The 'Caliphate Corporation' claim to own the Crowley copyrights is false.
Text by Anthony Naylor (2000) before he lost his case against the 'Caliphate'.
Until such time as the rights of the Literary Executor are overturned by a UK Court then UK Law and thereby International Law is the superior — matters concerning UK citizens and their property are subject to UK Law — the jurisdiction of the USA 9th Circuit Court does not include the UK. However, given the way in which the ruling was obtained the 'Caliphate Corporation' may be reluctant to have the matter re-examined by any court. The following texts are also of direct relevance to the legal position in the USA and may affect the 'Caliphate's' willingness to re-enter any legal arena to argue their case:
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act [RICO] United States of America
The Anticounterfeiting Consumer Protection Act of 1996, makes trademark and copyright counterfeiting a predicate offense under the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (RICO), thereby opening the door to the severe penalties provided for under RICO. Historically, an injured plaintiff could bring a civil action seeking remedies under RICO by establishing: '(1) that the defendant (2) through the commission of two or more acts (3) constituting a 'Pattern' (4) of 'racketeering activity' (5) directly or indirectly invests in, or maintains an interest in, or participates in (6) an 'enterprise' (7) the activities of which affect interstate or foreign commerce.'
Moss v. Morgan Stanley, Inc. 719 F.2d 5, 17 (2d Cir. 1983),
cert. denied sub nom, Moss v. Newman, 465 U.S. 1025 (1984).
The law specifically defines the activities which may be considered 'racketeering activity.' 18 U.S.C. § 1961. Thus, only owners of intellectual property who could prove that a defendant had engaged in some form of 'racketeering activity,' (e.g., mail or wire fraud) could file suit.
The new law expanded the definition of 'racketeering activity' under RICO to include violations of laws which relate to: trafficking in counterfeit labels for phono-records, computer programs and documentation, and audiovisual works; criminal copyright infringement; the unauthorized fixation of and trafficking in sound recordings and music videos; and trafficking in goods and services bearing counterfeit marks. 18 U.S.C. § 1961 (1) (B). According to the legislative history, the law is intended to address the frustration that trademark and copyright owners faced due to their inability to recover any meaningful damages when faced with counterfeiting.
It appears that an intellectual property owner who properly pleads a violation of any of the above laws as a predicate 'racketeering activity,' and additionally satisfies the required elements for a RICO action, e.g., establishing two or more acts, may prosecute a viable claim under RICO for trademark or copyright counterfeiting.
As it does appear that Judge Legge in the 9th Circuit Court was knowingly deceived by both Plaintiffs and Defendants the relevant authorities may, in the fullness of time, determine that the ruling of the 9th Circuit Court was obtained by fraudulent means. Since 1985 the 'Caliphate Corporation' have repeatedly made representations to publishers (both inter-state and internationally) relying on this apparently fraudulent ruling and thereby obtained payments from publishers. 'Caliphate Corporation' could therefore be deemed to have committed numerous offences under the US Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
Tax Exempt Status of the 'Caliphate Corporation' as a non-profit religious group. United States of America
The 'Caliphate's' religious tax exempt status IRS letter is dated May 1982, 501(c)3 and exempt. CA State exemption letter for the same is dated 31 March 1983, retroactive to March 1980 e.v. — that's for 'Caliphate Corporation' International. The US Grand Lodge separately incorporated a few years ago and separately obtained the same exempt standing — except 'Caliphate Corporation' IHQ is not required to file Form 990 and 'Caliphate Corporation' Grand Lodge is. What this means is that they have applied for and receive special tax exempt status in the United States for being a non-profit religious group.
In Bill Heidrick's own words: 'copyrights on Crowley texts are treated as ordinary, mundane intellectual property, without regard to religious usage, under the law. That makes them the same in statute as any other book, be it fiction or factual writing.'
Therefore, Heidrick is saying that their reliance on the Copyright Law is based on them as publishers . . . that the 'Caliphate Corporation' is technically a business. It may be that if they do not relinquish their false claim on the copyrights or if they attempt to defend them in court, there is a strong case for the 'Caliphate Corporation' paying the back taxes owed since 1980 when they first claimed they were a non-profit religious group. A 1971 law giving the Christian Science Church an extended copyright to its central theological texts was declared unconstitutional by a federal appeals court. The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Washington said the law giving the church a copyright is unconstitutional because it 'offends the fundamental principles of separation of church and state.' 'Caliphate Corporation' cannot have the benefits of the Government's protection in both cases.
That is unconstitutional and will crumble under scrutiny, and may even result in a Federal criminal investigation.
Any contracts entered into with the 'Caliphate Corporation' where they have represented themselves as owners of the Crowley Copyrights must immediately be regarded as void.
'Caliphate' cannot prove lineage so they try to find a back door ...
To challenge Crowley's Last Will and Testament the 'Caliphate Corporation' must prove their lineage before they can make a challenge against the Estate of Aleister Crowley. The published evidence has shown that the 'Caliphate Corporation' does not have any legitimate claims of lineage to either the Reuss-O.T.O. or the Crowley-O.T.O.
Therefore, the 'Caliphate Corporation' must rely on an alleged-purchase of the copyrights from the Official Receiver (OR) — which, in turn, is based on the assumption that Crowley died an undischarged bankrupt and that the copyrights remained with the OR and were not transferred to Germer.
This alleged-purchase was handled on behalf of the Insolvency Service (Official Receiver) by a firm of Accountants called Stoy Hayward. Apparently no proper investigation was made — John Symonds was certainly not contacted — the accountant responsible approved a vague agreement referring to the Crowley copyrights in which he stated that he 'may have (if any)'. As a precaution, the accountant took a personal indemnity from a UK member of the 'Caliphate Corporation' to cover the costs of any potential 'negligence' or other legal actions which may arise from his alleged-sale of the 'may have (if any)_copyrights!
Many letters were written immediately after Crowley's death between Germer, Symonds, Wilkinson and Harris (the executors of Crowley's Will) and these show the OR was actively involved and that he seized money in at least one bank account and for a time impounded Crowley's stored goods etc. The subject of the Crowley copyrights was explicitly discussed in the executor's letters — the discussion was centred on fears that the OR might hold an auction and that the copyrights would eventually be purchased by Gerald J Yorke. The letters indicate that a short while afterwards the OR subsequently abandoned all claims to the Crowley Estate.
It is therefore abundantly clear that the copyrights were not the Official Receiver's to sell — any 'possible claim' that may have existed was abandoned in 1948 or shortly thereafter.
There have been many 'Pretenders to the Throne' together with the inevitable reincarnations of Crowley and even the genuinely insane — all have made their demands, issued their threats and shouted their assertions to be the one true heir.
The 'Caliphate Corporation' has made its demands, issued its threats but never produced its evidence — it is another johnny-come-lately in a long history of O.T.O. wannabe's — it shall be known by its deeds!
Eventually, Naylor lost his case.
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