Koenig
Heidrick
Nigris

... [These letters are] sent to Br. Heidrick, whose response I plan to again share with Br. Koenig upon receipt.

So done. My intervening text removed unless pertinent, though I do follow up on Br. Koenig's words.

What was the reasoning and precise timing (i.e. certain events which brought it on) behind the withdrawal of the privilege of preview of initiation rite oaths?

What is the earliest version of the OTO Constitution, who wrote it, and how was it presumed it could be changed, if at all, by whom, etc.?

What was the history of the Constitution between its 1917-1919 versions and its 1980's revision? i.e. apparently Crowley or someone else rewrote the thing or amended it from the Kellner/Reuss revisions, no? If so, who was involved?

What is the EGU and what is its relationship to the OTO as you see it?

EGU = Eglise Gnostique Universal; obviously French. Br. Koenig appears to consider this a separate org (or to have been such) from the EGC. He notes that Sr. Meral indicates her identity of the two in her CoT texts. The former mentions J.Bricaud in association with this organization, and says that it was originally 'Eglise Gnostique Catholique', so I'm unsure of the pedigree/relation. He does connect it via Bricaud to Reuss, however. Your feedback on this organization and its relation to the EGC would be appreciated. Thanks.

What is the official OTO policy (as you see it) regarding the conditions necessary for the acceptance of such things as postal consecration of bishops, priests, priestesses, etc.?

My question was intentionally more broad than this. I wanted to know *under what conditions* such a thing *would* be allowed. I am under the impression (again, from texts by Koenig and memory otherwise) that this was important to the EGC's history, especially as regards its present Patriarch. Please advise, thanks.

Br. Koenig makes this statement several times in his paperwork I notice: that Crowley was never a Bishop and so could not consecrate any sort of lineage. Could you explain the specifics of this EGC hands-laying as well as indicate how you came by the knowledge of its accuracy and purity? Is this also your understanding? If so, what difference does it make as regards the 'purity' of the Caliphate OTO's connection to the Gnostic Wandering Bishops?

Is there such proof of this, Br. Heidrick? Is there something in the Constitution of the Order or some other text which supports this correspondence between gnostic succession and Order initiations?

I'm not sure I understand this completely, but I'd like to hear your commentary on it, Br. Koenig.

I'd like to see responses to Br. Koenig's questions above.

Your response, Br. Koenig, would be welcome.

Br. Heidrick, why would Br. Koenig claim to have Crowley-OTO rites which you, ostensibly a/the lineage of Crowley-OTO, do not have? I understand that rites between III° and IX° were fairly recently (re?)constructed by the Caliphate, isn't this true?

Br. Koenig, is this also your understanding? Are the rites you have not "complete in final form" (whatever Br. Heidrick may mean by this)? Until then it was a part of the IXth and could be conferred at the VIIth.

It appears, Br. Koenig, that Br. Heidrick claims that the degree/Bishop association has *always* existed (esp. as regarding the IX°). Are you saying that it has not?

I'm unsure of the significance of the question but would like to hear a response.

Br. Koenig, given that Br. Heidrick is restricted by his oaths from answering, where do you think that it *might* be so placed? That is, *if* there is a connection between Bishop and the OTO IX° secrets, say someone slipped it in somewhere, then where might it be best placed?

I hope you have seen this information, Br. Koenig.

Br. Heidrick, are you aware of anyone's text which is broad enough to encompass all perspectives on this matter? Does D. Scriven's text take a particular slant? ...

Where do you draw evidence for the conclusion that the Gnostic succession was at some point drawn into the initiations of the freemasonic OTO? Did Crowley write initiations where are not now being used by the Caliphate? Was it Crowley (with Reuss-objection) who joined the Gnostic-OTO lines?

Br. Koenig, comment welcome.

I also got the impression that the apostolic success business was rather Christian of origin, though I'd like to know more.---

---Is this a supposed direct connection to Christ?---

I wondered about that proof too. Making such grandiose claims we might presume to ask for it, though I remember you said it was 'on the order of _Holy Blood, Holy Grail_', or something which implied to me that there is not very much evidence to be found. Is this like the OTO claim of connection to the Templars (i.e. thematic/ symbolic/ unsubstantiated)?

That last was all I meant. I have seen very little proof that the old de Molay Templars survived in any form beyond their burnings except through revival. Where these notions of Baphomet come from, however, continually intrigues me.

I'm sure this is very important, though I am so ignorant of the history of the Church and its regalia that this doesn't mean very much to me. I tend to agree that most 'historical claims' made by religious are quite often wishes or mythic associations without direct lineage (as the case with 'Jesus Christ', whose historical existence I seriously doubt).

---If it wanes in and out of the EGC that is associated with Crowley (due to his not having been a Bishop) then what do you mean by 'apostolic succession' here?

Br. Koenig, it appears that the Caliphate OTO considers Crowley to have been a Bishop of the church (EGC) with which he was affiliated by virtue of his degree (OHO, X°) in the Order. Are you saying that this is not historically accurate?

Given this assertion, I'm unsure of the logic involved in the Germer-Metzger-McMurtry affairs, since it sounds as if Br. Koenig is simultaneously stating that Reuss broke from Crowley and that McMurtry (who did not wish to break from Crowley) was not the successor via Germer in default of Mellinger. [Editorial note: see following discussions on the succession of the "Caliph", etc.] ...

I gather from reading Br. Koenig's text that H. Beta received (postal?) consecration from William Wallace Webb to Lully-Bertiaux-Hogg.---

Are you aware of this alternative lineage, Br. Koenig, that OTO degrees (esp. IX° early on) conferred bishopric lineage?

Br. Heidrick, was something 'new' constructed at some point which supports your assertion?

---Br. Koenig suggests that when this was challenged, HBeta merely changed the 'rules of succession',---

---,"satisfied that 'Elevation to the Sovereign Sanctuary of the Gnosis' *ipso facto* makes one a Bishop and leadership of such a body *ipso facto* makes one a Patriarch." Is this true? Or was there more to it?

Reuss, I think, passed on the UK Kingship to Crowley on the basis of having printed 'secrets' in his _Book of Lies..._. Why isn't what Br. Koenig saying here accurate?

Br. Koenig, do you have access to that information?---

---Do you agree that there is more to the 'reception' of the IXth degree than merely knowing the secrets,---

---but that one would also (in exchange for authority within the Order) be required to accept restrictions on that authority as for its dedication, use, etc.?---

---[re. "since Papus' days:] What is your understanding in comparison with this, Br. Koenig? Did Papus actually do something different, from your knowledge?

Br. Heidrick, obviously there is a great deal of difference in regards what OTO initiation conveys. I would like to know if you are aware when these initiations began including bishopric consecration, or if they had this even during the Kellner/Reuss times.

Is this also your understanding, Br. Koenig? Thank you for your time.

(to K.) Br. Heidrick informs me that he would like you NOT to publish his words which you obtain from our correspondence without his permission. I hope that you can agree to this. Please specify if you cannot. Thanks.

Where did the term 'Caliph' actually come from, prior to the usage with Hymenaeus Alpha? if in a letter from Crowley, in what context? Did Crowley have a particular meaning in mind? Did he ever explicitly state this if so?

Has the term 'Caliph' ever been or will it be incorporated into any Constutution of the Order? Was there ever anything official created beyond the letters you mention below?

Are these available to the public or to members in good standing? I would like to receive a copy, and will take the trouble to forward copies of them to Mr. Koenig upon my receipt if he doesn't already have his own.

Apparently Br. Koenig does not find these statements within those documents. Br. Heidrick, are you saying that they are to be found but that Br. Koenig has overlooked them? If you could, please provide vol/issue/pg #s wherein these documents were published as mentioned above and I will consult them myself within my library and offer what text I can to support your assertion, since you seem reticent to merely quote them and explicate your interpretation.

Br. Koenig, do you suggest that Br. Mellinger's inaction does not constitute an 'emergency' within the Order?

Br. Heidrick, what sort of Lodge activity are you aware was going on during the period after which McMurtry put into effect his "emergency Caliph" office?

Br. Koenig, are you aware that Br. Germer's will contained some sort of designation as to his successor? If so, could you make a copy of that available to me? Thanks. H (to N.): You can have a copy yourself here. Be prepared to spend some time with the papers. We photocopied 20,000 pages (including a lot of quadruplicate, but that's still over 5,000) for the trial. A set is still here in binders. Motta's side got all of that and turned down more. We even photocopied a letter Motta had written to his own attorney in the 1st circuit case where Motta admitted nearly getting caught for perjury in that case — furnished to us by a disaffected member of Motta's SOTO who had assisted him — copied to Motta, that is. The judge wouldn't let us enter it in evidence on the basis of attorney client privilege, but Motta volunteered evidence about it anyway.

Br. Heidrick, you also mentioned Br. Mellinger and the slight ambiguity of succession, if I am not mistaken. I would merely ask what evidence is there is that: 1) Mellinger was not so selected?---

---and 2) Germer's wife, who outlived him, was not empowered, along with Mellinger, through Germer's will, to appoint her selection (whether this be Crowley, Motta or Metzger or whoever)?

Is this assertion accurate, Br. Metzger? Have you been expelled from the Caliphate OTO (apparently at your request?) and from the Metzger OTO also? Could you explain the reason for these expulsions? Are you or have you ever been a member of any other OTO-related organizations?

What were these grounds?

I thought you might want to have an alternative view of this, Br. Koenig.

Br. Heidrick, would you make brief comment on the above, especially who A.L.Bacuzzi was, why you ostensibly sent her to Europe, if you did, and what she claims occurred, etc.?

If you'd like a copy of this I'll ask him to send you one. [to K:] I'd like one myself for my files, Br. Koenig, and append my address to the end of this email (which is cc'd to you).

Br. Koenig, please send me a copy of that letter at your next convenience (along with the highlighted excerpt of the Germer Will showing direct succession) and I will make a copy of it available to Br. Heidrick (my address appended to this document once more).

My address for Brother Koenig to send copy (highlighted please) of text of the Germer will which expressly dictates succession: nigris (333) Haus Kaos 871 Ironwood Dr. San Jose, CA 95125-2815

No thank you. I'll get that bit from him if he chooses to send it.

I know he has it, which is why I say I'd rather leave that to him. It is his claim that I seek to confirm, so his highlighting will be the more imperative. Thanks.

I'd like your response to these questions, Br. Koenig. Thanks.

Are you aware of these letters, Br. Koenig? Do you think that Br. Heidrick would lie about them?

Do you claim that this is untrue, Br. Koenig? If so, do you have some sort of documentation which directly contradicts it?

Br. Heidrick, do you have any idea what Br. Koenig means by 'officially' here? I gather he thinks there was some formal closure.

I'd like to know that also. Br. Koenig, how did you determine that the Agape Lodge officially closed on that date?

Apparently Br. Koenig does not accept that the letters to which you refer, explain to McMurtry that Crowley wished to insure continuation of the headship of OTO by means of the titular "Caliph" office' and 'that he should be ready to assume headship of the OTO in the event of a failure of Karl Germer to either make a success of leadership or to name his own successor.'---

I'd like to see these documents myself, please. Weren't they the basis for the 9th Circuit Court's decision?

Did this out of court settlement take place, Br. Heidrick?---

Br. Heidrick, you mentioned that you thought Br. Koenig did not understand the 'circuitry' of the court system, or something similar, and I'm unsure myself that I understand either of your contentions in this regard. Could you briefly explain your understanding of what courts ruled in relation to succession issues and how far what they ruled should carry beyond the US, for example? Does it have anything to do with the Geneva Copyrights standards which link US and Europe? N.--Do you think that if Metzger/Grant had been taken into account the court would have ruled in your favour? ... I'd like to get your opinion on this matter and determine with some precision why it is that all of these OTOs are fighting with one another. Pertinent to that is the question of HBeta's lineage and the controversy about 'postal consecration'. I asked Br. Heidrick whether this was accurate and he replied that ... [Editorial note: discussed within section headed "The "Caliphate" E.G.C.", q.v.]

Have you seen these transcripts, Br. Koenig? Do you say that Br. Heidrick is mistaken about them? Perhaps you can write to the court and procure a copy for your files if you don't already have one.

Br. Heidrick, are you aware of any data to this effect? if not, perhaps Br. Koenig can send me excerpts from the transcripts wherein he finds this suppression-suspicion.

---Do you claim that these allegations are false, Br. Heidrick? If so, I'll ask Br. Koenig to substantiate them in some way. I presume you two have had this discussion previously, so if you know something about the items he is likely to bring forward it would seem efficacious if you could say something about them beforehand.

I think these comments are substantiated by your own text, Br. Koenig.

Since McMurtry did not answer this letter, Crowley subsequently arranged Friedrich Mellinger as the successor to Germer. Is this to what you were referring, Br. Heidrick, in your previous correspondence, when you said: (H): "Crowley also made somewhat lesser efforts to alert Frederic Mellinger to the possible need of taking headship of OTO, but did not give Mellinger any formal letters of authority."?---

Br. Koenig, from reading your text and that of Br. Heidrick, it does seem somewhat clear that Crowley was attempting to establish a 'fall-back' chain, should those immediately in line not be capable or willing to assume OHO do so in proper timing. Do you dispute this?---

Br. Heidrick, are you aware of the active Lodges of which Br. Koenig speaks? Were these something other than 'Crowleyan' lineages (perhaps something which the Caliphate disputes?)?

---Given that he had Mellinger/ McMurtry in mind and that Mellinger did not activate his authority, does this not constitute an 'emergency situation', given which McMurtry was in his rights to resume OTO as OHO?

---If so, and there is such a letter of authority, or some recorded process of succession, would this substantiate Br. Koenig's claim? He would merely have to justify his basis for his claim that it was so "arranged", true?

Br. Koenig, don't you think that the usage of 'Caliph' as compared to 'Calif' indicates that it was more than just a pun, given the Muslim understanding of this term?

Given that Reuss wanted to dispense with Crowley (what is your position on this assertion, Br. Heidrick?), and that Br. Koenig's claim that Crowley's lineage was a 'breakaway group' is accurate, doesn't it seem logical to you that this business about 'caliphs' would remain in contention?

Isn't this true, Br. Koenig? It is something which I didn't understand of your mention previously. There appear to be several issues here which you have at times brought together as multi-pointed spears against the Caliphate OTO (as to its legitimacy in regards the EGC, the OTO, and even to its own succession). Do you have some reason for this composite, or are you simply opposed to the existence of the Caliphate OTO on all those grounds and sought to make this clear?

I'd like to see these documents myself, please. Weren't they the basis for the 9th Circuit Court's decision?

...To other matters more severe: I am seriously considering reviewing Br. Koenig's texts, to be found at the following URLs, within the Thelema93-L elist as an alternative and/or precursor to the King material or the alternate which you and I devise: Spermo-Gnostics and the Ordo Templi OrientisEcstatic Creation of Culture I'd like to hear how you think this would compare in regards my marring of my relationship with the Caliphate OTO should I omit direct quotes of King's work while doing a review of the ideas and text of Koenig's text here listed. Are his texts (however fallacious they may seem to you) also 'forbidden'? :> I *do* find within them a very clear similarity to the VII/VIII/IX° secrets as stated within the King Secret Rites. He has offered to send me copies of the Crowley rites he mentioned which you said are not 'in formal completion' (something similar). I may eventually take him up on that, though I'd like to know if I'd be in effect severing my connection with the Caliphate OTO in so doing. Thank you for your reflections and advice my kin, nigris (333)

No I am not, though it doesn't surprise me much. You must either mean he is trying to obtain trademarks on "AA" or that he is copyrighting AA materials.

He is also attempting to dissuade me from reviewing portions of King's text. I may jump around him and my Order by reviewing *your" text instead, since it seems to present similar information in a more extensive light. If people want to argue against it I'll be happy to see that. The discussion is my objective. I don't care at all about the copyrights and trademarks, nor lately about my membership, though I do my best to retain it for as long as possible within my will.

It does appear that the identity of "OHO" is in contention, yes.

Would you like to review that history with your commentary? I would be happy to edit it in English and have you review before issuing it to the world.

As I am very ignorant about these subjects I have at times I'm sure been blinded by the Heidrick-fantasies as you call them, and this is one of the reasons that I value my correspondence with you. I have posted Br. Heidrick's text to various forums, yes, hoping to elicit ALTERNATIVE perspectives and occasionally doing so, but nothing which compares to your complex alternatives.

I will quote this to Br. Heidrick and ask him why he might have said these things, seeing what he says about your assertions. ..You can find most of them, which I've archived, at: ftp://ftp.hollyfeld.org/pub/Esoteric/Usenet/Thelema/ Is there a way for you to view these? There are many files there, and all which end in ".bh" are written by Brother Heidrick ...

I'm archiving that in Usenet archives (/Usenet/Thelema). I will probably either archive it or delete it. I don't see that there is any resolution betwixt you possible. Perhaps I'll put it in the Hollyfeld archive.

I didn't want to expend unlimited energy on it, feel I have delved into the subject as much as I can handle presently ("history" isn't something which I really like very much — that can be "your" ball of wax), and I would rather focus on the "esoteric secrets". ...

I have erased everything below [sic] this line and not looked at it.

I'm not sure what you mean by "his performances are doubtful". It is somewhat awkward to my English-only ear and perhaps a tad ambiguous. Performances of what? How does this have any effect on anything?

Very lovely!

First I've heard of this. Thanks.

That fits with some things I've seen in the past in my local community. There do appear to be conservative changes going on there.

This is meaningless to me. What is "the Solar Lodge"? Do you mean that there are no "proven" lineage continuation that you accept to VI° members?

I'm now (as I hope you are seeing) beginning a sex-magick critique within Thelema93-L and funnelling this out to Usenet as I so desire. This will include occasional reference to the Emblems [and Modes of Use] text, "De Arte Magica" and some of F. King's materials. I am not presently interested in a wrangle with the COTO as regards copyrights and so am going to concentrate on rephrased or "non-threatening" materials I create myself or find in writers such as you or Kenneth Grant. Your commentary on any/all of it will be welcome. ...

That is very kind of you. My objectives include a full disclosure of all OTO "secrets" and sex magick information such that public discussion may proceed from it and people may obtain this sexo-technology easily and use it for their benefit.

Great, then we have a common bond.

I understand. Your role is important in opposition to the lies. Please understand that I have *two* roles where the Order is concerned: 1) As Revolutionary member from within (as long as I can stomach sticking within it) 2) As neutral librarian collecting data from a variety of sources which express themselves in Thelema93-L and Usenet conversations in a manner clearly reflecting their opinions (no matter how false these may be).

Nothing new, from what you've been telling me.

I've been involved with Scientology, and later COTO, and I haven't noticed yet the similarity between them other than some organizational things (structure, but both drew from similar sources) and an occasional promotion of their "Official Views" (which again many religious organizations engage). I'm watching for signs of the type of cult-activity I saw in Scientology. Haven't seen it yet. ...

I'll be quoting the text above in Thelema93-L sometime in the near future.

Thanks for the info. I'm unsure if I'll use it this time, though I may archive this batch of information.

I like the attitude you were taking with it. I think that it was a helpful goad within the recent discussion within the Thelema93-L list with T. Maroney concerning the dwindling of the current in public discussion and the general atmosphere of "Thelemic culture". I'd suggest that you elaborate some with examples of some of your claims, polish up the English if you want it to be taken seriously by those of the "serious Thelemite community", and issue it within one of your publications or those of Thelemic organizations at your disposal.

The element which you are underscoring is definitely there, though I'm not sure how strong it is within my Order as yet. "Fascist" usually implies some sort of politics, and the only politics of which I am aware which COTO members *must* engage is that concerning rituals, how they are performed, whether and with whom they are discussed. Since I don't find such discussion valuable (since I have often not wanted to hear about the rites before going to them and seldom if ever wanted to be one of the people putting them together), I doubt I'll hit as hard on this line as you seem to be doing, perhaps merely collecting ritual texts relating to the "secret sex magick workings".

It is a pleasure as always, Br. Koenig.