Corporate:
The Church of Satan was formalized 9/20/1971 as
a California non-profit corporation, Article #8 of its
Articles of Incorporation providing that: "The property
of this corporation is irrevocably dedicated to
charitable and religious purposes, and no part of the
net income or assets of this organization shall ever
inure to the benefit of any director, officer, or member
thereof, or to the benefit of any private persons."
Nevertheless on 4/25-26/1985, Anton and Diane
LaVey signed an Agreement in which they defined
the Church of Satan as wholly their personal property
in partnership. This document was never made known
to any of the current "membership" (who, per this
Agreement, had no legal membership status of
anything whatever), and surfaced only when Diane
sued Anton in 1988 [as an exhibit in that suit].
In that lawsuit Anton, under penalty of perjury,
swore on 6/1/1989: "Defendant denies that plaintiff
and defendant formed a partnership on or about April
30, 1966 and took steps to form a non-profit corporation."
This document was not published to the "membership
of the Church of Satan" either.
Following that lawsuit Anton filed for bankruptcy, and
on 4/22/1992 swore, again under penalty of perjury,
that: "My income derives from my operation as a sole
proprietor known as the Church of Satan", and then
on 1/31/1992 that "no revenues are generated by or
through the Church of Satan". Again neither document
was published to the "membership of the Church of
Satan", who might well have wondered where
their $100 fees, $150,000 Church of Satan franchises
[as stated by Sharon "Blanche Barton" Densley in
Gilmore's magazine #5/1991], $200/hour consultations,
and royalties for all of the Church-authorized trinkets
the Gilmores were selling to them were going.
After that court case the lid went down again, so
nobody but Anton and Densley probably knows what
labyrinths the money trail led down thereafter. We
do know that the IRS and the California Franchise
Tax Board both refused to grant the Church of Satan
federal/state tax-exempt standing.
As for anyone suing the "Church of Satan" on grounds
of fraud, I doubt that anyone of its post-1975
membership caliber either really cares or even
has the slightest idea who/what/how to sue -
particularly given the ever-morphing legal
entity of the "Church", Anton's demise, and the
sworn-to $0 bank balance of whatever-it-is!
>you persist in trying to market your group
>as "the authentic Church of Satan" or the
>"Improved Church of Satan," despite the fact
>that your philosophy bears little if any resemblance
>to Anton LaVey and despite the fact that LaVey
>publicly and repeatedly disavowed any connection
>between your respective organizations.
The Temple of Set has always considered itself the
religious/authentic continuation and evolution of
the original 1966-75 Church of Satan, as we made
quite clear from the moment of our founding. We
have just as explicitly made it clear that we disclaim
any connection with the personal business that Anton
LaVey ran under the name of the "Church of Satan"
after 1975.
>> So Locklin threw a big tantrum because he was actually
>> *identified* as the author of that document? My answer
>> is: "Grow up. If you're not prepared to assume personal
>> responsibility and accountability for what you say
>> and do, then don't say or do it."
>
>Well, then: would you have any objection to someone
>making your neighbors aware of the 1987 events at the
>Presidio daycare center? Given that you were rather
>loudly and repeatedly connected to a particularly nasty
>child molestation scandal -- and given that quite a
>few people still believe you were guilty of some pretty
>horrendous crimes -- it seems that maybe the pillars
>of your community need to be apprised of your history,
>no?
Well, there's a very fundamental difference between those
two situations: Locklin *did* a dangerous thing when he
advertised persons/groups including a pedophile, human
sacrifice, neo-nazism, and financial fraud, to a readership
of all ages, including minors - without acknowledging his
personal responsibility for it. In doing this he recklessly
jeopardized legitimate Satanism, which was only then
recovering from a decade of false accusations on
*precisely* those grounds.
As for Lilith and myself, we did *nothing* except to be
surprise victims in a $3 million financial scam by an
Army chaplain and his wife, which we both then and
since have quite thoroughly detailed - which means
that either you are too stupid to see the truth [which
I doubt], or just unprincipled and malicious enough
to keep trying to misrepresent that scam for your
shabby little smear purposes.
That you, as a spokesman for the "Church of Satan",
would try to smear two innocent people with "SRA"
propaganda, all the more when knowing that this
plays right into the hands of fanatics who are trying
to paint *all* of Satanism with that brush - just because
Anton LaVey hated me for refusing to go along with his
financial prostitution of the Church, and because you
thus hoped to suck up to him/Densley - is, in a word,
nauseating. *And*, I think, glaringly evident to the
readership here as well, whatever philosophical
differences they and I may have during ongoing
discussions.
>I take it, then, that you DON'T object to someone
>sending copies of "Armies of the Night" to your
>neighbors. Duly noted.
Sometimes I can only shake my head at your
naivete, even when you're doing your best to be
a prick. In this case you have *no idea whatever*
of the length, ferocity, and in this case sideshows
of the Adams-Thompson/Presidio scam.
Do you suppose for a moment that the SFPD, the FBI,
and the Army CID didn't interview and reinterview
*everyone* on our block, hoping that *someone* could
say they'd seen us with children? Do you think that
they didn't interview and reinterview all of our
acquaintances, and of course as many people who
had any kind of grudge against us whatever? What
do you think the SFPD/FBI/CID wanted to do - clear
us? The fuck they did. Their agenda was to pander
to the accusing parents, get patted on the head by
the "SRA"-frolicking news media, and of course do
a favor for the Good Christian Mainstream of the
country by exterminating [ugh!] "Satanism". If
there had been *any way whatever* that they
could have managed to frame Lilith and myself to
make the chaplain's scam stick - and they tried to
the extent of several attempts to conceal or destroy
exculpatory evidence, manufacture evidence, and
lie to federal courts - they would have done it in
an instant and we'd have been toast.
As for "Armies of the Night", that was one of the
most inaccurate and witchhunt-blatant
newspaper articles of the Presidio scam, by a
reporter who had already become famous for
her unquestioning fanning of the flames from
the moment the scam started [long before it
occurred to the chaplain to try to make a fast
$3 million by accusing us]. I sent a detailed
refutation of it to the publisher, and none of
its falsehoods ever reappeared in that paper.
Indeed later that same reporter, to our
astonishment, sent a letter to Lilith and myself
expressing regret and sympathy for the ordeal
that we'd been through.
So much for your "great threats". They were
both tried before, much more intensively and
with a much more aggressive frame-agenda
behind them.
But in your Filanesque fashion you have indeed
[and doubtless unintentionally] highlighted exactly
how dangerous Locklin's FAQ was. At least until
I corresponded with him about this, it's entirely
possible he was utterly clueless about what could
result from those advertisements. He hadn't been
through anything remotely resembling our ordeal.
So it was very easy for him - especially anonymously -
to shrug it all off. What he did was to stick his hand
personally - and legitimate Satanism's hand
reflectively - into a rattlesnake cage. Lucky for
him and lucky for the religion, the rattlesnake
wasn't paying attention. If I happened to annoy
Locklin enough to make him pull his hand out a
little sooner, well, you know, it just *might* dawn
on his silly ass one of these years that it was an
unbelievably stupid thing for him to do.
If you yourself have the sense to realize and respect
this, well and good. If you don't, and just try to
come up with a "cute" retort, so much for that.
Michael A. Aquino
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.0.2
iQA/AwUBOkrJdmRWyNykJwrDEQL/CQCgpwklExAQ7JQmc8xM/nKfpV70LSQAnjKd
dzjnFfejJbYqosjaii6pQabA
=SDq8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
(end of original message)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can view this message and the related discussion by following this link:
http://www.deja.com/thread/%3c20001228000344.23614.00002121@nso-ct.aol.com%3e%231/3
We hope to see you soon at Deja.com.
http://www.deja.com/