|
Correspondence from Bill Heidrick to Kenneth Grant
Ordo Templi Orientis Bill Heidrick Grand Treasurer General & Interum Administrator P.O. Box 2303 Berkeley, CA 94702 USA
Kenneth Grant, Esq. c/o Muller, Blond & White 55-57, Great Ormond St. London, WC1N 3 HZ ENGLAND
An. LXXXI e.n. Sun in Virgo Moon in Cancer September 9, 1985 e.v.
Dear Mr. Grant,
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
Thank you for your kind words on the memory and passing of my friend and Caliph Grady McMurtry. Thank you also for your observations regarding the matter of the claims and related questions concerning O.T.O.
I regret that it was necessary to bring up this matter after all these years, and hope that you will not continue to feel that my intentions are possibly un-Thelemic. I will do my best to clear up most of the vagury in the matter here.
First, the immediate situation. We have received a legal decision, recognizing our claim to being Ordo Templi Orientis, owners of the Crowley Copyrights setaside for O.T.O. in A.C.'s Last Will and Testiment [sic], owners of the name, lamen and sundry other tangible and intangible properties. I sent you copy of that decision so that you would be properly informed of it, so that you could take action against it if you saw fir (that's a Thelemic gesture, anyway), and so that you and the O.T.O. here in the states could begin communication with an eye to preserving our mutual interests. The Decision of the US Federal court is not subject to appeal in established findings of fact without some considerable effort; and such findings of Fact are usually impossible to reverse. If you do not wish to discuss these matters with us, you should seek the advice of a legal counsel. I don't wish to disturb you on that score, but I feel an absolute obligation to inform you of the minimal steps which may be necessary to protect your rights and claims. Even though we (the O.T.O. in the States) are the principal beneficiaries of this legal decision, we are not the only ones who can use it. The Federal Court System in the USA if the highest court system in the land, with appeal possible only in a very limited way. The appeal of issues judged by the Federal Court to be "Fact" is almost entirely limited to the US Supreme Court (the highest court in the USA). There is a slight but always possible chance that our O.T.O. organization might bankrupt at some point, with the Copyrights going to the receiving institutions. In that event, your activity with the Crowley Copyrights would come under attack by whomever received our Copyright claims as relief from bankruptsy [sic]. Needless to say, one could not hope for any Thelemic attitudes in such a case! If we can enter an agreement with you, we can protect our mutual interests from such a disaster. We do not expect to have a financial failure, but the next Caliph will be elected on the 21st of this month. If I do day so myself, at least one of the candidates is a total twit as far as practical matters are concerned. At least two of the candidates are likely to introduce changes which could destroy the financial stability and force the sales of the Copyrights. The situation is Thelemic now, but it could change in the course of a year! By situation I mean the legal claims to the Crowley Copyrights and the various emblems and name of the O.T.O.; especially the former.
About our financial situation, we spent about $30,000.00 on the Motta [Marcelo Motta] case. Close to $10,000.00 of this remains to be paid to our lawyer. Our total income should be about $20,000.00 to $25,000.00 this year. Motta will undoubtedly appeal the financial judgement made against him, some $140,000.00. The appeal will also undoubtedly fail to a large extent, but will take at least the better part of a year. Until the appeal is over and done, Motta will not be paying us anything. Next, the amounts he will be made to pay will go to individuals slandored [sic] in his publications, not the O.T.O. We will have to depend on the good will of those who do receive any of this money to get any for the legal bill. Finally, on this issue, Motta will most probably be a pauper by the time we have a billable matter on him. That and possible mismanagement under a new O.T.O. administration could force unvountary [sic] court ordered sales of the Copyright claims.
On to the next point: In order to proceed with ordinary business. (AL III, 41: "Establish at thy Kaaba a clerk-house: all must be done well and with business way.") for the O.T.O., in the light of this decision and of my duty as treasurer of the corporation, I have to try to reach an agreement with you about the various matters related to O.T.O. property, etc. The operation of the Order here is not a one-man thing. The Caliph (read "President of the corporation" for the mundane idea) is the chairman of a Board of Directors. Mystical matters are one thing, but material concerns cannot be passed over in such a situation. We have an electorate of some 10 IX° members who can remove any officer, including the Caliph, at bienneal [sic] meetings. Gentlemen's agreements are indeed possible in most situations, but there are hard and fast rules now that preclude such understandings in purely material situations.
Here's the place where the real trouble comes in. We (the responsible officers of O.T.O. over here—legally responsible for malfeasance, that is) are now required by the board of directors and the electorate of O.T.O. to proceed with firming up the O.T.O. copyright claim. Accordingly, I have dispatched off to Mr. John Symonds, as I mentioned I would in my previous letter to you, a copy of the Federal Court decision and a request to freeze royalty disbursement until he is satisfied with our credentials. Mr. Symonds answered from Tokyo, Japan with the enclosed (copy) response. As you can see, he is not pleased or amused with the matter. If we cannot reach a reasonable understanding with him in regard to O.T.O. ownership of the Copyrights (in his letter he seems to be claiming personal ownership!), the only recourse will be to go to the courts for a decision in UK. That would take about a year to start and no one knows how long to finish. Mr. Symonds refers to yourself in justification for his indifference to our claim, and will undoubtedly continue to do so. If we are forced to seek this remedy, there will be no way to prevent your receiving alleged assignment of Crowley copyrights from entering the case. Without resting on your claim, Mr. Symonds would have no defense against a legal action by us. Again, this can be avoided if you and we can work out a mutually satisfactory agreement. Otherwise, Symonds will have to bring you into the case. We want to settle this matter without further expense, and with no further unpleasentness [sic].
Next, why are we making all these waves? Two reasons. 1. We have been turned back from the Warburg Collection assembled by G. Yorke [Gerald Yorke] in the matter of photocopy for publication. We feel an obligation to publish or permit publication of the works of A.C. The Warburg Inst. has informed us, over Mr. Yorke's objection to them while he was still alive, that they consider the legal ownership of the Crowley copyrights to be sufficiently clouded to make any release of material for publication a legal threat to their position (they don't want to be sued for complicity in breech [sic] of copyright). The only way around that is to clear the cloud on the Copyright. In addition on this point, we have uncovered among K. Germer's [Karl Germer] papers, while preparing the case against Motta, letters from Yorke and Germer stating that Yorke received all but one of the Crowley primary MSS in Germer's hands "for safe keeping", and some 700 Crowley letters. Yorke wrote to S. Germer [Sascha Germer] that he subsequently passed these treasure over to the Warburg! The owner of the Crowley legacy O.T.O., also has a claim on those items. The Warburg has sealed the letters on grounds of possible legal (slandor [sic] or libel) danger for a period of 30 or more years. Only a clear exercise of a legal claim to ownership of improperly converted property will free up those letters for study in out life-time!
2. After all, it's no good just thinking one is O.T.O. As an Outer Order, O.T.O. must act like itself or be a sham. The situation has to be resolved.
On to proposals.
Part of the reason for being a bit vague is lack of information. The O.T.O. over here is going to have a shake-up after the election. Until the election is complete, there is no way to know what direction O.T.O. will go. Anything that can be settled in the little time that remains will bind the new administration to a somewhat more predictable path. I had in mind discussing options with you for that reason.
This letter comes to you while I am still Grand Treasurer General of this organization. I am acting with the knowledge and approval of the present board of directors. What I start, can be continued by the next administration. Incidentally, I am running for Caliph, but have about a 50% chance of making it. Regardless of the outcome of the election, I have only about a 15% chance of remaining Grand Treasurer General more than six months after the election. This could be my last shot at giving you options.
What I would most like to see in an annullment of the Germer expulsion letter that professed to kick you out of the O.T.O. That would have to be preceded by three things. 1. An examination of the evidence that the expulsion was improper. 2. A consideration that your actions to date have not been prejudicial to the O.T.O. in excess of what could reasonably be expected by being cut off so long and so coldly. 3. A decision by our Supreme Council, under the new Caliph. With all of that, you would loose some claims, we would give up some exclusivity and peace would reign! Not perhaps the most acceptable for you, but it's better than having to go through court proceedings on Symonds' behalf needlessly.
I do understand that you consider Germer never to have been the O.H.O. [Outer Head of the Order] and to have never had the power to kick you out. Unfortunately, many letters and a court decision affirm that Germer became the O.H.O. The question then focuses on whether an O.H.O. could kick you out unilaterally. In the present form of O.T.O. in the States, the answer is "no". During anytime before we incorporated in California ('80 or there abouts) the answer appears to be "yes". Expulsions now require due process, notice, hearings and a group decision at which the defendant may speak or be represented. Under Crowley and Germer, it was not so. True Xth Degrees could not be kicked out. Yet you have claimed only IXth Degree on the basis of any signed papers. To date, I am only aware of that one charter in which Germer identifies you as a IXth Degree. Since he never laid eyes on you, that won't hold up. We have many letters and comments by Germer showing that half the time he didn't know who was what. The argument would simply go that he "thought you were a IXth Degree." Note that I am not making that argument, merely bringing it to your attention. Unless you have paper from Crowley, as Grady McMurtry had, stating that he had made you a IXth Degree, you will be unable to prove it. Germer did kick out Wilfred Smith [Wilfred Talbot Smith], IXth Degree. Crowley kicked out a number of ranking members. No help there either. Germer also received a letter from Yorke reporting on your activities after his "letter of expulsion", and Germer then sent a limited charter to Noel Fitzgerald [Edward Noel Fitzgerald]. That charter imposed on Fitzgerald the obligation to stop any O.T.O. activity in England, most especially your own. Wouldn't surprise me at all if Fitzgerald simply chucked the thing. By the way, Motta had paper at least as good as this and lost. He didn't know that he had it. We found it in Germer's papers. Copy enclosed. In this Germer addresses Motta as Adjuvo, and displays some sort of temporal fuge. I suspect that the letter was never sent to Motts. I believe Germer had the thing all written and then suddenly remembered that Motta had never become an O.T.O. member! There's a basis for annulling your expulsion, gross incompetence on Germer's part. It wouldn't be adequate by itself, especially this long after your letter, but its a place to start looking for a solution. Germer does use the IX° on this letter, but on the other item enclosed, he identifies himself clearly as Frater Superior. That's O.H.O. according to the 1917 O.T.O. Constitution.
In summary, posterity is now making the decision as to which of the many heads of the O.T.O. Beast is the one with all the horns. Motta seems to have been the odd instrument of that posterity. With the pending change in our own leadership, the transferable nature of the legal decision and all else that has gone on, it really doesn't matter what sort of silences were observed in the past between you and your claims and Grand McMurtry and his claims. This thing has gotten out of personal limits of control.
Speaking for myself, I want you to offer to O.T.O. the setting aside of your claim to being O.H.O. and I want O.T.O. to reverse by annulment your expulsion by Germer from the O.T.O., recognizing you as a IXth Degree with all proper powers and the like. Speaking for O.T.O. as the Grand Secretary General, I cannot make those concessions and promises. As long as I am a ranking officer in O.T.O. I can labor honorably and with considerable effect toward what I want without compromising what O.T.O. has and has a right to have. Once the election for Caliph is over, I will either be Caliph or someone on his way out of power. In the former case I can do a bit more for you than now. In the latter, my suggestions might well be ignored. If you can see your way clear to working with me in this manner, without committing yourself unnecessarily, we can get some of the questions resolved before I loose too much influence to work on your behalf and the mutual benefit of the whole O.T.O. If I become Caliph, no change. This intention to make an end to the conflicting claims without injury will still stand.
On the other hand, there is another possibility for resolution of these differences that doesn't go so far as to require you to abandon your claim of O.H.O. to the O.T.O. you lead or our O.T.O. loosing it's claims. That would be simply your agreeing to add a word to your Ordo Templi Orientis usage, such as "Ordo Templi Orientis Typhonis" (OTOT) and a modification to the lamen of the Order. In return we could grant you a life-time concession to publish Crowley (details to be worked out) and a formal agreement not to bother you with a legal challenge as long as the mutual accords and copyrights are protected. This much would probably still go over with the Board of Directors after the election. It would have to be spelled out, and I don't think we would be willing to recognize that your alternate O.T.O. was he direct continuation of the O.T.O. of Crowley. We should have no difficulty in recognizing that your organization represents a valid departure and a new entity. The concession to allow partial use inside a larger name of the Ordo Templi Orientis name, use of a similar but not identical device and use of all but the secret writings of Crowley in publication would be a valid way for us to get what we need without incurring any further legal expense. Symonds would then have no way to drag out a case defending against any legal action, but would present a simpler case to the courts. This still assumes that Symonds will force us to take him to court. I have no reason to expect that he would be so intransigent if you and we could settle our differences. All we want out of Symonds is his signature on a document accepting our claim to being O.T.O. At this point I don't really think that it would have to be an agreement from him that we are the only O.T.O., so long as we can come in for the royalties due us and the recognition that the USA Federal Court has already given us.
Sorry to go on and on like that. As you can see the matter is not a simple one. I can only hope that you will consider that you have everything to gain by negotiations with us and nothing to lose that would not be lost in greater measure by the actions of third parties. In apologia I do have to say that you asked for me to be altogether more explicit.
I enclose with everything else a copy of a chart by S. Germer, as a reminder of happier times and a hope that such will be the rule again. I also enclose a copy of the notice of election sent to the IXth Degrees in our organization. This is not a formal notice to you, but you can attempt to be represented if you like. . . . always assuming this letter reaches you in time. If you have any one who could attempt to represent you by proxy, (a signed letter), you can place the question of your claim to being a current IXth Degree before the assembled members of the Degree. If you did this, there is a good chance that the whole issue would be simplified enormously. I for one, and as a single individual IXth Degree, not in any other capacity, would vote to accept you on that basis.
If I don't stop writing this at this point, there will be no end of it. Such is the nature of things when there is little time, information and a great complex of possible steps to take. If you will take the next step, much of the lack of clarity in the matter will be reduced. How about a counter proposal to the several that I have made here?
Love is the law, love under will.
Fraternally,
Bill Heidrick
|