Theos-Talk Archives (March 2007 Message tt00103)

   Well, Leon, I think you are projecting your 
good motivations just as you accuse people of
projecting their bad ones.

   The 6 million is controlled by just a few
people in LA - not the whole ULT (I used to have
a card, by the way) - and it is tooooooo much! You
could build a thousand houses in Zambia for that - 
and why not?????  It is NOT theosophical to have
this unused asset around, for an "organization"
that purports to be Theosophical.  To me they are
no longer bonafide theosophists, as a representative
group of ULT - they are second rank in my mind now,
and perhaps outright phonies.
 
    And of course, as everyone knows, Frank is nuts.

              - jake j.

-----------
>8b. Re: The Silence of ULT
    Posted by: "leonmaurer@aol.com" leonmaurer@aol.com leonmaurer1
    Date: Sat Mar 3, 2007 6:06 pm ((PST))

All you deprecators of ULT appear to be a bunch of ignorant fools... 
Basing 
all your untheosophical hatred and rancor on rumors and innuendoes by 
Neo Nazi 
propagandists who call themselves theosophists, along with other 
enemies of 
the true and unadulterated original theosophical teachings laid down by 
HPB and 
the Masters.

ULT will be alive and kicking so long as there's an associate or anyone 
else 
willing to enter their Lodges and partake of knowledgeable 
students-teachers, 
along with vast library facilities and classroom-lecture halls that 
serve the 
needs of independent students of theosophy worldwide.   All free, and 
open to 
any who wish to learn the fundamental truths of theosophy given out by 
the 
original teachers and founders of the Movement -- without and 
obligation other 
than what each student themselves determine.   In fact, there is no 
requirement 
to even become a signed associate since, even that is voluntary and 
private -- 
like all the other affairs of the lodges, their associates or their 
governance.   Pehaps if the world would model itself on that sysyem of 
operation, it 
would be a much better place. 

Everything these independent ULT Lodges offer to independent students 
of 
theosophy are entirely free, and all contribution are strictly 
voluntary.   Of 
course, each independent Lodge needs sufficient money to build and 
maintain their 
facilities. Where that comes from is only through voluntary 
contributions.   
As for the money accumulated by the Theosophy Company from the sales of 
their 
publications at cost through the Lodges, and through commercial 
outlets, and 
for reserves to cover the costs of their printing facilities and 
skilled labor 
-- except those volunteers who contribute and *consensually* share in 
its 
management -- What business is that of anybody else?   Why shouldn't 
ULT have the 
same rights of privacy as any one of us?

And, none of you know how many needy people have been supported by the 
Lodge 
associates who volunteer to do so anonymously.   Only some of us who 
have been 
helped, or have requested help for others know who those benefactors 
are.   

So, from here on, be careful how you judge the action of others before 
judging your own prejudices ignorance's and gullibility's.

LHM
----------

>10. ULT assets
    Posted by: "gregory@zeta.org.au" gregory@zeta.org.au 
    Date: Sat Mar 3, 2007 6:41 pm ((PST))

leonmaurer@aol.com notes that people in the ULT voluntarily contribute 
to
the costs of its activities. He then claims that these same people
?consensually? share in its management. The former process I 
understand,
and admire. The latter process is a mystery to me and, since the ULT
appears unwilling or unable to answer any questions about its structure
and organization, perhaps Leon can do so.

Let?s suppose a group of people who may or (as Leon points out) may not 
be
Associates of the ULT gather to hold meetings in its name. Can anyone 
do
this? Can I set up a local group of my friends, call it a ULT meeting, 
and
start collecting money in the name of the ULT? Or does such a group
require approval and, if so, given that the ULT claims to have no
organizational existence or officials, who can possibly give that
approval? Who receives and controls the money? Who opens, and in what
name, a bank account? In most jurisdictions, opening a bank account for 
an
association requires at least a constitution with resolutions by the
members approving signatories to the account, and, in many cases, some
form of incorporation is also required.

Let?s suppose the group buys a building in which to hold meetings and
establish a library. In whose name is the title to the building? Who
actually legally owns the property, and how are they chosen or 
appointed?
Obviously, someone owns ? for example ? the extremely valuable property 
of
the ULT in London: who is it? How and by whom were they chosen or
appointed? I assume that (if I was in London) I could use public 
records
to find out at least the identity of the owners.

It?s fine to say that none of this is anyone?s business, but any group
that collects money from the public should surely be open to some form 
of
scrutiny. Does the ULT ? in whatever form ? claim tax exempt status? If
so, every taxpayer (not to mention the State) has an interest in 
knowing
that the benefits of tax exempt status are not being misused. It could 
be
? and I?m not suggesting this in the case of the ULT ? that the whole
thing is a money-making operation benefiting a few individuals. How 
could
anyone know that if the whole situation is shrouded in mystery?

I can easily find out (indeed the relevant organizations will readily 
tell
me) who are the legal owners of my local (Adyar) TS lodge building,
Masonic lodge, Roman Catholic cathedral, Anthroposophical Society
bookshop, St Vincent de Paul hostel and Liberal Catholic Church. They 
will
tell me who owns and controls the property and the money, and how they
were appointed and by whom.

Will the ULT be similarly open?

Dr Gregory Tillett
 
---------------------------------
Cheap Talk? Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call rates.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]