Landmark connection?

from xxx@xxx.xxx
to Chapel Guardian chapelguardian@gmail.com
date Wed, May 5, 2010 at 7:30 PM
subject Re Landmark connection

Dear Guardian, please keep my identity anonymous. It might be worth your time to check into the Friends of Chapel connection, if any, to Landmark. Please also keep my email address confidential.

"May Day" meeting ([Chapel Guardian] New comment on Twitter posts revealed)

(Below is a comment posted in reply to "Twitter posts revealed". Chapel Guardian is also posting it separately because of what the poster has to say.)

Anonymous xxxxxxx-xxxxxxx@blogger.com
to chapelguardian@gmail.com
date Wed, May 5, 2010 at 9:50 PM
subject [Chapel Guardian] New comment on Twitter posts revealed.

I am a Chapel member, and am absolutely horrified at the recent turn of events. Twenty years ago Rev. Larr chose Rev. Ann to lead the church, and the members of the congregation have consistently voted her as Pastor every year for two decades. She and her spouse, Joe Myers, devoted all these years of their lives to the continuing care and stewardship of the Church.

Recently, 72 members from the highly volatile and fanatically organized Friends of Chapel group, attended the April special election in person and by proxy, to take over the Board of Trustees. According to the third party neutral Ms. Hasler, who was chosen through mediation to run the meeting, there were 252 members entitled to vote.

The result of the election was that 7 Friends of Chapel members became a majority on the 9 member Board of Trustees. These majority members are now in the process of orchestrating a list of "grievances" which they intend to use to destroy the Chairman of the Corporation Rev. Ann, who holds office as Chairman of the Board until the year 2012.

The 7 called a "May Day" Board meeting for Saturday, May 1st, to which only Friends of Chapel members were invited. They held this meeting in the spiritual sanctuary of the church, to begin the process of evisceration.

It is interesting that this was the first meeting of the Board of Trustees ever held on a Saturday. Board meetings have always been held on Sundays, after services. It appears to me this date was chosen to enhance a "May Day" effect, and it is a sad use of the Chapel's sanctuary.

It is time for the rest of the 180+ members of the Chapel to speak up, if they want to save their church.


Posted by Anonymous to Chapel Guardian at May 5, 2010 9:50 PM

Twitter posts revealed

Chapel Guardian have uncovered a series of Twitter posts (also known as "tweets") from Friends of Chapel members Terry Hall and Amy Hall. They reveal the lengths - again - that the Friends of Chapel have gone in the past few months to vilify people they don't agree with. Below, we look at these tweets and analyze. First, we tackle Terry Hall's. Then, we deal with what Amy Hall had to say, and there is an interesting note with that one.

From Terry Hall comes five tweets:

1) "Rev Ann Lorenzini thinks she is Donald Trump. Fires entire Chapel of Awareness congregation in Encinitas, CA"

2) "Pope gets taken down & Rev Ann Lorenzini exhibits "Pope Complex" excommunicating entire congregation - Encinitas, CA"

3) "Rev Ann Lorenzini delivers a very Gumby Christmas to Chapel of Awareness Congregation by revoking all memberships"

4) "Rev Ann Lorenzini of Chapel of Awareness Spiritualist Church gets Pope Complex & excommunicates entire membership"

5) "What do you do when your Church revokes all memberships and hires armed guards to block entry into annual meeting?"

Terry Hall's published messages mischaracterize the conflict that was going on at Chapel of Awareness. For one, the original list of those removed from the membership rolls was compiled and approved by the Board of Directors for people who were deemed no longer active in membership, per board established criteria.

When the Friends of Chapel group sued the Chapel of Awareness over this action, their collective vitriolic behavior (including disruptive shouting matches at board meetings and nasty public statements containing falsehoods and personal attacks) caused such chaos that the Board ultimately felt it needed to rebuild the whole membership from scratch. Maybe a misguided decision, but not done out of spite; but it was done under threat from these "Friends".

That feeling of threat lead the Board to bring in security for the annual meeting. And they were right to do so when the so-called "Friends" flooded the sidewalk out front and harassed members trying to enter the meeting, and themselves demanded entry despite the fact that their lawsuit was in litigation.


Now for Amy Hall's tweet:


1) "Seminar companies aren't the only ones with internal ego issues..."

The reference in this tweet is to former pastor Rev. Ann Lorenzini. Chapel Guardian find it interesting that Amy Hall would be attacking Chapel of Awareness and its former pastor when she served under controversial self-help coach James Arthur Ray, only resigning from Ray's organization after the deaths at his sweat lodge retreat in Sedona, Arizona.


Now, since the Friends' takeover of the Chapel of Awareness, the Friends of Chapel have been quietly promoting a San Diego mountain retreat in the coming weeks. Chapel Guardian want to make it clear they are not saying this retreat is planned with ill-intent. But in Chapel Guardian's opinion, the timing is terribly inappropriate given the raw nerves and the Ray controversy, and Friends of Chapel members' links to the Ray organization.

Sunday "grand opening"

The Chapel Guardian received reports on the so-called "grand opening" of the Chapel of Awareness on Sunday May 2:

Attendance appeared to be about 80 people. Readings provided by people like Sandy Smith. Food and celebration in the kitchen. The Chapel Guardian congratulates the Friends of Chapel for this turnout.

Only problem is, most of those in attendance were part of the 87 responsible for suing Chapel. This is also the same group of people who either disappeared or "retired" after founder Rev. Gene Larr died in 2006, and sued the church when a past Board of Directors (including now Friends of Chapel members) called them on the carpet for being inactive by cleaning up the membership rolls. These people who bullied their way back to the Chapel are enjoying Sunday services under a new roof that they neither donated to nor participated in securing. Services clearly only advertised to their 80 or so constituents, not the full membership.

The Friends of Chapel accused past boards of being exclusionary, yet church members in the last week or so have complained that they have received no mailings or notices regarding now weekly board meetings and the "grand opening." Peace and harmony only for the exclusive Friends of Chapel.

A fair chance?

Regarding postings on friendsofchapel.blogspot.com on Thursday, April 29 ("Chapel of Awareness Classes" and "Chapel of Awareness Board Meeting"):

Chapel Guardian have been given information that the new chapel Board of Directors is sending inconsistent or selective mailings of important announcements for all members.

1) A mailing announcing the resumption of classes was inconsistently mailed to the membership. Some got it, some did not.

2) There is apparently a call for Chapel members to attend an "open forum" meeting at 10am Saturday morning May 1 to vent frustrations at the board. The Chapel Guardian applauds the idea of holding an open forum of this type. It's probably needed. But was the whole membership told of this opportunity? No.

If these announcements were intended to the whole membership, these announcements would at least have been posted on the Chapel's official website, www.chapelofawareness.org, which this new board now has control of. As of Friday April 30, there are no such announcements. (Note also that friendsofchapel also continues to maintain a "shadow" Chapel of Awareness site at sites.google.com/site/friendsofchapel/ promoting publications and activities.)

The only place these announcements have been placed is on the blog of friendsofchapel.

Maybe all this is just an oversight. Or maybe the new board is slow on the uptake in getting mailings out. Nonetheless, the membership is not being given fair notice of these activities.

The Chapel Guardian would like to make a suggestion: Why not have an open forum for the next board meeting, too, and give ample notice to the entire membership for an opportunity to be heard?

A letter about domain names

Chapel Guardian has received a letter today regarding recent rumors about blogs and domain names. Both sides should find it interesting.

"Election day"

re: Election day
Kick Boxaah xxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxx.xxx
Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 1:41 PM
To: chapelguardian@gmail.com

Chapel Guardian:

Thanks for posting your info about the election on April 18.

Unfortunately, I can vouch for the accuracy of what you reported based on my experience that day.

I personally have nothing against the Friends of Chapel people and I don't really know a lot of them. But their hisses at me as I walked to the podium to give my 30-second statement were a shabby and immature way to treat a child of chapel. (I first experienced chapel as a child when my mom started there in 1975-76.) Their schoolyard display didn't hurt me, but the intent seemed clear.

I didn't expect to win, but I chose to clap for them when they did, in good faith. I even had a nice conversation with Rev. Nell Rose Smith afterward, and Rev. Don Miller and I had a nice exchange as we all signed in.

But with the overall behavior I witnessed, and now the postings on the Friends blog, I have lost whatever faith I had in this group's good intentions and abilities. I really hope that faith can be restored because ultimately I believe in the goodness of human nature.

(I give Chapel Guardian permission to post this.)

Thanks,
Roman Koenig

"please post this comment"

Fw: Re please post this comment
xxxxxxx@xxx.xxx
Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 4:50 PM
To: chapelguardian@gmail.com


Dear Chapel Guardian (whoever you may be):

This is to thank you on behalf of the Chapel of Awareness for being the lone voice of sanity during all of our recent turmoil. It felt good to know that someone out there could see through the morass and know what the truth really was. Please know that we do appreciate your very fair comments.

I do want to clarify one thing however. The Chapel of Awareness group did not agree to taking down the Guardian blog. On the contrary, we told them that we did not know who the Guardian was and we had no authority to ask him/her to do this. Apparently they didn't believe us. You are right in saying that we cannot speak for you and truly, we did not. I trust you will believe us on this matter as we would very much like to meet you one day and shake your hand.

Sincerely,

Rev. Ann Marie Lorenzini,
Chairman of the Board
Chapel of Awareness Spiritual Church

Newly empowered, badly behaved

We of Chapel Guardian were ready to congratulate the new pastor and board members this week in light of their successful election on Sunday April 18. But in light of the newly elected pastor’s tactics reported to Guardian on April 18, and now a posting at the Friends of Chapel blog site, it is apparent that such congratulations are not in order yet. We hold out hope that can change sometime soon.

We are saddened, disheartened and disappointed that their tactics continue despite their success. We had honestly hoped that a new era could begin with both sides abiding by mediation and moving Chapel forward. It was even hoped that the purpose of Chapel Guardian would come to an end. This week has shown that this cannot yet be the case.

Rather than empowering harmony for everyone at Chapel of Awareness, they are pouncing on a power play. We believe they have failed the benefit of the doubt already.

Cases in point:

Newly elected pastor Reverend Don Miller is already bulldozing over the new Board of Directors (which happens to include his own allies such as Reverends Nell Rose Smith and Sherry DeLoach), setting agendas that are not appropriate for him to set.

It was reported to Chapel Guardian that to the protest of the third-party election mediator who ran the election on April 18, Reverend Miller proceeded to take the podium and announce the setting of a board meeting and the opening of the chapel, a direct challenge to the new Board of Directors’ functions. This was followed by his Friends of Chapel announcement on their blog that he “announces the immediate re-opening of the Chapel of Awareness Sunday Services”. (http://friendsofchapel.blogspot.com/2010/04/chapel-of-awareness-sunday-services.html)

The former Board voted in a properly convened meeting to close chapel services as the church was under the assault of Friends of chapel. Now it is for the new Board to vote the Chapel open, and to unanimously approve the reactivation of retired Chapel ministers (one of whom happens to be Reverend Miller). So a retired minister who has to be approved as reactivated is setting service dates and Board agendas before the Board even has had a chance to meet. That is not appropriate and does not make sense, in Guardian’s opinion. It is certainly not in keeping with the spirit of cooperation and a “new era”.

It is ironic that the Friends of Chapel who have cried “Point of Order!!” throughout the last six months over the chapel’s Bylaws are now flouting those very Bylaws. This further calls Friends of Chapel motives into question: Friends of Chapel never had intention of following Chapel’s Bylaws themselves. Or they do not understand or know the Bylaws as they claim.

It was also reported that in the course of the April 18 election that Reverends Sherry DeLoach and Nell Rose Smith were sharing a proof of the so-called Spiritualist’s Bible, which claims to be a compilation of Founder Reverend Eugene Larr’s works. (http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AZVukuKH9FnkZGNnZng1YmpfMTdmd3Y1NXNmNg&hl=en and http://sites.google.com/site/friendsofchapel/)This book has been clearly established as a Friends of Chapel publication, yet they revealed it at the Chapel of Awareness election. Will Chapel itself ever see a cut of this book’s profits when it is released, in support of the church he founded? Doubtful.

It was also reported to Chapel Guardian that certain candidates for office, among them Reverend Ann Lorenzini and advisor candidate Roman Koenig, were noticeably hissed at by Friends of Chapel members as they prepared to make some remarks. Chapel Guardian assume that these hisses were Friends’ attempt to prove their stated mission of “loving kindness”. So be it.

Based on the time and date stamps on their posts April 18 (http://friendsofchapel.blogspot.com/2010/04/special-election_18.html), Friends of Chapel flouted the stated order of the third-party election mediator to turn all cell phones off. Yet Friends of Chapel defied this order as they posted election actions live to their blog in the middle of that election.

Those who care about the state of Chapel of Awareness, as expressed through Chapel Guardian, will continue to call Friends of Chapel on their behavior. They cannot honestly expect that their questionable behavior will go unnoticed or unchallenged by those who desperately seek a balance of some kind, especially knowing what Reverend Larr's philosophy truly represents.

Mediation does not apply to this website

It has been brought to Chapel Guardian’s attention that, in mediation, Friends of Chapel demanded that the Chapel Guardian blog be taken down as part of its agreement with Chapel of Awareness. In turn, Chapel of Awareness agreed to this arrangement, provided that Friends of Chapel take its blog down in return.

The statement of intent on this blog is clear, and has been unchanged since the Friends’ blog and legal action began: “Chapel Guardian represents only the opinions of the administrator, and is not a sanctioned activity of the Chapel of Awareness Spiritual Church Corporation or any other entity or person.”

Apparently, the Friends of Chapel mediation group neither read nor understood this statement.

The Friends of Chapel mediation group had no business demanding that a third-party blog be taken down as part of their own lawsuit. Chapel of Awareness had no business agreeing to it.

Such a demand is just as inappropriate as if Chapel were to demand that Rev. Eric Berg take down his blog site (revericsblog.blogspot.com) ... one that uses the words “senile dementia” in the same breath as board chair Rev. Ann Lorenzini ... when he is not a named party in the Friends’ litigation, either.

Therefore, Chapel Guardian does not recognize this demand and agreement on the part of Friends of Chapel and Chapel of Awareness. These parties have no right to demand the silencing of free speech, especially when the blog in question is not a litigant in this case. This demand is not binding on Chapel Guardian.

Chapel Guardian will consider legal avenues if there is a continued attempt to “mediate” away its right to free speech by anyone involved in this dispute, especially when Chapel Guardian is not a plaintiff or a defendant.

The Chapel Guardian was not the first to attack the characters of Chapel congregants, ministers, and board members. But it was the first to defend them, and it will continue doing so.

"Donation Letter"

On March 3, 2010, the so-called "Friends of Chapel" published on its blog site a file called "Donation Letter."

There two aspects of this money solicitation that are revealing:

1) The group not only asks for more money, but it makes the point that they seem to need thousands of dollars, payable to an individual (a woman named Wanda Olson who claims the title "treasurer") and not a nonprofit interest group, as it should be. This is questionable, in Chapel Guardian's view.

Chapel Guardian also finds it ironic that one of the "Friends" staunchest supporters, a man named Terry Hall, is on the warpath (and rightfully so, in many regards) to regulate the life-coaching seminar industry while supporting the "Friends" group as it engages in questionable financial requests.

2) The so-called "Friends" have now finally revealed by name the core group responsible for orchestrating what many have expressed as a hateful personal campaign against numerous members of Chapel of Awareness, which has included the twisting of facts and the attacking of personal characters of people who hold ministerial papers (including late Founder Rev. Eugene C. Larr). The people responsible for leading this campaign as now listed in this "Donation Letter" are:

Donald Schwartz
Nell Rose Smith
Don Miller
Sherry De Loach
Dietmar Rothe
Marie Dardarian
Melissa Hall
Rusty McKee
Clarence Ramstedt
Ernie Linkous
Helene Dorian

A copy of the "Donation Letter" is presented here for Chapel Guardian readers.

Spin in a "newsletter"

On Jan. 20, 2010, the “Friends of Chapel” posted a digital copy of a document it referred to as a “Chapel Newsletter” (check the file name: “January+14+Chapel+News+Letter_1”).

Chapel Guardian takes this document to task for two reasons.

1) Hijacking a name

This is, again, an example of how the so-called “Friends” have attempted to claim the “Chapel of Awareness” name as their own, just as they did with a post office box in Cardiff a few months ago. This group continuously attempts to mislead the Chapel community that it is actually the Chapel, when it is not.

The only newsletters regarding Chapel of Awareness come from Chapel of Awareness, not a splinter group.

Members of the “Friends” have often cited a business model (even though Chapel is a non-profit religious organization) that Chapel must follow. With that in mind, consider a recent example in the business world: the conflict between comedian Conan O’Brien and the NBC network.

When NBC decided to reshuffle its programming, Conan O’Brien protested, including on his show. However, just because he was upset with the network, did he and his production group start claiming to be NBC? Of course not.

That is just as unacceptable as the Friends of Chapel’s continued attempts to hijack the Chapel of Awareness name for themselves because they are unhappy with the organization’s actions.

2) Speaking for the judge

The “Friends of Chapel” spin on the court hearing is interesting.

Their “newsletter” claims the judge was open to their case. Yet he handed down a preliminary ruling in which basically over 75% of that case was found not in their favor, followed by an order for mediation even after they flooded the courtroom.

“The judge clearly stated that if we are unable to gain willingness and cooperation from the Chapel board, we should not wait 90 days, and should come back to his court right away for his ruling.”

The context in the whole “newsletter,” and the overall tone, indicate that the Friends of Chapel know that the judge will rule in their favor. A judge is impartial … neutral to both sides. Unless the judge is unprofessional, it is highly unlikely he would have expressed such “openness” without making a ruling. If anything, he narrowly dismissed the complaint, and then ordered mediation.

As always, read the material for yourself. And read between the lines.

Tentative Ruling posted

The judge's Tentative Ruling in the "Friends of Chapel" action against the Chapel of Awareness has been posted online at the San Diego Superior Court's website.

Chapel Guardian is posting the Tentative Ruling here without comment at this time.

 

A thought as Jan. 8 approaches

In the midst of the current Chapel of Awareness conflict, Chapel Guardian has pledged to look at information presented and offer alternative points of view as a counterbalance.

What has ultimately taken Chapel Guardian by surprise is how far the "Friends of Chapel" group has pushed the boundaries of taste, civility, and truth.

Pursuing a legal hearing of their grievance was their fair right, but they went far beyond that. They were unwilling to wait for a Jan. 8 hearing. They escalated hostile feelings by using inaccurate information, innuendo, rumor, and personal attacks, and venting all of that on a public blog. This behavior has not been evident on the Chapel of Awareness side.

Both sides originally acted in the way they felt was right, but it has been the "Friends of Chapel" who have unreasonably escalated the hostilities.

Now as the Jan. 8 hearing approaches, the “Friends of Chapel” group continues to engage in misinformation, loose interpretations, intimidation, among other tactics, to get its message across.

Regardless of the outcome of Jan. 8’s legal hearing, the Chapel of Awareness congregation as a whole, however it comes together after this time, must hold the “Friends of Chapel” group accountable for its mean-spirited philosophy.

A matter of interpretation

An anonymous post Jan. 5 on friendsofchapel.blogspot.com states: “Note also, that Rev. Larr never closed the Chapel contrary to Rev. Lorenzini's claim.”

This is a matter of interpretation, and not fact. Nowhere does Rev. Ann Lorenzini’s Dec. 20 letter to corporate members state that founder Rev. Eugene C. Larr closed the Chapel. What it explains is that he had to reorganize the Chapel on three separate occasions.

Unfortunately, given Rev. Larr’s passing and the “Friends of Chapel” group’s convoluted campaign that has gone far beyond a simple quest for a legal finding, the Board of Trustees found it in the church corporation’s best interest to suspend operations as the “Friends” battle is sorted out.

With "all his love," he attacks

Chapel Guardian received and accepted in good faith the comment below posted by a man named Terry Hall. It seemed genuine and civil. His letter to Rev. Ann Lorenzini on the "Friends of Chapel" blog dated Dec. 29 also seemed heart-felt and genuine.

********************
This is the comment received by Hall:
@xxxxxxxx said...

Dear Chapel Guardian,

I have posted an open letter to Rev Ann on the Friends of Chapel site @ http://friendsofchapel.blogspot.com - As I've read your comments, I trust you to include my simple and possibly niave request (typos and all) as you give counsel in the matter.

All my love,
Terry Hall
December 29, 2009 2:08 PM
********************

But then, on Jan. 1 comes a post based on questionable information in which he uses innuendo to accuse Lorenzini of a real estate scheme by saying "canceling the historical status for the Chapel may have foreshadowed her intentions to use the Chapel property for her own personal benefit."

This was further followed by an inaccurate claim to "understand it correctly the most of the Board Appointments are Barbara Koenig and her relations (son & husband)?"

While it appears true that her husband John Petrowski has served on the board recently, there is nothing to indicate that Koenig's son has ever served on the board of trustees or in any appointed position. What he has been, based on his own statements published here and sent to Hall, is an active member of the organization who sat in on board meetings.

It is apparent that Hall's questionable accusations resulted in the strong responses from Roman Koenig himself, posted below.

Chapel Guardian will let Hall's and Koenig's posts speak for themselves. But what disquiets Chapel Guardian, based on Guardian's message from him and in Guardian's opinion, is that he apparently plays nice in preparation for attack. This is not what Chapel of Awareness promotes in its teachings, as far as Chapel Guardian is concerned.

Chapel Guardian also finds it disquieting that the so-called Friends of Chapel appear to be engaging in what extremists of many costumes often do ... When they cannot succeed in attacking someone directly, they turn to the families and beliefs of those people and seek to destroy them.

This is not Chapel of Awareness philosophy, in Chapel Guardian's opinion.

"Now I'm under attack, and what for??"

(**This is a follow-up submission in response to a posting by Terry Hall on the "Friends of Chapel" blog at friendsofchapel.blogspot.com on Jan. 1, 2010.)

Now I'm under attack, and what for??
Kick Boxaah xxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxx.xxx
Sat, Jan 2, 2010 at 11:37 PM
To: chapelguardian@gmail.com
Cc: xxxx@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, friendsofchapel@gmail.com

Dear Chapel Guardian,

As a follow-up to what I wrote earlier, I wanted to further say that I am upset that friendsofchapel have taken upon themselves to attack family members of those involved in this membership argument.

I stood alone as a Chapel member, and as a professional individual, when I held the board accountable for what I personally believed was an ill-advised process for historical preservation. What friendsofchapel is not telling anyone is that my mother, Basia Koenig, and stepfather, John Petrowski, were on the board at that time, when I *was not*. They are also not telling anyone that Don Miller was also on the board at the time, the same man who is involved with friendsofchapel and is listed in Nell Rose Smith's legal action.

Terry Hall's friendsofchapel post refers to me as Barbara and John's "son" while roping me into this alleged conspiracy of leadership headed by Ann Lorenzini, making it sound as if I have some kind of covert leadership position and a vested interest in Ann's alleged real estate scam. *I have never served on the board nor have I ever put my name in nomination for the board; no one has ever put my name in nomination.*

I am a professional working in the public spheres of journalism and higher education, and I resent that Terry Hall and friendsofchapel have taken this approach to achieve their goals. It is deceptive, hurtful and spiteful.

I allow only Chapel Guardian to publish this and my previous message today. Posting of these materials anywhere else is done without my permission as author.

Thank you,
Roman S. Koenig

"re: Chapel-DEMA deed misinformation"

(**This is a submission in response to a posting by Terry Hall on the "Friends of Chapel" blog at friendsofchapel.blogspot.com on Jan. 1, 2010.)

re: Chapel-DEMA deed misinformation
Kick Boxaah xxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxx.xxx
Sat, Jan 2, 2010 at 3:51 PM
To: xxxx@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Cc: friendsofchapel@gmail.com, chapelguardian@gmail.com

Dear Terry Hall,

I have quietly followed the postings on friendsofchapel (and the counter-blog chapelguardian) for some time, but after what you posted on friendsofchapel at the start of this New Year, I am now compelled to respond to statements made by you that I find outrageous and false.

I don’t know you, nor your motives for posting what you did on the friendsofchapel blog. But since I am someone with direct knowledge of the situation you address (independent of my family ties, before you pass judgment on me), I must set the record straight on what you claim.

First of all, you claim that it is the now-former pastor who is dragging this “friends” mess into court, when it is the friendsofchapel group itself that initiated a court action, not her. All you need is a copy of the friendsofchapel action as filed by Nell Rose Smith to see that (handed outside the annual meeting Decemeber 13th). So that is falsity number one.

Second and most relevant to this message to you is the issue of the chapel building’s historical status.

You claim that “canceling the historical status for the Chapel may have foreshadowed her intentions to use the Chapel property for her own personal benefit.” Seeing as *I* am the one who demanded that the board review the plans for historical status, I can tell you that your claim in your friendsofchapel post is outright false.

The issues regarding the deed restriction came to my attention in mid-2008 when an Encinitas-based film festival was advertising events scheduled in the Chapel of Awareness building, unknown to the Board of Directors or the general membership, and when the handover of the deed had not taken place and no final board approval had been given.

As a filmmaker, journalist and member of Chapel, this raised a red flag with me. So I raised the issue with the Board of Trustees at its next meeting (which I recall was September 2008). I demanded that, as a member of Chapel, I get a direct understanding of what the plans were for the deed restriction and historical designation through the Downtown Encinitas MainStreet Association (DEMA). Members of the board were also unhappy with the methods used by the board chairman and first vice-chair at that time to push the proposal through with as little discussion as possible.

Having been a past member and secretary of the Encinitas Historical Society, an avid local history buff, and having a journalistic relationship with DEMA separately, I had a general idea of how appropriate channels should work for these kinds of dealings. From my own understanding of process and how Chapel is designed to function, I sensed something wasn’t adding up.

I was not satisfied with the explanations I got from the Chapel board chairman and first vice-chair, nor were other members of the board at that time. (This was all in open session of the board, so I can discuss this as an active party and witness. I am not privy to any closed-session issues, obviously, so that is not appropriate to address.)

The situation escalated when DEMA published on its website that the Chapel building deed had been turned over to the organization, when in fact it had not, nor had even been finalized. I again brought this to the board’s attention, and the board handled the concerns that followed as they saw fit.

I was at the open-session board meeting at which the board chairman resigned, and the vice-chair was forced to resign. Again, *speaking as the person who raised concerns about the deed issue myself*, I can tell you that any actions regarding this matter had to do with the board’s concerns over the DEMA process and the actions of the chairman and vice-chair.

The fault, in my opinion, didn’t lie with the board, nor with DEMA. The chairman and vice-chair should have been more open about the process to the board and membership. That lack of communication could have been completely unintentional, but that wasn’t the point. The process was viewed as contaminated because I, as a member, and board trustees felt that the Chapel as an organization had been left in the dark as to what exactly was happening.

You claim in your missive that, “At the 12th hour, the agreement was canceled by Lorenzini. It is unclear to me whether the cancellation of this agreement had Board Approval.”

The *board* opted not to go through the process, not because Ann Lorenzini had some secret real estate deal in the works, but because this was an issue that *I* brought to the board’s attention as a responsible, active member of Chapel.

So you are right in one respect. You are unclear in your understanding of the issues.

Further, you demand that friendsofchapel “bring this matter to the attention of the Court as evidence that Lorenzini has NOT performed her responsibilities as the Chapel's Pastor.” They are more than welcome to do so, as I will testify to the contrary if called upon to do so. The trustees’ minutes, tape recordings, and roll call of the meetings in question will show I am accurate about this.

Even more outrageous is the posting of your misguided information on the friendsofchapel blog, a group under the guidance of Wanda Olson, among others. I bring her up because at the September 2009 meeting in which Olson and others engaged in a shout fest to prevent the board from doing its regular business, Olson claimed “she attended board meetings” at the time I did regarding the historical-status concerns in 2008. I told her during that shout fest that I never saw her there. In fact, I was the *only* regular Chapel member who apparently cared enough to attend open board meetings at the time. The meeting roll calls will show this.

Had I not been there to raise concerns as a regular member, the board would have entered into an agreement it and the membership might have later regretted. Historical status can be sought anytime, and you learn along the way as you learn the process.

I have tried to keep a certain distance from the friendsofchapel conflict, and I will not tolerate being dragged into it as you have done with me by discussing issues you clearly know nothing about but which I have direct knowledge of.

I find this conduct so outrageous that I am cc’ing friendsofchapel and chapelguardian alternative blog, and bcc'ing Chapel itself and the Downtown Encinitas MainStreet Association. DEMA deserves to know they have been brought up in friendsofchapel’s smear campaign (albeit indirectly, by bringing up the proposed deed transfer).

Roman S. Koenig

"My two cents ..."

(**This is a submission sent on Dec. 23, 2009.)

My two cents...
c wright xxxxxxxx@xxx.xxx
Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 2:44 AM
To: chapelguardian@gmail.com

I feel the need to express my Love and thanks on the Chapel Guardian page during this time of external turmoil. It would be an understatement to say that I was deeply saddened by the hostility being vented at the recent membership meeting. I hold the highest regard for the loving people responsible for keeping the Chapel of Awareness alive and thriving so I could find my spiritual home. I send my thanks with much Love and respect...

The real source of discord

The Friends of Chapel Mission Statement, as posted on their blog, states that they are "a group of ministers, staff, and members who have joined together in an effort to restore order to the Chapel."

The greatest irony of all, in Chapel Guardian's view, comes from the writings of one of the Friends' ministers recently discovered on that minister's own website.

One of the Friends' central claims is that the post-Larr era at Chapel of Awareness has been rife with disorder and disharmony. That the Chapel is an unwelcome place, especially since the return of one of Founder Rev. Gene Larr's earlier ministers, Rev. Basia Koenig.

Chapel Guardian is aware, however, that disharmony and discord date before Rev. Koenig's return, or Pastor Rev. Ann Lorenzini's attempts to keep Chapel on track. This disharmony was directly caused by those who now seek to "restore order" to the Chapel. The proof is here:

One of the major names associated with Friends of Chapel is Rev. Eric Berg. Chapel Guardian does not exist to attack ministers personally, so this is not a commentary on him directly or his affiliation with Friends of Chapel. What he has to say about discord at Chapel is subtle but interesting, and it comes from the excerpts of his own minister's reports as posted on his website: eclarr.zinfinite.com/rev_eric.htm (emphasis in bold added by Chapel Guardian).

From his 2005 report: "Fear is the opposite of trust. Isn’t it individual fear that most effectively blocks our development as individuals? So here too, fear of what others may do (called mistrust) most effectively blocks development of Chapel as a whole."

From his 2004 report: "I'll work with the other ministers more this year, so that the harmony among us improves and we can go beyond just taking care of business here at Chapel and be examples of some of the miracles we’re training to do."

From his 2003 report: "Let's focus on harmony and our practice. Doing Board business is like housecleaning - it’s necessary but not the point. I’m practicing to refine it into being effortless and fun for everyone."

The group of people most involved during these years are the ones who left when Pastor Lorenzini needed their help the most after Rev. Larr passed away. They were the ministers and board members (and their associates) who Rev. Berg addressed in his minister's reports. He is part of this group himself. They are the Friends of Chapel, and it is the group that has caused the most discord of all since 2006, and certainly in 2009.

From Rev. Berg's own writings, it appears the rancor started long ago. It wouldn't have been addressed in minister's reports were it not a pressing issue.

Something to keep in mind as 2009 draws to a close.

Reflections for the Holiday

If there is one thing the last decade has taught us, it is that one cannot take what another says simply at face value, believe it, and act on it. We have seen this in acts of war, and acts of politics.

We have unfortunately seen this in certain circles associated with Chapel of Awareness. And before you nod to yourself thinking "yes, that's them," read completely ...

In 2009, Chapel of Awareness saw the cancellation of memberships based on non-participation, as interpreted through due process by the Board of Trustees.

Some current and former members seized on this action to build a movement based on their own self-interest. This group was formed by people who left Pastor Rev. Ann Lorenzini in the lurch after Founder Rev. Eugene C. Larr passed away. They were gone for three years and did nothing as Rev. Lorenzini struggled to keep the Chapel going.

What this splinter group cannot stand, however, is the fact that she succeeded where they expected her to fail. She brought in a minister -- the only one to Chapel Guardian's knowledge awarded mediumship papers by Rev. Larr -- to help rebuild the Chapel after the exodus of ministers and members after his death. With Rev. Basia Koenig's inspiration, they rallied the membership through fundraisers to replace the Chapel's aging roof. They brought back events first started by Rev. Larr, such as Reading in the Round, and original teachings into the classroom.

The Friends of Chapel will not tell you this. It is not in their self-interest to do so.

Chapel Guardian has already taken Friends of Chapel to task for their questionable tactics and mean-spirited actions, so there is no need to rehash them in this message.

What is tremendously sad is that people with legitimate questions have been brought into the so-called Friends' fold like a dark figure trying to build a following. Chapel Guardian is not saying that this is what they are, only that their behavior shows this.

Good decisions cannot be made when only one side of a story is given ... frankly, forced upon a captive audience (current and former members of Chapel being that audience).

Fundamentalist religions and political dictatorships show all too well what happens when a flock is encouraged -- required -- to listen only to its dogma. Judgment, hostility, and fear are the only glue that holds the bond together. Anything that could reveal cracks in that dogma is immediately attacked through words, actions, and thoughts.

And what have the so-called Friends of Chapel done?

1) Engage in fear: Using a questionably obtained mailing list to stir fear and rancor among the flock to bring people to their side. The Friends' Mission Statement says that they seek "to restore order to the Chapel," yet there never has been a lack of order ... only the rancor caused directly by the Friends' actions, even before the changes in membership, and the perpetuation of rumors.

2) Engage in judgment: Anyone who does not see the Friends' way has been demonized ... people with the kindest hearts who honestly have the Chapel's best interests at heart. Even the founder himself, Rev. Eugene C. Larr, as been demonized by the Friends' blog.

3) Engage in hostility: Friends of Chapel have recruited members and non-members to harangue Chapel parishioners before and after services, handing them leaflets of material and legal actions that should be left to a court to decide. Friends of Chapel disrupted a regular meeting of the Board of Trustees, engaging in a shouting match that forced regular business to be delayed. These are only two among several incidents and tactics concretely reported to Chapel Guardian, or witnessed by the Guardian itself.

Chapel Founder Rev. Eugene C. Larr began his institution in-part with the idea that enlightenment is discovered through good thought, good science, and exploration of the greatest philosophers and teachers of humankind.

In other words: An open mind and an open heart.

The actions of the Friends of Chapel run completely counter to these ideas. Chapel of Awareness does not need a cliche "Mission Statement" to live by Rev. Larr's principles, and it doesn't throw around "loving kindness," "thoughts are things" and "moderation" like an advertising campaign.

So as you grapple with the schism at the Chapel of Awareness, follow what the principles of the Chapel ask ... look at all sides and decide for yourself. Don't believe one side without looking at the other. And certainly don't decide based on how an interest group tells you to.

-- Chapel Guardian

Beware rumors

On Dec. 16, 2009, Rev. Sherry DeLoach wrote on friendsofchapel.blogspot.com:

"During the Chapel board meeting Sunday, Barbara Koenig announced that "Chapel owns the rights to Dr. Larr's lectures, classes, etc?" At the FOC service we held on Sunday November 29th, we made the following announcement and are happy to repeat it for those of you who may have been confused by Barbara’s claim."

Rev. DeLoach was not at the meeting. What Rev. Koenig said was that Chapel has Dr. Larr's lectures, class materials, videos of his presentations, etc.

The Chapel, which Dr. Larr founded, has his material associated with the church, which therefore has the rights to that material.

Rev. DeLoach also said that Rev. Donald Schwartz has announced plans to publish material he has in his own possession, supposedly left to him by Dr. Larr. If he has the rights to that material, then of course he can publish it.

But beware of rumors about the Dec. 13 Annual Meeting stated by people who weren't present to witness it.

Where's the letter?

In a Dec. 16 posting on friendsofchapel.blogspot.com, Wanda Olson writes:

"Well folks it has happened again...on December 16th, just 3 days after the remaining Chapel members voted Reverend Ken Schmidt in as Pastor of the church, Rev Ann Lorenzini drafted yet another demembering letter. Rev Ken... received it Saturday....he had hoped to help heal what is going on at Chapel and to bring back some peace and harmony, but Rev Ann thinks differently.."

It's interesting to note that the "friends" blog does not publish the contents of the Schmidt letter, while so many other "demembering" letters (including that of Don Schwartz) have been published.

Why is the "friends" blog hiding this letter from its constituents? Did Rev. Ann Lorenzini cite specific reasons that the "friends" don't want revealed?

One thing Chapel Guardian does know is that Schmidt was part of a slate of "friends" candidates, a list of whom was handed out, along with numerous talking points, to voting members of the Chapel of Awareness. This slate, and their affiliated members, came into the meeting with their own agenda, which was to force their way into positions of authority through intimidation and innuendo, from what Chapel Guardian observed.

Where's the money going?

In a Dec. 18, 2009, posting on friendsofchapel.blogspot.com, Wanda Olson writes:

"We still need to keep up our efforts as we have a January 8th court date....if you are inclined to make a contribution (payable to Wanda Olson) please mail it to.. FRIENDS OF CHAPEL, PO BOX 502, CARDIFF BY THE SEA, CA 92007.....thanks for your support...Wanda Olson"

This is the second time Chapel Guardian has observed Olson personally asking for money for the so-called "friends" cause. Anyone who has a fair sense of propriety would question why money for a collective cause would be funneled to one person, solely in their name.

Olson's request is particularly interesting given that the so-called "friends" lawsuit (according to copies handed outside the chapel at the Dec. 13 annual meeting) was filed by Rev. Nell Rose Smith, whose signature is on the documents.

Chapel: Hell on Earth ruled by a bully?

The so-called “Friends of Chapel” have printed a stunning attack on the founder of the spiritual organization they claim to represent … a direct attack on Rev. Eugene C. Larr.

The publication of this attack reveals something many at Chapel have long understood: The issues that the “Friends of Chapel” have are indeed based on their disdain for the teachings of the founder, and that this is indeed a schism disguised as a “membership” conflict.

Chapel described as “hell on earth”

In a lengthy message published on friendsofchapel.blogspot.com, a man by the name of Theo Tanalski calls the Chapel of Awareness “hell on earth” because Rev. Larr never adopted the precepts he believed in.

Tanalski states:

“Tau Sing’s four principles of non-interference, no distractions, moderation, and self-responsibility (ts4p), adequate for Green Jade Priests (contentious diverse group of individuals able to work together for thousands of years--so the story goes), would have worked to make Chapel the heaven on earth for those who conduct themselves and their organizations according to universal laws.

Ts4p was never adopted at Chapel. This has driven its path from a promising organization to hell on earth ...

... From the beginning (36 years ago) Rev. Gene Larr did not conduct Chapel according to Bylaws and ts4p. These sins (failings short of the marks) encouraged many of Board, Pastor, Staff, student, member, visitor to adopt delusions (believing what you know to be false) to rationalize this discrepancy.”

In this portion of the letter, Tanalski, now speaking for the so-called “Friends of Chapel” through his approved contributions to their blog site, outright accuses Rev. Eugene C. Larr of having the sin of delusion, having paved the way for further delusion by those around him.

If the “Friends of Chapel” believe the founder they hold in such high regard to be delusional, there can now only be one conclusion: These “Friends” are planning to take over Chapel of Awareness for themselves and to change the tenets of the organization for their own spiritual vision.

Indeed, the “Friends of Chapel” have already started holding their own services and have already published one Order of Service on their blog. At that service, it was reported that at least one minister ordained by Rev. Larr himself discussed the philosophy of an organization called Landmark, which while valid in its own right does not fall in line with Rev. Larr’s teachings.

Rev. Larr was a “bully”

In Tanalski’s ongoing assault, he accuses the Chapel of Awareness founder of being a bully.

Tanalski states:

“Rev. Larr dominated all channels of written communication to Chapel members, so members heard nothing from Board or other members, and only what Rev. Larr wanted said. In order to make sense out of this, Board members developed delusions to rationalize this situation, and did not communicate. Many members came to be deluded that what communications they got from Chapel was all they needed, and that Chapel practices what they preach, even though they didn't investigate to see what was going on at Chapel.

Rev. Larr did not institutionalize ts4p in Staff, Board, and members, so many (not all) Staff developed and used--what some 70% of people growing up in USA learn--bullying and factionalism to attempt to resolve problems, assert control, gain the Founder's attention. This too was rationalized by delusion and by making the acknowledgement of this bullying taboo in the culture.”

What is misleading, however, is exactly who has been doing the bullying. It is “Friends of Chapel” members who have been in the faces of parishioners at the front of Chapel on Sundays shoving literature in their faces. It is members of these “Friends” who have slandered pastor Rev. Ann Marie Lorenzini by claiming she has committed physical assault, as published on friendsofchapel.blogspot.com.

Now, the “Friends” attempt to claim Chapel of Awareness has come full circle by calling the founder himself, who is deceased, a delusional bully.

Membership conflict aside, it is clear in the opinion of Chapel Guardian that the so-called “Friends of Chapel” have taken advantage of this conflict to bring these people under their wing (their “vibration,” as they call it on the blog), and in turn twist the conflict to their own agenda through creating a schism.

The words and actions of the “Friends” group itself are the only evidence needed.