UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                 FILED JUL-10-1985
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
GRADY McMURTRY, et al           )
                  Plaintiffs,   )
                                )
            v.                  )    No. C-83-5434-CAL
                                )
SOCIETY ORDO TEMPLI ORIENTIS,   )
et al,                          )
                  Defendants.   )
________________________________)

                          FINDINGS OF FACT AND
                           CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
                          --------------------
   The action was tried to the court without a jury
from May 13 through May 17, 1985, and was then submitted for
decision.  The court has heard the testimony, read the
exhibits, and weighed the evidence.  The court makes the
following findings of fact by a preponderance of the evidence,
makes the following conclusions of law, and directs that
judgment be entered in favor of plaintiffs and against defendants
on plaintiffs' complaint, defendants' counterclaims, and
plaintiffs' counterclaims to the counterclaims.
   For simplicity, plaintiffs, counter-defendants, and
counter-counter plaintiffs will be called "plaintiffs;" and
defendants, counterclaimants, and counter-counter defendants
will be called "defendants."

                            FINDINGS OF FACT
                            ----------------
   1. The organization and system of beliefs which is
called "Ordo Templi Orientis" or "OTO" is a mystical and
fraternal organization begun around 1900.  The chief interna-
tional executive of OTO is known as the "Outer Head" or "OHO."
                                                      (end of page one)
Aleister Crowley became OHO in approximately 1921 and served
until his death in 1947.  Crowley wrote, or rewrote from
earlier versions, many of the rituals, doctrine, and interpre-
tative and instructive literature of OTO.  Crowley set forth
the rules of operation and procedures of OTO in numerous
books, essays, and correspondence.
   2. OTO had and now has lodges where its members
meet.  One such lodge, which existed during the 1930's and
subsequently, was Agape Lodge in California.
   3. After Crowley's death, Karl Germer became the
OHO.
   4. At his death, Crowley left all of his previously
undisposed intellectual and tangible literary property to OTO.
As OHO, Karl Germer took possession of all of the tangible
property of OTO around 1950 and moved the property to California.
   5. Karl Germer died in California in 1962.  No will
of Germer was offered for probate and the property of OTO
remained in the possession of Germer's widow, Sasha Germer.
   6. Sasha Germer died in 1975.
   7. In 1976, plaintiffs obtained an order from the
Superior Court of the State of California, Calavaras County,
"In the Matter of the Estate of Sasha Germer."  The order
decreed that plaintiff Grady McMurtry was authorized to take
possession, on behalf of OTO, of certain property identified
as belonging to OTO.  Pursuant to that order plaintiff
McMurtry and others took possession of properties which had
//
                                                     (end of page two)
formerly been in the possession of Crowley, Karl Germer, Sasha
Germer and OTO.
   8. Plaintiff OTO is now a California Corporation.
It has a legal structure; is a membership organization; main-
tains records; has a set of beliefs; has an established set of
procedures; conducts regular meetings; conducts financial
transactions; initiates and promotes members; and follows the
beliefs and practices derived from Crowley and the prior
unincorporated OTO.  It is a continuation of the organization,
beliefs and practices originally established and conducted by
Crowley and OTO.
   9. Defendant Society Ordo Templi Orientis ("SOTO")
was incorporated in the State of Tennessee.  SOTO is not the
continuation of the organization, beliefs and practices orig-
inally established by Crowley and OTO.
   10. Defendant Motta is a citizen of Brazil.  He has
for years been interested in the work of OTO and Crowley.
Motta has caused some literary works of Crowley to be pub-
lished, commented, and edited, in his own name and in the name
of OTO and SOTO.
   11. Plaintiff OTO now owns, hold all right and
title to, has used, does now use, and has the right to
use: the name "Ordo Templi Orientis;" the initials "OTO;" the
various insignia, registers and symbols of OTO; al writings
and publications of Crowley which were not assigned to others
at the time of his death; the publications of other matters
pertaining to OTO; and the trademarks, service marks, and
                                                   (end of page three)
copyrights pertaining to the same.  Defendants do not own,
hold, or have any right to use of such properties.
   12. The name "Thelema" in connection with publica-
tions is a part of the property owned by plaintiff OTO.
Plaintiff Smith has used that name on behalf of plaintiff OTO
in publications since 1962.  Plaintiff OTO has the rights to
the trademarks, service marks and copyrights of the name
"Thelema," and equivalents of that name, in connection with
publications.
   13. Defendants have used the name "Thelema" in
publications subsequent to its use by plaintiffs.  Defendants
do not have ownership of or the legal right to use the name
"Thelema" or its equivalents.  Defendants' use of the name of
"Thelema" was without the consent of plaintiffs and consti-
tutes infringement of that name.  Defendants' use of the name
"Thelema" in connection with publications has caused confusion
in the publishing industry and among purchasers of books, and
will if continued cause confusion in the future.  However,
plaintiffs have not shown sufficient evidence of monetary
losses from that confusion to support an award of compensatory
damages for defendants' improper use of the name "Thelema."
   14. Defendants' use, and purported registration of
trademarks and copyrights under the names "OTO," "Crowley,"
and "Thelema" were done in contemplation of this litigation
and were done without the rights of ownership of the property
purportedly registered and copyrighted.
//
                                                     (end of page four)
   15. Plaintiff McMurtry is the acting OHO of OTO in
the United States and is the highest overall member.  Plain-
tiff McMurtry was personally assigned by Crowley, and contin-
ues to own, a 25% interest in Crowley's "Magick Without Tears."
   16. Defendant Motta is not the OHO or OTO.
   17. In 19881 defendants published and distributed
certain books in California and elsewhere which contained
statements regarding the individual plaintiffs listed below.
Certain of the statements were matters of opinion, or were
matters pertaining to religious beliefs, and hence are pro-
tected under the First Amendment.  The following statements
about individual plaintiffs were not protected and were
libelous:
      a. Plaintiff Phyllis Seckler (nee Phyllis
Wade, Phyllis McMurtry) was accused of sending a gang to
assault and rob Sasha Germer, and was alleged to have misap-
propriated property.
      b. Plaintiff Grady McMurtry was alleged to
have committed slander, misappropriated property, pirated
property, delivered property to the hand of thieves, and
contributed to the death of Sasha Germer.
      c. Plaintiff Helen Parsons Smith was alleged
to be a thief.
      d. Plaintiff James Wasserman was alleged to
have delivered property to thieves and to have pirated property.
                                                    (end of page five)
   18. The statements made about the plaintiffs
enumerated in paragraphs 17-a, b, b [?] and d were untrue and
constituted libel per se.
   19. The plaintiffs enumerated in paragraphs 17-a,
b,c, and d did not establish by sufficient evidence any spe-
cial damages, but are entitled to general damages from defen-
dants in the amount of $10,000 each.
   20. The publications of the libels in paragraph
17-a, b, c, and d were done with actual malice by defendants,
with knowledge of their falsity, and with a reckless disregard
for the truth, and those plaintiffs are entitled to puntitive
damages from defendants in the amount of $25,000 each.
   21. Neither plaintiffs nor defendants are parties
engaged in the media business, and and not entitled to rights
or defenses attributable thereto.
   22. There is not sufficient evidence to establish
that defendants obtained any substantial gross revenue or
profit from their publications, or that plaintiffs lost any
gross revenue or profit, to support an award of damages to
plaintiffs for defendants' use of plaintiffs' names, publica-
tions or symbols.
   23. Plaintiff Wasserman was an agent of defendant
Motta for certain purposes in 1976.  Plaintiff Wasserman
terminated that agency in 1976, and the termination as ac-
knowledge by defendant Motta.  Any cause of action by Motta
for the breach of that agency relationship by Wasserman ac-
crued in 1976.
                                                    (end of page six)
   24. No property of defendants was converted by
plaintiffs.  Even if some personal properties of defendants
were included in the material obtained by plaintiffs from Karl
and Sasha Germer, they were obtained in 1976, and the obtaining
was known to defendants in 1976.
   25. Plaintiffs circulated among OTO members a
letter written by defendant Motta to Karl Germer dealing with
certain matters personal to Motta.  Motta has not shown by
sufficient evidence that the circulation was a violation of
his right of privacy, or that the circulation caused him any
special or general damages.  The circulation was not done with
malice, but in connection with the dispute between plaintiffs
and defendants as to who was the OHO and who rightfully held
the properties of OTO.  The circulation occurred, and was
known by defendant Motta to have occurred, more than one year
prior to the filing of the complaint in this action.
   26. Unless enjoined, defendants will continue to
claim and use the name "Ordo Templi Orientis" and the initials
"OTO," and will continue to claim that defendant Motta is the
OHO of OTO, and will use plaintiff OTO's names, insignia,
initials, symbols, trademarks and other properties of plain-
tiff OTO to the injury of plaintiff OTO.

                           CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
                           ------------------
   1. To the extent that any of the above findings of
fact may be deemed to be conclusions of law, they are incor-
porated by reference herein.
//
                                                   (end of page seven)
   2. The libelous statements enumerated in paragraphs
17-a, b, c, and d of the finding of fact are liber per se,
and general damages are presumed.
   3. The other allegedly libelous statements about
plaintiffs enumerated in the third and fourth causes of action
of plaintiffs' first amended complaint are not actionable
because they are matters of opinion or are religious matters
protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the
United States.
   4. Any publications by defendants of allegedly
libelous statements about plaintiffs which occurred subsequent
to the filing of the first amended complaint cannot be the
basis for any award of damages to plaintiffs in this action.
   5. Plaintiffs are entitled to judgment on their
first amended complaint against defendants as follows:
      a. On the first cause of action for unfair
competition regarding the use of the name "Ordo Templi
Orientis," and the initials "OTO", and the insignia and other
properties of OTO.
      b. on the second cause of action for infringe-
ment of trademarks owned by plaintiff OTO.
      c. On the third and fourth causes of action for
the libels enumerated in paragraphs 17-a, b, c, and d of the
findings of fact.
      d. On the fifth cause of action for unfair
competition in the use of the name "Thelema."
//
                                                   (end of page eight)
   6. By virtue of the decision of the United States
District Court for the District of Maine, United States Dis-
trict Judge Gene Carter, in the action entitled "Motta, et al
v. Samuel Weiser, Inc"., No. 81-0459, defendants are collateral-
ly estopped from asserting certain of their counterclaims
against plaintiffs.  Judgment should be entered in favor of
plaintiffs and against defendants on defendants' counterclaims
as follows, both because of the collateral estoppel effect of
that action and because of the findings of fact which are made
above:
      a. Defendants do not own the Crowley copy-
rights.
      b. Motta is not the OHO of OTO.
      c. Defendants' purported registration of copy-
rights are not valid because defendants do not own the proper-
ty purportedly copyrighted.
      d. Plaintiffs did not breach any copyrights of defendants,
as alleged in defendants' first counterclaim.
   7. Plaintiffs did not violate defendants' alleged
trademarks regarding the insignia of OTO, as alleged in defen-
dants' second and eighth counterclaims.
   8. Plaintiffs did not violate defendants' alleged
trademarks regarding SOTO, as alleged in defendants' third
counterclaim.
   9. Defendants' fourth counterclaim is barred by the
statutes of limitations, either by the two year statute of
limitations provided in California Code of Civil Procedure
                                                    (end of page nine)
Section 339 or by the three year statute of limitations provided
in California Code of Civil Procedure Section 338; the cause
of action accrued in 1976 and was barred prior to the filing
of the complaint in this action in March 1983.
   10. Defendants' fifth counterclaim is barred by the
three year statute of limitations provided in California Code
of civil procedure section 338; the cause of action accrued
in 1976 and was barred prior to the filing of the complaint in
this action in March 1983.
   11. Defendants' sixth counterclaim is barred by the
one year statute of limitations provided in California Code of
Civil Procedure section 340; the cause of action had accrued
and was barred prior to the filing of the complaint in this
action in March 1983.
   12. Plaintiffs have not waved their statute of
limitations defenses by not specifically asserting them in an
answer to defendants' counterclaims.
   13. Plaintiffs did not breach any federal trademark
regarding the name "Ordo Templi Orientis" as alleged in defen-
dants' seventh counterclaim.
   14. Plaintiffs did not breach any federal trademark
in the symbol "OTO" as alleged in defendants' eight counter-
claim.
   15. Plaintiff OTO is entitled to the exclusive use
of the trademarks and names claimed by defendants in their
counterclaims, except those of SOTO.
//
                                                      (end of page 10)
   16. Plaintiff Mcmurtry owns the interest in "Magick
Without Tears" assigned to him by Crowley.
   17. Plaintiff OTO is entitled to possession and
ownership of:  the remainder of the copyrighted material about
OTO, the archives of OTO, and the remainder of the writings of
Crowley.
   18. Defendants' purported registration of trade-
marks are invalid and of no legal effect, because defendants
did not and do not own the marks, except those of SOTO.
   19. Plaintiffs are entitled to injunctive relief
request in their counterclaim to the counterclaim.

                                JUDGMENT
                                --------
   Plaintiffs are to submit to this court, within
twenty days of the date below, a proposed form of judgment
incorporating these findings and conclusions.  Plaintiffs are
to simultaneously submit the proposed form of judgment to
defendants, and within ten days thereafter defendants are to
advise the court in writing what objections they have to the
proposed form of judgment prepared by plaintiffs.  Judgment
will then be entered by the court.
    Dated:  July 10, 1985.
                           CHARLES A. LEGGE
                           UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
                                   (end of page eleven and of document)


=======================================================================
                      NEW DOCUMENT FOLLOWS
=======================================================================


UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA                 FILED SEP 10 1985
GRADY McMURTRY, WILLIAM E. HEIDRICK,   )
PHYLLIS SECKLER, HELEN PARSONS SMITH,  )
JAMES WASSERMAN, individuals, ORDO     )
TEMPLI ORIENTIS,  a California cor-    )
poration, THELEMA PUBLICATIONS, a      )
business entity,                       )
                  Plaintiffs,          )
             v.                        )       No. C-83-5434-CAL
                                       )
SOCIETY ORDO TEMPLI ORIENTIS, a cor-   )
poration, THELEMA PUBLISHING COMPANY,  )
a corporation, ,MARCELO RAMOS MOTTA,    )
                  Defendants.          )
_______________________________________)

                                JUDGMENT
                                --------
   The action was tried from May 13, 1985, through May
17, 1985, before Charles A. Legge, United States District
Judge, sitting without a jury.  The plaintiffs appeared
through their counsel Stuart I. MacKenzie.  The defendants
appeared through their counsel Robert E. Mittel.  Evidence,
both oral and documentary having been presented by both
parties, the cause having been argued and submitted for
decision, and the court having caused to be made and filed
July 10, 1985, its written Findings of Fact and Conclusions of
Law; now therefore,
   Judgment is entered as follows:
   1. In favor of plaintiffs Phyllis Seckler, Grady
McMurtry, Helen Parsons Smith, and James Wasserman,
individually and severally, and against defendants Marcelo
Ramos Motta (hereinafter "Motta") and Society Ordo Templi
                                                      (end of page one)
Orientis (hereinafter "SOTO"), jointly and severally, on the
third cause of action of plaintiffs' complaint in the amounts
of $10,000 general damages and $25,000 puntitive damages for
each such plaintiff.
   2. In favor of defendants Motta and SOTO and
against plaintiff William E. Heidrick on the third cause of
action.
   3. Declaring that:
      (a) On the first cause of action of plaintiffs'
complaint, defendants engaged in unfair competition regarding
the use of the name "Ordo Templi Orientis," the initials
"OTO," and the insignia and other properties of plaintiff Ordo
Templi Orientis (hereinafter "OTO").
      (b) On the second cause of action of
plaintiffs' complaint, defendants infringed trademarks owned
by plaintiff OTO.
      (c) On the fifth cause of action of plaintiffs'
complaint, defendants unfairly competed in the use of the name
"Thelema."
      (d) Defendants do not own or have the right to
use any of the copyrights of publications of Aleister Crowley.
      (e) Defendant Motta is not the designated
secular Outer Head of plaintiff OTO, and has not been
designated by any secular authority as Outer Head of Ordo
Templi Orientis.
      (f) Defendants' purported registration of
copyrights of material pertaining to Ordo Templi Orientis are
                                                      (end of page two)
invalid because defendants did not and do not own the material
purportedly copyrighted.
      (g) Plaintiffs did not breach any copyrights of
defendants.
      (h) Plaintiffs did not violate defendants'
alleged trademarks regarding the insignia of OTO.
      (i) Plaintiffs did not violate defendants'
alleged trademarks regarding SOTO.
      (j) Plaintiffs did not violate any federal
trademark regarding the name "Ordo Templi Orientis" or the
symbol "OTO."
      (k) Plaintiff OTO is entitled to the exclusive
use of the trademarks and names claimed by defendants, except
that defendant SOTO has the continued right to use the name
"Society Ordo Templi Orientis" and the initials "SOTO".
      (l) Plaintiff Grady McMurtry owns the interest
in "Magick Without Tears" assigned to him by Aleister Crowley.
      (m) Plaintiff OTO is entitled to the possession
and ownership of (i) all other materials copyrighted in the
United States about Ordo Templi Orientis, (ii) the archives of
OTO, and (iii) all other writings by Aleister Crowley which
are not in the public domain.
      (n) Defendants' purported registration of
trademarks are invalid, because defendants did not and do not
own the marks, except those of SOTO.
   4. Defendants Motta and SOTO, and agents, servants,
employees, representatives, successors and assigns acting for
                                                    (end of page three)
them, or in active concert or participation with them, are
permanently enjoined and restrained from:
      (a) Using, registering, publishing,
distributing, or infringing (i) the copyrights, trademarks,
trade names, service marks, and service names held by
plaintiff OTO; (ii) the name "Thelema" when used as the
publisher or distributor of written material; (iii) all other
titles of works used to date by plaintiff OTO in various
publications; (iv) all writings and publications of Aleister
Crowley which are not in the public domain; (v) the initials
"OTO;" and (vi) all titles of honor, emblems, insignia,
registers, symbols, or any other property or articles of
plaintiff OTO.
      (b) Representing (i) that Motta has been
designated by any secular authority as Outer head of Ordo
Templi Orientis, or (ii) that defendant SOTO is authorized by
any secular authority as the successor of the organization,
beliefs, and practices established and developed by Aleister
Crowley and Ordo Templi Orientis.
   5. All registrations undertaken by defendants,
whether directly, indirectly, or in their name, of any of the
matters adjudged herein to be the property of plaintiffs,
whether purportedly registered as a copyright, trademark,
service mark, trade name, service name, or otherwise, are
invalid, and at plaintiff OTO's election, are to be rescinded
and canceled by the appropriate governmental registration
office, whether the United States Patent and Trademark Office,
the United States Copyright Office, or other.
                                                     (end of page four)
   6. Defendants take nothing on their
cross-complaint.
   7. Plaintiffs are entitled to their costs of suit
in the amount of $1,234,21.
   Dated:  September 10, 1985.
                                  CHARLES A. LEGGE
                                  UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
                                      (end of page five and of document)


=======================================================================
                      NEW DOCUMENT FOLLOWS
=======================================================================


Filed APR-6 1987
USDC NDC
McMurtry vs. SOTO
No. C-83-54-CAL

           ADDITIONAL FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.
           ---------------------------------------------------
                      ADDITIONAL FINDINGS OF FACT.
                      ----------------------------
     The Court of Appeals remanded the case to this court
to "make additional findings specifying in detail the factual
basis for its ultimate findings of fact that Plaintiff OTO is,
and Defendant OTO is not, the continuation of the original OTO
and its findings that McMurtry is, and Motta is not, the OHO."
That remand pertains primarily to findings of fact 8, 9, 15, and 16.
     This court believes that its original findings of
fact meet the standards of adequacy defined by Fed.R.Civ.P.
52(a) and by this Circuit in "Nicholson v. Board of Education",
682 F.2d 858 (9th Cir. 1985).  Nevertheless,
since the Court of Appeals has requested additional findings,
the court makes the following additional findings of fact on
the issues defined by the Court of Appeals:
     27. Defendant Motta was not a credible witness.
His testimony was incomplete, evasive, and contradictory, and
                                                        (end page one)
was impeached in important particulars.  Motta admitted to
lying under oath in the action referred to in Conclusion of
Law 6.  There was no credible evidence that defendant Motta
was initiated into OTO and became a member thereof.  Motta has
made inconsistent prior statements as to whether he does or
does not claim to be OHO
     28. Plaintiffs' witnesses McMurtry, Parsons-Smith,
Seckler, Heidrick, and Wasserman gave credible testimony
regarding the transfers of property, and the history,
publications, and organizational structure of OTO
     29. Plaintiff OTO has made actual use of the names,
initials, insignia, copyrights, and trademarks at issue.
     30. Plaintiff OTO has allowed third parties to publish
material originally protected by the copyrights of
Aleister McCrowley (sic) if plaintiffs' role in the publication is
acknowledged by those third parties.  The third parties have
done so.
     31. Plaintiffs have had actual and lawful
possession of the writings and archives of Crowley and Germer.
     32. The California Agape Lodge was the only OTO
lodge existing in the United States at the time Crowley died.
That lodge was a direct predecessor of plaintiff OTO.
    33. There was no credible evidence that defendant
SOTO ever received a charter from OTO.
     34. There was no credible evidence that defendant
SOTO is a membership organization, maintains records, has an
established set of procedures, conducts regular meetings,
                                                         (end page two)
conducts financial transactions, or initiates or promotes
members.
     35. Motta has been the sole member of SOTO, and
SOTO now has no other members, in the United States.
      36. Plaintiff McMurtry has been acting as the OHO
of OTO for an indefinite by significant number of years.
     37. Several documents evidenced a close mentor
relationship between Crowley and McMurtry, and that
responsibilities and authorities were vested in McMurtry by
Crowley and by Germer.
     38. One document evidenced the intent of Crowley
that McMurtry be OHO.
     39. There was a subsequent dispute between Germer
and McMurtry, but no credible evidence that Germer intended to
change Crowley's intended succession of OHO.
     40. Germer's widow acknowledged McMurtry as the
OHO.  Numerous members of OTO acknowledged their recognition
of McMurtry as the OHO.

                      ADDITIONAL CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
                      -----------------------------
     The Court of Appeals also remanded the case to this
court to make "conclusions of law explaining (this) court's
reasons as to why its adjudication of the issues in this case
does not transgress First Amendment prohibitions against
resolving church property disputes by adjudicating questions
of church doctrine, practice, organization or administration."
The court complies with that remand by making the following
additional conclusions of law:
                                                        (end of page 3)
     20. Defendants did not assert First Amendment
contentions, except as follows:
          (a) Defendants asserted the First Amendment as
a defense to certain of plaintiffs' causes of action for
libel.  This court respected that defense in Finding of Fact
No. 17: "Certain of the statements were matters of opinion,
or were matters pertaining to religious beliefs, and hence are
protected under the First Amendment."  And in Conclusion of
Law No. 3:  "The other allegedly libelous statements about
plaintiffs enumerated in the third and fourth causes of action
of plaintiffs' first amended complaint are not actionable
because they are matters of opinion or are religious matters
protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the
United States."
          (b) In defendants' Objections to Proposed
Judgment and Costs, filed on August 12, 1985, after entry of
the findings of fact and conclusions of law.
          (c) In defendants' Motion to Alter, Amend, and
Vacate the court's opinion and for a new trial.  However, that
motion was not filed until September 26, 1985, outside of the
time provisions of Rule 59(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil
 Procedure.
     21. No other First Amendment defenses were asserted
by defendants before or during trial.  (a) In their first
amended answer, motion to dismiss and counterclaim, defendants
sought adjudication of the property rights which were put in
issue by plaintiffs.  (b) In the joint pretrial statement,
                                                         (end of page 4)
both plaintiffs and defendants stated that the case was
primarily about which of two groups were the owners of
intellectual and tangible personal property; defendants sought
ownership of the property and sought declaratory and
injunctive relief setting forth its ownership rights. (c)
Although the court does not have a trial transcript, the
court's notes indicate that defendants did not assert the
First Amendment during trial, but continued to assert their
alleged rights to the properties in question. (d)  Defendant's
Proposed Findings of Fact stated that OTO is "primarily the
administrative and material branch" of the philosophical and
religious system.
     22. If defendant's First Amendment claim now being
made on appeal constitutes an affirmative defense under Rule
8(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that defense has
 been waived because it was not asserted in the pleadings or at
trial.
     23. However, if defendant's First Amendment claim
now being made on appeal pertains to the jurisdiction of this
court which is not waived by not asserting it at or before
trial, the following additional conclusions of law are
relevant.
     24. The matters at issue primarily involved secular
libel, and disputes over the ownership of and rights to
property, to wit: copyrights, trademarks, service marks,
intellectual property, tangible personal property, writings,
                                                         (end of page 5)
publications of Aleister Crowley, names, insignia and
archives.
     25. The resolution of those disputes involved the
application of neutral principles of the law of property,
contract, intestate succession, gift, express and implied
trust, bequest, assignment, and libel.
     26. Documents regarding religious dogma and
theology were not and did not need to be reviewed to resolve
those disputes.
     27. The resolution of those disputes did not
involve resolving disputes of underlying religious doctrine or
practices.
     28. No examination of religious precepts was done,
and none was necessary, to resolve the disputes.
     29. Resolution of the disputes did not depend upon
resolving any religious controversies or the application of
any religious law.
     30. The damages claimed by and awarded to
plaintiffs primarily concerned issues of secular libel (see
Findings of Fact 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21 and Conclusions of Law
2 and 4).
      Dated:  April 6, 1987.
                         Charles A. Legge
                         United States District Judge
                                        (end of page 6, and of document)

Items of Historical Interest

Some background information

Some Things

Other Background

Traduction française: Jeu de rôle d'une O.T.O.-Fatamorgana.
Traduzione italiana: La versione play-game di un O.T.O.-Fatamorgana

Traduction française: Fétiche, auto-induction, stigmatisation et jeu de rôle.
Traduzione italiana: Il feticcio, l’auto-induzione, lo stigma, il gioco di ruolo.
Tlumaczenie polskie: Fetysz. Rytualy. Resocjalizacja: Tozsamosc przez stygmat. Autoindukowana schizofrenia. Odgrywanie ról.
По русски: Фетиш, самоиндукция, стигма и ролевая игра.

What's New ?    Introduction    The early O.T.O.    Carl Kellner    Memphis Misraim    O.T.O. Rituale    Fraternitas Saturni    Typhonian O.T.O.    Ecclesia Gnostica Catholica    The "Caliphate"    Fraternitas Rosicruciana Antiqua   Spermo-Gnostics   Illuminati   Deutsche Seiten    David Bowie    Charles Manson    Anal intercourse and the O.T.O.    Pictures + Documents    Voices of the O.T.O.    Books on the O.T.O.