amorc vs george l. smith and e. e. thomas (1933)

8/12/2019 AMORC vs George L. Smith and E. E. Thomas (1933)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/amorc-vs-george-l-smith-and-e-e-thomas-1933 1/38

IN THE

SUPERIOR COURTK E RN CO UNT V, CAL I F O RNI A

A N C I E N T M Y S T I C A L O R D E R

R O S / E C R U C I S

A. M. O. U. C.Goes to Court charging two of its for- i

mor members with conspiracy to

wreck it . The y answer alleg

ing that it is clandes

tine, a fraudulent

scheme and a

‘racket.’

O f Special Interest to all

Masons, Rosicru cians, Stu dents o f the

Occult and Fraternal Organizations



THE CASE

of

The Ancient and Mystical Order

Rosae Crucis

against

George L. Smith and E. E. Thomas

in

The Superior Court of the State of

California, in and for the

County of Kern

Prin ted by

THE PHILOSOPHICAL PUBLISHING COMPANY

QUAKERTOWN, PENNSYLVANIA



F O R E W O R D

To A L L WHO A R E I N T E R E S T E D :

The case o f A . M. O. R . C. against

two o f its former members is o f spe

cial interest to all regular Masons,

real Rosicrucians, sincere students

o f the occult sciences, fra tern al and

secret societies, and other like and

similar organizations. Therefore, in

order to make the information avail

able to all those who are interested,

The Philosophical Publishing Com

pany, Quakertown, Pennsylvania ,

prints the Pleadings and A llega

tions in said case.

Additio nal copies o f this pamphlet

may be had upon application to

T E E P H I L O S O P H IC A L P U B L I S H I N G C O M P A N Y

QUA KERT OWN, PENNS, YLVA N1A



1

A D D E N D A

The following excerpt is reprinted from the American Rosae

Crucis (the then official organ of AMORC), Vol. I, No. 1,

January, 1916, pages 3 and 4, under the title, “The Authentic

and Complete History of the Ancient and Mystical Order Rosa:

Crucis,” by H. Spencer Lewis:

“The claim has always been made that the A. M. 0. R. C. is

the oldest fra tern al or secret order known to man. Th is claimmakes, the order antedate Fr eem aso nry, and the la tte r lias al-ways claimed gr ea t antiqu ity. He re aga in the casual, aye, the

deep investigator, is confronted with a mass of details purport-

ing to be the history of Freemasonry, but gradually classify-ing themselves into two groups whicli one may label ‘inexact’and ‘indefinite.’

“Right here is where some of the mystery becomes clarified.Rosicrucians claim, and can prove, that the Order of Free and

Accepted Masons is an offspring of the A. M. 0. R. C., and forthis reason itsorigin is so veiled and indefinite except to thosewho have passed throu gh the Sc otti sh Rites. Because of itsfrankness, publicity and public propaganda, Freemasonry has

grown into a powerful organization, overshadowing in the pub-lic’s mind all other secret and fraternal orders.

“On the point of its connection with the A. M. 0. R. C.,Freem asonr y is very silent. I t trac es its antiq uity to ‘Solo-

mon’s Temple’ and refers to characters whose history, if notactual existence,„are cloaked with doubt. Its published hist oryis very esoteric 'and mystical, altho ugh its ac tual histo ry, as

known to all advanced Rosicrucians, is a living testimonial tothe truth of thejioble principles of brotherhood which underlie

Freemasonry.“So closely are the two orders allied that many of the great

exponents of the~one are active workers in the other. Fre e-masonry has acknowledged its debt to the A. M. 0. R. C. byadding a Rosicrucian degree to the Ancient and Accepted Scot-tish Rite, making it the 18°. It has also established ‘Societas

Rosicruciana’ ' in Engla nd and various pa rts of the UnitedStates, to which'none but an advanced Mason may apply foradmission.

“In these Ros:icrucian societies, as in the A. & A. S. R. 18°,certain elements of't he 'Ro sicru cian initiations and do ctrines

are used (in thaxrude form resulting from tradition by word



3

announces its forthcoming annual pronouncements, conferring

upon ou r order_some_ Kigh honor s an d m aking ou r high degree

members of the'Supreme Gr and Lodge of Nort h America, Ho n-

orary Members of the Grand Shrine of Egypt and of the Illu-minati of India by virtue of the power of the Magister of the

Temple R. S. at C alcutta . This Su preme High Council of the

Universe has under its immediate direction more than thirtyof the Secret Orders i f the world which have existed since thedawn of civilization, which means all the esotei’ic Orders orFraternities, including the Essenes, Oriental Theosophists,

Esoteric Masonry, Rose Croix de Heredom, Ivrata Repoa of

Eg yp t, Rites of Mithras, Knights of Jerusalem, OrientalDruids, L ’ordre du Martinisme, Oriental Knights of Temp lar,

the Oi’der Roste . Crucis, etc. Th e pr ac tic e of all the anc ient

and primitive rites of these orders, the conferring of their de-

grees and the establishment of their Lodges are under the con-trol of this. Supreme Council, and thereby all arc united intoone large and cooperative, harmonious, secret organization.

Our Im pe rat or is. ah igh officer of this Council an d all our

members who reach the Twelfth (Illuminati) Degree of ourOrder will be appointed official representatives of this Council.

“By all this it will be seen that the A. M. 0. R. C. is theonly organization, body, society or group of Rosicrucians inAmerica (or inthewo rid, for th at ma tter) having the ap- pro val , re cogniti on'a nd dir ecti on of the Suprem e H igh Counci lof all ancient arid "modem Se cret R ites .”



IN THE

Superior Court of the Stateof California

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF KERN

T h e A n c i e n t a n d M y s t i c a l O r d e r

Ros.e CituciSj a Corporation,

Plaintiff, Xo_ 2(53U

vs. ■COMPLAINT

GiioitGE L. S m i t h a n d E. E. T h o m a s ,

De fen dants. „

I.“During all times herein mentioned plaintiff was, and now is,

a fraternal lodge corporation, organized, existing and doing

business under and by v irtue of the laws of th e S ta te of Cali-fornia.

II.

“As such corporation plaintiff has and conducts rituals,ceremonials, lessons, instructions and imparts other sundry in-formation to its duly qualified admitted members in good stand-ing only.

III.“Plaintiff corporation has a large membership throughout

the continental United States and elsewhere and for the use, benefi t, instruction and administra tio n of it s members, owns

and maintains administration buildings, printing plant andother pr op ert y an d equipment representing a large investment.Plaintiff has in the past engaged and does now engage in p ropaganda and di ss em in at io n of informatio n conce rn in g theorder and its aims and objects for the purpose of increasingits membership, which activities have in the past and do now

entail great expense. T h a t plain tiff order has been and now is

maintained and suppoi’ted through initiation fees and member-ship dues paid in by its members.

IV .

“Heretofore defendants were members of plaintiff organiza-



G

tion and as such members were imparted and entrusted with

lessons, rituals, ceremonials and other information, all of which

was imparted to them as such members for their own use only

and in confidence.Y.

“Defendants severed their membership in the plaintiff order

and thereafter associated themselves with Alfred Saunders, oneJohn Doe Clymer, Myrtle Crane, Stanley Daines and others,

and the defendant, together with said persons, formed andeffected a conspiracy for the purpose of injuring the plaintiff,

diminishing its revenue and otherwise inflicting loss on the

pla int iff by ci rcu la tin g fa ls e and defam atory st ate men ts, co erc-

ing the members of the plaintiff to withdraw from their mem-

be rs hi p an d by other an d divers ac ts as herei nafter alleged, allfor the pui'pose of depi'iving the plaintiff of its membership,

revenues, property, and thereby wrecking the plaintiff oxganization.VI.

“For the purpose of lessening the value of membership in

pla int iff or de r, an d ther eby to prevent th e ac qu is it io n of new

membexs by the plaintiff , de fend ants wr ongfully and c on tr ar yto their respective oaths and solemn promises and undertak-ings, given to the plaintiff, made copies of the private, confi-

dential and seci'et lessons and rituals of plaintiff order, and

otherwise published them and tui*ned them over to persons notmembers of plaintiff.

VII.“F o r the pui*pose of caxxying in to effect the afoxementioned

conspiracy, defendants, together with said other conspirators,eircuh itcd wx*i tings th ro ug ho ut the membership of the plain tifforder and to other persons who were likely to become such

members, accusing the executive head of plaintiff order of being

a person who has been guilty of acts of felony, and that he wasinsane; that the plaintiff ox’der was about to be prosecuted for

divers frauds and other illegal acts, and advised said membersand other persons to withdraw their membership in plaintifforder, and advising nonmembex's not to seek membershiptherein.

v i i i . H-“Duxing all times herein mentioned JL. Spencer Lewis was,

and now is, the executive head of plaintiff order and as such

he is widely known th rou gho ut the m embership of plaintiff o rderand among large numbers of nonmembers thx'oughout theUnited States, in Europe and elsewhere.

I X .“That the defendants, E. E. Thomas and the said conspira-



7

tors John Doe Clymer, Stanley Daines and Alfred Saunders,

have been, and now are, associated with and/or officials, and/ormembers of other organizations purporting to conduct an or-

ganization similar in purpose to that of plaintiff order, and by

said acts of said conspirators attempted to gain members andadherents to their respective organizations, and against the

interest and at the expense of plaintiff order.'X.

“Defendants, together with said conspirators, gave out inwriting and orally to a large number of plaintiff’s members, and

to divers other persons, that probable exposure of plaintiff

order for criminal and fraudu lent acts was imminent and intimi-

dated many of plaintiff’s members to cease their membership

in plaintiff order, and prevented a large number of prospective

members from seeking membership in plaintiff order, and heldout to such persons and members coercing them into believingthat when such purported exposure occurred their membership

in such order would reflect adversely upon them by reason ofsuch membership, and the defendants, together with the other

conspirators, and by means of such acts did cause divers per-sons to cease their membership in plaintiff order, and did causeother persons to refrain from seeking membership therein.

X I .

“That all of said statements made and circulated by the de-fendants and their coconspirators, either in writing or orally,

as hereinabove stated, were and are false, and that the defend-ants and their coconspirators, and each of them, made saidstatements maliciously and for the purpose of injuring the

plaintiff order , an d for the purpose of gai ni ng adh ere nts an d

revenues for themselves by increasing their membership in otherorganizations, as hereinabove mentioned, and that all of said

acts of the defendants and of their coconspirators were andarc in pursuance of said conspiracy.

X I I .

‘'That the acts of the defendants were committed within onevear immediately preceding the commencement of this action.

X I I I .

“By reason of the acts of the defendants and of their co-conspirators plaintiff has lost existing members, and has lost

the opportunity of gaining a large number of prospective members , an d the publ ic es teem concer nin g the pl ai nt iff order has been dam ag ed an d it s re venues impa ire d, all to it s damage inthe sum of ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00).

X I V .

“The defendants and the other mentioned persons as suclicoconspirators are now continuing and persisting in all of said



8

acts hereinabove mentioned, and threaten to so continue, andwill do so unless restrained by tliis Cou rt. By reason of the

nature of the damages inflicted upon plaintiff by the activities

and acts of the defendants and their coconspirators, and by

reason of the farflung membership and influence of the plaintiff

it will be difficult and impossible to estimate the damages which

the plaintif f will suffer in the fut ur e, and by reason of the na tur e

of said acts and the damages consequent thereon, pecuniary

damages will be wholly inadequate; that unless the defendants

are restrained by this Court, plaintiff mil be forced to institute

successive and repeated actions, thereby necessitating multi-

pli cit y of ac tions.

XV.

"Neither defendants nor any of their coconspirators can re-spond in pecuniary damages and any monetary judgment for

damages a gains t either of them would yield nothing to the pl ain -tiff. T h at plaintiff has no plain, adeq uate, speedy or efficacious

remedy at law, and unless defendants are restrained by thisCourt, plaintiff will be without remedy.

" W h e r e f o r e , pla in ti ff p rays fo r judgm ent again st th e de-fendants in the sum of ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00), to-gether with its costs of suit herein, and for such injunctive andother relief as to the Court may seem meet and proper in the

premises and necess ary for the p ro tec tion of th e r ig hts of pl aint iff.

“ F R E D E R I C K W . W E L S H ,“ A L F R E D A R A M ,

“Attorneys for Plaintiff.

" S t a t e o f C a l i f o r n i a

"C o u n t y o f K e r n

" F r e d e r i c k W . W e l s h , being fi rs t duly sworn, deposes and.ays: He is the attorney for the plaintiff in the foregoing ac

hon, and he makes this verification for and on behalf of the pla in ti ff for the re as on th a t th e said p laintiff is outs ide of th e

County of Ivern, wherein this affiant maintains his offices; thathe has read the foregoing complaint and knows the contentsthereof, and he believes it to be time.

^ “ F R E D E R I C K W . W E L S H .Sub scribcd and sworn to before me

this 26th day of October, 1932.

“ H e n r i e t t a G . P a l m e r ,

“No ta ry Pitblic in and fo r said ( s e a l ) County and Stat e.”

The foregoing complaint was filed December 9, 1932, and iscertified to be a tru e "copy by the C lerk of said Court.



9

C O R R E C T I O N O E N A ME

On February 1, 1933, the plaintiff’s attorney filed its appli-cation to correct plaintiff’s name (omitting the title and formal

p a r t s ) , 'a s follows:

“ S t a t e o f C a l i f o r n i a

“ C o u n t y o f K e r n

“ F r e d e r i c k W . W e l s h , be ing fi rs t du ly sworn, deposes an dsays: I am one of the attorneys for the plaintiff in the above-

entitled action and have immediate charge of the action. In

the preparation of the complaint in this action a mistake was

made in the name of the p ar ty plaintiff. The correct name of

the pa r ty p la in ti ff is T H E SU PR EM E GRAND LODGE OF

T H E A N C I E N T A N D M Y S T I C A L O R D E R R O S . E C R U CIS, a corporation.

“The mistake occurred because the complaint was drawn inBakersfield, Kern County, California, and the office of the cor-

poration is in anoth er county and the p a r ty givi ng me th e in-formation as to the name inadvertently omitted the words 'The

Supreme Grand Lodge of’ from the title.“The Court is respectfully requested to correct this mistake

in the name of the plaintiff bv changing the name of the pla in ti ff from T H E A N C IE N T A N D M YSTIC AL O R D ERROS 'E CRUCIS, a corporat ion, to THE SUPREMEG R A ND LO D G E O F T H E A N C I E N T A N D M Y S TI C ALORDER ROS.E CRUCIS, a co rpora t ion .

“I make this application for and on behalf of the plaintiff

because none of the officers of the pla in ti ff are in th e Co un tyof Ivern, where I reside and have my office, and I am familiarwith the facts.

“ F R E D E R I C K W . W E L S H .Subscribed and sworn to before me,

this 1st day of February, 1933.

“ H e n r i e t t a G. P a l m e r ,

“Notary Public in and for said ( s e a l ) County and State . ”

The foregoing is certified to be a true copy by the Clerk ofsaid Court.



D E F E N D A N T ’S A M E N D ED A N S W E R

The defendants filed their original answer and on March 9,

1933, filed their amended answer (omitting the title and formal

p a r t s ) , as follows:

“Comes now the defendants, George L. Smith and E. E.

Thomas, and answers the complaint of the plaintiff herein; ad-

mits, denies and alleges as follows, to wit:

I.“Answering paragraph 1, denies that plaintiff is now or

ever has been a fraternal lodge or corporation, and furtherdenies that said plaintiff is or ever has been organized to do

bus iness under and by vir tue of the laws of the S ta te of Cali-

fornia, or the laws of any State.

” n.“Answering paragraph 2, denies that said plaintiff does now

or ever has conducted rituals, ceremonials or lessons, and fur-ther denies that said plaintiff instructs or imparts sundry in-formation or any information to its qualified members in goodstanding or in any standing.

" m .“Answering paragraph 3, denies that plaintiff has a large

membership or any membership in the United States or else-where, and denies that plaintiff owns or maintains administra-tion buildings or printing plants for the benefit or instruction

of said members. Admits t h at the plaintiff lias engaged, and

does now engage, in propaganda and dissemination of informa-tion concerning plaintiff and its aims and objections; deniesthat the activities of the plaintiff have in the past or do now

entail any expense; denies that the plaintiff lias been or nowis maintained and supported through initiation fees and dues

pai d to it by its members.

IV.“Answering paragraph 4, admits that the defendants were

members of plaintiff organization, and denies that as such members th er e was im parte d o r entr uste d to them lessons, rit ualsand ceremonials and other information, and denies that if suchinformation were given them it was for their own use and to beused only in confidence.

V.

“Answering paragraph 5, admits that the defendants sev-

ered their membership with the plaintiff and denies that they



11

associated themselves with Alfred Saunders, John Doe Cly

mer, Myrtle F. Crane, Stanley Daines and others, or that they

are now associated with said mentioned persons, and denies

that they formed and effected a conspiracy or that they are

now conspiring for the purpose of injuring the plaintiff, di-

minishing its revenue and/or otherwise inflicting loss on plain-

tiff; denies that they, or either of them, circulated false or de-

famatory statements and coerced the members of the plaintiff

order to withdraw their membership, and deny that either of

them did any other acts for the purpose of depriving plaintiff

of its membership, revenue and property.VI.

“Answering paragraph 6, denies that defendants, or either

of them, made copies of private, confidential or secret rituals

of plaintiff; denies that they were published or turned over to

pers ons not members.VII.

“Answering paragraph 7, denies that they, together with

anyone else, circulated writings to the members of the plaintiff,or circulated any writings to anyone; denies that they ever

circulated any writing accusing the head of the plaintiff orderof being guilty of acts of felony, or that he was insane, or that

he was about to be prosecuted for divers frauds and otherillegal acts; denies that they advised the members of the plain-tiff order, or the members of any order to withdraw their mem-

bership; denies that th ey advised nonmember s not to seekmembership in said plaintiff order.

VIII.

“Answering paragraph 8, denies that H. Spencer Lewis wasand now is the executive head of plainti ff order. Admits th at

he is widely known throughout the plaintiff oider; denies that

lie is widely known to large numbers of nonmembers; deniesthat lie is known in Europe or any place outside of the UnitedStates.

IX .

“Answering paragraph 9, denies that the defendants and E. E. Thomas have been or now are associated with John DoeClymcr, Stanley Daines and Alfred Saunders, with and/or of-

ficials, and/or members of any organization purported to con-duct an organization similar in purpose to that of plaintifforder; denies that defendants, and E. E. Thomas, either for

themselves or anyone of the abovementioned parties, has at-tempted to gain members and adherents to any organizationagainst the interest and at the expense of plaintiff order.

X.“Answering paragraph 10, denies that defendants, or either



12

of them, together with any persons or all the persons mentioned

in plaintiff’s complaint gave out in writing and/or orally to the

members of plaintiff order, or any persons, any statements thatthere was a probable exposure of plaintiff order for fraudu-

lent acts, and denies that any of plaintiff’s members were in-

timidated to cease their membership in plaintiff’s order, and

denies that they, or either of them, prevented a large numberof prospective members from seeking membership in plaintiff

order, and denies that the defendants, or either of them, held

out or coerced such members and persons into believing that ifthere was such an exposure that it would reflect adversely upon

them, and further denies that nothing has been done or is being

done by said defendants, or either of them, to cause such members and pe rsons to cease their mem be rship in pla in ti ff orde r.

X I .

“Answering paragraph 11, denies that any false statementswere made by defendants, or either of them, and further denies

that any malicious statements were made for the purpose of

injuring said plaintiff order or that any statements were made

for the purpos e of gaining adh erents and revenues for them-selves, or that the defendants, or either of them, or any peopleknown to them, did any acts for the purpose of increasing the

membership of any organization, and that the defendants, oreither of them, have performed any acts for the furtherance

of any conspiracy, and that the fact is that there never wasor is any conspiracy.

" ' X II .■‘Answering p ar ag ra ph 12, having no in forma tion or belief

as to the matter set forth in paragraph 12, and basing theirdenial upon that ground, denies that the defendants, or eitherof them, committed any acts within one (1) year immediately

pr eced ing the commencement of th is acti on, as alleged in said

complaint.

X I I I .

“Answering paragraph 13, having no information or beliefas to the matter set forth in paragraph 13, and basing theirdenial upon that ground, denies that the plaintiff, by reason ofany acts of the defendants, or either of them, have caused the

pl aint if f to lose any exis ti ng members, and denies tha t the

plaint if f ha s lo st the opportun ity of gaining a la rge nu mb erof prospective members, and denies that public esteem of plain-

tiff has been damaged and revenues impaired, and/or that plain-tiff has lost any pros pectiv e members, a nd /o r suffered any

damages, and denies that plaintiff order has suffered damagesin the sum of ten thousand ($10,000.00) dollars, or any sum,or that plaintiff has been damaged at all.



13

XIV.

“Answering paragraph 14, denies that defendants, or either

of them, together with any persons mentioned in plaintiff’scomplaint, are now or have been doing any of the acts men-

tioned in plaintiff’s complaint, or threatened to continue to doany of said mentioned acts, and further denies that any dam-ages have been inflicted upon plaintiff; denies that if any dam-age lias been done it would be difficult and impossible to esti-

mate the damage plaintiff has suffered, and further denies that

if any damage were done, tiiat pecuniary damages would be

wholly adequate, and further denies that unless the said above-mentioned Court makes its order restraining defendants, that

pl ai nt if f would be fo rced to in st it u te successive an d re pea te d

actions.XV.

“Answering paragraph. 15, denies that defendants, or either

of them, alone or together with any persons mentioned in said

complaint, can not respond in pecuniary damages, and furtherdenies that plaintiff lias no plain, adequate, speedy or effica-cious remedy at law.

" F O R A F U R T H E R S E P A R A T E A N D D I S T I N C T A N -S W E R A N D D E F E N S E A N D B Y W A Y O F N E W M A T -

T E R D E F E N D A N T S A F F I R M A T I V E L Y A L L E G E :

"That they, and each of them, arc informed and believes andoil such information and belief state it to be a fact, as follows:

I."That plaintiff, the Ancient and Mystical Order R o s ;l- Crucis

and Harvey Spencer Lewis, are, in truth and fact, one and the

same; that the said Lewis created, organized and has perpetu-ated Plaintiff Order as a device and/or vehicle for the accom-

pl ishment an d pe rpe tuating of one of the cleverest an d mostgigantic frauds ever conceivcd by a clever mind and/or exe-cuted by a wicked and depraved heart; that when he organized

Plaintiff Order, as and in the manner as hereinafter alleged,he appointed or ‘elected’ himself ‘Grand Master’ and laternominated and named himself ‘Im pe ra to r’ of said alleged and

pr et en de d Pl ai nt if f Order; th a t he has appoin te d his son, Ralp hLewis, Grand Secretary and officered it solelv with membersof his immediate family; that at all times since its organizationhe has. and does now, absolutely control, dominate and usePlaintiff Order as a device and/or vehicle for his own benefit

and pecuniary profit and for the selfish and sordid enrichmentof himself and members of his immediate familv,

II.‘ 'That Plaintiff Order, claiming and purporting to be a Rosi



1-i

crucian organization, is clandestine, having and possessing at

no time any warrant of authority from the authentic or anyauthentic Rosicrucian organization; that it was conceived as a

fraud ulen t scheme and at all times since its alleged origin, abou t

the years 1915, 1916 or 1917 to the present time, it has beenconducted ds a fraudulent scheme, and is now being so con-

ducted, all of which fully appear from the detailed statement

of facts as hereinafter alleged and set forth:

I I I .“That prior to the organization of Plaintiff Order, as and

in the manner hereinafter set forth, Harvey Spencer Lewis,

then a pupil in attendance at Public School No. 16, in the Cityof New York, possessing a brilliant, erratic and imaginative

mind, bent and inclined towards deception and trickery, with

an unusual love for the mystic, illusionary and magical, aban-

doned his schooling at said public school before graduation

therefrom and accepted employment at M clnt ire’s Magic Store,on Fortysecond Street, in said City of New York, which dealt

in all manner and kind of tricks, magical chemical formulas,

mechanical magical devices and means of deception and forcreating false illusions, and also in all kinds of mystical andmagical literature, books on fortune telling, astrology, palm-

istry and the like., “ IY.

“That at said time and afterwards the said Harvey SpencerLewis began, and. so continued, to read m etaphysical, mystic al

books, a nu mbe r of which he fou nd in th e New Y o rk Pu bl icLibrary, dealing . with the Rosicrucian F ra ter nit y; that a l-

thoug h he was unable to o bta in any of the secrets of the ‘llos e

Cross’ or anv of the inner and secret teachings of the llosi. * Ocrucian Fraternity from said books, and though he knew noth-

ing whatever, of said secrets or inner and esoteric teachings and practic es of sa id Rosi cr uci an F ra te rn ity , he did pe rceive an d

realize that it was an historical, august fraternity of good re- pu te, mys tic al an d al lur in g, and that it numbere d amon g its

members some of the world’s best and most distinguished schol-ars, prominent persons, historical characters and people of re-nown. T h a t then and there his imagination was thereby fired

beyond his co nt ro l an d it was then in said men tal s ta te an dwith said background of false, deceptive magic that he con-

ceived the idea of organizing a false, fraudulent and clandestineRosicrucian organization, to be completely controlled and

dominated bv himself, as a fraudulent device and commercialscheme for his own profit and primarily as a means of making

money in a manner entirely contrary and counter to landmarks

and basic princi ples’of the authentic R osicrucian F ra te rn it y,



15

and/or of any other worthy, mystical, religious, occult or fra-

ternal society or organization of sound principles and high

ethics.V.

“That the! said Harvey Spencer Lewis, from the reading of

said books and other information available to the public gen-

erally, knew that the authentic, original and regular Rosicru-

cian organization, also known by other and derivative titles and

names, was generally known and designated as a ‘fraternity

an d/ or ‘brot herho od,’ and well knowing tha t he had no t been

initiated into and had no knowledge of its inner workings or

teachings, and that he possessed no warrant of authority fromthe authentic fraternity or brotherhood to organize a Rosi-

crucian body, but knowing the value of the name ‘Rosicr ucia n’and the words 'Rose Cross ,’ ‘Ro sy C ros s’ and t hei r equivalents

in Latin and other languages, lie conceived the idea of desig-

nating his false, fraudulent, psuedo and clandestine organiza-tion as an ‘order instead of a fraternity and of naming it

Ancient and Mystical Order Rosa? Crucis, of giving it the appear ance of be ing bo th Rosi cr ucia n and Mas on ic , of makin gcertain signs, seals and symbols, some of which were to be Rosi-

crucian and Masonic in their origin, others were to be of hisown designing and of having the same copyrighted, all in ac-

cordance with his said fraudulent scheme.VI.

"That as a part of said fraudulent scheme, H. Spencer Lewisconceived the idea and design of connecting the Rosicrucian

and Masonic Fraternities into one grand fraudulent scheme;of using and profiting by and from the prestige of both; of

later joining and being initiated into the Masonic Order orFraternity with the design and sole purpose of securing the

secret work of Masonrv and of using and embodying1it in thework of his proposed fraudulent and clandestine RosicrucianOrder: that he afterwards attempted to carry out said design

by seeking membersh ip in th e sa id authentic Ma soni c Orde ror Frater nit y, as hereinafter fully set f ort h; that he now claimsto be a high Mason and falsely represents the Plaintiff Order

is closely allied to or connected with the Masonic Order orFra te rnitv.

v n .

“That the said Harvey Spencer Lewis, well knowing that lie

possessed no true knowledge of rea l Ros ic ru cia nis m and hav -ing no warrant of authority as aforesaid from said RosicrucianFraternity, conceived the idea of pretending to be possessed of

such knowledge, of having been duly prepared and initiated intosaid Rosicrucian Fraternity and of collecting what he imagined



16

and conceived tobe; the ne ce ssa ry jewels, a nd of m anu fac turi ng,

forging and/or faking the necessary documents to purport toshow and tend to prove such knowledge, initiation and author-

ity, or to at least give the appearance of plausibility.VIII.

‘“Th at d uring, prior o r subsequent to the year 1913 the said

Harvey>(Lewiss<Spence g)~ pr ep ar ed , fak ed and fo rge d cer tai n pa per s and documents purp ort ing to give him the ne ce ss ar y an d

proper au th o r ity to organi ze a Rosic rucian body; t h a t on orabout December 15, 1913, he made an attempt, in furtheranceof said fraudulent scheme, to organize such a body by as-

sembling some twenty persons at a place on Madison Avenuenear Thirtyfourth Street, in the City of New York, but none

were impressed with his faked, manufactured and forged docu-ments or pretended authority, and all declined to take any partin the same, whereupon the said Lewis retired into ‘silence,’ ahabit lie formed .during his ea rly caree r, which he often foundadv anta geo us; th at du ring said ‘retire d silence’ he proceededto polish up the .‘jewels,’ to collect oth ers, to revise his docu-

ments, to make, and fix up othe rs, to concoct a b ette r, more plausible and convincing s to ry and to revise an d perfect hissaid fraudulent scheme for another attempt.

IX..

"That some time.during the years 1915, 1916 or 1917, theexact date thesc.^defendants are unable to determine fromthe conflicting claims and inconsistent published statementsmade by the said'Harvey Spencer Lewis and Plaintiff Order,the said Harvey Spencer Lewis, in furtherance of his saidfraudulent scheme, in the City of New York, did form an al-leged mystical, occult and/or Rosicrucian organization, which

was named or called the Ancient and Mystical Order Rosa:Crucis, being the plaintiff herein.

X .“That in truth and fact it was and is not mystical, unless

mystical means deceptive; that it is not ancient because it hasno actual history or antecedents prior to the said uncertain

date of its organization; that it was not then, has not beenat any time since and is not now a Rosicrucian or Rose Crossorganization; that it was not organized, has not existed anddoes not now exist by virtue of any warrant of authorityissued by or from any regular or authentic Rosicrucian Fra-

ternity or organization, or with the consent or sponsorshipthereof; that saidmame was adopted and has since been used

by the said H arvey Sp en ce r Lewis and Pla in ti ff Ord er wi th theintc ntT o deceive; tjwtHt. has and does deceive the gullible, the

uninformed and the unthinking public generally; that it has



18

intent, design and purpose of leading the public to believe and

conclude that Plaintiff Order is approved, vouched for or spon-

sored by Masons and the said Masonic Fraternity or Order, in

furtherance of said fraudulent scheme; that the Plaintiff Orderand the said Lewis have often attempted by various deceptive

means and methods to lead the public to believe that PlaintiffOrder is in some way connected with Masonry and is vouched

for and approved by Ma sonry — th at is, by individual Masons

and /or the Masonic Frat ern i ty— as will fully ap pea r from

other allegations herein made and set forth.

XIV.

“That among said signs, seals and symbols so adopted, in

the manner aforesaid, for the use of Plaintiff Order, are two

in particular, as follows, to wit: (1) An inverted triangle witha cross therein, being the ‘Grand Symbol of the Order of the

World .’ meaning Plai ntiff Order, and (2) an inverted triang le

interlaced with a broken circle, with a cross and compass

therein, being the ‘Gr ea t Seal of the G ran d M aste r Gen eral’

or Plaintiff Order, meaning the great seal of the said HarveySpencer Lew is; th a t said ‘Gr an d Sym bol’ and ‘Grea t S eal’ are

not symbols of the Rosicrucian nor Masonic Fraternities norof any wellreputed mystical or occult organization of true

pr inciples , hi gh ethics and noble p u rp o se ; th a t whi le they

were adopted as a part of said fraudulent scheme and intendedto deceive and do deceive the ignorant and those unadvised oftheir true and highly significant meaning, they were then

adopted by the said Harvey Spencer Lewis in full and complete

ignorance of their true meaning and significance, and that eventhough they were, in all probability of accidental adoption,

nevertheless they truly and exactly symbolize and indicate the

fraudulent nature of the Plaintiff Order and the lack ofspiritual development of the ‘Grand Master General’ that is ofH. Spencer Lewis, as well as his fraudulent character and prac-tices, to all who know and understand the true significance andmeaning of said symbols.

XV.“That the inverted triangle is the sign, symbol and/or in-

signia of an unworthy, phony, fraudulent organization of in- juri ous, dangero us and qu es ti on ab le methods — that is to sa v,

it is the sign and symbol of ‘Black Magic’ and is so understoodand regarded by all informed and knowing people. T h a t the

broken circle, a m o n g other things, symbolizes and indicates in-completeness and is the sign of one whose knowledge is ele-

mentary and limited and whose preparations, training and de-velopment is incomplete, it symbolizes the exact opposite of

‘M ast ers hip ,’ illumi nation an d adva nced developmen t which the



19

said Lewis as ‘Gra nd M ast er’ and ‘Im pe rat or ’ of Plaintiff Order

wrongfulljr, deceptively and fraudulently claims to possess.

That the inverted triangle within and interlaced in the broken

circle constituting the ‘Great Seal of the Grand Master Gen-

eral’ or of the said Harvey Spencer Lewis, is the sign and/or

symbol of a ‘Black Magician’ and trickster of unworthy mo-

tives and questionable and dangerous pi*actices, and that it isgenerally so regarded and understood by all who know and

understand its true meaning and full significance.XVI.

“That in furtherance of his said fraudulent scheme and to

give Plaintiff’s Order the appearance of Masonic approval andsponsorship, the said Harvey Spencer Lewis, in the year 1917,

in the City of New York, made his application for membership

to Normal Lodge, No. 523, in the City of New York, under the

ju ris dic ti on of the Grand Lod ge of An ci en t Fre e and Ac ce pted

Masons of the State of New York, and was accepted an En-tered Apprentice, passed to the degree of Fellowcraft, when

and whereupon the officers and members of said Normal Lodge,

after due investigation, found that he, the said Lewis, was con-nected with and promoting a phony, fraudulent and clandestineRosicrucian organization, and that it was his design, intentionand purpose to secure the secret work of authentic Masonry touse and embody it in the socalled secret work of the said phony,fraudulent and clandestine Rosicrucian order, which he wasthen promoting and organizing or attempting to organize;that 'thereupon said Masonic Lodge proceeded to stop, black-

ball an d expel the sa id Lewis fr om its memb ersh ip : th a t thesaid Lems has since made persistent and repeated efforts aiulapplications to be reinstated as a member and to be raised tothe sublime degree of a Master Mason of the regular and au-thentic Ancient Free and Accepted Masonry, but has been

firmly refused and forever barred therefrom.XVII .

“That in furtherance of his said fraudulent scheme the saidLewis, as Grand Master and Imperator of Plaintiff Order, atall times herein mentioned, and especially since he was expelled

and forever barred from authentic Masonry, has bv persistentefforts and constant subtle, deceptive and misleading propa-ganda, alleged the association with him and his said Order, being Pl ai nt if f Or de r, of man y hi gh Mas on s an d bv such means

and methods has attempted to deceive the public and l i a s de-ceived a large number of uninformed people by leading them to

believe th a t Pla in ti ff ’s Orde r is vo uched for an d ap pr ov ed bv

regular Masons and in some way associated with Masonry;and that in furtherance of said design and purpose he an-



21

Fraternity; that he was finally initiated into the high and

twelfth degree of Illuminati of a foreign jurisdiction and that

said foreign jurisdiction, as such, authorized him to form, cause

to be reborn and/or reorganized in America in the years 1915,

1916, 1917 or 1918, according to the different, conflicting and

varied statements of the said Harvey Spencer Lewis; that he

lias often asserted and likewise as often denied that he held awarrant of authority from Rosicrucian organizations of a for-

eign jurisdiction to organize the plaintiff’s socalled Order in

America, and that although he had in his possession the said‘Pronu nziame nto F. R. C. No. 98760 1,’ pu rp ort ing on its face

to confer authority upon him and announcing that his was asepa rate jurisdiction established in America under the Supreme

Pontiff High Ancient Shekah El Mona Ra of Memphis(Egypt), nevertheless and notwithstanding immediately after

the police had seized said document and after his said arrest

he admitted that he held no warrant of authority from any for-eign Rosicru cian juris dictio n and s tate d, ‘We have never

claimed to hold any warrant, charter, patent or authority from

anv foreign country.’ X X .

“T h at originally the said H arvey Spencer Lewis falsely rep-resented, as aforesaid, that he was initiated into the French

Rosicrucian Order and by it duly authorized to organize saidOrder in the United States, but failing to impress any consid-

erable number of people with said false claims and forged docu-ments, he proceeded to make other false representations and tomanufacture other false documents and devices and to have anonexisting , fictitious ‘Mys tic and Anci ent ’ Rosi cruci an Orderin Egypt sponsor his said original false claims of authority

from France, as evidenced by and set forth in said forged and

manufactured document, designated ‘Pronunziamento F. R. C.

No . 987601’ ; tha t later he fa lsely claimed Ge rman Rosicru-cian authority; that at another and other times he falselyclaimed said authority from a Rosicrucian Council in Switzer-land, and that at other times and in more recent years he has

claimed authority from an International Rosicrucian Councilof the world, which (he) has recently organized as a part ofPlaintiff Order, thus making said false conflicting and/or sup-

pl em ental claims as an d when conven ient or neces sa ry for the better carry ing out of his sa id fraudulent scheme.

X X I .

“That the said Lewis falsely represents and has caused Plain-

tiff Ord er to fal sely rep rese nt t h at it is a p a rt of a worldwiderevival of the original and authentic Rosicrucian Order, Broth-

erhood and/or Fraterni ty; that i t , the original Rosicrucian



Fra tern ity, has organizations all over the ea rt h ; th at he and hissaid son ,Ra lph M. Lewis, are high and m igh ty officers of a world-wide Supreme Rosicrucian Council; whereas, in truth and in

fact, the only foreign organization with which he, his said sonand Plaintiff Order are in any way connected ar e a few sc at-

tered organizations in Europe, greatly exaggerated and mis-

represented, which he has recently organized, as aforesaid, asa part of his said fraudulent scheme, and/or numerous mysteri-

ous fictitious organizations falsely alleged to be scattered all

over the world, which have no existence, in fact; that in truth

and in.fact said ‘High Rosicrucian Council of the World’ is agreatly exaggerated fiction and an overworked farce, existing

only in the imagination of the said Lems and in the printed and

widely circulated literature and high pressure, fraudulent ad-

vertising matter of Plaintiff Order.

X X I I .“That after his said enforced period of silence, to wit: about

the year 1920, the said Harvey Spencer Lewis crossed the con-tinent and appeared in the City of San Francisco, flockless,

with all of his former members and officers having desertedhim, as aforesaid, and then and there began the reorganization

of Plaintiff Order in further pursuance of his said fraudulentscheme and misrepresentations; that he succeeded in inducing

many people to believe his representations and to put up the

money necessaryfor reorganization of Plaintiff’s Order andthe building of its temple in Sail Francisco; that said peopledevoted their time and money to said enterprise until they

finally became disillusioned and learned the truth about the said

Lewis and Plaintiff Order and withdrew therefrom; that afterrunning amuck with the prohibition officers for the alleged mis-use of the sacramental wines, said Lewis was again suspicioned

or accused of violating the law of the land, whereupon he very

promptl y denied any connection whate ver wi th his socalledOrder or any Rosicrucian Order and ‘folded his tent like theArabs’ and ‘silently’ secured passage to T am pa , F lorida .

X X I I I ."That about the year 192t or 1925, when the said Harvev

Spencer Lewis moved the headquarters of Plaintiff Order toTampa, Florida, in further pursuance of his said scheme, and

by cont inued mis repr es en ta tion s of Plain ti ff Orde r, his ownattainments and authority, the said Lewis induced a certaincitizen of Tampa. Florida, to contribute or furnish a consider-able sum of money tor the locating of his headquarters in

Tampa, the building of a temple there and for a wide and ex-

tended campaign of newspaper, magazine and circular propa-ganda, by which lie succeeded in greatlv enlarging the contrib-



23

uting and payin g membership of Plain tiff Order. However, no t-

withstanding his apparent financial success, all was not well in

Tampa, and he abandoned his said headquarters in Tampa,

Flor ida, and the ‘Magnificent Ros icru cian T emple’ which the

said citizen thereof had built for him.

X X I V .“That shortly after the moving of his business, the Plaintiff

Order, to Tampa, Florida, the said Harvey Spencer Lewis

began, an d has cont inued to th is day, a campai gn of high pre ssu re adv ert is ing of Pla in ti ff Order th rough magazines,

newspapers, pamphlets, by use of the United States mails andradio, as well as other modern means of advertising, using allur-

ing, deceptive advertising, appealing to the selfish instincts ofhumanity, seeking members and supporters indiscriminately

by ques tionab le methods an d ways en ti re ly contr ary to the pr inci ples and land marks of th e Rosicrucia n and Masonic F r a -ternities and of every other highclass, mystical and occultorganizations.

X X V .“That one of the favorite, subtle, deceptive methods of the

said Lewis, constantly employed by him in the furtherance of hissaid fraudulent scheme, from its inception to the present time,has been and is the creating of mythical, fictitious persons and

by all urin g desc ri pt ion bu ildi ng them up and re pre se nti ng themto be noted, renowned, learned experts of various types, and

also of taking ordinary natural persons and by a subtle methodof propaganda, misrepresenting and building them up until they

appear to be persons of renown, ability and unusual attain-ments ; th at n ot only has the said H . Spe nce r Lewis built up

mythical and other persons as aforesaid, but he has also usedthe same deceptive, subtle methods in building himself up and

representing himself to be a most extraordinary person of ex-tremely unusual attainments and supernatural power, and ofhigh social, scientific and educational standing.

1 X X V I.“That although it is well known that the said H. Spencer

Lewis has never attended any college or university that mayof right confer the degree of Ph.D., and that he only attendedthe public school of Xew York City, from which he did not

graduate, vet, nevertheless a short time after he conceived saidgigantic fraudulent scheme he tacked upon his name the degree

of P h D ., repre senting to the world th at he was a Doc tor ofPhilosophy, whereas in truth and in fact, the said Harvey Spen-

cer Lewis never attended any recognized educational institutionsuch as is qualified and authorized to grant said degree, andthat said degree is fraudulent and fictitious and used in further-



24

ance of his said scheme.X X V I I .

“That of all the many methods and means employed by thesaid H. Spencer Lewis in the execution of his said fiaudulent

scheme and the promotion of Plaintiff Order, the most unworthyand disgusting of them all, that reveals and stamps him as thesupreme scoundrel of the age and the greatest impersonation

of ‘nerve supreme’ and baldfaced audacity the world has ever

known is his constant practice of conferring upon himself fic-

titious titles, as 'are used in Pla intif f’s liter atu re a nd ad vertis-ing matte r, such as follows, to w it : H. Spencer Lewis, F. R. C.,

120Illuminati, Toulouse, France; Dr. H. Spencer Lewis, H.

Spencer Lewis, Ph.D.; H. Spencer Lewis, Doctor of Meta-

phys ic s and Psycho logy; H . Spe nce r Lewis, Dignita ir e Su-

preme of the Rosicru cian O rder; H . Spe nc er Lewis, Fe llow Rose

Cro ss; H~. Spencer Lewis, Fellow of the Fra nc e Eco le R. C .;H. Spencer Lewis, Rex Universitatis Illuminati; H. Spencer

Lewis, Grand Master General; H. Spencer Lewis, Imperator;H. Spencer Lewis, Most Perfect Master Profundis, and many

others equally false and absurd; and also the audacious and braz en practi ce of conferring upo n himself of fel lowships, re-

sponsible offices and ‘high honors’ in many societies and insti-tutions of learning, art, music and science, real and fictitious,

as published in the litera ture and advertising m atter of Plaintiff

Order, such as the following, to wit: Fellow of the Rose CrossCollege of France; President of the New York Institute forPsychical Research; membership in and high honors conferred by the In ternat ional Fin e A rts So ci ety in Europe, the SocietePhilomatique of Verdun, France; the Internaciona Ciencala

Societe of Spain; Societe di Arti e Cienci of France, and many

other fine arts and dramatic societies of Europe, which hefalsely claims the Plaintiff Order represents in America.

X X V I I I .“That another favorite, subtle, deceptive method constantly

used by the said Lewis in the execution of his said fraudulentscheme has been, and is, the writing and publication of articles,

sketches, statemen ts, proc lam atio ns, ‘pronunziam entos,’ etc.,under fictitious names, nom de plumes and deceptive devices,

some of which are after the manner and in imitation of someearly and perhaps real Rosicrucian writers, others wholly con-ceived and concocted in the diseased imagination of the saidLewis; and the employment of strange terms, foreign names andhistorical characters, real and fictitious, with a view of mystify-

ing, bewildering and deceiving others into believing that Plain-tiff Order is a real, ancient, mystic and authentic occult order,

fraternity or brotherhood and/or that it is a genuine and



26

H. Spencer Lewis has continually represented that the Plaintiff

Order and all institutions associated therewith were entirely of

a nonreligious and nonsectarian character.X X X I .

“That as a part of and in furtherance of his said scheme,

the said Harvey Spencer Lewis, along about the year 1915 or1916, created ,from his imagin ation a mythical history of the

origin of Plaintiff’s Order, giving it an origin dating back into

the night of time, before the beginning of civilization, and, inan indirect, elusive and general way, falsely connecting it with

wellknown historical characters, kings, rulers, philosophers

and divines, purporting to correctly and accurately describe

his own connection with the Rosicrucian Fraternity in France,

his initiation therein and his warrant of authority from a Rosi-crucian organization in said country, and also purporting to

be a his to ry of his sa id order in the Unit ed State s an d in Amer-

ica ; th at he represent ed it to be ‘A complete A uthen tic His -to ry ’ of Plaintiff Order, whereas, in tru th and in fact , it was

nothing of the kind, but a gross misrepresentation and jugglingof facts; that during the years 1916 and 1917 the said H. Spen-cer Lewis published said complete authentic history of Plaintifforder in Plaintiff Order’s official magazine and again revised

and republished the same in said official magazine about the

year 1927, andstill again revised and republished the sameabout the year 1929 in a book entitled ‘Rosicrucian Questionsand Answers, with Complete Hist ory of Rosicrucian Order,’ byH. Spencer Lewis, F. R. C., Im pe rat or of the Rosicrucian Order,and still further revised the same and published a second(edition) thereof in the year 1932 ; that no two of said revisions

of said history agree with one another, but the same are a massof irreconcilable, deceptive contradictions.

X X X I I .“That another favorite, subtle, deceptive method employed

by the sa id Lewis in the execut ion of his sai d fra udulent scheme,with a view of falsely leading others to believe that Plaintiff

Order was a part of a revived worldwide movement of theoriginal and authentic Rosicrucian Fraternity, was to represent

that Plaintiff Order was in constant touch with said falselyalleged and wholly fictitious worldwide movements, by andthrough its representatives or ‘Legates’ residing throughoutthe world; that in the said year 1915 in said ‘Official Publica-

tion Number Two,’ on page XVII thereof, he published a list ofsaid alleged representatives or Legates, said list and the de-scription thereof being word for word as follows, to wit:

“ ‘T H E F O R E IG N L E G A T I O N O F T H E O R D E R I N T H E



27

U N I T E D S T A T E S .

“ ‘The following Legates have been selected and appointed to

represent the American Order in their own countries. Eac hforms a link in the Rosicrucian chain of strength, fellowship

and influence which encircles the earth.

Representation................................................LegateLower E g y p t ........................................ Luke Boctor U p p e r E g y p t ........................ Emanuel S. Camilleri

Bombay ............................... Prof. G. Magala Desai

Madra s P reside ncy. . . Chav akar A nnasame RaoCeylon........................ Mohamed Ismail, I. G. 0. H.Bengal .............. Sir N. Irnathellickerjo Lemindar

Brit ish West Indies ............ Miss Louise AitchesonCentral America .......................... Miss C. Arrhenins

Mexico...........................................Miss C. ArrheninsCost a R i c a ........................ Mine. Ellen Clemenston

P a n a m a ...............................Mme. Ellen Clemenston

England...............................Lady Florence BurgessSco tl and ............................................. M ary A. Ba ker

P o r t u g a l .............. John Jose de Macedo, Y. B. S.

Spa in ..................... John Jose de Macedo, Y. B. S. New Z e a la n d .......................... Prof. George Brown

South Africa ................................. Miss Anna BrewW est A f r i c a ......................................T ho mas Hah n

East Africa.................Sir William Samuel Grant

C h i n a ............................................. Lad y Id a Brooks

A u s tr a li a ...................................... Miss M. Ea rsm an

Germany ............................................. Ja co bu s M ui r

France.................Raynaud E. de BellcastleLigne’

’’Thai a photos tatic copy thereof is hereto atta che d an d

made a part hereof, marked ‘Exhibit B’; that he thereaftercontinued to publish said list and/or similar lists in the official

magazine and other literature published by him under the name

and guise of Plaintiff Order: that the names on said list or lists

so published as foreign representatives of Plaintiff Order were

wholly fictitious except in only two or three instances, where

the name(s) of the natural persons were wrongfullv and fraud-

ulently used without the knowledge or consent of such per-

sons; that during the month of April, 1916, Alfred Saunders,

then a member of Plaintiff Order and the accredited editor of

the official magazine, wrote to all of the persons, fictitious and

real, set forth on said lists and directed his letters to them

with legal postage paid to and at the address of each furnished

by the said II . Sp en cer Le wis ; tha t all of sa id le tter s were re-turne d marke d ‘addressee unknow n,’ or words to the same ef-

fect, except in two or three instances, where the persons so ad-



28

dressed replied indicating that they knew nothing of Plaintiff

Order and inquired to know what it was all about.X X X I I I .

“That at or about the time that the said Harvey Spencer

Lewis organized the Plaintiff Order he represented and claimed

that the ancient secret work of the Rosicrucian Fraternity had

been transmitt ed to him in se cr et document s writt en in fict it ioushieroglyphics and in French and other foreign languages; thathe himself tran slat ed the documents in hieroglyphics from a mys-

tic key which had been mysteriously furnished to him and that

he employed expert tra nsla tors of the other languages to tra ns -

late the said ancient and secret documents; that at various

times since he has claimed and represented to have received

other documents containing the ancient teachings of said Rosi-

crucian Fraternity and of other wellknown occult and tlieosophical organizations, all of which is false and untrue, andthese defendants here and now allege that said Plaintiff Order

and the said Harvey Spencer Lewis do not now have in their possession an d cannot produce a single an cie nt do cu men t, as

claimed by them, in hieroglyphics or in o ther foreign languag es,except certain phony, fraudulent documents made, manufac-tured and concocted by the said Harvey Spencer Lewis or his

associates or under his direction... X X X I V .

“That the said H. Spencer Lewis, in the furtherance of saidscheme, represented and claimed that the lessons, teachings anddegree work of said plaintiff organization was transmitted tohim in ancient documents, written in hieroglyphics and foreignlanguages, and that the same were translated into the Englishand thus made available, all of which was untrue and false,

whereas in truth and in fact all of said lessons are modern in

their nature and have been copied from books available to the publ ic an d /o r were compiled from the fer tile im ag in at io n ofthe said Lewis and/or by others recently employed by him tocompile the same.

X X X V .“That the said H. Spencer Lewis, in furtherance of his said

scheme, has copied a great deal of material from old and rare

books not in ge ne ra l cir cu la tio n and not gen er al ly av ai lab le tothe public and also from recent and copyrighted works and

books an d ha s pu bl is hed the same rep rese ntin g the same by positive rep rese ntation, by in fe rence an d by in nuendo to be

his own and original with himself; that he has republished thesame in the form of multigraphed lectures, which he has sold

and. distribu ted to the members of said plain tiff o rganizat ionin consideration of thei r p aym ent of initiat ion fees and dues,



29

and lias also published the same in pamphlets and books which

he or Plaintiff Order has sold to said members and the publicat large, thus building up a large and lucrative publishing

business, which he co ndu ct s under the tra de name of th e Rosi -

crucian Press as a printing and publishing department of thePlaintiff Order.

X X X V I .“That when the said II. Spencer Lewis left Tampa, Florida,

under compulsion and the force of necessity, about the year

1927, he removed his place of business and Plaintiff Order toSan Jose, California, where he has built a magnificent temple,

pro vid ed himself wi th spa ci ous and lux ur io us offices an d est ab-lished a large printing and publishing business with his illgotten gains, secured by the operation of Plaintiff Order in the

manner aforesaid; that since said time he has been, and is now,operating Plaintiff Order as a device in furtherance of his said

frau dule nt schemes.

X X X V I I .“That when the said H. Spencer Lewis first located with

Plaintiff Order in the City of San Jose, by his artful and de-ceitful methods he soon won the confidence of the good peopleof said city and the general approval of Plaintiff Order; how-

ever, as time has passed and they have had time and the op- po rtun ity to appraise the true wort h of the said Lewis an d

havegradually learned the true nature and character of Plain-tiff Order, operated as an unusual device and an entirely new,

clever and unique ‘ra ck et ,’ the said H. Spencer Lewis andPlaintiff Order have gradually fallen into general disrepute to

such an extent that these defendants verily believe that it willnot be long until the said H. Spencer Lewis and Plaintiff Order

shall again go into ‘the silence,’ seek(ing ) greener pastu re a ndanothe r location and domicile for the rebirth an d'o r reestab-lishment of Plaintiff Order.

xxxvni.“That first and last, from the time the said H. Spencer Lewis

first organized Plaintiff Order to the present time, he has con-

tacted through said Plaintiff Order as a device thousands of pe rsons, some of whom were qu ic k to discover the tru e na tureof Plaintiff Order, others tarried longer, were slower in gettingtheir eyes opened, and still others who remained to be fleecedmore and longer, and although the membership of Plaintiff’s

Order has been a constantly changing one, with new suckers

being const antl y brought in by sa id highpowered methods of

advertising, nevertheless, first and last and during said time,the said Lewis, through Plaintiff Order as a device, has col-lected from said members in initiation fees and dues large sums



80

of money, with which he has. enriched himself, his family andso continues to carry on his deceptive propaganda and fraudu-

lent scheme as aforesaid.X X X I X .

“That recently, to wit: within the past two years, a large

number of the contributing and paying members of PlaintiffOrder have been making careful investigation of it and havelearned the truth about the said H. Spencer Lewis and Plaintiff

Order and withdrawn their sup por t, which has steadily decreasedits contributing membership and income; that during the said

time many other persons, organizations and institutions movedentirely by worthy motives and interested only in truth, jus-

tice and the protection of the public against swindlers andracketeers, have made independent and impartial investigation

of Plaintiff Order and have all discovered the true characterof Plaintiff Order and its ‘Most Perfect Master Profundis,’H. Spencer Lewis; that by reason thereof Plaintiff Order hasgradually fallen into disrepute; that these defendants verily

believe tha t said independen t and imparti al inve st igat io ns willcontinue, making it increasingly more difficult and finally im-

possible for the sa id H. Sp enc er Lewis to cont in ue to oper at ePlaintiff Order as a fraudulent device and as a racket extraor-

dinary, and that by virtue alone of its inherent vice and fraudu-lent nature Plaintiff Order will disintegrate and pass from the

face of the earth'and from among honest people and worthyinstitutions, as it rightlv and justlv should so do,

‘ xxxx.‘‘That the injury and damage claimed and alleged by plain-

tiff to have been sustained and/or suffered bv it is the natural,

approximate and probable result of its own fraudulent natureand its deceitful and unlawful acts, and further that the loss

of reputation, future injury and damage anticipated bv the pl ai nt if f will ri ghtf ull y and just ly be the na tura l, approximate

and probable result of its own fraudulent character and the

fraudulent and unlawful manner in which its affairs and busi-ness have been and now are being conducted, and that said in-

ju ry , da mag e or loss of reputation suffered or about to besuffered by the plaintiff is not and cannot be the natural, ap-

pro xim at e or pro bab le res ult of an y ac t done bv these defend-ants, or either of them, or that mav possiblv be committed bvthese defendants, or either of them.

“W H ER EF O R E defendants pray, and eacl i of them prays

that plaintiff take nothing by its complaint and that these de-fendants, and each of them, mav go hence with costs.”

E U G E N E B . G R A T T A N , At torney for Defen da nt s.



R * C S j/m b o lis m

T l t e s i t f n - r a n d s e a l s sA ou fa > i e l o u ? a r c

t h e o n l y t r i ^ e r t t a r l i T o f t / t e ORDER ., a n d c?/ ju

t i n g u i s h - t h i s s o c i e t y f r o m <?// o t h e r s .

WG *n * r a t S ym h o i o/ *

t h e O rde r i n t/ t e Wor / d

J W }

VThe Sea! of the F ounder

zh

V The Seal and Sign, o f the Secretary-Gen.

Emblem urorn by th& 'Brothers jndSisters

v

TJte Great Seal o ftfie /m en ca n Supreme Council

S* ?n °f the Jfmerican.

publication CbmmttfY*

c°j>

C l l O

o Xhe Vtosae Crucis

( o / f i c i t l j

Great Sea? o f GrandJfasier G enera l.

Copyrtgh / pc / /S/S. fyfrintfemenff *>>// 6e praXrctst .̂

The S^creef Jrrsiyntk ^f the Or^ndJHcister (Pen.

"EXHIBIT A”



THE FOREIGN LEGATION OF THE ORDER IN THE UNITED STATES

The following Legates have been selected and appointed to repres ent the Am er ican Ord er in th ei r owncountries. Each forms a link in the Rosaecrucia nchain of strength, fellowship and influence which en-circles the earth.

Representation LegateLower Egypt .............................................Luke Boctor Upper E g y p t .................................Ema nue l S. Camiller iBombay .....................................Prof. C. Magala DesaiMadras Presidency .............. Chavakar Annasame Rao,Ceyloa ...............................Mohamed Ismail, I. G. O. H.

Bengal .......................Sir. N. Irna thel lickerjo Lemin dar British West Indies.......................Miss Louise AitchesonCentral America ...............................Miss C. ArrheninsMexico ............................................... Miss C. ArrheninsCosta Rica ................................. Mme. Ellen ClemenstonPanama ...............................Mme. Ellen ClemenstonEngland 77.................................Lady Florence BurgessScotland ............................................... Mary A. Baker Portugal ........................John Jose de Macedo, Y. B. S.Spa i n .............................. John Jose de Macedo, Y. B. S.

New Z ea lan d ...................................Prof . George Brow nSouth Africa .......................................Miss Anna BrewWest Africa ............................................... Th om as Ha hnEast Africa ........................ Sir William Samuel Grant

China.

......

................................................ Lady I da BrooksA ust ra li a ...............................................Miss M. Ea rsm anGermany .......................................................Jacobus Muir France ........................ Raynaud E. de BellcastleLigne

"EXHIBIT B

amorc vs george l. smith and e. e. thomas (1933)

Documents