Date: Fri, Dec 22, 2000 at 22:53:04 (GMT) From: Marianne Email: None To: Everyone Subject: Libel threat made below Message:

In a thread below, someone courageous soul has made a number of posts using the name Indira Ghandi. In one post, enitled 'Vehicular Manslaughter', this poster tells me that I have come perilously close to libeling M, and encourages me to go ahead. First of all, I post here under my real name. You can be pretty brave when posting under an alias, can't you? Secondly, it's only libel if it's false. What's false about what I said? Thirdly, LET'S GO!!! I'd be more than happy to depose M, Randy Prouty, and everyone else who was present when this incident occurred as a part of my defense of the civil action. I'm not scared of you, or that sorry excuse for a human being you call your master. This stuff is really getting to you guys down in Malibu and at the upper echelons of EV, isn't it? Marianne Bachers You know where to find me

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Dec 23, 2000 at 13:56:32 (GMT) From: Salam Email: None To: Marianne Subject: Libel threat made below Message:

Hello Marianne, I re-read the thread that you mentioned and this thread. I do not have anything to add about the 'libel' case. But I do want to say that MD has a lot of explaining to do. I hate talking about something without knowing what the details and the circumstances are. I question MDs motives in that post. As for the rest of Indiras' posts, I really do not think that he is threatining you. I think what he is trying to say is that India, like many third world (I hate this expresion) countries such as Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Turkey and others work in a different way than that of the west. For example, a man killing his daughter in a muslim country for adultry is not looked at as a criminal but as someone that has put his honor in order, though he may get sentenced. In this particular case of M, we need to remember something called corruption, backsheesh, underhanded, favors..etc. In a place as varied as India, the majority of the population is living under the poverty level, the social status of the two participants plays another part. Money solved the problem, the family of the victim probably thought that the won the lotto by the death of there son, father or whoever it is. Belive me, I have seen it happen. The higher your social standared the more chances are that you will get away with it. I am not saying, let us sweep this matter under the table. But I do believe that you will find that it is an impossible task to achive. Remember also that the Indian courts, lawyers or whatever, will concider any inquiry as inyerference by a foreignor trying to tell them what to do. How to approach this is anyones' guess, but finding someone in India that wants to get involved may help. A civil lawsuite sounds good, but again I wish you good luck. Please don't take this as a dammper, you know how much I want to see Rawat pay back for what he wants. But India is ruled by gurus not the law. wish you a good holiday and good luck Salam

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Dec 23, 2000 at 20:54:32 (GMT) From: such Email: None To: Salam Subject: Salam has a point.Rife corruption. hush money. (nt Message:

nt

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Dec 23, 2000 at 14:36:34 (GMT) From: Sanjit Ghandi Email: Mum , the Tamils are back! To: Salam Subject: Bullshit. it was simply a discussion Marianne Message:

You are on the money here Salam.Marianne you seem so paranoid as to not recognise reason.You are talking about an impossible task. The case would have been well and truly closed. You have only one antagonistic witness who is 'speaking up' twenty years later. I gave you more credit. As a legal practioner you should acknowledge your chance of successfully raising this matter in a foriegn court of jurisdiction as ZILCH. Even under the terms of Suchabana's convoluted logic , you are sailing close to the wind. I'm certainly doing nothing about it . It was merely an observation. I just think your passion for a cause damages your legal judgement.As for EV taking an interest in your activity I think you certainly flatter yourself. I'd say you are viewed in the same light as a Bot fly on a horse's arse. Nothing that can't be cured with a good purgitave infused with the right pathogen control!Talk about legends in your own lunchtimes!Sheesh..at least Heller has the guts to admit it has no legs.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Dec 23, 2000 at 20:34:08 (GMT) From: such Email: None To: Sanjit Ghandi Subject: Sanjit, how are those holes in your head doin'? Message:

Hey Sanjit, Hey, how are those holes in your head doing these days? 'convoluted logic', huh? My post below clearly outlines and articulates the rights of ex-premies [or anyone] to discuss, speculate, and express opinions based upon the matters recently brought up by Mr. Michael Dettmers. Stay Sikh, Sanjit! Back into the box, or the flames of wherever you came from... Peace,

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Dec 24, 2000 at 01:09:31 (GMT) From: Sanjit Ghandi Email: So , she's Italian,So What Mom?? To: such Subject: Sanjit, how are those holes in your head doin'? Message:

No problem. Since those wonderful little Tamil separatists opened up my head for me , I can see the situation far more clearly but; oh well , there is nothing I can do now.God though , I have a Tiger of a headache! I am not talking about 'discussion'.I like discussion. Here in my discussions with you and other X's I am refering to taking something on board and accepting it as truth,publishing it and then allowing it to be further embellished. For instance in the way Marianne has.(A lawyer may discuss interrogitorries within the confines of their law firms. It is never a public discussion.) Mind you , she is totally free to talk about whatever she wants . I enjoy talking with her. But make no mistake if Heller , Bacher and Co allow this little conversation to blossom , nothing will happen at law. Why do you think neither she nor Jim will discuss a Class action here. Is it because they seriously want to keep that one up there sleeves? ( Wouldn't they make some lolly there huh?) So why is she so willing to discuss this issue here? Because she knows it hasn't got a snow flakes chance in hell of getting up. As for EV spending a fortune finding out who posts here Marianne, you are doing the talking . Put up or shut up.More hearsay , more unprovable facts. I'm sure some poor soul from PR has the unenviable task of wading through the show here. So what? would you expect any less? I don't think it happens the way Marianne projects it. Her one big break was working on the Jonestown thing. Now she keeps trying to introduce it like some immediate spectre,like her Ace in the pack, her four leaf clover; when in fact the activity she is comparing it to,has now been conducted for over thirty years , with little or no incident.To try and create controversy,isolated non connected ,incidents from those thirty years are publised here as if it were yesterday. This is no Waco ,no Jonestown . There is no isolated well guarded jungle compound. No rural fortress bristling with weaponry.People are not living in social isolation. Do you understand me now regarding my 'discussion' on libel?And if you still think I'm just a lone crazed Gunmen on the Grassy Knoll , check with Bazza. He was interested in my office address. Just let's make one thing clear. I'm talking.As an individual.No EV,no agenda. And isn't it always good to get a second legal opinion? PS: Above a quote refers to 6 million premies world wide over the last 30 years. I'm one of them.What makes you think I'm still practising Marianne?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Dec 24, 2000 at 04:12:29 (GMT) From: GERRY Email: None To: Sanjit Ghandi Subject: Sanjit, how are those holes in your head doin'? Message:

so where do you get the 6 million figure? I challenge that number. Prove your figures are correct. Why should I accept them? Offer some proof. Yes, Marianne was indeed involved in the Jonestown case. Don't try to minimalise this, it was indeed a very big deal. But it's not the most important thing she's ever done. You see, for her death row clients, she the last line of defence between life and death. And some of these people may be innocent. Do you understand? And also, you're blowing smoke BECAUSE YOU KNOW NOTHING OF THE BEHIND-THE-SCENES happenings. We've got some serious and professional people here dedicated to righting these wrongs. Too bad for you and your master, turd-face. (snicker)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Dec 24, 2000 at 03:49:36 (GMT) From: suchabananda Email: None To: Sanjit Ghandi Subject: ...Just like m. did, huh? 'NO CHEAT, NO DECEIT!' Message:

You wrote: 'Here in my discussions with you and other X's I am refering to taking something on board and accepting it as truth,publishing it and then allowing it to be further embellished.' -- Yeah, exactly, that's just what m. and EV did -- with the cult p.r. and the whole guru-shmuru trip. -- for selfish ego-power while gorging on 'maya' shamelessly at the premie trough! Hey, I'm still under direct 'agya' to give holy discourse of the truth. 'No cheat, no deceit', remember? I actually took that phrase seriously. If nothing else, I've learned that one -- in my own life. I expect a so-called master to do at least that, too, and better. So, who is truly master and who is fraud? I won't be the judge on that one. Sanjit, tip: don't put any more Tigers in your tanks. Peace,

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Dec 24, 2000 at 02:30:38 (GMT) From: suchabanana Email: None To: Sanjit Ghandi Subject: It's longterm pattern of abuses,coverups,deception Message:

Sanjit: You wrote: 'in fact the activity she is comparing it to,has now been conducted for over thirty years , with little or no incident.To try and create controversy,isolated non connected ,incidents from those thirty years are publised here as if it were yesterday.' little or no incident, huh? Guess you haven't been around - that's right, you've been dead [sorry, almost forgot]. Incident-ally, I was there with Fakiranand in Detroit. Also, where did the thousands of dollars of my donations REally go? I was not expecting it to go toward buying a yacht, or Rolexes, etc. You are so sly, Sanjit: ok, Marianne ain't no dummy, where it counts! But never to underestimate someone, ok? Sshhh. So, you're not practising anymore (knowledge or law)? Guess what, I meditate on several ancient universal and readily available techs (have been for 30 years). In truthfulness, I like sincerely communing with the life energy within me. Have been doing that -- and seeing inner light, hearing inner music etc. ever since I was a kid. I just close my eyes -- it's there. I hear the inner sounds all the time. '6 million'? oh yeah, you mean the hollowcost! Oops, time for din, we are having spicy lentils, rice, and dhosas. You like paisley? Remember, dead men don't wear plaid. Merry Mithrasmas! Peace, da lil' swami

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Dec 24, 2000 at 02:00:40 (GMT) From: Stonor Email: None To: Sanjit Ghandi Subject: You Tamil Tiger you! Message:

How dare you introduce politics other than 'American' at FV?! Don't you realize that anything other than 'American' politics is subversive?! Oh, you 'Tamil Tigers' love to live dangerously! On a more serious note, you (who are not a REAL Tamil Tiger), love to twist the agenda and avoid the point in order to maintain your maya of denial. You don't get it, do you - even though you imply that you're a Tamil tiger (with highly negative implications for the 'hindi' m, IMO); your prison is the mind control m has over you. Have you read Erikson's 'Ghandi's Truth'?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Dec 23, 2000 at 17:51:25 (GMT) From: Marianne Email: None To: Sanjit Ghandi Subject: Bullshit. it was simply a discussion Marianne Message:

Well anonymous poster, you've returned. I never said that M could be prosecuted. I said it sounded like vehicular manslaughter. You're awfully bent out of shape about this, aren't you? The nastiness of your posts suggests this whole topic has gotten under your skin, just as I said. Me, paranoid about EV and M? Oh, I think not. They are the ones who are paranoid, spending how many hours and how much money to determine the identity of anonymous ex premie posters? Spending how much money to shut down 3 different web sites in 3 different countries because M did not like what was being said there? Don't tell me about paranoia. Tell your master. Oh and tell him I've got another really great post about how similar he and Jim Jones are coming up in a couple of days. Marianne

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Dec 23, 2000 at 17:51:12 (GMT) From: Salam Email: None To: Sanjit Ghandi Subject: Bullshit. it was simply a discussion Marianne Message:

Not sure if it was you that mentioned his son. If it is, what has that got to do with all this? Also, do you care to explain the libel part of it? I do not seem to follow your point of view.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Dec 23, 2000 at 15:22:47 (GMT) From: Nigel Email: fitzroy@liverpool.ac.uk To: Sanjit Ghandi Subject: Call that a discussion..? Message:

You, anonymous person, accuse Marianne of a possible libel offence. If you have 'topic of discussion' to raise, perhaps you could identify the libel. (Or fuck off you coward.)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Dec 23, 2000 at 06:36:28 (GMT) From: suchabanana Email: None To: Marianne and everyone Subject: question of libel r.e. Public Figures-Please READ Message:

PUBLIC FIGURE: First of all, a public figure is a person who essentially 'seeks the limelight', or who injects oneself into the public forum or arena. Therefore, certain rights of privacy which might otherwise pertain to many people do NOT pertain to one who has taken a prominent public stance and profile, and who has thereby forfeited some rights to one's privacy. Over the years, m. has clearly thrust himself in the public arena with hundreds of public appearances, publicity campaigns, videos, cassettes, and other promotional materials, media campaigns, public speeches, etc. Ergo m. is a 'public figure.' This is an indisputable fact, and the basis for defining m. as a public figure is well established by numerous precedents of law. LIBEL OF A PUBLIC FIGURE [OR OFFICIAL] In the United States, there have been a number of U.S. Supreme Ct. cases establishing precedents regarding what constitutes libel against public figures. For example, in the New York Times versus Sullivan (1964), 'the Supreme Court ruled that public officials [or public figures] can NOT recover damages for a report related to official duties unless they prove actual malice. To establish actual malice, the official was required to prove that at the time of publication, those responsible for the story KNEW IT WAS FALSE or PUBLISHED IT WITH RECKLESS DISREGARD OF WHETHER IT WAS TRUE OR FALSE.' [from the Associated Press Libel Manual - caps are mine] The burden of proof is therefore on the plaintiff to show that the publication knowingly and deliberately printed a malicious lie. Based upon reasonable supposition from Michael Dettmers' posts on this forum, if one were taking his accounts to be true, then a critical discussion of and reasonable conjecture arising from such accounts would not be libel. Michael has taken that responsibility upon himself. Therefore he must surely know whether what he is reporting is true or is premeditated malicious falsehood. It is therefore reasonable for others, for example, to publicly speculate or debate whether the fatal car-bicycle collision in India was 1) not m.'s fault, or 2) was avoidable, or 3) may be attributed to reckless driving or speeding - which might indeed be grounds for adjudging the matter vehicular manslaughter. In the absence of any other accounts to the contrary, the statements we have received would indicate that there was probably some sort of wrongdoing involved. If m. can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accident was not his fault, that he was not the driver of the vehicle which killed the bicylist, that he did not, in fact, leave the scene of the fatal accident, and that someone else who was a subordinate to one of his appointed instructors did not falsely admit responsibility in his place, then the ex-premie forum would most probably owe him a published apology and a retraction {which is the customary practice in the press}. In the absence of any such irrefutable evidence to date, the public arena is open to much speculation on this subject (and others). In the United States and other democratic republics, there are also guaranteed freedoms of speech, press, and religion. So long as the allegations or condemnations made were done so based upon reasonable suppositions and not merely contrived recklessly out of deliberate malice, then libel would be most difficult to prove, if at all. Furthermore, in any libel litigation, the respondents have the right to sub poena all parties, evidence and other materials relevant to the case which might establish the veracity or basis upon which the reports and editorializing were made, in the first place. Would m. and his subordinates wish to be subponeaed to appear in court and be cross-examined under oath, and related files of EVI or m. seized as material evidence? That seems doubtful. Now, if the forum had published that someone was a pedophile who preyed upon premie children, without any substantiation whatsoever, expressly to malign that person, then that person would mostly likely have justiable legal recourse for libel. In establishing libel, however, the charges or statements made must not only be proven to have been deliberately malicious, and injurious -- they must be proved FALSE and without any merit or reasonable basis, if the respondent(s) can demonstrate some reasonable basis for having made the statements, accusations, or editorial opinions. Were a person to sue for libel, and the printed statements were in fact proven true, then the respondents would likewise also be entitled to all costs and fees incurred in their defense [in some countries damages, too]. In instances where a clear case for libel can not be established, then the respondents are absolved of any blame. Similarly, if the respondents can prove that the published statements were based upon false information which they believed at the time to be true, then generally in matters involving public figures the respondents would be required to print a retraction and apology, and a statement of the actual facts or circumstances. This has been a customary procedure in the media. Was the fatal accident vehicular manslaughter or unavoidable? That is a matter for public debate, in the absence of absolute proof. Was m. the driver of the car? If Michael's statements are true, then we may conclude that m. was, in fact, the driver. Why would Michael fabricate such a story, which would open himself up for libel? Did m. leave the scene of the accident? If Michael's statements are true, then we may also conclude that m.'s actions constituted hit and run [or fleeing the scene of a fatal motor vehicle accident], quite possibly in order to evade individual responsibility. In many jurisdictions, this flight would be a crime. The fleeing also opens the door to a reasonable questions of possible/probable intent. If m. was the driver of the vehicle involved, why would he flee the accident scene - if there was no culpability whatsoever on his part? Why not ask him. He knows the truth about what happened -- whatever that may be. Did m. direct or simply let his instructor's [Sampuranand] subordinate [a houseboy] take the rap and falsely represent himself as the driver of the car which killed the bicyclist? What was m.'s role in this regard? That is a legitimate matter of interest. Surely he was at least aware of what was being done - because he was allegedly an active party in the switching of the drivers and car occupants in the motorcade. The occupants of the cars in the motorcade were also subordinates of m. who reported to him in his official capacity as the master and leader of the cult, or otherwise. Whether his official capacity as the guru or master is, in fact, also duly registered or not is not a matter for consideration, due to the fact that he has represented himself as the master and the person to which these individuals would report, which can be corroborated by countless other credible witnesses. In the case of Michael Dettmers, we have his statements that he was the adviser to m. and that his duties involved services specifically for m. and his operations. We also have reason to surmise from his statements that Michael was, in fact, a party to certain secret information (why the x-rating?). Now, it may be that in the public interest, certain inflammatory things might be said or written by parties if a disclosure of that information reveals that any laws have been broken. We have reason to believe that there may have been wrongdoing involved in these aforementioned circumstances. Therefore Michael has an 'Absolute Privilege' to disclose that information. Please understand that I am only rendering opinions here as an individual, not as any legal counsel, but simply as a private person who has access to knowledgeable and established guidelines pertaining to such matters. Finally, please note: I would caution all of us, however, not to make any irresponsible or baseless charges, violent threats, or embark on any other disreputable actions which might impugn the integrity, honorable intentions or truthfulness of the ex-premie forum and website, and thereby undermine the overall mission of promoting truth, exposing alleged falsehood and abuses, and allowing reasonable and open debate on matters relating to m. and his various organizations, firms, and entities involved. 'The publication of defammatory matter that consists of comment and opinion, as distinguished from fact, with reference to matters of public interest or importance, is covered by the defense of fair comment. Of course, whatever facts are stated must be true.' [from AP libel manual, in reference to the summary of Hoeppner v. Dunkirk] Thank you. Peace,

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Dec 24, 2000 at 06:13:59 (GMT) From: No statute of limitations Email: None To: suchabanana Subject: question of libel r.e. Public Figures-Please READ Message:

It is so beautiful sometimes to watch the Sun rise and obliterate the darkness that was, but an absence of the Suns light. Your post, your words, brings forth this vision. THANK YOU...............................

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Dec 24, 2000 at 09:53:37 (GMT) From: such Email: None To: No statute of limitations Subject: you are so very welcome, one who understands (nt Message:

nt

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Dec 23, 2000 at 06:49:33 (GMT) From: such Email: None To: suchabanana Subject: Q:Was there any drinking prior to accident? (nt Message:

nt

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Dec 23, 2000 at 04:21:46 (GMT) From: Nigel Email: fitzroy@liverpool.ac.uk To: Marianne Subject: Can you email me? (ot) Message:

Marianne, I don't have your email address with me so can you drop me a line? Thanks.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Dec 23, 2000 at 01:28:18 (GMT) From: such Email: None To: Marianne Subject: Right on! Power to the PEOPLE!!! (nt Message:

nt

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Dec 23, 2000 at 00:32:47 (GMT) From: Sir Dave Email: None To: Marianne Subject: I'm really worried Message:

I think I'm closer to libel than you, Marianne. But worse than that, I've stolen Roger eDrek's big boobs picture which really worries me since it's a blatant breach of his copyright. Of course, since this happened in India, there's no saying what, if anything, could be done about it even if the relevant authorities are informed. I don't personally think it would be serious for Mr Rawat over there. As Jim has said, it's really being judged by the court of public opinion. In the end, that's a far more serious judgement for Maharaji who depends upon his public image in order to function as a 'master'.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Dec 23, 2000 at 01:37:40 (GMT) From: Roger eDrek Email: drek@oz.net To: Sir Dave Subject: You'd better be worried Message:

I sold that particular art work to Corbis Inc., which is owned by Bill Gates. It's one of his favorites. He will be very upset and he's gonna kick your ass.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Dec 23, 2000 at 00:38:37 (GMT) From: Marianne Email: None To: Sir Dave Subject: I love that picture! Message:

That's my favorite picture of M, Sir Dave! Could you post it here for recent arrivals to view? I think it pisses Rotwat off incredibly. Marianne

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Dec 23, 2000 at 01:26:57 (GMT) From: Cynthia Email: None To: Marianne Subject: Marianne, I love you, you, you, woman lawyer! Message:

Hi Marianne and everybody, I love that picture too. When I first saw it I was shocked, it sort of bounces out at you, ya know? Now, the more I look at it the more I laugh! Because, it's true!!!! LOLOLOLOL And, I'd like t add, there are lawyers I like and lawyers I don't like, and I've been around many, many lawyers. We've got the good ones!!! LOve, Cynthia P.S. Rawat Sucks! Yes, you, Prempal....haha Marianne, did you get my recent email?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Dec 22, 2000 at 23:19:53 (GMT) From: Roger eDrek Email: drek@oz.net To: Marianne Subject: Don't mess with 'em. They are the worst... Message:

slime on the planet. They're lawyers!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Dec 22, 2000 at 23:07:28 (GMT) From: Bazza Email: None To: Marianne Subject: OT Message:

Hi Marianne Did you get my last email re 'that' thread? b.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index