Over a decade ago we prepared our Case in readiness for an Inquiry. Subudconscience.com was developed on the Case. Three items – Duty of Care, Willful Blindness and Andreas’s good work record – as mitigation, remained outstanding. I have now decided to upload Duty of Care and Willful Blindness for members to discuss, ever mindful, that their protection is paramount and from our experience they may be helped.

DUTY OF CARE

Duty of Care is a legal obligation imposed on an individual requiring that they adhere to a standard of reasonable Care while performing any acts that could foreseeable harm others.

 

World Subud Council and Subud Britain Failed:

1. To provide Duty of Care and sufficient protection of the project Anugraha.  Allowing its planning management, and development to be influenced by many people within the organisation. That any ordinary member of the Subud organisation who were also the shareholders of Anugraha Hotels Ltd (AHL) to have access to the project and be free to influence it in anyway they chose however irrational, dangerous or harmful.
2. To provide Duty of Care by allowing any member to take up a position within the International Centre and Anugraha Hotels Ltd without interview or proving they were appropriately qualified.
3. They failed to provide Duty of Care in the construction phase of Anugraha that failed to control the budget placing further burden upon the members.
4. They failed in their Duty of Care to ensure and promote sound professional business methods when dealing in matters related to the project.
5. They failed to provide Duty of Care not to investigate the witnessed physical assault by Adam Albright in Australian Dec 1989 or the witnessed gang mobbing of Luthfi O’Meagher at Anugraha on the w/e 9^th December 1989 by the illegal Board, known as the non executive directors.
6. They failed in their Duty of Care towards their members by not taking action against those who did wrong and placing innocent members at risk.
7. They failed in their Duty of Care by choosing to ignore established practices of law that Directors of Boards held ultimate responsibility.
8. That they failed to provide Duty of Care to those who suffered as a result of the collapse of the project.
9. That they failed to provide Duty of Care causing Andreas to lose his home Heath End House to a Bank and standing by as he faced eviction.
10. That they failed to provide Duty of Care recognising Freedom of Speech and Freedom in publication of the independent voice.
11. That they failed to provide Duty of Care not responding to the requests for an Inquiry into the collapse of Anugraha.
12. They have failed in their Duty of Care not holding Inquiries into all failed enterprises as every failure, whether Subud is legally responsible or not, brings the organisation and the name of the Founder into disrepute.
13. They failed in their Duty of Care not responding or investigating the many articles published over the years about Anugraha, especially The Governance.
14. They failed in their Duty of Care towards their members by allowing the enterprise wing to go on functioning, knowing that members were being placed at financial risk.
15. They failed in their Duty of Care not investigating the activities of those whose names are linked to failed projects that resulted in members losing money.
16. They failed in their Duty of Care not stopping the activities that led to the failure of enterprises putting members at risk.
17. They failed in their Duty of Care not being transparent in their financial dealings and policies.
18. They failed in their Duty of Care not representing their member’s interests.
19. They failed in their Duty of Care not investigating harmful, inappropriate and illegal Testing.
20. They failed in their Duty of Care to recognise Human Rights, Rights of the Individual. Freedom of Speech, Cases of Injustice, Freedom of Publication.
21. They failed in their Duty of Care to investigate the missing £2M for Hardship and the Houses following the collapse of Anugraha.
22. They failed in their Duty of Care to support the members who suffered and lost following Anugraha’s collapse.

23. They failed in their Duty of Care not investigating the influence and activities of Sharif Horthy, whose actions have brought misery, pain and loss to many over the years. As a result, he is responsible for damaging the reputation and of the organisation and the name of the Founder.
24. They failed in their Duty of Care by not providing leadership, therefore prolonging the suffering of members who were wronged and affected by discrimination, prejudice and division.

 

International Helpers and National Helpers:

1. Failed in their Duty of Care towards those suffering as a result of the loss of Anugraha by permitting Testing by Helpers who did not have, or were in the posession of the full facts. This allowed the receiving to influence events causing harm.

 

2. Helpers failed in the Duty of Care participating in the mobbing of Luthfi O’Meagher on the evening of 9^th December 1989 to rid him of his position.  By doing so, they went against all Bapak’s teaching and the advice of their International Helper K Gardiner. They also failed in their Duty of Care not investigating the event.

 

3. Helpers failed in their Duty of Care not investigating or taking any action regarding the Testing that took place on Heath End House, forcing members to go against their consciences.

 

4. The Helpers failed in their Duty of Care not taking any action resulting from Testing that brings harm upon an individual or fails to represent the Higher Values as perceived by Society and Religious Institutions.

 

5. The Helpers failed in their Duty of Care towards those suffering as a result of discrimination, prejudice and division.

 

6. The Helpers failed in their Duty of Care not recognising Injustice, Rights of the individual and Human Rights.

 

---

WILLFUL BLINDNESS

Wilful blindness is a term used in law when an individual/organisation seeks to avoid civil, criminal, statutory liability by placing himself in a position of remaining unaware of the facts to avoid liability or responsibility. Irrespective, they are still responsible.

We believe that the World Subud Council and Subud Britain are guilty of Wilful Blindness and have intentionally not responded.

1. The WSC and Subud Britain – as do individual members – know why Anugraha was lost, yet have done nothing to investigate, hold an Inquiry, take action or represent the members who suffered as a result of Anugraha’s loss.
2. That they similarly stood back when other Subud projects were lost, allowing innocent members to lose money over and over again, rather than take action on their behalf to protect their members in the future.
3. That the WSC, despite a poor record of failure, has failed to respond, to close down the Enterprise Wing and to investigate its problems in order to protect innocent members from losing money and placing them at risk.
4. That the WSC and Subud Britain have, despite widely published knowledge of the Zys situation, stood back and allowed them to lose their home to a Bank and still stand back knowing they cannot survive in their home without help.
5. We believe that neither the World Subud Council nor Subud Britain Committees are fit for purpose and fail not only in their statutory obligations but also fail to provide professional leadership in accordance with expected standards.
6. We believe that the WSC and Subud Britain – who believe they receive directly from God – have little respect for law, accountability and responsibility and that it is not in the interests of Subud to bring such principles into their spiritual world and life.
7. That the WSC and Subud Britain wish to protect those who do wrong because they are Brothers and Sisters and therefore wish to avoid all responsibility. They prefer to put the responsibility on the innocent individual and do not react when members suffer.
8. The WSC and Subud Britain put up ‘walls of silence’ whenever requests over the years were made to hold an Inquiry. Luke Penensay, WSC Chairman, ridiculed and slammed the door this year after inviting our representative to sit on the panel.  They found the terms of reference proposed for the Inquiry and supported by the Trustees of the Heath End Trust too challenging.
9. ‘The Governance’ was placed on the Internet explaining to the intelligentsia about Anugraha’s loss. The organisation did not think it worthy of response or investigation on behalf of its members, who lost so much and those who still 21 years later still suffer.
10. Luthfi O’Meagher wrote an article ‘The Last Chance’, warning Subud re the Zys situation. The WSC and Subud Britain ignored it and did not respond.
11. The Chairman of Subud Britain has acknowledged that the organisation has behaved badly, yet does nothing to rectify the wrong doings.
12. We believe the World Subud Council by not taking appropriate action years ago protect guilty people who do not wish this story and others to come into the public arena. The Chairpersons are influenced by their lobbying and therefore do not act objectively or in an unbiased way.
13. There is also an example where a Chairman and members of the Committee would not want Anugraha bought into the public arena because they were implicated and therefore the Zyses have not received appropriate responses.
14. Whilst the members of the Syndicate were under threat of losing their homes whilst being rescued by Luthfi O’Meagher and Andreas Zys, Subud Britain organised a meeting to plan the next big project (evidence in the latter part of this document). Such was their care and interest in their members suffering.
15. Clear guidance has been laid down by the Founder of the organisation as to what action should be taken in these circumstances. The Committees ignore this advice and guidance. That is tantamount to being a Christian, Muslim or Jew and ignoring the guidance of Christ/Bible, Mohammad/Quran and the Torah.

 

We believe that the WSC and Subud Britain should come under investigation of the regarding how they run their affairs.