L. Smith and E. E. Thomas, defendants. Aside from Smith and

Thomas, there were no other party defendants. Thomas was dis- missed from the suit, leaving Smith as the only defendant. The theory of the plaintiff's case was that Smith and Thomas, who formerly had been members of a subsidiary body of the plaintiff, had conspired with certain named parties to injure the plaintiff and diminish its revenues, etc. To sustain our statement, we quote a part of paragraph VIII of plaintiff's First Amended Complaint, upon which the case was tried, shown on page 327 of the Trans-
cript on Appeal of AMORC vs. SMITH, as follows:
“Defendants severed their membership in Plaintiff's order and thereafter associated themselves with Alfred Saunders, one John Doe Clymer, Myrtle Crane, Stanley Daines and others, and these defendants, together with
“Guilty,” pp. 6, 7.
3
AN ANSWER TO LEWIS” Willer Gs bOOCKRe as
said persons, formed and effected a conspiracy for the purpose of injuring the plaintiff, diminishing its revenues and otherwise inflicting loss on the plaintiff.”
It appears from Mr. Lewis’ own pleadings in the case that R. Swinburne Clymer was not even named as one of the persons with whom Smith and Thomas, the defendants, were alleged to have formed a conspiracy. Instead he uses a “‘legal fiction” or a fictitious name and charges that they associated themselves with “one John Doe Clymer.” Was he afraid to use the real name?
It also appears that Mrs. Max Heindel, Albert E. Smythe and W. P. Pease were not named as forming a part of the alleged conspiracy and no evidence was introduced during the trial to show that they had any connection therewith. The naming of these parties was an afterthought—thought of after Lewis had paid Ten Thousand Dollars on his Fifteen Thousand Dollar Pay-off and after he saw that he could force Smith’s then attorney to permit him to write into the Court Findings of Fact any false fact that pleased his fancy or served his purpose.
Only Smith Attended Trial
The only person present at the trial, of the persons named by Lewis as before set forth, was the Defendant, George L. Smith, as we have shown. He was only notified of the trial 3 or 4 days in advance. His co-defendant, Thomas, was not notified and was not given an opportunity to be present and testify. When the case was called, Lewis, through his counsel, agreed in open court that the case should be dismissed as to Thomas, or that no judgment should be taken against him. Perhaps that was designingly planned and carefully prearranged. Indeed it is most likely that Lewis did not want Thomas present to testify and to tell that which he knew of his own knowledge about Lewis and his swindling enterprise. No doubt he knows entirely too much. It will be recalled that Lewis had previously sued Thomas in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. In the trial of that case, in which Lewis was unable to pay off—which was being tried, without trickery, upon: the law and the facts—upon the merits—things got so hot and uncomfortable for Lewis that he dismissed the suit before it had scarcely gotten’ under full headway and ran away. As we have heretofore remarked, he cannot—he will not—face the facts.
To
SeUIEtyY “PAMPHEET:AND CONSPIRACY BUGBEAR
He always pays or runs away.
The trial was such a hurried-up affair that even if we had desired to appear at the trial and testify it would have been impossible for us to have reached California in time. As a matter of fact, we knew nothing about the case having been tried until after the event. Mrs. Max Heindel lives in California. She was not noti- fied. Alfred H. Saunders lives in New York, Miss Myrtle Crane lives in Detroit, Stanley Daines, Albert Smythe and W. P. Pease ‘live in Canada; none of them was notified of the date of the trial or given any opportunity to appear at the trial of this case or given an opportunity to produce testimony and evidence of the truth of the charges they had made against Lewis, his fraudulent enterprise and fraternal racket.
And if they had been present, they could not have testified— they would not have been permitted to testify or to have produced any documents, evidence or proof of the truth of their charges against Lewis—because Lewis had paid Five Thousand Dollars and had promised to pay, and did afterwards pay, Ten Thousand Dollars more to make it impossible for the truth to be proven.
And then he has the brazen audacity and effrontery to make and publish the statement that “although each and every one of the conspirators was named in the complaint and should have put in an appearance at the trial, *** only one leading conspirator, cose). omith, appeared for the trial. *** In spite of the fact that the conspirators claimed to have proof of every state- ment they had made in their attacks, and claimed they would wel- come a court inquiry, they were unable to bring even a single scrap of paper before the court as evidence of any one of the charges made by them.”
What a magnificent and ready liar! Ye gods, what a liar!! In his august and imperialistic presence, ANANIAS, the king of Liars, dwindles into insignificance and blushes for shame!!!
The Truth Cannot Be Entirely Hidden
‘There is always-some truth that gets mixed in with the false and untrue. His statement that “they were unable to bring a single scrap of paper before the court as evidence of any one of the charges made by them” is true. Mr. Lewis saw to that. He made it absolutely impossible for Smith or anyone else at that trial
75
AN ANSWER TO LEWIS WHI EEG) book es
to prove the truth about himself or his racket—even though it was necessary to commit a fraud on the Court at a cost of Fifteen
Thousand Dollars.
A Fair Sample
If space would permit we could take up each statement con- tained in the “Guilty”? pamphlet and show that the facts are gar- bled so as to give an altogether false impression; that it is filled with misstatements and plausible deception, and that, on the whole, the pamphlet is altogether untrue and wholly misleading.
In this connection, we quote from the statement of a former Grand Officer of the Lewis organization. Until recently, he was very close to Lewis, was on the inside and should know the facts.
Testimony from the Inside
Mr. A. Leon Batchelor, who was the Grand Treasurer of AMORC during the time the Smith case was tried and when the pamphlet “Guilty” was issued, after stating that Lewis requested his resignation when he refused to commit perjury and swear falsely for Lewis, in a letter written to Lewis on April 5, 1935, and later published, in commenting on the Smith trial and the booklet “Guwilty,’’ said to and of Lewis:
“At the conclusion of the trial against Smith and
others in June, 1933, you used the pages of the
Italics Ours. Forum and Digest and spent the funds of the order to print the booklet Guilty, and distributed it to
the members, telling them of the great victory. You
did not tell them that you had not dared to face
your accuser in Court and escaped the ordeal by
bribing him for $15,000 which you paid from the
Is Generally funds of the order. Nor have you informed the Known in members that this bribery has become a stench and San Jose. a scandal in this community.
“Your account to the members as to what trans-
pired at this trial (which you had previously bought
Account of out by bribery) and what evidence was introduced Trial False. is false and untrue.
“You have not informed the members that the attorney who served the order for five years, re-
76
Gwe hy: “PAMPHEELT AND CONSPIRACY BUGBEAR
signed and refused to any longer be connected in any official capacity when he learned of this bribery.”
We do not know Mr. Batchelor; we have never received any communication from him. We have never “conspired” with him. We quote his statement because he was in a position to know and it is evident that he did know whereof he spoke. However, we do not believe that Lewis bribed anybody. He is entirely too subtle for that. Mr. Batchelor has used the wrong word. By clever scheming and expert manipulation, Lewis paid off and thus escaped the ordeal of facing the truth.
The Only Conspiracy
The only conspiracy that existed in or that had any relation to the case of AMORC vs. SMITH was the willful and designing conspiracy of the Imperator of the Hierarchy of Fraud against Justice.» The only “conspiracy” against Lewis, his fraternal racket and wicked swindle that has existed as conjured up by him, set forth and described in his White (?) Book D and the “Guilty” booklet, is a fiction, a creature of his own distorted imagination; it is his Great Conspiracy Bugaboo, to which he gives a plausible prima facie appearance by citing and discussing the co-operative acts of his former attorney, officers, members and others to investi- gate his family racket and their exposure of a fraternal fraud and a wicked swindle which was not and is not conspiracy at all, either in fact or in the eyes of the law. It is not conspiracy, as we have said before, for several persons to act jointly in investigating a fraud nor for one or more, acting individually or jointly, to expose a swindle. Therefore, the only “conspiracy” that has existed or now exists against Lewis, his racketeering in the name of brotherly love and his fraternal swindle, is the Nemesis of his haunting fears —the goddess of retribution and retributive justice—and_ his “GREAT CONSPIRACY BUGABOO,’ WHICH HE IS ATTEMPTING TO USE AS A SHIELD TO PROTECT A PERVERSE OCCULT FRAUD AND WICKED FRATERNAL SWINDLE.
8 We have.taken the precaution to have all of our statements in this chapter and in this book relating to legal matters carefully checked and edited by able, well-known and highly reputed lawyers who are members of the August Fraternity. Therefore, all such statements are believed to be accurate and correct.
fal
a,
CoA D CRA DEEK OCEK NED
a Sve y3 CHAPTER TWO con
ae
THE ANCIENT DEVICE OF CONFUSION poe DEVICE TO ESCAPE THE TRUTH
In Chapter I we disposed of The Conspiracy and the Plot; that is to say, the Lewis ‘Conspiracy Bugaboo,” to which he devotes several pages (6 to 11) in his Book of Deception.’ In the same book, pages 16 to 37 both inclusive, under conspicuous headlines reading: THE ANSWERS TO THE FALSE CHARGES, he sets forth fourteen charges, numbered from 1 to 14 both inclusive, hand- picked, restated and distorted to suit his convenience. In his in- troductory remarks to the alleged answers to what he calls the “false charges,” he says:
“Herewith follows a brief summary of the principal charges falsely made by Mr. Clymer in terms and phrases deliberately twisted and distorted to read to the public with the utmost disadvantage to AMORC and in- tended to be injurious to the organization and its admin- istrators.”’
From which it appears that his alleged or so-called ‘‘answers” are to the charges made by us. The reader should keep this fact in mind as we examine these remarkable ‘‘answers”’ in this chapter and throughout this book. Let it be remembered that he is at- tempting to answer our charges. If this is kept in mind as these answers are considered, the tricky plausibility and crafty devices employed will become self-evident, as the alleged “answers” are shown to be subterfuges that fail utterly to answer any of our minor or incidental charges, which he attempts or purports to an- ~ swer, while he skillfully ignores the real, the serious and the basic charges and the proof of those basic charges.
In this chapter we will consider Lewis’ alleged “‘answers”’ to his own distorted and twisted statements of the charges which he has numbered One, Five, Six, Seven, Eight, Nine, Twelve, Thirteen and Fourteen.’ In refuting completely these so-called ‘‘answers”’
1 White Book D.
2The remaining “charges” as distorted and misstated by Lewis will receive due attention in the following chapters in connection with the subject matter of each chapter.
8 1
AN ANSWER TO LEWIS’ WHITE (2) BOOKS. 2S
we shall study the clever arts and cunning methods employed by a resourceful Master of plausible devices, specious subterfuges and bewildering camouflage. As a matter of fact, he attempts to an- swer very few of the minor and incidental matters relating to our basic charges, but devotes most of his Book of Deception to an- swering (?) charges made by Mr. H. Leon Batchelor, the former Grand Treasurer of his Grand Lodge; most of which he cunningly attributes to Clymer, ‘‘a rival,” the outward head and Supreme Grand Master of the Authentic Rosicrucian Order in America.
Muddy W ater—Confusion The Advice of a Cunning Debater
The wanton and shyster advice of an experienced and crafty debater on the high art of debating and the methods of winning an | argument or contest despite the facts find an appropriate setting here. He said: ‘‘When the facts are on your side, forcibly present the facts; that should be sufficient. When your facts are doubtful or against you, find some immaterial controversial side issue and bear down on it; exaggerate its importance; create as much con- fusion and doubt as possible. And when you have neither favor- able facts nor plausible argument, then ridicule, bemean and in- criminate the other side—criticize everything they do, everything they say and the way they say it—impugn their motives, charge malicious intent—muddy the water and, in your own slime, you may escape an adverse decision. Now remember, it requires little art to present the facts—to argue that which is true; the real and subtle art, that makes excellent debaters, that saves you when con- fronted with truth and in real difficulty, is the art of using mani- fold methods of plausible deception and the ability to win against all odds and contrary to the truth and all the facts.”
The Great Deceiver in Action Follows Advice of the Cunning Debater
“Dr. Lewis, having set up his smokescreen of a unanimous convention and committees which he used as his specially designed and cleverly constituted mouthpiece,* and having muddied the
3 This will be considered and the smokescreen will be lifted in Chapter Six.
82
Bee sON TAS A DEVICE TO ESCAPE: THE TRUTH
waters and created confusion generally in a much ado about the great conspiracy against AMORC, he then proceeds—in rare form and with all his subtle arts of intricate and plausible deception— to set up, restate, misstate, confuse or state most favorably to him- self a few of the charges more or less incidental to the basic charges and proceeds to answer them in his own inimical and in- imitable way with all the arts and tricks of his trade.
Dodges the Main Issue Discusses Cabbages—and Kings—and Other Things
It may be noted in passing that he very carefully and discreetly ignores and artfully dodges the main issue, which is the fraudulent nature of his fraternal racket, and selects only a few incidental matters of relative unimportance and such side issues as he evi- dently believes he can, with his deceptive arts and plausible presen- tation, turn to his advantage. With much ado, with clever cunning, with falsified evidence and false statements he proceeds to answer (?) the “charges” so selected. And then summarily disposed of the real charges—the charges that he cannot meet, except with manufactured evidence—the truth that he dare not face, by the simple expediency of having “the committees’ find that there is nothing to it anyway,* and the “wnanimous convention’ vote its approval. :
Like the charming young lady who went out to swim, he hung his clothes upon a limb, but didn’t go near the water. However,. inasmuch as the Imperator of the Hierarchy of Fraternal Racket- eering has elected to sidestep and avoid the real issue and the serious basic charges, by insisting like the Walrus in Alice in Won- derland, that:
‘“*The time has come,’ the Walrus said, ‘To talk of many things:
Of shoes—and ships—and sealing wax— Of cabbages—and Kings—
And why the sea is boiling hot— And whether pigs have wings.’ ”’
Therefore, we will discuss, in this chapter, some of the imma-
4Note carefully his disposition of “other charges,’ page 21 of White Book D.
83
AN ANSWER TO LEWIS WHET) BOOK we =
terial things, some of the subterfuges and contrivances of evasion used by this artful dodger to cast a cloud of confusion about his mystic swindle—not that such immaterial matters are important, but to further expose and make clear the despicable methods of this Master Profundis of plausible chicanery, magical confusion and bewildering duplicity.
Number One
An Unimportant Side Issue
Under the headline The Answers to the False Charges he states charge Number One as follows:
“Clymer claims that the first Rosicrucians to come to America did not come in 1694, but that Mr. Randolph established the first Rosicrucian foundation in America in the Nineteenth Century.”’”
He devotes more space to answering this “‘false charge” than any other and charges us with misquoting and deliberately dis- torting a quotation from Sachse’s Book, one of the writers dealing with the German Pietists of Pennsylvania, because we had inserted in the quotation in brackets our own interpretation of its meaning. The quotation referred to was faithfully and correctly made. Mr. Lewis knew that the insertion of explanatory matter in brackets in a quotation is common and proper practice; he reveals his own desperation and presumes upon the ignorance of the public in raising such a petty question. ,
In this connection, he also reproduces as his ‘‘Exhibits Nos. 4 and 5” two full-page cuts from the book by Sachse of certain charts, parts of an-alleged Rosicrucian Manuscript found among the effects of one of the deceased German Pietists who settled in Eastern Pennsylvania in 1694, from which he argues at some length, with some skill—but without logic or reason—that he has presented conclusive proof that these people were Rosicrucians and
that they established the First R. C. Order in America.
No Proof at All The finding of Rosicrucian charts and a secret manuscript in the
5 White Book D, p. 16. 84
Sent USION AS Ay DEVICE, TO: ESCAPE THE TRUTH
possession of the descendants of one of the early German Pietists, of the large colonies and settlements of Moravians, Zionists, Bap- tists, Lutherans, Boeheuertes, Mennonites, Philadelphians, and other mystic and religious sets, that settled in Eastern Pennsyl- vania in the Seventeenth Century, many of which still exist, does not prove that any or all of such sects were Rosicrucians or that they or any of them organized and instituted the first Rose Cross Lodge or Order in America. The only logical and reasonable deduction that may be made for said fact and circumstance, namely: that a secret Rosicrucian Manuscript was found in the Nineteenth Century. in the possession of the descendants of one of the early German Pietists, is that there may have been one, or even a few, Rosicrucians among the many men and women of those mystic and religious sects. On the other hand, it may prove nothing more than that a secret Rosicrucian Manuscript was wrongfully in the possession of one who did not understand its symbolical meaning and who was not a Rosicrucian. Therefore, the “proof” offered by Lewis does not sustain his contention. It is only a plausible pretext—a mere subterfuge to confuse and confound.
We have heretofore, at different times, and especially in our Brochure THE MASTERS AMONG MEN, issued in 1933, discussed this question, somewhat at length. Therefore it need not be discussed here. However, there were real Rosicrucians who came to America in the Colonial days, who formed the First American Council in the Revolutionary period,’, but they were not the Lewistonian mythical Rosicrucians of 1694.
In Evasion of Serious Charges Argues Contrary to His Own Admissions
Because there are some books from which he may quote and some misconstrued or misunderstood facts that give plausibility to his arguments, he has, with all his skill and cleverness, seized upon this question as a means of diverting attention from the real issues and as a ruse to escape facing the truth of the basic charge that his so-called R. C. Order is spurious and operated as a fraternal swindle. We do not propose to make effective his crafty methods
6 See Book I of Volume I for a discussion of the First American Rosicrucian Coun- cil, also Volume I, pp. 133, 185.
85
AN ANSWER TO LEWIS’ WHITE (?) BOOK “D”
by following him into an extended argument on a side issue; upon a matter that is purely academic and that has no real bearing upon the essential question at issue, and thus assist him in escaping the real—the basic—charges, by giving importance to this relatively unimportant matter. 3
It is unimportant because: Neither the Randolph Foundation of the Authentic Rosicrucian Fraternity in America nor Lewis’ fabri- cated, spurious R. C. Order claims authority and authenticity from or connection with those German Pietists of Eastern Pennsy]l- vania. Lewis has admitted and conceded that there was.no such connection and that the AMORC of today is not.a descendant of the group that came to America in 1694. We present a fac-simile
reproduction of a question asked on this very subject and answered by Lewis on page 109, of the May issue, 1927, of the Mystic Tri- angle, his then official organ, as follows:
Q.—I have read in some _ literature recently that the early Rosicrucians, who established a community school near Philadelphia in 1694, were the founders of another present Rosicrucian Order in this country. Is this true? A.—The community of Rosicrucians to which you refer existed from 1694 until 1801 and then disbanded in accordance . with an Ancient decree by which all Rosic There never crucian branches remain in open, public WasS Such @ activity one hundred and eight years and decree, then retire into absolute silence for an- other one hundred and eight years. The community did disband in 1801, and the ye oe members kept to themselves the practices qQ ee and teachings in their private lives with- ve ie y out initiating any others. Many of the Baptists. buildings are still standing in the district of that community and have been visited by our members. One hundred and eight years after 1801, the Imperator of our Order went to France and received au- France, Egypt, thority to start again the Rosicrucian work in America. And the result of his Germany--Which visit to Europe is the present Rosicrucian HemtataMeN a ek te Te ty
Order known as AMORO; but the AMQRC of today is
that came t ere is no other organization in this country that is a deseengant of that first group in America. Any such claim is either mis- leading. or you misunderstood what was said.
86
Peni OSION AS A DEVICE” TO. ESCAPE THE TRUTH
A Lewistonian Stratagem A Plausible Pretext to Confuse
Now, Lewis’ disclaimer and admission of 1927 should and does settle the question. The statements and argument made in his alleged and pretentious answer to charge “Number One’ are a plausible pretext to confuse and divert attention from our serious, essential and basic charge that his spurious R. C. Order is a fraudu- lent enterprise and a wicked fraternal swindle. Whether there were or were not Rosicruc.:ans among the Pietists or whether such fact is established and proven by Julius Sachse’s Book, Arthur Edward Waite or any other authority is unimportant and beside the question in view of his admission, that: “4 MORC of today 1s not a descendant of that group that came to America in 1694.” All of his argument is in vain and without value. Even if it were a fact that the German Pietists of 1694 established the first Rosi- crucian Order in America—which, of course, is not the case—it would not prove that his fraudulent R. C. Order is authentic or that his fraternal swindle is justified; rather otherwise, because on his own admission AMORC is not a descendant of the German Pietists of 1694. Besides, he does not like the ‘‘Dutch’’—the Dutch farmers and printers of Pennsylvania, as we shall see in the next chapter.
Number Five
Twisted to Suit His Convenience
Under Number Five’ Lewis twists and states his own charge after this fashion:
“Clymer further charges that the title ‘Imperator’ used by H. Spencer Lewis was invented by Crowley and never used by anyone else but Crowley until H. Spencer Lewis used it, thereby again proving that the AMORC is associated with Crowley. Mr. Clymer is very positive and very malicious in his statements in this regard. Yet
7 Lewis’ self-framed charges Numbers Two, Three and Four will be considered in