Retreat from Zaca

V Replies to "Retreat from Zaca"
[Our comments in brackets]

From: V
Date sent: Sun, 12 Aug 2001 01:16:40 -0400
Subject: Rebutal to Retreat from Zaca

Retreat from Zaca Additional Commentary by Laura added 8/11/01 at the end of this report. A report by a member of the Cassiopaea E-group.

***V: Just who is this? Why the need for anonymity?

[There is no "need" for anonymity, merely the request of the writer. That request is honored.]

*** V: This piece creates more misconceptions than anything so far! Rather than helping the reader understand, it is forcing upon the reader a very skewed and one-sided view. ***

[The above is subjective- See Retreat from Zaca. for an account.]

*** V: Is there anything wrong with this presentation?

[There was no qualification as being "wrong." It was posted for information purposes..]

*** V: Tentative is a very disingenuous word here. If you promote and advertise the conference, as Laura and Ark did, for over three months, one might suppose that their agreement and involvement is far from "tentative."

[disingenuous=not straightforward; not candid or frank; insincere. The essential point here is the nature of conferences and public appearances in general. We seem to have a difference of perception as to what a conference is.

A Conference, in academic terms, is an event where one is invited to exchange knowledge and information with others who are interested in the same subjects, or the subject of the conference.

Conference: The act of conversing or consulting on a serious matter; a consultation; a meeting to reconcile differences.

Our acceptance of this invitation to a "conference" was based on certain data, and the perception of the reality available to us at that moment. With new data and consequent implications, i.e. when it was brought to our attention that the differences are irreconcilable, we were no longer willing to participate.

Remember: we are not "performers" at a rock concert designed to draw a crowd and make money.

We agree that, from V's perspective, we may have behaved unprofessionally. Indeed, such conferences are not our profession.]

***V: It was a verbal agreement, publicly promoted by Laura and Ark, and is therefore a tacit contract. Ark and Laura were only two of half a dozen or more scheduled presentations.

[Again: is it a "conference," or is it a money making "performance?"]

*** V: Yes indeed, but most speakers do not go out of their way to disrupt the conferences from which they have decided to abstain.

["Going out of our way" to "disrupt" would certainly entail a lot more than merely making our position regarding practices and teachings of the sponsors of the conference in a notice on our website in an attempt to answer the questions of our readers. ]

*** V: The errors and misunderstandings in the above paragraph are significant. Laura has always been aware of my pursuits. Nothing has changed but her perspective, and one must wonder why. Simply saying that she didn¹t know is disingenuous at best.

[disingenuous=not straightforward; not candid or frank; insincere. V's interpretation above is subjective. Our acceptance of this invitation to a "conference" was based on certain data, and the perception of the reality available to us at that moment. With new data and consequent implications, i.e. when it was brought to our attention that the differences are irreconcilable, we were no longer willing to participate. ]

*** V: I must ask if they felt this way, why didn't they just pull out at that point? Why make it public? And without so much as emailing me to announce their decision?

[At that point, we were not aware that it was not a conference by our definition of the word. The necessity for making our position public is clear. We have thousands of readers, and some of them were providing us with their insights and writing with questions as to why we would be associated with practices that are contrary to what we promote on our website.]

***V: Yes, at the point at which these emails were written, it did look as if the others would back out. That's why I was trying to come up with an alternative arrangement. At that point, Laura and Ark were the only viable speakers left. The reality of the conference is that most of the space was filled by Cassiopaean followers, hence the idea just to let Laura and Ark have the conference. This also meant that if the Cassiopaean folks pulled out, then there would in effect be no conference, no matter what anyone else thought about it.

[It's pretty hard to understand the above remark "It did look as if the others would back out," when clear and unequivocal statements were made as follows: "The other speakers began backing out soon after word spread about your defection....you are the only one left," and: "speakers dropping out of the conference, and you're the only speaker left..." posted not only to us, but to the list of attendees, as well as the egroup, and assorted others. Meanwhile, at least one of these "other speakers," was most definitely not aware that he had "cancelled." But, we find the clue to the why of the whole situation above: "The reality of the conference is that most of the space was filled by Cassiopaean followers." It is disrespectful to our readers and members of our research team and discussion group to call them "followers." That is another example of the interpretatitive differences that created the necessity for this series of comments in the first place.]

*** V: OK, why wasn't it acceptable? The FWMS was no longer involved, there was no other questionable, in the view of Laura and Ark, speakers or sponsors involved, so why wasn¹t it acceptable.

[For the reasons given above. As new data and information became available to us, the decision became evident as unavoidable.]

*** V: But of course, they neglected to say anything about it to me before the post went up. If they had, they would have gotten the whole story, including the fact that I was doing my best to reach an agreement that would make, hopefully, everyone happy.

[V was notified simultaneously via a post to the egroup of which V was a member.]

However, one of the organizers wrote:

*** V: I don¹t see how that could be any clearer. My name is on the contract, and as JWiedner, Director of the Zaca Lake Retreat, says below, the deposit was paid and was, at the point at Laura and Ark withdrew, non-refundable. Again, if they had withdrawn when they put the disclaimer up, none of these problems would have arisen.

[If there had not been an email from V to the attendees (but also to unrelated and unconcerned parties) that the conference was being cancelled, and the reason for it being our "defection," and our "trashing," none of these problems would have arisen.]

At this point, an email was received from another of the organizers who had been presented to Ark and Laura as the "manager" of the conference center. He wrote:

*** V: So just how is this "seeking excuses so as not to refund the money"? I said clearly that even if we couldn¹t get the deposit back, we would stand good for the money.

[Many people are waiting for it. Read further for the Consumer Laws.]

*** V: All of this is very deceptive. The person who wrote to [name deleted] failed to say anything about her motive or intent. Here's her email:

[Seems to be a pretty straightforward question to us. We see nothing deceptive whatsoever.]

***And of course, [name deleted] emailed me immediately. However, [name deleted] was the one person completely out of the loop, as he's going to be in southern CA anyway. He's going to be there even if there isn¹t any conference. However from his response above, you can see how he feels about the situation.

[Again we quote from V's posts, both private and public: "The other speakers began backing out soon after word spread about your defection....you are the only one left," and: "speakers dropping out of the conference, and you're the only speaker left..."]

*** V: As I have replied to those who have emailed me directly, we will make every effort to get everyone's money back to them. However, the conference is NOT cancelled. Here's what I said: For those of you primarily attending the conference to hear Laura and Ark, I am very sorry that this happened. However, I cannot refund your money before the event simply on those grounds. You are welcome to attend the conference anyway, as you have paid for it, and I am sure you will find it fascinating, entertaining and very informative, even without the channelled "wisdom" of the Cassiopaeans. I will keep a list of those who have paid but do not attend for the above reasons, and will make every effort to refund your money after the conference. I hope you accept, again, my apologies for the situation and realize that it was not of my making. As noted above: In the world of conferences, if an invited speaker cancels, for whatever reason, it is the responsibility of the organizers to find an acceptable replacement, if such is needed. And that is just what we have done.

[The federal government and many states have enacted legislation designed to give consumers the opportunity to change their minds and cancel an unwanted sale. Purchases made by phone or computer are governed by the federal mail and telephone order rule. The seller's principal obligation is to tell you about your cancellation rights at the time of sale.

When you are buying goods, (such as conference attendance), the law states that they must meet certain criteria. They must be: of satisfactory quality - they must meet the standard that a reasonable person would regard as acceptable bearing in mind the way they were described, what they cost and any other relevant circumstances. If you are told that a shirt is 100% cotton, then it should not turn out to be cotton and polyester. These are your statutory rights. All goods bought or hired from a trader - whether from shops, street markets, mail order catalogues or door-to-door sellers, internet advertising, phone sales- are covered by these rights.

(This means that if the conference organizers cannot produce what they advertise, i.e. Ark and Laura, the attendees have a right to ask for a refund.)

The Federal Trade commission and consumer lawyers say: If there is something wrong with what you buy, tell the seller as soon as possible. As long as you have not legally accepted the goods you can still reject them - that is, refuse to accept them. One of the ways you accept goods is by keeping them, without complaint, after you have had a reasonable time to examine them. What is reasonable is not fixed; it depends on all the circumstances. If, however, you delay in examining what you have bought, or in telling the seller about a fault, then you may lose your right to reject.

(This means that you should immediately send a certified letter asking for a refund of your conference payment if you are not planning to attend. To delay, is to tacitly "accept" the conference as it is. Note the legal language above: "If you delay in examining or TELLING, you may lose your right to reject.)

Do not be put off by traders trying to talk their way out of their responsibilities. The law says it is up to the seller to comply with your statutory rights. So do not accept the excuse that "it's the manufacturer's fault." (Or that it is Ark and Laura's fault.)

Merchants who do not give cash refunds for non-defective, unused merchandise must conspicuously post a sign at the cash register, at the store entrance or at the point where the goods are displayed, disclosing their refund policy, credit or exchange policy and the conditions under which it applies. If there is no sign, consumer has 20 days to get a refund. (In some states, the seller is required to give a refund within 7 days of receiving request for same.)

The Federal Trade Commission (www.ftc.gov) provides fact sheets, buying tips, and a complaint form online. A consumer using credit cards is protected by the Federal Consumer Protection Act, which includes the Truth in Lending Act.]

*** V: Why not just post a simple announcement? Why turn it into an attack?

[The reader may wish to refer to the original report page, Retreat from Zaca, for the sequence of events. We said nothing until it became necessary to do so in order to answer the questions of the readers..]

It was not our responsiblity to post an announcement of any kind. We are not the promotors or organizers of the conference. The organizers announced in an email to most of the attendees: "The other speakers began backing out soon after word spread about your defection....you are the only one left," and: "speakers dropping out of the conference, and you're the only speaker left..." Many people were asking for their money back and were being confused by the different responses. Many were asking us what should they do. Rather than suggest that they do anything one way or another, we endeavored only to inform them of the sequence of events so that they could make up their own minds. V had had his say and left everyone confused.

We repeat: The report is our attempt to answer the questions of the readers. Our only concern was that those who wanted refunds should know that they had been promised by said organizer. We also wanted to make clear that we had been informed by the organizer that the conference was cancelled in its entirety. ]

***V: I apologize for J's rudeness. Take it as an indication of the ire your actions have aroused. However crudely he makes his point, he does in fact have one.

[Which of the above are justifiable "points?" Is it: "You are a liar" or is it: "All of your bullshit 6th and 7th density beings and you call yourself a Physicist. You couldn't get a job as a janitor." How about: "I am telling V to do the right thing and sue your asses into the ground." No, it can't be that, can it? Maybe it's: "You should be sued for slander and I am telling Jirka Rysavy to do it." or: "You are a classic intelligence operation and I intend to wipe you out."

Again I ask, what is there about our decision to cancel participation in a conference that arouses such "ire?" Does it relate, perhaps, to the fact stated above, that the majority of the attendees were readers of our site and members of our discussion group? Does it relate, perhaps, to the fact that our cancellation means that the "product advertised" cannot be delivered and therefore, the sellers are required by law to refund the monies?]

*** V: As I was no longer a member of said egroup, having been purged for not believing the same way as Laura and Ark, the privacy restrictions no longer applied. I would glad have settled the entire matter privately, but I was never given the chance. Censorship is a very STS activity. What is it that Laura and Ark are afraid of? Why not let me reply to their libelous accusations?

[The emails were available to V during the term of his membership in the group. When he withdrew from the group, they were no longer available to him for any reason whatsoever. The privacy clause relating to the posts of the group, which are property of the group, covers those posts explicitly under all circumstances. The privacy clause covering the emails posted within the group was never revoked.

It is also not true that no opportunity was given to settle the matter privately. Efforts were made to settle it privately. And the issue was not one of "belief," but of associations that were clearly and evidently detrimental to all we do and stand for. V was not being censored, he was being given time to discuss.

We have never said that V had no right to his own choices. The issue here is: we have a right to OUR choices and whom we associate with.

Membership in our egroup is a certain level of intimacy. It is a closed group for research from the platform of the Cassiopaean "working hypothesis." It is not an appropriate platform for magick and rituals.

Being associated in business with practitioners of magick, is another level of intimacy. Being associated in public with such practices, is to advertise acceptance and intimacy. For us, when we were given data that made the platform explicit, none of these were acceptable.

It does seem that V is suggesting that HIS rights are paramount, and we have none. What explanation can there be for what he describes as "ire" being felt against us when we made a decision to distance ourselves from what we neither practice nor promote? ]

*** V: My lengthy post contained nothing slanderous or libelous directed toward Laura and Ark. However, I have been slandered extensively:

***V So I have been branded with guilt by associations.

[On the contrary, we have said nothing slanderous or defamatory. We have merely distanced ourselves and presented the facts in our attempts to answer the questions of our readers. V violated our privacy and the privacy of the group.]

*** I have been initiated into five different traditions. I hold a 3rd degree in traditional Wicca, I am a Christian minister of a gnostic and non-demoninational variety, and I am one of the highest ranking initiates of anything that passes for the Golden Dawn, also I have the barakah of the founder of the Abu Al Hagagg Sufis of Luxor Egypt and I am part of the Medicine Buddha and Kalachakra lineage of Tibetan Buddhism as well as a terton or terma treasure holder, of the Nyngma-pa tradition.

*** V: Note that Laura neglects to relate the rest of that passage: I learned a great deal from all of them. I have been fortunate to meet several real adepts within living traditions who have corrected my mistakes and validated my attainments. For this, I am very grateful. My personal practices at the moment are Tibetan Buddhist and the last 'ritual' I did was to read the Bardo for the father of a former client who made his transition last Monday.

***As I said before, in the censored email to big group, any ritual or spiritual practice that is done without complete understanding and an STO framework is liable to attract unwanted 4d critters and worse. And believe me, that includes ouiji board channeling and mirror work. And of course, using "magick" to curtail anyone's free will, in any way, is very much STS black magic.

***What is so funny about all this, is that I have been thrown out of many occult groups because of my insistence on some of the things concerning "ritual" that Laura espouses. I do think that most Wiccan and ritual magick workings are useless and worse than useless, and have said so.

***I called up an old friend and long time FWMS member and read her some of Laura's rants about the GD, Dee and rituals in general. She thought it was mine and wanted to know what group I was about to get thrown out of. When I told her that it was directed at me, and that yes I was going to get thrown out, we both had a good laugh. So just to set the record straight, I am not a satanist, I do not do magick of a control oriented STS type, ever, and I have not been programmed to search out and destroy the Cs. Sort of feels like testifying at the anti-amercian hearings of McCarthy or facing the inquisition, doesn't it?

Regarding such "traditions," immediately after we announced our decision to not be a part of the Zaca lake conference, we received an email from the other organizer as follows:

From: [Conference organizer]
Date sent: Wed, 8 Aug 2001 10:38:09 EDT

I thank you for proving that my suspicions were correct. I told [Conference organizer] that you 2 weren't sophisitcated enough to understand what we were saying in our book, I told him that neither of you was coming from a tradition, therefore you had no training, I told him that channeling is an open door to evil and pernicious spirits. I told him that you 2 would take every thing he said, twist it all up and then throw it out to the public without a care for the ramifications. I told him that you weren't sensitive enough to understand Pythagorian geometry. I told him that Ark just another crack pot who calls himself (constantly I might add just in case we forget!!!) a 'Physicist'. Like that means anything. I told him that the 'C's' were the worst historians imaginable and that they had missed large and important, but secret, aspects of history. I told him that one could tell that she (Laura) was getting everything from books that she was reading and that not one, not one, original idea ever came from her material and that she had frankly gotten much very wrong. What can I say? I mean she's talking to spirits for crying out loud - how can we believe anything a bunch of spirits say?

But no he wouldn't listen. I told him who you really are and who you are really working for. He said 'no' you're wrong.

And I said to him 'then we will see by what happens. If they use your words against you publicly, if they say things that endanger your life, then we will know who is who.'

Thank you so much for proving me right. I asked God to help me with my BS radar and I called the shots on you 2 over a year ago. Jus ask Steve Oakly who also foolishly fell for your very intelligent operation.

[Conference organizer] is not lying when he says that he has lost $2000 on the Zaca deal. As Director of the lake I can confirm that his $2000 check has been cashed and deposited. (Please call Adina, the Zaca Lake Business Manager 805 688 5699.) I cannot give him his money back without breaking serious ethical rules. I will not break those rules as I have given my word to follow them. You owe him that money. This has nothing to do with me anymore. All I know is that you gave your word. If you break your word you should at least help him out financially. (I know you won't because destroying [Conference organizer] was the entire point of the operation. )

(Read Fastwalker by Jacques Vallee, you and all of the others are pawns of an operation to destroy the old Gods and replace them with aliens and channelled beings, now the NWO will have gods that they can control).

I warned [Conference organizer] and he didn't listen to me.

I know who you are. I know what you are doing. You will eventually get someone killed with your foolishness. If you have an ounce of mercy, or free will, please stop your irresponsible words and think about what you are saying. Every thought that you place in someone's head is now directly related to your karma. When one goes public they take on a lot of karmic responsibility. You are not using your public responsibility in a good way.

Sincerely,
[Conference organizer]

PS - I need to say this because it is proof of how sloppy the 'C's' really are: Knowledge doesn't protect anything. Knowledge in the hands of fools is the most dangerous thing that there is. WISDOM protects. Wisdom is knowledge coupled with intuition. It is the intuitive part that protects, the knowledge part is actually the aspect of being that places us in great danger. Quit reading trashy conspiracy books and cheap psuedo science and try a little Rene Guenon. You will find out how wrong you are. Geez.

***V: [Name deleted] is being no more disrespectful than you have been toward me.

[On the contrary, we have said nothing slanderous or defamatory. We have merely distanced ourselves and presented the facts in our attempts to answer the questions of our readers. V violated our privacy and the privacy of the group. It does seem that V is suggesting that HIS rights are paramount, and we have none. What explanation can there be for what he describes as "ire" being felt against us when we made a decision to distance ourselves from what we neither practice nor promote?]

. *** V: Yes, I have an interesting academy background, mostly on a free-lance level. I never claimed any degrees, and yes it is possible to do graduate level work without an undergraduate degree. Just unusual, but certainly not impossible. Depends on the university and the student.

["Graduate work" explicitly includes the idea of having graduated with a Bachelor's degree at the very least - to be doing work to obtain a higher degree, such as a Master's or a Ph.D. And he is listed as doing "graduate research," NOT "graduate level work", on the Laura Lee site as well. That is pretty much a claim to at least an undergraduate degree." We await further verification in these matters.]

*** V: When someone goes to this much trouble to attack you, when all you have done is try to help them, then one must truly wonder at the sanity and stability of those doing the attacking. This does not speak well for the results of prolonged contact with the Cassiopaeans.

[These pages would not even exist if a highly subjective and confusing version of our cancellation of presentation at V's conference had not been posted to most of the attendees, which, we have been informed by V, were mostly readers of our site. How is that "helping" US? How was it helping us to involve us in a conference without letting us know that the other organizer and manager of the conference center was, as we now know from his emails, so disrespectful and full of vituperation towards us? "All of your bullshit 6th and 7th density beings and you call yourself a Physicist. You couldn't get a job as a janitor." were his words, we believe. Had we known his attitude from the beginning, there would not have been any question that we would refuse to accept an invitation to speak.

Moreover, V violated our privacy and the privacy of the group. How is that "helping" us?

It does seem that V is suggesting that HIS rights are paramount, and we have none.

We have chosen to distance ourselves from him and his practices. When we announced this decision to distance ourselves from what we neither practice nor promote, we became the recipients of numerous insulting emails. How is that "helping" us? We were also barraged with emails from potential attendees with many questions as a result of the email posted by V. How is that "helping" us? The initial, short and "just the facts" report resulted in another insulting post from V's partner containing threats of lawsuits and dire destruction. How is that "helping us?"

We are still somewhat in shock that our cancellation resulted in the series of bizarre actions by the organizers of the conference. Not only did V send around his confusing email saying that we were the only speakers left - which was contradicted the statements of the other organizar - he did not remove our names from the advertisement of presenters as we requested. He was delaying a formal announcement of our cancellation and a selection for a replacement as any ordinary conference organizer would have done. How is that "helping" us?

In the end, had the cancellation been handled by the organizers in a professional way, with refunds to all those who decided at that point not to attend, there would have been no necessity to write a single word. That would been truly helpful to all concerned.

We have only presented the facts in our attempts to answer the questions of our readers.