Section 595 of said Civil Code provides that: the articles of

incorporation shall contain, in substance, the following: The name of the corporation; the purposes for which it is formed and that it does not contemplate pecuniary gain or profit to the members; the county in the state where the principal office is to be located; the names and addresses of three or more persons who are to be the directors or trustees; the name of existing unincorporated asso- ciation that is being incorporated, and that all other matters may be regulated and provided for by the adoption of by-laws.
Article X, Section 30A of the Constitution of the Grand Lodge
as instituted, chartered and controlled by the Supreme Grand Lodge of the AMORC, provides that:
940
AMORC—A FAMILY RACKET— “WITHOUT PROFIT”
“All moneys received by the Grand Lodge through its Grand Secretary, Grand Treasurer or Sovereign Grand Master from the general membership of the Order or through its subordinate Lodges, or Chapters, or through any of its activities shall be transmitted to the Supreme Treasurer of the Supreme Grand Lodge as donations toward the Supreme Grand Lodge, maintenance, administrative, active and reserve funds for those purposes. None of the moneys of these funds deposited in the banks by the Supreme Grand Lodge and its Board of Directors shall inure to the benefit of any member, officer, or supreme executive of the Order, nor shall such funds be held in trust for any Lodge or group of Lodges or Chapters, or for the general membership or any individual member or Officer, but exclusively for the maintenance and perpetuation of the ideals of the organization in accordance with the Constitution of the Supreme
Grand Lodge.”
THEY MAY DISSOLVE CORPORATION idee NY LM Ee
Although the Constitution of the Grand Lodge provides as above set forth that the Supreme Grand Lodge (the Corporation) does not hold the funds in trust for any subordinate lodges, groups or the general membership or any individual member or officer, and although it is declared in the Constitution of the Grand Lodge and in the by-laws of the corporation (the Supreme Grand Lodge) that the funds and the property of the AMORC—the incorporation— shall not inure to the benefit of any member, officer or supreme executive of the Order, which provision is necessary to exempt the corporation or the organization from the payment of Federal In- come Tax, yet, it must be remembered, and never for one moment overlooked, that the Lewises hold in their hands the sole and abso- lute control of the AMORC, that they make and can remake, change or amend the Constitution of the Grand Lodge, and that they can make and remake, alter or amend the Constitution of the Supreme Grand Lodge or the by-laws of the corporation at any time and in any manner they may see fit.
Now, inasmuch as they owe allegiance to none save the mythical masters’ from whom the Imperator of the hierarchy falsely claims he received sponsorship and Rosicrucian authority; with no obliga-
See quotation (61), Chapter V, supra.
941
AN ANSWER ‘TO (LEWIS WHITE (7) BOOKS De
tions to any organization save alone the Imperator’s “‘pledges and promises to the organization in Europe” and the non-existent “Council of the organization in France’’;> and whereas, the time may come when they will have accumulated sufficient funds to sat- isfy their desires and to provide for all their earthly needs and they may feel that they have sufficiently discharged their sacred obliga- tions® “for the maintenance and perpetuation of the ideals of the organization in accordance with the Constitution of the Supreme Grand Lodge’’—which is the Lewis hierarchy—and they may de- cide to dissolve the corporation and to distribute the property and funds to the members thereof who are the Lewis family.*
If that time comes, then there is nothing in the laws of the State of California to prevent them from amending the by-laws, repudi- ating their perpetual obligation, dissolving said corporation and distributing its net assets to themselves.”
Is It Without Profit Inuring to Anyone?
It requires no special legal ability to incorporate a fraternal association as a membership corporation to be operated without profit to any member or individual. Such corporations when or- ganized and operated in good faith are not taxable.
However, it does require a promoter of unusual cunning and expertness, a schemer of rare acumen and a manipulator of singu- lar capacity, with talents extraordinary to organize such a cor- poration with thousands of paying and contributing members, yet
8 See statement of Mr. Lewis quoted in Chapter IV, p. 419, supra.
° The time was, as we have seen, when they thought it contrary to their obligations and the landmarks of “the Order” to publish and sell books. Therefore, their “per- petual obligations,” like their “landmarks,” may change or cease to be to accommodate their necessities or to conform to their desires or caprices.
1 There is another or fifth member of the corporation and of the board of directors who is appointed by the family. Therefore, they will have no difficulty in disposing of him and appointing another member of the family to succeed him or thereby leaving the four members of the Lewis family as surviving members of the corporation and the sole distributees of its assets.
2 It was revealed by the testimony of H. Spencer Lewis in the Federal Case that all the property of the AMORC was not conveyed to the corporation. The title to a part of the same is vested in Mr. Lewis or members of his family.
a2
AMORC—A FAMILY RACKET— “WITHOUT PROFIT”
to limit its membership to his own family, to completely control the corporation without rights to any other members except such as he sees fit to grant; to receive, control and disburse all funds; to
appoint all officers from the highest to the lowest who hold their tenure of office during his pleasure or caprice; to define the rights and fix the status of members, reserving unto himself the right and sole power to excommunicate any member, without limitations and without any redress to the members, if they displease him or fail to praise and exalt him or to humbly bow to his dictates; to fix the salaries of himself and family without stint or limitations, drawing their sustenance and luxurious living from the corporate funds; to provide himself and family, his son and family with homes out of the corporate funds; to determine when it is desirable for them to take a pleasure trip, domestic or foreign, on the pretext of cor- porate business, allowing and paying their own expenses, whatever they may be, and without limitations out of the corporate funds; to use the corporate funds for the gratification of their personal whims, to satisfy their desire for gaudy show and to appease their impulses of braggadocio; to build and maintain elaborate build- ings, luxurious offices, spacious auditoriums, dormitories and glam- orous, showy and pretentious ‘National Headquarters” out of corporate funds that they may use the pictures thereof in their eternal propaganda campaign for new members, as the “‘Institu- tion behind the advertisement’—as if a gaudy show of wealth could constitute a Rosicrucian Order; to publish magazines and pamphlets for propaganda purposes; to spend fabulous sums for high pressure, deceitful advertising in the promotion of a spurious and fraudulent Rosicrucian organization; to spend the corporate funds like drunken sailors to defend and perpetuate a fraudulent scheme; and then successfully evading the payment of all taxes by the simple expediency and clever subterfuge of declaring in the charter, by-laws and in the constitution of afhliated or subordinate bodies that it is organized and conducted as a non-profit sharing corporation. It is non-profit sharing to the extent that the Lewises
943
AN ANSWER-TO LEWIS" WHITE?) BOOKS vs
share neither their profits, control nor authority with others. Therefore, under all the facts and circumstances of the case, can it be said that the AMORC is a non-profit sharing concern, when the Lewis family receive their luxurious livelihood and all they have from it and to whom the benefit of all its funds and property may inure?
A Family Racket
It is evident that the Commissioner of Internal Revenue did not have all the facts before him when he issued a certificate of exemp- tion to the Supreme Grand Lodge AMORC exempting it from the payment of Federal Income Taxes, thereby giving it official recognition and sanction as a fraternal and educational organiza- tion. Certainly he did not know that it is a fraudulent scheme and a fraternal racket as we have fully demonstrated in this volume. Hence, it must be concluded that despite all created appearances to the contrary; despite all official actions and certifications of so- called voluntary committees and unanimous conventions, and de- spite all skillfully designed camouflage, AMORC is a privately operated commercial enterprise, the Family Racket of H. Spencer Lewis, operated under a closed membership corporation, purport- ing to be a fraternal and educational organization to avoid the payment of taxes—yet absolutely controlled and operated by H. Spencer Lewis and his family for their support, livelihood and lux- urious living—travel, comfort and amusement, at the cost and ex- pense of the general membership whom they continually exploit.
944
oth FAN aE CHAPTER § SEVEN S88 Gon
mK Nee dons Si OR si SH 0 SIS OO eave
PUBLIC DEBATES AND ABUSE OF THE COURTS
BALLYHOOING PROPAGANDA—PUBLIC DEBATE A Fire Escape From the Burning Truth
The public forum and the lecture platform are beneficial instru- mentalities of an advancing civilization and a splendid medium for the diffusion of useful information. They have often—all too often—been used for wicked and perverted purposes and as the means for the promotion and perpetration of deception and fraud.
It is a notorious fact that practically all mystic fakirs, pseudo- occult pretenders, impostors and fraternal racketeers are suave in- dividuals with oily tongues and are fascinating and convincing speakers. They invade the public forums and from the lecture plat- forms employ their cunning artifices and unscrupulous devices to ensnare and exploit their victims. With most of them the lecture platform is their first line of attack, and with some of them—the shrewdest and most cunning—the forum and public debate are their last line of defense.*
Such is the case with the arch-impostor and fraternal racketeer of San Jose. In a forlorn attempt to reply to our charges and ex- posé of his family racket and fraternal swindle he issued his BLACK Book oF DECEPTION—parading under the catch-phrase title of White Book D—with which he appealed to his deluded members and the public to “Hear the Other Side.”
Since he presented his “‘side”’ in White Book D, let us see why he deemed it necessary or even advisable to again resort to the stratagem or subterfuge of a public debate.
Another Challenge to Debate
Now, “the other side,” as presented in White Book D, is a
1As to the similarity of the method followed by Thomson and Lewis in the promotion and perpetuation of their Masonic and Rosicrucian frauds, see pp. 270-271, supra.
947
AN ANSWER TO LEWIS” WHITE. (ys bOOkK =e.
brazen and bold attempt to hide the truth and to misrepresent the facts by resorting to every known artifice, crafty maneuver, artful evasion, subtle strategy, cunning machination and magical makeshift. Being without evidence to sustain his false reply to said charges and to support his unsupportable position in the face of exposed guilt, he MANUFACTURED and FABRICATED evidence; with fair-faced plausibility he misrepresented facts and presented various docu- ments and papers in a false light; and, to prove that which has no substantial basis in fact, he published fac-similes of DELETED and MUTILATED papers and documents. Therefore, that is the other side, as we have conclusively shown in this work, especially in this volume.
With the consciousness of his trickery and guilt hanging over him like an enshrouded pall and funeral dirge, and being fearful lest his cunning should fail and his MANUFACTURED evidence, FAL- SIFIED “papers” and MUTILATED documents should prove insufh- cient, he closed his appeal to ‘“‘Hear the Other Side” with his third challenge to us for a public debate.’ It was his last line of defense— —a big bluff. He knew full well that we would not debate these issues with him. He had been fully informed as to our reasons therefor.’ However, his challenge was to be accepted as made and if perchance we did accept the same, it was so framed and designed as to give him complete control of the debate and so as to enable him to set the stage with show-window dressing; to fill the hall with his misguided partisans; to practice his trickery before the unin- formed; to use his ballyhooing propaganda to further promote and perpetuate his hierarchal fraud and fraternal swindle; to put on a ‘“oreat show” as another of his “‘publicity stunts” and, in short, to use the affair as a fire escape from the burning truth.
We promptly replied by mail and at length to Mr. Lewis’ third “challenge” and renewed our former invitation to join us in a proper, complete and conclusive investigation, but he published his challenge, anticipating our reply and without waiting for it. It had been our purpose to make full reply herein to this, his last chal- ienge, and to that end copy was prepared. However, the allotted space has been used for more important matters. Besides, there 1s
2 See White Book D, pp. 39-40 and 41. 3 See our Pamphlet, “4 Challenge and the Answer” or Book Three, Volume I, pp. 133 to 175, both inclusive.
948
Pe beiCeD By Ero AND ABUSE OF “THE COURTS
nothing new in his last challenge, and the same has been fully an- _swered in our pamphlet, “4 Challenge and the Answer,” issued in 1935 in answer to his second challenge to a public debate to which the reader and investigator is respectfully referred.’
Bold Effrontery—T ypical Arrogance
There is one phase of his latest challenge that should not be overlooked. It is the device of boldness—the artifice of arrogance so often employed by racketeers in the promotion and the protec- tion of their nefarious business. When all other trickery and chi- canery fail, they would bluff their way through with bold effrontery to those who expose and would stay the mills of the gods with an astounding and dumfounding arrogance.
Accordingly, Mr. Lewis in closing his book of deception resorts to the use of bold effrontery and arrogance personified in a brazen attempt to raise an inconsequential side issue to overshadow and to detract attention from the serious and essential issues by asking:
“IS MR. CLYMER AFRAID TO DEBATE?
“Will Mr. Clymer accept or will he again dodge the responsi- bility of his statements and ask for private, limited committee inves- tigations?> Is it really true that Mr. Clymer is so very afraid of the open public platform, and especially the experience of meeting Dr. Lewis in public debate? What a marvelous opportunity for Mr. Clymer to expose AMORC and Dr. Lewis if he really has anything that would stand the light of an open public platform investiga- tion!® Is it possible that Mr. Clymer cannot speak for himself in the presence of those he accuses? Is it also possible that Mr. Clymer remains at his ‘farm headquarters’ because he fears public scru- tiny of his ability to meet an opponent face to face where replies to his charges would immediately be made in his presence?* Will he
4 Republished as Book Three, Volume I, pp. 133 to 175, both inclusive.
5 This is a pure subterfuge. We asked for no such an investigation. It is an artful dodge of a real and conclusive investigation. See Volume I, pp. 133, ef seq.
6 We prefer the method which we have pursued in this work. We deem it better and far more effective than the subterfuge and ballyhoo of a public debate.
7 Since Mr. Lewis would have nothing to do with a genuine investigation before a competent tribunal which would have been finally decisive of all matters and all questions involved, we have suggested another tribunal of competent jurisdiction in which we will, if he so elects, meet him “face to face’. See Personal Foreword, pp. 24, 25 and 26, supra.
Sa)
AN ANSWER TO-LEWIS’ WHITE) BOOKS
accept or evade? Past experience seems to bear out the belief that Mr. Clymer is afraid to debate with Dr. Lewis in public.” (White