Evidence of Adele Tomlin's Misconduct and Abuse of Vajrayana Buddhism
Timeline of the Psy-Op's Failed Operations
The following failed attempts to inflict public harms have been maliciously twisted and framed in its public writings as discrimination, bullying, harassment against a lone survivor woman, Adele Tomlin, whose every piece of output (Facebook rants and website articles alike) is rife with the use of the FOG (Fear Obligation Guilt) tactics that induce systemic distortions of Vajrayana Buddhism, weaponizing them to normalize perversion, seed distrust, incite hate and division.
2019-2020 | Rejected by Khyentse Foundation | Failed Distortions
2020 | Globally banned from Benchen monasteries and centers | Failed Infiltration
2021 | Rejected by Khyentse Foundation | Failed Distortions
This entry documents selected articles previously published that were later removed by third-party platforms following Adele Tomlin's complaints, as it openly confirms and celebrates. Removal does not indicate invalidity—only desperation. Most platforms operate conservatively to prevent incurring any potential liability—not to adjudicafe truth—especially when the subject fiercely proclaims itself as a former barrister (read: imminent danger). The self-incriminating evidence on one of the platforms, Wordpress, has forced silent removal without notice nor justification. WordPress has been receiving annual payments from the supposed tactician of proof and framing for several hosted websites (as stated on its Facebook page), while receiving none for the materials that might potentially cripple that very recurring payment capacity.
Deletion, which is a common administrative response under pressure, is the convenient recourse when irrefutability is affirmed — a valuable lesson imparted graciously by the strategist of legal battlefield who knows how to handle objection professionally. Such "deliberate deletion of evidence," in legal terms, is called Spoliation. Under the doctrine of "spoliation", courts may apply an "adverse inference" — presuming the destroyed evidence was unfavorable to the party responsible for its removal. The longstanding maxim is:
Omnia praesumuntur contra spoliatorem
“All things are presumed against the destroyer of evidence.”
In legal logic, a party that is truly innocent typically welcomes the "receipts" to be brought into the light of the court so they can be disproven; a party that seeks to delete them "seals their position" as one who fears the evidence more than the accusation. Moreover, public dismissal of the evidence as "lies" is not rebuttal but constitutes a new, actionable instance of libel against us, the critics.
No rule-of-law system can function if evidence destruction becomes normalized. Preservation of evidence is not a courtesy, but a foundational obligation tied directly to fairness, due process, and the administration of justice. In the spirit of transparency, the materials are now preserved here for independent review. Ironically, its emphasis on the barrister title warrants even stricter scrutiny in the eyes of law. With its intensive use of the FOG (Fear Obligation Guilt) tactics to convince through emotional blackmail rather than transparent reasoning, Adele Tomlin's admission of suppressing the receipts below (instead of rebutting them) is enough to seal its position without a trial.
Articles on Multiple Blogs (First Removal on Aug 9, 2025; Second Removal on Aug 30, 2025):