L. Smith as far as the findings of this Court are

concerned. ‘There is [should be] no finding of. this Court that the statements made by these other people were published maliciously and falsely. It was not an issue before the Court whether or not the statements made by other people were true or not. George L. Smith was the only defendant, and the Court was concerned only with the statements made by him. On page 8, lines 18 to 21, there is no evidence introduced relative to whether or not plaintiff order had anything to do with the Masonic fraternity. ‘This is merely an attempt on the part of the plaintiff to get a judicial statement to cover up a former difficulty. In line 22 there is made mention of jewels. Never in the course of the trial was there.any evidence in regard to jewels. In line 28 in regard to whether or not H. Spencer Lewis was refused membership in the Masonic fraternity, I again say that there was no evidence as to whether he was or was not a member of the Masonic fra- ternity, or that he was expelled or blackballed. ‘These statements are completely without finding of the record, and any disinterested person examining the record would immediately see that these Find- ings of Fact in their present form were being used smply as an attempt to gain judicial approval for a lot of unsubstantiated matter. On page 9, the question as to whether or not H. Spencer Lewis
65
AN ANSWER TO LEWIS’ WHITE (?) BOOK “D”
No Evidence on the Matters.
False Findings Without Proof.
No Evidence to Support Findings.
No Evidence to Support Many of the Findings
of Fact.
Shows the Advan- tage Lewis Took
of the Court.
The Judge Should Be Surprised.
Practically All
Statements in
was ever arrested was not an issue of this case and never mentioned. On the same page the statement regarding bonds is entirely uncalled for, as there was no statement or evidence relative to any bonds. There is no evidence regarding the difficulty with the prohibition agents, or in regard to any church therein mentioned. On page 10, there was no evidence relative to the use of names of fictitious and non-existing persons. In regard to the state- ment therein contained between lines 20 and 22 on page 10, there was never any evidence introduced relative to the removal of plaintiff order from Florida, or that plaintiff order was to be prosecuted because of fraudulent use of the mails as set ovt in lines 23 to 25. There is no evidence as to any investigation being made of plaintiff organization. There is no evidence on which to base the state- ments contained on page 10, between lines 28 to 32; there is no statement in the evidence regarding whether George L. Smith was a linotype operator. The statement regarding Stanley Daines as being carried on the charity rolls in Calgary is absurd. There is absolutely no evidence or statement in re- gard to Mr. Daines as to what he does, and any offer of any such evidence would immediately have been objected to and not allowed in the record. The same as to Alfred Saunders and the statement that he was gainfully occupied telling fortunes. This shows that this document is not being used for facts as found by the Court, but simply to contain a lot of extraneous statements not based on fact or evidence. .
“There is no evidence that E. E. Thomas was a railroad brakeman. I am sure that Judge James would be surprised as to these Findings of Fact. The rest of page 11 is subject to the same objection.
“In paragraph IX there was no finding or state- ment by the Court regarding the filing of any docu- ment in this case. “There was no statement and the record does not support the statement contained in lines 10 and 11 that the Answer was withdrawn. There is no evidence that any booklet was printed or circulated containing the so-called Amended An-
66
ete hy ePAVPHEET “AND! CONSPIRACY BUGBEAR
Paragraph IX Are False.
So-Called Conspirators.
No Evidence.
Imposing on ecourt.
Incorrect.
Cannot Understand Why Such a Docu- ment Filled with
so Many False State- ments Was Prepared by a Good Lawyer.
swer in furtherance of any conspiracy. “There was no finding or statement that said Amended Answer was not 2 proper pleading or that it was filed in bad faith. Such a statement as contained in para- graph IX necessarily puts me in the classification of an attorney practicing in bad faith and taking an opportunity to abuse the process of the Court. The Amended Answer was never stricken from the rec- ords and is still a part of the records.
“In paragraph X, I am not satisfied as to the statement that the other so-called conspirators can- not respond in pecuniary damages. “There was no testimony or evidence in regard to the financial standing cf these so-called conspirators. “This is another very obvious attempt to have the Court give its official sanction to a number of extraneous state- ments.
“In regard to Paragraph I of the Conclusions of Law, this is, of course, absolutely incorrect, as the Court did not say the plaintiff was entitled to a judgment as prayed for, but on the contrary very clearly said in accordance with the testimony of Dr. Lewis that the judgment would be given only in the sum of One ($1.00) Dollar and that a restrain- ing order might also be granted.
“T am sure that you have had nothing to do with the construction of these Findings. An attorney who has practiced before the Bar as long as you and with the well-deserved reputation of dictating concise and brief pleadings would never ramble on at such length and include so many extraneous and incorrect, unsupported statements as found in this document. I am sure that if you were consulted that you would set down on a few legal sheets of paper correct and concise statements of what you wish to state, and that such a statement would be correct and adequate in every respect for the pur- poses in this case.” (Transcript on Appeal, pp.
760 to 765.) 67
AN ANSWER TO CEWIS” WHITE Gr) BOOKS De
When Protest Should Have Been Made None Was Made
Smith’s said attorney, the author of the foregoing letter, was present when Lewis’ attorney presented the findings of fact to the Court for approval and signature. In presenting them to the Court, Lewis’ attorney stated that the findings were rather broad and might not be supported by the evidence. The Judge stated that he would have to rely on the defendant’s attorney to point out in what particular or in what way the findings to be made were incorrect, otherwise he would allow and sign the findings of fact as presented. ‘The then attorney for Smith was mute. Although he had vigorously protested and pointed out to Lewis’ Special Counsel many inaccuracies and fatal faults with the finding in his letter above quoted—yet when he should have acted for his client and assisted the Court by presenting to the Judge the matters referred to in his letter, heretofore quoted, he was mute. ‘Then and there a great injustice was done, a fraud was worked upon the Court and false findings of fact were entered upon the records of a Court of Justice:
Having secured everything for which he had bargained, except that there should be no appeal, and to make doubly sure that nothing should happen that would divest him of his vested rights in chicanery and fraud, he withheld the last and final payment until the time had expired (or until he thought that the time had expired) within which an appeal could have been perfected. The final payment was not made until the 28th day of September, 1933, more than 60 days after judgment was entered in the case of
AMORC vs. SMITH, at which time no appeal had been perfected. Under ordinary circumstances, an appeal could not have been taken © in this cause because Smith’s then attorney had failed to have the transcript prepared and to take the necessary action to perfect an appeal within the time allowed by law. Hence Lewis felt perfectly safe in paying im full and also in having issued his false, scandalous and calumniatory booklet under the title of “Guilty,” purporting to be based upon the findings of fact and the false record made in this case, which false findings were not truly reported, but greatly exaggerated and further falsified.
68
Peet SeAvMPHLET AND CONSPIRACY BUGBEAR
This Is Not an Ordinary but an Extraordinary Case
Ordinarily when the usual time for an appeal has passed in Calitornia, no appeal can be taken thereafter. This, as we have seen or will see, was a most extraordinary case. It is extremely doubtful that the records of any court in any civilized land record and reveal such bold and clever scheming, concealed double- dealing, unconscionable, overreaching and deliberate fraud prac- ticed on a party litigant and on the court, as is revealed by the Court Records in this case.
In such cases as this, where there has been a gross and abortive miscarriage of Justice, an appeal may be allowed by the trial court upon proper application being made under section 473 of the Code of Civil Procedure of California. Such an application was made and an appeal was granted, much to the surprise, bewilderment and chagrin of the master schemer who had paid well, but who had failed to take into account the fact that the blind Goddess of Justice might sense the right and weigh truly in spite of all his cleverness.
Those who use loaded dice in the courts, who scheme well, must also execute well and comply with the rules of the game; that is, the minor details of legal procedure.
It appears that Lewis, in his hurry to get his so-called ‘‘supple- mental Complaint and amended complaint to conform to proof”’ filed—to be used as the basis of a false findings of fact unsupported by proof—failed to serve a copy of the same on Smith. This was only a minor detail—a trivial matter; besides he had paid for his right to deceive the Court and others—yet the failure to serve a copy of that paper on Smith was a fatal omission and the appeal was granted.
How Smith's Eyes Were Opened
Smith had made a searching investigation of Lewis and knew that he was an adept at deception, but he could not conceive of his being able to overreach the Court. Even though he was un- accustomed to court procedure, he realized that there was some- thing wrong with the trial. When judgment was rendered in favor of Lewis, he knew that the right had not prevailed and that justice had not been done. He instructed his then attorney to appeal the
69
AN ANSWER TO LEWIS”> WHITE) BOOK.
case, the attorney agreed to do so, and later did file a notice of appeal, but did nothing further and let the time elapse.
On September 13, 1933, a copy of the findings of fact were served upon Smith and later a copy of Lewis’ pamphlet “Guilty” came into his hands. His eyes were completely opened. He un- derstood all. He inquired of his then attorney about the appeal. He insisted that the attorney proceed with the appeal and protect his rights. The attorney could not do that because he had bar- gained that there would be no appeal, and when he failed to persuade Smith to abandon his ideas about appealing the case, he refused to represent him in such appeal. Smith hired and substi- tuted another attorney to appeal the case. The appeal was perfected and is now pending before the Supreme Court of California. Lewis used every possible dilatory method to prevent the perfection of the appeal in the trial court and, when it was perfected, he made a motion in the Supreme Court to dismiss it; the motion was over- ruled. Despite the long delay and ceaseless efforts of Lewis to prevent justice, we have an abiding faith that justice will yet be done; that the right will prevail, and the truth will become known by all.
Lewis Admitted Findings Were Wrong
Confesses Overreaching the Court
Finally, when compelled to answer to the merits of the Case on Appeal in the Supreme Court of California, Lewis was forced to admit, because it was true, and did admit, through his attorneys in their brief filed on his behalf, that a number of the findings of fact entered of record by the trial Judge and made at his request were entirely wrong and without any evidence to support them. His attorneys, on his behalf, stipulated and agreed that those findings should be stricken from the record. They also stated to the Court in their brief that several other findings were immaterial and should be disregarded and ignored by the Supreme Court in de- ciding the case.
By those admissions filed in the Supreme Court Lewis confessed that he had overreached the Trial Court and practiced fraud on the Judge when he secured his signature by chicanery to those false findings of fact.
70
Seo tehyY a PAMPHEET AND) CONSPIRACY BUGBEAR
‘Those findings of fact which were stricken from the record, be- cause they were wrong, upon his admission and the stipulation of his attorneys, will be considered later. It is sufficient at this time and in connection herewith to note his said admission and confes- sion. ‘Those findings, admitted to be wrong, relating to the Ma- sonic Rites of Memphis and Mizraim (clandestine in the U. S. A.) will be discussed at length in Part One of Chapter Four in dealing with Masonic frauds; and those findings, ALSO ADMITTED TO BE WRONG, to the effect that the Supreme Grand Lodge of AMORC was and now is the sole and only established, recognized and func- tioning supreme authority in North America of the Rosicrucian Brotherhood, as well as all references to Lewis’ alleged Rosicru- cian authority, will be considered in Chapter Five in dealing with his spurious and contradictory claims .of alleged Rosicrucian au- thority for his fraternal racket. The other false findings will be considered in connection with appropriate subject matter as we proceed.
The Guilty Pamphlet
As before briefly noted, when Lewis felt sure that his conspiracy against justice and his rank fraud on the Court had succeeded; after he had secured an unjust judgment by double-dealing trickery, and secured a judicial Findings of Fact which were untrue and not supported by evidence, through subtle chicanery and circumventing fraud for propaganda purposes, it was then that he “stuck in his thumb and pulled out a plum and said what a good boy am I” and handed it to an amazed public in the form of a little scurrilous pamphlet entitled “Guilty,” purporting to be an account of thir- teen years of vilification and of his amazing judicial victory against “the conspirators” in the case of AMORC vs. SMITH.
For puffed-up arrogance; for plausible falsehood; for distorted facts; for false implications; for twisted and crooked conclusions; for deliberate intention to mislead; for willful cunning and craft deception; for exaggerated statements and absolutely false claims concerning the trial and result of the case of AMORC vs. SMITH and as a well-camouflaged bit of cleverly designed and artfully constructed deceptive propaganda in aid of and to conceal twenty years of multifarious fraud and to perpetuate a unique swindle— the “Guilty” pamphlet is without equal.
ye
AN ANSWER TO LEWIS” WHITE (7) "BOOKS. De
Just a Lemon
The ‘“‘plum” that the Imperator pulled out of his ‘Judicial Vic- tory’ was not a plum at all—it was only a “lemon.”’ Let us take a brief look at this ugly little pamphlet ‘‘Guilty” and its contents. On page 2 we find the following statement conspicuously head- lined:
“A VICTORY AGAINST; CONSPIRATORS
“The Rosicrucian Brotherhood, known throughout the world as AMORC, wins its court action against the false, injurious actions of— R. Swinburne Clymer, Philosophical Publishing Co., Pennsylvania ; Mrs. Max Heindel, Rosicrucian Fellowship, California; Albert E. Smythe, Theosophical Publisher, Canada; Alfred H. Saunders, Story Writer, New York; Miss Myrtle Crane, Stanley Daines, E. E. Thomas, W. P. Pease and George L. Smith.”’
He claims that the individuals above named entered into a conspiracy to injure his business and to defame his good name. Concerning these so-called “conspirators,” he makes many false statements in the pamphlet “Guilty.” It will be sufficient to notice and reply to the following:
Presented in a False Light
“Although each and every one of the conspira-
Smith Was tors was named in the complaint and should have the Only put in appearance at the trial or had legal repre- Defendant. sentation to defend himself, only one leading con- Italics Ours. spirator, George L. Smith, appeared for trial*** “Tn spite of the fact that the conspirators claimed Proof of the to have proof of every statement they had made in Truth and the their attacks, and claimed that they would welzome Facts Was Not ~ a court inquiry, they were unable to bring even a Allowed. single scrap of paper before the court as evidence
(7
“GUILTY” PAMPHLET AND CONSPIRACY BUGBEAR
of any one of the charges made by them, and when
No One Was questioned as to why they made certain statements Questioned or wrote certain letters or published certain derog- Except Smith. atory comments, the answer was, ‘I refuse to answer
because my answer may tend to incriminate me of felony.’ Their boasted readiness to prove their charges against the Brotherhood, and their willing- ness to stand by every statement they had made in the twelve years of attack, was entirely lacking during the trial.’
Those statements of Lewis, as well as the entire contents of his “Guilty” pamphlet, present the case of AMORC vs. SMITH and the trial of the case in an absolutely false light. ‘There is not a single statement or any of the inferences made in the above quoted excerpts that is true. They are altogether false and wholly mis- leading. What are the facts—what is the truth?
The Facts and the Truth
In the first place, neither R. Swinburne Clymer, Mrs. Max Heindel, Albert E. Smythe, Alfred H. Saunders, Miss Myrtle Crane, Stanley Daines nor W. P. Pease was a party to this suit. This was a Libel Suit, brought by Lewis in the corporate name of the Supreme Grand Lodge of AMORC, plaintiff, against George