Ordo Templi Orientis Phenomenon
Copyrights

The following post was not written by Peter-R. Koenig, but by Anthony Naylor before he lost his case against the 'Caliphate'

PROBATE

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 of probate
• 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!

JURISDICTION

Supreme Court Act 1981: S25 Probate jurisdiction of High Court
DATE-IN-FORCE: 1 January 1982
1. 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 —
   1. testamentary causes or matters;
   2. the grant, amendment or revocation of probates and letters of administration; and
   3. the real and personal estate of deceased persons.
2. 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.

CROWLEY’S PROBATE

• 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 Lewes.
  FACT: The High Court of Justice declared Crowley’s Last Will and Testament to be valid and his lawful act.
• 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 document!

REVOCATION OF PROBATE

• To date Caliphate-O.T.O. has not applied for a Revocation of Probate Order!
• 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 -(

  1. 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
  2. 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.

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)!

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’ arises"!
"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 1991.
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 Receiver (OR)]