|
THE |
|
a cache of usenet and other text files pertaining
to occult, mystical, and spiritual subjects. |
|
|
THE |
|
a cache of usenet and other text files pertaining
to occult, mystical, and spiritual subjects. |
Subject: McMurtry vs. S.O.T.O. Trial
[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 some type of position to overlook or assist with the problems at Agape Lodge?
A. I suggested the situation become formalized, and he responded by sending me a formal authorization.
Q. One of the things you suggested was that you be appointed Caliph or something along that line? [page 125]
A. No, I never suggested that. The Caliph letters where far behind at that point.
Q. Let's back up. Let's go back to the letter you were just looking at.
A. Yes.
Q. That was dated sometime in November of 1944?
A. Yes, that is right.
Q. Mr. Crowley, in the beginning of that letter, refers to a letter that you had written to him on November 6; right? Remember that?
A. Yes.
Q. And he says: "Concerning the Caliph," right after he mentions your letter of November 6.
A. All right.
Q. Didn't he say that because you had written to him about the Caliphate on November 6?
A. All right.
Q. Didn't he say that because you had written to him about the Caliphate on November 6?
A. Yes. That came up when I was still able -- after the drive on the Siene, he {SIC sb. "we" -weh} wound up at the Cathedral town of Scharts, S-c-h-a-r-t-s {SIC}. That was in August. And I wrote to Mr. -- Mr. Crowley had mentioned Caliphate, and I wrote to him and asked for clarification.
Q. Now, you didn't produce either of the letters that you just mentioned when we asked you to do that before this trial. [page 126]
Have you been unable to find them?
A. I beg your pardon?
Q. We don't have either of those letters. We don't have the letter that you wrote to him from Scharts {SIC}.
A. I am sorry. I cannot locate that file at the present time. I have looked for it, and I cannot find it.
Q. All right. Was that the letter -- the letter that you wrote from Scharts {SIC} -- the first letter in which the Caliph was discussed?
A. It wasn't from Scharts {SIC} so much as it was Crowley who wrote to me and mentioned the Caliphate, and I wrote back requesting clarification.
And he wrote back then on September 28, '44 with further clarification.
And then November 1944 he explained what he meant by Caliph and what he expected from it.
Q. Let me go back to something else for a minute.
We were talking about other members of the Ninth Degree Lectures {SIC ?}. Is it possible that besides the two women who are plaintiffs with you that there are other Ninth Degree members still around from Agape Lodge.
A. You say "possible," but I do not believe it's probable because, to the best of my knowledge, we knew [page 127] all of the elderly ongoing members of Agape Lodge.
And to the best of our knowledge they are all dead except Helen, Phyllis and myself, so far as I know.
Q. There might be some others; is that correct?
A. There might be anything.
Q. If they were initiated by Aleister Crowley they, like you, would be Ninth Degree members?
A. If they could produce documents to prove it.
Q. If Mr. Germer initiated anybody in the Ninth Degree, they would be a Ninth Degree member like yourself?
A. That does not follow.
Q. I beg your pardon?
A. That does not follow.
Q. It doesn't follow because of what?
A. Because Germer was never the Outer Head of the Order. He was only de facto.
Q. You do not need to be Outer Head of the Order in order to initiate somebody in the Ninth Degree.
A. That is correct. You don't need to be.
Q. You only have to be Ninth Degree?
A. Ninth Degree or Third.
Q. And Mr. Germer was certainly that?
A. Yes.
Q. So anybody initiated would be validly initiated? [page 128]
A. During his lifetime.
Q. So that, say, if Mr. Motta was initiated by Mr. Germer into the Ninth Degree, he would, like you, be a member of the Ninth Degree?
A. If he were initiated, that would be true, during Mr. Germer's lifetime since he was only de facto.
q. I think you -- are you ready, sir?
A. Yes.
Q. I think you also testified that during the 1950s Mr. Germer was unhappy with you.
A. That is correct, he was.
Q. And I think you said that he was unhappy because you were pushing for new initiations; is that right?
A. That is correct.
And also he felt I was slow in repaying the debt for a car loan, which he had given me.
Q. Were there any other reasons that you can think of?
A. Yes. When Mr. Germer came to the West Coast in the 1950s, I was at that time in 1950, '53 in Korea for the Korean War. And I was in Berkeley, a graduate student at the University of California.
What happened was he came out to the Los Angeles-Barstow area, had a number of very unhappy experiences with OTO members, and he simply wrote off the members of the Agape Lodge as being untrustworthy, [page 129] disloyal and so forth. And, of course, that included me.
Q. Did you pay any dues?
A. There were no dues being collected by Mr. Germer.
Q. Did you offer to pay any dues?
A. I didn't offer, because he did not ask.
Q. You spoke something about the letters that Mr. Crowley had written to Frederic Mellinger.
Do you remember that?
A. When was that, sir?
Q. This morning.
A. Yes, I recall.
Q. Do you recall whether the terminology he used in those letters explaining his potential future role is similar to that used to describe your future role?
A. It was and it was not.
On the one hand, when he spoke of Mr. Mellinger being a possible successor that was equivalent to my Caliphate letters.
On the other hand, he never gave him any Caliphate letters, nor did he ever give him any documents of authorization.
So the letters themselves were favorable to Mellinger, but they never provided any authorization to take effect. [page 130]
Q. Let me show you Defendants Exhibit 16 --
THE COURT: 60?
MR. MITTEL: 16.
THE WITNESS: Does it have something to do with chronology?
BY MR. MITTEL:
Q. Would you read the material on page 2 that I have highlighted for you, starting with the first full paragraph on that page?
A. Yes. Shall I identify it for the court reporter?
Q. We have done that.
A. Quote:
"I am very anxious indeed that you
should keep in close touch with me
only because I think it quite
possible that after The Saturnus
and I have moved on into
the next stage, you may" --
underline "may" --"find yourself saddled
with the whole responsibility of
carrying on with the Order."
Q. What is the address and line on the letter?
A. "My beloved Son."
Q. Did Mr. Crowley ever refer to you as his "beloved son"? [page 131]
A. No, he did not.
He referred to me, however -- he wrote to me as "Louis," because in his mind Louis had something to do with the King of France.
I never did get that straightened out.
Q. Are you familiar with an individual by the name of Louis Umfreville?
A. Louis Umfreville Wilkinson.
Q. Were was he from?
A. He was from London, England. He was Dr. Wilkinson, and he wrote under the literary name of Louis Marlow, M-a-r-l-o-w, L-o-u-i-s.
Q. Do you know whether Mr. Crowley assigned Mr. Mellinger any position in the Ordo Templi Orientis?
A. No, I do not.
Q. Do you know whether Mr. Germer did?
A. No, I don't.
Q. So you don't know whether Mr. Germer instructed Mr. Mellinger to go to Switzerland and review the operations of the Swiss Branch of the Ordo Templi Orientis?
A. No, I have no cognizance of that.
Q. Do you have any documentary evidence, any letters, anything like the "Blue Equinox" that indicates that the Constitution that is in the "Blue Equinox" is in any way amended or changed by the 1917 Constitution that you [page 132] spoke of this morning?
A. The 1919 Constitution published in the"Blue Equinox" is an abstract of the 1917 Constitution. The most radical aspect of it was that an OHO can change the Constitution by edict.
Q. In the 1919 Constitution is there anything that makes reference to the 1917 Constitution?
A. I do not believe so. I never seen it myself.
Q. Here is the "Blue Equinox;" is that right?
A. Correct>
Q. Have you read this book?
MR. MacKENZIE: Objection. I don't believe that is the authentic copy.
BY MR. MITTEL:
A. Are you familiar with this work?
THE COURT: Is there a dispute?
MR MacKENZIE: Yes, sir.
If I may address that: It's my understanding that this is a later edition which contains differences from the original one that was published in 1919.
THE WITNESS: Yes, that is correct.
MR. MacKENZIE: I oppose its authenticity.
THE COURT: Well, would you identify for the record what edition of the book that is?
MR. MITTEL: This, Your Honor, that is, I [page 133] am holding in my hand is the 1974 edition published by Samuel Weiser, Incorporated, of the "Blue Equinox"' first published, I believe, in 1929 or maybe even earlier by someone in Detroit, the name of which escapes me.
BY MR. MITTEL:
Q. Mr. McMurtry, are you familiar with both editions?
A. I am very familiar with the first edition which was published in 1919 with Aleister Crowley.
I am familiar with this edition. And when it came out I reviewed it.
My memory will not comprehend everything that is in it, of course, but I will tell you this, that we were quite surprised to discover that when Mr. Weiser published this edition, there is a section in there involving publications.
Mr. Weiser went through and removed the name and address of the publisher of each one of these. And there may very well have been other changes, but quite obviously some changes have been made.
Q. Either in this edition or in the 1919 edition is there any reference to the 1919 {SIC sb. "1917" -pla} Constitution, to which you have testified?
A. I have no knowledge of it being in either of those editions. I have never seen it before.
Recently we acquired a quoted material in [page 134] which this was about -- about two or three months ago we became aware of the 1917 Constitution.
Q. Do you know if Mr. Wasserman worked on the publication of the 1974 edition?
A. I do not know that personally, but -- no.
Q. When did you finish your Master's Degree?
A. 1954.
Q. What did you do after that?
A. I continued as a graduate student at the University of California to the academic year of '55, '56, whereupon I was given the position of Administration Analyst with President Sproul, at which time I worked the position from that year 1956, '57 -- at which time I left the University, worked around Berkeley for awhile, and then took a job with the Department of Labor in Sacramento as a management analyst.
Q. So do I understand that you were steadily employed from 1956 until when you went no Washington, D.C.
A. I was steadily employed, yes.
Q. Let me show you Plaintiffs' Exhibit 1 about which you testified this morning.
What is the date on that letter, please?
A. November 10, 1959.
Q. So at that time you were working; is that right?
A. In 1959? [page 135]
Q. Yes.
A. I went to Sacramento in 1957. I was working there in 1959; that is correct.
Q. When did you move to Washington, D.C.?
A. In 1961.
Q. What OTO activities did you undertake while you were in Washington, D.C.?
A. Absolutely none, because there were no other OTO members except, of course, keeping in correspondence for awhile with the people on the West Coast.
Q. How long did you keep in contact with them?
A. At least until 1962. We have letters until then. After that, I don't recall much in the line of contact.
Q. So there was no contact from, say, sometime in 1962 until 1969 when you got a letter from Phyllis Seckler?
MR. MacKENZIE: Objection. I think that is mischaracterizing his testimony.
He said at least 1962. He does not remember beyond that.
THE WITNESS: Yes. I don't remember beyond that. I don't have any documentation. It's just a -- people stopped writing, and I had work to do.
BY MR. MITTEL:
Q. The first contact you did have with anybody was when Miss Seckler wrote and told you what? [page 136]
A. Miss Seckler wrote me in '68 and informed me of the burglary of Crowley's library at West Point. And that is the first contact I had for some time.
Q. In fact, in that letter, didn't she wonder if perhaps you had committed the burglary?
A. Yes. She asked me: Did you do it? So I took a look at my finances. I said, "This is impossible." What is going on?
Q. You didn't have anything to do with the burglary in 1967?
A. Absolutely nothing. I was on the East Coast.
Q. Soon thereafter, that is, after 1967 or '68, you came back to California; is that right?
A. I came back to California in 1969.
Q. Did you say that you continued an investigation of this theft that had taken place at Mrs. Germer's house?
A. I did.
Q. Did you ever speak with Mrs. Germer?
A. I did not speak with Mrs. Germer from 1961. And I certainly didn't talk to her after I came back to California.
Q. So you didn't ask her any questions about the theft?
A. I absolutely did not.
Q. Did you talk with any of her neighbors? [page 137]
A. We talked with the constable in the little town of West Point, but we did not interview her neighbors, no.
Q. Now, you say that after Mr. Germer's death, as far as you knew, there was no Ordo
Templi Orientis activity in the United States in terms of initiations or lodge meetings or anything of the like?
A. That was Mr. Germer --
Q. Yes.
A. Mr Germer died in 1962, and I was in Washington, D.C. I was not informed until 1968. So there was nothing I could do.
Q. You do not know whether there were, say lodge meetings going on in England during that period, do you?
A. I have been in the Order for 40 years. If there were members in England, I would know it. We would have been in correspondence.
Q. You didn't know about Mr. Germer's death until six years after it happened?
A. That is correct. More like seven.
Q. Why should we think you should know what was going on in England?
A. During that time?
Q. Yes, sir. [page 138]
A. I had no reason to suppose that anybody was holding activities in England a that time. They would not be in correspondence from '68 to '69
Q. So if somebody was doing it, you would have known about it?
A. I certainly would not have known about it at that time.
Q. Likewise, you wouldn't have known if there was any activities in, say, Switzerland; is that right?
A. We -- I had heard of Mr. Metzger in Switzerland, but that was about all at the time.
Q. You didn't know whether there was any activities in Australia.
Q. And you didn't know that there was any activity in Brazil?
A. Well, I -- let me see. What year was this?
Sometime I became acquainted with the -- that Mr. Motta was in Brazil.
Q. We are talking about during the 1960s.
A. I have no idea.
Q. So you testimony this morning that there was no activity after Mr. Germer's death is limited, at least as far as you know, to the United States? [page 139]
A. That is correct. In the official activity we recognized.
Q. In fact, you might not even be correct about that, because you were out of contact with everybody in California during that period; is that right?
A. There was a hiatus of about six to seven years.
Q. You testified about the College of Thelema. Can you describe that for us?
THE COURT: What?
MR. MITTEL: The College of Thelema.
THE WITNESS: Yes. This is an organization that was created by Phyllis and myself in Dublin. It's an organization to teach and education people who would like to get involved with Aleister Crowley's writings and teachings.
It has a formal organization. It has a publication called "In the Continuum", C-o-n-t-i-n-u-u-m. It has classes and it has seminars.
And at least once a year, it was my understanding, they have a big meeting in Oroville.
BY MR. MITTEL:
Q. Have you ever taught a class for the College of Thelema?
A. I have not myself, because I departed Dublin in 1974, but I did use my talents as a management analyst [page 140] to set up the organization formally.
Q. Do you know that type of classes they teach?
A. From the literature I received, it's classes involving Aleister Crowley's writings and, of course, things concerning the history of the Order.
Q. Have you ever attended one of those classes?
A. No, I have not.
Q. Are there any other documents besides the 1919 Constitution which provided governing rules for the Ordo Templi Orientis?
A. Yes. In the "Blue Equinox" there is some other material in which Crowley -- for example, he has a, long list of duties and responsibilities and financial obligations which is not in the Constitution.
In fact, I believe he mentions it in two letters, other than the information of the Constitution, all three of them, including the "Equinox," to my memory, sir.
Q. Is all of the governing law in the "Blue Equinox" except what is in the rituals themselves?
A. To the best of my knowledge, that is correct. [page 141]
Q. Does it -- do any of those materials say anything at all about a de facto OHO?
A. No, not that I know of.
Q. Do any of those materials say anything about the authorizations being used by a de facto OHO expiring?
A. I do not believe it does, because it doesn't discuss a de facto OHO.
MR. MITTEL: You Honor, if I understand correctly, we were going to stop at 1:00 or just about then.
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. MITTEL: This is a convenient place for me.
THE COURT: Fine.
Mr. McMurtry, you may step down until tomorrow.
We will be in adjournment, ladies and gentlemen, until 9:30 tomorrow morning.
Tomorrow's schedule will be 9:30 until roughly 4:30 with an appropriate break for the lunch hour.
And then on Wednesday and Thursday we will begin at 8:00 in the morning and again go until 1:00 in the afternoon.
MR. MITTEL: if Your Honor please, I will [page 142] be happy to go through 5:00 on Wednesday, Thursday --
THE COURT: Let's see where we are.
MR. MITTEL: -- if need be.
THE COURT: Let's see where we are. If we need extra time on Wednesday and Thursday to complete the week we can do that. But the regular court day will be 8:00 to 1:00 without lunch break unless we -- well, as I say, we can reset the schedule when we see how our time is progressing.
We will adjourn now until 9:30 tomorrow morning.
(Court adjourned at 1:00 p.m.)
[page 143] --- this page is used in the Transcript for the certification by the Court Reporter. In as much as this is not a legally certifiable electronic document, the page shall remain blank to signify that this particular version is for research and not for legal representations.
---- Transcribed from the record with notes by William E. Heidrick, Grand Treasurer General, Ordo Templi Orientis.
[page 145]
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 II
PAGES 145 - 249
Morning Session
REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS OF COURT TRIAL
Tuesday, May 14, 1985
450 Golden Gate Avenue
San Francisco, CAlifornia 94102
REPORTED BY:
Nancy J. Palmer
[page 146]
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 147]
INDEX
VOLUME II
Examinations:
Witness: Direct Cross Redirect Recross
Grady Louis McMurtry
Resumed: 149
Phyllis Seckler 194 250 308
Helen Parsons Smith 317 346 361 367
Exhibits: For_Ident. In_Evidence
Defendants'
68-B,C Two documents dated 252 255
April 26, 1977
3,83,86 Purchase orders and 339
letters re books
[page 148]
Tuesday, May 14, 1985 9:30 o'clock a.m.
PROCEEDINGS
SECOND DAY
THE CLERK: Civil Action No. 83-5434, McMurtry versus Society Ordo Templi Orientis.
THE COURT: Good morning.
Mr. Mittel, are you ready to resume your cross-examination?
MR. MITTEL: Yes, I am.
THE COURT: Mr. McMurtry, would you take the witness stand again, please?
GRADY LOUIS McMURTRY,
having been previously duly sworn, was examined and testified further as hereinafter set forth.
THE COURT: Mr. McMurtry, you realize that you are still under oath?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE COURT: If you need a recess of any kind, please let us know.
THE WITNESS: Thank you.
THE COURT: All right, Mr. Mittel.
MR. MITTEL: Thank you, Your Honor.
Good morning again, Mr. McMurtry. [page 149]
THE WITNESS: Sir.
MR. MITTEL: Good morning, Your Honor.
CROSS-EXAMINATION (Resumed)
BY MR. MITTEL:
Q. I think yesterday you testified at some point that you moved out of the house in which you were living in Dublin and moved to Berkeley. Can you tell us why you did that, please?
A. Yes. Phyllis asked me to leave.
Q. And why did you she do that?
A. Well, I don't know.
Q. You didn't talk with her about it?
A. Oh, yes. There was some question about finances, but this had been going on over for years, whatever, prior to 1974.
Q. So it is your testimony that the reason she asked you to leave was because you were not making a financial contribution to the household?
A. That was her opinion, yes.
Q. And were there any other reasons?
A. I can't think of any.
Q. You're certain about that?
A. Well, I can't think of any just offhand. That was the only thing that caused us to have disturbing relations. [page 150]
Q. Now, was it before or after you left that -- left Dublin, that is -- that you and Miss Seckler and some other people had gone up to Calaveras County and gotten the library?
A. Okay. That was a very long question. Can you try that again?
Q. Did you leave Mrs. Seckler's house before or after you and the other members of the Ordo Templi Orientis --
A. Oh, yes, I left in 1974. And we didn't go up there until 1976.
Q. So you were not living in Dublin when the library was brought back from Calaveras County?
A. I was not living there. I was visiting, however, on weekends and sometimes on week nights.
Q. Could you tell me again what it was that you removed physically from the contents of the library and took from Dublin back to your home in Berkeley?
A. Correction, Sir. I did not remove anything from the library. The library was under my custody according to the Superior Court Order of Calaveras County. I did remove them from the house. But the library could have been in Berkeley if I would have had a place to store it.
I didn't remove from the house --
Q. Let me ask you something else first: Have you [page 151] always taken the position, Mr. McMurtry?
A. Certainly. That is what the Superior Court Order said.
Q. You've never indicated that it was yours personally?
A. No, not mine personally. Well, I may have indicated that in certain moments of distraction. But in any case it is not my personal property.
It is only in my custody as, say, the representative of the Order.
Q. And you certainly wouldn't have stated that it was yours if you were think and and writing about it?
A. No-- I -- that's -- if I did, it was certainly a misunderstanding or I was in a hurry.
Q. Now, let's go back. And tell me now, if you will, what it was that you took to Berkeley with you?
A. Yes. I took a copy of the Liber Aleph that Mr. Motta printed in Brazil.
I took two large vinyl records that had the Enochian -- that's spelled E-n-o-c-h-i-a-n -- Enochian call on them.
I took a copy of the latest edition of the I-Ching, I-Ching, by Legge, L-e-g-g-e.
There was novel called "The High Place" by James Daniel Gunther, which I liked, which I took. [page 152]
And many other -- probably several other things of addenda.
Oh, yes, there were some menus that Aleister Crowley had used at one time.
And that's about all that I can think of at the moment.
Q. Now, are you certain that's all you took?
A. No. I said that's all I can think of at the moment.
Q. Is it possible, for instance, that you also took some correspondence between Mr. Motta and Mr. Germer?
A. Thank you for correction my memory. I think that was --
MR. MacKENZIE: Your Honor, I am going to object at this time, because I think what we're talking about here is the foundation for the defendant's invasion of privacy claim which, I believe, is barred by the Statute of Limitations.
THE COURT: Well, I am not prepared to rule on that at the moment. And it seems to me the fundamental question of whether the witness took correspondence between Mr. Germer and Mr. Motta is -- runs throughout the case.
It seems to be in relationship to other people throughout the case. So I am not prepared to [page 153] rule on it if it's limited to one issue.
BY MR. MITTEL:
Q. Mr. McMurtry, can you describe for me what the menus looked like?
A. Yes. They were small, oblong cards. Some of them had Aleister Crowley's imprint, that is, a big seven-point star on them. Most of them did not -- and they were printed in gold. They said -- gold on white. And then on these Aleister Crowley had written his menu for the cafe he was attending at the time.
Q. For what?
A. For the cafe he was attending at the time.
Q. Now, Mr. McMurtry, do you remember my taking your deposition out here in San Francisco about a year and a half ago?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Do you remember my asking you what you had taken from the library or taken from your house?
A. I remember the question, yes.
Q. Let me read you your answer, and then another question and then another answer.
A. Yes.
Q. You say at page 107:
"I extracted the letters themselves."
You were talking about the letters between Mr. Motta and [page 154] Mr. Germer.
And then I said:
"What else did you take?"
"I took a few books and an original
copy of Liber Aleph, some quoted
material, what I thought was
interesting."
"Did anybody else take anything
else out of the library?
You say "Except for Phyllis Seckler, I
don't think so."
Now, you didn't mention the menus?
A. No.
Q. And that is because you actually didn't take the menus in 1976?
A. Oh, I took them. I just didn't remember. It's quite awhile ago from '76 till now, and what do the menus have to do with the case?
Q. You are absolutely certain that you didn't take the menus in 1976?
A. I said I did take them.
Q. You're absolutely certain that you did?
A. I don't know if it was in '76 or not, but I certainly took them.
Q. Well, could it have been some other time? [page 155]
A. I doubt it, but it is possible. I was visiting out there for a considerable period of time.
Q. Well, how many times -- strike the question, please.
Did at some point Mrs. Seckler take the library from her house in Dublin and put it into a commercial storage operation, Public Storage?
A. She said she did, and I believe her.
Q. All right. And when did that happen?
A. I'm not exactly sure of the date, because I did not take the library myself to sequester, so I don't know what dates she took it.
Q. Did you visit with her before that happened and after you had taken the material you've described to your house in Berkeley?
A. Before and after what?
Q. Did you happen to visit with her in Dublin after you took the material that you've mentioned, the Liber Aleph, the I-Ching?
A. My memory of that was our relations continued amiable for quite awhile after that.
Q. Are you certain about that?
A. Up to a point when she sequestered the library and changed her mind about leaving it in her house, other than that our relations became acidulent. [page 156]
Q. But prior to that time she had not, for instance, written to you and told you that you were not a good person, that you were failing in responsibilities --
A. Oh, she did all that and a lot more.
Q. And that was before --
A. I don't exactly -- well, no. That was before what, '76?
Q. That was before she sequestered the library?
A. I would presume it was the same time that she sequestered the library.
But I don't -- I don't recall -- I don't know when the library was sequestered. How can I -- I don't know what year it was sequestered.
Q. Let me suggest to you that Miss Seckler took the library was sometime in March of '77; is that right?
A. It's entirely possible.
Q. All right. Do you recollect going to her house between, say, July of 1976 and March of 1977?
A. Not offhand, but I might very well have done so.
Q. Do you have any recollection of your removing those menus, taking the menus, if you will, from the library during that interval of time?
A. No. I took them at some time, but I don't remember whether it was then or earlier.
Q. Now, your are certain you didn't take them sometime [page 157] after the library had been sequestered?
A. Definitely not, because I couldn't get to the library after it was sequestered since she put it in a storage box and did not tell me where that storage box was.
Q. How did you feel when you found out that she had put it in the storage box?
A. The library?
Q. Yes, sir.
A. Shock and considerable anger.
Q. And why was that?
A. Well, because according to the Superior Court Order I was to be in charge legally as representative of the Order of the library. She had no right to do so. And it disrupted all of the plans and schemes about the Order.
Q. And by her sequestering it, was that something akin to her almost stealing it from the Order?
A. Well, it depends upon how you define the words "steal" and "sequester."
So far as I was concerned, Phyllis Seckler is an active members of the Order of longstanding. She was a noted woman living in a house all by herself.
We know of three instances in which certain people have used violence against other women to obtain [page 158] coded material. And so she became frightened.
Q. She became what?
A. Frightened.
Q. Are you suggesting that she was frightened and that's why she hid the library?
A. Yes. I believe that's why she took the library, because she couldn't trust me at the time and somehow or other she got it in her head that I was going to come out and do something physical, but it really was impossible because I didn't have a car and no place to store it.
In any case, I wouldn't be able to find it, so I wrote to her and I called. And that was the end of it more or less.
Q. But you said you were angry at her?
A. Yes, I was.
Q. if she was frightened, wouldn't you have been understanding and caring?
A. How could I? She was in Dublin; I was in Berkeley.
Q. The reason you were angry at her and shocked about it was because you knew that really she was sequestering that library so that you couldn't get at it; isn't that true?
A. Oh, basically.
Q. And so since you were entitled or at least [page 159] according to the Court Order you were entitled to possess the library for the benefit of the Order --
A. Yes.
Q. -- she was preventing you from doing that?
A. That is correct.
Q. And she was violating that Court Order?
A. That is correct.
Q. So, in essence, she was a thief?
A. I don't think she was a thief. I think she was a frightened woman who put away material for which she was very concerned in a place where she thought it couldn't be burglarized.
Q. And you told other people what she had done, didn't you?
A. Did I, or did she?
Q. You did.
A. Oh, yes.
Q. You told them that she had taken this library in violation of the Court Order.
A. Oh, yes.
Q. And in violation of your rights and duties as your position in the Ordo Templi Orientis?
A. As it concerns the library, yes.
Q. Mr. McMurtry, you're not the Outer Head of the Ordo Templi Orientis, are you? [page 160]
A. Not official elected as such, no. There is no Outer Head of the Order at this time.
Q. Have you ever said that being the Caliph is the same as being the Outer Head of the Ordo Templi Orientis?
A. According to the "Blue Equinox", the Frater Superior and the OHO are equivalent and I am certainly the Frater Superior of the Ordo Templi Orientis.
Q. When did you become the Frater Superior of the Ordo Templi Orientis?
A. Yesterday -- when I became Caliph.
Q. Well, how is it that in all the previous times I've asked you questions about what your position in the Ordo Templi Orientis is you never suggested that you were the Frater Superior?
A. I didn't think of it at the time.
Q. You just thought of it yesterday.
A. No, I -- it's been quite awhile since the Maine Court, and I've had occasion to review the literature and material and refreshed my memory on that.
Q. Now, are you saying that the Frater Superior and the OHO are the same?
A. According to the "Blue Equinox" they are equivalent, yes.
Q. And you are saying that being the Caliph is the {page 161] same as being the Frater Superior?
A. That is correct.
Q. Now, in fact, have you ever claimed to be the Head of the Order?
A. I have never claimed it myself. There have been occasions when people would give me a document like the Certificate of Initiation in order to be Tenth Degree or OHO, I would sign it on the basis that that was their view. But I've never officially taken it to use it as the OHO, no.
Q. Does it suggest anywhere in the "Blue Equinox" that the Caliph and the OHO are the same person?
A. No. The reason for that is because on the -- in fact, Aleister Crowley had not developed the concept of Caliph at the time he wrote the "Blue Equinox" in 1919.
However, -- if I may continue --
Q. Sure.
A. -- however, in the Constitution of 1917, the Outer Head of the order was given the right to change the Constitution by edict, so that when Crowley wrote to me about the Caliph, this is what he was doing, was simply changing the constitution to include Caliph in the Order and Frater Superior.
Q. Anywhere in that letter to you where he mentions the word"Caliph"? Does he say anything about changing [page 162] the Constitution?
A. No. This is something I'm reading into it, because he was right.
THE REPORTER: May I ask you to slow down just a little, --
THE WITNESS: I'll try to.
THE REPORTER: -- because it's very unfamiliar to me.
BY MR. MITTEL:
Q. How many letters are there that your received from Mr. Crowley that mentioned the word "Caliph"?
A. Three.
Q. And which letters are those?
A. There's one for August of 1944, one for September of 1944 and one of November of 1944.
Q. NOw, there have been occasions, haven't there, when other individuals have said that you were the OHO of the Ordo Templi Orientis?
A. There have been occasions when other people have noticed that.
Q. And, in fact, on some of those occasions you've approved of what they said, haven't you?
A. I approved of what they said.
Q. And, in fact, on some of those occasions you've adopted their position in writing, haven't you? [page 163]
A. I don't recall having done so.
Q. Do you remember when James Wasserman came to California in 1976?
A. Yes.
Q. And do you remember that he came out there as Mr. Motta's representative?
A. Yes.
Q. And do you remember that at some point you met with him and he decided that he would no longer be Mr. Motta's representative?
A. I do not recall that. He -- in fact, I recall it as the opposite. He was Mr. Motta's representative. He took the Minerval, M-i-n-e-r-v-a, initiation in Ordo Templi Orientis, wrote a very beautiful letter to Mr. Motta.
And I still dealt with Mr. Motta on the A.'.A.'. level. And he, as far as I know, was quite disappointed when Mr. Motta wrote back saying that he wouldn't have anything to do with my offer of peace.
Q. Is it you testimony that Mr. Wasserman did not -- abandoned his representation of Mr. Motta and instead changed his allegiance to you?
A. I didn't say anything at all about representation.
Q. Well, did Mr. Wasserman abandon his representation of Mr. Motta? [page 164]
A. You'll have to ask Mr. Wasserman that, because I do not know.
Q. Well if, for instance, Miss Seckler said that he did, that he changed sides, would she be telling the truth?
A. I do not know.
Q. So you have no opinion about whether Mr. Wasserman changed sides?
A. I just got through saying I do have an opinion.
Q. And what --
A. And my opinion was the Mr. Wasserman did not change his position with Mr. Motta at the time he took his initiation with the OTO. He thought it was perfectly compatible with A.'.A.'.
And he wrote to -- in fact, the letter of peace that I wrote to Mr. Motta that included the letter from Mr. Wasserman to Mr. Motta, using particular official A.'.A.'. insignia and so forth.
And I think that Mr. Mot -- Mr. Wasserman was not so much getting rid of Mr. Motta as Mr. Motta was abandoning him.
Q. Did you assist Mr. Wasserman in writing this letter to Mr. Motta?
A. Not at all.
Q. Did you review his letter? [page 165]
A. Oh, I read it, of course.
Q. And it was included in the letter that you sent to Mr. Motta?
A. Oh, yes. Same envelope.
Q. There weren't any errors in Mr. Wasserman's letter, were there?
A. How would I know?
Q. Well, you read it.
A. How long ago?
Q. I'm sorry. I asked you a moment ago if you included Mr. Wasserman's letter in the same envelope that you sent to Mr. Motta.
A. In the same envelope, yes.
Q. And I asked you if you read it and you said, "Yes."
A. Yes.
Q. And I believe I asked you if you approved of it, and you said, "Yes."
A. Yes.
Q. Now, I'm asking you when you approved of it, I assume you didn't see any errors in it?
A. It was Mr. Wasserman's letter. If he had errors in it, that was up to him.
Q. Would you have knowingly sent a letter that was false?
A. It was not my letter. [page 166]
Q. Would you have approved it if it was false?
A. Certainly not.
Q. Let me now show you Defendant's Exhibit 63, and ask you if that's the letter that Mr. Wasserman wrote that was included in your letter?
A. Yes, it's signed "L," and it is my opinion that was the exact letter, yes.
Q. And let me show you Defendant's Exhibit 65 and ask you if that's the letter that you wrote to Mr. Motta, which which you included Mr. Wasserman's letter?
A. Yes, it certainly is.
Q. Now, I'd like you to read to the Court the lines on page 2 of Mr. Wasserman's letter that I have marked with a yellow highlighter.
A. Very well.
This is a letter from --
THE COURT: Which exhibit are you reading from?
MR. MITTEL: 63, Your Honor, page 2.
THE WITNESS: I identified --
MR. MITTEL: This document is a letter form --
THE COURT: Hold it one minute.
THE WITNESS: Certainly, sir.
THE COURT: What I have marked as Exhibit [page 167] 3 seems to be --
MR. MITTEL: 63. You're looking at the right letter, Your Honor. That's it right there (indicating).
MR MacKENZIE: I'm missing page 2 in my copy.
THE COURT: It's a rather strange copy.
May I see your letter?
MR. MITTEL: This is my copy.
THE COURT: You say the second page of -- what I have of 63 is not the same.
MR. MITTEL: I will get a replacement copy for you.
THE WITNESS: Yes, the next page.
Well, what about this page?
BY MR. MITTEL:
Q. Could you now please read the portions that I've noted to you on page 2 of Defendant's Exhibit 63?
MR. MacKENZIE: Excuse me. Before you do that, do you have another copy of the exhibit?
THE WITNESS: This is a letter from James Wasserman to Mr. Motta. It is dated 7-18-76.
The portion you want me to read, I believe, is on the second page.
This is Mr. Wasserman speaking, quote: [page 168]
"Crowley's words to Grady in the
Caliphate letters" -- and the Caliphate is spelled C-a-l-i-p-h-a-t-e -- "Crowley's words
to Grady in the Caliphate letters
establish that in essence the
office of Caliphate is equivalent
to the office of OHO. As you will
see when you read the letters
this is self-evident.
"I recognized last night when I
wrote in my motel room with a clear-
sighted perception that Grady is
the Outer Head of the Order," end quotes.
BY MR. MITTEL:
Q. Now, Mr. McMurtry, there have been occasions, have there not, when you have said you were not Caliph, not the Caliph?
A. Yes. Yes, sir.
I beg your pardon, sir. When was that?
Q. Well, do you recollect ever saying that?
A. No, I do not.
Q. Are you certain about that?
A. Well, it depends upon what year you're speaking of. I activated Aleister Crowley's documents of [page 169] authorization in 1970.
Before that, I did not refer to myself as Caliph. From that time forward, I did.
Q. Did I just hear you say that you first obtained what you call documents of authorization in 1970?
A. I did not say that.
Q. What did you say?
A. I said that I activated Aleister Crowley's documents of authorization in 1970 and became Caliph in an emergency as he had provided for.
Q. And what was the emergency in 1970?
A. The emergency in 1970 was that Karl Germer, Outer Head of the Order de facto, had died in 1962.
In 1967 the Crowley library at his home in West Point, California was burglarized and his widow Sascha was treated very unceremoniously. And Germer had left no person to follow him -- designated to follow him.
And therefore this emergency situation arose that Dr. {SIC} Crowley had foreseen 30 years before, and that's why I had the documents of authorization.
Q. Do I understand your testimony to be that you had no authority other than as a Ninth Degree member of the Ordo Templi Orientis until 1970?
A. That is correct. Other than as Frater Superior and [page 170] as Caliph it didn't matter.
Q. Let me show you Defendant's Exhibit 39-A, which is a letter from yourself to a man named Dr. Montenegro.
A. Oh, yes.
Q. Let me ask you to read on page 1 of that letter, the portion that I've marked with yellow, the first three lines of the fourth paragraph and a line in the sixth paragraph, if you would, please.
A. Very well.
This is a letter from myself to Dr. Montenegro. It is dated January 27th, 1960, quote:
"Let us be perfectly clear. I have
never entered a claim to be AC's
'magickal son.'"
THE COURT: Pardon me.
Where is Exhibit 39-A?
MR. MITTEL: It should be in this set of documents, Your Honor.
THE COURT: I have 39 --
MR. MITTEL: It may be attached to the supplemental list.
THE COURT: All right. Go ahead.
THE WITNESS: Very well.
Shall I repeat it?
THE COURT: Yes, please. [page 171]
THE WITNESS: Quote:
"Let us be perfectly clear I have
never entered a claim to being
AC's 'magickal son.'"
"I have never made a claim to being
the legitimate successor to the Caliphate."
BY MR. MITTEL:
Q. Was there a predecessor Caliph?
A. Yes. Mr. Germer was the predecessor Caliph in the eyes of Dr. {SIC} Crowley.
Q. Did Mr. Crowley ever tell you -- I withdraw that question.
Did Mr. Crowley ever send you any kind of a document that indicated that Mr. Germer was the Caliph?
A. Yes. In one of the Caliphate letters he said that "Germer is the natural Caliph, but I must look beyond him for 20 or 30 years hence."
Q. Did Mr. Germer ever indicate to you that you were the Caliph?
A. No.
Q. Who is Gerald Yorke?
A. Mr. Gerald Yorke, now deceased, was an English gentleman who was a friend of Aleister Crowley's and collected Aleister Crowley's works until he had the [page 172] greatest library of Aleister Crowley works in the world. He was never a member of the OTO.
Q. Was he somewhat of an authority on the OTO?
A. He was an authority on the OTO, as an outsider, which made him misinterpret many things because he would lay down edicts of what should be done which, of course, within the Order itself -- from outside the Order, but within the Order itself was simply nonsense.
Q. Was he somewhat knowledgeable about the structure of the Order?
A. Well, he had collected the "Blue Equinox" and things like that, but he hadn't been to California, or anything like that.
Q. Had he ever spent any time with Mr. Crowley?
A. Oh, yes. many years ago Mr. Yorke was a student of Aleister Crowley's, but then he broke with him and remained his friend, collected his works.
Q. So he studied with Mr. Crowley for how many years?
A. I do not know.
Q. Quite a while, though?
A. I do not know.
Q. But he did have the world's largest collection of Crowley material?
A. That was my -- that's -- as far as I know, it was advertised as such. And as far as I know, that is true. [page 173]
Q. Let me show you Exhibit 70-A, which is a letter from Mr. Yorke to Helen Parsons Smith in 1977. Let me ask you to read --
MR. MacKENZIE: Objection at this time, Your Honor. The purpose of this is -- Mr. Mittel and I have discussed whether we were going to stipulate to the Yorke letter.
And do we have a stipulation to that effect?
MR. MITTTEL: Oh, yes.
MR. MacKENZIE: That's fine then, Your Honor.
MR. MITTEL: Oh, yes.
BY MR. MITTEL:
Q. Would you please read the material in the second paragraph and at the end of the letter where I have marked in yellow, please.
A. Certainly. This is from Gerald Yorke to Helen Parson Smith, quote:
"Grady is the first person
I know to call himself a Caliph," C-a-l-i-p-h,
"and I cannot recollect AC
making use of the term. Grady
won't get anywhere worth getting
to."
All right. Paragraph:
"I do not expect it to have [page 174]
Caliphate nonsense," unquote.
Q. So Mr. Yorke then didn't think there was any such position as the Caliph?
A. Mr. Yorke was of that opinion, yet he had sufficient confidence in me to give me a year of first refusal to get the "Thoth" book {SIC sb. "Thoth deck" -pla} published. That's T-h-o-t-h.
Q. Well, you could be a very reliable person and not be the Caliph; is that correct?
A. I could be a very reliable person and not be the Caliph?
Q. Yes.
A. Well, yes.
Q. And you could be a very reliable person with regard to whether there was such a position as Caliph or not; isn't that correct?
A. Certainly.
Q. Yesterday you testified about your letters of authority. Do you remember that?
A. Yes.
Q. As I recollect, how many -- why don't you tell us again: How many letters do you have?
A. Two.
Q. And are those two letters of authority Plaintiffs' Exhibit 20 and Plaintiffs' Exhibit 28? [page 175]
A. 20 is, but 28 is not.
28 is a letter of April 11th from Aleister Crowley giving me first re -- 25 percent of the copyright of --
Q. What is the date of you other letter of authority?
A. April 1946.
MR. MITTEL: Pardon me for a moment, Your Honor.
BY MR. MITTEL:
Q. Which of Plaintiffs' 25 and 28 are not letters of authority?
A. 28.
Q. 28 is not a letter of authority?
A. That is correct.
That gives me some rights and copyrights, but it wasn't one of the documents to take over the operation of the Order of {SIC sb. "in" -weh} California or as his personal representative in any way in America.
Q. Fine. Would you then take a look at Defendant's Exhibit 11, if you would, please, --
A. Yes.
Q. -- and let me ask if that's your other letter of authority?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. All right. Now, would you, first of all, look at [page 176] those two letters that you have in front of you and tell me whether either of them ever mentions the word "Caliph"?
A. Oh, let me see it.
Now, he does not say that in here.
Q. Would you tell me it it's not true that both of those letters limit your authority to California?
A. No, they do not.
Q. Why don't you read the language?
A. Very well.
Q. Why don't you read each letter to the Court?
A. Very well. The first letter March 22, 1946, from Aleister Crowley to myself. Still I read the introduction to this, or just the text?
Q. You can just read the text.
A. Very well. Quote:
"This is to authorize Frater Hymenaeus
Alpha" -- Hymenaeus is spelled H-y-m-e-n-a-e-u-s and Alpha is spelled A-l-p-h-a with a capital A --
"(Captain Grady L. McMurtry) to
take charge of the whole work of the
Order" capital O "Order in California,
to reform the organization in
pursuance of his report of January
25, 1946 subject to the approval [page 177]
of Frater Saturnus" -- that's spelled S-a-t-u-r-n-u-s --
"(Karl J. Germer)" -- G-e-r-m-e-r.
This authorization is to be used only
in emergency."
Q. All right. So as I understand it, that authorization gave you power just for California?
A. That is correct.
Q. And subjectivity to Mr. Germer's approval?
A. That is correct.
Q. And only to be used in case of an emergency?
A. That is correct.
Q. So if Mr. Germer were unavailable, you couldn't use that authority, is that right, --
A. That is correct.
Q. -- if he were out of the country, for instance?
A. If he were alive, I couldn't use it.
Q. Pardon?
A. If he were alive, I could not use it.
Q. Without his approval?
A. That is correct.
Q. And if you were out of the country, you couldn't get a hold of him, then you couldn't have used it?
A. I could -- or it says with his approval. I could take any action I wanted to subject to his approval when he got back. [page 178]
Q. All right. Now, would you read the other letter, please?
A. Yes. Very well. This is Exhibit 11.
Q. That's Defendants' 11, is it not?
A. Well, yes, Defendants" 11. That's right.
"These Precepts" -- capital P, Precepts --- {SIC sb. "Presents" -weh}
are to appoint Frater Hymenaeus Alpha,
Grady Louis McMurtry, Ninth Degree
OTO as Our" -- capital O "Our personal
representative of the United States
of America subject to the approval
revision or veto of Our Viceroy."
Q. So once again whatever power you exercised subject to the letter was subject to Mr. Germer's approval; is that right?
A. If he approved it, I could do anything I wanted to do as long as he approved it.
If he didn't approve it, he would revise it or veto it.
Q. After 1950, did Mr. Germer ever ask you to exercise any authority pursuant to either of these two letters?
A. He suggested that I get a nucleus of people together to start an encampment or lodge. And he suggested that the Order should be incorporated in California. Those were his instructions. [page 179]
Q. And when did he do that?
A. Well, there was a letter in which he mentioned incorporation.
And as to the other, we talked in Los Angeles around 1946, '47 when we were investigating Mr. Jack Parsons' operation.
Q. Did he make those suggestions about getting together with the other members to some of the other members as well, to Mr. Burlingame, to Mr. Leffingwell?
A. He never made any suggestions to me about that; he just wanted the Order incorporated.
Q. Do you know who was actually to take charge of incorporating the Order?
A. Yes. Mr. Jack Parsons of Pasadena and I were supposed to do something. Mr. Jack Parsons had a lawyer who had some material drawn up, but somehow or another it was never completed.
Q. All right. Now, at some point after you finished your investigation of the Agape Lodge --
Do you need a break, Mr. McMurtry?
A. I'm all right. Continue for a little while.
Q. After you finished your investigation of the Agape Lodge, you began to have some difficulties with Mr. Germer, didn't you?
A. Not immediately, but the difficulties with Mr. [page 180] Germer really began when he came west to California from New York and New Jersey.
However, Mr. Germer had the strange idea that he might very well have brought -- he started to get unhappy while he was still in New York.
As a matter of fact, he wrote me from there that -- from New Jersey -- he was not at all happy with what was going on in California.
Q. Right. And as time wore on, he came to disapprove of your conduct more and more; is that right?
A. Well, I -- Yes, he came to disapprove of my conduct but that was because I was a member of the Agape Lodge group, the California group, and he had decided that all of us were not worthy of consideration. And I just happened to be one.
Q. Mr. Crowley was also very unhappy with the Agape Lodge group, wasn't he?
A. Not necessarily of the group, but he may very well have been unhappy with certain members of the group.
Q. Well, he certainly was unhappy about the Agape Lodge group enough to have you go to California and investigate it and write a special report on what you found out, wasn't he?
A. Well, he was puzzled rather than unhappy, because he was getting letters from all of those people that [page 181] presumably he had written to last week and that was the reason for the investigation.
When he told me this in Hastings in 1945, I said, "Well, I know them and you know me. When I get home, I'll take a look at the situation and write your report.
Q. What were the reasons the Mr. Germer began to be unhappy with you?
A. With me?
Q. Yes, sir.
A. I would suppose with me personally it began with the fact that in the 1950s I had borrowed some money from him to buy an automobile, a used car, with the stipulation that I would pay it back at $10 a month.
I eventually did this, but this was not fast enough for Mr. Germer, who had his own financial problems. And he became very unhappy with me about that.
And, of course, by then I had made four trips to Southern California, one to Barstow, three to Los Angeles, trying to get the Agape Lodge group back together in order to say to Mr. Germer, "We need more initiations or we're being dispersed."
When Mr. Germer found out about this, he became extremely unhappy with me and extremely curt. [page 182]
Q. Now, actually wasn't he also very unhappy with your failings as a member of the Ordo Templi Orientis?
A. That was his opinion.
Q. But he was -- he did have that opinion?
A. He had that opinion, oh, yes.
Q. And he shared that with you on a number of occasions, didn't he?
A. Oh, very quietly. In his letters, one or more letters, he was very explicit about Agape Lodge members, people who turned crazy, et cetera, et cetera, so forth.
But other than that, not --
Q. Wasn't he also very explicit about your personal failings?
A. Yes, yes. He thought I was being very -- very bad.
Q. You didn't send any financial support other than repaying your loan to either Mr. or Mrs. Germer, did you?
A. It was impossible. I was a graduate student at the University of California with no GI Bill from the Korean War. I had no money.
Q. But after you stopped being a graduate student and after you started working, you never sent any money either, did you?
A. No. He didn't ask me to send any money.
Q. And you didn't pay any dues into the Ordo Templi [page 183] Orientis?
A. He did not require them.
Q. I beg your pardon?
A. He did not require them.
Q. Don't the provisions of the Constitution require payment of dues?
A. Yes. Oh, yes.
Q. Have you ever written any books or commentary about Thelemic matters?
A. Oh, commentary, yes.
And "Not the News" {SIC sb. "Gnostica News" -pla or "Gnostic" -def}, which was published by someone in Minneapolis around 1970 had quite a lengthy article on Ordo Templi Orientis.
Probably -- oh, let's see, there was the magazine being published by the College of Thelema called "In the Continuum", C-o-n-t-i-n-u-u-m, "In the Continuum", which I contributed to.
And the book -- the "Holy Book {SIC sb. "Books" -def} of Thelema" {SIC sb. "'Books'" -weh} was put by -- under my name. I had something to do with its preparation.
Let's see. Oh, yes. Currently the Order has a monthly publication called "In the" -- sorry -- "Magickal Link". That's spelled M-a-g-i-c-a-l, "Link", L-i-n-k.
Q. Now, does the Constitution also forbid members of [page 184] Ordo Templi Orientis from bringing lawsuits against other members?
A. I do not recall that being in the Constitution. I believe that's in the -- one of the commentaries of the Constitution.
Q. Which is published in the "Blue Equinox"?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, Mr. McMurtry, we were talking before about the Frater Superior.
A. Yes.
Q. And I believe you said that that term appeared in the Constitution. Are you certain about that?
A. I believe it does appear in the Constitution, but I'd have to refresh my memory to take a look at it. There were about three documents of the "Blue Equinox", all pertaining to the governments of the Order. My mile M in in {SIC} there, but if it isn't it isn't>
Q. Let me read a portion of a work entitled "Manifesto of the OTO" --
A. Yes.
Q. -- which appears on page 201 of the "Blue Equinox", paragraph 5. It says:
"The authority of the OTO is
concentrated in the OHO (outer
Head of the Order) or Frater [page 185]
Superior. The name of the person
assuming this office is never
disclosed except to his immediate
representatives."
Is that what you're think of?
A. Yes, that's right.
Q. And so by your claiming to be the Frater Superior, you are claiming to be the Outer Head of the Order?
A. The de facto Outer Head of the Order.
Q. And you're saying that now, even though on a number of occasions in the past you've said you're not the Outer Head of the Order?
A. That is correct. That was in 1960, I believe. And I did not activate Crowley's documents of authorization until 1970.
Q. Well, do you remember during the trial in Maine when I asked you whether you were the Outer Head of Ordo Templi Orientis?
A. That is correct.
Q. Do you remember what your answer was?
A. I believe I said I was not.
Q. You were under oath at that time, were you not?
A. That is correct.
Q. And do you remember earlier I asked you some questions about a letter that you had written to Dr. [page 186] Montenegro in 1960?
A. I believe so.
Q. And would you now look at Defendant's Exhibit 40, which is a letter to you from Dr. Montenegro and Helen Parsons Smith?
And would you read the material that I've highlighted in yellow in the second paragraph on page 1, the fourth paragraph on page 1 and then at the very end of the letter, please?
A. Very well. Quote:
"Specifically I wish to refer,
even if in part, to you letter
of the 27th of January of this
year. Paragraph:
"Suffice it to point out that
in AC's letter to you dated
November 21, 1944 E.V., 16
years ago this very day, and
citing his authority as Baphomet," B-a-p-h-o-m-e-t,
"transcript of which you
also included in the subject
matter of you letter in
question, there is nothing in
it that could be construed in
any way then or henceforth as [page 187]
his intention of appointment to
you as his spiritual or temple {SIC sb. "temporal" -weh}
heir as you infer."
Paragraph -- now, that was from Dr. Montenegro.
And then from Helen Parsons Smith:
"Of my own freewill and accord I
agree with Brother Montenegro,
and have committed myself to serve
him and assist him to the best of
my ability, particularly in that
phase of Great Work," capital G, capital W,
"which he is trying to accomplish.
After careful study of the contents,
I ask that his view and conclusions
as is above be accepted as a joint
statement."
Q. The Helen Parsons Smith who signed this letter to you is the same Helen Parsons Smith who is sitting at plaintiffs' table?
A. Yes.
Q. I think you said that you didn't really -- I may be not quite accurate; correct me if I'm wrong -- have any power because of your authorizations or because of the Caliphate letters until 1970; is that correct?
A. That is correct.
Q. Now, did you ever take a different position?
A. Like when?
Q. Well, at any time before 1970.
A. Before 1970 I had a different position, yes.
Q. What I'm -- No, no. You misunderstood my question.
What I'm asking you is: Before 1970, did you ever take the position that you had power at that time?
A. No, I did not.
Other than the normal Ninth Degree has power to do certain things as the order will certainly show.
Q. Let me show you Plaintiffs' Exhibit 81, which is a letter from yourself to -- I hope I say this correctly -- Jean Shvonen?
A. Yes. S-i-h-v-o-n-e-n, Jean, J-e-a-n.
Q. Would you please read the third full paragraph?
A. This is Exhibit 81?
Q. Right.
A. Very well.
"Here are the facsimiles of AC's
material I promised you a year or
so ago. I finally got the xerox
when it was in good working
condition. On two sheets you
have the envelope and the letter [189]
in which you recognize {SIC sb. "he recognized" -weh} me as 777.
The date of this is November 19th,
1943. But as he is addressing me
as the formal Care Frater," C-a-r-e. F-r-a-t-e-r, matter that informed me by name" -- there is one word here that's been very badly xeroxed --
"I am" something "on one sheet of his
authorization of authority of 1946
and the -- March 1946 and April
1946 in which he specifically
identifies me as the Hymenaeus
Alpha, not that it makes a great
deal of difference as I seek --
as I seem at the time we were
admittedly discussing this since
he makes action contingent on
Karl's say-so. Because it does
form the basis for a legal section" I'm sorry --
"a legal action to recover AC's
letters and things if we were to
keep Sascha" -- S-a-s-c-h-a --
"from having them in case Karl does
not live at all."
Q. So as far back as 1962 you had already begun to think about the possibility of your getting the library [page 190] because of the --
A. No, I think I was thinking of conserving the Order, and the library was part of it.
Q. And you were at that time relying on these letters that we've been talking about, these authorizations?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, did you testify yesterday about how you had lost contact with the Ordo Templi Orientis at some point in time?
A. No, I did not.
Q. Did you ever lose contact with the Ordo Templi Orientis?
A. There was no way of losing contact with it, because there was no organization other than Mr. Germer. And if Mr. Germer wanted to contact me, he could write to me. I was not informed until 1968 that he had died in 1962, which is probably why he never wrote.
Q. Well, back, for instance, in the early 1950s, were there members of the Ordo Templi Orientis other than Mr. Germer?
A. Oh, yes. Helen Parsons Smith, Jean Sihvonen. Ray and Mildred Burlingame I believe were still alive at that time. Phyllis Seckler.
Q. All right. Now, are you saying that you hadn't lost contact with the ordo Templi Orientis in the 1950s? [page 191]
A. No. I definitely had not lost contact -- if you say the "Order," and you mean an organized Order, collecting dues and so forth, there was no such thing.
I was a member, active member of Agape Lodge, intended to be a member of OTO as long as I lived.
Q. Let me ask you to take a look at Defendants' Exhibit 19, which is a letter from yourself to Karl Germer dated April 10, 1952.
Let me ask you to read the highlighted material in the middle of the second paragraph, if you would, please?
A. Now, you only have one sentence highlighted.
Q. That's correct.
A. Quote:
"Does the OTO still exist as an organization," unquote.
Q. Now, you testified that Mr. Germer was unhappy about your conduct as a member of the Ordo Templi Orientis, didn't you?
A. At what time?
Q. Oh, during the 1950s.
A. Beginning of the 1950s, yes.
Q. And the end of the 1950s also; isn't that correct?
A. Oh, yes. It began in the early 1950s and continued on through the time I left for Washington, D.C. in 1961. [page 192]
Q. And you yourself recognized your failings as a member of the Ordo Templi Orientis, didn't you?
A. I beg your pardon, sir?
Q. I said you yourself recognized your own failings as a member of the Ordo Templi Orientis?
A. I am a human being and therefore fallible, so I can have failings, yes.
Q. And you, in fact, spoke of those failings to Mr. Germer, didn't you?
A. Entirely possible. I don't remember offhand.
Q. By the end of the 1950s, though, Mr. Germer was absolutely convinced that you were not going to be a person to be considered as his successor as OHO; isn't that true?
A. I believe that to be true.
Q. Let me show you Defendants' Exhibit 37 and ask you to -- well, that's the letter from Mr. Germer to yourself dated December 2nd, 1959.
Let me ask you to read the highlighted material in the first paragraph, if you would, please?
A. Yes. Quote:
"I have and had told you that
666 discussed with me to keep you
for a prominent position in the
Order. I was only too willing to [page 193]
accept this. What have you done
in the last 12 years to justify and
earn this position? And instead
of a Plus, you've been a great
Minus."
The plus is capital P and the minus is capital M-i-n-u-s.
Q. Thank you.
MR. MITTEL: Your Honor, what's your pleasure about breaks? I am at a good stopping point.
THE COURT: Okay. Let's take a recess at this time for approximately ten minutes.
(Brief recess taken.)
MR. MacKENZIE: Your Honor?
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. MacKENZIE: Mr. McMurtry has indicated to me that he's extremely fatigued and doesn't believe he can continue today.
If the Court would permit, he could return Thursday morning, and I could just continue with my case in chief.
THE COURT: Okay. That's fine.
Now, if he would like a place to lay down there is a couch in one of our conference rooms.
Would you like to lie down? [page 194]
MR. McMURTRY: Yes.
(Discussion off the record.)
MR. MacKENZIE: Your Honor, he would prefer to go home.
MR. McMURTRY: I'm just a little fatigued and I would prefer to go home.
THE COURT: All right then, sir. You are excused, Mr. McMurtry.
(Mr. McMurtry left the courtroom.)
THE COURT: Are you ready to proceed with your next witness?
MR. MacKENZIE: Yes, I am, Your Honor.
Miss Seckler.
PHYLLIS SECKLER,
called as a witness by the plaintiffs, having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as hereinafter set forth.
THE COURT: Would you please be seated and state your full name for the record and spell your last name?
THE WITNESS: Phyllis Evelynina Seckler, S-e-c-k-l-e-r.
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. MacKENZIE:
Q. Mrs. Seckler, would you state your age, please? [page 195]
A. Sixty-seven.
Q. Are you a resident of California?
A. Yes.
Q. How long have you resided here?
A. Sixty-four years, approximately.
Q. Are you a member of OTO?
A. Yes.
Q. When did you become a member?
A. In 1939.
Q. What degree do you hold in the Order?
A. Fifth and Ninth.
Q. When did you get initiated as a Ninth Degree?
A. By Karl Germer about 1960.
Q. Did he initiate you orally or were you presented with any document?
A. We discussed the whole matter. I told him what it was about. He gave me a paper called Emblems and Modes of Use.
Q. And did you take any kind of oath?
A. There were no oaths administered at that time.
Q. Did you receive any writing attesting to your initiation?
A. No. Neither was there a document which had my name on it which gave the title. Those weren't being handed out at that time. [page 196]
Q. Now, what is an Emblem and a Mode?
A. Emblems and Modes of Use was a very secret paper which Karl guarded very carefully that if you had it, it had the past history of the Order in California -- as soon as you were handed that paper, you became a Ninth Degree member. It was instructions.
Q. Now, do you remember stating in depositons taken in this case that you had been initiated in an -- orally?
A. I don't remember what I stated in deposition, I'm afraid. But there was a conversation, so I suppose you would call it orally.
Q. I'm sorry. When Mr. Mittel took your deposition --
A. Yes.
Q. -- and at that time one of the questions he asked was how you were initiated.
A. Oh.
Q. Your response was that it had been orally.
A. Yes, that was part of it.
Q. Now, how can you reconcile that with having received the Emblems and Modes?
A. Because it was both done at the same time.
Q. So when you say "orally," you mean that there was an interchange, a verbal interchange?
A. Yes. But I told him what the degree was and then [page 197] he handed me the paper.
Q. Oh, I see.
Well, to make sure I understand it properly, Mr. Germer said something, and you responded and then he said something and you responded?
A. Yes, right, right. An interchange.
Q. Now, in the 1940s, did you belong to any lodge or chapter or attend any meetings of any lodges?
A. Yes.
Q. And what lodge was that?
A. Agape Lodge.
Q. Now, do you know if there were any other chapters or lodges in the United States at that time?
A. The word was that there weren't.
Q. I see.
A. I think we had it directly from Crowley, but I can't pinpoint the letter, that the Agape Lodge was the only functioning lodge of the OTO in the world close to the time of his death.
Q. Do you know how long the Agape Lodge was the only lodge in the United States?
A. Crowley died in 1967.
Q. I am sorry. You said 1967?
A. Let me see now -- 1947. It's been years. 1947 Crowley died. And for quite some time before that, we [page 198] were the only lodge in the world, maybe seven years or more.
Q. Where did you reside in the 1950s?
A. In 1950 to 1955 I resided in Southern California. And in 1955 I got a job as an art teacher and moved to Livermore.
Q. I see. Once -- well, did you maintain contact with Karl Germer in the Order during this period?
A. All the time.
Q. Did you maintain a relationship or contact with Karl?
A. Yes, I knew him. He was very proud of my work for the Order.
Q. Would you say that you knew him well?
A. Quite well.
Q. Were you familiar with the initiation rituals during the 1950s?
A. With two of them, which I took. Minerval and First.
Q. As regards to the Order's initiation rituals?
A. That's what I mean, Minerval.
Q. Now {SIC sb. "Not" -pla} only yourself, but any initiation activity that the Order was doing at that time.
A. They weren't doing too much. It was mostly Minervals and Firsts. [page 199]
Q. Well, when the initiations where given, who would give them?
A. Members of the -- or heads of the Agape Lodge, whoever they happened to be.
Q. Would Karl give initiations?
A. No, he would not. He didn't like them.
Q. How do you know that?
A. Because it was obvious from the letter he wrote to Jane Wolfe --
MR. MITTEL: Objection; hearsay.
THE WITNESS: -- and from the things he said.
MR. MITTEL: And Best Evidence.
THE COURT: Do you have the document?
MR. MacKENZIE: No, we don't have the document, Your Honor.
MR. MITTEL: MOve to strike as hearsay.
BY. MR. MacKENZIE:
Q. Well, let me ask you this: --
THE COURT: Yes, that is hearsay.
BY MR. MacKENZIE:
Q. -- Did he ever tell you personally that he did not like doing the rituals?
A. Yes, he did.
MR. MITTEL: Objection; hearsay. [page 200] Relevance.
THE COURT: No, not directly.
THE WITNESS: No, I heard it from his lips.
MR. MITTEL: When he's not here --
THE COURT: Then -- pardon?
MR. MITTEL: I say what he may have said --
THE COURT: I know. I know. But it's what he told to her directly; it's not hearsay.
BY MR. MacKENZIE:
Q. Did he tell you why he did not like doing initiations?
A. He called them the lower magic.
Q. Did Karl perform any rituals?
A. He called that the lower magic.
Q. Does that mean he did not do them?
A. That's right. He considered his position was far above that.
Q. So it's your testimony that he did not perform rituals or initiations?
A. That's right. He didn't even know the basic banishing ritual. I have a letter from him to Jane asking if she will explain it.
MR. MITTEL: Objection; Best Evidence. Move to strike those comments. [page 201]
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. MacKENZIE:
Q. Have you ever seen Karl give an initiation?
A. Never.
Q. But he gave you one?
A. Just the Ninth with that particular informal type of meeting that I told you.
Q. Now, to make sure I understand: Are you saying there are more formal initiations?
A. Yes. Ceremonies.
Q. And what degrees are those?
A. All the degrees, except I don't believe anything beyond maybe six or eight has that type of initiations.
Q. So when you talk about basic rituals that he did not perform, are you referring to these lower --
A. Yes.
Q. -- initiations?
Do you recognize the name of Frank Dory (phonetic)?
A. Yes.
Q. Who was Frank Dory?
A. A gentleman who first wrote to Karl when he was in Campton {SIC sb. "Hampton" -pla}, New Jersey. And in 1956 Karl Germer came to the West Coast and Mr. Dory seemed like a very interested person so Karl and I went to see him. [page 202]
Q. And why did you go see him?
A. To discuss Mr. Dory's correspondence and his interest in Thelema.
Q. I'd like to show you Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 376, and if you will tell me if you recognize this exhibit?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you write this letter to Karl Germer?
A. Yes. This is a letter from me to Karl Germer of April 22, 1957.
Q. and would you read the portion marked at the very bottom paragraph of the first page, please?
A. Just the yellow marks?
Q. Yes, please.
A. "I think Dory would love to join the OTO or A.'.A.'."
Q. And --
A. "And of course nothing could materialize for OTO at the present state of affairs."
Q. What was your purpose in writing this letter?
A. To see if Karl would do something perhaps for Mr. Dory.
Q. And what do you mean with by "Of course nothing could materialize for OTO at the present state of affairs"?
A. Because OTO was somewhat dormant; Karl was the Outer Head of the Order by his own decree; he refused to [page 203] initiate. There were no new members; there were no initiating teams, no officers. There was no money. There was just -- just Karl's authority, and that was about it.
Q. Well, did you know if Karl ever initiated Frank Dory?
A. No, he did not.
Q. Did Frank Dory want to be initiated?
A. He mentioned it, but I had to discourage him. There was no hope at that moment.
Q. Did you and Karl ever discuss the initiation, intended initiation of Frank Dory after this letter?
A. I can't remember.
Q. Okay. Have you ever met the defendant, Mr. Motta?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. And when did you meet him?
A. In January of 1957.
Q. Could you explain the circumstances of that meeting?
A. Yes. I was teaching. And Karl Germer, Jane Wolfe and Marcello Motta came to visit with me at my house for four days.
Q. Was Mr. Motta introduced to you at this time?
A. Yes, he was introduced.
Q. Did you speak with him? [page 204]
A. Of course. He was a guest.
Q. Was he introduced to you as a member of the OTO?
A. No, I can't remember that.
Q. Was he introduced to you as a Ninth Degree?
A. I would certainly have remembered it, and I don't think he was.
Q. Are you absolutely certain of that?
A. As certain as one can be over this period of time. I would remember such a mention of a high grade.
Q. Are you aware that Mr. Motta had written that he was introduced to you as a Ninth Degree?
A. I learned about it only recently, maybe a week or two ago.
Q. And what is you reaction to that claim of his?
A. I'm sure I don't know. It's his business, not mine.
I don't know.
Q. But he was not introduced to you as an OTO member?
MR. MITTEL: Objection, leading.
THE COURT: Well, it is a repetition of what you said before, but I'll let it stand.
BY MR. MacKENZIE:
Q. You can answer the question.
A. No, I can't remember that.
Q. All right. When did you first learn of Karl [page 205] Germer's death?
A. Immediately after. I was the first person Sascha Germer wrote to about Karl's death.
Q. How well did you know Sascha?
A. Quite well. My family and myself had visited Karl and Sascha Germer at their home in West Point several times.
Q. Did you know her well enough to judge her mental condition?
A. Yes.
Q. Could you describe her mention {SIC sb. "mental" -def -weh} condition at about this time, 1962?
MR. MITTEL: Objection; foundation. If the witness is going to testify about the mental health of --
THE COURT: Well, the witness certainly is not a psychiatrist and can't give a medical or psychiatric opinion, but she can still testify as to her observations about and her conversations with the witness, with Sascha Germer, and what she observed from that.
THE WITNESS: Sascha was very upset. She would contradict herself many times. She claimed that she had been magically attacked in various instances. And at one time accosted -- [page 206]
MR. MITTEL: Objection to what the declarant, Mrs. Germer, may have said as hearsay, Your Honor.
THE WITNESS: That's what she told me.
MR. MacKENZIE: It's not offered for the proof of the matter. It is offered to establish state of mind.
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE COURT: Well, that's true. I don't think it falls within the definition of hearsay.
MR. MacKENZIE: Go ahead.
THE WITNESS: May I go on?
BY MR. MacKENZIE:
Q. Yes, please.
A. She told me that an airplane had buzzed her while out in the garden. She told me that she had been called up by persons -- a person who wanted her to have a polio -- what do they call it?
Q. Vaccination?
A. -- Vaccination, because that was the time when everyone was having those. She claimed that was -- that they were persecuting her.
She claimed that she and Karl Germer could not speak to each other in the house the whole year before he died, that the walls were bugged and the [page 207] telephone was bugged, and they both believed that.
There were quite a few other things too, --
Q. Well, why don't you --
A. -- but those are the main things.
Q. Why don't you mention the other ones?
A. She told me the history of her life.
Q. I see.
A. I expressed a common-sense attitude, and she told me that once she had had common sense. And she had, ever since marrying Karl, and had been persecuted by the FBI.
And, of course, you know she was in Austria and persecuted by the Nazis. And that she simply did not believe those things any more, and she told me that everybody was against her.
Q. I see.
A. And not only that, but later on when we investigated her case whether she was alive, the constable told us that she had told him to get off the property.
Now, the constable investigated each widow --
MR. MITTEL: Objection, Your Honor, to what the constable said as --
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. MITTEL: -- hearsay. [page 208]
THE COURT: That is sustained as hearsay.
BY MR. MacKENZIE:
Q. So it was in 1962 that you learned of Karl Germer's death?
A. Yes.
Q. All right. Did you tell Mr. McMurtry of Karl's death?
A. Not right away. I didn't know where he was.
Q. I see. When did you tell him?
A. I told him in 1968 because he wrote me a small note with his address on it.
Q. I see.
A. And I was investigating the thefts.
Q. Now what thefts are we talking about?
A. Of Sascha's library in 1967.
Q. What was the state of the Order's Archives immediately following Karl's death?
A. There was supposed to be a will, but nobody could find it. And the archives were in Sascha's care. She was a little unprotected lady in the country, and I was very worried about her.
Q. And she had the Archives in the house?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, on that 1967 theft, were you ever accused yourself of the theft? [page 209]
A. I don't think I was accused, but my daughter was accused.
Q. Why did she accuse your daughter?
A. She thought that the hands of the woman who entered the house at the time of the theft were like my daughter's hands. She did not see the face.
Q. I see. And what was your response to this accusation?
A. The accusation came to me by telegram over the phone. I was terribly shocked. I immediately sent a telegram back, which she must have gotten, because you have to answer your own phone, denying what happened, saying that we would -- none of us -- harm her in any way.
Q. I show you Exhibit 12, Plaintiffs' Exhibit 12, and ask if your would identify that, please?
A. This is my letter to her about the thefts, the letter that she never opened.
Q. How do you know she didn't open it?
A. She sent back the envelope with "Return to Sender" on the outside. It had never been opened.
Q. Will you take a look at page 3 of that document and tell me if that's a copy of that envelope?
A. Oh, yes.
Q. All right. Did you send any other letters in [page 210] regards to this?
A. Much later when Grady had finished his investigation and we had discovered who the thieves were, yes, I sent her a letter. There was no return address on it so that she could not send it back.
Q. All right. Now as regards to sending -- I'm asking if you sent letters to any other people at the time of this accusation?
A. Oh, yes. I sent letters to many people trying to find out who would steal the materials from Sascha Germer.
Q. In you letter of Exhibit 12, did you state any reason why your daughter was not the thief?
A. Yes. She was elsewhere at the time. On the Sunday of that particular weekend she attended church. The next day she was with friends and her family. She had no interest in those materials whatever.
Q. Is your daughter a member or has she ever been a member of OTO?
A. Never. She is not interested in Thelema.
Q. Do you know about how far your daughter lived from Sascha Germer's house at the time of the theft?
A. About four hours' travel.
Q. Now, after Mr. McMurtry received your letter to him -- [page 211}
A. Um-hum.
Q. -- in 1968 telling him about Karl's death, what -- did he write to you?
A. Yes. We started correspondence immediately.
Q. And did he return out to California?
A. Yes, at my suggestion.
Q. On his return, did the two of you undertake any activity on behalf of the OTO? And this is 1969.
A. We certainly did.
We got the only remaining member available from Agape Lodge -- that was Mildred Burlingame -- and in 1969 we had our first OTO meeting. There were only three of us, but Grady was well prepared for it. He did a beautiful job.
Q. Was Grady leading the meeting?
A. Yes.
Q. Why did you acknowledge Grady as the leader of that meeting?
A. I had saw {SIC} the Caliphate letters.
Q. And you accepted the Caliphate letters?
A. Yes, it was Crowley's wish. In out "Holy Book" it says, "Obey my prophet." And so that was part of the obedience.,
Q. I see. Did you begin initiations, or did the Order begin initiations? [page 212]
A. Yes, we did. Actually I think it was 1969 Mildred had some friends, and we began initiations.
Q. Now, were records kept of these initiations?
A. I kept all the records. I was Secretary-Treasurer.
Q. Why did you keep records?
A. That was the way it was done in the OTO from the very early times.
Q. And what sort of records were these?
A. Every person who was initiated was in the records and what they paid for the initiation fee.
Q. Now, are you saying dues or initiation fee?
A. Both.
Q. Both.
A. Yes, both.
Q. Were there --
A. There were dues, yes. Two kinds of payments. One was dues for the year; the other was the initiation fee.
Q. Is dues an OTO tradition as well?
A. Yes. That is except when Karl was head.
Q. I'm sorry. When Karl was?
A. When Karl was head, there were very little dues paid.
Q. Do you know if he insisted on collection?
A. No, he didn't. He didn't at all.
Q. From anyone? [page 213]
A. From anyone.
Q. Are dues something that Aleister Crowley required?
A. Dues were required by the OTO, but every one of us went through the depression and we were poverty-stricken.
Q. Yes.
A. We did what we could.
Q. Did you undertake any publishing?
A. When?
Q. At about this time.
A. Yes. I started "In the Continuum," I think the year was 1973, or maybe it was '74, somewhere in there.
Q. And what exactly is "In the Continuum"?
A. It is a Thelemic publication which publishes in every issue things done by Crowley, which I thought were needed by new persons coming to Thelema.
It also publishes Crowley's poetry and poetry of other persons.
It publishes instructions for rituals and explanations.
It publishes articles having to do with Thelema.
Q. Did you do this on behalf of the OTO?
A. I started it on behalf of the OTO again.
Q. Now, did you keep in contact with Sascha Germer? [page 214]
A. I couldn't. She got angry at me and said -- told me she never wanted to see me around again.
Q. I see. Did you ever attempt to contact her.
A. After about the fifth meeting at her house was when she told me to stay away.
Q. I see. Well, did you ever go up to West Point?
A. Oh, we went to West Point to inquire whether she was still alive, but we had to inquire from the constable.
Q. And how often did you go up to West Point?
A. We did this every year, except somehow we missed the year that she did, unfortunately.
Q. Well, how did you learn of Sascha's death?
A. That was the year we went up to West Point to inquire.
Q. Yes.
A. And it seemed she died the year previous to that. She died 1975, and we found out she was dead in 1976.
Q. And what was your purpose of going up there?
A. We were worried about the library.
Q. I see.
A. And we -- actually we had contacted a lawyer, but we couldn't afford it. We thought we should have taken it from Sascha because she was not a member of the Order [page 215] and put it in the O -- hands of the OTO. That was according to Crowley's will. It belonged to the OTO. And we couldn't do that at the time, so we sort of kept an eye on it.
Q. I see. You couldn't do it because of the attorney fees.
A. Yes. It was too much for us.
Q. Well, after you had learned of her death, what did you do next?
A. Then we went to Calaveras County and contacted -- oh, at the same day we learned of her death, we contacted the Coroner, two Coroners.
Q. Two Coroners?
A. Two Coroners. The Deputy Coroner and Mr. Gualdoni, the main Coroner. And we were told the whole story of how she died and what was in the house.
And we began immediately to ask Mr. Gualdoni to take care of those papers.
He said he had posted the house for no trespassing, --
Q. Yes.
A. -- but he also had the information that that house had been broken into at least three times that they knew about.
MR. MITTEL: Objection; hearsay. Move to [page 216] strike the answer.
THE COURT: It is hearsay, but it may be purely foundational.
BY MR. MacKENZIE:
Q. Well, were you ever aware of any previous thefts of Sascha Germer's house?
A. The one that took place in 1967 when she accused my daughter. That was the previous theft.
Q. Were you aware of any other thefts?
A. I don't have any proof of any other thefts. That is, after her death I have no proof.
Q. Did she ever tell you about any thefts?
A. She only told me by letter about the theft in 1967.
Q. Was there ever any subsequent discussion made by anyone concerning these alleged additional thefts? Did anyone ever discuss that, in the court proceedings of otherwise?
A. No. If the house was vandalized, nobody could prove it. It was not discussed.
Q. Okay. Did Mr. Gualdoni ever say that Sascha Germer had starved to death of malnutrition?
A. No.
MR. MITTEL: Objection; hearsay.
THE COURT: Could I have the last question read back, please? [page 217]
(Record read by the reporter as requested.)
MR. MacKENZIE: That's not offered to prove the truth of it, Your Honor.
THE COURT: That's not even an assertion. It's just a kind of a nonquestion.
MR. MITTEL: Well, but it's one of those hearsay by conduct kind of things. They are offering that to prove the cause of death was not starvation.
THE COURT: Well, I'm not going to consider that in weighting the evidence, as I'm not giving any weight to the question.
THE WITNESS: You have the death certificate, anyway. And that does not say "starvation."
MR. MacKENZIE: Thank you.
BY MR. MacKENZIE:
Q. Moving back to earlier times, did you ever corresponding with Mr. Motta because of Karl Germer's death, inform him of it?
A. Sascha asked me to correspond with Mr. Motta after Karl's death in 1962.
Q. And did you continue this correspondence?
A. I did, until Mr. Motta got impossible.
Q. By "impossible," what do you mean?
A. I considered the things he said were insulting. [page 218]
Q. Would you expound on that?
A. I can't remember the letter exactly, but first -- I'm trying to remember -- first he tried to order Sascha and me around as to what we should do. He claimed he was our superior, something like that. I don't know the words.
MR. MITTEL: Objection; Best Evidence. Move to strike that --
THE COURT: Is the letter in evidence?
MR. MITTEL: -- unless the letter is around.
MR. MacKENZIE: I don't believe it is, Your Honor.
THE WITNESS: I couldn't produce it.
BY MR. MacKENZIE:
Q. Then don't testify as to the contents of the letter. I am more interested in your reaction as to why you felt he was impossible?
A. He insulted me in his letters, and I decided never to write to him again at that moment.
Q. I see. All right. Well, did you ever write to him again?
A. I wrote to him, forgetting the past, just before we discovered Sascha's death, two weeks before.
Q. And about how many years was that in the interim [page 219] period?
A. That was -- Karl Germer had died in 1962. My letters to Mr. Motta ended in 1963. We discovered Sascha's death in 1976, so the interim was ...
Q. After you ceased writing to him, did he ever correspond with you?
A. I think he tried.
Q. I see. Now, when you next wrote to him just a little before Sascha's death or finding out about the death, why did you write him again?
A. I was thinking about the library and I thought maybe Mr. -- oh, yes. Mr. Motta had published, and I was glad that Crowley was being published.
Q. I see. Do you remember what he published?
A. It was Commentary on Liber Al {SIC sb. "AL" -def}, A-l.
Q. That's spelled L-i-b-e-r.
And did you read that book?
A. Yes.
Q. And what exactly did that book -- what did it contain?
A. It was Crowley's commentary on the "Holy Book" that he took down.
Q. So it contained writings of Crowley?
A. Yes. But Mr. Motta had thrown out a lot of Crowley's writings on the commentary and put in his own. [page 220]
Q. I see. I'd like to show you Plaintiffs' Exhibit 50 and ask if you will identify that for me, please?
A. Okay. This is a letter written by me to Mr. Motta of April 28, 1976.
Q. Would you read the portions that I have marked, underlined, and that is the very bottom of the first page.
A. Uh-huh.
"I have spoken to the officials
concerned very seriously and Helen
and I are trying against odds to
have whatever remains of AC's
writings preserved."
Q. Ia this the letter where you are telling Mr. Motta about the death?
A. Not the death, but about the theft -- oh, yes, that's right. Sascha's death?
Q. Yes. I'm sorry.
A. Yes. I told him about Sascha's death. That's right.
Q. And turning to the second page, the portion I have marked, if you will read that portion in the last paragraph?
A. "However, you or your
representatives will have to [page 221]
come to California" --
Q. Go on.
A. -- "to fight for it.
"By the way, there is a possibility
that the house and grounds and all
within the house could be sold
as is."
Q. Okay, that's fine. Thank you.
Was it your intention -- well, tell me what your intentions were in that one sentence:
"However, you or your representatives
will have to come to California to fight
for it"?
A. That was what Mr. Gualdoni told us. We tried to explain what we could about this.
Q. Okay. Did you ever speak with Jim Wasserman?
A. Yes.
Q. And when was that?
A. In 1976 in reference to rescuing the library from the hands of the State of California.
Q. And how did you correspond with him?
A. I believe Helen had phone calls. I'm not sure just how we did that.
Q. All right. You don't remember if you corresponded?
A. I can't remember whether I had sent a letter at [page 222] that particular moment.
Q. Okay. Did Mr. Wasserman subsequently come to California?
A. Yes, he did.
Q. And when he was in California did you meet with him?
A. Yes, we did.
Q. Where did you meet with him?
A. In San Francisco at his motel.
Q. I see. And did you meet with him anywhere else?
A. Yes. That same evening we drove him to Dublin where he took a motel room. And we discussed what could he done.
Q. I see. Did you ever talk with him in Calaveras?
A. Yes. Helen, Mr. Wasserman and I drove up to Calaveras together the next day. West Point, I should say. We went --
Q. West Point?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, had you in the meantime petitioned the Court for possession of the library?
A. Yes. Helen and I and Grady McMurtry had employed a lawyer.
Q. I see. I'd like to show you Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 34, which is an Order of the Calaveras County [page 223] Superior Court --
A. Yes.
Q. -- recognizing Grady as the authorized representative of the OTO?
A. Yes. What was the date on this?
Q. The date i -- there is a date stamped.
A. Oh, yes. Right.
Q. Is this an Order of the Court?
A. Um-hum -- yes.
Q. Thank you. All right.
I'd like to show you Plaintiffs' Exhibit 70 and tell me if you recognize that, please?
A. Yes. This is a letter to me form Mr. Motta, 11th of May 1976.
Q. Would you read the portions marked on the bottom of the first page, please?
A. All of the yellow sections?
Q. Yes, please.
A; "We had registered the OTO legally
in Brazil. We are in the process
of registering the OTO seal legally
in Brazil."
Q. Go on.
A. "I believe this has never been done
in the USA and I believe that you, [page 224]
McMurtry and Helen should go do it
at once."
Q. Now, let me stop you there. What is your understanding or your recollection of that, of those instructions?
A. It was probably good advice, concerning what happened later. But I didn't know it at the time.
Q. Okay. Well, did you understand him to say that you should incorporate?
MR. MITTEL: Objection; leading.
BY MR. MacKENZIE:
Q. What is your understanding of that correspondence?
A. It says that he thinks we should register the OTO seal in the United States, and if anything -- I thought -- I didn't think that was necessary because the OTO had had that seal for so long.
Q. I see. Now, at the bottom of that page he writes, "I am reformulating the rituals," in the bottom paragraph.
A. Yes. He does, he says, "I am reformulating the rituals."
May I remark --
Q. Yes. I'd like your opinion.
A. Mr Grant was thrown out of the OTO by Karl Germer for doing just that thing. [page 225]
Q. For reformulating the rituals?
MR. MITTEL: Objection; foundation. Move to strike the answer.
THE COURT: You mean the testimony.
I think you better lay a foundation for her knowledge.
BY MR. MacKENZIE:
Q. You are familiar with the OTO history?
A. Yes, I am.
Q. And as such, you are familiar with goings-on of some of the members?
A. Yes.
Q. You are familiar with Mr. Grant?
A. I've only heard his name. I didn't meet him. Karl discussed him with me.
Q. And did you ever hear anything about his membership?
A. I heard and later read that Grant had been in England and he was given authority to establish an encampment of OTO in the Valley of London and was later expelled.
Q. You had heard he was a member of the OTO and was expelled?
A. Yes, I heard he was, but I don't know how -- I don't know what section. [page 226]
Q. Do you know if he was thrown out?
A. Yes. Grant was thrown out by Karl Germer.
Q. And do you know the reason for that?
A. Yes, because Grant wanted to rewrite the rituals.
MR. MITTEL: Objection.
MR. MacKENZIE: I think she said heard from the Order, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Well, --
THE WITNESS: I already --
BY MR. MacKENZIE:
Q. Did Mr. Germer tell you those things?
THE COURT: If she is going to testify about what the correspondence shows, then the documents are the best evidence. {SIC sb. "MR. MacKENZIE: " -def}
THE COURT: Well, this is a material issue regarding --
MR. MITTEL: Well, I think --
THE COURT: -- whether or not someone by the name of Grant was expelled.
MR. MacKENZIE: Well, it's the reason for the expulsion, Your Honor.
MR. MITTEL: That's --
MR. MacKENZIE: I think I can finish with the expulsion. We're talking about historical matters, and this is over 40 years old. [page 227]
MR. MITTEL: They're going to argue that --
THE COURT: Are you saying there is communication with others regarding the reason for Mr. Grant's expulsion?
MR. MacKENZIE: I am sorry, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Well, are you going to ask the witness what she was told or read about the reasons for Mr. Grant's expulsion?
MR. MacKENZIE: Yes, that's correct.
THE COURT: Okay. What exception to the hearsay rule are you relying on?
MR. MacKENZIE: Your honor, I was -- well, Your Honor, we also have Plaintiffs' Exhibit 10, which may obviate the necessity for this, which is the Notice of Expulsion directed to Mr. Grant signed by Karl Germer.
Perhaps I can ask the witness if she recognizes this and if it would refresh her recollection.
THE COURT: This has been submitted in evidence?
MR. MacKENZIE: I don't know if it has been objected to.
MR. MITTEL: That is now your Exhibit, I [page 228] think, 10.
THE COURT: We will use your question as -- let's use Exhibit 10.
BY MR. MacKENZIE:
Q. Let me show you Exhibit 10. Can you identify that, please? Do you recognize this.
A. Yes, I recognize this.
Q. And what does it say?
A. I will read the whole thing. This is --
Q. Why don't you summarize it?
A. It says that Grant was given a small and limited authority to establish a camp of OTO in the Valley of London. And that authority is withdrawn. And Karl Germer formally expels Grant from membership in the Ordo Templi Orientis.
Q. And does he state the reason for Expulsion?
A. He says:
"You have grossly abused the
trust that was placed in you
by printing and distributing
a so-called Manifesto without
my approval and behind my back.
You have shown lack of the sense
of decency and for due authority
by making false and misleading [page 229]
statements therein, printing
outright lies and generally
failing {SIC sb. "sailing" -def -weh} under false pretenses.
You have shown moral and
spiritual dishonesty and proved
yourself utterly unworthy for
leadership in a cause that is
even slightly connected with
and Order like the OTO, much
less than with a cause like
the Law of Thelema."
Q. Is that -- is it on this document that you base your statement that he was expelled for reformulating the rituals?
MR. MITTEL: Objection; Best Evidence. The document doesn't say anything about that.
THE COURT: Well, no, it doesn't. But it can still be used to refresh her recollection.
BY MR. MacKENZIE:
Q. Does that document refresh your recollection as to the reason for Mr. Grant's expulsion?
A. Yes.
Q. And what is that reason for his expulsion?
A. For reformu --
MR. MITTEL: Objection; -- [page 230]
THE WITNESS: -- for reformulating the rituals.
MR. MITTEL: Objection; foundation.
THE COURT: What is the basis of your knowledge?
THE WITNESS: There is a passage written in a certain book about the history of the Order that Grant reformulated rituals.
THE COURT: Well, where did you hear this?
THE WITNESS: It's written in a book. And I also read letters.
THE COURT: Well, I'm going to exclude that portion of your testimony under the hearsay rule.
MR. MITTEL: Did you say you're --
THE COURT: Yes, I am sustaining your objection.
MR. MITTEL: Fine. Thank you.
BY MR. MacKENZIE:
Q. After the Court awarded Mr. McMurtry on behalf of the OTO, the Archives, what happened to all those Archives?
A. The very same day that the Court awarded us the Archives, Grady and I took home a big load in my station wagon. [page 231]
A few days later we got a large van, a friend of ours drove it, and the three of us went to Calaveras County and got the rest of the material from the storage where it had finally been placed by Mr. Gualdoni.
Q. And you removed that material?
A. We removed the material and brought it to my house in Dublin.
Q. All right. Was Mr. Mcmurtry with you during this time?
A. Yes, he was.
Q. And how long was he with you?
A. He stayed at my house for about two days --
Q. I see.
A. -- sorting material and looking through it.
Q. Do you know if he took any material with him?
A. Yes, he took material, but I don't know exactly what.
Q. I see. And when did you put this is storage?
A. The very next day after he left.
Q. Why did you put it in storage?
A. Because I was frightened. Sascha Germer had been robbed, beaten, tied up, and stuff thrown in her face.
And I expected the same thing to happen to me, not from Mr. McMurtry, but from other wild people.
Q. Why didn't you entrust it to Mr. McMurtry? [page 232]
A. Because he couldn't afford the storage, and he could not put it in his house any more than I could put it in my house.
Q. Why do you say that?
A. Because for the same reason: It could be stolen.
Q. Well, what did you do once it was put in storage?
A. I let him know eventually that that -- it was in storage, and I paid the bills from then on.
Q. Well, did you ever inspect it?
A. Did I what?
Q. Did you ever inspect it, the material?
A. Yes. I went to the storage, as time would allow, took one box out, brought it home, and made an inventory of all the material that was there.
Q. And how long did it take to do that inventory?
A. Oh, about a little less than a year, I believe.
Q. So from '76 to '77 approximately?
A. Approximately, um-hum.
Q. Out of the material that was, well, the Archives, did you ever sell any of it?
A. Helen and I sold some of the extra books. There were many copies of "Liber Aleph", many copies of other books like "Ola" (phonetic) {SIC sb. "Olla" -pla -def}, of which we have a list which we have now. That was to repay me my expenses, because I was retired at the time -- [page 233]
Q. Yes.
A. -- and I had very little money, but I had footed the bill for all of this.
Q. About how high were your expenses?
A. They were close to $2,000.
Q. I see. Did you ever sell the originals of any books?
A. No, never. Every -- every book of which we had only one copy we kept.
Q. Now, there was the theft from the storage location, was there not?
A. Yes, there was.
Q. When did that occur?
A. I discovered it in April of 1979.
Q. Like to show you Exhibit No. 53 here and ask you if you will identify that, please?
A. Yes. This is a page of accounts regarding the AC-Germer materials rescued from the State of California. I have here the list of all the costs.
Q. I see. All right.
A. And the grand total was $1,906.47
Then down below -- you want to me to read the rest of this?
Q. No, that's fine. Thank you.
A. Okay. [page 234]
Q. Throughout this time, did you believe the books were yours or the Order's?
A. I believe they belonged to the Order, but I am a Ninth Degree member of OTO and all the property of the Order belongs to the Ninth Degrees in common.
Q. When you say "in common," there is also a legal definition, and I want you to tell me what you mean by the words "in common." Does that mean everybody owns it --
A. Yes.
Q. -- jointly?
A. Yes, the Ninth jointly. It's written in the "Blue Equinox" the exact sentence.
Q. Fine. Now, how did you discover that theft?
A. I had last been to the storage place in October of 1978 that I can pinpoint. I had been there regularly to pay the bill, but I don't remember opening the door.
Q. Yes.
A. And then I -- in April of 1979 I went again. The lock was undisturbed; it was just as it always had been. I opened up the storage and to my great shock, everything was gone, everything.
Q. What did you do?
A. I immediately rushed to the office of the storage place and asked them to phone the police. They did. [page 235]
The police came out right away. After I had the conference with the policeman, I was asked to pit together just exactly what had been stolen for them, which I did.
Q. Yes.
A. And it's on record in Livermore.
Q. Yes.
A. And then when I hot home, I immediately phoned Bill Heidrick to tell him about it.
Q. Did the police ever find out who did it?
A. No. As far as I could see, there {SIC sb. "they" -weh} weren't even moving on the project.
Q. But they never gave you any conclusion to the case?
A. No.
Q. Okay. I'd like you to look at No. 18, Plaintiffs'.
A. (Witness complies.)
Q. Now, did you ever have any idea or thoughts even real or imagined as to who might have taken the library?
A. I had many. I was terribly concerned.
Q. I see. What is Document 18?
A. Document 18 is a letter from me to Bill Heidrick -- That's H-e-i-d-r-i-c-k -- of April 20, 1979.
In this letter I tried to pinpoint who might have been interested in stealing the library.
Do you want me to read further? [page 236]
Q. Well, I'd like you to tell me who these people are.
A. First on the list is G.M.Kelly of "New Eon {SIC sb. "Aeon" -def} Newsletter" (phonetic). I had been subscribing to his Newsletter.
Q. All right.
A. All of these people, one-two-three-four-five-six-seven, seven of them had gotten my issue of "In the Continuum," which told the story of the rescue of the Crowley-Germer material from West Point.
And I thought these people might know too much, because I had said in my article that these materials were stored far from my home.
Q. Yes. Now, reading down at the second bottom paragraph, would you read the portion that's been underlined.
A. "But I have thought Motta might
have had a hand in this, so you
aren't the only one this thought
has occurred to."
Q. Did you think anyone -- so you entertained the thought that Mr. Motta may have had a hand in it?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you ever think anyone in the OTO took it?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And who was that? [page 237]
A. I thought maybe Bill might have or maybe Helen might have.
Q. Bill Heidrick and Helen --
A. -- Parsons Smith.
Q. Do you still believe they took it?
A. No.
Q. Did you ever find out they took it?
A. No.
Q. Was your name on the account --
A. Yes.
Q. -- at the storage?
A. As Phyllis McMurtry.
Q. Do you know if this information as to the renter's name, that it was available to other people?
A. When I first took the storage, I asked that question: Would names be available? They said, "No."
Then they changed hands, and after the thefts I asked the question again, and they said, "Well, yes, they might give out information about who the people were that took storage."
Q. Now, you were married to Mr. McMurtry, were you not?
A. Yes.
Q. During what time?
A. From 1979 to 19 -- [page 238]
Q. I'm sorry. '79?
A. Pardon me. 1969. 1969 when he first came out here we were married.
Q. And how long did you live together as husband and wife?
A. Until April 1975, when we separated.
Q. I see. What was the nature of your relationship when you separated?
A. Quite acrimonious.
Actually I couldn't afford him.
Q. I see. What was the OTO's reaction to your storage in 1976?
A. They didn't like it.
Q. Did they threaten any kind of reprisal?
A. Yes, we had quite a fight.
Q. And what was the result of that?
A. The final result was that I was asked to go through a certain ceremony, and we made up our differences.
Q. Well, did they ever -- was there ever a meeting in which there was a discussion with reprisals against you?
A. There were tapes that I heard.
Q. Were you ever present at a meeting?
A. No. [page 239]
Q. I'm sorry. What kind of tapes did you hear?
A. The Supreme Council tapes.
Q. Concerning?
A. Concerning what they were going to do at the time, whether they were going to get rid of me, throw me out of the OTO.
Those I heard; I didn't hear any others.
Q. At the time you put the library into storage, did you have any contingency plans in the event something happened to yourself?
A. Well, Helen knew where everything was. And the contingency was that she would, as a Ninth Degree member, take care until the OTO as an organization could pay storage.
Q. Now, how did it come that Helen knew where it was?
A. Because she and I trusted each other. We were both Ninth Degree members. We were both from Agape Lodge. We were both good friends.
Q. And you took her to the storage locker?
A. Yes.
Q. How many times?
A. Two that I can remember specifically. And there may be a couple more, but I'm not sure.
Q. How long have you known Helen Smith?
A. Since she joined the Order in 1941. [page 240]
Q. What is the nature of your friendship?
A. We are both Thelemites, so we have an agreement on that score. And we also like each other. I guess that --
Q. Okay. Did you ever talk to her about the theft?
A. Yes. I tried to contact her immediately, but couldn't find her.
Q. I see. Had you ever signed any sort of authorization over the library for Helen?
A. Yes. Grady and I signed a small piece of paper, which gave Helen the ability to take care of the library.
Q. Should anything -- in what event?
A. In any time.
Q. I see. All right.
A. She was supposed to be able to take care of it from the start.
Q. Did Helen have particular expertise with books?
A. A lot of expertise.
Q. Hod did you know that?
A. Because she was publishing Crowley material.
Q. By "publishing," you mean writing or printing, for instance --
A. Publishing, printing what Crowley had written.
Q. Did she sell any of the books that we talked about [241] previously?
A. Yes. She sold a few. It says on that paper just how many.
Q. I see. And what was done with the proceeds from her sales?
A. They went to repay me for my large expenses for rescuing the materials.
Q. Did you ever recoup the $2,000, or whatever you testified to?
A. No, not the whole.
Q. Are you saying you did not sell more books in excess of --
A. There -- we stopped selling after awhile, and I -- money was still owing me when we stopped.
Q. I see. Is there still money owing you on this?
A. Yes.
Q. How long had you planned to keep the library in storage?
A. Until the OTO could pay for it.
Q. Okay. I'd like to show you Exhibit No. 123 and ask you about it. Do you recognize that?
A. Yes. This is a letter form me to Mr. Motta of December 1, 1977.
Q. Would you just read the portion of the second paragraph that's been underlined? [page 242]
A. The second paragraph?
Q. Yes.
A. "You have done very good things" --
Q. No, not that one.
"Would you like to" --
A. "Would you like to have returned
to you your correspondence with
Karl Germer?"
Q. Did you ever hear anything from Mr. Motta in response to your letter?
A. No.
Q. Thank you.
I'd like to read to you a few portions from some books that Mr. Motta has published --
A. Yes.
Q. -- in which he's talking about a number of plaintiffs, including yourself. Quote:
"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 have been expelled
from the OTO or lost contact with
the A.'.A.'. for conduct unbecoming."
Have you ever been expelled from the OTO? [page 243]
A. No.
Q. Have you ever lost contact with A.'.A.'. for conduct unbecoming?
A. No.
Q. Quote:
"Phyllis McMurtry aka Phyllis Wade
and Phyllis Seckler once a bona fide
neophyte of the A.'.A.'. on reaching the
vision of the Holy Guardian Angel
became obsessed with the delusions
that she had become an Adeptus
Minor" ...
can you explain what that means, tell us what that means?
A. When you have the vision of the Holy Guardian Angel --
Q. (Indicating.)
A. Yes.
Karl Germer had the vision of the Holy Guardian Angel and was immediately made Adeptus Minor by Crowley.
I never claimed to be Adeptus Minor. I had the vision; I claimed nothing.
Q. It continues:
..."and was accused by Mrs. [page 244]
Karl Johannes Germer of sending a
gang let by her own children to
assault and rob Mrs. Germer's
person and residence," ...
Were you ever, to your knowledge, accused by Mrs. Germer of sending a gang to rob and assault her?
A. I don't remember that she accused me. She accused my daughter.
Q. ..."has misappropriated Thelemic
property" --
Have you ever, to your knowledge, misappropriated property?
A. No. I'm a Ninth Degree member. I have right to assist --
Q. and --
A. -- in conservation.
Q. And it goes on:
-- "and misrepresented herself as
an OTO Lodge Master."
Have you ever done that?
A. I am a Lodge Master.
Q. So you're not misrepresenting that you are one?
A. No.
Q. Quote:
"Although I have said that material [page 245]
put out {SIC sb. "put out by" -weh} thieves like Regardie,
McMurtry, Helen Smith is suspect."
Are you a thief who has put out material?
A. No.
MR. MITTEL: Objection. That is compound.
BY MR. MacKENZIE:
Q. Are you a thief?
A. No.
Q. Do you know if Grady McMurtry ever allowed Sascha Germer to die slowly of malnutrition?
A. He did not.
Q. What kind of reactions did you have on hearing of this?
A. On what?
Q. Your reactions when you first became aware of these quotes.
A. I was upset.
Q. When you say "upset," what do you mean?
A. Well, the whole thing was such a fabrication that i don't see why anyone should go to print with such wrong information or made-up information.
Q. Did you personally have any sort of a physical reaction?
A. I always have a bad physical reaction when reading Motta's comments like that. [page 246]
Q. What kind of reaction do you get?
A. Sick to the stomach.
Q. Do these quotations embarrass you?
MR. MITTEL: Objection; leading.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: It's embarrassing to the work I'm doing.
BY MR. MacKENZIE:
Q. And why is that?
A. Because I'm the founder and director of the College of Thelema. I am the publisher of "In the Continuum." These have -- both of these have quite a reputation.
And if that -- Motta's comments like that are not helpful to what I'm doing; quite the contrary.
Q. In light of you association as Mr. McMurtry's one-time spouse, did you have any personal reactions to having him being accused of allowing Sascha Germer to die slowly of malnutrition?
A. Yes.
MR. MITTEL: Objection. I don't think there's any cause of action for defamation of his spouse. I think it's irrelevant.
MR. MacKENZIE: I think that's by association, Your Honor. If you're a member of a group that's been libeled, in terms it's important. [page 247]
THE COURT: Libel is directed to Regardie, McMurtry and Helen Smith at large, if I understand the point.
MR. MacKENZIE: But it's her ex-spouse who's being accused of this.
THE COURT: No, I don't think that's competent.
MR. MITTEL: Your Honor, --
MR. MacKENZIE: All right, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Mrs. Seckler is not a plaintiff here, is she?
MR. MacKENZIE: Yes, she is.
THE COURT: I beg your pardon. There was some name stricken.
MR. MacKENZIE: Yes. Dr,. Regardie.
THE COURT: Dr. Regardie?
MR. MacKENZIE: That's correct, Your Honor.
THE COURT: I'm sorry. I had the idea the name Seckler was stricken off. I'm sorry.
BY MR. MacKENZIE:
Q. did you discuss Karl Germer's death with Sascha Germer?
A. Yes. I went there immediately upon receiving her letter. I took a day off from school and went to talk with her and to help her. [page 248]
Q. And was there -- did you discuss telling people -- the issue of whether to tell people about the death?
A. I informed her that my intuition was not to tell the people in Southern California. We discussed that a letter must be written to Mr. Motta. We discussed the people all through Europe that she needed to contact>
Q. And you stated earlier the reason Mr. McMurtry did not get a letter was because you did not have his address?
A. That's right.
Q. One final question: Can you describe the capacity in which you feel you holed the library?
A. As a conservator for the OTO.
Q. I'd like you to take a look at Plaintiffs' Exhibit No,. 3 and tell me if you recognize this?
A. Oh yes. I recognize this?
Q. Is that a letter that you received?
A. Yes, I received this.
It's a letter to me from Malcom Mills of Abracadabra in New York March 16, 1979.
Q. Had you been in contact with Mr. Mills?
A. I can't remember. I might have sent him a business letter.
Q. Now, that letter states that they've decided to cut the Thelemic publishing titles from their mail order [page 249] catalog.
A. Oh, yes.
Q. Is there any reason why he would have sent that letter to you?
MR. MITTEL: Objection; no foundation.
THE WITNESS: I have no idea.
THE COURT: She says she doesn't know.
MR. MacKENZIE: No further questions.
Thank you.
THE COURT: We'll take a recess at this time until 1:30 p.m.
(The luncheon recess was taken at 12:15 until 1:30 p.m. of the same day.)
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 250 through 496
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, Marcello Ramos Motta, an individual, and Does I through X, inclusive,
Defendants.
CIVIL NO. C-83-5434
VOLUME II
Afternoon Session
PAGES 250 - 373
REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS OF COURT TRIAL
Tuesday, May 14, 1985
450 Golden Gate Avenue
San Francisco, CAlifornia 94102
REPORTED BY:
Nancy J. Palmer
[page 250]
Tuesday, May 14, 1985 1:30 o'clock
SECOND DAY - AFTERNOON SESSION
THE COURT: Would you come forward, Mrs. Seckler, and take the witness stand, please.
PHYLLIS SECKLER,
having been previously sworn, resumed the witness stand, was examined and testified further as is hereinafter set forth.
THE COURT: You may proceed.
MR. MITTEL: Good afternoon, Mrs. Seckler.
THE WITNESS: Good afternoon.
CROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR. MITTEL:
Q. This morning you were talking on one point about bringing the library back from Calaveras County. Do you remember that?
A. Yes.
Q. All right. How long -- how many days did it take from the time you got the Court Order until you had all the library in your house?
A. Approximately a week, but I can't give you the exact date.
Q. So that would have made the end of July, the [page 251] beginning of August.
A. Approximately.
Q. And do I also understand that Mr. McMurtry then spend a few days during that period or right after going through the material?
A. As soon as we got it into the Dublin house, Mr. McMurtry spent approximately two -- it might have been three -- days going through the material.
Q. So he had finished doing that certainly by the end of the first week in August?
A. Yes, I think that is correct.
Q. And then as soon as he left, you took the library and put it in Public Storage, or whatever that place is called?
A. Public Storage, yes.
Q. How soon after he had finished did you do that?
A. The next day.
Q. And why did you do that?
A. Because I was frightened.
Q. Frightened of what?
A. Of robberies at my personal home.
Q. Now, you had never been robbed, had you?
A. I have never been robbed in my life. But I didn't want to go through what Sascha went through.
Q. And when you took the material to Public Storage, [page 252] what happened?
A. I took a box out every once in awhile --
Q. No. I mean when you got there the first time that --
A. I just simply paid the bill and got the storage place, put it all away.
Q. Did you sign the lease with them?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And did you do that the first day you were there?
A. Of course.
Q. And you're certain that you did all this because you were worried as soon as Mr. McMurtry had finished.
A. Yes.
MR. MITTEL: Your Honor, I have come -- a new set of exhibits, 68-B and 68-C.
THE COURT: Have these been marked previously?
MR. MITTEL: No, they have no, so ...
THE COURT: They are 68 what?
MR. MITTEL: B and C.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. MITTEL: Ant they are each dated April 26th, 1977.
(Two documents, each dated April 26, 1977 were marked Defendants Exhibits 68-B and [page 253] 68-C for identification.)
BY MR. MITTEL:
Q. Now, Ms. Seckler, I'd like you to take a look at Plaintiffs' Exhibit 68-C -- I mean Defendants' Exhibit 68-C and 68-B, for a moment, if you would, and familiarize yourself with them.
A. (Witness complies.)
All right. I have seen these.
MR. MacKENZIE: Your Honor, I would object at this time. I've never seen these documents before and the defendants have never mentioned them in any of their supplemental list or initial list of exhibits.
MR. MITTEL: These are impeachment documents, Your Honor. Under the local rules we're entitled to not list them, not offer them. They were only produced something in the last month or so, in any event, and they were produced by the plaintiffs.
MR. MacKENZIE: Your Honor, I --
THE COURT: I think they're admissible.
BY MR. MITTEL:
Q. Miss Seckler, let me also show you the original of what is Plaintiffs' -- Defendants' Exhibit 68-C so you can see the full date.
Would you read the top line of Defendants' 68-C, if you would, please? [page 254]
A. Right here (indicating)?
Q. Yes.
A. "This lease is executed in duplicate
on the 26th Day of April by and
between Livermore Storage Partners,
Limited, 836 Portola Avenue,
Livermore, California 94550 'Landlord'
and Phyllis Evelynina McMurtry."
Q. Is there a year date after April 26th?
A. Oh, sorry. 1977.
Q. And at the bottom of that document does your signature appear?
A. Yes.
Q. Is that a copy of the lease that you executed with Public Storage for the library that we have been talking about?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, would you also direct your attention to Exhibit 68-B and to the fourth line down, maybe two inches in from the righthand margin --
A. 4-26-77.
Q. And that says "Date requested"; is that correct? Date leased?
A. Yes, that's the date.
Q. So that's the date you started your lease? [page 255] That's the date --
A. No. I told you the storage company changed hands.
Q. Ans so it's you testimony that this is not the first date that you took these materials to storage?
A. That's right. I took these materials to storage in August of '76.
MR. MITTEL: Before I forget, defendants offer 68-B and 68-C, Your Honor.
THE COURT: They may be admitted.
(Defendants' Exhibits 68-B and 68-C previously marked for identification were received in evidence.)
BY MR. MITTEL:
Q. Did you have any other documents from the storage company, either storage company?
A. It was the same place, but different people running it. I don't remember.
Q. Do you -- how did you pay for the storage.
A. Sometimes by cash and sometimes by check.
Q. Did you get a receipt when you paid by cash?
A. Yes.
Q. Let me show you Defendant's Exhibit 70 and ask you to look at that and tell me if that is every check that you used to pay for the storage box?
A. Some of these dates are not clear, but it seems to [page 256] be every check. It starts with August 11, 19 -- no, that's not all.
Q. Look at the bottom check on the first page of that document, if you would, please?
A. Okay. Let's see. The bottom check?
Q. On the first page of that document.
A. Okay. It says April 26, 1977.
Q. That's the first check in that series of checks, is it not?
A. No. I mean with this -- this particular storage company, after they changed hands, it was the first one they got under the new management.
Q. In the course of this litigation, you've been asked to produce all of the documents relating to your storage of the library and Public Storage; is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. And did you do that?
A. I couldn't. These things were taken from me, because I stored them with the materials.
Q. How is it they -- let me withdraw that question.
You're saying that the material relating to the first storage company was stored with the materials?
A. I don't remember.
Q. But you don't have it?
A. I don't have it. [page 257]
Q. And you are unable to produce it?
A. I am unable to produce it.
Q. But you did have the material relating to the second storage company?
A. Some of it.
Q. The lease?
A. I don't have -- I didn't have that personally.
Q. Where was it?
A. I don't remember.
Q. Did you locate these documents in order that they could be produced during this litigation?
A. No.
Q. Who did?
A. I don't know.
Q. Do you remember the name of the company before it became Public Storage?
A. Public Storage was written on the outside buildings. It kept the same name.
MR. MacKENZIE: Your Honor, may I object to this line of questioning, because it really is going simply to the issue of whether there was a breach of duty in 1977, or thereabouts.
And I still contend that this has been barred by the Statute of Limitations. And if there is no action there then there is no purpose in this whole [page 258] thing. It's irrelevant.
THE COURT: Well, I'm not prepared to rule on that issue at the moment.
What is the relevancy --
MR. MITTEL: Well, the relevancy is that you've just --
THE COURT: -- between the '76 and '77, I realize it takes place part in '76 and the documents you're reviewing now are in '77, but how is that material --
MR. MITTEL: It's only material to impeach her. And the only reason I'm continuing to explore it is because I'm surprised at her testimony that she only has one set of documents, but not the other, and that they changed identities and that this --
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. MITTEL: Let me just stop it right there.
THE COURT: Okay.
BY MR. MITTEL:
Q. The rituals of the Ordo Templi Orientis are supposed to be kept secret; is that correct?
A. That is true, until Francis King published them in England.
Q. And that was sometime around 1973; is that right? [page 259]
A. Approximately.
Q. And would you have discussed those rituals with anybody who was not a member before 1973?
A. I don't think I did.
Q. Did you ever complain to anybody that the Ninth Degree ritual was unfair to women, too favorably disposed to men?
A. I have never made comments like that that I know of.
Q. Not even to another member of the Ordo Templi Orientis?
A. Not that I know of.
Q. Is it possible that you've forgotten?
A. I can forget anything. So could anyone.
Q. Is it possible, for instance, that you spoke with Mr. Motta about that in 1957 when he was in California?
A. I don't remember.
Q. You testified this morning about Mrs. Germer and some of the things that she said to you and did --
A. Yes.
Q. -- when you were visiting with her?
A. Yes.
Q. Talking about bugging the wall?
A. Yes.
Q. When was that conversation? [page 260]
A. It was right after Karl's death.
Q. And she was somebody that you were fairly close with?
A. I knew her, yes, because she was karl's wife.
Q. Have you ever had other friends of acquaintances that have had similar kinds of problems or illnesses of kind?
A. With what?
Q. Of anything that was serious.
A. What was the question again?
Q. I said: Have you ever had friends, acquaintances that were seriously ill?
A. How, physically or mentally?
Q. Either way.
A. Karl was a little ill on the same subject.
Q. Have any of your other friends ever been seriously ill.
A. Mentally?
Q. Either way, mentally or physically.
A. I can't think of anyone else who had the same mental problems as Karl and Sascha had.
Q. Let me just ask you a question that you can answer yes or no.
Have you ever had a friend with a serious physical illness? [page 261]
A. Yes.
Q. You said that when you got the letter from -- or the telegram, I believe it was, from Mrs. Germer accusing your daughter of the theft in 1967 that you were shocked?
A. Yes.
Q. And that you immediately sent back a telegram saying it couldn't have been possible; is that right?
A. That's right.
Q. Is that your normal response when you are shocked about something is to get back in touch with the person who causes the shock?
A. What do you mean by "normal"?
Q. Is that what you would normally do?
A. What do you mean by "normal"? This was an abnormal situation.
Q. Now, what I means is when you are shocked about something, do you normally respond promptly?
A. Not always.
Q. You said that it was not possible for your daughter Stella whom Mrs. Germer had accused to have committed the burglary?
A. That's right.
Q. Were any of you other children interested in Thelema? [page 262]
A. None.
Q. Did you not write to Mr. Motta at one point and tell him that your son Paul was interested in him, an admirer of his and interested in Thelema?
A. At that time he was.
Q. And you have another daughter as well?
A. Yes.
Q. Was she also at that time interested in Thelema?
A. No.
Q. So it was only your son Paul who was?
A. That's right.
Q. And where did he live at that point in time?
MR. MacKENZIE: Your Honor, I'm going to object to this. I think it's -- it's not even impeachment. It's really attacking or attempting to impugn the children of Mrs. Seckler. And I don't think that needs to reflect on her.
THE COURT: Well, I have a hard time seeing the relevancy, too, but you raised the question of the children's possible involvement in the attempted theft and I think --
MR. MacKENZIE: Sascha has --
THE COURT: -- it's also proper cross-examination.
He's entitled to a certain degree of latitude [page 263] to explore the subject.
MR. MacKENZIE: I agree with that, Your Honor, but it was Sascha who directed it specifically towards one daughter.
THE COURT: But I don't think he's necessarily limited to that on cross-examination. I think he can come at it from different angles if he wants to.
BY MR. MITTEL:
Q. The question --
A. I think it was San Jose. I can't remember.
Q. And has he ever lived in Berkeley?
A. Oh, yes. My son lived in Berkeley at one time.
Q. When did he live in Berkeley?
A. I can't remember.
Q. During the period 1979 to 1985?
A. I can't remember.
Q. Now about either of your daughters; did they live with you then, either of them, in 1967?
A. No. They were both married.
Q. All right. And have either of them lived in Berkeley since 1979?
A. Yes.
Q. Whereabouts?
A. Close to the University. They were students. [page 264]
Q. Did any of your children -- let me withdraw that question.
Are you familiar with a man by the name of Tom Whitmore?
A. No.
Q. Do you know here he lived?
A. No.
Q. Do you know here he lives now?
A. NO.
Q. Since 1979 have any of your children lived in Oakland, very near the Berkeley border on East 66th Street?
A. Yes.
Q. Which one?
A. My son.
Q. When did he live there?
A. I don't remember.
Q. Where does your son live now?
A. San Jose.
Q. What's his address?
MR. MacKENZIE: Objection, Your Honor. I don't see the relevancy of that.
MR. MITTEL: Your Honor, the relevance is as follows;
In May of 1984 a man by the name of Tom [page 265] Whitmore, whose deposition we took two weeks ago, moved into a house on East 66th Street in Oakland.
He reports by a document which is Defendants' Exhibit 78 that he discovered in his basement a box containing a significant amount of material that, at least from reading the document and listening to him testify at his deposition, appears to have come from this library that we're talking about.
THE COURT: You may ask questions about that.
THE WITNESS: My son didn't live in Oakland at that time.
MR. MITTEL: And I want to subpoena this son and get him in here.
BY MR. MITTEL:
Q. What's his address?
A. I don't know unless I look at my address book.
Q. Do you have your address book with you?
A. In my purse down there.
Q. Let me get your purse.
(Handing purse to the witness.)
A. All right. His name is Paul Stuart, S-t-u-a-r-t. 825 East William, San Jose, California 95116.
May I explain how those two boxes got to Berkeley? [page 266]
MR. MITTEL: Give me one more moment and I will ask you that.
THE COURT: Well, I'm sure if Mr. Mittel doesn't cover it, Mr. MacKenzie will.
BY MR. MITTEL:
Q. Well, what's his phone number, please?
A. Oh. 408, area, 293-6368.
By the time all of this took place, my son had lost interest in Thelema.
Q. Let's be a little more specific on dates, first of all.
When did he live on East 66th Street?
A. I don't remember -- he didn't live on that street.
Q. He occupied a house on East 66th Street, did he not?
A. No, I don't think so.
Q. Well, you testified a moment ago that he did.
A. I -- you said the border between Oakland and Berkeley. He was living in Oakland quite early on.
Q. But you do know how the boxes got to Mr. Whitmore's house?
A. I have a very good suspicion of it, --
Q. Why don't you tell me --
A. but I can't prove it. You'd have to ask Mr. Gualdoni. [page 267]
Q. Why don't you tell me what your suspicion is?
A. All right. When Helen and I first discovered Sascha's death on that particular day, Mr. Johnson, the Deputy Coroner, told us that Mr. Gualdoni had removed two boxes of materials from the Germer home.
Later that same day when we met Mr. Gualdoni, I asked him about this, and he denied it.
Those two boxes were then sold when Mr. Gualdoni had the permission of his jurisdiction to sell whatever he pleased to make up any expenses, and well, minus profits.
Q. Were you present at the sale?
A. No.
Q. Did you know --
A. But somebody else bought it and --
Q. Just answer my questions as I ask them, please.
A. Uh-huh.
Q. Do you know anybody who was present at the sale?
A. I think we might have a lead.
Q. Tell me who you think was present at the sale?
A. Somebody sold Bill Heidrick something that was obviously from those boxes.
Q. What's the person's name whom you think --
A. I don't know.
Q. From whom did you hear about this sale? [page 268]
A. Goodness, I don't remember. I don't remember. But I knew it was going to take place because Mr. Gualdoni said so.
He took the typewriters from us, and he told us that he was going to sell them.
Q. Did Mr. Gualdoni tell you that he had two additional boxes of literary material?
A. He refused to confirm that he had these.
Q. Mr. Johnson was the name of the Assistant Coroner?
A. Yes.
Q. What was his first name?
A. I don't know.
Q. You were very interested in the Crowley and Germer library, were you not?
A. Yes.
Q. Interested enough to have spent $2,000 to hire a lawyer and go to Court in Calaveras County?
A. That's right.
Q. And interested enough to then spend a good bit of your own money keeping it in the Public Storage?
A. That's right.
Q. But not interested enough to go to the sale and see if you could get the other two boxes?
A. Nobody told me when the sale would be. I only heard about it later. [page 269]
Q. From Mr. Johnson?
A. No.
Q. Mr. Johnson --
A. Other than the fact that Mr. Heidrick was offered something for sale.
Q. You never asked Mr. Gualdoni if he was going to sell any of the literary material?
A. No.
Q. Didn't you just tell me that you told him that Mr. Johnson had told you that he had two boxes of literary material and that his response was to deny it?
A. I didn't tell him Mr. Johnson had told us that. I asked him outright.
Q. And he said --
A. "No."
Q. And you believed him?
A. I don't know what to believe.
Q. You had a lawyer, didn't you?
A. Later.
Q. You had a lawyer to go to the Probate Court and get the library, didn't you?
A. Yes.
Q. Right then?
A. Not at that moment.
Q. Did you discuss that matter with your lawyer, the [page 270] other two boxes?
A. No. There was too much else on my mind.
Q. Tell me again if you remember when Mr. Stuart, that's your son, lived in East Oakland.
A. I don't remember.
Q. Tell me again --
A. But it was much before we ever rescued these things.
Q. Tell me again if you know what his address was when he lived there?
A. I don't know.
Q. Is it in your book, perhaps?
A. No.
Q. Do you erase old addresses before putting new addresses in?
A. I have a new book every once in a while.
Q. Would you mind taking the book out and looking to make sure that it's not in there.
A. I'll do it again.
(Perusing small book.)
It's not here; this is a new book.
Q. I think you mentioned that in 1969 after Mr. McMurtry came back to California, you and he and Mildred Burlingame had some meetings?
A. Yes. [page 271]
Q. I think you said that you were the three remaining members of Agape Lodge?
A. That's right.
Q. Wasn't Mrs. Smith, who's also a plaintiff here, a member of Agape Lodge?
A. Yes.
Q. Why wasn't she at the meetings?
A. I didn't have her address at first, and she lived in Southern California.
Q. You also testified this morning that the reason that you treated Mr. McMurtry as -- well, why don't you explain to me again why you thought Mr. McMurtry had some special position in the Ordo Templi Orientis as of 1969?
A. Because of the Crowley letters of authorization.
Q. And which letters are those?
A. I don't have the exact date. You will just have to show them to me, and I'll tell you.
Q. Let me show you Plaintiffs' 20 and ask you if that's one of them?
A. This is one of them.
Q. Is there another one that looks just like that?
A. They would look like Crowley's handwriting, so I don't understand you question.
Q. Is Defendant's 8 another one of those letters of authorization about what you're speaking? [page 272]
A. This is the same letter.
Q. What about Defendants' 11?
A. This one of the letters of authorization.
Q. Now, are there more letters than just these two?
A. I think the letters that refer to him as Caliph are also to be considered as authorization.
Q. Let me show you Defendants' Exhibit 5, which is also a Plaintiffs' Exhibit and ask you if that's one of the letters of authorization, because it refers to Mr. McMurtry as the Caliph?
A. Yes, I consider this as one of the letters of authorization.
Q. Now, where in that letter that you're looking at right now is there some indication that Mr. McMurtry is to have a position of authority?
A. "Frater Saturnus is, of course,
the natural Caliph, but there
are many details concerning the
actual policy or working which
hit his blind spots. In any
case, he can only be a stop gap
because of his age. I have to
look for his successor."
Q. Does that say that Mr. McMurtry is going to be the successor? [page 273]
A. To my mind, it does.
Q. Is there anything --
A. It was addressed to Grady McMurtry, --
Q. Is --
A. -- and that's what he's talking about.
Q. Is there anything in the "Blue Equinox" that talks about the Caliph?
A. No, there isn't.
Q. Let me show you Plaintiffs' Exhibit 21. Let me ask you if that's another one of the letters that you're relying on?
A. Yes. I consider this as supportive evidence for the letters of responsibility --
Q. And those are the --
A. -- that Grady McMurtry was to take up.
Q. And those are the two letters dated 1946 that I showed you first, the letters of responsibility?
A. Yes.
Q. And what does this say, this letter that you are looking at now, which is Plaintiffs' Exhibit 1 {SIC sb. "21" -def}?
A. "I would tell you why in strict
confidence in the event of my
death Frater Saturnus is, of
course, my successor. But
after his death, the terrible [page 274]
burden and responsibility might
very easily fall upon your
shoulders."
Q. All right. Now, Mr. Crowley is not saying that he is appointing Mr. McMurtry. He is only suggesting that that may happen; is that correct?
A. I take this as supportive evidence for the first two letters you've showed me. They all work together.
Q. Supportive of the authority that Mr. McMurtry is given in the first two letters --
A. Yes.
Q. -- and nothing more?
And nothing more than what's in those first two letters?
A. What do you mean, "nothing more"? Explain, please.
Q. You said that you take this letter that you looking at, Plaintiffs' 21, as being supportive of the authority that Mr. McMurtry was given in the first two letters.
A. That's right.
Q. And what I asked you was: Do you mean supportive of the authority that's given there and no further authority, or do you mean supportive of greater authority that he's given there?
A. Supportive of any authority Mr. McMurtry might be able to wield in the future. [page 275]
Q. And what language in this letter tells you that mr..McMurtry may have authority in the future?
A. "After his death, the terrible
burden or responsibility may
very well easily fall upon your
shoulders."
Q. Now, let me show you Defendants' Exhibit 16.
Let me ask you one other question first: Plaintiffs' Exhibit 21, what's the date on that?
A. 17th of June 1947.
Q. All right. Now, let me show you Defendants' Exhibit 16, which is a letter to Frederic Mellinger from Mr. Crowley. What's the date, first of all, please?
A. 15th of July 1947.
Q. That's after this letter that you were just looking at addressed to Mr. McMurtry; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Would you now turn to the second page of what you were looking at and read the yellow portion to the Court?
A. "After Frater Saturnus and myself
have moved on into the next stage,
you may"--underlined--"find
yourself saddled with the whole
responsibility of carrying on the [page 276]
work of the Order."
Q. Well, that's almost exactly the same words --
A. No. There's the word "may" in here.
Q. Is the word "may" different that the word "might"?
A. Yes. But I don't have a dictionary.
Q. The word "might" appears in Mr. Crowley's letter, does it not?
A. Show it to me again.
THE COURT: Well, Counsel, what the words mean is really my decision and not the witness', so I don't think it's probative to go ahead with the examination on it.
BY MR. MITTEL:
Q. You didn't know about the letters to Mr. Mellinger when you were talking with Mr. McMurtry in 1969?
A. No.
Q. You were talking about the payment of dues to the Ordo Templi Orientis; you said that that didn't go on during Mr. Germer's administration; is that right?
A. Some people donated money; it was not regular dues.
Q. There is an obligation set out in the "Blue Equinox" for members to pay dues, is there not?
A. Yes.
Q. I think you testified this morning that you wrote some to Mr. Motta in the early 1960s. [page 277]
A. 1962 when Karl died.
Q. Why did you write then?
A. Because Sascha asked me to.
Q. Did you not testify that you and she discussed to whom letters should be sent about Karl's death?
A. Yes, we discussed the matter.
Q. And you suggested to here that the people in Southern California shouldn't be notified?
A. That's correct.
Q. Why did you suggest that?
A. Pure intuition.
Q. What was the basis of your intuition?
A. It was proven to be correct later in 1967 when the people from Southern California came up and robbed Sascha of what was in the library.
Q. And you also suggested to Sascha that the people in Europe should be told.
A. She wanted to inform the people in Europe. I knew nothing of them. I was quite in accord with her desires.
Q. And you also suggested to here that Mr. Motta should be notified?
A. No, that was her idea.
Q. And why did she want to notify him?
A. Because he was a student of Karl's. [page 278]
Q. This morning you testified about Plaintiff' Exhibit 18 which is a letter that you sent to Mr. Heidrick identifying potential suspects in the theft.
A. Yes.
Q. I think you said that the people listed in the top portion of the letter were recipients of "In the Continuum?"
A. Yes.
Q. Were there other recipients of "In the Continuum"?
A. This particular issue, the one that explained the rescue of the library, those were the only recipients.
Q. You testified that you heard a tape or some tapes of a Supreme Council meeting at which the suspicion that you had been involved in the 1979 theft was discussed?
A. NO, that's not what I heard on the tapes.
Q. But you did hear some tapes?
A. I heard some tapes.
Q. And what was the subject of those tapes?
A. Whether I was to remain in the OTO or not.
Q. And what was the basis for expelling you from the OTO if there was one?
A. Anger.
Q. Anger about what?
A. I'm very a strong-minded person.
Q. And whoever was talking was angry about your strong [page 279] mind?
A. Yes.
Q. Who was talking?
A. Grady McMurtry and Bill Heidrick.
Q. And what you were showing a strong mind about was not turning the library over to them?
A. By that time when I heard these tapes the library had been stolen from storage.
Q. But when the tapes were being made?
A. That was after the theft from storage.
Q. So the tapes were made after the theft from storage?
A. Yes.
Q. And where are those tapes now?
A. I have no idea.
Q. Where did you hear them?
A. I heard them in my home.
Q. Who gave them to you?
A. The then Grand Secretary-General.
I did a little secretarial work with them.
Q. Who was the then Grand Secretary-General?
A. James Graeb.
Q. Can you spell that, please?
A. James, J-a-m-e-s, Graeb, G-r-a-e-b.
Q. Thank you. [page 280]
A. I worked up the minutes from them.
Q. Is Mr. Graeb still a member of the Ordo Templi Orientis?
A. Yes, he is.
Q. You testified, I think, that Helen -- or that immediately after the theft in April of 1979, you tried to call Helen Parsons Smith --
A. Yes.
Q. -- and you couldn't do that because you couldn't find her?
A. No.
Q. Do you know where she was?
A. No.
Q. Now long did it take you to track her down?
A. Several months, but I don't remember.
Q. After you tracked her down, did you ask here about the theft?
A. Yes.
Q. What did she say?
A. I can't remember.
Q. Did she deny doing it?
A. I can't remember.
Q. Did she admit to doing it?
A. If I can't remember, how could I say?
I can't remember what she said. [page 281]
Q. She was the only one who had a key besides yourself?
A. That's right.
Q. This morning you testified about Plaintiff's Exhibit 123. Do you see that?
A. Yes. This is a letter from me to Mr. MOtta, December 1, 1977.
Q. How did you happen to have copies of Mr. Motta's correspondence?
A. It was in the library. It was in the Archives.
Q. And at that point in time when you wrote this letter, you were in the process of indexing the Archives?
A. Yes.
Q. You prepared an index at some point, which is some 21 pages long, I think. I'm not sure.
A. That's right.
Q. And you found Mr. Motta's letters in there?
A. Yes.
Q. Were any of them missing?
A. I don't know.
Q. And when you had them at home you offered to send him copies of them?
A. I offered to send him the whole bunch that I had.
Q. And when he -- did he write back in response to [page 282] this letter?
A. No.
Q. What did you do with the whole bunch?
A. The remained in the Archives.
Q. I may have misunderstood you. I think you said you always had a bad physical reaction to Mr. Motta's comments?
A. Yes.
Q. Regardless of what he said?
A. He's never said anything pleasant in print that is in books.
Q. What did you do when you first read the material about which you're unhappy?
A. Which material are you referring to?
Q. The material that's listed in the Complaint, the statements in the Complaint that you believe are untrue?
A. Printed -- printed material in Motta's books, is that what you're referring to?
Q. Yes, ma'am.
A. What did I do, did you say?
Q. Yes, ma'am.
A. I can't remember what I did.
MR. MITTEL: I'm going to ask the reporter to read back a question that you were asked this morning and the answer. [page 282]
(The reporter read the record as follows:
"BY MR. MacKENZIE:
Q. One final question: Can you describe
the capacity in which you feel you hold
the library?
A. As a conservator for the OTO.
Q. I'd like you to take a look at
Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 3 and tell me
if you recognize this.")
MR. MITTEL: That's it. Thank you.
BY MR. MITTEL:
Q. Mr. MacKenzie asked you in what capacity you hold the library.
A. As a Ninth Degree conservator for the OTO.
Q. And do all Ninth Degree members have the same rights and responsibilities as respects the library?
A. Yes.
Q. How is it that you hold the library now?
A. How is it what?
Q. How is it that you hold the library right now?
A. I don't hold the library right now. If you're referring to the Crowley-Germer Archives, I told you the Court has seen that those were stolen from Public Storage. I don't hold them.
Q. Have you seen the material in Mr. Heidrick's house?
A. What material?
Q. The documents that relate to Mr. Crowley, Mr. Germer, Mr. Motta, yourself? [page 284]
A. Which documents?
Q. Any of them.
A. That's too wide a question. What do you mean? Can you --
Q. Well, why don't you tell me what, in general terms whether you've ever been -- withdraw that question.
Have you ever been in Mr. Heidrick's house?
A. Yes.
Q. How recently?
A. Maybe about two or three weeks ago.
Q. And while you were there, did you look at any documents?
A. Not at that time?
Q. In the past year, have you looked at any documents in Mr. --
A. Yes.
Q. Are you familiar with generally the amount of documentary material related to Thelema that Mr. Heidrick has in his house?
A. I am familiar with the two boxes that were found in Berkeley. That's all.
Q. And as far as -- it's your testimony that Mr. Heidrick has nothing in his house beyond what was in those two boxes?
A. I don't know. Ask Mr. Heidrick. [page 285]
Q. Is it your testimony that all you've seen in Mr. Heidrick's house are the contents of those two boxes?
A. That's right.
Q. Tell me what was in the two boxes, please?
A. A few letters badly marked by Sascha Germer from me to Karl and Karl to me, and a great many other things that Mr. Gualdoni put together in order to try and find -- if he could find family for Karl or Sascha, who might inherit the house and the materials in it.
Q. This material that Mr. Gualdoni put together, have you ever seen it before?
A. I had never seen it before.
Q. How do you know it was Mr. Gualdoni who put it together?
A. Because that was his job. He mentioned something about trying to find who the inheritors of the estate might be. He told Helen and myself this.
Q. You don't believe that the OHO and the Caliph are the same position, do you?
A. That depends on the future.
Q. Do you believe that mr. McMurtry is the OHO of the Ordo Templi Orientis?
A. The OHO is elected by membership in various countries. We do not yet have that type of membership.
Q. So that it's your opinion that Mr. McMurtry is not [page 286] the OHO; is that right?
A. He can act as a temporary one, because he's doing the administrative work. Nobody else has been doing that but him.
Q. Has Mr. McMurtry ever claimed to be the OHO?
A. I'm not sure.
Q. Do you remember having your deposition taken in 1963 -- '83, I'm sorry, in December here in San Francisco?
A. Yes.
Q. Let me read you some questions that I asked you here on page 18"
"Do you know who the Outer Head of the
OTO is now?
"ANSWER: Three people have claimed it."
THE WITNESS: (Nodding head up and down.)
MR. MITTEL: "Well, tell me who they are.
"Metzger in Switzerland; Grant in
England and McMurtry in the United
States."
THE WITNESS: Yes.
MR. MITTEL: "Question: And do you
have an opinion as to which of those
actually is the Outer Head? [page 287]
"I have no opinion."
THE WITNESS: That's right.
BY MR. MITTEL:
Q. Now, Mr. McMurtry has failed to take care of OTO business, has he not?
A. He has taken care of OTO business quite well. He manages to find excellent people to help the business.
Q. You've criticized him on a number of occasions in the past for his failure to take care of OTO business, haven't you?
A. What are you referring to?
We had a lot of bad feelings. And if you don't produce a particular letter and a particular sentence, I can't answer you.
Q. Well, let me just have the reporter read back the question and you can answer it with a yeas or no, perhaps.
A. All right.
MR. MITTEL: Will you do that, please?
(The reporter read the record as follows:
"QUESTION: You've criticized him on a
number of occasions in the past for his
failure to take care of OTO business, haven't you?
"ANSWER: What are you referring to?"
BY MR. MITTEL:
Q. Can you tell us whether the answer is yes or no? [page 288]
A. No, I can't tell you whether the answer is yes or no, because I don't know what you referred to.
Q. Well, let me again read to you from the deposition. Maybe that will refresh your recollection a little bit.
There was a question that I asked you about an exhibit in which you had referred to serious failures on Grady's part. And after some discussion, I said to you:
"Could you answer the question, please?"
And you said:
"Grady was sick and not taking care of
matters in the Order very well at that
time."
A. I told you --
Q. "I was doing most of it."
Well, --
A. Oh, yes, that was when he was living with me. That's right. I was doing most of it.
Q. Let me go on.
A. That was the first part.
Q. "What was he not doing?
"He wasn't answering questions. I
put on the bulk of the initiations
myself. I wrote the letters; I was
teaching and supporting him. So he [page 289]
just was not fulfilling his
responsibility. That's right."
A. That's what happened.
Q. And there have been other occasions when that's happened as well; is that right?
A. After 1975, when we separated I had certain ideas about what he was or was not doing, but I might have been wrong.
Q. You have heard some testimony about menus, haven't you?
A. Yes.
MR. MITTEL: Give me a moment if you would, please, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Yes, sir.
MR. MITTEL: May I have these marked, please?
BY MR. MITTEL:
Q. Let me just show you a document that's unmarked for the moment. Let me ask you if that's a photocopy of the menus that we're talking about.
A. My memory is very poor on this point.
Q. Do you think they are?
A. It looks like Crowley's handwriting. I say "it looks like."
Q. Do you recollect when you first saw these menus? [page 290]
A. I might have briefly seen them right after we rescued the materials.
Q. Did you also see them while you were cataloging the library after --
A. No.
Q. -- you moved it to Public Storage?
A. No.
Q. Let me now refer you to or at least read to you from your deposition at pages 85 and 87. I asked you this question:
"In doing the work that you
did between 1976 and 1979, and that
refers to cataloging the library,
did you ever come across a series of
personal letters to Mr. Motta?
"Yes, there were a lot of personal
letters from Crowley to him."
A. From Crowley?
Q. "QUESTION: Were any of his menus
in there?
"Yes, there were."
A. Whose menus?
Q. "How come you know that?"
"Were the menus written on" -- you're asking me: [page 291]
"How come you know that?"
A. Uh-huh.
Q. And then I say to you:
"Were the menus written on OTO
paper?
And you said"
"I can't remember that. I can
only remember the menus were all
on cards."
A. All right.
Q. Now, do you remember seeing the menus when you were cataloging the library?
A. They were not present when I was cataloging the library.
Q. So you were not telling the truth during your deposition?
A. I remembered vaguely seeing them, but not when I was cataloging.
Now you know Mr. McMurtry took some materials before I started cataloging.
MR. MacKENZIE: Your Honor, let me ask where he is leading. If this is for impeachment solely, I can understand it.
If it's on the issue of some kind of a conversion or some breach of duty, then I think it's [page 292] irrelevant.
THE COURT: What is the relevancy of the menu cards you refer to?
MR. MITTEL: Well, the menus ultimately will refer -- will - I think will be evidence in a conversation {SIC sb. "conversion" -def} case. Right there they-re only offered to impeach that testimony. It's only offered as far as she's concerned --
THE COURT: The objection is overruled.
BY MR. MITTEL:
Q. Has Mr. Motta been interested -- let me withdraw that question, please.
You said before that Mr. Motta is a trustworthy person, haven't you.
A. When did I say that?
Q. How about December 7th, 1983?
A. In '83? Would you produce the letter, please?
Q. I'm going to read to you again from the deposition. I was reading to you from a letter or asking you some questions about a letter in which you were complaining to Mr. McMurtry that you had written to Mr. Motta.
A. Yes.
Q. And I said:
"What were the things that he
was doing that troubled you?" [page 293]
You said:
"Personal matters.
"And why did you have to share
those with Mr. Motta?"
You said:
"I trusted him."
Do you remember that?
A. Oh, I did, briefly.
Q. Now, the library is a very important part of the whole Thelema, is it not?
A. Yes, it's the Archives.
Q. And Mr. Motta has always been closely connected with, especially with the writing portion of Thelema; isn't that true?
A. I think you'll have to ask Mr. Motta. He has published some Thelemic things.
Q. Well, but I'm asking you and you certainly must have an opinion about that.
A. He began publishing Liber Aleph, which in Karl's mind was a very good thing to be doing.
Q. In your mind, also?
A. Yes.
Q. And since that time, he's continued to do that, hasn't he?
A. He has continued to publish, but unfortunately has [page 294] ruined some of Crowley's writings by throwing parts out and putting in his own.
Q. For instance, did he ruin the Commentaries of Al?
A. Yes, he did.
Q. Before we come back to that, let's go back to something else, then.
I might ask you if Mr. Motta is not the type of person who would be very interested in the library?
A. Yes, he would be interested.
Q. And, in fact, is he not the type of person that you think will be responsible in dealing with the library?
A. At the moment I do not think so.
Q. But you have had that opinion on a number of occasions?
A. Unfortunately, yes.
Q. And that you have written to him and said, "You should be the person to have the library"?
A. I wrote that, but I was entirely mistaken.
Q. You wrote that in 1962, right after Mr. Germer's death?
A. No, I don't remember. You'd have to show the letter and see -- to me.
Q. What about in 1976; did you write that then?
A. Yes. Two weeks before we discovered Sascha was dead, I wrote that. I said "maybe." [page 295]
Q. When did you discover that Sascha was dead?
A. April 1976.
Q. How do you know it was April?
A. It's in my diaries. I'm not sure of the date unless I look at my diary.
Q. Do you have your diaries with you?
A. No, I don't. But I did give --
Q. ARe they in Oroville?
A. They are part of the papers that are part of this trial. I submitted them to my lawyer.
Q. So they're with your lawyer?
A. Yes. Exact dates, discovering of Sascha's death and everything we did afterwards are in those library -- I mean those records, my diary records.
Q. And you're suggesting that you wrote to Mr. Motta before discovering Sascha's death?
A. Yes, I did. About two weeks before that.
Q. Are you certain about that?
A. Huh?
Q. Are you certain about that?
A. Yes.
Q. You have also said on a number of occasions that Mr. Motta has done good things for Thelema, haven't you?
A. I said that once after some of his publishing.
Q. And in particular you said it after he published [page 296] the Commentaries of Al {SIC sb. "AL" -def}, didn't you?
A. Yes.
Q. You said that was a good piece of work, didn't you?
A. I said -- no, I didn't say it was a good piece of work. I said he has done good things.
MR. MacKENZIE: Your Honor, I'd like to object to this line of questioning. If there is a way that Mr. Mittel could provide the documents that the witness could see, because he's talking about letters --
THE WITNESS: Yes.
MR. MacKENZIE: -- that are 15 and 20 years old.
THE WITNESS: That's right.
MR. MacKENZIE: Taking little pieces out of them, and I don't know that --
THE WITNESS: He should --
MR. MacKENZIE: -- there are records --
MR. MITTEL: Your Honor, --
THE COURT: Are they marked in evidence?
MR. MITTEL: All the -- every document --
THE COURT: If they are, then he can read the document in full.
BY MR. MITTEL:
Q. Mr. Germer initiated you into the Ninth Degree, didn't he? [page 297]
A. Yes.
Q. And you received from him no charter, no patent, no warrant, no other report --
A. Nobody did.
Q. Pardon?
A. Nobody received a paper with their name on it. Everybody received Emblems and Modes of Use who became Ninths.
Q. And that's a secret document?
A. That's a secret document.
Q. You haven't produced it here in court?
A. I can't produce it in court. It belongs to the OTO.
Q. And the fact that you have no document from him doesn't invalidate your membership?
A. No, because that's the way it was done when Crowley was alive.
Q. Now, in 1968 when you first wrote to Mr. McMurtry, when he was in Washington, and told him about the burglary at Mrs. Germer's house, you suggested to him that perhaps he had committed the burglary, didn't you?
A. I was writing to everybody suggesting that they might have committed it.
Q. Why did you think that Mr. McMurtry might have committed it? [page 298]
A. I was -- it was a shot in the dark.
Q. And you think that Mr. Heidrick committed the burglary in 1979, don't you?
A. I used to.
Q. When did you stop thinking that?
A. After talking with him.
Q. And when did that take place?
A. Oh, last year sometime.
Q. How long had you known him?
A. Mr. Heidrick?
Q. Yes, Ma'am.
Since 1977 or '78.
Q. And how many times did you talk with him about the burglary after it happened?
A. That would be 1979. I talked with him on the phone quite a few times.
Q. And it wasn't until last year that you spoke with him and you finally were convinced that he hadn't done it?
A. That's right. But then remember I was suspecting everybody within sight.
Q. But you were primarily suspecting him?
A. No, not primarily.
Q. Let me read from page 91 of your deposition?
MR. MacKENZIE: Your Honor, I just don't see [page 299] the relevancy of all of this questioning.
There was testimony in 1977 or, excuse me, Your Honor, in '79. And that's been six years ago now. And I don't know what any of this has -- what this case actually has to do with it.
MR. MITTEL: This is impeachment testimony, Your Honor. It's also impeachment testimony concerning the truthfulness of other witnesses.
MR. MacKENZIE: It's impeachment, Your HOnor, on a point that I think has absolutely no bearing on the case.
THE COURT: Well, I think I would have to hear more evidence before I rule things out as being irrelevant or immaterial. I am going to permit the question.
BY MR. MITTEL:
Q. I asked you on page 91:
"And it was about six months ago
you told Mr. McMurtry that you
suspected Mr. Heidrick?"
You said:
"That's true."
And I asked you:
"Why did you suspect Mr. Heidrick
six months ago?" [page 300]
Now, this was in December of 1983.
A. Um-hum.
Q. Do you remember now why you suspected him?
MR. MacKENZIE: Your Honor, Mr. Motta would like to adjourn for a moment or two.
THE COURT: All right, sure. Let's take a ten-minute recess.
(Brief recess taken.)
THE COURT: You may proceed.
MR. MITTEL: Thank you, Your Honor.
BY MR. MITTEL:
Q. Miss Seckler, do I understand that Mr. McMurtry has taken personal correspondence of yours and never returned it to you?
A. That happened much later.
Q. Much later than when?
A. We kept all of our letters concerning the OTO together in one spot. And -- I've forgotten the year, but it was after 1979, after that time he came to take all of those current or present-day Archives away.
And in it I had a few personal letters.
Q. Any you've asked him for them back and he's never returned them; is that right?
A. That's right.
Q. There was some discussion this morning about an [page 301] Adeptus Minor?
A. Yes.
Q. That's something good, isn't it?
A. It is five equals 6 A.'.A.'.. We're not talking about A.'.A.'.; we're talking about OTO.
Q. I know, but in terms of Thelemic matters, in terms of the A.'.A.'., for instance, to be an Adeptus Minor is to have accomplished something?
A. To have accomplished the knowledge and conversations of the Helen Guardian Angel. {SIC sb. "Holy Guardian Angel" -pla -def}
Q. Mr. McMurtry has caused you serious emotional distress, hasn't it?
A. Naturally.
Q. After you read what Mr. Motta had written about you, you didn't seek any medical treatment, did you?
A. No.
Q. Part of the reasons for Mr. McMurtry's failures as a member of the Ordo Templi Orientis or perhaps even a leader is because he has problems with drugs and alcohol; isn't that true?
A. You'll have to ask Mr. McMurtry.
Q. Haven't you told him that?
A. Did I? Where?
Q. Yes, ma'am.
Well, before I talked with you about where, [page 302] haven't you said that about him?
A. To whom?
Q. To anybody.
A. That's too wide a question.
Q. Well, let me ask you to start by taking a look at Defendants' 69-A, which is a letter from you to Mr. McMurtry. Let me ask you to read the middle paragraph on page 2 to the Court, if you would, please?
A. "An effective leader is so because of
his personal example. What is your
record? You have broken two
instructions of the First Degree.
'I most solemnly promise and swear
that I will not indulge unduly in
any drugs such as alcohol, ether,
opium, hashish or cocaine whereby
my full consciousness and free will
might be impaired.
"'I do most solemnly promise and
swear that I will not allow myself
to fall unduly under the influence
of any person whereby my free will
might be impaired.'
"By the way, what is you 'free
will'? What is your true will? [page 303]
The contents of these letters,
let it be known to all just what
has happened."
Q. So you told Mr. McMurtry that and you told others as well.
A. I told him that in that letter, yes.
Q. And his conduct -- the reason you wrote in this letter is because he was violating the First Degree oath?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, let me show you Defendants' 68-A, which is a letter that you sent to your daughter -- I'm not sure which one; I'm going to ask you -- on November 11, 1976, and ask if you would read, first of all, the material in the bottom paragraph on the first page and then also in the bottom paragraph on the second page.
Before you do that, though, which daughter did you send that letter to?
A. I didn't sent it to her. I gave it to her in a sealed envelope. She didn't know its contents. It was in case I got murdered.
Q. And could you now read the -- which daughter did you give it to? I'm sorry.
A. Lisa.
Q. And could you now read that material, please, that [page 304] I've asked you to.
A. I countered with the fact that he did not look on the other side of the coin, and this was that I had given him money for a room and that he had spent it on drugs. That was $20.
Do you want me to go on with the last part here?
Q. Yes, please. Well, first of all, --
MR. MacKENZIE: I will object to that, Your Honor. I think that that's hearsay.
BY MR. MITTEL:
Q. Let me, first of all, ask you if that $20, does that appear in the letter?
A. No it doesn't.
MR. MITTEL: I move to strike that --
THE WITNESS: And I gave him the money, so I know what it was.
MR. MITTEL: I move to strike that answer as nonresponsive, Your Honor, --
THE COURT: Well, I think the witness can testify about what it is. The answer may stand.
MR. MITTEL: -- which you now turn over and --
THE COURT: The hearsay objection is overruled. The witness is testifying to her own [page 305] communications.
BY MR. MITTEL:
Q. Could you now read the material on the second page of the letter, please?
A. "Grady is unfit to care for the original
manuscripts of Crowley's due to the
alcoholism and the fact that many
strangers visit his house in Berkeley
who are in themselves of the crazy,
alcohol fringe. There is also a good
deal of drugs in this circle."
Q. Are you familiar with the name Frederic Mellinger?
A. Yes.
Q. Who is he?
A. He was a good friend of mine and a member of the OTO.
Q. He went overseas during World War II, did he not?
A. Not during.
Q. But after?
A. After.
Q. And do you know if he was ever asked to go to Switzerland or Germany by Mr. Crowley or Mr. Germer?
A. No, I don't know.
Q. Now I was asking you before about friends of yours that have become ill. When that happened and you talked [page 306] to other people about the friends who were ill, have you discussed their illness?
A. That is too wide a question. My mother was ill before she died.
Q. And when you talked to relatives, friends about your mother, did you talk about her physical condition?
A. Yes.
Q. You sound as though it's, of course, natural that you do that?
A. For my mother, yes.
Q. And have you done that with other people that you know, friends rather than relatives?
A. Who, and on what occasion?
Q. I'm just asking you as a general practice what you normally --
A. That is too wide a question. I can't answer whether it's general practice on my part. I can't remember all of the instances when people were ill.
Q. When you wrote to Mr. Motta in 1962 and told him of Mr. Germer's death --
A. Yes.
Q. Do you remember that?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you remember before you wrote to him you had been up to see Mrs. Germer? [page 307]
A. Yes.
Q. Did you say anything in your letter to Mr. Motta about Mrs. Germer's mental condition?
A. You'll have to show me the letter. I forget otherwise.
Q. Let me show you Defendants' Exhibit 50. Let me ask, first of all, if that's the letter that you wrote to Mr. Motta?
A. Yes. I wrote that to Marcello Motta on November 1, 1962.
Q. Is there anything in there about Mrs. Germer's health?
A. I say "Sascha is grief-stricken."
Q. That's only normal, isn't it?
A. Wait a minute.
That is all I said in this letter.
Q. It's only natural that she'd have been grief-stricken; is that right?
A. I say "Sascha is grief-stricken."
I don't see the "only natural."
Q. No, no. I'm asking you: It's only natural that she would have been grief-stricken?
A. Oh, yes. Of course, it was her husband.
MR. MITTEL: Thank you.
I have nothing further, Your Honor. [page 308]
THE COURT: Do you, Mr. MacKenzie?
MR. MacKENZIE: Yes, Your Honor.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. MacKENZIE:
Q. Does the "Blue Equinox state the Grand Treasurer General has complete control over whether dues are paid?
A. Yes.
Q. Was Karl Germer the Grand Treasurer General?
A. Yes.
Q. So it was within his prerogative to determine whether dues were paid?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, you mentioned earlier that Sascha Germer wanted you to notify Mr. Motta of Karl Germer's death because you said Mr. Motta was a student of Karl's?
A. That's right.
Q. Did Sascha say if Mr. Motta had been an OTO or an A.'.A.'. student of Karl's?
A. She didn't say.
Q. A.'.A.'. and OTO are separate?
A. They are separate.
A.'.A.'. is purely spiritual. You know only your superior and only the person that you are helping to the light. There is no political action, no politics, nothing except personal work. [page 309]
Q. Do you have an opinion as to whether Mr. Motta was an A.'.A.'. or an OTO member?
A. I understand --
MR. MITTEL: Objection; foundation.
THE WITNESS: I understand he was A.'.A.'..
THE COURT: Wait a second.
I will permit the answer, but you should establish a foundation for the basis of her knowledge.
BY MR. MacKENZIE:
Q. Do you have an opinion, first of all?
A. Yes, I have an opinion that he was A.'.A.'..
Q. What do you base your opinion on?
A. Letters. Letters to Karl Germer. And I can't remember all of the opinion probably, but substantially there were quite a few things that substantiate it.
Q. In your discussions with Sascha Germer did she ever refer to Mr. Motta as an OTO member?
A. I can't remember that she did. I don't think so.
Q. You heard Mr. McMurtry describe the distinction between a de jure and a de facto Outer Head of Order?
A. Yes.
Q. And you recognize him, did you say, as a --
A. As a de facto until the law written in the "Blue Equinox" can come into effect.
Q. And the basis of the recognition for you is what? [page 310]
A. The fact that he had been able to manage the material affairs of the Order, that he had gotten a good staff around him, and that the Order is operating in a businesslike manner.
Q. Did Mr. McMurtry have an alcohol or drug problem at one time?
A. Yes.
Q. Did he overindulge?
A. Yes.
Q. Does he still have that problem?
A. no.
Q. To the best of your knowledge, is he more or less cured of that problem?
A. He has to be cured; it's his health.
Q. I see. Do you know if Sascha Germer used drugs?
A. I have no idea.
D. Do you know if she sold drugs?
A. I have no idea.
Q. You testified earlier this morning that Mr. Grant was expelled from the OTO?
A. Yes.
Q. When Mr. Mittle asked you earlier today that you didn't once state that Mr. Grant could have been a potential successor to the OHO, do you still believe that that is the case? [page 311]
A. That is not what I testified to. Mr. Grant wrote in one of his books that he was the OHO. He grabbed the title without anybody giving him the right to it.
Q. Was he subsequently expelled?
A. He was subsequently -- he was expelled first and then he claimed OHO.
Q. Thank you.
You also mentioned that the initiation by Karl Germer did not involve papers with names?
A. That's right. There were no personal names on these.
Q. In other words, there were no certifications?
A. No certifications.
Q. Are you saying that any initiations that had been done in OTO were done without certifications --
A. No, the --
Q. -- or only those with Karl Germer?
A. Only Ninth Degrees. that's the way Crowley did it to many members of Agape Lodge.
Q. Now, didn't Grady receive a certification with his Ninth Degree?
A. Yes, he did. Probably the only one.
Q. I see. Now, I think you were shown some letters by Mr., Mittel in which you referred to Mr. Motta as a Third Degree? [page 312]
A. Yes. That may have been a mistake.
Q. Well, when you referred to him as a Third Degree, was that as an OTO member or an A.'A.' member?
A. A.'.A.'..
MR. MITTEL: I'm going to object and move that that series of questions be stricken. I don't think that the letters referred to Mr. Motta's being a member of the Third Degree.
I think they talked about duties of Third Degree members.
MR. MacKENZIE: Well, then let me rephrase that question.
BY MR. MacKENZIE:
Q. When you were referring in these letters to a Third Degree duty and they were addressed to Mr. Motta, were you considering him in light of a Third Degree?
A. Not an OTO Third Degree; an A.'.A.'. Third Step.
Q. Do you have any reason to believe whether he is or is not an OTO member?
A. I have no reason or no knowledge of this.
Q. Do you have any reason to believe he is an OTO member?
A. I have no reason to believe he is an OTO member.
MR. MacKENZIE: No further questions.
THE COURT: Do you have any recross, Mr. [page 313] MIttel?
MR. MITTEL: Perhaps, Your Honor.
May I just take a look?
No, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Thank you.
You may step down.
(Witness excused.)
THE COURT: Counsel, would you approach the podium for a minute. Oh, here's fine. I have to shout at you.
I want to make sure I've got the trail here as accurately as I can./ I think there are some questions about the testimony.
Now, Mr. Crowley died in `947 and left the property to the OTO. Now, as I understood at that time Mr. Germer was living in New York City.
MR. MacKENZIE: Yes.
THE COURT: And he ultimately came to California?
MR. MacKENZIE: Yes.
THE COURT: When was that?
MR. MacKENZIE: In the '50s, I believe.
Miss Seckler. SECKLER: Karl and Sascha Germer came to California in 1956.
THE COURT: Now, did he obtain custody of [page 314] all the properties which Mr. Crowley had left to the OTO, or did he have a group in England and a group in the United States?
MR. MITTEL: It's our position that he obtained possession of everything after somewhat of a struggle between himself and the literary executors who were not turning it all over. There's some evidence --
THE COURT: Do you know whether the literary executors were in England?
MR. MITTEL: Yes, Sir.
I'm not sure whether the plaintiffs are going to take a position to the contrary, Your Honor.
MR. MacKENZIE: No, we agree with that, Your Honor, as far as when Mr. Germer initially thought that he could get all the papers except some copyrights which the executor kept.
THE COURT: Well, what about those publications that were done in England? How did those get published?
MR. MITTEL: Which publications?
THE COURT: I thought there had been some official publications in England.
MR. MITTEL: Oh, there have been. That's the -- let's see if I can summarize it.
The copyright infringement suit, that was the [page 315] lawsuit in Maine, was about, among other things, some of those publications done in england and then reprinted in the United States by Samuel Weiser, Inc.
For instance, the secret rituals about which there was some testimony this morning was published by -- or written anyway by a guy named Francis King. Where he got the rituals from, it is not clear.
THE COURT: When were they published?
MR. MITTEL: '72.
THE COURT: So as far as the main theme is concerned, Mr. Crowley died and leaves the property to the OTO.
Mr. Germer got all or almost all of those documents. Right?
And what does he do? He moves the whole thing out to California.
MR. MITTEL: Everything comes to California. You're going to hear some testimony on direct, on the defendants' direct and maybe on the plaintiffs' direct, about different inventories of the library that were prepared.
THE COURT: Okay. Successfully keeping everything.
MR. MITTEL: Everything come to California. [page 316]
THE COURT: Okay. Me Germer died in 1962, and he died intestate.
MR. MacKENZIE: He left a will, but it was no probated by his wife.
THE COURT: Well, did the will itself do anything or --
MR. MITTEL: It's a rather obscure will. It leaves the property to the Heads of --
MR. MacKENZIE: It's a Plaintiffs' Exhibit.
MR. MITTEL: I think it is a Plaintiffs' Exhibit. I'm not sure, but the will was never probated.
MR. MacKENZIE: It's a Plaintiffs' Exhibit, Your HOnor. It's very short. It's half a page. So, in essence, Sascha --
THE COURT: You'll have to forgive me a second.
MR. MacKENZIE: All right.
THE COURT: So then, in essence, his wife obtains custody as the executrix.
MR. MITTEL: Right.
THE COURT: So then she dies without --
MR. MITTEL: That's right.
MR. MacKENZIE: That's correct, Your Honor.
MR. MITTEL: Whether she's anything more than the custodian is -- [page 317]
THE COURT: -- another question.
MR. MITTEL: -- another question.
THE COURT: Okay, fine. Thank you.
All right. Proceed with the next witness, then.
MR. MacKENZIE: Fine. Helen Parsons Smith.
THE COURT: Will you step up, please?
HELEN PARSONS SMITH,
called as a witness by the Plaintiffs, having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as is hereinafter set forth.
THE COURT: Would you please state your full name for the record and spell your last name?
THE WITNESS: Helen Parsons Smith, S-m-i-t-h.
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. MacKENZIE:
Q. Mrs. Smith, would you state you age?
A. Seventy-five
Q. And your residence address, please?
A. Kings Beach, California.
Q. How long have you lived in California?
A. Since 1923.
Q. And you're familiar with the OTO?
A. Yes. [page 318]
Q. And why is that? How is that?
A. I have been a member since 1939.
Q. How did you become involved in OTO?
A. My husband, Jack Parsons, introduced me to the Order about 1937.
Q. And who was your husband?
A. John Whiteside Parsons.
Q. Have you remained or continued your involvement with OTO since your initiation?
A. Yes, continuously.
Q. At the time of your initiation, about how many people were in the Order?
A. I can hazard a guess. A small number, perhaps about 20.
Q. And were you a member of the Agape Lodge?
A. Yes, I was.
Q. Do you know if there were other lodges at that time?
A. I was not aware of any.
Q. Do you know Grady McMurtry?
A. Yes.
Q. When did first meet him?
A. Probably around 1940. He was a friend of my husband's who came to the house frequently.
Q. Did you know Karl Germer? [page 319]
A. Yes. I've met. I don't really know him.
Q. Were you aware if he performed any initiations for the Lodge?
A. I was never aware of any. I understood he didn't like ceremony.
Q. Do you know if he ever performed any rituals?
A. I know of none.
Q. Did he ever express to you any feeling about performing rituals of initiations?
A. No, but to my husband?
MR. MacKENZIE: Well, let the other side make the objections.
BY MR. MacKENZIE:
Q. Well, do you know if he had an aversion to perform rituals or initiations?
A. I believe he had an aversion. I have not --
MR. MITTEL: Objection; foundation.
MR. MacKENZIE: She's stated she's been a member and that --
THE WITNESS: I have never known him to be in any ceremony or initiation, which initiation is a ceremony.
THE COURT: Well, I believe that what she said is by way of foundation, and it is knowledge that she has pro forma. [page 320]
BY MR. MacKENZIE:
Q. Did you know Mr. Motta in the 1950s?
A. I can't say I knew him. I met him several times.
Q. When you met, did you know whether he was an OTO member?
A. No. I knew that he was interested in Thelema, which was the reason for his visit to our home in Malibu.
Q. But you believe that is something distinct from OTO; is that -- Well, let me ask you this:
Is that a common thread?
A. Yes.
Q. And does that run in A.'.A.'. as well, Thelema, Thelemic --
A. Yes.
Q. Now, are you aware that Mr. Motta has stated in "Magick Without Tears" that he was introduced to you as a Ninth Degree OTO member?
A. I read it in the book.
Q. To your knowledge, is there any truth to his statement?
A. Not to my knowledge.
Q. Well, was he ever introduced to you as a Ninth Degree?
A. No. [page 321]
Q. Was he ever introduced to you as any degree?
A. No.
Q. Was he ever introduced to you?
A. Yes.
Q. Were you ever an officer of Agape Lodge?
A. Yes, I was. I was Treasurer for a time.
Q. And how often were meetings held in those days?
A. Quite frequently. At least once a week. Sometimes there were occasions other than actual meetings, such as social affairs, dinners.
Q. Did you say -- I'm sorry -- Secretary or Treasurer?
A. Treasurer.
Q. Were records kept of these meetings?
A. Yes. Everything was done in proper order, such as Roberts Rules of Order. There were records of initiations, minutes of meetings.
Q. I see. Were all the initiations that were conducted recorded?
A. Oh, yes.
Q. Was there a presiding officer with an Agenda?
A. That's right.
Q. Now, what were your required to do as treasurer?
A. To keep the records of the treasurer, to disperse the moneys to the various accounts that people contributed moneys, such as to funds, funds for books, [page 322] for purchases -- well, perhaps I should say purchases of, of course, funds to be send directly to Crowley or to support he Lodge as well as dues, initiation fees.
Q. Were dues mandatory?
A. Oh, yes.
Q. Was every member required to pay dues?
A. Definitely.
Q. Do higher degrees pay dues, as well?
A. Various amounts of dues for various degrees.
Q. Now, Mr. McMurtry and Miss Seckler testified that beginning in late 1969 and 1970 here in California they began to rebuild the Order. Were you involved in that?
A. Yes. I was after awhile.
Q. Do you remember why you decided to assist them in this?
A. I've always been very much interested in Thelema, which was the reason I started publishing, because I wasn't aware there was any activity of any kind. At least that was my way of spreading the word.
Q. Had you seen the Caliphate letters?
A. No. Had Mr. McMurtry shown you those?
A. Very recently. As a matter of fact, one of them I saw just within the past two weeks.
And the others, I can't say that I saw them [page 323] before, but fairly recently.
Q. Do you think those letters, in your opinion, grant Mr. McMurtry any particular powers at the present time?
A. Yes, I do. Emergency powers to carry on and formulate the Order. And definitely such an emergency did arise when we lost the Head, Mr. Germer.
Q. Do you believe they grant him OTO leadership powers?
A. Yes, I do, definitely.
Q. Now, were you involved in the initiation of members in the early 1970s?
A. I can't say what year, but, yes, when Grady and Phyllis reactivated the Order I was involved in initiations.
Q. Was Mr. McMurtry involved in these activities, as well?
A. Oh, yes.
Q. Do you know some of his activities?
A. Yes. I know he taught Yoga, classes -- right now I don't recall the subjects, but I know that he did.
Q. Other classes, in addition to Yoga classes.
A. Yes, at the home in Dublin.
Q. Do you know if he engaged in initiations?
A. Yes. Initiation ceremonies.
Q. Now, are you aware of Mr. Motta's claims to the [page 324] Outer Head of the Order?
A. Yes, I believe I have read it in some of his books.
Q. Yes.
A. I think that's about the only place that I have -- I would have been aware of it.
Q. Having been in the order for some 45 years, I'd like to ask you if you can evaluate the validity, as you see it, of Mr. Motta's claims?
A. I think primarily -- I'm not aware of whether he is a member of the Order. And by the "Order," we refer to the Ordo Templi Orientis, or the OTO.
Q. I would like to read to you certain quotes that Mr. Motta has published and ask your reactions to them.
"The following individuals were
at some time associated with either
A.'.A.'. or the OTO or if not,
publicly claimed such association.
They were lying or have been
expelled from OTO or lost contact
with the A.'.A.'. for conduct
unbecoming."
You testified that you have been associated with the OTO. Have you been associated with A.'.A.'.?
A. A.'.A.'. is not an organization as such. I', only acquainted with the person I brought in. [page 325]
Q. All right. You are just an OTO member?
A. (Witness nods head up and down.)
Q. Have you been expelled from the OTO?
A. No.
Q. Have you lost contact with them for conduct unbecoming?
A. No.
Q. Quote:
"Helen parsons Smith has repeatedly
pirated OTO property and claimed to
represent the Order without ever
having received the proper warrant."
Let's break that down.
Have you ever pirated OTO property?
A. No.
Q. Have you published OTO property --
A. I have published --
Q. -- or material?
A. -- Crowley's, Crowley's writings, yes.
Q. Have you sought the OTO's permission, plaintiff OTO's permission to do so?
A. I have recently received permission to publish.
Q. Have they ever objected to you publishing?
A. No. They recognized it quite favorably.
Q. Have you claimed to represent the Order without a [page 326] proper warrant?
A. Have I ever claimed to represent the Order in a proper warrant? No, I never claimed to have a warrant.
Q. All right. Quote:
"Although I have said materials
put out by thieves Regardie,
McMurtry, Helen Smith is suspect" ...
Have you stolen any material?
A. No, I have not.
Q. I'd like to show you Plaintiffs' Number 52 and ask if you'll just study that for a moment.
A. (Witness peruses document.)
Q. Do you recognize that letter?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Did you receive this letter from Mr. Motta?
A. Yes.
Q. Drawing you attention to the first paragraph, he says:
"I am sending him"
and he's referring to Jim Wasserman --
"here with a power of
attorney so he can represent me
in this matter."
And beginning at the next paragraph he says:
"I would advise you and Phyllis, [page 327]
to do the same and also Grady.
Give him powers of attorney to
represent you, too."
What was you understanding as regards -- now this was written, and let me preface that, at the time of the Calaveras hearing, was it not?
A. Well, there's no date on this.
Q. Well, there is a little bit of date at the top of the third page written in a strange manner, 11B7 {SIC sb. "ll-v-7" -def}.
A. That would be may 7th, probably. 7-BN.
Q. May 11th, presumably, '76?
A. The "6" didn't print.
Q. What was your understanding of this proposal by Mr. Motta to join your powers of attorney?
A. Well, I very carefully give my powers of attorney. And I saw no reason for it myself there.
Q. Okay. Now, the bottom paragraph reads:
"Wasserman called me on phone
last night and tells me that you
complained to him that I hadn't
been in tough. I haven't been in
touch since 1963. Mrs. Germer
cut contact with me completely."
Had you been in touch with Mr. Motta at any time prior, between 1963 and this letter? [page 328]
A. I did write him once, but I don't know the date of the letter.
Q. Okay.
A. So I can't say that it was before or after this.
Q. Turning to the second page, the second paragraph from the bottom, the fourth -- third line states:
"Mrs. Germer Never" -- capitalized --
"sent me any OTO material. And if
Mr. Germer did, it ended up in the
Roman Catholic hierarchy who were
active participants in CIA allies
and lies {SIC in place of "and lies" sb. "allies" -def}
in the 1964 coup."
Do you have any reason to question Mr. Motta's statement that he never received any OTO material?
A. I have no reason to. He's stated it. I didn't know.
Q. Turning to the third page, at first full paragraph, the fourth line down, he writes:
"But I wonder if it would not be better
for you American heads to get together,
institute a central headquarters
of some sort and keep the library
in custody in USA."
Why does he call you an American head? [page 329]
A. The thought comes to mind there that he's not aware of the OTO organization or else he wouldn't call more than one person a head in one country.
Q. Yes. Now, his reference to a "central headquarters" of some sort, is the particular OTO parlance? Would there be an OTO word to describe "central headquarters"?
A. You call it that word itself headquarters.
Q. You would use --
A. Headquarters of the OTO, yes.
Q. You would use -- I see. All right.
And finally the paragraph beginning with:
"Mr. Germer's concern to send
the library to me was because
he firmly believed that a very
serious upset of the earth's
crust is imminent and that the
whole territorial United States
would be affected. He wanted
to assure its safety, not to
'give it to me,' and besides
he couldn't give it to me, just
as I couldn't have it. It
belongs to the OTO and we're
all merely its caretakers and [page 330]
custodians."
I'd like to show you Exhibit No. 77, and ask you --
MR. MITTEL: I move to strike the preceding commentary by or recitation from a letter by counsel. There was no question asked about it.
THE COURT: Well, I agree there was no question about the letter, but --
THE WITNESS: I hope I can make --
THE COURT: It's been put in evidence, in the record, anyway.
THE WITNESS: I can comment on it.
BY MR. MacKENZIE:
Q. Well, please give me your comments.
A. I know that Germer didn't like to visit us in Malibu because we were supposed to be on an earthquake fault.
He had quite a phobia about earthquakes and the whole Western United States going into the sea from Nebraska on West.
Q. Okay. There are still people with those thoughts today.
Do you recognize this Exhibit 77?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. And can you identify what that is? [page 331]
A. It was sent to me as a proposed insert in a book to be published by Weiser Company, New York.
Q. And do you know who the author is?
A. Motta.
Q. Is that his signature at the bottom of page 2?
A. Yes. I believe it is from all other correspondence from him.
Q. Would you please read aloud the paragraph that I've underlined on the first page, the third full paragraph?
A. "Mr. Grady McMurtry, Ninth Degree
OTO by patent of Baphomet, Tenth
Degree."
Q. Now, who is Baphomet?
A. That's Aleister Crowley.
Q. All right.
"Ninth Degree and Tenth DEgree,
Eleventh Degree OTO duly
ratified by Saturnus."
Q. Now, Saturnus is who?
A. Karl Germer.
Q. All right.
A. "Tenth Degree OHO after Baphomet
Degree is head of Lodge in the
United States of America and we duly
recognize he is co-heir in the [page 332]
matter of Aleister Crowley's literary
remains."
I don't know what he means by "co-heir."
Q. What is you opinion as to what Mr. Motta is -- or what des this paragraph say?
A. I can't --
Q. Let me ask you this: Does he acknowledge Mr. McMurtry?
A. I would say definitely that he did, but that time -- well, I accepted this.
Q. You accepted that?
A. I wasn't involved in a lot of the internal affairs of the Order.
Q. But just reading on the face of the paragraph, would you say he is accepting Mr. McMurtry's --
A. Definitely.
Q. -- position?
A. Definitely.
Duly ratified, too.
Q. The bottom paragraph --
A. The bottom paragraph?
Q. -- if you would just read that aloud, please?
A. "Mrs. Helen Smith Ninth Degree OTO by
patent of her husband, Wilfred Smith
(who was Ninth Degree OTO by a patent [page 333]
Jack Smith, Seventh Degree duly
ratified by Saturnus Tenth Degree)
was also duly ratified by the late
OHO" -- this is Germer -- "she being
also head of Lodge in the United
States since her husband's death
was also duly recognized -- we also
duly recognize her as a Sister and
Co-heir in the matter of Aleister
Crowley's copyrights." {SIC parts garbled -weh}
Q. Fine. Thank you.
A. However, it is not true. I didn't inherit head of the Lodge. Also I don't like the title "M-s." The abbreviation for the ceremony {SIC} is "M-r-s." for Mrs.
Q. I see.
A. I was never head of a Lodge in the United States at any time, before or after my husband's death.
Q. Do you know where Mr. Motta got this misinformation?
A. He couldn't have gotten it anywhere. It's not true.
Q. I see. Do you know where he was residing at this time this was written?
A. Where Mr. Motta was residing?
Q. Yes. [page 334]
A. No, I don't know. But possibly in Brazil.
Q. Well, as a result of the statements that I read to you that he had published in some books about you, did you suffer any reaction as a result?
A. Of course. I was highly upset that something was being published, public property. I was greatly concerned.
In fact, I got in touch with Phyllis at the time. And we talked the matter over. Especially to have untruths printed about one, it did affect my life and my livelihood.
Q. Tell me how did it affect you life and livelihood?
A. My publications were suspect. My association with someone who prints --
Q. Yes.
A. -- unreliable material.
Q. Did it cause you any physical reaction?
A. Yes. I was greatly disturbed by it. I can't say I visited an M.D., but I did go to a chiropractor for relaxation.
Q. Okay.
A. Something like that really ties one up.
Q. I'd like to talk for a minute about Thelema Publications.
Is this the name under which you do business? [page 335]
A. Yes.
Q. And when did you commence doing business under that name; do you remember?
A. When did I become active? In about 1969.
MR. MacKENZIE: Okay. Id like to show you an exhibit that we haven't previously introduced, Your Honor. I think it got lost in the shuffle.
This is --
THE COURT: What number are you giving it?
MR. MacKENZIE: Well, let's see.
THE COURT: Well, they don't have to be sequential. We can start with the 200 series.
MR. MacKENZIE: 200, that's fine.
BY MR. MacKENZIE:
Q. Well, I'd ask you to identify this, if you would?
A. Yes. It's what's commonly called a sales tax certificate. It may also be called a seller's permit.
Q. All right.
A. This is for the address in Kings Beach, which was originally -- I was originally issued this resale number in 1971 at Oceanside.
Q. Okay. And you say that you started using, doing business under that name approximately two years prior?
A. Yes, in organizing materials. [page 336]
Q. All right. And I'd like --
THE COURT: I'm sorry. What year did you stat that?
THE WITNESS: '69.
BY MR. MacKENZIE:
Q. Would you take a look at Plaintiffs' 87 and 88?
A. Yes.
Q. And --
A. 87 is my application for a fictitious business name as Thelema Publications at Kings Beach, 1974.
And no. 88 is an application for renewal in 197 -- '80. 1980.
Q. Have you ever discussed your use of this name with the OTO?
A. No. I don't recall that I ever discussed it with anyone.
Q. Did they become aware of your use of this name?
A. The OTO, yes.
Q. Did they ever object?
A. Oh, definitely, no.
In fact, it's been recognized that at least I'm doing a service for the Order.
Q. Yes. Do you know that Karl Germer used a similar name in the 1950s?
A. I know now and I knew sometime earlier than this, [page 337] but not at the time that I took out these papers.
Q. Do you know what sort of material Mr. Germer's Thelema Publishing Company -- it's actually called Publishing --
A. Do I know as of today? As of today, yes, it was strictly writing Crowley's --
Q. I see.
A. -- such as Thelema Publications.
Q. Are you aware that the defendant in this lawsuit, Thelema Publishing Company, is in existence and doing business under this name?
A. Yes, I am aware of it.
Q. How did you become aware of that?
A. I've had letters inquiring if I published their books.
MR. MITTEL: Objection; Best Evidence.
THE COURT: Well, do you have --
MR. MacKENZIE: We have copies of letters, Your Honor.
MR. MITTEL: They're all objected to, all the letters, that is.
THE COURT: Well, do you want to further resolve that issue now or wait until the witness is off the stand.
MR. MacKENZIE: Well, why don't we finish the [page 338] testimony, if we may?
THE COURT: Well, what are you talking about?
MR. MacKENZIE: We're talking about Exhibits 83, 86, 100 and No. 6; four of them.
Actually No. 100 is not one of those, Your Honor. That's going to be used for something else.
So. 83, 86 and No. 6.
THE COURT: 83, 86 and --
MR. MacKENZIE: No. 6
THE COURT: -- and No. 6.
MR. MacKENZIE: Well, I don't even need to introduce them, Your Honor, if Mr. Mittel will stipulate that the plaintiff received them and that the plaintiff's testimony can carry on after that.
She's going to testify about the confusion that the letters expressed.
THE COURT: Is that for the purpose of their being offered?
MR. MacKENZIE: I'm sorry?
THE COURT: Is that the purpose for which they are being offered.
MR. MacKENZIE: And to show that there's confusion in the public mind.
MR. MITTEL: I am going to object to all [page 339] three of them, Your Honor, on the grounds of authenticity and hearsay.
MR. MacKENZIE: Well, all of them really are business records, Your Honor, either purchase orders or letters from publishers. And --
THE COURT: I'm sorry. 6 and 80 what again?
MR. MITTEL: 6, 83 and 86, Your Honor.
MR. MacKENZIE: Your Honor, if I could just --
THE COURT: They may be admitted for purposes of showing confusion between the two publishing companies known as Thelema.
MR. MacKENZIE: Thank you, Your Honor.
(Plaintiffs' Exhibits 6,83 and 86 previously marked for identification were received in evidence for the limited purpose of showing confusion between the two publishing companies known as Thelema.)
BY MR. MacKENZIE:
Q. In addition to these letters, have you received any other communication showing evidence of confusion?
A. Yes. I've had a bookstore that I can -- I recall a bookstore calling me up and insisting that I was the publisher of -- [page 340]
Q. I see.
A. -- one of the titles of Thelema Publishing Company. They confused the addresses.
Q. I'd like to show you Plaintiffs' Exhibit 100 and ask you to identify that, please?
A. Yes. It is the application that I sent to a broker author company {SIC -weh} author company, that printed in -- books in print.
Q. Are those a listing of books that you have published on that sheet?
A. Yes, they are, my titles.
Q. I see. You published all of those books listed on that sheet?
A. Yes.
Q. Would you explain just what you do?
Do you publish books, or do you write books?
A. I don't personally write them. As a matter of fact, I try to -- I do publish Crowley material as Crowley wrote it without comment and without inserting my own thoughts into the writings.
As nearly as possible the first title I haven't altered at all except to make corrections from previous publications.
And the same goes for the others.
Q. Okay. Now, it lists an ISBN number in the box that's been highlighted for you. [page 341]
A. Yes.
Q. Is that your number?
A. Yes, that's the number that has been assigned to me. It's an International Standard Book Number.
Q. And could you explain how those numbers are assigned?
A. By application. I see here that I applied for this number in 1970 -- no. That isn't correct.
The Year I started the publishing is 1970.
Q. Do they go chronologically in assigning numbers?
A. Yes, that definitely would indicate to the broker {SIC -weh} company when it was issued.
Q. So does that mean that -- a higher ISBN means that it got assigned later than a lower number?
MR. MITTEL: Objection; foundation, unless you can establish that she is familiar with people who established the system.
THE COURT: Well, the exact date that she was active in publishing, because another question or two more about perhaps how she is familiar with the assignment of ISBNs.
BY MR. MacKENZIE:
Q. Mrs. Smith, would you explain to me how it is that you are familiar with the assignment, and to refresh your memory, I'll show you Exhibit 101. [page 342]
How long have you been active in publishing this, since 1969?
A. Yes, continuously since 1969.
Q. And you've been a member of ISBN since they assigned you this number and you --
A. Yes. I've -- since 1969. I printed my first book, though, without this, to be honest, because I wasn't aware of it.
Q. Okay. Well, in having been a member of ISBN at that time, do they send you information that explains how those numbers are assigned?
A. I have learned of it, because at one time I had someone who was trying to help me, and we applied for another ISBN number to publish a nonrelated book, which didn't -- wasn't published, and that was a much higher number.
Q. I see. Is that the substance?
A. Yes.
Q. All right. Now, then, let me ask you then: Does a higher ISBN number then get assigned later?
A. Yes, all the numbers are consecutive.
MR. MITTEL: Objection; foundation.
THE COURT: Oh, I think that she had adequate foundation to testify to that.
All right. [page 343]
BY MR. MacKENZIE:
Q. Do you happen to know what the -- if the defendant's Thelema Publishing Company's ISBN number is higher or lower than yours?
A. It's a larger number.
Q. It's a larger number.
Does that indicate to you that they -- that at least as far as ISBN is concerned, did not apply for that service --
A. Yes.
Q. -- until after you had?
A. To me it indicates that.
Q. Okay.
A. Today it is a requirement for any published book to contain an ISBN number.
Q. Thank you.
Do you believe that your Thelema Publications has been damaged in reputation of business as a result of Thelema Publishing Company?
A. Yes, I do.
MR. MITTEL: Objection; leading.
THE COURT: That's purely foundation; overruled.
THE WITNESS: Yes, I do.
I've had, as I said, letters and inquiries. [page 344] In fact, I had many letters that I was able to produce to Mr. MacKenzie.
I've had a few telephone calls, one fairly recently, that I recall in detail. There is confusion. So I have lost material. I have lost orders that have gone to the other publisher.
BY MR. MacKENZIE:
Q. Do you know what kind of books they're distributing?
A. Thelema Publishing Company?
Q. Yes.
A. Only from a few of the so-called "Equinox" that I have seen, I would say that they are publishing, to a certain extent, Crowley material that's been altered so it isn't pure Crowley material.
Q. How has it been altered?
A. Omission and insertion of personal opinions. It is in contradiction to what I try to do which is publish a Crowley quote or a book as Crowley wrote it.
Q. As -- I/m sorry?
A. As -- I said I try to publish as Crowley wrote it without my opinion in it.
Q. Let me show you Plaintiffs' Exhibit 122, please, and ask you to identify that?
A. Yes, I do recall it. [page 345]
Q. Is this a letter you sent to Mr. Motta?
A. Yes.
Q. You state you have taken seriously the obligation of the Third Degree OTO?
A. That's right.
Q. What does that mean?
A. If ill is spoken of another member of the OTO that at least he be alerted. I don't recall the exact quotation.
Q. Okay. Well, that's the general idea?
A. Yes. Which I do try to adhere to.
Q. And do you know whether Mr. Motta was a member?
A. No, I don't. It was something ill being spoken of someone who was independent.
Q. Do you know at all today if Mr. Motta has ever been a member of the OTO?
A. No. I mean -- I don't know if he has ever been a member of the OTO.
Q. I see. But you wanted to send him this anyway?
A. Yes.
Q. Did he ever respond to you?
A. No. Except by abusive notices in his Manifesto, printed books.
Q. I'm sorry?
A. Except by his abusive notices in his Manifestos, [page 346] published books.
Q. What do you mean by that?
A. Well, he hasn't responded directly to the letter, except that he has abused my name in his published books.
Q. I understand.
MR. MacKENZIE: I have no further questions.
Thank you.
THE COURT: Cross-examination, Mr. Mittel.
(Brief recess taken.)
THE COURT: Mrs. Smith, would you take the witness stand again, please.
CROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR. MITTEL:
Q. Good afternoon, Miss Smith -- Mrs. Smith. I'm sorry.
I think you said there were 20 people in the Ordo Templi Orientis in 1939?
A. Approximately; new numbers {SIC}, dropouts of old ones.
Q. That small number didn't effect the existence of the Ordo Templi Orientis, did it? It was an ongoing organization?
A. Definitely. Each one was very strong, active.
Q. Now, when you were initiated, did you receive a [page 347] document of any kind?
A..I don't believe so. I don't recall.
Q. That didn't affect {SIC sb. "effect" -weh} the validity of you initiation, did it?
A. No.
Q. When you were initiated into the Ninth Degree, did you receive a document of any king?
MR. MacKENZIE: Your Honor, if I can just make clear --
THE WITNESS: I don't --
MR. MacKENZIE: I'm sorry. I thought Mrs. Smith had said she didn't recall whether she received a document for the First Degree, and the follow-up question said -- assumed that she said she had not. And I'd like to clear that up.
THE COURT: Well, the record may stand on what it is.
THE WITNESS: I don't recall having received one.
BY MR. MITTEL:
Q. And if you didn't, that wouldn't affect the validity of your status as a Ninth Degree member, would it?
A. No. I would be recognized at least by the Lodge in my proper degree. [page 348]
Q. Have any of the plaintiffs ever -- any of the plaintiffs ever questioned your -- the validity of your standing as a Ninth Degree member?
A. No.
Q. Do you have any idea whether Mr. McMurtry, for instance, has any documents establishing him as a Ninth Degree member?
A. Would you repeat your question?
Q. Do you know if Mr. McMurtry has any documents of initiation into the Ninth Degree?
A. I don't know.
Q. Do you know if Mrs. Seckler does?
A. I don't know.
Q. Were you there when Mrs. Seckler was initiated into the Ninth Degree?
A. No.
Q. Were you there when Mr. McMurtry was initiated into the Ninth Degree?
A. No, I have not been out of this country.
Q. Do I understand, that, that the only basis of your knowledge that Mr. McMurtry and Miss Seckler are in the Ninth Degree of the Ordo Templi Orientis is they're telling you that they are?
A. It has been -- repeat that again.
Q. Do I understand that the only basis for you [page 349] knowing that they're members of the Ninth Degree is because they told you so and other people have told you so?
MR. MacKENZIE: That is mischaracterizing the witness' testimony.
THE COURT: Well, it is cross-examination.
THE WITNESS: I believe that some of the letters to McMurtry from Crowley indicate that he's a Ninth, and I accept that.
BY MR. MITTEL:
Q. What about Miss Seckler, are there any letters that indicate she is a Ninth Degree person -- member? I'm sorry.
A. Only from information that I have received from her directly do I recognize her as a Ninth Degree.
Q. When is the first time that you saw any of the documents on which Mr. McMurtry relies for his claim to be the Caliph?
A. I don't know the date.
Q. Can you give me a rough year?
A. Sometime when I visited the Grand Lodge.
Q. In the --
A. No, I can't give you a date.
Q. You mean in the 19 -- [page 350]
A. I would have to refer back to -- well, within the past two years.
Q. Sometime within the last two years.
A. Two years.
Q. And when you say the Grand Lodge, you mean the Lodge in Berkeley?
A. Headquarters, yes.
Q. And I understand you to be testifying that you've never seen those letters before?
A. That's right.
Q. Let me show you Exhibit 39-A and 40, and let me first ask you if at the end of Defendants' Exhibit 40 there appears your signature?
A. That's right.
Q. All right. Would you now look at those letters and, in particular, the highlighted material?
A. Of course I'm just reading the highlighted material. Quite a bit other than that.
Q. You don't have to read it out loud. Just read it to yourself.
A. (Witness peruses document.)
Yes, I have read it.
But you see at the time I wasn't aware of that, what the Caliphate letters were.
Q. Well, now, let me ask you: In the letter that Mr. [page 351] McMurtry wrote to Mr. MOntenegro, that is Defendants'; Exhibit -- I believe it's 39-A -- do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. Does he not refer to material, what the plaintiffs call the Caliphate letters, dow he not talk about what Mr. Crowley said to him about being 777?
A. Yes.
Q. And did Montenegro show you that, that is, that letter?
A. I don't believe so. At this time I was living in Malibu and Dr. Montenegro was in San Francisco.
Q. Well, Dr. Montenegro answered Defendants' Exhibit 39-A, which is Defendants' Exhibit 40, did he not?
Look at it where he's responding to McMurtry's letter of January 27.
A. That's right. At this time he was in Fresno.
Q. All right. And when he wrote Defendants' Exhibit 40, you also signed Defendants' Exhibit 40; isn't that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And so had you not seen the material that Mr. McMurtry was relying on with respect to that?
A. That Montenegro was relying on?
Q. Yes.
A. Montenegro was relying on McMurtry's recitation, [page 352] yes. I don't know whether or not he saw the Caliphate letters.
Q. Well, so he was talking about the letter of January 27th?
A. I didn't see them, and I haven't seen this letter, No. 38.
Q. So you told Mr. McMurtry in Defendants' Exhibit 40 that his claim was invalid even though you didn't know what his claim was?
A. Well, there was discussion, yes.
Q. Yes. Did you know what his claim was?
A. A discussion between McMurtry and Montenegro.
Q. And you knew of a discussion between McMurtry and Montenegro?
A. I think I knew that he was, as I thought, trying to claim that he was doing something for Crowley.
Q. And you knew that wasn't the case?
A. I believed it was not the case. I believed at that time it was not the case.
Q. Did you also believe that that was not the case in 1977?
A. I have no idea about the date.
Q. Well, in 1977, did you believe that McMurtry was a Caliph?
A. I don't know what occurred in '77. I don't recall [page 353] when I first -- no, I couldn't have known about it, because I didn't see it. Until about approximately two years ago I hadn't seen the Caliphate letters.
Q. In 1976 you and Miss Seckler and Mr. McMurtry took part in an activity that led to --
A. That's right.
Q. -- getting possession of the library; is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. All right. And during that activity did you not discuss with Mr. McMurtry his so-called Caliphate letters and so-called letters of authorization?
A. I didn't say I hadn't discussed them; I hadn't seen them.
Q. And when you had your discussion with him, do you remember that he had some type of position in the --
A. Yes.
Q. Someone had to acknowledge someone, so you acknowledged Mr. McMurtry --
A. So I --
Q -- in 1977?
A. I know.
Q. You believed that he was the Caliph; is that right?
A. That's right.
Q. And you also believed that gave him the position of [page 354] authority in the Order?
A. That's right.
Q. Let me show you Defendants' Exhibit 70-A, a letter from Gerald Yorke to yourself.
Could you read the yellow portions out loud, please?
A. Do you want me to read the highlighted part or --
Q. Yes, Ma'am.
A. -- or the letter?
Q. No, the highlighted portions.
A. Well, it's -- pardon.
"Grady is the first person I know
to call himself a Caliph and I
cannot recollect AC making use
of the term. Grady won't get
anywhere worth getting to. If
Montenegro had survived, it
might have very well been
different in the States."
Q. And all the way down to the bottom.
A. Oh.
"I do not expect it to have
Caliphate nonsense."
Q. Thank you.
Now, after you got that one -- let me ask you [page 355] this:
Did you interpret this letter as meaning that Mr. Yorke didn't think Mr. McMurtry had any position?
A. Apparently -- well, no. I wouldn't say that. At least he was questioning the terminology of the "Caliph."
Q. In fact, he referred to the terminology of "Caliph" as nonsense?
A. That's right.
Q. YOu didn't write back to Mr.Yorke and tell him he was wrong, did you?
A. No.
Q. Miss Seckler testified that she gave you the only other key to the storage locker in which she put the library in Livermore.
A. Yes.
Q. Did you hear her testimony?
A. Yes.
Q. Is that true?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you have any copies of the key made?
A. No.
Q. Did you give the key to anyone else?
A. No, I did not. I can't identify it today.
Q. Did you, in April or 1979, go to the Public Storage [page 356] facility in Livermore and remove the contents of the boxes in which the library was stored?
A. No, I did not.
Q. You heard the testimony hat the lock was no damaged?
A. Yes.
A. And the door was not damaged?
A. Yes.
Q. That means if you didn't do it, the only other person who could have done it is someone with a key; is that right?
A. I have no knowledge --
MR. MacKENZIE: Objection; no foundation.
THE COURT: Well, --
MR. MacKENZIE: How can the witness answer a question like that?
There are safecrackers out there and they can get in and out without damaging locks.
THE COURT: It's argumentative; the objection is sustained.
BY MR. MITTEL:
Q. You testified that you knew about the defendants' use of the tradename Thelema Publishing Company?
A. That's right.
Q. When did you first learn about that name, that use? [page 357]
A. I believe when I read the first book; I believe it was the Commentaries on Al {SIC sb. "AL" -def}.
Q. And that was sometime in the mid-1970s?
A. I don't recall a date. After the publication.
Q. Did you know in the 1960s of Mr. Motta's use of the Thelema Publications?
A. No, I did not.
Q. When did you first learn of that name, Thelema Publishing Company?
A. I am sorry. I don't recall.
Q. Well, was it at the time you learned of defendants' use of this.
A. I really don't recall.
Q. Well, could it, for instance, have been when you read the Liber Aleph that was published by Mr. Motta and Mr. Germer back in the 1960s?
A. I really even don't recall.
Q. Could it have been sometime in the early 1970s?
A. I don't know when I learned it.
Q. When did you learn that Mr. MOtta was publishing Crowley material in Brazil?
A. A few years ago I saw a copy of one of his Brazilian publications. I say "his Brazilian publications"; could have been no one but Motta.
Q. After you first read the material that Mr. Motta [page 358] published about which you're unhappy, the so-called libelous material, you didn't go to the doctor, did you?
A. I don't -- you mean the proposed Manifesto?
Q. No. I mean the material that was actually published.
A. Yes, I did go to the doctor.
Q. Do you remember having your deposition taken in December of --
A. Yes.
Q. -- 1983?
A. Yes.
Q. When did you go to the doctor?
A. At the time -- after the time that I read his first publication, which was the Commentaries on Al {SIC sb. "AL" -def}.
How soon after?
Q. Yes, Ma'am.
A. I can't recall.
Q. How many times?
A. Twice.
Q. What did the doctor do for you?
A. I went to the chiropractor for relaxation.
Q. Did you do any work with Mr. Germer, any publishing work with him?
A. No -- you say with him?
Q. Yes ma'am. [page 359]
A. No, I tried to help him, though.
Q. Let me show you Plaintiffs' Exhibit 83 about which you've already testified.
A. Yes.
Q. Do you carry the book that is ordered by that document?
A. No. As I wrote on the original, I said, "This is not our publication," and I returned it.
Q. Do you know the person who sent in that order?
A. I have had other orders from the same firm -- bookstore.
Q. And is it your contention that this document shows that there is confusion between you --
A. Oh, yes, definitely.
Q. -- and the defendant, Thelema Publishing Company?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you make the same contention about Plaintiffs' Exhibit 86?
A. That there is confusion?
Q. Yes. That shows there is confusion between you and the defendant, Thelema Publishing Company?
A. Yes. They have what they intend to mean to them. They wrote to me as Thelema, but that's some other company.
Q. Have you done business with -- [page 360]
A. No.
Q. Do you recognize this mark, signature?
A. Yes.
Q. You do, even though you haven't done business with them?
A. All I recall this here -- mean, after all it is --
Q. I mean: Have you ever seen the signature before you received this letter?
A. Not that I'm aware of.
MR. MITTEL: Before I get into Plaintiffs' Exhibit 6, Your Honor, I want to renew my motion to strike this document, first of all, that there is not testimony at all that authenticates 86.
Secondly, they are both hearsay. They're offered for the sake of what they --
THE COURT: No, they are not. They are offered to show confusion. There {SIC sb. "They" -weh} are not offered for the truth.
The motion to strike is denied.
How long are you going to have with this lady?
MR. MITTEL: I think I'm almost done, if you'll give me one second to check.
I have nothing further, Your Honor. [page 361]
MR. MacKENZIE: I have three of four questions, Your Honor, --
THE COURT: You're not through yet, Mrs. Smith.
MR. MacKENZIE: -- and then we'll be done.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. MacKENZIE:
Q. You've seen Defendants' Exhibit 40, which is a letter to Grady from Dr. Montenegro, which also carries the phrase that you signed down at the bottom.
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. I will leave it up here.
Now, was it your testimony that you had seen his credentials at the time that you wrote that up there?
A. Do you mean Montenegro's?
Q. I', sorry.
No, you didn't seen {SIC sb. "see" -weh} Mr. McMurtry's credentials?
A. No.
Q. Now, that letter was just identified as a response to Defendants' Exhibit No. 39-A, which is a letter that Grady wrote to Dr. Montenegro.
And I'd like you, if you would, to take a look at that letter and tell me if Mr. McMurtry anywhere [page 362]in that letter discusses his charters?
A. Discusses his what?
Q. Charters, his letters of authentification or authorization -- excuse me -- or if he only discusses his Caliphate matter.
A. You're asking me to read longer --
THE COURT: Well, why don't you leave that to me?
MR. MacKENZIE: Thank you, Your Honor.,
My contention is the letters of authorization are not discussed in there and the witness hadn't seen the full evidence and hadn't seen --
THE WITNESS: (Nods head up and down.)
BY MR. MacKENZIE:
Q. Are you saying the Dr. Montenegro in 1969 wrote to Grady and recognized his credentials?
MR. MITTEL: Objection; Best Evidence and hearsay.
THE COURT: Well, if you have knowledge on the subject, Mrs. Smith, --
THE WITNESS: Yes. Dr. Montenegro and Mrs./ Burlingame and Grady McMurtry met, I believe, in Oakland, in the San Francisco Bay Area, at which time Dr. Montenegro recognized Grady as being the Caliph and head of the Order. [page 363]
THE COURT: How do you know that?
THE WITNESS: From Dr.; Montenegro by telephone conversation. And then he died the next day.
MR. MITTEL: Same objection. Motion to strike, Your Honor. That's hearsay.
MR. MacKENZIE: It's a dying declaration.
THE COURT: Was the gentlemen {SIC sb. "gentleman" -weh} ill at the time?
THE WITNESS: Yes, he had an enlarged heart. He could have died at any time in the previous 20 years.
THE COURT: I'm going to admit the testimony as an exception to the hearsay rule.
BY MR. MacKENZIE:
Q. I'd like to show you Plaintiffs' Exhibit -- or Defendants' Exhibit 78, which you just looked at.
It states in there, if I can read it: "AC making use of the name 'Caliph.'"
Isn't it a fact that the Caliphate letters discuss the term "Caliph"?
A. That is true. But did Yorke know about it?
Q. My question exactly. Was Yorke a member of the OTO?
A. No. Yorke? No.
Q. And where did he live? [page 364]
A. Yorke lived in London or England, Glouchester.
Q. Was he ever in California?
A. No.
And he also said if Yorke {SIC sb. "Montenegro" -weh} had survived, it may well have been different in the States? {SIC this sentence may be a part of the question by Mr. MacKenzie on the next line, instead of Witness' response. -weh}
Q. Well, isn't it the fact that Yorke {SIC ?! -weh} was expelled from the OTO?
A. That's right.
MR. MacKENZIE: Thank you.
No further questions.
THE COURT: I have a few questions about you publishing, if you don't mind.
First of all, is there any other name other than Thelema Publications as a tradename that you have used?
THE WITNESS: That is the only name that I have used.
THE COURT: Okay.
Well, is it a corporation?
THE WITNESS: No. No, private.
THE COURT: All right. Just in your name?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE COURT: Where do you publish; do you own a printing press? [page 365]
THE WITNESS: I am a publisher of -- development of books {SIC response garbled by reporter? -weh}
Okay. Any particular material?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE COURT: And the material is the writings of Mr. Crowley?
THE WITNESS: That's right.
THE COURT: Okay. Where have you gotten these writings?
THE WITNESS: Well, from the "Book of Law"' from a publication in Pasadena, which I might have made a few corrections, from original manuscript, "The Soul of the Desert"' by Reea Leffingwell {SIC sb. "Rea" -def sb. "Roy" -pla} who received it from Crowley directly. And I saw that letter before she died.
THE COURT: Did any of it come from library documents?
THE WITNESS: No. No, this was all done before.
THE COURT: Okay. Then as the publisher, you get it into form where it can be sent to the printer?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE COURT: Okay. Then somebody -- [page 366]
THE WITNESS: As a matter of fact, I've done as much as I possibly could myself, such as typesetting, proofing, folding the pages to get them into the book.
THE COURT: Getting the ink all over you hands?
THE WITNESS: Well, no. I haven't been involved in the actual printing.
THE COURT: Then somebody binds the book up?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE COURT: And how are the expenses for this paid?
THE WITNESS: I have assumed that.
THE COURT: You paid them?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE COURT: Have the books sold in the retail market?
THE WITNESS: Primarily bookstores, but also retail directly to he consumer.
THE COURT: I see. And so there is a little income from retail sales?
THE WITNESS: A little.
THE COURT: Thank you.
THE WITNESS: Primarily the wholesale. [page 367]
THE COURT: Thank you very much.
You may step down.
MR. MITTEL: Your Honor, I have a question or two that were prompted by your examination.
RECROSS EXAMINATION
BY MR. MITTEL:
Q. When did you start doing what you just described to the judge?
A. I believe it was 1969. The idea was formulated over a period of time.
Q. When did you send your first book out to market, so to speak?
A. '71.
Q. And which book was that?
A. "The Sheegee (phonetic). {SIC sb. "Shi Yi" -pla sb. "The Shih Ji" -def}
Q. And how many copies did actually get sold?
A. About 350.
Q. And when did you send your second book out?
A. I'd have to look at the book.
Q. Before or after, say, 1976?
A. Probably before. I don't know.
Q. And where were the books sold?
A. Some were sold to bookstores, that I'm aware of.
Q. You mean on the West Coast?
A. Yes. [page 368]
Q. And only in and around California?
A. No. I've numbered each one of my accounts. And I believe Weiser is No. 5.
At the time he had a bookstore in New York. And everyone's aware of Weiser.
I don't know who No. 1, 2, 3 and 4 were.
I sold to retail stores in Los Angeles, several that I was aware of.
Q. Is the lion's share of your business, though, with California, do you believe, except for Weiser?
A. NOt in these days. It was.
Q. When would you say it changed?
A. I don't know.
Q. Late '70s?
A. I don't know.
MR. MITTEL: Nothing else, Your Honor.
THE COURT: This lady may step down.
Thank you.
(Witness excused.)
THE COURT: Counsel, before we adjourn -- Mr. MacKenzie, I'd like an indication on what you have in store. Now much longer do you think it will take you to complete your case in chief for scheduling purposes?
MR. MacKENZIE: Yes, Your Honor. I have a [page 369]
number of witnesses. Mr. Wasserman tomorrow morning; I don't think his testimony, as far as I am concerned, will take more than an hour.
Mr. Mittel may be, well, about a half-hour.
Mr. Heidrick might take -- there's quite a bit there, and I think that could be two hours on my part.
And finally Mr. Starr's testimony will be, I would think, an hour on my end.
MR. MITTEL: Well , --
THE COURT: And that's your case in chief?
MR. MacKENZIE: Yes. I'm not sure if I will call Mr. Motta. If I did, it would be a handful of questions.
MR. MITTEL: You could dispose of Mr. Starr if you would rule favorably on our motion to his being late named.
MR. MacKENZIE: There's a very good reason for that.
THE COURT: No, I don't need to hear the argument about that now.
Let's say, then, for your case in chief to be concluded tomorrow, and instead of running 8:00 to 1:00, we'll start at nine o'clock. [page 370]
We'll start at nine o'clock tomorrow and then we will run, figuring, a full day tomorrow.
MR. MacKENZIE: Fine, Your Honor.
THE COURT: How about you, Mr. Mittel? Can you give me an estimate on your case in chief?
MR. MITTEL: I would say that it's -- I have to say it';s going to take two days.
Obviously Mr. Motta will take the better part of a day. And I have questions of many of the plaintiffs that I'm going to have to do as a part of my case.
In addition, we wish -- we have not finished with Mr. McMurtry. I think we're going to need at least another day next week.
THE COURT: Well, the time I have to work with this is all day Wednesday, all day Thursday. Friday morning I have law and motion on criminal and so we have Friday afternoon to work with.
MR. MITTEL: Maybe we can finish Friday. I would certainly want to do that.
THE COURT: Well, I think we better plan on full days both Wednesday and Thursday.
MR. MITTEL: Your Honor, when did you want to rule on the motion brought by the plaintiffs on the res judica issue? [page 371]
THE COURT: Well, I'm working on it; my clerk is working on it. We'll be working on it tonight. So I would certainly have a decision for you before the defendants begin their case in chief.
All right. So we'll take a full day then tomorrow, probably also on Thursday.
I do want to add one thing, now that I have heard some of the testimony and am familiar basically with the structure and basic outline of the story except, of course, there is obviously more to come in.
I would give you both this advice: You need not be repetitive. Once you have covered a subject with one witness, don't bother putting another witness on to testify to the same thing just for the purpose of doing it again. If you get the testimony clearly once, I'll remember. And giving it to me a second time isn't really going to help.
The same was with cross-examination. I would like it if you would restrict it to the scope of cross-examination. And you have the right to bring on people to explain the testimony.
I would appreciate it if the testimony would be more relevant to the issues that I have to deal with here until we can get a clear question of credibility of a particular witness. [page 372]
If you have a problem with a witness, you are entitled to go into whatever you want on cross-examination as long as it is somewhat relevant. But what I am saying is in cross-examination, please hold it, as much as possible, to that which is relevant and material.
Okay. Thank you.
MR. MacKENZIE: Thank you, Your Honor.
MR. MITTEL: Thank you, Your Honor.
(Court adjourned at 4:45 p.m.)
[page 373] --- this page is used in the Transcript for the certification by the Court Reporter. In as much as this is not a legally certifiable electronic document, the page shall remain blank to signify that this particular version is for research and not for legal representations.
---- Transcribed from the record with notes by William E. Heidrick, Grand Treasurer General, Ordo Templi Orientis.
[page 375]
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, Marcello Ramos Motta, an individual, and Does I through X, inclusive,
Defendants.
CIVIL NO. C-83-5434
VOLUME I
PAGES 375 - 496
REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS OF COURT TRIAL
Wednesday, May 15, 1985
MORNING SESSION
450 Golden Gate Avenue
San Francisco, CAlifornia 94102
REPORTED BY:
Nancy J. Palmer
[page 376]
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 377]
INDEX
VOLUME III
Examinations:
Witness: Direct Cross Redirect Cross
James Wasserman 378 442 447 451
Martin P. Starr 454
Plaintiff's Exhibits: For_Ident. In Evidence
131 Letter to Mr. Gunther. 409
Defendants' Exhibits:
60 Letter from Mr. Wasserman 432
to Mr. Motta.
[page 378]
Wednesday, May 15, 1985 9:15 o'clock a.m.
P R O C E E D I N G S - THIRD DAY
(Conference at the bench between Court and Counsel.)
MR. MacKENZIE: I'm ready, Your Honor.
THE COURT: You may proceed, Mr. MacKenzie.
MR. MacKENZIE: I call Mr. Jim Wasserman to the Stand, please.
I do apologize for the delay.
THE COURT: It's all right.
JAMES WASSERMAN,
called as a witness by the plaintiffs, having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as hereinafter set forth.
THE COURT: Would you please be seated?
State your full name for the record and spell your last name, please.
THE WITNESS: My name is James Wasserman, W-a-s-s-e-r-m-a-n.
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. MacKENZIE:
Q. Mr. Wasserman, where do you reside? [page 379]
A. New York City.
Q. Do you know of Aleister Crowley?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. When did you first become aware of him?
A. Approximately 1969.
Q. Did you study or read about him?
A. Yes. Rather extensively actually from that time on.
THE COURT: Would you please speak into the microphone?
THE WITNESS: Yes. Rather extensively.
BY MR. MacKENZIE:
Q. How extensively? What does that entail?
A. Well, I have read his books rather voraciously and at the same time working with some of his basic practices continuously.
Q. Were you employed at the time?
A. At the time I first encountered Aleister Crowley, yes.
Q. And were you later employed in the mystical area, shall we say?
A. Yes. At the same time my interest in Crowley also sparked an interest in books, and I went to work for Samuel Weiser.
Q. I'm sorry? [page 380]
A. I went to work for Samuel Weiser in New York, the largest publisher of the material.
Q. And what was your job at Samuel Weiser?
A. I was General Manager and Managing Editor.
Q. What kind of duties did you have?
A. I was responsible for all that concerned the operation of the publishing aspect of the business, including shipments, billing customers, and this kind of thing.
I was also involved in book production and the editorial aspect of the business.
Q. By "editorial, do you mean editing --
A. Yes.
Q. -- work?
A. Yes.
Q. Proofreading?
A. Proofreading.
Q. Do you know the defendant, Mr. Motta?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. How did you first come in contact with him?
A. One of the things I did at Weiser was open the mail. And I opened a letter from him to Donald Weiser concerning his manuscript on the Commentaries of Al {SIC sb. "AL" -def}.
I was very excited by this, because I knew that it was the Commentaries to "The Book of Law", and I [page 381] brought it to Mr. Weiser's attention and subsequently found the manuscript, read it, and began a correspondence with Mr. Motta.
Q. You did correspond with him?
A. Rather extensively, yes.
Q. I'd like to show you two documents, Plaintiffs' 66 and Plaintiffs' 68, and ask you to identify those documents?
A. Yes. These are both letters from Mr. Motta to me.
Q. Looking at Document No. 68, would you please look at the second page --
A. Okay.
Q. -- and read for us the portion that I have underlined in the bottom second most paragraph.
A. "I an mot about to contest anybody's
right to publish Crowley, but I must
admit that I am not about to do it
because I feel that legally I don't
have a leg to stand on."
Q. What was Mr. Motta suggesting with this -- what was your understanding he was suggesting with his letter? Was he asking for publication?
A. Well, in this book {SIC mb. "point" -weh} we hadn't decided to publish him. At this point he was making some inquiries as to his legal rights as to what we call "The Magickal Heir." {SIC sb. "the magickal heir" -def} [page 382]
Q. Looking at Document No. 66, if you would, I believe he is -- at the very top of that page he is talking about a "Grant."
Who is that person at the very topmost paragraph on page 4?
A. Grant was a well-published author who had claimed to be Outer Head of the Order, though it was increasingly common knowledge that he had been expelled by Mr. Germer in 1955.
However, he was in collusion with this John Simmons {SIC sb. "Symonds" -def}, who is mentioned here, and publishing the claims that he was Outer Head.
Q. I see. Now, you say that was common knowledge that Mr. Grant had been expelled from the OTO in 1955?
A. I would. Oh, yes.
Q. Proceeding down the page, would you read the following portion of the second paragraph that has been underlined?
A. "When an OHO dies without naming
his successor, this must be
elected by a unanonymous {SIC sb. "unanimous" -def} vote of
all national kings or representatives."
Q. Would you continue with that paragraph as it's underlined? [page 383]
A. Okay.
"I personally have no objection
to people working anywhere in
the name of OTO. Later on they
will vote on the new OHO. It
will certainly not be me since,
as I have said, I am not eligible."
Continue?
Q. Yes, please, the following paragraph?
A. "I finally felt I myself in an
unanonymous {SIC sb. "I find myself in an anomalous" -def}
position similar to
Mr. Germer who once complained
to me in a letter that he was
the only person with authority
to grant the OTO patents, et
cetera, but that he personally
disliked doing that work."
Q. Thank you. That's fine.
Did you undertake any acts for Mr. Motta at this time?
A. Not exactly at this time, but at this time when he was writing to me about his legal rights to literary collections, and over the next two years I would begin to look into this for him.
Q. And what did that involve? [page 384]
A. It involved making a study of the issues, collecting document, putting together a brief.
I went to see a lawyer on his behalf who was a copyright lawyer.
Q. I see. Did you ever meet Mr. Motta?
A. Yes. I did. I met him in Brazil in 1976.
Q. Let me ask you: The correspondence that you had with him, where was he living at that time?
A. Brazil.
Q. I see. When did you meet Mr. Motta in Brazil?
A. I believe it was February of 1976.
Q. And did you discuss the OTO?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Did you request admission to the OTO?
A. Yes, I did
Q. Did he initiate you?
A. No, he did not.
Q. Do you know why he did not initiate you?
A. What he told me was that his authorization did not extend to the United States, that it was only operable in Brazil.
Q. And what year did he tell you that?
A. 1976.
Q. Are you familiar with Aleister Crowley's requirements of initiation set forth in the "Blue [page 385] Equinox"?
A. Yes, I am.
Q. Is there a requirement of something involving the Liber OZ?
A. No, there is not.
What brought about the conversation about the oTO between Mr. Motta and myself was that I had taken several Liber Oz cards to him, about 200. I has just printed them up and took them.
Q. Could you just explain to the Court what "Liber Oz" means?
A. Oh, Liber Oz is a very short political statement by Aleister Crowley in words of one syllable ant it's characteristically printed on a postcard like a piece of paper.
And I had just printed 500 of those.
Q. Please go on.
A. Mr. Motta said, "Well, you've just met the requirements for initiation into OTO."
And that is when I asked him to be in the OTO, and that's when he told me that his charted did not extend to North America.
Q. Well, what did he mean, "You've just met the requirements for initiation"; do you know?
A. No, I do not. [page 385]
Q. Are you familiar with the OTO rituals and so on?
A. Very much so.
Q. Is the publication of Liber Oz a requirement?
A. Not prior to the Minerval Degree, certainly.
Q. Does Mr. Motta's organization apply the Minerval designation?
A. No, it does not.
Q. Does Aleister Crowley's rituals or the "Blue Equinox" use the Minerval designation?
A. They most certainly do. The Minerval designation is the Fist grade of the Order and has been in existence ever since Reuss and Kellner, as far as I know.
Q. And what time of this century are we talking about with Reuss?
A. We're talking about -- he founded the Order in the early 1900s, at the turn of the century.
Q. And it's your testimony that Mr. Motta does not employ the Minerval?
A. No. He's dropped that from his curriculum as well as thoroughly rewritten the rituals. I can not even say they were revised. He reformulated the rituals.
Q. Well, in the OTO the Minerval is considered -- what is the importance of the Minerval? What is its importance? [page 387]
A. It's absolutely an essential experience of the OTO because it's the first -- Crowley described the attraction of the -- attraction to the solar system. It's the entrance level degree of the Order.
Q. Could you state your opinion as to whether the OTO operating without the Minerval -- if it would be changed?
A. It would no longer be Aleister Crowley's OTO.
Q. Did Mr. Motta ever discuss the subject of murder?
A. Yes he did.
Q. And what did he say?
A. What he said --
MR. MITTEL: Objection, relevance.
THE COURT: Just what is the relevance?
MR. MacKENZIE: The relevance, Your Honor, is -- I think it shows Mr. Motta's state of mind.
It will be shown later that he has used similar references in the initial Articles of the Constitution, such as the word "termination." I think it has a great deal of relevance.
THE COURT: Well, what's it got to do with this lawsuit?
MR. MacKENZIE: It also goes -- well, it goes primarily to his state of mind.
His testimony -- Mr. Motta will admit that he [page 388] can will people to death, and that he has done so.
THE COURT: Well, whether he does believe it or does not believe that, what is the relevance?
MR. MacKENZIE: I guess I'm attacking the credibility of Mr. Motta with this, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Well, he hasn't testified yet, so I am going to sustain the objection.
MR. MacKENZIE: May I ask the witness if he took the fear of murder seriously?
THE COURT: Well, if it was a direct threat to him by Mr. Motta, yes. That would be relevant.
MR. MacKENZIE: Well, I'm not sure if that was ever made.
BY MR. MacKENZIE:
Q. Was such a threat ever directed towards you?
A. Well, aside from his publishing my death notice in one of his books, he said that if Weiser did not meet his requirements for responsible Thelemic publishing, more deaths would follow.
MR. MITTEL: Objection.
THE WITNESS: He had claimed responsibility for the death of Mr. Weiser's brother.
MR. MITTEL: Objection. Mr. Motta --
THE COURT: Yes. Strike the last [page 389] portion.
The first portion with respect to his employer, Mr. Weiser, may stand on the question of bias of the witness.
BY MR. MacKENZIE:
Q. Had Mr. Motta made any requests of you before coming down to Brazil, as far as bringing things?
A. Yes, he did.
Q. Was one of the things that he requested you bring a gun?
A. Yes, he did.
MR. MITTEL: Objection; relevance.
THE COURT: Yes. What is the relevance?
MR. MacKENZIE: The relevance, Your Honor, I think this all runs together, that Mr. Motta has an extremely high amount of malevolence. And it's shown in his writings; it's shown in the way he talks.
THE COURT: Well, that may be, but how is that relevant to the lawsuit here which concerns questions of the ownership of property, rights to names ---
MR. MacKENZIE: Well, if nothing else, I think it shows two things, Your Honor. One his state of mind in making these libelous statements and ongoing statements. [page 390]
And secondly, I think it goes directly against the tenets of his religion.
THE COURT: But I'm not getting into this, am I?
MR. MacKENZIE: Well, only insofar as to see if Mr. Motta is, in fact, practicing that. If he's not practicing that, Your Honor, I don't think he can say he represents them.
THE COURT: Well, I'm going to sustain the objection at this time without prejudice until after Mr. Motta testifies.
BY MR. MacKENZIE:
Q. How long were you in Brazil with Mr. Motta?
A. Nineteen days.
Q. And when was it that you returned, approximately?
A. Toward the end of February, maybe the third week of February.
THE COURT: What year are we in?
THE WITNESS: 1976, Your Honor.
BY MR. MacKENZIE:
Q. HOw did your learn of Sascha Germer's death?
A. Mr. Motta forwarded to me a copy of a letter form Miss Seckler in which she had notified him of Mrs. Germer's death.
Q. Did Mr. Motta want you to do anything in regards to [page 391] that?
A. Yes. He wanted me to act as a liaison with the people in making arrangements to secure the library.
Q. I show you Plaintiffs' NO. 91 and ask if you could identify that, please?
A. Yes, I do. It's a letter from Mr. Motta again to me.
Q. Would you read -- on the second page would you please read the topmost paragraph of the bottom of -- I am sorry -- the top sentence of the bottom of the paragraph page 2?
A. "Please tell the two ladies" --
Q. Now, which two ladies are those?
A. This is Mrs. Smith and Miss Seckler.
Q. Yes.
A. "Please tell the two ladies
that I am quite willing to share
royalties on the AC half of literary
material published by you and on
the entire material published which
is only by AC on an equal basis.
But I make it an imperative condition
that they should unite, establish
themselves legally and defend their
rights and mine against thieves [page 391]
and impostors."
Q. Now did you react to that paragraph? What did you understand that to mean?
A. I understood it to mean that -- from my reading of the situation as that time the material belonged to the OTO and the OTO included those people and that Mr. Motta was acting properly in both recognizing other OTO members and being so good as to offer to share his portion of the royalties with them.
Q. And what did you do after you received this letter?
A. Well, in this case his letter asked me to send several other copies to Mrs. Smith and Miss Seckler.
And I did that and remained in touch with them, phoned Mr. Gualdoni, and tried to arrange a trip to get out to California.
Q. Let me show you Plaintiffs' No. 141, please, and have you identify that.
A. This is another letter from Mr. Motta to me I received just before I left for California.
Q. And what does that letter state at the bottom of the first page, continuing on to the second page?
A. It says:
"Helen has never had an OTO( patent" -- and this is the first time when he told me this.
It goes on to say that: [page 393]
"I stated otherwise in my
Manifesto for my own purposes."
Q. Now, is that the Manifesto that we were discussing yesterday afternoon?
A. Yes, the manuscript.
Q. The one that was written by Mr. Motta?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. In which he states that "Helen has an OTO patent"?
A. That's right.
Q. Did you ever ask him why he stated one thing for his own purposes and apparently a contradiction to what he felt?
A. That was the sort of question that would be very difficult to ask Mr. Motta. He constant -- he did it a lot and especially in this period.
Q. He did what a lot?
A. Shifted his point of view, said one thing to one person, meant another thing to another person.
He was a demon at subterfuge and also very confusing to follow, the machinations that I was expected to understand and his everchanging opinions on the people I was coming out to meet and act as his representative with.
Q. Going down that page, would you read the portion in the middle of that large paragraph? [page 394]
A. The middle, the underlined portion?
Q. Yes.
A. "That Mr. Weiser was a Jew and
that Mrs. Germer was also a Jew
merely compounds the outrage in
my eyes."
Q. Was Mr. MOtta anti-Semitic?
MR. MITTEL: Objection; relevance.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. MacKENZIE:
Q. Did Mr. Motta give you a power of attorney?
A. Yes, he did.
Q. Did you understand the purpose of that?
A. I understood the purpose of it from my point of view.
Q. And how did you understand that?
A. What I understood was that he was indicating a great deal of trust in myself to best represent him officially in the matter of the library.
I had no instructions from him on precisely what to do, but I felt that I was empowered to do what I felt was necessary --
Q. Were you a member of --
A. -- in his interests.
Q. -- Mr. Motta's SOTO? [page 395]
A. No, I certainly was not. He didn't have any in the organization in the United States at the period in which we are focusing.
Q. He had no SOTO members in 1976?
A. There was no SOTO in 1976.
Q. That came later?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you fly to California in regards to this?
A. I flew to California in regards to a business trip that I was undertaking as part of my job at Weiser, yes.
And I had been granted four days by Mr. Weiser to -- for personal reasons, so to speak, to look into this matter.
Q. Now, who was paying for that trip?
A. Mr. Weiser.
Q. And how long were you on the West Coast?
A. I was on the West Coast from about July 14th to about August 1st.
Q. Had Mr. Motta given you any money?
A. No.
Q. Had he instructed you to cooperate with the California people?
A. He certainly had. Also he warned me about them, to be very wary of them.
He was extremely distrustful of them, but he [page 396] ultimately wanted, in my understanding, cooperation with them.
Q. What did you do when you came to California?
A. I immediately met Helen Smith and Phyllis Seckler. We spent -- we had dinner that evening. We discussed the entire situation.
The next day we went out to West Point, met Mr. Gualdoni.
Q. West Point is in Calaveras County?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Fine.
I show you Exhibit No. 49, and ask you if you will identify that, please?
A. Yes. This is the letter that I wrote to Mr. Motta after we had been to West Point two times and after I had extensive conversation with both Mrs. Smith and Miss Seckler and especially Grady McMurtry.
I wrote this letter and enclosed it with a letter that Mr. McMurtry was writing himself to Mr. Motta in a display of good faith and the kind of feeling that I had for Mr. McMurtry and the California OTO.
Q. What kind of feeling did you have about Mr. McMurtry?
A. I had an excellent feeling about Mr. McMurtry. I felt that he wa a true, sincere, dedicated brother. [page 397]
I felt that the ladies were the same.
I felt that we were really approaching the fire of the Golden Age of Thelema.
The library had been discovered; we had an active person in A.'.A.'., working with the person of Mr. Motta.
We had a potentially beautiful OTO acting under the leadership of Mr. McMurtry.
And with two of them cooperating, we had virtually unlimited access to Weiser in terms of being able to release more and more material.
It would be extremely easy to establish legal rights in court with Mr. Motta's and Mr. McMurtry's claims working in tandem as a united front.
And I felt that we were really moving into the Golden Age of Thelema.
Q. What do you state in here about Mr. McMurtry's credentials?
A. Mr. Motta had the impression that Mr. McMurtry was a fake, that somehow he was a clown, that the letters from Crowley were jokes and labels that Crowley had maliciously wrote and chartered him with in order to trick him up, make a fool of him.
I told him in no uncertain terms that this was not the truth, that in my opinion Mr. McMurtry's [page 398] credentials were absolutely real and so far superior to anything that Mr. Motta possessed that he had better recognize him for his own self-interest as well.
I might add that those words were repeated virtually verbatim to him by his own sole representative in the United States for the A.'.A.'., Mr. Gunther.
MR. MITTEL: Objection; move to strike. Hearsay.
BY MR. MacKENZIE:
Q. Well, speaking of Mr. Gunther, you say "his sole representative"?
A. Yes.
MR. MITTEL: Objection; foundation.
THE COURT: Well, I suppose he's getting to that now.
BY MR. MacKENZIE:
Q. Did you know Mr. Gunther?
A. Very well. I still know him to this day.
Q. And had you spoken or met him prior to coming out to California?
A. Yes, several times.
Q. Did you know what his relationship with Mr. Motta was?
A. I certainly did, because Mr. Motta published it. Mr. Motta wrote it to me in letters as well as in books. [page 399]
Q. And what was that relationship?
A. He was Mr. Motta's sole representative of the A.'.A.'. in the United States.
MR. MITTEL: Same objection, Your Honor.
And in addition to that, if he's relying on these books and letters they need to be produced under the Best Evidence Rule.
THE WITNESS: I have the letter from Mr. Gunther in which he states this even after the meeting with Mr. McMurtry.
THE COURT: I'm going to overrule the objection. I think your objection is going to the weight of the evidence, which I will consider later.
BY MR. MacKENZIE:
Q. Now, in here you state, quote -- this is in the first full paragraph on the first page:
"In all there were four full file
cabinets and about 15 to 20 cartons."
A. Uh-hun.
Q. I take it you had seen the archive material?
A. Yes. But by the time we had gotten there, most of it had been collected by Mr. Gualdoni and was already packed in boxes in storage. That's where the file cabinets were. But there were a great deal of thins left in the house still at that time. [page 400]
So, yes, I did see quite a bit of it.
Q. I see. Do you know if the material left in the house was ever joined together with what was in Mr. Gualdoni's office.
A. Yes. To the best of my knowledge, it was. We packed up a lot of it carefully and Mr. Gualdoni brought it over there then.
Q. Did you see him transport it all?
A. No, I did not see him take it all.
Q. So as far as you know, you took a portion of it and transported it?
A. I don't remember us actually taking cartons. I don't think -- no, because it wasn't proper at that time. No.
What we did, I think, was help clean up and pack.
Q. Would you have any estimate as to how many documents or pieces of paper we're talking about?
A. It's extremely difficult for me to give you an estimate, because it was in boxes. If the boxes contained papers, it would have been in the tens of thousands.
Q. After this letter of the 18th of July, did you write any other letters?
A. Yes I did. I wrote this letter from Grady's [page 401] kitchen, in fact.
And then I immediately took a plane to Los Angeles where I was beginning my sales trip.
I wrote to him on the 19th from my Los Angeles motel room.
I basically repeated what I said here, addressing the issues in a more personal way, answering some of the concerns of his, following some -- more of a personal discussion.
It was an additional report to this document.
Q. Did you receive any response from Mr. Motta?
A. Yes, I did. He cut me off at that point.
Q. I'm sorry? He cut you off?
A. Well, the response to that letter was to cut me off.
This is a different letter that you've just handed to me.
Q. Would you identify a document, Plaintiffs' Exhibit 137?
A. Yes. This is a letter that Mr. Motta sent to me from Brazil on July 10th.
He addressed it to me in care of Samuel Weiser, Incorporated, Mr. Don Weiser, in New York, so that Mr. Weiser could forward the letter to me in California. [page 402]
I received this letter on the 21st. The reason I know I received it on the 21st is I mentioned it to Mr. Motta in my letter of the 19th that this letter had been forwarded to me and it should be arriving one or two days.
Q. I see. Would you please read the portion underlined on the first page?
A. "Also I am now convinced that they
all participated indirectly in and
profited indirectly from the
robbery at headquarters.
"Further, being Mr. -- Mrs. Germer's
nextdoor neighbors, they allowed
the woman to starve to death."
Q. To you knowledge, was Mr. McMurtry or Miss Seckler ever living in West Point?
A. No.
Q. And looking a the second page, please, he writes:
"I want you to go to West Point
and retain a local lawyer to defend
my rights."
Did he send you any money for this?
A. No, he did not.
Q. And in the next paragraph he says:
"I demand only xeroxes of all [page 403]
papers and unprinted Documents."
capitalized.
A. Um-hum.
Q. Did he send you any money for that?
A. No, he did not.
Q. I believer you testified it would have been tens of thousands of documents.
Do you have any idea what that would have cost to copy?
A. At the time I made a really conservative estimate, I believe, of five hundred to a thousand dollars.
That's what I had written to him in my letter of July 19th. But I'm afraid I was a bit off the mark.
Q. What was your reaction to receiving this letter?
A. Well, this letter was an impossibly difficult letter to receive. It was so out of context with what I was actually experiencing that I had to feel that the extent of Mr. Motta's ignorance of the situation was -- made it impossible for me in any way, shape or form to go along with this kind of instruction, because I had new information.
I had spent four days with these people. I had answers to all of these concerns of Mr. Motta's one by one.
And I couldn't possibly do anything with this [page 404] letter. It was absurd.
Q. During this visit did you become a member of the OTO?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And who initiated you?
A. Grady initiated me. And this is something I also informed Mr. Motta of, that I was doing this to prove to him by laying my spiritual life on the line that these people were legitimate people.
Q. Did he know, or did you tell him that you would be doing -- the primary purpose of your trip was to conduct business for Mr. Weiser?
A. Yes, he knew that.
Q. Let me show you Plaintiffs' Exhibit 131.
A. This is the letter in which -- from Mr. Motta to myself, which I say was the letter in which he cut me off.
This was in response to my letter of July 19th. I don't believe he would have received the letter I sent along with Grady on July 18th.
Q. Would you read the portion marked on the first page, second full paragraph?
A. "I do not want to hear from you
directly ever again. This is the
last letter I write to you." [page 405]
Continuing with what you've highlighted:
"And you will fulfill your duties
as my legal representative as
per the power of attorney I sent
you by having all materials in
the Thelemic library xeroxed."
Continuing with what you've highlighted:
"You spineless piece of turd."
Q. Did he often use obscenities?
A. Yes.
Q. He also says he will inform Frater KN of the contents of this letter.
Who is "Frater KN"?
A. That's Stanley Gunther {SIC sb. "Daniel Gunther" -def}, my superior.
Q. Now, when you say your "superior," what do you mean by that? In the A.'.A.'.?
A. In the A.'.A.'., yes. He was Mr. Motta's representative.
Mr Motta was my instructor at this time, so he was obviously my superior. But Mr. Gunther was the highest ranking American representative of Mr. Motta.
Q. Now, do you know how many other people were in Mr. Motta's A.'.A.'. in the United States?
A. At the time we're speaking of, I believe -- At the exact period of time that we're speaking of, there were [page 406] about three, at least three.
Q. Three people for the entire United States?
A. He had just started. There may have been more. There may have been five. It grew in the later period.
Q. At the top of the next page he writes:
"You tell me Mrs. Germer was
insane."
Is that something that you had previously written him?
A. Yes. From my conversations with Miss Seckler, Mrs. Smith and Mr. McMurtry and Mr. Gualdoni, it was quite evident to me the woman was out of her mind.
MR. MITTEL: Objection; hearsay. Move to strike. And lack of foundation.
THE COURT: May I have the last part of the answer, please?
THE WITNESS: I didn't mean to be disrespectful in referring to Mrs. Germer, but -- oh, I'm sorry.
(The record was read as requested.)
THE COURT: I will sustain the objection.
MR. MacKENZIE: Your Honor, Mr. Gualdoni is the Coroner up in Calaveras County. It think he might have some authority to --
THE COURT: Oh, I think enough testimony on the subject has been given. It's repetitive. [page 407]
MR. MacKENZIE: All right.
BY MR. MacKENZIE:
Q. Now, if you would continue reading in that paragraph there, please.
A. Again the highlighted part?
Q. As it's highlighted, yes.
A. "As someone who has been thought
crazy by your beliefs and mine
and who has thought himself
crazy and who has been crazy" --
Q. Had he ever told you he had been crazy?
A. I don't remember his telling me prior to this that he had been crazy.
I had seen his diaries, but he never told me that.
Q. Okay. Do you think he is crazy?
MR. MITTEL: Objection; foundation.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. MacKENZIE:
Q. Have you read a number of Mr. Motta's books?
A. Yes.
Q. And you testified you had spent one or two weeks with him in Brazil?
A. Yes.
Q. Based on those perceptions, would you say he's [page 408] crazy?
MR. MITTEL: Objection; foundation.
THE COURT: I am going to sustain the objection.
BY MR. MacKENZIE:
Q. Would you read the highlighted portion of the bottom paragraph, please?
A. The very bottom paragraph?
Q. Beginning with "You have the power of attorney from me."
A. Yes.
"You have the power of attorney
from me. You had ample instructions
to fulfill it or what is left
of it. Fulfill it or not."
Q. What did you interpret "Fulfill it or not" to mean?
A. By this time we had just -- you know, it was -- he was essentially telling me it didn't matter to him what I did.
Q. Continue reading, if you would.
A. "One way or another, I repeat,
I do not wish ever to hear
from you directly again."
Q. Thank you.
Do you know if this power of attorney -- what [page 409] happened to this power of attorney?
A. I have seen a letter in which Mr. Motta gave it to Mr. Gunther on July 27th, the day after writing this to me.
I know that within a matter of weeks from receiving this, Mr. Gunther asked me for the return of the power of attorney.
Q. I'd like to show you Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 131.
MR. MacKENZIE: This is a document, Your Honor, that Mr. McMurtry testified to having received. It was a question of foundation.
Mr. Wasserman has established that Mr. Gunther was Mr. Motta's American representative.
I would at this time ask that it be entered.
THE COURT: It may be admitted in evidence.
(Plaintiffs' Exhibit 131 previously marked for identification was received in evidence.)
BY MR. MacKENZIE:
Q. Well, how much longer were you in California?
A. I traveled from Los Angeles to San Francisco on July 26th, where I met Daniel Gunther and Richard Gernon. Mr. Gernon was Mr. Gunther's student. He met Mr. Gunther through me. [page 410]
And I had requested them to come out to California to verify my judgments of Mrs. Smith, Miss Seckler and Mr. McMurtry.
I knew that Mr. Motta felt these people were capable of fascination and magical attack in a very subtle way, and I wanted to best discharge my responsibility to him by bringing in other witnesses that he would trust to either confirm or deny my opinions.
And thank god they came.
Q. Do you know what their reactions were?
A. Their relations were virtually identical to mine. I have a letter from Mr. Gunther --
MR. MITTEL: Objection; hearsay.
THE WITNESS: -- written July 30th in which be confirms my opinion verbatim.
MR. MITTEL: Motion to strike the answer.
THE COURT: Yes. Objection sustained.
BY MR. MacKENZIE:
Q. Let me ask you this: Do you know if Mr. Gunther and Mr. Gernon were initiated into the OTO?
A. Yes, they were. Along with myself.
Q. And who initiated them?
A. Mr. McMurtry. [page 411]
Q. Thank you.
Out of the amount of time that you were here in this State, how much time did you spend on this matter versus for Mr. Weiser?
A. Well, I spent four full days on this matter when I first came, which I scheduled with Mr. Weiser.
Any time I spent after that was strictly my time in the evenings when I was working in San Francisco.
I was initiated, I believe, on a Tuesday night.
Q. Yes. WEre you present at the SOTO versus Weiser trial in Maine last year?
A. Yes, I certainly was.
Q. Did Mr. Motta claim to be the Outer Head at that trial?
MR. MITTEL: Objection; hearsay.
MR. MacKENZIE: That's this judgment that's been submitted.
THE COURT: Yes. I think I'm going to overrule the objection.
MR. MITTEL: But I was -- what I should say is the transcript is available. Mr. Motta is here. This witness is not the person to elicit that information from. {page 412]
MR. MacKENZIE: Well, it nothing else, it's a statement made in a judicial proceeding, Your Honor. If it's nothing else, it's a statement. I think he is competent to testify.
THE COURT: Well, if he is going to testify as to what the testimony was that is the basis for the objection.
MR. MacKENZIE: Only on this point, Your Honor.
THE COURT: I'd prefer to have the testimony of the Main action; I mean a transcript.
MR. MacKENZIE: Well, I suppose --
THE COURT: The proper foundation for the objection is the best evidence. There is a transcript, and that is what you have to rely on to prove what happened in the prior judicial proceeding.
MR. MacKENZIE: Well, what I'm getting at is this, Your Honor. Mr. Motta claimed to be the Outer Head and he had never previously done so. And I don't wish to inquire --
THE COURT: Well, okay. I mean, you can ask the witness whether he had any knowledge as to whether Mr. Motta has made that claim before, --
MR. MacKENZIE: All right.
THE COURT: -- whether Mr. Motta has [page 413] claimed that title before. I think that is valid testimony.
BY MR. MacKENZIE:
Q. Did you ever hear Mr. Motta claim to be the Outer Head of the Order?
A. I had heard, to my surprise, Mr. Motta make that claim in Maine for the first time.
Prior to that in countless episodes he denied that very claim, excluded himself from the possibility of ever making that claim, in fact.
Q. You stated you are an OTO member?
A. Yes, I am.
Q. Are you active in New York?
A. Yes, I am.
Q. What is the status of the OTO in New York?
A. We have lodge with several satellite groups, camps and chapters, which we have given birth over the years. We have about 80 members, I would say, in the area of these different camps and chapters.
We're fully equipped to maintain up to the PI actually and have initiated into the Fifth Degree with Mr. McMurtry's supervision.
Q. The PI Degree, does that mean the Sixth?
A. No. The PI Degree --
Q. Oh, that's right. [page 414]
A. -- is the Degree following the Fourth Degree, and it is the conclusion of the Man of Earth Triad of the Order.
Q. I see.
A. We have fully activated the Man of Earth Triad in New York City.
Q. I would like to read to you several quotations that Mr. Motta has printed:
" 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 have
been expelled from the OTO or
lost contact with the A.'.A.'. for
conduct unbecoming."
You testified you're both a member of the OTO and A.'.A.'.. Do you remain a member of the A.'.A.'.?
A. Yes, I do, sir.
Q. Have you ever been expelled from either organization?
A. No, I have not.
Q. He states:
"James Wasserman disobeyed all his
instructions and delivered the [page 415]
property into the hands of thieves,
has been instrumental in the
piracy of OTO copyright."
Do you believe that's true?
A. I believe it's absolutely untrue. On the contrary.
I have made every effort to see that the OTO copyright is respected.
Q. ARe you familiar with the "Equinox" Volume 5B No. 2 {SIC sb. "Volume V, No. 2" -weh} put out by Thelema Publishing Company?
A. I am familiar with the conceding {SIC mb. "conceit" -pla} of calling that an "Equinox", yes.
Q. With the what?
A. I refer to that as a pseudo "Equinox".
Q. And do you know who wrote this book?
A. Yes. Mr. Motta.
Q. Does he discuss you in it?
A. Yes, he does.
Q. I'd like to --
MR. MacKENZIE: I do not have another copy of this, Your Honor.
THE COURT: That's all right.
BY MR. MacKENZIE:
Q. If you would --
A. "An expropriation of" --
Q. What page are you on in that book? [page 416]
A. Page 397.
Q. Thank you.
A. "An expropriation of James
Wasserman, a fellow with a
singular lack of moral fiber."
Moving on:
"I still remember my letter to
the late Wasserman."
Q. I see. Do you believe that a person unfamiliar with you would -- what do you think would read into that?
MR. MITTEL: Objection; relevancy, foundation.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. MacKENZIE:
Q. What has been you personal reaction to having this writing of Mr. Motta you just read?
A. He has considered -- continued to mention my name in this type of libelous context in nearly every book he's published since this one.
He's called me dead, a thief, a liar, constant, year by year.
Q. He's done that in more books than this?
A. Oh, yes.
Q. How many other books would you say? [page 417]
A. Well, I would -- you know I would have to say there are probably at least six others of five others that --
MR. MITTEL: Objection; Best Evidence.
THE WITNESS: -- he has called -- they were clients'; books, Mr. Mittel, --
THE COURT: It's foundational.
The objection is overruled.
BY MR. MacKENZIE:
Q. Go ahead.
A. -- continuing publication after publication.
Q. Okay.
A. They started in 1979. So it's gone on through his most recent book published in 1984. And it's been five years.
Q. And what's the title of his most recent book?
A. "Magick Without Tears."
Q. And what were your personal reactions?
I'm talking physical, if you had any.
A. I would say that it caused a nervous stress. It's caused a great deal of emotional anguish and a great deal of wasted energy. His claims -- the claim which angers me the most and which is why I joined this lawsuit was his claim about my working on the book which he's repeated several times, which I never touched, because that is my profession and he hasn't -- [page 418]
Q. What is your profession?
A. My profession is publishing; my profession is book design, packaging, edition, book production. Okay? This is my field, my industry, my life. And I need -- and Thelemic publishing particularly is my specialty.
And he accused me of working on a book that I find utterly reprehensible, entirely unThelemic and another act of lunacy equal only to his own.
And I had nothing whatsoever to do with the publication of that other book.
Q. Are you familiar with any of he SOTO rituals?
A. This -- I am somewhat familiar, having had one been described to me by someone who underwent the rituals.
Q. And can you compare these rituals with the ritual of Aleister Crowley and the "Blue Equinox"?
MR. MITTEL: Objection; hearsay. If he's relying on what the other person told him as the basis of his knowledge.
THE COURT: Oh, I think he can compare them on the basis of his knowledge.
Objection overruled.
THE WITNESS: There's absolutely no similarity.
BY MR. MacKENZIE:
Q. Have you ever seen any evidence that Mr. Motta is a [page 419] member of the OTO?
A. No.
Q. Direct initiatory evidence?
A. Are you asking me if I've seen a certificate or a charter?
Q. Yes.
A. No.
Q. Thank you.
Have you remained in the publishing field since beginning with Samuel Weiser?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. And what is you position at this time?
A. I am now the Operations Manager of another cult {SIC sb. "occult" -pla -def} publishing company.
Q. May I show you Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 77, previously been entered.
Do you recognize that?
A. Yes, I do.
Although I think I have two copies of page 3 here. And I don't have a copy of page 2.
THE COURT: What's the number?
THE WITNESS: 77.
BY MR. MacKENZIE:
Q. Is this something that Mr. Motta has prepared?
A. Yes. [page 420]
Q. Do you know in what conjunction he prepared that for?
A. Yes. Weiser at this time had agreed to publish his -- what will later become this book, and --
Q. I'm sorry. When you say "this book,' what book are you talking about?
A. What would later become his "Equinox 5B", {SIC sb. "'Equinox' V, 2" -pla} his commentary No. 65. And this was the manuscript for typesetting for the OTO Manifesto which he wanted to appear in the book.
Q. Is this the Manifesto in which he recognizes Grady McMurtry?
A. Yes.
Q. And what kind of recognition does he have of Grady McMurtry based on that second paragraph?
A. Well, he states that Mr. McMurtry, Ninth Degree OTO by patent of documented Ninth, Tenth, Eleventh Degree OTO, duly ratified by Saturnus, Tenth Degree OTO. {SIC}
Q. Is Saturnus the karl Germer --
A. Yes.
Q. -- who did the ratification?
Final question: You testified that you had formerly edited some of his works and that you have read some of the works that he's published since that time.
A. Yes. [page 421]
Q. Based on that knowledge, can you briefly state or qualify what Mr. Motta is writing about the OTO -- is he staying consistent?
A. In his publishing of Aleister Crowley, what I detect is -- again from a professional understanding of the process involved in preparing a manuscript or a book, that process requires an editor -- the manuscript is really the first part of a book.
And by the time the actual book is published, it's a far different entity. It has subjected itself to external criticism and review, to an analysis of consistency and to a back-and-forth interchange between author and editor, which gives it a certain professionalism to publishing and eliminates unnecessary mistakes --
Q. Yes.
A. -- which are bound to flow, anything that is short -- logic, and all that stuff, ask other people to look at it. Just because I know some of this stuff --
Q. Yes.
A. -- his work has deteriorated immensely.
Q. In what manner?
A. He makes -- it is impossible to read Crowley in a Mr. Motta book any longer.
By the time -- he interferes so many times [page 422] within the sentences that there is no coherence to Crowley's writings any longer.
MR. MacKENZIE: Thank you very much.
No further questions.
MR. MITTEL: Your Honor, could I have a few minutes before I start my cross-examination?
THE COURT: I guess we might as well take a ten-minute recess, ladies and gentlemen.
You may step down for a few minutes, Mr. Wasserman.
(Brief recess taken.)
THE COURT: You may proceed, Mr. Mittel.
MR. MITTEL: Thank you, Your Honor.
CROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR. MITTEL:
Q. Good morning, Mr. Wasserman.
Towards the end of direct examination you were saying that one of your concerns about the alleged defamatory remarks was some commentaries about you becoming involved in some publication of a book that you hadn't worked on.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Let me show you Exhibit {SIC sb. "Equinox" -def} 5, No. 3, entitled "The Chinese Text of Magic Mysticism" by Aleister Crowley published by Thelema Publishing Company in 1980, and ask [page 423] you to read, if you will, the last sentence on page 459.
A. Okay.
"No doubt it is felt that that
condition {SIC sb. "addition" -def} would weaken the
stand of the venous poison pen {SIC instead of "venous poison pen" sb. "Phoenix possibly" -def]
of James Wasserman, what we {SIC sb. "by James Wasserman who we" -def}
have been told now about the {SIC instead of "now about" sb. "is now" -def}
he-man pen size of this parrot {SIC instead of "he man pens size" sb. "amanuensis" -def}}."
Q. Now, is that the material that you were referring to?
A. Some of it, yes, sir. There is another reference in another book that I am a mystic {SIC}. He said it in a Thelema Publishing book, in a later book.
Q. Do you make reference anywhere in your Complaint to either of those statements?
Would you look at the Complaint, and in particular the pages on which the libels, the alleged libels, are set out?
A. Well, see, I didn't have this document. This was done here in California by the Order. And I didn't realize that that had been excluded about he libels; I hadn't been excluded in any of the other --
Q. So certain --
A. We also -- we didn't say in my Complaint that he said I was dead. [page 424]
Q. Let me just ask you: Is the material that you just read and the similar material in the other book referred to anywhere in your Complaint?
A. No, I don't think so.
MR. MITTEL: That being the case, Your Honor, which I wasn't sure when he testified, I move to strike his answer to that question --
THE COURT: Well, --
MR. MITTEL: -- and all of the testimony --
THE COURT: Well, the testimony can stand.
MR. MacKENZIE: Your Honor, the libel has been done since the Complaint was filed --
THE WITNESS: He published --
MR. MacKENZIE: -- after we filed this Complaint.
THE COURT: Well, I'm going to leave the record where it is at the moment.
BY MR. MITTEL:
Q. Mr. Wasserman, you testified about a letter that Mr. Motta wrote you in 1974 in which he told you that he wasn't going to contest anybody's right to publish Crowley.
A. Yes.
Q. Do you remember that? [page 425]
He when on to say in the letter:
"What is my legal position as
'Magickal Son' from the point of
view of copyright laws? I
wonder."
Do you remember that?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you, as a result of the inquiry in this letter, undertake to conduct an investigation of that answer for him?
A. Yes. Over the next several years I certainly did.
Q. And over the next several years, did you gather a lot of information that you didn't previously have?
A. Yes. WE gathered together cooperatively, sure.
Q. The Aleister Crowley will being one such document?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. The Karl Germer unprobated will being another such document?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You also consulted copyright counsel in New York; is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. And Copyright counsel in New York told you that Mr. Motta did, indeed, have a copyright infringement case that could be brought against publishers who are [page 426] publishing Crowley material without permission; is that correct?
A. What he said at the time --
MR. MacKENZIE: Objection. I think that's hearsay.
THE COURT: Well, I think -- that's not really hearsay. I don't think we should be involved in what could be proved or said by the copyright counsel, but simply Mr. Wasserman's knowledge of what the circumstances were at that time.
So I'm going to overrule the objection.
BY MR. MITTEL:
Q. Please answer.
A. Okay. What we were discussion primarily at that time -- we were focusing -- the focus at that point was a legitimate claim to ownership of copyrights.
And, yes, he said that for a hundred thousand dollars and a great deal of legal research, transcontinental and -- to Europe, that this could be probably, in his opinion, secured.
Q. Was also some of the things that you learned, one of the documents that you discovered from Mr. Motta while you were conducting this research the fact that Kenneth Grant had been expelled -- [page 427]
A. That's --
Q. -- by Karl Germer?
A. No. That's something I knew earlier. That was published by Francis King, I believe, two times in 1973. He published it in the secret rituals, and I believe he published it in a book called "Ritual Magick" in England about 1972.
Q. Do you know if Mr. Motta had ever seen those books?
A. I know he saw them later during the course of our investigation, yes.
Q. He was living in Brazil, wasn't he --
A. Yes, he was.
Q. -- when he wrote this letter in 1974?
A. Yes, he was.
Q. Do you know if those books were published in Brazil?
A. Those were certainly not published in Brazil.
Q. Now, you also testified that you asked Mr. Motta if he would initiated you into the Ordo Templi Orientis?
A. Yes.
Q. And he told -- before you had asked him that question, had you also discussed with him what you had learned about Mr. McMurtry and his activity on behalf of the Ordo Templi Orientis in California?
A. I don't really remember discussion Mr. McMurtry [page 428] with him at that time. I never met Mr. McMurtry. I was somewhat aware of his claims, general knowledge in the whole community. But it was very peripheral at that point.
Q. Well, had you read about Mr. McMurtry's claim in "Gnostic", G-n-o-s-t-i-c {SIC sb. "Gnostica" -weh} News published by Lewellyn (phonetic)?
A. Yes, I had briefly reviewed it. My interest was -- at that period of time was A.'.A.'.. And my interest was in Mr. MOtta. I had reviewed Mr. McMurtry's claims.
Q. And as another portion of your investigation that you were conducting for Mr. Motta after 1974, had you, indeed, given some consideration to Mr. McMurtry's position?
A. Had I given consideration to his position prior to reading him? Is that you question?
Q. Yes, sir.
A. Not really.
Q. But you had thought about it?
A. Not really. I mean I was aware that he was publishing. And I wasn't very concerned with the OTO at all.
So I didn't really think too much about Mr. McMurtry.
Q. You were aware that he was functioning as a member [page 429] of the Ordo Templi Orientis?
A. Yes, I was.
Q. In California?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you told that to Mr. Motta when you were in Brazil?
A. I may have sent him a Gnostic Article. I believe I did in one of my letters.
Q. Before you went to Brazil?
A. Yes.
Q. So then it stands to reason that Mr. Motta knew of Mr. McMurtry's activity when you went to Brazil?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And didn't he say to you that the reason he would not initiate you in Brazil was because you were a citizen of the United States and there was an ongoing Ordo Templi Orientis chapter in the United States and that you should seek initiation from them?
A. That is exactly what he told me, in addition that he was not chartered to do it himself, because I was a U.S. citizen.
Q. But he didn't tell you, for instance, that he didn't have the power to initiate Brazilian citizens?
A. Oh, no. On the contrary, he told me that he did have the power. [page 430]
Q. And, in fact, he had lodge in Brazil --
A. Yes.
Q. -- with a number of members?
A. Yes.
Q. and that this lodge was of the Ordo Templi Orientis?
A. Yes.
Q. The rituals of the Ordo Templi Orientis, "Blue Equinox" and other controlling, governing documents teach that they're to be kept secret and confidential; is that right?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And they remained secret and confidential until their publication by Francis King in 1972?
A. '73, I believe.
Q. And thereafter what they said was available to anybody?
A. Well, yes and no. If you -- and you, I know, have reviewed Francis King's material. You can see that it's very hieroglyphic in magnitude of the degrees.
So it was really available, but without the keys to what the long series of initial strings they're referring to it would be very hard to use those rituals.
Q. You also, I think, made reference to Aleister Crowley's Ordo Templi Orientis, did you not? [page 431]
A. Yes, I did.
Q. It's not Aleister Crowley's; in fact, it never was Aleister Crowley's Ordo Templi Orientis, was it?
A. It was reformed by Aleister Crowley, but it was the first -- he called it the Magickal Order of Antiquity, to accept "The Book of the Law."
Q. But the point is it's an organization that, so to speak, belongs to the members. There just happened to be somebody who is Outer Head of the Order?
A. Crowley's our prophet. He's dead, so he can no longer the the Outer Head. He is our prophet.
Q. Now, I understand that. But what I'm asking is: While the Outer Head is above, the Outer Head doesn't own the Order?
A. Oh, no. No.
Q. You testified that you went to California on behalf of Mr. Weiser and also on behalf of Mr. Motta.
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Do you know what Mr. Motta was doing for a living, how he was employed when you went to California?
A. Yes. He was an engineer.
Q. In Brazil?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you know what he was earning?
A. No, I don't. [page 432]
Q. Did you ask him to send you money?
A. No, I don't believer that I did.
Q. Now, shortly before you went to California, did you send Mr. Motta a letter that's been marked as Defendants' Exhibit 60?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And that's your signature at the bottom?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. Would you read to the Court, please, the highlighted material?
A. "It is clear that Phyllis McMurtry
cannot be trusted from that
letter."
Q. And Phyllis McMurtry is the same Phyllis Seckler who sits at the plaintiff's table?
A. Yes.
MR. MITTEL: Your Honor, defendants offer Defendants' 60. That's one of the contested exhibits, although I don't think there's going to be an objection.
MR. MacKENZIE: No objection, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Has it been separately marked?
MR. MITTEL: Yes.
THE COURT: Exhibit 60 may be admitted into evidence. [page 433]
(Defendants' Exhibit No. 60 previously marked for identification was received in evidence.)
BY MR. MITTEL:
Q. So when you had the instructions from Mr. Motta that you were to cooperate with the people in California and, in particular, the ladies, as you called them, you shared his concern also that he reflected when he warned you about them?
A. Oh, absolutely.
Q. Now, after the trip to Calaveras County and the gathering of documents, or at some point while that was going on, you had a discussion with Mr. McMurtry and Miss Seckler about cataloging and photocopying the documents, did you not?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And you made some type of arrangement with them whereby you were going to come back from New York and do all that?
A. Yes.
Q. And you were going to make those copies for Mr. Motta?
A. Yes.
Q. And you kept that intent in mind after you had gone back to New York? [page 434]
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And you still had it in mind after you had received Mr. Motta's letter telling you that you'd been cut off?
A. Yes. I still had it in mind.
Q. And, in fact, even after you had read the commentary in his letter that he didn't care what you did, as you put it, with the power of attorney; is that right?
A. Did I put it that way, or did he put it what way?
Q. I think that's the way you described it.
A. Okay. Yes, --
Q. You still --
A. -- I was intending --
MR. MacKENZIE: Objection on the grounds of relevancy, Your Honor.
I think that the defendant is trying to make his case in chief of the conversion or breach of duty by Mr. Wasserman. He's not really talking impeachment here.
THE COURT: Well, it's relevant to the subject matter of what you asked him about his activity in California and the termination of his relationship with Mr. Motta.
I think it's relevant to the direct examination. [page 435]
BY MR. MITTEL:
Q. And if Mr. McMurtry or Miss Seckler or Mrs. Smith said that there was no such conversation and there was no such agreement, they would not be telling the truth, would they?
A. They would have been interpreting our conversations a lot differently than I did.
Q. Now, you also testified that -- let me withdraw that question.
As the time past {SIC sb. "passed" -weh} from May of 1976 through June and into July, Mr. Motta began to express concern to you about the reliability of the members of the Ordo Templi Orientis in California?
A. Yes.
Q. And if you can summarize, what was the nature of his concern?
A. It would change a good deal, but the -- between supporting him and telling me to trust them and saying that they couldn't be trusted and he was concerned, the primary issues he would raise would be Sascha's -- Mrs. Germer's accusations against Phyllis' daughter in the library thievery.
He was very concerned about how the two parts boxes of the Germer Library, which we later understood how that happened {SIC}. [page 436]
And he was concerned that they hadn't done enough legally to establish their right as OTO.
Q. Would it be inaccurate to say that he didn't think they were trustworthy?
A. Depending on the letter. I would rally have to qualify that answer, depending on the letter.
Q. But --
A. He seemed to have a great deal of trust in Helen Parsons Smith. That seemed to be the theme to me that ran through everything: trust Helen; do not trust Phyllis.
Q. But as for Mr. McMurtry and Miss Seckler, there was some concern about their trustworthiness?
A. He said very little about Mr. McMurtry. He left that open, because I think he knew him less than he knew the ladies.
Q. But ultimately he came to share your concern expressed in Defendants' Exhibit 60 about the trustworthiness of Miss Seckler; is that right?
A. The letter was written before I met her, yes.
Q. And ultimately Miss Seckler took the library and prevented you from copying it; is that right?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And ultimately, in fact, either by her doing or someone else's doing, the library disappeared; is that [page 437] right?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And, in fact, you think it was by her doing that the library disappeared, don't you?
A. I have thought that over the years. I don't think it any longer.
I certainly thought that when I deposed myself to you, or when you took my deposition.
Q. And during the trial in Maine also; is that right?
A. I don't know if I said it in Maine. I'm not sure. I know I was strong in 1983 about that -- I have since had contact with Phyllis Seckler -- prior to my deposition.
And I always had divided feelings about her at that time, because -- letters also say that I liked her a great deal. But I was horrified by her sequestering of the library and extremely suspicious when she claimed that it had been taken from her.
Q. And so ultimately, of course, Mr. Motta's concerns were justified?
A. In a painful kind of way for all of us, yes.
Q. Let me read to you your testimony during the trial in Maine --
A. All right.
MR. MITTEL: -- at page 231 and 232 of the [page 438] transcript, Your Honor.
"QUESTION: Now, you said that the
library was put in some alternate
storage site?
"ANSWER: To my knowledge.
"QUESTION: And it was then
stolen?
"ANSWER: To my knowledge, as
they say.
"QUESTION: And you believe
that Phyllis Seckler stole it:
is that right?
"ANSWER: I may or may not.
"QUESTION: Well, you have
testified under oath before
that you believed that, did
you not?
"ANSWER: I testified under
oath that I could conceive of
that as a possibility, yes.?
BY MR. MITTEL:
Q. Was that your testimony in Maine?
A. Yes, it sounds like it.
I don't think that at that point I accused her. I think I said I could conceive of her having done it.
Q. The OTO Manifesto, that is Plaintiffs' Exhibit 77, about which you've testified.
A. Is this the a manuscript we're discussing, the manuscript -- [page 439]
Q. So there's no confusion, let me show it to you.
A. Yes, I recognize it.
Q. Now, this is a draft; am I right?
A. Yes.
Q. Was it published in this form?
A. No. Weiser never did to book.
Q. Let me show you Defendant's Exhibit 64, which is a letter dated July 19, 1976 from you to Mr. Motta.
Let me ask you to read from what is marked as page 4.
MR. MITTEL: Although in the way the exhibit is now compiled, Your Honor, it's on page -- page 7.
THE WITNESS: Okay.
BY MR. MITTEL:
Q. And I've highlighted what I'd like you to read.
A. Okay.
"I have told Grady and Phyllis
that if there be a great conflict
between you and them, I would be
forced to withdraw from our
association."
Q. There is more, I believe.
Q. Oh, I'm sorry. This is the covering.
Q. Let me see. [page 440]
A. Down here, too?
Q. Thank you.
Did you -- or was there a great conflict between Mr. Motta and -- on the one hand and Mr. McMurtry and miss Seckler on the other?
A. Well, sir, remembering the chronology of the thing, the first conflict was between Mr. Motta and myself. He cut me off in the July 26th letter.
And, of course, there was a later conflict between them, but I --
Q. And you did not withdraw from Mr. McMurtry's and Miss Seckler's association, did you?
A. Oh, no. Had Mr. Motta not written me his July 26th letter, I probably would have.
Q. Well, you certainly admired Mr. Motta after you received his July 27th letter, didn't you?
A. "Admired" him?
Q. Yes, sir.
A. I have had -- I have very divided feelings about Mr. Motta. I don't remember -- at the time I received the letter, I still admired him.
Q. And you continued to admire him after that, didn't you?
A. My memory of our relationship --
Q. Let me show you Defendants' Exhibit 67, again. [page 441]
Let me ask you to read the top paragraph on Page 2, if you would, please?
A. "I must explain something to you
about Marcelo Motta and my
relationship with him. He has
helped me more than any single
individual in my life. I owe
him and feel for him the
greatest of loyalty, friendship
and respect. Also in my
estimation, he is not deluded
in calling himself the Grand
Translator {SIC in place of "Grand Translator" sb. "Praemonstrator" -def} of the A.'.A.'.. The
fact that he has cut off with
me does not mean that he has
given me up."
Q. And, in fact, when he cut off with you, all he did was say he would have no direct dealings with you; you must deal with his association, Mr. Gunther?
A. Yes.
Q. So he had not put you in a position where your only alternative was remaining loyal to Mr. McMurtry and Miss Seckler?
A. No. I was loyal to Mr. Gunther and Mr. McMurtry and Miss Seckler, et al., and Mr. Motta. There's not [page 442] very much I said in that letter that I do not refute today except that I no longer share the same opinion about the Translator {SIC in place of "Translator" sb. "Praemonstrator" -def} of the A.'.A.'..
Mr. Motta has done a great deal for me.
Q. I think you said that you were employed by Samuel Weiser?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. From when until when?
A. 1972, I believe, to '77.
Q. And do I understand that it's your opinion that that company has misused Aleister Crowley copyrights?
A. No. As I said to you before, Mr. Mittel, I don't feel that way.
With the exception of Mr. Motta's book, everything else that had been done by Weiser up to that time was public domain with the exception of things that were being published in England and distributed by Mr. Weiser in the United States.
He profited from the situation, but he never directly profited from --
MR. MacKENZIE: Your Honor, I don't see any relevance in bringing the Weiser Publishing Company into this. That issue has been settled to the detriment of the defendants in Maine.
THE COURT: The objection is overruled. [page 443] I'll let the question and answer stand.
BY MR. MITTEL:
Q. Let me read you a question and answer from the transcript of the trial in Mane, page 600:
"And you also thought that
Mr. Weiser was engaged in
the legal abuse of OTO
copyrights.
"ANSWER: Mr. Weiser was
profiting, certainly, from
illegal use of those copy-
rights taking place primarily
in England and certainly by
buying the books from them,
yes."
A. Isn't that just what I said, Mr. Mittel?
Q. I don't think so.
Now, you were working for Mr. Weiser when he was doing that, were you not?
A. Yes, I was.
Q. And "illegal abuse of copyrights," is that the same as perhaps piracies of the copyrights?
A. The term is Mr. Motta's, and I would not agree that they're equivalent.
Q. When you came to California on behalf of Mr. Motta, you had instructions to, among other things, obtain copies of the Crowley-Germer library for him didn't you?
A. Yes. [page 444]
Q. No question about that?
A. No question about that.
Q. And you didn't do that, did you?
A. It was impossible for me to do it when I was here. I would have had to go back to New York, as I was on Weiser's expense --
Q. And one of your more specific instructions was to ultimately not cooperate with Mr. McMurtry and Miss Seckler in obtaining possession of the library; is that right?
A. To not cooperate?
Q. Yes. Ultimately that's what he told you on July 10th?
A. Mr. Mittel, I explained to you that I received the July 10th letter in Los Angeles. When I returned to San Francisco, it was Sunday the 25th. The hearing was on Monday the 26th.
So prior to my going out there and making four days' worth of arrangements with the tree others involved, I had no such instruction.
After I had finished my mission, I received further instruction from him, yes.
Q. Well, Mr. Wasserman, Mr. Motta had not told you prior to July 10th to cooperate with Mr. McMurtry, had he? [page 445]
A. What I understood my responsibilities were were to best protect Mr. Motta's legal interests and secure copyright -- excuse me -- secure copies of the library.
Q. Well, hadn't he told you in several letters on several occasions that you were to -- Mr. McMurtry was not to have any role in your activity, that Mr. McMurtry was not acceptable unless he could show appropriate documentation and ultimately that he was not acceptable at all?
A. That's not what he told me.
MR. MITTEL: I've heeded your admonition, Your Honor. I don't want to belabor that on cross.
If he could do that on direct, then I will.
THE COURT: Yes.
BY MR. MITTEL:
Q. Ultimately what happened was that the library came into the possession of Phyllis Seckler; is that right?
A. It came into the possession of the Order, and Phyllis Seckler was holding the physical property.
Q. And you didn't phone anybody from Los Angeles to say: "Mr. Motta doesn't want you to do that. I don't want to cooperate"?
A. Pardon me?
Q. I said you didn't phone any of he plaintiffs when you were in Los Angeles on July 19th, 20th, 21st, 22nd? [page 446]
A. No. No. I received Mr. Motta's letter of the 21st and, no, I did not phone anyone. I phoned Mr. Gunther and -- or actually Mr. Gunther phoned me.
Q. That was on the 19th?
A. That was on the 19th.
Q. And you didn't go to court on July the 26th?
A. No, I did not.
Q. And you didn't take the opportunity to go to the court and stand up and say, "I'm here on behalf of Marcelo Motta who claims to be the conservator of these books and on behalf of the Ordo Templi Orientis," did you?
A. No, I did not.
Q. And as a result of that, Mr. McMurtry and Miss Seckler and Mrs. Smith came into possession of the books?
A. As a result of that, the OTO regained possession of this property, yes.
Q. And later, at least possibly, Phyllis Seckler stole those books and those documents; is that right?
A. My best understanding is that the library was lost.
Q. And it was at her hands that it was lost?
A. Yes.
MR. MITTEL: That's all I have, Your Honor. [page 447]
THE COURT: Thank you.
Do you have any redirect?
MR. MacKENZIE: Yes, Your Honor.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. MacKENZIE:
Q. You mentioned that you saw a New York attorney about Mr. Motta's claims?
A. Yes.
Q. When did you see him, what year?
A. I saw him before I went to California. In fact, it was between my visit to Mr. Motta in Brazil and my going to California.
Q. So you saw him before you had seen Mr. McMurtry's letters of authentification?
A. Oh, absolutely. That's why I was in a position to make a judgment on his letters.
Q. Were you in a position to talk to that attorney about the claims of Mr. McMurtry?
A. Not at that time, no. I was not.
Q. Now, Defendants' Exhibit 60 that you were shown, which is the July 7th -- or July 6th letter --
A. Right.
Q. -- where were you when you wrote that.?
A. I was in New York. I had just received a letter from Phyllis Seckler stating that she did not want her [page 448] name mentioned in any publication -- and I felt that she -- and I believe she threatened to take legal action if her name was mentioned.
Q. Had you met her before the time you wrote this letter?
A. No.
Q. Well, when you say: "It is clear that Phyllis McMurtry cannot be trusted," what did you base that on?
A. Well, for one thing I had a lot of constant filling-in of biographical details by Mr. Motta.
And it was always this business with her, in particular.
And when I received this letter, it did not some like a real gung-ho statement to me.
Q. So the primary reason for your stating that was based on thins that Mr. Motta had told you in the past?
MR. MITTEL: Objection; leading.
THE COURT: I think it is proper.
Overrulled.
THE WITNESS: Combined with her letter, which --
BY MR. MacKENZIE:
Q. One letter?
A. One letter that she had written to the publishing company, yes. [page 449]
Q. I showed you plaintiffs's Exhibit 131, which is the July 26th letter from Mr. Motta.
A. Yes.
Q. Did you feel that you had any obligations for procuring him the library after having read that letter?
A. The obligations that I would have felt at that time were concerned strictly with my own personal honor and --
Q. In other words, it was a moral feeling?
A. Yes.
Q. Does the A.'.A.'. have any rights to the library?
A. No. The A.'.A.'. is not -- does not include a concept of legal rights.
Q. Do you know for a fact who took the library in 1979?
A. Who took the library in 1979?
Q. The theft of it?
A. I don't have the slightest idea.
Q. Where were you living in 1979?
A. In New York.
Q. How old were you in 1976 when all this was going on?
A. I believe I was 25, 26.
Q. Mr. Mittel asked you if you didn't have some kind of a loyalty towards Gernon, Richard Gernon. [page 450]
A. Richard Gernon? Yes.
MR. MITTEL: Objection. That's a misleading characterization of the question.
THE COURT: What was the question --
MR. MacKENZIE: Let me re --
THE COURT: Well, introduce it differently, then. You're just introducing the subject matter, I assume?
MR. MacKENZIE: Yes.
BY MR. MacKENZIE:
Q. Did you state that you had some loyalty towards Richard Gernon at this time --
A. My loyalty to Mr. Gernon is a personal friendship as well as Order loyalty. But I believe it is Mr. Gunther that we're referring to.
Q. I'm sorry. Mr. Gunther.
-- and that you had feelings of loyalty after the Calaveras Court decree, but during that time as well?
A. Certainly.
Q. Was Mr. Gunther a member of the A.'.A.'.?
A. Yes, he was.
Q. And was he a member of the OTO?
A. There was no OTO.
MR. MacKENZIE: No further questions. [page 451]
THE WITNESS: Oh, excuse me.
He was a member of the OTO. He had been initiated by Grady at that time.
BY MR. MacKENZIE:
Q. Plaintiffs' OTO?
A. No, there was no plaintiffs' OTO
Q. All right. But initiated by Grady and not by Mr. Motta?
A. No, wait. I'm --
Q. We're talking about the OTO. You tell me.
A. Okay. Since I'm a plaintiff in this case, plaintiffs' OTO was the organization to which Mr. Gunther belonged as of July 27th 1976.
Defendants' OTO did not exist as of this date in the United States.
Q. And Mr. Gunther's association with Mr. Motta at that time was through the A.'.A.'.?
A. Strictly.
MR. MacKENZIE: Thank you.
RECROSS EXAMINATION
BY MR. MITTEL:
Q. Did I understand you to testify a moment ago that you had not seen Mr. McMurtry's authorization and so-called Caliphate letters until you went to California? [page 452]
A. What I said was I had not paid any attention to them. They were not included in my brief to Mr. Mishkin at all. They -- I -- they were, to my mind, irrelevant to what I was dealing with.
Q. But you had seen them; they had been in --
A. Published in Gnostic {SIC sb. "Gnostica" -weh}, yes.
Q. And also had been in "In the Continuum" published by Mr. McMurtry and Miss Seckler?
A. I had never seen that publication.
And, as I said, I had sent a copy of the Gnostic {SIC sb. "Gnostica" -weh} to Mr. Motta.
Q. So you had seen the documents?
A. Yes.
MR. MITTEL: Thank you.
Nothing further.
THE COURT: Mr. Wasserman, I have a couple of questions I'd like to ask you.
THE WITNESS: Sure.
THE COURT: You have been in the publishing business?
THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: When did you first come across a publication bearing the name of Thelema?
THE WITNESS: I remember it very well, because it was, I believe, 1970 when Helen Parsons Smith [page 453] put out the "Sheegee" (phonetic) {SIC sb. "Shi Yi" -pla sb. "The Shih Ji" -def}, and I was close by to her. I was in California. And I was considering stopping to meet her, because she --
THE COURT: And what year was that?
THE WITNESS: I believer it was 1970, Your Honor.
THE COURT: And this was publishing done by Mrs. Smith?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE COURT: Thank you very much. You may step down.
(Witness excused.)
MR. MacKENZIE: Your Honor, could we take a short break at this point, and I'll call my next witness?
THE COURT: Yes, sure.
MR. MacKENZIE: Thank you.
THE COURT: Just a five- or ten-minute recess, please.
(Brief morning recess taken.)
THE COURT: Are you ready to proceed, Mr. MacKenzie?
MR. MacKENZIE: Yes, Your Honor. I'd like to call Martin Starr to the stand. He's informed me he would like to have the fee-thinkers' oath administered. [page 454]
MARTIN P. STARR,
Called as a witness by the plaintiffs, having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as hereinafter set forth.
THE COURT: Would you please be seated and state your full name and spell your last name for the record?
THE WITNESS: My name is Martin Patrick Starr, S-t-a-r-r.
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. MacKENZIE:
Q. Mr. Starr, where do you reside?
A. I reside in Chicago, Illinois.
MR. MITTEL: Your Honor, at this point I would like to object to any further testimony offered by this witness on the grounds that he was not identified in the Answers to the Contention Interrogatories which we served sometime in the early spring of `984 and which were answered, Supplemental Answers were filed, Further Supplemental Answers were filed.
MR. MacKENZIE: Your Honor, there is a very simple reason for that.
Until January of this year, Mr. Starr was Mr. Motta's main associate. He did not quit his association with SOTO until January. [page 455]
I never spoke with him until, I believe, March of this year.
Mr. Mittel sent all the Interrogatories, at least I would say, about a year prior to that.
I had no knowledge that Mr. Starr would be my witness until two months ago.
I think he's absolutely invaluable because he's been with Mr. Motta for five years. He's aware of virtually every element of this case.
And what's more, he assisted Mr. Mittel during the entire time in his trial preparation. This is absolutely no surprise to Mr. Mittel.
THE COURT: When did you first advise the defendants of your intention to use Mr. Starr?
MR. MacKENZIE: At the time we were preparing the pretrial statement. I would say that was four, five weeks ago.
MR. MITTEL: I think that's about right.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. MacKENZIE: I would say I had known at that time -- well, I don't really know -- three weeks, four weeks. I'm not sure.
THE COURT: Well, I will overrule the objection to Mr. Starr's testimony and I will allow him to testify. [page 456]
MR. MacKENZIE: Thank you, Your Honor.
MR. MITTEL: Let me make a precautionary statement then.
As he did say, he worked with me in the preparation of the Maine case.
THE COURT: I'm sorry?
MR. MITTEL: He worked with me in assisting to prepare the lawsuit in Maine, so there may be a series of attorney-client objections.
THE COURT: You are certainly entitled to raise them.
MR. MITTEL: Pardon?
THE COURT: You are certainly entitled to raise them.
MR. MITTEL: Oh, I know.
I'm sort of warning the Court of things --
THE COURT: Yes, fine.
BY MR. MacKENZIE:
Q. Mr. Starr, what is your vocation?
A. I'm a graduate student at the University of Chicago.
Q. And what do your studies concern?
A. I study the history of science with particular emphasis on the history of the occult sciences.
Q. That is what you are doing your graduate work in? [page 457]
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And what did you do your undergraduate work in?
A. Classical languages and literature, Greek and Latin.
Q. Are you familiar with Mr. Motta?
A. Yes, I am.
Q. You've been affiliated with Mr. Motta?
A. For quite some time, sir.
Q. When did that begin?
A. It began in October of 1976 when I became a probationer of the A.'.A.'..
A. Who did you work with at that time in the A.'.A.'.?
A i initially was in contact with Mr. James Daniel Gunther of Nashville, Tennessee, who was his associate in the A.'.A.'..
Q. What role did Mr. Gunther play?
A. Mr. Gunther, to my knowledge, was Mr. Motta's sole direct student in the A.'.A.'. in the United States and the American head of what Mr. Motta terms the Order of Thelema.
Q. Do you know if Mr. Motta had an SOTO or OTO type of branch in the United States at that time?
A. No, he did not, sir.
Q. Were there any other members in the A.'.A.'. at the [page 458] time you joined other than Mr. Gunther and Mr. Gernon?
A. Not to my knowledge, sir.
Q. Did you ever discuss at this time the OTO itself?
A. No. There was absolutely no discussion of the OTO. Our matters at the time were solely concerned with the A.'.A.'..
THE COURT: I've lost who he's talking to, Mr. Motta or Mr. Gernon?
MR. MacKENZIE: No. I'm sorry, Your Honor.
This is with Mr. Gunther and Mr. Gernon.
BY MR. MacKENZIE:
Q. Let me ask you a preliminary question:
Was Mr. Motta in the United States at this time?
A. No, he was not, sir.
Q. Do you know when he first came to the United States in the 1970s?
A. Mr. Motta did not come to the United States in the 1970s; he came to the United States in July 1980.
Q. He was never in the United States in the 1970s, to you knowledge?
A. No, sir.
Q. Are the A.'.A.'. and the OTO related?
A. No, sir.
Q. Do you know if Mr. Gernon became involved with the [page 459] OTO?
A. When I first talked with Mr. Gernon on the telephone in, I believe, May of 1977 he indicated that he had been in California in July of 1976 and was then initiated into the plaintiffs" OTO.
Q. When did the SOTO develop?
A in May of 1977 I was informed by Richard Gernon that Mr. Motta had chartered James Daniel Gunther to be his OTO representative -- SOTO representative in the United States.
Q. To your knowledge, was Mr. Gunther an American citizen?
A. Yes, he is, sir.
Q. Do you know if he went to Brazil to get chartered?
A. No, he did not. This all done through the mail.
Q. So, in other words, prior to this SOTO in May of 1977, there was no SOTO?
A. That is correct.
Q. Where were you living at this time?
A. In May of 1977 I was living in St. Louis, Missouri.
Q. Did you ever live in Nashville?
A. Yes, I did. I resided in the academic year of 1977 and 1978 when I attended Vanderbilt University.
Q. Were you familiar with the SOTO at that time? [page 460]
A. Yes, I was. I had visited there that spring and had talked with people.
Q. Do you know how many members there were in the SOTO at that time?
A. There were approximately five to seven members.
Q. Now, did you know Mr. Gunther?
A. Yes, I did. We became very good friends once I moved there.
Q. Did you know him well?
A. Yes. I spent many, many hours discussing with him all the things that have been discussed in this courtroom.
Q. What kind of person -- could you describe him; what kind of a person is he?
A. Mr. Gunther, in my opinion, is a very highly principled, very honored -- honorable and a very intelligent person.
Q. Do you know how long he remained with the SOTO?
A. Yes. He was expelled by Mr. Motta in November of 1978. So a little bit more than one year he was a member.
Q. Do you know the reason for his expulsion?
A. Yes. He was accused of planning the murder or --
MR. MITTEL: Objection.
THE WITNESS: -- Mr. Motta's Brazilian [page 461] representative.
MR. MITTEL: I move to strike the answer.
THE COURT: Well, lay the foundation for the source of his knowledge.
BY MR. MacKENZIE:
Q. Do you have knowledge --
A. Yes.
Q. How do you know that?
A. Mr. Gunther came to me after these accusations had been brought forward and discussed the whole matter with me at very great length.
MR. MITTEL: Objection, hearsay.
THE COURT: I'm going to admit it as an exception to the hearsay rule.
BY MR. MacKENZIE:
Q. What was the reason again for his expulsion?
A. He had been accused of plotting the murder of Mr. Motta's Brazilian representative who was than in Nashville, Tennessee, Miss Caluida Canuto, C-a-n-u-t-o.
Q. And are you saying that Mr. Motta accepted this?
A. Yes, he did.
Q. And he based his expulsion upon this?
A. Yes, he did.
Q. Do you have any reason to know if these are true facts or accusations? [page 462]
A. To the best of my knowledge and from my knowledge of Mr. Gunther, they are utterly without merit.
Q. Do you have any idea why Mr. Motta may have done this?
A. Mr. Motta is an extremely suspicious individual and rends to believe the worst about everyone at any time.
I will go farther and say that his suspicions are paranoid.
MR. MITTEL: Objection; move to strike. No foundation.
THE COURT: The last sentence may be stricken.
BY MR. MacKENZIE:
Q. Are you familiar with what -- the state of mind of -- that's being described about Mr. And Mrs. Germer earlier during this trial?
A. Yes. I've read a great deal of their writings.
Q. Would you say that Mr. Motta's state of mind is similar to that?
A. Precisely, sir.
Q. Precisely similar?
A. Yes.
Q. Well, after you moved out to Nashville, what happened next?
A. In terms of what, sir? [page 463]
Q. Well, in terms of the A.'.A.'. or the SOTO.
A. Well, after Mr. Gunther was expelled, the situation in Nashville pretty much remained an even keel.
The work wend ahead, publishing of Mr. Motta's first book that he had issued in his country under his control, "Equinox 5-2" appeared.
Q. And who was the publishing company for that?
A. Well, it was printed under the imprint of Thelema Publishing Company, --
Q. I see.
A. -- a Tennessee corporation.
Q. I see. Thank you.
THE COURT: When was the publication?
THE WITNESS: It was in March of '79, Your Honor.
THE COURT: '79?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE COURT: Okay.
BY MR. MacKENZIE:
Q. Now let me make sure I understand. You were a member of A.'.A.'.?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you became a member of the SOTO?
A. That's correct.
Q. And when did you become a member of the SOTO? [page 464]
A. I became a member of the SOTO in November of 1979.
Q. As regards the A.'.A.'., after Mr. Gunther had been expelled -- was he expelled from the A.'.A.'. or the SOTO?
A. That's a point of contention. My conversation with -- mr. Gunther said that he never resigned from the A.'.A.'., yet Mr. Motta has published that he voluntarily withdrew, so that there's some disagreement.
Q. I see. Well, have you had any communication with Mr. Motta?
A. Yes. I've had very extensive communication with Mr. Motta.
Q. How extensive is that?
A. I would say approximately 40 letters, hundreds of phone calls, several personal meetings.
Q. Were you ever appointed -- well, what range did you achieve in the SOTO?
A. When I was admitted in the SOTO in November of 1979 I was admitted as a Director.
Q. By "Director," what do you mean?
A. Well, Mr. Motta had outlined a hierarchy in his SOTO and Director was one from the top.
Q. Is that like a Board of Directors --
A. Yes, sir.
Q. -- on a corporation?
A. Yes, sir. [page 465]
Q. Are we talking about -- well, is SOTO a corporation?
A. To my knowledge, sir.
Q. When you're saying "Director," do you mean the Board of Directors of the corporation?
A. I had always assumed that that was such.
Q. Do you know if SOTO incorporated anywhere else?
A. Yes.
Under my direction, it incorporated in Illinois. It incorporated in California. I believe attempts were made to incorporate it in England and in Australia and in Canada as well as in Brazil, when it was actually incorporated.
Q. As regards the countries, excluding Brazil, were all of these corporations after his Tennessee corporation?
A. Yes, sir, every one of them.
Q. And do you know if the Illinois corporation is still active?
A. It is no longer active, sir.
Q. Are any of the other corporations you spoke of active?
A. To my knowledge, the only one that -- excluding the Tennessee one -- that may be active is Australia, but I have no direct knowledge of that fact, sir.
Q. How long did you stay in Tennessee? [page 466]
A. I stayed in Tennessee for one academic year.
Q. And where did you go then?
A. In October of 1979 I returned to the University of Chicago where I had done my freshman year studies.
Q. Who else was on this Board of Directors?
A. At what time, sir?
Q. At the time you were a member of the Board of Directors.
MR. MITTEL: Objection; I think he is mischaracterizing the answer.
He didn't say he was on the Board of Directors; he said he didn't know.
MR. MacKENZIE: I'm not --
THE COURT: Well, who held the title of Director?
THE WITNESS: Very well. The title of Director was held by a Jeremy Charles Ellis of London, England, by a William Robert or Richard Barton of Melbourne Australia, by a Claudia Canuto of Nashville, Tennessee, and I believe that was all at that time.
BY MR. MacKENZIE:
Q. Is it your understanding that these people were members of the Board of Directors of the Tennessee corporation, SOTO?
A. Well, no, because none of them except me was an [page 467] American citizen. So I don't know if that's possible. The legal aspects of that I'm unaware of.
Q. Where {SIC sb. "Were" -weh} there ever any Board of Directors' meetings?
A. Never.
Q. Have you seen corporate records?
A. Yes, I have. I examined Mr. Motta's files in December of 1983 when I spent a week at his house.
Q. Well, did Mr. Motta ever consult the Board of Directors regarding the SOTO action that he wanted?
A. Consult in what sense?
Q. Well, for their approval.
A. No. Our approval was not required and most often never sought for any action he took. And to ever go in opposition to any direction that he wanted to take put you in immediate peril of expulsion, as he took great pains to point out whenever such suggestions were made.
Q. Would you say he's an arrogant man?
A. I would say --
MR. MITTEL: Objection; relevancy.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. MacKENZIE: Well, Your Honor, I think it goes to the state of mind of -- the issue here, because we have this libel in this case, and I believe that it was done with malice aforethought.
THE COURT: Well, if you want to ask [page 468] about any personal animosity which Mr. Motta had against any of the individual plaintiffs, but his general character is not an issue here.
MR. MacKENZIE: Well, I think, Your Honor, it supports in the way that the writings are produced by this man; it's just a trait of his character to thoughtlessly be putting out these books one after the other.
THE COURT: Well, I think the malice has to be more specifically directed than that.
I sustain the objection.
BY MR. MacKENZIE:
Q. Have you ever seen the Constitution of the SOTO?
A. Yes. I've seen two of them, an earlier typed version and a later printed version, which has some changes.
Q. Yes. What can you tell me about the Constitutions?
A. Well, in both Constitutions the absolute authority of Mr. Motta as supervisor, again, a title that he invented for himself is maintained.
In the firs Constitution there was a chapter on disciplinary norms which mentioned that if a member acted out of line that a request could be made to the Supervisor for the "elimination of the culprit."
Q. Do you know that that phrase "elimination" meant? [page 469]
A. Well, Mr. Motta uses it in a rather ambiguous sense. In one sense, the common sense acceptation of it I would think would mean the removal of a member from the SOTO.
However, I have seen him use it in letters and in a document he wrote in the '50s about the OTO where he was calling for the murder of people who acted out of line in the Order.
Q. What letter, if you remember, was that?
A. One letter I can thin of was a letter to the late Jeremy Charles Ellis, a British Director whom he expelled.
MR. MITTEL: Objection; Best Evidence.
Move to strike the answer.
THE COURT: Do you have that letter?
MR. MacKENZIE: Yes, we do have the letter.
THE COURT: Has it been placed in evidence?
MR. MacKENZIE: No, it has not, Your Honor.
It's going to be reserved for impeachment.
THE COURT: Since the witness has testified to it on direct examination, I think you should mark it for identification now.
MR. MacKENZIE: It will take just a minute to locate it. [page 470]
THE COURT: Well, why don't we -- please do move on with the testimony. We'll come back to that when it's located.
BY MR. MacKENZIE:
Q. Can you draw a comparison or contrast between SOTO's current Constitution and the "Blue Equinox's" 1917 constitution?
A. Yes, sir. I think they have absolutely no organizational relationship.
Q. Now, tell me again: When you lived in Nashville, you were a Director; is that correct?
A. No, sir. I did not become a Director until I returned to Chicago in October of 1979.
Q. Do you know about how many members there are of the SOTO at this time?
A. Internationally are you asking me, or in the United States?
A. No, in the United States.
A. I would say five, sever. No more than that.
Q. What were your duties --
THE COURT: I'm sorry. What portion of the SOTO, which organization?
MR. MacKENZIE: The SOTO's U.S. members.
BY MR. MacKENZIE:
Q. Did you have any other duties as Director? [page 471]
A. Yes, sir. I engaged in correspondence with people who were interested in becoming members of the SOTO. I engaged in research, background material for Mr. Motta's various publications, including gathering work by Aleister Crowley.
I also collected dues from members and admitted members when it became possible.
Q. Did you take out advertisements?
A. Yes, sir, I did.
Q. And did those advertisements state Society Ordo Templi Orientis?
A. They always did, sir.
Q. Did they talk about Aleister Crowley?
A. Yes, I believe they all did.
Q. Did they hold themselves out as the Ordo Templi Orientis?
A. Yes, sir.
That was always Mr. Motta's contention about his SOTO.
Q. Do you know about how many members there are, well, today or within the last six months, currently?
A. Within my knowledge i would say there are maybe four, perhaps three members internationally.
Q. Now, who is Jeremy Ellis, is he a member?
A. Mr. Ellis, now deceased, was a British Director of [page 472] the SOTO and was expelled by Mr. Motta.
Q. And I think you said Claudia Canuto was a member?
A. Yes. She was a Brazilian Director of the OTO -- SOTO and a resident of Nashville, Tennessee, and subsequently expelled from the SOTO by Mr. Motta.
Q. And Gardis (phonetic), is he a member?
A. No, sir, he's not.
Q. Has he ever been a member?
A. No, sir.
Q. And Jillis Cabaniss (phonetic)?
A. Yes, Jillis Cabaniss. He's a member of the SOTO and former president of Thelema Publishing Company.
Q. After all the time that you've spend with Mr. Motta, do you have any impressions as to his personality?
A. Yes, I do. Very definite ones.
Q. Would you give those to me?
MR. MITTEL: Objection; relevance.
MR. MacKENZIE: Your Honor, it's the same thing again. It's -- Mr. Motta is -- is so disregarding of any facts because he's so biased by his arrogance of his -- by his hatred, by his Semitism {SIC sb. Antisemitism -weh}.
He's got a poisoned mind and that's the basis on which he's writing these things and that's what I need to bring out. [page 473]
THE COURT: Well, the causes of action were for unfair compensation [SIC mb. "competition" -weh}, trademark infringement and slander.
MR. MacKENZIE: And we're asking for punitive damages.
THE COURT: Well, I understand that. But I think to ask for punitive damages you have to show that Mr. Motta's state of mind, wherever it might be, was individually directed towards the plaintiffs.
And I don't think we're asking -- asking about general personality characteristics or a witness' observation of these characteristics, which is irrelevant to these issues.
I'm going to sustain the objection.
BY MR. MacKENZIE:
Q. When id you first meet Mr. Motta?
A. I first met Mr. Motta in August of 1980 when he came to this country from Brazil. He had not been here since 1961, I believe.
Q. And when did you see him next?
A. I saw him next in December of 1983 when I spent a week at his house as his guest.
Q. Let me ask you specifically Mr. Motta's -- if you know of Mr. Motta's feelings towards the people he has libeled in this lawsuit? [page 474]
Do you have any opinion about that?
A. Yes, I do.
MR. MITTEL: Objection to the form to the question.
THE COURT: Yes. Your opinion isn't proper, Mr. Starr.
If you have any statement Mr. Motta made to you about the people who are involved in this lawsuit, you may testify to that.
MR. MITTEL: There is a further objection, Your Honor.
If these statements were made on the telephone, it is the Best Evidence objection because, as I understand it, Mr. Starr recorded all of his conversations of the phone with Mr. Motta.
If it was an in-person conversation, then there's no objection.
THE WITNESS: To correct Mr. Mittel, I did not record all of my conversations with Mr. Motta on the telephone. I recorded a select few at Mr. Motta's insistence, but I can testify as to what he told me in person.
THE COURT: Would you do so, please?
THE WITNESS: Certainly.
He said of Grady McMurtry, "He's a fool." [page 475]
Of Phyllis Seckler, "She's a completely deluded woman."
And of Helen Smith he said very, very little.
BY MR. MacKENZIE:
Q. All right. Did he say anything about Mr. Wasserman?
A. He had plenty to say about MR. Wasserman, that he was a traitor, that he was a creep, that he was a very extremely malevolent individual with great cunning and malice and that his deposition was a tissue of falsehoods.
Q. What was his state of mind, if you can tell, when he made most of these accusations?
MR. MITTEL: Objection, insofar as the question calls for some type of mental health, medical conclusion.
THE COURT: Well, I agree.
You can testify if he was excited, calm or angry, or something like that. But please do not express any psychiatric opinions.
THE WITNESS: When Mr. Motta would speak about these matters, he would be very, very animated.
And oftentimes when he would talk about these things it would be after he had done considerable drinking. [page 476]
BY MR. MacKENZIE:
Q. Well, how often did he do considerable drinking?
A. When I was with him, I do not believer there was an evening in which he did not do considerable drinking, sir.
MR. MITTEL: Objection; relevance. Move to strike.
THE COURT: Well, I think this is sufficiently connected to the malice testimony.
I'll overrule the objection.
BY MR. MacKENZIE:
Q. How many days in total would you say that you had spend with Mr. Motta?
A. Twelve, fourteen, something along those lines.
Q. And of those days, about how many of them was he heavily intoxicated?
A. I would say in the evening on every single one of those occasions he was heavily intoxicated.
Q. Do you know if he does some of his writing when he was intoxicated?
A. ,yes, sir. I've seen him do it in his own home, and in Maine.
Q. Have any of these intoxicated writings appeared in print?
A. Yes, sir. His most recent book is a sterling [page 477] example of this.
Q. How do you know that?
MR. MITTEL: Objection; foundation. Move to strike.
BY MR. MacKENZIE:
Q. Well, how do you know that?
THE COURT: Well, he's establishing a foundation.
BY MR. MacKENZIE:
Q. Tell me how you know that.
A. Because I saw him entering the text in our Maine hotel room. For "magick Without Tears", that is.
Q. You saw him writing?
A. Yes, sir.
He had the computer with him.
Q. And he was in an intoxicated state?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. I just want to make sure when we're talking about intoxication we understand the level. Was this a mild one or two beers, or what are we --
A. Sir, when we came back from the restaurant and visited one night, he was falling down in the snow. I would consider that severely intoxicated.
Q. Does Mr. Motta, when he is writing, consider outside sources of information with which to draw [page 478] conclusions?
A. No, sir. He would often run off on his flights of fantasy. And when I would correct him, he often got extremely indignant and questioned my motives for correcting him although the corrections I made were oftentimes simple matters of historical fact, total mistranslation and other such things.
Q. Well, now, if you wanted to tell him something, or if he got some impetus from another source, what was his response to it?
A. If it didn't tally usually in every single point with his preconceived opinions, he would reject it violently.
Q. Do you have any example of that?
A. Let me just think for a second.
Well, i can give you a classic one.
Let me -- just a second.
Oh, yes. There was a transcription of a Crowley diary in publishing "Sex and Religion."
And Crowley said something to the effect of "do not confuse, " and then there is a phrase in French, "with any sort of mystical trance."
And when the transcription -- the transcription that he used was not prepared by Mr. Motta. He amended it to say "tren etre" (phonetic) in [page 479] French, which he said in there being, about to become, or something like that, and then commented on what he though this meant.
I went back to him and said, "No, it didn't say 'tren etre'; it said 'bien-etre,' feeling good, a phrase Crowley used frequently.
And he said, "Well, I've commented on 'bien-etre' elsewhere and it's -- it's okay. We'll leave it in."
And I took very great offense at that, because it showed to my mind that he thought his own writings were far more important than what Crowley had to say.
Q. Did it get printed that way?
A. It surely did, sir.
You'll find it in the book sitting on the plaintiffs' table.
Q. Is that "Magick Without Tears"?
A. No, sir. I'm referring to "Sex and Religion."
Q. I see. Has Mr. Motta published "Magick Without Tears"?
A. Yes, he has, sir.
Q. Isn't that an Aleister Crowley work?
A. It was before he put his hands on it.
Q. Now, is that a work that Mr. Crowley gave [page 480] Mr. McMurtry twenty-five percent of?
A. That is correct.
Q. Well, what's he doing publishing this book?
A. He believes it's his to dispose of as he sees fit.
Q. Do you know if it was originally registered?
A. Yes, it was registered by Karl Germer in trust for the OTO.
Q. Has Mr. Motta registered it?
A. Yes. He registered it as a claim of renewal of copyright in a posthumous work in April of 1982.
Q. I'm not sure -- how does he claim title?
A. As the owner of a copyright on a posthumous work.
Q. Well, is he claiming -- well, how does he claim title to it?
MR. MITTEL: Objection; sounds like a copyright infringement case, Your Honor.
THE WITNESS: in the name of the SOTO in America.
MR. MacKENZIE: Certainly the relief I'm seeking, Your Honor, I'm asking that all of the copyrights that he has taken out be voided as well as the trademark and tradenames, they either be voided or be transferred to the plaintiffs.
MR. MITTEL: And again that's an issue that was addressed in the -- [page 481]
THE COURT: Well, I'm going to overrule the objection. I think it's an issue in the Counterclaim; I think it's an issue in the Complaint itself.
BY MR. MacKENZIE:
Q. And then --
MR. MITTEL: Let me pursue that for a moment.
An issue in the Complaint and in the defendants' Counterclaim, Your Honor?
THE COURT: Yes. You've alleged breach of copyright.
MR. MITTEL: Right. We've alleged breach of -- we've alleged copyright infringement as respects one work, "The Holy Book {SIC sb. "Books" -weh} of Thelema" and no other works.
MR. MacKENZIE: Your Honor, --
MR. MITTEL: Mr. MacKenzie then filed a Counterclaim to our Conterclaim. I'm not sure that that can be done.
I think he has to move to amend his own. But when you look at his Counterclaim to our Counterclaim, what it seeks to do is establish this his clients own rights to all of the copyrights at issue in this lawsuit.
There's only one copyright that's at issue in [page 482] this lawsuit. And that is "The HOly Book {SIC sb. "Books" -weh} of Thelema." And no others are at issue, even if his declaratory judgment --
THE COURT: I'm going to permit the testimony. I'll sort that out later.
MR. MITTEL: Then I think it would be easier to just stipulate as to which works the defendants have registered without worrying about whether the witness knows whether they were ever registered.
MR. MacKENZIE: I would be more than happy to do that Your HOnor.
MR. MITTEL: Could we try to work that out during the noon recess?
THE COURT: Yes, certainly.
BU MR. MacKENZIE:
Q. Well, you mentioned that Karl Germer had registered some of these works?
A. Yes, sir, he had. I have seen the certificates.
Q. How does OTO end up with them?
A. Well, my understanding of the previous Copyright Act, the registered of the copyright only had to give the name of the --
MR. MITTEL: Objection; he's not qualified to testify. [page 483]
THE COURT: No, that is a legal matter, but I'm going to let him testify as to what his understanding is. But I respect the fact that he cannot give an expert opinion on copyrights.
BY MR. MacKENZIE:
Q. Well, I'm not talking so much procedurally as your understanding of the case as to how Karl Germer somehow bequeathed the copyrights to the OTO.
A. In his will or in the registration you're referring to --
Q. I don't want you to really talk about the law, because you are not an expert in it. But as regards the facts of this case, Karl Germer's intent and so forth.
A. Oh, Karl Germer was Outer Head of the OTO. He did it in trust for the OTO. That is my understanding, sir.
Q. Was this in the same way that Aleister Crowley left them to the OTO?
A. Certainly.
Q. Technically speaking, did Karl Germer have any right to put them in his own name.
A. It's my understanding that he did, sir.
Q. That he could have even though they were left to the Order?
A. Certainly.
Q. I mean for -- [page 484]
A. He was identified with the copyright's owner, being the OTO.
Q. Okay. Do you know when most of the copyrights were done by the defendant?
A. To my knowledge, they were all done after 1979 and most of them have been done since the initiation of this lawsuit.
Q. Moving away from copyrights to trademarks --
MR. MacKENZIE: Well, if, I might just say, Mr. Mittel will then stipulate as to which trademarks the defendant has also registered, then there is no need to question Mr. Starr.
MR. MITTEL: Those -- I believe the registration certificates are already in evidence.
THE COURT: Yes, I've seen some of them in evidence.
MR. MacKENZIE: I didn't know if there were others.
MR. MITTEL: They are A,B, C and D.
MR. MacKENZIE: Okay, if that's all.
BY MR. MacKENZIE:
Q. Are you aware of the nature of his claims to the OTO?
A. And when you say "his," I assume you're referring to Mr. Motta? [page 485]
Q. Yes.
A. Yes, I am, sir. I have studied all of the available evidence.
Q. And what's your conclusion?
MR. MITTEL: Objection.
THE COURT: Conclusion on what?
MR. MacKENZIE: Pardon?
THE COURT: Conclusion on what?
BY MR. MacKENZIE:
Q. What is you conclusion as to the validity of his claim?
MR. MITTEL: Objection.
THE COURT: I think that's a legal matter for the Court to decide.
BY MR. MacKENZIE:
Q. Well. As regards the OTO, having studied the OTO matters and having studied Mr. Motta's claims, can you tell me what he bases his on?
MR. MITTEL: Objection, Your Honor.
All of -- among other things, that factual matter, if it is a factual matter rather than a legal matter, was discussed with me in preparation for the copyrights infringement trial in Maine in which ownership of the copyrights was in issue.
MR. MacKENZIE: I don't think it -- [page 486]
THE COURT: Well, I'm sustaining the objection on the ground that is the ultimate question of -- one of the ultimate questions in this case and that is a decision for me to make.
MR. MacKENZIE: Your Honor, with all due respect, the other plaintiffs who have been up here have been asked the same question as to what they felt was the validity of Mr. Motta's claims. That's really what I'm asking about, not an ultimate legal question, but only a personal one, knowing the rules of the "Blue Equinox."
THE COURT: Well, I don't think that question's been asked. Maybe my memory is bad. But I don't think so.
MR. MacKENZIE: May I ask him what he thinks of Mr. Motta's claims to being the Outer Head of the Order?
THE COURT: Yes. That has been asked before.
BY MR. MacKENZIE:
Q. Would you answer that question, as to his claims to being the Outer Head of the Order?
MR. MITTEL: Same objection. I think that's something --
THE COURT: Well, that has been testified [page 487] to by the others.
MR. MITTEL: I know, but the other people didn't help me prepare for the trial in Maine.
THE COURT: Oh, you're raising the objection --
MR. MacKENZIE: Yes, to the --
THE COURT: Okay.
Then you'll have to ask the witness to testify from his knowledge based on that and not what he obtained from Mr. Mittel or his colleagues in preparation for the lawsuit.
MR. MacKENZIE: Certainly, sir. I expect it was more a case of Mr. Starr educating Mr. Mittel rather than vice versa.
BY MR. MacKENZIE:
Q. But, in any event, from your own knowledge, excluding any information Mr. Mittel may have given you, what is your feeling about the validity of Mr. Motta's claims to the OHO?
A. It's entirely self-assuming and entirely without merit.
Q. Why do you say that?
A. There is no historical basis for it whatsoever.
Q. Did you ever talk to Mr. Motta about Sascha Germer?
A. Yes, on many occasions. [page 488]
Q. Did you ever mention Grady McMurtry in those discussions?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. Did you ever or did he ever talk to you about the claim that Mr. McMurtry allowed Sascha Germer to starve to death?
A. Yes. He's repeated it in very, very many places.
And once I obtained her death certificate, I confronted him with it. And I noted the death certificate that starvation is not listed as a cause of death.
And when he saw this he was, of course, his usual doubting Thomas and went back and checked it and said, "Well, you're right." He professed to be very impressed with this.
However, in a later conversation he said, "Well, you're not a physician; you can't opine on these matters." And that's where it stayed.
Q. After the time that you told him that, did he continue making that claim?
A. He certainly did, sir.
Q. Oh, something that I'd like to know is: You were in this organization for some time?
A. That is correct. For six years, approximately.
Q. When did you quit the organization? [page 489]
A. January 25th, 1985.
Q. When was the last time you had previously spoken with Mr. Motta?
A. I believe it was in may of 1984, sir.
MR. MacKENZIE: Your, Honor, I have a copy of the letter to Jeremy Ellis by Mr. Motta, which I had intended to produce on cross. I don't have a copy of it at this point.
THE COURT: All right. Then let's do it after lunch.
MR. MacKENZIE: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: How much more do you have of this witness?
MR. MacKENZIE: Oh, I think probably five minutes.
THE COURT: Okay. I think, however, for scheduling reasons, we should take a break now and I want to discuss some legal matters and legal rulings with you.
MR. MacKENZIE: That's fine.
THE COURT: Mr. Starr, would you step down please?
THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honor.
THE COURT: First of all, Miss Seckler, would you come forward, please? [page 490]
THE COURT: Miss Seckler, I'm going to have to ask you to go through the inconvenience of getting your diaries for he years 1976 through 1984 and examining them. I understand you keep diaries for those years.
MISS SECKLER: They are religious diaries, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Yes, I am aware of that. I'm not asking for anybody else to review them except you.
MISS SECKLER: Okay.
THE COURT: I'm asking you to review the diaries and see if there are any reference in those to the theft of the library or where the location of the library might be at the present time.
If you do not find any such references in your diaries, then we will accept your word there are no such references.
If there are references to those things in your diaries, then would you please give an extract of those references to Mr. MacKenzie?
MISS SECKLER: All right.
THE COURT: Thank you very much.
MISS SECKLER: Thank you.
THE COURT: Now, the parties have --
MR. MITTEL: May I make a short statement [page 490] on the record, Your Honor?
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. MITTEL: What the defendants would prefer is that the diaries be produced in full for an in camera inspection or inspection by counsel, subject to privilege.
Alternatively, that if Miss Seckler conducts the inspection and finds the types of material that Your Honor asked her to look for, that those pages be photocopied and made available to defendants.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. MacKENZIE: Well, I would oppose that, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Well, no. I've asked Miss Seckler to do what she's going to do. If she discloses that there is material in there pertaining to the library or its theft or its present location or clues to it, then we will deal with the question of how the information is going to be disposed of.
First of all, the first job is Miss Seckler's, to go through her diaries and see whether there are any such references. All right.
I'm nor prepared to rule on certain of the motions in limine which have been made by the parties.
You may set down because you may want to [page 492] write some of them down.
Now, first of all, the defendants have raised a First Amendment defense to the libel and slander claims. The basis of asserting the First Amendment defense is that it pertains to religious matters.
It's the ruling of the Court that the First Amendment defense applies only with respect to accusations which fall within religious matters.
The First Amendment is not a defense to an accusation of lying, theft, robbery, assault, misappropriation, slander, pirating or causing death.
It is appropriate to the defense of certain other accusations that are made which deal with religious matters of this Order and to the position of the people within the Order.
The basis for the distinction, if counsel wants to check further, is a case entitled Church of Scientology versus Siegleman (phonetic), 475 F Sub 950 {SIC sb. "Siegelman, 475 F. Supp. -def}, a 1979 District Court decision.
MR. MITTEL: That's 475 F Sub {SIC sb. "F. Supp." -def}?
THE COURT: Yes. 950.
MR. MITTEL: That's a Northern District case, Your Honor?
THE COURT: I'm sorry. But it is a United States District Court case. [page 493]
But you do have the distinction between libel and slander in religious matters, distinguishing between those which are indeed religious and those which are secular.
Now, plaintiffs have raised the Statute of Limitations defense with respect to defendants' Counterclaims 4, 5 and 6.
Defendants have asserted that these Counterclaims -- I'm sorry -- this defense was waved by the failure to plead.
The Court is ruling that the defense of the Statue of Limitations is not waived by the failure to plead, citing Revara versus Anaye (phonetic) {SIC sb. "Rivera versus Anaya" -def}, 726 F2d 564, a Ninth Circuit decision, and the cases cited therein.
However, the Court is not ruling as yet on the applicability of the Statute of Limitations defenses to the Counterclaims because I haven't yet heard all the evidence.
And I will rule later on the applicability of those Statue of Limitations defenses after I have heard the evidence.
So all I'm ruling on at the moment is the failure to set up an affirmative defense of the Statute of Limitations to Counterclaims does not waive that [page 494] defense.
Then the plaintiffs have raised collateral estoppel as defenses to the defendant's Counterclaims Nos. 1, 2, 3 ,7 and 8.
I'm, first of all, ruling that there was no collateral estoppel effect to the Calaveras County decision. The Calaveras County decision is certainly evidence and certainly is probative material. But so far as the res judicata effect, I do not believe it has any -- or collateral estoppel -- I do not believe it has any for the reasons I set forth in the motion, which you filed a few weeks before trial.
With respect to the decision of the United States District Court in Maine, I believe that decision is sufficiently final to give it collateral estoppel effect in this action.
The fact that a decision is not -- is on appeal and the fact that there may be attorney's fees, motions still pending in that case, I do not believe it affects the finality of that decision and can be given and should be given collateral estoppel effect.
The defendant is arguing against the giving of collateral estoppel effect for one other reason, and that is the subsequent production of documents.
I have reviewed all of the documents which [page 495] have been offered by the defendant. And I don't believe that the later production of those documents does upset the collateral estoppel effect of the Maine decision.
Now, the decision in Maine can -- I'm determining so far -- can be used for defensive purposes and not for offensive purposes. That is, the collateral estoppel effect can operate as a bar to the defendants' Counterclaim.
But I am not ruling at this time. I am not ruling at this time that it can be used to establish the plaintiffs' causes of actions.
Now, with respect to what I believe was decided in Maine, there is collateral estoppel in this action insofar as barring the defendants' Counterclaim to the following:
That the defendants here do not own the copyrights to the Aleister Crowley material;
That the old organization known as OTO does not have the legal status to own the property;
Third, that the defendant, Mr. Motta, is not the OHO;
Fourth, that the defendants' registration of the copyrights are not legally effective, because the defendants were adjucated not to own the property;
Fifth, that the defendant SOTO, Society Ordo [page 496] Templi Orientis, is not the successor to the original OTO.
Now, I am not making any determination with respect to what may have been decided about trademarks in the Maine action.
I don't believe that there was any explicit discussion of trademarks in the Maine action, but it seems to me that a lot of decisions that were made with respect to ownership of property and copyrights point in the same direction with respect to trademarks.
I'm just making that comment for the benefit of counsel, and I am not ruling on it at this time.
All right. We will be in adjournment until 1:15.
MR. MacKENZIE: Thank you, Your Honor.
THE COURT: We will go to approximately four o'clock.
MR. MacKENZIE: Fine. Thank you.
MR. MITTEL: Thank you.
(The luncheon recess was taken from 12:12 p.m. to 1:20 p.m. of the same day.)
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
Obvious spelling errors have often been corrected
without special notice.
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 the third of four files of the transcript.
This file covers pages 497 through 783
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, Marcello Ramos Motta, an individual, and Does I through X, inclusive,
Defendants.
CIVIL NO. C-83-5434
VOLUME III
Afternoon Session
PAGES 497 - 612
REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS OF COURT TRIAL
Wednesday, May 15, 1985
450 Golden Gate Avenue
San Francisco, CAlifornia 94102
REPORTED BY:
Nancy J. Palmer
[page 498]
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 EDMOND MITTEL, Esquire
5 Milk Street,
Portland, Maine 04112
[page 499]
I N D E X
VOLUME III - Afternoon Session
Examinations:
Witness: Direct Cross Redirect Cross Voir_Dire
Martin P. Starr 500 505 514 516
William Heidrick 518 586 543
Resumed 545
Plaintiffs' For In
Exhibits: Ident. Evidence
210 Letter from Mr. Motta
to Mr. Ellis. 501
73 Letter from Mr. Heidrick 532
to Mr. Motta
74 Photocopy of mailer sent 532
to Mr. Motta.
75 Notice enclosed with mailer. 532
11 Letter dated March 3, 1981 567
[page 500]
Wednesday, May 15, 1985 1:20 p.m.
THIRD DAY - AFTERNOON SESSION
THE COURT: Are you ready for Mr. Starr, again.
MR. MacKENZIE: Well, yes. We are indeed.
THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Starr, would you take the witness stand, please.
MR. MITTEL: Your Honor, the questions about collateral estoppel, shell we take those up at 4:00?
THE COURT: Yes, please.
Mr. Starr, you're still under oath from this morning's testimony.
THE WITNESS: Yes, I understand.
DIRECT EXAMINATION (Resumed)
BY MR. MacKENZIE:
Q. We were talking earlier about some correspondence that Mr. Motta had sent to Mr. Ellis in conjunction with the word "termination"; do you remember?
A. I believe he said "elimination of the culprit."
Q. "Elimination of the culprit."
And it was your testimony that he had put similar thoughts into print, into letters? [page 501]
A. Yes.
MR. MacKENZIE: I show you a copy which we don't have numbered at this point, Your Honor.
It was going to be used for impeachment. If we could call it No. 203 --
MR. MITTEL: I'm sorry. What number?
MR. MacKENZIE: 203.
MR. MITTEL: Is there a 201 and 202?
THE COURT: Wait till I check the clerk's register.
The highest number I have is 200.
MR. MacKENZIE: I'm sorry, what?
THE COURT: The highest number sI have is 200.
MR. MacKENZIE: Well, then, let's call it 201.
(A letter from Mr. Motta to
Mr. Ellis was marked
Plaintiffs' 201 for
Identification.)
BY MR. MacKENZIE:
Q. Do you recognize this letter, Mr. Star?
A. Yes, I do, sir.
Q. Is this a letter written by Mr. Motta?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. Would you read for us, please, the portion of the [page 502] second page beginning down, halfway down?
A. Quote "You say it will cost about twelve
thousand pounds to have these {SIC sb. "the thieves" --def}
'terminated.' I'd like you to be
frank.{SIC sb. "I like your elegant phrasing" -def}
It's up to the best
standards of the Mafia, CIA, of
the British Secret Service when
there was a meager point there
{SIC sb. "need or point in it -def}.
Well, for that much money you
might as well have them sued,"
end quote.
Q. Continue, please.
A. "In short, frater, very simply if
you are going to have your
assassination contracted to third
parties, for once you make a pathic
criminal {SIC sb. "pact with criminals" -def}, you are entirely in their
hands. First you pay them to kill
someone, then they blackmail you
into cooperation with them for the
rest of your life on the strength
of it,"
end quote.
Q. And on the top of the next page, please? [page 503]
A. Quote: "I would go on putting up with you
until you either grow up or until I
can find someone else who will show
moral courage to control lawyers
enough and physical courage to kill
thieves as well as enough witnesses
to get away with it without being
committed to professional criminals
at any level,"
end quote.
Q. Now, if I ask you your impression of what -- when Mr. Motta used the term "termination," what can you tell me?
MR. MITTEL: Objection. He's neither the author nor the recipient of this document.
THE COURT: Yes, that's right. I don't think he's in a position to answer that question.
MR. MacKENZIE: All right, Your Honor.
BY MR. MacKENZIE:
Q. Mr. Starr, I'd like to show you a copy of Plaintiffs' Exhibit 73 and ask you if you recognize that letter?
A. Yes, I do, Mr. MacKenzie.
Q. Is that a copy of the letter which you provided to [504] the plaintiffs?
A. Well, in this respect, a copy that I provided to the plaintiffs was not as this would appear, a carbon copy, but had the OTO seal imprinted on the top.
So I would say it's a copy of the original letter rather than a carbon. That is what I provided.
Q. I see. You're saying you provided the plaintiffs with a xerox copy of the original letter?
A. Yes, that's what I believe it to be.
Q. And that this copy appears to be a carbon copy?
A. Yes, it is, because the OTO seal is not at the top and it was on the copy I provided.
MR. MacKENZIE: Thank you very much.
I have no further questions.
Thank you.
THE COURT: Thank you.
MR. MITTEL: May I have a moment, Your Honor?
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. MacKENZIE: Oh, I'm sorry. May I ask one other question?
THE COURT: Yes, sure.
BY MR. MacKENZIE:
Q. Let me preface it by saying that the nature of Mr. Motta's Cross-Complaint for invasion of privacy concerns [page 505] contents of letters that he wrote concerning is sexual organs. And having said that I would like to ask:
Did Mr. Motta often talk about his sexual organs?
A. It was a subject of conversation on two or three times, perhaps, perhaps, and the letters dealing with it.
Q. Have you seen numerous letters which he had written concerning that subject?
A. Numerous? I would say perhaps four or five.
Q. Has de dealt with this subject in any of his books?
A. Certainly, in his book "Sex and Religion" in "Equinox Volume V."
Q. Well, is he specifically talking about his own sexual organs?
A. Absolutely. And it was followed up with another letter that I once read that indicated he was talking about himself.
MR. MacKENZIE: Thank you.
No further questions.
THE WITNESS: Thank you.
CROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR. MITTEL:
Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Starr.
A. Good afternoon, Mr. Mittel. [page 506]
Q. Membership in the A.'.A.'. is something that is not shared with other people; is that right?
A. No, that's not correct, Mr. Mittel.
In fact it's part of the ultimate probationer or the test of a probationer is that you shall speak of the A.'.A.'. and your contact with it to whomever seems to be interested in it.
Q. What I'm saying to you is: There is no reason that you would know whether someone in Kentucky was a member of the A.'.A.'.?
A. Not unless they were my students or if I knew it from some other channel. But officially, no.
Q. So Mr. Motta could have had students in Indiana or Montana and you wouldn't have known about them unless they were in your chain of instruction?
A. This is correct, sir.
Q. You referred to the SOTO constitutions, the typed version, the printed version?
A. Yes, I did, sir.
Q. The typed version was never published, was it?
A. Published in what sense, sir?
Q. Well, I mean it was never promulgated as any type of official document?
A. It most certainly was, sir, within the Order.
Q. And then later amended by the printed version which [page 507] is now in effect?
A. That is my understanding, sir.
Q. You testified about the "Magick Without Tears'" manuscript that Mr. Motta was working on in Maine during the trial?
A. That's correct.
Q. Did you not proofread the manuscript?
A. I proofread a manuscript. It was not the final manuscript as there were many changes made and additions that I never saw, --
Q. But you've --
A. -- to wit: the entire intelligence services are not intelligent, the entire introduction and several other minor parts.
Q. Have you ever sat down and made a comparison of the version on which Mr. Motta was working in that motel room in Maine, the final version?
A. I am not quite sure I understand your question, sir.
Q. Well, have you ever sat down and read, compared the pages?
A. Oh, yes, sir. I have a part of the typed transcript.
Q. And you've done it; you've made that study?
A. Yes, but I don't have the entire book, sir. [page 508]
Q. Now, when you were in Maine with Mr. Motta, it was early in March; is that right?
A. That's correct.
Q. And that was in the winter; right?
A. That is correct.
Q. Lots of snow and ice on the streets?
A. There was quite a bit.
Q. In fact, there was a big storm while you were there?
A. No question about that, sir.
Q. And lots of people were falling down?
A. Yes. But "lots of people" weren't drunk, Mr. Mittel.
Q. Mr. Starr, do you indulge in alcohol?
A. I have been known to on occasion, sir, yes.
Q. Don't you have a medical condition that makes it almost a certainty that you'll become violently ill if you have more than perhaps one drink?
A. That's completely absurd, sir, and it sounds like a product of Mr. Motta's imagination.
If I have such a condition, I should certainly like to find out about it. But I am not aware of it.
THE COURT: Mr. Starr, just answer the question. [page 509]
THE WITNESS: Okay, sir.
THE COURT: If there's anything further that should be brought out, your counsel can do it on redirect examination.
BY MR. MITTEL:
Q. Now did you first happen to have contact with the plaintiffs in this case?
A. The plaintiffs?
Q. Yes, sir.
A. I believe I received a letter in 19 -- early 1976 from Dr. Regardie, who's now dead, who gave me Grady McMurtry's address as a legitimate OTO representative.
Q. When after you resigned from the Society Ordo Templi Orientis, did you first have contact with the plaintiffs in this case?
A. I wrote to them immediately, sent them a copy of my resignation.
Q. You talk about the letters that -- and printed material that Mr. Motta has generated about his sexual organs?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you know if any of that was generated prior to the time you found out that the plaintiffs in this case were circulating a twenty-year-old letter of his to Mr. Germer? [page 510]
MR. MacKENZIE: Objection. That hasn't been established.
THE COURT: Yes, you brought up the subject matter and the question as to the type of his knowledge. I think it's proper cross-examination.
THE WITNESS: Could you repeat the question, please?
BY MR. MITTEL:
Q. Well, let me backup a little bit.
You do understand, I believe, that Mr. Motta wrote a letter to Mr. Germer back in the 1950s in which he discussed his sexual life?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you do know that there's evidence, at least in the discovery phase of this case, to the effect that the plaintiffs were circulating that letter after they had obtained the library from Calaveras County?
A. Yes, I'm aware of that. Yes, sir.
Q. You're aware that Mr. Motta found out about that, mainly that they were circulating it some time, I think, in the late 1970s; is that right?
A. Yes, that's my understanding.
Q. And my question to you is: Do you have any knowledge that Mr. Motta made any public or even other private revelations about his sex life to anyone before [page 511] he found out that those letters or that letter was being circulated by the plaintiffs?
A. No, I do not have any such knowledge.
Q. Did you know Jim Wasserman before the trial in Maine, last --
A. No, sir.
Q. -- March.
Hat you ever met him?
A. No, sir.
Q. Now, you testified during the trial in Maine, did you not?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And at that time you said that Mr. Motta was the Outer Head of the Ordo Templi Orientis, did you not?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And, in fact, you also said that the fact that he's an Eleventh Degree member of the Ordo Templi Orientis does not disqualify him from being the Outer Head?
A. That is quite true.
Q. Did you also testify that several hundred people had come to you about joining the Society Ordo [page 512] Templi Orientis and because of Mr. Motta's rigorous screening process only two people had made it through the preliminary screening process?
A. That is quite true, sir.
Q. Did you also not tell me that Mr. Motta is a very demanding teacher?
A. That is quite true, sir.
Q. And that he behaves with probity?
A. This is quite true, sir.
Q. All that testimony was given under oath?
A. That is all under oath, sir.
MR. MITTEL: Your Honor, rather than read that testimony into the record, because I'd like all substantive evidence which we're permitted under the Hearsay Rule, I'd like to just submit the copies of the pages of the transcript in question.
THE COURT: But please identify the pages because I don't want to have to read the whole volume.
MR. MITTEL: Oh, no. I'm only going to submit the relevant pages, but I'll tell you right now what they are.
THE COURT: Well, I think we're better off marking -- well, perhaps you want to recite them for the record, then.
MR. MITTEL: 251, 252, 272, 273, 274 and [page 513] 277.
I may do that with some of the testimony of Mr. McMurtry and Mr. Wasserman as well.
THE COURT: Okay.
BY MR. MITTEL:
Q. One moment, please.
Let me ask you this, Mr. Starr:
During the trial in Maine did Mr. Wasserman come over to you and introduce himself?
A. Yes, he did.
Q. And did you react adversely to that?
A. I certainly did.
Q. And did you say to him that he was a week of bad news?
A. I don't remember saying anything like that, sir.
Q. Do you remember what you did say to him about him?
A. Not at this moment, sir.
Q. But it was something unfavorable?
A. I didn't think it was a good idea to talk to him, yes.
MR. MITTEL: No further questions, Your Honor. [page 514]
THE COURT: Any redirect, Mr. MacKenzie?
MR. MacKENZIE: Yes, Your Honor.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. MacKENZIE:
Q. Mr. Starr, what compelled you to resign from SOTO after the trial?
A. Well, there were basically three reasons.
MR. MITTEL: Objection, Your Honor. That is --
THE COURT: Yes, I don't believe that was covered in your direct or Mr. Mittel's cross. I think you're going beyond the scope of cross.
MR. MacKENZIE: I am sorry if that was the case. I suppose what I'm trying to tie it into is in the light of the lauditory things that he said at that trial how he can reconcile his present --
THE COURT: All right, fine. If it's admitted it for that purpose, then I will allow you to continue your examination.
BY MR. MacKENZIE:
Q. For that purpose, Mr. Starr, can you reconcile why you said things at the trial and why you have since resigned?
A. Well, sir, at the time of the trial I was very shocked an very surprised that he would claim to be the [page 515] Outer Head of the Order. It was something that he had never done before and something that he had vigorously denied on many occasions.
And I thought he could only be doing it for a very high purpose. And I was -- I didn't know what to make of it.
So I took it on trust, ad I took many other -- many things on trust with him.
Secondly, I was -- I became aware, after the trial, of the letter from Karl Germer to him dated April 20th, 1962, discussing his proposed OTO charter.
It was clear to me from reading that letter in conjunction with the other correspondence I had read that there was an offer of a charter from Mr. Germer, but that offer was never acted upon.
Thirdly, and probably most basically, I just woke up and saw the light, like many other people who worked with Mr. Motta and thought good things about him and then one day realized it just wasn't so.
Q. How old are you now?
A. I'm 25 years old.
Q. And how old were you when you joined the SOTO?
A. Well I would have been 20 years old.
MR. MacKENZIE: Thank you.
No further questions. [page 516]
THE COURT: Thank you, Mr. Starr.
You may step down.
MR. MITTEL: Your Honor, --
THE COURT: Oh, yes. I am sorry.
Just a moment, please.
RECROSS EXAMINATION
BY MR. MITTEL:
Q. Mr. Starr, while you were a member of the Society Ordo Templi Orientis, did you undertake to prepare a history of the Ordo Templi Orientis?
A. I had planned to do such a thing. I have never written such a thing.
MR. MacKENZIE: Your Honor, I think this is going beyond the scope of direct or cross or redirect.
MR. MITTEL: Well, we are discussing the so-called history of this letter of April 20th, which I understand might be -- we can express in from Maine.
THE COURT: All right. You may ask the question.
BY MR. MITTEL:
Q. And as part of the preliminary part of your task, did Mr. Motta give you a volume of correspondence between himself and both Mr. and Mrs. Germer?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And in that correspondence were there letters, [page 517] numerous letter, referring to Mr. Motta's status in the Ordo Templi Orientis?
A. I can't recall a single letter to that effect, except from Mrs. Germer.
Q. You don't recall a letter, for instance, about the Ninth Degree?
A. Absolutely not.
MR. MacKENZIE: Objection, Your Honor.
THE COURT: It attempts to refresh his recollection. I will allow it.
MR. MITTEL: I think in the interests of saving time, rather than getting all the documents and pursuing the point, we'll introduce -- maybe I should -- well, we will be introducing the documents.
Your Honor, the collateral estoppel, does that preclude the defendants from proving Mr. Motta is a member of the Ordo Templi Orientis?
THE COURT: No, it doesn't prevent that at all.
MR. MITTEL: All right. Fine.
No further questions.
THE COURT: You may step down, Mr. Starr.
Thank you.
(Witness excused.)
MR. MacKENZIE: The plaintiffs call Bill [page 518] Heidrick at this time.
WILLIAM HEIDRICK,
called as a witness by the plaintiffs, having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as hereinafter set forth.
THE COURT: Would you be seated and state your full name for the record and spell your last name, please.
THE WITNESS: I am William Emmett {SIC sb. "Emmet" -pla} Heidrick, H-e-i-d-r-i-c-k.
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. MacKENZIE:
Q. Mr. Heidrick, where do you reside?
A. I reside in San Anselmo.
Q. And how long have you lived in California?
A. All my life.
Q. Are you a member of the OTO?
A. Yes, I am.
Q. And what degree do you hold?
A. Ninth Degree.
Q. Do you hold any positions in the Order?
A. Yes. I am primarily the office of the Grand Frater General {SIC sb. "I have primarily the office of the Grand Treasurer General" -pla}. I'm Assistant Secretary called Secretary of Grand Lodge. And I'm also the Archivist.
Q. How big are the archives? [page 519]
A. Well, it's difficult to give a precise estimate. The archive, in terms of loose papers and letters, would certainly exceed 50,000 sheets. In terms of books, that's even more difficult to assess. Hundreds, I would say. I would consider my own library ultimately to be destined for those.
Q. When were you initiated?
A. 1977, the month of April.
Q. And into what degree were you initiated?
A. Minerval.
Q. Minerval is the First {SIC sb. "first" -pla} Degree?
A. It's entry-level degree. That degree is also called the First {SIC mb. ", there is a degree also called the First" -weh} , but it is, in fact the only entry to the OTO.
Q. You begin on the First and then the next one is called First and so forth?
A. That's correct.
Q. All right. Do you know of the SOTO uses the Minerval?
A. I understand from its published writings that it does not.
MR. MITTEL: Objection, no basis, foundation. Move to strike.
THE COURT: Well, it is public writing, and he's answered. [page 520]
BY MR. MacKENZIE:
Q. Can you give me a very brief description of how the OTO, and I'm speaking of the history of it, since the time you joined, conducts its activities both among members and the public?
A. Well, you might point a little more closely to what you want, but essentially we hold meetings. We have a regular method of arranging meetings from letters, from form letters prepared by computers. We have monthly remakes of our list. We have the monthly bulletin to members on a local -- necessary letters, larger numbers of camps, chapters will be through the word {SIC sb. "World" -pla}
Q. How often are meeting held?
A. Locally for installing -- this is most often the reason, an average of two or three times a week.
Q. I see. Does the OTO sell any products?
A. Yes, quite a few. We have approximately 40 or 50 items available at different times out of this area. And the various camps, chapters and lodges occasionally raise funds for the operation, or such means.
Q. Now, could you briefly describe the different lodges, camps and chapters?
A. I can. Essentially it {SIC sb. "a camp" -weh} is more of a physical body. It could be set up for any purpose. It's sometimes material: it's sometimes for a particular need. Might {page 521] be a study group; might be for some project.
Q. And a chapter?
A. A chapter is more advance, is required to keep records directly, but not always initiation.
Q. And a lodge?
A. A lodge is the protegen {SIC sb. "protean" -pla} body. That is, it should have all the functions such that if necessary it could take over the entire operation of the Order. It doesn't generally have enough records for that, however.
Q. How may such lodges exist?
A. Well, that's sort of a matter of looking at a sheet of paper, but I would say --
Q. Well, don't you --
A. --maybe if I recounted, it would be --
Q. Don't you have a list of them somewhere?
A. Okay. In the United States we have a grand Lodge called the Thelema Lodge.
In New York we have the Tahuti Lodge, the lodge upstate.
There is --
Q. There is no need to give the lodge name, just where they are located.
A. Two lodges upstate, New York.
One in Connecticut.
Three in California. [page 522]
Three in Canada.
There was one in Oceania. That's located in New Zealand. And Australia.
Q. Okay. That's fine. Now many members does the OTO have.
A. Well, at my last billing, which is two months, 770 give or take five.
Q. Now, when you take "billing," do you mean dues?
A. Absolutely, with certain exceptions set aside by the Board of Directors.
Q. Are you familiar with the procedures of the OTO, the Agape Lodge during the days of the 1940s?
A. I have become familiar.
Q. Can you compare the OTO's current procedures with those?
A. Yes. Substantially they are identical, except we now have some different laws that we must follow in the State of California.
And, of course, we have a vastly larger membership and an international membership that is quite large.
Q. When you saw {SIC sb. "say" -weh} there are certain laws in California, did you follow them?
A. Are you talking about corporation law?
Corporation and also for nonprofit. There [page 523] are restrictions.
Q. I'd like to show you Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 40 and ask if you would tell me what that is?
A. All right. I made this photocopy from the first edition of what is called the "Blue Equinox." It is the extract of the Constitution of the Order under Aleister Crowley.
Q. Would you just explain briefly what Aleister Crowley did when he wrote this, this prior Constitution?
A. Two --
Q. Well, specifically the 1917 one.
A. Yes. We have the 1917 Constitution, which has only partly survived in original form, but we have a transcript. And to the best of my knowledge, based on the study of Crowley's publication, he broke that up for reporting to the members into several categories, privileges and rights, with on of them things to expect and things expected of you. And this was his administrative section for that, this abstraction of administrative structure he made.
Q. Well, does --
A. Go ahead.
Q. -- the "Blue Equinox" replace the 1917 Constitution?
A. At the time it didn't, but it did subsequently when Crowley became Outer Head of the Order. [page 524]
Q. Does the 1917 Constitution get employed in any way at this time?
A. For ambiguities. This is, after all, an abstract. And you have to refer to the original document on some points. There are differences here that are constructed so that we had reason to have them from this over and above the 1917.
Q. I'd like to have you turn to page 244 of this document or of this abstract.
A. 244.
I have it.
Q. And would you read the bottom paragraph that's been marked, please.
A. Yes.
"The OHO is supreme in the Order and
will act in such manner as he may see
fit. You may have him be removed
from office but only by the unanimous
vote of all the members of the Tenth
Degree."
Q. Would you explain just what that means?
A. -- do you need that explained as well?
Q. No, I think we understand that.
A. Okay. It means that he's supreme, that his actions are without anybody stopping him or changing them in a [page 525] certain emergency.
Q. And, in fact, who is responsible for the removal portion?
A. Well, if every member of the Tenth Degree says he's out, he's out.
Q. I see. Do you keep a record of memberships?
A. Absolutely. We're required to.
Q. Required to?
A. Yes.
Q. Under what authority is that?
A. State law and the Articles and Bylaws of Incorporation.
Q. When did the corporation -- when did it incorporate?
A. 1979.
Q. I'd like to show you Plaintiffs' Exhibit 39.
A. Yes.
Q. What is that document?
A. This is a typed copy of the 1917 Constitution under the Outer Head of the Order, Theodore Reuss, R-e-u-s-s.
Q. And Mr. Reuss was the first Head of the order before Mr. Crowley?
A. That is true, under the name of the Order presently in force.
MR. MITTEL: Your Honor, I'm going to [page 526] object to the offering of this document. I realize that there is a stipulation in which I did not indicate such an objection, but that's because in the Interrogatories that I asked about the basis of the documents on which the plaintiffs were relying to make their ownership claims or their -- Mr. McMurtry's claims to the Outer Head, this document was not mentioned.
It is the first time that I've seen it in this case. It has not been previously produced; it has not been previously mentioned.
And specifically, besides on the grounds of surprise, I want to raise objections as to its authenticity and hearsay.
MR. MacKENZIE: Well, I would answer that in two manners, Your Honor.
Mr. Heidrick has told me that he mailed this personally to Mr. Mittel. I don't know that fact for myself.
Furthermore, the basic reason, though, for relying on this Document 39 is really to establish the use of the Order's name or the form of the "Equinox" as something that's inherited in the OTO.
MR. MITTEL: It it's only offered to show the use of those two names, then defendants have no objection with the reservation that it does not mean we [page 527] would concede or stipulate hat those two names are tradenames that would be owned by anybody, let alone by either of the parties.
THE COURT: Well, it may be so, then.
BY MR. MacKENZIE:
Q. Mr. Heidrick, if you would turn to the fifth page of this document --
A. Yes.
Q. -- in which it states there are presently two official organs of the "Oriflamme" and "Equinox" halfway down in Article 14.
A. I see it.
Q. What are those now?
A. Well, the "Oriflamme" was the -- originated as a German language official publication of the Order.
It was all over -- publication called an "I.N.R.I." that was printed usually within