Aleister Crowley Copyrights

Naylor’s argument

Until such time as the rights of the Literary Executor are overturned by a UK Court then UK Law and thereby International Law is the superior — matters concerning UK citizens and their property are subject to UK Law — the jurisdiction of the USA 9th Circuit Court does not include the UK. However, given the way in which the ruling was obtained the “Caliphate Corporation” may be reluctant to have the matter re-examined by any court. The following texts are also of direct relevance to the legal position in the USA and may affect the “Caliphate’s” willingness to re-enter any legal arena to argue their case:

Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act [RICO] — United States of America

The Anticounterfeiting Consumer Protection Act of 1996, makes trademark and copyright counterfeiting a predicate offense under the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (RICO), thereby opening the door to the severe penalties provided for under RICO. Historically, an injured plaintiff could bring a civil action seeking remedies under RICO by establishing: “(1) that the defendant (2) through the commission of two or more acts (3) constituting a ‘Pattern’ (4) of ‘racketeering activity’ (5) directly or indirectly invests in, or maintains an interest in, or participates in (6) an ‘enterprise’ (7) the activities of which affect interstate or foreign commerce.”

Moss v. Morgan Stanley, Inc. 719 F.2d 5, 17 (2d Cir. 1983),
cert. denied sub nom, Moss v. Newman, 465 U.S. 1025 (1984).

The law specifically defines the activities which may be considered “racketeering activity.” 18 U.S.C. § 1961. Thus, only owners of intellectual property who could prove that a defendant had engaged in some form of “racketeering activity,” for example, mail or wire fraud, could file suit.

The new law expanded the definition of “racketeering activity” under RICO to include violations of laws which relate to: trafficking in counterfeit labels for phono-records, computer programs and documentation, and audiovisual works; criminal copyright infringement; the unauthorized fixation of and trafficking in sound recordings and music videos; and trafficking in goods and services bearing counterfeit marks. 18 U.S.C. § 1961 (1) (B). According to the legislative history, the law is intended to address the frustration that trademark and copyright owners faced due to their inability to recover any meaningful damages when faced with counterfeiting.

It appears that an intellectual property owner who properly pleads a violation of any of the above laws as a predicate “racketeering activity,” and additionally satisfies the required elements for a RICO action, e.g., establishing two or more acts, may prosecute a viable claim under RICO for trademark or copyright counterfeiting.

As it does appear that Judge Legge in the 9th Circuit Court was knowingly deceived by both Plaintiffs and Defendants the relevant authorities may, in the fullness of time, determine that the ruling of the 9th Circuit Court was obtained by fraudulent means. Since 1985 the “Caliphate Corporation” have repeatedly made representations to publishers, both inter-state and internationally, relying on this apparently fraudulent ruling and thereby obtained payments from publishers. “Caliphate Corporation” could therefore be deemed to have committed numerous offences under the US Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

Tax Exempt Status of the “Caliphate Corporation” as a non-profit religious group — United States of America

The “Caliphate’s” religious tax exempt status IRS letter is dated May 1982, 501(c)3 and exempt. CA State exemption letter for the same is dated 31 March 1983, retroactive to March 1980 e.v. — that’s for “Caliphate Corporation” International. The US Grand Lodge separately incorporated a few years ago and separately obtained the same exempt standing — except “Caliphate Corporation” IHQ is not required to file Form 990 and “Caliphate Corporation” Grand Lodge is. What this means is that they have applied for and receive special tax exempt status in the United States for being a non-profit religious group.

In Bill Heidrick’s own words: “copyrights on Crowley texts are treated as ordinary, mundane intellectual property, without regard to religious usage, under the law. That makes them the same in statute as any other book, be it fiction or factual writing.”

Therefore, Heidrick is saying that their reliance on the Copyright Law is based on them as publishers . . . that the “Caliphate Corporation” is technically a business. It may be that if they do not relinquish their false claim on the copyrights or if they attempt to defend them in court, there is a strong case for the “Caliphate Corporation” paying the back taxes owed since 1980 when they first claimed they were a non-profit religious group. A 1971 law giving the Christian Science Church an extended copyright to its central theological texts was declared unconstitutional by a federal appeals court. The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Washington said the law giving the church a copyright is unconstitutional because it “offends the fundamental principles of separation of church and state.” “Caliphate Corporation” cannot have the benefits of the Government’s protection in both cases.

That is unconstitutional and will crumble under scrutiny, and may even result in a Federal criminal investigation.

Any contracts entered into with the “Caliphate Corporation” where they have represented themselves as owners of the Crowley Copyrights must immediately be regarded as void.

“Caliphate” cannot prove lineage so they try to find a back door ...

To challenge Crowley’s Last Will and Testament the “Caliphate Corporation” must prove their lineage before they can make a challenge against the Estate of Aleister Crowley. The published evidence has shown that the “Caliphate Corporation” does not have any legitimate claims of lineage to either the Reuss-O.T.O. or the Crowley-O.T.O.

Therefore, the “Caliphate Corporation” must rely on an alleged-purchase of the copyrights from the Official Receiver (OR) — which, in turn, is based on the assumption that Crowley died an undischarged bankrupt and that the copyrights remained with the OR and were not transferred to Germer.

This alleged-purchase was handled on behalf of the Insolvency Service (Official Receiver) by a firm of Accountants called Stoy Hayward. Apparently no proper investigation was made — John Symonds was certainly not contacted — the accountant responsible approved a vague agreement referring to the Crowley copyrights in which he stated that he “may have (if any)”. As a precaution, the accountant took a personal indemnity from a UK member of the “Caliphate Corporation” to cover the costs of any potential “negligence” or other legal actions which may arise from his alleged-sale of the “may have (if any)” copyrights.

Many letters were written immediately after Crowley’s death between Germer, Symonds, Wilkinson and Harris, the executors of Crowley’s Will, and these show the OR was actively involved and that he seized money in at least one bank account and for a time impounded Crowley’s stored goods etc. The subject of the Crowley copyrights was explicitly discussed in the executor’s letters — the discussion was centred on fears that the OR might hold an auction and that the copyrights would eventually be purchased by Gerald J. Yorke. The letters indicate that a short while afterwards the OR subsequently abandoned all claims to the Crowley Estate.

It is therefore abundantly clear that the copyrights were not the Official Receiver’s to sell — any “possible claim” that may have existed was abandoned in 1948 or shortly thereafter.

1. The OR was aware of the Last Will and Testament and it is a matter of fact that it was unopposed. In addition, please note that there was no opposition from the OR to the Probate obtained in 1949 or the Probate obtained in 1971.
2. In 1948 the OR office waived its claim to Crowley’s physical property.
3. The effects, such as books and papers, were shipped to the USA and were not claimed by the OR. As these formed part of the Literary Estate any “possible claim” that the OR had was clearly not followed through and therefore this proves conclusively that the OR abandoned any such “possible claim”.
4. Also, any “possible claim” or interest in Crowley’s estate, and the duty of the OR to recover monies on behalf of Crowley’s creditors, must be deemed to have been totally abandoned when an offer to discharge Crowley’s debts, made personally by Germer, was ignored.

There have been many “Pretenders to the Throne” together with the inevitable reincarnations of Crowley and even the genuinely insane — all have made their demands, issued their threats and shouted their assertions to be the one true heir.

The “Caliphate Corporation” has made its demands, issued its threats but never produced its evidence — it is another johnny-come-lately in a long history of O.T.O. wannabe’s — it shall be known by its deeds!

Eventually, Naylor lost his case.