What follows is an article by Frater Anubis, a Brother-in-Thelema whom I have learned to trust over the years despite the fact that he is a practicing attorney. It was written at my request after receiving, in reference to that which was printed in TNN VI.2.11, a letter from him in which he wrote the following:
"I noted something interesting in The Sword of Horus commentary on the materials from Gregory von Seewald, regarding the court decisions in California and Maine. Although I have not had the opportunity to review the decision of the California court, I have examined the decision of the U.S. District Court in Maine. Several things disturbed me about Mr. von Seewald's comments. First, he attacks the court decisions, and to support his position, claims to only publish the appellant's brief. This seems rather unfair, since the brief will, by its nature, only advocate the position he seems to agree with. It would be useful to also examine the record on appeal, the respondent's brief, and the actual opinion before asserting that the court reached 'sloppy' conclusions of law. The court can only entertain arguments and evidence which are presented to it in conformity with the rules of evidence and civil procedure, and then it can only decide actual issues in controversy which have been properly raised by the parties. A complete analysis of the record would clearly be preferable to merely setting forth the appellant's brief. I personally would not be able to make any kind of decision without first hearing all sides of an issue, and my suspicions are instantly raised when someone makes allegations and then only presents one side of the story."Mr. von Seewald also seems to hint that he is dissatisfied with the decision renderred in federal court in Maine, Motta v. Samuel Weiser, Inc., 598 F.Supp. 941 (D.Me. 1984). I have read this opinion, and found Judge Carter's decision to be very well reasoned. The only issue before the court was whether the plaintiff (Mr. Motta) was legally entitled to the copyrights in Aleister Crowley's literary works. He claimed such a right, not on the basis of personal ownership of the copyrights, but instead arguing that his ownership rights were derived from his capacity as O.H.O. of the O.T.O. Under the law relating to copyright infringement actions, a plaintiff must prove that he or she owns the copyrights in question. Thus, the court had to make a determination as to whether or not legal title to the Crowley copyrights had vested in Mr. Motta's organization.
"After hearing the evidence presented by both sides, the court concluded that a large number of groups all claimed to be the O.T.O. and that each of these groups had as legitimate an interest in the copyrights as Mr. Motta. The court then focused on the lack of any externally verifiable criterion for determining who could lay claim to being the O.H.O., and concluded that any claims as to which organization was the 'legitimate' O.T.O. would be too subjective to allow vesting of legal title to the copyrights in Mr. Motta's organization. In reviewing the record, the court properly applied the rules of laws to the facts with which it was presented, resulting in an opinion which was far from 'sloppy'. As of yet, I haven't read the California court opinion that Mr. von Seewald complains of, so I can not give an informed opinion as to the fairness of the proceedings." [June 1989 E.V.]
One of the more amusing spectacles of the past few years has been the continuous struggle and petty bickering taking place between various factions of the O.T.O.* These battles have, interestingly enough, been carried out publicly within our very own judicial system. Primarily, litigation has focused on which of the rival claimants is really the Outer Head of the Order (O.H.O.) of the O.T.O., and thus, which faction is the real O.T.O.
What has been behind all the nonsense over who is the real O.H.O.? One factor of note appears to be an innate need of many persons for some sort of egoic gratification. Another more readily understood rationale is perhaps pure and simple greed. The words of Gordon Gecko, "[g]reed is good", seem to have been taken to heart by various personages of the O.T.O. I reached this conclusion after an examination of the legal battles fought by and between the different factions of the O.T.O.; which made me realize that at the core of each dispute were rival claims to ownership of the copyrights of Aleister Crowley's works. Control of the copyrights translates into a valuable equity interest, especially considering the existing marked demand for Crowley's writings.
Initially, it is vital to explain that I am not a member of the O.T.O. and have no desire to become one. Being a ceremonial magician, however, leaves me indebted to Aleister Crowley since he, more than any other person, brought the art and science of magick into the 20th century; thereby bridging the gap between the magicians of the past and the modern practitioners of the Art. Thus, I am both saddened and appalled by the ongoing conflict between those claiming to be Crowley's "heirs".
However, the purpose of this short diatribe is to examine the implications of the litigation surrounding the O.T.O., and perhaps more importantly, the intellectual property issues raised by the various claims made to the copyrights of Crowley's writings. There were two major cases, with which I am sure most readers will be familiar. First, was Motta v. Samuel Weiser, Inc., which was brought to the U.S. District Court for the district of Maine. Second, was the infamous California case about which much has been - rightly or wrongly - written.
The focus of this discussion will be on the Main case, as it is the only one where the Court's opinions were published. An explanation may be in order. When judges render an opinion in a case, they generally submit the important decisions for publication in the national legal reporting system. Those volumes and volumes of books one normally sees in lawyers' offices and law libraries contain the written opinions of various courts. There are separate series of books for the federal courts, as well as for the court systems of each state. Apparently, the judge in the California O.T.O. case did not deem the decision to be of any major significance, so it was not submitted for publication. However, the opinion in the Maine case was published, along with the opinion of the Court of Appeals affirming the District Court's decision. Thus, there is quite a bit of interesting material from which to draw, that is available from the Maine case.
Procedurally, things are quite easy to understand. Basically, Mr. Motta and his faction of the O.T.O. sued Samuel Weiser, Inc. in U.S. District Court for copyright infringement. The suit was brought in federal, as opposed to state, court because the federal courts have what is called "subject matter jurisdiction" over copyright law. This simply means that since copyrights are governed by federal legislation, the federal court system has power to hear and decide those kind of disputes.
As it turned out, Mr. Motta lost the case after a five day trial in which both sides argued their respective positions and presented evidence. Upon losing, Mr. Motta appealed his case to the U.S. Court of Appeals (1st Circuit). That court, after reviewing briefs and hearing arguments submitted by both sides, decided that the District Court judge had made a correct decision and that Mr. Motta was not entitled to recover damages.
Mr. Motta's attorneys then filed a petition for certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court. A petition for certiorari is simply a document asking the Supreme Court to review the decision rendered by the Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court, under the rules of procedure, does not have to hear a case if it does not want to. Generally, petitions for certiorari are granted only in cases where there is a clear division of legal opinion and the Supreme Court decides that it is necessary to issue a definitive ruling. In Mr. Motta's case, the Supreme Court denied certiorari, thus tacitly approving the decisions made by the District Court and the Court of Appeals.
Why did the courts rule in favor of Samuel Weiser, Inc. and against Mr. Motta? Furthermore, what is the significance of those court decisions? Hopefully I can clarify the issues and explain the court's reasoning process. In analyzing claims of copyright infringement, the law requires plaintiffs to be able to prove that they own the copyrights, prior to any damage award for copyright infringement. Therefore, Mr. Motta was faced with the burden of proving that he, or his faction of the O.T.O., had legal ownership of the Crowley copyrights. In the Court's opinion, Mr. Motta fell abysmally short of meeting that burden.
Mr. Motta attempted to prove that he owned the Crowley copyrights by virtue of his status as O.H.O. of the O.T.O. He argued that the evidence in the case, namely various pieces of correspondence between himself and Mr. and Mrs. Karl Germer, tended to show that he had been appointed O.H.O. by Karl Germer. The parties to the suit agreed that Germer was the legitimate O.H.O., directly succeeding Crowley. However, the Court specifically determined that, at the time of his death, Germer had not expressly named a successor as O.H.O. of the O.T.O. This, combined with the tenuous nature of the evidence submitted by Mr. Motta, defeated his claim to ownership of the Crowley copyrights.
Beyond these initial considerations, the Court also found that there was no way of determining whether Mr. Motta's organization had a valid claim to the copyrights; especially since his organization [S.O.T.O.] was only one of the many groups claiming to be the legitimate successors of Crowley's original Ordo Templi Orientis. In light of these circumstances, the Court determined that the membership of the O.T.O. was indefinite and could not be ascertained. This point was very significant because only an individual or a recognized legal entity can be capable of property ownership. Therefore, since Mr. Motta was claiming ownership of the copyrights by virtue of his status of O.H.O., he had to be able to prove that the property rights represented by the copyrights could vest in him, through the O.T.O. as a legal entity.
Of the various legal entities capable of asserting claims of property ownership, the O.T.O. came the closest to being defined as an "unincorporated association". Although, under common law, unincorporated associations are not recognized legal entities capable of asserting ownership rights, it is possible that ownership rights which can not be legally held by an unincorporated association may vest in the members of that organization. This was the legal theory used by Mr. Motta to claim ownership of the copyrights. The Court, however, correctly stated that it could not determine the rights vested in the individual members of an association unless the association has a distinct and identifiable membership. Mr. Motta's legal theory instantly evaporated.
In summary, the Courts determined that Mr. Motta could not gain ownership rights of the Crowley copyrights by virtue of his status as O.H.O. of the O.T.O. simply because he could not legally prove he was the O.H.O. Furthermore, due to the large number of rival claims to the "legitimate" succession of Crowley's O.T.O., Mr. Motta could only support his claim to ownership of the copyrights as a mere member of a much larger association of groups and individuals comprising the O.T.O. And since the Court found that the membership of the O.T.O. was indeterminate, the O.T.O. was incapable of owning property through its individual members. Thus, Mr. Motta was unable to prove that he owned the copyrights, an essential element of a lawsuit for copyright infringement. Basically, if you don't own something, you can't sue someone for interfering with your ownership rights.
The final question boils down to the legal status of the Crowley copyrights at this time. Without examining the court decision in the California case, it is impossible to make a determination. The faction of the O.T.O. based in California** is, however, claiming that it holds the copyrights on the basis of successful litigation in federal district court in San Francisco, and presumably the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. However, given the outcome of the Maine case, there is considerable doubt as to the complete validity of that assertion. Venturing a guess, it is possible that the claims of the California O.T.O. may be legally enforceable only within the jurisdiction of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. That includes the states of California, Arizona, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Montana, Alaska, Hawaii, and the territories of Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands. Given that there seems to be a split of opinion between the 1st and 9th Circuits, the final arbiter in this matter would have to be the U.S. Supreme Court. To my knowledge, the Supreme Court has never passed judgment as to the validity of anyone's claim to ownership of the Crowley copyrights.
Frater Anubis
July 1989 E.V.
*"O.T.O." is simply used here whereas I might have overburdened the article by using phrases like "various factions claiming to be the O.T.O.". Luckily for you, Frater Anubis wisely simplified matters.**While the "Caliphate pseudo-o.t.o." still operates in California, New York now seems to be its base. [1998 E.V. NOTE: Although at the time of this writing, the "Caliph", Frater Hymaneaus Beta, William Breeze, resides in Austin, Texas.]
Excerpt from a letter written to me by a member of the Caliphate pseudo-o.t.o. in March of 1990 E.V.:
"I found out a while ago that a University in Texas (forget which one) has all (?) of A.C.'s works and that you need the Caliphate's permission to reprint material. Wonder why? Afraid someone will make money off of the books?"
Excerpt from my usually verbose reply letter:
"The University of Texas in Austin, like a few other libraries in the U.S., has material by Crowley, some of it hitherto unpublished, but no one ... not even A.C. during his lifetime ... has all the Crowleyana there is to have. The University of Texas does have a larger than usual uncatalogued holding of Crowleyana though. As for the bullshit about needing permission from William Breeze ... excuse me ... Caliph Hymenaeus Beta and the Caliphate pseudo-o.t.o. to reprint that or any other Crowleyana, it is just that. Bullshit. The vast majority of Crowley's works is in public domain which means that anyone may publish it without anyone's permission. Crowley privately published a great deal of his work and distributed it without copyrighting it first. Works distributed without first being copyrighted automatically fall into public domain. Some of Crowley's works currently in print carry a relatively recent copyright, but this generally means that all new material in the book only, such as prefaces, annotations and notes, added by editors is covered by the copyright ... not the body of the text itself if it was originally published and distributed without a copyright."Only a few things in A.C.'s last years were copyrighted by the real and original O.T.O.. The Caliphate pseudo-o.t.o. can claim that they now own those copyrights, however, taken to court it can be overturned and they can end up losing the right to call themselves the Ordo Templi Orientis, et al, and it would bring their entire castle of sand down and wash it away. So, if they want to sue someone for reprinting and publishing without their permission, say, The Equinox of the Gods, copyrighted by the genuine O.T.O. during Crowley's lifetime in 1936 E.V., they could slit their own throat if the other fellow is smart enough to get a good lawyer to challenge their idiotic and false claim to be the genuine O.T.O..
"Yes. They are trying to hoard Crowley's works, parasites that they are. They have nothing new of worth to offer the world to give them even the appearance of worth, so they feel that they must stand not upon their own worth but upon the great worth of Crowley and his existing literary works.
"The Caliphate pseudo-o.t.o. [in my humble personal and professional opinion, of course!] is generally composed of ego-centric, egotistical, parasitic, uncreative, non-productive bloody fools who are not sincerely interested in further establishing Thelema in society and educating the world about Crowley, Thelema, et al. They are merely out to get whatever they can for themselves and to do that they are trying to restrict others ... and remember CCXX I.41: 'The word of Sin is Restriction.'
"The Pope in Rome is probably more Thelemic than Hymenaeus Beta and his cohorts."
Dear members and associate members [subscribers to The Magical Link],
You pay fees and dues to the Caliphate, money that you presumably earned through hard work. What exactly do you get from the Caliphate in return? An occasional newsletter? Very occasional, it seems! The right to attend a party, excuse me, an "initiation" ritual from time to time, sometimes one in which you yourself walk away with a "higher", albeit dubious, degree? And with all of those dues and fees paid to the Caliphate, and all the fuss over copyrights, are you now able to obtain a great deal of Aleister Crowley's works? Are many of his books available? Are those few, mostly reprinted again and again while much of A.C.'s work remains yet unavailable, easily affordable - especially after you have paid your fees and dues to the Caliphate? Are you becoming a disgruntled Caliphate member? Cheer up! Be assured, my friends, that that hard-earned money you pay to the Caliphate in dues and fees is indeed going to a worthy cause. You are supporting a no-talent parasitic chauvinistic fast talker and making it possible for him to play the part of your lord and master, giving him the ability to travel all over the country, taking trips to Europe, while he spends your money collecting rare and expensive works by Aleister Crowley at auctions and from rare book dealers - scarce volumes I am sure he has a very good reason for not sharing with the membership who have, in truth, paid for those extraordinary works. So dig deep into your pockets, brothers and sisters! Crack open that piggy bank! Withdraw those hard-earned dollars from your bank account and, quickly now! pay those dues and fees that seem to go up and up and up. It's for a worthy cause! Horus forbid! What would your Caliph and his closest cronies do without your money? And look at everything you receive in return! Instruction? No. Rare works by Aleister Crowley? No. Genuine initiation and association with a true esoteric and Thelemic order? Definitely not! The comradeship of true Brothers and Sisters in Thelema? Oh, perhaps you will find a bit of this despite the Caliphate, but you are surrounded by many more people of dubious sincerity and worth that you would no doubt never normally choose to associate with. And are you doing something, really doing something, for the measurable good of Thelema and human society as a whole by way of your association with the Caliphate pseudo-o.t.o.? Not a bit. But of course, by paying your dues and fees, putting money in the Caliphate's pockets, you assist them in their efforts to restrict the greater publication and wider distribution of the works of Aleister Crowley, as they do their best to corner the market for Crowleyana, thereby retarding the growth of Thelema in society and weakening its strength to stand up and become recognized as a power in the world. However, who are we to judge? Why, if the Caliphate did not frighten people with their actually laughable talk of owning the copyrights to all of Crowley's works - most publishers even know that they could win the right to publish Crowley's books in a court of law, but dealing with the legal system is a costly and time consuming project and there are, after all, so many other things that they can publish and profit from - but let us not dwell on that. How horrible it would be, don't you agree, if, well, anybody could, without fear of hassles, publish the works of Aleister Crowley? This publisher and that, individuals galore, would be publishing various editions of numerous works by Crowley, many rare and hitherto unpublished MSS finally seeing the light of day, competition between one publisher and another keeping the cost of these volumes down, and we would see an end to the apparently preferable state of affairs in which a few books previously published are republished, with new errors, allowing the Caliph to ride Crowley's coattails by way of a long preface or introduction added to the Master's work, although adding nothing of real worth. Yessiree. Things are much better the way they are today in 1997 E.V., Thelemically the year 93. So keep paying the Caliphate's fees and dues, folks. And just remember: Every dollar you give the Caliphate goes towards .........................
An old index card in my files reads: "Bill Breeze, 93 Publishing, P.O. Box 31, South Stukely, Quebec, Canada JOE 2JO". My my, could this Bill Breeze be the same William Breeze who now hides behind the "magical name" of Hymenaeus Beta, the so-called "Caliph" of the Caliphate pseudo-o.t.o.? And was he once a member of the Typhonian pseudo-o.t.o.? And if so, why did he switch allegiances, as it were? Did he find advancement in Grant's group impossible and the possibility of eventually taking control in the McMurtry group appealing? If this is true, to some degree or another, in one way or another, what are Mr. Breeze's true motives - the growth of the O.T.O. and the further establishment of Thelema, or personal ego gratification? Just questions. Not accusations.
1997 E.V. Note - And we find in the late Marcelo Ramos Motta's pseudo-Equinox, Vol. V, No. 4, of 1981 E.V., the following: "William Breeze: an ex-Probationer who failed to keep his Oath and perform his Task and was cut contact with as a result."
First Breeze blew into the Grant pseudo-o.t.o., or was at least to some degree associated with it, then he found his way into Motta's pseudo-o.t.o., i.e. the S.O.T.O., until finally the ill-wind blew into the Caliphate pseudo-o.t.o. which he finally took control of. Was control of a group and the inevitable groupies and self-made slaves what he was looking for? Was he simply looking for a way to feed off of Aleister Crowley's work like a parasite? Let us say probably both reasons, but certainly it still comes down to ego-gratification at the expense of truth, honesty, sincerity and the good of Thelema.
[Encyclical Letter, Vernal Equinox 1990 E.V.]
In response to the Vernal Equinox Encyclical Letter regarding "The 'O.T.O.' Goes to Court" by Frater Anubis, I received the following from Gregory von Seewald in a letter dated 9 April 1990 E.V.:
"1) 'Several things disturbed me about Mr. von Seewald's comments'."First, and in order to obviate any further misunderstanding, I will openly state for the record, that I have made no comments whatsoever. Although the method in which the Appellants Brief was presented may have led Frater A. to this conclusion, the introduction piece to that paper was written in whole by Marcelo Motta, which was extracted from a much longer introduction which we had edited to protect the innocent from any further slander. The remainder of the text was printed as Mr. Motta presented it to the world, including the 'Three Important Letters' and their comment. The Abbey of Theleme merely added the paper's title cover and back art and our name and address for source reference. In contrast to Frater A.'s statement, '... my suspicions are instantly raised when someone makes allegations and then only presents one side of the story', this was precisely why we chose to print this piece. The other side of the story has been widely published, and in the attempt to perpetrate exactly what Frater A. accuses 'me' of doing. The fact that the plaintiffs chose not to publish their Brief is none of my concern, however, the fact that they persistently misrepresent the findings, judgments, etc. to suit their own ends, is what concerns me as exampled by the back-piece art on the afore mentioned paper. Here Lady Justice has balanced the scales, making no judgment. The plaintiffs did indeed publish the Supreme Court's denial, or should I say what they consider to be 'the substance of the letter' which read: 'The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied', and gloatingly adds: 'Game over!' Motta, however, maintains that the petition was denied due to lack of time on the docket.
"It is also apparent that plaintiffs have not only misled the general public, but have also kept many grave secrets from their own numbers. I here quote one prominent example of this strain of dishonesty, from a June 3rd letter received by the Abbey in the year 1989 e.v. from the Secretary of the London BENU Camp:
"'I have read your "What You Always Wanted To Know About The OTO" publication with my finest attention. It has raised many issues which disturbed me profoundly. ... As an historian, I care passionately for accuracy of fact, especially on a matter which matters so deeply to me. Your document makes it clear to me, that there are many complexities of a most disturbing nature, which, hitherto, I have known nothing.'
"You may ask, why? does he know nothing of this? I leave you to your own conclusions. I can, however, quote from the final page of Liber CI: 'The utmost frankness and good faith between Brethren is essential to the easy and harmonious working of our system ... and that breach of them is swiftly and silently suppressed.' Perhaps the plaintiffs have taken this to heart? They are quite proficient at silently suppressing their own DISHONESTY!
"I will also quote from a November 9th 1989 e.v. letter received from an Aspirant upon the Path, one Frater ......*, in Canada:
"'The "O.T.O.: Everything You Always Wanted to Know but were Afraid to Ask" was very interesting indeed! The information that I have had about the whole O.T.O. fiasco was quite one-sided, coming from the plaintiffs! It was refreshing to see another view-point. Regardless, it still was a mess which never should have happened in the first place!'
"Need I say more? We have seen the one side long enough! See plaintiffs' 'Magical Link', their pseudo-Equinox edition, etc. The facts are quite clear, I'm sure you will agree. As for Frater A., he should do his homework before drawing from misinformation and making conclusions from an uninformed viewpoint. As history has shown this is what 'attorneys' do for a living - may the richest and most 'connected' man win (?)."
*Mr. von Seewald asked me to omit the name of the brother he had quoted and he also told me that "perhaps you could put your title of Editor to work for a change rather than directly quoting, mistakes and all, should you want to smooth out the grammar, punctuation, etc." Of course Mr. von Seewald forgot that an Editor is the closest thing to God on earth [ahum!] and may edit material as he sees fit. While I did as Mr. von Seewald asked here [probably imperfectly], I normally prefer to quote others precisely as they presented themselves so as to give the reader the truest possible indications of their character as I can. [This I have even done when quoting myself, difficult though it is not to rewrite a poorly written letter before allowing others to read what was originally intended for only one person in an informal situation.] Kenneth Grant and his editors, for instance, have done a great disservice to readers by correcting and editing Michael Bertriaux to portray him as a more intelligent and literate man than he is in fact.
Frater Anubis, having read Mr. von Seewald's response which I have just quoted, had the following comments to make in a letter to me dated April 27, 1990 E.V.:
"I initially must apologize, on the record, to Mr. von Seewald for my mistaken belief that he was the author of the language I commented upon in my letter to you. Perhaps in future publications he could disclose his sources, thus avoiding confusion among readers, such as myself."However, I do take exception to Mr. von Seewald's disparaging remarks about attorneys. Correct me if I'm mistaken, but I believe it was Cicero who stated that the lawyer is the 'priest of justice'. Admittedly, many members of my profession do not attempt to maintain high standards of idealism or professionalism, however, that does not justify disparaging all attorneys.
"Also, I was rather perplexed and disappointed by Mr. von Seewald's attack on me; specifically his comment that I was drawing upon misinformation and making conclusions from an uninformed viewpoint. The information I utilized was the material published by Mr. von Seewald's orgainzation, as well as the court's published opinion in Motta v. Samuel Weiser, Inc. It was not my intent to take any sides on the issue I raised. The sole purpose of my short article was to explain why the federal courts reached their decision, from a legal standpoint, and to describe for your readers the process by which courts make decisions. I'm sorry that Mr. von Seewald took offense to my comments, particularly since I attempted to maintain a high standard of impartiality, however, I fully stand behind my analysis of the court opinions."
Now I would like to make a brief comment regarding the various groups today calling themselves the Ordo Templi Orientis as well as "Aleister Crowley's O.T.O.". In my humble [but intelligent!] opinion, they are all a pack of cards, and each pack is almost exclusively made up of Jokers - and by that I do not mean the "mystical Fool" - with but a few naive, confused and lost Kings and Queens among them. The whole O.T.O. thing today is nothing more than a large and stupid game of Liar's Poker with no one holding a winning hand and everyone trying to out bluff everyone else.
To finish this subject [at least for the moment], let me direct you, the readers, to the work of P. R. König, author of "Thelema in Appenzell", which can be found in the 1988 E.V. issues of the "Nuit-Isis" journal. He is doing his damnest to collect documentation on the O.T.O. and the various groups now claiming to represent and be that order today. I find his work often confusing, no doubt in part because of the proverbial language barrier, and I certainly do not agree with everything he says [e.g. in a letter to me that after the A.·.A.·. "failed", Crowley tried to use the O.T.O. as a "purse"], but Mr. König, via his investigations, has also become, shall we say, skeptical of the claims of the various pseudo-o.t.o.s, as I must insist upon calling these groups. Interested parties and those with information should contact Mr. P. R. König at Freihofstrasse 2, CH-9842 Oberreiden, Switzerland.
[1997 E.V. NOTE: his address has changed and changed again, but he has his own web site. http://www.cyberlink.ch/~koenig/ However, a word of caution: Mr. König seems to be hell bent upon destroying utterly everything connected with the Ordo Templi Orientis, it seems to be a personal vendetta. Like most fellows of his disposition, he has tirelessly dredged up a great deal of information on the subject of the O.T.O., however, because of his personal animosity he has sometimes been inclined to quote material out of context in order to give the impression that the material quoted has a somewhat different meaning that was originally intended. Furthermore, the greatest casualty, not only in the war Mr. König wages against all those who claim to be the O.T.O., but also in that battle waged by these groups who are all falsely claiming to be the Ordo Templi Orientis, is without a doubt Thelema, the work and memory of Aleister Crowley, and society as a whole, which so desperately needs Thelema at this point in history.]
And now, at least for the time being, let us give this entire subject a Royal Flush.