July 19, 1984  (Hand written Letter from David Elders to Richard Keeler)

Richard –

I have read entirely your copy of Hoite’s document, and am returning it to you, as we discussed.

Frankly, I do not feel any differently about it now, and in fact, my sense of its being just a “hatchet” job has been reaffirmed.  Notwithstanding the fact that I feel we must consider the “conflict of interest” which some in functional decision making roles are facing, and my own personal disbelief in Vern’s interpretation of whatever experience he’s had, I believe Hoite’s work, while good for Hoite, is not good for anyone else.  I’d like to talk to you more about this, but consider these:

1)      Both Vern and Hoite use identical justifications for their actions … “For the good of the movement!”  Interesting.

2)      Both tend to lay claim to credentials – Hoite always quotes Dr. Meredith…., PHD, or Dr. Paul Knott, or Dr. Burns, etc., etc.

3)      Hoite basically attempts to invalidate the messages on the basis of the credit worthiness of the messenger, yet disclaims this attempt with one or two sentences.

4)      He hardly ever looks at an argument from Vern’s point of view, which would be at least a little fairer and more objective.  I can discuss this in greater detail since I took notes.

5)      Finally, maturity and/or common decency or even “political,” acumen would have left Vern with a way out of the dilemma if he chose to take it.  Other than a lawsuit, Hoite leaves him nothing.  Kind of like one of the National Inquirer jobs!

I have much more to say, but would rather speak with you personally about it.  Thanks for sending it.  I’m glad I chose not to support it by sending for one, but feel that I am in a better position to comment having read it.  Thanks for your encouragement and willingness to send it. 

Love to you and Barrie – see you in WI.

Dave