A Real Fourth Way School?

The enneagram

[ed. - Apparently, to be authentic, a Fourth Way School must have a living lineage, that is the teaching must be personally transmitted from Teacher to Student. There has been considerable debate about the legitimacy of Robert Burton's claimed lineage. It should be noted that William Patrick Patterson himself is not an impartial observer. He has a vested interest in claiming the Gurdjieff tradition for himself. See his Gurdjieff Legacy site.]





From: Taking with the Left Hand by William Patrick Patterson, a respected authority on this subject:

Though Burton claimed to be a Fourth Way teacher, he himself never had an authentic Fourth Way teacher. The level of his understanding of the teaching was based on what he could pick up from Fourth Way books and from his one-time teacher, the actor-director Alexander Francis Horn. Horn, himself a faux-Gurdjieffian without any real connection to the Fourth Way, had based his own understanding on books and on that of his first wife Carol, a student of John Bennett's ten month experimental program - an eclectic melding of the Fourth Way with other teachings and practices. Horn first taught in New York and later in San Francisco where he created the Theater of All Possibilities, a theater which purported to double as a Fourth Way school. Horn financially exploited his students, manipulated their lives, often physically brutalizing them - all in the name of the teaching. The thirty-one-year-old Burton, dismissed by Horn for not "staying on task" apparently picked up enough from Horn to start his own teaching.

Alexander Francis Horn: Not much is known about Horn, but, according to the San Francisco Chronicle, his dinner theater "Fourth Way School" operation, known as the Theater of all Possibilities (the name taken from the Herman Hesse novel, Steppenwolf), had an income of $40,000 per month or some $500,000 a year. Of this, $20,000 was from student dues and $20,000 from the sale of theater tickets. Students, required to sell tickets to the weekly productions, were harangued and physically beaten if ticket quotas were not met. At Horn's instigation, all-night drinking marathons culminating in fist fights were common occurrences, all in the name of the teaching. Punishment, in many forms was a feature of Horn's teaching. A local drama critic wrote, after sitting through three hours and leaving at the end of Act II of Horn's three-act play, The Fantastic Arising of Padraic Clancy Muldoon - "In more than ten years of reporting on the local theater scene, I remember no more punishing experience." Burton had long before been dismissed from the group, but this gives a portrait of Horn's psychology and his approach.

Burton never had a genuine Fourth Way teacher. Burton's only teacher was Alex Horn who was never in the Gurdjieff Work. A martial arts expert and actor-director with a dramatic flair, Horn learned of the Fourth Way teaching through his second wife who spent a number of months in J. G. Bennett's International Academy for Continuous Education at Sherbourne, England.  For information on Alex Horn see "Theater Group: Cult or Stage?" by Jack Brooks, San Francisco Progress, December 22, 1978.  Horn is criticized for financially exploiting his students and subjecting them to psychological abuse, even beatings. See also "Real-Life Drama in a S.F. Theater Group," by Michael Taylor and Bernard Weiner, San Francisco Chronicle, December 23, 1978. The story focuses on allegations of "beatings, child neglect and a student fee structure that yielded high revenues."

Q&A session with Alex Horn, circa 1970, from "A little Survivor's Handbook"

“You seem to be in an especially good mood tonight…”

A: “I’m ALWAYS ‘in essence’ — can’t you see that?”

“What made you decide to become a teacher?”

A: “I was BORN to be a teacher!  It was no accident – or mere coincidence – that [some notorious guru] died the night I was born.  When I heard about this, I knew right then and there that I was born to take his place.  …MEANT to be – DESTINED to be – another great leader and Fisher of Men – Self-observing, Self-remembering, Self-evolving No. 4 Man – Balanced Man – Conscious Man – REAL Man – Teacher of ‘the Work’ and all the great religions, teachers and teachings in the world!”

“Did you ever have a regular job?”

A: “I was a garbage man!”

”What was your relationship like with your mother…?”

A: “My ‘mother’?  She bullied me to death and controlled every move I made – even when I was in college.  She drove my poor father – a kind and gentle rabbi – into an early grave.”

“Have you ever tried hallucinogenic drugs – like L.S.D., hash, peyote, mescaline?”

A: “No.”

“What do you think of the Beatles and their great new album?”

A: “What are the Beatles compared to Bach?”

“What happened to your teeth…? ”

A: “I had to get them pulled out and wear dentures.”

“Why?”

A: “My dentist said I had ‘self-cleaning teeth and didn’t have to brush like other people did’.”

“You only believed that yarn because it made you feel special!”

"Keith" wrote on the Fellowship of Friends Discussion blog, March 16, 2007:

The Fellowship is not now nor was ever a fourth way school. It does not now and never did have any connection to Ouspensky or Gurdjieff. Ouspensky and Gurdjieff are the bait in the Fellowship “Bait and Switch” spiritual program. The Fellowship is Robert Burtonism plain and simple. Always has been. The ideas of Gurdjieff and Ouspensky have been distorted beyond reasonable recognition... Forget about Fellowship ideas about the system and go directly to the source (at least the written sources).

RB was in a pseudo school conducted by Alex Horn who was never in a school himself. His wife was a student of John Bennett, I don’t know for how long. Alex Horn was not ever in any kind of Gurdjieff work. We were led to believe that Horn had come through the Gurdjieff Work, i.e., some connection to the Foundation. He was, I was told, acquainted with Lord Pentland but never participated in group work. This info was given to me by a woman in the Gurdjieff work who had been a movements teacher for 20 years and a group leader for many years after that. She had known Horn through a friend who had dated him briefly in the 50s or 60s. She was also close to Lord Pentland so I trust her opinion on this.

RB was in a pseudo school where the teacher, Alex Horn, made things up as he went along. Using In Search of the Miraculous as his guideline. According to Dave Archer, Horn never read anything by Gurdjieff. RB was in this school for sometime over a year and was kicked out for overt homosexual predatory behavior. This according to Pat Patterson. Alex Horn had an anti-homosexual rule in his school. Again see Dave Archer’s website. [ed. - relevant discussions: David Archer on the Fourth Way lineage and on Alex Horn.]

So RB in under 18 months went from man 1,2 or 3 all the way to man 5. He had a spontaneous awakening delivered by his guardian Angel Leonardo DaVinci. Give me a break. So we have a guy who never really studied with anyone who understood the ideas of Ouspensky and Gurdjieff, started his own school using ideas that he did not really understand and any time he came across a question he couldn’t deal with either made something up or deferred to “higher forces”. A con is a con is a con. A cult is a cult is a cult. And each and every one of us fell for it in some way or other.

If we hadn’t fallen for this con we would have fallen for some other con. Hopefully what we all get out of our experience, at least those who were not irreparably damaged, is some new level of critical discernment, the ability to be more discriminating in regards to our spiritual pursuits.

"Kid Shelleen" wrote on the Fellowship of Friends Discussion blog, October 4, 2007:

Laura [blogger],

Taking with the Left Hand is by William Patrick Patterson, who was a student of John Pentland’s and supposedly was annointed to lead the Gurdjieff Foundation when Pentland died. The observations he makes about the fof in his book are mild compared to the real deal. His point of view is coming from the “Burton has no legitimate connection to this work and is misleading his students” angle.

Here’s a story:

A couple of years ago, I was in a local book store and saw a poster for one of Patterson’s talks near my home. Just out of curiosity, I went. He talked the fourth way mumbo-jumbo for awhile, had us do some “sensing” exercises, and opened the floor for questions. For fun, I asked a question about self remembering and creating memory. He asked me about my understanding of self remembering and in my answer I used the phrase divided attention. He told me this was a wrong understanding of the idea and then, seemingly out of nowhere, launched into a diatribe about false teachings and corruption of the ideas. On and on it went. At the end, he turns his best Gurdjy steely gaze on me and says, “And this is the story of Robert Burton and the Fellowship of Friends, is it not,” in an incredibly self-satisfied tone. I almost laughed out loud. Judging from his manner, I believe that he thought that I thought, “Wow, how did this guy read my mind?” I came away from the experience thinking, “Same s#@t, different bag.”

Oh, and his students were a hoot, too. They seemed about as uptight as any group of folks I’ve run into. The women who introduced him (one of the inner circle, probably), spoke of him as if he were the second coming. After the event. I asked the two people manning the concession stand how many times a week the group met and how many students were in the local area. They stopped, stared at the ground for a moment, looked at each other with a look I’m sure we are all familiar with, and told me they couldn’t answer my question. So it goes.

[ed. - The following letter was sent to The Gurdjieff Club by an unknown author.]

A letter about Robert Burton

Dear Mr. Rovner,

I found your website, Gurdjieff Club, quite interesting.

I noted with interest your comments about the People of Gurdjieff's Influence where you talk about Robert Earl Burton who founded the fellowship of friends. You also say that Burton "spent eighteen months in a Gurdjieff group of the Fourth Way led by the spiritual teacher Alexander Francis Horn."

I feel like you are doing a great disservice to anyone who reads your website without stating the whole truth of these matters.

Robert Earl Burton's Fellowship of Friends was and is a cult that has harmed many people.

Please look at the following sources:

http://www.fourthwaycult.net/lineage.html

http://www.culteducation.com/group/927-fellowship-of-friends.html

http://fellowshipoffriends.wikispaces.com

http://fellowshipoffriends.wordpress.com

Personally, I was a victim of Alexander Francis Horn who was NOT a spiritual teacher and who had no connection to Gurdjieff and Ouspensky.

Alex Horn was a psychopath, a narcissist, a manipulator, a rapist and a black magician. Yes, he taught Burton and in that way further perpetrated his evil.

Please look at the following sources about Alex Horn and his groups:

[ed. - Sites below without active links have been removed from the web.]

http:freedomofmind.com/

http://www.stopsharongans.blogspot.com

http://www.davearcher.com/alex.html

http://www.davearcher.com/magus.html

http://www.esotericfreedom.com/

http://www.culteducation.com/groups/theater.html

http://thesharonganspages.blogspot.com/

http://therobertkleinpages.blogspot.com/

http://thefrederickmindelpages.blogspot.com/

http://defenseagainstevil.wordpress.com:80/

Please, if you are interested in the truth, tell the whole story about these people.

Not all of Gurdjieff's followers were unscrupulous but some of them were and people should know about this.

Thank you for considering the above.

Best wishes

[No signature/name]

[ed. - Finally, concerning the system of beliefs upon which Burton's "school" was founded, there are reports that, just before his death, Ouspensky urged his followers to abandon the system. "Innernaut" appears to have found evidence to support these reports.]

"innernaut" wrote on the Fellowship of Friends Discussion blog, May 28, 2008:

132 Another Name [responding to]

Thanks for the Alan Clements video. It reminds me of something that happened very early in my FOF time, about 1981.
I was in the Boston center, and at one point I was dispatched, along with two other students, to visit the Yale library in New Haven, Connecticut. Our assignment was to rifle through the “Ouspensky papers,” which had been donated to the university after O’s death.

We drove down there, and signed in. We were ushered to a room, where we could select the boxes we were interested in viewing. There were about 50 of them, mostly meeting transcripts covering 25 years or so, right up to his death. We chose a cross-section, with various dates, and got a few boxes brought to us. We were not allowed to make copies. We had to write down whatever we were interested in, using only a pencil and paper the library issued to us.

The boxes were crammed full of typewritten pages. Mostly just stuff that could have come from “The Fourth Way” — not terribly interesting. But there was one box — the last box, chronologically — that I was really interested in. I had read about O’s last, bizarre meetings, and I was wondering if they were transcribed. They were, so I spent almost my whole allotted time copying down the questions and O’s strange answers.

The gist of what he said is known: he told his students to “abandon the system,” saying that it was basically BS. Even back then, I felt strangely liberated; not that I had the courage to chuck it all aside then, but that one day I would be free of it. I noticed this feeling then, but pushed it aside, because what did that say about the System I had devoted my life too, that I couldn’t wait to be free of it?

After copying down many pages of this very interesting stuff, one of the students did a guilt trip on me, saying we shouldn’t be spending so much time on “unhelpful” material. Hmmm… so party-line Ouspensky is “good,” and Ouspensky when he finally sounds like he’s a human being and is telling the truth is “bad.”

This experience was probably the beginning of the end for me, in terms of the System, though it would take many years before I had the courage to throw it all out — baby, bathwater, everything.

One more thing, which Alan Clements mentioned — getting rid of the notion of enlightenment means being able to live without the certainty that a dogmatic spiritual framework provides. If it helps you live sanely, then more power to you.

"innernaut" continued:

One more thing. When I asked the idolized “older students” what they thought Ouspensky meant when he said, “abandon the system,” they had many creative things to say. But in the end, what they essentially said was, “Don’t abandon the system.” That’s right, when O says abandon the system, what he really means is don’t abandon the system.
People sure act funny when their belief system is being threatened.

1970 Notes

[ed. - At a New Year's Eve party on December 31, 1969, Robert Earl Burton meets his first "student," Bonita Guido. On January 1, 1970, he begins instruction for his new follower, thus launching The Fellowship of Friends.]

From Harold Wirk's timeline and here:

According to Harold's notes, Bonita and David Guido were Burton's first students. There were three meetings a week, at Orinda or Walnut Creek, and "Robert works with each student privately." Having relationships of children is discouraged. The period is noted for "intense 1st and 2nd line work" and the "word exercises" [avoiding the use of designated words] begin. 

January

First open meeting (1/20)

June/July

Tahoe trip. 22 go.

Harold, Stella [Meg] join

Meetings at Bern & Liz Berger's, Guidos', Meg's

August

Sea Ranch

Meg hospitalized (8/21 - 8/26)

Dinner at Guidos'

Meetings at Hannahs' and Guidos'

Tahoe trip (8/28 to 9/3)

September

Notebooks started

Dinner at Kenneth J.'s (9/11)

Robert gone. Students conduct first meeting (9/21)

Swim party at Ken J.'s (9/28)

Meetings at Ken's, Bonita's, Bernard's, Bill's

October

Big Sur trip (10/21- 10/22)

Meetings at Bill's, Meg's, Bernard's, Bonita's, Richard's

November

Mendocino trip (11/15 or 11/16)

"Small groups" begin

Group open meetings (11/20 - 11/22)

December

Christmas party at Hannahs'

Love, Sweet Love: The Fellowship of Friends in 1970

Drawings by Harold Wirk. From the Internet Archive

From the Internet Archive

[ed. - The following introduction to RICO comes from Wikipedia:]

On October 15, 1970, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (18 U.S.C. §§ 1961–1968), commonly referred to as the "RICO Act", became United States law. The RICO Act allowed law enforcement to charge a person or group of people with racketeering, defined as committing multiple violations of certain varieties within a ten-year period. The purpose of the RICO Act was stated as "the elimination of the infiltration of organized crime and racketeering into legitimate organizations operating in interstate commerce". S.Rep. No. 617, 91st Cong., 1st Sess. 76 (1968). However, the statute is sufficiently broad to encompass illegal activities relating to any enterprise affecting interstate or foreign commerce.

 

 [ed. - The following is from Nolo Press. I have highlighted some passages that may apply to the activities of Robert Burton and his followers.]

Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO)

Passed in 1970, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) is a federal law designed to combat organized crime in the United States. It allows prosecution and civil penalties for racketeering activity performed as part of an ongoing criminal enterprise. Such activity may include illegal gambling, bribery, kidnapping, murder, money laundering, counterfeiting, embezzlement, drug trafficking, slavery, and a host of other unsavory business practices.

To convict a defendant under RICO, the government must prove that the defendant engaged in two or more instances of racketeering activity and that the defendant directly invested in, maintained an interest in, or participated in a criminal enterprise affecting interstate or foreign commerce. The law has been used to prosecute members of the mafia, the Hells Angels motorcycle gang, and Operation Rescue, an anti-abortion group, among many others.

RICO Act

§ 1961. Definitions

As used in this chapter

(1) racketeering activity means (A) any act or threat involving murder, kidnapping, gambling, arson, robbery, bribery, extortion, dealing in obscene matter, or dealing in a controlled substance or listed chemical (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act), which is chargeable under State law and punishable by imprisonment for more than one year; (B) any act which is indictable under any of the following provisions of title 18, United States Code: Section 201 (relating to bribery), section 224 (relating to sports bribery), sections 471, 472, and 473 (relating to counterfeiting), section 659 (relating to theft from interstate shipment) if the act indictable under section 659 is felonious, section 664 (relating to embezzlement from pension and welfare funds), sections 891894 (relating to extortionate credit transactions), section 1028 (relating to fraud and related activity in connection with identification documents), section 1029 (relating to fraud and related activity in connection with access devices), section 1084 (relating to the transmission of gambling information), section 1341 (relating to mail fraud), section 1343 (relating to wire fraud), section 1344 (relating to financial institution fraud), section 1425 (relating to the procurement of citizenship or nationalization unlawfully), section 1426 (relating to the reproduction of naturalization or citizenship papers), section 1427 (relating to the sale of naturalization or citizenship papers), sections 14611465 (relating to obscene matter), section 1503 (relating to obstruction of justice), section 1510 (relating to obstruction of criminal investigations), section 1511 (relating to the obstruction of State or local law enforcement), section 1512 (relating to tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant), section 1513 (relating to retaliating against a witness, victim, or an informant), section 1542 (relating to false statement in application and use of passport), section 1543 (relating to forgery or false use of passport), section 1544 (relating to misuse of passport), section 1546 (relating to fraud and misuse of visas, permits, and other documents), sections 15811592 (relating to peonage, slavery, and trafficking in persons).,^[1] section 1951 (relating to interference with commerce, robbery, or extortion), section 1952 (relating to racketeering), section 1953 (relating to interstate transportation of wagering paraphernalia), section 1954 (relating to unlawful welfare fund payments), section 1955 (relating to the prohibition of illegal gambling businesses), section 1956 (relating to the laundering of monetary instruments), section 1957 (relating to engaging in monetary transactions in property derived from specified unlawful activity), section 1958 (relating to use of interstate commerce facilities in the commission of murder-for-hire), section 1960 (relating to illegal money transmitters), sections 2251, 2251A, 2252, and 2260 (relating to sexual exploitation of children), sections 2312 and 2313 (relating to interstate transportation of stolen motor vehicles), sections 2314 and 2315 (relating to interstate transportation of stolen property), section 2318 (relating to trafficking in counterfeit labels for phonorecords, computer programs or computer program documentation or packaging and copies of motion pictures or other audiovisual works), section 2319 (relating to criminal infringement of a copyright), section 2319A (relating to unauthorized fixation of and trafficking in sound recordings and music videos of live musical performances), section 2320 (relating to trafficking in goods or services bearing counterfeit marks), section 2321 (relating to trafficking in certain motor vehicles or motor vehicle parts), sections 23412346 (relating to trafficking in contraband cigarettes), sections 242124 (relating to white slave traffic), sections 175178 (relating to biological weapons), sections 229229F (relating to chemical weapons), section 831 (relating to nuclear materials), (C) any act which is indictable under title 29, United States Code, section 186 (dealing with restrictions on payments and loans to labor organizations) or section 501 (c) (relating to embezzlement from union funds), (D) any offense involving fraud connected with a case under title 11 (except a case under section 157 of this title), fraud in the sale of securities, or the felonious manufacture, importation, receiving, concealment, buying, selling, or otherwise dealing in a controlled substance or listed chemical (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act), punishable under any law of the United States, (E) any act which is indictable under the Currency and Foreign Transactions Reporting Act, (F) any act which is indictable under the Immigration and Nationality Act, section 274 (relating to bringing in and harboring certain aliens), section 277 (relating to aiding or assisting certain aliens to enter the United States), or section 278 (relating to importation of alien for immoral purpose) if the act indictable under such section of such Act was committed for the purpose of financial gain, or (G) any act that is indictable under any provision listed in section 2332b (g)(5)(B);

(2) State means any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, any territory or possession of the United States, any political subdivision, or any department, agency, or instrumentality thereof;

(3) person includes any individual or entity capable of holding a legal or beneficial interest in property;

(4) enterprise includes any individual, partnership, corporation, association, or other legal entity, and any union or group of individuals associated in fact although not a legal entity;

(5) pattern of racketeering activity requires at least two acts of racketeering activity, one of which occurred after the effective date of this chapter and the last of which occurred within ten years (excluding any period of imprisonment) after the commission of a prior act of racketeering activity;

(6) unlawful debt means a debt

(A) incurred or contracted in gambling activity which was in violation of the law of the United States, a State or political subdivision thereof, or which is unenforceable under State or Federal law in whole or in part as to principal or interest because of the laws relating to usury, and

(B) which was incurred in connection with the business of gambling in violation of the law of the United States, a State or political subdivision thereof, or the business of lending money or a thing of value at a rate usurious under State or Federal law, where the usurious rate is at least twice the enforceable rate;

(7) racketeering investigator means any attorney or investigator so designated by the Attorney General and charged with the duty of enforcing or carrying into effect this chapter;

(8) racketeering investigation means any inquiry conducted by any racketeering investigator for the purpose of ascertaining whether any person has been involved in any violation of this chapter or of any final order, judgment, or decree of any court of the United States, duly entered in any case or proceeding arising under this chapter;

(9) documentary material includes any book, paper, document, record, recording, or other material; and

(10) Attorney General includes the Attorney General of the United States, the Deputy Attorney General of the United States, the Associate Attorney General of the United States, any Assistant Attorney General of the United States, or any employee of the Department of Justice or any employee of any department or agency of the United States so designated by the Attorney General to carry out the powers conferred on the Attorney General by this chapter. Any department or agency so designated may use in investigations authorized by this chapter either the investigative provisions of this chapter or the investigative power of such department or agency otherwise conferred by law.

§ 1962. Prohibited activities

(a) It shall be unlawful for any person who has received any income derived, directly or indirectly, from a pattern of racketeering activity or through collection of an unlawful debt in which such person has participated as a principal within the meaning of section 2, title 18, United States Code, to use or invest, directly or indirectly, any part of such income, or the proceeds of such income, in acquisition of any interest in, or the establishment or operation of, any enterprise which is engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce. A purchase of securities on the open market for purposes of investment, and without the intention of controlling or participating in the control of the issuer, or of assisting another to do so, shall not be unlawful under this subsection if the securities of the issuer held by the purchaser, the members of his immediate family, and his or their accomplices in any pattern or racketeering activity or the collection of an unlawful debt after such purchase do not amount in the aggregate to one percent of the outstanding securities of any one class, and do not confer, either in law or in fact, the power to elect one or more directors of the issuer.

(b) It shall be unlawful for any person through a pattern of racketeering activity or through collection of an unlawful debt to acquire or maintain, directly or indirectly, any interest in or control of any enterprise which is engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce.

(c) It shall be unlawful for any person employed by or associated with any enterprise engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce, to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprises affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity or collection of unlawful debt.

(d) It shall be unlawful for any person to conspire to violate any of the provisions of subsection (a), (b), or (c) of this section.

§ 1963. Criminal penalties

(a) Whoever violates any provision of section 1962 of this chapter shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years (or for life if the violation is based on a racketeering activity for which the maximum penalty includes life imprisonment), or both, and shall forfeit to the United States, irrespective of any provision of State law

(1) any interest the person has acquired or maintained in violation of section 1962;

(2) any

(A) interest in;

(B) security of;

(C) claim against; or

(D) property or contractual right of any kind affording a source of influence over;

any enterprise which the person has established, operated, controlled, conducted, or participated in the conduct of, in violation of section 1962; and

(3) any property constituting, or derived from, any proceeds which the person obtained, directly or indirectly, from racketeering activity or unlawful debt collection in violation of section 1962.

The court, in imposing sentence on such person shall order, in addition to any other sentence imposed pursuant to this section, that the person forfeit to the United States all property described in this subsection. In lieu of a fine otherwise authorized by this section, a defendant who derives profits or other proceeds from an offense may be fined not more than twice the gross profits or other proceeds.

(b) Property subject to criminal forfeiture under this section includes

(1) real property, including things growing on, affixed to, and found in land; and

(2) tangible and intangible personal property, including rights, privileges, interests, claims, and securities.

(c) All right, title, and interest in property described in subsection (a) vests in the United States upon the commission of the act giving rise to forfeiture under this section. Any such property that is subsequently transferred to a person other than the defendant may be the subject of a special verdict of forfeiture and thereafter shall be ordered forfeited to the United States, unless the transferee establishes in a hearing pursuant to subsection (l) that he is a bona fide purchaser for value of such property who at the time of purchase was reasonably without cause to believe that the property was subject to forfeiture under this section.

(d)

(1) Upon application of the United States, the court may enter a restraining order or injunction, require the execution of a satisfactory performance bond, or take any other action to preserve the availability of property described in subsection (a) for forfeiture under this section

(A) upon the filing of an indictment or information charging a violation of section 1962 of this chapter and alleging that the property with respect to which the order is sought would, in the event of conviction, be subject to forfeiture under this section; or

(B) prior to the filing of such an indictment or information, if, after notice to persons appearing to have an interest in the property and opportunity for a hearing, the court determines that

(i) there is a substantial probability that the United States will prevail on the issue of forfeiture and that failure to enter the order will result in the property being destroyed, removed from the jurisdiction of the court, or otherwise made unavailable for forfeiture; and

(ii) the need to preserve the availability of the property through the entry of the requested order outweighs the hardship on any party against whom the order is to be entered:

Provided, however, That an order entered pursuant to subparagraph (B) shall be effective for not more than ninety days, unless extended by the court for good cause shown or unless an indictment or information described in subparagraph (A) has been filed.

(2) A temporary restraining order under this subsection may be entered upon application of the United States without notice or opportunity for a hearing when an information or indictment has not yet been filed with respect to the property, if the United States demonstrates that there is probable cause to believe that the property with respect to which the order is sought would, in the event of conviction, be subject to forfeiture under this section and that provision of notice will jeopardize the availability of the property for forfeiture. Such a temporary order shall expire not more than fourteen days after the date on which it is entered, unless extended for good cause shown or unless the party against whom it is entered consents to an extension for a longer period. A hearing requested concerning an order entered under this paragraph shall be held at the earliest possible time, and prior to the expiration of the temporary order.

(3) The court may receive and consider, at a hearing held pursuant to this subsection, evidence and information that would be inadmissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence.

(e) Upon conviction of a person under this section, the court shall enter a judgment of forfeiture of the property to the United States and shall also authorize the Attorney General to seize all property ordered forfeited upon such terms and conditions as the court shall deem proper. Following the entry of an order declaring the property forfeited, the court may, upon application of the United States, enter such appropriate restraining orders or injunctions, require the execution of satisfactory performance bonds, appoint receivers, conservators, appraisers, accountants, or trustees, or take any other action to protect the interest of the United States in the property ordered forfeited. Any income accruing to, or derived from, an enterprise or an interest in an enterprise which has been ordered forfeited under this section may be used to offset ordinary and necessary expenses to the enterprise which are required by law, or which are necessary to protect the interests of the United States or third parties.

(f) Following the seizure of property ordered forfeited under this section, the Attorney General shall direct the disposition of the property by sale or any other commercially feasible means, making due provision for the rights of any innocent persons. Any property right or interest not exercisable by, or transferable for value to, the United States shall expire and shall not revert to the defendant, nor shall the defendant or any person acting in concert with or on behalf of the defendant be eligible to purchase forfeited property at any sale held by the United States. Upon application of a person, other than the defendant or a person acting in concert with or on behalf of the defendant, the court may restrain or stay the sale or disposition of the property pending the conclusion of any appeal of the criminal case giving rise to the forfeiture, if the applicant demonstrates that proceeding with the sale or disposition of the property will result in irreparable injury, harm or loss to him. Notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302 (b), the proceeds of any sale or other disposition of property forfeited under this section and any moneys forfeited shall be used to pay all proper expenses for the forfeiture and the sale, including expenses of seizure, maintenance and custody of the property pending its disposition, advertising and court costs. The Attorney General shall deposit in the Treasury any amounts of such proceeds or moneys remaining after the payment of such expenses.

(g) With respect to property ordered forfeited under this section, the Attorney General is authorized to

(1) grant petitions for mitigation or remission of forfeiture, restore forfeited property to victims of a violation of this chapter, or take any other action to protect the rights of innocent persons which is in the interest of justice and which is not inconsistent with the provisions of this chapter;

(2) compromise claims arising under this section;

(3) award compensation to persons providing information resulting in a forfeiture under this section;

(4) direct the disposition by the United States of all property ordered forfeited under this section by public sale or any other commercially feasible means, making due provision for the rights of innocent persons; and

(5) take appropriate measures necessary to safeguard and maintain property ordered forfeited under this section pending its disposition.

(h) The Attorney General may promulgate regulations with respect to

(1) making reasonable efforts to provide notice to persons who may have an interest in property ordered forfeited under this section;

(2) granting petitions for remission or mitigation of forfeiture;

(3) the restitution of property to victims of an offense petitioning for remission or mitigation of forfeiture under this chapter;

(4) the disposition by the United States of forfeited property by public sale or other commercially feasible means;

(5) the maintenance and safekeeping of any property forfeited under this section pending its disposition; and

(6) the compromise of claims arising under this chapter.

Pending the promulgation of such regulations, all provisions of law relating to the disposition of property, or the proceeds from the sale thereof, or the remission or mitigation of forfeitures for violation of the customs laws, and the compromise of claims and the award of compensation to informers in respect of such forfeitures shall apply to forfeitures incurred, or alleged to have been incurred, under the provisions of this section, insofar as applicable and not inconsistent with the provisions hereof. Such duties as are imposed upon the Customs Service or any person with respect to the disposition of property under the customs law shall be performed under this chapter by the Attorney General.

(i) Except as provided in subsection (l), no party claiming an interest in property subject to forfeiture under this section may

(1) intervene in a trial or appeal of a criminal case involving the forfeiture of such property under this section; or

(2) commence an action at law or equity against the United States concerning the validity of his alleged interest in the property subsequent to the filing of an indictment or information alleging that the property is subject to forfeiture under this section.

(j) The district courts of the United States shall have jurisdiction to enter orders as provided in this section without regard to the location of any property which may be subject to forfeiture under this section or which has been ordered forfeited under this section.

(k) In order to facilitate the identification or location of property declared forfeited and to facilitate the disposition of petitions for remission or mitigation of forfeiture, after the entry of an order declaring property forfeited to the United States the court may, upon application of the United States, order that the testimony of any witness relating to the property forfeited be taken by deposition and that any designated book, paper, document, record, recording, or other material not privileged be produced at the same time and place, in the same manner as provided for the taking of depositions under Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.

(l)

(1) Following the entry of an order of forfeiture under this section, the United States shall publish notice of the order and of its intent to dispose of the property in such manner as the Attorney General may direct. The Government may also, to the extent practicable, provide direct written notice to any person known to have alleged an interest in the property that is the subject of the order of forfeiture as a substitute for published notice as to those persons so notified.

(2) Any person, other than the defendant, asserting a legal interest in property which has been ordered forfeited to the United States pursuant to this section may, within thirty days of the final publication of notice or his receipt of notice under paragraph (1), whichever is earlier, petition the court for a hearing to adjudicate the validity of his alleged interest in the property. The hearing shall be held before the court alone, without a jury.

(3) The petition shall be signed by the petitioner under penalty of perjury and shall set forth the nature and extent of the petitioners right, title, or interest in the property, the time and circumstances of the petitioners acquisition of the right, title, or interest in the property, any additional facts supporting the petitioners claim, and the relief sought.

(4) The hearing on the petition shall, to the extent practicable and consistent with the interests of justice, be held within thirty days of the filing of the petition. The court may consolidate the hearing on the petition with a hearing on any other petition filed by a person other than the defendant under this subsection.

(5) At the hearing, the petitioner may testify and present evidence and witnesses on his own behalf, and cross-examine witnesses who appear at the hearing. The United States may present evidence and witnesses in rebuttal and in defense of its claim to the property and cross-examine witnesses who appear at the hearing. In addition to testimony and evidence presented at the hearing, the court shall consider the relevant portions of the record of the criminal case which resulted in the order of forfeiture.

(6) If, after the hearing, the court determines that the petitioner has established by a preponderance of the evidence that

(A) the petitioner has a legal right, title, or interest in the property, and such right, title, or interest renders the order of forfeiture invalid in whole or in part because the right, title, or interest was vested in the petitioner rather than the defendant or was superior to any right, title, or interest of the defendant at the time of the commission of the acts which gave rise to the forfeiture of the property under this section; or

(B) the petitioner is a bona fide purchaser for value of the right, title, or interest in the property and was at the time of purchase reasonably without cause to believe that the property was subject to forfeiture under this section;

the court shall amend the order of forfeiture in accordance with its determination.

(7) Following the courts disposition of all petitions filed under this subsection, or if no such petitions are filed following the expiration of the period provided in paragraph (2) for the filing of such petitions, the United States shall have clear title to property that is the subject of the order of forfeiture and may warrant good title to any subsequent purchaser or transferee.

(m) If any of the property described in subsection (a), as a result of any act or omission of the defendant

(1) cannot be located upon the exercise of due diligence;

(2) has been transferred or sold to, or deposited with, a third party;

(3) has been placed beyond the jurisdiction of the court;

(4) has been substantially diminished in value; or

(5) has been commingled with other property which cannot be divided without difficulty;

the court shall order the forfeiture of any other property of the defendant up to the value of any property described in paragraphs (1) through (5).

§ 1964. Civil remedies

(a) The district courts of the United States shall have jurisdiction to prevent and restrain violations of section 1962 of this chapter by issuing appropriate orders, including, but not limited to: ordering any person to divest himself of any interest, direct or indirect, in any enterprise; imposing reasonable restrictions on the future activities or investments of any person, including, but not limited to, prohibiting any person from engaging in the same type of endeavor as the enterprise engaged in, the activities of which affect interstate or foreign commerce; or ordering dissolution or reorganization of any enterprise, making due provision for the rights of innocent persons.

(b) The Attorney General may institute proceedings under this section. Pending final determination thereof, the court may at any time enter such restraining orders or prohibitions, or take such other actions, including the acceptance of satisfactory performance bonds, as it shall deem proper.

(c) Any person injured in his business or property by reason of a violation of section 1962 of this chapter may sue therefor in any appropriate United States district court and shall recover threefold the damages he sustains and the cost of the suit, including a reasonable attorneys fee, except that no person may rely upon any conduct that would have been actionable as fraud in the purchase or sale of securities to establish a violation of section 1962. The exception contained in the preceding sentence does not apply to an action against any person that is criminally convicted in connection with the fraud, in which case the statute of limitations shall start to run on the date on which the conviction becomes final.

(d) A final judgment or decree rendered in favor of the United States in any criminal proceeding brought by the United States under this chapter shall estop the defendant from denying the essential allegations of the criminal offense in any subsequent civil proceeding brought by the United States.

§ 1965. Venue and process

(a) Any civil action or proceeding under this chapter against any person may be instituted in the district court of the United States for any district in which such person resides, is found, has an agent, or transacts his affairs.

(b) In any action under section 1964 of this chapter in any district court of the United States in which it is shown that the ends of justice require that other parties residing in any other district be brought before the court, the court may cause such parties to be summoned, and process for that purpose may be served in any judicial district of the United States by the marshal thereof.

(c) In any civil or criminal action or proceeding instituted by the United States under this chapter in the district court of the United States for any judicial district, subpenas issued by such court to compel the attendance of witnesses may be served in any other judicial district, except that in any civil action or proceeding no such subpena shall be issued for service upon any individual who resides in another district at a place more than one hundred miles from the place at which such court is held without approval given by a judge of such court upon a showing of good cause.

(d) All other process in any action or proceeding under this chapter may be served on any person in any judicial district in which such person resides, is found, has an agent, or transacts his affairs.

§ 1966. Expedition of actions

In any civil action instituted under this chapter by the United States in any district court of the United States, the Attorney General may file with the clerk of such court a certificate stating that in his opinion the case is of general public importance. A copy of that certificate shall be furnished immediately by such clerk to the chief judge or in his absence to the presiding district judge of the district in which such action is pending. Upon receipt of such copy, such judge shall designate immediately a judge of that district to hear and determine action.

§ 1967. Evidence

In any proceeding ancillary to or in any civil action instituted by the United States under this chapter the proceedings may be open or closed to the public at the discretion of the court after consideration of the rights of affected persons.

§ 1968. Civil investigative demand

(a) Whenever the Attorney General has reason to believe that any person or enterprise may be in possession, custody, or control of any documentary materials relevant to a racketeering investigation, he may, prior to the institution of a civil or criminal proceeding thereon, issue in writing, and cause to be served upon such person, a civil investigative demand requiring such person to produce such material for examination.

(b) Each such demand shall

(1) state the nature of the conduct constituting the alleged racketeering violation which is under investigation and the provision of law applicable thereto;

(2) describe the class or classes of documentary material produced thereunder with such definiteness and certainty as to permit such material to be fairly identified;

(3) state that the demand is returnable forthwith or prescribe a return date which will provide a reasonable period of time within which the material so demanded may be assembled and made available for inspection and copying or reproduction; and

(4) identify the custodian to whom such material shall be made available.

(c) No such demand shall

(1) contain any requirement which would be held to be unreasonable if contained in a subpena duces tecum issued by a court of the United States in aid of a grand jury investigation of such alleged racketeering violation; or

(2) require the production of any documentary evidence which would be privileged from disclosure if demanded by a subpena duces tecum issued by a court of the United States in aid of a grand jury investigation of such alleged racketeering violation.

(d) Service of any such demand or any petition filed under this section may be made upon a person by

(1) delivering a duly executed copy thereof to any partner, executive officer, managing agent, or general agent thereof, or to any agent thereof authorized by appointment or by law to receive service of process on behalf of such person, or upon any individual person;

(2) delivering a duly executed copy thereof to the principal office or place of business of the person to be served; or

(3) depositing such copy in the United States mail, by registered or certified mail duly addressed to such person at its principal office or place of business.

(e) A verified return by the individual serving any such demand or petition setting forth the manner of such service shall be prima facie proof of such service. In the case of service by registered or certified mail, such return shall be accompanied by the return post office receipt of delivery of such demand.

(f)

(1) The Attorney General shall designate a racketeering investigator to serve as racketeer document custodian, and such additional racketeering investigators as he shall determine from time to time to be necessary to serve as deputies to such officer.

(2) Any person upon whom any demand issued under this section has been duly served shall make such material available for inspection and copying or reproduction to the custodian designated therein at the principal place of business of such person, or at such other place as such custodian and such person thereafter may agree and prescribe in writing or as the court may direct, pursuant to this section on the return date specified in such demand, or on such later date as such custodian may prescribe in writing. Such person may upon written agreement between such person and the custodian substitute for copies of all or any part of such material originals thereof.

(3) The custodian to whom any documentary material is so delivered shall take physical possession thereof, and shall be responsible for the use made thereof and for the return thereof pursuant to this chapter. The custodian may cause the preparation of such copies of such documentary material as may be required for official use under regulations which shall be promulgated by the Attorney General. While in the possession of the custodian, no material so produced shall be available for examination, without the consent of the person who produced such material, by any individual other than the Attorney General. Under such reasonable terms and conditions as the Attorney General shall prescribe, documentary material while in the possession of the custodian shall be available for examination by the person who produced such material or any duly authorized representatives of such person.

(4) Whenever any attorney has been designated to appear on behalf of the United States before any court or grand jury in any case or proceeding involving any alleged violation of this chapter, the custodian may deliver to such attorney such documentary material in the possession of the custodian as such attorney determines to be required for use in the presentation of such case or proceeding on behalf of the United States. Upon the conclusion of any such case or proceeding, such attorney shall return to the custodian any documentary material so withdrawn which has not passed into the control of such court or grand jury through the introduction thereof into the record of such case or proceeding.

(5) Upon the completion of

(i) the racketeering investigation for which any documentary material was produced under this chapter, and

(ii) any case or proceeding arising from such investigation, the custodian shall return to the person who produced such material all such material other than copies thereof made by the Attorney General pursuant to this subsection which has not passed into the control of any court or grand jury through the introduction thereof into the record of such case or proceeding.

(6) When any documentary material has been produced by any person under this section for use in any racketeering investigation, and no such case or proceeding arising therefrom has been instituted within a reasonable time after completion of the examination and analysis of all evidence assembled in the course of such investigation, such person shall be entitled, upon written demand made upon the Attorney General, to the return of all documentary material other than copies thereof made pursuant to this subsection so produced by such person.

(7) In the event of the death, disability, or separation from service of the custodian of any documentary material produced under any demand issued under this section or the official relief of such custodian from responsibility for the custody and control of such material, the Attorney General shall promptly

(i) designate another racketeering investigator to serve as custodian thereof, and

(ii) transmit notice in writing to the person who produced such material as to the identity and address of the successor so designated.

Any successor so designated shall have with regard to such materials all duties and responsibilities imposed by this section upon his predecessor in office with regard thereto, except that he shall not be held responsible for any default or dereliction which occurred before his designation as custodian.

(g) Whenever any person fails to comply with any civil investigative demand duly served upon him under this section or whenever satisfactory copying or reproduction of any such material cannot be done and such person refuses to surrender such material, the Attorney General may file, in the district court of the United States for any judicial district in which such person resides, is found, or transacts business, and serve upon such person a petition for an order of such court for the enforcement of this section, except that if such person transacts business in more than one such district such petition shall be filed in the district in which such person maintains his principal place of business, or in such other district in which such person transacts business as may be agreed upon by the parties to such petition.

(h) Within twenty days after the service of any such demand upon any person, or at any time before the return date specified in the demand, whichever period is shorter, such person may file, in the district court of the United States for the judicial district within which such person resides, is found, or transacts business, and serve upon such custodian a petition for an order of such court modifying or setting aside such demand. The time allowed for compliance with the demand in whole or in part as deemed proper and ordered by the court shall not run during the pendency of such petition in the court. Such petition shall specify each ground upon which the petitioner relies in seeking such relief, and may be based upon any failure of such demand to comply with the provisions of this section or upon any constitutional or other legal right or privilege of such person.

(i) At any time during which any custodian is in custody or control of any documentary material delivered by any person in compliance with any such demand, such person may file, in the district court of the United States for the judicial district within which the office of such custodian is situated, and serve upon such custodian a petition for an order of such court requiring the performance by such custodian of any duty imposed upon him by this section.

(j) Whenever any petition is filed in any district court of the United States under this section, such court shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter so presented, and to enter such order or orders as may be required to carry into effect the provisions of this section.

 

The Fellowship of Friends as of July, 1970

The Fellowship of Friends as of July, 1970. Drawing by Harold Wirk. Source: The Internet Archive

[ed. - For a sense of this period, see a 1997 interview with Bernard C. Berger, M.D. (below), a Fellowship of Friends history written by Bonita Guido, Robert's first student, and Stella Wirk's Fellowship history. Drawing by Harold Wirk. (All pictured above.)]

"Veronicapoe" wrote on the Fellowship of Friends Discussion blog, September 20, 2007:

(Quoting "Still Trying", post 125)

My own “wiseacring” speculation on the school is that the FOF started out on the right track, founded by mostly good people with good intentions, but somewhere along the line (fairly early on perhaps) an interval was not bridged, the FOF lost its aim and is now descending into perhaps the opposite of what it started out to be.

This is the collective myth. It is an attractive belief but it is not evidence based. I investigated the collective myth and found it to be untrue. There was intentional deception and pathological narcissism and unconscionable manipulation going on from the very beginning of the Fellowship of Friends.

"Veronicapoe" wrote on the Fellowship of Friends Discussion blog, April 23, 2007:

Group myth 1: The Fellowship was something that started out good and true and right and wholesome and somehow along the way became corrupt or faltered or something.

Response to Group myth 1: The Fellowship was thoroughly, fatally corrupt from the very beginning.

(Which is not to say that all the people, or even most of them, were or are corrupt. The key thing is deception. The more innocent, naive and idealistic the person, the more manipulable he or she is, generally speaking. And deception works even better when people at all experience levels are led to disable their critical thinking faculties by “separating from the ‘I’s.”)

Foundation for response to Group Myth 1: Accounts of Bonita G. Discussions with Harold W. and the late Stella S. Discussions with the late Don B. Discussions with Jordan F-S whose whole family was in FOF in 1971. Discussion with respected student who left in 1971. Attendance sheet from 1971 showing the degree to which peoples’ attendance at events was monitored. Handwritten note in R.’s handwriting from period of silence stating “It is good when weak students leave as they are weight. It used to bother me but now it’s like a useless object being gone.”

According to people who were there, R. intentionally broke up almost all marriages and relationships of people who joined during the first two years. Someone knows the quantity of relationship splits; I don’t. The number I heard was in the 20s or 30s, a huge number in a small group.

In 1971, R. screwed Student #1 (female), who had separated from her husband after she had an affair with another FOF member. The day after, R. told her she hadn’t valued the experience of sex with a conscious being enough, and made a public announcement, reported in the Via Del Sol Journal, that he had been celibate since the beginning of the school. Her response was “why would he lie? It just didn’t make sense.”

After the end of 1970, R. began to require people to give him large amounts of money in order to continue to remain in the group. R. had been living at home with his mother and decided that people should give him money so he could get wheels, a VW bus. From dismissed elementary school teacher (March 17, 1967) to living with Mom at age 32 and giving tennis lessons at the Claremont, to conning Student #1, a woman older than he was who was obviously fascinated with him and was a married with kids in school. He soon monopolized her time 6 days a week. Go figure that one out. She’s married, she has responsibilities to husband and kids, but he monopolizes her time. The word parasitic comes to mind.

Anonymous 1971 defector, who knew nothing of FOF’s subsequent history, stated, “During the period of silence, R. would blow kisses to people. The ones he blew to me were contemptuous. There was something contemptible and contemptuous about him. I sensed in him a radical lack of integrity. My take on him was ultimately sociopathic. This was the social archeology of 1971 cognitively uncontaminated by anything that came later.

Don B. indicated that when R. used to park at Nut Tree he would take up three spaces so as to keep anybody from scratching his Rolls Royce. Classic narcissistic behavior immune from standards which apply to other people. [ed. - Burton may not have been aware of this "practice" as he was often dropped off and picked up at the establishment door.]

The thing I have never quite fathomed is that, if accounts of people without axes to grind are to be believed, R. was a popular and well liked elementary school teacher by both students and parents. How did he go from that to creating, in the FOF, such a hostile environment for children?

[ed. - The following remembrance by Stella Wirk is reprinted from a cache of her old Geocities website .]

The beginning... 

We [Stella and Harold] met Robert Burton in July 1970, as described somewhat in the next page in this sequence.

The following here is a "new beginning particulars" as the result of inquiries received about the early days of our experience with the start up of the Fellowship of Friends.

My reply to inquiries sent to me:

Subject: Re: RB in the beginning
Date: Sat, 20 Sep 1997 01:36:17 -0700
From: Stella Wirk 

> Stella,
>
> >Maybe read the pages about the FOF and early years at
> > the web site:
> >http://www.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx(OLD URL)
> >(follow link "About CULTS")/Stella
>
> So it started out as a kind of study group?...

No. Burton said he had started a "school." He said that someone at a party had asked him a question and that's when he knew he was to be the teacher and the questioner was to be the student, starting the "school."

The person who asked the first question was Bonita.

> Did RB say that he had "passed his teacher" from
> the very beginning?

Yes. We were not at all sure what was meant by that, except in the ordinary sense -- as we had no understanding then of ideas about knowledge, being, and levels of consciousness. We guessed that maybe Burton had learned all he could learn from his former teacher.

> How did RB become the leader?

and from Xxx: 

> Good question from Xxxxx. I also would be very interested in the
> very beginning of the FoF. It seems that Robert was the only
> single person in the group. Did you pick on the single guy? "Hay,
> your [sic] single, you be the teacher!"
 
Hahaha! No, read on. 

Xxx also wrote to first inquirer:

> Great questions. I have a lot of imagination about the beginnings.
> Insights would be much appreciated.

One suggestion in the activity of seeking insights about past events is to keep in mind that the responses from me, although most sincere and intended to convey "how it went" are necessarily the "tip of the iceberg," as we are dealing with memory, some admixture perhaps of what is known "now" with my early less informed reactions. Then, of course, the imagination already occurring can "click" on something written by me, and what I write is susceptible to misunderstanding because I have no control over what is added to this by you.

Thus what you are receiving is "the likely story" not what could be classified as "verifiable facts." This means that what you may think about my posts at best is, "according to Stella...(blahblah)" if you wish to exchange your "insights" derived from this sketchy (at best) information. That is, there is not really a way for me to transmit the whole and exact picture in the course of an inquiry into what happened in 1970. I'll do the best I can, of course. 

Burton started his "school" so, naturally, *he* was the leader. We called him by his first name, and referred to him as "the teacher."

It was at this first meeting with him he also told us his birthday was May 4, but that he changed it to May 5 because "5/5" sounded better as he was a "budding Man No. 5." (I'm surprised now that we didn't hear "Outer Limits" music at the time. ) (As I've mentioned before, his birthday actually IS May 5; we didn't know that then, though. Thus, we accepted that he LIED about his birthday for effect, and later found out he LIED about LYING! We never did understand this game.)

> When you first became involved with him, did he seem (or did he
> present himself) to be someone who had attained a special
> degree of consciousness?
(again from first Xxxxx msg)

He said he was a "budding Man No. 5." Now, I'd like you to think back when you first heard of these ideas what you might have thought of someone saying they are very close to being Man No. 5. It would depend on what you understood at the time about this concept.
Basically, we could not know much about what he meant by that. We weren't even familiar with the idea of Man No. 1, 2, 3, 4, and so on, at that time. We also didn't know *then* what was meant by "man is asleep," or "man is a machine."

We had been spending a lot of time reading J. Krishnamurti, and had attended his talks in Santa Monica earlier in 1970. Krishnamurti's theme was that one did "not need a teacher." We thought, "maybe not, yet it might be easier for a little while; after all, we were listening to and reading Krishamurti!" haha We figured we had to "get a handle on this" some way or other. 

Mostly what we knew was that we were interested in the 4th Way ideas we had started reading a little about, maybe half-way through "In Search of the Miraculous," and he talked about them a little, as well as telling us something about himself.

The claim of being a "budding Man No. 5" meant very little to us, except that whatever it was, he said he was close to being it.

We did notice that he *noticed* a lot of little things. He gave Harold an observation. "Are you 'a-where' that every time you sip your coffee, after you swallow, you give off a little smack and 'ahhhh' sigh?" Harold was surprised to find that he was doing that! As nobody had ever done that with us before, RB seemed pretty observant to us at the time.

We also noticed, of course, that he spoke with an Arkansas accent when he said "a-where." We were being much too polite to mention it then, and when he again said at a meeting, "You must be *a-where* of yo-sef" we decided to speak up. This *emphasis* on "a-where" is because he did sort of emphasize that word in his tone of voice.

We told him the word was "Aware" and this activity eventually became personalized "elocution lessons" for Robert at meetings with the group! 

(Later years among old friends we've joked about the possibility that WE created what you see today in the form of a Burton well spoken. We were joking, of course, although it certainly was part of it. Still later, he imitated a dapper doctor's expensive three piece suits, and we were off onto the "impressions octave.")

More years later, with some experience, certainly we saw that we were easily impressed. All of this, the ideas, meeting him, etc., were very new to us, in spite of my brief experience with his former teacher, Alex Horn, whom he claimed to have "passed," whatever that actually meant.

At that first meeting, he pointed our attention to various things in the restaurant, an announcement over the loudspeaker, a bird outside the window, and other things like that. His demeanor was calm, polite, pleasant, and he explained that he was celebate, with lengthy comments about how this saved vital energy, sex enery - "the energy of creation," for the development of consciousness by controlling attention.

[Hindsight is 20/20 vision, of course, and now I realize I could do the same act myself today. I might have been able to do it in 1970, too, if I knew that was the "act of looking awake." That he was lying about being celebate was discovered ten years later when he admitted to me he always had a *big problem* keeping his "task" in this area.

[The "task" to which he referred was given to him by his former teacher, Alex Horn, and the task was to NOT pester the young men in the group for sexual encounters, and eventually we found out that Alex had expelled him from his school for not being able to keep this task!

[*Anybody* can *pay attention* to various ticks and habits people may not be aware of, and point them out to their surprise; anybody can point out things other people are not noticing -- if that's the game -- and it *does* look impressive to we uninitiated, sleeping neophytes we were at the time. EST and various "self improvement" groups do similar acts.]

Basically, Harold and I had no pre-conceived notions about how a "conscious being" would behave or somehow demonstrate himself as such. Without any criteria of this sort, we were just "there" with him as one would be in an ordinary conversation with someone just met. We were considering his offer to teach the ideas and help people to find their way through practical work to understand them.

We were not internally dissecting that he "did this" or "did that" as we went along. We were not thinking at all about how to "test" him, in other words, having had *no* prior experience of this nature (no gurus, no swamis, not even a psychology oriented person). In other words, we were dummies, and we were *ripe.* 

So, at $40/month, we said we would join, and our first meeting was at the home of a doctor in Orinda, where Harold and I were the 6th and 7th people to join. We sat around kitchen table, and Burton read aloud some passages from "Search" and explained how we could observe and verify them. He didn't tell us "what" to look for; he stressed just looking to see what we are able to see.

[ed. - The following text is transcribed from "The Account of Bernard C. Berger, M.D." pdf file. The questions from "Veronicapoe" are color-coded in red and answers from Dr. Berger are in blue.]

Subject: Re: Fellowship

Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 17:40:16 -0700

From: "Bernard C. Berger"

To: [redacted]

Dear Dr. Berger,

[Question redacted]

Yes we were members #4 and 5 of Roberts group.

Hmm. So, it was Bonita first, followed soon by David Guido. Then there was a third person of whom I know nothing. Then you and Elizabeth. Then Meg Gwynne (Stella) and Harold Wirk. Then Bill Schenker? Or did Bill precede you?

I was with Bill Shenker at an Esalen Style encounter group. He mentioned that Burton had some interesting ideas and that we should go to a meeting. He was in the group before me. I brought my wife along. We share everything together and still do. Shenker was interested in Sufism and in the idea that certain people have greater powers than others. I suppose that the Castenada Books were out by that time and reinforced that concepts.

The group quickly increased to perhaps 30. We developed some new friends in the group and 6 of us left after my wife and I were members for a year.

A year. So, you left in the Spring of 1971, prior to the purchase of the Oregon House property.

Hmm. Do you mind if I ask you some basic questions about yourself, and then also some basic questions about your perceptions at that time, as you remember them?

I have heard you are a physician. May I ask about your field of medical practice, and further, whether you have any training in psychiatry?

Yes I am a physician now retired and although at that time I was interested in Psychiatry I did not take a residency in thart [sic] field. ALL of my circle of friends from Med School became Psychiatrists. I did enjoy my practice and spent a lot of time listening to my patience [sic]. I do not give credence to psychoanalytic theory.

May I ask how you were persuaded to begin paying Robert money?

Robert asked for and received $100 per month from us. I felt it was worth it for his time and effort. He did open my eyes to Gurgeeffs [sic]concepts. It was not a bad deal for me to pay him.

How would you describe the Robert Burton whom you knew at that time?

He was a v. good teacher of the idea of being awake. He was also v. weired [sic]. His eyes always seemed to be remarkable. Very wide eyed but I was not uncomfortable with him. He really had a great shtick and did very well for himself. I also enjoyed the members. They were middle class, affluent and searching for something. Just like me. It was a hell of a lot simpler than trying to climb Everest.

Do you recall Robert ever discussing his personal life, i.e., where he grew up? I know that he was born in Arkansas, and that he later moved to California, attended San Jose State University, taught fourth grade in Lafayette. Did he ever say where he went to high school? Do you have any idea how he was keeping afloat financially prior to his requiring payments of you?

I believe that he lived with his mother and taught tennis. Robert wanted us to give him a sizable but non specific amount to purchase a ranch.

Yes. This became an institution, a dogma, a rite of passage. When I was a member ,[redacted], the "ranch donation" (one donation among many) was "one month's gross income, or $1000, whichever was greater."

It seemed like a very exploitative request and thus left the group.

Yes, it sounds like you had some basic common sense. I presume you have some concept of the group's subsequent history?

Oh, yes, another question. In reviewing the roster of members during the early years, I continue to be astonished at the number of physicians. Have you any notion of how this came about?

Physicians seem more gulible [sic] than real people. They may fool others that they know something but in their hearts they seek and have the money and time to fullfill [sic] themselves. I just finished the Everest Book Into Thin Air. There was a high percentage of Drs on that expedition. DRs are also poor investors and are an easy mark.

I would be happy to answer any questions.

I am grateful for your response and am very Interested in whatever you are able to remember from this remote time. Is It possible that you or your wife have notes tucked away, somewhere?

No notes I am sorry

Best Regards

Bernard Berger

Sincerely,

[Name redacted]

2 of 2 06/12/97 07:00:35