Date: Tues, Oct 24, 2000 at 20:50:34 (GMT) From: Michael Dettmers Email: dettmers@gylanix.com To: Happy Subject: The Swiss Foundation Message:

Happy: The Swiss Foundation to which you refer is called the Élan Vital Foundation. As I briefly explained in my post below to Eddy The Turtle, one of my responsibilities was to re-organize Divine Light Mission for reasons. Also, there was considerable litigation over the DLM name in India and elsewhere caused by the dispute between Maharaji and his mother. I organized, and was a Director of, the Swiss Foundation which served as a hub (not the legal owner) for the overall coordination of most of the independent, not-for-profit DLM/Élan Vital organizations around the world. This structure simplified the organization and financing of worldwide programs, festivals, tours, and all of their related support activities. The funds were not used for Maharaji’s personal use, nor was any money ever laundered. The Swiss authorities govern their Foundations with an iron hand, tolerating absolutely no latitude with their strict regulations. I created the Foundation in Switzerland because it was widely recognized by many international organizations as a neutral location from which to conduct worldwide operations. And, obviously, all of them had Swiss bank accounts. In my opinion, there is nothing sinister about a Swiss Bank account. Switzerland used to be famous for its bank secrecy laws but they have been greatly diminished in our increasingly global economy, and they did not apply if suspected criminal activity was being conducted through them, which certainly was not the case under my watch. Since I did not want to repeat the mistake of having Maharaji pigeonholed as the Chief Minister of a USA church, a Swiss base for the Foundation seemed more suitable, reflecting the international scope of his mission. Michael

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 24, 2000 at 21:48:18 (GMT) From: Ana T Email: None To: Michael Dettmers Subject: The Swiss Foundation - Onae Trust ? Message:

Hi Michael, Was the Onae Trust part of the Swiss machinations of EV/DLM? I noted they were involved with Prem Mark and the Rainbow Grocery Acquisition. Onae Trust is listed in Deltek SEC filings and I'm curious if the trust has changed hands from the Rainbow Grocery days. Thanks, Ana T

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 24, 2000 at 22:13:48 (GMT) From: Michael Dettmers Email: dettmers@gylanix.com To: Ana T Subject: The Swiss Foundation - Onae Trust ? Message:

Ana T I would be crossing a fine line if I discussed anything about Maharaji's corporate structure. I have no problem discussing, in general terms, the Elan Vital Foundation because many organizers know about it and it was used exclusively for the purposes I outlined above. However, I am not at liberty to discuss the Onae Trust. Also, I have no idea what changes may have been made to the overall structure during the last decade or so, but I am sure that things must have evolved since then. Michael

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 18:02:25 (GMT) From: cq Email: None To: Michael Dettmers Subject: a fine line ... a question of ethics Message:

Michael, I'd be grateful if you'd share your opinion on this - EV has non-profit status as a 'church' with the IRS. Yet both EV and the Maha currently deny themselves to be either a 'church' or a 'religion'. Would you say this state of affairs could turn out to be an 'Achilles heel' for them? Or would losing that status mean very little? Would appreciate your input.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 03:01:48 (GMT) From: Rob Email: None To: Michael Dettmers Subject: Elan Vital Church status Message:

Michael I realize you may be legally unable to answer this one, but please offer what you can. A couple of months ago a hot topic of discussion here was the fact that Elan Vital USA is registered with the IRS as a 'Church'. A few of us here, myself included, did a little research and came to the conclusion that said organization does not, and never did, meet any of the descriptive or logistical requirements for Church status laid out in the IRS Exempt Organization Handbook, available online. For example, one of the stipulations, and one which is cited as cause for removal of Church status in a quoted court ruling, is that it's 'members' should consider it to be a Church. I think you and I both know what a quick straw poll in premiedom would reveal if people were asked. There are many similar points, and if you are interested I will find the archive references for you. My question is, are you aware of this anomoly and would you still consider the EV legal armory to be bullet-proof? You see the difference it makes is quite significant, because this outrageous little charade removes their obligation to make detailed accounts publically available, or even provide the IRS with the kind financial information all non-Church charities have to provide. Do you know anything of the decision process which led to this application for Church status being made, and could you perhaps speculate as to why, if all the t's are crossed and the i's dotted, they (EV) are unwilling to make their Charitably Exempt income and expenditure publically available. As a donor myself, I should be interested to know exactly how the money is being used. PS. I'd just like to add that I, too, apprectiate your contribution here, and am sorry if my initial tone with you was somewhat sceptical and abrasive. Rob

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 18:12:50 (GMT) From: cq Email: None To: Rob Subject: oops, I see you've asked a similar Q. sorry (nt) Message:

sadf

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 26, 2000 at 01:59:47 (GMT) From: Rob Email: None To: cq Subject: It bears repeating cq and does matter (nt) Message:

nt

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 26, 2000 at 17:39:22 (GMT) From: cq Email: None To: Rob Subject: Thanks for bringing it to MD's attention above(nt) Message:

damn right it does matter!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 24, 2000 at 23:15:14 (GMT) From: A Friend Email: None To: Michael Dettmers Subject: Ana T Message:

Hi Michael, Just so you know...the person called Ana T, who is speaking civilly with you here, is dissing you just below as Tonette and has been one of the main proponents of the theory that you were involved in all sorts of illegal activities on Maharaji's behalf and at his behest. That, I suppose, would make you the head honcho of the Guile Annex. She's also known as Mary. Just one more example of how internet communications can be quite deceptive and there can seem to be many more participants than there actually are. It could be called cyber-schizophrenia. Be well.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 24, 2000 at 23:44:15 (GMT) From: Ana T Email: None To: A Friend Subject: Ana T is *not* Tonette Message:

Wrong AF.... Albeit I doubt the FA's would ever step forth and settle the vain imaginations of those who suspect me of being everyone under the sun. Sincerely, Mary BTW - Michael, in the future I'll simply e-mail you. My apology about Mr Paranoid Friend.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 00:39:10 (GMT) From: Marianne Email: None To: Michael Subject: Ana T definately NOT Tonette Message:

I can vouch for that. And I just wonder who the so-called 'friend' is.... Marianne

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 01:17:11 (GMT) From: Ana T Email: None To: Marianne Subject: Ana T definately NOT Tonette Message:

Marianne, Thank you for your post. Mary (Ana T)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index