INTRO 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 interesting.

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 therein."

SUMMARY

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 alleged 'infringement'! 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) from 1935-1991. 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 and void. 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 forever. 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] PLUS: - 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 copyrights). - The OR himself wrote he has never previously dealt with the copyrights. - 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 www.beastbay.com/beastbay/972084154/index_html

"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 recent events. 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 Court)!

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 . . . etc., etc. 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.