Nothing Has Changed

Many people have written in to ask if a quiet blog means something has changed. As was the case before, no, nothing has changed. We still believe in Dad’s innocence, we still believe the investigation was biased and unethical, and we believe RZIM’s leadership mishandled many things, as well.

Unfortunately, because Dad is no longer here, our official options to clear his name are extremely limited. It’s been easy for people to assume that we have certain options at our disposal. We do not. Dad was denied due process, yet our system prevents us from more aggressively fighting it because of his absence. The whole thing, starting several years back, has successfully, and cruelly, navigated a series of cracks in the system that dishonest people can, and have, used to their advantage.

But we maintain that we have not found the evidence claimed in the report, nor any items/communications in other formats/belongings that would hint at any of this being true.

Another reason for not posting more about some of the nonsense out there is that I have not wanted this blog to become one of destruction. People often ask me what I have to say about the latest thing said by one of the opportunists born out of this situation. There are plenty of ways I could go after them and the high horse of cards from where they erroneously judge my Dad. Some of them have straight up lied and rewritten their own story at RZIM to change the things I, and others, WITNESSED them to say/do over the years.

I could take them on more directly, but it would very easily turn from defending Dad into just mudslinging. And that would be no better than those who have chosen to destroy just to make a name/career for themselves. So while there are those who still weigh in from time to time, I will not be responding to them despite their list of lies and misrepresentations.

However, even though there is no massive update, I will list a few previously unsaid details that we’ve learned, as well as a recap of a few things I’ve already shared.

• My mom was never questioned. She has knowledge that could be used to verify if these accusers were telling the truth or lying, something that is actually standard practice in such investigations. And she knew the man for 54 years. Instead they chose not to talk to her at all. What sort of allegedly objective investigation would not speak to the person’s spouse?

• We know they biased one key person against Dad by telling him Dad was guilty before they interviewed him, and then that person in turn spread that news to others before they were interviewed. And we know they physically intimidated another interviewee who was defending Dad.

• There was no chain of custody given for the phones they examined, something that many attorneys and investigators have told us is a significant red flag and cause to discredit the whole process.

• Though we don’t know all names involved, we do know some. And for one of the supposedly most “credible” of them, we have documentation/testimony sent in to RZIM at one point giving extensive detail and history as to why the accuser should not be believed.

• There was at least one very significant testimony defending Dad, from someone who had a unique and important vantage point of Dad’s behavior. In fact, you could argue that in recent years he had more eyewitness account of Dad’s travel life than anyone else. That person said they never witnessed anything that gave a hint of things like this, and they were disappointed to see that their testimony was not included in the report. A fair report would have included all sides related to the subject matter, not just what fit the narrative they wanted.

• We have not found the photos or communications mentioned in the report, or any others that cause concern. It would mean every single piece of evidence on that phone had been deleted and was only found through forensic investigation. That does not make sense or seem likely.

• We have texts from two public sources of “information,” Vicki Blue & Anurag Sharma. For more information on those, you can read about them in previous posts. But one thing I did not include from before, was a couple of exchanges between Anurag and my Dad. At one point, Anurag asks Dad if he would be his “Catholic brother for 55 minutes.” (And, no, Dad was not Catholic, this was just Anurag’s choice of words as he was referring to the practice of confessing to a priest.) He then goes on to talk about some things he wanted to change in his life. But that does not make sense. If you believed a man to be a moral deviant, would you go to him asking for help with your own challenges? Would you see that person as one of spiritual and moral authority? No, you wouldn’t.

• Anurag also says at one point, “Sir Ji, I am going through a lot including very unreasonable thoughts at time. I guess I am not at ease with the cards life has dealt with me.”[sic] I wonder, how far did these unreasonable thoughts go? Did they extend to the change in his account of Dad’s life after he passed?

• I’ve shown that M&M manipulated at least one fact, taking it out of context (driving directions) and reporting it as an inappropriate one (massage directions). If they did that, why should we assume they didn’t do that with anything else?

• We have accounts from (now) former board members who questioned the report and objected to what RZIM was going to do with it. They were verbally intimidated to vote with the majority or abstain, rather than vote no. One dissenting member was told to resign BEFORE the vote rather than vote no, as she intended.

• We have it in writing from one board member mentioning the fact that they knew there are things in there that may not be reliable. It’s no secret that they believed some of it. But they didn’t believe all of it. This board member wrote the others and asked the question about if they should they release the things they weren’t certain about. Of course we know now that they did release the full report. But before someone says, “well they changed their minds on the accuracy of the report,” we know there are significant details in there that they KNOW FOR A FACT are false. Not just speculation but provably false. But they didn’t remove them as they didn’t want to have to tell people they edited the report. With their selective transparency, they couldn’t say they made corrections to a report while also claiming it was a reliable document. And nor could they stand to have someone saying they weren’t being transparent. So they released it in full, uncorrected. And then through their own statement they allowed people to believe that every detail was true. They even declared as true things that the report didn’t even say were proven.

• During staff meetings, staff were told that Mom and Naomi were begged to stay. That is simply not true. They were forced out. Others were told Naomi was given support from RZIM for both herself and a new venture. That, too, is a lie.

• The then Chairman of the Board in 2021 also spoke to the staff about the disagreement within the family on the findings. Not only did he describe it in ways that weren’t true, for him to have done that in an official capacity at an official meeting is incredibly unprofessional and inappropriate. This statement about the family, our situation, and our alleged care were so bizarre and dishonest, why should we trust them with the rest of the situation?

There is much else that has gone on since then, and each development has only reinforced our belief in Dad and distrust in the process. If you are new to do this blog, I hope you’ll take the time to read some of the more detailed posts outlining these things, and more.

So while I don’t expect to post much more, that is simply a result of the limitations we face, not a change in our beliefs about what transpired. We remain at Dad’s defense.