Book D, p. 41.)

Not Fear—But Discretion
When one has the audacity to exhibit phony charters, self-made and forged documents, honorary membership certificates in foreign Masonic Sovereign Sanctuaries and all manner of falsified papers from the lecture platform and falsely represents them to be au- thentic warrants of Rosicrucian authority and power;* and when one has the temerity to exhibit a spurious certificate of a fabricated University conferring an unheard-of academic degree in open court and testifies falsely under oath that it is an honorary Degree of Doctor of Philosophy;’ when one has no scruples against making any false statement or the employment of any questionable means to accomplish his purpose; when one has the presumptuous rashness to publish deleted and mutilated documents to support his claims ;* when one has the foolhardiness to resort to every known artifice, trick and contrivance and to stoop to any despicable practice or method to sustain his contradictory and groundless claims’ of au- thority upon which he has built his spurious R. C. Order and hier- archal fraternal racket; when anyone has done the contemptible things and has resorted to the unscrupulous practices which we have shown that Mr. Lewis has done and resorted to for the ac- complishment of his nefarious scheme, and when one has secured from a Court of Justice false findings of fact in the manner shown,’ also to be further considered in a moment, and has used those false findings of fact and the good name of the Court to promote and sustain the aforesaid fraudulent scheme and swindle, then it is reasonable to suppose that he would go to further extremes in an unrestricted public debate of his own designing and under his control. Therefore, aside from the fact that such an affair would accomplish no good or worthwhile result, no discreet or self-respect-
8 See Chapter IV, Part One, pp. 228 to 235 and 381 to 385, supra. 9 See Chapter IV, Part Four, pp. 406 to 415, supra.
1See Chapter IV, Part Two, pp. 289 to 323, supra; and Part Four, pp. 535-536 and 592-593; also p. 601, supra.
2 See Chapter V, supra. 3 See Chapter I, pp. 61 to 71, both inclusive, supra.
950
PebBEiGy DEBATES TANDS ABUSE. OF: THE) COURTS
ing person would consent to meet Mr. Lewis in public debate.
False Judicial Findings of Fact Wrongfully Obtained and Willfully Misused
In the case of Amorc vs. SMITH, reviewed in Chapter I and referred to throughout this volume, he wrongfully secured from a Judge of the Superior Court of California many false Findings of Fact, which he has used as propaganda for fraudulent purposes to further promote and sustain his fraternal swindle and family racket. Several of these false findings judicially determined and recorded have been considered herein. However, for our present purposes, we shall briefly summarize them, as follows:
Meniiat the supreme Grand Lodge of AMORC (that is, H. Spencer Lewis and family—the hierarchy of the Order) is the sole and only established, recognized and functioning supreme authority of the Rosicrucian Brotherhood in North America.
2. That the Sovereign Sanctuaries of the Ancient Masonic Rites of Memphis and Mizraim are the Grand Conservators of the integrity of the recognized and accredited Rosicrucian Brotherhood throughout the world of which AMORC of North America is a part.
3. The AMORC (the Lewis Hierarchy) is an accredited mem- ber of the World Supreme Council of the Rosicrucian Brotherhood’ and participates in its convocations and deliberations.’
4. That the AMORC (the Order—which is the Lewis family)
owns printing plants.°
*Here he had the State court find that the Lewis family were members of “the brotherhood”. In the Federal Case he testified that the Lewis family were members of “the Order” and the paying members were “the brotherhood”. Which is which— does not confusion reign supreme—or is fraud in the saddle riding roughshod over the courts?
5 See Chapter IV, Part One, pp. 236 to 239, supra, for Lewis’ admission that said findings were not supported by the evidence. We have conclusively shown herein that they are false.
SAlthough they have led their followers to believe that the Rosicrucian Press, which does all their printing, belonged to “the Order’, however, in the Federal Case they testified that the AMORC does not own the Rosicrucian Press. Therefore, this finding is false. See Reporter’s Transcript of the testimony of Lewis and his son Ralph in Federal Case.
951
AN ANSWER TO LEWIS? WHITE VG? 7} BOCK >.
§. That the AMORC is duly authorized, and possesses warrants and charters evidencing such authority issued by duly constituted authority of the Rosicrucian Brotherhood in other lands and Jjuris- dictions."
6. That the AMORC is not a fraudulent scheme of one H.
Spencer Lewis.°
7. That several and various honorary academic degrees have been conferred upon H. Spencer Lewis by institutions having the power and authority to confer such degrees.°
8. That it is not true that the teachings of the AMORC are culled from books; that its lessons imparted to its members are the sole and exclusive possession of the Rosicrucian Brotherhood and that they are Rosicrucian teachings as authorized by the World Supreme Council of the Brotherhood.’
9. That it is not true that H. Spencer Lewis had or has any sin- ister plans to obtain the secrets of the Masonic Fraternity or that he had been refused membership in the Masonic Fraternity.”
10. That some time in the past the AMORC was a duly organ- ized and functioning corporation under and by virtue of the laws
of the State of New York.*®
11. That H. Spencer Lewis has not been arrested at any time, any place, and for any cause whatsoever.*
7 This is notoriously false. No charters were produced before the Court and there was not sufficient evidence before the Court to justify such a finding, 7f it were true. But we have shown herein that he has no Rosicrucian authority and that his so- called Rosicrucian Charters are spurious—méere Fraudulent Devices.
8 From the evidence and proof set forth in this work, it is apparent and most obvi- ous that it is a fraudulent scheme. The proof offered in this Volume alone is con- clusive that it is a swindle.
9 It was a dirty trick to play on the Judge to have him find that a respectable and a real institution of learning duly authorized had conferred an academic degree— not one but several academic degrees on him, whereas, it is mot true but is ABSO- LUTELY FALSE. See Chapter IV, Part Four, pp. 406 to 422 and 522, supra.
1 This finding is not true. See Volume I, pp. 279 to 333 and Chapter IJ, pp. 89 to 104, supra.
2 See Chapter IV, Part One, and especially pp. 264-256, supra.
3'The AMORC was never incorporated in New York. H. Spencer Lewis testified in the Federal Case that it was not incorporated until 1928, and then in California. Reporter's Transcript, pp. 133 to 135.
4The foregoing finding will be found in Transcript on Appeal of the case of AMORC vs. Geo. L. Smith, pp. 354 to 363, both inclusive. This last finding in regard to the arrest of Mr. Lewis was quoted in full and considered in Chapter V, supra.
Es
Pe DECeReE BATES. AND TABWUSE) OF TFHE COURTS
A Fraud Upon the Court
Now, from the evidence set forth in these two volumes, it ap- pears conclusively and most obviously, indeed, that the foregoing statements, numbered | to 11, both inclusive, are false—absolutely false. We have said in Chapter I hereof that to have the Court find such statements to be true when, in fact, they are false and then to use them as propaganda’ for the promotion of a fraudulent scheme and the perpetuation of a wicked fraternal swindle was and is a fraud upon the Superior Court of the State of California.
However, the Supreme Court of California affirmed the judg- ment of the Superior Court and held that no fraud was worked on the Court in the trial of the Case. Being a layman and in view of all of said false findings of fact used for propaganda to promote and justify a swindle, we could not understand how or why the Supreme Court of California should approve the action of the trial Court and hold as it did. So we asked our legal counsel to tell us how and why such a thing could be possible.
They explained that from a purely technical legal standpoint the decision may have been legally correct—although unjust in fact— because it is a universal rule of law that an appellate court will afirm the judgment or action of a trial court if there is any evi- dence in the record supporting or tending to support the judgment of the trial Court and the findings of fact upon which it is based.
Only One Issue Involved
They explained that there was only one material issue in the case, namely: Did Smith unlawfully conspire with others to publish false reports and libelous matter which was injurious to the
AMORC and H. Spencer Lewis, its Imperator?
The record showed, and Smith did not deny, that he had pub- lished the ‘“‘Rotter”’ letter ;° that he had charged that the AMORC ‘was a fraudulent concern, and that H. Spencer Lewis was running it as a family racket. There is no doubt that what Smith said and
5 This Mr. Lewis did when he issued his pamphlet entitled: ““Gui_Ty”, which he ‘circulated by the thousands, wherein he used said Findings of Fact by the Court for propaganda purposes and to justify his fraternal swindle. However, he distorted, misquoted and misrepresented those findings to further his unholy purposes.
® See Chapter I, p. 42.
yoo
AN ANSWER TO LEWIS”? WHITER] BOCK. oe
published about Lewis and his fraternal enterprise was actionable libel and that it was injurious to Lewis and his fraternal racket. Therefore, the introduction in evidence of the ‘“‘Rotter Letter’ alone, unexplained and without the TRUTH thereof being shown constituted prima facie evidence of libel.
It is true, without question, that Smith corresponded with many persons, including the writer of this exposé,’ for the purpose of securing evidence to prove his charges against Lewis and his fra- ternal concern. The major portion of this correspondence was introduced in evidence or referred to in the list of correspondence made by the Sheriff and Lewis’ attorney when they raided Smith’s home and seized his correspondence.’ Now, said correspondence with other parties unexplained and the truth of the prima facie libelous statements contained therein not proven to be true, would be sufficient evidence to show, or tending to show, that Smith had entered into an unlawful conspiracy to libel and injure Lewis and his family enterprise.
Not Allowed to Prove the Truth
It must be remembered, nor for one instant overlooked, that at the trial of the case Smith was not permitted or allowed, under the pleadings as they had been “fixed up”’ and under the limitations of which the case was tried, to prove the truth of his charges or the legal justification of his acts. To do this it was necessary that he plead specially—that is, to plead that his charges were true and that his acts were justified by reason of the truth of the charges.
It will be recalled that he filed an answer in the nature of a spe- cial plea or as an affirmative defense, pleading the TRUTH OF his charges in full legal justification thereof and of all his acts in con- nection therewith.t Under Lewis’ PAY-OFF SCHEME said affirmative answer was eliminated by the hocus-pocus process of filing amended pleadings, as hereinbefore shown.”
T However, Smith did not begin his correspondence with us until after Lewis had him arrested on the charge of criminal libel in the summer of 1932. See Chapter I generally and especially pp. 42-43, supra.
8 See Chapter I, and especially pp. 46-47, supra.
9 See Chapter I, pp. 43 and 46, supra.
1 See Chapter I, p. 48.
2 See Chapter I, pp. 47 to 60, both inclusive, and especially pp. 53 and 54.
O54
-OUBEIG PEBALES (AND? ABUSE ; OF; THEY COURTS
The pleadings in the case, the amendment of the pleadings eliminating Smith’s special answer pleading the truth of his charges against AMORC and Mr. Lewis, and the record of the trial of the case that the Supreme Court of California reviewed and passed upon appeared to be regular, fair upon its face and without revers- ible error, notwithstanding that a sinister scheme lay hidden be- neath it. Upon this record of the trial of the case the higher court held upon the only material issue involved, that there was sufficient evidence in the record to support or tending to support the trial court’s finding that Smith had libeled Lewis and his fraternal busi- ness, and that in doing so he had conspired with others, and, there- fore, afirmed the judgment of the lower court. In so deciding the case the Supreme Court commented upon the fact that Lewis for the AMORC had admitted that a number of the immaterial find- ings of fact made by the trial court lacked support in the record’ and held, for the disposition of the case, that all other uncertain Findings of Fact—even though untrue—were wholly immaterial to the one issue involved and should be, and therefore were, dis- regarded.*
Supplemental Proceedings Show Fraud on Court
It will also be recalled that the time for an Appeal had expired, that it was necessary for Smith to make a special application to the trial court for permission to appeal, which after due hearing the trial court allowed.’ It was in the application and supporting afh- davits of that supplemental proceeding that the Lewises Pay-Off Scheme and the fraud on the trial court was revealed. Lewis made a motion in the Supreme Court to dismiss the appeal. Upon that motion the Supreme Court, no doubt, reviewed the record of the supplemental proceedings, which was a part of the record on ap- peal, to determine whether the trial court had abused its discretion in allowing the appeal. The power to grant appeals under such circumstances being vested by the statute in the sound discretion of the trial Court, the only question for review was whether that
' 3 See Chapter I, pp. 235 to 239, supra.
4 See opinion of the Supreme Court of California reported in Volume 61, Pacific Reporter, second series, page 449.
5 See Chapter I, pp. 69-70, supra.
255
AN ANSWER TO LEWIS’ WHITE (?) BOOK “D”
discretion had been abused. The Supreme Court held that there was no abuse of discretion and denied the motion to dismiss the appeal.
Our attorneys tell us that in the final disposition of the case on appeal the Supreme Court considered only the record of the actual trial of the case—which appears to be regular and fair on its face —and that it is not at all probable that the Court considered the record in the supplemental proceeding wherein the Lewis Pay-Off Scheme, the overreaching of the trial Judge, and the fraud on the trial Court is shown.® This, in view of all the facts and circum- stances of the case, seems to be the only fair and reasonable expla- nation for the finding by the Supreme Court of California that no fraud was worked on the court in the trial of this case.
Court Was Not Advised of All the Facts
As a general rule, fraud and sinister schemes do not appear upon the face of the record. They are hidden by cunning means beneath fair appearing and plausible subterfuges, as, for instance, the pretense of settling of another suit in a well-designed and dis- guised Pay-Off Scheme to suppress the truth and to throttle justice in the instant case. Certainly the Supreme Court of California, when it afirmed the case and held that a large number of the Find- ings of Fact of the trial Court were immaterial to the main or sole issue in the case, and that in following the well-established rule of law, the same should be disregarded as immaterial findings, did not know that those immaterial Findings of Fact were false; that they had been procured by design and cunning to be used as propaganda to promote, to sanction and to sustain a fraudulent scheme and fraternal swindle operated as the private racket of H. Spencer Lewis and his family and that those immaterial—but FALSE—find- ings were so used by Lewis in his pamphlet ‘‘“GurLty’’, which he sent broadcast over this entire land. Moreover, the real nature of his fraudulent scheme—the revelation of which was prevented and forestalled by his $75,000 pay-off—and the manner in which he used said false immaterial findings to show judicial approval and sanction of his swindle were not shown in the record and were not before the Supreme Court of California. If the Supreme Court
6 For a full discussion of this scheme refer back to Chapter I.
956
Peo Gabi bavi EoweA ND eABUSE OF THE COURTS
had known the whole truth concerning these matters which is so obvious from the facts shown herein, it is certain—most apparently certain—that the distinguished Judges of that Court would not have afhrmed the judgment in the case of AMORC vs. Geo. L. Smith and they would never—no, never—have held that no fraud was worked on the trial court. Indeed—in truth and in fact—a most grievous and lamentable fraud was worked on the Courts of California, and, without their being aware of the fact, the most cunning and unscrupulous of fraternal racketeers has been and now is using their findings of fact and decision of law as a justification of a nefarious swindle and for the further promotion thereof. Moreover, in fact, there has been an abortive miscarriage of jus- tice, notwithstanding that those decisions may have been made ac- cording to law. Perhaps the time is not yet, but in due time the wrong will be righted and justice will be done.
Misleads and Abuses Courts to Promote a Fraud, Yet No Court Has Passed on That Fraud
With cunning designing and the use of many contrivances, by hook or by crook, with false evidence and with the true nature of his fraternal racket only partially presented to the Courts in a false light, he has succeeded in securing seemingly favorable judi- cial action and decisions which, upon their face, appear to give judicial sanction and succor to his unique fraternal swindle. With these seemingly favorable court decisions and their plausible prima facie appearance, he justifies his fraud, defies the law, retards offh- cial investigation, delays proper action and due prosecution and continues to promote his swindle, using the Courts’ decisions as evidence of its genuineness, thus enlarging his operation and in- creasing his propaganda he claims many additional victims for fraudulent exploitation.
The two seemingly favorable Court decisions hereinbefore re- ferred to inthe Federal and State Courts in California are just two more arguments, two more aids and two more devices which he has been and is now using and which he will continue to use to promote his family racket and fraudulent fraternal business.
We say “seemingly” favorable Court decisions advisedly, because it must be kept in mind and not overlooked that at no time, in no
957
AN ANSWER TO LEWIS’ WHITE (?) BOOK ‘“D”’
case and in NO couRT has the evidence of the true and exact na- ture, far-reaching extent and nefarious results of his fraudulent scheme and swindle been properly presented or duly considered.
Therefore, no court has ever passed upon the real issue of fraud or ~ the true nature of this far-reaching and unique swindle. However, it does appear that he will continue to use his various artifices, unique devices and the preliminary, partial, indecisive and non- conclusive decisions of the Courts to promote this swindle and to claim his victims until the strong arm of the government brings him into court and a true and proper presentation of the case is made. Then, and not until then, may the courts take the proper action to prevent him from using their acts and decrees as artifices and de- vices of fraud.
Those Court Decisions
They secured the Court decisions, but what good will become of them at last, we cannot tell; but if investigators will take the pains to check the truth of the statements in the testimony of H. Spencer Lewis and his son Ralph in those cases and compare the same with other statements made, published and sworn to by them, a consid- erable amount of evidence will be found in the official reports of those cases, when taken with other evidence, to prove a strong and iron-clad case of fraud and fraternal swindling. The careful com- parison of the testimony of Mr. Lewis with his testimony in the various cases and with his published statements and the testimony of his son with the various statements he has made, as we did in