexually between me and another man whom she took up with after I was already involved with her. She complained to me about the secrecy of our arrangement, and understandably, she asked for public recognition as my lover. Leslie became very upset when I declined her invitation to continue visiting her after she and Dave were to live together, and I ended our rela­tionship at that point since it was bound to become hurtful all around. Three months later, she went to Malcolm. As for my being a liar, I simply do not believe in telling anyone who my women friends are. Everyone has a right to privacy, and some women want that. My values in this regard are evidently different from the current generation’s. While I did not reveal to Leslie my other relationships, neither did I make any suggestions or promises of a commitment to her.

    I have operated with the personal belief that some women came into my environment for legitimate reasons and that I could be of value to them even if for only a year or so. Apparently I have misread the needs and invitations of some women, for Dr. Mech pointed out that nobody in TSG or TAO—man or woman—can see me for who I am but rather has preconceived notions of me, which in every case is different, and which make it impossible for me to fulfill their exaggerated expectations. The Trustees say that I lied about the location of Philadelphia and point out that I am not totally open about Brotherhood matters that would be useful to the group for long-range planning purposes. I have discovered through bitter experience in TSG that even though I give out truth it is not necessarily accepted. I have been the butt of gossip, rumors and speculation to such an insane extent that I find it point­less to insist that certain things in my life are true; and denying falsehoods about me is equally futile. Speculations about my motives and actions that usually have little to do with reality are nevertheless put into the rumor mill as fact. This is a source of great pain and exasperation to me personal­ly, and for that reason I prefer to keep my own counsel and say only what is essential and try to keep my personal life private. Even the Trustees claim that if I would “lie” to a lover and cover up the location of Philadelphia, then everything I have written and taught is suspect as to its credibility. Search your own hearts and ask what you would do if the same kind of scrutiny, criticism and demands for perfection were applied in your life by everyone you knew. The Trustees have stated that such demands are the price for the magnificent opportunities I have in this lifetime and that my life, as no other, must be lived beyond possible reproach. I do not claim to be a great saint. I am trying to get people to perceive and undertake difficult lessons; so I hope I am an educator and not a paragon of the Judeo-Christian morality that fosters violence and the hunger for power over others.

    The Trustees told me that their actions against me are intended to keep me from ever again giving cause for a woman in TSG or TAO to raise a complaint about my involvement with her. I pointed out that I had not violated the socio-sexual guidelines, for I am not married nor have I been in a committed relationship, and I do not get involved with people who are. Nevertheless, I assured them that I would refrain henceforth from approaching any woman in the groups in the future, particularly now that I realize that nobody can see me for the person I really am but rather projects an imagined expectation upon me. I have sought appreciation and acceptance from others for what I am as a fellow human being. It strikes me as sad now that I know I can never have that from a TSG or TAO Member, and that I have to find my friends outside of the groups.

    My assurances that I would not seek out women Members were not accepted by the Trustees. Perhaps there are other reasons for the Trustees wanting to be rid of me. Let us keep in mind that most of the Trustees know only what Malcolm, and to some extent Robert, has told them of the history and personal­ities involved in the times before their personal involvement in TSG. More­over, whoever brings first charges puts the person who is trying to bring truth which counters the charges into a weak position by seeming to make lame excuses. Or as Robert likes to dismiss counter evidence, “We expected you would claim that!” Nevertheless it is my contention that there are other motives behind the charges being made against me since they are based more on emotional impact than on substantive wrongdoing that could stand up to trial proof and cross-examination. The Trustees said from the beginning that they would not bring formal charges against me because I would defend myself, and that would also expose the names of the women and create a turmoil in the group. It seems they preferred in the long run to try me in the rumor mill with claims which I can’t hear and thus can’t answer to. The allegations and witnessing made to the group in absence of formal procedures for cross examin­ation and testimony for defense was a mockery of any kind of legitimate due process. At any rate, a fair trial could have hardly taken place given the underground character assassination and politicizing against me.

    When I brought the instructions of my Teacher, John, to the Trustees that TSG needed to get out of the Stelle Community’s administration and be only an educational organization, the Trustees set about to create a new community cooperative for the Stelle residents, open the community to non-TSG members, and form a corporate structure for TSG that promoted the business of spreading the word of the Brotherhoods’ Great Plan and providing the means for children and adults to improve themselves beyond the ordinary. Because of the inherent threat in a non-stock, non-profit corporation like TSG where persons who come into control of the Board of Trustees can use its assets and facilities any way they choose within the law, the Trustees proposed a new set of TSG bylaws that prevented a take-over by persons who might move TSG in a direction away from the Brotherhoods’ purpose and intentions. One of the central features of the new bylaws in order to get them passed by the Members, since the Members were being asked to surrender their voting power, rights of petition and criticism, and due process in matters of expulsion, was to name me Chairman of the Board and infer that I would be in charge of the corporation while the Trustees would in effect serve as my advisors. When Malcolm asked me to serve as Chairman of the Board in that new context, he said I would need only to chair the Trustee Meetings and appoint the Trustees nominated by the Trustees once every two years; for, as president, he would continue to run TSG. My understanding was that Malcolm wanted me to continue to serve him in the same capacity as during the prior five years. This amounted to his asking me to back his plans with my philosophical essays, to get rid of participants he identified as bad apples (“since the Membership Committee couldn’t or wouldn’t,”) and to use my Key of David against certain people, which I agreed to do only twice when upon verification it was justified. He rarely consulted me for advice; and if I offered it, he didn’t follow it. However, what I was most grateful for was that under the proposed new bylaws I would be made a Trustee, giving me 1/5 of the voice in decision-making.

    Let me dispel any illusions that I have been in charge of TSG at any time since the new bylaws were adopted or that the Trustees allowed me to determine its policies or direction. True, there were many areas where the majority of Trustees were already in agreement with me, but Malcolm’s oft repeated statement to me, “Tell us where you want us to go and then get out of the way and let us do it,” was just rhetoric. For over three years now, for instance, the Trustees have resisted my direct passing along of instruc­tions to implement three-minute “Amazing Science” radio spots; creation of “Builders Of The Nation;” or establishing the “Texas Center For Human Develop­ment.” I have had but 1/5 or 1/6 of say in the direction of TSG and have often been outnumbered. In cases where the Trustees did go along with my requests, they often groused about it when they couldn’t see the long—range reasons for them. In many cases I was simply seen as an obstructionist to what seemed in their view like great investment opportunities or programs.

    Another one of John’s instructions to me was to move the headquarters of TSG to Adelphi, but as individuals, the Trustees from Stelle have resisted that move. The reason most often stated in my presence was that they didn’t wish to commute from that far to Dallas. Malcolm on several occasions asked me to sell all the Adelphi land and buy a couple acres in a prestigious part of the Dallas area like Richardson or Las Colinas or buy an apartment building in Dallas for our families to move into together, knowing this was not what John requested. The task team called for by me to build Adelphi, being the site near Lake Tawakoni pointed out to me by Dr. White as the “Safe Place,” has been continually frustrated by the contingent from Stelle. When Tim Wilhelm and Robert visited Dallas as consultants for Trustee planning ses­sions, they both voiced their resistance to the concept of Adelphi and could not support TSG’s headquarters being located there. Shortly after Malcolm deduced the location of Philadelphia and I verified his logic, he asked me to consider donating all TAO assets to TSG and folding TAO into TSG so we wouldn’t have two boards of directors and two heads of two groups. I immedi­ately remembered his request to me to step aside from my position as president of TAO shortly after he arrived in Dallas. An issue between me and Malcolm has been who is the Chief Executive Officer of TSG. No organization can afford that kind of contest. I had the position de jure as stated in the bylaws, whereas Malcolm has been reinforcing his position de facto over the past few years. I think Malcolm believes he has no need for me any longer now that he knows a location of Philadelphia. Moreover, he feels quite justified in considering that I must have disqualified myself from the task given me by the Brotherhoods to establish the Nation of God and that he is the logical person to whom the task must fall by my default.

    When his protégés, Greg Ehmka and Charles Betterton, promoted by Malcolm because of their innovative thinking and energetic enthusiasm, each in his turn expressed his ambition to become president of TSG, Malcolm began to discredit and undermine them. Eventually the unwarranted sniping and sly innuendos spread around by Malcolm turned his two friends into deeply wounded enemies. I believe Malcolm’s frequent requests of me that I step aside from administrative efforts in TSG and TAO reflect his feeling of me as a competi­tor; so now it is my turn to be undermined and disposed of. The Brotherhoods, on the other hand, have regarded me as an excellent administrator and as the individual who made TSG and SII grow. Under Howery and Carnahan, the group has been mostly held together through ruinous borrowing instead of creative expansion. Just because I am willing to stay out of the limelight and let others be the frontmen does not mean that I am a pushover. Gail made the mistake of thinking that my willingness to share my power meant I didn’t want to do my job any longer.

    When Malcolm first moved to Dallas, he declared that he felt he had been in a caretaker position for TSG from 1975 to 1982 and that he wanted to yield some of his office tasks to me while he went out and earned a decent salary in the outside world. Half a year later, when his job as a commodities broker trainee fell through, the Trustees suddenly insisted that Malcolm was needed to work full time as President of TSG and needed to be given a salary competi­tive with outside executives. His work load would be exceptionally minimal, and I truly did not believe a full-time administrator was needed. Wilhelm, Carrothers and Betterton were managing well in Stelle, and Farage was managing both schools, all with minimum coordination from Malcolm. I was taking care of the day-to-day administrative matters in Dallas at no expense to TSG. I had asked that all Trustees, including myself, donate their services; neverthe­less, I was outvoted, and the Trustees returned Malcolm to a full-time paid position at a high salary for our small group. I was also told that I must step aside from any administrative work since the Trustees said I am poor at it. They didn’t like my personnel decisions or the way I let subordinates run their offices. They told me I should be limited to being an advisor on philosophy. Malcolm had no more than an average of two hours a day of work for him to find within TSG context. Frankly, I didn’t like the fact that Malcolm spent much of his day practicing Vivaxis, talking on the phone about commodities deals, and reading investment newsletters and books.

    More recently he began to encroach on my administration of TAO as well even though he has no official position in TAO: He has repeatedly asked me to transfer to him my control over the Adelphi School and Motherschool, which are run by Mary Ann Engel. After Malcolm learned the location of Philadelphia last March, and in order to hasten the sale of more Adelphi lots to Members, he composed an ad hoc committee of TAO Members to inject some new leadership into TAO. Three men joined him in the committee—Taylor and Ric Nesbit who are both in real estate and construction, and Machiz, who said he won’t join TAO because he does not wish to be a hypocrite. Among the ideas that were worked out by the committee was the plan to have an experienced real estate person, member Peg Reeg, negotiate real estate sales at the Adelphi site. I am Land Trustee and the seller of deeds for lots in Adelphi. I approved the consideration of Peg for the task, but I was not made aware that she was asked to report to Malcolm rather than me. I learned of this later when she asked for details on terms of sales and how to close. When I provided her with the information she needed and some recommendations on personalized contact of prospective buyers, Malcolm complained I was meddling. Malcolm and three other members sought to purchase four adjoining lots to build a hacienda together, and he demanded a deduction of $2,000 per lot, or $8,000 total, as incentive for his party to buy immediately. I protested that I was committed to sell all lots for $7,900 each at cost in an equitable manner so that there would be neither inurement to members of TAO nor making a profit above cost. I was accused of blocking progress by sticking to the rules given me by the IRS, and Malcolm said I could make up the difference by adding the $8,000 loss to the prices of the remaining lots. I was adamant in my stance because I could have been sued and because other buyers would have had a precedent by which to demand similarly favored treatment. However, I was characterized as obstructing progress. The four lots still have not been bought.

    In spite of the fact that I had agreed to surrender my administrative offices in TSG and I had agreed to resign as president and director of TAO effective the end of September 1986, since I believed I had to leave the state for three years as of then because of Dr. Mech’s orders, I was still a member of both organizations and entitled to attend general meetings of participants. I turned over all records of both the Philadelphia Funds to TSG and TAO officers respectively and sold my lot in Adelphi to another TAO Member. It was questioned whether I was entitled to sell my lot even though I had clear title and warranty deed because an answer to one of the questions asked in the TAO application for tax—exempt status stated that I had been given a lot then valued at $900 for the purpose of erecting a rectory, meeting place, office and school at my own expense for use also by TAO. A lawyer hired by the Trustees thought that the IRS might choose to look at my sale of the lot as inurement and become an issue endangering TAO’s exemption. Even though I have every legal right to sell my lot, I turned over the proceeds of the sale to TAO in order to avoid any concern about loss of exemption even though another lawyer later stated that the IRS might have agreed to let me keep the proceeds had there been time to petition the IRS.

    There then arose a concern that a $600 monthly donation that was speci­fied by the donor to go to me personally might have been handled improperly because I transferred it as a stipend via TAO Philadelphia Fund rather than as salary from TAO general account. However, the precedent for stipends had been established by TSG paying me a $400 stipend before the Trustees put me on the payroll in May 1984. I did not ask for a salary, but Malcolm argued that it was embarrassing for the founder and Chairman to be seen in an old car and in worn out clothing and living in an impoverished condition. The accountant and treasurer of TAO had similarly decided to pay me a $250 monthly income voted to me by the membership as a stipend. Stipends require the recipient to pay the employer’s share of FICA and to reserve enough for paying his income tax. TSG and SII used this system for a decade and more. Because there had been no TAO board resolution for the $600 stipend (though I informed the Trustees and TAO treasurer of the $600 for a special project at the very beginning), the lawyer solved any possible problem of liability to TAO’s directors by having the directors sign a ratification of the action. I was obligated to build a rectory and reception center at my own expense in Adelphi, and it was for that purpose that I was saving the after-tax remainder of the $600. There was then a concern about my spending $3,000 from the Philadelphia Fund of TSG to have a professional movie writer turn my film treatment of TUF into a saleable script. The request that I write a movie script came from Trustees and others in Stelle because they saw a movie as a major medium for making the community grow and providing money and personnel for building Philadelphia. I did not conceal the use of the $3,000, and Carrothers wrote the checks. I find it reprehensible to be charged with using TSG Philadelphia Fund money for “per­sonal” enrichment after having been encouraged to provide a professional script by those who now charge me. Malcolm had concurred that I should not sell my author’s movie rights by which I could control the content of the movie. In case the IRS might remotely regard this transaction as self-inurement, I remedied the situation by selling the movie rights, broadcast rights, and the script to TSG for the amount used from the Philadelphia Fund to create it, in effect reimbursing the fund, provided TSG adds the $3,000 it owes me to the Philadelphia Fund. Robert’s reading to the joint meeting of TSG and TAO a list of my alleged “misuse” of funds and self-dealing as if they were illegal or a breach of fiduciary responsibility is contemptuous.

    Two years ago Malcolm demanded that I loan $10,000 to TSG from the Philadelphia Fund so that he could make a 30-day, interest-free loan to a computer company that was in financial straits. Thereby TSG could receive in lieu of interest an outmoded main-frame and several remote consoles for use by TSG in Stelle. I was thoroughly criticized for my reluctance to make such a shaky loan and, further, for requiring that any loan from the Philadelphia Fund be tied to the sale of TUF books for repayment rather than to the computer company’s payback. Two years later, we have received only about $2,500 from the computer company with little hope of getting more. I can only wonder why I am being characterized as a thief who callously endangered the tax-exempt status of TAO and TSG because of “sneaky” Philadelphia Fund transactions. Everything was conducted in accordance with donor instructions and with honest intent. So far as endangering the tax-exempt status of TSG is concerned, past dealings by Malcolm have put us far more greatly at risk, for instance: his loan to Stelle Industries of over $200,000 obtained by borrowing against TSG land. That much cash was needed by SII to help fund the transfer of its ownership of houses and lots to Malcolm and other then-new Trustees and selected insiders. They decided to drain SII of real estate when they thought SII might collapse from a Dept. of Labor judgment to pay overtime wages from prior years. This loan was clearly in violation of IRS requirements that we maintain arms-length between TSG and SII. In order to cover those transfers of houses from SII, donors to TSG will be footing the yearly $7,500 repayments on the loan against TSG land for fifteen more years, because SII will never repay TSG. Another instance of his tax-exempt violations was a subsequent loan of about $55,000 to SII using TSG land as collateral.

    Still another violation was a deal Malcolm made with a new Resident Associate to accept $75,000 as his donation to TSG in order for the RA to cut his income tax but with the understanding that TSG would then loan the $75,000 back to the donor so he could invest it in a business in Hersher, his stock certificates being used as collateral. I learned of this deal when I was asked to be a neutral trustee of the stock, but I consented only after I was given an attorney’s letter of opinion that I had no involvement or liability from it. The borrower eventually went bankrupt, and TSG was never repaid. Any of these deals had the potential of being cause for loss of TSG’s tax-exempt status, and I was asked to help support and defend these actions by Malcolm after the fact. Why am I not being offered similar support for things which have caused no losses to either group or the IRS and where I have demonstrated responsible restitution though none is even legally required?

    A big fuss is still being made about the “questionability” of the Phila­delphia Funds so they can be dissolved and the donors asked if they will want a refund or will transfer their past donations to the general funds of TSG or TAO. This is likely to result in a windfall to TSG’s general account of at least $40,000 and as much as $60,000. Moreover, the Trustees have seized upon an opportunity to create a cause celebre over supposed misrepresentation by me as to the validity of the uses to be made of the Philadelphia Funds in order to be able to say, “See, Richard has endangered TSG through fraudulent solici­tation of funds, and we, the Trustees, have to save the situation at great trouble to ourselves and legal expense to TSG. (The lawyer they are consult­ing to dissolve the funds charges $1,360 per day.) As a point of fact, the prophecies given to me are complex and many—sided in regard to establishing Philadelphia and the Nation of God, and there has been no fraud or misuse of those funds by me nor will there be misuse except if the Trust Funds are broken by TSG and TAO. The two funds were approved by my Teacher, John. The Trustees want that $60,000 for their own purposes. They said they were afraid that if the money in TSG Philadelphia Fund were not used to buy the island, then any other use could be considered misappropriation and possibly result in some donor filing a lawsuit. To buy the island is what the money is still intended for, and it should be held until then. Meanwhile, the fund could and should be available as a convenient “bank” from which TSG could continue to borrow money at current interest rates if necessary. Long before the big show of “grave concern” over use of the money tied up in the Philadelphia Fund, Malcolm was alarmed at the amount of money people were donating to build Philadelphia, and so he sent letters on June 19 to several of the larger donors to the Philadelphia Fund asking them to divert their donations directly to TSG general account instead. And there may be another strategy to con­sider: A couple of years ago Lee Gilbert and Tim Farage were talking about making a proposal to fold TAO into TSG. The alleged “questionability” of my uses of TAO Philadelphia Funds now provides an excuse for going to the IRS to suggest that TAO might be subject to having its exempt status revoked. If the IRS agrees to revocation, whatever is left of TAO’s assets after paying back-taxes would probably be forced by logical consequence into takeover by TSG.

    The scramble for money to pay big salaries and to add more paid staff leaves little for TSG programs. It is true that people who work on a time-donated basis may be less reliable and require more supervision time, but TSG in Dallas is essentially being run by Carrothers, Becky, and Heather, and they seem willing and able to help volunteers be productive where and when needed. People keep asking me what Malcolm really does all day, and they wonder as I do why he needs Robert full time to help him. For the past six months they seem to spend most of their time strategizing together behind closed doors. As it is, Malcolm’s salary package exceeds all the tithes and donations by all TSG Members and Associates put together. Three years ago it was decided at a long-range strategy meeting that houses owned by TSG in Stelle would be sold to build a “war chest” to accomplish the Brotherhoods’ programs. But most of the proceeds of house sales just goes to keep up with increasing salaries instead of growth of TSG. It’s discouraging to see total assets merely shrink­ing instead of being transferred into appropriate facilities that could be serving the needs of all our members and prospective members.

    When Robert said that he was burned out as president of Stelle Industries and told the new owners he was resigning, I was pleased at first with having him serve on the Board of Trustees. But Malcolm reported to us that Robert preferred to move to Phoenix where his father wanted to buy a business for him. Malcolm told the board that he might be able to woo Robert to Dallas if he could offer a sufficiently attractive wage package so he could put Robert on paid staff as well. I voiced my concern about putting a reluctant candid­ate on the board let alone the staff, but Malcolm figured that the paid position could be limited to four hours a day in order to allow Robert to spend the rest of each day searching Dallas for a business to buy. As it later turned out, Malcolm said he was able to get Robert to commit to working for TSG full time for one year, during which time he agreed to do large fund-raising and develop the new Builders Of The Nation program. It was a condition that he bring in enough new funds over and above our normal fund-raising that would at least equal his first year’s salary. He didn’t get out and meet that goal. He was depressed the first half year of his employment and did virtually nothing on the BOTN project. He was involved in coordinating the printing of the color brochure and Spiritual Seekers’ Guidebook, and about one-fourth of his time went into selecting materials for the Right Start. Lately, much of his time seems to be devoted to strategies for getting me out of TSG. Robert has stated in the past that he questions the Brotherhoods’ Work in the Great Plan and whether there really are Brotherhoods, is embarrassed by some report­ers’ regarding me as a kook and TSG thus being tainted by connection with me, would like to see TSG’s programs employ human development methods within conventional psychology and scientifically-accepted philosophy instead of TUF philosophy, is afraid that my assignment to challenge the antichrist and New Age radicals and the fundamentalist right wing might rub off of the Trustees, would like to move TSG headquarters back to Stelle, and, like other people, hopes to turn over the assets of TAO to Malcolm’s control. I can see why Robert thinks I might have some objections to his aims. Historically, when­ever someone in TSG starts stumping for programs that are in opposition to the Brotherhoods’ directions, they call for abandoning TUF; and this, of course, means the author must be called into question. In every religious and philo­sophical organization that I know of where such difference of opinion arises, the founder’s or leader’s sanity and/or sexuality are traditionally attacked.

    It is the Trustees’ contention that my decisions relative to Marlene Strahota’s membership in TSG indicates that I used my post as the head of the Office of Membership to get rid of women who might expose my “secret” sexual conduct. I’ve never done that; and if ever I had tried, the woman would have screamed to high heaven. My brief relationship with Marlene was more than five years ago, and she blabbed about it to just about everyone then and since­—there simply is nothing to cover up. I was very purposely made head of the Office of Membership because of my well-recognized insights into people and my ability in counseling. If I express romantic interest in someone, it’s because I think she is pretty special; and I remain very protective of her thereafter. Marlene’s recent problems in Stelle were brought to my atten­tion by the Stelle Membership Committee because of their concern for her deteriorating moods and financial circumstances and her lack of involvement in TSG. The committee did not advise any course of action, but rather voiced their worries. I had never invited Marlene to be a TAO Member because of certain long-standing emotional instabilities which I believe are best worked out by her in the context of the Stelle community. I told the Stelle Member­ship Committee that she was welcome to become a Member again in Stelle if she rejoined there after her leave of absence. Marlene was fully aware that I had not yet invited her to Dallas, although people can move wherever they please in the world. Apparently she thought she found a back door into Adelphi, and wrote a letter to the Dallas Membership Committee telling them that she was, in essence, being transferred to Dallas by the Stelle Membership Committee when, in fact, that was not the case. I don’t usually put up with game playing. TSG people have much good will toward Marlene because she can be delightful, sexy and fun-loving. They are now even more sympathetic because of her recently being raped with resultant suicidal contemplations plus the troubles she had from living with Machiz. Therefore, my suggestion to the Trustees that her Member status lapse if she moved to Dallas from Chicago was regarded as a personal attack on Marlene. Her friends leaped to her defense and demanded special reconsideration for her, and I was soon removed from my Office of Membership duties. For the last four years during my tenure in the Office of Membership there has been exceptional stability on the membership rolls, and I have retained the criteria decided upon by the whole membership while they still had the vote. The new Office of Human Resources has now relaxed the requirements for participation, has drafted eight TAO Members into TSG without their applying, and dropped some rules that were insisted upon by my Teachers. This, of course, increases the popularity of Kitty and Farage for being good guys, but I also see such moves as further separation from the Brotherhoods.

    In the eleven years since 1975, I have been romantically involved with a number of women. Of these, the ones who live at Stelle were of necessity seen by me only one weekend per month. If a woman doesn’t give me clear signals that she is interested in me romantically, I don’t pursue the matter. I don’t have the time or care to run the risks otherwise. But it turns out that unbeknown to me or them, most of these women had been sexually abused as children. John Rierson speculates that such a background would probably lead a woman to seek me out as a symbolic father figure who in her subconscious expectation could be counted on to not molest her. However, her conscious desire for sexual expression with an adoring and “prestigious” older man gives rise to psychic conflicts that later feel like incest. Her romantic attract­ion eventually gives way to feelings that the needed trustworthiness from a father symbol was betrayed, reviving the shadowy memory of her childhood outrage. She would likely not have the same subconscious response to a regular guy her own age. According to Dr. Mech, when therapy revives memory of her childhood trauma, part of these women’s rage becomes focused on me. In his opinion, the lady counselor used in common by Stelle women has taken an approach which locks her clients into the role of victim, and this fault leads to scape-goating instead of personal resolution. What had been a pleasant relationship with me, can in retrospect be turned into something sordid when a woman is told that she had merely been used, manipulated and played with by a “dirty old man.” On the other hand, I’ve been criticized by several Members (mostly women) for my not seeing that I was being drawn into the schemes of calculating females who obviously use me to further their prestige and/or who turn to me between boyfriends for their sexual needs. From my perspective, every relationship I’ve ever had has been intense and beautiful. I have never indulged in sex without first having come to love my partner, even if that has seemed to be rather quickly.

    I am remorseful that my romantic intentions have added to the burdens of some women toward whom I feel much love, for I wanted to convey beauty and pleasure and be truly useful while trying to assay their interest and approp­riateness in becoming my mate. Now that I understand the psychological mech­anisms involved, there is strong disincentive for me to risk being cast in the same light as those men who sexually abused their little girls. I believe my eagerness for any signs of genuine acceptance from TSG Members led me to this sorry state of affairs. The long years of never having been accepted by the ruling clique and its inner social circle has been very hurtful. Those parties to which I was invited were all too clearly dictated by protocol and not by friendship. Had it not been for the classes I conducted and for the group—wide social affairs, my visits at Stelle would have been too lonely and intoler­able. Fortunately, there are a few men and women with whom I seem to have genuine compatibility; and we are always happy to see one another.

    On October 6, 1986 in the office of the Trustees’ lawyer, I was presented with a demand by the Trustees for my total withdrawal from all association with TSG and TAO, including my membership. Their lawyer claimed that if I were to be completely divorced from control of the two corporations and the Philadelphia Funds it might be easier for other officers to preserve the tax exemption status of TSG and TAO if that became an issue. Later, my own attorney said that was highly prejudicial advice that served Malcolm’s cause. My retaining control should have had negligible effect on the IRS tax exemp­tion bureau if changes were to be requested. The insistence that my membership also be surrendered was purely the Trustees’ doing. Even the Trustee’s lawyer didn’t think my remaining a Member would cause any legal problems. My member­ship in TAO was considered to have been ended September 30 by my resignation recorded in the Minutes of the TAO Director’s meeting of August 18, 1986, at which time I thought I was obligated to leave the area for three years. Even though I stated to a joint meeting of the Members of TSG and TAO that I wished to retain my membership after that date since I was not leaving for a while and also stated to the Directors that I wished to rescind my resignation as a Member since the reason for it had ceased to apply, the Directors decided on their own that I was out permanently. Consequently, I signed papers surren­dering everything except as Trustee of the Adelphi land. Several members of TAO pled with me to keep those assets out of the Trustee’s hands so they can’t dispose of the long efforts and donations put into developing Adelphi by TAO members. To take the proceeds of those assets back to Stelle if the Trustees relocate the headquarters there did not seem fair to them. Moreover, if it looks like TSG might deteriorate because of abandoning me and TUF, there has been a history of the officers dividing up the cash and leaving with it; and the Adelphi land should not be drawn into such a possible scenario.

    Despite the willingness of the Trustees to do almost anything to destroy my part in the Brotherhoods’ Work, I at least thought they might be consider­ate enough to pension me since it is hard to start a new career at my age. Since they are taking over everything that I have created, and have been receiving a good living through my efforts and writings, I asked to receive a minimum royalty of $1,500 per month. That’s $18,000 per year compared to Malcolm’s and Robert’s combined salary cost to TSG of $75,000 per year, but they spoke adamantly against my leaving with anything to reward my 25 years of work creating and building TSG. They are quite aware that Gail and Howery had fixed my credit reference so that I will never be able to borrow money or get a job. Is this revenge for my not taking the “high road” out of the groups and disappearing quickly and quietly? My works will continue to enrich them for the rest of their terms in office.

    That there is a Great Plan is something most people are unaware of. The good people of the world naturally add to it nevertheless, and Members of TSG and TAO will be able to contribute toward it more intelligently. The Trustees and Directors have taken the stance that TSG and TAO can still do much of value. But let me point out that the groups are no longer part of the Brotherhoods’ Work within the Great Plan now that they have severed the link with the emissary who had connected them to the Brotherhoods. Although I was told by one of my Teachers that the Brotherhoods have removed Their energy from TSG and TAO, the Brotherhoods have not abandoned the groups inasmuch as I’ve invoked my Key of David to hold the connection. Fortunately, the present programs of TSG, which I had authorized, are good in themselves; and I have given the administrators enough information to continue to maintain and expand these programs while I work elsewhere on the Nation of God. However, it has been demonstrated that the current leadership does not want to pursue the difficult and stringent goals intended by the Brotherhoods. On the other hand, Malcolm’s letter of 12/8/86 cites the intention of Members to conduct research projects on activities that have been represented as harmful to people. If the scientist-philosopher approach is going to be used to have TSG pay the researchers of practices like Vivaxis, then I offer forewarnings that Vivaxis has already been shown to consist of invasive surveillance of people’s past and present thoughts and activities (with very questionable accuracy), sorcery techniques, mind control, and psychic attack upon others. We do not need to further pursue such techniques. Malcolm has publicly admitted that in a Viv­axis class he and others were introduced each to their assigned spirit, which people communicated with when Don Morrow claimed them to be “Brothers.” Nether influences that have thus been invited into our midst are daily undermining members and the direction of TSG. Malcolm recently said that he has believed for more than ten years that I and THE ULTIMATE FRONTIER are fakes. Other Trustees say they cannot believe in me or my writings. In what way do they intend to revise The Stelle Group? Will Vivaxis become a central influence? It already has had too great an influence what with Malcolm, as president of TSG, being the principal practitioner of Vivaxis as well as a teacher of it.

 

 

 

Return