To: Thelema93-L
From: BHeidrick@aol.com
Subject: Re: OTO and AMORC
Date: Tue, 6 Dec 1994 12:05:18 -0500
Quoting: |Hsi Wang Mu (tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com)

|I picked up a booklet while I was working at the local New Age Renaissance
|Faire recently: _Liber 777: The Celestial Sanctum, Its Origin, Purposes
|and Program of Services_, by Charles Dana Dean, F.R.C.  On the front of it 
|is THE LAMEN OF THE OTO, and yet it was being destributed by the people 
|from AMORC.  What gives?

AMORC has been handing that thing out to members for many
decades.  The OTO Lamen and probably also the use of Crowley's
Liber 777 name stem from 1921 e.v. and Reuss' charter of a
Gague of Amity to H.Lewis, founder of AMORC to work
O.T.O. under limits and on condition of adherence to the O.T.O.
constitution of 1917 e.v. Although AMORC has violated the
OTO constitution multiply and the charter was non-transferable
to heads of AMORC after Lewis, they continue to use the
O.T.O. trademark on some things.  Other than freebees like this
instance, it's mostly internal or as art.  They've been told to
stop doing this, but haven't paid any visible attention.  Very
likely present-day AMORC executives have forgotten the
connection between this Lamen and AMORC's former affiliation
with O.T.O.  As long as it is not used to Trademark tag
property sold to the general public, there isn't much O.T.O.
can do about it.  The former charter means that it isn't a
simple prima face case, but would require a major litigation
showing that AMORC lost any previous rights to share use of
the O.T.O. Lamen.

93 93/93
Bill Heidrick