[from personal email: heidrick@well.com to tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com] This is an electronic copy of the McMurtry vs. S.O.T.O. Trial Transcript, made for purposes of analysis and study. Entered by Bill Heidrick, Grand Treasurer General O.T.O. Notes: Original transcript pages in square brackets: [] Notes and corrections in curly brackets: {} with source indicated: Heidrick corrections & notes: { -weh} Plaintiff formal corrections: { -pla} Defendant formal corrections: { -def} abbreviations used to signify alternative: "should be" = sb. "may be" = mb. abbreviations used to signify transcript confidence: "doubtful or unknown" = ? "highly questionable" = ?! "Thus in transcript" = SIC "Let it Stand (no change to original) =STET Regarding evidence received formally, there appears to be a lapse in the manner of cross-reference used by the court reporter. Some evidence appears on the face of The Court's statements to have been accepted in batches, and these cross-references are not generally tabulated by the reporter. In addition, some single action receivings in evidence may have been similarly over-looked. Evidence is therefore to be found as received through an examination of the entire text of the several volumes of this Trial Transcript, and through a close reading of the decisions of The Court in the progress from page to page of this Transcript. This is one of four files of the transcript. This file covers pages 1 through 249 [page 1] IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA BEFORE THE HONORABLE CHARLES A. LEGGE, JUDGE Grady McMurtry, William E. Heidrick, Phyllis Seckler, Helen Parsons Smith, William Breeze, Francis I. Regardie, James Wasserman, and Kenneth Anger, individuals, Ordo Templi Orientis, a corporation, and Thelema Publications, a business entity, Plaintiffs, vs. Society Ordo Templi Orientis, a corporation, Thelema Publishing Company, a corporation, Marcelo Ramos Motta, an individual, and Does I through X, inclusive, Defendants. CIVIL NO. C-83-5434 VOLUME I PAGES 1 - 143 REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS OF COURT TRIAL Monday, May 13, 1985 450 Golden Gate Avenue San Francisco, CAlifornia 94102 REPORTED BY: Lavon Granger [page 2] APPEARANCES: FOR THE PLAINTIFFS: Stuart I. MacKenzie, Esquire 80 Swan Way, Suite 301 Oakland, California 94621 FOR THE DEFENDANTS: Law Offices of Mittel & Hefferan By: Robert Edmon Mittel, Esquire 5 Milk St. P.O.Box 427 Portland, Maine 04112 [page 3] INDEX VOLUME I PAGE OPENING STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFFS: 14 Examinations: Witness: Direct Cross Voir_Dire Grady Louis McMurtry 20 116 75 Resumed 76 Plaintiff's Exhibits: For_Ident. In_Evidence 28 Letter dated 8-22-44. 34 34 42 Letter to Karl Germer from 76 Grady McMurtry. [page 4] Monday, May 13, 1985 9: o'clock a.m. PROCEEDINGS FIRST DAY THE CLERK: Civil Action No. 83-5434, McMurtry versus Society Ordo Templi Orientis. Counsel, state your appearances. MR. MacKENZIE: Stuart MacKenzie for the plaintiffs. MR. MITTEL: Robert Mittel for the defendants. THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen, again I apologize for the delay in getting started this morning. The court reporter who was assigned to us was not here this morning and it took us awhile to find a substitute who kindly agreed to fill in for us this morning. I will say I have read all of the pretrial submissions of both the plaintiffs and defendants, and I am ready to proceed with the trial. Mr. MacKenzie, I understand you have a motion before we begin testimony. MR. MacKENZIE: Yes, Your Honor, I do. And that motion is based on some argument [page 5] raised in the trial brief, principally that I believe the defendants are estopped from mitigating {SIC sb. "litigating" -def} the issue of whether they have any ownership rights in the archive material as well as from -- purporting that the defendant is the Outer Head or Supreme Leader of the Ordo Templi Orientis. That was specifically concluded in that case, and as I understand the situation there can be res judicata in such effect. THE COURT: Do you believe those rulings act to establish your, that is, the plaintiffs' causes of action or simply to bar the defendants' counterclaim? MR. MacKENZIE: I believe they bar the defendants' counterclaim, Your Honor. THE COURT: So it's really a collateral estoppel effect on the counterclaims rather than a res judicata effect on your case in chief? MR MacKENZIE: That is right, Your Honor. We still have to establish that we are entitled to it, but I don't believe the defendants should be allowed to contest that he is entitled to it. This is the first motion, Your Honor. The second one is that the various causes of actions, the IV, V and VI are barred by the Statute of Limitations. This was a defense raised in the Answer to [page 6] the Defendants' Crows-Counterclaim for failure to state a cause of action. And I have cited the reasons being invasion of privacy of a one-year action and breach of duties is two years and conversation {SIC sb. "conversion" -def} is three years, Your Honor. I think it will become apparent during the course of the trial that those periods have elapsed. I might just say principally one of the causes of action for breach of duties concerns the plaintiff, Jim Wasserman, who the defendant contends was sent out here with a power of attorney in 1976 and breached his duties. I think that one is clearly barred even if the defendant wants to argue there were other acts that have happened since they breached their duties. But that one I would like to eliminate at this time. There is no way that can be heard, in my opinion. THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Mittel, do you wish to reply? MR. MITTEL: Yes, I do, Your Honor. On the question of the Statute of Limitations, it was not pled in the reply to the Counterclaim. It's waived under hundreds and hundreds of cases and it's not part of a defense and failure to [page 7] state a claim. It's an affirmative offense that must be pleaded. It wasn't, and it is gone. On the collateral estoppel question I have several things to say. The first and most important is that these plaintiffs can't use collateral estoppel in this case because they are what the Justice Wrenquist {SIC "Rehnquist" -def} referred to as wait-and-see plaintiffs. They had not only an opportunity to intervene in May and litigate all of the questions that relate to the intellectural {SIC "intellectual" -def} property and personal property of the Ordo Templi Orientis, but an invitation from me to do so. They chose not to do so. And a portion of the evidence available on the question of who is the Outer Head of this entity was presented to the District Court in May. Prior to the trial I had come to California and -- the rial in Maine, that is -- and taken the depositions of plaintiff McMurtry, Mrs. Seckler and Mrs. Smith. I had also gone to New York and taken the deposition of Mr. Wasserman. Each of those deponents was asked to produce documents relevant to claims of ownership and also relating to any of the 20 or so key individual actors in the group over the last 40 years now. [page 8] In December of 1983 at the depositions or prior to the depositions, the witnesses produced several hundreds pieces of documentation. That documentation was all available for trial in Maine in 1984. Mr. McMurtry came to that trial and testified, brought with him some new documents. And then after that trial was over these plaintiffs, in response to discovery in this case, identical in the terms of the documents that we were requesting, produced well over 200 more documents, 172, I believe, in June or July, and at least another hundred since then, many of which also bear on the question of who is the Outer Head of the Ordo Templi Orientis. THE COURT: These documentations were in connection with this case or with the Maine case? MR MITTEL: The December '83 productions were dual-captioned. The deposition notices were captioned both Maine and California, if you will. One case entitled -- I can't remember the name of the lead plaintiff, but I think it's Motta versus Samuel Weiser, Inc. The other one was McMurtry versus Society Ordo Templi Orientis. That is this case. In any event, the last discovery and Interrogatories, three sets, production requests, three [page 9] sets, which came during the spring which generated more documents under the same categories were only captioned in this cause. So what I am suggesting to you is: Had they produced all of the documents back in December of '83, then maybe -- I am not going to concede, but I will say "maybe" we would be precluded. But they didn't. Many of those documents are going to be introduced during the course of this trial and you will be the first Judge to see them. Judge Carter did not see them because we did not have them. That is one point. Second: I am not sure that the Maine Judgment is a final judgment. THE COURT: Wait a second. MR. MITTEL: All right. THE COURT: Are you contending that the production of documents of impacts your disposition of the plaintiffs' motion because {SIC sb. "because" -def} of a voluntary participation, or is it because the issues are now different than they were in May? MR. MITTEL: Well, I wanted to talk a bit about how the issues are a little different. But what I am addressing initially is the fairness question. In other words, before you can estop someone, [page 10] they have got to have had, if you will, a fair opportunity to fully litigate. And what I am suggesting to you is that this plaintiff -- this defendant, these defendants did not have a full and fair opportunity within the reach of Londerton and Marklan Hosear (phonetic) {SIC sb. "Blonder-Tongue and Parklane Hosiery" -def}, because of the absence of those documents and also because, as I have said, these plaintiffs here could, and I am submitting to you, if they want to rely on the collateral estoppel, should have been named, however, in Maine. THE COURT: Let me say this: I am going to cut you off from argument on the points for present purposes. That is, the plaintiffs' motion pertains to the defendants' case in chief. So I will take that motion under submission. But I will ask the plaintiffs now to be prepared to move ahead with their case in chief and I will give you a ruling on this matter before defendants are called upon to put on their case in chief. It may be before that, but I want to take a closer look at this. And rather than to keep all of these parties and witnesses waiting while these matters of law are gone into, I will simply take them under submission for the present purpose and will rule on them [page 11] later. MR. MITTEL: May I say one five-second point? THE COURT: Sure. MR. MITTEL: That is not apparent from the record unless you have the document which is in Maine. There is a motion for attorney's fees in the Maine case still pending, even though the judgment on the merits is on appeal. I think -- I haven't looked recently at the law on this question, but I believe that that means that the Maine judgment is not a final judgment, notwithstanding the appealability question, which should render it not effective for collateral estoppel purposes. That I am not certain of. I will try to find that out for you before tomorrow. THE COURT: All right. The plaintiffs' motion will be taken under submission or is taken under submission. And I will give you a ruling at least before the defendant is prepared to present his case in chief. MR. MacKENZIE: Your Honor, may I just respond to for one minute on that? THE COURT: Yes, sure. MR. MacKENZIE: There are a few things that haven't been said, and one of them is plaintiff -- I [page 12] should say defendants in this case, who were plaintiffs in Maine, they initiated that case. THE COURT: I know. MR. MacKENZIE: They sought production of documents. We gave them all we had, actually. What happened at the end of 1984 is that a major cache of documents were found. The defendants have taken the de position of the person who found them. He is not a member of OTO. We produced a great deal of those and those are included in this case. And defendants can't say they didn't have those in Maine. They didn't exist at that time, to our knowledge. We couldn't produce them. The main thing is, the defendants were the plaintiffs in that case. For them to say: "You are suing us in California, come on out to Maine and join us, and let's do that," I think that's rather preposterous. All the plaintiffs -- not all of them -- the majority of the plaintiffs in the organization are based out here. Secondly, I think Rule 12(a) makes clear that you can raise a failure to state a cause of action at any time, including trial, and I have cited a case in [page 13] support of that context. So that my motion for failure to state a cause of action, which is what the Statute of Limitations is all about, can be made at this time. Finally I would say one other point, and that is that I think that the decision in Maine is quite final in that the case concluded last summer and the judgment came out last December. And I have a case in support that says when a case is on appeal you still have a final judgment. So it's my belief we have a final judgment and they are estopped and I am ready to proceed, though. THE COURT: Plaintiffs' motion will be taken under submission. Mr. MacKenzie, do you wish to make an opening statement? MR. MacKENZIE: Yes, I do. If I might say it, I have one other cite that I used in researching this issue on collateral estoppel, if I may make that available to you or cite it. THE COURT: If you have an extra copy it will be helpful. MR. MacKENZIE: I will run off a copy. It's in the back of the Supreme Court Reporter and it's about a 20-page article on that. [page 14] THE COURT: Just give me the citation. MR. MacKENZIE: 58 Lawyers Edition Section {SIC sb. "Second" -def} 938. THE COURT: Is that a case or an article? MR. MacKENZIE: It's an article. And the principal case is also in that book, which I believe is the Parkland {SIC sb. "Parklane" -def} case. THE COURT: Parkland {SIC sb. "Parklane" -def}? MR. MacKENZIE: Yes. THE COURT: Okay. MR. MacKENZIE: Thank you. THE COURT: You have a plaintiffs' opening statement? MR. MacKENZIE: Yes, I do, Your Honor. OPENING STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFFS. MR. MacKENZIE: I would like to say, Your Honor, at the very outset, and the feeling that I had when I began this case some three years ago, was that it seemed to be principally between two groups and their respective leaders who both claim to be successor to an organization that had dwindled somewhat, atrophied, in fact, under the leadership of its last acknowledged head leader, Karl Germer. And they both claimed for various reasons [page 15] that one or the other was the successor. That is how it started. And I think that is what becomes apparent if you just read the pleadings. But after spending as much time on it, as everyone has, I think there is something else at issue here. What I think the evidence will show is that the plaintiff, Grady McMurtry, was initiated some 44 years ago by the most notable leader of the OTO, Mr. Crowley. He became a favorite of Crowley and bases his claim on several documents that he has received from Crowley, Caliphate letters, which speak of him in a very high regard and the possibility of his accession or succession to the leadership. Secondly, he got several authorization letters that more or less put him in charge of the entire country. A third valuable gift that he received from Crowley was a 25-percent interest in the copyrights that Crowley owned. Crowley was a prolific author and it's principally because of Crowley that there is a lot of value in the Archives. The Archives consist primarily of published and unpublished Crowley material, and there is a lecture [page 16] market out there that would pay quite a bit to get some of that material. So there is something that has value in this. The plaintiffs themselves are the largest single depository of Crowley material, excluding the University of London Warburg Institute, and that, of course, was awarded them pursuant to the Calaveras decree. The defendant, Motta, in turn claims to have received a patent, as he calls it, from Karl Germer, the last head that died in 1962. Mr. Motta will testify he only met Crowley {SIC s.b. Germer -weh} two or three times. He is unable to produce this patent. He is unable to produce any proof that he received such a patent. The only thing he relies on or seeking to rely on to establish that he is the successor is what is called a "follower letter," a cryptic letter written by Mr. Germer's demented wife, who was not a member of the OTO, saying that: "You are the follower." No one knows what that means. He also relies on a second letter from Sascha Germer that says, in effect, "Well, Karl had sent you certain kinds of documents on an April 20 date," but Mr,. Motta testified he never received that either. [page 17] The plaintiff will introduce that April 20th data and I think it will be very apparent that that leter {SIC sb. "letter" -def} did not say: "I am sending you this." Rather it was a discussion of "If you do certain things you just might get it." Those conditions were not met. Mr. Germer died six months later. Following Karl Germer's death, as I said, the Order became rather atrophied and it was not until the end of the 1960a that the plaintiff, McMurtry, along with plaintiff Phyllis Seckler began reinitiating people and trying to build something up. And the evidence will show in 1971 they registered in name of the insignia with the California Secretary of State. They incorporated in 1969 {SIC sb 1979 -weh}. And in the Calaveras Court decree in which -- they were awarded possession on behalf of the Ordo Templi Orientis as its representatives. Finally, we will attempt to give a picture of what the plaintiff Ordo Templi Orientis is all about. And it certainly has about 700 members in countries worldwide. During the entire time and/or the majority of this time Mr. Motta was in Brazil. He did spend some time in the U.S. and has been here for the last few years again. [page 18] So that I think the issue of credibility is somewhat relevant here because all of his information is secondhand. He was some 7,000 miles away. When I started, I said that is how the case appeared to me. When I first started it, two various groups, both disputing each other's rights to claim the successorship to the Order. But it has become very apparent to me, and I think it will in this trial, that there is a deeper issue here and that is something that is not so clear and that is what is liable to be made clear in some of the ongoing activities of the defendants. Testimony will be presented, not just by the plaintiffs, but by former members of the defendant's organizations, which he now admits have dwindled down to five and we believe is even less membership of the extraordinary comical perturbative {SIC sb "vituperative" anon} -- and I use these words with thought; I do not bandy these words about. I don't want to impugn anyone's reputation if they don't deserve it -- but having seen the correspondence that will be shown here and having seen the bags {SIC ?} that mr. Motta continues to bring, not only the libel in the Complaint, but what has been produced since that time, including one's own notice of this lawsuit, going out and registering more of the Order's [page19] copyrights, although knowing they were fully in dispute, it's absolutely clear to me that Mr. Motta is one of the most arrogant fanatical people I have ever associated with. And former members will testify to that. And letters of Mr. Motta will establish that beyond a doubt. And the reason I mention that, Your Honor, is that we are asking for punitive damages in this case. And I think they are well warranted because Mr. Motta has not just once or twice misstated something; he has been ongoing about this. So in conclusion, Your Honor, I think that we are looking at two issues here and that is basically which of these groups is the successor and entitled to the library, but underlying this whole thing, Your Honor, is: Well, what are these people about? And you will get a chance to see these plaintiffs and Mr. Motta and be exposed to comments about them. And I think it will be answered quite dramatically just what kind of person we are dealing with here, the defendant here. And the plaintiffs' request for damages is well substantiated by the facts. Thank you. THE COURT: Thank you. [page 20] Does the defendant wish to make an opening statement at this time? MR. MITTEL: May I reserve my opening statement until we present our case in chief? THE COURT: Yes, you may, sir. MR. MITTEL: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Mr. Mackenzie, with you call your first witness, please? MR. MacKENZIE: Mr. McMurtry. GRADY LOUIS McMURTRY, called as a witness by the plaintiffs and in his own behalf, having been duly sworn, was examined and testified as hereinafter set forth. THE CLERK: State your name for the record; spell your last name, please. THE WITNESS: Grady Louis McMurtry, M-c-M-u-r-t-r-y. DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. MacKENZIE: Q. Mr. McMurtry, what is your age, please? A. Sixty-six. Q. How are you feeling? A. Not too well. I probably should be in the hospital. I have congestive heart failure, but I am up to date. [page 21] Q. If you have any kind of a problem, please let us know and -- THE COURT: Yes. Mr. McMurtry, we have enough flexibility in conducting these court proceedings in order to accommodate any physical problems that any of our witnesses or parties may have. So if you feel in distress in any way, please let us know. THE WITNESS: Thank you, sir. I may get tired after awhile. THE COURT: Okay. BY MR. MacKENZIE: Q. Would you briefly state your educational background? A. Yes. I have a B.A. in Philosophy, University of California, 1965{SIC}; a Master's Degree in Political Theory, U.C. Berkeley, 1950, after I came home from the Korean War. Q. Thank you. You are familiar with the OTO? A. Yes, I am. Q. Are you a member? A. I am. Q. Since what time have you been a member? A. Since april of 1941. [page 22] Q. Have you remained a member? A. Always. Q. Were you initiated into the Order? A. Yes, I was initiated at the Agape Lodge in Los Angeles. Q. Would you explain what the Agape Lodge was? A. Agape Lodge was a group of people organized as a Lodge Ordo Templi Orientis in Los Angeles under the direct supervision naturally of karl Germer in New York and treasurer again of the OTO and Aleister Crowley in England who is {SIC sb. "was" -weh} the head of the Order. Q. To what degree were you initiated? A. In April I was initiated in at the Minerval level and the First Degree of the Ordo Templi Orientis. Q. Would you explain, if you can, what constitutes an OTO entrance initiation into membership? A. Yes. There is an active personal exchange of views of others and obligations and actions are taken -- physically, you must be present physically. We do not give initiation by mail. Q. Are there any ceremonies involved? A. Yes, ceremonies. Actual exchange of people coming in an being traditional {SIC sb. "traditionally" -pla} hoodwinked and thinks like that, given -- put through certain motions and asked certain questions and then given certain degrees. [page 23] Q. By this do you mean an interchange? A. An interchange of activity between the -- the officers of the Order and the people to be initiated. Q. Would you just briefly explain how many degrees or levels of membership there are? A. Yes. Minerval Degree, a secret of Wisdom, and there are ten degrees, 1 through 10. There is a -- Ninth Degree is administrative. Ten Degrees are national heads. Eleventh Degrees exist outside the Order, but can be recognized by the Order. It has no administrative function for the Order, however. Q. All right. Thank you. THE COURT: Mr. MacKenzie, for the benefit of the court reporter at our recess write out for the court reporter some of these popular phrases so she gets them correctly, please. MR. MackENZIE: I will be happy to, yes. BY MR. MacKENZIE: Q. Can you explain where OTO gets these rules regarding initiation and so forth? A. Our primary document for our status is in the Intermission towards the Constitutionale of the Order {SIC sb. "Intimation with Reference to the Constitution of the Order" -weh or sb. "Intimation toward the Constitution" -pla or sb. "Intimation" and "Constitution" -def} that is published in the "Blue Equinox". [page 24] It has been handed down for 40 years for a -- for rituals for the various degrees. Q. So we are going to hear a lot of the words "Blue Equinox" in the future. Is that what you are referring to? A. Yes. Q. Would you explain that? Is it that you look for the "Blue Equinox" for the rules? A. We look to the "Blue Equinox" for our Constitution, "Blue Equinox" Volumes publishes periodicals and through Thelema in 1919 Aleister Crowley published a volume of the "Equinox". It had a blue cover. {SIC text somewhat garbled by reporter -weh} It had in it much of the governing material for the Order, including the Intermission for the Constitution {SIC sb. "Intimation with Reference to the Constitution" -weh or sb. "Intimation" -def}. So that is the original thing we had to look for to -- that we looked to. Q. Would you briefly give a little historical background as to the OTO and when it began? A. The OTO, Ordo Templi Orientis, in the modern phrase began around the turn of the century. Mr. Kellner went to India, came back with certain information. It was after that Mr. Reuss came in, and Mr. Reuss initiated Aleister Crowley into the Order. [page 25] Aleister Crowley came in the Order through election. And since he was a pro {SIC sb. "OHO" -def or sb. STET -pla} that became the vehicle for the Thelemic Lodge. {SIC text badly garbled by reporter --weh} Q. How long was Aleister Crowley the Outer Head? A. Let me see. About 40 years, approximately. Q. About 20 years? A. Well, let's see. Forty more likely, because I knew him in the '40s. He died in '47, and he had gotten -- he came into the Order apparently early. Q. I am speaking of him being an Outer Head. A. Oh. From the time he was elected as Outer Head. Q. Yes. When approximately was that? A. I do not have that date in my head. Q. All right. Would you explain if there are -- well, let me ask you first: Are there any provisions made for electing such a leader or Outer Head? A. Yes. The 1917 Constitution, of which the 1919 "Blue Equinox" Constitution's but an abstract, gives provision for electing a head. And it's intimated in the Constitution that since the Outer Head of the order can be deposed, therefore he can be elected. Q. Thank you. Does membership in any of the various degrees [page 26] automatically confer a leadership position on someone? A. Yes. Tenth Degree is national head. Ninth Degree is administrative, and those members are meant to go into the field and look after the needs for information, so forth, of the OTO. The Third Degree -- we have a Minerval First {SIC sb. "Minerval, First," -pla}, Second and Third. When the candidate has reached the Third Degree and initiated, we then have the possibility of that person being given a charter by myself to initiate other people up to the Third Degree. Q. I see. Would you describe the leadership of the position of the OTO at the time of your initiation in the 1940s? A. Yes. Your leadership was very positive. That is to say the Head of the Order was Aleister Crowley in England. The Grand Treasurer, again second position, was Karl Germer in New York. Wilfred Smith was head of the Agape Lodge. Q. All right,. fine. Thank you. How was Aleister Crowley made the leader? A. At that particular time he was elected by -- MR. MITTEL: Objection; foundation. [page 27] BY MR. MacKENZIE: Q. Are you familiar with the history of the Order? A. Yes, I am. Q. Have you read it extensively? A. As best I could. MR. MacKENZIE: Your Honor, I think that Mr. McMurtry has an historical basis. THE COURT: Yes. This is historical background. As I understand the pre-trial readings that I have done in this matter, it isn't seriously contested. However, --- MR. MITTEL: What's contested is how Mr. Crowley may have become head of the Order and what my objection goes to is that I don't believe there is any specific evidence of election as opposed to accession by appointment, if you will, form the predecessor. THE COURT: I will permit the witness to testify as to what knowledge he has on the subject matter. BY MR. MacKENZIE: Q. Go ahead. A. My information as a long-time member of the Order that at that particular time Dr. Reuss designated or proposed Crowley be head of the Order. He was elected [page 28] by the German section, Mr. Tranker, T-r-a-n-k-e-r, and American-Canadian-U.S. section by Frater Achad. Q. What if no such appointment or election takes place? A. In that case, upon the death of a head of the Order, such as Karl Germer died without leaving a -- proposing a successor, then the members of the Order come together. And usually the process is the senior member of the Order is considered to be the superior father, superior member, the mother superior, but we have never had such. Q. What's a Frater Superior? A. It's equivalent to the OHO and is the senior member of the Order. Q. What's the difference, then, between the OHO and Frater Superior? A. The difference is the Frater Superior functions to keep the Order together during the interim period between the time of the emergency of not having an Outer Head of the Order and the time they can get one -- get themselves together in an organizational pattern so that one can be elected. Q. Would it be fair to characterize this as a jure effect? [page 29] A. Such a person is -- Frater Superior is a de facto head, yes. Q. Who was the last Outer Head of the Order? A. Oh, the last? Aleister Crowley. The de facto head of the Order was Karl Germer. Q. What's your basis for calling him a de facto and not de jure? A. Because the tradition of election preserves even that. Aleister Crowley proposed Karl Germer should be elected as the Outer Head of the Order; it was circulated among the Ninth Degrees, of which I was one. He was to call that election within a year of the day of his death. He was Superior of the Order. We. recognized him as that, but he was never properly elected as the higher rank of the Order. Q. I believe you stated that he did not appoint a successor. A. I have no information that Mr. Germer appointed a successor or designated one or even proposed one. Q. What's then the provision of the Order? A. The provision of the Order in terms of leadership is that I am Frater Superior and Caliph and this is due to Aleister Crowley on the battlefields of France and Belgium during World War II. And the documents of authorization which is [page 30] sometimes called patents, called warrants, was sent to me in 1946 when I returned and was living in this country. Q. I would like you specifically to answer the question as to what the provision is with regard to the Order and its properties. A. I am sorry. Yes. The provisions that we have on the Templi is incorporated in the State of California. It has a Board of Directors of which I am Chairman. It has a Grand Treasurer General, Grand Treasurer General {SIC probably one of these Treasurers should be a Secretary -weh} and four members of the Board. Q. Mr. McMurtry, I am not making myself clear. I would like to know what is the situation of the property of the Order in this period . A. Yes, of course. In the interim period in 1968, when I became aware of the loss of the library, I cam back to California to find out why. And so from that point forward my efforts have been and the Order's have been to conserve the property and integrity of the Order as best we can until we can come up where a new OHO can be elected. Q. Who is currently the highest ranking member in the Order? [page 31] A. I am. Q. What degree do you hold? A. Ninth Degree of -- Ninth Degree by paper -- technically that is de facto leadership of the U.S. Q. You indicated that you were initiated in 1941 to the Minerval in the First Degree? A. That is correct. Q. Did you receive any other degrees? A. Yes. In England and London in 1943 in December I was a Crowley graduate in the Ninth Degree. Q. I would like to show you Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 28 and ask you if you recognize it? A. Yes. This is a xerox of a letter received by me from Aleister Crowley dated April 11, 1945. It states that Achad is {SIC sb. "I am" -weh -pla and please check "Achad" -def} a fully paid-up member of the Ninth Degree of OTO and owner of 25 percent of the copyrights of Aleister Crowley's "Magick"' M-a-g-i-c-k, "Without Tears." Q. Is it your contention that is accurate? A. It says here "with first priority on royalties." First priority on royalties. Q. Are you contending that you received a copyright interest? A. Yes. Q. Who initiated you into the Order? [page 32] A. Wilfred Smith was the Master of Agape Lodge at the time of the initiation into OTO Templi in 1941. Q. How did you meet Aleister Crowley? A. Off a troopship on my birthday, October 18, 1943. Within two weeks I was able to meet Aleister Crowley and Jerry Yorke on Sherman Street {SIC sb. "Gerald Yorke on Jermyn Street" -weh or "Gerald" -pla} in London. That was in 1943. Q. Did you maintain contact with Aleister Crowley? A. Yes, I did, while I was in England. Before the invasion I met Aleister Crowley at the London address several times, maybe six. When he moved up to the Belgium at 1010 Dunn {SIC sb. "Bell Inn at Aston-Clinton -weh}, I was in there three, four times. And then when the war was over in May, June of 1945, I took two weeks of annual leave, flew to England to be with Crowley on Hastings Road, which I did. Q. Did you receive the NInth Degree from Crowley before you received this Plaintiffs' Exhibit 28? A. Oh, yes. I received a Ninth Degree in 1943. Q. Did you receive a document at the time of being initiated into the Ninth Degree? A. Yes. There is a document called "Mother and Emblems." {SIC sb. "Modes and Emblems..." -weh or "Modes and" -pla or "Modes" -def} And Mr. Crowley gave me such a document. Q. When someone becomes initiated into the Ninth [page 33] Degree, does one receive a document at that time? A. It would not be a Ninth Degree with that particular document. MR. MITTEL: Objection; move to strike the answer. If he is going to talk about a document, Your Honor, without that particular document, that is one of the categories of documents that we have asked them to produce and they haven't been produced. And I don't think he should be allowed to talk about it under the Best Evidence Rule. THE COURT: On that record your objection is overruled. THE WITNESS: Very well. BY MR. MacKENZIE: Q. What's a patent or patent word in the Order's vocabulary? A. To the best of my knowledge, we have never used that, and Aleister Crowley never used that, and I never found it through the "Equinox". Q. I would like to show you Plaintiffs' Exhibit 30 and ask -- MR. MacKENZIE: Your Honor, I am sorry. I would at this time like to offer Plaintiffs' 28. THE COURT: It may be admitted. [page 34] MR. MacKENZIE: Thank you. (A letter dated August 22, 1944 was marked Plaintiffs' Exhibit 28 for identification and received in evidence.) BY MR. MacKENZIE: Q. I ask you if you would, please, identify this document? A. Yes. This is a letter which is addressed -- the letter is dated 22 August 1944. It's addressed to: "Dear Louie: {SIC sb. "Louis" -def} "Now, the question is to me and the answer is in the envelope. Grady McMurtry." {SIC sb. no indent or quotes -def} Q. Is it your testimony that that letter came in that envelope? A. Yes, it is. Q. I would like to also show you Plaintiffs' Exhibit 29 and ask if you would identify that, please? A. All right. This is a letter from Aleister Crowley to myself. It has initial -- a greeting, Karl. It's addressed on the envelope to Lieutenant Grady L. McMurtry, 820449, U.S. Army, Belgium. It's the last of the Caliphate letters, of which there are three. And he discusses the concept of the Caliphate. THE COURT: You are going to have to slow [page 35] down. A lot of the terms you are using are unfamiliar with the court reporter. I have had some advanced reading on this. It's not as unfamiliar to me. But we have to get the record down. And she has to get it down correctly. Thank you. THE WITNESS: Now, this letter is addressed on the envelope to Lieutenant Grady L. McMurtry. I was in the Army in Belgium. It's dated November 21, 1944. In it it discusses -- BY MR. MacKENZIE: Q. Who sent that to you? A. Aleister Crowley. Q. All right. Well, let's for a moment go on to Plaintiffs' No. 30, the August 22nd letter. Drawing your attention to page 3, I would ask if you would read aloud the sections underlined. A. Yes. Q. -- at the bottom of that page. A. "You are the only man from the USA of the younger generation who has been properly blooded and you know me personally with a remarkable degree of intimacy, considering the shortness of our association. You are also [page 36] quite the most serious and intelligent of the younger lot. This singles you out as a proper man to take charge of affairs when the time is right." Q. What does he mean by "properly blooded"? MR. MITTEL: Objection; foundation BY MR. MacKENZIE: Q. Had Aleister Crowley -- THE COURT: The witness may testify as to what his understanding is. The witness is not competent to testify as to the stated condition of Mr. Crowley, -- THE WITNESS: My -- oh, I am sorry, Your Honor. THE COURT: -- but the witness may testify as to what his understanding is. THE WITNESS: Yes. My understanding of it was that Aleister Crowley was considering me seriously to ba a chief Caliphate following Karl Germer. Ant it was important that Frater Caliphate should experience was as it was, in fact, in the 1940s and 1980s. BY MR. MacKENZIE: Q. Okay. Looking at Plaintiffs' Exhibit 29 on the first page of that document, to which is a photocopy of [page 37] an envelope, halfway down he says, "The Caliphate"? A. Yes. Q. Would you explain your understanding of what was meant by that term? A. Yes. Caliph, C-a-l-i-p-h, is traditionally the successor to a prophet in the Orients, and since it is an Oriental Order or Templi and Otolloy {SIC sb. "Orient, and since it is an Oriental Order or Temple and Crowley" -weh or replace "Otolloy" with "Crowley" -pla -def} was a prophet, he felt his success {SIC sb. "successor" -weh} should be in terms of an office of Caliph following him. Q. To your knowledge, had Aleister Crowley used this word before? A. I do not believe that he ever used it in the "Blue Equinox". I do not believe he ever used it in conversation with Mr. Germer or anybody else. To the best of my knowledge, I am the only person I have been able to find that he wrote to about the Caliph. Q. If you would be so kind as to read the bottom of that page on to the next page. It's a little difficult to make out what's meant there. A. Well, I've been reading Aleister Crowley's writing. Maybe I can make it. "Frater Saturnus"-- Q. Now, these originals -- A. --"is a" -- Sir? Q. Yes. "Frater Saturnus," what does that mean? A. The marksmen {SIC sb. "marks mean" -weh -pla -def} higher order. Those are the --- what do you call -- fire marks for the higher order, the three dots there. Q. Go on. A. "Frater Saturnus is the capitalist" {SIC s. "natural Caliph" -pla -def} -- right at that point he is saying "capitalist" {SIC s. "natural Caliph" -pla -def} -- "but there are many details concerning the actual policy or working which is {SIC sb. "which hit his" -weh -pla -def} blind spots. "In any case, it can only be a stop gap because of his age. I have to look for his underlying successor." {SIC sb. ..." -- underlined -- "successor ... -pla} {SIC should indent quoted portions -def} Q. You are saying Frater Saturnus is the reference to Karl Germer? A. Yes. Q. Would you read the bottom of that page that has been marked in yellow, please? A. Yes. "You are {SIC sb. "Your" -pla -def} actual life or blooding" {SIC sb. "Your actual life of blooding" -weh} -- that is in quotes, b-l-o-o-d-i-n-g -- "is the source {SIC sb. "sort" -pla -def} of initiation, which I regard is {SIC sb. "as" -def} the first essential for a Caliph, oh {SIC sb. "for" -def}, say, 20 years hence. The Outer Head of the Order must, among other things, have had the experience of was as it's an {SIC sb. "it is in" -def} actual fact [page 39] today." Q. If you turn to the next page and read the underlying part? This is page 5. A. Page 5? "Not {SIC sb. "Note" -weh -pla -def} that I treat you as a full member of the Ninth Degree. Only celibacy {SIC sb. "Sorry that" -pla -def} initiations {SIC sb. "grades" -def} could not be given in the form prescribed." He meant in between the initiation sex {SIC sb. "Second" -pla or "Six" -def} through Eighth Degrees. Q. Finally at the top of page 5, would you read that, please? A. Yes. He is prophesizing there in this letter. "In 1965 should be a {SIC sb. "the" -def} critical period in the development of a child Horus." H-o-r-u-s Q. What was he referring to with that? A. Yes. The doctrine of the Order has been that the 1940s were a very stressful period of time, but the 1980s would be even more so. And the child Horus is predicted or prophesized in our sacred text which is call the Book of the Law. And. That means the whole development, such as we have here at the present time, people getting together [page 40] as cellmates {SIC sb. "Thelemites" -pla -def } and developing the concept of Thelema. Q. What year did Karl Germer die? A. 1962. Q. In other words, three years before this reference? A. He missed it only by about three years. MR. MacKENZIE: Thank you, Mr. McMurtry. I would ask that these be offered as Nos. 2 and 3. THE COURT: Which ones? MR MacKENZIE: Both of them that he testified to, Exhibits 29 and 30. MR. MITTEL: Is it going to be necessary that we offer each of these documents that we have already stipulated are admissible? THE COURT: No. The ones that have already been stipulated to, you need not offer them into evidence. The ones in which there has been an objection, then counsel will have an opportunity to state the objection before admission. MR. MacKENZIE: Do you need those copies? THE COURT: I think it would be helpful when you refer to them for the purpose of the court clerk, if you would indicate that this is one that has been stipulated to or one that is contested. [page 41] MR. MacKENZIE: Yes, Your Honor. BY MR. MacKENZIE: Q. Now, Mr. McMurtry, in addition to the -- to your appointment in the Caliphate letters we discussed, did you get any other appointments from Mr. Crowley? A. Yes. When I visited him in Hastings, England in 1945 he appointed me as Sovereign Grand Inspector General of the Order. He gave {SIC sb. "He never gave" -pla} me the papers for that. It's the only appointment, only commission I had from him. It's the only appointment, only commission I had from him. But he did not write a document. But it was Sovereign Grand Inspector General of the Order, that I would investigate the loss of the library in 1969. MR. MITTEL: I move to strike that answer as nonresponsive to the question and also on the ground of the Best Evidence Rule if, indeed, he is talking about a document that hasn't been offered. THE COURT: He said there was no document, as I understand his testimony. The objection is overruled. BY MR. MacKENZIE: Q. I show you Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 26 and ask if you would identify that letter, please? A. Yes. This is from Karl Germer to myself and dated January 12, 1946. Q. Drawing your attention to the paragraph 3 up from [page 42] the bottom -- A. Yes. Q. -- would you read that for us? A. Certainly. "AC wrote to me December 5" -- Q. This is Karl Germer talking? A. Yes. Germer is quoting Aleister Crowley to me about me. "I am very glad Grady has got in touch with you. He seems to be" -- Q. Just the underlined parts, please. A. Oh, the underlined. Okay. "It's of course, part of his duties as a Seventh Degree Sovereign Grand Inspector General is to do just this job of running around certain things {SIC sb. "summing everything" instead of "around certain things" -pla -def} and reporting to to you." Q. What does a Sovereign Grand Inspector General do? A. Basically this is a rank for people who have received the Seventh Degree and then can be designated to report on the affairs for the Outer Head of the Order or any of the top officers of the Grand Treasurer General or Grand Secretary General. Q. As a Sovereign Grand Inspector General, did you [page 43] ever conduct any investigations? A. Yes, twice. When I was visiting Crowley in Hastings in 1945, when he gave me this commission, what we were discussing mostly were his problems with the group in California, Agape Lodge in Los Angeles. So I told him at the time, "Well, when I get home, I will take a look at the situation and write you a report." So in January of 1946 I flew from Berkeley to Los Angeles and I conducted a week's investigation of the Lodge's activity. I wrote Mr. Crowley in January 1946 detailing my findings. That was the first time. The second time was when I was apprised in 1968, '69 that the Crowley library had been burglarized. I resigned my job with the Federal Government in Washington, D.C. and came to California in that capacity of Sovereign Grand Inspector General of the Order to find out what happened, and I did. Q. What conduct did you undertake in that latter investigation? A. Yes. I and others made trips to Calaveras County where we contacted the District -- we contacted the Sheriff of Calaveras County. [page 44] I was in touch through mail with the District Attorney of Riverside County and in touch by mail and in person with the Sheriff of Riverside County. I also wrote reports which I mailed to the FBI and made a number of trips finding out what had happened. Q. What was the conclusion of that investigation? A. My conclusion after my investigation was that the library had been burglarized by a group in Los Angeles who we referred to as the Braytons, B-r-a-y-t-o-n-s. Q. I show you Exhibit -- Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 20. Did you receive any other authorization from Aleister Crowley? A. Yes. I received two documents of authorization of which this is the first one, March 22, 1946. It's addressed Ex-Castrio De Minerval's {SIC sb. "Ex Castro nemoris inferioris" -pla or "Nemonis Inferioris" -def} Q. What does that mean? A. It's from the Neverwood {SIC sb. "Netherwood" -weh -pla -def}, because he was living in a boarding house called Neverwood {SIC same correction} on the ridge outside of Hastings. So it mentions that he is writing me a letter from Neverwood {SIC same correction}. Q. Would you please read the pertinent portions of that? A. Yes. "This is to authorize Frater Hymenaeus [page 45] Al" -- okay -- "of the Renter {SIC sb. "parenthesis" in place of "of the Renter" -def -pla} Captain Grady L. McMurtry" in parenthesis myself -- "to take charge of the whole work of of the Order in California subject to the approval of Frater Saturnus Karl Germer. This authorization is to be used only in emergency." {SIC quotation garbled at start, see exhibit} Q. I show you Plaintiffs' 19 and ask you to identify that. A. This is a second letter of authorization from Aleister Crowley. It's dated April 11, 1946. Q. Let me just stop. Did you receive both of these letters? A. Yes. Q. Fine. A. Again -- again you wish me to -- I have identified it. Q. I would like you to read the relevant portions underlined. A. Yes. "These presents," capital P.R. "to {SIC sb. "P are to" -def} appoint Frater Hymenaeus Grady Louis McMurtry Ninth Degree OTO as Our" -- capital O -- "personal representative in the [page 46] United States of America and his authority is to be considered by {SIC sb. "considered as..."? -weh}} Ourselves" --- capital O for ourselves -- "subject to the approval, revision or veto of our Viceroy." Q. What's a "Viceroy"? A. That is the ranking official in the country that has been designated by a king. Aleister Crowley was a king and he designated Karl Germer to be his Viceroy in the United States of America. Q. So that this reference to "Viceroy" is to Karl Germer? A. Yes. This is not only signed by B-a-p-h-o-m-e-t, Tenth Degree, and OHO, it's also sealed with his seal. Q. I would like to show you Exhibit 27 and ask you if you would identify that, please? A. Yes. I received his letter, which is a copy of a letter -- this letter was from Aleister Crowley to Karl Germer. So I have identified it. Q. Thank you. What's that handwriting at the top of the page? A. Yes. There was a pendant, a little flier, and it had all the greetings and initials, and it says: [page 47] "Dear Grady:" -- and it says: "This is for Saturnus in case my initial message to him in Los Angeles" -- Q. Was it your understanding that you would deliver a copy of that to Mr. Germer? A. It was my understanding that I was to apprise him. I didn't necessarily have to hand it to him. I did apprise him of it, and he acknowledge that. Q. Okay. Turning to the second page, please, would you read that portion marked? A. Um-hum. Q. It's about two-thirds of the way down. A. Right. That is right. "Even apart from you," meaning Germer, "Frater HA," meaning me, "has authority which enables him to supersede Frater Saturnus {SIC sb. "Frater 210" -pla -def} whenever he pleases. The only limitation on his power in California, any decision which he makes is subject to revision or veto by myself." {SIC sb. "yourself" -pla} Q. Would you explain just what that means? A. Yes. It means that Crowley wanted me to take care of the Order in California and revise it. However, I [page 48] was subject to being told, subject to oragation {SIC ? -pla} by Mr. Germer if Mr. Germer found it necessary. Q. What about the prior requirement of approval? The previous document said you also needed the approval of Mr. Germer? A. I believe both documents mentioned approval. Only one document mentions veto or revision. Q. Is that latter document -- is this a latter document which does not mentoin {SIC sb. "mention" -pla -def} approval? MR. MITTEL: Objection; leading. THE WITNESS: I do not have the document in front of me. BY MR. MacKENZIE: Q. What is the date on this document? A. The letter here? Q. Yes. A. 19th June '46. Q. All right. I believe you testified as to the dates of the prior documents, 19, 20? A. 20? Q. Let me show you those again. A. Oh, you mean the number 20? Yes. Q. What are the dates on those, please? A. The first one is March 22, 1946. [page 49] The second one is April 11, 1946. The one for March 22, 1946, I am to take charge of the whole works, Order in California, now subject to the approval of Mr. Germer. In other words, if he approved what I was doing, fine . In a later document -- Q. My point is this, Mr. McMurtry: The subsequent letter then no longer states a requirement of approval? MR. MITTEL: Objection; leading. THE COURT: Well, -- THE WITNESS: It does state "subject to the approval." THE COURT: It's apparent on the face of the document. MR. MacKENZIE: Fine. We will leave it. THE WITNESS: It's subject to the approval. THE COURT: Mr. MacKenzie, just a moment. BY MR. MacKENZIE: Q. I show you Plaintiffs' Exhibit 24 and ask you to identify that? A. Yes. This is a letter from Karl Germer to myself dated August 1, 1946. Q. Would you please read the underlined portions on the first page, the bottom two paragraphs? [page 50] A. "I have decided to suspend Jack Parsons'," P-a-r-s-o-n-s', his lodge position. You should be present at the meeting with Jack in the first place and, as said before, I would like the decision to be made and executed in your name." Q. What was the position of Jack Parsons? A. He was the Lodge Master of Agape Lodge at that time. Q. When you say "Lodge Master," does that -- is that the same thing as head of the lodge? A. Yes. Q. Is the head of a lodge different than the head of the Order? A. Yes. Q. What's the difference? A. Lodge is a local group. The Order is considered to be national and international. Q. What's your understanding of why you should be present at a meeting with Jack Parsons? A. Because Aleister Crowley was confused as to what was going on in Los Angeles and Germer came from New York to Los Angeles. I flew down from Berkeley to -- Q. Why did Germer want you to appear -- [page 51] A. Oh, to verify so that we would both be able to report to Aleister Crowley as to what had happened and if he needed -- if he needed to suspend Jack Parsons, I would be there for verification. Q. It says, "I would like the decision to be made and executed in your name." A. Yes. Q. Does that not suggest something more than verification? MR. MITTEL: Objection; leading. THE COURT: Yes, that is leading. Sustained. THE WITNESS: Okay. BY MR MacKENZIE: Q. Would you please explain what that phrase, "I would like the decision to made and executed in your name," or what your interpretation of that is? A. Yes. This was Mr. Germer's way of acknowledging my document of authorization for California. Q. Would you briefly just state what is the significance of these last four letters of authorization that we looked at? A. The last four? Q. The letters of authorization. A. The letters of authorization, the ones of April -- [page 52] let's see. Those two documents of authorization give me the power to act in this country and California, especially, but in the country as Crowley's personal representative. Q. Fine. Thank you. Was there any time limit put on these authorizations? A. Absolutely none. Q. Do they state if they are to be voided upon the death of Aleister Crowley? A. No, they do not. Q. Did you ever talk to Karl Germer about these letters of authorization? A. I talked to Karl Germer in Los Angeles during one of my investigations. I mentioned to him and asked if he needed to see them. He said, "No." He was quite sure and abrupt in a sense. He said he had already seen them and he didn't need to see them again. Q. Referring to the letter, Plaintiffs' No. 27, which you don't have in front of you, which is the one that Aleister Crowley wrote and sent you a copy of, sent the original -- A. Yes. Q. It discusses "subject to revision or veto"? A. Yes. Q. Did Mr. Germer ever revise or veto any actions that you took? A. Not officially. In the 1950s it became apparent to me that the Order was dying because Karl Germer refused to initiate. As a result I took four trips to Southern California from Berkeley, one to Barstow and three to Los Angeles, to try to get the members of -- surviving of the Agape Lodge together to see if we could get some initiation going. Mr. Germer was very unhappy with these visits of mine. He made it obvious to me he was unhappy and verbally in conversation and in his course. {SIC sb. "correspondence" -weh} And since he had expelled Mr. Kenneth Grant from the Order, I saw no point in conducting my investigation against his wishes, so I quit. Q. I am sorry. You what? A. I saw no point in conducting my investigations, so I quit doing that. Q. Quit doing your investigation? A. Investigation to try to get the Order back together, because Mr. Germer would have taken some official action against me if I did not stop, but he [page 54] never did take such official action. Q. I would like to show you Plaintiffs' exhibit No. 115 and ask if you would identify that, please? A. Oh, yes. THE COURT: What number? MR. MacKENZIE: 115. THE COURT: 115? MR. MacKENZIE: Yes, Your Honor. THE WITNESS: These are the minutes of Agape Lodge for September 17. It doesn't say what here, but in any case -- BY MR. MacKENZIE: Q. Would you know what year or approximately what year, if not the year, the decade? A. Well, certainly it was in the -- okay. It was in the -- sometime between 1940s, I believe. Q. If you will take a look at the first line. I believe the date is on there. A. Yes, Oh, yes. 1946. Q. Would you please read the pertinent portions underlined? A. Yes. Quote: "Special meeting called. Short business meeting of members. Presided: Brother Karl Germer [page 55] Brother McMurtry then took over, stating that he spoke with the authority he had received from Baphomet in Hastings, which he read." Q. Is that, in essence, your presentation of your authorizations? A. I was in great pain to say, sure, that the Agape Lodge group knew that I had these authorizations from Aleister Crowley. Q. I show you Exhibit No. 114 -- Just one last question: Who prepared these minutes, generally? A. Generally speaking, that was Gene Wood. Gene, G-e-n-e, Wood was the secretary for most of these minutes in that time period. She was a lady. Q. Looking at 114, I would just ask if you would read the initials of the three -- I had the three people receiving carbon copies of this. A. This is the minutes of Agape Lodge for October 3, 1947 and of the people not present who received copies. Aleister Crowley, Karl Germer and Grady McMurtry. Q. Did you occasionally receive copies of Lodge minutes? A. Yes. As a matter of fact, up until the time that Agape Lodge ceased to function as an organization, I had [page 56] them to send me a carbon copy of the meeting. Q. Well, after having received these authorizations, what was your position in the Order hierarchy? A. I would be No. 3. Aleister Crowley was No. 1. Karl Germer, Grand General, was No. 2., and I was No. 3. Q. Do you know if similar letters of authorization were sent or written by Aleister Crowley to other individuals? A. I have never seen any letters of authorization giving powers written by Aleister Crowley to anybody else. Q. Has anybody ever come forward and shown that they had such letters? A. I have never seen such documents and Mr. Mellinger has such letters in which Aleister Crowley had given to him the letters he had written to me concerning our future positions in it. {SIC hopelessly garbled -weh} Q. Who is Mr. Mellinger? A. He was a member of the Ordo Templi Orientis for many years. Q. And you are saying he had similar letters? A. He had letters suggesting that Aleister Crowley valued him very highly and in case of emergency he might have well been called on to serve in such a function as I am serving now, that is, conservator of the property [page 57] and effects of the Order. However, he never, so far as evidence is concerned, gave him any document of authorization to take charge of anything. Q. Have you seen letters that Mr. Crowley had sent to Mr. Mellinger? A. Yes, I have. Q. Is there any reference to a Caliph in those letters? A. No, not that I know of. Q. Do you have any knowledge as to why Mr. Crowley may have sent such letters to Mr. Mellinger? A. Yes. Mr. Crowley was looking for successors 20 or 30 years down the road. He knew that Karl Germer wouldn't live too long and Mr. Mellinger was a possibility. Q. When did Mr. Crowley die? A. In 1947 Q. All right. I show you Exhibit No. 9 and ask if you would tell us what that is? A. Yes. This is the probate concerning Aleister Crowley's death and his last will and testament. Q. If you would take a look at the portion that is underlined on the bottom, two lines of the typewritten will, continuing on to the top of the following page [page 58] what exactly is Mr. Crowley bequesting you? A. "I give and bequest my books and writings and literary effects so collected to my literary executor free of all debts, duties on trust, because they shall be -- they shall hand the same to the Grand Treasurer General of the Ordo Templi Orientis" -- Q. Continue. A. --- "for the simultaneous use and benefit of said order." Q. -- "for the simultaneous use" -- A. -- "for the simultaneous use and benefit of said Order," meaning the Ordo Templi Orientis. Q. In other words, he was bequesting his works -- A. -- to the Ordo Templi Orientis, not some other organization. Q. Now, would you read the following section a little bit lower on that page? A. Yes. "I bequest free of all debts, duties all the copyrights in [page 59] my books and writings whatsoever and wheresoever including any copyrights over which the -- at the date of my death I may have any power of disposition to the Ordo Templi Orientis aforesaid." Q. Going back to the 25-percent interest in the "Magick Without Tears" that he had previously granted you, about how much prior to that was that grant made to you? A. Let me see. Two years, as I recall. '45, '47. Q. Well, after Mr. Crowley died then who succeeded him as the Outer Head of the Order? A. Mr. Karl Germer. Q. And I believe you -- you drew a distinction and de jure and de facto? A. Yes. Aleister Crowley had proposed Mr. Germer to be his successor. It was to be made valid by an election of Ninth Degrees of which I was notified and which I was one at the time. MR. MITTEL: Objection; foundation. Move to strike all that following the mention of the "de facto." No prior testimony about any election that was to be held or anything of that nature. MR. MacKENZIE: I believe he testified the [page 60] procedure in which such an election should be held. THE COURT: Why don't you rephrase the question? BY MR. MacKENZIE: Q. Mr. McMurtry, do you know what the manner of Mr. Germer's election was intended to be? A. Yes. He was supposed -- MR. MITTEL: Objection THE COURT: Yes. Lay a foundation first. THE WITNESS: Okay. BY MR. MacKENZIE: Q. From you knowledge of the Order's Constitution through "Equinox", are you aware of what the procedure for a successor head of the Order is -- of election would be? MR. MITTEL: Objection; leading. The use of the word "election." BY MR. MacKENZIE: Q. Then let me take out that word "election." Based on your knowledge of the "Blue Equinox," do you know how the successor would fall into the position of the Outer Head? A. The "Blue Equinox'" Constitution is based on the 1917 Constitution. My memory of the '17 Constitution, of which [page 61] we have only had a copy for the last two months, is there could be an elector appointment, because the 1917 Constitution provided that the OHO may amend the Constitution by edict. Q. Are you holding up all right? A. Therefore he could appoint a successor other than having to elect. Q. Are you holding up all right? THE WITNESS: We will recess around 10:30? THE COURT: Yes, we will recess. THE WITNESS: I will hold up another ten minutes, I think. MR. MacKENZIE: Fine, thank you. BY MR. MacKENZIE: Q. Now, based on that knowledge, do you know what the intended procedure from Mr. Germer's -- I don't want to say "election," but "accession" would be -- A. Yes. He was proposed by Aleister Crowley to begin his validation by the fellow members of the Ninth Degree. And this was to take place within a year and a half -- I am sorry -- within a year and a day of Crowley's death. MR. MITTEL: Objection. I move to strike this testimony. There is no ground for his testifying [page 62] what Aleister Crowley proposed to do. THE COURT: Follow it up with another question. On what did he base that knowledge? MR. MacKENZIE: Yes, Your Honor. BY MR. MacKENZIE: Q. What do you base that answer on, Mr. Mcmurtry, the answer as to Mr. Germer's succession, the procedure followed? A. Oh, the answer. We have it in the documents someplace. Didn't you already show it to me -- oh, no, you didn't. In any case, there is a document in which Aleister Crowley specified that there should be a General Council of the Order to be -- position to be occupied by Ninth Degrees. MR. MITTEL: Objection. That is in evidence, Your Honor. THE COURT: He is testifying about a document. If we have it, let's have it. If we don't he can testify what his knowledge is. BY MR. MacKENZIE: Q. Well, to continue with that a little further: Did Mr. Germer succeed to the Outer Head position in this [page 63] manner? A. Yes. He was proposed by Aleister Crowley and upon Aleister Crowley's death, he became Outer {SIC sb. "Frater" -def} Superior and de facto OHO and continued in that position. Q. Why do you say "de facto"? A. Because no General Council was ever held, and he was never given the verification of the other members of the Order. Q. I see. But he acted as the head of the Order? A. Yes, he did. Q. Was he regarded as the head of the Order? A. He certainly was. Q. Fine. Thank you. I show you Plaintiffs' No. 23 and ask if you recognize that, please? A. This is a letter from Aleister Crowley to Karl Germer dated 6 June 1947. Q. About how long before his death did he write that? A. About five months. Q. Okay. Would you read the portion underlined, the bottom paragraph of the first page? A. Yes. Speaking to Mr. Germer: "You seem in doubt, too, about the succession. There has never been any question about this since [page 64] your reappearance. You are the only successor of whom I have ever thought since that moment. I have, however, had the idea that in view of the disbursement of so many members, you might find it useful to appoint a triumvirate to work under you. My idea was Mellinger, McMurtry and I suppose Roy Leffingwell." Q. Turning to the bottom paragraph of page 2 -- A. Yes. "I shall leave it entirely to you to decide about your triumvirate before {SIC sb "after" -weh} my death." Q. Did Mr. Germer ever make any -- to you knowledge -- ever make any decision on this triumvrate? A. Apparently he made a decision which was negative, because I didn't -- all right. Fine. Q. I show you Exhibit No. 35 and ask if you can identify that? A. Yes. This is a letter from Karl Germer to Mr. Grady McMurtry. It's dated March 1, 1948. Q. Two years after the prior letter then? A. Um-hum. Q. What is being suggested in this letter? [page 65] A. "I don't want the property in my name. I want it in the -- in that of the Order. To that end we must legalize the OTO formally. And I don't know how to do this properly in the State of California. As officers I include you" -- I am sorry -- "As officers I want three Brothers who have been connected with Grand Lodge. This includes you, Frederic Mellinger and I think Max Schneider and Jane Wolfe, if a female can, according to the Constitution, be appointed as an officer which I think can be done." Q. Continuing with the next sentence? A. Next sentence? I don't see another sentence underlined. Q. The following sentence. A. Right. I am sorry. "As soon as this is accomplished, the property can be put into the name of the Order." Q. Now, did Mr. Germer speak to you specifically about wanting you and two others to incorporate? [page 66] A. Well, to incorporate? Now, that was different. Q. Did he discuss it with you? A. Well, yes. We discussed the corporation when we met with Jack Parsons in about -- what was that -- 1948. Q. Was the Order incorporated? A. No, it was not. It should have been. Mr. Parsons -- I visited an attorney with Mr. Parsons in that time period. And the attorney was going to draw up the papers, but then -- I never heard anything from Mr. Parsons after I returned to the Berkeley-San Francisco area. Q. Do you know if Mr. Germer still wanted the Order incorporated? A. At that time he did, but his opinion later I do not know. Q. Are you familiar with the Order as it was conducted under Aleister Crowley? A. Yes, I am. Q. And under Karl Germer? A. Yes. Q. Can you state if there were any differences between their conduct? A. There were considerable differences. Aleister Crowley encouraged initiations, encouraged bringing [page 67] people into the Order, encouraged the teachings of our various ways of looking at things. Karl Germer refused to initiate and he did not hold meetings. And he simply allowed the Order to die so far as organized membership was concerned. Q. In what manner did he discourage meetings? A. He never held any. And when I tried to discuss with him the possibility of bringing new people in which was, of course, the reason for my visit to Los Angeles, he was very abrupt and suggested that I was trying to undermind {SIC sb. "undermine" -def -weh} the Order. THE COURT: Mr. MacKenzie, could you take a recess at this time? MR. MacKENZIE: I will be happy to, Your Honor. THE COURT: Mr. McMurtry, you may step down for a few moments. (Brief recess taken.) THE CLERK: Mr. MacKenzie, we are ready to resume. THE COURT: Yes, proceed. THE CLERK: Mr. McMurtry, you are still under oath. You recognize that? THE WITNESS: Yes. GRADY LOUIS McMURTRY, [page 68] having been previously sworn, resumed the witness stand and was examined and testified further as follows: DIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued) BY MR. MacKENZIE: Q. I would like to ask you what the word "Order" refers to in your parlance? A. The "Order" -- the word "Order" in my understanding is Ordo Templi Orientis as specified by Aleister Crowley in his last will and testament in which he was giving his last effects to OTO. In that will he also specified the Order. By the "Order," he meant the Order of Ordo Templi Orientis in the will. Q. Thank you. I would like you to take a look at Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 42. A. Yes, this is a flier. I see {SIX sb. "say" -weh} a flier, the above one, because it was attached to a letter to me from Karl Germer. Q. Okay. If you would read the underlined portion in the middle of that sentence, please? A. In the middle of the sentence, yes. ... "the Council shall discuss the existing condition of the Order, that is A.'.A.'."[page 69] Q. Now, what's -- is A.'.A.'. a part of OTO? A. No, it's not. It's an entirely separate organization. Q. It's another organization? A. I speak of it as an organization. Technically, A.'.A.'. has no organizational structure. OTO is organized and the material universe is at work. A.'.A.'. is strictly individual instruction from one person to another. There is no organization as such. Q. Are there some OTO members who are A.'.A.'. members? A. Yes. As a matter of fact, quite a few. Q. But it's your testimony that there is no overlap of the two organizations? A. I didn't say overlap. I say they are two different organizations. The organizations -- there is no overlap except individual members may be members of both groups. Q. Now, when Karl Germer is here speaking of the Order, is it your understanding he is speaking of the OTO or of the A.'.A.'.? A. Karl Germer -- this note was from -- okay. The problem with Mr. Germer, he quite often confused OTO with A.'.A.'. He referred to A.'.A.'. as the "Order," because [page 70] it's an innermost secret sort of thing and technically of a higher order. However, it has no relation to the Ordo Templi Orientis. Q. Thank you. I ask you to look at Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 1. A. This is a letter from Karl Germer to myself. It's dated November 10, 1959. Q. Now, in it there is a reference to a debt. Would you explain what that debt refers to? A. Yes. Sometime in our -- 1956 or '55, something in there -- Karl Germer loaned me the money to buy an automobile. And as I recall, it was somewhere around 300, $350, and which I was going to pay him periodically about $10 a month until it was paid off, which I did. Q. Did that debt have an effect on your relationship with Karl Germer? A. Yes. That debt really deteriorated the relationship between myself and Mr. Germer, because at the time I was a graduate student at the University of California and I was having difficulty coming up with $10 a month. But, however, I did finish paying the bill. He became extremely unhappy with me because he felt I [page 71] should have paid it sooner. Q. Well, is it fair to say you had the deterioration with the relationship with Karl Germer? A. Yes, it is. Q. What do you think was the principal cause of that deterioration? A. Mr. Germer, while he was in New York, was very favorable to the entire situation in California. However, when he came to california in 1950 he ran into a number of difficulties. Some people did not pay back their debts to him. As a consequence, he became very disillusioned with the entire organization and after that simply disregarded it. Q. Were you an active member of this Order at the time of his death? A. Yes. At the time of Mr. Germer's death? Q. Yes, during these years. A. I was involved with the Order. I considered myself a member of the Order, but there was no organization to report to. Q. Was that debt repaid? A. The debt on the automobile, yes. Q. Now long did you then remain in California? A. Form what date, sir? [page 72] Q. After the car loan. A. Oh, right. I remained in California until 1961. Q. What did you do in '61? A. I took a job with the Federal Government in Washington, D.C. with the Treasury Department as a management intern for a year, and then with the Labor Department as a training officer. Q. Now, while you were -- let me show you Plaintiffs' Exhibit 81. Just hold on to that, please. Take a look at that, if you would. A. Um-hum. Q. While you were out in Washington, D.C., did you maintain contact with members in California? A. Yes, for quite awhile up to 1962. I was writing to Mildred Burlingame, and I was writing to Jean Sihvonen, S-i-h-v-o-n-e-n, in Barstow, California. Q. Did you -- this is a letter that you wrote? A. Yes. This is a letter from myself to Jean Sihvonen on January 31, 1962. Q. What was the purpose of this letter? A. I received a letter from her, and I was responding. And I was sending her some Aleister Crowley material I had promised her previously. Q. Drawing your attention to the bottom four lines of the middle paragraph, beginning with the fourth line [page 73] from the bottom that starts: "But I suppose it could form the basis," would you take a look at that, please, and then tell us what you were intending? A. Oh, yes. I was trying to enlighten her concerning some of the correspondence and documents of authorization from Crowley. And what I say is: "Not that it makes a great deal of difference. As I said at the time we were originally discussing this makes action contingent on Karl's say-so, but I suppose it could form the basis for legal action to recover AC's letters and things. We want to keep Sascha from having them in case Karl does not let us" -- end quote. Q. What was your intention with the library? A. To conserve it for the Order. Q. I see. Thank you. Following this letter, when did you next have a correspondence or communication with another OTO member? A. During my time in Washington, D.C. after a certain period of time we simply stopped writing to each other until Phyllis Seckler wrote me in 1968. [page 74] MR. MacKENZIE: May I ask, Your Honor: I am assuming that everything I have so far produce has been introduced, although I know that Mr. Mittel has some objection. I think your objection for 42 is incomplete. If that is still outstanding, I would at this time like to offer that. THE COURT: Which exhibit? MR. MacKENZIE: Exhibit 42. We just did that one. MR. MITTEL: I do object. THE COURT: Just a second. MR. MITTEL: It's incomplete. THE COURT: Well, will you lay a foundation for what it is, Mr. MacKenzie, and I can rule on this. BY MR. MacKENZIE: Q. I would like you to take a look at 42 again, if you would. A. Yes. Q. Tell me if there is something missing with that letter. Is there another page? Was there another page? A. This is not a letter. I received a letter in which a piece of paper this size was stapled to it and this was a notification stapled to the letter. [page 75] Q. Did the letter refer to that notification you have in your hands? A. There was some general reference. However, this was the thing on which we based the idea of calling together a General Council. THE COURT: Who wrote Exhibit 42? THE WITNESS: Sir? THE COURT: Who wrote Exhibit 42? THE WITNESS: Oh, this? The Saturnus, Karl Germer. We identify this by his signature, because it's a seal. This is the way he signed most of his documents. THE COURT: Do you know what document this was attached to? THE WITNESS: There is a letter from Aleister Crowley -- no, I am sorry. It was a letter from Karl Germer to myself. THE COURT: Do we have that exhibit? MR. MITTEL: Your Honor, I may be able to obviate all of this by asking the witness one question. THE COURT: Go ahead. VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION BY MR. MITTEL: Q. Mr. McMurtry, do I understand your testimony to be that this letter is about the A.'.A.'. and not about the [page 76] Ordo Templi Orientis? A. The letter was not necessarily about that. This notice was about that. The letter was basically business of the Order at the time. Q. This exhibit speaks only to the A.'.A.'. not to the Ordo Templi Orientis? A. That is what it says there. However, it was the -- the election was to be Ninth Degree of the OTO. Q. Give me a yes or no. Is this exhibit about the Ordo Templi Orientis. A. The exhibit is about the A.'.A.'. MR. MITTEL: In that case, Your Honor, I withdraw the objection. THE COURT: Fine. 42 may be admitted into evidence. (Plaintiffs' Exhibit 42 previously marked for identification was received in evidence.) DIRECT EXAMINATION (Resumed) BY MR. MacKENZIE: Q. Following your 1962 letter to Jean Sihvonen, when did you next have correspondence or communication with someone in the OTO? A. 1968 from -- Phyllis Seckler wrote me and apprised [page 77] me of the burglary of the Aleister Crowley library at West Point, California. Q. Is Phyllis Seckler and OTO member? A. She is. Q. What was it that she told you? A. She wrote me that the Aleister Crowley library had been burglarized and wanted to know if I knew anything about it. I wrote back and said, "I certainly did not." But through the correspondence, arrangements were made for me to come to California to investigate. Q. Did she talk to you about any of the accusations that had surrounded that theft? A. Yes. There were the accusations that -- Sascha Germer wrote an accusation against Phyllis' daughter, Stella, S-t-e-l-l-a, and accused her of being the woman who had come to the front door and sprayed some kind of acid in her eyes and had blinded her. Q. After receiving this letter, what did you do next? A. Well, for one thing I wrote a letter to Sascha disclaiming all of this. And, of course, Phyllis wrote letters to her disclaiming it. Q. Did you return to California? A. Yes, I returned to California in the spring of [page 78] 1969. Q. What was your position with the Government? A. I was with the Department of Labor at the time. I resigned that position because of Aleister Crowley having appointed me the Grand Inspector General of the Order and it was my duty to come to the West Coast to find out what had happened. Q. You undertook an investigation, did you? A. Yes. Q. What did that consist of? A. That consisted of talking to everybody, to Dr. Francis I. Regardie, R-e-g-a-r-d-i-e. I also talked to Mildred Burlingame who is the one who had known the Braytons and from whom the Braytons had taken the material originally. Q. Was Mildred Burlingame an OTO member? A. Yes, she was. Q. Go on. A. So I talked to Mildred Burlingame. I talked to Dr. Regardie, and we knew that from various evidence that these were the people who had taken the material. Q. Did you contact any authorities? A. Yes. I contacted personally, that is, in person, the District Attorney of Calaveras County where the burglary had taken place and also the Sheriff of [page 79] Calaveras County. And I wrote to both of them. I also contacted by mail the District Attorney of Riverside County where the Braytons had the material. And I also met the sheriff's -- one of the sheriff's deputies from Calaveras County personally. I also wrote my reports to the FBI. Q. So you prepared a report after your investigation? A. Yes. I prepared -- well, in the fortunate sense I wrote all of these letters, so the information would be available. There was no reason to write a formal report, because I would only be reporting to myself. Q. What was the result of your investigation? A. That a group in California, the Braytons, Jean Brayton, B-r-a-y-t-o-n, and her husband had engineered the burglary and they had taken this material back to Los Angeles. Q. What year did Karl Germer die? A. In 1962. Q. So Sascha had possession -- his wife had possession of the library at this time? A. Yes. Q. What was the status of the OTO at the time? A. Organizationally it was nonexistent. There were [page 80] individual members of the Order who considered themselves legitimate members of the Order, but there was no organization. No organization, no meetings -- no organization, no meetings, no initiations. Q. Did you inform Sascha of your investigation. A. No, I did not. Q. Okay. I show you Document No. 13 and ask if -- ask you to take a look at that? A. This letter was written by me to Mrs. Sascha, S-a-s-c-h-a, Germer in West Point, California. It's dated October 25, 1970. Q. Do you state your conclusion -- A. Um-hum. Q. -- in that letter? A. Yes. "Phyllis has made this investigation as a friend of yours and because she wishes to clear the name of her daughter Stella, she could not have possibly have been the woman who assaulted you, I have made this investigation in my official capacity as Sovereign Grand Inspector General of the OTO, a position Aleister appointed me to [page 81] in" -- I say '46. Of course, it was '45. -- "and because in 1956 {SIC sb. "1946" -weh} Aleister Crowley also gave me documents of the organization as his personal representative in the United States of America to take charge of the affairs of the OTO in California, specifically. As you will see my authorization is an emergency power subject to Karl's veto while alive, but automatically going into effect so that there would be one to follow after Karl's death." Q. Thank you. MR. MacKENZIE: I would, Your Honor, ask that that be introduced as an exhibit. MR. MITTEL: Objection; hearsay. MR. MacKENZIE: Your Honor, I think this is a report -- first of all, it's in the report, also in the letter and could be an impression -- THE COURT: What is the portion that you object to as hearsay -- MR. MITTEL: The whole letter. [page 82] THE COURT: It's his letter. He wrote it. MR. MITTEL: I have no objection to the testimony, but I don't think the letter can be admitted. THE COURT: What is the purpose of this being offered? MR. MacKENZIE: The purpose is principally, Your Honor, that Mr. McMurtry continued in an official capacity as OTO. The defendant will argue that he more or less neglected the organization or abandoned it. Secondly, he is restating his Crowley authorization granting him the certain powers, and that shows he has maintained this all along, but that is principally it, Your Honor. THE COURT: The objection is overruled. BY MR. MacKENZIE: Q. Did you get any kind of response from Sascha Germer to your letter? A. No. Q. Now, this is letter is dated about 1970? A. Yes. Q. Would you explain -- did you undertake any activity on behalf of the OTO after returning to California other than that investigation? [page 83] A. Yes. As a consequence of my return to California, I would discover that Aleister Crowley's terra {SIC sb. "Tarot" -pla -def} cards known as Thoth, T-h-o-t-h, was available for publication in color. Q. Could you explain for a moment what those cards are? A. Terra {SIC sb. "Tarot" -pla -def} cards are symbolic references to the psychic bodies of individuals and it has a very close relation to Yoga in the sense that each part is laid out in an interpretative fashion. Q. When you say "Aleister Crowley's terra [SIC sb. "Tarot" -pla -def] cards," can you explain that? A. Aleister Crowley had in 1970 {SIC sb. 1940's -weh} designed in terra {SIC sb. "Tarot" -def -weh} cards as the authority, Thoth, T-h-o-t-h. These cards were put into execution in England by Freda Harris, F-r-e-d-a, Harris, and were painted by her in water color. This then became the -- these paintings, when we make color slides out of them and then had them printed as cards. Q. How did that involve your activity on your return to California? A. Very much so. Because in the process of investigation of the Braytons for the burglary, I discovered, as I said, that those decks were available [page 84] for publication in color. So at that time I wrote to Mr. Gerald Yorke, Y-o-r-k-e, Gerald Yorke in England, and I enclosed a xerox of a set from Aleister Crowley to myself in which he had acknowledged that I have given him 250 British pounds at the time to get the "Boot of Thoth" published in England. So I sent this xerox of this set to Mr. Yorke, whereupon he wrote back and gave me first refusal to ownership of publication, which I did. Q. Which you did, you mean on your on {SIC sb. "own" -weh} behalf or for the Order? A. I did it personally, but I did it for the Order. Q. Did you have any identification of the Order printed on the cards? A. Yes. There were two identifications. One was on the case in which the deck came enclosed which had the number of the Order of the deck itself. There was a Caliph card along with the other cards telling where this deck had been published and giving my name and address in Dublin, California. Q. Did it give the name Ordo Templi Orientis? A. Yes. And lamen, l-a-m-e-n. Q. Did you undertake any other activities at this early stage? [page 85] A. Yes. Phyllis and I founded the College of Thelema in which I put my talent to administrative analysis to get it formed organizationally. We had an organization called Continuum, C-o-n-t-i-n-u-u-m. And we had people coming by to discuss things with us, and we were also mailing out things. This would eventuate informal classes, summer lectures, and things of this nature. Q. Can you briefly tell the Court what the College of Thelema is? A. Yes. It's a group of people basically under Phyllis Seckler, who used to be Phyllis McMurtry, and she operates out of Woodland High School. She has her correspondence, and every once in awhile they get together for meetings. Q. Did you initiate any members? A. Yes, we did. We initiated a number of members over a five-year period. Q. As regard the initiations, by what authority were you initiating? A. As a Ninth Degree Ordo Templi Orientis, it was my obligation to initiate when I could. Q. Are there any documents of authorization that you act under? [page 86] A. Well, at the beginning of the course with my Ninth Degree papers from Crowley in '43 and the two Frater {SIC sb. "Caliph" -def} letters and, of course, the two documents of authorization. Q. Are these also called -- are these things called charters? A. The word "charter" is not mentioned, nor is the word "patents." However, they take the place of it, a patent or a charter. Q. Do you need a charter to initiate someone? A. Yes, you do. Q. Now, where is this stated? A. In the ritual of Ordo Templi Orientis in the Third Degree ritual it's specified, "I will not initiate or preport to initiate without a charter from Baphomet," B-a-p-h-o-m-e-t. Q. Has this rule for Third Degree initiation, has that ever appeared in print? A. I do not recall it having been in -- appearing print unless, of course, it's in Francis King's book, "The Secret Rituals of the OTO." I have not researched that particular question in his book. Q. Thank you. [page 87] I would like to show you Plaintiff's Exhibit NO.44 and ask if you would identify that, please? A. Yes. This is a Certificate of Registration of name and insignia of an unincorporated nonprofit association which was -- which I applied for and received in 1971. Q. Fine. Thank you. A. The name of the organization, Ordo Templi Orientis. Q. When did you first hear of Sascha Germer's death? Primarily I should ask: When did she die? A. Sascha Germer died in -- oh, boy. I believe it was 1975, as I recall. Q. When did you first hear of her death? A. In 1976. I believe it was Helen Parsons Smith who discovered the death, and so informed me. Q. Had you any correspondence with Sascha? A. No. Q. Now, about the time of learning of her death, did you know Jim Wasserman? A. I knew Jim Wasserman in the middle of 1967 {SIC may be "1976"? -weh}. I may have heard of her death before then. I do not remember. Q. Fine. Well, did you discuss with Him Wasserman your claims in the OTO? A. I imagine I did, because he took the Minerval Degree of initiation in OTO. Q. In your discussions with Mr. Wasserman, did the [page 88] name Marcelo Motta come up? A. Yes. Q. Did Mr. Wasserman discuss with you Mr. Motta's claims? A. Yes. Q. What were your reactions? A. At that time things were extremely unclear. However, it was our impression that Mr. Motta had met Mr. Germer and that they had conversed. And, for all I knew, some initiation might have taken place, although it seemed somewhat dubious. Nevertheless, I was willing to believe, based on future evidence, that he was a member of some kind of order. Q. At the time you were making these -- having these reactions, did you have access to the library? A. We did not have access to the library until we brought down the Superior Court order in Calaveras County. Q. That is fine. I just want to establish if at the time you were talking about Jim Wasserman you had access to the library so as to verify the claims Mr. Motta was stating? A. We brought down the materials from Calaveras County, and he took a look at the material. [page 89] Q. That was subsequent to your discussions with Mr. Wasserman? A. Yes. Q. Did you have any access to the library in the years prior to the Calaveras Court decree? A. NO. Q. Did you ever write to Mr. Motta following this meeting with Mr. Wasserman? A. Yes. In 1976 I wrote to Mr. Motta, apprised him of the Superior edict coming down and I offered him peace, that is, to say if he had the legitimate A.'.A.'. initiation from Mr. Germer, I would recognize it. In the meantime, I -- meantime he recognize my legitimate document from the OTO from Aleister Crowley. Q. Are you saying you believed he was not an OTO member? A. I did not know he was an OTO member, but I was willing to accept that he might be in England. Q. I see. What was his response? A. He wrote back and threatened to sue me, demanded xeroxes of everything in the library, which is financially impossible, and offered to send no money in regard to it, demanded access to the library, but he did not ask for his personal correspondence back, curiously [page 90] enough. Q. I would like to show you Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 51 and ask you to identify it. A. Okay. Yes. This is a letter form {SIC sb. "from" -pla} Mr. Motta to myself dated 29 July 1976 written from Brazil. THE COURT: What is the number? THE WITNESS: 51. BY MR. MACKENZIE: Q. Would you please read the underlined portion in the middle of the first page, the full paragraph? A. Mr. Motta says: "It's never been my intention to claim the grade of OHO as I have repeated prior consequences as {SIC sb. "in private correspondence and" -def} stated in print. However, I shall still have the intention of supervising the election of the OHO in five years from the date of publication of "Equinox" 5 No. 1 as per the Manifesto. You may" -- "or may not" -- "be a candidate at that time." The following, paragraph 2? Q. No. Thank you. But if you will turn to the bottom of page 2, I would like you to -- let me just ask you one question: Based on that, was it your belief that Mr. Motta was an [page 91] OHO? A. No, I didn't think he was OHO. Q. If you would read to us the bottom of page 2 and the top of page 3? A. Yes. Mr. Motta writes: "I will rebate your proposal with a counter-proposal. I want xeroxes of all of the unpublished material in the Thelemic library without exception. If you refuse to provide these, I cannot take you to court at present as James Wasserman has undoubtedly informed you that I do not have the necessary funds to do so, but I will take you to court eventually. And once more, I will win. You are trying to bypass a legitimate heir" -- Q. Thank you. That is sufficient. How many documents were in that library? A. It's really impossible to tell. There is no way for Phyllis and I to properly inventory the Thelemic material, except over a period of time. Phyllis was trying to do that after we got it back. [page 92] Q. Was the material in boxes? A. Yes. It was mostly in boxes. And I believe it was four filing cabinets. Q. Do you know how many boxes there were? A. Around 40, as I recall. Q. Okay. Now, he says here: "You are trying to bypass a legitimate heir." Mr. Germer, {SIC sb. "heir (Mr. Germer)" -def} on page 2. A. Yes. Q. Do you know what was intended by that sentence? A. Yes. It's Mr. Motta's contention that Karl Germer gave him some kind of authorization in his meetings with him in 1956, I believe, and that these -- this authority from Mr. Germer made him some kind of a successor. However, the truth of the matter is that no successor was named by Mr. Germer. Q. In requesting copies of the library did Mr. Motta enclose any money? A. No, he did not. Q. Did he offer to pay for it? A. No. Q. Now, going down into the following next paragraph, let me just read a portion of it to you. He says: "Only documents from Saturnus 10 {SIC sb. "X" -def} OTO [page93] are valid." Is this your belief? A. I am sorry. Sir? Q. On page 3. A. On page 3, what paragraph? Q. Just a minute. Looking at that, is that your belief that only documents from Saturnus 10 {SIC sb. "X" -def} are valid? A. No, it's not. Q. Who is Saturnus 10? {SIC sb. "X" -def} A. Saturnus OTO would be Karl Germer. Q. Reading on, if you would, the following sentence, please? A. Very well. "And only documents from the Saturnus" -- "and failing this the OHO will have eventually been {SIC sb. "to be" -def} elected, but this shall be done by Brother N {SIC sb. "Brethren" -def} who request I {SIC sb. "can either" in place of "request I" -def} prove a legitimate line of succession from Crowley to Germer or from Germer and people who I recognize from their blank {SIC sb. "strength of" -def} character and degree destructive {SIC sb. "probity and true dedication" in place of "and degee destructive" -def} {SIC should insert "as deserving the honor of" at this point -def} participating in the election." [page 94] Q. Correct me if I am wrong: Is he talking about successor that will have to be elected? A. Yes. The successor can be proposed, but to be validated there should be an election, consent of the body. Q. When a Head of the Order dies, are the documents that his predecessor gave to other people, do they become immediately invalidated? A. No, they do not. Q. What do you base that on? A. Well, Aleister Crowley's documents of operation to me, for example, have no time on it. On the other hand, Mr. Germer's authority had time limits, because he was de facto, not de jure. Q. Now, if I read to you the sentence out of the bottom paragraph: "I honestly intended to have no OTO juristdiction in the United States." What did you understand that to mean? A. It seems a straightforward statement by Mr. Motta that he at one time, at least, had intended not to have any OTO jurisdiction in the USA. Q. Now, getting back to the Calaveras Court, would you explain what that involved? A. Yes. It involved, of course, getting money [page 95] together for the court case. The issue in the case -- MR. MITTEL: Objection, Your Honor, to any testimony about anything other than what factually transpired in the Courthouse. I don't think he is competent to testify about the meaning of that decision. THE COURT: No, he is not, but I have a copy of the Order of the Court, and I think I can filter out the things that he is testifying to. THE WITNESS: In respect to that, sir, yes. The issue in the case was to separate the Order OTO material that is the Thoth Library from Sascha Germer's personal effects. BY MR. MacKENZIE: Q. And it's your testimony that you filed a petition with the Court in order to do that? A. Yes. Q. And thereafter you got a Court Order and possession of the material was given to you? A. Yes. Q. What did you do with the library after that? A. Well, we hired a U-Haul truck and brought it down to Dublin, California, to Phyllis' and my house in Dublin. We stored it in her garage, and I started to [page 96] separate Sascha's personal material from the Order material. Q. Let me show you Plaintiffs'' Exhibit 130 and ask if you recognize that? A. I do not recall this really but, yes, I see. 1976. This is a letter to me from Mr. J, Daniel Gunther, G-u-n-t-h-e-r. It's dated September 8, 1976. MR. MITTEL: Objection. THE COURT: He is just identifying the document at the moment. MR. MITTEL: He is starting to read from it. I believe. MR. MacKENZIE: You Honor, I think this is an exception from the Hearsay Rule, but the way. I think the testimony will show that Mr. Gunther was Mr. Motta's agent or representative for the United States, and so you have a declaration against interest by a party opponent agent. THE COURT: First of all, who is Mr. Gunther? THE WITNESS: Mr. Gunther was a member of Mr. Motta"s A.'.A.'. THE COURT: Okay. Just a second. Let me read it. BY MR. MacKENZIE: [page 97] Q. Did you receive this letter? THE COURT: Just a second. MR. MacKENZIE: I am sorry. THE COURT: Well, I question whether it's hearsay, because it doesn't seem to me it's really making a statement. MR. MITTEL: I have an authenticity objection which I haven't gotten out yet. THE COURT: Go ahead and make your objection. MR. MITTEL: That is it. We have no testimony at all about the witness recognizing the signature or anything else that would authenticate the letter. THE WITNESS: His signature is on here. BY MR. MacKENZIE: Q. Do you recognize that signature. Did you receive other copies from him? A. Yes, I did. Q. Is that the same -- A. It certainly looks like Gunther's signature as far as I can tell. THE COURT: What is the hearsay objection,because I really don't think there is any statement in here. It's merely being offered as to the [page 98] truth of the statement. MR. MITTEL: It's being offered to show that Mr. Gunther is Mr. Motta's agent. THE COURT: Is that it? Is that the purpose of your offering? MR. MacKENZIE: Two things, Your Honor. Number one, he got the power of attorney at this time, because prior to this Mr. Wasserman had had the power of attorney from Mr. Motta. And this letter itself does not state that he is the United States representative, but I can show that with my other witnesses. THE COURT: Well, I am going to sustain the objection until you lay the foundation with the other witnesses. MR. MacKENZIE: May I question him about the contents of the letter? THE COURT: Yes, subject to being stricken as hearsay. MR. MacKENZIE: Yes, Your Honor. BY MR. MacKENZIE: Q. Did you receive this letter, Mr. McMurtry? A. I certainly received it, but it was a long time ago, and I haven't reviewed it recently. Q. Okay. That is fine. [ page 99] Do you recognize Mr. Gunther's signature? A. I recognize it as being a signature that I would believe was Mr. Gunther's, yes. Q. That is fine. Thank you. Now, at the time that this library material was started at Miss Seckler's, where was that located? A. That was located on Jasmine Court, Dublin, California. Q. Were you living there at that time? A. No. At that time I had left that residence at the end of 1974 to live in Berkeley, but I had visited there quite often. And we brought the library back there, because it was the only storage place we had. Q. You and Mrs. Seckler were living together at one point? A. Yes. We were living together from 1969 to 1974. Q. Now, when you returned to Berkeley, did you take any of the library material with you? A. I removed some of the material and took it to Berkeley for my own edification and research material. However, I never removed anything from the library because the library was in my custody according to the Superior Court Order. What I did was remove it from her house. Q. Can you describe some of the material you removed? [page 100] A. Yes. I took one copy of the Liber Aleph. Q. Would you explain what the "Liber Aleph" is? A. It's a series of documents from Aleister Crowley to a future and supposedly magickal son. Q. Go on. Give us a description. A. Yes. And Mr. Motta had been able to help Mr. Germer get that published. It was published in Brazil. I took one copy. It must have been at least 20 copies there bound. I found in the library two old vinyl '78 -- '76 -- '76, '78, whatever, recordings. And when we put them on the record player, it turned out to be Aleister Crowley doing certain Enochian, E-n-o-c-h-i-a-n, chants. Q. Now, was there anything else you removed? A. Yes. There was a book by -- yes. There was Legge, L-e-g-g-e. Q. You don't need to enumerate each book. A. I took several things for my own recognizance. I didn't remove anything from the library. The library -- it didn't belong to me, but I was conservator in the Court Order. Q. Was there any menus in the collection? A. Yes. There was a small collection of menus. Q. What exactly do you mean by "menus"? [page 101] A. Aleister Crowley was a favorite visitor in London Cafe Royale. And it was his practice at that time -- although there is no dates on these, we know about the period -- to print up his own menu card, that is to say, print cards with OTO lamen on them. Q. These were recipes? A. No, they were menus. And then he would hand them in to the waiter and the waiter handed them back, and he kept a collection of these. And I found a small collector's -- Q. Did you take some menus? A. Did I take them? I took them with me, yes. Q. Were there other things that you took at that time? A. A novel by James Daniel Gunther called "The High Place." Q. Okay. A. And addenda of various kinds. I think an antique Bible, or something like that. Q. Okay. Who did you believe was the owner of this material? A. The Ordo Templi Orientis. Q. Did you continue to have unrestricted access to the library? A. Up to a certain time when Phyllis sequestered the [page 102] library. And after that I had no further access to it. Q. Did she tell you where she sequestered it? A. She did not. Q. What was your response to that sequester? A. I was quite shocked and at the time quite angry. I wrote a letter to her suggesting that this was a wrong thing to do, and I think I called her once or twice. Q. I show you Plaintiffs' Exhibit 16 and ask you to identify that. Is that the letter you sent? A. Um-hum. Yes, this is the letter I sent. This is a letter from myself to Phyllis McMurtry dated March 7, 1977. I was living in Berkeley at the time. Q. In that letter do you state your opposition to her sequestering the library? A. Yes, I certainly do. Q. You make a request for its return? The very bottom paragraph. A. Oh. Yes. Shall I read some of it? Q. Yes. Why don't you read the bottom four lines? A. Bottom four lines: "You will within seven working days return to me by mail the authorization for which you, Helen Parsons Smith {SIC replace entire line above with "by which you, Helen, Kris and Lon" -def} could be {SIC sb. "have" in place of "be" -def} named a Caliph upon my death. If you do not do so I will issue a [page 103] notice of verification {SIC sb. "nullification" -def -weh} and mail a xerox to each member." Q. Other than sending this letter, did you do anything else? A. There wasn't a great deal I could do, because I had no transportation, nor did I have any place to store the material. And, in any case, the material was absent. Q. Did you consult an attorney about this? A. Yes. We did consult an attorney. Q. I show you Plaintiffs' Exhibit 17 and ask you to identify that, please? A. This is a check by me dated April 1, 1977, drawn on the Wells Fargo Bank and It's for Lawyers Referral Service of $15 and signed by myself. Q. Was this paid to an attorney concerning this matter? A. That was a long time ago, but I believe that was the case, because I wrote the check. I believe it was delivered by somebody else, as I recall. MR. MacKENZIE: Your Honor, may I just speak with Mr. Mittel for a moment. This is going to begin the trial on the libel. Do you want to use the books on this? THE COURT: This is off the record. [page 104] (Discussion off the record.) MR. MITTEL: Your Honor, could we go back on the record, please? THE COURT: Yes. MR. MITTEL: The first problem here is our First Amended Defense, if you will, to the defamation claims. And if Your Honor is prepared to rule on that, it will prevent any questions if you rule in my favor. THE COURT: I am not prepared to rule on that at this time. MR. MITTEL: Then we should just each go ahead and put his testimony in. THE COURT: Yes. MR. MITTEL: May I make one general objection which will continue throughout this portion of the testimony so I don't have to keep objecting on that basis. THE COURT: Would you state your objection then for the record? MR. MITTEL: I will. It's that the subject of the allegedly defamatory writings is a portion of a dispute of a religious nature. And as such it's religious commentary similar [page 105] to political commentary that is protected by the First Amendment and relying on two lines of cases: New York Times versus Sullivan and the Hull Presbyterian Church cases, both of which are cited in the Joint Pretrial Statement. Defendants suggest that the Court has no power, no jurisdiction, if you will, to award damages for any defamation which may have taken place in this particular case. Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Your objection is noted and the Court will rule on it later. MR. MacKENZIE: What I am intending to do, Your Honor, is simply to read the libelous material that is set forth in the original Complaint in this matter. THE COURT: Well, is the witness going to testify about that or -- MR. MITTEL: Yes, he is. MR. MacKENZIE: Yes, he is going to testify he heard it, and the effect it had upon him. One of the defendants' stipulations is that this information was published by the defendant. It's in the question of what form. If he wants to bring the publication up here or if we can use the simple quote from the Complaint. [page 106] THE COURT: Where are your reading from? You are reading from the Complaint? MR. MacKENZIE: I am reading from the Complaint, but the Complaint was taken out of the very books -- THE COURT: Well, is it stipulated that the material was published? MR. MacKENZIE: Yes, it is. MR. MITTEL: Yes, there is no question but that the material this is in the Complaint was published. We are not stipulating that it's an accurate representation, because it's not complete, and we are going to introduce the entire books at some point. MR. MacKENZIE: Well, if you will agree that this is accurate as taken, and you reserve the right to introduce the remainder of the book, if that is met, I will simply read off of the Complaint. THE COURT: I don't think you need to do that unless you are going to ask Mr. McMurtry questions about it. MR. MacKENZIE: Yes, I am, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. BY MR MacKENZIE: Q. I would like to show you a portion of the [page 107] Complaint, the First Amended Complaint, to be accurate, and ask you a few questions about that. Are you aware that the defendant has published certain materials about you which are stated on that sheet that I just gave you? A. Yes, I am. THE COURT: Now, for the record, you have given the witness a copy of page 6 -- MR. MacKENZIE: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: -- of the First Amended Complaint dated March 16, 1983? MR. MacKENZIE: That is the one. THE COURT: Okay. BY MR. MacKENZIE: Q. Let me read some portions from that and ask you if they are true. "The following individuals were at some time associated with either A.'.A.'. or the OTO or, if not, publicly claimed such association. They were either lying or had been expelled from OTO or lost contact with A.'.A.'. for conduct unbecoming." Have you ever been expelled from the OTO? A. No. [page 108] Q. Were you ever a member of the A.'.A.'.? A. Yes. Q. Do you remain in contact with the A.'.A.'.? A. Yes, I do. Q. Have you previously lied about any of these matters? A. Not to the best of my knowledge. Q. Moving down the page: "Grady McMurtry falsely passes himself for an OTO representative, has gained patents without ever having had a proper warrant." First, the word "patent." Would you tell me what that means in the OTO lexicon? A. The word "patent" has not come up until the case in Maine and here previously that it was charters and documents of authorization. Q. In other words, the word "patent" has not -- has the word "patent" been used by OTO? A. It very well might have been used by the OTO, but in 40 years I never heard it being used in OTO. Q. Fine. What's your understanding of what's intended with the word "patent"? A. Apparently like a charter is an official document granting certain authorization in an organization. [page 109] Q. Well, did you ever receive such a charter without ever having had a proper warrant? A. The warrant and/or patent was included in the document of authorization I received from Aleister Crowley giving me power to act in California and as his personal representative in the United States of America. Q. "Furthermore, it has slandered {SIC replace above line by (flush left) "Furthermore it says 'slandered' -def} legitimate OTO members." Would you comment on that? A. I do not recall having ever slandered any OTO members. Q. Finally: "Misappropriated Order property." A. I would say that exactly opposite, because it says "misappropriate or acting to conceal it." Q. Three paragraphs up from the bottom he refers to you as well as Dr. Regardie and Helen Smith as thieves. Do you believe that is an accurate representation? A. The material put out about thieves Dr. Regardie, McMurtry, Helen Smith is suspect. I do not recognize Dr. Regardie as being a thief. In face, the material published by Dr. Regardie of which he is the author of much of the material. [page 110] Q. Would you state who Dr. Regardie is? A. Dr. Regardie is deceased now in the last year, but for many years he was the leading member of, shall we say, what's known as the Order or the Rosicrucian. He knew the OTO, and he may have known A.'.A.'., but in any case he was not a member of Ordo Templi Orientis, but he is a very good friend and very knowledgeable. And he had known Aleister Crowley in the 1950s {SIC sb. "`1920s -pla} in Paris. Q. Is he a chiropractor? A. He was a chiropractor. He practiced chiropracty in his office in Los Angeles. Q. Did he publish books? A. Yes. He published "General Equinox." {SIC sb. "'Gems from the Equinox'" -pla -def -weh} Q. This is okay. Just the facts. How many books did he publish? A. Maybe half a dozen altogether. Q. The following paragraph states: "Germer on his term {SIC sb. "turn" -def} tested Grady's loyalty for decades and never really believed him." A. Yes. The point of this is that my relations with Mr. Germer in the 1040s were very, very cordial indeed. Basically it was -- Aleister was head of the Order. Germer was the Grand Treasurer General. [page 111] And I was a floating sub Inspector General {SIC} and Ninth Degree member. However, when Mr. Germer came to California in the 1950s he had a great deal of -- he had a number of incidents in which people did not pay him back money. So he decided the entire California Lodge was contaminated and he turned against all of us, and that included me. Q. Finally paragraph reads: "I do not regard McMurtry's rights as a human. He allowed Ms. Sascha Germer to die slowly of malnutrition so he could get his hands on material that he is not qualified to handle intellectually, morally or spiritually." Let's take that first part. Do you know how Sascha Germer died? A. She died of natural causes, I believe. I believe it's recorded on the death certificate of congestive heart failure. MR. MITTEL: Objection; foundation. Move to strike that answer. BY MR MacKENZIE: [page 112] Q. Tell me this, first of all: Do you know how she died? A. She died alone. But of what she died, I believe it was -- Q. Do you know how she died, yes or no? A. I was not there, no. Q. Have you seen any documents as to how she died? A. Yes. I seen her burial certificate. Q. On the burial certificate, did it state what she died of? A. My memory of it is that senility and congestive heart failure. Mr. Mittel: Objection. Move to strike that answer. Best Evidence -- THE COURT: It's hearsay. MR. MacKENZIE: I can refresh the witness' memory. BY MR. MacKENZIE: Q. I give you Plaintiffs' No. 119 and ask you to recognize that? A. Yes, I have seen this before. This is a Certificate of Death of Sascha E. Germer -- Ernestine Germer. She was found dead 4-3-75. And this is an official document by County Recorder of Calaveras County.[page 113] As to how she died or what she died of, let me see. There is a notation in here -- all right. Yes. The notations are she died: One, congestive heart failure; Two, hypertensive arterioles {SIC} Three, small contracted kidneys. And the summary is chronic kidney failure with NSR, whatever that means. Q. Let me ask you this now: Did she -- were you in contact with her in her years before her death? A. No, I was not. Q. Did you know anything about her condition? A. I knew that she was elderly and that she was -- her -- her way of cooking food was extremely unpalatable and certainly unhealthy, because I had a lunch with her and Mr. Germer at one time. Q. Okay. Well, is there any truth to the fact, to the claim that you allowed her to die slowly of malnutrition? A. There is certainly no truth to it. If she had wanted my help, all she had to do was ask. Q. The remainder of that paragraph reads: "Furthermore, he was married to a woman who was repeatedly accused by Mrs. Germer of having been [page 114] instrumental in robbing her." Were you married to a woman who was repeatedly accused of that? A. If you mean Phyllis Seckler, she was accused of it in a letter, and I believe by an uncle {SIC sb. "another" -pla} also. And I have no knowledge that Mrs. Germer ever withdrew her accusations. Q. Now, are you referring to the 1967 robbery? A. Yes. Q. Didn't you state earlier that the accusation had been to Miss Seckler's daughter? A. Yes. Q. To the best of your knowledge, was it ever addressed to Miss Seckler herself? A. I do not recall exactly. I believe that some of the letters were addressed to Phyllis -- Q. No, the accusation. A. I believe that came in a letter to Phyllis accusing her daughter. Q. My question is: Do you know if Sascha ever accused Miss Seckler, the mother? A. No, I do not. Q. And I think you testified that you did investigate that matter? A. Yes. [page 115] Q. And sent a copy of your conclusions to Ms. Germer? A. Yes, I did. Q. When did you become aware of these quotations? A. Sir, quotation? Q. The libel quotations. What were your reactions when you became aware of them? A. I was rather shocked, but there was little I could do about it, because he was in Brazil. Q. Can you expound on what you mean by being "shocked"? A. Yes. I think I have a right to be human, and I have never misappropriated material from the Order. I have done my best to conserve it at my own private expense until we could get a corporation that could fund it. Q. Well, what would your reaction be, accused of allowing someone to starve to death? A. I think it was ridiculous. If Mrs. Germer wanted my assistance, she knew where I was. Q. Aside from the intellectual reaction, did it have any visual {SIC} reaction? MR. MITTEL: Objection; leading. THE COURT: I overrule the objection. MR. MacKENZIE: I am sorry. [page 116] THE COURT: Overruled. THE WITNESS: Yes, I was shocked. However, I was not so much angry, because it was a matter of dislike that he could believe something like that and he had no idea what was happening. If he wanted to take care of Mrs. Germer, why didn't he come up and take care of Mrs. Germer? MR. MacKENZIE: Thank you. I have no further questions. THE COURT: Before the cross-examination begins, let's take about a 10-minute recess, please. THE WITNESS: Thank you. (Brief recess taken.) THE COURT: Mr. Mittel, you may begin your cross-examination of Mr. McMurtry. MR. MITTEL: Thank you. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. MITTEL: Q. I am sorry to see that you are not getting on as well as you did the last time we were together. You testified earlier that Aleister Crowley was elected? A. Yes, that is correct. THE COURT: Pardon me. Mr. Mittel, would you stay back -- [page 117] MR. MITTEL: I am sorry. THE COURT: If you want to sit at the table and read notes, you are free to do that. MR. MITTEL: I will stay right here. BY MR. MITTEL: Q. How do you know that? In substance you testified that Aleister Crowley was elected. How do you know that? A. That was by information from people who researched the problem that he was elected by Mr. Tranker of Germany, Mr. Regardie. {SIC sb. "Mr. Stansfield Jones -pla} of Canada and United States. Q. You have no documents or letters -- A. I personally have no documents. Q. Did you testify this morning that you are both the Caliph and the Frater Superior? A. Yes. Q. Have you ever used the title Frater Superior before? A. Not very often. However, it';s been in "Equinox" all the time. Q. When I took your deposition in December of 1983, you didn't say that you were the Frater Superior then? A. I believe I did not. Q. And when I asked you what your position was during the trial in Maine, you didn't say you were the Frater [page 118] Superior then either, did you? A. That's correct. Q. You testified, I think, that you were the highest ranking member and said you were a Ninth Degree member of the Ordo Templi Orientis? A. That is correct. Q. Are there a number of other Ninth Degree members? A. There are other Ninth Degree members who are officials only because they are recognized by me. Q. Let's take a look at the plaintiffs' table here. There is Mrs. Smith who, I believe, is a Ninth Degree member. Is that correct? A. That is correct. Q. Do you recollect when she was initiated into the Ninth Degree? A. I do not know exactly when she was initiated into the Ninth Degree, because in the Agape Lodge in Los Angeles in the 1930s, to the best of my knowledge, no certificates were given out. However, at that time Helen Smith was clearly accepted as a Ninth Degree. When I became Caliph and later on I offered her such position officially in the Order. Q. So she was initiated into the ninth Degree before you were, in the 1930s? [page 119] A. That is right. In that sense we could say '30s, '40s. I wouldn't say before I was, because mine was 1943. However, it was an unofficial thing to begin with. Q. What about Miss Seckler; was she also initiated in Agape Lodge? A. Yes. Q. And into the Ninth Degree? A. Yes. Miss Seckler, to my knowledge, had been initiated in the Ninth Degree of the Ordo Templi Orientis. Q. That was also by whoever was the head of the Agape Lodge? A. You mean the initiation at that time? I do not know exactly who it was. Q. It wasn't by you? A. No it was not by me. Q. This position of Caliph, that word is used nowhere in any of Aleister Crowley's writings except the letters that you have; is that correct? A. To the best of my knowledge, that is correct. Q. That includes the thousands of letters that he wrote to various people? A. I have never seen any evidence presented that he wrote about the Caliph to anybody but myself. [page 120] Q. He wrote thousands of letters, did he not? A. He certainly wrote thousands of letters. Q. And hundreds of books? A. Oh, yes. Q. Many, many poems? A. Oh, yes. Q. And the only mention of the word "Caliph" in any of those writings is in that letter to you; is that correct? MR. MacKENZIE: That has been asked and answered. THE WITNESS: Three letters to me. And to the best -- but I have not read all of Aleister Crowley's books, not the thousands of letters he wrote, nor all the books he wrote. So I do not know if that word might be in there someplace. But as I said, I have no knowledge that he ever wrote to anybody else except myself along that line. BY MR. MITTEL: Q. Let me ask you to take a look at Defendants' Exhibit 5, which is a copy of one of those Caliphate letters, but it has a typed version that I believe you prepared {NB. I typed it. -weh}. You see down here at the bottom? A. Yes. [page 121] Q. Does that indicate that you wrote Mr. Crowley a letter on November 6, 19 -- I believe it's '44 or '43? Read right in the beginning of the letter. A. Okay. This letter -- to identify it as a -- oh, yes. This letter is from Aleister Crowley to myself. It's dated November 21, '44, when I was in the Army in Belgium. Q. Does it begin by indicating that it is responding to a letter that you wrote him on November 6? A. That is, I believe -- would be -- yes, we had correspondence concerning the condition of the Order in California,. And so he wanted to make things official. Q. Does it -- Would you read the first four lines of that letter, please? A. Yes, All right. November 6. This requires mostly official, the former still being his address, although the envelope, of course, is addressed to Grady L. McMurtry. Now, these -- so that was the first sentence. "Yours of November 6. The {SIC sb. "This" -def} reply most {SIC sb. "being mostly" -def} official I use the formal staff {SIC sb. "style" -def}. As nearly always in correspondence there is a mis- [page 122] understanding. As the 'Caliph,' {SIC sb. "The Caliphate" in place of "As the Caliph" -def} You must realize how closely we must see on things exactly. {SIC replace sentence with: "You must realize that no matter how closely we may see eye-to-eye on any objective subject" -def} I have to think on totally different premises where the Order is concerned." Q. That is enough. You had written to Mr. Crowley on November 6; is that right? A. I do have that date in my mind. It's -- although it's stated there in the letter. Q. Do I understand that you had also been exchanging correspondence with him prior to that time? A. Let me see. That was November '44? Q. Yes, sir. A. Yes. Oh, yes. I had been in correspondence with Mr. Crowley when I was in the States. And then when I was in England, I wrote to him from my various Army bases. And then when I was in France and Belgium and Germany, I kept writing to him. Q. In those letters you had discussed with him the situation at Agape Lodge? A. We tried to. It was very complicated, but I tried [page 123] to discuss it as best I could. Q. Tell me what the problem was at Agape Lodge. A. Basically the problem at Agape Lodge is that Wilfred Smith had a residence on Winona Boulevard in Hollywood. However, in the course of events the property was purchased by Mr. Jack Parsons on South Orange Grove in Pasadena, quite a substantial property. The Agape Lodge was moved from the Winona address and moved to the Agape Lodge address, whereupon Mr. Parsons became the Master of the Agape Lodge. And at that time initiations stopped and they stopped doing the mass. There was a large amount of curiosity why these things had happened and writing about what we though was going on. And that was basically the substance of it, that Mr. Parsons had taken over the Agape Lodge and it had basically ceased to function. Q. So you suggested to Mr. Crowley or had Mr. Crowley suggested to you that something be done about that. A. He wasn't suggesting to me much about doing something about that when I was in the Army during the War. [page 124] When that came up, I was still in the Army in 1945, and the War was over. And when I visited him for a week in Hastings, this was on of the main topics of our conversation. During our conversation one afternoon, he said, "I may be the world's greatest magician, but I have to have some basis to go on." Whereupon, I said, "Since I know these people and you know me, when I get home to California I will take a look at the situation and write you a report," unquote. Q. And you had also been writing to him before about that very same problem; is that right? A. We had discussed the organizational problems at Agape Lodge on a number of occasions. Q. By "discussed," you mean in writing? A. That was one the the things we corresponded about. Q. All right. in your letters to him, you had suggested to him that you be appointed som