UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FILED JUL-10-1985 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA GRADY McMURTRY, et al ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) No. C-83-5434-CAL ) SOCIETY ORDO TEMPLI ORIENTIS, ) et al, ) Defendants. ) ________________________________) FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW -------------------- The action was tried to the court without a jury from May 13 through May 17, 1985, and was then submitted for decision. The court has heard the testimony, read the exhibits, and weighed the evidence. The court makes the following findings of fact by a preponderance of the evidence, makes the following conclusions of law, and directs that judgment be entered in favor of plaintiffs and against defendants on plaintiffs' complaint, defendants' counterclaims, and plaintiffs' counterclaims to the counterclaims. For simplicity, plaintiffs, counter-defendants, and counter-counter plaintiffs will be called "plaintiffs;" and defendants, counterclaimants, and counter-counter defendants will be called "defendants." FINDINGS OF FACT ---------------- 1. The organization and system of beliefs which is called "Ordo Templi Orientis" or "OTO" is a mystical and fraternal organization begun around 1900. The chief interna- tional executive of OTO is known as the "Outer Head" or "OHO." (end of page one) Aleister Crowley became OHO in approximately 1921 and served until his death in 1947. Crowley wrote, or rewrote from earlier versions, many of the rituals, doctrine, and interpre- tative and instructive literature of OTO. Crowley set forth the rules of operation and procedures of OTO in numerous books, essays, and correspondence. 2. OTO had and now has lodges where its members meet. One such lodge, which existed during the 1930's and subsequently, was Agape Lodge in California. 3. After Crowley's death, Karl Germer became the OHO. 4. At his death, Crowley left all of his previously undisposed intellectual and tangible literary property to OTO. As OHO, Karl Germer took possession of all of the tangible property of OTO around 1950 and moved the property to California. 5. Karl Germer died in California in 1962. No will of Germer was offered for probate and the property of OTO remained in the possession of Germer's widow, Sasha Germer. 6. Sasha Germer died in 1975. 7. In 1976, plaintiffs obtained an order from the Superior Court of the State of California, Calavaras County, "In the Matter of the Estate of Sasha Germer." The order decreed that plaintiff Grady McMurtry was authorized to take possession, on behalf of OTO, of certain property identified as belonging to OTO. Pursuant to that order plaintiff McMurtry and others took possession of properties which had // (end of page two) formerly been in the possession of Crowley, Karl Germer, Sasha Germer and OTO. 8. Plaintiff OTO is now a California Corporation. It has a legal structure; is a membership organization; main- tains records; has a set of beliefs; has an established set of procedures; conducts regular meetings; conducts financial transactions; initiates and promotes members; and follows the beliefs and practices derived from Crowley and the prior unincorporated OTO. It is a continuation of the organization, beliefs and practices originally established and conducted by Crowley and OTO. 9. Defendant Society Ordo Templi Orientis ("SOTO") was incorporated in the State of Tennessee. SOTO is not the continuation of the organization, beliefs and practices orig- inally established by Crowley and OTO. 10. Defendant Motta is a citizen of Brazil. He has for years been interested in the work of OTO and Crowley. Motta has caused some literary works of Crowley to be pub- lished, commented, and edited, in his own name and in the name of OTO and SOTO. 11. Plaintiff OTO now owns, hold all right and title to, has used, does now use, and has the right to use: the name "Ordo Templi Orientis;" the initials "OTO;" the various insignia, registers and symbols of OTO; al writings and publications of Crowley which were not assigned to others at the time of his death; the publications of other matters pertaining to OTO; and the trademarks, service marks, and (end of page three) copyrights pertaining to the same. Defendants do not own, hold, or have any right to use of such properties. 12. The name "Thelema" in connection with publica- tions is a part of the property owned by plaintiff OTO. Plaintiff Smith has used that name on behalf of plaintiff OTO in publications since 1962. Plaintiff OTO has the rights to the trademarks, service marks and copyrights of the name "Thelema," and equivalents of that name, in connection with publications. 13. Defendants have used the name "Thelema" in publications subsequent to its use by plaintiffs. Defendants do not have ownership of or the legal right to use the name "Thelema" or its equivalents. Defendants' use of the name of "Thelema" was without the consent of plaintiffs and consti- tutes infringement of that name. Defendants' use of the name "Thelema" in connection with publications has caused confusion in the publishing industry and among purchasers of books, and will if continued cause confusion in the future. However, plaintiffs have not shown sufficient evidence of monetary losses from that confusion to support an award of compensatory damages for defendants' improper use of the name "Thelema." 14. Defendants' use, and purported registration of trademarks and copyrights under the names "OTO," "Crowley," and "Thelema" were done in contemplation of this litigation and were done without the rights of ownership of the property purportedly registered and copyrighted. // (end of page four) 15. Plaintiff McMurtry is the acting OHO of OTO in the United States and is the highest overall member. Plain- tiff McMurtry was personally assigned by Crowley, and contin- ues to own, a 25% interest in Crowley's "Magick Without Tears." 16. Defendant Motta is not the OHO or OTO. 17. In 19881 defendants published and distributed certain books in California and elsewhere which contained statements regarding the individual plaintiffs listed below. Certain of the statements were matters of opinion, or were matters pertaining to religious beliefs, and hence are pro- tected under the First Amendment. The following statements about individual plaintiffs were not protected and were libelous: a. Plaintiff Phyllis Seckler (nee Phyllis Wade, Phyllis McMurtry) was accused of sending a gang to assault and rob Sasha Germer, and was alleged to have misap- propriated property. b. Plaintiff Grady McMurtry was alleged to have committed slander, misappropriated property, pirated property, delivered property to the hand of thieves, and contributed to the death of Sasha Germer. c. Plaintiff Helen Parsons Smith was alleged to be a thief. d. Plaintiff James Wasserman was alleged to have delivered property to thieves and to have pirated property. (end of page five) 18. The statements made about the plaintiffs enumerated in paragraphs 17-a, b, b [?] and d were untrue and constituted libel per se. 19. The plaintiffs enumerated in paragraphs 17-a, b,c, and d did not establish by sufficient evidence any spe- cial damages, but are entitled to general damages from defen- dants in the amount of $10,000 each. 20. The publications of the libels in paragraph 17-a, b, c, and d were done with actual malice by defendants, with knowledge of their falsity, and with a reckless disregard for the truth, and those plaintiffs are entitled to puntitive damages from defendants in the amount of $25,000 each. 21. Neither plaintiffs nor defendants are parties engaged in the media business, and and not entitled to rights or defenses attributable thereto. 22. There is not sufficient evidence to establish that defendants obtained any substantial gross revenue or profit from their publications, or that plaintiffs lost any gross revenue or profit, to support an award of damages to plaintiffs for defendants' use of plaintiffs' names, publica- tions or symbols. 23. Plaintiff Wasserman was an agent of defendant Motta for certain purposes in 1976. Plaintiff Wasserman terminated that agency in 1976, and the termination as ac- knowledge by defendant Motta. Any cause of action by Motta for the breach of that agency relationship by Wasserman ac- crued in 1976. (end of page six) 24. No property of defendants was converted by plaintiffs. Even if some personal properties of defendants were included in the material obtained by plaintiffs from Karl and Sasha Germer, they were obtained in 1976, and the obtaining was known to defendants in 1976. 25. Plaintiffs circulated among OTO members a letter written by defendant Motta to Karl Germer dealing with certain matters personal to Motta. Motta has not shown by sufficient evidence that the circulation was a violation of his right of privacy, or that the circulation caused him any special or general damages. The circulation was not done with malice, but in connection with the dispute between plaintiffs and defendants as to who was the OHO and who rightfully held the properties of OTO. The circulation occurred, and was known by defendant Motta to have occurred, more than one year prior to the filing of the complaint in this action. 26. Unless enjoined, defendants will continue to claim and use the name "Ordo Templi Orientis" and the initials "OTO," and will continue to claim that defendant Motta is the OHO of OTO, and will use plaintiff OTO's names, insignia, initials, symbols, trademarks and other properties of plain- tiff OTO to the injury of plaintiff OTO. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ------------------ 1. To the extent that any of the above findings of fact may be deemed to be conclusions of law, they are incor- porated by reference herein. // (end of page seven) 2. The libelous statements enumerated in paragraphs 17-a, b, c, and d of the finding of fact are liber per se, and general damages are presumed. 3. The other allegedly libelous statements about plaintiffs enumerated in the third and fourth causes of action of plaintiffs' first amended complaint are not actionable because they are matters of opinion or are religious matters protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. 4. Any publications by defendants of allegedly libelous statements about plaintiffs which occurred subsequent to the filing of the first amended complaint cannot be the basis for any award of damages to plaintiffs in this action. 5. Plaintiffs are entitled to judgment on their first amended complaint against defendants as follows: a. On the first cause of action for unfair competition regarding the use of the name "Ordo Templi Orientis," and the initials "OTO", and the insignia and other properties of OTO. b. on the second cause of action for infringe- ment of trademarks owned by plaintiff OTO. c. On the third and fourth causes of action for the libels enumerated in paragraphs 17-a, b, c, and d of the findings of fact. d. On the fifth cause of action for unfair competition in the use of the name "Thelema." // (end of page eight) 6. By virtue of the decision of the United States District Court for the District of Maine, United States Dis- trict Judge Gene Carter, in the action entitled "Motta, et al v. Samuel Weiser, Inc"., No. 81-0459, defendants are collateral- ly estopped from asserting certain of their counterclaims against plaintiffs. Judgment should be entered in favor of plaintiffs and against defendants on defendants' counterclaims as follows, both because of the collateral estoppel effect of that action and because of the findings of fact which are made above: a. Defendants do not own the Crowley copy- rights. b. Motta is not the OHO of OTO. c. Defendants' purported registration of copy- rights are not valid because defendants do not own the proper- ty purportedly copyrighted. d. Plaintiffs did not breach any copyrights of defendants, as alleged in defendants' first counterclaim. 7. Plaintiffs did not violate defendants' alleged trademarks regarding the insignia of OTO, as alleged in defen- dants' second and eighth counterclaims. 8. Plaintiffs did not violate defendants' alleged trademarks regarding SOTO, as alleged in defendants' third counterclaim. 9. Defendants' fourth counterclaim is barred by the statutes of limitations, either by the two year statute of limitations provided in California Code of Civil Procedure (end of page nine) Section 339 or by the three year statute of limitations provided in California Code of Civil Procedure Section 338; the cause of action accrued in 1976 and was barred prior to the filing of the complaint in this action in March 1983. 10. Defendants' fifth counterclaim is barred by the three year statute of limitations provided in California Code of civil procedure section 338; the cause of action accrued in 1976 and was barred prior to the filing of the complaint in this action in March 1983. 11. Defendants' sixth counterclaim is barred by the one year statute of limitations provided in California Code of Civil Procedure section 340; the cause of action had accrued and was barred prior to the filing of the complaint in this action in March 1983. 12. Plaintiffs have not waved their statute of limitations defenses by not specifically asserting them in an answer to defendants' counterclaims. 13. Plaintiffs did not breach any federal trademark regarding the name "Ordo Templi Orientis" as alleged in defen- dants' seventh counterclaim. 14. Plaintiffs did not breach any federal trademark in the symbol "OTO" as alleged in defendants' eight counter- claim. 15. Plaintiff OTO is entitled to the exclusive use of the trademarks and names claimed by defendants in their counterclaims, except those of SOTO. // (end of page 10) 16. Plaintiff Mcmurtry owns the interest in "Magick Without Tears" assigned to him by Crowley. 17. Plaintiff OTO is entitled to possession and ownership of: the remainder of the copyrighted material about OTO, the archives of OTO, and the remainder of the writings of Crowley. 18. Defendants' purported registration of trade- marks are invalid and of no legal effect, because defendants did not and do not own the marks, except those of SOTO. 19. Plaintiffs are entitled to injunctive relief request in their counterclaim to the counterclaim. JUDGMENT -------- Plaintiffs are to submit to this court, within twenty days of the date below, a proposed form of judgment incorporating these findings and conclusions. Plaintiffs are to simultaneously submit the proposed form of judgment to defendants, and within ten days thereafter defendants are to advise the court in writing what objections they have to the proposed form of judgment prepared by plaintiffs. Judgment will then be entered by the court. Dated: July 10, 1985. CHARLES A. LEGGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE (end of page eleven and of document) ======================================================================= NEW DOCUMENT FOLLOWS ======================================================================= UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA FILED SEP 10 1985 GRADY McMURTRY, WILLIAM E. HEIDRICK, ) PHYLLIS SECKLER, HELEN PARSONS SMITH, ) JAMES WASSERMAN, individuals, ORDO ) TEMPLI ORIENTIS, a California cor- ) poration, THELEMA PUBLICATIONS, a ) business entity, ) Plaintiffs, ) v. ) No. C-83-5434-CAL ) SOCIETY ORDO TEMPLI ORIENTIS, a cor- ) poration, THELEMA PUBLISHING COMPANY, ) a corporation, ,MARCELO RAMOS MOTTA, ) Defendants. ) _______________________________________) JUDGMENT -------- The action was tried from May 13, 1985, through May 17, 1985, before Charles A. Legge, United States District Judge, sitting without a jury. The plaintiffs appeared through their counsel Stuart I. MacKenzie. The defendants appeared through their counsel Robert E. Mittel. Evidence, both oral and documentary having been presented by both parties, the cause having been argued and submitted for decision, and the court having caused to be made and filed July 10, 1985, its written Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law; now therefore, Judgment is entered as follows: 1. In favor of plaintiffs Phyllis Seckler, Grady McMurtry, Helen Parsons Smith, and James Wasserman, individually and severally, and against defendants Marcelo Ramos Motta (hereinafter "Motta") and Society Ordo Templi (end of page one) Orientis (hereinafter "SOTO"), jointly and severally, on the third cause of action of plaintiffs' complaint in the amounts of $10,000 general damages and $25,000 puntitive damages for each such plaintiff. 2. In favor of defendants Motta and SOTO and against plaintiff William E. Heidrick on the third cause of action. 3. Declaring that: (a) On the first cause of action of plaintiffs' complaint, defendants engaged in unfair competition regarding the use of the name "Ordo Templi Orientis," the initials "OTO," and the insignia and other properties of plaintiff Ordo Templi Orientis (hereinafter "OTO"). (b) On the second cause of action of plaintiffs' complaint, defendants infringed trademarks owned by plaintiff OTO. (c) On the fifth cause of action of plaintiffs' complaint, defendants unfairly competed in the use of the name "Thelema." (d) Defendants do not own or have the right to use any of the copyrights of publications of Aleister Crowley. (e) Defendant Motta is not the designated secular Outer Head of plaintiff OTO, and has not been designated by any secular authority as Outer Head of Ordo Templi Orientis. (f) Defendants' purported registration of copyrights of material pertaining to Ordo Templi Orientis are (end of page two) invalid because defendants did not and do not own the material purportedly copyrighted. (g) Plaintiffs did not breach any copyrights of defendants. (h) Plaintiffs did not violate defendants' alleged trademarks regarding the insignia of OTO. (i) Plaintiffs did not violate defendants' alleged trademarks regarding SOTO. (j) Plaintiffs did not violate any federal trademark regarding the name "Ordo Templi Orientis" or the symbol "OTO." (k) Plaintiff OTO is entitled to the exclusive use of the trademarks and names claimed by defendants, except that defendant SOTO has the continued right to use the name "Society Ordo Templi Orientis" and the initials "SOTO". (l) Plaintiff Grady McMurtry owns the interest in "Magick Without Tears" assigned to him by Aleister Crowley. (m) Plaintiff OTO is entitled to the possession and ownership of (i) all other materials copyrighted in the United States about Ordo Templi Orientis, (ii) the archives of OTO, and (iii) all other writings by Aleister Crowley which are not in the public domain. (n) Defendants' purported registration of trademarks are invalid, because defendants did not and do not own the marks, except those of SOTO. 4. Defendants Motta and SOTO, and agents, servants, employees, representatives, successors and assigns acting for (end of page three) them, or in active concert or participation with them, are permanently enjoined and restrained from: (a) Using, registering, publishing, distributing, or infringing (i) the copyrights, trademarks, trade names, service marks, and service names held by plaintiff OTO; (ii) the name "Thelema" when used as the publisher or distributor of written material; (iii) all other titles of works used to date by plaintiff OTO in various publications; (iv) all writings and publications of Aleister Crowley which are not in the public domain; (v) the initials "OTO;" and (vi) all titles of honor, emblems, insignia, registers, symbols, or any other property or articles of plaintiff OTO. (b) Representing (i) that Motta has been designated by any secular authority as Outer head of Ordo Templi Orientis, or (ii) that defendant SOTO is authorized by any secular authority as the successor of the organization, beliefs, and practices established and developed by Aleister Crowley and Ordo Templi Orientis. 5. All registrations undertaken by defendants, whether directly, indirectly, or in their name, of any of the matters adjudged herein to be the property of plaintiffs, whether purportedly registered as a copyright, trademark, service mark, trade name, service name, or otherwise, are invalid, and at plaintiff OTO's election, are to be rescinded and canceled by the appropriate governmental registration office, whether the United States Patent and Trademark Office, the United States Copyright Office, or other. (end of page four) 6. Defendants take nothing on their cross-complaint. 7. Plaintiffs are entitled to their costs of suit in the amount of $1,234,21. Dated: September 10, 1985. CHARLES A. LEGGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE (end of page five and of document) ======================================================================= NEW DOCUMENT FOLLOWS ======================================================================= Filed APR-6 1987 USDC NDC McMurtry vs. SOTO No. C-83-54-CAL ADDITIONAL FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. --------------------------------------------------- ADDITIONAL FINDINGS OF FACT. ---------------------------- The Court of Appeals remanded the case to this court to "make additional findings specifying in detail the factual basis for its ultimate findings of fact that Plaintiff OTO is, and Defendant OTO is not, the continuation of the original OTO and its findings that McMurtry is, and Motta is not, the OHO." That remand pertains primarily to findings of fact 8, 9, 15, and 16. This court believes that its original findings of fact meet the standards of adequacy defined by Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a) and by this Circuit in "Nicholson v. Board of Education", 682 F.2d 858 (9th Cir. 1985). Nevertheless, since the Court of Appeals has requested additional findings, the court makes the following additional findings of fact on the issues defined by the Court of Appeals: 27. Defendant Motta was not a credible witness. His testimony was incomplete, evasive, and contradictory, and (end page one) was impeached in important particulars. Motta admitted to lying under oath in the action referred to in Conclusion of Law 6. There was no credible evidence that defendant Motta was initiated into OTO and became a member thereof. Motta has made inconsistent prior statements as to whether he does or does not claim to be OHO 28. Plaintiffs' witnesses McMurtry, Parsons-Smith, Seckler, Heidrick, and Wasserman gave credible testimony regarding the transfers of property, and the history, publications, and organizational structure of OTO 29. Plaintiff OTO has made actual use of the names, initials, insignia, copyrights, and trademarks at issue. 30. Plaintiff OTO has allowed third parties to publish material originally protected by the copyrights of Aleister McCrowley (sic) if plaintiffs' role in the publication is acknowledged by those third parties. The third parties have done so. 31. Plaintiffs have had actual and lawful possession of the writings and archives of Crowley and Germer. 32. The California Agape Lodge was the only OTO lodge existing in the United States at the time Crowley died. That lodge was a direct predecessor of plaintiff OTO. 33. There was no credible evidence that defendant SOTO ever received a charter from OTO. 34. There was no credible evidence that defendant SOTO is a membership organization, maintains records, has an established set of procedures, conducts regular meetings, (end page two) conducts financial transactions, or initiates or promotes members. 35. Motta has been the sole member of SOTO, and SOTO now has no other members, in the United States. 36. Plaintiff McMurtry has been acting as the OHO of OTO for an indefinite by significant number of years. 37. Several documents evidenced a close mentor relationship between Crowley and McMurtry, and that responsibilities and authorities were vested in McMurtry by Crowley and by Germer. 38. One document evidenced the intent of Crowley that McMurtry be OHO. 39. There was a subsequent dispute between Germer and McMurtry, but no credible evidence that Germer intended to change Crowley's intended succession of OHO. 40. Germer's widow acknowledged McMurtry as the OHO. Numerous members of OTO acknowledged their recognition of McMurtry as the OHO. ADDITIONAL CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ----------------------------- The Court of Appeals also remanded the case to this court to make "conclusions of law explaining (this) court's reasons as to why its adjudication of the issues in this case does not transgress First Amendment prohibitions against resolving church property disputes by adjudicating questions of church doctrine, practice, organization or administration." The court complies with that remand by making the following additional conclusions of law: (end of page 3) 20. Defendants did not assert First Amendment contentions, except as follows: (a) Defendants asserted the First Amendment as a defense to certain of plaintiffs' causes of action for libel. This court respected that defense in Finding of Fact No. 17: "Certain of the statements were matters of opinion, or were matters pertaining to religious beliefs, and hence are protected under the First Amendment." And in Conclusion of Law No. 3: "The other allegedly libelous statements about plaintiffs enumerated in the third and fourth causes of action of plaintiffs' first amended complaint are not actionable because they are matters of opinion or are religious matters protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States." (b) In defendants' Objections to Proposed Judgment and Costs, filed on August 12, 1985, after entry of the findings of fact and conclusions of law. (c) In defendants' Motion to Alter, Amend, and Vacate the court's opinion and for a new trial. However, that motion was not filed until September 26, 1985, outside of the time provisions of Rule 59(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 21. No other First Amendment defenses were asserted by defendants before or during trial. (a) In their first amended answer, motion to dismiss and counterclaim, defendants sought adjudication of the property rights which were put in issue by plaintiffs. (b) In the joint pretrial statement, (end of page 4) both plaintiffs and defendants stated that the case was primarily about which of two groups were the owners of intellectual and tangible personal property; defendants sought ownership of the property and sought declaratory and injunctive relief setting forth its ownership rights. (c) Although the court does not have a trial transcript, the court's notes indicate that defendants did not assert the First Amendment during trial, but continued to assert their alleged rights to the properties in question. (d) Defendant's Proposed Findings of Fact stated that OTO is "primarily the administrative and material branch" of the philosophical and religious system. 22. If defendant's First Amendment claim now being made on appeal constitutes an affirmative defense under Rule 8(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that defense has been waived because it was not asserted in the pleadings or at trial. 23. However, if defendant's First Amendment claim now being made on appeal pertains to the jurisdiction of this court which is not waived by not asserting it at or before trial, the following additional conclusions of law are relevant. 24. The matters at issue primarily involved secular libel, and disputes over the ownership of and rights to property, to wit: copyrights, trademarks, service marks, intellectual property, tangible personal property, writings, (end of page 5) publications of Aleister Crowley, names, insignia and archives. 25. The resolution of those disputes involved the application of neutral principles of the law of property, contract, intestate succession, gift, express and implied trust, bequest, assignment, and libel. 26. Documents regarding religious dogma and theology were not and did not need to be reviewed to resolve those disputes. 27. The resolution of those disputes did not involve resolving disputes of underlying religious doctrine or practices. 28. No examination of religious precepts was done, and none was necessary, to resolve the disputes. 29. Resolution of the disputes did not depend upon resolving any religious controversies or the application of any religious law. 30. The damages claimed by and awarded to plaintiffs primarily concerned issues of secular libel (see Findings of Fact 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21 and Conclusions of Law 2 and 4). Dated: April 6, 1987. Charles A. Legge United States District Judge (end of page 6, and of document)
Items of Historical InterestIn 1930, Karl Germer sent a description of the Aleister Crowley LTD. to Fernando Pessoa.
Aleister Crowley: This is the Last Will.
Karl Germer, Louis Wilkinson and Lady Frieda Harris.
National Grandmasters and OHOs of the O.T.O.
Some background informationLawyers 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 theInternational 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.
Anonymous: Burning Down The House. 'Caliphate', Argenteum Astrum, James Wasserman, Donald Trump — Written in 2021.
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.
Some ThingsCourt Case Hermann Joseph Metzger vs Walter Englert in the 1970s.
1991 Opinion of a German prosecuting attorney's office on the body of the 'Caliphate'.
Censorship in the UK.
The 'Caliphate' Book Patrol: Fahrenheit 418.
Paul Joseph Rovelli versus the 'Caliphate', New York January 2000.
1998, July 17 - 2000 October Austrian situation on Copyrights [German and English].
Trademark O.T.O.. By Leslie Anne Childress.
2007 'Caliphat' Kasino in Deutschland.
Other BackgroundThe 'Caliphate'.
Discussion about the instrument of succession. An introduction to the background, followed by a transcript of this discussion.
Minutes of the 11 IX°s 'Caliphate' election in 1985 where it was clearly said that the 'Caliph' is not the juro OHO.
Playgame of an O.T.O.-Fatamorgana — Statistics, Censorship, Name Dropping. 2011.
Traduzione italiana: La versione play-game di un O.T.O.-Fatamorgana
Fetish, Self-Induction, Stigma and Rôleplay. 2011.
Traduzione italiana: Il feticcio, l’auto-induzione, lo stigma, il gioco di ruolo.
Tlumaczenie polskie: Fetysz. Rytualy. Resocjalizacja: Tozsamosc przez stygmat. Autoindukowana schizofrenia. Odgrywanie ról.
По русски: Фетиш, самоиндукция, стигма и ролевая игра.
More about all this in: Andreas Huettl and Peter-R. Koenig: Satan - Jünger, Jäger und Justiz
O.T.O. Phenomenon navigation page | main page | mail
What's New on the O.T.O. Phenomenon site?
Scattered On The Floor
Browsing Through The Rituals