Ordo Templi Orientis Phenomenon
"Caliphate-O.T.O. Win" and The Writing on the Wall
The following post was not written by Peter-R. Koenig,
but by Anthony Naylor before he lost his case against the 'Caliphate'
In September 1999, the 'Caliph' of the 'Caliphate' (Breeze)
commenced litigation against Symonds/Naylor/Mandrake Press
for alleged copyright infringement. The question as to the
'true' O.T.O. was initially an issue but during the
preliminary exchange of correspondence the 'Caliphate'
changed their primary plea from one based on Crowley's Will
(being unable to show a chain of continuous Legal-Identity)
to the purchase from the Official Receiver (OR) in 1991.
The 'Caliphate' lawyers asserted their claim that Crowley's
Last Will and Testament was invalid + writing in open
correspondence to Naylor 17th September 1999 ... "our
client's primary contention is that the copyrights are not,
and never have been, ... part of Crowley's testamentary
estate" and in the same letter ... "no question of our
client being 'consider(ed) as a beneficiary' arises"!
The Judge summed up the preliminary hearing on Thursday 19,
October 2000. He found that the Official Receiver had
acquired the Crowley Copyrights in 1935 (and other
copyrights thereafter) and that the assignment in 1991 by
the Official Receiver for the rights he "may have, if any"
was lawful. 'Caliphate' had successfully argued at the
hearing that they had bought their spiritual heritage for
£3000.00, declared Crowley's 'Will' invalid and
retrospectively stripped Crowley of his human rights from
1935 until his death in 1947.
Despite popular opinion to the contrary (no doubt gleaned
from an American's interpretation of the wording of an
English Judge's written order) it is possible for
Symonds/Naylor/Mandrake Press to make an appeal direct to
the Appeal Court.
However the Judge's comments on the worth of the copyrights
mentioned in the OR's contract with Breeze seem more
This text was posted to this website on Monday 23 October 2000:
The Judge ruled on Thursday 19, October 2000.
MENE, MENE, TEKEL, UPHARSIN. Daniel 5:25
1. 'Caliphate'-O.T.O. were assigned the literary copyrights (so far
as subsisting) by the Official Receiver in 1991.
2. The Official Receiver did not assign the rights to the artistic
works (Drawings, Paintings and interest in Thoth Tarot paintings) to
the 'Caliphate'-O.T.O. in 1991.
3. 'Caliphate'-O.T.O. did not inherit the copyrights through the
Will and thus all previous claims under the Will are null and void
(including prior USA Court Rulings). This route is now blocked
forever to the 'Caliphate'-O.T.O.
4. Grady McMurtry did not buy 25% of Magick Without Tears from
Crowley because the copyrights belonged to the Official Receiver.
5. After his Bankruptcy in 1935 Crowley infringed copyright by
publishing books that he had written as the copyright automatically
belonged to the Official Receiver.
'Caliphate'-O.T.O. admitted "That the Trustee in bankruptcy warranted
that neither he nor his predecessors as trustees following the
receiving order on 15th February 1935 had previously assigned or
otherwise dealt with any of the Crowley copyrights or any interest
The Judge has ruled that the 'Caliphate' have a lawful
assignment from the Official Receiver for the rights he held
(if any) in 1991. In other words, 'Caliphate' have yet to
prove any rights actually exist! The Judge signalled this
view by his use of the phrase "as far as subsist".
Furthermore, to win the case against Symonds/Naylor/Mandrake
Press, 'Caliphate' must first prove any such rights do exist
and then, and only then, can they address the issue of
The power to enforce the rights (if any) "as far as
subsists" may already be lost due to the time limitations
and the failure of the OR to protect the rights (if any)
Also, 'Caliphate' may be denied the opportunity to enforce
the rights(if any) against Symonds/Naylor/Mandrake Press due
to the length of time between the purchase from the OR, and
the issue of proceedings.
WHAT THE 'CALIPHATE' DOES NOT WANT YOU TO KNOW, sequel:
The judgement effectively makes all previous court rulings
based on the Will null and void, it also makes the sale of
25% of "Magick without Tears" by Crowley to McMurtry null
The Judge also ruled the assignment to the 'Caliphate' (by
the Official Receiver) was defective and did not include the
artistic rights (i.e. Thoth).
All previous registrations of copyright by the 'Caliphate'
are null and void prior to 1991.
Therefore, all previous 'gains' by 'Caliphate' are lost
No alternative claim on the Will can now exist ... that
claim (and any claim based on the Will) has been
extinguished forever. [Except in the event of a successful
appeal by Symonds/Naylor/Mandrake Press]
- The Judge stated that the OR had the copyrights in 1935.
- 1947 Crowley thought HE still had his own copyrights
(they were not mentioned at his bankruptcy and obviously
he had not been contacted since 1935 by the OR).
- John Symonds was never contacted by OR.
- No publisher has EVER been contacted by the OR (to protect the
- The OR himself wrote he has never previously dealt with the
- There are statutory limitations on taking legal
actions ... it has been left too long, the rights are
undoubtedly extinguished. 64 years is a long time ...
(1935 - 1999).
'Caliphate' lawyers readily admitted (and indeed positively
argued the fact) at the recent hearing that the OR had never
ever "assigned or otherwise dealt with the said rights (if
any)". Furthermore, even the OR himself acknowledged that
any rights that may exist may not be actionable i.e. the
assignment was only for "accrued rights of action (if any)
to protect the said rights (if any)". Retrospective rights
of action are not mentioned in the assignment AT ALL!
Basically what the 'Caliphate' has "won" so far is the right
to wave a piece of paper. The 'Caliphate' have yet to
establish that the rights even exist. All they have 'won'
(established) so far is that the OR had the copyrights in
1935 and that the assignment for the "may have, if any" made
in 1991 was lawful and nothing more!
'Caliphate' has thrown away all its previous gains and put
all its eggs into the risk-laden basket of "may have, if
any" and "as far as subsist" backed by the "accrued rights
of action (if any) to protect the said rights (if any)".
The trial has not even begun yet + all that has taken place
is a preliminary hearing — more hearings will undoubtedly
follow this before the full trial.
To WIN THE CASE 'Caliphate' MUST PROVE INFRINGEMENT of
COPYRIGHTS and not their ability to wave paper flags.
[27 October 2000]
Below section was posted to some Egroups on 14 November 2000:
OTO Wins Copyright Dispute in UK
"The OTO has won its copyright suit against Tony Naylor in
England. The terms do not allow Naylor to appeal. We are
still waiting for more detailed information, but the above
has been confirmed by an international officer of the OTO."
wrote Tim Maroney, www.beastbay.com
and only a week later . . . Tim Maroney wrote on
"People who were willing to state in public that the OTO had
won the case a week ago are not willing to make the same
statement now, and in fact are trying to distance themselves
from that position."
- - - - - - - - - - - - A REVIEW - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
'Caliphate' have bought the "may have, if any"
with the "accrued rights of action (if any)
to protect the said rights (if any)"
but only "as far as subsists".
Claims of ownership of the Crowley Copyrights made by
'Caliphate' prior to 28th March 1991 were based on Crowley's
Last Will and Testament.
On 18th October 2000, in the Court case against
Symonds/Naylor/Mandrake Press, whilst lawyers acting for
'Caliphate' successfully argued their case (i.e. we bought
them in 1991), they were, in effect, also arguing that the
'Caliphate's' previous claims (i.e. we inherited them in
1947) were false.
The Judge accepted the 'Caliphate' lawyers arguments and
ruled that the 'Caliphate' did indeed have a lawful
assignment from the Official Receiver for the Crowley
Copyrights he held (if any) in 1991.
i.e. The Crowley copyrights were held by the Official
Receiver from 1935 and were NEVER owned by
'Caliphate' via Crowley's Last Will and Testament.
On 28th March 1991 the Official Receiver assigned
the rights he "may have, if any" and "accrued
rights of action (if any) to protect the said rights
(if any)" to 'Caliphate' for the sum of œ3000.
Publishers may wish to note that the 1985 Court Ruling in
the USA was binding ONLY ON the Defendant MOTTA (SOTO).
i.e. The 1985 ruling only applies to Motta and does not
apply to the whole world! In order to apply to
the whole world, the case should have included
additional "fictitious defendants".
This case is now of no consequence to Publishers
and of no value to 'Caliphate'. SOTO would need
to seek legal advice relating to the consequences of
Publishers should also note that the 1991 assignment does
not mention any RETROSPECTIVE RIGHTS and it is possible that
any monies previously paid by publishers in royalties to
'Caliphate', for acts of publication prior to 28th March
1991, are now fully recoverable with interest (this would
perhaps include sums paid in settlement of alleged 'past
infringements' where 'Caliphate's' claims were based on
Crowley's Last Will and Testament).
Publishers of Crowley material who have paid royalties to
the 'Caliphate', for acts of publication prior to 28th March
1991, may now wish to seek legal advice regarding the
legal-scope and consequences of the assignment. A text copy
of the assignment can be found here
In addition, existing Publishing Contracts signed prior to
28th March 1991 may now be found to be null and void and all
monies previously paid also fully recoverable with interest.
It may be significant that 'Caliphate' first became aware
that the Official Receiver was offering to sell the
copyrights circa 1986.
Although the Judge has apparently ruled that the 'Caliphate'
has a lawful assignment 'Caliphate' have yet to prove that
any rights still exist and if any such rights do exist, that
those rights are still actionable. The power to enforce the
rights (if any) may have been lost before the assignment to
'Caliphate' (due to the Official Receiver's failure to
protect them in the 56 years he held them). 'Caliphate'
lawyers obviously argued in court (18th October 2000) the
validity of the assignment which clearly states that the
Official Receiver had never ever "assigned or OTHERWISE
DEALT WITH the said rights (if any)" from 1935 - 1991.
Finally, 'Caliphate' may be unable to bring any further
proceedings against ANY existing or new Publishers by reason
of Statutes of Limitation (3 years for existing works in
Switzerland but the law varies from country-to-country).
Additional impediments to prove 'infringement' may also
exist in individual cases.
For further comment on the case "Ordo Templi Orientis Inc.
-v- Symonds/Naylor/Mandrake Press see :-
https://www.parareligion.ch/dplanet/or/or6.htm [which is this webpage]
Enquiries made with the Court confirm that a copy of the
Judge's ruling is not available as the proceedings are not
'public'. It is assumed that neither party can (or is
willing to) publish the ruling as it is copyright and cannot
be published without the copyright holders permission (the
CROWLEY'S ORDO TEMPLI ORIENTIS
Another 'O.T.O' has received a 'friendly-warning' from a
'Caliphate' Officer* involved in the administration of the
Symonds/Naylor/Mandrake Press case that they are the next
target for litigation on issues such as the use of the Lamen
and the name Ordo Templ Orientis on their publications.
[*The same 'Caliphate' Officer has also given a
'friendly-warning' to at least one company about selling
Mandrake Press books despite the fact that the case of
Infringement has yet to be proved!]
Those threatened by 'Caliphate' should note that 'Caliphate'
cannot show a chain of identity between Crowley's O.T.O. and
the US Corporation calling itself Ordo Templi Orientis Inc.
In the Symonds/Naylor/Mandrake Press case 'Caliphate'
obviously preferred to rely on the purchase of 'rights'
rather than their previous claims of inheritance. It should
also be noted that there is considerable evidence available
to support the contention that Crowley's O.T.O. ceased to
function with Germer. Once again it must be stressed that
the 1985 US Court ruling ONLY applies to Motta (SOTO) and is
of little or no consequence to anyone else any more!
Any claim to exclusive rights to the Lamen are also
questionable. Copyright claims have yet to be proven . . .
. . . bought the "may have, if any"
with the "accrued rights of action (if any)
to protect the said rights (if any)"
but only "as far as subsists".
Claims by 'Caliphate' to own trademark rights may also be
vigorously refuted on similar grounds i.e defective
ownership of copyright in the design etc., widespread use
from 1907, lack of rights of action (if any) to protect the
said rights (if any), lack of uniqueness of design, Statutes
of Limitation, passive consent through failure to act . . .
Individual circumstances and impediments may prevent
'Caliphate' litigating against those organizations who have
used the Lamen for a number of years.
Persons wishing to act on the contents of this document
should seek legal advice.