Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Where I Stand

Expand Messages
  • Tyson
    Harold Klemp is a big poser. Tell me something I dont know.
    Message 1 of 15 , Feb 28, 2012
      Harold Klemp is a big poser. Tell me something I dont know.
      --- In EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com, "prometheus_973" <prometheus_973@...> wrote:
      > Hello Etznab and All,
      > Yes, after Klemp took
      > over he devised a plan
      > to demonize Darwin
      > in order to appear as
      > if he was more spiritual,
      > innocent and pure.
      > HK fooled them all!
      > The truth is Klemp was
      > never good at sharing
      > nor playing and working
      > well with others.
      > As I said, DG screwed
      > up by handing the EK
      > car keys over to HK.
      > Plus, let's not forget that
      > Darwin had divorced Gail
      > and that she had a lot of
      > ECK friends and admirers.
      > Many were 7ths and 8ths
      > and they felt sorry for her
      > because they felt DG had
      > dishonored her and caste
      > her aside. They related to
      > this. Of course, these Eckists
      > didn't know the real Gail
      > and that she was a master
      > manipulator who inspired
      > and assisted Paul with the
      > con. Behind their backs,
      > she laughed at them all
      > for believing in Paul's lies
      > and trickery. Of course,
      > she also laughed all the
      > way to the bank after that
      > buyout of $500K and is
      > a millionaire even today!
      > Prometheus
      > Etznab wrote:
      > "And, IMO, the Board (8ths) would never have sided with a new 12th
      > initiate LEM over the 14th initiate Mahanta."
      > I remember reading something about four 8th initiate grandmothers, or
      > something. Let me see.
      > (7) Four "eighth initiates" demanded Harold takeover the Eckankar
      > Corporation in a letter to certain Trustees (concealed from myself,
      > Alan Nichols and Bob Brant). The letter was signed by four women, most
      > or all of whom were grandmothers. It was used by the conspirators to
      > cover-up the takeover power grab.
      > http://tinyurl.com/77ovjme
      > Just thought that was relevant here.
      > prometheus wrote:
      > Hello Etznab and All,
      > Klemp had the corporate
      > by-laws for Eckankar
      > rewritten after Darwin
      > was booted. Therefore,
      > the President of Eckankar
      > was no longer the head
      > of the org and of the
      > church.
      > Darwin screwed up by
      > not stating on stage or
      > in print that he, as the
      > Mahanta, was still the
      > head of Eckankar and
      > that Harold, as LEM, was
      > overseeing other areas.
      > Upon acceptance Harold
      > would not have had the
      > legal ground to present
      > a challenge. In Darwin's
      > day the ECK Board, 8th
      > initiates, still had a real
      > voice and vote. The by-laws
      > were written as such.
      > And, IMO, the Board (8ths)
      > would never have sided
      > with a new 12th initiate
      > LEM over the 14th initiate
      > Mahanta.
      > BTW- When Twitchell
      > first defined the LEM
      > he made no mention
      > of the Mahanta. It wasn't
      > until 1969 that the
      > rewrites began. Just
      > look at the definition
      > for LEM in, even, HK's
      > first Lexicon.
      > At the bottom it states:
      > (see Mahanta). And, Klemp
      > did his own revisions by
      > stating that even though
      > it states that the LEM is
      > synonymous with being
      > the Mahanta... that the
      > LEM is "in training" until
      > he can be a "Full" 14th
      > Mahanta.
      > Anyway, HK now has
      > "sole" authority to hire
      > and fire and to make
      > all decisions. Peter Skelsky,
      > the President of Eckankar,
      > works for Klemp and
      > runs the business side
      > of Eckankar.
      > The ECK Board members,
      > also, sit at Klemp's pleasure
      > and serve as a sounding
      > board for him. He merely
      > considers their opinions
      > but is under no obligation
      > to follow anything they
      > might suggest or vote
      > upon. They simply keep
      > him up-to-date and
      > informed on various
      > issues and assignments.
      > As Above, So Below.
      > The chartered Satsang
      > Societies are set up
      > in the same manner
      > as the ECK Board at
      > the ESC and follow
      > hierarchal procedure.
      > Generally, however,
      > the President of the
      > Satsang Society doesn't
      > have nearly as much
      > authority or oversight
      > duties as does Peter
      > Skelsky. Then, again,
      > some RESAs aren't very
      > "hands on" and tend
      > to designate more
      > responsibility to others.
      > The RESAs, basically,
      > have been given sole
      > church authority over
      > those Eckists within
      > their regional areas.
      > They hire, fire, promote
      > and oversee the local
      > operations and mission
      > of the Satsang Society
      > based upon field-tested
      > Guidelines supplied to
      > them by the ESC. Of course,
      > ECK-ankar is a hierarchy
      > and even RESAs answer
      > to higher ups at the ESC
      > assigned (by HK or his
      > emissaries) to oversee
      > them. Harold is the "sole"
      > piece of crap in charge
      > of this minor New Age
      > religious con and cult.
      > Prometheus
      > etznab@ wrote:
      > Try researching the definition for corporation sole.
      > A corporation sole is a legal entity consisting of a single ("sole")
      > incorporated office, occupied by a single ("sole") man or woman. [....]
      > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation_sole
      > My impression "according to Darwin Gross" is that Harold turned
      > Eckankar into a corporation sole. Someone would have to follow up on
      > this and check for verification. If corporation sole is what Eckankar
      > is, then I don't know if members need be allowed to vote, or if a board
      > can in any way trump the single individual in charge.
      > Can a non-profit be a corporation sole? One would have to determine
      > that first. I think they can, but are not sure.
      > Member is another word one needs to follow up on and how it is defined.
      > One could argue that not all people as part of a non-profit are members
      > with legal voting rights.
      > Whether members can vote is probably a mute point, IMO. I don't think
      > the org. / corp. is set up that way. Not according to what I have read.
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.