Ordo Templi Orientis Phenomenon
The following post was not written by Peter-R. Koenig, but by
Anthony Naylor before he lost his case against the
Legal acceptance that a document, especially a will, is valid
thus: grant of probate: official document proving that a will is genuine, given to the executors so that they can act on the terms of the will
thus: the executor was granted probate or obtained a grant of probate: the executor was told officially that the will was valid
- thus: Probate Registry: court office which deals with the granting
- thus: PROBATE is the proof before a competent court that a written
paper purporting to be the Last Will and Testament of a person who has died is indeed his lawful act.
- FACT: Crowley’s Will has been judged to be valid and a LAWFUL ACT
... not just once but TWICE ... in the HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE!
Supreme Court Act 1981: S25 Probate jurisdiction of High Court
DATE-IN-FORCE: 1 January 1982
- Subject to the provisions of Part V, the High Court shall, in
accordance with section 19(2), have the following probate jurisdiction, that is to say all such jurisdiction in relation to probates and letters of administration as it had immediately before the commencement of this Act, and in particular all such contentious and non-contentious jurisdiction as it then had in relation to —
- testamentary causes or matters;
- the grant, amendment or revocation of probates and letters of
- the real and personal estate of deceased persons.
- Subject to the provisions of Part V, the High Court shall, in the
exercise of its probate jurisdiction,
perform all such duties with respect to the estates of deceased persons as fell to be performed by
it immediately before the commencement of this Act.
- Louis Wilkinson & Frieda Harris (Executors) were granted
probate in 1949 on Crowley’s Estate
(excluding the Literary Estate) — High Court of Justice: The District Probate Registry at
FACT: The High Court of Justice declared Crowley’s Last Will and Testament to be valid and his lawful
- Louis Wilkinson 1966 signed a renunciation of probate in respect
of the Literary Estate.
- John Symonds was granted probate (letters of administration) in
1971 on the Literary Estate — High Court of Justice: Principal Probate Registry.
FACT: The High Court of Justice declared Crowley’s Last Will and Testament to be valid and his lawful act.
Symonds, Naylor and Mandrake Press Ltd. have acted in strict accordance with the two Grants
of Probate made by the High Court of Justice (1949 & 1971) and accepted the rule of English law that Crowley’s Last Will and Testament was a valid and legal
REVOCATION OF PROBATE
Until such time as a Revocation of Probate Order is obtained then the Probates of 1949 & 1971 remain valid and legally binding on all concerned . . . including the Caliphate-O.T.O. (under international copyright law)!
- To date Caliphate-O.T.O. has not applied for a Revocation of
- The County Courts Act 1984 Part II S33 Effect of order of judge in
probate proceedings ...
Where an order is made by . . . a county court for the grant or revocation of probate or
administration, in pursuance of any jurisdiction conferred upon [the court] by section 32 -(
- the registrar of the county court shall transmit to the
principal registry of the Family Division or a district probate registry, as he thinks convenient, a certificate under the seal of the court certifying that the order has been made; and
- on the application of a party in favour of whom the order has been
made, probate or administration in compliance with the order shall be issued from the registry to which the certificate was sent or, as the case may require, the probate or letters of administration previously granted shall be recalled or varied by, as the case may be, a registrar of the principal registry of the Family Division or the district probate registrar according to the effect of the order.
To obtain a Revocation of Probate Order Caliphate-O.T.O. would require the High Court to
overturn its two earlier decisions.
In English Law there is a doctrine of binding precedent, often known as the doctrine of
stare decisis, or to give it its full title stare rationibus decidendis,
that is to keep to the decisions of past cases. High Court judges are not compelled to follow previous decisions made by other High Court judges, but in practice they tend to do so due to judicial comity.
In order for Caliphate-O.T.O. to be able to ask the Court to revoke the Probates of 1949 and
1971 the Caliphate-O.T.O. requires legal standing and this is derived by showing a legal
relationship through a series of legal identities — Caliphate-O.T.O. is unable to do this.
Furthermore, when Caliphate-O.T.O. lawyers were asked if they wished
to submit a formal request to be considered as beneficiaries under Crowley’s Will they replied in open correspondence on 17 September 1999 ...
"no question of our client being ‘consider(ed) as a beneficiary’
"our client’s primary contention is that the copyrights are not, and never have been, . . . part of Crowley’s testamentary estate".
The Caliphate-O.T.O. claim to have purchased the copyrights from the Official Receiver in
Their case is based on the purported assignment from the ‘trustee’ with its most ‘assertive force’ weakly expressed as "may have (if any)". The ‘trustee’ (an Insolvency Practitioner) was so unsure of the facts that he felt it necessary to protect himself with indemnities from Mr Harper and Caliphate-O.T.O. and take a non-refundable sum of money. [See Purchase of the copyrights from the Official
FACT: By the act of probate in 1971 John Symonds became the only person who could lawfully convey the Crowley Literary Estate!
Naylor lost his case against the 'Caliphate', see links below.
Some background information
Lawyers and Historians: The 'Caliphate' versus the Truth? — Introduction
the Maine decision 1984 [to the disfavour of the 'Caliphate']
| the California decision 1985 [to the favour of the 'Caliphate']
Purchase of the copyrights on Aleister Crowley from the Official Receiver (OR)
The 1999 Particulars of Claim ['Caliphate']
Financial Reports 1996-1999 of the 'Caliphate'
Erraneous opinion on the International Copyright Situation. Text by Anthony Naylor before he lost his case against the 'Caliphate' in 2000
What the 'Caliphate' does not want you to know . Text by Anthony Naylor before he lost his case against the 'Caliphate' in 2000
Crowley's Probate. Text by Anthony Naylor before he lost his case against the 'Caliphate' in 2000
'Caliphate' Capers. Text by Anthony Naylor before he lost his case against the 'Caliphate' in 2000. Based upon a draft by James Graeb
Structure, Constitutions and Money. Partly written by Anthony Naylor before he lost his case against the 'Caliphate' in 2000
Library of Congress, letter dated September 6, 2000
2000, July: An analysis of the Bylaws of the 'Caliphate' and its Board of Directors. By James Graeb
2000, July: Incorporation of O.T.O., Argentum Astrum and E.G.C.
2000: "Caliphate-O.T.O. Win" and the The Writing on the Wall. Text by Anthony Naylor before he lost his case against the 'Caliphate' in 2000
Court Order of October 2000
James T. Graeb, co-founder and IX° of the 'Caliphate', a lawyer, calls the 'Caliphate' a "Puppet Show
Piece" and files suit vs William Breeze, William Heidrick, Marcus Jungkurth et alii in 2001
The 2002 Ruling
The Summary so far
Ordo Templi Orientis - Trade Mark - Starfire Publishing Limited