I have no problem with accepting the allegation that MMY diddled some female devotees. As I've said many times on this forum, MMY's fucking or not fucking Judy or Linda or Mia doesn't affect one iota whether my daily TM works or not.
What I do have a problem with is the dissemination, promotion, and continual reference to unsubstantiated allegations that bemirsch the good name and reputation of a person. Indeed, regular readers of this forum know that I have on many occasions come down negatively upon MMY himself for unsubstantiated accusations he has made against the CIA (and that's not even a person, it's an organisation). My feeling is: put up or shut up. If you're going to accuse someone of something, let's see some evidence. Back up what you're saying. And if you can't, apologise and retract. And if you don't apologise and retract, then you are the lowest of the lowest scum. I guess I blew my lid today because, for the first time, I learned from Rick Archer that Jennifer (or Linda, I can't remember which one it is), one of MMY's alleged paramours and accusers, is a lawyer. This is outrageous because lawyers, at least in the USA, are bound by a code of professional conduct to comport themselves in a specific way when it comes to ethics and matters of law, whether in the courtroom or out, whether in a case that involves their own clients or not, and whether it is in or out of their personal lives. In other words, at any time. Please recall that Bill Clinton, in the year after he left office, was disbarred by the Bar of the State of Arkansas, for his lying under oath when being depositioned in the Paula Jones case. For all I know, he may still be disbarred (I haven't kept up with it). My point is this: Jennifer made some pretty strong allegations against MMY. Not only is she a lawyer but apparently there is some sort of papertrail that she either knows about or has access to. By withholding such evidence after having made these accusations I suggest to you that she is very possibly guilty of professional misconduct and may be subject to discinplinary action, including disbarment (Hey, if Clinton can be disbarred for lying then Jennifer can be disbarred for casting dispersions on a celibate and refusing to back it up with evidence that she apparently is in possession of). I am going to, separately, post some of the pertinent sections of the American Bar Association's Code of Professional Conduct that may have application here. If Jennifer is NOT a lawyer in the USA then I ask Rick -- again -- to report to us which country she DOES practise law in and I can assure you that that country's laws and law association has their own code. I'll then google that country's code and get back to you on it.
