|
|
||
|
|
Majority Rule - A Challenge
and a Plea to TSG and TAO Members In 1982 The Stelle Group
removed from its bylaws the election of Trustees, referendum procedure, and
expulsion by due process, giving the Trustees total authority, unlimited
self-perpetuation, and zero accountability. Following are several specific
results of this choice (documentation attached): 1. Legal actions for
dismissal of The Stelle Group’s lawsuit based on illegality of the Group’s
bylaws. On August 21, 1987, legal actions were initiated in court to have
The Stelle Group’s lawsuit for permanent injunction against Karen, Betty,
Marge, and Richard dismissed because of the illegality of its bylaws due to
the membership clause being removed in the 1982 revision, which puts them in
violation of statute (attached). Whether or not the case is actually
dismissed is not germane. What is germane is that the bylaws
violate both Texas and Illinois statute in three particulars, and legal case
precedent establishes that such violations are grounds for dismissal of a
case. If the case goes to jury trial, it is highly likely that The Stelle
Group will lose the case. The judge addressed The Stelle Group sternly and
frankly (through its lawyer and Malcolm), stating that their case would be
difficult to prove and win. In other cases with matching facts, not only
did the plaintiff organization lose the case, but it was ordered by the court
to reinstate the defendants to full membership and to pay their legal
expenses as well. With dismissal or loss of the case, the TSG (and TAO)
could be faced with the possibility of paying not only the defendants’ legal
fees but also the legal fees for both sides in the three valid, necessary
countersuits still standing which the Trustees’ suit generated. The question
of the legality of TSG’s bylaws was an obvious point which the defendants’
legal staff researched early on. When I questioned Richard on this point, he
said it was his recollection that he asked the Trustees before the new bylaws
were voted on in 1982 whether the proposed revisions were legal. He was told
by the Trustees that they had obtained letters of opinion from their lawyer
and the IRS stating that the changes were legal. We were not provided with
these letters in the court-ordered discovery process. These opinions were
clearly incomplete. Based on incomplete
research, The Trustees have paid well over $10,000 in legal fees on a lawsuit
with a high potential for dismissal or loss. A similar situation is in
process in TAO: The Directors have paid thousands of dollars for legal
research in their attempt to break the airtight Adelphi Land Trust, and TAO
has committed to spending thousands more based on speculation that the trust
is illegal and can be revoked because it needed to be ratified by the members
but the only members were the three directors. In this costly research TAO
has done, how is it possible that they have not questioned the first Adelphi
postulant who became a member (excluding the Directors), me? Or checked the
records on file? If they had, they would have learned that TAO implemented
the recommendation of its very competent lawyer to have a statement signed
by all postulants at that time, including me and my brother, Jeff Bassett,
stating that as postulants and potential members and lot owners, we approved
the ratification of the Trust by those who were members (see attached
statement). Why haven’t TAO’s Directors revealed the existence of this
document? Several lawyers of high
standing in the legal community have given some of us evaluations that the
trust cannot be broken, that an attempt to break it would consume tens of
thousands of dollars and take 1 to 2 years, and that Richard as land Trustee
can legally and rightly draw legal defense expenses up-front from the body of
the trust. The only person on earth to gain from that suit will be the
lawyer. The two organizations will likely spend a fortune on the remaining
suits, lose them, and be required to pay defendants’ legal fees as well. It’s
the TSG Trustees’ and TAO Directors’ duty to always maintain fiduciary
responsibility. Cleaning out their treasuries to pursue lawsuits which have a
high probability of being lost is the opposite of that, in particular, the
TAO Directors appear to be on a course which at end will dismantle TAO
financially and then organizationally. Further, TAO Directors’
refusal to abide by Texas law, which specifically grants a member the right
to inspect all the records of a non-profit organization, resulted in Betty
having to go to court to force the Directors to conform to law and allow the
exercise of her rights. Then, however, they withheld some of the records
which she was entitled to inspect. Their actions, in violation of statute,
could predictably result in further court cases at considerable cost to TAO.
Since it is so simple to be open and forthright in allowing public inspection
of the group’s books, what is the motive for breaking the law? Another case
in point was the proposal the TAO Directors backed and implemented for the
hasty transfer of thousands of dollars to TSG for operating expenses without
carefully researching other avenues for obtaining the funds such as operating
TSG more frugally or profitably, e.g., by paring the Trustees’ salaries. Such
expenditures only serve to further drain TAO’s treasury until the
organization is insolvent. Is the next step then to dissolve the organization
and transfer remaining assets to TSG? Directors are fully liable for
personally reimbursing the assets of a non-profit organization that they
waste. TAO membership needs to become more involved in the details and
decision-making of their organization, to practice the precious democratic
procedures it has wisely retained. 2. Documented proof that
in the Fall of 1986 The Stelle Group Trustees formulated and implemented a
secret plan and deliberate policy to conceal the truth surrounding Richard’s
departure from outside supporters and donors in the hopes of minimizing the
sizable decrease in income they projected as a result of Richard s departure.
The attached documents (which I have labeled sheets IA-3, pp 3 & 6 and
P-1 & P-2) speak for themselves. Sheets IA-3, pp. 3 & 6 are taken
from a 14-page Impact Analysis discussed by TSG Trustees at October 1986
Trustee meetings and subsequently implemented. In the October 7, 1986 Trustee
Meeting Minutes it states, “The board reviewed the first part of an Impact
Analysis on Richard’s resignation that was prepared by Robert. A copy is
attached.” In the October 14 minutes it states, “Robert circulated the next
part of the Impact Analysis for the board’s review.” While Part. 1 was
included with the minutes, Parts 2 and 3, the strategy sections, were not
treated in the same manner. They were
not included in the minutes and were concealed and withheld in the pre-trial
discovery process in violation of court order and U.S. law. Formulation, use and concealment of this
secret strategy plan virtually assures a decision against TSG in a jury
trial. Pages P-1 and P-2 are a Trustee Position Paper prepared in early
May 1986. Provided by an anonymous
source, I first saw the secret strategy papers in the Fall of 1986, before
the “New Chapter” article with the “passing the torch” quote appeared. It is
obvious (see sheet IA-3, p. 3) that Richard’s only supposed “quote” in the
article was in fact an expression of the “pass the torch” strategy planned by
the Trustees in their strategy paper before Heather’s interview with Richard,
which itself was part of the strategy. In fact, Heather specifically asked
Richard, as the strategy papers show she had clearly been instructed to do,
if he was confident he was passing the torch into capable hands. The
hour-long cassette tape on which Richard told the simple truth about his
involvement with lady friends and conflict with the current Trustees as the
events occurred, in order ethically to properly inform the donors was not
printed as Richard intended and as the Trustees had agreed to do. (Richard
repeatedly stressed on that tape that TSG supporters needed to be told the
truth about these matters. The defendants in TSG’s injunction lawsuit have
for months requested—in vain—that TSG provide them with a copy of that tape
in the legal discovery process.) That “pass the torch” quote implies,
falsely, that Richard was referring to the current Trustees and was backing
them. In statements at joint meetings, and more recent written statements,
Richard stated clearly that he did not back most of the current Trustees or
consider them capable and did not want to pass his torch into their hands.
Richard’s reply to Heather’s Trustee-planned question was that I am confident
that the torch is being passed into many capable hands,” by which he
indicated that there were many capable people in TSG who could fill the
positions and do the work of the Trustees, who were not implementing the
Brotherhoods’ Plan as he’d expressed it to them. The use of the “pass the
torch” quote appears to be a deliberate pre-planned and self-serving attempt
by the Trustees to deceive the donors and supporters, concealing the truth
from them regarding Richard’s true stance. They printed only the phrase they
chose in advance for him to speak. The Public Relations
section of their strategy document clearly indicates the Trustees’ approach
to the outside donors was based not on consideration of TSG supporters as intelligent
people who needed to be told the truth about what they were funding. The
document states: “Each of our publics represents a different market with
distinctively different values and information needs. Each one needs to be
treated according to their information needs. In the area of information
dissemination, we should be market driven.” On sheet IA-3, p. 3) Central
Strategy, No. 2,” points 7 and 8, it was deliberately planned to conceal
information about the Philadelphia Fund from outside donors, then release
information later as a “point of philosophy,” this when the Trustees laid out
in another section a plan to “Commission Bill Elliott to take whatever steps
are necessary in order to revoke the [Philadelphia Fund] Trust or amend it so
that the board can implement its reformation plan.” Revoking a $70,000 Trust
is a “point of philosophy”? The Trustee Position Paper, dated 5-8-86 (sheets
P-1 & P-2), subsequently implemented, clearly expresses that even at the
early stages there was a plan to decide “what degree of information do we
release,” the main concern being to limit “damage control for 1/2 - 5% of our
support base—why jeopardize the remainder when there appears to be no
effective way to communicate the reasons and details of this change?” The
subsequent Economic Considerations section (sheet IA-3, p. 6, “Central
Strategy No. 1”) projects an income drop of 15% to 20%. In a “Contingency Plan
for Possible Loss of Financial Support” dated November 10, 1986, the Trustees
state: “If we decide to request that donations made to the Philadelphia Fund
be reassigned to operating expenses or to education or to some aspect of our
existing budget by whatever name, then this resource could handle a sizeable
downturn until we moved to a new location.” This when they claimed the
Philadelphia Fund was being dismantled because Richard had altered his
wording regarding Philadelphia. People donated that money in trust to buy and
build Philadelphia, not to cover TSG’s operating expenses during a downturn
in donations. A non-profit
organization is a public trust, and
the Trustees’ greatest moral responsibility is to uphold that trust by
dealing in a forthright manner with the public and especially with the
individual donors, particularly since their donations pay the Trustees’
salaries. Spending donated organizational funds on lawsuits which serve to
protect their jobs is a violation of the public trust. Planning to and in
fact concealing, distorting, and manipulating information released to donors
is a violation of the public trust [concealing and manipulating statements by
the Organization’s founder and just-deposed Chairman of the Board, which are
critical of his fellow Trustees, is a violation of the public trust]. This
marketing public relations approach to donors, the deliberate plan to
conceal, distort and manipulate information released to donors for the stated
purpose of “controlling damages” to avoid losing their donations, and the
subsequent “New Chapter” article and affiliate mailings, were laid out in advance
in lengthy, detailed secret strategy plans which were intentionally concealed
from and out behind the backs of the
general membership. The plan was so secret and so concealed that its very
existence could readily have been denied had Committee for Truth members
challenged the Trustees directly and openly regarding it in December
1986. That the Trustees concealed and
withheld Parts 2 and 3 in the court-ordered discovery process demonstrates
that they in fact denied the existence of the strategy plan in violation of
court order and U.S. law. While it would be too
cumbersome to address and include here the entire 14-page Impact Analysis,
many segments of it reveal a broad and deep strategy to undercut and
undermine Richard’s credibility and role. The Trustees were in fact
particularly concerned with concealing Richard’s true stance in regard to the
board, stating, “People who believe Richard’s statements about the board will
blame TSG....[S]ome of the comments reflect very negatively on the group and
its management.” I have heard Richard’s “statements about the board” a number
of times. They could be summed up as follows: The Trustees claim that
Leslie could (and would) sue TSG for harassment unless Richard stepped down
from his offices, which they falsely implied to be backed by legal opinion
(they didn’t get a substantive legal opinion until August 1986, and it did
not back their claim) was used in April 1986 to justify removing Richard
immediately as Chairman of the Office of Membership and transferring his
nominal powers as Chairman of the Board to Malcolm. This action prevented
Richard from carrying out his stated intention to accept Robert’s
resignation. That was the topic to be discussed the evening the accusations
against Richard were first made by Malcolm and Robert. Robert retained his
position and salary. Richard no longer had a way to remove Robert from any
position. Richard has strongly opposed the fact that Malcolm, Robert, and Tim
have had annual salary packages totalling $100,000. Donations to TSG for the
first 6 months of 1987 were $88,139, which projects to $176,000 for the
entire year. Thus the salaries of three administrators has been consuming
well over half the donated funds, leaving a disproportionately small amount
to pay for staff’s and teachers’ salaries, office rent, subsidies for The
Stelle School, and development of new programs. Richard has repeatedly
criticized disproportionate allocation of funds for Trustee salaries by TSG
Trustees. Richard has felt there was never enough work to warrant Malcolm and
Robert having full-time positions or salaries. Further, he felt the Trustees
were not implementing some major programs and plans Richard had presented to
them as being suggested by his Teachers. (Note: The defendants in TSG’s injunction
lawsuit have for months requested to view in the legal discovery process
TSG’s long-distance phone bills -public records, according to statute—without
success. Malcolm stated in deposition under oath that the phone bill ran
several hundred dollars a month. TSG financial statements indicated an
average phone bill of about a thousand dollars a month. Richard has
criticized the Trustees, particularly Robert and Tim, for excessive
long-distance calls. A phone bill approaching $12,000 a year would be an example
of wastefulness and bad management. The itemized phone bills, when extracted
from the Trustees through court order, will reveal the extent and nature of
such potential abuse.) By contrast to the
allegations circulated by Malcolm and others that Richard is mentally ill,
which is the stuff of slander, Richard’s criticisms of the Trustees involved
matters of documentable fact. Since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in New York
vs. Sullivan that a public figure has no legal recourse from public slander,
ridicule or false allegations, the Trustees have been safe in making
statements putting Richard in a bad light without being liable for slander.
They’ve spent substantial amounts trying to discredit Richard in print to
donors while simultaneously building themselves up as the “good guys “ who
have saved the group and received the torch of Richard’s Brotherhood tasks.
Never once have they presented to the donors Richard’s true stance, outlined
above, in regard to them. TSG Trustees have the responsibility, as holders of
the public trust, to tell the group’s donors the truth, including Richard’s
true stance regarding TSG Trustees and then letting the donors make up their
own minds. Concealing Richard’s stance from the donors, giving them a false
impression of his stance, discrediting him, blocking him from communicating
with donors and readers of his books through a court injunction - these are
pre-planned, self-serving Trustee actions carried out with donated funds. It’s no wonder donations
have been down when the Trustees have continued to base the group largely on
Richard’s books, tapes, teachings and programs, promoting these things as
being truthful and worthwhile, while simultaneously promoting him as having
psychological problems and being deceptive and manipulative with no
credibility. How can they possibly believe people will donate to a group
based almost entirely on Richard’s writings, teachings, and tapes if these
people have been convinced by the Trustees that Richard has psychological
problems and cannot be trusted or believed? Richard, meanwhile, has simply
gone ahead with his tasks and left the Trustees and TSG behind. 3. The unconscionable,
unconstitutional terms of an agreement The Stelle Group Trustees tried to get
Richard to sign in exchange for dropping his name from the injunction
lawsuit. (See attached summary ( page C-1), verified as accurate by Mr.
Al Rasche, who acted as mediator.) Through this agreement, which Richard
understandably refused to become a party to, the Trustees would get Richard
to move to another state, with no pretext of therapy, to exist professionally
and philosophically in the equivalent of a pine box with two holes in it.
Through one of the holes he could pass out philosophy essays for the Trustees
to alter and use or discard at will. Through the other hole would run a
telephone hookup to Malcolm Carnahan so Richard could convey information he
got from his Teachers verbatim exclusively to Malcolm. Thus Malcolm would be
in a position to state that Richard was in service to The Stelle Group and
still in contact with his Teachers, and that he, Malcolm, President and
Trustee of The Stelle Group in perpetuum, had the one and only line of
contact with Richard’s Teachers, who are associated with The Brotherhoods
described in The Ultimate Frontier and so frequently cited in TSG
publications and correspondence. The Trustees appear to be
interested in maintaining the appearance that Richard’s contact with the
Brotherhoods is current and valid, suing him, then offering to drop the suit
to get total control of that connection and make it literally their own, to
be used and altered for their own purposes. As they appear to be not
interested in releasing the truth to the donors, they likewise appear to be
not interested in determining the truth regarding Richard. It’s quite a
revelation that Malcolm, who stated to me and others that he believes Richard
is a mentally ill liar, bargained for exclusive rights to Richard’s “truth
teachings” from the Brotherhoods. While it was stated publicly that the
lawsuit is being conducted because Richard is morally wrong and it is morally
necessary and right to sue him, the Trustees offered to drop the lawsuit in
exchange for Richard’s silence, and—even though they have stated in a
confidential memo they tend to disbelieve anything he says—to gain a monopoly
on the “truth teachings” given him by his Teachers. What was the membership
told about this deal? Only that Richard had been offered a chance to be
dropped from the lawsuit and that he had, typically, refused. Richard’s contact with his
Teachers is indicated in TUF to be a necessary part of his assignment from
The Brotherhoods to coordinate the building of Philadelphia and the Nation of
God (as is his remaining in Texas and retaining control of the Adelphi
Trust). One of Richard’s Teachers states in TUF that if Richard demurs, The
Brotherhoods will choose another coordinator. Nowhere does it state that
Richard or anyone outside the higher echelons within the Brotherhoods has the
power to choose a new coordinator. Yet by the terms of the attached
agreement, in exchange for dropping Richard from the lawsuit, the Trustees
attempt to maneuver Richard into turning that position over to Malcolm. If
the Brotherhoods want to take the assignment away from Richard and give it to
Malcolm, they will do so themselves, directly, and I would assume that
Malcolm would be contacted directly, would write his own book and found his
own group rather than function off Richard’s life story, life works, creative
output, public esteem, and very body (as Brotherhood link) while Richard
lived in forced retirement, isolation, and exile. It’s been amazing for me to
hear the Trustees castigate Richard for not telling Heather about Leslie and
for not revealing top secret information about and Brotherhood gameplans for
Philadelphia when the Trustees have themselves concealed so much information
from donors, supporters, and members. What does the word “trust” mean if the
members can’t “trust” the Trustees to tell them the truth about their plans
and actions? Don’t these actions make a mockery of TSG’s oft-quoted demand on
Richard for “the practice of strict honesty” (TUF)? The Trustees haven’t been
honest with either the donors or the members. It’s time to define
membership and to restore to The Stelle Group’s bylaws the election of
Trustees, the referendum procedure, and expulsion by due process, and
reestablish democratic procedure and true majority rule. It’s time for the
membership to speak out, to get full disclosure of Trustee strategies and
actions, and to regain their right to vote. Adelphi members need to safeguard
and exercise the precious democratic procedures they have. Karen Robertson |
|
|
|
|
|
