I received this email tonight. It is in defense of the Movemen Center, and for all I know, Chetanananda might have written this.
I have redacted the names of all but two persons from the email, because these two are out front and seeking a well-deserved stardom and worldwide fame, which they anticipate is ’round the corner.
As for the others, they deserve the protection of anonymity.
Here is the email:
Frank
I have been following your Chet series, and I have some information. Here are some things to check out.
Daniel Glavin
Danial Glavin is a conman. They let him live at the Institute because he said he wanted to change. He was a meth and cocaine user and dealer.
He tried for about a week or two to straighten up, then went right back to his ways.
He said he worked a lot for free. He did some work, but more often disappeared for days off on binges. The work he did was seva, as a way to give back for his otherwise free ride.
Was Jessica Stirton a victim of Shoemaker, who allegedly kissed her once, or Daniel Glavin, who allegedly beat her often?
Daniel’s girlfriend, Jess, had violent fights with him. Residents had to walk him out of the building and protect her from him. He brought strangers who were high on meth into the building, and the elderly residents had to call for help because they feared for their safety.
Residents had to rescue Daniel when he was out on the streets dealing and getting beat up. Daniel is not a victim. If his wife was a victim, she was Daniel’s victim.
[Name redacted] was allowed to live there because her father [redacted]. He begged [redacted] to let her move in because he feared for her life and safety. She was a cutter [redacted].
[Redacted] also lived for free and was asked to do some seva every day. That rarely happened. She couldn’t get out of bed many days and could manage to focus on work for very short periods of time. She tried to join the army at the recruiting station in Portland but could not pass the mental health section of the interviews. “If” she was encouraged to [redacted].
[Redacted] was terrified of her mother. She would not give her mother’s info as emergency contact. She did NOT want her mother called. She said her mother was bi-polar, over-controlling and her mother even had her arrested and put in jail in [redacted] for smoking pot.
Half disclosures seem dishonest.
I have been told that only two NDAs have been signed over the 50-year period.
In my opinion, the Institute did not fail because it had too many rules. It failed because there were virtually no rules. People were supposed to be there because meditation was a priority. It was true for about 80% of the people. That 80% did their practice. The others: not so much.
No one had authority to enforce any order or discipline, though some tried. The Swami was gone 9-10 months of the year by 2009 and the Institute fell deeply in debt. Anyone who says they were “made” to do anything is suspicious. People did what they wanted. Terms like “I got away” seem strange since everyone came and went as they pleased.
I have tried to leave comments on your blog. But the responses of the haters make it clear that no opposing voice is welcome.
Frank Report comment:
There is no hard evidence yet that the allegations in this email against Daniel Glavin are true. But if ashram members had to escort him out to protect Jessica, some will remember, and tell me.
If Daniel Glavin put the elderly in fear with his reckless drug escapades, someone will speak out. They will tell Frank Report.
Be assured of that.
If people at the ashram rescued Daniel because of his illegal drug dealings and addictions, which led people tougher than – perhaps those he tried to cheat – to beat him up. Someone will tell us.
Frank Report is a magnet for sources.
In Dan’s case, it is important. He hopes to tell his story to a worldwide audience. He has hitched his wagon to the star that is Laura Hoeppner. He wants to achieve the stardom that comes from briefly appearing in a documentary.
If Hoeppner gets the funding, and if the film she makes is good enough to broadcast, the public has the right to know if everyone who appears in it is telling the truth.
Is Dan’s story truthful or a tissue of lies?
If Hoeppner makes a truthy but untruthful documentary, the public has the right to know. Be assured, we will aid the public.
Faux victims like Dan Glavin mock real victims. This is not about truthiness. Or making documentaries. Or being a fame hog. This is about finding the truth and, if allowed, help to seek justice.
As for the anonymous writer;s general defense of the ashram and how it was ran, I look forward to hearing from those who lived there. One thing that seems true is that unlike other cults, no one seems to have had any trouble leaving when they liked.
Chet did not seem to hound those who left like Keith Raniere did.
Finally, the concluding lines of the anonymous writer: “I have tried to leave comments on your blog. But the responses of the haters make it clear that no opposing voice is welcome.”
All are welcome to leave their responses. I will publish their comments. I will not allow haters to override the dissemination of information. And for those who have direct information to provide – my number is 305-783-7083 and my email is frankparlato@gmail.com.
