From heidrick@well.com Sun Aug 25 23:07:41 1996 Received: from nova.unix.portal.com (nova.unix.portal.com [156.151.1.101]) by jobe.shell.portal.com (8.6.11/8.6.5) with ESMTP id XAA28006 for ; Sun, 25 Aug 1996 23:07:40 -0700 Received: from mh1.well.com (mh1.well.com [206.15.64.22]) by nova.unix.portal.com (8.6.11/8.6.5) with ESMTP id XAA26133 for ; Sun, 25 Aug 1996 23:07:26 -0700 Received: from well.com (heidrick@well.com [206.15.64.10]) by mh1.well.com (8.7.5/8.7.5) with SMTP id XAA17782 for ; Sun, 25 Aug 1996 23:09:02 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 25 Aug 1996 23:09:00 -0700 (PDT) From: Bill Heidrick Subject: Re: OTO Dispute (Am/Swiss) To: nigris In-Reply-To: <199608251923.MAA01119@jobe.shell.portal.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: RO 93 333, >this letter is sent to Br. Heidrick, whose response I plan to again share >with Br. Koenig upon receipt. I have minimal interest in Peter having my correspondence -- except that he publishes my stuff without my consent, thus ripping me off. He even has a joke I wrote about him in private email, proudly displayed on his pages with complete obliviousness to the comment that his text is not on a par with "Occult Theocrasy" -- according to a reader of his Home Page who emailed me about it. ># "Caliph" is the term for the 'office' of the prophet. I would like to ># see an OTO-statute or a clear official OTO statement that connects ># the term "Caliph" to any office of any OTO. This is factually incorrect. "Caliph" has never been used for the "office of the prophet", particularly not in Islam. Koenig knows my answer. The Caliphate is a line of succession to Outer Headship of OTO, devised by Crowley in correspondence, primarily with Grady McMurtry. >has the term 'Caliph' ever been or will it be incorporated into any >Constutution of the Order? was there ever anything official created >beyond the letters you mention below? The term has appeared in various documents after the Greater Feast of Karl Germer, including the minutes of the election of the present OHO. It has appeared in the Bylaws, active form of the Constitution. >#>#Crowley explained it to Grady in a few letters, stating >#>#that he wished to insure continuation of the headship of OTO by this means. > ># I would like to see a facsimile of these documents. > >are these available to the public or to members in good standing? I would >like to receive a copy, and will take the trouble to forward copies of them >to Mr. Koenig upon my receipt if he doesn't already have his own. Koenig has copies of them. They were published in the old OTO Newsletter and from time to time in the ML and TLC. I sent copies of them to him years ago as well. It's not my fault if he can't find them. However, you are welcome to look through the material here at mutual convenience. I will not send any more paper of this sort to a copyright pirate. >#>#Crowley told Grady to be ready to assume headship of the OTO in the event >#>#of a failure of Karl Germer to either make a success of leadership or to >#>#name his own successor. > ># I don't think this is accurate. Crowley wrote several letters saying that ># 'McMurtry is a Caliph, although Germer is the "Natural Caliph"' (this in ># one letter. however, these terms are nowhere defined as 'successor to ># Crowley.' Crowley always wanted Germer to succeed him, as well as ># Friedrich Mellinger. Mellinger lived until the 1970's and was a ># collaborator of Metzger's OTO in Switzerland. Koenig has copies of these documents, and I am not responsible for the difficulty he has in understanding them. It is possible that he does not have the letter from Mellinger to the attorney of the widow of Karl Germer, in which Mellinger denounces Metzger and states that Metzger failed to work with him (Mellinger) as Germer directed (published in the TLC Feb. 1993 e.v.) >I would merely ask what evidence is there is that: > >1) Mellinger was not so selected? He was. He didn't do anything about it. Crowley wrote to Mellinger, telling him to hold himself in readiness to possibly succeed Germer -- same as in Grady's case, except that Grady received additional instructions, duties and did something with it. >2) Germer's wife, who outlived him, was not empowered, along with >Mellinger, through Germer's will, to appoint her selection >(whether this be Crowley, Motta or Metzger or whoever)? Germer's widow was never a member of OTO, as she stated in her own journal. Mellinger had warning that he might have the duty of leading OTO, but he never had documents of authority in that capacity, as far as I know. The Last Will and Testament of Karl Germer made no mention of appointment to head of OTO, but only stated in regard to OTO that Mellinger was to act as co-executor with Sascha Germer in regard to the OTO papers and other articles in the possession of the Germers. Apparently there is nothing else but this. Germer's will did not name a successor or provide any procedure or authority to determine a successor. In fact, that will states that the property of the OTO is to go to the "heads of OTO" -- such usage clearly indicates "the members most in authority", since Germer expelled Grant in part expressly for claiming that there was more than one OHO. >I notice that in Br. Koenig's text he claims "Metzger propagated Thelema >only to ingratiate himself with Germer. That's an unlikely theory. Metzger continued very fine Gnostic Masses at his Abbey after the deaths of both the Germers, Karl and Sascha. He maintained a wonderful collection of archives and continued publication of Thelemic material. It's still there under management of his people. Koenig aught to know, since they kicked him out of that too. >Thus Germer considered Metzger >as his sole successor, as he wrote in a letter and as was confirmed by >Germer's widow. This letter doesn't exist, as far as I know. Why didn't Metzger produce it, if it did? It would have settled the whole matter -- assuming it existed and hadn't been withdrawn by subsequent writing. Too late now, of course. ># Only as his representative for California and as representative for the ># US in case Germer did not intervene. Germer had a low opinion of ># McMurtry, forbade his working along OTO-lines, and closed the Agape ># Lodge in 1953. McMurtry's opening of any Lodge (Agape or not) was done ># with no authority and can only be considered "the New Foundation of 1977". > >do you claim that these allegations are false, Br. Heidrick? if so, I'll >ask Br. Koenig to substantiate them in some way. I presume you two have >had this discussion previously, so if you know something about the items >he is likely to bring forward it would seem efficacious if you could say >something about them beforehand. These allegations are false, in the sense of half-lies. Grady did have those authorities, published in the OTO Newsletter in fax. The language went beyond "representative". A subsequent letter removed Germer's power of prior review, but did allow Germer to veto. Germer directed Grady to act on these documents during Crowley's life time, in the matter of Jack Parsons at Agape Lodge. Germer gave Grady a written approval to form a nucleus for a new Lodge in the 1950's and proposed a corporation with Grady as one of the three directors to run OTO. These matters are documented here in photocopy over Germer's signature -- although nothing came of it until long after Germer died. There was never any "forbade his working along OTO-lines" and Agape Lodge simply faded out without final formal closure. >#>#Finally, Crowley wrote to Grady with the instruction that Germer was "the >#>#natural Caliph", would be A.C.'s direct successor, but that Grady should >#>#continue himself in readiness to succeed Germer. > ># Since McMurtry did not answer this letter, Crowley subsequently arranged ># Friedrich Mellinger as the successor to Germer. > >is this to what you were referring, Br. Heidrick, in your previous >correspondence, when you said: >#># Crowley also made somewhat lesser efforts to alert Frederic Mellinger >#># to the possible need of taking headship of OTO, but did not give >#># Mellinger any formal letters of authority. Koenig is wrong in stating that Grady did not answer the letter in question. There were several such letters, and Grady continued correspondence with Crowley until shortly before the latter's death. The reference to a similar letter to Mellinger is the one I made. However, Crowley continued to remind Grady of this plan for Grady's succession after the similar correspondence with Mellinger. Mellinger was a back up. As things turned out, Mellinger did nothing in this regard. >if so, and there is such a letter of authority, or some recorded process >of succession, would this substantiate Br. Koenig's claim? It's irrelevant to Koenig's claim, since Mellinger did nothing. If Frederic Mellinger had come forward and sought to activate his letters, there would have been some sort of discussion as to which should succeed. As he did not, there was not. As long as Mellinger lived, the point could have been pressed. Mellinger died before Grady, still doing nothing about it. In fact, Frederic knew of Germer's death well before Grady was informed. He had his opportunity unopposed. He chose to forget about it. ># I do have these letters, but I would not use the term 'lie' for what Heidrick ># is doing. He tries to preserve his fantasies built around the founding of ># the new Agape Lodge which has no magical current. Opinion. Stupid opinion, at that. I opposed moving the Grand Lodge from Thelema to Agape, mildly. Agape Lodge has given way in its turn, being now only the US National Grand Lodge. Cheap shot, that bit about "no magical current". >apparently Br. Koenig does not accept that the letters to which you refer >'explain to McMurtry that Crowley wished to insure continuation of the >headship of OTO by means of the titular "Caliph" office' and 'that he should >be ready to assume headship of the OTO in the event of a failure of Karl >Germer to either make a success of leadership or to name his own successor.' Right. He doesn't comprehend what he reads very well. A professional, notably a IXth Federal Circuit Judge, found no difficulty in understanding the papers. >in his own text he explains 'Caliph' as related to the abbreviation to the >state (California) in which Agape Lodge was located (a pun). I'd like to >see these documents myself, please. Calif = abbreviation of California. Caliph = Englishing of an Islamic word roughly equivalent to "Follower" or "One who comes after", specifically the lateral line of descendents in that case of the sister of Mohammed. I entertain the conceit that Crowley also may have seen the pun, but there is no evidence of that and ample evidence of the construction I support. Although I am not sure that I told this pun to Koenig, I think I may have. You may see these documents in fax or photocopy -- let me know when you can come by and we will arrange a mutual convenience. There is a photocopier here. ># yes, they were, but the court did not know about the rulings of the ># 1st Circuit Court of Appeals. This is either a lapse or a lie. The 1st Circuit District Court (not the Court of Appeals, Koenig doesn't understand these terms) case was cited frequently in the IXth Circuit Case, including in the Findings, Conclusions of Law and the Judgment. The IXth District Court ruled that the Ist District case was binding on Motta and SOTO, but not on us, since we were not parties in that earlier case. To insure that no remaining question would come from it to the Courts of Appeals, the Judge allowed full testimony on the issues of the Ist District Court anyway. >Heidrick and Motta made an agreement ># out of court not to mention Metzger or Grant as possible OHOs because ># Heidrick and Motta knew that they would lose the case if the court ># knew about them. (this I have in writing from a witness to the out ># of court settlement.) This never happened, and both Metzger's and Grant's claims were discussed in the trial, as well as provided in the form of documents in the exhibits. I answered questions on the witness stand about Germer's expulsion of Grant. All this is in the official court transcripts. Motta and I only exchanged spoken sentences once in our lives. The occasion was during a recess in court. Motta looked over at the plaintiff table, took me for a lawyer (I was in a black suit) and asked if it would be alright if he went to the bathroom. I responded that I thought it would be alright, but that I "regretted" to be one of the plaintiffs against him, not an attorney -- a matter of courteous response to a dumb mistake. Motta responded "Never regret anything". End of conversation. >did this out of court settlement take place, Br. Heidrick? do you think >that if the court had taken Metzger/Grant into account they still would >have ruled in your favor? No settlements of any kind in that case. Motta fought it all the way to the Supreme Court. The court did take Metzger and Grant into account. ># where's the proof for McMurtry having had Crowley's hand somewhere? Crowley ># was never a Bishop or of comparable status, though I have seen Crowley's ># 'Charter' for W.B. Crow which makes him Patriarch of Crowley's version of ># the EGC in 1944. > >Br. Koenig makes this statement several times in his paperwork I notice: that >Crowley was never a Bishop and so could not consecrate any sort of lineage. >could you explain the specifics of this EGC hands-laying as well as indicate >how you came by the knowledge of its accuracy and purity? Standing as a Bishop through OTO is an appendant to the VIIth degree, however Grady was taken into the IXth by Crowley in proper person from the Ist. That included the Bishop consecration by the nature of the degree. As to the laying on of hands, Grady did what Crowley did to him, so stating. As to Crowley being a Bishop, this is what he was within OTO. We only resumed the separate title of Bishop apart from the Degrees in the 1980's. Until then it was a part of the IXth and could be conferred at the VIIth. As for the rest, denying it doesn't invalidate it on Koenig's side. I state it, as does OTO. Who cares otherwise? Talk to David Scriven -- he's been writing the history of the EGC, partly published in _Red Flame #2_. >#>is this also your understanding? if so, what difference does it make as ... ># does anyone remember the 'Gnostic Catholic Church Scandal' of the late ># 1980's? The above section, eclipsed for convenience, is just empty hostile talk. -- Although I haven't a clue what or which GCC Scandal he's talking about. >I also got the impression that the apostolic success business was rather >Christian of origin, though I'd like to know more. It is, by and large. That's why it is of little importance to us. However, we have it, so we say so. >is this a supposed direct connection to Christ? No. St. Peter. It does connect to the pre-Christian system of Rome, but that's a "Holy Blood Holy Grail" kind of issue. >if it wanes in and out of the EGC that is >associated with Crowley (due to his not having been a Bishop) then what >do you mean by 'apostolic succession' here? It doesn't waine in and out, although it isn't particularly important to us. Crowley was a Bishop. >HBeta received (postal?) consecration from Webb to Lully-Bertiaux-Hogg. There was such an intangible link in that line, but not in the line from McMurtry to Beta. >Br. Koenig suggests >that when this was challenged, HBeta merely changed the 'rules of >succession', No. Didn't happen. >"satisfied that 'Elevation to the Sovereign Sancturary of >the Gnosis *ipso facto* makes one a Bishop and leadership of such a body >*ipso facto* makes one a Patriarch." is this true? or was there more >to it? That's all it ever was, within OTO. Receiving the IXth degree includes that rite, by laying on of hands, since Papus's days. A "Patriarch" is the top Bishop in OTO. Abbreviating the facts and saying "it's only that!" does not alter the facts. -- These are my personal comments. Koenig is unlikely to get anything official from OTO on matters of this kind, even second hand. 93 93/93 Bill